Connect with us

Uncategorized

Irving Berlin’s 1926 interfaith marriage sparked a Jewish debate that, 100 years later, hasn’t gone away

(JTA) — Exactly 100 years ago, on Jan. 4, 1926, legendary American Jewish songwriter Irving Berlin married Ellin Mackay, a Roman Catholic heiress, in a civil ceremony in Manhattan’s City Hall. What some considered a misalliance of prominent figures from different worlds was the subject of much comment, as much for their class differences as their religious ones. This is the story of how Irving met Ellin, of the difficulties they faced at the start of what proved a happy, 62-year marriage, and of how Irving’s fellow Jews felt about the union.

For more than a century, interfaith marriage has functioned as a kind of Rorschach test within American Jewish life, alternately framed as an existential threat, a sociological inevitability or, more recently, a potential avenue for renewal. Only last month, for example, the Conservative movement formally apologized for decades of discouraging intermarriage and committed itself to a new approach centered on engagement. This is worlds apart from the prevalent attitude in the second half of the 20th century, when intermarriage skyrocketed and communal leaders warned that it was hastening assimilation, eroding a fragile minority culture and causing a crisis.

Such voices were also heard in the 1920s, but in Irving and Ellin’s day the attitude of most Jews was a good deal more benign. A robust Yiddish and Jewish press — including the Jewish Telegraphic Agency — closely followed the couple’s romance, and pulpit rabbis discussed it in their sermons, but there was no consensus on whether the celebrity intermarriage was a “menace” to the Jews or, indeed, a sign of their growing acceptance.

The couple’s courtship began on a May evening in 1925 at the home of Frances Wellman, the socially prominent wife of a New York district attorney. Frances had invited her good friend Ellin to dinner. The 21-year-old Ellin, presented to society four years earlier, had recently begun writing for The New Yorker as a voice of the younger, privileged set.

A publicity photo of Irving Berlin taken by his early music publishing company, 1906. (Life magazine images via Wikipedia)

A theater aficionado, Frances was also close enough to 38-year-old Irving Berlin that she felt comfortable calling him to fill in when a dinner guest cancelled at the last minute. That was what happened on the Saturday night that Irving was introduced to Ellin in a meeting that was entirely unplanned.

Irving’s rags-to-riches story was already well-known. Journalist Alexander Woolcott had just published a biography of him and like most everyone, Ellin had enjoyed his songs. Born Israel Baline in a shtetl in Belarus, he had arrived in America in 1893 at age five. His father, a cantor, worked as a meat cutter and a Hebrew tutor in New York; his mother was a midwife. Young Izzy left school to earn a living when his father died in 1901. He began by selling newspapers, but the musical ability he had inherited opened other doors. He found work as a singing waiter in Chinatown, and later at Jimmy Kelly’s Greenwich Village nightclub, the “Montmartre of New York.”

By 1907 he was already writing music. He was erroneously identified on the sheet music of his first published song, “Marie from Sunny Italy,” as “I. Berlin” and the spelling stuck; he also began going by “Irving” rather than “Izzy.” His first megahit, “Alexander’s Ragtime Band,” which sold over a million copies, came in 1911 and catapulted him to fame. Drafted into the army in 1917, he wrote a patriotic musical, Yip Yip Yaphank, and produced it with an all-soldier cast. His blockbuster hit, “God Bless America,” was composed for that show, but not released until years later. By the 1920s, he was internationally famous and quite wealthy, with assets estimated at a million dollars (about $25 million in today’s currency).

Lean and wiry at five feet six, Berlin had briefly been married before. He had wed Dorothy Goetz, a 20-year-old Catholic girl, in a civil ceremony in 1912. During their honeymoon, however, Dorothy had contracted typhoid fever and she died just five months after the wedding. After her tragic death, he composed a plaintive waltz called “When I Lost You” to express his grief. From time to time since then, Irving’s name had been linked with those of other women, but in 1925 he was unattached. He liked to quip that if he were engaged to anyone, it was to Sam Harris, his partner at New York’s Music Box Theatre.

Ellin, for her part, was a bit more attached. She had been seen with Leopold Stokowski, the eminent conductor, and wooed by a Scottish aristocrat, Capt. Ian Campbell, heir to the Dukedom of Argyll. She had even accepted an expensive bauble from the latter, but no engagement had ever been announced.

Nonetheless, the attraction that Saturday night in 1925 was strong and mutual, and the evening did not end with dessert. After dinner, Irving invited Ellin to hear the band at Jimmy Kelly’s. The evening marked the beginning of a passionate romance.

Dancing with the Prince of Wales

To say Ellin Mackay came from money would be a colossal understatement. Her grandfather, John William Mackay, was one of the 20 richest people in the world at his death in 1902. Born into poverty in a Dublin slum, John had arrived in New York in 1840 and answered the call of the California Gold Rush. But it was silver rather than gold that accounted for his vast wealth. He and three other miners had struck it rich in the silver mines of the Comstock Lode.

In 1925, during its first year of its existence, The New Yorker was struggling financially. Salvation came in the form of a prominent young society girl named Ellin Mackay. An article she wrote, “Why We Go to Cabarets,” caused such a sensation

Ellin Mackay’s insider chronicle of Manhattan nightlife, published in The New Yorker in 1925, became a sensation. (The New Yorker)

John used some of his fortune to form the Commercial Cable Company, which broke financier Jay Gould’s monopoly on transatlantic telegraphy, and the Postal Telegraph Company, which operated networks in the U.S. His wealth rivaled that of Gould and railroad magnate Cornelius Vanderbilt II. But his money could not buy him and his wife Louise social acceptance when they moved back east in 1878. As a nouveau riche Irish Catholic, John was snubbed by New York society.

Upon his death, his son Clarence, known as Clarie, inherited some $45 million ($1.7 billion today) and became president of both enterprises. He would eventually extend the telegraph and cable service to three quarters of the circumference of the earth. In 1898 he wed Katherine “Kitty” Duer, a Protestant and a member of the New York “smart set” whose family was listed among the “Four Hundred”; in so doing, he bought himself the social standing that had eluded his parents.

For a wedding gift, John gave the couple a 648-acre estate in Roslyn, Long Island known as Harbor Hill, and Clarie spared no expense in building his new wife a dream house there. He engaged world-famous architect Stanford White to design a 52-room, 80,000-square-foot French chateau at a cost of $6 million ($207 million today) that took two years to complete. Erected on the second highest point on Long Island, it commanded impressive views of the ocean and the sound. The manor boasted a grand entrance hall, a ballroom, a library, a music room, a dining room, a billiard room, an indoor swimming pool, squash courts, a private chapel and multiple bedroom suites with bathrooms equipped with indoor plumbing. Kitty’s personal lavatory included a $17,000 ($664,000 today) sunken bathtub imported from Italy, carved from a solid block of marble.

This was conspicuous consumption at its grandest, and it was the fairyland in which Ellin Mackay grew up, together with her elder sister Katherine and a younger brother, John. But her sheltered life was not without its share of heartache. When Ellin was eight, her mother took up with her husband’s physician and departed for Europe with her paramour, causing one of the most sensational scandals of the Gilded Age. In the divorce, Clarie retained Harbor Hill and Kitty received $2 million ($65 million today), but had to forfeit custody of their children.

Because Clarie was viewed as a victim, his social standing did not diminish. In fact, he became one of the most lavish hosts in America. In 1921, for example, he outspent the parents of all the other debs on Ellin’s coming out party. The $20,000 event — the equivalent of about $360,000 today — was held at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel. Among the luminaries in attendance were the Cornelius Vanderbilts, the John D. Rockefeller, Jrs., the Kermit Roosevelts, the August Belmonts, Mrs. J. P. Morgan and the Harry Payne Whitneys.

The most memorable event Clarie ever hosted, however, was his 1924 reception for the future British King Edward VIII, who was on a two-week tour of the United States. One thousand guests were invited for dinner and dancing at Harbor Hill. Ellin would remember that party as the night she danced with the Prince of Wales — seven years before he would meet Wallis Simpson. His Royal Highness found her “one of the most charming girls I ever met.”

Clarence’s social position demanded that he marry his daughters off to prominent, well-to-do young men. He approved of Kenneth O’Brien, son of a New York State Supreme Court justice and fellow Irish Catholic, as a proper helpmate for Ellin’s sister Katherine. The couple were wed in September of 1922 and feted at a 2,000-guest event. Ellin, who served as her sister’s maid of honor, had every reason to expect a similar celebration when the time came for her to marry. But such a wedding, it would soon be clear, was not to be.

‘A songwriter? And a Jew to boot!’

When the RMS Olympic arrived in New York harbor from Cherbourg on April 15, 1925, Ellin, who had been in Europe for half a year, was mobbed by newspapermen even before she disembarked. Decked out in the latest fashion, Ellin was the picture of poise as she consented to answer a few questions.

“We understand there are well-founded reports that you and Irving Berlin are engaged,” one of them asked.

“There is positively not a jot of truth in it,” she replied. “I have met Mr. Berlin at a number of parties, but I have met many men at social events, and I don’t see that this calls for the creation of something out of nothing.” Taking her father’s arm, she continued, tongue firmly in cheek, “If I married, I would leave Dad alone, and I cannot bear to think of parting with him. I have not met the young man I would marry and give up my father.”

The truth was, she had met him. Whether or not there was an actual engagement, there was something serious going on between her and Berlin. They had kept company for the four months between their first meeting and her departure for Europe. In fact, not only were Ellin and Irving already an item before she left, but Irving was the reason for the trip. Clarie, deeply unhappy about the relationship, voiced many concerns: her youth, the gap in their ages, their religious differences, how any children would be raised, his lack of education and his lifestyle as an entertainer. He actually hired detectives to tail Berlin, hoping to catch him misbehaving, and it was he who had arranged his daughter’s extended vacation in Europe. He hoped it would break the couple up.

Clarie’s attempts to part them proved fruitless, however. By mid-June it was widely reported that the two would soon marry. Ellin, it was said, had secretly traveled to Rome and secured special dispensation from the Pope to marry outside her faith on the condition that any children be raised Catholic. Clarie denied that rumor, certainly untrue. And Irving, accustomed to speculation about his love life, continued to deny that the couple were betrothed.

“The story of our engagement seems to be based on my writing ‘What’ll I Do?’ and ‘All Alone,’” he told Time Magazine. “It has always been assumed after I have written a ballad that I have been through some heartbreaking experience.” The smash hit “What’ll I Do,” the lament of a man apart from his beloved “with just a photograph to tell my troubles to” has indeed often been cited as a wedding tribute composed by Berlin for his new bride while she was away. But the piece was actually published several months before the composer ever met Ellin. “All Alone,” on the other hand, whose lyrics also suggest a man separated from his love, was indeed written in the summer of 1924 when Ellin was in Europe.

The Jewish newspapers used their imagination in reporting about the nuptials. The fact that they were in no position to listen in on private conversations did not stop them from reporting ostensible verbatim transcripts of them. By one account in the Yiddish-language Forverts (Forward), Clarie said to Ellin, “A songwriter? And a Jew to boot! How can an aristocrat tolerate this?” And this, from Di Yidishe Shtimme (The Jewish Voice): “Very well. Marry your ragtime peddler. But the children — Catholic, every one! And the ceremony — no synagogue stench.”

Irving’s Irish Rose

Berlin would not be the first prominent American Jew to intermarry. Harry Houdini (born Erik Weisz) had married out of the faith in 1894, and, more recently, Al Jolson (born Asa Yoelson) had wed twice, both times to gentiles. None of those weddings had made headlines, however. Jolson did get plenty of publicity when his first wife sued him for divorce, but the coverage had focused on accusations of desertion and did not mention ethnic differences.

The lobby card for the 1928 film adaptation of Abie’s Irish Rose, the popular Broadway play about an intermarriage. (LMPC, via Getty Images)

This, however, was different. Jewish intermarriage had caught the public’s imagination when a Broadway hit called Abie’s Irish Rose, a three-act comedy by playwright Anne Nichols, opened in 1922. Nichols had weaved a tale of a secret Jewish-gentile marriage and the discord it caused in the bride and groom’s families. It was still running when the papers announced the Berlin-Mackay engagement, and the comparison was too obvious to resist.

In the play, Abraham Levy and Rosemary Murphy, Jewish and Catholic, meet and marry in France. When the couple returns to New York, Abie introduces his bride as his fiancée and allows his parents to believe she is Jewish. Similarly, Rosemary’s father assumes that her betrothed is an Irishman. But when the parents meet, the ruse is discovered. A priest and a rabbi get involved and there are two more weddings. Reconciliation eventually comes about when Rosemary gives birth to twins, strategically named Rebecca and Patrick.

The production broke Broadway box office records by racking up a record 2,327 performances during its five-year run; even Jewish theatergoers enjoyed it. But it was reviled by most reviewers and was especially unpopular around the Algonquin Round Table, the famous gathering spot for wits. Humorist Robert Benchley called it “something awful”; theater critic Heywood Broun derided it as “synthetic farce” and journalist Dorothy Parker noted that it had defeated another production “for the distinction of being the season’s worst play.”

The attitude of the Jewish press toward the play, however, was mostly favorable. The American Israelite found “not the slightest affront to even the most devout adherent in either of the faiths involved.” The Jewish Exponent noted that “on your way out you are still laughing at some of the humor typical of the respective race.” And the Jewish Advocate went even further, commenting on “the deep regard the Jewish people of the metropolis have for this wonderful play of love and tolerance.”

Only the Forverts was unimpressed, condemning it as stupid and noting that “it doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to Jewish or Irish life.” Missing, even from the Forverts’ rebuke, was any outrage over the stereotypical portrayal of the characters, the mocking of Jewish religious and cultural practices or the sympathetic depiction of interfaith marriage.

Inevitably, Irving and Ellin were widely compared to Abie and Rose. Ann Nichols even reported that attendance at the play rose substantially after the couple’s nuptials were announced. And a Tin Pan Alley duo wrote a song about them that echoed the play, entitled “When a Kid Who Came from the East Side Found a Sweet Society Rose.”

Mazel tov, Mr. and Mrs. Berlin!’

By September, Ellin was still insisting to reporters that she knew Berlin only “slightly.” But the reporters weren’t buying it, nor should they have. Because just a few months later, on January 4, 1926, Irving Berlin and Ellin Mackay were united in a civil ceremony in New York City. The bride and groom arrived at City Hall by subway — the first subway ride of the aristocratic Ellin’s life, she maintained — and a deputy city clerk performed the ceremony. Only after it was all over did Ellin wire her father with the news.

The Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s Daily Bulletin reports that Irving Berlin and Ellin Mackay were wed on Jan. 6, 1925. The article quoted Clarie Mackay, saying, “The bride’s father, when informed of the wedding, declared: ‘The marriage comes as a complete surprise to me and was done without my knowledge or approval. Beyond this I have nothing to say.’” (JTA archive)

The marriage became a front-page story all across the United States. Most of the coverage mentioned the religious difference between the new spouses, but the focus was more on class difference. The reports ran more less along these lines, penned by columnist Eddie Dougherty:

A Catholic girl, finely reared, splendidly educated, a girl who had only to wish for a thing to obtain it, gave herself to a Jew who came out of poverty and hardship into the stars. She gave up for him her religion, her people, her countless society friends, everything she had known and held priceless before Berlin came into her existence.

After receiving his daughter’s cable, Clarence Mackay asserted that the wedding “was a complete surprise and was without my knowledge or consent.” Ellin’s mother, who had initially raised some red flags, was supportive of the marriage. Berlin’s parents were deceased by the time of the wedding, but one reporter managed to track down his sister Ruth in New Jersey. She told him she had expected the marriage and wished her brother Izzy and his bride “every happiness.”

The couple disappeared to Atlantic City for a couple of days, biding time before their departure for Europe. Irving had originally planned to travel there alone, but now they would go as a couple. He booked the $5,000 presidential suite on the S.S. Leviathan, which was to set sail on Saturday, Jan. 9. Tackled by reporters at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel on the Boardwalk, Ellin asserted that “We are supremely happy, and that is all that counts.” She also allowed that the “greatest wedding present” she could receive would be her father’s blessing and that she was hopeful of receiving it.

But on the same day, Kenneth O’Brien, Ellin’s brother-in-law, told the newspapers that Clarence would neither “forget nor forgive” his daughter. Mackay insisted that his son-in-law’s statements had been unauthorized, but he refused to comment on the possibility of a reconciliation. A press account held that he had disinherited Ellin.

By the day of their departure for Europe, the only signal from Ellin’s father was a statement that his opposition to the marriage was unchanged. The couple made no attempt to contact him and went ahead with their plans. Late that night, to avoid gawkers, they slipped down the fire escape of Berlin’s apartment building and hailed a taxi for Chelsea Piers. At midnight they boarded the S.S. Leviathan and set sail for Southampton, England in luxury.

During the voyage, the couple hosted a dinner to which they invited a small group of passengers with whom they were acquainted. That Ellin was now being snubbed by her “people” became clear when fellow voyagers Alice Claypoole Vanderbilt and Gertrude Vanderbilt Whitney declined to attend. And soon her name was dropped from the Social Register. There appeared to be some truth in Eddie Dougherty’s prediction that in marrying Irving, Ellin would be giving up her society friends.

The Jewish press actually reported the news of the wedding rather proudly. It was almost as if, in an era that demanded that Jews balance tradition with assimilation, they thought it a badge of honor that an immigrant Jewish boy from the slums could be deemed a suitable helpmate for a high-society, patrician girl. It meant that Jews were achieving a measure of acceptance among America’s gentiles. The only part of the story that gave the lie to the assimilation dream was the stubborn prejudice of some like Ellin’s father.

Irving Berlin with actors Alice Faye, Tyrone and Don Ameche on the set of the 1938 film, “Alexander’s Ragtime Band,” based on Berlin’s first major hit. (Boston Globe/Wikipedia)

“Berlin is of Jewish immigrant parentage,” the American Israelite noted. “He attained his present position by strenuous efforts and certainly the good fortune that has come to him is well-deserved. As for the religious question, that is a matter of concern only to the parties themselves.”

From the Forverts: “Old Mackay is terribly embittered . . . he hates Irving. Yes, Irving is a talented man. For the aristocrat Mackay that means nothing. Song-writer, actor — for him it is a lowly orphan.” And from the editor of the Jewish Criterion: “Mazel tov, Mr. and Mrs. Berlin! That’s what I call an ideal marriage. The bride is satisfied, the bridegroom is satisfied . . . The only one who seems unanimously against it is Clarence Mackay.”

The Zionist weekly Jewish Transcript took exception to Dougherty’s characterization of the match as a misalliance. It pointed out that Ellin, despite her lofty social standing, was in fact the granddaughter of a common laborer who had struck it rich by pure chance.

If any Jewish newspaper might have been expected to be judgmental about the marriage, it was surely the Yidishes Tageblatt (Jewish Daily News), an Orthodox, Yiddish-language daily. And sure enough, in a column published a couple of days after the wedding, Rabbi Isaac Lipa Brill offered this snide comment:

Irving, our very own, once upon a time of Cherry Street, is not much of a Jew. So it does not matter at all, although we expect him some day to be invited to lay the cornerstone of a synagogue or preside over a Zionist meeting. He may be good for a donation. But we refuse to get excited.

A muted debate around intermarriage

The prohibition against Jews marrying out of the faith has roots in Biblical and later rabbinic sources. There is a proscription against it in Deuteronomy and similar admonitions in Ezra and Nehemiah. Over the ages, the rabbis came to believe that exogamy posed an existential threat to Jewish identity, and Jewish communities often imposed severe social consequences on those who married out. It was not uncommon for the Jewish party in such a union to be mourned as if dead.

The rate of such marriages in Russia and Eastern Europe had thus been exceptionally low, and that did not change significantly among the immigrant generation when they got to America. The only statistical survey of Jewish intermarriage from the early 20th century, a study by a Smith College professor, concluded that the interfaith marriage rate for Jews in America was less than five per 100 marriages and that for New York City it was even less — just over one percent.

That number was surely still quite low in the 1920s, but the match did spawn a robust discussion of interfaith marriage. Rabbis preached against it, social organizations discussed it — even the Junior Hadassah girls in San Francisco debated it — and the Jewish press was full of articles and letters about it.

Nathaniel Zalowitz, a prominent Jewish-American journalist, opposed mixed marriage but didn’t discern much of a threat in it. “Intermarriage, I emphatically believe, is decidedly not a growing menace,” he wrote in the Forverts, calling it “at most, one of the minor ailments of Jewish life in the United States.” Reform Rabbi Ferdinand Isserman, on the other hand, could not have disagreed more. “Intermarriage is an assault on the Jewish home,” he wrote. It is a breach in the defense of our faith against which we must guard ourselves . . . Our opposition against it is not that of bigots or of narrow-minded people, but is based on our belief that when the bars against intermarriage are removed, the death knell of Judaism will be sounded.”

From Conservative Rabbi Israel Goldstein of New York’s Congregation B’nai Jeshurun: “Marrying out of the faith is the crucial step leading to the extinction of Israel’s separate identity, and is for that reason to be condemned as the ultimate breach of loyalty.” And from Brooklyn Reform Rabbi Alexander Lyons, “I say that Catholic, Protestant and Jew who still represent radically antagonistic traditions and tendencies should marry within their own folds until such time, still — alas! — a long way off, when all denominations are more truly divine in being more nobly human in mutual respect, considerate sympathy and cooperative helpfulness.”

‘When it comes to love’

While on the couple’s extended honeymoon, Ellin became pregnant. They returned by way of Montreal, where their efforts at disguise — they registered as Mr. and Mrs. Johnson — failed miserably. “I traveled from Europe to America via Quebec to avoid publicity,” Berlin complained, “and the first three people I met on landing there were newspapermen!”

They came home to New York to speculation that to appease Ellin’s father they would marry a second time in a Catholic church. Berlin had gotten kudos in Jewish circles for the civil union; Chicago-based Reform Rabbi Samuel Felix Mendelson, for example, had noted that by choosing civil marriage “he has displayed more self-respect than certain leading Jews of New York who had allowed Christian clergymen to perform the ceremony.” The matter of a Catholic wedding met with a firm denial from an annoyed Berlin.

Berlin and Mackay, shown together at the Stork Club, were married for 62 years. (Bettmann vis Getty Images)

Ellin gave birth to Mary Ellin, their first child, on Thanksgiving Day. Her mother immediately went to the hospital to greet the new arrival, but even the appearance of a grandchild failed to move her father toward reconciliation. That would come, but not until the fall of 1928, at the bedside of Ellin’s grandmother Louise, who had expressed a deathbed wish that father and daughter reconcile.

Marya Zaturensky, a well-known Russian-born Jewish-American poet and herself a spouse in a mixed marriage, gave her take in the Forverts on why the Berlin-Mackay match had caused such a furor. “Not because it was an intermarriage, surely,” she opined. It was the social and not the religious background that really mattered. “Similarity of taste, of mental and social adjustment are of more importance than the background of religious differences,” she insisted, though she did allow that “if you are an intense and Orthodox Jew and a fanatical and devout Catholic, you cannot do it.”

Berlin, of course, was not an observant Jew, nor was Ellin a zealous Catholic. Although he embraced his Jewish heritage, he had abandoned the Orthodoxy of his parents. And Ellin had been raised as a Protestant until her parents divorced, at which point, under her father’s influence, she became a Catholic. She continued to go to Mass after the marriage, but was otherwise not especially devout.

Irving Berlin shared Zaturensky’s opinion that factors other than religion were more important. The composer of “God Bless America” — not to mention “White Christmas” and “Easter Parade” — believed in a broadly inclusive American cultural narrative with room for everyone. He had little use for sectarianism and rejected the notion that religion and culture had to divide people.

Perhaps without intending to, he had the last word on the subject. While the couple was still in Paris, he was cornered at a cabaret by an American reporter. She engaged him in conversation without revealing that she was a journalist, and he was quite candid with her. He didn’t know his remarks would wind up on the pages of American Jewish World, but he probably didn’t mind it when they did.

“When it comes to love, religion passes to the background. It never struck me that I would be sacrificing a parcel of my Jewishness by marrying Ellin, and I suppose Ellin felt the same way about her religion,” he said. “I am proud of my Jewishness, but you will never convince me that intermarriage is anti-anything.”

“If the subjects are well-mated, religion, race, or any other collective definition for a group does not hold any serious difficulty. To make a definite problem of intermarriage is narrow-minded. It is a matter of individuals. Age, material circumstances, temperament and character of the two people may be considered. But for God’s sake, leave out religion.”

This article originally appeared on JTA.org.

The post Irving Berlin’s 1926 interfaith marriage sparked a Jewish debate that, 100 years later, hasn’t gone away appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

‘We Need to Wake Up’: Sylvan Adams Warns of Organized, Coordinated Antisemitism After Oct. 7

Canadian-Israeli philanthropist Sylvan Adams on The Algemeiner’s “J100” podcast. Photo: Screenshot

The protests began before the war did.

That, for Sylvan Adams, is the detail that should change how people understand everything that followed Hamas’s Oct. 7, 2023, massacre across southern Israel.

Speaking on The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast, the Canadian-Israeli philanthropist pointed to the anti-Israel demonstrations that erupted across Western cities on Oct. 8 — less than 24 hours after Hamas’s atrocities — as evidence that the global reaction was not simply emotional or spontaneous.

“Israel hadn’t even entered Gaza yet,” Adams said. “We were still counting our dead.”

The speed and coordination of those protests, he argued, suggest something deeper: a preexisting infrastructure of activism, funding, and ideology that was activated the moment the attacks occurred.

“It’s like they flicked a switch,” he said.

In Adams’ view, the surge of antisemitism that followed the Oct. 7 attack is not an isolated phenomenon, but the visible expression of a long-building system — one tied to Islamist movements, state-backed funding, and ideological allies across the West.

“We need to wake up,” he said.

At the same time, Adams was clear that the loudest voices are not the majority. Most people, he argued, are neither antisemitic nor deeply anti-Israel — but they are not organized, not activated, and not nearly as visible.

“The majority is there,” he said. “But they’re not activists.”

That imbalance has allowed more extreme narratives to dominate public discourse, particularly among younger audiences shaped by social media and campus environments.

Adams’ response to this challenge has not been confined to analysis.

A businessman who built his career in Canada before making aliyah a decade ago, he has become one of Israel’s most prominent philanthropists, directing major investments toward institutions in the country’s south.

In the aftermath of Oct. 7, he announced $100 million gifts to both Ben-Gurion University of the Negev and Soroka Medical Center — moves he framed not as charity, but as long-term investments in Israel’s resilience.

The goal, he said, is not just to rebuild, but to reinforce.

Alongside those efforts, Adams has pursued a less conventional form of advocacy: using sports and culture to reshape how Israel is perceived abroad.

An accomplished cyclist and world champion in his age category, he has helped bring major international events to Israel, including global cycling races and high-profile appearances by figures such as Lionel Messi.

The strategy is to reach audiences that are not tuning in for politics — and introduce them to a different version of Israel.

“People are always surprised,” Adams said. “It’s not what they thought.”

That approach reflects a broader philosophy: that Israel must be strengthened not only on the ground, but in the way it is seen.

Adams’ worldview is rooted in his own family history. Born to Holocaust-surviving parents from Romania, whose journeys passed through pre-state Israel before settling in Canada, he grew up in a deeply Zionist home before eventually building a life in Montreal.

His decision to move to Israel later in life was, in his telling, less a break than a return.

“I always thought we would end up there,” he recalled his wife saying.

Now based in Israel, Adams has positioned himself as both a builder and a messenger —investing in the country’s future while trying to influence how it is understood beyond its borders.

His message to Jews outside Israel was direct.

“We’re one people,” he said. “Israel belongs to all of us.”

In the current moment, that idea carries added weight — not just as a statement of identity, but as a call to responsibility.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Hamas Tightens Grip on Gaza, New Analysis Shows, as Iran War Delays Second Phase of Ceasefire

Hamas fighters on Feb. 22, 2025. Photo: Majdi Fathi via Reuters Connect

As the international community struggles to advance the second phase of an already fragile ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group is exploiting the war in Iran to tighten its civilian and security grip on the Gaza Strip and rebuild its military capabilities, according to a new report.

The Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC) — an Israel-based research institute — released a new report this week warning that the US-Israel conflict with Iran and disputes over management of Gaza are delaying the implementation of the second phase of the US-backed ceasefire agreement, under which Hamas was expected to disarm as Israeli forces were set to withdraw from parts of the enclave.

The report also warned that such delays are giving Hamas a window of opportunity to rearm and further tighten its control over Gaza, complicating fragile efforts to move forward with the next stage of the truce.

ITIC’s new assessment shows Hamas has moved to reassert control over parts of the war-torn enclave and consolidate its weakened position by targeting Palestinians it labeled as “lawbreakers and collaborators with Israel.”

With its security control tightening, Hamas’s brutal crackdown has escalated, sparking widespread clashes and violence as the group seeks to seize weapons and eliminate any opposition.

The report further notes that Hamas’s confidence is on the rise across Gaza, visible in the increasingly public presence of armed operatives from both its military wing and security forces, underscoring the group’s tightening hold on the roughly 47 percent of the enclave it controls without an Israeli military presence.

Social media videos widely circulated online show Hamas members brutally beating Palestinians and carrying out public executions of alleged collaborators and rival militia members.

According to ITIC’s newly released report, Hamas is also rebuilding its military capabilities by smuggling arms from Egypt and producing weapons independently, while simultaneously consolidating civilian control through expanded police presence, regulation of markets, and the distribution of financial aid to residents in areas it governs.

Earlier this year, the US-backed plan to end the war in Gaza hit major roadblocks after proposals surfaced that would allow Hamas to retain some small arms — an idea strongly denounced by Israeli officials who insist the Islamist group must fully disarm.

Officials involved in the US-led Board of Peace drafted a plan that would allow Hamas to retain small arms while surrendering longer-range weapons as part of a “phased disarmament” process over several months, with heavy weapons to be “decommissioned immediately.”

However, key details about where the surrendered arms would go and how the process would be enforced remain unclear.

The initial framework also required “personal arms” to be “registered and decommissioned” as a new Palestinian administration takes charge of security in the enclave.

Israel has previously warned that Hamas must fully disarm for the second phase of the ceasefire to move forward, pointing to tens of thousands of rifles and an active network of underground tunnels still under the terrorist group’s control.

If the Palestinian Islamist group does not give up its weapons, Israel has vowed not to withdraw troops from Gaza further or approve any rebuilding efforts, effectively stalling the ceasefire agreement.

The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) currently occupies about 53 percent of the Strip, with most of the Palestinian population living in the remaining portion of the enclave under Hamas control.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has insisted the country will not accept anything less than the full demilitarization of Gaza, warning that any reconstruction or political transition in the enclave depends on Hamas relinquishing its weapons.

Under US President Donald Trump’s 20-point Gaza peace plan, phase two would involve deploying an international stabilization force (ISF), beginning large-scale reconstruction, and establishing a Palestinian technocratic committee to oversee the territory’s administration.

According to media reports, the ISF could total around 20,000 troops, though it remains uncertain whether the multinational peacekeeping force will actually help disarm Hamas.

Over the past few weeks, Israel has resumed military operations in the Gaza Strip aimed at forcibly disarming Hamas. The IDF’s previous operations during the last two years of war had been partly limited by efforts to protect Israeli hostages kidnapped by Hamas, the last of whom were released last year as part of the ceasefire.

On Tuesday, Israeli forces announced that several Hamas Nukhba terrorists were eliminated during a strike in central Gaza after troops intercepted the operatives while they were conducting a military training exercise in the area.

IDF forces in the Southern Command remain deployed at key locations in the Gaza Strip, with the army warning it will employ all necessary force to neutralize threats and maintain control across the territory.

This week, the United Nations Security Council met to review progress on the Gaza peace plan and the implementation of phase two, originally adopted in November under the fragile truce between Israel and Hamas.

According to Nickolay Mladenov, the high representative for Gaza on Trump’s Board of Peace, a transitional Palestinian governing body has already been established in the enclave, and a framework agreed upon by the guarantor countries — the US, Egypt, Turkey, and Qatar — has been presented to armed groups, which he said establishes “the principle of one authority, one law, and one weapon.”

“The National Committee exercises authority solely on an interim basis,” Mladenov said during a speech, referring to the transitional Palestinian government that has been established.

“The end state is a reformed Palestinian Authority capable of governing Gaza and the West Bank, and ultimately a pathway to Palestinian self-determination and statehood,” he continued.

The proposed plan would require all armed groups in Gaza to transfer their arms to a transitional Palestinian governing authority, starting with their larger-scale weapons and monitoring compliance before reconstruction begins, while allowing fighters to gradually return to civilian life.

Mladenov also confirmed that Indonesia, Morocco, Kazakhstan, Kosovo, and Albania have committed troops to the ISF.

“The people of Gaza want reconstruction, and reconstruction requires the decommissioning of weapons,” he said, describing this link as the framework’s “driving force.”

So far, there is no timeline or clarity on discussions with relevant groups, nor on any potential Israeli military withdrawal.

As of February, Israel was planning to resume military operations in the Gaza Strip to forcibly disarm Hamas, with the IDF is drawing up plans for a renewed major offensive.

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz warned that Hamas will be disarmed by force if it continues to violate the ceasefire and pose a threat to Israel’s security.

“If Hamas does not disarm in accordance with the agreed framework, we will dismantle it and all of its capabilities,” the Israeli defense chief said this month.

However, with Israel focused on fighting Iran as well as its chief proxy Hezbollah in Lebanon, it appears a new offensive is unlikely to take place in Gaza in the immediate future.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Sam Altman Shuts Down OpenAI’s Sora, Video Sharing App Notorious for Antisemitic Content

Three videos featured on Sora on March 24, 2026, promoted antisemitic stereotypes and violence against Jews. Photo: Screenshots

In a surprise move that has stunned industry watchers and killed a $1 billion licensing deal with Disney, OpenAI announced it would shutter Sora, the controversial video-generating app which drew condemnation last year for its unwillingness to stop the production and sharing of antisemitic content.

“We’re saying goodbye to the Sora app,” Sora’s X account posted on Tuesday. “To everyone who created with Sora, shared it, and built community around it: thank you. What you made with Sora mattered, and we know this news is disappointing. We’ll share more soon, including timelines for the app and API and details on preserving your work.”

Reflecting the seeming abrupt nature of the decision, OpenAI had published on Monday a “Creating with Sora safely” guide. The company claimed that its product “uses layered defenses to keep the feed safe while leaving room for creativity. At creation, guardrails seek to block unsafe content before it’s made — including sexual material, terrorist propaganda, and self-harm promotion — by checking both prompts and outputs across multiple video frames and audio transcripts.”

The guide stated, “We’ve red teamed to explore novel risks, and we’ve tightened policies relative to image generation given Sora’s greater realism and the addition of motion and audio.”

With the release of the standalone Sora 2 app in September 2025, The Algemeiner and other news organizations documented the antisemitic tropes emerging on the platform with one recurring visual depicting Jews chasing after coins.

Following the announcement of Sora’s shutdown on Tuesday, The Algemeiner reviewed the app’s feed and discovered multiple antisemitic videos within minutes.

The first from user @frankel944 depicts an elaborate 30-second narrative of an older Hassidic Jew with a long beard and traditional religious garb who demands a poor man’s $10,000 savings in exchange for moldy bread and soup. He complies, inspiring the Jewish man to then take the money, fly to Mexico, dance in a sombrero with a mariachi band, and then return to the US to say his prayers at the synagogue.

A second from @davidkline16 features a young man — apparently one of the user’s friends — walking in a synagogue proclaiming that he has been appointed the rabbi and inviting people to come and celebrate. A surreal, fleshy orb with a face floats in the background and starts to interrupt the warm greeting, menacingly yelling “Rapist! Rapist!” One of the recurring jokes that young people had used Sora to do was to transform their friends into Jewish converts.

The third is one of the most chilling as it depicts violence against Jews. User @orituviaabaselo felt compelled to create and share a video featuring a group of eight Hassidic Jewish men sitting at a table, speaking Hebrew, and eating challah in the middle of a dark road at night. Moments later a blue car comes barreling into the group sending them every which way. The clip ends with one of the Jews not concerned for his friends’ injuries, but asking where he can find his hat.

In October, the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) published research from its Center on Technology and Society which revealed that among the multiple AI-video generating apps tested, the programs would respond to antisemitic, racist, or other bigoted prompts at least 40 percent of the time. The ADL’s analysts found that, compared to its competitors, Sora “performed the best in terms of content moderation, refusing to generate 60% of the prompts.”

In January, the ADL analyzed multiple large language models and found that OpenAI’s ChatGPT lagged behind Anthropic’s Claude in its ability to detect antisemitism.

Some analysts suspect that this intra-industry rivalry may have played a role in OpenAI’s decision to shut down Sora as part of an effort to focus the company’s resources on core business capabilities. Anthropic was founded in 2021 by former OpenAI staffers dissatisfied with OpenAI CEO Sam Altman’s attitudes toward the dangers of AI. In recent years its Claude large language model has developed hegemony among computer programmers and other technical workers.

The Wall Street Journal reported on Tuesday that OpenAI sought to pivot to focus more on “so-called productivity tools,” a category currently dominated by Anthropic, rather than continuing with the cost-intensive videos.

Farida Khalaf, a business analyst and data engineer who focuses on cybersecurity, wrote Monday on Substack Notes predicting what would happen the next day. “Meta shutdown Metaverse, NEXT will be SORA from open AI,” she wrote.

On March 17, Meta announced its CEO Mark Zuckerberg had chosen to shut down Horizon World, the virtual reality platform which he had previously backed so heavily he chose to change the company’s name in October 2021 from Facebook to Meta.

Khalaf drew the comparison, asking, “Remember the hype surrounding the SORA app release? It seems to be following a similar trajectory, and with costs running higher than its revenue, the sustainability of this model is questionable.”

Forbes estimated in November that Sora was costing OpenAI $15 million a day. “We have been quite amazed by how much our power users want to use sora, and the economics are currently completely unsustainable. we thought 30 free gens/day would be more than enough, but clearly we were wrong!” Sora’s head Bill Peebles wrote on X on Oct. 30, 2025.

In December, Disney had signed a $1 billion agreement with OpenAI to license 200 characters for inclusion in Sora. “As the nascent AI field advances rapidly, we respect OpenAI’s decision to exit the video generation business and to shift its priorities elsewhere,” said a spokesperson for the film company.

On Tuesday, Altman announced his refocused priorities on X.

“AI will help discover new science, such as cures for diseases, which is perhaps the most important way to increase quality of life long-term,” Altman wrote. “AI will also present new threats to society that we have to address. No company can sufficiently mitigate these on their own; we will need a society-wide response to things like novel bio threats, a massive and fast change to the economy, extremely capable models causing complex emergent effects across society, and more.”

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News