Uncategorized
Why your synagogue, and mine, needs a pickleball court
(JTA) — The weekday minyan at my synagogue has been moved from the sanctuary to its airy social hall. And whenever I attend I have the same lofty thought: This would make a great pickleball court.
Pickleball, the subject of countless breathless articles calling it the fastest growing sport in America, is essentially tennis for people with terrible knees. Players use hard paddles to knock a wiffle ball across a net, on a court about a third as big as a tennis court. It’s weirdly addictive, and because the usual game is doubles and the court is so small, it’s pleasantly social. I play on a local court (I won’t say where, because it’s hard enough to get playing time), where a nice little society has formed among the regulars.
“A nice little society among the regulars” is also how I might describe a synagogue. Or at least that’s the argument I fantasize making before my synagogue board, in a “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”-style speech that will convince them to let me set up a net in the social hall so I can play in the dead of winter. I dream of doing for synagogues and pickleball what Rabbi Mordecai Kaplan, the founder of Reconstructionist Judaism, did for shuls and pools: He popularized the notion of “synagogue-centers” that would include prayer services as well as adult ed, Hebrew schools, theater, athletics and, yes, swimming pools.
I might even quote David Kaufman, who wrote a history of the synagogue-center movement called “Shul With a Pool”: “Kaplan was the first to insist that the synagogue remain the hub from which other communal functions derive. Only then might the synagogue fulfill its true purpose: the fostering of Jewish community.”
Alas, the title “Mordecai Kaplan of Pickleball” may have to go to Rabbi Alex Lazarus-Klein of Congregation Shir Shalom, a combined Reform and Reconstructionist synagogue near Buffalo, New York — which knows from winter. Last week he sent me a charming essay saying that his synagogue has begun twice-weekly pickleball nights in its social hall. About 40 members showed up on its first night in November, and it’s been steady ever since.
“When my synagogue president presented the idea during High Holy Day services, many of our members rolled their eyes,” Lazarus-Klein, 49, wrote. But the rabbi counters by citing Kaplan and paraphrasing one of his forebears, Rabbi Henry Berkowitz, a 19th-century Reform rabbi who encouraged synagogues in the 1880s “to create programming related to physical training, education, culture, and entertainment to help better compete with social clubs. Over the years, synagogues have experimented with all types of sports activities including bowling, basketball, and, more recently, Gaga. Why not pickleball as well?”
Lazarus-Klein also told me in an interview that his synagogue doesn’t do catering, so the “social hall just sits empty except for High Holidays or bigger events.”
“Our buildings were built for just a few times a year. It’s a shame,” he said. “We have tried as a congregation to get our building more use. We rent to a preschool, we have canasta groups, we have adult education. But for large swaths [of time], especially the social hall is just completely empty.”
Lazarus-Klein wrote that the pickleball sessions have attracted regular synagogue-goers, as well as “many others who had never been to any other synagogue event outside of High Holy Days.”
The players also cross generations, including the rabbi’s 9- and 12-year- old sons and congregants as old as 70. “With a little ingenuity and a few hundred dollars, our empty social hall is suddenly filled several nights a week.”
I offered the rabbi two other arguments for in-shul pickling. First, hosting pickleball honors the spirit of any synagogue that has “Shalom” in its name: By bringing the court under its roof, the synagogue avoids the turf battles between tennis players and picklers that are playing out, sometimes violently, in places across the country.
And I shared with Lazarus-Klein my obsession with the synagogue as a “third place” — sociologist Ray Oldenburg’s idea of public places “that host the regular, voluntary, informal and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals beyond the realms of home and work.”
“That’s a great way of thinking of it,” said Lazarus-Klein. “I think our membership does kind of use it that way. It’s another base, not where they’re working and not where their home is, where they can feel at home.”
The “shul with a pool” has long been derided by traditionalists who say the extracurriculars detract from the religious function of synagogues. Kaufman quotes Israel Goldstein, the rabbi of B’nai Jeshurun in New York, who in 1928 complained that “whereas the hope of the Synagogue Center was to Synagogize the tone of the secular activities of the family, the effect has been the secularization of the place of the Synagogue…. [I]t has been at the expense of the sacred.”
Lazarus-Klein, who was ordained by the Reconstructionist Rabbinical College. argues that there is sacred in the secular, and vice versa.
“I think a synagogue is a community,” he told me. “A community is a place that supports each other and it’s certainly not just about Jewish ritual, right? It’s about being together in all different ways. And the pickleball just really expands what we’re able to offer and who we’re able to reach.”
Kaplan, I think, deserves the last word: The synagogue, he wrote in 1915, “should become a social centre where the Jews of the neighborhood may find every possible opportunity to give expression to their social and play instincts. It must become the Jew’s second home. It must become [their] club, [their] theatre and [their] forum.”
It must become, I know he would agree, a place for pickleball.
—
The post Why your synagogue, and mine, needs a pickleball court appeared first on Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
Uncategorized
‘Demolishing Gaza’: How the New York Times Rewrites the Story on Instagram
The New York Times building in New York City. Photo: Wikimedia Commons
Since Hamas’ brutal takeover of the Gaza Strip, the terrorist organization has made it part of its modus operandi to embed itself in any civilian infrastructure.
In the aftermath of the October 2025 ceasefire, Israel has taken considerable steps to remove existing terrorist infrastructure in areas that fall under IDF control, all within the realms of the agreed terms.
Despite this, The New York Times would like to have its audience believe that Israel is systematically destroying the Gaza Strip, even after the signing of a ceasefire.
In “Israel Is Still Demolishing Gaza, Building by Building,” the Times highlights satellite imagery showing that thousands of structures have been demolished since the October 2025 ceasefire, presenting this as ongoing destruction despite the truce. The framing casts Israel as the all-encompassing villain, while Hamas is effectively granted a free pass.
Perhaps worse, when the New York Times transferred the article to its Instagram feed of nearly 20 million followers, the misleading narrative was blasted with even larger gaps in the story.
The Instagram version omits even the limited factual caveats included in the full article, leaving audiences with a one-sided story that excludes Hamas’ role, its terrorist infrastructure, and the realities driving Israeli operations. What remains is not comprehensive reporting, but a carefully curated narrative designed for maximum emotional impact and minimal accountability.
While the Times portrays the ceasefire as “respite” solely for Palestinian civilians after a “punishing” two-year war, nowhere do the journalists acknowledge that ceasefires are intended to apply to both sides.
More importantly, it was Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel — which was accompanied by rockets and the slaughter of innocent civilians — that began this war. In presenting the war as one against Gazan civilians rather than a campaign against a terrorist organization embedded within civilian areas, the New York Times empties the ceasefire of its reciprocal meaning.
Following Israel’s offensive in Gaza, it became increasingly clear the extent to which Hamas has embedded itself and its military infrastructure within civilian locations.
In fact, the very end of the article quotes a Gazan that blames Hamas for having “militarized civilian spaces.” Naturally, a quote blaming Hamas was omitted from the Instagram carousel and hid until the bottom of the article, ensuring the fewest eyes so as not to sway too far from the narrative of absolving Hamas of wrongdoing.
The New York Times is also acutely aware of the terrorist infrastructure in the Gaza Strip, having visited tunnels on a tour with the IDF during the war.
Still, when the IDF showed the Times classified maps displaying Hamas’ tunnel system — particularly in Shejaiya, within the Israeli-controlled area beyond the yellow line — the newspaper claimed it could not “independently verify” their accuracy. The context of Hamas’ vast tunnel network is missing from the Instagram post entirely.
What Instagram users are left with are two satellite images taken in two different locations in the Gaza Strip, both of which show IDF-controlled areas beyond the yellow line. While the photos are described ever so slightly more in depth in the article, the Instagram post hopes to use them as the concluding evidence that Israel is acting against the ceasefire to continue its ruthless destruction of civilian infrastructure. However, because they are beyond the yellow line, not only are there no civilians there, but Israel is within its full right under the ceasefire to remove any existing terrorist infrastructure.
The New York Times‘ Instagram post presents itself as a case study in media literacy — or, more accurately, its absence. Designed for audiences with short attention spans who are unlikely to click through to the full article, the post strips away essential context, leaving users without any meaningful understanding of why or how the IDF has continued military action against Hamas in the wake of the October 2025 ceasefire.
While the article itself omits critical facts, the Instagram post goes even further. By removing what little context remains, it actively misleads its audience, inviting millions of followers to fill in the gaps with assumptions rather than facts. This is not journalism adapted for social media. It is narrative curation that sacrifices accuracy for maximum impact.
The author is a contributor to HonestReporting, a Jerusalem-based media watchdog with a focus on antisemitism and anti-Israel bias — where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Fatah Spokesman: Gaza Was ‘Paradise’ Before Oct. 7, and Massacre Wasn’t a Problem — Only Its Scale
Rockets are launched by Palestinian into Israel, amid Israeli-Palestinian fighting in Gaza, August 7, 2022. Photo: Reuters/Mohammed Salem
While the Palestinian Authority (PA) and Hamas may argue among themselves over tactics, timing, and optics, they are united on the core issue — the legitimacy of terror.
In a single radio interview, the Fatah spokesman in the Gaza Strip — representing the ruling party of the PA, which is now positioning itself as a future governing authority in Gaza — revealed three truths that Palestinian leaders usually avoid stating so openly: that Gaza was not an unlivable hell before October 7, that the mass murder of Israelis is not rejected in principle, and that the internal Palestinian debate is about how much terror is useful, not whether terror is acceptable at all.
Fatah Spokesman in the Gaza Strip Mundhir Al-Hayek: ” … The Gaza Strip before Oct. 7 was a paradise. The situation was very good.
But Hamas exploited this and took over all the economic areas and collected taxes, and unfortunately, the result was moving towards the uncalculated October 7. We needed 10% of Oct. 7 to convey a message to the world that the Palestinian people is persecuted and oppressed, and it needs self-determination. But the political leadership [Hamas] failed.” [emphasis added]
[Radio Mawtini (Fatah radio station), Facebook page, Jan. 6, 2026]
Al-Hayek’s admission that “the Gaza Strip before October 7 was a paradise” and that “the situation was very good” directly contradicts two years of Palestinian claims that October 7 was launched in response to unbearable humanitarian conditions or Israeli “siege.”
According to a senior Fatah official speaking from Gaza itself, life there was not only tolerable, but “very good” until Hamas chose war.
Equally revealing is what Al-Hayek did not condemn.
“I’m not talking about the operation itself,” he emphasized, meaning the atrocities of October 7, but only about what followed. The massacre itself is not rejected. It is treated as a given.
As Palestinian Media Watch has documented consistently, the Palestinian Authority does not morally condemn terror overall, nor October 7 in particular.
Instead, it criticizes October 7 for being politically or tactically mishandled. For Al-Hayek, the failure was not the slaughter of civilians, the rapes, the kidnappings, or the mass atrocities, but that Hamas did not “rescue our people” afterward and failed to manage the consequences of the violence it initiated.
Perhaps the most instructive statement came when Al-Hayek argued that the massacre itself was excessive, not unjustified: “We needed 10% of October 7 to convey a message to the world.”
So, what does “10% of October 7” mean? Does it mean kidnapping 25 people instead of 251? Does it mean murdering 120 people instead of over 1,200? Does it mean raping fewer women or burning fewer families alive?
The answer exposes the PA/Fatah’s true ideology, which does not see terror as a moral question but a quantitative one. Indeed, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas described October 7 as an attempt to achieve “important goals,” while his senior advisor Mahmoud Al-Habbash called it “a legitimate thing.”
Al-Hayek’s remarks underscore the PA/Fatah view that terror is acceptable and is constrained only by political utility and cost.
Ephraim D. Tepler is a researcher at Palestinian Media Watch (PMW), where a version of this article first appeared.
Uncategorized
Iran Summons Italian Ambassador Over Push for EU Clampdown on Revolutionary Guards, State Media Says
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
The Iranian foreign ministry summoned Italy’s ambassador over efforts by Rome to place Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) on the European Union’s terrorist register, state media reported on Tuesday.
Iran‘s foreign ministry warned of the “destructive consequences” of any labeling against the Revolutionary Guards and called upon the Italian foreign minister to “correct his ill-considered approaches toward Iran,” the media report said
Italian Foreign Minister Antonio Tajani said on Monday that Italy will ask European Union partners this week to label the IRGC as a terrorist group.
Until now, Rome had been among the governments resisting efforts to brand the IRGC as a terrorist group, but Tajani said a bloody Iranian crackdown on street protests this month that reportedly killed thousands of people could not be ignored.
“The losses suffered by the civilian population during the protests require a clear response,” Tajani wrote on X, adding he would raise the issue on Thursday at a meeting of EU foreign ministers in Brussels.
“I will propose, coordinating with other partners, the inclusion of the Revolutionary Guards on the list of terrorist organizations, as well as individual sanctions against those responsible for these heinous acts.”
Being branded a terrorist group would trigger a set of legal, financial, and diplomatic measures that would significantly constrain the IRGC’s ability to operate in Europe.
Set up after Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, the IRGC holds great sway in the country, controlling swathes of the economy and armed forces, and is also in charge of Iran’s ballistic missile and nuclear programs.
While some EU member states have previously pushed for the IRGC to be listed, others have been more cautious, fearing that it could lead to a complete break in ties with Iran, harming any chance of reviving nuclear talks and jeopardizing any hope of getting EU nationals released from Iranian jails.
However, Iran’s violent crackdown on protests has revived the debate and added momentum to discussions about adding the IRGC, which is already included in the bloc’s human rights sanctions regime, to the EU terrorist list.
Italian, French, and Spanish diplomats raised qualms during a meeting in Brussels earlier this month about adding the IRGC to the list, EU diplomats told Reuters at the time.
If France continues to object, then the move to sanction the IRGC will fail, diplomats have said.