Monday, July 28, 2025

The Greatest Anti Charedi Wave in Decades!

I saw his column on Shabbos. But Gedalia Guttenberg’s lament didn’t seem worthy of yet another rebuttal. Been there, done that. But after seeing it listed on Rabbi Gil Student’s website (in the Daily Reyd section) and re-reading it, I’ve reconsidered. I’ve decided it is worthy of a response - despite having already addressed this topic many times.

Gedalia’s attitude is typical of much of the Charedi world in places like Ramat Beit Shemesh, where he resides. There is indeed awareness of the real sacrifices being made by so many serving in the IDF. In his column, he acknowledges that there have been about 2,000 IDF casualties. He describes one such loss as follows:

For many Ramat Beit Shemesh locals like myself, the horrible reality of the grinding Gaza war was brought home again recently, with the death of Moshe Shmuel Noll, one of five soldiers from Chareidi homes to lose their lives in an ambush in Gaza. This was a young man from a Chabad home who’d struggled mightily for every single attainment in learning and davening, and had found meaning in protecting his fellow Jew.

I suspect that this level of sympathy is in part due to the large Anglo population in Ramat Beit Shemesh. (nearly 50%). They tend to be more open-minded than native Israeli Charedim. Gedalia himself is an American oleh.

He also describes how Charedim in Israel - especially their Gedolim - are vilified, accused of willful ignorance. He frames their critique this way:

“Don’t the rabbis know?”

As in: “Don’t the rabbis know that after October 7, everything needs to change?”

As a genre, ‘Don’t the Rabbis Know?’ is as old as the hills — or at least one particular hill in the Sinai Peninsula.

But since the Hamas onslaught, the phrase and the attitude it represents have become a mantra. It’s the main text or subtext of endless Shabbos dinner controversies and media bellyaches.

There’s the hostile critic’s version: “Don’t the rabbis understand that the Charedim can’t carry on as before and sponge off everyone else?”

There’s the blogger’s version: “It’s true that Torah study is very important, but don’t the rabbis know that Israel needs a big army now?”

Or even the lomdishe version: “Don’t the rabbis know that according to the Rambam, this is a milchemes mitzvah?”

The bottom line of all the various versions is the assumption that “the Rabbis,” as an institution, don’t know. They don’t get it. They’re simply too elderly, cloistered, blinkered, and possibly unfeeling to grasp what all normal people understand: that everything has to change.

First, I resent the condescending, derogatory way he presented the critics’ views. As though they were all anti Torah. Secondly, it almost sounds like that ‘blogger’ comment was directed at me. If it is, it does not accurately reflect my view. But I digress.

Gedalia then goes on to explain why these complaints are wrong. He writes that:

“Gedolim are adamant that to weaken the Torah world is national suicide - all the more so in the middle of an existential war. Even as the army cries out for more manpower, the solution isn’t the gutting of the world’s main Torah center. The Jewish people need more lomdei Torah, not less.”

I will give Gedalia credit for implicitly acknowledging that non-learning bachurim should serve in the IDF. But then he says that if a bachur wants to learn, he must be completely untouchable - no matter how dire the need... the idea being that drafting him would weaken our spiritual protection. And that is the ‘red line’ that the Gedolim he follows refuse to cross. 

The problem with this attitude is that other Gedolim vehemently disagree. Religious Zionist Gedolim value Torah study just as much as his Gedolim do. But they also believe that Lomdei Torah too have an obligation to serve. That’s precisely what the Hesder program is all about.

Gedalia doesn’t seem to care for the lomdishe (Torah based logical) argument. Presumably because his Gedolim don’t hold by it. But what Gedalia doesn’t do is explain why they don’t. To simply say or imply ‘because they say so’ is not convincing when other Gedolim cite Halacha, based on the Rambam, who is the only authority to codify the laws of war in his Magnum Opus, the Mishneh Torah.

Put simply: when the Jewish nation is threatened with annihilation, there is no clearer example of a milchemes mitzvah in our day than that. And while we don’t have a Sanhedrin to formally declare war, if millions of Jews are at risk, no one is exempt. Not even Shevet Levi which otherwise would be. And which the Charedi world claims to represent today (a stretch, to say the least). The level of Kedusha attributed to Lomdei Torah deemed to be equivalent to Shevet Levi does not extend to any kind of exemption for either during a war for survival

If the army needs people, and the only available population is the Charedi community, then they have an obligation to serve. No exceptions. Period.

The Rambam never talks about increasing Torah study during wartime as a national defense strategy. That is a modern invention.

That’s what makes me angry about columns like Gedalia’s. Even with all his genuine sympathy for the sacrifices of others, he treats his Gedolim as if they are the only ones who count. As if no others qualify. This is the typical Daas Torah approach that grants de facto infallibility to their elder rabbinic leaders while dismissing anyone who disagrees. Sometimes even branding them kofrim (heretics).

Strangely enough, I agree with Gedalia’s concluding line:

“It’s a tenet of belief that has endured throughout our long history that, yes, the Rabbis know.”

Yes, they do. The only question is: Which rabbis are you talking about?

Sunday, July 27, 2025

Debunking a Genocide Scholar

A false but increasingly used narrative against Israel
Thank God that the most powerful person in the world has Israel’s back. At least there is one clear thinker, the president, that the rest of the world cannot ignore.

As noted by CNN, here are President Trump’s latest comments about Israel’s war against Hamas:

Only a few weeks ago, President Donald Trump seemed confident that a deal was just days away—one that would end the fighting in Gaza, secure the release of hostages, and allow aid to flow into an enclave where people are starving.

Now, that optimism has evaporated. This week, Trump pulled back his negotiators from ceasefire talks after the U.S. deemed Hamas neither “coordinated” nor “acting in good faith.” Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy, said he was exploring “alternative options” for securing the hostages’ release.

“I think they want to die, and it’s very, very bad,” Trump said of Hamas before leaving for a weekend trip to Scotland. “It got to be to a point where you’re gonna have to finish the job.”

This is the opposite of what has become the so-called conventional wisdom about Israel these days. Which, to put it mildly, isn’t pretty. That narrative, based on unverified reports from deeply questionable sources - reinforced by carefully selected images of Palestinian suffering, has shifted global public opinion away from supporting Israel - toward sympathy for Hamas-controlled Gaza.

Whether those media distortions are intentional or not is debatable. But regardless, the net effect has been to isolate Israel diplomatically and morally. It takes courage for a leader to go against the tide of public opinion. Say what you will about Donald Trump, but he has the courage to speak his mind plainly and let the chips fall where they may. Often foolishly. But not this time.

So what about all the criticism being heaped on Israel? Can it all be made up if everyone seems to believe it? Is Israel really guilty of genocide?

That word – genocide - is increasingly being accepted as a description of Israel’s actions in Gaza. One of the most prominent voices using it is a Jew named Omer Bartov. But Bartov is no ordinary Jew. As Jonathan Rosenblum recently noted in his weekly column:

Omer Bartov, an Israeli-born professor of Holocaust and genocide studies and the author of respected works on the German army in World War II, published a guest essay in the New York Times last week titled “I’m a Genocide Scholar. I Know It When I See It.”

Well, that should settle it, shouldn’t it?

Except that it doesn’t. Not at all, considering Bartov’s clear bias, made evident months before the October 7th massacre:

In August 2023, he was one of over 1,500 U.S., Israeli, Jewish, and Palestinian academics who signed an open letter declaring that Israel operates "a regime of apartheid" and calling on U.S. Jewish organizations to denounce it.

Once you know where Bartov is coming from, his ‘expertise’  should hardly be considered impartial. And that’s deeply ironic, given that genocide is his area of academic specialization.

But OK. Let’s examine why what Israel is doing in Gaza is NOT genocide.

First, there is a huge distinction between Israel’s actions in Gaza and what the Nazis did under Hitler. Hamas brutally attacked Israel on October 7th, murdering more than 1,200 Jews - including babies burned alive, raping women, and taking 250 hostages. Israel has no choice but to attempt to eliminate an enemy committed to repeating such atrocities as many times as necessary to achieve their goal of destroying the “Zionist entity.”

Israel NEVER targets civilians. Every single civilian casualty is the tragic result of military actions against Hamas targets embedded within civilian areas. The destruction of structures like hospitals, schools, and mosques is not proof of genocidal intent. It’s evidence of Hamas’s war crimes. These civilian sites were used as weapons caches and command centers.

The use of hospitals and UNRWA schools for military purposes has been extensively documented and filmed. Under international law, particularly the Geneva Conventions, the intentional placement of military infrastructure in civilian areas is a war crime. The responsibility lies with Hamas—not the IDF.

If anyone is guilty of genocide it is Hamas by sacrificing civilians to make Israel look bad. They intentionally embed themselves among women and children, refusing to distinguish between civilians and operatives in their casualty reports. Which are, unsurprisingly, unreliable.

If Bartov wants to talk about genocide, he should start with the Hamas Charter, which calls upon every Muslim to seek out and kill Jews wherever they are.

How have Palestinians actually fared under Israeli rule? Consider this:

From 1967 to 1993 - when Israel governed the West Bank - Palestinian life expectancy rose from 48 to 72, a 50% increase. Infant mortality dropped by 75%. Literacy rates soared, surpassing those of neighboring Arab states. A 50% increase in life expectancy is a very strange kind of genocide.

What about the UN? Surely they lend credibility to the charge of genocide?

Hardly. The UN General Assembly passes more anti-Israel resolutions annually than it does against all other nations combined.

And consider Francesca Albanese, the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Palestine:

She harbors a fanatical hatred of Israel, refers to terrorists as “human rights defenders,” compares Hamas to Jews in the Warsaw Ghetto, supports BDS, and accuses the U.S. government of being controlled by the “Jewish Lobby.”

Critics—Bartov among them—mock Israel’s claim of being the most moral army in the world. But do they have a point? Let’s look at the views of actual experts in modern urban warfare.

  • Col. Richard Kemp, former commander of British forces in Afghanistan
  • Major John Spencer, Director of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point
  • Andrew Fox, lecturer at the UK’s Sandhurst Military Academy and veteran of three Afghanistan tours

All three have been embedded with the IDF in combat. They agree: the IDF has taken unprecedented measures to avoid civilian casualties—even while dealing with an enemy hiding beneath 350–450 miles of tunnels built for over $1 billion.

Spencer has repeatedly noted that the IDF’s civilian-to-combatant death ratio in Gaza is lower than any army has ever achieved in urban warfare.

Compare Israel’s actions to the U.S. and its allies in Iraq under President Obama. According to the RAND Corporation, Mosul was “effectively destroyed.” The Associated Press reported over 9,600 deaths at the central morgue, while Iraq’s foreign minister estimated as many as 40,000. And Mosul had far fewer ISIS fighters than Gaza has Hamas combatants. There were no tunnels, yet American and Iraqi forces relied heavily on airpower with far less regard for civilian safety.

By those standards, if Israel is committing genocide, then what happened in Mosul was genocide on steroids.


*Yes, I excerpted heavily from Jonathan Rosenblum’s article. But with good reason. The evidence presented there that Israel is not committing genocide in Gaza is overwhelming, despite the relentless media coverage, manipulated imagery, and biased experts shouting otherwise.

Truth is not determined by volume or repetition. It is determined by facts. And the facts speak for themselves.

Friday, July 25, 2025

A Ship of Fools

MK Amichai Eliyahu
Some people are just too stupid for words. And recently, there have been more than a few instances proving it.

For starters, there's this from VIN:

Israel’s Minister of Heritage Amichai Eliyahu said that the government of Israel is “rushing towards Gaza being wiped out,” and that “we don’t have to be concerned about hunger in the Strip.”

Aside from the immorality of condoning the starvation of non-combatant human beings, this is no way to win friends and influence people. That a kippah-wearing Jew can make such an immoral comment - and not realize the repercussions it could have for Israel internationally - is not only stupid, but a massive Chilul HaShem by an Israeli government official who openly identifies as an observant Jew.

Thankfully, this was immediately contradicted by the Prime Minister, who emphasized that Israel has been trying to feed non-combatant Palestinians under the most dire of conditions. And I would add: without the cooperation of the so-called humanitarian organizations operating in Gaza. Organizations that seem to prefer making Israel look bad over actually feeding hungry children.

(One report I saw recently on PBS actually showed a massive food storage area in Gaza that had not been distributed. When asked why, the UN agency responsible explained that it was ‘just too difficult’ to distribute the food under current chaotic conditions.)

Then there's this little gem from JTA:

Hundreds of rabbis from across denominations have signed onto an open letter calling on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu “to stop at once the use and threat of starvation as a weapon of war.”

First, this statement begins with a lie. The phrase ‘rabbis from across denominations’ implies Orthodox rabbis were among the signatories. That is verifiably untrue. What they should have said is: ‘Hundreds of rabbis from across progressive denominations.’ These are movements that represent inauthentic and rapidly declining versions of Judaism. Desperately trying to remain relevant.

They too have bought into the selective imagery broadcast nightly, accompanied by news reports based on the narratives of Hamas officials and anti-Israel NGOs. 

While it’s difficult to argue with what you see on the news, that doesn’t make it true. Nazi propaganda during the Holocaust also portrayed Jews in the camps as being well-treated. The International Red Cross was duped into reporting that Jews were living peacefully in Theresienstadt - a model camp the Nazis used to deceive the world. You’d think Jews were in a spa, not a concentration camp.

You can’t always believe what you see - even when it’s reported by the so-called ‘trusted’ mainstream media.

Then there's this - again from JTA:

President Emmanuel Macron says France plans to recognize a Palestinian state during his appearance at the United Nations General Assembly in September… The announcement was accompanied by a letter to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas outlining his reasoning.

Macron was among the earliest European leaders to condemn Israel and blame it exclusively for all the suffering in Gaza - as if Hamas had nothing to do with it.

Macron is either stupid or a closet antisemite. Probably both. First of all, how much intelligence does it take to realize the following would happen?

Hamas praised Macron’s move as “a positive step in the right direction.”

But more importantly, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio clearly spelled out the obvious stupidity of this:

“This reckless decision only serves Hamas propaganda and sets back peace,” Rubio wrote on X. “It is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th.”

Macron doesn’t appear to care about the hostages, the reaction from Hamas, or the impact a Palestinian state along Israel’s long border might have on Israeli security.

Then there was the massive rally in Tel Aviv:

Standing inside a mass protest in Habima Square to demand an end to the war in Gaza, Roy Rieck said the atmosphere felt more charged than at previous demonstrations. The difference, he said, is that it’s not just the plight of the 50 remaining Israeli hostages weighing on those who turned out.

“There was more of a feeling that people want to stop the war not only to bring back the hostages, but also from the understanding that the war has gone too far — that the cost to soldiers is too high, and that the suffering in Gaza has become unbearable.”

The rally Thursday night came as images of starving children and reports of widespread hunger emerged from Gaza. Even among those who support the war, these images are starting to shift the discourse. But an even more urgent development took center stage.

This rally is more complicated to assess. On the one hand, I’ve had some of the very same questions myself. On the other hand, I’m suspicious of the motives behind those who blame their own government for the suffering in Gaza - without saying a single word about the real culprit: Hamas.

It makes me wonder if this rally wasn’t simply an extension of the anti-Netanyahu rallies held before October 7th

So, I have mixed feelings.

What bothers me most is the virtually exclusive blame placed on Israel for the suffering. As if Israel just randomly decided to invade Gaza and bomb it into oblivion without provocation. As if October 7th never happened.

You rarely - if ever - hear these critics talk about the fact that Hamas continues to hold innocent people hostage (and when they do, it's often just in passing). You never hear them place the blame for Palestinian suffering where it truly belongs: on Hamas. Hamas could end the suffering of Palestinians in Gaza today by releasing the hostages and laying down arms. Instead, they keep perpetuating the misery. Which the critics completely ignore in favor of bashing Israel

It’s not as if Netanyahu hasn’t tried to negotiate in earnest. More than once. The most recent of which was an agreement to the terms for a 60-day ceasefire and release of 10 hostages proposed by the U.S. But as CBS reported:

President Trump's special envoy Steve Witkoff said Thursday the U.S. was cutting short the latest round of Gaza ceasefire talks and bringing its negotiating team home from Qatar for consultations, after he said Hamas had issued a response that “shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire.”

Yeah... It’s all Israel's fault.

If only these critics could see what’s really going on and tell the truth instead of filtering everything through their personal politics and biases - maybe we could bring the hostages home and see an end to this war sooner rather than later. But as long as people like that idiot Israeli minster, Macron, and those progressive rabbis keep giving Hamas wins - bolstered by the nightly news, I doubt we will see anything like that any time soon. 

Thursday, July 24, 2025

Antisemitism, DEI, and Columbia University

Pro-Palestinian protest at Columbia in the early days of the Gaza war (JTA)
If you are Jewish in America - especially if you are a student - you have to be pleased with the settlement just reached by Columbia University with the U.S. government. Albeit with a caveat. And it’s a big one. JTA reports the following:

Columbia University announced Wednesday night that it had agreed to a $220 million settlement with the Trump administration, bringing a close to months of tense negotiations between the two parties over allegations of antisemitism on the school’s campus.

“While Columbia does not admit to wrongdoing with this resolution agreement, the institution’s leaders have recognized, repeatedly, that Jewish students and faculty have experienced painful, unacceptable incidents, and that reform was and is needed,” Columbia wrote in a statement announcing the deal Wednesday.

The deal will free up hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research money that was canceled by the Trump administration in March, one of the first salvos by the administration in its campaign against campus antisemitism and pro-Palestinian protests. It is seen as a template by which other universities targeted by Trump might make their own deals…

The deal will also codify an existing set of Trump administration demands that Columbia met in March as part of a bid to win back its federal funding. It builds on the school’s July 15 commitments to combat antisemitism on campus, including the adoption of an Israel-related antisemitism definition. These demands include adherence to laws barring the consideration of race in admissions and hiring. Columbia stated that the deal would allow it to maintain “autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.”

An independent monitor will oversee the deal’s implementation and issue reports twice a year, according to the announcement.

What’s pleasing about this is that a major Ivy League university has been held accountable to the tune of $220 million for allowing antisemitism to take place on its campus under the guise of ‘free speech’. Columbia admitted that Jewish students and faculty have endured ‘painful, unacceptable incidents’and that reform was needed. They are also paying a hefty financial price for that failure.

But the caveat is glaring: Columbia has not admitted to any wrongdoing. They do not acknowledge that allowing the pro-Palestinian protests in the early days of Israel’s war against Hamas - which fueled and exacerbated those antisemitic incidents was a mistake. It’s as if they’re saying: “We have our cake and ate it too.” You can’t simultaneously claim you did nothing wrong while admitting your inaction led to harmful, even threatening outcomes.

It is with that caveat in mind that one has to wonder what the future holds when a president from a political party less friendly to Israel is elected. A party that appears to value the free speech of Palestinian protesters - many of whom call for the destruction of Israel - more than it values the rights of Jewish students not to be harassed. Will they claim that chanting ‘Death to Israel’ or ‘Death to Jews’ is only antisemitic depending on context? That it is otherwise protected speech? Will they defend calls to ‘globalize the intifada’ the same way - even as they claim not to agree? Will we once again see campus protests turn into hostile environments where Jewish students feel intimidated on their way to class?

If Columbia refuses to admit they did anything wrong, then under a future administration more sympathetic to their politics, we can assume they will allow such incidents to happen again.

But for the time being, at least, we have a president who genuinely seems to care about antisemitism and is backing that concern with action. He has threatened serious financial consequences for schools that tolerate antisemitism disguised as free speech, and they are beginning to respond to his demands for change.

Cynics (and there are many) say that the president doesn’t really care about antisemitism is merely using it as a tool to push his anti-DEI agenda. The anti DEI allegation is not entirely baseless. But the fact is that DEI policies have had a negative impact on Jewish students, too. Some of whom were rejected in favor of less qualified applicants in order to meet diversity quotas.

I’m not saying diversity isn’t important. However, it should not come at the expense of merit.

The proper approach is to seek diversity among the most qualified candidates, while remaining blind to race, ethnicity, or religion. The idea of quotas should be abhorrent to any fair-minded person who believes in rewarding achievement, not ticking demographic boxes. Lowering standards to fulfill diversity goals not only undermines excellence, it also casts a shadow over truly qualified minority students, who may be seen as having been accepted only because they checked the right box.

To that end part of the agreement with Columbia included the following line:

These demands include adherence to laws barring the consideration of race in admissions and hiring.

The Trump administration has already spoken loud and clear on this issue long before now. If DEI is used to recruit students and faculty in a discriminatory way, there will be a financial price to pay. Universities found to be doing so risk losing federal funding. Judicial challenges to these policies have not succeeded, and some schools have already eliminated their DEI offices.

It’s hard for me to understand how some Jews can oppose Trump’s antisemitism policies, claiming they violate free speech or promote racism by limiting DEI. Unfortunately, this is the kind of thinking embraced by progressives who believe equity requires leveling the playing field by lowering the standards for all. But in practice, DEI can hurt the very people it claims to help. If I were a black student who met the merit criteria on my own, I would hate the implication that I only got in because of my race.

At the end of the day, Trump’s anti-DEI policies align closely with his policies against antisemitism. Those who cannot see that are blinded by progressive ideals that may sound noble in theory but in reality are doing more harm than good. Both to this great nation and to the Jewish people.

Wednesday, July 23, 2025

Forbidden Waters are Sweet

I hate bans. Even those that might have legitimate justifications for being made. Mishlei (9:17) tells us, Mayim genuvim yimtaku - stolen waters are sweet. Once something is banned, it often becomes a prize to be sought on the sly. Curiosity is stoked: What exactly is being banned? Why? What harm could it really do? How bad could it be? If something is banned, it must be enticing - something I don’t want to miss out on.

In other words, bans can often have the opposite effect of what’s intended. Rather than keeping youth away from harmful influences, they may draw them in closer. Especially during adolescence, one of the most naturally rebellious periods of life.

That is not to say everyone will succumb to temptation after a ban. Most will likely adhere. But there will surely be a significant number of teenagers who will not.

The latest such ban comes from the Chasidus of Karlin-Stolin, as reported in Arutz Sheva:

The Karlin-Stolin Hasidic community has issued new guidelines significantly limiting the use of artificial intelligence, especially among its younger members.

Released by the Hasidic Committee for Media Guidance and Advice, the rules include a total ban on teens independently interacting with AI systems. The committee described AI as technology “based on databases of billions of documents and various contents found across global computer networks,” and warned that its rapid evolution demands extreme caution.

These bans, as noted, are often instituted for entirely good reasons. In the case of AI (Artificial Intelligence), the goal is to protect users - especially vulnerable youth - from the dangers inherent in a powerful and largely unregulated new technology. And there are indeed real dangers.

AI-generated images and content have already proven capable of inflicting severe damage. Fake images that are so realistic they are indistinguishable from real ones can destroy reputations, relationships, and lives — in an instant. One AI website that has been in the news recently - can strip the clothes off a perfectly modest image of a teenage girl and offers to do so for any submitted photo. Even though nothing actually happened, the image falsely says it did. The psychological and social impact of such misuse can be devastating. And teenagers, in particular, are highly vulnerable to such content.

So yes, a ban is understandable. But let’s be honest. It doesn’t work. It’s not that hard for a teenager to find someone with a smartphone and convince them to try it.

So what’s the alternative? How can we responsibly allow youth access to AI when it can be so easily and terribly abused?

The truth is: we cannot entirely prevent the misuse of these technologies — not through bans, and not even through good parenting.

But there is no substitute for good parenting.

The inefficacy of bans goes back to the early days of the internet, when the Charedi -  especially Chassidic - world attempted to ban it outright.

In May 2012, the concern over internet use led to a massive gathering of the Charedi world at Citi Field in Queens. Prominent rabbinic leaders warned about the internet's spiritual dangers. At the time, they called for a total ban — later modified to allow internet use for business purposes or if heavily filtered. Still, the clear preference remained: avoid it entirely.

But today, it's nearly impossible to function in society without using the internet in some form.

When Apple released the iPhone - followed by a wave of copycat ‘smartphones’ (a term now universally used)  it reshaped the world. Those devices changed our lives in ways few could have anticipated, even the developers themselves.

By now, we all know that smartphones can be among the most useful tools available to humankind — and also among the most destructive. These dangers are not only acknowledged in Charedi circles, but across all of civilized society. Improper smartphone use can — and does — ruin lives. And yet, no ban has ever succeeded in keeping them away. Nearly everyone has one now. Banning them – as the Charedi leadership had tried to do - only made their use more clandestine.

Artificial intelligence is the next technological leap. It hasn't yet fulfilled its vast potential — for good or for harm. But the damage already done shows just how dangerous it can be.

And like every ban before it, this too will likely be honored in the breach by precisely the people it’s meant to protect.

The problems created by rapid technological advances are real. But they cannot be solved by simply declaring, ‘It is forbidden’. There’s no magic bullet. But the solution, if it exists, begins in the home. With good parenting, setting boundaries, and leading by example.

Some ideas:

  • No child under 12 should be allowed to own or use AI-related tech unsupervised.
  • Children up to age 18 should only be allowed access under strict parental monitoring.

Obvioulsy that’s not a complete solution, but it’s at least a start. Ideally, the Orthodox Jewish world should convene a universal, cross-Hashkafic summit where a meeting of minds across the entire spectrum of Orthodox Judaism can take place. If sincere and well-meaning organizations come together without trying to push their own narrow agendas, real progress can be made.

If schools across all Hashkafic lines agreed to adopt and implement shared guidelines, we might begin to see change. Sadly, there are only 2 chances of the left, right, and center of Orthodoxy agreeing on anything: Slim and none. Even on something that harms us all equally.

Tuesday, July 22, 2025

Diminishing Returns

One of many gut-wrenching but misleading  images from Gaza
Despite popular opinion to the contrary, I have not wavered in my support for Israel’s prime minister. I still firmly believe that the decisions he has made thus far in dealing with Israel’s enemies have been the right ones. Those decisions have changed the face of the Middle East in ways no one could have predicted before October of 2023 - when Hamas launched a brutal attack on Israel unlike anything we’ve seen since the Holocaust. But nearly two years later, that war is still ongoing, and Israeli captives remain in Hamas hands.

There is no disputing these facts. But there is considerable debate about how Netanyahu has conducted the war. Particularly regarding the number of civilian casualties and allegations of famine-like conditions among Gaza’s residents. As far as I’m concerned, that debate only holds water if one accepts the highly partisan narrative coming out of Gaza and the so-called ‘humanitarian’ organizations operating there. Many of which have proven to be anti-Israel.

Unfortunately, these sources are given a level of credibility they do not deserve, thanks in large part to the deceptive imagery broadcast from Gaza. Deceptive not only because of Hamas's manipulation, but also because of the media’s cynical ‘if it bleeds, it leads’ approach to electronic journalism. A motive driven more by ratings and ad revenue than by objective reporting.

There are, of course, many other issues that have earned Netanyahu the wrath of his detractors. I won’t list them here. I’ve addressed them in the past. Suffice it to say that the animosity against him, fueled by even one of these issues, is intense and widespread among roughly half of Israel’s population reaching levels of unprecedented hostility in some cases.

I wanted to make my support for Netanyahu very clear before expressing my own puzzlement about the continuation of the war in Gaza. This criticism is not coming from a place of prior animosity, which would call my motives into question. My concerns come as a supporter, not a detractor.

As noted, the Middle East has been transformed by Netanyahu’s decisions—some would say permanently - in ways that have benefited Israel. Iran has been weakened, Hezbollah has been significantly curtailed, and the threat from Syria—once under Assad’s jihadist grip has been diminished. Syria’s new regime may now even be inching toward a willingness to make peace with Israel.

Given all this, perhaps it's time to end the war in Gaza.

I recognize, of course, that I am not in a position to second-guess Israel’s leadership. I don’t have access to their military intelligence, nor can I fairly assess the necessity of Israel’s current operations. But still, I wonder: what can Israel ultimately accomplish with a continued bombing campaign that may kill a Hamas operative or two, while the media salivates at blaming Israel for all the civilian casualties it took to do that. Thereby vilifying Israel almost daily. Without the slightest attempt to fairly represent Israel’s side?

Netanyahu’s stated goal is to eliminate Hamas completely. But I’ve never thought that was a realistic objective. Hamas’s ideology is the same as that of every jihadist group, and while that doesn’t mean Israel shouldn’t try to dismantle it—or that this shouldn’t remain a central goal, it also doesn’t mean this war can go on forever. At some point, one must consider the law of diminishing returns.

Even if Israel is fully justified in targeting every last Hamas terrorist - accidentally killing civilians in the process, through no fault of its own - the world simply doesn’t see it that way. The truth doesn't matter when the only narrative being heard is that of Palestinian suffering. So what Israel may gain from eliminating another Hamas operative may be lost tenfold in global outrage over civilian deaths. Whether that outrage is fair or not.

I know Europe’s antisemitism wasn’t invented yesterday. It’s been around for centuries and is sadly alive and well today. And I know that the dramatic increase in Europe’s Muslim population plays a role in this rising sentiment. But this is the reality Israel is up against. And it isn’t going away. It will only get worse if the war drags on, with limited gains in terms of Hamas casualties and a high cost in civilian lives—all of which will continue to be blamed squarely on Israel.

As it has been all along.

From my admittedly limited perspective, I have to ask: What is being gained, and what is being lost at this point?

In my uninformed view, I believe Israel’s focus should now shift toward retrieving all the hostages and ending the war. While simultaneously ensuring that Hamas never again has the capacity to reconstitute itself. At the same time, Israel must overhaul its own security apparatus to ensure that any future attempt at an October 7th-style attack would fail miserably.

Here’s what I’d like to see. No more war. No more casualties. On either side. No more long tours of duty for IDF reserves. And most importantly:  Bring the hostages home. May this bring  peace and security to the people of Israel and lead to strengthened alliances with Arab neighbors that began with the Abraham Accords.

 

Monday, July 21, 2025

Antisemitism Unbound

It cannot be avoided. To fully understand the rise in antisemitism, Israel’s war in Gaza must clearly be considered part of the equation. It is an important factor in what appears to be an exponential increase in antisemitism since that war began. It has unleashed what seems to antisemitism on a level not seen since in many years.

Many good people - exposed daily for nearly two years to media images of a war zone, accompanied by a consistently biased narrative - can’t help but view Israel as a killing machine indifferent to human life. Lately, that perception has intensified, with scenes of civilians scrambling to obtain food for their starving families from designated distribution points - accompanied by a media narrative that says dozens or more are killed every day by the IDF while doing that.

These images, and that rhetoric that masquerades as balanced reporting, take a serious toll on public opinion. It’s why so many Americas – many Jews among them - have become sharply critical of Israel’s actions in Gaza.

But it is far from clear that the media knows what it is talking about. It relies heavily - if not exclusively - on sources stationed in Gaza, made up almost entirely of individuals and international organizations with a long history of anti-Israel bias.

When Israel attempts to present its side of the story (on the rare occasions the media even bothers to report it), the tone of the coverage often makes it sound like lies being spouted by war criminals. Such is the way of the world. If one fails to understand the impact this has on public opinion, then there is little more to say.

None of this is new. I’ve said it all before. But it bears repeating now, in light of a seminal piece on antisemitism and its intersection with socialism - by Jonathan Rosenblum. His assessment is brilliant, and I fully agree with it. But I felt compelled to add this additional dimension to his otherwise comprehensive overview and analysis.

With that in mind, I’m going to do something I rarely do: excerpt what I believe is the most pertinent portion - the first half - of his article. I believe it is unassailable and well worth reading. In fact, I challenge anyone who disagrees to explain why. It follows.

After punk rock duo Bob Vylan led tens of thousands of concertgoers in chanting “Death, death to the IDF” at the Glastonbury Festival in Great Britain, Ayaan Hirsi Ali wrote an incisive piece in the Free Press describing what is going on. “What happened at Glastonbury... is part of a coordinated, ideological insurgency against the Jewish people. Not just against the Israeli military. Not just against Israel. Not just against Zionism. Against Jews.”

The goal, she avers, is not just to erase Israel from the river to the sea, but to erase “the Jewish people from the moral map,” by painting “Israel as the nexus of evil and every Jew who does not loudly denounce it as complicit.” Jews are the oppressor and must either sacrifice their dignity or be driven from polite society.

Hirsi Ali describes this insurgency as a weird amalgam of “Islamism soaked in Maoism weaponized for the social media era.” Zohran Mamdani serves as the poster boy for that implausible alliance of Islam and Maoism.

“Islamism brings the fire — holy rage, the fixation on martyrdom, and a visceral hatred of Jews that predates the State of Israel,” according to Hirsi Ali, who grew up as a Muslim in Somalia. “Maoism brings the strategy, the long march through institutions, the cultural struggle session, the rewriting of history, the reframing of reality through social media.”

Maoist frameworks like “decolonization” and “privilege” provide the ideological cover — abstract enough to sound academic, blunt enough to justify destruction. Islamic fervor supplies the moral justification for violence.

And this effort to delegitimize the very existence of Israel has been astoundingly successful. Democrats in America, for instance, sympathized more with Israelis than Palestinians by 13 percent in 2017. Now, it’s Palestinians by 43 percent. Young Democrats, who have recently passed through the universities, now favor Palestinians by 57 percent. In 2017, they favored Israelis by 14 percent.

What have the Palestinians done to justify that newfound favor besides slaughter and violate innocent Jews on October 7, and reject in absolute terms every proposal to divide the land in any fashion put forth over the last 100 years?

As Julian Epstein, who served as Bill Clinton’s leading counsel in his impeachment trial, put it recently, “[Democrats] have become captive of a pagan religion of sorts, a messianic delusion whose meta-narrative is that Democrats are liberators of oppressive Western traditions.” Those “oppressive” traditions pretty much track what one would learn in university “decolonization” studies.

The long march through the institutions of Western culture described by Hirsi Ali did not start yesterday. Renowned political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset described in the New York Times in 1971 how anti-Semitism had become the “socialism of fools.” Whereas anti-Jewish politics had traditionally been associated with the right, “the current wave is linked to governments, parties, and groups which are conventionally described as leftist.... As the war in Vietnam peters out, the various incarnations of the extreme left new and old have reoriented their international emotional priorities to identify the heroes as the Arab terrorists and freedom fighters, and the villains as Israel and its American ally....”

Around the same time, Aaron Wildavsky, another famed political scientist, noted presciently how Jews had lost their identity as a minority: “Jews were all of a sudden taken for imperialists. Actually, it was more like guilt by association. Jews, you see, were identified with Israel, which was defeating Arabs, who resorted to guerrilla warfare, however inefficacious, which somehow gave them membership in the Third World, so that Israel, ipso facto, became an imperialist oppressor, and domestic Jews ceased being a minority.”

Steven Hayward, who originally called my attention to Lipset and Wildavsky, describes how views once limited to a radical fringe were then “mainstreamed on college campuses, in Middle East studies departments, often funded from Arab sources like Qatar,” in which “post-colonialism” is often the dominant ideology.

No one had as malign impact on the treatment of Israel and Jews in academia as the late Columbia professor of literature Edward Said. His Orientalism is the Ur-text of every Middle East studies department. He argued that European orientalists viewed Middle Easterners as inferior. From there it was but a short leap to labeling Zionism — which, according to Said, was of European origin — as racism. That would make the Zionists the bad guys, no matter what, and, by the same token, the Palestinians the good guys.

Said taught the following syllogism. Europeans are racist in their view of Middle Easterners. Zionists are Europeans. Therefore Israel is a racist enterprise. Even the factual premises are wrong — most Jews living in Israel today are of Middle Eastern descent and as dark-skinned as local Arabs. And the idea that right and wrong are determined simply by who is labeled racist or an oppressor is a uniquely modern one. As the aforementioned Julian Epstein puts it, the anti-Western dystopic view ignores, among other things, that the West did more than any other civilization to lift humanity out of poverty and to usher in the concept of individual rights and liberties.

Sunday, July 20, 2025

Charedi Hubris

UTJ head, MK Moshe Gafni (Arutz Sheva)
Shall your brothers go to war while you sit here?! (Bamidbar 32:6).

Those words uttered by Moshe from this week’s Torah portion sum up the current ‘Charedi problem’ in Israel.

Charedim in Israel are in the unenviable position of being hated by almost every other sector of Israeli society. Perhaps ‘hated’ is too strong a word, and ‘every’ an exaggeration. But it isn’t far off.

I take no pleasure in making this assessment. It’s tragic that the fastest-growing segment of Israeli Jewry – one that is so deeply committed to Torah study and to leading lives that reflect those values - is so resented. This reality is surely recognized by Charedi leadership and their political representatives. And surely, they understand why. Yet they are doing little, if anything, to change that perception. In fact, it often seems they are doing their best to perpetuate and even exacerbate the resentment. And don’t even care.

Their goal, of course, is to maintain the path they've followed since the founding of the state: ensuring that every Charedi male pursues a life of full-time Torah study for as long as possible, which requires exemption from military service.

This is how the Yeshiva world sees it. The Chasidic world, on the other hand, sees IDF exemption as a religious imperative. A defense against what they perceive as the state's attempt to secularize Jews. For them, it's not even about Torah study. Even if a Chasid isn’t learning full-time, military enlistment is absolutely forbidden. They are told to resist conscription to the point of imprisonment if necessary.

The Yeshiva world accepts this rationale as well. So for them, both reasons apply. Both Charedi sectors are intransigent on this issue - despite recent failed attempts at compromise. And while blame for the failure may be shared, it would not surprise me if Charedi leadership was quietly relieved that the compromise failed. After all, in principle, they oppose any Charedi enlistment.

Nowhere was this attitude better illustrated than in the Charedi leadership’s reaction to the recent tragic deaths in Gaza of five Charedi soldiers from the Netzach Yehuda Battalion. One prominent Charedi leader expressed sorrow over the deaths, but noticeably omitted any mention that the fallen soldiers were Charedi. That omission was surely deliberate. Acknowledging that such a battalion exists undermines the argument that IDF service is incompatible with religious observance.

It’s almost as though these fallen soldiers were no longer considered Charedi - just IDF soldiers like any other. Had it been acknowledged that they were Charedi, it would have contradicted one of the core arguments used to justify their total opposition to IDF service.

Meanwhile, the rest of Israel is enduring the trauma of war. Whether by serving themselves or by having close family members (sons, daughters, fathers, husbands) sent on long and often life-altering tours of duty. Even when there are no deaths or injuries, the burden is heavy. And while all this is happening, Charedim (who are exempt) don’t have to worry about it.

This isn’t a ‘left versus right’ or a ‘religious versus secular’ dispute. The resentment crosses every sector of Israeli society, including the most devout religious Zionists.

To all those Israelis, it seems that Charedim simply don’t care. While others, including many deeply religious Jews, are sacrificing, Charedim offer little more than to rush through a verse or two of Tehillim after davening. If that. What the rest of Israel sees is a relentless effort to preserve the draft-exemption status quo at all costs, while the rest of Israel bears the burden of defense on behalf of everyone, including the exempted Charedim.

Is it any wonder that there is widespread resentment against Charedim?

Before October 7th, this status quo was tolerated even though it was widely recognized as unfair. There was no full-scale war, no mass mobilization of reservists, no life-threatening combat. But now there is. The resentment is real. The anger palpable.

What’s surprising is how few Religious Zionist rabbinic leaders have spoken out forcefully against the Charedi refusal to serve. But one Charedi Rosh Yeshiva finally has had enough after Charedi MK and UTJ head Moshe Gafni made the following remarks, as reported in the Times of Israel:

“The ones who are leading the war against Torah students are the religious Zionists,” he stated, adding that “those who are leading the incitement against us… they are worse than the biggest haters of Torah scholars.”

I cannot imagine a more insensitive remark. Or one that more accurately reveals what Charedi leaders and politicians really feel about Religious Zionism. It’s one thing to disagree in principle. But to vilify Religious Zionists in this way tells us everything. Charedim don’t just view Religious Zionism as a misguided form of Judaism. They consider it anti-Torah - worse than secularism.

Words spoken in anger are often more reflective of someone’s true beliefs than the carefully filtered statements made in more composed moments.

This time, even a Charedi Rosh Yeshiva had enough. Though, to some in the Charedi world, his credentials have long been “disqualified” by virtue of the type of Yeshiva he leads. As reported in an Arutz Sheva article:

Rabbi Avraham Borodiansky, head of the Barkai Charedi Hesder Yeshiva, issued a sharply worded response to MK Gafni's remarks:

“I try so hard to avoid expressing my opinion during this time,” the rabbi wrote, “but tonight is different. It is unforgivable for anyone to speak against a public which, merely for not dancing to the tune of ‘Moshe Emet,’ is labeled as enemies of Torah and haters of Israel.”

“This cannot be brushed aside. A community that has buried its finest sons, where young women raise their children alone, where every knock at the door brings fear—for you, they are not Torah-loving Jews?”

Rabbi Borodiansky added: “The Torah says, ‘And He said to Moshe: Remove your sandals from your feet!’ You have no right to tread upon their land—it is too holy for you. I was never enthusiastic about your fiery speeches, but I restrained myself. Today, you have revealed your disgrace.”

Is it any wonder that so many Israelis - including many devoutly religious Jews - harbor such bitterness toward Charedim? If even one of their own can speak this way, one can only imagine what the rest of Israel is saying.

Frankly, I don’t know how the Charedi community can live with itself, knowing how deeply resented it is. How must it feel to walk into any public establishment - most of which are staffed by people sacrificing daily - and not feel the weight of that resentment? A resentment that only grows with every passing day as Charedi leaders fight tooth and nail to preserve exemptions.

Even if one were to concede that Charedim have a point - that they were misled by successive governments promising exemptions they didn’t deliver - how can they not understand the backlash? And how can they continue to attribute it solely to ‘hatred of Torah’? How blind can they be?

Even as the Netzach Yehuda Battalion exists and some Charedim do serve - the vast majority do not and still believe this storm will pass and the old normal will return.

But that ‘normal’ can no longer stand. Not now. Not after the trauma the rest of Israel has suffered.

At the very least, the serious Torah study of Hesder Yeshiva students must be recognized as legitimate, not condemned as anti-Charedi. And that’s just a starting point.

More importantly, I hope a new Charedi leadership emerges. One that recognizes the imbalance their community has created, and takes responsibility for correcting it. That would go a long way toward reversing the widespread resentment and fostering genuine respect for their dedication to Torah study.

That respect can only be earned if Charedi leaders and their representatives in government end their hateful rhetoric against the IDF and the state of Israel itself. And learn to respect differences of opinion by devoutly religious leaders that are not Charedi.

Friday, July 18, 2025

The Morally Repugnant Extremist Settlers

I consider myself second to no one when it comes to supporting Israel. So much so that I’ve even been heavily criticized for my unwavering support of the current prime minister. A man who has probably faced more protests from disaffected voters than any of his predecessors.

Despite his many shortcomings, his leadership during Israel’s war with Hamas has changed the face of the Middle East for the better. Whether one agrees with the way he achieved that or not, this crucial fact cannot be dismissed as irrelevant. It is arguably the most significant achievement by Israel since the Six-Day War of 1967.

That being said, there is one aspect of the prime minister’s policy that could undermine all of his great accomplishments: his tolerance of extremist settlers. This has led to some of the most disturbing news coming out of the Jewish state in recent memory.

The idea that all of Judea and Samaria belong to the Jewish people - as promised to us by God - is, from a religious standpoint, undeniable. But what can and what should be disputed is the way the current Israeli government is allowing that idea to be implemented: by expanding settlements near Palestinian villages. While there is a religious mandate to reclaim our land, there is also an absolute obligation to do so in a way that does not destroy us as a people.

Instead, the current policies encourage fanatical ideologues to set up illegal outposts near Palestinian villages with the goal of pushing Palestinians out and reclaiming that land for Jews. I have no doubt that the prime minister does not condone illegal settlements.  But he hasn’t done nearly enough to stop them. And that inaction has led to numerous violent clashes between extremist settlers and Palestinians. Some of which have ended with settlers killing Palestinian villagers.

As I’ve said in the past, it is entirely possible that some of these killings occurred during altercations in which the settler may have believed they were acting in self-defense. But that does not make it acceptable. The fact that these extremists purposely set up makeshift ‘settlements’ near Palestinian villages and strut around with Uzis slung over their shoulders to taunt the villagers is an exercise in pure evil. They do not value human life. They see all Palestinians as ‘dogs’ to be chased from the land as quickly as possible. And when Palestinians push back, someone ends up dead. Usually a Palestinian.

None of this is to excuse the hatred that many Palestinian villagers harbor toward Jews. They most certainly do hate us, and if given the chance, they would rid the region of all Jews. But that does not justify the brutal way these Jewish extremists try to reclaim the land. Resorting to intimidation, provocation, and even murder when necessary.

The most recent incident is particularly horrifying. While details about who initiated the latest clash are murky, one fact appears to be clear: a 20-year-old unarmed American citizen of Palestinian descent was beaten to death by extremist settlers. Settlers whose outpost near the village in question was illegal from the start.

They should never have been allowed to set up that outpost - let alone terrorize the Palestinian villagers in their efforts to forcibly remove them. These settlers were not fulfilling the mitzvah of reclaiming Eretz Yisroel; they were committing a travesty. One that affects not only their fellow Jews in Israel but Jews across the globe.

When the most pro-Israel, pro-settler U.S. ambassador in history calls this a murder committed by settlers - and the most pro-Israel president both call for a full investigation, you know this wasn’t simply a matter of self-defense.

I was glad to read that six settlers were arrested by Israeli security forces in connection with this incident. If they are found guilty, they should spend the rest of their miserable lives in prison.

Sadly, this is not the first time extremist settler violence against Palestinians has turned deadly. Some of these attacks were so-called ‘revenge’ attacks in response to Palestinian terror that killed a Jew. Extremist settlers randomly attacked innocent villagers. As if murdering innocent people is a justified response. That is not justice. That is sickness.

None of this should ever have happened. The idea of allowing - or simply turning a blind eye - when extremists decide to ‘reclaim’ land with deadly intimidation towards Palestinian residents - is morally repugnant. And this is where the prime minister bears responsibility.

I don’t believe he condones what happened to that 20-year-old. But he has allowed an environment in which such violence can - and does - happen. There should be a zero-tolerance policy for illegal settlements. These outposts should be closely monitored and dismantled as soon as they’re detected. Long before they can encroach upon Palestinian villages. The settlers who build them should be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time.

If members of his right-wing coalition protest, so be it. Israel’s morality and ethics must never be dictated by its extremist politicians. Even if it means losing coalition partners. Aside from the moral obscenity of these attacks, the damage these extremists do to Israel’s global standing is incalculable. They give fuel to those who accuse Israel of apartheid and provide moral ammunition to the BDS movement. It also makes accusations of genocide seem more plausible to the casual observer!

This is not the first time I’ve expressed my outrage over these disgraceful so-called ‘devout Jews’. I only hope it is the last. I pray that those who beat this young American receive the maximum punishment allowed by law and are held up as examples of what will happen to anyone who attempts to seize land through intimidation and violence.

The prime minister must make it unequivocally clear that such behavior will no longer be tolerated. To demonstrate this seriousness, he should halt the establishment of any new settlements in Judea and Samaria until a proper legal and moral framework is in place.

Israel already has more than enough challenges. We do not need these extremists creating indefensible incidents. Incidents that even the most ardent supporters of the Jewish state, like myself, cannot defend.

Thursday, July 17, 2025

Is There an Authentic Jewish View?

2024 DC Demonstration by Jewish Voice for Peace (Jewish Insider)
There is no such thing as a unified ‘Jewish view’ on matters of vital interest to the Jewish people. As absurd as that may seem, it is nonetheless the sad reality we face today. Not that I haven’t noted this oxymoron in the past. I have. But I think it could use a bit more elaboration.

The truth is that there is a Jewish view. But there are far too many Jews who have no clue what being Jewish really is. Yet they often speak as if they do - and insist they speak on behalf of the Jewish people.

The truth, however, is that the Jewish people are now more divided than at any time in our history. A division that has nothing to do with Jewish values and everything to do with political ones. The sad reality is that most secular and heterodox Jews tend toward a progressive worldview, defining Judaism solely in terms of humanistic values. This lens leads them to sympathize far more with Palestinian suffering than with Israel’s. Even though Israel is suffering, to them that pales in comparison to the suffering in Gaza. Making it hardly worth a mention.

Yes, over 1,200 Jews were brutally massacred, and around 250 were taken hostage on October 7th.  But in the eyes of many progressive the more than 50,000 Palestinians killed by Israel's military response - and the massive devastation that has left surviving Gazans homeless, starving, and living in tents is so bad that Jewish suffering is ignored as though it doesn’t exist! They blame Israel as the sole cause of Palestinian devastation and therefore feel sympathy not for Israel, but for its enemies.

This is why so many Jewish celebrities have condemned Israel rather than shown solidarity with it. Some of them, like actor Mandy Patinkin, are openly proud of their Jewish heritage. And mention it quite often. But their criticisms of Israel matches that of criticism  made by Palestinians and their supporters. And are typically directed towards Israel’s prime minister, who they jointly see as a warmonger. A view mirrored by  progressive politicians, and Palestinian sympathizers in the media - particularly in progressive outlets like the BBC, PBS, NPR, and CNN. It's rare to see a report from these sources that doesn't subtly - or even overtly - place blame on Israel for all the suffering in the region.

This explains why you have progressive ‘Jewish’ organizations like J-Street, Not in My Name, Jews for Justice in Palestine, and  Jewish Voice for Peace making the same demands as Hamas; blaming a conservative Congress for America’s complicity in Palestinian suffering. Not just since October 7th, but ever since the founding of the State of Israel.

But make no mistake: none of this anti-Israel advocacy is Jewish. It is a function of progressivism - a political perspective that many Jews now use to define their Judaism. They dress it up in Jewish terms, calling it Tikkun Olam, but it's not Judaism. No matter how many Jews define themselves as progressive. Even when in some cases they might be sincerely proud of their Jewish heritage, that does not make their views any more Jewish than Christians. In fact, I would argue that theological differences aside, fundamentalist Christians often hold values far closer to authentic Jewish values than do progressive Jews.

This is what happens when the vast majority of American Jews - some 90% - receive little or no meaningful Jewish education.  And yet they can legitimately claim that their progressive views represent the majority opinion among American Jews. The sad irony is that this majority is largely ignorant of Jewish values. And even more so of Jewish law.

To a progressive Jew - the idea that Israel has any religious significance is irrelevant. Progressive Jews do not recognize Jewish exceptionalism The concept that we are an Am Segulah, a chosen people; or an Am L’vadad Yishkon, a people destined to dwell apart - is instead viewed by them as an outdated or even racist notion. They buy into the historical revisionism that portrays Zionist pioneers as colonialists who ‘stole’ the land from indigenous Palestinians, who were then relegated to refugee camps.

As a result, Jewish suffering - even when horrific - rarely gets honorable mention in their circles. They’re all in with BDS, believing erroneously that boycotting Israel will bring justice to the Palestinians. These are the Jews supporting candidates like Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York, fully endorsing his progressive stance on everything, including Israel. These are the Jews who refer to Israel’s actions in Gaza as ‘genocide’.

Now, I’m sure there are many secular and heterodox Jews who are not like this and who do support Israel. But even they often express undue criticism of Israel’s war with Hamas, reserving their harshest criticism for Israel’s prime minister. Joining the chorus of those who blame him for everything.

It wasn’t always this way. In fact, the opposite was once true. In the pre-Begin era, support for Israel was practically synonymous with Jewish identity. Most Jews at the time belonged to Reform or Conservative synagogues that emphasized supporting the State of Israel above all else. Jewish Federations across the country raised huge sums of money for Israel. That was their primary mission. Israel was seen as a progressive, socialist democracy that aligned perfectly with their worldview.

But Menachem Begin began to change that perception, and Benjamin Netanyahu put the finishing touches on it. Progressive Jews have never forgiven him for it. And now, many have gone rogue. By either severely diminishing their support or expressing outright antipathy for her. Some are celebrities. Some are academics. Some media personalities. But all are united by their view of Israel not as a light unto the nations, but as an aggressor state.

As things stand now, it appears that there are only two significant groups that still support Israel unconditionally: Orthodox Jews and fundamentalist evangelical Christians. Most of whom support conservative politicians and share strong pro-Israel views.

Sad to say, but the truly Jewish point of view is now held by only a fraction of the Jewish people. The rest of American Jewry simply lacks the Jewish education necessary to have a valid Jewish opinion. And their voice is increasingly becoming louder.