The recently released documentary One of Us tells the stories of three American Jews who left their ḥasidic communities. Although he expected the film to be an “over-the-top hatchet job,” Yitzchok Adlerstein, an Orthodox rabbi, found that it managed to shine a favorable light not only on its subjects but also on the communities they left. And, he concludes, it rightly raises some troubling questions:

The filmmakers could have gone for the jugular. They didn’t. They admit that the vast majority of the [ḥasidic] community is happy, and shares a supportive communal life that so many others don’t have. The visuals of the Ḥasidim back up that contention: lots of smiling husbands and wives. . . . Despite the searing criticism of the way those who move away from the demands of the community are treated, the film shows Ḥasidim who continue to accept the [defectors] as human beings, maintain old friendships, and offer heartfelt guidance. . . .

Watching [the film, however], was extremely painful.

First and foremost, it was painful because two out of the three Jews who are followed claim to be victims of abuse. One is a mother of seven children who was abused for years by her husband, and is now being abused by a combination of the New York legal system and the determination of [her] community not to allow children to have a relationship with a mother whose practice no longer accords with its expectations of proper religious education. The other is a young man who was abused in a summer camp. In both cases, the attitude of the community was to deny the abuse, refuse to act against it, and punish anyone who would go to the authorities for help. . . .

It was painful to watch as one of the men goes to an avuncular mentor figure in his own community to explain his decision [to defect]. The young man talks about all of his unanswered questions about God. He avers that if someone had been willing to give him answers, he would still be in the community. The mentor is left almost speechless. The best [answer] he can up with is that Ḥasidim don’t deal with whys and wherefores (he claims), but only with how to lead one’s life. He seems entirely incapable of offering even elementary explanations to common questions about Orthodox Jewish life. It was painful to watch because it is not only in [the heavily ḥasidic Brooklyn neighborhood of] Williamsburg that . . . children find their questions suppressed, or are given insufficient or silly answers: much of [the Orthodox] world refuses to take these questions seriously.

Israel’s goals of freeing the hostages and defeating Hamas (the latter necessary to prevent further hostage taking) are to some extent contradictory, since Yahya Sinwar, the ruler of the Gaza Strip, will only turn over hostages in exchange for concessions. But Jacob Nagel remains convinced that Jerusalem should continue to pursue both goals:

Only consistent military pressure on Hamas can lead to the hostages’ release, either through negotiation or military operation. There’s little chance of reaching a deal with Hamas using current approaches, including the latest Egyptian proposal. Israeli concessions would only encourage further pressure from Hamas.

There is no incentive for Hamas to agree to a deal, especially since it believes it can achieve its full objectives without one. Unfortunately, many contribute to this belief, mainly from outside of Israel, but also from within.

Recent months saw Israel mistakenly refraining from entering Rafah for several reasons. Initially, the main [reason was to try] to negotiate a deal with Hamas. However, as it became clear that Hamas was uninterested, and its only goal was to return to its situation before October 7—where Hamas and its leadership control Gaza, Israeli forces are out, and there are no changes in the borders—the deal didn’t mature.