A New Reality Television Show Draws on Stale Stereotypes about Orthodox Jews

July 14 2021

Today, an “unscripted” series premiers on Netflix with the unoriginal name My Unorthodox Life, focused on Julia Haart, a fashion designer who nine years ago broke with the ḥaredi community in which she had grown up, and now—in the breathless words of the New York Times— “heads a global talent empire.” Kylie Ora Lobell comments on the buzz the series has generated:

In the trailer, [Haart] says, “It takes time to deprogram yourself.” Media outlets are reporting that the show “takes a strong stance against fundamentalism” and they’re praising [Haart] for “escaping” the grasp of her ultra-Orthodox community in Monsey, New York.

This is a story we’ve heard over and over again. [Often] these stories involve individuals who have some type of mental illness, were abused by their families, had spouses who didn’t understand them, or the like. Somehow, though, the Orthodox lifestyle and/or community are to blame for all their troubles. And when they bring up shocking stories about their communities, nobody bothers to look into them to see if they are true. . . . The Orthodox perspective is almost never taken into account.

Of course, there are people who have legitimate grievances with their Orthodox community. . . . Still, I can’t help but notice what seems to be a distressing media obsession. . . . I could provide countless examples of how wonderful Orthodox Jews are, but when it comes to Netflix, the media, and the publishing houses, that’s not what sells.

When My Unorthodox Life comes out, I anticipate it’ll get a lot of praise. Reviewers will say the star of it is bold and brave, and they will continue to bash Orthodox Jews.

Read more at Jewish Journal

More about: Anti-Semitism, Orthodoxy, Television

American Middle East Policy Should Focus Less on Stability and More on Weakening Enemies

Feb. 10 2025

To Elliott Abrams, Donald Trump’s plan to remove the entire population of Gaza while the Strip is rebuilt is “unworkable,” at least “as a concrete proposal.” But it is welcome insofar as “its sheer iconoclasm might lead to a healthy rethinking of U.S. strategy and perhaps of Arab and Israeli policies as well.” The U.S., writes Abrams, must not only move beyond the failed approach to Gaza, but also must reject other assumptions that have failed time and again. One is the commitment to an illusory stability:

For two decades, what American policymakers have called “stability” has meant the preservation of the situation in which Gaza was entirely under Hamas control, Hizballah dominated Lebanon, and Iran’s nuclear program advanced. A better term for that situation would have been “erosion,” as U.S. influence steadily slipped away and Washington’s allies became less secure. Now, the United States has a chance to stop that process and aim instead for “reinforcement”: bolstering its interests and allies and actively weakening its adversaries. The result would be a region where threats diminish and U.S. alliances grow stronger.

Such an approach must be applied above all to the greatest threat in today’s Middle East, that of a nuclear Iran:

Trump clearly remains open to the possibility (however small) that an aging [Iranian supreme leader Ali] Khamenei, after witnessing the collapse of [his regional proxies], mulling the possibility of brutal economic sanctions, and being fully aware of the restiveness of his own population, would accept an agreement that stops the nuclear-weapons program and halts payments and arms shipments to Iran’s proxies. But Trump should be equally aware of the trap Khamenei might be setting for him: a phony new negotiation meant to ensnare Washington in talks for years, with Tehran’s negotiators leading Trump on with the mirage of a successful deal and a Nobel Peace Prize at the end of the road while the Iranian nuclear-weapons program grows in the shadows.

Read more at Foreign Affairs

More about: Iran, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy