Uncategorized
Was Teddy Roosevelt’s favorite play the original ‘Nobody Wants This’?
The Emmy-nominated Netflix show Nobody Wants This, a series about the challenges of an interfaith romance between a “hot rabbi” and his non-Jewish girlfriend, is now back for a sophomore season. When it debuted last fall, Nobody Wants This sparked heated criticism for trafficking in negative stereotypes about Jewish women. A writer for Glamour called her own mother to lament of the series: “I can’t imagine any guy who watches this show who would then say, ‘I really want to date a Jewish girl!’”
The commentary on Nobody Wants This is just as noteworthy for what it does not emphasize: the possible implications of interfaith marriage for the perpetuity of the Jewish people. That silence is all the more notable given the Jewish reaction more than a century ago to another dramatization of Jewish-Christian romance: The Melting-Pot, by the British Jewish playwright Israel Zangwill.
Whereas the early 20th-century play provoked outrage for seeming to endorse Jewish self-erasure, the modern TV program has not stoked such existential angst. Comparing Jewish reactions to these two tales of interfaith love reveals how much the landscape of Jewish life has shifted to accept blended families.
Noah Roklov, the hot rabbi in question played by Adam Brody, confronts professional and familial pressure to leave Joanne Williams (Kristen Bell) in favor of a Jewish substitute; Joanne—memorably described by Noah’s senior rabbi and boss as a “nice blonde crabcake”—struggles to confront the reality that she might have no place in his future.
When Nobody Wants This debuted, there was practically instantaneous pushback to its portrayal of Jewish women, all of whom were depicted as either materialistic, nagging or controlling—or some combination thereof. There’s Noah’s ex-girlfriend, Rebecca, who cares far more about achieving the milestone of marriage than about who she would be marrying. Even worse is Esther, Noah’s sister-in-law, whose principal purpose in life is to berate her daffy husband into obeisance.
The apex of Nobody Wants This’ deeply flawed Jewish female representation is that of Noah’s mother Bina, who tries to puppeteer her son out of his relationship with Joanne through both cajoling and sabotage. (Would it even be a hackneyed Jewish trope without the archetype of the overbearing Jewish mother?)
In contrast to the portrayal of Jewish women, the communal response to a rabbi in an interfaith relationship was notably muted. The show itself was very much alive to those stakes—Noah’s boss cautions that his path with Joanne, absent her conversion, would lead to a world in which every Jew “marries a goy, then there are no more Jewish children, and then our people become extinct.” Yet critiques of the series overwhelmingly focused on its unflattering portrayal of Jewish women.
This relative silence from critics about Jewish continuity would have stunned Jewish audiences of Theodore Roosevelt’s era, who railed against the celebration of Jewish-Christian romance in The Melting-Pot. That play tells the tale of David and Vera, both emigrants from Russia who found their way to New York. David is a Jewish survivor of the notorious Kishinev pogrom, a real-life massacre in what is now Moldova that took place in 1903. Vera is the Christian daughter of a Russian military official.
Their improbable romance takes root in the assimilative soil of the New World. The young couple is even able to overcome the morbid revelation that Vera’s father had ordered troops to shoot innocent Jews during the Kishinev pogrom. Yet in Zangwill’s idealized version of the United States, newcomers like David and Vera could free themselves from the tired identities and bitter tragedies of the Old Country and smelt their ethnicities into an unadulterated American identity.
In the play’s closing scene, David watches the sun set over the Western horizon and reflects in awe, “There she lies, the great Melting Pot. … Celt and Latin, Slav and Teuton, Greek and Syrian, black and yellow.” Vera warmly presses into David and adds, “Jew and Gentile.” He goes on, “Yes, East and West, and North and South, the palm and the pine, the pole and the equator, the crescent and the cross—how the great Alchemist melts and fuses them with his purging flame!”
The Melting-Pot premiered in October 1908 at the Columbia Theatre, mere blocks from the White House. Then-president Theodore Roosevelt himself was in attendance on opening night. After the final curtain, the president called down to Zangwill from his box, “A great play! A great play!” Roosevelt’s Jewish constituents did not share his enthusiasm.
Across the country, Jews denounced The Melting-Pot for ostensibly making a virtue of self-annihilation through interfaith marriage. A throng flooded into the Free Synagogue on the Upper West Side to hear Rabbi Leon Harrison condemn Zangwill’s production. The rabbi warned that “the little Jewish race would be diluted to extinction” if life imitated Zangwill’s art. Harrison excoriated the playwright for “sacrificing the ancient sanctities of his people’s faith on the altar of sentimental claptrap.”
The repudiation was no less pointed on the other side of Central Park, where Rabbi Judas Magnes of Temple Beth-El seethed against Zangwill’s “pernicious” play. “The melting process glorifies disloyalty to one’s inheritance,” Magnes griped. He saw in The Melting-Pot the alarming prospect of voluntary eradication, insisting, “We cannot be thankful to anyone for preaching suicide to us.”
Even as Zangwill’s fantasy of mass assimilation into the American Dream applied to all subgroups, Rabbi Magnes argued that intermarriage posed a particular menace to the Jewish people. After all, the new immigrant from Ireland or Germany could marry outside their heritage while resting assured that back home, their people would endure from generation to generation. But the Jew had no homeland where fellow coreligionists would ensure Jewish survival. “America spells his great hope for the preservation of Judaism,” Magnes pleaded.
The divergent reactions to Nobody Wants This and The Melting-Pot are striking. Perhaps one reason that the TV show has prompted a muted response regarding Jewish perpetuity might be that multi-faith matches have become normalized. When Zangwill’s play first ran, interreligious unions for Jews were exceedingly rare; his idealization of Jewish-Gentile love shocked the Jewish conscience.
But nuptials between a Jew and non-Jew are now more common than not, especially outside the Orthodox community. A 2020 study from Pew found that 72% of non-Orthodox Jews who had married in the preceding decade were wedded to non-Jews. Another possible explanation why Nobody Wants This did not elicit angst about Jewish self-erasure is that the children of Jewish-Gentile couples are increasingly likely to identify as Jewish. That same Pew study determined that among children resulting from interfaith marriages, those under 50 were more than twice as likely to identify as Jewish as their older peers.
This trend might preempt worries that intermarriage inevitably marks the end of Jewish tradition for that family line. Still another factor is Israel: no longer do Jews lack a homeland designed to safeguard their peoplehood.
The Jewish responses to Nobody Wants This and The Melting-Pot are in a sense mirror images of each other—the former effectively criticizes Jewish characters for being too insular, the latter for not maintaining enough distance. After all, the Jewish women of Nobody Wants This are at their worst in their rage-laden rejection of Joanne. Critics’ consternation about the show’s gender stereotyping can be understood, then, as a kind of plea: “America, don’t believe this show. Jews are actually warm and welcoming, not gratingly clannish.”
It is telling that the most favorably depicted Jewish female character, Noah’s former Jewish camp counselor, is also the one most favorably disposed toward his Gentile girlfriend. The Jewish reaction to The Melting-Pot was, of course, just the opposite, inveighing against any embrace of interfaith romance.
But in another sense, critics then and now have really wrestled with the same question: how should Jews navigate the fraught relationship between belonging and survival? To win the acceptance of Gentiles is to ensure Jewish security. Yet when acceptance becomes so complete that Gentiles are willing to marry Jews and raise children together, then Jews risk dissolving into the broader society. Belonging could well spell the end of survival.
Such is the tightrope walk of the Jew. Too little inclusion can threaten your safety; too much might result in your self-induced disappearance. Whether to shift your weight more to one side or the other in order to maintain equilibrium will depend on the contingencies of the day.
With season two of Nobody Wants This finally here, our own critical reaction—even more than the show’s plot—will suggest much about how Jews think they can best maintain an always precarious balance in our own uncertain moment. To stick to the tribe at all costs, or melt into the culture around you? No matter the decade, the same Jewish questions persist.
The post Was Teddy Roosevelt’s favorite play the original ‘Nobody Wants This’? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Was Deni Avdija an unwitting victim of the NBA betting scandal?
In a generally grim 2024-25 season for the Portland Trail Blazers, fifth-year Israeli swingman Deni Avdija was a bright spot, achieving career-high numbers in points, rebounds and assists.
But the arrest of Blazers head coach Chauncey Billups has people pointing to a suspicious pattern in Avdija’s playing time — and wondering whether the fix was in.
Billups, 49, was one of 30 people arrested Thursday in what the FBI says was a multimillion-dollar, Mafia-run illegal gambling and sports betting conspiracy. Also arrested was NBA player Terry Rozier, whom the FBI alleged faked an injury to make sure coordinated bets against his individual stats — that he wouldn’t reach points or rebounds totals, for example — would pay out.
Billups, who was inducted to the NBA Hall of Fame as a player in 2024, is accused in a conspiracy that took place off the court, in which he allegedly participated in rigged poker games, serving as a celebrity “face” who would lure high-stakes bettors into the trap. Billups and the other players would know what cards were coming and eventually split the take, which could be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for a single game.
Unlike Rozier, Billups is not accused in any basketball-related schemes, and the FBI says the poker games involving the retired NBA star occurred in 2019, when he was no longer playing and not yet coaching. (He became Blazers head coach in 2021.)
But after his arrest, an old social media post resurfaced which pointed out Billups’ strange coaching decisions relating to Avdija, the league’s longest-tenured active Jewish player. The tweet dated to January, when the NBA announced it was investigating Rozier for suspicious betting patterns. The account @FtblRocco, which posts regularly about sports betting, posted Jan. 30 that “If Terry Rozier is being investigated Chauncey Billups needs to be as well.”
The alleged proof: In five of Avdija’s six previous games, Avdija had played 35, 39, 34, 38 and 38 minutes. In the other, on Jan. 23 against the Orlando Magic, he played only 26 — without any injury or foul trouble. The same thing happened against the Magic a week later: He played only 25 minutes. “Billups clearly deciding to bet the under on him v Orlando,” the account posted Jan. 30 on X.
The evidence is hardly ironclad: Avdija also played only 22 minutes the next game, against Phoenix. But @FtblRocco wasn’t the only account posting its suspicions about Billups.
Following the arrest, another account said it had noticed “large liquidity spikes” in bets related to Avdija, Donovan Clingan, and other Blazers players. A liquidity spike is a sign of increased action — more money being placed — on a particular betting line.
If the FBI was investigating Billups for this, it didn’t find enough to charge him. But one has to wonder whether Avdija’s career year might have been even better without these odd fluctuations.
The Trail Blazers put Billups on leave Thursday and said the franchise was cooperating with the investigation. Meanwhile, in the Blazers’ opening game of the 2025-26 season on Wednesday — a loss to Minnesota — Avdija picked up where he left off: 20 points and 7 rebounds in 33 minutes.
The post Was Deni Avdija an unwitting victim of the NBA betting scandal? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be
As New York City’s mayoral election moves ahead, there appear to be three major issues that trouble many of my friends within the Jewish community about Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic candidate and frontrunner.
Will Mamdani take pains to appropriately protect the city’s Jewish community during this period of heightened antisemitism, they ask? Should his views on the Middle East disqualify him from the support of Jewish voters? And is he sufficiently experienced to serve as Mayor of the largest and most complex city in the nation?
As a one-time city official deeply involved in the city’s Jewish community, I think each of those questions is valid — and each easily answerable, in Mamdani’s favor.
Concerns about antisemitism
There are understandable fears within the Jewish community about our safety at a time of rising antisemitism. To that, I say: It’s hard to imagine a stronger program of protection against hate than that which Mamdani has outlined.
Mamdani has proposed a 800% increase for funding hate crime prevention — a comprehensive investment that should reassure those of us who are most alarmed. Antisemitism “is a real crisis that we have to tackle, and one that I’m committed to doing so through increased funding for actually preventing hate crimes across the city,” Mamdani told NPR this summer, adding “my commitment is to protect Jewish New Yorkers and that I will live up to that commitment through my actions.”
Compare that to the plans put forward by Mamdani’s opponents, former Gov. Andrew Cuomo — who is running as an Independent, after Mamdani defeated him in the Democratic Primary — and Curtis Sliwa, a Republican. Cuomo has promised to prioritize fighting antisemitism, but has focused on forms of antisemitism more associated with the political left, in a fashion that leaves open the question of whether he’s prepared to address the often more violent threats of right-wing antisemitism. And Sliwa, who has a record of offensive statements about Jews, appears to be less interested in having the city directly involved in Jewish safety. “I, unlike any of the candidates, have said Jews must protect themselves,” he said in an interview with the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “If you depend strictly on Gentiles, history is replete with instances where you’re going to be horribly disappointed.”
Notably, Mamdani’s proposals appear to be resonating with Jewish voters: Despite concerns about his positions when it comes to the Middle East, a new poll suggests his support among Jewish New Yorkers is effectively equivalent to Cuomo’s.
The Middle East
Jewish New Yorkers are not single-issue voters living in fear. We are looking for a mayor who can build a coalition to improve our already great city.
As for the Middle East, it is true that Mamdani has been harshly critical of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s far-right government. What’s also true: Most American Jews agree with him. According to a recent Washington Post poll, a majority of American Jews believe Netanyahu’s government has overseen war crimes in Gaza, and almost 40% believe Israel has committed genocide.
In that context, Mamdani seems like a candidate much more aligned with Jewish perspectives on Israel than Cuomo, who joined one of Netanyahu’s legal defense teams pro bono. In the weeks leading up to the current ceasefire in the Israel-Hamas war, Cuomo expressed some concern about the shocking events in Gaza — but continued to broadly align himself with Netanyahu’s talking points. While his position might be reassuring to the majority of American Jews who feel a close attachment to Israel, it doesn’t suggest that he’s ready or able to handle the nuances of today’s changing environment — and changing Jewish perspectives.
I am a founding member of J Street, a Zionist, pro-peace organization that supports a two-state solution and opposes the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement. I differ with some of Mamdani’s views about the future for Israelis and Palestinians, including his failure to vocally support a two-state solution.
But one doesn’t have to agree with all of his views about the Middle East to conclude that he is the best candidate for mayor. As Mamdani himself said in a recent appearance, “We’re not looking for a litmus test that we feel the same way we do on every single issue, and that includes Israel and Palestine.
“There may be a Jewish New Yorker who will not see themselves in me because of a disagreement we have on that question,” he added, “but I want to make sure they still see themselves in the city.”
The issue of experience
I served as Corporation Counsel, the city’s chief legal officer, under former Mayor David N. Dinkins, which means I have some experience with the challenges facing any new administration. Upon taking office, I found that with the assistance of experienced managers in the City’s civil service, I could bring myself up to date quickly. That leads me to believe that if Mamdanis is elected as mayor, he will find that, with the right help, learning the ins and outs of the city’s many agencies will be strenuous but doable.
Mamdani has been taking significant steps toward crafting a transition team that should comfort any New Yorkers concerned about his youth and relative inexperience. (It’s worth remembering that Mamdani is already well acquainted with how complicated it can be to work within a government, with his six years’ experience as a New York Assemblyman from Queens.) According to public reports, the transition efforts have already included meetings with plenty of experienced public servants, including Dan Doctoroff, former Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s former deputy mayor for economic development; Janette Sadik-Kahn, Bloomberg’s former commissioner of transportation; and Alicia Glen, who served as deputy mayor for housing and economic development under former Mayor Bill De Blasio. Doctoroff, for example, has been quoted saying “I will help him in any way possible.”
What this shows me: Mamdani knows he’s going to need a crack team to be a successful mayor. True leadership isn’t about being personally able to take on every challenge: It’s about knowing how to assemble and run a team that has that ability.
Notably, Bloomberg — to my view the most successful mayor we have had in this century — had no governmental experience and little familiarity with the complexity of the city’s public administration before taking office.
Yet through the selection of an outstanding group of municipal leaders and public servants, he was able to assemble a first-rate administration. He led the city’s amazing and effective efforts to recover quickly from 9/11, in part by attracting outstanding and often non-political experts to serve as senior members of his administration.
In contrast, De Blasio, former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and current Mayor Eric Adams each came into the role with many years of governmental experience. Yet the record of each was, shall we say, unsuccessful. The Adams administration is known for serious allegations of corruption at the highest levels. The De Blasio administration, after a promising start, deteriorated, as the mayor was too often distracted by other political ambitions, and proved prone to confusion and dispiriting inefficiency. The Giuliani administration was marred by racial insensitivity and defense of unacceptable police misconduct.
Why should we have less hope for Mamdani than we did for Bloomberg? And why should we expect that, in light of the ineffective recent mayoralties, a more traditional candidate would be more effective?
Mamdani has told those with whom he is consulting that he admired many of the accomplishments of the Bloomberg administration — a strong sign that he’s noticed the most important lesson of Bloomberg’s mayoralty. With the aid of experienced and well-qualified city officials, such as former Comptroller Brad Lander, and with the active support of experienced public officials like Rep. Jerry Nadler, Assemblyman Micah Lasher and Gov. Kathy Hochul, there is every reason to hope his administration will be thoughtful about hiring experienced managers, and crafting a new generation of dedicated New Yorkers to lead us into the future.
The post Jews are worried about Zohran Mamdani. Here’s why they shouldn’t be appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why I don’t trust Zohran Mamdani to fight left-wing antisemitism
Zohran Mamdani wants New York City’s Jews to believe he can protect them from antisemitism.
It’s easy to take Mamdani, the Democratic candidate for mayor and current frontrunner in the race, at his word when it comes to right-wing antisemitism. Progressives like him tend to have little difficulty calling out white supremacy, Holocaust denial or far-right conspiracy theories.
But what will happen when New York’s Jews face antisemitism coming from the left?
Left-wing antisemitism — which is almost always entangled with anti-Zionism — can be more difficult to recognize than its right-wing counterpart. It often targets Jews or Jewish institutions under the guise of protesting Israel, including blacklisting Zionist therapists, banning Zionists from appearing at bookstores and accusing organizations like Hillel of supporting genocide.
Which raises the question: Given Mamdani’s lifelong pro-Palestinian activism, can Jews rely on him to recognize when anti-Zionism crosses the line into antisemitism?
Based on his record of double-talk when it comes to Israel, there are serious reasons to be skeptical. While Mamdani’s beliefs about Middle East foreign policy aren’t directly relevant to his suitability to be mayor of New York City, his beliefs about Israel will affect his readiness to identify left-wing antisemitism — and that will affect Jewish New Yorkers.
During a recent Fox News interview, when asked if Hamas should “lay down its arms,” Mamdan refused to answer. “I don’t really have opinions on Hamas and Israel beyond the question of justice and safety,” he responded.
At the mayoral debate days later, he backpedaled and said that “of course” Hamas should disarm.
Mamdani did not explain his initial refusal to call out Hamas, a recognized terrorist organization with genocidal aims against the Jewish state. He acted as if he was merely clarifying his position, not changing it.
During a June podcast interview, Mamdani was evasive when asked about the phrase “globalize the intifada,” a popular pro-Palestinian chant, which some see as calling for violence against Jews. He sidestepped a request to condemn it weeks later during a Meet the Press interview. In July, he finally said he would “discourage” the phrase’s use, a meek response to a bare-minimum ask — that language inciting antisemitic violence be outright rejected.
Both of these cases ought to have been easy wins for Mamdani. He could have shown his ability to discern when rhetoric and ideas related to Israel can come across as threatening to Jews.
Full-throatedly calling for Hamas’ disarmament, and condemning the phrase “globalize the intifada,” would not have compromised Mamdani’s commitment to the Palestinian cause, which is served neither by Hamas — which is notoriously brutal against Palestinian civilians — nor Western protesters who parrot its rhetoric. And it would have gone a long way toward reassuring Jews that their potential future mayor understands and empathizes with their concerns.
Other examples of Mamdani’s waffling reinforce his unreliability in this department.
Mamdani has decried those whom he describes as “progressive except for Palestine,” but also insists he will have Zionists in his administration. Which leaves Jewish voters wondering: Which of those apparently opposed positions should they believe represents his actual intention?
His campaign has reassured New York Jews that he will not defund the annual Israel Day Parade. However, if he already supports the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, why would he permit a parade celebrating a country he views as broadly violating human rights and, in Gaza, committing genocide? Yes, every politician adjusts their promises to resonate with the electorate they’re courting, but this degree of inconsistency in this one, focused area still provides reasons to be anxious.
Mamdani has made good-faith efforts to engage with Jews from across the spectrum, in Haredi communities and liberal ones alike. But he’s yet to show that he’s able to meaningfully grow in his views either on the Middle East, or on how its politics touch the lives of his potential future constituents. Zionism is closely intertwined with the identities of the vast majority of American Jews. And failing to respond to the threat that anti-Zionism can pose to Jewish lives could be a grave mistake.
After all, as the editorial board of The New York Times has noted, “the demonizing, delegitimizing rhetoric of the left” on Israel “bears some responsibility” for deadly antisemitic attacks in Boulder, Co., and Washington, D.C. this past year.
However, recognizing when anti-Israel rhetoric becomes antisemitic can come at a cost for progressives.
Last year, the Democratic Socialists of America withdrew support from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez for participating in a panel on antisemitism. Their rejection of the congresswoman for even acknowledging the rise in antisemitism following the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023 came despite the fact that she is among Israel’s fiercest critics.
As a proud progressive like Ocasio-Cortez, Mamdani, who is aligned with DSA, could face serious backlash if he confronts left-wing versions of antisemitism — yet another reason to question his ability to do so.
All this is frightening for Jewish New Yorkers. In a moment of historic spikes in antisemitism, New York’s Jews need a mayor who understands their fears and will not hesitate to confront them. Without that, how can they be expected to feel safe in New York City?
The post Why I don’t trust Zohran Mamdani to fight left-wing antisemitism appeared first on The Forward.