Uncategorized
The battle for Jewish hearts and minds returns to the printed page
(JTA) — The last 20 years haven’t been kind to Jewish journalism, with local weeklies shrinking or folding and even big city papers suspending their print publications and going completely digital. Publishing online has allowed these papers to cut costs and given them the potential for a wide reach — albeit a potential undermined by an increasingly siloed and ideologically polarized market for news and ideas.
Yet still there are those who aren’t giving up on print — at least in small, carefully targeted batches. This spring has seen the launch of two Jewish journals — Masorti, a reboot of the former Conservative Judaism, and Fragments, a product of the left-leaning Jewish human rights group T’ruah. The two magazines join a small but scrappy fraternity of journals aiming to steer the Jewish conversation.
“We’re the people of the book. I think print is having a moment,” said Rabbi Lev Meirowitz Nelson, who as director of Emor, T’ruah’s affiliated think tank, edits Fragments. “In the midst of all the [digital] bombardment people experience, there’s something very grounding about picking up a hard copy and being able to mark it up or carry it with you.”
Of course, Fragments and its more established cousins — from a legacy Modern Orthodox quarterly like Tradition to the interdisciplinary journal Modern Judaism — are all available online, and few print more than 1,000 copies at a time. The goal, the editors and publishers of some of the newer publications told me, is to establish a brand and repair what each one said was a broken communal discussion about Israel, domestic politics and religion.
“I hate what’s become of discourse in Jewish life, which largely goes on on Twitter and other places like that,” said Mark Charendoff. “I think Jews like longform discussions, and we’ve become very, very impatient. I wanted to carve out a space for that long type of writing and reading.”
Charendoff is president of the Maimonides Fund, which publishes Sapir, perhaps the best known of the newish journals. It has a high-profile editor — Bret Stephens, the conservative columnist on the New York Times opinion page — and a penchant for hot-button topics that rally conservatives and enrage liberals. Recent issues of the two-year-old journal have focused on “cancel culture” and a campus environment that most of its contributors consider hostile to conservatism and Jewish life.
“I think society and the Jewish community has become so polarized that people are afraid of articulating controversial views. We need to take a breath and say, ‘You’re not going to be harmed by reading something you disagree with,’” said Charendoff.
T’ruah believes there are plenty of controversial views being aired, but mostly on the right: It has explicitly positioned its new journal as a “necessary alternative to well-funded right-wing Jewish publications.” The news release announcing Fragments did not name those publications but presumably they include Sapir; Mosaic, supported by the right-leaning Tikvah Fund; and Tablet, which is published by Nextbook, Inc., whose president, Mem Bernstein, is on the board of Tikvah and is the widow of its founder. Tablet has published writers from across the political spectrum, but has drawn howls from the left for its frequent articles denouncing “wokeness” and cancel culture and a recent piece questioning the motives of donors who support gender-affirming care for trans people.
(Another journal, The Jewish Review of Books, was initially backed by Tikvah, but recently spun off under its own foundation.)
The premiere issue of Fragments includes essays on concepts of freedom by Laynie Soloman, a director at SVARA, an LGBTQ yeshiva based in Chicago, and Joelle Novey, the director of an interfaith environmental group in the Washington, D.C. area.
Nelson sees two audiences for Fragments: “It’s definitely speaking to the left and offering a deepening of language and of conversation around Jewish sources and Jewish ideas,” he said. “And it’s an effort to speak to the center, which often shares our values and can be spooked by the language they see coming from the right.”
Fittingly for a magazine published by a group formerly known as Rabbis for Human Rights, Fragments leans into Jewish text and religious perspectives. That sets it apart from Jewish Currents, a legacy journal of the Jewish left that, after a relaunch in 2018, now aims for an audience of young, left-wing, mostly secular Jews who, when not anti-Zionist, are deeply critical of Israel. Arielle Angel, editor in chief of Jewish Currents, has said that the magazine has become “a reliable and essential space for challenging, rigorous, surprising work that has shifted the discourse even beyond the American Jewish left.”
The aspiration that the “discourse can be shifted” by gladiators writing for small magazines harkens back to the post-World War II period, a sort of golden age of Jewish thought journals. Jewish and Jewish-adjacent publications like the Menorah Journal, Partisan Review, Commentary and Dissent provided a launching pad for an ideologically fluid cohort of “New York intellectuals” that over the years included Sidney Hook, Hannah Arendt, Lionel Trilling, Saul Bellow, Irving Howe, Delmore Schwartz, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Goodman, Midge Dector, Jeanne Kirkpatrick and Alfred Kazin.
Partisan Review was among a spate of magazines that offered a platform for Jewish intellectuals in the years immediately after World War II. (Open Culture)
While writers like these tackled Jewish issues, or general issues through a Jewish lens, many of them influenced the wider national conversation. Angel has said she has drawn inspiration from Commentary: Founded in 1945 by the American Jewish Committee, the magazine became hugely influential in promoting neoconservative ideas and thinkers in the 1980s and ’90s.
The “golden age” was an explosion of Jewish creativity, and political influence, that would be difficult to replicate today. Benjamin Balint, a former editor at Commentary and author of a history of the magazine, says the flowering of Jewish journals in the mid-20th century was the result of “terrific pent-up pressure among the children of immigrants who were pushed down for so long and were able to explode into the mainstream.” Small magazines “provided that release — pushing critics and writers into the larger culture,” said Balint, who previously edited Sources, the journal of the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America.
A long piece in Tablet recently argued that such Jewish influence is in steep decline “anywhere where American Jews once made their mark,” from academia to Hollywood to government. Author Jacob Savage doesn’t blame the loss of the immigrant work ethic, however, but rather “American liberalism” for marginalizing Jews.
Whatever the cause, few of the newer journals aspire to that kind of influence on the larger culture, and acknowledge that they are trying to shape the conversation within the Jewish community.
“We believe that Jewish leaders need great ideas to do their work well,” said Rabbi Justus Baird, senior vice president for national programs at the Shalom Hartman Institute of North America and publisher of its journal Sources, launched in 2021. “The way we invest in ideas is by cultivating a large group of Jewish thinkers and scholars who are doing not just the scholarship for its own sake, but really trying to work collaboratively on how Jewish thought can apply to the challenges facing the Jewish people.”
The Hartman Institute (which also counts the Maimonides Fund among its long list of major donors) is a religiously pluralistic, liberal Zionist think tank with outposts in New York and Jerusalem. Recent essays in Sources include lengthy essays by Yale religious studies professor Christine Hayes on the ethics of shaming and Hartman scholar Mijal Bitton on how relationships can heal the breach between the Diaspora and Israel.
Part of Hartman’s goal in publishing the journal is to provide a space for such long-form articles, filling what Baird calls “a gap between the quick, super-responsive, news-oriented Jewish publication landscape, the hot takes about what is going on, and the academic Jewish work.”
“It’s a space where ideas can really percolate,” said Claire Sufrin, who now edits Sources. “The written word, the printed word is there and can be shared in that way and people can engage with it over and over again.”
Masorti, the relaunched journal of Conservative Judaism, is also trying to bridge a gap, in this case between Jewish scholarship and the synagogue.
“Rabbis have responsibilities to serve as congregational leaders, and also the obligation to engage in Jewish learning and scholarship,” said Rabbi Joseph Prouser, the editor of Masorti.
The original Conservative Judaism was published from 1945 through 2014. The reboot is sponsored by the movement’s Rabbinical Assembly and its five seminaries, including the Jewish Theological Seminary, the New York flagship. Its readership base is rabbis and cantors affiliated with the movement.
Masorti arrives at a critical time for the Conservative movement: In an essay in the first issue, its associate editor, Rabbi Jonathan Rosenbaum, says what was once America’s largest Jewish denomination is at a “precipice.”
“At its summit, the plurality of [North American] Jews identified with the Conservative movement, something like 40%,” Rosenbaum said in an interview. “There was something like 1.6 million Jews who were thought to be part of the Conservative movement up to maybe the late ‘80s, early ‘90s. Today, there are about 500,000.
“Part of the goal of the journal,” he said, is to “look at the problems and the means of solving them.”
In the past the Conservative Judaism journal had been a forum for debate within the movement. It published dueling papers, for example, on the decision to ordain women and what is and isn’t permissible on Shabbat. Prouser says he’ll uphold that tradition of dissent: The current issue features an essay by Michal Raucher, a Jewish studies professor at Rutgers University, who criticizes the movement’s establishment for embracing a justification for abortion that doesn’t go far enough in recognizing the bodily autonomy of women (an argument she also advanced in a JTA oped).
And Prouser does hope these arguments are heard beyond the movement, positioned between traditionalist Orthodoxy and liberal Reform. “One of the beauties of the Conservative movement is that we can talk to people to our right to our left right, we can talk to the entire spectrum of the Jewish community,” he said.
The editors of the new journals agree that there are fewer and fewer spaces for civil conversation among Jews, blaming the filter bubble of the internet and the take-no-prisoners style of current political debate. And each said they would like to be part of the solution.
Sufrin, the editor of Hartman’s journal, calls it a “bridge, because people can talk about it together, they can engage with the ideas together, and it’s in that conversation that they can develop a relationship and ultimately, talk together more productively.”
The question is whether it is too late: At a time when algorithms reward readers with the kind of material they are likely to agree with, will even an elite reach across ideological divides and listen to what the other side is saying? When institutions — from government to religion — regard compromise as surrender, who dares to concede that your ideological opponent might have a point?
“Difference and disagreement are productive when we engage with the best versions of those with whom we disagree,” Hayes writes in Sources. That sounds like a call to action. Or is it an epitaph?
—
The post The battle for Jewish hearts and minds returns to the printed page appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
The real Holocaust history behind ‘Papillon,’ the Oscar-nominated short about a star Jewish swimmer
(JTA) — At first glance, “Papillon” (Butterfly), the 15-minute Oscar-nominated animated short by veteran French filmmaker Florence Miailhe, may appear like a meditative journey through water and memory. An elderly man swims in a hand-painted sea, flashing back to childhood memories of being bullied and a loving mother who makes it all right.
As he cuts through the water and moves through time, the fuller context emerges: The sun-soaked beaches appear to be North Africa, the boy becomes a champion swimmer, a swastika tells you that he is competing in the 1936 Berlin Olympics, and the soundtrack echoes with taunts of “Jew” and “kike.”
The film is based on the extraordinary real life of Alfred Nakache, a Jewish athlete whose story of resilience under Nazi persecution has previously been told in two French documentaries but is seldom remembered today.
Born in 1915 in French Algiers (his family immigrated from Iraq), Artem “Alfred” Nakache became one of France’s most celebrated swimmers in the 1930s, specializing in the butterfly stroke — a full-bodied lunge that looks like a bird, or butterfly, in flight. His success brought him to the 1936 Berlin Olympics, where he competed under the shadow of rising antisemitism in Nazi Germany (and was part of a freestyle relay team that didn’t medal, but finished ahead of the Germans).
Under Vichy, the Nazi puppet regime, Nakache was stripped of his French nationality and forced out of Paris. He joined the resistance underground while still competing for Vichy. On Nov. 20, 1943, Nakache and his wife and daughter were arrested by the Gestapo, and the family was separated at Auschwitz. Only Alfred survived. He later endured the death march to Buchenwald before liberation.
Despite these unimaginable losses, Nakache returned to swimming after the war, competing at the 1948 London Olympics. (He, gymnast Agnes Keleti and weightlifter Ben Helfgott are the only known Jewish survivors to have competed in the Olympics after the war.)
Nakache remained a swimmer the rest of his life, and died of a heart attack after a swim in the sea near the Spanish-French border in 1983.
Miailhe, a 70-year-old animator known for her labor-intensive oil and pastel on glass technique, has a personal connection to Nakache’s legacy. As a child, she took swim lessons with his younger brother Bernard and heard stories of his triumphs long before she understood their full historical weight. The end credits explain that her father also knew Alfred, whom he met in the resistance during the war.
“I hope people will be moved by Alfred Nakache’s story and rediscover it, because it’s not well-known in France,” Miailhe said in an interview with Deadline. “Also, we are living in some very troubled times in a world where racism and antisemitism are back.”
Produced by Oscar-winning animator Ron Dyens alongside Luc Camilli for Sacrebleu Productions and XBO Films, Papillon took roughly 100 days to animate — a testament to the craftsmanship that makes every frame an essay on the various qualities of water. The film has earned a César nomination (the French Academy Award) and a nomination at the Annecy International Animation Film Festival, and won the International Competition for best animated film at the Grand Prix at Stuttgart.
Amid the horrors of the Holocaust, the animated short also depicts the camaraderie among the athletes who swam — and stood — by Nakache’s side before and after the war.
“Some people denounced the Nakache family [to the Gestapo], but others saved Alfred when he returned from the camps,” Dyen told Deadline. “The whole tragedy of human duality is ultimately reflected in Nakache’s story.”
The post The real Holocaust history behind ‘Papillon,’ the Oscar-nominated short about a star Jewish swimmer appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Laura Loomer and other Jewish conservatives sound alarm over Tucker Carlson’s White House access
(JTA) — Jewish figures on the far right are increasingly expressing concerns about President Donald Trump’s handling of an antisemitism rift among the Republican party, after its instigator Tucker Carlson reportedly visited the White House for the third time in weeks on Monday.
The visit, reported by Punchbowl News journalist Jake Sherman, came days after his combative interview with Trump’s ambassador to Israel, Mike Huckabee, ignited antisemitism allegations and a diplomatic row with Arab leaders.
After the interview Carlson also appeared on Saudi state-owned TV, during which he called Israel’s Gaza war a “land grab” and repeated his past claims that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is “evil and destructive.” Carlson has ties with both Saudi Arabia and Qatar, where he has said he intends to buy property and has hosted high-profile events.
Laura Loomer, a far-right Jewish activist, has staked out a warpath against Carlson’s continued welcome in the Trump administration.
“It seems like a suicide mission for any Christian or Jew who doesn’t idolize Hitler to keep donating to the GOP,” Loomer tweeted late Monday. In a follow-up, she wrote, “It’s like I woke up one day and 90% of the people I’ve come to know on the right over the last 10 years have morphed into different people.”
Loomer’s explosion of anger and angst is significant because she has boasted of close ties to Trump and has appeared to hold some sway over White House hiring. In the past, when she has targeted administration staffers or potential hires, many have been spiked quickly. Now, as she raises alarms about Carlson and antisemitism on the right, the White House has remained silent.
“It’s shocking that I have to say this, but the GOP has a major identity crisis right now, the GOP has a growing Jew hate and foreign influence problem, and the party seems to be in a struggle session with Neo Nazis who they aren’t explicitly rejecting,” Loomer tweeted. “My advice is for people to not donate at this time till we get clarity from the party on what the party’s position is on these issues.”
Other Jewish figures on the far right, including radio host Mark Levin and pro-Israel activist Sloan Rachmuth, sided with Loomer against Carlson.
“He should be condemned by the White House, not invited to it,” Levin tweeted.
Carlson’s reported White House visit was one of several he has made since increasingly using his show to lean into friendly interviews with conspiracy theorists and white nationalists, including Nick Fuentes. Seen as a bellwether of conservative influence with close ties to Vice President JD Vance, Carlson’s broadsides against Israel and increasing embrace of antisemitic talking points have paralleled a similar rise in such sentiments among younger GOP voters, and caused serious concern among many Jewish conservatives.
Huckabee himself, in damage control following his comments in the interview, has publicly urged the Trump administration to cut ties with his former Fox News colleague.
“I hope they quit letting him into the White House because, quite frankly, this is a person who is doing serious, significant damage to President Trump and to the administration,” the ambassador told the Christian Broadcasting Network, hours before Carlson was spotted at the White House.
At least one other Trump appointee has also spoken out to defend Huckabee and condemn Carlson.
“Am I the ONLY member of the Trump’s [sic] Administration defending AND supporting Ambassador Huckabee?” Leo Terrell, chair of the Trump administration’s antisemitism task force, tweeted Monday.
Following the Huckabee interview, the influential Israeli-American conservative activist Yoram Hazony said Carlson’s earlier visits to the White House had come at the invitation of Trump, who Carlson said was worried that the burgeoning antisemitism rift would drive voters to the Democrats in the midterm elections this fall.
Hazony, whom Carlson mentioned in the video of his Huckabee interview, said Carlson had asked him for help mending fences but that he had come away unconvinced that Carlson wanted to make any changes.
“I explained to him that I can’t do much to help him, because just about every Jew I know believes he’s been waging a savage campaign against Jews, Judaism, and Israel for the past 18 months — and that most think his aim is to drive Jews and Zionist Christians out of the Trump coalition and out of the Republican party,” Hazony wrote on X.
Carlson requested Hazony set up a meeting with Netanyahu, Hazony claimed; he declined to do so. While at first Hazony said he was open to conversing with Carlson in the name of “building coalitions,” he has changed his mind.
“In Tucker’s case, the private person turns out to be exactly who we’ve been seeing in public,” he wrote. “Whatever his motives for turning his podcast into what seems to be a circus of anti-Jewish messaging, right now that project is clearly more important to him than helping the administration keep its coalition together so it can govern effectively and win elections in 2026 and 2028.”
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, condemned Carlson and praised Huckabee on Monday. He had previously said Carlson should not be invited to the White House.
“Tucker Carlson has a long history of peddling antisemitic conspiracy theories and lies about Jews and the Jewish state,” Greenblatt tweeted. “His recent interviews continue to amplify hate and launder falsehoods. None of this is new. It’s just pathetic. I appreciate Ambassador @GovMikeHuckabee’s effort to engage in good faith and set the record straight. Unfortunately, I’m not surprised at the outcome.”
Some non-Jewish GOP lawmakers have started to join their Jewish colleagues on the right in condemning Carlson, or antisemitism more forcefully.
“I used to respect Tucker Carlson but after watching his interview of @GovMikeHuckabee I am appalled,” Rep. Marlin Stutzman of Indiana wrote on X. “Tucker gave ample platform and time to Nick Fuentes to share his anti-Semitic vitriol, but constantly interrupted, was impatient, disingenuous, argumentative and disrespectful to Huckabee.”
Stutzman added, “Carlson suggesting all ‘Jews’ do a DNA test in order to live in Israel is repulsive and smacks of ignorance regarding the oldest faith practice in the world combined with the worst kind of exclusionary prejudice and elitism.”
In a slightly more coded message, Alabama Sen. Katie Britt tweeted Monday, “We must continue to call out and condemn antisemitism at every turn. Proud to stand with our Jewish brothers and sisters at home and abroad.” Britt did not mention Carlson or Huckabee by name. By contrast, GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas, an established foe of Carlson’s who was also on the receiving end of a tough interview over Israel, has retweeted several pro-Huckabee and anti-Carlson posts following the interview.
The Trump administration has not commented publicly on the interview or its backlash. Trump staffers have reportedly been working behind the scenes to assure Arab leaders that Huckabee’s comments during the interview, in which he suggested Israel has a divine right to much of the Middle East, do not represent official administration policy.
The drama has raised a range of issues beyond the antisemitism rift, including the fact that Carlson’s son works for Vance and about Carlson’s relationships with Saudi Arabia and Russia, both of which are promoting interviews on state media about Carlson’s criticism of the Trump administration.
Carlson is keeping up his streak elevating fringe GOP figures amid the controversy, posting a new interview Monday with outsider Iowa gubernatorial candidate Zach Lahn.
“We have a Christian form of government, but we have elected people that are not following that custom and religion in Christianity,” Lahn told Carlson in the interview. “And so you’re going to have a constitutional crisis. You’re going to have fraud all over the place.”
For Loomer, the moment is existential for right wing-Jews. “The GOP has made it very clear over the last few years that Jewish voters on the right are not welcome, we are not appreciated, and we will not be given basic respect,” she tweeted.
“There’s some elected officials in the GOP who would be ok with seeing Jews mass murdered,” Loomer continued, without naming names. “As a lifelong Republican, this is very alarming to me.”
The post Laura Loomer and other Jewish conservatives sound alarm over Tucker Carlson’s White House access appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Documentary about Jews killed by their Polish neighbors after the Holocaust could be banned in Poland
(JTA) — A documentary about the murder of five Jews in a Polish town is being threatened with a ban in Poland — not because they were killed in the Holocaust, but because they weren’t.
The Jews at the heart of “Among Neighbors,” from California-based filmmaker Yoav Potash, died six months after the end of Nazi occupation. They were among a handful of survivors from Gniewoszów, a town where about 1,500 Jews made up half the population before World War II. When they returned home in 1945, they were killed by their Polish neighbors.
Since premiering at the Warsaw Jewish Film Festival in November 2024, “Among Neighbors” has been screened in six countries and qualified for Academy Award consideration. But its release on TVP, the Polish public broadcaster, has prompted uproar from right-wing politicians and a national investigation.
Potash stumbled into making “Among Neighbors” on a 2014 trip to Gniewoszów, where he planned to document a modest rededication ceremony for the Jewish cemetery. As he began talking with the oldest residents, one woman, who has since died, told him that Jews were killed there well after the war.
“That just really struck me as a very different kind of story, because it was not the Germans doing the killing, it was the Poles,” said Potash. “It was not during the war, it was well after, when it should have been a time of peace.”
When “Among Neighbors” appeared on televisions across Poland in November 2025, it was hit with backlash from the office of Polish President Karol Nawrocki, a right-wing historian who led nationalist efforts to rewrite Poland’s Holocaust history. His Law and Justice party, which governed Poland from 2015 to 2023, promoted historical narratives about Polish victimhood and resistance to the Nazis while delegitimizing research on Polish antisemitism or Poles who killed Jews.
Prime Minister Donald Tusk now leads the Polish government with a centrist coalition, but Nawrocki has been a counterweight to Tusk since he was elected last year.
Six days after “Among Neighbors” aired on TVP, Agnieszka Jędrzak, a minister in Nawrocki’s office, attacked the broadcaster on X. Calling the documentary “historical anti-Polish manipulation,” she said “a television station that has ‘Polish’ in its name should not be broadcasting it.”
Jędrzak oversees state awards and Polish diaspora relations. Before joining the president’s office, she spent 15 years working at the Institute of National Remembrance — previously headed by Nawrocki — which gained a reputation for advancing nationalist narratives about the Holocaust. According to Jędrzak’s government profile, she led the IPN as it “responded to defamatory statements which damaged the reputation of Poland and the Polish nation.”
A probe into “Among Neighbors” launched after the Ordo Iuris Institute, a far-right Catholic think tank, filed a complaint with the National Broadcasting Council, comparable to the Federal Communications Commission in the United States.
“The narrative presented in the documentary film ‘Among Neighbors’ clearly undermines values important to Poles, such as historical truth,” the institute said in November. “Above all, the film creates a false image of Poles as a nation co-responsible for the German genocide of Jews during World War II. What is particularly outrageous is the fact that the production was released by Polish Television.”
The National Broadcasting Council responded by opening an investigation into the film.
“Among Neighbors” was made over the course of a decade that largely spanned the Law and Justice regime. In 2018, the country passed a law that outlawed accusing Poland or the Polish people of complicity in Nazi crimes. The infraction has since been downgraded from a crime punishable with prison time to a civil offense, but the law remains in effect.
For Potash, reactions to the film from right-wing nationalist officials were “not surprising at all.”
“They have adopted this mindset where there’s an almost sacred sense that Poles during World War II were either victims or heroes,” he said. “Any story that anyone tells that contradicts that, or that adds that some Poles were perpetrators, is anathema to that.”
TVP has stood by the film and continues to air it. The network has been backed by the Jewish Historical Institute of Poland and the POLIN Museum of the History of Polish Jews, whose representatives sent a letter of support to the TVP Program Council’s chair, Barbara Bilińska.
“Among Neighbors” unfolds around a man and a woman who grew up in Gniewoszów. In the last breaths of their lives, they seek to answer questions that have possessed them for 80 years — he as the Jewish child of Holocaust survivors who were killed in their hometown, and she as a Polish eyewitness to the murders.
In a statement, TVP said the reckonings of these two people were neither “anti-Polish” nor “a judgment of the entire Polish nation.”
“We are open to dialogue regarding historical memory and believe that even difficult topics allow society to understand the fuller context of past events,” said TVP. “As a public broadcaster, we have a duty to facilitate such conversation and not shy away from presenting those fragments of history that require reflection and civic courage.”
Beyond Gniewoszów, “Among Neighbors” touches on a wave of murders that struck Jews returning home to cities and towns across Poland after liberation from the Nazis. In the most notorious instance, 42 Jews in the southeastern town of Kielce were killed by a mob of Polish residents, soldiers and police officers in July 1946. The Kielce pogrom convinced many survivors they had no future in Poland, spurring an exodus.
A film dramatizing the Kielce pogrom drew protests from Polish Americans, and the Berlin office of its Jewish producer was destroyed by an arson in 1996, the same year the Polish government formally apologized for the pogrom.
“Among Neighbors” confronts the simultaneous intimacy and violence woven through small towns, where Poles lived and worked with Jews, where their children played with Jewish children, and where some Poles also killed their Jewish neighbors. That complex relationship still rests under the surface of skirmishes over Poland’s history.
Konstanty Gebert, a journalist interviewed in the film, compared the relationship between Poland and its Jews to the phenomenon of phantom limbs — the sensation that a body part remains attached after it has been amputated.
“Poland is still suffering from its Jewish phantom pains, and Jews are suffering from their Polish phantom pains,” said Gebert. “Until those two amputated hands can actually shake — and I don’t know how you do that to amputated limbs — but I know that if you don’t, we’ll be still standing there, swallowing painkillers for a pain that cannot be relieved, because the amputated limb is gone and it still hurts.”
The post Documentary about Jews killed by their Polish neighbors after the Holocaust could be banned in Poland appeared first on The Forward.