Rabbi Moshe Hauer, ZTL

Rabbi Moshe Hauer, ZTL (OU)

I never met him, but he was an inspiration to me.

I am deeply saddened to report the passing of Rabbi Moshe Hauer, Executive Vice President of the OU. He died suddenly and shockingly - apparently from a heart attack - at his home on Shemini Atzeres. He was 64 years old.

The loss to the Jewish people of a leader with his capabilities is indescribable. Rabbi Hauer was a giant of the Jewish world whose intellect was recognized by all who knew him - as that of a major Talmid Chacham.

He personified much of my own thinking on matters of faith and on issues of public concern to the Jewish people. Like the late Rabbi Berel Wein, his views reflected the essence of mainstream Judaism, yet he was unafraid to depart from the conventional ‘orthodoxy’ of the Charedi world when he felt it appropriate to do so.

One example of this was when he publicly advocated voting in the WZO elections for one of the religious parties. When he was aksed who he voted for he said the Religious Zionist party. This was despite the urging of the Charedi world to vote for Eretz HaKodesh. The Religious Zionist Party was what I voted for even though I am not a member. Nor, do I believe, was Rabbi Hauer. I assume it was for the same reason I did. I felt that the Religious Zionist party was more deserving of our vote because of the great sacrifices being made by the Religious Zionist community in Israel’s war against Hamas.

And yet, he had the deepest respect for Charedi leadership, both in Israel and in the United States. That was the measure of the man. He did not allow differences in public policy to affect his profound respect for the rabbinic leadership of the right. He recognized their level of religious scholarship and honored it accordingly. I feel very much the same way.

It should also be noted that, despite his occasional disagreements on matters of public policy, the Charedi leadership respected him as well.

Even though he was fourteen years my junior, I looked up to him as a leader and as a moral conscience for the Torah world.

As was the case with Rabbi Berel Wein, he will be difficult to replace. There are not many leaders who have the courage to stand by their convictions regardless of conventional wisdom. Rabbi Moshe Hauer was one of those rare leaders.

He will be sorely missed.

Baruch Dayan HaEmes.

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

Thank God - They Are Finally Home

All 20 living hostages returned to Israel (TOI)

All the living hostages kidnapped and so brutally treated under captivity by Hamas terrorists have been freed, thanks to the valiant efforts of President Trump and his negotiating team. No one believed it would happen. Least of all Netanyahu’s critics (in both Israel and the U.S.), who believed he couldn’t care less about the lives of the hostages and was only interested in prolonging the war to retain power. They have all been proven wrong.

What made this event even more amazing is what came along with it: Hamas is required to disarm. And if they don’t, the president has promised to make it happen—violently, if necessary. And if they think the president makes idle threats, I have one word for them: Fordow. I don’t think they believe he’s bluffing.

The deal includes an international peacekeeping force that, for the first time, will not consist of UN troops. Who in the past have been far more sympathetic to Israel’s mortal enemies than to Israel itself. This will be a multinational force that includes American troops.

That is the basis for the ceasefire, which will hopefully be permanent - for the first time since Hamas took over Gaza. Another plus is that the deal has the support of key Arab states and much of Europe, including nations that have not been particularly friendly to Israel, such as Turkey.

I managed to watch most of the president’s address to the Knesset. It was preceded by speeches from three Israeli politicians: the Speaker of the Knesset, Yair Lapid representing the opposition, and Prime Minister Netanyahu. All of them represented their nation with great eloquence. Despite the obvious and often rancorous disagreements between them.

With respect to Trump and Netanyahu, it was, in many ways, a mutual admiration society. The respect the president and the prime minister had for each other was obvious. One of the president’s comments about Netanyahu was that ‘he’s not easy to negotiate with’. That was followed by, ‘That’s what makes him a great leader.’

Enmity between the two? Hardly. Trump just asked Israeli President Isaac Herzog to pardon Netanyahu, with the remark, ‘Cigars and champagne? Who cares?’

The entire Knesset event was a celebration of what the president accomplished. Something all the speakers seemed to believe would eventually lead to a true peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors, beginning with the Abraham Accords. It envisions a Gaza free of Hamas, a restoration of homes and infrastructure, and economic development funded by a consortium of wealthy Arab nations. This would give Palestinians in Gaza a measure of self-determination. But the words “Palestinian state” were notably absent. As mentioned, the deal was agreed to by important Arab states.

The idea that Netanyahu was forced by Trump to accept a deal he didn’t want is laughable. Something only the most cynical anti-Netanyahu critics would suggest. Always anxious to show discord and disunity between the two. The way each of them described their relationship makes it clear that nothing of the sort happened. If I had to hazard a guess, I’d say Trump was able to quickly convince Netanyahu that he would get what he wanted under the deal. And only then did Netanyahu agree.

If I understand correctly, Trump will be receiving the Israel Prize by near-unanimous agreement of the Knesset. That he did not receive the Nobel Peace Prize for what he has accomplished - while Obama got it for accomplishing exactly nothing - says more about the Nobel Committee in Oslo than it does about either Trump or Obama.

What will history say about Netanyahu? Despite what his detractors might think, I believe he will go down as one of Israel’s most consequential leaders. First, by steering his nation away from its socialist roots and turning it into one of the most productive free-market economies (per capita) in the world. And perhaps more importantly, through his victories over Israel’s most implacable enemies he may usher in the longed-for peace Israel has sought since its creation. If that happens, it will be the most pivotal moment in Israel’s history since 1948.

All that being said, the optimism I feel depends on whether Hamas truly disarms. If they don’t, the deal allows Israel to go right back in and finish the job. But they may not have to. Since the president has been assured that Hamas will disarm under the threat that - if they don’t - the U.S. will force them to. Violently, if necessary. (Maybe that’s what Trump meant by “Hell to pay.”)

As always, the devil is in the details. But either way, things are looking pretty good right now. Who’d a thunk it a few weeks ago?

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

Better Late Than Never

New Editor-in-Chief of CBS News, Bari Weiss (JTA)

Nowhere is the anti-Israel bias reflected by the broadcast media more strident than at CBS. While there is bias among all three major networks, CBS is by far the worst offender.

There has been enough instances of that bias over the last two years to make it abundantly clear to those of us paying attention. Unfortunately, CBS frames this bias as ‘balanced reporting’.

One of the most egregious examples was a 60 Minutes hit piece wherein Cecilia

Vega interviewed some disgruntled State Department employees who resigned over what they claimed was the U.S. government’s mishandling of the ‘atrocities’ being committed by the Netanyahu government in the war with Hamas. The report made it seem as though these individuals had inside information and irrefutable evidence of Israeli atrocities. Which they described in some detail.

None of this was verified by independent sources. And it was certainly far from the truth. But as is 60 Minutes’ habit, they made it sound like their version of events was the only truth. They had absolutely no problem ignoring Israel’s version of the truth. Which, in fact, was probably much closer to reality than what 60 Minutes was peddling.

Then there’s Imtiaz Tyab. He was hired away from Al Jazeera and is now CBS’s senior foreign correspondent. His reports from Gaza were devastatingly anti-Israel.

Perhaps the worst perpetrator of anti-Israel bias is Face the Nation host Margaret Brennan. She’s an attractive, well-dressed reporter who looks and sounds as American as apple pie. But her attitude toward Israel is not much different from Tyab’s. What may at first sound like hard-hitting but balanced questions, upon closer listening, are anything but even-handed.

Her guests on this subject are almost invariably anti-Israel, posing as objective voices—until you hear their responses to Brennan’s loaded questions, to which she often nods approvingly. On the rare occasions when she hosts a pro-Israel senator or administration official, she argues with their answers and makes sure to have the last word before going to commercial. This has been her pattern ever since the war with Hamas began.

Then there was what happened to Tony Dokoupil - perhaps the only truly even-handed reporter on CBS’s roster - when he interviewed author Ta-Nehisi Coates about his pro-Palestinian bias and failure to consider Israel’s point of view.

Dokoupil was criticized for that interview, accused of pro-Israel bias and of not living up to ‘journalistic standards’ by his bosses at CBS. This led to a backlash from at least one prominent CBS colleague, Chief Legal Correspondent Jan Crawford, who argued that his questions were entirely legitimate and deserved answers from Coates.

This episode revealed CBS’s bias as clearly as the morning sun. They view Israel’s perspective as immoral, and the Palestinian perspective as the objectively moral one. Only those with a pro-Palestinian bias would see it the way CBS management did.

Fortunately, Dokoupil was not fired and remains one of the three anchors on CBS’s morning news program. But he is virtually alone. Everyone else there seems to accept the pro-Palestinian perspective while ignoring Israel’s.

Well, things are about to change at CBS News. Apparently, the new owners of Paramount - the parent company of CBS - feel the same way I do. So did the previous owner, Shari Redstone. They both recognized the bias at CBS News and didn’t like it much either. That is one of the reasons Redstone gave for selling the company to Skydance.

Skydance CEO, David Ellison, is indeed planning to make a few changes at that news organization. The following was reported by JTA:

“Bari Weiss, the journalist who first rose to prominence for her campus campaign alleging antisemitism two decades ago, has been named editor-in-chief of CBS News, a stunning ascent that marks one of the most consequential appointments in American media in recent years.

The appointment came as Paramount Skydance, led by David Ellison, announced its $150 million purchase of The Free Press, the publication Weiss founded in 2022. Weiss will oversee both outlets as editor-in-chief, reporting directly to Ellison. The move marks a major shakeup for a legacy news division long associated with mainstream liberalism, and a bet on Weiss’s brand of provocative centrism.”

Centrism. What a refreshing change of direction for CBS. No longer will progressivism be presented as unadulterated truth while anything to the right is dismissed as extremist bias.

Predictably, many journalists at CBS’s progressive core saw this move as the death of objective journalism. How perverse that those who routinely invalidate other points of view without a moment’s thought now claim the mantle of objectivity.

The American people may soon get the fair and balanced news reporting that only a proactive centrist can deliver.

The first step Bari Weiss should take is to fire Imtiaz Tyab and replace him with a true centrist—if she can find one. Next, Margaret Brennan should be replaced, perhaps by Tony Dokoupil.

And 60 Minutes needs serious oversight by unbiased producers to prevent future “hit pieces” like the one reported by Cecilia Vega.

This is where a proactive centrist like Bari Weiss can make all the difference in the world. If the American people are finally given the truth about Israel’s conduct in this war instead of the propaganda Hamas has fed them thus far, it might just restore their long-standing support for the Jewish state.

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

Finding Happiness - Gay People, Sex, and Marriage

He's gay. She's straight. (Washington Post)

One of the most difficult challenges that an Orthodox Jewish gay person must endure is finding a way to live a fulfilling life without satisfying his sexual urges. Satisfying them would constitute a major violation of Halacha. The sexual act most identified with male homosexuality is considered an abomination and a capital offense in the Torah. And yet, to say that this seems unfair to a gay man is an understatement.

This is why far-left Modern Orthodox rabbis twist themselves into pretzels trying to figure out how to religiously ‘justify’ a gay lifestyle. Even to the point of officiating at same-sex marriage ceremonies.

To say that this is not OK is also an understatement. Using tortured logic to provide a non-existent Halachic imprimatur to a lifestyle that will surely involve one of the gravest sins in Jewish law is, in and of itself, an abomination. Which, as I have said in the past, takes one out of the realm of Orthodoxy.

The rationalization made by these rabbis is based on their misplaced empathy. Which is that the societal persecution gay people have long suffered has often forced them to live lives of severe degradation often leading to clinical depression. And in far too many cases it has eventually led to suicide. Thus, they might argue that providing them comfort and support is a matter of pikuach nefesh (saving a life).

I have always maintained that one must have empathy for people who struggle with these issues and NEVER persecute or denigrate them. They are to be treated with the same human compassion as anyone else, regardless of any Halachic challenges they must overcome. But having compassion and empathy is not the same as celebrating or blessing a lifestyle that will inevitably involve sexual acts considered to be an abominable capital offense by the Torah

That would be like saying we feel sorry for someone who has an insatiable desire for a cheeseburger to the point of despair if he doesn’t get one - and therefore we must give him one. If something is a forbidden act, it cannot be permitted unless it is truly a matter of saving a life.

So, if a gay man cannot marry another man, what is he supposed to do? How can he ever find happiness in life?

What about marrying a woman anyway? Would that give him enough satisfaction in life in order to make up for the inability to fulfill his sexual urges?

The conventional wisdom says that it would be a disaster for a gay man to marry a heterosexual woman. It would end in tragedy for both husband and wife. To suggest such a solution, we are told, would be the height of irresponsibility, ruining two lives and gaining nothing but tragic consequences for all.

I used to believe that — even though I know of one such successful marriage. I was told that such cases are extremely rare. They are the quintessential ‘exception that proves the rule’.

Well, I am here to tell you that the conventional wisdom may not be all that wise after all. In fact, a gay man can marry a heterosexual woman, have children naturally, and live a happy life together. It is not only not impossible it is more common than one might think. So the only path to happiness for gay men may not lie in marrying another man. He can find it by marrying a heterosexual woman and living a monogamous lifestyle.

That was, in fact, the point of a Washington Post feature article, which described the following:

Samantha Wynn Greenstone knows her husband is gay, okay?
She knew he was gay when they met in a San Diego production of “Fiddler on the Roof.” She knew he was gay when he proposed. She knew he was gay when they got married in November.

He’s not bisexual. She’s not in denial. That hasn’t stopped them from being in a committed, monogamous relationship for nearly 10 years.

“If anything, I think we are taking the sanctity of marriage to a whole new level,” said Greenstone, 38, smiling widely as she sat beside her husband, Jacob Hoff, 32, at their home in Los Angeles…

Yes, she’s pregnant. Yes, it’s his. And yes — if you must know how they conceived — in Greenstone’s words, “we birds’d and we bees’d.”

Indeed. And they are not alone. This appears to be a new trend among some gay people, as indicated by the article’s subtitle:

A new crop of couples are making content about their mixed-orientation marriages, divorced from sexual attraction but not from love

Here’s the thing: when a gay man marries a heterosexual woman under the pretense that he too is heterosexual — when in fact he is not — that’s when the consequences can be tragic. But when a man and a woman fall in love, wish to live together as husband and wife, have children, and are honest about their sexual issues, that is an entirely different ballgame that seems to make all the difference in the world.

Many gay people complain that prejudice against children being raised by a loving gay couple is unfair. I would argue that it isn’t always prejudice that motivates such concern. Rather, it is the idea that a child will lack a parent who models the missing gender in the relationship. A child with two fathers will be missing out on what it means to have — and to be — a mother. I’m not saying that it’s the end of the world, but it is far from ideal.

By contrast, when a gay man marries a heterosexual woman and is honest about his orientation, the result can look very much like the couple in the Washington Post story.

What does all this mean? I believe it means that celebrating gay marriage on the grounds that the alternative is devastation is simply not true. There are, obviously, other alternatives that allow for a very happy life despite these challenges. One can live a happy, meaningful life as a gay man married to a heterosexual woman in a monogamous relationship, having children by natural means.

This should disprove once and for all the argument from empathy — that we must devise extremist reinterpretations of Halacha to permit gay men to live together and raise children. Doing so merely indulges their desires and accomplishes little else. Instead, they should be encouraged to marry and find the kind of true happiness that 32-year-old Jacob Hoff has and many like him have found.

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

Netanyahu and the Trump Peace Plan

Celebrations in Hostage Square in Tel Aviv (JNS)

I never lost confidence in the motives behind Prime Minister Netanyahu’s war tactics and goals - despite the almost universal condemnation of them by the left from all corners of the globe. Including left-leaning Democrats in the US and their willing collaborators in the media. Not to mention the left-leaning Israelis who never liked him to begin with. They have been merciless in their condemnation of the prime minister.

The ICC issuing a warrant for his arrest as a war criminal only added fuel to their fire, prompting Israel’s erstwhile international supporters to declare recognition of a Palestinian state — something that Hamas, the 21st-century version of Nazi Germany, openly applauded, thereby considering their Nazi-like atrocities of October 7^th two years ago a “success.”

Meanwhile, the left-leaning entertainment industry added its own sense of moral outrage to what Israel has been doing over the past two years. Many A-list actors have advocated boycotting Israel culturally. Not to be outdone, heterodox rabbis - who generally lean strongly to the left - have called Israel’s tactics (read: Netanyahu’s tactics) over the past two years a spiritual catastrophe.

An automatic corollary to vilifying Netanyahu is the vilification of the president. Their hatred for both Netanyahu and Trump is unconditional. No matter what either of them do, it is twisted into negative terms. Any talk of getting the hostages out or ending the war was dismissed as mere bluster because, they said, Trump was all talk and no substance, and Netanyahu had no real interest in ending the war or rescuing the hostages. His only interest was self preservation.

But as I said, I never lost faith in Netanyahu’s stated goals. I believed him. Nor did I believe that the president’s support for Israel was whimsical — dependent on the mood of the moment. I truly believed that both Netanyahu’s and Trump’s motives were genuine.

Well, guess what happened. A deal has been reached between Israel and Hamas that will secure the release of all the hostages. It is estimated that the surviving hostages will be released just before the holiday of Simchas Torah next Monday night. Netanyahu has agreed to pull back his troops to an agreed-upon line in Gaza, and hostage families are beyond overjoyed at this development. Calling for the president to get the Nobel Peace Prize!

The president managed to work out a deal supported by Arab and European leaders, as well as by Netanyahu and Hamas. If I understand correctly, even those Palestinian prisoners to be exchanged for the hostages will not include any of the violent terrorists currently in Israeli prisons. A feat thought impossible just a few weeks ago, even by me. I never thought Hamas would agree. But they did. And the left-leaning critics who were certain Netanyahu would never pull back his troops were wrong too.

And the man who made all this happen is one of the most hated people by the left in American history. I have to wonder how they can possibly spin this into a negative. (But I am absolutely certain that they will.)

I could not be happier about this turn of events. I am overjoyed that the innocent hostages - who were so miserably treated by their Hamas captors - will finally be released after two years of pure torture. Torture that was barely noted by the mainstream, left-leaning media, which chose instead to focus only on blaming Israel for Palestinian suffering, as presented by Hamas’s so-called Health Ministry; its network of sympathetic reporters in Gaza; and a UN with a long history of anti-Israel bias.

I am happy as well for the families of these poor hostages, who will finally get to see their loved ones alive and help nurture them back to health — both physically and mentally. That will surely not be easy.

I am grateful that there will be no more blood shed by soldiers protecting their countrymen in Gaza. And I am also happy at the changed conditions for Israel, which — through the leadership of its prime minister — has managed to all but destroy the capacity of  Iranian proxies whose goal was to annihilate the Jews of Israel. They are now a shadow of their former selves. I am glad that the demise of Syria’s dictator, Bashar al-Assad - an ally of Iran - was a byproduct of all this and is no longer the threat it was, and that Iran’s nuclear program has been set back by years. Iran is now focused on restoring itself as a relevant Middle Eastern power instead of pursuing Israel’s destruction.

I doubt that Trump will get the Nobel Peace Prize for this. But if anyone deserves it, Trump does. He has certainly done far more than the last recipient who got one for similar reasons — Barack Obama. But Trump won’t get it. He is too hated by the European nations, including Norway, which awards the Peace Prize. Nor will Netanyahu get any relief from being labeled a war criminal, despite the fact that his accusers have long since abandoned any pretense of impartiality when it comes to Israel.

So it won’t be a perfect ending for either Trump or Netanyahu, both of whom deserve far more credit than they are getting — and certainly not an indictment as a war criminal, as is the case with Netanyahu. But history will remember what he accomplished. They won’t care about a bottle of champagne or a few Cuban cigars he may have received as gifts, or that he made many political enemies. I believe he will instead be remembered as one of the most consequential leaders Israel ever had — right up there with Ben-Gurion and Begin.

As for Trump, the jury is still out on him in terms of domestic policy. But when it comes to foreign policy, he is on the verge of accomplishing what few thought possible: peace in the Middle East. And that will be his legacy.

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

Yes, Sharon, We Are Facing a Spiritual Catastrophe

Rabbi Sharon Brous (JTA)

As we are about to enter the Yom Tov of Sukkos, I would normally just post my best wishes for a joyous Yom Tov. I do in fact want to convey those wishes to all of my readers and commentators.  I could not, however, help but notice the comments of Sharon Brous the rabbi of a heterodox synagogue in Los Angeles. Comments that stirred some serious emotions in me. Although sadly they did not surprise me at all. The following, in part, is what she said:

“What we are facing today is a spiritual catastrophe, and what is at stake is not just the future of the State of Israel, but the very soul of the Jewish people,” Rabbi Sharon Brous, leader of the independent IKAR congregation in Los Angeles, said in a Rosh Hashanah sermon.

I don’t often find myself agreeing with heterodox rabbis. But in this case, I could not agree more with Rabbi Brous. But not for the reasons she states. In fact, it is precisely the very things she stands for that are at the root of that catastrophe.

The idea that there even exists a concept of denominations in Judaism is foreign to its essence. Judaism is not a movement that responds to social evolution; Judaism is the exact opposite of that. It is the unbreakable word of God - immune to the winds of change. Yet that is precisely the hallmark of heterodox movements: they see the times changing and decide that the Torah must adapt to those changes.

That was, in fact, one of the accusations once made against Dr. Eliezer Berkovits. When I asked him about it, his understandably angry response was that he never said such a thing -  and indeed that would be Apikursus (heresy). What he did say, he explained, is that the Torah must be applied to the times, not adapted to them.

The irony that a heretical rabbi is declaring that we are facing a “spiritual catastrophe” does not escape me. The catastrophe is precisely the heterodoxy that she promotes as truth — which is, in fact, a lie. That is the real spiritual catastrophe the Jewish people face. Not the fact that Israel must defend itself against a mortal enemy — even at the cost of innocent lives — which is, tragically, the nature of war. (More about that later.)

Not to be outdone, another Apikores doubled down on her view that Judaism faces a spiritual catastrophe. Eighty-nine-year-old Ismar Schorsch, former chancellor of JTS — the flagship institution of Conservative Judaism — and a admitted believer in Bible criticism which suggests that the Torah was written by human beings, said the following:

“I think that in some ways, Judaism is at [a] critical moment. Are we going to be able to defend Judaism, which has the burden of the Chillul Hashem [desecration of God’s name] taking place on the West Bank and in Gaza? Will we be able to live with that Judaism, and if we don’t speak out now, it may be too late. This may be our final moment. In raising the ethical constraints that need to be imposed on the Israeli government, we are defending Judaism, and Judaism is going to have to survive this catastrophe. And how will we be able to live with ourselves if we were silent?”

It pains me to say this, but there are certain far left liberal rabbis and assorted personalities who identify as Orthodox that feel the same way. The fact that they somehow see the world through the same distorted lens as rabbis who openly embrace heresy like bible criticism is a sad testament to their blind faith in the media’s portrayal of Israel’s war against Hamas. And to their baseless belief that Israel’s prime minister’s sole purpose in pursuing the war over the past two years has been to retain power.

This, despite statements by opposition leaders and potential rivals for prime minister in the next election who have made it clear that the goals and tactics of the war are Israel’s — not just those of the prime minister.

I am not going to rehash for the umpteenth time why these leaders of liberal denominations  are so badly mistaken about Israel’s motives and what truly constitutes a spiritual catastrophe. What I will say is that every mainstream Orthodox rabbi — regardless of their Hashkafa — would never describe what Israel is doing now as a spiritual catastrophe. Except, perhaps, to point to these rabbis and their mistaken reasoning for saying so. Which creates the false image of catastrophe.

Of course, these heterodox rabbis are not alone. Most Jews in this country who are ignorant of their own Judaism probably feel the same way about Israel right now. But unlike them, these rabbis present themselves as spiritual leaders. Thus providing those Jews a religious imprimatur for their feelings. Not to mention giving aid and comfort to the actual enemy, the very people who are truly guilty of genocide. Which they began almost exactly two years ago to the day and had planned to continue. 

Making matters even worse is the timing of their message. Just when we are on the precipice of ending the misery of the remaining hostages, ridding the region of Hamas, and hopefully ending the war permanently. Something they surely did not believe the prime minister would ever agree to — but he has. If Hamas agrees, it will be a done deal. Add to this the refusal to recognize that Israel’s tactics against – not only Hamas, but Hezbollah, Iran, and all of their other proxies surely contributed to the deal Trump presented now under consideration (agreed to by all) - and that really shows just how clueless and biased they are.

It is so sad what has happened to the vast majority of American Jews, and I include these heterodox rabbis among them. It is not their fault. They were raised in ignorance. and in the case of these heterodox rabbis they were educated in a Judaism that does not exist! Although I am quite angry at them right now for promoting a false reason for the spiritual catastrophe they mention, I nevertheless agree that such a catastrophe exists. Only it is these very leaders who are perpetuating it — by distorting the Torah’s truth. I can only feel sorrow for them and the distorted Jewish education they received. 

As for the aforementioned Chilul HaShem - the only Chiul HaShem here is the very existence of their movements!

Chag Sameach

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

Peace in Our Time? You Never Know

I am in favor of it and I hope it happens, though I doubt it will. The 20-point peace plan proposed by the president would be a major win for Israel if—unlikely as it may be—it succeeds. Although some elements contradict my sense of what a workable peace plan requires, I believe that, with the right implementation, the overall deal could overcome my fears about the dangers of going forward. Even though there are risks that must be avoided, the fact that they can be addressed makes me think it might possibly work.

The major plus of this deal is that it solves many problems long thought unsolvable — not least the near-universal (though undeserved) condemnation of Israel’s conduct in the war with Hamas. The word ‘genocide’ has increasingly been used to describe Israel’s tactics. Despite the ignorance behind that usage, the label has badly damaged Israel’s reputation, which was quickly descending into an abyss. Many former supporters were abandoning Israel like rats leaving a sinking ship, driven by lies successfully foisted on an ill-informed media that ought to have known better.

It hardly matters that Israel’s cause and tactics are objectively just if the world refuses to recognize them. That is exactly what was happening. What this plan accomplishes — if implemented — is to restore Israel’s standing among the nations. Perhaps more importantly, it restores the likelihood of expanding the Abraham Accords. Broad Arab support for a peace deal signals acceptance of Israel’s right to exist and recognition that peace would benefit their own countries. That is unprecedented and, if it holds, has major positive implications for the future.

If you had asked me a few years ago whether major Arab states would want peace with Israel, I would have said it was impossible. Yet it has already happened with some, and the prospect of more seems real. Considering how Israel has been accused — even by non-Arab European countries — this turnaround is shocking in a most positive way.

It is equally remarkable that the plan was accepted by a prime minister many believed would accept nothing short of total victory over Hamas, his oft-stated goal. It’s true that Trump may have applied pressure, but Netanyahu would not sell out his country to a future filled with repeated October 7^th massacres if he thought that was a likely outcome. I think he believes, at some level and under the right conditions, the plan can work. Alternatively, if Hamas rejects the deal, Netanyahu can finish the job with the full blessing of his major ally, the United States.

Let’s look at the details as I understand them to see why this possibility exists. First and perhaps foremost, the deal begins with the release of all the hostages — no exceptions. That will involve a total ceasefire and the release of 250 prisoners currently held in Israeli custody, most captured after October 7^th. Hamas will be dismantled. Gaza will be demilitarized, and a transitional government will be established that will not immediately include the PA; the PA may return to a role once it demonstrates genuine reform. There will be a stabilization force under international supervision whose members will be subject to Israel’s approval. The plan has wide international support — France, Germany, Russia, Spain, the UAE, Egypt, Turkey, Qatar, Jordan, Indonesia, Pakistan, and the UK among them. A poll of Israelis found strong support for the plan. This kind of agreement is unprecedented and sends a message to BDS supporters that the civilized world does not share their aims — including many Arab states.

As I indicated at the outset, there are many flies in the ointment. The biggest is the root cause: the cradle-to-grave indoctrination of virulent Jew-hatred in the Arab world, especially among Palestinians. Unless and until that changes — perhaps through major educational reform included in the peace plan — the deal won’t stand a chance. I don’t know whether that change is part of the plan, but without a determined, sustained effort to alter the anti-Jewish educational paradigm, the agreement is unlikely to succeed. For what it’s worth - my support is conditional on that change.

A poll of Israelis found that about 70% favor the plan, though only about 12% believe it has a real chance of success. That’s pretty much how I feel.

For starters, Hamas has already indicated it will not accept the deal. Frankly, I don’t see why they would. They gain nothing except exile from their people. They don’t seem to care about the hostages or about additional Palestinian casualties that would result if they reject the plan. I don’t think it’s an if — they will reject the plan. That means Israel will finish the job with the full blessing of the U.S., however many additional civilian casualties occur.

For me it’s a win/win either way. Either there will finally be a sustainable peace, backed by the Israeli people and nearly all major international players, or Hamas will be defeated at the cost of many more Palestinian deaths and widespread suffering among survivors — after which the two-state solution will likely be discarded. Personally, I am hoping for the former.

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

Off to Israel

The Kotel (Wikipedia)

 As I have been doing for many years now, I will be visiting my son and his beautiful family for Sukkos — which now includes five great-grandchildren for my wife and me.

I will be arriving in Israel late tomorrow (Tuesday). Wednesday is Erev Yom Kippur, and Thursday is Yom Kippur. Therefore, there will be no new posts until Sunday at the earliest (if possible – since I will have very limited internet access while I’m there).

This year there are very few weekdays of Chol Hamoed for me because I observe Yom Tov Sheni in Israel. So I am not sure how much opportunity I will have to post. Still, it’s possible that I may squeeze a few out if I can. Stay tuned.

At this point, I would like to wish a G’mar Chasima Tova to all my commentators, readers, and to all of Klal Yisroel. May we all merit a year of good health, prosperity, and more than ever peace!

 And in case I am not able to post before Sukkos, I would also like to wish everyone a Chag Sukkos Sameach. 

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

Why a Palestinian State Cannot Happen

Abbas '2 state solution' video address to the UN last week (BBC)

Listening to an interview of Emmanuel Macron last week about his rationale for recognizing a Palestinian state and his plan for going forward, one could hardly disagree with what he proposed.

If I understand correctly, Macron believes that all the hostages must first be released; that Hamas must give up any control in Gaza and any further aspirations of doing so; that a consortium of Arab states will govern Gaza; and that a multinational security force — comprised of personnel subject to Israeli approval — will act as a buffer between Gaza and Israel – providing security for both sides. Only then, he argues, can a Palestinian state become a reality.

He believes that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and that once they are given full sovereignty over a country of their own, we will finally have the long-sought after peace in the region that has been so elusive over the 77 years since Israel declared statehood.

As if on cue, PA President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN with a similar, if not identical, plan. Even President Trump came out with a plan that, although not immediately recognizing a Palestinian state, did not rule one out eventually; he did, however, rule out Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria.

There are a few more details I didn’t mention, some discrepancies between the various plans, and some details I may not have stated exactly. What is relevant is the commonality between them: they all seem to require the release of the hostages and the complete elimination of Hamas or any other jihadist group as prerequisites for lasting peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.

Who in their right mind wouldn’t agree to such a plan? Who would not want to see ‘peace in our time’ in the Middle East. A region finally free of terrorism and bloodshed, a region where each people can focus on building up its own nation in peace and security?

Predictably, Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected one of the key components of these plans: the creation of a Palestinian state. As did the vast majority (about 90%) of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset.

How, one may ask, could anybody not be willing to allow a peace-loving Palestinian people to have their own state if it would mean the ultimate peace and security that the Jewish people have longed for?

Sadly, the answer is all too easy to understand for anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about the history of the 2 peoples in the region. And nobody spelled it out better than Jonathan Tobin did last week when describing the president’s plan. It is sad that even people of good will do not understand this: Tobin’s detailed comments – which follow - explain why the creation of a Palestinian state, under current conditions, would be folly:

The problem is that the basic premise of this plan is all wrong.

It is rooted in the idea that foreign funding, along with the creation of a Palestinian Arab governing body and security force committed to peace, will tap into a broad constituency for coexistence and pivot away from terrorism in Gaza, as well as in Judea and Samaria. The assumption is that Hamas and other extreme Islamist groups remain obstacles to the implementation of the will for rationality on the part of the people they purport to represent.

There is no evidence that this is true. On the contrary, everything that has happened in the conflict since the 1993 Oslo Accords that created the Palestinian Authority teaches that the political and even social culture of the Palestinians is fundamentally opposed to the idea of coexistence, two states or any sort of peace other than one built on the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas may have mildly censured the Oct. 7 atrocities as “actions that don’t represent the Palestinian people” in his U.N. rant delivered remotely from Ramallah (the Trump administration rightly denied him entry to the United States). Still, in the past two years, he has never actually condemned it to his own people in Arabic. How could he when the P.A. still pays pensions and salaries to terrorists—like those who took part in the orgy of murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction on Oct. 7?

Then there is the fact that a great many of those who participated in those massacres were Palestinian civilians, not Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives. The Palestinian people—both backers of Hamas and those who stand with Abbas’s corrupt Fatah—support the same goal of destroying Israel and shedding Jewish blood.

That seems like madness to well-intentioned Western peacemakers. It is something they simply refuse to acknowledge or factor into their peace proposals for statehood, and even Trump’s scheme for something less than statehood.

Much as most Americans, Europeans and even many Israelis would prefer to deny it, the war is not only one against Hamas but against the Palestinian people. And until they give up their faith in Israel’s elimination, no amount of foreign investment or diplomatic acrobatics will make any difference. (Read more here) 

I would argue that Tobin’s argument against a Palestinian state is irrefutable.  The obvious question then becomes, what’s next? How can we hope to ever achieve peace between two peoples when one them has for generations been indoctrinated from cradle to grave to believe that Jews have stolen their land? A people determined to never give up their goal of getting it all back? A people that believes that all attempts at doing including acts of terror that in some cases end up involve horrific massacres of innocent Jews - are valid in pursuit of that goal?

As is often the case, I don’t know the answers. The only thing I am certain of is that Netanyahu and the vast majority of the Israeli people are right: A Palestinian state is not one of them.

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

The Kirk Conundrum

Billboard of the president and Charlie Kirk in Tel Aviv (Forward)

Louis Keene’s article in the Forward 

presents a fascinating glimpse into the appeal the late Charlie Kirk had for Orthodox Jews. While at the same time being seen a classic old-line antisemite by secular and heterodox Jews. I think Keene has hit the proverbial nail on the head. Not only does Kirk appeal to Orthodox Jews, but he has been elevated to near icon status. Here is how Keene puts it:

In the hours and days following Kirk’s assassination, it seemed like every Orthodox leader and institution in America was treating a devout Christian like a deceased rebbe.

The chief executive of Aish, an Orthodox outreach organization, mourned the loss of “a courageous advocate for our people.” The president of Yeshiva University called Kirk “a personal friend, a friend to our community.” The head spokesperson for Chabad highlighted the Turning Point USA founder’s “steadfast friendship to the Jewish people.” A Chabad rabbi even called Kirk “the Abraham of our time.”

The last time I discussed why I believed Kirk’s views resonated so strongly with Orthodox Jews, I got pushback from some of my liberal Jewish friends. They were quick to list (or link to) antisemitic tropes Kirk used and challenged me on why I thought someone who said things like that could ever be seen as a friend - much less an icon to Orthodox Jews.

The answer is quite simple. As Keene notes, both Kirk and Orthodox Jews place a high value on the Bible, whose values guide our lives. His support for Israel, for example, is based on God’s promise to the Jewish people that the Holy Land is given to them. That is the primary reason Orthodox Jews support Israel as the Jewish homeland. Instead of, say, Uganda.

In a culture that glorifies behavior the Bible considers abominable, Kirk’s rejection of that culture resonates with us too. This is also why Evangelical Christians, who focus so much on biblical values, are our natural allies.

But what about those antisemitic tropes? Shouldn’t that at least neutralize, if not outright cancel, our consideration of Kirk as an icon? And what about the following?

Not all of Kirk’s politics — anti-LGBTQ+, anti-woke, anti-abortion, anti-DEI — map neatly onto halacha, or Jewish law. (And there are other biblical values that he would seem to have violated personally; demeaning speech, for example, is prohibited.)

First, I would have to disagree that being anti-LGBTQ+ is in any way a violation of Halacha. In fact, the opposite is true. Halacha is very much opposed to LGBTQ+ values and practices. And while demeaning speech is a serious violation of Jewish law, its application is not as simple as one might think (the details of which are beyond the scope of this post). But even if it is, the fact that he is guilty of one violation (which, I dare say, we are all guilty of) does not negate his views on other biblically guided issues with which we agree, especially those issues that directly impact the moral fabric of this country.

The irony is that those who oppose Kirk, and consider him an unrepentant antisemite, cannot understand why so many Orthodox Jews can identify with a man like that. It is as if they consider us clueless about those tropes. But that is not the case. What is the case is that we judge the overall person. We see what they value and what they don’t. And more importantly, we examine more closely why he made some of those disparaging comments about ‘the Jews’. This is not to say that we should condone those comments. We should not. It is only to understand why they are not necessarily antisemitic.

A closer look shows that what bothered him about ‘the Jews’ is the very same thing that bothers Orthodox Jews about the majority of the Jewish world – who are not observant and mostly very liberal politically. Namely, that their values are not biblically based, but instead shaped by prevailing liberal cultural attitudes.

When Jews are at the forefront of promoting the anti-biblical values of an LGBTQ+ agenda, they should be called out. Which I have done. Many times!

These are the Jews Kirk was talking about. And blaming them for the moral decline in the country is not that far off if you consider that the centerpiece of that decline is Hollywood. The sad reality is that Jews have an inordinate influence in what Hollywood produces and promotes. Their numbers in Hollywood are vastly greater, proportionally, than their numbers in the general population. So of course they share responsibility.

That being said, Kirk should not have singled out ‘Jews’ as responsible for the moral decline of American culture. He should have instead simply focused on liberals or progressives, without mentioning Jews. Because when he did, he left himself open to being considered an antisemite. Which he clearly was not. He was simply opposed to the values promoted by the majority of non-Orthodox Jews, most of whom have substituted liberal or progressive values for biblical ones:

Kirk carried the torch for ideas that the liberal consensus holds are outdated: that marriage is between a man and a woman; that a woman should submit to her husband; that gender is defined at birth; and that belief in God is the source of morality.

In other words, Orthodox Jews and the ‘Charlie Kirks of the world’ are really on the same biblical page. The obvious major theological differences between us don’t amount to a hill of beans when it comes to promoting the values of the Bible. Values upon which we see eye to eye. That is why he is considered a near icon.

What about accusations that Evangelical Christians (of which Kirk was one) only support us in order to convert us?

Nonsense. I agree with Eli Steinberg, a Haredi Orthodox commentator who wasn’t suspicious of Kirk’s motives and said the following:

“We’re not at the point in time right now where the Christian allies of Jewish people are seeking to convert Jews to Christianity,” Steinberg said. “What we do have is an overwhelming force of secularists who have, in place of religion, woke politics.”

As further noted by Keene:

Kirk’s Christianity was central to his appeal, in part because he made Jewish practice a part of it. He wrote a forthcoming book about the value of “the Jewish Sabbath” — from a conservative publishing house, not ArtScroll — in which he said he observed Shabbat by turning off his phone and logging out of social media. And he once implored Jewish students to observe Shabbat themselves.

If Kirk was an antisemite, we sure could use a lot more antisemites like him. It would make the U.S. a far better place to raise our children. And America might just see Israel in an entirely different and entirely better light.

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