Uncategorized
Does the Term Antisemitism Properly Convey People’s Hatred of Israel and Jews?
A placard equating Zionism with Nazism is displayed at an Oct. 23 pro-Hamas demonstration in the Place de la Republique in Paris. Photo: Reuters/ Valerie Dubois
Something happened while I was writing a book about how to fight antisemitism.
Forget internal arguments over hyphens or whether to call it “Jew-hate.” A new movement is beginning to form around using the word “antizionism” instead. At first, I was skeptical. Did we really need another term?
I’ve always understood that antisemitism adapts to the times and, like a parasite, hitches a ride on whatever version of anti-Jewish hatred is socially acceptable. But I’m beginning to understand that antizionism is different — and that the distinction matters. It gives antisemites plausible deniability for their hatred, and we need a new set of tools to fight it.
At the forefront of this effort to reclaim the language is anthropologist Adam Louis-Klein, who has led a push on social media to change the way we think about antizionism and to name it as a hate movement. He launched an organization, the Movement Against Antizionism, to advocate for this shift. His message is gaining traction because it offers something Jews desperately need: a framework for understanding — and fighting back.
The 32-year-old PhD candidate in anthropology was studying indigenous religion with the Desana people in the Colombian Amazon on October 7, 2023. On October 9, he arrived in a town with Internet access and opened his computer. He saw images from the Nova music festival massacre — and friends posting photos of burning Israeli flags, professing loyalty to “the resistance.”
What happened next was swift. PhD students stopped talking to him. Professors no longer wanted to be associated with him. He was marked as a “Zionist” simply for acknowledging that antisemitism existed.
Louis-Klein then launched the Movement Against Antizionism. A word about hyphens: he removes it deliberately. Without the hyphen, antizionism becomes its own ideology — a distinct hate movement rather than simply opposition to Zionism. [The Algemeiner still spells the movement anti-Zionism, but is using antizionism for the purposes of this op-ed.]
“The key is giving Jews the language to explain what they’re experiencing right now,” Louis-Klein told me recently. “Antizionists aren’t interested in debate. They create a scene of accusation — show trial — where you’re dragged into the courtroom and told to defend yourself.”
Louis-Klein’s core insight comes from studying how hatred evolves. Jew-hatred has always adapted to fit the moral codes of its era. Medieval accusations — killing Jesus, using Christian children’s blood for matzah — were rooted in religious doctrine. In the 19th century, when religious hatred seemed primitive, antisemites reframed their bigotry scientifically, casting Jews as a dangerous race. Each era’s version felt righteous because it aligned with contemporary values.
Today’s libels follow the same pattern. Louis-Klein points to three core accusations: “colonizer,” “apartheid,” “genocide.” These aren’t random insults — they’re the inverse of our civilization’s fundamental moral codes. After World War II, genocide and racism became absolute evils. Civil rights movements established racial discrimination as morally wrong. Decolonization rejected Western imperialism. When antizionists call Israel a genocidal, apartheid, settler-colonial state, they’re invoking the most powerful moral condemnations our culture recognizes.
This is why antizionists genuinely believe they’re righteous, and why Jews struggle to name what’s happening. Antizionists aren’t using classical tropes about big noses or controlling banks, so they insist, “It’s not antisemitic.”
This is where Louis-Klein’s approach becomes practical. The obvious objection: if antizionists already call themselves that, how does adopting their term help us? His answer is strategic. Jews have been trying to prove that antizionism equals antisemitism, and antizionists simply deny it. It becomes an endless, unwinnable argument. Instead, Louis-Klein says, we should take their claims at face value and demonstrate that antizionism itself is wrong. Stop defending. Start naming the hate movement for what it is.
The tool he offers is direct: “Hating Zionists is wrong. Hating Israelis is racism.”
According to this view, you can’t construct a theology in which one country is essentially evil. You can’t create a demonic worldview about a single nation and its supporters. That’s racism, full stop. And here’s the key: don’t debate the libels. Don’t let antizionists drag you into their courtroom to defend Israel’s policies or history. The moment you start arguing whether Israel meets the definition of apartheid or genocide, you’ve already lost.
Louis-Klein draws a parallel to how we treat classical antisemitism. No one today debates whether Nazism constitutes “legitimate criticism” of Jews. We recognize the ideology as evil in its totality. We should do the same with antizionism. Yes, all libels contain partial truths — there were powerful Jewish families in 19th-century Europe, there were Jews in communist movements, there are checkpoints in the West Bank. But libels aren’t critiques. They’re theological constructions designed to cast a people as intrinsically evil. Once we recognize how antizionism functions, we stop engaging with it on its own terms.
This is the practical advice Jews have been asking me about while I’ve been writing my book. Louis-Klein’s framework offers both intellectual clarity and actionable strategy — a way to understand what’s happening and how to respond. But I remain somewhat skeptical that one word can perform such a Herculean task. Changing the culture around Zionism and antizionism, with or without the hyphen, means fighting against a tsunami of hostility that has already reshaped academic institutions, social movements, and public discourse. The gaslighting is entrenched. The permission structures are firmly in place.
I understand that Louis-Klein is trying to get us to fight antizionism as a separate animal from antisemitism, but it’s also important to remember the ancient roots of the “colonizer,” “apartheid,” and “genocide” libels. They are the grandchildren of antisemitic tropes involving Jewish money and power, and there is value in pointing out that they are modern manifestations of ancient antisemitism. They’re how antizionism rings familiar to most Jews.
Still, Louis-Klein is right about one thing: Jews need new tools for a new form of hatred. The old vocabulary isn’t working. We can’t keep trying to prove that what we’re experiencing is “really” antisemitism when our accusers have built an entire ideology designed to deny that claim. At minimum, naming antizionism as its own hate movement gives Jews language to describe their reality and a framework to push back. It’s a place to begin.
Howard Lovy is a Michigan-based author and book editor who specializes in Jewish issues. His work can be found on his Substack newsletter, Emet-Truth. He is also the author of Found and Lost: The Jake and Cait Story and is currently writing a book on fighting antisemitism.
Uncategorized
Gene Shalit, a mensch with a personality as big as his mustache, turns 100
The television entertainment personality Gene Shalit, who celebrated his centenary on March 25, semaphored a Jewish appearance for decades to viewers of NBC’s early morning gabfest The Today Show.
With his Jew-fro hairstyle that fascinated celebrity interviewees and his abundant mustache that outdid Groucho Marx’s mere greasepaint simulacrum, Shalit was one of a kind. Born in New York City in 1926, he clearly aimed to be recognizable even through half-opened bleary eyes of half-asleep viewers. And audible too. Shalit’s precise pronunciation, always at a vigorous decibel level, sought to be comprehensible even during voiceovers. The Canadian comedian Eugene Levy, transfixed by this persona, imitated him on SCTV roaring at high decibel levels.
In one skit, Levy embodied Shalit with haimish affection, hawking a remedy for a migraine presumably caused by his own bellowing. In another, Levy spoofed Hollywood celebrities who were notorious fressers at local restaurants, including the American Jewish actress Shelley Winters (born Shirley Schrift). In still another lampoon, Levy-as-Shalit danced and also kibitzed with the late Catherine O’Hara as the Jewish gossip columnist Rona Barrett (born Burstein).
Shalit apparently kvelled at the notion that he was prominent enough in media culture to be affectionately kidded like other Jewish noteworthies Levy imitated, including Howard Cosell, Henry Kissinger, Menachem Begin, Milton Berle, Judd Hirsch, Jack Carter, James Caan, Lorne Greene, Norman Mailer and Neil Sedaka.
Years later, Levy recalled that when the SCTV comedy troupe was invited to appear on The Today Show, before the segment was filmed, chairs were arranged so that Catherine O’Hara was seated next to Shalit. Suddenly Shalit exclaimed: “Wait a minute, shouldn’t the person who [imitates] me be sitting beside me?” Another Jewish comedian, Jon Lovitz, would likewise attempt to imitate Shalit on Saturday Night Live, but without the zest of Levy’s indelible incarnation.
Shalit once told showbiz reporter Eileen Prose that at first, his looks limited him to radio jobs in more conventional times for TV talent. By the more liberated late 1960s, when long hair and a hirsute upper lip were more common, he was hired as quasi-permanent house Jew on The Today Show. Although his mustache fit the counterculture in the mode of Jewish activist Jerry Rubin’s, Shalit as an aspiring journalist may have grown his facial hair more in tribute to earlier literati like the playwright William Saroyan or the eminent humorist Mark Twain.
At times, Shalit’s appearance could be clown-like or cartoonish, so it was natural that characters inspired by him would appear on animated series such as SpongeBob SquarePants and Family Guy as well as The Muppet Show.
Famous interviewees like Peter Sellers were plainly at ease with Shalit’s persona. A conversation filmed shortly before Sellers’ untimely death was cordial, with the sometimes tetchy actor on his best behavior, acknowledging Shalit as a fellow entertainer. And with Mel Brooks in 1987, Shalit looked to be in paradise.
A warm-hearted empathizer and enthusiast, Shalit was more suited to promoting films than criticizing them. In 1989, a tzimmes occurred when a memo drafted by Bryant Gumbel, a Today Show colleague, deemed Shalit a “specialist in gushing over actors and directors” and added that Shalit’s interviews “aren’t very good.” To his credit, Shalit minimized the controversy, telling The Los Angeles Times that Gumbel’s disses were “not big whacks.”
“Listen, I’ve been interviewing people on the show for 17 years,” Shalit said. “I must be doing something right.”
Part of his inspiration was a sincere appreciation for humor, Jewish and otherwise. His 1987 anthology, Laughing Matters featured contributions by Jewish wits such as Dorothy Parker, S. J. Perelman, Woody Allen, Fran Lebowitz, Samuel Hoffenstein, Philip Roth, Mel Brooks, George S. Kaufman, Milt Gross, Arthur Kober, Leo Rosten, Allan Sherman, Max Shulman, Calvin Trillin, Rube Goldberg, Sam Gross, Roz Chast, B. Kliban, Robert Mankoff, J. B. Handelsman, Jules Feiffer and George Burns. The volume was dedicated to, among others, the Jewish screenwriter Samson Raphaelson, who was Shalit’s instructor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
His visceral reaction to Jewish parody was such that during one commuter train ride, Shalit admitted in a preface, Perelman’s story “No Starch in the Dhoti, S’il Vous Plait” caused a conductor to lean down with concern, stating: “A passenger says you’re crying.” To which Shalit retorted, choking and rubbing away tears: “I’m laughing.”
The subliminal message of Shalit’s book was that without Jews, America would have distinctly fewer tears of laughter. And he regretted not being able to include funny Jews like Jack Benny and Ed Wynn whose performances could not be transferred to the printed page.
Shalit also reviewed books for years. Sticking firmly to the content of cultural products with a few brief hints of value judgment, Shalit seemed to have neither the time nor presumably the inclination to subject new items to analysis of Freudian intensity. He clearly preferred boosting things to panning them, and when a film displeased Shalit, he could be uncomfortable saying so.
One occasion when Shalit raised hackles was his response on The Today Show to the 2005 film Brokeback Mountain. Shalit described one of the gay characters as a “sexual predator.” The LGBTQ media group GLAAD objected to Shalit’s characterization as a homophobic stereotype. Shalit’s son Peter wrote an open letter to GLAAD, identifying himself as a gay physician with a Seattle practice helping the gay community. Peter Shalit admitted that his father “did not get” the film in question, but was “not a homophobe.” He might have added that his father had even included an excerpt from Harvey Fierstein’s Torch Song Trilogy in the aforementioned humor collection.
Shalit followed up with his own apology, stating in a mensch-like way that he did not intend to cast “aspersions on anyone in the gay community or on the community itself.” When Shalit finally retired from broadcasting at age 84, with the Yiddish-inflected declaration: “It’s enough, already,” he left behind admiring viewers and decades of bonhomie as one of morning television’s most genial protagonists.
Mazel tov, Gene Shalit. Biz hundert un tsvantsik (May you live until 120)!
The post Gene Shalit, a mensch with a personality as big as his mustache, turns 100 appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
How a song about the food chain became a Seder mainstay
I’m almost positive I heard about the old lady who swallowed a fly before the father who bought a goat for two zuzim.
This occurred to me a few years ago while riding in my sister’s minivan. My niece was in her car seat fidgeting with a toy that plays a catalogue of public domain children’s songs. But unlike the version I’d grown up hearing, where the old lady’s ravenous habit of devouring ever-larger animals is met with the prognostic shrug of “perhaps she’ll die,” the refrain was changed to the more kid-friendly “oh me oh my.”
The Seder tune “Chad Gadya,” which involves a quite similar conceit, has no such timidity when it comes to the ravages of death.
Jack Black once described it as the “original heavy metal song” for the way it progresses along the chain of life from a little goat bought for two zuzim, to the cat who ate the goat, to the dog who bit the cat, all the way up to the angel of death. (“Very Black Sabbath.”)
It is pretty metal — in a kosher Kidz Bop, tot Shabbat kinda way. But why we sing it should, in Jewish circles, be as popular a seasonal question as what a bunny with a clutch of eggs has to do with Jesus’ resurrection. (Some Haggadot explain the greater significance of “Chad Gadya;” my Maxwell House does not.)
Dating the song or rooting out its precise origins is not easy.
As historian Henry Abramson wrote, scholars have noted the song’s similarities to a late Medieval German folk rhyme. While the fact that it is mostly in Aramaic, not the vernacular in Europe in the Middle Ages, suggests an earlier provenance, it is missing from extant Sephardic and Yemenite Haggadot, where one would expect to find texts originating in the language, and the Aramaic itself has many errors.
Abramson reasons that, given the surviving written versions, it was likely adapted sometime in the 14th century from a German children’s rhyme called “The Foreman that Sent Jockel Out,” about an idler named Jockel who a foreman tries to rouse to fieldwork with an escalating series of messengers, ending with a hangman. (Abramson notes the original is characterized by “some Teutonic weirdness,” like a witch sent to subdue a vulture.)
“Chad Gadya” belongs, like its Seder companion “Echad Mi Yodea,” to a genre called “cumulative song,” where verses build with new information a la “12 Days of Christmas.” But “Chad Gadya” stands out for its strangeness and its more oblique message.
Abramson and others see the goat, small and vulnerable, standing in for the Jewish people, and the ensuing parade of antagonists corresponding to historical enemies (Assyrians, Babylonians) and periods of time (Exodus, various conquests), ending with redemption in the Messianic age when the Holy One smites death.
As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks wrote in a commentary for his Haggadah, the song “teaches the great truth of Jewish hope: that though many nations (symbolized by the cat, the dog, and so on) attacked Israel (the goat), each in turn has vanished into oblivion.”
That this truth is conveyed in song, with much banging on the table or animal noises, speaks to the centrality of children in the Passover Seder. And, some think, its inclusion serves a practical purpose: keeping the kids awake through the last leg of a long ritual meal.
My own interpretation is admittedly less lofty. I don’t think of Israel’s tribulations. I do think of the abundance of stray cats in Jerusalem, said to have originated during the British mandate when the city had a rat problem.
And, in the years since my own days as designated Four Questions asker, I’ve been reading “Chad Gadya” into non-Jewish contexts. “The White Cat,” off of Mitski’s new album, Nothing’s About to Happen to Me, contains a lyric that recalls the song, only altered to be a metaphor for the predations of capitalism.
In it, the speaker says she must work to pay for the cat’s house and “for the bugs who drink my blood/and the birds who eat those bugs/so that white cat can kill the birds.”
These cycles speak across cultures and time because they represent a fundamental rule of nature: There’s always a bigger fish (or cat or dog or stick).
To erase death from the equation, like my niece’s toy does with that hapless, insect-ingesting pensioner, is a concession to today’s sensitivities. That’s not to say “The Old Lady Who Swallowed a Fly” represents anything more homiletic than a choking hazard warning, but in the case of “Chad Gadya,” death is the story, and an end to death is the hope.
“The Haggadah ends with the death of death in eternal life,” Rabbi Sacks concluded his drash on the song, which ends when God strikes down the Angel of Death. “A fitting end for the story of a people dedicated to Moshe’s great command, ‘Choose life.’”
I know it’s a principle of faith all over the Haggadah, but I’m more agnostic as to that Messianic promise and maybe more in the camp of our old lady. My understanding of Jewishness, which accords with Moshe’s command, says life is best lived knowing that — perhaps — we’ll die.
The post How a song about the food chain became a Seder mainstay appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Katz: ‘Israel’s Goal in Lebanon is to Disarm Hezbollah’
Then-Israeli transportation minister Israel Katz attends the cabinet meeting at the Prime Minister’s office in Jerusalem, Feb. 17, 2019. Katz currently serves as the foreign minister. Photo: Sebastian Scheiner/Pool via REUTERS
i24 News – Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz held a situation assessment Friday with senior military and defense officials, reiterating that the country’s policy in Lebanon remains focused on disarming Hezbollah by military and political means. Katz emphasized that the goal applies “regardless of the Iran issue” and pledged continued protection for Israeli northern communities.
Katz said the Israel Defense Forces are completing ground maneuvers up to the anti-tank line to prevent direct threats to border towns. He outlined plans to demolish houses in villages near the border that serve as Hezbollah outposts, citing previous operations in Rafah and Khan Yunis in Gaza as models.
The Defense Minister added that the IDF will maintain security control over the Litani area and that the return of 600,000 residents of southern Lebanon who had evacuated north will not be permitted until northern communities’ safety is ensured. Katz also reaffirmed that the IDF will continue targeting Hezbollah leaders and operatives across Lebanon, noting that 1,000 terrorists have already been eliminated since the start of the current campaign.
“We promised security to the northern towns, and that is exactly what we will do,” Katz said. He further warned that the IDF will act decisively against rocket fire from Lebanon, stating that Hezbollah “will pay heavy prices.”