Uncategorized
Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now?
Holocaust movies have become such a genre of their own that it is hard for them to find anything new to say. Yet directors keep trying — perhaps out of a sense of duty, or the assumed prestige of the subject matter — to keep the atrocities front of mind.
Nuremberg, a star-studded new film written and directed by James Vanderbilt (the writer of Zodiac and both installations of the Adam Sandler-Jennifer Anniston hit Murder Mystery), focuses on the trial of Hermann Goering, Hitler’s second-in-command. The drama distinguishes itself from previous treatments of the trial by centering Douglass Kelley, the psychiatrist charged with assessing Nazis’ readiness to take the stand. Based on the book The Nazi and the Psychiatrist by Jack El-Hai, the film stars Russell Crowe as Goering and Rami Malek as Kelley.
But Nuremberg’s two-and-a-half-hour runtime attempts to take on more than Kelley’s observations about the nature of evil; the entire second half is a courtroom drama, which follows the beats of the unfolding trial. The movie fits in the backstories of some of Goering’s co-defendants, the establishment of a new model of international law and a romantic subplot touching on the media circus surrounding it all. A late reveal in this overcrowded movie shows Kelley’s translator to be a German Jew, and we hear the story of his escape from the Nazi regime.
It’s a big project, with the cast to match, and it’s full of factoids designed to make its message about the horrors of the Nazis unmistakeable. But Nuremberg is an entry into a field crowded with Holocaust content. Is this the new Holocaust movie we needed?
Why now for a Nuremberg movie?
On the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, and the start of the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis and their crimes remain topical. In October, a leaked group chat of the Young Republicans showed members openly joking about gassing Jews and proclaiming their “love” for Hitler; many of the members of the chat worked in state governments. (Vice President JD Vance defended them as “kids” making “edgy, offensive jokes.”) Tucker Carlson just interviewed avowed antisemite Nick Fuentes, legitimizing a man whose extremist rhetoric once relegated him to the fringe, and moving him into the mainstream. The current administration is engaged in a campaign of deportations, at least some of which have caught citizens in their dragnet.
The movie was in production long before any of these stories broke. But the rise of antisemitism, neo-Nazism and fascism in the U.S. — and Europe — has been apparent for at least a decade, fueled by social media and online forums where conspiracy theories and a resurgent white nationalism and nativism fester, sometimes breaking the internet’s containment to appear on political daises and in white supremacist marches.
“I think it’s important to not forget the past,” James Vanderbilt offered in an interview with The Catholic Review, adding that, “we have to be able to look backwards in order to move forwards.”
In this context, Nuremberg feels more like an urgent history lesson than a work of cinema, despite its aspirations to artistry; its clumsy exposition doesn’t help its schoolmarmish tone.
Why the psychiatrist?
In the film, Douglas Kelley arrives in Nuremberg hoping to discover what made the Nazis, and Germans, uniquely predisposed to, and capable of, great evils. “If we could psychologically define evil, we could make sure something like this never happens again!” he asserts. What Kelley found, in lieu of a diagnosis, was normal people. It’s the banality of evil, years before Arendt coined the phrase — and presents an opportunity for the movie to tee up a clear moral message.
Given that the Nuremberg trials lasted years and were extremely complex, narrowing the focus to Kelley and Goering’s dynamic could have helped to prevent overwhelming the audience while offering viewers a window into the minds of the Nazi leadership.
But we walk away with little insight into Goering’s own motivations. Kelley repeatedly emphasizes the Reichsmarschall’s manipulativeness and exhorts Justice Robert Jackson, the American prosecutor played here by Michael Shannon, to prey on the Nazi’s narcissism in his cross-examination. But we don’t see Goering do much manipulating beyond initially pretending not to speak any English, nor do we see much narcissism beyond remarking that he thinks he will escape the hangman’s noose.
Kelley mostly comes off as incompetent and eager for a book deal, not a masterful observer of the human condition, so we are given little reason to trust his insights.
How does this compare to other portrayals of Goering? Of the trial?
The most famous narrative film about the Nuremberg trials is Stanley Kramer’s 1961 Judgment at Nuremberg. Its characters are fictionalized and the action takes place at a later stage of the trial, years after Goering has escaped his hanging via a cyanide pill. Its focus is not on the high command, but the Nazi judicial system and everyday Germans. (It’s rooted in the 1947 Judges’ Trial, but reduces the number of defendants in the dock considerably.)
Much closer to Nuremberg is a 2000 TV miniseries, also called Nuremberg, starring Alec Baldwin as Jackson, the American prosecutor, and Brian Cox as Goering. Cox’s Goering is quite a bit more brash than Crowe’s, but, with his charm and chattiness with the guards, hits many of the same beats.
The main difference between the two Nurembergs comes in the portrayal of Goering’s motivations. In the movie, the Reichsmarschall displays no antisemitism and speaks only of his patriotic duty to Germany; he insists he had no knowledge of the Final Solution. His weakness, it seems, and his evil, is encapsulated in his devotion to Hitler.
In the miniseries, though Kelley does not feature, the psychiatrist Gustave Gilbert — who also briefly appears in Vanderbilt’s film played by Colin Hanks — serves much of the same function. In one memorable scene, Goering calls out the hypocrisy of America, with its segregation, trying Nazis for their race laws, and explains how Jews exploited Germans.
When Gilbert doesn’t see his logic, Cox’s Goering barks back: “You will never understand antisemitism. Why? Because you are a Jew.”
The moment implies, more than any scene in the movie version, that Goering could have been a true believer, rather than a career military man and opportunist.
How did the movie deploy its archival footage?
Despite the subject matter, the film mostly dodges direct discussion of the Holocaust — until it inserts archival footage of the concentration camps.
During the actual Nuremberg trials, a 52-minute film, directed by John Ford, showing the crematoriums, death pits, and abysmal conditions of the camps was played for the courtroom. The film uses an excerpt of the film in the trial scene. Vanderbilt chose to show the footage to the actors for the first time on set, wanting to capture their real, unfiltered reactions.
The use of archival footage reminds viewers that this story is not some Hollywood fantasy, but the rest of the film lacks this emotional power. Even when Kelley’s German-Jewish translator, Howard Triest (Leo Woodall), reveals his heritage to Kelley, a scene meant as an affecting turning point for the protagonist, its execution gives it the feel of something out of an afterschool special. The documentary footage gives the movie weight, but feels out of place in a film that otherwise has the sheen, waxy makeup and shallow characterizations of a Hollywood blockbuster.
What was the movie trying to do?
Nuremberg tries, often didactically, to spread the warning Kelley himself hoped to convey in his book, 22 Cells in Nuremberg: A Psychiatrist Examines the Nazi Criminals that all men have capacity for heinous deeds.
Highlighting the banality of evil has become a trend in recent Holocaust dramas like Zone of Interest. But unlike that film, Nuremberg relies on didactic expository dialogue. (“Jesus Christ, that’s Hermann Goering!” says an American soldier in the opening scene, before his comrade asks “Who?” and he responds with a Wikipedia precis.) It is much less interested in setting up a compelling story with deep characters than it is in lecturing the audience.
And though, by the end, the movie disavows the idea that morality — or immorality — is inherited, it gives more airtime to Kelley’s pursuit of a diagnosis of evil than it does to his conclusion that such a thing does not exist. Though a brief final scene shows the psychiatrist on a radio show warning that evil is just as possible in the U.S., we don’t see him arrive at that conclusion in the movie.
Is this an effective Holocaust movie?
At their best, Holocaust movies are able to force audiences to feel the horror of the concentration camps or make the inhumanity of the Nazis palpable. The Zone of Interest‘s most impactful scenes showed Rudolph Höss’ children playing cheerfully in the garden with the smoky plumes of Auschwitz’s crematoria in the background.
Vanderbilt tries to pack too much information into Nuremberg, leaving us with a movie that has to tell rather than show. The result is something more educational than evocative, providing a hurried overview of how the Nuremberg trials came about and a crash course on the Third Reich’s hierarchy. Its lack of focus makes it, at times, feel like a slog, and the movie depends on its star-studded cast and the inherent solemnity of its subject matter for viewers’ attention.
For those hoping to understand more about Goering’s psyche, Kelley’s own book — or The Nazi and the Psychiatrist, on which the movie was based — might be a better resource. For those hoping to delve into the entire history of the Holocaust, no one movie can capture it.
The post Is ‘Nuremberg’ the Holocaust movie we need right now? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UNRWA in Gaza Has Been Replaced; It’s Time to Shutter the Agency
Palestinians pass by the gate of an UNRWA-run school in Nablus in the West Bank. Photo: Reuters/Abed Omar Qusini.
The UN Relief and Works Agency — or UNRWA — in Gaza has been replaced by over a dozen other aid organizations. UNRWA’s decades-long monopoly on aid and services has finally been broken, presenting a rare opportunity for deradicalization and, eventually, peace.
What’s more, the international community now has a model for how to replace UNRWA everywhere it operates, not just in Gaza.
The UN Security Council approved President Donald Trump’s proposal to build a “Board of Peace” on November 17 that will oversee the deradicalization of Gaza and the dismantlement of Hamas’ terror state. But Trump’s vision will not succeed until UNRWA is shuttered.
UNRWA was created with a temporary mandate after Israel’s 1947-1948 War of Independence to provide aid and services to approximately 750,000 Palestinian Arabs displaced by the war.
Over the past 75 years, UNRWA’s mandate has ballooned. Not only does UNRWA continue to provide a myriad of services in the jurisdictions where Arab refugees from 1948 immigrated, but refugee status has been passed from generation to generation. As a result, what was a relatively small refugee population in 1948 (compared to other 20th century refugee populations) is today a large and growing 21st century refugee population with no end in sight. UNRWA counts 5.9 million Palestinian refugees and has an annual budget of over a billion and half dollars.
UNRWA schools teach the belief that Palestinian refugees and their millions of descendants would all return to the modern state of Israel — an outcome that would immediately erase Israel’s Jewish majority.
The focus on “return,” coupled with the well-documented glorification of terror and incitement — including arithmetic problems involving numbers of Palestinian “martyrs,” antisemitic tropes, and naming schools and soccer fields after suicide bombers — has produced generations of indoctrinated and radicalized Palestinian children.
UNRWA staff participated in the horrors of October 7, praised the violence on social media, and Israeli hostages were held captive in UNRWA facilities for months during the war.
Once Israel exposed the extent of UNRWA’s involvement in terror, Israel’s Knesset passed legislation in October 2024 to end coordination with UNRWA and to rescind the special privileges and immunities that Israel granted the organization. Israel’s actions made it difficult for UNRWA — which had used the Jewish State as its base of operations for decades — to continue delivering its services.
UNRWA advocates warned that Israel’s new law would have catastrophic consequences. It didn’t.
Israel’s justified decision to cease cooperating with UNRWA demonstrated quickly that other organizations and state actors — without the proclivity towards terror — were willing and able to step in.
UNRWA candidly describes itself as a quasi-state actor. This is true. For decades, UNRWA in Gaza provided services — like trash collection, education, and health clinics — that should be the responsibility of the state. In Gaza, this meant that Hamas outsourced its governmental obligations to UNRWA — with the international community picking up the bill — financially freeing Hamas terrorists to hoard weapons and build a terror fortress underneath Gaza.
Before October 7, UNRWA was the second biggest employer in Gaza and provided basic services like sanitation, health, and education to over a million people. After Hamas launched the war, UNRWA — swiftly announcing that it was not the terror organization’s responsibility to care for distressed Gazan civilians — went into high gear, taking over additional aid distribution functions.
In January 2025, when Trump negotiated the first ceasefire between Israel and Gaza, the UN established a new initiative with a dedicated online tracker to monitor aid entering Gaza. The tracker reports that UNRWA has not brought any aid into Gaza since January.
According to an Israeli official familiar with aid delivery in Gaza, the basic services performed by UNRWA before and during the first year of the war are now performed by other actors in the enclave. The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is managing most of the waste management in the enclave. Fuel distribution is managed by the United Nations Office for Project Services (UNOPS). The World Central Kitchen has been effective at delivering food alongside the World Food Program (WFP), which is also handling the broader logistics function for aid delivery in Gaza — a function WFP performs worldwide. UNICEF has taken a larger role in children-related humanitarian responses, and the World Health Organization (WHO) is providing medical aid to field clinics and hospitals.
This is how the rest of the world manages humanitarian crises caused by wars and natural disasters, and the correct way to manage the crisis in Gaza: with organizations that have a temporary mandate to deliver aid. Once the crisis has passed, those services should once again be the responsibility of the state.
Funding UNRWA — a self-described quasi-state — for over three quarters of a century to run services that should be the responsibility of a state government has been a calamity for Gaza and the region.
US taxpayers have historically been UNRWA’s largest donor, and have contributed over seven billion dollars to the UN agency since its creation. Congress has voiced consistent but limited support for ending UNRWA funding, and both Presidents Trump and Biden previously cut taxpayer dollars to the UN agency.
UNRWA supporters — including UNRWA’s US organization that lobbies Washington for support and funding — railed against attempts to cut funding, arguing that “UNRWA is irreplaceable,” a slogan often employed by UNRWA staff and advocates.
The reality is that UNRWA in Gaza has already been replaced.
Sadly, UNRWA’s multi-generation radicalization campaign in Gaza is not unique. The same brainwashing is happening wherever UNRWA operates, breeding terrorists and terror sympathizers across the region.
The UN and the international community can use the Gaza model to replace UNRWA’s corrosive monopoly on aid to Palestinians across the region.
The Trump administration now has an opportunity to wield its influence with other major UNRWA donors — namely the EU, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Canada, and Japan — to redirect their UNRWA funding to relief organizations that can deliver the much-needed aid and services without the radicalizing agenda. This critical reform should be implemented if the world truly wants to bring about peace.
Enia Krivine is the senior director of the Israel Program and the National Security Network at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. Follow her on X @EKrivine.
Uncategorized
In New York City, Jews Are Accused of Breaking ‘International Law’ for Supporting Israel’s Existence
New York City mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani holds a press conference at the Unisphere in the Queens borough of New York City, US, Nov. 5, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Kylie Cooper
Last month, New York City’s Park East synagogue hosted a talk on matters of American Jewish interest, including immigration to Israel.
Outside, a crowd of protesters raged against the event’s Jewish participants, including cries of “we need to make them scared,” “f—king Jewish pricks,” and “globalize the intifada” (a phrase the United States Congress officially recognizes as a call for violence against the Jewish people).
Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani’s response has been described by some Jewish leaders as “ambivalent” or “hollow.”
It was not ambivalent, and it was not hollow.
Mamdani’s statement was outright terrifying:
The Mayor-elect has discouraged the language used at last night’s protest and will continue to do so … he believes every New Yorker should be free to enter a house of worship without intimidation, and that these sacred spaces should not be used to promote activities in violation of international law.”
(Spokesperson for Mayor-elect Mamdani, November 20, 2025. Emphasis added)
International law?
A lecture at a synagogue violated international law?
To be clear, in addition to being absolutely protected by America’s First Amendment, a talk about Jewish immigration at a synagogue does not even remotely violate any international law, convention, or treaty.
It is well known that the Mayor-elect promised to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should he ever visit New York City, supposedly for reasons of “international law.” Ironically, doing so would actually violate both US Federal law as well as several of the very international laws Mamdani claims to uphold — a legal topic I’ve previously discussed in depth.
Yet in this case, the soon-to-be mayor of New York City was not accusing a foreign leader of war crimes: he was accusing Jews.
Not Israeli leaders — Jews. American Jews. New York Jews.
For attending a talk at a synagogue.
Let that sink in for a minute.
While you do, let’s recall Amsterdam, November 2024: the local Muslim population carried out an actual, modern day pogrom against visiting Israeli soccer fans, literally hunting them through the city streets. For hours, the Dutch police were nowhere to be found.
It’s important to note that Amsterdam’s city government speaks about Israel, and treats its local Jews, in a manner starkly similar to Mamdani.
Just one example: Amsterdam police have the right to refuse assignments on moral grounds. One of the assignments police frequently refuse is protecting Jewish sites, including Holland’s National Holocaust Museum. On “moral grounds.” And with the legal support of the government.
The New York City police will soon be under the command of a mayor who accuses American Jews of war crimes. In a city where violent antisemitic attacks have already reached shocking levels, the police are about to become unreliable at best, and perhaps even hostile.
Matters under the mayor’s direct authority, such as police protection, are only the beginning. Dozens of city agencies could be next.
For example, Mamdani has promised to cut New York City’s relationship with Israel’s Technion University via Cornell University. The mayor does not directly control this decision, but he does have the power to appoint members of the board of management of the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation, which can then force Cornell into decisions against the partnership.
In the coming years, New York City will see dozens of other political appointments, some visible and others subtle, and they will impact every aspect of the City’s culture, education, and safety, for years to come.
So what can we do about it?
To answer that question, one must first understand the scope of the problem.
At a 2001 conference in Durban, South Africa, the Palestinian Authority and its various allies (including Qatar and Iran) launched what later became known as the “Diplomatic Intifada.” Their target was the generation just being born: today’s 18-24 year old cohort. Their timeframe was decades, and their budget was essentially unlimited.
I saw this tsunami of antisemitism fast approaching during the Gaza war in 2009, and I moved to Israel shortly after. But Aliyah is not a viable or attractive option for everyone. I have dedicated my career to doing everything I can to make a meaningful change on an appropriately large scale.
For your part, you can do these things: Be utterly committed to truth at any cost and speak without compromise.
Some Jewish leaders irresponsibly called Mamdani’s statement “ambivalent” or “hollow” instead of what it was: terrifying and malicious. If uncompromising honesty endangers your job, get a new one. If it endangers your place in your community, find a new community. And if it endangers your safety — move. Yes, this takes courage, maybe even sacrifice. Yes, this is blunt, hard, and perhaps even costly advice. Yet the cost of silence will ultimately be far greater. (Remember 1938?)
Raise your children (or your future children) to understand and appreciate the importance of Israel, of Judaism, and of basic respect for truth itself. Teach them to be strong, unafraid, and true to their values. Learning starts at home, values start at home, and it all starts early.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking.
Uncategorized
At My School and Others, Students for Justice in Palestine Continues to Erase History
Rutgers University students holding an anti-Zionist demonstration on March 19, 2024. Photo: USA Today Network via Reuters Connect
On the two-year anniversary of the Oct. 7 attacks, the University of Florida’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) hosted a vigil directly in front of our school’s library to “honor the martyrs,” where they continued to promote the genocide libel.
I asked them, “Why do this on the anniversary of the 10/7 massacre?” Almost mindlessly, as if they were still taking cues from a toolkit, they dodged the question and centered their preferred victims with: “Do you know how many Palestinians were killed on October 7th?”
There was no mention of the Nova festival or the kibbutzim. No condolences for the 1,200 innocent people murdered or the 251 taken hostage. No acknowledgment that this attack, perpetrated by Palestinian terrorists, was and still is widely supported in Palestinian society. SJP students were more interested in legitimizing their heroes by comparing Hamas to the Black Panther Party.
The US Civil Rights movement achieved its goals through nonviolent protests like sit-ins and boycotts, not stabbing attacks, blowing up public places, or calling for the annihilation of American citizens. Hamas was founded with the express goal of eradicating Israel and murdering Jews.
Since the IDF didn’t enter the war that SJP claims has been a “genocide” until 20 days later, why pick 10/7 to hold the vigil? It seems like they did so to invalidate Jewish mourning and bolster Hamas propaganda.
This kind of narrative erasure is not new for the Palestinian National Movement.
Nakba Day is held on May 15, supposedly to mark the “catastrophe” of Israel’s creation, and the embarrassment of losing the 1948 war (which they started). But on May 15, 1948, the refugee crisis that Palestinians claim to mourn hadn’t even begun. It was the day after Israel announced its independence, when five surrounding Arab armies invaded, along with help from the local population (now known as the Palestinians). Yasser Arafat chose this day for the same reason SJP chose 10/7, to overtake Jewish memory in public discourse.
Clearly, they don’t want to convince anyone based on the merits of their position. It appears they want to coerce the public into agreeing with them, which is why they responded to my question the way they did.
The histories of Palestinians and Jews are intertwined, and it is dangerous to distort part of history to fit one’s agenda. We must hold ourselves to the same standard, and acknowledge the suffering of Palestinians throughout the history of this conflict, but that doesn’t mean blaming Israel for everything. Doing so is dangerous, especially towards the Jewish students at the University of Florida (UF), which comprise nearly 20% of the undergraduate population.
There is a future in which Jewish and Palestinian voices can work together, but only when SJP is open to hearing other perspectives and participates in an actual campus dialogue. I urge members of SJP to think critically about the accusatory messages they are spreading. By spreading this propaganda, it tarnishes innocent Jewish and Zionist students, distorts truth, and makes reconciliation more difficult.
I also encourage every student to conduct their own research, and not get caught in this cycle of misinformation. By engaging effectively with both SJP and pro-Israel organizations, and doing research for themselves, a safer and more educated campus is possible.
When the peace deal was brokered and the hostages were finally returned home, I hoped to see SJP celebrating alongside their Jewish peers. It didn’t happen — but it is only when we come together to celebrate these victories and remember our shared history that we can end this cycle of violence.
David Caine is a CAMERA fellow and second-year journalism student at the University of Florida.