Uncategorized
Synagogues are joining the ‘effective altruism’ movement. Will the Sam Bankman-Fried scandal stop them?
(JTA) — A few years ago, Adam Azari was frustrated over how little he could do to alleviate suffering in the world with his modest income as a writer and caretaker for people with disabilities.
He kept thinking about a set of statistics and ideas he had encountered during his graduate studies in philosophy. For example, he remembered reading that for the price of training a guide dog for the blind in the United States, one could prevent hundreds of cases of blindness in the developing world.
This hyper-rational way of thinking about doing good was called effective altruism, and it was growing into a movement, known as E.A. for short. Some proponents were even opting to pursue lucrative careers in finance and tech that they otherwise might not have chosen so they would have more money to give away.
Azari, meanwhile, had become a believer who was stuck on the sidelines. Then, one day, he had what he calls a “personal eureka moment.” Azari would return to his roots as the son of a Reform rabbi in Tel Aviv and spread the word of E.A. across the Jewish denomination and among its millions of followers.
“It suddenly hit me that the Reform movement has this crazy untapped potential to save thousands and thousands of lives by simply informing Jews about effective giving,” he recalled.
He badgered his father, Rabbi Meir Azari, and, for a moment, thought of becoming a rabbi himself. But he abandoned the idea and focused on pitching E.A. to the Reform movement’s international arm, the World Union for Progressive Judaism. Azari found an ally in WUPJ’s president, Rabbi Sergio Bergman, and the organization soon decided to sponsor his efforts, paying him a salary for his work.
Over the past year, Azari’s Jewish Effective Giving Initiative has presented to about 100 rabbis and secured pledges from 37 Reform congregations to donate at least $3,000 to charities rated as the most impactful by E.A. advocates and which aid poor people in the developing world. Per E.A. calculations, it costs $3,000 to $5,000 to save a single life.
“Progressive Judaism inspires us to carry out tikkun olam, our concrete action to make the world better and repair its injustices,” Bergman said. “With this call we not only do what the heart dictates in values, but also do it effectively to be efficient and responsible for saving a life.”
This charitable philosophy appears to be gaining traction in the Jewish world just as one of the figures most associated with it, who happens to be Jewish, has become engulfed in scandal.
Sam Bankman-Fried built a cryptocurrency empire worth billions, amassing a fortune he pledged to give away to causes such as artificial intelligence, combatting biohazards and climate change, all selected on criteria developed by the proponents of effective altruism.
A few weeks ago, Bankman-Fried’s fortune evaporated amid suspicions of financial misconduct and revelations of improper oversight at his company, FTX, a cryptocurrency exchange that was worth as much as $32 billion before a run of withdrawals ultimately left it illiquid. The situation has drawn comparisons to the implosion of Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, and authorities investigating the situation have said Bankman-Fried could face criminal penalties over his role.
In the wake of FTX’s collapse, Bankman-Fried has suggested that his embrace of E.A. was insincere, a tactic to bolster his reputation.
But Azari and the organizer of another initiative, a growing reading and discussion group called Effective Altruism for Jews, are undaunted and don’t believe the scandal should taint the underlying principles of the movement.
“Whether you call it E.A. or just directly donating to global health and development, it doesn’t matter,” Azari said. “The basic idea is to support these wonderful charities, and I don’t think the FTX scandal changes any of that. Malaria nets, vitamin A supplements and vaccine distribution are still super cost-effective, evidence-based ways of helping others.”
Azari added that he has had several meetings with rabbis since the news about Bankman-Fried broke and that no one has asked him about it.
“I don’t think people are making the connection,” he said. “And to me, there is no connection between us and FTX.”
When talking to rabbis about why E.A. would make a good fit with their congregation’s charitable mission, Azari cites the Jewish value of tikkun olam, a mandate to “repair the world” often used to implore people to care for others. He explains that donating to charities with a proven track record is a concrete way to fulfill a Jewish responsibility.
That kind of thinking proved attractive to Steven Pinker, the prominent Harvard psychologist, who has endorsed Azari’s initiative. In a recorded discussion with Azari and others last year, Pinker recalled his Reform upbringing, which included Hebrew school, summer camp and synagogue services.
“The thing I remember most is how much of my so-called religious education was like a university course in moral philosophy,” Pinker said. “We chewed over moral dilemmas.”
As an adult, Pinker returned to Jewish teachings on charity and, in particular, those of the medieval philosopher Maimonides, examining these ideas through the lens of E.A. He began to wonder about the implications of Maimonides’ focus on evaluating charity based on the motives of the donor. That focus, he concluded, doesn’t always lead to the best outcomes for the beneficiary.
“What ultimately ought to count in tzedakah, in charity, is, are you making people better off?” he said.
Also on the panel with Azari and Pinker was the man credited with authoring the foundational texts upon which E.A. is built. Peter Singer, who is also Jewish and whose grandfather died in the Holocaust, teaches bioethics at Princeton. Starting in the 1970s, Singer wrote a series of books in which he argues for a utilitarian approach to ethics, namely, that we should forgo luxuries and spend our money to save lives. The extremes to which he has taken his thinking include suggesting that parents of newborn babies with severe disabilities be permitted to kill them.
From Bankman-Fried to Singer, the list of Jews who have either promoted E.A. or lead its institutions is long. With their estimated fortune of $11.3 billion, Facebook co-founder Dustin Moskovitz and his wife Cari Tuna have eclipsed Bankman-Fried as the wealthiest Jews in the field. There’s also popular philosopher Sam Harris and New York Times columnist Ezra Klein, who have each dedicated episodes of their podcast to the topic.
The website LessWrong, which defines itself as “a community blog devoted to refining the art of rationality,” is seen as an important early influence; it was founded by Eliezer Yudkowsky, an artificial intelligence researcher who grew up in a Modern Orthodox household but does not identify religiously as a Jew anymore. Two other Jews, Holden Karnofsky and Elie Hassenfeld, left the hedge fund world to establish GiveWell, a group whose research is considered the premier authority on which charities are deserving of E.A. donations.
The prevalence of Jews in the movement caught the attention of E.A. enthusiast Ben Schifman, an environmental lawyer for the federal government in Washington, D.C. About two years ago, Schifman proposed creating a group for like-minded individuals in hope of helping grow the movement. In an online post, he laid out the history of Jewish involvement and wrote a brief introduction to the topic of Judaism and charity.
Today, Schifmam runs a group called Effective Altruism for Jews, whose main program is an eight-week fellowship involving a reading and discussion group with designated facilitators. Schifman said about 70 people spread across 10 cohorts are currently participating. There’s also a Shabbat dinner program to bring people together for informal meetings with funding available for hosts.
Participants discuss how ideas that are popular in E.A. might relate to Jewish traditions and concepts, and also brainstorm ways to popularize the movement in the wider Jewish community, according to Schifman.
“There’s a lot of low-hanging fruit with regards to the Jewish community and sharing some of the ideas of Effective Altruism, like through giving circles at synagogues or, during the holidays, offering charities that are effective,” Schifman said in an interview that took place before the Bankman-Fried scandal broke.
Asked to discuss the mood in the community following the collapse of Bankman-Fried’s company and an affiliated charity, FTX Future Fund, Schifman provided a brief statement expressing continued confidence in his project.
He said, “While we’re shocked by the news and our hearts go out to all those affected, as an organization EA for Jews isn’t funded by FTX Future Fund or otherwise connected to FTX. We don’t expect our work will be impacted.”
Even if Schifman and Azari are right that their movement is robust enough to withstand the downfall of a leading evangelist, a debate remains about what impact E.A. can or should have on philanthropy itself.
Andres Spokoiny, president and CEO of the Jewish Funders Network, wrote about the question with skepticism in an article published more than two years ago. He argued against “uncritically importing the values and assumptions” of effective altruists, whose emphasis on the “cold light of reason” struck him as detached from human nature.
In a recent interview, Spokoiny echoed similar concerns, noting that applying pure rationality to all charitable giving would mean the end of cherished programs such as PJ Library, which supplies children’s books for free to Jewish families, that may not directly save lives but do contribute to a community’s culture and sense of identity.
He also worries that too strong a focus on evidence of impact would steer money away from new ideas.
“Risky, creative ideas don’t tend to emerge from rational needs assessments,” he said. “It requires a transformative vision that goes beyond that.”
But Spokoiny also sounded more open to E.A. and said that as long as it does not try to replace traditional modes of philanthropy, it could be a useful tool of analysis for donors.
“If donors want to apply some of E.A. principles to their work, I’d say that is a good idea,” he said. “I am still waiting to see if this will be a fad or buzzword or something that will be incorporated into the practice of philanthropy.”
—
The post Synagogues are joining the ‘effective altruism’ movement. Will the Sam Bankman-Fried scandal stop them? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
Trump Plans to Appoint US General to Lead Gaza Security Force: Report
A drone view shows Palestinians walking past the rubble, following Israeli forces’ withdrawal from the area, amid a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas in Gaza, in Gaza City, Oct. 11, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Dawoud Abu Alkas
The Trump administration is planning to appoint an American two-star general to command the International Stabilization Force in Gaza, Axios reported on Thursday, citing two US officials and two Israeli officials.
Reuters could not immediately confirm the report.
A United Nations Security Council resolution, adopted on Nov. 17, authorized a Board of Peace and countries working with it to establish a temporary International Stabilization Force in Gaza.
US Ambassador to the United Nations Mike Waltz, who visited Israel this week, told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other officials that the Trump administration is going to lead the ISF and appoint a two-star general as its commander, Axios said.
The White House and the Pentagon did not immediately respond to Reuters’ requests for comment.
President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday that an announcement about which world leaders will serve on the Gaza Board of Peace should be made early next year.
The resolution, drafted by the US, described the Board of Peace as a transitional administration “that will set the framework, and coordinate funding for the redevelopment of Gaza” in line with Trump’s 20-point peace plan to end the war with terrorist group Hamas.
Uncategorized
Al Jazeera’s Academic Arm Denies Hamas Sexual Violence and Other Crimes
The Al Jazeera Media Network logo is seen on its headquarters building in Doha, Qatar, June 8, 2017. Photo: REUTERS/Naseem Zeitoon
Al Jazeera Centre for Studies — the research arm of Qatar’s state-backed media giant — co-hosted an academic conference last week in Qatar’s Education City that whitewashed Hamas’s October 7, 2023, massacre, and dismissed UN-verified sexual violence and other terrorist acts as Israeli fabrications.
Al Jazeera partnered with Hamad Bin Khalifa University to host the November 29-30 gathering, titled “International Media and the War on Gaza: Modalities of Discourse and the Clash of Narratives,” which drew academics to “deconstruct Western narratives” and the alleged role of Western media outlets in producing “propaganda manipulating international public opinion.”
In a seven-page concept note describing the goals of the conference, Al Jazeera’s organizers charged the Western media with justifying “Israel’s right to self-defense” and spreading “propaganda” about terrorist groups like Hamas, which they refer to as a “Palestinian resistance faction.” The organizers also attacked media outlets for writing about what it refers to as “false reports” about Hamas terrorists “raping Israeli women.”
During Hamas’ assault on Israel, terrorists systematically employed sexual violence as a weapon of war, including rape against women and girls. A New York Times investigation detailed at least seven locations where Hamas terrorists committed such acts, including gang rape and genital mutilation. In December 2023, then-US Secretary of State Antony Blinken condemned Hamas’ use of sexual violence and described it as “beyond anything I’ve seen.”
According to the Dina Project, an Israeli group of legal and gender experts, Hamas used sexual violence in its massacre “as part of a genocidal scheme” meant to “dehumanize Israeli society.”
The organizers’ concept note and the conference’s program made no reference to Hamas’ genocidal charter, its embedding of military assets in civilian areas, or the terrorist group’s responsibility for prolonging the conflict. The conference instead provided a platform for Al Jazeera journalists and academics to explain away Hamas terrorism and denigrate Israel.
While it operates under strict Qatari media laws that limit free speech and freedom of expression, making criticism of the Emir and his policies punishable by law, Al Jazeera’s Centre for Studies refers to itself as an “independent research institution that aims to present a balanced understanding of the geopolitics of the MENA region and the Arab world in particular.” While it seeks to appeal to an audience with Western sensibilities, the center is far from the public-facing independent institution that it presents itself to be.
The center was established in 2006 to “provide research support to the editorial teams, correspondents and departments of Al Jazeera’s news channels.”
Al Jazeera Organizers and Speakers Push Hamas’s Agenda
Arafat Madi Shoukri, who works as a senior researcher for the Centre for Studies, organized the conference. In 2013, Shoukri was designated as a Hamas operative by Israel for his work with the Hamas-aligned Council for European Palestinian Relations (CEPR).
Shoukri has been photographed with Ismail Haniyeh, one of the architects of the October 7 massacre. He also directed the London-based Palestinian Return Centre (PRC), an organization with extensive ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, which has national branches that promote violent jihad and Hamas. In 2010, then-Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak declared the PRC an “illegal association,” referring to it as a “Hamas affiliated organization” that engages in “terror affiliated activities.”
The conference featured as its keynote speaker Wadah Khanfar, a former director general of Al Jazeera, who has been linked to Hamas fundraising efforts, with evidence suggesting he helped coordinate Hamas paramilitary activity in South Africa. According to the Raya Media Network, a Palestinian outlet, Khanfar was “active in the Hamas movement” and a “leader in the movement’s office in Sudan.”
In May 2024, Khanfar praised Hamas’ October 7 terrorist attack, proclaiming it “came at the perfect moment for a radical and real shift in the path of struggle and liberation.” Khanfar had a close relationship to the late Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the spiritual head of the Muslim Brotherhood, who leveraged Al Jazeera’s global reach to endorse terrorism against Jews, Israelis, and Americans and spread antisemitic narratives. Khanfar eulogized him at his funeral.
“There is a betrayal of the values of justice through capitalist savagery,” Khanfar said during his lecture, titled “The Grand Narratives of Western Media in Covering the War on Gaza: Manifestations of Political and Ideological Domination.” His lecture attacked Israel for “hastening the fall” of Western civilization, while ignoring Israel’s strategic role as a democratic anchor for the West in a mostly volatile and authoritarian region of the world.
Campus Reform reports that professor Ibrahim Abusharif, who spoke at the conference, co-founded and served as treasurer of the Quranic Literacy Institute, which was “later found by a federal jury to have laundered more than $1 million to Hamas” in a terrorism financing case. The publication reported that Abusharif taught the mandatory “Doha Seminar” for all American exchange students at Northwestern’s Qatar campus.
Mutaz al-Khatib, director of the Master’s Programme in Applied Islamic Ethics at Hamad Bin Khalifa University’s College of Islamic Studies, spoke at the conference on “professional ethics” in war coverage. On the day of Hamas’ October 7 massacre, al-Khatib posted on Facebook that, “What happened was merely a rehearsal that shows that liberating Jerusalem is possible.”
Fatima Alsmadi, a researcher at the Al Jazeera Centre for Studies, moderated a session and presented on Hamas spokesperson Abu Obaida’s “impact on international public opinion.” Abu Obaida, who was killed in an IDF strike in August 2025, reportedly employed “psychological warfare games against Israel” and attempted to make Westerners more “sympathetic” to Hamas.
Alsmadi claimed in her lecture that Israel has somehow “benefited” from Nazism. She praised Hamas propaganda efforts employed by Abu Obaida that weaponize Nazi imagery against Israel, seemingly endorsing a media strategy that perversely brands Israel as a Nazi state to legitimize Hamas terrorism and invert historical truth.
In the same session, Manal Mazahreh, an associate professor of mass communication at the University of Petra, in Jordan, claimed that, “The Jews are largely controlling the media in the world,” repeating an antisemitic trope used to justify hostility toward Jews.
In one session, Eman Barakat, an associate professor at the University of Science and Technology in Yemen, described the Israeli government’s social media presence as “digital warfare” and claimed it has manipulated public perceptions by labeling Hamas as “pure evil” and an “illegitimate group.”
Barakat focused her presentation on Israel Speaks Arabic, a Facebook page with more than three million followers. She assessed that the page described Hamas as “morally degraded,” “lowly,” and “cowardly,” and highlighted the group’s involvement in criminal and murderous activity. She warned her audience that such language “makes you imagine things” and might lead users to believe that “maybe what they are saying is true.” Barakat dismissed Hamas’ history of brutality and terrorism not only against Israel but against Palestinians and others.
Freedom House evaluates Qatar as “Not Free” in its annual Freedom of the World report.
Al Jazeera sells its content to major wire services like the Associated Press and Reuters. Al Jazeera has resource-sharing agreements
Until Doha stops using its universities and state media to whitewash terrorism, American institutions and companies need to reconsider their relationship with all platforms in Al Jazeera’s vast ecosystem. Continued partnerships and collaboration from Western organizations only emboldens the next denial and further justification for violence.
Toby Dershowitz is a senior advisor at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, where Asher Boiskin is an intern. Follow them on X @TobyDersh and @asherboiskin
Uncategorized
US House Backs Massive Defense Policy Bill, Senate Next
A US soldier keeps watch at an Afghan National Army base in Logar province, Afghanistan August 5, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Omar Sobhani/File Photo
The US House of Representatives passed a massive defense policy bill on Wednesday authorizing a record $901 billion in annual military spending, paving the way for the must-pass measure to become law for a 65th straight year.
The tally was 312-112 in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, sending it for consideration by the US Senate, which is expected to pass it next week.
The $901 billion in defense spending is $8 billion more than President Donald Trump’s request earlier this year.
The NDAA also provides $400 million in military assistance to Ukraine in each of the next two years and includes other measures reinforcing the US commitment to Europe’s defense, reflecting most lawmakers’ continuing strong support for Kyiv as it fights Russian invaders.
The sweeping 3,086-page bill unveiled on Sunday includes measures to make life better for the troops, including a 4% pay raise and improvements in base housing. But it does not include insurance coverage for military families to get fertility treatments, including embryo transfers for in vitro fertilization, something opposed by Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson of Louisiana, a social conservative.
The legislation is a compromise between versions of the NDAA passed earlier this year by the Senate and House, both controlled by Trump’s Republicans. Members of both parties urged lawmakers to support it even if they objected to individual provisions.
“I do support this bill. This does not mean that I do not have concerns. I do,” said Representative Adam Smith of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee, in a speech before the vote.
SPENDING LEVELS
Trump in May asked Congress for a national defense budget of $892.6 billion for fiscal year 2026, flat compared with 2025. The House bill set spending at that level, but the Senate had authorized $925 billion.
The NDAA authorizes Pentagon programs, but does not fund them. Congress must separately pass funding in a spending bill for the fiscal year ending in September 2026.
In addition to the typical NDAA provisions on defense acquisitions and competition with rivals like China and Russia, this year’s bill focuses on cutting programs reviled by Trump, such as diversity, equity, and inclusion training.
The NDAA is one of a few major pieces of legislation to make it through Congress every year and lawmakers take pride in having passed it annually since 1961.
This year’s process was a bit rockier than usual.
The rule paving the way for the House vote passed earlier on Wednesday by only 215 to 211 after a long delay in which a few Republicans changed their votes from “no” to “yes.”
Trump has said he will sign the NDAA into law once it reaches the White House.