Uncategorized
Is the movie ‘Nuremberg’ about the wrong Jewish psychiatrist?
Douglas Kelley, the real-life U.S. Army psychiatrist portrayed by Rami Malek in the recently released motion picture Nuremberg, wrote a book titled 22 Cells in Nuremberg that came out in 1947, a year after he finished his five-month stint at the Nuremberg trials.
Nearly 60 years later, interviews conducted by Leon Goldensohn, a Jewish psychiatrist who replaced Kelley at the historic war crimes trials, were published in The Nuremberg Interviews: An American Psychiatrist’s Conversations with the Defendants and Witnesses. Goldensohn who spent more time with Nazi prisoners than Kelley did, and this book, translated into 16 languages, arguably sheds more light on the Third Reich criminals.
Goldensohn and Kelley were responsible for monitoring both the physical and mental health of the Nazi prisoners, and both their lives ended tragically: Goldensohn died of a heart attack in 1961, five days after his 50th birthday; Kelley died by suicide in front of his family at the age of 45.
Leon Goldensohn’s son Dan, now 77, said that his father’s interactions with the prisoners were deeper than the ones Kelley had.
“There’s a couple of defendants who say in Leon’s book how much they preferred talking to him,” Dan Goldensohn told me.
One of those defendants was Hermann Goering, the commander of the Luftwaffe, the German air force, who complimented Goldensohn on his technique as a psychiatrist.
“I feel freer to talk to you than to some other psychologists,” Goering told him.
I checked in with Leon Goldensohn’s sons and daughter and their cousins when the movie Nuremberg opened and the actor portraying Douglas Kelley appeared larger than life on the silver screen. The movie was about “the wrong psychiatrist,” Dan Goldensohn told me over the phone.
“We lost our chance to have Leon’s work once again in the public eye, because of Kelley,” Dan said. “When people talk about an Army psychiatrist at Nuremberg, Kelley’s name comes up. Leon’s name hardly does. Anyway, we have our jealousies.”
A French production company did make an hour-long program based on the Goldensohn book that aired on The History Channel, but the psychiatrist’s surviving relatives said it was not well done. Dan Goldensohn said the family came close to signing a deal with an Italian company for a film or TV series based on the book.
“It suddenly collapsed as soon as they heard that this other movie was signed with real actors and a real director,” he said.
‘The best brother in the world’
Dr. Eli Goldensohn, a world-renowned neurologist at Columbia University who died in 2013 at 98, took up the book project when he retired at the age of 83. Eli, who was four years younger than Leon, spent 10 years gathering and organizing materials, writing short summaries of all the interviews, and transcribing all those that hadn’t been transcribed. Eventually, he donated his brother’s papers to the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum.
When the book was published in the fall of 2004, Eli Goldensohn told me his only disappointment was that it “didn’t really describe Leon’s wonderful war record.” Leon Goldensohn had been Division Psychiatrist of the 63rd Infantry Division, which fought in France and Germany, and received several decorations for service on the front lines.
Eli remembered his older brother fondly.
“The Nazi prisoners respected Leon because he was an objective person and was fundamentally a gentleman who was able to meet them on any level,” Eli told me back in 2004. “He was the best brother in the world. I did this book to memorialize the existence of one of the finest people I ever knew.”
Anticipating Hannah Arendt
Eli Goldensohn’s son and daughter assisted him on the book. Ellen Goldensohn, who had served as editor-in-chief of Natural History magazine for many years, helped with the copyediting. Her brother Marty Goldensohn, a veteran of public radio newsrooms, introduced Eli to his friend Jim Bouton, the former Yankee pitcher and best-selling author, who convinced Eli to pursue a deal with a major commercial publisher. (Eli ended up signing with Knopf, where the interviews were turned into a book by Ashbel Green, the editor who had worked with such dissident writers as Andrei Sakharov, Jacobo Timerman and Vaclav Havel.)
Ellen Goldensohn said her uncle Leon’s work was prescient, given that it came 17 years before Hannah Arendt’s Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil.
“In 1946 he really knew the banality of evil and what was asked of these people who ran the Nazi regime,” she told me.
Marty Goldensohn remembers that his mother Betty, who lived to be 101, complained about her husband commandeering the extra bedroom in their assisted living apartment for the book project.
“Eli, get these file boxes out of here or I’m going over to the other side,” she joked, the other side being the Third Reich.
Marty said his father’s labor of love on the book was motivated, in part, by a sense of history, something he shared with his brother Leon.
“Leon was a Jewish doctor and he had compassion,” Marty told me. “He was in the middle of something that the historian Tony Judt once described as ‘a seam of evil.’ He was at the seam and how could he resist asking the key questions that had to do with the horror that had been perpetrated?”
The ‘Good’ German
Of the 476 pages in The Nuremberg Interviews, 33 are devoted to Goering, who told Goldensohn he was nauseated by Picasso, referred to the virulently antisemitic newspaper Der Sturmer as “that stupid journal” and claimed that of all the accusations leveled against him, the charge of looting art treasures caused him the most anguish.
In conversations with Goldensohn, Goering insisted that he was never antisemitic, that Adolph Hitler was a great leader who was betrayed by some of his subordinates and that he, Goering, would go down in history as a man who did much for the German people.
When Leon Goldensohn pressed Goering on his culpability in the genocide of European Jewry, the prisoner gave a classic “Good German” defense: “Certainly, as second man in the state under Hitler, I heard rumors about mass killings of Jews, but I could do nothing about it and I knew that it was useless to investigate these rumors and to find out about them accurately, which would not have been too hard, but I was busy with other things,” he said. “And if I had found out what was going on regarding the mass murders, it would simply have made me feel bad and I could do very little to prevent it anyway.”
The post Is the movie ‘Nuremberg’ about the wrong Jewish psychiatrist? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump has degraded American democracy. Now he’s aiming for Israel
President Donald Trump is trying to persuade Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In doing so, he is asking Israel to become an illiberal state, rather than a democratic one — the same change he is working to bring to his own country.
In writing to Herzog earlier this week, Trump — himself a convicted felon on 34 counts — used the same conspiratorial rhetoric he has peddled in the United States to describe Netanyahu’s charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust. The case is a “political, unjustified prosecution,” he wrote. During a recent 60 Minutes interview, Trump said he would “be involved” in Netanyahu’s trial to “help him out.”
It would be a problem for any foreign government to seek to interfere in Israel’s domestic judicial system. But Trump’s overstep threatens to weaken Israel’s already fragile democracy by impugning the legitimacy of its legal system and insisting that the country’s prime minister is beyond accountability.
Herzog essentially rejected Trump’s request, but his response was tepid, stating that pardons must only be made “in accordance with established procedures.” He made no denunciation of foreign interference in Israel’s domestic affairs, no affirmation of the integrity of Israel’s judicial system and certainly no repudiation of Netanyahu’s relentless efforts to avoid his day in court, including by repeatedly seeking to have his hearings delayed.
Herzog should have. There are broad swaths of Israeli society that yearn to see Netanyahu brought to justice, not just on corruption charges, but also for the disastrous choices that helped prime the ground for the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023. But there are others, primarily among the far-right parties aligned with Netanyahu, who will seize upon any chance to help him extend his hold on power.
Already, the far-right Minister of National Security Itamar Ben-Gvir has urged Herzog to follow through on Trump’s request.
“The fabricated and disgraceful indictments against Prime Minister Netanyahu have long since turned into an indictment against the prosecution, whose disgrace and crimes are exposed in the trial every day,” Ben-Gvir tweeted. “A pardon in this case is the right and urgent thing to do. President Herzog, listen to President Trump!”
Dissuading Ben-Gvir and his ilk, and taking the firm stance that the process of justice must play out on its own terms, is essential. Because the fissures in Israel’s governmental system run far deeper than many realize — which works in Netanyahu’s favor.
The charges against Netanyahu have been methodically investigated by prosecutors over many years. He is accused of accepting some $300,000 in gifts to influence the country’s tax law, and discussing a quid pro quo for favorable coverage with both the news site Walla! and the Israeli newspaper Yediot Aharonot.
Despite the evidence that supports these assertions, Netanyahu, mirroring Trump’s rhetoric, insists the prosecution is corrupt, and evidence that a liberal “deep state” controls the country — a move from the authoritarians’ playbook, designed to erode public trust in independent institutions.
Unfortunately, it’s working.
In 2025, Israeli researchers Asif Efrat and Omer Yair found that about one-third of Israelis believe Netanyahu’s unsubstantiated claims in a shadow rule over the country. Those numbers soar to roughly 50% among voters of Netanyahu’s current coalition.
Efrat and Yair see that data as a warning sign. Support for such conspiracies can “weaken public trust in the legal system, the bureaucracy, and the security forces,” they write. “It would allow the government to thwart the actions of these bodies and even take control of them.”
This is what Anne Applebaum, the award-winning journalist and historian, warns about in her book, Twilight of Democracy: The Seductive Lure of Authoritarianism.
Applebaum describes how authoritarians take “major steps toward the destruction of independent institutions.” They harness more and more power by repeating conspiracy theories that embolden their desire to circumvent the rules.
Two years ago, during the country’s judicial overhaul uproar, Applebaum saw reason to fear Israel backsliding into “an undemocratic Israel, a de facto autocracy.” Netanyahu and his government responded at the time “in the way that all autocratic populists react to any challenge” — with intransigence, accusations of disloyalty and strategic circumvention.
In Trump’s view, pardoning the prime minister would ensure “his attention” is not “unnecessarily diverted.” Then, Netanyahu could “unite Israel” once and for all.
Even ignoring the fact that Netanyahu has never been a unifying figure, such a position overlooks the price Israeli democracy will pay by allowing its leader to flagrantly violate and disrespect its rules.
Netanyahu is not a figure who respects law, democracy, or checks and balances. Trump’s pushing for a pardon will only embolden his Israeli counterpart’s worst instincts.
Right now, as Israel recovers from a devastating two-year war and seeks to regain its international footing while paving a future for Gaza, the country cannot afford to spiral into a deeper anti-democratic crisis.
The people of Israel must stand against Trump and Netanyahu’s plot and reject any efforts to undermine the country’s liberal democracy.
Netanyahu has long tested the elasticity of Israeli democracy. Trump’s single-page letter could be the catalyst to push it past its breaking point.
The post Trump has degraded American democracy. Now he’s aiming for Israel appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
When Jewish Students Are Afraid, Leaders Must Be Visible, Says US Rep. Randy Fine
Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) leaves the US Capitol after the last votes of the week on Sept. 4, 2025. Photo: Tom Williams/CQ Roll Call/Sipa USA via Reuters Connect
At a moment when many Jewish students are hiding Stars of David and removing mezuzahs from dorm-room doors, US Rep. Randy Fine (R-FL) has chosen the opposite approach. He is the first US lawmaker to wear a kippah on the House floor — asserting publicly what others feel compelled to conceal.
“You shouldn’t have to shrink to be safe,” Fine said. “Not in America.”
Speaking on The Algemeiner‘s “J100” podcast with host David M. Cohen, Fine explained that the decision began with his son.
Before a congressional hearing on campus antisemitism, Fine’s teenage son urged him to wear
his kippah so Jewish students — especially those afraid to show their identity — would know
they had an advocate in the room.
“The reaction was overwhelming,” Fine recalled.
Jewish families across the country reached out in support. That night, his son told him: “You should keep wearing it until every Jewish student in America feels safe.” Fine acknowledged that could take years — or forever.
“And that’s fine,” he said.
Cohen reflected that the moment captured “what so many Jewish parents feel — that their children are inheriting a world where being visibly Jewish requires bravery.”
Fine’s comfort with Jewish visibility was not always assured. Growing up in Kentucky, he was one of the only Jewish children in his school and was taunted with the nickname “Kentucky Fried Jew.” At age 13, he made a vow: that he would never again feel afraid because he is Jewish. That conviction now guides his public life.
Before entering Congress, Fine served in the Florida legislature, where he championed protections for Jewish students and helped secure funding for synagogue and school security. He sees this work not as politics, but as responsibility. His urgency reflects what he described on “J100” as a major shift in the lived reality of Jewish students.
“We’re seeing Jewish students who won’t wear a Star of David necklace, who won’t walk across campus alone,” he said. “No one in America should be afraid to be Jewish.”
Fine believes these conditions represent not only safety concerns but also a failure of leadership. For Fine, the kippah has become a visible reminder that Jewish identity and American patriotism are fully aligned — and that the burden of courage should fall on leaders first.
“This is a moment where Jews need to be proud, loud, and unafraid,” he said. “Not only in private spaces, but in the places where power is exercised.”
Cohen emphasized that visible Jewish leadership signals “not just courage, but character.”
And if a kippah in Congress helps one Jewish student feel braver, “it’s worth it,” Fine said.
Fine’s full conversation with Cohen is available now on the “J100” website as well as Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Substack, and YouTube.
Uncategorized
Mamdani’s victory is a watershed for Jewish progressives. For the mainstream, it’s wait-and-see.
Jewish leaders spent the final weeks of New York City’s mayoral race writing letters, delivering fiery sermons and sharing countless infographics warning about the threat an anti-Zionist mayor would pose for Jews.
Zohran Mamdani won anyway.
Now, those in charge of institutions that have shaped Jewish life in New York for decades are facing a new challenge: How to work with an incoming mayor after joining in a scorched earth campaign against him?
“I genuinely want to be like, ‘The water is warm — just come on in!’” said Audrey Sasson, chief executive of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice, a social justice group that campaigned aggressively for Mamdani. “It’s actually going to be so awesome.”
It’s safe to say many Jewish leaders are skeptical of Sasson’s invitation. The mayor-elect is such a divisive figure among Jewish New Yorkers — a majority of whom backed his opponents, exit polls showed — that a mere meeting with his transition team can be too inflammatory for some Jewish leaders to share publicly.
And yet the old guard will still need to work with the new mayor’s office. For example, UJA-Federation of New York, whose post-election statement vowed to hold Mamdani accountable, partners with health and human service agencies that receive millions of dollars from the city. Rabbis who signed a letter condemning Mamdani’s rhetoric will want the mayor to be attentive to their concerns.
“The Jewish community needs to figure out a way to work with the administration however possible,” said Amy Spitalnick, chief executive of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, which did not take a position on Mamdani’s candidacy.
Even Jewish groups whose entire focus is Israel and antisemitism hope the mayor-elect reaches out once he’s in office. Jewish on Campus, a student group, praised Mamdani this week for giving “voice to young New Yorkers on issues such as affordability” while simultaneously asking him to meet with pro-Israel leaders at local universities.
Interviews with community leaders revealed a range of approaches to managing a relationship with Mamdani. Some are anticipating a delicate balancing act, cooperating professionally even amid public disagreements. Others, bracing for the worst, may become resistance-like figures, expecting to go all-in on their opposition, as the Anti-Defamation League did in creating a Mamdani Monitor.
Navigating impasse
Jewish New Yorkers who criticized Mamdani for his stance on Israel had lots to point to.
He was reluctant to condemn “globalize the intifada,” a controversial slogan some Jews consider to be a call for violence, and he called Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide. As a state lawmaker, he introduced the Not On Our Dime bill, which he said would strip tax-exempt status from nonprofits that fund Israeli settler violence in the West Bank but which critics claimed targeted mainstream Jewish charities. He has raised the possibility of the city divesting from Israel bonds and said he would seek to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he traveled to New York City.
And Mamdani repeatedly declined to assert Israel’s right to exist “as a Jewish state,” instead stating his belief that Israel has a right to exist with equal rights for all.
Many seized on that as incontrovertible proof of Mamdani’s animus toward Jews who support Israel, unsatisfied by a later commitment to hire Zionists to work in his administration.But he also promised an eightfold increase in city funding for anti-hate crime initiatives, including security grants for houses of worship.
Hindy Poupko, UJA-Federation’s senior vice president of community strategy and external relations, doesn’t know which promises he’d make good on.
“The question is really for mayor-elect Mamdani: how is he going to work with us?” Poupko said. “He needs to demonstrate through actions and not just words that he will protect Jewish New Yorkers and that he will not seek to weaponize City Hall in an effort to demonize the State of Israel.”
There are reasons for Poupko to be optimistic.
Mamdani’s circle is stocked with people who have worked in the New York government for years — Bill de Blasio alumni, former Kathy Hochul advisers, Jewish state assemblymen — and with whom UJA-Federation and its dozens of local agencies have long-established professional relationships.
The strength of those ties may enable the federation to continue to lead opposition on Israel-related matters without undermining the work of partners like the Met Council, which fights hunger, or the Hebrew Free Burial Association.
“Our agencies will continue to work with relevant city agencies that they need to advance their priorities,” Poupko said. “We will continue our close partnership with NYPD to ensure that Jewish communities are safe, and at the same time, we will continue to make our values and priorities clear.”
Wait and see
Israel policy was not central to Mamdani’s campaign or his platform, and he has insisted that his focus as mayor will be on making New York safe and affordable for everyone. But that does not preclude him from taking steps to roll back the city’s cozyness with Israel. He has said, for example, that he plans to discontinue the New York City-Israel Economic Council established by current Mayor Eric Adams, who has professed his love for Israel and said he wants to retire in the Golan Heights.
And Mamdani could influence the future of Cornell Tech, a partnership between Cornell University and the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, whose campus is on city-owned Roosevelt Island. A Mamdani spokesperson told The New York Times prior to the election that Mamdani — who as an assemblyman urged a boycott of the campus — would “assess” the partnership if he won.
New York Solidarity Network, a pro-Israel advocacy group, issued multiple statements criticizing Mamdani during the campaign and executive director Sara Forman said she’s not waiting for a call from Mamdani’s office.
“What are we going to talk about?” Forman said. “I just don’t think there’s any moderation on his part in regard to many of the issues that the mainstream Jewish community holds dear.”
Like most of the leaders I spoke to, Forman was taking a wait-and-see approach to the mayor-elect. But she was also seeing a silver lining in his electoral breakthrough.
“A lot of Jews in New York are now awake,” she said, due to their anxiety about Mamdani. “We need to have more participation. And I think we’re going to get it.”
The new power brokers
While many of the largest Jewish groups absorbed the news of Mamdani’s win with trepidation, JFREJ’s Sasson was — in her words — “over the moon.”
The nonprofit, which works on a range of local issues that include housing and immigration and vocally opposed Israel’s war in Gaza, has been connected to the mayor-elect for years, and hundreds of its members canvassed for him.
“This campaign spoke our language,” Sasson said.
Sasson can now imagine a level of influence in city affairs that JFREJ has never before enjoyed.
Where some saw shades of antisemitism in Mamdani’s stances on Israel, JFREJ and other groups on the progressive Jewish flank — organizations such as Bend The Arc, T’ruah and IfNotNow — defended him. Bend The Arc wished Mamdani a “Mazal Tov!” after his victory in stark contrast to the omission of congratulations in statements issued by the UJA-Federation and other groups.
To Sasson, Mamdani’s victory — and the sizable Jewish support he received — is a sign that things are changing in New York as power flows away from traditional Jewish organizations and toward more progressive community nonprofits.
“The Jewish institutions that find themselves a little bit on the back foot right now, I think it’s a moment to do some reflecting and some of their own outreach,” Sasson said.
Spitalnick, who sits on the board of New York Jewish Agenda, a progressive umbrella group, said that while Jewish New Yorkers have “real, legitimate concerns about antisemitism, including the ways in which policies or rhetoric can play a role,” the response of some Jewish organizations threatened to sow division and fear and undermines Jewish safety in the long term.
The appropriate tack for Jewish organizations, Spitalnick said, was to build trust with the administration on areas of policy alignment, whether on crime or education or other issues, to fortify their relationship for moments of opposition.
“Part of what we need to do to advance Jewish safety,” she said, “is to engage across deep lines of disagreement.”
Jacob Kornbluh contributed reporting.
The post Mamdani’s victory is a watershed for Jewish progressives. For the mainstream, it’s wait-and-see. appeared first on The Forward.