Uncategorized
Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court
(JTA) — On Dec. 29, Israel swore in Benjamin Netanyahu’s sixth government. The Likud leader became Israel’s prime minister once more, and one week later, Israel’s long-anticipated judicial counterrevolution began.
In the Knesset Wednesday, newly minted Justice Minister and Netanyahu confidant Yariv Levin unveiled a package of proposed legislation that would alter the balance of power between Israel’s legislature and its Supreme Court.
At the core of this plan is a bill to allow the Knesset to override the Supreme Court. Levin’s proposals — which almost certainly have the immediate support of a Knesset majority, regardless of Levin’s assurances that they would be subject to “thorough debate” — would pave the way for Israel’s new government to pass legislation that curtails rights and undermines the rule of law, dealing a blow to Israeli democracy.
The dire implications of this proposed judicial reform are rooted in key characteristics of the Israeli political system that set it apart from other liberal democracies. Israel has no constitution to determine the balance of power between its various branches of government. In fact, there is no separation between Israel’s executive and legislative branches, given that the government automatically controls a majority in the parliament.
Instead, it has a series of basic laws enacted piecemeal over the course of the state’s history that have a quasi-constitutional status, with the initial intention that they would eventually constitute a de jure constitution.
Through the 1980s, the Knesset passed basic laws that primarily served to define state institutions, such as the country’s legislature and electoral system, capital and military. In the 1990s, there was a paradigm shift with the passage of two basic laws that for the first time concerned individuals’ rights rather than institutions, one on Human Dignity and Liberty (1992) and the other on Freedom of Occupation (1994). These laws enshrined rights to freedom of movement, personal freedom, human dignity and others to all who reside in Israel.
Aharon Barak, the president of Israel’s Supreme Court from 1995 to 2006, argued that these laws constituted a de facto bill of rights, empowering the court to review Knesset legislation and to strike down laws that violate civil liberties, a responsibility not explicitly bestowed upon the court in the basic law pertaining to the judiciary. In 1995, the Supreme Court officially ruled that it could indeed repeal legislation that violates the country’s basic laws, heralding an era of increased judicial activism in Israel in what became known as the “judicial revolution.” The court has struck down 20 laws since, a fairly modest number compared to other democracies.
The judicial revolution of the 1990s shifted the balance of power in Israel’s political system from one of parliamentary sovereignty, in which the Knesset enjoyed ultimate power, to one in which the legislature is restricted from violating the country’s (incomplete) constitution. Israel’s Supreme Court became a check on the legislative branch in a country that lacks other checks and balances and separations of power.
As a result of these characteristics, the Supreme Court currently serves as one of the only checks on the extraordinary power of Israel’s 120-member Knesset — which is why shifting that balance of power would have such a dramatic impact on Israel’s democracy.
Levin’s proposed judicial overhaul includes several elements that would weaken the power and independence of Israel’s Supreme Court. The plan includes forbidding the Supreme Court from deliberating on and striking down basic laws themselves. It would require an unspecified “special majority” of the court to strike down legislation, raising the threshold from where it currently stands.
Levin has also called for altering the composition of the selection committee that appoints top judges to give the government, rather than legal professionals, a majority on the panel. It would allow cabinet ministers to appoint legal advisors to act on their behalf, rather than that of the justice ministry, canceling these advisors’ role as safeguards against government overreach. Should a minister enact a decision that contravenes a basic law, the ministry’s legal advisor would no longer report the violation to the attorney general, and would instead merely offer non-binding legal advice to the minister.
The pièce de résistance is, of course, the override clause that would allow the Knesset to reinstate laws struck down by the Supreme Court by 61 members of Knesset, a simple majority assuming all members are present. The sole restriction on this override would be a provision preventing the Knesset from re-legislating laws struck down unanimously, by all 15 judges, within the same Knesset term.
This plan’s obvious and most immediate result would be the effective annulment of the quasi-constitutional status of Israel’s basic laws. If the Knesset’s power to legislate is no longer bound by basic laws, these de facto constitutional amendments no longer have any teeth. There are no guardrails preventing any Knesset majority from doing as it wishes, including violating basic human rights. The Knesset could pass laws openly curtailing freedom of the press or gender equality, for example, should it choose to do so.
This counterrevolution, in effect, goes further than merely undoing what occurred in the 1990s.
Most crucially, the Knesset that would once again enjoy full parliamentary sovereignty in 2022 is not the Knesset of Israel’s first four decades. Shackling the Supreme Court is essential to the agendas of the new government’s various ultra-right and ultra-religious parties. For example, the haredi Orthodox parties are eager to re-legislate a blanket exemption to the military draft for their community, which the court struck down in 2017 on the grounds that it was discriminatory. They also have their sights on revoking recognition of non-Orthodox conversions for immigrants to Israel, undoing a court decision from 2021.
The far-right, Jewish supremacist parties of Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir, meanwhile, see an opportunity to deal a decisive blow to an institution that has long served as a check on the settlement movement. They hope to tie the court’s hands in the face of oncoming legislation to retroactively legalize settlements built on private Palestinian land, which are illegal under Israeli law. But this is only the beginning: Neutering the authority of the court could pave the way for legal discrimination against Israel’s Arab minority, such as Ben-Gvir’s proposal to deport minorities who show insufficient loyalty.
The timing of Levin’s announcement Wednesday could not be more germane. The Knesset recently amended the basic law to legalize the appointment of Aryeh Deri, the Shas party leader who is serving a suspended sentence for tax fraud, as a minister in the new government. The Supreme Court convened Thursday morning to hear petitions against his appointment from those arguing that it is “unreasonable” to rehabilitate Deri given his multiple criminal convictions, a view shared by Israel’s attorney general. Levin’s proposals would bar the court from using this “reasonability” standard.
The Israeli right has long chafed at the power of the Supreme Court, which it accuses of having a left-wing bias. But a judicial overhaul like this has never enjoyed the full support of the government, nor was Netanyahu previously in favor of it. Now, with a uniformly right-wing government and Netanyahu on trial for corruption, the prime minister’s foremost interest is appeasing his political partners and securing their support for future legislation to shield him from prosecution.
In a system where the majority rules, there need to be mechanisms in place to protect the rights of minorities — political, ethnic and religious. Liberal democracy requires respect for the rule of law and human rights. Yariv Levin’s proposals to fully subordinate the Supreme Court to the Knesset will concentrate virtually unchecked power in the hands of a few individuals — government ministers and party leaders within the coalition who effectively control what the Knesset does. That those individuals were elected in free and fair elections is no guarantee that the changes they make will be democratic.
—
The post Israeli democracy may not survive a ‘reform’ of its Supreme Court appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Haley Stevens takes aim at Netanyahu in Michigan Senate debate, as opponent Abdul El-Sayed calls Israel a ‘rogue state’
(JTA) — Viewers of Michigan’s Democratic Senate primary debate on Tuesday night could be forgiven for at times forgetting that one candidate comes with the heavy backing of pro-Israel donors.
“The prime minister of Israel has failed,” Rep. Haley Stevens said when asked about Iran, saying that both Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and U.S. President Donald Trump had failed to achieve “long-term peace.”
Later, Stevens added that she supported “aid into Gaza” and reiterated that she believed Netanyahu has been bad for American Jews.
“It is very clear that Mr. Netanyahu has not made us safer, has not brought us closer to peace, and he is a danger to Jews in America and around the world,” she said.
The lines represented sharp criticism of Israel’s leadership for a candidate who, according to federal campaign records, has received more than $10 million in support from donors affiliated with AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby that her progressive opponent, Abdul El-Sayed, has excoriated on the campaign trail and during Tuesday’s debate. Regarded as one of Congress’ more reliable pro-Israel Democrats, Stevens made the comments as Democratic voters have largely shed their sympathies for Israel.
El-Sayed, meanwhile, said during the debate that the United States’ foreign policy “has been handed to us” by Israel and AIPAC and called Israel a “rogue state.”
The former Wayne County health director, whose grassroots campaign has gained momentum as it has increasingly centered anti-Israel rhetoric, did not hold back in his criticism.
Citing “the impact of AIPAC in our politics” as the reason for the joint U.S.-Israeli war on Iran, El-Sayed asserted that the lobbyist’s goals were “to annex Lebanon or to do genocide in Gaza.” He added that Israel was committing “human rights abuses, genocide and apartheid” and called for the United States to “stop funding the Israeli military unilateral blank checks.”
He also tied voters’ economic woes to Israel. “Ask yourself why it is that we are paying $5 gas, why it is that we can’t get out of this quagmire,” he said. “It’s because for too long, our foreign policy has been handed to us by the likes of the state of Israel and AIPAC, who has made sure that both Democrats and Republicans are doing their bidding.”
He further claimed there was no difference between his Democratic opponent and the presumptive Republican nominee, former congressman Mike Rogers, on Israel.
“If Congresswoman Stevens makes it, or if Mike Rogers wins, either way, Israel will win,” El-Sayed said. “AIPAC is perfectly fine with either of my two opponents because they know they will have a comfortable, reliable vote in the U.S. Senate.”
Stevens, who noted that she supports a two-state solution, rejected the line of attack. “No one owns my vote and no one owns my policies,” she said. “Anyone who’s contributing to my Senate campaign is doing so because of my proven record of fighting for Michigan.”
El-Sayed also suggested that Stevens’ sparring with Netanyahu, who is deeply unpopular with American voters, was ingenuine. Earlier in the day, Netanyahu told CNN that he believed Stevens’ previous comments accusing him of making American Jews less safe represented her “probably trying to excuse antisemitism.”
Sayed said he wasn’t convinced the remark was authentic. “I don’t think Benjamin Netanyahu is attacking her to actually attack her,” he said at the debate. “I think he’s attacking her to try and steer away the stink of how staunchly she stands for their policy.”
El-Sayed also attacked Stevens over a June 2025 vote she made in the House to “thank” Immigrations and Customs Enforcement officers. The appreciation was embedded in a resolution condemning the firebombing of a peaceful march for Israeli hostages in Boulder, Colorado. Stevens accused Republicans of having “put in a cynical point” about thanking ICE and El-Sayed of falling into a trap laid by the GOP.
Israel has grown increasingly central ahead of the Michigan primary, set for Aug. 4, in a crucial battleground state with large populations of both Jewish and Arab/Muslim voters. A third candidate who sought to tread a middle ground between Stevens and El-Sayed suspended her campaign earlier this week, ratcheting up anxiety among American Jews around the race.
Stevens’ bid for the Senate comes four years after she ousted Andy Levin, a Jewish progressive congressman who expressed criticism of Israel, in a race that drew more than $4 million in AIPAC-affiliated spending. In the years since, she has remained in a dwindling minority of House Democrats who have voted against all measures that would block or condition military aid to Israel.
El-Sayed’s bid comes as other anti-Israel progressives have prevailed in congressional primaries, shifting campaign discourse about Israel to the left. In an interview with CNN also published Tuesday, El-Sayed took aim at the very idea of a Jewish state.
“Every definition of a Jewish state ends up in some articulation of illiberal values, every single one,” he told CNN. Asked if support for Israel could ever be about more than money, he responded, “Not if you’re a Democrat and you believe in human rights.”
Other Michigan races are also turning into referendums on the Democratic stance on Israel. El-Sayed has cross-endorsed two left-wing congressional candidates, state Rep. Donavan McKinney and activist William Lawrence, who have both said Israel committed genocide in Gaza. Stevens, meanwhile, has endorsed pro-Israel Jewish state Sen. Jeremy Moss for her House seat.
Further down the ballot in Michigan, Democratic activist Abbas Alawieh, a key architect of the 2024 “Uncommitted” movement designed to pressure national Democrats on Gaza, on Tuesday picked up the endorsement of Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer in his bid for a state senate seat on the party ticket. Alawieh has also met with former Vice President Kamala Harris, who lost Michigan to Donald Trump in the general election after the state’s large Arab and Muslim population expressed strong dissatisfaction with her stance on Israel.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Haley Stevens takes aim at Netanyahu in Michigan Senate debate, as opponent Abdul El-Sayed calls Israel a ‘rogue state’ appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Trump says Iran ceasefire ‘over’ as Hegseth cancels Israel visit amid rising tensions
(JTA) — President Donald Trump said Wednesday that the ceasefire with Iran was “over” after the U.S. military pounded sites in Iran and the Islamic regime struck dozens of American military facilities in the region.
“I think it’s over. I don’t want to deal with them anymore,” Trump told reporters in Ankara, Turkey, where he is attending the NATO summit. “They’re scum. You know what scum is? They’re scum. They’re sick people. They’re led by sick people, and they’re vicious, violent people. And if they had a nuclear weapon, they’d use it. As far as I’m concerned, it’s over.”
At the same time, the president did not appear to rule out further negotiations with Iran, adding, “I’ll speak to our negotiators. They want to negotiate.”
Trump’s comments came hours after the military’s U.S. Central Command announced Tuesday evening that it had launched a “series of powerful strikes against Iran” in retaliation for Iran hitting commercial vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.
Following the U.S. strikes, Iran targeted dozens of U.S. military sites in Bahrain and Kuwait, according to the Iranian Fars news outlet.
“In the initial response to the US aggression, the naval and aerospace forces of the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps, in a joint missile and drone operation, struck 85 locations of important US military facilities,” the Islamic Revolution Guard Corps said in a statement Wednesday.
The exchange of fire further imperiled the shaky ceasefire between the United States and Iran, as well as negotiations with Iran that were supposed to resume after the dayslong funeral for Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei ended Thursday.
Following Trump’s announcement, the price of oil jumped to its highest level in weeks.
Meanwhile, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cancelled a planned visit to Israel Wednesday to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, according to media reports.
The U.S. and Iran signed a Memorandum of Understanding last month to provide a 60-day framework for the sides to reach a deal on Iran’s nuclear program and other sticking points.
Following Tuesday’s U.S. strikes, Iran’s parliamentary Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf accused the United States of violating the Memorandum of Understanding, including “Continued Zionist aggression on [Lebanon]” in a post on X.
“The era of bullying and extortion is over. It leads nowhere. We don’t fold,” Ghalibaf wrote.
During Trump’s meeting with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan Tuesday, the president also signalled that he would likely restore the country’s ability to purchase F-35 fighter jets, a move that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has staunchly opposed.
“Turkey has been in many ways much more loyal than other countries that we think would be loyal,” Trump said when asked if he is going to sell the jets to Turkey, according to Axios. “So it is something we definitely would consider.”
Hegseth’s scrapped meeting with Netanyahu was widely expected to touch upon the idea of U.S. selling the advanced stealth plane to Turkey.
This article originally appeared on JTA.org.
The post Trump says Iran ceasefire ‘over’ as Hegseth cancels Israel visit amid rising tensions appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Can the Trinity be kosher?
„אַ ייִדישער שילוש‟ (A Jewish Trinity) — אַזוי הייסט דאָס נײַע בוך פֿון אַלאַן בריל, דער ראָש פֿון ייִדיש־קריסטלעכע שטודיעס אינעם סעטאָן־האָל־אוניווערסיטעט (ניו־דזשערזי) און אַ באַקאַנטער פֿאָרשער פֿון ייִדישקייט און צווישן־רעליגיעזע ענינים. ברילס פֿאַרגלײַך־אַנאַליז איז אַ וויכטיקער שטאַפּל אין ייִדיש־קריסטלעכע באַציִונגען, וואָס קען העלפֿן ייִדן און קריסטן בעסער פֿאַרשטיין איינער דעם צווייטן.
בײַ אַ סך ייִדן איז די קריסטלעכע דאָגמע וועגן דער געטלעכער דרײַ־פּערזענלעכקייט אַזוי פֿרעמד, אַז זיי ווייסן נישט אַפֿילו, אַז אין דער פּאָלעמישער ייִדישער ליטעראַטור איז פֿאַר איר פֿאַראַן אַ ספּעציעלער טערמין — שילוש. דאָס וואָרט ווערט אָבער אין ערגעץ נישט דערמאָנט אינעם בוך און ס׳איז דאָ אַ גוטע סיבה דערפֿאַר. בריל באַנוצט זיך מיט דער באַקאַנטער קריסטלעכער טערמינאָלאָגיע און מײַדט דווקא אויס די אַלטע מיטל־עלטערלעכע דיספּוטן צווישן ייִדן און קריסטן. זײַן צוועק איז אַ קאָנסטרוקטיווע פֿאַרגלײַך־שטודיע, נישט קיין פּאָלעמיק. ער פֿאַרגלײַכט די ייִדישע און קריסטלעכע רעליגיע און ווײַזט אָן, אַז אַפֿילו אַזעלכע קאָנצעפּציעס, ווי די קריסטלעכע אמונה אין דרײַ געטלעכע פּערזאָנען, זענען לאַוו־דווקא פֿרעמד פֿאַר ייִדן; עס ווענדט זיך, ווי מע טײַטשט זיי אָפּ.
אין זײַן בוך פֿאָקוסירט בריל אויף דער מאָדערנער קאַטוילישער טעאָלאָגיע. אָפֿט מאָל ציטירט ער דעם דײַטשישן יעזויִט־גלח און פּראָמינענטן טעאָלאָג קאַרל ראַנער, ווי אויך אַ ריי אַנדערע: ייִרגען מאָלטמאַן, וואַלטער קאַספּער און האַנס קינג.
דאָס בוך איז אײַנגעטיילט אין זעקס קאַפּיטלען וועגן דעם שילוש; אינקאַרנאַציע (דער גלויבן, אַז גאָט האָט זיך פֿאַרקערפּערט אין יעזוסן); אָדם־הראשונס חטא; עולם־הבא; משיח, און דעם ברית צווישן גאָט און מענטשן (Covenant).
אין דער הקדמה דערקלערט בריל זײַן אייגענע פּאָזיציע. ער גלייבט נישט, אַז די אונטערשיידן צווישן וועלט־רעליגיעס קאָן מען פּשוט באַשרײַבן ווי „אָט דאָ גלייבן מיר צוזאַמען אין דער זעלבער זאַך, אָבער יענער גלויבן אײַערע איז אונדז פֿרעמד‟. עס זענען פֿאַראַן אַלערליי וואַריאַנטן פֿון ייִדישער און קריסטלעכער טעאָלאָגיע. אין געוויסע אַספּעקטן איז דער חילוק צווישן דעם רמב״מס און אַ חסידישן מקובלס צוגאַנג צו ייִדישקייט גרעסער, ווי צווישן ייִדן און קריסטן.
ס׳איז אינטערעסאַנט, אַז צו אַזאַ טעמע איז בריל צוגעקומען נאָכן וווינען עטלעכע יאָר אין אינדיע, וווּ ער האָט זיך באַקענט מיט הונדויִזם און אַנטדעקט פֿאַר זיך, אַז די אינדישע הויפּט־רעליגיע איז אויך נישט אַזוי ווײַט פֿון ייִדישקייט, ווי עס טראַכטן אַ סך מענטשן. בריל דערציילט וועגן דעם אין זײַן בוך „אַ רבֿ אויפֿן טײַך גאַנג‟. און אַז מע רעדט שוין פֿון הינדויִזם, מעג מען צוקומען צו אַן אַנדער, מער באַקאַנטער רעגיליע, וועלכע האָט במשך פֿון דורות אַרויסגערופֿן בײַ ייִדן ממש אַן אַלערגיע – קריסטלעכקייט.
ווי אַ מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישער רבֿ, ווענדט זיך בריל זעלטן צו קבלה און חסידות, וווּ מע קען געפֿינען אַ סך מער כּמו־קריסטלעכע פּאַראַלעלן. לייענט, למשל, שאול מגידס בוך „חסידות אינקאַרנירט‟ (Hasidism Incarnate), דערמאָנט אין דער ביבליאָגראַפֿיע פֿון ברילס בוך. בריל שטעלט דעם טראָפּ אויף דעם מין ייִדישקייט, וועלכן ער באַטראַכט ווי דעם ראַציאָנעל־געשטימטן הויפּטשטראָם. ער ווענדט זיך יאָ צו מיסטישע שיטות, אָבער נישט צו אָפֿט. פּונקט אַזוי באַציט ער זיך צום הײַנטצײַטיקן קאַטויליציזם, שילדערנדיק אַזעלכע דעות, וואָס קלינגען מער מאָדערן און ראַציאָנעל, וואָס טײַטשן אָפּ דעם שילוש בלויז ווי פֿאַרשיידענע אַספּעקטן פֿון איין גאָט, און גאָטס פֿאַרקערפּערונג אין יעזוסן מער סימבאָליש, נישט אין גאַנצן בוכשטעבלעך.
על־פּי קבלה אַנטפּלעקט זיך דער אייבערשטער צו דער וועלט און צו דער מענטש דורך צען ספֿירות — פֿאַרשיידענע פּערזענלעכע אַספּעקטן, וועלכע מע קען פֿאַרגלײַכן מיטן קריסטלעכן שילוש. בריל באַמערקט אָבער אַ ספּעציפֿישן חילוק: די ספֿירות באַציִען זיך איינע צו דער צווייטער לויט אַ שטרענגער היעראַרכיע, און בײַ די קריסטן זענען „דער טאַטע, דער זון און דער רוח־הקודש‟ אַבסאָלוט גלײַך. די פּראַוואָסלאַוונע קריסטן, פֿאַרקערט, באַטראַכטן גאָט דעם טאַטן ווי אַ מלך איבער זײַן זון און דעם הייליקן גײַסט ווי זײַן עמאַנאַציע. בריל האָט מיר דערקלערט, אַז אין דער פּראַוואָסלאַוונער טראַדיציע האָט ער זיך נישט געגריבלט. ער באַשרײַבט נאָך אַזעלכע וואַריאַציעס פֿון קריסטלעכער טעאָלאָגיע, וואָס זענען גוט באַקאַנט דעם ברייטן אַמעריקאַנער עולם.
בדרך־כּלל איז בריל גערעכט, אַז די ספֿירות ווערן אָפֿט באַטראַכט ווי אַ שטרענגע היעראַרכיע. כ׳מוז אָבער צוגעבן פֿון זיך, אַז אין אַ ריי באַקאַנטע חסידישע ספֿרים ווערט זייער סדר רעלאַטיוו אָדער דווקא איבערגעקערט. בפֿרט איז דאָס בולט בײַ חב״ד. די ליובאַוויטשער רביים באַטאָנען כּסדר, אַז מלכות — די לעצטע ספֿירה, באַטראַכט ווי אַ ווײַבלעכע און אָפֿט אינעטניפֿיצירט מיט דער שכינה, איז אין איר שורש די העכסטע. מע קען זאָגן, אַז ס׳איז „העכער‟ צו באַטראַכטן דעם באַשעפֿער ווײַבלעך, ווי אַ געטין. מעג דאָס קלינגען אומטראַדיציאָנעל, נאָר אין געוויסע גאַנץ כּשרע קבלה־קוואַלן געפֿינען מיר סימנים פֿון אַזאַ צוגאַנג. פֿון ברילס שטאַנדפּונד – צו האַלטן זיך נישט צו ווײַט פֿונעם הויפּטשטראָם – איז גאַנץ פֿאַרשטענדלעך אַזעלכע ענינים נישט צו דערמאָנען.
אינעם קאַפּיטל „אינקאַרנאַציע‟ דערמאָנט בריל נאָר אַ ביסל, אַז פֿאַר די חסידים איז אַן אמתער צדיק אַ געטלעכע אַנטפּלעקונג, און פֿאַרגלײַכט עס מיט דער „פֿאַרגעטלעכונג‟ פֿון קריסטלעכע הייליקע דורכן רוח־קודש, נישט מיט דעם, ווי די קריסטן קוקן אויף יעזוסן. אויב מע פֿאַרגלײַכן די פּראַוואָסלאַוונע טעאָלאָגיע מיט געוויסע חשובֿע חסידישע ספֿרים, ווערט אָבער דער חילוק נישט אַזוי קלאָר. צום בײַשפּיל, שטייט געשריבן אין שײַכות צו משה רבינו אינעם ספֿר „זרע קודש‟ פֿונעם ראָפּשיצער רבין (פּרשת „ואתחנן‟), אַז אַן אמתער צדיק איז גאָט — ממש מיט אַזעלכע ווערטער. דעם דאָזיקן ספֿר האַלטן די סאַטמאַרער חסידים ווי איינעם פֿון די כּשרסטע און הייליקסטע.
ווידער, פֿון ברילס שטאַנדפּונקט איז דווקא ריכטיק אַזעלכע ראַדיקאַלע דעות נישט צו דערמאָנען. אַפֿילו אין די חסידישע קרײַזן קאָנען זיי שאָקירן אַ פּשוטן ייִד. אַזוי באַציִען זיך אַ סך חסידים צום „זרע קודש‟: דער ספֿר איז טאַקע אַ הייליקער, נאָר גיי פֿאַרשטיי, וואָס דער ראָפּשיצער רבי האָט באמת געמיינט! פֿון דעסט וועגן, אויב עמעצער וואָלט פֿאַרגליכן דעם ראַדיקאַלן „צדיקיזם‟ מיט פּראַוואָסלאַוונע קריסטלעכע געדאַנקען, וואָלט זיך באַקומען גאָר אַן אַנדער בילד מיט נאָך מער פּאַראַלעלן צווישן די רעליגיעס.
די לייענער פֿון מײַנע אַרטיקלען ווייסן, אַז איך האָב ליב אַרויסצוגראָבן, אַמאָל פֿון זעלטענע און ווייניק באַקאַנטע ספֿרים, דווקא ראַדיקאַלע, אומגעוויינטלעכע און יוצא־דופֿנדיקע דעות. ווען איך האָב געלייענט ברילס בוך, האָב איך כּסדר געטראַכט: פֿאַרוואָס גייט נישט דער מחבר נאָך ווײַטער? דאָס איז אָבער אַ מעלה פֿאַר די, וואָס האָבן ליב אַ מאָדערנעם ראַציאָנעלן צוגאַנג. בריל האַלט זיך בײַם מאָדערן־אָרטאָדאָקסישן דרך און שטיצט אַן ענלעכן מין קריסטלעכקייט. פֿאַר מיר, אַ ליבהאָבער פֿון מיסטישע און שאַמאַנישע זאַכן, איז זײַן בוך געוואָרן אַ גוטער באַלערנדיקער אַרײַנפֿיר אין דער וועלט פֿון הײַנטצײַטיקע קאַטויליקער, וואָס קלינגען טאַקע ווי קריסטלעכע „מאָדערנע אָרטאָדאָקסן‟.
דאָס בוך ענדיקט זיך מיט אַ דערמאָנונג פֿונעם פּראָמינענטן רבֿ יונתן סאַקס ז״ל, וועלכער האָט באַטאָנט, אַז „די וועלט ווערט גרעסער צוליב די אונטערשיידן‟ און דערבײַ אָפּגעשאַצט די קריסטלעכע רעליגיע, ווי אויך די רעליגיעזע פֿאַרשיידנאַרטיקייט בכלל. בריל איז מסכּים, אָבער שליסט זײַן פֿאָרשונג מיט די ווערטער: „די צוויי רעליגיעס בלײַבן באַזונדערע אומאָפּהענגיקע בריתן מיטן באַשעפֿער‟.
The post Can the Trinity be kosher? appeared first on The Forward.
