The Tragic Legacy of Rabbi Meir Kahane

Screenshot of masked Jews storming a West Bank village on April 17, 2026 (TOI)

Meir Kahane was right. This may be shocking to those who know my views about his extremist policies, which — let me repeat — are as damaging to the fabric of the Jewish people as are the policies of Israel’s far left. But that does not take away from Rabbi Kahane’s keen perception of reality as it pertains to the Arab mindset about the Jewish state.

I have never changed my opinion about that ever since I first read his views as a weekly columnist for the Jewish Press back in the early seventies. He was way ahead of his time. Although many Israelis slowly came to understand his views and ultimately agreed with his perspective, it wasn’t until October 7^th that virtually the entire population of Israel did as well.

But his solution to the problems he so correctly identified - was a failure of moral turpitude of such great magnitude, that it led Baruch Goldstein, one of his more devout followers, to mass murder 29 Palestinian worshippers at Maaras HaMachpela in Chevron and wound 125 more before he was subdued and himself killed.

Rabbi Kahane’s many followers responded by setting up a shrine at Goldstein’s gravesite and making frequent pilgrimages there to honor his memory. Which, in my view, was a massive Chilul HaShem — and which, thankfully, the Israeli government eventually outlawed.

That said, one cannot overlook the fact that Rabbi Kahane’s views generated quite a following long after he was assassinated during a visit to the US. Views that are unapologetically held by his political heir in the Knesset, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who to this day considers Goldstein one of his heroes.

What makes this significant is that Ben-Gvir has quite a substantial following — far greater than Rabbi Kahane had at his peak. His party, Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) won six seats in the Knesset, compared to the single seat Rabbi Kahane won at his peak. Six seats translate to well over 200,000 supporters. That does not even include those who might be sympathetic to his views but, for political reasons, voted for another party. And it certainly does not include voters who were pushed over the line after October 7^th.

Among those supporters are extremists who take that support to the next level. Armed with Rabbi Kahane’s perspective and attitude about Palestinians, they have taken it upon themselves to do what they believe Rabbi Kahane himself would have done were he still alive — a belief not all that far-fetched considering his militant past in the US and his solution for regaining all of Eretz Yisroel by resorting to the forcible transfer of Palestinians out of the country (if they did not agree to accept Jewish sovereignty over all the land).

Some of his extremist followers harass Palestinians living in villages with hardcore acts of violence, leading to destruction of property and even death or injury of innocent Palestinians. Often claiming self-defense. Which may or may not be true. That a Palestinian living in Yehuda or Shomron (the West Bank) may hate us and even wish us dead does not mean we may cause them harm. But those extremists are surely acting on what they believe would have met with Rabbi Kahane’s strong approval, As they believe would have been his approval of Baruch Goldstein.

(I am reminded of the effusive eulogies of Baruch Goldstein given by some Religious Zionist rabbis after his death. Which Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, publicly condemned as a major Chilul HaShem at the time.)

Making matters worse is the fact that even among those followers who would never attempt such acts themselves, there is public support for - or at least a defense of them by hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. And let us not overlook the silence of many Religious Zionist rabbis and educators, which seems to indicate sympathy for for the religious fervor, zeal and motivation behind the violence, if not outright support.

This brings me to Rabbi Yosef Blau…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free. 

Is the President a Friend of the Jewish People?

What does it mean to be antisemitic? The quick answer might seem the most obvious one, but not necessarily the correct one.

Antisemitism surely reached its peak under Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The Jewish people were targeted for extinction, and that hatred was acted upon with such urgency that six million Jews were systematically murdered for the “sin” of being Jewish. But is the mere fact that someone identifies as a Jew really what upsets the classic antisemite?

If you think about it, there are actually Jews who themselves express antisemitic views. One example is Zack Polanski, the head of the Green Party in England. Even though he denies being antisemitic and uses his Jewish background as proof, his fierce anti-Zionist rhetoric and public defense of Jermey Corbin a shows a clear anti-Jewish bias. There is nothing Jewish about him other than an accident of birth,

If someone condemns the very existence of a Jewish state while accusing it of genocide, they are showing complete disregard for the welfare of the seven million Jews who call Israel home. Which makes me wonder how Jewish Democrats are so quick to abandon the Jewish people in the holy land… and instead buy so easily into the media’s regurgitation of the Palestinian narrative - as the truth.

How, then, can we know whether statements from public figures who claim sensitivity to the Jewish people are sincere, or merely platitudes for political purposes? Too often, those positions shift with the political winds. That tendency has become increasingly apparent ever since October 7, 2023 when Israel decided to respond forcefully to the constant attacks against its people by Iran’s proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is now fashionable among parts of the progressive left to portray Israel as a nation led by Netanyahu, a genocidal maniac that should not receive another dime of American support for its supposedly “Nazi-like” military actions.

Sadly, this disturbing political development has found a home within one of America’s two mainstream political parties. Democrats are increasingly distancing themselves from Israel. (Although some Republicans have as well).

The closer Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu becomes to the president, the more ire it seems to generate among Democrats... 

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free. 

Rights Endowed by The Creator

The Supreme Court Justices

What are the constitutional limits on the kinds of conditions a government may impose on religious schools as the price of participating in funding programs?

Can a religious school limit who may send their children there by virtue of its religious doctrine and still receive government funding?

On the surface, it would seem unconstitutional for the government to support a school whose religious rules violate the civil rights of members of the public. If an LGBTQ couple is denied enrollment for their child because a religious school’s doctrines do not permit such a couple to be part of its community, it would appear to conflict with their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. Additionally it would raise First Amendment concerns about the separation of church and state. But what about the school’s religious rights?

The classic argument has been that while a religious school may have the right to discriminate based on religious doctrine, the government ought not fund it because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But that is not necessarily the case. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that denying religious schools funding available to everyone else can itself constitute a violation of religious liberty under the very same First Amendment. As noted by Michael Helfand in City Journal:

“After a decade of decisions barring governments from excluding religious institutions from public-funding programs, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy will move the fight to new—and far murkier—terrain: what to do about conditions imposed on government funding that collide with schools’ religious commitments.”

The argument made by religious schools is that denying them public funding because they implement their religious principles amounts to unequal treatment. They contend that educational funds should be distributed equally to all citizens regardless of religious belief or practice.

At the same time, the government may impose standards for receiving those funds—standards that also apply to public schools. The question then becomes: how far may those standards go? What happens when they cross the line into the religious rights of the school? Do the rights of a religious school to deny admission to an LGBTQ family violate the civil rights of that family? When that conflict inevitably arises, who wins…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free. 

A Charedi Agenda that is Oblivious to Reality

The current ‘Daas Torah’ of the Charedi world

It has become abundantly clear to me that Charedi leadership in Israel could not care less about the welfare of the country in which they reside. A country whose legitimacy as a Jewish state they refuse to recognize.

Their participation in the government is entirely for self-preservation purposes. The fact that they occasionally vote on issues outside of their immediate concern that also benefit the public welfare is only incidental to their primary purpose.

They see Judaism solely in terms of the Charedi world. A world that places the study of Gemara and its commentaries above all else. A community defined largely by the degree to which its members abide by the rulings of ‘Daas Torah’. An appellation given to the views of their rabbinic leaders that borders on near-divine omnipotence. Veering from this attitude effectively excises one from that community, which, as noted, they define as the entirety of the authentic Jewish world.

To illustrate - I recently heard part of a podcast in which a Charedi Rosh Yeshiva in Israel of American extraction was interviewed. When asked about how a particular Gadol once responded to a question about his grandchildren by saying that he did not even know all of their names, this Rosh Yeshiva explained that, even though we might not understand it, this Gadol was on such a high level of holiness that we dare not judge him by our standards

This is what happens when Gedolim are placed on a pedestal too high. Behavior that would be criticized in anyone else is lauded as holy when done by a recognized Gadol. Such figures thereby become effectively infallible. And this Rosh Yeshiva is mainstream Charedi who is highly respected and heads an extremely popular Yeshiva. This is how his students are indoctrinated. And this is how the current living Gedolim are seen.

These words may sound harsh…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

The New York Times Blood Libel

New York Times reporter, Nicholas Kristof (JI)

First off, it goes without saying that sexual abuse of Palestinians by prison personnel is condemnable in the extreme. It is among the most un-Jewish thing any Jew could ever do. If the allegation made by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times is anywhere near true, the proverbial “book” ought to be thrown at the perpetrators. Anyone worthy of being called Jewish ought to be disgusted by it. Those abusers should be ostracized and shunned by the Jewish world for the rest of their lives.

That being said, I have my doubts about Kristof’s assertion that it is widespread — or that it exists at all in any significant capacity. That it may have happened at all is a function of the reality that every society has its bad apples. There is no such thing as a nation totally free of miscreants. Such is the nature of humanity. The larger the population, the more likely it is that one will find just about every type of human aberration. The measure of a society is not whether such people exist. It is what that society does about them when it happens.

What is particularly galling is the “convenient” timing of this hit piece against the Jewish people. (And let’s not quibble about who is being accused here. Israel is a Jewish state. That is how it identifies itself, so when Israel is accused of systemic heinous crimes like this, it is the Jewish people being accused. The more one identifies as a Jew, the more it applies.)

Allegations of widespread prisoner sexual abuse have, to the best of my knowledge, never been made until now.

Why now? Never mind. I’ll tell you.

It is my firm belief that these allegations were generated in response to the clear and undeniable sexual abuse perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The day they massacred 1,200 Jews and took over 200 captives. Hamas’s denials to the contrary have been refuted by the many photos and videos taken that day, as well as testimony from victims and witnesses.

That, of course, made Hamas terrorists look far worse than merely a group of “militants” fighting for “justice in Palestine” - the preferred narrative of the New York Times. The fact that rape was added to their terrorist rampage stripped away any illusion that they were simply “freedom fighters” who had gone too far in pursuit of a “just” cause.

The Times was not about to allow that changed narrative to go unchallenged…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

They Hate Us Anyway

EU Commission Vice-President, Kaja Kallas

They hate us anyway’. I am so sick of hearing a response that basically excuses the inexcusable. The cold, hard fact is that there is absolutely no excuse for settler violence.

Unfortunately, the very phrase “settler violence” raises all kinds of red flags on both sides of the political aisle. It is a term for what is really a phenomenon involving only a small part of what is happening. However it casts an entire innocent population into a group of bottom feeding criminals. Who pass themselves off as vigilantes with a just cause.

How did we get here?

After the lightning victory over the Arab nations in 1967 - when Israel regained the territories of Judea and Samaria on the West Bank of the Jordan River - there was an immediate decision by the Israeli government to settle it. A few cities were established then that are today flourishing Jewish communities. Many Israelis were enticed by the relatively cheaper housing prices in these cities, and since then they have grown into sizable populations. Several generations of Israelis have lived, or now live, in these cities, most of them built just East of the pre-67 border.

These settlers are law-abiding citizens with no interest in harming a single hair on the head of any of their Palestinian neighbors. And yet they are still called “settlers” by a world community bent on creating a Palestinian state where they now live. Restrictions on development due to natural internal growth is seen as an impediment to that by the conglomerate of European nations called the European Union (and most Democrats).

But these peace-loving Jews have zero to do with another group of Jews living in those territories who have been perpetrating indiscriminate violence against their Palestinian neighbors, purposely setting up ‘settlements’ near Palestinian villages in an effort to intimidate them by their mere presence. Sometimes turning into vigilantes with itchy trigger fingers – seeking revenge for terrorists from among their people who have murdered innocent Israeli civilians

Although a relatively small minority of Jews, they are nevertheless large enough to cause a tremendous Chilul HaShem by inciting Palestinian violence, to which they then respond with violence of their own. Often with lethal consequences.

These people are a thorn in the side of the Jewish people that needs to be eradicated. Along with those who defend them in the Knesset…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

When Lies of Omission Are Reported as Truth

Mourners at the funeral of a family killed by Hamas (Aljazeera)

Once again, the brilliant Jonathan Rosenblum has hit a home run. I rarely see anyone articulate the reality of Israel, her enemies, the attitudes of the world toward us, and our ancestral homeland… and why those attitudes prevail in our world today, better than Jonathan. In his latest column, he begins with the following observation about two of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, and articulate voices on that subject: Haviv Rettig Gur and Michael Oren.

They have indicated frustration with the very same thing that frustrates me. Here is how Jonathan put it:

“Needless to say, a lot of us have had it. I single out Haviv Rettig Gur, perhaps the most articulate voice in English explaining Israel to a Western audience, and Michael Oren, historian and former ambassador to the United States, precisely because they are normally so unflappable.”

The frustration is the consequence of what Jonathan calls “non-stop press and TV reports focusing on the suffering of the 600,000 residents of southern Lebanon forced to flee their homes…”

Watching news reports about this from the mainstream media, one would think that Israel simply decided one fine day to bomb Lebanon without provocation. The misery of those displaced Lebanese citizens who lived on the border with Israel is portrayed as though they had done nothing wrong and are suffering only because of Israel’s alleged desire to create a “Greater Israel” by taking over Lebanese land.

Indeed, PBS regularly features a foreign correspondent by the name of Simona Foltyn, who characterizes Israel as a genocidal country that could not care less about human life in its drive to take land away from its Arab neighbors. She recently interviewed displaced Lebanese civilians suffering in desperation because of the loss of homes they had lived in for decades, or even longer - because of Israeli bombs.

Not a word is said about why Israel felt it had no choice but to act, despite the numerous clear explanations of its existential need to do so. Rarely is Hezbollah mentioned other than as a ‘militant’ group fighting the mighty army of an oppressor nation.

Not a word about the fact that until October 7, 2023, Israel never in its entire existence - had any intention whatsoever of disrupting their lives. But when Hezbollah started firing over 200 rockets daily and indiscriminately across the border at Israeli civilians, forcing over 200,000 Israelis to flee their homes lest they fall victim to one of Hezbollah’s barrages, the media barely noticed.

Apparently, it does not matter when Jews are displaced. But when Israel decides to create a buffer zone so that Hezbollah’s stockpile of over 200,000 rockets can no longer reach Israel’s northern border, suddenly moral outrage erupts over displaced Lebanese civilians.

Also omitted is Israel’s concern for human life as it proceeded to create that “buffer zone.” Israel gave ample warning and ample time for Lebanese civilians living in that area to evacuate. Which most of them did. Israel’s targets were not Lebanese civilians, but Hezbollah terrorists, who actually could not care less about human life - even their own. The idea of sacrificing loved ones, even collectively, is an integral part of their theology...

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Antisemitism with Plausible Deniability

Bris Milah - Image for illustration purposes only (The Torah)

In yet another manifestation of institutional antisemitism — long a hallmark of Europe’s treatment of its Jewish citizens, the Mitzvah of bris milah (ritual circumcision) has come under attack. The way it is being attacked, however, is suffused with plausible deniability, since technically they are not attacking circumcision itself, only the Mohel – the observant Jew trained to perform it according to Jewish law.

Their argument sounds almost altruistic, claiming that any surgical procedure should be performed only by a licensed medical professional. In the case of a baby, that usually means a pediatrician. They consider the mohel to be a danger to the child, since most mohalim (plural of Mohel) are not trained in medical schools and therefore are not licensed to perform surgery.

To the layman, this might sound reasonable. In fact, if I had no knowledge of Jewish law and the practice performed on all male children established since the days of our patriarch Abraham, I too might opt for a trained physician rather than some rabbi with a scalpel. Who had not undergone the rigorous training doctors endure in order to graduate medical school and obtain a license..

One may then ask, how then could a newly passed law in Belgium be considered antisemitic in any way? On the contrary, anyone caught performing a circumcision without the requisite medical training and government licensing could be viewed as endangering the child upon whom the procedure is being performed. In that spirit, the following was reported in the Times of Israel:

“The Antwerp Public Prosecutor’s Office has proceeded to press criminal charges against three Jewish mohels for performing circumcisions... The claim is that circumcisions can be performed by physicians rather than certified mohels, on the grounds that the latter lack surgical training.”

If there were any merit to the claim that a circumcision performed by a certified mohel endangers a child more than one done by a trained medical professional, there would surely be some historical record of the many deaths resulting from a practice maintained for centuries

But there is no such record because the vast majority of circumcisions performed by certified Mohalim are highly successful and completed without incident. Rarely are there any complications, and in those rare circumstances where there might be, they can often be attributed to outside factors.

A Mohel is not just some random person with a scalpel…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Rabbi Avi Berman and Christians

Yeshiva University president - Rabbi Dr, Ari Berman (Jerusalem Post)

I’m delighted to see a major rabbinic leader on the same page as I am with respect to interacting with Christian ministers. Rabbi Ari Berman has broken ranks with other Modern Orthodox rabbinic leaders who are suspicious of their motives - a suspicion that has often extended to other religious Christians who are not members of the clergy but nevertheless have huge followings, such as the late Charlie Kirk.

When Kirk was assassinated, many of us were saddened that the Christian voice of such a huge and vocal supporter of Israel was silenced. But far too many of us were suspicious of his motives, just as they were suspicious of the motives of evangelical preachers.

Whether they believed there was a hidden agenda of converting Jews or of pursuing Christian Nationalism, the feeling was to stay away from these people at best - if not outright disparage them as having nefarious ulterior motives.

I never saw evangelicals that way. Having done a deep dive into their rhetoric (by virtue of listening to hours of televangelists preaching to their thousands of followers on TV about Israel and the Jewish people) I never saw any motive expressed other than a sincere desire to receive the biblical blessings promised by God in the Bible: that they would be blessed if they blessed us. I never saw any ulterior motive for their support of Israel other than the biblical one in which God promised our forefathers this land as an eternal possession. Never a word about replacement theology

That said, I never lost sight of the fact that their eschatological visions was different from ours…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Trump and the American Jewish Community

President addressing the Knesset upon the hostage release - illustrative (C-SPAN)

There’s a lot of hate out there right now for the president. Surely there are many things that make that hate very understandable - if not at all appropriate. I have not been reticent to criticize his many failings in the past. Many times. But I do not hate him. Far from it.

From the very beginning of his announcement as a candidate for the presidency, I thought there were few people less qualified for the job than Donald J. Trump. Which is why I held my nose and voted for his opponent, Hillary Clinton, the first time in 2016. As much as I didn’t like her policies, I nevertheless saw her as the lesser of two evils.

With respect to Israel, she would have continued the policies of her predecessor, Barack Obama, who - although seriously mistaken in his approach and attitude toward the Jewish state - believed he was helping rather than harming it. Clinton would’ve maintained that policy. Which would likely have gone nowhere in any case, since Israel would never have agreed to it. Even then, before October 7^th. I thought that Trump would be a major disaster in just about every area: completely inexperienced and incompetent to be the commander in chief of the United States and the leader of the free world.

As we all know, he won the election then and surprised me by doing something for Israel that no other president had ever done. Even after they had all campaigned on promises to do so. The president moved the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and has stood steadfast with Israel ever since, even though at times he has offered some pretty harsh criticism of its prime minister.

In other areas, the reviews have been mixed. I am totally displeased with some of his economic policies (i.e., tariffs) and am outraged by his pardon of the January 6th rioters. On the other hand, some of his domestic policies have been very positive for observant Jews who derive their values from the Bible. One of these was ensuring that retiring or deceased liberal Supreme Court justices - who favored humanistic values over biblical ones - were replaced by conservative justices for whom the reverse was true.

This, of course, did not please heterodox and secular Jews, who consider progressive values - such as those associated with LGBTQ advocacy - superior to the religious values. Those Jews were among the harshest critics of the president over the course of his first term and into the second, up to this point.

The president, who does not hide his feelings, strongly condemned these progressive Jews for not voting for him. Which they took as antisemitic attacks. Just as they did many other remarks about events and people that could easily be read that way.

The president is not only NOT an antisemite; he is, in fact, a philosemite...

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post  - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.