Uncategorized
Sarah Lawrence College: When Students Come Back to Campus and Find Hate on the Wall
A vandalized wall at Sarah Lawrence College, which also contained other expletives. Photo: provided by the author.
I walked onto the Sarah Lawrence campus after Thanksgiving break and I saw it immediately — an entire wall covered in spray paint: “ZIONISM IS RACISM + GENOCIDE,” “F** NORMALIZATION,” and at the bottom, in red, “FREE PALESTINE.”
It was not a poster that could be removed, nor a handheld sign carried by students for an hour and then forgotten. It was painted directly onto the physical heart of the college, on a building that every student must pass on the way to classes, dorms, the dining hall, and the library.
I stopped walking — not out of shock, which is hard to muster after the last 14 months, but out of something closer to recognition. This is what Jewish students have been telling me for years: the hostility is no longer atmospheric or abstract. It is literal. It is on the wall.
There are many ways to debate the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. On a truly open campus, students would do exactly that: argue, challenge, learn, read history, confront complexity. They would take intellectual risks, not moral shortcuts. But graffiti like this is not an argument. It is an accusation — an act of ideological reductionism that targets not ideas, but people.
For Jewish students, especially those who identify as Zionist, this lands one way: You are unwelcome here. You are immoral. You are dangerous.
This is the part administrators pretend not to understand: Zionism is not an exotic ideology. For most Jewish students, it is the simple belief that the Jewish people — like any other people — have a right to self-determination and safety. It is an affirmation of peoplehood, identity, and continuity.
Even students who criticize Israeli governments, who oppose settlements, who long for a two-state solution, still recognize the legitimacy of a Jewish homeland. To equate that belief with racism and genocide is to cast those students — by virtue of something core to their identity — outside the bounds of moral community.
When that message is spray-painted on a central wall, its effect is not symbolic. Every student sees it — and not just Jewish students. Its message — that Israel commits genocide and is inherently evil — is etched into the mind of every student who sees it. And many will just accept it as fact. In 20 years, these students will be the ones running American governments and corporations.
For years, Sarah Lawrence has struggled with the dynamics this moment exposes. I have written repeatedly about the school’s culture of ideological sorting and quiet intimidation — an environment where the loudest voices enforce the narrowest moral boundaries.
Students report that they self-censor. They tell me they avoid certain courses. They confide that dissent is treated as betrayal. They describe a campus where activism substitutes for analysis, and where social risk-taking is punished far more swiftly than academic laziness.
Jewish students hesitate before raising their hand in class. They scan the room before mentioning Israel. They avoid posting anything online about their identity. They watch friendships quietly erode. They walk campus angry and also in fear (and after all the violent attacks on Jewish students, those fears are justified).
One student told me she now takes a longer route to her dorm each evening — not because she fears debate, but because she is tired of being told, in giant letters, that her very existence is genocidal. Another confided that she now speaks in one course only when she’s certain no one will turn her comments into accusations. These are not abstractions. They are the lived experiences of 18-, 19-, and 20-year-olds trying to learn on a campus that tells them they are a moral problem.
University leaders, by contrast, often default to vague bromides about free discussion and open dialogue.
In theory, those are admirable commitments. But in practice, they evade the real issue: the climate created when a minority community’s identity is treated as inherently illegitimate. Administrators know perfectly well how group-based invective affects other communities. They know how words can undermine belonging. They would never allow a wall to remain covered in sweeping condemnations of any other minority group.
Only when the target is Jews do they behave as if the harm is ambiguous, as if the insult might still count as “conversation.”
Nor is Sarah Lawrence alone. Across the country, campuses have seen similar eruptions of anti-Zionist hostility. The pattern is national: the word “Zionist” has become a socially permissible euphemism for “Jew,” giving cover to old prejudices dressed in the language of justice.
Universities cannot resolve the geopolitics of the Middle East. But they can absolutely control how they respond to explicit acts that undermine trust, safety, and dignity. They can distinguish between critique and dehumanization. They can insist that campus discourse meet the minimal standards of civility. They can refuse to let slogans replace scholarship. And they can recognize that Jewish students deserve the same institutional protections as any other minority community.
This requires courage — moral, civic, and institutional. It requires telling activists on all sides that a university’s purpose is not to reenact global conflicts, but to learn about them with rigor and respect. It requires resisting the drift toward ideological litmus tests. It requires defending the idea that disagreement should not mean denigration.
At Sarah Lawrence, where the ideals of openness and inquiry are already fragile, it becomes a warning. Either the college recommits itself to pluralism, open inquiry, and mutual respect, or it allows a new orthodoxy — one rooted in fear, exclusion, and performative moralism — to become permanent.
Jewish students will remember which path their institution chooses. And so should everyone else.
Samuel J. Abrams is a professor of politics at Sarah Lawrence College and a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute.
Uncategorized
New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America
The new documentary Immigrant Songs: Yiddish Theater and the American Jewish Experience, produced by the Milken Archive of Jewish Music, is fast, entertaining and a good introduction to the topic.
Focusing mainly on the musical side of the story, but covering ‘straight plays’ as well, the film opens with a superb ‘warm-up act’: “Hu Tsa Tsa,” a stock Yiddish vaudeville number performed by the widely mourned Bruce Adler, who died in 2008 at age 63. Bursting with charm and talent, Adler, scion of a top Yiddish vaudeville family, demonstrates that Yiddish theater used to be pretty damned lively.
What follows is the oft-told story of the rise and decline of the American Yiddish theater, beginning with its prehistory in the Purimshpiels — the annual performances that for centuries served as the only secular entertainment in the Ashkenazic world. From there the film takes us to Yiddish theater’s 1876 birth in Romania, courtesy of Avrom Goldfadn, a.k.a. “The Father of Yiddish Theater.”
The film also describes Yiddish theater’s arrival in America, which, thanks to massive Jewish immigration, quickly became its capital. We learn of its influence on American theater’s styles of acting and set design. And the film describes the decline of its audience, due to assimilation and the immigration quotas of the 1920s.
There’s an excellent section on “The Big Four” Yiddish theater composers — Joseph Rumshinsky, Alexander Olshanetsky, Abe Ellstein, and Sholom Secunda. All in all, the documentary does a fine job of teaching the aleph-beyz, the ABCs, of the history of Yiddish theater to the uninitiated.
The most impressive aspect of Immigrant Songs is its well-crafted pace. Though there are a few snippets of vintage Yiddish cinema (Yiddish theater’s “kid brother”), most of the film consists of recent concert footage, some well-selected photographs and ephemera, and a lot of talking heads. Almost every prominent Yiddish theater historian was interviewed for it, along with several musicologists, an archivist, Yiddish actors, directors, producers, etc. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) Director Jeff Janeczko cuts between the interviewees so smoothly — sometimes in mid-sentence — that it feels like they’re in the same room and feeding off each other’s energy. The movie just flies by.
There are a few errors. Marc Chagall is described as an important designer of Yiddish theater; actually he designed one minor production in Russia in 1921, and never did another. In a bizarre, and biblically illiterate, statement, one interviewee claims that Jews hadn’t developed a theater culture earlier because the Second Commandment’s prohibition of “graven images” forbade the construction of sets. (Actually it’s about idol worship.)
Another interviewee claims that the Yiddish play Der Yeshiva Bokher; oder, Der Yudisher Hamlet — The Yeshiva Student; or, The Jewish Hamlet (Yiddish plays then often had subtitles), is closely patterned on Shakespeare’s tragedy. In truth, the play — written by Isidore Zolotarevski, the prolific writer of shund (“trash”) melodramas — is not only awful, but is as close to Shakespeare as baked ham is to your grandmother’s kreplach.
The film’s biggest fault, however, is its short running time (45 minutes). This is a rich topic, and too much is left by the wayside in the interest of brevity. There’s nothing about what shund melodramas felt like, why they appealed to their audiences, and why they became the only thing a lot of people know about Yiddish theater.
There’s also nothing about the World War I-era wave of shtetl plays, which reflected immigrants’ homesickness without indulging in nostalgia, and provided some of Yiddish theater’s shining moments with plays like Green Fields, The Empty Inn and Tevye. And the most important play in the Yiddish canon, The Dybbuk, is never mentioned.
Perhaps most surprisingly, considering the film’s emphasis on music, there is no examination of Yiddish theater’s influence on Broadway’s music. (Cole Porter — ironically, the only gentile among the major composers of Broadway’s Golden Age — had a pronounced Jewish lilt in a number of his songs, and he actually attended Yiddish theater regularly.)
The film’s last section is about the renewed interest in Yiddish that began in the 1970s and ’80s with the klezmer revival. Much of it focuses on the 2018 Yiddish production of Fiddler on the Roof in Yiddish, whose success was predetermined the moment the production was announced.
For the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from the Orthodox to the unaffiliated, Fiddler is all they know about the lives of their ancestors. And though it’s a world-class piece of musical theater, as a work of social history Fiddler is as phony as a glass eye. Nevertheless, for American Jews it’s a sacred text.
Fiddler was a huge hit, but it was a gimmick, a one-off, whose success does very little for the future of Yiddish theater. Worse, the Yiddish — not the text, but the lines spoken by most of the actors — was often mispronounced and had the wrong intonation. (One elderly gentleman of my acquaintance, a native Yiddish speaker from Czechoslovakia, told me he didn’t understand a word the actors said, and spent the whole evening reading the English supertitles.)
What follows the Fiddler section in Immigrant Songs is mostly bromides. But the best current Yiddish theater reflects the kind of fresh thinking that keeps the form alive.
An occasional well-presented museum piece, like the Folksbiene’s 2016 revival of Rumshinsky’s operetta The Golden Bride, is a very worthwhile project (though it, too, suffered from poorly spoken Yiddish). But the most dynamic contemporary Yiddish theater is, in Jeffrey Shandler’s apt phrase, “post vernacular” — i .e., the use of Yiddish is self-conscious, a deliberate choice rather than something that’s done automatically, as it would have been a century ago when there were a lot more Yiddish speakers in the world.
An example of this is the 2017 neo-realist film Menashe, which could far more easily and conventionally have been made in English. Or a well-known piece done in Yiddish translation, like Shane Baker’s stunning Yiddish translation of Waiting for Godot, can become something much more valuable than a mere stunt. The Yiddish version, under Moshe Yassur’s straightforward direction, humanized the play, stripping it of the encrusted pretentiousness that had hidden its soul. (When it was presented in the International Samuel Beckett Festival in Ireland, multiple audience members approached the cast afterwards with the same reaction: “I don’t speak a word of Yiddish. But I’ve seen Godot five or six times, and this is the first time I understood it.”)
There’s a lot to be learned from Immigrant Songs. If you find yourself hungry for more, you couldn’t do better than to seek out YIVO’s online Yiddish theater course “Oh, Mama, I’m in Love!” But by all means, start with Immigrant Songs. It’s a very entertaining and informative appetizer.
The post New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
UK PM Starmer Says There Could Be New Powers to Ban Pro-Palestinian Marches
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media statement at Downing Street in London, Britain, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jack Taylor/File photo
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances because of the “cumulative effect” the demonstrations had on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.
Starmer told the BBC that he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but chants like “Globalize the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and those voicing them should be prosecuted.
Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.
Protesters have argued they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.
Starmer said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.
Asked if the tougher response should focus on chants and banners, or whether the protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”
“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to look at what further powers it could take.
Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.
“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”
Uncategorized
War Likely to Resume After Trump’s Rejection of Latest Proposal, Says IRGC General
Iranians carry a model of a missile during a celebration following an IRGC attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
i24 News – A senior Iranian military figure said that fighting with the US was “likely” to resume after President Donald Trump stated he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposal, regime media reported on Saturday.
The comments of General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, one of the top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, were relayed by the Fars news agency, considered as a mouthpiece of the the powerful paramilitary body.
“Evidence has shown that the Americans do not not adhere to any commitments,” Asadi was quoted as saying.
He further added that Washington’s decision-making was “primarily media-driven aimed first at preventing a drop in oil prices and second at extricating themselves from the mess they have created.”
Iranian armed forces are ready “for any new adventures or foolishness from the Americans,” he said, going to assert that the Iran war would prove for the US a tragedy comparable with what was for Israel the October 7 massacre.
“Just as our martyred Leader said that the Zionist regime will never be the same as before the Al‑Aqsa Storm operation [the name chosen by Hamas leadership for the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel], the United States will also never return to what it was before its attack on Iran,” he said. “The world has understood the true nature of America, and no matter how much malice it shows now, it is no longer the America that many once feared.”