Uncategorized
Fighting an Empire Isn’t Terrorism — But Intentionally Targeting and Murdering Civilians Is
The aftermath of the suicide bombing at the Sbarro pizzeria in Jerusalem on Aug. 9, 2001, that killed 15 people, including two Americans, and wounded around 130 others. Photo: Flash90.
A few days ago, I watched Haviv Rettig Gur respond on Instagram to a question I’ve been asked more times than I can count: “Didn’t the Jews use terrorism to drive out the British?”
Every pro-Israel advocate — and likely every proud Jew — has faced this question, usually delivered with a smirk. That little “gotcha” glint that implies moral equivalence: Your state was born out of terror, how dare you complain about buses being blown up and babies being murdered.
But the moral chasm between the Jewish fight against the British and Palestinian terrorism is not a matter of opinion or spin. It is moral and historical fact. The refusal to recognize that difference says far more about the questioner’s bias or ignorance than about Israel and how it gained independence.
Imperial Subjects and Stateless Refugees
When the British Empire seized control of the region called Palestine from the Ottomans in 1917, Jewish leaders saw them not as occupiers but as potential partners in restoring Jewish sovereignty. The Balfour Declaration had promised a “national home for the Jewish people” in part of what was then called Palestine — the historical Land of Israel — and the San Remo Conference of 1920 enshrined that promise in binding international law.
But within a few short years, Britain retreated from its commitments. London carved away three-quarters of the land that was meant for the Mandate to create a new Arab-only country called Transjordan, appointed the radical Haj Amin al-Husseini as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem — a man who would later collaborate with the Nazis — and, in 1939, on the eve of the Holocaust, issued its infamous White Paper, sealing the gates of the remaining quarter of Mandatory Palestine to Jewish immigration.
At the very moment Jews in Europe were facing extermination, Britain blocked their only escape route. The United States had already closed its doors; Canada, Argentina, Australia, and nearly every other nation followed suit. As Hitler’s armies advanced, Jews had nowhere to go.
Fighting an Empire With Nowhere to Go
By 1945, roughly 250,000 Jewish survivors remained trapped on German soil, living in displaced-person camps — many in former concentration camps. The world by then largely knew about the horror of the Holocaust and still left them stateless. Only in May 1948, when Israel declared independence, did those camps finally begin to empty.
People often say the Jews “kicked the British out.” The truth is more complex. Britain’s empire was already collapsing; the loss of India made Palestine an even more expensive burden. But the Jewish undergrounds — particularly the Irgun and Lehi — hastened Britain’s withdrawal.
Their campaign was fierce but targeted. They targeted railways, communications, and military installations — not civilians. Their message was simple: Go home.
The King David Hotel bombing in 1946 — endlessly cited by Israel’s detractors — was aimed at the British military and intelligence headquarters for all of Palestine and Transjordan. Civilians tragically died, including Jews and Arabs, but the target was military. Crucially, the Irgun phoned in a warning to evacuate. The British ignored it.
Menachem Begin, who led the Irgun, was devastated by the civilian deaths. That reaction matters. It shows the moral line the Jewish fighters recognized — a line no Palestinian faction, from the PLO to Hamas, has ever cared to draw.
The Lesson the Palestinians Haven’t Learned
Imagine if Palestinians had followed that same model — if their fight had been confined to soldiers and military targets. Instead, since the 1950s, Palestinian terrorism has centered on murdering civilians as a deliberate strategy: to terrorize, to try and make Jewish life unbearable, and to drive Jews from their homeland.
From the Ma’ale Akrabim massacre in 1954 to the airline hijackings of the 1970s, from suicide bombings in the 1990s to the atrocities of October 7, the goal has remained constant — not self-determination but the mass murder of civilians to break a people’s will.
During the Second Intifada, 140+ suicide bombings ripped through Israeli buses, cafés, and markets. These attacks weren’t meant to change borders; they were meant to destroy coexistence itself.
The Moral Core — and the Fatal Misreading
As Haviv Rettig Gur observed, the Jews who fought the British never sought Britain’s destruction; they sought Israel’s rebirth. That distinction — between fighting for freedom and fighting for annihilation — is the essential moral divide.
It’s why Israel built a democracy while Gaza’s rulers built a cult of death. It’s why Jewish leaders accepted the 1937 and 1947 partition plans, choosing half a loaf over endless war, while the Mandate’s Arab leaders — led by the Mufti who sided with Hitler — rejected both.
When the Palestinian Authority, Fatah, and Hamas gained control of territory, they didn’t try to build a state; they built repression, corruption, and terror infrastructure. Jewish leaders, by contrast, used the small strip of land they held after the War of Independence in 1948 to build a thriving democracy.
The Zionist militias before 1948 understood something Palestinian leaders never have: the British were foreign rulers who could leave. The Jews are indigenous and will not. Israelis are not “colonizers” in any part of the historic Land of Israel. They are a people who reclaimed sovereignty and self-determination in their ancestral home.
Any Palestinian leadership that continues to see Jews as the British in 1939 — as temporary outsiders to be expelled — guarantees only endless conflict. Israel’s founders fought not merely for survival, but to restore moral agency and national self-respect after 2,000 years of exile and persecution – in both Arab and European controlled lands. That is the revolution Palestinians have never attempted — the decision to undertake nation-building instead of defining it by someone else’s destruction.
The Moral Ledger of History
Today, when many Western academics and activists equate Jewish efforts to end British imperial rule with Hamas’ slaughter of civilians, they expose their own moral illiteracy. They flatten history until those who targeted soldiers are equated with those who butcher children in pizza parlors and buses.
But history keeps receipts.
One side sought life. The other glorified destruction.
That is the difference between a revolt and terrorism — and it’s a difference the world ignores at its peril.
For peace ever to be possible, Israelis must have real reasons to believe Palestinians no longer see them as the British of 1939 — but as a permanent, indigenous people who are not going anywhere.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, antisemitism, and Jewish history and serves on the board of Herut North America.
Uncategorized
New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America
The new documentary Immigrant Songs: Yiddish Theater and the American Jewish Experience, produced by the Milken Archive of Jewish Music, is fast, entertaining and a good introduction to the topic.
Focusing mainly on the musical side of the story, but covering ‘straight plays’ as well, the film opens with a superb ‘warm-up act’: “Hu Tsa Tsa,” a stock Yiddish vaudeville number performed by the widely mourned Bruce Adler, who died in 2008 at age 63. Bursting with charm and talent, Adler, scion of a top Yiddish vaudeville family, demonstrates that Yiddish theater used to be pretty damned lively.
What follows is the oft-told story of the rise and decline of the American Yiddish theater, beginning with its prehistory in the Purimshpiels — the annual performances that for centuries served as the only secular entertainment in the Ashkenazic world. From there the film takes us to Yiddish theater’s 1876 birth in Romania, courtesy of Avrom Goldfadn, a.k.a. “The Father of Yiddish Theater.”
The film also describes Yiddish theater’s arrival in America, which, thanks to massive Jewish immigration, quickly became its capital. We learn of its influence on American theater’s styles of acting and set design. And the film describes the decline of its audience, due to assimilation and the immigration quotas of the 1920s.
There’s an excellent section on “The Big Four” Yiddish theater composers — Joseph Rumshinsky, Alexander Olshanetsky, Abe Ellstein, and Sholom Secunda. All in all, the documentary does a fine job of teaching the aleph-beyz, the ABCs, of the history of Yiddish theater to the uninitiated.
The most impressive aspect of Immigrant Songs is its well-crafted pace. Though there are a few snippets of vintage Yiddish cinema (Yiddish theater’s “kid brother”), most of the film consists of recent concert footage, some well-selected photographs and ephemera, and a lot of talking heads. Almost every prominent Yiddish theater historian was interviewed for it, along with several musicologists, an archivist, Yiddish actors, directors, producers, etc. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) Director Jeff Janeczko cuts between the interviewees so smoothly — sometimes in mid-sentence — that it feels like they’re in the same room and feeding off each other’s energy. The movie just flies by.
There are a few errors. Marc Chagall is described as an important designer of Yiddish theater; actually he designed one minor production in Russia in 1921, and never did another. In a bizarre, and biblically illiterate, statement, one interviewee claims that Jews hadn’t developed a theater culture earlier because the Second Commandment’s prohibition of “graven images” forbade the construction of sets. (Actually it’s about idol worship.)
Another interviewee claims that the Yiddish play Der Yeshiva Bokher; oder, Der Yudisher Hamlet — The Yeshiva Student; or, The Jewish Hamlet (Yiddish plays then often had subtitles), is closely patterned on Shakespeare’s tragedy. In truth, the play — written by Isidore Zolotarevski, the prolific writer of shund (“trash”) melodramas — is not only awful, but is as close to Shakespeare as baked ham is to your grandmother’s kreplach.
The film’s biggest fault, however, is its short running time (45 minutes). This is a rich topic, and too much is left by the wayside in the interest of brevity. There’s nothing about what shund melodramas felt like, why they appealed to their audiences, and why they became the only thing a lot of people know about Yiddish theater.
There’s also nothing about the World War I-era wave of shtetl plays, which reflected immigrants’ homesickness without indulging in nostalgia, and provided some of Yiddish theater’s shining moments with plays like Green Fields, The Empty Inn and Tevye. And the most important play in the Yiddish canon, The Dybbuk, is never mentioned.
Perhaps most surprisingly, considering the film’s emphasis on music, there is no examination of Yiddish theater’s influence on Broadway’s music. (Cole Porter — ironically, the only gentile among the major composers of Broadway’s Golden Age — had a pronounced Jewish lilt in a number of his songs, and he actually attended Yiddish theater regularly.)
The film’s last section is about the renewed interest in Yiddish that began in the 1970s and ’80s with the klezmer revival. Much of it focuses on the 2018 Yiddish production of Fiddler on the Roof in Yiddish, whose success was predetermined the moment the production was announced.
For the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from the Orthodox to the unaffiliated, Fiddler is all they know about the lives of their ancestors. And though it’s a world-class piece of musical theater, as a work of social history Fiddler is as phony as a glass eye. Nevertheless, for American Jews it’s a sacred text.
Fiddler was a huge hit, but it was a gimmick, a one-off, whose success does very little for the future of Yiddish theater. Worse, the Yiddish — not the text, but the lines spoken by most of the actors — was often mispronounced and had the wrong intonation. (One elderly gentleman of my acquaintance, a native Yiddish speaker from Czechoslovakia, told me he didn’t understand a word the actors said, and spent the whole evening reading the English supertitles.)
What follows the Fiddler section in Immigrant Songs is mostly bromides. But the best current Yiddish theater reflects the kind of fresh thinking that keeps the form alive.
An occasional well-presented museum piece, like the Folksbiene’s 2016 revival of Rumshinsky’s operetta The Golden Bride, is a very worthwhile project (though it, too, suffered from poorly spoken Yiddish). But the most dynamic contemporary Yiddish theater is, in Jeffrey Shandler’s apt phrase, “post vernacular” — i .e., the use of Yiddish is self-conscious, a deliberate choice rather than something that’s done automatically, as it would have been a century ago when there were a lot more Yiddish speakers in the world.
An example of this is the 2017 neo-realist film Menashe, which could far more easily and conventionally have been made in English. Or a well-known piece done in Yiddish translation, like Shane Baker’s stunning Yiddish translation of Waiting for Godot, can become something much more valuable than a mere stunt. The Yiddish version, under Moshe Yassur’s straightforward direction, humanized the play, stripping it of the encrusted pretentiousness that had hidden its soul. (When it was presented in the International Samuel Beckett Festival in Ireland, multiple audience members approached the cast afterwards with the same reaction: “I don’t speak a word of Yiddish. But I’ve seen Godot five or six times, and this is the first time I understood it.”)
There’s a lot to be learned from Immigrant Songs. If you find yourself hungry for more, you couldn’t do better than to seek out YIVO’s online Yiddish theater course “Oh, Mama, I’m in Love!” But by all means, start with Immigrant Songs. It’s a very entertaining and informative appetizer.
The post New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK PM Starmer Says There Could Be New Powers to Ban Pro-Palestinian Marches
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media statement at Downing Street in London, Britain, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jack Taylor/File photo
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances because of the “cumulative effect” the demonstrations had on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.
Starmer told the BBC that he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but chants like “Globalize the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and those voicing them should be prosecuted.
Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.
Protesters have argued they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.
Starmer said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.
Asked if the tougher response should focus on chants and banners, or whether the protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”
“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to look at what further powers it could take.
Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.
“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”
Uncategorized
War Likely to Resume After Trump’s Rejection of Latest Proposal, Says IRGC General
Iranians carry a model of a missile during a celebration following an IRGC attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
i24 News – A senior Iranian military figure said that fighting with the US was “likely” to resume after President Donald Trump stated he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposal, regime media reported on Saturday.
The comments of General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, one of the top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, were relayed by the Fars news agency, considered as a mouthpiece of the the powerful paramilitary body.
“Evidence has shown that the Americans do not not adhere to any commitments,” Asadi was quoted as saying.
He further added that Washington’s decision-making was “primarily media-driven aimed first at preventing a drop in oil prices and second at extricating themselves from the mess they have created.”
Iranian armed forces are ready “for any new adventures or foolishness from the Americans,” he said, going to assert that the Iran war would prove for the US a tragedy comparable with what was for Israel the October 7 massacre.
“Just as our martyred Leader said that the Zionist regime will never be the same as before the Al‑Aqsa Storm operation [the name chosen by Hamas leadership for the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel], the United States will also never return to what it was before its attack on Iran,” he said. “The world has understood the true nature of America, and no matter how much malice it shows now, it is no longer the America that many once feared.”