Uncategorized
From Moses to Memphis, the work of liberation remains unfinished
(JTA) — Rereading Exodus this month in synagogue reminds me of when I first learned about Moses’ role in freeing the Children of Israel who had been enslaved to Pharaoh. I grew up in Monsey, New York. My mother was Black and my father was white; my family identified with the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. I discovered the Passover story through ultra-Orthodox coloring books that depicted the liberation of the ancient Israelites from bondage in Egypt.
One illustration depicted Moses as an 18th-century Hasidic Jew clad in a shtreimel (fur hat) and long kapote (robe), with abundant sidelocks flowing down to his shoulders. I brought home my masterpiece, fully crayoned in purple, and showed it proudly to my mother. She gave me a puzzled look and said, “You know, Moses didn’t look like this. He had brown skin like mine.”
It was an enlightening idea that hit me like a thunderbolt. Seeing Moses as a Black person changed my whole idea of Jewish history and religion in one fell swoop — it made me feel my Black and Jewish roots even more profoundly, and that I was a descendant of great Jewish and African men and women who founded our tradition.
As time went on, though, and I went “all in” and studied to become a rabbi, I realized that Moses’ skin color mattered much less than his role as a liberator. Although many Jews do see in color, Judaism does not. The way to follow in his footsteps, I grasped, was to become an educator, a leader and a champion for freedom. I’ve devoted my career to empowering Jewish communities across the continent to become more welcoming and inclusive, to overcome racism and prejudice, and to create a more just, equitable and loving society.
The Biblical narrative of the Exodus is a call to stand for freedom and against tyranny in every generation. It says, in effect, “You are able to speak, and to be carried away on the wings of words from millennia ago, bound to no Pharaoh’s story, but liberated by your own.”
Neither my Black nor Jewish forebears could have imagined how far their descendants would come in terms of participation and even leadership in our society. As the Black visual artist Brandon Odums has reflected, “We are our ancestors’ wildest dreams.”
But there is, alas, still so far to go, as last month’s brutal killing of Tyre Nichols at the hands of the police in Memphis reminds us. Both Black History Month and the Book of Exodus teach that we can only fulfill our destiny if we fight for the liberation of all peoples.
Earlier this month, we celebrated Shabbat Shira, in which we read about the Children of Israel’s miraculous escape from Egypt by crossing the Red Sea. I was reminded of what the late 20th-century Slonimer Rebbe, Sholom Noach Berezovsky, said about the ancient Hebrews wading into the water because they had faith not just in their hearts and minds, but in their bodies — in their very bones, he said.
What does it mean to believe with your bones? The Prophet Jeremiah declared that the word of God was like “fire shut up in his bones” (20:9). Dr. Martin Luther King quoted Jeremiah in his last speech, “I’ve Been to the Mountaintop,” saying, “Somehow the preacher must have a kind of fire shut up in his bones. And whenever injustice is around, he tell it.” King gave that speech on April 3, 1968 — in Memphis — on the night before he was assassinated.
Early in the speech, King imagined “God’s children in their magnificent trek from the dark dungeons of Egypt through, or rather across, the Red Sea, through the wilderness on toward the Promised Land.” He concluded with these uncannily prescient words: “I want you to know tonight that we as a people will get to the Promised Land. So, I’m happy tonight, I’m not worried about anything, I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.”
Our commitment to creating a better world — making it to the Promised Land — must always be so much more than merely skin deep. Only when we believe in our bones that change is possible, and that we can be agents of that change, will fear melt away and we will be able to defeat the Pharaohs who seek to deprive us of our dignity, whether in Memphis or anywhere in our land.
We shall reach the Promised Land — someday. We shall recognize that we are all God’s children—someday. We shall overcome — someday.
May that day be very soon and may we all unite in joy, peace and celebration to usher it in.
—
The post From Moses to Memphis, the work of liberation remains unfinished appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Demolishing Gaza’: How the New York Times Rewrites the Story on Instagram
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Since Hamas’ brutal takeover of the Gaza Strip, the terrorist organization has made it part of its modus operandi to embed itself in any civilian infrastructure.
In the aftermath of the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel has taken considerable steps to remove existing terrorist infrastructure in areas that fall under IDF control, all within the realms of the agreed terms.
Despite this, The New York Times would like to have its audience believe that Israel is systematically destroying the Gaza Strip, even after the signing of a ceasefire.
In “Israel Is Still Demolishing Gaza, Building by Building,” the Times highlights satellite imagery showing that thousands of structures have been demolished since the October 2025 ceasefire, presenting this as ongoing destruction despite the truce. The framing casts Israel as the all-encompassing villain, while Hamas is effectively granted a free pass.
Perhaps worse, when the New York Times transferred the article to its Instagram feed of nearly 20 million followers, the misleading narrative was blasted with even larger gaps in the story.
The Instagram version omits even the limited factual caveats included in the full article, leaving audiences with a one-sided story that excludes Hamas’ role, its terrorist infrastructure, and the realities driving Israeli operations. What remains is not comprehensive reporting, but a carefully curated narrative designed for maximum emotional impact and minimal accountability.
While the Times portrays the ceasefire as “respite” solely for Palestinian civilians after a “punishing” two-year war, nowhere do the journalists acknowledge that ceasefires are intended to apply to both sides.
More importantly, it was Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel — which was accompanied by rockets and the slaughter of innocent civilians — that began this war. In presenting the war as one against Gazan civilians rather than a campaign against a terrorist organization embedded within civilian areas, the New York Times empties the ceasefire of its reciprocal meaning.
Following Israel’s offensive in Gaza, it became increasingly clear the extent to which Hamas has embedded itself and its military infrastructure within civilian locations.
In fact, the very end of the article quotes a Gazan that blames Hamas for having “militarized civilian spaces.” Naturally, a quote blaming Hamas was omitted from the Instagram carousel and hid until the bottom of the article, ensuring the fewest eyes so as not to sway too far from the narrative of absolving Hamas of wrongdoing.
The New York Times is also acutely aware of the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, having visited tunnels on a tour with the IDF during the war.
Still, when the IDF showed the Times classified maps displaying Hamas’ tunnel system — particularly in Shejaiya, within the Israeli-controlled area beyond the yellow line — the newspaper claimed it could not “independently verify” their accuracy. The context of Hamas’ vast tunnel network is missing from the Instagram post entirely.
What Instagram users are left with are two satellite images taken in two different locations in the Gaza Strip, both of which show IDF-controlled areas beyond the yellow line. While the photos are described ever so slightly more in depth in the article, the Instagram post hopes to use them as the concluding evidence that Israel is acting against the ceasefire to continue its ruthless destruction of civilian infrastructure. However, because they are beyond the yellow line, not only are there no civilians there, but Israel is within its full right under the ceasefire to remove any existing terrorist infrastructure.
The New York Times‘ Instagram post presents itself as a case study in media literacy — or, more accurately, its absence. Designed for audiences with short attention spans who are unlikely to click through to the full article, the post strips away essential context, leaving users without any meaningful understanding of why or how the IDF has continued military action against Hamas in the wake of the October 2025 ceasefire.
While the article itself omits critical facts, the Instagram post goes even further. By removing what little context remains, it actively misleads its audience, inviting millions of followers to fill in the gaps with assumptions rather than facts. This is not journalism adapted for social media. It is narrative curation that sacrifices accuracy for maximum impact.
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.
Uncategorized
Fatah Spokesman: Gaza Was ‘Paradise’ Before Oct. 7, and Massacre Wasn’t a Problem — Only Its Scale
Rockets are launched by Palestinian into Israel, amid Israeli-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, August 7, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem
While the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas may argue among themselves over tactics, timing, and optics, they are united on the core issue — the legitimacy of terror.
In a single radio interview, the Fatah spokesman in the Gaza Strip — representing the ruling party of the PA, which is now positioning itself as a future governing authority in Gaza — revealed three truths that Palestinian leaders usually avoid stating so openly: that Gaza was not an unlivable hell before October 7, that the mass murder of Israelis is not rejected in principle, and that the internal Palestinian debate is about how much terror is useful, not whether terror is acceptable at all.
Fatah Spokesman in the Gaza Strip Mundhir Al-Hayek: ” … The Gaza Strip before Oct. 7 was a paradise. The situation was very good.
But Hamas exploited this and took over all the economic areas and collected taxes, and unfortunately, the result was moving towards the uncalculated October 7. We needed 10% of Oct. 7 to convey a message to the world that the Palestinian people is persecuted and oppressed, and it needs self-determination. But the political leadership [Hamas] failed.” [emphasis added]
[Radio Mawtini (Fatah radio station), Facebook page, Jan. 6, 2026]
Al-Hayek’s admission that “the Gaza Strip before October 7 was a paradise” and that “the situation was very good” directly contradicts two years of Palestinian claims that October 7 was launched in response to unbearable humanitarian conditions or Israeli “siege.”
According to a senior Fatah official speaking from Gaza itself, life there was not only tolerable, but “very good” until Hamas chose war.
Equally revealing is what Al-Hayek did not condemn.
“I’m not talking about the operation itself,” he emphasized, meaning the atrocities of October 7, but only about what followed. The massacre itself is not rejected. It is treated as a given.
As Palestinian Media Watch has documented consistently, the Palestinian Authority does not morally condemn terror overall, nor October 7 in particular.
Instead, it criticizes October 7 for being politically or tactically mishandled. For Al-Hayek, the failure was not the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, the kidnappings, or the mass atrocities, but that Hamas did not “rescue our people” afterward and failed to manage the consequences of the violence it initiated.
Perhaps the most instructive statement came when Al-Hayek argued that the massacre itself was excessive, not unjustified: “We needed 10% of October 7 to convey a message to the world.”
So, what does “10% of October 7” mean? Does it mean kidnapping 25 people instead of 251? Does it mean murdering 120 people instead of over 1,200? Does it mean raping fewer women or burning fewer families alive?
The answer exposes the PA/Fatah’s true ideology, which does not see terror as a moral question but a quantitative one. Indeed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described October 7 as an attempt to achieve “important goals,” while his senior advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash called it “a legitimate thing.”
Al-Hayek’s remarks underscore the PA/Fatah view that terror is acceptable and is constrained only by political utility and cost.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Iran Summons Italian Ambassador Over Push for EU Clampdown on Revolutionary Guards, State Media Says
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
The Iranian foreign ministry summoned Italy’s ambassador over efforts by Rome to place Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the European Union’s terrorist register, state media reported on Tuesday.
Iran‘s foreign ministry warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the Revolutionary Guards and called upon the Italian foreign minister to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran,” the media report said
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Monday that Italy will ask European Union partners this week to label the IRGC as a terrorist group.
Until now, Rome had been among the governments resisting efforts to brand the IRGC as a terrorist group, but Tajani said a bloody Iranian crackdown on street protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X, adding he would raise the issue on Thursday at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
“I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
Being branded a terrorist group would trigger a set of legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would significantly constrain the IRGC’s ability to operate in Europe.
Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC holds great sway in the country, controlling swathes of the economy and armed forces, and is also in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
While some EU member states have previously pushed for the IRGC to be listed, others have been more cautious, fearing that it could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, harming any chance of reviving nuclear talks and jeopardizing any hope of getting EU nationals released from Iranian jails.
However, Iran’s violent crackdown on protests has revived the debate and added momentum to discussions about adding the IRGC, which is already included in the bloc’s human rights sanctions regime, to the EU terrorist list.
Italian, French, and Spanish diplomats raised qualms during a meeting in Brussels earlier this month about adding the IRGC to the list, EU diplomats told Reuters at the time.
If France continues to object, then the move to sanction the IRGC will fail, diplomats have said.