​At his 2017 Senate hearing to become a Supreme Court Justice, Neil Gorsuch was questioned by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California) regarding physician assisted death (PAD). Feinstein and Gorsuch each articulated their position on this contentious issue, serving as a microcosm for our nation’s larger debate. Should doctors be allowed to prescribe end-of-life medication to terminally ill patients to ease their suffering?

In 1994, Oregon became the first state in our country to legalize PAD by passing the Death with Dignity Act. Since then, eight states and the District of Columbia have similar laws. Generally speaking, states require patients to have a terminal illness and have less than six months to live to be prescribed end-of-life medication.

Given the sensitive nature of this topic, people have strong feelings on either side. Opponents contend that a doctor’s prognosis is not a certainty and that these laws could lead to insurance companies weighing in on end of life matters. Additionally, the patients in question might be suffering from psychological distress.

Proponents of PAD advocate that people shouldn’t be forced to physically suffer and should have the right to choose to end terminal pain on their terms. Advocates say that with only a few months left to live nobody should be forced to needlessly suffer.

Data from around the country suggests that states which allow PAD have not been used in great numbers because this practice contributes to significantly less than a percentage point of deaths. Furthermore, Hawaii’s PAD law and a proposed PAD law in Massachusetts have a mental health consultation component. Plus, patients requesting PAD must be able to understand the nature of their decision to be given end-of-life medication.

Kaiser Health News reported about Charlie and Francie Emerick, married for 66 years, who each had terminal illness and availed themselves of Oregon’s Death with Dignity law. Charlie suffered from prostate cancer and Parkinson’s disease and Francie from a weakened heart after numerous heart attacks and cancer. “You keep going, Charlie, you’re going to get worse and worse and worse,” Charlie explained about his decision, “The other can’t be worse than this.” Before being prescribed end-of-life medication, Charlie and Francie both attested to their intentions and were examined by two different doctors who concluded they had less than six months to live. Ultimately, they decided they wanted to say goodbye on their own terms. Their story was recorded as a documentary to show how the process is carried out so people would understand more about PAD.

Traditionally, there is a widely held belief that PAD breaks with Jewish law, though there is a debate in the Jewish community about whether the issue should be revisited. Last year New Jersey legalized PAD, causing a debate among rabbis about whether to support the legislation. Rabbi Mark Mallach argued that the prevailing view in the conservative Jewish movement surrounding PAD should be reconsidered and told the New Jersey Jewish News (NJJN), “Jewish law has always been organic, responding to the needs of society in every generation,” and said, “Jewish law is not frozen.” However, Rabbi Elie Mischel took a different approach telling the NJJN, “Actively speeding one’s death is clearly forbidden under Jewish law (for both Jews and gentiles), and it is a rejection of the sanctity of every moment of life.” He also said, “Though we are not obligated to do everything humanly possible to prolong someone’s life (e.g., a very ill patient has the right to forgo a risky and painful surgery that has little chance to succeed), actively taking one’s own life is never permissible.”

As more states in our country debate PAD legislation, I expect these discussions to continue as people examine where they stand on this issue. Whichever side people come down on, I suspect this matter will generate intense debate in our national discourse.

When we held our first event to recognize excellence in Diaspora reportage in the Israeli media 28 years ago, little could I have predicted that this program would become one of our showcase projects. Through all these tumultuous times, this initiative has endured as the most prestigious citation of its kind in Israel. Some 90 Israeli journalists from the print and broadcast media have been feted over a full generation in different categories for their professionalism and insight that have helped Israelis understand and navigate the astonishing array of Jewish communities, streams and ideologies around the world and their unique relationship with the State of Israel.

Over the years representatives of all the major Israeli print and broadcast media outlets – including the Times of Israel – and some minor ones, have been acknowledged by the Award, proving – anecdotally if not empirically – that contemporary Diaspora Jewry is of great interest to the Israeli media, to its viewers and readers.

On Wednesday we will present the 28th annual B’nai B’rith World Center Award for Journalism Recognizing Excellence in Diaspora Reportage – albeit in a very different format than we have in the preceding 27 years in order to confirm to Covid-19 regulations. What has not changed is that outstanding journalists – Branu Tegene, Danny Kushmaro and Dina Kraft – and the Shalva Band that will receive our special citation for Fostering Israel-Diaspora Relations through the Arts – will be feted by our guest of honor, Minister of Aliya and Integration Pnina Tameno Shete.

The divide between Israel and the Diaspora, and especially with large parts of US Jewry, was further eroded by the elections for the US presidency, with polls showing that  US and Israeli Jewry are mirror images of each other regarding support for either of the major candidates who stood for office. Astonishing for us in Israel also are the opinion polls that place the State of Israel at the bottom of the list of concerns for most American Jews. True, American Jewry is not our only focus, and as an international organization active in some 50 countries, B’nai B’rith is attentive to the smallest Jewish communities, but there is no substitute for the American Jewish community insofar as sheer numbers and deep involvement in the economic, political, cultural and intellectual life of the strongest superpower on earth.

Therefore, it is forbidden for us in Israel to turn our backs on this large and diverse community despite the differences of opinion and the sense that it is positioning more and more as a critical – and even vexing – voice in opposition to the State of Israel. Some segments even demonstrate the same double and triple standards toward Israel that we have gotten used to suffering from sworn enemies. This rift became apparent also in the elections for the leadership of the Zionist movement that took place recently and will undoubtedly leave their mark on the new Zionist Executive that has started its term just a few weeks ago.

In light of these trends, all elements for whom Israel-Diaspora relations are important must make efforts to find paths to the minds and the hearts on both sides of the ocean. We are witness to daring initiatives by the Government of Israel in the way of unprecedented taxpayer funding for projects among Diaspora Jews and a government-sponsored proposal under which a formal consultative process would, for the first time, be mandated between the Government and representatives of the Jewish world on issues pertaining to them directly. These are unprecedented steps that must be utilized as platforms for building understanding and unity among those Jews ready to get do the heavy lifting it takes to navigate a state and a people at this tumultuous time.

We have sustained our Award for Journalism to encourage the exposure of Jewish communities – large and small alike – to the Israeli public in order to engender a deeper conversation about the relationship between Israel and the Diaspora. Through the Award and our other projects, we will continue to contribute to the buttressing in the stormy waters that await.

Read Schneider's analysis in the Times of Israel.

​Last week’s decision by the U.S. State Department to formally designate the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement as anti-Semitic is a major shift in the fight against the anti-Israel movement. While perhaps common sense to those of us fighting this constant scourge against Israel and the Jewish people, it is not common sense to so many. This designation will hopefully help set a precedent throughout the globe that singling out the world’s only Jewish state is in fact, anti-Semitism. The U.S. State Department will review its funds to make sure none go to entities that support the BDS campaign, including foreign aid funding. On the heels of last year’s executive order by President Donald Trump granting Jews protections under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, the significance of the new designation by the State Department cannot be overstated—because in order to effectively fight something it must be defined.

In October, U.S. Special Envoy for Monitoring and Combating anti-Semitism Elan Carr and the Kingdom of Bahrain’s King Hamad Global Centre for Peaceful Coexistence signed a historic memorandum of understanding (MOU) to combat anti-Semitism. This groundbreaking MOU formally marks the first time that an Arab entity has backed the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of anti-Semitism. Bahrain’s Global Centre for Peaceful Coexistence has pledged to eradicate anti-Semitism, and critically, anti-Zionism, promoting respect and peace between the Arab and Jewish peoples through educational and other programs. There may be no legal reinforcement to this MOU, but the partnership is emblematic of this ripe moment and signals a bright future for the region.

As some Arab institutions take steps to eradicate anti-Semitism in their societies and a new wave of Middle East peace unfolds between Israel and its once sworn Arab enemies, it is truly confounding to witness the disconnect between the reality unfolding in the region and the reality on the American college campus and cultural and political progressive sphere. While monumental progress unfolds in the Middle East, American college students, professors, cultural and political figures, sit on the opposite side of the world pontificating and declaring their continued commitment to delegitimizing the one Jewish state. Who might have imagined that some in the Arab world would make more of an effort to fight anti-Semitism than the U.S. college campus, which has encouraged and permitted the toxic climate of anti-Israel bullying for years?

This past summer, Rose Ritch, the vice president of student government at the University of Southern California, resigned over a relentless and anti-Semitic campaign of cyberbullying and public attacks on her as both a Jew and Zionist. The USC administration did nothing practical, though USC President Carol Folt did issue a statement condemning anti-Semitism, which is more than State University of San Francisco officials have done on the multiple occasions their university has crossed the boundary into overt anti-Semitism under the guise of free speech. This past summer, SFSU’s cultural studies department hosted convicted Palestinian terrorist Leila Khaled in a webinar event which has now brought the university under federal investigation for violation of civil rights rules and the conditions of federal grants the university receives. During the disgraceful Khaled debacle, which ultimately lead to Zoom and other social media platforms refusal to host, Lynn Mahoney, SFSU president said in a statement, “We cannot embrace the silencing of controversial views, even if they are hurtful to others…We must commit to (free) speech and to the right to dissent.” What’s more, last week SFSU’s student body passed a BDS resolution calling on the university to divest from over 100 companies that conduct business with Israeli settlements.

Of those groups at SFSU which identified themselves as voting in favor of the resolution were the Black Student Union, League of Filipino Students and the International Business Society. What this tells us is the global BDS organization is still very good at what it does, namely co-opting groups that have absolutely nothing to do with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and drawing them in under the guise of social justice and intersectionality, the thought being that all oppressed peoples (in this case the Palestinians are considered to be in that category) need to “join hands”—against Israel.

IHRA, with over 30 member countries, includes in its definition of anti-Semitism, "claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a racist endeavor,” something BDS has long espoused as a core tenant of its mission statement, amongst other anti-Semitic declarations. The BDSers have long sought to distance themselves from accusations of anti-Semitism, arguing their intention is to pressure Israel though “non-violence,” and they continue to balk at accusations of racism. Their bad faith arguments have unfortunately been very successful indoctrinating countless young and vulnerable minds. Using words, like, “freedom, justice and equality,” they continue to indoctrinate with their extremist agenda designed to demonize and isolate Israel.

For years, the pro-Israel community has fought tirelessly—through so many avenues—yet we continue to witness the BDS onslaught against Jewish students, waging war on their identities as both Jews and Zionists, as the two are intertwined. We have to wonder, are those of us fighting this poison losing the battles but winning the war? We continue to watch as more and more Jewish students across the U.S. confront this toxicity but finally, there are significant strides being made against the messaging of the so-called “peaceful protest” movement.

The U.S.’s formal designation of BDS as anti-Semitic is a knock-out punch and it may signal the end is near. For so long, universities across the U.S. could continue their hostilities against Jewish students unchallenged. It is telling that SFSU went so far as to think that it could freely host a convicted Palestinian terrorist under the First Amendment. For over a decade BDS on campus has had carte blanche to run amok—but those days are now numbered. Between last year’s executive order providing legal recourse to Jewish students to fight back and the designation of BDS as anti-Semitic, the tides are changing.

The time has long come for the architects and organizers of BDS to recognize that their agenda can no longer hide behind the concepts of “free speech” and “non-violent protest.” They must reckon with the fact that their organization is not a “vibrant global movement made up of unions, academic associations, churches and grassroots movements,” but in fact a global movement made up of anti-Semites. For far too long proponents of BDS have manipulated well-meaning progressive minded people, sadly even many Jews, through their language couched in human rights, drawing them deeper into their toxic world view—but enough is enough.

At this point, it no longer falls on the pro-Israel community to dispel the reasons BDS is anti-Semitic. The U.S. State Department declared it as such, as have other countries, such as Germany—a country that knows far too well the dangers of organized anti-Semitism. The debate about whether or not BDS is anti-Semitic is over. The BDSers can continue their tirades but they’ll have to do so living with a new label: anti-Semites.

After wandering the desert for 40 years, Moses never made it to the Promised Land. After 33 years of serving a life sentence for spying in the U.S. for Israel, Israeli agent Jonathan Pollard reportedly will go home. The announcement came Friday. He could leave tomorrow. Shabbat shalom.

And it’s about time. He’s done his time, though had he been denied parole he could have served another dozen years.

While he’d been released from prison since 2015, Pollard was sentenced to live five more years in the United States.  Federal officials cut him no slack, even though more than a year ago he was living in deteriorating health. He pleaded guilty 34 years ago to committing espionage in connection with providing Israeli contacts with hundreds of classified documents that he had obtained as a civilian intelligence specialist for the U.S. Navy.

Since 1986, when Pollard was convicted, the world has transformed technologically. Thus, one suspects Pollard’s technological brain has been wiped clean. In 1986, where were we? Dial up connections? A 512K computer? A 2-megabyte external hard drive?

Relative to commonplace hacking today and undetected cyber violations, one thing is clear — Jonathan Pollard has spent half his life in captivity and, by all accounts, he no longer presents a danger to the world of spying. An ailing, all but spent convict just wants to live out his days in Israel. He’s getting his wish.
 
He said through his attorney he’s looking forward to being reunited with his wife, Esther.
 
Pollard’s release is bittersweet. He could have been let go earlier for medical reasons, but he wasn’t.  Just five years ago, Americans felt the sting of releasing three Cuban spies for American Alan Gross. The memory of swapping five still-dangerous Taliban prisoners — terrorists — for a disgraced American soldier burns brightly in the American psyche.
 
After the U.S. government threw the book at him, Pollard will live out the final chapter of his life in Israel. He will return home well aware that Israel looks very different. It’s an old land about to enter a new era. Pollard is finished wandering U.S. jurisprudence. He’ll enter the land to rejoin his people.

Read President Kaufman's expert analysis in The Jerusalem Post.