Uncategorized
Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame
(JTA) — When a lawyer for Donald Trump asked E. Jean Carroll why she didn’t scream while allegedly being raped by Donald Trump, I thought of Letty Cottin Pogrebin. In her latest book, “Shanda: A Memoir of Shame and Secrecy,” she writes about being assaulted by a famous poet — and how the shadow of shame kept women like her silent about attacks on their own bodies.
That incident in 1962, she writes, was “fifty-eight years before the #MeToo movement provided the sisterhood and solidarity that made survivors of abuse and rape feel safe enough to tell their stories.”
Now 83, Pogrebin could have coasted with a memoir celebrating her six decades as a leading feminist: She co-founded Ms. magazine, its Foundation for Women and the National Women’s Political Caucus. She served as president of Americans for Peace Now and in 1982 blew the whistle on antisemitism in the feminist movement.
Instead, “Shanda” is about her immigrant Jewish family and the secrets they carried through their lives. First marriages that were kept hidden. An unacknowledged half-sister. Money problems and domestic abuse. An uncle banished for sharing family dirt in public.
“My mania around secrecy and shame was sparked in 1951 by the discovery that my parents had concealed from me the truth about their personal histories, and every member of my large extended family, on both sides, was in on it,” writes Pogrebin, now 83. “Their need to avoid scandal was so compelling that, once identified, it provided the lens through which I could see my family with fresh eyes, spotlight their fears, and, in so doing, illuminate my own.”
“Shanda” (the Yiddish word describes the kind of behavior that brings shame on an entire family or even a people) is also a portrait of immigrant New York Jews in the 20th century. As her father and mother father move up in the world and leave their Yiddish-speaking, Old World families behind for new lives in the Bronx and Queens, they stand in for a generation of Jews and new Americans “bent on saving face and determined to be, if not exemplary, at least impeccably respectable.”
Pogrebin and I spoke last week ahead of the Eight Over Eighty Gala on May 31, where she will be honored with a group that includes another Jewish feminist icon, the writer Erica Jong, and musician Eve Queler, who founded her own ensemble, the Opera Orchestra of New York, when she wasn’t being given chances to conduct in the male-dominated world of classical music. The gala is a fundraiser for the New Jewish Home, a healthcare nonprofit serving older New Yorkers.
Pogrebin and I spoke about shame and how it plays out in public and private, from rape accusations against a former president to her regrets over how she wrote about her own abortions to how the Bible justifies family trickery.
Our conversation was edited for length and clarity.
I found your book very moving because my parents’ generation, who like your family were middle-class Jews who grew up or lived in the New York metropolitan area, are also all gone now. Your book brought back to me that world of aunts and uncles and cousins, and kids like us who couldn’t imagine what kinds of secrets and traumas our parents and relatives were hiding. But you went back and asked all the questions that many of us are afraid to ask.
I can’t tell you how good writing it has been. I feel as though I have no weight on my back. And people who have read it gained such comfort from the normalization that happens when you read that others have been through what you’ve been through. And my family secrets are so varied — just one right after the other. The chameleon-like behavior of that generation — they became who they wanted to be through pretense or actual accomplishment.
In my mother’s case, pretense led the way. She went and got a studio photo that made it look like she graduated from high school when she didn’t. In the eighth grade, she went up to her uncle’s house in the north Bronx and had her dates pick her up there because of the shanda of where she lived on the Lower East Side with nine people in three rooms. She had to imagine herself the child of her uncle, who didn’t have an accent or had an accent but at least spoke English.
You describe yours as “an immigrant family torn between loyalty to their own kind and longing for American acceptance.”
There was the feeling that, “If only we could measure up, we would be real Americans.” My mother was a sewing machine operator who became a designer and figured out what American women wore when she came from rags and cardboard shoes, in steerage. So I admire them. As much as I was discomforted by the lies, I ended up having compassion for them.
It’s also a story of thwarted women, and all that lost potential of a generation in which few could contemplate a college degree or a career outside the home. Your mother worked for a time as a junior designer for Hattie Carnegie, a sort of Donna Karan of her day, but abandoned that after she met your dad and became, as you write, “Mrs. Jack Cottin.”
The powerlessness of women was complicated in the 1950s by the demands of the masculine Jewish ideal. So having a wife who didn’t work was proof that you were a man who could provide. As a result women sacrificed their own aspirations and passions. She protected her husband’s image by not pursuing her life outside the home. In a way my feminism is a positive, like a photograph, to the negative of my mother’s 1950s womanhood.
“I’m not an optimist. I call myself a ‘cockeyed strategist,” said Pogrebin, who has a home on the Upper West Side. (Mike Lovett)
You write that you “think of shame and secrecy as quintessentially Jewish issues.” What were the Jewish pressures that inspired your parents to tell so many stories that weren’t true?
Think about what we did. We hid behind our names. We changed our names. We sloughed off our accents. My mother learned to make My*T*Fine pudding instead of gefilte fish. Shame and secrecy have always been intrinsically Jewish to me, because of the “sha!” factor: At every supper party, there would be the moment when somebody would say, “Sha! We don’t talk about that!” So even though we talked about what felt like everything, there were things that couldn’t be touched: illness, the C-word [cancer]. If you wanted to make a shidduch [wedding match] with another family in the insular communities in which Jews lived, you couldn’t let it be known that there was cancer in the family, or mental illness.
While I was writing this memoir, I realized that the [Torah portion] I’m listening to one Shabbat morning is all about hiding. It is Jacob finding out that he didn’t marry Rachel, after all, but married somebody he didn’t love. All of the hiding that I took for granted in the Bible stories and I was raised on like mother’s milk was formative. They justified pretense, and they justified trickery. Rebecca lied to her husband and presented her younger son Jacob for the blessing because God told her, because it was for the greater good of the future the Jewish people.
I think Jews felt that same sort of way when it came to surviving. So we can get rid of our names. We wouldn’t have survived, whether we were hiding in a forest or behind a cabinet, a name or a passport, or [pushed into hiding] with [forced] conversions. Hiding was survival.
I was reading your book just as the E. Jean Carroll verdict came down, holding Donald Trump liable for sexually assaulting her during an encounter in the mid-’90s. You write how in 1962, when you were working as a book publicist, the hard-drinking Irish poet Brendan Behan (who died in 1964) tried to rape you in a hotel room and you didn’t report it. Like Carroll, you didn’t think that it was something that could be reported because the cost was too high.
Certainly in that era powerful men could get away with horrible behavior because of shanda reasons.
Carroll said in her court testimony, “It was shameful to go to the police.”
You know that it happened to so many others and nobody paid the price. The man’s reputation was intact and we kept our jobs because we sacrificed our dignity and our truth. I was in a career, and I really was supporting myself. I couldn’t afford to lose my job. I would have been pilloried for having gone to his hotel room, and nobody was there when he picked up an ashtray and threatened to break the window of the Chelsea Hotel unless I went up there with him.The cards were stacked against me.
In “Shanda,” you write about another kind of shame: The shame you now feel decades later about how you described the incident in your first book. You regret “how blithely I transformed an aggravated assault by a powerful man into a ‘sticky sexual encounter.’”
I wrote about the incident in such offhand terms, and wonder why. I wrote, basically, “Okay, girls, you’re gonna have to put up with this, but you’re gonna have to find your own magical sentence like I had with Behan” to get him to stop.
You write that you said, “You can’t do this to me! I’m a nice Jewish girl!” And that got him to back off.
Really painful.
I think that’s a powerful aspect of your book — how you look back at the ways you let down the movement or your family or friends and now regret. In 1991 you wrote a New York Times essay about an illegal abortion you had as a college senior in 1958, but not the second one you had only a few months later. While you were urging women to tell their stories of abortion, you note how a different shame kept you from telling the whole truth.
Jewish girls could be, you know, plain or ordinary, but they had to be smart, and I had been stupid. I could out myself as one of the many millions of women who had an abortion but not as a Jewish girl who made the same mistake [of getting pregnant] twice.
The book was written before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. In the book you write powerfully about the shame, danger and loneliness among women when abortion was illegal, and now, after 50 years, it is happening again. Having been very much part of the generation of activists that saw Roe become the law of the land, how have you processed its demise?
Since the 1970s, we thought everything was happening in this proper linear way. We got legislation passed, we had litigation and we won, and we saw the percentage of women’s participation in the workplace all across professions and trades and everything else rise and rise. And then Ronald Reagan was elected and then there was the Moral Majority and then it was the Hyde Amendment [barring the use of federal funds to pay for abortion]. I was sideswiped because I think I was naive enough to imagine that once we articulated what feminism was driving at and why women’s rights were important, and how the economic reality of families and discrimination against women weren’t just women’s issues, people would internalize it and understand it and justice would be done.
In the case of Roe, we could not imagine that rights could ever be taken away. We didn’t do something that we should have done, which is to have outed ourselves in a big way. It’s not enough that abortion was legal. We allowed it to remain stigmatized. We allowed the right wing to create their own valence around it. That negated solidarity. If we had talked about abortion as healthcare, if we had had our stories published and created organizations around remembering what it was like and people telling their stories about when abortion was illegal and dangerous…. Instead we allowed the religious right to prioritize [fetal] cells over a woman’s life. We just were not truthful with each other, so we didn’t create solidarity.
Are you heartened by the backlash against restrictive new laws in red states or optimistic that the next wave of activism can reclaim the right to abortion?
I’m not an optimist. I call myself a “cockeyed strategist.” If you look at my long resume, it is all about organizing: Ms. magazine, feminist organizations, women’s foundations, Black-Jewish dialogues, Torah study groups and Palestinian-Jewish dialogues.
Number one, we have to own the data and reframe the narrative. We have to open channels for discussion for women who have either had one or know someone who has had one, even in religious Catholic families. The state-by-state strategy was really slow, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg wanted that. She almost didn’t get on the court because she didn’t like the nationwide, right-to-privacy strategy of Roe but instead wanted it won state by state, which would have required campaigns of acceptance and consciousness-raising.
So, the irony is she hasn’t lived to see that we’re going to have to do it her way.
You share a lot of family secrets in this book. Is this a book that you waited to write until, I’ll try to put this gently, most of the people had died?
I started this book when I was 78 years old, and there’s always a connection to my major birthdays. And turning 80 – you experience that number and it is so weird. It doesn’t describe me and it probably won’t describe you. I thought, this could well be my last book, so I needed to be completely transparent, put it all out there.
My mother and father and aunts and uncles were gone, but I have 24 cousins altogether. I went to my cousins, and told them I am going to write about the secret of your parents: It’s my uncle, but it’s your father. It’s your family story even though it’s my family, but it’s yours first. And every cousin, uniformly, said, “Are you kidding? You don’t even know the half of it,” and they’d tell me the whole story. I guess people want the truth out in the end.
Is that an aspect of getting older?
I think it’s a promise of liberation, which is what I have found. It’s this experience of being free from anything that I’ve hid. I don’t have to hide. Years ago, on our 35th wedding anniversary, we took our whole family to the Tenement Museum because we wanted them to see how far we’ve come in two generations.
—
The post Letty Cottin Pogrebin wants Jews to own up to the corrosive power of shame appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous.
I moved to New York City in the early 1990s. My original commitment was for only one year, but I quickly fell in love with the place. Part of the appeal was the city’s Jewishness.
Everywhere you looked, there were signs of Jewish influence. This was an era where people repeated jokes from Seinfeld by the water cooler. And it was conventional wisdom that any candidate who wanted to hold office in New York had to appeal to the three “I’s” — Italy, Ireland, and Israel.
While being Jewish was not a big part of my identity — I am not religious and have always lived an assimilated life — I immediately felt comfortable in this kind of environment. I intuitively understood the humor and the rhythm of the city. Many prominent New York public officials — figures like Ed Koch and Ruth Messinger — were familiar types that I recognized from my extended family gatherings.
And so I ended up staying put, becoming yet another liberal Jewish New Yorker. For more than 30 years, I never really thought much about these three overlapping identities — liberal, Jew, New Yorker — because I didn’t have to. Nothing could be more natural than being a liberal Jewish New Yorker — the town was practically teeming with people more or less just like me.
The number of Jews in New York has remained basically the same since I first moved here, but the city no longer feels quite as hospitable as it once did. In fact, some prominent commentators and publications have begun asking: Is it still safe for Jews in New York?
This question doesn’t come out of nowhere. The years since Oct. 7, 2023 have been challenging for Jews in New York. The day after the attack, the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America held a gathering in Times Square to show their support for the Palestinian cause, marching under the banner “by any means necessary.” This was the start of a season of protest that featured encampments and demonstrations at many New York universities.
The energies unleashed by the pro-Palestine protest movement could not be contained on campus. Events kept landing closer and closer to my doorstep. The Israeli restaurant around the corner from my house was vandalized. My friend Andy Bachman, a liberal rabbi, was prevented from speaking at a Brooklyn bookstore because he supports the existence of Israel.
Then, last week, my congressman, Rep. Dan Goldman, went out to get a cup of coffee at Poetica, a café in Brooklyn. Afterward, Poetica posted a photo of him on Instagram, along with a message that the coffee shop does not serve “genocide enablers.” The post added, “Too bad we didn’t recognize you right away, or we would have turned you away.”
This insult was soon followed by (political) injury: Goldman lost his primary to Brad Lander, whose campaign was largely focused on accusing Goldman of not being tough enough on Israel, even though Goldman has been critical of the conduct of the war in Gaza and supportive of imposing conditions on American aid.
All of this is disconcerting, but let’s be clear: Today’s New York City is not Weimar Germany. Rep. Ritchie Torres — among the Democratic Party’s most vocal and consistent defenders of Israel — just won his primary by a wide margin. New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani has repeatedly vowed to protect the local Jewish community. Indeed, Mamdani likely would not have been elected without the support of roughly a third of Jewish voters.
New York City may still be safe for Jews, but what is less clear is whether the default position of many liberal Jews — who are critical of the Netanyahu government and supportive of a two-state solution — still has a place in the Democratic Party, either locally or nationally.
In Exit, Voice and Loyalty, economist Albert O. Hirschmann argued that when people are confronted by a deteriorating situation, they effectively have three options: to accept the decline, to leave, or to stay and fight. Jews have been building institutions and fighting for belonging in New York City for hundreds of years. Abandoning that work now would be a colossal overreaction.
However, liberal Jewish New Yorkers who choose to stay in the city will have to reckon with a changing reality. The demographics of New York have shifted. The Muslim population has grown. Younger New Yorkers have different political instincts than the generations that preceded them.
The recent New York congressional primary victories by three candidates who are extremely critical of Israel are not flukes — they are reflective of a significant turn in public opinion.
There has been a massive erosion of public support for Israel in the United States in recent years, with Americans now expressing more sympathy for the Palestinians than Israelis. Writing in Jewish Currents, Peter Beinart triumphantly announced: “Restricting U.S. support for Israel is no longer politically perilous; it’s politically expedient.”
The question is no longer whether the Democratic Party should include activists who are fiercely opposed to Israel. That ship has sailed. The question is whether the party — and polite society — will follow Poetica’s lead and declare people like Dan Goldman unwelcome.
Is there still a place in the Democratic Party for liberal Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist? It remains to be seen. But for the first time in more than 30 years, I find myself thinking about the words “liberal,” “Jewish” and “New Yorker” as potentially separable things. I doubt I am the only one.
The post My city and party are changing. The implications for liberal Jewish New Yorkers could be enormous. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us?
If you always dreamed of working in artificial intelligence, perhaps you studied computer science, or math. Who knows, maybe you did computational biology to better understand how to build a neural network. What you probably never imagined might be useful was Talmud, halakha and Jewish history.
Yet those are exactly the skills Judd Rosenblatt, founder of AI consulting company AE Studios and AI ethics nonprofit the AI Alignment Foundation, is looking for.
Rosenblatt thinks that the evolution of Jewish thought might be core to solving a very specific — and worrying — issue with artificial intelligence.
That issue is recursive self-improvement, or RSI, the process of an AI editing itself, and then editing those edits, and so on — all without humans in the loop, checking its work or even knowing about the changes. This skill is the current holy grail of AI research, because it will allow for exponential speed in improvements; every major AI company is racing toward RSI and, according to rumors, Anthropic has likely already achieved it. That means changes at a speed and scale human brains are not built to comprehend.
But RSI isn’t just a way to quickly improve AI — it is also the end of human control and oversight over artificial intelligence. It’s a sort of Ship of Theseus paradox, which asks whether a boat is the same object after all of its boards have been replaced. If AI rewrites itself over and over, faster and faster, will it cease to be the machine humans created and become something we can’t understand, predict or control? Which is where Rosenblatt’s project comes in.
“How do you make something that is poised to get exponentially smarter than you continue to do what you think is right and good?” he said. “How do we make it such that it does not kill us?”
This project is known in the business as AI alignment — basically, to make sure AI aligns with human values and ethics. The challenge is that AI might edit out those values during its upgrading; we already have evidence that AI will discard certain commands if it concludes they are extraneous or contradictory to its other goals. So the AI needs to believe that these ethical tenets are useful or valuable enough that it doesn’t delete them when it is rewriting itself.
The crux of Rosenblatt’s research is figuring out how to keep those values alive. He’s not only looking at Judaism; he’s also considering the history of thought, immune systems and even bookkeeping for ideas. (He is himself Jewish, raised Reform and bar mitzvahed — and recognized this may give him a bias toward halakha.) He is particularly interested in far-fetched ideas, outside the current Overton window of alignment techniques, none of which he thinks are sufficient for the coming problem of RSI.
“A lot of the biggest breakthroughs in the history of science come from individuals with strong hunches that no one else believed in. But these people chose to stick with their hunches,” Rosenblatt said.
He believes that finding “neglected visionaries” who are outside the norms and might struggle to find funding, and pairing them with a team of engineers and tech-minded experts, could lead to a breakthrough. To do this, he is taking some of the profits from his AI consulting firm AE Studios and putting them into the nonprofit AI Alignment Foundation.
“It’s interesting to study what has survived adversarial pressure over long periods of time. So you can say let’s study things that have survived evolutionary adversarial pressure,” and examine biological survival mechanisms, he said. “And then there’s civilizational adversarial pressure.”
Before the Second Temple was destroyed, Judaism revolved around temple sacrifice and the priesthood. Yet after its destruction, Judaism didn’t die; instead, it became something different.
The reason Judaism survived is not despite the changes, Rosenblatt hypothesizes, but because of them. “I think a tradition that reinterprets nothing is the more fragile one,” he said. “A rule that cannot be bent, cannot adapt to a new world and dies out.”
There are interesting parallels between the structure of arguments in the Talmud and the problem of RSI: Both involve constantly layered, referential rewritings; it even preserves the ideas that do not end up winning the arguments canonized in the writings. In the Talmud, the original text — the Torah — is interpreted into the Mishna, the Gemara and countless later commentaries that shift the practice of the laws over time. Yet certain values remain. Some of Judaism’s traits have even survived an even bigger change: Christianity. Yet even Christianity keeps some of Judaism’s core ideas, like monotheism and pikuach nefesh, the idea that saving a life supersedes any other command.
“It is maybe the best working example that I know of that survived the total destruction, multiple times, of the thing that was it,” Rosenblatt said. “And it did that using mechanisms that it built into itself, on purpose. That is the alignment problem, stated in Jewish terms.”
Another promising angle is the idea of covenant as a relational bond; Jews inherit the covenant, but must also choose to engage with Judaism, and with God, just as the AI might one day have to choose to preserve certain values even as it adapts them.
“Everything that lasts in Judaism is sort of organized around a covenant which endures the transformation from one generation to the next,” he said. “You inherit it, but you also choose to participate in it.”
Of course, Judaism has changed enormously over time — and some people might argue that its core has changed enormously too, with many Jews centering tikkun olam over keeping kosher, for example, or differing widely on Israel or even not believing in God.
But Rosenblatt said this is part of the point; some traits get selected for and last through major changes, and others don’t, just like in evolution. That’s how you winnow it down to its strongest components.
The question is what is that core that remains, and why. Rosenblatt has a lot of ideas. But he didn’t want to tell me what his hunch about Judaism’s eternal core; he doesn’t want to bias anyone. He wants those neglected visionaries to come and tell him their biggest, best ideas. The door is open.
The post We’re losing control of AI. Is Judaism the key to keeping it from killing us? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The Israeli rescue operation that was tailor made for Hollywood
In the early hours of July 4, 1976, Israel completed a stunning and unprecedented military action that saved 102 Israeli lives. A French plane traveling from Tel Aviv to Paris had been taken over by hijackers demanding the release of 53 Palestinian prisoners held in several countries, including 40 in Israel.
Rerouted to Entebee, Uganda, a pro-Palestinian country headed by the savage dictator Adi Amin, the plane sat in the terminal, surrounded on all sides by armed Ugandan soldiers. The hijackers set a deadline stating that if their demands were not met they would start murdering the hostages. The ordeal dragged on for seven days.
Fifty years later, the extraordinary event still resonates — for those who celebrate Israeli brilliance and bravery as well for those who view the hijackers as freedom fighters embracing a just Palestinian cause.
The event inspired an array of films, most of which depict the harrowing week-long episode with a fair degree of verisimilitude. But, viewed through a post-Oct. 7 lens, each reflects divergent points of view.
The best known are Victory at Entebbe, Raid on Entebbe (two star-studded American blockbusters), 7 Days at Entebbe and Operation Thunderbolt. The latter, an Israeli produced Academy Award nominee for Best Foreign Language Film (1978) and no longer available for streaming in the United States, was praised for its authentic feel and historically accurate backdrops, military equipment and uniforms. In its first iteration, Arabic, Hebrew, French and English were spoken. In a later version, dubbed for an international audience, everyone conversed in English. It presented the Israel Defense Forces in a glowing heroic light.
Victory at Entebbe was the most starry of the lot, featuring Elizabeth Taylor, Kirk Douglas, Richard Dreyfus, Burt Lancaster, Theodore Bikel, Anthony Hopkins and Helen Hayes. Though it, too, casts the Israeli commandos as epic figures, at its core it’s about the entrapped Israeli passengers and their present, also past, lives and their conflict-ridden or romantic interactions, some of which bordering on absurdity.
There’s the sometimes wise and sometimes dotty grandmother archetype (Hayes) hoping the plane might be hijacked to India since she’s never been there before and would like to visit. One religious Jew demands kosher food, while others insist upon lighting Shabbat candles. A young girl (Linda Blair, post-Exorcist) tries to cheer everyone up with chocolates. And back home in Israel, her mother (dreadfully played by Taylor) has lost her mind and incoherently screams something about red ribbons.
The characters are way over the top. My favorite is the female German hijacker Brigitte Kuhlmann (played by Bibi Besch), strutting about and barking, often shrieking, demands at the Israeli hostages.
Most of the films create a thread between the victims of the Holocaust and the Jewish passengers. The Jewish hostages are brutally segregated into a separate room in the terminal and treated far worse than the others. In one particularly ham-fisted Victory scene, a Jew with a Belgian passport refuses to be housed with Israelis. He is a Belgian, he insists. Later, he is overwhelmed with guilt because he didn’t identify as a Jew. Another passenger reassures him that trying to survive is fully understandable. Sound familiar?
The most successful film of the films is Raid on Entebbe (1976), directed by Irvin Kershner and starring Peter Finch, Charles Bronson, Martin Balsam, Jack Warden and Sylvia Sidney. It embodies all the elements of a well-conceived airplane hijacking thriller, coupled with archival footage featuring iconic American newscasters of the period covering the happenings as they unfolded. Like many disaster films, it presents a cast of interacting characters with subplots that, unlike Victory at Entebee, are plausible, at least within parameters, and don’t overwhelm the film.
A high point here is the Jewish actor Yaphet Kotto’s Idi Amin, at once a ferocious figure and a buffoon. Careerism, opportunism and self-promotion are at his core. His cheery “Shalom, Shalom” while waving to the Israeli hostages is bone-chilling.
The film is unequivocally told from the Israeli point of view and is especially vivid in its depiction of the internecine struggle within the cabinet. Defense Minister Shimon Peres and others argue that Israel has never given in to the demands of terrorists and to do so now would create a dangerous precedent. Others respond that lives are at stake. Outside in the streets, protesters demand that the cabinet negotiate with the hijackers. On the surface, the Israeli government is proceeding with diplomacy at the very moment it has launched a complex military intervention.
It’s a high-risk sneak attack in the middle of the night, involving four cargo planes carrying between 100-200 soldiers and escorted by Phantom jet fighters. They fly close to 2,500 miles from Israel to Uganda and within 90 minutes of landing the commandos have rescued 102 of the hostages, killed the hijackers and dozens of the Ugandan guards. It’s a nail biter.
But there are losses too, including the murder of Major General Yonatan “Yoni” Netenyahu (older brother of the Prime Minister), the spearheading force behind the rescue. The impromptu Kaddish uttered by the soldiers flanking his body on the return flight is quite moving.
Still, at the end you cheer for the Israelis even as you mourn the irretrievable loss of life.
Seven Days in Entebbe, directed by José Padilha, stands in stark contrast to the other films, focusing its attention on three of the hijackers. There is the furious Palestinian and two Germans, whose motivations are more enigmatic. The one woman (Rosamund Pike) seems the most eager to kill anyone or everyone. Her rage is far more existential and free-floating than it is political or even targeted.
The gentlest of the lot and the most conflicted (vividly acted by Daniel Brühl) is a left-leaning German publisher, who wants to make a statement that puts him on the right side of history, at least as he sees it. His posturing becomes all too real when he realizes he may actually be called upon to pull the trigger. Throughout, he grapples with Holocaust history and the moral complexity and resonance of contemporary “Germans killing Jews.”
“You are here because you hate your country,” says the Palestinian, “I am here because I love mine.”
“Jews came to Palestine and did to our people what your people did to them,” he adds. “Go back to your nice life. I go back to nothing.”
The dramatization of philosophical differences among the hijackers, informed by class and experience, is not without interest. Unlike the other films, this movie concludes on an introspective and perhaps even conciliatory note as Prime Minister Rabin says that in the future Israel will have to negotiate.
Most off-putting is the interspersed presence of the Batsheva Dance Company. Its members are on a stage seated on folding chairs in a circle. Abruptly, they twisting this way and that to evoke anguish. In each segment the tortured movements grow increasingly intense. These choreographic bits that also serve as bookends to the film are pretentious, totally unaccounted for, serve no discernible purpose, and bring to mind badly done satire.
The topic of the Entebbe raid has surfaced once again with Boaz Dvir’s compelling To Kill a Nazi, which just debuted in Los Angeles. Though it is a documentary, it has the feel of fiction.
It tells the little known story of business consultant Michel Cojot, who was committed to tracking down and killing Klaus Barbie (“the butcher of Lyon”). Barbie was responsible for the deportation and ultimately the death of Cojot’s father in Auschwitz. But when Cojot was in shooting distance of Barbie, he couldn’t do it and tore himself apart for what he viewed as his cowardly indecision. For him, that indecision was both a personal and Jewish flaw.
Depending on your viewpoint, either through destiny or coincidence, a year later he found himself on the ill-fated Air France flight and was unwittingly given a second chance to redeem himself. And he did, facilitating relationships with the hijackers and pilot and flight crew. In so doing he negotiated a plan and retrieved information that played a major role in the successful outcome of the raid. Though the French government still hasn’t honored him Cojot, who died in 1999, found peace with himself as a Jew and a human being.,
It’s a theme that has an indefinite shelf life. And it couldn’t be more timely in light of the surge in antisemitism, the rift among Jews and the ongoing internal and external battle of what it means to be a Jew.
The post The Israeli rescue operation that was tailor made for Hollywood appeared first on The Forward.
