December 3, 2025

In June, 2021, shortly after so many o-so-self-righteous Jewish Studies and Israel Studies professors bashed Israel during Hamas’ bombardment, the former prisoner-of-Zion and human rights activist Natan Sharansky and I called them “un-Jews” in Tablet Magazine. Neither of us have ever written anything that has been so mischaracterized, although many tell us now we were ahead of the curve.

As we made clear in our piece, the ”un” referred to an act– un-doing the core consensus uniting Israel, Zionism and the Jewish people.

We did not go after mainstream critics of Israeli policy or young, confused Jews, desperately trying to fit in with social-justice-obsessed peers (That’s where we were most misquoted.) We targeted the big fish, the hipster rabbis, professors, and community leaders “trying to disentangle Judaism from Jewish nationalism, the sense of Jewish people, while undoing decades of identity-building.”

We were particularly appalled by the sloppiness of a petition dozens of Jewish Studies and Israel Studies scholars signed during the May, 2021 war. Echoing social justice talk, these super-credentialed polemicists defined Zionism as “a diverse set of linked ethnonationalist ideologies… shaped by settler colonial paradigms… that assumed a hierarchy of civilizations” and “contributed to unjust, enduring, and unsustainable systems of Jewish supremacy.”

We didn’t call them ex-Jews or non-Jews, “because many of them are and remain deeply involved Jewishly, despite their harsh dissent.”  Then, as now, “un-Jews” run Jewish Studies departments, serve as rabbis, host Shabbat dinners. And they flaunt their anti-Zionism as “a superior form of Judaism, stripped of its unsavory and unethical ‘ethnocentric’ and ‘colonialist’ baggage.”

Today — 1200 October 7 deaths, 251 kidnappings, another 600 Israeli soldier deaths, and one massive, pride-inducing, world-changing, peace-making Israeli victory-in-process later — the “un-Jews” continue to undo timeless Jewish connections. They claim to have convinced the younger generation. Some Jewish professors rejoice that “the Zionist Consensus Among US Jews Has Collapsed.” They delight that one of three New York Jews voted for Zohran Mamdani, whose anti-Zionism is “central” to his identity, and who echoes centuries of Jew-haters by blaming “the Jews” for the thing he most detests, such as police brutality.

And “un-Jews” come to speak at Israeli universities — which I am proud to say are open to hearing their anti-Zionist, genocide-charging, settler-colonialism-alleging, oppressed-oppressor rubbish – then grovel to Palestinians, apologizing for breaking their BDS boycott. 

Undoubtedly, anti-Semitism on the “Woke Right” is also detestable. But every prominent right-wing Jew I know of, and many non-Jewish Republicans, have denounced this hatred from within their ranks. What’s disturbing is how little of that self-policing is happening on the left, where antisemites and anti-Zionists roam freely.   

In such an environment, many worried when the JPPI, the Jewish People Policy Institute, the Global Thinktank of the Jewish People, asked its “Voice of the Jewish People” Index what these representative 745 American Jews think about Mamdani, and Zionism, and Israel. 

Well, buckle your seatbelts and prepare to unfurl your blue-and-white flags – we’re delivering some good news today, or at least not-so-bad news.

The JPPI survey finds that 67% of Jews believe Mamdani’s election will lead to a decline in the security of New York’s Jewish community. And 99% of Jews fear anti-Semitism surging. Sixty-two% recognize it both from right and left, 17% see it from the right, and 20% see it from the left. Most important, 70% call themselves “Zionist” while another 12% say they support Israel – including 52% of strong liberals and 71% of liberal-leaners identifying as “Zionist.”

With 82% thus Zionist and pro-Israel, and a quarter of American Jews under 34, that doesn’t leave as many young anti-Zionist Jews as we’re supposed to fear.

In short, the “un-Jews” don’t just undo Jewish connections, they punch way above their weight — and remember, as one pro-Israel Democratic member of Congress told me recently, “Manhattan is an island.” These Jewish Israel-bashers benefit from the fact that the media, social media and academic echo chambers overly-broadcast their views. And “un-Jews’” primacy in the institutions American Jews most worship, from the media to academia, and including some pulpits, makes it worse – as does the fact that, as the LA Jewish Journal’s own David Suissa wisely notes: “American Jews are afraid of their young.” 

Finally, anti-Zionist Jews stand out. That their betrayal is particularly painful especially after October 7, amplifies their voice and leads most to exaggerate their popularity – and momentum. 

By contrast, most American Jews, young and old alike, felt a surge in identification after October 7. Most American Jews can recognize a sexist, homophobic, rape-friendly, Jew-hating, anti-Western terrorist enemy. And most American Jews are proud to have a strong, thriving, democratic Jewish state, that, for all its flaws, defended itself when attacked so unconscionably, then made itself, America, and the West stronger and safer by crushing Hamas and Hezbollah, defeating Iran, and triggering the collapse of Syria’s Assad dictatorship.

True, there are warning signs – and much confusion – amid a massive media bombardment. Two of three Jews rate Benjamin Netanyahu as only a “fair” or “poor” leader. Nearly 40% of American Jews find Israel guilty of genocide – a stunning number amid the overall support and the legal need for a genocide to be intentional and systematic. But 44%, including 31% of Reform Jews, want their Jewish community to reject anti-Zionist Jews.

The answer to all this confusion is clear. First, stop playing defense, stop apologizing, stop letting fear of “losing our youth” set the agenda. Instead, play to our strengths, sing a new loud, proud song of Zion, helping our young people understand what it means to be part of alt-neu, old-new, nation restoring alt-neuland. Every Jew should understand that, no matter when they were born, they are also an additional 77-years-old as part of the Israeli adventure, and an additional 3,500-years-old as part of the Jewish adventure.

Second, we need Zionist education initiatives transcending anti-anti-Semitism, emphasizing Identity Zionism, reinforcing our common peoplehood platform, shared fate, and common values, no matter what our partisan political differences. We need to recognize this young generation as Generation Birthright – open to experiencing Israel and Israelis as awe-some – not a generation defined by Bibi or any politicians or partisan stances. 

Finally, we need to tell it like it is. Call out the “un-Jews” who are undoing Jewish identity by hijacking Jewish community resources to demonize Israel and repudiate Zionism. Salute the Zionists, who are not only on the right side of history but are the ones truly demonstrating courage, to be counter-cultural, to defy the mob and the trends. And let’s build a proud Jewish Zionist tent, rooted in our homeland, our story, our ideals; a tent open on all sides, welcoming left and right, looking forward while also looking backward to learn who we were and who, together, we want to become. 

Gil Troy is an American presidential historian and a Senior Fellow at the JPPI, the Global Thinktank of the Jewish People. Last year he published, “To Resist the Academic Intifada: Letters to My Students on Defending the Zionist Dream” and “The Essential Guide to October 7th and its Aftermath.” His latest E-book, “The Essential Guide to Zionism, Anti-Zionism, Antisemitism and Jew-hatred” was just published and can be downloaded on the JPPI  – Jewish People Policy Institute – Website. 

A new study by the National Association of Realtors has revealed a startling trend in the U.S. housing market: the median age of all homebuyers has climbed to 59, while the median age for first-time homebuyers now stands at 40 years. These figures challenge the traditional notion of homeownership as a rite of passage for young adults and cast a harsh spotlight on the growing barriers to entry in today’s market. 

As policymakers and lenders scramble for solutions, one proposal recently floated by the current administration is the 50-year mortgage — a concept that, on closer inspection, may do more harm than good.

The idea behind a 50-year mortgage is simple: by stretching payments over half a century, monthly costs become more manageable, theoretically allowing more buyers to afford homes saving on average about $200-$300 a month. Proponents argue this could open doors for those struggling with affordability and make the dream of homeownership more attainable. But this approach fails to address the root causes of the crisis and risks exacerbating already dire conditions. 

Extending mortgage terms to 50 years might lower monthly payments, but it comes with significant downsides. First, longer mortgages increase the pool of eligible buyers, which in turn drives up demand. In a market with limited housing supply, this added demand inevitably pushes home prices higher, effectively nullifying any initial savings. Buyers end up paying more for the same homes, while their overall debt burden balloons. 

Moreover, the minimal monthly savings come at the expense of much greater interest payments over the life of the loan. Homebuyers will pay tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars more in interest, with little real improvement in affordability. In practice, the 50-year mortgage simply stretches the pain over a longer period, without meaningfully reducing it.

With the median first-time homebuyer now at age 40, a 50-year mortgage means carrying debt until age 90 — well beyond the typical retirement age. For many, this will mean never fully owning their home during their working years or even in retirement. The psychological toll of perpetual indebtedness is profound, undermining the sense of security and accomplishment that homeownership is supposed to provide. 

Upon closer analysis, this model benefits banks, which collect far more interest over decades, but leaves consumers trapped in a cycle of debt. The broken promise of homeownership, much like the broken promise of higher education finance, morphs into a lifetime financial obligation, with equity building at a glacial pace. Instead of empowering families, the 50-year mortgage threatens to make homeownership a distant, possibly unattainable goal for the majority of Americans.

The growing reliance on extended mortgage terms deepens the divide between existing homeowners and those trying to enter the market. Current homeowners, sitting on appreciating assets, see their wealth increase as demand and prices climb. Meanwhile, new buyers and renters face steeper barriers and greater risks, locked out of true ownership and forced to pay ever-rising rents or take on crushing debt.

This dynamic worsens the “K-shaped”economy, where one segment of the population grows richer while another struggles to keep up. Banks and financial institutions profit handsomely from prolonged interest payments, while ordinary Americans watch the possibility of building wealth through homeownership slip further from reach.

In essence, no amount of creative financing can resolve the core issue at the heart of America’s housing crisis: an acute shortage of homes. The only sustainable path to affordability is a dramatic increase in housing supply, on a scale akin to the Marshall Plan that rebuilt Europe after World War II. This means investing in new construction, removing barriers to development, and reimagining zoning laws to allow for more diverse and affordable housing options.

Such a bold initiative would not only help stabilize prices but also restore hope to millions of aspiring homeowners. By focusing on supply, policymakers can address the crisis at its source, rather than offering temporary fixes that ultimately worsen the problem. Former California Senate Majority Leader Bob Hertzberg (D-N. Hollywood) keenly understands that there is no substitute for increasing the supply of homes. His vision for the “Middle-Class Homeownership Act,” if passed, would offer those at the middle and bottom of the “K” a real chance to gain their footing in actual homeownership. Yet, proposals that merely put lipstick on the pig of decades of failed policy and exclusionary zoning will ultimately see the chasm between those who have profited from asset appreciation and those who have been left off the prosperity ladder continue to widen.

The latest data on homebuyer ages paints a sobering picture of America’s housing market and the Los Angeles Jewish community is not immune to the trends of outmigration and permanent rentership that our current highly broken housing market create. Proposals like the 50-year mortgage may seem innovative, but they fail to tackle the underlying shortage that drives unaffordability. Instead, they risk saddling buyers with lifelong debt, enriching banks and entrenched owners while leaving new entrants and renters behind. Only a transformative, supply-driven response can break this cycle and restore the promise of homeownership for future generations. The time for half-measures is over—the housing crisis demands bold action now.

Lisa Ansell is the Associate Director of the USC Casden Institute and Lecturer of Hebrew Language at Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Religion Los Angeles.

To understand the full nature of the political and social rift within Israeli society, it is necessary to explore the realm of emotions. Much of the extreme language employed by both sides rests on emotions, and the intensity of some of the central social actors, such as Justice Minister Yariv Levin, can also be understood as having an emotional base. What sort of emotions are we talking about? We can get a sense of these emotions from some recent statements of Likud spokespeople, first a tweet from Minister of Environmental Protection Idit Silman, and second, an off-the-cuff remark by MK Tally Gottlieb. 

Silman responded to criticism of the disruptive behavior of a Likud activist as follows:

“Mordechai David is simply holding up a small mirror to the radical, protesting left – and they are in panic and shock. They cannot understand how this is happening to them, the privileged children of the gods. These arrogant elitists are unable to digest the fact that what is permitted to do to right-wing public officials and their families may also be done to radical left-wing activists who incite.”

On the surface, the heart of Silman’s argument is reciprocity – if the left engages in disruptive, intrusive behavior, so can the right. Nevertheless, she devotes considerable attention to what sociologists call stratification, charging left-wing activists with being “privileged,” “arrogant elitists,” etc. Although not ostensibly germane to her logical argument, one gets the impression that this is her real message. This messaging comes up repeatedly among Likud and right-wing spokespeople in manifold ways. Thus during the recess in the court proceedings in which prominent left-wing (or “liberal”) activist Shikma Bressler sued Likud MK Gottlieb for defamation, Gottlieb remarked in an aside to one of the spectators, “she [Bressler) thinks we are baboons.” More confrontational Likud ministers and Knesset members, such as Dudi Amsalem and Miri Regev, routinely take this Juno-faced defensive/offensive posture.

The populist right accuses the left of exuding condescending superiority or elitism, while exhibiting considerable anger and offense at being looked down upon. This kind of rage can have severe consequences. As Charles Dickens observed in “A Tale of Two Cities,” it can lead to the guillotine. Surely, it provides energy for the Judicial Reform (or Revolution) project in Israel. Levin and other coalition members appear to be motivated as much by resentment as by their vision of a new Israeli legal dispensation. 

Does the left, in fact, treat its opponents with disdain and disrespect, negating their honor and significance? Over the years, there have been incidents of well-known figures from the left publicly referring to Likud and right-wing supporters with disdain and disrespect. Dudu Topaz, a well-known Israeli entertainer, gave a speech during the 1980 election campaign in which he referred to the Likud supporters as “riff raff” and implied that all they were good for in the military was guard duty. Thirty-five years later, the well-known artist and humorist, Yair Garbuz, referred to traditional right-wing adherents as “amulet kissers,” implying that they were superstitious, ignorant and irrational. But these incidents are exceptions; most leftists are too well-mannered to make blatant derogatory remarks. Still, do they reveal something true about the underlying attitudes of the current “liberal” sector? 

On some level, there certainly is a tendency among some of the historically “liberal” elites to emit an air of superiority, but it’s not a personal, but rather a cultural, trait embedded in Zionism itself. 

Zionism was a movement with objectives on several levels. Of course (especially since the late 1930s), it focused on creating a Jewish state, but it had major social and cultural goals as well. These were encapsulated in the figure of the “New Jew.” The creation of a Jew who was sovereign in their own land with their own language. The New Jew was self-reliant and productive, secular and rational, engaging in agriculture and industry, not the “huckster” trades of the Jewish minority – willing and able to defend themselves. 

The new institutions of the incipient state, such as the Histadrut, the Kibbutzim and Moshavim, the Palmach, etc., more or less realized this idea. The superior self-regard with which this class held itself can be seen in the very terminology with which it designated itself: Halutzim. This was generally translated as “pioneers,” to make it familiar to American readers. However, a more accurate translation is “vanguard.” It designates a revolutionary elite leading the way to a transformed Jewish people. 

This transformed population filled the leadership positions in the nascent State of Israel. Immigrants who came afterwards had a more difficult time joining this governing elite of transformed New Jews. Some had difficulty because of their religious or traditional proclivities. Others simply did not want to be transformed in this fashion. Many arriving from North Africa and the Middle East were deemed unworthy, and it was believed that they could not be transformed. Stratification among the Jewish population of Israel organized itself around this issue in the state’s first decades. The upper strata, termed “the first Israel,” enjoyed prestige and as a result was able to create for itself advantageous economic and social arrangements. 

The lower strata, the “second Israel,” suffered disdain and condescension, which only exacerbated their lack of access to prestige, income, and property. Religious and traditional people, as well as Mizrahim, can attest to the patronizing attitude they encountered, to varying degrees, in their dealings with the old elites in the army, the universities, the media, etc. 

The protest against this culminated in Likud’s 1977 victory – the “government turnover” election. The Likud became the ruling party for the next 40 or so years (and still counting). Yet, a modus vivendi was reached between the contending sectors. The Likud, representing the untransformed or partially transformed second Israel, controlled the government and political system, while the New Jews became the “establishment,” controlling the economy, the high-tech sector, the universities, the media, the justice system, and the defense apparatus. Netanyahu was careful to include representatives of the old elites in all the governments that he formed. 

The current government is an exception to this pattern. It rests entirely on parties that represent untransformed or only partially transformed populations, and it has pursued a revolutionary agenda abrogating the division of labor between the institutional establishment of the New Jews and the government of more traditional untransformed Jews. Its agenda, of which the “Judicial Reform” is a central piece, is to hollow out the independent power centers of the old establishment. As is the case with other revolutionary governments, it continues while in power to exhibit symbols of protest. Thus, it continues to attack the liberal elites, who are also largely its political opponents, as “privileged,” “arrogant” and the like. It is unrealistic to expect it to abandon its polarizing discourse and rhetorical style. It uses its protest against the historical stratification system of Israel, along with the intense emotions that it generates, for political mobilization of its “base.”

Nevertheless, the government’s current situation is not entirely happy. The Oct. 7 attack and the ensuing war obviously put the government in a defensive and awkward position. The largest security failure in Israel’s history happened during its watch. Beyond that, more subtle issues are arising. The war exposed its inherently ambivalent attitude toward Israel’s fabled intelligence and security agencies and the Air Force. The government celebrated the phenomenal success of these bodies in the war against Hezbollah, Iran and Syria. Yet, these bodies are run by the very transformational elites at whom the government directs its protest and resentment. The solution the government has found is to blame them for the Oct. 7 attack and step up the attacks on them as undermining the government and the state of Israel. One gets the impression that because the operations against Iran, Hezbollah and Syria were so successful, it had to redouble its attacks against the Shin Bet, the IDF and the Air Force. 

A deeper problem may be that the government does not seem to have a clear idea of what a nontransformative Zionist Israeli state would look like. For the time being, it concentrates its energy negatively  – on attacking the old elite and dismantling its power centers. But it has not really articulated a positive vision. And to the extent that its members do have positive visions, they contradict each other. The Haredim, for example, see a blanket draft exemption for all Haredim (whether they study Torah or not) as a fundamental demand. However, this demand is strenuously opposed by the Religious Zionists. If the coalition wants to continue to rule coherently, it needs to open a conversation regarding its ultimate vision of the Jewish state. Ultimately, such a conversation would have to include the old transformative elites, who continue to contribute to Israel’s economic, technological, military and cultural success. 

Perhaps, if all sectors of the Israeli population participate in such a foundational conversation, which would, as it were, re-found the ideological and cultural basis of the Jewish state, the wounded pride, condescension, disdain and hatred can be overcome. 

Shlomo Fischer is a senior fellow at the Jewish People Policy Institute