Connect with us

Uncategorized

Anti-Israel Boycotts in Defense, Economics, and the Arts Are Gaining Ground

A pro-BDS demonstration. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

Attacks against individual Jews and Jewish institutions have become so numerous, that only a sample may be listed here.

A few notable examples include: 

Universities continue to complain about the settlements reached by Brown, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania over allegations of antisemitism and systematic discrimination, with insiders describing these as shakedowns 

Momentum toward a settlement with Harvard has slowed, with the Federal government stating in September that the university has not complied with requests for data regarding race-based admission. Some reports have also indicated the question of third party monitors, such as that agreed on by Columbia, is a major sticking point.

With student protests growing, universities find themselves needing to act. Cognizant of the new levels of Federal and public scrutiny, Columbia and New York University announced anti-discrimination investigations in response to early semester incidents of antisemitic vandalism. Regulations regarding the time, place, and manner of demonstrations have also been put into place at many universities, along with complex speech rules.

In one such development, Harvard’s new guidelines noted that calling someone a “terrorist sympathizer” could violate its anti-discrimination policy.

A more systematic form of control was revealed by a House Committee on Education and Workforce investigation, which included an interview with now ousted Northwestern University president Michael Schill. Committee staff members revealed the agreement between Northwestern and the Qatar Foundation regarding the university’s campus in Qatar, which stipulates “NU, NU-Q, and their respective employees, students, faculty, families, contractors and agents, shall be subject to the applicable laws and regulations of the State of Qatar, and shall respect the cultural, religious and social customs of the State of Qatar.” 

A small number of faculty members took the lead in berating Charlie Kirk and applauding his murder. This echoed the extremist stances of faculty regarding Israel.

Similarly, a new study of Jewish faculty points to the central role of anti-Israel faculty in driving campus antisemitism. The study noted that on 77% of campuses with a Faculty for Justice in Palestine chapters, faculty were engaged in anti-Israel programming, 80% helped organize anti-Israel demonstrations, and 85% endorsed BDS campaigns.

Overall, 73% of Jewish faculty reported witnessing anti-Jewish activities or statements from faculty, administrators or staff. The intense outpourings of anti-Israel and antisemitic hatred from pro-Palestinian faculty cannot be explained as mere political beliefs, but suggest deeper devotion to a secular religious cause.

The full implications of faculty hatred of Israel as both a foundational pedagogical structure and basis for personal behavior was demonstrated at Cornell University, where a noted anti-Israel professor, Eric Chayfetz, was suspended for allegedly prohibiting an Israeli student from participating in a class on Gaza.

Cheyfitz, formerly a faculty advisor to the school’s Jewish Voice for Peace chapter, taught the class “Gaza, Indigeneity, Resistance,” in the spring.

Student protests have also escalated on campus. Examples include picketing at job fairs at the University of Louisville, Cornell University, and the University of Massachusetts, where corporations accused of “complicity” with Israel were present, such as GE Aerospace, Raytheon Technologies, L3Harris, and Toyota.

At the University of Pisa, pro-Hamas students stormed a classroom of a professor they accused of being Zionist, beating students and waving flags. The professor had criticized the university’s decision to cut ties with Israeli institutions.

At the Polytechnic University of Turin, students stormed a lecture being given by an Israeli faculty member who defended the war in Gaza and the Israeli military. The faculty member was then suspended by the university. 

A BDS resolution proposed in the University of Connecticut student government failed. The University of Maryland student government voted overwhelmingly to demand that the school “formally and publicly acknowledge the ongoing situation in Gaza as a genocide” and “issue a public statement urging for an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza.” A vote on a BDS resolution originally scheduled for Rosh Hashanah, but after protests was rescheduled for Yom Kippur approved.

In another example of anger regarding university responses to the post-October 7th campus environment, the group Northwestern Graduate Workers for Palestine protested required antisemitism and “Islamophobia” bias training. Some 300 students have been prohibited from registering for classes and may lose financial aid and access to campus housing.

In a rare acknowledgment that arms embargoes were impacting Israel, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that Israel might have to become an “autarkic characteristics” which he described as a “super-Sparta.”

Other moves to isolate Israel economically expanded in September. The exclusion of Israeli state owned assets from the Danish sovereign wealth fund on the basis of “international humanitarian principles” and human rights. This followed the August decision by the Norwegian fund to exclude Israeli companies, which became an issue in the September elections, where far left parties demanded the Labor Party expand Israeli boycott as a condition for joining a coalition. The UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights also added 68 companies to its blacklist of firms doing business in the West Bank.

In a move long sought by the BDS movement, Microsoft disabled Israeli military access to its Azure cloud computing platform. An internal investigation showed that data obtained from surveillance of Palestinian civilian communications was being stored on the platform and that AI services were being used. The company stated this violated its policies regarding privacy and mass surveillance. 

Efforts to boycott and isolate Israel have come as European defense industries struggle to scale up production against growing Russian threats. Fear of competitors, above all Israel and the US, motivate policies even as the need for Israeli and American products and technologies grows.

One example are European plans for continental anti-missile defenses which would integrate Israeli systems, acquisition of which is now threatened by boycott efforts. Another example is Morocco’s continued shift away from French arms to Israeli suppliers, which undermines French political influence in North Africa. Domestic political pressure, including from Muslim populations, however, has motivated the Philippines to terminate an arms contract with Israel. Greece has also delayed a major arms deal with Israel.

These economic challenges provide some of the backdrop for the British decision to ban official Israeli representation from the DSEI UK 2025 arms fair. Israeli companies were permitted to exhibit. Dubai also banned Israeli representation at the UAE air show, ostensibly over comments from Israeli ministers regarding annexation of the West Bank.

The Scottish Parliament’s vote in favor of a full boycott of Israel included demands that the British government adopt a full arms embargo, banned the import of Israeli “settlement goods,” and removed subsidies for Scottish firms accused of involvement in Israeli “genocide.”

Having taken the lead in accusing Israel of genocide, Spain announced a total arms embargo on Israel and canceled three major defense contracts. Shipments of arms to Israel will also be banned, a decision that brought criticism from the US State Department. The Spanish decision jeopardizes use of American military bases in Spain as transshipment points for resupplying Israel.

Efforts continue in the arts and cultural sphere to expel Israelis, Jews, and those who do not explicitly support the Palestinian cause.

In one notable incident, Israeli conductor Lahav Shani was scheduled to conduct the Munich Philharmonic at the Flanders Festival Ghent in Belgium. The invitation was revoked when as organizers determined that “in the light of his role as the chief conductor of the Israel Philharmonic Orchestra, we are unable to provide sufficient clarity about his attitude to the genocidal regime in Tel Aviv.”

The orchestra and city of Munich condemned the Belgian decision, as did German and Belgian politicians including Prime Minister Bart De Wever.

The demand that Shani clarify his stance on “genocide” is paralleled by those being placed on Israeli pop artists throughout Europe, including signed statements and videos, especially by venue organizers and owners.

Other efforts continue to exclude Israel from international cultural life. Though the next Eurovision song contest will not be held until 2026, Spain, Slovenia, Iceland, Ireland, and the Netherlands have pledged to withdraw if Israel is allowed to participate.

Reports indicate Eurovision organizers have floated the idea that Israeli could be permitted to perform but without their flag or other identification. The sponsoring body, the European Broadcasting Union, has now called for an extraordinary meeting in November at which member broadcasters will vote on Israeli participation.

The hostility toward Israel also took several notable turns in the film industry. At the Cannes Film Festival the film The Voice of Hind Rajab about a Palestinian girl in Gaza who was killed during the Israeli counterattack received an unprecedented 22 minute ovation.

The award was followed by an open letter signed by some 4000 film industry members pledging to boycott the Israeli film industry. The group which promoted the original letter, Film Workers for Palestine, is closely aligned with the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine.

Similarly, at the Emmy Awards, a number of actors appeared with “ceasefire now” and other pro-Hamas regalia including pins representing bloody hands, a Palestinian symbol depicting the bloody hands of a Palestinian who had just murdered two Israeli soldiers.

Actor Hannah Einbinder won an award and during her speech stated “Go Birds, f**k ICE and free Palestine,” adding later that “I feel like it is my obligation as a Jewish person to distinguish Jews from the State of Israel, because our religion and our culture is such an important and long standing institution that is really separate to this sort of ethno-nationalist state.”

In contrast, an Israeli documentary on October 7th that organizers had tried to bar won a popular award at the Toronto Film Festival.

Organizers had ludicrously claimed that filmmakers had not obtained permission from Hamas to include video footage shot by terrorists during the attack.

Anti-Israel protests also continue to plague sports. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez reiterated his demand that Israel be banned from all international sports. The call came after pro-Hamas protestors wrecked the end of the Vuelta a España cycling race by blocking the final stages into Madrid.

Sánchez expressed his admiration for protestors who disrupted the race but Madrid mayor José Luis Martínez-Almeida condemned both the protestors and Sánchez, as did race organizers.

The impact of the attack, however, prompted the Israeli team’s sponsor, Factor Bikes, to demand the team compete under a different flag. The company’s founder stated “There’s just a certain amount of controversy we can’t afford regarding the brand.” The Israeli team was then not invited to a competition in Italy after threats of violence prompted “safety concerns.”

The author is a contributor to SPME, where a completely different version of this article was published. 

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Uncategorized

Brooklyn’s new ‘lard bagel’ is not kosher. But it is delicious.

Bagels have long been a staple of the Jewish diet, even if they’re not exactly health food. But the latest addition to New York’s bagel scene achieves the impressive feat of inviting both your doctor and your rabbi’s scorn: the “lard bagel,” made with rendered pork fat.

The decidedly unkosher offering is on the menu at Caputo Bagels, which opened Monday in Brooklyn’s Park Slope neighborhood. The bagel shop is the successor to the once-popular Caputo Bakery in Carroll Gardens, which closed in April after five generations of operation.

The lard bagel. Photo by Hannah Feuer

At the now-shuttered Caputo Bakery, “lard bread” was a bestseller. Caputo Bagels seeks to recreate the lard bread experience, but in bagel form. Lard, salami, provolone cheese, salt and pepper are all folded into sourdough, hand-rolled, then boiled and baked at 425 degrees. The Italian-Jewish mash-up is the product of a partnership between James Caputo and Rafi Hasid, who also runs the Israeli restaurant Miriam next door.

Eager to try this bagel novelty, I stocked up on Lactaid pills and trekked to Park Slope early Friday morning. There, I met Caputo himself, who said the lard bread was a family recipe and an Italian-American specialty. Lard, he explained, was “a couple levels above adding butter to your bread.”

“A lot of people who went to the bakery are now rushing here to try the lard bagel,” Caputo said, adding that he did “feel bad” that kosher customers wouldn’t be able to eat the signature item.

I reassured Caputo that I did not keep kosher and was eager to taste the lard bagel myself.

But before digging in, I wanted to know what to expect. The first customer I spoke with had ordered an everything bagel, explaining that she hadn’t known the lard bagel “existed.” The second, visiting New York City from Spain, had opted for banana bread.

I asked her if she had considered ordering the lard bagel. “At this hour in the morning?” she asked.

I was starting to get worried. If nobody orders the lard bagel, does it make a sound?

Fortunately, I soon met Kristin Stoller, a local who used to frequent Caputo Bakery. She had ordered both a lard bagel and a plain one, with a side of scallion cream cheese, to bring home for herself and her boyfriend.

“He’s anxious about the lard bagel,” she told me, but she was hoping to convert him.

I asked if she would do a taste test. “Just like the bread!” she said after taking a bite. “This is perfection.”

Her enthusiasm seemed to be contagious. The first customer I’d spoken with came up to me, this time with a lard bagel in hand. I’d piqued her curiosity. “It’s a savory explosion,” she said.

Outside, I found a customer named Kendra Koch sitting on a bench with her dog, Pom Pom. She, too, had ordered the lard bagel, topped with olive cream cheese.

“It tastes like pizza,” she said as Pom Pom angled toward the bagel, seemingly longing for a bite.

Pom Pom makes a beeline for the lard bagel. Photo by Hannah Feuer

I summoned my courage and ordered one sans toppings, figuring it had enough going on flavor-wise to stand on its own. One bite revealed a cheesy, peppery richness. I wasn’t sure I tasted the lard, but I also wasn’t sure if I was supposed to. My official verdict: delicious.

It was just too bad that my kosher friends couldn’t try it. I’m holding out hope that the schmaltz bagel will catch on next.

The post Brooklyn’s new ‘lard bagel’ is not kosher. But it is delicious. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Yiddish Modernism and the political tumult in the 1930s

אין די 1920ער און 1930ער יאָרן האָט דער זשורנאַל „אין זיך“ געדינט װי אַ טריבונע פֿאַר מאָדערניסטישע עקספּערימענטן אין דער אַמעריקאַנער ייִדיש־ליטעראַטור. צו די „אינזיכיסטן“ האָבן געהערט יעקבֿ גלאַטשטײן, אַהרן גלאַנץ־לעיעלעס, ה. לײװיק, שלמה שװאַרץ, יהודה לײב טעלער און אַנדערע.

װי מען קען טרעפֿן פֿונעם זשורנאַלס נאָמען, זײַנען די דאָזיקע ליטעראַטן געװען פֿאַרטאָן אין שעפֿערישע חקירות אַרום דעם אײגענעם „זיך“. און טאַקע, אין די 1920 יאָרן האָט „אין זיך“ ניט געהאַט קײן אינטערעס צו די פּאָליטישע דאגות־היום.

אָבער דאָס האָט זיך געביטן נאָך 1934, װען גלאַטשטײן איז געװאָרן דער רעדאַקטאָר פֿונעם זשורנאַל. דער דאָזיקער תּקופֿה איז געװידמעט דאָס נײַע בוך פֿון איתי זוטרא (אוניװערסיטעט פֿון מאַניטאָבאַ, קאַנאַדע) „אינזיכיזם: ייִדיש־דיכטונג און די ייִדישע אידענטיטעט אין אַמעריקע אין די 1930ער יאָרן“.

גלאַטשטײן האָט פֿאַרטײדיקט די שעפֿערישע אױטאָנאָמיע פֿונעם דיכטער קעגן די אַנגאַזשירטע קאָמוניסטישע קריטיקער װי אַלכּסנדר פּאָמעראַנץ, װאָס האָבן געפֿאָדערט, אַז ליטעראַטור זאָל דינען די אינטערעסן פֿון די פּראָלעטאַרישע מאַסן.

אַזױ איז גלאַטשטײנס אײגענע פּאָעטישע שאַפֿונג געװאָרן אַ מין פּאָליטישע פּאָזיציע. די דאָזיקע פּאָליטיק, האַלט זוטרא, האָט משפּיע געװען אויף זײַן ליטעראַרישן סטיל און דעם סטיל פֿון אַנדערע מחברים פֿון „אין זיך“.

גלאַטשטײן האָט געעפֿנט די זײַטן פֿון „אין זיך“ פֿאַר פּאָליטישע װיכּוחים. ער אַלײן איז אַרױס מיט אַ פֿאָרשלאָג צו שאַפֿן אַ פּאַרטײ, װאָס זאָל זײַן אי פּאָליטיש ראַדיקאַל אי ייִדישיסטיש, הגם קײן פּראַקטישע פּראָגראַם האָט ער ניט פֿאָרגעלײגט.

להיפּוך צו אַנדערע ראַדיקאַלע פּאַרטײען, קודם־כּל דער קאָמוניסטישער, איז דער הױפּטציל פֿון גלאַטשטײנס פּאַרטײ געװען צו פֿאַרטײדיקן ייִדישע נאַציאָנאַלע אינטערעסן. דאָס איז געװען ספּעציעל װיכטיק אין דער צײַט װען דער אַנטיסעמיטיזם האָט געהאַלטן אין אײן װאַקסן אין אײראָפּע.

גלאַטשטײן האָט פֿאַרבעטן ייִדישע ליטעראַטן אַרומצורעדן זײַן פּראָיעקט אױף די זײַטן פֿונעם זשורנאַל. לרובֿ זײַנען זײ ניט געװען אײַנשטימיק מיט גלאַטשטײן. דער עיקר זײַנען זײ געװען קעגן דער אידײ, אַז די אינטעלעקטואַלן דאַרפֿן װערן פּאָליטישע אָנפֿירער פֿון די מאַסן.

חוץ דעם, װי עס האָט באַמערקט חיים זשיטלאָװסקי, זײַנען שױן דאָ געװען גענוג פּאָליטישע פּאַרטײען אין װעלכע ייִדן האָבן זיך אַקטיװ באַטײליקט. צו שאַפֿן נאָך אַ פּאַרטײ װאָלט ניט געהאָלפֿן צו פֿאַרבעסערן דעם מצבֿ פֿון ייִדן.

דער אינזיכיזם, האַלט זוטרא, איז בטבֿע געװען עקלעקטיש סײַ פּאָעטיש און סײַ פּאָליטיש. מען האָט ניט געהאַלטן פֿון טראַדיציאָנעלע זשאַנערס און סטילן.  אָפֿט מאָל האָט מען עקספּערימענטירט מיט מישן פּראָזע און פֿערזן.

אין די 1930ער יאָרן האָבן די ליטעראַרישע עקספּערימענטן באַקומען אַ פּאָליטישן אַקצענט. סײַ אין דער קונסט און סײַ אין דער פּאָליטיק האָבן די אינזיכיסטן געזוכט אַן ענטפֿער אױף דער עיקר־פֿראַגע: װאָס איז דער עצם פֿונעם ייִדישן „זיך“ אין אַמעריקע אין דער מאָדערנער תּקופֿה?

דער אינזיכיזם איז געװאָרן אַ נײַער מין ייִדישיזם: אַ קולטורעלע און פּאָליטישע אידעאָלאָגיע, װאָסער ציל איז געװען צו פֿאַראײניקן פֿאַרשײדענע פּאָליטישע שטרעמונגען אױפֿן סמך פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּראַך און דער מאָדערנער װעלטלעכער ייִדיש־קולטור.

גלאַטשטײן האָט געגלױבט, אַז װערטער דאַרפֿן טראָגן דעם װירקלעכן אמת, בפֿרט אין די צײַטן, װען כּלערלײ טאָטאַליטאַרישע רעזשימען האָבן פֿאַרשפּרײט ליגנס פֿאַר די צװעקן פֿון זײער מערדערישער פּראָפּאַגאַנדע.

אינעם בוך לידער „ייִדישטײַטשן“, װאָס איז אַרױס אין װאַרשע אין 1937, האָט גלאַטשטײן געפּרוּװט דערגרײכן די טיפֿסטע פֿאָנעטישע און לעקסישע װאָרצלען פֿון דער ייִדישער שפּראַך.

אין די  שורות „אַלטער בױם, פֿעלדז און שטאַם / כ׳קום צו דיר מיט ברױט און גראַם“ דריקט גלאַטשטײן אױס זײַן פּאָזיציע לגבי דער ייִדישער קולטור־ירושה. ער קומט מיט זײַן אַמעריקאַנער „ברױט און גראַם“ צו דעם „אַלטן בױם“ פֿון ייִדיש כּדי צו שעפּן שפּראַכלעסע יניקה פֿאַר זײַן פּאָעזיע.

 זוטרא אַנטפּלעקט אין „ייִדישטײַטשן“ סאַטירישע אונטערטענער, װאָס מאַכן חוזק  סײַ פֿון די פֿאַשיסטן און קאָמוניסטן און סײַ פֿון די אַמעריקאַנער אַסימילאַטאָרן.

די צװײטע צענטראַלע פֿיגור אינעם אינזיכיזם איז געװען דער דיכטער, קריטיקער און זשורנאַליסט אַהרן גלאַנץ־לעיעלעס. אין 1937, אײנצײַטיק מיט גלאַטשײטנס „ייִדישטײַטשן“, איז אַרױס גלאַנץ־לעיעלעס בוך לידער „פֿאַביוס לינד“.

אין הסכּם מיט די עסטעטישע פּרינציפּן פֿונעם אינזיכיזם איז דאָס דאָזיקע בוך אַ מישמאַש פֿון סטילן, זשאַנערס און שטאַנדפּונקטן, װאָס זײַנען פֿאַרקניפּט דורך דער פֿיגור פֿונעם הױפּטהעלד. דאָס איז אַ פּאָעטישער סך־הכּל פֿונעם איניזכיסטישן פּעריאָד אין לעיעלעסעס שאַפֿונג, האַלט זוטרא.

„פֿאַביוס לינד“ האָט באַקומען התלהבֿותדיקע אָפּרופֿן מצד די קריטיקער. גלאַטשטײן האָט געהאַלטן דאָס בוך פֿאַר דער „ערשטער גרױסשװוּנגיקער און גרױסשטאָטישער פּאָעמע אין דער ייִדישער פּאָעזיע“, און ה. לײװיק האָט עס געלױבט פֿאַר זײַן „אָרגאַנישער גאַנצקײט“.

די פֿיגור פֿון פֿאַביוס לינד איז ניט קײן אױטאָביאָגראַפֿישע. זוטרא מאַכט אַ פּרוּװ צו אַנטפּלעקן די פֿאַרפּלאָנטערטע באַציִונגען צװישן דעם מחבר אַהרן גלאַנץ־לעיעלעס, זײַן פּאָעטישער פּערזאָן אַ. לעיעלעס, און זײַן אױסגעטראַכטן „אַלטער עגאָ“ — פֿאַביוס לינד.

לינד פֿיגורירט אינעם בוך װי אַ צעשפּאָלטענע פּערזענלעכקײט: „פֿאַביוס לינד פֿיל לעבנס פֿירט ער“. ער איז סײַ אַ פּראָדוקט און סײַ אַ קרבן פֿון זײַן תּקופֿה.

לינד האָט ספֿקות װעגן כּלערלײ פּראָיעקטן צו לײזן די „ייִדישע פֿראַגע“, אינעם סאָװעטישן ביראָבידזשאַן אָדער אינעם העברעיִש־רעדנדיקן ייִשובֿ אין ארץ־ישׂראל.

חוץ לידער האָט גלאַנץ געשריבן פּאָליטישע קאָמענטאַרן אין דער ליבעראַלער צײַטונג „דער טאָג“. להיפּוך צו גלאַטשטײן האָט ער ניט פֿאַרטראַכט קײן אײגענע פּאָליטישע פּראָיעקטן. זײַן פּאָליטישער שטאַנד איז געװען אין הסכּם מיטן פּראָגרעסיװן הױפּטשטראָם פֿון פֿראַנקלין רוזװעלטס „ניו דיל“.

דער לעצטער נומער פֿון „אין זיך“ איז אַרױס אין 1940, װען אײראָפּע איז שױן געשטאַנען אױפֿן שװעל פֿונעם חורבן. דער קאָנפֿליקט צװישן אַלװעלטלעכקײט און ייִדישקײט, װאָס איז געװען די צענטראַלע טעמע פֿון די אינזיכיסטישע חקירות, איז געלײזט געװאָרן לטובֿת ייִדישקײט.

גלאַטשטײן האָט פּראָקלאַמירט: „אַ גוטע נאַכט, ברײטע װעלט. […] אױף מײַן אײגענעם געבאָט גיי איך צוריק אין געטאָ“. דאָס איז געװען דער סוף פֿונעם ייִדישן מאָדערניזם, פֿאַרסך־הכּלט זוטרא.

די פּאָעטישע קולטור־ירושה פֿון די אינזיכיסטן איז פֿאָרגעשטעלט געװאָרן פֿאַרן ענגליש־שפּראַכיקן עולם אין דער פּרעכטיקער צװײ־שפּראַכיקער אַנטאָלאָגיע „אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישע פּאָעזיע“, װאָס איז אַרױס אין 1986 אונטער דער רעדאַקציע פֿון בנימין און באַרבאַראַ האַרשאַװ.

אין דער הקדמה האָט בנימין האַרשאַװ פּרטימדיק אַנאַליזירט די פֿאָרמעלע און סטיליסטישע חידושים, װאָס די אינזיכיסטן האָבן אַרײַנגעבראַכט אין דער ייִדישער פּאָעזיע אין די 1920ער יאָרן, אָבער ער האָט קױם באַרירט זײער פּאָליטיק.

זוטראס בוך באַטראַכט די אינזיכיסטישע שעפֿערישקײט אונטער אַן אַנדערן קוקװינקל. אין די 1930ער יאָרן זײַנען פּאָליטיק און פּאָעזיע געװאָרן נאָענט צונויפֿגעפֿלאָכטן אין די װערק פֿונעם לעצטן דור אַמעריקאַנער ייִדישעמאָדערניסטן.

The post Yiddish Modernism and the political tumult in the 1930s appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

I never saw myself in Barbie. Would ‘Hanukkah Barbie’ have changed that?

I wasn’t really a Barbie kid. While I occasionally played with my sister’s hand-me-down Barbies, I preferred American Girl dolls. They were Barbie’s chunkier, cherubic counterparts, each representing a girl from a different period in history and accompanied by a series of historical-fiction books about her life. I devoured those books, including the story of Rebecca Rubin, a 9-year-old Russian-Jewish immigrant living on the Lower East Side in the early 1900s.

So when Mattel released its first Hanukkah Barbie last week — officially marketed as the “Barbie Holiday Sweater Doll” — I wondered whether she would have appealed to me when I was growing up. Would her Jewishness have made her feel more relatable than that blonde-haired, blue-eyed, impossibly proportioned bombshell?

As it turns out, I wasn’t the only one thinking about what it means for Barbie to look Jewish. Shortly after her release, Hanukkah Barbie set off a spirited debate over her appearance. Her nose seemed slightly more prominent than the default Barbie button nose, raising questions about whether Hanukkah Barbie’s face reinforced Jewish stereotypes, or if her distinctive nose reflected a good-faith effort to give the doll recognizably Jewish features.

It was at least clear that Mattel did its homework about the Festival of Lights. The hanukkiah on Barbie’s sweater has the correct number of candleholders, and the dreidels bear accurate Hebrew lettering — which is more than can be said about a lot of Hanukkah merchandise. If sales are any indication, Hanukkah Barbie is resonating. The doll, which originally retailed for about $30, is sold out, with third-party sellers now asking for as much as $345.

There have previously been Barbies modeled after Jewish celebrities, including Olympic gymnast Aly Raisman, Israeli Olympic surfer Anat Lelior and fashion designer Diane von Furstenberg. But Hanukkah Barbie is the first Barbie whose identity is simply Jewish — which means she will have the impossible task of representing Jews of all kinds. Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews, religious and secular Jews all have to somehow find themselves in the same doll.

Complicating matters, the original blonde Barbie has arguably been Jewish all along. Ruth Handler, the daughter of Polish-Jewish immigrants, invented Barbie in 1959, naming “Barbie” after her daughter, Barbara, and “Ken” after her son, Kenneth. “Barbie is a matrilineal Jew? Love it!” one Reddit user joked last month.

But Barbie was always a little too Aryan-coded to feel Jewish to me. Her origins go back to the postwar German ideal of blonde, white femininity. Handler drew inspiration for Barbie’s look from a German toy named Bild Lilli, marketed toward men as a gag gift and sold in bars and tobacco shops. That doll, in turn, was based on the comic-strip character Lilli, characterized by Barbie’s unofficial biographer M.G. Lord as “a golddigger, exhibitionist, and floozy” who worked as a secretary while looking for a wealthy husband. Bild Lilli was manufactured by O.M. Hausser, a toy company that had produced Adolf Hitler figurines during the 1930s.

No wonder stereotypically Ashkenazi-looking Jews like me, not to mention everyone else who also didn’t fit the Barbie mold, felt left out of Barbie-land. (Which is literally everyone, given that scaled up to human size, a traditional Barbie doll’s proportions would make her unable to survive; there’d be no room for her organs in her tiny waist, and she’d have no choice other than to walk on all fours.)

Over the years, Barbie has become far more inclusive. After the debut of the “Colored Francie” doll in 1967, Barbie expanded to include dolls of different races, body types and abilities, including dolls with prosthetic limbs and wheelchairs and, in 2016, the long-awaited introduction of “curvy,” “petite” and “tall” Barbies. Mattel introduced career-themed dolls in the 1960s, evolving from fashion designer, nurse, and flight attendant to a presidential candidate Barbie in 1992.

The American Girl doll, which Mattel acquired in 1998, was part of a similar response to the limitations of the traditional fashion doll. Created by teacher Pleasant Rowland in 1986, American Girl was designed to help girls see themselves in their dolls while making history feel personal and engaging.

The author with her American Girl dolls, one a look-a-like, the other not so much. Courtesy of Hannah Feuer

Of course, little kids aren’t thinking so much about the sociological implications of their toy choices. For my part, my mom bought me an American Girl look-alike doll with my brunette hair and choppy bangs, hoping that seeing myself reflected in a doll would help build my self-esteem. But I also gravitated toward a blonde-haired, blue-eyed American Girl doll that looked more Barbie-esque, which I begged my mom to buy.

Looking back, I wonder how much of the Barbie beauty standard I had subconsciously absorbed, even with an array of representative dolls at my disposal. Hanukkah Barbie may more closely resemble women like me. But changing the default cultural image of Barbie will take more than a doll with a light-up Hanukkah sweater.

The post I never saw myself in Barbie. Would ‘Hanukkah Barbie’ have changed that? appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News