Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians

Jewish Influencers - partnering with Christian Infuencers?

I often say that I lean conservative politically. Especially on social issues. The reason is quite simple: social conservatives tend to favor religious values over cultural values. The latter follow the spirit of the times. Which shifts over time. Social conservatives, by contrast, do not factor in cultural trends. They see religious values as eternal and not subject to the ebb and flow of general culture.

To cite an example, let us look at homosexuality. Not all that long ago, it was considered a psychological disorder, treated similarly by both the general and religious cultures. When the APA revised its view, the broader culture shifted toward acceptance of behavior that the Bible forbids as a sin.

This has nothing to do with how one should treat a gay person. Which must always be with the same human dignity afforded to anyone else. But social conservatives part company with the general culture when it comes to homosexual sex. They still consider it immoral and sinful, whereas the general culture considers it moral and equates it with heterosexual sex.

This is why I have long maintained that Orthodox Jews have more in common with Evangelical Christians than with the liberal/progressive attitudes that dominate much of American culture today. I would further argue that Evangelical Christians, as a group, are among the most serious in their devotion to biblical precepts of all Protestant denominations—certainly more so than many mainline denominations, which in numerous cases have, like heterodox Jewish movements, exchanged biblical values for progressive ones.

This leads to a broader observation: Orthodox Jews share more values with Evangelical Christians than with heterodox Jews. That does not mean the two are identical, but there is significant overlap in the values we cherish.

Of course, theologically we are entirely different faith communities with incompatible belief systems. That hardly needs stating. But our shared values stem from a common source—a Bible that clearly articulates what those values ought to be.

This is why organizations like Agudah often partner with Christian advocacy groups to lobby Congress for legislation aligned with shared religious values, and why both communities work together in the courts when those values come into conflict with prevailing cultural norms...

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

Joe Kent Is No Hero. Not Even Slightly.

Joe Kent testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security

I don’t have much to add to what has already been published about Joe Kent, the now-former Director
of the National Counterterrorism Center. Mr. Kent resigned his post with the following explanation:

“I cannot in good conscience support the ongoing war in Iran,” Kent wrote in his resignation letter, addressed to President Donald Trump and shared on social media. “Iran posed no imminent threat to our nation, and it is clear that we started this war due to pressure from Israel and its powerful American lobby.”

At first glance, one might assume his credibility on this issue is impeccable - given his high-level position, his storied service as a Green Beret (during which he lost his wife in a suicide attack), and his once-strong support for Israel. On that last point, he previously told AIPAC:

“The United States and Israel share common enemies in the Middle East, from terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah to the totalitarian government of Iran,” adding that he would “bolster the coalition that stands in opposition to Iran” and introduce legislation to “strip the most vile antisemites in Congress from their committee assignments.”

On the surface, Kent’s resignation might seem like a principled stand against the US war with Iran. In reality, he is little more than a run-of-the-mill antisemite willing to say whatever is politically expedient.

Kent has no love for the Jewish state - or the Jewish people. His pro-Israel remarks to AIPAC came during a failed congressional run, when he needed their support - back when such backing was not yet seen as a liability among Democrats, which Kent once was.

Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) was exactly right in his reaction:

“Good riddance. Iran has murdered more than a thousand Americans. Their EFP land mines were the deadliest in Iraq. Anti-Semitism is an evil I detest, and we surely don’t want it in our government.”

That someone like Kent managed to rise to such a high-level government position should not surprise anyone. His military record and early support for the president helped pave the way. At the same time, he was known as a conspiracy theorist who associated with far-right white nationalists, including Nick Fuentes—a right-wing antisemite who has praised Hitler, saying things like “Hitler is awesome” and “Hitler was right.”

Even setting aside that sordid background, the explanation Kent gave for his resignation reeks of antisemitic tropes:

 “Israel and its powerful American lobby”? That is little more than a thinly veiled version of the classic conspiracy that “the Jews” control the government and want to send Americans to die in a war for Israel...

substackTo continue reading this post - and comment on it - click on this link:    

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working

Iranian leader killed by Israel today

There is little doubt that opinions about the war in Iran are shaped less by facts than by attitudes toward the leaders prosecuting it. While not universally true, it is hard to ignore the pattern: most opposition comes from liberal Democrats who are no fans of the president or the prime minister, while most support comes from conservative Republicans (aside from an isolationist faction whose loyalty appears to be waning.) There are of course other factors influencing public opinion. Like the war’s impact on the cost of living. Nonetheless, I think my point stands

To be sure, arguments exist on both sides. But the central question is straightforward: when all is said and done, is this war a net positive or a net negative? And how far does either outcome extend?

I have argued in favor of confronting Iran before, and I do not dismiss the concerns of those who disagree. But an honest look at the facts on the ground prior to U.S. and Israeli action compared to the facts on the ground now  is in my view,  a clear and significant net benefit.

Which brings me to a recent op-ed in the English-language edition of Al Jazeera, the Qatari-funded outlet widely cited by mainstream media during Israel’s war with Hamas. Coverage that was, unsurprisingly, far from sympathetic to Israel. The piece, by Muhanad Seloom, carried the following headline:

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working. Here is why

With a subheading that read:

Every aspect of Iran’s ability to project regional power is being successfully degraded.

In it, Seloom does a masterful job explaining why the war was necessary and why he believes it is succeeding. His analysis is brutally honest and does not mince words. He acknowledges the legitimate concerns of those who oppose the war, even as he lays out the case for why it was undertaken—and why, in his view, it is being won.

Rather than paraphrase, I will excerpt extensively from Seloom’s analysis, which, to my mind, is difficult to refute. Especially given his willingness to engage seriously with the strongest arguments on the other side.

He begins by acknowledging the following:

Two weeks into Operation Epic Fury, the dominant narrative has settled into a comfortable groove: The United States and Israel stumbled into a war without a plan. Iran is retaliating across the region. Oil prices are surging, and the world is facing another Middle Eastern quagmire. US senators have called it a blunder. Cable news has tallied the crises. Commentators have warned of a long war.

The chorus is loud and, in some respects, understandable. War is ugly, and this one has imposed real costs on millions of people across the Middle East, including the city I live in.

But this narrative is wrong...

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

 

The Soft Antisemitism of Selective Facts

Law enforcement at the scene of the Temple attack (Spectrum)

It continues to amaze me how much of the mainstream media, in its effort to appear objective, ends up engaging in little more than Israel-bashing. Which, by association, often means Jew-bashing.

I’m tired of the claim that criticizing Israel does not make one antisemitic. In theory that may be true. In practice, it often isn’t. When a country defines itself as a Jewish state, constant denunciation of that country inevitably becomes denunciation of the people it represents.

The common defense is that critics aren’t attacking Jews, only Israel’s leaders. But in a democracy, that’s a distinction without much difference. Israel elects its leaders. When critics accuse Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of war crimes, they are not only condemning him but also millions of Israelis who voted for him. And opposition partieson both the right and left that openly support his policies.

Of course it is possible to criticize Israel without being antisemitic. Jews do it all the time. Anyone familiar with Israeli politics knows that some of the harshest critics of the Israeli government are Israelis themselves. Even the Charedi community, which often clashes with the government, expresses a level of venom toward it that sometimes exceeds the rhetoric heard from anti-Israel members of Congress.

But the source of the criticism matters. When I hear claims such as ‘Netanyahu dragged America into a forever war with Iran’ or that ‘Netanyahu has taken over the Pentagon’, I hear echoes of something much older and darker. These accusations draw on classic antisemitic tropes - the idea that Jews secretly control governments and manipulate world events. Those who use this language may deny it, even vehemently. But when they speak of Jews controlling American leaders, they are channeling ideas that long predate modern politics.

There is also a subtler problem. In the name of being ‘even-handed’. The media often feels compelled to ‘explain’ violence against Jews almost as soon as it occurs. As though the tragedy itself were incomplete without context...

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

Peace at Any Price?

Iran's founding Ayatollah Khomeini

The U.S. could have established diplomatic relations with Iran a long time ago. We might even have exchanged ambassadors. Imagine what the Middle East might have looked like had Washington simply accepted the new Iran guided by a religious leader instead of a monarch who was rapidly modernizing his country along Western lines.

Perhaps peaceful relations with a religious regime would have been possible. Would that not have been better than the open hostility that has now lasted 47 years? Hostility expressed in endless demonstrations of Iranians chanting “Death to America.”

Should the United States have taken that route?

Maybe. Except for one small detail: the State of Israel would have had to be sacrificed.

Iran’s religious ideology does not allow for a Jewish state in the region. Allowing Israel to exist violates a core belief of the regime. Had the United States abandoned Israel ‘for the sake of peace,’ Israel might never have developed the military capability it has today. Even with its ingenuity and military prowess, without American military support Israel might have had little ability to defend itself against an Iran determined to eradicate it.

In that scenario, Iran might well have achieved its primary goal: ‘Death to Israel.’ ‘Death to America’ has always been secondary, largely a response to American support for Israel.

As long as Israel exists with U.S. backing, Iran will remain a mortal enemy of both countries. And because Iran’s goals are rooted in religious ideology, they will be compromised. Pursuing them - even dying for them - is seen as a religious imperative rewarded in the next world.

Yet this is the regime much of the world has been willing to live with. While paying lip service to Israel’s right to exist, many nations appear largely indifferent to whether it actually survives.

If, God forbid, Iran had succeeded in destroying Israel, the world would have expressed regret, said Kaddish, and moved on. After all, Israel is already compared by some in Europe to the genocidal Nazi Germany. In that worldview, its disappearance would hardly be mourned.

No more conflict. It would be an all-Muslim region. Palestinians would then live in a new Palestine, and everything would supposedly be right with the world.

That mindset helps explain the opposition to the U.S. and Israeli war against Iran. Critics constantly point to Obama’s  JCPOA nuclear deal, which allowed Iran to keep building its ballistic missile arsenal while funding terrorist militias surrounding Israel. With money released to them by the United States. In return, Iran merely paused nuclear enrichment for ten years, a pause that would already be nearing expiration.

The deal only made sense if one believed Iran could somehow be moderated during that time. But that was never realistic unless the United States was willing to abandon Israel altogether.

I dislike sounding partisan. Until October 7^th, I wasn’t. I voted for presidential candidates in both parties depending on what they were offering...

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

The Islamophobia Red Herring

Muslim who drove his car into a a Jewish Temple (IBT)

Suspecting Muslims of violence is not Islamophobia. It is a legitimate suspicion. And I’m getting tired of hearing the word. Not because Islamophobia isn’t real. Irrational fear and suspicion of Muslims certainly exist. But because the term is almost always invoked when progressives discuss antisemitic incidents. As though the two were equal. They are not.

Antisemitic attacks far exceed attacks against Muslims. By nearly a factor of ten. FBI statistics report about 1,938 anti-Jewish hate crimes in 2024 compared with roughly 200–230 anti-Muslim hate crimes.

That makes the fear of a Jew being attacked a far more serious concern. And the perpetrators are often Muslims. As was the case yesterday at a Jewish temple in Michigan. Nor are Jews the only targets. Virginia’s Old Dominion University was recently attacked by a convicted Islamic State supporter. Yet when hate crimes are discussed, the media reflexively pairs Islamophobia with antisemitism - as though the threats were comparable. They aren’t.

To be clear, most Muslims have no interest in terrorism and wouldn’t harm anyone, even if they oppose Israel. Some Muslims even support the Jewish state. Including those living in Israel – some of whom serve in the IDF.

But that should not prevent legitimate concern over radicalization within parts of the Muslim world. Certain interpretations of Islam have repeatedly produced deadly extremists.

Defenders argue that extremists are the exception and that Islam is a religion of peace...

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

Antisemitism Among American Youth

Have to admit. I never thought it would come to this. But antisemitism has raised its ugly head in this country to an alarming degree. Far greater than I ever imagined it would.

Please do not misunderstand. I still believe that the vast majority of the American people do not have an antisemitic bone in their body. That is certainly true of all three branches of government. There has never been a more pro-Israel executive branch than there is right now. The majority of the legislative branch is clearly not antisemitic, and the same can be said about the judicial branch. Ev ten though here are exceptions. Some obvious and some not.

It is also clear to me that the religious tolerance embedded in the U.S. Constitution ensures that we will never experience the kind of hatred that permeated Europe during the Holocaust. The kind that led ordinary citizens to eagerly hand over their Jewish neighbors to the Gestapo to be gassed and cremated. That is not going to happen here.

Still, there is an element of Jew-hatred among some Americans that existed just below the radar until October 7. After that, Palestinian students and their progressive allies began protesting what they claimed was genocide against Gaza’s civilians. Those claims were fueled by images from Israel’s defensive war against Hamas terrorists who have openly declared genocidal intentions toward the State of Israel and the Jews who live there.

But regardless of the truth, images of war often speak louder than facts. That helps explain why many Americans opposed the war in Gaza. And why many Americans started questioning U.S. aid to Israel.

The country is divided largely along party lines. Most conservative Republicans support U.S. military aid to Israel, while many liberal Democrats have begun to question it. The political division reflects divide in the population.

Still, I chalk up most popular opposition to ignorance and the power of media images. Not antisemitism. I’m not so sure that’s true about the opposition by some members of Congress. They ought to know better. I suspect there is at least a hint of antisemitism. As for Jewish Democrats who oppose Israel, some may simply feel the need to prove their ‘objectivity’ and show that being Jewish does not mean offering knee-jerk support for the Jewish state.

Ironically, it is on the Republican side where antisemitism seems to be creeping into rhetoric critical of the US-Israel war against Iran. I hear claims like: Benjamin Netanyahu is calling all the shots; that he is somehow leading Donald Trump by the nose; and that America should not be dragged into a foreign war...

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

Hard Questions for American Jewish Life

2 heterodox schools that are now merging

Walk through many non-Orthodox synagogues today and the effects become visible. Fewer young adults can comfortably read Hebrew or lead prayer without transliteration. Jewish identity often remains emotionally meaningful, yet it is increasingly detached from the literacy and confidence that once sustained communal leadership. Institutions rarely disappear overnight, but they become harder to reproduce.

Samuel J. Abrams made this observation in a recent Jewish Journal op-ed. He may not realize it yet, but he is a dying breed—something I very much lament. Because if there were ever a prototype of the American Jew determined to save American Jewry from near extinction, it is people like him.

Abrams is one of those rare individuals educated in a non-Orthodox Jewish day school and high school who actually took that education seriously. That much is clear from the sentiment above. Seeing the handwriting on the wall with respect to non-Orthodox Jewish education, he challenged fellow non-Orthodox leaders to ask “whether we believe that with equal seriousness and whether we are willing to invest, sacrifice, and build accordingly.”

Sadly, I think it is too late.

About ten years ago, an Orthodox Jewish philanthropist here in Chicago was honored by the Jewish Federation (of which he is a board member) for his generous contributions to Jewish education. When it was his turn to speak, he made a simple observation about where the growth of Chicago’s Jewish community was taking place—and where it wasn’t.

Many of the large Conservative and Reform synagogues so common in mid-20th-century Chicago, once filled every Friday night or Shabbos, have either closed their doors, merged with other struggling congregations, or been sold and converted into Orthodox shuls that are once again filling seats.

Conservative and Reform synagogues still exist, of course. But many now carry the long combined names of merged congregations—and even those continue to shrink.

The question is: why?

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

Traveling

No new posts today.

The IDF and the Golden Calf

Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel

I don’t know who is behind a blog entitled DUS IZ NIES, which is clearly a play on the popular Orthodox Jewish news site Vos Iz Neias, now known simply as VINnews.

I am occasionally forwarded the blog’s opinion pieces. Despite some “over-the-top” rhetoric, I often find myself agreeing with many of the points being made.

Today I was sent what appears to be a translation of a lecture delivered by the Satmar Rebbe of Kiryas Joel at the Shalosh Seudos meal this past Shabbos to his Chasidim.

If the translation is accurate, the remarks are not merely controversial—they represent a profound moral failure. When Jewish soldiers are risking their lives to defend fellow Jews, to portray their actions as a form of idolatry is not simply an ideological disagreement. It is a distortion of basic Jewish moral sensibilities.

Following in the footsteps of his uncle, R’ Yoel Teitelbaum—who published a scathing attack against Rav Kook, the spiritual progenitor of Religious Zionism, and who famously described the miracles of the Six-Day War as maaseh Satan (the work of the devil)—the Satmar Rebbe compared the IDF to the Egel HaZahav, the Golden Calf of last week’s Torah portion...

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