Selective 'Cancel Culture' Outrage

ABC's late night TV host, Jimmy Kimmel 

Free speech advocates on the left are absolutely apoplectic over ABC’s abrupt cancelation of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night TV show. He was canceled for making a reprehensible comment suggesting that Charlie Kirk’s murderer was just as likely to be a MAGA supporter as an anti-MAGA supporter. Don’t think so? Judge for yourself. Here is the offending comment:

“The MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” and trying to “score political points from it.”

For the record, I don’t think his show should have been canceled over that. He should be entitled to say whatever he pleases, as long as it doesn’t incite violence. I do not believe this comment came anywhere near doing that. That said, I also believe an employer has the right to fire anyone they choose for any reason, provided it does not violate their civil rights. If an employee’s behavior harms the company’s bottom line, that is surely cause for dismissal.

Be that as it may, I can’t say I’m not happy about it. I am. To the best of my knowledge, Jimmy Kimmel is a nice guy. A family man, kind to others, who has never hurt a soul. And he has a great sense of humor.

But Kimmel also represents exactly what is wrong with the entertainment industry, which wields enormous influence over public opinion. That influence is steeped in a left-leaning philosophy that, for example, glorifies the LGBTQ agenda while dismissing anyone who dares to oppose it as ignorant Neanderthals seeking to deny a vulnerable community their civil rights. This is the universal approach of nearly every prominent name in entertainment. To finally see one of those powerful voices removed from the air is, in my view, a positive step towards the values I cherish.

One of the main accusations leveled at ABC is that it caved to political pressure from the White House—as though Kimmel had never before insulted the president or his MAGA supporters. That is patently false. Late-night comedians like Kimmel (and perhaps even more so, Stephen Colbert) have been ridiculing the president and his supporters from the very beginning of his first term. In all those years, no one suggested canceling his show.

But this time, the comment wasn’t a joke. If there was humor in it, I fail to see it. It was a deliberate smear of the president and his supporters—using the tragedy of an assassination to score political points, while accusing the other side of doing the same. That’s what caused FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to complain, and what ultimately moved ABC to cancel the show.

What fascinates me (not in a positive way) is the selective outrage from the left over what is now widely recognized as ‘cancel culture.’ That’s when someone is ‘canceled’ for expressing an opinion that does not align with the prevailing cultural orthodoxy. Until now, the left denied it even existed. But clearly it does. Some examples:

• In 2011, Glenn Beck lost his Fox News program after advertiser boycotts tied to his sharp political commentary.
• In 2017, Professor Jordan Peterson faced publishing boycotts, speaking cancellations, and demonetization attempts after refusing to comply with gender pronoun legislation.
• In 2019, J.K. Rowling faced boycotts and disinvitations over her gender-critical views.
• In 2020, opinion columnist Bari Weiss was bullied into resigning from The New York Times, largely because of her outspoken support for Israel.
• In 2018, ABC canceled Roseanne Barr’s hit TV show after she tweeted what was widely perceived as a racist remark about Valerie Jarrett.

That last case is especially relevant to Kimmel’s cancelation. Unlike the uproar over his free speech rights, not a peep was heard from today’s free speech warriors in defense of Roseanne Barr. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Her cancelation was loudly cheered. Barr’s explanation that her remark was not intended as racist fell on deaf ears.

But when one of their own gets canceled? Suddenly, it’s an affront to free speech. I guess free speech only matters when it serves your own agenda.

That’s the thing about self-righteous political views. Those who hold them are true believers. They think their views are expressions of incontrovertible, self-evident truth that cannot be refuted by any rational person. So, when their ox is gored, they feel extreme moral outrage. But when their opponent’s ox is gored, well, that’s just fine—because their opponent’s ox was ‘immoral’ and deserved it.

And yes, friends, that is the world we live in. It’s why Israel’s war for survival is now painted as genocide. You cannot argue logic or facts with people whose self-righteous worldview is immovable. They watch TV, and they ‘know’ what’s happening: IDF soldiers are just a bunch of Nazi storm troopers.

With the cancelation of Kimmel and the looming end of Stephen Colbert’s show, there is at least some hope that the dominant left-leaning cultural influence might begin to shift.

As for Kimmel’s future? I would have no problem with his show being restored, provided he issues an apology to the president’s supporters - and generally stops treating them as ignorant Neanderthals, which his humor often suggested. If he wants to criticize the their conservative policies through comedy, he should do so with a modicum of humility - treating his opponents as equals with different views, not as morons to be endlessly ridiculed.

Comments to the post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross-posted

Deploying the National Guard - The Rabbi's View

Washington D.C. mayor, Murial Bowser (Politico)

I have to admit that the possible sight of uniformed military personnel on the street corners of my neighborhood in Chicago is a bit disconcerting for me to contemplate. It is an intimidating look. And yet, I support it.

When the president announced that Chicago was the target of his next deployment of the National Guard, it was that ‘look’ that Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson had in mind when they  held an impromptu news conference condemning the president’s decision. The governor called it a military occupation. A sentiment angrily echoed by the mayor.

The president’s stated purpose for doing this was to substantially curb the high crime and murder rate in the city, just as he had done with the Guard in Washington, D.C.

Pritzker and Johnson laughed off that claim, citing statistics that Chicago had seen a 30% reduction in crime and murder this year compared to last. They said that Chicago didn’t need or want his help.

I found that argument laughable in itself. What they were in essence saying is that crime and murders are now at an ‘acceptable’ level. As if the attempt to stop the  multiple drive-by shootings that took place the prior weekend were nothing more than a political stunt by a megalomaniacal president who wants to be king.

So what is the reality? Does Chicago really need help reducing crime, or doesn’t it? And is the National Guard the way to do it?

The question is moot. For now. The president has decided to focus on Memphis, which has the highest crime rate in the nation. But he has promised that Chicago is still on his list. So the question  persists.

For an answer, it might be instructive to look at what Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, a liberal Democrat, said about the federal surge there. She credited the president’s deployment of the national guard with lowering crime in her city. As reported by NBC, Bowser said:

"We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city," Bowser told reporters about the expansion of federal law enforcement and its partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department.

Carjackings, she said, were the "most troubling" crime plaguing D.C. in 2023, and they have decreased in recent years. Bowser noted that in the 20 days since the federal takeover, there had been an 87% drop in carjackings compared with the same period last year. The data also showed a 15% fall in overall crime during that same period.

"We know that when carjackings go down, when use of guns goes down, when homicide or robbery go down, neighborhoods feel safer and are safer, so this surge has been important to us," Bowser added.

That is quite the admission from a liberal Democrat who was originally vehemently opposed to the surge. Even though now (in a bow to her critics on the left) she still criticizes the deployment -  it is hard to see the outcome as anything but positive - given the results.

Hopefully Memphis will see similar results. As expected, Democratic leaders there are vehemently opposed, citing the same ‘occupation’ trope Illinois Democrats used. But one has to wonder how the people most affected by crime feel about it.

While there have been protests from supporters of those Democratic leaders, if one were to ask actual victims of crime in Memphis whether they think extra protection is a good idea, I believe they would overwhelmingly support it. And those are the people who SHOULD be consulted. Not politicians with a political agenda.

With antisemitism surging in many areas of the country, it is no surprise that rabbis in Memphis support help to law enforcement through a surge in National Guard presence. One of them is an Orthodox rabbi as noted at JNS:

Rabbi Akiva Males of Young Israel of Memphis, an Orthodox congregation, told JNS that “many members of our community—not just the Jewish community, but the entire Memphis area—have been quite concerned about crime in our city. We all would love to see as much law and order as possible. I don’t think anyone who’s not a criminal has anything to be nervous about, and I think that anything that can be done to help the scourge of violence and criminality that seems to have taken a foothold in Memphis, we can welcome that.”

He added that having the National Guard in Memphis would increase ‘feelings of security among many of his congregants’. But Rabbi Males also stressed that the root problem of violence needs to be addressed if there is to be a real solution. Which is ‘the breakdown of family structure in many cities across the country,’

I think he is absolutely right. This is a phenomenon I attribute to the shift away from traditional values that guided American families well into the 20th century. Values that have been replaced by values of ‘me-ism’. Family values  have been replaced by the pursuit of personal goals. The tradtional roles of mother and father have been changed. Freedom has replaced responsibility. Self-gratification has placed altruism on the back burner. 

Divorce is way up which all too often results in a dysfunctional childhood for children. Traditional families consisting of a mother and father are decreasing while single parenthood is increasing.  Adding to this phenomenon are single sex couples raising children they have either adopted or have had through surrogacy. I’m sorry but have two fathers is not the same as having a father and a mother. Marriage - once the bedrock of American family life is increasingly disappearing as a defining characteristic of American family life. When traditional values morph into a me-ism philosophy it isn’t a long stretch to go from there to the instant gratification one gets through drugs and eventually crime.

Back to Chicago. Mayor Johnson has done his best to undermine law enforcement. Before becoming a mayoral candidate, he was an outspoken proponent of defunding the police. Even though he later claimed to have abandoned that position, the reality is that he still embraces it. He has effectively ‘defunded’ the Chicago Police Department by reducing their portion of the city budget. He diverted that money to what he considers the root cause of crime: lack of jobs for young people. He wants to ‘invest in youth’ with funds taken from the police. (Funding his pet projects will result next year in the largest budget deficit in Chicago’s history- nearly a billion dollars!)

He reasons that if there were more jobs for Chicago’s youth, there would be fewer drive-by shootings. What is missing in his calculus is the moral teaching that murder is one of the worst evils known to man. A moral value unlearned due to the increased breakdown of the family.

And what about protecting the public? Johnson’s answer: people can hire their own security when they need it.

If Chicago does not have enough police to enforce the law, then law enforcement needs to be supplemented by other means. And if the most expedient way is with the National Guard, which has already shown results, then refusing to deploy them is itself criminal.

 If even one life can be saved because a drive-by shooter fears being caught by an onlooking soldier in uniform, it will have been worth it. If what happened in D.C. doesn’t prove that, nothing will.

And yet, it is clear to me that the only people opposed to this most expedient way of reducing crime in major cities are liberal Democrats. That tells you all you need to know about their motives. Which have little to do with reducing crime and everything to do with politics. 

Comments to this post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross-posted

Jerry Greenfield - the Poster Child of the American Jew

Jerry Greenfield (left) and Ben Cohen (VIN)

Even though it is certified Kosher by the Kof-K, I have never had Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Not for political reasons. But simply because I’ve never had the opportunity. Plus the fact that I’m not much of an ice-cream lover. It is my understanding, however, that it’s quite good.

The two founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, are Jewish. They represent, I believe, exactly the reason so many Jews are abandoning their Judaism. Which, in a nutshell, is a widespread ignorance of what Judaism really is.

While I’m pretty sure both Ben and Jerry have identified themselves as Jews and have not consciously abandoned their Jewish identity, if they truly understood what it means to be a Jew, they might very well abandon it. If one looks at some of the values they cherish, one can see that those values are the opposite of authentic Jewish values, which are, of course, based on the Bible we call the Torah.

I bring this up in light of the following AP story published at VIN:

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield is leaving the ice-cream brand after 47 years, saying that the independence it once had to speak up on social issues has been stifled by parent company Unilever. In a letter Greenfield said the following:

“For more than 20 years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry’s stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world.”

“(At) a time when our country’s current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women and the LGBTQ community.”
“Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced…”

One may recall that the controversy erupted when Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, reversed the brand’s decision to disallow its franchise from operating in Judea and Samaria. That was the kind of ‘social justice’ they pursued. They have also been at the forefront of supporting Palestinians in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. Greenfield felt that he could no longer allow his values to be violated and resigned as a spokesman for the company he co-founded.

When Jews focus only on values that are either common to secular culture — or worse, are opposed to Jewish values, how does that make them remotely Jewish other than by the happenstance of birth? It is true they are technically Jewish for that reason and always will be, no matter how far removed they are from their Jewish mandate and roots. But they are not living as Jews. Declaring themselves Jewish by embracing ‘social justice’ (in this case for Palestinians in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria) does not make them any more Jewish than embracing a particular sport. Just because social justice for Palestinians is more altruistic than baseball does not make it any more Jewish.

Jerry Greenfield is probably a nice guy, but he is nonetheless the poster child of the American Jew who dedicates his life to social justice and to no other aspect of Judaism. They might be proud of that dedication and consider it the epitome of Judaism. But pursuing social justice is not uniquely Jewish. You don’t have to be Jewish to oppose racism. If I recall correctly, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not Jewish.

If your children pursue social justice, they need not call it Judaism. For them the main thing is the justice itself. And if your children are not particularly inclined to pursue social justice, there may be nothing distinctly Jewish in their lives to identify with. So why bother?

And what about Jerry Greenfield’s claim to be pursuing social justice in this case?

Is supporting Palestinian claims to the land without the context of Israel’s legitimate claim - really pursuing social justice?

Is opposing security measures that make life so difficult for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria without considering the massive numbers of Palestinian suicide bombings over the past 50 years - really pursuing social justice?

Is supporting Palestinians in Israel’s war in Gaza without the context of the October 7^th massacre – really pursuing social justice?

Without considering the needs of your own people, is that really pursuing social justice, or is it pursuing selective social justice? Being either clueless about Jewish rights and needs -  or worse, not caring - is not a Jewish trait.

Add to this the treatment of the Bible as an outdated book that espouses immoral mandates (by the cultural standards of the day), and there is nothing Jewish about you, denials to the contrary notwithstanding.

So yes: Jerry Greenfield is the poster child for the American Jew who is ignorant of the biblical values that define his people and substitutes the cultural values of the day. But calling them Jewish doesn’t make them so.

I’ve got news for Mr. Greenfield: the values he calls Jewish and projects onto the Jewish people will lead to the extinction of American Jewry as he knows it. And sadly, it is already happening.

Comments to this post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross-posted

Was Charlie Kirk an Antisemite?

Sephardi Chief Rabbi, David Yosef (VIN)

One of the more curious phenomena I’ve noticed among my liberal friends is when they try to paint a staunch conservative supporter of Israel and fighter of antisemitism as an antisemite themselves.

This has happened many times to the president. I am not going to bother repeating the ‘evidence’ brought to try and substantiate that view of him. Needless to say, for anyone with an objective eye, no one has been more supportive of both Israel and an opponent of antisemitism than he has been.

The latest conservative victim of an accusation like that is the late Charlie Kirk. A quick Google search provided me with a list of such accusations, which basically amounted to criticisms I have made myself about the liberal nature of the majority of Jews in this country. Most of whom are either secular or heterodox. Whose knowledge of their own religion is about the same as my knowledge of quantum mechanics. Kirk’s point was generally that the majority of American Jews are their own worst enemies by providing huge financial support to institutions whose values have become inimical to Jewish survival. Even as they incorrectly believe the opposite to be true.

A clear example of such a Jew is Sally Kornbluth, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Asked by conservative Republican representative, Elise Stefanik at a congressional hearing whether ‘calling for the genocide of Jews’ would violate her school’s code of conduct, Kornbluth responded by saying it would depend on the context. And yet schools like MIT receive a great deal of funding from Jews like Kornbluth, who applaud her tolerance of speech calling for death to Jews as a matter of free speech!

(Interestingly Stefanik herself has been accused of antisemitism - but was honored by Yeshiva University for her staunch opposition to it.) 

Kirk was right about Jews being their own worst enemies. That hardly made him an antisemite. Because if it does, I guess that makes me one too, since I’ve said the same thing. I’ve even gone further and said that the worst antisemites in the world are the Jewish ones. Because they are used by real antisemites as evidence that their virulent hatred of Zionist Israel is not antisemitic since so many Jews are now anti Zionist as well.

If Kirk was truly an antisemite, I doubt Israel’s prime minister would have said about Kirk the following:

A lion-hearted friend of Israel, he fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization,” the Israeli prime minister wrote on X. “I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel. Sadly, that visit will not take place.”

In that vein, VIN reports the following:

The Rishon Le’Zion and Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi David Yosef, sent a letter of condolence on Monday to the family of Charlie Kirk…

In his letter, the Chief Rabbi emphasized that Kirk always stood on the side of truth, justice, and the People of Israel, and even described him as an extraordinary figure whose modest yet firm approach influenced many.

Rabbi Yosef noted Kirk’s significant contribution to strengthening support for the State of Israel and combating antisemitism around the world, stating that the entire Jewish people share in the pain over the loss of such an important figure.

Is it possible that someone that DOES know a thing or two about Judaism, the Chief Rabbi of Israel just publicly praised an antisemite? I doubt it.

But that will not stop liberals around the world from trying to paint him that way. Just as they have with other conservative supporters of Israel and the Jewish people. Because to a liberal, it is impossible for a social conservative not to be a closet antisemite. Especially if they are religious Christians like Kirk.

Comments to this post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross-posted

Jumping from the Frying Pan into the fire - A Good Idea?

Once again, Rabbi Moshe Taragin has hit the nail squarely on the head. He is one of the few people who recognizes the truth and is not influenced by the distorted way the media reports it. The following is what he recently said:

Our current war is just, fought in defense of a higher moral ideal. The IDF holds itself to a strict code of ethics, and the data show a remarkably low ratio of civilian to soldier casualties. Still, the conflict has raised painful and complicated moral questions. There is ongoing debate about how - or even if - these dilemmas should guide policy.

We find ourselves in a profoundly tangled moral maze, one that no single person or policy can fully chart. It is difficult to know what the “right” path might be - or even whether this moment of survival allows space for moral values to guide our choices.

It is with these comments in mind that I am perplexed by an editorial in the Jerusalem Post. There is a lot to digest in this editorial, some of which I agree with. Here is how they opened their editorial (which synopsizes it):

The arrival of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Israel on Sunday is yet another opportunity that cannot be missed by Israeli leadership to bring the Israel-Hamas War to a satisfactory close, as time continues to run out – both for the hostages and for Israel’s good name, reputation, and international credit.

All of those things are worthy goals. Only a fool would disagree with them. Here’s the problem though.

I understand the sentiment. But I would hardly characterize this visit as the harsh criticism the mainstream media is saying it is. Every quote I heard from Secretary Rubio has been supportive. Even though the president was unhappy about the attack on Qatar, he made very clear that Hamas has to be defeated, and all the hostages must be released. Which is exactly the same goal repeatedly articulated by Israel.

Much of the mainstream media is characterizing the president’s response as a condemnation. It isn’t. The only people condemning Israel are the usual gang of suspects. Which doesn’t surprise me.

With respect to ending the war, who wouldn’t want it to end? But without defeating Hamas, I’m not sure how ending it will solve anything. If Hamas is allowed to stay in power in Gaza, I fear they will very quickly reconstitute themselves by recruiting young Palestinians more eager than ever to join them.

The only way this war ends is if Hamas leaves Gaza and abdicates its governance over it. Unless that happens, the entire two years of war will have been in vain in my humble opinion. It doesn’t matter that Hamas is weak now. It won’t take long until they are back to their full terrorist capabilities. And whatever tunnels were destroyed by Israel will quickly be rebuilt.

I do agree with the Post on one point: Israel’s reputation has suffered the worst damage in its entire history. Support among the American people has plummeted to record lows. The highly influential entertainment industry including many A-list actors have almost universally condemned Israel and boycotting them culturally.

But that’s only because the truth about the war is ignored in favor of what the Hamas-run Health Ministry and their willing co-conspirators in the UN and related ‘humanitarian’ agencies are feeding them – LIES  which the media then regurgitates to the public. If that were all the news I was getting, I would boycott Israel too. But I tend to believe Israel’s version of the truth over that of the Hamas-run Health Ministry and company.

Still, the truth doesn’t change the reality of the consequences of those lies being passed off and widely accepted as truth. And that is why Israel’s reputation is at such a low point.

The question is: what is Israel to do about this? If they end the war now without completely defeating Hamas, it will be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Bottom line: It hurts that Israel’s reputation has suffered such a devastating blow. And I do have a lot of questions. But I don’t have any answers.

Comments to this post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross-posted

Crossing the Line to the Point of No Return

There are a lot of politicians on both the Democrat and Republican sides who have denounced the assassination of MAGA Republican Charlie Kirk. There have been calls for calm. And calls for reflection about the demonization by one side against the other that has led to the kind of violence that happened to Kirk last week. I don’t think there can be any doubt that the constant demonization by both sides against the other surely contributed to what happened.

And that may have pushed Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s assassin, over the edge. But his motive was hatred of Kirk’s socially conservative politics. It has come to light that Robinson’s lover was a man who is in the middle of transitioning into a woman. The conservative values that Kirk promoted were surely opposed to that kind of sexual relationship as well as to changing one’s sex. Kirk was a devout Christian who took the Bible’s admonitions against such things seriously.

There was a time when America took biblical prohibitions like that seriously, too. A relationship like Robinson’s would never have been openly acknowledged. If it happened at all, it would probably have generated guilt and shame in the hearts of both participants. Their sexual relationship would have been kept secret. And there surely would not have been any kind of sex change. Today, both gay sex and sex change have been given society’s imprimatur. That Kirk advocated turning back the clock may very well have been the motivation behind Robinson’s assassination of Kirk.

What this ‘defining deviancy down’ has wrought is a sense that this new ‘morality’ has become entrenched. Its promotion in the entertainment industry and the mainstream media as the norm and moral, has created a culture that - in the minds of far too many people justifies the kind of deadly violence that Kirk - who fought that notion - experienced last week.

Lest anyone deny that sane, everyday people could justify killing an individual with strong influence against these new values, they might be surprised to know that there were many comments on social media expressing joy over Kirk’s death. To their credit, employers fired employees who made such comments online.

On the other hand, it is not only the left that is guilty of such violence. One might remember what happened to Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, who was attacked by a right-wing fanatic whose real target was Nancy herself. As the Democratic Speaker of the House, she was responsible for legislation that clashed with the conservative ideals animating that would-be assassin. 

Perhaps the worst instance of political violence, though,  was January 6^th, when MAGA supporters held a rally outside the Capitol building, and some of the radical right broke into the building with threats of death to the vice president. That many of the protesters followed them into the building shows that they at least approved of what was happening, even if they weren’t the ones who actually broke in.

These radical right-wing conservatives feared that the left was ruining their country and that their candidate - who had been working to restore a culture based on biblical values - had been cheated out of a second term by a ‘rigged’ election. That this belief was proven false didn’t matter to them. They didn’t believe it. They wanted to ‘save the country’ and thus believed their actions that day were justified.

So, in both cases, the right and the left felt justified in using deadly violence to achieve their political aims, both believing that not doing so would ruin the country.

Exacerbating and accelerating the resort to violence is social media, which has become the most influential source of extremist political division. Even after a violent assassination, social media has shown us how far we are willing to go to advance our agenda. As in the way Kirk’s assassination was celebrated by so many people, and as in the way the president’s pardon of even the most violent protesters on January 6^th was celebrated by many of his MAGA supporters.

Thing is, I don’t see things getting any better. I wish I could. But as the divisions in this country increase, so will the willingness to thwart inroads by the opposition by any means necessary. Calls for calmer heads to prevail on both sides of the political aisle will fall on deaf ears. Even those who mean it will soon fall prey to their own instincts to vilify their political opponents as a necessary component to save America from the danger of destroying the moral fabric required for what they want America to be in the future.

Will there be a civil war at some point? I don’t think so. We will not have armies shooting at each other the way we did in the actual Civil War. But in many ways, the civil war has already begun. Who fired the first shot? The answer will depend on whom you ask.

In my view, even though my values are far more compatible with one side over the other, both sides are guilty—and will continue to be. 

Comments to this post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross-posted

How Did We Become So Polarized?

'June Cleaver' - an image now ridiculed by the left

America has never been more polarized than it is right now. At least during my own lifetime. I suppose the polarization in America was far greater prior to and during the Civil War than it is now. But I think it is relatively safe to say that, politically, the American people seem to be as polarized as they could possibly be.

That is why Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old MAGA Republican whose meteoric rise to fame and popularity made him a target. He was gunned down at a Utah Valley State University by an assassin’s bullet - a single shot to the neck. Law enforcement officials are saying there is no doubt this was a politically motivated, targeted shooting. (The latest information is that the assassin is now in  custody.)

The question is: how did it get to be this way? Why have we become so polarized that assassins are popping up on both sides of the political aisle to kill prominent people whose politics are the polar opposite of theirs?

Sadly, one of the things Kirk was trying to do was open up debate between the two sides. He was willing to listen to the other side and argue his own. That is what many of his rallies were all about,

That used to be the way disagreements were handled. People would disagree, discuss, and then go on their merry way. Often remaining the best of friends. I still operate this way. I am close friends with people whose views are the exact opposite of mine, and we get along quite nicely.

There is a lot of blame being placed on rhetoric from both sides. Rhetoric that vilifies people with opposing views. But I don’t think that’s the cause. I think it’s a symptom of something much deeper: the radical change in liberal values over the last few decades.

The differences between liberals and conservatives (in this sense I mean social conservatives) used to be relatively minor by today’s standards, so each side could tolerate the other without any real rancor. But as liberal values kept edging further into radical progressive territory that defines them today, most conservatives held their ground - since their values were based on biblical principles not subject to change.

So the gap kept widening to the point where people with conservative values could no longer tolerate the lengths to which people with liberal values had gone. Where in the past many values were shared, today that is far less the case. Progressive values  championed by the entertainment industry and promoted by the liberal media have taken hold and dominating the culture. Values that once were shared are now vilified.

The greatest impact of this phenomenon has been in the area of family values. Just a few short decades ago, ‘family’ meant a married couple with children.  The idea of having pre-marital sex  was considered immoral. (Even though it probably happened a lot more than people realized back then.) Today having sex before marriage is considered a good idea.

TV programs in the 50s had to abide by standards and practices consistent with cultural values of that time.

Women’s clothing were far more modestly designed back then. Even bathing suits were more modest. There was no such thing as a bikini. In the 50s one would be hard pressed to find a woman wearing pants in the street. Today, one can easily find women wearing any version of immodest clothing they choose in the street.

The definition of a man or woman was unchallenged. There was no such thing as ‘gender identity’. One was the sex with which they were born. Those who had gender dysphoria were believed to be a tiny minority to be pitied at best. The idea of gay marriage was completely unacceptable, even to liberals. A gay pride parade would never have happened in the 50s. They would have been arrested if they tried.

As recently as the Clinton era, gays in the military were accepted ONLY if they were not openly gay. That was the purpose of President Clinton’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. But today, the left considers that policy an infringement on the civil rights of gay people.

The idea of allowing biological men to use women’s bathrooms was once considered immoral even by liberals. Today they demand it!  Sex reassignment surgery was considered mutilation of the body. Today it is promoted as a solution for gender dysphoria.

Conservatives have not wavered in their opposition to many of these things. That is what I believe MAGA Republicans mean by “Make America Great Again.” They found that phrase, coined by candidate Trump during his first campaign, perfectly fit their worldview. They wanted to return to a time when more of their values were accepted by the mainstream—before those views were reshaped by powerful media and entertainment forces that now promote progressive values like gender identity politics.

During the last election, the mantra of the Democratic Party was “We won’t go back.” By that they meant America had “progressed” too far to return to the values once held by the majority—values the progressive elite see as intolerant and outdated. They were not going to go back to a time of rejection of gay and transgender people.

So now there is far more anger on both sides. The right thinks the left has gone down the path of the devil, and the left thinks the right is reverting to the bigoted policies of the past.

That could very well have been the motive behind the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. He may have seen a man who was becoming increasingly successful in “turning back the clock” to the so-called dark ages of the 1950s. He may have believed he was doing a public service by stopping Kirk in his tracks—all for the sake of equality, maybe even “saving lives” that might otherwise be lost to suicide if society returned to a time when gay and transgender people were not seen as completely normal.

By the same token, the right wing fanatic who killed liberal Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband must have believed he was acting zealously for God.

The rhetoric on both sides surely contributes to the anger and frustration. But the root cause of the polarization, in my view, is the continual trek down the progressive road that has widened the break with values once shared with conservative counterparts. Trump and Sanders are only the voices articulating that break.

How this will all end, I don’t know. But this is the way things stand now as I see them—and why a leftist ideologue believed that murder was the quickest way to deal with the problem.

Comments to this post can be made at Emes VeEmunah II where it is cross-posted.

Cherishing Torah and Judaism Is Not Uniquely Charedi

OK. So I am an Oysvurf . Which is the Yiddish word for ‘outcast’. That’s the appellation used for someone who brazen enough to question what Charedi Gedolim are doing. So if you are a Charedi Gadol, you may very well consider what I am about to say worthy of placing me in that category. I will surely be considered an outcast. Or worse. But I cannot help how I feel. And right now, I feel outraged by what just I read at YWN:

“Gedolei Torah emphasized that the burden upon those working in Eretz Yisroel has become overwhelming, and the askanim who have been carrying this responsibility are collapsing under its weight.”

I would of course agree with that statement - if it referred to supporting the IDF. Soldiers whose mesiras nefesh is literal. They have been putting their lives on the line for their people for amost two years, often serving long tours of duty in war zones for lack of sufficient replacements among the reserves. There are indeed askanim - activists - who work tirelessly to help them and their families. That kind of responsibility, that kind of burden, is surely a worthy cause and can be very exhausting.

But that is NOT what these askanim are doing. The efforts that have so exhausted them are on behalf of Charedim arrested for dodging the draft. That some have been ‘languishing’ in jail for maybe a couple of months is what animates them. THIS is what wakes them up in the middle of the night. THIS is what the Gedolim consider the most important issue of the day. An issue they insist must be fought with everything they have, since the idea of drafting even a single Charedi is considered a threat to the very Torah itself.

Here is how YWN describes it: 

“In light of the ever-intensifying gezeirah of giyus in Eretz Yisroel, Gedolei Torah in America have announced the formation of a special new Vaad Hatzalah to stand at the side of bochurim and yungeleit facing unprecedented pressure and danger.
The letter, signed by leading roshei yeshiva and rabbonim, describes the draft as a direct attack on Bnei Torah — an existential threat not only to lomdei Torah in Eretz Yisroel but to the very kiyum of Torah throughout Klal Yisroel.”

I don’t think I can even begin to express my outrage at this attitude. But I will try.

Unprecedented pressure and danger?! They consider a Charedi jailed for refusing to serve in the IDF an unprecedented danger”? Do they not realize that there are young Jews, equally devout and equally committed to Torah study, who face just a bit more danger than being in an Israeli jail?

It is no secret that Hesder Yeshiva students who study Torah diligently when they aren’t fighting in war are represented in the IDF in far greater percentage to their numbers than are secular soldiers to theirs. Soldiers who risk their lives on the front lines daily. Many for months at a time. Some of whom have paid the ultimate price, leaving behind grieving families? Some soldiers with PTSD so severe that they have committed suicide? Others who have been permanently injured or lost their livelihoods due to those overly long tours of duty.

 Are the American Gedolim that are involved in this project oblivious to all that?! Do they consider the ‘crisis’ of drafting some young Israeli Charedim to be more serious than that? …to be dealt with exclusively as the most imminent danger to Judaism?

The only possible explanation is that they do NOT consider any IDF soldiers to be Bnei Torah. How else could they make the following comment?

“All who cherish Torah and Yiddishkeit are called upon to join in this effort,” the Gedolim urged, “to strengthen the hands of those battling for the future of Torah, and to be zocheh to the bracha of Baruch asher yakim es divrei haTorah hazos.”

Well, I DO cherish Torah and Yiddishkeit. Torah study is the essence of our survival. It should be studied diligently by all Jews to the best of their ability. I certainly admire Charedi zeal in this regard. And I would never suggest that they abandon their devotion to learning.

But the notion that Judaism will survive ONLY if the Charedi world is totally exempt from army service - and that anything less will destroy it - is something I cannot agree with. Especially when other Bnei Torah are shedding blood in war right now.

And yet this is what they repeatedly say. I have never heard any of these Gedolim suggest that one can be both a Talmid Chacham and an IDF soldier. Their view seems to be that serving in the IDF is not only disqualifying, but that if Charedim are subject to the same IDF requirements as Hesder yeshiva students, Judaism itself will be destroyed. And the lengths they are going to in order to validate that view is disturbing in the extreme!

I could understand - and even accept that their views differ from mine. Elu V’Elu. But to go as far as they are now, goes too far. It is hurtful to those that serve and their families. Especially if they have lost loved ones.

Why is it that they don’t recognize this? 

Comments to this post can  be made at Emes VeEmunah II where it is cross-posted.

Was Israel's Attack Against Hamas in Doha, Justified?

Senator Lindsay Graham (Matzav)

There has been global outrage at Israel for attacking Hamas leadership in Qatar. How typical of a world that continues to wallow in its 2,000-year-old Jew-hatred. After Israel’s response to the worst slaughter of the Jewish people since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023, the world now feels free to be as openly hostile to the Jewish state as it wishes - using faux humanitarian concerns as a fig leaf to deny their antisemitism. But I digress.

Now that I’ve gotten that unsurprising bit of news out of the way, I can discuss how American leaders have reacted to it.

Once again, it largely depends on whether you are a Democrat or a Republican. Although there are exceptions on both sides, that’s essentially how reactions to Israel’s strike against Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, break down: Republicans mostly supported Israel, while Democrats largely did not.

I have often said that there has never been a stronger supporter of Israel than President Donald Trump. And yet, he seemed critical of this action, at least as portrayed by the mainstream media. ABC, for example, reported the following:

President Donald Trump voiced his discontent over the Israeli strike targeting senior Hamas leadership in Qatar on Tuesday, telling reporters he was "very unhappy" with the attack.

"I'm not thrilled about the whole situation," Trump told reporters Tuesday evening, saying he would give a full statement on the matter on Wednesday.

"I was very unhappy about it, very unhappy about every aspect, and we’ve got to get the hostages back, but I was very unhappy about the way that went down," Trump said.

The media couldn’t wait to portray this as a condemnation. But it was hardly that, as ABC further noted:

Earlier, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared a statement she said reflected Trump’s views—one that, while not condemning Israeli action, used strong language that showed some rare daylight between the president and Israel. The statement described the strike as an "unfortunate incident" that doesn’t benefit the U.S. or Israel…

"However, eliminating Hamas, who have profited off the misery of those living in Gaza, is a worthy goal," Leavitt added.

When asked about it, Ambassador Mike Huckabee responded:

Huckabee declined to comment directly on the attack, deferring to the White House. But he said that “countries make decisions based on what they think their best interests are, and that doesn’t mean everyone agrees.”

The Prime Minister made it very clear that the U.S. had zero to do with the operation, emphasizing that Israel takes full responsibility for the action, which was carried out in response to the terrorist attack last Sunday that killed eight people. The strike was authorized after Hamas claimed credit for that massacre.

Speaking of “daylight,” it should be noted that the attack in Qatar initially had the full-throated support of Netanyahu’s opposition, as reported in the Jerusalem Post:

Opposition leader Yair Lapid (Yesh Atid) said he commended the Israel Air Force, IDF, and Shin Bet “for an exceptional operation to thwart our enemies.”

When Lapid and Ben Gvir agree on anything, it’s hard to argue that it was a mistake. But, again, I digress.

There are several issues to discuss here: How this will affect negotiations for the hostages; how it will affect Israel’s relationship with its only true remaining ally, the U.S.; and did Israel actually accomplished its goal. If so, was it worth it.

Hard questions to answer. But here’s how I see it.

When I hear the naysayers claim this strike hurt hostage negotiations since Qatar was in the middle of mediating a deal between Hamas and Israel, I almost had to laugh. Almost - because the issue is far too serious for laughter. But the notion that Hamas would suddenly accept a deal proposed by the U.S. - one that Israel has already accepted, just as it has accepted countless others that Hamas rejected - is about as likely as Canada becoming the 51^st state. 

That simply isn’t going to happen. If two years of rejecting deal after deal hasn’t convinced people of that, nothing will.

In my view, Israel lost nothing in terms of the hostage situation by attacking Hamas leadership in Qatar. In fact, Qatar has already said it remains open to returning to the negotiating table, even after the strike.

As long as Republicans remain in power, the U.S. -Israel relationship is on firm ground. Even though the president wasn’t happy about this strike, I think his displeasure was more about reassuring Qatar that the U.S. had nothing to do with it, thus maintaining good relations with a nation that hosts America’s largest military base in the region.

It’s also about his ego: He wants to be the president who finally makes peace between Arabs and Israelis. The Abraham Accords began the process. If he can end the war in Gaza, secure the hostages’ release, and add a few more Arab countries to the Abraham Accords, he may very well get the Nobel Peace Prize.

As the president recently noted:

“I have warned Hamas about the consequences of not accepting. This is my last warning. There will not be another one,”

Did Israel accomplish its goal? They targeted Hamas’s political leadership in Qatar after Hamas claimed responsibility for the terrorist murder of 8 Jews a few days ago. Whether Israel succeeded in eliminating them is not yet clear. But even if not, the attempt itself was surely worth it. And even though there was ‘global outrage’ NOTHING was lost!

As noted in Matzav, Senator Lindsey Graham summed up the moral clarity of Israel’s defensive posture:

“To those who planned and cheered on the October 7 attack against Israel, the United States’ greatest ally in the region: This is your fate.”

He then addressed the Palestinian people directly:

“Your future depends on the political and military demise of Hamas. If Hamas lays down their weapons tomorrow, one of the most promising chapters in the history of the Palestinian people can begin.”

In his comments, Graham stressed that those seeking an end to the conflict should demand Hamas disarm. “To those who want this war to end: insist that Hamas surrender now,” he stated.

Turning to Israel, Graham expressed unwavering support for its right to defend itself:

“To my Israeli friends: I understand your determination to ensure there are no more ‘October 7’ attacks and that those who want to destroy the Jewish state are denied that capability. I will always be your partner in this endeavor.”

To this I say, Amen!

Comments to this post can  be made at Emes VeEmunah II where it is cross-posted.

As Israel's Image Keeps Deteriorating

Israel critic, actor Mandy Patinkin

1,200 Hollywood actors and directors pledge to boycott Israeli film institutions.

That was the subject line of my daily JTA briefing this morning. I have to admit, I was jarred by that headline, Despite knowing that Hollywood is notoriously progressive in its political perspective. Still, to see that many Hollywood figures signing on to an Israeli boycott - especially one that pertains to their own industry - took me by surprise.

It’s one thing to lament the carnage one sees every day on the nightly news, or reads about in respected media outlets like the BBC and New York Times. It is understandable that what appears in the news makes it look as though Israel is doing to Palestinians today what Nazi Germany did to the Jews. 

It doesn’t help when Palestinians reporters in Gaza, respected organizations like the UN, and affiliated ‘humanitarian’ groups say - or imply -the same thing. Nor does it help when Israel’s prime minister and defense minister (who has since resigned) are indicted for war crimes by the ‘highly respected’ International Criminal Court. Add to that world leaders in major Western nations like France, the UK, Canada, and Belgium reacting to those images by recognizing the ‘State of Palestine’, And it is also not surprising that Israel has lost the narrow support it once had among Democrats. Or that overall support for Israel among the American people is now at its lowest point.

In fact It would be surprising if there weren’t world outrage at those images. All of which raises a fundamental question: does the truth even matter anymore?

It is clear to me that all of this negativity is based on fiction, reported as fact—and devoured by the public. It has even affected some Orthodox Jews, including at least one rabbi I deeply respect.

There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that the negative reporting about Israel’s conduct in this war is false. I won’t rehash all the reasons for my conviction here. But to summarize: I do not believe for a moment that the IDF’s conduct in a war with a mortal enemy is anything less than the most humane of any army in history.

Of course, saying that would make all the naysayers guffaw with laughter. They sincerely believe what they see, read, and hear from so-called ‘reliable’ sources - is the truth.

When lies become the accepted reality across so many institutions and nations, denying them—no matter how true the denial—falls on deaf ears. The truth then becomes branded as the lie.

How is it possible for what seems like the entire world to believe a lie, to the point of condemning an entire people for perpetrating it?

It’s easier than one might think. All one need do is look back to 1930s Germany to see how government officials and their propaganda machine convinced the public of the ‘big lie’ about the Jews. That they were responsible for the world’s troubles, especially Germany’s. That lie cast Jews as subhuman, deserving destruction before they could ‘destroy’ Germany. And eventually all of Europe!

The world has not gone quite that far with Israel. But it isn’t for lack of trying on the part of the Palestinian people, who have been weaned on the antisemitic writings of Hitler and Henry Ford, presented as fact in their schools and mosques. The more militant among them, like Hamas - backed by an equally hateful Iran -have acted on that ideology in ways chillingly similar to the Nazis. If October 7^th showed us anything, it showed us THAT!

And yet the Jews of Israel are now cast as the new Nazi regime. Committing genocide against others the way Nazi Germany did against the Jews.

To be fair, not everyone who disapproves of Israel’s actions believes it is Nazi-like. But they do disapprove and base it on the highly successful propaganda of terrorist organizations like Hamas, amplified by progressive apologists in government, the media, and now the entertainment industry.

A closer look at those 1,200 actors shows that many have long supported BDS, believing Israel guilty of apartheid. But anyone thinking clearly knows that is false. Apartheid, the Dutch term for segregation, in South Africa was cruel, oppressive, and often deadly. Palestinians are not treated that way. They do face extra security measures that make their lives more inconvenient than their Israeli counterparts. But without those measures, there would be far more terror attacks—like the one yesterday, when two Palestinians from the West Bank killed eight Israelis before being stopped by a Charedi IDF soldier who happened to be nearby.

That these 1,200 actors signed doesn’t mean there aren’t more who share their views but didn’t sign. On the other hand, it also gives me a glimmer of hope that there are still voices in Hollywood that are not swayed by the anti-Israel narrative. Still, it does show a trend: Anti-Israel sentiment has become far more open and mainstream as Israel’s war in Gaza has dragged on.

So the lie is now the reality. The truth may no longer matter. At least when it comes to how Israel must respond to it. The only question is: what kind of response can Israel craft that will not dilute its existential mission? That is a question for which I have no answer.

Comments to this post can be made at Emes Ve-Emunah II where it is cross posted.