In This Moment: A Rabbi's Notebook
SOME QUICK TAKES ON MICHIGAN, EL-SAYED AND AIPAC:
It’s time for Abdul El-Sayed to go directly to Talarico charm school to learn how to become the adult in the room, stop demonizing Israel and start defending the rights of Michigan children, ALL the children, including the ones who were terrified at Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, because of an act of antisemitism inspired by anti-Israel hate.
Meanwhile, AIPAC is as determined as ever to defeat El-Sayed in November, putting it on a collision course with most American Jews - and with democracy. It could be a fatal misreading of the public mood. They would be well-advised to pull back rather than defend an avowed election denier. How could things get even worse than they are for AIPAC? To be the ones who choose to go down with Trump’s ship while defending a rudderless Israel that is between governments and striving for a new direction.
Abdul El-Sayed is a big fan of nuance, something rare and admirable in this age of sound-bite politics. I can appreciate someone who tries to dig beneath the surface. I too prefer to take a 360-degree approach, which is what I’ve tried to do with El-Sayed himself. I’ve immersed myself in his recent speeches and interviews. I find much to admire in his biography and his positions on several key policy areas, including getting dark money out of politics. Part of me is happy to see AIPAC getting a well-deserved comeuppance today, though I’m concerned about how vulnerable that has rendered American Jews, and how El-Sayed’s “righteous anger,” as he expresses it, his relentless attacking of Israel, has abetted that. I appreciate that he condemned the act of antisemitism at a Michigan synagogue last March, but bristle at how he tried to tie it to Israel’s actions in Lebanon while also saying that “righteous anger at Israel” and antisemitism should not be conflated.
He needs to understand that many Jews have complex feelings about Israel, and as we speak, millions of Israelis are trying to evict their radical-right leadership through the current election campaign. Jews are no longer falling into line behind Netanyahu or AIPAC (some even agree with Mayor Mamdani that Bibi should be arrested1).
So Jews know how to play the nuance game. Nuance is a Jewish value, after all. In 1 Kings 19:11-12, the divinely inspired truth is heard not in claps of thunder, but in a soft murmur, or “still small voice.” Talmudic discourse is as nuanced as it gets, though the actual word is not found there. There are a number of words denoting wisdom, of course, or fine shades of meaning.
So Abdul’s desire for nuance resonates. Except when it comes to Israel, where he is about as subtle as the redecorated Oval Office. Here he needs to listen deeply, pull back on the snark and try to grasp the topic in its enormous complexity to avoid more verbal slip-ups and outbursts of defensiveness that will not serve anyone well, least of all him.
For right now, scary as it sounds, democracy’s fate could well depend on his success. And if Trump succeeds in breaking American democracy, Israel will also be in mortal danger. If El-Sayed accuses Israel of being illiberal now, that’s only because an illiberal White House has enabled it. A massive Blue Wave would go far to reverse that, and because of that, Abdul El-Sayed sitting in the Senate is not nearly the mortal danger that AIPAC is claiming.
AIPAC’s fear of a single freshman senator - however distasteful his current views - suggests an alarming lack of proportionality when compared to the danger posed by a sitting president with no boundaries and an unquenchable thirst for power. It’s all about power, and if it takes this leap by pouring millions into this race to defeat the Dem, AIPAC is headed into the void. Either way, it can’t win. It either loses the race, or it loses the Jews.
“Allow me some nuance.”
Here’s a relevant selection from Abdul El-Sayed’s interview with David Remnick of the New Yorker (italics mine):
Abdul, for the sake of clarity, because we get this kind of information in bits and pieces in the way of the information universe here—I totally understand your outrage about the Gaza war. I totally understand your critique of October 7th. It’s not like you endorsed October 7th, as unfortunately some people have. But it seems that you get very prickly when you’re asked the question: Does Israel have a right to exist? You come from a country that, in the late seventies, made its accommodation, a kind of rough peace, between Egypt and Israel, under Anwar Sadat, as did Jordan, eventually. And God knows there are still problems in the region between and among those countries. But what is your hope for a resolution in the Middle East? Is it two states? Is it one state? What underlies your sense of the situation there?
Well, David, since you’re giving me some time for nuance—I deeply appreciate it—allow me some nuance.
Sure.
No. 1, I think we often frame the conversation around what’s happening there rather than what’s happening here. What’s happening here is that there are communities where the median income is fourteen thousand dollars a year. And those kids go without good schools and those kids go without functional infrastructure.
I think the foundational question to me is: What do we owe those kids around their tax dollars? No. 1. No. 2, I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination, for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike. And I believe that it is not my job as an American policymaker to decide what the ultimate peace should be. But it is my job to make sure that our resources are stewarded correctly for the people I’m responsible for: those kids going to those broken schools.
I also believe that it is my job to do that doubly when we exist in a kind of hypocrisy around how we’ve thought about that issue for a very long time. The very same people who tell you you have to believe in a two-state solution are constantly aiding, arming, and abetting an Israeli government that has been dead set on foreclosing on the possibility of a Palestinian state since we’ve been funding them. So forgive me if I’m not going to play the cosplay thing, where I allow the money that should be spent taking care of our kids to be sent to a military that has done a genocide—at baseline, does apartheid, and is now attempting the annexation of southern Lebanon—to foreclose on the possibility of Palestinian self-determination.
So here’s what I believe. I believe we have a responsibility to uphold international law. I believe we have a responsibility to treat every single state the same way, around international law. I believe in a process that offers a free Palestinian people the equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination that a free Jewish Israeli people ought to have. And then I will support whatever the outcome is that a free Palestinian people and a free Jewish Israeli people decide is the right outcome. If that’s two states, great, I’m for it. If it’s one state, I’m for that. If it’s this “land for all” model, or twenty-three states, or whatever it is that they decide. But I am not O.K. saying that, as a senator from Michigan, I’m going to take tax dollars from Michigan, send them to a foreign government that does heinous things in contraposition to the ideals that I support, and then sit here and be, like, Yes, but I’m for a two-state solution—when I know that the current status quo is never ever going to allow that to happen.
Let’s unpack this response in a nuanced manner. For I do aim for nuance in regard to Israel, the Palestinians, antisemitism, Jews and how to achieve peace and justice for all sides. But I don’t believe El-Sayed does. Yet.
Genocide accusations
For instance, the term “genocide” is not at all a nuanced concept. You can’t be a little bit genocidal, just as you can’t be a little bit pregnant. El-Sayed uses it as a cudgel to attack Jews and others who defend Israel. There’s no subtlety about this “Big Lie” style projection, which is right out of the Trump/Goebbels repeat-it-til-they believe-it playbook. “Genocide,” when unproven, is like all those repeated accusations of “Fake News” that we hear coming from the Oval Office, only far more insidious and libelous. The basic psychology of word association will lead people to associate Israel - the (still) liberal democratic homeland of the Jewish people - with the intentional decimation of the Palestinian people.
This is nuance?
While repeating it interminably, he also uses “genocide” so casually that I half expect him to flick a cigarette when saying it, not with the seriousness with which it should be used, and he applies it to the entire nation. He says here that the military has “done a genocide.” It’s all black and white. Not nuanced in the least. And the accusation is far from proven.
So who exactly died and made him the genocide king? (OK, tens of thousands died, but even that does not constitute a genocide. It came from the same talking point orders as “Globalize the Intifada,” and it’s time to cut it out.)
And it’s not just genocide.
In his stump speech, El-Sayed says that taxpayer money should not go to “a country committing apartheid, at minimum genocide, over the past two years and counting. Money that should have been spent on our kids and their schools and their healthcare [was] used to buy bombs and tanks,” he continues. “I think unconditional foreign military aid should be illegal.”
Not just genocide but “at minimum” genocide. Is there a new tier of genocide on my cable bill: Genocide PLUS? Like ESPN+, only for genocide? The Holocaust was just a genocide. But Gaza is “at minimum” a genocide, according to El-Sayed. What’s worse than a regular genocide? Are more than six million are being systematically butchered?
Some nuance:
Trump has pledged to “obliterate” Iranian civilization, how many times, exactly? Why is El-Sayed so reticent to call Trump genocidal? His threats certainly are. Did some of the post October 7 statements of Israeli government officials imply potential genocidal intent? I would say yes, though I would alkso say that they were not representative of the people of Israel or the IDF. Have war crimes been committed in Gaza? Again, yes. But as the American Jewish Committee has demonstrated, those accusations do not a genocide make:
Genocide has a specific legal definition under international law.
Israel’s stated objective is defeating Hamas, not destroying the Palestinian people.
Hamas’ October 7 attack itself reflected genocidal intent toward Israelis.
Allegations of genocide remain legally disputed and have not been established by an international court.
Genocide” refers to the physical destruction of an entire group in whole or in part that has been targeted on the basis of its identity. This is not Israel’s objective in Gaza, which houses 2.1 million people. Otherwise, hundreds of thousands would have been killed or exiled.
Simply put, the “facts” of the genocide charge don’t add up.2
I’m not saying that I agree with the A.J.C. assessment completely, but at the very least it throws the accusation into doubt. Nuance and political sloganeering don’t usually mix well. But I thought El-Sayed wanted nuance with regard to Israel. Instead, he has fallen in line with the “Globalize” crowd, spewing incendiary slogans rather than looking to break the mold with a small-but-courageous demonstration of - what’s that word - nuance.
One final point about genocide. Using the “G” word in front of Jews is analogous to using the “N” word in front of Blacks. It’s deliberately provocative and triggers memories of our greatest traumas. It whisks us right back there. And that’s true whether or not we support Israel. That term used so causally and insensitively is a verbal dagger in the heart of Jews everywhere. On some level, when it is recited, the masks come off and Jews see the speaker for who they really are - and it’s not the best look.
So Abdul, let me address you directly:
What, do you think you’re just trolling AIPAC? You’re trolling us - the ones who hate dark money in politics and who have been running from AIPAC for years. Most American Jews began to leave the AIPAC fold back in 2015 when they allowed Bibi to humiliate Obama. That’s the last time I ever attended an AIPAC conference.
So my first bit of advice: Stop using the “G” word so casually and you may get a few more Jewish votes this fall. Be a little nuanced. Say it hasn’t been proven conclusively. Show some independence from the far left. Give the investigators a chance to do that. Give Israelis a chance to elect a government that will surely do that.
If you do that, American Jews will appreciate it. This one is a layup. It will also neutralize the Israel issue, which has far less electoral potency in the general. Stick to the economy.
Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish, democratic state.
Does El-Sayed purposely dodge the question about Israel’s right to exist? No nuance is needed there. Just say yes or no. Instead, he says in the New Yorker interview, “Whatever you think about the right of Israel to exist, I wonder if they have a right to our tax dollars.”
Too cute, when we aren’t looking for cute. “Whatever you think?”
No, Doctor, whatever do YOU think?
He’s called the question a “GOTCHA” game. What is he afraid of being gotcha’ed about? Is he afraid that by acknowledging that the Jews have a right to a democratic state that serves as a national home for the Jewish people but affords everyone full and equal rights he will rescind his invitation to Hasan Piker’s Hanukkah party? It is so deceptive and cowardly to state, as he does in the New Yorker, that he’s fine with whatever the peoples of the region come up with. That’s a cop-out reply if I ever heard one. So if Israelis and Palestinians lay down arms, negotiate for a century and finally come up with two states a hundred years from now, the good doctor’s heirs will say, “OK. A Jewish state was fine with dad.”
We can only take that refusal to answer as a “no,” and if that is the case, it is, in a nuanced way, a genocidal statement. International law defines genocide as an attempt to destroy a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group, “effectively denying that group's right to exist.”
Jews are not merely a religious group, much as he wants to classify them that way. Jews are a religion and a people, a people with a homeland that was long ago recognized by the UN, and before that, some say, by God.
But asking him if he recognizes that is a gotcha?
Abdul-Sayed is quoted as saying this on MSNow: “I understand that Netanyahu is a big reason why they’ve gotten so aggressive and frankly so bloodthirsty under his reign, but I also understand that it’s impossible for us to say we want a two-state solution while we’ve been aiding, arming and abetting the very people who have been trying to foreclose on the possibility of a Palestinian state.”
Here’s some nuance: I agree with the first half of the first clause - Netanyahu’s policies have helped to unleash much frustration and aggressiveness among Israelis - though far less breaking of military discipline and purity of arms than one might expect, given what happened. There is room for debate, but a full investigation into Oct. 7 will happen, God willing, when. new government is installed, and Bibi will be called to account.
But “bloodthirsty?” That use of an ancient antisemitic trope and the denial of the Jewish people’s historic ties to its homeland - both of these could be considered genocidal statements.
So would it be fair for me to call Abdul-Sayed the “genocidal candidate for Senate?” No it would not. Nor is it fair to define Israel on these terms, even if some of its leaders have said outrageous things and indeed committed heinous war crimes.
The highest priority
Those who read this Substack regularly know that, while my opinions are “nuanced” regarding Israel, I love it unconditionally, as I love America unconditionally despite its current leadership. Nonetheless, the current governments in both countries must be replaced for Israel and America to survive. Both current leaderships pose existential threats to their respective democracies.
The highest priority in America right now is to make sure Trumpism is overwhelmingly defeated in this November’s elections.
That would require me to recommend that my Israel-supporting Michigander friends hold their noses and vote for the Democrat this November, despite his less-than-nuanced views on Israel. And I do.
But dammit, Abdul, you’ve got to meet us halfway.
Let me address you directly again.
If you want to project “nuance,” show it by recognizing that Jewish support for Israel is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Help advocate for a better Israel and not brand it genocidal, which only plays into Bibi’s hands. Recognize that many Jews, including Israelis, still grieve for the attacks that have been directed against them, and not only on October 7.
I hear you crying over the Nakba and Deir Yassin, but do you understand the pain of the Hadassah Hospital Convoy in 1948, Munich and Ma’alot, and the attacks on Sbarro in Jerusalem, Ben Yehuda St bombings in 1948 and 1975, 1976, 1997, and 2001. And Bus 16 in Haifa in 2001 and the many other attacks on innocent civilians during the Second Intifada, mostly at the hands of Hamas? Can you see why they needed to build that security fence to keep out bombers?
Look at a list of many of the terror attacks on innocents since Israel signed the Oslo accords in 1993? Read it and weep - really, weep - your “nuanced” outlook should allow you to. For I do weep at the scenes I see coming out of Gaza, and of the despicable ethnic cleansing now taking place on the West Bank, as I should. Yet at the same time I recognize that not all Jewish settlers are violent and evil, far from it.
We know that those numbers are dated and there have been many more deaths over the past three years, including innocent children in Gaza, Lebanon and Iran and Israeli soldiers, missile victims and hostages. I weep at the sadness felt on both sides of this conflict. Do you? Do you really weep for Jews?
Read about the October 7 attacks, Dr. El-Sayed, and you’ll have a glimmer of an understanding as to why the Israeli people and many of its American Jewish supporters have PTSD right now. No, Israel is not a psychotic, bloodthirsty society. Do you realize how offensive those statements are? The Jewish community demands nothing less than that you recognize our suffering and show a little respect. We should too, but you’re the one running for something.
It’s time for you to go to the James Talarico school of how to be the adult in the room. You know, I spent much of my career in dialogue with Muslim leaders. I stood by their side after 9/11 and later atrocities committed against the Muslim community. I’m not looking for a medal. I’m just looking for you to recognize that American Jews are not your enemy. But you’ve got to meet us halfway.
The largest synagogue in your state was attacked. You need to go there repeatedly, Dr. Sayed, not just to pray, but to play with the children and say to the adults that the Jewish people and the Palestinians both have the right to a homeland. If you are so concerned about funding for Michigan school children, how about the young children in that synagogue when it was set ablaze? That congregation is still traumatized3. The terrorist rammed his truck into the preschool wing as hundreds of children huddled inside. How would you have felt? Are these the Michigan kids you wanted to protect by keeping money from a place 6,000 miles away? Acknowledge that the perpetrator was motivated by hatred toward Jews and Israel, and that American involvement in bringing about peace and security, including funding, if used wisely, can help keep those Jewish Michigan children safer, and the rest of us too.
It’s so nuanced.
I studied your response to the West Bloomfield attack4, which the local rabbi and others found outrageous and offensive. Sometimes, when simple moral clarity is what’s called for, anything else will only produce a mishmash of moral befuddlement. No context was necessary, when context only served to cloud the message. If “violence begets violence,” as you said, it sounds like you are implying that this attack was inevitable after Israel’s acts. And if that was the case, it sounds like a justification, because of the attack on the perpetrator’s family in Lebanon one week before.
Let’s not get into the causation vs. correlation crap. Face it, in trying to provide some context, even if indirectly, you came very close to suggesting that those kids in West Bloomfield were “asking for it.”
I don’t think you meant to imply that. You thought you were providing nuance when all that was needed was an ounce of sympathy and grief. This is not about a cycle of violence. It’s about an unforgivable attack, and it’s about setting aside anger for just a moment.
When you talk, you often sound like someone bent on revenge. You may be a very different person privately, but that’s what you sound like to me. It’s one thing to be a populist, it’s another to be an angry populist, channeling people’s frustrations into their politics. While I am no great fan of AIPAC it would be a huge mistake to take your minuscule victory as a cue to lash out and gloat. Doing so just revs up hatred toward Jews.
You need to mature very quickly to win this race and to be an effective leader for all your constituents.
AIPAC
Nuance means understanding that sometimes the best way to attack your enemy is to let them defeat themselves. That is what AIPAC is doing right now with what they’ve signaled will be an all-out advocacy of your opponent’s candidacy. AIPAC President Bernie Kaminetsky wrote today, “Now, as the race turns to November, our members remain determined to ensure that voters reject Dr. El-Sayed and his radical anti-Israel agenda.”
If AIPAC goes all out to defeat you by supporting an election denier, they will in effect be supporting the dismantling of American democracy. For the three quarters of American Jews who reject Trumpism, this could prompt the severing of all ties to AIPAC. AIPAC’s on shaky ground with Jews as it is. Both it and you could use a heaping plate of humility following last night’s squeaker.
I have an idea, AIPAC. Why don’t you sit this one out? Israel is in the midst of an election campaign, so the messages from Jerusalem are going to be mixed at best. They have no idea what’s happening here. Bibi certainly doesn’t - otherwise he’d never set foot anywhere near these shores.
So AIPAC and Abdul, for the sake of American Jewry and Israel, why don’t you just focus on other things this fall. Leave us out of it. You’ll both be better off. I do see a path forward for AIPAC, but just as with the rest of us, it will depend on new management in both countries, and in AIPAC itself.
Why do I not expect them to listen to me?…
Hope
And finally, Abdul, one more piece of advice for you: In a change election, hope holds the key.
Nuance means understanding that all the complexities of the recent history that Jews and Muslims have shared together can be overcome, but only with messages of hope and concrete actions to help realize it. Anger will never help. Revenge will, as you say, perpetuate vicious cycles of revenge. You could be very helpful if you get off your AIPAC kick and join with those who truly want peace and whose lives are devoted to helping the Jewish state of Israel achieve it.
Say you support Israel’s right to exist, supported by the principles outlined in its Declaration of Independence. Read it. It’s a marvelous document.
But know that, even if you continue to fail so miserably to connect with the Jewish community…
…I’ll still recommend that Jews vote for you in November.
Because a Democratic US Senate will prevent Trump from dismantling our rights. Every seat matters. As for foreign aid, I’ll leave it to Israel’s next government to begin to rebuild that sacred trust with the American people and American Jews. I believe that can happen, because I am awed by the resilience of the Israeli populace - their willingness to protest for months on end to protect their rights has inspired us. Just as with the Democrats here, the Israeli opposition has a strong bench. I think you’ll like some of them.
It takes some nuance to appreciate Israel’s political system, which remains free and fair despite Netanyahu’s manipulation of it. Yes, we need to fix lots of things for Israeli Jews and Palestinians. I believe there will be Arab representation in the next Israeli government, which would be a great place to start - but it is less likely to happen if you blow things up over here.
If you allow yourself to be the bogeyman Trump uses to siphon off Jewish and Black votes in Michigan, you will be doing a disservice to democracy. You will let us all down. So I want to help you, and I may grit my teeth the whole way.
Or we may come to appreciate one another.
Either way, I’ll have your back, for now, because you are the lesser of the evils. If you meet us halfway, I’ll be delighted to speak out to my community on your behalf.
And there will be nothing nuanced about that.
Here’s a devastating Facebook posting by a noted, award willing Jewish journalist (and personal friend). It’s hard to read, and I don’t agree with all of it. But it expresses some of the conversations Jews are having - and need to have.
FACTS (according to AJC) - much is debatable, but it doesn’t add up to a genocide
The number of “innocents” vs. terrorists that have died: This is impossible to know given that the Ministry of Health in Gaza is under the control of and susceptible to influence by Hamas, and does not separate innocent civilians from fighters in its announced death tolls.
The circumstances in which numerous innocents have been killed in Gaza: This includes whether they died because of attacks carried out by the IDF or because of intentional or unintentional harmful actions by Hamas or other Palestinian armed groups. A key example is the explosion at Al-Ahli Arab Hospital in Gaza City, which the U.S. and other governments have determined was caused by a failed rocket fired by Palestinian Islamic Jihad and not, as Hamas, the Hamas-controlled Ministry of Health in Gaza, and many other sources claimed, by the IDF.
The nature of the military objective of attacks carried out by the IDF in which Palestinian civilians have died: Given that it is not possible for independent assessments to be conducted into whether a Hamas leader, tunnel, and/or weapons cache was present at the site of any specific IDF attack in Gaza, which Hamas still largely controls.
See today’s Ha’aretz
:
MICHIGAN – Following yesterday’s attack on Temple Israel in West Bloomfield, U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed released a video statement. Abdul first issued a statement yesterday in solidarity with Michigan’s Jewish community, and today’s video expands on that message, urging Americans to respond with a renewed commitment to breaking the cycle of violence.
Full video transcript below:
“Yesterday, our state was rocked by news of a heinous attack on Temple Israel, a synagogue in West Bloomfield, Michigan. An armed assailant drove his truck into the building where there are 140 children. Because of the heroism of Temple security and law enforcement, the assailant was disarmed and ultimately killed. No teachers, children or congregants were physically harmed. I’m so relieved.
I grew up not 15 minutes away from Temple Israel. Many of my childhood friends and classmates worshiped there. I shuddered to think through the emotions of the parents whose children were in the synagogue. This attack will leave scars on the inside. That’ll stay with the community for decades. These scars, they’ll echo centuries of trauma on the part of the Jewish people, calling back the memories of atrocities, including the Holocaust against Jewish people, that are torn afresh every time something like this happens.
To my Jewish sisters and brothers, I want to reaffirm my commitment to your rights to worship, to learn, to practice and to celebrate your faith. Antisemitism has no place in our communities. Ever. Full stop.
Yesterday, we also learned that the attacker was Ayman Ghazali. He was Arab American and Muslim. I condemn what he did. There is never a justification for attacking innocent people or houses of worship. Never.
As an epidemiologist, I’ve spent my career studying the worst things that happen to people to understand how to stop them from happening, and I’ll never forget one of the simplest lessons I learned while on my psychiatry rotation in medical school: hurt people hurt people.
Violence is a cycle. Ayman Ghazali lost family, including two children, in an airstrike in Lebanon last week. They were innocent people. And then, in an evil act of displaced rage, he tried to take it out on innocent children, who had nothing to do with the loss of the innocent children he lost, except that they share a faith.
Temple Israel is not the state of Israel. Jewish people are not the state of Israel, and the people of Israel are not the political actors who make direct choices for the State of Israel. We cannot and must not conflate these – an act rooted in antisemitism. One can have righteous anger at the actions of the State of Israel while expressing solidarity with the Jewish people, including Jewish people in Israel. The conflation of these – whether in the dastardly way Ayman Ghazali did or in an effort to use the specter of antisemitism to defend the indefensible – it sits at the root of our failure to stop this violence.
Ayman Ghazali hurt people. There is no justification for what he did. It was and he should have done it. Hurt people. Hurt people. A week earlier, an airstrike killed his niece and nephew. Imagine if that had never happened. Imagine there was no war in Iran. Imagine if there were no airstrikes in Lebanon. Imagine if his family had never died. Imagine there was never an attack on Temple Israel. That’s the world that we want to live in. That’s the world we need to build for.
Violence always begets violence. Only peace can extinguish that. Because hurt people hurt people.
In the coming weeks, a narrative is going to take hold. It’ll be shaped in part, by the very people who launched that war that led to those airstrikes that killed those children, that drove this crazed attacker to violence against innocent people at a synagogue in Michigan. They’ll tell us that some people are inherently evil. They’ll tell us that the system of immigration that allowed him to come here should be dismantled, and they’ll use it all to justify the war that created this in the first place. When the powerful pit us against each other, we all lose. When the powerful start wars, we can’t know what the consequences will be. When we fail to ask why, we miss the opportunity to address the cycle of violence in the first place.
So, what now? We ought to grieve for the internal scars that the children of Temple Israel and their parents and families will carry with them for decades. We ought to grieve for the children who are dying at the hands of airstrikes. We ought to grieve for the communities being told that we are powerless to show up for one another’s pain. And we ought to grieve for a world that so quickly forgets to grieve. And then, in our grief, we ought to do the thing that Ayman Ghazali was too small to do: rather than allow ourselves to be plunged deeper into the cycle of violence, we ought to commit ourselves to work to ending it. We can and must condemn the attack on Temple Israel, and we can and must condemn the violence 6000 miles away. And we can and must condemn the broken politics that allows leaders to make war that they pretend has no consequences.
Violence never ends violence, it only perpetuates it. May we have the foresight, the courage and the strength to stand in the breach.”
