Connect with us

Uncategorized

American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews?

(JTA) — Among Sandra Fox’s most memorable finds during her years mining American archives for materials about Jewish summer camps was a series of letters about the hours before lights-out.

The letters were by counselors who were documenting an unusual window in the day when they stopped supervising campers, leaving the teens instead to their own devices, which sometimes included romance and sexual exploration.

“It was each division talking about how they dealt with that free time before bed in ‘age-appropriate ways,’” Fox recalled about the letters written by counselors at Camp Ramah in Wisconsin, the original iteration of the Conservative movement’s network of summer camps.

“I’ve spoken to Christian people who work at Christian camps and have researched Christian camps. There is no free time before bed,” Fox told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “That’s not a thing if you don’t want kids to hook up. So it was just amazing to find these documents of Camp Ramah leaders really having the conversation explicitly. Most of the romance and sexuality stuff is implicit in the archives.”

The letters are quoted extensively in Fox’s new book, “The Jews of Summer: Summer Camp and Jewish Culture in Postwar America.” Fox, who earned a PhD in history from New York University in 2018 and now teaches and directs the Archive of the American Jewish Left there, tells the story of American Judaism’s most immersive laboratory for constructing identity and contesting values.

Next week, Fox is launching the book with an event at Congregation Beth Elohim in Park Slope, Brooklyn. (Tickets for the Feb. 23 event are available here.) Attendees will be able to tour adult versions of some of the most durable elements of Jewish summer camps, from Israeli dance to Yiddish and Hebrew instruction to Color Wars to Tisha B’Av, the mournful holiday that always falls over the summer.

“I never considered doing a normal book party,” Fox said. “It was always really obvious to me that a book about experiential Jewish education and role play should be celebrated and launched out into the world through experiential education and role play.”

Sandra Fox’s 2023 book “The Jews of Summer,” looks at the history of American Jewish summer camps. (Courtesy of Fox)

We spoke to Fox about her party plans, how Jewish summer camps have changed over time and how they’ve stayed the same, and the cultural history of that before-bed free time.

This interview has been condensed and lightly edited for clarity. We’ll be continuing the conversation in a virtual chat through the YIVO Institute for Jewish Research Feb. 27 at 1 p.m.; register here.

Jewish Telegraphic Agency: Given how much Jews like to talk about camp, were you surprised that this book hadn’t already been written?

Sandra Fox: There’s been a lot of fruitful research on the history of various camps, but it’s usually been focused on one camping movement or one camp type. So there are articles about Zionist camps. There are certainly articles out there about the Ramah camps. A lot of camps have produced books — either their alumni associations or a scholar who went to let’s say, Reform movement camps have created essay collections about those camps. And there are also books about Habonim and other Zionist youth movements.

I don’t really know why this is the first stab at this kind of cross-comparison. It might be that people didn’t think there would be so much to compare. I think the overwhelming feeling I get from readers so far, people who preordered and gotten their books early, is that they’re very surprised to hear how similar these camps are. So perhaps it’s that scholars weren’t thinking about Jewish summer camps that came from such diverse standpoints as having something enough in common to write about them all at once.

Also distance from the time period really helps. You can write a book about — and people do write a book about — the ’60s and ’70s and have been for decades, but there’s a certain amount of distance from the period that has allowed me to do this, I think, and maybe it also helps that I’m generationally removed. A lot of the scholars who’ve worked on camps in the postwar period went to camps in the postwar period. It makes a lot of sense that it would be harder to write this sort of sweeping thing perhaps. The fact that I’m a millennial meant that I could write about the postwar period — and also write kind of an epilogue-style chapter that catches us up to the present.

What’s clear is that there’s something amazing about studying summer camp, a completely immersive 24/7 experience that parents send children away for. There’s no better setting for thinking about how adults project their anxieties and desires about the future onto children. There’s also no place better to think about power dynamics and age and generational tension.

I was definitely struck by the “sameyness” of Jewish camps in your accounting. What do you think we can learn from that, either about camps or about us as Jews?

I do want to say that while there’s a lot of sameyness, whenever you do a comparative study, there’s a risk of kind of collapsing all these things and making them seem too similar. What I’m trying to convey is that the camp leaders from a variety of movements took the basic structure of the summer camp as we know it — its daily schedule, its environment, its activities — and it did look similar from camp to camp, at least on that surface level.

If you look at the daily schedules in comparison, they might have a lot of the same features but they’ll be called slightly different things depending on if the camp leans more heavily towards Hebrew, or Yiddish, or English. But the content within those schedules would be rather different. It’s more that the skeletal structure of camp life has a lot of similarities across the board and then the details within each section of the day or the month had a lot of differences.

But I think what it says is that in the postwar period, the anxieties that Jewish leaders had about the future of Judaism are really, really similar and the solution that they found within the summer camp, they were pretty unanimous about. They just then took the model and inserted within it their particular nationalistic, linguistic or religious perspectives. So I think more so than saying anything about American Jewry, it shows kind of how flexible camping is. And that’s not just the Jewish story. Lots of different Americans have embraced summer camping in different ways.

So many people who have gone to camp have a fixed memory of what camp is like, where it’s caught in time, but you argue that camps have actually undergone lots of change. What are the most striking changes you documented, perhaps ones that might have been hard for even insiders to discern as they happened?

First of all, the Israel-centeredness of American Jewish education as we know it today didn’t happen overnight in 1948, for instance. It was a slower process, beyond the Zionist movements where that was already going on, for decades before 1948. Ramah and the Reform camps for instance took their time towards getting to the heavily Zionist-imbued curricula that we know.

There was considerable confusion and ambivalence at first about what to do with Israel: whether to raise an Israeli flag, not because they were anti-Zionist, but because American Jews had been thinking about proving their loyalty to America for many generations. There were some sources that would talk about — what kind of right do American Jews have to raise the Israeli flag when they’re not Israeli? So that kind of Israel-centeredness that is really a feature of camp life today was a slower process than we might think.

It fit camp life really well because broader American camps used Native American symbols, in some ways that are problematic today, to create what we know of as an iconography of camp life. So for Jews, Israel and its iconography, or Palestine and iconography before ’48, provided an alternative set of options that were read as Jewish, but it still took some time to get to where we are now in terms of the Israel focus.

One of the reasons I place emphasis on the Yiddish summer camps is to show that in the early 20th century and the mid-20th century there was more ideological diversity in the Jewish camping sphere, including various forms of Yiddishist groups and socialist groups and communist groups that operated summer camps. Most of them have closed, and their decline is obviously a change that tells a story of how American Jewry changed over the course of the postwar period. Their legacy is important, too: I have made the argument that these camps in a lot of ways modeled the idea of Yiddish as having a future in America.

What about hookup culture? Contemporary discourse about Jewish camps have focused on sex and sexuality there. What did you observe about this in the archives?

I think people think of the hookup culture of Jewish camps today and certainly in my time in the ’90s and 2000s as a permanent feature, and in some ways I found through my research and oral history interviews that that was the case, but it was really interesting to zoom out a little bit and think about how Jewish summer camps changed in terms of sexual romantic culture, in relationship to how America changed with the sexual revolution and the youth culture.

It’s not it’s not useful to think about Jewish hookup culture in a vacuum. It’s happening within America more broadly. And so of course, it’s changed dramatically over time. And one of the things I learned that was so fascinating is that Jewish summer camps were actually their leaders were less concerned in a lot of ways about sexuality at camp in the ’40s and ’50s, than they were in the late ’60s and ’70s. Because earlier premarital sex was pretty rare, at least in the teenage years, so they were not that concerned about what happened after lights out because they kind of assumed whatever was going on was fairly innocent.

In the late 1960s and 1970s, that’s when camps have to actually think about how to balance allowance and control. They want to allow campers to have these relationships, to have their first sexual experiences, and part of that is related to rising rates of intermarriage and wanting to encourage love between Jews, but they also want to control it because there’s a broader societal moment in which the sexuality of teenagers is problematized and their and their sexual culture is more public.

There’s been a real wave of sustained criticism by former campers about the cultures that they experienced, arguing that the camps created an inappropriately sexualized and unsafe space. There’s been a lot of reaction to that and the broader #MeToo moment. I’m curious about what you can speculate about a future where that space is cleaned up, based on your historical research — what is gained and what, potentially, could be lost?

Without being involved in camping today — and I want to really make that disclaimer because I know a lot of change is happening and lot of organizations are involved to talk about this issue better, to train camps and camp leaders and their counselors to not create a pressured environment for camper — I think what the history shows is that this hookup culture did not come about out of nowhere. It was partly related to the broader changes in America and the sexual revolution.

But it was also partly created because camps really needed to have campers’ buy-in, in order to be “successful.” A huge argument of my book is that we think about the power of camps as if camp directors have campers as, like, puppets on strings, and that what they do is what happens in camp life. But actually, campers have changed the everyday texture of life at camp over the course of the decades in so many different ways by resisting various ideas or just not being interested.

So hookup culture is also part of making campers feel like they have freedom at camp and that’s essential. That’s not a side project — that is essential to their ability to get campers to come back. It’s a financial need, and it’s an ideological need. If you make campers feel like they have freedom, then they will feel like they freely took on the ideologies your camp is promoting in a really natural way.

The last part of it is rising rates of intermarriage. As rates of intermarriage rose in the second half of the 20th century, there’s no doubt in my mind from doing the research that the preexisting culture around sexuality at camp and romance at camp got turbo-boosted [to facilitate relationships that could potentially lead to marriage between two Jews]. At that point, the allowance and control that camp leaders were trying to create for many decades leans maybe more heavily towards allowance.

There are positives to camp environments being a place where campers can explore their sexualities. There’s definitely a lot of conversation about the negative effects and those are all very, very real. I know people who went through horrible things at a camp and I also know people who experienced it as a very sex-positive atmosphere. I know people in my age range who were able to discover that they were gay or lesbian at camp in safety in comparison to home, so it’s not black and white at all. I hope that my chapter on romance and sexuality can maybe add some historical nuance to the conversation and give people a sense of how this actually happened. Because it happened for a whole bunch of reasons.

I think there’s a consensus view that camp is one of the most “successful” things the Jews do. But it’s hard to see where lessons from camp or camp culture are being imported to the rest of Jewish life. I’m curious what you see as kind of the lessons that Jewish institutions or Jewish communities have taken from camp — or have they not done that?

Every single public engagement I do about my work has boiled down to the question of, well, does it work? Does camp work? Is it successful? And that’s been a question that a lot of social scientists have been interested in. I don’t want to oversimplify that research, but a lot of the ways that they’ve measured success have been things that are not necessarily a given to all Jews as obviously the right way to be a Jew. So, for instance, in the ’90s and early 2000s, at the very least, a lot of research was about how, you know, “XYZ” camp and youth movement were successfully curbing intermarriage. A lot of them also asked campers and former campers how they feel about Israel, and it’s always if they are supportive of Israel in very normative ways, right, giving money visiting, supporting Israel or lobbying for its behalf — then camps have been successful.

I’m not interested in whether camps were successful by those metrics. I’m interested in how we got to the idea that camp should be successful in those ways in the first place. How did we get to those kinds of normative assumptions of like, this is a good Jew; a good Jew marries a Jew; a good Jew supports Israel, no matter what. So what I wanted to do is zoom out from that question of success and show how camp actually functions.

And then the question of “does it work” is really up to the reader. To people who believe that curbing intermarriage is the most important thing, then camps have been somewhat successful in the sense that people who go to these heavily educational camps are less likely to marry out of the faith.

But I am more interested in what actually happened at camp. And in terms of their legacies, I wanted to show how they changed various aspects of American Jewish life, and religion and politics. So I was really able to find how camping was essential in making kind of an Israel-centered Jewish education the norm. I was also able to draw a line between these Yiddish camps over the ’60s and ’70s that closed in the ’80s and contemporary Yiddish. The question of success is a real tricky and political one in a way that a lot of people have not talked about.

And is camp also fun? Because you’re creating a camp experience for your book launch next week.

Camp is fun — for a lot of people. Camp was not fun for everyone. And so I do want to play with that ambivalence at the party, and acknowledge that and also acknowledge that some people loved camp when they were younger and have mixed feelings about it now.

The party is not really a celebration of Jewish summer camp. People will be drinking and having fun and dancing — but I want them to be thinking while also about what is going on and why. How is Tisha B’Av [the fast day that commemorates the destruction of the ancient Jewish temple in Jerusalem that falls at the height of summer] commemorated at camp, for example?

Or what songs are we singing and what do they mean? I think a lot of people when they’re little kids, they learn songs in these Jewish summer camps that they can’t understand and later they maybe learn Hebrew and go, whoa, we were singing what?! My example from Zionist summer camp is singing “Ein Li Eretz Acheret,” or “I Have No Other Country.” We were in America and we obviously have another country! I don’t think anyone in my youth movement actually believes the words “Ein Li Eretz Acheret” because we live in America and people tend to kind of like living in America and most of them do not move to Israel.

So at the party we’ll be working through the fun of it, and at the same time the confusion of it and the ambivalence of it. I want it to be fun, and I also want it to be something that causes people to think.


The post American Jews created historic summer camps. Or did summer camps create American Jews? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Jewish Sites in New York City Struck With Antisemitic Graffiti as Police Report Jews Targeted in 60% of Hate Crimes

Members of the Rego Park Jewish Center flanking swastika graffiti that was sprayed on the building on Sunday, May 3, 2026. Photo: Screenshot

Jewish residents of the Queens borough of New York City were outraged on Monday following an overnight spree of vandalism which left at least four Jewish properties — private homes and synagogues — marked with the swastika and other antisemitic graffiti.

The incidents were discovered as the New York City Police Department (NYPD) released its latest figures showing that Jews continued to be the target of the majority of all hate crimes across the five boroughs last month, despite comprising a small fraction of the total population.

The perpetrators of the latest wave of vandalism struck the Rego Park Jewish Center, the Congregation Machane Chodosh, as well as two private homes late Sunday night, according to local lawmakers and Jewish leaders. Police are still searching for the suspects. At least one lead has surfaced so far in the form of surveillance footage taken by the Rego Park Jewish Center near the site of one of the crimes.

Meanwhile, the graffiti remains a scourge on the buildings — appearing in one case next to a memorial to German Jews who survived Kristallnacht, a November 1938 pogrom when Nazi paramilitary forces launched a coordinated nationwide attack on the German Jewish community. The vandals left no doubt regarding their allusion to that period, graffitiing  “Heil Hitler” at the Rego Park location.

“When rabbis and congregants arrive to pray this morning, they expected to be met with their usual loving community. When a family woke up, they were prepared to begin an otherwise normal week. Instead, they were me with terrifying signals of hatred and threats of violence,” New York City Council Speaker Julie Menin said in a social media post which addressed the incidents. “With antisemitism on the rise here and across the globe, we will always stand up for our Jewish community and fight back against hate.”

Mark Treyger, CEO of the Jewish Community Relations Council of New York, noted on social media that one of the targeted sites houses a pre-K program for young children.

“This is not normal, and we need city leaders to act NOW,” he posted.

The vandalism was discovered as the New York City Police Department (NYPD) reported on Monday the surge in antisemitic hate crimes across the city had continued unabated.

According to the newly released data, Jews were targeted in 60 percent of all confirmed hate crimes last month, despite making up just 10 percent of the city’s population.

In April, the police confirmed 30 antisemitic incidents out of 50 total hate crimes in the city. As for all reported/suspected hate crimes, 38 out of the total of 65 targeted Jews.

The NYPD had previously reported suspected, but unconfirmed, hate crime incidents. In February, the police began reporting confirmed incidents instead. And then after receiving scrutiny, the department began reporting both suspected and confirmed hate crimes in March.

Regardless of the methodology, the majority of all hate crimes in New York City this year have targeted Jews, especially the Orthodox community, continuing a surge in antisemitism that has swept the city after the start of the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza in October 2023.

In just eight days between the end of October and the beginning of November 2024, for example, three Hasidim, including children, were brutally assaulted in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn. In one instance, an Orthodox man was accosted by two assailants, one masked, who “chased and beat him” after he refused to surrender his cellphone in compliance with what appeared to have been an attempted robbery. In another incident, an African American male smacked a 13-year-old Jewish boy who was commuting to school on his bike in the heavily Jewish neighborhood. Less than a week earlier, an assailant slashed a visibly Jewish man in the face as he was walking in Brooklyn.

In November, just days after the election of Zohran Mamdani as mayor of New York City, hundreds of people amassed outside a prominent synagogue and clamored for violence against Jews.

“We don’t want no Zionists here!” the group chanted in intervals while waving the Palestinian flag outside the Park East Synagogue in the Upper East Side section of the borough of Manhattan. “Resistance, you make us proud, take another settler out.”

Mamdani has dismantled key parts of the civil rights architecture his predecessor built to combat antisemitism in the city. Former Mayor Eric Adams adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism, enforced a ban on awarding government money to adherents of the movement to boycott Israel, and established as a governing principle the idea that Zionism is central to Jewish peoplehood even as it remains a target of antisemitic activism.

“The connection between Jewish identity and the Land of Israel is not political preference but religious and cultural foundation extending back millennia,” Adams said in one of his final communications as mayor. “The practical consequence of anti-Zionist rhetoric is the dehumanization of Zionists (the vast majority of Jewish people) and the dehumanization of all Jewish people. When Zionism itself is characterized as racist or illegitimate, Jewish people become targets for hostility and violence. This dynamic helps explain why attacks on Israel’s legitimacy correlate with increased antisemitic incidents in the diaspora, targeting all Jewish people regardless of their politics.”

The change in New York City’s climate since Mamdani’s election is palpable, Jewish advocacy groups have said. One his first day in office in January, he voided the city government’s adoption of the IHRA definition, lifted the ban on contracts with companies boycotting Israel, and modified key provisions of an executive order directing law enforcement to monitor anti-Israel protests held near synagogues.

“Mayor Mamdani pledged to build an inclusive New York and combat all forms of hate, including antisemitism,” a coalition of leading Jewish groups said in a statement addressing the new administration. “But when the new administration hit reset on many of Mayor Adams’ executive orders, it reversed … significant protections against antisemitism.”

Follow Dion J. Pierre @DionJPierre.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Venice Biennale Jury Resigns Amid Israel, Russia Controversy; Organizers Announce New Awards, Ceremony

A poster for the 61st Venice Biennale running from May 9 to November 22. Photo: IMAGO/Frank Ossenbrink via Reuters Connect

The jury for the 2026 Venice Biennale announced their resignation mere days before the 61st edition of the show is set to open to the public on May 9.

The move comes after the five members of the jury, which selects the winners for the exhibition’s top prizes, said on April 22 that they would not consider giving awards to artists from countries accused by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of crimes against humanity, which include Israel and Russia. Both countries are participating in this year’s Venice Biennale, a fact that has caused controversy in light of the Israel-Hamas war and the Russia-Ukraine war.

The ICC issued an arrest warrant in 2023 for Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has been accused of war crimes in Ukraine, and an arrest warrant in 2024 for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu due to his country’s military actions in the Gaza Strip during its war against Hamas terrorists. Israel, which launched its military campaign in response to Hamas’s invasion and massacre of Israelis on Oct. 7, 2023, has strongly denied the ICC’s allegations, with officials saying the Israeli military has gone to unprecedented lengths to try and avoid civilian casualties.

“As of April 30, 2026, we, the international jury selected by Koyo Kouoh, artistic director of the 61st edition of La Biennale di Venezia ‘In Minor Keys,’ have resigned,” the jurors said in a released statement. “We do so in acknowledgment of our Statement of Intention issued on 22 April 2026.” No further information was provided regarding the resignation.

The Venice Biennale did not respond to The Algemeiner‘s request for comment about the decision but acknowledged the jury’s resignation in a released statement on April 30. Organizers announced in a separate statement that the event’s awards ceremony will be moved from May 9 to Nov. 22, which is the last day of the show. The decision to reschedule the awards ceremony was made in light of the jury’s resignation “as well as the exceptional nature of the current international geopolitical situation,” the Venice Biennale said.

The jury for the Venice Biennale typically selects the winners for the highly coveted Golden and Silver Lion prizes. With no jury this year, the Venice Biennale said it will instead establish two “Visitors’ Lions” awards. Visitors will be able to vote for “the Best Participant in the 61st Exhibition ‘In Minor Keys’ by Koyo Kouoh” and “the Best National Participation in the 61st Exhibition.”

Each Venice Biennale ticket holder who visited both of the exhibition’s venues during this year’s show will be eligible to cast one vote for each of the two new awards. All participants n the 2026 Venice Biennale, including those from Israel, will be eligible for the Visitors’ Lion award for Best National Participation “following the principle of inclusion and equal treatment among all participants.”

“This is consistent with the founding spirit of La Biennale, based on openness, dialogue, and the rejection of any form of closure or censorship,” organizers said. “La Biennale seeks to be — and must remain — a place of truce in the name of art, culture, and artistic freedom.”

An open letter calling for Israel to be banned from the 61st Venice Biennale exhibition was published in March and signed by 178 Biennale participants. Romanian artist Belu-Simion Fainaru is representing Israel in this year’s show and recently criticized the jury’s April 22 decision not to consider awarding artists from the country.

Because of backlash over Russia’s participation, the Venice Biennale announced on April 28 that the Russian Pavilion in this year’s show will be only open to the public during the four-day preview. The European Union has already decided to withdraw $2.3 million in funding from the Venice Biennale because of Russia’s inclusion this year.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

All Major Jewish Organizations in Norway Criticize Holocaust Center for Repeatedly ‘Relativizing the Holocaust’

A drone view of the “Arbeit macht frei” gate at the former Auschwitz concentration camp ahead of the 80th anniversary of its liberation, Oswiecim, Poland, Jan. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kacper Pempel

Representatives from the largest Jewish organizations in Norway collectively published an open letter on Monday that accused the Norwegian Center for Studies of Holocaust and Religious Minorities (HL-Center) of repeatedly “relativizing the Holocaust.”

The open letter, which addressed the board and director of the HL-Center, accused the institution of using the Holocaust “in direct or indirect connection with the wars in the Middle East and other historical events.” The signatories noted that for “several years” there have been “repeated incidents” of the institution promoting “Holocaust revitalization.”

“When the Holocaust is systematically placed in parallel with other conflicts, there is a risk of relativizing its unique historical status. Over time, we have come to view this not as isolated judgments, but as a pattern,” wrote those representing the majority of Jewish life in Norway. They called on the HL-Center to “exercise far greater scholarly and institutional caution in how the Holocaust is discussed and contextualized.”

On April 30, the HL-Center hosted an event that drew parallels between the Holocaust and the Palestinian “Nakba” and how “they have functioned as competing cultural traumas.” “Nakba,” the Arabic term for “catastrophe,” is used by Palestinians and anti-Israel activists to refer to the establishment of the modern state of Israel in 1948.

Israel’s Embassy in Norway said the center’s decision to host the event was a “grotesque distortion of Holocaust memory.”

The open letter on Monday mentioned the April 30 event and also expressed concerns by Norway’s Jewish community about an upcoming event on June 3, titled “Holocaust Memorial after Gaza,” which will discuss Holocaust remembrance in relation to contemporary politics, specifically the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza.

“We wish to emphasize that it is both legitimate and necessary to acknowledge the suffering of civilians in armed conflicts, including the experiences of Palestinians after 1948,” Jewish community leaders wrote in the open letter, before noting “this is a subject that can be addressed without bringing the Holocaust into it.”

“A more natural parallel would be the consequences for the more than 1 million Jews who suffered in, and were forced to flee from, Arab countries after the establishment of Israel,” they added. “It is essential to maintain that the Holocaust represents a historical event without parallel: an industrial, ideologically driven genocide whose aim was the total extermination of the Jewish people.”

The letter was signed by B’nai B’rith Norway Lodge, The National Council for Jewish Communities in Norway, Kos & Kaos The Nordic Jewish Network, Chabad Lubavitch of Norway, Det Mosaiske Trossamfund (congregation) in Oslo, The Jewish Community of Trondheim, and The Jewish Community of Bergen, as well as The Jewish Community of Norway.

The groups asked the HL-Center board to issue a clarification about its role and mandate, “particularly with regard to comparisons between the Holocaust and contemporary conflicts.” They also want the center to establish clear guidelines about how its leadership and events will reflect “ongoing political conflicts,” most likely referring to the Israel-Hamas war.

“We expect the board to take this communication seriously. Our goal is to ensure that the HL Center remains a unifying and academically credible institution — also for the Jewish minority it was founded to protect and serve,” they noted. “We also wish to remind you of several previous communications concerning this matter, including the open letter from descendants of Holocaust victims and B’nai B’rith’s thorough report on the shortcomings we are again raising here. None of these has been answered in a satisfactory manner.”

Representatives from Norway’s major Jewish organizations said they previously reached out to the board of the HL-Center with their concerns regarding Holocaust trivialization, the director’s public statements, the center’s role in political conflicts, and how “Holocaust memory has been connected to contemporary wars during central commemorative events” at the center. Their concerns “appear to have led to little change,” they noted.

“The center has a particular responsibility to preserve the memory of the millions of Jews who were murdered, and to ensure that this memory is not relativized or instrumentalized for political purposes,” they added, after pointing out that the institution was established partially with funds from a restitution settlement following the liquidation of Jewish property during the Holocaust.

“The point is not to preclude criticism of Israeli policy, but to make clear how easily such parallels can contribute to trivializing the particular character of the Holocaust, and that such rhetoric can contribute to increased antisemitism,” the open letter pointed out.

Norway is a part of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). According to the IHRA definition of antisemitism, drawing a comparison between Israel and the Nazis is a contemporary example of antisemitism.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News