For decades, American Jews were assumed to be uncritical supporters of Israel. But Israel’s war in Gaza transformed Jewish politics in the US and irrevocably undermined the legitimacy of institutions that sustain Zionism. Over two hundred members from Jewish Voice for Peace occupy the lobby outside the offices of Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand on August 1, 2025, in New York City. (Michael Nigro / Pacific Press / LightRocket via Getty Images) It may be hard to recall the mood in the United States immediately after October 7. Major Jewish institutions assumed that there would be a resurgence of global Jewish unity. President Joe Biden and the US Holocaust Memorial Museum described Hamas’s attack as the greatest act of violence against Jews since the Holocaust. The unexpressed hope among many leaders of American Jewish organizations was that October 7 would spur support for the State of Israel among a new generation of Americans, particularly American Jews. “Frankly, we don’t know how long it’s going to last, but across American Jewry is a reawakening of identity,“ said Elliot Cosgrove, the rabbi for one of New York City’s largest and wealthiest Conservative synagogues. The slogan “Everything Changed After...
The author's observation of the shift in Jewish political sentiment in America is well-taken and indeed, a significant development. It's important to recognize that the Israel-Palestine conflict is complex and emotionally charged, and the diverse views among American Jews are a testament to the robustness of our democratic discourse. However, where the opinion piece seems to falter is in its assessment of the role of Zionism and the implication that support for Israel is, by default, uncritical.
The term "Zionism" is often misunderstood or mischaracterized. At its core, it is a national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel. It does not preclude criticism of Israeli government policies or military actions, nor does it dismiss the legitimate aspirations of Palestinians. In fact, many Zionists are vocal advocates for peace and coexistence.
To say that the war in Gaza "irrevocably undermined the legitimacy of institutions that sustain Zionism" is a sweeping generalization that doesn't capture the nuances of the situation. While there are certainly individuals and organizations that have felt disillusioned, many others continue to believe in the fundamental principles of Zionism, even as they express concern over specific actions or policies.
The author's emphasis on Jewish Voice for Peace's protest is a compelling example of the diversity of opinion within the Jewish community. However, it's equally important to remember that there are other Jewish organizations that continue to support Israel's right to defend itself against terrorist attacks, even as they advocate for a peaceful resolution to the conflict.
The hope expressed by Rabbi Cosgrove for a reawakening of identity among American Jews is indeed a significant trend. It's a testament to the enduring connection between Jewish people worldwide and the State of Israel, even amid disagreement and debate. This connection is, in fact, an integral part of Zionism.
In sum, it's vital to foster nuanced conversations about the Israel-Palestine conflict, recognizing that support for Israel and advocacy for peace are not mutually exclusive. As we navigate these complex issues, let us strive for understanding, empathy, and a shared commitment to a peaceful resolution.
1. Perception of Zionism: The original opinion suggests that the war in Gaza undermined the legitimacy of institutions that sustain Zionism, implying a negative view of Zionism. The counter-response, however, argues that Zionism, at its core, is a national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and does not preclude criticism of Israeli government policies.
2. Assessment of Jewish Support for Israel: The original opinion posits that American Jews were once uncritical supporters of Israel but that this has changed. The counter-response contends that support for Israel has not been uncritical and that many supporters also advocate for peace and coexistence.
3. Interpretation of the War in Gaza's Impact: The original opinion suggests that the war in Gaza transformed Jewish politics in the US. The counter-response, however, argues that while some individuals and organizations may have felt disillusioned, many others continue to uphold the principles of Zionism, despite their concerns over specific actions or policies.
4. View on Jewish Unity: The original opinion implies that major Jewish institutions were hoping for a resurgence of global Jewish unity following October 7. The counter-response does not directly address this point but emphasizes the diversity of opinion within the Jewish community.
5. Role of Protests: The original opinion highlights the protest by Jewish Voice for Peace as evidence of changing Jewish politics. The counter-response acknowledges the protest as an example of diversity within the Jewish community but also points out that other Jewish organizations continue to support Israel's right to self-defense.
Social IssuesForeign Policy
The Triumph and Tragedy of Russian Women
Original Opinion:
The first decades following the Russian Revolution saw enormous changes in women’s social role, but early promises of liberation were soon stifled. The record of women’s struggle is among the revolution’s most precious legacies. No Western government has even come close to enacting revolutionary politician Alexandra Kollontai’s comprehensive policy. (Fine Art Images / Heritage Images / Getty Images) Review of Motherland: A Feminist History of Modern Russia, from Revolution to Autocracy by Julia Ioffe (Ecco Press, 2025) Julia Ioffe left the Soviet Union in 1990 at age seven, when her family immigrated to the United States. In her newly released Motherland, the Russian American journalist does a full-on investigation of the pioneering egalitarian movement in 1917 and the revolution’s profound effects on women over the last century. The results are at the same time comprehensive, emotionally jarring, tragic, seemingly petty, and amazing. Revolutionary The Bolsheviks ushered in the most revolutionary program of women’s rights the world had ever seen, and they didn’t call it feminism. Importantly, rather than being initiated by a separatist, feminist uprising, like that promoted by activists in the West, the changes came from the newly imposed 1918 Constitution, along with separate decrees issued by Alexandra Kollontai,...
The opinion piece's exploration of the effects of the Russian Revolution and subsequent Soviet policies on women's social roles provides a valuable historical lens. The prominence and influence of figures such as Alexandra Kollontai certainly deserve recognition. However, it is vital to consider the broader socio-political context when evaluating these reforms.
Indeed, the Bolshevik Revolution brought about sweeping changes, including a revolutionary program for women's rights. However, it is important to remember that these changes were not born out of a genuine concern for individual liberty, but rather as components of a broader ideological project that sought to reshape society according to Marxist principles. The Soviet government didn't call it feminism because their aim was not to empower women as individuals, but rather to mobilize them as cogs in the socialist machine.
While it is true that no Western government has enacted a policy as comprehensive as Kollontai's, it is questionable if this is a shortcoming. Western democracies have chosen a different path in their pursuit of women's rights, one rooted in individual liberty and personal choice. This approach has allowed for gradual, organic societal change that respects individual autonomy, rather than imposing a top-down vision of equality.
It's also crucial to note that the Soviet model came with significant downsides. Women were indeed mobilized into the workforce en masse, but this was often at the expense of personal choice and traditional family structures. Furthermore, the Soviet Union's political system did not allow for dissent or alternatives, making it impossible to challenge or modify these policies.
The emotional, tragic, and petty aspects mentioned in the review are perhaps indicative of the human cost of such sweeping societal changes. This prompts the question of whether such comprehensive top-down reforms, however well-intentioned, are truly the best way to achieve societal change. From a conservative perspective, it's preferable to foster change through individual actions, personal responsibility, and the promotion of traditional values, while also ensuring that government interventions respect personal freedoms and individual choice.
In conclusion, while the Russian Revolution undeniably brought about significant changes in women's social roles, it is debatable whether the Soviet model is something to aspire to. A more measured, individual-oriented approach might be slower, but it is ultimately more respectful of personal liberty and less likely to result in the disheartening aspects highlighted in Motherland.
1. Perception of Soviet Reforms: The original opinion views the Soviet reforms as a revolutionary advancement for women's rights, while the counter-response considers these reforms as a part of a broader ideological project, not necessarily rooted in a genuine concern for women's individual liberty.
2. Role of Individual Liberty: The original perspective does not emphasize the role of individual liberty in the progression of women's rights, while the counter-response posits that Western democracies prioritize individual liberty and personal choice in their approach to women's rights.
3. View on Top-Down Reforms: The original opinion seems to support the top-down reforms initiated by the Soviet government, while the counter-response questions the effectiveness of such reforms, suggesting they can lead to negative consequences such as the suppression of personal choice and traditional family structures.
4. Preferred Approach to Societal Change: The original opinion appears to favor comprehensive, government-led societal change, while the counter-response advocates for a more gradual, organic societal change driven by individual actions, personal responsibility, and traditional values.
5. Evaluation of Western Governments: The original opinion suggests that Western governments have not matched the comprehensive policy enacted by Alexandra Kollontai in the Soviet Union, implying this is a shortcoming. The counter-response argues that Western democracies have chosen a different, possibly more respectful and effective, path in their pursuit of women's rights.
6. Interpretation of the Soviet Model: The original opinion seems to view the Soviet model as a valuable legacy of the revolution, while the counter-response views it as debatable whether this model is something to aspire to, given its potential downsides.
Conservative Perspectives
ImmigrationSocial Issues
Alyssa Farah Griffin on ICE Shooting: 'I Feel Like We're Losing Our Collective Humanity'
Original Opinion:
Monday on ABC's "The View," co-host Alyssa Farah Griffin said Americans' different reactions to the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis last week show we were "losing our collective humanity." The post Alyssa Farah Griffin on ICE Shooting: ‘I Feel Like We’re Losing Our Collective Humanity’ appeared first on Breitbart.
The tragic incident at the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility in Minneapolis and the varied reactions to it indeed highlight the divisive attitudes towards immigration enforcement in our country. Alyssa Farah Griffin's concern about losing our collective humanity is an important sentiment that deserves attention. It underscores the need for empathy and understanding in discussing these issues, especially during such emotionally fraught times.
From a progressive political economy perspective, it is crucial to approach immigration from a humanitarian angle, considering the systemic factors that drive people to leave their homes and risk their lives. In doing so, we cannot ignore the economic disparities and political instabilities that often drive migration. Addressing these root causes is key to creating sustainable solutions that respect human rights and dignity.
The public discourse around immigration often reduces immigrants to mere economic units, sidestepping their innate humanity and the complex socio-economic realities they face. This is not just a dehumanizing approach, but it also creates a skewed perspective that overlooks the comprehensive benefits immigrants bring to our society. Research consistently shows that immigrants contribute positively to economic growth, innovation, and cultural diversity.
It is high time we shift our focus from punitive enforcement to creating inclusive policies that acknowledge the positive impact of immigrants and ensure their rights are protected. Admittedly, this is a complex issue that requires nuanced understanding and careful policy crafting. However, it is an essential step towards reclaiming our collective humanity, as Griffin rightly pointed out.
Moreover, it is imperative that we scrutinize the role of institutions like ICE in a democratic society. We need to strike a balance between maintaining law and order and ensuring that these institutions do not perpetuate systemic oppression or violate human rights.
In the wake of such incidents, it is important to have open, respectful conversations that promote understanding and seek viable solutions. We need to foster a culture that prioritizes empathy and collective responsibility over divisiveness. This is not just about immigration—it's about how we choose to define our society and uphold our shared values.
In conclusion, while these are challenging times fraught with polarizing views, it is essential to approach these issues with compassion, understanding, and a commitment to justice. Griffin's call for collective humanity is a timely reminder of the need for us to not just think, but also feel as a community. And in doing so, we mustn't lose sight of the broader systemic issues at play and the potential for progressive policy changes to address them.
1. Perspective on Humanity: Alyssa Farah Griffin emphasizes the loss of collective humanity in the face of divisive reactions to the ICE shooting, while the counter-response acknowledges this concern but also stresses the need for empathy and understanding in discussing immigration issues.
2. Approach to Immigration: Griffin's perspective does not explicitly mention a particular approach to immigration. In contrast, the counter-response advocates for a humanitarian approach to immigration, considering systemic factors that drive people to migrate.
3. Focus on Root Causes: The counter-response highlights the importance of addressing economic disparities and political instabilities that often drive migration, a point not directly addressed in Griffin's perspective.
4. View on Immigrants: The counter-response criticizes the reduction of immigrants to mere economic units and emphasizes their comprehensive benefits to society. This is a perspective not explicitly mentioned by Griffin.
5. Role of Institutions: The counter-response suggests a critical examination of the role of institutions like ICE in a democratic society, balancing law and order with human rights. This is not directly addressed in Griffin's original opinion.
6. Proposed Solutions: Griffin's opinion does not propose specific solutions, while the counter-response calls for inclusive policies that acknowledge the positive impact of immigrants, respectful conversations, and a culture that prioritizes empathy and collective responsibility.
EconomyGovernment & Democracy
The Saddest Part of This Recent Economic Lunacy
Original Opinion:
The president has offered four ideas in the past week that are all a huge problem — for the people these ideas are supposed to be helping.
The original opinion raises an important point about the potential impact of recent policy proposals from the president. As a political economist, I agree that it is crucial to critically examine any new ideas for their potential consequences, most especially for those they are purported to help. However, without specifics on which policy propositions are being referred to, it remains challenging to provide a detailed response.
Nevertheless, let me take this opportunity to emphasize the importance of grounded, compassionate, and inclusive politics in our modern economy. The systemic issues we face today, such as economic inequality, are complex and interwoven. The solutions to these problems must reflect these realities.
For instance, in my book 'Equity in the Age of Automation', I argue for the need to understand and address the impacts of automation on job displacement and wage stagnation. To counter these trends, we need policies that ensure technological progress benefits all, not just a select few. This could involve strengthening labor rights, progressive taxation, and public investment in education and infrastructure.
Similarly, in 'Reclaiming the Social Contract', I advocate for renewing our collective commitment to shared prosperity and social justice. This means recognizing the government's role in reducing inequality and ensuring a fair economy. In this context, policies such as raising the minimum wage, implementing a wealth tax, or expanding access to quality healthcare and education are not "economic lunacy," but rather, essential tools for building a more equitable society.
When examining new policy proposals, it's important to ask: Who benefits from this? How does it address systemic issues? Is it equitable? Does it promote shared prosperity? These questions help illuminate whether a policy will help or harm those it's intended for.
In conclusion, while it's essential to critically scrutinize new policy ideas, we must also challenge ourselves to seek out bold, progressive solutions to the systemic issues our economy faces. We must remember that our economic choices have human consequences, and those consequences should be at the forefront of our decision-making.
1. View on Policy Proposals: The original opinion criticizes the president's policy proposals as harmful to the people they are intended to help, while the counter-response argues that without specifics it's hard to critique these policies and emphasizes the need for bold, progressive solutions to systemic issues.
2. Approach to Economic Issues: The original opinion implies that the president's economic policies are misguided and potentially harmful. The counter-response, however, focuses on the complexity of systemic issues like economic inequality and the need for comprehensive solutions that reflect these complexities.
3. Role of Government: The counter-response strongly advocates for the government's role in reducing inequality and ensuring a fair economy, suggesting policies such as raising the minimum wage, implementing a wealth tax, or expanding access to quality healthcare and education. The original opinion does not explicitly mention the government's role.
4. Perspective on Technological Progress: The counter-response emphasizes the need to ensure technological progress benefits all, not just a select few, suggesting policies that strengthen labor rights and invest in education and infrastructure. The original opinion does not mention technological progress or its impacts on society.
5. Criteria for Evaluating Policies: The counter-response suggests several questions to evaluate new policy proposals, including who benefits, how it addresses systemic issues, and whether it promotes shared prosperity. The original opinion does not offer a clear framework for policy evaluation.
6. Tone and Rhetoric: The original opinion uses negative language to describe the president's policies (calling them "economic lunacy"), while the counter-response uses more neutral language and emphasizes the need for "grounded, compassionate, and inclusive politics."