If Orthodox Judaism can be placed on a spectrum, Hasidim with their insular communities, lack of interest in secular education, and strict observance would seem to stand at one end, with the Modern Orthodox on the other. Yet, as Shlomo Zuckier has written, over the past two decades there have been attempts in the latter community to “incorporate aspects of Hasidism for the purposes of spiritual inspiration and revival.” Steven Gotlib reviews a collection of essays on this phenomenon of Orthodox neo-Hasidism, edited by Zuckier:

[G]iven attempts at using neo-Hasidism to reshape halakhic practice, it is hard to say that the concerns raised by [critics] are completely misdirected. On the contrary, one may agree with a point raised by Rabbi Shmuel Hain in the preface of the volume under review, which sees neo-Hasidism as “a potentially destabilizing force.” . . . At the same time, it is undeniable that contemporary Orthodox Jews are missing something that neo-Hasidism has to offer, namely, “to be open to heartfelt spiritual experiences, to talking about God, and to exploring the vast richness of Jewish theology, to reclaiming the emphasis on Jewish life as a quest to stand in the presence of God.”

Neo-Hasidism, then, comes with both great risk and great reward.

Robert Satloff has some harsh words for the U.S. government in this regard, words I take especially seriously because Satloff is someone inclined to political moderation. Why, he asks, have American diplomats failed to achieve anything in their endless rounds of talks in Doha and Cairo? Because

there is simply not enough pressure on Hamas to change course, accept a deal, and release the remaining October 7 hostages, stuck in nightmarish captivity. . . . In this environment, why should Hamas change course?

Publicly, the U.S. should bite the bullet and urge Israel to complete the main battle operations in Gaza—i.e., the Rafah operation—as swiftly and efficiently as possible. We should be assertively assisting with the humanitarian side of this.

Satloff had more to say about the hostages, especially the five American ones, in a speech he gave recently:

I am ashamed—ashamed of how we have allowed the story of the hostages to get lost in the noise of the war that followed their capture; ashamed of how we have permitted their release to be a bargaining chip in some larger political negotiation; ashamed of how we have failed to give them the respect and dignity and our wholehearted demand for Red Cross access and care and medicine that is our normal, usual demand for hostages.

If they were taken by Boko Haram, everyone would know their name. If they were taken by the Taliban, everyone would tie a yellow ribbon around a tree for them. If they were taken by Islamic State, kids would learn about them in school.

It is repugnant to see their freedom as just one item on the bargaining table with Hamas, as though they were chattel. These are Americans—and they deserve to be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States.