It Ain’t Over – Till It’s Over

Orthodox Jewish day school children

Mark Twain once said in response to a newspaper report of his death, “Reports of my demise are grossly exaggerated.”

I don’t want to overstate my renewed hope regarding the reversal of a troubling trend. But I do have some hope that we can reverse the trend of the growing number of American Jews abandoning their Jewish future. This trend is reflected in rising rates of intermarriage and a widespread ignorance of Jewish heritage - leaving many with little or no ability to pass it on to their children, who in turn have no interest in learning about it.

Of course, this is not true across the board. There are many American Jews — not necessarily fully observant or observant at all — who do care about their Judaism and do make efforts to pass it on. Some are successful, and some are not. But the sad reality is that, unless something changes, the great mass of American Jewry may soon become a thing of the past.

And yet, there are two recent developments that give me a sense of hope — developments that might change this trajectory to a far greater extent than I ever thought possible. But before addressing them, it’s worth revisiting how we got here. It all boils down to one thing: the lack of a significant Jewish education. There are a variety of reasons for this, among them:

• The “melting pot” culture of pre-Holocaust America that encouraged assimilation and discouraged distinct religious or ethnic identities.
• The desire of children of earlier Jewish immigrants to distance themselves from their parents’ “Old World” ways in pursuit of the American dream.
• The near absence of an organized Jewish educational system prior to the Holocaust.
• And more recently, the skyrocketing cost of Jewish education. Which has become prohibitive even for middle-class families with decent incomes, and continues to grow less affordable every year.

By the time we entered the 21^st century, this combination of factors  - especially the cost - made Jewish day school education an unlikely choice for most families, except the most highly motivated. In most cases, that has meant Orthodox Jews.

As a result, we now have a strong and growing Orthodox community. But one whose size pales in comparison to the vast number of Jews who never had access to such an education.

Encouragingly, it appears that the non-Orthodox Jewish community - at least those who care deeply about the future of American Jewry - are waking up to the fact that Jewish education is what’s missing most. And that only education has a real chance of reversing the current trend.

This was a key point made by Jewish activist, Shira Goodman, former CEO of Staples, in an eJewish Philanthropy article:

“I’ve learned that real, lasting growth doesn’t come from sticking to the old playbook — it demands shaking things up, thinking differently, and sometimes even inviting entirely new players into the game.”

Barry Finestone, in an earlier article, proposed a shift in communal strategy from a defensive focus on antisemitism to a proactive focus on Jewish joy. He passionately urged:

“Let’s pour more resources into camps, day schools, trips to Israel, youth groups and other experiences proven to deliver strong outcomes. We know these things work.”

Goodman says this vision fuels her work on a new project called the Lauder Impact Initiative (LII) — a bold experiment aimed at transforming the narrative and trajectory of Jewish day school enrollment.

The long and short of it is this: increasing enrollment in Jewish day schools requires inspiring prospective families to reshape their sense of Jewish identity -  and helping them see themselves as ‘day school families’. This can be done by encouraging interaction between current day school families and those considering enrollment.

It also requires disabusing them of common misperceptions, such as:

• Overestimating the cost of attendance due to limited awareness of available financial aid.
• Concerns about a perceived lack of socioeconomic diversity.
• Assumptions about rigid religious expectations, often based on outdated impressions of what Jewish day schools are like.

It also means doubling down on early childhood education, building strong secular studies programs, and offering rich extracurricular activities. All designed to meet the expectations of parents accustomed to the educational experiences provided by top public and private schools.

This is precisely the kind of ambitious, visionary thinking we need from lay leaders like Shira Goodman if we’re going to reverse the trajectory so many American Jews have taken. One leading out of Judaism entirely.

But perhaps the greatest boost to this noble goal comes from something that just happened in the U.S. Senate.

As reported by VIN, the Senate recently passed a bill that includes the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA). The most important aspect of which is the following:

Families earning up to 300% of their area’s median income can apply for scholarships through certified Scholarship Granting Organizations (SGOs). These scholarships can be used for yeshiva tuition, Jewish studies materials, Hebrew language tutoring, and other educational expenses that support Torah learning…

The program’s generous income limits mean that many working Orthodox families will qualify. In communities like Lakewood, NJ, or Brooklyn, NY, even families earning well into six figures may still be eligible for assistance — a recognition of the high cost of living in areas with established Jewish communities.

This truly is game-changing. Not only for Orthodox parents struggling to meet tuition obligations or schools struggling with budgets. It is game-changing because it removes one of the main barriers preventing non Orthodox Jewish parents from enrolling their children in day schools in the first place: cost.

When combined with the shifting attitude about the importance of Jewish education to Jewish survival in America, this new national voucher program gives me real hope. Hope that we can turn things around to a far greater extent than anyone might have imagined just a few short years ago.

Uniforms, Uniformity, and Truth

As I began my daily 20-mile bike ride last Friday*, I passed by the local Charedi boys’ day school (as I do every day) and noticed that the children (about 6 or 7 years old) coming out of the building were all dressed in uniforms. Only these were not the kind of uniforms one usually associates with schoolchildren. They were all wearing white shirts and black pants. The standard uniform of the Charedi world. I have been informed that young students are required to dress up for Rosh Chodesh which occurred last week on Thursday and Friday.

On the one hand, I thought they looked kind of cute dressed like that. But the fact is, the insistence on this mode of dress is about far more than cuteness. It reflects the necessity of conforming to the ideology that this dress code has come to represent.

This is not to say that the Charedi world doesn’t have the right to dictate the culture in which their adherents live - including the way they dress. Of course, they do. What troubles me is that this school is by far the largest day school in the city, with over 1,500 children enrolled. While the parent body may be comparable to that of other mainstream Orthodox day schools here in Chicago, the number of children per family is significantly higher. And that too is okay.

But what this unfortunately means is that the Hashkafa (ideological worldview) that defines them is likely to become the dominant Hashkafa of Orthodox Judaism. And in my view, what they accuse my Hashkafa of being -  is precisely what I accuse theirs of being: Krum.

Krum is the Yiddish word for “crooked.” In the context in which both Charedim and Modern Orthodox (or more specifically, Centrist) Jews use it, it does not imply illegality or a violation of Halacha. Rather, each side claims that the other's path to fulfilling the will of God is not the most ideal, and should not be prioritized.

Charedim believe that the highest priority for every Jewish male is full-time Torah study, and that anything else - no matter how important - should be sacrificed toward that goal.

Centrists believe that Torah study should also be a priority, but not to the exclusion of all else - except for certain extraordinary individuals whose clear mission in life aligns with that path.

Centrists believe that Torah is not the only thing that should be studied by the vast majority of the Jewish people, and that God is best served by utilizing the unique, God-given talents of each individual. So if a Jew has a particular aptitude for a profession or field that benefits Torah or humanity, they have an obligation to pursue that path rather than force themselves into a mold of full-time Torah study. THAT - without elaborating any further - is the essential difference between us.

As much as I believe that the Centrist Hashkafa more accurately reflects the will of God, it is increasingly becoming a minority opinion. While Orthodox Jews in both the Charedi and Centrist worlds tend to have larger families than the rest of the modern world, it is no secret that the Charedi world outpaces us - probably by orders of magnitude in each generation.

Now, of course, I have no problem with having large families. Kein Yirbu! But when that comes along with the kind of rigid indoctrination represented by the sight of those young Charedi schoolchildren in their uniforms - it troubles me deeply. Not just because it prioritizes Torah study to the exclusion of all else, but because it also instills in its adherents the belief that their rabbinic leaders are nearly infallible.

So when these leaders make public pronouncements on matters of public concern, their statements are accepted uncritically as the ideal Torah standard by which they should all live.

In some cases, that deeply disturbs me. Especially these days when it comes to matters concerning the State of Israel. The latest example came from one of their leaders at a time when a sense of solidarity with the state would have been appropriate. Instead, he offered the standard condemnation of Israeli leaders for congratulating themselves on their victory over Iran: ‘Koḥi V’otzem Yadi’ – ‘my strength and the power of my hand’ brought this victory.”

He then followed with the usual line that the real credit for any victory against Iran goes to those who dedicate their lives to full-time Torah study with true Mesiras Nefesh - the intense self-sacrifice they put in towards that end.

But in doing so, he completely ignored what the Prime Minister actually said. He asked God for help in achieving victory before the attack and thanked God for helping the IDF achieving it afterwards.

It is sad that the words of truth came NOT from someone revered by vast segments of the Charedi world, but from a non-observant Jewish leader. Words more recently echoed by a non-Charedi rabbinic figure, Rabbi Eliezer Melamed, who was quoted in Arutz Sheva saying the following:

“One must be precise and say that we reached all these successes with God’s help. In other words, the military achievements were made by idealistic, talented, and brave people who, for years - with diligence and resourcefulness - gathered intelligence and formulated successful plans. And thanks to heroic soldiers who trained for the missions, risked their lives, and entered enemy territory by air and land to deliver a crushing blow.”

This is the essence of Emes - the truth of Torah. That the Charedi world refuses to recognize the IDF’s role in this, and the sacrifices that they and their families have made over nearly two years of war, is the height of insensitivity. An insensitivity in service of the false god of self-congratulation.

Ironically, Kocḥi V’otzem Yadi may better describe the attitude of the kind of Charedi leadership that accused Israeli leadership of it. At least in a spiritual sense. Because they believe that only their spiritual strength, as expressed through their Torah study, is what matters. The spirituality of thousands of IDF soldiers - many of whom are devoutly observant - seems not to exist in their worldview at all.

This is why they insist on their ‘uniforms’ from their earliest days in school. They want to ensure that Hashkafos foreign to their worldview - including those regarding the Jewish state - do not influence their children. And the best way they seem to do that is by making them look as different as possible from the rest of us - within the bounds of socially acceptable modern attire.

And white shirts with black pants certainly achieve that.

I wish it weren’t so. But so it is.

One might wonder why I care so much about what Charedi leadership thinks. For one thing, I care about Emes, and I want to see it promoted, not ignored - or worse, denied - by the leadership of the largest and fastest-growing segment of Orthodox Judaism. But even more importantly, I abhor the  complete marginalization, if not delegitimization, of all other segments of Orthodoxy (no matter how observant they are) by largest segment of Orthodoxy.

This is something that I cannot in good conscience ignore and simply say it doesn’t apply to me. 

Kol Yisroel Areivim Zeh BaZeh. All Jews are responsible for one another. I care what other Jews think. Especially if they are observant like me. And even more especially if they outnumber people like me. By increasing orders of magnitude over time.

*The original version of this post referenced yesterday as the day I noticed that. I have been informed that that mode of dress is worn by young Charedi students on Rosh Chodesh. Students are told to dress up in honor of that day and otherwise are not required to wear 'the uniform' on a daily basis. It must have been on last Friday when I noticed their mode of dress. Not yesterday. I apologize for the error which has since been corrected.

Saving American Jewry

Reconstructionism founder, Mordecai Kaplan (My Jewish Learning)

It could almost have been written by me. Ari Witkin, the senior director of philanthropy at Detroit’s Jewish Federation summarizes quite accurately some of the things I’ve often said here about what Judaism is really all about. Shockingly, Ari is a Reconstructionist rabbi.

This rather small denomination, founded by Mordecai Kaplan, denies the existence of God as a supernatural deity. According to Reconstructionist theology, there is no God who performs miracles, answers prayers, or intervenes in the affairs of man. The god they recognize is a version of Pantheism. Which manifests in the natural world and in human experience.

And yet Ari quite forcefully suggests that our very Jewish identity should be rooted in the values of our founding document - the Torah. I couldn’t agree more with the arguments he makes.

Although the fact that he does not mention God should have tipped me off, his point is still quite valid. It speaks to where the American Jewish community currently is - and where it ought to be.

He correctly suggests that the collective hearts of the American Jewish community are in the right place, but that the environments we operate in are not shaped by the values that are supposed to guide us. Those values are marginalized - pushed aside by societal pressures. He rightly blames this sad state of affairs on what he calls the collapse of Jewish literacy, recognizing that the only denomination where this isn’t true is Orthodoxy.

I can’t even begin to count how many times I’ve said that the reason 90% of American Jewry is in danger of dying out is due to a lack of any real Jewish education. Rabbi Witkin clearly understands this as well. As he puts it:

“We end up relying on vague notions of ‘Jewish values,’ without the language, context or depth of knowledge to anchor them in something real.”

And he isn’t just talking about laypeople. He’s talking about Jewish leadership! The remedy, says Rabbi Witkin:

…requires a relationship with a specific tradition, a specific people, and a specific set of obligations. Without that particularism, the work risks losing its center.

He notes that Judaism is countercultural, that it binds us together, and that it is unapologetically grounded in obligations that connect us to one another and to something greater than ourselves.

Considering Reconstructionism’s rejection of a supernatural God, what could he possibly mean by ‘something greater than ourselves’? But I digress.

One of his criticisms is how the newly embraced ethic of ‘meeting people where they are’ has become the sine qua non of the current culture. In other words, we do not reject people because they fail to live up to our standards. We accept them as they are.

I have long advocated this approach to humanity. The most prominent example of which is how we relate to people who struggle with sexuality or sexual identity issues. But like Rabbi Witkin, I see acceptance as a floor, not a ceiling. Here is how he puts it:

“(Somewhere) along the way, ‘meeting people where they are’ became the goal instead of the starting point. It became a ceiling, not a floor.

And so I think we have to ask: Are we actually helping people grow? Or are we just trying not to lose them?

…meaningful Jewish life requires more than self-expression. It requires substance. It requires context. It requires knowledge.

Our job as leaders isn’t just to accept where people are. It’s to invite them to where they could be.”

If we don’t do that, says Rabbi Witkin, we may be creating a wider version of Judaism - but also a shallower one, which cannot last.

The remedy is to return to our founding and defining document, the Torah. While at the same time, engaging thoughtfully with the world around us. Using its many tools to help us live in the modern world while remaining firm in our core beliefs and principles.

Indeed, I have consistently been preaching these values. They are the essence of what Judaism is all about. It is sad, however, that the wisdom offered by this Reconstructionist rabbi omits the most important component of our belief system: that there is a God in this world who gave us the  very Torah he says we should follow.

The New Democratic Party

Zohran Mamdani interviewed on Meet the Press today (Screenshot)

I have to admit that I’m amused by the hand-wringing going on among mainstream Democrats after a young Socialist came out of nowhere to win the Democratic nomination for mayor of New York City. 

New York is not some ‘beside-the-point’ flyover city that doesn't reflect the sentiment of Democratic voters. It is the largest city in the country, and most of its voters are Democrats. They have chosen a Socialist - Zohran Mamdani  -  to lead them to victory in November

I hate to sound like a broken record. But I cannot emphasize enough the significance Mamdani’s victory.

All the talk about Democrats moving away from the far left clearly hasn’t reached New York. The results of this election have caused severe indigestion among mainstream Democratic leaders. They are squirming, trying to figure out which direction to steer the party. What had recently been seen as a shift toward the center - following Trump’s massive victory nationwide - now seems to have been replaced by a sharp left turn. And not surprisingly, this shift has been accompanied by harsh anti-Israel sentiment.

Those who try to explain away Mamdani’s win as a matter of simple economics cannot ignore how far apart a Socialist agenda is from what America has stood for since its founding. I doubt that any mainstream Democrat embraces the Socialist ideology that will guide New York’s likely next mayor.

One Democratic apologist I heard interviewed this morning tried mightily to deflect charges of antisemitism on Mamdani’s part, using the familiar trope: ‘There’s a difference between being opposed to the current Israeli government and being an antisemite.’  The argument was that surely one can criticize a government without being antisemitic. One can even criticize the U.S. government without being anti American, right?

But does Mamdani have the right to call for genocide against the Jewish people worldwide? Which is what ‘Globalize the Intifada’ means? A cry often heard by pro-Palestinian protests that Mamdani has thus far refused to condemn. As recently as today when he was asked several times to do so by Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker – he refused. I wonder if he would defend an individual’s right to call for the annihilation of all Muslims. You bet he wouldn’t!

Mamdani’s long-held support for boycotting Israel, his refusal to condemn the Hamas attack of October 7^th, and his promise to arrest the Prime Minister of Israel if he sets foot in New York tell me far more about his true agenda than his hollow promise to fight antisemitism in the city. That promise rings especially hollow given that his own rhetoric has helped fuel it. Rhetoric that supports pro-Palestinian campus protests that have harassed Jewish students at universities across the country.

Like it or not, this is the ‘New Democrat’. Young.  Progressive. And anti-Israel.  It’s a reality that mainstream Democrats are clearly struggling to come to terms with. All the apologetics about separating criticism of Israeli policy from antisemitism are just that - apologetics.

As I’ve said before, it’s not that those mainstream American Democrats who voted for Trump have abandoned the Democratic Party. It’s that the Democratic Party has abandoned them. It has been replaced by Democratic Socialism. A movement that has abandoned its traditional support for the Jewish state and traditional American values. In its place are lofty promises of ‘social justice’ that Socialists love to preach. But that history has shown to fail every time it has been tried. It’s now a party where being anti-Israel is entirely acceptable, and where denying Israel’s right to exist is treated as no less legitimate than affirming it.

Deep down, mainstream Democratic leaders know this. That’s why they have not (yet) endorsed Mamdani. New York Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has said she will not support him unless he condemns the phrase ‘Globalize the Intifada’. And so far, no other prominent mainstream Democrat has endorsed him either.

Those among us - the Jewish people - who care at all about our Judaism, and who continue to insist that liberalism is the truest reflection of Jewish values, and that the Democratic Party best represents those interests, really ought to rethink that logic.

If New York voters reflect the national mood, we are all in trouble. But I don’t think they do. What they do reflect is the direction liberalism is taking. The country is deeply divided. It has been for quite some time. But more so now than at any time in U.S. history.

While there has always been a right and a left, and values that clashed between them, never before has the contrast been so stark. And never before has antisemitism found such a welcoming atmosphere in the politics of a city where Jews are so heavily concentrated.

Some might say this is an anomaly. And maybe they’re right.  For now. But Mamdani is going to be around for a while.

As I said recently - and it bears repeating - those among us who care at all about their Judaism, and who still insist that liberalism and the Democratic Party best represent Jewish values, really ought to rethink that kind of logic.

The era of bi-partisan support is over. And more than anything else it is the Democrat slide down the Socialist rabbit hole that got us there.  It is long past due that the liberal Jews among us whose social justice intentions are pure - face that reality. Because for the New Democrat, social justice no longer applies to Israel.

The 2-State Solution Revisited

The signing of the Abraham Accords at White House (Israel Hayom)

I’m still angry about the Democrats’ and mainstream media’s automatic acceptance of a low-confidence quick assessment leaked by the Defense Intelligence Agency suggesting that the U.S. bombing of Fordow was not anywhere near the success the president claimed it to be.

As I noted earlier, the media is far more interested in bashing the president than in acknowledging that he may have ended Iran’s nuclear threat. It’s telling that they continue to cite that early report, even in the face of a growing body of intelligence - some of it from the UN and even Iranian officials - indicating that the attack was very likely as successful (or nearly as successful) as the president described.

Even when the media begins to concede that point, they quickly pivot to another narrative: that the mission was a failure because several containers of 60% enriched uranium are unaccounted for, and that there might be hidden centrifuges elsewhere capable of enriching that uranium to the 90% weapons-grade levels. In other words, anything to deny the president a foreign policy victory. On this issue, the Democrats and the media are in lockstep.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, claiming victory and declaring that the nuclear program will continue at full speed is nothing more than face-saving bravado meant to appease his fanatical supporters.

I believe we can dispense with the notion that the mission was a failure. Although a full report has yet to be released, what we do know makes it highly unlikely that Iran can resume its nuclear program anytime soon. According to a number of apolitical analysts I’ve heard interviewed over the past few days, Iran’s nuclear program has likely been set back by years.

And even if it hasn’t, the U.S. still has several of those 30,000-pound bunker buster bombs ready to MOP up any remaining threats. Against which Iran has no real defense.

With Iran weakened to this extent, it might be time to revisit the question of peace between Israel and the Palestinians.

Though I once believed a two-state solution was possible under the right conditions, I abandoned that notion long ago. An abandonment cemented by the atrocities of October 7^th. Palestinians in Gaza cheering the brutal murder of 1,200 Jews and 250 hostages taken by Hamas on that day showed the world that they seek nothing less than total sovereignty over all the holy land. From the river to the sea. A Palestinian state alongside Israel’s long and vulnerable border with Judea and Samaria would be Gaza on steroids. Such a solution would be suicidal. It can never happen so long as Palestinians are indoctrinated - from cradle to grave - to destroy our presence on what they view as ‘their’ land.

Yet, according to Israel Hayom, the idea of a two-state solution has been revived and conditionally accepted by Israel’s prime minister as part of a comprehensive plan to end the war in Gaza. Here are the reported details:

A four-way phone conversation between U.S. President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and Strategic Affairs Minister Ron Dermer took place immediately following the U.S. assault on Iran’s nuclear facilities. According to a source familiar with the conversation, Israel Hayom reported that all participants were euphoric about the results of the B-2 bomber mission. 

They reportedly agreed in principle to the following steps, with rapid implementation planned, beginning with the end of the Gaza conflict:

1. Gaza hostilities will end within two weeks, with administration of Gaza transferred to a coalition of four Arab nations (including Egypt and the UAE), replacing Hamas. Hamas leaders will be exiled, and all hostages released.
2. Mass emigration from Gaza will be facilitated by countries around the world willing to accept those wishing to leave.
3. The Abraham Accords will expand to include countries such as Syria and Saudi Arabia, along with other Arab and Muslim nations recognizing Israel and establishing diplomatic relations.
4. Israel will express willingness to resolve the Palestinian conflict under a two-state framework, contingent on Palestinian Authority reform.
5. The United States will recognize limited Israeli sovereignty in parts of Judea and Samaria.

If there’s one thing I feel certain about, it’s that Netanyahu is a patriot who would never agree to anything that endangers Israel or its people. So how could he agree to cede any control to people whose ultimate goal is our annihilation?

Here are some thoughts. The greatest danger from Hamas wasn’t Hamas itself. It was Iran, who gave them the resources and support to carry out their attacks. With Iran now severely weakened, Hamas can do little more than sporadic terrorism. something Israel has proven quite capable of containing.

Yes, Palestinians still harbor genocidal desires against us, but they may soon lack the capability to act on them. Iran will no longer be able to fund or arm them.

The same is true of Hezbollah, which has been largely silent since Israel dismantled their command structure. Even the former al-Qaeda member now leading Syria appears more interested in rebuilding his country than continuing a futile conflict with Israel, and has reportedly shown openness to joining the Abraham Accords.

The Houthis remain belligerent, but without Iranian sponsorship, it’s unclear how long they can sustain that posture. No other country appears willing to take over Iran’s role as the region’s main terrorist sponsor.

The key point: Without Iran’s backing, these groups lose a major share of their capacity to pursue their goal of eliminating Israel. They may be forced to settle for whatever they can get. Not because they’ve abandoned their hatred, but because they lack the ability to act on it.

That said, I don’t believe for a moment that the Palestinian Authority will accept a state under the conditions being proposed. They will not reform. They remain corrupt and committed to the long-term goal of reclaiming all of ‘Palestine.’  Even if the U.S. recognizes a Palestinian state under these conditions, the PA won’t accept them.

Nor will Hamas willingly release hostages in exchange for a permanent ceasefire. Their demands - such as the release of all Palestinian prisoners, regardless of the severity of their crimes - remain outrageous. And even if they were to agree in principle, they would never willingly relinquish control of Gaza to foreign Arab states or accept exile.

As for the idea of large-scale emigration from Gaza to nations that would accept them, it’s possible, but I’m not confident it will occur in significant numbers.

One promising outcome of Israel’s conditional agreement to a two-state solution is that it might finally bring more Arab nations into the Abraham Accords. Imagine what it would mean for Israel to normalize relations with Syria and Saudi Arabia. Which would be added to the normalization between Israel and Egypt, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan. Imagine the increased  trade, tourism, and regional cooperation. It would truly transform the Middle East in ways previously thought impossible.

If Trump can pull this off - his recent nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize might actually be taken seriously by the Nobel Committee.

 

The New Face of the Democratic Party?

Zohran Mamdani

It might seem like a hard sell after what happened in New York on Tuesday, but I still firmly believe that the majority of the American people still support Israel. Even if they criticize her and been led to blame her for what has been happening in Gaza over the past year and a half.

It's a hard sell because the city with the largest Jewish population in the entire country just nominated Zohran Mamdani - a rabidly anti-Israel candidate - to be the Democratic nominee for mayor.

Just how anti-Israel is he? Consider the following:

According to his Wikipedia biography, Mamdani attended Bowdoin College in Maine, where he co-founded the school’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine.

As a candidate, he declined to condemn the phrase “Globalize the Intifada.” Intifada is Arabic for ‘uprising,’ a term used by Palestinians to describe ‘the waves of terror from 2000 to 2005 that killed an estimated 1,000 Israelis in attacks on buses, cafés, and recreation centers’.

He refuses to acknowledge the intent behind pro-Palestinian protesters’ calls to ‘Free Palestine from the river to the sea’. Which, in their rhetoric, means eliminating the Jewish state of Israel and replacing it with an Islamic state of Palestine.

He has accused Israel of committing genocide in Gaza and is a long-time supporter of BDS (Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions). If implemented globally, BDS would effectively dismantle the State of Israel.

This is the man New York City Democrats - who make up the majority of the city's electorate - voted for.

All of Mamdani’s anti-Israel positions are in line with his political affiliation: the Democratic Socialists of America. Personally, I think they should drop the word “Democratic” from their name and simply call themselves what they really are: Socialists.

A socialist is the closest thing to a communist one can be without actually being one. The primary goal of both systems is to redistribute wealth equally among the people. The only difference is how they do it.

Communism accomplishes this by fully controlling the economy, taking over the means of production, and paying all workers similar wages regardless of their profession or contribution. It’s an idealistic system where everyone works for the common good and shares the wealth. A  supposedly fair and just system.

Socialism, on the other hand, seeks to accomplish this through high taxation. Especially of the wealthy - and redistributing that wealth to the working class, again, regardless of individual merit. Like communism, socialism is rooted in a vision of “fairness,” but punishes success and assumes great wealth is inherently suspect.

By contrast, a free-market economy rewards individual effort. What you put in is what you get out. With determination, a willingness to risk and fail, and a little bit of luck, anyone can become wealthy. Socialism punishes that kind of success and views great wealth as immoral. Lately referring to people of great wealth in this country as oligarchs!

There is nothing democratic about taxing the rich into oblivion and redistributing their earnings to the rest of society. Which is exactly what Mamdani has promised to do. He has pledged to create a chain of grocery stores that will give away food for free. He promises free public transportation. He wants to freeze rents, even when rents are already so low in some buildings that they barely cover the costs of upkeep and taxes. (To a socialist, this is justified. After all, landlords are presumed to be evil capitalists getting rich off the backs of the poor.)

All these giveaways will, of course, be paid for by taxing the ‘rich’. But what Mamdani considers rich remains to be seen. It won’t just be billionaires. Anyone with a decent income may find themselves targeted. For Orthodox Jews who work hard to earn enough to pay for tuition and support large families, these new taxes could be devastating. While it’s unlikely that he’ll be able to get the city council to approve his give-aways and such sweeping tax increases, this is clearly his agenda.

But people love free stuff. And the charismatic young Mamdani knows it. He is offering New Yorkers unprecedented financial relief in one of the most expensive cities in the country.

That he is virulently anti-Israel doesn’t matter much to the 90% of New Yorkers who are not Jewish. They may not be aware of it, or simply may not care.

Mamdani claims he’s not antisemitic. He points to high-profile Jews who are just as anti-Israel as he is, like Senator Bernie Sanders, who endorsed him. And after the election, he was congratulated by two prominent Jewish lawmakers: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and Congressman Jerry Nadler.

I am not especially concerned about the physical safety of New York’s Jewish community if Mamdani is elected. I don’t believe he would tolerate or ignore violence. On the other hand, some may see the election of an anti-Israel mayor as a green light to attack Jews or Jewish institutions. We’ll have to wait and see.

But one thing is certain: the traditional support that New York City mayors have shown for Israel will vanish. It will be replaced by a BDS agenda, which Mamdani will likely try to push through the city council. I suspect he will fail, but the very fact that he will try is a seismic shift.

As I mentioned a few days ago, Jewish voters who have long supported the Democratic Party should seriously reconsider their loyalties. If someone like Zohran Mamdani can win the Democratic nomination for mayor of the largest city in America, that says a lot about where the party is headed.

Is it really that far-fetched to imagine someone like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez becoming the Democratic nominee for president in 2028?

If you are Jewish, and care about both your country and the Jewish ancestral homeland, the party of Mamdani should be rejected. The direction of the modern Democratic Party is clear: it will no longer support what they view as a “colonialist oppressor state” like Israel.

One more thing. Those who blame Prime Minister Netanyahu for the erosion of bipartisan support for Israel should take a long, hard look at what just happened in New York. This is not about Netanyahu. This is about the ideological shift that has been occurring in the Democratic Party ever since the election of Barack Obama.

That said, there is still hope. Only about 20% of New York Democrats voted in the primary. Perhaps the general election will bring out those who supported one of the other 11 candidates. And Mamdani will be defeated. Maybe Mayor Adams will win re-election after all.

We can always hope.

Schadenfreude

Among those too eager to declare the US attack at Fordow a failure

I find it both amusing and disappointing that the president’s critics are expressing so much joy over reports suggesting that the bombing of Fordow was not as successful as initially believed. And certainly not as successful as the president indicated in its immediate aftermath.

But this reaction should surprise no one. It’s a common phenomenon known as schadenfreude - the pleasure derived from another person's misfortune.

And let’s be honest: there's a great deal of schadenfreude among Trump’s critics. Anytime there’s even a possibility that he might be wrong about something, they leap to that conclusion with a sort of ‘I told you so’ attitude. Even when it means that his being right would’ve been far better for both the United States and Israel.

In some cases, they may publicly express regret that the mission wasn’t more successful. But make no mistake: the fact that it wasn’t is far more satisfying to them than if it had been. That seems to be the case with the recent leak from a source at the Defense Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon’s intelligence arm.  As noted in a CNN story:

Two of the people familiar with the assessment said Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium was not destroyed. One of the people said the centrifuges are largely “intact.” Another source said that the intelligence assessed enriched uranium was moved out of the sites prior to the US strikes.

According to the leaked assessment, despite the full scale of Israel’s bombing campaign in Iran and the U.S. strike on Fordow - Iran’s nuclear program may have only been set back by a few months.

This has been vigorously denied by the president, the vice president, and the Secretaries of State and Defense. They are standing firm in their claim that the damage was so severe it has set Iran’s nuclear program back years.

Whether that claim holds up under more thorough analysis remains to be seen. But what should be obvious is that the leak itself was politically motivated by individuals within the defense department with an agenda to discredit the president. There is no other plausible explanation for why these 4 people shared it with the media before all the facts are in and fully analyzed.

In any case, the most reliable intelligence about Iran’s nuclear program comes from Israel. Their agents have deeply infiltrated Iran and are far more likely to provide an accurate assessment than anonymous Pentagon leakers—or media pundits eager to declare the mission a failure. So far, Israel has not issued a public evaluation. Until they do, any conclusion is premature.

Now, let’s consider for a moment that the leaked Defense Department analysis is more or less accurate, and that Iran could, in theory, resume uranium enrichment within a few months. Does that automatically mean they’ll be in the same position to build a nuclear weapon as before?

That seems highly unlikely.

Israel inflicted tremendous damage on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure even before the Fordow strike. Much of their bomb-making potential was destroyed. So even if Iran manages to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, they may no longer have the capacity to build a bomb anytime soon. The facilities required for that stage were likely taken out in the early days of the campaign.

Then there’s the fact that many of their top nuclear scientists - their ‘cream of the crop’ have been eliminated. Are there even enough qualified experts left in Iran to guide the program forward?

There’s also the broader strategic context. Iran just suffered a humiliating military defeat at the hands of the very nation it has sworn to wipe off the map - Israel, with U.S. backing. Are they truly prepared to resume their nuclear program and risk another devastating blow?

And that risk isn’t hypothetical. If Israel determines that Iran has restarted its nuclear efforts - and continues to pose an existential threat - they will not sit idly by. Nor will the United States, especially after committing so many resources to stopping them now.

Iran would have to bury its program so deeply - figuratively and literally - that even Israel’s network of infiltrators couldn’t detect it. That seems unlikely.

One thing is certain: Trump, despite his insatiable desire to declare victory and be seen as a peacemaker, will not allow Iran to rebuild its nuclear program unchecked. Too much has already been invested. He’s not going to settle for an Obama-style deal. Not after bombing Fordow.

So is Iran willing to take that risk, even if Fordow can somehow be salvaged in a few months? We’ll see. But before jumping to conclusions driven by political motives - we need to wait for Israel’s defense establishment to weigh in.

Because no matter how good schadenfreude feels, it’s no substitute for facts. 

Is Peace Really at Hand?

The president expressing anger at Israel this morning (People)

Breathtaking! That is the only way to describe how quickly things can change in the Middle East. Yesterday the president was quite happy at the way things developed in Iran over the last 12 days. Giving Israel credit for paving the way for the US to destroy the remainder of Iran’s nuclear capabilities. 

Suddenly and unexpectedly the president announced that he brokered a cease fire deal between Israel and Iran to which they both agreed.

And then, just as suddenly, the President has become very upset with Israel. The truce was immediately broken by Iran, which fired a missile into Haifa. Fortunately, it was intercepted. While Iran likely did violate the ceasefire with that missile attack, no one was killed or injured, and no damage occurred.

Should Israel overlook that breach? If this were merely a matter of ignoring an attack with no consequences for the sake of peace, I’d say yes. But it's not that simple.

After the ceasefire was announced yesterday and set to begin at midnight local time, Israel continued pounding Iranian targets right up to the final moments. Eliminating as much of their military infrastructure and leadership as possible. Viewed in isolation, this should be applauded.

But Iran did the same. Moments before the ceasefire deadline, they struck a residential building in Be’er Sheva, killing four (or possibly 5) Jews. Technically, that did not violate the ceasefire, since it occurred just before it took effect. However, the missile fired at Haifa afterward did breach the agreement.

My sense is that Israel is using the post-ceasefire attack (which was technically a violation) as a justification to retaliate for the earlier, more devastating one. Which wasn’t.

President Trump is unhappy with all of this. He blames Israel for carrying out its deadliest strike of the war after the ceasefire had been announced even though it was not yet in effect. In his view, both parties should have begun winding down their operations after agreeing to the truce. Not accelerating them, even if the ceasefire technically hadn’t started yet. He believes Iran’s massive retaliatory strike just before the deadline was a response to Israel’s last-minute aggression.

As for the missile fired at Haifa after the ceasefire began, my best guess is that with their chain of command decimated it was launched independently by a local Iranian military base unaware of the agreement or its timing. Iran has denied any violation altogether.

Understandably, the president is concerned that the ceasefire may collapse before it’s even fully in effect. Though he blames both sides, he places more of the blame on Israel. 

Trump seeks peace, plain and simple. He is not a warmonger and never intended to enter a war with Iran or any other country. His strike on Fordow was a ‘one-off’ with the clear condition that if Iran retaliated they would suffer severe military consequences. Iran did attack but not in any serious way. In fact, they informed the U.S. when and where they planned to retaliate, ensuring that no American personnel would be harmed. This likely stemmed from their clear understanding that Trump would follow through on his promises if provoked. Their response was deliberately weak but enough to save face domestically and yet avoid real consequences.

The president even thanked Iran for the advance warning, which allowed the U.S. to evacuate troops and avoid casualties. He then brokered the ceasefire, which both sides agreed to.

Now, however, he is increasingly upset with Israel’s continued military actions. He called the prime minister, expressed his anger, and urged him to stand down, bring his pilots home, and honor the ceasefire from this point forward.

I understand why Israel is upset. The people killed in Be’er Sheva last night were the first Israeli casualties from Iranian missiles in days. Twenty-four were killed in the early days of the war, and that number had remained steady until last night.

So, should Israel retaliate - as it clearly wants to - or heed the president’s call for restraint?

My first instinct is that they should not retaliate at this time. Israel and the U.S. have already severely weakened Iran. The opportunity for regime change is greater now than it has ever been. Whether that will happen remains to be seen. But their mission to roll back Iran’s nuclear ambitions by years has already succeeded.

If it later turns out that Iran's nuclear infrastructure wasn’t fully eliminated, Israel and the U.S. can always strike again with greater ease and precision. That information should be easily obtained since Iran has been thoroughly infiltrated.

If peace is truly within reach, I side with the president. 

On the other hand, Iran cannot be trusted. They’ve repeatedly shown that their political ambitions have not changed. They may talk peace while rebuilding their military and nuclear programs. Possibly learning how to hide them even better this time.

We don’t know if they’re capable of doing that. But it’s far better not to find out the hard way. Retaliation might ultimately be the best strategy if it could end the regime once and for all.

What about the president’s objections? If Israel’s actions could accomplish that goal, all would likely be forgiven. But that’s a big if.

At the end of the day, I’m not certain what the right course of action is. But I’m leaning toward restraint. With the clear condition that both the U.S. and Israel remain highly vigilant. If Iran resumes any nefarious activity, they should not hesitate to act decisively if and when that is determined

I can’t presume to be in the prime minister’s shoes. And I will NOT second guess his decisions. I am not privy to his military intelligence data nor the security requirements of his country. So I am clearly in no position to offer advice on matters of such a consequential nature.

However, given what I DO know (based on the above considerations) if war - and the death and destruction that goes along with it – can be prevented without compromising Israel’s security, seeking peace should be the first course of action. And after the prime minster's conversation with the president this morning, I think that is what he is going to do.

Rethinking Political Loyalties

Senate Majority leader, Chuck Schummer - an ungrateful Jewish Democrat

My ecstatic approval of the U.S. strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities should not be mistaken for triumphalism. We are clearly not out of the woods yet. Iran’s terrorist regime has promised unprecedented retaliation on American soil, using sleeper cells to target ‘soft’ civilian sites. Like synagogues and yeshivos.

Thankfully, Homeland Security anticipated this type of response from a regime with the moral scruples of Hitler, and has upgraded security at many such institutions. But nothing is foolproof, and we must remain vigilant.

What I am not so ecstatic about - to put it mildly - is how the Democrats in Congress have responded. Even those considered  ‘pro-Israel’ seem to be more loyal to their politics than to the Jewish state.

As noted by Josh Kraushaar in Jewish Insider:

In my years of covering politics, it’s pretty rare for mainstream Jewish organizations to be wildly out of step with the predominant views of the Democratic Party. But in the aftermath of President Donald Trump’s decision to order bunker-busting strikes against Iran’s nuclear sites over the weekend, the views of the institutional Jewish community and many rank-and-file Democrats couldn’t have been more divergent…

By contrast, it was tough to find many Democratic lawmakers — even among those who are typical allies of Israel — who praised the strikes that severely degraded Iran’s nuclear program.

Among those disappointingly silent or critical were Chuck Schumer, Jacky Rosen, Adam Schiff, and Haley Stevens. There were a few Democrats who were on the right side of the issue, such as John Fetterman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Greg Landsman, and Steny Hoyer. But it appears that the majority were critical of it one way or the other.

Kraushaar further noted:

As one pro-Israel Democrat put it to JI: There were notably more Democrats putting out statements cheering anti-Israel activist Mahmoud Khalil being released from immigration detention than those expressing solidarity with Israel in its time of great need.

To be fair, there are also two Republican lawmakers who joined the chorus of critics: Marjorie Taylor Greene and Thomas Massie - both of whom are, or perhaps I should say were, huge MAGA supporters. Regarding Massie, Trump said the following:

MAGA should drop this pathetic LOSER, Tom Massie, like the plague!... MAGA is not about lazy, grandstanding, nonproductive politicians, of which Thomas Massie is definitely one.

I couldn’t agree more. This is the same man who just yesterday implied in a CBS interview that Congress is controlled by AIPAC — a classic antisemitic trope.

To those Jews still clinging to the Democratic Party: you may want to reconsider your loyalties.

The Democratic Party has long enjoyed the broad support of American Jewry, going all the way back to FDR. There was good reason for that. For decades, they were our advocates. Jews, as a religious minority, faced bigotry and exclusion from neighborhoods, universities, and social clubs. It was the Democrats who helped us break those barriers. It was they who lobbied hardest against the Nazi menace. Even before the U.S. entered the war. And yes, it was a Democrat, FDR, who tried to enter the war against the Nazis but was restrained by an isolationist Congress and antisemitic members of his own administration. Until Pearl Harbor changed everything.

But times have changed. And so should our loyalties.

Gone are the days when the left championed the causes of the Jewish people. Today, we are no longer seen as part of the oppressed minority. Instead, many progressives see Jews -  and especially Israel - as part of the power structure they seek to dismantle.

When Israel was perceived as a small, vulnerable nation surrounded by enemies, she had their support. But now that Israel is strong, the narrative has shifted. And the left is no longer in our corner.

Let’s be honest: bipartisan support may have always been more myth than reality. Even when Democrats supported Israel, it often came with conditions. Today, the majority of the Democrats in congress - which includes many secular Jews - are taking positions that are not only harmful to Israel but contrary to America’s own best interests.

In America today, politics is king. Not Trump - politics itself. And politics often trumps (no pun intended) common sense, morality, and justice.

So yes, I am happy to see mainstream Jewish organizations breaking away from the Democratic Party. It’s long overdue.

The Jewish people -  at least those of us who understand what it means to be Jewish - should be thanking the president for what he did. This is one of those rare moments where Agudath Israel and Yeshiva University agree.

Agudah has called on all American Jews to express their gratitude by contacting the White House. Instructions on how to do that can be found here. 

And YU President and Rosh Hayeshiva, Rabbi Dr. Ari Berman, sent a profound letter of thanks, that included these powerful words:

“What if someone had stopped Germany before the Holocaust ever began? How many lives would have been saved? How might the world look today? These haunting questions were long consigned to the realm of historical reflection. But now, we are no longer asking ‘what if’ — we are in the story… 

While there are those who in hindsight pose the question of why President Roosevelt didn’t bomb the tracks to Auschwitz, we are grateful to live in a time when the United States president acts before the missiles are launched.”

To the Jewish lawmakers in Congress, I issue the following challenge:

If you are truly Jewish, this is how you should feel. If you don’t, I question – not only your Jewish identity, but your Jewish lineage!

Please understand. This is not about Jews being more loyal to Israel than they are to their own country. Not unless you think that of Republicans are more loyal to Israel than they are to their own country. This is about right versus wrong.

Operation Midnight Hammer

General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

I don’t even know where to begin. But let me start by saying that I have never been prouder of my country than I am right now. The President of the United States has made what will surely become the most consequential decision of his presidency: he ordered a precision strike against Iran’s nuclear facility at Fordow. According to initial estimates the US has completely obliterated what was likely Iran’s most important location of enriching uranium, and thereby destroying the last vestiges of their nuclear program.

Listening to General Dan Caine, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff describe the mission and its execution, I was mesmerized. The precision, stealth, and strategy involved were nothing short of extraordinary. Only the United States has the capability to pull off something like this. The B-2 stealth bombers that delivered the Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs are the only aircraft in the world capable of executing such a mission. Decoy B-2 bombers were used to divert attention while the real ones flew undetected into Iranian airspace and back—without a single shot fired at them.  The operation also involved 30 Tomahawk missiles fired at Iran from US Navy submarine.  

The entire operation sounded like something Israel might do, but it was 100% American.

What also impressed me was the display of American military might. The world has long known that the U.S. is the dominant global superpower, but it had recently become fashionable to view us as a ‘paper tiger’ - unwilling to use that power.

That perception empowered rogue regimes like Iran to act with impunity. Half-hearted attempts to curtail their aggression were openly mocked as they continued to export terror across the Middle East, all while deceiving the international community into believing they were in compliance with their nuclear agreements. Their lies were recently exposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).

 Anyone who thought the U.S. would never act militarily has now been proven wrong. America acted - and acted decisively - to stop the world’s most dangerous regime from obtaining the world’s most dangerous weapon. As Prime Minister Netanyahu put it in his message of gratitude to the U.S. this morning: “The world is now a safer place.”

And for those who believed the Vice President - seen by many as part of the administration’s isolationist camp - was not on board with this, think again. In a series of morning interviews, he made it abundantly clear that he supported the President’s actions from the very beginning, long before the attack took place, and without the slightest hesitation.

It also became clear that the U.S. plan to strike Iran had been formulated and approved weeks ago. Well before Israel’s recent attack. President Trump had already concluded that negotiations with Iran were failing, but still gave diplomacy a chance. But by the end of Shabbos yesterday, it became apparent that Iran had no intention of giving up its nuclear ambitions. The President decided to act. And he did so boldly, while still offering Iran a choice: pursue peace - or suffer even more devastating consequences. This time they must realize, that warning is not an empty threat.

Some argue that America has no interest in fighting Iran since we are not being directly threatened. But that view ignores our responsibility to protect our allies - Israel foremost among them. It also ignores that Iran has threatened the U.S., including attempted assassinations against the President during his campaign.

Sadly, the political left has criticized the President for allegedly taking the nation to war without congressional authorization. But this was not an act of war. It was an act of defense. The U.S. has no interest in further military action unless Iran retaliates. The isolationist faction of Congress—which includes most Democrats, with the noble exception of Senator John Fetterman (God bless him), and a few Republicans seem to follow a “better red than dead” philosophy. They would have allowed Iran to continue unchecked, so long as America stayed out of war. If our ally Israel bore the brunt of Iran’s wrath - well, that’s not their problem.

To those who doubted the President’s support for Israel - or believed there was a rift between him and Prime Minister Netanyahu - those thoughts should now be put to rest. And those who thought Israel defied U.S. wishes by taking unilateral action last week should now understand that coordination had occurred, and the U.S. was never out of the loop.

As the President explained last night, he gave Iran 60 days to negotiate in good faith. They refused. Despite overwhelming evidence, they continued to deny enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels. But now the world knows the truth and the U.S. has responded.

Those who say the President broke his promise to keep America out of foreign wars have no idea what they’re talking about. This was exactly in line with that promise. There are no boots on the ground now and there are no plans to do so. Furthermore Iran is in no position to declare war on anyone - least of all the United States. All they’ve been able to do in retaliation so far is fire missiles at Israel, which is now under lockdown.

It should also be noted that there has been no public criticism from any Arab nations - except the Houthi rebels in Yemen. It is widely believed that many Arab governments quietly support what the U.S. did. They don’t want a nuclear Iran anymore than Israel does.

As for Israel - I don’t believe they’re finished. Though they’ve stated that regime change is not their goal, there is every reason to hope for it. More than 80% of Iranians reportedly despise their regime. This may be a historic window of opportunity to support real change.

I do not believe the Iranian people are inherently antisemitic. Before the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran had a thriving Jewish community. The country had diplomatic ties with Israel and daily El Al flights to and from Tehran. If I were part of Israeli military intelligence, I’d advise devising a covert plan to support the Iranian people in overthrowing their government - starting with the elimination of their Islamist dictator, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. If any nation can accomplish that, it’s Israel.

As I always say, I have no way of knowing what the future holds. But God willing, if things continue to move in our favor, we may be witnessing the beginning of the end for this terrorist regime. And perhaps a return to what Iran once was: a Western-style nation where freedom and tolerance were cherished, where extremist fanatics like Khomeini were exiled or imprisoned, and where Jews could live openly, proudly, and peacefully. May it be God’s will.