Joining the Anti-Trump Movement Promises Short-Term Gains for Synagogues, and Long-Term Losses

In the wake of Donald Trump’s election, Reform and Conservative synagogues across the U.S. have experienced a spike in attendance as rabbis long committed to identifying Judaism with “social justice” have explicitly or implicitly aligned themselves with the so-called anti-Trump resistance. Jonathan Tobin argues that, as much as this political engagement seems like a successful strategy for congregations faced with declining memberships, it brings no more than a Pyrrhic victory:

One can make reasonable arguments that some elements of Jewish law buttress modern political liberalism. . . . But once synagogues are dedicated to making religion serve partisan ends, it is always faith that gets the short end of the stick.

While the Torah and Jewish peoplehood are eternal concepts, the anti-Trump resistance will come and go no matter who ultimately wins the struggle between the president and his critics. Millennials searching for meaning may find a momentary haven in “sanctuary synagogues,” but, like previous attempts to sell Jewish institutions to secular audiences, the idea that one can be a “green” Jew or one rooted in any other trendy topic is not one that is likely to survive in the long run.

Yet an even more serious drawback to infusing partisanship into Jewish life is that rather than drawing Jews together, this is something that will only push them further apart. It is bad enough that in our bifurcated society driven by social media, we can delete and defriend anyone whose views don’t conform to our pre-existing beliefs and prejudices. Once synagogues take the leap into open political activity—and the “Trump bump” means the line between apolitical social justice and the partisan “resistance” is being erased by some liberal rabbis—they are, in effect, declaring those who don’t agree with these views personae non gratae in the sanctuary.

Read more at JNS

More about: American Judaism, Donald Trump, Religion & Holidays, Religion and politics

 

What a Strategic Victory in Gaza Can and Can’t Achieve

On Tuesday, the Israeli defense minister Yoav Gallant met in Washington with Secretary of State Antony Blinken and Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. Gallant says that he told the former that only “a decisive victory will bring this war to an end.” Shay Shabtai tries to outline what exactly this would entail, arguing that the IDF can and must attain a “strategic” victory, as opposed to merely a tactical or operational one. Yet even after a such a victory Israelis can’t expect to start beating their rifles into plowshares:

Strategic victory is the removal of the enemy’s ability to pose a military threat in the operational arena for many years to come. . . . This means the Israeli military will continue to fight guerrilla and terrorist operatives in the Strip alongside extensive activity by a local civilian government with an effective police force and international and regional economic and civil backing. This should lead in the coming years to the stabilization of the Gaza Strip without Hamas control over it.

In such a scenario, it will be possible to ensure relative quiet for a decade or more. However, it will not be possible to ensure quiet beyond that, since the absence of a fundamental change in the situation on the ground is likely to lead to a long-term erosion of security quiet and the re-creation of challenges to Israel. This is what happened in the West Bank after a decade of relative quiet, and in relatively stable Iraq after the withdrawal of the United States at the end of 2011.

Read more at BESA Center

More about: Gaza War 2023, Hamas, IDF