The Two State Solution

Israel cannot live side by side with this

When it comes to Israel, one thing the Left seems particularly certain about is its insistence on a Palestinian state. That insistence has gained more currency than ever. It is shared by many - perhaps even most - Democrats in Congress, including Jewish Democrats, as well as Canada, the UK, and many Western European nations. It is also widely promoted by “respected” columnists like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

To that end, the UK has just issued what can best be described as one of its strongest sanctions against Israel, banning any products produced there., regardless of how long ago those communities were established or how peaceful their inhabitants are - and always have been.

The hubris of claiming the moral high ground on this issue is breathtaking. It effectively treats hundreds of thousands of long-term, peaceful Israeli residents as if they were terrorists simply because they live in communities labeled “settlements.” The word itself has increasingly become a pejorative, sometimes almost a euphemism for “terrorist.”

And, of course, the blame is placed on the current Israeli right-wing government. As if any other Israeli government would necessarily dismantle these communities.

I’m not sure whether this myopia is deliberate or simply the result of ignorance. But if I had to guess, I would say history plays a role. Western Europe has a long history of antisemitism, and some of the attitudes we are seeing today are disturbingly reminiscent of that history.

They are now being expressed under the guise of sympathy for the “oppressed” Palestinians, who are supposedly suffering “apartheid” under a cruel Israeli occupation. They may as well have said “Jewish” instead of Israeli - even if those making the accusation would NEVER admit it.

Thing is, they are not wrong in theory.

The idea of a two-state solution, in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side peacefully and cooperate for the betterment of both communities, is an ideal solution to what seems like an ageless and endless conflict that has caused enormous bloodshed on both sides.

What about the mitzvah of settling all the Land of Israel?

Eventually, that time will come in the Messianic era. Until then, we have to find a way to end the bloodshed and live in peace with one another. Arab and Jew alike.

“The devil,” however, (to quote Ross Perot) “is in the details.”

A two-state solution is virtually impossible under current conditions, no matter how much some of us might want it in theory.

The reality is that there is deep-seated hostility toward Israel and Zionism in significant segments of the Arab and Muslim world. That hostility is particularly strong among Islamist movements and among Palestinian Arabs exposed to many decades of anti-Israel and antisemitic indoctrination. Indoctrination that is generational.

That does not mean that every Muslim or Palestinian shares those views. Clearly, there are Muslims and Palestinians who would prefer to live peacefully alongside a Jewish state. But Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not accept that vision. They have the means and determination to prevent it, as demonstrated by countless terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, culminating in the worst terrorist attack since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023.

Muslims deeply committed to Islamist ideology view the very existence of a Jewish state as religiously unacceptable – a contradiction to their theology. Is there really any question that this is a goal of the Iranian regime and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah?

Their claim that they simply want to be liberated from Israeli “occupation” is grist for the mill of the Left, which often buys that argument hook, line, and sinker. But the record suggests that Hamas and other Jihadist organizations have no genuine interest in a two-state solution. For them, Palestinian statehood is instead one step toward the elimination of Israel altogether.

That is why, even after Gaza was handed over to Palestinian control in 2005, Hamas took over and immediately began building an infrastructure designed to attack Israel. It built terror tunnels, accumulated enormous quantities of weapons and munitions, and organized attacks against Israeli civilians—all with funding and support from Iran.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and other like-minded jihadist groups speak of “freeing Palestine” from its Jewish occupiers, but their actions have provided little evidence that they are prepared to accept the permanent existence of a Jewish state and live alongside it in peace.

That is the fundamental problem.

Yet the “altruists” among Western Europeans, Canadians, Democrats, and liberal journalists “KNOW” that the answer is a two-state solution. And they are willing to boycott or pressure any Israeli government that does not embrace it…

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

A Welcome Change

Dr. Nechumi Yaffe (TOI)

I am truly excited about developments in the Charedi world, although I am not yet ready to celebrate.

According to the polls, the new Charedi party, HaTzibur HaCharedi, has not yet crossed the threshold needed to be included in the Knesset, which is about 150,000 votes. But at the last count, I believe they were at approximately 100,000. What this tells me is that there are a substantial number of Charedim who actually do feel an obligation to serve their country.

They also seem to agree that getting a decent secular education is a positive thing. Something that will help lift their community out of the poverty so many of them experience because of the lack of such an education. Which would better prepare them for the workplace. (An education available to women but not men.)

Religious Charedi schools that teach secular subjects already exist. But they are few and far between and are frowned upon by the mainstream. Those Charedim who send their children to schools like that are generally looked down upon, with some considering those schools’ religious teachings to be a watered-down version of the schools that offer only Torah studies.

It appears that things are changing, if the polls are right, I suspect that the numbers might even be higher once Charedi voters with those inclinations are in the privacy of the voting booth. A Charedi voter who may not want his vote in favor of the party to become public.

None of this is new. I’ve discussed it before. What is new, however, is the following, as reported by the Times of Israel:

For the first time in Israel’s history, an ultra-Orthodox political party on Monday selected a woman to run on its Knesset slate for the upcoming election.

The newly formed Charedi Public party, chaired by Moti Leitner, announced that Dr. Nechumi Yaffe, an ultra-Orthodox political psychology researcher, has joined the party, a day before the deadline for parties to submit their final candidate lists to the Central Elections Committee.

In a statement, the Charedi Public said Yaffe has worked with Harvard University on a research project focused on the ultra-Orthodox community and is a senior faculty member and researcher at Tel Aviv University.

What an amazing turnaround from the typical stuff you hear about the Charedi world in Israel. We now have a party that reflects a more diverse view of Charedi life and includes a large number of Charedim that believe in a more balanced way of life.

Much the same is true of the Charedi world in the U.S. There is a lot more diversity among Charedim here than there is in Israel. So even though the Charedi world here is moving in a rightward direction, it is not doing so as monolithically as does the Charedi world in Israel.

There seems to be a significant backlash among Charedim in Israel that may yet produce the grassroots changes that many of us are hoping for.

That being said, I’m sure that the mainstream Charedi leadership in Israel rejects this new party and probably doesn’t even consider it Charedi…

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

How Quickly We Forget

A lot of people are talking about 9/11 - the 25th anniversary of which is only a few days away. One of the lessons I have learned from 9/11 is just how quickly people forget.

Not that anyone old enough to remember could ever forget what happened that day. But many people have forgotten who did it—and why.

There was a moment of national unity when Americans seemed to understand that radical Islam represented a movement so determined to carry out its religious mission that its adherents were willing to go to the greatest lengths imaginable to succeed - including sacrificing their own lives. That was precisely the thinking of the terrorists who carried out the attacks of 9/11.

It was a carefully planned and executed mission to strike at “the Great Satan”—the United States of America—whose values and culture were considered anathema to radical Islam. And among those values was America’s support for the “Little Satan,” Israel.

I remember thinking at the time, “Finally!”

Finally, Americans would be awakened by this mass murder perpetrated in the name of Islam to what Israelis had already understood for years. And for one brief moment, there really was a sense of national unity on that issue.

But to my great dismay, it did not last long.

On the very day of the attack, the late Peter Jennings, then the anchor of ABC News and someone whose sympathies toward the Palestinian cause were well known, asked the question, “Why do they hate us?” It did not take long for the discussion to turn toward an explanation that American support for Israel was at least partly responsible.

A few weeks later, I recall a woman who was a family member of one of the victims saying that she did not blame Islam for what had happened. There was, she argued, a larger picture that had to be considered in order to understand why the attack took place.

In essence, she was rejecting the notion that this was an attack inspired by Islamic ideology.

Today, even using the phrase “Islamic terrorism” is considered by some to be racist—as though 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam.

Then came October 7, 2023.

Israel had its own version of 9/11.

Once again, there was a moment of unity. Everyone, it seemed, understood that a fanatic Islamic organization – Hamas - had carried out a horrific massacre of Israeli civilians. The sympathy expressed by most Americans was genuine.

But once again, it did not last.

In relatively short order, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that the attack “did not happen in a vacuum.” That comment watered down the horrific nature of the October 7 massacre by assigning some of the blame to the victim, Israel.

Now Israel’s response of declaring war against Hamas - is routinely described as “genocide” by large numbers of people, mostly on the political left, although some on the far right use the same language…

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

A Satmar Request of the President

Official White House Photo (Rationalist Judaism)

I know the argument. Satmar Chasidim are among the most generous segments of Jewry in the world. Their acts of kindness know no bounds when it comes to providing aid and comfort to the sick.

Their Bikur Cholim Society is legendary for providing meals to hospital patients and their visiting families, as well as providing any other conceivable need that might arise under those trying circumstances. They also have a general reputation for kindness to fellow Jews regardless of their level of observance. If a Jew is in need, they are there. No questions asked

I am not here to dispute any of that. It’s all true. But I am here to say that, despite all of these amazing acts of kindness, I have nothing but contempt for their leadership, starting with their founder, whom they venerate with near-sainthood status.

The original Satmar Rebbe was Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum. His view on the State of Israel is similar to the view of Hamas. In both cases, there is a religious belief that the State of Israel has no right to exist. And if it were in their power, they would dismantle it.

I hasten to add that there are entirely different religious reasons for this position. And that Satmar is not a terrorist organization that believes in perpetrating violence against anyone, much less the kind of terror perpetrated by Hamas. Satmar Chasidim would not harm a fly. But their goals are the same.

The founding rabbi of Religious Zionism, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, was referred to by the original Satmar Rebbe as an Ish Tzar V’Oyev in his published work, Divrei Yoel (131). A description used by Scripture to describe the “Hitler” of his day, Haman.

It doesn’t matter to me how “holy” the Satmar Rebbe is perceived to have been in his lifetime, or how extensive his Torah knowledge was. When he attacks the founder of a religious movement simply because he interprets passages in the Gemara differently than he did, I lose all respect for him and his brand of Chasidism.

The fact that his current followers venerate him and display such tremendous kindness to all of Klal Yisrael does not wash away their antipathy toward the State of Israel. An antipathy that is the basis of Neturei Karta’s open embrace of the Palestinian cause, join them in public protest. Neturei Karta’s publicly stated goal to dismantle the State of Israel and give it to Palestinians.

That Satmar’s views do not go as far as Neturei Karta and do not include the use of violence is kind of like saying that Tucker Carlson’s views about Israel and the Jewish people have nothing to do with the increase in antisemitism and its attendant violence…

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

A Mixed Bag - The legacy of Gloria Steinem

A feminist icon died yesterday at age 92. Gloria Steinem was the face of the 1960s era Women’s Liberation Movement—as feminism was called back then.

Contrary to popular belief, Steinem was not Jewish. Her mother was a Protestant Christian. Steinem was raised with little to no religion at all, according to an article in the Forward.

Although she was an icon to the feminist world, she has a mixed legacy. Her approach to men and women can be summed up by one of her most famous quotes:

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”

What a sad approach to the male female relationship. Be that as it may, her contributions to American culture were monumental.

On the plus side, she championed many of the same values I champion. Her goal was to open doors for women that had, up until that time, been closed to them for no apparent reason other than, “That’s just the way things are.”

Women were traditionally homemakers, wives, and mothers. Men “brought home the bacon.” The negative fallout from that was that many educational opportunities were - if not completely closed to women - severely limited. Men were given priority, especially in careers that required higher education and professional degrees. And even if women managed to obtain a professional degree, they often found it much harder to get jobs.

To paraphrase the motto of the United Negro College Fund, “A woman’s mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

Feminist pioneers like Gloria Steinem changed everything. If I recall correctly, there are now more women enrolled in medical school than men.

Today, women can be found everywhere men can be found: in the arts, sciences, law, medicine, academia, and even the trades. But we still have a long way to go before Steinem’s goal of equal pay for equal work is achieved. That is still an unconscionable social injustice. If a woman does exactly the same work as a man, she should receive the same pay.

That being said, there is a downside to feminism. And it’s a big one…

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

An Analysis of the President

The president addressing the Israeli Knesset last year

I have of late been rather supportive of the president’s policies, mostly because of all the positive things he has done for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. But that does not mean I have abandoned my values in other areas where the president has been a huge disappointment.

One has to see the good and the bad in everything. No one is all good or all bad. When someone does bad things, they need to be called out. By the same token, when they do good things, they need to be recognized for them.

One thing that should not happen is seeing any individual through one set of lenses, whether all good or all bad. There needs to be an honest evaluation of everything anyone does, and they should be judged accordingly. Unfortunately that is not how most people view the president. It seems that far too many people either think he’s just about perfect or the essence of pure evil.

That’s just plain wrong. It is with this in mind that I have decided to make clear my own views.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief at some of the terrible things the president does or has done. The worst of these is pardoning all the January 6 insurrectionists, including the violent, racist, and antisemitic ones.

There is no excuse for that whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence to support his claim that the 2020 election was rigged, which he not only insists upon - but makes sure his appointees express the same views. Or at least do not contradict them.

His narcissism has caused him to destroy the East Wing of the White House and to threaten to demolish the Kennedy Center. And he has done stupid things like renaming the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario, calling them the Gulf of America and Lake America.

His tariffs are inflationary and have caused undue hardship to American companies that have to import items vital to their businesses at increased cost – passing on at least some of those costs to the consumer.

The idea of building a copycat arch similar to the Arc de Triomphe in France will add nothing to Arlington National Cemetery. And in fact, will be an eyesore. The idea of putting his name everywhere he can think of is beyond mere narcissism. It is sick.

His tendency toward vindictiveness and revenge against people he considers his enemies knows no bounds.

His demeanor in the Oval Office, along with his vulgarity, is unbecoming of a man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world and an example for American youth to follow.

These are just some of the problems I have with him off the top of my head.

And yet, even with all that (and more) he has accrued to his legacy, I do not believe the president is as self-centered as he appears. I believe there is an altruistic side to him, despite the conventional wisdom that he does not care about anyone but himself and his own self-aggrandizement. Even though that is surely a big part of his modus operandi.

I don’t think there has ever been a president who has been more favorable to Jewish interests than the president has been, in a variety of ways…

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

Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Three Charedi recruits interviewed by Arutz Sheva

There are two stories in the news today that tell you exactly what the reality of Charedim serving in the military is all about. The news is both good and bad. But combined with the new Charedi party, HaTzibbur HaCharedi, led by Beit Shemesh Deputy Mayor Moty Leitner, who is himself Charedi) I’m beginning to think that there is a real chance for change in the Charedi world. A change that would come about at the grassroots level.

That being said, there is still the hard-core opposition to army service by the Charedi leadership. Which has spawned violent demonstrations by extremist factions of the Charedi world in Jerusalem.

But there is indeed, it seems, a quiet revolution taking place at the grassroots level that may eventually lead to government policy that would once and for all end the conflict between Charedim on the one hand and secular and non-Charedi religious Jews (Datiim) on the other.

It would begin - or perhaps it has already begun - with a military program catered to Charedi sensitivities, combined with a cohort of Charedi Jews who feel the moral need to share the military burden with the rest of the country.

One story in Arutz Sheva reports the following:

New haredi recruits arrived at the Tel Hashomer induction center accompanied by family members. Israel National News - Arutz Sheva spoke with them about their excitement and concerns, amid a small protest against enlistment by members of the Jerusalem Faction.

One recruit described his long journey toward enlistment: “I’m very excited. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time and worked very hard for it.” He said the process required him to leave his comfort zone, but added, “I think this is where I belong.”

Family members also expressed their excitement. One father said, “It’s a very moving morning. I was privileged to bring my firstborn son and entrust him to the IDF,” noting that some haredim are enlisting and even choosing combat service.

I am heartened to see this attitude on the part of mainstream Charedim. My guess is that there are more than a few families like this one who, as of yet, fear the consequences of expressing a positive attitude about army service - much less actually enlisting in it.

But yet, we have not yet reached the stage where Charedim can feel comfortable that all their religious needs will be met. That is the concern expressed in another Arutz Sheva article, with the following subtitle:

Friends of 15 Rotem Battalion soldiers jailed for ten days say clash involving female paramedic was part of ongoing tensions with their commanders, including a training exercise scheduled for Shabbat.

If anything can spoil the future of Charedi enlistment in the IDF, this is it…

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

They Are Not Settlers. They Are Terrorists.

Jewish terrorist attacking an NBC reporter and crew (Jerusalem Post)

I don’t recall ever being as angry at these Kahane-inspired Israeli terrorists as I am right now. There is no other word for them. They are terrorists, despite the fact that they may very well be devout in every other aspect of their religious observance. These people are trash. Actually, they make trash look good.

And once again, they are called “settlers” by the mainstream media. What a disservice that is to the over half million residents that have ‘settled’ there since 1967 – living there in peace with their Palestinian neighbors.

In some ways, I can’t really blame the media for calling them that, though. That is, after all, their stated purpose. They want to settle all of the Land of Israel, and they are prepared to do it by any means necessary. Including deadly violence!

Here is what happened yesterday - ON SHABBOS! - as reported by Israel Hayom:

Masked Israeli settlers attacked a Palestinian woman and an NBC News crew on Saturday in the village of Jalud, near Nablus, the network reported. The Palestinian woman and three crew members were injured, and camera equipment and one of their vehicles were damaged.

The attack occurred after the crew interviewed Aida Ahmed Abdullah, 51, who claimed settlers had driven her family from their home. According to NBC, as the interviewee and crew members walked down a hill toward the house, a gray car with Israeli license plates drove toward them.

Footage from the incident shows at least four masked men getting out of the car, one of them holding a stick. According to the report, they beat Abdullah and the crew members with sticks and threw stones at them.

“They jumped out, beat us, then jumped back in the car,” NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley, who was struck twice on the hand and received treatment at a nearby clinic, said.

It is bad enough that they set up makeshift “settlements” near Palestinian villages. Now they are violently attacking Palestinians for no other reason than evicting them from their homes and taking up residence in them.

That seems to be what happened yesterday, when a group of masked Israelis attacked a Palestinian family in the middle of an interview with an NBC reporter. They attacked the reporter, his crew, and their vehicle, injuring all of them. Most disturbingly, they beat a Palestinian woman so severely that she was rendered unconscious.

There is no “other side” to this story. This is the way it happened.

Israel Hayom is not some sort of radical left-wing newspaper. It is about as right-wing as it gets. And some of the attack was captured on video. Those images do not lie.

Even if this was retaliation for an attack against Israelis (which by itself is grossly immoral) , it is highly unlikely that this Palestinian family had anything to do with it. Nor has any recent Palestinian violence been reported that might have motivated such a revenge attack.

This attack went beyond revenge. It was evil in the extreme.

First, it is immoral and an affront to God to inflict such physical pain and mental anguish on innocent human beings. Second, it damages the very people whom these extremists claim to represent: law-abiding Israelis who have been living in the West Bank peacefully for decades.

And it does untold damage to the Jewish state. When someone like Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who supports Israel to the extent that he has asserted Israel’s right to settle the West Bank, starts criticizing these extremists and calls them terrorists, that is something Israel can ill afford to tolerate. Israel is already facing a climate of international condemnation, and the actions of these people only make matters worse.

Let me reiterate and make this absolutely clear:

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT “SETTLERS.”

They may think they are. They may believe they are doing the will of God. But they are not. They are doing the will of the devil…

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

Settlers are Not Jewish Terrorists

The morally bankrupt UK Prime Minister, Andy Burnham 

If there was ever a word more misused by the media than the word “settlers,” I’d sure like to know what it is.

Whenever there is a violent attack against Palestinians by religious extremists living in mostly makeshift illegal “trailer park” hilltop settlements constructed near Palestinian villages on the West Bank, the media calls them settlers. Being a settler in Israel is now almost akin to being called a terrorist. No distinction is made between these radical religious extremists and the law-abiding citizens of the long-established West Bank cities of Judea and Samaria. People who have been living there for decades, peacefully and in harmony with their Palestinian neighbors.

I don’t know if it is pure ignorance or willful animosity towards Jews living in any West Bank city. But either way, it represents a major assault fueled by the lie implied by the context of how that word is used. Which is that all Jewish residents of any West Bank city are “settlers” - implying they are guilty of terrorism against their Palestinian neighbors. That lie is so far from the truth that it is breathtaking in both its scope and depth.

And yet the United Kingdom, the Western European nation that, in my view, might qualify as the most antisemitic in all of Western Europe. Increasingly including all such residents under the violent settler umbrella. The UK has doubled down on its recognition of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. And that any Jew living anywhere therein is doing so illegally.

And they are not going to take this “gross violation” of Palestinian national rights lightly. That was demonstrated by their recent condemnation of Israel’s decision to build homes between Ma’ale Adumim, a long-established and peaceful West Bank city - and Jerusalem.

To put it the way Melanie Phillips does:

“Astoundingly, the British government is not only demanding that Israel ethnically cleanse its own people from their ancestral homeland but is proposing to punish it for refusing to do so.”

“The new prime minister, Andy Burnham, is poised to announce ‘robust’ sanctions targeting trade with Israeli ‘settlements’ in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as the sanctioning of Israelis linked to businesses there.”

“The foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, objected to the Israeli government’s tender for the construction of thousands of new homes in the E1 corridor connecting Jerusalem to the Israeli city of Ma’ale Adumim in Judea, which he described as an ‘unacceptable and destructive act.’”

It’s as if Oslo never happened.

Cities like Ma’ale Adumim were to be conceded to Israel as part of a deal that would have established a Palestinian state in exchange for land swaps. Even PLO terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat, who represented the Palestinians at Oslo conceded to that exchange, along with similar exchanges with cities in the West Bank along the so-called ‘Green Line’ border with Israel proper.

Connecting Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem hardly takes away from the possibility of a future Palestinian state. Despite the UK’s claim to the contrary.

And that assumes that a Palestinian state is even feasible now, after October 7^th. I don’t think there is a mainstream politician anywhere in Israel that thinks it possible under current circumstances.

They are, of course, right. Giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians now would make that area look like Gaza on steroids. It would be suicidal for Israel to agree to anything remotely resembling Oslo today. And everyone knows that.

Except, apparently, the antisemites of the world. Like the UK under its current leftist leadership.

Not that anyone should be surprised by how antisemitic the British are. I am almost at the point where, if I hear a British accent coming out of a reporter, I can almost guarantee that he or she will be condemning Israel for one reason or another.

As is the case with the BBC. They make the New York Times look almost like Zionists by comparison. And yet virtually all major news organizations see the BBC as the gold standard of journalistic integrity.

On the other hand, as Phillips correctly notes: Settler violence’ is indeed a festering sore that needs urgently to be dealt with...

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

Centrist Jewish Education - A Closer Look

The school year has pretty much begun. Or is about to. Parents have by now made their decisions about what kind of school they want to send their children to. Indeed, their children are already enrolled and in some cases already attending classes. So, I’m a bit late to the party. But I still feel I have to make my case for what kind of school a Jewish parent should consider sending their children to.

If you are an adherent of the religious right wing or the religious left wing, this post is not for you. But if you are neither of those and wish to send your child to a school with strong values that does not compromise, I believe the choice should be a Centrist school.

As a Centrist, this may sound a bit self-serving. But hear me out.

First, Centrist education must be defined. One must know what it is, and what it isn’t.

After speaking to an official at one such school, I was told what I feared was the case with many parents today. When they see a word like “Centrist,” they think “middle of the road”. A school that has no ideals other than to take a bit of this and a bit of that and call it a day.

Many idealistic parents reject a school like that in the mistaken belief that their children will lack the idealism taught in schools that identify with a strong right or left Hashkafa. They tend to believe that a Centrist school has no Hashkafa at all but reflects some sort of midpoint between left and right. They fear that a Centrist school will not inspire their children with the kind of idealism that a school identifying with either the right or the left would try to instill.

As a result many idealistic parents will opt for a school that promotes ideals to their right or their left (depending on which way they might lean) as a means of instilling an idealism they mistakenly believe a Centrist school is not interested in providing.

The result is that schools at either end of the spectrum are often the most sought after by parents, while the Centrist school may be seen as wishy-washy.

That is unfortunately the consequence of identifying as neither right nor left. It is difficult to convince parents who see a school that way that are badly mistaken.

It is important to disabuse the Orthodox public of that image and explain that Centrism is not some mathematical midpoint between right and left. It is a distinct Hashkafa…

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