Uncategorized
How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports
(JTA) — Decades before Sandy Koufax sat out the first game of the 1965 World Series because it fell on Yom Kippur, and 18 years before Greenberg chased Babe Ruth’s single-season home run record in the late 1930s, a college athlete made some overlooked Jewish sports history.
Arnold Horween, a burly Chicagoan, became the first Jewish captain of the Harvard University football team in 1920 — an achievement that sent ripples through American culture.
Horween, who would later play and coach in the early years of what would become the NFL, was born to Jewish immigrants from Ukraine. He became a star player at Harvard, helping the Crimson go undefeated in both 1919 and 1920 after returning from serving in World War I. (His brother Ralph also played at Harvard and in the NFL, and they were the first and only Jewish brothers to play in the NFL until Geoff and Mitchell Schwartz.)
But it was Horween’s unanimous selection as the team’s captain, and more importantly, his appointment in 1926 as the team’s coach, that would prove unprecedented.
“In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson, the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes,” said Zev Eleff, the president of Gratz College and a scholar of American Jewish history.
Eleff explores Horween’s story and its impact in his recent book, “Dyed in Crimson: Football, Faith, and Remaking Harvard’s America,” released earlier this year. He traces the history of Harvard athletics in the early 1900s, exploring how Horween, along with Harvard’s first athletic director, Bill Bingham, altered the landscape of America’s most prestigious college.
Horween’s ascendance came at a time when Harvard instituted quotas to limit the number of Jewish and other minority students it accepted — a practice the school would employ throughout the 1920s and 30s. His story also took place amid a political landscape that featured the rise of Father Charles Coughlin, the antisemitic “radio priest,” and the reemergence of the Ku Klux Klan.
As Eleff underscores in the book, Horween did not fit the model of a “Boston Brahmin,” the class of elite, Christian, aspirationally manly men whose supremacy was unquestioned at Harvard Yard. Horween broke that mold, instead instilling a team culture where a love of the sport was almost as important as winning — the Ted Lasso effect, if you will.
“Dyed in Crimson” also uses early 20th century Harvard as an allegory for the broader theme of how sports can change society.
“The theme of the book, something that’s uniquely American, is how the periphery can influence the mainstream,” said Eleff. “How people on the sidelines can really make an influence.”
Eleff spoke to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency about how Horween’s story fits into the pantheon of Jewish American sports legends and what it says about Jews’ ability to succeed in America.
This conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Let’s dig into Horween’s story. I liked the idea of him as like an earlier version of Koufax or a Greenberg, but to be honest, I had never heard of him. Why do you think his story isn’t as well known as other Jewish athletes?
I think it has everything to do with the emergence of Major League Baseball. College football was America’s sport in the 1910s and 1920s. It was a big money sport, when there was very little money outside of the New York Yankees. And I think that Horween’s star started to sort of decline with Harvard football, but also the emergence of other sports.
The other reason is because the idea of the Jewish ballplayer loomed large. The New York Giants, for decades, tried to identify a Jewish superstar. They actually passed on Greenberg. There was a thought after Greenberg that there was Jewish DNA for baseball, and the signing of Koufax was directly linked to this notion. It was this eugenics-like link that you need a Jewish ballplayer. For the Giants, it was ticket sales. So the commotion about Greenberg and Koufax is more about Jewish identity. And baseball is, as a professional sport in New York, Queens, Brooklyn, the Bronx, different than college football, particularly in New England at this time. Frankly, Jews lived near the Polo Grounds, they didn’t live near Harvard Yard.
Arnold Horween shown in The Baltimore Sun on November 16, 1927. (Wikimedia Commons)
For Horween, obviously he’s not at the level of a Greenberg or Koufax talent-wise, but he also didn’t seem to care as much personally about his Jewish identity. You write in the book that there were some Jews who took issue with the fact that Horween was not practicing, but there were also many Jews who were simply proud he was Jewish. What do you think about that dynamic?
There becomes a sort of disconnect between lived religion and the perception and what they come to represent — the mantle that they wear almost towers above the practice. Horween eschewed the opportunity to claim the mantle of Jewish leadership, Jewish celebrity. But we do see in its moment that he is the topic of rabbinic sermons, that The American Hebrew and other Jewish press are reporting on him. They are elated. In American Jewish culture, the only thing greater than being the captain of the Harvard Crimson — it’s hard for people to realize, but in the moment when they were part of the big three [alongside Princeton and Yale] — the only higher station in American culture might have been the president, or the coach of Harvard, which he eventually becomes.
One of the parts of this book that I enjoyed learning about is the extent to which college football in the early 20th century was all about honor, masculinity, gentlemanliness. And at the time, that kind of stands in contrast to how Jews were viewed — that Jews were not masculine, Jews couldn’t fit into that mold of the “Harvard man.”
Being on the sports team, that was probably far beyond Jewish expectations. Not to say that Jews could not be athletic, but very often the varsity players weren’t picked for their talent but rather their surnames. What the sea change at Harvard is, [within] gentlemanly culture — in which “gentlemanly” is a Protestant, Christian masculinity — Horween is not Protestant. What allows him a pathway into that elite group is that drive to win. And as a player, he’s good luck. He never loses. He becomes a signature player for victory who even wins the Rose Bowl.
But as a coach, he subverts that. What he and Bill Bingham do is their campaign isn’t necessarily for winning, it’s for having fun, it’s for enjoying the game.
In the 1910s and 20s, college football was the peak of American sports, but that’s certainly not the case anymore. What do you think would be the modern comparison for someone like Horween?
Is Becky Hammon with the Spurs, the first woman [to act as] head coach in basketball, something like that? Or the very important discussions about people of color as coaches in the NFL? Sports and education are, for some reason or another, where change is made in American life. Brown v. Board of Education in 1954 ends, at least officially, segregation. Title IV, what is basically American law for anti-discrimination based on sex, is based on women’s college sports. You have the breaking down of color barriers and Jackie Robinson, Muhammad Ali and Vietnam. You have the first [openly] gay athletes, you have questions of breaking the glass ceiling for women and Serena Williams.
It’s absolutely 100% true that sports doesn’t matter. Who wins the World Series is of no great consequence to most people’s lives. Although it’s interesting, if you drive up I-95 on a Sunday, you will see that the bumper stickers and the flags change. There is some sort of passion, obviously, about sport. But it’s absolutely true that for some reason or another in the 20th century and 21st century in American sport, really important social and cultural decisions, and political decisions, are made in American sport.
Zev Eleff, president of Gratz College and author of “Dyed in Crimson.” (Courtesy)
Another main topic in the book is that the goal for immigrants, especially Jews, was Americanization, assimilation — that to become part of the mainstream was the marker of success. But that seems to be the case for Jews in a very different sense than it is for Catholics and for Blacks.
The major contribution of this book to American Jewish history beyond telling this story is to complicate notions of Americanization. Jews and Catholics in particular view Americanization very, very differently. The Catholic experience is to create parallel systems. If you’re a good Catholic boy with immense football talent, play for Notre Dame, play for Boston College. Don’t play for the Protestant mainstream. Cream them on the football field. Create parallel systems.
The Jewish experience is not so. Outside of Orthodox day schools in the early 20th century, it was anathema, it was considered almost heretical, for American Jews to [go] to private schools. To the contrary, the so-called golden citadels of the public schools — that is the agent of Americanization. Jews don’t establish their own educational systems. They somehow Americanize and acculturate into the mainstream. We don’t compete with Harvard, we get into Harvard.
Thinking about the antisemitism of that time — the quotas, Father Coughlin, all of that — how do you think that compares to what we’re seeing today?
Historians disagree about the 1920s. Was it a time of great prominence of American Jews? There was affluence in the roaring ’20s. There were institutions that were created, there was creativity, from the Orthodox and Mordecai Kaplan certainly, across the board, the Jewish Theological Seminary. American Judaism was at a certain high point in the 1920s. At the same time, there were quotas, and there was rising antisemitism. I think today we also have to deal with the tension of, on the one hand, there are great opportunities for Jews in the United States; at the same time, there is antisemitism. And so from the 1920s to the 2020s, 100 years later, you see a model for how to grapple with those tensions.
What do you hope, more than anything else, someone takes away or learns from your book?
It’s a book that begins like a punch line: a working class Protestant, a Catholic and a Jew walk into a football field. But it ends with something I think a lot more pronounced, which is, it’s a story about change. As a historian, I study change, particularly in American Judaism, broadly in American religion and Jewish Studies. Change is the best asset that a historian has to study. I wasn’t interested in just finding another Sandy Koufax story, replicating that story. This is a story that isn’t just about a Jew who happened for his moment to become quite successful and quite famous, or a Catholic or a former mill hand turned first athletic director in college history. It’s really about how people on the periphery influence the mainstream.
—
The post How Arnold Horween, an unsung Jewish Harvard hero, changed American sports appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israeli Defense Chief Says Hezbollah Will Be Disarmed, Terror Group Vows Continued ‘Resistance’ as Truce Begins
Smoke rises following an airstrike in Lebanon, as seen from Israeli side of the border, April 11, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Amir Cohen
As a newly agreed ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon took effect, Israel’s defense minister warned on Friday that Hezbollah will ultimately be disarmed and Israeli forces will not withdraw from Lebanese territory, vowing the campaign will continue until the threat to Israel’s northern communities is fully eliminated.
During a press conference, Israel Katz said the military campaign had entered a temporary “freeze” phase under a 10-day ceasefire framework. However, he stressed that Israel’s operational objectives on the ground remain unfinished and the maneuver is far from complete.
“The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] will continue to hold all positions it has cleared and taken inside Lebanon,” the Israeli defense chief said. “The ground operation and nationwide strikes against Hezbollah have achieved significant gains, but the mission is not yet complete.”
“Disarming Hezbollah — whether through military force or political pressure — was and remains the central objective of the campaign to which we are committed,” he continued. “Significant political leverage has now also been created, with the direct involvement of US President [Donald Trump] and increased pressure on the Lebanese government to advance that goal.”
Katz’s remarks came shortly after the Iran-back Lebanese terrorist group issued a defiant statement rejecting the ceasefire and any prospect of direct negotiations with Jerusalem, while vowing its forces would continue resisting Israeli troops.
“Our fighters will keep their hands on the trigger, preparing for the enemy’s betrayal and violation of its commitments. We will remain loyal to the alliance until our last breath, and our flag will not fall,” the statement read.
“The presence of Israeli forces on Lebanese territory gives Lebanon and the Lebanese people the right to resist,” it continued.
Meanwhile, residents across southern Lebanon, Beirut, and other parts of the country began making their way back home as the ceasefire took effect, with social media footage showing reconstruction work already underway on infrastructure damaged during the war.
However, Israel has warned Lebanese citizens against returning to their homes at this stage, with officials saying that Hezbollah could try to exploit the situation to reestablish its terrorist infrastructure under civilian cover.
“With the ceasefire agreement taking effect, the IDF will continue to hold its positions in southern Lebanon in light of Hezbollah’s terrorist activity,” Col. Avichai Edraei, the IDF spokesperson in Arabic, said in a statement.
“Until further notice, you are asked not to move south of the Litani River,” he continued. “If the fire resumes, those who return to the security zone will be forced to evacuate in order to allow the mission to be completed.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also signaled that Israel does not intend to withdraw its forces from Lebanese territory, saying the military is establishing what he described as a “thickened security zone” along the border area.
“That’s where we are – and we’re not leaving,” the Israeli leader said in a video statement issued on Thursday.
Netanyahu also said the opportunity for a ceasefire emerged only after what he described as a dramatic shift in Lebanon’s strategic balance of power since the start of the war.
He pointed to major blows to Hezbollah’s military capabilities, including the killing of its longtime leader Hassan Nasrallah in 2024 and the subsequent destruction of large weapons stockpiles, saying these developments led to calls from Lebanese officials for direct peace talks for the first time in decades.
With negotiations now underway toward a longer-term arrangement, Netanyahu said Israel’s position rests on two core demands: the full disarmament of Hezbollah and a “sustainable” security-based peace framework.
For its part, Hezbollah insisted any agreement must include a complete Israeli withdrawal from Lebanese territory and adherence to a reciprocal “quiet for quiet”” arrangement — terms Israel has rejected.
Netanyahu also warned that Hezbollah, which openly seeks Israel’s destruction, still retains a significant rocket arsenal, saying neutralizing that threat will remain a central component of the ongoing security and political process.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, nearly half of the roughly 8,000 rockets fired by Hezbollah during the war were launched from the southern Litani River region — an area that, under previous agreements, was supposed to be fully demilitarized.
The newly agreed ceasefire, which took effect Thursday-Friday at midnight, establishes a fixed 10-day window intended “to allow for good-faith negotiations toward a permanent security and peace agreement.”
As part of direct mediation efforts from Washington, Trump invited Netanyahu and Lebanese President Joseph Aoun to White House talks aimed at advancing a broader settlement framework.
According to the US Department of State, the Lebanese government pledged to take “significant steps” to prevent Hezbollah from launching further attacks against Israeli targets.
“Both countries recognize the challenge posed by armed groups that violate Lebanon’s sovereignty and threaten regional stability … The only forces authorized to bear arms in Lebanon will be Lebanese government forces,” an official statement from the meeting said.
“Israel will retain its right to take all necessary measures for self-defense, at any time, against planned, immediate or sustained attacks,” it continued.
Uncategorized
Despite Winning New Jersey Special Election, Anti-Israel Candidate Underperforms in Heavily Jewish Town
Analilia Mejia, Democratic candidate for New Jersey’s 11th Congressional District, speaks to guests after winning the election in Montclair, New Jersey, US, April 16, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Eduardo Munoz
In Thursday night’s US congressional election in the 11th district of New Jersey, Jewish voters seemed to defect from the Democratic nominee in massive numbers, potentially foreshadowing a significant shift in Jewish voting patterns.
Analilia Mejia, a progressive activist known for her sharp condemnations of Israel, comfortably won the special congressional election in New Jersey in the deep-blue district by a margin of 60 percent to 40 percent.
Despite defeating her Republican opponent by 20 points, however, pundits pointed out that Mejia underperformed expectations and that Democrats hemorrhaged support among heavily Jewish communities.
In Livingston, New Jersey, a town with a significant Jewish population, Mejia barely eked out a 51-49 majority over Joe Hathaway, a staggering sea-change from recent elections. The deep-blue town voted for Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill and Democratic presidential nominee Kamala Harris by margins of 0.5 and 12 points, respectively. Taking into account party registration, the town has seen a shift to the political right by over 50 percent since 2024.
Though Mejia won Thursday’s race by a comfortable margin, experts pointed out that the progressive insurgent underperformed throughout the affluent suburban district. When taking into account party registration patterns, Mejia underperformed in Millburn by 23 points, North Caldwell by 10 points, South Orange by 7 points, and West Caldwell by 6 points, among others.
Spectators suggested that Mejia’s impressive margin of victory could be attributed to anti-Trump sentiment and massive turnout among Democrats and depressed turnout from Republicans.
Mejia’s positions on Israel, once considered fringe within the party, are increasingly becoming more mainstream, particularly in elections dominated by liberal voters. Her rhetoric on Israel, which critics say is one-sided and inflammatory, has drawn backlash from moderates and pro-Israel Democrats.
The outcome raises fresh questions about the party’s direction heading into national elections. While progressives see momentum, others worry candidates like Mejia could alienate Jewish and moderate voters while complicating efforts to maintain a broad electoral coalition. Her victory is likely to deepen internal party tensions, especially as debates over Israel grow more polarized and politically charged.
Mejia has said Israel’s actions in Gaza amount to “genocide,” a position that put her well to the left of many mainstream Democrats. She has aligned herself with calls for stronger conditions, or outright opposition, to US military support for Israel, reflecting the broader progressive wing’s push to reassess the traditional US-Israel relationship. She has also aimed sharp criticism toward the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the preeminent pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, calling the organization “horrendous” and accusing it of dividing the Democratic Party.
A progressive organizer with a record of criticizing Israeli government actions, Mejia benefited from a coalition of younger voters, activists, and highly engaged ideological blocs. Her win is consistent with recent polling trends showing a generational divide within the party, with younger Democrats expressing more skepticism toward Israel than older cohorts.
Mejia’s struggles in heavily Jewish and moderate areas of the district could forecast a split between the Democratic Party and what has been historically one of its most reliable voting blocs.
Since Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel launched the Gaza war, the Democratic Paty’s rhetoric toward Israel has become increasingly hostile. Progressive Democrats, such as Reps. Ilhan Omar (MN) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), have accused Israel of committing “genocide” in Gaza.
This past week, approximately 80 percent of Democratic senators voted to halt military aid transfers to Israel, citing poor humanitarian conditions in Gaza and dismay over the US-Israeli war with Iran.
Uncategorized
Who’s responsible for deadly antisemitism? Everyone will hate the answer
Twenty Jews outside of the state of Israel were murdered for being Jewish in antisemitic attacks across three continents in 2025, the highest death toll among diaspora Jews in more than 30 years. In every country surveyed, antisemitic incidents of all kinds — including beatings, vandalism, threats and online harassment — remain dozens of percentage points higher than they were in 2022, before the Gaza war began.
This information, released in a report from Tel Aviv University on the eve of Yom HaShoah earlier this week, should haunt everyone, regardless of political affiliation.
Neither left nor right is wholly responsible; instead, the report concludes that “rather than a backlash to a specific geopolitical crisis, high levels of antisemitism have become a normalized feature in societies with large Jewish minorities.”
What the left should hear
There is a strain of progressive opinion, particularly vocal since the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, that dismisses accusations of antisemitism as, essentially, a political weapon — a tool wielded by pro-Israel voices to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli government policy, shut down protests and conflate opposition to political Zionism with hatred of Jews.
There is some truth to this narrative. But the Tel Aviv University report reveals it has severe limitations, as well.
The Bondi Beach massacre did not happen because a government defined antisemitism too broadly. The synagogue attackers in Manchester, England did not gun down worshippers because someone misapplied the IHRA definition. The victims of attacks in Boulder, Colorado and Washington, D.C. were not statistics manufactured by an advocacy group. Twenty Diaspora Jews died violent deaths because antisemitism remains a lethal force in the world — a truth that the left, across the globe, needs to do a significantly better job addressing.
The physical assaults, murders, firebombings, and other acts of concrete violence chronicled in the report cannot be rationalized away as mere criticism of Israel. In Canada, incidents rose from roughly 2,000 in 2022 to 6,800 in 2025. In Australia, the total number of reported antisemitic incidents rose from 472 in 2022 to 1,750 in 2025 — nearly a fourfold increase in three years, including multiple arson attacks on synagogues, in addition to the Bondi Beach shooting.
The tendency among some progressives to dismiss most antisemitism complaints as presumed to be in bad-faith unless proven otherwise has real costs. When allegations of antisemitism are reflexively treated as a political tactic, it becomes easier to ignore actual antisemitism, even when it’s claiming lives and burning down religious buildings.
To be clear, there are real and important questions about how to define antisemitism, and where the line between good faith criticism of Israel as a nation-state and antisemitism against Jews as a people falls. Those questions must continue to be asked.
But when Jewish institutions are targeted and a primary political reflex on the left is to search for Israeli wrongdoing that might have “provoked” the attack, the victims are abandoned.
What the right — and the Israeli government — should hear
The Tel Aviv University report challenges progressive denial. But it challenges the Israeli government and its defenders just as directly.
The report’s authors write that Israeli politicians at the highest levels have “expanded the scope of the term ‘antisemitism,’ including through cynical and hasty declarations, drained it of meaning, and damaged the struggle against Jew-hatred.”
The government, they conclude, “has not contributed in any meaningful way to the cause” of fighting antisemitism against diaspora Jews.
This is not a minor complaint buried in a footnote. It is a central finding of the most authoritative antisemitism report on the planet, published by an Israeli university.
Consider what that behavior looked like in practice. When gunmen massacred 15 Jews at Bondi Beach in December, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s immediate political instinct was to blame Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s government, specifically its decision to recognize Palestinian statehood at the United Nations.
“Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire,” Netanyahu declared — a response that made it seem like an act of violence motivated by the Islamic State was somehow part of the legitimate pro-Palestinian movement. As former Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull pointed out, the vast majority of the world’s nations recognize Palestinian statehood. Were they all complicit in Bondi?
This pattern of using the word “antisemitism” as a cudgel against any policy position that Israel’s government dislikes — whether it is recognizing Palestinian statehood, criticizing settlement expansion or questioning IDF military operations — has a corrosive effect on the fight against actual antisemitism. When the term is deployed reflexively and politically, it trains audiences to be skeptical of the label. It gives ammunition to exactly those who want to dismiss Jewish fear as manufactured. It is, in the deepest possible sense, counterproductive.
The Tel Aviv University report goes further, recommending that Israel’s Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism be dissolved entirely, with its funding transferred instead to Israeli embassies and consulates. The author’s argument: only professionals embedded in local communities, working alongside law enforcement and educators, can actually make a difference in combatting antisemitism. Grand declarations from politicians in Jerusalem motivated more by their own domestic political considerations than by the safety of the Jewish diaspora cannot.
A need for discipline
What this report ultimately demands, from the left and the right alike, is a discipline that both sides have conspicuously failed to practice: the discipline of treating antisemitism as a separate issue from the issues of Israel, Zionism and Palestinian rights.
These issues do overlap. But they are fundamentally individual. Antisemitism is hatred of Jews as Jews, a prejudice that has existed for millennia, operates independently of any particular government’s behavior, and kills people without asking victims what they think about Israeli settlements.
The contemporary state of Israel is a nation-state which commits specific actions, many of which are worthy of criticism.
Conflating the two, in either direction, produces disaster.
On the right, treating any political position unfavorable to Israel as presumptively antisemitic weaponizes Jewish suffering for political ends and corrupts the language we need to name and fight real hatred. On the left, treating the existence of real Jew-hatred as essentially a cover story for Zionist advocacy abandons Jewish communities to violence, and prevents the kind of serious policy response that could actually reduce harm.
The people killed at Bondi Beach were not symbols in a geopolitical argument. They were not collateral in a debate about international law or protest rights. They were Jews who had gathered to celebrate Hanukkah. Their deaths — and those of the other diaspora Jews killed last year — demand better than either cynical exploitation or willful minimization by either side.
The Tel Aviv University report, to its considerable credit, refuses both postures. It counts the dead honestly. It honestly holds the Israeli government accountable. It refuses to let anti-Jewish violence be erased, and it also refuses to let that violence be used as a political instrument. In doing so, it models the intellectual honesty that this moment desperately requires.
The question is whether anyone on either side of this exhausting divide is willing to listen.
The post Who’s responsible for deadly antisemitism? Everyone will hate the answer appeared first on The Forward.