Uncategorized
Everyone knows about Herzl. Is it time for Max Nordau, the intermarried father of Zionism, to get his due?
(JTA) — In the weeks since Israel’s latest government was sworn in, questions relating to assimilation, defining Jewish identity and what it means to be a Zionist have been central to the public and political discourse, which in some ways is perhaps more heated and divisive than it has ever been.
One useful addition to the discourse might be recalling the thought and example of an author and Zionist leader who died 100 years ago last month. Max Nordau was a central figure in the early years of the modern political Zionist movement, literally founding the Zionist Organization (today’s World Zionist Organization) with Theodor Herzl and heading multiple Zionist congresses. A physician and renowned man of letters prior to his “conversion” to Zionism following the Dreyfus Affair in France, Nordau’s joining the Zionist movement gave it a notable boost in terms of renown and respectability.
He also coined the term “Muscular Judaism” — a redefinition of what it meant to be a Jew in the modern world; a critical shift away from the traditionally insular, “meek” Jewish archetype devoted solely to religious and intellectual pursuits. The “Muscular Jew” in theory and practice was necessary in order for a modern Jewish state to be established.
Reviving interest in Nordau now is a continuation of a conversation that an Israeli historian kicked off four decades ago. The historian, Yosef Nedava, embarked on a crusade to renew interest in and appreciation of Nordau. Nedava was a proponent of Revisionist Zionism, a movement led by Zeev Jabotinsky and later Menachem Begin that was considered to be the bitter ideological rival to the Labor Zionism of David Ben-Gurion and others. Broadly speaking, Revisionist Zionism was more territorially maximalist when it came to settling the Land of Israel, and favored liberal principles as opposed to the socialist ones championed by Ben-Gurion and his colleagues.
Nedava had a penchant for fighting the battles of unsung heroes of history who he thought should be better remembered. He led a crusade to clear the name of Yosef Lishansky, the founder of the NILI underground movement that assisted the British during World War I who was executed by the Ottomans. He also worked to exonerate fellow Revisionist Zionists accused of murdering Labor Zionist leader Haim Arlozorov — an event that shook Mandatory Palestine in the early 1930s and beyond.
About Nordau, Nedava said at the time, “For 60 years he wasn’t mentioned and he was one of the forgotten figures that only a few streets were named after.”
Nedava’s sentiment was clear, even if his words were somewhat hyperbolic. Nordau had in fact been studied and cited over the years, and there were in fact at least a few streets named after him in Israel. At the official state event marking six decades since Nordau’s death, Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin even declared, “We never forgot Max Nordau, his teachings and his historical merits.”
Following Nedava’s efforts leading up to the 60th anniversary of Nordau’s death in 1983, Begin set up an official committee to memorialize the Zionist leader. The committee was tasked with publishing Nordau’s works, establishing events and honoring him in other ways like getting his face on a stamp “and maybe on a monetary bill,” according to Nedava.
But no bill was ever printed with Nordau’s visage, and there’s no question that Nordau never has gotten nearly the credit nor recognition that Herzl received. If the streets referenced by Nedava are any indicator, there are currently a respectable 33 streets named after Nordau in Israel, though that’s just about half of what Herzl’s got. There’s a city called Herzliya, with a massive image of the Zionist founder overlooking one of Israel’s most-trafficked highways. Nordau has a beach in Tel Aviv, a neighborhood in Netanya and a small village far in the north — but no city of his own.
Trees line alongside Nordau Avenue in Tel Aviv, March 4, 2017. (Anat Hermoni/FLASH90)
That’s not to say he didn’t have his fans. The Revisionist movement and Begin’s Herut and Likud parties idolized him, often mentioning and depicting him alongside Herzl and Vladimir Jabotinsky. Revisionist historian Benzion Netanyahu, father of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, greatly admired Nordau, even editing four entire volumes of his writings.
“Alongside Herzl, the Revisionists loved him, as he was a liberal. Yet he was also accepted and respected by those on the other side of the political spectrum,” Hezi Amiur, a scholar of Zionism and the curator of the Israeli Collection at the National Library of Israel, told me.
Like many of his generation and ilk, Nordau, himself the son of a rabbi, rejected religion and tradition as a teenager, opting to join mainstream European secular culture. He changed his name from Simon (Simcha) Maximilian Südfeld to Max Nordau. The shift in surname from Südfeld — meaning “southern field” — to Nordau — meaning “northern meadow” — was very much an intentional act for Nordau, the only son in his religiously observant family who chose northern European Germanic culture over the traditions of his fathers. He even married a Danish Protestant opera singer, a widow and mother of four named Anna Dons-Kaufmann.
In a congratulatory letter sent to Nordau following his marriage to Anna, Herzl, who was also not a particularly observant nor learned Jew, wrote:
Your concerns regarding the attitudes of our zealous circles [within the Zionist movement] regarding your mixed marriage are perhaps exaggerated. … If our project had already been fulfilled today, surely we would not have prevented a Jewish citizen, that is, a citizen of the existing Jewish state, from marrying a foreign-born gentile, through this marriage she would become a Jew without paying attention to her religion. If she has children, they will be Jews anyway.
This particular vision of Herzl’s has certainly not come to fruition, and the topic remains a particularly heated one, continuing to roil the Israeli political system, and — no less — Israel-Diaspora relations.
Similar political forces to those that have kept this particular Herzlian vision at bay may have also been responsible for ensuring that Nordau’s impressively whiskered face never made its way onto Israeli currency.
According to one report, Begin’s Likud government abandoned its efforts to get Nordau’s onto a shekel note in 1983 in order to avoid a potential coalition crisis. The concern was that the religious parties that were part of the ruling coalition could become outraged at the prospect of having someone married to a non-Jew on Israeli money. Whether the report was fully accurate or not, the sentiments behind such a potential coalition scare are certainly familiar to anyone following contemporary Israeli politics.
Nonetheless, perhaps the two most influential religious Zionist rabbis of the 20th century, Rabbi Abraham Isaac HaKohen Kook and his son, Rabbi Zvi Yehuda, not only somewhat overlooked Nordau’s assimilationist tendencies and intermarriage, they even celebrated the man and his vision.
The elder Rabbi Kook, who served as the rabbi of Jaffa, Jerusalem and the Land of Israel in the opening decades of the 1900s, uncompromisingly criticized some of Nordau’s views, especially with respect to the separation of religion from Zionism. But he was a big fan of Nordau’s “Muscular Judaism,” writing among other things, that:
…a healthy body is what we need, we have been very busy with the soul, we have forgotten the sanctity of the body, we have neglected physical health and strength, we have forgotten that we have holy flesh, no less than we have the holy spirit… Through the strength of the flesh the weakened soul will be enlightened, the resurrection of the dead in their bodies.
Decades later his son, likely the most influential Israeli religious Zionist spiritual leader until his death in 1982, defined Nordau (as well as seminal Hebrew poet Shaul Tchernichovsky, who also married a non-Jew) as a “baal tshuvah” — a term imprecisely translated as “penitent” that is generally used to refer to non-observant Jews who become more religiously observant. Yehuda based his designation on a Talmudic teaching that “Anyone who transgresses and is ashamed of it is forgiven for all of his sins.”
Like anyone, Max Nordau probably regretted and felt ashamed of various decisions and actions in his life, but marrying a non-Jewish woman does not seem to be one of them. He and Anna stayed married for decades until his death in 1923.
Both Kooks were able to overlook the decidedly non-religious (if not outright anti-religious) life Nordau chose to lead. Instead of his personal choices, they focused on the central contribution he made to ensuring the reestablishment of a Jewish home in its ancestral land.
The majority of Israel’s current ruling coalition claims to be the ideological descendants of Begin and the Rabbis Kook, men who managed to have great admiration for the teachings and achievements of Nordau, even if they may have found his anti-religious, assimilationist tendencies and intermarriage reprehensible. Nedava wanted Israel to learn from Nordau 40 years ago. It’s possible the country still could today — if only the striking level of tolerance and respect with which he was considered in the past can still be summoned.
—
The post Everyone knows about Herzl. Is it time for Max Nordau, the intermarried father of Zionism, to get his due? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Iran Has Executed At Least 21 People, Arrested Over 4,000 Since Start of War With US and Israel, UN Reports
A February 2023 protest in Washington, DC calling for an end to executions and human rights violations in Iran. Photo: Reuters/ Bryan Olin Dozier
The Islamic regime in Iran has intensified efforts to oppress the civilian population through arrests and executions since the beginning of the conflict with the US and Israel, according to the United Nations.
On Wednesday, the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) revealed that Iran had executed at least 21 people and arrested more than 4,000 over the last two months, following the launch of joint US-Israeli strikes on Feb. 28.
Allegations which resulted in death sentences included espionage (two), opposition group membership (10), and involvement with protests (nine).
“In times of war, threats to human rights increase exponentially,” said Volker Türk, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.
Türk called for regime officials to “halt all further executions, establish a moratorium on the use of capital punishment, fully ensure due process and fair trial guarantees, and immediately release those arbitrarily detained.”
Iranian courts have reportedly fast-tracked convictions and sentencing in recent months, citing the war as justification.
According to the OHCHR, those detained face brutal conditions, overcrowding, and even torture to coerce confessions. The bodies of some detainees who have died in custody appear to show possible torture. Those detained also experience weaponized medical neglect, a human rights violation which has reportedly led to the deteriorating health of imprisoned Nobel laureate Narges Mohammadi.
In addition to forced confessions, Iranian judges can also resort to the principle of elm‑e‑qazi, a concept in Iran’s Islamic Penal Code which allows a guilty sentence based solely on circumstantial evidence.
Last week, Maryam Rajavi, president‑elect of the National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI), spoke about the regime’s executions at the European Parliament in Brussels.
“The mullahs are exploiting wartime conditions to resort to relentless executions to block the path of popular uprisings. Today, political prisoners face the threat of mass killing,” Rajavi said. “The silence of European Union leaders and member states is unjustifiable. And today, I wish to once again raise my voice in protest against this silence in the face of these executions.”
Rajavi added that “a number of young people have been arrested in recent weeks on charges of alleged contact with or support for the Mojahedin Organization,” referring to the People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (MEK), an Iranian opposition group.
“The names of a group of them have been submitted to and communicated to international bodies,” she said. “By order of the regime’s judiciary chief, pressure and torture on political prisoners have intensified, and their sham trials and the issuance of criminal sentences have been expedited.”
Stating that 11 political prisoners alleged to be members of the MEK face execution, Rajavi implored that “urgent action must be taken to save their lives. Our position is that a halt to executions in Iran, as a demand of the entire Iranian people, must be included in any international agreement.”
Last month, the Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA), an independent group monitoring, released a report documenting that from March 2025 to March 2026, police had arrested 78,907 people on ideological or political grounds.
Executions in the last Iranian year (covering much of calendar year 2025) reached at least 2,488, according to HRANA, with 63 of them women and two children. Drug offenses accounted for 955 executions, approximately three killings per day on average.
The Islamic regime chose to conduct 13 of the executions in public.
Earlier this month, the European groups Iran Human Rights (IHR) in Norway and Together Against the Death Penalty (ECPM) in France released a separate joint report finding that Iran executed at least 1,639 people in 2025, a 68 percent leap from the 975 killed in 2024 and the highest seen since tracking began in 2008. All known executions were reportedly conducted by hanging.
Differences in methodology partially explain the discrepancy in tallies. IHR warned in its report that the full body count is likely much higher, as the group requires two sources to confirm an execution.
Iran’s penal code offers a variety of options for killing a human being, including hanging, firing squads, and even crucifixion or stoning. Hanging was the only method used from 2008 until the firing squad execution of Kurdish political prisoner Hedayat Abdullahpour on May 11, 2020.
In executions for murder under a sentence known as qisas, the Islamic regime encourages the family members of the victim to carry out the killing themselves. IHR has received reports of family members taking advantage of what is regarded as a “right” to do so.
In cases of public executions, prison officials use cranes. This brutal method leaves the condemned suffocating and strangling, lifted above the crowds for as much as 20 minutes before their suffering can conclude.
Photographs have documented children in attendance at public executions in Iran to watch the violence and cruelty. A 2006 study found that 52 percent of 200 children who witnessed public executions in Iran later showed symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), with “88 suffering re-experiences, 24 avoidance and 62 hyperarousal.”
IHR has not found any executions by stoning since 2010, following the international outcry of the sentencing of Sakineh Ashtiani whose sentence was commuted, allowing her 2014 release.
Given the historical impact of the global community’s condemnations, Iranian officials have sought to hide human rights abuses from the world, imposing an internet blackout for 61 days since the war with the US and Israel began.
“This is denying people across the country access to vital information, silencing independent voices, and inflicting enormous social and economic harm,” Türk said. “It is exacerbating an already precarious humanitarian and economic situation and must be lifted immediately.”
Concluding her address to the European congress in Brussels, Rajavi called on the gathered representatives to implement a new policy toward Iran.
Rajavi advocated an approach that “provides the necessary technical means to ensure the Iranian people’s access to a free internet. Conditions relations with the clerical regime on an end to the execution of political prisoners and the killing of protesters. Brings the regime’s leaders to justice for crimes against humanity and genocide.”
Uncategorized
Norwegian Holocaust Center Defends Decision to Host Event Drawing Parallels Between Holocaust, Palestinian ‘Nakba’
One of the most famous pictures of Jews being rounded up by Nazi Germans during the Holocaust, this from the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising in May 1943. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.
The Norwegian Center for Holocaust and Minority Studies on Wednesday responded to backlash over its decision to host a discussion this week in which parallels will be drawn between the Holocaust and the Palestinian “Nakba” as two “cultural traumas.”
The event on Thursday will focus on the Holocaust, the so-called “Nakba,” and the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack in Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, as well as the ensuing war in Gaza.
“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. Activists often invoke the term when discussing the displacement of some 750,000 Palestinian Arabs following Israel’s War of Independence, many of whom left the nascent state for varied reasons, including that they were encouraged by Arab leaders to flee their homes to make way for the invading Arab armies. At the same time, about 850,000 Jews were forced to flee or expelled from Middle Eastern and North African countries in the 20th century, primarily in the aftermath of Israel’s declaring independence.
Thursday’s event will feature Nadim Khoury, an associate professor at the University of Inland Norway, who will explore how the Holocaust and “Nakba” are “traumas [that] have shaped Israeli and Palestinian national narratives and how they have functioned as competing cultural traumas,” according to a description of the event.
“[Khoury] will trace their trajectories since 1948 and explore how they are intertwined and how the tensions between them are shaping the path forward in Israeli and Palestinian lives,” the description further states. “What meaning, he asks, does the entanglement of the Holocaust and the Nakba gain in the shadow of October 7 and the war on Gaza?”
The event is part of the lecture series, “In the Shadow of War – the Way Forward,” which is a collaboration between the Norwegian Holocaust Center and the University of Oslo.
In a written statement to The Algemeiner on Wednesday, Jan Heiret, director of the Norwegian Holocaust Center, claimed the event will make no attempts to equate the Holocaust to the “Nakba,” despite the event’s description stating the contrary.
“The question of how the Holocaust and the Nakba as historical traumas can be understood, acknowledged, and remembered, without thereby constructing a kind of competition between trauma and victimhood, is crucial for any path to future peace and reconciliation,” he said. “To find a way out of a destructive spiral of hatred, dehumanization, and violence, we must understand the long-lasting ‘shadows’ of historical traumas. Without equating, or even putting up, the Holocaust with the Nakba – which would be a historical distortion given the events are so different in nature, course, and scope – we acknowledge that the consequences for the individuals and collectives traumatized by them are interconnected, and that the denial of the trauma of the other lies at the core of the dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”
The Israeli embassy in Norway said on Tuesday that the center’s decision to host the event is a “grotesque distortion of Holocaust memory.”
“It dishonors the memory of more than 750 Norwegian Jews murdered by the Nazis and their Norwegian collaborators, and betrays the very purpose for which this institution was established,” the embassy wrote in a post on X. “A center founded to preserve Holocaust remembrance has chosen political activism over historical responsibility. This is not education. It is moral failure. The planned events should be canceled immediately, and the center must return to its core mission: safeguarding Holocaust remembrance and confronting antisemitism – not legitimizing its modern forms.”
Israel’s official X account in French published the same statement on Tuesday.
Khoury teaches classes at the University of Inland Norway about the history of political thought and international relations. He has published literature that repeatedly accuses Israel of committing a “genocide in Gaza,” a “genocidal war,” and a “second Nakba” in Gaza during its war with the Hamas terror group. He has also written articles accusing Israel of “occupation” and “apartheid.”
When asked about Khoury’s anti-Israel comments, Heiret told The Algemeiner that he is invited to speak at Thursday’s event as “an independent scholar” and does “not speak on the behalf of” the institution. “This is a principle that guides all our events and should be well known,” he added.
Heiret added that as part of the center’s lecture series, it hosts speakers “who shed light on important aspects of what may be the consequences of the Gaza war, but also: whether there are ways out of the destructive spirals of violence, oppression, and hatred.”
As part of the series, the institution was scheduled to hold an event titled “Recognizing and Denying the Trauma of the Others,” which was set to take place on March 10 but was pushed to May 7 and then ultimately canceled. Martin Auerbach, former clinical director of the National Israeli Center for Psychosocial Support of Survivors of the Holocaust and the Second Generation (AMCHA) in Jerusalem, was invited to be a speaker at the event but had trouble traveling out of Israel due to the war with Iran, according to Heiret. The center will try to reschedule the event for the fall, he added.
Uncategorized
How to Respond to the Moment: After the Rupture, the Rebuild
Reading from a Torah scroll in accordance with Sephardi tradition. Photo: Sagie Maoz via Wikimedia Commons.
I often teach with photographs. In my Politics and geography course, I not only present arguments, data, figures, and charts, I show pictures – of faces, streets, institutions, and the lived texture of how people organize themselves into communities and nations. I keep piles of images, catalogs, and books that I return to each semester, selecting and setting aside, trying to find the picture that will do the work a paragraph of writing cannot achieve.
Wrapping up the spring semester, sorting through those piles, I came back to Maya Benton’s Roman Vishniac Rediscovered. It had been months since I had opened it. I had not used it this term and was prepared to reshelf it, and then I stopped and looked through it.
I paused and I then gasped. I had completely forgotten how hard these photographs hit.
We tend to remember Vishniac for the images he made in Eastern Europe before the war with faces marked by poverty, communities suspended between endurance and fragility, a world that now feels both intimate and impossibly distant. Those photographs read, in retrospect, like a warning. The New York photographs, taken just a few years later after Vishniac arrived in the city on New Year’s Day 1941 having escaped internment in Nazi-occupied France, read like something else. They read like a response.
At first glance, the images are almost disarmingly ordinary. Children sit in classrooms. Boys cluster in hallways. Girls lean over desks. There are games, gatherings, moments of quiet instruction and supervised play. Nothing announces itself as extraordinary. But the longer you look, the more deliberate everything appears. These are not scenes of life unfolding. They are scenes of life being organized.
Benton’s scholarship makes the construction explicit. Many of these photographs were commissioned by the Joint Distribution Committee and other Jewish philanthropic organizations documenting and in some sense justifying the work they were doing in a new American context. Settlement houses, community centers, schools, youth programs: the infrastructure of a transplanted community. The camera was not wandering. It was directed. It was capturing not just people, but systems. As the historian Hasia Diner observes in her essay for the Benton volume, the Jewish child in New York is the emotional and strategic center of this archive; photographed again and again, by a people who understood that the next generation was the plan.
The contrast is unmistakable when you hold the two bodies of work together. In Europe, Vishniac’s subjects often appear precarious even when dignified: children thin, environments worn, futures uncertain. In New York, the children are sturdy, structured, embedded in institutions designed to carry them forward. They are not simply living Jewish lives. They are being prepared for them.
Preparation, here, is everything.
After the Shoah, Jewish life did not regenerate spontaneously. It was rebuilt — deliberately, systematically, and often quietly — through institutions. Schools transmitted identity. Community centers created belonging. Camps, classrooms, and after-school programs became the mechanisms through which a dispersed and traumatized people ensured that there would be a future at all. Continuity and formation was not treated as an inheritance. It was treated as a responsibility. L’dor v’dor – “from generation to generation” – was not taken or considered a sentimental phrase. It is a theory of formation and resilience, and these photographs are what it looks like in practice.
I closed the book thinking about my son. He is coming into his own now and he loves being Jewish. He asks questions; real ones, the ones that may you pause and think about how to answer, the kind that do not settle for a first answer. He is looking for community in a world that has made plain, in the months since October 7, that it is not always on his side. He wants to know where he fits, who his people are, what tradition is asking of him. He wants to belong to something older and larger than himself.
And I find myself asking a question that Vishniac’s New York children never had to ask on their own behalf, because the adults around them had already answered it. Will the institutions be there? Will there be places where my son can practice being Jewish with other Jews, learn the texts, observe the holidays, form the friendships that last, and develop the habits of mind and values that make a Jewish life possible? Being Jewish is not a solo activity. It is inherently social, communal, structured. It requires spaces, budgets, teachers, clergy, tables, calendars. It requires other people showing up, year after year, for reasons that are not reducible to individual preference.
The data are not encouraging. Pew’s 2020 study of Jewish Americans documented significant declines in synagogue membership and attendance, in denominational identification, in day school enrollment, in attachment to Israel. Jack Wertheimer, writing in Tablet, described non-Orthodox congregations as “hemorrhaging members, aging, merging, and closing.” The institutional map that Vishniac photographed has, in many American cities, thinned considerably. Buildings are sold. Schools consolidate. Federations struggle. The scaffolding that was built in the 1940s has not been uniformly maintained.
And yet the UJA-Federation of New York’s 2025 recontact study — conducted after October 7 — found that a majority of Jewish adults in New York reported increased engagement in some form of Jewish life since the attacks. While not a national study, roughly one in five in New York reported increased participation in specifically communal Jewish life: attending Jewish museums, cultural events, adult education, JCCs, Chabad. Synagogue attendance, by some measures, ticked up. People showed up. They wanted to be with other Jews. They wanted to do Jewish things in Jewish places.
That is the Vishniac parallel made present in his images. In the 1940s, the institutions were built before anyone could be certain who would fill them. Today, the people are arriving and searching despite being wounded over the past few years, and the question is whether the institutions are still there, and strong enough, to receive them. The 1940s answer was construction. The 2020s answer has to be the same. Reconstituting. Reformulating. Rethinking and rebuilding what has atrophied and building anew where the old forms no longer fit and apply.
This is often described as resilience. Resilience is too soft a word in today’s situation. What Vishniac documented, and what this moment demands, is something closer to discipline; the kind that prioritizes long-term survival over short-term ease, that invests in institutions even when the payoff is not immediate, that understands community as something to be maintained rather than merely felt. It is the work of people who do not assume that identity will take care of itself.
I want my son to inherit a Jewish life that is thick rather than thin and authentically rooted rather than curated with a focus on the communal and the individual. I want him to walk into synagogues and schools and camps and community centers that are full, confident, and alive and are places built by people who understood, as Vishniac’s subjects understood, that continuity is not ambient or emerges by fiat. It is constructed.
The Vishniac photographs do not tell us what to build. They do something more useful. They remind us that building is the work, and that the work does not end with one generation. The men and women who commissioned those photographs are gone. The children in them are now old or gone. The institutions they built have carried us this far.
Whether they carry our children further is up to us.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
