The US-Israel Relationship - Good or Bad?

Will the US-Israel relationship endure?

The United States and Israel have never been closer than they are right now. Which comes at a very propitious moment in Jewish history. Never before has Israel been in a position to once and for all defeat its enemies the way it is now.

This fact reflects the current administration’s view of Israel’s importance to U.S. security. A security threatened by one of the most evil regimes since Nazi Germany. A regime whose goal regarding the Jewish people today is not all that different from Germany’s then: the elimination of the Jewish people from the land of Israel. The only difference lies in their motives.

Germany’s motive was racial purity, which required eliminating our existence as an ‘inferior’ race. Iran’s motive is religious. In their view, Jewish sovereignty over land considered holy to Islam contradicts their theology, which holds that Muslims should control that land and its holy places. Our elimination would remove that obstacle. But I digress.

The point is that the U.S. has always backed Israel’s right to exist, making it an enemy in Iran’s eyes. And never has America’s commitment to Israel been stronger than it is right now.

Unless, of course, you are a progressive. Or a Democrat concerned with the progressive vote, which many are.

That raises the question: Is Israel really as close to the U.S. as I suggest... 

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

Ordaining Women for the Rabbinate

A student at Rabba Sara Hurwitz’s Yeshiva Maharat (JTA)

Rabba Sara Hurwitz who is well educated in Jewish law is nonetheless a tragic figure. I believe her quest for equality for woman in the rabbinate is futile. It will never be broadly accepted among mainstream Orthodoxy.

I have no doubt she would reject that notion - and likely condemn it. But I say it with no malice in my heart. Only with sympathy for someone seeking to break a glass ceiling in Judaism that in my view - ought not be broken. She reflects a broader trend in which even observant Jewish women are drawn - by the spirit of the times - to roles historically reserved for men, roles Jewish women did not pursue prior to 20th-century feminism.

Properly understood, feminism—equal pay for equal work and equal dignity - was a positive development. But when feminism became an end in itself, it began challenging long-standing Jewish norms, including clearly defined religious roles, and at times even Halacha itself.

Judaism is not a democracy. It is a system of obligations based on law and tradition. One cannot claim observance while selectively redefining its rules or roles. These are rooted in the Torah as interpreted across generations by its sages.

The priesthood illustrates this well. It is not based on merit, but lineage. Only male descendants of Aharon were designated for that role, by Divine command. No amount of scholarship or piety can change that.

The modern rabbinate is not biblical, but it emerges from an earlier tradition that was. Today, ordination requires years of Torah study and mastery of halachic texts. Yet women have historically been excluded from this role, in part due to the halachic concept of serarah, which restricts certain forms of authority over men.

One may debate its fairness—but it remains Halacha. Workarounds offered in modern times do not alter that reality, which is why the OU and RCA reject women as rabbis, regardless of alternate titles like Rabba or Maharat.

There are practical concerns as well... 

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

Settler Violence and Their Apologists

image and caption from Rationalist Judaism 

I was unaware of an incident in the West Bank until I read about it in Rationalist Judaism. In my view, it is nearly as dangerous to the welfare of the Jewish people as the surge of antisemitism around the world today. And that is saying a lot.

There was yet another attack by extremist settlers against a Palestinian village whose residents had done nothing wrong. Settlers set fire to a clinic in one village, along with cars and property in another.

I am tired of the apologists who defend them. Or claim they are a minority too small to make an issue of. These are Jewish terrorists – plain and simple. The claim that they are merely a handful of unhinged teenagers who do not represent the broader settler movement is no longer credible. While most Jews living in Judea and Samaria surely abhor such behavior, the perpetrators are clearly more than just a negligible fringe.

Their religious motivation echoes that of the radical Islamists who rule Iran. In both cases, they believe they are acting against enemies of God. The scale is different—settler extremists are not mass murderers—but the underlying mindset is disturbingly similar. That said, there was one glaring exception: Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 massacred Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs. In both cases, these misguided religious fanatics believe that eradicating enemies from land they see as divinely promised - is a Kiddush Hashem. (Or, in their parlance, Allah’s will).

The ‘small minority’ argument no longer persuades me. These extremists are the ideological heirs of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who preached a religious imperative to claim all of biblical Israel and to either expel or subjugate Palestinians. He managed to gain enough support to win a seat in the Knesset and threatened to gain more until his party, Kach, was banned for racism. Yet today his ideological heir, Itamar Ben-Gvir sits in the Knesset, with his party, Otzma Yehudit, holding 6 seats in the governing coalition.

Israelis of just about all pollical persuasions condemn these acts. What troubles me is the persistent minimization of the problem by the right, as if it were isolated, when it is clearly not. Equally troubling is the political climate that allows it to continue. Some responsibility should clearly be placed on Ben-Gvir. He may not direct these attacks. But he has defended those who perpetrated them. And his rhetoric helps feed the mindset behind them.I was unaware of an incident in the West Bank until I read about it in Rationalist Judaism. In my view, it is nearly as dangerous to the welfare of the Jewish people as the surge of antisemitism around the world today. And that is saying a lot.

There was yet another attack by extremist settlers against a Palestinian village whose residents had done nothing wrong. Settlers set fire to a clinic in one village, along with cars and property in another.

I am tired of the apologists who defend them. Or claim they are a minority too small to make an issue of. These are Jewish terrorists – plain and simple. The claim that they are merely a handful of unhinged teenagers who do not represent the broader settler movement is no longer credible. While most Jews living in Judea and Samaria surely abhor such behavior, the perpetrators are clearly more than just a negligible fringe.

Their religious motivation echoes that of the radical Islamists who rule Iran. In both cases, they believe they are acting against enemies of God. The scale is different—settler extremists are not mass murderers—but the underlying mindset is disturbingly similar. That said, there was one glaring exception: Dr. Baruch Goldstein, who in 1994 massacred Muslim worshippers at the Cave of the Patriarchs. In both cases, these misguided religious fanatics believe that eradicating enemies from land they see as divinely promised - is a Kiddush Hashem. (Or, in their parlance, Allah’s will).

The ‘small minority’ argument no longer persuades me. These extremists are the ideological heirs of Rabbi Meir Kahane, who preached a religious imperative to claim all of biblical Israel and to either expel or subjugate Palestinians. He managed to gain enough support to win a seat in the Knesset and threatened to gain more until his party, Kach, was banned for racism. Yet today his ideological heir, Itamar Ben-Gvir sits in the Knesset, with his party, Otzma Yehudit, holding 6 seats in the governing coalition.

Israelis of just about all pollical persuasions condemn these acts. What troubles me is the persistent minimization of the problem by the right, as if it were isolated, when it is clearly not. Equally troubling is the political climate that allows it to continue...

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

Saving American Jewry

Over 70% of non Orthodox Jews marry out of the faith

I have noted in the not-too-distant past that the non-Orthodox Jewish world—at least those concerned with Jewish continuity—has come to recognize a critical truth: the key to survival is Jewish education.

For Orthodox Jews, this is hardly a revelation. We have long understood that without serious Jewish education, our future is in jeopardy. The huge and  growing number of non-Orthodox Jews abandoning Judaism only reinforces that reality.

That troubling trend has prompted heterodox leaders to search for solutions. But reversing a decades-long drift away from Judaism is no simple task. Many of the proposed remedies, while well-intentioned, feel more aspirational than actionable.

Acknowledging the importance of education - something clearly demonstrated by the success of Orthodox day schools - is one thing. Replicating that success across the broader American Jewish landscape is quite another. And despite sincere efforts, heterodoxy has largely fallen short.

The clearest example is the decline of the Solomon Schechter school system, once seen as the crown jewel of Conservative Jewish education. Today, it is a shadow of its former self. Even in New York City, home to the largest Jewish population in the country.

The reasons are not hard to identify. Day school tuition that emphasizes academic excellence is prohibitively expensive, especially when public education is free. And for many non-Orthodox families, academic excellence takes precedence over religious commitment.

But the challenge runs deeper than cost or curriculum... 

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

We Have No Choice - Iran Must Go!

Iranian missile hits a Charedi neighborhood in Arad (VIN)

It hurts! Every time one of my people is injured or killed as a result of an Iranian missile or drone attack, it feels like a dagger piercing my heart. I cannot begin to describe the sadness and empathy I feel for their families. The physical and emotional pain suffered by the injured - and by the families of both the wounded and the dead - is unimaginable. And that doesn’t even take into account those who have been displaced after losing their homes, or the trauma felt by an entire nation living in constant fear that they may be next.

No one wants this war to end omre than I do. And yet… and yet…

As much pain as Iran is able to inflict on my people—and even on the world—there is no way this war can end with Iran retaining even the slightest ability to rebuild. Worse still would be allowing a return to their uranium enrichment program, which experts estimate is no more a couple of weeks away from enriching to weapons grade level and no more than six months away from producing an actual nuclear weapon.

Iran has shown its true colors during this war. To claim that it is merely responding defensively to an American-Israeli attack would be laughable - if the stakes weren’t so high. What they have demonstrated is a willingness to lash out broadly, even sending missiles into neighboring Muslim countries. Just yesterday, it was revealed that they possess missiles capable of reaching distances far greater than previously believed—nearly reaching a US military base in Europe. That they missed only shows that accuracy has yet to be perfected. Given time, that will surely change.

It is no secret that the version of Islam governing Iran is a radical one, in which executing dissidents is seen as a religious obligation. This is a regime that exterminated tens of thousands of its own unarmed citizens during past protests. When such a regime promises ‘death to America’  and ‘death to Israel’, believe them! That is their ultimate goal. And once they believe they have the means to achieve it, they will try. Starting with Israel and eventually targeting the United States.

There is no doubt in my mind that this rogue nation must be defeated. What makes them especially dangerous is their unwavering resolve to fight to the end, regardless of how weakened they become. They will continue launching missiles and bomb laden drones for as long as they are able—and those drones are cheap and easy to produce.

The world cannot afford to let such a regime survive. Whatever it takes.

Even if it means boots on the ground.

I do not say this lightly. American blood is not cheap...

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

Why Do They Hate Us?

Influential antisemites - Tlaib and Taylor Greene

We live in perilous times. Not since pre-Holocaust Europe have the Jewish people been portrayed in such negative ways as they are now—even among the American public. What percentage of Americans feel this way is unclear, but one thing seems certain: what was once a broadly positive view of the Jewish people has been tainted. How severely—and Ihow permanently—remains to be seen.

This helps explain the rise in antisemitism during Israel’s war in Gaza, now accelerated by the conflict with Iran. A convergence of factors has created the impression that the Jewish state is acting contrary to the values of a just and moral people - when in fact the opposite is true.

The United States is as politically divided as ever. The so-called ‘moral majority’ has diminished, while progressive values have significantly shaped the American ethos. Many Americans have absorbed these values without fully considering their tension with traditional biblical ones. While a substantial segment still holds those traditional beliefs, they are no longer dominant - if they ever were. Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle, influenced by a largely progressive media landscape.

Progressives, broadly speaking, are not allies on this issue. Many align with the BDS movement, viewing Israel as a colonial state that displaced Palestinians and created an apartheid system. While most Americans do not fully embrace that view, many are influenced by it.

Israel’s reputation was already vulnerable before October 7^th, which briefly generated sympathy and quickly faded.

The war in Gaza further reshaped perceptions through a steady stream of images showing death, destruction, and displacement—often framed as deliberate Israeli policy. Media reliance on Palestinian sources, combined with condemnations from a hostile UN, helped fuel war crimes accusations by the ICJ against Israel’s leadership. That resulted in some European leaders and Canada saying they would arrest Prime Minister Netanyahu if he entered their countries.

Separating Israel’s prime minister from the broader public is largely a fiction. The war effort has had support not only from his coalition but also from much of the political opposition. In any case Americans don’t make distinctions between Israel’s prime minister and Israel itself.

Then came an unexpected shift: prominent conservative voices began echoing progressive rhetoric about Israel—and, by extension, the Jewish people. Terms like ‘genocide’ began appearing on both sides of the political divide...

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

Orthodox Jews and Evangelical Christians

Jewish Influencers - partnering with Christian Infuencers?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Joe Kent Is No Hero. Not Even Slightly.

Joe Kent testifying before the House Committee on Homeland Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The US-Israeli strategy against Iran is working

Iranian leader killed by Israel today

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

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

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

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

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

With a subheading that read:

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

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

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

He begins by acknowledging the following:

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

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

But this narrative is wrong...

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

 

The Soft Antisemitism of Selective Facts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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