Uncategorized
Which side are you on: Jewish American or American Jew?
(JTA) — Earlier this month the New York Times convened what it called a “focus group of Jewish Americans.” I was struck briefly by that phrase — Jewish Americans — in part because the Times, like the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, tends to prefer “American Jews.”
It’s seemingly a distinction without a difference, although I know others might disagree. There is an argument that “American Jew” smacks of disloyalty, describing a Jew who happens to be American. “Jewish American,” according to this thinking, flips the script: an American who happens to be Jewish.
If pressed, I’d say I prefer “American Jew.” The noun “Jew” sounds, to my ear anyway, more direct and more assertive than the tentative adjective “Jewish.” It’s also consistent with the way JTA essentializes “Jew” in its coverage, as in British Jew, French Jew, LGBT Jew or Jew of color.
I wouldn’t have given further thought to the subject if not for a webinar last week given by Arnold Eisen, the chancellor emeritus at the Jewish Theological Seminary. In “Jewish-American, American-Jew: The Complexities and Joys of Living a Hyphenated Identity,” Eisen discussed how a debate over language is really about how Jews navigate between competing identities.
“What does the ‘American’ signify to us?” he asked. “What does the ‘Jewish’ signify and what is the nature of the relationship between the two? Is it a synthesis? Is it a tension, or a contradiction, or is it a blurring of the boundaries such that you can’t tell where one ends and the other begins?”
Questions like these, it turns out, have been asked since Jews and other immigrants first began flooding Ellis Island. Teddy Roosevelt complained in 1915 that “there is no room in this country for hyphenated Americans.” Woodrow Wilson liked to say that “any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of the Republic.” The two presidents were frankly freaked out about what we now call multiculturalism, convinced that America couldn’t survive a wave of immigrants with dual loyalties.
The two presidents lost the argument, and for much of the 20th century “hyphenated American” was shorthand for successful acculturation. While immigration hardliners continue to question the loyalty of minorities who claim more than one identity, and Donald Trump played with the politics of loyalty in remarks about Mexicans, Muslims and Jews, ethnic pride is as American as, well, St. Patrick’s Day. “I am the proud daughter of Indian immigrants,” former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley said in announcing her run for the Republican presidential nomination this month.
For Jews, however, the hyphen became what philosophy professor Berel Lang called “a weighty symbol of the divided life of Diaspora Jewry.” Jewishness isn’t a distant country with quaint customs, but a religion and a portable identity that lives uneasily alongside your nationality. In a 2005 essay, Lang argued that on either side of the hyphen were “vying traditions or allegiances,” with the Jew constantly confronted with a choice between the American side, or assimilation, and the Jewish side, or remaining distinct.
Eisen calls this the “question of Jewish difference.” Eisen grew up in an observant Jewish family in Philadelphia, and understood from an early age that his family was different from their Vietnamese-, Italian-, Ukrainian- and African-American neighbors. On the other hand, they were all the same — that is, American — because they were all hyphenated. “Being parallel to all these other differences, gave me my place in the city and in the country,” he said.
In college he studied the Jewish heavy hitters who were less sanguine about the integration of American and Jewish identities. Eisen calls Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the renegade theologian at JTS, “the thinker who really made this question uppermost for American Jews.” Kaplan wrote in 1934 that Jewishness could only survive as a “subordinate civilization” in the United States, and that the “Jew in America will be first and foremost an American, and only secondarily a Jew.”
Kaplan’s prescription was a maximum effort on the part of Jews to “save the otherness of Jewish life” – not just through synagogue, but through a Jewish “civilization” expressed in social relationships, leisure activities and a traditional moral and ethical code.
Of course, Kaplan also understood that there was another way to protect Jewish distinctiveness: move to Israel.
A poster issued by the National Industrial Conservation Movement in 1917 warns that the American war effort might be harmed by a “hyphen of disloyalty,” suggesting immigrants with ties to their homelands were working to aid the enemy. (Prints and Photographs Division, Library of Congress)
The political scientist Charles Liebman, in “The Ambivalent American Jew” (1973), argued that Jews in the United States were torn between surviving as a distinct ethnic group and integrating into the larger society.
According to Eisen, Liebman believed that “Jews who make ‘Jewish’ the adjective and ‘American’ the noun tend to fall on the integration side of the hyphen. And Jews who make ‘Jew’ the noun and ‘American’ the adjective tend to fall on the survival side of the hyphen.”
Eisen, a professor of Jewish thought at JTS, noted that the challenge of the hyphen was felt by rabbis on opposite ends of the theological spectrum. He cited Eugene Borowitz, the influential Reform rabbi, who suggested in 1973 that Jews in the United States “are actually more Jewish on the inside than they pretend to be on the outside. In other words, we’re so worried about what Liebman called integration into America that we hide our distinctiveness.” Rabbi Joseph Soloveitchik, the leading Modern Orthodox thinker of his generation, despaired that the United States presented its Jews with an unresolvable conflict between the person of faith and the person of secular culture.
When I read the texts Eisen shared, I see 20th-century Jewish men who doubted Jews who could be fully at home in America and at home with themselves as Jews (let alone as Jews who weren’t straight or white — which would demand a few more hyphens). They couldn’t imagine a rich Jewishness that didn’t exist as a counterculture, the way Cynthia Ozick wondered what it would be like to “think as a Jew” in a non-Jewish language like English.
They couldn’t picture the hyphen as a plus sign, which pulled the words “Jewish” and “American” together.
Recent trends support the skeptics. Look at Judaism’s Conservative movement, whose rabbis are trained at JTS, and which has long tried to reconcile Jewish literacy and observance with the American mainstream. It’s shrinking, losing market share and followers both to Reform – where the American side of the hyphen is ascendant — and to Orthodoxy, where Jewish otherness is booming in places like Brooklyn and Lakewood, New Jersey. And the Jewish “nones” — those opting out of religion, synagogue and active engagement in Jewish institutions and affairs — are among the fastest-growing segments of American Jewish life.
Eisen appears more optimistic about a hyphenated Jewish identity, although he insists that it takes work to cultivate the Jewish side. “I don’t think there’s anything at stake necessarily on which side of the hyphen you put the Jewish on,” he said. “But if you don’t go out of your way to put added weight on the Jewish in the natural course of events, as Kaplan said correctly 100 years ago, the American will win.”
—
The post Which side are you on: Jewish American or American Jew? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Spanish PM Sanchez Says US Invasion of Greenland ‘Would Make Putin Happiest Man on Earth’
Russian President Vladimir Putin welcomes US President Donald Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff during a meeting in Moscow, Russia, Aug. 6, 2025. Photo: Sputnik/Gavriil Grigorov/Pool via REUTERS
Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez said a US invasion of Greenland “would make Putin the happiest man on earth” in a newspaper interview published on Sunday.
Sanchez said any military action by the US against Denmark’s vast Arctic island would damage NATO and legitimize the invasion of Ukraine by Russia.
“If we focus on Greenland, I have to say that a US invasion of that territory would make Vladimir Putin the happiest man in the world. Why? Because it would legitimize his attempted invasion of Ukraine,” he said in an interview in La Vanguardia newspaper.
“If the United States were to use force, it would be the death knell for NATO. Putin would be doubly happy.”
President Donald Trump on Saturday appeared to change tack over Greenland by vowing to implement a wave of increasing tariffs on European allies until the United States is allowed to buy Greenland.
In a post on Truth Social, Trump said additional 10 percent import tariffs would take effect on February 1 on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Great Britain — all already subject to tariffs imposed by Trump.
Those tariffs would increase to 25 percent on June 1 and would continue until a deal was reached for the US to purchase Greenland, Trump wrote.
Trump has repeatedly insisted he will settle for nothing less than ownership of Greenland, an autonomous territory of Denmark. Leaders of both Denmark and Greenland have insisted the island is not for sale and does not want to be part of the United States.
Uncategorized
Damascus and Kurdish Forces Agree to Immediate Ceasefire
Syria’s interim President Ahmed al-Sharaa speaks during a Ministerial formation of the government of the Syrian Arab Republic, in Damascus, Syria, March 29, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Khalil Ashawi
i24 News – Syrian state media reported on Sunday that the Syrian government and the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) have reached an immediate ceasefire after days of clashes in Kurdish-held areas of the northeast.
The agreement, announced electronically by Damascus, marks a major shift in Syria’s ongoing efforts to reassert control over its Kurdish-majority regions.
According to the Syrian presidency, the deal, signed by President Ahmed al-Sharaa and SDF commander Mazloum Abdi, calls for a full halt to combat operations on all fronts, the withdrawal of SDF-affiliated forces to the east of the Euphrates, and the integration of SDF fighters into Syria’s defense and interior ministries on an individual basis.
The agreement also stipulates that the Syrian government will assume military and administrative control over Deir al-Zor and Raqqa, take over all oil and gas fields, and assume responsibility for prisons and camps holding ISIS members and their families. The SDF has committed to evacuating all non-Syrian PKK-affiliated personnel from the country.
“All lingering files with the SDF will be resolved,” Sharaa said, adding that he is scheduled to meet Abdi on Monday to continue discussions. The ceasefire is intended to open safe corridors for civilians to return to their areas and allow state institutions to resume their duties.
US Special Envoy Tom Barrack praised the agreement, describing it as a “pivotal inflection point” that brings former adversaries together and advances Syria toward national unity. Barrack noted that the deal facilitates the continued fight against ISIS while integrating Kurdish forces into the broader Syrian state.
The ceasefire comes after days of heavy fighting in northeastern Syria, highlighting both the fragility and potential of Damascus’ reconciliation efforts with Kurdish forces.
Uncategorized
World Markets Jolted, Euro Softens, as Trump Vows Tariffs on Europe over Greenland
A person walks along a street on the day of the meeting between top US officials and the foreign ministers of Denmark and Greenland, in Nuuk, Greenland, January 14, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Marko Djurica/File Photo
Global markets are facing volatility after President Donald Trump vowed to slap tariffs on eight European nations until the US is allowed to buy Greenland, news that pushed the euro to a seven-week low in late Sunday trading.
Trump said he would impose an additional 10 percent import tariff from February 1 on goods from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Finland and Britain, which will rise to 25 percent on June 1 if no deal is reached.
Major European Union states decried the tariff threats over Greenland as blackmail on Sunday. France proposed responding with a range of previously untested economic countermeasures.
As early trade kicked off in Asia-Pacific, the euro fell 0.2 percent to around $1.1572, its lowest since November. Sterling also dipped, while the yen firmed against the dollar.
“Hopes that the tariff situation has calmed down for this year have been dashed for now – and we find ourselves in the same situation as last spring,” said Berenberg chief economist Holger Schmieding.
Trump‘s sweeping “Liberation Day” tariffs in April 2025 sent shockwaves through markets. Investors then largely looked past US trade threats in the second half of the year, viewing them as noise and responding with relief as Trump made deals with Britain, the EU and others.
While that lull might be over, market moves on Monday could be dampened by the experience that investor sentiment had been more resilient than expected in 2025 and global economic growth stayed on track.
US markets are closed on Monday for Martin Luther King Jr. Day, which means a delayed reaction on Wall Street.
The implications for the dollar were less clear. It remains a safe haven, but could also feel the impact of Washington being at the center of geopolitical ruptures, as it did last April.
Bitcoin, a liquid proxy for risk that is open to trade at the weekend, was steady, last trading at $95,330.
Capital Economics said countries most exposed to increased U.S. tariffs were the UK and Germany, estimating that a 10 percent tariff could reduce GDP in those economies by around 0.1 percent, while a 25 percent tariff could knock 0.2–0.3 percent off output.
European stocks are near record highs. Germany’s DAX and London’s FTSE index are up more than 3 percent this month, outperforming the S&P 500, which is up 1.3 percent.
European defense shares will likely continue to benefit from geopolitical tensions. Defense stocks have jumped almost 15 percent this month, as the US seizure of Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro fueled concerns about Greenland.
Denmark’s closely managed crown will also likely be in focus. It has weakened, but rate differentials are a major factor and it remains close to the central rate at which it is pegged to the euro, and not far from six-year lows.
“The US-EU trade war is back on,” said Tina Fordham, geopolitical strategist and founder of Fordham Global Foresight.
Trump‘s latest move came as top officials from the EU and South American bloc Mercosur signed a free trade agreement.
HOT SPOTS EVERYWHERE
The dispute over Greenland is just one hot spot.
Trump has also weighed intervening in unrest in Iran, while a threat to indict Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has reignited concerns about the US central bank’s independence.
Against this backdrop, safe-haven gold remained near record highs.
Given Trump’s recent Fed attacks, an escalation with Europe could pile pressure on the dollar if it adds to worries that US policy credibility is becoming critically impaired, said Peel Hunt chief economist Kallum Pickering.
“(This) could be amplified by a desire, especially among Europeans, to repatriate capital and shun US assets, which may also pose downside risks to lofty US tech valuations,” he added.
The World Economic Forum’s annual risk perception survey, released before its annual meeting in Davos next week, which will be attended by Trump, identified economic confrontation between nations as the number one concern replacing armed conflict.
A source close to French President Emmanuel Macron said he was pushing for activation of the “Anti-Coercion Instrument,” which could limit access to public tenders, investments or banking activity or restrict trade in services, in which the US has a surplus with the bloc, including digital services.
“With the US net international investment position at record negative extremes, the mutual inter-dependence of European-US financial markets has never been higher,” said Deutsche Bank’s global head of FX research George Saravelos in a note.
“It is a weaponization of capital rather than trade flows that would by far be the most disruptive to markets.”