Uncategorized
Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan
(JTA) — Israel’s 75th anniversary was supposed to be a blowout birthday party for its supporters, but that was before the country was convulsed by street protests over the right-wing government’s proposal to overhaul its judiciary. Critics call it an unprecedented threat to Israel’s democracy, and supporters of Israel found themselves conflicted. In synagogues across North America, rabbis found themselves giving “yes, but” sermons: Yes, Israel’s existence is a miracle, but its democracy is fragile and in danger.
One of those sermons was given a week ago Saturday by Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch of Manhattan’s Stephen Wise Free Synagogue, expressing his “dismay” over the government’s actions. Hirsch is the former head of ARZA, the Reform movement’s Zionist organization, and the founder of a new organization, Amplify Israel, meant to promote Zionism among Reform Jews. He is often quoted as an example of a mainstream non-Orthodox rabbi who not only criticizes anti-Zionism on the far left but who insists that his liberal colleagues are not doing enough to defend the Jewish state from its critics.
Many on the Jewish left, meanwhile, say Jewish establishment figures, even liberals like Hirsch, have been too reluctant to call out Israel on, for example, its treatment of the Palestinians — thereby enabling the country’s extremists.
In March, however, he warned that the “Israeli government is tearing Israeli society apart and bringing world Jewry along for the dangerous ride.” That is uncharacteristically strong language from a rabbi whose forthcoming book, “The Lilac Tree: A Rabbi’s Reflections on Love, Courage, and History,” includes a number of essays on the limits of criticizing Israel. When does such criticism give “comfort to left-wing hatred of Israel,” as he writes in his book, and when does failure to criticize Israel appear to condone extremism?
Although the book includes essays on God, Torah, history and antisemitism, in a recent interview we focused on the Israel-Diaspora divide, the role of Israel in the lives of Diaspora Jews and why the synagogue remains the “central Jewish institution.”
The interview was edited for length and clarity.
Jewish Telegraphic Agency: You gave a sermon earlier this month about the 75th anniversary of Israel’s founding, which is usually a time of celebration in American synagogues, but you also said you were “dismayed” by the “political extremism” and “religious fundamentalism” of the current government. Was that difficult as a pulpit rabbi?
Rabbi Ammiel Hirsch: The approach is more difficult now with the election of the new government than it has been in all the years of the past. Because we can’t sanitize supremacism, elitism, extremism, fundamentalism, and we’re not going to. Israel is in what’s probably the most serious domestic crisis in the 75-year history of the state. And what happens in Israel affects American Jewry directly. It’s Israeli citizens who elect their representatives, but that’s not the end of the discussion neither for Israelis or for American Jews. At the insistence of both parties, both parties say the relationship is fundamental and critical and it not only entitles but requires Israelis and world Jews to be involved in each other’s affairs.
For American Jewry, in its relationship with Israel, our broadest objective is to sustain that relationship, deepen that relationship, and encourage people to be involved in the affairs in Israel and to go to Israel, spend time in Israel and so forth, and that’s a difficult thing to do and at the same time be critical.
American Jews have been demonstrating here in solidarity with the Israelis who have been protesting the recent judicial overhaul proposals in Israel. Is that a place for liberal American Jews to make their voices heard on what happens in Israel?
I would like to believe that if I were living in Israel, I would be at every single one of those demonstrations on Saturday night, but I don’t participate in demonstrations here because the context of our world and how we operate is different from in Israel when an Israeli citizen goes out and marches on Kaplan Street in Tel Aviv. It’s presumed that they’re Zionists and they’re speaking to their own government. I’m not critical of other people who reach a different perspective in the United States, but for me, our context is different. Even if we say the identical words in Tel Aviv or on West 68th Street, they’re perceived in a different way and they operate in a different context.
What then is the appropriate way for American Jews to express themselves if they are critical of an action by the Israeli government?
My strongest guidance is don’t disengage, don’t turn your back, double down, be more supportive of those who support your worldview and are fighting for it in Israel. Polls seem to suggest that the large majority of Israelis are opposed to these reforms being proposed. Double down on those who are supportive of our worldview.
You lament in your book that the connections to Israel are weakening among world Jewry, especially among Jewish liberals.
The liberal part of the Jewish world is where I am and where the people I serve are by and large, and where at least 80% of American Jewry resides. It’s a difficult process because we’re operating here in a context of weakening relationship: a rapidly increasing emphasis on universal values, what we sometimes call tikkun olam [social justice], and not as a reflection of Jewish particularism, but often at the expense of Jewish particularism.
There is a counter-argument, however, which you describe in your book: “some left-wing Jewish activists contend that alienation from Israel, especially among the younger generations, is a result of the failures of the American Jewish establishment” — that is, by not doing more to express their concerns about the dangers of Jewish settlement in the West Bank, for example, the establishment alienated young liberal Jews. You’re skeptical of that argument. Tell me why.
Fundamentally I believe that identification with Israel is a reflection of identity. If you have a strong Jewish identity, the tendency is to have a strong connection with the state of Israel and to believe that the Jewish state is an important component of your Jewish identity. I think that surveys bear that out. No doubt the Palestinian question will have an impact on the relationship between American Jews in Israel as long as it’s not resolved, it will be an outstanding irritant because it raises moral dilemmas that should disturb every thinking and caring Jew. And I’ve been active in trying to oppose ultra-Orthodox coercion in Israel. But fundamentally, while these certainly are components putting pressure on the relationship between Israel and Diaspora Jewry, in particular among the elites of the American Jewish leadership, for the majority of American Jews, the relationship with Israel is a reflection of their relationship with Judaism. And if that relationship is weak and weakening, as day follows night, the relationship with Israel will weaken as well.
But what about the criticism that has come from, let’s say, deep within the tent? I am thinking of the American rabbinical students who in 2021 issued a public letter accusing Israel of apartheid and calling on American Jewish communities to hold Israel accountable for the “violent suppression of human rights.” They were certainly engaged Jews, and they might say that they were warning the establishment about the kinds of right-wing tendencies in Israel that you and others in the establishment are criticizing now.
Almost every time I speak about Israel and those who are critical of Israel, I hold that the concept of criticism is central to Jewish tradition. Judaism unfolds through an ongoing process of disputation, disagreement, argumentation, and debate. I’m a pluralist, both politically as well as intellectually.
In response to your question, I would say two things. First of all, I distinguish between those who are Zionist, pro-Israel, active Jews with a strong Jewish identity who criticize this or that policy of the Israeli government, and between those who are anti-Zionists, because anti-Zionism asserts that the Jewish people has no right to a Jewish state, at least in that part of the world. And that inevitably leads to anti-Jewish feelings and very often to antisemitism.
When it came to the students, I didn’t respond at all because I was a student once too, and there are views that I hold today that I didn’t hold when I was a student. Their original article was published in the Forward, if I’m not mistaken, and it generated some debate in all the liberal seminaries. I didn’t respond at all until it became a huge, multi-thousand word piece in The New York Times. Once it left the internal Jewish scene, it seemed to me that I had an obligation to respond. Not that I believe that they’re anti-Zionist — I do not. I didn’t put them in the BDS camp [of those who support the boycott of Israel]. I just simply criticized them.
Hundreds of Jews protest the proposed Israeli court reform outside the Israeli consulate in New York City on Feb. 21, 2023. (Gili Getz)
You signed a letter with other rabbis noting that the students’ petition came during Israel’s war with Hamas that May, writing that “those who aspire to be future leaders of the Jewish people must possess and model empathy for their brothers and sisters in Israel, especially when they are attacked by a terrorist organization whose stated goal is to kill Jews and destroy the Jewish State.”
My main point was that the essence of the Jewish condition is that all Jews feel responsible one for the another — Kol yisrael arevim zeh bazeh. And that relationship starts with emotions. It starts with a feeling of belongingness to the Jewish people, and a feeling of concern for our people who are attacked in the Jewish state. My criticism was based, in the middle of a war, on expressing compassion, support for our people who are under indiscriminate and terrorist assault. I uphold that and even especially in retrospect two years later, why anyone would consider that to be offensive in any way is still beyond me.
You were executive director of ARZA, the Reform Zionist organization, and you write in your book that Israel “is the primary source of our people’s collective energy — the engine for the recreation and restoration of the national home and the national spirit of the Jewish people.” A number of your essays put Israel at the center of the present-day Jewish story. You are a rabbi in New York City. So what’s the role or function of the Diaspora?
Our existence in the Diaspora needs no justification. For practically all of the last 2,000 years, Jewish life has existed in the Diaspora. It’s only for the last 75 years and if you count the beginning of the Zionist movement, the last 125 years or so that Jews have begun en masse to live in the land of Israel. Much of the values of what we call now Judaism was developed in the Diaspora. Moreover, the American Jewish community is the strongest, most influential, most glorious of all the Jewish Diasporas in Jewish history.
And yet, the only place in the Jewish world where the Jewish community is growing is in Israel. More Jewish children now live in Israel than all the other places in the world combined. The central value that powers the sustainability, viability and continuity of the Jewish people is peoplehood. It’s not the values that have sustained the Jewish people in the Diaspora and over the last 2,000 years, which was Torah or God, what we would call religion. I’m a rabbi. I believe in the centrality of God, Torah and religion to sustain Jewish identity. But in the 21st century, Israel is the most eloquent concept of the value of Jewish peoplehood. And therefore, I do not believe that there is enough energy, enough power, enough sustainability in the classical concept of Judaism to sustain continuity in the Diaspora. The concept of Jewish peoplehood is the most powerful way that we can sustain Jewish continuity in the 21st century.
But doesn’t that negate the importance of American Jewry?
In my view, it augments the sustainability of American Jewry. If American Jews disengage from Israel, and from the concept of Jewish peoplehood, and also don’t consider religion to be at the center of their existence, then what’s left? Now there’s a lot of activity, for example, on tikkun olam, which is a part of Jewish tradition. But tikkun olam in Judaism always was a blend between Jewish particularism and universalism — concern for humanity at large but rooted in the concept of Jewish peoplehood. But very often now, tikkun olam in the Diaspora is practiced not as a part of the concept of Jewish particularism but, as I said before, at the expense of Jewish particularism. That will not be enough to sustain Jewish communities going into the 21st century.
I want to ask about the health of the American synagogue as an institution. Considering your concern about the waning centrality of Torah and God in people’s lives — especially among the non-Orthodox — do you feel optimistic about it as an institution? Does it have to change?
I’ve believed since the beginning of my career that there’s no substitute in the Diaspora for the synagogue as the central Jewish institution. We harm ourselves when we underemphasize the central role of the synagogue. Any issue that is being done by one of the hundreds of Jewish agencies that we’ve created rests on our ability as a community to produce Jews into the next generation. And what are those institutions that produce that are most responsible for the production of Jewish continuity? Synagogues, day schools and summer camps, and of the three synagogues are by far the most important for the following reasons: First, we’re the only institution that defines ourselves as and whose purpose is what we call cradle to grave. Second, for most American Jews, if they end up in any institution at all it will be a synagogue. Far fewer American Jews will receive a day school education and or go to Jewish summer camps. That should have ramifications across the board for American Jewish policy, including how we budget Jewish institutions. We should be focusing many, many more resources on these three institutions, and at the core of that is the institution of the synagogue.
—
The post Why a liberal Zionist rabbi isn’t taking to the streets over Israel’s judicial reform plan appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election
(JTA) — TEL AVIV – Israel’s Supreme Court ruling upholding the right of Arab parties to run in the Oct. 27 election could make it more difficult for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to form a new coalition after the election.
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled on Friday that the Joint Arab List and Ra’am, the two Arab-led political lists competing in Israel’s elections, could run. The ruling overturned a decision by the Central Elections Committee, a largely political body in which parties in Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition hold a majority of the seats, which had voted last month to bar the lists from running.
“The court found that the materials submitted to the Central Elections Committee did not meet the standards established in the case law for disqualifying a list of candidates,” the court said in its ruling, which did not include extensive reasoning.
The decision restored the parties that traditionally represent Israel’s more than 2 million Arab citizens and in doing so helped the opposition block. Now a wide constituency that rejects working with Netanyahu will have a reason to head to the polls rather than stay home.
Most polls have shown that the opposition bloc would need to include the parliamentary seats held by the Ra’am party, led by MK Mansour Abbas, in order to gain the lead over Netanyahu’s coalition. Unlike Ra’am, the Joint Arab List has never sat in an Israeli coalition and there is no expectation that it would join with Zionist Jewish-led parties to do so.
The court also took a number of other steps regarding the upcoming election. It overturned the committee’s decision to disqualify Ofer Cassif, a Jewish lawmaker running as part of the Joint List. In Cassif’s case, the decision was made by a 7-2 majority.
The Supreme Court justices said they “strongly condemn the outrageous statements and actions by Cassif that evoke revulsion.” At the same time, they ruled that “these statements or actions do not meet the stringent tests established” for disqualifying a candidate.
According to the petition seeking Cassif’s disqualification, he had legitimized Palestinian violence during the war, referred to those seeking to attack Israeli soldiers as “freedom fighters” and taken actions against Israel in international legal forums.
The most significant development, however, came in the case of Sami Abu Shehadeh, the leader of Balad, one of the parties that make up the Joint List.
During a Thursday hearing, the Supreme Court took the unusual step of indicating to Abu Shehadeh that a majority of the justices were inclined to disqualify him and recommended that he withdraw his candidacy.
Following internal consultations, Balad announced that Abu Shehadeh would withdraw his candidacy, rendering the court’s expected ruling on his disqualification moot.
“Sami Abu Shehadeh did not retract his positions and did not flee the struggle. Only after the court itself announced its intention to uphold the disqualification did he decide to withdraw his candidacy,” Balad said in an official statement.
A central part of the case against Abu Shehadeh focused on an article he published on Oct. 8, 2023, one day after Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, in which the terror organization killed 1,200 people in Israel and took another 251 hostage.
In the article, Abu Shehadeh described the Oct. 7 events as an “important historic event” and suggested that lessons could be learned from how Hamas had managed to surprise Israel and carry out its invasion. His comments were cited as evidence that he supports armed struggle against Israel, one of the grounds on which candidates can be disqualified under Israeli law.
In its ruling, the Supreme Court said there was “a consensus that the things said by Mr. Abu Shehadeh are painful, outrageous and revolting.” The decision to disqualify Abu Shehadeh was also supported by the Democrats, Israel’s most left-wing Zionist party.
During the Supreme Court hearing, Abu Shehadeh acknowledged that “this paragraph was not written correctly.” He said, “I have never supported violence in my life,” and said that he knows victims of the Oct. 7 attack.
Balad said Abu Shehadeh would continue to lead the party’s political activities even without serving in the Knesset.
The Joint List sharply criticized the court’s handling of the case. In a statement, the list said that “the heart of the matter” was “preventing an Arab political leader from running in the elections and infringing on our public’s right to choose its representatives.”
The list accused the court of acting “following a campaign of incitement and political persecution led by the fascist and Kahanist right, joined by the leaders of the Zionist opposition parties.”
“The court must bear responsibility for its disgraceful decision before our public and before public opinion in Israel and around the world, for providing judicial cover for political exclusion. This ruling is another link in the chain of persecution of our public.”
Right-wing Israeli politicians also criticized the court for declining to issue a ruling formally disqualifying Abu Shehadeh rather than merely pressing him to withdraw.
National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, an ultranationalist member of Netanyahu’s government, called the court’s proposal “too merciful” and said it “harms the democracy of the State of Israel.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Israel’s supreme court says Arab parties can run in Oct. 27 election appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis
על-פּי צופֿאַל האָב איך הײַיאָר פֿאַרבראַכט עטלעכע טעג אין די פֿראַנצייזישע אַלפּן-בערג. די בילעטן זײַנען נישט געווען אַזוי טײַער, און „בוקינג“ האָט רעקאָמענדירט אַ דאָרף נישט ווײַט פֿון ניצע (ניס).
דאָס דאָרף, סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי , איז פֿאַרשפּרייט אויף אַ באַרג אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך, און די קאָלירפֿולע הײַזער גיבן אָנצוהערן, אַז עס געפֿינט זיך נישט ווײַט פֿון דער איטאַליענישער גרענעץ. אין מיטן דעם דאָרף איז פֿאַראַן אַ טײַך, און אַלץ איז מלא-חן, פֿול מיט סאָסנע־ביימער און רײַפֿע טרויבן. אויף אַזעלכע ערטער זאָגט מײַן מאַמע: „מײַן באָבע האָט אויך נישט געהערט פֿון דעם.“
אָבער עס ווײַזט זיך אויס אַז מײַן באָבע וואָלט יאָ געקאָנט הערן פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. שוין אינעם ערשטן טאָג האָב איך געפֿונען דאָרטן אַ ייִדיש פּינטעלע, און דווקא גאָר אַ וויכטיקס. די וועגווײַזערין פֿון דאָרף, אַן סיווירין, האָט אונדז דערציילט אַז אין דער צײַט פֿונעם צווייטן וועלטקריג איז סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי געווען כּמעט אַ יאָר לאַנג אַ מקום-מיקלט פֿאַר מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן.
צווישן די ייִדן זײַנען געווען פּליטים פֿון דײַטשלאַנד, פּוילן, האָלאַנד און בעלגיע, וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן צו דער „זאָן ליברע“ – דעם פֿרײַען געביט, ד״ה דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, וואָס איז אין די ערשטע צוויי יאָר פֿון דער מלחמה געבליבן פֿרײַ פֿון די נאַציס. אויך מײַן באָבע פֿייגע, צוזאַמען מיט דער משפּחה, האָט פּראָבירט אַנטלויפֿן פֿון בעלגיע קיין דרום־פֿראַנקרײַך, אָבער צוליב פֿאַרשיידענע סיבות איז עס נישט געלונגען, און די משפּחה איז געבליבן אין אַנטווערפּן.
אין נאָוועמבער 1942 זײַנען די דײַטשן אַרײַן אינעם „פֿרײַען געביט“, און זייערע אַליִירטער, די איטאַליענער, האָבן אָקופּירט די דרום-מזרחדיקע געביטן פֿון פֿראַנקרײַך. פֿאַר די ייִדן איז עס דווקא געווען אַ גוטע בשׂורה. כאָטש די איטאַליענער האָבן געפֿירט זייערע אייגענע „ראַסע-געזעצן“, האָבן די ייִדן אין איטאַליע — און דערווײַל אויך אין דרום-פֿראַנקרײַך — געקאָנט לעבן; און לעבן איז גאָר נישט געווען קיין קלייניקייט אין סוף 1942, בשעת ס׳רובֿ ייִדן פֿון אייראָפּע האָבן די דײַטשן שוין דערמאָרדעט.
אַ דאַנק די באַמיִונגען פֿון אַנדזשעלאָ דאָנאַטי, אַן איטאַליענישן ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט אין ניצע, האָבן די איטאַליענער מסכּים געווען צו שאַפֿן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי אַ צענטער פֿאַר ייִדישע פּליטים, וווּ זיי זאָלן קאָנען לעבן כּמעט אַ נאָרמאַל לעבן. אַזוי זײַנען אָנגעקומען אין דאָרף מער ווי 1,200 ייִדן. פֿאַר דער מלחמה האָט דאָ געוווינט נאָר איין ייִדישע משפּחה — די משפּחה לעווין-דריזדאָ, און מיט אַ מאָל איז עס געוואָרן ממש אַ ייִדיש שטעטל.
אין מיטן דער מלחמה, צווישן די אַלפּן-בערג און די וועלדער, האָבן ייִדן פֿון אָנהייב 1943 זיך געלערנט, געדאַוונט, געאַרבעט, געשאַפֿן יוגנט- און ספּאָרט-אָרגאַניזאַציעס, און אַפֿילו חתונה געהאַט. די אײַנוווינער, די פֿראַנצויזן, האָבן זיי בדרך-כּלל פֿרײַנדלעך אויפֿגענומען, און אַ סך האָבן זיי געגעבן עסן און געהאָלפֿן אויף אַנדערע אופֿנים — אַ זעלנטקייט, און נישט נאָר אין פֿראַנקרײַך.
אין אָנהייב סעפּטמבער 1943, נאָך דעם ווי די איטאַליענער האָבן קאַפּיטולירט, איז אָבער געקומען אַ סוף צו דעם גן-עדן. די דײַטשן זײַנען אַרײַן אין איטאַליע, און אין אַ פּאָר טעג אַרום זײַנען זיי אָנגעקומען אויך אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. ווען די ייִדן האָבן דערהערט די נײַעס זײַנען אַ סך פֿון זיי, מיט דער הילף פֿון די אָרטיקע, אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, מיט דער כּוונה צו גנבֿענען די גרענעץ קיין איטאַליע. די טעג זײַנען געווען קאַלטע און רעגנדיקע, און יציאת-סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי איז געוואָרן שווער אָן אַ שיעור (אויך פֿאַר מיר, ווי אַ טוריסט, איז דאָס קלעטערן געווען כּמעט אוממעגלעך).
אין איטאַליע האָבן הונדערטער ייִדן געפֿונען נײַע באַהעלטענישן, אָבער אַ סך האָבן די דײַטשן דאָרטן געכאַפּט. צוזאַמען מיט ייִדן וואָס זײַנען געבליבן אין דאָרף — מסתּמא אַלטע לײַט און קינדער — האָט מען זיי דעפּאָרטירט קיין דראַנסי, לעבן פּאַריז, און פֿון דאָרטן קיין אוישוויץ.
אָבער אויך דעמאָלט זײַנען צענדליקער ייִדן געבליבן אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, און אָרטיקע מענטשן האָבן זיי באַהאַלטן אין פֿאַרשיידענע ערטער. פֿאַרשטייט זיך, נישט אַלע אין דאָרף האָבן זיי געהאָלפֿן, אָבער ס׳רובֿ אײַנוויינערס, וואָס האָבן געוווּסט וואָס קומט פֿאָר, האָבן דאָס קיינעם נישט אויסגעזאָגט. נאָר איין ייִד האָט מען געמסרט — דעם ייִד וואָס האָט געוווינט דאָ פֿאַר דער מלחמה.
מיט דער צײַט האָט „יד־ושם“ אַנערקענט צען אָרטיקע מענטשן, וואָס האָבן געראַטעוועט ייִדן ווי „חסידי-אומות-העולם“.
אויב איר האָט גאָרנישט געהערט פֿון דעם העראָיִשן, באַשיידענעם דאָרף זײַנט איר נישט די איינציקע. אַפֿילו אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט מען יאָרן לאַנג נישט גערעדט וועגן די געשעענישן במשך פֿון דער צווייטער וועלט־מלחמה. „עס זײַנען געווען די וואָס האָבן געהאָלפֿן און די וואָס האָבן קאָלאַבאָרירט, און אַלע האָבן געדאַרפֿט לעבן אין איינעם נאָכן קריג“, האָט דערקלערט די וועגווײַזערין, אַן סיווירין. „אָבער איין טאָג האָט אַ יונגע פֿרוי געהערט, ווי די אַלטע לײַט ריידן צווישן זיך וועגן ׳די באַהאַלטענע ייִדן׳, און די פּאַנדאָרע-קעסטל האָט זיך צעעפֿנט.“
פֿון דעמאָלט אָן שטאָלצירן די איינווינערס פון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי מיט דעם וואָס די מענטשן פֿון זייער שטעטל האָבן געהאָלפֿן ראַטעווען ייִדן בעת דער מלחמה. אין יעדן פֿראַנצייזישן דאָרף שטייט אַ דענקמאָל לזכר די געפֿאַלענע במשך פֿון די צוויי וועלט־מלחמות (און אויך אַנדערע קריגן). לעבן דעם גרויסן דענקמאָל אין סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטייען הײַנט דרײַ גרויסע דענקמעלער: איינער לזכר די אומגעקומענע ייִדן; אַ צווייטער אין אָנדענק פֿון די „חסידי-אומות-העולם“, און אַ דריטער וואָס דערציילט די גאַנצע געשיכטע.
הײַנט קאָן מען לייענען וועגן דער פּרשה אין פֿאַרשיידענע ביכער: איין ביכל אויף פֿראַנצייזיש, וואָס סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי האָט אַרויסגעגעבן: „די ייִדן און ‘צדיקים’ פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי“; אַ בוך אויף ענגליש: „די חורבן־אָדיסייעס: די ייִדן פֿון סאַן־מאַרטען־וועזובי און זייער פּליטה דורך פֿראַנקרײַך און איטאַליע“, און אויך אַ ראָמאַן אויפֿן סמך פֿון יענעם קאַפּיטל געשיכטע.
סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי שטאָלצירט מיט נאָך עפּעס. אינעם גרויסן קלויסטער פֿון דאָרף שטייט אַ הייליקע סטאַטוע פֿון דער מאַדאָנע, אַ הילצערנע סטאַטוע וואָס די אָרטיקע הייליקן שוין הונדערטער יאָרן. לכּבֿוד דער אַלטער מאַדאָנע מאַרשירן זיי יעדעס יאָר אין אַ גרויסן פּאַראַד צו די בערג, על-פּי דער טראַדיציע איז איר מקור. אין גײַסט פֿון יענער טראַדיציע האָבן די אײַנוויינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי, מיט בערך 10 יאָר צוריק, באַשלאָסן אײַנצופֿירן אַ נײַע טראַדיציע: יעדן 3טן סעפּטעמבער מאַרשירן זיי לכּבֿוד די ייִדן וואָס זײַנען אַנטלאָפֿן אין די בערג, ביז דעם באַרגפּאַס אויף דער גרענעץ מיט איטאַליע. דאָרטן, לעבן דעם טאָוול לזכר די ייִדן, דערמאָנען זיי די אומגעקומענע און די וואָס זײַנען ניצול געוואָרן אַ דאַנק די אַמאָליקע אײַנווינערס פֿון סאַן-מאַרטען-וועזובי. אויך די קינדער אָדער אייניקלעך פֿון די געראַטעווטע ייִדן נעמען צו מאָל אַן אָנטייל אין די פּראָצעסיעס.
אויפֿן טאָוול שטייט געשריבן, אויף איטאַליעניש און פֿראַנצייזיש: „דורך דעם באַרגפּאַס, אין סעפּטעמבער 1943, זײַנען דורכגעגאַנגען הונדערטער ייִדן פֿון גאַנץ אייראָפּע, וואָס האָבן געזוכט מיטלען זיך צו ראַטעווען פֿון די אַנטיסעמיטישע רדיפֿות.“
און גלײַך נאָך דעם בײַט זיך דער טאָן פֿון די ווערטער אויף אַ גאָר רירנדיקן אופֿן: „דו, וואָס דו גייסט דאָ אין דער פֿרײַ, דאַרפֿסט געדענקען אַז דאָס קאָן געשען ווען מע לאָזט נישט אַלע מענטשן געניסן פֿון די זעלבע רעכט.“
The post A town in the Alps that rescued Jews from the Nazis appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story.
(JTA) — A string of U.S. House primary successes for democratic socialists, most of whom are sharp Israel critics, was hailed as a major shift in party politics over the course of the summer. But now that the primaries have concluded, a full picture of the results shows that the group’s victories were concentrated in House races in the deepest-blue districts, while few politicians have scored wins in Senate races.
During the primary season, candidates backed by the Democratic Socialists of America won seven out of the 25 U.S. House primaries in which they competed, securing two wins in Michigan, one in Colorado, three in New York and one in Pennsylvania, according to the DSA’s vote tracker. However, these wins have all occurred in Democratic strongholds: New York City, Detroit, Denver and Philadelphia.
“It’s a little bit dangerous to overinterpret a handful of elections compared to all the others,” Elaine Kamarck, a senior fellow in governance at the Brookings Institution, told the Jewish Telegraphic Agency. “Calling the DSA the new big kid on the block is a little bit premature.”
In addition to the seven DSA primary winners, another DSA candidate who ran in a California nonpartisan primary advanced to a U.S. House runoff against a Democratic incumbent in November. Two additional democratic socialists, from Kansas and New Hampshire, withdrew before their respective House primaries.
Of the DSA’s 18 House primary losses, seven occurred in deep-blue areas – demonstrating that even in the country’s most progressive pockets, democratic socialists often weren’t popular. These defeats notably included one in St. Louis, where incumbent Wesley Bell trounced DSA firebrand and anti-AIPAC crusader Cori Bush.
Granted, the DSA victories are still unprecedented in a country where socialism has long been anathema. The candidates might have only succeeded in deeply Democratic districts – but that means they are all but assured victory on Election Day. Taken together, they’ll constitute a larger contingent in Congress than ever before.
Many of the DSA candidates made Israel and its supporters central issues during their campaigns, and there’s little doubt that their presence will tilt the Democratic caucus in the Congress further away from Israel.
The DSA’s official stance on Israel includes an end to the country’s “colonization and occupation of all Arab lands,” the “self-determination of the Palestinian people” and the cessation of “U.S. complicity in Israel’s genocide and apartheid.” Although the DSA has won fewer races than it has lost, the victories would more than triple the group’s presence in the U.S. House, with five newcomers in addition to Reps. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
Jeff Robbins, a Boston-based attorney and former Democratic Senate staffer, said that supporters of Israel should be concerned by the wins, even if they don’t constitute a wave.
Robbins, who also served as a delegate to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights under former president Bill Clinton, warned that if anti-Israel DSA politicians keep racking up wins, Democratic strategists will discourage candidates from supporting Israel’s response to Hamas after the Oct. 7 attacks.
Recommending any action to the contrary, he argued, will result in “the quickest campaign you’ve ever seen.”
“It will be over before you can say ‘the Golan Heights’,” Robbins quipped.
And yet, although the media spotlight has shone on the DSA’s standout victories, establishment candidates have secured more wins at the ballot box from a numerical perspective. In addition, democratic socialists have focused more on the House than the Senate, where they would need to appeal to broader statewide electorates to win seats.
One major exception to that rule is Florida DSA member Angie Nixon, who pulled off a stunning primary victory in a state that Trump won by about 13 percentage points in 2024. But she didn’t join the DSA until shortly before the election and she didn’t get its endorsement.
Another DSA Senate candidate, Gregory Levy of Ohio, will be running in the November general election as an Independent.
But the three other staunchly progressive Senate candidates who will be on the Democratic ballot in November – in Maine, Michigan and Minnesota – don’t define themselves as democratic socialists. While many are still highly critical of Israel, they have differences with DSA and are more interested in making sure they appeal to the more politically diverse populations they will face statewide. They face close races where swing voters who don’t identify strongly with either party are likely to make the difference.
For instance, though many of Abdul El-Sayed’s positions are similar to DSA policies, last month he told The Wall Street Journal that he is “not technically or practically DSA” and that he doesn’t oppose capitalism. At the same time, he has earned the support of many democratic socialist politicians, including Vermont independent Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Kamarck observed that Michigan, which has a huge Arab-American population, remains the nerve center of the Democratic Party’s pro-Palestinian movement. Yet although polls forecast a landslide victory for El-Sayed, who sharply criticized Israel throughout his primary campaign, she termed his victory in early August as “a squeaker.”
“It was a one-point race,” she said. “What that says is that this is not finished.”
Haile Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, said in a statement at the time that although her group was disappointed in El-Sayed’s victory, his “razor-thin margin isn’t the resounding win for the far-left that was predicted.”
An Economist model issued shortly after El-Sayed’s victory predicted that the Democratic Party’s chances of winning in November fell to 48% following the primary. But a Marist poll published on Wednesday gave El-Sayed a seven-point lead over Republican Mike Rogers, with a 3.8% margin of error.
Meanwhile, post-primary predictions showed that Minnesota’s Peggy Flanagan would secure an easy victory in her blue state’s Senate race. However, a new KSTP/SurveyUSA poll found that her five-point lead over Republican Michele Tafoya had narrowed to a statistical tie. Like many party progressives, Flanagan has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza.
As for Maine’s Jackson, the progressive was trailing Republican Sen. Susan Collins, a five-term incumbent, by 3 points, with a 3.1% margin of error, according to an AARP poll released on Thursday.
Nixon in Florida was 11 points behind Republican Sen. Ashley Moody, with a 4% margin of error, a Stetson University from late last month poll found. On the other hand, St. Pete Polls placed the candidates in a dead heat just the week before, giving Moody just a 0.3-point edge, with a 3.2% margin of error.
In a testament to the growing power of the DSA – even in a red state – Moody reportedly told Fox News Radio this week that she is “seeing way-too-close-for comfort polls in many Republican Senate races.”
And in an email blast sent the same day, according to Florida Politics, Moody warned that “the polls have been all over the place.”
“Some have us up. Two have us tied,” she wrote. “We’re in the final stretch, where everything we do, and your support, really matters.”
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Democratic socialists scored big primary wins. But that’s not the whole story. appeared first on The Forward.
