Off to Israel.

The Kotel (Wikipedia)

As I have been doing for many years now, I will be visiting my son and his beautiful family for Sukkos — which now includes five great-grandchildren for my wife and me.

I will be arriving in Israel late tomorrow (Tuesday). Wednesday is Erev Yom Kippur, and Thursday is Yom Kippur. Therefore, there will be no new posts until Sunday at the earliest (if possible – since I will have very limited internet access while I’m there).

This year there are very few weekdays of Chol Hamoed for me because I observe Yom Tov Sheni in Israel. So I am not sure how much opportunity I will have to post. Still, it’s possible that I may squeeze a few out if I can. Stay tuned.

At this point, I would like to wish a G’mar Chasima Tova to all my commentators, readers, and to all of Klal Yisroel. May we all merit a year of good health, prosperity, and more than ever peace!

 And in case I am not able to post before Sukkos, I would also like to wish everyone a Chag Sukkos Sameach. 

Why a Palestinian State Cannot Happen

Abbas '2 state solution' video address to the UN last week (BBC)

Listening to an interview of Emmanuel Macron last week about his rationale for recognizing a Palestinian state and his plan for going forward, one could hardly disagree with what he proposed.

If I understand correctly, Macron believes that all the hostages must first be released; that Hamas must give up any control in Gaza and any further aspirations of doing so; that a consortium of Arab states will govern Gaza; and that a multinational security force — comprised of personnel subject to Israeli approval — will act as a buffer between Gaza and Israel – providing security for both sides. Only then, he argues, can a Palestinian state become a reality.

He believes that the Palestinian people have a right to self-determination and that once they are given full sovereignty over a country of their own, we will finally have the long-sought after peace in the region that has been so elusive over the 77 years since Israel declared statehood.

As if on cue, PA President Mahmoud Abbas addressed the UN with a similar, if not identical, plan. Even President Trump came out with a plan that, although not immediately recognizing a Palestinian state, did not rule one out eventually; he did, however, rule out Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria.

There are a few more details I didn’t mention, some discrepancies between the various plans, and some details I may not have stated exactly. What is relevant is the commonality between them: they all seem to require the release of the hostages and the complete elimination of Hamas or any other jihadist group as prerequisites for lasting peace and security for Palestinians and Israelis.

Who in their right mind wouldn’t agree to such a plan? Who would not want to see ‘peace in our time’ in the Middle East. A region finally free of terrorism and bloodshed, a region where each people can focus on building up its own nation in peace and security?

Predictably, Prime Minister Netanyahu rejected one of the key components of these plans: the creation of a Palestinian state. As did the vast majority (about 90%) of Israel’s parliament, the Knesset.

How, one may ask, could anybody not be willing to allow a peace-loving Palestinian people to have their own state if it would mean the ultimate peace and security that the Jewish people have longed for?

Sadly, the answer is all too easy to understand for anyone with the slightest bit of knowledge about the history of the 2 peoples in the region. And nobody spelled it out better than Jonathan Tobin did last week when describing the president’s plan. It is sad that even people of good will do not understand this: Tobin’s detailed comments – which follow - explain why the creation of a Palestinian state, under current conditions, would be folly:

The problem is that the basic premise of this plan is all wrong.

It is rooted in the idea that foreign funding, along with the creation of a Palestinian Arab governing body and security force committed to peace, will tap into a broad constituency for coexistence and pivot away from terrorism in Gaza, as well as in Judea and Samaria. The assumption is that Hamas and other extreme Islamist groups remain obstacles to the implementation of the will for rationality on the part of the people they purport to represent.

There is no evidence that this is true. On the contrary, everything that has happened in the conflict since the 1993 Oslo Accords that created the Palestinian Authority teaches that the political and even social culture of the Palestinians is fundamentally opposed to the idea of coexistence, two states or any sort of peace other than one built on the destruction of Israel and the genocide of the Jews.

P.A. leader Mahmoud Abbas may have mildly censured the Oct. 7 atrocities as “actions that don’t represent the Palestinian people” in his U.N. rant delivered remotely from Ramallah (the Trump administration rightly denied him entry to the United States). Still, in the past two years, he has never actually condemned it to his own people in Arabic. How could he when the P.A. still pays pensions and salaries to terrorists—like those who took part in the orgy of murder, rape, torture, kidnapping and wanton destruction on Oct. 7?

Then there is the fact that a great many of those who participated in those massacres were Palestinian civilians, not Hamas or Islamic Jihad operatives. The Palestinian people—both backers of Hamas and those who stand with Abbas’s corrupt Fatah—support the same goal of destroying Israel and shedding Jewish blood.

That seems like madness to well-intentioned Western peacemakers. It is something they simply refuse to acknowledge or factor into their peace proposals for statehood, and even Trump’s scheme for something less than statehood.

Much as most Americans, Europeans and even many Israelis would prefer to deny it, the war is not only one against Hamas but against the Palestinian people. And until they give up their faith in Israel’s elimination, no amount of foreign investment or diplomatic acrobatics will make any difference. (Read more here) 

I would argue that Tobin’s argument against a Palestinian state is irrefutable.  The obvious question then becomes, what’s next? How can we hope to ever achieve peace between two peoples when one them has for generations been indoctrinated from cradle to grave to believe that Jews have stolen their land? A people determined to never give up their goal of getting it all back? A people that believes that all attempts at doing including acts of terror that in some cases end up involve horrific massacres of innocent Jews - are valid in pursuit of that goal?

As is often the case, I don’t know the answers. The only thing I am certain of is that Netanyahu and the vast majority of the Israeli people are right: A Palestinian state is not one of them.

The Kirk Conundrum

Billboard of the president and Charlie Kirk in Tel Aviv (Forward)

Louis Keene’s article in the Forward presents a fascinating glimpse into the appeal the late Charlie Kirk had for Orthodox Jews. While at the same time being seen a classic old-line antisemite by secular and heterodox Jews. I think Keene has hit the proverbial nail on the head. Not only does Kirk appeal to Orthodox Jews, but he has been elevated to near icon status. Here is how Keene puts it:

In the hours and days following Kirk’s assassination, it seemed like every Orthodox leader and institution in America was treating a devout Christian like a deceased rebbe.

The chief executive of Aish, an Orthodox outreach organization, mourned the loss of “a courageous advocate for our people.” The president of Yeshiva University called Kirk “a personal friend, a friend to our community.” The head spokesperson for Chabad highlighted the Turning Point USA founder’s “steadfast friendship to the Jewish people.” A Chabad rabbi even called Kirk “the Abraham of our time.”

The last time I discussed why I believed Kirk’s views resonated so strongly with Orthodox Jews, I got pushback from some of my liberal Jewish friends. They were quick to list (or link to) antisemitic tropes Kirk used and challenged me on why I thought someone who said things like that could ever be seen as a friend - much less an icon to Orthodox Jews.

The answer is quite simple. As Keene notes, both Kirk and Orthodox Jews place a high value on the Bible, whose values guide our lives. His support for Israel, for example, is based on God’s promise to the Jewish people that the Holy Land is given to them. That is the primary reason Orthodox Jews support Israel as the Jewish homeland. Instead of, say, Uganda.

In a culture that glorifies behavior the Bible considers abominable, Kirk’s rejection of that culture resonates with us too. This is also why Evangelical Christians, who focus so much on biblical values, are our natural allies.

But what about those antisemitic tropes? Shouldn’t that at least neutralize, if not outright cancel, our consideration of Kirk as an icon? And what about the following?

Not all of Kirk’s politics — anti-LGBTQ+, anti-woke, anti-abortion, anti-DEI — map neatly onto halacha, or Jewish law. (And there are other biblical values that he would seem to have violated personally; demeaning speech, for example, is prohibited.)

First, I would have to disagree that being anti-LGBTQ+ is in any way a violation of Halacha. In fact, the opposite is true. Halacha is very much opposed to LGBTQ+ values and practices. And while demeaning speech is a serious violation of Jewish law, its application is not as simple as one might think (the details of which are beyond the scope of this post). But even if it is, the fact that he is guilty of one violation (which, I dare say, we are all guilty of) does not negate his views on other biblically guided issues with which we agree, especially those issues that directly impact the moral fabric of this country.

The irony is that those who oppose Kirk, and consider him an unrepentant antisemite, cannot understand why so many Orthodox Jews can identify with a man like that. It is as if they consider us clueless about those tropes. But that is not the case. What is the case is that we judge the overall person. We see what they value and what they don’t. And more importantly, we examine more closely why he made some of those disparaging comments about ‘the Jews’. This is not to say that we should condone those comments. We should not. It is only to understand why they are not necessarily antisemitic.

A closer look shows that what bothered him about ‘the Jews’ is the very same thing that bothers Orthodox Jews about the majority of the Jewish world – who are not observant and mostly very liberal politically. Namely, that their values are not biblically based, but instead shaped by prevailing liberal cultural attitudes.

When Jews are at the forefront of promoting the anti-biblical values of an LGBTQ+ agenda, they should be called out. Which I have done. Many times!

These are the Jews Kirk was talking about. And blaming them for the moral decline in the country is not that far off if you consider that the centerpiece of that decline is Hollywood. The sad reality is that Jews have an inordinate influence in what Hollywood produces and promotes. Their numbers in Hollywood are vastly greater, proportionally, than their numbers in the general population. So of course they share responsibility.

That being said, Kirk should not have singled out ‘Jews’ as responsible for the moral decline of American culture. He should have instead simply focused on liberals or progressives, without mentioning Jews. Because when he did, he left himself open to being considered an antisemite. Which he clearly was not. He was simply opposed to the values promoted by the majority of non-Orthodox Jews, most of whom have substituted liberal or progressive values for biblical ones:

Kirk carried the torch for ideas that the liberal consensus holds are outdated: that marriage is between a man and a woman; that a woman should submit to her husband; that gender is defined at birth; and that belief in God is the source of morality.

In other words, Orthodox Jews and the ‘Charlie Kirks of the world’ are really on the same biblical page. The obvious major theological differences between us don’t amount to a hill of beans when it comes to promoting the values of the Bible. Values upon which we see eye to eye. That is why he is considered a near icon.

What about accusations that Evangelical Christians (of which Kirk was one) only support us in order to convert us?

Nonsense. I agree with Eli Steinberg, a Haredi Orthodox commentator who wasn’t suspicious of Kirk’s motives and said the following:

“We’re not at the point in time right now where the Christian allies of Jewish people are seeking to convert Jews to Christianity,” Steinberg said. “What we do have is an overwhelming force of secularists who have, in place of religion, woke politics.”

As further noted by Keene:

Kirk’s Christianity was central to his appeal, in part because he made Jewish practice a part of it. He wrote a forthcoming book about the value of “the Jewish Sabbath” — from a conservative publishing house, not ArtScroll — in which he said he observed Shabbat by turning off his phone and logging out of social media. And he once implored Jewish students to observe Shabbat themselves.

If Kirk was an antisemite, we sure could use a lot more antisemites like him. It would make the U.S. a far better place to raise our children. And America might just see Israel in an entirely different and entirely better light.

The Fall Guy

The State of Israel has never been so publicly humiliated as it is now. To say that the animosity toward the Jewish state is unprecedented would be an understatement.

The saddest part about this fact is that it is the net result of the worst atrocity committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust. A crime carried out by an Iran-backed and financed Hamas, whose crimes against humanity rival those of Nazi Germany.

That atrocity should have brought Israel a major increase in sympathy and support. And it did - for about ‘five minutes’. It didn’t take long for the world to condemn Israel’s military response against Hamas in Gaza. Early on, an explosion near a Gaza hospital was immediately blamed on an Israeli airstrike. Protests erupted almost overnight on college campuses across the country.

Even though it was soon shown that the explosion near that hospital was the result of a failed rocket fired at Israel by Islamic Jihad - falling short of its target, the anti-Israel narrative stuck. Since then, animosity toward Israel’s conduct in the war has only increased. By what seems like orders of magnitude.

The American people have been divided over Israel’s war in Gaza. But the momentum has been steadily shifting in the direction of disapproval. I am not going to rehash all the details about why this has happened, other than to say that the horrific images—paired with a narrative blaming Israel exclusively - is why animosity has only grown. Today, it seems that only the U.S. government is still defending Israel.

While I am absolutely convinced of the rectitude of Israel’s defensive posture, there is no convincing its detractors. Images speak louder than the most lucid justifications. That is also why so many prominent progressive politicians and entertainment figures - many of them Jewish - feel the same way.

A common denominator in all this is Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. He is being blamed for it all. Again, I won’t go into too much detail, but suffice it to say that there seems to be a universal feeling among Israel’s detractors that Netanyahu’s determination to retain power at all costs is what is driving the war.

Their perception is that his military tactics are being driven by extremist right-wing politicians like Itamar Ben-Gvir and Bezalel Smotrich, both of whom openly call for an Israel from the ‘river to the sea’ - by annexing all of Gaza, Judea, and Samaria. That would restore Israel to its biblical borders. In pursuit of that goal, Palestinians unwilling to accept annexation would be ethnically cleansed. This was essentially the ‘solution’ proposed decades ago by Rabbi Meir Kahane.

Netanyahu is no follower of Rabbi Kahane. His ‘solution’ is as unlikely to happen now as is a Palestinian state. Neither is a sane policy.

But it doesn’t really matter what I believe, or even that the truth is on Israel’s side. The world has been duped into believing what it sees instead of believing the truth. Hamas has worked their ‘magic’. Their deadly tactics, which include sacrificing their own women and children and then blaming Israel, have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.

That Hamas’s leadership has been destroyed is, at best, a temporary victory for Israel. If they are left to fight another day, they will reconstitute their ranks faster than you can say ‘Jack rabbit’. More than ever, Palestinian youth are ‘chomping at the bit’ to become Hamas fighters for a Palestine ‘from the river to the sea.”

A permanent ceasefire now without ridding Gaza of Hamas, (which seems to be what everybody wants) would mean they will soon return to full strength. This is why I believe Netanyahu is right in trying to destroy them. I’m just not sure he will succeed - unless he kills every Palestinian youth in Gaza. And that WOULD be genocide.

The stakes are high. The repercussions of failure are unacceptable. Yet the growing global animosity toward Israel - framing its war as genocide - could turn Israel into a pariah state boycotted by the entire world, including the U.S. - if the next presidential election is won by a progressive Democrat. Not all that far-fetched considering the likelihood of anti Israel progressive, Zorhan Mamdani becoming the next mayor of New York.

As I keep saying, I have no answers. Only questions. Whatever side one takes, the downside is unacceptable.

A lot of people think Netanyahu has damaged Israel’s reputation forever. Even though I still think he is one of the most effective and consequential leader in Israel’s history. He has nevertheless become a lightning rod for criticism. As long as he stays in office that will continue. And probably increase. Once he is out, it is very possible that the next leader will be able to restore Israel’s good image. Despite all the negative news being reported about Israel today, all the positive contributions Israel has made to the world are still in place. With the potential for many more to come. Once the war is concluded, which will hopefully be soon, this can resume. Under a new leader that will not be associated with the tactics of the war for which Israel is so strongly now disparaged.

Netanyahu will then become the fall guy for all that Israel has been blamed for. Something he does not deserve—especially if he somehow manages to succeed in ridding Gaza of Hamas. But with what seems like the entire world increasingly branding him a war criminal, his departure from the scene will surely help restore Israel’s image.

For me this is a very unfair outcome for someone who – regardless of his many faults - has dedicated his life to the Jewish people. The irony is striking: a leader whose tactics succeeded in achieving what was once thought impossible—like the destruction of Hezbollah (which directly led to the overthrow of the Assad regime in Syria) or the dismantling of Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities - could end up as the fall guy for all of Israel’s critics in the world. Sadly, it could very well happen. It may even need to happen.

How will history judge him? We cannot know yet. That will depend, in part, on who writes the history. But it will not stop speculation. Depending on whom you ask, you will hear opposite answers. Will he be remembered as the Winston Churchill of Israel? Or as the greatest war criminal in its history? Only time will tell.

Reflection and Gratitude

As we are about to enter the year 5786, it is appropriate to reflect upon the year just past. That is, in fact, one of the central themes of this season, which we call the Yomim Noraim – the Days of Awe. We are all mortal flesh and blood, and we must come to terms with how we have led our lives over the past year. It is on Rosh Hashana that we are judged by the “Heavenly Court,” and our fate for the coming year is determined. Who will live, who will die, and how – these are among decrees made in Heaven on Rosh Hashana.

Even though we focus more on God’s Kingship over the universe – and its birth – than on our sins of the past year, the need for repentance is never far from our thoughts as we pray for a blessed upcoming year.

It is with that in mind that I want to express my profound gratitude to HaShem for all the blessings He has bestowed upon me. I am blessed with good health, as is my wife. I am blessed with wonderful children, whose accomplishments in life so far I could only have dreamed about when they were small children. I could not be prouder of all of them – each unique and accomplished in their own way. I could not be prouder of my grandchildren, most of whom are beginning their lives as responsible adults. And of course, there are my great-grandchildren. I am truly blessed beyond what I feel I deserve.

I have expressed these feelings publicly before, but to the best of my recollection never here. My gratitude to God for all these undeserved blessings knows no words. I am humbled.

I only wish that these kinds of blessings be bestowed upon my readers and upon all of Klal Yisroel. There is no amount of money that can buy blessings like these.

On a communal level, however, we have had yet another difficult year. The war against our enemies in Gaza is ongoing. People are dying, and the job is not finished. Much of the world has been influenced to vilify Israel because of it, disregarding Israel’s existential necessity to defeat her enemies. Whether Israel is going about it the right way is a matter of debate, but clearly Israel does NOT intentionally kill innocent people – even though much of the world describes it that way, falsely calling it a “genocide.” Meanwhile, there seems to be no end in sight to the war, and Israel’s support continues to erode.

Politicians once considered Israel’s friends have abandoned her. Antisemitic attacks have increased to frightening proportions all over the world. I do not recall ever feeling so depressed about our situation.

So as I pray for my continued blessings and wish them upon all, I also pray for an end to this war – an end that will finally bring the security to our people that has been so elusive since Israel’s very creation. This is something we must all pray for during these Days of Awe. Because without God’s salvation, we are lost.

May God grant us the peace and tranquility for which we so long – with a successful end to the war. And may He restore Israel’s reputation as a shining light of ethics and morality to the world. 

K’siva V’Chasima Tova to all.

Maintaining the Courage of Our Convictions

Palestinians fleeing Gaza after being warned by Israel before they attack (NPR)

5785 has been a tough year for the Jewish people. To state the obvious, antisemitism has risen to an alarming degree. And never has support for Israel been so low..

In a Mishpacha Magazine op-ed, Agudah CEO Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zweibel noted that when he began his career 42 years ago, his organization’s lobbying efforts on behalf of Israel used to get enthusiastic support from both sides of the political aisle. Today, there has been an almost total erosion of support by Democrats, and even among Republicans it is weakening. Most concerning, this trend is most pronounced among younger Americans. The Ivy League students of today will become the political and social leaders of tomorrow.

Things do not look particularly bright going forward. Rabbi Zweibel does not claim to know why this has happened, other than to suggest that the events post–October 7^th, along with the loud voices of progressives like AOC, have had outsized influence on their colleagues and the general public. One need not look any further than New York City to see clear evidence of this: the city with the largest Jewish population in the world has just nominated Zohran Mamdani for mayor. A progressive who denies Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state, supports BDS, and has even said he would arrest Israel’s sitting prime minister if he visited New York.  

A nomination like that in New York would have been unthinkable just a few short weeks ago. And yet according to most polls, Mamdani will easily be elected in the general.

With antisemitism and anti-Israel sentiment so high, does this mean we are on the precipice of antisemitism not seen since Nazi Germany? Is it possible that we will all be rounded up and sent to concentration camps to await the Final Solution? There may be more than a few people thinking along those lines. Well before October 7^th, some were already making comparisons to Germany of the 1930s based just on the increased antisemitism at the time. They may very well be feeling an ‘I told you so’ moment about their predictions.

The temptation to think that way may be strong, especially among those who constantly warn against people like me, who praise this country for its full acceptance of Jews in just about every way. Does that mean I was wrong? Are they right? Were our days here always numbered? Was it only a matter of time before the latent, eternal antisemitism attributed to ‘Eisav’ (meaning non-Jews) reared its ugly head? And now - “Whoops! … there it is!”

I could not disagree more with those who have come to these conclusions. For several reasons. Starting with the fact that some of the loudest anti-Israel voices are Jewish. And if I understand correctly, most Jews in this country do not support Israel’s war with Gaza right now. OR its prime minister. If the Jewish people have themselves lost support for Israel, why does it make a non-Jew an antisemite if he feels the same way?

This sad reality speaks directly to Rabbi Zweibel’s concern. The erosion of support in Congress for Israel is mirrored by the erosion of support among American Jews. In no way can it be classified as antisemitic if Jewish people themselves hold these views.

As I have said more times than I can count, these views are based on a sincere belief that Israel’s conduct in the war is both unethical and immoral. That its leader is a corrupt politician who does not care how many innocent people his soldiers kill in pursuit of his selfish desire to stay in power. That prolonging the war will surely cause the death of all the remaining hostages, bring about many more Palestinian casualties, and cost the IDF an untold number of casualties. Not to mention the additional trauma it will cause soldiers who suffer from PTSD, and the heartbreak for families who lose loved ones in battle.

When people (whether Jew or Gentile) see two years of daily images of horror coming out of Gaza, accompanied by a media narrative that blames Israel - especially its leader, Netanyahu - for all of it, why would anyone not expect public support for Israel to erode?

The fact that the images and media narrative are grossly misleading doesn’t seem to matter. I should add that I’m not even sure the media’s anti-Israel narrative is deliberate. I do not believe the entire mainstream media is anti-Israel. (Although surely a significant portion of it are, not all are.) The media reports what it is presented with from anti-Israel sources inside Gaza. In doing so, they (perhaps unwittingly) distort the truth. A distortion I have tried to combat here constantly.

But no one has put it better than OU Executive Vice President, Rabbi Moshe Hauer in the Fall edition of Jewish Action Magazine, where he interspersed that truth with his biblically based Rosh Hashana message. Here is how he begins his article:

It is infuriating. The incomplete and twisted narrative promoted by many in the media and government casts Israel’s holy and dedicated army and Jewish people everywhere as genocidal, oppressive, and hateful. How can they forget who initiated the attack on October 7, including not only the “soldiers” of Hamas but the common Gazans who joined them? How dare they preach about Israel’s humanitarian responsibilities while failing to exert maximum pressure on Hamas to unconditionally and immediately release the hostages? How do they level accusations of genocide against an army that warns its targets before launching attacks? How do they highlight the destruction of homes and hospitals while ignoring the terror infrastructure embedded within and beneath them? Don’t they understand that there is only one army in the entire region that follows a moral code and reviews its actions for compliance with international law; that one side in this conflict sees civilian casualties as a tragedy while the other cynically uses them as a strategy?

Why is the plain truth so hidden from them?

Indeed. Since the beginning of the war, I don’t believe I’ve seen clearer thinking from a leader of a major Jewish organization than Rabbi Hauer. He is not some radical right-winger foaming at the mouth. He is a thoughtful, rational individual who thinks before he speaks. He studies the facts and analyzes them, noting that in the case of Israel, facts have been replaced by emotional, knee-jerk reactions based on images taken out of context.

There is much more to his article that should be read in full. It is a must-read. I could not agree more. 

That said, the ‘elephant’ built by the media remains in the room. And the willful ignorance of the media persists. As does the anti-Israel narrative in Congress. Egged on by popular progressives like AOC, and supported by highly influential entertainment figures.

What to do about it is something I still cannot answer. We dare not concede the truth to the prevailing lies being promoted as fact. At the same time, I’m not sure how we can change the narrative, given the obstacles placed in our way.

Had anyone told me that Israel would not receive continued universal sympathy after the savagery they experienced on October 7^th - I would have never believed them. And yet, here we are. And the inability to break through the wall of ignorance-based lies - seems more impregnable than ever.

Selective 'Cancel Culture' Outrage

ABC's late night TV host, Jimmy Kimmel 

Free speech advocates on the left are absolutely apoplectic over ABC’s abrupt cancelation of Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night TV show. He was canceled for making a reprehensible comment suggesting that Charlie Kirk’s murderer was just as likely to be a MAGA supporter as an anti-MAGA supporter. Don’t think so? Judge for yourself. Here is the offending comment:

“The MAGA gang” was “desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them” and trying to “score political points from it.”

For the record, I don’t think his show should have been canceled over that. He should be entitled to say whatever he pleases, as long as it doesn’t incite violence. I do not believe this comment came anywhere near doing that. That said, I also believe an employer has the right to fire anyone they choose for any reason, provided it does not violate their civil rights. If an employee’s behavior harms the company’s bottom line, that is surely cause for dismissal.

Be that as it may, I can’t say I’m not happy about it. I am. To the best of my knowledge, Jimmy Kimmel is a nice guy. A family man, kind to others, who has never hurt a soul. And he has a great sense of humor.

But Kimmel also represents exactly what is wrong with the entertainment industry, which wields enormous influence over public opinion. That influence is steeped in a left-leaning philosophy that, for example, glorifies the LGBTQ agenda while dismissing anyone who dares to oppose it as ignorant Neanderthals seeking to deny a vulnerable community their civil rights. This is the universal approach of nearly every prominent name in entertainment. To finally see one of those powerful voices removed from the air is, in my view, a positive step towards the values I cherish.

One of the main accusations leveled at ABC is that it caved to political pressure from the White House—as though Kimmel had never before insulted the president or his MAGA supporters. That is patently false. Late-night comedians like Kimmel (and perhaps even more so, Stephen Colbert) have been ridiculing the president and his supporters from the very beginning of his first term. In all those years, no one suggested canceling his show.

But this time, the comment wasn’t a joke. If there was humor in it, I fail to see it. It was a deliberate smear of the president and his supporters—using the tragedy of an assassination to score political points, while accusing the other side of doing the same. That’s what caused FCC Chairman Brendan Carr to complain, and what ultimately moved ABC to cancel the show.

What fascinates me (not in a positive way) is the selective outrage from the left over what is now widely recognized as ‘cancel culture.’ That’s when someone is ‘canceled’ for expressing an opinion that does not align with the prevailing cultural orthodoxy. Until now, the left denied it even existed. But clearly it does. Some examples:

• In 2011, Glenn Beck lost his Fox News program after advertiser boycotts tied to his sharp political commentary.
• In 2017, Professor Jordan Peterson faced publishing boycotts, speaking cancellations, and demonetization attempts after refusing to comply with gender pronoun legislation.
• In 2019, J.K. Rowling faced boycotts and disinvitations over her gender-critical views.
• In 2020, opinion columnist Bari Weiss was bullied into resigning from The New York Times, largely because of her outspoken support for Israel.
• In 2018, ABC canceled Roseanne Barr’s hit TV show after she tweeted what was widely perceived as a racist remark about Valerie Jarrett.

That last case is especially relevant to Kimmel’s cancelation. Unlike the uproar over his free speech rights, not a peep was heard from today’s free speech warriors in defense of Roseanne Barr. In fact, quite the opposite happened. Her cancelation was loudly cheered. Barr’s explanation that her remark was not intended as racist fell on deaf ears.

But when one of their own gets canceled? Suddenly, it’s an affront to free speech. I guess free speech only matters when it serves your own agenda.

That’s the thing about self-righteous political views. Those who hold them are true believers. They think their views are expressions of incontrovertible, self-evident truth that cannot be refuted by any rational person. So, when their ox is gored, they feel extreme moral outrage. But when their opponent’s ox is gored, well, that’s just fine—because their opponent’s ox was ‘immoral’ and deserved it.

And yes, friends, that is the world we live in. It’s why Israel’s war for survival is now painted as genocide. You cannot argue logic or facts with people whose self-righteous worldview is immovable. They watch TV, and they ‘know’ what’s happening: IDF soldiers are just a bunch of Nazi storm troopers.

With the cancelation of Kimmel and the looming end of Stephen Colbert’s show, there is at least some hope that the dominant left-leaning cultural influence might begin to shift.

As for Kimmel’s future? I would have no problem with his show being restored, provided he issues an apology to the president’s supporters - and generally stops treating them as ignorant Neanderthals, which his humor often suggested. If he wants to criticize the their conservative policies through comedy, he should do so with a modicum of humility - treating his opponents as equals with different views, not as morons to be endlessly ridiculed.

Deploying the National Guard - The Rabbi's View

Washington D.C. mayor, Murial Bowser (Politico)

I have to admit that the possible sight of uniformed military personnel on the street corners of my neighborhood in Chicago is a bit disconcerting for me to contemplate. It is an intimidating look. And yet, I support it.

When the president announced that Chicago was the target of his next deployment of the National Guard, it was that ‘look’ that Governor J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson had in mind when they  held an impromptu news conference condemning the president’s decision. The governor called it a military occupation. A sentiment angrily echoed by the mayor.

The president’s stated purpose for doing this was to substantially curb the high crime and murder rate in the city, just as he had done with the Guard in Washington, D.C.

Pritzker and Johnson laughed off that claim, citing statistics that Chicago had seen a 30% reduction in crime and murder this year compared to last. They said that Chicago didn’t need or want his help.

I found that argument laughable in itself. What they were in essence saying is that crime and murders are now at an ‘acceptable’ level. As if the attempt to stop the  multiple drive-by shootings that took place the prior weekend were nothing more than a political stunt by a megalomaniacal president who wants to be king.

So what is the reality? Does Chicago really need help reducing crime, or doesn’t it? And is the National Guard the way to do it?

The question is moot. For now. The president has decided to focus on Memphis, which has the highest crime rate in the nation. But he has promised that Chicago is still on his list. So the question  persists.

For an answer, it might be instructive to look at what Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Bowser, a liberal Democrat, said about the federal surge there. She credited the president’s deployment of the national guard with lowering crime in her city. As reported by NBC, Bowser said:

"We greatly appreciate the surge of officers that enhance what MPD has been able to do in this city," Bowser told reporters about the expansion of federal law enforcement and its partnership with the Metropolitan Police Department.

Carjackings, she said, were the "most troubling" crime plaguing D.C. in 2023, and they have decreased in recent years. Bowser noted that in the 20 days since the federal takeover, there had been an 87% drop in carjackings compared with the same period last year. The data also showed a 15% fall in overall crime during that same period.

"We know that when carjackings go down, when use of guns goes down, when homicide or robbery go down, neighborhoods feel safer and are safer, so this surge has been important to us," Bowser added.

That is quite the admission from a liberal Democrat who was originally vehemently opposed to the surge. Even though now (in a bow to her critics on the left) she still criticizes the deployment -  it is hard to see the outcome as anything but positive - given the results.

Hopefully Memphis will see similar results. As expected, Democratic leaders there are vehemently opposed, citing the same ‘occupation’ trope Illinois Democrats used. But one has to wonder how the people most affected by crime feel about it.

While there have been protests from supporters of those Democratic leaders, if one were to ask actual victims of crime in Memphis whether they think extra protection is a good idea, I believe they would overwhelmingly support it. And those are the people who SHOULD be consulted. Not politicians with a political agenda.

With antisemitism surging in many areas of the country, it is no surprise that rabbis in Memphis support help to law enforcement through a surge in National Guard presence. One of them is an Orthodox rabbi as noted at JNS:

Rabbi Akiva Males of Young Israel of Memphis, an Orthodox congregation, told JNS that “many members of our community—not just the Jewish community, but the entire Memphis area—have been quite concerned about crime in our city. We all would love to see as much law and order as possible. I don’t think anyone who’s not a criminal has anything to be nervous about, and I think that anything that can be done to help the scourge of violence and criminality that seems to have taken a foothold in Memphis, we can welcome that.”

He added that having the National Guard in Memphis would increase ‘feelings of security among many of his congregants’. But Rabbi Males also stressed that the root problem of violence needs to be addressed if there is to be a real solution. Which is ‘the breakdown of family structure in many cities across the country,’

I think he is absolutely right. This is a phenomenon I attribute to the shift away from traditional values that guided American families well into the 20th century. Values that have been replaced by values of ‘me-ism’. Family values  have been replaced by the pursuit of personal goals. The tradtional roles of mother and father have been changed. Freedom has replaced responsibility. Self-gratification has placed altruism on the back burner. 

Divorce is way up which all too often results in a dysfunctional childhood for children. Traditional families consisting of a mother and father are decreasing while single parenthood is increasing.  Adding to this phenomenon are single sex couples raising children they have either adopted or have had through surrogacy. I’m sorry but having two fathers is not the same as having a father and a mother. Marriage - once the bedrock of American family life is increasingly disappearing as a defining characteristic of American family life. When traditional values morph into a me-ism philosophy it isn’t a long stretch to go from there to the instant gratification one gets through drugs and eventually crime.

Back to Chicago. Mayor Johnson has done his best to undermine law enforcement. Before becoming a mayoral candidate, he was an outspoken proponent of defunding the police. Even though he later claimed to have abandoned that position, the reality is that he still embraces it. He has effectively ‘defunded’ the Chicago Police Department by reducing their portion of the city budget. He diverted that money to what he considers the root cause of crime: lack of jobs for young people. He wants to ‘invest in youth’ with funds taken from the police. (Funding his pet projects will result next year in the largest budget deficit in Chicago’s history- nearly a billion dollars!)

He reasons that if there were more jobs for Chicago’s youth, there would be fewer drive-by shootings. What is missing in his calculus is the moral teaching that murder is one of the worst evils known to man. A moral value unlearned due to the increased breakdown of the family.

And what about protecting the public? Johnson’s answer: people can hire their own security when they need it.

If Chicago does not have enough police to enforce the law, then law enforcement needs to be supplemented by other means. And if the most expedient way is with the National Guard, which has already shown results, then refusing to deploy them is itself criminal.

 If even one life can be saved because a drive-by shooter fears being caught by an onlooking soldier in uniform, it will have been worth it. If what happened in D.C. doesn’t prove that, nothing will.

And yet, it is clear to me that the only people opposed to this most expedient way of reducing crime in major cities are liberal Democrats. That tells you all you need to know about their motives. Which have little to do with reducing crime and everything to do with politics. 

Jerry Greenfield - the Poster Child of the American Jew

Jerry Greenfield (left) and Ben Cohen (VIN)

Even though it is certified Kosher by the Kof-K, I have never had Ben & Jerry’s ice cream. Not for political reasons. But simply because I’ve never had the opportunity. Plus the fact that I’m not much of an ice-cream lover. It is my understanding, however, that it’s quite good.

The two founders, Ben Cohen and Jerry Greenfield, are Jewish. They represent, I believe, exactly the reason so many Jews are abandoning their Judaism. Which, in a nutshell, is a widespread ignorance of what Judaism really is.

While I’m pretty sure both Ben and Jerry have identified themselves as Jews and have not consciously abandoned their Jewish identity, if they truly understood what it means to be a Jew, they might very well abandon it. If one looks at some of the values they cherish, one can see that those values are the opposite of authentic Jewish values, which are, of course, based on the Bible we call the Torah.

I bring this up in light of the following AP story published at VIN:

Ben & Jerry’s co-founder Jerry Greenfield is leaving the ice-cream brand after 47 years, saying that the independence it once had to speak up on social issues has been stifled by parent company Unilever. In a letter Greenfield said the following:

“For more than 20 years under their ownership, Ben & Jerry’s stood up and spoke out in support of peace, justice and human rights, not as abstract concepts, but in relation to real events happening in our world.”

“(At) a time when our country’s current administration is attacking civil rights, voting rights, the rights of immigrants, women and the LGBTQ community.”
“Standing up for the values of justice, equity, and our shared humanity has never been more important, and yet Ben & Jerry’s has been silenced…”

One may recall that the controversy erupted when Unilever, the parent company of Ben & Jerry’s, reversed the brand’s decision to disallow its franchise from operating in Judea and Samaria. That was the kind of ‘social justice’ they pursued. They have also been at the forefront of supporting Palestinians in Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza. Greenfield felt that he could no longer allow his values to be violated and resigned as a spokesman for the company he co-founded.

When Jews focus only on values that are either common to secular culture — or worse, are opposed to Jewish values, how does that make them remotely Jewish other than by the happenstance of birth? It is true they are technically Jewish for that reason and always will be, no matter how far removed they are from their Jewish mandate and roots. But they are not living as Jews. Declaring themselves Jewish by embracing ‘social justice’ (in this case for Palestinians in Gaza, Judea, and Samaria) does not make them any more Jewish than embracing a particular sport. Just because social justice for Palestinians is more altruistic than baseball does not make it any more Jewish.

Jerry Greenfield is probably a nice guy, but he is nonetheless the poster child of the American Jew who dedicates his life to social justice and to no other aspect of Judaism. They might be proud of that dedication and consider it the epitome of Judaism. But pursuing social justice is not uniquely Jewish. You don’t have to be Jewish to oppose racism. If I recall correctly, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was not Jewish.

If your children pursue social justice, they need not call it Judaism. For them the main thing is the justice itself. And if your children are not particularly inclined to pursue social justice, there may be nothing distinctly Jewish in their lives to identify with. So why bother?

And what about Jerry Greenfield’s claim to be pursuing social justice in this case?

Is supporting Palestinian claims to the land without the context of Israel’s legitimate claim - really pursuing social justice?

Is opposing security measures that make life so difficult for Palestinians in Judea and Samaria without considering the massive numbers of Palestinian suicide bombings over the past 50 years - really pursuing social justice?

Is supporting Palestinians in Israel’s war in Gaza without the context of the October 7^th massacre – really pursuing social justice?

Without considering the needs of your own people, is that really pursuing social justice, or is it pursuing selective social justice? Being either clueless about Jewish rights and needs -  or worse, not caring - is not a Jewish trait.

Add to this the treatment of the Bible as an outdated book that espouses immoral mandates (by the cultural standards of the day), and there is nothing Jewish about you, denials to the contrary notwithstanding.

So yes: Jerry Greenfield is the poster child for the American Jew who is ignorant of the biblical values that define his people and substitutes the cultural values of the day. But calling them Jewish doesn’t make them so.

I’ve got news for Mr. Greenfield: the values he calls Jewish and projects onto the Jewish people will lead to the extinction of American Jewry as he knows it. And sadly, it is already happening.

Was Charlie Kirk an Antisemite?

Sephardi Chief Rabbi, David Yosef (VIN)

One of the more curious phenomena I’ve noticed among my liberal friends is when they try to paint a staunch conservative supporter of Israel and fighter of antisemitism as an antisemite themselves.

This has happened many times to the president. I am not going to bother repeating the ‘evidence’ brought to try and substantiate that view of him. Needless to say, for anyone with an objective eye, no one has been more supportive of both Israel and an opponent of antisemitism than he has been.

The latest conservative victim of an accusation like that is the late Charlie Kirk. A quick Google search provided me with a list of such accusations, which basically amounted to criticisms I have made myself about the liberal nature of the majority of Jews in this country. Most of whom are either secular or heterodox. Whose knowledge of their own religion is about the same as my knowledge of quantum mechanics. Kirk’s point was generally that the majority of American Jews are their own worst enemies by providing huge financial support to institutions whose values have become inimical to Jewish survival. Even as they incorrectly believe the opposite to be true.

A clear example of such a Jew is Sally Kornbluth, president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Asked by conservative Republican representative, Elise Stefanik at a congressional hearing whether ‘calling for the genocide of Jews’ would violate her school’s code of conduct, Kornbluth responded by saying it would depend on the context. And yet schools like MIT receive a great deal of funding from Jews like Kornbluth, who applaud her tolerance of speech calling for death to Jews as a matter of free speech!

(Interestingly Stefanik herself has been accused of antisemitism - but was honored by Yeshiva University for her staunch opposition to it.) 

Kirk was right about Jews being their own worst enemies. That hardly made him an antisemite. Because if it does, I guess that makes me one too, since I’ve said the same thing. I’ve even gone further and said that the worst antisemites in the world are the Jewish ones. Because they are used by real antisemites as evidence that their virulent hatred of Zionist Israel is not antisemitic since so many Jews are now anti Zionist as well.

If Kirk was truly an antisemite, I doubt Israel’s prime minister would have said about Kirk the following:

A lion-hearted friend of Israel, he fought the lies and stood tall for Judeo-Christian civilization,” the Israeli prime minister wrote on X. “I spoke to him only two weeks ago and invited him to Israel. Sadly, that visit will not take place.”

In that vein, VIN reports the following:

The Rishon Le’Zion and Chief Rabbi of Israel, Rabbi David Yosef, sent a letter of condolence on Monday to the family of Charlie Kirk…

In his letter, the Chief Rabbi emphasized that Kirk always stood on the side of truth, justice, and the People of Israel, and even described him as an extraordinary figure whose modest yet firm approach influenced many.

Rabbi Yosef noted Kirk’s significant contribution to strengthening support for the State of Israel and combating antisemitism around the world, stating that the entire Jewish people share in the pain over the loss of such an important figure.

Is it possible that someone that DOES know a thing or two about Judaism, the Chief Rabbi of Israel just publicly praised an antisemite? I doubt it.

But that will not stop liberals around the world from trying to paint him that way. Just as they have with other conservative supporters of Israel and the Jewish people. Because to a liberal, it is impossible for a social conservative not to be a closet antisemite. Especially if they are religious Christians like Kirk.

Jumping from the Frying Pan into the Fire - A Good Idea?

Secretary of State Marco Rubio at the Kotel yesterday (Jerusalem Post)

Once again, Rabbi Moshe Taragin has hit the nail squarely on the head. He is one of the few people who recognizes the truth and is not influenced by the distorted way the media reports it. The following is what he recently said:

Our current war is just, fought in defense of a higher moral ideal. The IDF holds itself to a strict code of ethics, and the data show a remarkably low ratio of civilian to soldier casualties. Still, the conflict has raised painful and complicated moral questions. There is ongoing debate about how - or even if - these dilemmas should guide policy.

We find ourselves in a profoundly tangled moral maze, one that no single person or policy can fully chart. It is difficult to know what the “right” path might be - or even whether this moment of survival allows space for moral values to guide our choices.

It is with these comments in mind that I am perplexed by an editorial in the Jerusalem Post. There is a lot to digest in this editorial, some of which I agree with. Here is how they opened their editorial (which synopsizes it):

The arrival of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio in Israel on Sunday is yet another opportunity that cannot be missed by Israeli leadership to bring the Israel-Hamas War to a satisfactory close, as time continues to run out – both for the hostages and for Israel’s good name, reputation, and international credit.

All of those things are worthy goals. Only a fool would disagree with them. Here’s the problem though.

I understand the sentiment. But I would hardly characterize  this visit as the harsh criticism the mainstream media is saying it is. Every quote I heard from Secretary Rubio has been supportive. Even though the president was unhappy about the attack on Qatar, he made very clear that Hamas has to be defeated, and all the hostages must be released. Which is exactly the same goal repeatedly articulated by Israel.

Much of the mainstream media is characterizing the president’s response as a condemnation. It isn’t. The only people condemning Israel are the usual gang of suspects. Which doesn’t surprise me.

With respect to ending the war, who wouldn’t want it to end? But without defeating Hamas, I’m not sure how ending it will solve anything. If Hamas is allowed to stay in power in Gaza, I fear they will very quickly reconstitute themselves by recruiting young Palestinians more eager than ever to join them.

The only way this war ends is if Hamas leaves Gaza and abdicates its governance over it. Unless that happens, the entire two years of war will have been in vain in my humble opinion. It doesn’t matter that Hamas is weak now. It won’t take long until they are back to their full terrorist capabilities. And whatever tunnels were destroyed by Israel will quickly be rebuilt.

I do agree with the Post on one point: Israel’s reputation has suffered the worst damage in its entire history. Support among the American people has plummeted to record lows. The highly influential entertainment industry including many A-list actors have almost universally condemned Israel and boycotting them culturally.

But that’s only because the truth about the war is ignored in favor of what the Hamas-run Health Ministry and their willing co-conspirators in the UN and related ‘humanitarian’ agencies are feeding them – LIES  which the media then regurgitates to the public. If that were all the news I was getting, I would boycott Israel too. But I tend to believe Israel’s version of the truth over that of the Hamas-run Health Ministry and company.

Still, the truth doesn’t change the reality of the consequences of those lies being passed off and widely accepted as truth. And that is why Israel’s reputation is at such a low point.

The question is: what is Israel to do about this? If they end the war now without completely defeating Hamas, it will be like jumping from the frying pan into the fire.

Bottom line: I hurts that Israel’s reputation has suffered such a devastating blow. And I do have a lot of questions. But I don’t have any answers.

Crossing the Line to the Point of No Return

Charlie Kirk's assassin, Tyler Robinson

There are a lot of politicians on both the Democrat and Republican sides who have denounced the assassination of MAGA Republican Charlie Kirk. There have been calls for calm. And calls for reflection about the demonization by one side against the other that has led to the kind of violence that happened to Kirk last week. I don’t think there can be any doubt that the constant demonization by both sides against the other surely contributed to what happened.

And that may have pushed Tyler Robinson, Kirk’s assassin, over the edge. But his motive was hatred of Kirk’s socially conservative politics. It has come to light that Robinson’s lover was a man who is in the middle of transitioning into a woman. The conservative values that Kirk promoted were surely opposed to that kind of sexual relationship as well as to changing one’s sex. Kirk was a devout Christian who took the Bible’s admonitions against such things seriously.

There was a time when America took biblical prohibitions like that seriously, too. A relationship like Robinson’s would never have been openly acknowledged. If it happened at all, it would probably have generated guilt and shame in the hearts of both participants. Their sexual relationship would have been kept secret. And there surely would not have been any kind of sex change. Today, both gay sex and sex change have been given society’s imprimatur. That Kirk advocated turning back the clock may very well have been the motivation behind Robinson’s assassination of Kirk.

What this ‘defining deviancy down’ has wrought is a sense that this new ‘morality’ has become entrenched. Its promotion in the entertainment industry and the mainstream media as the norm and moral, has created a culture that - in the minds of far too many people justifies the kind of deadly violence that Kirk - who fought that notion - experienced last week.

Lest anyone deny that sane, everyday people could justify killing an individual with strong influence against these new values, they might be surprised to know that there were many comments on social media expressing joy over Kirk’s death. To their credit, employers fired employees who made such comments online.

On the other hand, it is not only the left that is guilty of such violence. One might remember what happened to Nancy Pelosi’s husband, Paul Pelosi, who was attacked by a right-wing fanatic whose real target was Nancy herself. As the Democratic Speaker of the House, she was responsible for legislation that clashed with the conservative ideals animating that would-be assassin. 

Perhaps the worst instance of political violence, though,  was January 6^th, when MAGA supporters held a rally outside the Capitol building, and some of the radical right broke into the building with threats of death to the vice president. That many of the protesters followed them into the building shows that they at least approved of what was happening, even if they weren’t the ones who actually broke in.

These radical right-wing conservatives feared that the left was ruining their country and that their candidate - who had been working to restore a culture based on biblical values - had been cheated out of a second term by a ‘rigged’ election. That this belief was proven false didn’t matter to them. They didn’t believe it. They wanted to ‘save the country’ and thus believed their actions that day were justified.

So, in both cases, the right and the left felt justified in using deadly violence to achieve their political aims, both believing that not doing so would ruin the country.

Exacerbating and accelerating the resort to violence is social media, which has become the most influential source of extremist political division. Even after a violent assassination, social media has shown us how far we are willing to go to advance our agenda. As in the way Kirk’s assassination was celebrated by so many people, and as in the way the president’s pardon of even the most violent protesters on January 6^th was celebrated by many of his MAGA supporters.

Thing is, I don’t see things getting any better. I wish I could. But as the divisions in this country increase, so will the willingness to thwart inroads by the opposition by any means necessary. Calls for calmer heads to prevail on both sides of the political aisle will fall on deaf ears. Even those who mean it will soon fall prey to their own instincts to vilify their political opponents as a necessary component to save America from the danger of destroying the moral fabric required for what they want America to be in the future.

Will there be a civil war at some point? I don’t think so. We will not have armies shooting at each other the way we did in the actual Civil War. But in many ways, the civil war has already begun. Who fired the first shot? The answer will depend on whom you ask.

In my view, even though my values are far more compatible with one side over the other, both sides are guilty—and will continue to be.

How Did We Become So Polarized?

'June Cleaver' - an image now ridiculed by the left

America has never been more polarized than it is right now. At least during my own lifetime. I suppose the polarization in America was far greater prior to and during the Civil War than it is now. But I think it is relatively safe to say that, politically, the American people seem to be as polarized as they could possibly be.

That is why Charlie Kirk, a 31-year-old MAGA Republican whose meteoric rise to fame and popularity made him a target. He was gunned down at a Utah Valley State University rally by an assassin’s bullet - a single shot to the neck. Law enforcement officials are saying there is no doubt this was a politically motivated, targeted shooting. (The latest information is that the assassin is now in  custody.)

The question is: how did it get to be this way? Why have we become so polarized that assassins are popping up on both sides of the political aisle to kill prominent people whose politics are the polar opposite of theirs?

Sadly, one of the things Kirk was trying to do was open up debate between the two sides. He was willing to listen to the other side and argue his own. That is what many of his rallies were all about,

That used to be the way disagreements were handled. People would disagree, discuss, and then go on their merry way. Often remaining the best of friends. I still operate this way. I am close friends with people whose views are the exact opposite of mine, and we get along quite nicely.

There is a lot of blame being placed on rhetoric from both sides. Rhetoric that vilifies people with opposing views. But I don’t think that’s the cause. I think it’s a symptom of something much deeper: the radical change in liberal values over the last few decades.

The differences between liberals and conservatives (in this sense I mean social conservatives) used to be relatively minor by today’s standards, so each side could tolerate the other without any real rancor. But as liberal values kept edging further into radical progressive territory that defines them today, most conservatives held their ground - since their values were based on biblical principles not subject to change.

So the gap kept widening to the point where people with conservative values could no longer tolerate the lengths to which people with liberal values had gone. Where in the past many values were shared, today that is far less the case. Progressive values  championed by the entertainment industry and promoted by the liberal media have taken hold and dominating the culture. Values that once were shared are now vilified.

The greatest impact of this phenomenon has been in the area of family values. Just a few short decades ago, ‘family’ meant a married couple with children.  The idea of having pre-marital sex  was considered immoral. (Even though it probably happened a lot more than people realized back then.) Today having sex before marriage is considered a good idea.

TV programs in the 50s had to abide by standards and practices consistent with cultural values of that time.

Women’s clothing were far more modestly designed back then. Even bathing suits were more modest. There was no such thing as a bikini. In the 50s one would be hard pressed to find a woman wearing pants in the street. Today, one can easily find women wearing any version of immodest clothing they choose in the street.

The definition of a man or woman was unchallenged. There was no such thing as ‘gender identity’. One was the sex with which they were born. Those who had gender dysphoria were believed to be a tiny minority to be pitied at best. The idea of gay marriage was completely unacceptable, even to liberals. A gay pride parade would never have happened in the 50s. They would have been arrested if they tried.

As recently as the Clinton era, gays in the military were accepted ONLY if they were not openly gay. That was the purpose of President Clinton’s ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy. But today, the left considers that policy an infringement on the civil rights of gay people.

The idea of allowing biological men to use women’s bathrooms was once considered immoral even by liberals. Today they demand it!  Sex reassignment surgery was considered mutilation of the body. Today it is promoted as a solution for gender dysphoria.

Conservatives have not wavered in their opposition to many of these things. That is what I believe MAGA Republicans mean by “Make America Great Again.” They found that phrase, coined by candidate Trump during his first campaign, perfectly fit their worldview. They wanted to return to a time when more of their values were accepted by the mainstream—before those views were reshaped by powerful media and entertainment forces that now promote progressive values like gender identity politics.

During the last election, the mantra of the Democratic Party was “We won’t go back.” By that they meant America had “progressed” too far to return to the values once held by the majority—values the progressive elite see as intolerant and outdated. They were not going to go back to a time of rejection of gay and transgender people.

So now there is far more anger on both sides. The right thinks the left has gone down the path of the devil, and the left thinks the right is reverting to the bigoted policies of the past.

That could very well have been the motive behind the assassin who killed Charlie Kirk. He may have seen a man who was becoming increasingly successful in “turning back the clock” to the so-called dark ages of the 1950s. He may have believed he was doing a public service by stopping Kirk in his tracks—all for the sake of equality, maybe even “saving lives” that might otherwise be lost to suicide if society returned to a time when gay and transgender people were not seen as completely normal.

By the same token, the right wing fanatic who killed liberal Minnesota legislator Melissa Hortman and her husband must have believed he was acting zealously for God.

The rhetoric on both sides surely contributes to the anger and frustration. But the root cause of the polarization, in my view, is the continual trek down the progressive road that has widened the break with values once shared with conservative counterparts. Trump and Sanders are only the voices articulating that break.

How this will all end, I don’t know. But this is the way things stand now as I see them—and why a leftist ideologue believed that murder was the quickest way to deal with the problem.

Cherishing Torah and Judaism Is Not Uniquely Charedi

OK. So I am an Oysvurf . Which is the Yiddish word for ‘outcast’. That’s the appellation used for someone brazen enough to question what Charedi Gedolim are doing. So if you are a Charedi Gadol, you may very well consider what I am about to say worthy of placing me in that category. I will surely be considered an outcast. Or worse. But I cannot help how I feel. And right now, I feel outraged by what just I read at YWN:

“Gedolei Torah emphasized that the burden upon those working in Eretz Yisroel has become overwhelming, and the askanim who have been carrying this responsibility are collapsing under its weight.”

I would of course agree with that statement - if it referred to supporting the IDF. Soldiers whose mesiras nefesh is literal. They have been putting their lives on the line for their people for amost two years, often serving long tours of duty in war zones for lack of sufficient replacements among the reserves. There are indeed askanim - activists - who work tirelessly to help them and their families. That kind of responsibility, that kind of burden, is surely a worthy cause and can be very exhausting.

But that is NOT what these askanim are doing. The efforts that have so exhausted them are on behalf of Charedim arrested for dodging the draft. That some have been ‘languishing’ in jail for maybe a couple of months is what animates them. THIS is what wakes them up in the middle of the night. THIS is what the Gedolim consider the most important issue of the day. An issue they insist must be fought with everything they have, since the idea of drafting even a single Charedi is considered a threat to the very Torah itself.

Here is how YWN describes it:

“In light of the ever-intensifying gezeirah of giyus in Eretz Yisroel, Gedolei Torah in America have announced the formation of a special new Vaad Hatzalah to stand at the side of bochurim and yungeleit facing unprecedented pressure and danger.
The letter, signed by leading roshei yeshiva and rabbonim, describes the draft as a direct attack on Bnei Torah — an existential threat not only to lomdei Torah in Eretz Yisroel but to the very kiyum of Torah throughout Klal Yisroel.”

I don’t think I can even begin to express my outrage at this attitude. But I will try.

Unprecedented pressure and danger?! They consider a Charedi jailed for refusing to serve in the IDF an unprecedented danger”? Do they not realize that there are young Jews, equally devout and equally committed to Torah study, who face just a bit more danger than being in an Israeli jail?

It is no secret that Hesder Yeshiva students who study Torah diligently when they aren’t fighting in war are represented in the IDF in far greater percentage to their numbers than are secular soldiers to theirs. Soldiers who risk their lives on the front lines daily. Many for months at a time. Some of whom have paid the ultimate price, leaving behind grieving families. Some soldiers with PTSD so severe that they have committed suicide! Others who have been permanently injured or lost their livelihoods due to those overly long tours of duty.

 Are the American Gedolim that are involved in this project oblivious to all that?! Do they consider the ‘crisis’ of drafting some young Israeli Charedim to be more serious than that? …to be dealt with exclusively as the most imminent danger to Judaism?

The only possible explanation is that they do NOT consider any IDF soldiers to be Bnei Torah. How else could they make the following comment?

“All who cherish Torah and Yiddishkeit are called upon to join in this effort,” the Gedolim urged, “to strengthen the hands of those battling for the future of Torah, and to be zocheh to the bracha of Baruch asher yakim es divrei haTorah hazos.”

Well, I DO cherish Torah and Yiddishkeit. Torah study is the essence of our survival. It should be studied diligently by all Jews to the best of their ability. I certainly admire Charedi zeal in this regard. And I would never suggest that they abandon their devotion to learning.

But the notion that Judaism will survive ONLY if the Charedi world is totally exempt from army service - and that anything less will destroy it - is something I cannot agree with. Especially when other Bnei Torah are shedding blood in war right now.

And yet this is what they repeatedly say. I have never heard any of these Gedolim suggest that one can be both a Talmid Chacham and an IDF soldier. Their view seems to be that serving in the IDF is not only disqualifying, but that if Charedim are subject to the same IDF requirements as Hesder yeshiva students, Judaism itself will be destroyed. And the lengths they are going to in order to validate that view is disturbing in the extreme!

I could understand - and even accept that their views differ from mine. Elu V’Elu. But to go as far as they are now, goes too far. It is hurtful to those that serve and their families. Especially if they have lost loved ones.

Why is it that they don’t recognize this?