It’s way too early to talk about 2028. Or… maybe it isn’t.

The mainstream media—and even some of the non-mainstream media—are already talking about who will be running for president that year. So, here’s my two cents.

Yesterday, Vice President J.D. Vance addressed the Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC). It’s no secret that his support for Israel and his relationship with the Jewish community have become less than enthusiastic. And that’s putting it mildly. Needless to say, as vice president, he is the most likely candidate to become the Republican nominee for president in 2028.

Vance cannot afford to squander any potential voting bloc, and certainly not the Jewish vote. Tiny though it may be—at roughly 2% of the population—its influence extends far beyond its numbers, especially when it comes to campaign contributions.

Jewish Republicans and independents like myself are worried about a Vance presidency. For good reason. Vance’s friendship with one of the most dangerous antisemites in the United States, Tucker Carlson, does not inspire confidence in him among us. Nor do his recent lukewarm, at best, comments about the U.S. relationship with Israel.

So his decision to speak to the RJC was seen as a positive step toward reassuring us that he is on our side. His address failed to achieve that in my eyes. Although it did allay some of my darker fears, it did not convince me that a future Vance presidency will be as beneficial to Israel and Jewish Americans as one would hope.

Jewish Insider reported the following:

Vice President JD Vance stuck to a pro-Israel line and rejected antisemitism in remarks on Monday to the Republican Jewish Coalition, avoiding any new controversies…

It also reported:

Attendees, with some exceptions, largely said that the speech helped Vance reassure skeptical Jewish and pro-Israel Republicans and boost his support with the RJC crowd ahead of a potential 2028 presidential bid…

I am not convinced.

Although Vance clearly considers Israel an important ally, his professed support sounded far less robust than I would have preferred. Nor did he address some of the highly critical comments he has made about Israel in the past. That leaves me with an uneasy feeling of uncertainty about him, despite his clearly stated support.

Some of Vance’s concerns are legitimate. For example, how does the Republican Party win over voters under 40, whose support for Israel is waning? He thinks a new approach is necessary. He’s probably not wrong. What that approach should be is a good question.

And then there was an off-the-record conversation with former Republican Senator from Minnesota Norm Coleman, who is Jewish. Vance was asked about his views of Tucker Carlson and other anti-Israel conservatives he named - Nick Fuentes among them.

Vance’s answer did not satisfy my concerns. He did denounce Fuentes as a purveyor of blood libels against the Jewish people, but separated him from the others, whom he seemed to say we must tolerate even if we disagree with them.

I can’t agree with that. At least not about Carlson. about whom the issue is more than just about disagreement.

Vance argued that Republicans need to engage with controversial podcasters and make their case to their audiences. But without a clear denunciation of Carlson, who in my view is an antisemite at the core - I remain skeptical about just how warm his feelings are toward us. Apparently, not as warm as his friendship with Carlson.

But, as noted, Jewish Republicans who attended were generally satisfied with the support he expressed for both Israel and his strongly stated rejection of antisemitism. Most appeared willing to support him should he become the Republican nominee.

I am not necessarily with them on this.

First, let me say that Vance may not be the nominee. It appears that among Republican vote rs (according to one survey I saw not long ago) Marco Rubio currently garners more support as the eventual Republican nominee than does Vance. And after all, it’s all about the votes a candidate gets in the primaries.

There is not the slightest question in my mind about Rubio’s pro-Israel and pro-Jewish bona fides. He is, in my view, by far a better candidate for a variety of reasons.

If Vance becomes the nominee, I’m not sure I will vote for him in the general election. What I will say is that among most of the possible Democratic contenders, I am unlikely to vote for any of them against Vance.

There is, however, one possible candidate I would vote for: Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro.

Even if I don’t agree entirely with his position on Israel, I believe his support for Israel is genuine. And not merely a talking point to get our votes and our campaign contributions.

Rahm Emanuel is a long shot. His views on Israel certainly do not match mine. But even he has a more positive attitude than do most of the other possible Democratic candidates, some of whom are outright hostile to the Jewish state and seem not to care much about the rise in antisemitism in this country, other than paying some lip service to it.

Both Shapiro and Emanuel have very strong positions with regard to these issues. And their politics are more old-school Democrat - rejecting Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) members as outsiders who should not be part of the Democratic Party.

If either of them runs against Vance, it would make for an interesting dilemma. Shapiro would get my vote over Vance. I’m not sure about Emanuel.

What I will say about Emanuel is that he was a relatively decent two-term mayor of Chicago. His domestic policy positions are pretty mainstream. Some of them quite innovative.

Other than that, I will vote for Vance over just about any other Democrat besides those two. Vance comes off as a hard core Zionist compared to most of them.

A word about my being called a “one-issue” voter.

I have been accused of caring more about Israel or the Jewish people than I do about America and my fellow Americans.

I am not a one-issue voter who cares only about my own kind. I am a patriot. I care as much about issues that affect all Americans as most other people do. I live here and experience the same pluses and minuses they do.

I care about the economy, immigration policy, and foreign affairs beyond Israel and the Middle East.

But the reason I give so much attention to Israel and the Jewish people is because I have a special place in my heart for my coreligionists and for my ancestral home. That should not be held against me any more than it should be held against a Black person who cares deeply about civil rights or an American of Irish heritage who cares about his ancestral home of Ireland.

I tend to believe that those who accuse me of being a one-issue voter and of not caring about what happens here are either ignorant, stupid, or, deep down, antisemitic. And thank God they are in the minority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just today, for example, the Forward reports the following:

As antisemitism rises in Canada, a Christian group is pushing Trump to consider a potential fast-tracked immigration pathway.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt sent a letter to Trump in July, pledging that “Oklahoma would proudly welcome” any Jewish families who “lawfully come to the United States in search of safety and opportunity.”

Trump shared the letter in a social media post on Sunday, signaling his support…

In an anti-immigrant climate his inclination to expedite Jewish immigration from Canada is quite remarkable.

There is also his policy with respect to fighting antisemitism in this country. There is not the slightest doubt in my mind that his efforts on our behalf, especially as they pertain to campus antisemitism have borne fruit. But we are certainly not done.

His efforts on behalf of getting the October 7 hostages released earned him the admiration of the entire Israeli people. The Knesset voted unanimously to give him their equivalent of the Nobel Peace Prize for that.

His use of the IDF and his high praise for its efficacy in the initial days of the Iran war are unprecedented by any past president.

Surrounding himself with Orthodox Jews has nothing to do with his ego. That too adds to my perception of Trump as a true friend of the Jewish people. In fact, if it were all about his ego, the current climate of declining public support for Israel might have led him to be less supportive. But the opposite seems to be the case.

His foreign policy efforts with respect to Israel are clearly in Israel’s best interests. Starting with moving the US embassy to Jerusalem, recognizing Israeli control of the Golan Heights, and the unprecedented Abraham Accords that for the first time established a formal relationship with several Muslim nation states - are real accomplishments that, again, have nothing to do with his ego.

Same thing his choice of Marco Rubio as the most pro-Israel Secretary of State in American history. Not to mention his appointment of the most pro-Israel ambassadors to Israel and the UN, both in his first term and in the current one .

His recent inclination to sanction the UK further if it makes good on its threat to boycott businesses located in the West Bank is further evidence of his idealism in this regard.

And yet the Jewish members of congress seem to be on the opposite side of this issue. A recent interview with Congressman Jamie Raskin, who is Jewish, criticized the president’s antisemitism efforts as counterproductive and arguing that they actually hurt the Jewish people.

Raskin has been roundly reprimanded by Jewish leaders for that. Deservedly so. It appears he cares more about his Democratic bona fides than he does about his supposed concern for Jewish citizens in this country.

Not to mention his vote against U.S. foreign aid to Israel. All in service to the new Democratic Party, increasingly represented by the Mamdanis and El-Sayeds of the party.

Getting support from the pro-Israel AIPAC is now the kiss of death to a Democrat. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar have never been happier. Now, it is the candidates with their anti-Israel political views that are seeking and getting the “Benjamins.”

Of course, those who are blinded by sheer hatred of the man will see his every action as self-serving and will describe everything he has done thus far as not worth a hill of beans to the Jewish people. And that Jews are now worse off because of Trump than they were before he came to office.

That’s where secular know-nothing Jews like Jamie Raskin come in, as well as the rest of the “know-nothing” Jewish Democrats that voted against aid to Israel.

Well, guess what? I will take a gentile like Mike Huckabee over a Jew like Jamie Raskin any day of the week. In fact, I’d sooner place my fate in the hands of a Christian minister like John Hagee than I would in the hands of any “progressive,” heterodox rabbi who embraces the Mamdanis and El-Sayeds of the world.

So hate Trump if you want to. There is much to hate about him. But recognize what he has done for us too. Which is a lot.

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

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

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

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

One story in Arutz Sheva reports the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don’t know all the details of this case, and there may be justification for why IDF commanders of this Charedi battalion chose to violate the sensibilities of Charedi recruits in these ways. However, it seems from the article that there were no special circumstances that required them to do so other than to disabuse them of those sensibilities.

It is one thing to have a female paramedic in a combat situation where she is the only one available. But to purposely do that during a training session strikes me as an anti-religious agenda. Or, at the very least, it suggests that a feminist agenda was considered more important than solving the IDF manpower shortage. At least by the officers in charge of that particular battalion.

And the idea of holding a military exercise on Shabbos is similarly troubling. If the IDF is serious about filling its manpower needs with able-bodied Charedim, it ought not to be doing things that will discourage them from enlisting.

My guess, though, is that this type of thing is more the exception than the rule. There have been too many Charedi recruits who have reported nothing but a positive experience during their time of service.

Additionally, the fact that the new Charedi party actually supports requiring all working Charedim to enlist suggests that this problem is not as widespread as this incident might make it seem. Or at the very least that it can be readily fixed.

The fact that it exists at all, though, gives the Charedi leadership all the excuses they need to reject any Charedi enlistment, even at the expense of young men being jailed and losing millions of dollars in government funding - if that’s what it takes.

This is attitude is bad for the country and ought to end.

All it would take is the will to compromise along the lines of the pollical platform of the new Charedi party. Which would mean exempting those who choose to learn Torah full time while requiring mandatory enlistment for those who don’t - and chose to work. While not ideal it would solve the manpower shortage. No longer would all Charedim be exempt. It would free up tens of thousands of young working Charedim who could easily fill the needs of the IDF. Including the needs on the battlefield.

All it takes is the power of the vote.

If, as I suspect, there are enough Charedi votes to break the grip the current Charedi parties have on the government by surpassing the threshold required for getting seats in the Knesset (3.25% of the total votes cast; or about 155,000 votes. ) that would change everything. There are about 1.45 million Charedim in Israel.

The anti-IDF Charedi parties would no longer have the power they have now. They would have to compromise along the lines of this new party. And that would be a win for the entire country regardless of who wins the next election in Israel.

I don’t recall ever being as angry at these Kahane-inspired Israeli terrorists as I am right now. There is no other word for them. They are terrorists, despite the fact that they may very well be devout in every other aspect of their religious observance. These people are trash. Actually, they make trash look good.

And once again, they are called “settlers” by the mainstream media. What a disservice that is to the over half million residents that have ‘settled’ there since 1967 – living there in peace with their Palestinian neighbors.

In some ways, I can’t really blame the media for calling them that, though. That is, after all, their stated purpose. They want to settle all of the Land of Israel, and they are prepared to do it by any means necessary. Including deadly violence!

Here is what happened yesterday - ON SHABBOS! - as reported by Israel Hayom:

Masked Israeli settlers attacked a Palestinian woman and an NBC News crew on Saturday in the village of Jalud, near Nablus, the network reported. The Palestinian woman and three crew members were injured, and camera equipment and one of their vehicles were damaged.

The attack occurred after the crew interviewed Aida Ahmed Abdullah, 51, who claimed settlers had driven her family from their home. According to NBC, as the interviewee and crew members walked down a hill toward the house, a gray car with Israeli license plates drove toward them.

Footage from the incident shows at least four masked men getting out of the car, one of them holding a stick. According to the report, they beat Abdullah and the crew members with sticks and threw stones at them.

“They jumped out, beat us, then jumped back in the car,” NBC News international correspondent Matt Bradley, who was struck twice on the hand and received treatment at a nearby clinic, said.

It is bad enough that they set up makeshift “settlements” near Palestinian villages. Now they are violently attacking Palestinians for no other reason than evicting them from their homes and taking up residence in them.

That seems to be what happened yesterday, when a group of masked Israelis attacked a Palestinian family in the middle of an interview with an NBC reporter. They attacked the reporter, his crew, and their vehicle, injuring all of them. Most disturbingly, they beat a Palestinian woman so severely that she was rendered unconscious.

There is no “other side” to this story. This is the way it happened.

Israel Hayom is not some sort of radical left-wing newspaper. It is about as right-wing as it gets. And some of the attack was captured on video. Those images do not lie.

Even if this was retaliation for an attack against Israelis (which by itself is grossly immoral) , it is highly unlikely that this Palestinian family had anything to do with it. Nor has any recent Palestinian violence been reported that might have motivated such a revenge attack.

This attack went beyond revenge. It was evil in the extreme.

First, it is immoral and an affront to God to inflict such physical pain and mental anguish on innocent human beings. Second, it damages the very people whom these extremists claim to represent: law-abiding Israelis who have been living in the West Bank peacefully for decades.

And it does untold damage to the Jewish state. When someone like Ambassador Mike Huckabee, who supports Israel to the extent that he has asserted Israel’s right to settle the West Bank, starts criticizing these extremists and calls them terrorists, that is something Israel can ill afford to tolerate. Israel is already facing a climate of international condemnation, and the actions of these people only make matters worse.

Let me reiterate and make this absolutely clear:

THESE PEOPLE ARE NOT “SETTLERS.”

They may think they are. They may believe they are doing the will of God. But they are not. They are doing the will of the devil.

There is no excuse for allowing these people to continue their terrorist ways. There can be no condoning the claim that they are performing the mitzvah of Yishuv Ha’Aretz.

People who believe that murdering Palestinians—à la their icon Baruch Goldstein—is heroic, or a mitzvah akin to killing Amalek, have completely distorted Judaism.

Palestinians are not Amalek. No matter how much they hate us.

Let me be clear once again: Despite the fact that these people illegally occupy land in the West Bank near Palestinian villages, they are NOT settlers in the sense that the word should properly convey. They are terrorists—which is exactly what Ambassador Huckabee called them.

I only wish the mainstream media would get the memo and label them for what they are, instead of smearing all West Bank residents with a term that has now become a disparagement.

These people are not only physically harming innocent Palestinians through their terrorism. They are hurting the very people they purport to care most about: decent, law-abiding Israelis who have been living in West Bank communities for decades, mostly in peace and coexistence with their Palestinian neighbors.

They hurt the entirety of the Jewish people. They hurt the State of Israel. And they hurt Israel’s closest friends, who are increasingly forced to defend Israel while simultaneously condemning the actions of Jewish extremists.

The only real solution, in my view, is expulsion from the country. They should never be allowed to return under any circumstances. They cannot be allowed the possibility of ever doing anything like this again.

The Prime Minister quickly condemned them. That was certainly the right thing to do. But it cannot end there.

Israel is in the middle of an election cycle. The Prime Minister is trying to retain office, but the polls are not in his favor. It seems that this may be his last term in office.

It would be a majestic act of courage if he were to make his final act one of determination and resolve:

These Jewish terrorists need to be hunted down and captured, and then expelled from Israel permanently. The Law of Return should never apply to people who will damage the country that is supposed to be a safe haven for Jews all over the world.

There ought to be no mercy. No sympathy. Nothing but a determination to rid the Jewish people of this evil from within our midst.

Where will they go?

I can think of one place where they belong.

But I won’t say it.

If there was ever a word more misused by the media than the word “settlers,” I’d sure like to know what it is.

Whenever there is a violent attack against Palestinians by religious extremists living in mostly makeshift illegal “trailer park” hilltop settlements constructed near Palestinian villages on the West Bank, the media calls them settlers. Being a settler in Israel is now almost akin to being called a terrorist. No distinction is made between these radical religious extremists and the law-abiding citizens of the long-established West Bank cities of Judea and Samaria. People who have been living there for decades, peacefully and in harmony with their Palestinian neighbors.

I don’t know if it is pure ignorance or willful animosity towards Jews living in any West Bank city. But either way, it represents a major assault fueled by the lie implied by the context of how that word is used. Which is that all Jewish residents of any West Bank city are “settlers” - implying they are guilty of terrorism against their Palestinian neighbors. That lie is far from the truth and breathtaking in both its scope and depth.

And yet the United Kingdom, the Western European nation that, in my view, might qualify as the most antisemitic in all of Western Europe increasingly includes all such residents under the violent settler umbrella. The UK has doubled down on its recognition of a Palestinian state on the West Bank. And that any Jew living anywhere therein is doing so illegally.

And they are not going to take this “gross violation” of Palestinian national rights lightly. That was demonstrated by their recent condemnation of Israel’s decision to build homes between Ma’ale Adumim, a long-established and peaceful West Bank city - and Jerusalem.

To put it the way Melanie Phillips does:

“Astoundingly, the British government is not only demanding that Israel ethnically cleanse its own people from their ancestral homeland but is proposing to punish it for refusing to do so.”

“The new prime minister, Andy Burnham, is poised to announce ‘robust’ sanctions targeting trade with Israeli ‘settlements’ in the disputed territories of Judea and Samaria, as well as the sanctioning of Israelis linked to businesses there.”

“The foreign secretary, Ed Miliband, objected to the Israeli government’s tender for the construction of thousands of new homes in the E1 corridor connecting Jerusalem to the Israeli city of Ma’ale Adumim in Judea, which he described as an ‘unacceptable and destructive act.’”

It’s as if Oslo never happened.

Cities like Ma’ale Adumim were to be conceded to Israel as part of a deal that would have established a Palestinian state in exchange for land swaps. Even PLO terrorist leader, Yassir Arafat, who represented the Palestinians at Oslo conceded to that exchange, along with similar exchanges with cities in the West Bank along the so-called ‘Green Line’ border with Israel proper.

Connecting Ma’ale Adumim to Jerusalem hardly takes away from the possibility of a future Palestinian state. Despite the UK’s claim to the contrary.

And that assumes that a Palestinian state is even feasible now, after October 7^th. I don’t think there is a mainstream politician anywhere in Israel that thinks it possible under current circumstances.

They are, of course, right. Giving up the West Bank to the Palestinians now would make that area look like Gaza on steroids. It would be suicidal for Israel to agree to anything remotely resembling Oslo today. And everyone knows that.

Except, apparently, the antisemites of the world. Like the UK under its current leftist leadership.

Not that anyone should be surprised by how antisemitic the British are. I am almost at the point where, if I hear a British accent coming out of a reporter, I can almost guarantee that he or she will be condemning Israel for one reason or another.

As is the case with the BBC. They make the New York Times look almost like Zionists by comparison. And yet virtually all major news organizations see the BBC as the gold standard of journalistic integrity.

On the other hand, as Phillips correctly notes:

“‘Settler violence’ is indeed a festering sore that needs urgently to be dealt with.

But as she also notes:

…it is perpetrated by a very small minority of extremist Jewish residents in these territories. Many incidents claimed as ‘settler violence’ are fabricated by malicious actors, both Israeli and others on the far-left.”

How small that minority is - remains to be determined. I suspect that it is more than a tiny handful of individuals. But it certainly does not represent the vast majority of Jewish residents of Judea and Samaria. Nor does it help that these extremists are defended by Israel’s Minister of National Security, Itamar Ben-Gvir. That’s like pouring gasoline onto a fire

Phillips is right about their being a “festering sore that needs urgently to be dealt with.” The sooner the better.

And another thing. What is ignored and left unsaid by all of these “settler” critics - is the fact that there is a far greater number of terrorist attacks against Jewish residents in the West Bank. By what seems like orders of magnitude.

The number of murderous terrorist attacks against innocent civilian residents of cities like Ma’ale Adumim. And even against residents on the Israeli side of the Green Line that happen to be passing through - is staggering. Being perpetrated by terrorists that live in established Palestinian cities in the West Bank.

Nobody ever talks about that. As though it is only the Jewish “settlers” doing all the terrorism.

Not that this justifies the aforementioned ‘festering sore’. But a little context might go a long way toward explaining why this settler violence “did not happen in a vacuum”. Much as the mainstream media would have us believe that it does.

As far as I am concerned, the UK deserves to be boycotted by anyone with a conscience. Not Israel. Israel would never harm a hair on the head of a single Palestinian if Palestinians would simply stop trying to “Free Palestine from the river to the sea” by annihilating us.

What about the so-called right of the Palestinian people to self-determination?

Sure. Once they eradicate their current educational philosophy of rabidly hating the Jewish people - replacing it with an education based on respecting us as good neighbors and friends, a Palestinian state might at that point be in the offing.

Let me know when that happens.

As of now, most Palestinians celebrate events like the one on October 7^th. And consider every Palestinian killed in Israel’s defensive actions in Gaza to be a martyr for the cause of restoring Palestine to its rightful owners.

Until then, Israel must retain its military edge and maintain the security precautions necessary to protect its citizens.

Hard as that may be on Palestinians, Israel has no choice. Without them, the alternative is too awful to contemplate. Whether the left-wing-dominated world leadership and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media like it or not.

The school year has pretty much begun. Or is about to. Parents have by now made their decisions about what kind of school they want to send their children to. Indeed, their children are already enrolled and in some cases already attending classes. So, I’m a bit late to the party. But I still feel I have to make my case for what kind of school a Jewish parent should consider sending their children to.

If you are an adherent of the religious right wing or the religious left wing, this post is not for you. But if you are neither of those and wish to send your child to a school with strong values that does not compromise, I believe the choice should be a Centrist school.

As a Centrist, this may sound a bit self-serving. But hear me out.

First, Centrist education must be defined. One must know what it is, and what it isn’t.

After speaking to an official at one such school, I was told what I feared was the case with many parents today. When they see a word like “Centrist,” they think “middle of the road”. A school that has no ideals other than to take a bit of this and a bit of that and call it a day.

Many idealistic parents reject a school like that in the mistaken belief that their children will lack the idealism taught in schools that identify with a strong right or left Hashkafa. They tend to believe that a Centrist school has no Hashkafa at all but reflects some sort of midpoint between left and right. They fear that a Centrist school will not inspire their children with the kind of idealism that a school identifying with either the right or the left would try to instill.

As a result many idealistic parents will opt for a school that promotes ideals to their right or their left (depending on which way they might lean) as a means of instilling an idealism they mistakenly believe a Centrist school is not interested in providing.

The result is that schools at either end of the spectrum are often the most sought after by parents, while the Centrist school may be seen as wishy-washy.

That is unfortunately the consequence of identifying as neither right nor left. It is difficult to convince parents who see a school that way that are badly mistaken.

It is important to disabuse the Orthodox public of that image and explain that Centrism is not some mathematical midpoint between right and left. It is a distinct Hashkafa that, in my view, has a far broader understanding of what Judaism entails than schools on either the right or the left. While not in any way minimizing the importance of the primary focus of either the right or the left school.

Just as the right emphasizes the primacy of Torah study, so too does the Centrist school. And just as the left emphasizes the importance of Israel and secular studies, so too does the Centrist school. But the Centrist school also emphasizes other important values of Judaism that are sometimes given short shrift by schools with a right- or left-wing agenda.

I do not mean to say that those schools ignore these values or in some way disparage them. Only that their primary focus by default supersedes those other values to the point where they may not be as deeply internalized.

To take one example, the concept of respecting human dignity - Kavod HaBriyos - is an important aspect of Torah Judaism. While that is certainly taught in all schools, it is, at best, secondary to their primary focus. In the case of the right, that focus is intensive Torah study; in the case of the left, it is the primary focus on Israel and secular studies may also by default mean less emphasis on Torah studies.

Unfortunately, when there is not enough emphasis on on other important values. There is all too often negative fallout. On the right it can allow a lot of bad behavior to take place. Behavior that can ultimately result in a Chilul Hashem. Right-wing schools may offer secular studies, but their Hashkafa has, in recent years, devalued them. Devalued to the extent that their students ridicule not only the studies themselves but the people who teach those subjects. Hence the potential for Chilul Hashem. I recall reading not long ago that this is a serious problem - admitted to by Mechanchim - in the more right wing schools

On the left means an over-emphasis secular studies in pursuit of getting accepted into the ‘right schools’. Or making Aliyah. Torah study then suffers as a result.

In a Centrist school, however, none of these values are given short shrift. They are all emphasized on a daily basis. The amount of time spent on Torah study is not diminished in the slightest, While the importance of secular studies and Israel is not diminished. All without forgetting about Kavod HaBriyos.

When the emphasis is placed primarily on one thing, other things tend to become diminished by default.

This does not mean that there aren’t other problems. Centrist schools are not perfect. But with good parenting and in conjunction with the school , those problems can be dealt with in a very effective way.

So when “shopping” for a school for your children, please be aware that the Centrist school is not some sort of compromise between right and left. It is instead an integration of the values of both the right and the left as described above. It is a broader view of what Judaism entails - while at the same time knowing exactly what the priorities actually are.

Choosing a school whose values are in conflict with those taught in the home is a prescription for disaster. Because in far too many cases, there will be unintended consequences of rebellion that will ensue.

I can’t do it. I cannot separate Jew from Jew. We are one.

I am often asked why I am so persistent in my quest for Achdus when I have so often expressed how upset some of the differences between us make me. And they truly are upsetting. Some more than others.

Given any one minor thing that upsets me, I would generally shrug it off or ignore it entirely. But in the aggregate, it is very distressing. My discussion yesterday about how mainstream Orthodox Judaism has morphed into a society of extremes that are now becoming the norm is an example of that.

So, as much as the new and “improved” version of Orthodoxy has upset me, I refuse to separate myself from those who practice it. I consider all Jews to be my brothers and sisters, regardless of how they lead their lives. Which, in recent years, has increasingly meant adopting extremist customs as the norm.

The fact that I don’t approve of the way they lead their lives does not mean that I love them any less. I love them just as I did before. That I lament the change and wish things could go back to the way they were, when extremes were not the norm, is irrelevant to the love I feel for my fellow Jews.

I care deeply about the welfare of each and every Jew in the world, regardless of whether I agree with them or not. We can disagree and still be family.

This, of course, does not apply only to the Charedi world. I feel exactly the same way about the left - even the far left of Orthodoxy, with which I have profound disagreements. At the same time, the fact that I believe they are mistaken in their views of Orthodoxy does not diminish my love for them either. They, too, are my brothers.

As are secular and most heterodox Jews, most of whom are not observant through no fault of their own.

I am not here to judge anyone. My beliefs about the truths of Judaism notwithstanding, even as I may entirely reject the extreme beliefs and practices of both the right and the left, we are all part of Am Yisrael. And in most cases, the extremes by which people live are based on sincere beliefs that they are doing the will of God.

Nor can I judge people whose lifestyles are based on same-sex attraction or people who are confused about their gender identity. Although I reject celebrating such lifestyles, I do not reject their humanity or their Jewishness.

Are there exceptions? Well, yes.

When the behavior of a religious segment is so egregious that it hurts the entirety of the Jewish people, I cannot merely say that they are misguided in their beliefs - which they most certainly are.

It isn’t their error that causes my rejection of them. It is how they act upon that error. If their beliefs cause them to harm the Jewish people, I cannot consider them my brothers.

This is why I do not consider the two most extreme segments of Orthodox Jews to be my brothers:

1. Neturei Karta, who have praised the now-deceased Ayatollah of Iran as a religious man with whom they agree about the State of Israel and have joined anti-Israel, pro-Hamas protests in this country calling for the dismantling of the Jewish state as a religious obligation.

2. Violent extremists who worship a mass murderer like Baruch Goldstein as a role model to be followed and act accordingly, using violent revenge attacks against innocent people as a religious obligation.

I cannot consider either of these groups to be my brothers any more than I could consider Jeffrey Dahmer my brother. They have relinquished that right because of the tremendous harm they have caused - and continue to cause the Jewish people.

The fact that they are religious is what sets them apart even from secular or heterodox Jews who join our enemies in condemning Israel’s defensive war against the genocidal proxies of Iran and accuse Israel itself of genocide.

That secular or heterodox Jews are not religious (by Orthodox standards) is not their fault. Because in most cases it is due to an ignorance begotten by the lack of any significant Jewish education. Although they, too, are difficult for me to call “brothers,” I find it easier to do so than to call Neturei Karta or violent Jewish extremists in Judea and Samaria my brothers. Because they did have a significant Jewish education. And ought to know better.

But to exclude mainstream Charedim, Chasidim, the far left of Orthodoxy, and even secular and heterodox Jews from my definition of family is something I am simply incapable of doing.

I will therefore always strive for Achdus and pine for the day when we can all see each other as one nation under God.

This morning I came across the following posting on a Facebook page called Chochmat Nashim:

A follower of ours reads an announcement page of engagements that lists only men while riding a bus where women are seated behind a curtain. These extremist practices started with insular Hasidic communities and became the norm because not enough people stood against them.

Mishpacha/Bina/Ami erase women not because it’s a Jewish thing; it’s an extremist thing, and it’s done for dollars so they can sell more magazines. Agudah used to publish pictures of women, but now they don’t.

If you don’t want mainstream Orthodox Judaism to look like this in 15 to 20 years, you need to say something now.

While I agree with the sentiment, I’m not sure that “saying something” will change anything.

This is the reality today: a reality in which overly stringent practices that were once considered fanatic are now considered the norm. So much so that not observing them is practically considered irreligious.

The list of these stringencies seems almost endless. And seems to be increasing in frequency.

Except for the Chasidic community, which in America was still in its infancy until the mid-1960s, religious observance was never like this. Even in the most right-wing circles, many of these practices were unheard of.

True, there was room for improvement back then in some areas of observance. For example, mixed dancing at Orthodox synagogue events was fairly common in pre-Holocaust America. And there was precious little Jewish education being taught at any significant level, if at all.

The changes for the better in those two areas were positive developments. Much of the improvement in Jewish education was helped along by the massive influx of Holocaust refugees who were willing to enroll their children in the newly formed day schools.

But these positive changes did not stop at those necessary improvements. They have gone far beyond them, to extremes that, in my view, are harmful to us socially, educationally, and financially.

The reason can only be what I have called the “Frumkeit chase.” The idea is that one segment of the religious community does not want to be outdone by another segment in the stringencies it observes. So it adopts them as well.

One example of stringencies that hurt us is the not-so-subtle move away from a decent secular education. What was once a common, respectable secular curriculum in non-Chasidic high schools, is becoming far less common. And, in some cases, has been eliminated entirely. We are increasingly following the American Chasidic educational model and, perhaps more significantly, the Israeli model.

Being more conscientious about modesty did not stop with ending mixed dancing. It has morphed from a healthy interaction between the sexes into a near-complete avoidance of the opposite sex under almost all circumstances.

For example, families that once invited one another for a Shabbos meal stopped doing so once their children approached puberty. God forbid a boy from one family should have a conversation with the girl of another – even at the Shabbos table!

Young people of the opposite sex now meet after their parents conducted a search for what they believed would be a good match. The couple would then date a number of times (about 8 dates) before deciding whether to marry or break it off.

Recently there has been talk about reducing the number of dates to 3 or 4, citing the successful Chasidic approach in which a couple meet only once or twice before getting married.

Then there was the very common practice of mixed seating at weddings and banquets. That was the norm in non-Chasidic circles—even on the right. That ended when the non-Chasidic right looked over their shoulders and decided they were not going to let themselves be ‘out-frummed’ by Chasdim anymore .

Now a mixed-seating affair is considered insufficiently religious. In some cases, certain Roshei Yeshiva will not attend one.

Contrast that with the not-too-distant past, when Gedolei HaDor like Rav Aharon Kotler, Rav Moshe Feinstein and Rav Yaakov Kamenitzky would attend mixed seating weddings. Even sit together with their wives,

Minimizing contact between the sexes has gone to such extremes that even a picture of a modestly dressed woman - or even a headshot - is considered taboo.

Charedi magazines that cater to a broad cross-section of Orthodox Jews, most of whom do not consider such pictures immodest by any standard, nevertheless abide by this rule. Mostly because of the religious sensibilities of one of their larger readership bases: Chasidim, who consider any pictures of a woman to be immodest.

Contrast this with ArtScroll, which (so far) does publish pictures of women in many of its books. Agudah also used to publish pictures of women on the cover of its now-defunct magazine, The Jewish Observer. Apparently, it no longer does so in its published material.

What has happened is that women in these communities have gradually become accustomed to this and don’t really have a problem with it anymore. Thus, it becomes the norm. Those that are rightfully upset by this are nonetheless marginalized by them.

Any publication that does publish pictures of women will soon be seen as failing to conform to community modesty standards.

Where separate seating on buses in Israel (men in front and women in back) was once reserved for the most extreme neighborhoods, it is becoming more frequent outside those neighborhoods as well.

The custom of growing peyos is now standard among right-wing day-school and yeshiva students. That did not exist at all when I was in school except among Chasidim.

Wearing one’s tzitzis out has also become the norm, to the point that even Modern Orthodox students are doing it. In my day, it hardly existed and was considered Yuhara—an ostentatious display of one’s frumkeit if anyone did and was discouraged.

The fact that some of the greatest Gedolei Yisrael did not wear their tzitzis out is completely ignored. Like Rav Yosef Dov Soloveitchik and Rav Moshe Feinstein, whose views on halacha are nearly universally followed, at least here in America.

Then there is the concept of the kollel, where young married men continue to study Gemara full-time. That was practically nonexistent - certainly the exception rather than the rule.

The norm—even in right-wing schools—was that after graduating high school, a young man would simultaneously attend a yeshiva and college in order to prepare himself to support an eventual family.

Today, a college education is practically considered Assur. Young men are encouraged to study Torah exclusively after high school and to continue doing so after marriage.

What about a parnassah? They are told not to worry; when the time comes, they will find a way.

In many cases, that is true. But in many others, it means being relegated to low-paying jobs because they lack the education or skills that could improve their earning capacity to the point where they would not have to sweat over every dollar they make.

I recall being told by more than one former Yeshivas Chaim Berlin that more than 80 percent of the students there attended college. I was also told that its Rosh Yeshiva, Rav Yitzchok Hutner would consult with them about which courses to take that would help them pursue their professional aspirations.

Today, that does not exist.

Much of today’s Orthodox world is trending in the direction of ignorance and stringencies for the sake of Frumkeit, based on the mistaken belief that the more stringent one is, the more spiritually elevated one becomes.

But in my view, the cost of all these stringencies is too high. Nor do they guarantee true spiritual elevation.

There is far too much emphasis on ritualistic stringencies and not enough on the development of character. Which I believe that can ultimately be harmful rather than beneficial.

Of course, belonging to a community is very important to one’s mental health. Abiding by communal standards may therefore be necessary for that reason.

But at what price—both communally and individually?

As my Rebbe, Rav Aharon Soloveichik used to say in Yiddish:

“Frum iz a Galach (priest). Ehrlich iz a Yid.”

Being “frum” is not the ultimate goal. Being an ehrlicher Yid is.

I do not see this “Frumkeit chase” as a healthy way to live. If it doesn’t stop, we are asking for trouble in the long run.

My two cents.

“I am not an antisemite. In fact, I find it repugnant to hate the Jewish people. But there are a lot of powerful Jews in the world who are responsible for some truly horrific acts against humanity. To call them out for genocide is no more antisemitic than calling out Hitler for his genocide. And it isn’t only genocide. There are a lot of powerful Jewish oligarchs who are causing all kinds of havoc in the world. They need to be called out and stopped. But I am not an antisemite and I love the Jewish people.”

That opening paragraph pretty much describes the Mark Ruffalos of the world. People who might believe their own rhetoric, but whose condemnation of Jews is almost bad as the rabid antisemites that think the Jewish people ought to be extinguished. This miserable excuse for a human being sickens me!

Sadly, many ignorant Jews tend to go along with this narrative, even claiming that they are expressing Jewish values when making broad antisemitic statements. These statements often recycle tropes that have been used against us for decades, if not centuries: The Jews control the banks. The Jews control Hollywood. The Jews control the government. Or at least their leader, Netanyahu, does.

I am not talking about the antisemitic right. They wear their ignorance on their sleeve for the entire world to see. And many of them admire Hitler for his attempt to “eradicate this degenerate blood-sucking people” from the world. They are not going to convince any normal person of their nonsense. I am talking about an altruistic left that sees the world through its own unique lens of oppressors and the oppressed, of the wealthy and the poor. In each case, the former are supposedly perpetually taking advantage of the latter.

That pretty much describes the ‘Ruffalos’ of the world. Despite his strong denials - Jews are the target of his accusations – using rhetoric which creastes the perception among many of his fans that Jews are as evil and control everything. The only Jews Ruffalo and company seem to like are those who know little to nothing about their Judaism and therefore agree with their characterization of wealthy and powerful Jews exploiting powerless non-Jews.

I completely understand why he gets away with it. As I have said many times - It is hard to disagree with the observation that Israeli Jews are, for the most part, prospering while many Palestinians are struggling to survive under what they regard as the harsh policies of their occupiers.

Indeed, Ruffalo’s anti-Israel sentiments did not begin with Israel’s war in Gaza. Long before that, he portrayed Israel as a vicious apartheid state that should be boycotted divested from, and sanctioned - until its supposedly evil system is destroyed. Replaced with a Palestinian state that would restore dignity to the people supposedly living under Israel’s thumb.

To the casual observer, this might seem logical and even just. The supposedly inhumane Jews would be replaced by the far more humane Palestinian people, who would never establish a government of repression. Because, after all, that would supposedly be incompatible with their Muslim faith. Islam is a religion of peace!

This is what happens when you see the world through jaundiced eyes. You see what you want to see. And if you are a progressive who views the world primarily through the prism of oppression, you will tend to see a successful people as oppressors and an unsuccessful people as victims—usually at the hands of the successful. That is the reality they see. But I see another reality.

Last night, I watched a rerun of a 60 Minutes segment in which Rachel Goldberg-Polin was interviewed. It was a riveting 20-minute account of what her son experienced during his captivity by Hamas until the day he was executed, and what it was like for her as a mother to endure the unimaginable suffering and eventual execution of her only child.

It is hard enough knowing what happened on October 7. The horrors of a terrorist attack so vicious that mirrored some of the worst atrocities committed by Nazi Germany - were beyond comprehension.

But Rachel personalized it. The cruelty and inhumanity she described, and the torture she endured as a mother wondering what was happening to her son in Hamas captivity, was difficult to watch. Her reaction when she learned of his execution was even harder.

And yet the barbarous acts that took place on October 7, and the suffering endured by the hostages taken that day, were widely celebrated by Palestinians in Gaza. The very people who longed for their own state.

And who does much of the left blame? Not Hamas. Israel!

“Hamas did not perpetrate October 7^th in a vacuum” they argue. It did so because of Apartheid - the discriminatory way Israel has been treating Palestinians for decades. So while the attack may have been an “overreaction,” according to this line of reasoning, Israel somehow deserved it. Had BDS succeeded in destroying the Jewish state, it might never have happened.

Sorry. I am sick and tired of my people being accused of genocide by people who completely ignore what happened on October 7^th. Sick and tired of blaming Israel’s prime minister for Israel’s conduct in the war. As if it had any other choice.

The claim that Israel’s response in Gaza was too harsh or that she did not take enough care to minimize civilian casualties is a bold-faced lie bolstered by the nightly images of war being broadcast during the height of the war. Painting Israel as being just as evil as Hamas only worse by virtue of the far greater in number casualties is itself a grotesque distortion.

Israel is entitled to defend itself. In the case of Hamas, that defense requires an attempt to destroy the terrorist organization or risk a repeat of October 7^th again and again, as Hamas has promised.

Israel has no interest in killing a single innocent Palestinian. But its first obligation is to protect its people and prevent anything like October 7^th from ever happening again. That means attacking Hamas.

The responsibility for Palestinian deaths in that campaign cannot simply be attributed to Israel. Hamas demonstrated how brutal and determined they are to kill Jews. They have repeatedly embedded their operations among civilians. Using them as human shields. Israel on the other hand has always warned civilians to leave areas it intends to strike.

To blame Israel for genocide demonstrates a profound distortion of the term. Genocide means the deliberate attempt to destroy a people. Whatever one thinks of Israel’s conduct in Gaza, there is no Israeli policy of exterminating the Palestinian people. Israel’s stated objective is the destruction of Hamas and the protection of its own citizens.

Yet the progressive left, of which the ‘Ruffalos’ of the world are a part, ignores these realities. Instead, it focuses on casualty numbers reported by Hamas and images of devastation caused by Israel’s military campaign, while ignoring why Israel believes it must continue pursuing Hamas operatives wherever they can be found.

Rachel Polin? Who’s she?!

The fact that Israel may not yet have succeeded in eliminating Hamas does not make its mission unjustified, regardless of how the left characterizes it.

Any fair-minded person who does not harbor preexisting antisemitic animus should be able to recognize that Israel is doing what it believes it must do to protect its people. So that there will never again be another mother mourning the terrorist execution of an only child.

And if world opinion led by a left leaning media cannot be convinced of that truth, too bad. Israel must continue its mission to destroy Hamas. There is no making peace with people who are determined to annihilate you. The ‘Ruffalos’ of the world be damned.

Once again, Mishpacha publisher Eli Paley’s recent article arguing against Charedim serving in the IDF made me angry.

I say this despite acknowledging that he recognizes the tremendous burden being borne by reservists because Charedim are unwilling to share the burden of military service. In fact, that admission is precisely what makes me so angry.

In a number of columns, Mr. Paley has been trying to explain the rationale for his staunch support for the Charedi leadership’s position of refusing to allow Charedim to serve in the IDF. Even as the burden on those who have been serving continuously for three years continues to grow.

That he acknowledges their pain while continuing to justify an ideology that says everyone who studies Torah full-time should be exempt is, in my view, an exercise in perpetuating the very pain he freely admits exists. The Charedi refusal to allow their own to serve means that a burden that could so easily be relieved by Charedi enlistment – will continue. In what world is this a just outcome?

First, not every Charedi man learns full-time. Second, I would be willing to bet that among those who do “learn” full-time, many do so because it is expected of them after a lifetime of indoctrination to that effect. And there are probably more than a few among them who do not learn much at all, but simply hang around in and out of the Beis HaMedrash.

Even though I do not agree with a blanket exemption for all learning Charedim, let us, for the moment, concede that those who genuinely learn full-time should automatically be exempt. What about working Charedim? Why should they be exempt? That is where his argument begins to fall apart.

His argument now is that political and military figures who are not generally supportive of Charedim or their agenda have said that the IDF does not need Charedim and could not accommodate all of them anyway if they decided to enlist. He adds that there are other ways of addressing the IDF’s manpower shortage that have been suggested by people with no connection to the Charedi world.

From this, he concludes that the push to draft Charedim is not really about relieving the manpower shortage at all, but rather:

“The proposals that were put forward did not seek a temporary response. They sought to use the crisis to permanently alter the structure of the yeshivah world. The very fact that the proposed solutions are permanent rather than temporary demonstrates that the discussion is not only about the specific needs of the current war, but about a fundamental change—a change that people had been seeking even before the war.”

There are two glaring problems with his conclusion, which I am sure is informed, at least in part, by his preexisting bias.

One is that the most obvious way to relieve a manpower shortage is to go to the segment of the population that has the largest number of otherwise available and capable people who can provide that relief. The fact that there are “workarounds” that would leave Charedim alone does not mean that seeking their help is evidence of an anti-Torah agenda.

But this argument actually cuts both ways. If some people are seeking a permanent change, that does not prove that the goal of requiring Charedim to serve is to destroy the Torah world. It just means that they believe the current system of blanket exemptions is unsustainable.

Then there is Mr. Paley’s failure to address or even mention the emergence of HaTzibbur HaCharedi, a new Charedi political party that actually endorses the idea of working Charedim serving in the IDF.

Mr. Paley’s suggestion that, if working Charedim were to somehow end up serving, they could do so in ancillary positions rather than combat does not sit well with me either. Why should all Charedim be exempt from combat duty? Why should they be subject to different rules of military service than any other Israeli citizen who is drafted?

His most egregious comment was the following:

“What is at stake now is not merely the technical question of what enlistment arrangement to enact. The question is how to ensure that in the next generation and the generation after that, the Torah world will continue to flourish.”

The implication is that without the Charedi yeshiva system as it currently exists, the Torah world will not continue to flourish. As though the many Hesder yeshivot do not count. As though the Torah world will die on the vine if Charedim are asked to do adopt a Hesder type system for themselves. A system that combines Torah study with army service.

Mr. Paley completely ignores the fact that the Hesder program values Torah study as much as his Charedi program does. The difference is that Hesder recognizes an obligation to serve in the military as well. It does not shirk that duty with the claim that military service somehow dilutes a person’s commitment to Torah study and a Torah lifestyle.

He does make reference to the fact that the Charedi system, by definition, cannot accept the Hesder model for themselves. What he does not do is explain why. Why should serving in an army alongside studying Torah be considered a dilution of Torah study? Doesn’t that service actually enable Torah study? Without an army there would be no Jewish state at all in which they could study Torah!

It seems to me that protecting the Jewish people in Israel from extinction is, at the very least, one of the most important expressions of Torah values.

Sadly, I don’t think these arguments would sway Mr. Paley, even on the outside chance that he might read them. His mind appears to be made up, guided by the ‘Gedolei Yisroel’ whose authority he would never deign to dispute with the “meager” arguments put forth here.

That being said, In the interest of fairness and balance - I would love Mr. Paley’s magazine to invite Motty Leitner, the founder and leader of HaTzibbur HaCharedi to present an alternative Charedi point of view.

But that just ain’t gonna happen.

I think it is safe to say that the spike in antisemitism in this country has been particularly prevalent among younger and more highly educated Americans. The question is, ‘Why’? Why are better educated young people more inclined to be antisemitic? One would think the opposite would be true.

If we are honest, much of it is directly connected to Israel’s defensive war in Gaza. Whatever one thinks of Israel’s conduct of the war, the images coming out of Gaza are undeniably powerful. News reports show large numbers of civilian deaths, destroyed homes, displaced families living in makeshift conditions… and shortages of food and other necessities. For someone seeing these images day after day, it is not difficult to conclude that Israel is committing atrocities. Or even genocide.

What those images often fail to convey is the larger context. Israel did not enter Gaza simply because it wanted to. Hamas’s October 7^th attack, in which civilians were deliberately murdered and hostages were taken on a scale not seen since the Holocaust, fundamentally changed Israel’s calculations.

Israel concluded that Hamas could not be allowed to retain its capability to repeat such an attack. Nor is the nature of Hamas always adequately explained when the suffering in Gaza is reported. Hamas deliberately operates within a civilian environment, making it extraordinarily difficult to separate the military from the civilian population.

This is old news. And yet almost completely ignored by the media.

None of this diminishes the suffering of innocent Palestinians. Their suffering is real. But a news narrative that presents Palestinians primarily as victims of an unprovoked Israeli assault, while minimizing the actions and ideology of Hamas that precipitated the war, and adds to the carnage of their own people for their own PR - inevitably produces a distorted understanding of the conflict.

There is another factor at work, particularly on college campuses: ideology.

Much of academia has become deeply influenced by a progressive and socialist ideology that permeates academia. Many in this intellectual class view socialism as the most humane form of government, emphasizing social justice, economic equality and the redistribution of wealth. Capitalism, by contrast, is often portrayed as a system in which the wealthy exploit the oppressed poor for personal gain. A system by which they see the Jewish state being governed.

This worldview shapes the way international conflicts are understood. The world is divided into oppressors and oppressed, colonizers and indigenous peoples, the powerful and the powerless. Once that framework is adopted, Israel is easily cast as the quintessential oppressor: a supposedly colonialist state occupying the land of an indigenous people.

The October 7^th attack then becomes, in the minds of the socialist - not an act of terrorism but an understandable if not an entirely justifiable response to oppression.

That is a profound moral distortion completely ignored by the socialist mindset of academia.

It is therefore hardly surprising that younger, college-educated Americans are more likely to express anti-Israel views than the population as a whole. The more one is immersed in an academic culture dominated by this ideological framework, the more likely Israel is to be viewed through it.

Of course, being anti-Israel does not automatically make someone antisemitic. Legitimate criticism of Israeli policy is perfectly acceptable.

But when a Jewish state is singled out for criticism by socialist ideologues it is not too much of a leap from there to hold Jews everywhere responsible.

The reasoning is remarkably simple: Israel is a genocidal colonial state. Jews support Israel. Therefore, Jews support genocide and colonialism. The Jew on campus, in a hospital or in the workplace is no longer simply an individual; he or she becomes representative of the supposed oppressor.

That is where anti-Zionism can cross the line into antisemitism.

The irony is that much of this begins with altruism. Young people see suffering and want it to end. They believe they are standing up for the oppressed. They want land they believe was stolen returned to its rightful owners. They envision a society in which wealth is shared equally and the exploitation they believe exists - disappears.

But altruism does not guarantee moral clarity. Good intentions can easily lead to terrible conclusions when they are combined with an ideological framework that permits only one side to be viewed as morally legitimate.

And there is another ingredient: vestiges of the traditional antisemitism harbored by their European ancestors did not entirely disappear. They can easily reappear given the ‘right’ context.

The result can be a perfect storm: ideological hostility toward capitalism and Western institutions, sympathy for those perceived as oppressed, relentless images of Palestinian suffering, a media narrative that gives insufficient attention to Hamas’s role, and a preexisting reservoir of antisemitism.

A recent study cited by JNS illustrates how disturbing this development has become:

At the University of California, Los Angeles David Geffen School of Medicine, * Jews* were labeled as oppressors. Patients were afraid to be identified as Jews at the University of California, San Francisco, and protesters targeted medical schools in New York City and demanded the destruction of the State of Israel…

you had medical students and health professionals posting horrific things on social media, very antisemitic, very anti-Israel biased, and starting to see this appear in medical journals,”

These are not uneducated people operating outside the mainstream of American society. They are physicians, researchers and other highly educated professionals.

There was a time when many people believed that having a Jewish doctor was a positive thing. Today, Jewish identity has become a liability!

I’m not saying that a college education automatically produces antisemitism. It obviously does not. Nor do I believe that most Americans - educated or otherwise - share these views. Even though many Americans are troubled by the images coming out of Gaza, they do not believe that Israel should cease to exist or that Jews should be held responsible for Israel’s perceived wrongs. But the pattern among younger and highly educated Americans is trending that way.

We need to recognize where much of this Jew hatred is coming from. And why.

I don’t pretend to know how to solve it. But before we can solve a problem, we to see it for what it really is.

I am pessimistic. But my pessimism about the Charedi world may yet change because of the confluence of pressures upon them with respect to the draft and education now taking place. In my view, these pressures could eventually result in a quiet revolution among rank-and-file Charedim—if they are able to express their views through the privacy of the ballot box.

As things stand now, there is a malaise that has been caused, at least in part, by the longstanding tradition of steering virtually every young Charedi man into uninterrupted full-time Torah study for as long as possible. Torah study is expected to be pure and pristine, free of extraneous distractions such as Limudei Chol. This has been the paradigm of the Charedi world in the State of Israel since its very beginning.

How this came to be is beyond the scope of this post. But that is the reality today.

Limudei Chol is considered a dilution of Torah study. As I have noted here many times—and as recently as yesterday—this lack of education has contributed to an unnecessary level of poverty within the Charedi world.

Not that every Charedi is poor. Far from it. Many Charedim have found their way out of poverty, often with educated working wives whose careers provide enough income to support their large families. But on the whole, the poverty rate among Charedim is considerably higher than it is among the general population.

And yet the Charedi public has been indoctrinated to maintain this system as the highest form of Avodas Hashem—serving God. That, together with meticulous observance of Halachic stringencies, is what defines the Charedi ideal.

There is, of course, a significant Charedi working population. But working Charedim are often regarded as second-class citizens by their “learning” peers. That cannot be a very comfortable position to occupy among one’s friends.

That attitude is reinforced by the stridency with which Charedi leaders oppose offering Limudei Chol as part of a Torah-oriented way of life.

The Israeli government has made it mandatory for Charedi schools to offer a verifiable core curriculum of Limudei Chol in order to receive state funding. It appears, however, that the law is not being adequately enforced, and many Charedi schools that do not offer a core curriculum continue to receive government funding.

The reason for this lax approach to enforcement is political. Charedi parties have repeatedly been relied upon to form governing coalitions and have effectively pressured ruling parties to continue funding their schools in exchange for their support. That is essentially the situation today with Likud, although other parties have been guilty of the same practice in the past.

What is the effect of all this on the future of the State of Israel? Is the sky falling?

I don’t want to sound like an alarmist. But the negative effect of Charedi intransigence on this issue can rise to an existential level. As Forward columnist Dan Perry has noted:

The stakes are considerably larger than the argument over a few hours of mathematics or English. They concern whether Israel can remain the kind of modern state it has spent three-quarters of a century building.

Haredim already constitute almost a sixth of the population, their fertility rate remains around six and a half children per woman, and they account for more than a quarter of elementary-school pupils. On current demographic projections, their share of the population will continue rising dramatically for decades.

That might not in itself pose a national problem if the community were being equipped to participate fully in a sophisticated 21st-century economy. But among Haredi men especially, low employment, low earnings and weak proficiency in the basic skills demanded by the modern labor market remain profound problems.

A smaller proportion of highly productive workers would increasingly be asked to finance a larger population, sustain an advanced technological economy, support an expensive welfare state and pay for one of the most sophisticated militaries in the world.

At some point the math becomes strategic. An Israel that becomes substantially poorer will find it harder to finance cutting-edge weapons, intelligence, research, universities and the other institutions on which its military superiority depends. An Israel run by undereducated Haredim risks being overrun by its enemies.

I don’t think Perry’s observations are easily dismissed. These are serious pressures

The Charedi world cannot continue to choose ignorance over education for the purpose of increasing Torah study. Particularly when that study, at some point, becomes little more than an exercise in pilpul, with little practical value beyond its academic value within the yeshiva world.

This is not to say that such study has no value. Of course it does. But to encourage everyone to study along these lines while ignoring the practical benefits of secular education that can enhance their quality of life and help maintain Israel’s qualitative edge in virtually every field of endeavor - not least its ability to meet the security challenges of the future - is a prescription for national catastrophe.

The $64 question is: What do rank-and-file Charedim actually think in their heart of hearts?

I have no way of knowing. But if you ask a typical Charedi, my guess is that you will hear the standard answer given by the leadership: Working for a living is a b’dieved. They should instead strive to live as frugally as possible so they can maximize their Torah study and rely on their wives to work so that the family can make ends meet. They should live as frugally as possible so they can spend their waking hours immersed in Torah.

But the Charedi workforce is somehow increasing. Schools have arisen to cater to Charedim who have had little or no education in Limudei Chol, helping them catch up and then transition to an education that can provide a decent income while benefiting their country.

I wonder how many Charedim actually feel that they would prefer this path but fear the consequences of being looked down upon by their “learning” peers because they have “sold out to the dollar.”

My guess is that there are more than a few like that.

Earlier this month, Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein announced that a new Charedi political party had emerged that actually promotes working for a living as a positive Charedi value. L’chatchila. That would represent an extraordinary repudiation of the “No Limudei Chol” paradigm that has existed since the founding of the State.

At the time, I felt that as much as I applauded this development, the party and its founder, Motty Leitner, would be condemned by Charedi leaders. I don’t know whether that has happened yet or whether it will. But so far, I have not seen anything from the Charedi leadership doing so.

Perhaps that is because the founder is himself a Chasid and a longtime member of the Charedi world. He is also a politician who ran for office in Beit Shemesh, apparently with Charedi support, and is currently the deputy mayor of Beit Shemesh.

If they manage to attract enough voters to pass the electoral threshold of 3.25 percent—approximately 150,000 votes—they would win about four seats in the Knesset.

The ballot box is where Charedim can speak their minds without fear of social repercussions.

I am encouraged by the pressure the issues raised by Dan Perry. They can no longer be ignored. Thinking Charedim must be aware of them too

Leitner’s party platform supports not only Charedi schools that offer a secular studies core curriculum, but also the enlistment of working Charedim. If that happens, it would change everything.

Here’s hoping it does. Sooner rather than later.

I remain angry. But I am not hateful. I hope I am not alone feeling this way. That what is happening between the Charedi and non-Charedi worlds is anger, not hatred. Anger can be assuaged by actions. Hatred is much harder to overcome.

I am angry at the Charedi world for insisting on perfection: refusing to compromise even one iota on its current paradigm of religious life. What it seems not to understand is that the perfect is the enemy of the good. Compromise is not a dirty word.

I believe this is at the heart of the strident resistance to changes in the Charedi world that would benefit them as well as Israeli society as a whole. Two issues in particular are driving the growing divide between Charedim and Religious Zionist and, even more broadly, between Charedim and traditional and secular Israelis: military service and secular education.

The Charedi leadership’s refusal to allow its young men to serve in the IDF has existed for years, but October 7 dramatically intensified the consequences. An already understaffed IDF has had to extend reserve duty to extraordinary lengths, placing enormous unprecedented pressure on those who serve and their families.

The government has been withholding financial support from yeshivas whose students do not register for the draft - and arresting many of those draft dodgers. Meanwhile, the more militant ‘Jerusalem Faction’ has repeatedly staged massive demonstrations that have disrupted daily life - some of which have become violent.

I understand the Charedi concern that military service can undermine religious commitment. But I do not believe that serving in the army and being a devoted Torah Jew are inherently contradictory. That is precisely the philosophy behind the Religious Zionist Hesder Yeshiva system.

That being said, there are legitimate concerns about religious dropouts, which should not be dismissed.

In an Arutz Sheva article, Eliyahu Michaeli cited a figure of approximately 40 percent dropout rate among Religious Zionists, compared with 12 percent among Charedim. I cannot independently verify those numbers, but if it is anywhere close to being accurate - the disparity deserves serious consideration.

At the same time, dropout rates cannot simply be blamed on military service. Children raised in a ‘hermetically sealed’ environment will naturally have less exposure to influences that might lead them away from observance. Much depends on the religious commitment and values modeled in the home. Someone who enters the army from a strong religious background will likely remain just as committed as someone who remains in the yeshiva.

Michaeli’s larger point is worth taking seriously: the Religious Zionist community has problems of its own. It should not respond to Charedi concerns by simply declaring, “We are better than you.” Both communities need to recognize their own shortcomings and address them.

The second major issue is the Charedi refusal to provide any Limudei Chol (general studies) in their schools in order to prepare young people for the modern workforce. This policy has already resulted in lost government funding for schools that refuse to meet minimum core-curriculum requirements.

I have long argued that the Israeli Charedi community should adopt the educational model that has existed successfully in America without sacrificing its Charedi standards or Torah learning.

The argument that secular studies necessarily diminish Torah knowledge is not convincing. If it were true, American Charedim would be at an enormous disadvantage. They are not.

I recall a conversation related to me between Ner Israel Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Aharon Feldman, and Telshe Rosh Yeshiva, Rabbi Avrohom Chaim Levine,ZTL. Rabbi Feldman defended Ner Israel’s Limudei chol program but then lamented the absence of an Israeli-style Limudei Kodesh track that would allow exceptionally motivated students to devote themselves exclusively to Torah. He cited his own grandson in Israel, who at 16 supposedly knew every Tosafos in Kesubos by heart, arguing that an American student of that age could never achieve that because of the time spent on secular studies.

Rabbi Levine strongly disagreed. He maintained that the Telshe approach of combining Limudei Kodesh with a solid Limudei Chol program did not prevent students from becoming great Torah scholars. And that he would match his students against Israeli students in Torah knowledge.

Point being: Limudei Chol does not necessarily diminish Torah knowledge. It can actually enhance it. The Vilna Gaon himself recognized the value of secular wisdom in understanding Torah.

An Algemeiner article by Disa Sacks, a woman raised in the Charedi community of Monsey, makes this very argument. She points out that the American Charedi community has created a model in which the vast majority of men and women work, while Torah learning continues to flourish. She argues that proper education, employable skills, adequate housing, and policies designed to alleviate poverty are urgently needed in Israel.

I could not have said it better myself.

The problem is the disconnect between the American and Israeli Charedi worlds. In Israel, changes that might move the community toward the American model are often portrayed by Charedi leadership as a “war against Torah.” But as Sacks argues, such changes are not a war against Torah. They are a war against poverty.

And there is an irony here: what is called Daas Torah in Israel is contradicted by the practical experience of American Charedim, whose model has produced strong Torah communities without the same level of poverty.

I doubt this approach will soon take hold in Israel. If it does not, however, poverty is likely to continue. And perhaps increase - as will the resentment toward the Charedi community among other Israelis.

That resentment and anger is real and is morphing into hate.

But what about the issues plaguing the religious Zionist community that Michaeli discusses? Like religious retention.

Neither side has a monopoly on truth. Neither side is perfect. Charedim must acknowledge that military service and productive participation in the workforce need not destroy Torah Judaism. Religious Zionist families need to do more to inspire their children religiously.

The sooner both worlds recognize their own shortcomings - and learn from each other’s strengths - the better off we will all be as a Jewish people.

My anger remains. But it is anger born of frustration and concern, not hatred. And that distinction matters, because anger can lead to change; hatred only deepens the divide.

(Updated) Michael Feldstein has hit the proverbial nail squarely on its head. On the occasion of its 50th anniversary, his recent Times of Israel article provides an excellent review of the powerhouse publishing company, Mesorah Publications. Better known as ArtScroll. There is very little I can add. Nevertheless, I will try.

First, let me state the obvious. ArtScroll is by far the largest and most successful publishing house in the Orthodox Jewish world. Probably in the history of Jewish publishing. There is probably not a single Orthodox shul in America that does not have, as its standard Siddur, the Hebrew ArtScroll Siddur. This was preceded by their Hebrew-English Siddur, which offers a fine translation of the Hebrew text. Most shuls have both versions.

But clearly, its magnum opus is the ArtScroll Shas (Talmud Bavli). It is a translation and, more importantly, an elucidation of the complex subjects discussed therein. It includes copious footnotes to foster a clearer understanding of these difficult subjects.

What they have succeeded in doing is opening up the world of Torah study and the development of Halacha as it observed today. A study that was once largely limited to Torah scholars who spent years developing the ability to understand the Gemara and the commentaries that explain it. Now it has become available to the entire English-speaking world. They have enabled countless numbers of people to study texts they would never previously have been able to understand.

That accomplishment has created a climate in which more people are currently studying Daf Yomi—a Blatt (folio) of Gemara per day than at any time in history. People from all walks of life, from the most Charedi to most modern Orthodox to non-observant Jews. Including women, and, in some cases, even non-Jews. All of whom can now participate in this remarkable undertaking and understand the Talmud in far greater number and far greater depth than would otherwise have been possible - except for the few Talmidei Chachamim who have mastered it in the original Aramaic.

All of this can be credited in large measure to ArtScroll’s founders, Rabbis Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowitz of blessed memory, who turned a tiny project of publishing a new translation of Megillas Esther with an artistic cover into what it is today. A near-miraculous accomplishment. There are no words that can adequately express the contribution these two giants of Jewish publishing have made to the widespread study of Torah.

As if publishing the ArtScroll Shas in English, French, and Hebrew weren’t enough, they have published an enormous number of other classic Hebrew books with English translations. It started with the Chumash, which is now almost as ubiquitous in shuls as their siddur. There is also an excellent five-volume set of Chumash and Rashi, both translated and elucidated into English by my friend and fellow HTC alumnus, Mitch (Yisrael) Herzog. That, too, can be found in many synagogues. There are also many other volumes of this sort, all widely available in shul libraries throughout the country.

Then there are the Hashkafa books and biographies. That is where the “hiccup” lies. As Michael Feldstein points out, the Hashkafa of ArtScroll is decidedly Charedi. In my view, this limits their value. That limitation is best demonstrated in their biographies.

Generally speaking, their biographies of great people – Gedolim - throughout Jewish history are well written and do provide an overview of their lives and accomplishments. But I am sorry to say that, in their zeal never to say anything that might be perceived as less than perfection, they omit pertinent details about their lives, Details that might be perceived as unflattering and thus disparaging to someone they portray as an icon of pure virtue.

In many cases, these Gedolim were indeed people of extraordinary virtue. But as Rabbi Moshe Taragin notes in the title of his biography of Rav Yehuda Amital, a Jew is to be holy, but he is also to be human.

The Gedolim who are the subjects of ArtScroll bios are human beings. They are not born perfect. They had lives before they became the Gedolim whose stories have become inspirations for all of us. And yet their humanity is stripped from virtually every ArtScroll biography, with the explanation that these books are not meant to have historical value. They are meant only to inspire by virtue of showing the greatness of these individuals.

What seems to be lost on Rabbis Scherman and the late Rabbi Zlotowitz is that it is precisely their humanity that allows the reader to identify with them and then strive to emulate their successful journeys toward greatness.

I am not even sure whether these two founders of ArtScroll are unaware of this very important point. It may be such an entrenched value in the Charedi world that, despite its positive aspects, no Gadol is going to have anything written about him by ArtScroll that humanizes him if it might be rejected by the rabbinic leaders whose approbation ArtScroll seeks. Or, worse, fearing a book might even be banned.

That was the case with Making of a Godol by Rav Nosson Kamenetsky. The book was banned because it humanized Rav Aharon Kotler and other Gedolim with facts that are now considered unflattering when attributed to a Gadol. Facts that were well known among their contemporaries. In the case of Making of a Gadol facts that no doubt came from R’ Yaakov Kamenetsky, Rav Nosson’s father who passed them on to his son.

ArtScroll had its own version of that kind of ban with a book entitled My Uncle the Netziv, a translation of Makor Baruch, a book written in Hebrew by Rav Baruch HaLevi Epstein, a Gadol in his own right. That book was banned because it told the truth about the Netziv in ways that, by today’s standards, would be considered unflattering. For example, it discussed the fact that he was drawn to Chovevei Tzion, a precursor to the Religious Zionist movement. It also reported that he said the Rambam made mistakes because he did not study with a chavruta. To say the Rambam made mistakes is near blasphemous in Charedi circles

ArtScroll eventually sanitized the book and reissued it. The author of My Uncle the Netziv was Rabbi Moshe Dombey, of blessed memory, a fellow alumnus of HTC and a fellow student of Rav Aharon Soloveichik. Who was very upset at the way one of his prize students was treated.

Then there are the three-volume Jewish history series written by Rabbi Berel Wein. Which did not conform to Charedi Hashkafa. Because, among other things, it included praise for Religious Zionism and made some positive comments about the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl.

Shaar Press was then created so that Rabbi Wein’s popular history books could be published without ‘tainting’ the Charedi character of ArtScroll. All of whose books conform to the Charedi paradigm.

What is most upsetting about this is that it concerns the very thing for which ArtScroll deserves so much praise. The fact that it is such a powerhouse of publishing makes it one of the most popular sources for biographical material on historical Jewish figures. And that gives it extraordinary influence over how its readership sees the Jewish world. Which is through Charedi eyes.

That being said - and it needed to be said - the contributions ArtScroll has made to the world of Jewish literacy are immeasurable. And for this Rabbis Scherman and Zlotowitz deserve my admiration and all the accolades they receive.

Sometimes I wonder just how aware those pushing Israel to make peace with Hamas are of the nature of this terrorist army. It’s almost as though they have no clue about what happened on October 7^th nor about Hamas’s celebration of that event and its successful execution. It’s almost as though it never happened.

It is also perplexing that people involved in trying to end this conflict seem to be oblivious to Hamas’s charter, which specifically has as its goal the elimination of the State of Israel by any means necessary. Perplexing as well is that these people seem to have forgotten that Hamas is funded and supported by a nation dedicated not only to Israel’s destruction, but to the destruction of the United States as well.

This is why I am disappointed that there was some sort of framework of peace reached with Hamas that would remove their weapons in exchange for Israel’s complete withdrawal from Gaza. If the goal of Hamas is the destruction of Israel, and they are willing to carry out multiple Holocaust-level atrocities toward that goal, it is certainly safe to assume that they would lie about disarming in order to achieve it.

The current lie is that Hamas will give up its weapons if Israel withdraws from Gaza first. I have a bridge to sell you if you believe that. And they aren’t even shy about rejecting total disarmament. What they have agreed to is putting their weapons into storage. Not giving them up. You would have to be brain-dead not to realize that they want to retain the option of returning to their terrorist ways against Israel at the earliest opportunity.

And yet, the so-called Board of Peace, comprised of representatives of a number of Muslim or Muslim-friendly nations, has condemned Israel for not agreeing to that deal which Hamas already ‘agreed’ to!

If Israel were to agree to remove its troops from Gaza while Hamas gradually gives up its weapons by placing them in storage, it would be an invitation for another October 7^th type attack – ‘as soon as things calm down and Israelis start living normal lives again.

The following was reported at WIN:

The foreign ministers of eight Muslim countries on Sunday condemned Israel’s rejection of a roadmap for implementing US President Donald Trump’s Gaza peace plan, accusing Israel of obstructing efforts to end the conflict as Hamas and US officials held talks in Cairo on the framework.

Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan, Indonesia, Turkey, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates said Israel’s opposition amounted to a “direct repudiation” of the peace plan that “jeopardizes its implementation, and fundamentally undermines the collective efforts to achieve a just and lasting peace.”

“Such rejection confirms that Israel now bears responsibility for obstructing the efforts to bring peace in Gaza” and the rest of the Palestinian territory, the foreign ministers said in a joint statement.

Hamas has accepted the roadmap, which requires the terror group to disarm.

When is the world going to learn that you can’t make peace with people who consider it the will of God to destroy you? That any deal they make is not worth the paper it is written on? And that Hamas will never give up its ultimate goal of restoring what is now Israel to its ‘original’ Palestinian owners?

And when will the world recognize that Iran will do everything it can to ensure that Hamas and its allies have the means to pursue that goal. (Unless its regime is overthrown and replaced with a government friendly to Israel, as it was before the Islamic Revolution in 1979. And that seems as unlikely as ever right now. Things may yet change—but I wouldn’t hold my breath.)

There is no such thing as making a peace deal with Hamas. No more than there was such a thing as the United Kingdom making a lasting peace deal with Hitler. The difference is that, in the case of Hamas and the ideology behind it, there is a zealous religious determination to achieve that goal that even Nazi Germany did not have.

That Jared Kushner is in Egypt now meeting with Hamas leaders is reminiscent of the meeting British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had with Hitler, declaring that a deal had been made guaranteeing “peace for our time.”

We all now know how well that turned out.

The sad thing is that the rest of the world, observing these facts as they unfold, is easily persuaded that it is Israel’s fault for not agreeing to a peace plan that Hamas has already agreed to. Which is exactly what the members of the Peace Board are saying.

And that yet again adds to Israel’s image as the bad guy. Unwilling to make peace when the other side has already agreed to it. This is a perfect PR storm that favors Hamas and assures that if Israel capitulates, Hamas’s openly stated threat of multiple October 7 level attacks will eventually be carried out.

This is what happens when a situation is viewed as one of the oppressed and the oppressors. Which is exactly how the left views of world events. The oppressed will always be favored over the oppressors. With no thought given to why the oppressed are really oppressed. And who is really responsible for that oppression. It’s all so black and white to them.

If anything can be learned over the course of their terrorist existence – it is that Hamas and all the other terrorist Iranian proxies surrounding Israel will NEVER give up their dream of a ‘Palestine from the river to the sea’. They will lie about their current peaceful intentions. But will NEVER accept a Jewish state in their midst, despite the current lip service to a two-state solution. They will zealously pursue that goal until they achieve it.

A peace deal will only buy them time to rebuild and eventually rearm.

The world, most of whose values are defined by the far left, sees only the oppressed and the oppressors. And by golly, they are never going to side with the oppressors. No matter whose fault the misery of the oppressed really is.

It’s just too bad that Israel is the one seen as obstructing peace when all they are really doing is assuring that October 7^th never happens again.

But then again, what else is new?

“We have met the enemy, and he is us.”

So said the newspaper comic-strip character Pogo, in 1971, on Earth Day, commenting on humanity’s responsibility for climate change. Never has that observation been more applicable to the Jewish people than it is right now.

That antisemitic attacks are up is no secret. Since October 7, 2023, antisemitic incidents have spiked to an alarming level. The latent antisemitism that existed among some Americans was released with a vengeance I never imagined still existed.

That seems to corroborate the view articulated by Rashi centuries ago: “Esav sonei l’Yaakov” - Esav hates Yaakov. Non-Jews, in other words, inherently hate Jews unless proven otherwise. While that has generally been true historically, for a variety of reasons, I have always maintained that the United States is the exception to that rule, citing many examples of why that was the case.

I still feel that way, notwithstanding the massive increase in antisemitism that has occurred since October 7, 2023. Why that happened is beyond the scope of this post. What is relevant here is that many of these antisemitic attacks are taking place in a climate of anti-Israel rhetoric that gives the latent but virulent antisemites of the world “permission” to attack Jews as supporters of the Jewish government supposedly guilty of genocide. A narrative whose chief spokesman these days is the mayor of New York.

How did such a rabid critic of Israel become the mayor of a city that hosts, by far, the largest Jewish population of any city in the United States? And how did a number of like-minded politicians come to be running for major offices in the United States?

Is it because of antisemitic voters? Sure, some of it is. But many of those voters are Jews, as noted by Rabbi Emanuel Feldman in his Mishpacha column this week.

For example, 50% of the Jewish vote on New York’s heavily Jewish Upper West Side went to Mamdani.

The more liberal the Jew, the more likely that Jew is to vote against Jewish interests. Substantially more of these Jews disapprove of Netanyahu than disapprove of Mamdani—by a margin of 5%!

How is that possible? Rabbi Feldman provides the obvious answer, which is something I have been talking about for quite some time now.

The Jews voting for Mamdani are ignorant of the most elementary truths about their own heritage. As Rabbi Feldman also notes, their Bible is The New York Times. Is it any wonder that they see Israel in the same negative light as their “Bible” does - and vote for a man who reflects those views?

And then there is this little statistic noted by Rabbi Feldman: Between 2000 and 2024, 146,000 more Jews permanently left Israel than entered it.

Wow! There are more Jews leaving Israel than there are Jews making Aliyah.

That is where the Pogo comment becomes relevant. He was not the first to make it. Rabbi Feldman cites Isaiah 49:17: “Thy destroyers and thy traitors emanate from thine own selves.”

The solution to this dilemma is pretty much the same as that articulated recently by Conservative Jewish rabbis. The majority of the Jewish people on this planet are not educated Jewishly. Thus, they have no clue what it means to be a Jew or what values should be important to them as Jews.

This is true in Israel as well. In the secular schools, Rabbi Feldman points out, Chumash, Navi, and Mishnah are shunted aside. Most youngsters graduating from Israeli schools have never heard the word “Mishnah.”

If there is an emergency with respect to our survival as a people greater than this, I would like to know what it is.

That American Jews are dropping out of Judaism and embracing secular cultural values as their moral guide is not news. Nor is it news that so many secular Israelis are permanently leaving Israel, leaving whatever remnants of Judaism they had behind them.

That has to change. And the Jewish state is where that change should begin.

I often talk about the Charedi world’s failure to provide adequate secular studies to its students and the tragic consequences of shortchanging their general education. But at the same time, the opposite is true of Israel’s secular school system.

If Israel is going to survive as both a Jewish and productive state, both of those things have to change.

In Israel, these changes can be implemented by government policy. While the government is trying to change the Charedi educational system, it would do well to change the secular educational system as well. The foundational texts of Judaism must become part of every curriculum from kindergarten through 12th grade.

Chumash, Navi, Mishnah, Gemara, and Jewish law should become part of the regular curriculum. It is this knowledge - and the application of it to daily life - that has perpetuated our existence throughout Jewish history.

Until the Government of Israel realizes this and reinvents its educational paradigm in both directions, the danger of Israel losing its Jewish character is as real as the danger of the Charedi world eventually being unable to sustain itself without a secular education.

All of these components are necessary. And then, perhaps, Israel will survive as a strong and proud Jewish nation, animated by the values that carried our forefathers and kept them proud and Jewish throughout history, right up to the present day.

The problem in the United States is far greater.

The freedom for which this country stands allows anyone - including Jews - to do whatever they want. No one can force a Jew to study his or her heritage. Without a mandate requiring religious education, very few will opt for one voluntarily.

But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t try to do something about it.

If there were one thing that Jewish federations all over the country should focus on, it is Jewish education. To that end, funneling the majority of their fundraising efforts in that direction - along with a campaign emphasizing the importance of Jewish education to our very existence - would surely have a positive impact on our future here in the United States.

Will Jewish federations in the United States wake up and do this? Hard to know. But at least we are hearing voices outside of Orthodoxy urging that very remedy.

If that doesn’t happen, ignorance of Judaism will continue to produce the kind of Jews who will increasingly vote for the “Mamdanis” of the world. Which will continue to provide an environment for antisemitism to flourish.

One of the most revealing movies I have ever seen about the Holocaust was The Zone of Interest. It portrayed what life was like for the family of Rudolf Höss, the commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp, whose family lived just beyond the wall enclosing the camp. In short, life was pretty normal for his family. Had you not known that genocide was taking place just on the other side of that wall, you would have thought this was a simple story about the peaceful and loving domestic life of a German soldier and his family.

To my great dismay, when Jonathan Glazer - the Jewish director of the film - accepted the Oscar for Best International Feature Film, he publicly condemned Israel for its conduct in the war against Hamas, comparing the Palestinians in Gaza with the Jewish inmates at Auschwitz. He received applause from an audience consisting mainly of A-list actors and other important entertainment-industry figures.

The war had only been going on for a few months at the time. To say the least, I was both shocked and disappointed.

It has been all downhill since then. What was once broad support for the Jewish state has turned into a contest over who can bash Israel the most. While there has been an increase in closet antisemites on the right who now bash Israel as a euphemism for bashing Jews, most mainstream conservative Republicans generally still support the State of Israel.

On the left, however, bashing Israel has become far more mainstream. This can be seen in the recent gains made by far-left, anti-Israel candidates for public office. And by the many mainstream Democrats who have disavowed their relationship with AIPAC. It is almost as though there is a race to see who can reject AIPAC support the most.

AIPAC’s support used to be eagerly sought after by any politician who wanted Jewish support. That mattered more in terms of campaign donations than Jewish votes, since our percentage of the population is less than 2 percent. Governor J.B. Pritzker – who is Jewish - was quick to reject their support in any way, shape, or form, as were many mainstream Jewish Democrats who apparently felt the need to prove their anti-Israel bona fides.

The mainstream media has also been guilty of contributing to this through the way it had reported the war in Gaza. It repeatedly used images of carnage and destruction without bothering to explain what they were really about - trusting the bloody screens to tell their story for them. And since it was Israel dropping bombs in Gaza, along with reports of 76,000 civilian deaths coming out of there, Israel was seen as committing genocide. Even by those who did not use the word, the implication was clear, based on those images and the narrative coming from a variety of sources that were not friendly to Israel then and never were.

Had those reports been accurate, honest, and complete, Gaza would not be seen as the second coming of Auschwitz and the Jews as Nazi-like exterminators. And yet more and more Jews are beginning to believe the worst about their own people based on unexplained images of war and the perpetual lies being forwarded and repeated by the mainstream media. A lot of Jews are being gaslighted into believing these falsehoods. The idea that repeating a lie often enough makes people think it is true has never been more evident than it is now.

None of this is new. I have said it all before. But no one has said it better or with more detailed, accurate facts than the great Melanie Phillips in her recent article in JNS.

She corrects the record that falsely accused Israel of a variety of war crimes, showing that many of those accusations are not supported by the information now coming out. In short - the libels against Israel are falling apart.

Her article should be read in full. But here are a few excerpts that more than make this point:

The claim that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza—the mind-bending accusation that’s powered this whole obscene onslaught and which now trips off the tongues of countless numbers of people who clearly have absolutely no idea what the word even means—has now fallen apart.

It’s been totally disproved by statistics produced by Gaza’s own Hamas-led institutions. These record that, in a population of about 2 million, around 74,000 deaths were caused by the war (failing implausibly to note one single terrorist among that number). Yet during this period, they also record that some 121,000 babies have been born.

Since genocide means the intended destruction of a people in whole or in part, the fact that Gaza’s people produced a net gain for humanity of nearly 50,000 souls during this period of Israeli bombardment—not to mention Israel’s facilitation of repeated polio vaccinations to around 600,000 Gazan children—demonstrates that the genocide claim was ridiculous.

The related libel that Israel was starving Gaza and causing imminent famine has also been shown to be totally untrue. A newly released U.N.-led nutrition survey of Gaza’s children has found that acute malnutrition, which ranged from 0.2% to 0.8%, was lower than it was before the war when the rate stood at 0.8%. It was also well below the acute malnutrition rates reported in nearby countries such as Egypt (2.9%) or Jordan (2.0%).

Then there were the repeated claims that Israel was killing Gazan health workers and journalists. Yet over the past few weeks, more and more of these have been shown to have been combatants.

Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have named and celebrated as “martyrs” dozens of “healthcare workers” whom they have identified as military commanders and terrorist operatives who used hospitals as command centers. Far from selflessly treating the sick and injured under bombardment, these “healthcare workers” were using them as cannon fodder while duping the credulous West.

As for the “journalists” who were killed, far from bringing truth to the world, many of these were delivering lies designed to sanitize their true aim of exterminating Israel and murdering Jews.

Bit by bit, Western organizations purporting to speak on behalf of media operatives have been revealed as hopelessly complicit in this.

I wish I could say that Israel has finally been vindicated by these newly revealed facts and that all of these libels will now go away. But I doubt that they will. These new revelations will likely be ignored or disputed despite the new evidence supporting Israel’s case. Democrats will still double down on claims that Israel committed genocide and other atrocities in Gaza—or something very close to it.

But at least there is one responsible journalist telling the truth.

My hope is that at least some of us who have been duped into thinking the worst of our own people will now realize that the facts say otherwise. And that blaming Prime Minister Netanyahu for the conduct of the war is as non starter - since that conduct was largely supported by opposition parties. And in any case has been grossly mischaracterized by the media. Neither genocide nor any other war crimes were committed by Israel in its defensive war with Hamas. That is the unvarnished truth

Rodfim. That is what these rogue settlers are.

A rodef (plural: rodfim) is an individual who pursues another person to the point where the pursued may be killed. The Torah provides that one may kill the pursuer as a matter of self-defense in order to preserve the life of the pursued. This is, in fact, the rationale given in Jewish law for permitting an abortion when the life of the mother is threatened by a pregnancy: the fetus is considered a rodef.

I submit that those settlers who continue to harass their Palestinian neighbors - people who have done nothing to them - qualifies them in a moral sense, as rodfim.

That is how evil these people are in my eyes.

First, because it is immoral in the highest degree to inflict harassment upon innocent people simply because they resent you or because terrorism stems from among their ranks. This is not justice. It isn’t even vigilantism. It is pure evil. And if a Palestinian dies in the course of that harassment, it is murder. Plain and simple.

What makes these people rodfim is that by terrorizing innocent Palestinians, they increase by orders of magnitude the world-wide hatred of Israel and Jews. Which lends credence to antisemitic accusations that Israel is an apartheid state guilty of genocide and ought to be boycotted. Or better - even dismantled!

It increases Palestinian terrorism against all Israelis. The very terrorism these miscreants claim to be fighting - they are actually increasing!. They are, in essence, pursuers by virtue of behavior that is likely to increase death and destruction to our people. They must be stopped by any means necessary!

I believe calling them the Baruch Goldstein Brigades is apt name for them. Baruch Goldstein is likely an icon to them. An example to follow. Goldstein was a mass murderer who killed numerous Palestinian Muslim worshippers at Ma’aras HaMachpela before he was finally subdued and beaten to death by Palestinians who came to his victims’ rescue.

Goldstein has since been revered as an almost godlike figure by extremists like these and their sympathizers. Many of whom used to make pilgrimages to his gravesite – treating it like a shrine. (It has since been made illegal by the Israeli government to do that.)

Goldstein represents, for them, a model of how Jews should treat Arabs. Especially Arabs living in parts of Eretz Yisrael that consist of Palestinian villages. These extremists have an ultimate goal of eradicating these villages and re-settling them exclusively with Jews.

Not only do these people directly endanger the lives of all Israelis - they have also caused the wrath of one of our biggest supporters to descend upon Israel.

The Jewish people cannot afford to treat these people with any kind of leniency. Nor does the argument that Arabs commit violence against us exponentially more often than these settlers do have any redeeming value. These people are evil to the core. And yet they consider themselves among the holiest of Jews because they are on the front lines of settling Eretz Yisrael - risking their lives to do so.

They may think they are holy. They may even be meticulous in the observance of many Mitzvos. But to whatever degree they may be observant, it is all wiped away, in my eyes, by their despicable behavior.

I should add that anyone who tries to defend them or ‘explain’ why they might have some justification for terrorizing innocent West Bank Palestinians - are guilty of contributing to it.

And yet there are plenty of people who support these ‘Jewish terrorists to the point of worshipping at the gravesite of Baruch Goldstein, as though he were a tzaddik to be emulated. I am sure that these settlers feel exactly that way about Goldstein. Hence, the title “The Baruch Goldstein Brigade.”

What sparked my latest outrage is the following report from the Associated Press:

QUSRA, West Bank (AP) — Israeli settlers have besieged three homes in the occupied West Bank for several days, including one owned by a Palestinian American, in what the U.S. ambassador called a “horrific act of terror” on Thursday.

Mike Huckabee’s remarks on X represented an unusually sharp rebuke from the Trump administration of the latest episode in a surge of settler violence in the region.

Starting Sunday, settlers gathered around three houses in the village of Qusra, according to local officials, Palestinian American homeowner Loui Ridi, and Ridi’s brother. At times numbering dozens, the settlers threw stones, attempted to bring down a stone wall nearby, and prevented the occupants from leaving as their food and water dwindled.

Israeli troops intervened to try to restore order. On Thursday morning, Ridi’s brother, Qusai Abu Rida, who had holed up in the house with his own teenage son to defend it, said they were moved by Israel’s military to another home but still could not leave the area, which is about 16 kilometers (10 miles) from the Palestinian city of Nablus.

The military said that its troops dismantled “two illegal outposts” near the homes on the outskirts of Qusra and a nearby village, and detained one Israeli. It added that additional soldiers were sent to “carry out defensive missions and patrols.”

Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz joined Huckabee in sharply condemning these Jewish terrorists. Rightly so.

What is not “rightly so” is the continued silence of religious Zionist Roshei Yeshiva on the West Bank in response to this apparently ongoing incident. Their silence lends credence to the idea that these Jewish terrorists have, at the very least, their tacit approval!

If that is indeed the case, I have no use for them. The “Torah” they teach and the Torah they learn is worthless in my eyes.

The only West Bank Rosh Yeshiva I know of who has condemned them is Rabbi Moshe Lichtenstein, who has justifiably criticized these Roshei Yeshiva for their reticence. That they continue to remain quiet about this kind of behavior is a moral travesty that descends to the depths of my soul.

Although perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised. Many of these rabbis had eulogized Baruch Goldstein shortly after his death.

Not only should these Jewish terroristss be arrested and imprisoned for a very long time, they should be permanently barred from returning to the communities where they committed these crimes. And there should be the strongest possible rabbinic condemnation – bordering on excommunication!

There is no two ways about it: Any settler who dares to harass Palestinians who have done nothing to him or to any Jew should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law - with the full support from across the entire spectrum of the religious establishment!

It is time to end the madness.

What about the lack of security that plagues Israelis throughout Israel? That is a separate but very important issue requiring a solution that will end the constant fear of terrorism from our enemies. The State of Israel has not yet solved that problem adequately.

But one thing is abundantly clear: The Baruch Goldstein Brigade are not the people who ought to be calling the shots here.

These miserable excuses for human beings ought to be treated like the terrorists that they are. In my viewm the West Bank Roshei Yeshiva that fail to condemn them ought to be fried and their Yeshivos shut down.

It’s truly fascinating—if a bit odd—to watch Mayor Zohran Mamdani try to court Jewish support.

The New York City mayor is perhaps the most widely known member of the Democratic Socialists of America, an organization on the far left of the political spectrum that views the State of Israel as an illegitimate colonial enterprise that practices apartheid against its indigenous peoples. It advocates boycotting Israel and, ultimately, dismantling it as a Jewish state and returning the land to its supposed rightful Palestinian owners.

One of Mamdani’s first forays into politics came while he was a student at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, where he co-founded the college’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, which the ADL describes as a network of anti-Zionist campus groups that promotes BDS campaigns against Israel.

His anti-Israel bona fides were established a long time ago and have continued to be part of his worldview to this day. And yet he loves to distinguish himself as a friend of Jewish New Yorkers. He says he will fight the growing antisemitism plaguing New York and promises to protect their rights and freedoms no less than those of any other New Yorker—even Jews who disagree with him. He says that disagreeing with him is their right, just as his anti-Israel views are his right.

A lot of Jews scoff at Mamdani’s comments and promises, noting that his anti-Israel rhetoric actually contributes to the increase in antisemitic attacks.

And yet, a few weeks ago, Ynet reported the following:

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani issued a blessing to the Jewish community in the city ahead of the Tisha B’Av fast and wished residents “to reflect on the history and resilience of the Jewish people.” In a post published on X, Mamdani wrote: “May all who observe this day have a safe and meaningful fast.”

I had to laugh when I saw that. On Tisha B’Av, a “meaningful fast” is about mourning the destruction of the Beis HaMikdash and hoping for it to be restored speedily in our time in our holy city, Jerusalem. That would seem to undermine his views about our rights to the land.

Underscoring the absurdity of his message is his constant anti-Israel rhetoric and openly expressed view that Israel has no right to be a Jewish state. Much less rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem on the location where one of Islam’s holiest buildings now stands.

And yet, I really think he believes that he can separate his anti-Zionist views from his sincere desire to be the mayor for all New Yorkers, Jews included.

That assumption, I’m sure, is based in part on the support he received from the many Jews who align themselves with progressive socialist policies and who see Israel in much the same negative light he does. Although some of them may not go as far as he does in denying Israel the right to exist as a Jewish state, they clearly see anything short of a socialist-style government as a betrayal of the ideals they associate with the good old days of the kibbutzim upon which Israel was built.

Kibbutzim were communes - essentially mini-communist-style enterprises in which there was little or no private ownership. Everyone worked for the common good, and everything was shared equally.

That hardly exists today. For good reason. It doesn’t work on a micro scale much better than it does on a macro scale. Which failed every time it was tried.

I don’t really doubt Mamdani’s sincerity. I’m sure he feels he can be all things to all people, including his Jewish constituents. To that end, he must be a bit perplexed by the rise in antisemitic attacks since he took office. So he assembled an eclectic group of Jewish leaders to get their input on why this is happening.

Not surprisingly, representatives of most mainstream Jewish organizations were not invited to attend. Not the ADL. Not Agudah. Not the OU. Not Chabad. And not the RCA.

But Reform and Conservative rabbis were there, as was a Modern Orthodox rabbi. Despite the disparity of opinion among these organizations, they all seemed to agree on one thing: The mayor’s vehemently anti-Zionist rhetoric and his continual references to Israel’s prime minister as a war criminal responsible for genocide in Gaza have, in large part, contributes to the rise in antisemitism, some of it violent. And that he should stop doing so if he is serious about fighting antisemitism.

The attendees seemed to agree that the mayor was attentive and that he would take what they said under advisement.

Frankly, no matter how much Mamdani wants to be the mayor of all the people—granting everyone the right to disagree with him without the threat of harm that may come from that—he cannot possibly understand why his strident anti-Zionist views are incompatible with that dichotomy.

Nor can he seem to understand that the progressive Jews who support him and agree with his views on Israel haven’t the foggiest notion of what constitutes the worldview of virtually every educated Jew: that the Land of Israel is inseparable from our identity as Jews.

It is as much a part of who we are as keeping kosher and keeping Shabbos.

His ignorance of that fact was plainly demonstrated by his “warm wishes” for a meaningful fast on Tisha B’Av.

I’m not sure what will come from this meeting or whether it will have any impact on what he says in the future. But I doubt it will change his hardline view against Israel as a Jewish state, no matter how much we try to tell him how important that is to our very identity as Jews.

Because at the end of the day, his DSA biases preclude any kind or reckoning that would change his anti-Zionist attitude.

How worthy is a way of life that rejects virtually all aspects of the general culture? And to what lengths is it legitimate to achieve success in maintaining that way of life? Does that mean total isolation from that culture except when absolutely necessary such as a hospitalization? How far must one go to achieve that level of insularity? How important is that insularity to one’s Jewish identity? And when does being insular go too far?

These are the thoughts that immediately occurred to me after reading about yet another conflict between state and religion. Only this one is in Canada, where their constitution protects freedom of worship, just as ours does.

This has been one of my pet peeves about Chasidism for as far back as I can remember. (Although, to be honest, the non-Chasidic Yeshiva world is doing its level best to catch up with them. But I digress.)

The ideology of insularity as a means of protecting oneself from influences foreign to Judaism has gone to such extremes in the Chasidic world that even the very language of the country is seen as a portal to the evils of society at large.

This is why, when you speak to members of certain Chasidic sects, you will hear them speak as though they were new immigrants. Often, they speak in grammatically incorrect ways. When it comes to writing, their spelling is about as accurate as that of a third grader. Their grammar is often no better.

They do this by choice, as a matter of distancing themselves from the surrounding culture. The more different they are from that culture, the less likely they are to participate in it and expose themselves to what they regard as its “evil” pitfalls.

Yiddish is their first language, and it is the language most often used in the home and among family and friends. English is used when necessary. All of this is a matter of communal choice.

Which brings me to what just happened in Montreal, where the languages of the land are both English and French. The following was reported in Arutz Sheva:

“Quebec provincial authorities have dealt a major blow to the Belz Hasidic education system in Montreal, announcing the sweeping cancellation of operating licenses for three major institutions—a kindergarten, a Talmud Torah, and a small yeshiva serving approximately 600 students…”

“The dramatic decision follows a lengthy series of inspections and monitoring efforts involving the institutions’ administration, some of which, according to authorities, have been ongoing since 2007…”

“Among the key deficiencies cited as leading to the drastic measure were a serious shortage of teachers qualified to teach in Quebec’s official languages, English and French; failure to provide the required number of instructional hours in core subjects; the use of unapproved educational materials; and safety concerns involving emergency exits.”

I do not wish these schools any harm. The fact that these children may be left without a school in the coming academic year would deny them any education altogether. Additionally, it places a grossly unfair burden on their parents.

But I have to ask: Why do these schools not comply with what seem like basic common-sense rules that every educational institution worthy of the name should have?

Is it really that difficult, for example, to have teachers who speak English or French properly?

Or do they do it on purpose?

I think the answer is clear based on their worldview of insularity from the general culture. They don’t want their Chasidim to learn to speak the language of the land too well. Which means that when those Chasidim become teachers they had never learned to speak the language of the land properly in the first place.

In order for these schools to comply with that requirement, they would have to hire people from outside their community. That would reduce the number of jobs available to their own Chasidim, who scarcely have enough of a secular education to get any job outside their own community. Let alone a career outside of that community requiring the learning skills necessary to obtain a more advanced education . Such an endeavor is in any case discouraged, if not outright forbidden, by their religious leaders.

I’m sure the “religious freedom warriors” among us will turn out to fight their fight for them. Those of us who were not raised in isolation, learned to speak the language of the country well, and were provided with an education that enabled us to become the lawyers who could argue their case for them in court - will be eager to protect their right to remain perpetually ignorant of the language and culture of the land in which they live,

It’s just too bad that the “freedom of religion” warriors among us, who so desperately want to protect the right of entire Chasidic communities to remain ignorant, think they are doing them a favor.

Truth is though, most Chasidim who come from that kind of environment probably prefer it that way. But that doesn’t mean it is good for them. Or good for the Jewish people in general.

It is true that there is so much about these communities that deserves admiration: their family values, their strong adherence to tradition, their strong communal bonds, their charitable work, and their low crime rates. But those qualities would not disappear if they were also known for being educated and fully conversant in the language and culture of the country in which they live.

It would serve both them and the rest of observant Jewry well if they simply would exercise a little more common sense and tweaked their worldview to one which would be more compatible with the educational requirements of the authorities. Had they done that in the first place - it would have prevented the pickle they have gotten themselves into. And I dare say would not change their way of life one iota. It would only enhance it.