Progressive US ‘Squad’ Lawmakers Condemn Israel’s Strikes Against Hezbollah, Silent on Nasrallah Assassination
US Reps Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) and Ilhan Omar (D-MN) hold a news conference after Democrats in the US Congress moved to formally condemn President Donald Trump’s attacks on the four minority congresswomen on Capitol Hill in Washington, US, July 15, 2019. Photo: Reuters / Erin Scott.
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.
A little‑remembered Gilded Age millionaire helped make milk safe for American kids through his ‘retail giving’
The 1844 edition of the widely used schoolbook written by William H. McGuffey, “Newly Revised Eclectic Fourth Reader,” includes a dialogue about the difference between “true and false philanthropy”:
Mr. Fantom: I despise a narrow field. O for the reign of universal benevolence! I want to make all mankind good and happy.
Mr. Goodman: Dear me! Sure, that must be a wholesale sort of a job: had you not better try your hand at a town or neighborhood first?
As the discussion continues, the lesson becomes clear. Mr. Fantom’s approach is too ambitious to accomplish much, while Mr. Goodman’s, if narrower in scope, was likely to be more useful in practice.
Nathan Straus made his mark in philanthropy after a successful career running the Macy’s department store. Library of Congress Image by
Many of Straus’ contemporary philanthropists were setting lofty goals for their giving. In oil magnate John D. Rockefeller’s case, it was promoting “the welfare of humanity throughout the world.” For steel tycoon Andrew Carnegie, it was “to promote the advancement and diffusion of knowledge and understanding.”
Straus pursued more mundane objectives that included championing milk pasteurization. Although his efforts are not as well known today as those of his more ambitious – and wealthier – counterparts, they accomplished a lot and showed that what might be called “retail giving” can have far-reaching effects.
Successful immigration story
The Straus family came to the United States from Germany in the 1850s during the first big wave of Jewish immigration. Lazarus Straus, Nathan’s father, followed a familiar path for Jewish immigrants at the time, beginning as a peddler and eventually establishing his own store in the small town of Talbotton, Georgia, where the members of his family were the only Jews.
He prospered, became a respected citizen and saw that his children received good educations, including in their religion.
Then the Civil War upended the family’s life, first by reviving antisemitic prejudices and then, eventually, by destroying the family’s business.
Starting anew in New York City, Lazarus and his older sons, Isidor and Nathan, began to sell imported china, glassware and other crockery to retailers in the Northeast and South. One was Rowland H. Macy, who had founded an eponymous store that was on the cutting edge of what Fisher calls a “retailing revolution.”
Macy’s innovations included stocking large inventories of many kinds of merchandise, competitive pricing, extensive advertising and providing a variety of services like public restrooms and a cafeteria to make shoppers’ experiences more pleasurable.
Aided by the rapid urban and economic growth of the late 19th century, the model flourished. Department stores displaced smaller, specialty shops. Other retail powerhouses, such as Bloomingdale’s and Lord & Taylor, soon competed with Macy’s.
The Straus family sold their wares at Macy’s. After Rowland H. Macy died, the Straus family became partners with its new owners. By 1896, the Strauses owned the store outright. And Macy’s was expanding: It bought another department store in Brooklyn and created a flagship building on Manhattan’s Herald Square, which Macy’s still occupies.
The landmark Macy’s department store in New York’s Herald Square opened in 1902 while Nathan and Isidor Straus ran the retailer. Library of Congress Image by
His philanthropy journey begins
While Isidor Straus oversaw the store’s internal operations, Nathan focused on the company’s external activities, such as purchasing, marketing and dealing with government and business leaders.
A third brother, Oscar, pursued a career as a politician and diplomat, eventually becoming secretary of commerce and labor under President Theodore Roosevelt and the first Jewish member of a presidential cabinet. Perhaps inevitably, this led to a series of public appointments for Nathan Straus.
However, as they became wealthier, Nathan and his wife, Lina, increasingly devoted their attention to a series of philanthropic projects.
In 1893, the U.S. entered a four-year economic depression, its worst until the 1930s. As unemployment in New York City rose, Nathan Straus used his merchandising skills to address the needs of the jobless and poor.
He created a number of “depots” near tenements and boarding houses that sold coal, food and fuel at discount prices. Fisher, Straus’ biographer, rightly calls these early examples of what is now known as “social entrepreneurship”: the application of business principles to solving social problems.
Making milk less deadly
As these efforts were getting away, Straus also launched what would become his major preoccupation: promoting pasteurized milk.
In New York City in the early 1890s, Fisher writes, “the annual mortality rate among children under five was about 15 percent,” or 18,000 infants and toddlers per year. A main cause was consuming raw milk, which, unless certified by inspectors, was likely not only to contain a variety of pathogens, such as tuberculosis bacteria, but spoil easily going from farm to table.
Although scientists had long known that heating could make milk safer, doctors and public health officials worried that sterilizing milk might also destroy its valuable nutrients.
Straus, who had lost one of his own children to what he believed was a milk-borne infection, built on his projects for the unemployed by working with New York social service agencies to develop pasteurization plants and infant-milk stations near low-income neighborhoods.
They sold sterilized and refrigerated milk at below-wholesale prices, or donated it to those who could not afford to pay. Businesslike efficiency kept costs low, as did donations. Multilingual ads publicized the product’s availability, doctors and nurses advised parents on child-rearing, and careful recordkeeping aimed at assessing the program’s health benefits.
Straus and his wife devoted much of their time and money to this work. In addition to establishing 297 milk stations in 36 cities, they also spoke and wrote widely about the merits of pasteurization.
By 1908, their efforts paid off when the U.S. Public Health Service endorsed pasteurization and state and local governments began requiring that milk sold in their jurisdictions be pasteurized. Raw milk remained available in many states, and debates over its safety continue to this day.
As a result of this and other Progressive Era measures, New York City’s health commissioner estimated that infant deaths dropped by two-thirds
during the first two decades of the 20th century, with similar declines elsewhere in the country.
The coastal Israeli city of Netanya was named after philanthropist Nathan Straus. Jack Guez/AFP via Getty Images Image by
Other causes
While most of Nathan Straus’ efforts occurred in the U.S., he used his trips to Europe for Macy’s to promote pasteurization on the continent.
During a 1904 visit, he toured the Mediterranean and stopped in Palestine, then part of the Ottoman Empire. Impressed by the early Jewish settlements and holy sites he saw, Straus became an ardent advocate for creating a Jewish homeland in the Middle East, an unusual position for a Jewish businessman of that era, according to Fisher.
On a subsequent trip, a broken leg kept Straus from returning to New York on the maiden voyage of the Titanic; his brother Isidor and sister-in-law Ida were not so fortunate.
In the U.S., Nathan Straus led Zionist organizations, while in Palestine, his chief contributions involved supporting a variety of health care and economic development activities, including Hadassah, the women’s health and community development organization founded by Henrietta Szold.
Nathan Straus’ achievements as a philanthropist are not widely known today because he did not create a grantmaking foundation that outlasted him, as Rockefeller and Carnegie did.
Instead, by the time of his death in 1931, Straus had donated much of his fortune. Fisher writes that Straus used to invoke an old Hebrew proverb: “Money given in health is gold. Money given in sickness is silver. Money given after death is lead.”
He also didn’t donate heavily to the burgeoning network of communal organizations set up to assist the growing population of Jewish immigrants, as did the financiers Jacob Schiff and Felix Warburg, who were also affluent Jewish immigrants from Germany.
As Fisher notes, this pattern of philanthropy resembles that of Straus’ friend – and pallbearer – Julius Rosenwald, the longtime head of Sears, Roebuck and Co. Both supported Jewish causes as well as major initiatives aimed at helping others: In Rosenwald’s case, it was schools for African American children in the South, while for Straus, it was milk pasteurization in New York City and beyond.
During and after World War I, they worked together to assist Jewish refugees in Europe. Fisher might have added that neither Straus nor Rosenwald sought much recognition for their work.
His thorough account should help give Straus the credit he deserves for his philanthropy. It should also show that donors do not have to aspire to “make all mankind good and happy” to make an important difference.
In many ways, Nathan Straus was an old-fashioned do-gooder, responding to the needs he saw with innovative solutions. As a result, he wound up accomplishing a lot of good.
“Emma,” a young Jewish woman who we met in 2019, didn’t belong to a synagogue. She didn’t have a Jewish partner. She didn’t observe Jewish rituals regularly. On most surveys about religion, she would not seem very engaged with Judaism.
But as Emma talked about what she did in her free time, a very different picture began to emerge. She visited Jewish websites and enjoyed listening to Jewish music. She read books about Jewish topics and had recently attended a retreat for young Jewish adults to learn Torah while also doing yoga.
She was highly invested in learning about Judaism, but she explored her identity without joining traditional institutions.
Most major surveys about religion ask whether someone belongs to a congregation, how often they attend services, whether they pray regularly and whether belief is important in their lives. Those measures help identify broad shifts, like the growing percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated: the “nones.”
But many Americans’ religious lives, like Emma’s, are not disappearing; they are moving away from membership of traditional institutions. To understand what religion looks like in 21st-century America, researchers may need to ask different questions.
Learning through art
As scholars of Judaismand education, we have been exploring how people learn about religion beyond traditional places like synagogues, Jewish schools and summer camps. Between 2019 and early 2023, we spoke with hundreds of people and explored different leisure time activities to discover what people learn about Judaism and Jewishness through cultural arts.
We interviewed dozens of audience members at Jewish-themed shows on Broadway, such as “Leopoldstadt”and “Parade.” We attended Jewish concerts and asked attendees what they learned. We explored how social media communities offer spaces to talk about different Jewish topics, like what fans learned about ultra-Orthodox Judaism from watching the television show “Shtisel.”
‘Shtisel,’ an Israeli series about an ultra-Orthodox family in Jerusalem, ran for three seasons.
Our research revealed that there is a vibrant ecosystem of people learning about religion in their leisure time. Through the arts, both Jews and non-Jews encounter Jewish history, Jewish religious practices and representations of Jewish communities.
Screen and stage
Most people we spoke with told us that they felt meaningful connections to Judaism during activities that would rarely appear on a standard religion survey.
“Joan,” an unmarried woman in her 50s from Connecticut, told us that she was deeply invested in Judaism, but felt that synagogues and Jewish community centers were not welcoming to single people without families. Instead of joining a Jewish institution, she watched Jewish-themed TV shows and movies on Netflix, and joined social media communities to chat with other fans.
“Luis,” who lived in Boston but was born in Argentina, was a Sephardic Jew, a group that traces their ancestry and traditions to Jewish communities who once lived in Spain and Portugal. His wife was Ashkenazi, meaning her ancestors came from Central and Eastern Europe. She considered herself secular, and so the couple joined the Worker’s Circle, a nonreligious Ashkenazi institution rather than a synagogue.
Yet Luis loved deepening his knowledge of Sephardic culture, and he often attended concerts of music in Ladino, a Sephardic language related to Spanish, with other Sephardic immigrants.
American singer Sarah Aroeste writes and performs in Ladino.
For Joan and Luis, these activities were not peripheral to their Jewish lives. Rather, they were central avenues for learning and community. We interviewed hundreds of Jews who told us that cultural experiences were opportunities to reflect on Jewish practices, explore questions of belonging, connect with family histories and find friends with common interests.
New questions
Some aspects of these patterns were distinctive to Judaism. Historically, many Jews have understood Judaism to be a cultural world, and not only a theological tradition. Learning about cultural dimensions of Judaism has long been part of Jewish education.
The broader phenomenon of informal learning, though, extended far beyond a single tradition. Across America, increasing numbers of people learn about religion through media, cultural productions and digital networks. Christians may study biblical themes through podcasts, online discussion groups or religious influencers. Muslims may participate in online learning communities that connect believers across the world.
The challenge for religion researchers, then, is not simply to determine whether engagement with religion is rising or falling. Rather, it is to develop more nuanced ways of understanding how people explore religious themes and practices, beyond traditional institutions. Only then can we more fully understand how contemporary Americans actually live their religious lives.
