It’s Heartbreaking

Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lichinsky (JTA)

Sarah Milgrim and Yaron Lichinsky - two beautiful, innocent people on the verge of becoming engaged were gunned down in the prime of their lives by Elias Rodriguez, a Chicagoan who believed he was justified in doing so. Justified, he claimed, because they were Jews. Jews whose people, he alleged, are committing genocide against Palestinians. Over 50,000 deaths, he cited. In his mind, the world wasn’t concerned enough. So he needed to make a statement.

Well, he succeeded. I’m sure he feels better now. And I’m also fairly certain he’ll receive the death penalty, which he richly deserves.

The problem with his justification is that it’s based on lies, innuendo, and distortions. Propaganda coming out of Gaza and the UN, amplified by the mainstream media. Israel has consistently done more to spare innocent Palestinian lives than any nation in the history of warfare. Prior to airstrikes, they issue warnings urging civilians to move to designated safe zones. Many do.

Those who remain often include Hamas terrorists dressed as civilians, hiding in densely populated areas - hospitals, schools, apartment buildings - knowing full well that any response from Israel may result in civilian casualties. It’s deliberate. They want the world to see the carnage. They want the headlines.

The Hamas-run Health Ministry and UN officials report body counts with no context. No mention that Israel warned civilians to evacuate, no count of Hamas terrorists among the dead often dressed as civilians, no acknowledgment that Hamas fighters deliberately embed themselves in civilian areas. These are combatants with genocidal ambitions against Jews.

As I’ve said repeatedly: the blame for civilian deaths lies squarely with Hamas. An organization that could stop the bloodshed tomorrow if they valued life more than land. But they don’t.

Is it any wonder that protestors chant for “Free Palestine,” while images of destruction dominate the news, night after night, for nearly two years. Layered on top of long-standing apartheid propaganda that predates October 7^th? Even the UN Secretary-General echoed that line, saying the October 7^th  attacks ‘did not happen in a vacuum.’

Is it any wonder that so many Americans sympathize with Palestinians when they're bombarded with vilifying images and biased rhetoric from the mainstream media every evening?

This is why I place a large share of the blame for rising antisemitism on the media. Last year, the U.S. saw a record number of antisemitic incidents. The media treats the UN as an unimpeachable source, accepting its every anti-Israel claim as gospel.

The latest outrage? Tom Fletcher of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs claimed that 14,000 Gazan babies would die within 48 hours without aid! A grotesque falsehood repeated by the BBC, one of the world’s most respected news outlets. Though it was eventually retracted, the damage was already done.

And it’s not just the media. World leaders: Macron of France, Starmer of the UK, and Carney of Canada parrot the same misinformation and use the same rhetoric Elias Rodriguez used to justify murder. Sure, they condemned the act. But given how closely their words align with his motivation, they might as well have pulled the trigger.

Initially, I felt sorrow over the tragic loss of two promising young lives to a left-wing fanatic. Still do. But now I feel angry! I am angry at the intellectual laziness and moral cowardice of global leaders who refuse to place the blame where it belongs. Instead, they hold Jews accountable.

That said, the right doesn’t get a free pass either. Influential right-wing figures like Tucker Carlson, Candace Owens, and Joe Rogan - each with massive followings - have fueled Holocaust denial, minimized antisemitism, or undermined U.S. support for Israel.

There’s plenty of blame to go around. But let there be no mistake: the lion’s share belongs to the liberal mainstream media. They have created a climate that enabled antisemitism to surge to historic levels - culminating in the murder of two young Jewish souls, just as they were preparing to start a life together.

Have these events changed how I feel about America?

Not in the slightest. I will repeat what I have said many times. This is not 1939 Germany. There are no Nuremberg laws here. No one - on the right or the left - is proposing to put Jews on trains to death camps.

The response to this tragedy has been a rare moment of unity. Outrage and sympathy have poured in from across the political spectrum. Politicians, media figures - even those typically critical of Israel - have expressed genuine sorrow and solidarity with the Jewish community.

There was no talk of ‘context’. No ‘buts’. No excuses - except from CAIR, which condemned the murders but couldn’t resist adding that there are better ways to push their agenda.

Law enforcement and the Justice Department are pursuing this case with the seriousness and urgency it demands. And in that, I find hope.

We - the Jewish people - are privileged to live in a country that truly cares about us. A country that will not abandon us in our time of need.

There’s room to debate how best to confront antisemitism. Should Harvard be under federal scrutiny for failing to address its antisemitism problem? I believe so - especially given that Harvard’s own president has acknowledged the severity of the issue at his school.

Disagreements about tactics are valid. But as an American Jew, I have never felt more supported by the American people or more grateful to its institutions. Even amidst division and debate over Israel’s leadership, one thing is clear: this country stands with us.

And for that, I am thankful.

Is There a Rift? Huckabee Tells It Like It Is

One of the things I find both interesting and, admittedly, depressing is the sheer joy that anti-Trump and anti-Netanyahu voices seem to derive from fabricating or exaggerating tensions between the two leaders. These are people eager to seize upon any comment or deed  - twist it, and then point to it as evidence of a growing rift, when in fact, no such rift may exist. They often cite news sources that confirm their perceptions, regardless of the actual substance or meaning of what's been said or done.

Sadly, even Israel’s mainstream media has published opinion pieces by left wing pundits that have fallen victim to this kind of reflexive reaction. Increasingly, we’re seeing articles questioning Trump’s loyalty to Israel, suggesting that in his second term, his priorities have shifted and that Israel is, at best, being ignored, if not outright abandoned. These articles argue that Trump’s agenda is no longer aligned with Israel’s agenda.

One of the so-called indicators of this alleged divergence is Trump’s apparent willingness to negotiate a new nuclear deal with Iran - one that might not differ that much from the Obama-era deal he once vehemently rejected. A policy that aligned perfectly with Israel’s stance at the time. Now, some commentators point to Trump’s willingness to negotiate with Iran as evidence that the U.S. and Israeli agendas are drifting apart. (There are other such ‘indicators’ as well.)

Israel's primary concern, understandably, is how all of this impacts upon its war with Hamas - the tactics, the goals, and the outcome. Critics of Netanyahu (including many of our own coreligionists) seem thrilled at the possibility that one hated leader, the president, is now turning against Netanyahu, their other hated leader. That Trump’s run out of patience, with Netanyahu, his tactics and goals. And that now Trump seeks an end to the bloodshed and an end to the so-called starvation of all those ‘innocent’ Gaza Palestinians.

One might be tempted to believe this, given the flood of commentary and op-eds interpreting recent events, presidential rhetoric and deeds.

Except that it isn’t true. Here’s why.

One of the defining features of the Trump administration is the premium he places on loyalty. For Trump, loyalty often outweighs competence. The moment someone in his circle publicly contradicts him or diverges from his policies, they’re dismissed—effectively vaporized from their role. Conversely, he rewards loyalty, which is why his Secretary of State, Marco Rubio was also given the role of National Security Advisor.

I need no repeat how pro-Israel Rubio is to this day. That Trump has full confidence in Rubio and his loyalty to him means that Trump is probably just as pro-Israel as Rubio. But for those that still need convincing…

When asked by the media recently about Trump’s relationship with Netanyahu, Rubio emphasized that they share the same objectives: Hamas must be destroyed, the hostages released, and Gaza must be emptied of Palestinians in the short term so it can be rebuilt. Whether Israel or the U.S. ultimately takes the lead in that process is a detail to be worked out later. What matters is that both nations are aligned on the war effort and on an end goal that assures Israel’s security. Which in the short term means Palestinians NOT controlling Gaza.

Loyalty is also the primary requirement for any U.S. ambassador appointed by Trump - including the U.S. ambassador to Israel. So if someone wants to understand the Trump administration’s true stance on Netanyahu’s approach to the war against Hamas, consider the words of Ambassador Mike Huckabee as reported at VIN:

In a scathing rebuke directed at some of America’s closest allies, Huckabee compared Israel’s actions in Gaza to the Allied bombing campaigns of World War II. He slammed European leaders for what he described as “disgusting hypocrisy.” In an intense interview with NPR, Huckabee criticized Britain, France, and Canada for condemning Israel’s military campaign as “wholly disproportionate” and accused them of blaming the wrong side.

“I’m outraged,” he said. “The prolonged suffering for everybody is on Hamas, and I’m outraged that the U.K., Canada, France—they’re blaming the wrong perpetrator.”

He then drew a parallel to history, invoking the Allied bombings of German cities during World War II. “What hypocrisy,” he said, “to say that those bombings—which ended the war and stopped the Nazi threat—were justified, but Israel defending itself against an existential threat should be condemned.”

His message to European leaders was direct:

“They ought to just go back and maybe take 10th grade civics and refresh themselves.”

Could not agree more. Have pretty much said the same things myself. Many times!

Now, I’d like to address one final point. A thoughtful and intelligent commentator - someone I deeply respect even though we often disagree recently described Huckabee as an evangelical clown with no relevance or credibility. That, therefore, his personal opinions don’t matter. 

I must respectfully disagree. Whether one agrees with him or not, Huckabee’s statement was neither stupid nor irrelevant. Dismissing it ignores the reality that loyalty is the currency of influence in the Trump administration. Huckabee’s words reflect not just his opinion, but a broader sentiment that likely aligns with Trump’s position.

And that’s something the media - even in Israel - seems all too willing to ignore. 

Deep Down - Is Trump really an Antisemite?

Adelson, Trump and Kaploun at an event marking on the 1st anniversary of Oct 7 

I don’t know whether to be angry or sad. Truth is, I’m both. At this moment, though, I think my anger overshadows my sadness. Anger at the fact that so many Jews believe the president is antisemitic. At the same time, I’m surprised the number isn’t even higher. JTA reports that a recent survey revealed that 52% of registered Jewish voters think the president is an antisemite to one extent or another.

Once again, I find myself in the awkward position of defending a man I believe was unfit to be president for a variety of reasons. (Which I won’t repeat here.) But as someone who seeks the truth, I feel compelled to defend him here. Labeling Donald Trump - a man who has had such close relationships with Jews throughout his professional life and beyond - especially Orthodox Jews - as antisemitic is utterly absurd.

Hate him all you want. Just don’t lie about him. Don’t buy into a false narrative based on comments that were perceived as antisemitic but weren’t - and were never intended to be.

But I suppose if you’re on the left and already hate Trump and his conservative agenda - you’re going to believe every negative claim made about him.

Most Jews who think Trump is an antisemite point to his anti-DEI policies, assuming they stem from bigotry. This is how they characterize the president’s harsh sanctions against schools like Harvard that haven’t  been protecting Jewish students harassed and threatened on campus by pro-Palestinian protestors.  

Liberal Jews argue that these sanctions do more harm than good, perhaps even fueling antisemitism as a backlash from those who see such moves as stifling constitutionally protected free speech. When they see visibly Orthodox Jews supporting those sanctions, they view us not only as countercultural - but as anti-American. At least, that’s how we appear in the eyes of progressives, whose values many non-Orthodox Jews embrace.

There is little dispute about the following statistics, compiled by Pew Research. They are perhaps the most respected nonpartisan think tank in the world: 90% of American Jewry is non-Orthodox. Many of them are abandoning their faith as irrelevant. Over 70% care so little about their Judaism that they marry out of the faith.

It’s reasonable to assume that this large segment of Jews - many of whom lack even a basic Jewish education - have little understanding of what it truly means to be Jewish. Instead, they’ve embraced progressive values as the epitome of ethics and morality. Those who do retain a spark of Jewish pride often reinterpret Judaism through a progressive lens, seeing those values as the essence of what Judaism is all about. For them, the Torah is a relic - something ancient and largely irrelevant to their modern worldview.

Their values champion social justice for the oppressed. And in their minds, the current oppressed are the Palestinian people - whose supposed oppressors are the Netanyahu government, aided and abetted by the U.S. administration. Especially under the current president. (How they reconcile that belief with the view that the president is antisemitic remains a mystery to me. But I guess if you hate both Netanyahu and Trump, you find ways to rationalize that contradiction.)

Given how many Jews are aboard the progressive train, I’m surprised that only 52% of the registered Jewish electorate believe that Trump is an antisemite. Frankly, I’d expect it to be closer to 90%.

Those of us who are observant - who understand that being a Jew means following the laws of the Torah as interpreted by the sages - have an entirely different view of the president and his political agenda.

Yes, it’s likely he appreciates our support. But I think he also sees us as more authentic Jews. He sees us as people who are loyal to our biblically based traditions. That’s why we support policies that align with biblical values. Values that reflect how we live. (I recall President Bill Clinton once said something similar about Chasidic Jews after meeting the Skverer Rebbe. He saw them as more authentic than the assimilated Jews he associated with.)

That President Trump may have made some disparaging remarks about liberal Jews, it wasn’t because he’s antisemitic. It’s was because he’s anti-liberal.

Perhaps the clearest evidence that Trump is not antisemitic is his choice of Yehuda Kaploun, a Chasidic Jew (Chabad) as the U.S. antisemitism envoy. After the resignation of Deborah Lipstadt - an antisemitism expert and outspoken Trump critic - Kaploun was nominated to fill the role.

Critics might say Kaploun was chosen simply because he’s a Trump loyalist. It’s true that he’s a strong and very public supporter. But guess who elevated his voice decades ago? JTA reports the following:

(The) first time Kaploun’s name appeared in the Congressional Record, it was because a senator named Joe Biden raised concerns about antisemitism on his behalf.

Kaploun has held a unique role in Jewish communal life—quiet diplomacy, political connections, even some controversy. He’s had ties with the Adelson family, the late Elie Wiesel, and now the political right.

Yes, there was a lawsuit involving infidelity allegations that it appears was settled out of court. I don’t know the details, and I won’t speculate. But here’s what we do know:

If confirmed, Kaploun would become the most senior Hasidic Jewish official in U.S. government history. The position he's been tapped for survived a major restructuring of the State Department. He is slated for a Senate confirmation hearing where his background and worldview will be scrutinized.

My guess? With a Republican majority in the Senate, he’ll be confirmed. Likely along party lines.

If appointing a visibly Chasidic Jew to a senior role in government is antisemitism…
If arresting Hamas-supporting foreign students on visas is antisemitism…
If penalizing Ivy League universities for not enforcing anti-hate policies is antisemitism…
If appointing the most pro-Israel Secretary of State in history is antisemitism…
If standing shoulder-to-shoulder with Israel’s prime minister in the war against Hamas is antisemitism…

Then I’ll take it.

The majority of American Jews who believe the president is an antisemite need to get educated - about their religion, and about what real antisemitism actually looks like.

The State of the Jews

General Yair Golan - Reflecting the values of the left (VIN)

I often talk about the future of the Jewish people being almost entirely dependent on how they are educated. 

Briefly stated, if we want to perpetuate ourselves as a unique people, we must educate our youth about our uniqueness . Which is ultimately about our exceptionalism. Our children must learn that we are a nation apart, different from others in special ways. We have been chosen by God to be His people. We are meant to be a ‘light unto the nations’. A beacon of ethics and morality. And it is our founding document, the Torah, that teaches us how to fulfill that role. In other words, we have a distinct destiny as a people.

This stands in stark contrast to the prevailing liberal American culture, which defines morality and ethics simply as the right to do whatever one wants as long as it doesn’t harm others. In that worldview, any form of behavior - no matter how aberrant - is deemed moral, so long as it is not imposed on others. There is no room for a document like the bible that pre-determines what is or isn’t moral. In fact, in today’s liberal culture, such a document is often viewed as inherently immoral.

The sad reality is that most of the Jewish people tend to subscribe to this liberal interpretation of morality. Making matters worse is that many liberal Jewish clergy have either outright rejected the Torah as a moral document or have so grossly distorted its teachings that their interpretations border on the absurd - even as they genuinely believe their interpretations. (Unfortunately, some of the more extreme left wing that identify as Orthodox clergy - have done the same.)

It was with this in mind that I read, with interest, a recent JTA article about how two Jewish thinkers view the ‘state of the Jews’.

Author and podcaster Dan Senor had an optimistic take:

Despite a rising tide of antisemitism and backlash against Israel’s war in Gaza that has left many Jews feeling isolated and vulnerable, Senor believes the Jewish community has the power to “create nothing short of a Jewish renaissance.”

If philanthropists and communities double down on supporting Jewish day schools, summer camps, adult Jewish education, and gap years in Israel, he says, “I’m optimistic about the Jewish future in the Diaspora. Not because the challenges aren’t real — they are — but because we really do have the tools to rebuild American Jewish life.” He delivered these remarks during the 92NY’s annual “State of World Jewry” speech.

Journalist and academic Eric Alterman, however, had an entirely different take:

Alterman sees a Jewish community divided: between an influential, politically conservative minority that unconditionally defends Israel, and a majority that votes Democratic and prioritizes defending democracy in both Israel and the U.S. On the extremes, he sees a far right that supports Israel’s annexation of the West Bank and Gaza, and a far left that is non- or anti-Zionist.

I would only add that  - while not exact - these descriptions closely parallel my own: Orthodox Jews align more with Senor’s perspective. While Heterodox and secular Jews align more with Alterman’s.

Sadly, for Alterman, the future of Judaism has little to do with our founding document. The Torah is irrelevant to him as a means of perpetuating the Jewish people. Instead, politics become the defining characteristic of Judaism. He questions ‘who gets to define what it means to be Jewish in the U.S’. For him, the logical answer is to embrace the liberal values of our time regardless of whether they align with the Torah. There is no distinction between one liberal value and another; they’re all equal on the morality scale, irrespective of Torah principles.

Senor, by contrast, sees an uptick in Jewish identity and engagement among secular Jews in the post-October 7 world, and encourages greater philanthropic investment in Jewish education. Alterman rejects such efforts, preferring instead to focus on restoring the historic liberalism with which Jews have long been associated. He sees danger in the growing influence of a politically conservative Jewish minority that unconditionally supports Israel and aligns itself with leaders like Trump and Netanyahu.

That said, it is certainly true that the unwavering support for Israel by the politically conservative, mostly Orthodox Jewish right is not shared by the liberal elite that currently drives Western cultural values. Values that are relentlessly echoed by the mainstream media, which often parrots anti-Israel narratives as though they were divine truth.

These are the voices that scream the loudest against Israel’s actions right now. One of the most egregious and vile criticisms came recently from a shocking source:

“A whole country does not conduct warfare against civilians, does not kill babies for fun, and does not make it its goal to expel a population.”

No, that wasn’t the ICC or some foreign adversary. It was one of our own: Yair Golan — a man who once served as Deputy Chief of Staff of the IDF.

“Killing babies for fun”?! Golan’s comments were so despicable that they drew near-universal condemnation across Israel’s political spectrum, with some even calling to strip him of his military rank.

Macron and Starmer - with friends like these... (JTA)

Golan’s concerns - that Israel’s actions in Gaza could make it a pariah in the eyes of the world - may be legitimate. But his rhetoric was disgraceful and dangerous.

As if on cue, three of my ‘favorite’ world leaders stepped in to demand that Hamas release all the hostages to help bring the war to a just end.

Just kidding. Here is what they really did:

The leaders of Canada, the United Kingdom, and France issued a statement condemning Israel’s expanded war in Gaza and vowing to penalize Israel if the war and its humanitarian blockade continue:

“We will not stand by while the Netanyahu Government pursues these egregious actions. If Israel does not cease the renewed military offensive and lift its restrictions on humanitarian aid, we will take further concrete actions in response.”

(Yes, they did mention that Hamas should release the hostages - but only as an afterthought. Their primary target was clearly Israel.)

If you are Eric Alterman though, you might view these leaders’ statements as aligned with Jewish values. 

In my view, they are anything but. But in fairness, how would he know that? He likely never received a real Jewish education to teach him otherwise. 

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed on Torah and Science

Rabbi Eliezer Melamed (Arutz Sheva)

Unfortunately, there are a lot of young people raised in strictly observant homes that are losing the faith. There seems to be as many reasons for this as there are people losing it.  But one of the most frequent reasons I hear is from young people that have discovered that science contradicts many of the things they were taught by their religious teachers.  If we are going to do anything about the phenomenon of young people from observant homes leaving the faith this issue cannot be ignored.

l used to be more eager to discuss the conflict between science and Torah. However, I’ve become more reluctant to do so in recent years - not because my views have changed. I still believe that science and Torah are compatible. But I’ve found that these discussions often devolve into endless challenges from atheists whose mission is to disabuse people of their faith.

There are a lot of people like that out there - many of whom are closet atheists hiding behind the anonymity of a blog commentary, using it as a platform to present what they believe is incontrovertible evidence that religious beliefs are based on lies or outdated misconceptions of reality now clarified by modern science.

Debating with such individuals is of no avail. They persist in promoting their views as legitimate while ridiculing believers with arguments such as ‘science is based on observable truth’, which they claim contradicts ancient and outmoded ideas about God. Ideas that are now easily ‘refuted’ by science.

Back when I had more enthusiasm for discussing this topic, I explained in great detail why I believe in God and in Judaism. The short version is this: belief in a Creator does not contradict science, nor does Judaism - when properly understood - contradict it either.

Some may find this hard to accept, pointing to many statements in the Gemara about the nature of the universe that are clearly at odds with what we know today. But these can be explained in a variety of acceptable ways that do not contradict the fundamentals of nature as we understand them today. The sages of the Talmud were truth-seekers. They even declared, ‘If one tells you there is wisdom among the nations, believe them.’ In other words, seek truth wherever it is found. It may not necessarily come from a Jewish rabbi or any Jew at all.

I mention all this because of a fascinating Arutz Sheva article by Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, who addressed this very topic in the final chapter of his new book Faith and Its Commandments. He tackles many of these issues in ways similar to how I and many others - who have struggled with the perceived conflicts between science and Torah - have. This includes highly respected figures such as the late Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, a man revered in both scientific and religious circles. Revered even within the Charedi world to this day - decades after his death.

Rav Melamed makes a very important point about what appears to be the ever-increasing tension between science and Torah - a conflict he correctly identifies as a major source of the erosion of faith among our people today.

Here, for example, is one salient point he makes:

"One of the things that changed in the modern era is that many natural phenomena that were not understood by humans have been researched and have become understandable and explainable. In the process, the value of some explanations about faith that were accepted in previous generations has been nullified."

How true. Diseases once thought incurable now have common cures. The invention of microscopes led to the discovery of harmful bacteria, which in turn led to medications and treatments. The discovery of anesthesia made life-saving surgeries possible—procedures that were unthinkable even just 200 years ago. Science has explained many phenomena that used to be attributed to spiritual causes. So instead of prayer being the only recourse to a medical problem, science has provided solutions—thus, in many people’s eyes, removing the need for prayer and, ultimately, weakening the need to believe in God as the simplistic answer to the mysteries of the universe.

This has weakened the faith many people once had in God, reasoning that science will eventually solve all our problems. That, in turn, led to a religious backlash against science. As Rabbi Melamed notes:

… instead of appreciating the fruits of scientific achievements and blessing God for them, many religious figures believed that one should distance oneself from science and doubt its reliability. Meanwhile, many people who appreciated science felt that religion was not beneficial to their lives or to the world…

Some religious leaders viewed the scientists’ challenge to older concepts as an affront to the honor of religion. They believed it inconceivable that scientists could know more than the great Torah scholars of the past, whose views often reflected the science of their own time. Not only that, but since our sages often used the scientific concepts of their era to illustrate spiritual ideas, the refutation of those scientific notions was seen by some as an attack on Torah itself - because they misunderstood the analogies as being Torah rather than pedagogical tools.

This is where some of the more prominent religious leaders have in my view failed. Out of fear that the study of science might uproot long-held beliefs, many have banned books that attempt to reconcile Torah and science. And this has surely alienated many scientifically-minded Jews who might otherwise have remained people of faith.

When religious leaders reject the kind of science that led Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan to declare the age of the universe to be approximately 15 billion years old - a conclusion he based both on modern science and on deep, informed Torah analysis - then we are bound to lose many Jews. Especially those who have studied the same science that Rabbi Kaplan drew upon to reach his conclusion.

Rabbi Kaplan even ridiculed the belief in a 5,000-year-old universe, insisting that his view was a perfectly acceptable Torah view.

Until it wasn’t. It was later declared apikorsus by a Gadol who also banned Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s books, which attempted to make similar reconciliations.

I recall the Chicago Community Kollel hosting a talk by Rav Shalom Kamenetsky on this very topic to a group of Lakewood avreichim in their own Beis Medrash. The Kollel was caught flat-footed when those views were later banned.

It is refreshing to see someone of Rabbi Melamed’s stature stand up for the possibility of reconciling Torah and science. Sadly, my guess is that his book will soon be banned by the current Charedi Gedolim.  In fact Rabbi Melamed may be entirely ostracized if he hasn’t already been.

What’s Wrong With This Picture?

There is something wrong with this picture. The picture I’m talking about is one that, on the surface, might seem quite clear.

It’s the incessant bombing by Israel of Hamas targets in Gaza, resulting in unintended but massive numbers of civilian casualties. That, along with gut-wrenching images in the media of hungry Palestinians groveling for handouts of limited food supplies, makes Israel appear guilty of the genocide its critics are accusing them of. While the mainstream media does not use the word genocide, it is clear who they blame for the death and starvation of so many ‘innocent’ civilians - most of whom, we are told, are women and children.

This is little more than a passive-aggressive way of demanding that Israel end its ‘genocidal’ war.

With these terrible images being broadcast in the mainstream media so frequently, it’s really hard to argue with the emotional reaction. Are these reactions not coming from sincere feelings of compassion?

The answer is yes. They are. People want the carnage to end. And since Israeli bombs are responsible for the destruction, it is logical for them to blame Israel.

But if that’s the case, then what is it that’s so wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong  - what makes me so angry - is that the people who are truly to blame are entirely off the hook for this crime against humanity.

Amid all the calls for Israel to cease fire, I’ve hardly heard any mainstream media figure suggest that the quickest way to end Palestinian casualties and starvation is to demand that Hamas release the hostages they kidnapped as part of the most horrific attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

If Hamas were to do that, I am convinced that Prime Minister Netanyahu would end the war - if assurances could be made that Hamas would never again govern Gaza. Assurances that might be guaranteed through a coordinated effort by Israel’s Arab neighbors, many of whom have no love lost for Hamas either.

But among the ‘ceasefire’ crowd, demanding that Hamas release the hostages is never considered an option. Nope. Blame the Jews is what they always do. And by ‘they’ I mean the left and their willing accomplices in the media, as well as European allies like French President Emmanuel Macron, who pretends to be a friend of the Jewish people but has, from the outset, proven to be a much better friend of Hamas.

That Palestinians in Gaza don’t publicly blame Hamas for their suffering is not surprising. I think they must realize that what Hamas did on October 7^th is what precipitated all their unimaginable pain. But they are literally afraid to death to say it out loud.

But what about the Palestinians outside of Gaza? Like the Palestinian student protesters on campuses across the country? Do they not know that Hamas is holding hostages - and that releasing them could end the carnage?

Of course they know. But in most cases, they justify what Hamas did, letting all the blame fall upon the Jews, who they claim usurped their ancestral homeland - Palestine. You will never hear a single protester blame Hamas for the suffering of their ‘relatives’ in Gaza since October 7^th. Nope. For them - as for the left and our European allies - it’s all about blaming the Jews.

I would love to hear just one proponent of a ceasefire demand that the hostages be released as the path to peace. That should be the hue and cry of anyone with a conscience.

That their collective consciences see only the Jews as genocidal "Nazis," and refuse to even suggest that releasing the hostages would end the war more quickly and more justly, proves to me what I already know: that when it comes to the Jews, nothing has changed in over 2,000 years of persecution. The only thing that has changed is who is doing the persecuting - and why.

It used to be the domain of the Church, blaming the Jews for killing their god. Now it’s the Muslim world, for ‘stealing their land’.

Thankfully, a sizable number of people in this country have not fallen prey to the antisemitic bias that permeates so much of the world - and the American left. That sentiment is reflected mostly by conservative members of the Republican Party and a select few Democrats.

When I listen to the most articulate among them, they actually say the right things about who is to blame. Whether it’s Republican Senator Lindsey Graham or Democratic Senator John Fetterman, they saw what happened on October 7^th. They understand why there are so many civilian casualties and starvation in Gaza. They consistently blame Hamas and have called - not for Israel to cease fire - but for Hamas to release the hostages as the solution to ending the suffering.

I am thankful to live in a country where that sentiment is as mainstream as the one on the left. I’m also thankful that we have a President who has, thus far, not called for a ceasefire without the release of the hostages. Thankful as well that there is no daylight between Netanyahu and the president as his chief negotiator Steve Witkoff clearly and unambiguously stated today.

What happens next remains to be seen. Until then, if Hamas does not release the hostages, and Palestinians continue to blame Israel instead of Hamas for their suffering, then Gaza must face the consequences of Hamas’s actions.

Trump’s Vision for the Middle East

Trump at a Shul in the UAE (TOI)

It’s difficult if not impossible to predict what a mercurial figure like our President will do next and what he hopes to accomplish by doing it. But that has never stopped me.

I received an email from a frequent commentator (who chooses to remain anonymous) offering his own predictions of what Trump envisions as the future for the Middle East. Oddly enough, I don’t disagree with him that much. Here is a slightly edited version of what he said, followed by my comments after each segment:

(1) Within a few months, Trump will cut a deal with Iran. Iran will keep its nuclear enrichment facilities for what will be touted as civilian and industrial use, under the supposed supervision of the Saudis, other Gulf nations, and perhaps some European powers. Israel will be told it cannot attack these facilities or otherwise engage in warfare against Iran unless the Iranians directly attack Israel first. Iran will agree to ease off its support of terrorism in the region, in exchange for massive trade concessions.

Trump hates war - preferring to make a deal with the devil to avoid it. The devil in this case is Iran. I believe Trump’s uncompromising condition for a deal with Iran is that they must eliminate their entire nuclear program. If they want to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, they will have to import it. This deal will be accompanied by massive oversight from U.S. (and perhaps some European officials).

As Trump has said several times - including as recently as today - Iran has two options: make the deal, or get the ‘other option.’ And it won’t be good for them. They won’t like it. I assume the ‘other option’ will be an increased sanctions regime that will make the previous one look like paradise by comparison.

While Trump did not specifically mention that the deal must include halting arms shipments to proxy nations and militias, he has referenced this in the past. My hope is that it's still part of the plan.

There’s a remote possibility that if the increased sanctions don’t work, there could be a coordinated military attack by the U.S. and Israel to take out those facilities. But like I said - Trump hates war, especially a bloody one that such an attack would surely precipitate.

(2) Israel will be told it cannot proceed with its tentative plan to militarily occupy large parts of Gaza and force Gazans out. While Israel won’t be ordered to end the war immediately, the U.S. and Gulf states will begin shipping large amounts of food and medical supplies to Gaza under some kind of guarantee from Hamas and Qatar that these goods won’t be hijacked. Hamas will remain in Gaza, but its power will be reduced by Qatar and Iran.

I think this is largely correct. Trump sees a lot of people starving in Gaza and doesn’t like it. So, he’s going to send food and medical supplies.

Trump’s vision for Gaza is to make it a “Freedom Zone” that would permanently end the rule of any jihadist groups. He still believes the U.S. should oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, with Palestinians temporarily removed from the process. Once the rebuilding is complete, Palestinians would return and be governed by officials from wealthy Gulf states - at least until they can establish self-rule focused on their own welfare instead of trying to ‘restore all of Palestine.’

Is this feasible in the short term? I seriously doubt it. But that’s what Trump sees at the moment. What about Israel’s announced plans to reoccupy Gaza? As things stand now, I don’t see another option. But if a miracle happens and Trump gets his way, I’m absolutely convinced Israel will go along - regardless of who the prime minister is at the time.

(3) Trump will begin working with the Saudis and Qataris to create his envisioned “land of freedom” in Gaza. Housing and roads will be (slowly) rebuilt, infrastructure replaced, etc., with plans down the road to build hotels, spas, and resorts along the coast. Military units from the Gulf states will police the area and keep Hamas in check. Gazans will live there. West Bank Arabs will be invited to move there. Israelis will be kept out.

I basically agree with that.

(4) The Gaza “land of freedom” will not, at first, be operated by Gazans or Hamas. In time, however, it will be turned over to a hand-picked Gazan regime supported by the Saudis, Qataris, and other Gulf states. Gaza will thereby become a de facto Palestinian state.

I agree with that too. But a de facto Palestinian state? Maybe - if and only if Palestinians abandon the dream of reclaiming all of historic Palestine. That can only happen if they eliminate the anti-Jewish rhetoric and materials in their education system. I don’t see that happening for decades - if it happens at all.

(5) The Saudis and other Gulf states will become the most powerful in the region, with full support from the U.S. The Abraham Accords might finally flourish, but Israel’s influence will decline.

If money is power, then the Saudis and Gulf states are already the most powerful players in the region. As their financial investments in the US increase, so too does their strategic value

Will the Abraham Accords flourish? The dream of normalized relations with their neighbors has been part of Israel’s vision since its founding over 77 years ago. If Trump can make that happen, it will be a dream come true.

It seems even Syria is ready to play ball. Who would have thought that just one year ago? With sanctions removed and the president encouraging the new Syrian leadership to move in that direction (which he has hinted at doing), that would be a heck of an achievement in advancing that dream

I do not agree, however, that Israel’s influence will decline. Israel remains a major strategic asset to the United States. I don’t see that changing. It’s also not lost on the president that Israel has contributed mightily to global advancements in science, medicine, and technology. On that last point, he even suggested the U.S. copy Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense system.

Trump has repeatedly praised Israel’s achievements both before and during his presidency. There’s every reason for the US to maintain strong ties with the Jewish state.

All in all, I’d say Trump still has Israel’s back. He’s never retreated from a position of full support. He’s just going about it in a very unconventional way. To ardent supporters of Israel who have been disappointed by recent comments – or the ‘snubbing’ of Israel during his just completed economic mission to the Middle East – my advice to them is as follows:

Chill. Just chill.  Give the guy a chance to do it his way. You never know. In the end, you might just like it.

An Oxymoron Called Progressive Judaism

Who knew? I never knew that there was a Jewish denomination called Liberal Judaism. I had always thought it was just a generic term for Jews whose political views defined their Judaism, and that Reform Judaism was the most representative expression of that type of Jew.

I’m not sure if Liberal Judaism is limited to the UK and doesn’t really exist in the US. If that’s the case, it would help explain why I was so clueless about it. Be that as it may, it’s apparently a major movement over there.

This morning, I was quickly disabused of my prior understanding by an article in The Jewish Chronicle, which reported that the two movements - Liberal and Reform - are soon expected to merge into a new denomination called Progressive Judaism. The stated reason for the merger—that the differences between the two are “vanishingly small” - is, ironically, yet another reason I never realized they were separate movements in the first place.

If this new movement weren’t such a tragic aberration from what Judaism is - and has been for over 2,000 years - I would almost find it laughable. The idea that engaging in gay sex or undergoing sex reassignment surgery should be celebrated as consistent with the defining values of Judaism, when the very document that defines our values, the Torah, considers them sinful - should make it obvious that these are not Jewish values. And yet, this is these are the kinds of things Progressive Judaism embraces.

They’ve also redefined who is a Jew on an entirely non-Halachic basis and encourage intermarried couples to raise their children Jewishly. Both policies contribute to a growing crisis of Jewish identity.

When people are told by religious leaders of a particular denomination that they are full-fledged Jews when, in fact, they are not recognized as such by the entirety of the Jewish world - the consequences can be tragic. Especially once they get married and children are involved.

Progressive Jews may think of themselves as the ‘loyal opposition’ to the Orthodox mainstream, but there’s nothing ‘loyal’ about it. The only thing they appear loyal to is progressive ideology, regardless of where it leads.

(Orthodox Jews who consider themselves ‘progressive’ might do well to reflect on where that road ultimately leads in terms of their own religious values.)

So why do I care what movements that are so far removed from traditional Judaism - do? People can believe and practice whatever they want. But don’t call it Judaism.

And yet, that is exactly what they do call it.

As The Jewish Chronicle notes:

If Progressive Judaism comes into being, it will become the largest Jewish denomination in the UK in terms of affiliated synagogues - about 80 congregations.

That should concern all of us.

While their roughly 30,000 members represent about a third of British synagogue-affiliated Jews, compared to the 36,000 who belong to the United Synagogue (which is Orthodox), we shouldn’t take comfort in our greater numbers. 30,000 people are a lot of Jews to potentially write off as lost to Judaism. Making matters worse, we have no way of knowing how many of those ‘Jews’ are in fact Jewish according to Halacha. Should any of them one day decide to ‘switch teams’ and become Orthodox, they may be shocked to learn they must first convert. Despite Jewish-sounding surname’s like Goldberg or Silverstein.

Not that I have the slightest idea what to do about our so-called ‘loyal opposition’. But knowledge is power. And there must be something we can do to increase outreach to our fellow Jews - lest they be lost to Judaism forever. That 30,000 of them care enough to at least identify as a Jew - even if they misunderstand what that identity really means - is a start. We need to build on that.

Antisemitic Countries, Jews, and Rabbis

HaRav Eckstein performs a bris in Antwerp (VIN)

Bnai Brith is a secular American Jewish social service organization whose name derives from the one feature common to all Jewish males: circumcision. Which is the means by which God made His covenant with the Jewish people. Beyond that, the organization has little, if anything, to do with our ultimate purpose on earth as God’s chosen people. Namely, to follow the will of God as expressed in His Torah.

Bnai Brith did not concern itself with whether its members were observant or which denomination of Judaism they belonged to. It simply assumed that every male Jew was circumcised - typically on the eighth day after birth. The procedure is usually performed by a mohel, a professional trained in both the medical and ritual aspects of circumcision.

A skilled mohel receives extensive training and oversight before being allowed to operate independently. By the time they’ve established a reputation, most mohalim have performed scores - if not hundreds - of circumcisions safely and effectively. (For the purposes of this post, I will not discuss Metzitzah B’Peh - a controversial element that many mohalim still practice.)

While pediatricians are medically qualified to perform circumcisions and often do so for non-Jews (many of whom choose circumcising their sons for the perceived health benefits), they (the pediatricians) will often concede that the procedure is best performed by a seasoned mohel. This is, after all, their singular focus, and they become experts in it.

I’ve even heard of non-Jewish parents specifically requesting Jewish mohalim to circumcise their sons - recognizing the advantage of a practitioner who has dedicated decades to perfecting the procedure.

But times have changed. Some medical professionals now claim that circumcision offers no significant health benefits beyond what proper hygiene can provide. Though other professionals dispute this, the point remains: circumcision is no longer universally viewed as a necessary health measure.

Worse yet, I recall many years ago when Rabbi Michael Sternfield - then the Reform rabbi at Sinai Temple in Chicago - forcefully condemned circumcision as a ‘barbaric ritual’ that has no place in the modern world. That stance would effectively eliminate circumcision as the defining criterion for Bnai Brith membership - a view that has evidently gained traction with some Jewish parents who have chosen not to circumcise their sons.

Rabbi Sternfield would likely approve of a recent news story reported by VIN:

Police in Antwerp raided the homes of prominent mohalim in the city’s Chareidi community, including HaRav Aharon Eckstein and HaRav Moshe Landau. The authorities confiscated their bris knives and demanded lists of children they had circumcised. All this despite the fact that no court ruling had yet been made.

According to witnesses, officers knocked on doors and declared, “Either you open up, or we break in.” These actions followed a lawsuit filed over a year ago by a Jew with a history of antagonizing Jewish communities across Europe.

In the past, such a raid would have been clearly labeled for what it was: antisemitic. But today, voices like Rabbi Sternfield’s would likely endorse such actions under the guise of modern ethics and child welfare.

To me, this event is a clear manifestation of the deeply rooted antisemitism still prevalent in Europe. And ironically, the most dangerous antisemite in this story may very well be the Jew who instigated it. Rabbi Sternfield and many others like him share that shameful distinction.

It is tragic when Jews - believing themselves to be progressive or enlightened - reject one of the Torah’s most fundamental Mitzvos. By doing so, they lend legitimacy to actions like the Antwerp raid. Officials can now claim they acted solely out of concern for child welfare, not out of animus toward Jews or Judaism. And now they can claim to have rabbis that back this up.

But I wonder: what is the survival rate of infants circumcised by mohalim compared to those circumcised by pediatricians? I suspect there’s little to no difference. If anything, I’d wager that experienced mohalim have a slight edge in outcomes due to their specialization.

I gave up long ago the naive belief that antisemitism is exclusively the domain of non-Jews. Some of the worst and most dangerous antisemites are Jews themselves. People who are either ignorant of their own heritage or who believe that Torah law is outdated, irrelevant, or even harmful according to modern ideas of morality and health.

The results of which can be plainly seen in this story.

What if Deri Makes Good on His Threat?

It is no secret that the unity of the Jewish people has become more elusive than ever. That this is happening even within Orthodoxy is not news. Although halachic observance should unite us to a far greater extent than it divides us, the animosity between Modern Orthodox Jews (Datim) and Charedim in Israel has never been greater.

The divisiveness doesn’t end there. Even the Charedim themselves can’t seem to unify under a single political party. There are now three separate Charedi factions in the Knesset - each with its own agenda.

However, the one issue that all Charedi parties seem to agree on is their iron-willed resistance to any form of military service. They are demanding that the Netanyahu government pass a law that would permanently exempt all Charedim from serving in the military. As they have done many times in the past, they are once again threatening to bring down the government if their demands are not met.

So far, they haven’t gotten what they want. In fact, the following was recently reported in Arutz Sheva:

The IDF has initiated an operation targeting individuals who failed to respond to draft notices. Military police have begun locating and detaining dozens of draft dodgers across the country, the army confirmed on Tuesday. The IDF stated that the operation is not only about enforcing enlistment but also about sending a strong message: draft evasion will carry real consequences. “A potential recruit who does not report for induction in accordance with the instructions of the summons he received is liable to face disciplinary or criminal sanctions,” the army said in a statement.

This development has been met with condemnation from Charedi parties, once again accompanied by threats to leave the government. As Aryeh Deri of Shas stated:

“The moment, God forbid, that even one incident occurs in which the military police enter a yeshiva or a house and arrest even one yeshiva student, at that moment, no matter the circumstances, Shas will not be able to remain in the government.”

Netanyahu, who desperately wants to stay in power and needs the Charedi parties to remain in the coalition in order to maintain minimum number of seats required, has promised to pass legislation that would grant the Charedi parties exactly what they want - full exemption from military service. So far, he has been unable to deliver. And now it appears the IDF may finally begin enforcing the existing law and holding violators accountable.

Whether the IDF will follow through remains to be seen. And if they do, it’s still uncertain whether the Charedi parties will carry out their threat to bring down the government. But if that scenario does play out, the implications for the entire country are significant.

My position on Charedi army service is well known. To put it briefly: I do not believe Charedim should be granted a blanket exemption. While I do believe exemptions should exist for some (how many can be worked out in negotiation), there are plenty who should be required to serve—just like every other segment of the population.

The reason I oppose blanket exemptions is the simple injustice of a system where an entire (very large and growing) segment is excused from the sacrifices and risks that the rest of the country is subject to. The unfairness of that should be obvious to anyone with a conscience.

I have to believe that deep down, Charedim know this. And yet they continue with their lives during a war as though nothing is happening. Their leadership, meanwhile, remains firm in their ideological opposition. An opposition that apparently supersedes any guilt they might otherwise feel about letting others do the suffering on their behalf.

What kind of ideology allows such a situation to persist? They claim they do not want their religious standards compromised by the culture of a secular army. I would put it another way: They cherish their Frumkeit. They want to preserve their Chumra-laden lifestyle and believe it is their religious obligation to do so. Even if others must do the dying for them. That there are other observant Jews who serve in the army doesn’t matter to them, because Charedim require a far stricter standard than those other religious and the IDF can’t provide that for them.

So strong is their conviction that they are willing to sacrifice their political power over it.

If that happens, the government will fall, and new elections will be called. Almost certainly, the Charedim will not be part of the next coalition government. One that is likely to have far more hostility toward them than the current government.

And if Charedim are upset now over the arrest of draft dodgers, well—you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

This is not good.

No matter how justified one feels in opposing the Charedi refusal to serve, it won’t matter to them. They have their own sense of injustice. Massive protests will block traffic. Ambulances will be delayed - costing lives and worsening illness. Burning dumpsters will create health hazards in affected neighborhoods. Clashes between Charedi protesters and police will escalate. Blood will be drawn.

There will also be more Charedim in prison than ever before. In the U.S., Charedi communities will hold massive rallies and prayer vigils in support of their Israeli brethren. Israel will grind to a halt, while the world watches ultra-Orthodox Jews behave like gangs of hooligans determined to bring their government to its knees. And they just might succeed.

All of this could be avoided with a little common sense and goodwill. But I fear that the leadership of the Charedi world has lost any semblance of common sense, believing instead that they are fighting God’s war.

And it seems there is nothing anyone can do about it. Where this will all lead - God only knows.