Uncategorized
‘The gun is on the table’: Both sides of Israel’s debate say that a constitutional crisis is coming
(JTA) — In a country that is deeply divided, where attending anti-government protests has become a weekly ritual for many, at least one idea still unites the right and left: Israel appears to be hurtling toward a constitutional crisis.
The crisis — which Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu termed a “governmental breakdown” during a recent visit to Germany — would flow from legislation Netanyahu is pushing that would overhaul Israel’s judiciary. The proposal — which critics say threatens Israel’s democratic character — would increase the coalition’s control over the appointment of Supreme Court judges, and would enable Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, to override court decisions with a simple majority.
A constitutional crisis occurs when a country faces an unsolvable dispute between competing branches of government. Countries have recovered from constitutional crises in the past — the United States has had several over the centuries, including multiple ones related to the leadup to the Civil War and its aftermath — but the process can be difficult, and mistrust long-lasting.
In Israel’s case, what happens if the Knesset passes the judicial legislation, the Supreme Court strikes it down, and the Knesset doesn’t abide by that decision? Does the court or Knesset hold final authority?
However that question is answered, just getting to that point would represent a dramatic breakdown in a 75-year-old democracy. “The very idea that the government might not comply, might ignore the Supreme Court’s decision, would be an unprecedented crisis,” said Michal Saliternik, a law professor at Netanya Academic College.
In that dangerous moment, some Israelis see opportunity. In a perhaps ironic twist, Israel is on the precipice of a constitutional crisis but doesn’t actually have a constitution. It’s a risky bet, but a battle between the court and the coalition, said international law scholar Tamar Megiddo, might just force Israel into the long and arduous process of writing a governing document and figuring out how to balance the country’s competing authorities.
“The entire constitutional system here is held together by duct tape,” said Megiddo, who teaches at the College of Law and Business outside Tel Aviv. “It’s ridiculous. We have no protection of our constitutional regime, no protection of our separation of powers, no protection of checks and balances and no protection of human rights. The only reason this functioned for the past 75 years is because there was good faith.”
She added, “I think a lot of people view the current constitutional moment, or the realistically likely constitutional crisis, as also an opportunity for fixing everything that’s broken in the system.”
When asked how a clash between the government and courts could come to a head, those scholars and others all individually sketched out versions of the same scenario: The government passes a law giving itself control over judicial appointments, the court strikes down the law — and the government appoints new judges anyway. When those judges arrive for their first day of work, should the security guards let them in? Who should the guards obey — the government that appointed the judges, or the courts that declared their appointment illegal?
While that question is being debated, the courts may not be able to hear cases at all.
“At the end of the day, the state needs to function,” Saliternik said. “The courts have work to do. If the judges can’t enter their chambers, it will definitely impact everyone. It’ll be like a third world country in which institutions don’t function.”
The law on judicial appointments may be passed next week, and for rank-and-file Israelis, both Saliternik and Megiddo said, this question would hardly be theoretical. If Israel’s system of government descends into crisis, it could lead to a downgrade in the country’s credit rating and an economic downturn that ordinary citizens feel in their pockets. And given how invested Israelis have become in the face of the judicial reform — protesting in the streets by the hundreds of thousands — it’s unlikely they’ll ignore what ensues if and when it passes. Israeli President Isaac Herzog, who has a reputation for congeniality, gave a pained speech last week warning of the potential for civil war.
“If the court issues a ruling and the government does not comply, then the Israeli public will say, ‘This is the ultimate proof that this is not a democracy anymore,’” Saliternik said. “I say this with trepidation, but if there’s an open battle between the Supreme Court and the Knesset, it could result in street violence.”
Megiddo said that even the possibility of such a crisis has normalized tactics that were once on the fringe, such as refusal to perform military service, a duty seen as sacrosanct across much of Jewish Israeli society. Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant reportedly warned that the possibility of mass refusal to serve could cause him to leave his post. On Tuesday, a group of military reservists said they plan to recruit tens of thousands more who will pledge to shirk reserve duty if the legislation goes through.
“People who refuse service were considered, in the Israeli public, to be a very extreme minority, and now it’s mainstream to say that people won’t serve the military for a dictatorship,” Megiddo said. “It’s unbelievable how mainstream saying that at the moment is, and that has long-term impact.”
Both supporters and opponents of the legislation in the Knesset are treating a constitutional crisis as a real possibility. The only thing they disagree about is who will be to blame — and both sides appear to be raising the stakes, vowing either to disobey government decisions, or disregard the court.
“The security situation is troubling,” said former Defense Minister Benny Gantz, an opponent of Netanyahu, in a speech last week referencing escalating violence between Israelis and Palestinians, and urging Netanyahu to pause the court legislation. “Don’t drag us into an irresponsible constitutional crisis during a security crisis.”
Netanyahu’s allies, unsurprisingly, say it is the opponents of the reform — and the justices of the court themselves — who would be responsible for a constitutional crisis, should the court strike down the law.
Striking down the reform legislation would be a “doomsday weapon,” wrote Dror Eydar, a columnist for the pro-Netanyahu tabloid Israel Hayom, in a piece titled “Inviting a constitutional crisis.” “This striking down would constitute a coup d’etat.”
(Another column four days later in the same publication, however, urged a compromise on the judicial reform in order to avert a constitutional crisis. That piece was written by Miriam Adelson, whose husband Sheldon — the late billionaire philanthropist — founded and funded the paper.)
Netanyahu’s coalition members are still worried enough about the prospect of a constitutional crisis that they’ve agreed to what they refer to as a “softening” of one piece of the legislation. Instead of giving the coalition total control over Supreme Court appointments, the new text of the bill would let the coalition control its first two judicial appointments.
“There’s no doubt that the change we made prevents any real claim that can create a constitutional crisis,” said Justice Minister Yariv Levin, who is spearheading the legislation, on an Israeli news show on Monday.
A view of the Israeli Supreme Court in Jerusalem. (Eddie Gerald via Getty Images)
But then he threw down the gauntlet: If the court still overturns the law, Levin said, “That would cross every red line. We definitely wouldn’t accept it.”
Responding to that claim, Yair Lapid, the leader of the parliamentary opposition, said that if the government disobeys the court, citizens should disobey the government.
“That’s it, the masks are off. The gun is on the table,” Lapid tweeted. “The real prime minister, Yariv Levin, is drawing us into total chaos and a constitutional crisis we won’t be able to come back from. If the justice minister is calling on the government not to obey the law, why should the citizens of Israel obey the government?”
Another Likud lawmaker, Economy Minister Nir Barkat, said he would respect the court’s ruling if it struck the law down. But in any case, the Likud bill doesn’t appear to be a promising avenue toward compromise. “This isn’t softening and compromise, this is Hungary and Poland on steroids,” Labor Party Chair Merav Michaeli said on a radio program on Monday, referring to countries where the government has increased its control over the court system. “From the start, I said we can’t negotiate with them.”
A predecessor of Michaeli’s in the Labor Party has also taken a hard line and — unlike the many voices who worry about a clash of government authorities — has suggested that he would prefer a constitutional crisis to compromise. Ehud Barak, a former Israeli prime minister, said that a constitutional crisis would force senior Israeli military commanders to take sides — and expressed confidence that they would choose to obey the courts.
“It would be a severe constitutional crisis,” Barak said in a speech last month. “That’s when the test of the gatekeepers and defenders of sovereignty would arrive: The head of the Shin Bet, the police commissioner, the chief of staff and the head of the Mossad. I’m convinced that they understand that in a democracy, the only choice is to recognize the supremacy of law and the Supreme Court.”
The mounting threats by military reservists, and comments by former military commanders opposing the court reform, may indicate that the military will opt to follow the court. But Saliternik hopes that’s a choice Israeli forces won’t have to confront.
“This is something that has never happened in Israel,” she said. “It’s so very hard to think about. I very much hope that that government will get a hold of itself and act responsibly.”
—
The post ‘The gun is on the table’: Both sides of Israel’s debate say that a constitutional crisis is coming appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Four seasons in five sonnets
אָסיען
דאָס צאַרטע ביימל צערטלדיק
צעוויגט זיך אויפֿן ווינט
שוין לאַנג אין אירע בלעטעלעך
קיין זומערפֿרייד מער ניט גרינט
די בלעטלעך טאַנצן גאָלדענע
צום טאַקט פֿון לופֿט וואָס רינט
פֿון קאַנטן פֿון פֿאַרוואָלקנטע
מיט קילקייטס שטאַרן דין
די בלעטעלעך, די בלעטעלעך
זיי מאָנען גאָרניט כּלל
בלויז פֿאַרן סוף קאָקעטעלעך
זיי טענצלען מיט אַ שטראַל
אַזוי עס קלאַפּט אַ הערצעלע
וואָס ווערט פֿון אַלטקייט יונג
אַזוי דאָס לידל ס׳לעצטיקע
קלאָר לייגט זיך אויף דער צונג
און מיטן ווינטל פֿרישינקן
צעזינגט זיך פֿראַנק־און־פֿרײַ
בלײַב, וועלטל מײַנס, פאַֿרכּישופֿטע,
געזונט, אַדיאָ, גוד־בײַ
2021
•
ווינטער
ביים גיין פֿאַרביי דעם אַלטן וואַלד
דערשפּירסטו: אים איז ביטער קאַלט:
די צווײַגן ציטערן פֿאַר קעלט,
די שטאַמען בייגן זיך פֿאַרקוועלט.
און אַלע חיות פּלוצים אָפּ,
און פֿייגל אַלע ווי אָן קאָפּ.
מערניט א שפּערל שפּרינגט זיך דרייסט…
ווי קומט ער גאָר פֿון שטאָט? ווער ווייסט…
גיסטו דעם שפּערל גלײַך אַ וווּנק:
„דער וואַלד איז אַלט און דו ביסט יונג!“
נאָר ער גאָר מאַכט זיך קעלאָיאָד,
אויף דרערד אַלץ שפּרינגט ער, נישטערט דאָרט…
דו קלערסט בײַם גיין פֿאַרביי דעם וואַלד:
זאָל עקן זיך דער ווינטער באַלד!
2018
•
צישן סוף און אָנהייב
דו ווייסט, דער ווינטער וועט פֿאַרגיין
באַלד
און אַלץ באַנײַט זיך: פֿעלד. בוים, שטיין,
וואַלד
און ס׳נעמט אַלץ שפּיגלען זיך אין דיר —
בלום
און בין, און פֿייגל אָן אַ שיעור, —
קום,
שטיי אויף פֿון ווינטער דרעמל און
שײַן!
אַוועק עס וועט פֿון אונטער זון
פּײַן,
דײַן שמייכל ווידער — פֿרײַ און יונג
שפּרייט
די פליגל איבער קינד־און־קייט
ברייט,
דײַן גאָב איז גרויס, און מײַן געזאַנג —
קלאַנג
טויכט אויף, אין יעדן אות געפֿאַנגט —
דאַנק
2019
•
פֿרילינג
די צאַרטע גרינקייט
פֿון ערשטע בלעטלעך
קומט שטענדיק
ניט צו פֿרי,
ניט שפּעטלעך.
ס׳קומט תּמיד ממש
צו דער צײַט
און גרינג,
פֿון בייזע פֿרעסט
באַפרײַט
ס׳הייבט אָן
די גרויסע פֿרייד
צו שוועבן
ווײַל ס׳ווערט באַנײַט
דאָס גרינע לעבן
פֿאַרקוואַרטע ביימער
ווערן לײַט
2024
•
דער זומער איז אַן עקשן
דער זומער איז אַן עקשן, ער וויל ניט, וויל ניט קומען
הגם אויף בייטן וואַקסן צעקווייטיקט שוין די בלומען
הגם די ביימער אויכעט זיך שאָקלען שטאַרק צעגרינטע
דער זומער איז זיי חושד, וויל זיך פֿון דאַן אַהין טאָן
וואוהין אַהין? — טוסט פֿרעגן און ס׳ענטפֿערן די ווינטן:
צו סאַמע קוואַל פֿון רעגן, צום וויכערס אורקוואַל בלינדן…
דער זומער זיך פֿאַרטײַעט, ער וויל זיך ניט צעבליִען
פֿאַרציטערט מענטש און חיה באַלד גרייט פֿאַר אים זיך מיִען
נאָר ער טוט אַלץ זיך הײַען, מיט שטראַלן טוט ניט בריִען
דער פֿרילינג שוין פֿאַרבײַ איז און נאַט אײַך — אָסיען פֿריִער!
פֿאַרחושכט גרינע וועלדער מיט פּוסטע שטעט און שטעטלעך —
בײַ גרויע שטיינער עלנטע, נעפּלדיק פּאַנדעמלעך…
נאָר ער, ער מוז דאָך קומען, אָנקומען סוף־כּל־סוף און
צעקושן זיך מיט בלומען, אויסהיילן גרויל מיט האָפֿונג
ווײַל ניט אומזיסט די ביימער צעגרינטע זיך צעוויגן —
אָט־אָט מיט טויזנט חנען צעוויקלט זיך זײַן ניגון!..
דערווײַל זשע בלאָזן ווינטן, צעיושעט זיך דער רעגן
בעת דער פּאַנדעמער ווינטער וויל מערן זײַן פֿאַרמעגן
2020
•
פֿיר צײַטן פֿון אַ גאַנץ יאָר
ס׳טוט דער פֿרילינג אַלץ זיך בעטן
ביז אין ווינטער נעכט אין שפּעטע
„פֿעלט־וועלט־וואַלד, רק ניט פֿאַרגעסט מיך —
ס׳איז ניט סתּם וואָס כ׳הייס אויך — וועסנע!..“
און דער לאַנגער, כמורנער אָסיען —
רײַסט אַראָפּ אַלץ, דרעשעט, קאָסיעט…
מ׳רופֿט אים ניט אומזיסט אויך האַרבסט, —
ר׳סטראַשעט דעם ווינטער: ״אויך דו, שטאַרבסט!״
און דער שטרענגער, שאַרפֿער ווינטער
ווייסט שוין ניט וואו ר׳זאָל אַהינטער
צי פֿון וואַנעט ר׳זאָל אַרויסעט,
ווײַל ער האָט מער ניט קיין עתיד.
שיקט ער ליבע־בריוו דעם זומער,
נאָר פֿון היץ ווערט יענער — שטומער —
ביז די פֿייגל בויען נעסטן
לשם וועסנע, לשם וועסנע…
2017
•
פֿינעף סאָנעטן
1. און אפֿשר האׇט ער רעכט
און אפֿשר איז גערעכט דער מעכטיקער פּאָעט:
דער עכטיקער איז ער, די איבעריקע זאַנען
אַן ערבֿ־רבֿ פֿון שטיקלעך גראַפֿאָמאַנען
בעת ער באַשאַפֿט פֿון טאָיוּ־וואָיוּ אַ סאָנעט?
און אפשר האָט ער רעכט, דער מײַסטער פוֿן קופּלעט,
וואָס דויערט, ברויזט און קלינגט איבער אַ טויזנט ימען,
בלויז ער, רק ער אַליין לסוף געווינען וועט
די קרוין די איינציקע פֿון ליד דעם סאַמע־סאַמע?
נו יאָ, ווער ווייסט, ווער קאָן דאָס משפּטן אַצינד,
צווישן אַפּנים, מעגלעך, אפֿשר און מסתמא,
צי וועט דען איבערבלײַבן מיטן גײַסט פֿון ווינט
דער וועלטבאַשאַף פֿון ניסימדיקע גראַמען?
טאָ וואָס זשע דען? — מערניט, אַ שטילער עפּיטאַף:
אין ליד זײַנס חנדלט זיך אויך פּראָסטער ערבֿ־רבֿ
2017
•
2. „לידער, לידער, לידערליי“
אַ לידער־קלעטער, צי אַ לידער־פֿלי
צו־מאָל אין שפּעטסטער שפּעט
ווען ס׳ווערט שוין גראָד גאַנצפֿרי
צו־מאָל אינמיטן גאַנג פֿון גיכן טאָג
וואָס זשאַלעוועט אַ גלעט
קיין צײַט ער ניט פֿאַרמאָגט
אַ ליד אַ וווּנדער, צי אַ ליד אַ וווּנד
אַ פלֿאַם אַ קוועלכל וועקט
אַ הימל גרייכט צום גרונד
אַ לידער־אָטעם, צי אַ לידער־גרוס
אין יעדן וואָרט עס שטעקט
די מעגלעכקייט פֿון מוז
אַ ליד־געזאַנג, צי גאָר אַ ליד־געשריי
פֿון טיפֿער פֿרייד, פון וויי
2018
•
3. אַ ליבע־גרוס
דער ווינטער ווי קאַלט ר׳זאָל ניט ווערן
די וויוגע די בייזע, דער פֿראָסט —
זיי וועלן ניט קענען צעשטערן
די ליכט וואָס צו מיר דו דערטראָגסט
די שטערן, קאָן דאַכטן, געהערן
ניט מיר און ניט דיר, און פֿאַרדראָס
וויל אונדזער ממשות פֿאַרשטערן
און פֿאָרט ס׳איז פֿאַר דיר — יעדער אות
וואָס כ׳טו פֿון מײַן האַרצן אויסשרײַבן
מיט זוניקן שטראַל אויפּֿן שניי
און כ׳ווייס אַז די אויפֿשריפֿט וועט בלײַבן
וועט אויסשטיין דעם גרעסטן זאַוויי
דער ווינטער אַלץ שאַרפֿער און שאַרפֿער
נאָר אים איבערלעבן באַדאַרף מען.
2019
•
4. ביימער
דערהערן דעם זיכּרון פֿון די ביימער
וואָס שטייען וואַך יאָרהונדערטער, צי מער
און בלײַבן דאָ מיט זיי איינער אַליינער
כּל־זמן עס קומט ניט קיינער ניט אַהער
זיך שאָקלענדיק צום טאַקט פֿון זייער תּפֿילה
דערשפּירן יעדן רינג און רונג אין זיי
מיט יעדן שאָרך און בייג פֿון צווײַגן פֿילע
מיט פֿרייד פֿון פֿרילינג און מיט אָסיען־וויי
מיט אומגעהײַער זאַפֿטיקייט פֿון גרינקייט
אום רײַפֿן זומער ווען אַלץ זשומט און בליט…
אום פֿראָסטיק קאַלטן ווינטער מיט זײַן פֿלינקײַט —
צעכראַסטעטעטע זיי שטייען אויפֿן ווינט
דערהערן דעם זיכּרון פֿון געדויער
פֿון קיוּם און פֿון ווידערקום ביסט לאָער
2022
•
5. פּאַנטאַריישיתדיקס
.
שוין צײַט דו זאָלסט וויסן דער טאָג איז פֿאַרבײַ
דער אָוונט איז יונג נאָך, די נאַכט איז נאָך פֿרײַ
די שטערן נאָך שלאָפֿן, דער ווינט איז נאָך לינד
די בערן פאַֿרשלאָפֿן דעם ווינטער געשווינד
און אַלץ וואָס קאָן טרעפֿן, וועט טרעפֿן געוויס:
דער בונד ווערן לויז און דער גזר ווערן ברית
דער אומרו פֿון אָנמאַכט וועט דויערן לאַנג
בעת דו טוסט צעוויקלען דײַן ניגון און קלאַנג
געשוועסטער, געברידער — געמיינזאַמע לײַט —
די זון גייט באַלד אונטער פֿון יעטווידער זײַט
זי בעט זיך פּאַטעטיש: פֿאַרגעסט זשע מיך ניט
די האָפֿענונג לעצטע צום אין־סוף דערפליט
נאָר אַלץ וואָס וועט ווערן, וועט גרייכן דעם צוועק
בעת גלגל החוזר זיך דרייט אָן אַן עק
2026
The post Four seasons in five sonnets appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
My university is enabling the Trump administration’s worst fallacies on antisemitism
The Department of Justice has filed its second lawsuit of the year alleging rampant antisemitism at UCLA, where I teach.
The suit is a repetition of the same old string of allegations that President Donald Trump’s administration first made in the summer of 2025, when it froze $584 million in research funds and then tried to extract an additional $1.2 billion from UCLA. Those assertions are based on a mix of self-reporting and hearsay, assembled to make the case that the UCLA campus is awash in antisemitism.
A small number of the allegations I know or believe to be true. But the overarching claim made in the federal complaint is so partisan and partial as to be comical.
The new suit alleges that UCLA tolerated antisemitic expression and acts on campus — especially at a short-lived pro-Palestinian encampment that took place in April 2024.
It accuses UCLA of tolerating an “appalling hostile educational environment against its Jewish and Israeli students.” The fact that UCLA’s chancellor, Julio Frenk, has made the fight against antisemitism one of the pillars of his administration — and makes constant reference to the recent recommendations of a campus Initiative to Combat Antisemitism — seems not to have registered. The feds are clearly suffering from a bit of UCLA Derangement Syndrome.
This latest federal suit against UCLA succumbs to the Trumpian instinct to alter the facts to fit one’s political proclivities. In this worldview, every instance of support for Palestinians or criticism of Israel is cast as antisemitic; there can be no legitimate form of pro-Palestinian expression.
Even more remarkably, there can be no admission that the greatest display of violence that unfolded on our campus amid pro-Palestinian protests was not against pro-Israel students. Instead, it was perpetrated by pro-Israeli hooligans against the pro-Palestinian encampment activists on the evening of April 30, 2024.
Yet true to form, the complaint describes the events of that night as a battle between equals: “the occupiers and counter-protestors attacked each other with pepper spray, blunt objects, and even fireworks.” In fact, what took place was a vicious assault by one group against another — those in the encampment — that went on for more than four hours without police intervention.
This reshaping of truths seen as inconvenient betrays a tendency by Trump and his associates to adopt an exceptionally narrow lens of observation that allows for shameful distortion and denial. That tendency showed up in a farcically named 2025 executive order, “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History,” which sought to erase any trace of racial prejudice from the annals of this country. And it continues to be present in Trump’s astounding revisionist account of January 6, 2021, which casts the violent insurrectionists as American heroes betrayed by their country.
Sadly the Justice Department’s misrepresentations in its latest complaint are founded not only on Trumpian denialism, but also on UCLA’s own antisemitism initiatives.
Both the taskforce and a subsequent action group charged with investigating on-campus antisemitism have advanced a decontextualized and one-sided story of what took place at UCLA. They have failed to acknowledge the relational nature of anti-Israeli and anti-Palestinian expression; blurred the distinction between hate speech and legitimate, albeit harsh, political expression; and left the concerns of the pro-Palestine side almost entirely unrecognized.
Paradoxically, the singular focus on antisemitism dilutes the very effort to combat it by ignoring the wider ecosystem of hate in which antisemitism operates.
I know members of the taskforce and the action group, as well as Chancellor Frenk. They are colleagues and friends of mine. But I disagree with the way they have gone about the work of combatting antisemitism at UCLA.
To begin with, none of the six UCLA scholars who hold chairs in Jewish studies and whose work touches on antisemitism — myself included — were part of the taskforce that issued its report, or the action group that followed in its wake. Some were initially invited to be part of the taskforce but chose to step down because they did not feel in sync with its direction.
Why?
Because that direction was grounded in a flawed equation of antisemitism with anti-Zionist and anti-Israel expression.
The UCLA action group’s most recent recommendations call for the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, which largely advances this understanding. The recommendations give lip service to the assertion that not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic, but neither the taskforce nor the action group has ever indicated when, if ever, criticism of Israel is not anti-Israel — a category so capacious as to leave little room for criticism of any sort.
An additional concern: many of the recent action group recommendations focus on “time, place, and manner” restrictions on campus debate. While ostensibly intended to promote a safe campus environment, in practice they seem to be largely aimed at inhibiting pro-Palestinian forms of expression.
What about an alternative strategy that leverages what we do best at universities: education?
Restricting conversation has never led to positive social change. What could is a major new educational effort devoted to a multi-disciplinary analysis of antisemitism, perhaps alongside Islamophobia. The university could investigate more deeply the interconnected nature of hate in our time by supporting research efforts like those of the UCLA Initiative to Study Hate — which, full disclosure, I direct.
A more expansive tack like this stands a better chance of being effective in bringing various campus stakeholders, including students, into the fight against identity-based hate — which includes but is not restricted to antisemitism. That, rather than narrowing space for free speech, should be the goal.
Unfortunately, our own campus’ efforts to combat antisemitism move in another direction, a choice the Trump administration is working hard to reinforce with their ill-intentioned weaponization of antisemitism. I fear that UCLA will suffer for this — and that, at the end of the day, little will be done to reduce hatred and prejudice against Jews.
The post My university is enabling the Trump administration’s worst fallacies on antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
How ‘Hacks’ botched its Yiddish line
In the most recent episode of HBO Max’s critically acclaimed comedy-drama Hacks, Robbie Hoffman, who plays Randi, an ex-Hasidic assistant to agents who represent stand-up comedian Deborah Vance (Jean Smart), says a line in Yiddish. Unfortunately, as any fluent Yiddish speaker will confirm, it’s grammatically incorrect.
In the episode, “The Garden” — referring to Madison Square Garden — Vance’s nemesis Bob Lipka (played by Tony Goldwyn) manages to ruin the comedian’s dream performance at the renowned venue. Luckily, her crew succeeds at securing their boss a stage in Central Park (albeit with free tickets) but they have only a couple of days to convince people to fill the seats. They spread out into the streets of New York City handing out fliers, desperate to get people to come to the ad hoc performance.
Randi does her part by returning to her former community — an apparently Hasidic neighborhood in Brooklyn — and hands out fliers to the pious passers-by. Since Haredi Jews eschew secular performances of any kind, Randi’s attempts are sure to be futile but it’s a funny scene, so I get it.
Yet, when Randi tries to convince them in Yiddish to “come see Deborah Vance in Central Park,” the verb she uses is grammatically incorrect. For you grammar nerds out there, here’s what the error was: Instead of using the command form, “kumt zen Deborah Vance,” “come see Deborah Vance,” she uses the infinitive, “kumen tsu zen Deborah Vance.”
It’s as if she were to say, in English: “To come to see Deborah Vance.”
Surprisingly, as was reported in Alma, Hoffman had called her mother Connie, who, she says, actually writes plays in Yiddish, to run the line by her. If her mother is indeed a fluent Yiddish speaker, we can only conclude that she may have mis-heard the sentence.
Unfortunately, badly translated or mispronounced Yiddish lines are all too common in TV series and films, from the 1992 film A Stranger Among Us with Melanie Griffith to the 2019 mini-series Unorthodox. Interestingly, the Israeli show Shtisel, produced in Israel, did a much better job of getting the Yiddish right.
In any case, the correct way for professional studios to get lines translated into a foreign language is not to wing it, but to hire a professional interpreter who can actually come onto the set and rehearse the lines with the actor. It may raise production costs a bit but at least then, the Yiddish dialogue will sound authentic.
The post How ‘Hacks’ botched its Yiddish line appeared first on The Forward.