America’s Civil Religion and the First Amendment

Is this public school display a violation of the First Amendment? (Jewish Press)

Last Monday - Memorial Day - I read an intriguing article by Mark Tooley that resonated deeply with me. It was about something he called ‘America’s Civil Religion.’ I think that’s an excellent way to describe what America is all about.

The Founding Fathers of this great nation understood that freedom and the equality of man required that the United States not have an official religion. This was unlike any other civilized nation in Europe at the time, most of which had state-sanctioned religions. The United States was going to be a country where all people would be free to worship as they pleased, without interference from the government. That required that no single religion could be established within any part of the government.

Yet, many of the Founding Fathers were Christians. Some quite devout. How could they reconcile this seemingly contradictory state of affairs, where they would allow people of other faiths, whose beliefs and practices differed from their own, to worship freely?

Ever since, there has been a tension between these two principles - religious freedom and government neutrality. Which has resulted in conflicting views about how to live out these values.

The First Amendment addressed this tension with two very famous clauses: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The former ensures that the government may not establish any particular religion or religious rituals in any governing body - local or national. The latter guarantees that the beliefs and practices of any faith may be freely observed without government interference.

Until about the mid-20th century, the First Amendment worked reasonably well for most Americans. Although there were some constitutional challenges brought by anti-religious groups (e.g., American Atheists), such as demands to remove ‘In God We Trust’ from U.S. currency or to omit ‘under God’ from the Pledge of Allegiance, things moved along pretty smoothly. That’s largely because the vast majority of Americans do believe in God. That is the one unifying factor across much of our population.

But doesn’t that contradict the First Amendment? Apparently not. The Supreme Court has ruled that belief in God, in a general sense, does not amount to the establishment of a particular religion.

Still, belief in God is, by definition, a religious principle—is it not? Don’t the atheists have a point? This is where things get a bit fuzzy. To answer this question, we need to refine what ‘establishing a religion’ really means.

Especially considering the devout nature of many Founding Fathers, whose Puritan ancestors held the Old Testament in high regard. A text we Jews refer to as the Tanach, usually meaning the Torah, from which we derive our beliefs and practices. There is a biblical basis for certain American traditions that have become institutionalized.

Take Thanksgiving, for example. It is rooted in Chag HaAsif (Sukkos/Shemini Atzeres) when Jews are commanded by God to give thanks for the bounty gathered during the fall harvest. The Pilgrims appreciated this Old Testament tradition and adapted it into their own form of thanksgiving.

The point is that there are religious components to the American ethos that are not explicitly identified as such but clearly arise from religious values.

So even though America is a secular country, it has a kind of secular religion—a civil religion—based on biblical values. These values are common to both Christians, who make up the vast majority of the population, and Jews, who constitute less than 2%—many of whom today barely identify with their faith.

Here’s how Mark Tooley put it:

“America’s civil religion organically emerged from America’s founding as a pan-Protestant inclusive way to keep religion in public life without unnecessary division. George Washington was especially expert in citing the Deity while avoiding theological controversy. The tradition worked so well that as more Catholics and Jews came to America, the civil religion not only endured but thrived.

Abraham Lincoln became the high priest of American civil religion, expressed especially through his Gettysburg Address and Second Inaugural Address. In this tradition, God ordained America to be the ‘last best hope on earth,’ while also holding it under divine judgment for the sin of slavery.”

Old Testament values were a consistent feature of American leadership. This was true at the founding, true during Lincoln’s era, and remains true today.

That said, I don’t mean to suggest that American Jews are subject to anything other than the beliefs and practices of Judaism. What I am saying is that certain religious values are shared by all Americans—and that public declarations and symbols of those common values ought to be celebrated, not disparaged or discarded as violations of the First Amendment.

Which brings me to a recent news item reported in the Jewish Press:

“The Texas House on Sunday approved Senate Bill 10, legislation mandating that the Ten Commandments be displayed in every public school classroom across the state...
The bill now heads back to the Senate for final approval (after which) the measure will move to Governor Greg Abbott’s desk, where it is expected to be signed into law.”

First Amendment warriors like the ACLU are sure to challenge this on constitutional grounds. But I think they’ll lose—precisely because of America’s civil religion, where the majority of the American people accept the principles embodied in the Ten Commandments. Principles cherished by our Founding Fathers and some of our greatest presidents.

As this great nation seems to be descending into an abyss where immorality is being turned into a virtue, it is long past time to reverse that trend and refocus on the biblical values that made this country great.

And as the Jewish Press rightly points out, what better time to focus on the Ten Commandments than now - just before Shavuos, when we celebrate the Divine revelation of the Torah and we read the Ten Commandments.

Anti Zionism is Antisemitism - and Harvard

UK Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis (Jerusalem Post)

There is a common belief - though I would characterize it more accurately as an excuse - that being anti-Zionist does not equate to being antisemitic. The reasoning often goes that one can criticize the policies of a Zionist government without hating the Jewish people. While that might make sense to some, I have concluded that, in its current usage, being anti-Zionist is functionally equivalent to being antisemitic. Those who try to make that distinction are often using it as cover for their ancient, deep-seated hatred of the Jewish people.

I am not alone in this view. The Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom, Ephraim Mirvis, expressed a similar sentiment in the Jerusalem Post, stating:

"I am a Zionist because I am a Jew. If you are anti-Zionist, you are anti-Jews and anti-Judaism," he said, adding, "Israel is not just the geo-political endeavor of the Jewish people - it is the center of Judaism."

As far as I'm concerned, this is an unalterable fact. And is in part why Harvard University deserves the harsh scrutiny it is getting from the federal government. Harvard has a long, unfortunate history of antisemitism dating back to its founding over 400 years ago. During which Jews were systematically denied entry. When Jews were finally admitted based on merit, quotas were instituted because Harvard saw ‘too many’ of us being accepted. Eventually, those quotas were dropped, but the right-wing antisemitism that once permeated Harvard’s halls have since been replaced by a left-wing antisemitism disguised as anti-Zionism - now deeply embedded in its faculty and administration.

Lest anyone think Harvard is innocent, even its current president, Alan Garber (who is Jewish), has acknowledged it as a serious problem publicly. More than once. Antisemitism at Harvard manifests in an anti-Zionist student government, a student newspaper that regularly vilifies Israel as an Apartheid state; equates Zionism with racism; demands that the administration support BDS, and allows protests that and call for the destruction of the Jewish state and the people in it.

For me, Harvard has lost its luster as a prestigious institution long ago. It now prioritizes diversity (much of which is based on left wing extremism) over academic excellence. As such they recruit a student body based on diversity first and merit second. Which includes a faculty whose lectures are increasingly driven by left wing political agendas. The further to the left a faculty member leans, the more likely they are to be anti-Zionist, influencing students in the same direction. Jewish students are consistently harassed by peers. Often without their ever-mentioning Israel or Zionism. But simply because they are Jews.

One might think that seeking a diverse international student body (one third of which is currently foreign) is a good thing that exposes their students to a multitude of cultures and value systems. That may be true up to a point. But when international diversity produces a lopsided number of foreign students and faculty members that are hard core anti-Zionist, it turns that notion on its head.

Let’s not pretend the war in Gaza is the origin of this hatred. The BDS movement infiltrated student governments at elite universities long before the events of October 7^th  and Israel’s subsequent response. I would also remind everyone that the United Nations General Assembly passed the infamous "Zionism is racism" resolution in 1975 - 50 years ago! These days Harvard and the UN are of a piece with each other on this issue.

Many argue that withholding federal funds for Harvard's medical research only harms the public good and does little to combat antisemitism. I disagree. First because hitting Harvard where it hurts is the most effective way to generate change. Secondly, Harvard is the most well-endowed university in the world, with an endowment worth over $50 billion.

There's no reason it can’t allocate some of its own resources toward beneficial research, instead of relying on taxpayer money. Money it frankly does not deserve. And if a technicality prevents this, then change the rule that generates that technicality. Why should the world be denied life-saving research because of bureaucratic red tape? If Harvard’s endowment donors object, let the public know. Let them explain why some of their contributions can’t be diverted to support something as universally important as medical research.

The federal government has proposed redirecting their grant money to trade schools - a long-underfunded but essential component of the education system. I think that’s a great idea.

Harvard and its so-called academic freedom warriors claim the government is trying to stifle intellectual liberty.

No. The government is asking Harvard to uphold one of the most fundamental tenets of the American creed: not to discriminate based on religion. And that is a principle Harvard has honored mostly in the breach when it comes to the Jewish people. The only Jews they seem to approve of are those who despise their own Judaism. Jews who agree with the false and dangerous narrative that Zionism is racism.

If I were the government, I would go even further and not hesitate to revoke Harvard’s accreditation. They are not the only game in town. There are a lot of fine universities that are just as prestigious as Harvard is supposed to be. Besides, I would sooner grant accreditation to the ‘Close Cover Before Striking’ Institute of Technology than continue validating an institution that confuses antisemitism with academic freedom. The more Harvard promotes anti-Zionism as a scholarly stance, the more it undermines the legitimacy of its own argument and reveals the antisemitism beneath the surface. 

Leaving the Fold but Staying Observant

There’s a lot to unpack here. The Times of Israel reports about yet another survey dealing with Charedim in Israel who are leaving the fold.

First, let me note the following: People who leave the faith for intellectual reasons are beyond the scope of this post. While they should be engaged in meaningful discussion to help them see the truth of Judaism, a short essay or a comment thread is not the right forum for such a complex topic—it would likely do more harm than good.

This post focuses on those who leave for sociological reasons, not intellectual ones. And by ‘leave’ I don’t necessarily mean they stop being observant. I mean those who no longer want to live within the strict confines of the ultra-Orthodox lifestyle in which they were raised—whether Chasidic or Lithuanian-style Charedi.

In other words, they are not seeking a change in religious belief as much as they are seeking cultural participation. They want to be part of broader society, rather than isolated from it. Without getting into statistics, it’s understandable why a committed person of faith might not fully embrace the stringent lifestyle that is often demanded by ultra-Orthodox communities, especially once they become exposed to life beyond it.

This is precisely why rabbinic leaders in these communities insist on insularity. They fear that exposure to the outside world - often portrayed as completely evil - will seduce their followers. I also suspect it's because they know it reduces the likelihood of people leaving. Keeping members within the ‘warm cocoon’ in which they were raised gives them a sense that the outside world is foreign and threatening. But some exposure does sneak in, and when it does, some individuals begin to want a piece of that world for themselves. And yet - they still believe. They still want to remain observant.

When someone comes from a religious culture that is radically different from the outside world, the appeal of that outside world can sometimes lead to full abandonment of observance. It’s very hard to keep Shabbos, for example, in a world where no one else is observing it.

When belief is not deeply rooted – when people are taught to perform rituals without meaningful discussion of faith - they often don’t develop a strong theological foundation. Just being told to believe isn’t enough. ‘Fire and brimstone’ warnings about sin are easily ignored when someone is seeking relief from what they see as an unnecessarily burdensome and isolating lifestyle. They’re not rejecting Judaism per se. They simply want to enjoy what they see outside as harmless.

These individuals don’t want to abandon observance entirely. They just want to be religious without so many of the strictures and customs imposed by the community they grew up in.

There are organizations in the US that try to help people like this transition into religious lifestyles that don’t carry the same burden of customs and restrictions. Of which I am an enthusiastic supporter. But I don’t think there are any in Israel.

In any case such transitions are rarely easy. A lifestyle change is difficult to adjust even in going from one religious community to another. For someone who grew up Charedi, Modern Orthodoxy might feel as foreign as secularism. Unfortunately, many Modern Orthodox communities aren’t all that welcoming to outsiders. Especially those who didn’t attend the same schools or grow up in similar homes with Modern Orthodox values.

This is where the concept of ‘Charedi-Lite’ comes in. Although they are looked down upon in Israel by the mainstream Charedi world, they remain observant and retain many of the same outward trappings. They don’t feel like strangers in their own communities the way they might if they tried to join Modern Orthodoxy. They keep many customs and some restrictions, but allow themselves freedom to participate in broader society in meaningful ways. Like pursuing higher education for better jobs, or even joining the military.

This phenomenon already exists in the U.S. It’s a trend I believe is growing among moderate, mainstream Charedim. In the U.S., it’s an easier path to take - especially for Lithuanian-style Charedim since they receive a secular education that can lead to college and professional careers. In Israel, Charedim of this type are just beginning to explore this lifestyle, though they remain a small minority.

The challenge is that, unlike in the U.S., mainstream Israeli Charedim do not accept them as readily. However, as has been noted recently, they are not completely rejected either. My hope is that this form of going ‘Off the Derech’ - not in terms of abandoning observance, but in transitioning from an overly strict, isolationist lifestyle to one that remains fully observant while integrating into Israeli society—continues to grow to the point where they will be fully accepted.

Because that would solve a lot of problems.

Yom Yerushalayim and Charedim in the IDF

Mothers of Charedi soldiers gather in Jerusalem (Jewish Press)

I did not say Tachanun today.

On this day - Yom Yerushalayim - there are a couple of things that troubled me. Not because they’re new issues. Not at all. These are matters that constantly nibble at my consciousness, especially regarding the lack of unity among observant Jews.

Yom Yerushalayim is a celebratory day with profound significance for religious Jews. A significance not lost even on many secular Jews. On this day in 1967, IDF Colonel Moti Gur entered the recaptured Old City of Jerusalem, and declared, ‘Har HaBayit b’yadeinu!’ ‘The Temple Mount is in our hands!’ After 2,000 years of exile, God had deemed His people - the Jewish people - worthy of restoring sovereignty over the holiest site in the world.

Moti Gur understood the significance of that moment. So did Rav Ahron Soloveichik, who ruled that Yom Yerushalayim is a celebratory day and therefore Tachanun should not be said.

But the Charedi world could not care less. They completely ignore this day as though nothing important happened. So, I stood silently this morning in the Charedi shul where I davened, as most around me said Tachanun.

And honestly - this lack of recognition made me angry, as it does every year when this happens.

Even though I profoundly disagree with them on this, I do understand their rationale for the not recognizing the State of Israel. It was founded and is led by non-religious Jews. But to ignore the spiritual significance of restoring the Makom HaMikdash into Jewish hands - as if nothing happened at all - is mind-boggling. How far must their rejection of the State go that they cannot even acknowledge the miraculous return to Har HaBayit?

It sticks in my craw. (Although I’m not entirely sure what a “craw” is—but you know what I mean.)
If I were Charedi, I think this one issue—this extreme rejectionist attitude that does not give recognition even to the momentous event that happened on this day in 1967 - would still bother me, even if I agreed with them about everything else. And yet, it appears that it doesn’t bother the typical Charedi Jew at all. They likely see me as out of sync with Daas Torah—and perhaps hope that someday, I’ll "do Teshuva."

On the plus side, I was heartened to see a story about a gathering of Charedi mothers whose sons serve in the IDF’s Charedi unit, Netzach Yehuda.

As noted in the Jewish Press:

“In a modest hall in Jerusalem on Wednesday evening, dozens of Haredi mothers—whose sons serve in the Israel Defense Forces—gathered for what organizers and attendees alike called a historic moment: a rare public acknowledgment of their role, their pain, and their pride.”

The event, organized by the Netzah Yehuda Organization, marked the first of its kind—a formal, communal space for ultra-Orthodox women to speak openly about their sons in uniform. For many in the room, the evening was more than symbolic. It was a release of long-held tension. A recognition long withheld.

“In our communities, this subject isn’t always discussed,” said one mother, her voice trembling. “You carry it inside. Tonight, for the first time, I felt I could put it down.”

The fact that it isn’t discussed speaks volumes. That’s probably because enlistment in the IDF is frowned upon - if not outright rejected - even in units like Netzach Yehuda, which were specifically designed to cater to Charedi sensitivities.

Why are they rejected? Because they are accused of not keeping their promise. I recall one Charedi enlistee corroborating this claim, reporting that a female instructor was sent to teach Netzach Yehuda recruits military procedures - despite assurances that this would not happen. And when he and others complained, they were threatened with charges of insubordination.

So how can they trust the army?

On the other hand, other Charedi recruits have reported no such violations of the IDF’s commitment to their particular religious standards.

Clearly, Netzach Yehuda is a work in progress. It may have some bugs to work out, but it should not be discarded as a forbidden endeavor for Charedim.

These mothers were clearly proud of their sons - even as they remained afraid to express that pride publicly.

Sadly, I don’t blame them. The strident anti-army stance of Charedi leadership remains strong, citing the army’s failure to fully uphold its promises. There is no real discussion about improvement. No evaluation of whether these breaches are exceptions or the rule. Just blanket opposition.

I wonder how this leadership feels about those who do serve. About the families who support them and take pride in their sacrifice. Are they ostracized? Are these young men considered rebels against Daas Torah - even when they serve in Netzach Yehuda?

My gut feeling, based on conversations I’ve had with hardcore Charedim, is that, yes! They are ostracized, to some extent. Not entirely rejected, since they still observant and adhere to Charedi norms and customs. But they’re seen as ‘Charedi-lite.’ They may respect the Gedolim who issue the Daas Torah on this issue, but not enough to obey them. That’s how they’re viewed.

How sad that those Charedim who recognize the injustice of leaving the burden of war solely on the shoulders of others - are themselves viewed with disdain. Even though they remain Charedi in every other way.

When Two Devoutly Religious Cultures Clash

I still don’t get it. Not entirely, at least.

There are two Orthodox communities in Israel that ought to be in sync on the major issues facing the Jewish state today: the Charedim and the Religious Zionists/Dati Leumi (RZ/DL). Both believe in the same Torah and both observe the mitzvot meticulously. Both proclaim the value of Torah study as supreme and urge all their youth to pursue it diligently. Both have poskim who do not compromise on halacha and rule in accordance with their expertise and religious conscience. Both reject deviating from tradition to accommodate modern cultural trends.

In most areas, there's little difference between these two groups in how they live their religious lives.

And yet, they are so deeply divided on one issue that the saintly rabbinic leaders of each community have virtually no contact with one another. This division filters down through the communities, often leading to resentment - at least among the general public, if not always at the leadership level.

For those unfamiliar with the source of this divide, one word sums it up: Israel.

How each side views the modern State of Israel has created an unimaginable and growing rift—one that has widened dramatically since October 7th, for obvious reasons.

From that day forward, Israel has been at war with the perpetrators of the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust. That has required a massive call-up of the citizen-soldiers who make up the bulk of Israel’s defense forces (IDF). And that is the issue that has caused the massive rupture between these two devout communities.

From the RZ perspective, the creation of the State of Israel is a seminal event! Seen by some as the ‘first flowering of our redemption’ from exile. And by others at least as the historic restoration of Jewish sovereignty over the land promised to us by God. As such, they believe every Jew living in Israel has a moral and ethical responsibility to help protect its citizens, including through military service.

Charedim, on the other hand, attribute no religious significance at all to the establishment of the state. Making matters worse, they say, is that the founders of the state were at best secular. And, at worst, hostile to religion. Charedim cite ample historical evidence of attempts by early Israeli leadership to secularize religious immigrants from Middle Eastern countries, with considerable success. This was particularly evident, they argue, in the military, where religious recruits were often stripped of their observant practices. A phenomenon they claim still exists today.

As a result, they have chosen to avoid army service entirely in what they perceive to be a secular, anti-religious institution. Furthermore, they see themselves as the true guardians of the Jewish people through their full-time Torah study. They believe this is the real source of protection for the nation. Hence, they fight tooth and nail against any threat to diminish that mission, even slightly.

Their commitment to Torah study also means that they do not work while in yeshiva or kollel, instead relying on their wives’ income and government stipends. Charedi political participation is almost exclusively for the purpose of securing their community’s religious and economic needs.

The point is that both groups are acting out of deeply held religious convictions—and both resent the other for the consequences of those beliefs.

The practical effect of this  dispute is that RZs are doing all the fighting, dying, and sacrificing - spending months away from their families and jobs while battling an enemy determined to annihilate the Jewish people.

Charedim, meanwhile, are implacable in their refusal to allow their youth to undergo military service. Believing, first, that it would compromise their religious identity, and second, that it would diminish the one thing they believe actually protects Israel: full-time Torah study.

That, in a nutshell, is why two deeply observant communities are practically at war with each other.

I understand the views of both sides. And I certainly understand why emotions are running so high. Especially during wartime.

What I cannot understand is the intransigence of the Charedi side in refusing to offer any compromise, especially in light of the fact that one of their original objections to military service has proven to be overstated. Religious recruits do not automatically become less observant when they serve. Which is demonstrated by the huge number of RZ students that serve and remain religious after service. Do they not see that the alleged rampant disabuse of observance in the army is not rampant at all? 

Despite this, Charedi representatives in the Knesset continue to push legislation to permanently exempt all yeshiva students from army service. I cannot imagine how those currently risking their lives must feel about it - or how their families feel. But I’m sure they are not happy, to say the least.

That intransigence was once again on full display during a recent meeting of Charedi gedolim, as reported on Matzav:

The political future of Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu’s government hangs in the balance this week, as Gedolei Yisroel issue a firm ultimatum: substantial progress must be made by Shavuos on the legislation of a new draft law and the formal recognition of yeshiva students’ status—or the coalition risks unraveling…

The emergency meeting took place at the home of Rav Dov Landau and was attended by Rav Moshe Hillel Hirsch and other leading roshei yeshiva.

I understand where these Gedolim are coming from. But I cannot understand how they fail to see the injustice of their demands.

They may sincerely believe that Torah - not the army - is what protects us. But how can they not appreciate what the IDF contributes? It can't be that they think the army should stop fighting Hamas and other Islamic Jihadists; and that Jewish blood is being spilled for no reason, because it is really the Torah that protects us. Even if they truly believe that, surely, they understand that such protection may be realized through the army.

Do they not see the injustice of allowing Charedi youth who aren’t fully engaged in Torah study - some of whom are hardly engaged at all - to avoid military service simply because they occupy a seat in a Beis Medrash? Or worse, are on a list of students registered in a particular Yeshiva but don’t bother attending? 

Even if one is 100% convinced that full-time Torah study trumps everything else, surely they must admit that not every single Charedi youth is capable of that level of learning or commitment. They may be a small percentage of the tens of thousands of Charedim in the Yeshiva world. But they are surely not an insignificant number.

Why not allow for some kind of compromise that eases the IDF’s manpower shortage? A shortage currently being filled by longer, riskier tours of duty for citizen-soldiers? Would it not be worth having some kind of reproachment with their RZ counterparts if if they did that? Why not give a peaceful and sensible resolution to this crisis a chance instead of exacerbating and perpetuating enmity?

Instead, Charedim cling to their "Hell no, we won’t go" stance on military service.

The Prime Minister knows that passing their proposed law would collapse his coalition. But so too would be a refusal to pass it. So he keeps kicking that can down the road, making promises to Charedi politicians he knows he cannot keep. Promises that would be irrelevant in a future government less friendly to Charedi interests.

At the end of the day, Charedi threats to bring down the government are likely empty, because doing so would be counterproductive. But why they won’t compromise remains a mystery to me. I simply do not understand their intransigence. 

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.