The New Jewish Caucus in Congress

There was a time I might have welcomed something like this. Jewish Insider reports that Jewish members of the House have, for the first time, decided to create a Jewish caucus. The purpose of this, I suppose, is to have a unified Jewish voice on policies and positions that affect the Jewish people.

In theory, this sounds great. A united Jewish voice in Congress could have a positive influence on how Congress deals with the rise in antisemitism. If that were their sole purpose, I would support them. Although non-Jewish Republicans have done a far better job of this lately than Jewish Democrats, it can’t hurt to have the Jewish voices in congress join them.

But the potential for distorting Judaism into some sort of religious version of progressive values makes them a liability rather than an asset. It should not be lost on anyone that the entire caucus will be made up of liberal Jewish Democrats whose values are more liberal than they are Jewish. The three Jewish Republicans in the House will not be part of this caucus.

The fact that only liberal Democrats are involved leads me to suspect that what they consider to be in the Jewish interest is not necessarily in the Jewish interest to me - or to any other Orthodox Jew. Recent history has shown that many Jewish House members seemed to care more about Palestinian casualties during Israel’s war with Hamas than they did about Jewish soldiers who were killed or grievously injured protecting the Jewish people of Israel. The fact that the Prime Minister of Israel has been boycotted more than once by some Jewish Democrats does not give me confidence that Jewish interests would be at the heart of this caucus. 

More importantly, however, in order for something to be considered Jewish, one has to define what makes it Jewish aside from the fact that it will be fighting antisemitism. Unsurprisingly, Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (one of the caucus’s founders) provided an answer to that:

Wasserman Schultz said that the caucus will seek to promote other Jewish community values like education and tikkun olam, which could bring it into broader fights over the Trump administration’s efforts to cut federal spending.

To define the mission of the caucus in terms of education and tikkun olam is exactly what’s wrong with calling this caucus Jewish. A Jewish caucus ought to be promoting more than just one or two valu, which in any case aren’t exclusively Jewish. In fact, the opposite will probably be true. The caucus will likely be promoting progressive values and calling them Jewish, a total distortion of what Jewish values truly consist of. 

None of the Jewish members of Congress are Orthodox. Some of whom wouldn’t recognize a Jewish value if it hit them in the face. For example, Jewish progressives believe that normalizing behavior the Torah considers an abomination is a Jewish value.

It should therefore not come as a surprise that all the members of this Jewish caucus are liberal Democrats. The three Jewish Republican House members will not be a part of it. Although Rep. Wasserman Schultz denies it, I agree with...

Rep. Max Miller (R-OH), who had expressed interest in joining the caucus, attended one of its earlier meetings, but “for some reason has declared this to be the Democratic Jewish Caucus…

As far as I am concerned, this caucus may do more harm to the Jewish people than good. They will be fighting the same fight that heterodoxy fights. For example, I doubt they would support a federal voucher program for all states that would provide much-needed relief to tuition-paying parochial school parents. They would surely side with the leftist teachers’ unions who want that money for themselves, using the First Amendment as their fig-leaf objection.

Bottom line, sure. A unified Jewish voice in Congress is a good thing. And it may be helpful in fighting antisemitism. But with respect to other Jewish issues, the fact that it consists only of liberal Jewish Democrats makes me wonder if the cure is worse than the disease.

Daas Torah and Chilul HaShem

Rav Dov Landau (Jerusalem Post)

Israel is Evil – Free Palestine: From the River to the Sea! This is not my view. It is the view of  Rav Dov Landau, one of only two people considered to be the Gadol HaDor in the world of Lithuanian Yeshivas. 

My issue is not so much with Rav Landau himself. My issue is with the Charedim who consider him the Gadol HaDor, thereby elevating his views to the level of sacred truth. 

Charedim are people who tremble at the word of God. Their lives are guided by a deep sense of divine retribution for failing to follow His will. Their instincts are shaped by this awe, leading them to conclusions deeply rooted in their religious convictions.

Yet, ultimately, they will not trust their own conclusions when they contradict the words of someone like Rav Landau. This phenomenon is known as being Mevatel one's own Daas to that of Daas Torah - negating one's own understanding of right and wrong in Judaism and blindly following the view of a presumed greater authority.

I understand the logic behind this kind of thinking. Often, accepting the view of someone wiser than you - despite your own intuition - turns out to be the right decision. But sometimes, an opinion is so obviously wrong that being Mevatel your own Daas becomes a Chilul HaShem (desecration of God's name).

One of Rav Landau’s recent comments, in my view, qualifies as exactly that. I have been aware of it for a while and initially ignored it, thinking it might have been an offhand remark made in the heat of the moment. However, it has resurfaced in the Jerusalem Post:

In a letter published Tuesday in the ultra-Orthodox daily Yated Ne'eman, Rav Landau wrote:
"Zionism is a movement whose purpose is to establish the Jewish people on an explicitly secular foundation, rooted in heresy and rebellion against divine sovereignty."
He further stated, "There is no allowance to participate with them, serve in any role within their institutions, or vote in their elections in any form whatsoever."

The rabbi emphasized that involvement in these institutions constitutes support for beliefs contradictory to traditional Jewish values, warning that it leads to "desecration of God's name."

What he has essentially done here is condemn the entire Religious Zionist movement. Its leadership. Its constituents, and its deeply devout followers. Implicit in this statement is the claim that serving in the IDF is forbidden. This means that, according to Rav Landau, every IDF soldier who was killed in Gaza died while committing a sin.

I cannot think of too many statements that constitute a greater Chilul HaShem than this. I cannot imagine how the families of fallen soldiers feel when they hear such comments. Does he not care about other Jews? Especially other religious Jews?

(I have heard that Rav Landau cries whenever he hears that a Jewish life has been lost in war. I struggle to understand how one can mourn someone who, by their own declaration, died in sin. It seems incongruous. Perhaps he believes these soldiers were misled by the ‘false’ ideology of Religious Zionism and were therefore not fully culpable. But I digress.)

Some might argue that Rav Landau’s voice is not the only voice of Daas Torah. This is true. There are other rabbis of similar stature who disagree with him, and one can choose to follow them instead.

The issue that prompted Rav Landau’s comments was whether religious Jews should participate in the WZO (World Zionist Organization) elections. The percentage of votes determines how WZO funds are allocated. A few years ago, a Daas Torah position endorsed forming a religious party (Eretz Hakodesh) to participate in the WZO elections. Every religious Jew was urged to join and vote for that party.

At the time, some rabbinic leaders opposed participation, including Rav Aharon Feldman, who argued that it was hypocritical to oppose Zionism in all its forms while simultaneously joining one of its most prominent institutions. He may have had a point. But he was in the minority. In any case, Rav Landau went far beyond that.

(Eretz Hakodesh performed so well that secular and heterodox parties within the WZO lost influence. The following year, the Reform movement launched a major campaign to increase their voter turnout.)

What makes matters far worse is another recent comment from Rav Landau. One that could have easily come from the Satmar Rebbe or Neturei Karta:

Rabbi Dov Landau, head of the Slabodka Yeshiva and one of the leaders of the Lithuanian Charedi community, recently expressed support for Arab rule over Israel.
In a transcript published by Kikar on Friday, he reminisced, "It is possible to live well with the Arabs without a state."

He further stated, "It would be quite good if the Arabs ruled here; the best situation [would be] if the Arabs ruled. They would respect them (Zionists), not interfere with them, bring money to the country—the Arabs love money."

I am at a total loss for words.

There are Charedim who follow Rav Landau unquestioningly. And the entire Charedi world respects him and his views as legitimate Daas Torah, even if they disagree with him.

These are the people whose sanity I question.

Progressivism is Not Judaism

I considered it. I don’t recall if I was specifically asked or if it was simply a matter of responding to a general call by the Coalition for Jewish Values (CJV) for Orthodox rabbis to join a new group. The goal of this group was to identify and articulate legitimate Jewish values in contrast to values being presented as Jewish by liberal Jewish movements - which, in reality, they were not. The purpose was to educate policymakers about the authentic Jewish perspective on potential legislation that could affect us.

CJV wanted as many rabbis as possible on their roster to bolster their claim to authenticity. They did not require members to be pulpit rabbis or even to have had a career in any facet of the rabbinate - so long as they were ordained. CJV currently has over 2,500 member rabbis.

I decided against joining. Even though I support their mission, I found CJV to be a bit too political. Almost as if their goal was to equate all politically conservative views with Halacha and every liberal view as anti-Halacha. While I’m sure they would deny that characterization, their track record suggests otherwise.

This is something I do not agree with. Even though I lean heavily conservative on most issues, there are some where I would be considered quite liberal.

That being said, I obviously agree with CJV on most issues. The latest of which is their response to what has to be one of the most misleading claims ever made by movements that call themselves Jewish. A view that is outrageous by any sane measure unless one is a far-left progressive. As noted in JNS:

CJV released an open letter from 150 rabbis and teachers reaffirming Judaism’s “clear and unambiguous stance on human genders.” This came in response to a letter sent to members of Congress by more than 100 left-wing Jewish organizations opposing what they described as an “anti-transgender sports ban.”

The letter to Congress, led by the Union for Reform Judaism, asserted that Jewish legal texts mention at least six different genders—an assertion that the rabbis affiliated with CJV described as a distortion of those texts with “no relationship to normative Judaism and three millennia of Jewish law.” The missive also argued that “there is no evidence that transgender athletes have an advantage,” despite the American College of Sports Medicine issuing a consensus statement that “biological sex is a primary determinant of athletic performance.”

This is a no-brainer. Even if one supports transgenderism as normative, the idea that a man who has undergone gender-affirming surgery is now on the same competitive playing field as a biological woman is so ridiculous, I don’t see how even the most progressive views on transgenderism could support allowing a transgender female to compete with women in the same sport.

Especially from those who love to say, “follow the science.”

We aren’t even talking about religious values here. We are talking about an unambiguous scientific fact: “biological sex is a primary determinant of athletic performance.”

Is it unfair to trans athletes who want to compete? What about fairness to the rest of the athletes who are biological women? How is it fair to them? Such nonsense.

As for the claim that Jewish legal texts mention at least six different genders - that is patently false. They must be referring to an Androgynos - an individual born with both male and female genitalia - or a Tumtum, someone born without clearly defined genitalia. The Gemara qualifies the status of a Tumtum as uncertain, noting that their genitalia are often hidden or covered. Once exposed, they are classified as either male or female.

I have no clue what the other two genders they were referring to might be. Honestly, I can’t imagine what they’re talking about. But I’m sure the same logic applies. The point is, these are not genders; they are rare anomalies for which we should have empathy.

That’s the trouble with most heterodox Jewish movements. They have made a religion out of progressivism. Calling it Judaism does not make it so.

An Objective View of Trump's End Game for Gaza

Secretary of State Marco Rubio was recently quoted saying the following to the people of Israel:

"You are an extraordinary country. You rose from the ashes of a low moment in the history of humanity, facing threats from all sides, and you are an example to the whole world. If there were more Israels in the Middle East, there would be more peace and quiet."

That’s what I’m talking about. This is the kind of support for Israel that Trump brings to the White House.

It is unfortunate that blind hatred for President Trump prevents so many from seeing him in that way. It is a hatred based on legitimate concerns about a man obsessed with himself. Someone who appears willing to sacrifice the welfare of the nation for his own personal gain. A man who skirts the law or even breaks it when it serves his purpose. A man whose entire life, both public and private, has been viewed in that light.

I get it. It is almost impossible to give a man seen in that way the benefit of the doubt. It is assumed that every single thing he says and does is self-serving, evil, or, at best, worthless. Any attempt by someone with even a modicum of objectivity to view one of his policies in a favorable light is immediately shot down with an ‘explanation’ about why that policy should not be seen in a favorable light.

I therefore don’t expect to convince anyone with that attitude (and there are many of you) who are hardwired to react that way.

Which brings me to his grandiose, almost bizarre, plans to turn Gaza into the ‘Riviera of the Middle East.’  And transfer all the refugees out of there while they are that is being done. It is easy to ridicule that. It will probably never happen. Moving two million refugees into countries that don’t want them is one problem. Then there are the refugees themselves, who would rather die in squalor in Gaza than live in luxury somewhere else.

The rest of the world is beyond disturbed by the abandonment of what they all believed to be the only solution to the Israeli-Arab conflict: creating a Palestinian state out of Gaza and Judea and Samaria (the West Bank). That has also been the conventional wisdom of the U.S. for decades. That idea has been discarded by the Trump administration. As it should have been. Especially now after October 7th.

So how is this idea going to work?

The first question asked by the media is: Who is going to give Gaza to the US? Trump said there is nothing to give. Gaza is desolate and unlivable. The U.S. is just going to take it. Who is going to stop them? Hamas?

The next question is: How can we force the refugees to leave if they don’t want to? And where will they go if nobody wants them?

Trump says they have no choice. They can’t live in an area filled with unexploded bombs all over the place and abandoned buildings that could collapse at any moment. He believes neighboring countries will come around and offer their Arab brethren a parcel of land to live on. Despite their unequivocal insistence that they won’t. And that the displaced Gaza refugees will love their new homes,

Will Trump make any money from this development? He says he’s not interested in that. He just wants to see an end to the cycle of violence and has come up with a plan different from the decades-long ‘rinse and repeat’ approach that never had a chance of success. Trump believes that if you change the facts on the ground so that Palestinians are no longer refugees, peace will follow.

As radical and ridiculous as this plan might seem, one might notice that Arab nations are not outright dismissing it or sticking to the 2-state solution. No one is talking about Gaza (along with Judea and Samaria)  becoming a Palestinian state. Instead, they are saying they will come up with an alternative plan for Gaza and the refugees.

Is the US serious about implementing this redevelopment plan for Gaza? This is what Trump wants the world to think. The world recognizes that Trump is a madman capable of doing anything he pleases without regard for the consequences. In my view, Trump knows that this is how the world sees him and is sticking to his plan until someone comes up with a better one. And by better, he does not mean the same decades-long two-state solution that never had a chance of working. The following was reported in the Jewish Press:

Secretary of State Marco Rubio on Thursday referred to the “day after” in Gaza, stating that his upcoming visit to the Gulf aims to explore an alternative plan proposed by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, which would replace President Donald Trump’s plan.

Secretary Rubio stressed that if these Arab nations fail to present a concrete proposal, Israel would be forced to act independently. “All the countries in the region say how much they care about the Palestinians, but none of them want to take them,” Rubio said. “If the Arab countries have a better plan for Gaza, that’s great. But obviously, any plan that leaves Hamas there will be a problem.” 

What will they come up with? It will be interesting to find out. Jordan and Egypt are the two countries most likely to take in any of those refugees. They  have to consider that the U.S. has some financial leverage over them. And that Trump is eager to use it. It wouldn’t make him too unhappy to reduce the federal budget by canceling foreign aid to these countries and they know it. (Negligible to budget reduction though it may be.)

So at the end of the day I have no clue what Gaza will look like, I doubt it will become the ‘Riviera of the Middle East’. Although I can think of a far worse outcome. For one thing, imagine the jobs that would be created and the tax revenue it could generate for Gaza.

But one thing is certain. It can no longer be a launching point for terror attacks against Israel. That is the one thing I see coming out of all this that is ironclad.

Are Centrists All That Different From the Right?

Rabbi David Bashevkin’s essay last year about the controversy over Torah U’Mada has reappeared this year. This got me thinking about whether it was worth revisiting the issue. Have there been any changes in attitude between Centrists and the right on this matter?

Torah U’Mada, in the broadest sense of the term, is the underlying Hashkafa of Centrist Orthodoxy. In that sense, a Centrist is someone who values Mada (secular studies and secular culture). However, there are major differences even among Centrists in how they apply value to it.

There is the Hirschian Torah Im Derech Eretz (TIDE) model, which sees value only in those studies and aspects of culture that enhance our belief in God, deepen our understanding of Torah, or enable us to make a living. This utilitarian view dismisses parts of Mada that do not fall into those categories.

The Torah U’Mada (TUM) model, on the other hand, sees value in Mada for its own sake, considering the study of all of God’s creation to be inherently valuable, irrespective of whether they conform to the conditions of TIDE. The cultural side of TUM is more complicated, but essentially - as long as there is no contradiction with Halacha or with Jewish values, there is nothing wrong with participating in the culture as a means of relaxation.

Back in the mid 80s, Rabbi Norman Lamm, then President of Yeshiva University (YU) decided that YU’s motto of TuM needed to be better defined. That the idea of having a Yeshiva and a University in the same building or campus was not enough. This led to his TUM project and later to his classic work on the subject. In that work, he proposed several models of what TuM represents. 

YU was never accepted by the right. Although it was never banned as heretical or considered outside the pale of Orthodoxy, the idea of a Yeshiva college was seen as ‘Krum’ - a distorted view of Judaism. 

To the right, only Torah study was to be pursued. In more extreme right-wing circles, attending college was considered outright forbidden. In less extreme right-wing circles, Mada was seen at best as a necessary evil for Parnassah (livelihood) purposes, which should otherwise be avoided. No self-respecting right-wing yeshiva would ever include a college curriculum as part of its program.

Rabbi Bashevkin then notes the following:

On Chol Hamoed Pesach 1988, Rav Mordechai Gifter, Rosh Yeshiva of Telshe, lambasted Rabbi Lamm and Yeshiva University after a New York Times article entitled “Jewish Moderate Urges Believers to Take a Stand” covered Rabbi Lamm’s ideology. Rabbi Gifter took particular issue with how the article described Rabbi Lamm’s differences from the more right-wing yeshiva community:“But unlike what he called the right wing,” the article reports, “Dr. Lamm said the centrist group is open to secular culture…”

Rabbi Gifter’s biting response to Rabbi Lamm became known in yeshiva lore as “Gifter Shechts Lamm for Pesach.”

As Rabbi Lamm’s audience grew, so did the platform of his critics, most notably The Jewish Observer, the official monthly magazine of Agudath Israel of America.

Rabbi Lamm delivered his message to the Fifth Avenue Synagogue, contrasting his moderate Centrist Orthodoxy with Ultra-Orthodoxy. He criticized their triumphalism, which he argued was based strictly on their numbers, and stated that they had set the agenda for too long. He added that it was time for Centrist Jews to assert themselves.

After additional criticism in the Jewish Observer by Rabbi Aaron Twerski, Rabbi Lamm  responded with a bit of contrition, hoping that we could all agree to disagree in the spirit of Elu V’Elu (Although he didn’t use that phrase, I believe that is what he meant).

This chapter in the history of Orthodoxy in America is a very sad one. I see no need for the right to have such utter disdain for Centrism. At the end of the day, we both believe the same fundamental things. We both believe in God and in His word as recorded in the Torah. We both study Torah in the same way. We both believe that there is value in Torah study for its own sake. We both believe in the meticulous observance of Mitzvos. Even our lifestyles are not all that different, we daven in the same Shuls and send our children to Yeshivos that teach the same Torah all the way through high school and beyond.

The only difference is that Centrists include Mada in their lives and have a positive view of it, while the right tries not to include it. Seeing it as either unnecessary or, at best, a necessary evil to be avoided if possible.

It's just a shame that these two worlds can’t look at the vast similarities between us instead of looking at the minute and insignificant differences. Because at the end of the day, we are all the same.

Expressing Justifiable Outrage the Wrong Way

Scarlett Johansson

I don’t know why Kanye West harbors such hatred toward Jewish people. I cannot imagine what must have happened to him to make such an antisemite.

But there is no doubt that he has an extreme hatred of us. And he proved it again last Sunday. 

He has called himself a Nazi, expressed love for Hitler, and sells T-shirts with swastikas on his website. A website for which he even placed an ad during the Super Bowl. The fact that he has millions of followers demonstrates how much influence he wields.

However, my primary concern is not so much his antisemitic influence. Even though it may be considerable. That can be countered with common sense; the fact that the vast majority of Americans reject his views entirely, and the response from all the entities that severed ties with him. My concern lies with a highly publicized video response featuring several Jewish celebrities wearing T-shirts displaying an obscene gesture while making that gesture themselves. I understand the outrage. But I am appalled that it took such an obscene form.

The Jewish people need not stoop to vulgar responses to express our feelings. We are better than that. There are more dignified ways to express our outrage without dishonoring ourselves in the process.

Except that this reaction never actually happened.

It was generated by AI (Artificial Intelligence), which manipulated images of these celebrities to make it appear as though they were wearing these T-shirts and making the same obscene gesture.

While I understand and appreciate the sentiment behind the outrage that these images projected, I am relieved that they were not real. I think Scarlett Johansson captured the issue best when she stated:

“It has been brought to my attention by family members and friends that an AI-generated video featuring my likeness, in response to an antisemitic view, has been circulating online and gaining traction.

I am a Jewish woman who has no tolerance for antisemitism or hate speech of any kind. But I also firmly believe that the potential for hate speech multiplied by AI is a far greater threat than any one person who takes accountability for it. We must call out the misuse of AI, no matter its messaging, or we risk losing a hold on reality.”

The idea that AI can create fake videos that are indistinguishable from reality is not new. But for the first time, it has been used to promote an idea based on a lie - even if the message itself was well-intentioned. Lying as a means of gaining support can have destructive side effects. In this case, it created false images of people making obscene gestures. If I were a celebrity and someone included a fake image of me doing that, I would be livid.

That being said, I do not support imposing excessive limits on freedom of expression, as it could infringe on First Amendment rights. However, as Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said in the 1919 Schenck v. United States decision, “Shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater is not protected free speech.”

The remedy for the misuse of AI in this way seems rather simple: Fake videos that have the potential to cause harm - whether to individuals or groups - should be illegal and subject to severe penalties.

If laws against this kind of AI deception do not already exist, they should. And Congress must act in a bipartisan manner to address this issue immediately.

Religious Schools as Government Funded Charter Schools

The Supreme Court (JTA)

At the founding of this great nation, Thomas Jefferson insisted that freedom of religion be an integral part of its ethos. This principle was put into writing in the First Amendment to the Constitution, the pertinent part of which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…

If I understand correctly, the United States thus became the first nation to not have an official religion. We are a secular nation that allows all citizens the freedom to pray in any manner we choose and guarantees that freedom in the Constitution.

There are two parts to this simple amendment: the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. The Establishment Clause has been interpreted to mean that there can be no government participation in any religious function. Doing so has been seen as a violation of that clause. This interpretation has come to be known as the separation of church and state.

However, a careful reading of the First Amendment shows that it says no such thing. Participation is not the same as establishing a religion. Nevertheless, this has been the way the amendment has been applied in numerous legal challenges. Many religious parents who wanted to pass their values on to their children through teachings available only in privately funded religious schools were deprived of the financial benefits given to secular parents in government-funded public schools. They argued that this was, in fact, a discriminatory practice by the government against religious people and an impediment to the Free Exercise Clause.

I have always argued that at least the core secular curriculum of parochial schools should be publicly funded, no different than public schools. Essentially, the government would be paying all teachers for teaching the same subjects, whether in public or parochial schools. I categorically reject the argument that religion would somehow creep into the secular classrooms of parochial schools. If the same teachers who teach those subjects in public schools also teach them in parochial schools, how is religion creeping in? Many religious schools already use non-Jewish teachers to teach those subjects, even in Charedi schools—at least those that haven’t abandoned a secular studies curriculum.

But what has happened recently seems to be a reconsideration of the notion of complete church-state separation, apparently interpreting it as I do: that participation does not mean establishing religion.

According to JTA:

After Oklahoma approved a request by the Catholic Church to open a charter school in 2023, lawsuits quickly followed. Courts at both the state and federal levels ruled against the church, finding that a publicly funded school promoting religion would be unconstitutional.

Now, the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up the case, signaling that the justices are willing to consider overturning a longstanding legal precedent protecting the separation of church and state. If the court allows St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School to become the first government-funded religious school in the country, the consequences for religious education—including for Jewish schools—could be far-reaching.

You betcha! I would love to see this radical change in government funding for education. It would mean a far more equitable distribution of funds per family. Instead of limiting financial support to parents who send their children to public schools, all parents would get a slice of the pie. There is no reason a religious parent should be denied those funds simply because they want to ensure the transmission of their religious values to their children. No single religion would benefit alone—all religions would.

Imagine what it would be like for Orthodox Jewish parents if their children’s education were paid for by the government, just like everyone else’s.

As radical as this change might seem based on the history of the Court’s decisions on church-state issues, the Supreme Court of today has a supermajority of conservative justices who have paid much more attention to the rights of religious people than the liberal justices of the past, who dominated the Court for decades and often treated religious values as if they were immoral.

Are there concerns? Sure. For example, I’m not so crazy about the possibility of including schools that teach radical Islam.

There is also the problem of requiring schools to accept anyone who wishes to enroll their child—regardless of their religion.

But I think a responsible way can be worked out to decide which schools would be eligible and which wouldn’t, and who could attend and who couldn’t.

I don’t know how the Supreme Court will rule here, but if they find in favor of allowing religious schools to be charter schools, that would be a major game changer.

Hostages Now - Gaza Later

3 hostages - after captivity and before (VIN)

One of the things I learned from experts about the nature of torture is that even in its most extreme form, people can often withstand it in order not to betray a cause they believe in. However, when they are relieved of the torture for a period and then it is suddenly reapplied, they often break.

It appears that the Hamas-supporting Palestinian refugees in Gaza may soon be subject to that very outcome. An outcome that President Trump all but promised them if Hamas does not release all the hostages by noon on Shabbos. That promise came after Trump saw the condition of the latest Jewish hostages released by Hamas. They looked like they had just been liberated from Auschwitz. As reported by VIN:

The London-based Daily Mail has revealed shocking new details about the brutal torture inflicted by Hamas on the hostages who were released on Saturday after nearly 500 days of captivity. The terrorists tortured them mercilessly, keeping them in such inhumane conditions that they had to relearn how to walk before their release.

The captors hung them by their legs, tied them up with ropes, gagged them, and pressed burning objects against their bodies. The hostages were deliberately starved, confined in tiny tunnel chambers where they could neither move nor stand, and struggled to breathe. After days without food or water, they were given rotten pita bread, which they were forced to share with other hostages.

"They treated us like animals," said one of the released captives.

None of this is surprising coming from a group that committed the atrocities of October 7th. But it is still shocking to see what these hostages looked like and to hear what they endured.

Now, Hamas has threatened to stop releasing hostages altogether, claiming that Israel has not lived up to its end of the ceasefire agreement.

The president has had enough. He gave Hamas an ultimatum. Release all the hostages at once (by Shabbos). No more drips and drabs. No more one or two hostages at a time over a prolonged period. Not after what he witnessed. If they do not comply, then the hell he promised before the election will begin.

When asked by a reporter what that would entail, he answered, ‘You’ll find out.  And so will they.’

I have no clue what that might be. But I can speculate. The Israeli prime minister has ordered the IDF to prepare to resume fighting in Gaza. The Palestinians, who have had a couple of weeks of respite from nearly 500 days of suffering they endured because of what their beloved Hamas leadership did to the Jewish people on that October day, will now see that suffering return. Only this time, with the full blessing of the leader of the free world—our Commander-in-Chief, the President of the United States. And Israel will have the formerly withheld 2,000-lb bombs to do it with.

I don’t know if this is the ‘hell’ Trump was referring to. But it’s as good a guess as any.

What about the increased number of ‘innocent’ Palestinian civilians who will surely be killed? Hamas will love that as a great propaganda tool. And many Palestinians have, in any case, declared that they prefer dying in Palestine rather than living anywhere else. I think Israel can accommodate them with the official blessing of the United States!

The world will scream? Leftist progressives will go apoplectic? Who cares! We finally have a president who truly cares about the Jewish people and the state of Israel unequivocally.

Anyone trying to argue otherwise will surely have a hard time explaining this latest development. I could not be more pleased with the commitment that President Trump has made. 

Now, about the other big shift in U.S. policy concerning the Arab world:

The president isn’t really concerned about what Arab nations think about his plan to develop Gaza into the Riviera of the Middle East. He sees prime real estate; he wants to own it and develop it. His proposal to transfer all Gaza refugees out of the hellhole that is Gaza into Jordan and Egypt, two of Israel’s neighboring countries, was rejected by all involved.

As noted, Palestinians would rather live in squalor in Palestine (of which Gaza is a part) than in luxury in either of those two countries. And both Egypt and Jordan have turned down the president’s request, citing security concerns.

I wonder what they mean by that? (Not really. We all know what their beloved leadership is capable of.)

Trump has threatened to cut off all U.S. foreign aid to those countries. Aid that is substantial. Will they risk it? Or will they comply? Depends on how badly they want that aid to continue, I suppose.

What about the aforementioned security concerns? I’m sure both the kingdom of Jordan and the Egyptian dictatorship have their own ways of dealing with that.

All that being said, I can’t predict the future and don’t know how any of this will unfold.

My hope is that Trump’s threat will bring those hostages home by Shabbos. Maybe the Gaza refugees don’t want Torture 2.0 after finally experiencing relief from Torture 1.0. Maybe Hamas will somehow realize that this is a no-win situation and won’t fight to the death for nothing.

I surely prefer that to Israel reinvading Gaza, Even if they do so mostly by air and more ferociously than before.

As for Gaza turning into a playground for the wealthy? That is certainly preferable to a nation filled with people who believe massacring Jews is the best way to serve God.

Will it happen? Again - who knows. One thing seems certain, though: Whatever the future holds for the people of Gaza, it cannot involve Hamas or any other jihadist group. Even the antisemitic leaders of Europe seem to acknowledge that.

But more importantly, as far as the U.S. is concerned, that is a non-negotiable condition for any future political structure in Gaza.

Which is why I have been saying ever since Trump 1.0 that despite all of his many serious flaws (which I have discussed many times) Trump has been the greatest friend of Israel and the Jewish people in U.S. history. And now, that is more evident than ever.

Why Are They Silent?

There is a reason Lakewood is called the City of Torah. Deservedly so. Lakewood, New Jersey, is home to the largest and most prestigious yeshiva in the Western Hemisphere. The amount and depth of Torah study that takes place there is by far greater than in any other city in the U.S. Add to that the many other yeshivas that have opened there since BMG’s founding by Rav Aharon Kotler, and multiply that by the exponential growth of Orthodox (mostly Charedi) families now living there. It’s easy to see why Lakewood has earned its title.

Being a City of Torah is not only about Torah study; it is also about living the values of the Torah. In this, too, the city excels. There is an aura of Chesed that pervades the community. It is an atmosphere even noticed by The New York Times, a newspaper not particularly friendly to Orthodox Jewry. They ran a feature story about the generosity of individuals in the community, noting how charitable they are despite often having modest incomes. A generosity largely due to their meticulous observance of Maaser Kesafim - tithing their discretionary income. They are also generous with their time and deeply committed to helping their fellow Jews.

While there are still communal controversies that arise - such as the plague of exclusivity in schools or the so-called Shidduch crisis, these problems are not due to malfeasance. They are systemic flaws in an otherwise beautiful way of life - if serving God is one's primary concern.

However, certain individuals’ behavior gives Lakewood a bad name. It’s true that the vast majority of Lakewood cannot be blamed for the sins of a few bad apples. But, unfortunately, there appear to be more bad apples than one might expect in a community that places such a high value on serving God. A culture of fraud has developed, where a few Heimishe Jews take advantage of the truly good people of Lakewood who by nature trust Heimishe Jews. 

To the uninitiated, a  Heimishe Jew is someone raised with the same religious Jewish values as their friends and neighbors. Someone you would find comfortable inviting into your home or being invited into theirs. Someone who s instinctively trusted. They probably Daven in the same Shul, send their children to the same schools, and actively participate in religious community projects, often donating their time and money generously.

Heimishe entrepreneurs will use that identity to attract Heimishe investors. Some of whom might invest their life savings, hoping to secure an eventual retirement nest egg. But in many cases the money taken is not invested and used to further a lavish lifestyle. When the scam gets discovered the investors find they have lost all  their money. And there seems to be a lot more of this type of thing going on than ever before.

This phenomenon was described in some detail by The Real Deal from which the following excerpt was taken :

In recent months, Lakewood investors Aron Puretz and his son, Eli, each pleaded guilty to one count of conspiracy to commit wire fraud; both received prison sentences. Fannie Mae put Lakewood-based title insurers Riverside Abstract and Madison Title on its blacklist. A sprawling investigation by the Department of Justice and the Federal Housing and Finance Agency into commercial mortgage fraud has touched the core of Lakewood…

A nursing home executive filed a lawsuit against Mark Nussbaum, a real estate attorney used by many in the community. The plaintiff sought to collect $15 million in escrow money. Some of the allegedly missing funds were linked to Borough Park real estate investor Mendel Steiner, who owned at least 4,000 units nationwide. A day after the lawsuit was filed, Steiner took his own life. He was 33 years old. Though Steiner was from Brooklyn, his death unnerved Lakewood in a way that even the federal investigations and crackdowns had not.

I am not reporting this story to cast aspersions on the Charedim of Lakewood. I am doing it to note my dismay at Charedi publications for not reporting a word of this. As far as the typical Charedi reader is concerned, fraud does not exist in the City of Torah. The Lakewood story never happened. Unless, of course, you were one of the duped investors.

Some Charedi publications have offered general warnings along the lines of  let the buyer beware. Readers were advised on how to avoid being tricked into bad deals and warned not to trust someone juts because they are Heimish. But the fraud that prompted those warnings was never revealed. And there were apparently many more cases like it.

The question is: How can people who are otherwise exemplary Jews blatantly defraud others—often fellow religious Jews out of their life savings? What kind of monster does that? And why are there so many of them? What exactly was missing from their Chinuch? Is it just a matter of greed? Is it about keeping up with the wealthier Katzes and Cohens? Are some people so enamored with wealth that they are willing to cheat the poor to live the good life?

I don’t know. But if any communal blame is to be assigned, it must be directed at the Charedi media for refusing to publish these stories. I suppose they do it to protect the reputation of the City of Torah. They may also feel that revealing these stories serves no constructive purpose.

But by keeping things quiet and using vague warnings about bad investments will not register with the community as well as an expose of  that particular malaise would.  Naming the guilty party will help enlighten people to not assume all Heimishe people can be trusted.

There is no clearer way to demonstrate these dangers exposing the people who betrayed the trust of innocent investors. If Charedi publications truly want to prevent fraud from harming innocent people again, they must stop protecting the guilty and start thinking about preventing  fraud in the future. That cannot be done by hiding the truth,

Empathy is Good. But Not Enough

Rav Asher Weiss - What does he really believe?

Sometimes, outrage can be misplaced. At least on a wholesale level. The Charedi world is not as callous as one might think about what their non Charedi counterparts are going through right now as a result of the war. But that needs to be explained.

The biggest issue confronting Israel right now (outside of issues relating to Palestinians) is the clash between Charedim and the rest of Israel. Mostly centering on the Charedi refusal to serve in the IDF in any capacity. This issue has been festering ever since the State of Israel was founded.

It seemed to have been settled at the time of Israel’s founding by an agreement between the Chazon Ish, the de facto leader of the Charedi world, and David Ben Gurion, Israel’s founding prime minister. They agreed that Charedim who studied full-time in yeshivas would be exempt from military service. At the time, this exemption applied to only a few hundred people. 

Ben Gurion felt that this compromise was necessary for the sake of an all-inclusive Jewish state that would not be plagued by internal factionalism. A few hundred exemptions would not make or break the IDF. He likely believed that the Charedi community would eventually disappear, to be replaced by the ‘new Israeli’ - the soldier-citizen of the world in a nation like any other, rather than the bookish yeshiva type weakling, long victimized by centuries of persecution.

Had Ben Gurion known that the exact opposite would happen, he may never have made that deal.

The proportion of Charedim in Israel continues to grow, and at some point, they may overtake the secular population. Currently, however, Charedim make up 17% of Israel’s Jewish population, meaning that 83% of the population resents their refusal to share in the burden of defending the country. This burden has become uniquely difficult since the Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023. 

Difficult is, in fact, an understatement. Since then, 83% of the population has been subjected to the horrors of war. Either by directly serving in combat, facing death or serious injury, or by their families worrying about whether they will ever see their sons, daughters, mothers, fathers, sisters, and brothers alive again. Worrying also about whether those that return will sustain serious, life-altering injuries.

Charedim, on the other hand, don’t have to worry about such things. Their wholesale exemptions take care of all that for them. If I were a Charedi mother, I would be beyond grateful for that good fortune. If I were a non-Charedi mother, I cannot imagine being angrier at them for that.

The question is, what kind of person feels no guilt about letting others suffer the dire consequences of obligations from which they are exempt? How can they say that studying Torah is what really saves the country. And even that were true, it obviously does not involve the same level of sacrifice

What it does involve is the continuation of living their daily lives as though nothing is happening. Their lives have not changed at all. Yeshiva students still spend their days studying and return home to their families. Their families continue doing the same things they did before the war - working, shopping, and having some leisure time in between. One would hardly know there was a war going on with significant Jewish casualties.

Do they not care?

Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein had some interesting thoughts about this in a podcast. If he’s right, it is both good news and bad news at the same time. He said that the vast majority of the Charedi world does care deeply about what the soldiers are going through. But caring and doing one’s part are two entirely different things. No matter how much one empathizes with the hostages, their families, and those who have suffered loss or permanent injury, that is an order of magnitude different from actively participating in the war effort. You simply cannot compare empathy with actual involvement.

What was revealing to me was that, according to Rabbi Adlerstein, most Charedim actually know this deep down. They realize that others are fighting and dying for them. Perhaps some would even be willing to join the IDF if their leadership permitted it.

But that is where the problem lies. The majority of their leadership is firmly opposed to any Charedim serving in the IDF. For reasons that may (and I emphasize may) be valid in times of peace but certainly not in times of war. However, Rabbi Adlerstein made it clear that there are recognized Charedi leaders who privately disagree and would encourage enlistment.

But they won’t say so publicly.

The reason is simple: The moment they publicly disagree with the most senior Charedi leaders, they are no longer considered Charedi leaders. They lose their stature, and their opinions cease to matter. They may as well be members of the radical left or Religious Zionists. whose views the Charedi world considers wrong.

On one level, it’s good to know that some recognized Charedi leaders understand the enormity of this problem and have exactly the right attitude. On another level, it’s sad that airing their views publicly would disqualify them and render their opinions irrelevant. No card-carrying Charedi would be able to keep that ‘card’ if they joined them.

All of this makes it seem like the problem will never be rectified - that the system is built to perpetuate itself as it is.

Is it?