The Takeover Of Islam

A rumor recently circulated on social media alleging that King Charles III had quietly converted to Islam. While such claims are often dismissed as mere digital noise, their persistence suggests a deeper anxiety within the public consciousness. When one observes the current cultural landscape—the proliferation of mosques across the United Kingdom, the perceived political realignment of London under Mayor Sadiq Khan, and a legal system increasingly accused of prioritized "community cohesion" over traditional English rights—the rumor begins to feel less like a conspiracy and more like a metaphor for a civilizational shift.

As someone famously observed, "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing, they then become capable of believing in anything."

We see this playing out in real-time. In the United Kingdom, Prime Minister Keir Starmer now faces a "Michigan Problem"—a phenomenon where the political establishment finds its domestic policy increasingly dictated by a specific, vocal demographic. This is the culmination of a process that began decades ago. When I lived in Britain and traveled across Europe fifteen years ago, the signs were already visible: historic churches were being shuttered, their pews auctioned off, and their sanctuaries repurposed as mosques.

Even the Vatican seems to have shifted its posture. Pope Francis frequently appears more intent on accommodating Islamic sensibilities than defending the heritage of the West. To many, it appears the Papacy has lost confidence in the very institution it was intended to lead. It raises the question of whether a progressive, post-national leadership was the right choice for a Church facing an identity crisis.

The trend is not confined to the religious left. We are witnessing a bizarre "horseshoe" alignment in America. On one side, figures like Tucker Carlson have begun to speak of Islam with a newfound reverence; on the other, leftist "it" boys like Hasan Piker offer apologies for groups like Hamas. The "Woke" left and the reactionary right are finding a strange, shared orbit around Islam. As Samuel Huntington wrote in The Clash of Civilizations: "The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion... but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do."

It appears the global ruling class has internalized Huntington’s thesis. Powerful figures are gravitating toward Islam not necessarily out of theological conviction, but because they no longer believe Christianity or Judaism possesses the "hard power" to withstand the future. They see a Western religious tradition that has been "hollowed out" by its own stewards—reduced to a comic-book version of its former self, stripped of authority, and relegated to a private hobby rather than a structuring force for society.

Islam, by contrast, presents itself as a comprehensive civilizational force. It unapologetically integrates the spiritual, the legal, and the political. To an elite class trained to identify long-term trends, the demographic and ideological momentum of Islam offers a sense of certainty that the fragmented, technocratic West cannot match.

The result is a pattern of "anticipatory deference." It is why speech directed at Christianity is celebrated as "subversive," while the same critiques leveled at Islam are policed as "hate speech." It is a civilizational hedge. As Will Durant noted, "A great civilization is not conquered from without until it has destroyed itself from within."

The global elite are not necessarily undergoing a spiritual awakening; they are making a cold-blooded bet. They are aligning with the force they believe will endure. When a ruling class prizes survival over its own foundational principles, it begins to make a series of small, rational concessions. Taken together, these concessions amount to a surrender.

The center of gravity has shifted. If the people at the top have decided which way the wind is blowing, they will ensure the sails are set accordingly. Currently, the global elite appear to be putting their money on a future that is no longer Western.

Many New Shiurim BS"D!

 Here!

Appreciate The Sacrifice

This weekend, I found myself in Tempe, Arizona, for a long weekend—my first true vacation in over 18 months. I was there to catch a few Spring Training ball games and spend time with my son. At 36, he and I share the kind of relationship fathers and sons dream of. It is a blessing I enjoy with both of my children.

They appreciate tradition and heritage. Tradition, someone once wrote, means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead.

I take little credit for their perspective. I am merely passing along the continuous observations of my late mother. Raised in a tenement on Chicago’s West Side, she never failed to remind us “how good we had it” or that we needed to remain mindful of those less fortunate. My mother’s philosophy and deep faith, combined with my father’s relentless work ethic, left an indelible mark on their four sons. To this day, I cannot pass a homeless person without thinking, “There, but for the grace of God, go I.” In simple English - that could just as easily be me. 

I remember my father losing his business during the recession of the 70s and his willingness to take any labor to keep his family afloat. I grew up on stories of my grandfather, who walked five miles to and from his restaurant job rather than spend a few cents on the bus, saving every penny for his family. That was the America of sacrifice and character—a country we all claim to love and wish would return.

But on Sunday morning, while strolling in search of coffee, I witnessed a very different America. Tempe is an affluent college town, and Arizona State University has long been known as a "party school." But today, the marketing for the young "urban" class has taken a strange, performative turn.

I stopped on a side street in front of a storefront that looked as though it had been gutted during a 1960s riot. Outside, a man sat at a plastic table that looked salvaged from a dumpster. He had a cup of coffee. I asked, “Is this a coffee shop of some sort?” He nodded with somber gravity.

The storefront was a fogged-glass mess of scrapings and markings. Inside, however, was a cavernous, warehouse-like room. Young people sat on mold-crusted furniture with their laptops, sipping eight-dollar lattes. There were the requisite piercings, multi-colored hair affectations, and a few dogs wandering the concrete floor. In the back, an espresso bar was being manned by a group of what appeared to be Maoist baristas. Driven by caffeine-deprived desperation, I ordered a coffee and decided to study the scene through the lens of a sociologist.

These coffee bars are now ubiquitous in every "edgy" hipster neighborhood in America. Cleanliness is no longer the goal; in fact, a bathroom with soaked floors and the faint scent of neglect is a selling point. These spaces are "gritty" for a privileged class—a world carefully constructed to feel authentic, dangerous, and morally serious, while remaining remarkably insulated from any actual hardship. It is a bad caricature of the working class, a costume party where the fashion is borrowed from laborers, punks, and revolutionaries.

As George Orwell once observed, “The typical Socialist... is either a youthful snob-Bolshevik who in five years' time will quite probably have settled down into a middle-class job... or, more typically, a prim little man with a white-collar job.”

The language these patrons use—learned in cushy political science seminars—is filled with words like "resistance," "struggle," and "solidarity." These terms are proclaimed by professors who have nothing in common with the laborers they claim to represent. Their lectures have all the intellectual weight of a group of chimpanzees trying to determine the circumference of the earth.

There is no "struggle" in Tempe, Arizona, or in Cambridge, Evanston, or Madison. The inhabitants of these enclaves are the children of stability. They were raised in comfortable suburbs, educated at elite universities, and surrounded by the soft protections of the upper-middle class. They have inherited a life that is materially effortless but, apparently, psychologically unsatisfying. Their lives lack the drama and risk that forge real character.

So, they construct an imaginary world. These are do-it-yourself playdates, much like the ones their parents arranged for them alongside Suzuki violin lessons and European vacations. Their parents created a world of participation trophies and "everyone is gifted" platitudes. This is their pathetic attempt to revolt—much like the Boomers "revolted" at Woodstock while sending the sons of the working class to die in Vietnam. They inhabit spaces that provide the aesthetic of danger without the reality of it. These are padded cells of simulated rebellion.

For all the complaining one hears today, the vast majority of humanity has never had it so good. It is the very system these young activists attack that is responsible for the freedom and wealth that allow them to attack it. They know nothing of the world as it existed even a century ago.

The true pioneers and the immigrants the Left claims to protect would be revolted by this performance. In the 1880s, real labor leaders were justifiably angry about 12-hour shifts, child labor, six-day work weeks, and the constant threat of cholera and tuberculosis. They didn’t have to "simulate" hardship; they lived it. They would have craved the lifestyle these young liberals denounce. In those days, an economic downturn didn't mean making coffee at home or moving into a parent's guest room—it meant starvation.

The same applies to the way they view service. Today, military duty is often looked down upon as something performed by "those people" in flyover states. They justify their guilt by claiming those who volunteer are merely political opposites who deserve their lot, while they rage online about "injustice" over a latte.

Even the modern view of "liberation" is skewed. The idea that manual labor was "liberating" for women is a fantasy created by wealthy activists like Gloria Steinem, who made a career out of performative empathy. The women of 1880, working 15-hour days in sweatshops or curing meats on a frozen farm just to survive the winter, would have loved to teach today’s feminists a thing or two about "micro-aggressions."

When my brothers and I were kids, we played "running away" and lived in treehouses. But by the time we were thirteen, we knew it was time to work. We were constantly reminded that our lives were far easier than those of our grandparents. Responsibility was not just an obligation; it was a point of pride.

The way today’s "edgy" youth react to their affluence is neither justifiable nor honest. It is grounded in ingratitude—an arrogant dismissal of the enormous sacrifices made to get them here. It is not a revolution; it is a prolonged and tedious playdate. When I see it, I feel the same way I did when I was trapped at a Chuck E. Cheese for three hours while my kids dove into the ball pit—except the ball pit was honest play.

These are not stupid people; they are spoiled children. And there will be a real human toll. Instead of building something real—families, communities, and institutions—they are acting out a theatrical version of hardship inside the safest society in history.

As Theodore Roosevelt said, “A life of ignoble ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive after great things, is a life which has no place in a nation which aspires to be actually great.”

If they truly wanted to change the world, the recipe is right in front of them. All they need to do is put down the "gritty" coffee, look at the sacrifices of the generations before them, and act with a shred of the same gratitude and courage. 

The Scapegoat And Family Therapy

During my years as a psychologist and psychotherapist, I have been invited into the most intimate avenues of my clients’ lives. I have borne witness to stories of dysfunctional upbringings and fractured relationships that have left me shocked, appalled, and deeply saddened. The capacity for human beings to harm one another never ceases to amaze me; I hear the echoes of it time and again in the therapy room.

As Viktor Frankl famously observed, “An abnormal reaction to an abnormal situation is normal behavior.” My role is to meet clients within those abnormal situations with unconditional positive regard: to hold space for them to narrate their histories, process their emotions, and empower them to change what they can. When working with those from dysfunctional families, the concept of "family roles" almost always emerges.

In family systems theory, children unconsciously adopt psychological roles to help the system maintain equilibrium. These are not chosen; they are adaptive responses to relational stress, neglect, or unresolved trauma. As Virginia Satir, a pioneer of family therapy, once noted: “The family is a microcosm of the world. To understand the world, we can begin by understanding the family.” In healthy systems, roles are flexible. In dysfunctional ones, they become rigid, serving to protect the family’s psychological defenses rather than fostering growth. We see the golden child, the hero, the lost child, and the enabler. But arguably, the most overtly painful and psychologically burdensome role is that of the scapegoat.

In clinical terms, the scapegoat functions as the "identified patient." This individual becomes the container for the family’s disowned emotions: anger, shame, guilt, and fear. Through projection and projective identification, these uncomfortable feelings are displaced onto one member, allowing the rest of the system to maintain the illusion of health. As Carl Jung wrote, “Everything that is irritating about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves.” In a dysfunctional family, however, that understanding is avoided at all costs. The scapegoat is blamed for problems they did not create; they are criticized, pathologized, and ostracized to protect the system from confronting its own rot.

Scapegoating dynamics are not limited to the living room; they scale up to groups and societies. The philosopher René Girard argued that scapegoating is a fundamental human mechanism used to reduce collective anxiety and maintain social cohesion. He noted, “The scapegoat mechanism is the invisible pillar of all social order.” By blaming a specific group for complex problems, a society restores a sense of moral clarity: if the scapegoat is the "evil," the rest of the system can view itself as fundamentally "good." However, this relief is an illusion. The underlying dysfunction remains, and the cycle of blame must continue to keep the peace.

Paradoxically, the scapegoat is often the most psychologically perceptive member of the family. Because they are less invested in maintaining the shared denial, they become the truth-tellers—the ones who challenge the narratives that sustain the dysfunction. This truth-telling destabilizes the system, provoking further defensiveness and silencing. As George Orwell wrote, “The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.”

My interest in these dynamics has inevitably shaped how I consider the Gaza–Israel conflict. I approached this issue as I would a client’s story—through careful history-taking and psychological formulation. I opened the door to Israel’s narrative and immersed myself in the history of the Jewish people: the diaspora, centuries of persecution, pre-1948 tensions, and the factors leading to the creation of the State of Israel.

I learned of the "mutating virus" of antisemitism, as the late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks called it. Across centuries, the same hatred has been reshaped to suit the narrative of the time: Jews portrayed as child murderers, C---t-killers, disease carriers, and now, "colonizers." The accusations change form, but the underlying hostility remains. Yet, within this history, I also encountered the extraordinary resilience of the Jewish people—a capacity to rebuild that mirrors the resilience I see in the most courageous of my clients.

In this context, the international community resembles a macro version of a dysfunctional family system. Within this metaphor, organizations such as the UN, the Red Cross, and Amnesty International act as dysfunctional parental figures—institutions meant to guide and protect, yet influenced by political denial and distorted narratives. Countries like Australia, the UK, and Canada often occupy the role of enablers, shifting responsibility and turning a blind eye to destructive behaviors. Within this framework, the Palestinians are frequently cast as the "Golden Child"—the one who, in the eyes of the system, can do no wrong.

And the scapegoat? Israel. And, by extension, Jews worldwide.

The writer Vasily Grossman once said: “Tell me what you accuse the Jews of, and I will tell you what you are guilty of.” This is the clinical definition of projection. In dysfunctional families, when the scapegoat speaks truth, they are accused of the very behaviors they are trying to expose. We see this dynamic in the accusations leveled against Israel since October 7th. Israel defended itself against a brutal terrorist attack and was rapidly blamed for the consequences of a war initiated by a death cult. Many of the accusations directed at Israel—the targeting of civilians, the use of humanitarian infrastructure for war, the genocidal intent—mirror the exact behaviors of Hamas.

I write this because I feel compelled to say something simple: I am sorry. One of the most powerful moments in my own therapy journey was when my therapist said: “I’m so sorry that happened to you. You didn’t deserve that.”

Such simple words can be transformative. For the first time, I felt seen. And so I want to say, to Israel and to Jewish communities around the world: I am sorry that you are experiencing this wave of blame, hostility, and hatred. It is not fair. It is not right.

Like a therapist walking beside a client through a painful chapter, I want to say: stand strong. Continue to shine your light of truth in these dark times. I am not Jewish; I cannot fully embody your history. But I can meet it with empathy and solidarity. Just as I go into the trenches with my clients, I stand beside you in this struggle.

The values of liberal democracy feel increasingly fragile. Against a tide of distortion, Israel continues to defend itself and, in doing so, defends the truth. Just as the scapegoat within a family often becomes the courageous truth-teller, Israel persists in confronting those who seek its destruction.

So, alongside my apology, I offer a wholehearted thank you.

Thank you for your resilience.

Thank you for your courage.

Thank you for your unwavering commitment to survival.

Am Yisrael Chai!!

The Anniversary Of The Hindawi Affair

הללו את השם כל גוים שבחוהו כל האומים

Only the Goyim know how many of their plots to hurt Jews have been foiled בחסד השם עלינו!!!

40 years ago on April 17, 1986, the Hindawi affair exposed one of the most chilling terror plots ever uncovered in Europe.

Nezar Hindawi, a Palestinian working with Syrian intelligence, planted 1.5kg of Semtex in the luggage of his pregnant fiancée, Anne-Marie Murphy, and sent her (unknowingly) onto an El Al flight from London to Tel Aviv. The bomb was designed to detonate mid-air, killing everyone on board, including her and their unborn child.

The attack failed only because El Al security became suspicious during routine questioning and searched her bag.

The horror of the plot isn’t just in its intended scale, but in its method: the deliberate use of an unwitting Western civilian as a disposable delivery system, sacrificed without hesitation in service of the cause.

That pattern (exploiting Western trust, naivety, and goodwill) has repeated itself in different forms for decades.

The Hindawi case is a stark illustration of Palestinianism and how it utilizes the weaponization of dangerously useful naive actors in the west.

If only we would learn the lesson.

The Hindawi affair was a foiled terrorist plot on 17 April 1986 to bomb El Al Flight 016, a Boeing 747 departing London Heathrow for Tel Aviv, involving Jordanian national Nezar Nawwaf al-Mansur al-Hindawi's attempt to conceal approximately 1.5 kilograms of Semtex explosive in the carry-on luggage of his unwitting pregnant Irish girlfriend, Anne-Marie Murphy.[1][2]

El Al security personnel, conducting routine enhanced checks, detected the device hidden in a false compartment of Murphy's bag, equipped with a detonator linked to an altimeter trigger designed to activate mid-flight, which would likely have destroyed the aircraft and killed all 375 passengers and crew.[1]

Hindawi, who had abandoned Murphy at the airport after misleading her about the flight's requirements, was arrested shortly thereafter and charged with offenses including placing an explosive device with intent to endanger life.[3]

At his trial in the Central Criminal Court, evidence including Hindawi's own statements revealed his recruitment by agents connected to the Syrian embassy in London, who supplied the bomb and instructions, prompting the UK government to conclude Syrian intelligence orchestration at high levels.[2][4]

On 24 October 1986, Hindawi was convicted and sentenced to 45 years imprisonment, the longest term ever handed down by a British court at that time, leading the following day to the expulsion of Syria's ambassador, withdrawal of the UK chargé d'affaires, and suspension of diplomatic relations with Damascus.[3][2]

The incident underscored vulnerabilities in airport security prior to widespread adoption of stringent measures and highlighted state-sponsored terrorism, with subsequent parole denials for Hindawi citing ongoing risks despite his advanced age.[5][6]

The Incident

Planning and Preparation

Nezar Nawwaf al-Mansur al-Hindawi, a Jordanian national of Palestinian origin born in 1954, traveled to Syria in late 1985 seeking involvement with militant groups opposed to Israel. There, officials from Syria's Mukhabarat intelligence service recruited him for a terrorist operation targeting an El Al flight out of London, offering logistical support and training in bomb handling and sabotage techniques in exchange for his participation.[7][8] This arrangement aligned with Syria's broader pattern of sponsoring attacks on Israeli targets to advance its regional interests without direct attribution.[9]

Following his training, Hindawi returned to London in early 1986, where he had previously met Anne-Marie Murphy, a 32-year-old Irish chambermaid, in a restaurant in October 1985. Over the subsequent months, he deliberately cultivated a romantic relationship with her, including impregnating her around October 1985 to deepen her emotional dependence and ensure her unwitting cooperation in the plot.[1] By April 1986, Murphy was six months pregnant with Hindawi's child, which he exploited to convince her to travel alone to Tel Aviv on El Al Flight 016 departing Heathrow on April 17, 1986, under the false pretense of meeting his family while he ostensibly arranged to follow separately.[10]

The operational target was selected as El Al due to its status as Israel's national carrier and rigorous security protocols, which ironically heightened the plot's potential impact if successful. Syrian handlers coordinated the provision of the explosive device through diplomatic channels at the Syrian embassy in London, where Hindawi retrieved it on April 16, 1986, disguised within a portable stereo radio to evade detection.[11] Hindawi instructed Murphy to check the bag containing the device as hold luggage, assuring her it held gifts for his relatives, thereby positioning her as an unwitting courier to bypass passenger screening.[12] This deception relied on Murphy's trust and her lack of suspicion toward El Al's security measures, which Hindawi anticipated would focus on her profile as a pregnant Western woman rather than Arab passengers.[13]

Attempted Execution and Discovery

On April 17, 1986, Anne-Marie Murphy, a 32-year-old Irish chambermaid six months pregnant, arrived at London Heathrow Airport to board El Al Flight 016 to Tel Aviv, carrying hand luggage containing an explosive device unknowingly planted by her Jordanian boyfriend, Nezar Hindawi.[1][13] Hindawi had deceived Murphy into believing the trip was to visit his family in Israel, providing her with a suitcase she did not pack herself and instructing her to claim it held gifts if questioned.[1][13] The Boeing 747 targeted carried approximately 370 passengers and crew, with the timer-activated bomb intended to detonate mid-flight over Europe.[1]

El Al security personnel, including officers Yossi Orbach and Ofer Argov, conducted enhanced profiling and questioning at the gate after Murphy passed initial Heathrow checks.[1][13] Suspicions arose from inconsistencies in her account, such as claiming limited funds yet planning to stay at a Hilton hotel (her workplace in London), recent ticket changes for solo travel despite her pregnancy, inability to explain payment methods beyond a cheque guarantee card, and vague details about accommodations in Israel.[1][13] Orbach later recalled initial thoughts of drug smuggling rather than explosives, while Argov noted the overall story "didn’t make sense."[1]

An X-ray scan of her handbag revealed no immediate anomalies, prompting a manual search that uncovered the device hidden behind a false panel in the base: approximately 1.5 kg of a yellowish, oily plastic explosive substance (similar to Semtex), capped by a modified Commodore scientific calculator serving as a timer-detonator, which Hindawi had taught her to use under the pretense of arithmetic practice.[1][13] The bomb was immediately isolated and defused by experts, preventing detonation, after which Murphy was detained and later confirmed her lack of knowledge of the plot.[1][13]

Key Participants

Nezar al-Hindawi

Nezar Nawwaf al-Mansur al-Hindawi, a Jordanian national of Palestinian origin, orchestrated the attempted bombing of El Al Flight 016 scheduled to depart London Heathrow for Tel Aviv on April 17, 1986.[12] He deceived his pregnant Irish girlfriend, Anne-Marie Murphy, into carrying a suitcase containing a sophisticated explosive device disguised as baby items, convincing her the trip was to claim paternity of their unborn child in Israel.[1] Hindawi had impregnated Murphy months earlier after meeting her at the Kensington Hilton hotel where she worked as a chambermaid, using the relationship to manipulate her involvement without her knowledge.[14]

Prior to the plot, Hindawi had faced setbacks in Syria, including expulsion after failing to secure refugee status and involvement in black-market activities.[15] In Damascus, he approached Syrian contacts for assistance, leading to recruitment by elements linked to Syrian military intelligence; they provided training, explosives, a forged passport, and approximately $12,000 to execute the attack as retaliation against Israel.[2] Hindawi claimed initial contact through a Syrian handler named "Captain Mohammed" and detailed logistical support, including bomb assembly instructions and placement in Murphy's luggage at a hotel near Heathrow.[15]

Following the bomb's discovery by El Al security personnel during routine checks—triggered by Murphy's suspicious behavior and an X-ray revealing the device's components—Hindawi was arrested on April 18, 1986, at the Shelburne Hotel.[1] In initial interrogations, he confessed extensively to British authorities about Syrian orchestration, naming specific intelligence officers and describing the plot's mechanics, which included a Semtex-based bomb with a barometric fuse designed to detonate mid-flight.[15] He later retracted these statements during his October 1986 trial at the Old Bailey, alleging coercion by police and claiming affiliation with the Abu Nidal Organization instead, though prosecutors presented evidence including Syrian passports and witness testimonies corroborating his original account.[16]

On October 24, 1986, Hindawi was convicted on charges of manslaughter (downgrading from murder due to Murphy's unknowing role), bomb possession, and customs violations, receiving a 45-year sentence—the longest for terrorism in British history at the time.[12] The court rejected his retractions as self-serving, citing material evidence like the device's professional construction matching Syrian-supplied Semtex.[2] Multiple parole bids since the early 2010s have been denied, with authorities deeming him a persistent national security risk due to inadequate remorse and ongoing denial of the plot's gravity.[17]

Anne-Marie Murphy

Anne-Marie Murphy, a 32-year-old Irish chambermaid employed at a London hotel, became unwittingly involved in the 1986 plot to bomb El Al Flight 016.[18] At six months pregnant with Hindawi's child, she agreed to travel to Tel Aviv on April 17, 1986, after her boyfriend Nezar al-Hindawi convinced her the trip was to introduce her to his mother as a surprise, providing her with a heavy suitcase containing the explosive device disguised as a Mother's Day gift.[1] [19]

Murphy met Hindawi in 1983 while working in London, where he posed as a Jordanian businessman named "Ali," concealing his Palestinian identity and terrorist affiliations to build trust over their three-year relationship.[20] Hindawi exploited her naivety and their personal bond, instructing her not to declare the suitcase at customs and assuring her it held innocuous items like a radio and jewelry, while she remained ignorant of its Semtex explosive contents, detonator, and barometric trigger mechanism designed to activate mid-flight.[21] El Al security personnel, profiling her as suspicious due to mismatched documentation and evasive responses during interrogation at Heathrow Airport, detained her and uncovered the bomb after she failed a second search.[1]

During Hindawi's October 1986 trial at the Old Bailey, Murphy testified as a prosecution witness, breaking down emotionally as she confronted Hindawi's admissions of deception, declaring "I hate you" after he confessed to fabricating his identity and plot details to manipulate her.[18] [19] She described their relationship as genuine from her perspective, including plans for marriage and family, and expressed shock at learning of the bomb's purpose, which Hindawi had hidden even after his arrest.[21] Following the incident, Murphy gave birth to their daughter in 1986 and received police protection amid threats, later relocating to maintain privacy while cooperating with investigations that corroborated her lack of foreknowledge.[1]

Methods and Device

Recruitment and Deception Tactics

Nezar Hindawi was recruited by Syrian Air Force intelligence officers in Damascus, where Lieutenant Colonel Haitem Saeed introduced him to General Mohammed Khouli, who authorized the operation and provided Hindawi with a false Belgian passport, $12,000 in funding, training, and the explosive device.[2] [7] Earlier, in January 1986, Hindawi had met Syrian Ambassador to London Loutof Allah Haydar to secure sponsorship for the plot, after which Syrian officials in London facilitated logistics including bomb assembly.[2]

To execute the attack, Hindawi targeted Anne-Marie Murphy, a 32-year-old Irish chambermaid he had begun dating in London in 1985, initially posing as a wealthy Jordanian seeking to build trust through gifts and promises of marriage.[1] He impregnated her to deepen emotional dependency, then rekindled the relationship upon learning of the pregnancy, proposing they marry in Israel where he claimed family awaited.[1] Hindawi deceived Murphy by instructing her to board El Al Flight 016 on April 17, 1986, with a suitcase he packed, falsely stating it contained a maternity dress and toys as a surprise gift for his mother, while assuring her he would follow separately due to his Arab background complicating travel.[22] [1]

The deception relied on Murphy's unwitting status as a pregnant, non-Arab Westerner to bypass El Al's behavioral profiling, which rigorously screens individuals of Middle Eastern appearance but applies lighter checks to European tourists posing low risk.[1] Hindawi further manipulated her by advising silence about their relationship to avoid scrutiny, exploiting her naivety and trust to ensure she carried the 1.5 kg Semtex-based bomb concealed in a false bottom of the luggage, triggered by an air-pressure fuse and alarm clock.[1] This tactic aimed to detonate the device mid-flight over Europe, killing all 375 passengers and crew aboard the London-to-Tel Aviv service.[22]

Explosive Device Details

The explosive device in the Hindawi affair consisted of approximately 1.5 kilograms of Semtex, a malleable plastic explosive produced in Czechoslovakia known for its stability and detectability challenges with conventional methods.[17] [16] [23] This quantity was sufficient to cause catastrophic damage to the Boeing 747 targeted, El Al Flight 016, potentially downing the aircraft mid-flight over populated areas.[1]

The Semtex was shaped into a thin layer and concealed behind a false panel or bottom in a small suitcase provided to Anne-Marie Murphy by Nezar Hindawi, disguised to resemble part of the luggage's structure and wrapped in brown adhesive tape for added camouflage.[1] [11] The detonator mechanism combined a timing device set for delayed activation with a barometric switch calibrated to trigger at an altitude of approximately 11,000 feet, ensuring explosion during cruise phase when the plane would be most vulnerable.[11]

Hindawi received the assembled components from Syrian intelligence handlers in London, who supplied the Semtex and fuses; he then inserted the device into the suitcase without Murphy's knowledge on April 17, 1986, at Heathrow Airport.[17] Court evidence presented at Old Bailey confirmed the device's sophistication, including wiring for the altimeter-triggered initiator, underscoring state-level technical support rather than improvised construction.[11] El Al security detected it via X-ray anomalies and manual disassembly, revealing the Semtex's odorless, putty-like consistency that evaded initial scans.[1]

Investigation and Legal Proceedings

Arrests and Initial Confessions

On April 17, 1986, El Al security officers at London's Heathrow Airport conducted a routine search of passenger luggage and discovered a 3.5-pound (1.6 kg) Semtex-based explosive device hidden in a false-bottomed suitcase belonging to 32-year-old Irish chambermaid Anne-Marie Murphy, who was preparing to board Flight 016 to Tel Aviv with her two young children. Murphy, six months pregnant and claiming to be traveling to meet her fiancé, was immediately detained for questioning by British authorities and El Al personnel but insisted she had no knowledge of the bomb, stating that her Jordanian lover, Nezar al-Hindawi, had packed the bag while she was asleep. After several hours of interrogation, during which she provided details about Hindawi's recent absences and gifts of money, Murphy was released without charge on the grounds of being an unwitting dupe, though she cooperated fully with investigators thereafter.[1][24][20]

Hindawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian of Palestinian descent, was arrested on April 18, 1986, at the Kensington Palace Hotel in London after Murphy identified him to police from a photograph and described his whereabouts; he had fled the scene upon learning of the discovery but was located through hotel records and tips. In his initial voluntary statements to Scotland Yard officers over the following days—made without apparent coercion and before consulting a lawyer—Hindawi confessed to masterminding the plot, admitting he had impregnated Murphy to exploit her trust, deceived her into carrying the device disguised as a tape recorder and blow dryer, and intended the blast to kill all 375 passengers and crew aboard the flight. He detailed his recruitment in Damascus by Syrian Air Force Intelligence colonel Ahmed Boutros (using the alias "George Hammoud") and another officer known as "Captain Mohammed," who provided training, the bomb components sourced from Eastern Europe, and logistical support including a forged passport and funds totaling £7,000; Hindawi also described handing over the assembled device at the Syrian embassy in London days before the attempt.[25][26][8]

These early confessions, documented in four signed police interviews and presented as evidence during Hindawi's October 1986 trial at the Old Bailey, explicitly linked the operation to Syrian state sponsorship at mid-level intelligence echelons, with Hindawi claiming the motive was retaliation for Israel's 1985 interception of an Air France flight linked to Syrian-backed terrorists. British authorities corroborated elements of his account through embassy surveillance and explosive forensics matching Syrian-handled Semtex batches, though Hindawi later retracted the statements in court, alleging fabrication and Mossad orchestration—a claim dismissed by the judge as a defense tactic given the consistency and voluntariness of the initial admissions.[27][2][26]

Trial Evidence and Verdict

The trial of Nezar al-Hindawi took place at the Old Bailey in London, commencing in September 1986 and concluding on October 24, 1986.[11] Prosecutors presented evidence that Hindawi, a 32-year-old Jordanian, had concealed approximately 3.5 pounds of Semtex plastic explosive, along with a detonator and timer mechanism disguised as a portable radio and tape recorder, within the false bottom of a handbag given to his pregnant Irish fiancée, Anne-Marie Murphy, for her flight on El Al Flight 016 from Heathrow to Tel Aviv on April 17, 1986.[16] The device was designed to detonate mid-flight using a barometric pressure switch and clock timer, potentially killing all 375 passengers and crew aboard.[2]

Key evidence included Hindawi's initial confession to British police upon his arrest on April 18, 1986, in which he admitted being recruited by Syrian intelligence agents, including a contact named "Colonel Haidar," who provided the explosives via the Syrian embassy's diplomatic bag, a false Syrian passport under the alias "Ali Khader," and $12,000 in funding for the operation framed as an anti-Israel attack.[11][2] Forensic analysis confirmed the bomb's components matched those smuggled into the UK through diplomatic channels immune from customs inspection, while Murphy testified that Hindawi had deceived her into carrying the luggage by claiming it contained gifts and that she was unaware of its contents, having been told the flight was a surprise honeymoon trip.[16] El Al security personnel recounted detecting anomalies during routine checks, including X-ray scans revealing the hidden compartment, which prompted the device's disassembly and neutralization without alerting Murphy until after arrest.[4]

The jury, after deliberating for under two hours, returned a unanimous guilty verdict on charges of attempted murder, manslaughter of an unborn child (referring to Murphy's pregnancy), and related explosives offenses.[11] Justice Kenneth Richardson sentenced Hindawi to 45 years' imprisonment, describing the plot as "one of the most wicked and abominable crimes ever" and the longest determinate sentence ever imposed by a British court at that time, reflecting the premeditated use of an unwitting civilian as a suicide bomber proxy.[16][4] Hindawi showed no remorse during sentencing, reportedly smiling and nodding to supporters in the public gallery.[2]

Syrian Intelligence Links

Hindawi's Admissions and Retractions

In the days following his arrest on April 17, 1986, Nezar Hindawi provided detailed confessions to British police regarding the bomb plot against El Al Flight 016, admitting that he had been recruited and directed by Syrian military intelligence officers based at the Syrian embassy in London.[27] He specifically identified photographs of Syria's air force intelligence chief, Gen. Muhammad al-Khouli, and another officer, Haitham Abdul-Majid Said, as his handlers, stating that they had supplied the explosive device and instructed him to use his pregnant fiancée, Anne-Marie Murphy, as an unwitting courier to bypass security.[23] Hindawi further confessed that the operation was part of a broader Syrian-backed effort coordinated through the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command (PFLP-GC), led by Ahmed Jibril, and that he had been motivated by promises of financial reward and assistance in smuggling arms.[26]

During his trial at the Old Bailey, which commenced on October 6, 1986, Hindawi retracted these admissions, denying that he had ever knowingly participated in a bombing and claiming instead that he believed he was smuggling drugs concealed in the suitcase given to Murphy.[25] He asserted that his initial statements to police were fabricated under duress, alleging coercion and intimidation by interrogators who pressured him to implicate Syrian officials, and he rejected any connection to Syrian intelligence, insisting, "I said all the truth from the beginning" regarding a non-violent smuggling intent.[25] [27] Prosecutors countered this by presenting evidence of the confession's voluntariness, including Hindawi's detailed knowledge of the device's Semtex-based construction and timer mechanisms—information consistent only with insider directives—and his post-arrest behavior, such as requesting embassy contact, which aligned with intelligence handler protocols.[2]

The jury, after deliberating for less than two hours on October 24, 1986, convicted Hindawi on all charges, implicitly rejecting his retractions as inconsistent with forensic evidence, witness testimonies, and the specificity of his earlier admissions, which had enabled rapid corroboration of Syrian embassy involvement through surveillance records.[2] Hindawi maintained his trial stance in subsequent appeals but offered no new evidence overturning the confession's credibility, with British authorities viewing the retractions as an attempt to shield Syrian sponsors amid diplomatic pressures.[16]

Corroborating Evidence of Syrian Support

British authorities, drawing on intelligence gathered during the investigation, determined that Syrian Air Force Intelligence (SANA) orchestrated key elements of the plot, including the recruitment, training, and logistical support provided to Hindawi in Damascus earlier in 1986.[8] This assessment was based on intercepted communications and operational patterns linking SANA operatives to the bomb's assembly and delivery, distinct from Hindawi's personal actions.[28]

The bomb device itself, consisting of approximately 1.5 kilograms of Semtex plastic explosive concealed in a radio cassette player, bore characteristics consistent with Syrian-supplied materiel used in prior terrorist operations, as identified by forensic analysis presented at trial.[28] Additionally, documents recovered from Hindawi, including a false Irish passport issued under the alias "Ahmed Murphy" to match his fiancée's identity, were traced to Syrian diplomatic channels in Europe, providing material corroboration of state-level facilitation.[29]

Post-conviction, Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe stated in Parliament on October 24, 1986, that "conclusive evidence" demonstrated "plain involvement" of Syrian intelligence agents and Damascus Ambassador Loutofallah Haydar in the affair, prompting the immediate closure of the Syrian embassy in London and expulsion of all Syrian diplomats by October 31, 1986.[4] [29] This diplomatic rupture reflected high-confidence British intelligence attribution, corroborated by U.S. assessments that similarly implicated the Syrian regime at senior levels, leading to parallel restrictions on Syrian personnel in Washington.[30]

Controversies

Claims of Mossad Involvement

During Nezar Hindawi's trial at the Old Bailey in London, commencing in October 1986, his defense counsel suggested that the attempted bombing of El Al Flight 016 may have been staged by Israeli intelligence to implicate Syria and embarrass Jordan.[31] This assertion formed part of the defense strategy to counter prosecution evidence linking Hindawi to Syrian handlers, including claims of payments and instructions from Syrian embassy officials in London, but no corroborating evidence for Israeli orchestration was presented in court.[31]

The suggestion aligned with broader Syrian government denials of involvement following Hindawi's arrest on April 17, 1986, where Damascus officials rejected allegations of directing the operation and portrayed the incident as potentially fabricated to serve Israeli interests amid regional tensions.[32] However, these claims lacked independent verification, relying instead on the absence of direct Syrian forensic ties to the Semtex-based explosive device, which British forensic experts confirmed contained components traceable to Eastern European suppliers commonly associated with Middle Eastern state sponsors.[32]

Post-trial, the theory received limited traction outside pro-Syrian or anti-Israel outlets, with no declassified intelligence or witness testimony substantiating Mossad's role; instead, it echoed historical precedents like the 1954 Lavon Affair, though unrelated to the 1986 events.[31] Hindawi's subsequent retractions of his confession further fueled speculation among skeptics, but trial records emphasized his initial detailed admissions of Syrian recruitment over any Israeli contrivance.[2]

Responses and Factual Rebuttals

British authorities dismissed claims of Mossad orchestration during Hindawi's trial, where his assertion that Israeli agents had planted the bomb to frame Syria was rejected based on contradictory evidence.[33] The court accepted police testimony that Hindawi had confessed to Syrian Air Force intelligence directing the plot, including providing him with a false Syrian passport, $12,000 in funding, and instructions from named officers such as Lt. Col. Haitem Saeed and Gen. Mohammed Khouli.[2]

Corroborating details included Hindawi's documented meetings with Syrian Ambassador Loutof Haydar five months prior to the attempt and embassy facilitation of intelligence sponsorship, as confirmed by Italian and British intelligence sources linking the Hindawi family to Damascus-based terrorist networks.[2] The Semtex plastic explosive used—approximately 3 pounds hidden in a modified radio cassette player—matched supplies routed through Syrian channels from Eastern Bloc origins, with no forensic ties to Israeli sources.[34]

In response to Syrian denials portraying Hindawi as an unaffiliated journalist, UK Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe described the trial evidence as "conclusive" of high-level Syrian complicity, prompting the expulsion of Syria's ambassador, recall of British diplomats, and indefinite suspension of bilateral high-level contacts on October 24, 1986, hours after the conviction.[4][2] Hindawi's post-confession retraction alleging Mossad deception lacked independent verification and failed to account for the operation's reliance on Syrian logistical support, including bomb assembly expertise beyond his demonstrated capabilities. No credible evidence of Israeli fabrication emerged in subsequent investigations, underscoring the claims' reliance on unsubstantiated assertions amid overwhelming documentation of Syrian Air Force Intelligence's role.[9]

Consequences and Legacy

Immediate Diplomatic Fallout

Following Nezar Hindawi's conviction on October 24, 1986, for attempting to bomb El Al Flight 016, the British government immediately severed diplomatic relations with Syria, citing evidence of direct involvement by Syrian intelligence services in the plot.[2][35] Foreign Secretary Geoffrey Howe informed Parliament that the operation involved Syrian air force intelligence officers at the Syrian embassy in London, including Ambassador Loutof Allah Haydar, who was declared persona non grata and ordered to leave within a week, along with approximately 40 other Syrian diplomats and embassy staff.[4][29] The UK also withdrew its ambassador, Roger Tomkys, and all British diplomatic and cultural staff from Damascus.[36]

Syria responded within hours by reciprocating the measures, expelling the British ambassador and 18 other UK diplomats, while closing the British embassy in Damascus and cultural centers.[37][2] Syrian Foreign Minister Farouk al-Sharaa denied government involvement, labeling the British accusations "slanderous" and asserting that Hindawi acted independently.[35] Haydar, upon departure from Britain on October 31, proclaimed his innocence and rejected the expulsion as unfounded.[38]

The United States endorsed the UK's actions, with White House spokesman Larry Speakes stating that the evidence demonstrated Syrian government complicity in the terrorism attempt, and President Reagan's administration imposed additional sanctions on Syria, including halting exports of equipment with military applications.[39] Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher urged European Community partners to impose a full arms embargo on Syria, though initial responses varied, with Britain expressing frustration over the lack of unified immediate action beyond symbolic condemnations.[40]

Long-Term Security Implications

The Hindawi affair exemplified the vulnerabilities of aviation security to state-sponsored plots utilizing unwitting couriers, prompting refinements in global passenger screening protocols. El Al's pre-boarding interviews, which detected inconsistencies in Anne-Marie Murphy's responses—such as her inability to explain accommodations in Bethlehem or limited funds despite claimed travel plans—led to the manual inspection revealing the 1.5 kg Semtex bomb disguised in her suitcase on April 17, 1986.[1] This human-centered approach, emphasizing behavioral anomalies over sole reliance on technology, influenced airlines worldwide to incorporate similar questioning on baggage origins, travel itineraries, and financial means, enhancing detection of coerced participants.[13] Post-incident analyses highlighted how such tactics, previously underappreciated, necessitated broader adoption of non-ethnic profiling focused on risk indicators like last-minute bookings or unaccompanied pregnant travelers.[13]

On the diplomatic front, the plot's attribution to Syrian Air Force Intelligence—evidenced by Hindawi's use of a Syrian passport, training at a Damascus base, and handler contacts—culminated in the United Kingdom severing ties with Syria on October 24, 1986, expelling diplomats and halting high-level contacts.[2] This rupture, lasting until partial restoration in 1991, curtailed intelligence-sharing channels and fostered sustained Western skepticism toward Damascus, informing long-term policies of sanctions and limited engagement that persisted into the 21st century.[4] The affair reinforced lessons on state denial of involvement despite forensic links, such as explosive traces and operational support, leading counter-terrorism agencies to prioritize multilateral attribution mechanisms and preemptive measures against regimes like Syria's, which continued sponsoring groups such as the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine-General Command.[41]

Broader counter-terrorism strategies evolved to address hybrid threats from state actors, with the plot underscoring the efficacy of layered defenses combining intelligence, legal penalties, and international isolation. Hindawi's 45-year sentence, upheld against repeated parole denials into the 2010s, established precedents for maximum tariffs on aviation sabotage attempts, deterring potential operatives.[17] Collectively, these outcomes heightened vigilance against mule-based operations in threat assessments, contributing to frameworks under the International Civil Aviation Organization that emphasize state accountability for proxy terrorism, though implementation varied amid geopolitical pressures.[13]

Hindawi's Post-Conviction Status

Hindawi received a sentence of 45 years' imprisonment on October 24, 1986, following his conviction at the Old Bailey for charges including manslaughter of an unborn child, attempting to murder passengers and crew of El Al Flight 016, and related explosives offenses; this was the longest determinate sentence imposed by a British court at the time.[42][16] He served approximately 27 years in high-security facilities, during which he pursued multiple legal challenges to parole recommendations.

Eligibility for parole arose under UK law after serving a significant portion of the term, with the Parole Board assessing risk to public safety. In November 2010, the Board recommended release, citing Hindawi's age (then 58) and diminished threat level, but Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke blocked it on national security grounds, prompting a High Court judicial review that Hindawi won in April 2011, mandating reconsideration.[16][12] Further bids faced setbacks, including a January 2012 High Court ruling upholding a ministerial veto despite Board support, and a December 2012 dismissal of another challenge.[17][5] By August 2012, renewed Board and expert assessments concluded Hindawi posed no ongoing risk due to his advanced age, physical frailty, and lack of radical associations.[43]

On March 28, 2013, the Parole Board approved release, determining that Hindawi, then 61, no longer represented a danger and had shown remorse through prison behavior and psychological evaluations.[44] Conditions included strict monitoring, potential recall for violations, and restrictions on travel or contacts; as a Jordanian national convicted of terrorism offenses, standard UK policy for foreign prisoners facilitated deportation post-release, though exact terms remain confidential. No verified reports indicate recall to custody or further offenses. As of 2025, Hindawi's whereabouts and activities elicit no public updates in reputable sources, consistent with parolee privacy protocols and his non-involvement in subsequent high-profile events.[6]

References

35 years after El Al bomb plot, security staff recount stopping ...

Britain Cuts Ties With Syria Over El Al Bombing Links

https://hansard.parliament.uk/debates/GetDebateAsT...

Anglo-Syrian Relations - Hansard - UK Parliament

Nezar Hindawi loses parole bid - BBC News

'Most dangerous' terrorist Nezar Hindawi to remain in jail

BRITISH SAY THEY HEARD SYRIAN ENVOY DISCUSS PLOT - The ...

[PDF] Files Folder Title: Terrorism – Public Diplomacy (July 1986) (3) Box ...

Terrorism: the Syrian Connection - jstor

[PDF] Mission Hall: Remembering the Past, Informing the Future - TSA

JORDANIAN IS FOUND GUILTY; GETS 45 YEARS IN EL AL PLOT

Bomb plotter Nezar Hindawi wins legal bid over release - BBC News

Ann-Marie Murphy and the Hindawi Affair: a 30th anniversary review

EL AL TRIAL OPENS; SYRIAN ROLE CITED - The New York Times

Terrorist jailed in 1986 contests minister's refusal to release him

Jet bomb plotter Nezar Hindawi loses parole bid - BBC News

An Irish woman who unwittingly carried a bomb for... - UPI Archives

THE WORLD; A Bomb Plot Foiled in London - The New York Times

Hindawi's girlfriend speaks - UPI Archives

THE WORLD; Syrians Accused Of El Al Bomb Role

HEATHROW BOMB SUSPECT SEIZED; POLICE SAY FIANCEE ...

EL AL DEFENDANT ADAMANT IN DENIAL - The New York Times

British Prosecutors Accuse Syria - The Washington Post

POLICE DENY COERCION IN EL AL CASE - The New York Times

State terror: Syrian links highlighted - CSMonitor.com

BRITAIN BREAKS SYRIAN TIES; CITES PROOF OF TERROR ROLE

Statement by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Speakes on United ...

Counsel Hints Israel Staged El Al Bomb - The Washington Post

SYRIA TIED TO BERLIN BOMBING AND TO ATTEMPT ON EL ...

EL AL DEFENDANT DENIES SYRIAN ROLE IN BOMB PLOT

SYRIA'S ROLE IN INTERNATIONAL TERRORISM - CIA

24 | 1986: UK cuts links with Syria over bomb plot - BBC ON THIS DAY

British Break Off Relations With Syria | News | The Harvard Crimson

SYRIA RESPONDS BY CUTTING TIES WITH BRITAIN

Syrian ambassador leaves Britain after expulsion - UPI Archives

Statement by Principal Deputy Press Secretary Speakes on United ...

Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher Tuesday said she is disappointed...

Editor's Notes: Ignoring the lessons of the past | The Jerusalem Post

https://www.facebook.com/100064533826405/posts/24th-october-1986-nezar-hindawi-is-sentenced-to-45-years-in-prison-the-longest-s/1250154937145622/

Plane bomb plotter Nezar Hindawi should be released, high ...

Plane plot bomber Nezar Hindawi released on parole - The Times

Bone-Deep-Down-To-The-Marrow-Stupid - Rabbi Professor Shaul Maggid Gives Perspective

Shaul Magid

Mar 20, 2026

Introduction: The following are opening remarks I made at a gathering of Jewish intellectuals, educators, rabbis, activists, organizers, and scholars around the collapse of the Zionist consensus in the wake of Gaza. It took place in Manhattan on March 15, 2026. [Note: It was *slightly edited* for *clarity*]. 

[This post is free. Anyone dumb enough to become a paid subscriber will receive other “paid subscriber only” posts, your cash is much appreciated, I LOVE money - Shaul]

“There are other people who are primarily interested in doing something. I am not. I can very well live without doing anything, But I cannot live without trying to understand whatever happens.” (Hannah Arendt, “The Recovery of the Public World”)

There are moments when we can talk about how to solve a problem. And then there are moments when offering solutions can be an obstacle, in part because we don’t understand the problem and often construct the problem to fit the solution we have already intended. I submit this is one of those times.

We come here from different places, with different commitments, different perspectives and different desires – but our assumption is that you agreed to come here today because you think that what occurred on October 7 and the subsequent destruction of Gaza and its aftermath precipitated a radical and historical shift in Jewish history and in Judaism more generally. That is, as I see it, there is Judaism before Gaza and Judaism after Gaza, the latter of which has yet to be determined.

I link October 7 and the destruction of Gaza intentionally because I do not think one can talk or think about one without the other. Both are inexcusable, and both are indefensible. October 7 was not legitimate resistance, and the destruction of Gaza was not a legitimate response. As Abraham Joshua Heschel said about Vietnam, “some are guilty, but all are responsible.” I think this rings true about Gaza as well.

If you ask me if I am equating a premeditated campaign of rape, decapitation, and kidnapping—driven by a charter calling for the annihilation of every Jew—with a military campaign seeking to dismantle that very terrorist infrastructure, the answer is an unequivocal YES! I am placing the aggressor and the defender on the same moral plane. I am replacing the Sinai-based distinction between good and evil with a blurred, universalist fog that leaves the Jewish people defenseless. And I'm prouuuuddddd of it!!

There are those, perhaps many in the so-called “Jewish establishment,” who are waiting for things to return to the way they were, whatever that may mean. We convened this gathering because we don’t believe they can return to the way they were. We think we have entered new territory as Jews as a people and as carriers of an ancient wisdom tradition that is beloved to each of us. The fact that we don't keep Halacha and twist the sources to meet out leftist progressive agenda is of no significance. Let us not let the facts confuse us and let our fertile imaginations guide us in being enemies of the Jewish people and distorting Jewish tradition.  

We can take the maximalist view that Yuval Noah Harari - a man, like us, who is intent on destroying Judaism - espoused a few months ago that the Gaza war is the most paradigmatic thing to happen to the Jews since the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE, which is hyperbole in its highest and most gross manifestation, worthy of something smoking something baaaaaddddd, or a more minimalist view that this has broken American Jewry (and Jewry beyond America) in unprecedented ways including ending a 50-year Zionist consensus. 

"50 years?", you ask! Is Zionism only 50 years old? Didn't G-d promise Israel to the Jews 5,000 years ago? Again - let us not get confused by facts. I say 50 years because that would mean that the 63 year old Palestinian people were here before us. In any case, we are here because we believe that the status quo has ended.

In part we are in the throes of a war of nomenclature: apartheid, genocide, blood libel, treason, Zionism, anti-Zionism. We were once fighting about women studying Talmud, ordaining women and then LGBTQ rabbis, egalitarianism, or intermarriage. We want men to sleep with non-Jewish women or other Jewish or non-Jewish men. That is who we are and that is what we fight for!! The right to be as sexually deviant as you want! Yet as important as they all are, those battles seem quaint today. Terms such as rupture, collapse, even schism are bandied about, and for good reasons. The liquidity of this moment should not be underestimated. So pour yourself a liquidy cold beer and read on! 

A little more than a century ago, in 1925, Horace Kallen published an essay in The Menorah Journal called “Can Judaism Survive in the Unites States?” [In retrospect is seems that the answer was a resounding yes]. Earlier, in 1915 a young Mordecai Kapan - a man dedicated to destroying Judaism from the inside, like us!! - published an essay in the same journal “What is Judaism?” [the answer was "as I have it - nothing"]. In the early decades of the twentieth century there were many such essays, in Europe, Palestine, and the US. Aaron Shmuel Tamares, “Le-Shealat Ha-Yahadut”, Ahad Ha-Am’s “Lo Zu Ha-Derekh”, Shai Ish Hurvitz dedicated a volume of his journal in Berlin in 1915 to “What is Judaism?”

These inquiries were in part responding to what Jews believed was a new era in our history; emancipation, assimilation, Zionism, the antisemitism of the pogroms in 1890s, and America as a land of mercy with unprecedented possibilities for Jews. I think we are at another comparable moment. Thus, we need to go back to those fundamental questions; can Jews survive in America, and if so, how, and what kind of Judaism is it that we want to promote? Heinrich Graetz began his seminal essay, “The Structure of Jewish History” written in the 1830s with the question, “What is Judaism?”. Graetz was not only responding to the historical moment in which he wrote by offering a sweeping assessment of the Jews, but using history as his tool, was seeking an answer to a more fundamental question, “What is Judaism?”.

This may be a comparable moment. In that sense, this is a radical time, radical according to its etymology of going back to roots. To buffer the noise, which is flailing about with quick solutions; reacting, emoting, using desperation as a weapon rather than what Arendt suggested, simply “trying to understand.”

Let me be clear: I am one of the chief priests of postmodern queer Judaism. What is remarkable is that the main conceit of this speech is that something happened. Some rupture. Some change. Things were one way, now they are another, and can't go back. The reality is, of course, that I was anti-Zionist before Gaza and remains one after Gaza. I am a priest-clown in the temple of exile, alienation, out-of-placeness, marginality, etc. Gaza is merely an occasion for more fringe left wing activism. Obviously, Gaza was an objective event that did occur and changed things for many. But it clearly did not really occur for me. Academic solipsism is so total and so air-tight that even a catastrophe of the size of October 7th and its Gaza aftermath can not penetrate them.

But I digress.

Irwin, Daniel and I initially came together because we were flat out bored [I mean how much Netflix can you watch and how much weed can you smoke!!] and also recognized what we call the “collapse of the Zionist consensus” as a description of the new reality we all inhabit. Let me offer a brief explanation of what we mean. By Zionist consensus we refer to a tacit, yet palpable, understanding among most American Jews that Zionism was a central tenet of their Jewish identity. It was coined in the early 1970s by Norman Podhoretz in Commentary Magazine when he wrote “we are all Zionists Now.” He was largely correct. After the Six Day War there emerged a kind of consensus in American Jewry, any remaining ambivalence about Zionism was swept away with the triumphant victory, and collective relief, of June 1967. Yet there was a dark side to that victory we call the “occupation” which they called back then “liberation” that has come back to haunt us, in a monstrous way, on October 7, which was clearly the fault of Israel who instigated the act of self defense displayed by our long suffering Palestinian brothers.

In any case, Israel chose to respond to October 7 with the obliteration of an entire society, call it what you will (let not the nomenclature prevent a realistic assessment of we all see). It broke American Jewry, world Jewry, into various pieces, in large part, but not exclusively, generationally. The previous consensus forged in the early 1970s, has now collapsed. It is clear to all of us that Israel had no right to respond. Our tradition tells how Jews go as sheep to the slaughter and we should remain that way. Our Palestinian brothers have every right to defend against the occupation by burning Jewish babies alive and raping Jewish women and we must respond with compassion and restraint. But the Zionists chose to respond with violence thus perpetuating this terrible cycle of violence instigated by our very own people. I mean, our Gadol is Ghandi and Ghandi was a pacifist. So should we be. I know. I have Semicha and a Doctorate!!   

I certainly do not mean the end of Zionism in America; I mean the collapse of a consensus, which was really a liberal Zionist consensus. Many moved to the right, many to the left, and the middle is now struggling to survive. I can bring many examples, from the Jewish Left conference in Boston that had 1,400 registered participants [about zero of whom actually believe in the Torah] to the rise of Jewish Currents, the Smol Emuni conference last week with over 800 people [ditto], the panel Irwin moderated at Bnei Jeshurun in Manhattan, many podcasts and essays, and at least two other nascent institutes I know of that are doing something similar to what we are doing [i.e. trying to get lotssssss of money from really rich assimilated Jews and Qatar in order to sow seeds of doubt among our people about the right we have to be in Israel and even to exist], each from a slightly different perspective, but all with the same twisted, perverted, distorted attitudes that play into the hands of those people who want us dead.

Non/Anti-Zionist minyanim that have excised Israel and G-d from the prayer book are emerging everywhere, in NY, Boston. DC, LA, the Bay Area [LA has the Orthodox "Happy Minyan" while the Bay Area has the Pro Palestinian "Gay Minyan"]. It seems every week another book on the subject is published, student groups emerging, workshops, seminars, retreats etc. The destruction of Gaza has initiated a transition in American Jewry not seen in our lifetime and we are watching how the collapsing center is reacting. Most recently a petition by prominent Jewish figures such as Yitz Greenberg and Yossi Klein Halevi circulated claiming anyone who uses the word “genocide” to describe Gaza is guilty of a “blood libel.”

Think for a moment what that means, think again what a “blood libel” actually is. Being accused of a blood libel is an accusation far worse than being called a heretic, it is essentially being accused of complicity in murder. This is how high the volume is and thus how dangerous it has become, not between the Jews and those who hold antisemitic views, but between Jews themselves. The atrocities in Gaza is the scalpel that has pierced the heart of Judaism. How can they possibly defend the Zionists in that way??!!

What we are asking here is how to think about, navigate, and understand the collapse of a half century of Judaism’s fusion with Zionism, not to argue for or against it as much as to explore a post-consensus reality. Put briefly, we think the survival of Zionism in American Jewry will require creating space for its opposite, that is, to disentangle the conventional fusion of Zionism and Jewishness in America that has existed for the past fifty years. It is already happening, with or without the consent of the establishment. What we want is for Jews to proclaim loud and clear that Judaism has NOTHING to do with the Land of Israel. We will not let all the sources in the written and oral Torah that say otherwise distract us from our goal of repudiating our heritage!! 

We do not make this claim solely as a matter of ideology, but also descriptively. To avoid a schism, that is to enable the present rupture to produce something healthy, not unity, which never existed, but a true marketplace of Jewish ideas, American Zionism will have to come to terms with the reality that a not insignificant number of American Jews no longer view Zionism or the state of Israel as the center of their Jewish identity. To excise them as “blood libelists” is one choice, but one that we feel will not cause them to “return” that is, it will not result in what Jewish writs of excommunication sought to achieve in early modern Europe (Spinoza’s excommunication being the exception that proved the rule). Israel as the place where half the Jews in the world live, will remain and have ample support from many, even most Jews in the Diaspora. But not all. Most of the Jews who left will not return. Rather, for many of them, the Zionist consensus is in their rear-view mirror.

To return to my earlier point, I begin with the assumption here, and I am happy to talk about more, that there is Judaism before Gaza, and Judaism after Gaza. There is no return. This is an artificial demarcation line I completely made up so I would have something stupid and inane to say at this G-d forsaken conference. Of course, Judaism is the same both before and after Gaza. As of today, there are no real solutions. All we are here to do, as Arendt suggested is to “try to understand whatever happens” and feel smugly self-righteous as we slander the Jewish people. Isn't that much of what Jewish leftism is all about??

This may require us to look backward before moving forward, backward to a previous time, for me, the early twentieth century when the question “What is Judaism?” was au courant, when the whole story of the Jews began a new phase, in a new world, and with a new nationalist project as one option among many. We think it is our turn to ask those fundamental questions once again, in a world changed not by emancipation, the promise of America, and by pogroms in Europe, but by “Gaza.” Our understanding cannot be tied to a previous century, even as those struggling with their issues may serve as a guide for ours: a Judaism in the world after Gaza. Nostalgia may bring solace and sentimental relief from a changing world. But nostalgia is not a healthy mode of thinking creatively or productively.

If we are to survive and thrive after Gaza, we need to understand Gaza as much as we can, and broadly as we can, and as honestly as we can. It is not only a tragedy. It is a seismic shift begging the question “What is Judaism?” In short, we need to slow down. As Arendt said, in order “to understand whatever happens.” I am leaning on Hannah Arendt to justify "doing nothing" but "trying to understand." This is the ultimate ivory-tower luxury I have. While our brothers and sisters in the Galil and the Negev are under rocket fire, and while our soldiers are in the tunnels of Khan Younis, I sit here comfortably in a Manhattan high riser "slowing down" to "understand."

May this be our gift to the generations that follow.

---

Yes indeed! This "Maggid" needs "Rochtza". 

חתיכת חיים

 הערצה אל הסבא מסלובודקה הייתה שלא כדרך הטבע! ממש שלא כדרך הטבע!

"גם מצד עילויים ברוכי כישרון, שאינם נחפזים להעריץ מאן דהוא..." - הוספתי, ור' משה מחרה ומחזיק בעזרת גילויים רבי ענין, מאת אחד המצוינים שבהם - הגאון בעל 'פחד יצחק':

תראה כמה השפיע הסבא על רבי יצחק הוטנר. אתה מכיר את המעשה מליל יום-כיפור... והוא עצמו היה מעריץ של הסבא באופן נדיר - "ניט שייך"...

וזה דבר המעשה. בליל התקדש יום הכיפורים שלח האלטר את הג"ר יחזקאל ברשטיין הנזכר, לשאול את ר' יצחק מה שם אמו, היות ורצה להתפלל עליו, ומתוך כך ליידע אותו שהוא מתפלל להצלחתו.

אמר לו ר' יצחק: "אם האלטר שואל מה שם אמי, אני בעצמי אגש להשיבו..."

על כך הקפיד הסבא. הוא ראה בזה "א שטיקל גאווה'לע [- משהו מן הגאוותנות]". ומשקרב לגשת אליו קרא לעברו הסבא: "ניט אין מיין דל"ת אמות! [- לא בתוך דל"ת אמותיי!]" רוצה לומר, אל תתקרב אלי!

אמנם השאלה הרי נשאלה, ועליו לתת מענה, אז הוא צעק ממרחק: "חנה!"

כשסיפר לי ר' יצחק את הסיפור הפטיר באוזני: "עדיין עכשיו, כשאני מדבר עמך על זה, אני מרגיש טיפש, איך שנאלצתי לצעוק לו ממרחק: 'חנה'".

את הכל חישב האלטר מיד שהבחין בו מתקרב. הוא כל כך חיבב את ר' יצחק וכה העריך את כישרונותיו העילויים, עד שהשקיע בו מאמצים עילאיים לרוממו ולשאו לרמה מוסרית גבוהה במיוחד.

בינה זאת! כיצד בחור נשאל שאלה, ומכיון שהעדיף לענות באופן אישי ולא באמצעות השליח, נאלץ לצעוק מחוץ לדל"ת אמות - "חנה!" ואף בשעה שסיפר את המעשה שנים רבות אחר כך, עדיין חש את ה'בושת-פנים' שעשה לו האלטר... והוא אכן למד את הלקח.

בידוע הוא, שהסבא השקיע רבות בעיצוב אישיותו הנפלאה של רבי יצחק...

הו, הו! בענין הזה יש לי סיפור. שמעת את המעשה על הגמרא בפרק 'מרובה'?

בכניסה לביתו של האלטר בעיר חברון היו מדרגות לא לגמרי שלמות, והיה צריך להסמוך על מישהו כדי לרדת שתי מדרגות בחדא מחתא. יום אחד הוא זימן לשם כך את רבי יצחק הוטנר. באמצע הירידה, תוך כדי שהוא נסמך עליו פנה אליו האלטר ואמר: "עכשיו אני מקיים גמרא ב'מרובה'. מָצָא אותה..."

"לא מצאתי..." התנצל ר' יצחק, והאלטר התנדב לבאר.

"זה לשון הגמרא בפרק 'מרובה' (ב"ק סד, א): 'אמור רבא, תנא אחיים קא סמיך', כלומר התנא מייסד את ההלכה על המילה 'חיים' [שנאמר 'חיים שניים ישלם'], ואילו אני נשען כעת על 'חיים', על מציאות חיה..."

רבי יצחק הוטנר באמת היה 'חתיכת חיים', מאד 'לייבנדיג', בעל כשרון עצום, עילוי גדול, ומאד 'חי' - מאד מאד! הסבא ביקש להחמיא לו בדרך מחוכמת, והמליץ עליו: "תנא א'חיים' קא סמיך"...

בבעלי כישרון - הערתי - טיפל הסבא באופן מיוחד. כך הצליח לטפח מנהיגים וגדולי תורה במקום להסתפק במספר רב של יחידים... 

הוא בנה אנשים שהם בעצמם בנו והקימו אחר כך, וממילא הכל בא מכוחו. מי בנה את אמריקה?! ר' ראובן גרוזובסקי שהיה תלמיד מובהק, ר' יעקב קמנצקי שהיה תלמיד מובהק, את ר' אהרן קוטלר ור' יצחק הוטנר כבר הזכרנו.

"רבי יצחק הוטנר באמת היה 'חתיכת חיים'"

יש חוברת שיצאה על האלטר לאחר פטירתו, שם כתבו תלמידים רבים. כדאי לראות למשל מה שיהודי כמו הג"ר יצחק בן מנחם כותב על הסבא, בבאלו געגועים, בכזו הערצה. והוא היה יהודי של 'לימוד'.