Uncategorized
Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it?
(JTA) — I was a remote worker long before the pandemic made it a thing, but it was only last month that I really took advantage of it. Early on the morning of New Year’s Day, I boarded a plane from Connecticut bound for Mexico, where I spent a full month sleeping in thatch-roofed palapas, eating more tacos than was probably wise and bathing every day in the Pacific. I’ll spare you the glorious details, but suffice it to say, it wasn’t a bad way to spend a January.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, I found myself again and again coming into contact with expats who had traded in their urban lives in northern climes for a more laid-back life in the tropics. There was the recently divorced motorcycle enthusiast slowly wending his way southward by bike as he continued to work a design job for a major American bank. There was the yoga instructor born not far from where I live in Massachusetts who owned an open-air rooftop studio just steps from the waves. There were the countless couples who had chosen to spend their days running beachfront bars or small hotels on the sand. And then there were the seemingly endless number and variety of middle-aged northerners rebooting their lives in perpetual sunshine.
Such people have long mystified me. It’s not hard to understand the lure of beachside living, and part of me envies the freedom to design your own life from the ground up. But there’s also something scary about it. Arriving in middle age in a country where you know nobody, whose language is not your own, whose laws and cultural mores, seasons and flora, are all unfamiliar — it feels like the essence of shallow-rootedness, like a life devoid of all the things that give one (or at least me) a sense of comfort and security and place. The thought of exercising the right to live literally anywhere and any way I choose opens up a space so vast and limitless it provokes an almost vertiginous fear of disconnection and a life adrift.
Clearly, this feeling isn’t universally shared. And the fact that I have it probably owes a lot to my upbringing. I grew up in an Orthodox family, which by necessity meant life was lived in a fairly small bubble. Our house was within walking distance of our synagogue, as it had to be since walking was the only way to get there on Shabbat and holidays. I attended a small Jewish day school, where virtually all of my friends came from families with similar religious commitments. Keeping kosher and the other constraints of a religious life had a similarly narrowing effect on the horizons of my world and thus my sense of life’s possibilities. Or at least that’s how it often felt.
What must it be like — pardon the non-kosher expression — to feel as if the world is your oyster? That you could live anywhere, love anyone, eat anything and make your life whatever you want it to be? Thrilling, yes — but also frightening. The sense of boundless possibility I could feel emanating from those sun-baked Mexicans-by-choice was seductive, but tempered by aversion to a life so unmoored.
The tension between freedom and obligation is baked into Jewish life. The twin poles of our national narrative are the Exodus from Egypt and the revelation at Sinai, each commemorated by festivals separated by exactly seven weeks in the calendar, starting with Passover. The conventional understanding is that this juxtaposition isn’t accidental. God didn’t liberate the Israelites from slavery so they could live free of encumbrances on the Mayan Riviera. Freedom had a purpose, expressed in the giving of the Torah at Sinai, with all its attendant rules and restrictions and obligations. Freedom is a central value of Jewish life — Jews are commanded to remember the Exodus every day. But Jewish freedom doesn’t mean the right to live however you want.
Except it might mean the right to live any place you want. In the 25th chapter of Leviticus, God gives the Israelites the commandment of the Jubilee year, known as yovel in Hebrew. Observed every 50 years in biblical times, the Jubilee has many similarities to the shmita (sabbatical) year, but with some additional rituals. The text instructs: “And you shall hallow the 50th year. You shall proclaim liberty throughout the land for all its inhabitants. It shall be a jubilee for you: each of you shall return to your holding and each of you shall return to your family.”
Among the requirements of the Jubilee was that ancestral lands be returned to their original owners. Yet the word for liberty is a curious one: “d’ror.” The Talmud explains its etymology this way: “It is like a man who dwells [medayer] in any dwelling and moves merchandise around the entire country” (Rosh Hashanah 9b).
The liberty of the Jubilee year could thus be said to have two contrary meanings — individuals had the right to return to their ancestral lands, but they were also free not to. They could live in any dwelling they chose. The sense of liberty connoted by the biblical text is a specifically residential one: the freedom to live where one chooses. Which pretty well describes the world we live in today. Jewish ancestral lands are freely available to any Jew who wants to live there. And roughly half the Jews of the world choose not to.
Clearly, I’m among them. And while I technically could live anywhere, I’m pretty sure I don’t want to. I like where I live — not because of any particular qualities of this place, though I do love its seasons and its smells and its proximity to the people I care about and the few weeks every fall when the trees become a riotous kaleidoscope. But mostly because it’s mine.
A version of this essay appeared in My Jewish Learning’s Recharge Shabbat newsletter. Subscribe here.
—
The post Judaism doesn’t want you to wander and live just anywhere — or does it? appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
US Lawmakers Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Condemning Antisemitic Rhetoric by Candace Owens, Hasan Piker
Right-wing political commentator Candace Owens speaks during an event held by national conservative political movement ‘Turning Point’, in Detroit, Michigan, US, June 14, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
US Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ) and Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced a bipartisan resolution on Wednesday that condemns “antisemitic, hate-filled rhetoric and content” promoted by online streamer Hasan Piker and podcaster Candace Owens.
The resolution addresses the growing influence of online personalities around the world, as well as the global rise in antisemitism in recent years fueled partially by “online disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist rhetoric.” It calls on social media platforms and public leaders to denounce and take action against hatred.
“The rise of digital media platforms has enabled individuals with large audiences to disseminate disinformation, commentary, and political viewpoints to millions of viewers worldwide,” the resolution states. “Such influence carries a heightened responsibility to avoid rhetoric that promotes hatred, violence, or discrimination against any group, including Jewish individuals and communities.”
The resolution lists several hateful comments from both Piker and Owens.
Piker has repeatedly expressed support for Hamas and even said “it doesn’t matter” if sexual assault took place during the terrorist group’s Oct. 7, 2023, invasion of and massacre across southern Israel.
Owens is notorious for promoting antisemitic conspiracy theories, tropes, and blood libels about Judaism, Jewish figures, and Israel. She has claimed, for example, that Israel controls the US government and has also downplayed and denied verified details about the Holocaust.
The resolution states that efforts to “downplay or excuse antisemitic rhetoric under the guise of political commentary should be rejected.”
“Piker has openly applauded Hamas’ terrorism, downplayed the mass rape of civilians on Oct. 7, and dehumanized Orthodox Jews as ‘inbred,’” Lawler said in a statement. “Owens has trafficked in vile conspiracy theories, promoted blood libels, and platformed Holocaust deniers. With an audience of millions, they have a responsibility to confront hatred and bigotry in every form, not to amplify it to the masses. So, if they won’t call it out, I will.”
“Hatred is hatred, period,” Gottheimer added. “It doesn’t matter whether it comes from the far right or the far left. We cannot be selective in calling out antisemitism. When influential voices spread conspiracy theories, promote terrorism, or dehumanize Jewish people, it fuels real-world violence and intimidation. We must stand up and speak out.”
“I get that speaking up is not easy, but our constituents didn’t elect us to always take the easy path,” he noted. “That’s what principled leadership is all about.”
Owens has not publicly commented on the resolution, but Piker condemned it in a statement to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA).
“They are once again conflating legitimate critics of Israel with actual antisemites,” he said. “They would rather complain about fake antisemitism in defense of Israel than call out the real sources of Jew hatred with a full chest. I have spent my entire career combating all forms of bigotry including antisemitism and will continue to do so in spite [of] this cynical ploy to satisfy donors.”
Uncategorized
Peru’s President Under Fire Over Antisemitic Remarks Blaming Jews for ‘Pushing’ Germany Into World War II
José María Balcázar was elected as acting president of Peru on Feb. 18, 2026, and will serve until July 28, when the winner of the presidential elections takes office. Photo: ULAN/Pool / Latin America News Agency via Reuters Connect
Peru’s interim president, José María Balcázar, has sparked global outrage after claiming that Jews helped “push” Germany into World War II, drawing mounting calls from world leaders and advocacy groups to retract his remarks and issue a formal apology over what critics condemn as deeply antisemitic.
During a speech marking the 138th anniversary of the Chamber of Commerce of Lima, the Peruvian leader — who assumed power after Congress appointed him to replace ousted former president José Jerí amid corruption allegations — cited The Enemies of Commerce by Antonio Escohotado, invoking its arguments while amplifying long-discredited antisemitic tropes.
“It is a monument to the history of commerce: how bills of exchange were born, how international trade moved, what role Jews played in Germany’s national and international trade, how Germany was pushed into World War II, also partly because of the Jews, because they controlled all the banks, all the commerce, and practiced usury,” Balcázar said.
“All these historical details need to be remembered through Escohotado, so that we can better prepare ourselves and understand the history and hardships of those dedicated to commerce. It is truly interesting,” the left-leaning lawmaker and former judge continued.
Shortly after Balcázar’s remarks gained widespread media attention, leaders of Peru’s Jewish community, opposition figures, and officials from Israel and Germany, as well as other foreign diplomats, swiftly condemned his statements, demanding that he retract them and issue an unequivocal public apology.
In a joint statement, the embassies of Israel and Germany in Peru condemned Balcázar’s claims as “absurd, historically untenable, and a violation of the memory of millions of German Jewish citizens murdered by the Nazis.”
“It should be remembered that Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime initiated World War II with the invasion of Poland in 1939. Nazi ideology, rooted in racism and antisemitism, not only discriminated against Jewish citizens but also led to the murder of six million Jews in concentration camps,” the statement read.
“The Holocaust must never be trivialized under any circumstances,” it continued.
Israel claramente rechaza en conjunto con Alemania, toda forma de Antisemitismo.@Agencia_Andina @PresidenciaPE @CancilleriaPeru pic.twitter.com/gnzZ3d1PTt
— Israel En Peru (@IsraelinPeru) April 29, 2026
The Jewish Association of Peru (AJP) also denounced the remarks, describing them as a dangerous revival of “outdated antisemitic theories,” and warning against the spread of such narratives.
“It is shocking that, in the 21st century, arguments reminiscent of the darkest medieval eras are still being used to blame victims of the Holocaust for their own persecution,” AJP said in a statement.
Amid growing domestic and international pressure, the government issued a statement expressing regret that the comments had “created a mistaken perception regarding the Jewish people in the context of the outbreak of World War II.”
“The Peruvian state has consistently maintained that Nazi fanaticism was the driving force behind the war and the perpetrator of the unforgivable genocide against the Jewish people. This longstanding position, which also led Peru to firmly support the creation of Israel, remains unchanged,” the statement read.
“President José María Balcázar strongly condemns the genocide perpetrated against the Jewish people during World War II, reaffirms his rejection of antisemitism and all forms of discrimination, and expresses his solidarity with the victims of the Holocaust,” it continued.
Balcázar will serve as interim president until July 28, when the winner of this year’s presidential election takes office.
Uncategorized
Lebanon’s Internal Splits Over Talks With Israel Trip Up Saudi Mediation Efforts
An Israeli military vehicle drives past destroyed buildings in Lebanon, as seen from the Israeli side of the Israel-Lebanon border, April 30, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Shir Torem
A growing rift between top Lebanese officials has thrown a wrench into Saudi efforts to help Lebanon’s leaders forge a united position over historic negotiations with Israel, Lebanese sources and foreign officials told Reuters on Thursday.
Saudi Arabia, which sponsored the 1990 agreement that ended Lebanon’s 15-year civil war, has deepened its engagement in recent days with Lebanon, where a shaky US-brokered ceasefire has failed to fully halt the nearly two-month war between Israel and Iran-backed terrorist group Hezbollah.
Ties between Riyadh and Beirut had been strained for years due to Hezbollah’s power over Lebanese politics and security, but the Sunni kingdom sees an opening after the group was severely weakened by war with Israel in 2024.
The US intended for the April 16 truce between Israel and Lebanon to allow for direct talks on a peace deal, potentially shaking up Lebanon’s internal dynamics and its role in the region. But Lebanese leaders remain at odds over the negotiation format and ultimate goal.
Lebanon’s President Joseph Aoun has defended face-to-face talks with Israel in Washington, and has said the ceasefire should be transformed into “permanent agreements.” Although he has stopped short of explicitly calling for a peace deal, two sources familiar with Aoun’s position told Reuters he had privately expressed his readiness to normalize ties with Israel to stop the war.
Speaker of Parliament Nabih Berri, a Hezbollah ally, is opposed to direct talks, reflecting the Shi’ite terrorist group‘s position. Berri believes Lebanon should seek a non-aggression pact with Israel but not a full peace deal, two Lebanese sources familiar with his position told Reuters.
PLANS DERAILED
Last week, Saudi envoy to Lebanon Prince Yazid bin Farhan visited Beirut to encourage Aoun, Berri, and Lebanese Prime Minister Nawaf Salam to set out a single position on the talks and to signal their unity through a tripartite meeting, according to two senior Lebanese political sources who met with bin Farhan and a Western official briefed on the talks.
But plans to hold such a meeting this week were derailed by rising tensions, all three sources said, after Berri publicly accused Aoun of making statements about negotiations that were “inaccurate, to say the least.”
There was no immediate response to requests for comment from Aoun’s office or from the Saudi government media office. Aoun met Salam on Thursday, the presidency said in a statement, without mentioning Berri.
The splits between Aoun and Berri, who hold their positions according to a power-sharing system that divides Lebanon’s top posts by religion, reflect broader divisions within Lebanese society over the negotiations with Israel.
Some Lebanese see direct talks and a swift peace deal as the only way to end a long history of Israeli invasions into Lebanon.
But Hezbollah and much of its broader Shi’ite Muslim constituency, who have borne the brunt of Israel‘s attacks, are firmly opposed to face-to-face talks and to normalizing ties. Some people protesting against talks earlier this month called for the government to be toppled.
Saudi Arabia’s intervention with Lebanese leaders was driven by the risk of such instability – as well as its concern that Lebanon was moving towards peace with Israel too swiftly, according to a Gulf source with knowledge of the matter, the two senior Lebanese political sources and the Western official.
Bin Farhan sought and received reassurances that Hezbollah would not seek to topple the Lebanese government, and cautioned Lebanese leaders last week that Beirut’s progress towards peace with Israel should not outpace Saudi Arabia’s, the four sources said.
Riyadh’s longstanding position has been that it will only sign up to the Abraham Accords normalizing ties with Israel if there is agreement on a roadmap to Palestinian statehood.
SAUDI KEEN FOR ‘DETENTE’ BETWEEN LEBANON AND ISRAEL
US President Donald Trump, keen to expand the accords, said this month he would invite Aoun and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to the White House for talks.
Bin Farhan advised Lebanese authorities against Aoun meeting Netanyahu soon, the two senior Lebanese political sources said.
However, Saudi Arabia does want Lebanon to work towards a “detente” with Israel that would halt instability, the Gulf source and one of the Lebanese sources said.
Israeli strikes have killed more than 2,500 people in Lebanon and displaced more than 1.2 million since the latest round of fighting between Israel and Hezbollah began on March 2, according to Lebanese authorities. Israel says the vast majority of those killed have been Hezbollah terrorists, who started the conflict by firing drones and rockets at the Jewish state.
The April 16 truce, which facilitated separate negotiations over the Iran war, stopped strikes on Beirut and its southern suburbs but not on other parts of Lebanon.