Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

     Today, the morning after the Knesset voted to repeal the “Reasonableness Clause,” the sun rose. The sky was blue, the birds chirped, the summer heat remained, and Jewish men put on tefillin. Somehow, life went on as normal, if still reeling from the mayhem in the streets. Israelis did not awaken to a dictatorship; indeed, the State of Israel was slightly more democratic and perhaps, down the road, will even be more Jewish. Yesterday, I even saved some money as shopping was limited, although it is depressing that merchants and workers lost a day’s wages because of the virtue signaling of some corporate bigwigs.

     The judicial reforms have taken on the character of Chinese Water Torture, drip by drip, month after month and week after week of incessant demonstrations, threats and recriminations, dire warnings about the end of life as we know it, insubordination in the IDF (although the extent of that seems wildly exaggerated), and violent attacks on ministers and Knesset members supportive of the legislation. The irony should not be lost that those who scream the loudest about the imminent threats to democracy are those who engage in tactics that are hallmarks of dictatorships, including the refusal to accept the results of elections and their consequences, and taking to the streets as a mob to overthrow the duly elected authorities. It is as if they maintain “we have to destroy the democracy and make ourselves the permanent rulers in order to save the democracy.”

     Perhaps the error made by the government – whose constituent parties had been promising judicial reform for years – was not presenting an entire bill at one time but rather introducing the reforms piecemeal. Thus, only one plank was enacted, which presages that future reforms will generate the same foolish, counterproductive, and self-destructive protests, strikes, and irrational fears.

     It was German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck who said that “laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.” It was imprudent to negotiate with the opposition in the President’s House, a colossal waste of time as not one opposition representative compromised on anything and only sought delay after delay. But the members of Israel’s Knesset are not warring nations, all rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. There is no need for summit meetings at the (presumably) apolitical President’s residence. Laws should be proposed, debated, and resolved, one way or another, in the appropriate Knesset committees and in the corridors of the legislature where members and their staff can meet in private to try to gain consensus. And then, in a true democracy, the legislators vote, the winners applaud, and the losers accept the decision and pledge to use the legislative atrocity as campaign fodder in the next election.

     In the end, the vote in favor of the “Reasonableness Clause” was overwhelming, 64-0, if only because of the childish boycott of the opposition. It is worthwhile to recall that Oslo I passed with a smaller majority (61-50, with 8 abstentions) and Oslo II with an even smaller majority (61-59), and in both cases, a majority of the Jewish Knesset members voted against the agreements. And those bills were much more momentous and consequential than is any item on the judicial reform agenda. The Oslo Accords got many Jews killed, recognized the PLO, brought them into the heartland of Israel, gave them weapons, territory, and diplomatic cover. I do not recall anyone in the mainstream media lamenting the narrow majorities (in which the Arab MK’s provided the parliamentary margin of victory), the lack of national consensus, the rush to a decision, or the illegitimacy of a government that campaigned on not recognizing the PLO. Nor did the President at the time beg for negotiations in his residence or bellow about the dangers facing Israel. No one will die because of tinkering with the judicial process and yet one would think the sky is falling. It is not and it will not. Perhaps the media is biased? Perhaps.

       This particular bill does not change the judicial dynamic all that much, although it is a good start as “reasonableness” has never been a factor in judicial decision-making. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not pass judgment on whether a law, decision or policy is reasonable. Their notion of “reasonable” is no more salient or sagacious than that of the legislators, and no law afforded them the right to issue decrees on such grounds. Thus, the Court literally had no authority to rule on such a basis and usurped the legislative and executive role in doing so.

     Yet, power – even or perhaps especially illicitly seized – is not easy to relinquish. One hopes that the Court will take to heart this legislative rebuke and unilaterally limit the scope of its heretofore unlimited powers. It is unlikely, although possible, that the Court will void the repeal of the “Reasonableness Clause” as unreasonable, but that would really provoke a crisis. There is no law that makes the Supreme Court the ultimate and final authority on everything in the State of Israel. What is more likely given the temperament of some of the justices is that they will begin invalidating legislation, appointments, decisions or policies not because they are unreasonable (or because they contradict some existing law, which is legitimate) but because the Court finds them “illogical,” “unfair,” “biased,” “disproportionate,” “arbitrary,” or “unwarranted,” or some other synonym for “unreasonable.” Let us hope that too does not happen or the Court’s legitimacy will be forever tainted.

      It is helpful to recall President Andrew Jackson’s rejoinder (1832) when he felt that US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall had overstepped his authority and prevented the expansion of US sovereignty into Indian territory: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” (The quotation is perhaps apocryphal; the reality is that Jackson did not enforce Marshall’s decision.) America could survive that. Israel is a smaller country, and largely family, where disputes can continue for generations and where we have real enemies with which to contend. Let us pray it never comes to that either, where a Supreme Court decision is so outrageous and blatantly political that the political branch just ignores it. Courts in America operate with a principle known as “judicial restraint” and courts in Israel would do well to learn and implement that principle.

      The “Reasonableness Clause” repeal, despite the hoopla, the overheated rhetoric, and the doomsday prophecies, does not accomplish that much on its own. Several other key reforms are essential, including limiting the authority of the Attorney General (technically called the “Legal Advisor,” but one whose advice must always be taken; that, too, is absurd). Similarly, changing the composition of the judicial selection committee to make it more political is a good thing, not a threat to our existence. For some reason, people in Israel assume that a judge appointed by political party nomination is beholden to that party forever, regardless of the nature of the law on which the judge is ruling. In the American experience, that is decidedly not so. One of the bitter ironies of recent American history is the number of justices nominated by conservative Republican presidents who then turned out to be anything but when they sat on the Court (see Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and others). This anxiety is a poor reflection on Israel’s future justices and perhaps results from Israel’s Supreme Court overinvolvement in partisan politics. One way to remove the Court from politics is to grant them jurisdiction only on cases and controversies that affect aggrieved parties, and not just someone who does not like a particular policy.

      Finally, a need for some check on the Court’s decision-making is necessary. The Knesset must pass an override clause, which should be used sparingly. I would suggest a Knesset majority requirement of 65, 67 or even 70 votes that ensures that any override has broad support – certainly broader than the Oslo Accords or the Gaza Expulsion had.

     Compromise is always welcome. More importantly, we need cooler heads and calm reassurance. The protesters who were led to believe that riots and anarchy define the political process should think again. Chaos will not accomplish anything productive and will certainly not topple the Netanyahu government, the true objective of so many of them. It is inconceivable that they would rather see the country destroyed than live with a Supreme Court whose powers are simply comparable to almost every other Supreme Court in the world. They should look around and see that the earth is still rotating on its axis, the sun is still shining, the land of Israel is still beautiful (if a bit hot), and the State of Israel, with God’s help, is flourishing and will continue to flourish.

“Be careful what you wish for,” said Aesop long ago.

Too many Israelis – politicians, journalists, and civilians – are concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu has yet to be invited to the White House. It is widely, and accurately, perceived as a snub, and is being used to promote the notion that the Netanyahu government is reeling, cannot succeed, has lost international support, has alienated the US, and must be replaced. But that is just another cudgel being used by Netanyahu’s permanent, relentless enemies, and has little merit.

Like a Rorschach test, each commentator sees the snub in line with his or her own personal preferences or aversions. Netanyahu has failed to embrace the two state delusion with sufficient ardor. Netanyahu is not supportive enough of Ukraine and has reached out to China. Netanyahu is building too many “settlements,” even in Yerushalayim. Netanyahu is advancing judicial reforms that have irritated President Joe Biden and undermined democracy. And even more risibly, and recently, Netanyahu presides over the “most extreme government” in fifty years.

Let’s get real. Biden sees the government of Israel today as “extreme.” Then again, he characterizes his adversaries in Washington and elsewhere as “extreme MAGA Republicans.” He has denounced the US Supreme Court for its “extreme” decisions and composition. His administration has labeled parents who want to exercise greater control over their children’s public education and thus petition local school boards as “domestic extremists” (a Biden associate even called them “terrorists.) “Extreme” is the Biden insult of choice for each and every one of his adversaries. 

Granted, Joe Biden has never been known for his extensive vocabulary and and great intellectual heft even when he was compos mentis. In his declining state, he falls back on pet phrases and cliches without giving much thought to what he is saying and their implications. For example, his criticisms of the proposed judicial reforms here are typically shallow (“a threat to democracy,” as is everything the left opposes in the US and in Israel) even though Israel is seeking a judicial system more akin to the one in the United States, including the method of judicial appointments and limitations on jurisdiction. Even worse, it is Biden who has taken to undermining the independence and legitimacy of the US Supreme Court, recently saying (in his terse and muddled way) “this is not a normal court.” That means that a US Supreme Court that applies the law rather than Biden’s own policy predilections (on affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, freedom of speech, etc.) is “not normal” and needs to be changed. His party has indeed proffered some, well, “extreme” proposals for reining in the Court’s powers, which if passed will inevitably shatter the delicate checks and balances that exist in the American political system. And yet he finds fault with Israel’s governance and legislation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Who isn’t “extreme” in the Biden lexicon? Jew hater Ilhan Omar is not extreme, she is “beautiful.” Cory Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and others – they are not extreme. They are good Democrats, allies of Joe Biden. No Biden ally can ever be extreme, no Biden adversary can ever be anything but extreme. If Smotrich and Ben Gvir are “extremists” in the Biden world view, it is only because they stand up for Israel’s interests fearlessly and definitively – a strong hand against our enemies, the right of Jewish residence throughout the land of Israel, determined opposition to the two state delusion, and a yearning to foster the Jewishness of the Jewish state. This is all anathema to Biden, and music to the ears of the faithful Jew and proud Israeli. We should all merit being called “extreme” by Joe Biden, a clear indication that we are on the right path with values that are rooted in the Torah and that are non-negotiable.

My own sense is that there is no Biden-vitation because this is still payback for Netanyahu’s anti-Iran speech before Congress in 2015 that embarrassed Barack Obama and his Vice-President, Joe Biden. Sure, that was eight years ago, but Biden has a great memory for that, even if not for many other things. When will there be a Biden-vitation? When it suits Biden’s political purposes during the election year – and/or when he wants something from Israel. And there’s the catch.

Having lived in America most of my life until 2020, I recognize something that veteran Israelis don’t. Most White House visits of foreign leaders are not news stories in America, and most are not even covered. Visits take place almost weekly. They may be newsworthy in the visitor’s home country but they are not in America. They make the news when the leader is an adversary – summits with the leaders of Russia or China are good examples – or when some conflict between the leaders is expected. Most leaders come to the White House because they want to look good in the eyes of their countrymen for political reasons or because they want something from the United States. 

Does Israel want something from the United States? Certainly, but the objectives are achievable without the pomp and pressure of a White House visit. Israel looks to America for diplomatic support in a hostile United Nations environment, which it received unequivocally in the Trump years, less so under Biden but still extant. The military assistance Israel receives from the US is fixed in a long term agreement and the funding is anyway spent entirely in America and not in Israel, so no changes there. Most importantly, Israel has turned to the US for leadership and an effective challenge to the Iranian nuclear program and there the US has fallen woefully short under Democratic administrations. With Biden poised to repeat the Obama appeasement – billions of dollars to Iran and sanctions relief in exchange for unverifiable promises from a rogue government – little is to be gained from a personal meeting. Public criticism of the Biden plan will be perceived as a “political” attack, while public support will undermine Israel’s anti-Iran position and distress Arab allies across the region. Merely restating each side’s positions and hearing Biden mumble vacuities like “all options are on the table” are not worth the transportation costs to get to Washington.

And there is a price to be paid for such a meeting. Israeli leaders are expected to arrive with “gifts” – concessions to the Palestinians in terms of prisoner releases, money in the PA coffers, or worst of all, the expectation that Israel coordinate its IDF counter-terror efforts and even its anti-Iran measures with America. These days, that is foolhardy in the extreme. There are repeated reports about how Obama sabotaged some of Israel’s preparations for an Iran conflict – and the same people who did that and served Obama now serve in the Biden administration. If sharing information in private is one goal of a White House visit, it is sensible to stay away.

The nonvitation is also a consequence of the declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party, which traces to Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton (who made Netanyahu’s life miserable in the Prime Minister’s first term) but primarily to the sentiments expressed by Barack Obama in 2008. Meeting with Jewish Democrats during his campaign, Obama said “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.” That is fair enough, but imagine the ferocious storm that would erupt if Israel’s Prime Minister ever said that “to be close friends and allies with the United States does not mean that Israel has to embrace the platform or policies of the Democratic Party.” Biden today is simply echoing Obama’s distaste for the people of Israel and their voting patterns, distancing the US from Likud while presuming to befriend an Israel that has been governed by Likud for the better part of four decades. The nonvitation is personal and should be seen, and ignored, as such. 

While the aging Democrats in Congress still support Israel, that support is muted whenever it conflicts with administration goals. Biden’s harsh rhetoric towards Israel’s elected government, his disparagement of Israeli democracy (while he tramples on the norms of American democracy!), and his shameless interference in Israel’s domestic affairs and internal governance are a continuation of that Obama distaste. That contempt is mirrored in the gamesmanship over the Bidenvitation as well as the stumbling blocks Biden is placing on the road to normalization with Saudi Arabia. 

There is a valuable life lesson is this as well. Sometimes the best way to get something is by not showing you really want it. Pronouncements from Israel along the lines of “there really is no need for a personal visit,” “we have constant open lines of communications,” “we are busy developing  our relations with China, Russia, Africa and Europe” all signal to the Americans that a White House visit by PM Netanyahu is unnecessary and even superfluous at this time. When you show you don’t care about something you don’t have, its deprivation loses its force. You can’t hold something over someone’s head if their head is elsewhere. If and when the invitation comes during the American election year, Israel should be coy about accepting it immediately, not wanting to become embroiled in America’s political maelstrom. If an important issue arises, a phone call works just as well, and requires no strings and preparation.

Of course the Israeli media will not stop talking about the nonvitation, a convenient tool with which to disparage the prime minister. All the more reason for this government to assert that it is not seeking a Bidenvitation at all as the alliance is strong and is based on shared interests and values far more than on breaking bread, drinking coffee, posing for pictures in the Oval Office or enduring a state dinner. And the demands on Israel to have such a meeting will be extreme. It is not worth it, certainly not when Joe Biden is undermining American democracy with his incessant attacks on the US Supreme Court. Let President Herzog enjoy his visit and photo ops. He can’t concede anything, anyway. 

Those who keep wishing for a Bidenvitation should be extremely careful what they wish for. And that is no fable.

     Did you hear about the fellow who kidnapped a hostage and then threatened to kill himself if his demands were not met? That is essentially what the BIG chain of shopping stores is doing by threatening to close all its stores on Tuesday if any part of the judicial reform package is passed in the Knesset. “I have a gun to my head! Don’t make me do it!”

      And if they close? Well, I personally would go to the mall across the street to do my shopping, and probably continue for the indefinite future. No one can force BIG to remain open, just like no one can force any consumer to shop there anytime. Fortunately, Israel has no shortage of malls and shopping centers that accommodate the needs of every consumer and does not wish to irritate more than half the population. Isn’t BIG aware of the backlash in the United States against major corporations because of their unwelcome and short-sighted intrusion into polarizing politics? Hasn’t BIG heard of the boycott of Bud Light, once one of the most popular beers in America, which has now fallen well out of the top ten because of its embrace of woke idiocies? Ditto with the chain of Target department stores that has lost billions of dollars of valuation and seen its stock plunge. And Disney has provoked its own boycott because of its opposition to certain legislation in Florida that protected parental rights in education.

     A BIG strike on Tuesday could leave BIG very SMALL on Wednesday, and for days and weeks afterward. And for what?

      The judicial reforms have been so watered down that they amount to tweaks rather than real reforms. The legislation proposed this week will modify the “reasonableness clause” that Israel’s Supreme Court has used for decades to nix legislation, policies, and appointments. The proposal will only deprive the Court of the right to invalidate government appointments. This legislation is far less a threat to democracy than is a Supreme Court that is unelected, unresponsive, and unaccountable to the people, and deigns to rule from on high (indeed, it occasionally sits as the High Court of Justice) imposing its personal preferences on the people and the politicians the people elected to govern.

     Should the Court be able to disqualify a nominee because it is “unreasonable” that such a person serve? The predicate is the attempt to appoint Aryeh Deri, a convicted felon, to a ministry. Is it “reasonable” that a convicted felon serve in any government capacity? Notwithstanding that Jews believe in repentance, the appropriate procedure in a refined democracy would be to pass legislation barring a convicted felon from serving in such capacity. There is no such law (which I would support); this government will not pass such a law, but the preceding left-wing government also did not pass such a law. A nation that relies on an unelected, unaccountable, and homogenous (i.e., left-wing) Court to substitute its own rulings for Knesset legislation is not a real democracy. Knesset, pass a law if that is the will of the people, but the Court should not have jurisdiction over government appointments.

     Nor should the Court have jurisdiction over government policies, over the identity of award recipients, over freely entered business contracts between two parties. This is what makes the partial amendment of the “reasonableness clause” a contrived controversy that is generating artificial protests engendered by the two main drivers of this domestic strife: hatred for Netanyahu and hatred for the Haredim. The opposition to judicial reform is irrational; few can even articulate plausible grounds to oppose this diluted legislation and so resort to empty slogans such as “an end to democracy,” “down with dictatorship,” and sometimes just “1933.” If the protesters had even a minimal awareness of what they are opposing, why, and how, they – who are trying to overthrow the results of the recent election, shut down the society, and trample on democratic norms – should be questioning on which side of the 1933 divide they are actually on. Sadly, it is the side of the anti-democratic anarchists, not the side of the democratic, voting public.

      It is ironic that such a BIG deal is being made this week over this minimalistic adjustment. It is merely fine-tuning a legal principle that was never passed in legislation but just unilaterally assumed by the Court. This is democracy in action, not the masses of rioters, anarchists, criminals, and lawbreakers who are trying to “save democracy” while, in fact, weakening and even destroying it. They are mocking the rule of law. The Attorney General who refuses to enforce the law equally against all protesters should be summarily fired. The police who are refusing to follow the orders of their superiors – whether commanders or responsible minister – are sowing the seeds of such societal discord in the future that it should be patently clear that the protests are destroying democracy rather than function as the presumed trigger for the protests. One hopes that the Prime Minister, whose commitment to judicial reform is somewhat tenuous, will not again surrender to these threats.

     The bottom line is that the proposed changes to the “reasonableness clause” will not affect the life of a single Israeli. The substantive changes that are necessary are twofold: first, limitations on the Court’s jurisdiction to allow it to rule only on “cases or controversies” as in the American system (real people who are affected by real legislation and government policies) rather than the unlimited jurisdiction it now has to hear the grievances of every nudnik. This will preclude the Court from intruding on matters that are political and not justiciable. It will also, at long last, serve as a check on the Court’s powers, for which there are now none. And second, change the composition of the selection committee to reduce the Court’s influence to choose its successors. Make such nominations the province of politicians.

      The government should just do it already and stop pussyfooting, stop delaying, and stop allowing itself to be intimidated by the mobs. Once the legislation is passed, the protests will die down within a week or two. (Of course, they will never completely end as long as Binyamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister.) It is time to govern, in accordance with the norms of every democracy.

     As the BIG chain holds a gun to its own head, it would be prudent for them to consider whether they want to be merchants or political activists. I do not know the franchise arrangements and whether individual stores have the right to decline to join this ridiculous strike. I hope the stores can defy the corporate order. Merchants should appeal to the broadest base they can, not hack away large segments of their consumer base because of ill-advised forays into frenzied politics. The Haredi boycott of Angels Bakery worked; does BIG want to go down that road?

     Like the protesters who consistently threaten to destroy their own country, come what may, BIG wants to make a statement by destroying itself. They should think again, BIG time.

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

“So we see there are two ways in which someone can err. One is to speak so much “truth” with so little love that he is not actually speaking truth…They are not at all worried about pushing others away with what they are saying. Perhaps they even delight in the idea…”

“The opposite of this is an equal problem: to show so much “love” that you are misrepresenting the real love of God, and are forsaking God’s truth in the process. You are so afraid of saying something that might push away the one to whom you are speaking that you cease to say anything at all controversial or potentially disagreeable.”

So writes the American religious and cultural commentator Eric Metaxas in his recent book “Letter to the American Church,” of which 95% could be co-opted (dare I say, converted) and applied to the American Orthodox Rabbinate. Metaxas’ starting point was the anti-Nazi German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer who tried to arouse the German church in the 1930’s to oppose the Nazi persecution of the Jews. After spending several years in America, he returned to Germany in 1939, was imprisoned by the Nazis in 1943, and executed in April 1945, just one month before the war’s end.

Bonhoeffer failed to convince his clerical colleagues to challenge the Nazis for reasons some of which should sound familiar to us. They were afraid of antagonizing the Nazis, they were not that sympathetic to Jews in the first instance, they saw the big picture and wished to focus on teaching religion, or they just did not want to get involved in politics, controversies, or cultural issues. Bonhoeffer was horrified by this spiritual neglect and condemned them for their failures and the emptiness of the Christianity they preached.

While the Nazi horrors are sui generis, Metaxas sees a similar dynamic at play today in his denomination’s reluctance to tackle the cultural and moral issues currently roiling American society. He mentions a number of such issues. One, certainly not as weighty as the Holocaust, stands before us as we endure yet another “pride” month. For how long will we remain silent? The easy road is to say nothing, ignore it, move on, focus on other matters, and wait it out, even as the society built on certain moral (and biological) assumptions collapses around us. But it is because of that collapse and the effect that it is having on our children that silence is not an option, a simple protest needs to be registered, and a new path forward recommended.

There are no illusions, at this point, that we can have any influence on secular Jews, Israelis, or Americans on this issue. The “pride” agenda is one of the few things in which they actually believe as dogma, absolute and unquestionable. Dialogue, although not impossible, is difficult, for they have fabricated their own system of sin and virtue unmoored from traditional morality.

But it is the infiltration of this agenda into the Orthodox world that demands we raise our voices and state the obvious: the Torah world will never accept same sex marriages or the cult of transgenderism. Period. We should stop pretending that accommodation is possible. It is not.

For almost two decades now, any open discussion of these matters has been stifled by the well-funded activists, with the now familiar litany of accusations: any dissenting voice endangers their lives, encourages bullying and suicide, is cruel and unkind, insensitive and a waste of our time and energy. Those who oppose the agenda are, by their definition, haters, bigots, suffer from a phobia, and are all “obsessed.”

Some of these contentions are risible, others dubious, some debatable, but together serve the purpose of suppressing any free and frank discussion of what this movement has engendered in broader society. This is the linguistic playbook they use. A complicit media serves their purposes and advances their agenda.

And too many rabbis have responded with such banalities as “there are more important issues to discuss,” “this requires nuance” (a word that apparently means “saying and doing nothing”), “now is not the time” (the appropriate time never comes), or pandering to the mob out of an excess of sensitivity and compassion – while fearing for their jobs, a loss of respect, cancel culture, media attacks, and the like.

And so, we refuse to face the issue head on. Which means what?

It should be stated openly. The LGBT movement, especially in its Orthodox incarnation, is the modern rebellion against Torah, no different than any other rebellious movement against Torah in our history beginning with that of Korach. It makes no difference whether the rebellion is conscious or unconscious; rebellion it is.

The Conservative Jewish movement first strayed by abolishing the mechitzah in shuls, as part of its general conception of an evolving Mesorah. That revolution pales before the LGBT insurrection, which seeks to literally excise a prohibition from the Torah, mocks the very definition of marriage, denies the reality that God created human beings “male and female,” and not three or six or sixty-four genders, as some would have it. It is the very essence of a heretical movement.

Rather than be challenged and distanced, if necessary, as the non-Orthodox movements were, they are coddled, especially when they threaten to “leave Orthodoxy.” We then distort the Torah, and in the process cheat our children who think the Torah is cruel, incomprehensible, malleable, or man-made, and they soon lose respect for the Mesorah and create their own. Our youth are being raised to think that what is abnormal is quite normal, that what is unnatural is quite natural, that what is a sign of mental illness is just self-actualization that should be encouraged, patronized, and subsidized. No wonder there is such mass confusion, dysfunction, and unhappiness.

Increasingly, Orthodox Jews are being compelled (in truth, many go quite willingly) to participate in charade weddings, complete with “clergy,” rings, blessings, a chuppah, and, of course, the broken glass. All this in the guise of “maintaining the friendship, rallying around the family, trying to keep the child in the fold” that he or she has already left – and in the process, they betray what is most dear to them and trample on the integrity of the Torah.

It is all one big game of pretend, in which no one is allowed to state the quiet part aloud: the emperor has no clothes! It is not that he is wearing alternative garb.

Do we ponder the ramifications of celebrating a sham wedding that defiles the very concept of marriage and family?

Do we even take a moment to consider that a four-year-old girl who thinks she is a boy needs her parents to take her to a competent mental health professional – not a surgeon?

It is hard to imagine a greater act of child abuse to which children – teens and younger – are being subjected, and all in the name of the golden calf of compassion.

Can’t we just admit that the pronoun game (individuals thinking they are plural) or the therian game (people thinking they are really animals) – is silly, and disturbing? Can’t we state publicly that an obvious-looking man or woman who claims to be non-binary is nonsensical? We help no one by mainstreaming mental illness or by egging on people who need therapy. And those who do not protest are accomplices to a rebellion against Torah.

Metaxas writes that many clergy fear being seen as “religious legalists rather than as loving and compassionate…” But he avers powerfully, “at what point does our silence encourage someone along in their sin and in their path away from God?” Indeed, one of the few prohibitions that remain is the contemporary one that abjures judgmentalism and declares that it is wrong to assert that sins are sins, banned by the Torah.

For too long we have been playing semantic games, such as “it is no sin to be a homosexual, but only to commit homosexual acts.” That is a distinction without a difference, and a vacuous one at that. Just reflect on how inane it sounds in other contexts. For example, it is not against the Torah to be a thief, only to steal. It is not against the Torah to be a murderer, only to murder. But what makes one a thief or a murderer? Only by stealing something or murdering someone. But we would not say that a thief is always stealing, or a murderer is always murdering someone, nor would we term someone with larcenous tendencies a thief or homicidal tendencies a murderer.

Deeds matter more than do thoughts or fantasies. But why then do we dance around the issue that a homosexual is one who has committed homosexual acts and not one who just has tendencies. No one’s tendencies are proscribed, only actions, as we all have sinful tendencies. But it is because the “pride” lobby – the only sin which has such a lobby – is purposely trying to dilute the gravity of the sin and excuse the sinner.

Certainly, we must love all sinners, including the homosexual. But is it really an act of love to ignore, rationalize, or celebrate his sin? Isn’t that really the opposite of love – to condemn someone to a life of sin without trying to help them overcome their urges and re-channel their energies? Do we really love the alcoholic when we ply him with liquor? Do we really love the slanderer when we feed her gossip so that she will then share it with others? Do we really love the adulterer when we procure for him new paramours because that is what he desires? Do we really love the thief when we suggest a ripe target?

There is an impasse in any reasoned discussion of these matters, given the threats, litigation, and cultural dominance, and because we have split into two camps. One camp fully embraces the new immorality as sacred and inviolable and demands legitimacy and acceptance from the Torah world – or else. They wish to control public discourse and impose their will on our schools, shuls, institutions, culture, and children. They have intimidated into silence most rabbis and opinion shapers in Jewish life.

The second camp – call them the traditionalists – pretend these groups do not exist, wish they would disappear, and, officially, hardly acknowledge their presence. This stagnation has caused many in the modern Orthodox camp to just surrender, accept the inevitability of their ultimate acceptance in Jewish life, and with it the loss of credibility of modern Orthodoxy as a Torah movement or ideology.

Is there a way out of this morass? Yes, but it requires an honest conversation heretofore lacking.

The approach is straightforward. To the groups and activists, nothing. They need to be told in every forum, clearly and unequivocally, that the Torah is not changing, and recognition is not forthcoming. Orthodox institutions that celebrate same sex weddings are as Orthodox (and faithful to Torah) as are Orthodox institutions that would celebrate interfaith weddings that take place on Yom Kippur and serve pork.

In the public discussion of these issues, we must revive the language of sin, right and wrong, objective truth, morality, and G-d’s will as embodied in the Torah, as well as the Torah’s immutability.

To the groups and activists, nothing. It is sufficient to restate our objections and try to remove the matter from the public domain. (It would be prudent just to ignore the parades. It should be noted, however, that polls show that anywhere from 70-87% of Jerusalemites oppose having a pride parade in the holy city. Funny how the media trumpet polls showing the Likud’s or the judicial reforms’ unpopularity – and then ignore these polls which reflect the people’s desire to safeguard the sanctity of Yerushalayim.)

We owe nothing to a group. But the individual is different. As rabbis have always done, to the individual struggling privately with same sex attraction, to their families who rightly love them and want to help them, we must offer safe counsel, sound guidance, and compassion without indulging or celebrating sinful behavior. There must be assistance provided to those who desire to overcome these passions or are otherwise plagued by gender confusion or some other dysfunction, if and where possible.

We should reiterate that no person has the right to blackmail family, friends, or communities into violating the Halakha or their consciences. No child has the right to say to a parent, “prove your love for me by eating this ham sandwich with me.” Privately we should encourage the parents to love and guide their wayward children, as we would privately encourage those children to observe as many mitzvot as they can – but never, ever, compromise a Torah value, eradicate, or celebrate a prohibition or make a mockery of all that is holy by sham ceremonies.

To the secular activists, wrapped in the euphoria of their current embrace by society’s elites, there is little that can be said, except perhaps, that they too should show tolerance to those who disagree with them. Yes, we retain the right to openly disagree with them, to respect and cherish the Torah’s morality, and even to publicly encourage its observance. The bullying of the activists has already unleashed a backlash, as we have recently seen in America with the boycotts of Bud Light, Target, the anti-Catholic mockery of LA Dodgers, etc. This will continue.

Cancel culture is a travesty – but it is also a two-way street. We should respond, without fear or rancor, by eschewing platitudes (compassion is a value but it is not the only or even primary value in Jewish life; misplaced mercy has always been a bane of Jewish existence) and by reinforcing the Torah’s morality at every opportunity in a pleasant and winsome way without compromising one whit. That would be courageous in today’s environment – and that would also be what once defined leadership.

Why even write about this subject when every word here has been stated and restated? So that we do not normalize and incentivize such behavior by indifference, by failure to protest. It is clear that the social media contagion has greatly contributed to the expansion of these movements, the confused identities of young people, and the concomitant assault on Torah and the Jewish family. Let it not be said that no voice was ever raised in protest.