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
Netherlands Boosts Security Funding for Jewish Institutions Amid Surge in Antisemitic Attacks
Police outside a Jewish school following an explosion that caused minor damages, in Amsterdam, Netherlands, March 14, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw
The Netherlands is significantly boosting security funding for Jewish communities amid a relentless surge of antisemitic incidents, as synagogues, schools, and cultural institutions across the country face escalating threats and authorities move to reinforce protection in response to growing alarm.
During a parliamentary session on Tuesday, Dutch Justice and Security Minister David van Weel announced an additional €700,000 in the 2026 security budget to safeguard Jewish buildings and institutions nationwide, raising total annual funding to €2 million in response to a sustained wave of antisemitic incidents.
Van Weel explained these funds will support security at synagogues, Jewish schools, cultural institutions, and public events, noting that the existing €1.3 million allocation had already been exhausted in 2025, leaving dozens of applications unfunded, with further demand expected this year.
“The additional funding is intended to strengthen protection for the Jewish community and reinforce its sense of security,” the Dutch official said.
Het veiligheidsfonds voor Joodse scholen, instellingen en evenementen verhoog ik met €700.000 naar €2 miljoen per jaar.
Hiermee kunnen Joodse instellingen nog beter worden beschermd en hoop ik het veiligheidsgevoel van de Joodse gemeenschap in Nederland te versterken. pic.twitter.com/FhGnoE8eQl
— David van Weel (@ministerjenv) April 22, 2026
Van Weel’s announcement came in the wake of a series of antisemitic attacks last month, including small explosions at a synagogue in Rotterdam, a second blast two days later at a Jewish school in Amsterdam, and a third near a Zuidas office building housing the Bank of New York Mellon.
During Tuesday’s session, lawmakers also reviewed proposals from an antisemitism taskforce aimed at strengthening protections for Jewish students and staff in higher education, alongside broader measures to counter rising hate incidents on campuses.
Mirjam Bikker, leader of the ChristenUnie, a Dutch Protestant political party, called for the government to fully cover security costs at Jewish institutions, describing the current system — under which synagogues and schools are expected to fund their own protection — as “a fundamental reversal of responsibility.”
Like most countries across Europe and the broader Western world, the Netherlands has seen a shocking rise in antisemitic incidents over the last two years, in the wake of the Hamas-led invasion of and massacre across southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023.
According to newly released figures, Dutch authorities reported antisemitism remained at alarmingly high levels across the country last year, with 867 registered cases in 2025 — virtually unchanged from the 880 incidents recorded the previous year.
Even though Jews make up less than 0.3 percent of the Dutch population, anti-Jewish hate crimes account for 26 percent of all discrimination cases.
Eddo Verdoner, the Dutch national coordinator for combating antisemitism (NCAB), said the data reflects a worrying normalization of antisemitic incidents.
“We have been recording hundreds of antisemitic incidents each year for years now. What I fear is that we are slowly getting used to figures that are unacceptable, that hatred is becoming the new normal,” Verdoner said in a statement.
Uncategorized
AIPAC Slightly More Popular Than Democratic Party, Poll Finds
Crews prepare the stage at the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington, DC, March 6, 2018. Photo: Reuters / Brian Snyder
A new survey reveals that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the premier pro-Israel lobbying group in the US, may be viewed more favorably than the Democratic Party itself amid ongoing debate over whether liberal candidates should continue engaging with the organization.
According to an April 2026 national survey conducted by Echelon Insights, AIPAC posts a net favorable rating that indicates the group is slightly more favorable than the Democratic Party. Per the poll, 18 percent of respondents view the organization positively and 25 percent view the organization negatively. Meanwhile, 27 percent have no opinion of the lobbying group.
Conversely, 42 percent of Americans have a positive opinion of the Democratic Party, according to the poll, and 52 percent have a negative opinion.
AIPAC and the Democratic Party therefore have net favorable ratings among the public of -7 and -10, respectively.
While Democrats remain one of the two dominant political coalitions in the United States, their favorability has been weighed down in part by intensifying internal divisions, including over US policy toward Israel. The liberal wing of the party has grown increasingly hostile toward the Jewish state amid the war in Gaza, with far-left members pushing the party to establish an anti-Israel posture and falsely accusing the Jewish state of committing “genocide” against Palestinians.
AIPAC, by contrast, occupies a different space in the public mind. As a single-issue advocacy organization focused on strengthening US–Israel relations, it does not carry the same ideological baggage or breadth of policy responsibility as a national party.
However, as the war in Gaza deteriorated the popularity of Israel within the Democratic base, AIPAC became the target of scrutiny by party activists seeking to isolate the Jewish state. In primary competitions across the country, Democratic contenders have scrambled to distance themselves from AIPAC, oftentimes publicly vowing not to accept any funding or assistance from the group.
Yet the polling from Echelon Insights suggests that this elite-level conflict has not translated into widespread public backlash against the organization itself, with 57 of respondents saying they either never heard of the group or have no opinion of it.
Indeed, although AIPAC has become unpopular, polling suggests that the organization has low salience with the general public. Few voters have strong opinions about it compared to other issues, suggesting that outsized attention has been given by progressive politicians and activists to the lobbying group.
Little evidence indicates that affiliation with AIPAC is an electoral liability within Democratic primaries. In March, several anti-Israel candidates lost to AIPAC-backed opponents, including Cook County Commissioner Donna Miller successfully winning the Illinois 2nd Congressional District race and former Rep. Melissa Bean winning the contest for the Illinois 8th Congressional District.
Uncategorized
Israel Estimates US Blockade of Strait of Hormuz to Slash Iran Oil Exports by 80%
A vessel at the Strait of Hormuz, off the coast of Oman’s Musandam province, April 12, 2026. Photo: REUTERS
As Iran struggles to rebuild damaged military and energy infrastructure amid the current ceasefire, Israel estimates that a US naval blockade of Iranian ports will slash the regime’s oil exports by roughly 80 percent, nearly severing one of Tehran’s last remaining economic lifelines.
According to Israeli security assessments, the US closure of the Strait of Hormuz — a critical global energy chokepoint through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil supply passes — triggered an immediate and dramatic collapse in Iran’s revenue that will lead to a loss of more than $1 billion a month, Walla reported.
US President Donald Trump has claimed the regime is losing about $500 million a day as a result of the blockade. Some experts, such as Miad Maleki of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies think tank, have put the figure at roughly $450 million lost in daily economic activity for Iran.
Regardless of the specific amount, given that energy exports remain the backbone of the regime’s economy, what is left of oil revenues now amounts to little more than a fragile lifeline keeping Tehran temporarily afloat as financial pressure continues to mount.
Even with the naval blockade in place, Iranian authorities have managed to maintain a limited flow of exports by transporting oil from inland production fields to the Gulf of Oman through the multi-billion-dollar Gura–Jask pipeline, an overland route that moves roughly 300,000 barrels per day to global markets.
Israeli officials assess that the blockade and resultant shortfall for Tehran could set off a chain reaction of disruptions, including the shutdown of entire segments of the oil industry.
They also point to severe damage across Iran’s petrochemical and defense sectors, which together have cost an estimated 100,000 jobs at multiple levels, arguing that the cumulative impact is pushing the Iranian regime into a corner.
After repeated efforts to bring Iran back to the negotiating table, the Trump administration escalated pressure on Tehran earlier this month by imposing a naval blockade on vessels entering or leaving Iranian ports through the Strait of Hormuz, aiming to force a deal that would bring an end to the conflict.
Since the start of the war earlier this year, Iran has used control over the Strait of Hormuz as a major source of leverage, militarizing the waterway and sharply restricting maritime traffic through one of the world’s most critical shipping corridors.
Iran has also signaled it intends to maintain control over the strategic shipping lane even after the war ends, potentially imposing transit fees framed as compensation for wartime damage.
After Trump extended the ceasefire indefinitely on Tuesday to allow for renewed diplomatic efforts, it now remains to be seen whether Iran will agree to return to negotiations, as questions persist over whether both sides can bridge widening differences to restart talks.
According to The New York Times, US officials previously proposed a 20-year halt to Iranian uranium enrichment, which Iranian negotiators countered with a five-year suspension that Washington rejected. The White House has also reportedly insisted that Iran dismantle major enrichment sites and surrender more than 400 kilograms of highly enriched uranium.
Even as the regime faces one of its most severe economic crises in decades, Iranian authorities have continued pouring billions into rebuilding military and nuclear infrastructure and supporting regional proxy forces, prioritizing strategic confrontation with Israel over urgent domestic needs such as the country’s worsening water crisis.
The regime has spent billions of dollars supporting its terrorist proxies across the Middle East and operations abroad, with the Quds Force, Iran’s elite paramilitary unit, funneling funds to the Lebanese group Hezbollah, in defiance of international sanctions.
According to the US Treasury Department, Iran provided more than $100 million per month to Hezbollah in 2025, with $1 billion representing only a portion of Tehran’s overall support for the terrorist group, using a “shadow financial system” to transfer funds to Lebanon.