Uncategorized
It’s time to talk about Purim’s unsettling message about conversion
Purim is meant to be loud: a holiday for drinking, dressing up, yelling and retelling a story of miraculous survival.
Which means it’s easy to miss a brief but significant verse near the end of the Book of Esther — one that deserves to be lingered over:
“And many of the people of the land professed to be Jews, for the fear of the Jews had fallen upon them.”
That line doesn’t lend itself to celebration. It does not describe people drawn to Judaism by teaching or conviction. Instead, it chronicles a far more troubling choice: people becoming Jews because they are afraid of Jews.
Whether the Book of Esther records events that literally occurred is beside the point. What matters is that Jews read this line aloud every year, carrying its language forward across generations. For a tradition that often insists Judaism does not seek converts and rejects religious coercion, this verse preserves an unsettling possibility: that joining the Jewish people can be driven by fear as much as conviction.
By the end of the narrative, Jews wield power, and the dread that once haunted them shifts outward.
Yes, some read the verse as referring to political alignment rather than religious change. Others treat Esther as satire, its excesses not meant for emulation. Still others point to the absence of God in the book, and dismiss the line as non-theological.
Even with those readings, the line still does something difficult. It places an unresolved moral question inside a festival we otherwise frame as joyful: How does holding power change the face of Judaism?
When conversion was possible — or required
The common claim that Judaism has always discouraged conversion is historically inaccurate. Jewish attitudes toward converts have shifted with political conditions, not because theology changed, but because power dynamics did.
The truth is that for much of Jewish history, conversion was dangerous. After the destruction of the Temple in 70 C.E. and the failure of later revolts against Rome, much of Jewish life developed under sustained imperial pressure. Welcoming people raised outside the community became, practically, risky.
This is why the familiar line “Judaism doesn’t seek converts” is more of a survival posture than an eternal principle. After all, the Hebrew Bible repeatedly reminds readers that Israel’s calling was never meant to be entirely inward. A “mixed multitude” leaves Egypt. Gerim, resident outsiders, are repeatedly considered in biblical law. Isaiah imagines God’s house as a house of prayer for all peoples.
In the late Hellenistic and early Roman periods, Jewish communities were widely visible across the diaspora. An inscription from Aphrodisias in Asia Minor in modern-day Turkey lists not only Jews but also “proselytes” and “God-fearers” among synagogue donors, suggesting gentiles were sometimes attached to synagogue life. Similar “God-fearer” inscriptions survive from other cities in Roman Asia Minor, where gentiles were known to attend synagogues, admire Jewish ethics, and sometimes decide to join the Jewish people.
Even polemical texts preserve traces of this world. Matthew 23:15 mocks those who “travel across sea and land” to make a proselyte — meaning to convert to Judaism. Whatever one makes of the polemic, the line treats the basic fact as unremarkable: that conversion to Judaism was a regular part of the religious landscape in the first-century Mediterranean.
Other ancient sources, including the first-century historian Josephus, describe moments when Jewish rulers used conversion as a tool of rule. One of the starkest examples comes from the Hasmoneans, the priestly family behind the Maccabean revolt who ruled Judea from roughly 140 to 37 B.C.E. Under John Hyrcanus, who reigned from 134 to 104 B.C.E., the kingdom of Judea expanded through conquest. Hyrcanus governed as many ancient rulers did, through coercion.
Among the territories absorbed was Idumea, homeland of the Edomites. According to Josephus, Hyrcanus offered the Idumeans a choice: adopt Jewish law or leave the land. They chose conversion.
This is not an obscure episode. It sits in the shadow of Hanukkah, one of Judaism’s most widely celebrated holidays.
Centuries later, Jewish sovereignty appeared again in the Himyarite kingdom of southern Arabia, where a ruling elite adopted Judaism in the fourth century CE. Eventually, persecution of non-Jews followed. The kingdom’s final ruler, Dhu Nuwas, who reigned from 522 to 530 C.E., oppressed local Christian populations, provoking retaliation from the neighboring Kingdom of Aksum. After more than a century, the Jewish kingdom fell.
Not a powerless minority faith
The reigns of Hyrcanus and Nuwas complicate the familiar story of Judaism as only a powerless minority faith, always deterring conversion. They suggest that Jewish sovereignty could carry the same temptations that haunt sovereignty everywhere, including the temptation to force compliance on those of different beliefs.
The Book of Esther verse about conversion offers a warning about that dynamic, and an imperative to learn from it. The lesson is not to condemn Judaism. It is to refuse a simplified story in which Judaism’s posture toward conversion has been static and untouched by the realities of power.
Across many faiths, when political power disappears, priorities often shift. Teachings turn inward. When power reappears, however briefly, older questions have a habit of returning. Who belongs? Who chooses? And under what conditions are those choices made?
Purim does not allow us to keep those questions at a safe distance. We are meant to hear this troubling verse amid the laughter and noise of our celebrations, not as an endorsement of coercion, but as a warning.
Esther’s story insists that two things can be true: Jews can be vulnerable, and Jews can hold power. And if we can be afraid, it warns, we can also inspire fear, with consequences not only for the societies in which we live, but also for the kind of Jewish life we make possible.
The post It’s time to talk about Purim’s unsettling message about conversion appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mamdani concedes he can’t arrest Netanyahu but urges U.S. to enforce International Criminal Court warrant
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced Tuesday night that a legal review he ordered found he does not have the authority to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the city, putting to rest a question that has repeatedly surfaced since he first vowed to take custody in light of an International Criminal Court order for Netanyahu’s arrest.
In the two-minute address posted on his official social media accounts, Mamdani opened by declaring “Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, the architect of a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people” but acknowledged the legal limits that prevent him from following through on his pledge, which had become a rallying cry for his pro-Palestinian supporters. (The use of the term “genocide” to describe the Gazan death toll in the Israel-Hamas war remains contested.)
“My administration has reviewed every avenue available under applicable law to determine whether New York City could execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant if Benjamin Netanyahu came here,” Mamdani said. “It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this one.”
Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. pic.twitter.com/YRezmW6YVx
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) July 22, 2026
The United States does not recognize the court’s authority over American citizens or foreign nationals on U.S. soil, and local authorities have no power to execute such a warrant. U.S. law gives the federal government control over foreign policy, and heads of state traveling to the United Nations are protected by diplomatic immunity.
The announcement ended days of speculation and fierce backlash over one of his most controversial campaign promises after comments he made when asked about his arrest vow in an interview with The New York Times reignited the issue. “If someone is charged with a warrant from the International Criminal Court for these types of crimes, that’s something I believe should be honored,” Mamdani told reporters on Monday.
Mamdani, who rose to power aligned with pro-Palestinian activism, has been unapologetic about his anti-Zionist views. He came under fire during the mayoral race last year for defending the slogan “globalize the intifada,” used by some at the pro-Palestinian protests and perceived by many as a call for violence against Jews, and repeatedly said he’d arrest the Israeli leader over the conduct of the war in Gaza.
Netanyahu’s representatives in the U.S. responded angrily to Mamdani’s move, calling him “an antisemite” and accusing him of attacking Israel to cover up for political failure.
On Tuesday night, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, responded on social media: “Zohran Mamdani, ENOUGH. Enough with the blood libels. Enough with the attacks on Jewish organizations. Enough with the outreach to the Iranian regime. You were elected to serve New Yorkers, not Hamas’ propaganda. Do your job!”
Tuesday’s video mirrored the Nakba Day video produced by his City Hall media team commemorating the displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s founding in 1948, which drew sharp criticism from Jewish and Zionist organizations. But it also highlighted the tension that has defined Mamdani’s first six months in office: balancing the activist politics that propelled him to City Hall with the legal limits and governing responsibilities of leading the city with the largest Jewish population outside Israel.
In his address, Mamdani said that while the city had exhausted its legal options, the federal government had not. He urged the Trump administration to join the International Criminal Court and enforce its arrest warrant for Netanyahu. President Donald Trump, writing on Truth Social on Monday, reassured Netanyahu that he “will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America.”
Mamdani concluded that Netanyahu “is not welcome in New York City” and said New York leaders can choose not to remain silent to defend Palestinian human rights. “That is my commitment to you,” he said.
The post Mamdani concedes he can’t arrest Netanyahu but urges U.S. to enforce International Criminal Court warrant appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialist rails against AIPAC in uphill primary bid against pro-Israel incumbent in Arizona
(JTA) — Kai Newkirk, an activist and democratic socialist, has made Israel and AIPAC a focal point in his effort to unseat pro-Israel Rep. Greg Stanton in Tuesday’s Arizona Democratic primary.
“I’ve been arrested over 25 times in civil disobedience — and I’ll go to jail for justice again before I ever take a dime from AIPAC,” Newkirk wrote on X last week, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Newkirk, 45, whose organizing has largely focused on campaign finance reform, has repeatedly blasted Stanton’s support from the pro-Israel lobbying group. He has also accused the Israeli government itself of “trying to interfere in our elections,” including in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District where he is running and which covers parts of Phoenix and Maricopa County.
He pointed to a $45 million text message campaign to improve Israel’s image in the U.S. as a sign of such interference, and posited that “they may be targeting areas where AIPAC is more invested or where these issues are more at stake.”
The primary comes as a number of left-wing congressional candidates with sharply critical Israel stances have won the Democratic nomination around the country, and as Israel and AIPAC grow increasingly unpopular among Democratic voters.
The most recent poll on the Arizona race, commissioned by a group that favors Newkirk, had Stanton up by 8 percentage points, while another poll, conducted two weeks earlier by a group favoring Stanton, showed the incumbent ahead by 33 points.
Newkirk’s platform includes ending all military aid to Israel and imposing an arms embargo on the country, which he accuses of genocide.
Stanton, 56, a four-term incumbent, voted against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to cut military aid to Israel last week. Newkirk criticized Stanton, saying that he would have voted for the amendment, and suggested that Stanton’s vote was the result of his support from AIPAC.
“Greg Stanton has taken over $300K from AIPAC,” Newkirk wrote. “And today — as so many Americans in our district and across the country struggle to get by — he just voted to send billions more of our tax dollars to Israel to fund their war crimes and genocide. Disgraceful.”
Among AIPAC’s endorsees in Congress, more than a dozen voted to cut aid to Israel last week; AIPAC has since removed the option on its website to donate to those candidates.
Stanton explained his vote on X, saying that the amendment “would undermine America’s ability to counter real threats from Iran” and weaken the ability to promote long-term stability across the region. He also criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and wrote that “clear change is necessary” as the U.S.-Israel security agreement, which includes $3.8 billion in annual military subsidies for Israel, nears its expiration in 2028.
Newkirk is endorsed by progressive groups such as Our Revolution, Track AIPAC and the Progressive Democrats of America.
Also among Newkirk’s endorsers is Cenk Uygur, the host of the Young Turks who has spread conspiracy theories about Israel. “Kai is Israel Free and has fought to get money out of politics his whole life,” wrote Uygur last month.
Newkirk has faced turbulence in establishing broader support.
The Young Democrats of Arizona pulled its endorsement of Newkirk earlier in July, writing that it had been “made aware of some concerning patterns of behavior” displayed by Newkirk, without specifying what it meant.
Newkirk did not respond to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s request for comment. After the Young Democrats of Arizona retracted its endorsement, Newkirk wrote that the withdrawal of the endorsement was based on a false report amid “a wave of wins by democratic socialists” and called it a “weaponization of … disavowed misinformation.”
Newkirk did speak out against last year’s killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. “I stand always with my beloved Jewish siblings against the scourge of antisemitism just as I will never stop in the nonviolent struggle to end the genocide in Gaza, release all hostages, and open the way to just, lasting peace,” he said.
The post Democratic socialist rails against AIPAC in uphill primary bid against pro-Israel incumbent in Arizona appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Ed Miliband, Britain’s new Jewish foreign secretary has a long history of support for — and disagreement with — British Jews
(JTA) — Tapped to become Britain’s new foreign secretary, Ed Miliband said he would strive to honor the memories of his Holocaust refugee parents.
“My parents came to Britain as Jewish refugees from the Nazis,” Miliband tweeted just hours after Prime Minister Andy Burnham named him to the post. “To them, Britain was both a sanctuary and a beacon of hope in the global fight against fascism. I will carry my parents’ faith in that spirit of Britain to my role representing our country.”
The appointment by the new prime minister positions Miliband as the highest-ranking Jewish official in the British government, assuming a role once held by his older brother David and at a time when questions of the country’s relationship to Israel are a pressing priority. Miliband has long decried antisemitism, including within his own party, and is also known as a critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among the priorities facing the office is whether Britain should move forward with an effort to ban imports from West Bank settlements, which has support across the political spectrum, and how to handle surging anti-Israel and anti-Jewish violence that authorities say has been orchestrated by actors abroad.
Ed Miliband led the Labour Party when it was in opposition from 2010-2015; his brother was among the candidates he bested in the party’s 2010 leadership race.
He has said he has no Jewish practice or formal education and that his parents favored politics over religion. His mother, Marion Kozak, who died last month, was an early supporter of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, a British group, but ceased speaking out publicly as her sons ascended in British politics.
David Miliband, now the president of the International Rescue Committee, has also said his career choices stem from the suffering their parents endured as Jewish refugees.
Ed Milliband’s stances on Israel have caused consternation among British Jewish groups in the past. In 2014, he led his party in a symbolic vote to recognize a Palestinian state and also criticized the toll of Israel’s operations during that year’s Gaza war.
“I defend Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks,” he said then. “But I cannot explain, justify or defend the horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including children and innocent civilians.”
He also told the Jewish News at the time that he did not eschew the “Zionist” label.
“I am proud to be Jewish,” he said. “I’ve no issue with people calling me a Zionist.” He described Israel as “the homeland for the Jewish people.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council said they recognized Miliband’s overall support of Israel, but also chided him for his comments about the Palestinian civilian death toll. “These comments regrettably ignore the ideology of Hamas, the psychology of Hamas, the actions of Hamas and thus the reality faced by Israel,” they said then in a joint statement at the time.
Miliband was succeeded as Labour Party leader by Jeremy Corbyn, whose strident pro-Palestinianism and perceived insensitivity to Jewish sensibilities marked the worst relations between the party and the Jewish community in decades.
Miliband was cautious about criticizing his successor but made clear his unhappiness with how Corbyn was handling the antisemitism charges in 2018 when he took the organized Jewish community’s side in lambasting the party leadership for rejecting a definition of antisemitism that includes some forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activity.
“Labour should adopt the full IHRA definition,” he said then, referring to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. “The argument that it is somehow incompatible with criticizing the actions of the Israeli government is wrong. The views of the vast majority of the Jewish community are very clear.
Miliband condemned Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, but also persisted as one of Labour’s most forceful critics of Israel’s government.
During the 2024 general election campaign, he called Oct. 7 “an appalling terrorist atrocity,” saying, “We in the Labour leadership are completely committed to the security for the people and security for the state of Israel.”
However, he added that “the continuing Israeli action in Gaza is not either beneficial now for Israel, or for the people of Gaza.”
One of the first questions Miliband will face is how he will handle relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, who is famously averse to people who have criticized him in the past. “These are dark days for America and the world,” Miliband wrote in 2017, as Trump assumed his first term of office. The same year, Miliband also said Trump had “lowered the bar for idiocy.”
The post Ed Miliband, Britain’s new Jewish foreign secretary has a long history of support for — and disagreement with — British Jews appeared first on The Forward.
