Nov. 8-14, 2024 7 Cheshvan, 5785 • Lech Lecha Vol. 23, No. 38
Reach the Star: Editor@TheJewishStar.com 516-622-7461 x291
Orthodox swing Republican but most Jews still loyal Democrats
JONaTHaN S. TOBIN
JNS Editor-in-Chief
This column was posted Tuesday evening before full election results were available.
Regardless of whether Donald Trump or Kamala Harris is named the winner of the 2024 presidential election, there’s one consequence of the contest about which we can already be sure. Amer-
ica’s two major political parties have largely exchanged identities, and this year’s race not only confirmed a trend that has been in motion since 2016 but accelerated it.
Yet one of the interesting sidebars to this momentous shift concerns one group that has, for the most part, stood still. Most Jews are
staying exactly where they’ve always been inside the tent of the Democratic Party. The interesting question: How can a group that claims to be largely motivated by what it considers to be the quest for social justice rationalize being on the other side of the political aisle from most working-class Americans?
The odds are that when the various exit polls claiming to break down the numbers are published, they will show that the overwhelming majority of Jews once again voted for the Democrats. While all those polls should be taken with more than a shovel-full of salt, especially those commissioned by either the Demo-
crats or Republicans, there’s little reason to believe that Jewish voters are going to change the habits of a lifetime just at the moment when the party to which most of them feel loyalty has become such a perfect sociological fit.
One of the most under-reported
Vice President Kamala Harris speaks at a rally at Desert Diamond Arena in Glendale, Ariz., on Aug. 9. Gage Skidmore, Creative Common
Former President Donald Trump speaks at a rally at the Nassau Coliseum in Uniondale, LI, in September. Tim Baker, The Jewish Star
Analysis: Most Jews, now in ‘credentialed elite,’ still Democratic, despite Israel, antisemitism…
Continued from page 1 and least-understood stories of the last decade is the realignment of the Democrats and Republicans largely along class lines.
The word “realignment” has usually only been used in the past by political historians to describe monumental changes in which one party or another seized an overwhelming majority over their opponents. One example was in 1932 when Democrats under the leadership of Franklin D. Roosevelt exploited the pain of the Great Depression to discredit the GOP and gain a stranglehold on Washington for generations, winning the White House for six of the next eight contests and controlling the House of Representatives for all but four of the next 60 years.
The bifurcated nature of American politics in the 21st century won’t allow either party to gain landslide victories. However, realignment also can describe what happens when the parties change in terms of who they represent. That’s what’s been going on in recent years as the two parties gave up attempting to hold onto some of their old supporters while gaining new ones who used to identify with their opponents.
In this case, the Democrats stopped being the so-called party of the people. Eschewing the interests of their old base of support, they have developed new sources of votes and campaign contributions. The same is true for Republicans in the era of Donald Trump.
As the pollsters continually tell us, those Americans with college degrees have become a reliable Democratic demographic. Meanwhile, the same polls reveal that workingclass voters have become the base of the Republicans. The Democrats are now the party of the credentialed elites and the very poor. And this will likely hold no matter whether Trump or Harris wins.
This is a significant change from the recent past.
For generations, Republicans were better positioned to get the votes and contributions of the college-educated, in addition to the subset of that group that works on Wall Street and in big business. That doesn’t ring true anymore. The Democrats have seized a stranglehold on the credentialed elites once assumed to be natural Republican voters. Meanwhile, those Americans who didn’t graduate from college and labor in blue-collar jobs — and who were long assumed to be more inclined to vote for Democrats from the era of FDR’s New Deal through the turn of the 21st century — have largely deserted them. Now the polls show us that they are very much a stronghold for the Trump-era GOP.
The mainstream legacy media that always tilted liberal but which now leans hard to the left has represented this sea change as a sort of populist magic trick, by which a charlatan like Trump has bewitched America’s working class into joining a personality cult. They consider the shift of the credentialed elites to the Democratic column to be merely the natural consequence of smart people vot-
Most Jews will vote for the party that represents the credentialed elites. That they do so while claiming to support social justice doesn’t make sense.
A
ing for intelligent policies and politicians. But this is, like so many of the assumptions of a partisan press that has dropped journalism in favor of left-wing activism, a misunderstanding of what’s been happening in this country and why the partisan divide has become so embittered.
Working-class Americans prefer Trump for the same reason that elites despise him. His trolling of the political and cultural establishment of this country delights them specifically because they rightly understand the contempt in which the credentialed elites hold them.
From former President Barack Obama’s 2008 line about Americans who “cling to their guns and religion” to Hillary Clinton’s description of Trump voters being “deplorables” to President Joe Biden’s line about them being “garbage” — words that have been echoed countless times by those who dominate popular culture — people living in red America know what their alleged betters think of them..
They also know that the consequence of policies like open borders and unfettered illegal immigration that were enabled by liberals in the name of humanitarianism has been an economic disaster for them, as it depressed wages and made housing more expensive. They feel the same about globalist economics in which American jobs, primarily manufacturing ones, have been exported abroad — a policy that was championed just as much by the Republican establishment that dominated the GOP until Trump — to lower the price of consumer goods and increase corporate profits.
These problems, along with the devastating epidemic of opioid addiction, have left the lives of the university-educated elites largely untouched. Hence, they are quick to denounce worries about illegal immigration as evidence of racism while also welcoming or acquiescing to the takeover of the education system by woke ideologues who seek to irrevocably divide Americans along racial lines.
These are differences that cut across traditional ideological splits about economics and that can best be seen by the way the difference between the small minority of Never Trump Republicans and the GOP base is largely defined by class more than anything else.
This is also compounded by the gender gap between the two parties; Republicans win the male vote easily while Democrats are way ahead among women, with the issue of abortion being cited as explaining why the latter has ditched the GOP. While no one should underestimate the way that issue has helped to gin up so much support for Democrats, class remains the most significant dividing line between the parties.
Trump’s willingness to speak frankly about the way illegal immigration and free trade have hurt the country has fueled the belief that he fights for the working class. All liberals see is a man who has coarsened political discourse and taps into what they are wrongly convinced is latent racism — a belief that only reinforces Trump’s hold on nearly half of the electorate.
Where do Jews fit into this political equation?
Few groups are so easily pigeonholed by education level and economic class as American Jewry. While all generalizations can be problematic, the Jews are among the most educated people in the country and generally economically well-off. That’s not true of all Jews; for example, the poverty rate among ultra-Orthodox Jews remains troubling. But if you want to explain why Democrats are likely to get more than 60% or more of the Jewish vote, the answer lies in their education and economic status more than anything else.
There is some evidence of movement towards the GOP as a result of concerns about Israel and the way the political left — in particular, elements of the Democrat’s intersectional base — embraced antisemitism after Hamas’s massacre of Israelis on Oct. 7.
It’s possible that most pundits and pollsters underestimate the way the explosion of Jewhatred has affected the sensibilities of Jews who feel abandoned both by former allies and institutions where they once felt at home. But for the bulk of American Jewry that remains secular and politically liberal, not even the shock of the last year is probably enough to shake them out of their conviction that the Democrats best represent their views.
While Israel’s security and worries about antisemitism are litmus-test issues for the minority of Jews who are Orthodox and politically conservative, the majority who are liberal are more likely to speak of social justice issues and abortion as their priorities even if many of them are also concerned about the Jewish state.
But when probing which elements of the community share a visceral hatred of Trump and a willingness to stick with the Democrats, the class divide remains the most likely explanation.
There’s a certain irony to this because most Jewish Democrats continue to claim that their politics are defined by their concern for those less fortunate than themselves. Yet their utter indifference to the plight of working-class Americans gives the lie to their claims, as well as to the belief that the struggles of past generations of similarly hard-working Jews explain their views.
What this means is that scholar Milton Himmelfarb’s famous quip that “Jews earn like Episcopalians and vote like Puerto Ricans” has now been turned on its head. The WASPs who once were the ruling elites may no longer be in charge economically or politically.
A not insignificant number of Jews do work in jobs that can be characterized as blue-collar. Yet most Jews now earn and vote like the rest of the credentialed elites, and they, like their non-Jewish counterparts, tend to think the people who work with their hands and cling to traditional ideas about American values or faith should defer to the views of the people who went to college.
So, while much of the American electorate has changed their political affiliations based on the way the parties now appeal to their interests, the majority of Jews are essentially standing still for the same reasons (economics, class and educational achievement). While the surge in antisemitism may break this pattern, to date, there’s little evidence that concerns about Israel or even growing hatred in the United States are stronger than the pull of class to shift many Jews from the Democrats to the Republicans.
To contact Jonathan S. Tobin, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com.
random depiction of a United States map of Democratic and Republican voters.
Coping with danger while Israel’s north burns
By Amelie Botbol, JNS
“Often it’s not so much the fire that’s scary — it’s standing next to this crater with the remains of a rocket that wasn’t hit by the Iron Dome,” said Itamar Katz, head forester in the Golan Heights for Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael-Jewish National Fund (KKL -JNF).
“You ask yourself, if it happened an hour ago, what stops it from happening again.”
Until Oct. 7, 2023, Katz lived with his wife and two children in Kibbutz Yiron in the Upper Galilee. After Hamas’s massacre of 1,200 people in southern Israel, Katz decided to leave his kibbutz, fearing a multi-front invasion that would bring Hezbollah across the border from Lebanon.
“About three months into the war, our house was the first to be hit in Kibbutz Yiron,” said Katz. “Even if tomorrow we are cleared to go home, we can’t. The windows broke, the door flew off. Most of what I own was destroyed.”
Katz has for the past five months settled in Kibbutz Mevo Hama, another kibbutz in the Golan, with his family, his horse and dogs. His third daughter, Oren, was born there.
“Since [Hezbollah joined the war in support of Hamas] on Oct. 8, 2023, we’ve been fighting fires, just a few weeks ago while missiles were falling on top of us in Rosh Pina and Safed,” he said.
“Not once and not twice, I found myself fighting a fire while laying down on the ground during a siren, seeing Iron Dome interceptors above me,” he continued.
“Sometimes, missiles fell next to us, we got back up, continued battling the blaze through till the next siren and laid on the ground again.
Thank G-d nobody has been hurt yet,” he added.
Katz oversees all land managed by KKL-JNF in the Golan Heights, around 11,000 acres.
“For the last month, all we’ve been doing is fighting fire. It’s going to be a rehabilitation project on a scale that Israel has never seen.
Take all the land that burnt throughout the 2006 Second Lebanon War, all of that was gone in one month only,” he explained.
Hezbollah’s incessant cross-border attacks on northern have burned over 230,000 dunams (57,000 acres) of land, KKL-JNF said.
Israel’s Upper Galilee and Golan Heights regions have suffered the most damage, with almost 43,500 acres burned, followed by the Lower Galilee (some 6,175 acres), the Western Galilee (2,223 acres) and the Hula Valley (178 acres).
“It’s basically all the forest fires we would
have had over 30 years in only seven months,” said Katz.
The disaster has been amplified by high temperatures in Israel throughout the summer season, coupled with strong winds.
“Some of these fires take place in areas where we can’t even go into, around Metula and Kiryat Shmona, in what we call the Galilee panhandle. These are closed military areas. Manara, which is surrounded by forests, is destroyed,” said Katz.
“In those areas, the army and the fire department take the lead. Sometimes, if it’s too dan-
gerous, nobody goes. It’s better for a tree to burn than to lose someone. We just look through our binoculars and try to understand the damage,” he added.
Usually, the fire department arrives first at the scene with an officer and gives Katz and his team instructions. KKL-JNF personnel in the Golan total 40 people, including truck drivers, scouts, foresters, assistant foresters and helpers.
“We have three KKL-JNF fire trucks and we work alongside the fire department, the army, volunteers and the Israel Nature and Parks Authority,” said Katz. “The fire department protects the settlements and we fight the fire in the forests.”
While there are ways to prevent fires from spreading, they cannot be implemented everywhere.
“In the Golan Heights, where w have lots of open meadows, we sometimes can create a fire break, which is basically a line with no vegetation. Just a couple days ago, I had a fire in Katzrin that burnt all the way up to the forest but stopped because of a break line,” said Katz.
“For coniferous forests and pine tree forests, it’s very different. We must make sure that the undergrowth is non-existent. If there is nothing to connect the trees to the ground, the fire won’t jump up into the trees,” he continued. “We trim and we pull to make sure there is no connection but you cannot implement this in all regions.”
According to KKL-JNF’s Forestry Department, it will take five to seven years for nature to repair the damage already incurred.
“The rehabilitation will be a multi-year, multi-faceted project. First, we must understand how the ecosystem is reacting since it has gone through a change that has never been experienced in Israel in the past,” said Katz.
“We will have a long observation process to figure out the right way to rehabilitate. G-d willing if this never happens again, the ecosystem will hopefully be able to rehabilitate itself.”
Teaching OppOrTuniTy:
insTrucTOr Of science and insTrucTOr Of MaTh (positions can be combined), Maternity Leave Position, december 16 - february 13th, 2024-2025
The first position is for two high school introductory chemistry classes (10th Grade) and one high school introductory biology class (9th Grade). The courses follow the New York State Regents curriculum.
The second position is for two periods of Algebra II math (11th Grade). The curriculum for the two classes is similar, with small changes to account for differing tracks. Appropriate candidates should know and feel comfortable with Algebra II material and be able to follow a curriculum that will be provided.
All classes are taught in the afternoons between the hours of 1:23 and 5:10 pm, four days a week, Monday-Thursday. Teachers are asked to be in the building by 12:45 for department meetings and preparation.
The ideal candidate will first and foremost be passionate about student growth as well as the teaching of Science and/or Math, and have a warm and engaging personality that can be used in developing meaningful relationships with each student. They will have mastery of educational pedagogy and the subject matter, but will also be strongly motivated by continued opportunities to grow and develop as an effective educator. We are looking for an experienced teacher leader who is comfortable working with both students and colleagues, and who is intentional about his/her educational approach.
are you interested in joining our team?
please send a cover letter and resume to sschenker@yuhsb.org
School Profile: Yeshiva University High School for Boys is distinguished as one of the premier Modern Orthodox Jewish High Schools in North America. Founded in 1916, our school has provided the template for a full featured dual curriculum education since its inception. We have graduated thousands of young men who have gone on to serve as leaders in communities around the world. Our program includes a complete College Preparatory program in addition to an intensive Judaic studies curriculum that focuses on textual and analytic skills. 100% of our graduates attend university, and 95% of them attend a yeshiva program in Israel for the gap year between high school and college.
A wildfire sparked by a Hezbollah rocket near Kibbutz Yesod Hamaala in Israel’s Galilee panhandle on Oct. 26. Ayal Margolin, Flash90
‘Antisemitism on College Campuses Exposed’
The following is excerpted from the 122 page (plus 203 pages of appendixes) Republican Staff Report of the US House of Representatives Committee on Education & the Workplace, published on Oct. 31.
The panel concludes that university administrators across the country failed to enforce rules and “delberately chose to withhold support from Jewish students.” The full report can be accessed through TheJewishStar.com.
Executive Summary
On October 7, 2023, a terrorist attack orchestrated by Hamas resulted in the murder of nearly 1,200 people in Israel, including more than 40 American citizens. In the aftermath of that horrific event, American institutions of higher education were upended by an epidemic of hate, violence, and harassment targeting Jewish students.
For nearly a year, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce (Committee), led by Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, has conducted a wide-reaching and intensive investigation into this explosion of campus antisemitism.
In December 2023, the Committee’s hearing on campus antisemitism revealed stunning failures of leadership and character at Harvard University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and prompted a national reckoning when the three school presidents shockingly refused to unequivocally state that calling for the genocide of Jews would violate their institutions’ codes of conduct. In subsequent hearings, the Committee called leaders from Columbia University, Rutgers University, Northwestern University, and the University of California, Los Angeles to account for their dramatic failures in confronting antisemitism on their campuses.
The Committee’s investigation has been unprecedented in its depth and scope. For the first time in its 157-year history, the Committee issued subpoenas to postsecondary institutions for obstructionist, dilatory responses to document requests made in furtherance of the Committee’s consideration of potential legislative solutions to address campus antisemitism. The Committee has collected more than 400,000 pages of documents over the course of its investigation. Now, the Committee is releasing key findings in this report.
Information obtained by the Committee reveals a stunning lack of accountability by university leaders for students engaging in antisemitic harassment, assault, trespass, and destruction of school property.
At every school investigated by the Committee, the overwhelming majority of students facing disciplinary action for antisemitic harassment or other violations of policy received only minimal discipline. At some schools, such as Columbia and Harvard, radical faculty members worked to prevent disciplinary action from being taken against students who violated official policies and even the law.
Key Findings of the US House of Representatives Committee on Educaiton & the Workplace
Around the country, extremist antisemitic encampments were allowed to form in direct contravention of institutional policy and the law.
•At Columbia, students who engaged in the criminal takeover of a university building were allowed to evade accountability.
•At Northwestern, radical faculty members were put in charge of negotiating with their own ideological allies in that campus’ encampment, leading to a stunning capitulation to the encampment leaders’ demands.
•At Rutgers, protesters faced no consequences for an encampment that disrupted exams for more than 1,000 students. UCLA’s leadership was unwilling to directly confront a violent, antisemitic encampment, even when antisemitic checkpoints denied Jewish students access to areas of campus.
These individual incidents and others that this report highlights are evidence of a broader environment on these campuses that is hostile to Jewish students.
Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VI), universities that receive federal funds have an obligation to prevent and address hostile environments based on race, color, or national origin (including a hostile environment against religious groups based on shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics). Instead of fulfilling these legal obligations, in numerous cases, university leaders turned their backs on their campuses’ Jewish communities, intentionally withholding support in a time of need. And while university leaders publicly projected a commitment toward combating antisemitism and respect for congressional efforts on the subject, in their private communications they viewed antisemitism as a PR issue rather than a campus problem.
The findings in this report are based on documents produced to the Committee, as well as hearing testimony and transcribed interviews of university leaders and advisors.
KEY FINDING
Students who established unlawful antisemitic encampments — which violated university polices and created unsafe and hostile learning environments — were given shocking concessions. Universities’ dereliction of leadership and failure to enforce their rules put students and personnel at risk.
•Finding: Northwestern put radical antiIsrael faculty in charge of negotiations with the encampment.
•Finding: Northwestern’s provost shockingly approved of a proposal to boycott Sabra hummus.
•Finding: Northwestern entertained demands to hire an “anti-Zionist” rabbi and North-
western President Michael Schill may have misled Congress in testimony regarding the matter.
•Finding: Columbia’s leaders offered greater concessions to encampment organizers than they publicly acknowledged.
•Finding: UCLA officials stood by and failed to act as the illegal encampment violated Jewish students’ civil rights and placed campus at risk.
The spring of 2024 was marked by the establishment of unlawful antisemitic encampments at universities throughout the country. These encampments were generally organized by students associated with or members of antiIsrael student organizations, often with lengthy histories of engaging in antisemitic harassment, intimidation, and disruption.
Two of the most notable cases were the ones at Columbia University, which started the national wave of encampments, and at Northwestern, where the university’s capitulation to the demands of the encampment triggered a series of such responses by other universities.
Both cases were prime examples of a disturbing pattern in which universities sought to appease the unlawful encampment occupiers with shocking concessions instead of enforcing their rules. Documents produced to the Committee show that Northwestern’s and Columbia’s handling of their negotiations was even more troubling than widely understood.
At Northwestern, President Michael Schill appointed radical anti-Israel faculty members to negotiate with the students, who used their roles to advance the students in the encampment’s agenda. Northwestern’s Provost, Kathleen Hagerty, encouraged Northwestern professor Nour Kteily, who served as one of the University’s negotiators with the encampment, as he advised students on how to pressure trustees to advance divestment. Provost Hagerty also supported Kteily’s proposal for the University to
Continued on next page
Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, at a press conference with Columbia students ahead of the committee’s full committee hearing with Columbia University leadership in April. House Committee on Education and the Workforce
Columbia University President Minouche Shafik testifies about campus antisemitism before the House Committee on Education and the Workforce on April 17. House Committee on Education and the Workforce
satisfy the encampment participants’ demands by agreeing to quietly boycott Sabra brand hummus because of its Israeli co-ownership.
As discussed further below, documents obtained by the Committee indicate that in contrast to President Schill’s categorical denial in testimony before the Committee, he and other senior Northwestern leaders appear to have considered the encampment leadership’s demand to hire an anti-Zionist rabbi. The documents also raise serious questions of whether Northwestern may have in fact acceded to this demand, and whether Schill knowingly misled Congress in his testimony.
Similar to Northwestern, Columbia’s leaders offered greater concessions to encampment organizers than the University has publicly acknowledged. These concessions included offering formal reviews of divesting from companies deemed by encampment leaders to violate international law or which manufacture specified categories of weapons; providing amnesty for many of the students in the encampment; funding scholarships for students connected to the West Bank and Gaza; and creating a “resilience fund” for Gaza.
As part of a “menu” of options for University negotiators to offer, University leaders also approved the potential creation of a joint program with a Palestinian university in the West Bank where Hamas is active on campus.
stitutions’ leaders. The Committee’s investigation found that in multiple cases, these failures came not from mere ignorance or lack of forethought, but rather from intentional decisions by university leaders not to provide their campuses’ Jewish communities the necessary support needed to ensure they felt safe to live on campus or attend classes.
Leaders at Harvard and Columbia serve as prominent examples of this failure. At Harvard, after being criticized for their initial silence on the October 7 terrorist attack and a statement by student groups solely blaming Israel for the attack, the University’s top administrators and deans cut language that would have condemned Hamas, acknowledged the kidnapping of hostages, and called the attack “violent,” but insisted on including language drawing an equivalence between Hamas’ terrorism and Israel’s military response.
When Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker asked for the University’s response to the frequent use on campus of the antisemitic eliminationist slogan “From the River to the Sea,” both then-President Claudine Gay and then-Provost (now President) Alan Garber urged her not to label the phrase antisemitic. Gay expressed concern that if Harvard recognized the phrase as antisemitic speech, it would raise questions about why the University was not imposing discipline for its use.
school rules and the law. In some cases, radical faculty successfully thwarted meaningful discipline.
•Finding: Universities failed to enforce their rules and hold students accountable for antisemitic conduct violations.
•Finding: Columbia’s University Senate obstructed plans to discipline students involved in the takeover of Hamilton Hall.
•Finding: Harvard’s faculty intervened to prevent meaningful discipline toward antisemitic conduct violations on numerous occasions.
•Finding: Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker acknowledged that the university’s disciplinary boards’ enforcement of the rules is “uneven” and called this “unacceptable.”
With the epidemic of antisemitism taking place on college campuses throughout the United States since October 7, 2023, students have been the focus of harassment and violence, which prevented students from attending class, studying, or even socializing in quads and other central campus areas that became hotbeds of antisemitic conduct.
As a Jewish Columbia University student who spoke at a Committee roundtable on campus antisemitism said, “We are ostracized, mocked, harassed, assaulted, and scapegoated because of our identities” and “[w]e have been attacked with sticks outside of our library. We have been surrounded by angry mobs. And we have been threatened to ‘Keep fucking running.’”
Northwestern’s and Columbia’s decisions to relentlessly pursue conciliating the students who turned their campuses into hotbeds of antisemitic harassment, intimidation, threats, disruption, and glorification of terrorism demonstrated a gross neglect for their obligations to protect Jewish students and to ensure a safe and uninterrupted learning environment.
KEY FINDING
So-called university leaders intentionally declined to express support for campus Jewish communities. Instead of explicitly condemning antisemitic harassment, universities equivocated out of concern of offending antisemitic students and faculty who rallied in support of foreign terrorist organizations.
•Finding: Harvard leaders’ failure to condemn Hamas’ attack in their widely criticized October 9 statement was an intentional decision.
•Finding: Harvard President Claudine Gay and then-Provost Alan Garber asked Harvard Corporation Senior Fellow Penny Pritzker not to label the slogan “from the river to the sea” antisemitic, with Gay fearing doing so would create expectations Harvard would have to impose discipline.
•Finding: The Columbia administration failed to correct false narratives of a “chemical attack” that were used to vilify Jewish students, but imposed disproportionate discipline on the Jewish students involved.
Jewish university students, faculty, and staff who faced the onslaught of antisemitic hate on campus after October 7 frequently felt abandoned by the muted and passive responses of their in-
Columbia University leaders failed to publicly correct a false narrative by anti-Israel students that two Israeli undergraduates had perpetrated a “chemical attack” with military “skunk spray” that was used to vilify Israeli students and call for their exclusion. The Columbia administration failed to correct the record after initially suggesting “serious crimes” had taken place, even after learning the incident merely involved the release of a non-toxic gag “fart spray.” Columbia only acknowledged the incident was not a chemical attack months later after reaching a settlement with one of the students responsible.
Shafik also refused to make a public statement of support for students in the University’s dual degree program with Tel Aviv University as antiIsrael activists campaigned for its abolition. This refusal came despite the urging of more than half of the program’s students, the dean of the School of General Studies in which the program was situated, the University’s Chief Operating Officer, and the Executive Director of Columbia/Barnard Hillel.
These facts show that even in extreme and compelling cases, University leaders shamefully and intentionally declined to provide the public support that their campuses’ Jewish communities called for. This serves as damning proof of the spinelessness, moral rot, and double standards these so- called University leaders exhibited in their failure to appropriately respond to pervasive antisemitism on their campuses.
KEY FINDING
Universities utterly failed to impose meaningful discipline for antisemitic behavior that violated
and respect for congressional oversight of the matter, documents produced to the Committee show that behind closed doors university leaders including presidents and chairs of boards of trustees repeatedly showed contempt for congressional oversight of campus antisemitism and public criticism.
Harvard President Claudine Gay launched into a personal attack on Representative Elise Stefanik in a formal meeting of the University’s Board of Overseers.
Columbia trustees derided congressional oversight of campus antisemitism and corresponded about how they hoped Democrats would take Congress days after receiving assurances from Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer that universities would not face accountability from Democrats.
University of Pennsylvania leaders disparaged former New Jersey Governor Chris Christie as “easily purchased” for calling for then-President Liz Magill to be fired and they worked to orchestrate media coverage portraying Members of Congress as bullying and grandstanding after Magill’s disastrous testimony on campus antisemitism.
CONCLUSION
On December 7, 2023, exactly two months after the Hamas terror attack that killed more than a thousand innocents in Israel, House Committee on Education and the Workforce Chairwoman Virginia Foxx announced a formal investigation into antisemitism at Harvard, Yale, and MIT. The Chairwoman noted that “disgusting targeting and harassment of Jewish students is not limited to these institutions.”
The past year’s investigation has sadly demonstrated this statement to be true beyond any doubt as the Committee expanded its investigation to include other postsecondary institutions facing acute environments of antisemitic harassment, disruptions of academic life, and even acts of violence targeting Jewish students.
This report contains just a selection of key findings using representative examples from the hundreds of thousands of pages collected during the Committee’s extensive investigation into antisemitism on postsecondary campuses. The Committee’s oversight will continue to shine the light on colleges and universities that are unable to ensure the safety of their student populations, including their Jewish students.
A central issue in addressing campus antisemitism and ensuring student safety on campus is how universities have responded to conduct incidents on their campuses. The Committee’s investigation found that universities it has examined have utterly failed to impose meaningful discipline for the numerous antisemitic conduct violations that warrant it. This comes despite many university leaders’ stated commitments that antisemitism would not be tolerated and that their rules would be enforced.
The examples cited below reveal that a significant issue at numerous universities, of which Columbia and Harvard serve as prime examples, is the faculty’s role in obstructing disciplinary processes.
KEY FINDING
So-called university leaders expressed hostility to congressional oversight and criticism of their record. The antisemitism engulfing campuses was treated as a public-relations issue and not a serious problem demanding action.
•Finding: Harvard president Claudine Gay disparaged Rep. Elise Stefanik’s character to the university’s Board of Overseers.
•Finding: Columbia’s leaders expressed contempt for congressional oversight of campus antisemitism.
•Finding: Penn’s leaders suggested politicians calling for President Magill’s resignation were “easily purchased” and sought to orchestrate negative media coverage of Members of Congress who scrutinized the University.
In contrast to their public professions recognizing the importance of combating antisemitism
The Committee’s investigation not only revealed a systemic failure by university leaders to enforce and apply existing policies to antisemitic students, student organizations, and faculty members, but also an unwillingness to combat antisemitism in general. Instead, these institutions gave the public nothing more than lip service in claiming they cared about student safety on campuses.
In many cases, these institutions attempted to hide behind the First Amendment’s Free Speech protections, yet it appears that in numerous cases both hateful speech and conduct targeting Jews received shockingly favorable treatment. In the absence of congressional oversight and public pressure, schools would have done even less to meaningfully address antisemitism on campus. Our inquiry suggests that, left to their own devices, they would have treated the explosion of antisemitic harassment on campus even less seriously.
The totality of circumstances on these campuses demonstrate an environment hostile to Jewish students likely in violation of Title VI, yet the US Department of Education has not done enough to hold these institutions accountable. The Committee’s findings at this stage are limited to investigating foundations and providing evidence for disparate treatment and hostile environments under Title VI — not conclusive judgments on violations.
On April 30, 2024, Speaker Johnson announced an expansion of the Committee’s investigation into a House-wide effort, adding the investigative powers of five additional committees in the House of Representatives. The Committee’s assessment on Title VI violations and recommendations will contribute to future reporting within this House-wide investigation.
The Committee’s findings indicate the need for a fundamental reassessment of federal support for postsecondary institutions that have failed to meet their obligations to protect Jewish students, faculty, and staff, and to maintain a safe and uninterrupted learning environment for all students.
Presenting their poorly-received testimony during a House committee hearing on campus antisemitism on Dec. 5, from left: Harvard University President Claudine Gay, University of Pennsylvania President Elizabeth Magill, American University Professor Pamela Nadell, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth.
Irish downplay Holocaust, put Jesus in ‘Palestine’
By Canaan Lidor
Jesus was born in a country called “Palestine,” which is also known as the Holy Land and located between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea.
This piece of information, which inaccurately ties the founder of Christianity to the Palestinian cause and ignores Israel’s existence, is one of several passages highlighted in a report published Monday on how Irish textbooks treat the Jewish religion, history and state.
The text, found in an Irish religious studies textbook from 2020 for 7 to 9th graders titled “Inspire — Wisdom of the World,” is part of a pattern of “oversimplification and delegitimization” of Israel and Jews, the IMPACT-se watchdog group wrote in “European Textbooks Ireland Review.”
“Historical references to Jesus living in ‘Palestine’ without appropriate context can contribute to narratives that challenge Israel’s legitimacy and undermine the Jewish historical connection to the land,” wrote IMPACT-se, a Jerusalem-based nonprofit that monitors antisemitic and anti-Israel bias in education worldwide. The area where Jesus lived was primarily referred to as Judea at the time.
Other textbooks feature the discredited “Palestinian Land Loss” maps, which mislabel Jordanian and Egyptian-held territory as part of “Palestine,” among other issues.
A 2022 civics textbook titled “Call to Action” for the same age group uses an “unfair and inaccurate framing of Israel as the sole aggressor and actor responsible for the conflict,” IMPACTse wrote.
A history book titled “Dictatorship and Democracy” for 17- and 18-year-olds identifies Auschwitz as a “prisoner of war camp,” which “minimizes the unique and horrific nature of the Holocaust and the systematic extermination carried out there,” IMAPCT-se wrote.
The recommendations in the report call for Ireland’s National Council for Curriculum and Assessment to “revise historical references and refrain from using politically-loaded terms like “Palestine” in the context of Jesus, and “implement proofreading and approval mechanisms.”
Ireland is one of Israel’s most vociferous critics within the European Union, and one of a handful of European countries that recognized Palestinian statehood in May. In March, Ireland said it would support South Africa’s lawsuit against Israel at the International Court of Justice for alleged genocide against Palestinians.
In September, Irish President Michael D. Higgins accused Israel’s embassy in Dublin of leaking to the media a letter he had penned to Iran’s new president, Masoud Pezeshkian, where Higgins had written that the Islamist dictatorship, which maintains terrorist proxies across the Middle East, had a “crucial role” in achieving peace there. The embassy has denied this.
Last week, Irish Prime Minister Simon Harris called on the European Union to “review its trade relations” with Israel, following what he described as a “shameful” vote by the Knesset on a law banning the activities in the country of UNRWA, the United Nations aid agency for Palestinians.
Bedouins stage Israel’s first legal Camel race
Israel held its first-ever statesanctioned camel race on Friday in the country’s South, with thousands of spectators in attendance to support the competitors.
The event, held near Ashalim, about 22 miles south of Beersheva, was organized by the local Bedouin community, in conjunction with the Ramat HaNegev Regional Council, the Diaspora Affairs Ministry, the Agriculture Ministry and the Ministry for the Development of the Negev and the Galilee.
“Every year, several illegal [camel] races are held, some of them in military zones, which endangers both the riders and the supporters — to say nothing of the bad reputation it gives to the [Bedouin community],” Dr. Mazen Abu Siam, the veterinarian from Rahat overseeing the event, told reporters.
“For the first time, the race is being held [legally], added Abu Siam, “with almost all Bedouin tribes participating, from the South to the North.”
More than 40 camels participated in the race, with the younger ones running a 6-kilometer route (a bit over 3.7 miles) and the older ones running 12 kilometers (almost 7.5 miles).
State sponsorship of the event allowed for first aid stations, police presence and designated bathroom areas, according to Diaspora Affairs Minister Amichai Chikli, who posted about the event on Instagram over the weekend. There were also large tents for supporters to watch the race on large screens with professional bilingual commentary on the sport.
“The race today is an important step toward the integration of Bedouin society and strength-
ening [local] government in the Negev,” Chikli added, noting the cultural significance of state and municipal involvement in the race.
“This is a vital thing, which strengthens the Bedouin heritage,” agreed Talal al-Karinawi, mayor of Rahat, Israel’s only Bedouin city, in a statement.
Taysir al-Qadi, a resident of a small village near Rahat who breeds horses and camels, shared his approval of the government’s involvement in the race with Ynet. “We all travel to this race,” he explained. “All the Bedouins have camels. … I think it’s very good for the country to have something like this — a legal, real race. I see many support [it] and hope it will expand.”
“We are spearheading the establishment of a horse and camel racing track to develop [the future of] the industry,” Al-Karinawi said. “The race will strengthen the bond between the Bedouin and Jewish communities. Perhaps in the future, it will become an international race.” —JNS
Israeli Bedouin take part in a camel race near Ashalim in the northern Negev on Nov. 1. Jamal Awad, Flash90
The Heritage Club at Bethpage 99 Quaker Meeting House Road Farmingdale
KEYNOTE SPEAKER
MICHAEL J. DOWLING
PRESIDENT & CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER NORTHWELL HEALTH
ACCOUNTING:
JOHN FITZGERALD
Managing Partner
Citrin Cooperman
GURJIT SINGH
Chief Information Officer
Prager Metis CPAs
DIANE L. WALSH
Chief Marketing Officer
Prager Metis CPAs
BANKING
& FINANCE:
STUART H. LUBOW
President & Chief Executive Officer
Dime Community Bank
DAVID A. PERLMUTTER
Managing Partner
Forest Hills Financial Group
MARK SANCHIONI
Senior Vice President & Chief Banking Officer
Ridgewood Savings Bank
JOSEPH TEDESCO
President & Chief Executive Officer
Ocean Financial Federal Credit Union
JOHN BURKE
Managing Director
Global Head of Business & Professional Services
Citi Commercial Bank
BIOPHARMA:
PATRICIA ECKERT, CPA
Chief Financial Officer
Enzo Biochem, Inc.
COMMUNICATIONS:
ANDREW RAINONE
Senior Vice President, Business Sales
Optimum Business
EDUCATION:
MARIA CONZATTI, Ed.D.
Chief Administrative Officer
Nassau Community College
TIMOTHY E. SAMS, Ph.D.
President
SUNY Old Westbury
ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION:
LOUIS BEKOFSKY Principal, Managing Partner VHB
WILLIAM MAXWELL Vice President
The Whiting-Turner Contracting Company
BILLY HAUGLAND II Chief Executive Officer Haugland Group LLC
ANDREW J. SOLANO Managing Partner Emtec Consulting Engineers
GAS/UTILITIES:
CHRISTINA ARMENTANO
Chief Operating Officer & Executive Vice President Paraco
JOHN RHODES
Chief Executive Officer
Long Island Power Authority (LIPA)
ROSS TURRINI
Chief Operating Officer, New York Gas National Grid
ENERGY: JIM FLANNERY Chief Operating Officer National Grid Ventures, US Northeast
HEALTHCARE:
MARIANELA CASAS, MPA
Chief Operating Officer
Association for Mental Health and Wellness
STACEY C. JACKSON-HARLEY
RN MA BSN
Chief Operating Officer
Harmony Healthcare
ANDREW MINTZ
Chief Executive Officer
The Smilist
MICHAEL N. ROSENBLUT
President & Chief Executive Officer
Parker Jewish Institute For Healthcare and Rehabilitation
AMY SILVA-MAGALHAES
Chief Operating Officer
The Bristal Assisted Living
JOSEPH VERDIRAME
Chief Executive Officer
Alliance Homecare
AMIT SHAH, MD
Partner & Vascular Surgeon
PRINE Health
HOSPITALITY:
MICHAEL LESSING
Chief Executive Officer Lessing's Hospitality Group
LEGAL:
NICOLE JOSEPH, MSc
Chief Operating Officer & Finance Director
CM Law PLLC
JULIE WYETZNER
Executive Director &
Chief Operating Officer
Cona Elder Law PLLC
MICHAEL H. SAHN
Managing Partner
Sahn Ward Braff Coschignano PLLC
HOWARD M. STEIN
Managing Partner & Co- Chair of the Real Estate Practice Group Certilman Balin Adler & Hyman, LLP
NOT-FOR-PROFIT:
PHIL ANDREWS
President
Long Island African American Chamber of Commerce
LISA BURCH, MPH
President & Chief Executive Officer
EPIC Long Island, Inc.
RANDELL M. BYNUM
Chief Executive Officer Girl Scouts of Nassau County
MATTHEW COHEN
President & Chief Executive Officer
Long Island Association, Inc.
ERIKA FLORESKA
President
Long Island Children's Museum
JEFFREY FRIEDMAN
Chief Executive Officer
CN Guidance and Counseling Services
DAN LLOYD
Chief Executive Officer and Founder
Minority Millennials, Inc.
DIANE MANDERS
Interim Chief Executive Officer & Executive Director
Habitat for Humanity of LI
JOHN MCGUIGAN
Chief Executive Officer
AHRC Suffolk
JEFFREY L. REYNOLDS, Ph.D.
President & Chief Executive Officer
Family and Children's Association
LUIS VAZQUEZ
President & Chief Executive Officer
Long Island Hispanic Chamber of Commerce
REAL ESTATE:
JOSEPH A. FARKAS
Chief Executive Officer & Founder Metropolitan Realty Associates LLC
RETAIL:
ROBERT KAY
Chief Executive Officer
Lifetime Brands, Inc.
SPORTS & ENTERTAINMENT:
CHRIS R. VACCARO
President & Executive Officer
Suffolk Sports Hall of Fame
TECHNOLOGY:
AMY E. NEWMAN
Senior Vice President, Administration
Canon U.S.A, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION:
ROBERT FREE Acting President
Long Island Rail Road
MARLON TAYLOR
President New York & Atlantic Railway
COREY J. MUIRHEAD
Executive Vice President
Guardian Bus Company
MICHAEL D. TORNABE
Chief Operating Officer
Guardian Bus Company *List still in formation
Talking stuffings, dressings for Thanksgiving
Kosher Kitchen
Every year, my mother made a delicious challah stuffing that she overstuffed into the 25 to 28 lb. turkey she made. The bowl of stuffing was huge (so huge that she also put some of the stuffing into a casserole dish and baked it separately). The turkey roasted for hours and hours and hours. I cannot imagine that the temperature of the meat was the same as the stuffing deep inside the bird. But no one ever got food poisoning. Late that night, my dad and I would come downstairs and break apart the carcass, picking out bits of the delicious stuffing. We never got sick!! And I miss those late night talks!!
However, what happened every year was that the turkey was dry and leathery-probably a result of the extra time needed for the meat to reach the safety zone of 165 degrees. Probably at least an hour more than needed had the turkey been unstuffed.
It took several more years before the FDA issued a safety warning that turkey should not be stuffed, that, too often, the internal temperature of the stuffing was as much a s10 to 15 degrees below safety levels. In fact, the USDA website states; “For optimum safety, stuffing a turkey is not recommended.” Over the years, they have walked that back a bit, advising that the stuffing reach 165 degrees in the center of the stuffing. However, they also advise that this adds cooking time to the turkey which may decrease the quality of the meat. If you must stuff, fill loosely, and only about 3/4 full.
We often use the terms “dressing” and “stuffing” interchangeable, but they mean different things. Dressing is cooked outside of the bird and is placed around the bird, to “dress” it up and make it look festive. It can be bread, rice or grain, or fruit-based. Stuffing, cooked inside the bird, is usually cracker or bread-based.
If you look at any cooking magazine, there are hundreds of stuffing/dressing recipes and nowadays, most of them are cooked outside the bird. Most stuffing/dressing recipes call for some kind of starch, usually bread or crackers, or whole grains, and almost all of these recipes call for some kinds of vegetables mixed with the starch. Some recipes are complicated, many are off limits if you observe a kosher lifestyle, and most are derivative of other recipes you have tasted or tried.
But, I’ll let you in on a secret — here is practically no way to ruin stuffing. You can think of stuffing like one of those “choose Your Own Adventure/Mystery Books,” that kids used to read. The story starts with the kernel of a plot and then tells you to go to a different page depending on what you think will happen. If you want the hero to slay the dragon, go to page 34. If you want him to call in reinforcements, go to page 45. And so on. Stuffing is like that. Start with a starch or grain of some kind. If you want savory, add some veggies, nuts, some broth, some herbs and spices and you have a stuffing. If you want a fruity stuffing, use fruits and nuts, broth or juice, fruit zest, etc. there is no limit to the possibilities. Virtually fool-proof!! You can also add kosher sausage, chestnuts or anything else.
There is no doubt that stuffing is one of the most popular menu items at the Thanksgiving table. There is also no doubt that if you ask anyone, “Who makes the best stuffing,” the answer will almost always be, “My mother.” So, enjoy mom’s special stuffing on Thanksgiving. It will always be — and should always be — the “best
stuffing in the world.” However, during the other 364 days in the year, get out your imagination and make your own “best stuffing in the world.”
Great for a winter Shabbat side dish.
Artichoke, Shallot, Ciabatta Bread Dressing (Meat, Pareve)
I made this one up when I had no crackers and several ciabatta breads in the freezer. I had read a recipe using artichokes, so I added those. I now make this every Thanksgiving and Rosh Hashana! It is NOT a stuffing, though that is what my family calls it!
• 3 lb. (3 to 4 loaves) focaccia or ciabatta bread. I use olive oil ciabatta bread.
• 1/2 to 1 cup extra virgin olive oil, divided
• 4 to 6 cups vegetable or chicken stock (not actual chicken)
• 1/4 cup extra virgin olive oil or canola oil (for the pans)
• 1 to 2 boxes chicken stock
• 3 to 4 large yellow onions, diced
• 5 cups chopped leeks
• 2 lb. Shallots, thinly sliced
• 2 to 10 cloves garlic, finely minced, your choice as to how much garlic
• OPTIONAL: 10 ounces mushrooms, sliced
• 4 cans artichoke hearts, drained or frozen, thawed, more or less, to taste (you can use bottoms, diced)
• Salt and pepper to taste
Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. Line 3 to 4 rimmed baking sheets with parchment paper. Set aside. Cut the bread into 1-inch cubes. Distribute evenly on the rimmed baking sheets and drizzle evenly with 4 tablespoons olive oil. Bake in the oven until light golden brown. Let cool. When cool, pour into a very large mixing bowl. Set aside.
Pour the stock into a saucepan and bring to a boil. Reduce heat and simmer gently until reduced by about one cup. Remove from heat and pour over the bread cubes. Toss and let sit to absorb the liquid. Toss frequently to evenly distribute liquid.
Heat a large skillet over medium-low heat and add a quarter-cup of oil. Add the diced onions and shallots. Sauté until golden brown, 15 to 25 minutes. Add the leeks, mix well, cover the pan, and cook another 15 minutes. Add the garlic and sauté 30 seconds. Add the mixture to the pan of bread cubes and mix well.
Heat the same pan, add a drizzle of olive oil and add the mushrooms. Cover and cook until the mushrooms release their liquid, 7 to 12 minutes. Add the artichokes and sauté for another 2 to 3 minutes. Add the to the bread cubes, add the seasonings to taste and mix well.
Pour into 2 very well-greased 9x13 casserole dishes and drizzle about 2 to 3 tablespoons of olive oil over the top of each. Bake at 350 degrees for 40 to 60 minutes, or until deep golden brown. Serves 12+. An easily be frozen.
Mostly Vegetable Stuffing Casserole (Pareve)
This is best made the day before and then reheated on Thanksgiving Day. I have made this ever since I found I had no bread one Thanksgiving, but had crackers. Now it is requested every year. Add your favorite additions and BE CREATIVE!
• 4 to 6 large onions
• 2 large cloves elephant garlic or 6 to 10 cloves regular garlic
• 4 to 8 large leeks, white part only, thoroughly washed
• 1 large bunch celery, washed and trimmed
• 1-1/2 lbs. carrots
• 4 to 5 pkgs. (10 oz. each) mushrooms, more if you like1 box (4 stacks) pareve, snack-type crackers, more if needed
• Salt and pepper to taste
• Canola oil for sautéing and to coat the pan
Process the onions, garlic and leeks in a food processor until they are finely chopped, about one-quarter-inch sized pieces. You may have to do this in two batches to avoid over-processing some of the onions and under-processing the rest.
Heat a large frying pan until a tiny splash of water “dances” across the pan and disappears. Add about 4 tablespoons of oil to the pan and heat through. Add the onion mixture and cook over medium heat until soft. Add a bit more oil if needed.
Meanwhile, cut the celery into inch-long pieces and add to the processor. Chop until the pieces are the same size as the onion pieces. You may have to do this in two batches, also. With a spatula, make a space in the middle of the onions and add the chopped celery. Cover the pan and cook until the celery is soft, about 5 minutes. Mix the onions and the celery together.
While the celery is cooking, peel and wash the carrots, cut them into inch long pieces and process them until finely chopped into pieces a bit smaller than the celery. Follow the same process and cook the carrots until soft. You may
JoNI SChoCKEtt
Jewish Star columnist
Ciabatta Artichoke vegetable dressing.
Joni Schochet
Talking stuffings, dressings for Thanksgiving…
Continued from page 12
need to add a little more oil. When the carrots are softened, mix thoroughly with the celery and onions. At this point, if the pan is too full, pour the mixture into a very large bowl.
To process the mushrooms uniformly, cut them in half and only process about 5 or 6 ounces at a time. Add them to the pan as you process them.
If you have moved the onion mixture into a bowl, add a bit more oil to the pan and add the mushrooms. Cook the mushrooms until they give off their juices and then cook another 2 minutes. Pour the mushrooms and the liquid into the large bowl and mix all the vegetables together. Season with salt and pepper.
Rinse and dry the work bowl of the processor and finely process the crackers, one stack at a time, until they resemble cornmeal. Add the crackers to the vegetables as you process each stack and mix well. Season as you like and let stand about 10 minutes. The mixture should be thick, not soupy. You may need to add a few more cracker crumbs.
Add about 3 tablespoons of oil two roasting pan(s). Half-steam table size, throw-away aluminum, which is recyclable, is a good choice here. Make sure the pans are well-oiled and spoon the stuffing into the pans. Smooth the top and bake at 350 until well browned, about 40 to 50 minutes. Let cool a bit and serve very warm, but not hot.
Note: This stuffing is best made the day before and then reheated. Each half steam table pan serves 8 to 10. You should have two pans.
Traditional (Almost) Challah Stuffing or Dressing (Meat)
• 1 large loaf challah sliced and toasted
• 2 cups diced onions
• 2 cups diced leeks
• 2 Tbsp. minced garlic
• 2 cups diced celery
• 3 to 4 cups sliced mushrooms
• 1-2 cups chicken stock
• 1 Tbsp. dried sage or poultry seasoning
• Salt and pepper to taste
• 1 stick Pareve, trans-fat free margarine or Canola oil for sautéing and coating the pan
• OPTIONAL: You can add one or more of the following:
• 1 cup minced carrots
• 1 cup diced bell peppers
• 1 cup toasted walnuts, cashews, pecans or almonds
• 1 cup pine nuts
• 1 cup diced apples
• 1 cup snipped dried apricots
• 1 cup dried cranberries, cherries, currants or raisins
Toast the challah slices until they are golden brown but not too dark. Cut the slices into inch-
square pieces, or tear them into pieces that size. Place in a large mixing bowl and set aside.
Heat a large skillet and add about 2 tablespoons of canola oil or margarine. Add the onions and leeks sauté until evenly golden brown. Add the minced garlic and sauté until fragrant, about 2 minutes.
Add the celery and sauté until softened. Add the other optional vegetables and sauté until softened. Add more margarine or canola oil, if needed.
At this point, if you are baking the stuffing now, preheat the oven to 350 degrees.
Pour the vegetables into the bowl with the bread and toss to mix. Add more margarine to the skillet and add the mushrooms. Sauté until they give off their liquid, then spoon some of the liquid from the pan into the mixing bowl. Continue to sauté until there is no more liquid in the pan and some of the mushrooms have turned golden.
Add the mushrooms to the mixing bowl. Toss well to combine. Add the sage or other seasonings and any optional nuts, fruits, etc. you like. Mix well. Heat the stock and add one-half cup at a time, until the mixture is moistened but not soggy. Generously grease a large casserole dish or aluminum pan and add the stuffing. Dot the top with small bits of margarine and bake at 350 degrees until golden brown on top. Serves 10 to 14.
Traditional Cornbread Dressing (Meat or Pareve)
CORNBREAD
• 1-3/4 cups yellow cornmeal
• 1-1/4 cups unbleached flour
• 2 to 3 Tbsp. sugar
• 1 Tbsp. baking powder
• 1/4 tsp. salt
• 1-1/4 cups plain almond milk or soy milk
• 1/2 stick pareve trans-fat-free margarine, melted
• 1 extra-large egg
VEGGIE MIXTURE
• 3/4 stick pareve trans-fat-free margarine
• 1 to 2 onions, chopped
• 3 celery stalks, chopped
• 1 red or green pepper, seeded and chopped
• 10 ounces mushrooms, chopped
• 1/2 tsp. salt, to taste
• 1/4 to 1/2 tsp. freshly ground black pepper
• 1 to 2 cups chicken broth or veggie
• 1 extra large egg
Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. Place the cornmeal, flour, sugar, baking powder and salt together in a large bowl. Whisk to blend. In another bowl, blend the almond or soy milk, melted margarine and the egg. Beat with a fork until blended. Pour the liquid mixture into the dry mixture and mix with a fork just until blended.
Pour the mixture into a well-greased 9x9inch baking pan and place in the oven. Bake for
20 minutes or until a tester comes out clean. Let cool. Reduce the oven temperature to 325 degrees.
FOR THE VEGGIES
Heat a large skillet over medium heat and add the margarine. When melted, add the onions and stir until golden. Add the celery and the pepper and sauté until softened, about 10 minutes. Add the mushrooms and sauté until they give off their juices.
Add the chicken stock and bring to a boil. Boil for about 10 minutes until reduced by about 1/3. While the veggies are simmering, break the cornbread into small pieces and place in a large bowl. Break the egg into a small bowl and beat just a bit. Pour over the cornbread and toss to mix. Add the veggies and toss to mix.
Pour into a well-greased 9x13 glass casserole dish and bake at 325 degrees until golden brown, about 30 to 35 minutes. Serves 6 to 8.
Bread and Nut Dressing with Apples (Meat or Pareve)
• 1-1/2 to 2 loaves (16 ounces each) pareve artisan white bread such as ciabatta, sourdough, country white (include crusts), cut into 1/2 inch cubes and toast
• 3/4 stick pareve, trans-fat-free margarine
• 2 onions, chopped
• 2 cloves garlic, minced
• 4 stalks celery, chopped
• 4 apples (Golden Delicious, Granny Smith) chopped (peel if you like)
• 2 cups chicken or veggie stock
• 1/2 cup pecans
• 1/2 cup walnuts
• 1/2 cup other unsalted nuts of your choice (hazelnuts, pistachios, cashews)
• 2 Tbsp. sesame seeds
• 1/2 tsp. salt.
• Freshly ground pepper to taste.
• OPTIONAL: 1/2 to 3/4 cup raisins, chopped apricots, dried cranberries or cherries or other dried fruit.
Cut the bread into half-inch slices and cut the slices into cubes. Place on a rimmed baking sheet and toast for about 5-10 minutes until lightly toasted. OR you can toast the slices lightly in the toaster and then cut the bread into cubes. Place the bread in a large bowl.
Heat a large skillet over medium heat and add the margarine. Add the onion and sauté until golden brown. Add the garlic and mix for about 20 seconds. Add the celery and stir. Sauté until softened, about 4 to 5 minutes. Add the chopped apples and sauté for about 4 to 5 minutes, mixing frequently.
Add the celery mix to the bread cubes and toss to mix. Add the remaining ingredients and toss to mix.
Heat the chicken stock in a small saucepan and bring to a boil. Boil until the stock reduces to about 1-1/3 cups, about 10 minutes or less. Carefully pour the stock over the bread mixture and toss lightly. Season with salt and pepper, to
taste. Pour into a well-greased 9x13 glass baking dish and bake for about 40 to 50 minutes, until golden.
Note: For a great flavor, toast the nuts (375 degrees for about 3 to 5 minutes, until fragrant) before adding to the stuffing. Serves 8 to 12.
Faro, Fruit and Wheat Berry Dressing (Pareve or Meat)
• 1-1/2 cups faro
• 1 cup wheat berries
• 2 Tbsp. extra-virgin olive oil
• 2 red onions, diced
• 3 to 4 carrots, diced
• 3 to 4 stalks celery, diced
• 3/4 cup apricots, snipped
• 3/4 cup prunes, chopped
• 1/2 cup dates, chopped
• 1/4 cup freshly squeezed orange juice
• 1 to 2 strips orange zest, about 2 to 3 inches long and about 1 to 2 inches wide (no white part)
• 1 cup chicken or veggie broth
• 2 to 3 cups cubed roasted butternut squash
• 1/2 cup fresh parsley, minced or fresh chives, snipped or a mix of the two
• Salt and pepper to taste
• OPTIONAL: Some cooked wild rice, pecans or other nuts
• OPTIONAL: Season with allspice, nutmeg, and come cinnamon to taste
NOTE: Cook the faro and the wheat berries in separate pots according to directions. When cooked, drain and set aside.
NOTE: Season this as you like. A drizzle of pure maple syrup is delicious as are warm spices like cumin and turmeric. All up to you!! Choose your own adventure!!
Heat a small soup pot or large saucepan and add the olive oil. Sauté the onions until lightly golden. Add the carrots and celery and sauté until softened, about 10 to 15 minutes total. Add the apricots, prunes and dates and mix well. Use a vegetable peeler and peel two or three strips of orange zest. Add the orange zest strips, the orange juice and the chicken broth. Mix well. Let simmer for about 10 minutes. Discard the orange peel.
Add the faro and wheat berries to the veggies and mix well. Add the parsley and/or chives and mix well. Season with salt and pepper to taste. Pour into a well-greased 9x13 pan and cover with aluminum foil. Bake for about 20 to 30 minutes until heated through. Serve 8 to 12.
To reach Joni Schockett, write: Columnist@ TheJewishStar.com
Traditional (Almost) Challah Stuffing or Dressing. tastesoflizzyt.com
Traditional Cornbread Dressing. bohemianvegankitchen.com
Bread and Nut Dressing with Apples. homesteadandchill.com
Faro, Fruit and Wheat Berry Dressing. hellolittlehome.com
In October 2022, Tamar Lemoine of Valley Stream felt a lump in her right breast and was diagnosed with late-stage breast cancer. She had previously put o a biopsy after a mammogram in 2021 detected a suspicious mass, so she knew that this time she would need to act fast.
Tamar was referred to Dr. Christine Hodyl, Director of Breast Health Services at Mount Sinai South Nassau, who created a comprehensive treatment plan that included chemotherapy and breast-conserving lumpectomy surgery along with the removal of several lymph nodes. Her treatment ended with a month of radiation therapy sessions. Now cancer-free, Tamar urges women to get their annual mammograms.
Mount Sinai South Nassau’s cancer program is accredited by the Commission on Cancer and the National Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, o ering patients a multidisciplinary approach to fight cancer without having to leave Long Island.
Jewish Star Torah columnists:
•Rabbi Avi Billet of Anshei Chesed, Boynton Beach, FL, mohel and Five Towns native •Rabbi David Etengoff of Magen David Yeshivah, Brooklyn
•Rabbi Binny Freedman, rosh yeshiva of Orayta, Jerusalem
Contributing writers:
•Rabbi Sir Jonathan Sacks zt”l,
former chief rabbi of United Hebrew Congregations of the British Commonwealth •Rabbi Dr. Tzvi Hersh
Weinreb, OU executive VP emeritus
•Rabbi Raymond Apple, emeritus rabbi, Great Synagogue of Sydney
•Rabbi Yossy Goldman, life rabbi emeritus, Sydenham Shul, Johannesburg and president of the South African Rabbinical Association.
Contact our columnists at: Publisher@TheJewishStar.com
Five Towns Candlelighting: From the White Shul, Far Rockaway, NY
תבש לש בכוכ
Fri Nov 8 / Cheshvan 7
Lech Lecha Candles: 4:24 • Havdalah: 5:32
Fri Nov 15 / Cheshvan 14
Vayera Candles: 4:18 • Havdalah: 5:26
Fri Nov 22 / Cheshvan 21
Chayei Sara Candles: 4:13 • Havdalah: 5:22
Fri Nov 29 / Cheshvan 28
Shabbos Mevarchim • Toldos Candles: 4:10 • Havdalah: 5:19
Fri Dec 6 / Kislev 5
Vayetzei Candles: 4:09 • Havdalah: 5:18
Fri Dec 13 / Kislev 12
Vayishlach Candles: 4:10 • Havdalah: 5:19
Timeless reminder of the power of example
So familiar are we with the story of Abraham that we do not always stop to think about what a strange turn it is in the biblical narrative. If we fail to understand this, though, we may fail to understand the very nature of Jewish identity itself.
Here is the problem: Until now the Torah has been concerned with humanity as a whole. Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel are human archetypes. The former represent the tensions between husband and wife, the latter the rivalry between siblings. Both are stories about individuals and both end tragically, the first with paradise lost, the second with bloodshed, fratricide and death.
Then comes another pair of stories — the Flood and the building of Babel — this time about society as a whole. Each is about the tension between freedom and order. The Flood is about a world where freedom (violence, lawlessness, “everyone doing what was right in their own eyes”) destroys order. Babel is about a world where order (the imperialist imposition of a single language on conquered peoples) destroys freedom.
All four narratives are about the human condition as such. Their message is universal and eternal, as befits a book about G-d who is universal and eternal. G-d as He appears in the first eleven chapters of Genesis is the G-d who created the universe, made all humanity in His image, blessed the first humans, and who — after the Flood — made a covenant with all humankind. The G-d of the universe is the universal G-d.
Why then does the entire story shift in Genesis 12? From here onward it is no longer about humanity as a whole but about one man (Abraham), one woman (Sarah), and their children, who — by the time of the book of Exodus — have become a large and significant people, but still no more than one nation among many.
What is happening here? Does G-d lose interest in everyone else? That surely cannot be the case. At the end of Genesis, Joseph says to his brothers:
You intended to harm me, but G-d intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. Gen 50:20
It may be that the phrase “many lives” means no more than the lives of his own family (so
Why the narrowing of focus from the universal human condition to the story of one family?
Targum Yonatan understands it). But the plain sense of the phrase am rav, “a great people,” suggests Egypt. Not until Exodus are the Israelites called am, a people. Joseph is saying that G-d sent him not merely to save his family from famine, but also the Egyptian people.
That too is the point of the book of Jonah. Jonah is sent to Nineveh, the Assyrian city, to persuade the people to repent and thus avoid their own destruction. In its closing words G-d says to the prophet:
Should I not have concern for the great city of Nineveh, in which there are more than a hundred and twenty thousand people who cannot tell their right hand from their left? Jonah 4:11
G-d is concerned not only with Israel but with the Assyrians, despite the fact that they would become Israel’s enemies, eventually conquering the northern kingdom of Israel itself.
Amos famously says that G-d not only brought the Israelites from Egypt, but also the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir (Amos 9:7). Isaiah even prophesies a time when the Egyptians will worship G-d, and He will rescue them from oppression as he once rescued Israel (Isaiah 19:20-21).
So it is not that G-d loses interest in humanity as a whole. He feeds the world. He sustains all life. He is involved in the history of all nations. He is the G-d of all people. Why then the narrowing of focus from the universal human condition to the story of one family?
The philosopher Avishai Margalit, in his book “The Ethics of Memory,” talks about two ways of thinking: “i.e.” and “e.g.” The former speaks of general principles, the latter of compelling examples.
It’s one thing to talk about general principles of leadership, for instance — think ahead, motivate, set clear goals and so on. It’s another thing altogether to tell the story of actual leaders, the ones who succeeded, the role-models. It is their lives, their careers, their examples, that illustrate the general principles and how they work in practice.
Principles are important. They set the parameters. They define the subject. But without vivid examples, principles are often too vague to instruct and inspire. Try explaining the general principles of Impressionism to someone who knows nothing about art, without showing them an Impressionist painting. They may understand the words you use, but these will mean nothing until you show them an example.
That, it seems, is what the Torah is doing when it shifts focus from humanity as a whole to Abraham in particular. The story of humanity from Adam to Noah tells us that people do not naturally live as G-d would wish them to live. They eat forbidden fruit and kill one another.
So after the Flood, G-d becomes not only a Creator but also a teacher. He instructs humanity, and does so in two ways: i.e. and e.g. He sets out general rules — the covenant with Noah — and then He chooses an example, Abraham and his family. They are to become role-models, compelling examples, of what it means to live closely and faithfully in the presence of G-d, not
for their sake alone but for the sake of humanity as a whole.
That is why five times in Genesis the patriarchs are told:
Through you all the families, or all the nations, of the earth will be blessed. Gen. 12:2, Gen. 18:18, Gen. 22:18, Gen. 26:4, Gen. 28:14
And people recognize this. In Genesis, Malkitzedek says about Abraham, “Praise be to G-d Most High, who delivered your enemies into your hand” (Gen. 14:20). Avimelech, king of Gerar, says about him, “G-d is with you in everything you do ” (Gen. 21:22). The Hittites say to him, “You are a prince of G-d in our midst” (Gen. 23:6).
Abraham is recognized as a man of G-d by his contemporaries, even though they are not a part of his specific covenant.
The same is true of Joseph, the only member of Abraham’s family in Genesis whose life among the gentiles is described in detail. He is constantly reminding those with whom he interacts about G-d.
When Potiphar’s wife tries to seduce him he says:
How could I do such a great wrong? It would be a sin before G-d! Gen. 39:9
To the butler and baker, whose dreams he is about to explain, Joseph says: Interpretations belong to G-d. Gen. 40:8
When he is brought before Pharaoh to interpret his dreams, he says: G-d will give Pharaoh the answer he desires. Gen. 41:16
Pharaoh himself says of Joseph: Can we find anyone like this man, one in whom is the spirit of G-d? Gen. 41:38
Jews are not called on to be Jews for the sake
of Jews alone. They are called on to be a living, vivid, persuasive example of what it is to live by the will of G-d, so that others too come to recognise G-d and serve Him, each in their own way, within the parameters of the general principles of the covenant with Noah.
The laws of Noah are the “i.e.” The history of the Jews is the “e.g.”
Jews are not called on to convert the world to Judaism. There are other ways of serving G-d. Malkizedek, Abraham’s contemporary, is called, “a Priest of G-d Most High” (Gen. 14:18).
Malachi says a day will come when G-d’s name “will be great among the nations, from where the sun rises to where it sets” (Mal. 1:11). The prophets foresee a day when “G-d will be King over all the earth” (Zechariah 14:9) without everyone converting to Judaism.
We are not called on to convert humanity but we are called on to inspire humanity by being compelling role-models of what it is to live, humbly, modestly but unshakably in the presence of G-d, as His servants, His witnesses, His ambassadors — and this, not for our sake but for the sake of humanity as a whole.
It sometimes seems to me that we are in danger of forgetting this. To many Jews, we are merely one ethnic group among many, Israel is one nation-state among many, and G-d is something we talk about only among ourselves if at all.
In a television documentary about one British Jewish community, a non-Jewish journalist, reviewing the program, remarked on what seemed to her a strange fact that the Jews she encountered never seemed to talk about their relation-
See Sacks on page 22 rabbi Sir JonaThan
Here are some of the people not in the parsha
Rabbi DR. tzvi
Itry to focus these weekly columns on individuals who are barely mentioned in the weekly Torah portion. They often play an important but insufficiently appreciated role.
Thus, for example, last week I chose Nimrod as my person in the parsha. He was a “strong” man in many ways, knowing the Almighty while defy-
ing Him. He was autocratic, violent, arrogant, perhaps the first true demagogue on record.
But that was last week’s parsha, Noach. His name no longer appears in the Chumash. While he is certainly absent in this week’s parsha, Lech Lecha, I will attempt to demonstrate how he still plays a role in this week’s Torah episode.
I will also attempt to demonstrate that Avram, later renamed Avraham, albeit surely the dominant figure in this week’s parsha, is to some extent “missing” therein.
WTerach, at age two hundred and fifty, dies.
It is then, in the opening words of this week’s Torah portion, that the L-rd Himself enters center stage and commands Avram to leave all the above behind except for his wife Sarei and nephew Lot and head for “the land which I will show you,” which we soon learn is Canaan. Avram is then a 75-year-old!
place, and his father’s domicile.
Acritically important segment of Avram’s youth, formative years, and maturation is missing. This gap is troublesome, and it is left to our Sages to fill in the “missing link,” to tell us the “rest of the story.”
Lech
e already know quite a bit about Avram having read last week’s Parshat Noach. There we “met” his father Terach, his brothers Nachor and Haran, and his nephew — Haran’s son — Lot. We also learn of Haran’s premature demise, although we remain curiously ignorant of the circumstances of his death. We are told about the family’s origins in a place called Ur Kasdim, the “fiery furnace of the Chaldeans.” We are introduced to Avram’s wife, Sarei, and are alerted to her infertility issues.
What is “missing?” It is my graduate school education in the field of developmental psychology that prompts me to ask this question. Missing are the many intervening years between the young Avram, subordinate to his father’s travel plans and struggling sympathetically with his young wife’s infertility, and his first direct encounter, nay conversation, with the Master of the Universe.
And in the process, to expound upon the nature of the conflict between good and evil, in our case between Avram and, yes, Nimrod!
Here, in my free translation from the Aramaic, is the gist of the passage in Bereshit Rabbah 38:19 which addresses some of these questions:
Rabbi Chiya, the son of Rabbi Ada of Jaffa related: Terach was an idolater and dealt in the sale of idols. One day, he left the store in charge of his son Avram in his stead.
We then are informed of the plan, seemingly instigated by Terach, to embark upon a fateful journey, leaving Ur Kasdim to reach Canaan, but settling instead in a place called Charan. There,
Missing are the reasons for his family’s flight from Ur Kasdim, the circumstances of Haran’s death, the significance of Terach’s intention to move the family to Canaan, but especially the role of Avram in all this drama.
Most glaringly, what is missing is even the slightest account of Avram’s religious development. There is no mention of any relationship whatsoever with the One Above until the L-rd’s command that he leave behind his land, his birth-
Along came a customer eager to purchase an idol. Avram asked him, “How old are you?” To which the customer responded, “Almost 60!” Avram retorted, “A man almost 60 wishes to worship a day-old idol?!” The customer was ashamed and quickly departed.
Along came another customer, a woman this time. She brought with her a tray filled to the brim with fine flour. She asked Avram to distrib-
Lecha asks: When is it time to part ways?
This column was published on Oct. 21, 2015.
These past weeks Israel seems to be in the grip of a wave of terror: stabbings, shootings, firebombs, and riots, leaving us wondering whether there is anything left of the ‘peace process’; seems more like pieces.
People often say, you don’t make peace with your friends, you make peace with enemies and you have to be willing to sit and dialogue with even your most bitter enemy.
True, but you have to start with an enemy who wants to make peace, and for that matter, who is willing to talk. So maybe it’s time to let go; maybe there is no peace partner and we need to part ways, build fences, and leave attempts at any rapprochement for another day.
And yet, are we really at the point where we must walk away from any hope of peace with our Arab cousins, many of whom I am sure want peace as much as we do?
How do you know when it really is time to let go?
This week’s portion of Lech Lecha provides a classic case in point: It seems that the shepherds
of Avram and the shepherds of Lot, Avram’s nephew, had gotten into an argument big enough that it came to Avram’s attention. (Bereishit 12:5-7)
While the Torah is vague about the exact nature of the conflict between the shepherds, Rashi, quoting the Midrash, makes it very clear: Lot’s shepherds were stealing, and Avram’s shepherds were taking the moral high ground.
More puzzling than the conflict however, is Avram’s inexplicable reaction to it: “And Avram said to Lot: ‘Let there not be a quarrel between you and I and between my shepherds and your shepherds. Behold all the land is before you; please separate from me; if you go left I will go right, and if you go right, I will go left.” (12:8-9)
“Separate from me”? This is Avram’s great solution to conflict? Bear in mind that this is not an argument with someone you never met who is in you parking space, this is Avram’s own nephew!
In fact, the verse does not actually say Avram and Lot were arguing, it says the argument was between the shepherds.
So why does Avram feel Lot should leave? How depressing to think that even the paradigm of loving-kindness in this world can reach the point of no return in his relationship with his own nephew.
Is this the blueprint for Jewish ethics — when the going gets a little tough, just go?
Equally disturbing is Lot’s response:
He chooses to leave the tent of Abraham and live in S’dom, the most wicked and sinful place on earth! How could someone who grew up in what must have been the most ethical place on earth end up in S’dom?
It seems Lot has sunken to a level which precludes his living in the tent of Avram and is told he needs to leave.
If one looks closely at the story in the Biblical commentaries, it may be that the straw that broke the camel’s back was not that the shepherds of Lot were stealing, it was that Lot didn’t see anything wrong with it.
What a powerful and yet challenging message. When does someone cross a line so we need to distance ourselves from them? Not when they do wrong, but when they justify it and perceive it to be right. When right is wrong and wrong is right, then society is upside down, and if we can’t remove such a society, we at least need to remove ourselves from it.
And this is true in every aspect of life. When someone you love does something terrible, it is important to be able to deal with it, forgive them, and move on. But if they don’t really see anything wrong with what they are doing, then we have to absolutely refuse to live with such norms.
While families with children are murdered and 13 year old boys are being stabbed in the streets and Mahmoud Abbas and his Palestinian Authority, with whom we are supposed to be ne-
We dream that all people will live together in peace. But we must be happy with that peaceful world we create.
gotiating peace, do not even pretend to protest. Rather, we hear absurd calls to stop executing Arabs, and fabrications of Jewish/Israeli attempts to destroy the Mosque on the Temple mount which the Arab leadership knows full well is simply untrue.
So there is no one to talk to. You can’t make peace, painful as that may sound, with someone who still wants to destroy you. In fact no modern conflict has ever been settled until somebody won the war. We seem to think we have won the war that our enemies are still fighting.
Maybe we need to take a lesson from Avraham, who 4,000 years ago suggested that there is a line in the moral sand one cannot cross, and there are some people and even societies one simply cannot negotiate with.
When a married couple is struggling with
Mysteries in the marriage of Avraham and Sarah
ITyrants are capable of extremes, including the annihilation of those of who do not follow their idolatrous demands. Parsha
’ve taught a weekly parsha class using “Ha’ktav V’hakabbalah,” the commentary of Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenberg. As it doesn’t appear in a typical Chumash, it is less known outside of Chumash scholarship — but the perspective he brings is fascinating and worth the effort of finding the text (available for free at Hebrewbooks. org) and studying at length.
Yiddish speakers will enjoy an additional perk, as he explains some concepts in finer detail with Yiddish expressions.
In Lech Lecha, he noted that the encounter in Egypt, when Sarah was taken by Pharaoh, ended with Pharaoh sending them out of Egypt, with the Torah describing their departure as accompanied by great wealth. Rabbi Mecklenberg
explains, noting that the word “vayhi lo” (and he had) rather than “vayiten lo” (that Pharaoh gave him) the wealth as an indication that Avraham and Sarah left Egypt with the wealth they had brought down to Egypt.
Rabbi Mecklenberg makes the bold claim that Pharaoh did not actually give Avraham any parting gifts — Avraham wouldn’t have accepted them anyway. Pharaoh just let Avraham keep whatever he had brought down to Egypt.
In his lengthy analysis on their descent, Rabbi Mecklenburg makes another bold claim — that Avraham and Sarah’s marriage was designed following Noachide rules.
In those pre-Torah days, as Maimonides points
Avraham and Sarah evolved, growing into their relationship.
out in his Laws of Marriage, all that was needed for a union to be recognized as a marriage was for a man and woman to agree to live together and to consummate their union. Divorce was accomplished through their mutual agreement that the relationship was over. And the idea of remarrying the same person was not problematic, contrary to the verse in the Torah which forbids a reunion if the woman was with a different man in the interim. (Devarim 24:4)
It is interesting that Ha’ktav V’hakbbalah doesn’t make similar claims regarding Avimelekh in Chapter 20. Of course it is much harder to make a claim that Avimelekh did not give them anything, as the verse (20:14) says, “Avimelekh took sheep, cattle, and male and female slaves, and he gave to Avraham. He returned [Avraham’s] wife Sarah to him.”
In 20:11-13, Avraham explains why claiming Sarah as his sister is actually the truth, confirming the idea of Noachide marriage (and divorce) for us.
Rabbi Mecklenburg does not address the
gift-giving at all. Perhaps it is already clear at this point that Avraham is wealthy. Perhaps Avimelekh’s character (flaws as it is) is a little more savory than Pharaoh and King of Sodom, allowing Avraham to be comfortable receiving these gifts. But one gift stands out, in 20:16, when Avimelekh says, “I am giving your ‘brother’ a thousand pieces of silver. Let it be compensation for you.” (Living Torah translation)
The words “ksut einayim,” which Rabbi Kaplan translated as “compensation” are, as Rabbi Kaplan notes in his commentary, “A difficult idiom, literally translated as ‘an eye covering.’ Thus, ‘something to prevent you from seeing any more evil’ (cf. Ibn Ezra; Rashi). Others interpret it as a vindication, something that will cover other people’s eyes and prevent them from seeing wrong (Rashbam).
“Another interpretation is that ‘will cover people’s eyes and prevent them from looking at you wantonly’ (Ramban). Other commentators take it literally, as a veil to show that Sarah was
t heJewishStar.com
Honest Reporting • Torah-True • Kosher and Fat-Free
Published weekly except during certain religious and civil holidays by The Jewish Star LLC New York City office: 5676 Riverdale Ave Suite 311, Bronx NY 10471 • LI office: 2 Endo Blvd, Garden City NY 11530 here’s how to reach t he Jewish Star — Write: Editor@t heJewishStar.com. Call: 516-622-7461 ext 291
Editor & Publisher: Ed Weintrob
516-622-7461 ext 291
Jewish Star Associate: Nechama Bluth, 516-622-7461 ext 241.
Content: The Publisher endeavors to ensure that our content is within the bounds of normative halachah and hashkafah. Anyone who feels anything we publish may be inappropriate in this regard is urged to bring the item in question to the attention of the Publisher.
Advertising is accepted at the sole discretion of the Publisher and should conform to standards appropriate for distribution in an Orthodox community.
Send us your news! Editor@TheJewishStar.com
Advertising: Publisher@TheJewishStar.com
Kashrut: The Jewish Star is not responsible for the kashrut of any product or establishment featured in its pages. If you have questions regarding any establishment or product, including its supervision, please consult your rabbi for guidance.
Submissions: All submissions become the property of The Jewish Star and may be edited and used by the Publisher, its licensees and affiliates, in print, on the web and/or in any media that now exists or will exist in the future in any form, including derivative works, throughout the world in perpetuity,
without additional authorization or compensation. The individual or entity submitting material affirms that it holds the copyright or otherwise has the right to authorize its use in accordance with The Jewish Star’s terms for submissions.
opinions: Views expressed by columnists and other writers do not necessarily reflect the position of the Publisher or of The Jewish Star LLC.
Distribution: The Jewish Star is available free in kosher food establishments, stores, synagogues, and curb-side newsboxes on Long Island, in New York City and elsewhere. To request free delivery to your location, write Publisher@TheJewishStar.com.
Copyright: All content is copyright and may not be republished or otherwise reproduced without written permission by The Jewish Star LLC; to do so without permission is against the law and halacha. For content reproduction write to Publisher@ TheJewishStar.com.
The Jewish Star subscribes to the JNS news service. It, or its contributors, own the copyrights on material attributed to them. The length and content of JNS material and all other submitted material may be edited by The Jewish Star. This newspaper contains words of Torah. While it is not considered shaimos, please dispose of it properly.
Schumer, head down, shows his true colors
Deny though he may, the evidence produced in a House Committee on Education and the Workforce report about antisemitism on college campuses is an appropriate coda to Sen. Chuck Schumer’s career-long attempt to pose as the shomer of Israel in Congress. That he was advising leaders of Columbia University in New York City not to worry too much about criticism of their failures to protect Jewish students because only Republicans cared about the issue is a disgrace.
Still, the gap between Schumer’s public lip service condemning the post-Oct. 7 surge in antisemitism in the United States and what he says in private is indicative of more than his own corrupt mendacity. It demonstrates how badly compromised the supposedly pro-Israel wing of the Democratic Party has become in recent years.
While many in the GOP would agree with Schumer’s assertion about their party being the only one that cares about antisemitism, it really isn’t accurate. Many rank-and-file Democrats, including a solid number of Jews who may be politically liberal but unlike Schumer, are still ardent supporters of the US-Israel alliance, are deeply troubled by the rise of the anti-Israel left-wing of their party.
Senate punts on antisemitism
Still, it was no accident that it was the Republican-controlled House that conducted the only serious hearings and investigation about the plague of antisemitism sweeping across the country in the weeks and months following the Oct. 7 terrorist attacks in southern Israel by Hamas and other Palestinians. Senate Democrats could have easily seized on this issue but given the hostility to Israel from some prominent members of their caucus, Schumer made sure none of the upper body’s committees seriously took it up.
The same is true of Schumer’s decision not to allow a vote in the Senate on the Antisemitism
The behavior of a number of elite universities was actually worse than it was initially reported in the media.
on Oct. 24.
Awareness Act that codified the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of the term into federal law.
That measure overwhelmingly passed the House last May by a 320-91 margin with 21 Republicans and 70 Democrats voting no. But Schumer’s chief worry is about alienating socalled “progressives” in his party who traffic in the hatred of Israel and Jews. That’s why he is carefully avoiding fighting the most prevalent current form of antisemitism, which is focused on the demonization of Israel and its supporters, even though he never tires of claiming that he is the Jewish state’s biggest booster.
For decades, the Senate Majority Leader has used a superficial similarity of his last name with the Hebrew word for “guardian” or “watchdog” to claim that he could be counted on to defend Israel and the Jews. But as President Joe Biden — his longtime Senate buddy — would have put it, that was always a “load of malarkey.”
Schumer has always been, like so many of his fellow politicians, a cynical opportunist rather than a man on a mission to stand up for the interests of his own community.
A vicious partisan who even stooped to personally threatening Supreme Court justices for rendering decisions he opposed, Schumer has had a longtime goal of power, not policy. Whenever he was presented with a test of whether he would stick to the principles he claimed to support and partisan interests, he chose the latter.
That was true when it came to the dangerous 2015 Iran nuclear deal (which he technically opposed while pledging not to try to influence anyone else to join him in voting “no,” render-
ing his stand meaningless). And it was equally true when he bashed Israel’s government in the middle of a war for its survival.
Advising Columbia
As damning as those examples were, the text messages from former Columbia University president Minouche Shafik to her board members about the advice given to her by Schumer is the sort of betrayal that should put an end to his pretensions about being someone who gives a damn about antisemitism or the welfare of Jewish students. By telling her that Columbia’s leaders should merely “keep [their] heads down,” Schumer showed his true colors.
According to Shafik, they should merely wait for the storm over the rampant Jew-hatred occurring on campus to pass because of their tolerance for pro-Hamas protesters intimidating Jewish students. The reason for this was even more troubling. The advice relayed to Columbia board members David Greenwald and Claire Shipman was that they needn’t worry too much because the school’s “political problems are really only with Republicans.”
Schumer’s office has denied the evidence produced by the House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce, chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC), calling it “hearsay.”
But it’s highly unlikely that Shafik would have lied about her conversations with Schumer in private communications with her board that were subsequently subpoenaed by the committee.
The revelation about Schumer’s contemptible indifference to the treatment of Jewish students as well as Columbia University’s institutional failure to do something about the way its Hamas-
supporting students and faculty members were turning the Morningside Heights campus into a no-go zone for Jews made headlines. But the House 325-page House report is a compendium of many other outrageous examples of how some of our elite universities betrayed their principles and their students after Oct. 7.
The committee behind the report is chiefly remembered for its hearing last December, during which the presidents of Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Pennsylvania responded to a question from Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) about whether advocacy for genocide of Jews violates the rules of their schools.
Each answered that “it depended on “the context,” which demonstrated that, like Schumer, they were more worried about being attacked by the intersectional antisemitic left for opposing antisemitism than they were about their willingness to give Jew-hatred a pass.
Everyone knows that advocacy for prejudice against other minorities, like African-Americans, would cause the full weight of the power of these schools to come down on the heads of anyone who advocated for, say, the lynchings of black Americans — the way the pro-Hamas mobs did for the killing of Jews and Israelis.
The committee’s report reveals how the behavior of a number of elite universities was actually worse than it was initially reported in the media. And it makes an ironclad case that their actions were clearly in violation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which prohibits federally-funded institutions from engaging in discriminatory behavior.
The report is important in its own right. But it begs the question as to why the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division, rather than the largely powerless and ineffective Department of Education, isn’t addressing the issue of antisemitism in our education system.
The answer is that the current regime at the DOJ is much more interested in enforcing the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) that is primarily responsible for enabling exactly the sort of outrages that are detailed in the House report. What is needed is a change in federal policy that will produce a DOJ that is interested in rolling back the widespread discrimination produced by DEI rather than supporting it.
Antisemitism shouldn’t be a partisan issue. There are still Democrats like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) who provided the country with a profile in courage when it comes to standing up for Israel and against the woke antisemites in Congress. And though they haven’t demonstrated the kind of influence that the radicals of the House “Squad” wield over the Democratic Party, there are Jew-haters on the right, like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson, who deserve close scrutiny and condemnation.
JonAthAn S. tobin
JnS Editor-in-Chief
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer participates in the New York Liberty Ticker Tape Victory Parade & Rally
Sarah Stier, Getty Images
Amos Schocken’s lies and Bill Clinton’s truths
Two speeches last week are worthy of note for the widespread surprise they elicited, causing each to go viral within minutes of their delivery.
The first was delivered last Sunday by the publisher of the Haaretz newspaper, Israel’s equivalent to the New York Times in terms of its increasingly radical content — no longer even disguised as journalistically objective — and shrinking, self-anointed elitist readership.
At a Haaretz-organized conference in London featuring Israeli and British politicians, academics and media figures, Amos Schocken let his lies about the Jewish state rip. Given the bent of the periodical he proudly uses to promote a far-left agenda, the brouhaha his remarks sparked at home — with government ministries canceling their subscriptions to the periodical — was both a bit peculiar and long overdue.
Apparently, the fact that his professed “Zionism” wouldn’t extend to telling the truth about his country during an Iran-backed, multi-front war aimed at wiping it off the map constituted the crossing of a line.
Not that his pandering to antisemites gave him a pass with the protesters gathered outside the venue of the event, titled “Israel After October 7th: Allied or Alone?” On the contrary, Schocken’s being on their side made no difference. To them, he was just another Israeli Jew deserving of their hatred.
It’s the same tragic irony that befell assimilated Jews in Europe, who weren’t spared the gas chambers. Ditto for the members of the
kibbutzim in southern Israel who sought and worked for peace with their neighbors. Their political support for and actual assistance to Gazans didn’t protect them from the enmity that was unleashed in full horrific force on that fateful Simchat Torah holiday.
Nevertheless, Schocken wasn’t deterred from spewing his vitriol.
“[T]he Netanyahu government wants to continue and intensify illegal settlement in the territories that were meant for a Palestinian state,” he stated. “It doesn’t care about imposing a cruel apartheid regime upon the Palestinian population. It dismisses the costs of both sides for defending the settlements, while fighting the Palestinian freedom fighters that Israel calls terrorists.”
Apartheid regime. Freedom fighters that Is-
rael calls terrorists. Wow.
“The only recourse with such a disastrous government is to ask other countries to bring pressure to bear, as they did in order to end apartheid in South Africa,” he continued. “In December 2016, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2334, which states that territory cannot be acquired by force; opposes settlementbuilding, including co-called ‘natural growth’ of settlements; and stipulates the dismantling of all settlements built since March 2001, within the framework of the two democratic states living in peace, side by side, within recognized borders.”
He went on to assert, “Subsequent Israeli governments completely ignored this resolution and acted as though it didn’t exist. Not only did they continue building settlements, but the present government also supports the ethnic cleansing of Palestinians from parts of the occupied territories. In a sense, what is taking place now in the occupied territories and in part of Gaza is a second Nakba.”
When all hell broke loose over Schocken’s mendacious depiction of an Israel that only exists in the minds of those who wish to see it disappear, he issued a clarification.
“I’ve reconsidered what I said,” he announced on Thursday. “There are many freedom fighters in the world and through history, perhaps also on the path to the establishment of the State of Israel, who carried out shocking and dreadful terrorist activities and harmed innocent people in order to achieve their goals. I should have said, ‘Freedom fighters who also use terrorist methods and need to be fought against.’ The use of terrorism is not legitimate.”
The implication was obvious: Jews also employed evil methods to achieve statehood. Whatever neat trick he thought he was pulling flopped at generating sympathy, let alone applause.
Which brings us to the second speech, that
also had a jaw-dropping effect, but for the opposite reason. This one was delivered by former President Bill Clinton.
At a rally on Wednesday for Kamala Harris in the swing state of Michigan, Clinton set the record straight about the Palestinians’ attitude to the Jewish state.
Though opening with a call for a re-start of the “peace process,” he acknowledged the culprit behind its repeated failure.
“I understand why young Palestinian and Arab Americans in Michigan think too many people have died,” he began. “But if you lived in one of those kibbutzim in Israel, right next to Gaza, where the people there were the most pro-friendship with Palestine — the most protwo-state-solution of any of the Israeli communi-
Blum on page 22
What cowardly Matt Baldacci did, other do too
Like many Jews of my generation, born during a period when antisemitism was largely depicted as a historical phenomenon and any manifestations were seen as an unfortunate aberration, I would occasionally wonder how the non-Jews in my midst would have behaved during the Holocaust. Would they have stood up to the Nazis, acquiesced to them or even supported them? Would they have expressed disgust at Nazi propaganda or dutifully nodded in agreement? Would they have protected me and my family from deportation, or would they have betrayed us?
Those were, I mused, speculative thought experiments that, thankfully, I would never have to test in the real world. But in 2024, one year after the bestial pogrom wreaked by Hamas terrorists in southern Israel, those same questions belong firmly in the real world. And my suspicion is that many, indeed most, non-Jews would fail these tests of moral and physical courage.
Earlier this month, Melanie Notkin, an author and communications consultant, had the foresight to record a conversation she held with Matt Baldacci, the publisher of Shelf Awareness, a trade title for the bookstore and publishing industry that reaches more than 600,000 readers weekly. Notkin had been helping to promote “Israel Alone,” the latest book by the French philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy, which I recently reviewed for this column, and purchased an ad in Baldacci’s newsletter for $2,300. But then Baldacci sent her an email informing her that he was canceling the ad, so Notkin scheduled a phone call with him to find out more. Their conversation was endlessly fascinating and incredibly disturbing. As he told Notkin that
the ad had been pulled because the book contains the word “Israel” in the title — potentially triggering bookstore staff or customers with what he would call “pro-Palestinian” but what we properly call pro-Hamas sympathies — Baldacci traversed the spectrum of vocal tones with aplomb, sounding by turns friendly, then unctuous, then impatient, then irritated.
At one point, he even indulged in a bit of “mansplaining,” telling Notkin “that’s not actually true or relevant” when she noted that the CEO of his company is Jewish.
“Listen, Melanie, Melanie, I hear you,” he interjected, sounding determined to end the conversation as quickly as possible. “I respect everything you’re saying. And as you say, I think that’s all there is to say.”
I don’t know Notkin, but I admired her dignity in carefully listening to Baldacci and eloquently pushing back against his cloying, disingenuous arguments. I don’t know Baldacci either, at least not personally, but I know his type very well.
It’s probably true that most of those who collaborated with the Nazis in Germany and occupied Europe did not do so primarily
for ideological reasons but because resistance would have made their daily lives much tougher. I was always taught not to judge these people for not doing the right thing because they feared imprisonment or death, after all.
And in the postwar period, there was a discreet acknowledgement among the occupied populations that this had been the case and that history had been kinder to them than was perhaps warranted; in the Netherlands, for example, people would joke that “most Dutch were in the resistance — they just joined after the war.”
But that explanation doesn’t serve for someone like Baldacci, who exhibits the telltale traits of a collaborator without the specter of a totalitarian state operating concentration camps hanging over him.
Baldacci is a coward: Someone who, when faced with injustice or rank hypocrisy, rationalizes it and plays its worst aspects down. Someone who doesn’t like to rock the boat. In other words, he is the perfect fit for a collaborator.
And so we are forced to ask: If America was suddenly in the grip of totalitarianism, if we
had a government that was rounding up Jews in a bid to stop the Jewish conspiracy, if we had a government that criminalized the word “Israel” — a word that is always in the consciousness of Jews and their aspirations and prayers — what would Baldacci do? I know the answer, and I expect readers do, too.
It is the Matt Baldaccis of this world — women and men who are followers and not leaders, who consent to antisemitic agitation without explicitly endorsing it, who stay silent when they need to speak up — who have enabled the current wave of eliminationist antisemitism gripping our country and much of the Western world.
Their simpering silence and pathetic fear of angering the mob are precisely what empowers the thugs who shoot at Jews going to synagogue in Chicago or at a Jewish school in Toronto, who gather outside a London conference where the Arab head of the anti-Zionist Communist Party of Israel is speaking to verbally abuse the peace activist Jews in attendance, who push petitions seeking to banish Jews from the worlds of literature, art and music — fields of endeavor that would be indelibly poorer without our contribution!
It is the Matt Baldaccis who have forced Jews, myself among them, to ask whether we grew up in some kind of an illusion, given the routine normalcy with which we historically interacted with non-Jewish friends and colleagues. Because if such people can’t stand up for a Jewish writer like Lévy in a democracy where free speech is part of our national ethos, how should we expect them to behave if the stakes and the costs are much graver?
If their fear of the disapproval of the proHamas media and street chorus is so great now, how much greater would it be if this chorus exercised direct political control of our republic?
I hope we never have to find out.
Ben Cohen is a senior analyst with the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. To reach him, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
German American Bund parade in New York City on East 86th Street between First and Second Avenues, Oct. 30, 1937. NY World-Telegram and Sun Newspaper Photograph Collection via WikiCommons
Former President Bill Clinton, campaigning for Vice President Kamala Harris in Muskegon Heights, Michigan, defends Israel. YouTube
Haaretz Publisher Amos Schocken, who savaged Israel during an appearance in London. File photo by Ido Kenan, WikiCommons
See
Ruthie BluM
GlOBAl FOCuS BeN COheN
Let’s consider Jabotinsky’s other ‘Iron Wall’
This week a century and one year ago, Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s article “The Iron Wall” was published in the Russian-language weekly, Razsvet, in Berlin. So famous has it become that last month, the New York Times highlighted its influence on Israel’s security doctrine, observing on Oct. 18 that “the Zionist leader Ze’ev Jabotinsky articulated an idea that has come to define the way Israelis protect their country.”
Moreover, pro-Arab propagandists quote from it to justify their claims. For them, it confirms that there exists a “Palestinian people” and that Zionism was indeed a “colonization project.”
However, a second part of that essay appeared the following week, on Nov. 11. It was titled “The Ethics of the Iron Wall.” In it, Jabotinsky zeros in not on the need for an impenetrable barrier that would provide security from Arab aggression, but on the justness of his political solution within the future Jewish state and his ideas on accommodating the Arab minority.
In doing so, Jabotinsky pens political, social and moral wisdoms that serve us well not only today but in many varied situations.
For Jabotinsky, the fundamental approach is that of the Helsingfors Program, which was formulated in 1906. What he envisioned for the Arabs was what he demanded that Russia adopt for its Jews. That included status as a national minority to provide the Arabs in the reconstituted Jewish state with cultural, material and political means for a sound national life. Israel-to-be was envisaged as a liberalized, democratic country with autonomous rights for its non-Jews, who would exercise their political rights as well as cultural, educational and even administrative autonomy.
He later expanded and detailed his outlook in 1940 as part of his last book, “The War and the Jew,” in the “Arab Angle Undramatized” chapter. Yet for Jabotinsky, the responsibility
for an equitable outcome, for both Jews and Arabs, rested with the latter: “Even if they [the Arabs] believed in good-neighborly coexistence, the first and main question remains: do they want to have ‘neighbors,’ even good ones, within the country they consider their own.”
Jabotinsky was not one to disallow Arabs any agency or release them from a commitment to share in the formation of a state that sought to grant a minority the fullest of rights without disregarding the conflict in the background. After all, murderous riots had already taken place in 1920 and 1921 in Jerusalem and Jaffa.
He then turned his attention to Jews overexcited to placate the Arabs to the extent that they would be endangering the Zionist project. He wrote:
The political naivety of the Jew is fabulous and incredible: he does not understand the simple rule that one should never ‘go to meet’ someone who does not want to go to meet you
He provided an example:
Jewish publicists and politicians, even nationalists, considered it their duty to support the autonomous aspirations of their enemies in every way: for, you see, autonomy is a sacred thing … we consider it our duty, as soon as we hear the “Marseillaise,” to freeze at attention and shout hurray even if this melody was played by Haman himself and Jewish bones were cracking in his barrel organ. We consider this to be political morality. This is not morality, but depravity. Human society is built on reciprocity: take away reciprocity, and the right becomes a lie.
He added in a somber, if not depressive tone: The world must be a world of mutual responsibility. If we live, then everyone does so equally. And if we die, then everyone will so equally. There are no ethics according to which the greedy are supposed to eat their fill, and the modest to perish under a fence.
He considered the tendency to agree to concessions by his rival, Chaim Weizmann, to be “particularly sad.” For Jabotinsky: The scope of concessions to Arab nationalism that we can agree to without killing Zionism is extremely modest. We cannot give up the desire for a Jewish majority, we cannot allow Arab su-
pervision of our immigration, we cannot allow a parliament with an Arab majority, and we will never join any Arab federation.
In today’s atmosphere of the cries to eliminate Zionism, to boycott Israel, to hound it and its supporters out of academic, cultural and diplomatic forums, Jabotinsky’s final summation of more than a century ago is remarkable: If there is a landless people in the world [the Jews], for them even the dream of a national home is an immoral dream. The landless must remain landless forever; all the land in the world has already been distributed, and that is the end. This is what “ethics” demands. In our case, this ethic “looks” especially curious … when homeless Jewry demands Palestine for itself, this turns out to be “immoral,” because the natives find this inconvenient for themselves.
Such ethics belong among cannibals, not in the civilized world. The land does not belong to those who have too much of it, but to those who
have none. … Truth, carried out by force, does not cease to be the sacred truth. This is the only objectively possible Arab policy for us. There will be time to talk about an agreement later.
Jabotinsky then ends with a philosophical “Iron Wall”:
All sorts of catchwords are used against Zionism. People invoke Democracy, majority rule, national self-determination … the Arabs being at present the majority in Palestine, have the right of self-determination, and may therefore insist that Palestine must remain an Arab country. Democracy and self-determination are sacred principles, but sacred principles like the Name of the L-rd must not be used in vain, to bolster up a swindle, to conceal injustice.
The principle of self-determination does not mean that if someone has seized a stretch of land, it must remain in his possession for all time, and that he who was forcibly ejected from his land
Zionism, Palestinian nationalism, not the same
Recent discussions and debates have claimed that Zionism and Palestinian nationalism are two sides of a coin, with much in common as national movements that seek self-determination for their people. While at face value this argument seems to have merit, the two couldn’t be more different.
Modern political Zionism started in the early 1800s and came into its own in the late 1800s as Theodor Herzl, a journalist and activist, began earnest efforts to achieve the goal of Zionism — the establishment of a modern State of Israel in the Land of Israel. Herzl was primarily driven by rising antisemitism in Europe and knew that the Jews needed a state with open doors that could provide refuge for Jewish escapees or evictees.
Zionism, however, didn’t just grow out of a need for refuge from antisemitic persecution, since the Jewish people have a religious, historic, legal and moral right to settle and govern the Land of Israel.
Palestinians never governed the land they claim to be their homeland. They aren’t indigenous to the land. They can’t point to a wellspring of advocacy or leaders who have led a Palestinian nationalist movement that predates Zionism.
Two people are sometimes credited with founding Palestinian nationalism:
•Mufti of Jerusalem Amin al-Husseini (well known for partnering with Hitler during the
Holocaust and who was a supporter of the Arab Kingdom of Syria’s rule over Palestine) who only began advocating for Palestinian nationalism as a response to Zionism.
•PLO leader Yasser Arafat (well known for his terrorism) who was, himself, an Egyptian.
Modern political Zionism is unique in that its values are ancient. The axiom that the Jewish people deserve to live in and govern the Land of Israel comes from the Jewish people’s 4,000-year connection to the land. For the last 3,000 years, there has been a continuous Jewish presence in the Land of Israel.
This is in contrast to the Palestinians whose ancestors, the Arab people, arrived in the Land of Israel, then renamed by the Romans as Palestine, 1,300 years ago.
The largest influx of Arabs into the Land of Israel actually occurred after Jewish Zionists began their return to the land in the late 1800s. Zionist investment and infrastructure improvements encouraged poor Arabs from surrounding lands to immigrate to Palestine. So, while Zionism is the modern fight for an ancient longing, Palestinian nationalism only began recently and arguably only as a response to Zionism.
Another significant difference between the two is that Zionism’s foundation is based on democratic values, peace and sharing the land with others. Juxtapose Zionist values with the values of the Palestinian nationalist movement, which is based on exclusivity to the land and the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state, and the contrast is obvious.
Even when Palestinians have spoken of agreeing to an Israeli state, they don’t acknowledge it as a Jewish state, arousing suspicion that their
true intention isn’t to allow for a Zionist and Jewish state, but a democratic state they can win over through demographically challenging the Jewish nature of the State of Israel.
Zionism began as a peaceful movement that reached out to its opponents and enemies. Israel’s declaration of independence calls for peace with Arabs inside and outside of Israel’s borders.
Palestinian nationalism has proven to be an intolerant movement set on a violent culture.
For peace to overtake battle, there must be a meeting of the two nationalist movements to
end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For that to happen, the hateful nature of the Palestinian nationalist movement must change. Until it begins to transform into a more Zionist-like movement that inspires tolerance and acceptance, there will never be peace between the two peoples, and Palestinian nationalists will never achieve their goal of an independent state.
Rabbi Uri Pilichowski is the author of three books and teaches Torah, Zionism and Israel studies. To reach him, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
A 1919 testimonial to Ze’ev Jabotinsky by men of 38th battalion of the Royal Fusiliers. WikiCommons
See Medad on page 22
Chalutzim, Israel’s early pioneers.
A daughter’s loss. A memory that lives forever.
stephen M. Flatow
Doesn’t it seem like yesterday when your first child was born? To me, it does, and decades later, you recall the excitement that had been building as the “due date” approached. Lamaze birth classes are attended, a “go bag” in anticipation of the onset of serious labor is prepared, you might even practice driving to the hospital, the mother-to-be buys a neutral color layette of onesies, blankets, booties and caps because there were no “gender reveal” parties in those days.
During dinner, your wife tells you what the doctor said during that day’s visit: “You’re not there yet. It will be another week before you go into labor.” Two hours later, she announces: “We have to go to the hospital.” You get the go bag and say to yourself, “I hope the Oreo cookies are
still in there,” and follow the route to the hospital that you practiced the day before. When you arrive, a nurse matter-of-factly takes the soon-to-be-mother’s necessary information, and you’re escorted to a drab labor room. The doctor arrives before you even have a chance to check on the Oreos, does an exam and proclaims “any minute now.” Your wife, with your help, is doing her breathing routine through labor pains.
A nurse asks if I want to go to the delivery room (in the 1970s that was considered cutting edge), hands me a pair of scrubs to wear and escorts me to the delivery room, where I stand by the side out of the way. The doctor and mother go to work. You hear the first cries of a newborn and the doctor announces: “It’s a girl!” Then she’s whisked off to the nursery. You head to the nursery, where a nurse holds up your daughter, who we would name Alisa, behind the thick glass of the nursey so you can see her and take a photo.
Isee Alisa’s birth in my mind’s eye as clearly as another event that took place less than 21 years later. That was when I held her hand after she succumbed to a wound she suffered in
a terror attack in 1995.
On what would have been Alisa’s 50th birthday this week, I, her mother, sisters and brother will pause and spend a few minutes looking back.
We’ll remember how Alisa’s life, though brief, left a profound legacy of resilience, compassion and commitment to faith. We’ll recall that at the age of 4, she told her parents that she was not going to the public school around the corner from their home in West Orange, but to “a Jewish school where Becky,” a fellow student at her nursery school, “is going.” We enrolled her, and Alisa, like the proverbial duck takes to water, took her education to heart.
Alisa developed a love not only of Judaism but the State of Israel. Taking her first trip with an aunt when she was 11, her last trip at the age of 20 was her sixth.
That final trip, which began in December 1994, would allow her to immerse herself in Jewish studies at Nishmat in Jerusalem. It also allowed her to live in an apartment with four young women like herself and gave her the time
to run daily, join a gym, and to, in the words of Nishmat’s dean Rabbanit Chana Henkin, “sneak off to daven at the Kotel.”
Looking back, I believe Alisa’s dedication to her faith was a central part of her character and guided many of her life decisions. This dedication illustrates an important lesson: that one’s faith and culture are not mere background details but are essential parts of an individual’s journey towards personal growth. Whenever Alisa and her siblings would return from a trip to Israel, I noticed that they came back not just as better Jews but as better people. With this thought in mind, the Alisa Flatow Memorial Scholarship Fund was created to afford others the opportunity to seek their own roots and to understand their personal values deeply through study in Israel.
Today, almost 30 years after her murder, friends remember Alisa as warm and caring, with an openness and compassion that resonated with everyone she encountered. Known for always having a smile on her face,
Celebrating Simchat Torah with special mantles
As we celebrated Simchat Torah this year, how could we not think about the oneyear anniversary of Oct. 7 and the days that followed.
During hakafot in the Young Israel of Woodmere, I noticed three special Torah covers — white with a blue magen david, like the Israeli flag — bearing dedications, in Hebrew, to individuals killed on and after Oct. 7.
The Simchat Torah Project — subtitled “dancing through tears” — was organized by Mizrachi, a global religious Zionist organization. It created touching connections and memorials to the tragedies of Oct. 7, provided participating communities with Torah covers dedicated to a victim of the terror attack or to a member of the IDF killed in the year since.
Participating in the project were 525 Jewish communities in 287 cities in 31 countries, the project reported.
The YIW Torah covers were dedicated in memory of Sergeant Major Aviad Gad Cohen (killed in October 2023), security guard Salomon Iliaguev (killed in October 2023) and Master Sergeant Zechariah Pesach Haber (killed in January 2024). Rabbi Shalom Axelrod spoke about the significance of the Torah covers in their new home.
HANC High School in Uniondale participated as part of a pre-Simchat Torah celebration. Their Torah cover was gifted to them by Ariel and Shelley Serber, in memory of Major Dvir David ben Fima who was killed in battle in December 2023. Students and staff took turns to hold and admire the Torah with its new mantle cover. As Rabbi Eli Slomnicki, the menahel, spoke of the significance of the new cover, students focused on honoring both Dvir’s memory and the spirit of
renewal that Simchat Torah represents.
“It was yet another moment of synthesizing dual-emotions while experiencing Jewish pride, ahavas haTorah and a sense of peoplehood,” said Rabbi Slomnicki. “These are the moments that animate a yeshiva education.”
It is still hard to come to terms with the fact that we still have as many as 101 hostages waiting to come home. And we continue to think about all of the soldiers we have lost since Oct. 7.
As we do every year, we were celebrating Simchat Torah last year when we heard the horrific news about what had taken place in Israel. This year, as we celebrated again, the special Torah covers helped remind us of the individuals lost and allowed us to celebrate their lives lived.
Discovering Isaiah’s message for the hostages
Since this horrific war began, communities began reciting Tehillim regularly. This was done both as a prayer to Hashem and to give us much needed comfort and chizuk
Yet many of us have been reciting daily Tehillim for years. While there are several different approaches to completing the full 150 chapters (kapitlach), I choose to recite the allotted daily portions to complete the entire book in 30 days. Following the completion, it is customary to recite two prayers-one on behalf of completing the Tehillim order and another on behalf of the sick.
While reciting the first prayer, I was struck by its powerful words where I, as a supplicant, beseech Hashem to grant us all, as a people, for-
giveness for our sins, return us to complete Torah observance, followed by a litany of requests, including opening our hearts to Torah study, granting us healing from illness, prosperity, etc. The list is exhaustive, conveying a full spectrum, from the mundane to the divine.
In my now seemingly perpetual post Oct. 7 state, one particular request resounded with urgency: “V’tikra Lishvuyim dror, v’la-asurim pekach ko-ach (And You shall proclaim freedom for captives and release from bondage for the imprisoned).”
Though I have recited this monthly prayer probably more than 300 times over the last 30 years, I never noticed this request to free the shvuyim (captives, hostages) until now. I guess it got lost in the shuffle among the rather lengthy litany of requests to G-d, sandwiched between “asking Him to send a refua shelaima to the sick of Your people” and asking for an “uneventful journey for those of Your people who cross roads, seas, and rivers.”
Intrigued by the directness of the request to G-d to free the hostages, and the complexity of the language, I knew I had to investigate further. Luckily my ArtScroll siddur provided a footnote, from Isaiah, 61:1.
Chapter 61 of Isaiah is very short, only nine verses, sandwiched between two more famous Isaiah chapters (chapter 60, which is the haftarah for Parshat Ki-Tavo, and chapter 62, which is the haftarah for Parshat Nitzavim, both part of the seven haftarot of consolation that follow Tisha B’Av.
A quick examination of chapter 61 shows that it too is one of great consolation, yet it seems that it is almost intentionally skipped over, not chosen to be the final haftarah of consolation. In fact, it’s not a haftarah for any Torah portion, and therefore is much less well-known than the chapters of Isaiah that precede it and follow it.
And yet, it is the source of our request in the prayer following Tehillim, asking for freedom for hostages. Why is this so?
Acloser reading of this brief chapter provides an answer. I will not reproduce all nine verses here, but I strongly recommend readers pull out their Tanach and read the chapter themselves, preferably in the Hebrew (but even in English, the message is astounding). I will present the most relevant verses here with brief commentary.
Verse 1: Hashem “sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim freedom for captives and release from bondage for the imprisoned.”
As mentioned in a previous column, the Kotzker Rebbe famously commented that “nothing is so dear to Hashem as a broken heart,” basing it on the verse from Tehillim 147:3, “He heals the brokenhearted and binds up their sorrows.” Here the prophet Isaiah is directly relaying the word of Hashem that the “binding up of the brokenhearted” is intimately tied to the declaration of freedom for the captives.
Verse 2: “To proclaim a year of favor unto
Students at HANC High School dance with a Torah on whose mantle is the name of a victim of Oct. 7 terror, at a pre-Simchat Torah celebration. HANC
Three Torah mantles in the Young Israel of Woodmere dedicated to individuals lost in the war that began on Oct. 7, 2023. YIW
Sacks… Freedman…
Continued from page 16
ship with G-d. Instead they talked about their relationship with other Jews. That too is a way of forgetting who we are and why.
To be a Jew is to be one of G-d’s ambassadors to the world, for the sake of being a blessing to the world, and that necessarily means engaging with the world, acting in such a way as to inspire others as Abraham and Joseph inspired their contemporaries.
That is the challenge to which Abraham was summoned at the beginning of this week’s Parsha. It remains our challenge today.
Weinreb…
Continued from page 17
ute the flour as an offering to one of the idols on her behalf. She departed.
Avram then grasped a sledgehammer and smashed all the idols except for the largest one to smithereens. He then placed the hammer in the hands of the intact largest idol.
Father Terach then returned and exclaimed to Avram, “What is all this wreckage?” To which Avram responded, “You see, dear father, this woman came into the shop with a flour offering for the idols. Immediately each idol protested and demanded the entire offering for itself. So, the largest idol grasped the hammer it is now holding and smashed all the others to bits.”
Terach was incredulous. “Stop mocking me, Avram,” he retorted. “You darn well know that these idols are dumb, deaf, and powerless!” To which Avram retorted, “May your ears take note of what your mouth just admitted!”
Terach then surrendered Avram to … NIMROD!
The Midrash continues to report upon the great theological debate between Nimrod and Avram, during which the former tries to convince the latter to accept his idol, namely a fiery furnace. Avram naturally refuses and is thrown into the furnace. His brother Haran, standing by, is conflicted and hedges his bets. He says to himself, “If Avram is consumed by the flames, I’ll side with Nimrod. If Avram emerges unscathed by the flames, I’ll side with Avram.” Avram emerges unharmed by the fire. Nimrod then orders Haran to worship the furnace or be tossed into it. Haran, siding now with Avram, refuses and is immediately cast into the furnace but is denied the divine miracle that saved Avram and dies in the fire.
That is the gist of the Midrashic passage, a story which many of us, including myself, first heard from our kindergarten teachers. It took me until the fourth grade, as I recall, before it occurred to me to ask my teacher why such an important narrative, which explains so much about Avram’s personal growth, faith, and courage, is omitted from the biblical text — a question for which I’ve yet to find a satisfactory answer, and challenge you, dear reader, to ask yourselves.
We do take away from this Midrash a number of important conclusions about the development of religious belief and about good versus evil.
We learn that Avram came to the idea of monotheism on his own, in part through careful observation of the folly of idolatry. It is because of his self-initiated search for truth that he drew close enough to the Almighty to gain access to His favor and direction.
We learn again about the extremes of which tyrants are capable, which include the annihilation of those of their constituents who do not comply with their idolatrous demands.
We learn of the futility, exemplified by Haran, of an ambivalent wishy-washy faith commitment, of betting on the “winner” in the contest between belief systems.
As always, we have only just begun our search for the full story of the Nimrods of the world and of our forefather’s “missing years” and ultimate transition from Avram to Avraham, the “father of many nations.”
Stay tuned, and with the L-rd’s help we will encounter a fully grown Avraham and a different kind of enemy, in next week’s torah portion, Vayera.
Continued from page 17
their relationship, it’s always worth trying to make the marriage work. But there is also wisdom in knowing when the marriage needs to end, even if only because the children are getting hurt and deserve better.
If a society is teaching their children to emulate suicide bombers; if people are dancing on rooftops because missiles are raining down on civilians and partying in the streets because the twin Towers collapsed, then there is just no-one to talk to.
And while we dream of creating a world where all peoples live together in peace; our challenge is to make sure we are happy with that peaceful world we create.
And for our children’s sakes, maybe it’s time to take a pause, or at least a separation, until we have a partner who is ready to do the work.
There will, please G-d, come a time we can sit with our Arab cousins in peace, but it seems we are just not there yet.
Rabbi Freedman is rosh yeshiva at Yeshivat Orayta in Jerusalem. To reach him, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
Billet…
Continued from page 17
a properly married woman (HaKethav VeHaKabbalah). Still other sources translate eynayim as ‘colors’ rather than ‘eyes,’ and render the phrase, ‘let be used to buy you a colorful cloak’ (Radak). Finally, some make the subject of the phrase Abraham: ‘ shall be for you as an eye-covering,’ however the latter expression is translated (Ibn Ezra).”
While Rabbi Kaplan was clearly aware of the K’tav V’Hakabbalah, in his miniscule reference here he doesn’t do justice to the length of the exposition on this verse. Making references to Middle Eastern cultures which routinely had women covering their faces, to preserve their beauty for their husbands (culturally a different outlook than that of the West), Rabbi Mecklenburg wonders how Avraham and Sarah went about preserving or rejecting the face-covering custom. More so, he talks about how Avraham is the “eye covering,” protecting her and others from sinning due to her beauty.
Regarding the money, Rabbi Mecklenburg argues that it wasn’t really given, that Avimelekh had intended to give it to Avraham as a gift for the fine bride Avimelekh had taken from her brother. But that never came about, so the dowry was never given.
Like everyone, Avraham and Sarah evolved. They grew into their relationship, how they dealt with outsiders, and developed a trust of one another that, to a certain degree, is beyond our comprehension. How would any of us deal with a potentate who takes women at his will, and kills husbands to unchain the women (let the irony of justifying murder to avoid adultery not go unnoticed)?
Hopefully these are not challenges we come face to face with. But may all marriages be blessed to be built on understanding and trust, so challenges and hurdles can be overcome together, and not a cause for making a marriage fall apart.
Avi Billet, who grew up in the Five Towns, is a South Florida-based mohel and rabbi of Anshei Chesed Congregation in Boynton Beach. This column was previously published. To reach Rabbi Billet, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
Blum…
Continued from page 19
ties were the ones right next to Gaza, and Hamas butchered them.”
He continued:
The people who criticize [Israel’s response] are essentially saying, “Yeah, but look how many people you’ve killed in retaliation. How many is
enough for you to kill to punish them for the terrible things they did?”
That all sounds nice until you realize what you would do if it was your family and you hadn’t done anything but support a homeland for the Palestinians, and one day they come for you and slaughter the people in your village. You would say, “You have to forgive me, but I’m not keeping score that way.”
It isn’t how many we’ve had to kill because Hamas makes sure that they’re shielded by civilians. They’ll force you to kill civilians if you want to defend yourself.
Invoking the authority born of having hosted the 2000 Camp David Summit to forge a treaty that would result in the creation of an independent Palestinian state, Clinton admitted, “Look, I worked on this hard. And the only time [PLO chief] Yasser Arafat didn’t tell me the truth was when he promised me he was going to accept the peace deal that we had worked out, which would have given the Palestinians a state on 96% of the West Bank and 4% of Israel — and they got to choose where the 4% of Israel was. So they would have the effect of the same land of all the West Bank. They’d have a capital in east Jerusalem.”
Pausing to express sadness mixed with frustration, he interjected, “I can hardly talk about this.”
He proceeded to spell out the reality of the situation, emphasizing the details: They [the Palestinians] would have equal access, all day, every day, to the security towers that Israel maintained all through the West Bank up to the Golan Heights. All this was offered, including — I will say it again — a capital in east Jerusalem and two of the four quadrants of the Old City of Jerusalem, confirmed by the Israeli prime minister, Ehud Barak, and his Cabinet.
And [the Palestinians] said no. I think part of it is that Hamas did not care about a homeland for the Palestinians. They wanted to kill Israelis and make Israel uninhabitable.
Well, he declared, “I’ve got news for them. [The Jews] were there first. Before their faith [Islam] existed, [Jews] were there, in the time of King David, and the southernmost tribes had Judea and Samaria.”
[View the video of President Clinton’s talk at https://bit.ly/3UCNvN9]
He concluded by explaining why destroying Israel isn’t in the interest of either the Palestinians or of the Americans who support them. Whether his argument persuaded some undecideds remains to be seen. It’s hard to imagine the “From the River to the Sea” crowd accepting his historically accurate account.
Were Schocken and his subversive bubble of Haaretz-reading followers to get their noses out of the air and hang their heads in humility, if not shame, they might understand why the Israeli peace camp has been evaporating over the years, until basically disappearing on Oct. 7, 2023.
Ruthie Blum, a former adviser at the office of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, is a senior contributing editor at JNS. To her, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
Medad…
Continued from page 20
must always remain homeless
This 1923 article rounds out Jabotinsky’s thinking on what has turned out today to be the most basic challenge facing Israel and its defenders, which is the moral right of Jews to return to their homeland despite it being occupied by Arabs. His insight and analysis all remain applicable and, I would insist, appropriate even after the passing of 101 years.
Whereas in his first section the main, but not only, issue is the external security threat, this second section outlines an internal manageable relationship between Jews and Arabs.
Realizing that a century on, Zionism’s opponents have not changed may be desponding. Still, Jabotinsky’s approach — in its assertiveness and forthrightness — still provides an uplifting antidote to the current onslaughts on the right of Jews to our national identity and statehood.
Yisrael Medad is an American-born Israeli journalist and political commentator. To reach him, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
Continued from page 21
she had a unique way of making others feel seen and valued.
Her final gift came when her organs were donated following her death. Three lives were saved and, importantly, that act reinvigorated organ donation in Israel, which had become moribund. With four girls in our family now named after her, Alisa lives on. Each of her nieces and nephews attend or attended “a Jewish school,” and they have been developing their own religious awareness. Watching them grow into upright and proud Jews is a blessing. Today, when a grandchild’s religious observance causes me to shake my head in wonderment as to where that came from, the parents tell me “to blame Alisa,” but it’s all good in the end, and I smile from ear to ear.
Alisa’s short life teaches us that a legacy of empathy, kindness and commitment can spread outward long after a life is cut short. Her story underscores that while we cannot always control our circumstances, we can shape our impact through how we respond to hardship. Alisa’s life and legacy encourage us to think of our own values — and that is quite a meaningful and enduring legacy.
So, happy birthday, Alisa! L’chaim.
Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America and father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995. To reach him, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
Continued from page 21
Hashem and a day of vengeance for our G-d, to comfort all mourners.” Are we not the “brokenhearted and the mourners” of which Isaiah speaks? Are not these “captives and imprisoned” the hostages we long to see released? After a long year of horror, do we not deserve “a year of favor from G-d” and “a day of vengeance” on our enemies?
Verse 3: “To bring about for the mourners of Zion, to give them splendor instead of ashes, oil of joy instead of mourning, a cloak of praise instead of a dim spirit.”
Verse 4: “They will rebuild the ancient ruins…”
Verse 6: “And you will be called ‘priests of Hashem,’ ‘ministers of our G-d’ [and it] will be said of you, you will eat of the wealth of nations and will pride yourselves in their glory.”
Verse 7: “Because your shame was double, men cried: ‘Disgrace is their portion.’ Assuredly, they shall have a double share in their land; eternal gladness will be theirs.”
These words overflow with joy and hope and reward and splendor! What better words of consolation can there be for those who’ve suffered such terrible persecution, bloodshed and tragedy? And yet, this chapter was not chosen as one of the haftarot of consolation?
I think the answer lies in the fact that it was hidden between the other two chapters that for centuries served as consolation for the overwhelming catastrophe of the two Holy Temples that were destroyed, tragedy that we have lived with as a people for over 2,000 years.
But this tragedy of Oct. 7, this fresh, horrific tragedy needs a haftarah of consolation all its own. A tragedy that has had the captives, the hostages as such a defining point of its enormity, what better chapter in Isaiah to console us than one that speaks of, first and foremost, of healing our “broken hearts by proclaiming freedom for the hostage?”
It’s almost as if there was a geniza, a hiding away of this chapter, just for this moment just for this time just for us. It is so apparent that the “year of favor unto Hashem and day of vengeance for our G-d, to comfort all mourners” (61:2) is at hand, to be followed speedily, we pray, by the ultimate Geula.
Dr. Alan Mazurek is a retired neurologist, living in Great Neck, Jerusalem and Florida. He is a former chairman of the ZOA. To reach him, write: Columnist@TheJewishStar.com
A power outage doesn’t have to leave you feeling powerless. Be prepared. Download our free mobile app with Outage Tracker. You can report outages and track restoration progress. Because knowing is power.
