fbpx

October 23, 2019

When Social Media Becomes Too Much — Even for a Teen

I’m 14 years old — and I’m sick and tired of social media.

Recently, I was going about my day and as usual decided to check my Snapchat. I opened one of my closest friend’s “Snapchat Stories” only to find out my entire group of friends was hanging out without me. It wasn’t like it was two or three of my friends; it was all of them. Maybe they thought I was still out of town? Still, I couldn’t help but feel a stab in my heart.

The biggest thing the pre-internet days had that I honestly envy is being oblivious to where all your friends are every minute of the day. Without looking at social media, if your friends got together without you, you wouldn’t necessarily know. Now, the things you are missing out on constantly are in your face. In addition to cyberbullying, catfishing and other important issues, I imagine many teens’ feelings of being left out lead to loneliness, depression and isolation. I know how I felt that day when all my friends were hanging out without me. It affected me. I can’t even imagine how horrible some kids must feel if they almost never get invited out or included.

Not only that, but it might be nice to have nothing to do in my spare time but enjoy friends and family in person or explore the world around me — like the kids in “Stranger Things” or “The Goonies.”

These days, the main reason many of us want to “explore” often is to take scenic or fun photos of what we are doing, then post it on our Instagram account. Not only does this send out the phony message that we have better things to do than “waste time sitting around all day on social media,” we are not fully living in the moment.

Having a lot of “friends” online may make people feel great about themselves. However, at the end of the day, while some people have thousands and thousands of “friends,” “likes” or subscribers, they may have no one to call in real life when they are feeling lonely, down or truly need a friend. Sitting behind a computer screen “talking” to people we barely know isn’t having a real relationship with anyone or creating a real sense of belonging.

The number of followers and “likes” teens have often is how they judge their popularity, which affects their self-esteem.

The number of followers and “likes” teens have often is how they judge their popularity, which affects their self-esteem. Kids who get a lot of “likes” on their posts obviously feel good about themselves, while kids who post and get few “likes” often feel embarrassed and unaccepted. I guess it’s that way for adults but adults are better equipped to handle the rejection. Not only that, but who teens are seen with on social media seems to affect their social statuses.

I was once at a pool party with a large group of teens I had just met. One girl in particular was extremely pretty and popular, and a bunch of the other girls kept wanting to take pictures with her to post online. It was pretty obvious they wanted to increase their social statuses by being seen with this particular person. This leads me to wonder whether people are hanging out together not because of true friendship but because it’s cool to be seen with a certain person or group of people on social media.

Party posts are the latest things to do. If someone is throwing a party, that party’s details are posted on a private Instagram page. People who want to attend the party have to request to join the page and either are accepted or rejected. Obviously, a teen would have to have high enough self-esteem to be able to ask to join in the first place, knowing they could be embarrassed by a rejection. I know a boy who got rejected from a party being planned and when he tried to join a second time, he could no longer find the post. Thinking he had been blocked, he was devastated. As it turned out, it was a misunderstanding: The party post had been deleted because the party had been canceled and he hadn’t been blocked after all. But it’s easy to see how something like this can turn out badly.

Keeping in mind that a lot of what is on social media is really just “for show” may alleviate some of the fear of missing out on the moments we all tend to have.

So why not just disconnect? I admit I’m conflicted. Would it be freeing or boring? Although it sometimes is tempting just to unplug, unplugging seems almost impossible to do. Almost everything these days is accessible online. At school, most teachers have websites where they post assignments, and those assignments usually are turned in via Google docs. Even textbooks often are online. Researching for reports and other school projects is right at your fingertips. With online shopping, email and even getting the news, the internet is not easy to simply walk away from.

Still, society is addicted. At concerts or sporting events, it’s hard not to notice that thousands of people are taking videos on their phones as opposed to being there in the moment. I am guilty of that, and concerts goers are not the only culprits. One of the main reasons my friends and I visited pop-up museums such as the Ice Cream Museum and the Museum of Illusions was to take a bunch of Instagrammable shots, rather than for the experiences themselves. These museums even had spots on the grounds showing us where the best angle to take our pictures would be.

Because many of us go places or do things just for photos, and because we post only the perfectly staged moments, everyone’s lives end up looking perfect. For people struggling in one way or another, seeing other people’s “perfect” lives can make them feel even worse. I’m certain that despite what people post, very few lives actually are perfect.

Something many adults are starting to realize is that most kids have multiple accounts — often at least three or four. 

My family was on a recent trip to Tokyo, and in the Shibuya area, there is a very famous crosswalk. The five of us walked halfway across the street and took some pictures in the crosswalk, then, as the signal started to blink, we ran for safety to the other side. I immediately checked my pictures and, of course, decided they weren’t quite good enough. Fifty crossings and 45 minutes later, I finally had the perfect picture to post. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, I was hot and tired, and my family was irritated with me because of the time I took trying to get the perfect shot.

If you ask parents about their kids’ social media use, most will say they always monitor their kids’ accounts. Something many adults are starting to realize is that most kids have multiple accounts — often at least three or four. So although parents may be monitoring their child’s account, they often have no idea the account they are monitoring is only one out of many accounts children might hide. As many parents also are learning, with Snapchat, there are “ for your eyes only” rooms that require separate passwords.

While some people have thousands and thousands of “friends,” “likes” or subscribers, they may have no one to call in real life when they are feeling lonely, down or truly need a friend.

Why not just delete the social media apps that seem to take up so much of my time? I haven’t taken this step because I would be the only person in my social circle without the apps — and everything seems to revolve around the world of social media. Deleting would mean I would not be in “the know” and I would not be connected to everyone in group chats.

Don’t get me wrong. There are a lot of positives to the internet and social media. There are many times when I really do have fun texting my friends. Because it’s our main form of communication outside of school, it can even strengthen friendships. Group texting is a great way to communicate with multiple people at the same time.

Riley Jackson; Photo courtesy of Riley Jackson/ IMDb

I recently attended a small seminar my pediatrician encouraged her teen patients to attend on the overuse of social media. One parent in attendance felt that if anyone wanted to get ahold of his child badly enough, they would simply call on the telephone. Sadly, most teens are accustomed to texting or messaging through social media apps and are lazy when it comes to making the effort to communicate any other way. If I simply told my friends to call me, I’m pretty sure they wouldn’t take that extra step; they would see it as me making things harder for them.

Social media does have positive aspects, such as the “ice bucket challenge” that went viral around the world and raised money to fight amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS). Teens can learn about different cultures by following and friending kids from other parts of the world. There are GoFundMe pages for people in need, and if you want to learn how to do something, there often are great YouTube “how to” videos a click away. Sometimes, people even can find a certain amount of support from strangers.

I love seeing pictures of people’s trips on social media, and I love to create fun videos on the popular app TikTok (formerly known as Musical.ly). On many of these apps, there is a lot of room for self-expression and creativity, and you can find many other people with the same interests as you to collaborate. I recently spent an entire day making funny TikTok videos with my brothers and their friends — and they are in their 20s. Not only was it fun, but it was a great way to pair social media with “in person” bonding.

The most positive aspect for me probably is that social media keeps me connected with friends and family. I can stay in touch with my friends from elementary and middle school, now that many of us go to different high schools, and I get to stay in touch with my cousins and friends in other parts of the world.

Because many of us go places or do things just for photos, and because we post only the perfectly staged moments, everyone’s lives end up looking perfect.

Because we can’t really live without the internet these days, we can try to find balance. To avoid some of the pitfalls — such as our craving for likes or comments, wasting a beautiful day sitting inside on our phones or simply forgetting how to communicate face to face — maybe we can set self-imposed limits, where we allow ourselves a certain amount of screen time per day. There also is a way to set your phone to “app limits,” where you cannot access particular apps after a specific amount of screen time.

Another simple step would be to turn off notifications. Most of us have an almost addictive compulsion to hear the ding then need to know why we were sent a notification. If you have group chats going, that ding often sounds every 10 seconds. If you don’t hear the constant ding of your phone notifications, it makes it far less tempting to check to see who is trying to reach you at any given moment.

Keeping in mind that a lot of what is on social media is really just “for show” may alleviate some of the fear of missing out on the moments we all tend to have.

The big thing for me is that I am hoping to learn to balance the best of the social media with the real world, making sure that instead of worrying about what I’m missing, I make the most of every moment I’ve got.


Riley Jackson is a high school freshman in Los Angeles. She has a passion for the creative arts including acting, writing and music. She plans to join her school newspaper staff and is the founder of Driving With Daisy, a charity that supports underprivileged children. 

When Social Media Becomes Too Much — Even for a Teen Read More »

Clear Your Calendars for a March Election

Something dramatic happened this week: For the first time in a full decade, a person other than Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was handed the mandate to form an Israeli government. More dramatic events are expected in the coming days: For the first time in two decades, an Arab party is expected to be invited to participate in coalition-building negotiations. 

But don’t hold your breath: A new Israeli coalition is weeks, possibly months away. Retired Lt. Gen. Benny Gantz, the leader of Blue and White, has about a month to form his coalition. In case he fails, three more weeks are available for negotiations. This means there are almost two more months for talking and after that’s over, there could be either a new government or another election — in another three months. So, you can basically mark March 17 on your calendar. Because the election must be held on a Tuesday, and March 10 is Purim, March 17 is a probable date for a third round, which seems quite likely. It is also half a year after the most recent election, Sept. 17.

Why is another election likely? Because of numbers, and even more so, because of principles. The numbers are easy to understand: Netanyahu didn’t find a majority for a coalition — and Gantz doesn’t have a majority for a coalition. The principles are just a little harder to understand: For Netanyahu, it was his insistence on coming with baggage. He doesn’t speak for the Likud Party — his party — but rather for the whole right-religious “bloc” of parties. Because Blue and White wouldn’t sit with the bloc, and Netanyahu wouldn’t sit without the bloc, a unity government cannot materialize.

So now, it is Gantz’s turn to try to make a lemonade. Is there a lemon for him to squeeze? Inviting Likud and the other right-religious parties for negotiations is a way for him to play the blame game, not a way to form a coalition. He needs to say that he tried, and that “they” said no. His two real lemons are these: First, wishing for a quick ruling on Netanyahu’s legal issues, in the hope that an indictment will somehow reshuffle the political cards. Second, forming a minority government in the hopes that it will somehow grow when all parties realize that a government is a done deal.

“So now, it is Gantz’s turn to try to make a lemonade. Is there a lemon for him to squeeze?”

A minority government is legally and politically possible. Gantz will need 56 members of Knesset to support it. This means that he must reach an understanding with the anti-Charedi parties, with the leftist parties and with the Arabs. If he does, Charedi parties will not join in and right-wing parties will not join in. The Netanyahu bloc will hold, anticipating a quick meltdown of an impossible coalition. This will be a coalition based on the support of, on the one hand, promoters of Jordan Valley annexation and, on the other hand, promoters of Palestinian statehood. This will be a coalition based on the support of, on the one hand,  defenders of the legal establishment and, on the other hand, wannabee reformers of the legal system. This will be a coalition based on the support of, on the one hand, nationalist Zionists and, on the other hand, anti-Zionists. The only adhesive of this coalition will be the No-Bibi-Cement. 

This basically means a continuation of the test we’ve seen in the past month or so. A test of volition. A test of determination. Netanyahu didn’t succeed in forming a coalition, but his bloc holds firm for now. Gantz doesn’t have a majority for a coalition, but his no-Bibi bloc also holds firm for now. If these two blocs continue to show such steadfastness, the only option other than a third election is a minority government. Alas, a minority government will be not much more than a continuation of this game of volition for another few weeks or months, until one of the two blocs crumbles.

That they haven’t yet crumbled is proof that something real holds them together. Right-religious parties have become convinced that they have no promising political future without each other. Center-left parties have become convinced that they have no promising political future as long as Netanyahu is in power. And what about the broader public? We have no promising political future as long as the blocs hold firm.


Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain online.

Shmuel’s book, #IsraeliJudaism, Portrait of a Cultural Revolution, is now available in English. The Jewish Review of Books called it “important, accessible new study”. Haaretz called it “impressively broad survey”. Order it here: amzn.to/2lDntvh

Clear Your Calendars for a March Election Read More »

Three Jews, Two Links, One Lesson

On Nov. 10, Norman Podhoretz, the legendary editor of Commentary magazine, will receive the Herzl Prize from philanthropic and educational institution Tikvah. It is the latest in a long line of honors for Podhoretz, including the Presidential Medal of Freedom President George W. Bush awarded him in 2004. Now age 89, Podhoretz is the author of a dozen path-breaking books and countless essays on politics, literature, culture and religion.

Bush said: “Podhoretz ranks among the most prominent American editors of the 20th century. … Never a man to tailor his opinions to please others, [he] has always written and spoken with directness and honesty. Sometimes speaking the truth has carried a cost. Yet, over the years, he has only gained in stature among his fellow writers and thinkers. …[We] pay tribute to this fierce intellectual man and his fine writing and his great love for our country.”

Podhoretz takes his place among the Jews who, over the past century, have contributed immeasurably to both Zionism and Americanism, including Supreme Court Justice Louis D. Brandeis during World War I and renowned writer Ben Hecht during World War II.

When we examine their three lives together, we see they have two fascinating links, which provide a single, important lesson for our time. 

Brandeis was the first Jewish justice, whom Woodrow Wilson nominated in 1916. It was a controversial nomination because for the first time in its history, the Senate held hearings on a nominee, which lasted four months. Brandeis was confirmed only after a contentious process involving 43 witnesses. He served 23 years. 

He was born in Kentucky in 1856 to Jewish immigrants from Prague, who gave him no Jewish education. He never attended services, never observed Jewish holidays, and never made significant contributions to Jewish organizations before he turned 57. Then, in 1914, he agreed to head the American Zionist movement.

“Brandeis invigorated the American Zionist movement by articulating the connection between Zionism and American ideals.”

It was a time when most American Jews considered Zionism an unrealistic, possibly unpatriotic, European ideology. Out of 1.5 million Jews in the United States at the time, only 15,000 were members of the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA). As Tikvah senior director Jonathan Silver has written, Americans “saw themselves as having fled oppression, crossed the wilderness, and arrived in a new promised land.” American Jews considered themselves not in exile, but at home in a new place.

Brandeis invigorated the American Zionist movement by articulating the connection between Zionism and American ideals. In his acceptance speech as chairman of the ZOA, he said, “My approach to Zionism was through Americanism: In time, practical experience and observation convinced me that Jews were, by reason of their traditions and their character, peculiarly fitted for the attainment of American ideals. Gradually, it became clear to me that to be good Americans, we must be better Jews, and to be better Jews, we must become Zionists.”

The following year, Brandeis wrote “A Call to the Educated Jew” for a new college journal, telling students that the Jewish contribution to America could be very large, because their religion and afflictions had prepared them for democracy.              

“Persecution … taught the [Jews] the seriousness of life; … it deepened the passion for righteousness; it trained them … in self-sacrifice,” he wrote in The Menorah Journal. “The widespread study of Jewish law developed the intellect … America requires in her sons and daughters these qualities and attainments, which are our natural heritage. Patriotism to America, as well as loyalty to our past, imposes upon us the obligation of claiming this heritage of the Jewish spirit.”

Brandeis argued that without a Jewish home in Palestine, the future of the Jewish people was in doubt – and that American Jews needed such a home no less than others. In the last sentence of “A Call to the Educated Jew,” he wrote, “We Jews of prosperous America above all need its inspiration.” 

Two years later, Brandeis played a key role in the American endorsement of the Balfour Declaration — Britain’s promise of a Jewish national home in Palestine — a key step in the process that led to a Jewish state 30 years later.

Hecht was born in 1894 to Russian Jewish immigrant parents, grew up in Wisconsin, skipped college and became a crime reporter in Chicago. He went on to write articles, columns, novels, short stories, Broadway plays, screenplays, essays and nonfiction books that, in many ways, defined his times. He became Hollywood’s highest-paid screenwriter, receiving six Oscar nominations and two Oscars.

In his first 40 years, however, as he later recalled, “I attended no synagogue, read no Jewish history or literature … listened to no discussion of Jewish problems.” But in 1939, as the Jews in Europe faced disaster, he started to look on the world “with Jewish eyes.” He wrote, “I was deeply shamed by the silence of the American Jews. … The Americanized Jews who ran newspapers and movie studios, who wrote plays and novels, who were high in government and powerful in the financial, industrial and even social life of the nation, were silent.”

In one of Hecht’s Broadway plays in the 1930s, a character observes that “we are always on the right side of discussions, but never on any side of the barricades.” In 1941 — after having ignored Jewish issues for virtually his entire life — he joined the Jewish side. He met Peter Bergson, a young Zionist from Palestine, who asked him to serve as the American leader of their cause. Hecht agreed. 

On Nov. 24, 1942, the State Department confirmed the Nazi plan to destroy the Jews, and two months later, Hecht’s article in The American Mercury, “The Extermination of the Jews,” reached a nationwide audience when republished in Reader’s Digest. The article became the basis for his March 1943 production “We Will Never Die.” The production played to sold out audiences at Madison Square Garden and across the country, and NBC broadcast it nationally. In it, the character played by Paul Muni — the leading actor of his time — told the audience, “The Germans have promised to deliver to the world, by the end of [1943], a Christmas package of 4 million dead Jews. And this is not a Jewish problem; it is a problem that belongs to humanity, and it is a challenge to the soul of man.”

In 1944, Hecht wrote a bestselling book on anti-Semitism, and concluded he was writing it not only as a Jew but as an American: 

“If my sense of outrage against the Germans is a Jewish one, do I lessen my Americanism by voicing it? … If tyrants flout the laws of human rights, and murder the weak, and I shout against them, am I more Jew than American? … If [the Jew] cries more loudly for these than the American next to him, is he not, perhaps, more American?”

“Neoconservatism became one of the keys to America’s victory in the Cold War.”

After the war ended, Hecht wrote “A Flag Is Born,” a pro-Zionist play that opened on Broadway in 1946, with music by Kurt Weill. It starred Stella Adler, Muni and 22-year-old Marlon Brando. In 1948, Hecht received a cable from Menachem Begin, the 32-year-old leader of one of the Jewish military forces in Palestine, asking Hecht to speak to the “soul of the Jews of the world.”

Hecht spoke for 45 minutes in Los Angeles, in one of the landmark speeches of modern Jewish history, saying that if the battle for Palestine were lost, “we Jews, all of us, are lost for another seven generations.” He ended by saying, “Jewish money has poured into a thousand causes, but there was never any cause in Jewish history like this one. In Palestine, a David is standing against Goliath, and I ask you Jews — buy him a stone for his slingshot.”

On that one evening, he raised the equivalent of $3.1 million today, and the ship carrying aid to the Jews in Palestine was renamed the “SS Hecht.” When he died in 1964, Begin spoke at his funeral, saying Hecht had “wielded words like a drawn sword” and did “so much for the Jewish people and for the redemption of Israel.” 

Podhoretz became the editor of Commentary — the premier journal of neoconservative Jewish intellectual life in America — in 1960, at the age of 30.

He grew up in a poor section of Brooklyn, in a family of immigrants. He was the son of a milkman, speaking Yiddish at home. Unlike Brandeis and Hecht, he received a full Jewish education, starting at Columbia at age 16 on a full scholarship and studying at the Jewish Theological Seminary (JTS) on Tuesday and Thursday evenings and Sunday afternoons, commuting two hours a day because his family couldn’t afford a dorm room for him. He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts degree from Columbia and a Bachelor of Hebrew Letters from JTS.

In his first years at Commentary, Podhoretz focused on literature. He was responsible for publishing Philip Roth’s first short story in a national magazine, and wrote piercing reviews on Saul Bellow’s work, among others. Soon, he was combining literary criticism with geopolitical insights, addressing the intellectual issues of the Cold War.

Today, it is difficult to believe there was a time when it was not evident democracy and the blessings of freedom were superior to Communism, but during the Cold War, many intellectuals were both anti-Communist and anti-American. They could, in Podhoretz’s words, “give wholehearted support only to some alternative possibility which did not exist” — like the characters in Hecht’s play who never joined any side of the barricades. Podhoretz believed America should be actively supported, not because it was without blemishes but because it was the force standing against a new 20th-century tyranny — one that was, in many ways, as bad, if not worse, than the Nazi horrors.

He became increasingly troubled by the anti-Americanism infecting the left, and he eventually broke with it, becoming one of the founders of the neoconservative movement.

It was not, to put it mildly, a popular thing to do. For many Jews, conversion to conservatism was roughly equivalent to conversion to Christianity. It earned Podhoretz the lifelong enmity of former literary friends, as he recounted in his memoir “Ex-Friends: Falling Out with Allen Ginsberg, Lionel and Diana Trilling, Lillian Hellman, Hannah Arendt, and Norman Mailer.”

Neoconservatism became one of the keys to America’s victory in the Cold War, which was not only a diplomatic and military conflict, but an intellectual one that required intellectual and social courage to fight. In the same way Brandeis and Hecht came in mid-life to champion a cause they earlier ignored or downplayed, Podhoretz turned Commentary from a left-wing critic of America into a defender of America and Israel, with exceptional analysis and argument, in essay after essay for 35 years. 

After he retired in 1995 at age 65, he continued writing. He wrote five of his 12 books as well as many of his most powerful essays after he “retired.” Fifty years after graduating from JTS, he published “The Prophets: Who They Were and What They Are,” offering new interpretations of Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel and others, arguing that their messages were the imperatives of rejecting the idolatry of self-worship, which, in modern times, took the form of the disastrous belief that using ideology and coercion, humans could create a perfect society. That idolatry created a 20th century in which 100 million people were murdered by totalitarian states seeking the perfect race or class.

Podhoretz concluded that “Now, as [in ancient times], the battle will have to be fought first and foremost within ourselves and then in the world of ideas around us .… . Because unless we all commit ourselves to the struggle for our own civilization, it will, like Jerusalem in the days of Jeremiah 2,500 years ago, wind up being sapped from within … and it will then become vulnerable to sacking from without.”

Podhoretz’s 2001 book, “My Love Affair With America: The Cautionary Tale of a Cheerful Conservative,” ends with what he calls his “American Dayenu,” a nine-paragraph expression of gratitude for what America did for a poor Yiddish-speaking boy from Brooklyn. He took Brandeis’ appreciation of the Jewish contribution to American life, combined it with Hecht’s recognition that Jewish intellectuals needed to participate in history, and added his own awareness of the importance of America and Israel in the world.

There are two fascinating connections among these three Jewish American giants. The first is that each of their contributions to history seemingly came by chance. For Brandeis, one of the keys was a chance meeting in 1912 on an unrelated subject with Jacob de Haas, Theodor Herzl’s close associate. De Haas engaged Brandeis in an hourlong discussion of Zionism, which prompted Brandeis to start to study it with the same intensity he brought to his legal cases.

Hecht was, in his words, “walking down the street one day [and] bumped into history” in the form of Peter Bergson. Hecht agreed to have a drink with him at the 21 Club. The conversation lasted for hours, and it changed his life and legacy.

For Podhoretz, a chance meeting with a teacher changed his life. As a 5-year-old at public school, a teacher stopped him as he headed up a staircase and asked where he was going. In his heavy Yiddish accent, he said: “I goink op de stez.”

“And they slapped me into a remedial speech class … [which] did me an enormous favor.” This gave Podhoretz the gift of beautifully spoken English. Later, a high-school teacher gave him what he needed for what was at that time, as he wrote, “one of the longest journeys in America: from Brooklyn to Manhattan.”

In 2015, at age 85, Podhoretz wrote a classic essay, “What Do Jews Owe America?” Like Brandeis’ essay, Podhoretz’s is a clarion call to every educated Jew. Like Hecht’s 1948 speech, it is a text every American Jew should know. In the same way high-school students used to memorize Lincoln’s Gettysburg address, every Jewish student should know parts of these three Jewish texts by heart.

The second point about these three modern heroes perhaps contradicts my first one. Their contributions may not have begun by chance. Brandeis died in 1941, the same year Hecht met Bergson. Hecht died in 1964, as Podhoretz approached his historic intellectual crossing to defend Americanism and Zionism. There seemingly was an invisible baton, passed from one to the other, and from one generation to the next. Perhaps it wasn’t by chance at all.

Tikvah is a baton held out to each of us. We are, in Brandeis’ words, the “trustees” of Jewish history, “charged to carry forward what others have, in the past, borne so well.” And the past, as Podhoretz wrote, offers us a dual blessing: a heritage to protect and a summons to contribute.


Rick Richman is resident scholar at American Jewish University and the author of “Racing Against History: The 1940 Campaign for a Jewish Army to Fight Hitler.” This story is adapted from his Oct. 10 talk to a Los Angeles event of the Tikvah Fund.

Three Jews, Two Links, One Lesson Read More »

White Supremacists Made a Database of Jews. Are You In It?

On July 31, I received an email that stunned me. It read: “Thanks for noticing all the hard work we put into The European Man Archive Project, we appreciate you spreading the word. You can link directly to your profile.” Attached was a hyperlink to a collage of my face along with screenshots of things I had tweeted denouncing racism and white privilege. Statements such as “I’m calling on ignorant white people to face their white fragility” surrounded my acknowledgment that “I’m a gay Jewish woman.”

My face was accompanied by 1,013 additional entries of Jewish people, which once was posted by the Twitter account @TheEuropeanMan1, a white supremacist who had just emailed me to let me know I was personally on his radar. The targets predominantly were Jewish journalists. 

I first sounded the alarm on this movement in March, when journalist Rafaella Gunz was receiving harassment from these white supremacists. Out of nowhere, a swarm of them sent her a collage of her face and tweets. When I reverse-searched the image, I found a Twitter account with more than 5,000 followers who regularly circulated these “profiles” of Jews. 

The downloadable version of the archive includes graphics labeling which journalists at CBS, CNN, NBC, NPR, The New York Times and Fox News are Jewish, have Jewish spouses or are Christian Zionists. In the graphic, leftist Peter Beinart’s photo sits inches away from that of Bush administration darling Judith Miller. There’s even a conspiracy theory claiming Rupert Murdoch “has Jewish ancestry on his maternal line.”

The political divide is obliterated in the anti-Semitic archive. Jared Kushner is plastered next to “Scandal” actor Josh Malina. Lahav Harkov of The Jerusalem Post has her picture beside Jewish Voice for Peace Director Rebecca Vilkomerson. Editors of Jewish Currents are with editors of The Washington Examiner. Also, @TheEuropeanMan1 obsessively mocks Ben Shapiro.

However, many of the profiles of Jews curated are not public figures. College students, therapists and uncles who like to tweet about Israel were flagged by
@TheEuropeanMan1. Simply tweeting “I’m Jewish” on Twitter could mean you’re on the list. The archive is alphabetized by Twitter handle, so to find out if you or someone you care about has been targeted, look yourself up in the hateful directory.

The goal of these profiles? To distort Jewish people’s own words as evidence of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories.

Statements made by left-wing Jews about white privilege are manipulated to “prove” Jews are “posing” as Caucasian to elevate people of color. But the account also was staunchly anti-Zionist; it frequently flags pro-Israel voices to accuse Jews of dual loyalty.

When faced with mass reporting, @TheEuropeanMan1 wasn’t sweating it. “Don’t worry folks. I’ve archived everything, all the hate, all the disdain, all the genocidal rage, all the degeneracy, everything will be preserved,” the account tweeted on March 13.

After its third Twitter account was suspended, The European Man Group created a permanent and downloadable archive of profiles of Jewish people. It has broken us down into different categories, which brings rare insight into what enrages white supremacists. 

It’s true white supremacist groups often exploit press coverage to recruit — but it’s also true America is in virtual denial about the prevalence of this hateful ideology.

The first, with 463 entries, was “fellow white people,” a section where Jews with white skin made calls for other white people to more actively combat racism. “It is a celebration of God’s chosen people. The shapeshifting, the subversion, the anti-white hatred, it’s all here folks,” explains the author, alluding to a ridiculous anti-Semitic concept that Jews are lizard-like people who pose as Caucasian to infiltrate and destroy white society.

The next section, “Noticing Things,” curates absurd “evidence” of conspiracy theories that Jews control civilization. The targets of this section include the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Prager U and anyone who encourages Holocaust remembrance. “The Holocaust guilt industry is one of the greatest racketeering schemes in human history,” said The European Man. This is a common anti-Zionist talking point, which spurred Al Jazeera to suspend two journalists in May for making a video on that theme.

Other sections include “Anti-White”; “Refugees” and “Immigrants,” which highlights Jewish aid to migrants; “bacon haters,” which are bitter posts about Jewish-Muslim solidarity; “LGBTQ”; “Diversity”; “Covington Teens”; “Globalism”; “Learn to Code”; and “EU Brexit Paris.”

While there are plenty of anti-Semitic Twitter accounts, this one carefully is curated to indoctrinate its followers into genocidal violence. “I wish these motherf***ers had been this vocal about their hatred for our race in 1940. Would have saved half a million American lives and Europe would still be white,” wrote one follower under a profile of a Jew. “There will be a day when they can’t safely walk down the street. The evil ones,” commented another.

The archive continues to grow on the chat service Telegram, reports news site Mother Jones. On that platform, The European Man has 2,400 subscribers. The online archives claim the violating images “should not be used to target, threaten, harass, intimidate, or inflict violence towards any institution, group of people or individual person,” but the group is clear in its goal to systemically oppress Jewish Americans.

“What should you do with this information?” The European Group asks in its disclaimer. “Use it to decide who you vote into office. Use it to decide who you support socially, emotionally, physically, with material good and most importantly support monetarily. If someone is working towards goals that work against America, Americans, Christians and most importantly white Americans you should avoid helping them if at all possible.”

The European Man group delights in press coverage. It has used a report from the left-leaning Mother Jones to recruit followers on Telegram. “The more they kvetch, the more our noticing power grows,” posted the account. “+70 subscribers and counting so far today. Thanks to [reporter] Ali Breland and Mother Jones. They’ll never learn folks.”

It’s true white supremacist groups often exploit press coverage to recruit — but it’s also true America is in virtual denial about the prevalence of this hateful ideology.

Reporting on the issue creates bad press for tech companies such as Telegram, which encourages its owners to de-platform hateful users. The fewer mediums white supremacists have to communicate with one another, the harder it becomes for bigots to recruit someone who will carry out their genocidal goals.

If 2019’s marathon of mass shootings taught us anything, it’s that it takes only one armed white supremacist to murder many innocent people. The European Man engineered a lesson plan for teaching white supremacy at its most anti-Semitic.

But another lesson to be learned is that white supremacists don’t care about Jewish infighting.

Ideological rivals are plastered together as The European Man Group’s targets. Any Jewish identity is welcome: IfNotNow activists, Andy Cohen, Jussie Smollett, Ike Barinholtz and ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt. The account even chastised conservative commentator Candace Owens for saying Democrats hate Jews.

While we police one another’s politics, practice and Judaism, to anti-Semites, we are all the same.

According to an April 2019 study by The Institute for the Future, Jews face the most vitriolic harassment from other Jews who disagree with them about Israel. The Jewish community is splintered — with each of us lonely trees growing on partisan islands — while our enemies are undivided in their quest to chop us all down.


Ariel Sobel is a screenwriter, filmmaker and activist, and won the 2019 Bluecat Screenplay Competition. 

White Supremacists Made a Database of Jews. Are You In It? Read More »

Poll: Nearly a Third of American Jews Are Afraid to Publicly Wear Jewish Garb

The American Jewish Committee (AJC) released a survey on Oct. 23 showing that nearly a third of American Jews fear wearing Jewish paraphernalia publicly due to rising anti-Semitism in the country.

Forward Opinion Editor Batya Ungar-Sargon highlighted this result from the poll in a tweet, writing, “This country was founded on the principle of freedom of religion. For shame, America.”

The poll, which surveyed 1,283 American Jews from Sept. 11 to Oct. 6, asked respondents, “Have you avoided publicly wearing, carrying, or displaying things that might help people identify you as a Jew?”

Thirty-one percent answered yes, 68% said no. When respondents were asked if they “ever avoid certain places, events, or situations out of concern for your safety or comfort as a Jew,” 25% said yes.

The survey also found that 88% of American Jews view anti-Semitism as a problem in the country and 84% believe it has increased over the past five years. Additionally, 47% said a Jewish institution they were affiliated with had been targeted in an anti-Semitic incident.

On college campuses, 36% said the climate has become more antagonistic toward pro-Israel students over the past year, while 41% said it was about the same. Twenty percent said they or someone they knew had experienced anti-Semitism on college campuses.

When asked about the sources of anti-Semitism, 89% said they viewed the “extreme political right” as an anti-Semitic threat; similarly, 85% said the same about Islamic extremism. However, that number decreased to 64% when asked about the threat that the “extreme political left” poses. Sixty-two percent said they were familiar with the boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement and 82% said the movement is mostly anti-Semitic or has some anti-Semitic supporters.

On Israel, 84% said that people who don’t believe in Israel’s right to exist are anti-Semitic; 73% said that saying that Jews are more loyal to Israel than to America is anti-Semitic.

Additionally, 73% of American Jews don’t think that President Donald Trump has handled the issue of anti-Semitism well.

AJC Director of Media Relations Kenneth Bandler wrote in an Oct. 23 Fox News op-ed that politicians across the country should examine the results of the AJC poll and “develop strategies aimed at stamping out this seemingly entrenched hatred. Anti-Semitism, we know from history, may begin with Jews, but ultimately threatens other minorities, and potentially the fabric of America’s pluralistic democracy.”

AJC Managing Director of Global Communications Avi Mayer wrote in an Oct. 23 USA Today op-ed that the AJC is launching their #ShowUpForShabbat campaign to commemorate the Tree of Life synagogue shooting that occurred in Oct. 2018.

“Elected officials will deliver impassioned speeches and sign powerful proclamations, vowing to stamp out the scourge of anti-Semitism,” Mayer wrote. “But come Monday, how many will do what is necessary — confronting the sources of hate within their own political camps, challenging anti-Semitism even when uncomfortable or inconvenient, and reaching across the aisle to jointly build a safer nation for Jews and people of all faiths?”

Poll: Nearly a Third of American Jews Are Afraid to Publicly Wear Jewish Garb Read More »

The Jewish Tradition of Haircuts

There is a Jewish tradition called an upsherin, in which a Jewish boy gets his first haircut when he’s 3 years old. Afterward, friends and family gather at a party, tell him how good he looks and, of course, eat and eat and eat.

When my dog gets a haircut, everyone in my family compliments the dog. “Look how pretty you look.” “You’re so pretty.” They want to know where the dog gets her hair cut as if they’re considering going to the same place. But I get a haircut, no one comments or, if they do, it’s mostly negative. “Why did you cut it so short?” “It looks so uneven.”  

The truth is, the dog always gets a better haircut than me. The best explanation I have is that the person cutting a dog’s hair doesn’t have a conversation with the dog. They stay focused. They don’t ask the dog where she was born or how she keeps trim. When I get a haircut, I feel obligated to talk to my barber. I need to know if he’s going to tattoo the other side of his face or just leave it the way it is.  

I take my dog to a groomer, a word far classier than “barber.” When I pick up my dog, she always looks happy and relaxed. So, I dropped off my dog at home and walked the five blocks back to the groomer. I said, “Do you have time to give another haircut?” She said that her 3:30 just canceled and that she had an hour. “Where’s the dog?” I said, “No dog. It’s me. I want you to cut my hair. I want to compare the haircut you give to one my barber gives.”

She smiled and said she would do it as long as she didn’t have to give me a bath or express my anal glands. I agreed and said, “Most importantly, I want you to treat me like I’m any old Schnauzer. No special treatment just because I have two legs and know how to use a fork. That means no questions.”
She gave me the thumbs up and then scratched me under my chin. I reached into my bag and pulled out my morning cereal bowl and asked her to fill it with water in case I got thirsty. “Let’s do it,” she said. 

I was about to climb up on the table she uses for dogs but she screamed, “No!” Then, “No. No table. Down, boy.” I quickly backed off and hung my head in shame. I was beginning to really like this woman. She then lifted me onto the table like I was a 200-pound English mastiff and put me on all fours. She fastened a leather collar around my neck so I couldn’t jump off the table. 

“The dog always gets a better haircut than me.”

First, she checked me for fleas, pinching something off my neck and smacking it dead on the table. I guess that was her little flea joke. The whole haircut took about 30 minutes. She then finished the job, using a stiff boar’s-head bristle brush that brought blood to parts of my scalp where there hadn’t been any blood for decades. 

During the haircut, she didn’t say one word to me, just kept shearing, snipping and petting my head. Shearing, snipping and petting while whistling various Army, Navy and Marine tunes. Except for having to stay in the all-fours position for 30 minutes, it was by far the most relaxing haircut of my life. I loved every minute of it. The only drawback was that she didn’t have a mirror because dogs never want to see the back of their head like we do. 

Afterward, she texted my wife to pick me up. Ten minutes later, my wife walked in and before I could explain to her what went down, my wife looked at me and said, “You look so pretty. It’s nice and even.” I then jumped in the passenger seat of the car and hung my head out the window during the ride home. After I got home, I lay down on the floor and took a nap.

The next morning, I made an appointment with the groomer for next month.


Mark Schiff is a comedian, actor and writer.

The Jewish Tradition of Haircuts Read More »

For Democrats, Course Correction or Revolution?

A few years back, Netflix aired a terrific series called “Bloodline” starring Sissy Spacek and Kyle Chandler in a story about a family in the Florida Keys whose members were implicated in a horrific crime. The show’s marketing tagline was particularly compelling — “We’re Not Bad People. We Just Did a Bad Thing.”

Fast forward to 2019, and that could make a very appropriate slogan for former Vice President Joe Biden’s presidential campaign. From the beginning, Biden’s core message has essentially been that the American people simply need to fix a mistake and then just get things back to normal. We’re not bad people. We just did a bad thing.

More aggressive Democrats reject what they feel is an overly timid approach and instead call for much more dramatic and sweeping change. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, among others, see beating President Donald Trump as one small step toward much grander goals. On the campaign trail, in cable television interviews, and most notably in the primary debates, the candidates use issues like universal health care and free college tuition and the Green New Deal as placeholders for that broader discussion: Is this election a course correction that can put the country back on track after four years of Trump? Or is it a jumping-off point for fundamental change far beyond what the leaders of either party have attempted for many years?

This is not just a matter of ideology, as the definitions of terms like progressive, populist and centrist are too amorphous and shift too rapidly to track. Rather, it’s a question of attitude: How bold (or how reckless) should Trump’s general election opponent dare to be? Or alternatively, how carefully (or how cowardly) should Democrats work to avoid overreaching in such a high-stakes election?

The combination of Warren’s ascendancy and Biden’s struggles has intensified this internal disagreement. Party activists and donors who worry about Warren’s prospects in a general election are now fearful that Biden may not be able to stop her from the nomination. This could provide an opportunity for mid-tier candidates like Mayor Pete Buttigieg or Sen. Amy Klobuchar to emerge as a pragmatic alternative to Warren. Or it could simply provide a glide path for Warren to achieve the nomination by contrasting herself as a safer alternative to Sanders.

How bold should Trump’s general election opponent dare to be?

Sanders’ diminishing poll numbers, and his seeming lack of interest in reaching out beyond the party’s most ardent progressives, make it difficult to see how he could come out on top. But his small dollar-fueled fundraising ensures that he’ll remain a force through the spring, and the recent endorsement from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is an important reminder of the depths of the passion for Sanders with his strongest supporters. More likely, though, his presence on the trail will serve mainly to normalize Warren’s policy agenda, and allow her to position herself as the more talented and therefore more electable of the two leading progressive heartthrobs.

But unlike Sanders, Warren does think about how to reach out to moderate Democrats in the primary and to independent voters in the fall. That’s why the recent criticisms she’s faced from Buttigieg and Klobuchar over how she will pay for her health care plan have created a precarious situation for her. Sanders is happy to say that “Medicare for All” will require tax increases on the middle class. Warren must be much more careful, and the way she describes the funding sources for her single-payer proposal will be an important moment in the primary. 

The months between now and the Iowa caucuses in February are several lifetimes in politics. There’s more than enough time for Biden to regain his footing and to use Trump’s broadsides against him to elevate himself over the rest of the primary field. There’s also plenty of time for Buttigieg or Klobuchar to supplant him as the middle-of-the-road option for cautious primary voters, or for an overlooked candidate like Sen. Cory Booker to ascend. There may even be enough time for Sen. Kamala Harris to resurrect a campaign that has wandered far off course. 

But the central question for Democratic primary voters will remain unchanged: Does the party want a revolution or a course correction? Is beating Trump enough or do they want even more?


Dan Schnur is a professor at the USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism, UC Berkeley and Pepperdine University. 

For Democrats, Course Correction or Revolution? Read More »

A Most Memorable Jewish Wedding

It was a typical Wednesday evening. And then the phone rang. 

The voice was distinctive. Someone I knew from synagogue.   

“What are you doing this evening? Can you be at shul in an hour?”

“What’s going on?” I asked, confused. 

“I’ll explain later. Can you be here?”

“Um, OK,” I said.

I grabbed a cold slice of pizza from the refrigerator and drove to the synagogue we both attended, arriving five minutes later. 

For a synagogue that was always bustling with activity, it was eerily dark and quiet. I saw three men enter a side door. I followed.

Before long, the group had grown to 10 men. We were standing around in the downstairs lobby, nobody knowing what to do or where to go. Then from behind, the familiar voice again. “Come with me.” 

Two of us went into a storage closet and grabbed the synagogue’s chuppah, the traditional Jewish wedding canopy. It consisted of four plain wooden poles attached to a worn blue velvet covering. It was the kind of chuppah meant for those who didn’t spend thousands of dollars on custom-made canopies adorned with flowers. 

We put the chuppah in a car trunk. Then all of us, including one of the synagogue’s rabbis, piled into three cars and headed off into the darkness. 

I was in the back seat of the car driven by the person who had phoned me. I had no idea where we were going or why. I sensed I would know soon enough and didn’t ask. 

Traffic was light as we made our way onto the 405 north toward the San Fernando Valley. About 30 minutes later, we exited the freeway. In the distance, I saw a large, brightly lit building: Northridge Hospital.

We made our way behind the building and parked in a mostly empty lot. In front of us was a row of windows revealing a brightly lit waiting room filled with sofas, folding chairs, a TV and a couple of long tables.

“They wanted their children to know their parents married according to Jewish law.”

We grabbed the chuppah from the trunk and entered through an unlocked back door. Several people, presumably patients and their families, were huddled in conversation. 

A 30-something man with two young kids entered the room. He was wearing a yarmulke, shook the rabbi’s hand, and the two sat down at a corner table. The rabbi carried a large scroll and unrolled it on the table. A ketubah (marriage contract). 

Not more than a minute later, a parade of nurses came through the door. One was pushing a woman in a wheelchair, with several IV tubes attached to her arms. Immediately everybody sprang into action. 

The rabbi instructed four of us to hold the chuppah in the center of the room as the man and the woman patient centered themselves underneath.

The rabbi proceeded to say the wedding blessings and perform a Jewish wedding ceremony. The man put a ring on his bride’s finger. He repeated the rabbi’s words in Hebrew: “Behold, you are consecrated to me with this ring according to the laws of Moses and Israel.”

As hastily as it had happened, it was over. The nurses returned the bride to her hospital room.

On the way back to the city, I got an explanation. Years before, the couple married in a civil ceremony but never had a Jewish wedding. Then the wife became seriously ill and had to undergo a major surgery that could go either way. They then decided if the unthinkable happened, they wanted their children to know their parents married according to Jewish law.

As we made our way through the Sepulveda Pass back to the city, I wondered if they really did it for their kids or for themselves. Perhaps something inside told them it was the right thing to do, to finally bring Judaism into their marriage, starting with their wedding ceremony.  

Decades have passed since that Wednesday evening. I never followed up to learn the outcome of the surgery. It wasn’t my business, and a part of me didn’t want to know. All I knew was every Jewish wedding, lavash or not, is memorable. 

Even under the harsh, bright lights of a hospital waiting room.


Harvey Farr runs a Los Angeles-based public relations firm specializing in nonprofit marketing.

A Most Memorable Jewish Wedding Read More »

Trick or Treat or Stale Pita Bread

When my family arrived in the United States, we stopped celebrating Purim and started to take an interest in Halloween.

In hindsight, it was a sad fact that as newly arrived Persian Jews, we completely lost touch with Purim, the one Jewish holiday whose hero, heroine and antagonist were Persian. On the other hand, American culture is hard to resist. In fact, I’m glad we arrived in the U.S. months before Christmas, otherwise we may have taken a real interest in eggnog (the horror) and Christmas trees. For a refugee family, television, consumerism and whatever television passionately instructs you to buy as consumers is the first step in becoming real Americans.

That first Halloween, our parents couldn’t justify spending money on “fake clothes” that we would wear for only one day, and they were even more opposed to buying expensive candy that we would give away for free on our doorstep. We didn’t realize we were supposed to provide something for trick-or-treaters until a few minutes before they arrived, which explains why every child (and a few adults) who knocked on our door on Oct. 31, 1989, were treated to cut-up slices of stale pita bread. The look on their faces matched the one of horror on my father’s face as he watched his precious pita leave the apartment in the entitled hands of little penguins and someone we later learned was called a “gremlin.”

The next year, we took a stab at the Halloween spirit: We didn’t buy candy but at least I had a costume (a witch) — except I wasn’t allowed to go trick-or-treating because I had to stay home and feed cubes of raw steak into the meat grinder for kabobs the next day. American kids had their chores, and I had mine.

Did an Iranian Jewish family have any business celebrating Halloween customs while not giving two figs about Purim five months later? I don’t know. Halloween originated with an ancient festival when Celts wore costumes to ward off ghosts. We could identify with that, given that back in post-revolutionary Iran, women wore the mandatory hijab to ward off the dreaded “Modesty Police.” Of course, our version of having people who knocked on our doors and “tricked” us if we didn’t give them what they wanted often resulted in arrest, torture or bribery. I guess in the bribery department, there were similarities with Halloween.

Did an Iranian Jewish family have any business celebrating Halloween customs while not giving two figs about Purim five months later?

When I became a young woman, I associated Halloween with only one thing: Once a year, I actually was expected to dress immodestly, and even then, I really just wanted to dress up like Frankenstein.

These days, I’m over the macabre fascination with horror and death that accompanies Halloween. I’m dealing with a mortgage and the state’s drought. I want fewer skeletons on my front lawn and more budget-friendly fake grass.

Also, I now celebrate Purim, so once a year I still get to wear costumes and stuff myself with sugary foods until the zippers on the Frankenstein costume start to give.

I like Purim because it celebrates life and survival, which, when compared with the frights and fun darkness of Halloween, isn’t very sexy. I get it.

More than anything, I like that Purim invites us to give, whereas Halloween urges us to take. Sure, buying candy and giving it to total strangers is a form of giving, but there’s a reason it’s called “trick-or-treating”: not every home escapes being “tricked” with toilet paper, eggs or worse. And when those grubby hands reach for that Halloween candy, boy, do they take.

To welcome Purim, I accompany our children when they knock on doors, wholly ready to give little mishloach manot baskets, and not expect anything in return. Giving freely, especially to the needy, is an unnegotiable value in our home.

Here’s my challenge to Jews who celebrate Halloween: Have a blast and enjoy, and five months from now, find ways to celebrate Purim, too. You can even dress up as a “sexy Haman.” Just make sure you don’t get too close to the rabbi.


Tabby Refael is a Los Angeles-based writer and speaker. 

Trick or Treat or Stale Pita Bread Read More »