Connect with us

Uncategorized

Grotesque Gaza Libel Reprinted by New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and More

As predictable as it is frustrating, the letter penned by Rasha Khatib, Martin McKee, and Salim Yusuf and published in a supposedly respectable medical journal, The Lancet, has found its way into international media outlets that really should know better.

We recently noted that a piece published in the “correspondence” section of the journal — so, not a peer-reviewed study or anything remotely rigorous — contained numerous grossly misleading and outright false statements.

Among the more outrageous claims in this letter was the assertion that it is not “implausible” that the overall number of deaths in Gaza could be higher than 186,000 — a figure the authors concocted by comparing Gaza to other conflicts with no substantial basis.

Meanwhile, even Hamas estimates casualties at four times lower.

Besides presenting wildly inaccurate numbers pulled out of thin air, the letter also featured several incorrect citations, questionable sources, and one footnote even linked to the wrong UN study. Not exactly thorough research.

Seen the wild claim “186,000 Palestinians killed in Gaza”?

Here’s the scoop: they multiplied current, inaccurate death tolls by 4 to get this number. Even worse, the media ran with it, spreading false info far and wide. pic.twitter.com/dPfRM9mVlN

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 9, 2024

It is, of course, embarrassing for a well-respected journal like The Lancet to publish such inaccuracies. However, it’s important to note that this piece is not a peer-reviewed study, paper, or article. Any attempt to present it as such is flat-out dishonest.

However, a number of anti-Israel media outlets, such as Al Jazeera, The National, and The New Arab, pounced on the Lancet letter, obscuring its nature to present it as a study, suggesting that either The Lancet itself or its “experts” are behind the 186,000 casualty figure.

And, as sure as night follows day, several supposedly trustworthy news outlets followed the Arab media’s lead, reprinting this grotesque libel without the slightest bit of scrutiny.

The Washington Post, for example, reported that “The Lancet, a respected British medical journal, calculated that the real death toll, including those missing in Gaza’s ruins and ‘indirect’ deaths from malnutrition, disease and other conditions brought on by the conflict, could be around 186,000 people — that is, roughly 8 percent of Gaza’s population.”

While noting the piece was not peer-reviewed, MSNBC still described it as an “analysis” of the death toll, and covered its findings in detail. However, MSNBC reporter Clarissa-Jan Lim did not perform even the basic due diligence of verifying the sources cited in the letter.

Several other news outlets also reported the journal’s “findings.” The UK’s Mirror stated that the “reputable medical journal” claimed deaths could exceed 186,000. The Independent, The Irish Times, and New York Magazine similarly reported that a “recent calculation by The Lancet puts the civilian death toll in Gaza at around 186,000 people, roughly 8 percent of the territory’s population.”

The Metro alluded to the “ever-present fear of death” among Gaza’s civilians, and suggested that the “true death toll could be more than 186,000 people, according to correspondence recently published in the journal The Lancet.”

The @Independent and @Beltrew are spreading misinformation. The “186,000 deaths” in Gaza claim is from an opinion piece in @TheLancet, based on speculative sources and faulty data: https://t.co/JFAlBSU7LM pic.twitter.com/lV9G6cVEre

— HonestReporting (@HonestReporting) July 11, 2024

The New York Times’ Opinion Editor, Meher Ahmad, was one of the few journalists to correctly describe the piece as a “letter.” However, she still attempted to contextualize the authors’ “staggering” number, describing the contents of the missive as “more a call for open documentation of casualties than anything else.”

And here we thought a medical journal should be dealing in facts, not using exaggerated and fake statistics as a “call” for better documentation of casualties.

The only correction made to the piece so far is an update to an erroneous footnote. The Lancet seems utterly unashamed to be associated with an allegation that is both demonstrably false and dangerously misleading.

Worse still is witnessing a media that is far too uncritical, happy to print the most incendiary of claims if they come in the guise of a researched analysis from a medical journal.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

The post Grotesque Gaza Libel Reprinted by New York Times, Washington Post, MSNBC, and More first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America

The new documentary Immigrant Songs: Yiddish Theater and the American Jewish Experience, produced by the Milken Archive of Jewish Music, is fast, entertaining and a good introduction to the topic.

Focusing mainly on the musical side of the story, but covering ‘straight plays’ as well, the film opens with a superb ‘warm-up act’: “Hu Tsa Tsa,” a stock Yiddish vaudeville number performed by the widely mourned Bruce Adler, who died in 2008 at age 63. Bursting with charm and talent, Adler, scion of a top Yiddish vaudeville family, demonstrates that Yiddish theater used to be pretty damned lively.

What follows is the oft-told story of the rise and decline of the American Yiddish theater, beginning with its prehistory in the Purimshpiels — the annual performances that for centuries served as the only secular entertainment in the Ashkenazic world. From there the film takes us to Yiddish theater’s 1876 birth in Romania, courtesy of Avrom Goldfadn, a.k.a. “The Father of Yiddish Theater.”

The film also describes Yiddish theater’s arrival in America, which, thanks to massive Jewish immigration, quickly became its capital. We learn of its influence on American theater’s styles of acting and set design. And the film describes the decline of its audience, due to assimilation and the immigration quotas of the 1920s.

There’s an excellent section on “The Big Four” Yiddish theater composers — Joseph Rumshinsky, Alexander Olshanetsky, Abe Ellstein, and Sholom Secunda.  All in all, the documentary does a fine job of teaching the aleph-beyz, the ABCs, of the history of Yiddish theater to the uninitiated.

The most impressive aspect of Immigrant Songs is its well-crafted pace. Though there are a few snippets of vintage Yiddish cinema (Yiddish theater’s “kid brother”), most of the film consists of recent concert footage, some well-selected photographs and ephemera, and a lot of talking heads. Almost every prominent Yiddish theater historian was interviewed for it, along with several musicologists, an archivist, Yiddish actors, directors, producers, etc. (Full disclosure: I am one of them.) Director Jeff Janeczko cuts between the interviewees so smoothly — sometimes in mid-sentence — that it feels like they’re in the same room and feeding off each other’s energy. The movie just flies by.

There are a few errors. Marc Chagall is described as an important designer of Yiddish theater; actually he designed one minor production in Russia in 1921, and never did another. In a bizarre, and biblically illiterate, statement, one interviewee claims that Jews hadn’t developed a theater culture earlier because the Second Commandment’s prohibition of “graven images” forbade the construction of sets. (Actually it’s about idol worship.)

Another interviewee claims that the Yiddish play Der Yeshiva Bokher; oder, Der Yudisher Hamlet — The Yeshiva Student; or, The Jewish Hamlet (Yiddish plays then often had subtitles), is closely patterned on Shakespeare’s tragedy. In truth, the play — written by Isidore Zolotarevski, the prolific writer of shund (“trash”) melodramas — is not only awful, but is as close to Shakespeare as baked ham is to your grandmother’s kreplach.

The film’s biggest fault, however, is its short running time (45 minutes). This is a rich topic, and too much is left by the wayside in the interest of brevity. There’s nothing about what shund melodramas felt like, why they appealed to their audiences, and why they became the only thing a lot of people know about Yiddish theater.

There’s also nothing about the World War I-era wave of shtetl plays, which reflected immigrants’ homesickness without indulging in nostalgia, and provided some of Yiddish theater’s shining moments with plays like Green Fields, The Empty Inn and Tevye. And the most important play in the Yiddish canon, The Dybbuk, is never mentioned.

Perhaps most surprisingly, considering the film’s emphasis on music, there is no examination of Yiddish theater’s influence on Broadway’s music. (Cole Porter — ironically, the only gentile among the major composers of Broadway’s Golden Age — had a pronounced Jewish lilt in a number of his songs, and he actually attended Yiddish theater regularly.)

The film’s last section is about the renewed interest in Yiddish that began in the 1970s and ’80s with the klezmer revival. Much of it focuses on the 2018 Yiddish production of Fiddler on the Roof in Yiddish, whose success was predetermined the moment the production was announced.

For the overwhelming majority of American Jews, from the Orthodox to the unaffiliated, Fiddler is all they know about the lives of their ancestors. And though it’s a world-class piece of musical theater, as a work of social history Fiddler is as phony as a glass eye. Nevertheless, for American Jews it’s a sacred text.

Fiddler was a huge hit, but it was a gimmick, a one-off, whose success does very little for the future of Yiddish theater. Worse, the Yiddish — not the text, but the lines spoken by most of the actors — was often mispronounced and had the wrong intonation. (One elderly gentleman of my acquaintance, a native Yiddish speaker from Czechoslovakia, told me he didn’t understand a word the actors said, and spent the whole evening reading the English supertitles.)

What follows the Fiddler section in Immigrant Songs is mostly bromides. But the best current Yiddish theater reflects the kind of fresh thinking that keeps the form alive.

An occasional well-presented museum piece, like the Folksbiene’s 2016 revival of Rumshinsky’s operetta The Golden Bride, is a very worthwhile project (though it, too, suffered from poorly spoken Yiddish). But the most dynamic contemporary Yiddish theater is, in Jeffrey Shandler’s apt phrase, “post vernacular” — i .e., the use of Yiddish is self-conscious, a deliberate choice rather than something that’s done automatically, as it would have been a century ago when there were a lot more Yiddish speakers in the world.

An example of this is the 2017 neo-realist film Menashe, which could far more easily and conventionally have been made in English. Or a well-known piece done in Yiddish translation, like Shane Baker’s stunning Yiddish translation of Waiting for Godot, can become something much more valuable than a mere stunt. The Yiddish version, under Moshe Yassur’s straightforward direction, humanized the play, stripping it of the encrusted pretentiousness that had hidden its soul. (When it was presented in the International Samuel Beckett Festival in Ireland, multiple audience members approached the cast afterwards with the same reaction: “I don’t speak a word of Yiddish. But I’ve seen Godot five or six times, and this is the first time I understood it.”)

There’s a lot to be learned from Immigrant Songs. If you find yourself hungry for more, you couldn’t do better than to seek out YIVO’s online Yiddish theater course “Oh, Mama, I’m in Love!” But by all means, start with Immigrant Songs. It’s a very entertaining and informative appetizer.

The post New documentary captures the lively history of Yiddish theater in America appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

UK PM Starmer Says There Could Be New Powers to Ban Pro-Palestinian Marches

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer gives a media statement at Downing Street in London, Britain, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Jack Taylor/File photo

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the government could ban pro-Palestinian marches in some circumstances because of the “cumulative effect” the demonstrations had on the Jewish community after two Jewish men were stabbed in London on Wednesday.

Starmer told the BBC that he would always defend freedom of expression and peaceful protest, but chants like “Globalize the Intifada” during demonstrations were “completely off limits” and those voicing them should be prosecuted.

Pro-Palestinian marches have become a regular feature in London since the October 2023 attack by Hamas on Israel that triggered the Gaza war. Critics say the demonstrations have generated hostility and become a focus for antisemitism.

Protesters have argued they are exercising their democratic right to spotlight ongoing human rights and political issues related to the situation in Gaza.

Starmer said he was not denying there were “very strong legitimate views about the Middle East, about Gaza,” but many people in the Jewish community had told him they were concerned about the repeat nature of the marches.

Asked if the tougher response should focus on chants and banners, or whether the protests should be stopped altogether, Starmer said: “I think certainly the first, and I think there are instances for the latter.”

“I think it’s time to look across the board at protests and the cumulative effect,” he said, adding that the government needed to look at what further powers it could take.

Britain raised its terrorism threat level to “severe” on Thursday amid mounting security concerns that foreign states were helping fuel violence, including against the Jewish community.

“We are seeing an elevated threat to Jewish and Israeli individuals and institutions in the UK,” the head of counter-terrorism policing, Laurence Taylor, said in a statement, adding that police were also working “against an unpredictable global situation that has consequences closer to home, including physical threats by state-linked actors.”

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

War Likely to Resume After Trump’s Rejection of Latest Proposal, Says IRGC General

Iranians carry a model of a missile during a celebration following an IRGC attack on Israel, in Tehran, Iran, April 15, 2024. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS

i24 NewsA senior Iranian military figure said that fighting with the US was “likely” to resume after President Donald Trump stated he was dissatisfied with Tehran’s latest proposal, regime media reported on Saturday.

The comments of General Mohammad Jafar Asadi, one of the top Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) commanders, were relayed by the Fars news agency, considered as a mouthpiece of the the powerful paramilitary body.

“Evidence has shown that the Americans do not not adhere to any commitments,” Asadi was quoted as saying.

He further added that Washington’s decision-making was “primarily media-driven aimed first at preventing a drop in oil prices and second at extricating themselves from the mess they have created.”

Iranian armed forces are ready “for any new adventures or foolishness from the Americans,” he said, going to assert that the Iran war would prove for the US a tragedy comparable with what was for Israel the October 7 massacre.

“Just as our martyred Leader said that the Zionist regime will never be the same as before the Al‑Aqsa Storm operation [the name chosen by Hamas leadership for the October 7, 2023 massacre in southern Israel], the United States will also never return to what it was before its attack on Iran,” he said. “The world has understood the true nature of America, and no matter how much malice it shows now, it is no longer the America that many once feared.”

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News