From the YMHA to the JCC: The Development of Jewish Communal Centers

With its first branch founded New York City in 1874, the Young Men’s Hebrew Association (YMHA)—joined in 1888 by the Young Women’s Hebrew Association—soon became an important feature of Jewish communal life in many American locales. Jenna Weissman Joselit explains why:

At first, some American Jews conceived of the YMHA as an alternative to the Young Men’s Christian Association, whose origins dated back to antebellum America. Often the only public place in town with a gymnasium, the YMCA attracted a growing number of American Jewish men eager to be physically fit, arousing concerns lest they be led astray once inside its Christian walls. One Jewish communal leader didn’t mince words: the YMCA, he said, was a “menace.”

Others thought of a Jewish “Y” in less defensive and more positive terms: as an opportunity for “developing the manhood of” American Jews, a place where, amid dignified conversation, chess matches, and rounds of calisthenics, they might find “something of their own”; a place where it mattered not a whit where one’s parents came from or what kind of Judaism they practiced; a place to be with your own kind.

It didn’t take long, though, before the YMHA became mired in controversy, the recipient of “tirades” from rabbis who fretted lest the organization undermine the primacy of the synagogue or, worse still, generate a vacuous, empty-headed kind of American Jew familiar with the latest fads or “novelties” but woefully ignorant of Jewish history and tradition. The YMHA, hotly declared one of its detractors in 1881, is “Hebrew only in name and because its members are all of Jewish birth.”

As Joselit describes, these criticisms led to the creation of alternative Jewish centers that combined synagogue and recreational activities, which later gave way to the Jewish community centers that persist today. Each variation both responded and became subjected to laments about contemporary Jewish life that sound intensely familiar today.

Read more at Tablet

More about: American Jewish History, History & Ideas, JCC

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF