Uncategorized
Following the Rules Doesn’t Free You From Moral Responsibility
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump (not pictured) hold a bilateral meeting at Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain, July 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
In November 2024, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that Lord Peter Mandelson would be heading to Washington, DC as Britain’s next ambassador to the United States.
It was a striking choice. Mandelson is one of the most experienced and politically connected figures in modern British public life – but he was hardly uncontroversial, and he’d never been a diplomat.
For Americans, that might not sound unusual. In the United States, such posts are often handed to political allies, donors, or senior figures from outside the traditional diplomatic corps, with nominations subjected to public scrutiny and Senate confirmation hearings.
But Britain does things very differently. Senior diplomatic roles are almost always filled by career civil servants who have risen through the ranks of the Foreign Office. There is no equivalent of Senate confirmation: In other words, no public vetting and no televised grilling.
The system operates quietly and efficiently, and almost entirely behind closed doors – built on the assumption that professionalism, discretion, and institutional process will ensure the right outcome.
Mandelson’s appointment exposed how fragile that assumption can be. Because the moment a political figure was inserted into a system designed for career officials, its weaknesses began to show.
Questions surfaced almost immediately. Mandelson’s past was hardly unblemished – he had twice been forced to resign from government positions during the Blair years, and his long-standing association with the disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein raised uncomfortable concerns.
Nevertheless, the appointment went ahead, and in January 2025, Mandelson took up residence in Washington.
Within months, the situation began to unravel. The release of Epstein-related documents cast a harsh new light on Mandelson’s relationship with him, suggesting continued contact far beyond what had previously been understood. There were also allegations – now the subject of an ongoing investigation – that he had shared sensitive classified information with Epstein.
Mandelson was removed from his post and later arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, although he has not been charged and denies wrongdoing.
And yet, somehow, Starmer survived the immediate fallout. His defense was simple: The proper procedures had been followed, and if there had been failures, they had nothing to do with how he had conducted himself, as he had done everything totally by the book.
But the story did not end there. Last week, it emerged that a security vetting process conducted in early 2025 had raised serious concerns about Mandelson’s suitability for the role – reportedly recommending that he not be sent to Washington. That assessment was ultimately overridden by the Foreign Office.
Suddenly, the focus shifted. This was no longer just about Mandelson’s conduct. It was about the system – and also about what the prime minister knew, and when.
What might once have remained an obscure internal matter has now spiraled into a full-blown constitutional and political crisis, shining an unforgiving light on a system that depends almost entirely on trust, discretion, and process.
Summoned to the House of Commons this week, Starmer was forced to issue a humiliating statement and defend his actions under hours of relentless questioning. His response was methodical and legalistic – hardly surprising for a man trained as a barrister.
Again and again, he returned to the same refrain: The process had not worked as it should have, but he had followed the process. And that, he continuously insisted, was the point.
Then veteran MP Diane Abbott stood up. Abbott, a long-serving figure on the left of Starmer’s Labour Party, was only recently reinstated after a prolonged suspension. Her relationship with Starmer has been, to put it mildly, strained.
“The prime minister has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure,” Abbott began, “but ordinary people do not really care about process and procedure. It is one thing, as the prime minister insists on saying, ‘Nobody told me, nobody told me anything,’ but what this House wants to know is: Why did the prime minister not ask?”
And just like that, Starmer’s entire “process” edifice collapsed. Because Abbott’s question didn’t engage with the process – it bypassed it and went straight to the heart of the matter. Starmer’s fixation with process was pure deflection. The real issue was something far more basic – and far harder to evade: judgment.
You can follow procedures meticulously and still get it wrong. You can insist that systems were in place and protocols were observed, but in the end, getting it right is not always about process – and you need to know that going in.
Starmer could point to what he was told and what he wasn’t told. But he could not escape the question that lingered in the chamber long after the noise had died down: Why didn’t he go beyond the process to make sure he was doing the right thing?
And that tension – between technical correctness and moral responsibility – is not unique to British politics. It sits at the heart of one of the Torah’s most famous and most elusive directives (Lev. 19:2): קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹקֵיכֶם – “You shall be holy, for I, Hashem your God, am holy.”
At first glance, this mitzva sounds mystical and beyond the reach of ordinary folk. What exactly does it mean to be “holy?” Is the Torah asking us to withdraw from the world? To live some kind of ascetic, elevated existence far removed from the messiness of everyday life?
Rashi offers a good starting point, explaining that it means that one should exercise restraint. Know where to draw the line and don’t cross boundaries that compromise who you are – a definition of holiness that is rooted in discipline, self-control, and the ability to say no.
But the Ramban turns the whole idea on its head. He argues that restraint alone is not enough. You can keep every technical requirement of the Torah. You can stay firmly within the boundaries of what is permitted. And still, in his unforgettable phrase, you can be a “Naval Bir’shut HaTorah” — a scoundrel operating with the Torah’s consent.
It’s a devastating insight. You can follow every rule and still fail the moral test. Just because you ticked every procedural box doesn’t mean you are a good person. In fact, you can be doing evil while insisting you are doing everything right.
“Why did the prime minister not ask?” was not a procedural question. It was a Ramban question. Did you take responsibility? Did you exercise judgment? Did you go beyond what was technically required — and do what was right?
Systems, by their very nature, are limited. They can define what is allowed and what is forbidden. They can establish processes, protocols, and safeguards. But they cannot replace human responsibility, and they can never absolve a person from the obligation to think, to question, to probe.
We see it everywhere. In business, where companies insist they complied with regulations – even as the outcome leaves a trail of harm. In institutions, where failures are explained away as “procedural breakdowns.” In everyday life, where people defend themselves by saying, “I didn’t do anything wrong,” even when something clearly is wrong.
The Torah is not interested in producing people who merely stay within the lines. It is interested in producing people who elevate themselves within those lines – who bring integrity, sensitivity, and moral awareness into the vast space of what is technically permitted.
Holiness is not about escaping the complexity of life. It is about navigating that complexity with integrity. And in the end, that is why Prime Minister Starmer’s excuses ring so hollow. Why didn’t you ask? The Torah is clear. Holiness is not about following the rules. It begins at the point where process ends.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
Uncategorized
Israel Votes in Favor of Iran Joining International Cheer Union: ‘The Iranian People Are Not Enemies’
Ludmila Yasinska, far right, posing with members of the Israeli Cheer Union competing at the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships in Orlando, Florida. Photo: Provided
Israel’s representative at the International Cheer Union (ICU) General Meeting in Orlando, Florida, this week voted in favor of Iran becoming a member nation of the organization.
Ludmila Yasinska, president of the Israeli Cheer Union, attended the annual meeting in-person and voted for Iran joining the ICU, the official world governing body for cheerleading.
The decision was approved, and a total of five applicant countries have newly joined the organization: Iran, Sint Maarten, Iceland, Ethiopia, and Sierra Leone. The ICU now has 126 national federation members across all continents, and each receives one vote for all General Meeting voting processes.
“The vote in favor of Iran’s participation in international competitions expresses a clear distinction between the Iranian people and the terrorist regime,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “It is a values-based position that sees the Iranian people not as enemies, but as human beings who seek to take part in the international arena, to compete, and to be partners in an open and fair world. It is also a statement of hope — that despite the complex reality, there is room to distinguish between citizens and leadership, and to extend a hand toward a different future.”
“May the day come when we can stand side by side and cheer together,” she added.
According to experts, the vast majority of the Iranian people oppose the authoritarian, Islamist regime that has ruled the country since 1979. In January, the regime’s security forces killed and imprisoned tens of thousands of civilians to crush anti-government protests that erupted across Iran.
The ICU General Meeting took place before the start of the 2026 ICU World Cheerleading Championships. This year, Israel competed in the international competition for the first time ever. The championships started on Wednesday and concluded on Friday.
“It was an amazing feeling and a great source of pride to represent Israel on the world stage,” Yasinska told The Algemeiner. “Despite all the difficult times and the situation in Israel before the championship, we never stopped believing or working toward this moment.”
The competition occurred amid a ceasefire pausing the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, whose leaders regularly call for Israel’s destruction. Before the temporary truce went into effect, Israelis spent weeks running to bomb shelters as the Iranian regime launched barrages of ballistic missiles at the Jewish state. Iran’s chief terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, also fired rockets at northern Israel from Lebanon.
“There were times when we had to train on Zoom because we could not leave our homes. We also had one intensive week where some of our girls from the north stayed in our homes, just so we could have the opportunity to train together as one team,” Yasinska explained. “After all of this hard preparation, sacrifice, and determination, to finally represent our country was incredibly emotional and meaningful. It is a huge honor for us, and it was very important to show the world that Israel is on the international map of this sport — standing strong, competing proudly, and doing the very best we can.”
In 2021, the ICU was granted full recognition by the International Olympic Committee.
Uncategorized
London Gallery Cancels Antisemitic Art Exhibit After Pro-Israel Lawyers Intervene
Demonstrators attend the “Lift The Ban” rally organised by Defend Our Juries, challenging the British government’s proscription of “Palestine Action” under anti-terrorism laws, in Parliament Square, in London, Britain, Sept. 6, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Carlos Jasso
A gallery in southwest London has canceled a traveling art exhibition that it was set to host next month after a group of pro-Israel lawyers expressed concern about the show’s artwork promoting antisemitic content, including conspiracy theories about Jews and images that demonize Israeli and Jewish individuals.
“Drawings Against Genocide” by British artist Matthew Collings was set to be open at the Delta House Gallery in Wandsworth from May 16-24. The gallery is owned by Pineapple Corporation and Delta House Studios Ltd. After UK Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI), an association of British lawyers who support the Jewish state, wrote a letter to the gallery’s owners about the exhibit’s antisemitic content, they canceled the event.
“We were unaware of this intention for an exhibition as it was arranged without any consultation with the owners of the artist studios at Riverside Road,” Pineapple Corporation Chairman Tom Berglund wrote in a letter to UKLFI on Friday that confirmed the exhibit has been called off. “We all hope the issues on the ground in the Middle East can eventually be resolved,” he added.
Last month, “Drawings Against Genocide” was displayed at a gallery in Margate, a seaside town in England, and garnered widespread criticism for promoting anti-Israel and antisemitic narratives and imagery.
A spokesperson for UKLFI said freedom of expression “does not extend to the promotion of material that relies on antisemitic tropes, dehumanizing imagery, and conspiracy narratives about Jews.”
“There is a real danger in normalizing antisemitic imagery and narratives in cultural spaces,” the spokesperson added. “When material that demonizes Jews or recycles classic antisemitic tropes is presented as legitimate artistic expression, it risks lowering the threshold for what is considered acceptable in public discourse. At a time when Jewish communities in London and across the UK are already facing a significant rise in antisemitic incidents and attacks, it is particularly important that institutions act responsibly. The wider environment in which hatred is trivialized or excused can contribute to a climate in which such attacks become more likely.”
Collings’ drawings feature swastikas, often alongside the flag of Israel, show Jews surrounded by skulls, depict ancient Israelites with horns, and compare Israel to Nazi Germany. One drawing shows Sotheby’s French-Israeli owner Patrick Drahi as a “fanatic Zionist” who eats babies alive. Others demonized in Collings’ work include Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, pro-Israel writer and journalist David Collier, and film director Quentin Tarantino, who resides in Israel with his family.
Some drawings also address the deadly Hamas-led terrorist attack on Oct. 7, 2023, in Israel. One artwork denies that sexual violence took place during the massacre while another falsely claims there is “no reliable evidence whatsoever” about some of the violence orchestrated by the Hamas terrorist organization.
UKLFI told the gallery’s owners that Collings’ artwork could “potentially engage provisions under the Public Order Act 1986 and expose both the artist and the gallery to legal risks.”
Collings insists that his artwork is criticism of Israel and Zionism, but not antisemitic. He wrote in an Instagram post that his drawings “are a window into the Zionist lobby’s connection to our government, mainstream media, and the art world. The images depict individuals implicated in the genocide in Gaza as well as challenge the notion that being against Zionism is antisemitic.” He said in a separate post that his art exhibit “fights against the atrocities Israel is committing” and will “go on touring until Palestine is free.”
“Venues around the world are lined up to host it. Sold works are replaced by new ones,” he added. “Ongoing realities are pictured. A real bloody genocide is the subject. And be damned to unreal absurdities uttered by Zionist defenders of the indefensible.”
Uncategorized
Shabbos Kestenbaum: Administrators Have a Duty to Protect Jewish Students and Continue to Fail
The campus of Smith College in April 2024. Photo: Instagram/Screenshot
Across the country, we’re watching the same play staged, with the same script. Earlier this month, students at Ohio University passed a BDS referendum. Last week, a different BDS referendum passed at UC Berkeley. At Smith College, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility considered a BDS proposal on April 16 and then went silent on its timeline. On April 22, at San Diego State, the student government held its final vote and passed a BDS resolution.
Four campuses, four tests, and the question for every administrator is the same: Will you stand up now, or will you do what Harvard did and let the crisis metastasize? I know the answer when administrators fail.
As a former Harvard student, I watched an institution ignore more than 40 written appeals to its antisemitism task force. I filed a federal Title VI lawsuit as a last resort. A federal judge rejected Harvard’s motion to dismiss. Harvard adopted the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition of antisemitism in January 2025 as part of a related settlement, and my case settled four months later. But none of that had to happen. If Harvard had rejected the ideological premises of the BDS movement clearly and early, rather than treating them as legitimate academic discourse, the crisis that engulfed its campus might have been contained.
The four campuses now facing BDS votes should learn from Harvard’s failure, not repeat it.
Ohio University represents the worst kind of response: the response that isn’t. When a BDS referendum passed on campus, the university’s only pushback came through Senior Director of Communications Dan Pittman, who told Jewish outlets that the university “will neither consider, nor act upon, any resolution or referendum that proposes illegal actions.” The statement was never posted on the university’s official channels. The president’s office has said nothing publicly. A quiet quote buried in the Jewish press is not a condemnation. It is a hope that the story will disappear. American Jewish students at Ohio University deserve a public, forceful, unambiguous rejection from President Lori Stewart Gonzalez, delivered on university letterhead and posted to the university’s own website.
UC Berkeley now faces the same test. On April 18, the student government’s referendum passed, yet Chancellor Rich Lyons has not publicly rejected the result. Berkeley has already lived through the consequences of administrative hesitation. In March 2026, Berkeley Law paid $1 million to settle a federal discrimination lawsuit after its “Jewish-free zones” and harassment of American Jewish students became national news. The university has been sued once for antisemitism. It should not need to be sued twice before its chancellor states plainly that the endowment will not be conscripted as a political weapon.
Smith College has an easier task and has somehow found a way to fail at it. In March 2024, the Advisory Committee on Investor Responsibility rejected an earlier BDS proposal, finding Smith’s exposure to the targeted companies “negligible and entirely indirect.” On April 16, the committee considered a second, nearly identical proposal. Smith spokesperson Deb McDaniel stated that she “was not aware” of any formal timeline for the board to vote on the matter. That is the institutional equivalent of closing the blinds. Smith does not need a new study, a new committee, or a summer recess before delivering the same answer it delivered last year. The trustees should reaffirm the 2024 decision on the merits, in public, before the next academic year begins. Every week of silence is a week in which American Jewish students at Smith spend wondering whether their college has quietly switched sides.
This week, San Diego State University passed its BDS resolution, and the administration must clearly demonstrate that no divestment demand will be acted upon. President Adela de la Torre should not wait for the student government to humiliate itself on camera before defending the university’s fiduciary duty. American Jewish students at SDSU are entitled to know where their president stands, and they are entitled to know it in public, in writing, and this week.
These four cases share a single feature: Administrators who know the right answer and are hoping someone else will deliver it for them. Brown’s Corporation rejected divestment in October 2024. Bowdoin rejected it in March 2025. Dartmouth’s committee rejected it nine to zero. Columbia’s president said the university “will not divest from Israel.” Every institution that has engaged the question seriously has reached the same conclusion. The problem is not that the case against BDS is weak. The problem is that too many administrators would rather be quietly correct than publicly brave.
Quiet is not an option anymore. A 2026 study found that 42 percent of American Jewish students have experienced antisemitism on campus, and 34 percent hide their Jewish identity out of fear. These numbers are not abstractions. They are the direct product of administrative timidity in the face of a movement whose explicit goal is the delegitimization of the Jewish state and the isolation of American Jewish students on American campuses.
On Oct. 7, 2023, young American Jews woke up. We are not going back to sleep. We are watching Ohio University, UC Berkeley, Smith College, and San Diego State. We expect administrators who were hired to protect students to do their job.
Shabbos Kestenbaum is a political commentator at PragerU and a former lead plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against Harvard University.