fbpx

September 16, 2026

ACF Report Reveals the Strongest – and Most Concerning – Campuses for Jewish and Pro-Israel Students

Before parents start helping high school seniors apply to college this year, they may want to look at a new report from Alums for Campus Fairness (ACF). The organization recently released its 2025-26 Campus Climate Brief, showing the most concerning and most supportive college campuses for Jewish and pro-Israel students.

The report, which can be found on CampusFairness.org, took into consideration five criteria: incident record, institutional response, anti-Israel organizing, Jewish life on campus, and the legal and structural environment. For instance, the report looked at the documented record of antisemitic incidents and threats affecting Jewish students during the year, like encampment-related disruptions, assaults, and vandalism, and the outcomes of these incidents, whether it was arrests and/or criminal charges. The scale of anti-Israel activism on campus – including disruptions of university operations and BDS resolutions and referenda – along with the strength of Jewish groups on campus like Hillel and Chabad were factored into the study.

“We didn’t rank schools on reputation or rhetoric,” said ACF’s Executive Director Avi Gordon. “We ranked them on how they actually reacted the last time a Jewish student was targeted.”

“We ranked them on how they actually reacted the last time a Jewish student was targeted.” – Avi Gordon

Some of the 10 most concerning campuses include Middlebury College, the New School, Sarah Lawrence College, Oberlin College, and George Mason University, with the CUNY school system and the University of Washington receiving honorable mentions.

The 10 most supportive schools include Tulane University, the University of Florida, the University of Miami, Arizona State University, and the University of Southern California, with honorable mentions for Yeshiva University, Boston University, and Emory University. All in all, there were 14 concerning campuses and 17 strong campuses representing 17 states. Florida had the most supportive schools (three), while California led with four of the most concerning schools.

“The schools that got this right didn’t do anything complicated,” said Gordon. “They wrote clear rules and enforced them from day one, before things escalated. Schools like Tulane, Florida, and Vanderbilt demonstrated swift action when radical students tried to take over their campuses in the wake of October 7th. That decisive response left a lasting impression and has discouraged future incidents.”

The report, which drew from publicly identifiable available and independently verifiable sources, like official university statements, court filings, student government records, and federal and state government actions, goes into detail on each campus and how it earned its placement.

For instance, in May 2026, the Undergraduate Student Senate’s RSO Compliance Committee at the New School voted to suspend Hillel’s funding. The administration rejected the vote, but the report says the “institutional environment students actually live in is set by the student bodies that keep escalating.”

At the University of Miami, the most visible incident of the year took place on January 27, 2026, when a student influencer started an antisemitic verbal altercation with the Students Supporting Israel table at the Spring Involvement Fair. Within minutes, staff intervened, and the student was expelled from the College Republicans chapter that same week. The campus didn’t have any BDS resolutions, Apartheid Week events, or career fair protests either.

Looking forward, parents and students applying for college can study the report and make their decisions – and colleges are going to see the consequences of their actions.

“Alumni have more power here than they think, and families are already voting with their applications,” said Gordon. “Universities can either get ahead of that or find out the hard way.”

ACF Report Reveals the Strongest – and Most Concerning – Campuses for Jewish and Pro-Israel Students Read More »

Jason Arday, Donald Trump, and the Post-Truth World

For Rep. Andrew Clyde, the January 6 insurrection was a “normal tourist visit”; for the Good Law Project, Jason Arday is the victim of smear campaign by “right-wing media.”

There’s a point where the Left and the Right converge. It’s called the “horseshoe effect,” and it’s perfectly illustrated by the responses above to the Arday scandal and January 6. For both MAGA and Arday’s defenders, truth doesn’t matter, lies are accepted as facts, and tribe matters above all.

Arday’s serial lies about his autism, career, and accomplishments led to his transformation into a media star in England, a Cambridge university professorship, and a book contract with Simon & Shuster with an advance of 1.4 million (whether dollars or pounds was never specified). While some privately questioned the integrity of Arday’s research, it took a Substack article by Nathan Cofnas to bring the story into the public arena, resulting in a major scandal.

Once Arday’s multiple frauds were revealed, you’d think his academic employers and defenders would ask themselves how they could be fooled by someone whose life story is improbable fiction and whose scholarship is plagiarized. But instead of contrition and introspection, both blamed racism and the press for hounding Arday to his death.

Cofnas has been widely disparaged as a racist, and the University of Ghent suspended him for three months. Amnesty International claimed that “Professor Arday was a victim of a brutal, racist witch hunt”; the New England Journal of Medicine published an opinion piece asserting that “there are systemic pressures working against your [Black academics] success, your well-being, and in the case of Jason Arday — your life”; and Cambridge’s Chancellor, Chris Smith, condemned the “racist feeding frenzy” surrounding Arday.

It’s the press, not Arday, that’s at fault and needs to be controlled. A group of Black academics demanded that the Press Standards Organization “consider the nature and extent of reporting concerning Professor Arday’s private life and whether relevant editorial standards were upheld.” The Good Law Project asserted in an open letter “There cannot be any doubt that Dr Arday’s tragic death was the direct, foreseeable and foreseen result of press harassment,” and because the press cannot be trusted to self-regulate, they ask the Prime Minister “to commission an immediate public inquiry into how to ensure a responsible press given its contribution to Dr Arday’s tragic death.” As of this writing, 150,493 people, including MPs and academics, have signed this letter (the number keeps rising). Even Nature, widely considered the pre-eminent journal for scientific research, ignores Arday’s misdeeds and blames the press for Arday’s premature death.

Incredibly, no-one holds Arday responsible for lying and plagiarizing. The Good Law Project ignores Arday’s multiple lies, and the NEJM author actually says that Arday’s behavior doesn’t matter: “I don’t care whether or not any of these allegations against Prof. Arday were true.” Nor is she alone: “I have no idea if, how, why, or to what degree Jason may have done or not done what he is accused of having done. And I do not care. At all,” writes Steven Thrasher, a journalism prof at Northwestern University.

Depicting Arday as an innocent victim of White supremacy forgets how Arday did his level best to silence the critics. After Prof. Davis Harris about “puzzling similarities” between one of Arday’s articles and an earlier study by someone else, Arday told him that he should pay more attention to dismantling racism, and to not contact him again. But Arday wasn’t done. He reported Harris to the police, who, to their credit, took no action.

Jack Grove was not so lucky. After Arday found out about the article Grove was writing for the Times Higher Education about Arday’s plagiarism, Arday hired Carter-Ruck, a law firm known for intimidating journalists and whose previous clients include Qatar and Russian oligarchs. Grove’s article was spiked. Someone then reported Grove to Scotland Yard, which spent four months investigating before closing the case. Who paid for Carter-Ruck’s services remains a mystery.

Some of Arday’s defenders go off the wall entirely. The distinguished political philosopher Jason Stanley asserted that plagiarism isn’t “the mere overlap of sentences,” even though that’s exactly how universities define plagiarism.” Others fall back on conspiracy theories.

What is one to make of this sordid tale? Certainly, the Arday affair shows the danger of hiring not by merit, but by skin color and identity. Because Arday ticked off all the relevant boxes (Black, neurodivergent, and telegenic), Prof. Hilary Cremin (who fawned over Arday, claiming that his research “was the best in the world”) and the rest of Education Department didn’t look closely at his CV or take seriously the problems with his teaching, which one student described as “terrible.”

The number of professors on both sides of the Atlantic that defend Arday, discounting his lies and blaming everything on race, is particularly galling because we should be guided by evidence, not ideology. And yet, the pro-Ardayites either minimize his multiple fabulations or say they just don’t care. A Facebook friend and otherwise distinguished scholar posted: “We shouldn’t even know about issues with his scholarship. If he told or wrote untruths about life—how the hell is that our business?” It’s “our” business because Arday makes all higher ed look bad: witness the number of people asserting that all academics commit plagiarism. And it’s “our” business because the agenda dominating Cambridge’s Faculty of Education school is rife in academia.

But while the Arday affair reveals academia’s many problems, there’s an even larger lesson here, and this is where the two ends of the horseshoe meet.  Even though politics and academia are different fields with different goals (truth v. winning), the pro-Ardayites and MAGA use the same strategies to defend their heroes.

But while the Arday affair reveals academia’s many problems, there’s an even larger lesson here, and this is where the two ends of the horseshoe meet.

A study in the Journal of Social and Political Psychology looked at surveys of Trump supporters after the January 6 attack on the Capital.  Some refused to believe the allegations despite the evidence; others claimed that all politicians do the same (hard to maintain with January 6); and a third group said that Trump’s misdeeds are less important than his policies. In other words, tribe is more important than evidence, evidence is subordinate to loyalty, and those levelling accusations are guilty of the same.

Arday’s defenders exhibit the same behavior. Despite irrefutable evidence, many refuse to admit that Arday committed plagiarism and lied about his life. In any event, plagiarism, so they say, is everywhere in academia (not true), and it’s more important to defend a Black man regardless of what he’s done. Both attack and try to silence the critics. For Trump, it’s using the Department of Justice to prosecute his political enemies; for Arday, it’s siccing Carter-Ruck on THE and Jack Grove.

Still, there are limits to the post-truth world. Arday’s case shows that, to paraphrase Macbeth, eventually truth will out. You can lie and cheat for only so long before your dishonesty is uncovered. As for Trump, things are not going well for him. Trump’s approval rating is plummeting; persistent inflation, his association with Jeffrey Epstein, and Trump’s war with Iran has led to MAGA defections; and Canada refuses to back down in the face of his economic bullying.

But there will be no accountability for either. Due to his premature death, we will never know what Arday was thinking when he told all these lies and plagiarized. Was he a naïf? Or, more likely, a deliberate fraudster, amazed at how easy it was to fool the world? When The Guardian asked Arday about his abuse and harassment claims, Arday responded, “I thought you would just believe me.” Evidently, that’s what many did until, finally, someone didn’t. As for Trump, thanks to the Supreme Court, he is immune from criminal prosecution, and the Republican majority in Congress lets Trump do whatever he wants.

While Arday and Trump may escape personal consequences, the responses to their misdeeds has exposed the corruption undermining the institutions they represent: academia by the excesses of progressivism, and American politics by MAGA’s sycophantic loyalty. Consequently, both have suffered a catastrophic loss of credibility, and it will be a very long time before they earn it back.


Peter C. Herman is an emeritus professor of literature at San Diego State University. His latest book is “Early Modern Others: Resisting Bias in Renaissance Literature.”

Jason Arday, Donald Trump, and the Post-Truth World Read More »

How Yom Kippur’s Afternoon Prophet Inspires America

Headlining an upcoming blockbuster film is only the latest high-profile appearance by the ancient Jewish prophet whose story is read on the afternoon of Yom Kippur. 

In its article hyping the October release of the MTV Films-produced “Whalefall,” the entertainment website AV Club proclaimed “The under-the-sea survival thriller turns ‘Weapons’’ [star] Austin Abrams into a modern-day Jonah.” While exactly how heavily the action-adventure movie about a young man who tries to psychologically reconcile his relationship with his demanding father while simultaneously trying to escape the belly of a whale will draw from the biblical text remains to be seen, the United States has long seen the tale of Jonah’s survival as a malleable metaphor for the American national character.

Jonah appears numerous times as a literary motif in Thomas Morton’s satirical poem “New English Canaan” published in 1637. In the preface, as the scholar Israel Benporat has documented, Morton compares himself to Jonah and analogizes the sinning people of Nineveh to New England, writing: “Jonas [Jonah], thou hast done well, to call these men / Home to repentance, with thy painefull pen.” The provocateur of the Pilgrims teased his antagonists by calling them to “Repent you cruell Seperatists, repent; there are as yet but 40 Days … repent you cruell Schismaticks, repent.” The Pilgrims, in turn, dubbed Morton “the Lord of Misrule,” perceiving him to be among the sinners, like those Jonah was meant to reform.  

Decades later, the prominent preacher Joseph Sewell, who had declined the presidency of his alma mater, Harvard, delivered a fast-day sermon before the Massachusetts governor and the house of representatives on Dec. 3, 1740. In his remarks, titled “Nineveh’s Repentance and Deliverance,” the reverend encouraged his listeners to turn their sinning hearts to God. After all, “Thus did the men of Nineveh, nor did their king refuse to humble himself and lie in the dust before that Almighty God, who threatned [sic] to destroy them. The order given [in response to Jonah’s call for repentance] was, ‘Let Man and Beast be covered with Sackcloth, and cry mightily to God.’ This then is a moral duty incumbent on all as God shall call.” The hope was that this occasion of national introspection through abstaining from food for a day would elicit the Lord’s favor. After all, “God’s ancient people,” that is, the Jews, “practised it.”

Following the Revolution, Jonah accompanied the fight for Abolition. Herman Melville, it has often been argued, offered his beloved novelistic whale-centered warning, published in 1851, as a biblical rebuke against self-destructive slavery. As Ilana Pardes has put it, “’Moby-Dick’ ends with Ishmael’s reflections on a buoyant coffin in the midst of the sea. He is the only Jonah who survives to deliver a prophetic warning to antebellum America-Nineveh of the terrible disaster that lies ahead.” George C. Rable, in his “God’s Almost Chosen Peoples: A Religious History of the American Civil War,” paraphrases a Congregationalist minister as detailing how since the ship of state was foundering, the solution was to “toss overboard the Jonah of slavery before God’s wrath dashed the vessel upon the rocks.” A slave spiritual asked, “He deliver’d Daniel from the lion’s den / And Jonah from the belly of the whale / And the Hebrew children from the fi’ry furnace / And why not every man?” 

In the 20th century, Jonah appeared in both the courtroom and political controversies.      

During the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, Clarence Darrow quipped at William Jennings Bryan: “But when you read that Jonah swallowed the whale — or that the whale swallowed Jonah — excuse me please … how do you literally interpret that?” To which Bryan replied, “When I read that a big fish swallowed Jonah — it does not say whale … That is my recollection of it. A big fish, and I believe it, and I believe in a God who can make a whale and can make a man and make both what He pleases.”

In that century’s second half, lamenting the civilian casualties of the Vietnam War, Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel bellowed, “Jonah is running to Tarshish while Nineveh is tottering on the brink. Are we not all guilty of Jonah’s failure?”

The sea-faring seer hasn’t stopped swimming in the 21st century. 

In 2007, the historian Michael Oren penned an op-ed for The Wall Street Journal titled “Jonah’s Dilemma,” in which he noted how the eponymous book “conveys crucial lessons for all Americans as they grapple with crises in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and yearn for far-sighted leadership.” He saw in Jonah’s hesitancy to spare a sinning nation a parallel to the politics of his own moment, in which “policy makers must decide between costly actions and inaction, the price of which, though potentially higher, will ultimately remain unknown — a truly Jonah-like dilemma.”

In 2014, novelist Joshua Feldman published “The Book of Jonah,” a fictional account of  Jonah Jacobstein, a successful young Manhattan corporate lawyer on the verge of making partner, whose life is thrown into turmoil after experiencing a divine vision.

More recently, following President Biden’s disastrous 2024 debate performance, The Forward ran an essay which noted how “God had to remind Jonah that he wasn’t the only character who mattered in his own story. Can anyone convince Biden of the same?” After all, the author saw Jonah’s initial recalcitrance and Biden’s hesitancy to leave the race as two stories of “an entire society, versus one man’s ego.” 

Just last year, Apple released a television show titled “Government Cheese,” starring David Oyelowo as an ex-con looking to restart his life, which contains so many references to Scripture that The Hollywood Reporter, not known for its biblical literacy, praised how “the Book of Jonah is a useful condiment to flavor their themes tied to the absurdities of faith and fate” in the series.

Furthermore, selections from Jonah’s chapters will be required reading for Texas’ public school children as part of the recent overhaul of the state’s education requirements. 

When Jonah makes his appearance on the holiest day of the year, he is meant to remind Jews across the globe of the remarkable grace of repentance. At the same time, his tale’s American reception has rippled through a remarkable range of contexts – offering insight into communal politics, national spiritual introspection, the Bible’s historicity, the ethics of warfare, Middle Eastern strategy, electoral tactics and the ever-present desire for each of us to be granted a second chance.


Rabbi Dr. Stuart Halpern is Senior Adviser to the Provost of Yeshiva University and Deputy Director of Y.U.’s Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought. His books include the newly released “Jewish Roots of American Liberty,” “The Promise of Liberty: A Passover Haggada,” “Esther in America,” “Gleanings: Reflections on Ruth” and “Proclaim Liberty Throughout the Land: The Hebrew Bible in the United States.” 

How Yom Kippur’s Afternoon Prophet Inspires America Read More »

Knowing Our History

This essay is based on a sermon delivered by Rabbi Lebovitz to his congregation, Valley Beth Shalom, on Rosh Hashanah, September 12.

Under the cover of night, on April 18, 1775, Paul Revere took his historic ride through Boston to warn American Patriots of the impending arrival of British troops. Two lanterns were hung to signal that the invasion would arrive by sea. We teach Paul Revere’s midnight ride as one of the opening scenes of the Revolutionary War. Each new chapter of American history arrives to these shores on the shifting sands of time, carrying a new sense of challenge and opportunity, not quite yet firmly attached to the foundation of what preceded it.

As we mark 250 years of this nation’s existence, and we reflect on its blessings and its transgressions, it also feels responsible to recognize that we are now entering a new chapter of American Jewish History. It’s been 18 months since we all felt the earthquake of Franklin Foer’s article in The Atlantic, “The Golden Age of American Jews Is Ending.” We ought to now ask, so what’s next? Even if many of us understand the next chapter to be challenging, it should be in sanctuaries like this, across this great nation, that American Jewish communities light the proverbial lantern of warning. How can we better prepare?

We must understand our rightful place here. We are not outsiders. We need never apologize for the Jewish community in America. The Jewish community helped inspire and build America. Jews have always been part of the fabric of this country. The founders of this nation adopted our language to describe this extraordinary experiment. Well before our independence, in 1630, John Winthrop, the first governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, described the colony as a “city upon a hill,” an earthly representation of the eternal Jewish political and spiritual capital. In 1638, Puritan minister John Davenport, who co-founded the New Haven Colony, expressed this endeavor as a “New Jerusalem.” Later in 1861, President-Elect Abraham Lincoln referred to Americans as God’s “chosen people.”

Colonial Jewish communities founded Congregation Shearith Israel in New York in 1654 and the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island in 1763. Following the Revolutionary War, the first prayer for this country was composed in Hebrew in 1784 by the Sephardic Cantor Hendla Jochanan van Oettingen of New York’s Congregation Shearith Israel. It includes the following passage:

“As you gave strength to Sampson,

so may you strengthen and support our saving shield and commanding general George Washington …

O how goodly, how beautiful might it be would you confirm the peace that you have planted on the hearts of kings and rulers that they should beat their swords into plowshares, their spears into pruning forks, that nation should not lift up sword against nation nor should they any more learn war.”

From the infancy of this country, our clergy stood firm in their patriotism. Unlike so many concurrent enlightened European national movements that publicly debated the Jewish ability to be loyal citizens, we enjoyed equal status here from the outset. We contributed to American society as true stakeholders. Hebrew Bible quotations and our traditional symbolism adorn our most cherished civic landmarks from the halls of Congress to the Liberty Bell.  

Unlike so many concurrent enlightened European national movements that publicly debated the Jewish ability to be loyal citizens, we enjoyed equal status here from the outset. We contributed to American society as true stakeholders.

I speak of this because I fear that too many American Jews are completely unfamiliar with American Jewish history. How many of us travel to exotic foreign places but have never visited the Touro Synagogue in Newport, Rhode Island? How many of us have never heard of Cantor van Oettingen? Whether your family came here on the Mayflower or arrived here recently, those of us gathered here today are part of the American Jewish story. We ought to familiarize ourselves with our own story before it is rewritten by others, because suddenly, history is up for debate.

A recent article by Niall Ferguson and John-Clark Levin, “The Death of History,” published by The Free Press, claimed that the fact-based approach proves futile in a world of artificial intelligence and algorithm-based social media. They point to the sharp rise in Holocaust denial amongst podcasters and social media influencers — whom they call “anti-historians” — who question basic suppositions of history such as, “Was Hitler a villain?”

A week later, The Free Press published reactions to the piece by thinkers from the political left and right under the question, “Is History Dead?” One of the responses, written by French Jewish philosopher Bernard-Henri Lévy was subtitled “Do Not Surrender.” He wrote, and I quote, “… Yes Jews are under attack as they have not been for decades. Yes, this hatred has become viral, elegant, almost fashionable… But that is no reason to surrender. On the contrary, we must rearm ourselves.”

Rearming ourselves with historical literacy seems even less likely when we consider the declining interest amongst young people in pursuing history as a degree or as a profession. The journal Sapir recently published an article by Allen C. Guelzo, “A Return to Teaching History: How ignorance of the past endangers us all.” In the piece, he provides some concerning statistics about the way Americans have learned or unlearned our history:

“By 2014, the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that only 18% of American middle schoolers could be considered ‘proficient’ in American history; by 2022, it had sunk to 13%. Several years ago, I quizzed one of my classes at Gettysburg College about their high school history textbooks. Half of them hadn’t had one. The other half — literally half — had been issued Howard Zinn’s ‘A People’s History of the United States,’ which reduces that history to a series of simple binaries of ‘slaveowner against slave, landlord against tenant, corporation against worker, rich against poor.’”

These brief, shortcut history lessons presented in simple binaries, such as “colonizer versus indigenous people” or “oppressed versus oppressor,” have not benefited American society. They have pointed us toward unprecedented levels of Jew-hatred. As an example, Zinn has called the State of Israel a mistake. This style of study has sowed the soil for young Americans to view Israeli Jews as colonizers despite our claim to our rightful homeland with 3,000 years of evidence. Our people’s narrative is too long or complex for Zinn’s style of study. Historical complexity is impossible for a TikTok generation without any attention span or appetite for history. 

Historical illiteracy is not only dangerous for Jews. It is dangerous for America. Ignorance of our past is what allows a resurgence of failed ideas such as totalitarianism and communism. We, the American Jewish community, must begin elevating good ideas. The greatest idea ever proclaimed in this country was derived from our Torah.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, the Declaration of Independence claimed that “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal.” Before Thomas Jefferson penned those words, I would argue if you looked around the world, there was no reason to believe that claim as self-evident, unless you believe the first chapter of Genesis: “God created all of humanity in the image of God …” (Gen. 1:27) Genesis teaches us that all of life emanates from a singular life source. 

Of all of the world narratives, the founders of this nation grafted its story onto the Jewish narrative, onto our scripture’s basic beliefs and assumptions, onto our history. It was a decision celebrated by colonial Jews. It goes unappreciated today because unfortunately American Jews no longer know our own history. This blind spot is unacceptable for our people. We must understand our own history to be our authentic selves. We’ve learned that any allyship built on a compromised version of our Jewish identity or undermined version of the truth of our Jewish history proves weak and does not endure times of peril. The Torah understands this and commands us over and over to remember. Deuteronomy teaches us, “Take utmost care and watch yourselves, so that you do not forget the things that you saw with your own eyes and so that they do not fade from your mind as long as you live. And make them known to your children and to your children’s children.” (Deut. 4:9)

Our history provides us with the lantern that will guide us out of this dark time. This can be the special role we play for this country, for its sake and for our own.

The Torah offers us a phrase, “Achar HaDevarim Ha’Elah,” which means “After those events” and introduces new narratives. Most famously, we will read these words at the beginning of the Torah reading tomorrow – Achar HaDevarim Ha’Elah – after those events of Abraham and Sarah having Isaac, God decided to test Abraham’s faith by calling upon him to sacrifice his son.

I recently heard a beautiful teaching by Professor Meron Isaacson, retired from Bar Ilan University, who explained that the etymology of the Hebrew word “Acharei — afterward” is derived from the word “Acher” meaning different or changed. The question that should be prompted by the expression “Achar HaDevarim HaElah” is the connection between the two stories. Did one story simply follow after the other, or did one story fundamentally change the setting in a way that served as a catalyst for what follows? Does the Torah teach us to read these narratives in a linear fashion, transitioning us between event after event, or is the phrase “Achar HaDevarim HaElah” meant to raise our antenna to appreciate how the circumstances have changed?

We are living through an Achar HaDevarim HaElah moment. Our circumstances here have changed. How might we look back at previous chapters of our own history and gain knowledge and inspiration? Well, let’s return to the midnight ride of Paul Revere. 

We don’t know much about Paul Revere’s ride from the history of that night more than 250 years ago. Mostly, our understanding of his ride arrives to us in the form of the poem “Paul Revere’s Ride,” written by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow in 1860, almost a century later. Longfellow focuses on Paul Revere’s story to inspire a sense of patriotism and heroism for his own time, for a tepid America on the brink of the Civil War. Longfellow’s poem serves as a beautiful Midrash that elevates a previous hero of American history in an effort to teach us the lessons needed for his moment. He wrote:

“So through the night rode Paul Revere;

And so through the night went his cry of alarm

To every Middlesex village and farm,

a cry of defiance and not of fear,

a voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,

And a word that shall echo forevermore!”

It is precisely now that I would commission Longfellow to lift up for us an American Jewish figure of our past to model for all of us that the pride and courage and resolve that we require has been exhibited before. American Jews have faced daunting challenges before and in fact overcome.

The next chapter of American history will be different. It will be more daunting for Jews. Will we be different, learned, prepared in time to meet it? It will not necessarily resemble Germany in 1933, but it could look like America in 1950. America in the 1950s was not the American Jewish Golden Age of the 1980s, ‘90s and 2000s. During the ’50s, Congressional records include references to a conspiracy theory about a Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich and an imaginary Jewish plot to begin World War III. We hear anti-Jewish rhetoric on the floor of Congress today. In the 1950s, many universities maintained quotas for the number of Jews they would accept. Many elite universities today are accepting fewer Jewish students. And you know what? Our kids are going to be smart and successful without those diplomas. The lessons of the 1950s and prior is that the American Jewish community met the challenges and thrived. The grit and determination and activism of the American Jews of the 1950s is what set the stage for our golden age that followed. 

Are we going to mourn the loss of the previous American Jewish golden age, or can we work to set the stage for the next one?  

Are we going to mourn the loss of the previous American Jewish golden age, or can we work to set the stage for the next one? 

We have to reacquaint ourselves with the obstacles and lessons of the extraordinary legal careers of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Louis Brandeis, the relationships of Abraham Joshua Heschel and Martin Luther King Jr., and before them Julius Rosenwald and Booker T. Washington, the sports prowess and Jewish identity of Sandy Koufax and Hank Greenberg, the enduring friendship of Eddie Jacobson and Harry Truman, the entrepreneurial spirit of the Hassenfeld Brothers who formed Hasbro, the largest toy company in the world, and the audacious creative zeal of the Warner Brothers and Louis B. Meyer and all of the Jews who founded Hollywood, the Jewish pride of Harry Houdini, all the way back to Sephardic colonists like Haym Salomon and his prominent role in the Revolutionary War. We need to read the great American Jewish authors such as Chaim Potok, Philip Roth, and Saul Bellow. We need to read the poetry of Emma Lazarus. These people never considered themselves heroes. They simply met their time as American Jews and changed the course of American history for us.

Today we have Jewish medical professionals facing discrimination, such as the case against Boston Medical Center, which alleges that the hospital discriminated and retaliated against a Jewish-Israeli mental health counseling intern after she reported anti-Israel desk displays that violated hospital policy. How can we help advocate for California District Attorney Jeff Rosen after a Santa Clara judge prohibited him from retrying a property-damage case against pro-Palestinian protesters because of his “conflict of interest” due to his Jewish identity?

We are not the first American Jews to face challenges and bigotry. Yet, we cannot write this new chapter of history without understanding what preceded it. We need the resolve as American Jews to begin crafting our story anew — chadesh yameynu kekedem — Renew our days like our days before.

To quote Longfellow one more time:

“For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,

Through all our history, to the last,

In the hour of darkness and peril and need,

The people will waken and listen to hear

The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,

And the midnight message of Paul Revere.”

May this year bring blessings of wisdom and courage and fortitude to our American Jewish community. May it be a good year for us, Jews everywhere, and the United States of America. Shanah Tova! 


Rabbi Nolan Lebovitz, PhD, is the senior rabbi of Valley Beth Shalom in Encino, CA, and the author of the recently published bestseller “The Case for Dual Loyalty: Healing the Divided Soul of American Jews.” He currently sits on the Board of Directors of the Institute for Black Solidarity with Israel and on the Advisory Board of the Zionist Rabbinic Coalition.

Knowing Our History Read More »

Macklemore Dropped from Ed Sheeran Tour After ‘Free Palestine’ Remarks at MetLife Stadium

After more than a week of fallout from Macklemore’s “Free Palestine” comments while opening a concert on Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour, venues told the tour’s promoter they would not allow concerts with the rapper on the lineup.

The decision removes Macklemore from one of the biggest concert tours in the world. Touring Data reported it grossed $98.6 million, with 754,050 tickets sold across 17 shows.

The controversy began on Sept. 4 and 5 at MetLife Stadium in East Rutherford, New Jersey — west of Manhattan and home of the NFL’s New York Giants and New York Jets. At the Sept. 5 show, Macklemore told the crowd, “One of the reasons why I wanted to come on this tour was because I wanted to stand up here on stages and stadiums across America and say two words that are very near and dear to my heart: Free Palestine.”

“I want those words to be loud and clear, so the people from Gaza, all the way to the occupied West Bank, know that we have not forgotten them,” Macklemore said.

Before performing his 2024 protest song “Hind’s Hall,” Macklemore praised Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian encampment movement. Wearing a keffiyeh tied around his neck, he then addressed Jews in the audience.

“To all of my Jewish brothers and sisters: criticism of Israel, criticism of apartheid, being against genocide in no way is a criticism of you,” Macklemore said. “My message is for peace; love for all human beings to be treated with dignity, respect and equality.”

Since Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023 attack on Israel, Macklemore has made Gaza a major part of his public work. At a Washington rally that November, he said, “I don’t know enough. But I know enough that this is a genocide.”

Among the most high-profile artists to criticize Macklemore’s MetLife Stadium rant was P!NK. Born Alecia Moore, P!NK is a Jewish Grammy-winning pop star who has been increasingly public about her Judaism and antisemitism since Oct. 7.

On Sept. 6, P!NK reposted a StopAntisemitism Instagram Story criticizing Macklemore’s performance — and was criticized herself. She posted an Instagram statement Sept. 11, hours before Rosh Hashanah began at sundown.

“I’ve been quiet in my own words for a week, which you know isn’t like me. So here they are,” P!NK said on Sept. 11. “Last Sunday I reposted somebody else’s post about Macklemore’s set at Ed Sheeran’s show. It said things in words I didn’t write, and I wouldn’t have chosen all of them.”

“I was born a Jew. I didn’t pick it, and I’ve never hidden it,” P!NK said. “And this week a whole lot of people decided what I believe without asking me.” P!NK had stated her position in an Oct. 30, 2023 Instagram post: “Hamas is a terrorist organization that seeks to destroy Jews” and “Palestinians need a solution that honors their aspirations and their humanity.”

P!NK also brought up a bit of Macklemore’s history. “I was in the room at the Grammys in 2014 when Macklemore rapped ‘Same Love’ and 33 couples, gay and straight, got married to it, and I cheered, no questions asked,” P!NK said. “Four months later Macklemore put on a hooked nose, a black beard and a bowl cut, performed in it, and called it a ‘random costume.’ Every Jew I know knew exactly what it was.”

P!NK, who has been performing in front of sold-out stadium audiences for over two decades, called out Macklemore’s remarks at MetLife Stadium. 

“Then last weekend he stood in front of a stadium full of music-loving families, with violent images from a war on the screens, dedicated a song to the movement of his choice, and then took the mic to tell all of the Jews in the stadium that it wasn’t about them,” P!NK said. “You don’t get to decide that for us.”

P!NK said her objection was not to the slogan itself.

“That’s what prompted my repost. Not ‘Free Palestine,’ and not anyone’s right to say it,” P!NK said. “I have never asked for another artist to be silenced and I’m not asking now. I don’t need anyone fired.”

On Sept. 14, Macklemore said conversations about his future on Sheeran’s tour had been underway for a week. Sheeran is scheduled to perform Sept. 25 and 26 at Gillette Stadium in Foxborough, Massachusetts, home of the New England Patriots. The stadium is owned by Kraft Group, led by Patriots owner Robert Kraft, who has made fighting antisemitism a public cause through the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate.

“Last Monday, in the middle of all the media attention surrounding Pink and what I said at MetLife, Ed told me that Robert Kraft called him,” Macklemore said in his Sept. 14 statement. “Ed told me that Kraft said I would not be allowed to perform in his stadium.”

Macklemore said Sheeran told him Kraft “had rallied some of the other stadium owners” and that they gave Sheeran an ultimatum: “if Macklemore stays on the tour, you will not be allowed to play in our venues.”

Kraft Group confirmed the Gillette Stadium decision. “Based on Macklemore’s recent actions, material shared from the stage during Ed Sheeran’s shows in New Jersey, and a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery that we believe has been deeply offensive and hurtful to the Jewish community, we determined that his participation in the September 25th and 26th concerts at Gillette Stadium would cross that line.”

Messina Touring Group, the promoter of  Sheeran’s U.S. tour, confirmed that the issue extended beyond Gillette Stadium.

“We have been notified by venues on the upcoming U.S. tour dates that they will not allow a concert to take place with Macklemore on the lineup. … After discussions with stakeholders, Macklemore will not be performing on the remaining support dates.”

On Sept. 14, Macklemore said Sheeran and his team removed him from the tour. He said Sheeran told him “the words ‘Free Palestine’ and the image of the Palestinian flag were hurtful to a lot of people he spoke with.”

Macklemore said the size of Sheeran’s tour changed the reaction. “What I said at MetLife I have been saying on stages around the world for almost three years. So why is it an issue now?” Macklemore said. “Because now I’m sharing a stage with one of the biggest artists in the world, in some of the biggest stadiums in America. At a certain level of exposure, ‘Free Palestine’ becomes too much of a risk.

“Antisemitism is real,” he said. “When criticizing Israel, opposing Zionism or saying ‘Free Palestine’ gets conflated with hatred of Jewish people, it doesn’t protect Jewish people. It protects Israel from accountability.”

Macklemore ended by saying losing the remaining shows was worth it. “I didn’t need 10 shows from Ed. I needed two. Two chances to stand in front of 90,000 people and say the words that somehow became too dangerous to say.

“Free Palestine.

“But if those words cost me the stage, while turning the conversation back to Palestine, then it was the most successful tour I’ve ever been on.”

Three days earlier, P!NK had described her own reason for why it was worth it to enter the dispute as a Jewish artist.

“And now I’m standing up for my own people, and I thought I knew going in how lonely that would be,” P!NK said. “And it’s lonelier than that. But I’m doing it anyway.”

Macklemore Dropped from Ed Sheeran Tour After ‘Free Palestine’ Remarks at MetLife Stadium Read More »

Noah Wyle, Rob Reiner, and the Jewish Winners at the 78th Emmys

The 78th Primetime Emmy Awards on Sept. 14 at the Peacock Theater in Downtown Los Angeles included repeat wins for Noah Wyle, a first Emmy for “Slow Horses” director Saul Metzstein and a record-setting posthumous award for Rob Reiner.

Wyle won Outstanding Lead Actor in a Drama Series for playing Dr. Michael “Robby” Robinavitch on HBO Max’s “The Pitt.” It was his second consecutive win in the category. “The Pitt” also won Outstanding Drama Series, giving Wyle another Emmy as one of the show’s executive producers.

Wyle won the same two Emmys for “The Pitt” in 2025 after the first season. 

“This is overwhelming,” Wyle said as he accepted the acting award. He thanked his fellow nominees and the people at HBO, Warner Bros. Television and the crew of “The Pitt,” who were due back at work the next morning. “I grew up in LA. I’m a Hollywood kid; I was raised on television and movie theaters were my place of worship. This is all I’ve ever wanted to do, and this is the only club I’ve ever wanted to join. Thank you for accepting.”

“The Pitt” entered the Emmys with 25 nominations, the most of any program, including 12 in major categories.

Wyle had another chance at an Emmy for directing the “Pitt” episode “12:00 p.m.” That award went to Metzstein for directing the “Slow Horses” episode “Scars.” The win was Metzstein’s first Emmy.

“I misread the invite. I thought it was an audition for a Bond villain,” Saul Metzstein said, while wearing a shaded lens over his left eye. Metzstein thanked “Slow Horses” showrunner Will Smith, the cast and the people who worked on the series. Metzstein is the son of architect Isi Metzstein, who was born in Poland and survived the Holocaust after escaping Nazi Europe on the Kindertransport.

Rob Reiner posthumously won Outstanding Guest Actor in a Comedy Series for his work on “The Bear” at the Creative Arts Emmys held the week before the main ceremony. The award was Reiner’s third career Emmy and came 48 years after his previous acting Emmy.

Reiner and his wife, Michele, were murdered on Dec. 14, 2025.

The In Memoriam segment opened with Macaulay Culkin speaking about his “Home Alone” co-star Catherine O’Hara, who died in January. Jewish singer-songwriter Noah Kahan performed “Bridge Over Troubled Water” on acoustic guitar as the ceremony remembered television figures who died over the past year.

Jamie Lee Curtis, in tears, closed the segment with a tribute to Reiner. “Last week, Robbie won an Emmy for guest actor in a comedy series for his beautiful work on ‘The Bear,’ and he now holds the record of 48 years for the longest gap between acting Emmys, which was previously held by his father, Carl Reiner, at 37 years,” Curtis said. “He was generous and kind, and funny as hell and a friend to all. We all miss Rob and Michele. And all those we lost this year.” Rob Reiner previously won two acting Emmys for playing Michael “Meathead” Stivic on “All in the Family” in 1974 and 1978. 

Comedian Jon Stewart also added another Emmy to his career as an executive producer of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert,” which won Outstanding Variety Series. “The Daily Show,” which Stewart hosts and is executive producer, was also nominated in the category.

Several prominent Jewish actors were nominated but did not win. Jason Segel was nominated for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series for “Shrinking.” Lisa Kudrow was nominated for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series for “The Comeback.” Kudrow had a second nomination for writing the “Comeback” episode “Valerie Does It All” with Michael Patrick King. Harrison Ford was nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actor in a Comedy Series for “Shrinking,” while Hannah Einbinder was nominated for Outstanding Supporting Actress in a Comedy Series for “Hacks.” Randall Einhorn was nominated for directing the “Abbott Elementary” episode “Ballgame.” Debora Cahn and Peter Ackerman were nominated for Outstanding Writing for a Drama Series for “The Diplomat” episode “Amagansett.”

Two programs about Jewish subjects were also among this year’s nominees.

Netflix’s “Nobody Wants This,” about a rabbi and a non-Jewish woman who fall in love, was nominated for Outstanding Comedy Series. The series received two Emmy nominations this year, including music supervision, but no acting nominations. Synagogue scenes in the series were filmed at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles. The show’s third season premieres in October.

HBO’s “Mel Brooks: The 99 Year Old Man!” received six Emmy nominations. The documentary about Brooks finished without a win.

Noah Wyle, Rob Reiner, and the Jewish Winners at the 78th Emmys Read More »

Rosner’s Domain | Choosing the Next Government

At 77, Lord Oliver Franks received a final assignment in Her Majesty’s service: to examine whether Argentina’s invasion of the Falkland Islands — and the British expedition to the far end of the earth to retake them — could have been prevented. His committee’s answer was no. Britain could not have known, because the Argentines themselves decided only at the last moment. Argentina invaded in April 1982. Margaret Thatcher responded with a fury the junta did not anticipate. The committee found flaws in intelligence collection and analysis. But the errors were symmetrical. The British did not foresee Argentine audacity. The Argentines did not foresee British resolve.

The Falklands have resurfaced in recent weeks, as if through a time tunnel. President Javier Milei covets the islands anew. Perhaps he calculates correctly: there is no Iron Lady in London this time. Perhaps he recognizes that Donald Trump is not Ronald Reagan (who himself hesitated before backing Britain). And perhaps he draws encouragement from Israeli ministers urging him to stand firm against the British. What business is this of ours? None. Israel’s score with Britain concerns its boycott policies – a clumsy attempt to influence Israeli conduct in the territories. So Israel, true to form, sticks its nose into a quarrel that is not its own, and will later complain, as victim, about the excessive attention it receives.

Some called the Franks report a whitewash; it absolved the establishment. There was a preconception: Argentina would not dare. There was a reality: it dared. There was a dilemma: what to do when the preconception collapses. There was a decision: remove the occupiers by force.

Sound familiar? Evicting an invader from nearly empty islands was easier than evicting Hamas from a densely populated strip. But in both cases a state was caught unprepared, and the failure to weigh the less likely possibility led to war. One difference: the British were surprised far from home, and the shock was one of principle, not essential security. We were surprised inside our own homes, and the shock seared our consciousness.

Israel was surprised on Oct. 6, 1973. Next week’s Yom Kippur is since both a day of attonement, and a painful reminder. Israel was more recently surprised on Oct. 7, 2023. That is a fact. For years Israel assumed Hamas rule in Gaza was preferable to Palestinian Authority rule. That is a fact. Israel allowed the transfer of money and resources that let Hamas entrench itself. That is a fact. Netanyahu was warned that something might happen in Gaza. As of last week, perhaps that too is a fact – though its wording is disputed, its concreteness is disputed, and so is whether it adds a critical layer to what was already known. In a bombshell report, two Israeli journalists reported that the president of the UAE had warned Netanyahu of a major Hamas operation days before the attack. Netanyahu denied the report and said he’d sue the reporters for libel.  

Some say: Here is the smoking gun. Others say: unspecific warning changes nothing. Israel’s difficulty, like Britain’s in 1982, was in conceiving of an attack. No general warning could have dismantled that cognitive barrier. 

What Netanyahu knew, and when, floods Israeli discourse. But some overstate its effect on voters on the eve of an election.

One of them argues: whoever held office during a failure of this magnitude should step aside, whatever their personal responsibility. But not all Israelis accept this, and those who reject it have examples to wave. Such a rule would have sent Franklin Roosevelt home after Pearl Harbor and Joseph Stalin home after June 22, 1941. Both stayed to manage the war that followed. Thatcher stayed for years after the Falklands.

Some also argue: Netanyahu was not merely in office when the blow fell; his decisions created the conditions for it. This is easy to prove after the fact, and suffers from the flaw of hindsight: only knowing what we know today can we point to the captain’s greatest errors. Any prime minister might have made a similar mistake, or a worse one. 

None of this is to say that Netanyahu should stay, or go. It is to say that the P.M.’s opponents have no difficulty offering a narrative that demands his departure, even before the bombshell report, and his supporters one that justifies his staying even after. Netanyahu’s supporters say: he was surprised, recovered, led us to a victory of sorts. His opponents say: he was warned, did not listen, promised victory and did not deliver. Thatcher raised the Union Jack over the Falklands. Netanyahu has raised Israeli flags across the Middle East. But a war of sorts is still ongoing.

What could a voter do with these conflicting naratives? Democracy rests on the not-necessarily-informed decision of a multitude. George Mason of Virginia, a Founding Father, thought direct election of the president absurd – as unnatural, he said, as referring a trial of colors to a blind man. Last week the palette we blind men will choose from in a few weeks was completed: All parties formalized their final lists.

How to choose? There is Ronald Reagan’s famous question from his 1980 debate with Jimmy Carter. It may not help us pick a specific party, but might help some of us pick a direction. Are you better off than you were four years ago?

Something I wrote in Hebrew

This is the current state of our election, encapsulated:

At this stage, and until proven otherwise, it seems very difficult to shift voters from bloc to bloc, even under a cacophonous deluge of revelations, condemnations, appointments, tweets, videos and tours. It is likely that the election will be decided, if it is decided at all, because some voters will stay home (or not), or vote for parties that fail to cross the electoral threshold (or not), or succumb at the very last moment to an overwhelming emotion that guides their trembling hand to a ballot they never intended to cast (or not).

A week’s numbers

Sometimes “I don’t know” is the intelligent response (see column above).

A reader’s response

Jeremy Rosenfeld: “Don’t you Israelis see that you completely lose in the propaganda war?” My response: We do, and to be honest, we (Israel) don’t quite know what to do about it. 


Shmuel Rosner is senior political editor. For more analysis of Israeli and international politics, visit Rosner’s Domain at jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain.

Rosner’s Domain | Choosing the Next Government Read More »

My Choice for Essay of the Year

I read hundreds if not thousands of essays a year, on all kinds of subjects. Many of them fascinate me, but this year, one in particular stood out.

It was written earlier this month by Ahmed Fouad Alkhatib, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, in The New York Times.

“When I was 11, Hamas’ founder, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, arrived unannounced at the mosque next to my family’s home in Gaza City,” Alkhatib begins. “It was 2001 and the Islamist terrorist group, which had not yet taken control of Gaza, had turned the el-Yarmouk mosque into a base for proselytizing and propaganda.”

Alkhatib goes on to chronicle the devastation that Hamas has inflicted on its own people:

“Hamas, from its inception, behaved like a mob of gangsters, brutalizing Palestinian women who violated its fanatic sense of morality, torturing and killing those who were suspected of opposing them and carrying out grisly suicide attacks against Israeli civilians.”

He concludes that “for Gaza to recover, Hamas must be expelled.”

This is such an obvious conclusion, why would I pick it as the essay of the year?

Because it is so darned rare.

The collective assault against Israel has been so broad and deep it’s been hard finding anyone in the mainstream media who will dare go after the Hamas murderers whose biggest victims are the Palestinians.

In fact, not only did Alkhatib’s logical essay earn him no kudos, he’s been the target of the nastiest attacks from the anti-Israel crowd. My essay of the year has been their horror of the year.

Historian and pro-Palestinian activist Zachary Foster called him the “darling of the American Jewish-Zionist establishment” while describing Zionism as a form of “brain cancer.”

Mehdi Hasan complained to his more than two million X followers that some of the platform’s “worst,” “most dishonest” and “most fanatical pro-genocide” users were sharing Alkhatib’s article.

Unbowed, Alkhatib posted his own rebuttal to Hasan and others: 

“Imagine reading a piece that calls for Gaza to become the pride and joy of the Palestinian people and a hub of compelling Palestinian national identity by rejuvenating the territory, embracing peace and rejecting a terror organization that admitted to refusing Gaza development offers worth billions, including an airport and seaport, only to proclaim that the op-ed is ‘pro-genocide.’

“And how was this brilliant conclusion reached? Because the article I published in The New York Times didn’t do the ubiquitous ‘everything has to be Israel’s fault’ that seems to be the only line of thinking within the supposed ‘pro-Palestine’ camp.

“Speak to Palestinians in Gaza who aren’t Hamas or making content for the pro-Palestine community abroad, and you hear the same thing again and again. They describe, plainly and without theatrics, how Hamas halted Gaza’s development and crippled the broader Palestinian national project since its founding in 1987. They do not need to mention Israel in every sentence to sound authentic to outsiders, including other Palestinians or non-Palestinians alike.”

Unlike the self-righteous Israel-haters who mindlessly spout “Free Palestine,” Alkhatib actually cares for the Palestinians. 

“Hamas should have no role in Gaza’s future but, appallingly, so many in the West who consider themselves allies of the Palestinian people still see the group as honorable resistance fighters,” he writes. “Their support for, or failure to denounce, the group only helps perpetuate the degradation of Gaza.”

We’ve always known that the worst enemy of the Gaza Palestinians has been the Hamas terror army that spends money on rockets and tunnels rather than schools and hospitals.

But how often do we hear that from “pro-Palestinian” activists? Hardly ever, because they care only about taking down Israel.

No wonder they get spooked when a credible Palestinian voice like Alkhatib talks about a better future for the Palestinians, a future that’s not about demonizing Israel but about getting Hamas out of the way.

As Alkhatib says: “It is time to delegitimize, call out, resist, and dismantle the current ‘pro-Palestine’ movement and build an entirely new apparatus that rejects the hateful, bigoted, racist, homophobic, Jihadi, violent and antisemitic voices that have become mainstream within this failed environment.”

Those are words of hope for Palestinians.

For the anti-Israel crowd, they are words of despair.

For both of those reasons, this is my essay of the year.

My Choice for Essay of the Year Read More »

More Time to Dream

I was seated at a long wooden table in a coffee shop somewhere near Anchorage, writing a love letter to my wife. Through a skylight came a copper-tinted light, neither bright nor dim. A man entered and took a seat at the far end of the table. I noticed him first for the graceful way he walked, even though he looked to be in his 80s. He sat sipping his coffee and reading Book I of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, in which the old emperor fondly considers the people who had been his teachers. At some point he sidled over, nearer to me. We got to talking, he in his heavy English accent and I in my Minnesotan.

As if he’d already known I’d be interested, he began telling me about the mentorship he’d had from birds.

“When I was young, mid-teens,” the falconer began, “I was already a skilled falconer. I had imported birds from a gentleman in Tennessee. There were two. Both peregrine falcons. Quite difficult to train at first, but I had all the accoutrements. The thick leather glove they would land on, the hoods, the little bells around their legs, and so on.”

I shifted in my seat, drawing my chair a few inches closer to the table.

He paused, watching me. “I hope I’m not disturbing you. I sense you’re busy.”

“No, please,” I said. “I’m listening.”

“You see, I learned from the falcons, not only the art of catching prey, but also the ways of evil. The birds held a great deal of anger. I’d come to understand it was their desire not simply to catch food for sustenance, but to rip apart their prey.

“Being young, watching them destroy again and again, I began to live my life like those birds, making prey of those I should have loved, ripping them apart and seeking from them only what I desired. As you could imagine, this led me nowhere good.”

The falconer looked up briefly at me. There was a hitch in his voice. He dabbed his eyes with the corner of a napkin and began again.

“I once stood staring out the window of my flat at a flock of doves,” he said. “They had alighted in an open cobblestoned area. Though they were always present, I’d never paid them much attention. In fact, they bothered me. I found them dismal. Worthless if you must know. Their behavior was, as everyone is aware, a great deal different from that of the falcons. They ate seeds, scraps of food left behind, nothing involving blood. I watched as if it were the first time I’d seen doves.”

The falconer looked over at me, as if to gauge whether what he was saying still held my interest. When he was sure it had, he continued. His voice quieter.

“I stared, nearly spellbound as they pecked together in a kind of dance, each cooing in the way a mother might do for her infant. I had always mistaken this behavior for timidity. Especially among men. Only then did I realize that it was a kind of fierceness. A fierceness for harmony, for peace, for a kind of strength that the falcons could never possess.”

The falconer sipped at the remainder of his coffee. He turned his head toward the window as black thunderclouds hurried across the sky.

“It was as though I had undergone an abduction of my senses. That was how suddenly I turned my whole being toward the doves, toward the peaceable. I found in them something I’d never allowed myself to consider. My own yearning for gentleness, for tenderness. I found in those moments a greater strength than I’d ever possessed. You see, I don’t trust weakness. I fear it.”

Now the sky, which had grown dark as encroaching clouds gathered, brightened for a split second as a bolt of strange horizontal lightning struck. The flash gave way to an extended moment of utter silence. Then came a crash of thunder so terrible it portended the absolute end of the world.

The falconer stirred the last dregs of his coffee and gave a laugh, as though the violent booming were an ironic underscore to everything he’d just said.

“This notion of civility and peacemaking, it’s not for the timid. Not for the faint of heart.”

The man disappeared, dissolved along with his book. A door swung open. I felt a powerful gust of wind. It carried the scent of blue spruce and summer rain. The ink on the letter I was writing vanished. The tin roof of the coffee shop blew away and water entered from everywhere, rising fast above the tabletop where the man and I had just sat. I scrambled onto the counter where years ago a barista once stood.

Another lightning strike. And one more. Not sky to ground. Side to side. The copper-tinted light was no more. I waited for the thunder. Waited for the absolute end of the world.

Waited and waited.

I awoke then from the dream just as my wife left the bed. It was still dark. The birds hadn’t begun to chirp.

Lately, she’s been waking earlier than normal. She creeps out of the bedroom, quiet as humanly possible. She knows I need my rest and knows — intuitively, I think — that I need time to dream.

Lots more time to dream.


Peter Himmelman is a Grammy and Emmy nominated performer, songwriter, film composer, visual artist and award-winning author. This piece was published in his Substack.

More Time to Dream Read More »

Israel’s Clinical Trial Illusion: Testing Drugs Is Not the Same as Capturing Economic Value

Israel has built an impressive clinical trial ecosystem. Its hospitals participate in sophisticated international studies, its investigators work with multinational pharmaceutical companies, patients gain access to experimental therapies and Israeli physicians contribute scientific expertise and evidence to the development of new drugs. Pharma Israel states explicitly that “Most of the clinical trials are conducted by multinational pharmaceutical companies” and says that this extensive clinical research activity positions Israel at the forefront of medical innovation worldwide.

That success deserves to be protected and expanded. But it can also create a strategic illusion in which the volume of clinical trials conducted in Israel is interpreted as evidence of the amount of drug development and economic value being created for Israel. Those are not the same thing.

A multinational pharmaceutical company can sponsor a global clinical trial that includes Israeli hospitals. Israeli investigators may recruit patients, generate important data and contribute scientific expertise. The sponsor can combine those data with results from other countries and use the evidence to seek regulatory approvals in the United States, Europe and other markets. Yet the investigational drug, the development program, the regulatory submissions and the commercial rights may all belong to companies outside Israel. If the drug succeeds, the economic returns generated by approval and commercialization flow according to ownership and licensing rights, not according to where individual trial sites were located.

Israel still benefits from hosting the trial. Hospitals receive research funding. Physicians and research teams gain experience. Patients may obtain earlier access to experimental therapies. The healthcare system strengthens its research infrastructure and its relationships with global pharmaceutical companies. These are meaningful benefits and should be celebrated. But they are different from the economic value created by owning rights to a successful drug and participating in the returns generated when that drug reaches the market.

That is the distinction national statistics need to make clear. Clinical trial activity tells us where part of the research is performed. It does not tell us who sponsors the development program, who owns the investigational drug or holds the relevant rights, who submits the evidence for regulatory approval or who captures the economic returns.

The distinction can become especially important when an Israeli startup biotechnology company develops an asset and later partners or licenses it to a global pharmaceutical company. Such a transaction may be exactly the right decision and can itself generate substantial economic value for the Israeli company through upfront payments, milestones, royalties or equity value. But if the global pharmaceutical company then takes responsibility for subsequent development and sponsors multinational trials that include Israeli hospitals, those trials remain part of the global company’s development program. Their presence in Israel does not mean that the investigational drug is being developed by an Israeli company or that the resulting economic value will accrue primarily to Israel. The Israeli economic benefit depends on the rights and financial participation retained in the transaction.

This is why the volume of clinical trials can become a misleading proxy for the strength of a national pharmaceutical industry. A country can be an excellent location for multinational clinical research while much of the ownership, regulatory responsibility and economic upside associated with the drugs being tested sits elsewhere.

Israel therefore needs to distinguish clearly between clinical research activity and economic value creation. Clinical trial activity should continue to be measured and celebrated because it reflects genuine clinical research strength. But if the question is whether Israel is building a stronger pharmaceutical industry, different measures are needed. How many investigational drugs are sponsored by Israeli companies? How much ownership and economic participation do Israeli companies retain as those assets advance? How often do successful programs generate regulatory approvals, licensing income, royalties, company growth and reinvestment that accrue to the Israeli economy?

Those measures answer a different question from the number of trials conducted in Israeli hospitals. One measures participation in global clinical research. The other measures how much economic value Israel creates and retains from drug development.

Israel should want more clinical trials. It should want Israeli patients participating in global research, Israeli investigators working with leading pharmaceutical companies and Israeli hospitals competing successfully for international studies. There is nothing wrong with being an exceptional place to conduct clinical research. The mistake is treating that achievement as evidence of something it does not measure.

Clinical trial statistics tell us where investigational drugs are tested. They do not tell us who owns the assets, who uses the evidence to obtain regulatory approvals or who captures the economic value when those drugs succeed. If Israel wants to know whether it is building not only a world-class clinical research ecosystem but a powerful pharmaceutical industry, that is the distinction it needs to measure.


Professor David Adler is Chief Scientific & Medical Officer of the PATHORA Institute of Pathology & Tissue Medicine. He is a senior pharmaceutical leader in oncology drug development and translational medicine with over 15 years of experience, including a decade in senior leadership at Bayer AG’s Global Oncology Clinical Development organization. He holds academic appointments at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, and the University of Bonn.

Israel’s Clinical Trial Illusion: Testing Drugs Is Not the Same as Capturing Economic Value Read More »