If Everyone Just Sits and Learns...

Rav Aharon Feldman

It was the best of times and the worst of times. Charles Dickens’ opening line from his classic work A Tale of Two Cities could not have been more prophetic for the Jewish people in our time. While I applaud the positive developments that resulted from the war, my spirits are not lifted. I am profoundly disappointed by the negative ones.

I am not talking about the military victories Israel’s armed forces have achieved over the last two years. The fruits of those victories have changed the face of the Middle East for the better in ways that no one could have ever imagined. But as exhilarating as that is, it came at a very high cost — both in Israeli blood and in the increased world enmity toward Israel and the Jewish people. It is no coincidence that there has been a spike in antisemitism because of that.

But that is not what I was referring to. I was referring to the impact on Israelis by the event that precipitated the war. Israelis that were not particularly observant if at all. Tragedies like the massacre of 1,200 Jews on October 7^th tend to unite all of us as a people and open up a clear path toward outreach. Without getting into details, there was a huge spike in mitzvah observance among Israelis from a variety of backgrounds. This enabled increased and successful outreach on a scale not seen since the 6-day war in 1967. On that level, it is the best of times.

But here comes the worst of times. Honestly, as good as I should feel about the increased interest in observance, the ‘worst of times’ is so depressing that it overwhelms any positive feeling I might otherwise have.

I have no illusions about how divided the Jewish people are. This has been the case for as far back as I can remember. I am not talking about the division sowed by breakaway movements like Reform and Conservative. Sad as that is, at least it is understandable why observant Judaism rejects philosophies that either deny the mandatory nature of Halacha or bend it to fit the times. I am talking about the increased divide within observant Judaism. That is what aggravates me now more than ever.

This is not a new phenomenon. There have always been differences among observant Jews who had different ways of understanding the Torah’s demands. While those differences were often quite strong, we somehow always managed to get along. We lived together as one family;  in the same neighborhoods; davening in the same shuls; sending our children to the same or similar schools; intermarrying with each other; and generally trusting each other on matters of kashrus.

On that last point, nowhere was this kind of integration more evident than in the OU, where halachic questions about supervised products were decided jointly by a Torah Vodaath Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yisroel Belsky, and a YU Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Hershel Schachter. Both respected each other’s decisions as those of knowledgeable Talmidei Chachamim and devout Jews.

It has become apparent to me that this kind of cross-fertilization may soon come to an end. Aall because of what’s going on in Israel right now. The issue is the Charedi leadership's refusal to allow any of their young men to be drafted into army service. While there may be some willing to compromise, it has become increasingly more common for Charedi rabbinic leaders to reject any army service at all, even for Charedim who do not learn in any yeshiva.

Ironically, the reason for this strident opposition was succinctly stated by Rav Aharon Feldman, Rosh Yeshiva of Ner Israel, probably the most moderate Charedi yeshiva in America. As noted in the following:

One prominent representative of this group is R. Yitzchak Yosef, former Sephardic Chief Rabbi. He has insisted that no Charedi person should enlist, whether or not they are in yeshiva; he also declared they will leave the country instead.

R. Aharon Feldman, along with R. Malkiel Kotler and R. Elya Ber Wachtfogel, wrote a letter to R. Yitzchak Yosef wholeheartedly endorsing his approach, describing it as “the only true approach.”

Why does he feel that way? Because he believes that “at least half” of religious Jews who join the IDF abandon mitzvah observance.

I don’t question Rabbi Feldman’s sincerity. But I do question where he gets his information. First, there is the Hesder Yeshiva program. I do not believe that half of those soldiers ‘abandon mitzvah observance’. If any at all do.

But even without factoring in Hesder, the IDF has established Charedi military units where Charedim can serve without compromising their values.

The complaints I sometimes hear about the IDF not living up to its promises to Charedim are beyond ridiculous. In most cases, these are mistakes that the IDF is happy to correct. Surely it is not their intent  to undermine Charedi recruits - thereby discouraging any further Charedi enlistment. The intent was to increase recruitment among a community that is extremely under-recruited. 

Why would they undermine a program designed to solve such a serious IDF manpower problem? And in cases where these ‘mistakes’ were deliberate, I doubt they were the actions of anyone other than a tiny minority of IDF commanding officers with extreme animus towards Charedim.

Rav Hershel Schachter

And then there is this. Rav Hershel Schachter was recorded saying that the recent anti-draft prayer rally was utterly ridiculous. The country is at war! And no one wants to go to the army? No one from YU would participate in such an atzeret. The(Charedi leaders in Israel) are big Talmidei Chachamim. But they exaggerate so much that nothing else counts for them. Torah is important. The war is important. Everything is important. They shouldn’t exaggerate that everything depends only on Torah. The Jewish people have to have an army. If everyone just sits and learns, the enemy is going to kill all of us.”

I agree with Rav Schachter. These Charedi leaders do exaggerate. And completely ignore the reality that: ‘If everyone just sits and learns, the enemy is going to kill all of us.’

Do Rav Feldman and company not believe this? Do they think Rav Schachter is now an Azuz Panim - an apikores even? Will the exponentially growing Charedi world now throw Modern Orthodoxy and Religious Zionism into the trash heap of history along with Conservative and Reform Judaism?

I would never have thought this possible. But at this point, who knows. 

That being said, I don’t think we are there yet. Hopefully we never will be. But we are heading in that direction. And unless someone with enough stature in the Charedi world steps up and says, ‘The emperor is wearing no clothes’ we may eventually get there. A lot sooner than anyone thinks.

What Does It Mean to Be Modern Orthodox?

Bernard Revel, founding president of YU

Orthodox Judaism encompasses a wide range of people who identify with that term. Yet in recent years, it has become increasingly divisive within the Modern Orthodox community itself. This division stems largely from a relatively new phenomenon known as Open Orthodoxy (OO) — a movement that claims the mantle of Modern Orthodoxy. Its ideas have proven so controversial that many mainstream Orthodox rabbis and institutions do not consider it part of Orthodoxy at all.

The debate continues, even though most Modern Orthodox Jews do not identify as Open Orthodox. Still, OO has become an established movement, with its own schools, synagogues, and rabbis. Because of the confusion this has created, I thought it would be useful to clarify what I believe Modern Orthodoxy truly is — and what it is not.

Let us start by defining Orthodox Judaism itself. At its core, Orthodox Judaism describes Jews who follow Halacha — the laws of the Torah as interpreted by rabbis throughout the generations. Although Orthodoxy includes many subgroups, it can broadly be divided into two main streams: Charedi (right-wing) and Modern Orthodox Judaism.

Charedi Judaism is characterized by an intense commitment to observing all mitzvos of the Torah at the most exacting level. Over the centuries, many halachic debates have remained unresolved. When faced with two legitimate halachic opinions — one lenient and one stringent — Charedim generally follow the stricter ruling to minimize any risk of transgression.

This desire to maintain a more spiritual exitence often leads to avoiding secular environments and influences that might detract from religious devotion. Some Charedim live in communities largely separated from wider society, interacting with it only when necessary for livelihood or health. The ideal Charedi life is centered on Torah study, which they regard as the highest mitzvah. Consequently, secular studies are often minimized or even discouraged. Charedim also tend to look to the leading rabbis of each generation as the ultimate authorities. Not only in religious matters. Not only  in public and communal policy. But often in personal matters as well.

While this is a simplified summary, it captures, I think, the general orientation of the Charedi worldview.

Modern Orthodoxy is equally devoted to Halacha, yet differs in several key ways. It does not automatically embrace the strictest halachic position and often (though not always) relies on more lenient rulings within halachic boundaries. Modern Orthodox Jews engage freely with the broader world and its culture — provided it does not conflict with Halacha.

While Torah study remains a core value, Modern Orthodoxy also places a high value on secular education, believing that knowledge of the world can enhance one’s service to God and society. Modern Orthodox Jews are more likely to make personal decisions in areas unrelated to Halacha  without always consulting rabbinic authority.

That has long been my understanding of Modern Orthodoxy. Although there are nuanced variations - such as Torah Im Derech Eretz versus Torah U’Mada - the common denominator is a commitment to Halacha alongside meaningful engagement with modernity. Both approaches honor the mesorah - the sacred traditions passed down through generations and deeply rooted in Jewish culture.

In recent years, however, some have sought to redefine Modern Orthodoxy in ways that depart dramatically from tradition. Open Orthodoxy, in particular, has moved so far to the left that it scarcely resembles a traditional Orthodox lifestyle. Among its departures are the ordination of women, full acceptance of the LGBTQ agenda, and — in some cases — an openness to modern biblical scholarship that allows for human authorship of the Torah.

For those of us who adhere to traditional definitions, this rebranding is unacceptable. Consequently, many of us identify instead as Centrists. We reject Open Orthodoxy’s claim to represent modern Orthodoxy. Yet because its adherents assert that they observe Halacha, they continue to describe themselves that way.

I am not in a position to excommunicate OO from Orthodoxy -  though both the Charedi world and many Centrists have already done so. Still, I refuse to cede the title ‘Modern Orthodox’ to Open Orthodoxy. I don’t think they qualify for that description at all.

Which leaves Centrism as the true Modern Orthodoxy in my view. Centrism is the authentic heir to the Modern Orthodox tradition. Centrism embodies full commitment to Halacha and mesorah, while also valuing Torah-guided engagement with the modern world.

That, I believe, is the true essence of Modern Orthodoxy. And I am confident that Yeshiva University, the flagship institution of the Modern Orthodox movement, would define it that way too.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free.

 

The Future of Jews in America

For as long as I can remember, the Democratic Party has been broadly pro-Israel. But that support was often conditional. The moment there was a policy or Israeli leader that did not align with American policies on Israel, enthusiasm quickly cooled.

The Republican Party, by contrast, wasn’t always that supportive of Israel. But in recent years, that has changed dramatically. Republican support has become both consistent and deep. When the media questions most GOP leaders about their support for Israel, their responses leave little doubt about their commitment. Much of this comes from the party’s conservative base. Particularly Evangelical Christians - whose support for Israel often exceeds that of many (even pro-Israel) Jews.

As a Jew, I long took comfort in the bipartisan nature of that support. It gave me a sense of security, even pride, in knowing that my ancestral homeland was admired by both major parties. Antisemitism certainly existed, but it was relegated to the fringes of society. Rarely seen and never accepted in the mainstream.

That feeling has begun to change.

Let me be clear: I still believe in the vision expressed by President George Washington in his 1790 letter to the Hebrew Congregation in Newport, Rhode Island:

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants… For happily the Government of the United States gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance.”

But Israel’s defensive war in Gaza, following the Hamas massacre of October 7^th, has unleashed a reaction among many Americans that challenges that ethos.

A bit of history for purposes of context.

Ever since the Six-Day War, when Israel recaptured Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), it has been accused of oppressing Arab refugees - people who had lived in squalid conditions under Jordanian rule after the 1948 War of Independence until 1967. The world was silent about their suffering then, but once Israel assumed control, the blame shifted instantly to the Jewish state.

Around that time, those Arab refugees began calling themselves ‘Palestinians’. A few years later, in 1970, the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) hijacked a commercial flight and held its passengers hostage. An act that led to modern airport security. The PLO’s goal was explicit: the destruction of Israel and its replacement by a Palestinian state.

That was the beginning of a decades-long propaganda campaign that has successfully vilified Israel. Over time, the narrative evolved: Israel was labeled an ‘apartheid state’, and the BDS movement—Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions—emerged, advocating policies that would, in effect, dismantle Israel.

This narrative found fertile ground in academia, where diversity initiatives brought in faculty - some Palestinian, many from the far left - who embraced and promoted the Palestinian cause. The far-left worldview tends to divide the world into ‘oppressors’ and ‘oppressed’.” In that framework, Israel could only be the oppressor, and the Palestinians the victims. Who, after all, wants to side with an oppressor?

That mindset has deeply influenced university culture, where student governments across the country have passed resolutions supporting BDS.

As the Gaza war progressed, those voices grew louder. The relentless images of devastation (women weeping, children bloodied, cities reduced to rubble) have had a profound emotional effect. Unless one knows the history and context of the conflict, it is easy, even natural, to feel sympathy for Palestinians and anger at Israel.

And so we return to America’s two political parties. Many Democrats have now fully internalized the anti-Israel narrative and have become far more sympathetic to Palestinians. Which ends up giving tacit legitimacy to figures like Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar, who openly question Israel’s right to exist.

With Zohran Mandami, an avowedly anti-Israel Democratic socialist now elected mayor of America’s largest city, this shift poses serious long-term consequences for Israel’s bipartisan support. The Democratic Party faces a defining choice: follow the progressive path that appeals to younger voters, or hold to the centrist tradition that has long characterized its mainstream.

Republicans, meanwhile, remain overwhelmingly pro-Israel. But the antisemitism that once festered only on the far right has begun to reappear in more mainstream conservative circles. Encouraged by popular media figures and, disturbingly, by a few members of Congress such as Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie.

When extremists in America on both the far left and far right converge in hostility toward Israel, there can be only one conclusion: we are witnessing antisemitism, plain and simple, whatever denials are offered.

So where do we go from here? Will Democrats continue their leftward drift? Will Americans embrace socialism as New Yorkers just did? And will some conservatives continue to mask antisemitism as mere ‘anti-Zionism’? Or will pro-Israel leaders like Speaker Mike Johnson and Secretary of State Marco Rubio define the future of their movement?

My instinct tells me that moderation will ultimately prevail in the Democratic party. And that the pro-Israel factions will continue to dominate the thinking of fair minded conservatives. The Mamdanis and Carlsons of American politics will fade from influence. Sooner rather than later. Hopefully. And now that the war is over, Israel’s positive reputation - earned over decades of good works - will be restored.

For despite the turmoil of the moment, I still believe in the blessing of America that George Washington described so beautifully:

“May the Children of the Stock of Abraham who dwell in this land continue to merit and enjoy the good will of the other inhabitants, while every one shall sit in safety under his own vine and fig tree, and there shall be none to make him afraid.”

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

When The 'Gold Standard' in News Coverage Lies

Former BBC News CEO, Deborah Turness (JTA)

How much is public opinion shaped by the mainstream media? Turns out the answer is: a lot.

I’ve made no secret of my growing awareness of just how biased the media has become. A fact made abundantly clear over the last two years by their coverage of the war in Gaza. I’ve always known the media had bias. After all, the people reporting and editing the news are human beings with their own opinions. No matter how hard they try, that bias inevitably creeps into how a story is told.

Still, I had always given them the benefit of the doubt, believing their bias wasn’t intentional. That there was at least an honest attempt to present both sides.

That perception vanished quickly during the early stages of the war, when the media almost invariably presented events through the eyes of Palestinian correspondents stationed in Gaza. Some of those correspondents, it was later discovered, had actual connections to Hamas - the very terrorists Israel was fighting. Others were UN-affiliated individuals whose bias against Israel is nothing new.

This, in my view, is one of the primary (though not the only) reasons that American public support for the Jewish state has diminished so sharply over the last couple of  years.

Some will argue that pictures don’t lie. That images of the devastation caused by Israeli airstrikes spoke for itself. The images of blood-covered bodies, seen in nearly every report, were accompanied by Hamas-supplied casualty numbers, embellished to suggest that most of the victims were women and children. These numbers were reported without question. The media insisted they were merely “doing their job” by shining a light on the carnage.

Yet there was virtually no mention of how many of those ‘innocent’ casualties were actually Hamas operatives. Or that Hamas terrorists deliberately embedded themselves within civilian enclaves such as hospitals and schools, precisely to maximize casualties and ensure Israel took the blame for ‘indiscriminate’ killing.

But some outlets went far beyond mere bias. Some flat-out lied - accusing Israel of atrocities they knew had never happened. The worst offender was, ironically, the most respected news organization on the planet: the BBC.

Yes, the BBC—an outlet that even the New York Times can’t match in global prestige. Those of us who pay attention already knew about that bias, but the BBC’s influence is so vast that other outlets uncritically buy what it sells. Its credibility gives cover to its distortions.

Recently, this bias was exposed by The Telegraph, a conservative British newspaper, which laid out in detail how the BBC knowingly misled the public. The evidence was incontrovertible: they presented lies as truth, and the rest of the global media followed suit. JTA reported the following:

“The head of BBC and its top news executive have quit amid allegations that the network misled viewers in coverage of President Donald Trump and the Gaza war…
The BBC’s director general Tim Davie and CEO of News Deborah Turness resigned on Sunday after a leaked report by Michael Prescott, a former standards adviser to the broadcaster, accused it of anti-Trump and anti-Israel bias.

Prescott’s memo accused BBC Arabic of choosing to ‘minimize Israeli suffering’ to ‘paint Israel as the aggressor’ in Gaza. The BBC previously faced backlash for failing to identify the narrator of a Gaza documentary as the son of a Hamas official, and for using a contributor who had publicly said Jews should be burned ‘as Hitler did.’ The network was also criticized for livestreaming a Glastonbury performance of the punk group Bob Vylan, which included chants of ‘Death to the IDF.’”

The BBC is infested with anti-Israel bias, yet it gets away with it because – it’s the BBC. Beyond reproach. The  ‘gold standard’ of fair and balanced reporting. The American media tends to take the BBC’s word as gospel and reports it the same way. Thus the damage multiplies.

Making matters worse, many people - especially the young - don’t even rely on mainstream outlets anymore. They get their ‘news’ from social media platforms or podcasts run by charismatic personalities whose opinions masquerade as truth.

Still, the influence of the mainstream media remains enormous. A recent example illustrates this perfectly: a poll found that more Americans blamed Republicans than Democrats for the government shutdown. Even though it was the Democrats who voted against every Republican attempt to reopen it.

That’s an indisputable fact. Democrats held the country hostage. Using the shutdown as leverage to pressure Republicans into funding the Affordable Care Act. Even if their cause was just, the shutdown hurt ordinary Americans, especially the poor, who were deprived of food assistance through SNAP (food stamps). Yet whenever Democratic politicians were interviewed, they called it a ‘Republican shutdown’. And the left leaning media rarely pushed back.

The result? The majority of American voters came away believing that Republicans were to blame. Hence the those poll numbers. Fortunately 8 Senate Democrats with a conscience broke ranks yesterday and voted with Republicans to reopen the government. But I’m sure the impression stuck: ‘Republicans were starving the poor.’

If there was ever proof of how powerful media bias can be, this is it. And if the public can be so easily misled about domestic politics that affects their daily lives, how can we expect them to see the truth about Israel?

I don’t know how to change the hearts and minds of a public so dependent on media narratives. But recognizing the problem is a start.

There are, thankfully, some hopeful signs. The resignations of top BBC officials is one. Another is the reported purchase of The Washington Post by conservative entrepreneur, Jeff Bezos, which has already had to a rare editorial that actually assigned blame correctly in the shutdown. Likewise, CBS’s acquisition by Skydance -whose CEO is pro-Israel and who appointed the pro-Israel Bari Weiss to oversee its news division. Exposing the BBC and changes to 2 big media outlets are all positive developments.

And it’s no small thing that the anti-Israel bias that has long permeated academia has finally been addressed by the Trump administration. Their efforts have borne fruit. Universities like Columbia and Cornell have now expanded their antisemitism initiatives. In return government funding for their research programs has been restored.

We have a long way to go. But with these developments, we may have just turned a significant corner. Perhaps the media’s coverage will, at last, begin to resemble something closer to balance.

We shall see. 

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

How Pro-Israel Is Trump, Really?

That question has been asked rhetorically by many who believe Donald Trump is not as pro-Israel as some people think. That he could turn on Israel on a dime. I don’t agree. I believe the Trump administration has been one of the best things ever to happen to Israel.

That statement will no doubt draw guffaws from Trump’s detractors., who love to point out that he has often been strongly critical of Israel. Far more than Democratic presidents like Joe Biden. But while that might seem true on the surface, when you look at the overall picture, Trump’s consistent and unconditional support versus Biden’s cautious and qualified backing — the contrast is striking.

A recent JTA article by Ron Kampeas explored this issue, noting that Trump’s criticism of Netanyahu was far harsher than Biden’s ever was. And yet Netanyahu took it in stride, whereas Biden’s milder criticism was met with tension and even anger. Kampeas quoted Halie Soifer, CEO of the Jewish Democratic Council of America, who cited examples of Trump (who unlike Biden) has an underlying antipathy toward Israel. Such as his brokering a deal with the Houthi militia in Yemen that allowed it to continue attacking Israeli ships, and his visit to Qatar,  a Hamas backer, while skipping Israel on a Middle East tour:

“Trump has actually pushed Netanyahu quite a bit and used sharp language in the process,” she said. “He was emphatic in saying that Israel should not annex the West Bank. Now, it’s not that I disagree with that position, but he warned that Israel would lose ‘all support from the United States’ if it did. That kind of language would have been wholly unacceptable coming from a Democrat.”

There are other examples like this. And yet Netanyahu has said that this administration is the most pro-Israel in U.S. history. How can that be? And why do I agree?

For one thing, Biden’s support for Israel at the outset of the Gaza war came with strings attached. From the very beginning and repeatedly he urged Israel to exercise restraint, and when he decided Israel had gone too far, he withheld critical weapons shipments. That limited Israel’s ability to achieve its military objectives.

Trump, on the other hand, never placed restrictions on Israel’s tactics in Gaza. His overall policies with respect to the Middle ‘East in general and Israel in particular led to several positive outcomes no previous administration managed to achieve: The relocation of the US embassy to Jerusalem, the release of all remaining hostages; the end of the war with Hamas; and a broad ceasefire agreement that has given Israel far greater control in Gaza than anyone thought possible. Not to mention the creation and  continued expansion of the Abraham Accords, with yet another Muslim country recently joining the circle of peace.

Then there was Trump’s unprecedented speech to the Knesset - overflowing with praise for Netanyahu’s leadership and Israel’s military prowess. His admiration for Israel was unmistakable, and it was reciprocated — even by members of Netanyahu’s opposition. In Israel, Trump is seen as a hero. Biden? Not so much.

When you have a deep personal relationship with someone, you can criticize them out of goodwill. Trump wants to see a prosperous Middle East, a strong Israel - free of terrorist organizations like Hamas. That’s why he has given Israel the green light to eliminate Hamas if it crosses his red lines (but otherwise to leave them alone). He doesn’t want to upend the ceasefire or jeopardize the chance for a broader peace between Israel and her Arab neighbors. A peace that might even include some limited self-governance for the Palestinians - though the phrase ‘Palestinian state’ has vanished from the conversation. The fact that much of the world, even those once hostile to Israel, now supports this vision is a remarkable diplomatic achievement.

So when Netanyahu’s far-right coalition partners do something reckless — like voting to annex the West Bank — of course the president will be angry. Vice President JD Vance rightly called it stupid and insulting. Netanyahu said in response to that reaction that the vote to annex was ‘a deliberate political provocation by the opposition to sow discord during the Vice President’s visit to Israel’. Netanyahu’s rebuke of them wasn’t submission to Trump. It was leadership and responsibility.

Similarly, when Israel attacked Hamas leadership on Qatari soil, Trump’s anger was understandable. Israel wanted to demonstrate its ability to strike its enemies anywhere . And it succeeded in sending that message, even if the mission didn’t fully achieve its goal. 

The president on the other hand sees Qatar playing a vital role in his peace plan and they were instrumental in securing hostage releases. Attacking them undermined that strategy. Netanyahu’s apology didn’t erase Israel’s message; it simply honored the president’s request and preserved a key diplomatic relationship.

There have been other times when Trump’s language toward Israel or Netanyahu was sharp. But his core belief has never. wavered: that Israel has the right to exist securely as a Jewish state and that the Middle East can - and should - become a region of stability and prosperity for all its inhabitants. His respect for Netanyahu’s leadership remains intact, despite moments of tension where harsh words were used.

Yes, previous administrations supported Israel. But none have shown the depth of personal commitment and strategic alignment demonstrated by this one. That support helped free the hostages, end the fighting, and strengthen Israel’s regional standing.

Of course, we can’t ignore the antisemitic elements that have tried to creep into Trump’s conservative base Some of whom have very powerful influences. But despite their huge following and a couple of high profile conservative politicians that have defended them. I believe they have  been successfully marginalized as being outside the mainstream.

As long as Trump is the head of his conservative base, Israel will not be abandoned. And antisemitism will not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, We are a long way from peace in the Middle East. Much still needs to happen. But maybe — just maybe we are on a path towards that long-sought after but elusive peace. And maybe it finally has a chance to  come to fruition. Maybe even in my lifetime, God willing.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

The Prayer Rally - Final Thoughts

Shocking. That was my reaction to the images of last week’s massive Charedi prayer rally in Jerusalem. It was peaceful overall, though tragically one man died after falling from a roof. Still, the scale was staggering — unprecedented in scope and emotion.

According to Charedi media, the rally was triggered by the arrest of a yeshiva student pulled straight from the Beis HaMedrash — a young man said to be genuinely devoted to full-time Torah study. This, they claimed, was the first time such a thing had happened, and it became a rallying cry.

Among the many voices commenting afterward, one I saw in particular stood out. A Modern Orthodox man, whose family has served in the IDF, wrote that while he believes Charedim should serve in some capacity, he sympathized with those protesting this specific arrest. If someone is truly dedicated to Torah learning, he argued, he should be left alone.

I don’t question his sincerity — and I don’t entirely disagree. But desire and determination alone should not automatically grant exemption from national service. There must also be capability and measurable commitment. A just system must distinguish between those genuinely immersed in Torah study and those simply avoiding duty. Exemptions — yes. Universal exemptions — no.

In truth, I doubt the government seeks to draft every Charedi. They would likely be satisfied enlisting only those who are not learning full-time. There are enough such individuals to help meet the IDF’s needs and ease the crushing burden on reservists who have endured repeated and extended tours of duty.

This rally, however, did nothing to advance that goal. It only inflamed tensions, paralyzing Jerusalem and deepening resentment. Even if no one explicitly spoke of a “war against the Torah,” that sentiment hovered in the background — reinforced by the past rhetoric of Charedi leaders who depict the government as anti-religious. When those leaders speak, their followers listen.

That mindset — the belief that any call for military participation is inherently anti-Torah — is what troubles me most. I don’t question the sincerity of their prayers; I question the message those prayers send to the rest of Israel. Most Israelis saw this rally not as an act of faith, but as a rejection of the state itself and of the IDF that protects it. A view constantly uttered by Charedi leaders and their politicians in the Knesset

Which brings me to Jonathan Rosenblum’s recent column. Though firmly within the Charedi world, Rosenblum has repeatedly lamented his community’s failure to engage with secular Israelis — particularly now, when many have turned back to Judaism since October 7^th. Instead of outreach, he writes, the Charedi world has responded with defiance, especially on the draft issue.

Rosenblum — and others like him — deserve our support. They value Torah learning and respect those truly devoted to it, yet they also recognize the need for Charedim to share the burden of defending their country.

A resolution is possible. But it will require the Charedi leadership to lower the rhetoric and acknowledge a simple truth: Although there may be some individual exceptions - the government’s goal is not to wage war on the Torah, but to protect the nation — including the Torah world itself.

Will that happen? Probably not. But it should.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

 

When Ideology Trumps Common Sense

Leila Stillman-Utterback (JTA)

Sometimes, we are our own worst enemies. Instead of exercising caution and common sense in the pursuit of peace, some of us will go to the ends of the earth to advance our ideological goals. Regardless of the consequences. What makes matters worse is when supposedly respected rabbis step in to defend such behavior, motivated by their own ideological leanings.

More often than not (though certainly not always), pragmatism outweighs ideology. But don’t tell that to the extremists at either end of the left–right spectrum. For them, common sense and restraint are discarded, and the results are rarely the positive ones they intended.

A recent example - one that has surely done more harm than good - was reported by JTA:

Having spent the night in an immigrant detention center in Ramle, Israel, Leila Stillman-Utterback, still handcuffed, began to daven Shacharit, the morning prayers, as dawn broke.
“I think the police officers were very confused, because that was not the image of an activist that they had,” said the 18-year-old Vermont native. 

Now, after being deported and banned by Israel for 10 years, she is unsure when she will be able to confuse people in Israel again.

In two separate incidents this past week, the right-wing Israeli government’s conflict with the Jewish left, both at home and abroad, reached new heights as American and Israeli Jews attempted to accompany Palestinians during their olive harvest in the West Bank. Harvesters have faced repeated restrictions by the Israeli military and a string of threats and attacks by local Israeli settlers.

Here, in this short description, lies the entire problem. (I’ll leave aside the article’s biased framing and focus on the core issue.)

We have extremist right-wing settlers whose ideology - settling all the land of Israel - drives them to do whatever they can to expand into areas inhabited by Palestinians. Some of whom have lived there for generations. In a few cases, their actions have turned violent, prompting violent Palestinian responses that occasionally result in death of a Palestinian at the hands of a settler. Whether those deaths were deliberate or acts of self-defense is almost beside the point.

These settlers violated the law and, in many cases, provoked confrontation. They have no business taking such actions - ideology notwithstanding. Their claims of serving a “Higher Authority” reflect a false belief, rooted in ignorance or, at best, a narrow one-sided interpretations of the Torah. The damage they inflict on Israel’s reputation is immeasurable. Israel doesn’t need people like this to make it look bad in the eyes of the world’s antisemitic leaders, Chief among them those in the U.N. These misguided individuals only add fuel to the fire.

That same fire has now inspired extremists on the left to ‘stand in solidarity’ with West Bank Palestinians. Joining them in defiance of the ‘vile settlers’. Of which only a few are involved in actual violent acts.

Even if the particular Palestinians they accompany aren’t directly involved in terrorism, they often sympathize with it. And celebrate it when it happens. The media’s romantic focus on their ‘underdog struggle’ doesn’t change that reality. Standing in solidarity with them is standing in solidarity with people that would rather see you dead. Furthermore it projects a damaging image of Israel. Suggesting that the Israeli government actually supports violent settlers. And they are protesting Israel itself by standing with Palestinians.

In essence, , Leila Stillman-Utterback - a well-meaning but misguided 18-year-old believed she was performing an act of tikkun olam—social justice, surely educated to believe she was performing the ‘most important mitzvah in the Torah’. However, In reality she was giving aid and comfort to Israel’s enemies and reinforcing the false narrative of Israel as an oppressive apartheid state. A narrative championed by people like Zohran Mamdani. 

I don’t doubt her sincerity, but good intentions don’t excuse breaking the law or undermining your own people. Taking the law into your own hands is wrong. Whether done by the right or by the left.

Nonetheless, Rabbi Jill Jacobs, CEO of Truah—one of the most far-left, self-described Jewish organizations - doubled down on that narrative, saying:

“These two incidents, one after another, are just evidence both of the danger of what’s happening, and that the Israeli government has made a decision that, rather than address the horrific violence by settlers, they’re going to … penalize American Jews who are here because they care about this land and the people who live here.”

(If she lives in New York, I can probably guess who she voted for mayor. But I digress.)

It doesn’t help that extremist members of Netanyahu’s governing coalition often side with these settlers out of shared ideology. They too are guilty of putting their political convictions ahead of common sense and thereby the welfare of the Jewish people. Thankfully, they don’t run the government. They’re merely influential voices within it. So far, Netanyahu has followed the lead of Israel’s allies. Most notably the US. Not the demands of his far-right flank.

 Kazakhstan Deputy Prime Minister,Nurtleu and Secretary of State Rubio (JNS)

Not that you’d know that from media coverage. Though they rarely say it outright, the press often portrays Netanyahu as every bit the ‘war criminal’ that ICC, Mamdani and his ilk accuse him of being. This portrayal fuels critics who claim his leadership has doomed Israel’s diplomatic prospects. And that - for example - no additional Arab nations will join the Abraham Accords under his watch. And even those that have already joined - may withdraw.

One might assume that, with the world so hostile, the Abraham Accords have reached their end. But that assumption would be wrong. JNS reports the following:

Kazakhstan is joining the Abraham Accords, a set of agreements between Israel and Arab states first brokered by U.S. President Donald Trump nearly five years ago.

“I just held a great call between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel and President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev of Kazakhstan,” Trump said Thursday evening. “Kazakhstan is the first country of my second term to join the Abraham Accords—the first of many.”

So much for the doom and gloom from Netanyahu’s critics. Another nation has joined the Accords with a country supposedly led by a ‘war criminal’.

Which brings us back to the extremists. On both the left and the right. Each camp believes it’s serving a higher cause. Each vilifies the other. And together, they continue to be a thorn in the side of peace.

My advice to these ‘well-intentioned’ zealots is simple: Stop hurting your own people. Use your head instead of your emotions. Israel—and the Jewish people—will be far better off if you do.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

Satmar's Folly

A Jewish supporter of Mamdani celebrating his victory (JTA

Satmar Chasidim are not what I would call far-left progressive Jews. Far from it. If anything, they are the quintessential capitalists. Many Satmar Chasidim have amassed great wealth through highly successful business ventures. And yet, they joined their progressive Jewish brethren in supporting Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani.

How is it possible that the most religious-looking Jews—who have been frequent targets of antisemitism—endorsed a man considered by many to be an antisemite because of his virulently anti-Israel views? A man who has already inspired antisemitic acts immediately upon confirmation of his election Tuesday night?

Well, if you know anything about Satmar’s views on Israel, it’s not hard to understand why. They basically agree with Mamdani’s beliefs about the Jewish state. Both Mamdani and Satmar do not believe the Jewish people have a right to their own state in our time. Satmar has opposed Zionism in all its forms from its very inception. The founding Satmar Rebbe, R’ Yoel Teitelbaum, called the founding spiritual head of religious Zionism, Rav Avroham Yitzchok HaKohen Kook, an Ish Tzar V’Oyev—“a man who is an oppressor and enemy” of the Jewish people. That phrase, taken from Megillas Esther, was used in the Bible to describe Haman—the “Hitler” of that era.

Rav Kook was not some minor religious Zionist figure. He was in fact considered the Gadol HaDor by Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer, who was himself regarded as the Gadol HaDor by his contemporaries. But to the Satmar Rebbe, Rav Kook’s support for a Jewish state was enough to use language about him that is normally reserved for people like Hitler.

When I read those words in one of the Satmar Rebbe’s published works, I lost my respect for him. It does not surprise me, therefore, that Satmar joined forces with Jews whose understanding of Judaism is anathema to anyone who believes in the dictates of the Torah. Apparently, when it comes to opposing the State of Israel, that overrides every other consideration.

I am, however, a bit more cynical about their support. I think they supported the man they knew was going to win anyway. So why not get on the bandwagon early and get on his good side? Satmar is very skilled at obtaining favors from government officials. That is surely the case here too, as noted in JTA:

Rabbi Moishe Indig, the Satmar Hasidic rabbi who endorsed Mamdani in a split in his community, stood out for wearing a black suit and kippah rather than the typical blue“Jews/tenants/hot girls/etc. for Zohran” T-shirt.

“We have large families; we could use affordable housing and a better life, hopefully,” Indig said about his community, adding that he felt “great” about Mamdani’s win.

Mamdani could not be more pleased to have Jews who look like Satmar in his corner. It helps water down accusations of antisemitism against him. So it’s a win-win for both sides. Mamdani’s anti-Israel bona fides surely don’t hurt him in Satmar’s eyes, and Mamdani’s professed determination to fight antisemitism is believable to Satmar considering how many progressive Jews enthusiastically supported him.

This little episode only serves to make Satmar even greater outliers than they already are. I don’t know how anyone can support them. To break from the majority of the Jewish world—which includes Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform rabbis and advocacy organizations as diverse as Agudah and the ADL—takes them outside the pale of Orthodox Jewry. You cannot side with an enemy of Israel for the sake of gaining favors for your own narrow constituency. That is pure evil. It legitimizes the anti-Israel protesters and the violence that will surely follow. It helps place the entire Jewish community at greater risk of harm and endangers all Jews living in Israel—including Satmar. (Yes, there are Satmar Chasidim who live in Israel and benefit from it, even as they continually condemn it at every opportunity.)

It is said that the original Satmar Rebbe would defend Israel against non-Jews who wanted to see its demise. To his credit, he understood that there was a difference between being against a Jewish state on theological grounds and being against it for antisemitic reasons. At the same time, I blame him for how his community has morphed into doing the opposite—joining with antisemites, whether Jewish or non-Jewish. If he were alive today, he might be beside himself at what his Chasidim have done.

But he has only one person to blame. And it isn’t Rav Kook.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

Mandami's Election - A Post-Mortem

New York mayor-elect, Zohran Mandami (NPR)

In what was a most unsurprising result of yesterday’s election for mayor of New York, Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani — a virulently anti-Israel Muslim — has won. He will be the next mayor of New York.

I am going to attempt a post-mortem on this election: why he won, how he did it, what the next four years might look like, and what it could mean for the future.

Is Mamdani an Antisemite?

The conventional wisdom says yes — based on his harsh anti-Israel rhetoric. Yet a poll conducted just before the election showed that 40% of New York Jews supported him. Would Jews, regardless of their politics, ever knowingly support an antisemite? Of course not.

What they support are Mamdani’s views on Israel, views shared by many progressives and Palestinian sympathizers who believe Israel committed genocide in Gaza. If that belief alone defines antisemitism, then many Jews including some who proudly identify with their Jewish heritage (like actor Mandy Patinkin) would fall under that label.

It’s also telling that the largest and most visible Orthodox Jewish sect in the city, Satmar, endorsed Mamdani. Clearly, he is not seen by all as a personal Jew-hater. His animus is directed not toward Jews as individuals but toward Israel as a Jewish state. He feels perfectly comfortable around progressive Jews who share his worldview.

Why He Won

Mamdani’s anti-Israel views had little to do with his victory. His success stems from his charisma, populist appeal, and focus on bread-and-butter issues that resonate with everyday New Yorkers.

The cost of living in New York has skyrocketed. A typical middle-income earner struggles to make ends meet as taxes, fees, and housing costs continue to rise. Mamdani spoke directly to these frustrations, promising free buses, strict rent controls, and government-run grocery stores offering food at lower prices than for-profit competitors.

Young voters — especially burdened by the city’s high costs — were drawn to these promises, which no other candidate addressed so boldly. They turned out in record numbers.

Mamdani also benefited from weak opponents. His main challenger was a disgraced former governor, forced to resign over sexual misconduct allegations. A figure devoid of charisma or credibility. Add to that public frustration with a Republican president who promised to lower prices but instead raised them through tariffs on imported goods, and Mamdani’s path to victory was clear.

For most voters, Israel wasn’t even on the radar. They saw a dynamic young populist running against a tainted establishment figure — and it wasn’t a contest.

What It Means for New York Jews

Should Jews in the city with the world’s largest Jewish population be concerned about the next four years? Absolutely. But not because Mamdani will target them directly. He won’t risk confirming accusations of antisemitism by ignoring attacks on Jews.

The real concern is indirect: a surge in anti-Israel activism and protests that Mamdani will likely endorse, if not attend himself. Some of these demonstrations may turn violent. This is where the Jewish community — and all fair-minded New Yorkers — must remain vigilant.

If clashes erupt between pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian protesters, how the mayor responds will be crucial. The ADL has already pledged heightened vigilance against antisemitism; others must do the same. Expect the anti-Israel fervor to spread to other major cities, especially in academia, where Mamdani’s sympathies will surely find fertile ground. That’s where the true danger of his mayoralty lies.

The Broader Political Impact

Mamdani’s victory also raises questions about the direction of the Democratic Party. Progressives already wield disproportionate influence within it, and now one of their own governs the nation’s largest city. Will the party tilt further left? Will figures like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez become the new face of Democratic leadership — perhaps even a presidential candidate with Mamdani as a running mate?

I doubt it. In fact, I suspect the opposite. The American electorate at its core is not composed of ‘New York liberals’. It is moderate, pragmatic, and centrist. The swing voters who decide national elections are not ideological purists but practical thinkers. That’s how we’ve had both Obama and Trump — two-term presidents from opposite parties. Americans vote for competence and results, not dogma.

The Coming Reckoning

Mamdani’s utopian promises will soon collide with economic reality. There will be no lasting free buses, and certainly no government-run grocery stores. If any of his ‘free’ programs do materialize, they’ll require massive tax hikes. Not just on big business but on ordinary consumers, who will feel it at the checkout counter.

If large corporations face the kind of tax burdens needed to fund his socialist programs, they’ll leave the city — and take much of its tax base with them. That will trigger deficits, layoffs, and service breakdowns. One can easily imagine garbage piling up in the streets when the money runs out.

As noble as socialism may sound, it has failed everywhere it’s been tried — and New York will be no exception. The only question is how long it takes for the pain to set in.

Ironically, Mamdani’s election may turn out to be a gift to the Republican Party. By the midterms, frustration with his failed policies could produce a landslide of protest votes against Democrats nationwide.

The next four years in New York may be painful. But they could also mark the end of the socialist experiment in American politics. When the promises collapse under their own weight, voters may rediscover the political centrism that has guided this country — more or less successfully — since the end of World War II.

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts and comment you must subscribe. It's free. 

Jews Who Support Mamdani

Four rabbis that support Mamdani (Israel Hayom)

Today’s the big day. Today is the day that the most anti-Israel candidate for mayor of New York in history will likely be elected its mayor. Probably by a wide margin.

This should not be happening in a city whose Jewish population is the largest of any city in the world. Because of that, candidates for mayor in the past were uniformly pro-Israel. But not this time. Zohran Mamdani, a little-known New York Assemblyman who was given little chance to win the Democratic primary, won big!

And now, according to most polls, he has a double-digit lead over his opponent, former Governor Andrew Cuomo — who, although a strong supporter of Israel throughout his political career, ran afoul of the Orthodox Jewish community because of some heavy-handed tactics during the Covid pandemic. That, along with accusations of sexual misconduct (which forced him to resign as governor), would have prevented any chance he might have had to become mayor.

Having lost to Mamdani in the primary, Cuomo is now running as an independent in today’s general election. Although both candidates have been polling below 50%, if Republican Curtis Sliwa had suspended his campaign, there is little doubt that the majority of his voters would have gone to Cuomo.

That being the case, the Jewish community has not given up. Over 1,100 heterodox rabbis have signed a letter urging Jews to vote against Mamdani. Agudah and other Orthodox Jewish institutions and rabbis have been urging their people to do the same. Most recently, YU’s Rav Hershel Schachter penned a letter urging all Yeshiva University students to vote today, even if it means missing significant parts of their seder (one of their daily Torah learning sessions in the Beis Medrash).

I absolutely agree with the urgency of voting in this election. The issues at stake for the Jewish people have never been greater. So even if the odds are stacked against defeating Mamdani today, that doesn’t mean the Jewish voting public should not do their utmost to try. That means going to the voting booth and casting your vote, no matter how difficult it may be — or how futile the attempt might seem. As I have said multiple times: you never know.

What I have also said is that significant numbers of Jews actually support Mamdani. They are the ones who secured his nomination in the Democratic primary and plan to vote for him in the general. How many is that? A lot more than one might think. As noted by Rabbi Efrem Goldberg on the Aish website:

“Polls ranging from as high as 43% (and on the low end, 21%) show that Jewish voters in New York intend to vote for him. Prominent Jewish actors and media personalities have unabashedly endorsed Mamdani. This week, a campaign video produced in partnership with the organization Jews for Racial and Economic Justice was released, which includes four self-described rabbis expressing open support for Mamdani.”

A lot of Jews appear not to care about Mamdani’s views about Israel. Or worse, actually agree with him. What are those views? Rabbi Goldberg reminds us of the following:

“In the last week, more videos have emerged demonstrating New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s obsessive hatred of Israel. During a panel at the 2023 Democratic Socialists of America’s national convention, he said, ‘We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.’

Additionally, in an effort to blame the problems of his city on Israel, he said, ‘You have so many opportunities to make clear the ways in which that struggle over there (Israel) is tied to capitalist interests over here.’”

He has defended suicide bombers as soldiers, repeatedly refused to condemn the violent and threatening phrase “Globalize the Intifada,” falsely accused Israel of genocide, and announced he would attempt to have Prime Minister Netanyahu arrested as a war criminal if he came to New York. His hateful preoccupation with Israel has been well documented — and many Jews in New York are concerned they will be less safe if he wins.

And yet, with all that, as many as 43% of New York’s Jews plan to vote for him. Why? Because, as I have said — and as Rabbi Goldberg also notes:

“In the best-case scenario, these Jewish poll responders, celebrities, and rabbis seem to be putting their liberalism and progressivism ahead of their Jewish identity and loyalty to Israel. They are prioritizing being part of a socialist movement over the safety and preservation of their own families and their people. In the worst-case scenario, they are not making a choice between two things (progressive politics and Jewish identity) they embrace, rather they are substituting one for the other — rejecting their Jewish identities. Either way, it is deeply troubling.”

Sadly, I agree with Rabbi Goldberg. But then he makes an astonishing suggestion about how we should think about these Jews. Strangely enough, I agree with him. Without using the halachic appellation of Tinok Shenishba (which in our day applies mostly to Jews raised without the slightest idea of what it really means to be Jewish), he says that we must love them as brothers, no matter how misguided their views are.

As I said, although I agree with him in theory, the idea of loving a Jew who runs away from their Judaism or replaces it with progressive socialist values is difficult, if not impossible, to do. The easiest thing to do is to ignore them and lament their eventual demise as Jews — as over 70% of them continue to intermarry.

Ignoring them may be the easiest thing to do, but it is not the right thing to do. These progressive Jews, celebrities, and self-styled rabbis are indeed our brothers. We are required by halacha to be responsible for their welfare — both physically and spiritually.

The question is, how? I don’t know how it is even possible to talk to people whose progressive values supersede, by far, the values of the Torah. Even if they knew what those values were, they would surely reject them out of hand as anathema to their worldview. I can’t begin to understand how you can reach out to someone whose progressive values are so deeply ingrained into their psyche. Which they adhere to with near-religious fervor.

So yes, we must never give up on the near-impossible task of showing them the light. How we climb that steep hill is something I cannot begin to fathom. Reaching out to the majority of secular Jews who understand the dangers of a Mamdani mayoralty is one thing. I wholeheartedly support that.

But even though it isn’t their fault, how can you relate to Jews who believe with complete faith that Mamdani’s views about Israel are the right ones - and who, in most cases, probably consider Judaism completely irrelevant to their lives?

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

Emes Ve-Emunah is now available at substack. To receive posts you must subscribe. It's free