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 Sends Additional Arms to Israel to Sustain Iran Operations
The first of two Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) interceptors is launched during a successful intercept test. Photo: US Army.
i24 News – The United States has recently increased shipments of munitions to Israel to support ongoing Israeli air operations against Iran.
According to reports broadcast by the public radio network Kan Reshet Bet, several weapons deliveries have arrived in Israel in recent days as part of what officials describe as an ongoing airlift aimed at sustaining the pace of military strikes.
Since the start of the campaign, Israeli forces are believed to have dropped more than 11,000 bombs on targets across Iran.
The shipments come as reports emerge about a potential shortage of ballistic missile interceptors in Israel. US officials told the news outlet Semafor that Israel’s interceptor stockpiles have been heavily used during the conflict.
According to those sources, Washington had already been aware for months that supplies could become strained, though it remains unclear whether the United States would be willing to share its own interceptor reserves. Israeli officials have since rejected claims that such a shortage exists.
Unlike the Iron Dome, which is designed to intercept short-range rockets and projectiles, ballistic missile interceptors serve as Israel’s primary defense against long-range missile threats. Fighter jets can also be used to attempt interceptions, though this method is considered a supplementary measure to missile defense systems.
Meanwhile, the Israeli government has taken additional budgetary steps to support the war effort. During an overnight vote between Saturday and Sunday, ministers approved a roughly 1 billion shekel reduction across various ministry budgets to help finance classified military purchases linked to Operation “Roar of the Lion.”
The government had already approved a 3 percent cut in ministry budgets, a move expected to increase the defense budget by approximately 30 billion shekels as the conflict continues.
Uncategorized
Pope Leo Decries ‘Atrocious Violence’ in Iran War, Urges Ceasefire
Pope Leo XIV leads the Angelus prayer from a window of the Apostolic Palace, at the Vatican, March 15, 2026. Photo: REUTERS/Matteo Minnella
Pope Leo made an impassioned plea on Sunday for an immediate ceasefire in the expanding Iran war, lamenting “atrocious violence” that he said had killed thousands of non-combatants and caused suffering across the region.
As the US-Israeli war on Iran enters its third week, the first US pope warned that violence would not bring the justice, stability and peace that the peoples of the region long for.
“For two weeks, the peoples of the Middle East have been suffering the atrocious violence of war,” the pope said at his weekly Angelus prayer in St. Peter’s Square.
“In the name of Christians in the Middle East and of all women and men of good will, I appeal to those responsible for this conflict: Cease fire!” Pope Leo said.
IDEA THAT WAR SOLVES PROBLEMS IS ‘ABSURD’
Leo added that the situation in Lebanon – ravaged by a war between Israel and the Iran-backed Lebanese group Hezbollah – was also a cause of “great concern.”
“I hope for paths of dialogue that can support the country’s authorities in implementing lasting solutions to the serious crisis currently underway, for the common good of all the Lebanese people,” the pope said.
During a visit to a Rome parish later, the pope said war could never resolve problems and hit out at people who invoke God to justify killings.
“Today many of our brothers and sisters in the world are suffering because of violent conflicts, caused by the absurd claim that problems and disagreements can be resolved through war, when instead we must engage in unceasing dialogue for peace,” he said during his homily.
“Some even go so far as to invoke the name of God to justify these choices of death, but God cannot be enlisted by darkness. Rather, He always comes to bring light, hope and peace to humanity.”
Uncategorized
US, China Economic Chiefs Meet in Paris to Clear Path to Trump-Xi Summit
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping talk as they leave after a bilateral meeting at Gimhae International Airport, on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit, in Busan, South Korea, Oct. 30, 2025. Photo: REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
Top US and Chinese economic officials wrapped up the first of two days of talks in Paris on Sunday to iron out kinks in their trade truce and clear a path for US President Donald Trump’s trip to Beijing to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at the end of March.
The discussions, led by US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, were expected to focus on shifting US tariffs, the flow of Chinese-produced rare earth minerals and magnets to US buyers, American high-tech export controls and Chinese purchases of US agricultural products.
The two sides met for more than six hours at the Paris headquarters of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, with talks to resume on Monday morning, a Treasury spokesperson said. China is not a member of the club of 38 mostly wealthy democracies and considers itself a developing country.
The spokesperson did not provide any details on the tone or substance of the talks, and Chinese officials left the OECD without speaking to reporters.
US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, who is participating in the talks, said on Friday that US officials want to ensure stability in the US-China relationship.
“We want to make sure that we continue to get the rare earths we need for our manufacturing base, that they keep buying the kinds of things they should be buying from us, and that the leaders have a chance to get together and make sure that the relationship is going the way we want it to go,” Greer told CNBC before departing for Paris.
The talks between Bessent, He, Greer and China trade negotiator Li Chenggang follow a string of their meetings in European cities last year to ease trade tensions that threatened a near collapse of trade between the world’s two largest economies.
US-China trade analysts said that with little time to prepare and Washington’s attention focused on the US-Israeli war on Iran, prospects for a major trade breakthrough are limited, in Paris or at the Beijing summit.
“Both sides, I think have a minimum goal of having a meeting, which sort of keeps things together and avoids a rupture and re-escalation of tensions,” said Scott Kennedy, a China economics expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Trump may want to come away from Beijing with major Chinese commitments to order new Boeing aircraft and buy more US liquefied natural gas and soybeans, but to get that he may need to offer some concession on US export controls, Kennedy added.
Trump and Xi could potentially meet three other times this year, including at a China-hosted APEC summit in November and a US-hosted G20 summit in December that could yield more tangible progress.
IRAN WAR OIL CONCERNS
The Iran war will likely come up at the Paris talks, especially in reference to the spike in oil prices and the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, through which China gets 45 percent of its oil. Bessent on Thursday announced a 30-day waiver of sanctions to allow the sale of Russian oil stranded at sea in tankers, a move to raise supplies.
On Saturday, Trump urged other nations to help protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, after Washington bombed military targets on Iran’s Kharg Island oil loading hub and Iran threatened to retaliate.
“Meaningful” progress in Sino‑US economic cooperation could restore confidence to an increasingly fragile global economy, China’s state-run Xinhua news agency said in a commentary on Sunday.
TRADE TRUCE REVIEW
The two sides are expected to review their progress in meeting commitments under the October 2025 trade truce declared by Trump and Xi in Busan, South Korea. The deal forestalled a major flare-up in tensions, trimmed US tariffs on Chinese imports, and paused for a year China’s draconian export controls on rare earths. It also paused the expansion of a US blacklist of Chinese companies banned from buying high-technology US goods such as semiconductor manufacturing equipment.
China also agreed to buy 12 million metric tons of US soybeans during the 2025 marketing year and 25 million tons in the 2026 season, which will start with the autumn harvest.
US officials, including Bessent, have said China has so far met its commitments under the Busan deal, citing soybean purchases that met initial goals.
But while some industries are receiving rare earth exports from China, which dominates global production, US aerospace and semiconductor companies are not and are facing worsening shortages of key materials, including yttrium, used in heat-resistant coatings for jet engines.
“US priorities will likely be about agricultural purchases by China and greater access to Chinese rare earths in the short term” at the Paris talks, said William Chou, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a Washington think tank.
NEW TRADE PROBES
Greer and Bessent also bring a new irritant to the Paris talks, a “Section 301” investigation into unfair trade practices targeting China and 15 other major trading partners over alleged excess industrial capacity that could lead to a new round of tariffs within months. Greer also launched a similar probe into alleged forced labor practices in 60 countries, including China, that could ban certain imports into the US.
The probes aim to rebuild tariff pressure on trading partners after the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s global tariffs under an emergency law as illegal. The ruling effectively reduced Trump’s tariffs on Chinese goods by 20 percentage points, but he immediately imposed a 10 percent global tariff under another trade law.
China on Friday denounced the probes and said it reserved the right to take countermeasures. An editorial by state-run China Daily added that the probes were representative of unilateral actions that complicate negotiations.
“The new round of talks is both an opportunity and a test,” Xinhua said.
“Whether the upcoming talks can achieve progress will largely depend on the U.S. side. Washington needs to approach the negotiations with a rational and pragmatic mindset and act in line with the principles that underpin stable China-US economic relations.”