Uncategorized
‘Conversion therapy is having a moment’ — what will that mean for LGBTQ+ Jews?
The Supreme Court dove into the culture wars again this week by hearing arguments on conversion therapy — a controversial pseudoscientific practice that attempts to change LGBTQ+ patients’ sexuality to align with heterosexual desires. In Chiles v. Salazar, Kasey Chiles, an evangelical therapist in Colorado, is alleging that Colorado’s conversion therapy ban violates her 1st Amendment rights, leaving her unable to work with patients who want to live a life “consistent with their faith.”
Conversion therapy is not solely an evangelical Christian problem. In 2012, a group of plaintiffs in New Jersey successfully sued a group called Jews Offering New Alternatives to Homosexuality, alleging that it had committed consumer fraud by selling services that it claimed could turn someone heterosexual. The organization, known as JONAH, promised religious Jews that they could change their sexual orientation via methods that included being forced to strip naked and beat pillows that represented their mothers.
When JONAH was forced to disband after losing in court in 2015, it reformed just 11 days later as a new organization called the Jewish Institute for Global Awareness. In 2019, a judge found this was a violation of the original court order and shut down JIGA as well. Yet conversion therapy in the Orthodox world persists to this day. One new organization, Jewish Family Forever, led by Dr. Koby Frances, claims that “modern ideologies are leading people away from their values,” and its website prominently states that they are “encouraging Torah traditional heterosexual marriage.”
Chaim Levin, one of the plaintiffs who sued JONAH, is now a first-year law student at Drexel University and has been a vocal advocate for LGBTQ+ Jews.
I spoke with Levin, who was raised in a Chabad household in Brooklyn, over the phone about Chiles v. Salazar, and how the Orthodox community currently navigates homosexuality. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.
Can you share what your conversion therapy experiences with JONAH were like?
I had been seeing a frum therapist in Flatbush since I was 15 for several reasons, including being gay. She actually was helpful for some of those other issues. But when I was older, and finally “acting out” on my attraction to men, she said she couldn’t help me anymore.
Two weeks before I turned 18, I talked to the director of JONAH after being referred to them by a rabbi. I then went on my first weekend retreat with them shortly after my 18th birthday, and was with JONAH for about a year and a half to two years.
There was bullying, there was nudity. There was staged humiliation, where they would have us recreate traumatic experiences. There was what they called “healthy touch,” which was where typically older men cuddled with younger men as a form of “father-son bonding” — in hindsight, a very sexualized experience.
The incident that ultimately caused me to leave and to sue JONAH was when my life coach forced me to get naked and fondle myself in front of him, after I repeatedly said I did not want to.
What was your first reaction when you heard SCOTUS was taking up a case on conversion therapy?
I’m a legal nerd and a law student, so I knew it was coming. I knew that federal courts disagreed on this issue. Conversion therapy is having a moment now. It’s a resurgence driven by panic and hysteria over trans people. I’m feeling incredibly frustrated, to be honest.
Why is that?
It’s unclear how conversion therapy bans are enforced. I actually don’t know of a single example of a ban being enforced. They’re a symbolic gesture, and many advocacy groups pushed for them and spent millions of dollars to get them passed. All it did was to drive conversion therapy underground.
No person offering conversion therapy is going to call it that. They’ll offer treatment for “sex addiction,” “men’s issues,” or “intimacy issues.” All the conversion therapy bans are also solely targeting licensed medical professionals. There are specific carveouts for religious counseling and life coaches, so this practice is unfortunately still thriving.
In Chiles v. Salazar, the prosecutors are presenting conversion therapy as a free speech issue. They argue that there is a difference between the speech of a medical professional versus their conduct. In their view, simply discussing or supporting a hypothetical patient’s desire to become straight is not harmful. How do you see this argument?
It’s a really good question: is it speech, or is it conduct?
In my case, the life coach told me to take my clothes off and touch myself as part of my conversion therapy. He wasn’t doing anything himself, but he was inducing me to engage in that conduct. I found out that another star witness for JONAH had the same life coach as I did, and he ordered him and another man to masturbate each other to the point of orgasm. Is that solely speech?
As a future lawyer, I almost have a little bit of sympathy for the prosecutor’s arguments. Yet I don’t believe any of these people are genuinely concerned for the well-being of queer people. They’re pushing an agenda.
How do you think the Orthodox Jewish community has evolved (or not) on homosexuality and conversion therapy in the last decade since your lawsuit?
I want to be sensitive. But I don’t believe that it’s a safe place for gay or queer people. I certainly am not going to tell people to leave the community. I don’t think that’s the answer.
But a community can only be as safe as it wants to be. There are still tons of therapists and life coaches in the Orthodox community offering conversion therapy. Their rabbis don’t want to deal with the problem of queer people.
I think JQY and Eshel are amazing and doing important work. But those organizations are not what I would classify as being in the mainstream. It’s not for lack of trying — they have turned into some of the only safe spaces for LGBT Jews given the climate we’re living in.
Do you buy the free speech, or free practice of religion, arguments when it comes to the conversion therapy you see still happening in the Orthodox world?
I don’t think free speech means you are absolved from consequences. I think people can be held accountable.
The thing I’ve encountered a lot with these conversion therapy providers is that they don’t claim they’re using religion in their counseling. I’ve always heard: “We’re a Jewish group, we’re religious people, but our therapy is not religious.” If you’re going to tell me “our therapy is prayer,” that’s one thing, but I’ve never seen conversion therapy in the form of prayer.
I just don’t buy it. You can’t use your religion to harm people in a way that doesn’t comport with reality. You don’t have a religious or constitutional right to hurt people.
The post ‘Conversion therapy is having a moment’ — what will that mean for LGBTQ+ Jews? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Why are we so focused on Mamdani — not Nazi-inspired ideas proliferating on the right?
Zohran Mamdani’s candidacy for mayor of New York City has become a matter of national debate — particularly among Jews. Recently, more than 1,000 rabbis across the country signed a letter singling out Mamdani as a threat to Jewish safety under the heading, “Defending the Jewish future.”
If you didn’t know better, you might think that Mamdani had used Nazi rhetoric or used racist or antisemitic language. He hasn’t. He’s only “guilty” of criticizing Israel: The rabbis’ letter references no antisemitic language because, by all appearances, Mamdani has not trafficked in antisemitic rhetoric.
This week marked the seventh anniversary of the massacre at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, the single bloodiest day for Jews in the history of the United States. The killer justified the slaughter by invoking a conspiracy theory that Jewish groups like HIAS were bringing immigrant “invaders in that kill our people.” The following year, a gunman who killed one synagogue-goer in the town of Poway, California — where a number of my congregants live — penned a similar screed, claiming that “every Jew is responsible for the meticulously planned genocide of the European race… and every Jew plays his part to enslave the other races around him.”
The contrast between the anniversary of the tragedy of the Tree of Life and the furor about Mamdani has deeply troubled me. Because while many members of our national Jewish community have come to perceive the potential election of a mayor who is critical of Israel as one of the greatest threats to our future in this country, the hate speech that fueled those two killers continues to be not just normalized on the right, but turned into a central element of its political platform.
It is this reality that makes the rabbinic letter about Mamdani heartbreaking. At a moment of increasing threats to the safety of all marginalized communities in this country, my colleagues have targeted the wrong person and the wrong movement.
In a democratic society, the candidacy of a young mayoral candidate who challenges the righteousness of Israeli actions is not a threat to the “Jewish future.” It is an invitation to engage in discussion about those actions.
By contrast, the rise of the “great replacement” theory and its ilk — baseless claims of “white replacement” or “white genocide” — is a threat to the future of all minorities, including Jews. This awful movement, which has led to violence against Jews, immigrants of color, Muslims, and trans people, has found a home in mainstream Republican politics. The Department of Homeland Security increasingly utilizes white supremacist language in recruiting new employees and arresting immigrants including phrases like “report all foreign invaders” and “defend your culture!”
Frighteningly similar language has been used by those who have Jewish blood on their hands.
Ironically, the right’s willingness to indulge in open Jew-hatred has shown up even in arguments about Israel. Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene recently criticized lobbying efforts by AIPAC, invoking classic antisemitism: “I’ll never take 30 shekels,” she wrote on X earlier this month, “I’m America only! And Christ is King!”
At least as troubling is the revelation that Republican operatives regularly engage in racist, sexist and antisemitic discourse, as was recently reported by Politico. These messages illustrate all too clearly the MAGA movement’s descent into bigotry. They include praise of Hitler, white supremacist shorthand, jokes about gas chambers, and one claim that it’s a mistake to “expect… the Jew to be honest.” Together, these messages offer a chilling glimpse into the mindset currently ruling the Republican Party.
Vice-President JD Vance dismissed “pearl clutching” over those texts — a choice in keeping with others made by President Donald Trump’s administration. Trump nominated Paul Ingrassia to the position of White House Special Counsel; Ingrassia was recently revealed to have said he had a “Nazi streak.”(He also said that all of Africa is a “shithole.”) Ingrassia withdrew his name from consideration for that position, but his “punishment” has been to instead remain in his job as White House Liaison to the Department of Justice. Department of Defense spokesperson Kingsley Wilson has posted antisemitic conspiracy theories, featuring references to the “great replacement” theory and the lynching of Leo Frank in 1915. She remains in her job as well, as does the most prominent law enforcement official in the nation, FBI Director Kash Patel, who regularly appeared on the podcast of notorious Jew-hater Stew Peters.
Where is the rabbinic outrage about this spate of antisemitism in the highest levels of power in this country?
That rabbis composed and distributed a letter condemning a single candidate for mayor in one city, while too often remaining silent regarding the explicit hate speech that now runs through the Republican party, is embarrassing and shameful. The Trump administration recently scrubbed a report from the Department of Justice website showing that right-wing extremism is far and away the most prevalent threat to marginalized communities in this country. For more than 1,000 rabbis to treat this reality as less serious a threat than Mamdani, in itself, a threat to Jewish safety.
Perhaps our rabbinic colleagues feel it is too dangerous to confront the party in power in this country. Perhaps they are afraid of losing access, or funding, or alienating donors. But Jewish history is replete with examples showing that appeasement of Jew-haters never makes Jews safe.
What has helped cultivate Jewish safety has been the work of solidarity. Building genuine investment in relationships across lines of difference — the kind of relationship-building that Mamdani himself has modeled with Jewish New Yorkers — is the best kind of investment in a secure Jewish future. For the sake of the safety of Jews from Poway to Park Avenue, I pray that my colleagues might begin to understand this.
The post Why are we so focused on Mamdani — not Nazi-inspired ideas proliferating on the right? appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one.
(JTA) — There must be consequences when politicians endorse and campaign for unpalatable candidates for public office in order to court that candidate’s political base. I am just one voter, but I am ready to commit to issuing some.
I am a lifelong Democrat and consider myself a centrist liberal on most issues. The last times I recall voting for a Republican were in 1992 — 33 years ago! — when I supported Bill Green in his unsuccessful campaign for reelection as the U.S. representative from New York City’s largely Upper East Side congressional district, and then in 2001 when I voted for Mike Bloomberg for mayor of New York City.
But, like many other centrist Democrats, I have been watching with ever-increasing concern as the party I once considered my political home has moved further and further away to the left — indeed, often to the extremist far-left — on an issue I care about deeply.
The fundamental right of the State of Israel to exist — its geopolitical and moral legitimacy, as it were — is one such pivotal issue. Bill Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Kamala Harris, Mario and Andrew Cuomo, Chuck Schumer, and Kirsten Gillibrand all identified and identify as supporters of Israel even while they may have criticized particular policies of one Israeli government or other.
This is not true of Zohran Mamdani. The Democratic candidate for mayor of New York City is a declared and uncompromising anti-Zionist. He comes by his inflexible antagonism toward the Jewish homeland honestly — his father, Mahmood Mamdani, Columbia University’s Herbert Lehman professor of government, has demanded for years that Columbia divest its endowment from companies that invest in Israel, and his mother, filmmaker Mira Nair, pointedly refuses to attend Israeli film festivals.
Zohran Mamdani considers the likes of the anti-Zionist academics Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi as his intellectual mentors. While at college, he founded the Bowdoin chapter of the radical Students for Justice in Palestine.
All this is known. Mamdani never made a secret of his hatred of — as opposed to disagreement, even harsh disagreement, with — Israel and Zionism. As a result, he engages in some of the most extreme, bordering on the absurd, antisemitic conspiracy theories imaginable. In 2023, we learned this week, he told a far-left group that alleged violence on the part of New York police officers is somehow masterminded by the Israel armed forces: “We have to make clear that when the boot of the NYPD is on your neck, it’s been laced by the IDF.”
If ever there was a clear incitement to antisemitic violence, violence against Jews, this is it. And yet a host of prominent New York Democrats, rather than distancing themselves from if not affirmatively repudiating Mamdani, have not only endorsed him but are actively campaigning for him.
Among this lot are New York Gov. Kathy Hochul, State Attorney General Letitia James, U.S. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, and State Sen. Liz Krueger. All of them purport to be appalled by the surging antisemitism around them, and yet they stand by their candidate.
Mamdani claims not to be antisemitic, only pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, and his above-listed supporters assist him in threading this particular noxious needle.
I’m not the first Jewish voice to say they’re attempting an impossible task. “Mamdani’s distinction between accepting Jews and denying a Jewish state is not merely a rhetorical sleight of hand or political naivete — though it is, to be clear, both of these,” warned Rabbi Elliot Cosgrove in his courageous sermon. “He is doing so to traffic in the most dangerous of tropes, an anti-Zionist rhetoric.”
But I might be the first Jewish voice to say publicly that I will never again cast a vote for any of the Democrats who have endorsed Mamdani. For me, at least, his supporters have crossed a moral and ideological Rubicon, and they have forced me, with not inconsiderable trepidation and reluctance, to do the same.
While Nadler, who announced that he will not seek reelection in 2026, is a lame duck, many of Mamdani’s other acolytes appear to still want to have a political future beyond Nov. 4. I will not countenance that.
Politicians by definition tend to make strategic decisions they deem to be in their self-interest. The more high-minded, not to say ethical, ones among them draw the line when it comes to issues of principle. More likely, or perhaps, more frequently, they will balance competing considerations and opt for what they consider to be their most advantageous pragmatic option.
It’s true that supporting Mamdani may seem like a rational, if not especially ethical, choice. Numerous polls have shown that support for Israel has diminished, especially among younger voters. Thus, the cynical calculation behind some of the Mamdani endorsements may well have been that the future support of such anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian voters would more than make up for any loss of disaffected pro-Israel Democrats like me.
Still, Hochul’s early endorsement of Mamdani’s candidacy could well end up being an albatross around her neck next year when she seeks reelection. Especially if the now prevailing anti-Israel sentiment recedes once the Israel-Hamas war is in the rearview mirror. The same goes for Mamdani’s other cheerleaders. Pendulums have a way of swinging back toward the center.
I, for one, will not vote for Hochul again. And yes, that means that I am open to supporting a palatable Republican nominee for New York governor. It’s not an easy conclusion for me to reach or decision to make, but I don’t see how I can do otherwise — and while I might be the early in declaring it publicly, I hardly think I will be alone.
I am writing in advance of the Tuesday’s election, which I hope may yet turn out to be a surprise, come-from-behind win for Andrew Cuomo. I am also doing so in advance of the inevitable attempts at fence-mending that will follow, regardless of the result.
I know New York’s centrist Democrats will try to win me back, and I know that the forces acting on Republicans may well make a return attractive. But I am making this vow now because I am distressed that while Mamdani’s mainstream allies may not have consciously written off the New York Jewish community, they are hoping for collective short memories on our part. I know, even if they do not, that Jewish security and survival have always depended on remembering.
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.
The post I won’t vote for Democrats who backed Mamdani. I know I’m not the only one. appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Turkey Expands Regional and Global Ambitions, Raising Alarm Bells in Israel
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan speaks during a joint statement to the media in Baghdad, Iraq, April 22, 2024. Photo: AHMAD AL-RUBAYE/Pool via REUTERS
Turkey is rapidly expanding its regional and global influence — strengthening ties with Syria, Lebanon, Iran, and the Gulf states, while pressing for a role in post-war Gaza — a trend that is raising alarm bells in Israel and the broader region amid shifting Middle East power dynamics.
As part of its push to expand regional influence and strengthen strategic partnerships, Turkey has recently signed a memorandum of understanding with Syria, expanding their military cooperation to cover training, advisory support, and access to weapons systems and logistics.
On Thursday, Turkey’s Defense Ministry announced that Syrian armed forces have begun training at Turkish facilities and will also attend the country’s military academies, as both nations seek to deepen their defense ties.
Turkey’s push to expand its ties with Syria comes as the latter is reportedly in the final stages of negotiations with Israel over a security agreement that could establish a joint Israeli–Syrian–American committee to oversee developments along their shared border and uphold the terms of a proposed deal.
Ankara has also been working to establish closer diplomatic and military relations with Israel’s other northern neighbor, Lebanon, at a time when the country stands on the brink of renewed conflict with the Jewish state.
Amid mounting international pressure, the Lebanese government is intensifying efforts to meet the ceasefire deadline to disarm the terrorist group Hezbollah, while trying to avoid plunging the nation into a civil war.
As the Iran-backed terrorist group continues to refuse disarmament, Turkey is leveraging the opportunity to bolster its regional influence and expand its alliances.
Last week, Turkey’s Defense Ministry confirmed that the country’s peacekeeping forces would continue to support the Lebanese army in its mission to restore stability and peace.
“Ongoing efforts will focus on enhancing security in the region, promoting stability, and supporting the development of the Lebanese armed forces, with the goal of fostering and sustaining peace in Lebanon,” Turkish officials announced, following the approval of a two-year extension to their mission in Beirut.
Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan – who has been openly hostile toward the Jewish state for years – has repeatedly condemned Israeli offensives targeting the Iranian proxy and its terrorist operations in Lebanon.
He has previously said that Israel’s “genocidal” and “expansionist” policies remain the biggest threat to regional peace.
Ankara has also been working to expand its regional influence in the Gaza Strip, which borders Israel to the south, positioning itself to play a pivotal role in post-war developments under the US-backed peace plan.
However, experts warn that Turkey’s growing involvement in the enclave’s reconstruction efforts could potentially strengthen Hamas’s terrorist infrastructure and undermine the fragile ceasefire.
As one of the biggest backers of Hamas, Turkey could potentially shield the Islamist movement in Gaza or even bolster its power, especially as the Palestinian terrorist group continues to reject disarmament — a key element of US President Donald Trump’s peace plan.
In the past, Ankara has provided refuge to Hamas leaders, granted diplomatic access, and allowed the group to fundraise, recruit, and plan attacks from Turkish territory.
Under Trump’s plan, Turkey has sought to join a multinational task force responsible for overseeing the ceasefire and training local security forces.
Erdogan declared that the country is “ready to provide all kinds of support to Gaza,” and insisted that the Turkish Armed Forces “could serve in a military or civilian capacity as needed.”
However, Israeli officials have repeatedly rejected any involvement of Turkish security forces in post-war Gaza.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stated that Turkey’s participation in the International Stabilization Force would be out of the question, labeling it a “red line.”
Gulf states have also raised concerns about Turkish and Qatari involvement in Gaza’s post-war reconstruction and governance efforts.
While the Trump administration has ruled out sending US soldiers into the war-torn enclave, Washington has also considered involving Indonesia, the United Arab Emirates, Egypt, and Azerbaijan in the international peacekeeping efforts.
US officials have confirmed that any participating countries in the international task force will be selected in close coordination with Israel, ensuring that no foreign troops will be included without Israel’s consent.
Despite Turkey’s efforts to advance its regional ambitions in the enclave and secure a role in post-war Gaza, Erdogan continues to attack Israel while defending the Palestinian terrorist group, as he has repeatedly in the past.
He has frequently defended Hamas terrorists as “resistance fighters” against what he describes as Israeli occupation of Palestinian land. He has even gone so far as to threaten an invasion of the Jewish state and called on the United Nations to use force if Jerusalem fails to halt its military campaign against Hamas.
On Thursday, Erdogan reiterated his anti-Israel rhetoric, targeting Germany for its alleged indifference to what he called Israel’s “genocide, famine, and attacks” in Gaza.
In a joint press conference with his German counterpart, the Turkish leader said that it is the international community’s duty to end what he described as famine and massacres in Gaza.
ERDOĞAN: “HAMAS HAS NO BOMBS – ALL THESE WEAPONS ARE IN ISRAEL’S HANDS”
“Hamas has no bombs, no nuclear weapons. But all these weapons are in Israel’s hands.
And Israel, using these weapons, for example just last night, again struck Gaza with these bombs.
Don’t you see… https://t.co/Z5eDHq1exW pic.twitter.com/LoKHNHUIvC
— Mario Nawfal (@MarioNawfal) October 30, 2025
Ankara’s regional ambitions have led the country to expand bilateral ties with Iran, seeking closer cooperation on political, economic, and security matters.
This week, Iranian and Turkish officials pledged to deepen their ties during high-level talks in Tehran — a move likely to raise further alarm bells, given both countries’ longstanding role of supporting Islamist terrorists and their hostile stance toward the West.
In a message to his Turkish counterpart, Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian stressed the importance of deepening mutual cooperation to strengthen security, development, and stability for both countries and the region.
Ankara has also engaged with Saudi Arabia in an effort to strengthen bilateral ties and secure Riyadh as a regional partner amid shifting power dynamics in the Middle East.
On Wednesday, Turkey’s ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Emrullah Isler, praised the growing defense cooperation between the two countries, including joint training and other initiatives, amid the signing of new agreements.
Turkey and Saudi Arabia “are key regional actors that share a commitment to peace, stability, and international law,” Isler wrote in a post on X.
“As reaffirmed by both countries during various high-level meetings, we are confident that our military cooperation will continue to grow in terms of both scope and depth,” he continued.
As part of Turkey’s push to expand its influence across the Middle East, Erdogan set out last week on a diplomatic tour to Qatar, Kuwait, and Oman.
During this official tour, he aimed to secure new trade, investment, energy, and defense deals, while also seeking regional support for his proposal to deploy Turkish troops in Gaza.
But Turkey’s efforts to boost its regional influence have also extended beyond the Middle East.
On Thursday, when Erdogan met with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, they discussed regional developments and exploring opportunities to strengthen their bilateral cooperation.
At a joint press conference, Merz described Turkey as a key partner for the European Union, noting that Berlin aims to help Ankara expand its relationships with other EU member states.
“I personally, and the German government, see Turkey as a close partner of the European Union. We want to continue smoothing the way to Europe,” the German leader said.