Jewish First Blog

07/03/2026

📢 I'm excited to share that I have officially decided to run for the Dania Beach City Commission.

I'm committed to serving our community with integrity and helping move Dania Beach forward.

I would truly appreciate your support. Please follow my official campaign page, like and share my posts, and invite your friends to join us. Every like, comment, and share helps us reach more residents.

Thank you for your support—let's take Dania Beach to the next level! 🇺🇸
https://www.facebook.com/share/18XoFbpfW9/

Business man, Father, and community advocate running for the Dania Beach City Commission. My goal is to earn the highest number of votes and serve as Mayor while putting residents first

06/27/2026

The Classroom Battle That Will Shape Israel's Future

When Member of Knesset Tzvi Sukkot was appointed Chairman of the Knesset Education, Culture and Sports Committee in 2025, many people raised their eyebrows.

How could someone so closely identified with the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria, a man who wears a kippah and tzitzit, be entrusted with overseeing one of Israel's most influential parliamentary committees? Critics argued that he did not represent Israel's mainstream public education system and lacked an understanding of its complexities. Many openly mocked his appointment.

Yet only a few months later, it has become clear that Sukkot has brought a perspective to the position that few of his predecessors ever did.

Rather than remaining inside committee rooms, he has taken his oversight responsibilities directly into the field. He has visited Arab schools and schools in eastern Jerusalem that receive funding from Israel's Ministry of Education, seeking to examine firsthand what is actually being taught in their classrooms.

According to Sukkot, in some of these schools he found educational materials portraying Israel as a country that does not exist, maps showing the entire land as "Palestine," and materials dividing the country into the "1948 territories" and the "1967 territories." Together, these raise a fundamental public question: How can schools funded by the State of Israel teach messages that deny the legitimacy of the very state that finances them?

What has drawn just as much attention, however, is the reaction to his visits.

One would expect that when the chairman of the Knesset's Education Committee visits a publicly funded school, he would be welcomed by administrators eager to present their educational programs. Instead, several of his visits required police protection and were met with protests and confrontation.

On June 4, during a visit to a school in the Arab town of Tuba-Zangariyye, Sukkot's entrance was reportedly blocked by local officials and protesters. According to reports, part of a fence was eventually cut to allow the committee delegation to enter.

A week later, on June 11, he visited a school in the Shuafat neighborhood of Jerusalem under police es**rt. During the visit, footage released by his office showed maps that, according to him, erased the State of Israel and depicted the entire territory as "Palestine."

Whether one agrees with Sukkot politically or not, he has forced a national conversation about an issue many preferred to ignore. The chairman of the Education Committee is responsible not only for leading parliamentary hearings but also for ensuring that taxpayer money is being used in accordance with the goals and values established by the State of Israel.

After World War II, Germany underwent a profound transformation of its education system. N**i ideology was removed from classrooms, democratic values were introduced, and a new generation was educated to understand the horrors of the past and reject hatred and extremism. The lesson was simple: if you want to change the future, you begin in the classroom.

In that sense, there is a similarity in principle to what Tzvi Sukkot is attempting to accomplish. This is not a comparison between historical circumstances, but an acknowledgment of a universal truth: education shapes identity, values, and civic responsibility.

If the State of Israel funds schools, it is reasonable to expect those institutions to educate students to respect the state's democratic institutions, the Knesset, the legal system, the police, and the rule of law. This does not require students to abandon their national, religious, or cultural identities. It simply means recognizing that living together in a democratic society requires acknowledging the legitimacy of the state's institutions.

Israel itself demonstrates that multiple identities can coexist within a shared civic framework. The Druze community, for example, has preserved its unique religious and cultural identity while demonstrating deep loyalty to the State of Israel. Their experience shows that maintaining one's identity and being a loyal citizen are not mutually exclusive.

The question is not simply what children are learning. The question is what kind of citizens Israel is raising. The answer to that question will shape the country's future for generations.

Many people laughed when Tzvi Sukkot was appointed. Today, they are beginning to understand the value he brings to the position. The future of Israel will not be determined only by its military or its politicians, but also by what its children are taught in the classroom.

06/13/2026

The Boiling Point

For years, the Iranian regime has tested the patience of the free world. It has armed proxies, funded terrorism, threatened its neighbors, and repeatedly escalated conflicts across the Middle East. Yet even now, President Donald Trump appears to be offering one final opportunity before a far more devastating phase begins.

This is not weakness. It is restraint.

Before bridges are destroyed, before power stations are targeted, and before military objectives become broader targets, Trump is giving the Iranian people one last chance. A genuine democracy understands that governments and citizens are not always the same. Just as Israel has repeatedly distinguished between the people of Lebanon and Hezbollah, Trump appears determined to distinguish between the Iranian people and the regime that rules them.

But there is a limit to every nation's patience.

There comes a moment when repeated aggression, threats, and attacks bring even the most patient democracies to the edge.

The Iranians invented the game of chess. For centuries, Persia was known for strategy and patience. Donald Trump built his reputation on something different: negotiation.

Anyone who has read Donald Trump's book *The Art of the Deal* understands a simple principle. Trump may negotiate longer than his opponents expect. He may leave the door open until the very last moment and keep his adversaries guessing. But when he decides that a deal must be reached, he pursues it relentlessly. His approach has always been the same: maintain leverage, keep options open, and push until a conclusion is reached.

The Iranian regime has repeatedly mistaken patience for weakness. It has assumed that every warning is merely rhetoric and that every opportunity for diplomacy can be ignored without consequence.

That assumption may prove to be its greatest mistake.

As President Trump has repeatedly argued, the United States is negotiating from a position of strength. The message from Washington is clear: America believes it holds the upper hand militarily, economically, and diplomatically.

The regime now faces a choice. It can continue down a path that has brought isolation and economic hardship, or it can choose a different future through negotiation. The opportunity remains open, but it will not remain open forever.

Part of what has brought Israel to this point is the nature of the conflict itself. Iran's attacks have largely been aimed at Israeli population centers, with many missiles intercepted and others landing in open areas. Israel, by contrast, has focused its responses on military and regime-related targets.

Whether one agrees with every decision made by either side, the difference in approach helps explain the growing frustration inside Israel. Every missile launch reinforces the feeling that the conflict is not being resolved, only prolonged. And with each new escalation, the patience of the Israeli public is tested even further.

For nearly three years, Israelis have lived under a cloud of uncertainty. Wars, missile attacks, reserve duty call-ups, terror threats, and regional escalation have disrupted normal life. Families have postponed plans, businesses have endured instability, and millions have lived knowing that the next siren or military operation could be just days away.

This is why many Israelis view the Iranian issue differently than Americans. For Americans, it is a major foreign policy challenge. For Israelis, it directly affects daily life, personal security, and the future of their children.

Every signal coming from Washington is analyzed intensely in Israel. When President Trump signals diplomacy one day and military action the next, many Americans see a negotiating strategy. Many Israelis see uncertainty. They wonder whether flights will continue operating, whether schools will remain open, and whether another round of escalation is around the corner.

That is why the Israeli public increasingly wants resolution rather than management. They want stability. They want children to attend school without fear of rushing to shelters. They want businesses to invest in the future instead of preparing for the next emergency.

History teaches us that great powers can exercise patience for a long time, but not forever. The world remembers the final chapter of World War II, when Imperial Japan refused repeated opportunities to surrender. Only after the atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did the war finally come to an end. The lesson is not about weapons; it is about the consequences of ignoring every warning and every opportunity to change course.

Iran still has a choice. The door to negotiation remains open, but that window is narrowing. If Tehran wishes to avoid a path from which there may be no return, it should recognize reality before it is forced upon it. The time to raise the white flag of compromise is before the bear is unleashed, not after.

Israel has already reached its limit, and the United States appears to be moving closer with each new escalation. History teaches that once great powers lose patience, events can move with extraordinary speed.

Because once the boiling point is reached, what follows is rarely reversible.

06/06/2026

Do Not Blame the Child, Blame the Leadership

This week began in a disturbing way in Israel. After the arrest of a Haredi draft dodger, hundreds of ultra-Orthodox protesters gathered outside the Beit Shemesh police station, where some broke into the compound, clashed with police, blocked roads, and set fire to nearby vegetation.

The unrest then spread to Jerusalem, where demonstrators blocked major roads and caused severe traffic disruptions.

Days later, the situation crossed an even more dangerous line when ultra-Orthodox rioters attacked the home of Supreme Court Deputy President Noam Sohlberg, damaging his property and car.

The anger is real. Many Israelis serve, send their children to combat units, and carry the burden of reserve duty while others avoid service. When draft dodging is followed by violent riots, blocked roads, attacks on police, and vandalism against a Supreme Court justice’s home, the public anger explodes. But the problem is not every Haredi Jew. The real problem is the leadership that teaches people that defending the Jewish state is someone else’s burden.

There is a well-known Jewish phrase: “Make for yourself a rabbi.” In the ultra-Orthodox world, this is not just a religious saying. It is a way of life. People ask their rabbis what to study, how to educate their children, who to vote for, and in many cases, how to relate to the state and the army.

That is why the responsibility begins with the rabbis, politicians, and community leaders who shape the culture and set the rules. They tell an entire public that it can live inside the Jewish state, enjoy its rights, budgets, security, and protection, but not carry the basic responsibility of defending it.

If Haredi leaders from Shas and United Torah Judaism, together with the councils of Torah sages, set a clear and honest standard, only those who truly study Torah from morning to night receive an exemption, while everyone else enlists, the reality would look very different. Many Israelis who serve see the current system as lawlessness and abuse: people registering as yeshiva students not because they truly study all day, but because it allows them to avoid service. The blame belongs mainly to the leaders who have the power to change this system but refuse to do so.

This problem did not start yesterday. In 1948, David Ben-Gurion agreed to exempt about 400 yeshiva students from military service. At the time, it was a limited arrangement for a small group, created in the shadow of the Holocaust and the destruction of the Torah world. But what began with 400 students became a national crisis. By 2024, about 63,000 Haredi yeshiva students had become subject to the draft after the previous legal framework expired, and in 2025 the IDF said it would issue roughly 54,000 call-up notices to ultra-Orthodox seminary students. What began as a small exception has become a mass system.

The numbers show the problem clearly. That is why a real draft law must happen.

No more tricks. No more empty promises. No more fake targets. No more laws designed to protect politicians instead of protecting soldiers. The law must be simple: those who truly study Torah full-time, under a real and limited framework, can receive a special status. But those who are not truly learning, those who are working under the table, or those who are simply using the system to avoid service must enlist or perform meaningful national service.

The greatest danger is that Haredi leadership is deepening the conflict inside Israeli society. When Israelis see draft refusal, violent riots, and blocked roads, many begin to blame all Haredim, while serving citizens feel exploited. This is how a small group of leaders tears the Jewish people apart from within.

During the judicial reform crisis, calls for refusal from serving citizens were treated as a national emergency. The same standard must apply here. When rabbis, party leaders, or politicians tell an entire public not to enlist, not to report to draft offices, or to ignore military orders, that is also a call for refusal.

The answer is not hatred of ordinary Haredim. The answer is a clear law against organized calls for refusal. Any leader who encourages people to ignore draft orders should be investigated, brought to court, and punished if convicted.

If Haredi leaders told every young man who is not truly studying Torah all day to enlist, many would. That proves the problem is not the ordinary Haredi boy. The problem is the leadership.

Israelis must stay united. Do not blame the small person who follows the system he was raised in. Blame the leaders who built that system and place their politics above the state.

05/30/2026

The End of the Oslo Accords: A Historic Opportunity for Israel

More than three decades after the signing of the Oslo Accords, it has become increasingly clear to many Israelis that the agreements have failed to deliver the peace, security, and stability they promised. Instead, the Oslo framework created a complex system of divided territories, competing authorities, and ongoing conflict that continues to shape the reality of Israel and the Palestinian territories today.

In May 2026, Member of Knesset Limor Son Har-Melech introduced legislation calling for the formal cancellation of the Oslo Accords. The proposal seeks to end the division of Judea and Samaria into Areas A, B, and C and replace the existing framework with full Israeli sovereignty over the territory.

The proposal has already reached the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. While discussion was postponed at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's request for further review and diplomatic coordination, the issue remains a priority for many within the governing coalition.

The Oslo Accords, signed in the 1990s, were intended to serve as a pathway toward a negotiated peace between Israel and the Palestinians. The agreements divided Judea and Samaria into three administrative zones. Area A was placed under Palestinian civil and security control, Area B under Palestinian civil control and Israeli security control, and Area C under full Israeli control.

At the time, many believed these arrangements would be temporary steps toward a permanent peace agreement. However, more than thirty years later, no final agreement has been reached. Instead, the region remains divided, and violence, terrorism, political instability, and diplomatic disputes continue to challenge both sides.

Many supporters of canceling Oslo argue that the agreements failed to deliver peace or security and instead created decades of uncertainty, terrorism, and political deadlock.

The debate has intensified with growing calls to dismantle the Palestinian Authority, which critics accuse of supporting terrorists, promoting anti-Israel campaigns abroad, and advancing Palestinian statehood through international institutions rather than direct negotiations.

Supporters also see a rare strategic opportunity under President Donald Trump. They point to the recognition of Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights and the relocation of the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem as historic policy shifts, arguing that now is the time to move beyond Areas A, B, and C and establish a unified Israeli approach to Judea and Samaria.

Opponents argue that ending the Oslo framework could leave Israel responsible for millions of Palestinians, creating demographic and political challenges. They also warn that future demands for citizenship and voting rights could alter Israel's Jewish and democratic character.

In response, Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich has proposed three options: remain under Israeli sovereignty, emigrate with assistance, or face security measures if engaging in violence. He argues that this approach does not require granting automatic citizenship and voting rights to millions of Palestinians.

Nevertheless, the introduction of this legislation marks an important moment in Israel’s political discourse. Whether or not the bill ultimately becomes law, it reflects a broader conversation about the future of the Oslo framework, and the direction Israel should take in the coming decades.

Judea and Samaria are critical to Israel's security. Roughly four times the size of the Tel Aviv metropolitan area, the region overlooks much of Israel's population center and borders Jordan, making it a key strategic buffer protecting central Israel.

As for me, the choice is clear. If the settlers are willing to live in, build, and help secure Judea and Samaria, then let them do so. Many believe that within the coming years the Jewish population in the region will continue to grow significantly, and as a secular Israeli, I would rather see the future of Judea and Samaria shaped by Israeli Jewish communities than by forces that support Hamas or seek Israel's destruction.

The future of Judea and Samaria will not be decided by agreements signed thirty years ago. It will be decided by those willing to build, defend, and secure the land for future generations of Israelis.

05/23/2026

Itamar Ben-Gvir — An Unapologetic Jew

Love him or hate him, Itamar Ben-Gvir has become one of the most controversial and recognizable figures in Israeli politics. At a time when many politicians carefully calculate every statement to avoid international backlash, Ben-Gvir built his image around doing the exact opposite. Loud, confrontational, populist, and unapologetically Jewish, becoming one of the defining figures of Israel’s modern nationalist political movement.

Many Israelis who back Ben-Gvir argue that the “old Israel” no longer works. They believe that for years Israel focused heavily on diplomacy, restraint, and international approval while enemies interpreted hesitation as weakness. Endless explanations to foreign governments, media organizations, and international institutions did not stop terrorism, anti-Israel activism, or growing hostility toward the Jewish state. After October 7, many Israelis began demanding a different kind of leadership, one focused less on global popularity and more on deterrence, sovereignty, and visible strength.

That frustration created political space for Ben-Gvir.

For many on the Israeli right wing, Ben-Gvir represents a “new Israel”, one that refuses to apologize for defending itself and is willing to project power openly, even if it creates controversy abroad. They believe survival in the Middle East depends not only on military capability but also on psychological deterrence and national confidence.

This debate became especially visible during the recent maritime incidents involving foreign activists attempting to challenge Israeli restrictions around Gaza, including a Turkish-led flotilla that the State of Israel viewed not as a humanitarian mission but as a calculated political provocation designed to create media spectacle, viral footage, and international pressure against Israel.

The State of Israel argued the activists knowingly violated Israeli policy and entered a restricted security zone in order to provoke confrontation, while international media often portrayed them as victims instead of political actors attempting to create chaos at Israel’s borders.

Itamar Ben-Gvir’s viral footage showing detainees under heavy security control alongside Israeli flags and the Israeli national anthem became one of the defining moments of the incident, with Israeli officials presenting it as a message of deterrence and Israeli sovereignty. Many aligned with Ben-Gvir’s approach viewed the footage as a warning to future flotillas and activists, showing that illegal attempts to enter Israel would be met with arrest, humiliation, and visible consequences.

Despite the international outrage surrounding the footage, most detainees were processed and deported within days, leading many to argue that the backlash was fueled more by symbolism, viral imagery, and political narratives than by the actual treatment of the activists.

Many ask what would happen if dozens of Israeli boats carrying Israeli flags attempted to approach the shores of Turkey in political protest. The response would likely involve arrests, prolonged detention, and severe legal consequences, highlighting what many see as a global double standard toward Israel.

Israel’s own political and media ecosystem also helped amplify the incident globally. Senior Israeli figures, including Benjamin Netanyahu, Gideon Sa'ar, members of Knesset, journalists, commentators, and international allies, rapidly reacted across television and social media, transforming what may have remained a localized maritime confrontation into an international political controversy. In their view, Israel’s nonstop political discourse and highly reactive media environment often magnify provocations far beyond their actual operational significance.

The flotilla incident also elevated Ben-Gvir internationally. Within hours, one video transformed him from a controversial domestic politician into one of the most recognizable faces of Israel’s nationalist movement worldwide.

Itamar Ben-Gvir understands that modern politics revolves around viral moments, emotional reactions, and media visibility. Instead of avoiding confrontation, he uses it to project strength and shape the narrative himself. Critics and supporters alike have even nicknamed him “The Minister of TikTok” because of his constant use of viral and controversial social media posts to dominate public conversation and political discourse.

Supporters further argue that Itamar Ben-Gvir’s aggressive style as National Security Minister has raised eyebrows internationally but appears effective domestically. They believe harsher prison conditions, stricter enforcement, and a more uncompromising law-enforcement atmosphere increased deterrence among hostile actors, pointing to Israeli reports claiming significant declines in nationalist terror incidents and security-related violence during his tenure, including reports citing decreases of roughly 70% in certain categories of nationalist attacks over the past year.

Critics, however, argue that Ben-Gvir’s methods rely too heavily on provocation, symbolism, and media spectacle. They accuse him of escalating tensions unnecessarily, damaging Israel’s international image, and turning sensitive security incidents into political theater. Critics also viewed the flotilla footage as inflammatory and humiliating, accusing Israeli officials of deliberately intensifying tensions through psychological messaging and public humiliation tactics. Even Mike Huckabee publicly criticized the video shared on social media, adding to the international controversy surrounding the incident.

Itamar Ben-Gvir, in his position as Israel’s National Security Minister, is ultimately carrying out the agenda and governing style he was elected and appointed to implement. He has remained consistent in presenting his ideology openly and actively pursuing the policies and approach he promised to bring into office.

Whether one agrees with Ben-Gvir’s methods or not, his rise reflects something very real inside Israeli society: a growing belief among many citizens that Israel must stop acting like a country seeking permission to exist and start acting like a sovereign regional power fully confident in its identity, strength, and legitimacy.

05/16/2026

Don’t spit from the well you’re drinking from.

05/16/2026

Jerusalem Day Exposed a Growing Political Divide in Israel

This year’s Jerusalem Day celebrations revealed something impossible to ignore about modern Israeli society and politics.

As tens of thousands marched through the streets of Jerusalem during the annual Flag Dance procession toward the Western Wall, the images across Israeli media looked remarkably similar: young Jewish Israelis wrapped in blue and white flags, dancing and singing patriotic songs, many of them religious Zionists wearing knitted kippahs.

The atmosphere was emotional and deeply connected to Jewish history and identity.

But one thing stood out immediately.

Where was everyone else?

Where was Israel’s secular youth?

Where were the young people from Tel Aviv, Herzliya, Haifa, and the secular centers of the country? Jerusalem is their capital too. Soldiers from every background fought and died for the reunification of Jerusalem in 1967. Yet today, Jerusalem Day increasingly feels identified with only one sector of Israeli society.

Over time, Jerusalem Day has evolved from a broad national celebration into something strongly associated with the religious Zionist movement and the nationalist right.

This year, that political divide was especially visible.

Members of the coalition were everywhere.

Politicians from Itamar Ben-Gvir’s Otzma Yehudit marched publicly through the city, gave speeches, and ascended the Temple Mount. Ministers and Knesset members from Religious Zionist Party led by Bezalel Smotrich were highly visible throughout the celebrations. Likud ministers and MKs also filled the events, embracing the symbolism of the day.

The message from the coalition was clear: Jerusalem stands at the center of their political identity.

But much of Israel’s opposition leadership seemed absent.

Naftali Bennett was in Jerusalem a day before the Jerusalem Day events and did not attend the Central Flag March celebration, despite being seen as the main contender against Benjamin Netanyahu.

Where was Avigdor Lieberman? Where was Yair Lapid? Where was Yair Golan?

Even Gadi Eisenkot limited himself to social media post instead of attending physically.

And in politics, physical presence matters.

Strong politicians understand that politics is not only about interviews or social media posts. It is about physically showing up where the nation’s emotions are taking place.
If someone truly wants to become Prime Minister of Israel, how do they not appear in Jerusalem on one of the country’s most symbolic days?

No speeches. No participation. No connection with the crowds.

One of the questions raised by this year’s celebrations is whether parts of Israel’s opposition have become politically uncomfortable even appearing alongside religious Zionist Israelis. Has the divide reached a point where some politicians fear being photographed with young Israelis because of how it may be perceived by their political base?

For a country that once tried to build a shared civic identity between secular and religious Jews, that possibility is deeply troubling.

Increasingly, it feels as though Israel is developing two emotional capitals.

One is Jerusalem, the city of history, nationalism, religion, and Jewish memory.

The other is Tel Aviv, the city of secularism, liberalism, nightlife, and global culture.

Jerusalem is not only Israel’s capital, but its largest city, with more than 1.06 million residents. Yet despite its size and national importance, many secular Israelis increasingly seem emotionally disconnected from one of the city’s most symbolic national celebrations.

I would like to see more opposition politicians, more secular Israelis, and even organized buses from secular cities coming to celebrate Jerusalem Day, walk in the Flag March, and participate proudly in the celebrations. Jerusalem belongs to all Jews and all Israelis, not only to one political camp or one religious sector.

As a secular Jew, I can say that I enjoyed seeing religious Zionists ascending the Temple Mount with Israeli flags and praying openly. In the past, scenes like that often-triggered riots across eastern Jerusalem and international outrage. Today, it happens regularly.

Whether one agrees with it politically or not, it reflects a major shift in reality, a strengthening Jewish presence at the site and a much stronger sense of Israeli governance in Jerusalem.

Jerusalem, I hope to see more unity around you in the years ahead, religious and secular, right and left, all celebrating the capital of the Jewish people together. You belong to all of us.

Happy Jerusalem Day.