When It Comes to the Ultra-Orthodox, the (Otherwise) Liberal Media Are Accepting of Casual Anti-Semitism

Oct. 29 2019

In a recent episode of National Public Radio’s This American Life, the host, Ira Glass, described an attempt to interview some ḥasidic Jews in a Brooklyn neighborhood thus:

Walking up to Hasids [sic] on the street felt like walking up to people from another planet. People had a general air of hostility or at least suspicion to outsiders like me. They waved me off.

Leibel Baumgarten, himself both a ḥasidic Jew and an avid listener to the show, comments:

This American Life has covered hundreds of communities across the country, including many reluctant to talk to reporters. Have any other minorities been described in the same way? Did we hear about the “air of hostility” coming from another religious group? I didn’t think so.

[This is exactly] why Glass was treated with suspicion by ḥasidic passers-by. We Ḥasidim are used to people coming to gawk at us—and we’re weary of how almost every story about ḥasidic Jews gets framed in the media. Had Glass stopped me for an interview, I too would have refused, . . . because I would have known there would be a strong likelihood my words would get twisted or edited selectively to support a narrative that would not be kind to us. From the New York Times to CNN, from blogs to podcasts, ḥasidic Jews are mythical creatures living in a bubble only the bravest and most intrepid reporters can infiltrate.

The Jewish community in Crown Heights, as well as Borough Park, Williamsburg, and other parts of Brooklyn, experiences anti-Semitism daily, often violently. The media’s [treatment] of ḥasidim no doubt contributes to the view of us as being “different” or “special” and somehow worthy of being attacked.

Read more at Forward

More about: American Jewry, Anti-Semitism, Brooklyn, Hasidim, Ultra-Orthodox

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