Uncategorized
Prominent German rabbi resigns from leadership roles as report confirms allegations against him
BERLIN (JTA) – In a landmark step, investigators commissioned by Germany’s main Jewish organization have concluded that abuse of power and sexual harassment did occur at Germany’s liberal rabbinical seminary — and some of it, they say, may have crossed the line into illegality.
The 44-page “executive summary” of an investigation initiated by the Central Council of Jews in Germany is the latest and most damning report about the leadership of Rabbi Walter Homolka since accusations against him broke into public view last May.
Issued Wednesday after tense public conflict between the council and Homolka’s attorneys, the report concludes that structural changes are required to set Germany’s liberal rabbinical seminary, known as Abraham Geiger College, and other related Jewish institutions on the correct footing.
“A significant cause for the emergence of the problems identified by the investigators at the institutions under investigation is the personal misconduct of Rabbi Prof. Dr. Homolka in his function as a leader or person with great influence, which the investigators are convinced of,” the investigators wrote in their report.
Homolka announced Monday that he would withdraw from all functions in the seminary that he and a German-born American rabbi named Walter Jacob, founded in 1999. He also dropped out of the running on Tuesday for another term as chair of the Union of Progressive Jews in Germany.
A more comprehensive report including details about incidents in which investigators concluded that Homolka and his husband engaged in misconduct is due out in January, according to the Cologne-based law firm Gercke Wollschläger.
The preliminary report was welcomed in a joint statement by the Central Council, the German Interior Ministry and the Brandenburg State Ministry of Science, Research and Culture, which said they would “continue to fund the Abraham Geiger College to the same extent as before until the structural new beginning has been completed.”
It was also greeted with relief by the rabbinical student whose complaints kicked off the scandal.
“I think the report and the subsequent documents are a blessed development,” Itamar Cohen told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “It seems to confirm many suspicions which I and others share. It does affirm that I did the right thing and [this] could be the beginning of a new chapter of liberal Judaism in Germany.”
The scandal that erupted publicly in May began after Cohen sought help from Jonathan Schorsch, a professor at the School of Jewish Theology, in dealing with unsolicited pornographic material allegedly received from Homolka’s husband, who was also an employee at the seminary. (Abraham Geiger College is part of the School of Jewish Theology, which itself is under the auspices of the University of Potsdam.)
A German newspaper’s report about the allegations and an apparent effort to obscure them opened the floodgates for criticism of Homolka from past and current students, employees and colleagues. Homolka took a leave of absence from the numerous leadership roles he held with liberal Jewish religious and educational institutions that he had helped found since the late 1990s.
The scandal has shaken the foundations of modern liberal Judaism in Germany, and the new report suggests that those foundations were weak because they rested largely on one individual.
Josef Schuster, the president of the Central Council of German Jews, said the report made it clear that Homolka could not continue in his previous roles.
Homolka has rejected the allegations against him throughout, and his attorneys told German news media Wednesday that they believed the entire investigation was politically motivated. They accused Schuster of wanting to see Homolka exit Germany’s liberal Jewish leadership and said the Central Council had failed to consider fully the statement Homolka had given to investigators.
Rabbi Walter Homolka. at left, with other leaders of Germany Jewry including Josef Schuster, president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany, at far right, at an event in October 2019. (Wolfgang Kumm/picture alliance via Getty Images)
The report is the first to emerge from a third-party investigation into the allegations against Homolka. A separate investigation by the University of Potsdam, released in late October, found that some of the accusations regarding abuse of power to be justified, but did not find any criminally actionable behavior and thus confirmed Homolka’s ongoing employment there as professor. It did not investigate the sexual harassment accusations, as Homolka’s husband had left his job by then.
The new report did scrutinize those allegations. The investigators said they found 13 specific incidents involving allegations against Homolka’s husband. German libel law bars the publication of his name. Using what they called a “traffic light system,” the investigators classified nine of these incidents as “red” cases, in which 25 instances of misconduct could be identified. Two of these cases involved the “initial suspicion of a criminal offense,” they added.
Regarding allegations of abuse of power against Homolka himself, they found — after interviewing 73 individuals — a total of 45 concrete incidents, 14 of which they classified as “red,” involving a total of 23 instances of misconduct. A detailed account of those cases, including responses that Homolka delivered earlier this week, will be included in the final report in January, they said.
More broadly, they said, their interviews had illuminated a culture of misconduct in which unchecked, unlawful or arbitrary decisions could be made largely because of a consolidation of power under Homolka. He presided over an institution ruled by a “culture of fear,” the investigators found, leaving employees and students alike less likely to express criticism or concerns because of the possibility of reprisals.
The investigators said structural changes were needed if there was any hope of shifting the culture. “As long as institutions are in private hands or even in the hands of an individual, or at any rate within the essential sphere of influence of the person who, in the opinion of the investigators, practices and exemplifies misconduct himself, it is hardly conceivable that the causes of the deficits identified can be remedied,” their report says.
Cohen told JTA he wants to see “real change in the leadership” of all liberal Jewish institutions in Germany, and “an external compliance system set up.”
He said, “I hope to see the institutions Homolka founded take a life of their own, no strings attached.”
Anticipating the report, the Abraham Geiger College had announced its own restructuring plans on Monday, a day after ordaining four new rabbis and two cantors at a ceremony in Berlin.
In a statement, interim director Gabriele Thöne said a new foundation would become the provider of rabbinical training in Potsdam.
Gabriella Thoene, interim director of Abraham Geiger College, in Berlin’s Rykestrasse Synagogue on the occasion of an ordination ceremony, Dec. 1, 2022. (Toby Axelrod)
Further, Thöne said the “door is open to Zacharias Frankel College” — the Conservative movement seminary also under the umbrella of the School of Jewish Theology at the University of Potsdam — “to join the new foundation on an equal basis while at the same time maintaining its independence.”
But in a scathing response issued Wednesday, the Conservative seminary said the Geiger College interim administration had not consulted them about the restructuring.
“A partnership between equal parties requires joint preparation, mutual trust, transparency and consensus. All this has been lacking so far, and continues to be lacking,” the statement said.
Signed by Rabbi Bradley Artson, dean of Zacharias Frankel College and the Ziegler School of Rabbinic Studies, the Conservative seminary in Los Angeles among others, the statement also said the preliminary report released Wednesday “confirmed the asymmetrical constellations of power in the two Potsdam rabbinical training colleges.”
Zacharias Frankel College “was in a state of dependency on the will of one person from the time it was founded in 2013. Our institution was deliberately pushed into invisibility and excluded from communication with funders in Germany,” the statement read in part.
“From the outset, the project of a Masorti rabbinical training in Potsdam was merely a makeshift means of being able to found the School of Jewish Theology [also in 2013] and give it the appearance of representing several denominations, and thus of being pluralistically positioned. Instead, however, the accumulation of power led to a monopolization of non-Orthodox Judaism in one person” – namely, Homolka.
For their part, the government and Jewish funding organizations said in their statement Wednesday that they were “committed to ensuring that there will continue to be both liberal and conservative rabbinical training in Potsdam in the future,” but that the proposals developed so far at the Abraham Geiger College do not meet the requirement of being “a clear cut from the previous structure and a comprehensive new beginning.”
The release of the Central Council-commissioned report was preceded by a volley of statements by lawyers for both parties.
On Monday, the council’s attorneys announced that their preliminary report would come out in two days. On Tuesday, Homolka’s attorneys issued a statement criticizing the impending “sudden” release of the report’s summary, suggesting it reeked of “prejudgment.”
The law firm representing Homolka — Behm Becker Geßner — noted that its client had received “a list of questions with serious accusations” from the council’s attorneys, and that he had responded in writing last Sunday. “Should the result not take into account the meaningful statement of our client, there would be a massive violation of personality rights,” warned the lawyers, who have successfully battled some critical press coverage of Homolka.
The Central Council criticized what it called Homolka’s delay tactics, saying its attorneys had asked Homolka in early September if he would respond to questions but had not gotten any response to questions sent Oct. 19 until late Sunday night, well after multiple previous deadlines. Still, the council confirmed, its investigators would take Homolka’s responses into account.
“This tactic is the main reason why the law firm will not be able to complete the final and detailed report of the investigation by the end of the year,” the Central Council said. “The courage of the numerous victims must not be sacrificed to Homolka’s delay tactics.”
Meanwhile, the Union of Progressive Jews in Germany is to meet next week in Berlin, after a three-month postponement. Board elections will be held for the position of chair, previously held by Homolka.
On Nov. 26, that group published a report from an investigation that it had commissioned, which concluded that there was no proof of abuse of power at Abraham Geiger College.
German rabbis who are part of the General Rabbinical Conference, Germany’s liberal rabbinical association, file into Berlin’s Rykestrasse Synagogue for an ordination ceremony, Dec. 1, 2022. (Toby Axelrod)
On Wednesday, a critic within the body, the State Association of Jewish Communities of Lower Saxony, said the Central Council’s commissioned report “supports us in our demand for the resignation of Walter Homolka from all his offices within the Jewish community, which we already made in May.”
And there is dissent within the General Rabbinical Conference, Germany’s liberal rabbinical association, as well. About a dozen members issued a statement in November, breaking from the official, cautious tone, saying that “the abuse of power proven against Rabbi Prof. Dr. Homolka [in the university’s report of Oct. 26] is not compatible with the values of Jewish and general ethics.”
The association, known as ARK, issued a statement at the end of November stating that, despite differences of opinion in their ranks, they join the call for a structural and personal new beginning, as “a chance for the next phase of rabbinical training in Germany.”
—
The post Prominent German rabbi resigns from leadership roles as report confirms allegations against him appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Nearly forbidden: Street signs in an ‘unwanted’ language
דער קינסטלער שעבעשטיען פֿיומײ איז, אײן זוניקן טאָג אין פֿרילינג 2021, געשטיגן אױף אַ לײטער און אױפֿגעהאָנגען אַ װײַסן גאַסנשילד מיט ייִדישע אותיות׃ „גרענאַדיערשטראַסע“. װען נישט דעם אַלף־בית װאָלט פֿיומײס קונסטװערק געװען אַ צװילינג מיטן אָפֿיציעלן שילד דעריבער, װאָס װײַזט אין גלחות דעם הײַנטיקן נאָמען פֿון דער גאַס אין צענטער בערלין׃ „Almstadtstraße“.
גרענאַדירשטראַסע איז ביז 1938 געװען די באַרימטסטע „ייִדישע גאַס“ אין דער שטאָט, ספּעציעל בײַ ייִדיש־רעדערס. דער דײַטשמערישער אױסלײג מיטן שטומען „ע“ שטאַמט פֿון אַ ייִדישן שילד װאָס מ׳האָט אַ מאָל אַרױסגעהאָנגען אױף נומער 31, פֿאַרן „האָטעל אָדלער“.
אין אָט דעם איבערגעפּאַקטן בנין האָט מען נישט נאָר געקענט אײַנשטײן אין אַ פּיצל האָטעל, נאָר אױך קױפֿן גרינסן אין אַ שפּײַזקראָם, עסן אין אַ כּשרן רעסטאָראַן, לערנען חומש אין אַ תּלמוד־תּורה, לערנען גמרא אין אַ בית־מדרש – און דאַװענען אין אַזש פֿיר שטיבלעך!
פֿיומײס אומלעגאַלן גאַסנשילד האָט די נאַטשאַלסטװע גיך אַראָפּגענומען. אַ פֿונקציאָנאַר פֿון קװאַרטאַל־אַמט, נתּן פֿרידנבערג, איז אָבער מסכּים געװען מיט פֿיומיין אַז מע דאַרף סוף־כּל־סוף אָנערקענען די קולטורעל ייִדישע „אָסטיודן“ (די אַמאָליקע מיזרח־אייראָפּעיִשע ייִדן), נישט נאָר די אַסימילירטע „יעקעס“. און מע דאַרף געדענקען ווי ייִדן האָבן געלעבט, נישט בלויז ווי זיי זענען אומגעקומען. צוזאַמען מיט אַ היסטאָריקער פֿון „צענטרום יודאַיִקום“, דזשעס ערל, האָט פֿרידנבערג געפּרוּװט אָרגאַניזירן אַן ענלעכן זכּרון־שילד. נײן, צען אַזעלכע – אױף צען שכנותדיקע „ייִדישע גאַסן“.
ס׳איז נישט געװען פּשוט. דער װײַסער קאָליר, װי בײַ די „װאָרע“ גאַסנשילדן? פֿאַרבאָטן. דאָס װאָרט „שילד“? פֿאַרבאָטן. דאָס װאָרט „קונסט“? פֿאַרבאָטן אָן אַ קונסט־פֿאַרמעסט. ייִדיש גופֿא איז שיִער נישט פֿאַרבאָטן, װײַל אין דײַטשלאַנד איז דאָס נישט קײן אָנערקענטע מינאָריטעט־שפּראַך.
נאָך פֿינף יאָר מיט אַפּליקאַציעס און קאָמפּראָמיסן האָבן ערל און פֿרידנבערג אין מאַרץ אָרגאַניזירט אַ „פּרעסע־טערמין“ אױפֿן ראָג. די שלײער איז כאָטש אײן מאָל אַראָפּגעפֿאַלן אין װינט אײדער מע האָט אָפֿיציעל אױפֿגעדעקט דעם ערשטן „גאַסנצײכן“, װאָס מע טאָר נישט אָנרופֿן קײן גאַסנשילד׃ „גרענאַדיערשטראַסע“ אין אַ נײַער שריפֿט מיט פֿיומײס אױסלײג אױף אַ בלאָען הינטערגרונט. אַ צװײטער „צײכן“ דערקלערט דעם װיץ אױף דײַטש און ענגליש; אַ קו־אַר־קאָד פֿאַרלינקט אַ נײַ באַלערנדיק װעבזײַטל מיטן קעפּל „נעלם געװאָרן אָן אַ שפּור?“
צװישן די בערך 30 צוקוקערס – אַרײַנגערעכנט פּאָליטיקערס און רבנים – זענען כאָטש פֿיר ייִדישיסטן געװען אין עולם׃ אַ ייִדיש־פּאָעטעסע, אַ ייִדיש־קינסטלער, אַ ייִדיש־פֿאָרשערין און אַ געװעזענע ייִדיש־פּראָפֿעסאָרשע. אַלע האָבן זיך געפֿרייט צו זען די ייִדישע אותיות אױף דער אַלטער ייִדישער גאַס. בײַ דער טריבונע האָט מען אָבער נישט געהערט קײן וואָרט ייִדיש.
„אַװדאי נישט“, האָט מיר דזשעס ערל געזאָגט אָן חרטה. „די שפּראַך איז נישט דער עיקר. מע דערמאָנט זי בלױז װען ס׳איז טאַקע נײטיק.“ אױפֿן ענגלישן װעבזײַטל געפֿינט מען דאָס װאָרט Yiddish ערשט האַרט בײַם סוף פֿון אַלפֿאַבעטישן גלאָסאַר. נתּן פֿרידנבערג, להיפּוך, האָט געבעטן מחילה און צוגעזאָגט צו באַטײליקן ייִדיש־רעדערס אין צוקונפֿטיקע אונטערנעמונגען.
װער אָדער װאָס איז נעלם געװאָרן? רובֿ ייִדן אין הײַנטיקן דײַטשלאַנד זענען אימיגראַנטן פֿון מיזרח־אײראָפּע אָדער זײערע קינדער. די ייִדיש־זינגערין סאַשע לוריא, למשל, אַ געבױרענע פֿון לעטלאַנד, האָט זיך באַזעצט אין נױקעלן, אַ בערלינער אימיגראַנטן־קװאַרטאַל אַזױ װי די ייִדישע גאַס פֿון אַ מאָל. דאָרט האָט זי מיט די חבֿרים אױפֿגעבױט אַ באַלעבטע ייִדיש־מוזיק־סבֿיבֿה. „איך פֿיל זיך פֿאַרבונדן מיט די אַמאָליקע ייִדן פֿון אָט די גאַסן“, זאָגט לוריא. „זײ דערמאָנען מיך אין מײַנע קרובֿים.“
די סבֿיבֿה אין נױקעלן האָט דערפֿירט צום גרינדן אַ קולטור־אָרגאַניזאַציע, „שטעטל בערלין“, מיט כּסדרדיקע פּראָגראַמען און אַ יערלעכן פֿעסטיװאַל. אױך די פּאָעזיע־ און קונסט־סבֿיבֿה אַרום „ייִדיש.בערלין“ איז פֿיבעריש־פֿלײַסיק. (איך אַרבעט צוזאַמען מיט בײדע גרופּעס.) אין מאַרץ למשל זענען אין דער שטאָט פֿאָרגעקומען אַ כּליזמר־דזשעם־סעסיע; אַ שבת־טיש מיט פֿריש פּובליקירטע ייִדישע לידער; אַ ייִדיש־זינגערײַ; קאָנצערטן פֿון כאָטש דרײַ קאַפּעליעס; אַן אָװנט פֿון „שמועס און װײַן“ — אַ ייִדישער שמועסקרײַז אין אַ שענק; אַ רובריק װוּ ייִדיש־פּאָעטעסעס לײענען די ווערק פון אַנדערע ייִדיש־פּאָעטעסעס; װײַטערע לײען־ און שרײַבקרײַזן…
„אונדזער סבֿיבֿה האַלט אין װאַקסן“, זאָגט לוריא. „אַלץ עפֿטער הערט מען בײַ אונדזערע אונטערנעמונגען אויך שמועסן אויף ייִדיש.“
נישט אַלע „װאָרע“ גאַסנשילדן אין דײַטשלאַנד זענען בלױז אויף דײַטש. סוף מאַרץ בין איך מיט אַ געדונגענעם אױטאָ געפֿאָרן אָנדערטהאַלבן שעה קײן לאַוזיץ/לוזשיסקאַ, אַ ראַיאָן פֿון דײַטשלאַנד װוּ מע רעדט צװײ אָנערקענטע סלאַװישע מינאָריטעט־שפּראַכן׃ אונטער־סאָרביש (װענדיש) און אױבער־סאָרביש. אַרױספֿאָרנדיק פֿון שאָסײ האָב איך דערזען אַ שילד פֿאַר אַ דאָרף מיט צװײ נעמען, אַ דײַטשן און אַ סאָרבישן. אױך אַלע גאַסן האָבן צװײ נעמען. אָבער הערן האָב איך דעם גאַנצן סוף־װאָך אין ערגעץ נישט געהערט קײן סאָרביש װאָרט – ביז מיר זענען אַרײַן אין װענדישן מוזיי אין קאָטבוס/כעשעבוס.
במשך פֿון דער געשיכטע האָט דײַטשלאַנד אונטערגעדריקט די סאָרבישע שפּראַכן. פּרײַסן האָט אַרױפֿגעצװוּנגען אױף די סאָרבן דײַטשע נעמען. די נאַציס י״ש האָבן פֿאַרבאָטן פּובליקאַציעס און פֿאַרטריבן די גלחים כּדי צו פֿאַרדײַטשן די קלױסטערס. מיזרח־דײַטשלאַנד האָט באַזעצט דײַטש־רעדנדיקע פּליטים אין סאָרבישע דערפֿער און צונױפֿגעמישט די אַרבעטערס אין קאָלװירטן. עד־היום האָט מען חרובֿ געמאַכט 130 סאָרבישע דערפֿער לטובֿת די קױלנגריבער.
די ראָלע פֿון דײַטשלאַנד אין דער געשיכטע פֿון ייִדיש – דאָס מאַמע־לשון פֿון 85% פֿון די קדושים – קענען מיר שױן.
אונטער־סאָרביש האָבן סאָרבן אױפֿגעהערט איבערצוגעבן בירושה; אױבער־סאָרביש הערט מען נאָך בײַ געצײלטע קאַטױלישע משפּחות. פֿאַר בײדע שװעסטער־שפּראַכן האָט מען שוין אָבער דורכגעפֿירט ממשותדיקע צילן אויפֿצולעבן דאָס לשון׃ ביזן יאָר 2100 האָפֿט מען, אַז עס וועלן זײַן אַזש 100,000 סאָרביש־רעדערס!
הײַנט האָט דאָס סאָרבישע פֿאָלק מיט זײַנע צװײ לשונות געוויסע רעכט און דעריבער — געלט און אינסטיטוציעס. פֿאַראַן אַ מין סאָרבישער ייִװאָ (װאָס בײַט גערן דעם אױסלײג פֿון סאָרביש); צװײ קינסטלער־קאָלעקטיװן („קאָלעקטיװ.װאַקוּום“ און „נײַע סאָרבישע קונסט“), קאַפּעליעס, קינדער־גערטנער, אײַנטונק־פּראָגראַמען, אַ פֿאַרלאַג, צװײ מיטלשולן, און באַצאָלטע אַרבעט…
דער סאָרבישער ייִװאָ האָט אָנגעשטעלט צװײ לינגװיסטן, שימאָן בלום און עװאַן בליקלי, צו דאָקומענטירן די „לינגװיסטישע לאַנדשאַפֿט“. אױף זײערע ביציקלען האָבן זײ פֿאָטאָגראַפֿירט יעדן סאָרבישן גאַסנשילד אין 70 דערפֿער. „װען איך האָב צום ערשטן מאָל דערהערט קינדער רעדנדיק אױפֿן לשון“, דערצײלט בליקלי, „האָב איך זיך כּמעט צעװײנט.“
דער סאָרבישער קינסטלער בערנהאַרד שיפּער האָט מיר געזאָגט אַז די שילדן זענען אים „גאָר װיכטיק“. אַזױ װײס מען אַז ס׳איז דאָס סאָרבישע געביט. „דאָס פֿאַרשטײט זיך אַלײן.“
די סאָרבישע שילדן האָבן אױך אינספּירירט מיעטאָ נאָאַק, דעם אַמאָליקן פֿאָרזיץ פֿונעם מינאָריטעטן־סעקרעטאַריאַט װאָס פֿאַרטײדיקט אַלע זיבן דײַטשע מינאָריטעט־שפּראַכן. קינדװײַז האָט ער אַ מאָל באַמערקט אַזאַ שילד, און שפּעטער זיך אױסגעלערנט אונטער־סאָרביש און געװאָרן אַ שפּראַך־אַקטיװיסט.
אין זײַן ענטפֿער אױף מײַן בקשה האָט נאָאַק געשריבן׃ „כ׳האָב זיך שױן אָפֿט געפֿרעגט פֿאַרװאָס ייִדיש איז נישט קײן מינאָריטעט־שפּראַך אין דײַטשלאַנד. אין אַכט אײראָפּעיִשע לענדער איז עס יאָ אַזוי.“
אױף אַ שפּאַציר לענג־אױס גרענאַדירשטראַסע האָב איך דערצײלט נאָאַקן מעשׂיות פֿונעם ייִדישן אַמאָל און דעם ייִדישיסטישן הײַנט. האָבן מיר זיך אַװעקגעזעצט בײַ אַ קאַפֿע לעבן דעם שילד. קוקנדיק אױף די פֿאַרבײַגײערס האָט ער פֿאַר מיר אַנטפּלעקט די סודות פֿון מינאָריטעט־שפּראַכן און באַשלאָסן צו שרײַבן אַן אײגענעם אַרטיקל װעגן די ייִדיש־שילדן – אױף אונטער־סאָרביש.
אַגבֿ, אין פֿרילינג 2021 האָט פֿיומײ נישט נאָר אונטערגענומען זײַן קינסטלערישע אינטערװענציע. ער האָט אױך מיט זײַן מיטװױנערין עליאַנאַ דזשײקאָבס לאַנסירט אַ פּאָליטישע קאַמפּאַניע לטובֿת ייִדיש װי די אַכטע מינאָריטעט־שפּראַך פֿון דײַטשלאַנד. די לעצטע מעלדונג אויפֿן אינפֿאָרמאַטיװן פֿייסבוק־זײַטל לכּבֿוד דעם דאָזיקן אויפֿרוף שטאַמט פֿון יענעם אָקטאָבער, נאָר די צען נײַע שילדן האָבן באַנײַט די דיסקוסיע.
„לאָמיר פֿאָרט אויפֿלעבן די קאַמפאַניע!“ האָט מיר דזשייקאָבס געזאָגט.
„ס׳איז אַ גאַנץ רעאַליסטישער געדאַנק“, האָט סאַשע לוריא מסכּים געווען.
הייסט עס, אין לעצטן סך־הכּל, איז ייִדיש אין בערלין טאַקע נישט נעלם געװאָרן.
The post Nearly forbidden: Street signs in an ‘unwanted’ language appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
The ‘godfather of denim’ was an Italian designer whose Jewish father was murdered at Auschwitz
(JTA) — Adriano Goldschmied became known as the “godfather of denim” for elevating jeans from casual wear to a luxury staple. His own father’s story was equally riveting.
Goldschmied, who died April 5 at 82, following a battle with cancer in a hospital in Castelfranco Veneto, Italy, credited himself with founding or developing at least 50 brands, including Diesel, AG, Replay, Gap 1969, A Golde and Goldsign.
He was just an infant in 1944 when his Italian Jewish father was arrested by the Nazis.
Goldschmied’s mother, Sofia, was in hiding with his sister at the time of his birth on Nov. 29, 1943, in Vico Canavese, Italy. The Nazis had invaded Italy just months earlier.
His father, Livio, had joined the Italian resistance after the Nazis took over. When he tried to visit his wife, daughter and newborn son, he was apprehended en route. One of six people with his last name deported by the Nazis via Milan’s central station, he was ultimately sent to Auschwitz, where he was killed several months later.
According to a testimony made by a survivor to Yad Vashem, Israel’s Holocaust center, Livio was denounced by a midwife and received permission to visit his son briefly after his arrest. The testimony, which cannot be independently verified, said he had rejected an offer to move to the United States to work with the physicist Enrico Fermi because he would not have been able to bring his family, and had also declined an opportunity to escape from the train that took him to Auschwitz.
Following the war, Goldschmied moved with his mother to Trieste. He later spent a stint pursuing skiing in the 1960s in Cortina, the ski resort in the Southern Alps.
He did not speak readily about his family’s Holocaust history, and unlike his sister, he did not connect with his Jewish heritage. Diana was responsible for installing Stolpersteine, small memorials embedded in sidewalks documenting the Jews who lived at that address before the Holocaust, to commemorate their family members who were murdered.
“Like my father, my brother was a man of great intelligence and extraordinary intuition,” Diana told the Italian-Jewish news outlet Moked. “However, he did not want to talk about our family history. I think memory was working inside him, though.”
Goldschmied got his start in fashion in the 1970s, when he launched his shop, King’s Shop, in Cortina d’Ampezzo, and started a denim line, Daily Blue.
“That first production was going to a fabric store in my hometown, buying crazy fabrics for a very high price and going through manufacturing with my tailor,” Goldschmied told Women’s Wear Daily in 2023. “The product was extremely expensive, and in some way, I created a premium denim by accident.”
In 1981, Goldschmied went on to found the Genius Group, a collective that backed emerging labels like Diesel, Replay and Goldie.
Among Goldschmied’s innovations throughout his career were the development of the stonewash technique, experimenting with Tencel fibers, creating super-stretch denim and pioneering sustainable production methods as early as the 1990s.
“He was the architect of a global staple,” Mariette Hoitink, the co-founder of House of Denim, told Women’s Wear Daily. “Adriano didn’t just design jeans; he orchestrated the greatest transformation in the history of apparel. He was the singular force who elevated denim from rugged workwear into a global fashion staple.”
Goldschmied is survived by his wife, Michela; his daughters Sara, Marta and Glenda; two grandchildren; and his sister.
“Adriano and I led very separate lives,” Diana told Moked. “I rediscovered my Jewish identity. He took a different path, but everyone carries the past within them.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post The ‘godfather of denim’ was an Italian designer whose Jewish father was murdered at Auschwitz appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Not Stupidity — Something Worse: Why the ‘Israel Controls America’ Myth Keeps Spreading
US President Joe Biden and Democratic presidential candidate and US Vice President Kamala Harris react onstage at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago, Illinois, US, Aug. 19, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque
In a recent post, Donald Trump took aim at Tucker Carlson, Megyn Kelly, Candace Owens, and Joe Kent, calling them “low IQ” and “losers,” and asking — between Carlson and Kent — “who is dumber?”
It was vintage Trump: blunt, theatrical, and calibrated to dominate a news cycle with a single line. He has long relied on that instinct — to compress a dispute into something sharp enough to stick. But beneath the spectacle sits a more serious issue.
The problem is not intelligence. Many of these figures are clearly relatively smart. The problem is that they — along with a growing chorus of voices on the political left such as Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, and Mehdi Hasan — continue to advance a claim that collapses under minimal scrutiny. Strip away the stylistic differences, the accents, and the partisan framing, and the argument is identical: “Israel controls the United States,” or in its updated form, “Benjamin Netanyahu controls Donald Trump.”
That claim has resurfaced repeatedly over the years, sometimes dressed in more sophisticated language, sometimes stated outright. What makes its latest iteration notable is not merely its persistence, but where it is now being voiced.
This weekend, Kamala Harris, speaking at a Democratic fundraiser in Detroit, said that Donald Trump had been “pulled into this war” by Benjamin Netanyahu. That phrasing carries a clear implication: that the president of the United States — the commander-in-chief of the most powerful military in the world — is not acting independently but is being maneuvered into conflict by a foreign (Jewish) leader.
When this idea circulates on the fringes, it is dismissed. When amplified by pundits chasing attention, it’s often ignored. But when it’s echoed, even cautiously, by a former vice president and major presidential candidate, it crosses a different threshold. At that point, the claim can no longer be dismissed as noise. It has been normalized.
This is not a new idea. It is one of the oldest political accusations in circulation, and it is remarkably easy to test against reality. Only last week, Trump effectively dictated that Israel must accept a temporary ceasefire with Hezbollah — an outcome widely opposed within Israel, where many believe the campaign should be completed and remain skeptical that the Lebanese state will ever disarm Hezbollah. If Israel were directing American policy, that outcome would not occur.
Historically, the “Israel controls America” claim has appeared in different ideological forms but with identical substance. On the far-right, figures such as David Duke have advanced it explicitly. On the far-left, figures like Cynthia McKinney have repackaged it in political language. The wording changes, but the core allegation remains the same: that American power is not sovereign, but subject to external — specifically Jewish — control, echoing Henry Ford and his “International Jew” conspiracy theories of the 1920s and 1930s.
The argument collapses as soon as one examines scale and structure. The United States is a $27 trillion economy with unmatched global reach across military, financial, technological, and diplomatic domains. It maintains a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and leads a network of alliances that spans continents. Israel’s economy, by contrast, is approximately $700 billion. Its military is highly capable, but it is not a global force. It does not control sea lanes, command multinational coalitions, or set the terms of global finance. The disparity is not marginal; it is foundational.
This asymmetry is not unique. The United States maintains deep strategic relationships with many smaller allies such as South Korea, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. In fact, the United States fought a war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, sustaining approximately 150 American combat fatalities in the process. Yet, almost no one claims Kuwait controls Washington, or that Saudi Arabia dictates US foreign policy. Only one small ally is routinely described in those terms.
The historical record reinforces the absurdity of this Israel “controls” America trope.
In 1956, despite repeated attacks on Israel from the Sinai and Egypt-controlled Gaza, Dwight D. Eisenhower forced Israel to withdraw from Sinai following the Suez Crisis; Israel complied. In 1982, Ronald Reagan pressured Israel to halt operations in Beirut, facilitating the evacuation of Yasser Arafat and the PLO leadership to Tunisia. In 1991, George H. W. Bush asked Israel not to respond to Iraqi Scud missile attacks to help preserve the US-led coalition; Israel absorbed 39 Scud strikes, 13 deaths, and stood down.
In 2015, Barack Obama advanced the Iran nuclear deal despite sustained Israeli opposition. Under Joe Biden, Israeli operations in Rafah were delayed for months under US pressure despite Israeli hostages being held there and its centrality to Hamas’ military infrastructure.
More recently, on June 24, 2025, as a Trump-negotiated ceasefire was taking effect, Iran launched multiple ballistic missiles at Beersheba, killing four Israelis. Israel prepared a large retaliatory strike. Trump intervened and effectively ordered Israel to turn its planes around.
This is what an unequal alliance looks like: coordination, pressure, and at times outright constraint. It is not a relationship where the far smaller country exercises “control.”
So why does the claim persist? Not because it is analytically persuasive — but because it is emotionally effective. Political narratives built on grievance often prefer simple explanations to complex realities.
It is easier to attribute outcomes to hidden manipulation than to acknowledge the interplay of strategic interests, risks, and constraints that define foreign policy decision-making.
There is also a deeper historical layer. For centuries, European political culture absorbed and transmitted variations of the same vile accusation: that Jews operate behind the scenes, exercising covert and pernicious influence over institutions and leaders.
So, when modern commentators repackage that idea — whether in the language of “influence,” “lobbying,” or outright “control” — it does not enter a neutral environment. It lands on fertile soil, reinforcing a long-established and familiar narrative.
Since World War II, the claim hasn’t changed — only its migration from the margins into the mainstream. And once it crosses that threshold, it stops being rhetoric and starts shaping behavior.
As it did in Germany after World War I, if a significant number of people come to believe that their government has been captured, that their leaders are not acting independently but are controlled by a nefarious external force, the range of conclusions and actions they will justify or rationalize expands dramatically. History offers no shortage of examples of where that logic can lead.
Trump attempted to reduce this to a punchline. But this is not a matter of tone. It is a warning sign. And this time, it is coming from closer to the political center than it has in a very long time.
Micha Danzig is an attorney, former IDF soldier, and former NYPD officer. He writes widely on Israel, Zionism, antisemitism, and Jewish history. He serves on the board of Herut North America.