Uncategorized
Following the Rules Doesn’t Free You From Moral Responsibility
British Prime Minister Keir Starmer and US President Donald Trump (not pictured) hold a bilateral meeting at Trump Turnberry golf course in Turnberry, Scotland, Britain, July 28, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
In November 2024, UK Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer announced that Lord Peter Mandelson would be heading to Washington, DC as Britain’s next ambassador to the United States.
It was a striking choice. Mandelson is one of the most experienced and politically connected figures in modern British public life – but he was hardly uncontroversial, and he’d never been a diplomat.
For Americans, that might not sound unusual. In the United States, such posts are often handed to political allies, donors, or senior figures from outside the traditional diplomatic corps, with nominations subjected to public scrutiny and Senate confirmation hearings.
But Britain does things very differently. Senior diplomatic roles are almost always filled by career civil servants who have risen through the ranks of the Foreign Office. There is no equivalent of Senate confirmation: In other words, no public vetting and no televised grilling.
The system operates quietly and efficiently, and almost entirely behind closed doors – built on the assumption that professionalism, discretion, and institutional process will ensure the right outcome.
Mandelson’s appointment exposed how fragile that assumption can be. Because the moment a political figure was inserted into a system designed for career officials, its weaknesses began to show.
Questions surfaced almost immediately. Mandelson’s past was hardly unblemished – he had twice been forced to resign from government positions during the Blair years, and his long-standing association with the disgraced financier and convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein raised uncomfortable concerns.
Nevertheless, the appointment went ahead, and in January 2025, Mandelson took up residence in Washington.
Within months, the situation began to unravel. The release of Epstein-related documents cast a harsh new light on Mandelson’s relationship with him, suggesting continued contact far beyond what had previously been understood. There were also allegations – now the subject of an ongoing investigation – that he had shared sensitive classified information with Epstein.
Mandelson was removed from his post and later arrested on suspicion of misconduct in public office, although he has not been charged and denies wrongdoing.
And yet, somehow, Starmer survived the immediate fallout. His defense was simple: The proper procedures had been followed, and if there had been failures, they had nothing to do with how he had conducted himself, as he had done everything totally by the book.
But the story did not end there. Last week, it emerged that a security vetting process conducted in early 2025 had raised serious concerns about Mandelson’s suitability for the role – reportedly recommending that he not be sent to Washington. That assessment was ultimately overridden by the Foreign Office.
Suddenly, the focus shifted. This was no longer just about Mandelson’s conduct. It was about the system – and also about what the prime minister knew, and when.
What might once have remained an obscure internal matter has now spiraled into a full-blown constitutional and political crisis, shining an unforgiving light on a system that depends almost entirely on trust, discretion, and process.
Summoned to the House of Commons this week, Starmer was forced to issue a humiliating statement and defend his actions under hours of relentless questioning. His response was methodical and legalistic – hardly surprising for a man trained as a barrister.
Again and again, he returned to the same refrain: The process had not worked as it should have, but he had followed the process. And that, he continuously insisted, was the point.
Then veteran MP Diane Abbott stood up. Abbott, a long-serving figure on the left of Starmer’s Labour Party, was only recently reinstated after a prolonged suspension. Her relationship with Starmer has been, to put it mildly, strained.
“The prime minister has gone on at considerable length about process and procedure,” Abbott began, “but ordinary people do not really care about process and procedure. It is one thing, as the prime minister insists on saying, ‘Nobody told me, nobody told me anything,’ but what this House wants to know is: Why did the prime minister not ask?”
And just like that, Starmer’s entire “process” edifice collapsed. Because Abbott’s question didn’t engage with the process – it bypassed it and went straight to the heart of the matter. Starmer’s fixation with process was pure deflection. The real issue was something far more basic – and far harder to evade: judgment.
You can follow procedures meticulously and still get it wrong. You can insist that systems were in place and protocols were observed, but in the end, getting it right is not always about process – and you need to know that going in.
Starmer could point to what he was told and what he wasn’t told. But he could not escape the question that lingered in the chamber long after the noise had died down: Why didn’t he go beyond the process to make sure he was doing the right thing?
And that tension – between technical correctness and moral responsibility – is not unique to British politics. It sits at the heart of one of the Torah’s most famous and most elusive directives (Lev. 19:2): קְדֹשִׁים תִּהְיוּ כִּי קָדוֹשׁ אֲנִי ה׳ אֱלֹקֵיכֶם – “You shall be holy, for I, Hashem your God, am holy.”
At first glance, this mitzva sounds mystical and beyond the reach of ordinary folk. What exactly does it mean to be “holy?” Is the Torah asking us to withdraw from the world? To live some kind of ascetic, elevated existence far removed from the messiness of everyday life?
Rashi offers a good starting point, explaining that it means that one should exercise restraint. Know where to draw the line and don’t cross boundaries that compromise who you are – a definition of holiness that is rooted in discipline, self-control, and the ability to say no.
But the Ramban turns the whole idea on its head. He argues that restraint alone is not enough. You can keep every technical requirement of the Torah. You can stay firmly within the boundaries of what is permitted. And still, in his unforgettable phrase, you can be a “Naval Bir’shut HaTorah” — a scoundrel operating with the Torah’s consent.
It’s a devastating insight. You can follow every rule and still fail the moral test. Just because you ticked every procedural box doesn’t mean you are a good person. In fact, you can be doing evil while insisting you are doing everything right.
“Why did the prime minister not ask?” was not a procedural question. It was a Ramban question. Did you take responsibility? Did you exercise judgment? Did you go beyond what was technically required — and do what was right?
Systems, by their very nature, are limited. They can define what is allowed and what is forbidden. They can establish processes, protocols, and safeguards. But they cannot replace human responsibility, and they can never absolve a person from the obligation to think, to question, to probe.
We see it everywhere. In business, where companies insist they complied with regulations – even as the outcome leaves a trail of harm. In institutions, where failures are explained away as “procedural breakdowns.” In everyday life, where people defend themselves by saying, “I didn’t do anything wrong,” even when something clearly is wrong.
The Torah is not interested in producing people who merely stay within the lines. It is interested in producing people who elevate themselves within those lines – who bring integrity, sensitivity, and moral awareness into the vast space of what is technically permitted.
Holiness is not about escaping the complexity of life. It is about navigating that complexity with integrity. And in the end, that is why Prime Minister Starmer’s excuses ring so hollow. Why didn’t you ask? The Torah is clear. Holiness is not about following the rules. It begins at the point where process ends.
The author is a rabbi in Beverly Hills, California.
Uncategorized
US Sen. Rand Paul’s Son Apologizes After Drunken Antisemitic Insults Against Catholic Congressman
US Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) is trailed by reporters as he arrives for the weekly Senate Republican caucus luncheon at the US Capitol in Washington, US, May 22, 2018. Photo: REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
William Paul, the adult son of frequent Israel critic US Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY), has apologized following reports that he made antisemitic and homophobic statements while defending Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) to Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) at a Capitol Hill restaurant on Tuesday evening.
NOTUS reporter Reese Gorman witnessed the encounter at Tune Inn and wrote that the younger Paul, 33, sat a few seats down from Lawler at the bar when he introduced himself and told the congressman that if Massie lost in his upcoming primary, “your people” would be responsible.
Lawler, an Irish Catholic, asked, “My people?”
This prompted Paul to say, “Yeah, you Jews.”
Lawler then clarified his religious background, saying, “Do you think I’m Jewish? I’m not.”
Paul apologized for his error, replying, “Oh wow, I’m so sorry for calling you a Jew.”
Lawler later told reporters the comment was “just a remarkable statement in and of itself,” adding that “at one point, you know, said that he hates Jews and hates gays and doesn’t care if they die. And I think that’s f**king disgusting.”
Lawler told the New York Post that he responded to Paul mistakenly identifying him as a Jew with, “And even if I was, what’s the problem?”
“Then he got into the Middle East,” the lawmaker recounted. “And he was talking about, like, us trying to steal Iran’s land for the Jews and steal the West Bank, and I’m like, ‘What are you talking about?’”
Paul then reportedly proclaimed Jews were “un-American” and more loyal to Israel. Lawler argued back against Paul’s dual-loyalty accusations and accused him of being antisemitic.
“Paul Singer serves Israeli interests, not American interests,” Paul also said during the encounter, referring to the billionaire Republican donor and prominent Jewish supporter of pro-Israel causes.
Singer has supported Ed Gallrein, a retired Navy SEAL challenging Massie in Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District.
A new campaign ad that aired in Kentucky this week and was sponsored by Hold the Line PAC, a group backing Massie, characterized Singer as a “pro-trans billionaire” and featured a rainbow-colored Star of David behind his image while attacking Gallrein’s allies.
Critics condemned the imagery as antisemitic, arguing it invoked longstanding tropes about Jewish financial influence and used Jewish symbolism in a way designed to inflame cultural resentment.
Massie himself has been a fierce critic of Israel, condemning its military operations in Gaza and Lebanon and arguing that the Jewish state has targeted civilian infrastructure and should not receive assistance from the US.
US President Donald Trump has endorsed Gallrein and actively campaigned against Massie, who like Paul’s father is a libertarian-leaning Republican known for frequently breaking with party leadership and advocating an isolationist foreign policy.
During his outburst this week, the younger Paul also urged Lawler to watch far-right podcaster Tucker Carlson more and claimed that Massie and his father were the only legislators who care about America. In multiple postings on X, Paul promoted “Save the Republic Money Bomb” donations for Massie.
In December 2023, Massie sparked condemnation for posting a meme suggesting that Congress was more loyal to Zionism than “American patriotism.”
In recent years, meanwhile, Carlson has emerged as the leading anti-Israel commentator on the American political right, routinely advancing conspiracy theories condemning the Jewish state while heaping praise on Qatar, the longtime supporter of Hamas and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Tuesday’s exchange concluded with Paul performing an obscene gesture.
Lawler responded by asking, “Did you just give me the middle finger?”
Paul replied, “I’m sorry, yeah, I did. I’m just really drunk. I’m going to leave.” He reportedly stumbled on his way leaving the bar.
Paul attempted to apologize on X on Wednesday from his @TastyBrew1776 account, writing, “Last night, I had too much to drink and said some things that don’t represent who I really am. I’m sorry and today I am seeking help for my drinking problem.” He has struggled with his alcohol use before, pleading guilty to a drunk driving charge in 2015.
Rabbi Uri Pilichowski responded to the apology.
“You don’t just have a drinking problem, you have a Jew-hating problem,” he posted. “The Jewish sages taught, ‘Wine goes in, and secrets come out.’ You need some Jewish friends so you can correct your image of Jews.”
Conservative columnist Bethany Mandel, an advocate for Jewish outreach to antisemites, responded with an invitation to Paul, asking him, “Care to come for Shabbat dinner sometime?”
Addressing the admission of excessive drinking, Lawler told reporters, “That’s not an excuse for that type of hatred and vitriol. It’s my fourth year in Washington; that was arguably the most shocking thing I’ve witnessed.”
Lawler explained how he saw the encounter in the context of today’s rising antisemitism.
“But I mean, look, I think it speaks to a larger issue, obviously, in society and what we’re seeing among young people and what we see online,” he said. “And this is the level of hatred and vitriol, frankly, that some of my Jewish colleagues experience, but many of my constituents experience.”
Paul’s father chose not to comment on his son’s antisemitic outburst, saying to reporters on Wednesday only, “I don’t have anything for you.”
He and Massie have both faced substantial criticism for their positions on Israel.
On numerous occasions, Massie voted as the lone Republican in the House opposing bills supporting Israel and denouncing antisemitism. In October 2023, he voted against House Resolution 771, which stated that Congress “stands with Israel as it defends itself against the barbaric war launched by Hamas and other terrorists” and “reaffirms the United States’ commitment to Israel’s security.” In September 2021 he was likewise the sole Republican to oppose the Iron Dome Supplemental Appropriations Act.
In May 2022, Massie earned the distinction of being the only member of Congress to oppose a resolution honoring Jewish Americans’ heritage and denouncing a rise in antisemitic violence. He also distinguished himself further on Nov. 28, 2023, as the only legislator to vote against a resolution reaffirming Israel’s right to exist.
In January 2024, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley condemned Massie as “the most anti-Israel Republican in Congress” and challenged her primary rival Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis to denounce his support.
Paul has also faced opposition for his actions against the Jewish state. In November 2018, he blocked two bills to continue military funding of Israel. Then-Florida Sen. Marco Rubio said then that “at a time when Israel faces unprecedented threats, blocking a bipartisan bill that empowers the US to stand with Israel is inexplicable.” Paul claimed that he supported Israel and that his move was intended toward encouraging the Jewish state to support its own defense.
Former Texas Rep. Ron Paul — the father of Rand and grandfather of William — has faced accusations of bigotry for decades, originating in his decision to publish a series of 1980s newsletters bearing his name which promoted racism, antisemitism, homophobia, and conspiracy theories, including one since identified by analysts as disinformation deployed by the KGB accusing the United States of creating the AIDS virus.
According to former Cato President Ed Crane, Ron Paul once told him that “his best source of congressional campaign donations was the mailing list for the Spotlight, the conspiracy-mongering, antisemitic tabloid run by the Holocaust denier Willis Carto.”
Rand has previously spoken fondly about the influence of one of his father’s antisemitic mentors, Murray Rothbard, the founder of the anarcho-capitalist and paleo-libertarian traditions who frequented the Paul family’s dinner table. During his career, Rothbard promoted Holocaust deniers, used antisemitic slurs in private correspondence, called for abolishing the Constitution to return to the Articles of Confederation, and urged Republicans to support former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke.
“I have one of the largest Jewish populations anywhere in the country in my congressional district, and I’m not going to stop standing up for my constituents,” Lawler told reporters. “I’m going to stand up for the Judeo-Christian values that are at the core of our nation, our Constitution, and our rule of law, as I reminded Mr. Paul.”
Uncategorized
Israel to Extend F-35 Flight Range in Push to Build Up Military Force
A US Marines F-35C Lightning II is staged for flight operations on the flight deck of the US Navy Nimitz-class aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln in support of the Operation Epic Fury attack on Iran from an undisclosed location March 3, 2026. Photo: US Navy/Handout via REUTERS
Amid a multi-front conflict and a broader drive to bolster its military capabilities, Israel has signed a new contract with Elbit Systems subsidiary Cyclone to develop an extended-range capability for the F-35 Lightning II, marking its latest effort to extend the aircraft’s operational reach and endurance.
On Thursday, Israel’s Defense Ministry announced it signed a $34 million contract with Cyclone to develop and integrate external fuel tank systems for the Lockheed Martin-manufactured platform, aimed at enhancing its operational reach and in-flight persistence during extended missions.
Based on an existing Cyclone design used on F-16 aircraft, the system is expected to reduce reliance on aerial refueling and enhance the Israeli Air Force’s flexibility in long-range operations.
The aircraft integrates stealth capabilities, advanced data fusion, and internal weapons carriage, alongside Israeli-developed electronic warfare, communications, and computing systems that are incorporated into the US-built platform architecture.
Israeli officials said the agreement is part of a broader effort to strengthen domestic defense-production capabilities, improve readiness for a prolonged period of security challenges, and preserve Israel’s regional air and strategic superiority, amid an expanding multi-front conflict against Iran and its regional terrorist proxies.
After more than three years of war, Israel is now expected to increase defense spending over the next decade by roughly $95 billion, on top of an annual defense budget that has already grown from under $27 billion to nearly $40 billion.
Earlier this month, Israel also announced a major expansion of its combat air fleet, effectively doubling its planned procurement of F-35 Lightning II aircraft from 50 to 100, while increasing its next-generation F-15 Eagle fleet from 25 to 50, as part of one of its largest long-term force modernization programs in decades.
Uncategorized
I run The Jewish Theological Seminary. Here’s the real story about President Isaac Herzog speaking at our commencement
Because there have been many public misstatements and mischaracterizations, I believe it is incumbent on me as chancellor of The Jewish Theological Seminary to clarify the facts about our invitation to Israeli President Isaac Herzog to serve as our commencement speaker this year.
Herzog’s leadership and public service reflect the core principles and values that underlie JTS’s enduring commitment to the state of Israel, and to a vision of Zionism that is central to our institution. His life and work, including his advocacy for strengthening Israel’s democracy and his defense of a two-state solution, align with JTS’s mission.
Our seminary’s leadership felt that awarding him an honorary degree, and having our students hear him speak directly to them, would be both a privilege and fully consistent with our love for Israel and the people of Israel. (Herzog can no longer attend the commencement in person, but will be delivering his commencement address virtually, and will receive his honorary degree in person at some date in the future.)
I am proud that JTS serves as a forum for respectful disagreement, which our choice of Herzog as speaker prompted. The Jewish world encompasses a wide range of perspectives, particularly regarding the political situation in Israel. That diversity of thought exists both within our classrooms and beyond. I welcome the voices of those who may disagree.
What is regrettable is the extent to which respectful disagreement has been drowned out by a public media spectacle.
After our initial announcement of Herzog as commencement speaker, six seniors in JTS’s undergraduate dual-degree programs with Barnard College and Columbia University wrote a letter expressing their opposition to our decision.
Those students’ concerns focused on the policies of the Israeli government in its recent wars, and in no way challenged the legitimacy of the state of Israel. They also asked some additional students and alumni of other JTS schools to sign on in support of their objections. This list of supporters included four rabbinical students, three of whom are first-year students.
As too often happens in such circumstances, the letter was shared more widely, without the students’ prior knowledge or consent. This was dismaying to several of the students, who had intended to hand deliver it to me to spark conversation. What should have been a private exchange between students and their administrators escalated in alarming ways.
The authors were publicly criticized, misidentified as rabbinical students, and labeled “anti-Zionist,” including by some parties who purport to care deeply about JTS. Calls were made for their expulsion, and unfounded accusations were directed at their characters.
Few individuals from the community called me for clarification about what was actually transpiring before rushing to judgment publicly. Absent was the principle of “dan l’chav zechut” — that we should assume the best unless proven otherwise. I was deeply saddened by the outcry.
Here’s what actually happened: After I was made aware of this letter, I invited the undergraduates who authored it to meet with me for an extended and honest conversation. What they said in that conversation made it clear that anyone who labels them as anti-Zionist is misguided.
Rather, they are thoughtful individuals whose consciences are deeply troubled by many of the actions of Israel’s current government. Our conversation gave us an opportunity to discuss the role of dissent within a committed community, the importance of understanding the totality of a public figure’s career rather than focusing on isolated statements, and the distinct responsibilities of the offices of prime minister and president of Israel.
We at JTS take our responsibility as educators seriously. First and foremost, we are here to teach our students to engage with difficult issues thoughtfully, navigate disagreement and move forward in constructive and meaningful ways.
But just as important is our obligation to support and defend them when they are portrayed unfairly in public forums by those who do not know them as we do.
We take equal pride in the students who wrote the letter raising concerns about Herzog’s role in commencement, and those who wrote a letter to me expressing strong support for it — a response I heard echoed by many.
As Noam Pianko wrote in the Forward, this kind of thoughtful and respectful exchange about Israel and Zionism at JTS is not new; it is part of a longstanding tradition and precisely the kind of engagement we should continue to foster. One of our students who favored Herzog’s appearance reflected that in our courses, “the focus is not on advancing a single vision of Zionism but on confronting the deep and often irreconcilable disagreements within it. We read competing Zionist thinkers … Each author offers fundamentally different answers to what a Jewish state should be and what it should prioritize.”
We hope the Jewish community joins us in taking pride in the thoughtful young people who are working to navigate a complex Jewish world. By embracing, supporting and educating them, we can help ensure they remain deeply connected to the Jewish community, continue to be nourished by it, and contribute to its future in meaningful ways.
The post I run The Jewish Theological Seminary. Here’s the real story about President Isaac Herzog speaking at our commencement appeared first on The Forward.