Israel’s Chief Rabbinate Promises More of the Same Flawed Policies After Election
Header of an instruction from Israel’s Chief Rabbinate for how to observe Shabbat during the war with Hamas.
While the world’s attention has been focused on the American
election, there has been a far less publicized, but still significant,
election in Israel for the Chief Rabbinate.
After months of wrangling, the election was finally decided, with
left and right fighting about egalitarianism, and who should sit on the
electoral committee.
I have always been a rebel and disliked authority and power —
particularly when it is associated with religion, from which I expect a
higher level of ethics and morality than elsewhere.
And yet, I am constantly disappointed. When people achieve authority,
they tend to make decisions based on preserving their power, rather
than the moral criteria. That is why religion and politics are two very
different areas of human activity that really ought to be kept apart.
Sadly, they rarely are.
Israel’s Chief Rabbinate controls important levers of income and
authority — from marriage and divorce, to conversions and kashrut. It
also provides extremely well paid and plentiful easy jobs for Orthodox
boys (less so for the girls), and like all bureaucracies, is very
bureaucratic.
This is fertile ground for corruption, and indeed unpopularity. Yet
there are some wonderful, honest, devoted and impressive rabbis serving
in Israel’s rabbinate today.
The tensions that we have witnessed in Israel between ethnic groups,
the right and the left, secular and the religious, the Supreme Court and
its critics, and the different voices within them, illustrate the near
impossibility of reconciliation and compromise.
Caught between conflicting interests comes the Chief Rabbinate, whose
courts run parallel with secular courts. It’s a government agency of
great power and reach that is unpopular with many sectors of Jewish life
in Israel today, for good reason.
Candidates for the Chief Rabbinate who are not approved of by the
Haredi world stand little chance of getting elected. As a result, some
Chief Rabbis have been convicted of crimes, and others were suspected of
crimes. And the only criterion seems to be getting enough Haredi votes.
In the early years of the state, most of the state rabbis were
committed to the cause of a Jewish State, even if they wouldn’t
necessarily call themselves Zionists politically. The Chief Rabbinates
performed very well given the constraints. Over time, the institution,
like most others in Israel, was slowly infected by a bureaucracy of
entitlement, laziness, and incompetence.
At first, the Haredi community simply ignored the Chief Rabbinate.
Their religious and sometimes charismatic leaders and authorities were
not elected or appointed. They emerged as natural leaders. They had
their own standards and attitudes towards Israeli life. But then the
Haredi community increased, and it saw opportunities.
The salaries of community and local rabbis were very attractive, and
you didn’t have to have a secular education. Increasingly the Haredi
world entered the rabbinate and over time, have come to dominate it, so
that the moderates have largely been undercut.
This year, the Sephardi candidate got through easily in a
predetermined election that saw yet another member of the Yosef dynasty
intent on keeping it in one family. The Ashkenazi Lau family also tried
to maintain their grip on the position, but could not gather enough
support. The Ashkenazi election came down to two candidates. Eventually
Rabbi Kalman Ber from Netanya was elected by 77-58. He defeated the more
open and impressive Rabbi Micha Halevi of Petach Tikvah, who had
support from the Religious Zionists.
Both rabbis have good reputations and claimed to be moderates. At the
induction ceremony, they spoke of embracing all sectors of Israeli
life, to support IDF soldiers, visit army camps, and comfort the
families of kidnapped Israelis. Rabbi Yosef concluded in English with a
Trumpian declaration that resonated with the audience: “We will make the
Chief Rabbinate great again!” Chief Rabbi Ber echoed this commitment to
unity, expressing the vision rooted in Rabbi Kook. “My greatest mission
is to bring about unity among all parts of the people,” he said.
I have heard this before from Chief Rabbis across the world. Music to
my ears. But given human nature, they rarely live up to their campaign
promises. In Israel, as the winning candidates were elected thanks to
Haredi votes, I cannot see any change in matters of law or the culture
of the rabbinate. Any hope for a new era will once again be brushed
under the carpet. And nothing will change. The only saving grace is that
Chief Rabbis are only elected for 10 years. I pray I am proven wrong.
The phone rings. It’s my son Aryeh (a.k.a Erik). He’s been busy
fighting a war, and we haven’t spoken in a while, so I drop everything,
try to get my emotions in check before answering. “Hi Ima,” he says,
“I’m OK but…” I heard that twice during the 354 days of miluim reserve
duty Aryeh served in this current war. He was injured on two separate
occasions. But, if he was calling me, it was going to be
something that we could handle, I hoped. I have been an army mom for 11
years, with three lone soldiers, who were at one point serving at the
same time. They weren’t the first phone calls of this kind, but they
were the most serious.
I won’t go into the details of those events, because I wasn’t
there, and I am sure I received a highly sanitized version of what
really happened. Suffice it to say, scary isn’t a descriptive enough
word.
After both injuries, he went straight back into miluim as soon as
he was able, even though I thought he should stand down. But that’s
Aryeh. He couldn’t walk away from his duty, even though he had permanent
injuries, even if his mom asked him to. Hero isn’t a big enough word.
I cannot even bear to imagine what he witnessed and experienced.
No one should ever have to go through such a gruesome time. I have a
“don’t ask – don’t tell” policy when it comes to army stuff, and my
soldiers protect me by not sharing things they know would upset me. It
comes as no surprise that Aryeh was recently diagnosed with Combat PTSD,
and was subsequently discharged from the army in order to get help and
to heal. The fact that he is a Major and a Company Commander with a lot
of responsibility hasn’t made him immune from suffering. And to have to
walk away from his team, from his soldiers for whom he feels
responsible, in the middle of the war, is so painful for him.
Aryeh made aliyah 11 years ago, and served seven years in the IDF
instead of the standard three, rising up through the ranks. He left an
easy middle-class life in North America because his soul yearned to be
in Israel. He built himself a life in Israel, a career path, and
integrated well into Israeli society. But then October 7 happened.
Without even receiving his tzav 8 army call-up (which, like
many reservists, he received 24 hours later), he jumped in his car to
join his unit and fight for his country, for his people. In civilian
life, he is a police officer, and he had been due to start his master’s
degree in law enforcement soon after the war started. He had just moved
into a new apartment on October 1 – didn’t even have a chance to unpack.
But, like so many other soldiers and their families, civilian life got
put on hold.
When a person is what’s called a lone soldier (generally, a young
person who has made aliyah, joined the IDF, but their immediate family –
parents, etc – live in the diaspora) doing the mandatory three years of
service, there are extra benefits financially, and otherwise – a day
off every so often to run errands, time off to be allowed to fly back
“home” to see their parents once during their service, etc. But all that
extra TLC ends when mandatory service is over. Whether they be in
extended service (keva) or in the reserves, or marry a fellow lone
soldier, all their lone soldier rights are terminated. How is this
allowed?
Generally, a reservist goes back into the army for a few weeks
every year. The length of this war is unprecedented, and the extreme
length of time some of the soldiers are serving was never anticipated.
My son was released from the army because he was no longer fit for
service, because he needed to take care of himself, physically and
mentally. He went home. To an empty apartment filled with boxes that
needed to be unpacked. With no one around to check up on him.
The army washed their hands of him – they have other things to do
and were certainly not going to sit around and hold his hand. But how
can you leave a person who is suffering from PTSD alone? Who is
permanently injured? How can you just leave them to twist in the wind?
Where is the advice, the support, someone to hold his hand, especially
because I cannot be there physically?
Most other soldiers get to go home to their families, to the
warmth and structure they have grown up with. They’re not alone. If they
are in a life-threatening state, the family will never leave them alone
and will do everything in their power to get help. And they know the
system and how to get help, and if not, then they know who to reach out
to who does know.
Lone soldiers don’t have that support system. In the past two
weeks alone, two lone soldiers in the reserves died by suicide – young
men who the country and the army failed. How many more funerals will my
sons need to attend of their fellow lone soldiers who died at their own
hands because they felt so hopeless and lost and did not have where to
turn? Lone reservists need to know that they can and must reach out for
help with their challenges, not keep them to themselves. They shouldn’t
have to suffer alone.
Aryeh was at the Knesset this past week, meeting with MKs and
lone soldier organizations and their representatives to talk about lone
soldier reservists, and their rights, and how things need to change for
them. His testimony at a meeting of the Immigration Committee to discuss
the status of lone IDF reserve soldiers was fraught with emotion. I
have not seen him cry in over a decade and a half. To see my big,
strong, heroic son break down and explain how lonely he feels, how
forgotten, how he does not know where to go from here, as his life
trajectory has completely changed – to see that broke me completely.
Everything he has achieved up until now, all his plans are for naught
because he fought in the war for his country and is paying a massive
toll for it. How can an injured veteran be ignored when he has given so
much with his service?
My son is hurting. My son is suffering. My son feels neglected
and ignored. Even if I was spending time in Israel, that would not
change. Yes, I could fill his freezer with challah and chicken soup. I
could run errands with him/for him. I could be a presence so that he
doesn’t feel alone. But he’d still be injured and eventually, I would
have to leave and he’d be alone again. At the end of the day, he has to
live his life, and learn to adapt to the changes that will be necessary
so that he can live a fulfilling life in the country that he loves – but
he cannot do that without support.
I cannot be there and it hurts so much. I cannot fix him. I
cannot fix the situation. Change has to come from within Israel, within
the IDF, within the government. Lone soldier reservists need more
support in every way – and the injured ones need it all the more so.
These brave young men and women should not be ignored or made to feel
insignificant. When they are already struggling with their mental
health, loneliness can push them over the edge. If you have soldiers in
your life (and who in Israel doesn’t?), check in on them and make sure
they have what they need. Make sure they have who to talk to, even if
it’s not you.
My heart is broken for my son. This isn’t something that a
forehead kiss can make better. It is the responsibility of every single
Israeli, for whom Aryeh fought in this war, to make sure that injured
veterans are all well taken care of, and have everything that they need
to heal. It’s a national responsibility. These young men and women gave
up everything they had to come to Israel. It needs to change. And that
starts with you.
The Knesset committee is meeting again on Monday, December 2.
Ahead of that meeting, please take a moment to message the committee
chair Oded Forer — odedfo@knesset.gov.il — with your support and with
your message.
In the meeting that Aryeh attended, only two members of Knesset
were present, Oded Forer and Moshe Tor-Paz, and the meeting hall was
mostly empty. Where was Ofir Sofer, the Minister for Aliyah? Does this
not fall into his bailiwick? Email him – sar@moia.gov.il – to insist
that his presence is required at the meeting and that this issue
requires his involvement in the discussions.
Where were the other Knesset members? They need to show up. This
needs to matter. This needs to be in the front of policymakers’ minds so
that our lone miluimnikim get everything that they need and more,
including healthcare, mental healthcare and support. Rehabilitation
needs are different for lone soldiers. If we don’t fight for them, who
will?
About the Author
HaDassah Sabo Milner is a Welsh Jew who lives in Monsey NY. She is a
paralegal, a writer and a lifelong foodie, and works in the local
court's system. She's married with four sons who provide her with much
fodder for her writing projects. HaDassah's oldest son made aliyah in
Aug 2013, and her second son joined him in July 2014. Son #3 made Aliyah
in August 2016. - All 3 served in the IDF. Son #4 is a volunteer EMT
and an entrepreneur and has yet to make any Aliyah plans.
"The results showed, by a probability of 86%, that the Torah scroll is
dated to the time period of 1470-1680 – at least 100 years after the
Ran’s death. Put another way: the scroll may be old, but the colophon
and the plate are false and attest to a forgery."
Did He Write It or Not? The Mystery of the Torah Scroll Attributed to the Ran
This centuries-old Torah scroll underwent many travails,
changing not only its geographical location multiple times but also its
identity and history. “Everything depends on luck, even a Torah scroll
in the Holy Ark,” says the Zohar. It seems this Torah scroll did not
have the best of luck.
One day in 1978, a centuries-old Torah scroll
was discovered deep inside the National Library of Israel, practically
by coincidence. The scroll, written on dark parchment, also had a silver
plate, which was apparently discovered beforehand, with an etched
explanation of the scroll’s origins. The scroll’s height was almost half
a meter, and it was written in early Sephardic script. The scroll had
not been cataloged nor did it appear in our records of manuscripts. In
short, a mystery (patience, we’ve only just begun and from here onwards
things will only get weirder). No-one knew how it ended up in the
collection, but the experts at the National Library immediately
identified what this Torah scroll was.
Some 40 years earlier, on the eve of Passover in 1936, the Haaretz
newspaper published a fascinating article on a unique Torah scroll that
had been discovered. The article was written by Rabbi Baruch Toledano, a
scholar and author who once discovered a copy of the famous Commentary on the Mishnah in Maimonides’ own handwriting (sections of which are preserved at the National Library).
According to the article, the scroll was written by none other than
Rabeinu Nissim Ben Reuven of Gerona (Girona) (1290-1376), known as “The
Ran”, an important commentator and religious jurist in 14th
century Spain. After the Jewish expulsion from Spain, one of the exiles –
a respected elder – brought the scroll from Spain to a small Jewish
community based in Brazil. There, a Shadar – an emissary of the Jewish community in the Land of Israel – acquired the scroll in the early 20th century. This emissary, Chacham Yahya Dahan from the northern city of Tiberias, brought the scroll to the Holy Land.
Haaretz, April 6, 1936
Antique Torah scrolls are spread throughout the world, but there is
usually no evidence of their scribe. This one, however, had clear signs
pointing to the author. One of the most prominent is the colophon (a
portion of text describing the time and circumstances of its writing)
written on the other side of the Torah scroll’s parchment, at its very
beginning.
Adding a theoretical portion to a kosher Torah scroll is considered
an unconventional and religiously very problematic action. Still, the
colophon is there, prominently displayed, telling the scroll’s tale in
Sephardic script written in brown ink. The colophon’s author, according
to its text, is Rav Reuven, the son of the Ran. He describes the
troubles which befell the Jews of Spain during the Christian pogroms of
1391, writing that he managed to flee with his father’s scroll:
“For three months, the fire of
conflagration spread in the holy communities of the children of Israel,
in the exile of Spain… the kingdoms of Castile, Toledo, Seville,
Majorca, Cordoba, Valencia, Barcelona, Aragon, Granada… a blow of sword,
killing and death, religious destruction, captivity … and we were sold
as slaves and handmaidens to the Yishmaelites… the seekers of blood
carried out their plot… and I saved all the scrolls of our holy Torah
and with them this book that belonged to my father and mentor… and our
heart is filled with terror and fear and our lives are torn for there is
no faith as to our end…”
The colophon at the beginning of the Torah scroll, on its back
Rabbi Toledano didn’t suffice with the testament of the colophon as
evidence of the scribe’s identity, and he presented additional proof in
his article in Haaretz: the form of the some of the Hebrew qof (kuf – ק) letters in the scroll. Here’s what Rabbi Simeon Ben Zemah Dura (1361-1444) said on the matter in his responsa:
“I also heard that the Rabbi R. Nissim
Gerondi ob”m who was in Barcelona and who was the Rabbi of my rabbis
ob”m that he wrote a Torah scroll for himself and the legs of the
[letter] qof would be stuck to their roof.” (Shut Tashbetz, 1.51)
And indeed, the Torah scroll in question often had the qof, which is usually made up of two separate parts, connected in a way reminiscent of the letter chet – ח, with a long left leg.
Remember the silver plate that came with the scroll? The form of the
letters and the menorah etched on it indicate that the plate was not
made in the Ran’s time and was actually a copy, yet the text of the
plate explicitly attests that the Ran wrote the scroll himself and
donated it to the synagogue:
“This holy Torah scroll, I wrote for
myself and my merit, Nissim son of my master, my father, teacher, and
Rabbi Reuven Girondi, may his creator preserve him and keep him alive. I
gave on condition to the synagogue of Kohelet Yaakov to the holy
congregation in Barcelona…”
The Torah scroll’s silver plate
The 1936 newspaper article was not the only appearance of the Torah
scroll in question. Scholar and historian Shmuel Kraus mentions it in
his book Korot Batei Hatfilah Beyisrael [The History of Jewish
Prayer Houses, published in 1955 after his death]. Kraus saw the scroll
when he visited Tiberias in 1934. He describes the scroll as being made
of the skin of a red deer and being difficult to read. The scroll’s
author asked Kraus to help him sell it, but Kraus didn’t succeed in
brokering a transaction. A few years later, another attempt was made to
sell the scroll in Jerusalem.
The last testament to the scroll’s existence before its disappearance appears in the book Tzidkat Hatzadik
[The Righteousness of the Tzadik] by Rabbi Aryeh Leib Friedman, who
wrote that in the summer of 1952, he travelled to the Chacham Yahya
Dahan (the emissary we mentioned earlier) in Tiberias and saw the Ran’s
Torah scroll there.
Doubts begin to emerge
The enthusiasm which accompanied the important and accidental
discovery at the National Library was quickly dampened by scholars who
had questions about the source of the Torah scroll and its ostensible
author. Despite the careful argument made by Rabbi Toledano in 1936,
doubters did not lack alternative explanations. For instance, it was
known that the lettering styles in Jewish holy books differed among
Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews and depended on the period in which they
were written. Indeed, some of the letters in the Torah scroll in
question were different than those used in the time and place in which
the Ran lived.
Shlomo Zucker of the National Library’s manuscript department noted
another strange fact: In the Torah scroll in question, the song of Haazinu contained 70 lines, yet in the Ran’s time it was customary to use 67 lines, in accordance with a ruling by Maimonides.
Haazinu in 70 lines instead of the 67 used during the Ran’s lifetime
Doubts also arose as to the colophon. It turned out that its
description of the 1391 pogroms was chronologically inaccurate. It also
contained words that were relatively modern compared to the Ran’s time,
and it also contained acronyms unknown from other sources. Furthermore,
acronyms were marked with quotation marks, as is done today in Hebrew,
even though in the Ran’s time – and later – they were marked by periods.
Another problem with the colophon’s history is that it mentioned the
city of Granada in southern Spain as one of the cities attacked by
Christian pogroms – except that in that year, Granada was still in
Muslim hands. A slightly different spelling of Granada was etched into
the silver plate, a text supposedly written by the Ran:
“This Torah scroll I wrote for myself and for my merit … Nissim son of my master, father, teacher and Rabbi Reuven Grinodi.
For scholars, the great contradiction here is that the Ran, like
Maimonides, Rabeinu Yonah, and others, lived in the city of Girona in
northeast Spain and not Granada/Grinoda/Grinodi in its south. In his
article, Rabbi Toledano tried to explain this contradiction by
suggesting that perhaps the Ran was indeed from Granada and not from
Girona as originally thought, but this explanation was rejected by other
scholars.
Map of Spain, Abraham Ortelius, Amsterdam 1586. National Library of Israel collections
Despite the multiple questions surrounding the origin of the Torah
scroll, the National Library accepted the source’s own testimony in the
colophon and silver plate and presented the scroll as having been the
Ran’s own creation. In 1992, to mark 500 years since the Spanish
Expulsion and 100 years since the founding of the National Library, the
Library put on a special exhibit of “Books [and manuscripts] from
Spain.” The exhibit’s catalog shows the scroll under the heading “Torah
scroll written by Rabbi Nissim Ben Reuven Girondi (the Ran) for himself”
and notes that the scroll was acquired by the Library. No further
details were provided. Eight years later, to mark the 75th anniversary of Hebrew University, the scroll was once again put on display and presented in the printed catalog.
And the results are in…
Yet the doubts persisted. In 2012, a sample of the scroll’s parchment
was sent to a lab at the Weizmann Institute to conduct a carbon-14 test
on it. Since this test is used to date archaeological findings
containing organic material, a parchment made of animal skin is very
appropriate for such a test.
The results showed, by a probability of 86%, that the Torah scroll is
dated to the time period of 1470-1680 – at least 100 years after the
Ran’s death. Put another way: the scroll may be old, but the colophon
and the plate are false and attest to a forgery. It could be that the
forgery was committed to increase the value of the scroll. In an effort
to explain the errors in the descriptions, scholars believe the forger
who added the colophon and created the silver plate inscription was not
very familiar with Spain’s geography and confused Girona and Granada. In
his book Chazon Tverimun, which discusses the counterfeiting
industry in Tiberias, Moshe Hillel describes the history of the forgery
of this Torah scroll and thus explains all the doubts raised concerning
it.
The first verses of the Torah scroll attributed to the Ran
So where did it come from?
If it wasn’t owned or written by the Ran in Spain, then where is this scroll from and whose was it?
According to Moshe Hillel, the Torah scroll appears to have come from
Morocco. The Moroccan Jewish community was in possession of antique
Torah scrolls, some of them were even made before the expulsion from
Spain, which Jews fleeing the Inquisition brought with them. In
1810-1910, some Moroccan Jews immigrated to Brazil, bringing along with
them a number of Torah scrolls and settling in the region of the
Amazon.
The emissary from Tiberias, Yahya Dahan, may have come to Brazil and
returned with an old Torah scroll. But since the attribution to the Ran
is false, it is also possible that the scroll never even passed through
Brazil but rather arrived directly from Morocco to the Land of Israel,
after which a whole story was stitched together to make its provenance
sound greater than it was.
Others believe that the scroll may have originated in the Land of Israel or even Turkey.
The portion of Bereshit in the Torah scroll attributed to the Ran
If the Torah scroll had indeed been written by an important Torah
scholar such as the Ran, we could have learned much from it on the
customs of writing holy Hebrew texts in Medieval Spain. And indeed,
Rabbis and scholars tried to do just that in a number of articles. While
the scroll does seem to be quite old, it is unfortunately not “old
enough,” and what we can learn from its writing is unrelated to the Ran
or to the Jews of Spain. The scroll certainly served some Jewish
community for many years, and perhaps we do need to remember it – as a
historic document of the lives of Sephardic Jews is some other location.
The Zohar, in relation to the Torah portion of Naso, says
“Everything depends on luck, even a Torah scroll in the Holy Ark.” So
yes, even Torah scrolls need a little luck. There are Torah scrolls that
sit unused in the ark of a synagogue for a whole year and are only
brought out to be danced with on the festival of Simchat Torah. Other
scrolls, the luckier ones, have the privilege of being used several
times a week.
This famous Torah scroll that was once attributed to the Ran has
experienced varying luck over the centuries. Once a holy relic
associated with one of the great leaders and sages of 14th
century Jewry, it is today linked to fraud and deceit. And perhaps here
we have a final stroke of good fortune: Despite its dubious reputation,
instead of being buried or hidden away like other Torah scrolls with
problematic histories, it is preserved, maintained, and sometimes even
put on display at the National Library of Israel.
Channel 14 on Thursday revealed new details about the
first Haredi brigade in the IDF since the establishment of the Jewish
State in 5708. The Haredi soldiers of the Hasmonean Brigade must pledge
to observe the commandments, wear Shabbat clothes during prayers and
meals on the Day of Rest, and participate in daily Torah lessons. The
kashrut standards will be the most “Mehadrin,” and the soldiers will be
obligated to pray three prayers a day – four on Shabbat, and five on Yom
Kippur.
THESE ARE THE 10 COMMANDMENTS OF THE HASMONEAN BRIGADE
The Hasmonean Brigade will strictly observe the commandments according to Halacha.
The Hasmonean Brigade will be run according to a Haredi lifestyle to allow those who serve there to maintain their identity.
Service in the brigade is not a melting pot; moreover, the brigade
will make every effort not to disconnect those who serve there from his
community.
The brigade will maintain a full gender service of men only without
compromise, throughout the entire period of service and in every place
and/or framework in which it operates (except for operational activity
during war, and this too out of the necessity to protect life only).
The brigade will provide food under “Mehadrin” kosher supervision of Badatz and/or Rabbi Landau only.
The brigade obliges all those who serve there to pray in a minyan three times a day.
The brigade obliges all those who serve there to participate in
Torah classes every day (except for operational activity during a war,
and this too out of the necessity to protect life only).
The IDF is committed to maintaining a Haredi rabbinical body,
comprised of rabbis from a variety of communities within Haredi society
who support serving in the brigade. This rabbinical body will accompany
the brigade and deal with every aspect of the Haredi spiritual and
Torah-related needs of those who serve there, and supervise the
maintenance of the Haredi identity of the Haredi soldier.
The brigade will make sure that the rabbis come and will continue to come in the future from within the Haredi public.
All the commanders and support staff must be God-fearing and observers of Torah and Mitzvot.
Finally: the soldiers will be required to wear a black kippah
throughout their service, dress in Shabbat clothes on non-operational
Shabbat days, and maintain a Haredi lifestyle throughout their service,
even while at home. And they will be prohibited from using unfiltered
cell phones.
It looks like the Division’s rules may be stricter than some Haredi Yeshivas.
Before we end this report and wish our Haredi soldiers a huge Mazal
Tov, I’d like to make one personal observation about the name picked for
the new Haredi unit by the powers that be in the IDF: the Hasmonean
Brigade. It is named after the dynasty that ruled Judea from the 2nd
century to the first century BCE. The Hasmonean kings were the offspring
of the five sons of Mattathias the priest, who led the revolt against
Seleucid rule. From the start, the Hasmoneans violated the long-held
tradition that Judea must be ruled by the offspring of King David, and
not by priests, who were from the tribe of Levi. As a result, the entire
line of Hasmonean kings were removed from office either due to madness,
or assassinations. They were loathed by the sages, founding fathers of
the Rabbinic tradition, who mistrusted their intentions and feared their
affiliation with Hellenism. Wasn’t there a less controversial name for
this very important IDF division?
During a meeting in July with Rabbi David Leibel for the purpose of
establishing the Haredi brigade, Major General Zini and the head of the
Planning and Human Resources Management, Brigadier General Shai Taib,
were attacked by dozens of extremist Haredim who surrounded their
vehicle, threw objects and bottles at them, and shouted insults. But I
don’t think it was because of the choice of a name for the new unit…
Francis,
with rare exceptions, ignores or minimizes the nature of the threats
faced by Israel. Despite the avowed goals of Israel’s enemies, he never
acknowledges this as distinctly genocidal in intent.
Pope Francis and the Israel-Hamas war --- Jew-Hatred is in his DNA!
"A Pope, from Argentina where they hid Nazis and murdered Jews, representing a church that discriminated for millennia, lectures Jews on morality. We'll pass"- David Wolpe
What
makes the inflammatory statements in the pope’s book especially
disturbing is that they follow on remarks by the pope that appear to
demonize Jews even more broadly and which are contrary to teachings of
the Church.
Pope Francis’ prior Letter to Catholics of the Middle East
on the first anniversary of the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel
from Gaza provoked widespread confusion and consternation among Jews and
Catholics. While he has spoken regularly about the attack and the
fighting that erupted in its wake, his inclusion in the letter of a
citation of John 8:44 to denounce the evils of war was to many
inexplicable.
The
verse chosen by the pontiff, a vitriolic accusation that the Jews “are
from [their] father, the devil,” has for centuries provoked and been
used to justify Church hostility to Jews. Yet such terrible imagery of
Jewish malfeasance is thoroughly out of place in a modern Catholic
document.Regrettably, the pope nonetheless chose to use this notorious
verse at a time when global antisemitism has reached disturbingly high
levels. Such a statement threatens the intellectual work of his Catholic
predecessors going back to the 1960s.
While
the citation is surely troubling, more significant is the letter
itself, for it is yet another example of an ongoing presentation of
Francis’ extensive and controversial views on the Israel-Hamas war. This
letter has made people aware of this significant body of statements
and demonstrates the compelling need to understand current relations
with one of the Jewish community’s most influential and important
partners, Pope Francis and the Catholic Church. In the year after the
attack, Francis has spoken publicly about the war at least 75 different
times. The conflict is not just like other conflicts, for it occurs in a
place “which has witnessed the history of revelation” (2/2/24). Not
only is he understandably very distressed about the war, but he is also
clearly knowledgeable about it and notes many aspects of it (e.g.,
hostages, negotiations, humanitarian aid, Israeli airstrikes, challenges
for aid workers). With the possible exception of Russia’s war on
Ukraine, no other conflict has received such frequent mention by
Francis, nor has he engaged so intimately with the specific features of
other, often more deadly conflicts. He addressed the war most often in
scheduled gatherings for the Sunday Angelus Prayer and in weekly
audiences with the general public, though he has discussed it at greater
length in official contexts (e.g., Address to Members of the Diplomatic
Corps Accredited to the Holy See, 1/8/24).
Francis,
with rare exceptions, ignores or minimizes the nature of the threats
faced by Israel. Despite the avowed goals of Israel’s enemies, he never
acknowledges this as distinctly genocidal in intent.
Pope
Francis does not just speak homiletically. His statements express his
deep-seated and passionate convictions about morality and political
affairs. They also both reflect and influence current trends in Catholic
thinking about the Israel-Hamas war. The Holy See of course is not just
a religious institution but also a state, engaged in pragmatic
exchanges and negotiations with other states and organizations. The
pope’s views on war and peace necessarily shape Vatican diplomacy and
guide Catholic political proposals, as seen for example in the statement
of the Apostolic Nuncio to the U.N. in January 2024, which is replete
with references to Francis’ speeches and elaboration on his ideas.
Francis
is struggling to reconcile traditional Catholic just war theory, which
began with St. Augustine centuries ago, with contemporary Catholic
resistance to almost any justification of war, especially without
international sanction (Fratelli Tutti 258 n. 242; see also the Catechism of the Catholic Church2302-17).
The latter, more skeptical view of war has roots in the 19th century
but emerged strongly after World War II and the Second Vatican Council
(1962-65), especially in the wake of the Shoah and the development of
nuclear weapons. It continues to develop today, with Francis giving it
his own emphases that reflect his roots in the global south and the
influence of liberationist theology.
It
is ironic, or perhaps predictable, that the Catholic Church in the
modern period, now without access to military power, has moved away from
just war theory and now largely deploys its more restrained views of
war and peace in judging others. Given the prominence of the
Israel-Hamas war in Francis’ speeches and its moral and political
complexity, as well as his stature internationally, his views are
relevant and influential.
The
pope cannot and does not separate the Jewish-Catholic relationship from
the Israel-Hamas war. Francis has spoken often and highly personally
about Jewish-Catholic relations and emphasized his commitment to
deepening the connection between the two long-estranged communities. He
has celebrated the remarkable changes that started with the Second
Vatican Council, noting that “enemies and strangers have become friends
and brothers” (10/28/15). Building upon the admirable endeavors of Popes
John Paul II and Benedict XV, he has endorsed profound theological
changes in Catholic teachings about Judaism and expressed sadness over
Catholics’ past misdeeds against Jews (e.g., Evangelii Gaudium
248). Relevant here in particular are the popes’ expressions of support
for the State of Israel (especially following the establishment of
diplomatic relations between Israel and the Holy See in 1993) and
peacemaking endeavors for the region, which Francis has continued. He
was warmly welcomed by national leadership during his visit to Israel in
2014 and emphatically insisted “the State of Israel has every right to
exist in safety and prosperity” (10/28/15).
A
sense of this fraught history and a Catholic responsibility to the
Jewish people and the State of Israel emerges from his comments during
his papacy. He insists that “to attack Jews is anti-Semitism, but an
outright attack on the State of Israel is also anti-Semitism”
(10/28/15). Catholics, above all, he says, should not be indifferent to
such hostility. The Shoah is never far from his mind. Past hostility to
Jews, manifest in violence and genocide, should guide the Church in the
present and the future.
Speaking
to a Jewish audience in Rome, he said Catholics should “always maintain
the highest level of vigilance [against hostility toward Jews], in
order to be able to intervene immediately in defense of human dignity
and peace” (1/17/16). He insists here on an active stance, alert to such
threats, “lest we become indifferent” (1/27/20). Responding to a letter
from Jewish scholars written in November 2023 expressing deep concern
over “the worst wave of antisemitism since 1945,” he says the Oct. 7
attack against Israel in particular reminds him that the promise “never
again” remains relevant and must be taught and affirmed anew (2/2/24).
Likewise, the Church’s commitment to opposing antisemitism remains firm.
Because of the “path that the Church has walked with you,” he replied,
it “rejects every form of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, unequivocally
condemning manifestations of hatred towards Jews and Judaism as a sin
against God.”
Francis’
statements following Oct. 7, 2023, are therefore disappointing on
multiple levels. First, he does not fulfill his commitment to vigorously
and publicly oppose antisemitism and anti-Judaism. By ignoring central
aspects of the conflict, such as the motivations of the combatants, he
actually undercuts his promise of vigilance and resistance against all
such forms of hatred. Second, his view of the war is not constructive.
Desiring to move Catholic theology away from just war theory and toward a
nascent so-called just peace theory, he offers little practical or
moral guidance in the present Israel-Hamas war. Instead, he
misrepresents the nature of the conflict and simplistically presents
highly complex and nuanced situations in service of his a priori views
on war in general. While it would be unreasonable to expect him to
become a partisan in the conflict or to dig deeply into the nature of
the opposition Israel is facing, he has failed to consider the need for
military self-defense or to assess whether antisemitic hatred of Jews—an
explicit concern of his—lies behind any of the aggression and rhetoric
against Israel.
Pope
Francis’ statements on the conflict that started on Oct. 7 should be
situated in the broader context of his thinking about war and violence.
His principled opposition to any justification for war is both morally
and logically questionable. On the one hand, he affirms the
acceptability of self-defense through the use of force: “It is the right
of those who are attacked to defend themselves” (10/11/23). As is
widely understood, this right is not unlimited. Traditionally, one must
satisfy the requirements both for initiating a war (jus ad bellum) and for prosecuting a war (jus in bello).
Although Francis does not use these technical Latin terms, they are
present behind his focus on the fate of “innocent victims” (10/11/23)
and claim that “even when exercising the right of legitimate defence, it
is essential to adhere to a proportionate use of force” (1/8/24; see
also 9/29/24). There are also “various international conventions, signed
by many countries,” that place restraints on certain actions (1/8/24, quotingGaudium et Spes
79). A combatant must engage in a careful assessment of a variety of
factors (including some not mentioned here) and only then it is possible
that a war is permissible.
On
the other hand, the pope is consistently unwilling to undertake an
assessment of the acceptability of and justifications offered for this
war. Despite having endorsed the possibility of the legitimate use of
force (understanding that harm may result), he then evaluates the
justice of Israeli military actions in general teleologically, that is,
simply by whether they cause harm and suffering: “No war is worth the
tears of a mother who has seen her child mutilated or killed; no war is
worth the loss of the life of even one human being” (11/10/23). This
approach avoids careful assessment of the goals, alternatives, and
context in decisions about the justice of undertaking military action in
favor of blunt denunciations of such actions because they cause harm.
This latter standard of harm, with its powerful emotional character,
supplants the earlier tradition of just war criteria (in particular jus ad bellum)
without explanation. Now, one is asked to “see war for what it is:
nothing other than an immense tragedy, a ‘useless slaughter’” (1/8/24).
The terrible suffering of the victims leads him to jettison his own
limited endorsement of violence for self-defense. In particular, he
delegitimizes any action at all and even the process of assessing the
extent of harm it might cause. The suffering of innocents as such,
regardless of any larger context or military purpose, renders force and
war unjust.
For
example, when “unarmed civilians” are killed, “this is terrorism and
war” (12/17/23). If true, then motive and context become irrelevant in
his overly broad denunciation. But war and terrorism are, of course, not
at all the same thing, unless one ignores important differences and
only considers some generic level of suffering. Then the presumably
intentional murder of innocents (terrorism) becomes indistinguishable
from, say, proportional violence used for self-defense (some forms of
war).
Speaking
about war in general, Francis makes categorical judgments without
sufficient consideration for specific circumstances. This renders even
wars of self-defense, which could be at least theoretically justified,
unacceptable. He repeatedly insists that, without exception, “every war
leaves our world worse than it was before” (6/7/24). Dozens of times
when discussing the Israel-Hamas conflict, he claims “Wars are / war is
always a defeat” (e.g., 10/15/23, 10/29/23, 11/8/23, 11/19/23, 12/20/23,
2/7/24, 3/20/24, 4/24/24, 6/19/24, 8/4/24, 10/7/24). That is, wars, he
says, are guaranteed to be a net loss. This evades the unavoidable hard
questions that arise when thinking about the justness of a war,
especially in response to aggression.
It
is indisputable that both Israel’s and Hamas’ actions raise difficult
and serious moral questions. There are complex assessments that must be
made; even a refusal to make a choice is a choice. However, Francis
seems to want to sidestep this difficult situation. While he hints at
his awareness that there are unavoidable questions, he nonetheless
rejects war in its entirety. He willingly risks being “deemed naive for
choosing peace” (Fratelli Tutti 261), as if simply standing on the side of the “victims of violence” (as he says) is a moral or even plausible option.
In
reality, there are almost always innocent victims on all sides, as
there are in the Israel-Hamas war. It is misleading to suggest the focus
should be only on how to show sympathy for victims (of course one
should); rather, he should engage in a moral assessment of the actions
of the combatants and extent and causes of civilian losses. Francis
sidesteps this discussion with his demand that we “not remain mired in
theoretical discussions” (FT 261). Despite his desire to avoid
such discussions, however, a moral reckoning requires a difficult
confrontation with all aspects of the use of violence, for not all
violence is the same. Put another way, if all “war is in itself a crime
against humanity,” then moral distinctions between how and why wars are
fought disappear (1/14/24).
While it is of course true that nations can engage in war for base motives (failing to abide by the principles of jus ad bellum), Francis seems not to believe that there might be anything but
base motives. Francis illustrates this when he introduces a false
dichotomy when speaking about the Israel-Hamas war, between those who
seek peace and those who are eager to embrace war. For example, he says,
“We need to be vigilant and critical towards an ideology that is
unfortunately dominant today, which claims that ‘conflict, violence and
breakdown are part of the normal functioning of a society (FT 236)’”
(6/7/24). This formulation is unduly simplistic and essentializing. He
presents those who recognize that war can be necessary and just as not
only misguided but captive to a malignant and dangerous worldview.
The
pope chose to use this notorious verse at a time when global
antisemitism has reached disturbingly high levels. Such a statement
threatens the intellectual work of his Catholic predecessors going back
to the 1960s.
Francis’
sweeping indictment of all wars, regardless of how or why they are
fought, buttresses his claim that violence is inherently self-defeating
(“always, always, always a defeat”)—a ruse orchestrated by those who
want to increase suffering and death. There can be no justifiable
military action, for what lurks behind claims that war is just is
selfishness and greed: “What is really at stake [in war] are the power
struggles between different social groups [and] partisan economic
interests” (6/7/24). These, he argues, are what “really” prompt wars and
conflict. As an example, he says war serves no goal but the enrichment
of those who sell weapons. No people or country can presumably decide
rationally and appropriately to employ force, for they are certain to
suffer a net loss. “The only ones to gain [in war] are arms
manufacturers” (11/19/23). They “profit the most” (4/24/24).
This
is a reductionist perception of history, as if Francis can discern what
motivates combatants. (Were Hitler’s motives in WWII in fact no
different from those of Churchill and Roosevelt, and is it not possible
to make any moral distinction between the war of conquest fought by the
Nazis and the defensive wars fought by the nations they attacked and
sought to obliterate?) In this way, Francis’ judgment becomes
speculative and undermines his admission that some forms of war are
acceptable (while tragic and undesirable). According to his logic here,
however, war becomes inherently unacceptable. In effect, there is no
longer any evaluation needed and no reason to consider the claims of a
potential combatant. In fact, casting a skeptical eye over wars from
“recent decades,” he bemoans that “every single war has been ostensibly
‘justified,’” maybe with surreptitious help from those who will profit (FT
258). Again, this sort of sweeping judgment is symptomatic of a false
dichotomy and leads him to the opposite extreme: If wars have been
justified on spurious grounds, then he demands “never again war.”
It
is on these spurious foundations that Francis erects his misleading
characterizations of the two main combatants in the Israel-Hamas war,
the State of Israel and Hamas. In over a year, he has never once
mentioned Hamas by name, though mentions of Israel are ubiquitous. This
imbalance is significant, not just because it is unsettling to fail to
name (and describe the tactics of) one of the aggressors to a conflict
(especially one widely considered a terrorist group), but because his
studied ambiguity precludes a critical engagement with the nature of
Hamas and other opponents.
Francis’
thinking seems constrained by outdated assumptions about the parties to
a conflict. He speaks as if he is commenting on a conflict between two
warring nation-states. He addresses his comments to both parties equally
(again, without naming Hamas), asking for a cease-fire and the release
of hostages (10/11/23, 12/10/23, 6/7/24, 9/15/24). However, it is clear
that his comments are actually relevant for and directed almost entirely
at Israel. For example, in pleading for an end to fighting, he appeals
to law (“international humanitarian law”), our shared humanity (“the
defence of human dignity”), and practical political goals (1/8/24).
These are couched in language suitable for a modern democracy such as
Israel, which, at least in theory, aspires to legal and moral behavior.
However, this imbalance reveals his misunderstanding of the nature of
Hamas.
Hamas
is above all an extreme religious group committed in principle to the
violent elimination of the State of Israel, even at the cost of its
members’ own lives and the lives of innocent fellow Palestinians under
its rule. Its leaders publicly affirm a desire to murder Israeli
civilians. Hamas’ very existence as a terrorist organization is a
transgression of international law, as is its leaders’ promise that they
would repeat the murderous violence of Oct. 7 “again and again” if
given the chance. Neither moral nor legal expectations have any
relevance to Hamas, even if it has also served as leadership in Gaza. In
light of this terrible reality, Francis’ hope that “the leaders of
nations and the parties in [this] conflict may find the way to peace and
unity … [and] all recognize each other as brothers and sisters”
(6/7/24; see also 9/13/24) seems not just imbalanced but indifferent to
reality. Hamas has repeatedly said the opposite: It endorses unyielding
violence until victory. In this conflict, then, only one
party—Israel—has leaders who even speak the same moral “language” as
Francis. His hope, then, perhaps could have made sense in a conflict
between two modern nation-states. That is definitely not the nature of
the present conflict, and it is puzzling that Francis persists in seeing
or presenting it this way.
There
are a wide range of explanations for and understandings of the
hostility that exists between Israel and numerous state and nonstate
actors. In some cases, there are relatively explicable, pragmatic
reasons for conflict. This is clearest in the tragic conflict with
Palestinians, given disputes over land, sovereignty, and control of holy
sites, among other things. Regardless of one’s biases, it is generally
possible to understand rationally why there have been decades of clashes
between the sides. However, some of Israel’s opponents have much less
rational goals in a pragmatic, political sense and are primarily
influenced by ideologically and religiously based hostility. Thus,
Hezbollah in Lebanon, following Israel’s 2006 withdrawal from a security
zone in the south, lost the justification it gave for maintaining its
aggression. Nonetheless, it vigorously continued to prepare for war and
invasion. Iran and proxies such as the Yemeni Houthis, both more than a
thousand miles away, lack any obvious reasons for hostility toward
Israel. They have no dispute over resources or borders or competing
historical claims. Likewise, with Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005,
Hamas too achieved almost all its ostensible goals, including political
power over Gaza. The vital thread connecting these opponents is the
motivation for their antipathy: not practical and explicable interests,
perhaps amenable to negotiation and resolution, but unyielding,
religiously based hatred.
Irrational
hatred, grounded in extremist religious and ideological claims, has
exploded in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the last few decades,
especially among Jews and Muslims and among Israelis and Arabs. Most
relevant here is the emergence of vitriolic anti-Judaism and
antisemitism among Palestinians and other Muslims. As noted, while some
conflicts can be understood rationally, Israel’s opponents have
increasingly expressed their motivations in explicitly theological
terms, using venomous language not just against Israelis but against
Jews and indeed all Westerners. This turns Israelis into Jewish enemies
of God and usurpers of Muslim land; this also turns a traditionally
political and secular conflict into a religious war.
For
example, Hamas’ recent official video bluntly says, “O Lord … let us
kill your enemies, the Jews.” Likewise, the language of other aggressors
is viciously antisemitic and anti-Jewish. The Houthis’ slogan
illustrates this as well: “God is the Greatest, Death to America, Death
to Israel, A Curse Upon the Jews, Victory to Islam.” Hezbollah’s charter
says its goal is Israel’s “final obliteration from existence.” Former
leader Hassan Nasrallah spoke of Jews in terms borrowed from medieval
antisemitism and anti-Jewish Quranic surahs (e.g., 82). Iran, the backer
of these organizations, has made hatred of Israel and Jews a
fundamental aspect of state policy since 1979 and, like Hezbollah,
undertakes terror attacks against Jews throughout the world. Though
sometimes these opponents insist they only hate Zionists or Israelis,
not Jews, their actions and discourse indicate otherwise. Expressions of
vicious hostility toward Jews, the use of traditional anti-Jewish
tropes, and annihilationist threats of destruction of the only Jewish
state are ubiquitous.
This
context is directly relevant to Francis’ comments on and understanding
of the Israel-Hamas war. Francis, with rare exceptions, ignores or
minimizes the nature of the threats faced by Israel. While he usually
speaks generally and succinctly about world events, the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict consistently gets not only more attention
than any other topic but typically occupies the first place in most of
his reviews of international conflicts. Likewise, his specific
commitment to the Jewish people reasonably raises expectations that he
will be especially sensitive to threats to their well-being.
Without
any military capabilities, all a pope has is his moral stature, and
this current pope, who is widely respected, speaks with great authority
on diverse moral questions. It is for this reason that his statements
are so puzzling and undermine the admirable stances to which he has
committed himself and the Church. Thus, it is surprising that Francis
neglects to note that Israel’s enemies seek not a conventional military
victory but the total destruction of the country and consequent
immediate endangerment of all its citizens. This goal is uniquely
malevolent. None of the other countries he mentions face state and / or
nonstate actors seeking their physical elimination. (Russia’s attempt to
conquer Ukraine does include acts of mass murder and is intended to
impose brutal Russian control over the country.) Francis is sensitive to
this possibility in general and denounces it: “No-one should threaten
the existence of other [countries]” (4/14/24). Despite these avowed
goals of Israel’s enemies, Francis never acknowledges this as distinctly
genocidal in intent.
It’s been a little more than three decades since Daniel Patrick Moynihan published his famous essay on “Defining Deviancy Down.”
Every society, the senator-scholar from New York argued, could afford
to penalize only a certain amount of behavior it deemed “deviant.” As
the stock of such behavior increased — whether in the form of
out-of-wedlock births, or mentally ill people living outdoors, or
violence in urban streets — society would most easily adapt not by
cracking down, but instead by normalizing what used to be considered
unacceptable, immoral or outrageous.
Perspectives would shift. Standards would fall. And people would get used to it.
Moynihan’s
great example was the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre in Chicago, in which
“four gangsters killed seven gangsters.” In 1929, the crime so shocked
the nation that it helped spell the end of Prohibition. By the early
1990s, that sort of episode would barely rate a story in the inside
pages of a newspaper.
If Moynihan were
writing his essay today, he might have added a section about politics.
In 1980, when Ronald Reagan won the presidency, it was still considered
something of a political liability that he had been divorced 32 years
earlier. In 1987, one of Reagan’s nominees for the Supreme Court,
Douglas Ginsburg, had to withdraw his name
after NPR’s Nina Totenberg revealed that, years earlier, the judge had
smoked pot. A few years later, two of Bill Clinton’s early candidates
for attorney general, Zoë Baird and Kimba Wood, were felled by
revelations of hiring illegal immigrants as nannies (and, in Baird’s
case, of not paying Social Security taxes).
How quaint.
On
Monday, a lawyer for two women told several news outlets that former
Representative Matt Gaetz used Venmo to pay for sex with multiple women,
one of whom says she saw him having sex with a 17-year-old girl at a
drug-fueled house party in 2017. Donald Trump is doubling down on
Gaetz’s nomination as attorney general, even as the president-elect privately acknowledges that the chances of confirmation are not great.
It’s
important to note that Gaetz was the target of a separate federal
inquiry into sex trafficking allegations that fell apart last year
because of questions about witnesses. That isn’t the only high-profile
Justice Department investigation that went nowhere. Senator Ted Stevens of Alaska was politically ruined
by a conviction that was overturned because of prosecutorial
misconduct. Trump’s supposed collusion with Russia turned out to be a
liberal pipe dream.
Liberals
especially should always want to guard the presumption of innocence,
not least for unpopular defendants. But if that is — or used to be —
true of liberals, didn’t it also used to be true of conservatives that
they at least pretended to care about moral standards?
Whatever
turns out to be true about Gaetz’s behavior, nothing so indicts today’s
Republican Party as the refusal by the House speaker, Mike Johnson, to
release the Ethics Committee report about Gaetz, on the patently
disingenuous pretext that he has resigned his House seat. If there’s
nothing to hide in the report, full transparency could only help Gaetz’s
case. Smoke may not always amount to fire, but darkness inevitably
means dirt.
Still, all this misses the
meaning of the Gaetz nomination, the point of which has nothing to do
with his suitability for the job. His virtue, in Trump’s eyes, is his
unsuitability. He is the proverbial tip of the spear in a larger effort
to define deviancy down. If someone accused of statutory rape can be
attorney general, anything else is possible — not just Tulsi Gabbard as
director of national intelligence or Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as health and
human services secretary, but anything. Alex Jones as press secretary? Donald Trump Jr. already floated the idea.
There’s
a guiding logic here — and it isn’t to “own the libs,” in the sense of
driving Trump’s opponents to fits of moralistic rage (even if, from the
president-elect’s perspective, that’s an ancillary benefit). It’s to
perpetuate the spirit of cynicism, which is the core of Trumpism. If
truth has no currency, you cannot use it. If power is the only coin of
the realm, you’d better be on the side of it. If the government is run
by cads and lackeys, you’ll need to make your peace with them.
“Man
gets used to everything, the beast!” Dostoyevsky has Raskolnikov
observe in “Crime and Punishment.” That’s Trump’s insight, too — the
method by which he seems intent to govern.
There’s
a hopeful coda to Moynihan’s warning. In the years after he published
his essay, Americans collectively decided that there were forms of
deviancy — particularly violent crime — that they were not, in fact,
prepared to accept as an unalterable fact of life. A powerful crime bill
was passed in Congress, the police adopted innovative methods to deter
violence, urban leaders enforced rules against low-level lawbreakers,
bad guys were locked away, and cities became civilized and livable
again.
Part of that achievement has
been undone in recent years, but it’s a reminder that it’s also possible
to define deviancy up. In politics, we can’t start soon enough.
Once
a week, early in the morning, community health worker Kiden Josephine
Francis Laja mounts her bicycle and pedals as far as 10 miles away from
her small village in South Sudan. Some weeks Laja is doing outreach,
spending her day educating a community about which vaccines she can
provide and what diseases they prevent. “It’s my responsibility to tell
the mothers to bring the children for vaccination,” she says. She
answers their questions and lets them know she’ll be back, usually the
following week, to vaccinate their children. Late in the evening she
mounts her bike and heads home.
When
Laja returns with the vaccines, kept in a cooler with ice packs, she
will spend the day immunizing anywhere from a few to 200 children
against a range of diseases: polio, tetanus, diphtheria, pertussis,
hepatitis B, influenza, bacterial meningitis, tuberculosis and, more
recently, COVID. Most people in high-income countries haven’t seen these
diseases in decades, but the people of South Sudan know them well. Many
have seen family and friends die from them.
During
the rest of the week Laja works at the community health center in her
village of Pure, monitoring the solar-powered refrigerator and the vials
inside. She vaccinates anyone who comes to the facility and metes out
drugs for a few maladies such as ulcers, malaria and typhoid. But the
village doesn’t have antibiotics—or electricity. Villagers grow their
own food, raise goats and chickens, and get their water from wells in
the ground.
It’s not easy
work for just $102 a month, especially when it sometimes takes three
months for the 25-year-old mother of two to get her pay. When it rains
on travel days, she and her outreach pamphlets get soaked. She must
regularly check the temperature of the vials in the cooler and replace
the ice packs at just the right time to ensure the vaccines don’t go
bad.
People
in South Sudan don’t have much, but they have this program. “Vaccines
are very important to me and my community and even to my country,” Laja
says. During a large outbreak of measles that began in 2022 in the
country, thousands of children suffered from the disease, and many died,
leading to a nationwide vaccination campaign in 2023. “Now in our
community you cannot find cases of measles,” she says.
In a 2014 interview with the Baltimore Jewish Times, Kamenetsky called vaccines a “hoax”
and his wife, Temi, has been a figure on the anti-vax circuit,
according to reports. A year later, the rabbi signed a letter
authorizing a major yeshiva in Lakewood, N.J. to admit unvaccinated
children. He said the "Polio vaccine is a hoax as well."
Claims of a ‘Hoax’ - Ignoramuses of the Worst Kind In Leadership Positions - The Dangerous Nepo Babies (look it up)
In a 2014 interview with the Baltimore Jewish Times, Kamenetsky called vaccines a “hoax”
and his wife, Temi, has been a figure on the anti-vax circuit,
according to reports. A year later, the rabbi signed a letter
authorizing a major yeshiva in Lakewood, N.J. to admit unvaccinated
children.
“What about the people who clean and sweep in the school?” he told
the Baltimore Jewish Times. “They are mostly Mexican and are
unvaccinated. If there was a problem, the children would already have
gotten sick.”
There is no validity to allegations that South and Central American immigrants are vaccinated at a lower rate than the rest of the U.S. population.
Some Hasidic anti-vaxxers have cited Kamenetsky’s comments
highlighted in an online pamphlet circulating in the community. They
point out he’s a member of the esteemed Moetzes and considered one of
the leading rabbis of this generation.
Around
the globe the measles vaccine has saved nearly 94 million lives over
the past 50 years.
This and other vaccinations have revolutionized
global health. “Immunization is the most universal innovation that we
have across humankind,” says Orin Levine,
a fellow at the Center for Global Development in Washington, D.C. He
notes that there are people around the world without access to
telephones or even toilets, but they find ways to get their children
immunized. “It’s the innovation that demonstrates what is possible in
terms of delivery of service to everyone everywhere.”
A May study in the Lancet
estimated that vaccines against 14 common pathogens have saved 154
million lives over the past five decades—at a rate of six lives every
minute. They have cut infant mortality by 40 percent globally and by
more than 50 percent in Africa. Throughout history vaccines have saved
more lives than almost any other intervention. And vaccines’ promotion
of health equity goes far beyond preventing death. The Lancet
study found that each life saved through immunization resulted in an
average 66 years of full health, without the long-term problems that
many diseases cause. Vaccines play a role in nearly every measurement of
health equity, from improving access to care, to reducing disability
and long-term morbidity, to preventing loss of labor and the death of
caretakers.
“Vaccines level the playing field....But frankly, it was a really long road to get to that kind of equity.”
—Nicole Lurie Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations
“We
say vaccines are one of humanity’s great achievements in terms of
having furthered the lifespan and life quality for humanity in the past
50 years,” says Aurélia Nguyen, chief program officer at Gavi, the
Vaccine Alliance, a public-private partnership that works to ensure low-
and middle-income countries have access to vaccines against more than
20 infectious diseases. Of all the different health interventions that
exist, she says, “vaccines have the widest reach across the world.” The
clearest evidence of vaccines’ impact on equity is that they are often
the first intervention introduced into a community with no other
health-care resources.
“When
you don’t have a health worker or health system, there’s nothing. If
you have no money, then you want the best bang for the buck, and it’s
going to be immunization,” says Seth Berkley,
former CEO of Gavi. “For every dollar you invest in immunization, you
get $54 of benefit. From a cost-effectiveness point of view, it’s the
best investment, so it tends to be the intervention that gets out to
those communities first. And once you do that, you have a health worker
who’s visiting those communities on a regular basis, and then that
begins to start the conversation toward more primary health care, and
that leads to getting a basic clinic set up. Immunization is the
vanguard of the health system.”
Every country in the world has an immunization program thanks to the World Health Organization’s Expanded Program on Immunization,
which was established in 1974. “Every single country and territory” has
access to at least some vaccines, says Kate O’Brien, director of the
WHO’s immunization, vaccines and biologicals department. Poverty,
malnutrition, underlying health conditions, overcrowding, human
conflict, displacement, and lack of access to medical care, hygiene or
sanitation—all of these are risk factors for infectious disease, O’Brien
says. Vaccines’ ability to reduce disease in the settings most plagued
by these problems gives them disproportionate power to improve equity.
There
may be no greater demonstration of vaccines’ power to deliver health
equity than their success with smallpox. “The magnitude of the
accomplishment of having eradicated smallpox, where absolutely nobody on
this earth gets the disease,” O’Brien says, “that’s the ultimate in the
issue of equity.”
A version of a smallpox vaccine was developed in 1796, and in 1959
global health experts decided to pursue full eradication. In the decade
that followed, it became clear that such an ambitious goal would
require more than political will. Although smallpox had been eliminated
from North America and Europe, frequent outbreaks continued in South
America, Africa and Asia.
In 1967 the WHO started its Intensified Eradication Program, which prompted a series of innovations. The bifurcated needle,
which was developed around that time, allowed for smaller doses and
required less user expertise for vaccine delivery than the previously
favored jet injector. Researchers created a surveillance system to
better track disease and vaccinate close contacts of infected people,
making mass vaccination campaigns more effective. The last documented
case of smallpox occurred in Somalia in 1977, and the WHO declared smallpox officially eradicated three years later.
