Uncategorized
London Jewish Museum to close indefinitely and look for new location
LONDON (JTA) — London’s Jewish Museum is to close indefinitely next month and begin hunting for a new home for its collection of 40,000 objects, one of the largest of its kind in Europe.
The rising costs of maintaining its current premises in northwest London and a difficult fundraising environment exacerbated an already precarious financial situation for the museum, its chairman Nick Viner told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. The Jewish Museum intends to close its doors at the end of June and be out of its current building on Albert Street by the end of the year.
Viner said that the museum had been working on a “vision for the future” that would have seen it move to a building better tailored to the institution’s needs, but that the board had decided that it was no longer possible to make that transition seamlessly.
“We realized that it wasn’t possible to fund the ongoing museum, where the costs were going up significantly, and to focus on a future,” he explained. “We decided that we would pause — move out of the building, sell it, and use the funds to help us over the next period, so that we can continue to operate in a transition mode.”
The Jewish Museum, which had been struggling even prior to COVID-19, was forced into restructuring and layoffs during the pandemic, and it pivoted heavily towards educational programs.
Those programs will continue, and the museum also intends to operate temporary exhibitions in smaller spaces around London, while the rest of the collection is put in storage or loaned temporarily to other institutions.
“There is an opportunity to have parts of the collection that haven’t been seen be accessible to people in different parts of the country, which could be very exciting,” Viner said. “We are just starting to look at how it would work practically, and whether others can house parts of the collection safely.”
Among the rare objects that risk slipping out of view are the oldest Hanukkah menorah made in Britain, which has been displayed since the museum was founded in 1932, and a 17th-century Venetian synagogue ark. The Jewish Museum also houses collections from the Jewish Military Museum, the United Synagogue and the Jewish Historical Society.
But the institution’s small building meant that only 5% of its objects were displayed. It has historically also had a smaller profile than its counterparts on the continent, which operate largely based on public funding and have become more firmly entrenched on both Jewish and non-Jewish tourists trails and local cultural scenes.
“We are very conscious that the U.K. has the second largest Jewish community in Europe and that London’s museum is both very small and a very different kind of space from some of the great Jewish museums around Europe,” said Viner. “We feel that we have so many fantastic stories to tell and so much to show that we ought to have a museum that reflects that, but it will only work if the community is ultimately supportive.”
The museum will have to rely heavily on donors within the Jewish community to ensure its long-term future, as funds from the Arts Council England, a British government-funded body, are insufficient on their own to ensure its sustainability.
Recent records show that in the twelve months up to March 2022, the revenue of the Jewish Museum was hovering at just over a third of pre-COVID levels. The museum was granted National Portfolio status by Arts Council England last year, a label that provides it with a stream of over $280,000 a year until 2026. It had previously received an injection of over $1 million by the Arts Council during the pandemic.
“There is always a risk when you don’t have the fundraising that you cannot continue,” added Viner, who said that it was still uncertain how much the Jewish Museum was looking to raise. “There are different models. It could be a very significant amount, or it can be smaller depending on the scale and the nature of the [future] building. I wouldn’t want to put a future on it.”
While there is currently no specific location in mind for a future site, there is an understanding that an area with more foot traffic is vital. The current site, on a side street, is unlikely to be noticed by many curious tourists or long-time Jewish residents of London. There is also a hope that any future site, whether newly built or purchased, would have outdoor space and permit greater flexibility than the Albert Street building.
The Jewish Museum moved to Camden in 1994. Its current home has been the same since 2010, when it purchased a former piano factory behind the site and remodeled and combined the buildings.
The museum, which had previously put on widely acclaimed exhibitions on Amy Winehouse, Jewish cartoonists and Jewish soccer history in Britain, had also not been able to put on temporary exhibitions since the pandemic because of the cost.
“Exhibitions and work with our collection is a lot more expensive,” said Viner. “We believe that education is really important, but we also have a fantastic collection and lots of stories to tell. We need to find a way to do that too.”
—
The post London Jewish Museum to close indefinitely and look for new location appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Gaza ‘Board of Peace’ to Convene at WH on Feb. 19, One Day After Trump’s Meeting with Netanyahu
US President Donald Trump speaks to the media during the 56th annual World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, Switzerland, January 22, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Denis Balibouse/File Photo
i24 News – A senior official from one of the member states confirms to i24NEWS that an invitation has been received for a gathering of President Trump’s Board of Peace at the White House on February 19, just one day after the president’s planned meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The meeting comes amid efforts to advance the implementation of the second phase of the Gaza ceasefire, following the limited reopening of the Rafah crossing, the expected announcement on the composition and mandate of the International Stabilization Force, and anticipation of a Trump declaration setting a deadline for Hamas to disarm.
In Israel officials assess that the announcement is expected very soon but has been delayed in part due to ongoing talks with the Americans over Israel’s demands for the demilitarization of the Gaza Strip. Trump reiterated on Thursday his promise that Hamas will indeed be disarmed.
Uncategorized
If US Attacks, Iran Says It Will Strike US Bases in the Region
FILE PHOTO: Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi meets with Omani Foreign Minister Sayyid Badr Albusaidi in Muscat, Oman, February 6, 2026. Photo: Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs/ Handout via REUTERS/File Photo
Iran will strike US bases in the Middle East if it is attacked by US forces that have massed in the region, its foreign minister said on Saturday, insisting that this should not be seen as an attack on the countries hosting them.
Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi spoke to Qatari Al Jazeera TV a day after Tehran and Washington pledged to continue indirect nuclear talks following what both sides described as positive discussions on Friday in Oman.
While Araqchi said no date had yet been set for the next round of negotiations, US President Donald Trump said they could take place early next week. “We and Washington believe it should be held soon,” Araqchi said.
Trump has threatened to strike Iran after a US naval buildup in the region, demanding that it renounce uranium enrichment, a possible pathway to nuclear bombs, as well as stopping ballistic missile development and support for armed groups around the region. Tehran has long denied any intent to weaponize nuclear fuel production.
While both sides have indicated readiness to revive diplomacy over Tehran’s long-running nuclear dispute with the West, Araqchi balked at widening the talks out.
“Any dialogue requires refraining from threats and pressure. (Tehran) only discusses its nuclear issue … We do not discuss any other issue with the US,” he said.
Last June, the US bombed Iranian nuclear facilities, joining in the final stages of a 12-day Israeli bombing campaign. Tehran has since said it has halted uranium enrichment activity.
Its response at the time included a missile attack on a US base in Qatar, which maintains good relations with both Tehran and Washington.
In the event of a new US attack, Araqchi said the consequences could be similar.
“It would not be possible to attack American soil, but we will target their bases in the region,” he said.
“We will not attack neighboring countries; rather, we will target US bases stationed in them. There is a big difference between the two.”
Iran says it wants recognition of its right to enrich uranium, and that putting its missile program on the negotiating table would leave it vulnerable to Israeli attacks.
Uncategorized
My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France?
As a historian of modern France, I have rarely seen a connection between my everyday life in my adopted state of Texas and my work on my adopted specialization: the period we call Vichy France. Apart from the Texan boast that the Lone Star Republic is bigger than the French Republic, and the small town of Paris, Texas, which boasts its own Eiffel Tower, I had no reason to compare the two places where I have spent more than half of my life.
Until now.
Last week, professors and instructors at the University of Houston received an unsettling memo from the administration, which asked us to sign a statement that we teach rather than “indoctrinate” our students.
Though the administration did not define “indoctrinate,” it hardly takes a PhD in English to read between the lines. Indoctrination is precisely what our state government has already forbidden us from doing in our classes. There must not be the slightest sign in our courses and curricula of references to diversity, identity and inclusion. The catch-all word used is “ideology,” a term Governor Greg Abbott recently invoked when he warned that “Texas is targeting professors who are more focused on pushing leftist ideologies rather than preparing students to lead our nation. We must end indoctrination.”
This is not the first time in the past several months that I have been reminded of what occurred in France during the four years that it was ruled by its German occupiers and Vichy collaborators.
Very briefly, with Germany’s rapid and complete defeat of France in 1940, an authoritarian, antisemitic and collaborationist regime assumed power. Among its first acts was to purge French Jews from all the professions, including high school and university faculties, and to impose an “oath of loyalty” to the person of Marshal Philippe Pétain, the elderly but ramrod straight and clear-headed hero of World War I.
The purpose of the oath was simple and straightforward: By demanding the fealty of all state employees to the person of Pétain, it also demanded their hostility to the secular and democratic values of the French republican tradition. Nevertheless, an overwhelming majority of teachers signed the oath —even the novelist and feminist Simone de Beauvoir, who needed her salary as a lycée teacher, as did the writer Jean Guéhenno, a visceral anti-Pétainist who continued to teach at the prestigious Paris lycée Henri IV until he was fired in 1943.
Vichy’s ministers of education understood the vital importance that schools and universities played in shaping citizens. Determined to replace the revolutionary values of liberty, equality and fraternity with the reactionary goals of family, work and homeland, they sought to eliminate “godless schools” and instill a “moral order” based on submission to state and church authorities. This radical experiment, powered by a reactionary ideology, to return France to the golden age of kings, cardinals and social castes came to an inglorious end with the Allied liberation of the country and collapse of Vichy scarcely four years after it had begun.
The French Jewish historian Marc Bloch — who joined the Resistance and sacrificed his life on behalf of a very different ideology we can call humanism — always insisted on the importance of comparative history. But comparison was important not because it identified similarities but because it illuminated differences. Clearly, the situation of professors at UH is very different from that of their French peers in Vichy France. We are not risking our jobs, much less our lives, by resisting this ham-handed effort to demand our loyalty to an anti-indoctrination memo.
But the two situations are not entirely dissimilar, either. Historians of fascism like Robert Paxton remind us that such movements begin slowly, then suddenly assume terrifying proportions. This was certainly the case in interwar France, where highly polarized politics, frequent political violence and a long history of antisemitism and anti-republicanism prepared the ground for Vichy. In France, Paxton writes, this slow, then sudden transformation “changed the practice of citizenship from the enjoyment of constitutional rights and duties to participation in mass ceremonies of affirmation and conformity.”
As an historian of France, I always thought its lurch into authoritarianism was shocking, but not surprising. After all, many of the elements for this change had existed well before 1940. But as a citizen of America, I am not just shocked, but also surprised by official demands for affirmation and conformity. One day I will find the time to think hard about my naiveté. But the time is now to think about how we should respond to these demands.
The post My university wants me to sign a loyalty oath — am I in America or Vichy France? appeared first on The Forward.