Uncategorized
Dave Chappelle isn’t the first to suggest that Jews run Hollywood. Here are the origins of the trope.
(JTA) – On “Saturday Night Live” last weekend, Dave Chappelle really wanted his audience to know there are a lot of Jews in Hollywood.
“I’ve been to Hollywood, this is just what I saw,” he said during his widely dissected monologue. “It’s a lot of Jews. Like, a lot.”
While suggesting that it might not be fair to say Jews run the industry, the comedian said that coming to that conclusion is “not a crazy thing to think.” Chappelle’s “SNL” episode drew a season-high 4.8 million viewers when it aired on NBC (eclipsing Jewish comedian Amy Schumer’s own hosting stint the week before), and his monologue had more than 8.1 million views on YouTube as of Wednesday.
The Anti-Defamation League was quick to denounce Chappelle’s act, calling it antisemitic. Other prominent Jews have followed suit.
“I was very disturbed to see him speaking, to millions of people, a lot of antisemitic tropes,” Pamela Nadell, a professor at American University who researches antisemitism, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
But Chappelle, who was himself riffing on recent antisemitism controversies involving Kanye West and Kyrie Irving, wasn’t exactly breaking new ground by insinuating that Jews run Hollywood. The trope has been a part of show business since its earliest days — when, in a literal sense, Jews did run Hollywood. Or the studios, anyway.
Nearly every major movie studio was founded in the early 20th century by a group of first-generation secular Jews who immigrated to the United States from Eastern Europe. Carl Laemmle (Universal), Adolph Zukor (Paramount), William Fox (Fox), Louis B. Mayer (MGM), and Benjamin Warner (Warner) were all Jewish silver-screen pioneers, laying the groundwork for the size and scale of the industry to follow.
But the industry has diversified greatly in the century since, with studios largely swallowed up by corporate behemoths. And while individual Jews may be overrepresented in an industry that has long welcomed and rewarded them, the rhetorical danger, Nadell said, comes in conflating a large Jewish presence in an industry with ownership and control of that industry.
“Jews remain active in Hollywood in a variety of roles, but it would be impossible to say that they run Hollywood, that they own Hollywood,” she said.
“Whenever the Jews enter into any kind of position where they might have influence over people who are not Jewish, then all of a sudden it’s seen as some kind of conspiracy.”
Conspiracy theories dogged Jews in Hollywood from the industry’s beginning. Because so many Jews were in control in Hollywood in its early years, Joseph Breen, who for decades ran the industry’s Production Code office and tried to make movies palatable to Catholic morality groups, blamed “the Jews” for sneaking sex, violence and moral depravity into the movies.
But their rise to the top of the still-young motion picture industry wasn’t because they were a part of some secretive cabal; it’s because, historians say, Hollywood provided a low barrier to entry for enterprising businessmen, and was lacking the antisemitic guardrails of more established industries.
“There were no social barriers in a business as new and faintly disreputable as the movies were in the early years of [the 20th] century,” historian Neal Gabler writes in his landmark 1988 book “An Empire Of Their Own: How The Jews Invented Hollywood.”
In the book, Gabler notes that the movie business, which evolved out of other professions like vaudeville and the garment industry where Jews had already found a toehold, lacked “the impediments imposed by loftier professions and more firmly entrenched businesses to keep Jews and other undesirables out.”
As such, Jews (particularly recent immigrants) were able to thrive in show business in a way they couldn’t in most other industries. Once they were in, family ties or the general phenomenon of affinity groups often led to them elevating other Jews in the industry: For example, prolific Jewish producer David O. Selznick, whose credits include “Gone With The Wind,” “Rebecca” and a huge string of other hits in the 1930s and ’40s, spent many years at MGM, run by his father-in-law, Louis B. Mayer.
Areas like the film, garment and publishing industries were attractive to Jews, Nadell said, “because there were so many other sectors of the economy where they were barred from.”
But in exchange, Hollywood’s prominent Jews had to effectively extinguish their Jewishness.
Yearning to assimilate into American society, the Jews who ran these studios were beset on all sides by antisemitic invective — first from Christian groups like the Legion of Decency, then by anti-Communist groups, both of whom accused Hollywood’s Jews of conspiring to undermine American society with their loose morals.
As such, the Jewish studio heads largely refrained from making any movies about Jewish themes, or snuffing out antisemitic content even within their own films, or otherwise exerting their influence in any obviously Jewish way, even as many of the Golden Era of Hollywood’s most acclaimed writers and directors (Herman Mankiewicz, Ernst Lubitsch, George Cukor, Billy Wilder) were also Jewish. “Gentleman’s Agreement,” the landmark 1947 film about antisemitism, didn’t have any Jewish producers, directors or major stars (though some of its credited writers were Jewish).
Famously, Hollywood’s Jews also went out of their way to avoid offending Hitler during the Nazi era, continuing to do business with Germany and largely avoiding featuring Nazis as villains in the prewar years.
Director Steven Spielberg speaks at the Academy Awards in Hollywood, Feb. 9, 2020. (Kevin Winter/Getty Images)
With the demise of the studio system in the 1960s, Jewish creatives ranging from Mel Brooks to Steven Spielberg to Natalie Portman no longer had to hide their identity from audiences, but instead made it an essential part of their public personas. Earlier this week, in a New York Times interview, Spielberg acknowledged that Hollywood was a welcoming place for Jews when he arrived as a young filmmaker.
“Being Jewish in America is not the same as being Jewish in Hollywood,” he said while promoting “The Fabelmans,” a loose retelling of his own Jewish upbringing. “Being Jewish in Hollywood is like wanting to be in the popular circle and immediately being accepted as I have been in that circle, by a lot of diversity but also by a lot of people who in fact are Jewish.”
Still, such ethnic affinity has often been deemed conspiratorial. “Hollywood is run by Jews” and “owned by Jews,” Marlon Brando declared in a 1996 interview with Larry King, further claiming that Jewish studio executives prevented antisemitic stereotypes from being depicted on screen while allowing stereotypes of every other minority group “because that’s where you circle the wagons around.”
(Despite this outburst, which prompted intense backlash from Jewish groups, Brando was known for having close relationships with Jews and demonstrating a strong understanding of Jewish theology and culture throughout his life, and apparently spoke Yiddish quite well.)
This general air of suspicion around Jews in show business has continued into the modern day, as evidenced by Chappelle and West’s comments. In the tweets that precipitated the collapse of his businesses, West singled out Jewish producers and managers in the entertainment industry he had affiliations with, echoing how believers in antisemitic conspiracy theories about Jewish control tend to fixate on Jews in leadership positions outside of the public eye.
Attorney Allen Grubman, left, and rocker John Mellencamp speak onstage during the 37th Annual Rock & Roll Hall of Fame Induction Ceremony in Los Angeles, Nov. 5, 2022. (Amy Sussman/WireImage)
Ignoring the many industry leaders who are not Jewish, such conspiracy theorists tend to focus on the successful managers and lawyers in Hollywood who are, including Jeremy Zimmer, Ari Emanuel, Allen Grubman — and Harvey Weinstein, whose decades of sexual abuse, scorched-earth targeting of his accusers and eventual downfall are the subject of the new movie “She Said.”
And in a similar fashion to Brando, Chappelle suggested that there is a double standard in talking about ethnic groups, with jokes about Jews being seen as taboo in a way that jokes about Black people and other groups are not: “If they’re Black, then it’s a gang. If they’re Italian, it’s a mob. If they’re Jewish, it’s a coincidence and you should never speak about it.”
At the same time as Jews in and out of the industry are fighting such perceptions, they are also pushing for greater visibility. The unveiling of the new Academy Museum of Motion Pictures in Los Angeles last year almost entirely omitted Jews from Hollywood’s founding narrative, leading to backlash from Jews in the industry and, ultimately, the guarantee of a new permanent exhibition space focusing on Jews.
And there was one other way in which the Chappelle episode hearkened back to the age-old dynamics of the relationship between Jews and Hollywood: “Saturday Night Live” executive producer Lorne Michaels, who presumably allowed the monologue on the air, is Jewish.
—
The post Dave Chappelle isn’t the first to suggest that Jews run Hollywood. Here are the origins of the trope. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Netanyahu’s pardon request is a staggering act of hypocrisy — and it should be granted, with one condition
It’s hard to imagine a more staggering act of hypocrisy than Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s request for a pardon, given his own public and legal arguments over the past several years. This is the same man who stood before Israel’s Supreme Court and declared there was no problem with serving as prime minister while under criminal indictment — insisting he’d have “no issues” running the country during a trial, if allowed to run for the job.
Now, in documents submitted to President Isaac Herzog Sunday, he wants the very same trial paused so he can focus on running the country. The audacity is jaw-dropping.
Worse still, the request is wrapped in the claim that a pardon would “heal the national divide” — a divide he personally ignited the moment indictments were filed in 2019, when he unleashed a furious campaign against the police, prosecutors, judges and then-attorney general Avichai Mandelblit. This isn’t merely gaslighting but a form of extortion. Until Netanyahu launched his demonization campaign against the courts, the Supreme Court was one of Israel’s most trusted institutions. He poisoned that trust — and now plays peacemaker.
At the core of this crisis stands a simple principle: equality before the law. No Israeli — not a general, not a mayor, not a cabinet minister — is exempt from accountability. And yet one man now tries to rewrite the rules because he can weaponize politics and public pressure.
Some may cite the 1980s “Bus 300 Affair,” when President Chaim Herzog — the current president’s father — pardoned senior officials from the Shin Bet security agency involved in executing captured terrorists. But the comparison collapses immediately: those officials admitted guilt, resigned their posts, and accepted responsibility.
Netanyahu — who is standing trial for bribery, fraud and breach of trust — has not yet agreed to admit anything.
His allies, meanwhile, are waving around President Donald Trump’s pressure on Israel’s president as if it were helpful. It is, of course, an outrageous intrusion into Israel’s sovereignty — though Trump, volatile and vulgar as ever, will not care. We should expect escalation: threats about military aid, tariffs on Israeli exports — whatever suits his fancy. He slapped illegal tariffs on Canada in October because of a commercial he disliked. It is not paranoid to assume Netanyahu is coordinating the playbook — which could add treason to the list of crimes.
A clear and present danger
The implications stretch far beyond Netanyahu. If a sitting leader can wage a domestic and international campaign to pardon himself, then accountability collapses. How can any citizen believe the justice system exists for the public, rather than for the powerful? In Russia and Turkey, they cannot. Israel cannot allow itself to join that list.
Yet the question is unavoidable: should Israel consider a pardon in exchange for Netanyahu’s permanent retirement from public life? Opposition voices have floated the idea. It deserves consideration — but it comes with massive pitfalls. Such a deal would spare Netanyahu a verdict and spare Israel the catharsis of a resounding election defeat next fall — a defeat every credible poll suggests is on the horizon.
It could crown his fraudulent narrative of victimhood: Netanyahu the martyr, crucified by elites. That risks deepening the national wound rather than healing it. After all, a resounding Likud loss — a party now reeking with historically global levels of corruption — is oxygen Israel desperately needs.
There’s also a practical problem: Israeli law offers no clean mechanism to tie a pardon to a permanent political ban. One could sign a document or make a declaration — but enforcement would rely entirely on trust. And who trusts Netanyahu? The only reliable barrier would be a formal “moral turpitude” finding — until his loyalists rewrite that statute too.
There’s another reason not to wait for an electoral loss: it is obvious to anyone paying attention that Netanyahu’s camp will try to skew or even falsify the results of an election. The obsession with power is absolute. They will surely attempt to disqualify Arab parties that are an important element of the opposition. Expect efforts to suppress Arab turnout, perhaps even stoking street violence to frighten voters away from the polls. Those who think this warning is cynical simply do not know the players involved. They have no limits.
The venom Netanyahu has injected into Israel’s civic bloodstream is a clear and present danger to the state’s future.
Which is why I reluctantly believe a pardon should be considered, but on one immovable condition: a full personal admission of guilt — spoken aloud by Netanyahu himself. Only that could puncture the cultish bubble sustaining him. And absolutely, under no circumstances, should a pardon allow him to retain or regain power. A leader cannot be pardoned for abusing power and then allowed to keep the very same power.
Years ago, between Israel’s endless election cycles, Netanyahu went on TV and swore he would never weaken the judiciary or interfere in his own trial. “No tricks and no shticks,” he promised — an immortal phrase. We got tsunamis of tricks, and rivers of shticks, and this was no surprise. Now comes Olympic-level hypocrisy as the cherry on top.
This same Netanyahu once claimed, in the 1990s, that prime ministers must be term-limited because power corrupts. And in 2008, attacking then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, he said: “A prime minister who is up to his neck in investigations has no moral or public mandate to make such fateful decisions for the State of Israel. There is a real and well-founded fear he will make decisions based on political survival, not the national interest.”
The only thing that has changed since then is the identity of the man up to his neck. Israel must not permit this man to stand above the law.
The post Netanyahu’s pardon request is a staggering act of hypocrisy — and it should be granted, with one condition appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump Confirms Conversation with Venezuela’s Maduro
Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro holds Simon Bolivar’s sword as he addresses members of the armed forces, Bolivarian Militia, police, and civilians during a rally against a possible escalation of US actions toward the country, at Fort Tiuna military base in Caracas, Venezuela, November 25, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Leonardo Fernandez Viloria
US President Donald Trump confirmed on Sunday that he had spoken with Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro, but did not provide details on what the two leaders discussed.
“I don’t want to comment on it. The answer is yes,” Trump said when asked if he had spoken with Maduro. He was speaking to reporters aboard Air Force One.
The New York Times first reported Trump had spoken with Maduro earlier this month and discussed a possible meeting between them in the United States.
“I wouldn’t say it went well or badly, it was a phone call,” Trump said regarding the conversation.
The revelation of the phone call comes as Trump continues to use bellicose rhetoric regarding Venezuela, while also entertaining the possibility of diplomacy.
On Saturday, Trump said the airspace above and surrounding Venezuela should be considered “closed in its entirety,” but gave no further details, stirring anxiety and confusion in Caracas as his administration ramps up pressure on Maduro’s government.
When asked whether his airspace comments meant strikes against Venezuela were imminent, Trump said: “Don’t read anything into it.”
The Trump administration has been weighing Venezuela-related options to combat what it has portrayed as Maduro’s role in supplying illegal drugs that have killed Americans. The socialist Venezuelan president has denied having any links to the illegal drug trade.
Reuters has reported the options under US consideration include an attempt to overthrow Maduro, and that the US military is poised for a new phase of operations after a massive military buildup in the Caribbean and nearly three months of strikes on suspected drug boats off Venezuela’s coast.
Human rights groups have condemned the strikes as illegal extrajudicial killings of civilians, and some US allies have expressed growing concerns that Washington may be violating international law.
Trump said he would look into whether the US military had carried out a second strike in the Caribbean that killed survivors during a September operation, adding he would not have wanted such a strike.
U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has said the strikes are lawful but are intended to be “lethal.”
Trump told military service members last week the US would “very soon” begin land operations to stop suspected Venezuelan drug traffickers.
Maduro and senior members of his administration have not commented on the call. Asked about it on Sunday, Jorge Rodriguez, the head of Venezuela’s National Assembly, said the call was not the topic of his press conference, where he announced a lawmaker investigation into US boat strikes in the Caribbean.
Uncategorized
US Sees Progress After Talks in Florida with Ukraine, but More Work Needed to Reach Deal
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, US Special Envoy Steve Witkoff, and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner meet with a Ukrainian delegation in Hallandale Beach, Florida, US, November 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Eva Marie Uzcategui
US and Ukrainian officials held what both sides called productive talks on Sunday about a Russia peace deal, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio expressing optimism about progress despite challenges to ending the more than 3-year-long war.
Rubio met with a Ukrainian delegation led by a new chief negotiator in Florida, his home state, for talks that he said were meant to create a pathway for Ukraine to remain sovereign and independent.
“We continue to be realistic about how difficult this is, but optimistic, particularly given the fact that as we’ve made progress, I think there is a shared vision here that this is not just about ending the war,” Rubio told reporters after the talks concluded. “It is about securing Ukraine’s future, a future that we hope will be more prosperous than it’s ever been.”
The discussions were a follow-up to a new set of negotiations that began with a fresh US blueprint for peace. Critics said the plan initially favored Russia, which started the conflict with a 2022 invasion of Ukraine.
Special envoy Steve Witkoff and US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, were also present representing the US side. Witkoff leaves on Monday for Moscow, where he is expected to meet Russian counterparts for talks this week.
“There’s more work to be done. This is delicate,” Rubio said. “There are a lot of moving parts, and obviously there’s another party involved here … that will have to be a part of the equation, and that will continue later this week, when Mr. Witkoff travels to Moscow.”
Trump has expressed frustration at not being able to end the war. He pledged as a presidential candidate to do so in one day and has said he was surprised it has been so hard, given what he calls a strong relationship with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who has largely resisted concessions to stop the fighting.
Trump’s team has pressured Ukraine to make significant concessions itself, including giving up territory to Russia.
The talks shifted on Sunday with a change in leadership from the Ukrainian side. A new chief negotiator, national security council secretary Rustem Umerov, led the discussions for Kyiv after the resignation on Friday of previous team leader Andriy Yermak, chief of staff to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, amid a corruption scandal at home.
“Ukraine’s got some difficult little problems,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, referring to the corruption scandal, which he said was “not helpful.” He repeated his view that both Russia and Ukraine wanted to end the war and said there was a good chance a deal could be reached.
Umerov thanked the United States and its officials for their support. “US is hearing us, US is supporting us, US is walking besides us,” he said in English as the negotiations began.
After the meeting, he declared it productive. “We discussed all the important matters that are important for Ukraine, for Ukrainian people and US was super supportive,” Umerov said.
The Sunday talks took place near Miami at a private club, Shell Bay, developed by Witkoff’s real estate business.
Zelensky had said he expected the results from previous meetings in Geneva would be “hammered out” on Sunday. In Geneva, Ukraine presented a counter-offer to proposals laid out by US Secretary of the Army Dan Driscoll to leaders in Kyiv some two weeks ago.
Ukraine’s leadership, facing a domestic political crisis fueled by a probe into major graft in the energy sector, is seeking to push back on Moscow-friendly terms as Russian forces grind forward along the front lines of the war.
Last week, Zelensky warned Ukrainians, who are weathering widespread blackouts from Russian air strikes on the energy system, that his country was at its most difficult moment yet but pledged not to make a bad deal.
“As a weatherman would say, there’s the inherent difficulty in forecasting because the atmosphere is a chaotic system where small changes can lead to large outcomes,” Kyiv’s first deputy foreign minister Sergiy Kyslytsya, also part of the delegation, wrote on X from Miami on Sunday.