Uncategorized
More than 8,500 people have donated to support Mississippi synagogue damaged in arson attack
Zach Shemper never expected to spend Shabbat on the bimah of one of the largest congregations in America, but that’s where the president of Mississippi’s largest synagogue, which was damaged in an arson attack two weeks ago, found himself on Friday night.
After the fire at Beth Israel in Jackson, Shemper was invited to Central Synagogue in Manhattan — and then, hours later, was speaking before another congregation hundreds of miles away — carrying a story he never expected to tell before returning on Saturday to Jackson, where a winter storm forced the shul to cancel Sunday school.
Shemper, 45, said the trip to New York came together with startling speed. After learning that Central Synagogue had helped raise a substantial donation for Beth Israel, he called Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the head of the Union for Reform Judaism, and asked him to reach out to Central’s senior rabbi, Angela Buchdahl. Within minutes, Buchdahl called on Tuesday to invite Shemper to speak before Central’s congregation — and the thousands more who tune in to its weekly livestream. By Friday, he was on the plane.
For a small Southern congregation with fewer than 150 member households, the invitation signaled how quickly a local antisemitic attack had become a national Jewish concern.
Beth Israel was targeted earlier this month by Stephen Spencer Pittman, authorities say, a 19-year-old whose interest in Christianity and fitness may have led him to antisemitic messages online. The fire destroyed the synagogue’s library and offices, burned Torah scrolls and books, and sent smoke and soot through the sanctuary.
“It’s not like I signed up for this,” Shemper said in an interview. “For a small congregation in Jackson, Mississippi — it’s amazing what’s happening.”
Shemper’s New York trip also included a meeting with Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, who met him at his hotel for about an hour before services. They spoke, Shemper said, about antisemitism, security and “the strength of the Jewish people.”
Central Synagogue — a flagship Reform congregation whose reach extends far beyond New York — has its own history with fire. In 1998, a blaze severely damaged its landmark building on Lexington Avenue, forcing the congregation to rebuild — a history Shemper referenced as he stood before the congregation.
During the Friday night service, Shemper participated in the Torah procession and was given an aliyah, a ritual gesture of public honor and solidarity.
Speaking from the bimah, Shemper said the attack in Jackson was meant to do more than cause physical damage. “They’re meant to strike fear in an entire community, to make it want to hide, to make it feel isolated and alone.”
Buchdahl framed the congregation’s response as an expression of Jewish peoplehood that transcends geography, a theme she returned to in her sermon that evening. She cited Shemper’s visit as a reminder that Jewish communities remain bound to one another, and that when one is attacked, others are called to walk alongside it.
Early Saturday morning, Shemper flew to Florida, where he addressed the Palm Beach Synagogue, a Modern Orthodox congregation.
“Within 15 minutes of my arrival, they had me on the pulpit speaking,” he said. After services, he stayed for a luncheon and a question-and-answer session before heading back to the airport.
The rebuilding effort
Shemper said he has been careful about how he describes the financial response to the fire. More than 8,500 people have donated so far, he said — unsolicited.
“We haven’t asked anybody for anything,” Shemper said. “Everything that’s been given to us has been from the kindness of strangers — Jews and not — reaching out and saying, ‘How can we help?’”
The focus now, he said, is on rebuilding. Engineers have determined that the sanctuary walls are structurally sound. But the ceiling throughout the building will need to be replaced because of smoke damage, and much of the rest of the structure — including administrative offices and the library — will have to be demolished. The timeline, he said, is likely one-and-a-half to three years.
In the meantime, Beth Israel will be housed at nearby Northminster Baptist Church, a return of a favor decades in the making. In the 1960s, when Northminster was being built, Beth Israel hosted the church’s services.
In the immediate aftermath of the fire, many churches reached out to offer their spaces. The shul thought they would move every few months so as not to overstay their welcome. But Northminster’s congregation had other ideas.
“They came back to us and said, ‘We’d like to house you for the interim,’” Shemper said. “My initial response — after crying — was to say no. But we were wandering Jews for many years. We’d rather do less of that these days.”
Any donations that exceed the cost of restoring the building, Shemper said, will be placed into an endowment to support Jewish life in Jackson for generations to come.
“If the kindness keeps coming,” he said, “we’ll be able to support four or five generations. Maybe more.”
Despite the upheaval, Shemper said the fire has ignited something unexpected.
“There’s been a spark of Jewish identity with Jews all over the world,” he said. “We’re focusing on seeing the light through the darkness. We’re moving forward.”
The post More than 8,500 people have donated to support Mississippi synagogue damaged in arson attack 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.