Uncategorized
How an Amish Mennonite school in Arkansas went viral with a song by an Orthodox Jew
Last month, Jewish social media was buzzing over a video of a choir singing the popular 2018 song “Tatty, My King,” composed by Dovid Edell, a former student of an Orthodox high school for boys in Waterbury, Conn. Normally, another rendition of a popular Jewish song wouldn’t cause such a stir, but the singers in this case weren’t the typical yeshiva grads of the Maccabeats; they were a co-ed a cappella choir of Amish Mennonite students from the tiny Calvary Bible School in Calico Rock, Arkansas.
Jewish viewers mostly expressed delight — “the Youtube algorithm is probably going crazy right now — frum people watching Calvary bible school,” one commenter put it, topping it off with a typed happy face — with only the occasional disgruntled remark about kol isha, the religious prohibition against men hearing women sing.
Curious about this rather unlikely collaboration, I called up Gabriel Jantzi, a self-described “amateur” musician who directed the choir, to ask about his introduction to Edell’s tune, how the project unfolded, and the choir’s surprising moment of minor fame in the Orthodox world.
Can you tell me a little bit about your background?
I’m 41 years old. I went to university for medicine, but I also really liked music. So I studied music, but I didn’t even minor in it, and I ended up as a veterinarian. [In the ensuing years] I have directed church choirs, and I directed my university choir for a year, and so that has been part of my life for the last 25 years. But it’s not like I have a master’s degree in choral composition or conducting.
I am a full-time farm and country vet in Ontario, Canada, and that’s what I do. This is a slow season in January and February, so it’s very convenient to take off time and do something that I really care about. So I’m also a pastor in a local conservative Mennonite church. I take great pleasure and derive a lot of energy out of working with young people who are interested in following God.
What’s your relationship to the Calvary Bible School?
I was a student there 20 years ago. Probably since its inception in the 70s, it’s been a destination for Beachy Amish Mennonite youth between the ages of 18 and 20 who want to dedicate time to study how to live a life that’s pleasing to God.
There are a lot of different names for all the different stripes of Mennonite. I grew up in the Amish Mennonite tradition. I got married, I moved a little bit. I ended up in a tiny bit different stripe. But at least in our communities, it’s not a big issue for me to go back to that tradition and say, here I am, what can I bring and what can I offer? So technically I’m not exactly the same stripe as the school, but I grew up in that stripe, if that makes sense.
I think the concept of moving a little bit along denominational lines, or even to sort of different expressions of one’s faith, would be quite familiar to many Jews.
I think that there are striking similarities between our communities here.
I think a lot of people understand who the Amish are and they understand who Mennonites are, but can you explain what an “Amish Mennonite” is? I know these boundaries can be fluid.
The Beachy Amish Mennonites care about traditions; we’re not throwing them out just because we want to move forward in a certain progressive way. Yet we are much more open to technology than what we call the Old Order Amish or Old Order Mennonite groups. When we use the term “Old Order,” we’re referring specifically to those groups that have said, “We’re going to welcome technology up until the 1800s or the early 1900s, and we’re going to maintain the horse and buggy style of life and so on.” [But Amish Mennonites] said, “No, we’re not actually against technology, we’re just hesitant to adopt everything new without testing it.” We care about probably many of the same traditional values that [Old Order groups] would, such as community and our church. And also just like they do, we put a great emphasis on our religion being a very practical religion. So it’s lived out in such a way that you can look at us and say, oh, they must have some reasons behind living a certain way.
How did you first come across this song, and what made you want to arrange it?
Anabaptists have a strong tradition of a cappella music, men and women singing together without the aid of instruments. We care very much about that: Every time we get together for a worship service, that’s how we sing.
We came across an a cappella cover of this song by Benny Friedman on Spotify and that really resonated with us. Not me personally, but some of these kids [in the choir] would actually be from a congregation that’s set limitations that you’re not even supposed to listen to instrumental music, so they could listen to this song.
And so they brought it to me last year at the Bible school and said, “Do you know this song?” And I said, “No, I’ve never heard of it.” I listened to it a bunch more and I realized why they liked it. It talks about some very universal questions that any kid who’s grown up in a tradition with God will have: Where are you? I’m told I need to come talk to you, but I don’t really want to. And as my relationship with God matures, it kind of develops into this realization that actually He’s been covering my back all this time and I never realized, so I really do want to stay on God’s team. Whether you’re an Orthodox Jew or you’re a conservative Mennonite, either way, as your relationship with God matures, those words really resonate and that progression really comes through in the song. So I thought, and my wife thought as well, that I should lead this song next year for these kids.
I have often taken music and arranged it to fit an a cappella group, and for some reason I just was not filled with any profound inspiration on how to do that for this song. So I asked a friend of mine named Wendell Glick [to arrange it.] He is a professional musician, he’s got a PhD in composition, he does this for a living. He’s also from [an Anabaptist] background, and led this choir for seven years before I did. So he knows this choir, which means he knows how to write music that stretches them just the right amount so that they do a good job of it. I really want to praise him for that.
He did a great job.
It worked for us. We’re only together for two and a half weeks, and we’re not professional musicians. Also, this choir is mandatory. That means 60% of the kids want to be there, 20% are OK with it, and 20% don’t like singing and they still have to be there. Actually, you can see [in the video recording] some of them are really feeling it and others are zoned out. And that’s OK!
For the first week [of practicing], we didn’t really like it. We’ve been very tainted by mainstream Christianity’s Protestant music that came in the 1850s, [whereas] this song has just a touch of minor key. It comes from a different culture, not quite what our mental ear hears. It took us a bit of time to get into it, but by the second week this was without a doubt the favorite song of my repertoire. Then at our local or in-house concerts, the audience just absolutely loved it. And when I say that, it’s not like we got a standing ovation; to us the highest compliment is when somebody says, “It made me worship God.” And those are the compliments we began hearing.
Did you ever have any interactions with Dovid Edell, who wrote the song?
Yes, I did. When I take a song, I make sure it’s licensed for use. I understand [Edell] had to get permission or talk with some rabbis to see whether it would be appropriate. And so he talked to the rabbis and then he called me up and I spoke to him about who wanted to sing it and I explained that the youth are all Christian. He was very nice about it and he said, “Just let them know that this was my conversation with God. It’s a personal song.” And I said, “That’s the basis on which it resonates with us as well.” He was gracious and let us use it.
Then when I was actually working with the students, I also communicated back to Dovid because he said, basically, “I have a few messages I want you to directly convey to the students.” Which made it very personal. Gen-Z loves to have some personal connection, right? When they perform a song, they love to have some personal connection to the composer. And that just made it for them. That was amazing.
Did you get any negative reactions?
I’m assuming — and I say this with respect because we also understand some of the traditions from the Torah — that some people found it offensive, that it’s a mix. Forgive me if I’m mispronouncing it, but I had never come across the kol isha idea so I was a bit sheepish that I walked into something without doing my research very well.
One of the things I care about is that people worry about pronunciation when they sing another language. One of my negatives is I did not ask Dovid how to pronounce “tatty.” I just kind of ran with it. In the future, I would probably be a little more careful about asking the original composer whether he wanted a certain emphasis and a pronunciation of certain words.
Did you realize how popular the video had become in the Orthodox world?
The lovely thing is the conductor is not mentioned in that video and you just see his back. So fortunately, from my viewpoint, very few people know who I am. If there’s any publicity here, I’m glad that the school gets it, because the school is blatantly about the glory of God. And to use a phrase that Dovid would have said, he just wants to spread light. So I want that to be the focus.
We read the comments, and I think I’d have two words to describe our reaction: First is delight, and second, we’re honored. We blatantly are Christians, not Jews, so we come at this and say this is a part of our maturity process to learn more about God’s son. But that being said, the song itself doesn’t speak whatsoever about the Messiah, it only talks about the relationship with God. And to us, it 110% resonated, just like it did for your community, so we are grateful that we could participate.
We care a lot about this school, but we understand it’s very arcane. All of 83 students were there this past term. Not many people know about it. So it was quite a thing that another community is interested in what we’re doing. But we also acknowledge that the song that we are singing is from that community. So yeah, it was kind of a good circle.
Did you have much familiarity with Jews and Judaism before this? Have you learned more about it through this experience?
Yes, we would have some familiarity. I hope I’m not coming across as cocky, but because we study Judaism, I think we actually have a bit more familiarity with Judaism than I think from what I read in the comments than they’d ever have with us. There are a lot of comments that were like, “Where did you get this song?” Well, guys, you put it on Spotify! But if you assume we’re all Old Order Amish that drive horse and buggy and don’t have Internet, then I can understand those questions. So I think we have some knowledge, although I had no idea about things like kol isha. Also, it was a surprise to all of us how much our performance of your song resonated with your community. I’m still not sure why.
I can think of two possibilities. One is that it’s just a very beautiful rendition, so it’s hard to imagine not being moved by it. But I also think Jews are often happily surprised to see a group of non-Jews embrace or respect a piece of Jewish culture, particularly Orthodox culture. A lot of the time, people anticipate negativity.
Well, that’s very nice of you to say. Those words really make me feel fuzzy and warm inside. We have great respect for your culture. We think God brought the Messiah through your people. I realize that differs from the understanding of many people who wrote comments, but we have profound appreciation and love for your people.
We understand that we are the white Christians and Christians have had thousands and thousands of years of fighting with the Jews. So I know it’s hard to say, “Well, we’re not like that.” But I think I can speak for all Anabaptists and say we would strongly differentiate ourselves and say no, one of our fundamental professions or distinctions is this idea of love for all man. In fact, we won’t even go to war because we love people. Again, it comes back to we are honored that you let us use it. We were tickled pink and I’ll be keeping my eyes open for other songs that I think could be used.
The post How an Amish Mennonite school in Arkansas went viral with a song by an Orthodox Jew appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk
The Iran war is strategically sound yet politically unsupported — an unstable foundation for a gamble that could reshape the Middle East. That creates danger for Israel, which needs the support of an American public that is rapidly drifting away.
For decades, the country’s greatest strategic asset has not been its military technology or intelligence capabilities — spectacular as these are — but rather the political, diplomatic and military backing of the United States. That relationship has not been merely transactional. It was supposed to rest on shared values and deep public support across the American political spectrum.
If that support erodes or disappears, Israel’s strategic environment will fundamentally change. To be blunt: it will not be able to arm its military. This creates a paradox. A campaign that has so far demonstrated extraordinary value for the Jewish state also stands a risk of fundamentally weakening it.
An alliance at its strongest
The conflict has showcased the depth of the current U.S.–Israel alliance. To many observers, and critically to Israel’s enemies, the operation has underscored not only Israel’s capabilities but also the reality that it stands alongside the world’s most powerful state.
The strikes have projected deep into Iranian territory, revealed astonishing intelligence penetration, and destroyed or degraded key threats. Israel’s enemies across the region have already been weakened by previous rounds of fighting since Oct. 7, and the current operation has reinforced the impression that Israel can reach its adversaries wherever they operate.
Moreover, Iran’s regime has managed to isolate itself to the point where most Arab countries are in effect on the side of Israel and the U.S. That projection — of an unbreakable and strong alliance – may ultimately be the most important strategic element of this war.
But therein lies the rub.
The political foundations of American support for Israel are eroding, which means the very element that currently strengthens Israel’s deterrence — American participation — may also be the one most at risk.
A just war, unjustified
Americans do not understand why their country is at war.
A Reuters/Ipsos survey conducted at the start of the conflict found only 27% of Americans supported the U.S. action, while 43% opposed it. Other surveys show similar results, with roughly six in ten Americans against the military intervention.
In modern American history that is highly unusual. Most wars begin with a “rally around the flag” moment when public support surges. Even conflicts that later became controversial — from Afghanistan to Iraq — initially enjoyed majority backing.
This one did not — in part because the case for it has not been made clearly to the public.
That error is compounded by years of polarization in American politics; declining trust in institutions and leadership; and the record of President Donald Trump, who has spent years spreading conspiracy theories and demonstrating a remarkable indifference to factual truth. It is no exaggeration to say that many Americans do not believe a word he says – which is perhaps unprecedented.
When a president with that record launches a war, at least half the country assumes the worst. Even if the strategic logic is sound, the credibility deficit remains.
The tragedy is that the war is, in fact, eminently justifiable. The Islamic Republic has long since forfeited the moral legitimacy that normally shields states from outside force. It brutally suppresses its own population, jailing and killing protesters, policing women’s bodies, and crushing dissent with an apparatus of repression. Its foreign policy is not defensive but revolutionary. Through proxy militias it has destabilized Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen, as well as the Palestinian areas, in some cases for decades.
The regime has pursued nuclear weapons through a series of transparent machinations, deceptions and brinkmanship. Negotiations have repeatedly been used as delaying tactics while enrichment continued. Any deal that relieved sanctions would not simply reduce tensions; it would also inject new resources into a system dedicated both to repression at home and aggression abroad — one that is despised by the vast majority of its own people, as murderous dictatorships inevitably will be.
There is a doctrine in international law known as the Responsibility to Protect — the principle that when a state systematically brutalizes its own population, the international community may have the right, even the obligation, to act. By that standard, the Iranian regime has been skating on thin ice for years.
But with this clear rationale left uncommunicated, the politically dangerous perception has spread that the U.S. was reacting to Israel rather than acting on its own strategic judgment.
A perilous future
If Americans come to believe that Israel caused a costly war that they did not support in the first place, the backlash could be severe.
For centuries, one of the most persistent antisemitic tropes has been the accusation that Jews manipulate powerful states into fighting wars on their behalf. The suggestion that Israel can pull the U.S. into conflict feeds directly into that mythology. Once such perceptions take hold, they can be extremely difficult to reverse.
Even people who reject antisemitism outright can absorb a softer version of the same idea: that American interests are being subordinated to Israeli ones. In a political environment already marked by growing skepticism toward Israel, that perception risks deepening the erosion of support that has been underway for years.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio seemed to inadvertently feed such notions by suggesting in recent days that the U.S. had to attack Iran because Israel was going to do so “anyway,” and then America would have been a target. It was a short path from that to conspiracy theorists like Tucker Carlson blaming Chabad for the war.
A future Democratic president, facing a base that appears to have abandoned Israel, may feel far less obligation to defend it diplomatically or militarily. Even a Republican successor could prove unreliable if the party continues its drift toward isolationism.
That likelihood is compounded by studies showing that a large part of the U.S. Jewish community itself no longer backs Zionism. That process is driven by Israel’s own policies, including the West Bank occupation and the deadly brutality of the war in Gaza.
So the very war that is showcasing the best the U.S.-Israel alliance has to offer is also at risk of fundamentally damaging that partnership. Particularly if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — the rightful object of much American ire — manipulates the Iran campaign into an electoral victory this year, the alliance’s greatest success could also be its undoing.
The post War with Iran puts the US-Israel alliance at grave risk appeared first on The Forward.
Uncategorized
Report: Iran’s New Military Plan Is Regime Survival Through Regional Escalation
Members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) attend an IRGC ground forces military drill in the Aras area, East Azerbaijan province, Iran, Oct. 17, 2022. Photo: IRGC/WANA (West Asia News Agency)/Handout via REUTERS
i24 News – After last year’s devastating conflict with the United States and Israel, Iranian leaders have reportedly adopted a major strategic shift aimed at expanding the war across the Middle East to secure the regime’s survival, according to the Wall Street Journal.
Previously, Iran responded to foreign strikes with limited, targeted reprisals. The new doctrine abandons that approach, aiming instead to escalate the conflict regionally, particularly against Gulf Arab states and critical economic infrastructure. The goal is to disrupt the global economy and pressure Washington into shortening the war.
This decision followed the twelve-day war with Israel in June 2025, during which Israeli and US strikes eliminated senior Iranian military leaders, destroyed key air defense systems, and severely damaged nuclear facilities. In response, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—before his elimination early in the current conflict—activated a strategy designed to maintain continuity even if top commanders were neutralized.
Central to this approach is the so-called “mosaic defense” doctrine: a decentralized military structure in which the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) operates through multiple regional command centers. Each center can conduct operations independently, allowing local commanders to continue fighting even if national leadership is incapacitated. This makes the military apparatus more resilient to targeted strikes.
Analysts cited by the Wall Street Journal suggest that Tehran’s calculation is to make the conflict costly enough for all parties to force the US and its allies into a diplomatic resolution.
However, the plan carries enormous risks. By escalating attacks on regional states and international economic interests, Iran could provoke a broader coalition against itself. Despite prior military losses, Iranian forces retain the capability to launch drone and missile strikes, maintaining their influence over the ongoing conflict.
For Iranian leaders, the immediate priority remains unchanged: the survival of the regime, even if it requires a major regional escalation.
Uncategorized
Katz Warns Lebanon to Disarm Hezbollah or ‘Pay a Heavy Price’
Israel’s Defense Minister Israel Katz and his Greek counterpart Nikos Dendias make statements to the press, at the Ministry of Defense in Athens Greece, Jan. 20, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Louisa Gouliamaki
i24 News – Israeli Defense Minister Israel Katz on Saturday warned Lebanon’s leadership that it must act to disarm Hezbollah and enforce existing agreements, cautioning that failure to do so could lead to severe consequences for the Lebanese state.
Speaking after a high-level security assessment with senior military officials, Katz directed a message to Lebanese President Joseph Aoun, saying Beirut had committed to enforcing an agreement requiring Hezbollah’s disarmament but had failed to follow through.
“You pledged to uphold the agreement and disarm Hezbollah — and this is not happening,” Katz said. “Act and enforce it before we do even more.”
The meeting took place in Israel’s military command center and included Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Eyal Zamir and other senior defense officials, as Israel continues operations on multiple fronts.
Katz emphasized that Israel would not tolerate attacks on its communities or soldiers from Lebanese territory.
“We will not allow harm to our communities or to our soldiers,” he said. “If the choice is between protecting our citizens and soldiers or protecting the State of Lebanon, we will choose our citizens and soldiers — and the Lebanese government and Lebanon will pay a very heavy price.”
The defense minister also referenced Hezbollah’s leadership, warning that the group’s current chief could lead Lebanon into further destruction.
“If Hassan Nasrallah destroyed Lebanon, then Naim Qassem will destroy it as well,” Katz said.
Katz stressed that Israel has no territorial ambitions in Lebanon but said it would not accept a return to the years in which Hezbollah launched repeated attacks on Israel from Lebanese territory.
“We have no territorial claims against Lebanon,” he said. “But we will not allow Lebanese territory to again become a platform for attacks against the State of Israel.”
He concluded with a warning to Lebanese authorities to take action against Hezbollah before Israel escalates its response.
“Do and act before we do even more,” Katz said.