Why American Jews Should Take a Stand against Anti-Catholic Bigotry in the Senate

In recent hearings for the confirmation of Brian Buescher to a federal judgeship, two senators questioned the nominee over his membership in the Knights of Columbus, a Catholic fraternal and philanthropic organization. Citing the organization’s opposition to abortion, gay marriage, and contraception, the senators chose to paint its members, Buescher included, as “extremists.” Jonathan Tobin comments:

[R]ather than probing Buescher’s qualifications for the bench, the question [about the Knights of Columbus] seemed aimed at creating a religious test that could potentially brand anyone who subscribed to Catholic teachings as off-limits for high office. That is something specifically prohibited by Article VI, Clause 3, of the U.S. Constitution. . . . Nor is this the first time that recent questions for a judicial nominee crossed the line into religious tests. At a September 2017 judicial-confirmation hearing for Amy Comey Barrett, Senator Dianne Feinstein told the nominee that she was troubled by her religious beliefs because “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s a concern.” . . .

We hear a great deal from many in the Jewish world about their concerns about anti-Semitism, as well as their worries about Islamophobia. But silence when members of Congress treat Catholicism as if it were a branch of Islamic State.

The point is that you don’t have to agree with the Knights of Columbus or the [Catholic] Church about any of the hot-button social issues on which the views of many Americans have changed in recent years. But no one who pretends to believe in religious freedom and the rights enumerated in the Constitution can stand by quietly while confirmation hearings increasingly are used to debate whether adherents of a mainstream faith—or any faith—should be allowed to hold office.

Read more at JNS

More about: American Jewry, Catholicism, Politics & Current Affairs, U.S. Constitution

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