Monthly Archives: July 2025

Cuomo, Jewish Champion, Aged Gladiator

Posted on by
Reply

Weekends in the Hamptons Synagogue are times to hear from politicians but infrequently a political war room. That changed on July 20. Former Governor Andrew Cuomo, political veteran and bruised warrior of Albany, came down from the bleachers and into the pit—this time, to describe the battle with far-left ideologue who had somehow captured the heart of New York City’s radical alt-left: Assemblyman Zohran Mamdani.

Cuomo stood before a predominantly older, anxious crowd—not in his home borough, but in the summer home of hundreds of Manhattan’s Jewish residents. Rabbi Marc Schneier introduced him warmly, a gesture that symbolized more than courtesy. It was a call for a lifeline from a community watching its city slip into madness.

From Apology to Attack

Cuomo opened with an apology for his lackluster primary campaign, acknowledging what everyone in the room already knew: Mamdani’s young, radical left had shown up to vote, and Cuomo hadn’t shown up at all. But that was going to change. Cuomo pledged to fight between now and November—and then made a pledge to follow the suggestion of former New Jersey Senator David Paterson, that if trailing Mayor Eric Adams in the fall polls, he would step aside in September to avoid splitting the anti-Mamdani vote. He implied Adams should do the same.

Former Governor Andrew Cuomo addressed crowd at the Hamptons Synagogue in Westhampton Beach, on the dias with Rabbi Marc Schneier, on July 20, 2025 (photo: First One Through)

“fueling antisemitism”

In responding to a direct question, Cuomo refused to label Mamdani an antisemite because “I cannot see into his heart,” but was clear that the 33-year old very much “fuels antisemitism,” and further “engages in hate speech.”

The crowd nodded, murmured. Some thought Cuomo was too polite. They’ve listened to Mamdani excuse phrases like “globalize the Intifada” to bring violence against the Jews everywhere. They saw the only legislation introduced by the radical socialist, a bill to strip the tax-exempt status of charities benefiting Israelis, like Hatzalah. They read his call to “defund the police.”

Mamdani’s platform is a direct threat to Jewish safety.

Eli Beer, founder of Hatzalah in Israel, asking a question of Andrew Cuomo at the Hamptons Synagogue on July 20, 2025 (photo: First One Through)

A Plan for the City

Cuomo laid out his blueprint:

  • Enforce the law and prosecute hate crimes.
  • Hire 5,000 new police officers.
  • Build housing in a supply-starved market.
  • Attract businesses and jobs to the city.

He didn’t let the crowd forget what they lost: 15,000 jobs from Amazon’s Long Island City project—killed, he reminded them, by Mamdani’s comrade-in-ideology, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Cuomo said that he had worked hard to win that competition, only to be foiled by a Democratic-Socialist. When the city and state were not blocked by terrible ideologies, Cuomo was able to accomplish a lot, including the Second Avenue subway, a new Laguardia Airport and a replacement to the Tappan Zee Bridge.

He was a Democrat who accomplished tangible results, while the Democratic-Socialist wing of the party impeded any progress with “stupid ideas.”

Desperation and the Wounded Gladiator

When Cuomo finished, the crowd didn’t roar—it exhaled. One person whispered into the microphone that the speech needed to be given in every synagogue in the city. Cuomo responded that he will do what he can but you need to get and be messengers. If you don’t organize, Mamdani wins.

Cuomo offered data: Mamdani won the primary because the activist class under 30 turned out en masse. But the general electorate was different: 70% Democrats, 15% Independents, and 15% Republicans. With Adams or Sliwa out of the race, Cuomo insisted, the math would work and recent polls show he is correct. He could win. If the others dropped out.

The audience, mostly over 70, carried the unease of people who had seen this movie before. Socialist cities—Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago—were crumbling under the weight of their ideology and policies. New York had put its toe in the water in the past with Bill de Blasio and the results were terrible. A Mamdani mayoralty, Cuomo warned, could bury the city for two decades.

They wanted to believe Cuomo could win. But they also saw the crowded field ahead and Cuomo’s primary loss behind. It was like watching a wounded gladiator try to rise as the coliseum gates opened and the lions approached.

They weren’t cheering.
They were praying.

For him. For themselves.

Related:

From Vienna to Queens: Karl Lueger, Zohran Mamdani, and the Politics of Polite Antisemitism (June 2025)

Make New York Bankrupt Again: The Danger of Mamdani and 21st Century Socialism (June 2025)

DSA Goes Full Antisemite (July 2024)

Racism In The Old and Antisemitism In The Youth (February 2024)

Please Don’t Vote for a Democratic Socialist (November 2018)

Not Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

The government is coming down hard on Columbia University for failing to protect Jewish students. It has blocked grants from the school and has come after particular international students. Some civil rights organizations and Democratic politicians have argued that such maneuvers are trouncing protected free speech and are illegal actions against people who have different opinions than President Trump.

People are entitled to have opinions – even hateful ones, and share them aloud or in print. However, such rights are not absolute and have limitations at universities.

  1. In general, people may not stop other people from enjoying their particular rights, say to enjoy the campus and study freely.

The students who went into a classroom about Modern Israel and handed out leaflets and did not let the professor teach class were NOT exercising free speech but were being disruptive. The hecklers at Hillary Clinton’s lecture were not engaged in free speech but impinging on the rights of other students to learn.

2. Students cannot engage in vandalism. Painting red triangles which are the signature of the Hamas terrorist group to target people and breaking glass is destructive. Anti-Israel Columbia students have done this repeatedly.

Red triangles painted on Columbia University COO’s apartment

The vandalism and takeover of schools is against both of these first two principles and certainly not part of free speech. The abduction of a school custodian during the building takeover also warranted severe disciplinary action.

3. People cannot disseminate propaganda and wave flags of US-designated terrorist groups. The United States has labeled several Palestinian Arab groups as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs). Sharing propaganda from such groups can be viewed as providing material support, a serious crime.

Columbia students who are part of Students for Justice in Palestine shared statements from Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh that “contextualizes” the slaughter of 1,200 people, kidnapping of babies and Holocaust survivors, and raping of women. They lionized the architect of the October 7 massacre, Yahya Sinwar, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah and many other mass murderers.

Some of the students at the Columbia encampments have been at rallies with Hamas flags and headbands, and people calling to repeat the October 7 massacre in other parts of the world to achieve “liberation.”

Being associated with designated foreign terrorist groups jumps from “free speech” considerations to the blurry definition of “domestic terrorism” to the very real and illegal area of “international terrorism” which the federal government will prosecute immediately.

4. People may not intentionally provoke someone “face-to-face” in an action likely to be met with violence. Screaming “I am Hamas” to a Jew in the aftermath of Hamas’s butchery of Jews and the genocidal group’s promise to repeat the heinous slaughter would not be protected under free speech.

5. Beyond provoking a violent response, free speech may not intimidate or harass someone or a group of people, especially if they are part of a “protected group.” For example, a mob yelling for all Zionists to get off a subway is not protected under free speech.

More generally, free speech only relates to government involvement. A private business or university may have restrictions on offensive speech that are more restrictive than federal laws. The government may then investigate the select application of free speech at private institutions when only protecting certain groups’ permitted speech while not for others.

Further, free speech does not shield someone from the ramifications of such speech. Someone may something that is protected under the government’s definition of free speech and still lose a job or opportunity because it is viewed as offensive.

The list above may overlap. For example, drawing a picture of the Islamic prophet Mohammed is protected speech but drawing it on a mosque is vandalism and harassment. Talking about an “Intifada” generally which might mean to “shake off” is okay, yet shouting to “globalize the intifada” while holding “zionism is racism” and “there is only one solution” banners before a Jewish institution is the equivalent of a bomb threat.

Free speech is a cornerstone of America—but so is liberty. The targeted harassment and intimidation of Jews across campuses and cities has crossed the line. Chanting genocidal slogans and glorifying the slaughter of Jews – at Jews – is not protected speech; it’s an assault on civil rights.

Defending the First Amendment must never come at the cost of abandoning the safety and liberty of American Jews.

From War To Heritage

Posted on by
Reply

As the Israelites were about to enter their Promised Land, the Bible relays stories of a series of conflicts.

After the spies delivered a bad report on the land in Parshat Shlach, we read the story of Korach who tried to launch a mutiny against Moses and Aaron. Then Chukat describes a war with Amorites, and Balak shares the story of a prophet trying to curse the Jewish people. At the end of Balak (Numbers 25:1-9), we read about Moabite women engaged in profanities with Jewish men. Pinchas, son of Elazar son of Aaron, took a spear and impaled the couple having sex in front of the Ohel Mo’ed, the tent Moses used to communicate with God.

Illuminated manuscript miniature from the 15th-century Alba Bible

And that is where Parshat Balak and the story seemingly end. With the murder of the couple and 24,000 others engaged in similar acts.

But it doesn’t really.

Parshat Pinchas continues the story with a pivot. Rather than highlighting the sins and the deaths, Numbers 25:10 begins with God appreciating the defense of holiness and His blessing Pinchas and his descendants. While the story may appear as a single episode, the Torah divides the parshas – and the narrative – between the violent and the holy, even when the violence was in the name of the holy.

The theme of separation can similarly be seen immediately after this in chapter 26, where God calls for another census of the tribes. Here, God counts the tribes and their families to allocate land for their inheritance. This is in contrast to the census of Numbers chapter 1 in which God wanted to account for how people would assemble in their journey and combat enemy forces. In the case of the journey and battle-readiness, there was a single head of each tribe; when they entered the land, each tribe’s family was specified.

It is a metaphor for how Jews assemble and coordinate today: there are wars that are fought in Israel and the diaspora against those who want to harm Jews and the Jewish State. Global Jewry understands the us-versus-them dynamic and the role for every Jew in the battle. It is related yet distinct from the interaction amongst Jews regarding our common heritage. We each have a part to play living together as a community.

Individuals fight with a common purpose. Families live under a societal umbrella.

We have tribes and borders and homes. We coexist with each other while understanding our peaceful lines. The separations today may be between synagogues or religious denominations. Between schools and political affiliations. Each aspiring for peace and holiness.

Those lines are very different than the battle lines between us and “them,” those who mean to harm us physically, morally and spiritually.

Upon entry into the Jewish holy land, Jews migrated from an army with legions to a people with property. While there were still wars to be fought inside the Jewish Promised Land, the muscle memory of understanding who is within the holy communal tent and those outside forces, was taught over the trials in the desert.

It is a lesson for our time as well: to clearly identify our allies and foes, and wage war and peace accordingly.

Related:

The Blessing of Jewish Distinctiveness (July 2025)

The Zone Of Jew Hatred Interest (March 2024)

Judaism Is Uniquely Tied To The Land Of Israel (December 2023)

Unity – not Unanimity – in the Pro-Israel Tent (November 2017)

Ilhan Omar’s Free Speech For Me Not Thee

Posted on by
Reply

Nothing seems to animate Rep. Ilhan Omar  (D-MN) as much as attacking America, Israel and Jews. Perhaps with the exception of defending those who do.

On July 15, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives Education & Workforce Committee held a hearing on antisemitism at universities. Rather than show concern for Jewish Americans facing harassment, intimidation and persecution – the point of the hearing – Omar went on the attack against those who called out the Jew hatred.

Ilhan Omar at House hearing to address antisemitism at universities, July 15, 2025

At (2:28:09) of the hearing, Omar took the microphone and started to bash Canary Mission as a nefarious, shadow organization that worked in concert with the government to “dox” students and “repress speech” of those who spoke up on behalf of SAPs, the Stateless Arabs from Palestine. She called it “McCarthyism” in which the group denied “due process” to individuals, as though this group was an arm of the government, looking to silence dissent.

It was a wild and crazy display of her hypocrisy and lies.

First, some plain facts. Canary Mission is an independent group and not part of the government. It posts public information about what people say and doesn’t share personal information like home addresses or phone numbers (the definition of doxxing). It is all covered under free speech – sharing other people’s “free speech.”

Second, Canary Mission does not silence anyone the way Omar charged. It does not intimidate. It simply compiles the vitriol of those who intend to harm America, its citizens and its allies.

Here is one clip from the site about a 2024 conference where “Palestinian” radicals threatened to tear down “empire,” the code name for the United States.

Omar doesn’t want you to see this: Canary Mission video about jihadists looking to destroy the United States

Here is a review of CM’s profile of Columbia University professor Joseph Massad, one of its longer highlights as he has long been attacking Jews and the Jewish State. It includes a long list of links to HIS comments. Nowhere does it provide his personal information.

Canary Mission video about those celebrating the October 7 massacre and seeking the destruction of Israel

Omar wants free speech for anti-American and anti-Jewish voices but not those who call out the haters. She doesn’t want there to be any ramifications for people calling to “tear down empire,” but only for those who showcase those shrill voices. She claims small private groups have power while she uses her powerful position in government to attack them.

Omar is the embodiment of hypocrisy and anti-American views, which she’s proud to broadcast while people are gathered to consider how to protect the most vilified minority-minority in America.

Omar has made her career out of playing both the victim and the defender of so-called marginalized voices—so long as those voices align with her political narrative. In Omar’s worldview, free speech is sacred when it targets America or Israel—but it’s dangerous harassment when used to expose her ideological allies.

Omar demands impunity for those who cheer jihad, but censorship for those who expose them.

Omar’s double standard is not just hypocritical—it’s dangerous. By shielding radical voices from criticism, she normalizes antisemitism and delegitimizes the right of Jews to call out hatred. Worse, she uses her platform to chill lawful speech, by mislabeling documentation as “doxxing” and criticism as “violence.”

This isn’t about protecting the vulnerable; it’s about protecting the radical. Her priorities are crystal clear:

  • Defend Hamas sympathizers
  • Smear Jewish watchdogs
  • Turn antisemites into victims
  • Turn their critics into villains

If Ilhan Omar were genuinely concerned about threats and intimidation, she would condemn the harassment of Jewish students, the glorification of Hamas, and the calls for violent uprising on American soil. But she won’t—because those voices are her own echo.

ACTION ITEM

You can donate to Canary Mission here.

Related:

Global South’s Beachhead On American Universities (March 2025)

The Insidious Jihad in America (July 2019)

Ackman: Buy Cuomo And Sliwa, Not Votes

Posted on by
Reply

Billionaire Bill Ackman – and millions of other New Yorkers and Americans – are appalled at the victory of Democratic Socialist Zohran Mamdani in the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City. Ackman has been vocal about an anyone-but-Mamdani campaign and willingness to put millions of dollars behind a new candidate to run against Mamdani in the general election. He’s even asked Andrew Cuomo to drop out of the race while endorsing Mayor Eric Adams.

That’s not the way politics works.

Politicians run for office. That’s what they do. They don’t care about what millions of people want outside the framework of what it means for them personally. They don’t run for office for you any more than teacher unions work for students. Each is selfish and looks after themselves.

Ackman, realizing the flaw in the logic of adding yet another person into the race, announced that he is going to back Eric Adams, sort of like Elon Musk’s backing of Trump for president: a billionaire backing an incumbent with baggage.

Unsurprisingly, Cuomo said that he is not dropping out of the race, and President Donald Trump said Cuomo should stay in the race. A recent poll has Cuomo ahead of both Adams and Republican Curtis Sliwa. Yet Ackman seems to think that money alone can turn the tide towards Adams.

In the multi-horse race and deeply Democratic city where people instinctively vote for the Democratic candidate regardless of who it is, Mamdani is likely to win in November.

Backing Mamdani is the alt-left who use Ackman’s comments to rally their comrades. Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders who thinks that capitalism is evil, sees this as yet another manifestation of it: people with money can run the table and buy the votes – and everything else that non-rich people have.

The correct play for Ackman is to buy Cuomo, not New Yorkers. Promise Cuomo some board seats in companies or other plum positions. Adams can win in a less crowded race but not with Cuomo still running, regardless of how much money backs Adams.

People – rich and poor – only have a single vote and millions of dollars cannot change that. Money can assist in getting out the vote, an important dynamic but not decisive for all of the candidates. Millions of dollars poured into Mamdani’s campaign from bundlers and via George Soros’s network of socialist charities like the Open Society Foundations (212-548-0600), which were effective in getting out the vote in the primary. Ackman money would have similar benefit but not enough.

In this race, the millions to be spent by anti-Mamdani people will only guarantee that Mamdani wins a plurality of votes but below a 50% majority in a crowded field. He will still become mayor.

ACTION PLAN

It is time for influential people to encourage Cuomo to accept another exciting position to drop out of the race for selfish, not benevolent reasons. Saving New York may depend on it.

Organize the vote. Make sure that older New Yorkers get to vote early.

Related:

From Vienna to Queens: Karl Lueger, Zohran Mamdani, and the Politics of Polite Antisemitism (June 2025)

Make New York Bankrupt Again: The Danger of Mamdani and 21st Century Socialism (June 2025)

DSA Goes Full Antisemite (July 2024)

Mixed Dancing With Antisemites

Posted on by
Reply

In Jewish tradition, mixed dancing — men and women dancing together — is not banned because the act itself is necessarily sinful. Rather, it’s prohibited by Orthodox rabbis as a safeguard, a geder (protective fence) to keep people from straying into deeper moral danger. The actual target of the ban is adultery. The sages, with profound psychological insight, warned against behaviors that might lead to the destruction of intimate relationships. If lust can spark with a glance, how much more so with physical proximity, rhythmic movement, and emotional energy?

This ancient rabbinic logic should feel very familiar today. We are watching a tragic parallel unfold among secular and progressive Jews in America and the West, who, ignoring the early signs of danger, are “dancing” with partners who wish to destroy them and their relationships with the Jewish community.

In the UK, members of the Masorti movement — the equivalent of Conservative Judaism — watched impassively as anti-Israel protestors screamed “Death, death to the IDF!” Rather than draw a red line against those openly calling for the annihilation of Israel and its defenders, these leaders tiptoed around offense, unwilling to rupture intercommunal alliances that feed their progressive sensibilities.

In New York, the problem took a sharper form. A candidate for public office — Zohran Mamdani, a Democratic Socialist and vocal supporter of anti-Israel slogans — dodged criticism over the genocidal phrase “Globalize the Intifada.” Far-left Reform rabbis in the city, self-anointed moral voices of the Jewish community, rushed to endorse him. They danced around the danger, preferring the fantasy of social justice alliances over the hard truth of growing antisemitism within their political home.

Article in the Times of Israel co-authored by co-authored by Rabbi Rachel Goldenberg, Rabbi Andy Kahn, Rabbi Abby Stein, Rabbi Barat Ellman, PhD, Rabbi Ellen Lippmann, Rabbi Nancy H. Wiener, and Rabbi Miriam Grossman.

The slope isn’t just slippery anymore — it’s greased with blood and cowardice. Mamdani’s continued place in the progressive tent is welcomed not only by radicals but by establishment Democrats, including Jews like Rep. Jerry Nadler. The Democratic National Committee embraces Mamdani with open arms, eyes shut tight to the threat he and his fellow “democratic socialists” pose to Jews in New York and beyond.

What’s most astonishing is not that radicals hate Jews — an old story — but that Jews are oblivious. Or worse, they see it and prefer the warmth of progressive adulation over the cold loneliness of standing apart.

This is not a moment for nuance or middle-ground moral posturing. The bell curve of American political identity has collapsed into a barbell — a society without a center and where extremes dominate. The Left hosts open antisemites under the banner of “justice,” while the Right has become a safer harbor for traditional Jews who value Israel and religion.

Still, many Jews still won’t leave the party. The music is loud, the slogans intoxicating, and the identity politics too thrilling to resist. They are reveling in center stage, swaying to the rhythm of the mob, arms locked with people who chant for Jewish blood. It is dirty dancing in every sense of the phrase.

While UK’s Glastonbury music festival condemned the violent chants, Masorti Jews excused the vitriol

The sages understood that proximity leads to temptation, and temptation leads to destruction. The rabbis who banned mixed dancing did not hate fun but feared the cost of heedless joy — of dancing with people who don’t have your best interest at heart. That entrance you with intoxicating passions that undermine foundational bonds.

Today, Jews must ask: Who are we dancing with, and how long until the music stops and we realize we are profoundly alone?

Related:

An Open Letter To Progressive Diaspora Jews (October 2023)

You Cannot Be Progressive And Pro-Palestinian (October 2022)

Peter Beinart is an Apologist for Anti-Semites (December 2020)

A Basic Lesson of How to be Supportive (August 2018)

The Non-Orthodox Jewish Denominations Fight Israel (January 2018)

There are Standards for Unity (October 2017)

Dancing with the Asteroids (November 2014)

Will Mamdani Support Converting the Dome of the Rock Into a Synagogue?

Posted on by
Reply

Zohran Mamdani, a rising star of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and winner of the Democratic primary for mayor of New York City, is a vocal critic of Israel, consistently aligning himself with those who deny the Jewish state’s legitimacy. The DSA’s New York chapter, to which Mamdani belongs, infamously demanded that candidates pledge never to visit Israel, a democratic country that has long been an ally of the United States and home to nearly half of the world’s Jews. DSA-NYC only targeted the Jewish State in its campaign; not a single American adversary was listed.

This is not policy criticism—it is ideological exclusion.

Mamdani often speaks in terms of equality for all in the Holy Land, especially being opposed to a “hierarchy of citizenship on the basis of religion.” But it’s worth pressing on what that actually means. In Jerusalem today, at the holiest site in Judaism—the Temple Mount—only Muslims are allowed to pray. Jews, Christians, and all other non-Muslims are banned from uttering a prayer or even moving their lips in spiritual devotion on the site where the two Jewish Temples once stood, and which remains sacred to Jews.

The Old City of Jerusalem including the Jewish Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Compound

This discriminatory policy is issued by the Jordanian-run Islamic Waqf, which holds administrative control of the Temple Mount under a decades-old, uneasy “status quo.” The United Nations repeatedly reinforces this Islamic exclusivity, often omitting any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount altogether. Both the Palestinian Authority and Hamas vocally oppose any Jewish prayer there, calling it a “provocation.” Jews just visiting the site  are denounced by Palestinian leadership with denunciation that Jews are “storming al Aqsa” in an attempt to rile up 2 billion Muslims to jihad Jews.

So, what does “equality” mean to Mamdani in this context?

Does he believe Jews should have the same right to worship – at their holiest site – as Muslims do at a site they consider less holy? Would he support Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount? Or would he continue the pattern of defending Islamic supremacy over Jewish heritage, consistent with the positions of his political allies?

More pointedly: would Mamdani support turning the Dome of the Rock, an Islamic shrine that sits on the very spot of the Jewish Temples, into a synagogue? And would he support giving Jews preference to the site on Saturday, comparable to Muslim access granted each Friday?

Mamdani’s party and political base support antisemitic edicts. They have increasingly mirrored the rhetoric of Palestinian leaders who call for the complete “de-Judaization” of Jerusalem. Hamas and the Palestinian Authority both deny any Jewish historical connection to the site. Any mention of rebuilding a synagogue—let alone a Temple—is immediately labeled “incitement” and met with threats of, and actual, violence.

The DSA has never condemned this apartheid of worship. Instead, it condemns Israel for even maintaining security on the Mount after violent jihadi riots. That Mamdani would remain silent or complicit on this speaks volumes.

The deeper truth is that equality in Mamdani’s rhetoric masks a goal for a radical reordering of the Middle East in which Jewish identity and history are subordinated or erased altogether. It is not about equal rights—it is about erasing Israel. Supporting open Jewish prayer on the Temple Mount would be a minimal step toward showing that his ““equality” includes Jews.

Will he denounce Hamas’s threats of violence against Jews praying in Jerusalem? Will he demand the Waqf end its ban on Jewish prayer? Will he advocate for genuine religious pluralism on the Temple Mount?

Or will he continue to chant slogans of “equality” in the language of Islamic supremacy, complicit in religious apartheid?

Related:

DSA Goes Full Antisemite (July 2024)

Will People Advocating For Equal Rights In A One State Solution Promote Jewish Prayer And A Jewish Temple On The Temple Mount? (April 2024)

Palestinian Authority Continues To Incite Violence Against Jews On Temple Mount (May 2023)

Open Letter To Politicians On Al Aqsa Mosque (March 2023)

Names and Narrative: CNN’s Temple Mount/ Al Aqsa Complex Inversion (September 2015)

Tolerance at the Temple Mount (November 2014)

Genocidal War Versus Ethnic Cleansing War

Posted on by
Reply

There are two wars taking place in Gaza: one is a textbook definition of a genocidal war while the other is a reluctant war of ethnic cleansing.

While critics of the Jewish State hurl the term “genocide” as a weapon, a blood libel designed to strip Israel of its legitimacy, it is an inversion: it is Hamas and only Hamas that is engaged in a genocide.

Hamas’s 1988 foundational charter is not a vague political platform. It is an open call to murder Jews. Article 7 quotes an Islamic hadith that urges Muslims to kill Jews wherever they find them. Article 13 states that “initiatives and so-called peaceful solutions and international conferences are in contradiction to the principles of the Islamic Resistance Movement.” Peace is forbidden. Coexistence is a crime.

And the Palestinian people did not reject this vision; they embraced it. In 2005, they elected Mahmoud Abbas as president — a man who wrote his doctoral thesis denying the Holocaust. In 2006, they voted Hamas into power, giving the genocidal group 58% of the parliament. These were not fringe votes. These were popular, democratic choices made in full view of Hamas’s open ideology.

Then came October 7, 2023.

In the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, Hamas — the ruling government of Gaza — unleashed its long-promised war of annihilation. They murdered 1,200 people, from babies in cribs to elderly women in wheelchairs. They burned families alive, filmed their atrocities, and broadcast their bloodlust to the world. The Palestinian street erupted in celebration. Polls showed 75% of Palestinian Arabs supporting the massacre of Jews.

This was not a surprise. This was fulfillment. A generation raised on genocidal propaganda in schools, mosques, and television carried out what they had been taught. They were not rebelling against Hamas — they were Hamas. Thousands of Gazans participated in the October 7 slaughter.

Polls from Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research

Israel, faced with an existential threat, responded. It had tried the diplomatic route. It had withdrawn from Gaza in 2005. It had allowed billions of dollars in humanitarian aid to flow into the Strip. It had mostly tolerated rocket fire and bus bombings and flaming kites with modest responses. But after October 7, there was no possibility of a tepid response with a group with an increasing capacity to carry out its genocidal intent.

Israel launched a war of necessity — a war to end the Hamas threat once and for all. The goal was not genocide, but defense. Not extermination, but eradication of a terrorist force.

But the nature of this war is highly complex. Hamas does not engage Israel’s army on an open battlefield but underneath hospitals, mosques and homes. It warehouses missiles in schools and launches them from playgrounds. There is no ability to eliminate the terrorists without severe destruction to dual-use civilian-military infrastructure and significant collateral damage.

And that looks a lot like ethnic cleansing.

Gaza ruins

Ethnic cleansing refers to the forced removal of an ethnic or religious group from a territory. And yes, it is possible that the outcome of Israel’s war will be a Gaza without many Palestinian Arabs. Gaza cannot be rebuilt atop terrorist tunnels and booby traps. The terrorist enclave that Gazans built since 2007 cannot remain nor be replicated.

It has long been a sign of instilled antisemitism that the United Nations has accused Israel of genocide, at least as far back as 2013, as a mask for Palestinian Arabs genocidal intentions. It is a classic form of the adage “the best defense is a good offense,” accusing Israel of the crimes of Palestinian Arabs, forcing Israel into a defensive posture, both militarily and politically.

But it is another level of tragic irony that in this defensive war, Israel is open to the accusation of ethnic cleansing.

No nation on earth has faced the choices Israel faces. No other country is expected to coexist with a neighbor whose elected leaders seek its annihilation. No one wants to see civilian suffering but Israel has tried every alternative — and the price has always been paid in Jewish blood.

The world is watching a premeditated war of genocide – which it enabled and encouraged through the United Nations’ statements and actions – be defeated by a small, determined country. The contours of that victory may appear to the casual viewer as ethnic cleansing, and will certainly be marketed as such by Israel haters, as a cruel collective punishment against civilians and so-called “refugees.”

The Global North will consider “ethnic cleansing” as the lesser charge relative to the smear of “genocide” long advanced by the Global South. Will the resulting actions encourage and enable the next genocidal war against the Jewish State remains to be seen.

Related:

There Is No ‘Genocide’ Against Infrastructure (January 2024)

Palestinian Mothers Engage In Grotesque Prostitution Of Their Children (August 2023)

The Blessing of Jewish Distinctiveness

Posted on by
2

In the book of Numbers, the Moabite king Balak summons the non-Jewish prophet Bilaam to curse the Israelite nation which was traveling near Moab. What unfolds, is one of the most mysterious blessings in the Bible.

As Bilaam gazes upon the people of Israel, he declares:

“How can I damn whom God has not damned, How doom when God has not doomed? As I see them from the mountain tops, Gaze on them from the heights, There is a people that dwells apart, Not reckoned among the nations,” “הֶן־עָם֙ לְבָדָ֣ד יִשְׁכֹּ֔ן וּבַגּוֹיִ֖ם לֹ֥א יִתְחַשָּֽׁב“(Numbers 23:8–9)

The statement is peculiar – a nation which dwells alone – has befuddled rabbis for centuries. Is it a curse? A blessing? A prophecy?

At first glance, the idea of being alone evokes discomfort. In Genesis, God explicitly declares, “It is not good for man to be alone” “לֹא־ט֛וֹב הֱי֥וֹת הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְבַדּ֑וֹ” (Genesis 2:18). From this verse, Jewish tradition emphasizes the centrality of community, companionship, and connection. So why would Bilaam say something seemingly negative—and continue with a positive blessing in Numbers 23:10 “Who can count the dust of Jacob, Number the dust-cloud of Israel? May I die the death of the upright, May my fate be like theirs!”

Jan Jansson (1588-1664) map of the Holy Land (c. 1630) showing the life of Moses in vignettes and the organization and route of the Israelites through the desert and then Moab above the Dead Sea on the map on their way to the Promised Land

The answer may lie in context of the event and the deeper meaning of distinctiveness. Bilaam was not commenting on mere social isolation. He was marveling at the singularity of an entire people traveling together through the desert, in unison, yet set apart in character and destiny. He was struck by the sight of an entire nation—young and old, rich and poor—not scattered as refugees or as imperial conquerors, but moving as one, under a divine mission. This was a nation on a journey, and yet already a people. They were not defined by geography, wealth, or military might—but by a relationship with God.

close up of Jansson map

In Jewish tradition, blessings are tied to recognition and distinction. Consider the rules of berachot (blessings): when a person eats an apple, it receives the blessing “borei pri ha’etz”—a specific blessing for fruit of the tree. If the apple is altered, like mashed into applesauce or mixed with other foods, the blessing remains the same ONLY if the fruit can still be identified. But if the fruit is so blended or processed that its original form can no longer be distinguished, it receives the general blessing of “shehakol“. The highest form of blessing is given to that which is most clearly recognizable.

In this light, Bilaam’s words take on added meaning. The Jewish people, by dwelling alone, are not to be pitied but admired. They are not a mashed mixture indistinguishable from general society but a clearly defined people, worthy of the highest blessing. Their uniqueness—religiously, culturally, and morally—is their spiritual signature.

Moreover, Bilaam wasn’t simply remarking on ethnic isolation. He noted the nation’s relationship with the Divine. Even when they seemed to be isolated, they were never truly alone—they were accompanied by God. The camp of Israel may have appeared vulnerable in the wilderness, but it was surrounded by divine presence, protected by a covenant older and stronger than any human alliance. As a prophet, he could not help but shout “How can I damn whom God has not damned” and “May my fate be like theirs!”

close up of Jansson map

This point is emphasized by commentators like Rashi (1040-1105), who notes that Bilaam’s phrase can be read as prophetic: “They do not come under the same reckoning (לא יתחשב) with other nations. — Another explanation is: When they rejoice, no other nation rejoices with them.”

This is certainly the case today, as Israel defeats one enemy after another. Each – Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran – armed with both weaponry and genocidal intent, have been neutralized. The Jewish world is relieved and gives thanks, while the United Nations runs to condemn the Jewish State for its defensive war.

The aloneness feels like isolation but is it? Is the success – and “aloneness” – to be read as a glory to God? Bilaam’s blessing isn’t merely poetic—it is theological. He sees a people whose separation from other nations isn’t a curse but a connection to God – for those, like him, who can appreciate the holy tie.

For those who recognize this divine connection, the Jewish people become a source of blessing. As Bilaam says later, “Blessed are those who bless you, and cursed are those who curse you” (Numbers 24:9). But for those who fail to see the holiness of that distinction and connection to God—who seek to blend, suppress, or erase it—the reading is a curse. The uniqueness is condemned as outside societal standards.

In the end, Bilaam’s words are not a curse in disguise. They are a prophetic blessing that reveals a truth that many overlook: there is holiness in standing apart when one stands with God. The Jewish people, though often alone among the nations, are never alone in essence. They are accompanied by the Divine, distinguished by faith, memory, and mission.

Related:

Judaism’s Blessings and Curses (June 2021)

The Karma of the Children of Israel (January 2021)

Who’s Afraid Of Superman?

Posted on by
Reply

The newest Superman movie incarnation is out and critics and journalists have grabbed a pen even before a seat. Their reflections on modern society will inform how they view the characters and plot more than the cinematic quality of the film.

An interesting take was made in The New York Times opinion section called “My Problem With Superman.” The guest essay was written Junot Diaz, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic who teaches creative writing at MIT. One would imagine the story of Superman would resonate with this first generation immigrant but Diaz makes clear that he never liked Superman as originally presented to the world.

He recognizes that Superman was brought into the world as a story of a foreign refugee who escaped his dying world, something with which he should be able to relate. Diaz is well versed in the storyline in which Superman’s powers were used to fight for good in a mad world.

Yet it does not resonate for him. Not through his eyes when he was young, nor in looking at society today.

Because for Diaz – and possibly (presumably?) many immigrants like him, Superman is a force unlike any around him, a body of permanent power inequality. He might be a refugee but the dynamic is irrelevant in a progressive worldview obsessed with inequalities and power.

In today’s environment, Superman is internalized not as an individual but a nation. For Democratic-Socialists, the United States is not a “shining city on a hill,” but a monstrous force convinced of exceptionalism which wreaks havoc on the Global South.

Diaz article in The NY Times “My Problem With Superman”

In this mindset, the “annihilating exceptionalism” of power IS the evil. It is neither a force for good nor an aspiration or inspiration. It is an unnatural entity in a society intoxicated by a mission of massive redistribution of wealth and power.

Diaz makes his point clear, quoting Frederick Douglass in a call for a revolution of “fire, thunder and earthquake” to mobilize a nation of people to combat the “world in peril” from a sick governmental order.

Diaz article in The NY Times “My Problem With Superman”

The citizens of Metropolis are voting for Democratic Socialists like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Zohran Mamdani who believe that “billionaires shouldn’t exist.” Exceptionalism is viewed as inherently racist and/or enabled by a society which is deeply corrupt. Capitalism is tarred as deeply unfair. All of the power structures are fair game for targeted assassination – whether political, financial or moral.

Superman – and many of the superheroes of the era like Spiderman, Captain America and Batman – were created by young Jews before the start of the World War II and the Holocaust of European Jewry. They were young immigrants who wanted to survive in a world which had cast them out and marked them as forever different. The creators of these superheroes wrote stories of good defeating evil in a world which saw little support for the underdog. Evil was everywhere, and the only way of balancing the world between sparks of good and an inferno of evil was to oversize the good. Good needed to be extra – extra-powerful, extra-moral, and yes, extraterrestrial – to gain the upperhand.

That narrative spoke to Americans watching Nazi Germany incinerate Europe. It continued to capture the West’s attention in the following decades.

But now?

Much of the world is not looking at morality in the plain sense of the last generation. It is defined first – no, only – by equity. In this framework, without a balancing of power and wealth there can never be a good society. DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) for progressives is the only solution, and a nation which strips those initiatives is attempting to install a permanent dynamic of inequalities. Democratic-socialists are seeking to dismantle such America via a revolution of the masses.

The two Jewish writers and illustrators who created Superman – Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster – might be amazed that their creation finally has a Jewish actor, David Corenswet, playing the part in a major movie. If alive today, they might imagine that such milestone would mark a blessed society which finally welcomed the stranger, the immigrant, the survivor of the destruction of his old world. Embraced him as someone kind and noble who fought for justice for all.

David Corenswet as Superman

Alas. Imagine their amazement, the horror, if they could time travel to today, to see the target audience for their stories – immigrants in America – turn on Superman as a grotesque to be liquidated. Not because of White nationalism of Nazism that they faced a hundred years ago, but for the sin of exceptionalism in a society hell-bent on equity.

Related:

The Disappearing Jew (July 2024)

Now Is The Time For Sabra, An Israeli Superhero, To Join Captain America (October 2022)