Author Archives: Rabbi

It is undoubtedly true that “an eternal people are not afraid of a long journey,” but the moral flabbiness of the West does infiltrate the psyche of many Israelis as well. We do not seek war nor do we glorify war but “war fatigue” is a real phenomenon. In the West, people grow tired of war because generally their material lives are satisfying and they would rather indulge their physical desires than fight for abstract values. In Israel, there is weariness because of the persistent loss of young life, because life here is also blessed, and because – let’s face it – there is a lack of confidence that the security situation will markedly change if and when this round of hostilities ends.

To our detriment, many people entrusted with our security have long stopped speaking in terms of victory and their management of our wars reflects that resignation. Little effort is made to fundamentally change the security situation. That would entail a completely new reality, in which we no longer tolerate rockets and missiles fired at our cities and towns (whether or not they are intercepted by the Iron Dome) and, indeed, no longer even accept as normal the need for checkpoints to prevent terrorists from coming to murder us. That is not simple but it is manifestly doable as wars have traditionally been conducted before effete liberals imposed on the West rules of war that guarantee neither victory nor defeat and serve to embolden the barbarians to wage incessant war until their goals are achieved.

It is thus fair to ask: what are Israel’s objectives in this war and how close are we to attaining them? And what are Hamas’ objectives in this war and how close are they to attaining them? The answers are sobering.

Our government has repeatedly declared that Israel has three aims: the elimination of Hamas as a military and political force, the safe return of all our hostages and repatriation of the bodies of the murdered, and the preclusion of Gaza as a future threat to Israeli civilians.

To be sure, some of these goals are in the process of being achieved, even if the first two have always been somewhat incompatible. Our soldiers – with G-d’s grace and their extraordinary dedication, competence, and bravery – have dealt a severe blow to the enemy’s capabilities, although they have not yet finished the job. They have been hampered, and not for the first time, by a government that has vacillated under American pressure, and that has produced too many starts and stops to conduct an aggressive campaign to victory. The enemy has repeatedly been given the opportunity to regroup, has foolishly been supplied with assistance by our generosity, has for months (until recently) been allowed to replenish their weapons stockpiles through the Rafiach tunnel system, and has effectively used its “citizens,” few of whom are innocent, as “human shields” and won the hearts of many Westerners already ill-disposed to our existence.

More than one hundred innocent hostages have been freed in exchange for hundreds of bloodthirsty terrorists and eight have been freed in heroic rescue attempts. It is unknown how many hostages are still alive; their lives mean everything to us and less than nothing to Hamas except as pawns. It is likely true that, as trading pawns, Hamas values the lives of the hostages more than it values the lives of the Gazans who elected them to power.

The first two goals have been partly achieved but by no means has the mission been accomplished. Dozens of hostages still remain in harsh captivity and Hamas terrorists are still active. The third objective – foreclosing the possibility that Gaza will be a base of terror against Israel – is far from concluded. When occasional rockets are still launched from places that the IDF was supposed to control then we know that the enemy still lurks, still hates, and still lusts for our blood.

What are Hamas’ objectives, beyond its oft-stated goal of destroying Israel? Hamas also has three, perhaps four, objectives: murdering as many Jews as it can, using hostages in order to gain freedom for its imprisoned terrorists, and surviving. A fourth might be blackening Israel’s name across the world but that seems to be an aspiration that emerged from the conduct of the war rather than an objective in its original attack.

In achieving its goals, Hamas has, unfortunately, fared better than we like to think. It murdered more Jews in one day than at any time since the Holocaust and retains control over dozens of other Jews that it can brutalize and murder at will. It still has rocket and missile capabilities that can terrorize Israeli cities and make life complicated. Sad for the Jewish people and civilization itself, that is a Hamas success.

Hamas also survives and Israel has shortsightedly fostered the notion that defeat of Hamas in Gaza is tantamount to defeat of Hamas, period. That notion is false. Hamas today thrives in Jerusalem where it follows the same playbook it did to assert control over Gaza – dominating societal institutions such as mosques, welfare, education, employment, culture, sports, and the like, and then indoctrinating and radicalizing recipients of its largesse. In this endeavor, as in Gaza for years, it is subsidized openly by Qatar and Turkey. Hamas also dominates the Arabs of Judea and Samaria, one (good) reason why the Palestinian Authority has not held an election in twenty years. The PA correctly senses it will lose. And Hamas maintains its political base of power in countries around the world – and as is obvious from the violent anti-Israel and anti-Jewish protests in the United States and Europe, it is a burgeoning though surreptitious force there as well.

Furthermore, thus far, Hamas has gained the release of hundreds of its terrorists and will continue to up the ante and dangle our hostages as bait to free savage, barbaric murderers of Jews now imprisoned in Israel – to free them and again set them loose to try to murder more Jews. Israel has long failed to counter this diabolical strategy, achievable in two ways: first, executing convicted terrorist murderers (and attempted murderers) and, second, prohibiting the exchange of terrorists for hostages. Both concepts have been bandied about for years and legislation has been introduced but never enacted. Both would neutralize that tactic. Failure to authorize these measures has been gross negligence and has made us vulnerable to the hideous methods of the terrorists. The fear – expressed by some Israeli politicians for years – that the death penalty for terrorists would lead to harsh treatment for captive Jews is, in retrospect, tragically myopic.

Let it be said: a deal that frees vicious murderers of Jews even in exchange for our innocent hostages endangers even more Jewish lives down the road, and that road is not very long. It literally helps Hamas fulfill one of its primary war aims, renders it a hero in the Arab world, and will ensure its survival.

The unpleasant reality is that, at this point, Hamas seems closer to achieving its war aims than does Israel. It already murdered more than 1500 Jews, it has gained and plans to gain the release of its even more incarcerated terrorists, and since it hides among civilians, does not always wear uniforms, is not always identifiable, and has bases outside of Israel, it will likely survive as well, even in Gaza.

How can this trend be reversed? It doesn’t help to pummel more buildings or even destroy more tunnels, although such is obviously justifiable. Gaza already is filled with rubble. Defeat for Hamas – indeed, defeat in the Arab world generally – is defined as loss of territory. The stark reality is that the only way to ensure that Gaza is never again a base of terror against Israel is to depopulate Gaza. Its population is already radicalized. Sinwar can be killed tomorrow (we hope) and Gaza will remain radicalized. A new Sinwar will arise the day after. There is no shortage of homicidal maniacs to take his place. But the depopulation of Gaza – say, at first to Europe, which absorbed five million Syrian refugees in the last decade – will be perceived as a defeat for Hamas and its humiliation among the Arab populace. Add to that the resettlement of Gaza by Jews – and that is the picture of victory.

The truth is, anything else, even coming from our leaders, is empty spin and rhetoric. Plans to bring in the PA (G-d forbid), some assortment of friendly local Arabs, foreign entities, etc. are all nibbling at the edges and paving the way for the return of Hamas. Biden’s plan to rebuild Gaza from afar will inevitably rebuild all the tunnels and the terror infrastructure. Alternatively, resettlement of this hostile population also spares further harm to the “civilians” whose humanitarian interests are an overriding concern to the West, and apparently to Israel, despite the ubiquitous danger they pose to our well-being.

How that is to be done is of less import at this point that a consensus that this is the only decent, humanitarian way forward, the only approach that preserves Israel’s interests and even improves the plight of the Gazans. The question is, in this regard and in all matters relating to war, in the modern era: does the will to win exist? And the answer has far greater implications than we can imagine because the situation in the north and the homelessness of 80,000 Israelis should be intolerable to any self-respecting sovereign government.

The great American economist and social scientist Thomas Sowell once wrote that “if you are not prepared to use force to defend civilization, then be prepared to accept barbarism.” We have indulged barbarism far too long – bombs on buses and in markets, suicide bombers, stabbings and shootings, and now mass murder, rapes, torture, burning, dismemberment, and kidnapping.

The more we tiptoe around the reality of barbarism and shy away from confronting it with the full force that it deserves, the more we encourage it and the further we are from achieving our objectives in this war. Those who fantasize about accommodating barbarism were the originators, proponents, and administrators of the “conceptziyah” who brought upon us the failures of Oslo, the flight from Lebanon, the Gaza Expulsion, and the catastrophe of October 7.

The West is replete with politicians who, whatever they say publicly, are prepared to “accept barbarism” in exchange for the illusion of quiet, the temporary cease-fire. They are ones who are now clamoring for a cease-fire so that Hamas, not Israel, can achieve its war aims. They are afflicted with war fatigue because their primary interest is not our physical survival but their own political survival. An eternal people know better.

The Torah – the source of Jewish morality in its pure form, untainted by Western values – teaches us otherwise about the perennial war against evil, the conduct of such a war, our rights to the land of Israel, and the rights of the enemy population that seeks to murder us and strangle our national life. We should no longer settle for the half-measures of secular politicians that simply seek to push off the next debacle but seek workable solutions that remove these “pins in our eyes and thorns in our side” (Bamidbar 33:55).

The existing approach cannot achieve our declared war objectives. As such, that approach must and should change, and it is not too late to change it. All we need is the faith, spirit, and willpower to do it.

(These are questions I answered in the Jewish Press forum entitled “Is It Proper?” All the rabbinic responses and more can be read at Jewishpress.com)

Is it proper for the average person to learn Kabbalah?

The popular notion of Kabbalah – the Kabbalah of red strings, holy water, and incantations – has attracted a following in recent years among Hollywood celebrities and others. This type of “Kabbalah” resembles self-help, pop psychology and other quick fixes to one’s personal problems and is wholly unrelated to Kabbalah as traditional Jews understand it. Nevertheless, it does induce searchers and simple people, and has often parted them from their money.

Traditional Kabbalah is, essentially, a look behind the mask of the physical world in order to gain deeper insights into creation, G-d’s Providence, and even our fundamental obligations. Because it employs graphic, anthropomorphic imagery, it can easily mislead the average person into misconstruing G-d’s nature, something that borders on idolatry and is a cardinal sin. As such, the Shach (Yoreh Deah 246:6) records the well-known opinion that one should not study Kabbalah until at least age 40.

Nevertheless, Rema (Yoreh Deah 246:4) cites Rambam’s famous statement that “a stroll through the orchard” – i.e., the study of esoteric areas of Torah – should not be undertaken until after the student “has filled his stomach with meat and wine,” meaning a complete understanding of the basic laws of the Torah. (Interestingly, Rambam actually states “bread and meat” – real Torah substance – rather than just “meat and wine.”) The “full stomach” provides not just a grounding in the sources and a concomitant commitment to Torah and mitzvot but also presupposes that one has acquired proper methodology of thought.

Both are indispensable to understanding Kabbalah – and both are generally not the provinces of the average person. Thus, little will be gained from the study of Kabbalah and much can be lost. It is much more effective and meaningful to focus on the revealed Torah, whose “measure is longer than the earth and broader than the seas” (Iyov 11:9) and could not be fully grasped if we lived several lifetimes.

Is it proper to listen to secular music?

Music taps into a dimension of the soul that might otherwise not be reached, a sensual experience that ideally serves a spiritual function. Music, as the Vilna Gaon was quoted as saying, can open for us new vistas in Torah. Such is its power. And therein lies the problem.

There are halachic prohibitions that are implicated regarding secular music, in terms of provocative content, dissemination of poor values, performers with depraved lifestyles with whom the listener might identify, kol isha, and the general issue of music after the Churban. Modern music, for the most part, is a cultural wasteland. To the impressionable, secular music can be devastating.

Yet, the landscape is not totally bleak. I don’t know much about secular music today but in a more innocent time there were songs that reinforced good values. I recall one song from the 1970’s, Harry Chapin’s “Cat’s in the Cradle,” about parents and children not spending enough time with each other. At first, the young son says, “When you coming home, dad?” and the father responds, “I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then, you know we’ll have a good time then.” By the end of the song, the aged father pines for a visit from his grown son, and says, “When you coming home, son?” and the son answers, “I don’t know when, but we’ll get together then, dad, you know we’ll have a good time then.”  And then it dawns on the father, “And as I hung up the phone, it occurred to me, he’d grown up just like me, My boy was just like me.”

I’ve listened to that song as a child, father, and grandfather, and it never fails to move me. That is good mussar regardless of the source. And if all secular music were like that, there would be no concern at all.

Is it proper to attend a non-Jewish university?

My alma mater – Columbia – has been in the news recently. (Both the billionaire Robert Kraft and I have halted our donations, although presumably Columbia will suffer more because of his decision.) Certainly, the overt and dangerous Jew hatred that prevails on many campuses today should weigh heavily in any decision, but my discomfort with secular college preceded the latest contretemps.

Simply put, parents who send their children to secular colleges are endangering their spiritual survival, and this is true even with the Jewish programming, organizations, and activities that try to fill the gaping void. Some students emerge unscathed; many, maybe even most, do not. It is like bungee jumping with a frayed rope. I lived off campus, so I was spared some of the tawdry excesses of the 1970’s, which in any event would be considered prudish, even monkish, by today’s standards.

College today is a moral cesspool and the cathedral of wokeness. It is a place where religion is mocked and tradition is ridiculed, where shattering norms is encouraged and challenging the world view of one’s parents is expected. Add to that today’s violent assault on Jewish identity and the increased presence on campuses of groups that openly hate Jews and Israel and face little or no consequences for doing so and it is clear that attending a secular college – for most people – is irrational and quite hazardous, spiritual and physically. We can try to construct a Jewish cocoon but in most cases that will not succeed.

Alexis de Tocqueville said it best: “The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law and the surest pledge of freedom.” College today has no religion and no morality, and thus no law, no security, and no freedom. It is true that in the past a degree from an Ivy League school had cachet and made connections. Parents, and employers, should wise up and realize that today, in large measure, it denotes closed-mindedness, moral obtuseness, intellectual laziness, and a rejection of all that is holy and virtuous.

Is that worth an annual tuition of $90,000? Hardly.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

Israel has been constrained for months by the golden shackles of American support – a Hobson’s choice of the provision of US weapons conditioned, essentially, on Israel not using those weapons for the purpose of vanquishing its enemy. The pressure is intense, originates in the White House and State Department, and has enlisted Israeli politicians such as Yair Lapid to do America’s bidding. That pressure has also coopted Jewish Democrats who have been quick to turn on Israel under the guise of contempt for Israel’s Prime Minister. Perhaps they are unaware that Israel’s Prime Minister serves because he reflects the views of most of the Israeli public and has a majority in the Knesset. Their contempt is thus for the Israeli voting public – or for Israel itself.

Thus, President Biden first directed Israel not to launch a ground invasion of Gaza and recently has threatened Israel with a variety of sanctions if Israel invades Rafiah, conquers Gaza, and defeats Hamas. Massive pressure, to which Netanyahu has a pattern of succumbing in every way except rhetorically, has led to an interminable delay and possibly undermined a chance for victory. The pressure always includes carrots and sticks and sounds so plausible that leaders are often enticed to act against their own country’s interests in deference to this pressure. This week’s tiptoe incursion into Rafiah will likely lead to Hamas demanding a cease fire, dangling the hostages as bait, hoping to save itself and win the release of thousands of murderers so as to better murder and abduct more Jews in the future. A better negotiating tactic for Israel would be hardball: every hostage released in exchange for a temporary cease fire – and nothing else. We should not exchange innocent citizens wrongly held in violation of international law for terrorist murderers justly held because of their enthusiastic murder of Jews. The alternative for Hamas is their immediate destruction. We should not play their game nor should we negotiate ourselves into a defeat, regardless of American pressure.

Yet, history teaches us that succumbing to American pressure is often unwise and occasionally fatal.

In 1946, Chiang Kai-shek, leader of Nationalist China, began a military campaign to defeat the Communist insurgents, led by Mao Zedong and General Lin Biao. The Communists were situated in mineral-rich Manchuria in the Mainland’s northeast. Within a month, the Communists were routed from southern Manchuria, and prepared to abandon the major city of Harbin, the key to the security of northern Manchuria. They were utterly desperate, but with Chiang’s army poised to enter Harbin, he suddenly stopped. His army never again advanced.

“What explains Chiang’s action? In two words: American pressure” (“What If?” edited by Robert Cowley, pages 379-380). General George C. Marshall, then the US Special Envoy to China having finished his service of Chief of Staff during World War II, coerced Chiang into halting his advance and abandoning this battle. Why? One reason, eerily similar to today, is that Marshall and other American leaders detested Chiang, and did not want him to succeed.

It is more reasonable to suggest that Marshall did not want to provoke a conflict with the Soviet Union which was supplying and supporting the Communists Chinese. Marshall even naively suggested that Chiang form a unity government with the Communists. That never happened, but Chiang unhappily agreed to stop his assault, later calling his failure to pursue this invasion the worst mistake he ever made in dealing with the Communists.

Eventually, the Communists regrouped, rearmed, and began a guerilla campaign against Chiang’s forces. Nationalist China suffered a major defeat in 1948 – that year should sound familiar to us – and by 1949 Chiang and his forces were completely driven off the mainland and established their political center in what today is called the island of Taiwan. By heeding Marshall and American pressure, Chiang forfeited the greatest opportunity he had to defeat Mao and end the Communist insurgency.

By that time, of course, Marshall was gone from office, and even his brief tenure as Secretary of State was over, characterized by a fanatic opposition to an independent Israel which to him also seemed like a reasonable policy. Marshall even threatened to vote against President Truman in the 1948 election – and publicize that he would do so – if Truman recognized Israel. Truman did, Marshall didn’t, and so much for idle threats. Marshall may have had a great Plan, but he was often wrong on global strategy.

The ramifications were profound. Counterfactual history is always tantalizing and other factors could have intervened and produced unforeseeable outcomes. But if the Communists had been driven from China with Mao defeated, there would have been no Korean War; Kim Il Sung was energized by the Communist victory to invade South Korea a year later. There would have been no Vietnam War; absent Communist Chinese support, Ho Chi Minh could never have invaded South Vietnam. Without a Communist China, the Cold War would have had a completely different complexion – and without those wars, American society would not have deteriorated into an angry assortment of warring factions distrustful of their government. And all because of American pressure that thwarted Chiang’s advance into northern Manchuria and the defeat of the Communists.

Where does that leave Israel today? The Americans (the State Department and even for a time Harry Truman) pressured Israel not to declare statehood. Israel did anyway, and Israel still flourishes. The Americans pressured Israel not to launch a preemptive strike in 1967 on the eve of the Six Day War. Israel did anyway and won a great victory. The Americans pressured Israel to withdraw from Sinai (in 1956 and then again in 1979). Israel did and we are paying the price for that today. The Americans pressured Israel not to destroy the Iraqi nuclear reactor. Israel did anyway and in retrospect spared the world a nuclear nightmare. The Americans are now pressuring Israel to acquiesce in the survival of the terrorist entity that committed atrocities against it, and then agree to the establishment of a Palestinian state that would reduce Israel, now roughly the size of New Jersey, to roughly the size of Delaware, Biden’s home state.

The list of American pressure ignored goes on but the point is clear: the United States generally operates according to the perception of its own interests, and that is how it should be. When American and Israel interests converge, it is good for the world. When they don’t, then Israel, like any self-respecting country, should operate in line with its own interests. Sure, American supply of armaments is important but Israel has enough of its own weapons to wage a quick and decisive war, especially without the restrictions hypocritically applied only to the conduct of Israel’s wars and to that of no other country. Bear in mind that the Iron Dome, for example, is a technological marvel, but essentially a defensive system that intercepts the enemy’s rockets and missiles launched against our civilians. That brilliant but insane and should be unacceptable. The appropriate response should be the eradication of those who are firing the rockets and missiles rather than the projectiles themselves. We have for too long accepted this ridiculous situation because of our technological prowess. We should tolerate it no longer, which then renders impotent the American threat to stop replenishing the Iron Dome.

Note that Israel has stayed its military might to protect the not-so-innocent civilians of Gaza, presumably to avoid international recriminations. As should have been anticipated, Israel’s invasion was thus blunted, less effective than it could have been – and the international recriminations have come anyway, fast and false, furious and spurious. The battles to come should prioritize the lives of our soldiers.

The broader problem is that Israel has long been slow in adjusting to shifting alliances. Our diplomacy refuses to acknowledge that Turkey is today an avowed enemy of Israel, and one of the most vehement in the world, simply because Turkey was once an ally. America’s interests are usually aligned with Israel’s but not always, and such should be remembered as well.

Almost twenty-five years after Marshall’s misguided advice to Chiang Kai-shek, the United States finally abandoned Taiwan and recognized Communist China as “China.” Since then, the Americans have tap-danced around their relations with Taiwan – calling it “strategic ambiguity” – and currently leaving Taiwan exposed to the predations of the Communist China. Would the US intervene to save Taiwan? If there was an invasion, there would likely be passionate threats hurled at China along with demands that Taiwan exercise restraint, de-escalate, and rely on diplomacy to ward off (or accept) its demise.

America’s foreign policy does change because the personalities in charge of it change. South Vietnam was cajoled by the US into accepting a flawed treaty that left North Vietnam on its territory, the Shah of Iran was abandoned which led to the takeover of Iran by radical Islam that imperils the world today, and the surrender of Afghanistan to the viciousness of the Taliban is still fresh in our minds. All were American allies – until they weren’t. All accommodated American pressure and all paid the ultimate price for it.

There are other examples as well. Israel would be wise to act in its own interests and destroy Hamas, which at this point, for whatever reason (perhaps electoral, perhaps because of the continued flirtation with Iran, perhaps anti-Jewish animus in certain circles, or perhaps some combination of all three) is not America’s or at least Biden’s interest. In President George W. Bush’s letter to then PM Ariel Sharon (April 14, 2004), and grateful for Sharon’s impending expulsion of Jews and withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza, Bush wrote: “Israel will retain its right to defend itself against terrorism, including to take actions against terrorist organizations. The United States will lead efforts, working together with Jordan, Egypt, and others in the international community, to build the capacity and will of Palestinian institutions to fight terrorism, dismantle terrorist organizations, and prevent the areas from which Israel has withdrawn from posing a threat that would have to be addressed by any other means.”

With the passage of years, and despite the obvious obtuseness and catastrophic harm of Sharon’s plan, according to the Biden administration, Israel’s “right to defend itself against terrorism” is limited, not retained, and the US is not leading any effort, international or otherwise, to “dismantle terrorist organizations,” especially Hamas which on last October 7, murdered, kidnapped, raped, and wounded thousands of Israelis. The “areas from which Israel” withdrew have posed a threat to Israel since Israel withdrew. It is all words, empty but soothing words.

So much for presidential promises, in fulfillment of the verse in Psalms (146:3): “Do not put your trust in princes,⁠ in a human being, for he has no salvation.” The United States can weather its bad policy choices; it is big country protected by two oceans. It rarely pays any price for its diplomatic follies. That price is paid by its erstwhile allies pressured into acting against their own interests.

We the people, and our leadership, are forewarned.

(First published at Israel365.com and Israelnationalnews.com)

Donald Trump’s interview with Time magazine made headlines for all the wrong reasons. The media typically focused on his criticism of Prime Minister Netanyahu (“I had a bad experience with him”) and his legal woes – and missed the sea change in his thinking on Israel and the Middle East that, if maintained, will reshape the region, its politics and diplomacy, long after his litigation is behind him.

Asked whether he thought the outcome of the war in Gaza “should be a two-state solution between Israelis and Palestinians,” Trump responded: “Most people thought it was going to be a two-state solution. I’m not sure a two-state solution anymore is gonna work… There was a time when I thought two states could work. Now I think two states is going to be very, very tough. I think it’s going to be much tougher to get. I also think you have fewer people that liked the idea. You had a lot of people that liked the idea four years ago. Today, you have far fewer people that like that idea…Because children grow up and they’re taught to hate Jewish people at a level that nobody thought was possible.”

Lest Trump’s words be obscured behind his trademark awkward syntax, the presumed Republican nominee has demonstrated once again that his instincts in many areas are far more often on target than those of the State Department, world diplomats, and the tendentious journalists who have clung to the two-state illusion for more than two decades. In the process, they have weakened Israel, harmed American interests, and destabilized the region.

Interestingly, Trump’s conclusion – rooted in pragmatism – confirms the policy of the Republican Party that was first adopted in July 2016. Before the convention that nominated Trump, the Republican Party approved a platform that rejected the establishment of a Palestinian state and gave Israel the freedom to negotiate a deal with the Palestinians on its own terms without external pressures. “We oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms, and call for the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so. Our party is proud to stand with Israel now and always.” Of course, defunding any entity that supports the two-state delusion would require the defunding of the State Department and the Biden administration, but such is the purpose of elections.

This is not to shill for either Trump or the Republicans. Almost all Jews would prefer bipartisan support for Israel in the United States. And although many Jews maintain that support for Israel remains bipartisan, the current difference between the parties could not be more glaring.

The Republican Party’s support for Israel is unequivocal and its repudiation of the two-state illusion aligns with the overwhelming majority of Israelis today, chastened and sobered as we were by the Hamas massacre of October 7. Those who persist in talking about two states living side by side are not only rewarding the Arab invaders, marauders, rapists, decapitators, and kidnappers of that awful day; they are also romanticizing a particularly vicious enemy and laying the foundation for future massacres.

By contrast, the Democratic Party has two wings. The radical left supports one state – a state of Palestine that would be built on the ruins of Israel and the extermination of its Jewish population. That is the clear implication of “freedom from the river to the sea” – still another Arab Muslim state in the Middle East and the destruction of the only Jewish one in the entire world. The moderate wing of the Democrats is comprised of those people who continue to support the two-state illusion, which poses an existential threat to the viability of the State of Israel. This support has become standard among Democrats, despite the lack of even a scintilla of evidence that the Arab entity would not seek to destroy Israel or that another partition of the land of Israel is even sustainable. Included in this wing, unfortunately, are many Jewish Democrats.

We can pretend that the parties’ positions are identical or similar. Jews, and liberal Jewish organizations especially, have been doing this for years. But they are not, and on the issue of partitioning the land of Israel into two states, the differences are profound politically, and nothing less than life and death for Israelis. Certainly, this divergence was apparent in 2012, when the Democrat establishment fudged a voice vote to make it seem as if a majority of its delegates supported a plank that called for recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. (The clause had been summarily removed from the Democratic platform.) It fooled those open to being fooled.

On the issue of two states, the discrepancy between Republicans and Democrats could not be more pronounced. This presents a discomfiting challenge for Jews who instinctively vote for the Democrats or an opportunity for them to reconnect to their heritage and their people’s destiny. Evangelical Christians have no such schizophrenia, similar to faithful Jews who believe in the divine promises of the Bible and the prophetic return to the Holy Land. They aim to keep G-d’s land (Keepgodsland.com) the heritage of the Jewish people.

It would be encouraging if Democratic voices emerged that also disavowed the fantasies of “two states for two people.” Donald Trump is nothing if not mercurial but his instincts here are precisely calibrated. Jews should be praising him as this revolutionary shift in his thinking transforms the debate and will reverberate across the region – where even most Arab countries oppose and only pay lip service to a Palestinian state. Ruling out what won’t work, which has been a crutch for the political class for far too long, will engender a rational discussion of what might work – and help preserve the Jewish state in our biblical land.