What’s Wrong With This Picture?

There is something wrong with this picture. The picture I’m talking about is one that, on the surface, might seem quite clear.

It’s the incessant bombing by Israel of Hamas targets in Gaza, resulting in unintended but massive numbers of civilian casualties. That, along with gut-wrenching images in the media of hungry Palestinians groveling for handouts of limited food supplies, makes Israel appear guilty of the genocide its critics are accusing them of. While the mainstream media does not use the word genocide, it is clear who they blame for the death and starvation of so many ‘innocent’ civilians - most of whom, we are told, are women and children.

This is little more than a passive-aggressive way of demanding that Israel end its ‘genocidal’ war.

With these terrible images being broadcast in the mainstream media so frequently, it’s really hard to argue with the emotional reaction. Are these reactions not coming from sincere feelings of compassion?

The answer is yes. They are. People want the carnage to end. And since Israeli bombs are responsible for the destruction, it is logical for them to blame Israel.

But if that’s the case, then what is it that’s so wrong with this picture?

What’s wrong  - what makes me so angry - is that the people who are truly to blame are entirely off the hook for this crime against humanity.

Amid all the calls for Israel to cease fire, I’ve hardly heard any mainstream media figure suggest that the quickest way to end Palestinian casualties and starvation is to demand that Hamas release the hostages they kidnapped as part of the most horrific attack against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.

If Hamas were to do that, I am convinced that Prime Minister Netanyahu would end the war - if assurances could be made that Hamas would never again govern Gaza. Assurances that might be guaranteed through a coordinated effort by Israel’s Arab neighbors, many of whom have no love lost for Hamas either.

But among the ‘ceasefire’ crowd, demanding that Hamas release the hostages is never considered an option. Nope. Blame the Jews is what they always do. And by ‘they’ I mean the left and their willing accomplices in the media, as well as European allies like French President Emmanuel Macron, who pretends to be a friend of the Jewish people but has, from the outset, proven to be a much better friend of Hamas.

That Palestinians in Gaza don’t publicly blame Hamas for their suffering is not surprising. I think they must realize that what Hamas did on October 7^th is what precipitated all their unimaginable pain. But they are literally afraid to death to say it out loud.

But what about the Palestinians outside of Gaza? Like the Palestinian student protesters on campuses across the country? Do they not know that Hamas is holding hostages - and that releasing them could end the carnage?

Of course they know. But in most cases, they justify what Hamas did, letting all the blame fall upon the Jews, who they claim usurped their ancestral homeland - Palestine. You will never hear a single protester blame Hamas for the suffering of their ‘relatives’ in Gaza since October 7^th. Nope. For them - as for the left and our European allies - it’s all about blaming the Jews.

I would love to hear just one proponent of a ceasefire demand that the hostages be released as the path to peace. That should be the hue and cry of anyone with a conscience.

That their collective consciences see only the Jews as genocidal "Nazis," and refuse to even suggest that releasing the hostages would end the war more quickly and more justly, proves to me what I already know: that when it comes to the Jews, nothing has changed in over 2,000 years of persecution. The only thing that has changed is who is doing the persecuting - and why.

It used to be the domain of the Church, blaming the Jews for killing their god. Now it’s the Muslim world, for ‘stealing their land’.

Thankfully, a sizable number of people in this country have not fallen prey to the antisemitic bias that permeates so much of the world - and the American left. That sentiment is reflected mostly by conservative members of the Republican Party and a select few Democrats.

When I listen to the most articulate among them, they actually say the right things about who is to blame. Whether it’s Republican Senator Lindsey Graham or Democratic Senator John Fetterman, they saw what happened on October 7^th. They understand why there are so many civilian casualties and starvation in Gaza. They consistently blame Hamas and have called - not for Israel to cease fire - but for Hamas to release the hostages as the solution to ending the suffering.

I am thankful to live in a country where that sentiment is as mainstream as the one on the left. I’m also thankful that we have a President who has, thus far, not called for a ceasefire without the release of the hostages. Thankful as well that there is no daylight between Netanyahu and the president as his chief negotiator Steve Witkoff clearly and unambiguously stated today.

What happens next remains to be seen. Until then, if Hamas does not release the hostages, and Palestinians continue to blame Israel instead of Hamas for their suffering, then Gaza must face the consequences of Hamas’s actions.

Trump’s Vision for the Middle East

Trump at a Shul in the UAE (TOI)

It’s difficult if not impossible to predict what a mercurial figure like our President will do next and what he hopes to accomplish by doing it. But that has never stopped me.

I received an email from a frequent commentator (who chooses to remain anonymous) offering his own predictions of what Trump envisions as the future for the Middle East. Oddly enough, I don’t disagree with him that much. Here is a slightly edited version of what he said, followed by my comments after each segment:

(1) Within a few months, Trump will cut a deal with Iran. Iran will keep its nuclear enrichment facilities for what will be touted as civilian and industrial use, under the supposed supervision of the Saudis, other Gulf nations, and perhaps some European powers. Israel will be told it cannot attack these facilities or otherwise engage in warfare against Iran unless the Iranians directly attack Israel first. Iran will agree to ease off its support of terrorism in the region, in exchange for massive trade concessions.

Trump hates war - preferring to make a deal with the devil to avoid it. The devil in this case is Iran. I believe Trump’s uncompromising condition for a deal with Iran is that they must eliminate their entire nuclear program. If they want to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, they will have to import it. This deal will be accompanied by massive oversight from U.S. (and perhaps some European officials).

As Trump has said several times - including as recently as today - Iran has two options: make the deal, or get the ‘other option.’ And it won’t be good for them. They won’t like it. I assume the ‘other option’ will be an increased sanctions regime that will make the previous one look like paradise by comparison.

While Trump did not specifically mention that the deal must include halting arms shipments to proxy nations and militias, he has referenced this in the past. My hope is that it's still part of the plan.

There’s a remote possibility that if the increased sanctions don’t work, there could be a coordinated military attack by the U.S. and Israel to take out those facilities. But like I said - Trump hates war, especially a bloody one that such an attack would surely precipitate.

(2) Israel will be told it cannot proceed with its tentative plan to militarily occupy large parts of Gaza and force Gazans out. While Israel won’t be ordered to end the war immediately, the U.S. and Gulf states will begin shipping large amounts of food and medical supplies to Gaza under some kind of guarantee from Hamas and Qatar that these goods won’t be hijacked. Hamas will remain in Gaza, but its power will be reduced by Qatar and Iran.

I think this is largely correct. Trump sees a lot of people starving in Gaza and doesn’t like it. So, he’s going to send food and medical supplies.

Trump’s vision for Gaza is to make it a “Freedom Zone” that would permanently end the rule of any jihadist groups. He still believes the U.S. should oversee the rebuilding of Gaza, with Palestinians temporarily removed from the process. Once the rebuilding is complete, Palestinians would return and be governed by officials from wealthy Gulf states - at least until they can establish self-rule focused on their own welfare instead of trying to ‘restore all of Palestine.’

Is this feasible in the short term? I seriously doubt it. But that’s what Trump sees at the moment. What about Israel’s announced plans to reoccupy Gaza? As things stand now, I don’t see another option. But if a miracle happens and Trump gets his way, I’m absolutely convinced Israel will go along - regardless of who the prime minister is at the time.

(3) Trump will begin working with the Saudis and Qataris to create his envisioned “land of freedom” in Gaza. Housing and roads will be (slowly) rebuilt, infrastructure replaced, etc., with plans down the road to build hotels, spas, and resorts along the coast. Military units from the Gulf states will police the area and keep Hamas in check. Gazans will live there. West Bank Arabs will be invited to move there. Israelis will be kept out.

I basically agree with that.

(4) The Gaza “land of freedom” will not, at first, be operated by Gazans or Hamas. In time, however, it will be turned over to a hand-picked Gazan regime supported by the Saudis, Qataris, and other Gulf states. Gaza will thereby become a de facto Palestinian state.

I agree with that too. But a de facto Palestinian state? Maybe - if and only if Palestinians abandon the dream of reclaiming all of historic Palestine. That can only happen if they eliminate the anti-Jewish rhetoric and materials in their education system. I don’t see that happening for decades - if it happens at all.

(5) The Saudis and other Gulf states will become the most powerful in the region, with full support from the U.S. The Abraham Accords might finally flourish, but Israel’s influence will decline.

If money is power, then the Saudis and Gulf states are already the most powerful players in the region. As their financial investments in the US increase, so too does their strategic value

Will the Abraham Accords flourish? The dream of normalized relations with their neighbors has been part of Israel’s vision since its founding over 77 years ago. If Trump can make that happen, it will be a dream come true.

It seems even Syria is ready to play ball. Who would have thought that just one year ago? With sanctions removed and the president encouraging the new Syrian leadership to move in that direction (which he has hinted at doing), that would be a heck of an achievement in advancing that dream

I do not agree, however, that Israel’s influence will decline. Israel remains a major strategic asset to the United States. I don’t see that changing. It’s also not lost on the president that Israel has contributed mightily to global advancements in science, medicine, and technology. On that last point, he even suggested the U.S. copy Israel’s ‘Iron Dome’ missile defense system.

Trump has repeatedly praised Israel’s achievements both before and during his presidency. There’s every reason for the US to maintain strong ties with the Jewish state.

All in all, I’d say Trump still has Israel’s back. He’s never retreated from a position of full support. He’s just going about it in a very unconventional way. To ardent supporters of Israel who have been disappointed by recent comments – or the ‘snubbing’ of Israel during his just completed economic mission to the Middle East – my advice to them is as follows:

Chill. Just chill.  Give the guy a chance to do it his way. You never know. In the end, you might just like it.

An Oxymoron Called Progressive Judaism

Who knew? I never knew that there was a Jewish denomination called Liberal Judaism. I had always thought it was just a generic term for Jews whose political views defined their Judaism, and that Reform Judaism was the most representative expression of that type of Jew.

I’m not sure if Liberal Judaism is limited to the UK and doesn’t really exist in the US. If that’s the case, it would help explain why I was so clueless about it. Be that as it may, it’s apparently a major movement over there.

This morning, I was quickly disabused of my prior understanding by an article in The Jewish Chronicle, which reported that the two movements - Liberal and Reform - are soon expected to merge into a new denomination called Progressive Judaism. The stated reason for the merger—that the differences between the two are “vanishingly small” - is, ironically, yet another reason I never realized they were separate movements in the first place.

If this new movement weren’t such a tragic aberration from what Judaism is - and has been for over 2,000 years - I would almost find it laughable. The idea that engaging in gay sex or undergoing sex reassignment surgery should be celebrated as consistent with the defining values of Judaism, when the very document that defines our values, the Torah, considers them sinful - should make it obvious that these are not Jewish values. And yet, this is these are the kinds of things Progressive Judaism embraces.

They’ve also redefined who is a Jew on an entirely non-Halachic basis and encourage intermarried couples to raise their children Jewishly. Both policies contribute to a growing crisis of Jewish identity.

When people are told by religious leaders of a particular denomination that they are full-fledged Jews when, in fact, they are not recognized as such by the entirety of the Jewish world - the consequences can be tragic. Especially once they get married and children are involved.

Progressive Jews may think of themselves as the ‘loyal opposition’ to the Orthodox mainstream, but there’s nothing ‘loyal’ about it. The only thing they appear loyal to is progressive ideology, regardless of where it leads.

(Orthodox Jews who consider themselves ‘progressive’ might do well to reflect on where that road ultimately leads in terms of their own religious values.)

So why do I care what movements that are so far removed from traditional Judaism - do? People can believe and practice whatever they want. But don’t call it Judaism.

And yet, that is exactly what they do call it.

As The Jewish Chronicle notes:

If Progressive Judaism comes into being, it will become the largest Jewish denomination in the UK in terms of affiliated synagogues - about 80 congregations.

That should concern all of us.

While their roughly 30,000 members represent about a third of British synagogue-affiliated Jews, compared to the 36,000 who belong to the United Synagogue (which is Orthodox), we shouldn’t take comfort in our greater numbers. 30,000 people are a lot of Jews to potentially write off as lost to Judaism. Making matters worse, we have no way of knowing how many of those ‘Jews’ are in fact Jewish according to Halacha. Should any of them one day decide to ‘switch teams’ and become Orthodox, they may be shocked to learn they must first convert. Despite Jewish-sounding surname’s like Goldberg or Silverstein.

Not that I have the slightest idea what to do about our so-called ‘loyal opposition’. But knowledge is power. And there must be something we can do to increase outreach to our fellow Jews - lest they be lost to Judaism forever. That 30,000 of them care enough to at least identify as a Jew - even if they misunderstand what that identity really means - is a start. We need to build on that.

Antisemitic Countries, Jews, and Rabbis

HaRav Eckstein performs a bris in Antwerp (VIN)

Bnai Brith is a secular American Jewish social service organization whose name derives from the one feature common to all Jewish males: circumcision. Which is the means by which God made His covenant with the Jewish people. Beyond that, the organization has little, if anything, to do with our ultimate purpose on earth as God’s chosen people. Namely, to follow the will of God as expressed in His Torah.

Bnai Brith did not concern itself with whether its members were observant or which denomination of Judaism they belonged to. It simply assumed that every male Jew was circumcised - typically on the eighth day after birth. The procedure is usually performed by a mohel, a professional trained in both the medical and ritual aspects of circumcision.

A skilled mohel receives extensive training and oversight before being allowed to operate independently. By the time they’ve established a reputation, most mohalim have performed scores - if not hundreds - of circumcisions safely and effectively. (For the purposes of this post, I will not discuss Metzitzah B’Peh - a controversial element that many mohalim still practice.)

While pediatricians are medically qualified to perform circumcisions and often do so for non-Jews (many of whom choose circumcising their sons for the perceived health benefits), they (the pediatricians) will often concede that the procedure is best performed by a seasoned mohel. This is, after all, their singular focus, and they become experts in it.

I’ve even heard of non-Jewish parents specifically requesting Jewish mohalim to circumcise their sons - recognizing the advantage of a practitioner who has dedicated decades to perfecting the procedure.

But times have changed. Some medical professionals now claim that circumcision offers no significant health benefits beyond what proper hygiene can provide. Though other professionals dispute this, the point remains: circumcision is no longer universally viewed as a necessary health measure.

Worse yet, I recall many years ago when Rabbi Michael Sternfield - then the Reform rabbi at Sinai Temple in Chicago - forcefully condemned circumcision as a ‘barbaric ritual’ that has no place in the modern world. That stance would effectively eliminate circumcision as the defining criterion for Bnai Brith membership - a view that has evidently gained traction with some Jewish parents who have chosen not to circumcise their sons.

Rabbi Sternfield would likely approve of a recent news story reported by VIN:

Police in Antwerp raided the homes of prominent mohalim in the city’s Chareidi community, including HaRav Aharon Eckstein and HaRav Moshe Landau. The authorities confiscated their bris knives and demanded lists of children they had circumcised. All this despite the fact that no court ruling had yet been made.

According to witnesses, officers knocked on doors and declared, “Either you open up, or we break in.” These actions followed a lawsuit filed over a year ago by a Jew with a history of antagonizing Jewish communities across Europe.

In the past, such a raid would have been clearly labeled for what it was: antisemitic. But today, voices like Rabbi Sternfield’s would likely endorse such actions under the guise of modern ethics and child welfare.

To me, this event is a clear manifestation of the deeply rooted antisemitism still prevalent in Europe. And ironically, the most dangerous antisemite in this story may very well be the Jew who instigated it. Rabbi Sternfield and many others like him share that shameful distinction.

It is tragic when Jews - believing themselves to be progressive or enlightened - reject one of the Torah’s most fundamental Mitzvos. By doing so, they lend legitimacy to actions like the Antwerp raid. Officials can now claim they acted solely out of concern for child welfare, not out of animus toward Jews or Judaism. And now they can claim to have rabbis that back this up.

But I wonder: what is the survival rate of infants circumcised by mohalim compared to those circumcised by pediatricians? I suspect there’s little to no difference. If anything, I’d wager that experienced mohalim have a slight edge in outcomes due to their specialization.

I gave up long ago the naive belief that antisemitism is exclusively the domain of non-Jews. Some of the worst and most dangerous antisemites are Jews themselves. People who are either ignorant of their own heritage or who believe that Torah law is outdated, irrelevant, or even harmful according to modern ideas of morality and health.

The results of which can be plainly seen in this story.

What if Deri Makes Good on His Threat?

It is no secret that the unity of the Jewish people has become more elusive than ever. That this is happening even within Orthodoxy is not news. Although halachic observance should unite us to a far greater extent than it divides us, the animosity between Modern Orthodox Jews (Datim) and Charedim in Israel has never been greater.

The divisiveness doesn’t end there. Even the Charedim themselves can’t seem to unify under a single political party. There are now three separate Charedi factions in the Knesset - each with its own agenda.

However, the one issue that all Charedi parties seem to agree on is their iron-willed resistance to any form of military service. They are demanding that the Netanyahu government pass a law that would permanently exempt all Charedim from serving in the military. As they have done many times in the past, they are once again threatening to bring down the government if their demands are not met.

So far, they haven’t gotten what they want. In fact, the following was recently reported in Arutz Sheva:

The IDF has initiated an operation targeting individuals who failed to respond to draft notices. Military police have begun locating and detaining dozens of draft dodgers across the country, the army confirmed on Tuesday. The IDF stated that the operation is not only about enforcing enlistment but also about sending a strong message: draft evasion will carry real consequences. “A potential recruit who does not report for induction in accordance with the instructions of the summons he received is liable to face disciplinary or criminal sanctions,” the army said in a statement.

This development has been met with condemnation from Charedi parties, once again accompanied by threats to leave the government. As Aryeh Deri of Shas stated:

“The moment, God forbid, that even one incident occurs in which the military police enter a yeshiva or a house and arrest even one yeshiva student, at that moment, no matter the circumstances, Shas will not be able to remain in the government.”

Netanyahu, who desperately wants to stay in power and needs the Charedi parties to remain in the coalition in order to maintain minimum number of seats required, has promised to pass legislation that would grant the Charedi parties exactly what they want - full exemption from military service. So far, he has been unable to deliver. And now it appears the IDF may finally begin enforcing the existing law and holding violators accountable.

Whether the IDF will follow through remains to be seen. And if they do, it’s still uncertain whether the Charedi parties will carry out their threat to bring down the government. But if that scenario does play out, the implications for the entire country are significant.

My position on Charedi army service is well known. To put it briefly: I do not believe Charedim should be granted a blanket exemption. While I do believe exemptions should exist for some (how many can be worked out in negotiation), there are plenty who should be required to serve—just like every other segment of the population.

The reason I oppose blanket exemptions is the simple injustice of a system where an entire (very large and growing) segment is excused from the sacrifices and risks that the rest of the country is subject to. The unfairness of that should be obvious to anyone with a conscience.

I have to believe that deep down, Charedim know this. And yet they continue with their lives during a war as though nothing is happening. Their leadership, meanwhile, remains firm in their ideological opposition. An opposition that apparently supersedes any guilt they might otherwise feel about letting others do the suffering on their behalf.

What kind of ideology allows such a situation to persist? They claim they do not want their religious standards compromised by the culture of a secular army. I would put it another way: They cherish their Frumkeit. They want to preserve their Chumra-laden lifestyle and believe it is their religious obligation to do so. Even if others must do the dying for them. That there are other observant Jews who serve in the army doesn’t matter to them, because Charedim require a far stricter standard than those other religious and the IDF can’t provide that for them.

So strong is their conviction that they are willing to sacrifice their political power over it.

If that happens, the government will fall, and new elections will be called. Almost certainly, the Charedim will not be part of the next coalition government. One that is likely to have far more hostility toward them than the current government.

And if Charedim are upset now over the arrest of draft dodgers, well—you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

This is not good.

No matter how justified one feels in opposing the Charedi refusal to serve, it won’t matter to them. They have their own sense of injustice. Massive protests will block traffic. Ambulances will be delayed - costing lives and worsening illness. Burning dumpsters will create health hazards in affected neighborhoods. Clashes between Charedi protesters and police will escalate. Blood will be drawn.

There will also be more Charedim in prison than ever before. In the U.S., Charedi communities will hold massive rallies and prayer vigils in support of their Israeli brethren. Israel will grind to a halt, while the world watches ultra-Orthodox Jews behave like gangs of hooligans determined to bring their government to its knees. And they just might succeed.

All of this could be avoided with a little common sense and goodwill. But I fear that the leadership of the Charedi world has lost any semblance of common sense, believing instead that they are fighting God’s war.

And it seems there is nothing anyone can do about it. Where this will all lead - God only knows. 

Is Trump Still With Us?

There are a lot of people saying ‘I told you so’ right now about what appears to be President Trump’s cooling support for Israel. Some of it includes shocking reports of a complete reversal of policy on issues that once seemed sacred to him. The following, from the Timesof Israel, is one of the most egregious indications of that:

Citing an informed source who declined to be identified, Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds said the Saudi prince “looks forward to Trump’s agreement to the Saudi condition of establishing a Palestinian state.”

Does Trump now plan on recognizing a Palestinian state?

There are a few other signs that suggest a change of heart regarding Israel. For example, his unilateral deal with the Houthis - agreeing to stop attacking them in exchange for their commitment to stop attacking U.S. ships in the Red Sea. Thus effectively allowing them to continue attacking Israel, leaving Israel to fend for itself. Then there’s his current trip to the Middle East, which notably does not include a visit to Israel, America’s closest and most important ally in the region.

The fact that the U.S. is now dealing with Hamas without Israel’s participation is also troubling. As was Trump’s success in securing the release of the one hostage who is a U.S. citizen - leaving the rest behind. 

On top of all that, there’s the media chatter suggesting that Trump has grown frustrated with Netanyahu, disagrees with his goal of defeating Hamas completely, and now prefers a ceasefire. 

Then there’s his decision to reopen negotiations with Iran on a nuclear deal. Something Netanyahu once called a “colossal mistake” when Obama did it.

On the surface, these developments would seem troubling to supporters of Israel. Should we be worried?

Well, it’s never a good idea to be complacent about American support. But if you’re asking whether I think Trump is somehow abandoning Israel, my answer is pretty much the same now as it was before: I still believe Trump is the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

So how do I explain all the ‘negative noise’ coming from both right and left pundits (who seem to be agreeing)?

The answer is simple.

The left hates both Trump and Netanyahu and jumps on any negative news involving either of them. The shift they perceive in Trump’s policy aligns more closely with their own views. And they are more than happy to report friction between the two.

Meanwhile, the right sees even the slightest deviation from Trump’s previous stance as a betrayal. So ironically, both the right and the left are noting the same things, but for completely opposite reasons.

Still, the developments I listed and others like them do seem negative. So why do I remain confident in the President’s support?

Because I reject the conventional wisdom that Trump is only loyal to himself and will abandon Israel if it suits his purposes. There may be some truth to his narcissism. But his support for Israel goes back decades. Long before he ever dreamed of becoming president. That support was clearly manifested during his first term.

More importantly, I trust the people closest to him. To a man, they say Israel has never had a better friend in the White House than Donald Trump. I’ve read these declarations from two of his observant Jewish supporters many times. Jason Greenblatt and David Friedman’s support for Israel is unwavering:

They know him well and have never wavered from that opinion of their former boss. Then there’s his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, a supporter of Israel’s settler movement. If anyone thinks Kushner isn’t advising Trump behind the scenes on Middle East policy, they’re ignoring the very close relationship between them. Just because Kushner isn’t in government anymore doesn’t mean he isn’t influencing Trump on an issue so close to his heart.

To say Trump has turned on Israel would be like saying he turned on his own son-in-law. Not to mention his daughter.

And frankly, I don’t see these moves as negative for Israel at all. I see them as positive for America - which is what Trump cares most about. His constantly stated approach to governance is ‘America First’. His tactics on these issues are designed to produce quick, tangible results for America.

Take the Houthis deal, for example. His goal was to stop their attacks against American ships in the Red Sea. He achieved that quickly. Had he insisted that they also stop attacking Israel, he might not have gotten the deal. Certainly not as quickly. But he never told Israel to stop their own operations against the Houthis. As far as I know, he still supports Israel’s actions there 100%.

What about the rumor of a reversal on a Palestinian state? I trust Ambassador Huckabee’s take on the president’s policy far more than a report by Al-Quds. As noted by Ynet:

U.S. Ambassador to Israel dismisses as 'nonsense' rumors of Trump recognizing a Palestinian state during his Gulf visit, as his envoy Steve Witkoff assembles a high-profile team to shape post-war Gaza policy.

He added that his four-year-old grandson is a more reliable source than Al-Quds.

And then there's Trump’s decision to negotiate with Iran instead of launching a military operation with Israel to destroy their nuclear capabilities. Is that really a betrayal?

Not if it includes Iran’s complete dismantling of its nuclear program, a halt to supplying weapons to its proxies, and strict, verifiable enforcement of it all. If Trump can secure that outcome through negotiation, why wouldn’t we prefer that to a war with them?

If Iran refuses, I believe Trump will double down on sanctions until they come begging. And if that doesn’t work, I wouldn’t be surprised if he orders a joint attack with Israel on their nuclear facilities. That’s not an anti-Israel policy. That’s about as pro-Israel as it gets.

In short, I don’t necessarily believe all the recent foreign policy changes being reported are even true. And of those that are, they may not be negative at all. Just different tactics to achieve the same result.

The result I hope to see is the return of all the remaining hostages, an end to all terrorist attacks, and a lasting peace for everyone in the region.

What that will ultimately look like is impossible to predict. And it may even be impossible to achieve.  But - love him or hate him - I remain confident that Trump’s commitment to Israel has not changed.

Yeshiva University Does the Right Thing

Yeshiva University Wilf campus in Washington Heights (JTA)

Yeshiva University did the only thing an Orthodox institution could do with respect to a club that violated the terms of the agreement they made with the school.. As reported by the New York Jewish Week:

"Yeshiva University has revoked its recognition of a campus LGBTQ+ club just two months after approving it. The Modern Orthodox flagship is alleging that the club, Hareni, breached the terms of the settlement agreement that allowed for its formation."

In this case, ‘alleging’ is the wrong word. The club did violate the agreement:

The co-presidents of Hareni, Hayley Goldberg and Schneur Friedman, wrote an op-ed in the YU Observer explaining the club’s aims. They added:

“What we will not be doing as a club is writing the egregious statement, ‘This club is for students who seek to fully maintain traditional halachic standards of sexual morality as defined by the Shulchan Aruch,’ on our posters and communications.”

The Shulchan Aruch is not a book of suggestions. It is our code of Jewish law. This refusal is not a minor detail. It’s a fundamental rejection of the terms of their agreement with YU.

I had previously responded to this statement, urging YU to take exactly the action it has now taken. As the Roshei Yeshiva have noted, there is no place in a yeshiva for a club that refuses to clearly commit to ‘fully maintain traditional halachic standards of sexual morality as defined by the Shulchan Aruch’. A club cannot possibly receive the Yeshiva’s imprimatur or be counted among its officially sanctioned clubs.

I also agree with the recent sentiments strongly expressed by Rav Mayer Twersky, Rosh Yeshiva at YU:

"When a lawsuit is brought to force Y.U. to allow self-identifying LGBTQ students and their allies to form a club, prudence and pragmatism should be non-factors in determining our response. Identification with the LGBTQ acronym entails identification with a heretical, nihilistic philosophy which champions and celebrates all forms of sexual deviance in a Nimrodian, brazen defiance of הקב"ה. We must unconditionally reject their demands and can never settle. Whether this position seems practical is irrelevant. We stand uncompromisingly firm because that is who we are, that is what we believe."

My total rejection of an LGBTQ movement that celebrates a lifestyle fundamentally at odds with Halacha should surprise no one. But some may wonder where all my compassion and empathy for individuals with same-sex attraction (SSA) or gender dysphoria has gone.

The answer is: it hasn't gone anywhere. I have always drawn a clear line between what Halacha demands and what empathy entails. Halacha rejects any lifestyle that proudly defies it. There should be no more pride in being gay than there is in being a kleptomaniac. The fact that someone may struggle psychologically with certain urges does not mean those urges should be celebrated.

At the same time, I fully reject treating people with these challenges as pariahs or pushing them out of the religious community. We must show compassion to those who struggle with desires that go against Halacha. We must empathize with the pain they feel when they are ridiculed or excluded by others, especially when they are sincerely trying to live religious lives. We must condemn those who treat them with cruelty or disregard their humanity.

But their acceptance into our community must be based on their commitment to Halachic standards. If they refuse to uphold these standards, or if they insist on celebrating lifestyles that contradict them, then compassion is no longer the issue. They are, in effect, advocating rebellion against the Torah.

If someone is a truly God-fearing Jew, they will accept the dictates of the Torah, no matter how difficult. And let’s be honest: the sex drive is a powerful force in human nature. It takes enormous willpower and courage to live with those urges and yet resist them for a lifetime. That’s where our empathy must focus. If someone must remain celibate, that’s a huge burden to carry. But it is not impossible. Many people live celibate lives by choice. One of them was just elected Pope.

I recall many years ago when a popular mechanech (educator) came out of the closet. At the same time, he publicly affirmed his commitment to Torah and his decision to remain celibate. To the best of my knowledge, to this day he continues teaching Torah to young students.

I also recall another case where a married man with children came out as gay. He struggled deeply, but after consulting a compassionate rabbi and coming out to a very understanding wife, he remained in his marriage. He shared how much he valued his family, and that he does not regret his choice. To the best of my knowledge, he remains happily married.

Is it hard to be gay and live fully according to the Torah? Absolutely. But if you believe in God and His Torah, then ultimately you have no choice. Pride in a lifestyle that contradicts the Torah has no place in a religious Jewish framework. Instead, anyone who seeks to be part of a yeshiva community must commit to “fully maintain traditional halachic standards of sexual morality as defined by the Shulchan Aruch.”

Is He Good for the Jews?

Pope Leo XIV (JTA)

He’s a White Sox fan. Not that it makes any difference what baseball team an American by the name of Bob Prevost - now Pope Leo - once rooted for. No more than it makes a difference that - L’Havdil - Rav Chaim Pinchas Scheinberg was once a Yankees fan.

But identifying a detail from a leader’s past that reflects the everyday person tends to make the faithful feel closer to that leader. Not that either of those two religious figures sought to be identified that way. Certainly not Rav Scheinberg.

Be that as it may, the fact that the Catholic Church has a new leader might seem like something Jews need not concern themselves with. What difference, after all, does it make how the leader of another religion guides his flock?

The answer is that in that respect, it may not make any difference at all. But we ignore that leadership change at our own peril.

Christianity was once more unified under a single leader - the Pope. Eventually, the Church splintered, giving rise to multiple Protestant denominations. Roman Catholicism is what remained of the original Church. It retained all its doctrines and traditions, including the election by the College of Cardinals of an infallible leader known as the Pope. (For the purposes of this discussion, I’m not addressing the earlier split that led to the Eastern Orthodox Church.)

This man - the Pope - holds influence over a billion and a half Catholics worldwide. Because of the doctrine of papal infallibility, his opinions are regarded by the faithful as near-Gospel.

Even for those who are neither Catholic nor Christian, the Pope is seen as a man of great piety and wisdom on matters beyond religion. He holds the power to reshape centuries-old doctrine. This was exemplified by Vatican II, when Pope Paul VI honored the wishes of his predecessor, Pope John XXIII. Vatican II declared that Jews today cannot be held responsible for the death of their god over 2,000 years ago. It also formally abandoned the idea of supersessionism - the belief that Christianity had replaced Judaism. Instead it now recognized Judaism as a brother religion from which Christianity was born.

Two thousand years of Christian persecution, pogroms, inquisitions, and, ultimately, the Holocaust, finally ended as a matter of religious doctrine. With few exceptions, most Christians today no longer view Jews as the killers of their god. Instead, they see us as spiritual kin. This shift is preached from the pulpits. Again, with a few holdout priests refusing to accept Vatican II. All because the ‘infallible’ Pope told them this is what they must now believe.

This is not to say the Pope’s word is accepted universally or without question. But his influence is vast, extending far beyond the walls of the Vatican or even the Catholic Church.

Which brings us to Pope Leo XIV. We need to care about how he feels about Israel and the Jewish people. We need to know where he stands on the Hamas massacre of Jews on October 7^th , the war in Gaza, the Israeli hostages, the Palestinian casualties, and the two-state solution.

As of now, we know virtually nothing about Pope Leo’s views on any of these issues. That hasn’t stopped the pundits from speculating.

His predecessor, Pope Francis, began his papacy with strong ties to the Jewish community. But near the end, his progressive focus on global suffering led him to emphasize the plight of the Palestinians, while largely ignoring the suffering of Israeli hostages and their families, or the toll on Israeli soldiers fighting to protect their people. His relationship with the Jewish community soured as a result.

That was particularly disappointing. But Pope Leo was raised in Chicago - a city with a large Jewish population. Which pundits say enabled him to personally interact with us. But that is unlikely. He grew up on the South Side, where few Jews – if any – lived. And his missionary work in Peru offered no exposure to the small Jewish community there. His life’s work was focused on serving the poor of Peru

As far as anyone knows, Pope Leo has never publicly expressed views on issues of concern to the Jewish people. But there are, however, a couple of hints about what his views might be. Each pointing in the opposite direction.

On the positive side, Jewish Insider reports:

"Prevost… studied at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago under John T. Pawlikowski, a formative leader in Catholic-Jewish relations, who has described his former pupil as 'a very open-minded person.'"

Pawlikowski was indeed a friend of the Jewish people. His biography states:

"John has been an active participant in Christian-Jewish dialogue and wider interfaith efforts for nearly fifty years. He served six years as President of the International Council of Christians and Jews, and multiple terms on the board of the Parliament of the World’s Religions. He played a significant role in developing the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., serving four terms on its board by presidential appointment."

It stands to reason that Pope Leo, having studied under such a figure, may have absorbed a positive disposition toward the Jewish people.

On the other hand, his well-documented compassion for the poor and marginalized could predispose him to see Palestinians as victims of colonial oppression, living under apartheid-like conditions.

It’s difficult to know which way he will lean. But whichever way he does, it will influence countless people (especially Americans) who look to him as a moral compass.

Given the alarming rise in antisemitism  since October 7th, my hope is that Pawlikowski’s influence will guide Pope Leo’s heart more than any progressive ideology he may otherwise feel compelled to embrace. Now more than ever, we need public voices sympathetic to our perspective. Ones with the reach and credibility to make a difference.

An 'Egregious' Statement?

What we will not be doing as a club is writing the egregious statement: “This club is for students who seek to fully maintain traditional halachic standards of sexual morality as defined by the Shulchan Aruch,” on our posters and communications.

Sadly, with this one declarative comment by Hareni - included in an op-ed at YU’s student newspaper The Observer - they have undermined the very conditions they agreed upon when granted permission by YU to form their gay club.

That being said, I agree with much of the rest of their statement. There is indeed a high degree of abandonment, depression, and suicide among gay Orthodox Jews. Something that has been going on for years.

The reason is not malice, but rather a lack of empathy on the part of the broader Jewish community. This lack stems largely from a failure to distinguish between being gay and acting on same-sex attraction in ways that are explicitly forbidden by the Torah, which considers such acts a capital offense. It is difficult for some people to make this distinction, but that doesn’t excuse the lack of understanding.

Hareni is aware of the halachic issues involved. But they seem to imply that halacha can be sidelined in favor of Hashkafa and social needs. 

First of all a Hashkafa that ignores the severity of homosexual acts as defined by Halacha does not exist. But I do understand the need for community and social connection. Especially when Pikuach Nefesh (saving a life) is involved.

Hareni proposes a flawed approach to Halacha, implying that each individual has the right to interpret or disregard Halacha as they see fit. That is not how Halacha functions. We are required to follow it regardless of personal feelings, no matter how difficult that may be.

Even so, I wholeheartedly agree that we must do what we can to ensure gay and trans Jews feel safe and supported.

They must have a sense of well-being, a sense of belonging, and the ability to live to their fullest potential. Simply put: before one can engage with halachic questions, they must feel safe in their community. They must feel well. They must still be alive.

This is a responsibility the Orthodox world has yet to fully embrace. We must do better. We must not treat gay Jews as pariahs - God forbid.  Especially given the life-and-death nature of the issue.

On the other hand, we must never allow pride in one's sexuality to become the central feature of one’s identity. Especially when that sexuality can involve actions that Halacha forbids.

Hareni says it does not want pity or condescension. That should be obvious. No one likes condescension or to be pitied. But empathy is not pity. Empathy means putting yourself in their shoes and having a sincere understanding of their struggle and the public scorn they often endure - whether direct or subtle. Especially from well-meaning Jews that don’t fully grasp the difference between being gay and acting on it.

Gay and trans people seek respect and human dignity. This is something I have long advocated. I have never supported pity or condescension. I am strongly opposed to both.

The Hareni statement then continues by explaining what they are all about, beginning with an innocuous description of club activities:

“If building a community means having game nights, art events, pizza parties, or any other social event, we want to be able to host it just as all other clubs do. This club is for students’ enjoyment within an environment where they may otherwise feel outcast.”

That is certainly an acceptable and reasonable goal. But then they make the problematic comment I opened with - rejecting as ‘egregious’ the idea of committing to halachic standards in sexual matters. Rejecting even a single Halacha of the Torah  makes one a heretic.

I understand they do not want to be defined solely by their sexuality. But in practice, identifying as LGBTQ is already a public declaration of that identity. You cannot say you are gay and simultaneously say you don’t want to be identified that way.

(If only it were truly the case that people were not defined by their sexuality. We shouldn't need to know whether someone is gay or straight. I don’t identify myself that way. As Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. put it, we should be judged by the 'content of our character'. Not by our sexual orientation. That should not be anyone’s business.)

But when one creates a club around LGBTQ identity, that identity is already being presented publicly. You can’t have it both ways.

If a club is based on that identity and claims to operate within Halachic boundaries, then the most appropriate response would have been to proudly affirm a commitment to Halacha - including Halachic norms around sexuality. The fact that they called such a statement ‘egregious’ is unacceptable.

If I were YU, I would demand a retraction of that statement and a clear reaffirmation of the club’s commitment to follow Halacha in its entirety, including laws related to sexuality. I assume such a commitment was part of their agreement with YU. If they are unwilling to make that clear, they should, in my view, lose their permit to operate as an official club.

Secular Studies and Saving Lives

R' Chaim Soloveichik

There is a near-universal misunderstanding in the Charedi world about Rav Chaim Soloveitchik’s view on secular studies.

Rav Chaim’s analytical method of Torah study (often referred to as the Brisker Derech) has become the standard approach to learning Gemara in Lithuanian-style yeshivas worldwide. Needless to say, Rav Chaim is revered, as are his Hashkafos. These Hashkafos are often cited by Charedim to support their negative stance toward secular studies in general and college in particular. He is famously known for his vehement opposition to college.

But as his grandson, Rav Ahron Soloveichik, told us in shiur, that understanding of Rav Chaim’s hashkafos is incorrect.

Rav Ahron then told us about his uncle - also named Aharon Soloveitchik - who was a student of Rav Chaim and wanted to become a doctor. He approached Rav Chaim to ask if he could attend medical school. Rav Chaim’s immediate response was, ‘Of course you should go. You will be matzil nefashos (save lives)!’

Rav Ahron explained that Rav Chaim was not inherently opposed to college or secular studies, so long as they did not involve heretical ideas. His concern was about the potentially negative spiritual influences associated with secular environments, which he believed posed a danger to one’s Emunah. However, if someone was strong in their faith and had a clear, positive purpose - such as pursuing medicine - Rav Chaim actually considered it a Mitzvah to attend college.

This account challenges the conventional wisdom about Rav Chaim’s supposed unwavering opposition to college.

Students in Lakewood may scoff at this story, claiming it contradicts Rav Chaim’s legendary stance against higher education. But I trust my rebbe—his grandson—more than secondhand claims filtered through an anti-college lens.

Saving lives is surely a core Jewish value. Anyone aspiring to become a doctor should be encouraged to do so—even if it means spending less time in Torah study. But what happens when the opportunity to pursue medicine is blocked by a Hashkafa that views secular studies as a waste of precious time better spent on Torah and Chasidus?

This is precisely the view held in some Chasidic communities, which have fought New York State education officials over the requirement to provide a formal secular studies curriculum in their schools. They argue that their religious studies program sufficiently prepares students to function in society.

Indeed, many in these communities manage to earn a living, and some even become multimillionaires in various business ventures - without any formal secular education.

Since, according to them, they harm no one - least of all themselves - and their religious beliefs oppose secular education, they claim that the First Amendment should protect their right to educate their children as they see fit.

Agudath Israel has joined them in making that argument. They claim this is what their Chasidim want. That they have no interest in secular studies and only wish to live fulfilling lives within the insular Chasidic bubble created by their communities.

One might call this philosophy ‘ignorance is bliss.’ While these students are educated in Jewish law and Chasidus, they remain ignorant about broader worldly matters. They may not care - until a crisis strikes. When someone becomes seriously ill, they leave the bubble in search of a doctor.

There is, of course, nothing wrong with that. But why should they have to? Why not allow those within the community who are capable and willing to pursue careers in medicine to do so? Why doesn’t the community value saving lives enough to permit such individuals to attend medical school?

This would, of course, require offering at least a basic secular education. What kind of Hashkafa relies entirely upon non-Jews to save Jewish lives? By refusing to provide any secular curriculum, they essentially ensure that no one within their community can become a doctor.

This is one of the many reasons I am deeply troubled by schools that refuse to offer any secular studies. By insisting on a Torah-only curriculum, they send the message that the potential to save lives is not important enough to justify a secular education. And that’s simply wrong.

Recently, nine Chasidic schools in New York that refused to comply with the state’s ‘substantial equivalency’ requirements were ordered to shut down permanently at the end of the school year. However, according to the Gothamist:

“New York lawmakers have agreed to delay regulations on nonpublic religious schools, bowing to pressure from Orthodox Jewish leaders and ignoring concerns from the state’s top education officials.

Draft bill language reviewed by Gothamist would create another pathway for nonpublic schools to meet a standard known as ‘substantial equivalency,’ which requires them to be more or less on par with public schools in subjects like reading and math. The Democratic leaders of both branches of the state Legislature confirmed that changes to the standard would appear in the still-pending state budget.”

I find this deeply disappointing. By caving to political pressure, lawmakers are allowing these schools to continue perpetuating ignorance and denying students the chance to pursue meaningful careers beyond their communities. All in the name of the First Amendment.

In my view, it’s a sad and troubling development.