The Weight of Nations

“Why do the nations rage, and the peoples plot in vain?” — Psalm 2:1

Saudi Arabia – the kingdom which Israel hoped would next join the Abraham Accords – sought to pressure Israel into ending its defensive war in Gaza by rallying nations of the Global North to recognize a State of Palestine. It found a partner in France, which successfully pulled the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia into the orbit of recognition. In September 2025 at the United Nations, the group jointly declared their acknowledgment of a Palestinian state—with caveats—but the symbolism was unmistakable.

Israel did not budge. It viewed the coordinated announcement as an alarming reward for the genocidal Hamas regime that had unleashed war on October 7 two years earlier.

Enter the United States. President Donald Trump had tasked developer and confidant Steve Witkoff to lead a back-channel negotiation with Hamas for the release of Israeli hostages and an end to hostilities. Jared Kushner joined the effort more forcefully in September, unveiling a “20-point plan” aimed at ending the two-year war and reshaping the region’s political future.

To counter the Saudi-French gambit, Trump built his own coalition. The U.S. secured the backing of several Arab and Muslim nations from the Global South—including Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt —for its peace framework. By October, the administration succeeded in gathering the leaders of 27 countries from across the North and South, including some that had just recognized Palestine, to fly to Egypt to sign what was billed as a ceasefire agreement.

A summit to support ending the more than two-year Israel-Hamas war in Gaza after a breakthrough ceasefire deal, Monday, Oct. 13, 2025, in Sharm El Sheikh, Egypt labeled “Peace 2025”

It was a mirage. Neither of the warring parties—Israel or Hamas—attended. The event was instead diplomatic theater, meant to transform a ceasefire proposal into a movement for regional peace. Trump designed the event to flip the script.

Where Saudi Arabia and France tried to impose the weight of the Global North on Israel, the United States sought to use the combined weight of both hemispheres on Hamas. The former demanded an immediate path to a two-state solution; the latter demanded the end of Hamas rule.

The Moral Gravity

The story of this moment is not only about geopolitics, but about moral gravity. The nations of the world have grown accustomed to weighing Israel’s every move while ignoring the crimes of its enemies. They call for “balance” in a war that began with mass murder, rape, and hostage-taking. They lecture the victim to compromise while the aggressor reloads. The UN Security Council could have easily passed resolutions to push for an end to the war if they had just condemned Hamas, but repeatedly refused to do so.

The weight of nations once meant the defense of justice and the pursuit of peace. Today, it is too often the ballast of perfidy—dragging down the innocent under the pretense of even-handedness.

Israel, standing increasingly alone, may yet prove that the true measure of a nation is not in the number of its allies, but in the steadiness of its conscience. It is fortunate to have President Trump in the White House as it shoulders this weight once again.

The tight bond between Israel and the United States has continued, despite Americans starting to sour on Israel since 2015.

What to Say to Crazy Anti-Zionist Karens

If someone approaches you — as a lecturer at the University of Sydney recently did to a couple of Jews celebrating Sukkot — and asks if you’re a Zionist and to renounce Zionism, here’s what I suggest you say:

“Well, thank you for asking that. To make sure I answer you fully, let’s first be clear on what a Zionist is. It’s someone who believes in two facts and one principle.

The first fact is that Jews are a people.
The second fact is that the Jewish people originate in the Land of Israel.

The principle is that Jews should have self-determination in their homeland, the Land of Israel.

Yes, I believe in both of those facts and that principle. You can plainly see that nothing about Zionism has anything to do with any particular government, leader, or policy.”

That’s it. Calm, factual, and impossible to refute without revealing one’s true bias.

Now, it can very well be that some people simply believe Israel shouldn’t exist — and therefore call themselves anti-Zionists. But as Israel is a living, breathing reality today, to oppose its existence is not a theoretical stance about 1948; it’s a desire to dismantle a sovereign Jewish nation. That’s not political criticism — that’s eliminationism. That’s the desire of many groups including the People’s Forum, Within Our Lifetime and the Democratic Socialists of America.

In today’s world, anti-Zionism isn’t just a philosophical disagreement. It’s an active hostility toward Jewish self-determination, an echo of the same hate that fueled the October 7 massacre. It’s far more lethal and toxic than opposing the idea of creating another Arab state in the Middle East to be called “Palestine,” especially one that has opposed coexistence with the indigenous Jews for over a century.

To deny Jewish peoplehood, heritage, and rights in their homeland is not progressivism — it’s prejudice wrapped in the language of activism.

So, the next time someone smugly demands you “renounce Zionism,” repeat the verses above. Because once you strip away the slogans and hashtags, all that’s left of anti-Zionism is anti-Jewish animus.

The Next Part of the “20-Point Plan”: Drop Charges At The ICJ

The headline deal which everyone pretends is a simple human-rights triumph — hostages home in exchange for prisoners and a ceasefire — is, on its face, a moral imperative. Families and politicians, of course want the war to end and hostages back home. But if we treat this swap as merely a humanitarian ledger without thinking about incentives, strategy and deterrence, we invite a replay of October 7 — not because anyone wants it, but because the arithmetic of the deal makes another mass-carnage payoff seem rational to those who plan such crimes.

Palestinian Arabs wave Hamas flags atop the Red Cross truck bringing releases terrorists to the West Bank in November 2024

Here’s the cold calculus the bland statements miss.

Hostages for prisoners. Civilians for killers. A handful for hundreds. These trades have an immediate human relief value. The cost, however, is structural: they reset the reward function for terrorism. If a violent raid can reliably purchase the release of leadership, fighters, and political capital — and if the international response includes legal actions that delegitimize the responding state — then the net effect is to make mass atrocity an instrument of statecraft.

Celebrations for released Palestinian Arab terrorists in 2014

But the mathematics isn’t just – and must not be viewed as – the prisoner-to-hostage ratio. It includes the defensive response: the likely military, political, and territorial consequences of the assault. Hamas should be forced to accept that math too. If it contemplates another October 7-style operation as it has promised to do repeatedly, it must understand that the outcome will not be a tidy prisoner exchange and a televised victory lap. It will be the destruction of leadership and the decimation of military infrastructure, with broad international support for the defensive measures taken to prevent a repeat.

Which brings us to the international legal theater now playing out: the ICJ’s “genocide” accusations, the vociferous statements from states threatening arrest of Israeli officials, and the diplomatic embrace of Palestinian statehood in some quarters. These actions, however well intended by their proponents, have immediate strategic effects. They amplify Hamas’s narrative of global validation and, crucially, complicate the deterrent effect of defensive operations. If a state in self-defense risks being publicly criminalized or its leaders subject to arrest, the calculus of deterrence is altered – for the entire world.

So, what should sensible governments do if they insist on both protecting Palestinian rights and preventing another October 7? Two practical propositions:

  1. If regional governments want backing for Palestinian statehood and avoid terrorism in their own countries, they should drop the ICJ case. the Arab and Muslim countries which backed the U.S. ceasefire plan should pressure South Africa and other countries which brought the case to drop the charges and let diplomacy take center stage. Law and diplomacy should be tools of stability, not absolution for terror strategies.
  2. If the desired outcome is that populations on both sides live within range of cross-border terror and reprisals, then investing in defensive infrastructure as a bridge to a political solution is a rational step. The United Nations and donor states should be pressed to fund a replacement barrier between Gaza and Israel — walls and surveillance that reduce the risk of mass infiltrations, so that the question of where futures lie for Palestinians becomes a matter of state-building and safety inside Gaza, not a perpetual recruitment slogan for militancy.
Hamas breaks through security fence between Gaza and Israel on October 7, 2023, on way for mass murder and abductions

This is not a call to abandon human rights oversight or to whitewash abuses. Accountability and adherence to international law matter. But timing and incentives matter too. Legal actions taken in the heat of war — unmoored from a strategy to prevent recurrence — can harden positions and diminish the tools of deterrence. If the objective is to keep people alive and build a durable peace that allows Stateless Arabs from Palestine (SAPs) self-determination without repeated massacres, then international actors must think like engineers of stability, not moral prosecutors on a press release timetable.

If we are serious about both ending the war and preventing future acts of mass terrorism and barbarity, we must stop evaluating deals by immediate feel-good optics alone. The right measure of a deal includes whether it reduces the incentive to perpetrate mass atrocities, strengthens deterrence against their planners, and clears a path toward political arrangements that give civilians on all sides a future. Anything less is not a solution — it is an invitation.

Unmoored Excess

The final Torah reading before the festival of Sukkot, Haazinu, is a song of warning. Moses, nearing his death, calls heaven and earth as witnesses to the covenant — and then lays bare the consequences if Israel abandons its moral anchor. When the nation becomes “fat,” reveling in abundance and forgetting the source of its blessings, punishment will follow. Prosperity, once unmoored from gratitude and purpose, becomes the seed of ruin.

Just a few days later, on Shabbat Chol HaMoed Sukkot, Jews read Kohelet (Ecclesiastes). Its message mirrors Haazinu but turns inward: even the individual who possesses everything — wisdom, power, wealth, prestige, pleasure — finds himself hollow. “I made great works… I built houses and planted vineyards for myself,” writes King Solomon in Chapter 2. Yet he concludes, “It was all futile and a pursuit of wind; there was no real value under the sun.”

The parallel between Haazinu and Kohelet is striking and the proximity of their readings is seemingly deliberate. One warns the nation about collective moral decay born of excess and God’s punishment; the other exposes the personal emptiness that comes when abundance replaces meaning. Together they form a spiritual counterpoint on Sukkot — the holiday when Jews leave their sturdy homes to dwell in fragile huts, to remember that joy comes not from walls or wealth but from faith, family, and divine connection.

A life disconnected from those simple pleasures — from loving one’s spouse, nurturing one’s family, and walking humbly with God — cannot sustain happiness. Unmoored excess may glitter for a moment, but like Solomon’s “pursuit of wind,” it slips through fingers, leaving behind only the passing echo of what might have been joy.

And so, we sit beneath the s’chach of the sukkah, exposed to wind and light, reminded of the temporary nature of all possessions. The walls sway, the roof leaks, yet the heart is full. In simplicity, vulnerability, gratitude and “connectedness,” we rediscover the only abundance that truly endures — the shelter of faith and the warmth of those we love.

The Embarrassment and Lies of the Palestinian Authority in Trump’s Peace Plan

The Palestinian Authority (PA) has perfected the art of self-deception — and the spectacle has become an embarrassment to watch. Its leaders trade in fantasies while their people – and the entire region – suffer the consequences of their delusions.

When President Donald Trump released his 20-point Comprehensive Plan to End the Gaza Conflict, it was explicit: the focus was on fixing Gaza and the PA would have no role. The document said in plain language that the PA would need to be overhauled and reformed before it could ever be trusted as a partner for peace. It deliberately withheld any credit or recognition for the current leadership, recognizing its corruption, incitement, and support for terror. “A technocratic, apolitical Palestinian committee” headed by Trump himself would be the day-after plan for Gaza. Only “qualified Palestinians” would get to sit on such committee, not the UN-lauded PA.

President Trump’s peace plan specifically did not hand control of Gaza to the PA and said the group had to “complete its reform program.”

The plan’s very structure was layered with conditionality — each potential step toward a Palestinian state contingent on verifiable reforms, renunciation of violence and demilitarization. Even then, the most it offered was that maybe one day, post-reform, there could be a pathway to a two-state solution.

The Trump plan layered conditions of “when,” “may” and “pathway” to Palestinian “statehood”

And yet, in a surreal twist, the official PA news agency WAFA ran an article in which Mahmoud Abbas claimed that Trump stood ready to endorse a Palestinian state with “East Jerusalem” as its capital. It was an astonishing fabrication — a complete lie, meant to mask Abbas’s very public humiliation and preserve his illusion of relevance.

Official PA media lied that Trump’s peace plan would establish a new Palestinian State which would follow the “June 4, 1967 borders, with East Jerusalem as its capital”

This distortion was not a misunderstanding; it was intentional misrepresentation, propaganda designed to convince Palestinian Arabs that Abbas still holds the key to their future. But everyone can see through the act. All Abbas and Hamas have delivered is destruction, division, and hatred.

The PA’s falsehoods no longer even convince its own people. Each new lie only underscores its impotence — a government in name only, ruling by inertia and deceit. The tragedy – like the lies – has layers of corruption, hatred, murder and deceit.

The Palestinian people, too, bear responsibility for their choices. They voted for Hamas, a genocidal terrorist movement to 58% of the parliamentary seats which brought death and destruction not only to Israelis but to Palestinians themselves – which the vast majority supported. They elected Mahmoud Abbas, a Holocaust denier and an ineffective president, and now watch him recycle lies and propaganda instead of leadership and reform. The Palestinians voted for failure — and the region has paid the price.

WAFA called the Israeli government an “occupation government”, clearly showing the PA was upset by being sidelined because it sorely needs reform

The Trump plan recognized that hard truth. It was not a welcome mat for Fatah or Hamas, nor a reward for decades of violence and corruption. The plan envisioned a different future entirely. The “day after” will not be another PA regime or HAMAS ruling Gaza, but the first step in a new chapter of deradicalization, where education replaces indoctrination, coexistence replaces hate, and peace is no longer a slogan but a shared reality.

Trump’s plan – as endorsed by Qatar, Jordan, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Pakistan, Türkiye, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt – states clearly that a possible Palestinian State will come as a BYPRODUCT of deradicalization and peace, not in order to CREATE the forum for coexistence as offered by France and the United Kingdom. All of which may or may not happen, and most likely after Abbas is long gone.

Send in the Police and ICE on October 7

The Hamas massacre of October 7, 2023 — a day when thousands of Gazans crossed the border to slaughter Israeli civilians, rape women, burn children alive, and drag 250 people into captivity — is a date that should be remembered with grief and solemnity.

Yet in New York City, extremist groups such as Within Our Lifetime, Students for Justice in Palestine and Samidoun plan rallies on that anniversary to glorify the killers and call for an end to “Zionism” in what they call the “belly of the beast,” meaning America itself.

The “rally” was called a “Flood”, echoing Hamas’s term for the October 7 massacre, the “Al Aqsa Flood.” It includes a map of all of Israel claiming Israel’s 77 years of existence has been a “genocide” against Palestinians. It writes Israel with a lower case ‘i” meant as an insult to not recognize it, preferring to call it a “Zionist project.” The rally is a call to stand against “Zionism” and “honor the martyrs” who slaughtered people in Israel two years ago.

We make a clear and urgent appeal to governments and peoples committed to the liberation of the Palestinian people to adopt unequivocal and militant support for the cause of decolonisation. – Samidoun, October 2, 2025

This is not policy debate. It is a celebration of barbarity and a call to dismantle the Jewish homeland and undermine the United States. The chants and slogans echo the hate that fueled the October 7 pogrom.

Free Speech vs. Incitement to Violence

The United States protects free expression, even ugly and unpopular opinions. But it does not protect incitement to violence or material support for terrorist organizations.
When demonstrations cross the line into praising terrorist acts or calling for attacks on Jews or Americans, the full weight of the law — from local police to federal agencies — must be ready to respond.

It is time to escalate our actions – Samidoun, October 2, 2025

This year the anniversary falls during the Jewish festival of Sukkot, a holiday marked by public celebrations, outdoor meals, and large gatherings near synagogues and community centers. Those festivities will unfold in the shadow of these extremist rallies. That reality makes it all the more important for law-enforcement agencies to be highly visible and vigilant in keeping worshippers safe.

Standing Up for the Rule of Law

Calling to “globalize the Intifada” and praise the depraved Hamas “martyrs” feeds the chaos that violent extremists crave. What is needed is lawful, decisive enforcement:

  • Robust policing to protect Jewish neighborhoods, synagogues, sukkot gatherings, and counter-protesters.
  • Monitoring and prosecution of anyone who crosses into incitement or provides support to terrorist organizations.
  • Clear public messaging that celebrating mass murder is not political expression but moral depravity.
  • Bringing ICE (Immigration and Custom Enforcement) agents to arrest and deport non- citizens engaging in harassment and intimidation.

People can be denied a visa if they intimidate, harass or are considered security risks. These October 7 rallies will likely be causes for revoking visas.

A Moment of Moral Clarity

October 7 should be remembered as a day of horror, not a banner for hate.
Those who glorify the massacre expose themselves as the heirs of past totalitarian movements — whether Nazi or jihadist — that brought suffering not only to Jews but to all who cherish freedom.

“Terrorism” is a colonial term that we refuse to accept in reference to the heroic Resistance. – Samidoun, October 2, 2025

The response to them must be unflinching: protect the vulnerable, prosecute the lawbreakers, and reaffirm that the United States will never be a haven for the celebration of terrorism.

Video on Samidoun before rallies on October 7, 2024

The Concealment of Jihadi Terrorism

A horrific antisemitic attack happened on the holiest day of the Jewish year at a synagogue in Manchester, England. The killer was a Muslim man named “Jihad.” The parents tattooed his fate at his birth.

After the killing of Jews on Yom Kippur in Manchester, England, October 2025

Yet the press – The New York Times, BBC, Wall Street Journal – would not identify the man by his religion. Rather than state he was a Muslim, they all wrote he was “Syrian-born.”

The New York Times would not state that the antisemitic killer was a Muslim

This was clearly a hate crime based on religion – one that even former US President Obama could not excuse as a madman out to “randomly shoot a bunch of folks.” So why not identify the religion of the killer?

This seems to harken back to the British grooming gangs which sexually assaulted and traded 1,400 girls in Rotherham, 40 miles from Manchester. The police kept mum on the story for years. As for the press, they twisted themselves every which way that the gangs were “Asian” or “Pakistani,” avoiding saying they were Muslim.

Is this silencing of the media due to the influence of Qatari money? Is this the Islamic Privilege that is writ large at the United Nations where all must bend the knee? Has Islamic terrorism become so mainstreamed that it needn’t be mentioned, or are people too worried to call it out because the fear of reprisals feels so close?

Obama said that he refused to use the phrase “radical Islam” because the religion was twisted by extremists. “They are not religious leaders; they are terrorists. We are not at war with Islam. We are at war with people who have perverted Islam.” Yet members of Obama’s party use the phrase “white supremacy” liberally, and liberal colleges teach/ accuse all White people of “privilege” and racism, even though many are obviously not racist.

Everyone knows that not all 2 billion Muslims are terrorists. And many countries took a particular action on March 15, 2022, when the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution introduced by Pakistan on the International Day to Combat Islamophobia that “terrorism and violent extremism as and when conducive to terrorism, in all its forms and manifestations, cannot and should not be associated with any religion, nationality, civilization or ethnic group.”

So perhaps that is the simple answer: the media doesn’t want to conflate extremism and religion – for Muslims. It is de rigueur for the media to do it for Jews.

Islamic terrorism is real. Whether from ISIS, al Qaeda, Boko Haram, Hamas or the local zealot next door. Pretending it doesn’t exist will not save the West. It certainly won’t protect Jews, especially when the media miseducates the world that they are the real threat.

For The UN Secretary General, Killing Jews At Synagogue Is Only Terrorism Outside of Israel

Islamic radicals came for Jews again. This time, on Yom Kippur, the holiest day on the Jewish calendar.

In Manchester, England, Jihad Al-Shamie, a 35-year-old British man of Syrian descent, rammed his car into a synagogue and then started stabbing people. Two were killed and three injured. The press would not say that the man was Muslim (his name was Jihad) nor what the motive was.

But it was clear to everyone – even the United Nations – that this was not a casual madman but a force of evil. The UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres issued a statement the same day that he “stands in solidarity with the Jewish community and calls for those responsible to be brought to justice.”

This is a completely normal and appropriate reaction.

Yet compare it to Guterres’s statement when seven Jews were killed outside a synagogue in Jerusalem in January 2023: there was no statement of standing in solidarity with the Jewish community. There was no call to “confront hatred and intolerance.” There was no demand that the perpetrators be brought to justice.

Quite the contrary: he demanded that Israel “exercise utmost restraint.”

Because the United Nations has long blessed the Palestinian Arab war to kill Jews.

The Allure of Holy Land Grapes

There is a reason the Bible lingers on grapes. They are rich, sweet, bursting with promise — a fruit that invites you in.

When the spies returned from scouting the Promised Land, they brought back a single cluster so heavy it had to be carried on a pole. That image has endured for millennia: the land was good, overflowing, generous. The fruit drew the Israelites forward, a taste of the future God promised.

Jan Jansson (1588-1664) 1630 map, Palestina Sive Terrae Sanctae Descriptio

Yet that same cluster became a stumbling block. The spies’ report turned the promise into fear. Instead of trusting that the God who brought them out of Egypt would also give them this land, they shrank back. The grapes that should have stirred hope instead fed doubt about the size and power of the land. The draw of abundance proved to be no guarantee of holiness.

Grapes in the Song of Moses

Forty years later, as Moses prepared the people to finally enter the land, he again reached for the image of the grape and the vine, which must have still captured the imaginations of the generation that wandered the desert. In the Song of Ha’azinu he sang of the bounty to come:

“Honey from the rock,…
milk of the flock,…
and the blood of the grape you drank as wine.” (Deuteronomy 32:13-14)

The land’s fruit would not be a passing token or aspiration as it was in the wilderness — it would be a daily reality. The vine was not only a sign of blessing but also of permanence.

And Moses warned that the very blessing could corrupt:

“Yeshurun grew fat and kicked…
then he forsook the God who made him.” (Deuteronomy 32:15)

When abundance becomes self-indulgence, the sweetness sours. The gift is no longer an offering; it becomes an idol.

The Poisoned Vintage

The Song of Moses added a different reference to wine – not of over abundance but used for immoral purposes:

“Their vine is from the vine of Sodom,
their grapes are grapes of poison,
their wine is the venom of serpents.” (Deuteronomy 32:32-33)

The same fruit, when cultivated for injustice and oppression, becomes toxic. The vine can yield joy or venom depending on the heart of the grower.

The Test of Blessing

The Bible’s teaching is that grapes themselves are neither holy nor unholy. They are a draw — a gift meant to be enjoyed in gratitude and moderation.

When abundance is hoarded, flaunted, or wielded for harm, it ceases to be a blessing. The line between the vineyard of the Lord and the vineyard of Sodom lies not in the soil but in the soul.

The cluster carried by the spies, the wine of the Song of Moses, and the poisonous vintage of the nations all point to the same truth: the fruits of the earth reveal the heart of the one who gathers them.

It is our message as we leave the Fast of Yom Kippur and ready for the joyous and communal holiday of Sukkot: wine in moderation and with purpose, gladdens and sanctifies. In excess or in service of corruption, intoxicates and destroys.

Israel Has Returned Excellent Wine Making Back to the Middle East (August 2016)

For the Sins of 5785

Against the Jewish People

  • For the sin of hating each other more than our enemies.
  • For the sin of forgetting Jerusalem while remembering Paris.
  • For the sin of treating exile as destiny instead of tragedy.
  • For the sin of chanting “Never Again” but adding a question mark.
  • For the sin of excusing antisemitism when it comes from our political side.
  • For the sin of making Holocaust comparisons cheap.
  • For the sin of watching thousands of Jewish Instagram and YouTube posts but never subscribing.
  • For the sin of praying for unity and voting for division.
  • For the sin of mistaking Jewish Twitter for Jewish life.
  • For the sin of writing more about falafel than faith.

Against the State of Israel

  • For the sin of normalizing insane charges like “genocide.”
  • For the sin of inviting murderers to parades of diplomacy.
  • For the sin of forgetting about hostages.
  • For the sin of bowing to the UN as if it were Sinai.
  • For the sin of letting the Temple Mount be ruled by fear.
  • For the sin of not buying Israeli products.
  • For the sin of treating Israel as a vestigial organ.
  • For the sin of confusing moral clarity with extremism.
  • For the sin of excusing “Free Palestine” as anything other than a call for dead Jews.
  • For the sin of treating Jewish sovereignty as negotiable.

Against the Nations

  • For the sin of mourning terrorists more than their victims.
  • For the sin of pretending the war from the Global South is only about the land of Israel when they make clear they are coming for America and Europe..
  • For the sin of classrooms that celebrate “resistance” with blood.
  • For the sin of treating the ICC as holy writ.
  • For the sin of UN resolutions drafted by dictators.
  • For the sin of excusing antisemitism as “anti-Zionism.”
  • For the sin of universities that protect bullies and shame Jews.
  • For the sin of liberal values that vanish when Jews need them.
  • For the sin of making free speech absolute — except for Jews.
  • For the sin of confusing neutrality with cowardice.

Against America

  • For the sin of laughing at assassination because of party labels.
  • For the sin of mobs deciding what is taught and what is erased.
  • For the sin of canceling decent teachers while tenuring radicals.
  • For the sin of treating violence as speech and speech as violence.
  • For the sin of replacing education with indoctrination.
  • For the sin of praising diversity while excluding Jews.
  • For the sin of thinking collapse only happens elsewhere.
  • For the sin of dividing every citizen into tribes.
  • For the sin of confusing patriotism with partisanship.
  • For the sin of handing microphones to those who despise us.

Against Ourselves Personally

  • For the sin of thinking binge-watching counts as Torah study.
  • For the sin of pretending podcasts make us learned.
  • For the sin of putting my dog on my lap at the Shabbat table.
  • For the sin of descending into a pursuit of immediate gratification.
  • For the sin of not prioritizing time with friends and family.
  • For the sin of still not calling our in-laws “Ma” and “Pa.”
  • For the sin of calling it a fast while sneaking coffee.
  • For the sin of turning Kiddush into a buffet strategy.
  • For the sin of watching dog videos in bed rather than talking to our spouses.
  • For the sin of leaving my sprinkler on over Shabbat.

And the Truly Absurd

  • For the sin of blowing the shofar as if it were a car alarm.
  • For the sin of fasting — but only until lunch.
  • For the sin of turning “Ashamnu” into a group karaoke session.
  • For the sin of posting “G’mar Chatimah Tovah” memes.
  • For the sin of making break-fast more important than the fast.
  • For the sin of asking if lox counts as repentance.
  • For the sin of using “teshuvah” as an excuse for procrastination.
  • For the sin of making this list too long — again.

For all these things, please pardon us