The Need for Regime Change in Iran

Radical Islam was once outlawed in Iran. Before the 1979 Iranian revolution fanatic religious leaders were jailed or exiled despite their popularity with many of the devout in that country. A monarchy led by a Shah that was racing quickly into the 20^th century. Embracing western culture and moving away from its primitive roots. To the delight of most of its freedom loving citizens.

It was also a nation at peace with the State of Israel; an exchange of ambassadors; and well-established air travel between the two.

But the Shah had been accused by human rights activists of jailing, torturing, and otherwise mistreating dissidents, particularly religious dissidents like the late Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, an icon of the devout Shia Muslims in Iran. Khomeini was exiled and ended up in France. Preaching to the devout from there via recordings. Religious lectures sent to the devout surreptitiously.

The year was 1979. Then President Jimmy Carter expressed his concern to his Iranian ally, the Shah, about the human rights violations. The Shah was forced to loosen the reins, and the stage was set for revolution.

That is exactly what happened.

The Shah fled the country, and after a feeble attempt at democracy, Radical Islamists took over. 

Resenting America’s support for the Shah, they took Americans working at the U.S. embassy there hostage and held them for over a year!

Khomeini returned to Iran as the conquering hero of the fledgling regime, now known as the Islamic Republic of Iran. After 444 days in captivity, the hostages were finally released. By then, the new Iran had been firmly established, with a new elite military group, the IRGC, consisting of devout Shia Muslims who were highly trained and motivated to fight for the radical version of Islam their new country now adhered to.

Iran had gone from a pro-West monarchy and friendly relations with Israel to an anti-American, anti-Israel nation that makes the Shah’s intolerance of dissidents look mild by comparison.

Iran is now feared by much of the civilized world. Its devotion to radical Islam includes an IRGC motivated by martyrdom as a religious obligation. Fueled by belief in be great heavenly reward. 

Feared also is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons; the development of a ballistic missile system that can deliver them to Europe; (and given enough time will surely develop the capability to reach the U.S. mainland) and their spread of terrorism around the globe.

Iran’s religious fanaticism has not hesitated to express continued hatred for the U.S. and its values - as well as hatred of the Jewish state, whose very existence contradicts their religious doctrine. They view Israel an illegitimate colonial entity and Judaism as a false religion. Both of which impede Islam of its religious destiny to rule the entire region. Which is why they have been  arming proxy militias surrounding Israel.

Thankfully, Israel has been able to demolish or degrade - either directly or indirectly - many of those proxies to the point of near impotence...

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. 

A Unifying Proposal

The riots at the Western Wall  - Western Wall Heritage Foundation  (A7)

My views about heterodox movements in Judaism are well known to my readers. I do not believe they are a legitimate representation of Judaism. (Why that is the case is beyond the scope of this post.) I just wanted to make clear where I am coming from on the issue of the egalitarian space at the Kotel.

The truth is that the Kotel did not have separate sections pre-state under the British Mandate. Men and women can be seen praying together in pre-state archival pictures of the Kotel. Men and women do not need a mechitza to pray - even with a minyan - unless they are in a shul.

So why separate them at the Kotel?

First, because one could argue that sections of the Kotel have essentially become shuls, with an Aron Kodesh and a bimah in several places there permanently.

Second, because of the huge crowds that can often congregate there, rabbinic authorities thought it wise to separate the sexes for purposes of simple modesty. That is the status quo, and it has been that way for almost 60 years.

Heterodoxy never requires separation of the sexes during prayer. They allow men and women to pray together in their synagogues and temples. They demanded that their traditions be honored at the Kotel when they pray there. A demand fought vigorously by Orthodoxy.

Long story short, in order to preserve the status quo Orthodox nature of the Kotel, an agreement was reached whereby another section could be used by them for purposes of mixed-gender prayer.

That situation has remained the same and had pretty much kept the peace for a while.

The problem was that it was never developed into a user-friendly area. Ultimately the Reform movement brought the issue before Israel’s Supreme Court. And as JTA reports, the following happened:

Israel’s highest court has delivered a unanimous rebuke to state and municipal authorities over long-stalled plans to upgrade the Western Wall’s egalitarian prayer section, intensifying a dispute that has come to symbolize broader tensions over religious pluralism in Israel.

In a decision issued Thursday, an expanded seven-justice panel of the High Court of Justice ordered the national government and the Jerusalem Municipality to move forward with building permits needed for repairs and infrastructure improvements at the Ezrat Israel prayer platform, the area designated for mixed-gender and non-Orthodox worship south of the main Western Wall plaza.

This ruling brought an angry response from Israel’s Heritage Minister, Rabbi Amichai Eliyahu - a far-right member of Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit party. Eliyahu excoriated the justices who ruled in favor of the Reform movement - and the Reform movement itself - for promoting an egalitarian issue during a time of war, when Jewish soldiers were losing life and limb on the battlefield. Instead of expressing sympathy and support, he accused them of expressing scorn and defaming the IDF, reserving sympathy only for Palestinians in Gaza. And now, to put it the way Eliyahu does, demanding a prize for it at the Western Wall.

To say the least, I am no fan of Eliyahu’s party...

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 Erosion of the Torah World

I am not anti-Charedi. Far from it. This might be hard to believe based on my many - one might say copious - posts criticizing them. But I am here to declare that I do not, in any way, harbor animosity toward the Charedi community. My issues are with whom they perceive to be the rabbinic leadership and their acolytes in the Knesset.

Unfortunately, the nature of this community is to treat that leadership with such reverence that disagreeing with them is considered to be derogatory to the Torah itself. So when these leaders speak in absolutist terms, the Charedi world listens silently and follows their lead. Often parroting their arguments.

Now, I fully support the ideal of studying Torah full-time for those capable of doing so—especially those who excel at it. Even though I disagree with the idea of full-time study for everyone regardless of their capabilities, I understand and respect the Charedi ideal that one should sublimate and direct their talents first and foremost into Torah study.

In theory, their opposition to military service is in service of that ideal. At the same time, however, I believe that most Charedim neither believe in nor participate in violent protest in order to achieve that goal. Furthermore, I think many understand that something isn’t quite right about universal Charedi exemption from military service. Even as they publicly support it.

There is some evidence of this. Which can be seen in the increase - albeit small - in Charedi enlistment into the IDF after October 7^th. But that group remains a tiny minority and hardly registers as a percentage of the whole community.

There are additional indicators that are somewhat more significant. Mishpacha Magazine is one example. There have been more than a few editorials and op-eds supporting the Charedi leadership’s position on conscription. But reading between the lines, one can detect occasional but subtle criticism of that stance.

Ironically, a recent letter to Mishpacha written by someone identifying himself as “M.K.” criticized Jonathan’s column from the previous week about the violent protests in Bnei Brak. Yet in doing so, he implicitly acknowledged the truth of its claims, even as he extolled the virtues of MK Pindrus’s op-ed in that same issue about the ‘war’ against Torah via the Charedi draft issue.

But perhaps no one has had his finger on the pulse of the Charedi world more perceptively than Tzarich Iyun editor, Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer. Rabbi Pfeffer is a Charedi intellectual who shares the community’s ideals and values. In a lengthy essay, he describes what the Charedi world was like when he studied at the Mir as an Avreich, and he contrasts the religious leadership of that time with today’s...

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. 

A Shabbos Table Without the Mother

Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation ad in Mishpacha

This image is exactly why the refusal to publish pictures of women is so upsetting to me. Not that it is the only reason, or even the most important one. But for me, this is personal.

This picture, depicting what appears to be a Shabbos table where the father is happily engaging his two sons, is glaring in its omission—and outrageous in its message, even though I am 100% certain that this was not the message intended.

The message conveyed is that there need be no mother at a Shabbos table. She may as well be on Mars for all the two children and their father seem to care. They are perfectly happy enjoying the warm glow of a Friday night seudah without the presence of their mother. In place of the mother? An empty chair.

This picture was a full-page ad in Mishpacha Magazine by the Chofetz Chaim Heritage Foundation (CCHF), advertising a program called ‘Aderaba’. Which a program that promises ‘connection, positivity, and meaningful conversation’ at your Shabbos table via a weekly newsletter. It’s apparently yours for the asking.

I don’t really know that much about this organization, but by its name I assume they focus on disabusing people of lashon hara - commonly understood as gossip about others for no constructive purpose. Although it is far more complex than that, this is the basic understanding. I believe the organization also encourages the development of additional positive character traits to promote peaceful relations between husband and wife -  and among fellow Jews generally. I am fairly certain it is endorsed by right-wing rabbinic leadership, such as Agudah’s Moetzes.

To the best of my knowledge, this is a fine organization that should otherwise be supported by everyone. I don’t know whether it has a policy opposing the publication of pictures of women. It is quite possible that, when submitting the ad to Mishpacha, they were simply bowing to the magazine’s modesty rules against it.

Either way, the idea of enjoying a Shabbos table without the presence of a mother is so foreign to me that when I saw it, I thought: How could they do that? How could they not include the ekeres habayis - the foundation of a Jewish home in this picture? In what way would that be a violation of modesty...

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 Kind of Antisemitism that Worries Me the Most

Mike Huckabee and Tucker Carlson

Honestly? It’s becoming a bit confusing. What should the Jewish people do about antisemitism? A variety of opinions have been expressed. Some of which contradict each other.

Clearly, antisemitism has spiked considerably since October 7. Most of it seems to be handled fairly well by Jewish advocacy groups like the Anti-Defamation League and by law enforcement. Of course, we could use a lot more of the latter. But it is not for lack of concern or willingness to defend us. It is probably a question of whether there are enough law enforcement officers to handle it. Not because of anti-Jewish bias.

What concerns me most, though, is the antisemitism being spread by influential political commentators and other public figures who use their Christianity to make their case. The fact that they invoke their religion is what makes this so troubling.

Tablet editor Liel Leibovitz expresses this concern well. The following is excerpted from 'Letter to a Catholic Friend.:

“I’m a Catholic,” Carrie Prejean Boller, the now-former member of the White House Religious Liberty Commission, thundered as she took the mic at a hearing last week, “and Catholics do not embrace Zionism, just so you know.”

Boller then proceeded to grill each member of the committee on whether they considered criticism of Israel to be antisemitic, showing little interest in their considered and nuanced responses and repeatedly accusing Israel of genocide. She also used her time in the limelight to defend her friend and fellow Catholic convert Candace Owens, arguing that the popular podcaster was “not an antisemite. She just doesn’t support Zionism.”

That would be the same Owens who called Judaism a “pedophile-centric religion”; argued that Jews believed in incest and child rape “as sacramental rites”; urged her listeners to read a text by the German antisemite August Rohling accusing Jews of drinking Christian blood; called Judaism “the synagogue of Satan”; and claimed that Jews were behind every great evil, from the slave trade to the assassination of John F. Kennedy.

Then there is Tucker Carlson, who flew to Ben Gurion Airport to interview U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee. Here is what happened there.

Carlson had barely wrapped the interview before the two were already disagreeing on a basic fact.

Carlson, the influential conservative commentator, flew to Tel Aviv to conduct the interview at Ben Gurion Airport, departing hours later without leaving the airport. Before leaving, he told the British tabloid Daily Mail that Israeli authorities confiscated his passport, dragged his executive producer into an interrogation room, “and then demanded to know what we spoke to Ambassador Huckabee about.”

Not so, says the ambassador. What Carlson’s team experienced was simply a routine security measure.

“Everyone who comes in or out of Israel (every country for that matter) has passports checked and is routinely asked security questions,” Huckabee wrote on X, refuting his former Fox News colleague before their conversation could go live.

So here you have three influential conservatives whose goal appears to be to disabuse fellow conservatives of their support for Israel - based, at least in part, on their Catholic beliefs.

Adding fuel to the fire the following as Leibovitz notes:

…above all this, the actions and words of America’s most prominent Catholic today have become so important—and so troubling. One morally clear statement could disempower this entire emerging false idol. Instead, he seems to be doing the opposite.

I am not so quick to condemn Vice President JD Vance as an antisemite, closet or otherwise. He has, in fact, condemned antisemitism on more than one occasion. But at the same time, he risks undermining the very movement he so strongly believes in - the conservative movement that gave him the opportunity to be where he is now.

As a recently converted Catholic, his religion formally rejects the kind of antisemitism being spread by his friend. Doesn’t he realize how much damage this does to the party? Does he really believe there is room for this kind of antisemitism in it? Does he think the vast majority of evangelical Christians - who view Israel as a strong ally and the Jewish people as worthy of blessing - will tolerate the kind of rhetoric being promoted?

And where are his own ethics here...

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 IDF and Women in Combat

I have never been a fan of women in the military with respect to joining men in any kind of combat role in the military. Not because I don’t think they can do the job. Although I do question the notion that women generally have the same upper-body strength as men. They do not. Which can place them at a disadvantage. I am, however, sure that many women can do the job well enough to qualify. Especially if the standards for qualifying have been lowered to accommodate those differences. (Which is, after all, what equity is about - but I digress.)

My objection is based on the nature of human sexuality. To deny that there is physical attraction between the sexes is to deny nature. Placing men and women together under intimate circumstances is, in my view, an invitation to sexual activity—some of it consensual and some of it not. The latter of which is one reason I am opposed to integrating women with men even in the U.S. Army. It isn’t rocket science to understand why there has been an increase in sexual harassment and abuse in the military since women were integrated into it.

To argue that men ought to better control themselves, or that the military ought to have stricter policies about sexual abuse, does not negate the argument that there would likely be far less abuse if men and women were not integrated in the first place. A policy driven, in part, by the equity demands of modern-day feminism. But again - I digress.

If one is a religious Jew, one must avoid - NOT only situations of harassment and abuse, but even situations of consensual intimacy outside of marriage. Sexual intimacy outside of marriage is forbidden by Jewish law and, in certain cases, constitutes an Issur Kareis - a very severe biblical penalty that includes premature death at the hands of Heaven. (Why that is the case is beyond the scope of this post.)

In Israel, this issue affects many religious IDF soldiers. The close contact between men and women - combined with the nature of human sexual attraction, especially at the young age at which most IDF soldiers serve creates a serious risk of violating Halacha.

True, every Jew must exercise willpower to avoid temptation in matters that violate Halacha. But to be deliberately placed in an environment that may require extraordinary restraint to resist what is natural is asking a lot. The temptation to succumb to nature can be overwhelming and could easily overpower the inclination to resist.

The obvious solution, from my perspective, is not to place men and women together in the first place.

But Israel’s left wing -  eager to present the country as the most enlightened  and progressive in the world - has elevated feminism to the highest of pedestals. That means men and women must serve together in all areas of the military. Any limitation, it is argued, would be sexist because it would deny women opportunities that men automatically get.

What about honoring Halacha...

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. 

Dogs, Muslims, and Randy Fine

Florida Representative, Randy Fine (JTA)

We need all the pro-Israel members of Congress we can get. There are far too many who are openly hostile to Israel and many more whose support is tepid. Most (though not all) Democrats. 

Sadly, some of those Democrats are Jewish - at least by birth, if not in practice. There are also reliable anti-Israel Republicans. Among them Thomas Massie and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Thankfully, neither is running for reelection.

And then there is Florida Representative Randy Fine. He is probably one of the most pro-Israel Republicans in the House. Unfortunately, he seems to be increasingly becoming the “Ben-Gvir” of the House.

I am loath to criticize someone whose support for the Jewish state is as strong as Randy Fine’s. But it may well be that the price of that support is too high. For example, what he tweeted last Sunday, as reported by JTA:

“If they force us to choose, the choice between dogs and Muslims is not a difficult one.”

The comment implied that he would choose dogs over Muslims if forced to decide who should be allowed into this country. His explanation - that he was responding to a tweet from the leader of a radical pro-Palestinian activist group - doesn’t help much. The comment was wrong. It was anti-Muslim and hurtful. Not all Muslims that come to America are terrorists. Many are decent people who simply want to live their lives in peace and pursue the American dream.

It didn’t take long for even moderate pro-Israel Democrats in Congress to condemn him in harsh terms. For example:

The Jewish Democratic Council of America called Fine’s remarks “a disgrace to Congress, an affront to everything America stands for, and antithetical to Jewish values,” and urged Congress to censure him. Democratic Majority for Israel, which works to strengthen support for Israel among Democrats, called the remarks “vile and indefensible.”

Moderate Jewish Democrats, including Senator Jacky Rosen and Representative Dan Goldman, also blasted Fine for his comments.“

This disgusting and dehumanizing rhetoric is unbecoming of any American—especially a Member of Congress,” Rosen tweeted.

There was much more from Democrats in that vein.

I actually agree with them... 

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. 

A Perfect Storm

An overturned police car in Bnei Brak (TVJ)

Yes, they are exceptions. Most of the Charedi world is nothing like them. But there are in fact a lot of exceptions. And they populate a variety of neighborhoods in Israel. From Bnei Brak, to Meah Shearim, to Ramat Beit Shemesh. All of which have had similar incidents. Many of them. They all have one thing in common with the Charedi rioters who attacked two female IDF soldiers in Bnei Brak. They are bottom feeders -  the absolute scum of the earth. There is no other way to describe them.

What they did has been widely reported, far beyond the Jewish media. Here is one brief excerpt describing what happened:

Two young Israel Defense Forces soldiers visited a private home. What began as a routine visit spiraled into a violent confrontation between extremist rioters and the police. The two servicewomen were chased through the streets by hundreds of men. Footage circulating on social media shows them running through narrow streets under police escort, pursued by a swelling mob…

The atmosphere quickly devolved from verbal hostility into outright violence. Rioters overturned trash bins, set fire to a police motorcycle, and even toppled a police vehicle. One officer was reportedly wounded. The sense of lawlessness that enveloped the neighborhood recalled earlier flashpoints of unrest that have periodically flared in ultra-Orthodox enclaves during moments of acute tension with state authorities.

For what it’s worth, these reprobates were universally condemned by all factions of the Israeli government, including the Charedi parties.

Condemnation is a good start. But it is far from enough.

One has to examine the underlying causes of such behavior...

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. 

An Appalling Op-ed by a Charedi MK

MK Rabbi Yitzchak Pindrus (Ynet)

I can’t help it. I should be used to the myopic, self-centered attitude of Charedi leadership and their Askanim (Charedi Knesset members). But I’m not. Whenever I read an op-ed by one of them on the subject of drafting Charedim into the IDF or their insistence on no secular education, I nearly recoil with disgust. It happened again over Shabbos as I read a guest op-ed in Mishpacha by UTJ’s Rabbi Yitzchak Pindrus.

The scary thing is that he probably believes every word he says. In this case, that amounts to a conspiracy theory: a coalition of Israeli institutions whose goal is to destroy the Torah world. Only now, with unprecedented zeal and determination. As though the State of Israel is more anti-Torah than at any other time in its history.

When in fact, it is more than obvious that the opposite is true. There is more Torah study now in Israel than at any other time in Jewish history!

Some excerpts from the op-ed:

It is no secret that the chareidi community in Eretz Yisrael is facing one of the most severe challenges it has known since the founding of the state. Incitement and polarization have become routine, economic measures are increasingly wielded as political weapons, and pressure on those devoted to Torah study is no longer applied indirectly: It is systematic.

In the Knesset, we work toward one clear objective, guided by the gedolei Yisrael in this struggle for the soul of the state: securing the status of Torah scholars, who have served as the spiritual shield of the Jewish People in every generation.

This is no longer a technical debate over enlistment targets or budgetary clauses. It is a struggle over legitimacy itself: the legitimacy of a Torah-observant community to exist in Eretz Yisrael on its own terms… What we are witnessing is not spontaneous hostility, but a calculated and well-orchestrated campaign… a coordinated mechanism that operates as a strategic pipeline: manipulated data is produced, amplified, legitimized, and ultimately translated into policy. Each stage reinforces the next, creating a closed loop that tightens pressure around the chareidi home under the cover of professionalism and objectivity.

Rabbi Pindrus goes on to describe in detail why he believes this to be the case. I’m sure he sees it exactly as he tells it. And suggests that more must be done to counter this alleged campaign.

He may not intend violence to be part of that mission, but the urgency with which he frames his argument could easily be interpreted that way. After all, when fighting for one’s very existence, one must do whatever it takes to survive.

What is beyond belief is that he does not seem to care why the rest of Israel is so upset - even angry - at the Charedi world. He has to know about the sacrifices being made by the rest of the Israeli population. It isn’t a secret. How is it possible that he sees only enemies and not the blood, sweat, and tears so many of his own people have endured? Some of whom are just as devout as he is! How is it possible that he does not have the kind of deep compassion shown by Rav Asher Weiss when he visited a hospitalized IDF soldier who had lost two legs and an arm in battle?

Nothing. Not a word. It’s all about the ‘war against the Torah’.

The key to his willful blindness is actually mentioned in the body of his message: ‘guided by the gedolei Yisrael’.

The only possible explanation for his inability to see beyond his community’s narrow interests is his leadership’s refusal to speak about anything else. They sees what is happening as an existential threat. Not only to themselves, but to the soul of Israel. If Charedim don’t get their way, Israel will lose its soul. The corollary is that it will no longer be a Jewish state and perhaps no longer deserve to survive.

The kind of high-level Torah study done in Charedi Yeshivos and Kollels is therefore portrayed as necessary for Israel’s very existence. A level of Torah study not done anywhere else.

This ignores the many Religious Zionist Yeshivos where high-level Torah study also takes place - fully supported by the supposedly ‘anti-Torah’ government.

For the sake of argument, let us concede that the Charedi Yeshiva world does contain Torah study at levels that surpass even the best of the Religious Zionist Yeshivos...

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. 

Playing the Holocaust Card

US Rep. Becca Balint questioning AG Pam Bondi at the Epstein hearing (TOI)

The world is on fire, and we are still talking about Jeffrey Epstein. A nation whose sworn allegiance is to a militant version of Islam that seeks to impose Sharia law over all the nations of the world. A nation that was on the verge of becoming a nuclear power - and still determined to become one. A nation that had exported terror across the region to Islamist proxies surrounding Israel whose aim its destruction and the annihilation of the nearly seven million Jews that inhabit it.

The US military is currently poised to attack her if negotiations don’t work out. And yet certain politicians, pursuing their own agenda, want to know who Epstein had dinner with on a particular evening.

Their objective appears to be casting the president as some sort of co-conspirator sex trafficker with Epstein. They are convinced he was and will not give up until they find something. They don’t seem to care who gets hurt in the process. If a record shows that someone once had a conversation with Epstein, that ‘someone’ may as well hide under a rock for the rest of his life. He will be tainted forever, even if he did nothing wrong. How many more people will become collateral damage in the pursuit of presidential ‘dirt’?

This has nothing to do with the compassion we must all feel for all of Epstei many victims. They deserve justice. The question is: what does justice look like? I’m not sure that the objective of finding ‘dirt’ on the president is the kind of justice they are seeking, righteous indignation from those members of Congress notwithstanding.

That brings me to a shouting match between Vermont Representative Becca Balint and U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi during a House Judiciary Committee hearing on this subject a few days ago.

Representative Balint, a progressive Democrat, did her ‘due diligence’ in seeking dirt on the president by asking the attorney general whether the president had been aware of Howard Lutnick’s ties to Epstein when he was appointed commerce secretary. 

Did Epstein’s victims really believe justice would be served for them if Bondi answered that question? I doubt that the president’s knowledge of such matters had any impact on the justice they seek. Except perhaps for those equally antagonistic toward the president for political reasons.

Instead of answering what she viewed as a loaded question, Bondi changed the subject and accused Balint of being soft on antisemitism, saying…

“With this antisemitic culture right now, she voted against a resolution condemning ‘from the river to the sea,’” apparently referring to Balint’s April 2024 vote against a House resolution condemning the common pro-Palestinian slogan.

At that point, Balint played the ‘Holocaust card’ and angrily responded…

“Oh, do you want to go there, Attorney General? Do you want to go there? Are you serious? Talking about antisemitism to a woman who lost her grandfather in the Holocaust? Really? Really?”

Balint then stormed out of the room.

Nice theatrics. But it doesn’t fly with me.

My grandparents were killed in the Holocaust, too...

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.