Rabbi Pruzansky's Blog

(First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

The explosive rise of Jew hatred across the world and even in the United States should not obscure one curious fact, drawn from the lives of three of the most prominent Jew haters in America. Granted, there is a healthy competition for that designation, but for our purposes we can focus on Abdul El Sayed, the Senator-elect from Michigan, Zohran Mamdani the Mayor of New York City, and Hassan Piker the streamer and media gadfly.

What do all three have in common, aside from their pathological obsession with Israel and hatred of Jews? The roots of all three are not from countries that were enemies of Israel but, ostensibly, countries with which Israel has friendly or at least civil diplomatic relations.

Abdul El Sayed was born in Michigan in 1984 to parents who left Egypt in the 1970’s, around the time or perhaps shortly before Egypt and Israel signed a peace treaty. It would seem obvious that his parents opposed the peace treaty, especially considering that – as widely reported – his mother was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood while in college in Egypt. That would be the same Muslim Brotherhood that opposed Anwar Sadat’s diplomatic initiative, the same Muslim Brotherhood whose members were largely incarcerated by Sadat, and the same Muslim Brotherhood that was responsible for Sadat’s assassination. The fact that El Sayed was born into Egyptian citizenship at a time when Egypt was at “peace” with Israel, recognized Israel’s existence, and had no territorial claims against Israel did not make a whit of difference to the El Sayed clan.

Zohran Mamdani was born in 1991 in Uganda to Muslim parents who hailed from India. While he was a child in Uganda, that country established diplomatic relations with Israel. While India-Israel relations then were not as warm as they have been during Prime Minister Modi’s tenure since 2014, those two countries even then had extensive diplomatic and commercial ties. None of his associative countries (Uganda and India) and then the USA, where he grew up in Manhattan from age seven, have any inherent reason to be anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. The first two have miniscule Jewish populations and the third – the USA – speaks for itself. There is no logical reason he would be raised to hate Jews and Israel. His environment alone should have nurtured him to be neutral or supportive.

Hassan Piker was born in New Jersey in 1991 to Turkish parents but was raised in Istanbul during the 1990’s, years before the rise of the Jew-hating Turkish prime minister and then president Recep Tayyip Erdoğan. Piker was raised in a Turkey that prided itself since 1948 on being the only Muslim country that had diplomatic relations with Israel, a Turkey that had a secular government and whose citizens were relatively sophisticated and modern. Was Piker radicalized by Erdoğan’s rise to power in 2003? Or did it emerge from another source – the same source that turned his uncle Cenk Uygur into another rabid Jew hater?

It emerges that none of the countries that produced these fanatical haters should have been fertile ground for their intense hatred. These were not countries that scorned Israel – like Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and others; these were countries that maintained extensive relations with Israel, one of which even entered into a peace treaty with Israel. What gives?

One obvious common denominator that in our haste to be politically correct we tend to overlook is that the three are all Muslims. There is a strain of virulent Jew hatred that runs through the Koran and has shaped the attitudes of many, though not all, Muslims. It is a hatred that has little to do with Israel as it long predates the existence of the State of Israel – a hatred that is only ameliorated when Jews are perceived as second class citizens in a Muslim society and a hatred that will never accept a sovereign Jewish state of Israel. Never.

For sure, there are Muslim nations that have reconciled themselves to Israel’s existence, some friendlier than others. And it is true that a cold peace is better than a hot war. But we would be remiss not to note something that our leaders should internalize, especially leaders that situate themselves on the political left. Israel has not signed peace treaties – with, say, Egypt and Jordan – as much as we have signed “absence of war” treaties. We may not fight on the battlefield (a good thing per se) but there is no reconciliation or even warmth from the Arab populations of those countries to us. Jews do not visit Jordan or Egypt in large numbers – and certainly Egyptians or Jordanians do not come here.

The United Arab Emirates were different – but even there, these days, Jewish identity has gone underground. In most Arab countries, even those with formal relations with Israel, those ties are governmental and commercial. Friendship towards Jews or Israel has not seeped into the population, something generally conceded by the leaders of those countries who fear a popular uprising if association with Israel become too open or amicable. Even if they wanted to – not at all a given – internal constraints would prevent them, what the West often calls the “Arab Street.” It is not that the “Arab Street” has any real sway in the dictatorships where those “Streets” are paved; it is rather that the “Arab Street” is an accurate reflection of the societies and cultures that produce execrable Jew haters like El Sayed, Mamdani, and Piker.

Of course, one need not hail from one of these countries to hate Jews or even be a Muslim (take that, Tucker Carlson) and there are plenty of pseudo-Jews of the Bernie Sanders variety who fit the bill and provide (flimsy) cover for the Muslim Jew haters. But it should call into question the value of these “peace treaties” that do not at all make peace between nations. At least the desultory and sporadic efforts to create some diplomatic framework between Israel and Saudi Arabia has the good sense to refer to it as “normalization” rather than “peace.” To concede anything substantive in order to sign an “absence of war” agreement with a country with whom we are not at war is foolhardy.

It makes no difference to the citizens of these countries whether they have treaties or relations with Israel or are openly hostile to Israel. Given the persistence of Jew hatred among the populations of our enemies, and of many countries with which we have diplomatic relations, and in European nations that are being overrun and transformed by their Muslim invaders, what lessons can be gleaned from this sorry state of affairs?

Nothing we do will change their minds. There is no constellation of governmental coalitions, no policies, and no concessions that will dilute their Jew hatred, short of our own dissolution. Their Jew hatred is inbred. Their opposition to Israel is not based on Netanyahu’s leadership or the conduct of the war in Gaza or Lebanon but simply a function of our existence. Yes, sadly, they have revived the argument that Israel, alone among the nations, has no right to exist or one that is debatable.

And we must beware of their infiltration into Western society. These haters are already dominant in Britain, France, and Spain, and are increasingly influential in the US. It would have been inconceivable even a decade ago that unabashed Jew haters such as our three protagonists could have achieved such influence in American politics or culture. Part of their success comes from the pervasiveness of social media, part from the fecklessness of the traditional media, and part from the craven shamelessness of some Jewish politicians and celebrities in the US who run from their Jewish identity, think they will be spared when the day of reckoning comes, and provide them with political cover. The haters are skillfully leveraging the freedoms of democracy to make those countries less democratic and more antagonistic to Israel.

Our election results uncover the same stunt going on here, with open haters of the Jewish State of Israel serving in the Knesset, and potentially dominating, even if from the outside, our own government. Are there politicians willing to mortgage our future by empowering the Arabs all in order to gain for themselves positions of power? Yes, plenty, who will do it gladly.

It seems we are no more successful in combatting the enemy within than are Europe or the United States. When democracy works – i.e., when elections turn out results favorable to them – or when governments implement policies favorable to them, Muslims embrace it enthusiastically. And when it doesn’t, as they see it, they take to the streets and riot and plunder, as is happening in Western Europe.

Our three protagonists, and so many other Jew haters, grew up in democracies, and yet the values of democracy – of liberty, tolerance, equality – have never impacted their world view. The fact that all three live in the United States and their open Jew hatred doesn’t hamper but actually boosts their careers should be an eye opener for American Jews. The Jewish moment in the US is over, with Florida the last refuge. Our final stop in exile is going the way of all previous exiles but at least Jews today have the means of escape and a homeland that beckons.

Days ahead will surely be challenging, but we can meet this challenge by strengthening ourselves spiritually, fortifying ourselves politically, and inculcating in our society the Jewish ethos, our just rights to the land of Israel, and our unwillingness to eviscerate ourselves, our land, or our State to satisfy their insatiable demands.

The West is collapsing. Democracy itself is under siege across the world from within. Our enemies know how to exploit it in order to destroy it. Appreciation of what Jews have brought to the world is waning. Our future lies in our reassertion of the Jewish idea, in pride in our heritage, in faith in our G-d, and in confidence in our destiny.

   (First published at Israelnationalnews.com)

If political parties attracted voters simply based on the performance of its ministers the Religious Zionist Party would be dominating the polls.

It is hard to argue otherwise. Betzalel Smotrich as Minister of Finance has steered Israel’s economy masterfully, and perhaps unprecedented in the history of war, left Israel in a better financial position with little added debt, increased foreign investment, a strong shekel, and a positive outlook for the future. Inflation has been kept to a minimum – far lower than in other Western countries.

As minister in the Defense Ministry in charge of settlement, and together with Minister of Settlements Orit Strook, Smotrich effected a revolution in Judea and Samaria, founding or legalizing over 100 new communities, expanding the Jewish population, and rendering the prospect of another Palestinian state even more implausible.

And with other right-wing ministers, he emboldened PM Netanyahu not to succumb to the pressure – domestic and foreign – to end the war prematurely, with a fortified Hamas and Hezbollah ready to strike again, and a nuclear Iran ready to attack.

There are other ministers who has been quite effective in their ministries – Amichai Shikli stands out for putting teeth and substance in the Ministry for Diaspora Affairs and Combatting Anti-Semitism – even as most ministers are place holders who leave no lasting mark.

So why does the Religious Zionist party struggle to attract votes?

One reason is that Religious Zionism is a victim of its own success. Candidates who claim to be Religious Zionists – however they define it – can be found in most of the parties running for office. The RZ mantra – “the land of Israel for the people of Israel according to the Torah of Israel” – is a mantle that is claimed by many. For some it is a good fit, for others less so. Whereas the political party is perceived (rightly or wrongly) as sectoral and parochial, the RZ ideology has permeated much of the nation and engendered a variety of interpretations. And some of its potential voters see themselves as too cosmopolitan to vote for a “religious” party.

There are some critics who yearn for the halcyon days when the National Religious Party focused on religious issues like kashrut and mikvaot, and some are enraged that those spheres (and the accompanying patronage) were abandoned to Haredi parties like Shas and Degel Hatorah. But the NRP of old was often castigated for being the “kashrut supervisors for the socialist state,” consciously limiting its influence to matters of ritual and being uninvolved in the issues of state. That NRP has been supplanted by today’s Tzionut Hadatit party, which has a muscular platform that sees the realization of the Torah vision in the leadership and direction of the nation and not merely in the provision of religious services.

Another reason is that Israeli ministers are expected to opine on all issues, even those outside their framework. By contrast, American cabinet secretaries know how to stay in their lanes. The Secretary of Housing is not expected to offer his opinions on the war with Iran, and the Secretary of the Treasury does not weigh in on environmental issues. Such diffidence is unknown in Israel, where almost every minister has opinions on almost everything, and generally sees himself as a potential prime minister.

Thus, Betzalel Smotrich often comments on matters outside his immediate purview, always from a well-sourced Torah perspective, but such is anathema to those – even so-called religious Jews – who draw their moral system less from the Torah and more from the West. Some find his opinions strident, but the successful politician whose positions are mellow has yet to be invented. And, as I learned in the Rabbinate over many decades, when people cannot refute what you say, they will criticize the way you said it, style over substance.

I asked a number of young people, Religious Zionists all, what complaints they or their peers had against the Religious Zionists party, and their answers were quite illuminating.

The strangest among them was the contention that the party is too focused on settlements, strange because one would expect the Minister of Settlements to be focused on settlements, not to mention both the fulfillment of the mitzvah of settling the land of Israel as well as the profound security advantage in breaking up the contiguity of Arab settlements in Judea and Samaria and thwarting the possibility of a Palestinian state arising. And there are still people who are bitter that the provision of religious services has been outsourced to Haredim, and Religious Zionists still struggle to become city rabbis or dayyanim.

Neither of these is the primary reason some people feel disenchanted with the Religious Zionist party, and the reason proffered deserves a response. Briefly, the RZ party is blamed for not insisting on a universal draft that includes Haredim and for tolerating – even entertaining legislation – that would exempt yeshiva students from the IDF or national service. Indeed, this is a searing, open wound that is polarizing our society, especially in the Religious Zionist world, which paid a disproportionate price in the ongoing war in terms of casualties and reserve duty. Is the criticism fair and justified?

Two points are worth making. First, it is important to underscore that this issue will never be resolved. Never. The big lie of the campaign comes from those politicians who proclaim that they will insist that a law be passed that conscripts everyone and exempts no one. That is all well and good – except for the fact that such a law already exists. That is the current law. Yeshiva students had a ministerial exemption that has now lapsed. No new law is needed, just enforcement of the existing law, and any politician who claims that such a law is needed and he will pass it is simply lying.

The question to ask is this: are politicians willing to enforce the law in the face of mass public protests (akin to those of the Kaplanistim) that disrupt the lives of ordinary citizens? Are politicians willing to incarcerate all shirkers? Well, there are roughly 50,000-60,000 eligible men who were exempt, but Israel has a maximum prison capacity of 20,000. Do the math. And which terrorists do you want freed from prison to make room for these former yeshiva students, who, if it suits them, can keep learning in prison?

The problem will never be solved via legislation because the Haredi parties exist to ensure that Torah students are not drafted (even though I struggle to find the Torah source that exempts a Torah student from a Milchemet Mitzvah, an obligatory war for the land of Israel, or a war of self-defense; please do not cite the Rambam, end of Seder Zera’im. If that were applicable, Rambam would have placed it in Hilchot Melachim U’milchamoteihem, the Laws of Kings and their Wars). Their politicians are masters at stalling and delaying, from one election cycle to the next, knowing, confidently, that some constellation of parties will ultimately meet their demands in order to assume the reins of leadership.

You can take away their funding and their rights and their privileges and make life miserable for them, but that is not a good look for a Jewish state, and certainly not when there are plenty of secular shirkers who are not learning Torah. And the problem becomes intractable when we realize that the Haredi world now largely deems IDF service a sin, even as Religious Zionists and others deem it a mitzvah. Change will come not from the rabbis who tell the world that those who are not learning Torah should serve and then stress privately that everyone should be learning and the IDF is a spiritual danger. Change will only come from the people, when enough develop a sense of shame and feel responsible for the fate of the nation beyond their four cubits. And perhaps the new Haredi party can assist in that capacity and invigorate the grass roots.

Second, and consequently, should the onus of solving this problem be on the Religious Zionist party? Some answer yes and even insist that they should have left the government over this issue, notwithstanding that we are still are war.

But this is a classic example of what the great American economist and thinker Thomas Sowell called “Stage One Thinking.” Sure, they leave the government and the right-wing government falls. It feels great. They made a real statement. They can pat themselves on the back. And then what? That is Stage Two. What changes? A left-wing government still mired in the conceptziya, that would have ended the war prematurely and thus endangering our future? A left-wing government that promotes policies that are inimical to our survival, hostile to Torah, and indifferent to Israel as a Jewish state? A left-wing government yearning for another Oslo, an expulsion of Jews from Judea and Samaria, and that will confiscate the guns licensed now to 300,000 additional Israelis? And there would still be no universal draft law which, as noted, is not needed because it already exists!

Stage One Thinking always feels good but leaves its practitioners in a worse state. Stage Two Thinking, seeing the consequences of our actions before we act, is how the sages (Masechet Tamid 32a) defined a wise person.

Those who castigate the Religious Zionist party for not leaving the government should ponder the consequences had they left the government: energizing our enemies, rendering the sacrifices of war meaningless, and jeopardizing the Jewish character of the state. And still no universal draft. Nothing changed – but it felt good… until it didn’t.

Leaving the government precipitously over this issue would have been a tantrum, not a policy, harmful theatrics rather than constructive substance, a populist but thoughtless act. Fortunately, the Religious Zionist party did not succumb, even as the issue remains contentious among their natural constituents. Sometimes there is a political cost for acting maturely, for doing the right thing.

No person and no party is beyond reproach, but respect should always be shown to those, in President Theodore Roosevelt’s words, who serve the public with dedication and are steadfast in their values. “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood…”

Politics is not simple, not beanbag, and usually involves compromise that leaves many unsatisfied, and even the compromisers with marred faces. But it is the only way that progress is attained and our values advanced, albeit gradually.

The natural constituents of the Religious Zionist party should return home rather than chase the chimera of new politicians and new parties that will promise everything and deliver nothing. That constituency consists of those who cherish “the land of Israel for the people of Israel according to the Torah of Israel.”