Shabbos Hagadol Drasha - Haredi Rabbis In Israel To Followers : Get Smartphones!

 

In Arad, where the desert air carries both silence and warning, a strange and dangerous contradiction has taken root. On one hand, the modern State of Israel—through the IDF Home Front Command—has built one of the most sophisticated civilian alert systems in the world, designed to shave seconds off catastrophe and turn chaos into survival. On the other hand, in the name of spiritual insulation, thousands carry “kosher” cellphones that are, in moments of אמת—truth—functionally deaf. The collision is not theoretical. It is measured in seconds, and sometimes in lives.

The problem is not rumor; it is physics and infrastructure. Many of these approved devices rely on aging 2G and 3G networks, stripped of internet capability and modern data reception. They were engineered to block temptation, not to receive real-time digital alerts. But the rockets do not care about engineering intentions. The alert system—designed for smartphones, apps, and modern broadcast protocols—simply does not always reach these devices. The result is as absurd as it is tragic: a nation racing forward technologically, and pockets of its own population standing still, waiting for a warning that never arrives.

There is something profoundly Jewish in the desire to build fences—to guard the vineyard, to preserve קדושה in a world that does not value it. But fences, our tradition teaches, must serve life, not endanger it. When the fence becomes a wall that blocks a life-saving signal, it is no longer a protection; it is a liability dressed in piety. The illusion that less technology equals more safety collapses the moment reality intrudes—and in Israel, reality intrudes with sirens.

And so the state improvises. Workarounds are created. Special systems, alternative alerts, patched solutions—all acknowledgments, quiet but unmistakable, that the original model failed under pressure. This is not heresy; it is פשוט—the simple truth. You cannot opt out of the modern world’s dangers while selectively opting out of its defenses. The missile travels at the speed of modernity whether you accept modernity or not.

The deeper question, then, is not technological but moral. What does responsibility look like in a society where the threat is constant and the margin for error is measured in heartbeats? Is it enough to say that a device is “kosher” if, at the decisive moment, it is not functional? Or must we admit—however uncomfortable it may be—that safeguarding Jewish life requires tools that work in the world as it is, not as we wish it to be?

In the end, the argument writes itself in the stark language of survival. קדושת החיים—the sanctity of life—is not an abstraction. It is a commandment that demands clarity, not confusion; action, not symbolism. In a place like Arad, where the horizon can shift from calm to crisis in an instant, nonsense and safety cannot coexist. One will give way. The only question is which one we are prepared to surrender.

*

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/shabbos-hagadol-drasha-haredi-rabbis-in-israel-to-followers-get-smartphones/

History For Antisemites --- We Learn From Our Serious Errors in Judgment --- October 8th, 1973. Third day of the Yom Kippur War. Israel was losing on two fronts simultaneously. Egyptian forces had destroyed Israeli armor in the Sinai. Syrian tanks had broken through on the Golan Heights and were looking down at the Israeli heartland below.

 

The Truth About AI, God, and the Future of Judaism - A Sober & Intellectual Torah Perspective Of The Future....Make The Time To Watch/Listen In Its Entirety...

 

Israel, Netanyahu, Jew - Israel and its supporters must combat the slanderous claim, from right and left, that Jews are dragging America into a futile war

 

A new war revives a hateful old lie

The world’s largest aircraft carrier, USS Gerald R. Ford 

 

What do New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, antisemitic podcaster Tucker Carlson, Progressive politician Bernie Sanders, and the lunatic influencers Candace Owens and Nick Fuentes all have in common? Each has accused Israel, Netanyahu, and the Jews of dragging the United States into yet another endless and unwinnable war in the Middle East. 

Not much nuance separates Friedman’s assertion that “Bibi is playing both President Trump and American Jews for fools. And if the US lets him get away with it, we are fools,” from Carlson’s claim “This is Israel’s war. This is not the United States’ war. The United States didn’t make the decision here. Benjamin Netanyahu did.” Sanders’s statement that “US cannot continue to be complicit in Netanyahu’s wars,” is virtually indistinguishable from Owens’s “Trump has betrayed America and expects you to die for Israel,” and “Trump launched a war on Zionist vibes.”

Of course, there is nothing new about the right-left alliance against Israel. The 1960s Weather Underground described Israel as “a Nazi state” and a “racist atrocity,” and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke accused the Zionists of controlling the US government, “lock, stock, and barrel.” Nor was the claim that Jews manipulate American leaders into going to war remotely original. Henry Ford blamed the outbreak of World War I on “German Jewish bankers,” and before America entered World War II, Charles Lindbergh singled out the Jews for “pressing this country toward war.”

Ford and Lindberg’s ranting ultimately had little impact on American policy, but that is not the case for the critics of America’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them still blame the failure of those campaigns on the neocons, a number of them Jewish, who openly pressed for war. “Virtually all neoconservatives are also deeply committed Zionists who believe that the United States should use its military power to promote Israel’s interests,” wrote Professor Stephen Walt. “It is no accident that in 1998 the neoconservatives started pushing hard for war against Iraq, not against Afghanistan or North Korea.” But while the trauma of Iraq and Afghanistan continues to plague Americans, the burgeoning charges of Jewish complicity in persuading America to attack Iran have less to do with those earlier conflicts and more with the recent war in Gaza.

Israel, Netanyahu, Jew

Raging at a time when the memory of the Holocaust was rapidly fading and the social strictures against Jew-hatred had virtually collapsed, the war completed the fusion between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. 

Raging at a time when the memory of the Holocaust was rapidly fading and the social strictures against Jew-hatred had virtually collapsed, the war effected the final fusion between anti-Zionism and antisemitism. Demonizing Israel gave latent antisemites the language and the license they needed to hate Jews openly. The words “Israel,” “Netanyahu,” and “Jew” became sinisterly synonymous. Convinced at some not-so-subliminal level that Jews are inherently evil, many millions of people accepted the statistically impossible claim that 70% of Gaza’s casualties were women and children, and Israel has killed more than 230 reporters in Gaza. “Lust for this kind of genocide doesn’t just halt,” declared Candace Owens. “This is utterly satanic.”

The impact on American politics and public opinion has been profound. To be a Democratic candidate today increasingly means vowing never to accept a cent from AIPAC and to consider cutting off military aid to Israel. The MAGA movement, meanwhile, has fostered the rebirth of the rabidly anti-Israel Pat Buchanan branch of the GOP. For the first time, the majority of Americans support the Palestinians more than they do the Israelis. More than 50%  believe that Israel committed genocide in Gaza. And for many in both parties, fearing a rise in gas prices and confused about the goals of war, the easiest way to explain the morass – much as during the Great Depression and the bubonic plague – is to blame the Jews.

Ironically, these accusations are emerging at a moment of unprecedented US-Israel strategic coordination. Far from manipulation, the partnership reflects shared threat assessments developed over multiple administrations. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth praised Israel as a “steadfast partner” that displays“unmatched skill and iron determination.” With none of America’s other allies willing to join the effort or even defend themselves against Iranian threats, and with NATO revealed as a toothless tiger, Israel is today America’s only dependable military ally.

Nevertheless, if left unanswered, and if the Iran war’s outcome proves less than ideal, the accusation that the Jews orchestrated this war would likely intensify the dangers to American Jews and jeopardize the future of the US-Israeli alliance. Israel, together with our supporters in the United States, non-Jews and Jews alike, must join in combating this slander and exposing the age-old hatreds driving it. At the same time, we must stress the nonpareil contribution Israel makes to America’s security and the paramount regard with which the US military holds the IDF. 

Trump and Netanyahu conceived and coordinated Operations Epic Fury and Roaring Lion not as a result of Jewish subterfuge but as partners addressing a common intolerable threat. Six American presidents, we must recall, viewed Iran as a national threat. The one who finally decided to act did not have to be dragged.

 Michael Oren, formerly Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Knesset Member and Deputy Minister for Diplomacy in the Prime Minister’s Office, is the founder of the Israel Advocacy Group and the author of the Substack, Clarity.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/a-new-war-revives-a-hateful-old-lie/

War with Iran and 5 billion Shekel to Haredim

 

The remedy for the abuse of power is persistence!

 

 

A Judge Handed Us a Victory Against RFK Jr. Will He Follow the Rule of Law?

 

— The remedy for the abuse of power is persistence

 

In our civic imagination, a court order is supposed to end the argument. A judge hears both sides, rules, and the government complies. That is the assumption of a constitutional republic. But lately, that assumption has started to wobble. 

 

by Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH

Recent reporting by the New York Times counted 198 lawsuits pertaining to federal funding holds under the current administration. Many plaintiffs have won, yet the administration has often kept pushing -- slow-walking compliance or simply repackaging the same approach under a new label.

This creates a cynical paradox: If the executive branch can ignore the law to enact a policy, and then ignore the court to maintain it, is there still a point in going to court?

The answer is yes, because the failure to follow process and the refusal to follow court orders are not separate issues -- they are symptoms of the same disease.

Where the Law Meets Public Health

I've spent my career believing that the law is a shield for the vulnerable, advocating that policy follow science. I went to law school with a specific, perhaps narrow, ambition: to improve access to healthcare and ensure the rules governing our health were built on a foundation of rigorous, transparent evidence.

Today, however, I find myself in a role I never sought: a reluctant litigator leading a lawsuit against HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. over his dismantling of the childhood immunization schedule. I did not take this step because I enjoy the adversarial nature of a courtroom. I took it because we are witnessing a collapse of the fundamental agreement that holds our government together: the requirement that power must explain itself.

Public health makes the consequences of that collapse impossible to ignore. When rules governing vaccines change without evidence-based processes, the consequences are not abstract. They show up in pediatric clinics, emergency departments, and public health surveillance reports. They show up as preventable infections, outbreaks that ripple through schools and communities, and parents forced to navigate uncertainty about what should be a stable, science-based standard of care. In public health, the rule of law is not merely a procedural safeguard; it is part of the infrastructure that protects life and health.

Yet, in our case, the government's lawyers have argued that Secretary Kennedy is not bound by rules. As he works at a frenetic pace to dismantle key elements of vaccine policy, they wave it off as just a difference of opinion about how to promote public health.

Public health depends on trust, and trust depends on rules that are predictable and transparent. When vaccine schedules are altered without the evidence-based processes the law requires, it isn't just a "difference of opinion." I argue it is a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, which exists specifically to prevent high-ranking officials from making life-altering decisions based on whim rather than work.

When an official treats evidence like a menu -- selecting what flatters a conclusion and dismissing what complicates it -- they are breaking the law before they even enter a courtroom. If we then allow a subsequent court order to be treated as a "suggestion," we have effectively surrendered the separation of powers. We are left with a one-branch system where the law is whatever the person in charge says it is.

Separation of powers is not an abstract civics lesson; it is a guardrail against arbitrary power. Congress writes the laws and controls the purse. The president executes the laws. Courts resolve disputes about what the law permits. When the executive overrides Congress's spending choices by "pausing" appropriated funds, or overrides the courts by ignoring an injunction, they are rewriting the Constitution in real time.

Not Accepting a New Normal

We have been to this precipice before.

In the early 1830s, President Andrew Jackson treated the Supreme Court with indifference, musing about how Chief Justice John Marshall would enforce his decision that Georgia could not impose its laws within Cherokee territory. A century later, southern resistance to Brown v. Board of Education showed that rights are only as real as the willingness of the executive to enforce them.

Manufacturing this kind of futility is a governing tactic. If an administration can outlast its critics and ignore the courts long enough, it can convert unlawful actions into a "new normal." By treating court-ordered funding as a negotiable "pause" and the vaccine schedule as a matter of personal preference, the administration is shifting the boundaries of what's possible until the defiance of both judges and scientists becomes an unremarkable feature of governance.

Not to litigate is to accept that this "new normal" is valid.

Going to court is about insisting on a baseline: the government must follow the law, explain itself on the record, and accept that it cannot simply will outcomes into existence. Law and science both demand reason. Both create a record that can be tested. The shared promise of both is simple: show your work.

On Monday, a federal judge granted a stay in our case challenging the dismantling of the childhood immunization schedule. This means the schedule must be restored as our litigation proceeds. Will the ruling actually be followed?

That uncertainty tells the broader story of this moment. When compliance with court orders becomes uncertain, the constitutional system is already under strain.

If we accept an executive branch that can both disregard the laws of Congress and treat court orders as optional, that imbalance will not stay neatly confined to "politics." It is revealing itself now as providers, states, and families struggle to rely on the federal government as a source of stable, evidence-based standards. Over time it will reveal itself in poorer public health outcomes -- measured not only in statistics but in preventable illness, long-term disability, and lives cut short.

There will always be reasons not to sue. Lawsuits can be expensive, slow, and frustrating. Litigation alone will not save the rule of law. It must be paired with congressional oversight and public scrutiny.

But abandoning the courts because an administration tries to evade them is like abandoning elections because a candidate lies. The remedy for the abuse of power is not surrender; it is persistence. The alternative is to teach every future president that the law is a suggestion and court orders are merely obstacles to be routed around.

In the end, this isn't only about one president, one health secretary, or one vaccine schedule. It's about whether we will remain a country where rights are governed by law -- and where the government must follow the same rules that protect the health and lives of the people it serves.

That is a bargain we cannot afford to make.

Richard Hughes IV, JD, MPH, is lead counsel for the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) in AAP v. Kennedy. He is also an advisor in the biopharma sector, with a particular focus on vaccines. He was vice president of public policy at Moderna during the COVID-19 pandemic and teaches vaccine law at George Washington University in Washington, D.C.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/opinion/second-opinions/120337?

Beware the Dangerous Bedtime Story About Iran, in particular, there was no shortage of the stories we told ourselves. --- Michael Oren

 

There is a great expression in colloquial Hebrew that defies translation into other languages. It goes like this: “These are bedtime stories that we tell ourselves.” Though the image comes to mind of parents putting their children to bed and reading them an illustrated book, the expression has nothing to do with parenting and certainly not with children. Rather than evoking a warm family scene, it describes a reality in which those families, led to believe that a major threat has disappeared, instead find themselves putting their children to bed in bomb shelters.

Certainly, the most terrifying bedtime story we told ourselves was in the years before October 7. We repeated the same myth that Hamas was deterred, focused on developing Gaza, and had no intention of attacking. 1,200 Israelis were killed on October 7, soldiers and civilians, and 800 since then. But the storytelling didn’t end there. Following the brilliant pager and walkie-talkie operations, the assassination of Hassan Nasrallah, and the IDF’s successful sweep of southern Lebanon in the fall of 2024, we told ourselves that Hezbollah was finished. Now we know how far from finished Hezbollah is. It is still capable of pounding northern and central Israel with hundreds of rockets. Had the story been even remotely true, the army would not be preparing as it is now for a major ground incursion into south Lebanon.

About Iran, in particular, there was no shortage of the stories we told ourselves. The regime’s leadership was cracking, their missile arsenals were almost exhausted, and the Iranian people were ready to rise up and reclaim their freedom. Not exactly true and, in some critical cases, not remotely true. Writing this article on the 16th day of the war, I had to run repeatedly to my safe room.

Though politicians may blame the generals and the General Staff of the government, no branch of Israel’s government has a monopoly over storytelling. Nor is the phenomenon new. Remember how Yasser Arafat, in signing the 1993 Oslo Accords, had definitively sworn off terror? Remember how the IDF’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 was going to transform that country into a pacified neighbor? And remember how the disengagement from Gaza in 2005 would usher in an era of Middle East peace!

Though these and other stories caused incalculable harm, one can hardly blame our leaders for telling them. Just like children who need to feel safely tucked into bed at night, people—and Israelis especially—need hope. But together with our army’s truly historic achievements, the most important outcome of this war must be the end of bedtime stories. Tonight, we can read them to our children in the bomb shelters, but we must never again allow them to put us, their parents, to sleep.

---

This article originally appeared in Hebrew in Ynet on March 17, 2026.

The Message Is So Clear For American Jews --- Regardless Of The Yarmulke Color Of The Messenger!

 

The American Public Has No Clue What Is At Stake With Iran

 

There are moments in history when a civilization faces a threat so clear that one assumes the public must understand it. Yet again and again, democratic societies drift in a fog of distraction while danger gathers beyond the horizon. The Islamic Republic of Iran is not merely another unpleasant regime in a faraway desert. It is the central ideological engine of modern radical jihadism, the primary sponsor of terror stretching from Beirut to Gaza, from Iraq to Yemen. And yet the American public, judging by polling data and political discourse, barely grasps the magnitude of what is at stake.

Recent surveys from organizations such as Gallup and Pew Research Center reveal a striking disconnect between the strategic reality and public perception. Only roughly four in ten Americans describe Iran as a “critical threat” to the United States. A large share of the public places it in the vague category of a “serious but not urgent” concern. When Americans are asked to rank foreign policy priorities, Iran consistently falls well below domestic issues such as the economy, healthcare, or immigration. The result is a dangerous complacency: a population that recognizes Iran as problematic but not as the epicenter of a revolutionary ideological project.

This misunderstanding begins with a failure to grasp what the Iranian regime actually is. The Islamic Republic is not simply an authoritarian state seeking security or regional influence. It is a revolutionary theocracy founded in 1979 with an explicit mission: the export of its Islamic revolution across the Muslim world. The regime’s ideological architects did not conceal this goal. They declared it openly and wrote it into the structure of the state. The Iranian system was designed not merely to govern a country but to transform an entire region.

Over the past four decades, Tehran has built a network of militant proxies that function as an informal empire. Groups such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas in Gaza, and Palestinian Islamic Jihad have received funding, weapons, and training from Iranian forces. In Iraq and Syria, militias tied to the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps operate as extensions of Iranian strategic power. In Yemen, the Houthis have been transformed from a local insurgency into a regional menace with missiles capable of threatening shipping lanes and neighboring states. This network is not a loose alliance. It is a coordinated system of influence and coercion directed by Tehran.

Yet when Americans think about terrorism, they often focus on groups like ISIS or Al-Qaeda as if jihadist movements exist independently of the regimes that sustain them. In reality, Iran has served as one of the most consistent state sponsors of militant organizations in the modern era. The regime perfected the strategy of indirect warfare—attacking its enemies through proxies while avoiding the consequences of direct confrontation.

Polling data reflects how little this reality penetrates public consciousness. Surveys conducted by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs and other research institutions show that many Americans still prefer diplomacy and economic engagement with Iran rather than strategies aimed at dismantling the regime’s power. Even after decades of Iranian involvement in attacks on U.S. personnel and allies, a significant portion of the public continues to view Tehran primarily as a difficult negotiating partner rather than the command center of a regional revolutionary movement.

History offers ample evidence of Iran’s hostility. In 1983, Iranian-backed militants from Hezbollah carried out the bombing of the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut, killing 241 American servicemen. During the Iraq War, Iranian-supplied explosives known as explosively formed penetrators were responsible for the deaths of hundreds of American soldiers. Across the Middle East, Iranian-backed militias have destabilized governments, threatened shipping lanes, and launched rocket attacks against American bases and allies.

Yet these acts have largely occurred in the shadows—through proxies, militias, and deniable operations. The Iranian regime has mastered the art of waging war without triggering a decisive response. It is a strategy of constant harassment, calibrated carefully to remain below the threshold that would provoke overwhelming American retaliation.

The most dangerous illusion surrounding Iran concerns nuclear weapons. While most Americans oppose Iran obtaining nuclear capabilities, polling shows that many underestimate the regional consequences if it succeeds. An Iranian nuclear arsenal would not simply alter the balance of power; it would ignite a cascade of nuclear proliferation across the Middle East. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and potentially Egypt would feel compelled to pursue their own nuclear programs. A region already scarred by instability could suddenly contain several rival nuclear powers.

From a Jewish historical perspective, the stakes are painfully clear. The Iranian leadership regularly calls for the destruction of Israel, while funding organizations dedicated to that goal. Jewish history has taught, often through tragedy, that genocidal rhetoric must never be dismissed as mere propaganda. When regimes openly proclaim their intentions, the prudent course is to believe them.

The American public, protected by geography and absorbed in domestic concerns, often treats Middle Eastern conflicts as distant and inscrutable. But the reality is far simpler than the abstractions suggest. The Islamic Republic survives by exporting instability. Revolutionary struggle is not a side effect of the regime; it is the regime’s central purpose.

The collapse of that system would reshape the entire strategic map of the Middle East. Hezbollah would lose its patron. Hamas would lose its principal financial backer. Militias across Iraq and Syria would lose their logistical hub. The web of Iranian influence stretching across the region would begin to unravel.

And yet the American public does not perceive the stakes with that level of clarity. Poll after poll suggests a nation that views Iran as one problem among many rather than as the ideological nucleus of a decades-long campaign against Western influence in the Middle East.

History repeatedly shows that certain regimes poison entire regions through their revolutionary ambitions. Nazi Germany once did so in Europe. The Soviet Union attempted to do so across much of the globe. The Islamic Republic of Iran represents a modern variation of that same phenomenon: a state driven not merely by national interest but by ideological mission.

The tragedy is not simply that such a regime exists. The tragedy is that the American public has not yet fully grasped how decisive the defeat of that regime could be—not only for the Middle East, but for global stability itself.

Until that realization emerges, American policy will continue to drift between hesitation and half-measures. And history has rarely been kind to civilizations that recognize a threat only after it has grown too powerful to ignore.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-american-public-has-no-clue-what-is-at-stake-with-iran/

 

 

Trump and Netanyahu Are No Longer on the Same Page - Trump's TACO being prepared....While BIBI's Ovens BAKING MATZAS open for business indefinitely....

 

The towering flames and black smoke that filled the skies above Tehran this week after Israel bombarded oil depots there looked apocalyptic.

As soot and black rain fell on the more than 10 million Iranians living in the city, the tremors from those airstrikes vibrated all the way to Washington, where officials felt the unequivocal impact of divergent ambitions in this war.

It seems that President Trump’s aims in joining the air war against Iran are beginning to rub against the long-term objectives of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel. While Mr. Trump has said in recent days that America’s military goals are nearly complete — even though the ayatollahs remain in power — Israel seeks an end to the regime and to crush its regional influence.

In short, Mr. Trump wants to bend Iran. Mr. Netanyahu seeks to break it.

Images of oil going up in smoke — regardless of whose oil it is — could not have been a welcome sight for the Trump administration as prices skyrocketed at America’s gas pumps. The war in Iran has wreaked havoc on world energy markets, prompting countries to prepare for protracted economic blowback caused by rising fuel costs. At least three ships were hit on Wednesday in and around the Strait of Hormuz, as the fighting chokes off one of the most vital routes for the world’s oil trade. All of this creates political headwinds for Mr. Trump as a war-weary public remains unpersuaded by the arguments for conflict.

At the moment, the leaders’ interests mostly align. As the air campaign enters the middle of its second week, the Israeli and American militaries continue to coordinate to hit thousands of targets across Iran. The U.S. and Israeli objectives overlap in their short-term goals: destroying Iran’s missiles, nuclear program, navy, weapons production and military command-and-control. Both sides agree that the Iranian regime is intent on inflicting as much harm as it can on the United States and Israel while destabilizing the broader Middle East.

But their opposing visions of long-term victory — a more compliant government in Tehran versus a new one altogether — must be resolved if the United States is to avoid another extended war. Sustained attacks on multiple rungs of leadership and infrastructure are the surest way to bring about the kind of protracted nation-building exercise Mr. Trump has railed against for years. White House officials were reportedly dismayed by the burning oil fields in Tehran and not just because of oil prices: The scene conjured the uncontrolled chaos of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth sought this week to differentiate those examples of military adventurism from the administration’s mission in Iran. “This is not 2003. This is not endless nation-building under those types of quagmires we saw under Bush or Obama,” he said Tuesday at a Pentagon briefing.

Mr. Hegseth said the American military campaign is “not even close” to that point today — but that may not be the case one, three or six months from now. After all, the U.S. military bombarded Iran’s nuclear facilities in June, but when subsequent diplomatic negotiations dragged on, Mr. Trump ordered another complex military mission over the country just eight months later. Seven American service members have already been killed, and 140 have been wounded since the renewal of operations. At least 11 bases and installations hosting U.S. forces in the region have been damaged.

Mr. Trump has suggested in recent days that the U.S. role in the war could be nearing an end because much of Iran’s military capacity has been destroyed. But that’s not what initially provoked him to threaten Iran with military force. The president first cited the Iranian government’s deadly crackdown on protesters in January as a justification for action. Since then, he and administration officials have provided a long list of shifting reasons for the campaign: the nuclear program, missile production, naval ships, and — the most curious of them all — pre-empting Iranian retaliation for Israeli military action.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made that claim last week when he suggested the United States acted because it knew an Israeli strike would prompt Iran to strike U.S. forces in the region. Americans aren’t used to hearing that their president was escorted into war by an allied leader. Whether or not it’s true, the sentiment has likely contributed to the record-low support for the conflict: Just 41 percent of Americans support the conflict with Iran, compared to a large majority of Americans who supported intervention in Iraq in 2003.

This is another reason Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Trump’s interests deviate. Most Israelis back the war, making it a political strength for Mr. Netanyahu, who faces a tough re-election bid expected this year. Mr. Trump, on the other hand, doesn’t want an unpopular war roiling as the midterms draw near in November.

It’s no surprise then that Mr. Trump has started to indicate that he may be looking for the exits, said Javed Ali, a former senior U.S. counterterrorism official. “His patience was always going to run thin with this war fairly quickly,” he said. “The message he wants to convey is: Iran has been defanged militarily. Now it’s time for a deal.”

Mr. Trump has said contradictory things about his plans for Iran’s future. He’s talked about regime change, negotiations, unconditional surrender and the need to him to personally handpick a new leader. Mr. Trump saw his dream scenario play out in Venezuela when U.S. forces captured and removed Nicolás Maduro from power and a more pliable insider, Delcy Rodriguez, took over. He told Axios last week he’d like to see a replay of that in Tehran. “I have to be involved in the appointment, like with Delcy in Venezuela,” Mr. Trump said.

Iran has other plans. It has since named Mojtaba Khamenei, the son of the recently killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as supreme leader. There are no immediate indications he’s willing to acquiesce to the United States.

So, the bombing continues. Two nations started this war together. It’s hard to see how they can join forces to end it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/03/11/opinion/iran-trump-netanyahu-israel.html

All U.S. citizens currently in Israel should enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). This will enable you to receive important updates and alerts.

 JOINT STATEMENT: 

Travel, Evacuation Flights, and Government Services – What You Need to Know

Updated March 11, 2026 4:22 PM IST

Chaim V’Chessed continues to assist the community during the ongoing Iran crisis. Below is a comprehensive guide with the latest information on travel to and from Israel, evacuation options, and government services. https://chaimvchessed.com/travel-evacuation-flights-and-government-services-what-you-need-to-know/

All U.S. citizens currently in Israel should enroll in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP). This will enable you to receive important updates and alerts. 

For those looking to leave immediately: 

• Israeli airlines are operating outbound flights, but flights are officially limited to ~ 100 passengers per flight, that number may change at the discretion of the government. Contact the airline or a travel agent about viable options. 

• For your safety and in compliance with Government of Israel limitations on sizes of gatherings, please do not come to the airport unless you have purchased a ticket yourself or you have been contacted directly by the Department of State to inform you that you have been confirmed as manifested on a flight. 

• The State Department is organizing no-cost flights from Ben Gurion Airport to Athens, Greece. From Athens, you will be responsible for booking your own flight back to the U.S.  

To be assisted departing Israel through State Department chartered flights, you must register using the State Department Crisis Intake Form. Follow these guidelines carefully: 

When to Fill Out the Form: 

• If you are requesting assistance to leave only fill out this form a few days before you are ready or need to leave Israel. Passengers must be ready to depart immediately, and may receive very short notice. 

• All immediate family members must be listed on the same form. 

• Please fill out all details including passport information and any urgent or relevant medical issues.

• Individuals should ALSO fill out the Chaim V’Chessed Iran Conflict 2026 form.

What Happens After You Register:

Once registered, the State Department will contact you when seats become available on assistance flights. Continually monitor your email and phone for updates after submitting. 

If You Have Already Left Israel: 

If you completed the form and have departed Israel, please contact the State Department immediately by calling or responding to the email you received upon registration, so that they can focus their efforts on U.S. citizens still in need of assistance. 

For Yeshiva and Seminary Students: 

The Igud Yeshiva and Seminary Coalition for Bnei Chul sent out a survey to students in seminary and yeshiva collecting data about travel plans. It is important that you fill it out so that there is accurate information about the specific needs of the students trying to return to the US. If you or your child have not received the survey, please be in touch with the seminary/yeshiva.  

The Igud is coordinating flights for students beginning next week. See https://flights.igudys.com/ for more information.

For more information which will be updated as the situation evolves and for those looking to travel to Israel, see Chaim V’chessed’s website  HERE. 

 

https://agudah.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/Joint-Memo-Re-Travel-from-Israel.pdf

 

Three commercial ships were hit near the Strait of Hormuz as Iran stepped up its efforts to halt traffic through the critical oil conduit.

The U.S. had turned down requests to escort tankers or other civilian ships through the strait. Stay up-to-date with news and analysis here. Fears over disruptions to energy flows in the Middle East flared up again. Futures for Brent crude, the global benchmark, rose 4.8% to trade at around $92 a barrel, unbowed by the International Energy Agency’s announcement that its member countries would release a record 400 million barrels of oil from strategic reserves. At the same time, President Trump’s plan to sell insurance for ships in the Gulf, a way of easing the war-induced crunch in oil supplies, is proving easier said than done.

 

 

Will Epic Fury finish the regime? | feat. Einat Wilf

 

The War against The Orthodox Jews by the Orthodox Jews!

 

A rabbi accused of sexually abusing roommate as a teen is now teaching at Orthodox Jewish school in Chicago

 

The rabbi’s accusations date to the early 2000s at a Jewish boarding school on the East Coast, according to a recently settled lawsuit. He was hired by Yeshiva Eitz Chaim in Chicago while that suit was pending, and school leaders won’t say why.

 

A rabbi who was accused in a lawsuit of sexually assaulting his roommate while they attended a Jewish boarding school out East in the early 2000s is now teaching at this Orthodox Jewish school in Chicago.

An Orthodox Jewish rabbi who was accused in a lawsuit of repeatedly sexually assaulting his high school roommate years ago while attending an East Coast boarding school is now a teacher at a Jewish school for boys on Chicago’s North Side, according to interviews and public records.

The rabbi works at Yeshiva Eitz Chaim at 6045 N. Keystone Ave., and was hired there several years ago as the sexual misconduct lawsuit was pending, according to court records from New York and Cook County.

The Chicago Sun-Times isn’t naming the rabbi because he has not been charged with a crime, and he and the accuser were minors when the alleged misconduct occurred.

Both are now adults, and their respective lawyers each declined to comment.

Filed in 2021, that lawsuit was settled this past fall quietly for undisclosed terms — confidentiality generally frowned upon by victim advocates, and restricted by other faith groups such as the Catholic church because such secrecy was used for years to hide legitimate claims and allow abuse to fester.

Typically such settlements come without an admission of wrongdoing.

Whether leaders of Yeshiva Eitz Chaim knew of the allegations when they hired the rabbi isn’t clear.

But school officials certainly have known about the accusations — which date to the early 2000s when the future rabbi and his accuser were students and dorm mates at Torah High School in Long Beach, N.Y. — for at least a year and continued to employ him, according to records and interviews.

Chicago attorney Hal M. Garfinkel released a statement Thursday from school leaders that said:

“Despite the civil claim being unsubstantiated, the School, out of an abundance of caution for the safety of its students, sought legal, rabbinical and professional guidance as to the appropriate next steps.”

“After doing extensive independent research, they unanimously advised the School leadership that there is no cause for concern. The School proceeded to notify parents, lay leaders and supporters as to the civil suit along with the School’s reaction and subsequent decision. They all wholeheartedly supported the School in its handling of the situation.”

But school officials wouldn’t say when parents were notified or provide details on their research, including who conducted it and how recently was it done.

Yeshiva Eitz Chaim’s web site says the school “provides both high school and post-secondary education to students from across the United States.”

“We cater to students who seek an honors-level program in both religious and general education, as part of a growth-oriented community,” according to the web site. “Special emphasis is placed on ethics and character building which results in graduates of the highest moral standards.”

Founded in 2019, the school is on the edge of the Sauganash and Peterson Park neighborhoods and also offers “dormitory facilities” so “in-town and out-of-town students” have “the opportunity to focus on their studies unhindered.”

Some of the allegations contained in a recently settled lawsuit against a Chicago rabbi and a Jewish school in New York where, as a teenager, he was accused of sexually assaulting his high school dormitory roommate. Both are identified under pseudonyms in the case.

The lawsuit, filed by the accuser under the pseudonym John Doe, accused the rabbi, when they were teens, of sexually abusing him “regularly and repeatedly . . . at least 300 times over the course of two years,” court records show.

The suit also named Torah High School, also known as Mesivta of Long Beach, and two rabbis there as defendants, saying they either knew the accuser was being sexually abused or should have.

The school “completely controlled what the children did hour by hour,” yet nobody there “supervised, checked on or even determined if the children were healthy and well from day to day,” the lawsuit said.

The suit said that during one “bed check,” a Torah High School leader walked in while the future rabbi was victimizing the accuser in their room and “did nothing to stop the abuse,” instead admonishing that he did not want to “see that again.”

While the suit was still active, attorneys for the New York school tried to shield the Torah rabbis from being named, and also tried to force the accuser to use his real name — prompting the accuser’s lawyer to allege that the defendants were trying to harass and shame him.

The case isn’t an anomaly, says Ariella Kay of ZA’AKAH, a group that advocates for survivors of sexual violence in the Jewish community.

Child sex abuse is relatively common in Orthodox Jewish communities, but it’s often swept under the rug or otherwise not publicly addressed, Kay said, calling Jewish communities “20 years behind” some other faith groups in dealing with this scourge.

Publicizing cases is important not only because it helps victims on their “healing journey,” they also serve as “cautionary tales for the community about what happens when you don’t deal with this properly.”

There have been other child sex allegations — and alleged cover-ups — centering on Chicago’s West Rogers Park neighborhood where there’s a sizable Orthodox Jewish community, records show.

The New York lawsuit alleges there “were other instances of sexual abuse that occurred” at the Torah High School.

That case was sealed by the court in recent months. Before that occurred, a court filing revealed a 2019 letter said to be from the Yeshiva Eitz Chaim teacher to his accuser in which he said:

“I would like to apologize for what happened when we were together in 11th grade. As I got older, I realized the severity of what I’ve done. My words cannot undo my actions, but I would like to express my deepest regret and apology.”

https://chicago.suntimes.com/the-watchdogs/2026/03/06/rabbi-accused-sex-abuse-boarding-school-now-teacher-yeshiva-eitz-chaim-chicago

“Imminent Threat” - Defending Trump's Decision To Go To War With Iran

 

 "Ha-ba lehargecha hashkem lehargo" (אם בא להורגך השכם להורגו) is a Talmudic maxim from Sanhedrin 72a instructing that if someone actively seeks to take your life, you are permitted—and often obligated—to kill them first in self-defense.

For forty seven years Iran's leaders have declared their intention to erase Israel, bring death to America, and export their revolution through militias, missiles, and martyrdom. Believe Them! War is ugly. Jews, of all people, know this better than most. Our prayers plead for peace three times a day.

When the President of the United States—whether one admires him or despises him—stands before the intelligence briefings and hears the phrase “imminent threat,” he is standing, whether he knows it or not, in the shadow of that Talmudic principle.

The phrase “imminent threat” is bureaucratic and dull. But Jews raised on Talmud know that danger is not decided by paperwork. The rabbis used a different word: rodef — the pursuer. If someone runs at you to kill, the law expects you to stop him before he succeeds. That blunt rule matters when the pursuer is not a single man with a knife but a regime building weapons and proxies with open hostility toward your country.

The medieval giant Maimonides—the Rambam—codifies the law of the rodef with brutal clarity. If a pursuer is chasing an innocent person to kill him, anyone witnessing it is obligated to stop the pursuer, even with lethal force if necessary.

Notice what Rambam does not require.

He does not require that the pursuer fire the gun first. He does not require that the victim be bleeding on the ground. The law intervenes before the murder is completed.

Iran is the free world's enemy. For decades its leaders have supported militias, funded terrorist groups, and promoted a revolutionary agenda hostile to American interests and to allies in the region. That pattern — talk of destruction mixed with concrete steps to increase capability — is the modern equivalent of a pursuer drawing a blade. Treating such a pattern as mere rhetoric is wishful thinking, not strategy.

The halachic rule of the rodef does not demand absolute proof before action. Medieval authorities like Maimonides made that clear: you are not required to wait until the murderer’s hand strikes you. The law favors preemption when delay would mean inevitable harm. Applied to statecraft, the logic is straightforward. Waiting for an attack to be carried out before responding is morally and practically perilous.

Democratic leaders face an impossible calculus. They do not have prophecies; they have intelligence — incomplete, messy, often contested — and the obligation to protect their people. When the question is whether to act now or to risk catastrophe later, prudence argues for preventing a clear, growing danger rather than deferring until it is undeniable. That is uncomfortable, and it will earn criticism; history often rewards the patient, not the preventative. But history also punishes those who sleep through obvious threats.

Critics accuse leaders who act early of recklessness. That charge ignores a second possibility: that the action prevented a catastrophe and therefore looks unnecessary in hindsight. Preventive measures rarely gain monuments. They gain headlines and political attacks. Still, the moral test is not the applause of the day but whether the leader upheld the duty to protect the nation and its allies.

Jewish tradition values peace deeply, but it is not pacifist. Our texts are realistic about power and survival. The Maccabees and other Jewish leaders fought when survival demanded it. Saying “war is terrible” is not the same as saying “we must refuse to act when facing a real, growing threat.” Sometimes the moral choice is the hard choice.

So when a president hears “imminent threat” about a hostile, nuclear-capable regime that funds proxies and openly seeks regional dominance, the decision to act can be understood as the secular analogue of the halachic duty to stop the pursuer. That does not make war desirable. It does, however, make acting to prevent grave danger defensible in both moral and practical terms.

If this is the calculus a leader faces — incomplete intelligence, plausible catastrophe, and a duty to protect — then choosing to confront the threat is not swagger. It is responsibility. The preacher of delay may be sentimental; the leader who errs on the side of preventing mass harm may be judged harshly, but history will be the truer arbiter of which approach kept people alive.

Modern democracies suffer from a peculiar disease: the belief that danger must first be photographed, notarized, and confirmed by editorial boards like the New York Times before it becomes real.

But the Talmud does not think like that. The sages knew something about enemies. They lived under Rome, Persia, Byzantium—empires that rarely issued polite warning letters before persecution. Jewish survival depended on reading intentions early. The rabbis therefore developed a legal instinct that the modern West has largely forgotten: threats are judged by trajectory, not merely by the final act. When a regime builds the weapon, funds the proxy armies, and declares the coming war inevitable, the question is not whether danger exists. The question is how long you are willing to pretend otherwise.

 

 

REPUBLSHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/imminent-threat-defending-trumps-decision-to-go-to-war-with-iran/

The Haredi Draft Crisis Is Reaching a Breaking Point | Yehoshua Pfeffer | Tikvah Podcast

 

Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer is a prominent Haredi scholar, author, and legal expert who publishes analytical, intellectual pieces on Haredi society, Jewish law, and modern Israeli issues. His work often appears in the journal Tzarich Iyun (Need to Consider), which he contributes to or edits. 

Key aspects of his work include:

• Tzarich Iyun: His articles, such as those discussing Charedi basic training in the IDF, "Shall Your Brothers Go to War?", and theological reflections on "Yes" (Embracing the Courage of Abraham), offer nuanced, often counter-cultural, perspectives on the intersection of religious life and Israeli society.
• Haredi Thought: He is recognized for deep analysis of the Haredi world’s response to crises, social issues, and technological changes.
• Perspective: His writing often bridges the gap between traditional Jewish legal thought (Halakha) and modern,, complex contemporary challenges in Israel. 
•  
• https://iyun.org.il/en/sedersheni/idleness-anger-and-the-erosion-of-the-torah-world/