Times of Israel:
The disrespectful treatment of Rabbi Saul Berman at the Smol Emuni conference in New York highlights many problems that were part of the conference, most glaringly, that it was neither “Smol” (left-wing) nor “Emuni.” While there is a great need for voices in the Orthodox community to counterbalance the rising scourge of Kahanism and Ben Gvirism, the Smol Emuni conference has shown that a viable voice like that in our community has yet to rise.
Let us begin by talking about the “Smol” side of things. The conference would like to present a mirror image of the Israel Smol Emuni movement, a movement that has come to change the Israeli reality in which Orthodox Jews are to be found only on Israel’s political right and not on its political left. The way to see whether the American version of Smol Emuni reflects the Smol (left-wing politics) in Israel is to look at those politics. People like Yair Golan, Yair Lapid, Na’ama Lazimi, and Rabbi Gilad Kariv have come to the forefront of the Israeli left-wing parties. Knowing them well and admiring their courage and devotion to the Zionist cause, I can say this: those representatives of the Israeli “Smol” were not represented by the crowd at the Smol Emuni conference in New York.
The disrespectful walkout on Rabbi Saul Berman, the thundering applause deriding AIPAC, and the public approval of the reprehensible suggestion that Jews who came to the land of Israel were welcomed by Palestinians only to stab those Palestinians in the back in 1948 are things they would never accept. It goes without saying that Golda Meir, David Ben-Gurion, Chaim Weizmann, and other icons of the Israeli left would never come close to such territory either.
Now let us talk about the Emuni side of the conference. The organizers’ website describes itself as “a community of Orthodox and observant Jews committed to justice, equality, and dignity for Jews and Palestinians. Rooted in Torah, we are building a courageous Orthodox Jewish voice for peace and to end the occupation.”
If you look at the Hebrew version of the Israel Smol Emuni site, you will see nothing about wanting to “end the occupation,” for a simple reason: there are more than 500,000 Jews living in the West Bank. As seen in the case of Gush Katif, unless shown otherwise, “an end to the occupation” would mean uprooting those half a million Jews, many of whom are Americans who made aliyah to places like Efrat and parts of East Jerusalem.
One can only advocate for an absolutist “end to the occupation” while locking oneself in an ivory tower that can pretend not to know about places like Efrat, Migdal Oz, Alon Shvut, Ramat Eshkol, Talpiot, and more. For Israelis, there is zero room for any Dati Le’umi or Orthodox organization to advocate for such an absolutist term that would uproot so many Jews from their homes. From a geographical and sociological distance that is more rooted in progressive circles and anti-Israel academia, it is much easier, and even rewarding, to say you want to “bring an end to the occupation.” In Orthodox life, where some of the most open-minded voices have studied in Yeshivat Har Etzion, such language is simply not possible.
Furthermore, the fact that a conference for an organization that would like to be a voice for “Orthodox and observant Jews” was held in B’nai Jeshurun, notably a non-Orthodox synagogue, should have been the first clue that this voice failed to capture any kind of place in the Orthodox community. If you could not secure a place even in the most liberal Orthodox space, you are probably not a voice in the Orthodox community and should not present yourself as such.
If you walk out on Rabbi Saul Berman, among the most liberal voices in the Orthodox community, while applauding an advisor to the PLO, you have not advanced your cause in the Orthodox community. The additional fact that the conference failed to speak about the unprecedented rise of antisemitism against American Jews, which is very much fueled by Palestinian nationalism, makes it hard to take the message of the conference seriously.
The fact that the Smol Emuni conference has not succeeded in becoming a recognized voice in the Orthodox community does not mean, however, that it has nothing of value to add to the discourse in the Orthodox community.
As my friend Rabbi Chaim Seidler has presented passionately, there is in fact a dire need to confront the rise of Ben Gvirism in the Orthodox community. There is a great need to stop the Har Hamor extremist takeover of so many Religious Zionist institutions. There is a need to address the desecration of God’s name and the defamation of all Jews brought about by the barbarism of the Hilltop Youth pogroms and their repeated attacks on innocent Palestinians.
We cannot normalize the Smotrich–Ben Gvir and Daniella Weiss rhetoric and the violent crassness that has come with it. There is a need to reclaim the soul of Religious Zionism and not leave it to the masked thugs graffitiing churches in Israel, beating Palestinians on farmlands, or committing random acts of violence. There is a dire need for us as an Orthodox community to have these conversations.
I have yet to meet a single American rabbi who is not horrified by the explosion of violence and extremism on the hilltops and in the Ben Gvirist circles, the Har Hamor takeover of so many Religious Zionist institutions, and the devastating blow those extremists bring to the image of what it means to be a Jew around the world. There clearly is a need for taking a stand on these issues.
So how can that be done?
I can only reflect from my own experience. Two years ago, watching the rise in inflammatory speech and in light of seeing how it is used against our people, I wrote to a Religious Zionist rabbi who would often put out such statements, and he was gracious enough to respond. After a back-and-forth exchange that indeed did not go anywhere, I asked him not to take my word for it. I told him to find someone he trusts with English and to search his own name on social media. Any search with his name would indeed show many antisemitic and anti-Israel accounts using his words to negatively portray the Jewish community.
I have not heard back from him since, but I have not seen him putting out the inflammatory statements he used to put out either.
It is unconscionable that we as Jews believe in dialogue with Palestinians but not in dialogue with our own people. My suggestion to anyone Orthodox who cares enough about the soul of our people is to write to Dati Le’umi leaders inside Israel, to pick up the phone and make a call, to put together a mission, and go visit.
Do not go for dialogue visits in Ramallah or Jenin when you should be going to Kfar Tapuach, Kiryat Arba, Kedumim, Har Homa, and other hotbeds of extremism in the Religious Zionist community. Modern Orthodox American leaders are uniquely positioned to initiate these conversations, as they share many of the yeshivot and educational frameworks with Israeli Religious Zionists and have many social and sociological bonds that, unlike American Charedi rabbis, parallel the Dati Le’umi community in Israel.
While New York’s Smol Emuni conference remains in my eyes a missed opportunity that was not really “Smol” nor was it “Emuni” in the sociological sense of the word, there is in fact a need for increased dialogue in the Modern Orthodox community about the wave of extremism that has overtaken many Religious Zionist communities in Israel, mostly in Har Hamor circles, the Shomron, and among the Hilltop Youth, who are no longer that young, though not limited to them.
We need that dialogue to begin now, and American Jews can play a vital role in helping Israeli Religious Zionists understand how many actions taken by extremists in the Religious Zionist community are helping fuel global antisemitism.
I hope that conversation begins soon.
----
On the other hand:
1. The "Smol Emuni" Contradiction
The term "Smol Emuni" (Faithful Left) is a theological oxymoron.
True Emunah involves the recognition that the Land of Israel was given to the Jewish people as an eternal inheritance by God. To be "Left" in the Israeli context means being willing to surrender parts of that holy inheritance. It means being compassionate to people who want to kill Jews. It means caring about the enemy but not about one's own brothers and sisters. It means ignoring the Torah views of just about every serious Talmid Chochom alive. Therefore, one cannot be fully "faithful" to the Torah while advocating for the withdrawal from the heartland of Judea and Samaria. The author’s attempt to find a "moderate" version of this movement is a failure to recognize that the movement's very foundation is a rejection of the mitzvah of Yishuv Ha’Aretz.
They are hard core, super duper Smol and zero Emuni. The writer, it seems, is soft core Smol and more Emuni.
2. Adoption of "Enemy Rhetoric"
The author uses inflammatory language that is deeply offensive and factually inaccurate.
By using words like "pogroms," "barbarism," and "scourge" to describe the actions of Jewish youth in the Shomron, the author is engaging in a "blood libel" against his own people. A "pogrom" is historically an organized massacre of helpless Jews by Gentiles; to use that term for property disputes or localized Jewish-Arab friction is to adopt the vocabulary of the UN and anti-Israel NGOs. This language provides "ammunition" to antisemites—the very thing the author claims to be worried about.
3. Misunderstanding "Har Hamor" and the "Hilltop Youth"
The author paints the "Har Hamor" circle and the "Hilltop Youth" as a fringe "takeover" or a "desecration of God’s name."
For many, these groups represent the vanguard of Jewish pride and resilience. The "Har Hamor" rabbis are some of the greatest Talmidei Chachomim in the non-Charedi world, dedicated to the purity of the Jewish state and the holiness of the IDF. The "Hilltop Youth" are often idealistic young people who have seen their parents' homes demolished and their friends murdered, yet they remain committed to holding the land and do so with a tremendous amount of self sacrifice. To dismiss them as "masked thugs" shows a total lack of empathy for the pioneers who are actually on the front lines, while the author sits comfortably in the Diaspora. He constantly uses the word "extremist". That word means nothing and is used to marginalize one's opponents. Avraham Avinu was considered an extremist in his time. So were Pinchas, Eliyahu HaNavi and many more.
One doesn't have to agree with everything R' Meir Kahane הי"ד ever said and did to acknowledge that he made some very valid points. One would be that here are many on the other side who don't want peace but death. That is why people like Ben Gvir have such a strong following.
4. The "Oct. 7" Reality Check
The article reads as if the events of October 7, 2023, never happened, or at least as if no lessons were learned.
The author talks about "ending the occupation" as if it’s a theoretical sociological debate. The "occupation" is a security necessity and a religious obligation. Every time Israel has "ended the occupation" (as in Gaza in 2005), the result has been a terror state and the mass slaughter of Jews. For an American rabbi to preach about the "soul of Religious Zionism" while ignoring the life-and-death security reality that mandates a Jewish presence in the hills of Judea and Samaria is a peak "Ivory Tower" arrogance.
5. Dialogue vs. Defeatism
The author suggests that American Jews should go to places like Kiryat Arba and Kedumim to "have a conversation" and explain how the settlers are "fueling global antisemitism."
This is a patronizing "Galut" (Exile) mentality. It suggests that Jews should tailor their behavior in their own land to satisfy the opinions of antisemites in London or New York. Antisemitism is caused by Jew-hatred, not by Jews building houses in Efrat. Suggesting that a "mission" of American rabbis should go to "re-educate" the residents of the Shomron is insulting and a betrayal of Jewish solidarity.
6. The Danger of the "Centrist" Mask
The author presents himself as "Middle Ground."
By validating the idea that there is a "wave of extremism" that needs to be "confronted," the author is essentially agreeing with the Smol Emuni conference—he just thinks they were "rude" about it. He accepts the premise that the Religious Zionist movement is "broken." Religious Zionism isn't broken; it is finally becoming strong, assertive, and unapologetic. The author isn't trying to save the "soul" of the movement; he is trying to return it to a state of submissiveness and compromise that the Israeli electorate has already rejected.
7. The so called Palestinian people were born in .... 1964. It is a fallacy. They are Arabs. There is a reason they call themselves Palestinian and Jews generally call them Arabs..... וד"ל.
The Jewish people were born five thousand years ago and the very first thing we were told was to .... go to Israel!:-)!!
8. He calls Knesset member Gilad Kariv "Rabbi". He is actually not an observant Jew and his *smicha* is Reform and he is a leader of the Reform movement in Israel. [The author is himself a rabbi so he should know better].
If one recognizes people who openly don't keep Halacha as "rabbi", that says a lot about his distorted vision of Torah.
In addition, he *admires* Yair Golan, Yair Lapid, Na’ama Lazimi, and the aforementioned Kariv - all haters and enemies of G-d and Torah.
The author is a Talmid Chochom. He should know better.
Summary
This article is a classic example of "Apologist Zionism." It attempts to police the behavior of some of the most dedicated Jews in Israel to make them more palatable to Western progressives, using the language of the Left to attack the very people (the settlers) who are ensuring the survival and growth of the Jewish State.
