Liberal Zionism has been a dying ideology even before October 7th. Its torch bearer, JStreet, led the charge on the belief that advocacy for Jewish and Palestinian self-determination were not mutually exclusive endeavors. It promoted the idea that one can simultaneously advocate for Israel’s security and Palestinian dignity. In fact, one of the bedrocks of their philosophy was that the two of these are tied together. While I did not subscribe to JStreet’s strategy or tactics, I did subscribe to the belief that the best way to guarantee Israel’s security was to give the Palestinians a state of their own.

As the years went by, I became more and more skeptical as evidence of the contrary simply became too great. First came Operation Cast Lead, then Operation Protective Edge, and, finally, October 7th. Over the years, every time something arose in Israel, the Liberal Zionist organizations were far more focused on the response from Israel rather than the initial action by the Palestinians. When American partisanship became more infused with the discourse around Israel and Palestine, Liberal Zionists began to start identifying more with the “Liberal” than the “Zionist,” which led to a complete distortion of the conflict.

Share

With October 7th, Liberal Zionism finally reached its true breaking point. The people who were raped and murdered on Simchat Torah were the peaceniks. Palestinians who found employment on the kibbutzim used their jobs as intelligence gathering and simply didn’t care which one of their Jewish neighbors drove them to the hospital. With this undeniable fact, Liberal Zionism has been tearing at the seams, pulled apart by both sides of the extreme.

From the Right, they point to this undeniable fact that even the most peaceful and neighborly of Jews were not immune from the animalistic nature of those Palestinians whose goal was to commit a genocide. From the Left, they point to the “undeniable fact” that the Jews are settlers and deserved the treatment (that they, ironically, deny happened) for land theft and occupation. Like so many other things in our world today, compromise, splitting the difference, and the “middle” is simply no longer satisfying. I don’t consider myself a Liberal Zionist anymore because I have to live in the reality of my world. I don’t have the luxury of living in “what could be” because what’s happening right now is threatening Jewish safety.

That being said, the underlying beliefs of Liberal Zionism remains the most potent amongst American Jews, and remains the driving force behind most American policy makers. Perhaps the “two state solution” is nothing more than a talking point amongst our elected officials, but it still remains the “most sensible” solution to the average person who has no idea what the hell is going on in the Middle East. Whether those to the right want to admit it or not, if we want to retain support for Israel amongst American Jews, going to the religious extreme is not the correct approach. Furthermore, the more we ignore and reject every criticism, the more likely we are to push critical Jews to the only safe landing spot there is: antizionism.

Subscribe now

To the Liberal Zionists who are shouting from the rooftops, demanding that Jewish organizations hear them, you need to stop. Demanding that Jewish organizations adhere to an ideology that you admit yourselves has been dying for years is a practice in futility. In reality, you should welcome the fact that Jewish organizations are not hearing you because it provides a unique opportunity in our capitalistic society that a major gap in the market will remain open with zero competition. JStreet has doused its torch and removed themselves from the conversation. A new industry of Liberal Zionist organizations could easily dominate the market, but only if you are willing to accept hard truths about a world that no longer exists.

That’s why I’m here to help you. I’m here to offer a plan of action for you to create a tent so big that it welcomes both the Jew who’s on the precipice of putting a keffiyeh on and… someone like myself. I’m going to help you revive Liberal Zionism, because while I’m required to live in a world of what is, that doesn’t mean I don’t want to work for a world that could be.

Stop being a Liberal Zionist. Be a liberal Zionist.

It’s fine if you don’t know the difference. At this point, the word “Liberal” is now synonymous with the American Democratic Party, and if you want your form of Zionism to become predominant once again, it has to cross party lines. The best way to do that is to replace it with the word “liberal” instead (I tried to come up with a Social Network joke about removing “the” but couldn’t). The word “liberal” refers to the political philosophy of Classical Liberalism which became the foundation for the American Revolution. Classical Liberalism believes in individual rights, free markets, and the rule of law. By stating that you’re a liberal Zionist, instead of a Liberal Zionist, you take a step away from partisanship and toward where American Jews (and Americans) have historically remained: Proud of the American project.

Not only will you align yourself with American pride, but you will naturally land in the realm of “anti-authoritarianism.” The Sons of Liberty became liberals in response to the tyranny of the king, believing their rights were endowed to them by their Creator, and not a human king. By invoking this same sense of religiously endowed rights, you simultaneously steal back American patriotism and inherently reject the accusation that, because you are secular, you cannot be trusted with Zionism.

To be a liberal Zionist, you not only are one who believes in the inalienable rights of Jews, but in the inalienable rights of all people whose government requires the consent of the governed. As of now, the Palestinians are not governed by those they’ve consented to, and therefore, their inalienable rights are being violated (by whom is a point I will get to later). Zionism that is liberal, rather than Liberal, aims to rectify this situation. Furthermore, that social contract, requires, most importantly, the equal enforcement of the rule of law. One of the biggest issues of recent years is the increasingly unequal enforcement of the rule of law not only in Judea and Samaria but also within Israeli society. By replacing one’s ideology of Liberal with liberal, you can invoke the necessity for any just society to equally apply the law regardless of who is the accuser or who is the accused. It’s a natural antagonist to authoritarianism and it also removes the ever growing feeling that those without power deserve to be able to break the law because of their lack of power.

The point of liberalism is remove oneself from the situation to look at it objectively. The American founders understood that a nation ruled by men would naturally lead to tyranny which is why a nation must be ruled by laws. A Zionist who is Liberal has become someone who simply wants different men (and women) to rule the nation. A Zionist who is liberal is someone who will become known for believing that a nation should be ruled by laws, regardless of the man (or women) who are in power.

When one believes in the inalienable rights of all people and the equal enforcement of the rule of law, there’s one final piece to the puzzle that will help you, as a new liberal Zionist, tell your story. That is John Rawls’ Original Position theory (Veil of Ignorance). In the Veil of Ignorance, the theory states that you are placed behind a Veil of Ignorance and given a choice on multiple “types of societies” that you can be born into. When none of the choices are completely equal, the average person will choose the society in which most people are the closest to equality. The purpose of this exercise is to showcase the importance of creating as equal and just societies for everyone, whether they end up in Hebron or in Tel Aviv.

Be For Something. Not Against Everything

Even if you didn’t understand a word of what I just said or you disagree with every word, my recommendation would be find something you actually believe in and fight for it. Liberal Zionism died the way every aspect of the Democratic Party started to die in 2016: You became for nothing and oriented yourself to be against everything. Democrats stopped fighting for immigration reform and merely fought against Trump’s immigration policies, which they deemed racist. Liberal Zionists stopped fighting for a two-state solution and only fought against the settler movement. Democrats stopped fighting for the survival of democracy and only fought against Trump’s tyranny. Liberal Zionists stopped fighting for the secular, liberal foundation of Israel’s democracy and only fought against Netanyahu’s corruption and authoritarianism.

Hyper-partisanship created a toxic environment in the American discourse and it seeped into the American Jewish discourse on Israel. Liberal Zionists allowed their hatred for Donald Trump to cloud their judgement on Israel, and when you stand for nothing, you fall for anything. When you stand for nothing, people don’t want to follow you. People follow those who hold strongly held beliefs and stick to them, even in the face of hardship. When it’s clear those beliefs are based on weak foundations, they flock to those who can provide greater stability and certainty. So if there’s nothing else that you take away from this article, hear this: Choose something to believe in, and do so with your full heart.

In Part 2, I’ll explain the ten ways liberal Zionists can change their strategies without changing their mission.

The vote for Jerusalem Post’s Top 25 Vizionaries of 2026 is officially opened and I would really appreciate if you would take less than one minute to submit a vote for me.

It’s only one person per vote so I promise I won’t be hammering you every other day with another message to vote for me .

Whether you are a recent subscriber, or someone who has been with me even before I started Gam v’Gam, I hope I have proven myself as someone you can trust with the long-term vision of Israel and the Jewish people.

Thank you all for your support, and I hope I can count on your vote!

VOTE HERE FOR ZACH SILVERMAN

Shalom Chaverim -

My first job as a Jewish professional was the Birthright Israel Coordinator at the Hillel at the University of Texas-Austin. My job was simple: Recruit eighty Jewish kids to go on a Birthright Israel trip twice a year, staff the trips, and keep the kids engaged when they return. One of my many responsibilities was to conduct interviews of each applicant to ensure they qualified for the trip. To qualify, one only needed a single Jewish parent (either the mother or the father) and needed to “identify as Jewish.” I knew every kid who applied or came to know them through a referral so the interviews were mostly a formality. Eventually, we’d get to the question of: “Do you identify as Jewish?” Other than the obvious “Yes” I got from those with strong Jewish backgrounds and identities, that somewhat innocuous question carried a lot of weight. Many answers I received came in the form of:

“Umm, yes?”

“I grew up Jewish.”

“I guess so. I don’t keep kosher and didn’t have a bar mitzvah.”

“Ya, but like culturally.”

Those answering the questions always delivered their answers through some form of tenuous, hesitant, or nervous tone. Each variant showcased some underlying belief on what it meant to be Jewish to them. Now, years later, the one response I think of the most is, “Ya, but like culturally,” always said with some tone that conveyed they knew they were Jewish, but not enough to cross some arbitrary threshold into a zone only reserved for those that regularly attended Shabbat services or fasted on Yom Kippur. There seemed to be some demarcation line that existed between those that considered themselves “Reform” and those who considered themselves “culturally Jewish” whereby the former felt that innate right to call themselves Jewish while the latter felt compelled to denote that on the spectrum of observance denominations, they didn’t even make the cut.

Subscribe now

Since October 7th, there has been a new surge in Jews who considered themselves only “culturally Jewish” who wish to become more—to earn the right to shed that Scarlet C—so as to not be included with other “cultural Jews” who have aligned themselves with our enemies. To ensure they feel like they’ve “earned” their place in a denomination to avoid any accusation of being in the same group as the “AsAJew” members of the tribe. I am here to say, we have it all wrong. Every one of us should aspire to become culturally Jewish.

When my wife and I travelled to Israel over New Year’s, we spent Friday lunch with my family in Tel Aviv. She had never met them, and it was the perfect opportunity to gather as many people as possible. It was truly a dream come true after almost ten years of being together. As the late afternoon transitioned into early evening, and the only ones left were the family who lived in the house, my cousin turned the TV onto one of Israel’s news channels. With Shabbat approaching, my wife turned to my cousin and asked if their three kids, all of whom were over twenty years old and lived somewhere in Tel Aviv, did Shabbat dinner with them every week. My cousin’s response reinforced what so many of us know about Israelis.

“Do we light the candles and do the wine? No, but the kids eat dinner with us.”

“Every week?” My wife asked the kids

Each of the three kids responded in some way affirming with various exceptions, of course. At that moment, all I could think to myself was: “This is what it means to be culturally Jewish.”

My cousins are all the classic, liberal, “secular” Jews of Tel Aviv, but every Friday night, they make sure to gather around for a family dinner. Is that not the point of the Shabbat dinner? Sure, lighting the candles, saying the kiddish, and eating the challah are important rituals, but is the meaning—the purpose—of Shabbat not to gather with our families and rest? To pause? If we had to choose between the symbols and the practice, would we not all say the latter is more important than the former? To be religiously Jewish is to light the candles, say the kiddish, and eat the challah. To be culturally Jewish is to ensure that no matter where you are, you come home for dinner and eat with your family. To be religiously Jewish is to ensure you don’t turn the lights on. To be culturally Jewish is to pause after a long week and rest with your loved ones.

For my entire life, I’ve never kept kosher. I’ve never understood it. It’s the one thing in Judaism that no rabbi has ever been able to explain the meaning behind the rule nor why we should keep it in the modern age. Certainly, the additional Halachic necessities of ensuring the chemicals included in Coca-Cola always made me wonder what the purpose of kashrut beyond the forbidden animals ever actually was. That changed when I went to Mexico City where the pork and shellfish were mighty plenty. Unlike my wife, who has never eaten either, I indulged in all of the local cuisine. Then, one night, I found myself standing in front of a chalkboard sign listing the various specials. After translating each one of them, I learned that all but one was pork.

In that moment, I looked around at the locals and realized that this was not my culture. It’s not a matter of good or bad, better or worse, but simply different. In Mexican culture, eating pork held no weight. In Jewish culture, eating pork was heavy. Even for my own parents, who happily kept their dairy and meat items in the same refrigerator drawer, cooking and serving pork to us as a main dish was too far. There was something about serving a pork chop and ham in our home that always felt weird. As I peered around, watching everyone eat various parts of the pig topped with incredible salsas and a tequila to sip on, I felt equally strange about all the forms that pork could be served as and gave them all up. Every Jew who doesn’t keep strict kosher has some type of version of this. Some will eat non-kosher meat out of the house while others decide to simply be a vegetarian when eating out. Many will eat shellfish (like me) and many will only eat kosher animals. Regardless of how one does it, there is a cultural practice in not eating some foods. The choices are all different, but we’re all choosing from the same menu of what not to eat, and that menu is Judaism.

Culture refers to the collective beliefs, values, customs, and practices that characterize a particular group or society. Celebrating the new year sometime between September and October, instead of on January 1st, is a cultural celebration as much as it is a religious one. Building and eating inside of a sukkah is a cultural custom that leads to fulfilling the religious obligation. Lighting candles for Hanukkah instead of decorating a Christmas tree is a cultural ritual even more than a religious one given Hanukkah’s “second-tier” status in the pantheon of the chagim. Giving to charity is a cultural value derived from the religious commandment. Amongst all the various groups of Jews—Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Mizrachi, Yemenite, etc.—is the thing that binds us not our shared beliefs, values, customs, and practices?

Whether one is Ashkenazi or Sephardic, neither of us eat pork. Whether our families come from Tehran or Paris, both will eat a meal together on Friday night. Whether we believe the Maccabees defeated the Greeks by divine intervention or purely by strong will, both of us will celebrate their victory by lighting candles.

As more Jews decide to strengthen their connection with Judaism, I can only pray that their bond becomes so strong that they become culturally Jewish.

Share

Refer a friend

Shalom Chaverim -

Last Friday, July 3rd, marked 1,000 days since October 7th. Even though it is 2026, we don’t, and will never have to, mark the year when stating that date—no different than an American invoking September 11th. Unlike Americans, who will eventually forget the meaning of that date within the next 1-2 generations (don’t believe me, ask someone the date of Pearl Harbor), every generation of Jews will remember what that day represented for us. So what were Jews doing on that 1,000th day?

It seems the biggest controversy was who was the rightful winner of the Miss Israel contest. I don’t really know the details, and I couldn’t care less. In the days leading up to this 1,000th day, Jewish influencers were posting about how tough it has been for them, complaining about the lack of fairness in a beauty pageant, and announcing their potential run against one of the longest-standing members of the U.S. Senate. I’m no longer surprised nor outraged by any of it—only severely disappointed.

Subscribe now

As a Jewish professional, I saw, first hand, the impact of the rise in Jewish influencers immediately after October 7th and throughout 2024. Those with the largest followings were offered the opportunity to make gala keynote speeches, moderate conference panels, and frequently appear on debate shows in the media. Keep in mind, these same influencers built their followings on discrediting galas, questioning the importance of conferences, and being ill-prepared to debate in front of an international audience. Then the calendar flipped to 2025, and the organizations started to flip the script along with it. Jewish organizations became more selective—making their decisions based on who had subject expertise and who offered new insights rather than someone with the latest viral video.

It became clear that the Jewish influencer bubble would pop. There are only so many times an audience can hear “No more Jews on trembling knees!” and “Jewish joy is the key to our survival!” At some point, even the most popular podcasts will lose their steam as Jews become tired of hearing another Jewish celebrity talk about losing friends due to their Zionism. So what will all these people, who gained mild amounts of “fame” inside an insular community, do when their social media quips no longer cut it on a main stage?

Unfortunately, 1,000 days later, I don’t have an answer for you. I have learned that many are passionate about solving Jewish problems as long as they don’t have to do any real work beyond the internet or aren’t empowered to solve it themselves (and well-funded of course). Those who swear that everything we’re doing to fight antisemitism is wrong have no quantitative, or even qualitative, data, to prove what they’re doing is any more effective. People who have complained about the lack of funding for Jewish day schools have yet to engage in a real discussion about the economics of it. Social media personalities “who have been doing this even before October 7th” love to complain about legacy organizations. Yet they all have something eerily in common: They’ve all had bad experiences where they swear an organization “screwed” them in some particular way. I’ve reached out directly to multiple people offering connections and strategic advice to help further their cause only to be met with silence. It seems as though introductions to organizations with millions of dollars at their disposal and offering to help write fundraising content for free isn’t as important as having 10,000 followers.

While Jews are complaining about a rigged beauty pageant, Israelis are still suffering and American Jews are in an even worse position politically than we were 1,001 days ago. Despite how resilient Israelis are, we can’t ignore that the population is still suffering and will continue to do so even when the war is over. Israelis who bore the brunt of this war both in the South and in the North have yet to return to a normal life, if they’ve returned at all. You would never know this, though, because the influencers who receive paid trip after paid trip only ever seem to end up in the Old City of Jerusalem and the beaches of Tel Aviv. From your favorite influencer’s latest fully subsidized trip to Israel, you would never know the underlying issues that are causing native-born Israelis to emigrate from Israel at higher rates in the last three years than in the last decade. From the inspiring captions in front of the Kotel, you probably don’t know that the social welfare budget is the largest in Israel’s history and there is a shortage of physicians and nurses. When you see the latest post boasting about Mossad’s latest triumph, it’s easy to be ignorant of how the ongoing war is having a long-term, negative impact on children who have a parent in reserve duty.1

In the Diaspora, Jewish safety has declined as violent attacks have increased in number and severity. Here in the United States, our situation might not be as bad as it is in Canada, the U.K. or Australia, but we are anything but on the right trajectory. Jews have become the number one target for hate crimes in the last three years, and we have never been weaker as an interest group. In addition to the charlatan that was elected in New York City, more Democratic Socialists will occupy seats in the House of Representatives, and possibly the U.S. Senate, than ever before. AIPAC is a well-accepted dog whistle, dismissing violence against Jews is no longer a deal breaker, and the Democratic Party is well on its way to officially declare its complete separation from Israel. Not to mention that the Republican Vice President of the United States is sympathetic to a right-wing podcast sphere that is happy to spread the same blood libels as the Left.

Subscribe now

Both content creators and consumers love nothing more than to attribute this tragic outcome to nameless legacy organizations or just use the ADL as a scapegoat. Yet, when the creators, who rile up consumers with these statements, are challenged to provide evidence to their own measurement of impact, they have little to show for it. Creators love spending their time and energy debating on college campuses for the sake of a viral clip, but can’t tell you how many minds they’ve changed. Many of these new organizations who sprouted in the aftermath of October 7th, or just before, can’t definitively state their impact on Jewish identity or Jewish engagement—most likely because they don’t know, or care, to track that data. But don’t worry everyone because the vibes are immaculate!

It is fitting that on the day we crossed the 1,000 day mark, we were reading Parshat Pinchas, which describes the passing of leadership from Moses to Joshua. After leading the people out of bondage and through the desert, Moses was refused entry for a singular mistake—arguably one of the most contentious decisions other than the binding of Isaac. Similarly, our legacy organizations, who shaped the Golden Age of American Jewry, and possibly the greatest time for Jews in diaspora history, are now being told that this single mistake means they cannot be our leaders any further. They must pass the staff to the next generation to lead us. Unlike Moses who gave up his staff willingly, our legacy organizations have not accepted culpability for such mistakes, and are unwilling to instill the next generation with the power and authority needed to lead the Jewish people. Perhaps, they aren’t wrong for doing so.

Numbers 27:16-17 says:

“Let GOD, Source of the breath of all flesh, appoint someone over the community who shall go out before them and come in before them, and who shall take them out and bring them in, so that GOD’s community may not be like sheep that have no shepherd.”2

Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks stated in his “Lessons of a Leader” that this quality is of the upmost importance, balancing two sides of leadership. The first being that a leader must lead from the front, which seems fairly easy to understand for anyone trying to make a difference. It is the other clause that seems to be the issue. Rabbi Sacks noted that a leader cannot be so far out ahead of their flock that when they turn around, no one is actually following them.3 I know it sounds ironic to claim that people who literally have hundreds of thousands of followers don’t have a following, but what evidence do we have that they actually believe in their leadership other than a simple click of a button?

Share

Before entering the Promised Land, the Israelites took a new census of the people—taking account of a new generation who would enter. After doing so, Moses decreed how the land would be split and passed some of his authority onto Joshua to lead the Israelites on an entirely new mission—conquer the land of Canaan. Similarly, we must take account of who the new generation of Jews are and acknowledge that the mission will be different. Unlike the previous generations, whose mission was to build a golden age for Jews in the diaspora, ours will be to ensure Jews in the diaspora survive. Just like Moses passed his staff to Joshua knowing a new leader was required, so must our leaders pass their staff to someone new.

1,000 days later, we’re still looking for our Joshua.

Shalom Chaverim -

Operation Epic Fury and Roaring Lion lasted only a few weeks, and unfortunately, America and Israel experienced a dramatic defeat. That’s right folks—despite establishing complete air superiority over Iranian skies, significantly reducing Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities, and removing Iranian leaders faster than they could be appointed, Iran walked away unequivocally victorious. If you read every major media outlet, that’s the story you’ll internalize. No one is entirely certain what the media’s interest is in trying to create an alternative reality for their readers, but it is preventing us from discussing what new reality can be created if (and when) the Islamic Republic is finally defeated: The rise of complete American military superiority over the world and the good that can result from it.

Human history has been defined by groups of varying sizes fighting over limited resources. From the battles between Neanderthals and homo sapiens to the battle between Karen and Barbara on Black Friday, the fact that resources are finite requires us to compete for their consumption. For most of history, mankind formed small groups of tribes and kingdoms up until the Bronze Age when the first regional empires started to form. From this point on, all empires would wax and wane until finally collapsing—with wars, clashes, and uprisings defining every stage. While many assume the size and scale of these bouts might not matter since war is war and violence is violence, I would argue that the size, scale, and frequency should factor into how we think about global stability.

Subscribe now

There are at least three historical examples in which the growth of an imperial power created more stability by reducing the frequency of warfare within a region. As Cyrus the Great absorbed smaller kingdoms of the Near East, the wars between them vanished, creating a monolithic state that would have rivaled the future Roman Empire had it survived the Macedonian conquest¹. Speaking of the Roman Empire, the second, and arguably most famous, example of a hegemon creating stability is that of Pax Romana. In the first 200 years of the Roman Empire, Mediterranean piracy was almost non-existent², trade expanded dramatically³, and wars within the empire moved to the frontier⁴. Obviously, there were still internal conflicts—one of the most famous would be the successive revolts by the Jews in Judea during this exact time period, but that is always to be expected. At the same time Rome was consolidating its power in the West, the Qin Dynasty was doing the same in the Far East. Through military victory, Qin Shi Huang ended the Warring State Period, becoming China’s first emperor and creating an imperial model that China would constantly aspire to up until the present day⁵. It goes without saying (but I’m going to say it anyway so there’s no confusion), to create this stability, the imperial powers I referenced, along with every other imperial power throughout history, accomplished this feat only by conquering lands, massacring populations, and subjugating the survivors.

Let’s be clear: America should not massacre any number of people in the pursuit of empire, and our own recent history shows there’s no such requirement.

During the last decade of the 20th Century, the United States of America was the only global superpower. The Soviet Union had collapsed and China had only just decided to pursue a more market-based economy with true vigor. Neither were military powers and with no one else to challenge the United States, Pax Americana reigned until the tragic events of September 11th. While grunge was becoming the next best genre of music, the United States triumphed militarily, diplomatically, and economically. America successfully defended Kuwait after being invaded by Saddam Hussein and led the charge to stop the ethnic cleansing of Bosnian Muslims and Croats. On the diplomatic front, the United States played a critical role in the signing of the Oslo Accords—the first major step towards peace between Israelis and Palestinians ever. Incredibly, while defending the world from bad actors and bringing peace to the Middle East, the United States also experienced exponential economic growth—even creating a budget surplus for the first time in almost thirty years. That’s not to say there weren’t great tragedies during this time period, such as the Rwandan Genocide; however, that humanitarian disaster is a perfect example of what happened when America didn’t intervene during that ten-year period.

Undoubtedly, America has contributed to massive instability since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. While many would argue that America is the leading contributor to this day, I believe that diagnosis is outdated. Since the Arab Spring in 2010, we’ve seen the Arab and Muslim states create far more instability entirely on their own. Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic created the world’s worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen, not the United States. While America deserves plenty of blame for the disaster in Iraq, Bashar Al-Assad, Hezbollah, and the Islamic Republic carry all of the water for the destruction of Syria. In other areas of the world, such as Eastern Europe and South America, we can see where Russia and China, having regained their strength as imperial powers, have deliberately fostered instability for their own interests. Russia has been trying to reinsert itself amongst its former client states since the mid-2000s, but their boldest move came when Putin annexed Crimea in 2014. China has been increasing its influence more through economic means than military—a prime example being investments in critical minerals and resources⁶ as well as ports in Latin America. As Russia, China, and the Islamic Republic gained power and influence, global stability faltered. Even as the slaughter in Syria waned, the migrant crisis in Europe only worsened. Cartel control of Latin American countries eventually led to states failing entirely and the deadly drug fentanyl flooded our streets. Instability in Europe and the Middle East found their apex when Russia invaded Ukraine and Hamas committed the atrocities of October 7th.

History teaches us that when there are too many nations who are relatively equal in power, stability collapses and endless wars are fought. Europe is a perfect example of a region that has never had a truly dominant authority on the continent. Even when the largest and most powerful of the European powers reached their apex, their strangleholds were always in other parts of the world and never amongst the Europeans themselves. It was only when America and the Soviet Union grew to forge a bi-polar world, and after Europe decimated itself for the second time in half a century, that we saw relative peace amongst these medium-sized nations.

President Barack Obama, in his infinite wisdom and overwhelming snark, decided to ignore all of human history and believe in a new era defined by global diplomacy and cooperation. His “reset” with Russia is what gave them implicit permission to annex Crimea and his determination to make the Islamic Republic feel welcomed amongst the nations was the catalyst for what ended with October 7th. Somehow, even his “pivot to Asia” led to a rise in China’s military power rather than its decline⁷—making the invasion of Taiwan even more likely ten years after he left office.

Today, the United States has a unique opportunity to be bold and create another Pax Americana. After a complete and total decimation of the Islamic Republic’s military, diplomatic, and economic infrastructure, the Middle East has a chance to reset the table; there are indications that Ukraine might actually be turning the tide against Russia⁸; and the recent purge in China has diminished its military’s operational readiness for a full-scale invasion of Taiwan⁹. We are at a critical juncture in which we can take advantage of our weakened enemies to assert even more dominance if we are willing to be bold. That will require us to acknowledge that Ukraine and Israel are model allies who are willing to bear the brunt of the frontier akin to those of imperial history. That will require us to empower our friends and allies in the Pacific with the same vigor equal to that of Israel and Ukraine. That will require us to believe that the United States of America can be a force for good in this world.

Share

Historically, empires are regarded as evil sovereignties who only ever expanded under the guise of conquest and subjugation. It’s hard to argue that point when looking at the destruction they caused. However, the stability they created at their apexes also produced the opportunities for the largest leaps in mathematics, science, art, technology, and culture. Thankfully, today’s modern world doesn’t actually require the massacre of millions nor the conquest of land to create an empire. The United States can cultivate the same unipolar stability as previous empires without any destruction preceding its creation. All it takes is the willingness to use its overwhelming military prowess against bad actors who threaten it.

Essentially, all America has to do is say “Don’t,” and actually mean it.

References

1. Briant, Pierre. From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire. Translated by Peter T. Daniels. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2002. (Originally published 1996).

2. Goldsworthy, Adrian. Pax Romana: War, Peace and Conquest in the Roman World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2016.

3. Luttwak, Edward N. The Grand Strategy of the Roman Empire. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1976.

4. Temin, Peter. The Roman Market Economy. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013.

5. Lewis, Mark Edward. The Early Chinese Empires: Qin and Han. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2007.

6. Council on Foreign Relations. “China in Latin America.” February 2026. https://www.cfr.org/articles/china-in-latin-america-february-2026

7. U.S. Department of Defense. Military and Security Developments Involving the People’s Republic of China 2016. Washington, DC: Department of Defense, 2016.

8. Institute for the Study of War. “Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment.” Accessed 2026. https://understandingwar.org/research/russia-ukraine/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-updates-3/

9. Lowy Institute. “Xi’s Military Purges Will Make Him Wary of Invading Taiwan.” https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/xi-s-military-purges-will-make-him-wary-invading-taiwan

Shalom Chaverim -

Recently the idea of the two-state solution has arose from the ashes amongst the “normie” Democrats who are desperate to make everyone feel better. Most of them are coming back out of the woodwork after the recent content published by Ezra Klein regarding Hasan Piker and his “general sympathies” with Israelis. These “centrist” Democrats see what’s happening in places like Michigan and, because they don’t want to admit that the Left-wing version of the 2010 Tea Party Takeover of the GOP is happening, they are attempting to find a “reasonable” middle ground on Israel.

Let’s put aside the fact that these “moderate” Democrats are in complete denial about what these extremists actually believe about the two-state solution and focus on the determination to hold onto this zombie of an idea. To be clear, I have no better idea than the two-state solution and I genuinely believe no one else does either. Those stating that Israel has a right to annex Gaza and Judea and Samaria don’t realize that they are effectively advocating for Israel to become an actual apartheid state. On the flip side, those advocating for Israelis and Palestinians to come together as a singular democratic state that will respect civil rights are living in a land more fantastical than Disney’s Magic Kingdom. That being said, the two-state solution, while the most ideal solution, is also the least likely one because the Arabs of Palestine have never proven they want a Jewish state to exist.

It’s ironic that for all those on the left side of the aisle who claim that European colonialism is the root of all that is evil in the world, they have no problem inheriting the same outlook. If you ask anyone with a Bachelor’s Degree in political science or international relations about why places like Africa and the Middle East are so chaotic, their response will come down to some version of: “The Europeans drew lines without considering how different groups of people were about to be forced to live with one another after centuries of fighting.” Interestingly, those same people don’t seem to mind incurring the same burden on Jews and Arabs despite the common denominator between them and every other country in the region.

Subscribe now

Westerners have been imposing the unnatural state of bottom-up coexistence since dividing up the Ottoman Empire in the aftermath of World War I, and especially Israel. During the British Mandate of Palestine, the ruling power consistently placated the Arabs at the expense of the existing Jewish minority in order to maintain stability. The French were no different when they gave the Lebanese Muslims and Christians power with pre-determined quotas. Today, Westerners have picked up the mantle by, once again, trying to impose a system that is simply unattainable for no other reason than “they’re sick and tired of the fighting.” Ask anyone who has some type of opinion about Israel and Palestine why they believe the two-state solution is the only path forward, and it will undoubtedly be based in the same reasoning defined by early 20th Century European colonialists. Neither those in the past nor in the present actually care about the people who live in the region—they are simply “tired,” and just want “peace and quiet.”

Despite the fact that the Arabs of Palestine have been outwardly stating their distaste for a Jewish state for the last one-hundred years through their own words and satanic actions, “normal” Democrats have as much cotton in their ears as the monocled British men of the 1920s. The two-state solution is an unviable solution for no other reason than the Palestinians have never proven with words or actions that they actually want a Jewish state to exist next to them. One can look to the Oslo Accords if they’d like, but even after a half-decade of economic growth, when the moment came to sign on the dotted line, Arafat didn’t have the political power to take up the pen. So he took up the sword. If the two-state solution was hanging on for dear life after the Second Intifada, you’d think that a constant barrage of rockets from a small strip of land given for nothing in return would kill it; but no, the two-state solution remained a viable option for Benjamin Netanyahu even at the end of the first decade of the 21st Century. Now, in a post-October 7th world, the two-state solution was buried, burned, and its ashes salted—murdered along with the peaceniks who lived next to the Gazans on that fateful day.

Share

Unfortunately, that doesn’t matter to those “moderate” Democrats; that doesn’t factor into the equation they’ve come to when determining what is best for the region. They don't actually care about the Jews who died that day or any other day. They don’t actually care about the words Palestinians speak or the actions they take (or don’t take like saving a single hostage). They don’t care about the fact that Mahmoud Abbas, to this day, still pays pensions to the families of those who died carrying out a terrorist attack. They don’t care about the Jews murdered, only the noise they make as they die—and instead of listening to them as they take their last breaths, they put their finger to their mouths, and politely ask them to be quieter.

Shalom Chaverim!

I have some exciting news about The Three Suns of Asha. I received an ARC (Advanced Reader Copy) version of my book. For those unfamiliar, it’s an unedited version of the book that definitely has typos, grammar issues, and possibly even whole characters that are poorly written.

ARC Readers are a great way for authors to get general feedback on their book from dedicated fans interested in genuinely supporting the author’s ambitions. For those interested, I have a few requirements.

1. You’re a fan of fantasy/sci-fi.

2. Commit to finishing the book (335 pages) no later than May 31st.

3. Provide constructive feedback to me privately and won’t make it public.

4. Write a positive review that can be published wherever the book will be sold.

5. BONUS: You have a social media following of any kind and you’re willing to post about the book.

Please let me know if you’d like to be an ARC Reader so I can send you the appropriate materials!

Subscribe now

Shalom Chaverim -

When the age of cancel culture still reigned supreme, a common line was iterated by those who simply could not fathom throwing their heroes into the dustbin of pop culture history: “We have to separate the art from the artist.” For those that did not care for the art of one that had been found guilty by the court of public opinion, this line felt childish at best and downright evil at worst. Today, it seems as though that cancel culture has, itself, been thrown into the dustbin of pop culture history, but in a much different way. Pre-COVID, it felt like far too many were throwing darts at a board of celebrity cut outs, hoping they would be the star witness of a trial in which the judge, jury, and executioner were the swarm of Twitter profiles of various anonymity. Today, cancel culture is far more intertwined with politics, thereby, making the attempt futile.

In the “before times,” being a Trump supporter was, in and of itself, a cancellable offense. Actors, musicians, comedians, athletes, and the like, carefully watched their words to avoid any of them being misconstrued for support of “literal Hitler.” It became so bad that people simply assumed that if you did not outright condemn the Orange Bad Man, then you must be in support of him. The other side of that coin came absurd attempts by the Right to cancel companies who were woke such as Bud Light when they partnered with Dylan Mulvaney.

Today, cancelling anyone is almost impossible due to the hyper polarization on both sides of the political horseshoe. Given the wide array of media outlets, there is no shortage of opportunities for anyone who wishes to pander to the side opposite of the one who cancelled them. The exception that proves the rule is one that I am now grappling with: To be a Zionist. Even worse, to be a Zionist Author. Even worse? To be a Zionist Author in Fantasy and Science Fiction.

On October 8, 2023, I woke up to a BookTok that immediately called Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide while Israel was still trying to rid itself of the Hamas terrorists who butchered hundreds of innocent people from its territory. That didn’t stop numerous BookTok influencers from advocating for Palestinian authors and, subsequently, advocating against anyone deemed a “Zionist.” Similar to the pre-COVID era when celebrities who did not outwardly condemn Trump sneezing were deemed Nazis, authors who did not publicly and proudly support the Palestinians were deemed ZIO-Nazis. Rebecca Yaros and Sarah J. Maas, authors of some of the most successful fantasy novels in the last ten years, were condemned by the internet as Zionists. Thankfully, the internet isn’t real and it had no sizable impact on their status as prominent authors. Smaller authors have not been so lucky. Throughout the literary world, Zionist (Jewish) authors have found themselves on the receiving end of discrimination. Their readings have been cancelled “due to security concerns” and have even ended up on blacklists. Most Jewish authors, regardless of how vocal they are about Israel, or even their own Judaism, have been placed on notice within the publishing world.

So what do you think my chances are as someone who has now posted hundreds of videos since October 7th proudly proclaiming his Jewish heritage and his support for Israel? Not only have I committed such crimes as advocating for Israel’s right to defend itself, I’ve denied their accusations of genocide, insulted the mere idea they were suffering from famine, and even outright called the Palestinian narrative a lie. In a corner of the internet that literally enjoys living in made-up worlds in which there are clearly good guys and clearly bad guys, and Israel is always the latter now, what possible chance would I have to become a successful author?

The answer is up to the audience on that one, but I want to be very clear about one thing: I don’t apologize for anything. Every word I have written and spoken are words that I stand behind. Some words were published with more ire and sarcasm than I usually prefer when having nuanced conversations, but I stand by the emotion through which they were published. The last two and a half years for Jews has been tumultuous, in part because of the literary world and their refusal to be open-minded despite their self-righteous belief in the concept. I stand by every word because that is who I am—just as is The Three Suns of Asha.

If you want to know who I am, you can easily read the dozens of articles I’ve posted on this Substack, watch the hundreds of videos on my TikTok and Instagram, and yes, read The Three Suns of Asha. This book, which I began to write over a year prior to October 7th, is just as much a reflection of my values and beliefs as is the short videos dunking on stupid people who promote antisemitic tropes. In fact, the very process of writing this book became representative of the message that I genuinely and sincerely hope comes across. The person who wrote over 100,000 words that make up this book is the same person who published those videos and articles that seemingly contradict the former. That is the whole point!

The Three Suns of Asha will undoubtedly upset everyone, even those who are to my right. As a fair warning, there are even non-binary characters! *GASP* But like everything else in this book, there is a reason for it, and it is not to deliberately upset anyone. Like everything I have posted on the internet since October 7th, I am just as proud of every word that appears in this novel. I am proud of every character I have created, every rule I have constructed, and every outcome I have written.

So please… I beg you… do not separate me from my art.

Shalom Chaverim -

I am not a bookworm by any means—especially given the fact that I don’t even read books, I listen to them (although I still argue they’re one and the same). I got back into reading fiction, and specifically science fiction and fantasy, during COVID. My reintroduction was Jade City by Fonda Lee. When I say this was the perfect book, I mean it was the perfect book. It was all of my favorite things: mob politics, East Asian honor culture, and martial arts. Beyond that though, Fonda wrote a truly exceptional book with every character being compelling, great pacing, well thought out magic system, and a beautifully created world interwoven with history and culture based on the magic. I immediately powered through the next two. The only thing missing was religion. She dabbled in the area slightly when a character would go to a temple to pray, or spoke of the monks who created “safe spaces” when she needed to put enemies in the same room. Otherwise, not much to mention, which I didn’t find a problem because religion wasn’t that critical to the story itself.

My next book was The Poppy War by R.F. Kuang, which was another exceptional book. The trilogy, however, was much to be desired. The nation known as “Hesperia” became a larger player in the trilogy and was a stand in for “European colonizer,” which wouldn’t have been an issue if Kuang hadn’t written them as a one-dimensional boogeyman. The Hesperians were clearly not just Westerners, but specifically Christians. I have no problem with writing the West as the antagonist, but I do have a problem with antagonists who are presented in such a black and white manner in a book that heavily relies on an extremely problematic main character.

As I kept reading both fantasy and science fiction, I noticed a distinct pattern: No one writes religion from a place of love or appreciation and always from a place of ignorance or antagonism. If religion isn’t ignored entirely, it’s usually integrated poorly. The easiest way most writers involve religion is by making them the primary or secondary antagonist. Religious institutions are oppressive, religious figures are corrupt, and religions themselves are presented as shallow concepts that only the “unenlightened” follow—setting up the protagonists to free said docile sheep from their slumber.

Subscribe now

When writers decide they don’t want to ignore religion, but they don’t want to utilize it as a literary device, they rarely integrate it into the world they’ve built in any meaningful way—ignoring how religion is the foundation of every society. Ultimately, religion merely describes how humans understand the greater world around them and how they answer the big questions we can’t truly contemplate. Every human has asked, “Why does the sun rise?” and “Where does the rain come from?” Prior to modern science, the only way humans could interpret such enormous concepts, especially those pertaining to life and death, is through the existence of something that seemed like them but just more powerful. A human understands the idea that he can scoop water from a river and pour it over an anthill so there must just be a larger being who scoops water from the ocean and pours it over humans, and that is rain. This is important because these interpretations are what shape entire societies. Placating these all powerful beings becomes the most important thing you can do because it’s the only way to have any amount of control over your life. Religion defines the form and function of entire societies, and yet writers rarely ever internalize this. Instead, they usually create some second-rate version of the Catholic Church and move forward.

I understand why religion is rarely ever written well, and it’s usually because both writers, and readers, have complicated relationships with religion. Writing is a form of expression, and for many authors, religion has rarely ever played a positive role in their lives. I don’t think I’m wrong to generalize the average fantasy and sci-fi fan is someone who grew up with religious parents or in religious societies, and their form of rebellion is to dive into worlds that fight against this “oppressive” force. I don’t hold it against them as all anyone can do is write what they know, and if all they know is the oppressive nature of religion, specifically Christianity, then that’s what they’re going to write.

It is exactly this reason why I decided to make religion the foundation of my world and the driving force for my book. All three groups—Yisarians, Jaddites, and Bar’shibians—follow a branch of the main religion, each with their own interpretations, and each allowing the religion to drive their decisions. I wanted to create a world that allowed readers to see the beauty of religion and not just its ugliness. Sure, religion drives my characters to violence, but it also drives them to forgive and seek peace. Religion has been a force for evil, but it has also been a force for good. It is a complicated force of nature driven and directed by the self-reinforcing nature of human beings. Human beings are never entirely good nor are they entirely evil so why would the religions they create be any less complex?

Subscribe now

Shalom Chaverim -

If you’re wondering why I haven’t been as active here lately, it’s because I have some very exciting news… MY FANTASY BOOK IS GETTING PUBLISHED!

It’s been an incredibly long journey, but I found an incredible non-profit publisher in Denver, Colorado known as Journey Institute Press. We are completely aligned in our values and our approach to the creative process.

As a result of being a smaller publisher, there is a lot of upfront work that I need to do, which has taken up the entirety of my “writing brain” these last couple of months.

For those that don’t know the story of why I started making content, the long of the short of it is:

1. I was going to self-publish a desert fantasy book and started marketing on BookTok.

2. October 7th happened and I learned that BookTok is actually very antizionist and anti-Jewish.

3. I deleted everything and started yelling at idiots.

For the whole story, go here:

I started this Substack with the intention of raising funds to self-publish (it’s VERY EXPENSIVE it turns out). It eventually turned into something more with podcasts, videos, and guest writing opportunities which have been tremendous. I’ve had the pleasure of being featured on , , and other podcasts through this journey.

You all have been committed supporters. I hope that you will remain with me on this journey as I temporarily pivot back into what got me started on this path.

Share

Today we have a special episode featuring David Daoud. Normally, my Gam v’Gam episodes are reserved for political and social discussions and debate while my On the Road to Zion episodes are reserved for more intimate conversations, we are doing both today.

Because David Daoud’s personal story intertwines so much with his professional career, I felt this was a unique opportunity to combine the two. The first half of our conversation focuses on David’s upbringing and personal journey with Judaism and then we transition into extreme depth regarding the situation in Lebanon.

David Daoud is a senior fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies focused on Lebanon and Hezbollah. He previously worked as a nonresident fellow at the Atlantic Council, director of Israel, Lebanon, and Syria research at United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), and a research analyst at FDD. David also has experience working as a staff member on Capitol Hill providing analysis on matters related to the Middle East, Israel, and Iran.

David holds a JD with a concentration in International Law and the Laws of Armed Conflict from Suffolk University in Boston. He is fluent in Arabic and Hebrew and has spent extensive time living in the Middle East, primarily in Israel and Lebanon. His work has been cited or published in outlets including Haaretz, Foreign Policy, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, and the Wall Street Journal.

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to David Daoud and His Background

02:58 The Lebanese Jewish Community: History and Identity

05:54 The Impact of the Lebanese Civil War on Jews

08:39 The Decline of the Lebanese Jewish Community

11:18 Personal Reflections on Growing Up as a Lebanese Jew

14:15 Cultural Dynamics of Sephardic and Ashkenazi Jews

17:06 The Evolution of Jewish Identity in Israel

20:07 The Tension Between Right and Left in Israeli Politics

22:57 The Future of Jewish Identity and Community

34:08 Exploring Jewish Prayer Traditions

37:39 Halachic Perspectives: Ashkenazi vs Sephardic

41:25 Jewish Identity and Community Dynamics

46:28 Lebanon’s Complex Historical Landscape

01:00:19 The Sectarian System and Its Challenges

01:02:25 Lebanon’s Cultural Identity: A Facade of Progressivism

01:07:55 The Rise of Hezbollah: Historical Context and Dynamics

01:18:15 Hezbollah’s Role in the Modern Geopolitical Landscape

01:28:22 Understanding the Complexity of Lebanon’s Political Landscape

01:32:55 The Role of Hezbollah in Lebanon’s Society

01:39:17 Challenges in Addressing Hezbollah’s Influence

01:47:42 Strategies for a Sustainable Future in Lebanon

Watch on YouTube

Jenny recently starred in the Verbatim Off-Broadway play “October 7th,” portraying a Nova festival survivor. Her screen credits include countless TV Series like “Blue Bloods,” “Law & Order: SVU,” “House of Cards,” “Parks & Recreation,” and various award-winning indie films. A trained solo improviser, known for her act “I Am Not Sara Bareilles.” She has performed nationwide at comedy festivals. Jenny also coaches actors in on camera work and audition prep.

Beyond performance, she’s a proud Jewish voice in the arts, using storytelling and social media to combat antisemitism and share stories of resilience and identity. For Jenny, art and activism are inseparable. Her content has reached 162K views per video.

Where You Can Find Jenny

Instagram: jenny.anne.hochberg

IMDB: Jenny Anne Hochberg

Check out her Reel Here!

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Jenny Hochberg

02:54 Jenny’s Jewish Journey and Identity

06:11 Impact of October 7th on Jewish Identity

09:07 Experiences in the Entertainment Industry

11:53 Navigating Anti-Semitism in the Industry

14:52 Community and Activism Post-October 7th

18:07 The Role of Jewish Day Schools

21:07 Current Experiences in New York City

23:56 Reconnecting with Jewish Practices

26:52 The Future of Jewish Representation in Media

38:04 Exploring Jewish Identity in Acting

39:54 The Balance of Judaism in Character Development

42:21 Navigating Jewish Identity in Non-Jewish Spaces

44:00 The Dilemma of Jewish Representation in Media

45:53 Opportunities in Christmas Movies: A Jewish Perspective

51:21 Diversity Within the Jewish Community

55:25 The Need for Diverse Jewish Narratives

01:01:23 The Future of Jewish Identity Post-October 7th

Watch on Youtube

On this episode of Gam v’Gam, I interview Shabbos Kestenbaum. You may know him only as the student who successfully sued Harvard, complains a lot on TV, and spoke at the RNC as a former Bernie Sanders supporter. What you may not know is that he has his own show on PragerU called The Brief where he interviews such people like Former Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren and provides analysis on breaking news. More importantly, you might know that Shabbos isn’t actually a MAGA fascist, and the more you get to know him, the more you realize he’s not even the bombastic personality you might assume (okay maybe I’m only talking about myself).

Shabbos is someone who believes in pushing Jewish organizations to do better because as he says at the very beginning: The better that legacy Jewish institutions, the better the American Jewish community does overall.

Where You Can Find Shabbos

X: ShabbosK

Instagram: shabboskest

The Brief on PragerU

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Shabbos Kestenbaum

02:38 The State of American Jewry

06:26 Critique of Legacy Jewish Organizations

10:20 The Role of Student Activism

12:08 Free Speech and Anti-Semitism on Campus

16:57 Strategies for Combatting Anti-Zionism

20:35 The Intersection of Jewish and American Identity

27:08 Legal Action and Community Support

29:28 The Isolation of Jewish Communities

31:54 Addressing the Needs of Smaller Jewish Communities

34:23 The Importance of Jewish Day Schools

38:23 Balancing Resources Between Coastal and Non-Coastal Communities

42:58 Engaging with Smaller Communities

54:05 Proposing Solutions for Jewish Community Challenges

Watch on YouTube

On this episode of Gam v’Gam, I speak with Lucy Biggers—a former climate activist turned anti-climate alarmism creator. She is the creator of a viral video series, “Calming Climate Charts,” that counters some of the scariest misconceptions about climate change. At her day job, she is the Head of Social Media for The Free Press.

Lucy shares her journey from passionate advocacy to questioning media narratives and the broader climate movement. We discuss the historical context of climate debates, the complexity of data, and the media’s influence on public perception. Lucy also opens up about the emotional toll of climate anxiety, her time away from social media, and her return to public conversation with a more balanced outlook—one that embraces truth in journalism and market-based solutions.

Subscribe now

Where to Find Lucy

Instagram: lucybiggers

X: LLBiggers

Substack: Lucy Biggers

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Lucy Biggers and Her Journey

03:04 From Climate Activism to Skepticism

05:55 The Role of Media in Climate Perception

09:07 Understanding Climate Change: Facts and Misconceptions

12:04 Historical Context of Climate Change

14:59 The Impact of Human Activity on Climate

17:49 Extreme Weather Events and Their Correlation with Climate Change

20:57 Building Resilience in the Face of Climate Change

23:58 Prioritizing Human Prosperity Over Environmental Alarmism

27:17 Adapting to Climate Change

30:30 Media Influence on Climate Perception

37:51 Personal Evolution and Identity

42:06 Emerging Voices in Climate Discourse

49:04 Hope for a New Mainstream

50:25 Navigating Political Discourse

51:51 Shifting Perspectives on Trump

54:08 The Role of Media in Political Understanding

56:15 The Complexity of Climate Change

01:00:34 Energy Policy and Future Directions

Subscribe now

Watch on YouTube

Yesterday, Am Yisrael celebrated Simchat Torah, which is literally when we restart reading the Torah from Bereshit 1:1 and move through each parsha (“portion”) until we do it again next year. Every year we run through the same cycle—a concept Judaism is obsessed with. We never deviate which not only prevents charlatans from claiming divine authority that differs from the word of Hashem, but it also creates exponential power in our understanding of our tradition. Imagine if you read the Lord of the Rings trilogy or the Song of Ice and Fire series (if George R.R. Martin ever finishes) every single year for three thousand years. You would undoubtedly find meaning in specific sentences, phrases, and even individual words. There is power in the collective doing the same thing over and over. Unfortunately, Am Yisrael is also repeating the cycle that brought us to October 7th and its aftermath.

the two year mark, both in the Gregorian and Hebrew calendar, the war is officially over and every single live hostage has returned home. Sadly, Hamas continues to repeat its cycle of reneging on deals as it pretends to not know the location of the hostages who they brutally murdered. Am Yisrael stayed up to whatever hour required to see our brothers and sisters return home followed by social media posts, statements, videos, podcasts, and articles that filled the World Wide Web. In reality, the content you consumed permeated amongst the Jewish Wide Web and not much else. How many of your non-Jewish friends posted something about October 7th? How many could even recount what happened on that tragic day? With the world having moved on already, we find ourselves back in the same position we have found ourselves in for centuries, asking the same question at the end of every cycle:

How do we stop this from happening again?

Jews have experienced a personal and communal reckoning since that fateful day. New voices have emerged, legacy institutions have been criticized, and new movements have been established due to the dangerous cracks finally brought to light. With a foot in both worlds, I’m sad to say we’re repeating the same cycle. Jewish legacy institutions have been accused of throwing big galas and paying speakers exorbitant fees for canned interviews while creating a Jewish community “less Jewish,” antizionist, and unable to fight antisemitism. Ironically, many of our community’s new slate of “micro-celebrities” are simultaneously generating huge followings by criticizing these legacy institutions while happily feeding that same system as participants or even beneficiaries. If they’re not walking the red carpet at the latest gala they supposedly distaste, our new slate of internet warriors will pick up their phone and speak into the camera about how legacy institutions failed us, and then use that same phone to accept a call by a different legacy institution to accept a speaking fee—sometimes charging tens of thousands of dollars in fees, flights, and hotel rooms.

Subscribe now

Hypocritical influencers are the least of our worries as they will undoubtedly fizzle out over time. Maybe not this year and maybe not next year, but the time will come (and sooner rather than later) that influencers who got their bag by shouting into their camera will lose their sizzle. Even though there will be plenty of content to be made when Zohran Mamdani eventually wins the mayoral election and the 2028 presidential primary begins, our current reality will eventually soften and people will eventually get bored. It’s how the world goes, and frankly, that’s how it should. We, as a community, cannot remain in this survival mode forever. At some point, we do have to move forward but we will be stuck with a post-October 7th attitude that is nothing more than a redux of the one that existed on October 6th.

If they aren’t reinforcing the wasteful self-congratulatory culture they claim to hate, our freshest voices are focused on creating new movements and organizations fueled by the same empty platitudes they are certain brought us to the present day. Many of these new sentiments and missions certainly represent a healthy and necessary change in attitude, but my issue is not with their beliefs—only their lack of self-awareness.

Influencers will spend a dozen hours on a flight to Israel multiple times a year posting pictures with captions about “decolonizing identity” and “reconnecting with the land” but won’t spent five minutes asking themselves how they plan on helping Jews from Detroit follow in their footsteps. The average Jew goes to Israel once or twice over the course of their entire life due to the practical limitations of time and money for a total of maybe 10-14 days. Have these influencers thought about how they’re going to “decolonize the identity” of an Ashkenazi Jew who’s born and raised in Houston, Texas? I’m sure they’ll try to convince us that by going on these all-expense paid trips where they make content, they will “inspire Am Yisrael to adopt their Judean identities.” They’re not lying to us. They’re just lying to themselves.

Jewish content creators in every medium have expressed the need for Jews to be “proud” and “strong” and be “joyful” but offer no definition of what any of that means or how any of those concepts manifest in a tangible way. I’ve seen countless videos and posts of creators standing in the middle of Times Square silently holding signs that tell me to be proudly Jewish, which generate an awful lot of clicks and accomplishes an awful lot of nothing. I’ve seen countless creators addressing antisemites in all sorts of ways. They dress up to trick their would be targets; they jump to the front of a campus protest; and they sit at a busy park with a sign asking people to debate them. While the last one perhaps offers a small amount of impact, the others accomplish nothing but the sweet catharsis of “owning” some punk Free Palestine protester. Is this what we think it means to be a strong Jew? To dunk on people we know aren’t going to change their minds just to feel better about ourselves? Have these new voices who have taken their shots at legacy institutions for failing to fight antisemitism in a tangible way thought about their own impact?

Of course not. They’re committing the same sin for which they cast the first stone—acting upon their own ego-based idea of what they believe to be effective rather than step back to be certain based on objective measurables. They know that yelling at a keffiyeh wearing, masked blue-haired girl on camera will give the rest of us the catharsis we’re all seeking, which will lead to more views, more followers, and more personal success. None of that helps the Jewish community in any way and I challenge anyone to use objective, measurable, and tangible data points to prove me wrong.

Even our most established voices who have had new epiphanies have yet to change themselves in any tangible way. Jewish elders with financial resources and large platforms like to talk a lot but haven’t changed their behavior that reflects the urgency they’ve conveyed. They’re terrified that young Jews aren’t connected to Israel, but haven’t donated more money to programs that gets kids to the Holy Land earlier in life, more frequently, and for more immersive experiences. They now believe Jewish day schools are the most important vehicle for making Jews more Jewish but haven’t gone west of Philadelphia (unless of course one of those legacy institutions happily paid for their airfare) to understand the practical limitations of such a concept. They’re fundamentally convinced the only way to fight antisemitism is with education and yet not a single new organization has been created to get pro-Jewish officials elected to school boards, city councils, and state legislatures despite that’s where curriculum is created. Our newest leaders with all the right answers seem to not see the irony in charging a legacy institution $25,000-$50,000 for an hour of their time and then wonder why that institution can’t send more kids to Israel.

We are now in our third cycle in this post-October 7th world. We have yet to heal completely, and I am personally aware of it more than most in America. Israelis still have a long journey ahead of them. Our battle to win back the hearts and minds of Americans will remind us of the peace we lost in the first place. It will take time to heal. Nonetheless, we must continue to move forward, but with a caveat. Moving forward means we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. Moving forward means keeping our loudest voices accountable, and ourselves. Moving forward means we must challenge each other, and ourselves, to think more critically about the impact of our actions; for if we simply decide to rebuild our house the same way we built the last one, with nothing changed other than the aesthetics, it’ll undoubtedly crumble even faster the next time it cracks.

Share

Hamas has officially accepted Trump’s peace plan (with conditions of course that certainly won’t get in the way) so we can, in at least theory, move onto the discussion of the infamous DAY AFTER. Precisely, what does the day after look like? Donald Trump has somehow wrangled the entire Arab-Muslim world to agree on something that was previously thought to be un-agreeable. His ability to bring together multiple Arab Muslim factions at a time when they would undoubtedly be at each other’s throats were it not for that pesky Jewish country, is merit enough for a Nobel Peace Prize. What will solidify him in the history books will be if it’s actually implemented. The key to this implementation, ironically, will be the Arabs who call themselves citizens of that pesky Jewish country.

Arab citizens have always held an interesting position in Israeli society, and even more so since October 7th. While many feel even closer to their Israeli identity due to Arab Muslims being targeted during the Simchat Torah Massacre, others feel even further away due to the actions of Netanyahu and his right-wing government in its aftermath. Additionally, Arab-Israelis have also held a special position in the Jewish Diaspora. They prove to be a popular and effective counterpoint to the accusation of apartheid but are rarely thought of as anything else but an opportunity to knock down the antisemitic allegation. Within Israeli politics, they remain cemented in their position outside the political arena. Obviously, the Right has sincere ideological differences that would never lead to coalition inclusion (except that one time with Bennett), but those in the opposition only do so for political reasons. The Day After in Gaza offers the opposition, and all of Israel, a unique opportunity by placing Arab-Israelis in charge of the rebuilding of Gaza.

The Plan

Israel is required to have an election in 2026, and the ABN (Anyone But Netanyahu) coalition will be, once again, tested on their ability to actually oust the man who still refuses to admit his culpability in allowing October 7th to occur. They have failed time and time again because they are, ultimately, not that different from him when it comes to the issues that matter. As I’ve mentioned many times before, people don’t want to vote AGAINST something, they want to vote FOR something, and a plan that makes the Arab-Israeli population the face of the Gaza rebuild is something that people can vote for.

Despite the existence of dozens of ministries, there is not a single one dedicated to Arab-Israelis or the promotion of coexistence between Jews and non-Jews. The ABN coalition should promise to create a Ministry of Arab-Jewish Relations that will be led by an Arab-Israeli from their coalition—and their primary responsibility will to oversee the rebuilding of Gaza.

Everyone Wins

Creating a Ministry of Arab-Jewish Relations with an Arab-Israeli from one of the main Arab parties leads to multiple wins.

Win #1: The ABN Coalition Increases Their Chances of Winning

Netanyahu always benefited from the stupidity of his enemies, all of whom are driven by their belief that they are only ones who can defeat him. Except none of them seem to admit their faults. Yair Lapid has never been able to capture the imagination of anyone on his right; Benny Gantz is as charismatic as a raisin; Yoav Gallant is a soldier, not a politician; and Naftali Bennett isn’t ideologically different. Each one’s absolute certainty they are the only one who can defeat him is the reason why they never accomplish their mutual goals. At the same time, the Left’s dwindling constituency makes them ineffective at supporting the effort to remove the elected king. More importantly, the ABN coalition is deliberately sacrificing 20% of the population for the sake of going after a much smaller portion.

The ABN coalition can easily trounce the Far-Right by bringing in the Arab parties by promising them to take on the mantle of rebuilding Gaza.

Win #2: Double Down on Israeli National Identity

In the immediate aftermath of October 7th, many Arab-Israelis have felt a stronger connection to their identity as an Israeli citizen more than to their Arab brethren, and this is a perfect opportunity to double down on that sentiment. Just like the rest of the world, Israel’s sympathy tank is running dry, if not completely empty, due to their actions in Gaza. That same sentiment amongst the Arab-Israeli population will also continue to rise if Israel does not actively cultivate their identity as an Israeli citizen. By giving them a reason to come into the coalition, they will feel even more tied to that identity relative to the one as a “Palestinian Israeli” or their general ties to all Arabs.

Arab-Israelis can no longer be just a talking point; they must be completely integrated into society as Israeli, and this is a perfect opportunity to hug them so tight, they’ll never want to let go.

Win #3: Israel Resets Its Image on the World Stage

Whatever you want to say about Netanyahu, Israel’s reputation on the world stage is at the lowest point in its history because of him. If Netanyahu is not going to be the prime minister, whoever will be, has the Everest-size challenge of rebuilding Israel’s reputation with… well everyone. Their first step will be to differentiate themselves from Netanyahu and his even more despised coalition partners. One of the most surefire ways to show that differentiation between Netanyahu, Smotrich, and Ben Gvir is to give the Arab-Israeli population a real platform and real responsibility within the government.

World leaders and the Free Palestine mouth breathers alike will have a tough time accusing Israel of being an apartheid state while an Arab-Israeli is the one updating the United Nations on the rebuilding process in New York City. Media outlets from Al-Jazeera to the Washington Post will have a tough time spinning Israel’s rebuilding process into an evil conspiracy when they are forced to speak with an Arab-Israeli to get a progress report.

Most importantly, everyone will find themselves hard-pressed to accuse Israel of committing a genocide in Gaza while an Arab-Israeli is in charge of the rebuilding process.

Control the Process to Control the Outcome

Israel does not want to be, and should not be, responsible for the rebuild of Gaza. However, Israel cannot simultaneously wash its hands of the process while expecting their most desired outcome. If you want something done, you have to do it yourself—and this is no different.

Israel cannot settle for the measly price of “Hamas cannot exist in Gaza” as they were only a symptom of the greater issue that plagues the entire Palestinian population. Before Hamas took over Gaza, UNRWA was still operating in a way that deliberately kept the Palestinians down in order to feed their anti-Israel grievance politics. Israel cannot allow for Hamas to be replaced by the next version of it, which will surely happen if the people in charge include those whose position on Israel’s existence remains neutral. If there’s one thing we all learned from the last two years, it’s that Israel can only rely on itself for its survival. Israel has successfully integrated Arabs into Israeli society over the last 75 years in a number of ways, so there’s no reason to try to reinvent the wheel in Gaza. However, to avoid the obvious downside of nationalizing the two million Gazans, Israel must find a different path to deradicalize them. I see no better option than to allow a citizen of Israel who is Arab to lead this important initiative.

With an Arab-Israeli at the helm of rebuilding Gaza, Israel hits multiple achievements.

1. Israel placates those who believe it’s responsible for rebuilding Gaza.

2. Israel controls the process from start to finish, which prevents malicious actors from taking advantage of the situation.

3. Israel avoids the appearance of Jews “controlling” Arabs.

If Israel wants Gaza to be radically different than what it has been for decades, then it must take control of the process, but that will also require a strategic and thoughtful plan.

Subscribe now

Overall Better for Gaza

We all understand the importance of cultural norms and practices, especially in a place like the Middle East where it’s easy to offend, and the response can be deadly. Rebuilding Gaza is not only about ensuring the physical infrastructure never serves malicious actors; it’s also about rebuilding Gazan society from the ground up. Deradicalizing the Gazan population must start with the overall belief that Jews are not evil and they can be trusted. Who better to showcase this foundational belief than an Arab-Israeli who has risen through a majority-Jewish society?

Whoever is placed in charge of the rebuild will be required to work with clan leaders, community organizers, security personnel, and even the heads of state for multiple Arab-Muslim countries. Instead of placing a Jew, a Druze, or even an Arab-Christian as the one in charge, Israel can double down on its values around mutual respect and trust by placing an Arab-Muslim at the helm. Undoubtedly, many will be skeptical of the idea of that “dual loyalty,” but are we not constantly trying to clamp down on such accusations against Jews everywhere else? Beyond the benefits of showcasing Israeli values, the verification part of “trust but verify” is easier when Israel decides to lead the rebuilding process. By having a member of the Israeli government, and specifically an Arab-Muslim, lead the way, Israel will have a 360 degree view of the process through the eyes, ears, and mouth, of a mutually trusted friend.

Finally, the key to deradicalization will be to build a society in Gaza that is run like the one in Israel—universal healthcare, private enterprise, low-level corruption, the rule of law, and free and fair elections. An Arab-Israeli who is the product of Israeli education, Israeli healthcare, Israeli economic growth, and Israeli democracy is the perfect person to teach the Gazans how they too can create something in that image, even if it’s not an exact duplicate. We love to talk about how Arabs are doctors and nurses, how an Arab is on the Supreme Court, and how they own their own businesses. Now is the time for Israel to show they are more than token talking points to be used in a debate on CNN. Now is the time show the two million Arab citizens that Israel sees them as important members to Israeli civilization. Now is the time to show the world that Israel is ready to evolve as a country.

Share

In 1977, Menachem Begin, who was a right-wing observant Jew, changed everything when he accepted Egyptian President Anwar Sadat’s invitation for dialogue, which led to his speech at the Knesset and the Camp David Accords in 1978. A member of Likud committed this bold action less than five years after Egypt tried to wipe Israel off the map for a third time in as many decades. This bold action is what led to a peace agreement for half a century. Bold action is what’s required to make bold change.

So who will be our generation’s Menachem Begin?

Every year, the High Holidays bring out the conversation of what it means to be a “good Jew” and a “bad Jew.” I’m here to tell you there are only those who do the mitzvot and those who don’t.

Thankfully, it turns out that doing the mitzvot is much easier than you thought!

Shana Tova!

As I refocus my energy, I want to start doing a weekly D’var Torah as “not a Rabbi” to show that you don’t have to be a scholar to derive meaning from the beauty of Judaism every day and every week.

Shabbat Shalom and Shana Tova!

Today’s episode features Margarita Lyadova. Margarita is the host of People Jew Wanna Know podcast where she interviews remarkable Jewish people every week. People Jew Wanna Know Podcast has been around for 1.5 years and features over 100 episodes with notable Jewish guests like Modi Rosenfeld, Aleeza Ben Shalom, Shai Davidai, Dan Ariely, Talia Lichtstein, among many others.

Margarita started People Jew Wanna Know in an effort to create a Jewish podcast that felt young, intellectual and joyful. People Jew Wanna Know is the most diverse Jewish podcast on the market, and the only one to feature full-length interviews with Anti-Zionist Jews. From hostage negotiators to drag queens, from Rabbis to comedians, you will be left surprised every week with People Jew Wanna Know.

While she runs the podcast as a part-time endeavor, Margarita serves full-time as the Director of Product at an Israeli adtech company. She received her Bachelor's from the University of Minnesota in Supply Chain, Business Law and Spanish, and her Master's from University of Pennsylvania in Behavioral Science

Where to Find Margarita

Find Margarita on all platforms as @PeopleJewWannaKnow

Chapters

00:00 Introduction to Margarita Lyadova

01:04 Margarita's Journey as a Jewish Refugee

06:00 Understanding the Context of Immigration

12:06 The Distinction of Ukrainian Jews

16:21 Jewish Identity in America vs. Ukraine

18:08 Critique of Jewish Organizations

21:42 Grassroots Efforts and Community Impact

24:41 Cultural vs. Religious Jewish Identity

27:51 The Role of Holocaust Education in Jewish Identity

30:29 Navigating Jewish Identity in Predominantly Christian Environments

32:37 The Impact of Reform Judaism on Jewish Identity

36:24 Experiencing Jewish Life in Diverse Environments

40:17 The Importance of Jewish Education and Ethics

45:49 Jewish Values and Immigration Perspectives

Shalom Chaverim -

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been in the Israeli political sphere for over thirty years. Despite the ebbs and flows of his career, his biggest detractors and harshest critics would have you believe that he’s been the King of Israel since its inception. Certainly since his reintroduction in the latter part of the 21st Century’s first decade, Netanyahu has been as such for all intents and purposes. Unlike the authoritarians and fascists his detractors and critics accuse him of being, he is ultimately a byproduct of the Israeli electoral system. Israel does not have a constitution and they have no limits on how long one can serve as Prime Minister. Netanyahu is no more of a dictator than was George Washington or any other American president prior to Franklin D. Roosevelt who voluntarily chose to serve only two terms.

Subscribe now

I use those examples as the bookends because Netanyahu has a choice between being the George Washington of Israel or the FDR. At first, this comparison might seem odd given that Netanyahu is neither Israel’s first leader nor is he bastion of liberalism. However, when it comes to one specific act of leadership and devotion to the greater good, these two presidents provide the perfect juxtaposition.

Prior to the adoption of the 22nd Amendment, American presidents chose to limit themselves to only two terms as president. We don’t discuss the idea of “political norms” in today’s discourse because most people aren’t sophisticated enough to understand it. In essence, it is a precedent mutually respected by those who consider each other their political opponents. No law forbids the act of violating it, but the taboo of doing so is considered so heinous, it might as well be. American presidents serving only two terms was a political norm, set down by George Washington.

“…in withdrawing the tender of service, which silence in my situation might imply, I am influenced by no diminution of zeal for your future interest, no deficiency of grateful respect for your past kindness, but am supported by a full conviction that the step is compatible with both.” - Farewell Address, 1796

Washington had just fought off authoritarian rule, and understood that, despite no law forbidding him from seeking a third term, doing so would encourage others. John Adams would have pointed to Washington to justify running beyond two terms, Jefferson would have done the same, and each subsequent president for all time. To avoid even the possibility of a president seeking authoritarianism through democratic majority, Washington made the decision to give up power and set America on the complete opposite path. From the first president to the 31st president, not a single one (other than Grant who lost the nomination) sought a third term. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the Democratic Party’s idol, was the first to violate this norm. Given that his third term was at the beginning of World War II, it’s understandable why he believed he was justified in breaking this tradition—then again, that’s what all despots say.

Each president could have made the same argument from Washington through Hoover. Any of the first several presidents could have justified remaining in office due to the youth of the country. Those elected in the heart of the 19th Century could have used the ongoing battle against the imperial powers that remained on the continent, the war against the Native Americans, or even the prevention of slave states as reasons for remaining in power. Yet none of them did because to violate that political norm would have led our country down a path to someone like Roosevelt. Thankfully, because of our Constitution, and because this political norm was so sacred, the 22nd Amendment was passed. Had Roosevelt decided to end his presidency after defeating both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, I wonder if it would have had as much support. Either way, unlike Washington who believed in putting his country above his own ego, Roosevelt chose the opposite. Overall, the 22nd Amendment is a good thing. While many who wish Obama would’ve been able to run for a third, fourth, or fifth term, those same people are certainly thankful that Trump can only run for two (despite their belief he will find a way around it).

Netanyahu is now faced with the same choice. He is not Israel’s first Prime Minister, but in this brave new post October 7th world, it does seem like he is the first in Israel’s next phase. It’s not a secret that Netanyahu believes the reason he was put on this earth was to ensure the Islamic Republic of Iran never builds a bomb. In the aftermath of Operation Rising Lion, it seems he has accomplished his life’s goal. While I’m no fan of his, I also don’t believe he’s evil or maniacal. I believe he loves his country and the Jewish people. More importantly, he believes what he has achieved will place him in the pantheon of not only Israeli leaders, but Jewish ones.

As I’ve mentioned previously, Netanyahu simultaneously is the reason Israel is in this mess and he was the only man who could’ve maneuvered Israel out of it as well. While Israel might have lost many allies in the West, it has gained the respect of its neighbors and those in the East. Israel might not be the darling of the world, but it has never been in a better position to solidify its place in the global community. Hezbollah’s grip over Lebanon is severely weakened; Hamas is going to be rooted out of Gaza; the Palestinian Authority’s credibility is in the sewer; Syria doesn’t want any smoke; the Islamic Republic has been exposed as a paper tiger; the Houthis are headless; and the UAE and Saudi Arabia are just waiting to sign the dotted line on the Abraham Accords. None of this is possible without Netanyahu, and his complex legacy will reflect that in the years to come. However, if he wants to solidify his legacy as a great leader who was complicated instead of a would-be authoritarian who was stopped, he should volunteer not to run in the next election.

Netanyahu should recognize that he ultimately achieved his life’s work. Even if the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program isn’t entirely dismantled, the regime itself is closer to collapse than to recovery. He might have been the reason Israel was in a seven-front war, but he also led Israel to victory on all seven fronts. That doesn’t mean he has to leave politics. He could easily take the mantle of President in order to continue steering Israel’s position into the Abraham Accords. Prime Minister Netanyahu has a chance to be the man who will be known as the heroic leader who led Israel through the fire and came out as a shining phoenix ready to light up the sky. Or he could be known as the man who simply wanted to hold onto power and die in office.

Legacies are complicated for every political leader. We usually judge them based on what they did as their time in power concluded. We remember Nixon for Watergate and Lincoln for uniting the country after the bloody civil war. We remember Washington for being the man who put his country above himself. We remember FDR for defeating the Nazis, but also as the man who lied to the public and died from his lie. Netanyahu can be remembered as the man who led Israel into its future or he can be remembered for sacrificing it to remain in power. I hope he makes the right choice.

Share

Buy Me a Coffee