When criticism becomes collapse: J Street’s genocide reckoning

Once “pro-Israel, pro-peace,” its president now says the Jewish state may be committing genocide, raising urgent questions about where dissent ends and damage begins.

In the wake of Hamas’s brutal Oct. 7 massacre and the war that followed, most of the American Jewish community stood where they always have—on the side of Israel’s right to self-defense. But a vocal minority chose another path: undermining Israel at one of its darkest hours.

 

Kibbutz Be'eri in southern Israel, Dec. 19, 2023.
Photo by Moshe Shai/Flash90.

Organizations like Jewish Voice for Peace, IfNotNow, and increasingly, even J Street, have not merely criticized Israeli policy. They’ve crossed a moral line—providing rhetorical ammunition to Israel’s enemies, weakening U.S. support and sowing confusion in the American Jewish community.

 Their rhetoric may be cloaked in humanitarian language, but their actions—and now their slander—raise an urgent question: Have these groups done harm to Israel during wartime?

 Start with JVP. This group responded to Hamas’s atrocities not with condemnation but with justification. Within days, JVP blamed Israeli “apartheid” and “occupation” for the slaughter of 1,200 men, women and children in southern Israeli communities. They demanded an end to U.S. military aid, accused Israel of war crimes and staged disruptive protests in congressional offices and on major highways.

 This is not moral clarity—it’s moral inversion.

 IfNotNow, a group that claims to represent young progressive Jews, joined the ceasefire chorus almost immediately, even before Israel had buried its dead or begun rescuing the 251 people taken hostage and dragged into Gaza. In August 2025, its activists led protests outside Trump Hotel and Columbus Circle in Manhattan, demanding that Washington halt arms shipments to Israel.

 One wonders if they would have protested U.S. arms to Britain in 1941.

 But perhaps the most troubling shift has come from J Street, long the self-described “pro-Israel, pro-peace” lobby. Until recently, many in the Jewish community believed that while J Street could be sharply critical of Israeli policy, it still operated from a place of concern for Israel’s survival. That illusion collapsed this week.

 In a shocking turn, J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami announced that he now believes Israel may be committing genocide in Gaza. In a Tisha B’Av newsletter, he wrote:

 “I have … been persuaded rationally by legal and scholarly arguments that international courts will one day find that Israel has broken the international genocide convention.”

 He went further: “Until now, I have tried to deflect and defend when challenged to call this genocide. … I simply won’t defend the indefensible.”

 And as if anticipating the backlash, he added: “How can it be that Israel—the state founded by a people who experienced genocide—could itself be committing this most heinous of crimes?”

 Ben-Ami’s words are not merely irresponsible. They are inflammatory. Genocide is the most serious accusation one can level against a nation. It is not a policy critique; it is an allegation of premeditated, systematic mass murder. And to make that claim while Israel fights an enemy that openly calls for its annihilation is a betrayal of both truth and decency.

 This is not a fringe activist speaking. This is the head of a Washington lobby with access to lawmakers and influence in the halls of power. When Jeremy Ben-Ami accuses Israel of genocide, it sends a signal to the media, to Congress and to Israel’s enemies: The Jewish consensus is cracking.

 These groups insist that they are acting in defense of Jewish values. But their words and actions have made Israel’s job harder, not easier. They have given cover to anti-Israel resolutions, weakened bipartisan support and contributed to a global narrative that blames Israel for a war it did not start and never wanted.

 When Hamas, Hezbollah or Iran see Jewish groups denouncing Israel in terms indistinguishable from their own propaganda, they see weakness—and opportunity. These terror regimes aren’t interested in nuance. They are interested in victory. And when J Street speaks of genocide, they hear: “Keep going. The Jews are turning on each other.”

 Let’s be clear: Israel does not demand silence. Israelis themselves debate every aspect of this war. But there is a line between loyal criticism and disloyal defamation. These groups—and now, J Street, most shamefully—have crossed it.

 They do not represent most American Jews. Polling shows that a clear majority support Israel’s war against Hamas and understand that Hamas is a genocidal terrorist organization, not a national liberation movement. Most American Jews understand that this is not a war of choice. It is a war of survival.

 We can debate strategy. We can question policy. But accusing Israel of genocide—while under rocket fire, while grieving its dead, while rescuing hostages—is not righteous. It’s reckless. And it’s very, very wrong.

 At moments like this, solidarity matters. So does truth. And the truth is this: When Jewish leaders like Jeremy Ben-Ami repeat the slanders of Israel’s enemies, they don’t defend peace. They damage the one Jewish state we have.

 That’s not dissent. That’s betrayal.

Stephen M. Flatow

This column originally appeared on JNS.ORG.  You can read it and others by me here.

 

 

American Jews, this is your war, too

Hamas doesn’t care whether you support Netanyahu or not. When Jews are murdered for being Jews, unity must come before politics.

Let’s be honest: Benjamin Netanyahu is not everyone’s favorite politician. That’s fair. Debate over policy, leadership and politics is healthy in any democracy, including Israel’s. But there comes a point in times of war when internal disagreements must be set aside.

Because this war is not about Bibi. It is about Israel’s survival. And the Jewish people, especially American Jews, must not let personality distract from principle.

Photo by Chaim Goldberg/Flash90.

Since the Hamas-led terrorist attacks on Oct. 7, 2023, Israel has faced a military, moral and psychological assault of unprecedented complexity. Hamas’s slaughter of 1,200 people and the kidnapping of 250, including children, the elderly and entire families, was not just a “battle.” It was a pogrom, fueled by genocidal ideology and celebrated openly by its perpetrators. Yet today, Israel is the one on trial in the court of public opinion, not the murderers who triggered the war.

Hamas doesn’t care whether you support Netanyahu or not. When Jews are murdered for being Jews, unity must come before politics.

 

What Israel faces in Gaza is not a conventional war or even a typical counterterrorism campaign. It is asymmetric warfare against a terrorist organization that intentionally uses its own civilians as tools of war. Hamas stores weapons in schools, digs tunnels under hospitals and launches rockets from densely populated neighborhoods. It steals food aid from the population. This is not incidental; it is strategy.

 

Hamas leaders have made this explicit. In 2008, Fathi Hammad, then Hamas’s interior minister, declared:  “For the Palestinian people, death has become an industry. … This is why they have formed human shields of the women, the children, the elderly and the mujahideen.”

 

What sane person would say that?

 

That’s not rhetoric; it’s policy. Hamas relies on images of dead civilians, especially children, to inflame world opinion and pressure Israel into submission. Tragically, too many in the West, including some Jewish voices, fall for this manipulative theater. They call for ceasefires, condemn Israeli “disproportionality” and wring their hands at the humanitarian crisis, while ignoring how Hamas engineers that crisis.

 

But put this in perspective. During the U.S.-led assault on ISIS in Mosul from 2016 to 2017, between 9,000 and 11,000 civilians were estimated to have died, according to The New York Times. That battle, fought by Western militaries with advanced precision weaponry, still resulted in tens of thousands of casualties. No one accused the United States of genocide. No one proposed sanctions.

 

Yet Israel, which goes to unprecedented lengths to warn civilians, including dropping leaflets, making phone calls and pausing operations to allow evacuations, is treated like a rogue state.

 

The moral asymmetry here is staggering. Hamas celebrates death. Israel mourns it, even when forced to cause it to protect its own people.

 

And yet, Western diplomats—many from countries that have never faced a single rocket attack—dare to lecture Israel on restraint. The European Union, Canada and even the United States have called for a “ceasefire,” as if peace can be restored by papering over mass murder.

 

Some American Jews have joined that chorus, distancing themselves from Israel out of discomfort with its current government. That’s not just misguided. It’s dangerous.

 

Hamas doesn’t hate Israel because of the policies of Netanyahu and his government. It hates Israel because it exists. Article 13 of the Hamas Charter states: “There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through jihad.”

 

Diplomacy, negotiation, peace-building? “All are a waste of time,” the document says.

 

This is the enemy Israel is fighting. An enemy backed by Iran and Qatar, supplied by global jihad networks and committed—openly, unapologetically—to the eradication of the Jewish state.

 

To our fellow Jews in the Diaspora, especially in America: This war is about you, too. Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran don’t care whether you vote Likud or Labor, whether you’re Orthodox, Conservative, Reform or unsure. On Oct. 7, Hamas murdered Thai farm workers and Israeli Bedouin alongside Jews. Their hatred is not nuanced. It is total.

 

And as antisemitism, let’s call it what it is—Jew-hatred—surges on campuses, in public squares, and online, it’s clear that Hamas’s war against Israel is fueling a broader war against Jews everywhere. This is not just a political crisis but a civilizational one.

 

So, what is the role of American Jews?

 

It is to stand with Israel—not conditionally, not reluctantly and not just when it’s easy. It is to reject the moral fog that equates a democratic state defending its citizens with a terrorist group that hides behind children. It is to recognize that you can critique Israeli policy at another time, but right now, we must remain united.

 

To those who are hesitant, ask yourself this: Would you demand moral perfection from any other country under siege? Would you have told Britain in 1940 to cease fire until Winston Churchill stepped down?

 

Israel’s democracy will sort out its leadership in due time. However, today, it needs our solidarity. Our advocacy. Our unapologetic defense in the face of global slander.

 

As the Psalmist wrote: “He who watches over Israel neither slumbers nor sleeps.” But Israel still needs us to stay awake—and to stand up.

Stephen M. Flatow

This column originally appeared on JNS.ORG.  You can read it and others by me here.

Bono’s compassion is real—but his Gaza remarks risk moral confusion between democracy and terror. Stephen Flatow responds

Bono’s compassion is real—but his Gaza remarks risk moral confusion

 

Bono, Wikimedia Commons

Bono’s compassion is genuine. But his recent Gaza comments dangerously blur the line between a democracy defending its citizens and a terror group targeting them.

As a bereaved father and terror victims’ advocate, I know that empathy is essential—but not when it comes at the expense of truth.

Read my response in Israel National News to Bono's comments here.

 Stephen M. Flatow

#Israel #Hamas #Bono #MoralClarity #IsraelUnderAttack #HumanRights #StopTerror #MiddleEastTruth #JusticeForVictims 

Macron’s Palestinian state push: A dangerous lecture from a country in disarray

France is burning, and Macron thinks Israel needs a lecture?

France’s President Emmanuel Macron has joined the chorus of Western leaders pushing unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state—another reckless move wrapped in the language of “peace.” But coming from a country gripped by riots, antisemitic violence, and rising insecurity, Macron’s lecture to Israel rings hollow.

© Rémi Jouan, CC-BY-SA, GNU Free Documentation License, Wikimedia Commons

In my new JNS column, I argue that Macron’s push isn’t about resolving the conflict—it’s about deflecting from his own political failures at home. Demanding concessions from Israel while ignoring Hamas’s terror is not statesmanship. It’s appeasement dressed as diplomacy.
👉 Read the full op-ed here

Stephen M. Flatow

#EmmanuelMacron #France #Israel #Hamas #PalestinianState #Appeasement #ForeignPolicy #Antisemitism #Zionism #MiddleEast #VictimsVoice #JNS #SecurityVsTerror #DoubleStandards

Fix your own country, Prime Minister Starmer

While Britain faces spiraling crime, growing antisemitism, and social unrest, Prime Minister Keir Starmer is more focused on pressuring Israel than fixing his own country. In his first major foreign policy moment, Starmer has threatened to recognize a Palestinian state if Israel doesn’t meet vague “peace” conditions—essentially handing Hamas a political victory.

Keir Starmer outside 10 Downing St.  Wikimedia Commons

In my latest op-ed for JNS, I challenge Starmer's warped priorities. How can a leader demand concessions from Israel while ignoring the terrorist entity on the other side? It’s not diplomacy—it’s dangerous moral failure.
👉 Read the full column here

Stephen M. Flatow

#KeirStarmer #Israel #UKPolitics #Hamas #Appeasement #Antisemitism #MiddleEast #PalestinianState #Terrorism #FixYourOwnCountry #ForeignPolicy #VictimsVoice #JNS #Zionism

Canada’s Dangerous Embrace of Appeasement

Canada’s new prime minister, Mark Carney, has chosen to make his diplomatic debut not by supporting democratic allies or condemning terrorism, but by rewarding it. In announcing Canada’s recognition of a Palestinian state—absent peace, negotiation, or even Palestinian renunciation of Hamas—Carney has joined a growing bloc of Western leaders more interested in appeasement than in justice. His decision doesn’t advance peace; it emboldens terror.

 European Communities Audiovisual Services via Wikimedia Commons.

In my latest column at JNS, I explain how this move undermines not only Israel but the broader Western effort to deter radical Islamist violence. Recognition without conditions means handing a victory to those who use murder as a political strategy. Canada once stood firmly against that. What changed? Read the full op-ed here:
👉 Canada’s Dangerous Embrace of Appeasement

Stephen M. Flatow

#Israel #Canada #MarkCarney #PalestinianState #Appeasement #Terrorism #MiddleEastPolicy #JNS #VictimsVoice #Hamas #ForeignPolicy #PeaceNotTerror #JewishVoices #AlisaFlatow #Zionism

The U.S. should stop paying for terror

 

Stop Paying for Terror: End U.S. aid to Palestinian Arab Forces that worship killers

Why should U.S. taxpayers be forced to bankroll those who hail our children’s murderers as martyrs?

In 1995, my daughter Alisa was murdered by Iranian-backed Palestinian Arab terrorists while studying abroad in Israel. She was 20 years old, full of life and hope, until a suicide bomber ended her dreams—and ours.

That’s why I, as an American, cannot stay silent as I watch the United States continue to funnel money into a Palestinian Authority security force that praises and elevates terrorists as heroes. This is not just an outrage—it is a travesty, one that dishonors the memory of those lost and endangers countless more innocents.

Pal. police        Flash90

The Wall Street Journal has published an editorial exposing how the U.S. State Department, through programs supposedly aimed at fostering stability, is bankrolling the Palestinian Authority’s (PA) police and security forces. The justification is that these forces help maintain order and fight extremism. But look closer, and you’ll see that this is a hollow argument, contradicted by grim reality.

To continue to the full column om Israel National News go here.

 Unity is Israel’s most powerful weapon

Its military victories have always depended on something deeper than airpower or intelligence: The unity of its people.

I write in my latest column on JNS.ORG:

The State of Israel has always lived by the principle that its survival depends not only on military might but on the unity of its people. A review of Israel’s modern military history—from the existential wars of 1948, 1956, 1967 and 1973 to more recent conflicts in Lebanon, the Gaza Strip and the 2025 strike on Iran—reveals a clear pattern: when Israeli society stands united, its military achieves clarity and strength; when it is divided, outcomes are murky, costly and inconclusive.

Nowhere has this been more evident than in the traumatic aftermath of Oct. 7, 2023, when Hamas terrorists launched a surprise attack on Israeli communities near the border with Gaza. In that darkest of moments, the deep divisions that had wracked Israeli society for months over judicial reforms and political polarization were, at least temporarily, set aside. The country responded with a surge of unity not seen in decades.

The answer to the question of Israeli successes on the battlefield comes down to "unity."

If Israelis can re-embrace that unity, then perhaps this war—born of unimaginable loss—can also mark the beginning of national restoration. 

The full column can be read here.

Stephen M. Flatow

 

Stop Paying for Terror

My most recent column in Israel National News looks at the funding by America of the Palestinian Authority's security force. Taylor Force's memory deserves better than what the U.S. State Dept is now doing.

Stop Paying for Terror: End U.S. aid to Palestinian Arab Forces that worship killers

 In 1995, my daughter Alisa was murdered by Iranian-backed Palestinian Arab terrorists while studying abroad in Israel. She was 20 years old, full of life and hope, until a suicide bomber ended her dreams—and ours.

That’s why I, as an American, cannot stay silent as I watch the United States continue to funnel money into a Palestinian Authority security force that praises and elevates terrorists as heroes. This is not just an outrage—it is a travesty, one that dishonors the memory of those lost and endangers countless more innocents.

****

Enough is enough. For the sake of the victims, for the cause of true peace, and for the moral soul of America, we must stop subsidizing those who dance on the blood of innocents.

Taylor Force

Congress must close the Taylor Force Act loopholes. And we must finally send a clear, unwavering message: the United States will not pay one dime to anyone who celebrates terror. Taylor Force's memory requires better.

Read the full column at Israel National News.

Let us know what you think.

Stephen M. Flatow

Instead of thanking Israel for making the Mideast a safer place, we get calls for a Palestinian state

 After war with Iran, countries call for a Palestinian state

Recognition without security measure in place undermines peace and endangers Israel.

By Stephen M. Flatow

 

Stephen M. Flatow is president of the Religious Zionists of America. He is the father of Alisa Flatow, who was murdered in an Iranian-sponsored Palestinian terrorist attack in 1995, and author of A Father’s Story: My Fight for Justice Against Iranian Terror. (The RZA is not affiliated with any American or Israeli political party.)

 

Israel, with support from the United States, makes the Middle East and Europe safer. So, how is it being repaid? With calls for the creation of a Palestinian state, made unilaterally.

 

Countries such as France, Ireland, Spain and Norway have already moved toward recognizing Palestinian statehood. The United Kingdom and others may soon follow. Some present this as a bold step toward peace. In reality, unilateral recognition undermines Israel’s security, emboldens extremists and sets back the cause of genuine peace.

 

From Israel’s standpoint, these declarations bypass the essentials of any viable two-state solution: re-educating the Palestinian public away from violence, enforceable security guarantees, mutually agreed borders and complete demilitarization. Without these, Palestinian statehood could become a launching pad for further violence, not a foundation for peace.

 

For decades, international consensus held that a Palestinian state should emerge from bilateral negotiations—covering security, refugees, Jerusalem and borders. That was the premise of the Oslo Accords, backed by successive U.S. administrations and U.N. resolutions.

 

Unilateral recognition upends that process. It rewards a corrupt Palestinian leadership with statehood while demanding no concessions. Worse, it empowers rejectionist forces like Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, disarm, or abandon terrorism. If statehood is handed over without commitments to coexistence, why would Palestinian leaders compromise in future talks?

 

Such recognition removes incentives for negotiation and undermines Israel’s leverage over existential issues: defensible borders, airspace, intelligence-sharing and control over the presence of foreign forces. One has to ask: How long before North Korean “advisers” show up in Palestine?

 

This isn’t just about pride or symbolism. It’s about Israel’s ability to defend itself from terror and regional threats.

 

Geography matters. The pre-1967 lines—central to many recognition proposals—leave Israel just nine miles wide at its narrowest point. Those “Auschwitz borders,” as they’ve been called, would make it easy for an invading army (think Oct. 7) to split the country in two. Giving up security control of such areas without ironclad guarantees is a risk no Israeli government can take.

 

A premature Palestinian state could also unravel the fragile network of counterterrorism coordination and border arrangements that protect both Israelis and Palestinians. Any future Palestinian entity must be fully demilitarized—no rockets, tunnels or heavy weapons—and subject to strict border oversight to prevent arms smuggling and foreign fighters.

 

Israel’s current, if imperfect, coordination with the Palestinian Authority relies on Israeli control of key zones. Granting statehood before new security arrangements are in place would likely break those ties and create a vacuum—one that terror groups like Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad would be quick to exploit.

 

Supporters of recognition claim that statehood will moderate Palestinian politics. But the Gaza experience tells a different story. Israel’s 2005 disengagement was meant to reduce tensions and empower Palestinian self-rule. Instead, Hamas seized power and launched repeated wars. More than 20,000 rockets have been fired at Israel from Gaza since, culminating in the horrors of Oct. 7.

 

The lesson? Sovereignty without accountability breeds violence. Goodwill gestures can be hijacked by extremists. Real peace requires mutual responsibility, not unilateral giveaways.

 

European governments may act with good intentions, but their actions could worsen the conflict. By rewarding intransigence and bypassing negotiations, they sideline pragmatic voices and empower militants.

 

Across Israel’s political spectrum, there’s broad agreement: Palestinian statehood must not come at the cost of Israeli security. Recognition, if it comes, must be tied to enforceable commitments:

 

• A demilitarized Palestinian state with no offensive weapons;
• A verifiable end to incitement and terror support;
• Full Israeli access to intelligence and early warning systems;
• Agreed borders ensuring defensible perimeters;
• Permanent Palestinian recognition of Israel as the Jewish state.

 

These are not obstacles to peace; they are its foundation. Any agreement must reflect the region’s hard realities, not idealism from afar.

 

The desire for peace is real on all sides. But peace cannot be imposed, especially not by sacrificing one nation’s security for symbolic gestures. If the world truly seeks a lasting solution, it must return to negotiation, mutual recognition and reciprocal obligations.

 

As Zionist leader Chaim Weizmann said in 1947 following the U.N. partition vote, statehood is not handed over “on a magesh hakessef”—a silver platter. It must be earned and secured by those who genuinely seek to live in peace.

 

Anything less risks not reconciliation, but continued bloodshed.

This column can be reviewed on line here.

SCOTUS hands Terror Victims a win and the PLO and Palestinian Authority a defeat

 The US Supreme Court just restored a measure of justice—
for Ari Fuld and for us all

(June 22, 2025 / JNS)

In a decision that affirms both the power of American law and the dignity of American lives, the United States Supreme Court has ruled that the family of Ari Fuld, a U.S. citizen murdered in a 2018 terrorist stabbing in Israel, may pursue justice in an American courtroom.

In Fuld v. Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Supreme Court on June 20 reinstated the right of American terror victims and their families to sue the perpetrators of attacks committed overseas, so long as those groups deliberately maintain a presence in the United States.

It is a decision that resonates deeply with me. My daughter Alisa, then 20 years old, was murdered in a suicide bombing in 1995 while studying in Israel. Like Ari, she was an American citizen targeted simply for being who she was—Jewish, idealistic, full of life.

To read the entire article at JNS.ORG go here.

Thanks for reading, Stephen M. Flatow

Marking Independence Day by making Israel more dependent

 An oldie from 2017 but still relevant

Just when you think they’ve run out of ideas, the American Jewish left has found a novel way to commemorate Israel’s Independence Day—by trying to make Israel more dependent.

In a full-page ad in the New York Times on Thursday, the S. Daniel Abraham Center demanded that Israel withdraw to the pre-1967 boundaries and accept creation of a Palestinian state.

The Abraham Center’s solution is a recipe for total Israeli dependence—on the goodwill of the Palestinians and the assurances of the international community. Which is probably not what Israel’s founders had in mind in 1948 when they established what was intended to be a free, proud, and genuinely sovereign state.

Jewish Virtual Library

The New York Times ad began with the usual misleading claims. For example, it alleged that “the Jewish democratic character of Israel is at risk” because “Arabs are today 50% of the population between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River. Jews are 49% of that population.”

Well, if that’s the case—if the Arabs are already a majority—then how is it that Israel still exists as a Jewish state?

Read the full online version at JNS.ORG here.

Enjoy, Stephen M. Flatow

Some memories live forever …

 

On what would have been Alisa’s 50th birthday, I, her mother, sisters and brother will pause and spend a few minutes looking back.

Doesn’t it seem like yesterday when your first child was born? To me, it does, and decades later, you recall the excitement—more appropriately called nervousness—that had been building as the “due date” approached. Lamaze birth classes are attended, a “go bag” in anticipation of the onset of serious labor is prepared, you might even practice driving to the hospital, the mother-to-be buys a neutral color layette of onesies, blankets, booties and caps because there were no “gender reveal” parties in those days.

During dinner, your wife tells you what the doctor said during that day’s visit: “You’re not there yet. It will be another week before you go into labor.” Two hours later, she announces: “We have to go to the hospital.” You get the go bag and say to yourself, “I hope the Oreo cookies are still in there,” and follow the route to the hospital that you practiced the day before.

When you arrive, a nurse matter-of-factly takes the soon-to-be-mother’s necessary information, and you’re escorted to a drab labor room. The doctor arrives before you even have a chance to check on the Oreos, does an exam and proclaims “any minute now.” Your wife, with your help, is doing her breathing routine through labor pains. A nurse asks if I want to go to the delivery room (in the 1970s that was considered cutting edge), hands me a pair of scrubs to wear and escorts me to the delivery room, where I stand by the side out of the way. The doctor and mother go to work. You hear the first cries of a newborn and the doctor announces: “It’s a girl!” Then she’s whisked off to the nursery. You head to the nursery, where a nurse holds up your daughter, who we would name Alisa, behind the thick glass of the nursey so you can see her and take a photo.

I see Alisa’s birth in my mind’s eye as clearly as another event that took place less than 21 years later. That was when I held her hand after she succumbed to a wound she suffered in a terror attack in 1995. 

Alisa's high school yearbook photo

On what would have been Alisa’s 50th birthday this week, I, her mother, sisters and brother will pause and spend a few minutes looking back.
We’ll remember how Alisa’s life, though brief, left a profound legacy of resilience, compassion and commitment to faith. We’ll recall that at the age of 4, she told her parents that she was not going to the public school around the corner from their home in West Orange, N.J., but to “a Jewish school where Becky,” a fellow student at her nursery school, “is going.” We enrolled her, and Alisa, like the proverbial duck takes to water, took her education to heart.

Alisa developed a love not only of Judaism but the State of Israel. Taking her first trip with an aunt when she was 11, her last trip at the age of 20 was her sixth.

That final trip, which began in December 1994, would allow her to immerse herself in Jewish studies at Nishmat in Jerusalem. It also allowed her to live in an apartment with four young women like herself and gave her the time to run daily, join a gym, and to, in the words of Nishmat’s dean Rabbanit Chana Henkin, “sneak off to daven at the Kotel.”
Looking back, I believe Alisa’s dedication to her faith was a central part of her character and guided many of her life decisions. This dedication illustrates an important lesson: that one’s faith and culture are not mere background details but are essential parts of an individual’s journey towards personal growth. Whenever Alisa and her siblings would return from a trip to Israel, I noticed that they came back not just as better Jews but as better people. With this thought in mind, the Alisa Flatow Memorial Scholarship Fund was created to afford others the opportunity to seek their own roots and to understand their personal values deeply through study in Israel.

Today, almost 30 years after her murder, friends remember Alisa as warm and caring, with an openness and compassion that resonated with everyone she encountered. Known for always having a smile on her face, she had a unique way of making others feel seen and valued.

Her final gift came when her organs were donated following her death. Three lives were saved and, importantly, that act reinvigorated organ donation in Israel, which had become moribund.

With four girls in our family now named after her, Alisa lives on. Each of her nieces and nephews attend or attended “a Jewish school,” and they have been developing their own religious awareness. Watching them grow into upright and proud Jews is a blessing. Today, when a grandchild’s religious observance causes me to shake my head in wonderment as to where that came from, the parents tell me “to blame Alisa,” but it’s all good in the end, and I smile from ear to ear.

Alisa’s short life teaches us that a legacy of empathy, kindness and commitment can spread outward long after a life is cut short. Her story underscores that while we cannot always control our circumstances, we can shape our impact through how we respond to hardship. Alisa’s life and legacy encourage us to think of our own values—and that is quite a meaningful and enduring legacy.

So, happy birthday, Alisa! L’chaim.

Echoes of Osirak: How Israel’s strike on Iran will shape American Jewish identity

 

For many who remember 1967 and 1981, the strike will reaffirm their belief in Israel as the ultimate safeguard of Jewish survival.

Israel’s attacks on Iran’s nuclear and missile facilities and military leadership will reignite not only international debate but also an internal reckoning within American Jewry.

To understand how these events may shape the Jewish American view of Israel, we must look back: to the lightning-fast Six-Day War in 1967, the daring destruction of Iraq’s Osirak reactor in 1981 and similar strikes in Syria in 2007. Each of these actions, controversial on the world stage, deeply influenced how American Jews saw Israel—and themselves.

In June 1967, Israel’s preemptive strike against the Egyptian air force and its rapid victories over neighboring armies sent shockwaves through the Jewish world. The New York Times ran a three-line headline across all seven columns of the front page.

In the United States, a Diaspora community long accustomed to marginalization, assimilation and caution suddenly stood a little taller. Israel’s success gave many American Jews a sense of pride and power. Synagogues filled, donations poured in, and Jewish identity—so often tied to Holocaust memory—began to include strength and resilience. Israel was no longer just the underdog, but a symbol of Jewish survival on its own terms. Israel seemed to be saying: “Threaten us annihilation, we’ll take you seriously and do what we have to do.”

Fast-forward to 1981: the strike on Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor.

To read the full column, please visit Echoes of Osirak