MYonly encounter with Jimmy Carter occurred in June 1976, just two days before New Jersey’s Democratic primary. By then, Carter had established a commanding lead in the delegate count.

Carter spoke at my old yeshivah high school, JEC in Elizabeth, New Jersey. Our rosh yeshivah, Rav Pinchas Teitz ztz”l, introduced him onstage in the yeshivah’s gym, where three years earlier I would have been playing basketball.

When Carter finished, the crowd gathered around him to shake hands. Carter flashed his trademark toothy smile, appearing friendly. I remember looking into his eyes, which weren’t smiling, and whose steel-blue color revealed more about his personality than his facial expression. While I don’t recall the content of his speech, I must have been impressed. I was finally old enough to vote in 1976 when Carter ran against President Gerald Ford. I do remember pasting a Carter-Mondale bumper sticker on my car and voting for them.

Over the years, other commentators have pointed out the apparent contradiction in Carter’s countenance, which, in a sense, personified his presidency. His cold, calculating style enabled his most significant accomplishment — brokering the 1978 Camp David peace treaty between Israel and Egypt — while his inner struggle to project warmth and empathy led Americans to turn their backs on him.

Carter passed away on Sunday at age 100, after spending much of his last two years in hospice care. His wife of 77 years, Rosalyn, passed away last year at age 96.

The Miller Center, a project at the University of Virginia that provides an in-depth analysis of all US presidents, summarizes Carter’s presidency as follows: “Jimmy Carter’s one-term presidency is remembered for the events that overwhelmed it — inflation, the energy crisis, the war in Afghanistan, and hostages in Iran. After one term in office, voters strongly rejected Jimmy Carter’s honest but gloomy outlook in favor of Ronald Reagan’s telegenic optimism.

“In the past two decades, however, there has been a broader recognition that Carter, despite a lack of experience, confronted several significant problems with steadiness, courage, and idealism. Along with his predecessor, Gerald Ford, Carter deserves credit for restoring balance to the constitutional system after the excesses of the Johnson and Nixon ‘imperial presidency.’ ”

The analysis is fair and balanced. However, Carter’s idealism, especially his wholesale application of human rights as the litmus test for US foreign policy ultimately weakened America. When widespread protests in Iran erupted against the authoritarian and often brutal rule of the Shah of Iran, who nonetheless was an ally of both the US and Israel, Carter pulled his support, forcing the Shah to flee. Carter passively acquiesced as radical Muslims seized power in Iran. The mullahs paid Carter back by seizing 52 American hostages at the US embassy in Tehran, holding them captive for 444 days before releasing them the day Carter left office.

Accusations Against Israel

Carter’s idealism also benefited the Jews, with his support for freedom for Soviet Jewry being another check mark on his plus side.

In the spring 2019 edition of the Jewish Review of Books, Elliot Abrams, a foreign policy advisor to Presidents Reagan and George W. Bush, cited a memoir by Carter aide Stuart Eizenstat that detailed a meeting Carter held in 1977 with Soviet foreign minister Andrei Gromyko. The KGB had just arrested the Soviet Jewish “refusenik” Anatoly Sharansky and charged him with spying for America.

Carter raised Sharansky’s case with Gromyko, who dismissed it as a “microscopic dot” of no importance to anyone. However, the mention must have troubled Gromyko, because after he left the meeting, he turned to Anatoly Dobrynin, Soviet ambassador to the US, and asked: “Who really is Sharansky? Tell me more about him.”

Sharansky languished in prison for nine more years, but the New York Times noted that Soviet Jewish emigration picked up in the middle of Carter’s term. The Soviets granted 29,000 Jews exit visas in 1978 compared to 17,000 in 1977, rising to 51,000 in 1979. The numbers fell to 21,000 in 1980, after Carter imposed a grain embargo on the Soviets following their invasion of Afghanistan.

Carter’s background didn’t naturally lend itself to pro-Jewish tendencies. He attended the Maranatha Baptist Church in his hometown of Plains, Georgia, and taught bible studies in their Sunday school. The church has branches worldwide that recognize the “Hebraic” roots of the Christian church but considers “Jerusalem” as the stumbling block to Arab-Israeli peace, recommends engaging with Islam because of their oil and immigration, and prays for Jews to accept the Christian “messiah.”

The church teachings dripped into Carter’s 1996 book, entitled Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, distorting the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and accusing Israel of being an apartheid state. Rabbi Marvin Hier, founder and dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center, was outraged. Rabbi Hier had met Carter at a White House ceremony when he presented Wiesenthal with the Congressional Gold Medal, and once the book came out, Rabbi Hier organized a campaign in which some 15,000 Wiesenthal Center members sent letters of protest to Carter’s Atlanta office.

Rabbi Hier said that Carter responded with a curt, handwritten note: “To Rabbi Marvin Hier. I don’t believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds. Sincerely, Jimmy Carter.”

Rabbi Hier fired back, saying while he doesn’t consider Israel infallible or incapable of errors in judgment, Israel practices self-defense and not apartheid.

A Player Out of Position

Unfortunately, Carter’s apartheid label sticks to Israel to this day, and Carter remained unrepentant.

Ten years ago, at age 90, Carter was interviewed by talk show host Jon Stewart shortly after Islamic terrorists murdered four Jews in a Paris kosher supermarket as part of a revenge attack against a French satirical magazine that ridiculed Islam.

When Stewart asked Carter who was to blame, Carter blamed the victims, not the perpetrators: “Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem. And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now — what’s being done to them. So I think that’s part of it.”

I once asked Zalman Shoval, a former Israeli ambassador to the US and intimately involved in the Camp David negotiations, to compare the Jimmy Carter he saw, who brokered the Camp David agreements, with the Jimmy Carter who began to express positions blatantly hostile to Israel. What made Carter change?

“I don’t know if he changed,” Shoval said. “I think that Carter deep down had anti-Semitic tendencies, which he tried to put aside.”

It’s not only Jews who didn’t appreciate Carter’s manner of speech. Perhaps his biggest domestic blunder was his 1979 “national malaise” speech. Without using that term, Carter called out Americans for a universal erosion of confidence and self-doubt. Americans want inspiration from their presidents, not mussar, and Carter never reckoned that Americans expected him to show confidence in fighting the spiking oil prices, 15 percent inflation, and the 18 percent interest rates that plagued his term in office.

Ultimately, the Miller Center concluded that Carter was hard-working and conscientious but often seemed like a player out of position.

“There was always, it seemed, something unlucky about him: massive public disaffection with the government, the fires of crisis breaking out at home and abroad, the hostile post-Watergate press, and, by the end of his term, a challenge by a smooth, consummately telegenic challenger [Ronald Reagan] with an engaging new conservative message.”

An Awkward Legacy

By Uri Kaufman

MY grandmother often lamented in her native Yiddish that “the days were long, but the years were short.” The passing of President Jimmy Carter, and the praise heaped upon him for the Camp David Peace Accords, reminded me that people’s memories are often the shortest of all.

In the early days of the Middle East peace process after the 1967 war, the big word was “linkage.” Arab countries refused to even negotiate with Israel, insisting that their dispute with the Jewish state was “linked” to the conflict with the Palestinians; one could not be solved without the other. Since Palestinians refused even to recognize Israel, all diplomacy was a nonstarter.

Anwar Sadat repeated this position in his historic speech to the Knesset in November 1977, saying, “I did not come to you to conclude a separate agreement between Egypt and Israel… It would not be possible to achieve a just and durable peace… in the absence of a just solution to the Palestinian problem.”

Sadat dropped his bombshell four months later, on March 30, 1978, in a meeting with Israeli defense minister Ezer Weizmann. Sadat had no interest in a Palestinian state; he was willing to allow Israeli settlements on the West Bank to remain in place. Weizmann practically fell out of his chair. He later said he was happy Israeli attorney general Aharon Barak was present to hear it, or no one back in Jerusalem would have believed him.

The pathway to peace at last was opened. Except for one major problem: Perhaps Sadat could live without a Palestinian state, but Jimmy Carter could not. He ignored Sadat’s signals and acted like a car out of alignment, constantly swerving off the path into the oncoming traffic of the Palestinian issue.

American diplomat William B. Quandt later wrote that Carter placed himself “in the awkward position of appearing to be more pro-Arab than Sadat, a politically vulnerable position, to say the least.” Being more anti-Israel than an Arab leader is certainly “awkward” for any American president. But for an Arab leader to be less anti-Israel than an American president — well, that’s not just “awkward,” it’s suicidal. On the contrary, Arab leaders need American presidents to give them political cover.

Sadat would get no such cover in Camp David. The talks deadlocked for almost two weeks over the issue of the Palestinians. But Menachem Begin refused to knuckle to Carter’s pressure, and to the astonishment of all, Sadat gave in. His foreign minister angrily resigned. But for Carter, it should have been a moment to savor. He had made history. He had brokered the first Arab-Israeli peace treaty.

Shockingly, amazingly, Carter couldn’t take yes for an answer.

The Camp David Accords, signed on September 17, 1978, were merely a framework agreement. A final peace treaty still had to be hammered out. In the months that followed, Carter never stopped trying to tie everything to a resolution of the Palestinian issue, raising the prominence of the tail until it grew to wag the dog and even threaten to knock it dead.

A stunned New York Times columnist William Safire wrote, “Amazingly, it is not Mr. Sadat who has reintroduced the issue that was successfully finessed at Camp David. The heat to write in the [Palestinians] comes from Mr. Carter, with his born-again ‘comprehensive’ scheme.”

The story has a mostly happy ending. Begin defied Carter, the Palestinian issue was put on ice, and the two parties signed the first Arab-Israeli peace treaty on the White House lawn on March 26, 1979.

I say only mostly, because it was a flawed agreement in one key respect. That flaw was the Jewish settlement of Yamit. The Israelis had built it right where the Sinai Peninsula borders Gaza, in the hope of creating an Israeli-held barrier a few miles wide that would prevent smuggling between the impoverished strip and Sinai. Menachem Begin pleaded with American officials, “emphasizing,” as Jimmy Carter put it in his diary, “that the settlements were important as a buffer between Gaza and Egypt.”

But Carter refused to consider even a land swap, with Israel keeping the Yamit salient sealing off Gaza, while giving Egypt a similar amount of land somewhere else in southern Israel. That blunder casts a shadow over the region to this very day. After Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, the Palestinians dug dozens of tunnels into Sinai and smuggled a mountain of weapons inside. We all know what happened after that. Fewer know that after the October 7 attack, Carter condemned Israel and called on the world to recognize Hamas.

This is the legacy of James Earl Carter, 39th president of the United States and winner of the Nobel Peace Prize. A commentator remarked on his passing that we are not likely to see another like him. One can only hope that he is correct.

Uri Kaufman is the author of the upcoming American Intifada: How the Left Learned to Hate Israel and Love Hamas (Regnery, 2025).

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1043)

The post The Two Faces of Jimmy Carter  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

M

ost of our readers view Canada as a friendly nation with a well-established Jewish community, Panama as an exotic destination with a vibrant Jewish presence, and Greenland as an unapproachable island visible only from a distance on the Tel Aviv–New York flight route. I’ll never forget one flight when an El Al pilot opened the public address system to suggest looking out the window because “Greenland looks especially beautiful today.”

For President-elect Trump, these three countries signify something different. Greenland is a big, beautiful island he wants to pry from Denmark. Panama is home to the Panama Canal, which America built from 1903 to 1914 for $300 million and relinquished to Panama by treaty in 1977. Trump says he wants it back. Canada, which sells 75% of its exports to the US, is a primary target for the hefty tariffs Trump plans to impose on America’s largest trading partners.

With all the major foreign policy dilemmas facing the incoming administration, including America’s porous southern border, the chaotic and treacherous Middle East, the interminable war between Russia and Ukraine, and China’s saber-rattling with Taiwan, why is Trump trifling with small fry?

Or is it part of his grand strategy to make America great again?

James Lindsay, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who is following the Trump transition, contends that Trump is operating true to the form we saw in his first term. “[He] seems more interested in picking fights with friends than enlisting them in a common cause. And that will make it harder for the United States to succeed in a world of great power competition.”

Other analysts suggest that Trump is reinstating the Monroe doctrine as a foundation of US foreign policy. First promulgated in 1823 by America’s fifth president, James Monroe, the doctrine declared that America’s sphere of influence extended throughout the Western Hemisphere and that the US would no longer tolerate European efforts to colonize Latin and South America.

In 2013, President Obama’s secretary of state, John Kerry, disavowed the two-century-old doctrine, telling a meeting of the Organization of American States, which mainly consists of Latin American nations, that the “era of the Monroe doctrine was over.”

Trump overruled Kerry during his first term. In 2018, when addressing the UN General Assembly, Trump indirectly invoked the Monroe doctrine, stating, “Here in the Western Hemisphere, we are committed to maintaining our independence from the encroachment of expansionist foreign powers.”

Canada, Panama, and Greenland are all part of the Western Hemisphere. Trump, on the cusp of his second term, has now fired warning shots at America’s 21st-century rivals, including China and Russia, to watch their step in America’s backyard.

Competition over Latin America

The dynamic with Canada is slightly different from the other two. When Trump advocated that Canada become America’s 51st state, it was his way of mocking Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, whose political ideology is polar opposite to Trump’s. Trudeau is extremely unpopular and at press time is under intense pressure to quit. He and his party will likely be trounced in this year’s elections, whenever they’re held, by the Conservatives and their new leader, Pierre Poilievre, a conservative far more in tune with Trump.

On the surface, the Panama Canal’s importance seems overinflated. The US is the canal’s largest customer, and Trump rails against the high fees that US ships pay to pass through the 51-mile artificial waterway connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. However, everyone pays the same rate. Panama earns $5 billion annually in transit fees, which accounts for about 6% of its economy. For America, $5 billion is less than a drop in the bucket in a $30 trillion economy.

However, William Freeman, another CFR senior fellow, recently declared that the Panama Canal has much more to offer than its shipping revenues. “In the event of any military conflict with China, it would be needed to move US ships and other assets,” Freeman said.

China, the canal’s second-largest customer, has the same ideas. As South America’s largest trade partner, China is using its economic clout to build political alliances with countries, some of which are hostile to American interests.

Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced legislation almost three years ago to increase security cooperation in Latin America and the Caribbean to stop transnational criminal organizations from smuggling illegal drugs into America, counter the destabilizing impact of authoritarian regimes, and rein in the malign activities of state actors like China and Russia.

He can be expected to follow up in his new role as secretary of state.

Race for Frigid Battlegrounds

Greenland, too, has strategic military value, then and now. Much of Europe’s stormy weather originates in Greenland and drifts to continental Europe a few days later. According to the Arctic Institute, Nazi Germany stationed four weather stations in Greenland during World War II to gather accurate meteorological data to predict weather patterns and determine the most favorable conditions for launching attacks.

Both Russia and China are eyeing Greenland. In last week’s edition of the US Naval Institute News, John Grady quoted the head of the Russian Navy, Admiral Aleksandr Moiseyev, as saying that the Arctic is “where the confrontation of the world’s leading states is unfolding.”

It’s hard to believe that Russia, stymied in Ukraine and having packed up and abandoned Syria, would be up for any more military adventurism, but don’t underestimate Vladimir Putin. Grady noted that Russia had concentrated its northern fleet of second-strike ballistic missile submarines and strategic bomber forces in the European Arctic. China also manages a fleet of satellites and plans to deploy a large-scale network of listening devices in the Arctic Ocean.

Scott Stephenson, a physical scientist at Rand Corporation, notes that Greenland may have the largest deposits of rare earth minerals outside China.According to the US Geological Survey, rare earth elements are necessary for defense purposes such as lasers and guidance, radar, and sonar systems. Greenland is strategically and centrally located between the North Atlantic and Arctic Oceans, along several shipping routes that are becoming increasingly accessible as sea ice melts. It also has numerous transcontinental flight paths that rely on Greenlandic airspace, as El Al pilots know.

Many countries consider Greenland especially beautiful. Stephenson agrees that US control of the island could also make strategic sense, given Russia’s Arctic military buildup and China’s recent attempts to purchase a naval base and build airports there.

But Greenland holds all the cards, and Denmark has some say.

Denmark, a NATO member, provides Greenland with an annual $670 million subsidy to control its security and foreign policy. With Greenlanders eager for full independence, Denmark recognized Greenland’s right to self-determination, should the matter arise. This means that its 56,000 residents would have to vote in a referendum on any potential territorial transfer.

So Trump isn’t coming out of left field. Neither tweets on X or his lengthy speeches are the place to debate sophisticated aspects of foreign policy. Still, these ideas and others will be discussed in the right circles in cabinet meetings once Trump takes over.

Merely suggesting that Trump is being whimsical in his foreign policy formulation, as the Washington Post indicated over the weekend, or that the MAGA doctrine is an updated version of the Monroe doctrine, is off the mark. Such takes contain some kernels of truth but are far too simplistic in a world that Trump claims is on the brink of World War III, and where, at the very least, American security and economic interests are at risk.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1043)

The post What Trump Might Really Be Thinking   first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photos: Yossi Goldberger

When the Copper Box Arena in London was built for the 2012 Olympic Games, planners probably never imagined that it would play host to 10,000 lomdei Torah for a single event. Said planners might also have failed to appreciate the historic resonance of a massive pre-Chanukah celebration of Torah learning in a venue that featured a symbol of ancient Greece. But to the participants in Dirshu’s grand siyum on Maseches Shabbos in their Amud Yomi program two weeks ago, that resonance would have been obvious from the second chapter of the masechta, which deals with Chanukah.

History aside, the event was noteworthy for drawing together Dirshu attendees from all over Europe, and from all streams. Mainland Europe is very different from Britain, but contingents from Antwerp and Zurich indicated that in terms of Torah life, there’s a Europe-wide Torah world that shares a common language.

One participant was Avi Steinhart from a chassidic family, who learned in Brisk, and has since gravitated back to his roots due to the giant Torah organization.

“I’m a chassid of Dirshu,” he says with a smile. “My father, who was a Pshevorsker, would be very happy with this.”

Avi learned Dirshu Chaburas HaShas, a special track for kollel yungeleit, and then integrated into the Amud Yomi program when it began a bit more than a year ago.

“Daf Yomi effected a revolution in Am Yisrael, but I personally never connected to it,” he says. “The urgency and the rigid pace is something I struggle with. I felt like they were learning just to finish. There are some who love it, but I want to learn in order to understand, and only then to be mesayeim.

“There’s a phrase that Dirshu nasi Rav Dovid Hofstedter repeats all the time — yedias haTorah, knowing the Torah. The limud is important, but each person needs to ask himself honestly if he knows the Torah.

The orchestra begins to thunder in the hall, and Avi’s 15-year-old son, who is also part of a Dirshu track, urges him to come inside.

There, Rav Shimon Galai — who has traveled to London for just a few hours and will be flying right back to Bnei Brak for the shloshim of his son-in-law, Rav Dovid Wertheimer — takes a moment to speak with Mishpacha.

“Dirshu is the neshamah of Am Yisrael,” he says in the rabbanim’s room. “There are organizations for everything. You need a pillow for a bris? You have one. You need kimcha d’Pischa? You have it. But there is one organization in the world that does everything to enable you to get to Shamayim after 120 years with baskets full of spiritual wealth, and that is Dirshu. Therefore, I make a great effort to go where they call me.”

Maariv begins and thousands stand up to daven. Then the massive orchestra cues up a majestic march, and the rabbanim ascend the stage. This type of mass Torah spectacle has practically been trademarked by the organization, but its origins are not well known.

The concept behind these high-end events was born from a meeting 15 years ago between Rabbi Dovid Hofstedter and Rav Aharon Leib Steinman ztz”l. It was shortly before the Siyum HaShas, and Rabbi Hofstedter was consulting with Rav Steinman about how much to spend on the event.

“Invest as much as you can,” Rav Steinman told him. “When a wealthy man makes a wedding, he books the best band in the finest hall. And when we want to honor the Torah, we do it in an underground hall, without honor and without grandeur? The Torah is our biggest wedding, and that is where we need to invest the most.”

Rabbi Hofstedter carried out this instruction faithfully, and thus was born the classic Dirshu feel which the London siyum adhered to, featuring such well-known performers as Motty Steinmetz, Baruch Levine, Hershy Weinberger, and Zanvil Weinberger, alongside legendary conductor Mona Rosenblum, along with the Malchus Choir and a 30-piece orchestra.

The production team also went local, with a beautiful medley of Yigal Calek classics, a tribute to the recently-niftar composer who uplifted so many worldwide. As a continent-wide celebration of simchas haTorah deep in the European winter, the event left a glow in hearts from Gateshead to Manchester, Stamford Hill, and Antwerp to sustain them through the next leg of the long journey through Shas.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1043)

The post Light in London first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photos: Flash 90

I

t’s the right-wing camp’s big moment, but the government it elected isn’t feeling it. The more the right’s ideology takes hold in the Israeli public, the further the governing coalition members drift apart.

Not even the hilltop youth of Yitzhar dreamed of such an outcome one year ago. Gaza is occupied, ground under the boots of Israeli troops; the Philadelphi Route has been paved with a new two-way road; and the sea of Gaza is a mikveh for dati-leumi soldiers stationed in the Strip.

In the north, IDF nomenclature no longer labels the summit of Mount Hermon as “the Syrian Hermon.” Its new Jewish name, adopted by the entire government, is Keter haHermon, “the crown of the Hermon.”

And those aren’t the only borders that have been redrawn. Opinion polls show that the Israeli public has shifted massively to the right since October 7, 2023. As with the Syrian Hermon, it’s hard to imagine a return to the past.

And on top of all that, Israel can look forward to Trump’s return to the Oval Office on January 20, 2025, leading a team whose right-wing credentials put the Likud to shame.

True, the war isn’t over. The drip-drip of ballistic missiles and the ever-growing list of Israel’s fallen are proof of that. But looking at the big picture, Israel’s regional and global standing has never been better under a narrow right-wing government.

But it’s precisely now that the right-wing government seems intent on tearing itself apart. While the draft issue is an inherently intractable problem, it hardly ends there. Justice Minister Yariv Levin is fighting to revive the judicial reform in wartime, slamming the door behind him as he leaves meetings with coalition heads after they refuse to cooperate.

National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir revolts and votes against the state budget, in what can only be interpreted as a vote of no confidence in the government. And that’s without even mentioning the threats of right-wing ministers to torpedo a hostage deal involving the release of terrorists. The more the public unites around the right, the more divided its representatives in the Knesset become.

The man of the new year in Israeli politics is Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, who was able to pass a state budget filled with austerity measures in a time of war.

Despite leading the ultra-right-wing Religious Zionist Party, and despite the fact that his party is slipping below the electoral threshold in some opinion polls, Smotrich is taking a decidedly responsible and un-populist tone, in both the political and international arenas. Smotrich believes that voters will come to appreciate his unpopular decisions, but only time — and the electorate — will tell.

At a meeting of coalition heads, it was Smotrich, not the chareidim, who recommended against dismissing Attorney General Gali Baharav-Miara, warning overeager colleagues, especially the justice minister, that the move would fall in the High Court.

The finance minister also wants to delay the proposals to change the judicial selection process, and instead take the time to do it right. Today, Smotrich is perhaps the only minister in the government whose position on a wide range of issues is impossible to know in advance. Between Knesset votes in the plenum on the state budget, I sat down for a special interview with Bezalel Smotrich.

The Hostage Deal

Let’s start with the hostage deal taking shape. You’re serving under a prime minister who had your back during the passing of the state budget. Why don’t you have his back in the diplomatic arena? If Netanyahu is pushing for a deal now, with the incoming Trump administration vowing heavy retribution if Hamas doesn’t release the hostages, then he must have good reason to believe that it’s the right time for a deal. Give him some credit.

It’s not about credit. I give him plenty of credit, and I have a lot of respect for him. But we’re allowed to disagree, and my principled position is that our current approach to Hamas is a big mistake. Hamas is at its lowest point since the beginning of the war, as a result of the military and civilian pressure, the diplomatic isolation, and its fear of Trump, who will come in on January 20 and give us a lot of support.

You can’t wait for a new opportunity every time, and the number of surviving hostages is shrinking. It’s precisely now, between the two administrations, that we have to make a deal.

On the contrary. With Hamas on the verge of total collapse, now’s the time to force a surrender deal in which we get back all the hostages, not to extend Hamas a lifeline with a deal that stops the war in return for some of the hostages. Definitely not a deal in which we squander many of our military achievements, for which we paid a heavy price in blood. If I had my way, we wouldn’t be negotiating with Hamas at all. Our only contact with them would be through the sights of our brave soldiers’ tanks, planes, and artillery.

But we tried that already, and while we made significant achievements on both the northern and southern fronts, we’ve only been able to return a few of the hostages that way.

No. I say quite the opposite. We’ve been negotiating with Hamas the entire time, and that’s why we’ve been unable to bring back the hostages. If we said that there’s no negotiating and there’s no Hamas — that in our view, Hamas is an organization destined for destruction, not dialogue — then it’s very possible that Gazans holding the hostages would return them to us in return for financial rewards and safety guarantees for themselves and their families. We can’t expect to break their fear of Hamas even as we ourselves negotiate with it. The two are mutually exclusive.

Helping Gaza

As finance minister, you know better than anyone that the humanitarian aid is Hamas’s financial lifeline. How is it possible that for more than a year, you’re continuing to funnel humanitarian aid that is effectively fuel and oxygen for Hamas?

For a long period, former defense minister Yoav Gallant and the upper echelons of the IDF torpedoed alternative proposals for distributing the aid. Current defense minister Yisrael Katz took office, and he believes in the path I proposed. Still, I have to say that I feel that the army is dragging its feet on this matter. It’s not okay, and it’s not acceptable.

So what you’re essentially saying here is that despite the fact that there’s a defense minister who’s demanding that the army carry out the government’s position, the IDF under Chief of Staff Herzi Halevi is conducting its own policy?

This is a very problematic gray area. It’s not that they’re refusing orders, but they’re absolutely dragging their feet. In my view, this should have been solved many months ago, but certainly over a month after the prime minister, the defense minister, and myself attended a meeting at Gaza Division headquarters. We dealt with the matter in detail, a clear directive was given, and sadly, the matter continues to drag on. The solution is around the corner, and I hope it will happen in the coming weeks.

You initially opposed the previous hostage deal, but at the end of the process, you went into the cabinet meeting and voted in favor. Should your opposition be taken with a grain of salt this time too?

You’re right, and I’m proud of my ability to change my opinion. Only a donkey never changes its mind. We went into the meeting — what was important to us then was to ensure that the war would continue. There was a pause of just seven days; the IDF didn’t leave the strip. We were satisfied with the answers we received, we got the commitment to continue the war into the government decision, so we voted in favor. I’m very happy to be a part of returning some of the hostages — each one of them is an entire world.

What’s so different about the current deal from the previous one that leads you to reject it up front?

Then, we didn’t release hundreds of murderers with blood on their hands who will go on to murder more Jews and rebuild Hamas’s leadership. Then, the IDF didn’t pull back from the Gaza Strip. Then, we didn’t squander massive achievements — the fact that northern Gaza is becoming a sterile area free of Hamas, finally allowing the emergence of alternative leadership, a pilot for the model we’ll extend to the rest of the strip.

The differences are enormous. I’ll support a deal that doesn’t project weakness and surrender because we all want to return the hostages, but the deal emerging now is not how it’s done.

Squandering Opportunities

You spoke at the meeting of the coalition heads of the need to act wisely and take advantage of the Trump administration for the big things and not petty fights. Do you expect Netanyahu to act to impose sovereignty over Judea and Samaria, an opportunity that was missed in the previous term?

First, I want to state very clearly, this is a historic opportunity. Ahead of us are two years of a right-wing government with a friendly president in the White House. It’s dramatic, it could fortify our security and our existence — b’ezrat Hashem, of course. It’s true with regard to Iran, it’s true with regard to Judea and Samaria. We must take the terrible folly and existential danger of a Palestinian state in the heart of Eretz Yisrael off the agenda.

And of course, we must develop the settlements and apply sovereignty. These are incredible opportunities. But for that, we first need a stable government. Woe to whoever acts irresponsibly and shakes the coalition because of all kinds of fabricated spins. We have to preserve this government. We can do historic things.

You’re speaking in generalities, but let’s get into the details. We’re all witness to the endless internal squabbles, especially the big feud between yourself and Itamar Ben-Gvir, your fellow national religious political leader, who ran with you in the last elections but is now going for your head, portraying you as having surrendered to the attorney general’s dictates.

It’s sad. There are those who are always in an election campaign, and there are those who came to work and deliver results. Look, we would all like to fire the attorney general. We have no confidence in her, and apparently, she has no confidence in us. She’s blocking our every move and she must be replaced — there’s no dispute about that, and this was agreed upon at the government meeting we all participated in.

I just don’t understand why Ben-Gvir felt the need to contaminate the process and make it political. After all, it’s clear that if we’d surrendered to his dictates, and tied the passing of the budget to the attorney general’s dismissal, the High Court would have struck it down that very moment.

Maybe Ben-Gvir, unlike you, feels the rope around his neck. After all, the attorney general plans to write an opinion regarding the High Court petition to remove him from office. And when it comes to this, I want to ask: If the High Court adopts such a position by the attorney general and rules that Ben Gvir is ineligible to serve as a minister, would you call on the prime minister and your fellow coalition leaders to not comply with the High Court’s instruction?

That is absolutely my view. With all due respect, we have a democracy. You don’t oust a prime minister through legal proceedings, and you don’t oust a minister because of a petition or an attorney general’s opinion. It’s absurd. This is something that’s flagrantly illegal, and none of us will defend such a decision, neither by the attorney general nor by the High Court. If that’s the position the attorney general presents, we’ll of course demand private representation and make the opposing case.

And yes, I think we also have to tell the High Court: We won’t uphold this. With all due respect, we have a democracy, and in the last election, the right-wing government was elected to lead, not the High Court.

The Budget Battle

Let’s talk about the budget. You managed to get it through the plenum, but it’s fared less well in the court of public opinion. Of course the war has to be funded, but the public sees the wave of price increases, sees the spending cuts, and feels that this is coming at its expense.

The cost of living has been the biggest challenge in the State of Israel for years. It’s not new. If we want to analyze it — it’s mainly because we have a very small, monopolistic, and uncompetitive market. Over the years, there have been a lot of regulations ostensibly designed to protect the public, but which in reality protect all kinds of stakeholders and big monopolies that control the market. And there are no magic solutions other than competition, competition, competition.

But meanwhile, the only competition the average citizen sees is between chains racing to raise prices higher. What’s being done about that?

We’ve passed the “what’s good for Europe is good for Israel” reform [aimed at aligning Israel’s import standards with Europe’s, thereby cutting down on red tape], and it will take time for that to trickle down. We’ve prohibited brands from merging so that monopolies don’t emerge, and we’ve passed a series of measures.

We’re seeing now how analysts are surprised by how well the Israeli economy is performing, after over a year of war on several fronts. All of Am Yisrael has had to stretch, but we tried to make the wartime austerity measures we had to take as reasonable and balanced as possible, and distribute the pain across different segments of the population in a progressive structure — the higher your tax bracket, the more you contribute. There are areas where we increased spending, such as welfare payments to vulnerable populations. I think that under the circumstances, it’s definitely a balanced and reasonable approach.

Lowering the Flames

Before the war, you could have been described as the leader of the national-religious movement, which is the closest thing to the chareidi Torah world. Today, we all hear the voices from within the national religious community. The pain is real and sharp, with the discourse driven by mothers who can’t sleep at night and family members who have accompanied relatives to their final resting place. But a big part of it is about politics, an attempt to drive a wedge between the two sectors. How do you, as chair of Religious Zionism, ensure that the political alliance between the chareidi sector and the national-religious sector continues after the war? Or do you think that here too, we’ll end up saying, “The experiment failed”?

Of course the connection will continue. And it’s not just political, but a human connection. It’s true that we have hashkafic and ideological disagreements, but the draft issue is of vital and existential importance to Am Yisrael. And you’re right, there are cynical actors — the high-tech protest movement, the Kaplanists [the Tel Aviv Motzaei Shabbos protestors], Bennett, and others — who are trying to drive in a wedge and use the draft issue to topple the government, and we can’t be stupid and play into their hands.

But you’re right, a lot of the outcry comes from a place of genuine pain, both from the burden and from the heavy price. I lost a dear cousin in the war, and precisely because we’re all Torah learners, it hurts us. And again, these are hashkafic differences, and the Torah is full of disagreements. I’m not trying to convince you that I’m right, and that’s why we’re currently advancing a legislative proposal, along with the prime minister, the new defense minister, and chareidi representatives, that will change the reality and be done through consensus. I think we all understand the need and importance, and I believe we’ll be able to find the right legislative model.

Your words come from the heart, but that’s the exception and not the rule. We see the tiny number of chareidim reporting to the draft office and we can understand that this just won’t happen with divisive discourse, full of hatred and contempt for Torah learners. How does one lower the flames between the sectors?

Here I want to appeal to everyone — to my sector, which is hurting, and to the chareidi sector, which I’m sure is also hurting and feels attacked, and to the yeshivah bochurim who are truly the jewel in the crown and are being turned into criminals without legal status. We’re all hurting, but let’s take a deep breath and work from our heads. Pain isn’t actionable, and anger and distress aren’t a plan. Here, it’s our job as public representatives to be able to take a deep breath and search for reasoned solutions that are both the best for us as a nation and will keep the national camp together. As I said, we have two years of an historic opportunity ahead of us, and it’s incumbent on us to display responsibility.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1043)

The post Face to Face with Bezalel Smotrich  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

IN 1939 in Lakewood, New Jersey (pre-Beth Medrash Govoha), the New York Times recorded a fierce debate at a public meeting. Lakewood was then known mostly as a resort town, and its hotel owners’ association asserted that an extra hour of sunlight would attract more visitors. This led them to propose a measure for Lakewood to adopt Daylight Savings Time (DST) year-round.

But the proposal was angrily opposed by parents who said they would not be able to get their children out of bed on pitch-black winter mornings. Parents won the day and the measure was tabled. But the debate goes on — and the simmering pot just got a big stir.

Back are the days when a single social media post by President-elect Donald Trump can launch a news cycle. His recent online pledge to eliminate DST altogether is one such case, and it has particularly high stakes for Orthodox Jews.

“The Republican Party will use its best efforts to eliminate Daylight Savings Time, which has a small but strong constituency, but shouldn’t!” wrote Mr. Trump.

Polls show that over 60% of Americans are fed up with semi-annual clock changes. But the most vocal activists pushing to eliminate them are mainly champions of permanent DST. But that would only solve the problems involved with “springing ahead”; the dark winter mornings that would result from permanent DST have prevented it from becoming reality.

For Jews, the specter of permanent DST carries broader implications. If sunrise in the winter is pushed back to 8 or 9 a.m., davening Shacharis at halachically ideal times would become very complicated.

Mr. Trump has advocated for permanent DST in the past, and his call to eliminate clock changes has caused confusion. It followed a similar statement by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy. Advocates of permanent DST and the camp calling to eliminate clock changes both drew encouragement from the statements.

Until the Trump team clarifies its stand, numerous sectors are now asking: What would a full year on standard time look like for them?

Turning Back the Clock

The first time all Americans sprang forward was in March 1918, near the end of World War I, when Congress implemented the measure as an energy conservation effort. The act was repealed after the war’s end in November, but DST remained in effect in some states.

In 1966, Congress implemented seasonal DST nationwide. The 1970s Arab oil embargo pushed the federal government to seek additional ways to save energy. In 1974, DST was made permanent year-round for a two-year trial basis. The idea was popular at its inception, but as dark winter mornings set in, support crumbled. Public clamor grew so loud that Congress repealed year-round DST.

Still, the debate was not over. Some continued to argue that more daylight hours would save energy, reduce crime, and increase traffic safety. As a result, in 1986 and again in 2005, DST was extended by several weeks.

Year-round DST won a surprise victory in 2022, when Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) used a parliamentary procedure to pass a bill through the Senate. In the aftermath, many senators said they were unaware of what was in the bill. It was stopped in the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, by then-chair Congressman Frank Pallone (D-NJ). He said Americans are sick of clock changes, but there is no consensus on how to end them, and left the status quo in place.

What does the future hold for DST? Time will tell.

Winners

Sleep patterns: While there is debate about health benefits of longer days, sleep health experts have lined up squarely behind permanent Standard Time. Studies show that the body gets its most restful sleep when nature and the clock are aligned.

They also noted an increase in serious health incidents in the weeks following clock changes, including strokes and heart attacks, and say permanent Standard Time would leave Americans better rested and healthier overall.

Parents and students: Risks posed to schoolchildren walking to school or waiting for the bus on dark winter mornings have driven opposition to permanent DST. While parents have little direct stake in eliminating clock changes, taking an additional step back from DST puts their interests in a safer place.

Farmers: Because farm animals’ internal clocks do not spring ahead, farmers have been steady opponents of DST since the beginning. With the farming clock determined by factors like when the morning dew falls, most farmers feel they are best served by permanent Standard Time.

Losers

Sun lovers: People who cherish every moment outdoors eagerly await their extra hour of daylight in the summer months. This group will not be happy with summer days going dark at 7:30 p.m. — especially those who are late risers, who don’t mind dark mornings in any event.

Tourist-driven industries: It is no coincidence that the strongest proponents for permanent DST come from Florida. As tourism plays a central role in the state’s economy, an extra afternoon hour in its temperate fall and winter would give visitors more time to engage in the recreational activities that drive a host of businesses including restaurants, amusement parks, and beach-related industries.

Retailers: Studies show that people are more likely to shop during daylight. That being the case, an extra hour of afternoon light is good for business.

Good for the Jews?

The prospect of permanent DST poses a serious challenge to Orthodox Jews in the winter months. Such a move would leave New York with 55 days of sunrise after 8 a.m. Some locations would have it far worse. Detroit would have 131 days of sunrise post-8 a.m. and 23 after 9 a.m.

That would leave most people with a list of poor options, including davening at the proverbial “Terach’s minyan” (i.e., between alos hashachar and haneitz), forgoing tefillah b’tzibbur, and making unwanted adjustments to daily schedules. The challenge would be so great that when permanent DST became a subject of discussion in the early 1970s, Rav Moshe Feinstein ztz”l referred to it, in a teshuvah to Agudath Israel leader Rabbi Moshe Sherer, as a “gezeirah mamash al hatefillah.”

The full elimination of DST would come with its own host of changes to Jewish life. The fasts of Shivah Asar B’Tammuz, Tishah B’Av, Tzom Gedaliah, Yom Kippur, and Taanis Esther (in some years) would end an hour earlier. The Pesach Sedorim would also begin an hour earlier.

One of the most life-altering shifts would be that summer Shabbosim begin an hour earlier, relieving the pressure many feel to make “early Shabbos” if they want their families to be fully present and awake at the seudos.

“The latest candle-lighting in Brooklyn would be 7:12, so the need for davening Maariv at plag basically goes away,” says Rabbi Dovid Heber of Baltimore, who holds expertise in halachic zemanim. “The latest Motzaei Shabbos there moves up to around 8:45.”

Not all changes would be as universally welcome. During the summer, the starting time for k’vasikin minyanim would move to before 4 a.m. in some locations.

The biggest adjustment for both Shabbos minyanim and weekday late-risers would be the early hour of summertime sof zeman Krias Shema and tefillah.

“In mid-June, a Shabbos minyan that wants to make the second zeman Krias Shema would have to start at around 7:15, which we’re not used to doing,” says Rabbi Heber. “Even to just make zeman tefillah, you’d couldn’t start much later than 8 for a few weeks. It would change the whole tzurah of bein hazmanim minyanim; the bochurim wouldn’t like it.”

Running Against the Clock

Rabbi Abba Cohen, Agudath Israel’s vice president for government affairs and Washington director, has spent nearly four decades advocating for community priorities in the federal government. Over that time span, as dependable as changes of administration and congressional leadership are debates over DST.

“For us, it’s not just a convenience issue,” says Rabbi Cohen. “Rav Moshe called it a gezeirah on tefillah. That threat really forms our attitude and overwhelms other concerns we might have. ”

Having long fought against year-round DST, the present push to eliminate it poses far less threat to Jewish life, but raises questions about where the community’s advocacy interests lie.

More concerning is the possibility Mr. Trump himself is equally open to making DST permanent, or that debate on the matter will end up spinning more momentum in that direction.

“Part of what’s complicated here is that it’s never been a partisan issue, it mostly came down to states that have big entertainment tourism industries and those that don’t,” says Rabbi Cohen. “Now, if the president really wants this, what could get added to that in a political atmosphere is people who just look to block what the president wants.”

Obscure as the matter likely seems to most non-Jews, zemanei tefillah have worked their way into the discussion along with effects on schoolchildren, sleep patterns, and farmers, playing a role in beating back permanent DST pushes in 2004 and 2022.

Rabbi Cohen said that educating Congress on the topic has been a unique experience.

“They’re not dismissive,” he said. “The common reaction is, ‘Gee, I never thought of this. Let’s see what can be done.’ Especially with members who have frum constituencies, it’s taken seriously.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1043)

The post Sunset for Daylight Savings Time?   first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

You can buy a lot of weapons and pay a lot of soldiers with $895 billion.

The outgoing Congress ratified that princely sum last week when it passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2025. It is a preliminary step in setting next year’s national security priorities, and facilitates legislative oversight of the Department of Defense, which is part of the executive branch.

The $895 billion will not be spent until the incoming Congress passes a separate appropriations bill, so the amount is not yet etched in stone. Aside from reiterating America’s longstanding commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge over its adversaries, and increased vigilance and spending to deter Iran and China, the NDAA, as currently worded, provides several goodies for Israel and food for thought for its enemies.

Two key security priorities include an additional $30 million in aid to Israel to improve the IDF’s technical wherewithal to detect and destroy enemy tunnels and to fund yearly joint subterranean military drills between Israeli and US forces, to stop terrorists from using tunnels for military purposes and smuggling. A third new proposal calls on President Trump’s new “envoy for hostage affairs” to devise a proactive strategy to protect Americans from being taken hostage or otherwise unlawfully detained when overseas.

Matthew Kenney, vice president for government affairs at the Jewish Institute for National Security of America (JINSA), noted that this policy change is long overdue, following a 175 percent increase in the number of US citizens taken captive abroad in the last decade. Previous administrations’ policy “has often exacerbated this trend, rewarding hostage-takers with political and monetary concessions instead of deterring and penalizing them. There is an urgent need to change course to avoid more Americans being taken hostage.”

The NDAA also pulls the plug on the fanciful Biden administration program that provided $320 million to facilitate humanitarian aid to Gaza, via a floating dock that broke apart in typical summer Mediterranean winds; and asks the new secretary of defense to review the operational value of America’s air base in Qatar in light of that country providing safe harbor to Hamas leadership, and to evaluate the effect on the US Air Force if it redeployed its base elsewhere.

Watch to see if Pete Hegseth wins confirmation as defense secretary. In his 2020 book American Crusade, Hegseth criticized Qatar for funding left-wing institutions in the US.

Hegseth and some of the other Trump nominees will promote policy changes. Congress will give them more money to achieve their goals than it has ever allocated to national defense, yet all the money won’t buy victories until the US can erase its biggest weaknesses.

Defining Victory and Defeat

America is grappling with two gaping financial deficits. Its cumulative national debt for decades of spending way above what it receives in revenues is $36 trillion and counting. The nation’s annual budget runs a $2 trillion deficit. But its worst deficit is a “deficit of passion” that puts Western countries at a decided disadvantage when battling fiercely passionate enemies motivated by nationalist or religious zeal.

Professor David Betz, who holds the attention-grabbing title of “professor of war in the modern world” at King’s College in London, coined the term “deficit of passion.” For his 2015 book, Carnage and Connectivity, he borrowed that expression from the early 19th-century Prussian general and military theorist Carl von Clausewitz, who wrote that “passion,” “chance,” and “political purpose” drive the vicissitudes (fluctuations) of war.

James Farwell, a national security expert and strategic communication specialist, reviewed Betz’s Carnage and Connectivity for the US Army War College Quarterly in July 2016 and reached some alarming conclusions. At the time, President Obama was nearing the end of his second term, and his policy was to wage war with a minimum of bloodshed through drone and air strikes and few or no boots on the ground, which produced only illusory victories.

“Defeating the enemy kinetically in a battlespace does not necessarily equal winning. Winning requires the enemy to recognize it has been defeated and to subject itself to the victor’s will,” Farwell wrote. “The West may have bigger, more high-tech weapons, but as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated, these cannot compensate for the passion that motivates enemies comprised of moderately organized and loosely affiliated non-state groups… Intensely motivated, purposeful enemies using low-tech methods can still defeat high-tech opponents.”

Make America Solvent First

So while it’s encouraging to see America’s defense blueprint with a significant pro-Israel component — and support from the incoming Trump administration and Congress under Republican control should augment the plan — you can’t throw money at problems, as Ronald Reagan used to say; and you can’t defeat jihadists without matching their passion, ounce for ounce, as Clausewitz might have said.

Israel declared that it was fighting a war for its survival following Hamas’s October 7 invasion and massacre. So there should be no lack of passion — but how else can you explain the erratic execution of the war and all of its stops and starts? Indeed, the constraints placed on the Netanyahu government by both the Biden administration and domestic pressures from Israel’s sizable, vocal, and still powerful political left have played a role, not to mention the agonizing moral bind gripping Israel in how to deal with its hostage dilemma.

Despite the challenges, Israel’s military achievements have been impressive, especially in taking the military initiative to secure its interests in Syria after the Assad regime collapsed.

Israel can’t afford any slack in dealing with terrorist groups with a surplus of passion who glorify death and destruction and for whom no sacrifice is too great to make for their cause.

On the surface, the incoming Trump administration’s policy of picking its fights and keeping the US out of foreign conflicts that don’t serve its interests seems prudent. But how do America’s enemies and rivals view this policy? Do they detect a deficit of passion that they can exploit?

This remains to be seen. However, the US must tackle its financial deficits if it hopes to remain strong. In another report, “Wars and Stupid Wars,” which Professor Betz authored in February 2024 for the Danube Institute, he noted that American debt had grown to unsustainable levels, placing it in serious financial peril.

As of two years ago, America’s debt-to-GDP ratio was 129 percent and was on a ballistic trajectory to reach 225 percent by 2050, although he said that the numbers will never rise to that height because the system will collapse first: “As it was put to me by a former senior banker and diplomat, ‘It can’t happen, as investors won’t accept it. This sort of thing normally ends in hyperinflation, conflict, and loss of empire!’ ”

Republicans are enthusiastic about retaking power in Washington. Still, squabbles over spending — not just military spending — have consumed much of the oxygen on Capitol Hill as the 118th Congress took its last breaths before adjourning for the year-end holidays.

If Trump hopes to make America great again, he’s got to make it financially solvent first.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1042)

The post Passion Matters More than Cash      first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

PHOTO: SHUTTERSTOCK\ DROP OF LIGHT

Political careers generally end in failure, and Canadian prime minister Justin Trudeau’s trajectory is a perfect example. Elected in 2015 with a huge parliamentary majority on a wave of personal popularity, his party now trails in the polls by 20-plus points, and he’s facing mounting calls to step down and make way for a successor to stop the party’s complete destruction at the next election, in late 2025.

His pool of allies is shrinking rapidly. More than 60 of his fellow 153 Liberal MPs are calling for his resignation, and his tottering premiership was dealt another blow when his finance minister and deputy prime minister, Chrystia Freeland, dramatically resigned, citing policy disagreements amid attempts to shunt her into a different department. Facing dire poll ratings and his own party turning on him, Justin Trudeau’s political career is nearing its end.

Meanwhile, Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre has successfully capitalized on public anger at the Trudeau administration’s failings, vowing to “build the homes, fix the budget, stop the crime, and axe the tax.” He looks poised to become the next Canadian prime minister. For an inside look at the people and politics behind Trudeau’s demise, and what a Conservative government might mean for Canada, Mishpacha spoke to Anthony Koch of the Quebec-based AK Strategies public affairs firm, who also served as a top aide to Pierre Poilievre.

When did it all start to go wrong for Trudeau?

Trudeau won a massive majority in 2015, but in 2019 and 2021, he only achieved minority wins. Both times, he got fewer votes than the Conservative Party, even though he won in terms of seats. He started off very popular, partly because the Conservatives had been in power for ten years. His decline started in 2018 when he became embroiled in a corruption scandal.

Housing prices are out of control. During Trudeau’s tenure, the cost of housing has more than doubled. Toronto and Vancouver are in the top five most expensive housing markets in the world. We’re producing fewer homes per capita than in the 1970s, but the population is many times more than it was then. Canada experienced very high inflation, and people’s top-line concern is cost of living. There’s also a backlash against woke culture, which the Liberals really doubled down on, and now people are fed up with it.

Young people helped Trudeau get elected. Current polling shows Poilievre’s strongest base is the young. The younger you are, the more likely you are to vote Conservative.

What’s been Trudeau’s biggest policy mistake?

Trudeau’s legacy will be that he shattered Canada’s cross-party consensus on immigration. Previously, every part of the spectrum, whether conservative or liberal, supported immigration. But they jacked up the numbers so hard and fast, there’s been a backlash. It’s made the housing crisis worse and public services have deteriorated, directly attributable to the change in immigration policy.

Do you think there’s anything that would persuade him to step down, or will it take a no-confidence vote to force him out?

He’s trying to reshuffle his cabinet and finding it difficult, because people realize this is the end of the road and they don’t want to join a sinking ship. Some 60-odd Liberal MPs are emboldened to call on him to go. The National Democratic Party (the third-largest party) leader said if Trudeau remains as PM, they will support a motion of no-confidence. The available paths for him to stay are rapidly shrinking. The party bigwigs will tell him the game is up and he should step down, for his own good and the good of the party. That’s the most likely scenario. He’s lost all his friends.

Who do you think would be the Liberals’ best hope to lead them into the election? Or, even if they can’t win, to mitigate their losses?

Chrystia Freeland was always popular with the caucus [the Canadian Parliamentary Conservative Party]. Eddie Goldenberg [former chief of staff to Liberal PM Jean Chrétien] says the party should just anoint her. She’s from the more centrist wing, rather than progressive. However, she doesn’t speak French and isn’t from Quebec, which in Canada is a big deal. Other contenders, the current foreign minister and current minister for industry, do speak French and hail from Quebec.

Crucially, the most talented people will most likely hold off running for now. Whoever takes this job will almost certainly lose the next election. They will understand that they’re a sacrificial lamb, and their job is to salvage as much as possible.

Do you think Trump will be more conciliatory vis-à-vis tariffs with a Conservative government?

Trump made it clear that he doesn’t like Trudeau. The incumbent government has attacked Trump, without stopping to think that he might win again. The personal animosity will be gone, but the principle for the tariffs remains the same. However, Pierre Poilievre is better placed to articulate the case against tariffs. For example, the US is heavily reliant on Canada for energy, so a 25% tariff on all Canadian exports will slap 25% on energy for American consumers. Trump won’t want higher energy costs for Americans, which is what brought down Joe Biden.

How does Pierre Poilievre intend to deal with immigration?

The Liberals have realized that immigration is a loser for them, and, over the last eight months, made a series of announcements about clamping down on immigration. In the next 18 to 24 months, 4.9 million out of Canada’s 41 million population will have their visas expire. The federal government expect most of those people to voluntarily leave.

There are two problems with that. There is no capacity to deport people if they don’t leave. Also, they often file an asylum claim once their visa expires, but the system is so backlogged, it can take two years before they get a hearing, and they can’t be deported while they have an active claim. Poilievre needs to ensure the Canadian Border Service has the resources it needs to enforce where necessary, and he needs to clear the asylum backlog. It will be a difficult issue to navigate; immigrants are upset at the change in this decade-long status quo.

Canada under Justin Trudeau has adopted a distinctly Israel-skeptic stance, even restricting arms exports. How will things be different under Poilievre?

Poilievre has consistently expressed strong support for Israel. He’s condemned Hamas as a “sadistic, genocidal, terrorist death cult” and emphasized Israel’s right to defend itself. Poilievre has also indicated that, under his leadership, Canada would stand firmly with Israel and move Canada’s embassy to Jerusalem. He’s also said that if Israel were to destroy Iran’s nuclear capacity, it would be “a gift to mankind from the Jewish state,” which underscores his alignment with Israel’s security concerns.

Canada’s seen a sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks since October 7. What has Poilievre committed to do about it?

Poilievre has been vocal in his condemnation. He’s criticized Prime Minister Justin Trudeau for what he perceives as a weak response to anti-Semitism and has called for stronger actions to combat it. Additionally, Poilievre has advocated for the designation of groups like Samidoun, which he alleges have ties to terrorist organizations, as terrorist entities in Canada, and stronger immigration controls.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1042)

The post Is It Curtains for Justin Trudeau? first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

IN Israel’s multifront war on Iranian proxies, its near-total dismantling of Hamas and its pummeling of Hezbollah into seeking a ceasefire have left the Houthis of Yemen as the last terror group able to mount attacks. Despite airstrikes by Israel, the United States, and other allies on Yemen, the Houthis remain a harrowing menace. To better understand the Houthis’ true power and the IDF’s options for neutralizing them, Mishpacha spoke with Ilan Zalayat of the Institute for National Security Studies.

Wild Fanatics

The Houthis are Zaydists, a branch of Shia Islam that believes Muslim actions can accelerate what they view as the final redemption. The Houthis see the 1979 Iranian Revolution as their guiding model, interpreting every Islamic achievement as bringing the end times a step closer. In their view, the events of October 7 represented a divine success for the Muslim world, making participation in the war against Israel a matter of religious and ideological imperative.

Eager Foes

The Houthis control only one-third of Yemen’s territory, but around 70 percent of the population. Their strategy hinges on bolstering their legitimacy in the eyes of their people. They label Israel as their clear enemy — a sentiment shared by many Yemenis. Every Israeli strike on Yemen only solidifies the Houthis’ legitimacy among their supporters.

The Weak Spot?

The port of Hodeidah is the Houthis’ gateway for food, humanitarian aid, and, crucially, weaponry. Anyone wanting to crush Houthi power would need to neutralize this port.

So why hasn’t it been done? Simple: the resulting humanitarian catastrophe would draw an international outcry. Israel, in particular, cannot afford further diplomatic black eyes.

Moreover, the Houthis have repeatedly shown that they are willing to let their population suffer in defense of their cause. During past conflicts with Saudi Arabia, hundreds of thousands of Yemenis starved when food supplies were blocked, yet the Houthis retained their grip on power.

How Quickly Could the IDF Defeat Them?

This is a difficult question to answer. Saudi Arabia has been fighting the Houthis since 2015. Despite overwhelming military superiority, the Saudis have failed to subdue them. Northern Yemen’s mountainous terrain allows the Houthis to hide in caves and tunnels, making them exceedingly difficult to target. Israel lacks precise intelligence on Yemen comparable to that of Gaza or Lebanon. This makes the Houthis a far more complex enemy.

Sullen Sidekicks

Iran views the Houthis as its proxy, but the Houthis don’t see it that way. While the Houthis rely on Iranian funding and weaponry, they wield a surprising degree of independence in decision-making. They view their leader, Abdul Malik Al-Houthi, as Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei’s equal. This nationalist pride sets them apart, but it doesn’t change the reality that Iran calls the shots.

Punching Above Their Weight

Since Israel isn’t fighting the Houthis face-to-face, the size of their force is less of a concern than their ballistic capabilities. In that regard, they are more powerful than Hamas and less so than Hezbollah. Still, underestimating them would be a mistake. They’ve conducted successful missile and drone strikes, launched from over 2,000 kilometers away and occasionally evading Israel’s Iron Dome defense system.

Red Sea Pirates

For nearly a year, the Houthis have been disrupting maritime trade routes. Their control of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, through which over 17,000 cargo ships pass annually, has reshaped international commerce. Many shipping companies now prefer the costly detour around Africa over the risky passage through the strait. Interestingly, Russian ships seem to be an exception, granted safe passage by the Houthis. With the potential return of Donald Trump to the White House, a more aggressive US policy in the region could alter this dynamic.

“While other Iranian-backed militias remain active in Iraq, the geopolitical reality has proven that Iran’s presumed final card against Israel, Hezbollah, has taken a back seat. Today, it is the Houthis who pose the most significant threat.”

—Ilan Zalayat

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1042)

The post The Houthis: Iran’s Last Card  first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

When President-elect Donald Trump announced he’d be replacing FBI director Christopher Wray, the news came with a double jolt. First, because Trump himself had appointed Wray to lead the Bureau in 2017, with an expectation to serve until 2027. Second, because the replacement was a name largely unknown outside Trump’s inner circle. Kash Patel? Who is this man? And how did he become so central in Trump world that he was offered such a consequential position?

Kashyap Pramod Vinod Patel — known simply as “Kash” — has climbed the ranks with a mission that resonates deeply in MAGA circles: the fight against the so-called “deep state.” But Kash’s transformation into a MAGA loyalist didn’t happen overnight.

The young attorney (he’s now 44) began his career as a public defender in Miami-Dade County, but he traded Florida’s warm climate for the political intensity of Washington, D.C. in 2014. He secured a position in the Justice Department’s National Security Division, focusing on counterterrorism, and by 2017, he was senior counsel on counterterrorism for the House Intelligence Committee. But Kash Patel’s breakthrough moment was just around the corner.

In 2017, Patel began advising Congressman Devin Nunes (R–CA), and in 2018, he authored the infamous “Nunes Memo.” The document accused the FBI of political bias, alleging it had relied on dubious sources to implicate Trump associates in the probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Patel emerged as a staunch Trump defender amid a scandal that dominated headlines. The former president, then newly acquainted with Patel, appeared to take note.

Fight with Kash

Criticism of the FBI was nothing new in the Trump administration. On May 9, 2017, during Trump’s first term, James Comey became only the second FBI director in history to be fired. The stated reasons varied. Some claimed Comey mishandled sensitive cases, such as the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email servers. Others argued it was his refusal to bow to Trump’s demands in the Russia investigation that led to his ouster.

Fast-forward to June 7, 2017, when Trump, as president, announced Christopher Wray as his choice for Comey’s successor, calling him “an impeccably qualified individual,” and said Wray would be “a fierce guardian of the law and model of integrity.”

Trump envisioned Wray as the agent of change to reshape the Bureau. But things didn’t go as planned.

Meanwhile, Patel kept advancing within the MAGA universe. In February 2019, he began working for Trump’s National Security Council. By 2020, he had secured a post in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. Media reports of his growing influence on the president began surfacing. In 2019, Politico reported that Patel had “unique access” to Trump and was advising him on Ukraine policy, despite his limited expertise in the region. Patel not only denied the allegations but sued Politico for $25 million, alleging defamation.

His clout within Trump’s inner circle was undeniable. During the 2020 campaign, Trump even declared that he would appoint Patel to lead either the CIA or the FBI. Then–attorney general William Barr responded pointedly, “Over my dead body.”

After Trump’s 2020 defeat, the Republican leader’s inner circle grew smaller, separating opportunists from loyalists. Patel proved to be among the most steadfast of the latter. Outside public office, he amplified MAGA rhetoric wherever he could. In interviews, he insisted the 2020 election was rigged and vowed “revenge” on those who allowed it to happen. He founded Fight with Kash, an organization branded with a “K$H” logo, selling pro-Trump merchandise purportedly to fund the families of January 6 Capitol riot detainees.

Patel also turned to publishing, authoring Government Gangsters: The Deep State, the Truth, and the Battle for Our Democracy, in which he detailed his efforts to shield Trump from bureaucratic attempts to undermine his presidency. He even ventured into children’s literature with The Plot Against the King, portraying himself as “the wizard Kash,” defending “King Donald” from the scheming “Hillary Queenton.”

A Deep State Museum

Trump never relinquished his core grievance with the FBI. In Trump’s view, the Bureau’s politically motivated investigations, conducted under his appointee Christopher Wray, became emblematic of the “deep state.” That frustration reached a climax when, days ago, Wray announced his intention to resign once Biden leaves office. True to form, Trump wasted no time sharing his thoughts on Truth Social:

Under the leadership of Christopher Wray, the FBI illegally raided my home, without cause, worked diligently on illegally impeaching and indicting me, and has done everything else to interfere with the success and future of America. They have used their vast powers to threaten and destroy many innocent Americans, some of which will never be able to recover from what has been done to them. Kash Patel is the most qualified Nominee to lead the FBI in the Agency’s History, and is committed to helping ensure that Law, Order, and Justice will be brought back to our Country again, and soon.

Patel, for his part, has echoed Trump’s fiery rhetoric. In a recent interview, his remark — “We will go out and find the conspirators, not just in government but in the media... we are coming after you!” — was widely interpreted as a threat to his critics.

Additionally, Kash himself vowed that once he takes office (he would be the first Indian-American in charge, and the youngest director ever of the Bureau), he will transform the FBI’s headquarters “into a deep state museum.” He declared his intention to shut down the Hoover Building and scatter its more than 7,000 employees “across America to chase down criminals.”

The backlash against Patel’s nomination has been swift. Critics argue he lacks the expertise to lead an institution designed to be independent of political pressure.

Former FBI assistant director Frank Figliuzzi warned, “I imagine on the first day in office, he’s going to say, ‘I need every file that has the word Trump in it.’ That should be a real concern.”

Patel’s confirmation is far from guaranteed. The Senate’s approval is required, and observers predict a contentious fight. Republicans are lining up behind the nominee: Senator John Cornyn of Texas remarked, “I assume that Mr. Patel will be confirmed as the next FBI director.” Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina said, “I like Kash’s chances of getting confirmed.”

On the Democratic side, California’s newly elected Senator Adam Schiff charged that Kash Patel’s only credential for this high-profile role is his “blind obedience” to President Trump. Senator Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, meanwhile, expressed concern that Patel “might be more focused on a revenge mission than on a national security safety mission.”

But as a recent president once said, “Elections have consequences.” In November, Republicans regained control of the Senate with a 53–47 majority. However challenging it may be, Trump is likely to achieve his goal if he manages to get GOP senators in line. And if the Trump era has proven anything, it is that loyalty often trumps conventional qualifications. By that metric, Kash Patel might just be the ideal candidate for the job.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1041)

The post Kash Only first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.

Photo: AP Images

Celebration over the sudden downfall of Bashar al-Assad’s murderous regime in Syria has been tempered by pessimism over whether the rebels who took over are any better.

The Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) rebel army and its leader Abu Mohammad al-Julani, who now hold power in Damasus, are trying to sell themselves as moderates. But they made their mark as Islamist jihadis, fighting to unite a war-scarred country divided into fiefdoms ruled by various militias.

Seth J. Frantzman, a journalist and Israel-based adjunct fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, has monitored Syria for decades and authored After ISIS: America, Iran and the Struggle for the Middle East. He speaks with Mishpacha about Syria’s future.

Paper Lion

“Assad looked strong on paper, but that was only because he was supported by Russia and Iran,” says Dr. Frantzman. “He was almost overthrown in 2011 — the county almost fell to ISIS. Syria’s army lost a third of its men in those fights and had trouble refilling the ranks. If you dug down, there were very few men and a lot of equipment that didn’t work.”

Sheep’s Clothing?

Mr. al-Julani’s pledges of tolerance and a vison of a diverse Syria have made him a hero to some. But his group’s past ties to al-Qaeda and ISIS are troubling.

Dr. Frantzman says history lends ample reason for skepticism. “These groups do not get nicer. Hamas didn’t moderate when it was hosted in Qatar.”

HTS claims to have broken ties with ISIS and al-Qaeda and evolved into an independent umbrella group of Sunni militias. Most of its fighters are Syrian, but it has also attracted Chechens and Uzbeks, who tend to be the most radical in their views.

The Threat to Israel

Dr. Frantzman says even if HTS ends up like the Taliban in Afghanistan, it poses far less of an international threat than did jihadi groups of the past: “The track record of these groups has become that while they are still quite extreme, they haven’t looked to export terror. They’re not the threat to world peace they used to be.”

The HTS threat to Israel has been reduced, in any event. In the chaos following Mr. Assad’s flight, Israeli strikes destroyed many of Syria’s weapons stockpiles and the IDF took up positions on the Syrian side of Mount Hermon. It may prove to be wise strategy.

“If [al Julani] focuses on Syria, Israel will be fine, but history tells us these groups end up viewing Israel as an enemy,” says Dr. Frantzman.

A Bunch of Gangs

Can HTS effectively govern? The group controlled the northwestern Idlib province for several years, even as Mr. Assad held the reins of power in Damascus. HTS won fair marks for its administration.

But now it must find a way to rein in various rival forces: US-backed Kurds in the northwest, Turkish-backed forces in the northeast, and other groups in the southeast around the US al-Tanf military base.

“[Al-Julani] will have some trouble consolidating power,” says Dr. Frantzman. He adds that while some rival groups might be effective partners, the Turkish supported Syrian National Army are “a bunch of gangs, the worst type of people you could have to run a country.”

Iran Recalibrates

Mr. Assad’s fall is a sign of Iran’s further diminished power. Tehran has lost its land route for resupplying Hezbollah. HTS’s ascendence also puts Iran-backed groups in Syria on notice: Al-Julani’s declared goal is to rid the county of Shia influence. But don’t count Iran out.

“Iran will play it smart and not move troops in, but find an accommodation with HTS and get them to turn a blind eye to their smuggling and other activities,” says Dr. Frantzman. “It will hurt Hezbollah temporarily, but Iran will find alternative routes to deliver weapons.”

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1041)

The post Question Marks over Syria    first appeared on Mishpacha Magazine.