RSS
Yizkor: We Should Remember the Best Version of Our Loved Ones
In the Ashkenazi tradition, the Yizkor service stands out as an emotional highlight of each festival. On specially designated days, those who have lost parents, spouses, siblings, or children remain in the synagogue to recite memorial prayers, while those whose parents are still alive respectfully leave the sanctuary. The Hebrew word “Yizkor,” meaning “will remember,” initiates each prayer, emphasizing the enduring memory of those who have passed away and ensuring their remembrance even in their absence.
In the introduction to my latest book, Hearts & Minds on Jewish Festivals, I explore how deeply personal memories integrate into the observance of festivals. Reflecting on memories of shared experiences with my family throughout the Jewish calendar year over many years, I highlight the profound impact these memories have each time these festivals roll around again. Each treasured moment recalled enriches and profoundly enhances our celebrations:
These memories and so many more turn each festival and each significant Jewish date into a rich blend of history, tradition, Jewish laws and customs, memories, nostalgia, and new experiences. Every wine stain on the pages of the Haggadah we use, every forgotten High Holidays schedule tucked into the pages of the maḥzor, the special yomtov-connected drawings our kids made in preschool that reappear at the relevant time each year, the smell of yomtov food cooking in the kitchen—all these elements form a vivid mosaic of our Jewish experience, adding color, context, and depth to the practical aspects of the festivals and notable Jewish dates that punctuate our lives.
These reflections invite us to consider the dual nature of memory — with its inevitable mix of accuracy and embellishment — and the significant roles our remembered versions of events and experiences play in shaping our lives.
Psychology researcher and science communicator Dr. Julia Shaw, known for her exploration of memory and particularly false memories, addresses these themes in her book The Memory Illusion. She investigates how memories can be distorted, fabricated, and influenced by various factors.
Dr. Shaw explores the phenomenon of people recalling events that never happened, discussing the implications for fields like criminal law and our understanding of personal history. Interestingly, she suggests that these alterations in memory are not always detrimental; often, they serve to highlight the most favorable aspects of our loved ones and our past.
In eulogies, we often commemorate our loved ones in the most favorable light possible. The memories we recall are inherently selective and somewhat distorted, as they portray an idealized version of our departed loved ones — a version we all hope to be remembered by one day, when it is our turn to be eulogized.
When someone highlights less flattering aspects of a deceased person during a eulogy, it can shock the audience. I recall a funeral years ago for a university professor of mine, a celebrated scholar of history. His grandson’s eulogy began by acknowledging his grandfather’s reputation as a brilliant intellect and a fount of knowledge — then it shifted to a more personal note: “But there was more to him than that,” he added. “I will always remember him as the old man with dandruff on his jacket, who could be quite irritable and impatient. That was my grandpa.”
As he spoke, I couldn’t help but think, along with everyone else, “Is this really the memory to share at his funeral?”
The podcast Where There’s a Will, There’s a Wake, hosted by English actress Kathy Burke, is premised on a novel concept: “If you could plan your perfect death, what would you do?”
Each episode features celebrities who are asked to imagine their own untimely demise, take charge of their hypothetical funeral arrangements, choose their preferred way to go, create playlists, and even listen to eulogies prepared in advance by their friends.
While intriguing, this concept starkly contrasts with reality — where the memory of who we are is shaped by others, typically our family members, who preserve and interpret our legacies. Nevertheless, these curated memories, richly assembled from diverse perspectives, still do not capture the complete truth. Despite varied viewpoints, no two people will ever remember someone in exactly the same way.
During our festive gatherings over Yom Tov, we often find ourselves immersed in family stories, both old and new. As we enjoy each other’s company and celebrate together, these time-honed tales are shared and reshaped with each retelling. Over the years, details are embellished, and characters grow larger than life, creating increasingly engaging narratives.
This process not only entertains but also strengthens family bonds, imparts values, and fosters a sense of continuity and belonging. Enriched memories become an important part of our collective family heritage, celebrated during these special occasions.
The Yizkor service utilizes the power of memory to connect us with those who have passed on. We engage deeply with our memories, idealizing and appreciating the positive aspects while overlooking the flaws. This idealization is not without merit, as highlighted by a remarkable passage from the Talmud.
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 92b) unpacks Ezekiel’s seminal “dry bones” prophecy. According to the biblical narrative (Ez. 37:1-14), Ezekiel is brought to a valley filled with dry, lifeless bones and asked by God if these bones can live again. He responds that only God knows, prompting God to command Ezekiel to prophesy over the bones. Miraculously, as Ezekiel prophesies, the bones reassemble, grow flesh, and are infused with life, becoming a vast army.
This vision is interpreted in the Talmud as symbolizing the Israelites from the tribe of Ephraim who, driven by impatience, had tried to conquer the land of Israel prematurely at the dawn of Jewish history. Their failure and demise are represented by the dry bones, which are then miraculously revived by Ezekiel.
The question is: Did this event actually happen, or is Ezekiel’s vision merely symbolic? Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah view the entire episode as a metaphor, suggesting it never actually occurred. Then, unexpectedly, Rabbi Eleazar, son of Rabbi Yosi HaGelili, asserts that the narrative is true, and that the revived bones went on to marry and have children.
This claim is further complicated by Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira, who claims to be descended from those supposedly metaphorical figures, and adds that “these are the tefillin that my grandfather bequeathed to me from them.”
The thirteenth-century rabbinic luminary, Rabbi Shlomo ben Aderet (Rashba), clarifies this debate by suggesting that some aggadic passages are significant not necessarily because they occurred, but because they represent events that could have transpired. This idea means these stories transcend mere metaphor. They are potential narratives that impart lessons and carry deep messages, regardless of their historical authenticity.
In the specific case of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira claiming to have inherited tefillin from descendants of those revived by Ezekiel, the Rashba seemingly interprets this not as a literal historical claim but as a narrative device intended to convey deeper truths or lessons about faith, continuity, and the transmission of tradition. The focus is on the value and impact of the story rather than its factual accuracy.
This approach to memory and narrative is crucial, especially in prayers like the Yizkor service, where we remember our deceased loved ones in the best possible light. It’s not about facts, or about history — but about values and heritage.
By remembering our loved ones as the best versions of themselves — whether these memories are entirely accurate or somewhat enhanced — we not only honor their legacy but also inspire ourselves to aspire to these ideals. This process elevates the souls of the departed and enriches our own lives, demonstrating the power of memory to shape not only our perception of the past, but also our actions in the present and our aspirations for the future.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
The post Yizkor: We Should Remember the Best Version of Our Loved Ones first appeared on Algemeiner.com.
RSS
Striking Hamas Leaders in Qatar Is 100% Legal Under International Law
Vehicles stop at a red traffic light, a day after an Israeli attack on Hamas leaders, in Doha, Qatar, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ibraheem Abu Mustafa
Here are just a few of the absurd reactions from world leaders in the wake of Israel’s stunning strike on Hamas leadership in Doha, Qatar, last week:
- A “blatant violation of international law.”
- A “violation of sovereignty.”
- A “flagrant breach of international law.”
France, Spain, the UK, the Qataris themselves, and others have joined in the hysterics.
Yet all these sloganizing leaders have one thing in common: an astonishing and total ignorance of actual, international law.
In future articles, I will dive into the far reaching implications and consequences of this stunning operation, but for now, here’s a quick review of international law.
- Qatar is not technically at war with Israel, therefore the country could be considered a “neutral power” under the Hague Convention V and thus immune from attack.
- However, under articles 2, 3 and 4 of Hague Convention V, a “neutral power” may not allow anyone on its territory to direct combat operations, run command and control centers, or even to communicate electronically with combatants.
- For years, the Hamas leadership has been carrying out exactly those prohibited acts from within Qatar — with sustained and integral Qatari support. In other words, Qatar has been violating international law for years — before, during, and after the October 7 massacre.
- Hamas is the internationally-designated terror organization that carried out the October 7 massacre of Israelis in 2023, and continues holding Israeli hostages in Gaza to this day. Though the Hamas leadership in Qatar claims the moniker “political wing,” it is consistently involved in directing combat operations against Israel.
- Qatar cannot claim to be a “neutral power” under the Hague Conventions, because it provides sustained and integral support for Hamas — which aids Hamas combat operations against Israel — from Qatari soil.
- Furthermore, Israel has an inviolate right to self defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, and Hamas may not undermine that right simply by directing its combat operations from inside a third-party country.
In summary: Qatar has been providing sustained and integral support for Hamas combat operations — from Qatari soil — in violation of The Hague conventions.
These acts give Israel the inviolate right, under both the Hague Conventions and the UN Charter’s Article 51, to defend itself and its citizens by targeting Hamas leadership inside Qatar.
Daniel Pomerantz is the CEO of RealityCheck, an organization dedicated to deepening public conversation through robust research studies and public speaking. He has been a lawyer for more than 25 years.
RSS
No, Mahmoud Abbas Did Not Condemn Jerusalem Terror Attack
People inspect a bus with bullet holes at the scene where a shooting terrorist attack took place at the outskirts of Jerusalem, Sept. 8, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad
Last week, terrorists opened fire in Jerusalem, murdering six and injuring 12 innocent Israelis.
Palestinian Authority (PA) leader Mahmoud Abbas — the man the international community insists is a “peace partner” — then put out a statement that was labeled by much of the international media as a condemnation. In reality, it was anything but.
Abbas never once mentioned the terror attack. He never referred to the murders, never acknowledged the victims, and never expressed a word of sympathy for their families. His statement spoke in vague terms about rejecting “any targeting of Palestinian and Israeli civilians,” a formula carefully crafted to sound balanced while deliberately blurring the reality that it was Palestinians who carried out the terror attack, and Israelis who were its victims.
Worse still, 98% of Abbas’ statement was condemnation of Israel, the “occupation,” “genocide,” and “colonist terrorism.” Instead of using the attack to speak out against Palestinian terror, Abbas used it to criticize Israel without even actually mentioning the attack, and while portraying Palestinians as the victims.
Abbas’ remark is not a condemnation of terrorism. It is a cover-up. He is once again confirming the PA’s ideology that sees Palestinian attacks against Israeli civilians as justified.
The emptiness of Abbas’s words becomes glaring when compared to the response of the United Arab Emirates.
The UAE condemned the “terrorist shooting incident … in the strongest terms,” offered condolences to the victims and their families, and wished a speedy recovery to the wounded.
The UAE’s statement was clear, moral, and human. Abbas’ was political and self-serving, designed to enable gullible Westerners to delude themselves that Abbas was actually condemning terrorism. The UAE and Abbas’ statements follow. The difference speaks volumes.
| UAE condemnation of terror | Mahmoud Abbas’ sham |
| “The United Arab Emirates has condemned in the strongest terms the terrorist shooting incident which occurred near Jerusalem, and resulted in a number of deaths and injuries.
In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) reaffirmed the UAE’s strong condemnation of these terrorist acts and its permanent rejection of all forms of violence and terrorism aimed at undermining security and stability. The Ministry expressed its sincere condolences and sympathy to the families of the victims, and to the State of Israel and its people, as well as its wishes for a speedy recovery for all the injured.” [United Arab Emirates Ministry of Foreign Affairs, website, September 8, 2025] |
“The Palestinian Presidency reiterated its firm stance rejecting and condemning any targeting of Palestinian and Israel civilians, and denouced all forms of violence and terrorism, regardless of their source.
The Presidency stressed that security and stability in the region cannot be achieved without ending the occupation, halting acts of genocide in the Gaza Strip, and stopping colonist terrorism across the West Bank, including occupied Jerusalem. It emphasized the Palestinian people’s attainment of their legitimate rights to an independent and sovereign state with East Jerusalem as its capital, and the achievement of security and peace for all, is what wil end the cycle of violence in the region. This came in the wake of today’s events in occupied Jerusalem.” [WAFA, official PA news agency, September 8, 2025] |
Ephraim D. Tepler is a contributor to Palestinian Media Watch (PMW). Itamar Marcus is the Founder and Director of PMW, where a version of this article first appeared.
RSS
Carrying Charlie Kirk’s Torch: Why the West Must Not Retreat
A memorial is held for Charlie Kirk, who was shot and killed in Utah, at the Turning Point USA headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona, US, Sept. 10, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Caitlin O’Hara
Charlie Kirk’s sudden death leaves more than grief; it leaves a void in a moment of profound civilizational danger. He was not just a political organizer or cultural commentator. He was a voice that gave the next generation permission to reject the lies of relativism, to reclaim confidence in the West, and to stand against the forces — both ideological and violent — that seek to dismantle it. To honor his life means refusing to let that mission fade.
Kirk understood that the greatest threats to freedom were not hidden in obscure policy debates, but in the cultural and spiritual health of the West. He saw that when a society abandons faith, mocks tradition, and treats national identity as a shameful relic, it becomes easy prey for movements that thrive on weakness and self-doubt. His genius was to frame this not as nostalgia, but as survival.
For him, defending family, faith, and moral order was not a luxury — it was the only path by which free societies could endure.
One challenge Kirk named very clearly was the rise of radical Islamism and terrorism. He warned that this was not merely a foreign problem, but an internal one. Radical ideologies, cloaked in the language of grievance, have found fertile ground in Western cities, universities, and political discourse. Under the cover of tolerance, they have grown bolder. Under the silence of elites, they have become entrenched. Kirk refused to bend to the false equivalence that excuses extremism as cultural difference. He understood that those who despise freedom should not be empowered to weaponize it.
His critics often called him polarizing, but what they truly feared was his clarity. He reminded audiences that not all values are equal, not all ideas are harmless, and not every ideology deserves space in a free society. In a climate where cowardice is praised as moderation, his directness was seen as dangerous. But the true danger lies in the refusal to speak plainly about the threats that face us. Civilizations do not collapse overnight; they are eroded when their defenders lose the courage to distinguish between what is worth preserving and what must be rejected.
Kirk never lost that courage. He confronted progressive elites who undermined confidence in the West from within, and he confronted radical Islamist sympathizers who justified violence against it from without. He saw that both positions, though different in form, worked toward the same end: a weakening of Western resolve, an erosion of shared identity, and the creation of a generation uncertain of its own inheritance. His refusal to allow that message to go unchallenged gave hope to millions of young people who might otherwise have drifted into cynicism or despair.
Now his death presents a stark choice. The forces he warned against are not pausing to mourn. They are pressing forward, eager to fill the space that was already under siege. If his legacy is not actively continued, it will not simply fade — it will be replaced by movements hostile to everything he fought to defend. To preserve his mission, the West must double down on the truths he carried: that strength is not arrogance, that tradition is not oppression, and that freedom without moral order is an illusion that collapses into chaos.
The stakes are high. If these principles are allowed to wither, we risk a generation unmoored from history, unprepared for the battles ahead, and unwilling to confront the ideological threats at our doorstep. But if Kirk’s legacy is embraced and advanced, his death will be the beginning of a renewal.
The West cannot retreat. It cannot afford the luxury of silence or the temptation of compromise with those who seek its undoing. The path forward requires the clarity and courage that Charlie Kirk embodied. To carry his torch is not simply to honor his memory. It is to safeguard the survival of the civilization he loved and defended. The question is not whether we should continue his work. The question is whether we can endure if we do not.
Amine Ayoub, a fellow at the Middle East Forum, is a policy analyst and writer based in Morocco. Follow him on X: @amineayoubx