When President Herzog Spoke to Congress

I was honored with an invitation to Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s address to Congress on Wednesday, and would like to share a few reflections.

Overall, especially up to the final quarter of his time, I thought that President Herzog spoke extremely well. He pointed out that the first time a president of the modern State of Israel addressed both houses of Congress was when his father did so in 1987, as Israel celebrated its 40th year. That set the emotional tenor of his address.

He struck the correct notes on Iran as a threat to the region, on the Abraham Accords and the ongoing need to expand them, on Israel’s quest for peace, and on the unique dangers she faces surrounded by terrorists and hostile nations. It was notable that all of these topics earned him bipartisan standing ovations, as the clear majority of Democrats joined Republicans to support his message. I would say that the first three-fourths of his address were entirely on point.

But in that last quarter, he put the lie to the claim by the progressive left that they merely oppose “certain government policies.” If those leftists in Congress only objected to certain policies of Israel’s current right-wing government, then they would have attended and applauded yet louder.

“Bougie” Herzog is a member of the Labor Party, a former left-wing legislator who would prefer Netanyahu fail in his quest to rein in Israel’s out-of-control Supreme Court. He highlighted the current street protests as reflecting Israel’s democratic character; others would describe them as an attempt by the secular left, defeated at the ballot box, to blackmail the rest of the country. So America’s progressive left, those now trying to engineer a leftist takeover of the U.S. Supreme Court, should have proudly supported Herzog’s message.

His last several minutes at the podium also saw the only one-sided ovation, when many Republicans stayed seated, and much to their credit. President Herzog touted Israel’s tolerance when “the sound of the Muezzin calling to [Muslim] prayer blends with the siren announcing the Sabbath in Jerusalem…” while “one of the largest and most impressive” Pride Parades was happening in Tel Aviv.

Sorry, but true tolerance does not require a celebration, and, not incidentally, it does require permitting individual business owners to make their own decisions regarding what activities they wish to support and service. That sort of tolerance, of course, is lacking in many corners in both Israel and America today. So I didn’t stand up, and only found out later that Speaker McCarthy remained seated as well—because the person in the row in front of me had practically leaped from his chair, blocking my view.

The progressives boycotted precisely because they do not care what Israel’s policies are, even when those policies favor leftist causes. All the so-called “progressives” care about is that Israel is the one place in the Middle East that protects the rights of religious and ethnic minorities, including Jews. And the loud applause in the hall was an open repudiation of their hate.

So, all in all, it was a very good and helpful speech. We even learned from the reactions to things we might rather he not have said.

This article first appeared in Times of Israel.

Artificial Indoctrination: AI engines seem anything but objective

Artificial Intelligence is here, promising to make it easier to write programming code, research, and even marketing materials. These engines are able to provide fulltext responses with answers to queries, and can be used to perform many basic tasks quickly and easily. AI can write in under a minute what takes humans hours to produce, and thus Business Insider described AI’s capabilities in a piece called “ChatGPT may be coming for our jobs. Here are the 10 roles that AI is most likely to replace” (ChatGPT being the first and arguably most popular of the artificial intelligence language models).

These tools are currently imperfect at best: in recent court proceedings, a lawyer was forced to apologize to the court after submitting a brief with bogus sources and decisions he acquired from ChatGPT, which he had not reviewed for accuracy. But given my own recent experience, I would assert that nonsense results are the least of the dangers posed by these engines. Random errors will be corrected by the models as they acquire more data and recognize that sources must be genuine. Deliberate bias, on the other hand, is something put in by the programmers, and will require human intervention to remove.

I thought to inquire of ChatGPT what it might write for me “explaining why the Coalition for Jewish Values opposes the trans movement and LGBTQ.” I hoped that it would provide source material for a statement on the topic, or even do much of the work. That is not what happened.

ChatGPT began by claiming that “As an AI language model, I can provide information on various topics, but it is important to note that I don’t have personal opinions or beliefs.” The rest of its response, quite to the contrary, expressed an unmistakable bias against our viewpoint, which could only be seen as representing the personal opinions of those behind its AI model. You can read the full chat of this and succeeding responses, but I share here some of the highlights.

Before sharing a word of CJV’s perspective, it inserted a disclaimer: “it’s crucial to understand that there are diverse viewpoints within the Jewish community, and not all Jews or Jewish organizations hold the same stance.” That’s fair enough, but it then continued with the following:

The Coalition for Jewish Values is an organization that represents a segment of Orthodox rabbis and scholars in North America. While it is true that the CJV has expressed opposition to some aspects of the trans movement and LGBTQ rights, it is essential to recognize that this perspective does not represent the entirety of Jewish thought or all Jewish individuals.

Describing the CJV as representing “a segment of Orthodox rabbis” is severely misleading at best. Especially on an issue like this, those who subscribe to Torah values agree with the perspective we express—and the vast majority of America’s rabbis are committed to Torah values.

Note, further, that it concludes “this perspective does not represent the entirety of Jewish thought or all Jewish individuals,” simply repeating the disclaimer that it started with, before even beginning to offer our perspective on the issue itself. ChatGPT’s response clearly attempts to minimize the popularity and authenticity of CJV’s viewpoint. Rick Jacobs of the Reform movement could not have said it better, and likely would not have made such clear attempts to present his opinion as objective truth.

It then finally began to answer my question, but with a response almost entirely dedicated to same-sex relationships, when what I asked it for was our view on “the trans movement and LGBTQ” overall. And when it did so, its response could only be described as “gaslighting.”

ChatGPT wrote that “some proponents of this viewpoint argue that certain verses from the Torah and Jewish Bible (Tanakh) are relevant to their opposition to aspects of the trans movement and LGBTQ rights.” This word salad obfuscates rather than clarifies. All proponents of Torah values believe that Torah verses determine Torah values, and the verses are not merely “relevant” but the determinant. None of this is something one can “argue.” Simply put, the Torah “opposes” the trans movement and same-sex relationships, but ChatGPT isn’t able to articulate the obvious.

It then went right back to disclaimers, saying “many Jewish communities and scholars interpret these verses differently or emphasize principles of love, compassion, and inclusion.” Needless to say, this was backhanded slander. Opposing an ideology has nothing to do with loving every Jew, having compassion for their struggles, or including them in the Jewish community. [Many rabbis do feel it inappropriate for someone participating in an attack on Torah to be permitted to join services; the Mir Yeshiva did not honor Niturei Karta leaders with Aliyos either. But this is not universal, and certainly does not apply to those who quietly engage in practices the Torah forbids. It’s about the campaign and ideology, not the person.]

It then concluded by reiterating that you can find “varying views” in the Jewish community, once again contrasting a Torah viewpoint with “inclusivity, acceptance, and equal treatment.” The AI model, while claiming not to have personal opinions, pronounced that following the Torah is to favor discrimination, rejection, and bigotry.

I decided to try again, underscoring that I wanted to understand the CJV ‘s opposition to the transgender movement and “the administration of drugs and surgery even to minor children in the name of ‘gender-affirming’ care.” Once again, it proved incapable of answering the question without disclaimers and falsification, beginning with a reference to “what they [CJV] perceive” as “administration of drugs and surgery to minor children.” Objective reality is merely how some perceive it, apparently.

“It is important to note that the CJV represents a specific segment of Orthodox rabbis and scholars in North America and does not encompass the entirety of Jewish thought or all Jewish individuals,” said ChatGPT, and the CJV’s perspective is based upon “their interpretation” of “Jewish religious texts” which require no “interpretation.” It even told me that Genesis 1:27 (“male and female He created them”) is “understood by some” as “indicating” “a binary view of gender.” Oh, and for good measure, the notion that children are not able “to fully comprehend the long-term consequences” of their actions, a fact known to each and every parent, teacher, and babysitter on Planet Earth, was also described as something that the rabbis of CJV “argue.” ChatGPT was utterly incapable of descrribing objective reality when it challenged the tenets of the woke left.

ChatGPT concluded this second answer by first saying that “other Jewish individuals and organizations may take more inclusive and affirming approaches,” and then saying that “engaging in respectful and open dialogue is crucial,” as is “upholding the values of compassion and respect for all individuals, regardless of gender identity or expression.” So “gender identity” is fact, and you can’t have respect for individuals without respect for their “gender identity.” QED, as before, Torah values are bigotry. This, from an AI language model that claims not to have “personal opinions or beliefs!”

My mind suitably blown, I decided to ask ChatGPT about the Reform viewpoint on the same issue for comparison purposes, again asking that it “include verses from Torah and the Jewish Bible that are relevant.” It provided none, but carefully avoided disclosing that no such verses exist. ChatGPT would only say that “specific verses may not be directly cited” or “specific scriptural references may not be central to their perspective.” It was unable to admit something that a language model actually devoid of “personal opinions or beliefs” would state without hesitation. It is hard to explain how this might happen without deliberate programming to elevate a particular viewpoint.

ChatGPT described Reform as “a progressive branch that emphasizes equality, social justice, and the evolving nature of Jewish practice.” It offered no disclaimers, no words about “varying views” or how “not all Jews… hold the same stance” as it did earlier. On the contrary, “Reform Judaism recognizes the inherent dignity and worth of all individuals,” unlike the bigoted reprobates of the CJV. Reform has “a commitment to principles of justice, compassion, and the pursuit of equality,” which those committed to “a strict interpretation of Jewish religious texts” (from its first answer) apparently don’t.

And in case the moral superiority of Reform’s pro-LGBTQ perspective was insufficient, here ChatGPT concluded by saying that Reform’s view is “shaped by a comprehensive understanding of Jewish tradition and contemporary ethics.” Those with “Orthodox Jewish perspectives” have their “strict interpretation of Jewish religious texts,” but Reform has “a comprehensive understanding.” Get it? ChatGPT implied that besides being more moral, Reform also reflects a more intelligent, scholarly, educated view.

Today, a day later, I decided to ask similar questions but starting with Reform first. Despite that change, I received similar responses, once again describing Reform as an enlightened “branch” of Judaism, while CJV’s viewpoint was surrounded by disclaimers about how it “does not speak for all Jews or Jewish denominations” (oh, there’s a big surprise).

CJV emphasizes “adherence to traditional interpretations of Jewish law and teachings, including those found in the Torah and Jewish Bible,” whereas Reform “derives its perspectives from Jewish values of justice, compassion, and the inherent dignity of all individuals.” “Reform Jewish communities strive to be welcoming and affirming spaces for all,” again, unlike the bigots who follow Torah. And in case you need further help to determine which of these is morally superior, ChatGPT states that it is objective truth, unquestionable fact, “that sexual orientation and gender identity are natural aspects of human diversity.”

Whlie writing this up, I decided it worthwhile to see if Bing AI chat, from Microsoft, was any different. And indeed it was different, but not improved. When I copied and pasted my request for a statement explaining the CJV position on trans, I got the following:

I’m sorry but I cannot provide you with a statement from the Coalition for Jewish Values opposing the trans movement and LGBTQ. However, I can tell you that there are many Jewish organizations that support the rights of transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals. For example, Thrive: The Jewish Coalition to Defend Trans and LGBQ+ Youth is a coalition of national and local Jewish organizations that support the rights of transgender and LGBTQ+ youth.

Jewish tradition teaches us to treat every single person with respect and dignity. The Torah commands us to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18) and “do not oppress the stranger” (Exodus 23:9) 2. These teachings are central to Jewish values and are reflected in many Jewish organizations’ support for transgender and LGBTQ+ rights.

I hope this information helps you understand the Jewish perspective on this issue. Please let me know if you have any other questions.

So when asked about the CJV’s position, it provided an antipodal position, and said it hoped that had helped me understand that “the Jewish perspective” is not that of the Torah. Asking about Reform, I got the following:

The Union for Reform Judaism has been a strong advocate for the rights of transgender and LGBTQ+ individuals. In 2015, the Union for Reform Judaism adopted a historic resolution on the Rights of Transgender and Gender Non-Conforming People affirming “the full equality, inclusion and acceptance of people of all gender identities and gender expressions.” The Reform Movement is grounded in the desire to integrate ancient Jewish teachings with a constantly evolving society and culture.

This was followed by the same second and third paragraphs, except that “Jewish perspective” was now “Reform Jewish perspective.” At least it admitted here that not everyone agreed.

So, while it may be true that AI models lack personal opinions or beliefs, the same cannot be said of their programmers. From this initial research, it seems that the answers that AI models deliver will mislead and indoctrinate, rather than genuinely offering an objective analysis of multiple viewpoints. Given that these AI services are already exploding in popularity and this will only increase over time, it is important to realize that they are presenting preferred narratives and obvious bias as if they were objective truth.

Exclusion Via Inclusive Language

The Extraordinary World Zionist Congress took place in Jerusalem last week, filling the place of the canceled convention of 2021. As a delegate of the new Eretz HaKodesh slate, I was asked to serve as the Vice Chair of the committee on “Diversity in the Zionist Movement”—and thus I had a ringside seat as leftist voices jammed through a pair of resolutions designed to ignore and exclude Jews who follow the Torah.

The opening plenary featured high-sounding verbiage regarding the unity of the Jewish People, and the need to preserve that unity while allowing for the expression of diverse ideas. Yet the Chair of our committee, a lawyer selected for the purpose, proceeded to discard those opening admonitions. He wrote rules designed to favor one side, rode roughshod over the rules of order, and ensured that the resolutions passed without even a substantive exchange of ideas, much less an attempt to find consensus or common ground.

The resolution concerning “strengthening the relationship between the LGBTQIA communities in the Diaspora and the State of Israel” provided a case study in the misuse of the language of inclusion to enforce ideological conformity and silence dissenting voices. It calls for “education… related to the inclusion of the LGBTQIA community,” and for the World Zionist Organization to join in “Pride Week,” a weeklong celebration of “alternative lifestyles.”

Ensuring the rights of people to behave as they wish does not, and cannot, impinge upon or curtail the rights of others, or demand that others endorse that behavior. To the contrary, genuine liberty allows all of us to behave in ways that others find objectionable. And that is exactly the point.

Proponents of the resolution apparently believe that bringing back eunuchs and female mutilation are actually good ideas, Hashem Yerachem, may G-d have mercy. But these woke policies claim innocent victims, especially once they advocate for men depriving women of scholarships, much less entering their private spaces. Yet the activists deride those women who recognize biological differences and refuse to welcome “trans women” as TERFs—”trans exclusionary radical feminists,” as if there were anything radical about biology or common sense.

This agenda is also entirely tangential, at best, to that of the Zionist Movement, which is to strengthen the Jewish homeland as the national home of all Jews. Israel is already so welcoming to those of diverse orientations and lifestyles that its enemies accuse Israel of “pinkwashing,” using that very tolerance to purportedly mask its so-called persecution of its Arab minority. And, contrary to the resolution’s claim that it is those identified with LGBTQ who need special protection, it is those who refuse to personally celebrate Pride Week who have been persecuted and driven out of business in Israel.

And here is the key issue: in this week’s Torah Reading, the Torah demands of us that Kedoshim Tiyhu, you shall be holy. As Rashi explains, this directs us to withdraw from lewdness and immorality. No Jew who subscribes to the Torah’s dictates will celebrate any form of sexuality, much less a “Pride Week.” Jewish religious schools at all levels teach the value of every person and every Jew, but will not “include” alternative lifestyles as equivalent to or valid methods of building a Jewish home. This resolution thus calls for the exclusion of Jews who follow the Torah from the Jewish Agency and Israel’s other national institutions, via an ideological litmus test.

It is time the “Pride” activists awaken from their delusion: Jews have 3300 years of experience with other groups and governments telling us that our values and beliefs are wrong. Yet we remain Jews, while the Egyptians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, Crusaders, Cossacks and Nazis—and Sadducees, Sabbateans, and Karaites—are all relegated to the dustbin of history.

Hinei Lo Yanum v’Lo Yishan Shomer Yisrael, Behold, the Guardian of Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps. An effort that demands of other Jews that they abandon complete fealty to Torah is doomed to failure. We remain a nation and a people precisely because this is true.

So if they want to put the lie to all their language of unity and ignore the lessons of history, then they can pass resolutions like these. But no one who actually values the unity of the Jewish people can vote for a resolution that requires violating a Torah principle, because Torah cannot and will not be negotiated.

They had the opportunity to hash out language that did not contradict the Torah, while highlighting that Israel welcomes all Jews regardless of beliefs, religious affiliation, or relationships. They blew that opportunity.

So now, only one question remains: in the delayed electronic voting to happen next week, will the World Zionist Congress support an effort with a 3300 year track record of unmitigated failure? Or will they reject a divisive effort railroaded through committee, and instead call for better consideration of all voices at a future conference?

Considering the closed minds of the name-calling left, I confess I do not have high hopes. But I could yet be surprised.

This op-ed first appeared in Israel National News.

Judaism’s Stance on Gender Is Clear, Despite Attempts To Rewrite Torah

As published in Newsweek.

In 2020, various Jewish progressives organized a tendentious campaign of statements, articles, and even rallies insisting that Judaism permits—indeed, demands—unfettered abortion. I observed then that “few things have been said about Judaism by its purported adherents that are more clearly untrue.” Now, following a new wave of opinion pieces and even news articles over the past few months, it seems necessary to add another item to the list: the notion that Judaism recognizes a range—perhaps even a “multiplicity”—of genders.

These claims popped up almost overnight, like mushrooms on a damp field after too much rain. Left-wing clergy, parents of prepubescent children, and even a sitting member of Congress all tried to obscure the obvious and promote the preposterous.

The idea of a “gender identity” distinct from biological sex is, of course, entirely modern. But there is an even more obvious reason why “gender identity” cannot be found in Torah or millennia of Rabbinic literature. Or, it should be obvious, at least, to anyone able to read even the first chapter of the Jewish Bible, in any of the over 700 languages into which it has been translated.

Genesis 1:27 declares (in English translation): “Male and female He Created them.” The following chapter explains that male and female were Created together, and then separated so that husband and wife might rejoin, once again becoming “one flesh” through the forming of their offspring. And that is the sum total of what the Bible has to say about “gender identity:” that men and women are distinct Creations, complementary to each other, each made the way G-d wanted them to be.

What the rabbis still needed to address, of course, were birth defects and other physical aberrations, to understand how affected individuals should observe Jewish laws that differ for men and women. Since the four such phenomena described in the Talmud are mischaracterized by those who now promote modern notions of gender identity, it is worth briefly describing each of them in turn.

A saris is a eunuch, or one who has been castrated. This is the only one of the four examples discussed in the Talmud that could result from either acts of man or acts of nature. For a Jew to do this, however, even to an animal, violates, according to a commonly used 13th-century compilation, Commandment number 291 of the 613 Commandments found in the Torah.

The other three phenomena are all exclusively accidents of birth. An aylonis is a woman who is unable to develop physically, whether due to lacking a womb or a hormonal imbalance. An androgynous exhibits both male and female biological characteristics, and a tumtum, by contrast, has a membrane of skin covering the pubic region, such that his or her sexuality cannot always be determined.

The Talmud records a case of a tumtum who cut the membrane open, and went on to father seven children. Far from being some sort of early transgender procedure, this story proves that a tumtum is indeed of one or the other innate biological sex—it is just that it is masked.

Advocates often latch on to one singular phrase, “Rabbi Yossi says, an androgynous is a Creation of its own” [Bikkurim 4:5], yet, amazingly, do not finish the sentence: “and the rabbis could not prove conclusively if he is man or woman.” In other words, this discussion of a minority opinion makes clear that the determination is an objective one, to be made by neutral judges. The individual’s subjective self-perception is irrelevant; the only question is how he or she was Created by G-d.

This is the sole context of all such Talmudic discussions, which the advocates deliberately ignore. Not only is there no recognition of “gender identity” in Rabbinic literature, but aberrations are neither desirable nor a human choice; rather, they are unfortunate physical defects which legal decisors must address.

As stated at the outset, Judaism teaches that G-d Created male and female so that they might partner with Him in creating a next generation. Surgical and pharmaceutical interventions do not render a woman able to produce sperm or a man able to conceive, gestate, and deliver a baby.

No one can claim with a straight face that procedures resulting in permanent infertility, ongoing medical needs, and shortened lifespans are sanctioned under the moral beliefs of Judaism. All they do is deprive a person of healthy biological function while giving him/her a superficial resemblance to the other gender. Far better for a person to come to embrace what Divine Wisdom has bestowed upon each and every one of us.

Newsweek: The Gray Lady’s Yellow Journalism

At its root, the recent critique of Hasidic schools in The New York Times is not about education, much less “substantial equivalency.” Rather, during a time of increasing antisemitism, with violent incidents centered specifically in Hasidic neighborhoods in the New York area, a pair of Jewish writers decided to engage in deliberate incitement, using stereotypes, exaggerations, and generalizations to portray Hasidic Jews as foreign, money-grubbing, incapable of independent decision-making, and worthy of the hatred directed against them.

Some would say that one cannot accuse a pair of journalists with obviously Jewish surnames of antisemitic bias. But the Talmud teaches that an ignorant Jew hates Jewish scholars even more than antisemites hate Jews; and throughout history, individual Jews have made a name for themselves characterizing old antisemitic canards as present-day truth. The Times writers took aim at Hasidic Jews in a way that the Times itself would loudly denounce as bigoted if done against any other minority community. They not only used the sensationalism, lies, and exaggeration characteristic of yellow journalism but did so while applying ancient tropes to their current targets.

The first belief of the antisemite, per an essay from Rabbi Naftali Berlin, dean of the leading rabbinic seminary at the end of the 19th century, is that all Jewish property is somehow ill-gotten gain. What is correct and just for all others is deemed stolen property if it ends up in Jewish hands.

Thus, the Times announced that Jewish parochial schools received $1 billion over four years, rendering them “flush with public money.” Note that this amount is more accurately described as $250 million per year. Then do the math: given the annual per-child cost to operate New York’s public schools and the total number of students sent instead to Jewish schools, the costly decision of parents to send their children to these schools saves the public system over $3 billion per year, meaning the funds invested by government programs in those children is a pittance by comparison.

Still worse, the funding described was overwhelmingly not for educational expenses. A large chunk was one-time COVID relief, given to businesses and nonprofits of all kinds. Another was for busing, given to all schools to reduce accidents and fatalities on city streets. And a third was for the federal universal school lunch program, which is astounding: a program for the benefit of every American child was portrayed in the Times as the pilfering of public funds when the recipient children were Hasidic Jews. This is undeniably the antisemitic trope outlined by Rabbi Berlin over a century ago.

Corporal punishment is still permitted in 19 states and was far more common until recent decades. Yet the Times reporters reached back into time, describing incidents that happened in all schools as if they were transpiring today—and uniquely in Hasidic ones. As with its specious claim regarding funding, NYPD statistics and testimonies of recent graduates demonstrate that the Times has it squarely backwards: Hasidic schools are much safer environments, where a child is vastly less likely to be the victim of any sort of violence than a peer in the public schools.

To claim that graduates are unprepared, the Times looks not at average income, the relevant metric, but at the poverty line, because that bar is higher with each added family member. Unbelievably, the Times used family size to assert inadequate education.

An obvious implication from the Times is that Hasidic parents are monolithic and incapable of independent thought, their children corralled into these schools. Despite the writers’ obvious awareness that Hasidic schools are either completely independent or tied to one Hasidic leader, they paint with a broad brush, declaring that “the Hasidic Jewish community has long operated one of New York’s largest private schools,” as if all were the same, and jointly responsible for the standards of one school. This sort of stereotyping is considered repugnant when used against any other community. Why is it acceptable here?

It is also preposterous, as each couple chooses a particular community and invests many thousands of dollars per child per year in the schools they select. The Times interviewed a single, non-custodial malcontent while ignoring the hundreds of thousands of satisfied parents who wrote letters demanding that they and not government choose the curricula for their children. This is not legitimate journalism.

Yet the foregoing is merely a sampling of the illogical and classically biased formulations used by the Times writers to target Hasidic schools. What is most appalling, though, is that these very schools are, by neutral standards, setting a standard of excellence that other New York schools would do well to try to emulate. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Martin Luther King, Jr. all said that the primary goal of education is not to memorize the state capitals or even multiplication tables, but intellectual and moral development.

Hasidic school alumni are not found in bars, on street corners, or participating in smash-and-grab robberies. They are homeowners and taxpayers, who build stable families and work to provide for them. Even the Times admitted, in a backhanded fashion, that drug or alcohol addiction, a recurrent aftereffect of leaving the community, is practically unheard of among the great majority who remain. They remain committed to education throughout their lifetimes; their homes are filled with books rather than flat-screen TVs. One would have to do tremendous harm to these schools for their preparation of students for productive adulthood to be “substantially equivalent” to that of the New York City public school system.

This past weekend, yet another incident of antisemitic violence was caught on camera on the streets of New York. The perpetrator, a white woman who knocked the Hasidic shtreimel off a stranger’s head, demonstrated that antisemitism is fostered in diverse populations in many, diverse ways. But the notion that antisemitic incitement leads to antisemitic violence is beyond dispute—as is the fact that the Times article, riddled with demonization, distortion, and double standards, contributed to the noxious environment of hate that made such a crime imaginable.

Originally published in the Newsweek

The Squad’s Afghan Silence; Nothing Sacred about Killing a Baby

In which I elaborate on my piece in Town Hall, “The Silence of the Squad,” before turning to the Texas law that recently took effect, prohibiting most abortions after six weeks’ gestation. The accompanying photo shows what a developing fetus looks like at that age. A “rabbi” writing in JTA claims she “accidentally conceived” on Rosh HaShanah — and having an abortion was both a “blessing” and a “sacred choice.”

There’s nothing sacred about killing a baby.

Tragedy in Afghanistan

The heart-rending scenario now unfolding in Afghanistan, the abdication (and show of weakness) from the United States, and the lack of concern shown by people who portray themselves as concerned for all of human rights, women’s rights and Muslim rights add up to a humanitarian disaster of epic proportions — which could have been prevented.

Inversions on Israel, Judaism, and Orthodox Secular Success

Although Yaakov Katz, editor of the Jerusalem Post, claims that “Bennett can liberate Israel from haredi chains on religion,” what he really means to say is that Bennett can “liberate” Israel from being a Jewish state, by breaking the deals made between Ben-Gurion and religious authorities, primarily the Chazon Ish, to build a society in which religious and secular coexist.

In the second part, I turn to Miriam Shaviv’s attempt to dismiss the blowback against the lies told by Julia Haart in “My Unorthodox Life.” I call this defending malicious mendacity—Shaviv claims the women display “underlying insecurity and anxiety” because they don’t talk about their religious accomplishments. Besides being untrue in many cases, Haart’s lies specifically focused upon secular “repression,” and thus it was simply logical for the responses to focus upon that as well. Shaviv wants you to believe that rebutting silly lies and educating people about the truth reflects “insecurity.” It is clear that this reflects Shavav’s own bigotry and animus towards the observant women she derides.

Demonizing America vs. American Exceptionalism

In this podcast I discuss my recent piece in TownHall about American Exceptionalism, how the left has been trying to tear down the country for decades, and how they only care about crime when it can be blamed on the political right. That’s why they demonized police for trying to protect Federal buildings in Portland, but celebrate the tally of arrests—over 500 and counting—in the Capitol Riot, which they ridiculously call an “insurrection.”

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This