Connect with us

Uncategorized

US State Department Spokesperson Shuts Down Suggestion Israel Responsible for Majority of Oct. 7 Casualties

An Israeli soldier stands during a two-minute siren marking the annual Israeli Holocaust Remembrance Day, at an installation at the site of the Nova festival where party goers were killed and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 attack by Hamas terrorists from Gaza, in Reim, southern Israel, May 6, 2024. Photo: REUTERS/Ammar Awad

US State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller shut down a conspiracy theory floated by a Palestinian journalist that Israel killed most of its own civilians who died during the Hamas terror group’s Oct. 7 massacre across southern Israel.

During a State Department press briefing on Thursday, Said Arikat — the Washington bureau chief for Al Quds, a Palestinian daily newspaper — asked if the department believed that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) killed the majority of civilians on Oct. 7, citing a report recently published by the left-wing Israeli outlet Haaretz. The article alleged that the IDF approved of the controversial Hannibal Directive, a military protocol which reportedly sanctions use of maximum force to prevent soldiers from being taken hostage, even if it results in increased civilian and military casualties.

Arikat asked Miller if the report changed or influenced the State Department’s :position or perspective on what happened [on Oct. 7].”

“Israel may be responsible for killing a majority of people that died,” Arikat added. 

Miller gave a testy retort to Arikat’s attempt to seemingly shift the blame of Hamas’ Oct. 7 terrorist attacks on Israel. The spokesperson asserted that Hamas, which rules Gaza Gaza, is responsible for the vast majority of Oct. 7 casualties.   

“I don’t think that there’s any question that it was Hamas that was responsible for the overwhelming number of deaths on Oct. 7,” Miller responded.

Watch as Al Quds reporter pressed Matthew Miller, saying “Israel—responsible for killing a majority of people that died [on Oct. 7th].”

Miller immediately shuts him down. pic.twitter.com/DMU3WDODpX

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) July 11, 2024

Haaretz obtained documents and soldier testimony claiming that the IDF launched the Hannibal Directive on Oct. 7. According to Haaretz, the IDF ordered the directive as a response to being “overwhelmed” by the sheer number of Hamas terrorists flooding into southern Israel.

The IDF has launched internal investigations into what transpired on Oct. 7.

“The aim of these investigations is to learn and to draw lessons which could be used in continuing the battle. When these investigations are concluded, the results will be presented to the public with transparency,” the military said in a statement.

Israel first approved the Hannibal Directive in 1986 in response to IDF members being taken hostage by enemy forces such as Hezbollah. The IDF officially repealed the controversial procedure in 2016, saying it would instead create new orders better tailored to the various situations that soldiers may find themselves in.

Critics of Israel have falsely claimed that the Haaretz article suggests that the IDF intentionally killed Israelis Oct. 7 in an apparent attempt to defend Hamas’ brutal invasion of the Jewish state.

Arikat has been an outspoken critic of Israel, accusing the IDF of deliberately killing Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

During a May press briefing, Arikat said that Hamas was not motivated by an “ancient desire to eliminate Jews.” Miller, who was conducting the briefing, responded that Hamas has repeatedly proclaimed it is “committed to the destruction of the state of Israel and committed to the death of the Israeli people.”

The post US State Department Spokesperson Shuts Down Suggestion Israel Responsible for Majority of Oct. 7 Casualties first appeared on Algemeiner.com.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

As Conservative rabbis, we’re rethinking our communities’ policies toward interfaith families

(JTA) — As Conservative/Masorti rabbis, we see firsthand the joy of couples building a life together in the Jewish community, and the pain of those who feel shut out because one of them is not Jewish.

We think of the community member, though not Jewish, who developed a profound love for davening (prayer) and Torah study, and has supported his children’s and grandchildren’s Jewish education and observance of mitzvot. We think of another community member who faithfully drove her four children to Hebrew school for years and, after her youngest child’s bat mitzvah, chose to convert to Judaism herself.

It is time for our halacha, or Jewish law, to address issues facing intermarried couples and families robustly.

The two of us had the honor of joining colleagues in co-authoring a teshuvah — a rabbinic response to questions of Jewish law — that does just that. The Rabbinical Assembly’s Committee on Jewish Law and Standards has approved a teshuvah that seeks to honor these couples and families and their commitment to Jewish life in our congregations and communities.

Since we are part of a movement that balances a commitment to halacha with the realities of modern life, our work is grounded in traditional Jewish texts, laws and principles while also reflecting the core belief that welcoming others and extending hospitality are essential Jewish values.

Based on halacha and Jewish tradition, the teshuvah affirms the longstanding standard of Conservative/Masorti rabbis that clergy may officiate only at weddings where both partners are Jewish. It emphasizes that while a wedding is a significant moment that often singularly drives these conversations, there are many other important life-cycle moments that rabbis can offer as occasions for Jewish celebration and reaffirmations of commitment to mitzvot.

Through this teshuvah, we formalize a public mishebeirakh (blessing) before or after the wedding day for a couple committed to building an exclusively Jewish home, as well as a hanukkat habayit ceremony to dedicate their home.

We welcome non-Jewish parents on the bimah during their children’s b’nei mitzvah and offer “mazal tov” and other basic gestures of inclusion to intermarried couples, both of which were once considered unacceptable. Our goal in doing so is to inspire the couple and family to grow in Jewish living.

We affirm that synagogues may not hire intermarried individuals as clergy but may hire intermarried individuals for other roles, and that rabbis may officiate at funerals for non-Jewish family members and support a Jewish mourning process when a non-Jewish loved one dies.

It’s been about 40 years since the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards, which sets halachic policy for our movement internationally, broadly addressed questions around intermarried couples and families. We have learned over time that those intermarried couples who choose to embrace Jewish life are integral to the fabric of Conservative/Masorti communities.

We invite these couples to engage meaningfully in Jewish practice at home and in community, and, if they are having children, to raise them as Jews. Sometimes they may even choose to convert to Judaism at some point.

We do so because, as rabbis, we enjoy the privilege of being invited into people’s lives, and our role is both pastoral and educational. As people figure out their own identities and relationships, our role is to help them integrate Jewish tradition. As couples turn toward each other and seek to integrate Judaism into their lives, we are here to help them chart a course and to bring Torah into the conversation and observance of mitzvot into their lives.

We aim to inspire the couple to grow in Jewish living, observing mitzvot, studying Torah and searching for God in daily life. To do so, we must create gateways so everyone can find a place to learn and find joy and inspiration in our traditions, within the boundaries of halachic standards and principles.

Many of the practices in the teshuvah are already in place in some communities. Some offer solutions that speak most directly to realities in North America, and we call on local rabbis to interpret them in light of the circumstances in their local communities.

In the days of the Mishnah and the Talmud, when faced with new and challenging circumstances, our rabbis found creative and often beautiful solutions to embody the Torah as they understood it. As we follow in their footsteps, we use the wisdom we have inherited to both uphold and transform those values and honor the halachic principles that are central to our rabbinates and communities.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JTA or its parent company, 70 Faces Media.

The post As Conservative rabbis, we’re rethinking our communities’ policies toward interfaith families appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

I was a reluctant Yiddishist. Here’s what converted me.

I couldn’t understand my peers’ embrace of Yiddish culture. Now I’m fascinated –– by the world evoked in Yiddish music and literature, and the leaders of its revival. My conversion began at Yidstock: a Festival of new Yiddish Music.

 

The post I was a reluctant Yiddishist. Here’s what converted me. appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Uncategorized

Mamdani confronts backlash over exclusion of Jewish lawyers from judicial panel

Since taking office in January, Mayor Zohran Mamdani has shrugged off criticism from Jewish organizations over his opposition to Israel and Zionism. But new allegations that his administration excluded Jewish lawyers from a key City Hall appointments committee appeared to strike a nerve — getting directly at how he is governing New York City.

“The suggestion that there would be any decision-making motivated by religion, it does bother me,” Mamdani told reporters on Wednesday. “This is a city that is beautiful because of the breadth of diversity of those who call it home, and that includes the Jewish community across the five boroughs.”

On Monday, a coalition of New York City’s Jewish bar associations circulated a letter accusing Mamdani of excluding Jews from his appointees to the city’s 18-member Advisory Committee on the Judiciary. New York City has the largest Jewish population in America, and Jews are heavily represented in the legal profession.

The critics suggested that the absence of Jewish attorneys on the judicial advisory committee follows a “troubling pattern” that has left many Jewish New Yorkers “feeling increasingly marginalized.” The letter also pointed out that the rejection of retired Appellate Division Justice John Leventhal during the vetting process was “disconcerting” given the lack of outreach to other Jewish lawyers.

Mamdani forcefully denied suggestions that religion played any role in assembling legal experts for the committee. “I did not ask for the religion of each of the person that was put forward,” he said on Wednesday.

Mamdani’s press secretary, Joe Calvello, said that Leventhal was rejected after the vetting team found that he served on the legal team of Ghislaine Maxwell, a socialite who was sentenced for helping late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Calvello also said that Mamdani “had the privilege of appointing a dozen qualified judges from a range of backgrounds, including Jewish judges.” In January, Mamdani appointed three new judges. Another nine, including those referenced as being Jewish, are sitting judges whose original appointments were made under previous administrations.

That explanation became the centerpiece of Mamdani’s defense Wednesday. “The thing that matters most to me is that in the judges that have been appointed and reappointed, that they do reflect that diversity of New York City, and that diversity includes Jewish New Yorkers,” he said.

Why this controversy is different for Mamdani

The exchange with two reporters at Wednesday’s press conference, who questioned him about the appearance of excluding Jewish lawyers, reflected a different political challenge than the one Mamdani has faced for much of his first six months in office.

Mamdani has clashed with Jewish organizations that have largely centered on foreign policy or how to define antisemitism related to anti-Zionist activity.

His Day One repeal of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism, labeling Israel’s war in Gaza a genocide, support of boycotts, production of a Nakba Day video commemorating the displacement of Palestinians during Israel’s founding in 1948, response to pro-Palestinian protesters outside synagogues hosting an Israel real estate sale, pledge to seek the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu if he visited New York, and most recently his call for protests against Netanyahu’s expected visit to the United Nations alienated much of New York’s organized Jewish community. But they reinforced Mamdani’s standing with his progressive base and the pro-Palestinian movement that helped propel him into office.

The judicial committee controversy is different. It raises questions about Jewish representation within his own government and whether the country’s largest Jewish community is being included in an influential legal panel.

It also follows questions earlier this year about the administration’s outreach to the Jewish community. Mamdani’s Jewish American Heritage Month reception at Gracie Mansion in May drew few leaders from mainstream Jewish organizations, after many declined invitations amid ongoing tensions over the mayor’s handling of antisemitism and Israel. The guest list reflected stronger ties with progressive Jewish groups, anti-Zionist activists and Hasidic leaders.

Wednesday’s response showed that Mamdani sees this as a different kind of political challenge. Unlike criticism over Israel, accusations that Jews are being left out of his own administration strike at the inclusive image he has tried to build as mayor.

The post Mamdani confronts backlash over exclusion of Jewish lawyers from judicial panel appeared first on The Forward.

Continue Reading

Copyright © 2017 - 2023 Jewish Post & News