The “Two-State Solution” Dream

What a Palestinian state might look like

Jay Michaelson’s views tend toward the political left. But there are people whose political views are so far to the left, that they make his views sound centrist by comparison.

That’s what I noticed in his recent Forward op-ed. Therein, he makes some interesting points about what the future holds with respect to Israelis and Palestinians. Which actually make sense and at the same time, don’t. Confusing as that may sound, that is the reality in which Israel lives right now.

Michaelson correctly notes that there are two diametrically opposed political factions that have the same view about what the political solution to the conflict between these two peoples should be: a one-state solution. But their visions of how that state would be governed could not be further apart.

On the one he makes the following observation:

Clearly, many on the left still want to reverse 1948, to remove the “settler-colonialist Zionist entity” from the land and return control of it to its indigenous Palestinian inhabitants.

It is from this perspective that they support what they consider a rational compromise. Israel would cease to be a Jewish state. The two peoples would combine into a single democratic, binational, secular state, with full rights granted equally to Jewish and Palestinian citizens. One might call this the “Mamdani option.”

And then he describes the single-state version of the extreme right:

One state from the river to the sea, only this state is an ethno-nationalist, non-democratic Greater Israel built on repression and minority rule.

I would quibble with including the word “repression” of Palestinians as part of their ideology. And I do not think the rest of his description is fair or accurate. “

Sociocide of Gaza”? An “elimination project”? While there are surely some extremists who think that way, I believe they are outliers. I don’t think the policies of the right go that far. I do think, however, that implementation of their vision could devolve into repression, given the violent history between the two peoples.

I otherwise agree that they have ethno-nationalist, non-democratic Greater Israel goals.

Ideologically, the extreme right-wing vision for a future Israel is based on the Kahane model: a Jewish state where Palestinians would willingly be subject to Israeli law and granted civil rights equally with Jewish citizens. But they would not have any political rights other than in their own municipalities. Palestinians unwilling to agree would be expelled from the country.

Michaelson correctly notes that both versions are extremist pipe dreams that will never happen.

A two-state solution would give each side some of what they want, but certainly not all of what they want. An imperfect solution. But “the perfect” is the enemy of “the good”. If agreed to and implemented – a two state solution makes eminent sense. It would lead to peaceful coexistence and freedom for all. No more wars. No more bloodshed.

But Michaelson ignores the 300-pound gorilla in the room…

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

Orthodoxy and Reform Judaism

Damaged window at a Reform synagogue in Jerusalem (Jerusalem Post)

One of the most damaging movements in the history of Judaism is Reform Judaism. This movement rejected the core essence of what Judaism is about, which is adherence to the word of God as presented in the Torah and interpreted by the sages throughout history.

The founders of this movement decided that adherence to the laws of the Torah was no longer necessary, as they were designed to make us a moral and ethical people. And 'knowing' that, plus the fact that we now live in the era of enlightenment, we could now dispense with the rituals themselves.

The fallacy of that reasoning has become evident in more recent times. Reform rabbis now embrace many of those rituals at least on a voluntary level, knowing that without them, there is no difference between Jews and Gentiles at all, and thereby, Judaism becomes totally meaningless.

Hindsight is always 20/20. The damage is done. Jews who had been enticed by the Enlightenment - which opened doors previously closed - started abandoning the “adhesive” that kept us together as a people. And now they had rabbis who created a movement which gave them a ‘religious’ cover for doing so.

Generations of Jews were raised with this mentality, and we are now witnessing what is perhaps the greatest exodus of Jews from Judaism in modern times. Jews, through no fault of their own, lack the education to understand what Judaism is all about and therefore see no reason at all to identify as Jewish. In fact, they may see it only in negative terms: Why expose oneself to the antisemitism that identifying as a Jew entails? To what end? Reform rabbis and oher heterodox rabbis are scrambling - trying to figure out ways to make Judiasm more meaningful to their members who have nothing in the way of their identiy or lifestyles that differentiate them from non Jews with similar values.

In an effort to remain relevant, Reform Judaism now seeks recognition in Israel as a legitimate form of Judaism. Claiming that the majority of Israelis are secular and would find a more comfortable home in their denomination.

The idea of welcoming a movement that is, in large part, responsible for the attrition of so many Jews away from Judaism does not sit well with me. The argument about pluralism doesn’t resonate with me, considering the negative fallout of the Jewish state legitimizing a movement whose history has caused so much damage to its people.

Just wanted to explain where I’m coming from before I continue.

Just because Reform Judaism has resulted in the above-mentioned negative consequences, that does not mean we treat them like despised enemies. And should certainly not result in what happened on Rosh Hashanah to a Reform synagogue in Israel…

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

Profile Pictures of Women

Picture for illustration purposes (TOI)

I had to laugh. With the current literal crusade by the Charedi world against publishing pictures of women - comes the following Facebook post about the world of Shiduchim.

In this world a Shadchan (matchmaker) will suggest a date to the parents of a young person seeking to get married. After some due diligence in researching the character of the suggested date, they will suggest it to their dating child. This is how most of the Yeshiva world dates for purposes of getting married.

Emes Ve-Emunah is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Chochmat Nashim is the name of an Orthodox Jewish organization located in the Ramat Bet Shemesh area. They advocate for women’s rights in the Orthodox Jewish community. I receive regular messages from their Facebook page. One of the more recent of these was about an initiative that I found quite disturbing, although I’m sure it is well intended.

There is a community-wide effort to improve the prospects of marriage for young single girls. This is indeed a noble cause that everyone should be involved with to the extent that they are able.

What was disturbing was not the sincere effort to help these young women. It was the way they are going about it. The suggestion was to improve the already existing file of profile pictures of these young women have. Which I assume are shown to prospective dates. As the poster noted, the whole concept of profile pictures as a means of improving one’s marriage prospects sends the wrong message. It suggests that it is more important to ‘look good’ than to be good. At least as far as getting married is concerned.

Young men in the world of Yeshivos are trained not to look at externals. Rightly so. An individual’s character is what really matters: what they can contribute to a family in terms of a loving relationship, earning a living, and raising children with good values. The last thing a young man should consider is how his future wife looks.

A lot of women therefore rightly object to the entire concept of showing pictures of themselves to prospective males suitors. The idea of a young man looking at a picture of a prospective date seems like the wrong way to evaluate whether she will be a good wife and mother—a kind and giving individual who cares about others and will be a loving partner in marriage.

I don’t believe women look for those kinds of values when they consider dating. I don’t think there is anything remotely resembling “profile pictures” of men.

It is demeaning for women to be presented like a “meat market,” where the buyer can check out how the product looks before taking a chance on dating her. That makes for a terrible competition between women. Every woman on that list will want to outdo all the other women on the list and present herself as the most physically attarctive woman among those featured.

Which ends up meaning that the men who ask to see those pictures will choose a date based on the picture, leaving all those other, far more important attributes on the back burner, if they think about them at all.

This is not how one should choose a life partner. The most important considerations have to do with a person’s character, not with how they look.

And yet human nature does not always follow the most rational and sensible course of action. Looks are about physical attraction. If one is not physically attracted to a woman he considers making his lifelong partner, she can have all the altruism of a Mother Teresa and he will not want to date her…

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

The Two State Solution

Israel cannot live side by side with this

When it comes to Israel, one thing the Left seems particularly certain about is its insistence on a Palestinian state. That insistence has gained more currency than ever. It is shared by many - perhaps even most - Democrats in Congress, including Jewish Democrats, as well as Canada, the UK, and many Western European nations. It is also widely promoted by “respected” columnists like Thomas Friedman of the New York Times.

To that end, the UK has just issued what can best be described as one of its strongest sanctions against Israel, banning any products produced there., regardless of how long ago those communities were established or how peaceful their inhabitants are - and always have been.

The hubris of claiming the moral high ground on this issue is breathtaking. It effectively treats hundreds of thousands of long-term, peaceful Israeli residents as if they were terrorists simply because they live in communities labeled “settlements.” The word itself has increasingly become a pejorative, sometimes almost a euphemism for “terrorist.”

And, of course, the blame is placed on the current Israeli right-wing government. As if any other Israeli government would necessarily dismantle these communities.

I’m not sure whether this myopia is deliberate or simply the result of ignorance. But if I had to guess, I would say history plays a role. Western Europe has a long history of antisemitism, and some of the attitudes we are seeing today are disturbingly reminiscent of that history.

They are now being expressed under the guise of sympathy for the “oppressed” Palestinians, who are supposedly suffering “apartheid” under a cruel Israeli occupation. They may as well have said “Jewish” instead of Israeli - even if those making the accusation would NEVER admit it.

Thing is, they are not wrong in theory.

The idea of a two-state solution, in which Jews and Palestinians live side by side peacefully and cooperate for the betterment of both communities, is an ideal solution to what seems like an ageless and endless conflict that has caused enormous bloodshed on both sides.

What about the mitzvah of settling all the Land of Israel?

Eventually, that time will come in the Messianic era. Until then, we have to find a way to end the bloodshed and live in peace with one another. Arab and Jew alike.

“The devil,” however, (to quote Ross Perot) “is in the details.”

A two-state solution is virtually impossible under current conditions, no matter how much some of us might want it in theory.

The reality is that there is deep-seated hostility toward Israel and Zionism in significant segments of the Arab and Muslim world. That hostility is particularly strong among Islamist movements and among Palestinian Arabs exposed to many decades of anti-Israel and antisemitic indoctrination. Indoctrination that is generational.

That does not mean that every Muslim or Palestinian shares those views. Clearly, there are Muslims and Palestinians who would prefer to live peacefully alongside a Jewish state. But Hamas, Hezbollah, and other Iranian proxies have repeatedly demonstrated that they do not accept that vision. They have the means and determination to prevent it, as demonstrated by countless terrorist attacks against Israeli civilians, culminating in the worst terrorist attack since the Holocaust on October 7, 2023.

Muslims deeply committed to Islamist ideology view the very existence of a Jewish state as religiously unacceptable – a contradiction to their theology. Is there really any question that this is a goal of the Iranian regime and its proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah?

Their claim that they simply want to be liberated from Israeli “occupation” is grist for the mill of the Left, which often buys that argument hook, line, and sinker. But the record suggests that Hamas and other Jihadist organizations have no genuine interest in a two-state solution. For them, Palestinian statehood is instead one step toward the elimination of Israel altogether.

That is why, even after Gaza was handed over to Palestinian control in 2005, Hamas took over and immediately began building an infrastructure designed to attack Israel. It built terror tunnels, accumulated enormous quantities of weapons and munitions, and organized attacks against Israeli civilians—all with funding and support from Iran.

Hamas, Hezbollah, and other like-minded jihadist groups speak of “freeing Palestine” from its Jewish occupiers, but their actions have provided little evidence that they are prepared to accept the permanent existence of a Jewish state and live alongside it in peace.

That is the fundamental problem.

Yet the “altruists” among Western Europeans, Canadians, Democrats, and liberal journalists “KNOW” that the answer is a two-state solution. And they are willing to boycott or pressure any Israeli government that does not embrace it…

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

A Welcome Change

Dr. Nechumi Yaffe (TOI)

I am truly excited about developments in the Charedi world, although I am not yet ready to celebrate.

According to the polls, the new Charedi party, HaTzibur HaCharedi, has not yet crossed the threshold needed to be included in the Knesset, which is about 150,000 votes. But at the last count, I believe they were at approximately 100,000. What this tells me is that there are a substantial number of Charedim who actually do feel an obligation to serve their country.

They also seem to agree that getting a decent secular education is a positive thing. Something that will help lift their community out of the poverty so many of them experience because of the lack of such an education. Which would better prepare them for the workplace. (An education available to women but not men.)

Religious Charedi schools that teach secular subjects already exist. But they are few and far between and are frowned upon by the mainstream. Those Charedim who send their children to schools like that are generally looked down upon, with some considering those schools’ religious teachings to be a watered-down version of the schools that offer only Torah studies.

It appears that things are changing, if the polls are right, I suspect that the numbers might even be higher once Charedi voters with those inclinations are in the privacy of the voting booth. A Charedi voter who may not want his vote in favor of the party to become public.

None of this is new. I’ve discussed it before. What is new, however, is the following, as reported by the Times of Israel:

For the first time in Israel’s history, an ultra-Orthodox political party on Monday selected a woman to run on its Knesset slate for the upcoming election.

The newly formed Charedi Public party, chaired by Moti Leitner, announced that Dr. Nechumi Yaffe, an ultra-Orthodox political psychology researcher, has joined the party, a day before the deadline for parties to submit their final candidate lists to the Central Elections Committee.

In a statement, the Charedi Public said Yaffe has worked with Harvard University on a research project focused on the ultra-Orthodox community and is a senior faculty member and researcher at Tel Aviv University.

What an amazing turnaround from the typical stuff you hear about the Charedi world in Israel. We now have a party that reflects a more diverse view of Charedi life and includes a large number of Charedim that believe in a more balanced way of life.

Much the same is true of the Charedi world in the U.S. There is a lot more diversity among Charedim here than there is in Israel. So even though the Charedi world here is moving in a rightward direction, it is not doing so as monolithically as does the Charedi world in Israel.

There seems to be a significant backlash among Charedim in Israel that may yet produce the grassroots changes that many of us are hoping for.

That being said, I’m sure that the mainstream Charedi leadership in Israel rejects this new party and probably doesn’t even consider it Charedi…

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

How Quickly We Forget

A lot of people are talking about 9/11 - the 25th anniversary of which is only a few days away. One of the lessons I have learned from 9/11 is just how quickly people forget.

Not that anyone old enough to remember could ever forget what happened that day. But many people have forgotten who did it—and why.

There was a moment of national unity when Americans seemed to understand that radical Islam represented a movement so determined to carry out its religious mission that its adherents were willing to go to the greatest lengths imaginable to succeed - including sacrificing their own lives. That was precisely the thinking of the terrorists who carried out the attacks of 9/11.

It was a carefully planned and executed mission to strike at “the Great Satan”—the United States of America—whose values and culture were considered anathema to radical Islam. And among those values was America’s support for the “Little Satan,” Israel.

I remember thinking at the time, “Finally!”

Finally, Americans would be awakened by this mass murder perpetrated in the name of Islam to what Israelis had already understood for years. And for one brief moment, there really was a sense of national unity on that issue.

But to my great dismay, it did not last long.

On the very day of the attack, the late Peter Jennings, then the anchor of ABC News and someone whose sympathies toward the Palestinian cause were well known, asked the question, “Why do they hate us?” It did not take long for the discussion to turn toward an explanation that American support for Israel was at least partly responsible.

A few weeks later, I recall a woman who was a family member of one of the victims saying that she did not blame Islam for what had happened. There was, she argued, a larger picture that had to be considered in order to understand why the attack took place.

In essence, she was rejecting the notion that this was an attack inspired by Islamic ideology.

Today, even using the phrase “Islamic terrorism” is considered by some to be racist—as though 9/11 had nothing to do with Islam.

Then came October 7, 2023.

Israel had its own version of 9/11.

Once again, there was a moment of unity. Everyone, it seemed, understood that a fanatic Islamic organization – Hamas - had carried out a horrific massacre of Israeli civilians. The sympathy expressed by most Americans was genuine.

But once again, it did not last.

In relatively short order, UN Secretary-General António Guterres declared that the attack “did not happen in a vacuum.” That comment watered down the horrific nature of the October 7 massacre by assigning some of the blame to the victim, Israel.

Now Israel’s response of declaring war against Hamas - is routinely described as “genocide” by large numbers of people, mostly on the political left, although some on the far right use the same language…

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

A Satmar Request of the President

Official White House Photo (Rationalist Judaism)

I know the argument. Satmar Chasidim are among the most generous segments of Jewry in the world. Their acts of kindness know no bounds when it comes to providing aid and comfort to the sick.

Their Bikur Cholim Society is legendary for providing meals to hospital patients and their visiting families, as well as providing any other conceivable need that might arise under those trying circumstances. They also have a general reputation for kindness to fellow Jews regardless of their level of observance. If a Jew is in need, they are there. No questions asked

I am not here to dispute any of that. It’s all true. But I am here to say that, despite all of these amazing acts of kindness, I have nothing but contempt for their leadership, starting with their founder, whom they venerate with near-sainthood status.

The original Satmar Rebbe was Rabbi Yoel Teitelbaum. His view on the State of Israel is similar to the view of Hamas. In both cases, there is a religious belief that the State of Israel has no right to exist. And if it were in their power, they would dismantle it.

I hasten to add that there are entirely different religious reasons for this position. And that Satmar is not a terrorist organization that believes in perpetrating violence against anyone, much less the kind of terror perpetrated by Hamas. Satmar Chasidim would not harm a fly. But their goals are the same.

The founding rabbi of Religious Zionism, Rav Avraham Yitzchak HaKohen Kook, was referred to by the original Satmar Rebbe as an Ish Tzar V’Oyev in his published work, Divrei Yoel (131). A description used by Scripture to describe the “Hitler” of his day, Haman.

It doesn’t matter to me how “holy” the Satmar Rebbe is perceived to have been in his lifetime, or how extensive his Torah knowledge was. When he attacks the founder of a religious movement simply because he interprets passages in the Gemara differently than he did, I lose all respect for him and his brand of Chasidism.

The fact that his current followers venerate him and display such tremendous kindness to all of Klal Yisrael does not wash away their antipathy toward the State of Israel. An antipathy that is the basis of Neturei Karta’s open embrace of the Palestinian cause, join them in public protest. Neturei Karta’s publicly stated goal to dismantle the State of Israel and give it to Palestinians.

That Satmar’s views do not go as far as Neturei Karta and do not include the use of violence is kind of like saying that Tucker Carlson’s views about Israel and the Jewish people have nothing to do with the increase in antisemitism and its attendant violence…

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

A Mixed Bag - The legacy of Gloria Steinem

A feminist icon died yesterday at age 92. Gloria Steinem was the face of the 1960s era Women’s Liberation Movement—as feminism was called back then.

Contrary to popular belief, Steinem was not Jewish. Her mother was a Protestant Christian. Steinem was raised with little to no religion at all, according to an article in the Forward.

Although she was an icon to the feminist world, she has a mixed legacy. Her approach to men and women can be summed up by one of her most famous quotes:

“A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”

What a sad approach to the male female relationship. Be that as it may, her contributions to American culture were monumental.

On the plus side, she championed many of the same values I champion. Her goal was to open doors for women that had, up until that time, been closed to them for no apparent reason other than, “That’s just the way things are.”

Women were traditionally homemakers, wives, and mothers. Men “brought home the bacon.” The negative fallout from that was that many educational opportunities were - if not completely closed to women - severely limited. Men were given priority, especially in careers that required higher education and professional degrees. And even if women managed to obtain a professional degree, they often found it much harder to get jobs.

To paraphrase the motto of the United Negro College Fund, “A woman’s mind is a terrible thing to waste.”

Feminist pioneers like Gloria Steinem changed everything. If I recall correctly, there are now more women enrolled in medical school than men.

Today, women can be found everywhere men can be found: in the arts, sciences, law, medicine, academia, and even the trades. But we still have a long way to go before Steinem’s goal of equal pay for equal work is achieved. That is still an unconscionable social injustice. If a woman does exactly the same work as a man, she should receive the same pay.

That being said, there is a downside to feminism. And it’s a big one…

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

An Analysis of the President

The president addressing the Israeli Knesset last year

I have of late been rather supportive of the president’s policies, mostly because of all the positive things he has done for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. But that does not mean I have abandoned my values in other areas where the president has been a huge disappointment.

One has to see the good and the bad in everything. No one is all good or all bad. When someone does bad things, they need to be called out. By the same token, when they do good things, they need to be recognized for them.

One thing that should not happen is seeing any individual through one set of lenses, whether all good or all bad. There needs to be an honest evaluation of everything anyone does, and they should be judged accordingly. Unfortunately that is not how most people view the president. It seems that far too many people either think he’s just about perfect or the essence of pure evil.

That’s just plain wrong. It is with this in mind that I have decided to make clear my own views.

Sometimes I just have to shake my head in disbelief at some of the terrible things the president does or has done. The worst of these is pardoning all the January 6 insurrectionists, including the violent, racist, and antisemitic ones.

There is no excuse for that whatsoever. Nor is there any evidence to support his claim that the 2020 election was rigged, which he not only insists upon - but makes sure his appointees express the same views. Or at least do not contradict them.

His narcissism has caused him to destroy the East Wing of the White House and to threaten to demolish the Kennedy Center. And he has done stupid things like renaming the Gulf of Mexico and Lake Ontario, calling them the Gulf of America and Lake America.

His tariffs are inflationary and have caused undue hardship to American companies that have to import items vital to their businesses at increased cost – passing on at least some of those costs to the consumer.

The idea of building a copycat arch similar to the Arc de Triomphe in France will add nothing to Arlington National Cemetery. And in fact, will be an eyesore. The idea of putting his name everywhere he can think of is beyond mere narcissism. It is sick.

His tendency toward vindictiveness and revenge against people he considers his enemies knows no bounds.

His demeanor in the Oval Office, along with his vulgarity, is unbecoming of a man who is supposed to be the leader of the free world and an example for American youth to follow.

These are just some of the problems I have with him off the top of my head.

And yet, even with all that (and more) he has accrued to his legacy, I do not believe the president is as self-centered as he appears. I believe there is an altruistic side to him, despite the conventional wisdom that he does not care about anyone but himself and his own self-aggrandizement. Even though that is surely a big part of his modus operandi.

I don’t think there has ever been a president who has been more favorable to Jewish interests than the president has been, in a variety of ways…

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

Is There Light at the End of the Tunnel?

Three Charedi recruits interviewed by Arutz Sheva

There are two stories in the news today that tell you exactly what the reality of Charedim serving in the military is all about. The news is both good and bad. But combined with the new Charedi party, HaTzibbur HaCharedi, led by Beit Shemesh Deputy Mayor Moty Leitner, who is himself Charedi) I’m beginning to think that there is a real chance for change in the Charedi world. A change that would come about at the grassroots level.

That being said, there is still the hard-core opposition to army service by the Charedi leadership. Which has spawned violent demonstrations by extremist factions of the Charedi world in Jerusalem.

But there is indeed, it seems, a quiet revolution taking place at the grassroots level that may eventually lead to government policy that would once and for all end the conflict between Charedim on the one hand and secular and non-Charedi religious Jews (Datiim) on the other.

It would begin - or perhaps it has already begun - with a military program catered to Charedi sensitivities, combined with a cohort of Charedi Jews who feel the moral need to share the military burden with the rest of the country.

One story in Arutz Sheva reports the following:

New haredi recruits arrived at the Tel Hashomer induction center accompanied by family members. Israel National News - Arutz Sheva spoke with them about their excitement and concerns, amid a small protest against enlistment by members of the Jerusalem Faction.

One recruit described his long journey toward enlistment: “I’m very excited. I’ve been waiting for this for a long time and worked very hard for it.” He said the process required him to leave his comfort zone, but added, “I think this is where I belong.”

Family members also expressed their excitement. One father said, “It’s a very moving morning. I was privileged to bring my firstborn son and entrust him to the IDF,” noting that some haredim are enlisting and even choosing combat service.

I am heartened to see this attitude on the part of mainstream Charedim. My guess is that there are more than a few families like this one who, as of yet, fear the consequences of expressing a positive attitude about army service - much less actually enlisting in it.

But yet, we have not yet reached the stage where Charedim can feel comfortable that all their religious needs will be met. That is the concern expressed in another Arutz Sheva article, with the following subtitle:

Friends of 15 Rotem Battalion soldiers jailed for ten days say clash involving female paramedic was part of ongoing tensions with their commanders, including a training exercise scheduled for Shabbat.

If anything can spoil the future of Charedi enlistment in the IDF, this is it…

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