Uncategorized
How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage
(JTA) — When Judy Blume’s young adult novel “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret” appeared in 1970, intermarried families were a small segment of the American Jewish population. Perhaps 17% of Jews were married to someone who wasn’t Jewish; today, 42% of married Jews have a spouse who is not Jewish, and in the past decade, 61% of Jews married non-Jewish partners.
Through the 1960s, middle-grade and young adult fiction rarely acknowledged the existence of these families, reflecting and reinforcing their outsider status. Today it is routine for authors to address the reality of inter-religious and culturally mixed families, portraying them with insight and compassion. (See “Not Your All-American Girl” by Wendy Wan-Long Shang and Madelyn Rosenberg, “Becoming Brianna” by Terri Libenson and “The Whole Story of Half a Girl” by Veera Hiranandani.)
This change was made possible partly by Blume’s story of sixth-grader Margaret Simon and her one-sided conversations with God.
Blume’s status as a pioneer in young adult literature is usually associated with her honest approach to the emotional, physical and sexual milestones of growing up, with her works still attracting readers and still finding an honored place on lists of banned books. That legacy is being celebrated in April with a new documentary, Amazon Prime Video’s “Judy Blume Forever,” and a theatrical release by Lionsgate of a feature film version of “Are You There God?”
Yet her treatment of contested identity in intermarried families is as revolutionary as her openness about bras, menstruation and sexual feelings. Actors Lena Dunham and Molly Ringwald, comedian Samantha Bee and many authors, including Raina Telgemeier, Tayari Jones and Gary Shteyngart, have cited Blume’s influence on both their lives and their work. Book lists for intermarried families frequently list the novel as a resource.
Margaret Simon is 11 years old at the start of “Are You There God?” Her Jewish dad and Christian mom have pointedly ignored the possibility that their daughter might have questions about her identity. Along with other issues of teen angst, she feels compelled to decide if she is Jewish, Christian or neither. Without any guidance, the last alternative leaves her in a frightening void. As she pointedly asks God, in her ongoing series of questions for Him, “I can’t go on being nothing forever, can I?”
Margaret’s parents, Barbara Hutchins and Herb Simon, fell in love and defied their respective parents by marrying out of their faiths. They assure Margaret that she has no religion, but can choose one when she is older, oblivious to the fact that this solution seems more of a burden than a promise of future freedom. Their avoidance of any serious engagement with either religion or culture renders any possible choice unlikely.
Blume situates Margaret’s search within the specific landscape of post-World War II America. When the Simons decide to leave their Upper West Side home in New York City and move to suburban New Jersey, their decision suggests a coded reference to their religious status. Long Island is “too social,” an implied euphemism for “too Jewish.” Living there might have made it harder for their relatively unusual situation to be discreetly ignored. On the other hand, the more affluent Westchester and Connecticut are “too expensive” and “too inconvenient.” Farbrook, New Jersey has enough Jews for it to feel right for Herb, but not so many as to make their mixed family stand out.
Margaret also suspects that her parents’ are determined to put distance between the Simons and Sylvia, her paternal grandmother, who lives in New York City. This gregarious woman shows up at their new home unannounced and toting deli foods, making it clear that Margaret’s one unambiguous connection to Judaism is not going to disappear. While Barbara’s parents utterly rejected her when she married a Jew, Sylvia has pragmatically decided to accept what she cannot change. In the postwar era, more Jews began to abandon or minimize religious practice, while still maintaining ethnically distinct customs. Like holiday observance or synagogue attendance, ethnic Jewish culture is also absent from the Simon home. Sylvia’s Jewish food, her frequent trips to Florida, even her combination of sarcasm and smothering warmth, provide Margaret with markers of the tradition her parents have eschewed.
Still, when Sylvia repeatedly asks Margaret if her (nonexistent) boyfriends are Jewish, the young girl is baffled. Given her own lack of consciousness of herself as Jewish, why would Margaret care?
Rachel McAdams and Abby Ryder Fortson in the forthcoming film adaptation of “Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.” (Dana Hawley/Lionsgate © 2022)
In the larger world of Farbrook, Margaret’s new friends seem to have more secure identities, conveniently defined by membership either in the “Y” (Young Men’s Christian Association) or the Jewish Community Center. Perfunctory attendance at Hebrew school until after one’s bar mitzvah is the furthest extent of her peers’ Jewishness. Margaret explains that her parents are “nothing” and that, prior to their marriage, they were Jewish and Christian, as if those identities could be cast off like an article of clothing. When Mr. Benedict, her enthusiastic young teacher, distributes a questionnaire, Margaret completes the prompt “I hate” with “religious holidays.” He attempts to draw her out about this troubling answer, and she scornfully observes that her teacher acted as if “he had uncovered some deep, dark mystery.”
On one level, he has. Her mother’s blandly universal definition of God as a “nice idea,” who “belongs to everybody,” is clearly a denial of the fractures in her family members’ lives.
Blume also captures the essence of mid-century non-Orthodox Judaism as comfortably accessible, yet also somewhat empty. On a visit to Grandma Sylvia’s elegant temple, the atmosphere is quietly decorous, the sanctuary filled with well-appointed congregants and beautifully arranged flowers. Sylvia’s rabbi greets Margaret with an enthusiastic “Good Yom Tov,” which he translates as “Happy New Year,” although it is actually a generic holiday greeting.
When Margaret later visits Presbyterian and Methodist churches, she notes the remarkable similarity among all three experiences.
The novel’s one incident of specific religious practice involves Margaret’s brief, unfinished confession in a classmate’s Catholic church. Having participated in bullying, Margaret tries to assuage her guilt through a ritual alien to both her father’s Judaism and her mother’s Protestant Christianity. She even momentarily confuses the priest with the silent God of her conversations. Nothing could be further from her parents’ rejection of religion, or from Grandma Sylvia’s loving assurance to Margaret that “I knew you were a Jewish girl at heart.”
When Margaret’s Christian grandparents decide to resume contact, the suppressed anger in the Simon home finally erupts. Herb is furious, and accuses his in-laws of only wanting to meet Margaret “to make sure she doesn’t have horns!” — a caustic reference to a persistent antisemitic myth. Blume had subtly foreshadowed this disruption of the status quo in a parallel event at school. When a Jewish student, backed by his parents, refuses to sing Christmas carols, the implicit agreement of the town’s Jews to quietly conform is broken. A Christian girl, in what seems an act of retaliation, then refuses to sing Hanukkah songs. These acts of resistance reinforce Margaret’s marginal status. Her intermarried family represents neither conformity with postwar norms nor an assertion of Jewish pride.
Blume appears to tip the scales in her portrayal of Mary and Paul Hutchins, Margaret’s maternal grandparents. Entirely unlikeable, simultaneously pushy and cold, they insist that the granddaughter they had never acknowledged is Christian. After their failed visit, Grandma Sylvia returns, along with her sweet and obviously Jewish new boyfriend, Mr. Binamin (“rhymes with cinnamon”). Readers rooting for the triumph of Margaret’s Jewish roots may breathe a sigh of relief here, but hope for a satisfying ending is illusory. Margaret’s search for a stable sense of self is still unfinished, and will not be satisfied by choosing membership in either the Y or the JCC.
For young readers, the novel’s discussion of religious identity proved as life-changing as its honest portrayal of puberty and menstruation. “I related to that kind of conflict of religion,” the comedian Chelsea Handler, who grew up in a mixed Jewish-Mormon home, told Blume in 2020. “At that time, I just found out my mom was Mormon, on top of thinking she was Jewish, and your books were such a reprieve for me and such a joy.”
More than 50 years ago, Judy Blume tackled a difficult subject, about both changing demographics and the search for authenticity in American Jewish life. Margaret’s conclusion that “twelve is very late to learn” about the essence of who you are still poses a challenge, while her persistent search for a meaningful identity offers a degree of optimism.
—
The post How Judy Blume’s ‘Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret’ broke taboos around interfaith marriage appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Milei Reaffirms Unwavering Support for Israel Ahead of Independence Day Visit
Argentine President Javier Milei speaks at the 12th annual Algemeiner J100 Gala on March 9, 2026, in New York City.
Argentine President Javier Milei has once again voiced his unwavering support for Israel ahead of a diplomatic visit beginning this weekend, during which he will take part in Independence Day celebrations and light a ceremonial torch.
In an interview with Israel’s Channel 14 on Thursday, Milei offered unequivocal support for Israel amid its ongoing war with Iran, describing the Islamist regime in Tehran as “an enemy to the West.”
“I defend Israel and the Jewish people because it is a just cause,” the Argentine leader said. “Israel stands as the fortress of the West. Turning your back on it would mean turning your back on a legacy that has produced one of the greatest civilizational achievements in history.”
“Rejecting Israel’s legacy to humanity means destroying everything that has made Western civilization great,” he continued.
Milei also praised both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump, calling them “exceptional leaders,” amid what he described as a fight for democracy, freedom, and the very foundations of modern civilization.
“Beyond the threat of developing nuclear capabilities, Iran exports and finances terrorism around the world. It is not only an enemy of Israel, but of the entire West,” the Argentine leader said. “If we fail to understand the danger posed by this theocratic regime, we are jeopardizing our very existence.”
He also criticized the international community for what he portrayed as a lack of support for Washington and Jerusalem during the conflict, warning that such hesitation reflects a broader failure to confront rising global threats.
“They are cowards who are afraid to confront them. If you want peace, you must be prepared for war,” he said. “If we fail to understand that and refuse to face those who seek to destroy our existence, we will ultimately become victims anyway.”
In his third diplomatic visit to the Jewish state, Milei will arrive on Sunday to take part in Israel’s Independence Day celebrations, scheduled to run from April 19 to 22.
He will become the first foreign head of state to light a torch as part of the official Independence Day ceremony.
During his trip, Milei will also receive a series of honors, including the Presidential Medal of Honor from Israeli President Isaac Herzog and an honorary doctorate, in recognition of what Israeli officials describe as his exceptional contribution to Israel and humanity.
“Milei has demonstrated unwavering support for Israel on the international stage, stood alongside the families of Gaza hostages, and expressed a deep connection to the Jewish people and its heritage,” the Israeli president said in a statement announcing the decision, calling Argentina a “key ally.”
The Argentine leader “represents bold leadership and has pursued a clear, unequivocal policy of standing with the State of Israel as an ardent Zionist,” he continued.
During his visit, Milei will also meet with Netanyahu, and some reports suggest discussions could advance his earlier pledge to move Argentina’s embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
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.