Uncategorized
Progressive US ‘Squad’ Lawmakers Condemn Israel’s Strikes Against Hezbollah, Silent on Nasrallah Assassination
The most vocal critics of Israel in the US Congress have been silent on the death of Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah, a notorious terrorist committed to the Jewish state’s destruction.
Members of the so-called “Squad” — a coalition of lawmakers with progressive policy positions on issues ranging from economics to foreign affairs — have not issued statements responding to the death of Nasrallah. However, these lawmakers — including Democratic Reps. Rashida Tlaib (MI), Ilhan Omar (MN), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY), Cori Bush (MO), Jamaal Bowman (NY), Summer Lee (PA), and Ayanna Pressley (MA)— have repeatedly ripped Israel over its defensive military operations against the Hezbollah terrorist group in Lebanon. Many of them have also called for an arms embargo to be placed on Israel amid its military operations against both Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Both Islamist terrorist organizations are backed by Iran, which provides them with weapons, funding, and training.
Beyond not directly addressing Nasrallah’s killing in an Israeli airstrike last week in their statements, the lawmakers also did not respond to requests for comment on his death and their silence on it.
Tlaib, the sole Palestinian American woman in Congress, has accused Israel of waging an “indiscriminate” bombing campaign in Lebanon. She slammed Israel for supposedly “expanding” its “genocidal campaign” from Gaza into Lebanon. Tlaib wrote that “the US government are conspirators to the war criminal Netanyahu’s genocidal plan,” referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and urged the Biden administration to place an arms blockade on the Jewish state.
However, the anti-Israel firebrand did not mention the Jewish state’s successful elimination of Nasrallah.
Meanwhile, Omar issued a statement condemning Israel’s strikes against Hezbollah in Lebanon, arguing that they serve to escalate tensions within the region. She similarly urged the Biden administration to withhold arms from Israel, accusing the Jewish state of recklessly endangering civilian lives. Omar, like her progressive contemporaries, did not mention Hezbollah’s repeated attacks against Israel that prompted the Israeli strikes. She also did not mention Israel’s successful assassination of several Hezbollah high-ranking officials, including Nasrallah.
“It is imperative we use every single tool to de-escalate tensions. Just as President Biden stated, a ‘full-scale war is not in anyone’s interest.’ A full-scale war would have catastrophic implications for everyone, especially for Lebanese and Israeli civilians who would bear the brunt of this war and dramatically increase the risk of regional conflict involving the United States,” Omar wrote. “If we are serious about preventing the escalation of this conflict, we must use our leverage to cut off military aid to stop the violence both in Lebanon and Gaza. We cannot continue to stand idly by while innocent civilians are being bombarded with our tax dollars.”
Pressley, a congresswoman who has accused Israel of enacting “apartheid” against Palestinians, has not mentioned the death of the Hezbollah leader either. However, she has repeatedly condemned the Israeli military operations against the Iran-backed Lebanese terrorist group. Comparing Lebanon to Gaza, she urged the US federal government to prevent the Jewish state from prosecuting its war against Hezbollah.
“Israel’s indiscriminate bombing, forced displacement, & war crimes in Gaza have been beyond devastating. This must not be repeated in Lebanon. We must de-escalate and the US must stop sending offensive weapons,” Pressley posted on social media.
However, on Tuesday, in the immediate aftermath of Iran attacking Israel with a barrage of missiles, Pressley accused the Jewish state of exacerbating tensions in the Middle East by dismantling Hezbollah.
“Netanyahu’s invasion of Lebanon is putting millions of people at risk, forcing thousands to be displaced, and inciting a regional war. The escalating violence must end. In Lebanon, in Gaza, and across the region,” Pressley wrote.
Ocasio-Cortez, one of the most steadfast opponents of the Jewish state in Congress, has also not issued a statement on the killing of Nasrallah. However, Ocasio-Cortez criticized the recent attack on communications devices used by Hezbollah terrorists for “seriously injuring and killing innocent civilians.” Israel is widely believed to be behind the operation, although Jerusalem has neither confirmed nor denied responsibility. The congresswoman did not mention that the pager attack primarily harmed Hezbollah members.
“This attack clearly and unequivocally violates international humanitarian law and undermines US efforts to prevent a wider conflict,” Ocasio-Cortez wrote.
Meanwhile, Lee warned that Israel’s attacks on Hezbollah could trigger a “regional escalation of war.” She cautioned that Americans could be “dragged into another endless war abroad” and urged the US to implement an “arms embargo now.”
Bush and Bowman also made no official statements regarding the death of Nasrallah. However, each one condemned Israel’s military operations against Hezbollah.
“A ceasefire and arms embargo are urgently needed to end the violence & save lives. By failing on both fronts and sending additional troops to the Middle East, the Biden Administration is further fueling more death & destruction. Our communities do not want more endless wars,” Bush wrote.
Bowman accused Israel of arbitrarily “terrorizing” the civilians of Lebanon. The congressman notably did not mention Hezbollah.
“Israel’s playbook is all too familiar: indiscriminate bombing and widespread civilian carnage. Reports are emerging that Israel is considering a full-scale ground invasion of Lebanon. This is unacceptable,” Bowman wrote.
Bush and Bowman, two of the most virulently anti-Israel forces in Congress, lost their recent primary campaigns in races heavily defined by their opposition to the Jewish state.
Hezbollah has fired barrages of rockets, missiles, and drones at northern Israel almost daily following the Oct. 7 attacks by Hamas-led Palestinian terrorists on the Jewish state’s southern region. Since then, both sides have been exchanging fire constantly while avoiding a major escalation as war rages in Gaza to the south.
About 80,000 Israelis have been forced to evacuate their homes in northern Israel and flee to other parts of the country amid the unrelenting attacks from Hezbollah.
Israel began a blistering campaign against Hezbollah two weeks ago, launching a wave of airstrikes that have crippled the Iran-backed terrorist group’s leadership. Many observes believe Israel wants to establish a demilitarized buffer zone between the Jewish state and Lebanon, aiming to decrease violence from non-state actors such as Hezbollah.
The post Progressive US ‘Squad’ Lawmakers Condemn Israel’s Strikes Against Hezbollah, Silent on Nasrallah Assassination first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
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.
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.”
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 News – A 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.”