Uncategorized
What rabbinic wisdom taught me in the wake of the BAFTA scandal
When I woke up Monday, the first message I saw was from a friend asking if I’d seen the “Sinners Tourette’s thing from the BAFTAs.” The “Sinners Tourette’s thing” took place Sunday night, when John Davidson, the subject of the BAFTA-nominated film I Swear, about living with Tourette’s, shouted the N-word while Black Sinners actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented an award.
This sparked thoughtful online conversations about racism and understanding coprolalia, a form of Tourette’s that presents as involuntarily uttering obscenities. It also led to criticism of BAFTA and the BBC for not intervening after the reportedly slur was thrown at other attendees earlier and for censoring a pro-Palestine statement but not the N-word (a BBC spokesperson said the statement was cut for time and has now censored the slur on the BBC iPlayer video of the BAFTAs).
Of course, productive dialogue online was overshadowed by vitriolic racism and ableism attempting to villanize both parties involved.
As I read about the controversy, I was reminded of ona’at devarim, a Talmudic prohibition against verbally harming someone else, through purposefully shaming them, spreading gossip or giving bad advice.
The embarrassment here, to me, appears twofold. Shaming Davidson could have further embarrassed him. But Jordan and Lindo had already been publicly embarrassed, and that needed to be rectified.
When is publicly calling out behavior useful — such as establishing boundaries around slurs — and when is it vengeful? And how much does intent versus impact matter?
I reached out to several rabbis to learn how Jewish values could help me understand this situation — and how to think about accountability when a billion people can see your mistakes in a matter of seconds.
Rabbi Shais Rishon, known by his pen name MaNishtana, leads the congregation Ohel Eidot CHeMDaT’’A, a D.C. synagogue for African American and Caribbean Jews. In our conversation, he noted that many people were embracing racism or ableism, when they should be acknowledging the situation’s nuances.
“There’s a lot of little parts here and in these kinds of conversations. I always say it’s important to move into them with three sort of goal posts in mind,” said Rishon. “The first is that multiple things can be true at the same time. Second is multiple things can be wrong at the same time. And the third is explaining how to make this work so it doesn’t absolve from accountability or agency.”
Rabbi Lauren Tuchman, who focuses on disability access and inclusion in the Jewish world, emphasized making sure accountability is not overlooked.
“Sometimes I actually worry that the standards are not applied appropriately when harm happens when a disabled person causes the harm,” said Tuchman, who is a fully blind person. “You don’t want a situation where any kind of apology is like meeting the needs of the offender and not at all meeting the needs of those who are harmed.”
Even so, everyone’s unique situation must be accounted for. Both Tuchman and Rishon believed Davidson should apologize to Jordan and Lindo, but cautioned against mistaking Davidson owning what he did as him admitting to having done it on purpose.
“Nothing can be universalized here and everything is so case-specific, especially when that offensive speech is actually not in this person’s control,” said Tuchman.
Tuchman noted that everyone is entitled to their feelings when met with offensive language, even if it’s unintentional, something she has dealt with a lot. Sometimes she decides “They didn’t mean it, I’m just gonna try to let it go.” But, she said, “you make that choice for yourself and your own integrity.”
“I think that there are ways in which we need to be able to allow for us to feel what we feel, and then to make wise choices about how we act,” she added.
It doesn’t seem to me that what Davidson needs and what Jordan and Lindo need have to be in conflict with one another. Rishon pointed to tochecha, the obligation in Leviticus to reprimand and correct improper behavior in a way that betters the community.
“It’s not supposed to be done in sort of that embarrassing way,” said Rishon. “It’s not about spectacle. It’s about transformation.”
Next, Tuchman said, we must embrace the value of teshuva: correcting our mistakes by realigning with our morals in our actions and deeds.
“The Rambam talks about needing to acknowledge the wrongdoing [and] really take responsibility,” Tuchman said. “And then engage in restitution in whatever way that makes sense.”
“This is somebody with a personal challenge, and maybe there’s a personal conversation and apology to happen,” Rishon said. “There’s no need for us to excoriate him because he has no control.”
Rishon suggested scrutiny should be focused on the BBC and BAFTA, for their “ lack of attentiveness, their lack of fastidiousness, [and] their lack of sensitivity.”
As I spoke to Rishon and Tuchman, I couldn’t help but think that what Judaism asks of us feels more difficult when social media demands its users have instant and loud reactions to anything and everything. In another world, those involved could sort it out privately, and heal in their own time. But when an incident can be shared across the world in minutes, the apology becomes a public matter. And if you don’t do what the internet demands of you immediately, you’re automatically villanized.
From Rishon and Tuchman, I gathered that instead of focusing on who is right and who is wrong, we should take a breath and ask what we need to move forward in community. It’s embarrassing to be called a slur on television; it’s embarrassing to utter that slur when you can’t control it. But it’s happened. How can we respond as people who want to be better than we were before?
I still wouldn’t say I have all the answers for this situation or whatever the next attempt at public shaming may be. But I feel a lot more confident knowing I can turn to the advice of the rabbinic sages — and not just someone on X.
The post What rabbinic wisdom taught me in the wake of the BAFTA scandal appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Mamdani concedes he can’t arrest Netanyahu but urges U.S. to enforce International Criminal Court warrant
New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced Tuesday night that a legal review he ordered found he does not have the authority to arrest Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when he visits the city, putting to rest a question that has repeatedly surfaced since he first vowed to take custody in light of an International Criminal Court order for Netanyahu’s arrest.
In the two-minute address posted on his official social media accounts, Mamdani opened by declaring “Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal, the architect of a horrific genocide against the Palestinian people” but acknowledged the legal limits that prevent him from following through on his pledge, which had become a rallying cry for his pro-Palestinian supporters. (The use of the term “genocide” to describe the Gazan death toll in the Israel-Hamas war remains contested.)
“My administration has reviewed every avenue available under applicable law to determine whether New York City could execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant if Benjamin Netanyahu came here,” Mamdani said. “It is clear that we do not have the independent legal authority to enforce this one.”
Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal. pic.twitter.com/YRezmW6YVx
— Mayor Zohran Kwame Mamdani (@NYCMayor) July 22, 2026
The United States does not recognize the court’s authority over American citizens or foreign nationals on U.S. soil, and local authorities have no power to execute such a warrant. U.S. law gives the federal government control over foreign policy, and heads of state traveling to the United Nations are protected by diplomatic immunity.
The announcement ended days of speculation and fierce backlash over one of his most controversial campaign promises after comments he made when asked about his arrest vow in an interview with The New York Times reignited the issue. “If someone is charged with a warrant from the International Criminal Court for these types of crimes, that’s something I believe should be honored,” Mamdani told reporters on Monday.
Mamdani, who rose to power aligned with pro-Palestinian activism, has been unapologetic about his anti-Zionist views. He came under fire during the mayoral race last year for defending the slogan “globalize the intifada,” used by some at the pro-Palestinian protests and perceived by many as a call for violence against Jews, and repeatedly said he’d arrest the Israeli leader over the conduct of the war in Gaza.
Netanyahu’s representatives in the U.S. responded angrily to Mamdani’s move, calling him “an antisemite” and accusing him of attacking Israel to cover up for political failure.
On Tuesday night, Danny Danon, Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations, responded on social media: “Zohran Mamdani, ENOUGH. Enough with the blood libels. Enough with the attacks on Jewish organizations. Enough with the outreach to the Iranian regime. You were elected to serve New Yorkers, not Hamas’ propaganda. Do your job!”
Tuesday’s video mirrored the Nakba Day video produced by his City Hall media team commemorating the displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s founding in 1948, which drew sharp criticism from Jewish and Zionist organizations. But it also highlighted the tension that has defined Mamdani’s first six months in office: balancing the activist politics that propelled him to City Hall with the legal limits and governing responsibilities of leading the city with the largest Jewish population outside Israel.
In his address, Mamdani said that while the city had exhausted its legal options, the federal government had not. He urged the Trump administration to join the International Criminal Court and enforce its arrest warrant for Netanyahu. President Donald Trump, writing on Truth Social on Monday, reassured Netanyahu that he “will not be arrested, in any way, shape, or form, while in the United States of America.”
Mamdani concluded that Netanyahu “is not welcome in New York City” and said New York leaders can choose not to remain silent to defend Palestinian human rights. “That is my commitment to you,” he said.
The post Mamdani concedes he can’t arrest Netanyahu but urges U.S. to enforce International Criminal Court warrant appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialist rails against AIPAC in uphill primary bid against pro-Israel incumbent in Arizona
(JTA) — Kai Newkirk, an activist and democratic socialist, has made Israel and AIPAC a focal point in his effort to unseat pro-Israel Rep. Greg Stanton in Tuesday’s Arizona Democratic primary.
“I’ve been arrested over 25 times in civil disobedience — and I’ll go to jail for justice again before I ever take a dime from AIPAC,” Newkirk wrote on X last week, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.
Newkirk, 45, whose organizing has largely focused on campaign finance reform, has repeatedly blasted Stanton’s support from the pro-Israel lobbying group. He has also accused the Israeli government itself of “trying to interfere in our elections,” including in Arizona’s 4th Congressional District where he is running and which covers parts of Phoenix and Maricopa County.
He pointed to a $45 million text message campaign to improve Israel’s image in the U.S. as a sign of such interference, and posited that “they may be targeting areas where AIPAC is more invested or where these issues are more at stake.”
The primary comes as a number of left-wing congressional candidates with sharply critical Israel stances have won the Democratic nomination around the country, and as Israel and AIPAC grow increasingly unpopular among Democratic voters.
The most recent poll on the Arizona race, commissioned by a group that favors Newkirk, had Stanton up by 8 percentage points, while another poll, conducted two weeks earlier by a group favoring Stanton, showed the incumbent ahead by 33 points.
Newkirk’s platform includes ending all military aid to Israel and imposing an arms embargo on the country, which he accuses of genocide.
Stanton, 56, a four-term incumbent, voted against Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie’s amendment to cut military aid to Israel last week. Newkirk criticized Stanton, saying that he would have voted for the amendment, and suggested that Stanton’s vote was the result of his support from AIPAC.
“Greg Stanton has taken over $300K from AIPAC,” Newkirk wrote. “And today — as so many Americans in our district and across the country struggle to get by — he just voted to send billions more of our tax dollars to Israel to fund their war crimes and genocide. Disgraceful.”
Among AIPAC’s endorsees in Congress, more than a dozen voted to cut aid to Israel last week; AIPAC has since removed the option on its website to donate to those candidates.
Stanton explained his vote on X, saying that the amendment “would undermine America’s ability to counter real threats from Iran” and weaken the ability to promote long-term stability across the region. He also criticized Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and wrote that “clear change is necessary” as the U.S.-Israel security agreement, which includes $3.8 billion in annual military subsidies for Israel, nears its expiration in 2028.
Newkirk is endorsed by progressive groups such as Our Revolution, Track AIPAC and the Progressive Democrats of America.
Also among Newkirk’s endorsers is Cenk Uygur, the host of the Young Turks who has spread conspiracy theories about Israel. “Kai is Israel Free and has fought to get money out of politics his whole life,” wrote Uygur last month.
Newkirk has faced turbulence in establishing broader support.
The Young Democrats of Arizona pulled its endorsement of Newkirk earlier in July, writing that it had been “made aware of some concerning patterns of behavior” displayed by Newkirk, without specifying what it meant.
Newkirk did not respond to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency’s request for comment. After the Young Democrats of Arizona retracted its endorsement, Newkirk wrote that the withdrawal of the endorsement was based on a false report amid “a wave of wins by democratic socialists” and called it a “weaponization of … disavowed misinformation.”
Newkirk did speak out against last year’s killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers outside the Capital Jewish Museum in Washington, D.C. “I stand always with my beloved Jewish siblings against the scourge of antisemitism just as I will never stop in the nonviolent struggle to end the genocide in Gaza, release all hostages, and open the way to just, lasting peace,” he said.
The post Democratic socialist rails against AIPAC in uphill primary bid against pro-Israel incumbent in Arizona appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Ed Miliband, Britain’s new Jewish foreign secretary has a long history of support for — and disagreement with — British Jews
(JTA) — Tapped to become Britain’s new foreign secretary, Ed Miliband said he would strive to honor the memories of his Holocaust refugee parents.
“My parents came to Britain as Jewish refugees from the Nazis,” Miliband tweeted just hours after Prime Minister Andy Burnham named him to the post. “To them, Britain was both a sanctuary and a beacon of hope in the global fight against fascism. I will carry my parents’ faith in that spirit of Britain to my role representing our country.”
The appointment by the new prime minister positions Miliband as the highest-ranking Jewish official in the British government, assuming a role once held by his older brother David and at a time when questions of the country’s relationship to Israel are a pressing priority. Miliband has long decried antisemitism, including within his own party, and is also known as a critic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Among the priorities facing the office is whether Britain should move forward with an effort to ban imports from West Bank settlements, which has support across the political spectrum, and how to handle surging anti-Israel and anti-Jewish violence that authorities say has been orchestrated by actors abroad.
Ed Miliband led the Labour Party when it was in opposition from 2010-2015; his brother was among the candidates he bested in the party’s 2010 leadership race.
He has said he has no Jewish practice or formal education and that his parents favored politics over religion. His mother, Marion Kozak, who died last month, was an early supporter of Jews for Justice for Palestinians, a British group, but ceased speaking out publicly as her sons ascended in British politics.
David Miliband, now the president of the International Rescue Committee, has also said his career choices stem from the suffering their parents endured as Jewish refugees.
Ed Milliband’s stances on Israel have caused consternation among British Jewish groups in the past. In 2014, he led his party in a symbolic vote to recognize a Palestinian state and also criticized the toll of Israel’s operations during that year’s Gaza war.
“I defend Israel’s right to defend itself against rocket attacks,” he said then. “But I cannot explain, justify or defend the horrifying deaths of hundreds of Palestinians, including children and innocent civilians.”
He also told the Jewish News at the time that he did not eschew the “Zionist” label.
“I am proud to be Jewish,” he said. “I’ve no issue with people calling me a Zionist.” He described Israel as “the homeland for the Jewish people.”
The Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Jewish Leadership Council said they recognized Miliband’s overall support of Israel, but also chided him for his comments about the Palestinian civilian death toll. “These comments regrettably ignore the ideology of Hamas, the psychology of Hamas, the actions of Hamas and thus the reality faced by Israel,” they said then in a joint statement at the time.
Miliband was succeeded as Labour Party leader by Jeremy Corbyn, whose strident pro-Palestinianism and perceived insensitivity to Jewish sensibilities marked the worst relations between the party and the Jewish community in decades.
Miliband was cautious about criticizing his successor but made clear his unhappiness with how Corbyn was handling the antisemitism charges in 2018 when he took the organized Jewish community’s side in lambasting the party leadership for rejecting a definition of antisemitism that includes some forms of anti-Israel rhetoric and activity.
“Labour should adopt the full IHRA definition,” he said then, referring to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. “The argument that it is somehow incompatible with criticizing the actions of the Israeli government is wrong. The views of the vast majority of the Jewish community are very clear.
Miliband condemned Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, attack on Israel, but also persisted as one of Labour’s most forceful critics of Israel’s government.
During the 2024 general election campaign, he called Oct. 7 “an appalling terrorist atrocity,” saying, “We in the Labour leadership are completely committed to the security for the people and security for the state of Israel.”
However, he added that “the continuing Israeli action in Gaza is not either beneficial now for Israel, or for the people of Gaza.”
One of the first questions Miliband will face is how he will handle relations with U.S. President Donald Trump, who is famously averse to people who have criticized him in the past. “These are dark days for America and the world,” Miliband wrote in 2017, as Trump assumed his first term of office. The same year, Miliband also said Trump had “lowered the bar for idiocy.”
The post Ed Miliband, Britain’s new Jewish foreign secretary has a long history of support for — and disagreement with — British Jews appeared first on The Forward.
