Uncategorized
Rachel Freier is one unusual woman: civil court judge, parademic, Hasid and mother of 6
Rachel “Ruchie” Freier was the first Hasidic woman to be elected a civil court judge in New York. That is just one of many accomplishments for this mother of six who blows away preconceived ideas about what religious Jews can accomplish in the secular world.
Freier also formed B’Derech, a nonprofit that helps provide education for adolescents in the Hasidic community. And she became a paramedic after she helped found Ezras Nashim, an all-women’s volunteer EMT service. What unites her various roles is a desire to serve God, she says, and that’s what keeps her rooted in her religious upbringing.
In our interview, she discusses the changing public perception of Hasidim and relations between religious and secular Jews.
There have been a string of books and TV series on Jews who have rejected Hasidism. What do you think of the negative portrayal of Hasidism in the media?
That’s a great question, and it’s always bothered me going back years ago. I think now that there’s so much social media and so much more access, Hasidim are coming forward and opening up. A little bit of that misunderstanding has been cleared. When people choose to be insular—and for good reasons—these are going to be the side effects of insularity. While there’s a lot of good to be done when you want to insulate your family and your children from outside forces, there’s some information that the outside should get to know.
You are the first Hasid to serve in many of your roles. Do you feel pressure to represent all Hasidim in public life?
I always make it very clear that I just speak for myself. But when I speak my own opinion, it opens up a lot of windows and doors that were shut previously. So, it wasn’t like some umbrella agency said, “Ruchie here is our representative. Listen to what she’s saying because she is the voice of the people.” No, and the fact that I’m not any official representative gives me much more latitude to sit down on the sofa and just talk and share things without thinking about what my boss wants me to say. I only have to answer to God.”
Are you stretching what is considered acceptable for women to accomplish in your community? And do you face any kind of backlash?
It depends on what capacity. I do many things in terms of serving in law and being a judge. I don’t have backlash for that. In my volunteer work, where I created a volunteer EMS agency for women, I have backlash. It depends on who you’re referring to because people have to understand that Hasidim are not monolithic. We don’t always agree on everything. And that’s perfectly fine.
You have six children, grandchildren, and a full career and public life. What is the secret to juggling it all?
One thing I have is a very supportive husband and a supportive mother. If you don’t have the support of your family, of your loved ones, then you’re really climbing an uphill battle. That’s what makes it possible. And the other thing is I pray a lot. I’m doing this with the intention only of creating a kiddush Hashem, to sanctify God’s name. That’s my only goal. I don’t do this for any financial gain. I do it because I feel that the more we understand each other, the more bridges can be made. I speak to diverse audiences, and they always say, by the time I finish speaking, that we have more in common that unites us than that which divides us.
That’s one of the themes of the Z3. What is the state of relations now between religious and secular Jews right now?
As time has gone on, and the Hasidim have multiplied and become a larger population, we’re more open to understanding that while we’re insular, there are segments of society that we can participate in. We see they have gone on to college and have gone out to work. They can’t be ignored anymore. Maybe in the past generation, we were dealing with Holocaust survivors, and they were happy just rebuilding and sticking together as a tight-knit community. Now, as third-generation Americans, we are participating more in the American system in a good way.
How does your background in Judaism impact the decisions you make in a legal setting?
What’s really interesting is the court itself is always looking for diversity on the bench, And the reason for that is to have a bench that’s more understanding of the people that we serve. Everybody’s a human being with their own unique background—whether it’s someone on the bench with a strong Jewish background or a Catholic background. The fact that I have a religious upbringing helps the bench with the Torah values of pursuing justice. And the Mishnah is replete with admonishing judges on how they have to behave. The religious values that I was raised with give me the foundation that I need to be the best judge that I can be.
You mentioned that you speak to a diverse group of people in your work. What do you think unites us all as Jews?
What unites us, first of all, is our heritage, that we’re one nation. And no matter how you look at another person, at the end of the day, that’s one very important part that unites us. But what happens is there’s so much fluff that gets in the way. The typical thing that I’m going to hear from anybody who doesn’t really know Hasidim is, “They don’t work.” I know so many people who really work hard to make a living. It’s one of these statements that have been passed down for decades. They also say, “They don’t like us. They hate us.” How do you know? You ever invite someone to your home for a Shabbos dinner and try to be friendly? Maybe if you were friendly, you’d get a different reaction. Sometimes, stereotypes and politics get in the way. That’s why I like the Z3 concept. Take them out of where they’re always sitting, put them in a different place, put them together, and say, “Talk. Just start talking.” And it may just change the way you think.
—
The post Rachel Freier is one unusual woman: civil court judge, parademic, Hasid and mother of 6 appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
South Korean President’s Holocaust Remarks Spark Outcry From Israel, Controversy at Home
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung speaks during his new year press conference at the presidential Blue House in Seoul, South Korea, Wednesday, Jan. 21, 2026. Photo: Ahn Young-joon/Pool via REUTERS
South Korean President Lee Jae Myung has sparked a diplomatic row with Israel and criticism at home after comparing Israeli military actions against Palestinians to the Holocaust in a post on social media platform X.
The controversy began on Friday after Lee said “wartime killings” by the Israel Defense Forces were “no different from the Jewish massacre” by the Nazis in World War Two, and reposted footage with a caption that said it showed Israeli troops had tortured and thrown a Palestinian from the roof of a building.
Israel‘s Foreign Ministry said in a post on X on Saturday that Lee “for some strange reason, chose to dig up a story from 2024.” It said the incident occurred during an IDF operation against what it called “terrorists” and had been thoroughly investigated.
The ministry accused Lee, who had said that he needed to verify the footage, of the “trivialization of the massacre of Jews on the eve of Holocaust Remembrance Day in Israel,” saying his remarks were “unacceptable and warrant strong condemnation.”
Israel marks Yom HaShoah on Monday remembering the six million Jews murdered by the Nazis.
The Israeli military said in 2024 it was investigating the incident in the videos and described the actions as serious and not in keeping with its values.
Friday’s comments are a rare instance of Lee discussing international politics on social media and come as his government navigates a surge in energy prices following US and Israeli strikes against Iran. Tehran has closed the Strait of Hormuz to tanker traffic and South Korea is one of the world’s largest importers of oil and gas.
Lee did not mention the Iran war in his posts but said that South Koreans were today feeling “immense pain and national hardship.”
The president later on Saturday said it was “disappointing” that Israel criticized his comments and that it was natural to feel sorry if someone was suffering.
South Korea’s foreign ministry later said it was regrettable Israel “misunderstood” Lee’s remarks, which were about universal human rights.
Lee’s comments also proved controversial at home.
South Korea’s conservative party hit out at Lee for failing to speak more prudently and said he was showing double standards for his silence on human rights abuses in North Korea, while Lee’s Democratic Party praised him for speaking out on the universal value of human dignity.
The mainstream Joongang Ilbo newspaper said on Monday Lee would be well advised to recognize the weight of a president’s remarks and the risk of misunderstanding from unfiltered comments on social media, especially in sensitive global disputes.
Uncategorized
US Begins Blockade of Iran’s Ports, Tehran Threatens Retaliation
A billboard with a graphic design about the Strait of Hormuz on a building in Tehran, Iran, April 13, 2026. Photo: Majid Asgaripour/WANA (West Asia News Agency) via REUTERS
The US military began a blockade of ships leaving Iran’s ports on Monday, President Donald Trump said, and Tehran threatened to retaliate against its Gulf neighbors’ ports after weekend talks in Islamabad on ending the war broke down.
A US official said there was continued engagement with Iran, and forward motion on trying to get to an agreement. Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif also said efforts were still under way to resolve the conflict.
But oil prices climbed back over $100 per barrel, with no sign of a swift reopening of the Strait of Hormuz to ease the biggest ever disruption in supplies and broader concerns over the durability of a two-week ceasefire agreement reached last week.
Trump said Iran had been in touch on Monday and wanted to make a deal but that he would not sanction any agreement allowing Tehran to have a nuclear weapon.
“Iran will not have a nuclear weapon,” Trump told reporters at the White House. “We can’t let a country blackmail or extort the world.”
Since the United States and Israel began the war on Feb. 28, Iran effectively shut the Strait of Hormuz to all vessels except its own, saying passage would be permitted only under Iranian control and subject to a fee.
Trump has said Washington would block Iranian vessels and any ships that paid such tolls and that any Iranian “fast-attack” ships that went near the blockade would be eliminated.
Brigadier General Reza Talaei-Nik, a spokesperson for Iran’s Ministry of Defense, warned that foreign military efforts to police the strait would escalate the crisis and instability in global energy security.
NATO allies including Britain and France said they would not be drawn into the conflict by taking part in the blockade, stressing instead the need to reopen the waterway, through which about one-fifth of the world’s oil normally passes.
CEASEFIRE UNDER STRAIN
The ceasefire that halted six weeks of US and Israeli airstrikes looked in jeopardy, with only a week left to run. Washington said Tehran rejected its demands at weekend talks in Islamabad, the highest-level discussions between the two nations since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution.
The US military’s Central Command said the blockade would be “enforced impartially against vessels of all nations” entering or leaving Iranian ports in the Gulf and Gulf of Oman.
“The blockade will not impede neutral transit passage through the Strait of Hormuz to or from non-Iranian destinations,” Central Command said in a note to seafarers seen by Reuters on Monday.
Two Iranian-linked tankers, the Aurora and New Future, left the strait laden with oil products on Monday before the deadline, according to LSEG data.
An Iranian military spokesperson called any US restrictions on international shipping “piracy,” warning that if Iranian ports were threatened, no port in the Gulf or Gulf of Oman would be secure. Any military vessels approaching the strait would violate the ceasefire, Iran’s Revolutionary Guards said.
Trump said Iran’s navy had been “completely obliterated” during the war, adding that only a small number of “fast-attack ships” remained.
“Warning: If any of these ships come anywhere close to our BLOCKADE, they will be immediately ELIMINATED, using the same system of kill that we use against the drug dealers on boats at Sea. It is quick and brutal,” Trump, much of whose communications are on social media, wrote on his Truth Social site.
He was apparently referring to the US strikes carried out against suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and Pacific. The strikes, which began in September, killed more than 160 people.
LEBANON FACES ATTACKS
Trump has also lashed out at US-born Pope Leo, who has spoken out against the war, denouncing him as “terrible” in a rare direct attack by a US president on a pontiff.
With rising energy prices causing political blowback, Trump paused the US-Israeli bombing campaign last week after threatening to destroy Iran’s “whole civilization” unless it reopened the strait.
Israel has continued to bombard Lebanon and on Monday Israeli troops launched an attack it said was intended to seize a key south Lebanon town from Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah. Israel and the US have said the campaign against Hezbollah was not part of the ceasefire, while Iran has insisted it is.
Iran has brought new demands, including recognition of its control of the waterway, lifting of sanctions, and the withdrawal of forces from US military bases across the Middle East.
Trump has declared victory, despite so far not fully achieving the objectives he set out at the start of the war: to eliminate Iran’s ability to strike its neighbors, end its nuclear program, and make it easier for Iranians to topple their government.
Benchmark oil prices, which had eased last week after the ceasefire was announced, traded around 6% higher on Monday, off the day’s peaks but still above $100 a barrel.
Traders say the main benchmarks – used to set prices for trillions of dollars’ worth of commodities worldwide – actually understate the severity of a disruption with no precedent in modern times.
Uncategorized
For Another Year, BU’s Conference on Jewish Left Only Platforms Anti-Zionism
Peter Beinart, a prominent anti-Israel writer, being interviewed in January 2025. Photo: Screenshot
Academic conferences should foster inquiry, test ideas, and widen intellectual horizons. The third annual “Jewish Conference on the Left” held at Boston University (BU) last month was certainly presented in those terms. However, as time went on, it became clear that something else was afoot: Anti-Zionism framed as academic exploration, and a social structure encouraging the marginalization of Jewish students who fail to conform to their narrow and bigoted politics.
The gathering took place on BU’s main campus, reinforcing the perception that the conference’s ideology sits comfortably within the university’s academic culture.
The conference, which I attended, was dominated by anti-Zionist speakers, such as Peter Beinart, Fadi Quran, Dove Kent, and Arielle Angel. Beinart advocates for the dissolution of a Jewish-majority state, insisting Jews revert to once again existing as a vulnerable minority everywhere. Quran associates with the BDS movement. Kent’s org “Diaspora Alliance” rejects the IHRA Working Definition of Antisemitism definition. Angel is an ardent anti-Zionist. These are not neutral voices. They are activists representing an ideology that is effectively hostile to the idea of Jewish civil rights in our ancestral homeland. Several statements during the conference illustrated this bait and switch from policy debate to brazen indoctrination.
Numerous statements were made attacking Zionism and any Jews who believe in Israel’s right to exist. Neither the crowd, nor any other panelists, bothered to push back. Their only response was applause. It felt more like a political rally than a serious discussion on scholarship.
Unsurprisingly, there were no pro-Zionist leftist perspectives, not even modest discussions about classic topics like two-state coexistence. There were no voices articulating how Jewish self-determination might co-exist with Palestinian statehood. There was only delegitimization, double standards, and dehumanization of Zionists and Israel masked by reasonable-sounding language and boilerplate euphemisms.
The organization fair held at BU only hosted radical left groups including Jewish Voices for Peace and IfNotNow. Tables included various infographics urging the IHRA definition be banned from schools, BDS graphics, comparisons between ICE and Nazi Germany, banning the ADL from schools, among others.
Clearly there was no room for dissenting views on the podium, and I observed the same mentality among its audience. At one point, I was berated by a stranger: “Shame on you for not clapping, you can’t even show respect for Fadi Quran.”
While I did not overtly present myself as a Zionist, I also did not mask my beliefs. Throughout my many conversations, I was repeatedly quizzed about my personal and professional background, as if my fellow attendees were actively looking for a reason to dismiss my position. Suspicion was immediate and hovered over every conversation whenever I questioned the status quo.
This is how ideological capture operates. It does not require formal censorship, all it needs is a couple of slogans and some bullies.
When a conference is promoted under the language of scholarly exploration to students and presents itself as an all-encompassing gathering of “Jewish left values,” the university’s association becomes part of the message.
For students who identify as both Progressive and Zionist, events like these reinforce the idea that there is no place for them. Many already navigate campus environments in which Zionism is treated as morally suspect. Student government resolutions single out Israel. Activist rhetoric regularly distorts Zionism into a kind of racism or colonialism. Institutional repetition normalizes and enables these intellectual boundary-breakers.
If Boston University intends to uphold its mission toward promoting intellectual diversity, it should clarify the distinction between providing space and conferring academic legitimacy. If organizers are truly acting in good faith, they should at least try to ensure that their conferences reflect the actual diversity within that tradition, or otherwise rebrand.
After three consecutive years of hosting this conference, the issue is no longer whether individual speakers have the right to present their views. They do. The question is whether a major university should repeatedly platform a singular ideological current while presenting it as representative of a broader intellectual tradition.
Melody Kaye is a Boston-based Campus Advisor for CAMERA.