“Before there were Jews… there was ‘The Odyssey,’” a theater manager infamously posted on a marquee in Portland, Oregon.

While the mythic, Bronze Age events recounted in the blockbuster film likely never transpired, Homer’s epic poem is by any measure younger than the Jewish people. And Christopher Nolan’s Odyssey, now a proxy for a pitched battle over the essence of Western civilization, could not exist as it is without the Jews. Indeed, whether it knows it or not, it is telling a foundational story of our history.

Much of the criticism surrounding the film, which managed to agitate classicists from its first set photos of Matt Damon in a crested Grecian helmet (not a period-accurate Mycenaean boar-tusk ensemble) and bigots of all stripes with its casting of a trans man and people of color, has shifted since its release just before Tisha B’Av, taking aim at the film’s ideas and how they may clash with those of antiquity’s.

“Did you Christianize The Odyssey?” podcaster Zhong Shu asked Nolan in a now-viral interview.

Nolan explained that he was drawn to the ancient ethic of “xenia,” called “Zeus’ Law” in the film. In the Greek conception, this means welcoming guests because you never know if they may be a God. In Nolan’s blockbuster it’s described as treating others how you would be treated. When the law is breached, society as we know it comes undone, leading to our hero’s atonement and qualms that seem at odds with his traditional characterization.

While Nolan’s understanding mirrors the Christian Golden Rule, which itself is antedated by statements in the Torah and by Hillel, his vision of civilizational ruin when it is trespassed is more central to Judaism. Odysseus laments that, by creating the Trojan horse, and exploiting the code of hospitality to launch a massacre, he has broken something.

“To burn the walls of Troy is to burn the world entire,” Damon’s Odysseus tells Anne Hathaway’s Penelope. This is more or less a paraphrase from Talmudic wisdom: “To destroy one life is to destroy the world entire,” and its more recognizable corollary, “to save one life is to save the world entire.”

The Hebrew Bible is rife with examples of hospitality in extremis. In Sodom, Lot offers his daughters to a mob of rapists rather than have them violate his heavenly guests. The result: a destroyed city and a wife reduced to a table condiment. (Just before, Abraham fed these visitors, plus another angel of God.)

But watching the film Tuesday, I was reminded of another story. Remember when I mentioned Tisha B’Av, the holiday marking the destruction of Judaism’s ancient capital?

Our tradition teaches that the second temple fell because a man holding a banquet in Jerusalem kicked out his enemy, a fellow by the name of Bar Kamtza. Humiliated by his host, Bar Kamtza plots his revenge. He goes to Caesar and tells him the Jews are conspiring against his rule. To prove it, Bar Kamtza, like the wily Odysseus, concocts a ruse, suggesting the Romans send a sacrifice to the rabbis and see if they offer it.

They don’t, as Bar Kamtza blemishes the animal, making it unfit for offering.

In The Odyssey, the famous gift horse is presented as a tribute to Athena. Its blemish is the fighting force it hides inside, ready to sack the city.

The upshot of the rejected temple sacrifice was the razing of Jerusalem at the hands of the Romans. The temple is desecrated, in much the way the temple of Athena is in the film.

Christian theology doesn’t argue quite so forcefully that the violation of the Golden Rule augurs a civilizational collapse. Quite the contrary today, where xenophobia and whispers of Great Replacement — akin to the trade-wind rumors of sea peoples in Nolan’s film — have taken root in the Evangelical right. (Ezra Klein, and really anyone attuned to commentary as subtle as IMAX subwoofers, picked up on this tension.)

Jewish history tells us we fare poorly in places where the stranger isn’t welcome.

In a departure from the text, Nolan ends Odysseus’ wandering with his voluntary exile. He sails west, predicting a benighted age to come, where his exploits will be sung as men lose the ability to write.

Our story ends on a similarly bleak, yet hopeful note.

When Jerusalem fell, Rabban Yohanan ben Zakkai devised his own deception, sneaking past the city walls in a casket (before he was let out, zealots wanted to stab the bier, recalling the Trojans’ stabbing of the horse).

But before Yohanan can make his escape he’s intercepted by the general Vespasian, who he mistakenly refers to as the emperor. Vespasian offers a correction, but almost instantly a messenger confirms this designation, telling him Caesar died and named him his successor. Regarding Yohanan’s mistake as prophecy, he offers him a request.

Jerusalem had fallen, self-determination was unrealistic, and so Yohannan asks for the city of Yavneh and its sages. From there our modern history began, literacy thrived and a dark age was subdued.

The Temple and Troy have yet to be rebuilt, but their legends live on.

The post Christopher Nolan’s ‘Odyssey’ is a Talmud-quoting, Tisha B’Av epic appeared first on The Forward.

(JTA) — Britain’s antisemitism watchdog says it received reports of nearly 2,000 incidents in the first half of 2026 — the second-most its recorded ever for the time period, following only the first half of 2024.

The new figures released Wednesday by the Community Security Trust represent a 21% increase in reported incidents over the same time period last year, which followed a surge in the early months of the war in Gaza that started when Israel attacked Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023.

Watchdogs in multiple countries have recorded surging antisemitism since and say the numbers portend an unsettling new normal when it comes to Jewish safety and security.

The increase in antisemitic incidents from January to June in Britain was driven, the CST found, by both violent attacks and a sharp rise in online abuse. While the largest category of incidents recorded was abusive behavior, which accounted for more than four-fifths of all reported incidents, the group also recorded a record number of assaults for any January-to-June period, while incidents affecting synagogues, schools and other Jewish institutions also reached new highs.

The CST has tracked, reported on and published antisemitic incidents since 1984.

Among the incidents highlighted in the report were the April stabbing of two visibly Jewish men in London’s heavily Orthodox Golders Green neighborhood, which British authorities treated as a terrorist attack, and a series of arson attacks targeting synagogues and Jewish organizations, including the destruction of ambulances belonging to the volunteer Jewish emergency service Hatzolah.

The report also cited suspected hostile activity linked to Iranian intelligence targeting Britain’s Jewish community. CST said the U.S-Israel war with Iran coincided with another spike in antisemitic incidents.

“These attacks are directed against British Jews but they are also attacks on Britain and our society,” CST’s chief executive, Mark Gardner, said in a statement, adding that the incidents should “concern everyone who cares about Britain and the threats against it, whether state-directed from Iran, or internally driven by Islamist, far Right, far Left, or other ideological extremes.”

The findings come as the British government has expanded funding for security at Jewish institutions following a series of violent attacks over the past year. Following the release of the report, Policing Minister Sarah Jones said, “Antisemitism goes against our country’s values and I will do everything in my power to protect our Jewish communities.”

CST compiles its statistics from incidents reported directly to it as well as cases recorded by police and other agencies. CST reviews each report before including it in its database. It says it does not include reports of anti-Israel rhetoric or activity that do not also include “explicit anti-Jewish language, targeting, or motivation.”

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Antisemitic incidents in Britain rose 21% in first half of 2026, remaining near record levels appeared first on The Forward.

No doubt, many liberal Jews are uneasy regarding Abdul El-Sayed’s narrow victory in yesterday’s Michigan Democratic primary. Even if they support many of his domestic policy positions — Medicare for All, taxes on billionaires — El-Sayed’s views on Israel may trouble them.

But those views merit a second look.

Yes, like New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, El-Sayed is a young, Muslim progressive. But his views are markedly different — and, to my mind, more sophisticated and more nuanced. In fact, I agree with them.

El-Sayed’s most articulate statement of his views came midway through an interview with New Yorker editor-in-chief David Remnick published the day before the primary. The first half of the interview focused on El-Sayed’s signature issue of healthcare (El-Sayed is a physician), but then Remnick asked:

[I]t seems that you get very prickly when you’re asked the question: Does Israel have a right to exist? You come from a country that, in the late seventies, made its accommodation, a kind of rough peace, between Egypt and Israel…. But what is your hope for a resolution in the Middle East? Is it two states? Is it one state? What underlies your sense of the situation there?

El-Sayed gave a 473-word response, which, itself, should inspire confidence — in fact, his first words were “Well, David, since you’re giving me some time for nuance — I deeply appreciate it — allow me some nuance.” Just that sentence stands in stark contrast to the polarizing posturing that is common on both left and right. After noting that in Michigan, “there are communities where the median income is fourteen thousand dollars a year. And those kids go without good schools and those kids go without functional infrastructure,” El-Sayed continued:

I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination, for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. And I believe that it is not my job as an American policymaker to decide what the ultimate peace should be. But it is my job to make sure that our resources are stewarded correctly for the people I’m responsible for: those kids going to those broken schools.

Already, El-Sayed’s statement is a useful contrast to Mamdani’s. He is not pontificating about the abstract legitimacy of Israel or Palestine; on the contrary, he is insisting on the pragmatic view, that I share, that “what the ultimate peace should be” must be decided by both Palestinians and Israelis — a position rejected by both the Zionism-is-colonialism crowd on the left and the Jewish supremacists on the right.

El-Sayed then continued:

I also believe that it is my job to do that doubly when we exist in a kind of hypocrisy around how we’ve thought about that issue for a very long time. The very same people who tell you you have to believe in a two-state solution are constantly aiding, arming, and abetting an Israeli government that has been dead set on foreclosing on the possibility of a Palestinian state since we’ve been funding them. So forgive me if I’m not going to play the cosplay thing, where I allow the money that should be spent taking care of our kids to be sent to a military that has done a genocide — at baseline, does apartheid, and is now attempting the annexation of southern Lebanon — to foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.

This is a critical point that El-Sayed repeated toward the end of the interview. Centrists and many liberals demand that progressives affirm the validity of the state of Israel, and by extension the two-state solution. Yet the people most obviously (and proudly) undermining the two-state solution are the members of Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. This is an outrageous asymmetry. Those on the left are called out for opposing two states, but those on the right get a pass when they make two states impossible to achieve.

Related

• Abdul El-Sayed is courting Jewish voters — without moderating his views on Israel

,

Now, I know some readers stopped paying attention when El-Sayed used the term “genocide,” a term I have written about here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. But notice that he hedges, qualifying it with “at baseline, does apartheid,” which surely describes the political situation in the West Bank, where one population has voting rights, full civil rights, freedom of movement, government subsidized housing and rights to expand civic boundaries, while most of the other population has none of the above. (The existence of military rule, with its attendant security rationales, does not change this reality on the ground.)

And just as defenders of Israel rightly note that Israel has not been convicted of genocide by a court of law, Israel has not been acquitted, either, and there is significant evidence that the crime has, in fact, been committed. (Ironically, the Hebrew term retzach am may be a better one than the legal term “genocide.” Whatever the death count in Gaza, and whatever the validity of Israel’s mission to destroy Hamas and free the hostages, surely the destruction of an entire civil society, with a plan not for its rebuilding but for its displacement by Trump-branded hotels, is the murder — or at least manslaughter — of a nation, is it not?)

Finally, El Sayed concluded:

So here’s what I believe. I believe we have a responsibility to uphold international law. I believe we have a responsibility to treat every single state the same way, around international law. I believe in a process that offers a free Palestinian people the equal rights to peace, dignity and self-determination that a free Jewish Israeli people ought to have. And then I will support whatever the outcome is that a free Palestinian people and a free Jewish Israeli people decide is the right outcome. If that’s two states, great, I’m for it. If it’s one state, I’m for that. If it’s this “land for all” model, or twenty-three states, or whatever it is that they decide. But I am not O.K. saying that, as a senator from Michigan, I’m going to take tax dollars from Michigan, send them to a foreign government that does heinous things in contraposition to the ideals that I support, and then sit here and be, like, yes, but I’m for a two-state solution—when I know that the current status quo is never ever going to allow that to happen.

To me, this response has both integrity and reasonableness. I’m not saying it is the only valid political position; reasonable, honest people can disagree about whether aid to Israel should be continued, conditioned, or eliminated. (Recall, Netanyahu himself has called for it to be phased out.) But it is not beyond the pale. It is, roughly, the view of non-anti-Zionist progressive organizations like the New Israel Fund, J Street, T’ruah, and others: there should be a negotiated solution between Israelis and Palestinians, whatever form that takes, but that the current government in Israel is squarely opposed to finding one, as they have been since the 1990s when it was still a realistic possibility. Traitor, they called Yitzhak Rabin at the time.

In fact, in the greatest irony of all, the anti-Zionist left and the Jewish supremacist right offer the same proposal: one state, with our group in charge. (Yes, the left’s version is ostensibly a democracy, and the right’s is not, but they are both one states with the minority population lacking self-determination.) Neither of these is realistic. It is impossible to turn back the clock to 1947, before the State of Israel and before the mass immigration of the 1940s and 1950s. And it is impossible to repress Palestinians into submission or exile; Palestinians are not going anywhere, no matter how much right-wing Zionists wish that they would.

Abdul El-Sayed, unlike Mayor Mamdani, shares this understanding: that a one-state solution, imposed by Israel or by outside political forces, is unjust. But El-Sayed also knows that it is Israel’s government that, at present, is doing the most to impose it. And to change that reality, we need a change in American policy. I would submit that that view is shared by a numerical majority of American Jews, and by all who cling to the hope, however flickering, of a Jewish and democratic Israel.

The post Abdul El-Sayed is right about the future of Israel and Palestinians appeared first on The Forward.