Uncategorized
The Pope Benedict I knew: A keeper of his faith with a deep respect for Judaism
(JTA) — I was first introduced to Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, later to become Pope Benedict XVI, in the late 1980s when he was visiting Jerusalem. Teddy Kollek, mayor of Jerusalem, was eager for me to meet with the cardinal, telling me that I would discover a very different person from the image portrayed in the general media. He was so correct.
That image was in no small part the result of Pope John Paul II having made him the head of the Vatican Office for Doctrine and Faith, to enforce orthodox Catholic teaching. In addition, the fact that Ratzinger was a shy man with a professorial background and attitude often led people to see him as aloof and even cold.
He could not have been more different. I discovered a man of warmth and humor whose company was enjoyable and stimulating. Most significant for me was the discovery of the depth of his respect for Judaism and the Jewish people, something that always impressed me in the course of more than a dozen encounters with him when he was Pope, most of which were in my capacity as the American Jewish Committee’s international director of interreligious affairs.
He always reiterated his commitment to continuing the path of his predecessor in advancing Catholic-Jewish relations, and he highlighted the unique relationship between Christianity and Judaism.
Benedict XVI, who died Dec. 31 at age 95, was the first pope to ever invite Jewish leaders both to the funeral of a pontiff, and above all, to the celebration of his own coronation at which I was privileged to be one of those present.
Already during the first year of his pontificate he received many Jewish delegations and notable individuals, including the chief rabbis of Israel and the chief rabbi of Rome. In receiving the latter, he declared, “the Catholic Church is close and is a friend to you. Yes, we love you and we cannot but love you, because of the Fathers: through them you are very dear and beloved brothers to us.”
The last time I met him personally was well after he had demonstrated his genuine and impressive humility in stepping down as pontiff and devoting himself to study and prayer. I visited him at the Mater Ecclesiae Monastery in the Vatican gardens. While he was physically weak his mind was still lucid.
We spoke in particular about the positive treatment of the Jewish scriptures in the work of the Pontifical Theological Commission that dealt with this subject, and which was published under his imprimatur. At that time, I recalled our first conversation in Jerusalem when he said to me, “your duty as a believing Jew is to be true to Torah, and everything that is holy for you must have theological meaning for us.”
I said to him, “You know there are many of us who see religious significance in the return of the Jewish people to its homeland.”
“Of course, I know,” he replied. “We must also view it as a sign of God’s fidelity to His covenant with the Jewish people that has sustained you, even if we cannot attribute to it the same theological meaning as you might.”
Cardinal Ratzinger was a member of the papal commission that ratified the Fundamental Agreement between the State of Israel and the Holy See, establishing full diplomatic relations between the two. It was my great privilege to have been part of the Israeli negotiating team that concluded that agreement.
One of Ratzinger’s closest Israeli friends, the late professor Zvi Werblovsky of Hebrew University, told me that the cardinal phoned him from Rome to express his joy and congratulations on the agreement, declaring it to be a fulfillment of Nostra Aetate, the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council declaration of 1965 that revolutionized the Church’s teaching and approach towards Jews and Judaism.
During Benedict’s papacy a couple of serious crises in Jewish-Christian relations emerged relating to the Society of Saint Pius XII and to the wider provision of the Latin Mass and its text. These crises, as much a result of church governance mismanagement as anything else, were followed by clarifications that emphasized the Vatican’s commitment to Nostra Aetate; its unqualified rejection of antisemitism as a sin against God and man, and a complete disavowal of proselytization of Jews.
Unfortunately, they still did not completely repair the damage to Benedict XVI’s papacy. Nevertheless, Benedict explicitly and sincerely strove to continue to advance the paths of his predecessor, especially regarding the relationship between the Church and the Jewish People.
In repeating his predecessor’s dramatic gestures of going to the great synagogue in Rome; of paying homage in Auschwitz to the victims of the Holocaust, and of making a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, where he paid respects to the State of Israel’s highest national civic and religious authorities, Pop Benedict institutionalized such steps, demonstrating the sincerity of Catholic-Jewish reconciliation for the Church as a whole.
—
The post The Pope Benedict I knew: A keeper of his faith with a deep respect for Judaism appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
What rabbinic wisdom taught me in the wake of the BAFTA scandal
When I woke up Monday, the first message I saw was from a friend asking if I’d seen the “Sinners Tourette’s thing from the BAFTAs.” The “Sinners Tourette’s thing” took place Sunday night, when John Davidson, the subject of the BAFTA-nominated film I Swear, about living with Tourette’s, shouted the N-word while Black Sinners actors Michael B. Jordan and Delroy Lindo presented an award.
This sparked thoughtful online conversations about racism and understanding coprolalia, a form of Tourette’s that presents as involuntarily uttering obscenities. It also led to criticism of BAFTA and the BBC for not intervening after the reportedly slur was thrown at other attendees earlier and for censoring a pro-Palestine statement but not the N-word (a BBC spokesperson said the statement was cut for time and has now censored the slur on the BBC iPlayer video of the BAFTAs).
Of course, productive dialogue online was overshadowed by vitriolic racism and ableism attempting to villanize both parties involved.
As I read about the controversy, I was reminded of ona’at devarim, a Talmudic prohibition against verbally harming someone else, through purposefully shaming them, spreading gossip or giving bad advice.
The embarrassment here, to me, appears twofold. Shaming Davidson could have further embarrassed him. But Jordan and Lindo had already been publicly embarrassed, and that needed to be rectified.
When is publicly calling out behavior useful — such as establishing boundaries around slurs — and when is it vengeful? And how much does intent versus impact matter?
I reached out to several rabbis to learn how Jewish values could help me understand this situation — and how to think about accountability when a billion people can see your mistakes in a matter of seconds.
Rabbi Shais Rishon, known by his pen name MaNishtana, leads the congregation Ohel Eidot CHeMDaT’’A, a D.C. synagogue for African American and Caribbean Jews. In our conversation, he noted that many people were embracing racism or ableism, when they should be acknowledging the situation’s nuances.
“There’s a lot of little parts here and in these kinds of conversations. I always say it’s important to move into them with three sort of goal posts in mind,” said Rishon. “The first is that multiple things can be true at the same time. Second is multiple things can be wrong at the same time. And the third is explaining how to make this work so it doesn’t absolve from accountability or agency.”
Rabbi Lauren Tuchman, who focuses on disability access and inclusion in the Jewish world, emphasized making sure accountability is not overlooked.
“Sometimes I actually worry that the standards are not applied appropriately when harm happens when a disabled person causes the harm,” said Tuchman, who is a fully blind person. “You don’t want a situation where any kind of apology is like meeting the needs of the offender and not at all meeting the needs of those who are harmed.”
Even so, everyone’s unique situation must be accounted for. Both Tuchman and Rishon believed Davidson should apologize to Jordan and Lindo, but cautioned against mistaking Davidson owning what he did as him admitting to having done it on purpose.
“Nothing can be universalized here and everything is so case-specific, especially when that offensive speech is actually not in this person’s control,” said Tuchman.
Tuchman noted that everyone is entitled to their feelings when met with offensive language, even if it’s unintentional, something she has dealt with a lot. Sometimes she decides “They didn’t mean it, I’m just gonna try to let it go.” But, she said, “you make that choice for yourself and your own integrity.”
“I think that there are ways in which we need to be able to allow for us to feel what we feel, and then to make wise choices about how we act,” she added.
It doesn’t seem to me that what Davidson needs and what Jordan and Lindo need have to be in conflict with one another. Rishon pointed to tochecha, the obligation in Leviticus to reprimand and correct improper behavior in a way that betters the community.
“It’s not supposed to be done in sort of that embarrassing way,” said Rishon. “It’s not about spectacle. It’s about transformation.”
Next, Tuchman said, we must embrace the value of teshuva: correcting our mistakes by realigning with our morals in our actions and deeds.
“The Rambam talks about needing to acknowledge the wrongdoing [and] really take responsibility,” Tuchman said. “And then engage in restitution in whatever way that makes sense.”
“This is somebody with a personal challenge, and maybe there’s a personal conversation and apology to happen,” Rishon said. “There’s no need for us to excoriate him because he has no control.”
Rishon suggested scrutiny should be focused on the BBC and BAFTA, for their “ lack of attentiveness, their lack of fastidiousness, [and] their lack of sensitivity.”
As I spoke to Rishon and Tuchman, I couldn’t help but think that what Judaism asks of us feels more difficult when social media demands its users have instant and loud reactions to anything and everything. In another world, those involved could sort it out privately, and heal in their own time. But when an incident can be shared across the world in minutes, the apology becomes a public matter. And if you don’t do what the internet demands of you immediately, you’re automatically villanized.
From Rishon and Tuchman, I gathered that instead of focusing on who is right and who is wrong, we should take a breath and ask what we need to move forward in community. It’s embarrassing to be called a slur on television; it’s embarrassing to utter that slur when you can’t control it. But it’s happened. How can we respond as people who want to be better than we were before?
I still wouldn’t say I have all the answers for this situation or whatever the next attempt at public shaming may be. But I feel a lot more confident knowing I can turn to the advice of the rabbinic sages — and not just someone on X.
The post What rabbinic wisdom taught me in the wake of the BAFTA scandal appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
US to Offer Passport Services in West Bank Settlement for First Time
The Israeli national flag flutters as apartments are seen in the background in the Israeli settlement of Efrat in the West Bank, Aug. 18, 2020. Photo: REUTERS/Ronen Zvulun
The US will provide on-site passport services this week in a settlement in the West Bank, marking the first time American consular officials have offered such services to Israeli settlers in the territory, US officials said on Tuesday.
Much of the international community considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank illegal under international law.
Israel disputes this, citing historical and biblical ties to the area. It says the settlements provide strategic depth and security. Defenders of Israel also note that, while about one-fifth of the country’s population is Arab and enjoys equal rights, Palestinian law forbids selling any land to Israelis.
TENS OF THOUSANDS OF AMERICAN-ISRAELIS IN WEST BANK
US President Donald Trump, a staunch supporter of Israel, has said he opposes Israeli annexation of the West Bank. But his administration has not taken any measures to halt settlement activity, which has reportedly risen since he took office last year.
In a post on X, the US Embassy in Jerusalem said that as part of efforts to reach all Americans abroad, “consular officers will be providing routine passport services in Efrat on Friday, Feb. 27,” referring to a settlement south of the Palestinian city of Bethlehem.
The Embassy said it would plan similar on-site services in the Palestinian West Bank city of Ramallah, in the settlement of Beitar Illit near Bethlehem, and in cities within Israel such as Haifa.
The US offers passport and consular services at its Embassy in Jerusalem as well as at a Tel Aviv branch office. The number of dual American-Israeli nationals living in the West Bank is estimated to be in the tens of thousands.
Asked for comment, an embassy spokesperson said: “This is the first time we have provided consular services to a settlement in the West Bank.” The spokesperson said similar services were being offered to American-Palestinian dual nationals in the West Bank.
The move came after Israel’s cabinet last week approved measures to make it easier for settlers to buy land, a move Palestinians called a “de facto annexation.”
Much of the West Bank is under Israeli military control, with limited Palestinian self-rule in areas run by the Western-backed Palestinian Authority.
Efrat, the Jewish settlement where American consular officials will provide passport services on Friday, is home to many American immigrants. The US Embassy said it did not have data on the number of Americans living there.
More than 500,000 Israeli settlers live in the West Bank, home to 3 million Palestinians. Most settlements are small towns surrounded by fences and guarded by Israeli soldiers.
Uncategorized
CAIR Official Claims Israel Harvests, Collects Skin of Palestinians
Executive Director of the Ohio chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR-OH) Khalid Turaani, speaks at a press conference, July 9, 2025. Photo: USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
A senior Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) official claimed Israel harvests and collects the skin of deceased Palestinians at a recent Ohio state Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.
“Israel has the largest human skin bank in the world,” Khalid Turaani, executive director of CAIR’s chapter in Ohio, said last week at a hearing on adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) working definition of antisemitism.
“Where do you think they got all this skin from? They have more human skin than China and India. They are literally skinning the dead bodies of my brothers and sisters in Palestine,” Turaani continued. “And if I call them Nazis, your law [adopting the IHRA definition of antisemitism] is going to punish me.”
CAIR-Ohio Executive Director Khalid Turaani spread a blood libel in the Ohio State Senate, falsely claiming Israel “skins” Palestinians and runs the “largest human skin bank in the world.”
An outrageous and dangerous old antisemitic conspiracy. pic.twitter.com/U5aj4EwRMl
— Combat Antisemitism Movement (@CombatASemitism) February 26, 2026
Scholars and activist groups have described the conspiracy theory of Israeli organ harvesting as a modern version of the antisemitic blood libel rooted in medieval conspiracies charging that Jews murdered Christian children and drank their blood during the holiday of Passover. The organ harvesting claim dates back to 2009, when a Swedish tabloid published an erroneous article saying that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) kills Palestinians to provide organs to Israeli hospitals.
“In the 1990s, one Israeli facility (the Abu Kabir Forensic Institute) [ran by Dr. Yehuda Hiss] took organs from IDF soldiers, Israeli civilians, Palestinians, foreign workers, and others whose corpses came into the institute, without seeking permission from the families of the deceased,” the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) noted in an article debunking the conspiracy.
“In a state inquiry report, Israeli authorities found ‘no evidence that Hiss targeted Palestinians; rather, he seemed to view every human body that ended up in his morgue, whether Israeli or Palestinian, as fair game for organ harvesting,” the ADL continued. “The families of dead Israeli soldiers were among those who complained about Hiss’s conduct.”
There is no evidence that such activity has happened since the 1990s.
Nonetheless, Palestinian media has repeatedly invoked the organ harvesting conspiracy, which has been picked up by anti-Israel activists in the West.
Last week’s hearing came about four months after Turaani took part in an online event in October alongside a senior member of Hamas who has been sanctioned by the US government and other individuals tied to the Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) terrorist organizations.
Turaani moderated the event hosted by the Beirut-based Al-Zaytouna Center titled “Palestinians Abroad and Regional and International Strategic Transformations in the Light of Al-Aqsa Flood.” The term “Al-Aqsa Flood” is the name Hamas gave to its Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel, in which Palestinian terrorists murdered 1,200 people and dragged 251 hostages back to Gaza.
Among the speakers was Majed al-Zeer, who was sanctioned by the US Treasury Department in October 2024 for his role as a senior Hamas operative in Europe.
Also featured was Ziad el-Aloul, a Hamas-linked activist involved with the European Palestinians Conference and the Popular Conference for Palestinians Abroad, both groups accused by Israeli authorities of operating as Hamas fronts in Europe.
CAIR has drawn scrutiny in the past over its alleged ties to foreign terrorist groups. In the 2000s, CAIR was named as an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism financing case. Politico noted in 2010 that “US District Court Judge Jorge Solis found that the government presented ‘ample evidence to establish the association’” of CAIR with Hamas.
According to the ADL, “some of CAIR’s current leadership had early connections with organizations that are or were affiliated with Hamas.”
CAIR has strongly disputed the accuracy of the ADL’s claim and asserted that it “unequivocally condemn[s] all acts of terrorism, whether carried out by al-Qa’ida, the Real IRA, FARC, Hamas, ETA, or any other group designated by the US Department of State as a ‘Foreign Terrorist Organization.’”
In November 2023, CAIR co-founder and executive director Nihad Awad said “yes, I was happy to see people breaking the siege and throwing down the shackles of their own land, and walk free into their land, which they were not allowed to walk in,” referring to Hamas’s Oct. 7 atrocities.
“The people of Gaza only decided to break the siege — the walls of the concentration camp — on Oct. 7,” he said.
About a week later, the executive director of CAIR’s Los Angeles office, Hussam Ayloush, said that Israel “does not have the right” to defend itself from Palestinian violence. He added in his sermon at the Islamic Society of Greater Oklahoma City that for the Palestinians, “every single day” since the Jewish state’s establishment has been comparable to Hamas’s Oct. 7 onslaught.
CAIR has been a fierce critic of IHRA’s definition of antisemitism, arguing it aims to silence legitimate criticism of Israel.
IHRA — an intergovernmental organization comprising dozens of countries including the US and Israel — adopted the “working definition” of antisemitism in 2016. Since then, the definition has been widely accepted by Jewish groups and lawmakers across the political spectrum, and it is now used by hundreds of governing institutions, including the US State Department, European Union, and United Nations.
According to the definition, antisemitism “is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.” It provides 11 specific, contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere. Beyond classic antisemitic behavior associated with the likes of the medieval period and Nazi Germany, the examples include denial of the Holocaust and newer forms of antisemitism targeting Israel such as demonizing the Jewish state, denying its right to exist, and holding it to standards not expected of any other democratic state.