The Yiddish professor and female Orthodox rabbi sharing Yiddish children’s literature with the world

Jordan Kutzik

Image by Miriam Udel

A jack of many trades is sometimes a master of them all

Speaking with Miriam Udel, the Yiddish professor at Emory University in Atlanta who is reacquainting the world with Yiddish children’s literature, you quickly notice something remarkable. In one moment she sounds like a literary scholar and in the next, a Talmudic sage. It’s not all that surprising considering her background: Udel has a doctorate from Harvard University in comparative literature and rabbinical ordination from an orthodox yeshiva.

Yiddish speakers often say: “A sakh malokhes, veynik brokhes,” meaning that a jack-of-all-trades is typically blessed with few successes in life. Udel’s career runs contrary to the proverb. Her expertise in Talmud adds depth to her work on modern Yiddish children’s literature, and her academic training informs her rabbinical interpretations.

But what led an Orthodox Jew to embrace Yiddish children’s literature’s secular and leftist values? And how did an avowed feminist not only end up on the women’s side of the mechitza but become one of fewer than 100 orthodox female rabbis?

A Hebrew School Nerd

Udel’s mother, Ann Robbins-Udel, nourished her love of children’s books.

“Even when there wasn’t money for other luxuries, my parents would always scrimp and pinch to buy me a book,” Udel said.

No surprise, then, that her local library would play an important role in Udel’s childhood.

“One of the first sensory memories I have of abundance and plentitude is having a huge stack of library books when I got a new type of library card,” Udel said. “I wasn’t restricted to two or three books but could pick out as many as I wanted. It was the first time I felt real abundance and plentitude which was only limited by my curiosity.”

Another place where Udel loved to read was at the Hebrew school affiliated with her family’s reform synagogue in Miami.

“I was a ‘Hebrew school nerd,’” Udel said laughing. “I was really jazzed in sixth grade when we learned to look up chapter and verse in Tanach. It was like I suddenly had this new superpower.”

Despite her love of Jewish learning, Udel didn’t always feel at home in her Hebrew school. Her family was a bit more religious than the synagogue’s other congregants, and most of her classmates’ families were wealthier than her own. This led to what Udel terms a “productive tension” between her and her Hebrew school community. When she was in ninth grade, this tension led to a crisis of sorts during Rosh Hashanah.

“The rabbi was giving a sermon against materialism, condemning those who believe that ‘the one who dies with the most toys wins,’” Udel recalled. “And right afterwards, someone gave a presentation about reconstructing a wing of the synagogue and how they were going to honor the donors. I stopped going to confirmation classes and left the synagogue altogether because I saw it as just a place to show off wealth.”

Udel became even more interested in her spiritual tradition. She began attending an Orthodox synagogue, which soon led to a new conflict—this time between her feminist, progressive values and men’s and women’s distinct roles in Orthodox services.

“I understood that if I wanted to properly grapple with these questions, I needed to know what was in our sacred texts,” Udel said. “And for that I would need to be able to read them in the original.”

Far Miryemen a Matone (A Gift for Miriam)

Udel attended Harvard University as an undergraduate, where she had the opportunity not only to improve her knowledge of classical Hebrew but to master Babylonian Aramaic, study biblical exegesis and learn from “really exacting teachers, Talmidi khakhomim in a gender neutral space.”

At the same time, Udel became increasingly interested in secular literature and the role it plays in transmitting moral values. As she formulated it to me, it’s surprising that as the world grew increasingly secular, literature became the lens through which society examined questions of morality. Why, for instance, she wondered, do children in middle school discuss moral dilemmas in English class and not while studying philosophy?

When Udel was deciding where to attend graduate school, she spoke with several professors at Harvard about this question. One of them, the Yiddish literature scholar Ruth Wisse, suggested that Udel learn Yiddish, noting that the process of secularization occurred more quickly among Eastern-European Jews than nearly any other ethnic group. Comparing their secular literature to other world literatures, Wisse argued, could yield great insights into the effects of secularization. Wisse left Udel a copy of Uriel Weinreich’s textbook College Yiddish with a note reading: “Far Miryemen a matone” [a gift for Miriam]. Udel soon enrolled in the YIVO Institute’s summer program and began her graduate studies in comparative literature with Wisse that fall.

“Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.”

When Udel began working as a Yiddish instructor at Emory University in the fall of 2007, she knew very little about Yiddish children’s literature. Searching for simple reading material for her students, she came upon a catalog published by the Yiddish Book Center with short descriptions of more than 800 Yiddish children’s books.

At first Udel planned only to use the material to aid her language students, but over time Yiddish children’s literature became a topic of interest for her in its own right. As a literary scholar, she was curious about the relationship between Yiddish works for children and adults. And as a Jewish educator, Udel soon recognized that among the thousands of stories and poems for children lying mostly forgotten in early to mid-20th century Yiddish books and magazines were treasures that would be of use to contemporary Jewish parents.

Udel told me that it’s impossible to understand Jewish modernity without reading Yiddish children’s literature. When I asked her why understanding Jewish modernity is important, she responded by citing Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers, a collection of sayings from the Mishna): “Who is wise? He who learns from everyone.”

Udel explained that the issues that Yiddish children’s book authors dealt with a century ago are still relevant for contemporary Jews.

“We don’t have to entirely reinvent the wheel,” Udel continued. “We can see how they had a conversation about acculturation, about the challenges of creating a robust Jewish identity and living in a mostly open secular society. We don’t have to adopt all of the same strategies and solutions they did, but we would be foolish not to witness the way our community grappled with these questions.”

Hoping to share these works with the world, Udel read through hundreds of texts, choosing examples she felt were the strongest works of literature or particularly representative of the canon. After seven years of compiling and translating, the fruits of her labor were published in 2020 as “Honey on the Page.” The landmark anthology, featuring 47 stories and poems, is the first to give English readers a systematic overview of Yiddish children’s literature. 

Taking inspiration from the structure of many classic children’s anthologies that were used in Yiddish schools, Udel chose to organize “Honey on the Page” thematically. The first stories include the most overtly Jewish topics (holidays, biblical narratives and historical figures), but the further you progress in the book the more universal the works become. Udel notes in her introduction that this approach reflects a tendency throughout Yiddish children’s literature — the authors wanted to emphasize the particularly Jewish nature of their works while also showing that Jewish children belong to the wider human race and inculcating them with universal values.

A Socialist Shabbos and Class Struggle At the Purim Party

Udel writes in her introduction that Yiddish children’s literature emerged alongside the conception of childhood as a distinct stage of life when individuals are more open to intellectual influences. It’s no surprise then that Yiddish writers used their works to imbue a political consciousness in young readers. Udel notes that the bulk of Yiddish children’s literature is a product of leftist writers from “several groups of very idealistic people fighting for all kinds of progressive values, even if they saw different pathways of achieving them.”

Udel hopes that the visions of these authors will have another opportunity to influence children through her translations.

“It was my intention to empower child readers through portrayals of kindness,” Udel said, citing Mordechai Spektor’s story “Children”, which tells of two friends who go begging on Purim in order to buy a pauper’s daughter a new pair of shoes. When the boys stop by Purim parties at the houses of rich Jews in their shtetl, they are turned away but their poor neighbors give them alms.

“It shows that the poor and middle class, unlike the rich, will never let you leave empty-handed,” Udel said.

Udel noted that it is often difficult to “disentangle Jewish tradition from leftism” in Yiddish children’s literature.

“Jewish socialism was deeply spiritual,” Udel said. “It comes from a religious tradition in which a key tenet was kindness and a key principle of that kindness was to work to make a more just world.”

As an example, Udel cited “The Magic Lion” by the Bundist leader and educator Yankev Pat, which “takes the trappings of traditional religious observance and marries it to a tradition of progressive values, i.e., giving the worker a day of rest.”

Image by New York University Press…

In the story, a rabbi is traveling through the desert on a camel as part of a caravan. After his fellow travelers abandon him because he refuses to ride on shabbos, he is protected from wild beasts and other dangers by the story’s lion, who is observing his own day of rest. After sundown Saturday night, the lion allows the rabbi to ride him out of the desert to safety.

“‘The Magic Lion’ fits right in in Hebrew school, but it also has an additional political dimension,” Udel said, explaining that the animal’s appearance can be interpreted as either a divine miracle or a symbol of the strength of workers.

Udel believes that the stories in her anthology can teach contemporary children to understand oppression just as Yiddish writers hoped to inspire their young readers to become resilient by learning about their ancestors. Several stories in the collection portray Jewish historical tragedies in stark terms. Isaac Metzker’s “Don Isaac Abravanel”, for instance, follows the titular Jewish philosopher and banker’s unfruitful attempts to prevent the Spanish expulsion of 1492. The novel, published in 1941, was written to comfort American Jewish youth in the darkest days of the Holocaust with one generation’s tragedy substituted for another.

“There’s something uncanny about the fact that we’re living through a series of crises now and so many of these stories come from times of crisis,” Udel said. “I revised my introduction after Squirrel Hill (the mass shooting in a Pittsburgh synagogue), and I revised it again at the last minute in March 2020 when the pandemic broke out. I had a keen sense of the historical resonance, the echo of history.”

What a Communist Puppy Can Teach Today’s Children

American readers will hear such echoes most strongly in Khaver Paver’s Labzik stories, which portray the humorous but often frightening adventures of a dog that is adopted by a Jewish family in Brownsville, Brooklyn.

“Labzik: Stories of a Clever Pup”, published in 1935 by New York’s communist Yiddish school network, was one of the most popular Yiddish children’s books in America but has never appeared in English. Several of the Labzik stories can be read in “Honey on the Page” and Udel is currently at work on translating the rest of the book.

Image by New York University Press…

Udel told me that it felt more urgent after the murder of George Floyd to share Labzik with the world.

“They’re stories for children that show protest as a positive value, condemn police brutality and show what kids, and even dogs, can do to improve the world,” she said.

She noted that many of the issues the book’s depression-era puppy faces still plague American society, citing growing income inequality, American Jews’ renewed concern about their security and the importance for Jews of expressing solidarity with African-Americans.

When she put together her anthology, Udel was concerned that the political content of some of its stories would turn off certain readers. So far she has heard few complaints. Just the opposite: some parents found the political content “refreshing.” Udel feels that a strength of her anthology is that she included writers from various political camps.

“Some of the stories are Zionist, others aren’t,” Udel said. “Some families will like some stories and not others. The important thing is that it models what it can look like to have a really messy multivocal marketplace of Jewish ideas. And that’s good for kids, too.”

Becoming a Darshanit

This inclination towards a diversity of opinion is reflected in other aspects of Udel’s life as well. Despite her academic career as a specialist in modernity, Udel never stopped learning in the bet midrash (Jewish study hall).

As an undergraduate student she helped to coordinate the women’s prayer group that met as part of Harvard Hillel’s orthodox minyan, and before starting graduate school, she studied for two years at seminaries in Jerusalem for Orthodox women.

For most people working full-time as a professor while raising three kids, writing a monograph and translating dozens of stories for an anthology would be more than enough. Udel, however, wanted to further her studies of Talmud and Jewish law, and in 2016 Yeshivat Maharat, the first Orthodox yeshiva to grant women rabbinical ordination, accepted her into its Executive Ordination Kollel program for midcareer professionals. When she started, her youngest son, Emmanuel, was only eight months old.

“Needless to say, I couldn’t have done (it) without Adam’s (her husband: Adam Zachary Newton) support,” she said.

Image by Yeshivat Maharat

Upon completing the program in 2019 Udel didn’t choose one of the more common titles for Orthodox women rabbis like maharat (an acronym meaning “female leader of Jewish law, spirituality and Torah”) or rabba or rabbanit (both female forms of “rabbi”) but rather “darshanit,” i.e., a female expounder of scripture. As Udel explained in a Facebook post she wrote at the time, she selected the title as an homage to Rivke Bas Meir Tiktiner, a preacher active in late 16th century Prague and the first woman to write a book in Yiddish. The introduction to her guide to Jewish law, “Meinikes Rivke” (Rivke’s Nurse), posthumously published in 1609, describes Tiktiner as a “darshanit v’rabanit” (a female interpreter of scripture and female rabbi).

The title “darshanit” appealed to Udel because she hopes that her role in the rabbinate will not just be doing what male rabbis have always aspired to do. Rather she aims to “remake the shape of our aspirations altogether” by incorporating the strivings of women, people of color, members of the LGBTQ community and “others who have been shut out by traditional power structures.”

“To give that project wings,” she wrote, “we need new language, and to give it roots, we need very old language. Serendipitously, ‘darshanit’ offers both.”

The Holiness of Secular Yiddish Children’s Literature

Udel’s expertise as a darshanit is in interpreting Midrash, and several stories in the collection harken back to these ancient biblical commentaries. Levin Kipnis’ “Children of the Field”, for instance, is an expansion upon a legend referenced in the Talmud, tractate Sotah, 11B, which describes how the Jews hid their babies from the Egyptians in “cradle pits” in the soil and the children emerged from the earth like grass. Although Kipnis’ story refers directly to the era of the Egyptian exodus, it serves as a metaphor for educating new generations after the Jewish enlightenment.

Udel sees in the story an example of how so-called “secular” Yiddish children’s literature serves as a link in the chain of Jewish tradition, bridging ancient holy texts with modernity. Like the children in the story, who remain hidden until they are revealed to help establish new generations, Udel hopes that the stories in her anthology, long inaccessible to most Jewish families, will contribute to shaping Jewish life for years to come.

“Ultimately,” she said, “I want to push back against the high wall between the religious and secular worlds. I’ll daven with a mechitza, but I don’t want to read with one.”

Poll: 25% of American Jewish Voters Believe Israel is an Apartheid State

Aaron Bandler

Thousands of demonstrators rally march to the Israeli consulate on May 12, 2021 in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

The poll, which was conducted by the Jewish Electorate Institute from June 28-July 1, asked respondents if they agreed or disagreed with the statement “Israel is an apartheid state.” Twenty-five percent answered in the affirmative; 52% disagreed, but those that disagreed were split on whether or not calling Israel an apartheid state is antisemitic––28% said it is antisemitic, while 24% said it isn’t.

Additionally, 34% agreed with the statement “Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is similar to racism in the U.S.” and 22% agreed that “Israel is committing genocide against the Palestinians”; of those that disagreed with these statements, 20% and 31% viewed them as antisemitic, respectively. Only 9% said they agreed that “Israel doesn’t have the right to exist,” and 67% of those that disagreed with the statement said that not believing in Israel’s right to exist is antisemitic. Sixty-two percent said they had an emotional attachment to Israel.

The survey also asked respondents about which groups they are most concerned when it comes to antisemitism. Sixty-one percent said they were primarily concerned about antisemitism from right-wing groups and individuals, whereas 22% said they were most concerned about antisemitism from the left, and 12% said they were concerned about antisemitism from both the left and the right.

On President Joe Biden, 80% said they approved of his performance so far as president and 74% said they approved of his handling of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Sixty-four percent said they preferred Biden’s handling of antisemitism to how former President Donald Trump handled it; 63% said they believe Biden is doing a better of job of handling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Trump did.

The Jewish Democratic Council of America (JDCA) hailed the poll as evidence of “why the past four years have only solidified the Democratic Party as the political home of Jewish Americans” in a tweet. JDCA also noted that “for the first time … Republican efforts to suppress the vote are a top political concern of Jewish voters,” a reference to how the poll found that 76% favor new laws “expanding voting rights” and 62% favor removing the Senate filibuster to get those laws implemented.

Others expressed concern about how a quarter of the respondents view Israel as an apartheid state.

“Poll finds a quarter of US Jews completely uneducated on Israel,” international human rights lawyer Arsen Ostrovsky tweeted.

The Elder of Ziyon blogger noted in a post that “the numbers are even worse for the young.” “American Jews are thoroughly ignorant about their own history, their religion, and the Jewish state. That ignorance translates into apathy and then into a willingness to believe the enthusiastic modern antisemites who pretend that they are merely anti-Israel.” The blogger added that the survey results reflect “a massive failure of American Jewish leadership, Jewish education, synagogues and the previous generation of American Jews who taught their children that Judaism and Israel aren’t priorities for them.”

H/T: Jewish Telegraphic Agency

W sondażu przeprowadzonym przez Żydowski Instytut Wyborczy w dniach 28 czerwca-1 lipca zapytano respondentów, czy zgadzają się, czy nie zgadzają ze stwierdzeniem „Izrael to państwo apartheidu”. Dwadzieścia pięć procent odpowiedziało twierdząco; 52% nie zgodziło się, ale ci, którzy się nie zgadzali, byli podzieleni co do tego, czy nazywanie Izraela państwem apartheidu jest antysemickie – 28% stwierdziło, że jest antysemicki, podczas gdy 24% stwierdziło, że nie.

Ponadto 34% zgodziło się ze stwierdzeniem „Traktowanie Palestyńczyków przez Izrael jest podobne do rasizmu w USA”. a 22% zgodziło się, że „Izrael dokonuje ludobójstwa na Palestyńczykach”; spośród tych, którzy nie zgadzali się z tymi stwierdzeniami, odpowiednio 20% i 31% uważało je za antysemickie. Tylko 9% stwierdziło, że zgodziło się, że „Izrael nie ma prawa do istnienia”, a 67% z tych, którzy nie zgodzili się z tym stwierdzeniem, stwierdziło, że niewiara w prawo Izraela do istnienia jest antysemityzmem. Sześćdziesiąt dwa procent stwierdziło, że mają emocjonalne przywiązanie do Izraela.

W ankiecie zapytano również respondentów o to, które grupy są najbardziej zaniepokojone antysemityzmem. Sześćdziesiąt jeden procent stwierdziło, że obawia się przede wszystkim antysemityzmu z prawicowych grup i jednostek, podczas gdy 22% stwierdziło, że najbardziej obawia się antysemityzmu z lewicy, a 12% stwierdziło, że obawia się antysemityzmu zarówno z lewicy, jak i z prawicy.

Jeśli chodzi o prezydenta Joe Bidena, 80% stwierdziło, że aprobuje jego dotychczasowe osiągnięcia jako prezydenta, a 74% stwierdziło, że aprobowało jego podejście do konfliktu izraelsko-palestyńskiego. Sześćdziesiąt cztery procent powiedziało, że wolą podejście Bidena do antysemityzmu niż sposób, w jaki radził sobie z nim były prezydent Donald Trump; 63% powiedziało, że uważa, że ​​Biden radzi sobie lepiej z konfliktem izraelsko-palestyńskim niż Trump.

Dan Uzan zmarł w bramie w Kopenhadze blokując muzułmańskiemu terroryście wejście do Żydowskiej Sali za Wielką Synagogą.

W Kopenhadze bohaterzy zginęli za wolność 2015-02-15

Daniel Greenfield

Dan Uzan zmarł w bramie w Kopenhadze blokując muzułmańskiemu terroryście wejście do Żydowskiej Sali za Wielką Synagogą. W sali młoda dziewczyna obchodziła Bat_micwę w towarzystwie osiemdziesięciorga gości. Muzyka zagłuszyła strzały. Nie słyszeli jak umierał dwumetrowy koszykarz chroniący ich bezpieczeństwa.

Brama Wielkiej Synagogi jest skromniejsza niż bramy Wiednia, gdzie Imperium Osmańskie zostało zatrzymane przed najazdem na Europę. Ale i tak Dan okazał się na tyle skutecznym obrońcą, żeby młoda dziewczyna mogła przeżyć swoje trzynaste urodziny. I może się okazać, że był nadzieją na ratunek cywilizacji, przed utonięciem we krwi ścinanych głów, przy wtórze okrzyków Allahu Akbar; nadzieją, która zaczyna się od jednego człowieka broniącego wejścia, by nie wlała się fala barbarzyństwa.
Nie pierwszy raz fala barbarzyństwa dotarła do bramy Wielkiej Synagogi w Kopenhadze.

Trzydzieści lat temu, synagoga została zbombardowana przez palestyńskich terrorystów muzułmańskich, którzy otrzymali azyl w Szwecji. Nikt nie zginął, ale rannych zostało siedmiu mieszkańców pobliskiego żydowskiego domu opieki. Przywódcą ataku był Mohammed Abu Talb, terrorysta przeszkolony w ZSRR. Otrzymał wyrok dożywocia, który później został zmniejszony do trzydziestu lat więzienia, co oznacza, że niedługo wyjdzie na wolność.

Morderstwo Dana Uzana było ostatnim przestępstwem Omara Al-Huseina, ale to nie była jego pierwsza zbrodnia.

Finn Nørgaard zakończył życie podczas spotkania, na którym dyskutowano o wolności słowa. Kule przeszyły okno kawiarni, jedna z nich trafiła w pierś duńskiego filmowca. Jeden z ostatnich postów Finna Nørgaarda na jego Facebooku dotyczył zamachu na redakcję „Charlie Hebdo”. Inny post był zaledwie linkiem do dyskusji o swobodzie rysowania podobizny Mahometa. Za oknem kawiarni, w której spotkali się obrońcy wolności słowa, czaił się Omar, który na taką wolność się nie zgadzał.

Celem muzułmańskiego terrorysty był prawdopodobnie Lars Vilks, artysta, który siedem lat temu narysował kilka karykatur Mahometa, ale równie dobrze mógł to być Finn Nørgaard, mimo sympatii jaką duński filmowiec darzył imigrantów. Omar poszedł tam, żeby zabić kogokolwiek, kto wierzy w wolność słowa. A Nørgaard wierzył w wolność słowa.

Ludzie tacy jak Omar Al-Hussein gotowi są zabijać i umierać za swoją wiarę. Debatę na temat bluźnierstwa prowadzą przy pomocy karabinów. Oddziela nas od nich tylko żelazna brama lub szkło okna wystawowego.

Krucha to zapora, ale są również ludzie gotowi umrzeć, aby zatrzymać morderców; ludzie tacy właśnie jak Dan Uzan, jak policjanci i ochroniarze ranni podczas walki z zamachowcami. A ludzie tacy jak Lars Vilks, są gotowi ryzykować życie, wiedząc, co znajduje się po drugiej stronie kruchego okna wystawowego naszej cywilizacji.

Wolność słowa i wolność wyznania są tylko pojęciami, chyba że ktoś jest gotów za nie umrzeć. Od kilku pokoleń wszyscy uważali je za oczywistość. Teraz w Kopenhadze i w Paryżu, oraz w wielu innych rozrzuconych po świecie centrach cywilizacji, ludzie znów za te wartości umierają.

Umierają nie zdając sobie sprawy z tego, że są już ostatnią linią obrony cywilizacji.

Omar Abdel Hamid Al-Hussein należał do tego rodzaju pokolenia urodzonych na Zachodzie imigrantów, którego dobrzy Europejczycy się boją i jednocześnie się nad nim litują. Mroczne dzielnice Kopenhagi są ich pełne. Są to getta przestępczości, pełne bandytów, dilerów narkotyków i złodziei samochodów.

Urodzeni w rodzinach żyjących na zasiłkach, drażliwi i agresywni, zamykani i uwalniani z więzień, w końcu znajdują Allaha, przełączają się na Nasheeda, przekopują się przez Koran i uświadamiają sobie, że broń używana przez gangi może być równie dobrze używana w masakrach.

Omar mógł być równie dobrze przedstawiony w dokumentalnym filmie Nørgaarda „Inny sposób” pokazującym młodych gniewnych muzułmanów, którzy przechodzą od palenia samochodów do prób zmienienia swojego życia na wycieczce z atrakcyjną specjalistką od opieki społecznej. Omar z łatwością mógłby się wpasować pomiędzy Ibrahima, Abdallaha, Zeshana i Tiama.

Ale czy Nørgaard uważnie słuchał, kiedy Abdallah w jego filmie powiedział że „Jako muzułmanin, twierdzę że islam jest ponad wszystkim”. Czy naprawdę zrozumiał ukryte w tym stwierdzeniu implikacje?

Zamordowanie Finna Nørgaard przez Omara było tym “innym sposobem”, który niewielu w Europie ma odwagę przyjąć do wiadomości. To jest sposób, w jaki wielu muzułmanów umieszcza islam ponad wszystkim, ponad własną wolnością i wolnością innych, tak żeby „sposób” Allaha stał się najwyższy na ziemi.

W wieku dwudziestu dwóch lat Omar Al-Hussein miał już długą kartotekę policyjną. Ten członek jednego z muzułmańskich gangów terroryzujących Kopenhagę, został skazany na dwa lata więzienia za pchnięcie nożem mężczyzny w pociągu. Dwa tygodnie po zwolnieniu, wszedł na drogę terroryzmu. Teraz Omar nie żyje, nie żyją również dwie kolejne ofiary terroryzmu.

Ale jest wielu innych Omarów w Kopenhadze. Dziś palą samochody. Jutro będą palić ludzi.

Mahomet werbował podobnych ludzi, żeby dla niego grabili i zabijali. Ponad tysiąc lat później wciąż dla niego zabijają. Kopenhaga może być starym europejskim miastem, ale skwiercząca w słońcu pustynia jest starsza. Miecz i Koran są starsze niż Kopenhaga. Jeśli to miasto ma przetrwać, musi zrobić więcej, niż płakać i składać kwiaty na skrwawionym bruku. Musi znaleźć siłę do obrony swoich ludzi.

Ostatnie badania pokazały, że większość Duńczyków chce ograniczenia muzułmańskiej imigracji. Co trzeci uważa, że Dania jest zbyt tolerancyjna wobec muzułmanów. Tymczasem ludzie, którzy bronią bram i siedzą przy oknie – umierają, aby kupić dla pozostałych czas na obudzenie się. Umierają w kawiarniach i synagogach. Umierają, często nie rozumiejąc nienawiści kierującej działaniami wroga.

Czytaj dalej tu: W Kopenhadze bohaterzy zginęli za wolność

Zezowate szczęście

Film Polski

Memories of the
Yiddish Kitchen