Thomas Massie, Democrats, and AIPAC

Thomas Massie and Ed Gallrein

If there is one phrase that would describe Representative Thomas Massie’s view about American support for Israel, it would be ZOG (“Zionist Occupied Government”). One might remember that phrase from a while back. It was used by antisemitic fringe groups like neo-Nazis and white supremacists who believed that the legislative branch of government was occupied by people owned by AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) - the Israel supporting lobby. Accusing his colleagues of putting Israel’s interests ahead of those of the United States.

While it is, of course, true that lobbyists who support Israel will naturally support candidates with favorable attitudes toward Israel, that does not mean those candidates were bought by an Israel supporting lobby — any more than politicians are “owned” by any other lobby in Washington.

The right to petition our government is a constitutional right. The notion promoted by some politicians that AIPAC is somehow doing something unethical - is not only pure nonsense, but often an indication of underlying — if not overt — antisemitism.

This describes the lame-duck congressman from Kentucky, Thomas Massie, who just lost the Republican primary for reelection to an eighth term. His primary opponent, former Navy SEAL Ed Gallrein, defeated Massie by 10 points.

Massie’s thinly disguised antisemitism is similar to that of Tucker Carlson. Whose rhetoric about Israel’s “control” of Congress mimics that of fringe antisemites on the far right. He may as well have used the term ZOG to describe Congress.

Nor is he the first Republican member of Congress to say similar things about his colleagues. One may recall former Nebraska Senator Chuck Hagel — later Secretary of Defense under Barack Obama — saying something along the lines of, “Some members of Congress forget which country they represent.” That was in reference to the overwhelming financial support for Israel within his party.

Thankfully people like this are not mainstream. They are mavericks who delight in the publicity they get from their controversial views. And now this latest ‘maverick’ will soon be gone

Massie’s defeat is good news for Israel. One less antisemite will be replaced by a pro-Israel supporter who was hand-picked and endorsed by the president.

The media points to the president as being responsible for Massie’s loss. As was the case with virtually all of the candidates Trump has endorsed in primaries across the country. The Republican Party has increasingly become the party of Trump. If you support him, he endorses you and you are likely to win among Republican voters. If you oppose him on almost any issue, you are politically finished. Louisiana Senator Bill Cassidy, a two-term veteran of the Senate, found that out the hard way, losing to his opponents, the relatively unknown Julia Letlow and John Fleming, who advanced to a runoff.

Although it is now a hard political reality for Republicans that they are either “with him or against him,” and that this determines whether they can run successfully as Republicans, I think there was more at play in Massie’s case...

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 Billion Dollar Plan

Dr. Paul Vosolov (Mishpacha)

I subscribe. Despite the fact that Mishpacha Magazine reflects an almost exclusively Charedi perspective on the issues affecting the world of observant Jewry, I agree with Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein’s effusive praise in Cross-Currents of the magazine and its accomplishments.

But just like Rabbi Adlerstein, I have my issues with them. One of which I have discussed quite extensively. Which is their refusal to publish any pictures of women regardless of how modestly they are dressed. But I understand what’s behind their editorial policy. As noted in the article:

There are things that Mishpacha still cannot do, say, or challenge. If it would, the entire enterprise – sensitive to both the demands of a very diverse market, and the censorious barbs of extremists – could collapse.

I don’t know about collapse. But it would certainly hurt their bottom line. Mishpacha is in the business of making money. Magazines make money through paid advertisements. Rates are set by the number of readers. The greater the readership, the higher the advertising rates — and the more money they make.

I do not say this disparagingly. I am a capitalist. Mishpacha is entitled to make as much money as it can. And to use whatever ethical means are at their disposal to make that happen. But that doesn’t make me feel any better about the editorial policy that results from it. About which Rabbi Adlerstein makes some very valid points.

Mishpacha’s recent cover story is about Dr. Paul Vosolov’s plan to build a billion-dollar fixed endowment fund for yeshivos in Israel. That would solve the financial crisis facing what they call the “Olam HaTorah”. A crisis resulting from the government conditioning any further financial aid on thier participation in the IDF. Which the Charedi world overwhelmingly rejects - accusing the Israeli government of waging a war against the Torah itself!

Without explicitly saying so, Mishpacha’s editorial views on this issue seems to be identical to that of Israel’s Charedi leadership — a perspective that I have long questioned. And to this day cannot understand. Even though I am 100% certain that this is their genuine belief. As is their belief that the “Olam HaTorah” is exclusively their domain. They do not see any other form of yeshiva as a valid expression of Torah Judaism.

There are few issues of public concern to the Jewish people that upset me more than this.

Rabbi Adlerstein is far more of a gentleman than I am and would never put it the way I do. At the same time, the commentary in his article suggests that, in his heart of hearts, he may be as upset as I am. For the same reasons.

Although he admires the dedication to diligent Torah study that is the hallmark of the Charedi yeshiva world, he nevertheless recognizes its serious shortcomings, which the Mishpacha article ignores...

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 Tragic Legacy of Rabbi Meir Kahane

Screenshot of masked Jews storming a West Bank village on April 17, 2026 (TOI)

Meir Kahane was right. This may be shocking to those who know my views about his extremist policies, which — let me repeat — are as damaging to the fabric of the Jewish people as are the policies of Israel’s far left. But that does not take away from Rabbi Kahane’s keen perception of reality as it pertains to the Arab mindset about the Jewish state.

I have never changed my opinion about that ever since I first read his views as a weekly columnist for the Jewish Press back in the early seventies. He was way ahead of his time. Although many Israelis slowly came to understand his views and ultimately agreed with his perspective, it wasn’t until October 7^th that virtually the entire population of Israel did as well.

But his solution to the problems he so correctly identified - was a failure of moral turpitude of such great magnitude, that it led Baruch Goldstein, one of his more devout followers, to mass murder 29 Palestinian worshippers at Maaras HaMachpela in Chevron and wound 125 more before he was subdued and himself killed.

Rabbi Kahane’s many followers responded by setting up a shrine at Goldstein’s gravesite and making frequent pilgrimages there to honor his memory. Which, in my view, was a massive Chilul HaShem — and which, thankfully, the Israeli government eventually outlawed.

That said, one cannot overlook the fact that Rabbi Kahane’s views generated quite a following long after he was assassinated during a visit to the US. Views that are unapologetically held by his political heir in the Knesset, Itamar Ben-Gvir, who to this day considers Goldstein one of his heroes.

What makes this significant is that Ben-Gvir has quite a substantial following — far greater than Rabbi Kahane had at his peak. His party, Otzma Yehudit (Jewish Power) won six seats in the Knesset, compared to the single seat Rabbi Kahane won at his peak. Six seats translate to well over 200,000 supporters. That does not even include those who might be sympathetic to his views but, for political reasons, voted for another party. And it certainly does not include voters who were pushed over the line after October 7^th.

Among those supporters are extremists who take that support to the next level. Armed with Rabbi Kahane’s perspective and attitude about Palestinians, they have taken it upon themselves to do what they believe Rabbi Kahane himself would have done were he still alive — a belief not all that far-fetched considering his militant past in the US and his solution for regaining all of Eretz Yisroel by resorting to the forcible transfer of Palestinians out of the country (if they did not agree to accept Jewish sovereignty over all the land).

Some of his extremist followers harass Palestinians living in villages with hardcore acts of violence, leading to destruction of property and even death or injury of innocent Palestinians. Often claiming self-defense. Which may or may not be true. That a Palestinian living in Yehuda or Shomron (the West Bank) may hate us and even wish us dead does not mean we may cause them harm. But those extremists are surely acting on what they believe would have met with Rabbi Kahane’s strong approval, As they believe would have been his approval of Baruch Goldstein.

(I am reminded of the effusive eulogies of Baruch Goldstein given by some Religious Zionist rabbis after his death. Which Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, publicly condemned as a major Chilul HaShem at the time.)

Making matters worse is the fact that even among those followers who would never attempt such acts themselves, there is public support for - or at least a defense of them by hundreds of thousands of sympathizers. And let us not overlook the silence of many Religious Zionist rabbis and educators, which seems to indicate sympathy for for the religious fervor, zeal and motivation behind the violence, if not outright support.

This brings me to Rabbi Yosef Blau…

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 the President a Friend of the Jewish People?

What does it mean to be antisemitic? The quick answer might seem the most obvious one, but not necessarily the correct one.

Antisemitism surely reached its peak under Adolf Hitler’s Germany. The Jewish people were targeted for extinction, and that hatred was acted upon with such urgency that six million Jews were systematically murdered for the “sin” of being Jewish. But is the mere fact that someone identifies as a Jew really what upsets the classic antisemite?

If you think about it, there are actually Jews who themselves express antisemitic views. One example is Zack Polanski, the head of the Green Party in England. Even though he denies being antisemitic and uses his Jewish background as proof, his fierce anti-Zionist rhetoric and public defense of Jermey Corbin a shows a clear anti-Jewish bias. There is nothing Jewish about him other than an accident of birth,

If someone condemns the very existence of a Jewish state while accusing it of genocide, they are showing complete disregard for the welfare of the seven million Jews who call Israel home. Which makes me wonder how Jewish Democrats are so quick to abandon the Jewish people in the holy land… and instead buy so easily into the media’s regurgitation of the Palestinian narrative - as the truth.

How, then, can we know whether statements from public figures who claim sensitivity to the Jewish people are sincere, or merely platitudes for political purposes? Too often, those positions shift with the political winds. That tendency has become increasingly apparent ever since October 7, 2023 when Israel decided to respond forcefully to the constant attacks against its people by Iran’s proxies such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

It is now fashionable among parts of the progressive left to portray Israel as a nation led by Netanyahu, a genocidal maniac that should not receive another dime of American support for its supposedly “Nazi-like” military actions.

Sadly, this disturbing political development has found a home within one of America’s two mainstream political parties. Democrats are increasingly distancing themselves from Israel. (Although some Republicans have as well).

The closer Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu becomes to the president, the more ire it seems to generate among Democrats... 

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. 

Rights Endowed by The Creator

The Supreme Court Justices

What are the constitutional limits on the kinds of conditions a government may impose on religious schools as the price of participating in funding programs?

Can a religious school limit who may send their children there by virtue of its religious doctrine and still receive government funding?

On the surface, it would seem unconstitutional for the government to support a school whose religious rules violate the civil rights of members of the public. If an LGBTQ couple is denied enrollment for their child because a religious school’s doctrines do not permit such a couple to be part of its community, it would appear to conflict with their constitutionally guaranteed civil rights. Additionally it would raise First Amendment concerns about the separation of church and state. But what about the school’s religious rights?

The classic argument has been that while a religious school may have the right to discriminate based on religious doctrine, the government ought not fund it because of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.

But that is not necessarily the case. The Supreme Court has recently ruled that denying religious schools funding available to everyone else can itself constitute a violation of religious liberty under the very same First Amendment. As noted by Michael Helfand in City Journal:

“After a decade of decisions barring governments from excluding religious institutions from public-funding programs, St. Mary Catholic Parish v. Roy will move the fight to new—and far murkier—terrain: what to do about conditions imposed on government funding that collide with schools’ religious commitments.”

The argument made by religious schools is that denying them public funding because they implement their religious principles amounts to unequal treatment. They contend that educational funds should be distributed equally to all citizens regardless of religious belief or practice.

At the same time, the government may impose standards for receiving those funds—standards that also apply to public schools. The question then becomes: how far may those standards go? What happens when they cross the line into the religious rights of the school? Do the rights of a religious school to deny admission to an LGBTQ family violate the civil rights of that family? When that conflict inevitably arises, who wins…

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 Charedi Agenda that is Oblivious to Reality

The current ‘Daas Torah’ of the Charedi world

It has become abundantly clear to me that Charedi leadership in Israel could not care less about the welfare of the country in which they reside. A country whose legitimacy as a Jewish state they refuse to recognize.

Their participation in the government is entirely for self-preservation purposes. The fact that they occasionally vote on issues outside of their immediate concern that also benefit the public welfare is only incidental to their primary purpose.

They see Judaism solely in terms of the Charedi world. A world that places the study of Gemara and its commentaries above all else. A community defined largely by the degree to which its members abide by the rulings of ‘Daas Torah’. An appellation given to the views of their rabbinic leaders that borders on near-divine omnipotence. Veering from this attitude effectively excises one from that community, which, as noted, they define as the entirety of the authentic Jewish world.

To illustrate - I recently heard part of a podcast in which a Charedi Rosh Yeshiva in Israel of American extraction was interviewed. When asked about how a particular Gadol once responded to a question about his grandchildren by saying that he did not even know all of their names, this Rosh Yeshiva explained that, even though we might not understand it, this Gadol was on such a high level of holiness that we dare not judge him by our standards

This is what happens when Gedolim are placed on a pedestal too high. Behavior that would be criticized in anyone else is lauded as holy when done by a recognized Gadol. Such figures thereby become effectively infallible. And this Rosh Yeshiva is mainstream Charedi who is highly respected and heads an extremely popular Yeshiva. This is how his students are indoctrinated. And this is how the current living Gedolim are seen.

These words may sound harsh…

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 New York Times Blood Libel

New York Times reporter, Nicholas Kristof (JI)

First off, it goes without saying that sexual abuse of Palestinians by prison personnel is condemnable in the extreme. It is among the most un-Jewish thing any Jew could ever do. If the allegation made by Nicholas Kristof in the New York Times is anywhere near true, the proverbial “book” ought to be thrown at the perpetrators. Anyone worthy of being called Jewish ought to be disgusted by it. Those abusers should be ostracized and shunned by the Jewish world for the rest of their lives.

That being said, I have my doubts about Kristof’s assertion that it is widespread — or that it exists at all in any significant capacity. That it may have happened at all is a function of the reality that every society has its bad apples. There is no such thing as a nation totally free of miscreants. Such is the nature of humanity. The larger the population, the more likely it is that one will find just about every type of human aberration. The measure of a society is not whether such people exist. It is what that society does about them when it happens.

What is particularly galling is the “convenient” timing of this hit piece against the Jewish people. (And let’s not quibble about who is being accused here. Israel is a Jewish state. That is how it identifies itself, so when Israel is accused of systemic heinous crimes like this, it is the Jewish people being accused. The more one identifies as a Jew, the more it applies.)

Allegations of widespread prisoner sexual abuse have, to the best of my knowledge, never been made until now.

Why now? Never mind. I’ll tell you.

It is my firm belief that these allegations were generated in response to the clear and undeniable sexual abuse perpetrated by Hamas on October 7, 2023. The day they massacred 1,200 Jews and took over 200 captives. Hamas’s denials to the contrary have been refuted by the many photos and videos taken that day, as well as testimony from victims and witnesses.

That, of course, made Hamas terrorists look far worse than merely a group of “militants” fighting for “justice in Palestine” - the preferred narrative of the New York Times. The fact that rape was added to their terrorist rampage stripped away any illusion that they were simply “freedom fighters” who had gone too far in pursuit of a “just” cause.

The Times was not about to allow that changed narrative to go unchallenged…

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.

They Hate Us Anyway

EU Commission Vice-President, Kaja Kallas

They hate us anyway’. I am so sick of hearing a response that basically excuses the inexcusable. The cold, hard fact is that there is absolutely no excuse for settler violence.

Unfortunately, the very phrase “settler violence” raises all kinds of red flags on both sides of the political aisle. It is a term for what is really a phenomenon involving only a small part of what is happening. However it casts an entire innocent population into a group of bottom feeding criminals. Who pass themselves off as vigilantes with a just cause.

How did we get here?

After the lightning victory over the Arab nations in 1967 - when Israel regained the territories of Judea and Samaria on the West Bank of the Jordan River - there was an immediate decision by the Israeli government to settle it. A few cities were established then that are today flourishing Jewish communities. Many Israelis were enticed by the relatively cheaper housing prices in these cities, and since then they have grown into sizable populations. Several generations of Israelis have lived, or now live, in these cities, most of them built just East of the pre-67 border.

These settlers are law-abiding citizens with no interest in harming a single hair on the head of any of their Palestinian neighbors. And yet they are still called “settlers” by a world community bent on creating a Palestinian state where they now live. Restrictions on development due to natural internal growth is seen as an impediment to that by the conglomerate of European nations called the European Union (and most Democrats).

But these peace-loving Jews have zero to do with another group of Jews living in those territories who have been perpetrating indiscriminate violence against their Palestinian neighbors, purposely setting up ‘settlements’ near Palestinian villages in an effort to intimidate them by their mere presence. Sometimes turning into vigilantes with itchy trigger fingers – seeking revenge for terrorists from among their people who have murdered innocent Israeli civilians

Although a relatively small minority of Jews, they are nevertheless large enough to cause a tremendous Chilul HaShem by inciting Palestinian violence, to which they then respond with violence of their own. Often with lethal consequences.

These people are a thorn in the side of the Jewish people that needs to be eradicated. Along with those who defend them in the Knesset…

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.

When Lies of Omission Are Reported as Truth

Mourners at the funeral of a family killed by Hamas (Aljazeera)

Once again, the brilliant Jonathan Rosenblum has hit a home run. I rarely see anyone articulate the reality of Israel, her enemies, the attitudes of the world toward us, and our ancestral homeland… and why those attitudes prevail in our world today, better than Jonathan. In his latest column, he begins with the following observation about two of the most intelligent, knowledgeable, and articulate voices on that subject: Haviv Rettig Gur and Michael Oren.

They have indicated frustration with the very same thing that frustrates me. Here is how Jonathan put it:

“Needless to say, a lot of us have had it. I single out Haviv Rettig Gur, perhaps the most articulate voice in English explaining Israel to a Western audience, and Michael Oren, historian and former ambassador to the United States, precisely because they are normally so unflappable.”

The frustration is the consequence of what Jonathan calls “non-stop press and TV reports focusing on the suffering of the 600,000 residents of southern Lebanon forced to flee their homes…”

Watching news reports about this from the mainstream media, one would think that Israel simply decided one fine day to bomb Lebanon without provocation. The misery of those displaced Lebanese citizens who lived on the border with Israel is portrayed as though they had done nothing wrong and are suffering only because of Israel’s alleged desire to create a “Greater Israel” by taking over Lebanese land.

Indeed, PBS regularly features a foreign correspondent by the name of Simona Foltyn, who characterizes Israel as a genocidal country that could not care less about human life in its drive to take land away from its Arab neighbors. She recently interviewed displaced Lebanese civilians suffering in desperation because of the loss of homes they had lived in for decades, or even longer - because of Israeli bombs.

Not a word is said about why Israel felt it had no choice but to act, despite the numerous clear explanations of its existential need to do so. Rarely is Hezbollah mentioned other than as a ‘militant’ group fighting the mighty army of an oppressor nation.

Not a word about the fact that until October 7, 2023, Israel never in its entire existence - had any intention whatsoever of disrupting their lives. But when Hezbollah started firing over 200 rockets daily and indiscriminately across the border at Israeli civilians, forcing over 200,000 Israelis to flee their homes lest they fall victim to one of Hezbollah’s barrages, the media barely noticed.

Apparently, it does not matter when Jews are displaced. But when Israel decides to create a buffer zone so that Hezbollah’s stockpile of over 200,000 rockets can no longer reach Israel’s northern border, suddenly moral outrage erupts over displaced Lebanese civilians.

Also omitted is Israel’s concern for human life as it proceeded to create that “buffer zone.” Israel gave ample warning and ample time for Lebanese civilians living in that area to evacuate. Which most of them did. Israel’s targets were not Lebanese civilians, but Hezbollah terrorists, who actually could not care less about human life - even their own. The idea of sacrificing loved ones, even collectively, is an integral part of their theology...

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.

Antisemitism with Plausible Deniability

Bris Milah - Image for illustration purposes only (The Torah)

In yet another manifestation of institutional antisemitism — long a hallmark of Europe’s treatment of its Jewish citizens, the Mitzvah of bris milah (ritual circumcision) has come under attack. The way it is being attacked, however, is suffused with plausible deniability, since technically they are not attacking circumcision itself, only the Mohel – the observant Jew trained to perform it according to Jewish law.

Their argument sounds almost altruistic, claiming that any surgical procedure should be performed only by a licensed medical professional. In the case of a baby, that usually means a pediatrician. They consider the mohel to be a danger to the child, since most mohalim (plural of Mohel) are not trained in medical schools and therefore are not licensed to perform surgery.

To the layman, this might sound reasonable. In fact, if I had no knowledge of Jewish law and the practice performed on all male children established since the days of our patriarch Abraham, I too might opt for a trained physician rather than some rabbi with a scalpel. Who had not undergone the rigorous training doctors endure in order to graduate medical school and obtain a license..

One may then ask, how then could a newly passed law in Belgium be considered antisemitic in any way? On the contrary, anyone caught performing a circumcision without the requisite medical training and government licensing could be viewed as endangering the child upon whom the procedure is being performed. In that spirit, the following was reported in the Times of Israel:

“The Antwerp Public Prosecutor’s Office has proceeded to press criminal charges against three Jewish mohels for performing circumcisions... The claim is that circumcisions can be performed by physicians rather than certified mohels, on the grounds that the latter lack surgical training.”

If there were any merit to the claim that a circumcision performed by a certified mohel endangers a child more than one done by a trained medical professional, there would surely be some historical record of the many deaths resulting from a practice maintained for centuries

But there is no such record because the vast majority of circumcisions performed by certified Mohalim are highly successful and completed without incident. Rarely are there any complications, and in those rare circumstances where there might be, they can often be attributed to outside factors.

A Mohel is not just some random person with a scalpel…

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.