Connect with us
Everlasting Memorials

Uncategorized

Can a Jewish fan watch the Super Bowl with a clean conscience? The rabbis had thoughts.

(JTA) — In January, 24-year-old Damar Hamlin of the Buffalo Bills collapsed on the field after experiencing cardiac arrest. His team and the entire NFL community rallied around him. His first words upon awakening: “Who won?”  

Although Hamlin’s medical crisis was a rare on-field occurrence, the trauma surrounding his collapse stirred up age-old questions for me, and for many of us, about the toll football takes on the bodies of its players. What are we allowing to happen to these young men, in the name of sportsmanship, entertainment and national identity? When the Super Bowl airs on Sunday, what is our responsibility as spectators?

While still a newcomer to football, I turned to Jewish texts to help me find answers, and fascinatingly, I found a striking parallel between the rabbis of old and two contemporary journalists.

In 2009, in a scathing critique in The New Yorker, Malcolm Gladwell denounced the game for the serious and long-lasting damage it does to players — especially traumatic brain injuries and debilitating neurological disorders resulting from repeated blows to the head — and placed the blame squarely on the fans. “There is nothing else to be done, not so long as fans stand and cheer,” he wrote. “We are in love with football players, with their courage and grit, and nothing else — neither considerations of science nor those of morality — can compete with the destructive power of that love.”

William C. Rhoden wrote a heartfelt piece after Hamlin’s collapse, where he reflected on his own experience as a professional sports reporter of over 40 years. “We’re used to ferocious collisions and mostly happy endings. We applaud the player as he walks off the field, then sit back down in our seats, in our suites, in our press boxes and focus on the next play,” he wrote. “I realized, with sadness, the extent to which I had become desensitized to the real-life violence of our national pastime.”  

Gladwell and Rhoden both recognize that football has inherent violence, and that as spectators we have an obligation to contend with it. Gladwell is pointing to the fans’ desire for violence, which makes them culpable in the destructive nature of the sport. Rhoden asks fans to notice their own callousness as they behold the effects of that violence.  

This same dichotomy is reflected in the rabbis’ understanding as well. Indeed, many of the rabbis of the Talmud lived in the Greco-Roman world, when gladiators would battle with one another to the death, for thousands of people to watch. One of the most extolled rabbinic figures, Rabbi Shimon Ben Lakish, is said to have himself been a mighty gladiator who eventually escaped that life to become a great sage. 

In the Tosefta, an ancient Jewish legal code contemporaneous to the Talmud, a question is raised about whether one is allowed to attend Roman amphitheaters and stadiums. For some of these venues, the concerns center around viewing and possibly participating in forbidden idol worship, or associating with foolishness and taking time away from more serious pursuits. 

However, by far the greatest concern is that of attending events in stadiums where violence is prevalent. Indeed, the text goes as far as to say that “one who sits in a Stadium, is one who sheds blood.” (Tosefta Avoda Zarah 2.2) Here we see the same concerns that Gladwell raised, that by being a spectator of this violence, you are yourself more than a bystander. Indeed, if there were no fans, there would be no audience for these violent spectacles — making fans directly culpable in these acts of bloodshed.

The Tosefta then quotes another perspective: “Rabbi Natan permits [going to Roman stadiums] because of two things: because of crying and saving a life and because of testifying for a woman that would remarry.” 

Rabbi Natan here desires to find justifications for why one could attend these events. He refers to the idea that during a gladiator event, the crowd could cheer for the losing fighter, and beg for mercy so that he would not be killed. A Jew is therefore permitted to attend because they could potentially save a life. An additional reason: They could also provide eyewitness testimony to a person’s death, thus causing the victim’s wife to become free to remarry. 

Recently, while learning this text with my colleagues at The Jewish Education Project, we understood Rabbi Natan as showing a keen understanding of the reality of his time. People will attend these games, and these games are a part of the Jewish community’s life. Rather than forbidding them from going, he explains that there are positive motivations for their attendance. 

In many ways, this matches the Rhoden position as well. He assumes we will continue to watch sports, report on games and enter fantasy football leagues. Yet, what should our motivations be as we watch these games? Do we voyeuristically cheer for the violence, enjoying the hard hits? Or can we re-sensitize ourselves and remind ourselves that these are human beings with families, and futures after their playing days are over?

I am still thinking about those awful moments in Buffalo, when Hamlin fell to the ground. All that time he spent training, the myriad ways he has broken his body for our viewing pleasure, and the lengthy rehabilitation ahead of him.

For those of us who will watch the hard hits this Sunday, I offer a charge: Do not allow yourself to ignore the pain and violence you see. Actively re-sensitize yourself to the humanity of these players. Commit to understanding what the policies are that will make this sport safer, and demand their implementation. Watch this game as Rabbi Natan teaches: with the intention to call out for justice wherever you can.

—
The post Can a Jewish fan watch the Super Bowl with a clean conscience? The rabbis had thoughts. appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.

Post Views: 894
Related Topics:
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Amnesty International Refuses to Admit That Hamas Wants to Kill All Jews and Annihilate Israel

Illustration with the logo of Amnesty International on the vest of an observer of a demonstration in Paris, France, Paris, on Dec. 11, 2021. Photo: Xose Bouzas / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect

In its nearly 200-page report on the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust, “Targeting Civilians: Murder, Hostage-Taking and Other Violations by Palestinian Armed Groups in Israel and Gaza,” Amnesty International omitted years of statements by Hamas leaders and language from its charter demonstrating genocidal intent against Jews.

This omission renders Amnesty’s account of the Oct. 7, 2023, attack fundamentally flawed — because it disregards strong evidence of Hamas’ genocidal intent and distorts both the nature of the massacre and Israel’s response.

According to the former Deputy Director of Amnesty’s now defunct Israel branch, Yariv Mohar, this report on Hamas’ attack was delayed by eight months. It had already been nearly finalized by the same time the organization released its December 2024 report, titled, “‘You Feel Like You Are Subhuman’: Israel’s Genocide Against Palestinians in Gaza.”

The organization, according to Mohar, told Israeli staff that the two reports would be published within weeks of one another.

According to Mohar, Amnesty delayed the Hamas report to keep the focus on Gaza, fearing that highlighting Hamas’ atrocities would undermine efforts to end the war. Mohar added that this was driven by a belief that Western audiences prefer a simplified moral narrative, and also because of Amnesty’s fear of backlash from its ultra-radical activist base.

Notably, the non-profit’s substantially longer Gaza report in 2024 used several out-of-context and debunked quotes by Israeli leaders to portray them as having genocidal intent.

Conversely, Amnesty’s treatment of Hamas sharply downplays the terror group’s own explicit ideology and objectives.

Hamas’ charter calls for the complete destruction of Israel as a condition for the liberation of Palestine, achieved through holy war (jihad). The charter specifically states that Hamas’ “struggle” is “against the Jews.”

This charter was never renounced by any of Hamas’ leaders, who have consistently called for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people in speeches before Oct. 7, 2023, and afterwards, pledging to commit the same atrocities in the future until Israel meets its demise.

Slain Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar was recorded in Apr. 2018, saying, “We will take down the border [with Israel] and we will tear out their hearts from their bodies,” in reference to Israelis. 

“Seven million Palestinians outside — enough warming up — you have Jews with you in every place. You should attack every Jew possible in all the world and kill them,” official Fathi Hammad said in July 2019. Hammad, in May 2021, called on Jerusalemites to “cut off the heads of the Jews with knives.”

Official Ghazi Hamad, on Oct. 24, 2023, declared that Israel must be eliminated and vowed repeated October 7s: “[N]obody should blame us for the things we do. On October 7, October 10, October 1,000,000 — everything we do is justified.”

In Jan. 2024, official Bassem Na’im wrote in Al Jazeera that the October 7 attack was a “scaled-down model of the final war of liberation and the disappearance of the Zionist occupation.” 

While the Amnesty report includes some quotes by Hamas officials calling on Palestinians to attack Israelis, the report fails to mention the terror group’s official statements and charter — and omits that their raison d’etre is to kill Jews and wipe out Israel. 

The organization also featured statements by Mohammed Deif saying that Hamas had launched the Oct. 7 attacks to end Israel’s military occupation and “its crimes,” as well as an Oct. 7 statement by Saleh Al-Arouri, then Deputy Head of the Political Bureau of Hamas, who indicated that the aims of the attacks were the liberation of the Palestinian people, breaking the siege on Gaza, stopping settlement expansion, and freeing Palestinian prisoners from Israeli prisons. 

The quotes chosen by Amnesty to be featured in the report indicate that Hamas carried out the massacre for political and nationalist purposes. That is not true.

This cherry-picking sanitizes Hamas’ true motives, which are documented, consistent, and official, and leads readers to misunderstand why the massacre occurred. 

Hamas’ 1988 charter describes its struggle against Jews as “extremely wide-ranging and grave” and calls on the Arab and Islamic world to support jihad against these “enemies.” It argues that Israel’s Jewish character contradicts Islam and must therefore be eliminated.

Without acknowledging Hamas’ ideology and intent, Amnesty’s legal conclusions — especially its accusations against Israel — rest on incomplete information.

October 7, 2023, was not merely a tactical or political attack, but part of an openly stated campaign to eliminate Israel. By omitting this context, Amnesty undermines its own account of October 7 and produces an unsound report.

Darcie Grunblatt is a US Media Researcher for CAMERA (Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America).

Post Views: 10
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Israel Is Not a Cause to Me, It Is My Compass

People stand outside the International Criminal Court (ICC) as the United States is considering imposing sanctions as soon as this week against the entire International Criminal Court, in The Hague, Netherlands, Sept. 22, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Piroschka van de Wouw

I am a pro-Israel advocate in the Netherlands with Jewish roots, and my connection to Israel is not ideologically fashionable or politically convenient.

My connection to Israel is personal, inherited, and lived. Israel has shaped my identity since childhood, long before hashtags, before October 7, and before defending Israel became socially dangerous in Europe again.

On my father’s side, my family came from Poland. They fled rising antisemitism, passed through what is now the Czech Republic, and eventually ended up in the Netherlands around 1900. On my mother’s side, the story is fragmented and partly lost by design. My grandfather was involved in resistance work during World War II, and secrecy was a survival strategy that carried over long after the war ended.

When my parents later lived in the Middle East, they voluntarily assisted Israeli intelligence. They could move freely because of a white card, and they chose to help. That choice mattered. It shaped how I was raised and what I understood early on: Israel was never an abstract state to me. It was a responsibility.

For many years, Israel viewed the Netherlands as an ally. In hindsight, that belief was painfully naïve. The historical record tells a far more uncomfortable story.

During the Nazi occupation, only a tiny fraction of the Dutch population actively resisted. Roughly 45,000 people, about half a percent, were engaged in active resistance. Even using a broad definition, only around five percent could be considered supporters of resistance. At the same time, approximately 425,000 people were investigated for collaboration. The rest of the population largely chose silence. They looked away as Jews were rounded up, deported, and murdered. Some actively helped the occupiers. Most did nothing.

That history reveals a national instinct that never truly disappeared. After October 7, the mask finally slipped. The genie came out of the bottle, and what followed was an explosion of antisemitism, often disguised as “anti-Zionism” — because open antisemitism is officially forbidden in the Netherlands. What spread through society did so faster and more aggressively than any virus I have ever witnessed.

For me, the consequences were immediate and deeply personal. Walking through Amsterdam became a nightmare. People recognized me from weekly Israel support actions and felt emboldened to curse, threaten, and intimidate me. I refused to hide my Star of David necklace, but I watched others quietly tuck away their Jewish symbols for safety. That image still haunts me.

I lost my job shortly after October 7. On November 3, 2023, I was asked a seemingly innocent question at work: “What is your favorite vacation destination?” I answered honestly: Israel. That answer cost me my livelihood.

As I searched for new work, recruiters demanded that I shut down my LinkedIn company page, which at the time had around 90,000 followers. The reason was obvious. I refused. As a result, my chances of employment collapsed. I was rejected repeatedly — and explicitly — because of my visible pro-Israel stance.

Because my company was registered at my home address, the harassment followed me there. Eggs were thrown against my windows. A dead pigeon was left at my door in a bag. I received threats, online and offline, telling me I would be gassed.

These were not anonymous global trolls. This was my reality in the Netherlands.

Social media platforms, especially LinkedIn under Microsoft’s ownership, played a disgraceful role. Pro-Israel voices and Jewish advocates who spoke factual truths were targeted, restricted, or silenced, while open Nazi rhetoric, incitement, and fabricated “Pallywood” narratives were allowed to spread with impunity. The message was clear: Jewish safety and truth were expendable.

The years since 2023 have taken a severe toll on my mental health. Depression, exhaustion, and a deep alienation from Dutch society became constants. At the same time, my longing for Israel intensified. Eventually, I made a decision that felt inevitable: I would try to live and work for Israel full time. I began the Aliyah process, believing that my commitment, experience, and lifelong dedication would matter.

They did not.

Because I can only provide indirect proof of my Jewish roots, and because I refuse to convert to Judaism for the wrong reasons, my path to Aliyah has been blocked. The Jewish Agency declined to consider special circumstances. I wrote letters to the President’s office, to the Prime Minister, and to other officials. I reached out again and again.

From the Israeli side, I received silence. No response. No explanation. Only closed doors.

That silence broke something in me. Not because I feel entitled, but because I know, without arrogance, that I could contribute more to Israel than many others. I am not driven by religion; I have none. I am not driven by political camps or prejudices. I am driven by loyalty, truth, and responsibility.

Israel is not a trend to me. It is not negotiable. It is not conditional. It is my priority, always. Even when the world turns hostile. Even when allies reveal themselves to be illusions. Even when the doors I knock on remain closed.

I will not stop standing with Israel. History has taught me what silence does. I refuse to repeat it.

Sabine Sterk is CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.

Post Views: 12
Continue Reading

Uncategorized

How Maduro’s Arrest Became Another Anti-Israel Campaign

A demonstrator uses a megaphone during a protest against US military action in Venezuela, at Lafayette Square in front of the White House, following US President Donald Trump’s announcement that the US military has struck Venezuela and captured its President Nicolas Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores, in Washington, D.C., U.S., January 3, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Tyrone Siu

Following the US military operation in Venezuela on Saturday, January 3, international attention quickly turned to the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro. While the development was widely viewed as a major geopolitical moment, reactions were far from uniform.

There was cautious optimism from many, and even those who expressed doubts as to the way in which Maduro was apprehended at least acknowledged the Venezuelan leader’s myriad shortcomings.

As always, one group of people was in no mood to celebrate. Quite the opposite.

The pro-Palestinian left online could not help but feel in absolute disarray after the news of the arrest broke, not out of humility, but because they vehemently disagreed with Maduro’s arrest — and sought to place the blame upon Israel.

Maduro was a known dictator responsible for many human rights abuses. Beyond its domestic repression, Maduro’s Venezuela played a consequential role on the international stage. Under his leadership, the country forged close ties with the Iranian regime and its proxies, offering military, financial, and political cooperation that extended far beyond symbolic diplomacy. It allowed Hezbollah to expand its global footprint in South America, directly posing a threat to US interests and security.

Still, these facts were either blatantly ignored or outright dismissed as Israeli propaganda by the pro-Palestinian online activist community. This is not surprising, considering the same accounts that are against Maduro’s arrest have also been outspoken supporters of the Islamic Republic and Hamas.

Israel as the Default Culprit

Podcast host Jake Shields claimed that the American military operation was launched “on behalf of Israel,” echoing a familiar trope that frames nearly every American foreign policy decision as Israeli-driven.

He has previously gone further, asserting that “Iran is making the world a safer place,” effectively minimizing the Iranian regime’s documented role in sponsoring terrorism, destabilizing regional governments, and advancing nuclear ambitions.

In that same regard, Bushra Shaikh, a social and political commentator, has, in the past, effectively shilled for Hamas, saying the atrocities committed on October 7, 2023, “were exaggerated by the Israeli government to garner public support for their incoming mass slaughter of Palestinians.”

In the aftermath of the American military operation, she ecstatically called for Iran to “build that nuke,” endorsing the proliferation of a regime that openly calls for Israel’s destruction.

Naturally, Israel being blamed for the US Venezuelan operation was bound to occur. Podcaster Candace Owens adhered to this unspoken anti-Israel rule online, claiming that the “Zionists cheer every regime change,” including in Venezuela, “because it means they get to steal land, oil and other resources.”

Yet, the reactions did not remain confined only to the influencer sphere. It quickly migrated into institutional and political spaces, where comparisons to Israel and calls for action against its political leadership were advanced.

UN Special Rapporteur Francesca Albanese referred to Maduro’s arrest as a “lethal blow” to international law in the same sentence as calling for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Such equivalence blurs critical legal and moral distinctions, undermining the credibility of international legal norms by applying them selectively.

Moreover, the comparison between diplomatically elected Netanyahu and a dictator who has been involved in narcoterrorism is a profound distortion of reality.

Likewise, CODEPINK, a radical left-wing organization that has previously visited Iran to meet with members of the Iranian regime on a so-called “peace delegation,” referred to Maduro as a “democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation,” and Netanyahu as none other than a “wanted war criminal committing genocide.”

Newly inaugurated New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani remarked that Maduro’s arrest was an “act of war” and the “blatant pursuit of regime change” also impacts New Yorkers. Ironically, Mamdani has vowed to arrest Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he sets foot in New York.

The Pro-Palestinian–Pro-Maduro Convergence

Maduro’s arrest has also been framed through the same ideological lens used to oppose Israel. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement exemplified this convergence, calling for “collective solidarity against the genocidal US-Israel axis.” By grouping Venezuela into a familiar anti-Israel narrative, BDS effectively recast a dictatorship that partook in narcoterrorism as part of a broader struggle of resisting “colonial violence.”

That Maduro has been featured by Al Jazeera is telling, considering the network’s history of anti-Israel coverage and its employees’ links to terrorist groups, including Hamas, which likewise condemned his arrest. Qatar, which funds the outlet, also condemned Maduro’s arrest.

This crossover between pro-Palestinian activism and pro-Maduro apologism demonstrates how ideological allegiance, rather than genuine concern for human rights or democratic values, increasingly dictates which leaders are condemned and which are defended.

Taken together, these reactions feed into a broader and deeply entrenched myth that Israel controls global politics, and by extension, the US. In casting Israel as the ultimate villain, the anti-Israel community has enabled the defense of dictators, the rationalization of terrorism, and outright ignorance of authoritarian alliances.

The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.

Post Views: 9
Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News