The apocrypha, Christianity’s ‘hidden’ texts, may not be in the Bible – but they have shaped tradition for centuries

(The Conversation) — ‘Apocrypha’ means ‘hidden’ in Greek, but it is often used to describe texts that are outside the official biblical canon.

(The Conversation) — Of Jesus’ 12 disciples, Saint Peter is one of the most important. In the Book of Matthew, Jesus declares that Peter is the “rock” on which “I will build my church,” and Catholic tradition considers him the first pope. Martyred in Rome in the first century, Peter asked to be crucified upside down so that he would not die in the same way as Christ

However, that famous story is not in the Bible. It appears in a text called “Acts of Peter,” an “apocryphal” writing.

In ancient Greek, “apocrypha” means “hidden.” The word is used for texts that are not part of an approved set of religious books, especially Christian texts outside the official biblical canon.

Yet these books are not so hidden. Some of them, like Acts of Peter, have shaped Christian tradition for centuries and are read by many people today. These stories are not only fun to read, but also provide valuable information about ideas that interested early Christians.

In my research as a scholar of early Christianity, I read and interpret apocryphal texts to explore the ways that early Jews and Christians understood and practiced their religion.

Capital-A ‘Apocrypha’

When the word is capitalized, “Apocrypha” refers to a set of Jewish texts that are found in Roman Catholic Bibles, but they are not included in most Protestant Bibles.

These texts were valued within ancient Judaism, yet are not included in the Jewish sacred text the Tanakh. The Tanakh is similar to what Christians call the “Old Testament” or the “Hebrew Bible,” but there are many important differences, including the order of texts and the books that are emphasized.

Examples of these Apocryphal books include Judith, Sirach and the First and Second Books of Maccabees. The story of Hanukkah comes from the Books of Maccabees when Jewish rebels overcame an oppressive ruler and rededicated the temple in Jerusalem – a reminder of the Apocryphal books’ significance.

Most Christians viewed the Apocrypha as scripture until the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. During this period, Protestant reformers such as Martin Luther argued that these texts were valuable to Christians but should not be viewed as scripture.

Today, Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity affirm these texts as a part of their canon. Thus, not all Christian Bibles include the same number of books.

Lower-case ‘apocrypha’

The word apocrypha is also used to reference a second set of texts: Christian books that are not included in the New Testament, the faith’s officially recognized set of texts.

The New Testament canon usually includes 27 books, including the four gospels that describe Jesus’ life – Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – and Acts, which describes the works of the apostles who continued Jesus’ ministry after his death. The New Testament also contains many books of letters, or Epistles, written by early Christian leaders, and Revelation, a vision of the end of the world.

Yet early Christians wrote more than just these books. These additional texts are often grouped together and referred to as “Christian apocrypha.” They include a number of different genres.

For example, apocryphal gospels tell of the life, ministry and death of Jesus. One of the earliest is the Gospel of Thomas, probably written in the mid-second century. Unlike the New Testament gospels, Thomas does not include the death of Jesus. Instead, it is a collection of sayings, many of which are also found in the New Testament gospels.

There are other apocryphal gospels named after important people in Jesus’ life and ministry, such as the Gospel of Mary. Named after one of Jesus’ female followers, Mary Magdalene, it notes that Jesus loved her more than any other woman


Another genre is “apocryphal acts” – books that expand upon stories of the apostles who followed Jesus. One example is the Acts of Thecla, a story about a female follower of Jesus who was called to preach and teach the gospel. There are also apocryphal letters, apocalyptic texts and passion narratives that add details to the death and resurrection of Jesus.

One way to think about Christian apocryphal texts is as fan fiction written about the stories found in the New Testament. The New Testament gospels do not provide information about Jesus’ experience as a child. Yet there are apocryphal texts called “infancy gospels” that fill in the gaps, saying more about Jesus’ birth and how he navigated his perceived divine powers. In the “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” the young Jesus brings a set of clay birds to life, rebukes his teacher and even kills his playmates.

Creating the canon

So why were these interesting texts not included in the New Testament?

The process of canonization was a slow one. Contrary to popular belief, there was not one early meeting of Christians to vote on which books should be in the New Testament. Instead, much of the canon developed slowly, as widely read texts circulated among the people and were read aloud.

Theology seems to have been a primary factor behind how the canon took shape. Early Christians fiercely debated things like Jesus’ nature: whether he was divine, human or both. Bishops and priests often challenged texts that did not conform with what became orthodox doctrine. Early Christians tended to read, copy, share and preserve the texts whose contents they already agreed with.

Even still, some Christians continued to read and value apocryphal texts. One of the oldest complete versions of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, dates to the fourth century and includes two apocryphal texts: the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas.

Christians throughout the years have continued to read and value the texts of the apocrypha. Medieval artwork illustrates this, as many stories only found within apocryphal texts are depicted on the ceilings of basilicas, on altarpieces and in paintings. Today, many Christians remain enthralled by these stories, which fill in gaps from the New Testament and provide intriguing details of the lives and ministries of biblical figures.

(Christy Cobb, Associate Professor of Christianity, University of Denver. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

Australian PM ‘devastated’ by violence at rally against Israel president’s visit


By AFP
February 9, 2026


A protester is helped after police deployed pepper spray to disperse demonstrators taking part in a Pro-Palestinian rally against Israeli President Isaac Herzog's visit to Australia in Sydney on February 9, 2026 - Copyright AFP Saeed Khan

Australia’s Prime Minister said Tuesday he was “devastated” by scenes of clashes at a Sydney rally against a visit by Israeli President Isaac Herzog, but defended the police’s actions against protesters.

Herzog’s tightly secured, four-day trip aims to console Australia’s Jewish community after the December shooting at Sydney’s Bondi Beach that killed 15 people at a Hanukkah festival.

But chaos erupted on Monday evening in the heart of Australia’s largest city as police tried to prevent a rally from marching into an area designated off-limits.

Law enforcement hit protesters and members of the media, including AFP, with pepper spray in rarely-seen violent scuffles in Sydney’s central business district.

Asked about the scenes, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese told local radio he was “devastated” to see the violence.

“These are really scenes that I think shouldn’t be taking place,” he said.

“People should be able to express their views peacefully, but the police were very clear about the routes that were required if people wanted to march,” he added.

New South Wales Premier Chris Minns said the police had been placed in “incredibly difficult circumstances”.

Not far from the protests, he noted, Herzog had been taking part in an event for the victims of the December 14 killings alongside thousands of mourners.

Minns said it would have been a “disaster” if protesters had been allowed to march near that event.

New South Wales police have said they arrested 27 people at the rallies, including 10 for assaulting law enforcement, and have confirmed they deployed pepper spray against the crowd.

But they have sparked outrage with a video circulating on social media showing Muslim men praying near Sydney’s Town Hall being pushed and shoved by the police.

Local Greens lawmaker Abigail Boyd told local broadcaster ABC she had been hurt by police at the march and posted a selfie to social media wearing a neck brace.

“I didn’t know that this was what police could do in our state. I feel just absolutely shocked,” she said.

Herzog’s visit is expected to last until Thursday.

On Tuesday he is expected to meet with the families of victims of the Bondi attack — the deadliest against Jews since Hamas’s assault on Israel on October 7, 2023.

Many Jewish Australians have welcomed Herzog’s trip.

“His visit will lift the spirits of a pained community,” said Alex Ryvchin, co-chief executive of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, the community’s peak body.

But some in the community disagreed, with the progressive Jewish Council of Australia saying he was not welcome because of his alleged role in the “ongoing destruction of Gaza”.

The UN’s Independent International Commission of Inquiry found last year that Herzog was liable for prosecution for inciting genocide after he said all Palestinians — “an entire nation” — were responsible for the Hamas attack on Israel.

Israel has “categorically” rejected the inquiry’s report, describing it as “distorted and false” and calling for the body’s abolition.

Bondi Beach Reappraised: A Turning Point in History

by Dan Lieberman / February 6th, 2026

Writing an article that references the murders of innocent people is difficult. Concerns of invading privacy, of not being sufficiently empathetic to the tragedy, and of clumsily using the deceased for undeserved purposes hampers the narrative. By treading softly and expounding sincerely, the screams of anguish heard at the Bondi Beach massacre diminish, the reverberations to its aftermath increase, and the aftermath emerges as a turning point in history.

Bondi Beach is not new to the American public. Bondi Rescue, an Australian television program, which follows the daily lives and routines of the professional lifeguards who patrol Bondi Beach, has been available on You Tube, Netflix, and Amazon Prime Video. Simple rescues from swimming accidents have exploded into deadly actions that no reality TV can duplicate.

The deadly action at Bondi Beach, on December 14, 2025, cannot be rationalized and cannot be deemphasized. Nevertheless, it has been insufficiently studied. Was it a single unrelated act or did events excite extremists who enlarged upon previous conflicts between two factions? A YouTube video, Bondi Beach Palestinian Protest and Israeli Counter Protest, 7 September 2025, provides clues. On that date, a small group of Bondi Beach citizens, which included Jews Against the Occupation, displayed signs on the beach that protested the genocide and waved two Palestinian flags. A few counter protestors gathered at the top of the stairway entrance to the beach. From observations of a video of the event, nobody on the beach confronted the protestors. The protestors and anti-protestors soon met face-to-face and engaged in serious scuffles. The police immediately intervened and no violent confrontations occurred. From the top of the stairs, an uncalled for rhetoric, including “arrest them,” “terrorists,” and “Bondi Beach is ours,” emanated from the growing number of counter protestors.

The beach protest grew in size, scope, and intensity. As the morning progressed, other groups joined the genocide protest and more Palestinian flags appeared. Coincidentally, the number of counter protestors increased and Israeli and Australian flags appeared. Some people on both sides welcomed confrontation and others enjoyed combative words that invited confrontation. If police did not keep the sides separated, they would have seriously harmed each other. For two hours, the police cordoned both sides and they were able to disburse without incident.

SKY News Australia reported, “Pro-Palestine and pro-Israel protesters have clashed at Sydney’s Bondi Beach as police were forced to intervene in several scuffles.” This report is an example of how almost all the protests have been carelessly reported. This demonstration, as others, was a demonstration against a genocide and not directly a pro-Palestinian demonstration. The counter demonstrators approved the genocide. Because the Palestinians are victims of the genocide and Israelis are the perpetrators, it is natural that the Palestinians are favored and the Israelis are condemned. The counter demonstrators, those who challenged the genocide, favored the perpetrators and demonstrated hatred for the Palestinian victims. The misuse of demonstrable nouns has skewed the understanding of the demonstrations. Protesting against genocide is an honorable activity and has no counter arguments; counter demonstrations come from those who are dishonorable and favor the genocide. This is not semantics; this is the reality and establishing the reality, by using correct words, is essential for knowing the truth. Care should be taken in properly identifying demonstrations against the genocide and characterizing those who glorify the genocide.

Another event that brought tension and dissension to the Bondi Beach community occurred from threats made to an Australian couple who had previously spoken and written against the genocide on social media and opened a store in Bondi Beach. Protests occurred in front of the store, with shouts of “Bondi Beach is Jewish.” Threats were made upon the lives of the store owners. Efforts to gain support from authorities did not materialize, and I believe the couple vacated the premises and left Bondi Beach.

Counter-demonstrators modified the arguments from arguing genocide to arguing “who controls Bondi Beach?” Knowing that tensions will be aggravated by appearances of demonstrators on the beach, why have a huge Hanukkah celebration by a Jewish contingent of more than 1000 participants, which could be interpreted by extremists as an “in your face” message that said, “Jews control the beach?” And who organized the celebration ─ ultra-orthodox Chabad that actively raises funds for the IDF, has purchased drones and body armor for the Israel military, and strongly approves the concept of Greater Israel and not abandoning stolen lands. The insignificance of the Hanukkah holiday added to the inanity of having a huge beach celebration. Hanukkah is a minor holiday in Judaism and its strappings are a modern concept.

All Jewish holidays are described in the Hebrew Bible and, in all Jewish holidays the observers attend synagogue. Hanukkah does not appear in the Hebrew Bible and has no synagogue observance. It appears in the Septuagint, the Greek interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, which is not used by modern Jews, and in the Books of Maccabees, which are part of the Catholic Bible. Why Jews celebrate Hanukkah and what they are celebrating has been elevated for chauvinist and political purposes; the Zionists need heroism from ancient history to bridge the gap between the Jews as occupiers and the Jews as occupied.

Just as the history of Masada has been twisted from a “complex, mixed group of refugees, local fighters, and possibly brigands, whose story is far more nuanced than the myth” to a band of Zealot Jews going to heroic death before succumbing to Roman rule, the history of the Maccabees has revisions. At Masada,

…the dominant faction was indeed “the bandits,” who, as noted by Josephus, sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem went down from Masada to Ein Gedi in a raid. They killed hundreds of women and children at the balsam plantation there after the workers fled, and disrupted production of the precious fragrance. It was an effective raid designed to damage Roman interests in the region.

The moment that they damaged the balsam production, they affected empire finances… We know that the revolt happened during a period of weakness in the Roman Empire. They needed money. And it seems [the raid] crossed a red line for the Romans, so they sent their soldiers to destroy the perpetrators.

At Hanukkah, the history of the Maccabees has been erroneously portrayed.

Portrayal as the first victory of an oppressed society in defeating its oppressors is disputed by the historical narrative.

• The Akkadian Empire vs. Sumer (c. 2334 BCE) ─ The world’s first true multi-ethnic empire was formed, unifying Mesopotamia under Akkadian rule and ending Sumerian political dominance.
• The Mycenaean Greeks vs. Palace Kings (c. 1200 BCE) ─ Collapse of elite rule during the Bronze Age collapse.
• Roman Republic (509 BCE) – Romans overthrew their last king, Tarquin the Proud, establishing a republic.
• Athenian Democracy (508 BCE) – Cleisthenes’ reforms followed the overthrow of the Athenian tyrant Hippias.
• Rebellion Against Qin Dynasty China (209–206 BCE) ─ Rebel leader, Liu Bang defeated his rivals and founded the long-lasting Han Dynasty, which adopted a more moderate Confucian system.

Portrayal as a rebellion against Seleucid oppression has detractors.
The Priestly class, which maintained the Temple, favored Hellenism and its Greek culture; the middle class Pharisees intended to maintain traditional Judaism. These forces clashed in a Civil War which brought the Seleucids (Greeks) and Ptolemy’s (Egyptians) into a battle for control of the area.

Portrayal as liberation of the Jewish people might have been otherwise.
Israelis glorify the Hasmoneans for purifying the Temple and liberating Jerusalem, but the Hasmoneans behaved as a bloodthirsty clan whose members turned on each other. Later high priest and ruler, John Hyrcanus, forced Idumaeans, who wished to maintain their land, to be circumcised and adopt Judaism.

Portrayal as a Maccabee victory against the Seleucids has been contradicted by archeology.
Recent archeologic discoveries, described in the conclusion of The Rise of the Maccabees, A.M. Berlin, indicates that the Seleucids, after ending their war with the Ptolemy’s, vacated Judah to defend Damascus. The political and military vacuum allowed Jewish tribes and the Maccabees to occupy and control the area.

Bondi Beach Reappraised ─ A Turning Point in History
Actions against the genocide and sympathy for the Palestinian cause have escalated rapidly during the last three years. Using the hockey stick reference, they are approaching an inflection point, where the asymptote becomes nearly vertical, rapidly involving more people and more frequent demonstrations, and arriving at a turning point in history. The demonstrations in Australia have brought the world perspective close to that turning point — solidifying how it is represented, how it is perceived, and how it achieves victory.

Unlike the United States, where demonstrations against the genocide have featured college campuses and a younger generation, with law enforcement and government colluding to suppress the protestors and charging them with fabricated anti-Semitism, the Australian demonstrations against the genocide have been more widespread. All age groups have participated, efforts by law enforcement and government to limit the demonstrations have failed, and the public has quickly and successfully acted against provocative charges of anti-Semitism and nefarious attempts to relate the anti-genocide demonstrations to attacks on the Jewish community.

Posed as a holiday celebration for gift giving to children, the Hanukkah celebration at Bondi Beach seems to be an attempt to overshadow the anti-genocide protests, to convince Australians that those favoring the genocide hold the high ground, have been the victims in history, and have the resilience and perseverance to unite and overcome oppression and adversity. This has always been the Zionist duplicity — never compromise, play the victim, twist history, win, win, win, and in the words of Ariel Sharon, “Seize the high ground,” physically and morally. If the provocation causes an eruption of murderous activity from extremists, capitalize on the moment with additional charges of anti-Semitism.

The strength of the demonstrations in Australia, and the success in refuting the charges of anti-Semitism applied to them, places Australia as the focus of the anti-genocide movement. Stitching the movements from several nations together into one fabric, by magnifying the national movements into a coordinate international movement that moves the Asians, Middle Eastern, Africa, all European, North and South American, and Pacific Island peoples to rally voices protesting the genocide, chains and isolates the genocide deniers.

Keeping the protests confined to stopping the genocide of the Palestinian people, with no mention of “Free, free Palestine,” which can be a subject of other protests, enables legal action against those who contest the genocide. A present French probe examines Elon Musk’s X social media violation of laws that contain “denial of crimes against humanity.” A September 16, 2025 report by the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry (COI) on the occupied Palestinian territory including East Jerusalem and Israel “recognised that genocide has been committed, and continues to be committed, against Palestinians in the Gaza strip.” Human rights agencies, nations, and institutions have certified the genocide and indicted Israeli officials for committing “crimes against humanity.” Legal means exist to indict those who speak out in favor of the genocide of the Palestinian people, which is more deadly than other genocides. Other hundreds of genocides that have occurred throughout history, either extinguished memories of peoples, decimated cultures, killed a massive number of lives, or displaced peoples. The genocide of the Palestinian people attempts to do all.

The Zionists are willfully extinguishing existence of Palestinian life and culture in the present, past and forever; erasing all identification and memories, as if the Palestinians never existed, and ordering their replacement with a fraudulent history that has the Jews as a continued presence in the lands of Judah and Samaria. We know of

• Hundreds of Palestinian villages destroyed and buried.
• The total destruction of Gaza, levelling it to non-existence.
• Palestinian towns, such as Ashkelon, Jerusalem, Acre, Jaffa, and Hebron either completely Judaized or slowly being converted into Israel appearances.
• Recent expropriation of 182 hectares (450 acres) at Sebastia, a West Bank site of Roman ruins, “an aggression against Palestinian landowners, against olive trees, against tourist sites and a violation of the history and the heritage of Palestine.”
• Golda Meir’s famous remark, “A land without people for a people without land.”
• The constantly uttered, ”There never was a Palestinian state.”
• Replacement of the historical and archeological records with myths and fabrications that make 1,000 B.C. seem like yesterday. Contemporary Jews are intimately linked with ancient Hebrews, who had no birth certificates, no land deeds, and disappeared from history 2500 years ago. Israel is made to appear as a successor to a Hebrew civilization of Judah and Samaria, which was nothing more than hilltop villages that, maybe, in small locations and various times had a minor monarch. The principal feature of the Hebrew “civilization” is that it left nothing of value to future civilizations.

The struggle to prevent the complete annihilation of the Palestinian people contends hundreds of millions of voices against hundreds of thousands who carry arms. Distressing that few nations have joined the struggle and few nations show tendency to join the struggle. The intensity of citizen voices asymptotically multiply and approach a level where sound becomes a weapon, where decibels are so great, the sound wave can pulverize a wall and cripple those who shield themselves behind the wall; a wall of indifference crushed by those who make a difference, a genocide prevented by a turning point in history.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Dan Lieberman publishes commentaries on foreign policy, economics, and politics at substack.com.  He is author of the non-fiction books A Third Party Can Succeed in America, Not until They Were Gone, Think Tanks of DC, The Artistry of a Dog, and a novel: The Victory (under a pen name, David L. McWellan). Read other articles by Dan.

Precarious Invitations: Israel’s President Isaac Herzog’s Visit to Australia

by Binoy Kampmark / February 4th, 2026

Things are getting rather ropey on the invitation of Israeli President Isaac Herzog to visit Australia on February 8. It came amidst the anguish following the Bondi Beach attacks of December 14, 2025 on attendees of a Hanukkah event by two gunmen, leaving 15 dead. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese obviously thought it a sensible measure at the time. For months, his government has been snarled at by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for providing succour to antisemitism. The wretched thesis: that Australia’s recognition of a Palestinian State at September’s UN General Assembly meeting somehow stirred it.

Albanese had thought dealing with the gargoyle of antisemitism and engendering good will could be achieved by inviting Herzog. “We need to build social cohesion in this country,” he insists. The Australia/Israel Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) also thought the invitation sound, sending “a powerful message of solidarity and support … following the tragic events at Bondi and the surge of antisemitism across the country”.

These claims of fluffy approval ignore the serious and blindingly obvious prospect that legal grounds might arise regarding Herzog’s visit, not to mention the public protest and agitation it will cause. Australia, being a party both to the UN Genocide Convention and the Rome Statute which establishes the International Criminal Court, must always be wary about the injunctions of membership. A determined opposition, armed with legal arguments and indignation, has shown itself keen on foiling the visit.

On January 30, the Hind Rajab Foundation (HRF), the Jewish Council of Australia, and the Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), announced that a joint legal complaint to have Herzog arrested or barred from entering Australia had been sent to the Australian Attorney-General Michelle Rowland, Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke and the Australian Federal Police (AFP). As Netanyahu would be unlikely to visit Australia without discomfort, given an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, the complaint asserted that as “the Prime Minister of Israel is not permitted to visit Australia, the President should not be allowed to act as his surrogate.”

The complaint implores the Australian authorities to do any of three things: refuse or cancel any visa held by Herzog under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), which covers character and public interest grounds; refer him to the AFP for investigation under the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Cth), the Geneva Conventions Act 1957 (Cth) and Australian hate crime legislation; and ensure Australia’s compliance with international obligations to investigate and prosecute who enter the country who are reasonably suspected of committing serious international crimes.

In their body of evidence, the group cites the President’s “Entire Nation” declaration of October 2023 claiming that no civilians in Gaza were “uninvolved” in that month’s attack on Israel by Hamas; the grotesque denials of famine in August 2025, suggesting that images of chronic starvation featuring Palestinian children had been “staged”; and the broader endorsement of military operations entailing the commission of war crimes. Reference in the complaint is made to a December 2023 visit by Herzog to the Nahal Oz military base where he provided encouragement to troops two days before their “wanton destruction” and “flattening” of the town of Khuza’a in Khan Yunis.

The complaint also rejects any application of Head of State immunity, citing the Nuremberg Principles and international law as removing that shield when it comes to the commission of such grave offences as genocide and war crimes.

The complaint is certainly accurate in drawing attention to Herzog’s incitements to collectively punish an apparently complicit populace in Gaza. South Africa’s filing of proceedings against Israel in the International Court of Justice alleging acts of genocide in Gaza cites his remarks from October 12, 2023: “It’s an entire nation out there that is responsible. It’s not true this rhetoric about civilians not aware, not involved. It’s absolutely not true… and we will fight until we break their backbone.” The submission also notes a social media post by Herzog showing him addressing reservists and writing messages on bombs destined to be used on Palestinians.

The September 2025 analysis by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and Israel, which found Israel’s conduct in Gaza after October 7, 2023 to be genocidal in nature, also references Herzog’s October 12, 2023 remark, further adding those words of blame that Gazans “could have risen up”. In the Commission’s view, the President had damned Palestinians to equal responsibility for the attacks on Israel on October 7 that year. Such a statement, along with those of similar kidney made by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and then Israeli Defence Minister Yoav Gallant, constituted “direct and public incitement to commit genocide” under the Genocide Convention.

AFP Commissioner Krissy Barrett has also been reminded in a submission by the Australian Centre for International Justice, along with two Palestinian non-government human rights organisations, the West Bank-based Al-Haq and the Gaza-based Al Mezan Center for Human Rights, that Australia has obligations to investigate “credible allegations of serious international crimes” and has domestic laws permitting “the initiation of an investigation” into their commission. Even if immunity was enlivened for the Israeli President, it would not prevent the AFP “from undertaking preliminary investigative steps, including seeking a voluntary interview with Herzog upon his arrival to Australia.”

The AFP states that Division 268 of the Criminal Code Act grants the Commonwealth “jurisdiction to investigate core international crimes that occur offshore. However, it is not usually practical for the AFP to do so.” With something of a shrug, the AFP would rather that the country where such alleged offences had taken place pursue the matter. (What a rosy convenience that would be.) Investigating such crimes would also pose problems, among them evidentiary matters regarding location, identifying and locating witnesses, the occurrence of crimes in an ongoing conflict, the unwillingness of foreign governments to assist.

Australian lawmakers have also shown themselves reluctant to block the visit. The waters were tested in an attempt by the Greens Senator David Shoebridge on February 3 to suspend standing orders to move a motion seeking the government’s rescinding of Herzog’s invitation. “When someone is accused by the United Nations of inciting genocide, you don’t invite them for tea, you don’t give them a platform, and you certainly don’t welcome them as a guest of honour.”

His effort was thwarted by a large Senate majority. At this point, Herzog’s five-day visit, with all its combustible precariousness and legal freight, is scheduled to take place. A citizen’s arrest might be in order.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

Dancing with European Nationalism: Israel’s Generation Truth Antisemitism Conference

by Binoy Kampmark / January 28th, 2026

Held between January 26 and 27 at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center and called Generation Truth, the second international conference on combating antisemitism was a picture of cracking contradictions. Organised by Israel’s Minister for Diaspora Affairs and Combating Antisemitism, Amichai Chikli, it featured speakers from various far-right groups, many European, and saw Australia’s former Prime Minister and Pentecostal believer, Scott Morrison, address attendees. (The man is obviously touting for gigs.)

The attendance list caused problems prior to last year’s inaugural conference, not least because it included speakers from parties with memberships boasting neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. If this was Chikli’s effort at humour, violating that injunction that Zionism and Nazism shall never be linked, few were laughing. Notable international figures such as the UK’s chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis, and Germany’s antisemitism commissioner Felix Klein, cancelled their participation on realising the unsavoury lineup. ADL chief Jonathan Greenblatt also withdrew from the conference “in light of some of the recently announced participants.”

By 2026, Chikli had learned a few lessons sufficiently to see appearances by Israeli President Isaac Herzog and Jewish Federations of North America President and CEO Eric Fingerhut accede to appearing. Not that those lessons were deep ones. The minister still believed that far-right politicians, notably from Europe, had a role to play in combating antisemitism, much to the consternation of Jewish community leaders and advocates in the diaspora. “We just have a disagreement,” he put it dismissively in an interview with The Times of Israel.

This particular approach involves a calculus on how Islamophobic your counterparts are relative to antisemitism. A rash of antisemitism can well be tolerated as long as the Prophet remains the arch enemy. “The real threat to European Jewry is radical Islam, not the political right,” comes Chikli’s confirmation. The intention was to “form a broad camp to fight together the lethal antisemitism that is coming from within. That’s not to say we can ignore the far left or the far right, but this is the most lethal form of antisemitism that we face.”

Within what is not exactly clear, but presumably it’s the milieu that tolerates nuisance types who think Israeli policies towards Palestinian self-determination and suffering deserve condemnation, including the atrocities, dispossession and ethnic cleansing that has accompanied them. As the Ministry of Diaspora Affairs explained in a media release on January 22, this grievance was antisemitism in progressive guise, “which adopts the language of human rights while in practice working to delegitimize Israel, exclude Jews from the public sphere, and legitimize boycotts.”

These are the very policies that have been found to be genocidal by the United Nations Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory last September, and deemed such by Amnesty International in December 2024 and the International Association of Genocide Scholars in August 2025. Such claims, filed by South Africa, are currently being reviewed by the International Court of Justice.

It would be absurd to expect that indignant protests against such conduct would not follow, be it in the Palestinian diaspora and those sharing solidarity with its cause. But as such protests are seen to be antisemitic for attacking Israel, the argument comes full circle: those holding placards and crying through megaphones are the ones accused of encouraging acts of hatred to Jews in toto, not the diminishing stocks of Israel’s reputation before the mountainous pile of Gazan corpses. In hate, there are the pure and the soiled, with holy writ dispensing with the ambiguities.

The opening address further showed how muddled Chikli is. “This conference seeks to banish political correctness, call the child [antisemitism] by its true name, and mobilise all forces in the ideological and physical struggle against the heirs of the modern Nazis,” he stated in his welcome address. “This is not just the struggle of the Jewish people. This is the struggle of the free world against the imperialism and tyranny of radical Islam.”

Among the far-right figures in evidence was Sweden Democrats leader Jimmie Åkesson. Willie Silberstein, as chair of Sweden’s Committee Against Anti-Semitism, told the BBC in 2022 when commenting on the rise of the SD that his committee had “a problem with parties that were founded by Nazis. That is not an opinion – that is a piece of fact.” The fact that Åkesson had thought it prudent to suspend the party’s entire youth wing in 2015 over its links to the far right gave Silberstein room to wonder: “If one party is so full of people that need to be excluded because they are Nazis – it says something about that party.”

There was Brazilian Senator Flávio Bolsonaro, father of former President Javier Bolsonaro and self-declared contender for the Brazilian presidency. Rather than acknowledging the throbbing authoritarian lineage through his father, he promoted the importance of removing his country’s current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, a man who had likened Israel’s war in Gaza to the Holocaust. Bolsonaro was judicious in referring to the importance of “Judeo-Christian values” and calling Brazil a “Christian, Jewish country”. Were he to be elected, he would move Brazil’s embassy to Jerusalem.

Sam van Rooy and Geert Wilders, parliamentarians from both Belgium and the Netherlands, were also there to bulk the show. Hungary’s representative, EU Affairs Minister János Bóka, attended in premier Viktor Orbán’s stead, a figure so finely illustrative of the dangerous nonsense that afflicts Israel’s courting of European nationalism that ran, and to a large extent still runs, on the intoxicating fumes of antisemitic mania. Orbán’s verbal lashings of the Hungarian Jewish financier George Soros, whom he accused of wishing to settle millions of “illegal immigrants” on Europe’s chaste, Christian soil, are hard to discount. The Soros-founded Central European University wasn’t spared either. By way of contrast, one of Hungary’s rather sketchy historical figures, Miklós Horthy, an important if erratic figure in sending Jews to extermination camps during the Second World War, has received praise and admiration for being a capital fellow, a true statesman.

Being in league with the Christers and blood-and-soil brigade is a confounding situation especially seeing how troubled they have been by Jewry. But when one considers that the likes of Chikli, Bezalel Smotrich, and Itama Ben-Gvir are themselves ethnonationalist and believers of the final war of Gog and Magog, those gathering for Armageddon in the Holy Land are going to be having a most interesting if confrontational encounter when the final reckoning is reached. Armageddon is intended to be a bigoted affair.

 

Scott Morrison in Israel

The Preaching Pentecostal

by Binoy Kampmark / January 29th, 2026

Australia’s former Prime Minister and faithful Pentecostational conference on combating antisemitism held between January 26 and 27 at Jerusalem’s International Convention Center, ambitiously titled Generation Truth.

The December 14, 2025 attack by two ISIS-inspired gunmen on those attending a Hanukkah event on Sydney’s Bondi Beach had supplied him with a hot script. Australia’s Albanese government had been previously barked at by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for going wobbly on Israel and soft on Palestinians. Morrison was in hearty agreement, claiming that the Labor government had “walked away from the Jewish state while antisemitism has taken root in Australia”, feeding the hate through unilateral recognition of Palestinian statehood.

In keeping with various Christian groups of the right, Morrison is of the view that Israeli interests need to be protected, shielded and treasured against other, undesirable members of the Book. Christians and Jews can make a common alliance against their enemies, even if evangelical Christianity has a well-stocked reserve of antisemitic attitudes. As Prime Minister, Morrison recognised West Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, despite its contested status in international law, going so far as to open a Trade and Defence Office there in 2019. In 2021, his government officially adopted the definition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), one that fudges criticism of Israeli policies with antisemitism. Since losing office he has been further courting Israel’s favour by attacking the United Nations for being a forum for antisemitism garbed in the argot of human rights.

The January 27 address recapitulated these points, and more. He pointed to a five-fold rise in antisemitic incidents in Australia following the October 7, 2023 attacks on Israel by Hamas. Context, such as Israel’s historical suppression of Palestinian autonomy and its ruthless campaign of pulverisation in Gaza, was absent. Regular protests in Sydney and Melbourne, including a Sydney Harbour Bridge march numbering 100,000 people, were all cut from the same cloth of antisemitism. Again, Israel’s conduct and policies deserved no mention, while slogans such as “from the river to the sea” and “globalising the intifada” could only be seen as antisemitic declarations.

With political illiteracy typical of the man, Morrison then linked the protests and a softer approach to Palestinian statehood directly to the Bondi attacks, his mind unblemished by any understanding about what ISIS is, and its hostility to Hamas. Shades, here, of the sham groupthink that marked Cold War analysis from Washington to Canberra on monolithic communism. Just as communism of the Chinese, Soviet and Vietnamese character was just communism, so can all forms of Islamism be considered identical.

The usual cod analysis of the “progressive Left”, with its “neo-Marxist identity frameworks” and the “radical Right”, with its “conspiratorial and ethno-nationalist forms”, are offered, both serving as the conduit for “grievance politics”. “When failure is moralised as systemic injustice, liberal norms collapse.” This is the golden apologia for Israel writ large: do not blame institutions and injustice as having any consequences, the spawn of their practices. Abandon grievance; it has no role.

This sets the scene for Morrison’s real concern, and in this, he was keeping to the theme pushed by Chikli from the outset. Whatever the issues on the Left and Right of politics, Islam posed the greatest antisemitic threat, with its “imported European conspiracy theories, recasting Jews as a hidden enemy responsible for global disorder.”

His solution to such malignancy in a Western secular context? More religion, not less. Morrison quotes Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks quoting Jonathan Swift: “we have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love.” But the faith in question had to be of the “good” sort, an inward individual consideration, rather than the “bad” variety that externalised the grievance and made people rush for placards, street rallies and arms.

That bilious right-wing figures demanding the expulsion of Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza have more than enough religion to go around (Israel’s National Security Minister Itamar Ben Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich come to mind) suggests this formula to be flawed. But Morrison singles out Islamic leaders and institutions within Australia as alone in lacking accountability. What was needed was “a recognised accreditation framework for imams, a national register for public-facing roles, clear training and conduct requirements, and disciplinary authority for governing councils.” Sermons should also be translated into English, and links to foreign Islamic groups policed and curbed.

In Australia, Liberal Senator Andrew Bragg spoke approvingly of the former PM’s tarnishing method, with Australian Muslims having to “take some responsibility” for terrorist acts. “Unfortunately,” he told ABC radio on January 28, “there has been a mutation of Islam in Australia and other Western countries where they have sought to kill citizens, not just Jewish people, but other citizens.”

The Australian National Imams Council (ANIC), the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils (AFIC) and the Islamic Council of Victoria were suitably unimpressed. Chief executive of the Islamic Council of Victoria, Zakaria Wahid, made the far from startling point that the Australian government did “not hold entire communities accountable for acts of violence committed by individuals, and the same standard must apply to Muslims.”

Morrison has shown that he can be a good Pentecostal when required, demonstrating the sort of charity that never leaves his home or the halls of the Hill Song Church. As a cabinet minister and prime minister in various conservative governments, he showed a glacial contempt for women, welfare recipients, refugees, asylum seekers, those warning about climate change and open government. As prime minister, he gave Australia AUKUS, a criminally exorbitant, foolishly negotiated security pact between Canberra, London and Washington that has turned his country into an American satellite and forward base against China. But his less than secular admiration for Israel has won him friends, a point Chikli has unreservedly acknowledged. No doubt some well remunerated consultancy work is in the bag.

FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com. Read other articles by Binoy.

The Massive Scale of Rabbinic Opposition to Israel’s Proposed Death Penalty Bill

Michael Zoosman

January 26, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

The thousands of members of “L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty – a group that I co-founded – has advocated vociferously against Israel’s proposed death penalty bill for terrorists since National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir first presented it in the Knesset. L’chaim is but one of many Jewish organizations standing firmly against this bill and the death penalty as a whole. Just as there have been proponents of the death penalty since time immemorial in the Jewish tradition, there are, of course, those among them who support this bill now. In the malaise of debate over this bill, it is easy to lose sight of the scope and scale of the specifically rabbinic voices currently in opposition to the death penalty. Upon closer examination, this number is prodigious and is worthy of review in this liminal moment for Israel and the Jewish world.

The Current Context: Responding to a Recent Op-Ed

In a recent op-ed in the Times of Israel entitled “On Ben Gvir’s death penalty law controversy,” Dr. Alex Sternberg and David Levine, formerly of the Jewish Defense League, singled out this author and Rabbi Yitz Greenberg for our public advocacy against this bill. They disparagingly referred to us as “two liberal and woke voices.” The writers disapprovingly referred to Rabbi Greenberg as “a rabbi no less” when they cited his and my references to some of the statements of Moses ben Maimon, commonly known as Maimonides or the Rambam (1138-1204), regarding the death penalty. They erroneously asserted that we “opined that capital punishment is not ‘Jewish’ and [that we] failed to state that there were numerous examples where the Talmud and the Torah mandated the death sentence in specific circumstances.” They added that we “need to relearn the Rambam and the other Jewish sources [we] misquoted.” The authors later stated that they  “fear that Messrs. Zoosman and Greenberg are naïve in their worldview,” asking at one point: “Has Zoosman thought this nonsense out?” They conclude that “the death penalty is just. It is definitely Jewish. This law must be approved,” and that “confusing compassion with justice undermines society’s fabric. The Rambam understood this. Messrs. Greenberg and Zoosman do not.”

All personal attacks aside, these comments merit a response that clarifies a few significant points. First and foremost, while I cannot speak for Rabbi Greenberg, I can certainly convey that he is much more than what the authors seem to dismissively refer to as “a rabbi no less.” Rabbi Yitz (Irving) Greenberg is a prominent American Orthodox rabbi, theologian, and activist known for pioneering Holocaust theology and fostering Jewish-Christian dialogue. He is a Harvard-educated historian who founded CLAL: The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadershipand led efforts to establish the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. I am honoured that the authors would deign to couple me, who is “a cantor no less,” with this highly prominent modern rabbinic voice.

Beyond the lack of proper kavod (respect) due to Rabbi Greenberg, the authors falsely claim that he and I seem to believe that Jewish tradition has never allowed for the death penalty. This could not be farther from the truth. We have made clear that there can be no doubt that Jewish tradition did create space for a death penalty, both in the Torah and in various places in the Talmud. It is equally clear, however, that Chazal (חז”ל)  – Chachameinu Zichronam Livracha (חכמינו זכרונם לברכה – “Our Sages, of blessed memory”) – provided such prodigious safeguards over the implementation of the death penalty as to render it virtually impossible to carry out. This pattern reflects the fact that Jewish tradition places the highest possible value on human life. It was for this reason that our sages erected those extraordinary barriers around the use of the death penalty, teaching that a court that executes even once in seventy years is considered destructive. This moral caution reflects a foundational Jewish commitment to the sanctity of life.

Readers might gain the impression from the author’s op-ed that Rabbi Greenberg and I – being, as they write, “two liberal and woke voices” – are in the minority on our views about the death penalty among Jews and – in the case of Rabbi Greenberg – rabbinic authorities. There are indeed many rabbis – and cantors like myself – among the 4,300+ members of L’chaim! Jews Against the Death Penalty. There are likewise many rabbinical voices among the American Jewish Committee and the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, both of which have been longstanding opponents of the death penalty. Still, these are not specifically rabbinical organizations. A reminder may be in order, then, of just how many rabbinic voices stand against capital punishment.

Reform and Conservative Judaism

It is well-known that “the major Jewish movements in the United States all have specific policies supporting either abolition of the death penalty, or a moratorium on its use.” Since 1959, the Central Conference of American Rabbis (CCAR), which currently encompasses 2,200 rabbis  – “no less” – and the Union for Reform Judaism (URJ) have formally opposed the death penalty, considering it a “stain upon civilization” and morally unjustifiable.” Conservative Judaism also generally opposes the death penalty, urging its abolition. The Rabbinical Assembly (RA), the international association for Conservative rabbis, has approximately 1,500 to 1,700 members who look to the Committee on Jewish Law and Standards (CJLS) for rulings on various issues of Jewish law. On October 15, 2013, by a vote of 20 in favor, none opposed, and none abstaining, the CJLS approved Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky’s seminal teshuvah (responsum) entitled “Participating in the American Death Penalty.” Like Rabbi Greenberg and me, Rabbi Kalmanofsky concluded that “given the weight of precedent, it would be false to assert that Jewish law forbids capital punishment.” However, this fact did not stop the committee from ruling that “we urge the American federal and state governments to renounce capital punishment except in the rarest cases. Religious Jews should advocate for that position as the superior moral stance and best public policy.” Votes in favor included Rabbis Aaron Alexander, Pamela Barmash, Miriam Berkowitz, David Booth, Elliot Dorff, Baruch Frydman-Kohl, Susan Grossman, Joshua Heller, David Hoffman, Adam Kligfeld, author Jeremy Kalmanofsky, Gail Labovitz, Amy Levin, Jonathan Lubliner, Daniel Nevins, Paul Plotkin, Avram Reisner, Elie Spitz, Barry Starr, and Loel Weiss.

Closely related to Conservative Judaism, the Masorti Movement generally opposes the death penalty, aligning with a long-standing rabbinic tradition that makes its application effectively impossible and morally repugnant. Like Conservative Judaism, while acknowledging that the Torah allows for capital punishment, the Masorti movement emphasizes that the sages of the Talmud added so many stringent conditions—such as requiring specific witnesses and explicit warnings—that it became a “fantasy” or legally impossible to carry out.

Orthodox Judaism

There are approximately 1,000 members of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), which is affiliated with The Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, more commonly known as the Orthodox Union(OU). The OU acknowledges the theoretical legal basis for the death penalty. Still, like millennia of rabbinic voices before them and their rabbinic peers, they have expressed concerns about human fallibility and have called for a moratorium on the death penalty “pending the implementation of appropriate reforms”  — among them, steps to address issues of fairness in the judicial system, in particular allegations of racial bias in administering the death penalty.

Modern Orthodoxy specifically, while acknowledging the theoretical biblical validity of capital punishment, overwhelmingly opposes its practical application in the modern era. While it does not hold a uniform official policy against it, the Modern Orthodox Jewish community generally supports abolition or moratoriums. This position stems from the extreme procedural restrictions in Talmudic law that made executions nearly impossible and the belief in allowing maximum time for repentance. Many emphasize that evidentiary requirements—such as the presence of direct, qualified witnesses and a formal warning immediately before the crime—were designed to be impossible to meet. A concern that many Orthodox rabbinic opponents also convey is that the death penalty denies an individual the necessary time for teshuvah (repentance). Many authorities further argue that capital punishment cannot be carried out without the Sanhedrin (the supreme religious court) and the Beit Hamidrash (the Temple), which do not exist today. Many Orthodox thinkers argue that the modern justice system is too flawed to authorize the taking of life. The prevailing trend within Modern Orthodoxy, therefore, leans toward abolition, viewing it as inconsistent with Jewish values in the current era. An illustrative example is Death Penalty Action Advisory Board Member and Modern Orthodox Rabbi Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, who has spoken out publicly about the need for Judaism to support death penalty abolition. In 2017, Rabbi Yanklowitz spearheaded astatement signed by over 100 rabbis that called for the end of the “cruel practice” of capital punishment. As the op-ed authors know well, Rabbi Yitz Greenberg himself identifies as a Modern Orthodox rabbi. Rabbi Greenberg has, of course, openly articulated his opinion in the Jerusalem Post that the death penalty debate places the inherent “Jewish reverence for life” against death penalty bill-architect Justice Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir’s “cheapening of life.” Rabbi Greenberg added that “in degrading terrorists and criminals, Itamar Ben-Gvir is trashing Jewish religious values and cheapening everybody’s life.”

Reconstructing Judaism

Reconstructing Judaism (the central organization of the Reconstructionist movement) and its affiliates strongly oppose the death penalty, urging its abolition in the United States and elsewhere. This organization is affiliated with more than 350 Reconstructionist rabbis serving nearly 100 congregations and various other roles across the movement. Their position on capital punishment is based on the movement’s commitment to evolving Jewish tradition, which emphasizes that the preservation of life is the highest value and that capital punishment, while mentioned in the Torah, should be considered a practice to be left in the past. TheReconstructionist Rabbinical Association (RRA) has formally gone on record opposing the death penalty in all circumstances. Like their Reform counterparts, the movement rejects the death penalty because it is a “stain upon civilization,” is prone to irreversible mistakes, and often produces racially disparate outcomes. While acknowledging that the Torah and Talmud contain provisions for the death penalty, Reconstructing Judaism follows the tradition of the sages who made the application of capital punishment virtually impossible. The movement emphasizes the capacity for teshuvah and rehabilitation, arguing that society should focus on rehabilitating individuals rather than executing them.

Jewish Renewal

Similarly, rabbinic members of the Jewish Renewal movement, which is generally characterized by a commitment to social justice, pacifism, and progressive, transdenominational, and mystical approaches to Judaism, often take a strong stance against the death penalty. The Jewish Renewal movement includes OHALAH, the Association of Rabbis and Cantors for Jewish Renewal, which has over 200 members, including rabbis, cantors, and rabbinic pastors. Renewal’s ALEPH Ordination Program has ordained over 220 rabbis as of recent counts. While the Renewal movement has not issued an official statement on the death penalty, many of its rabbis align with the broader, liberal, and progressive Jewish community in advocating for the abolition of capital punishment. This opposition is rooted in the belief that all life is sacred and created in the Divine image, leading to a focus on rehabilitation and repentance (teshuvah) rather than vengeance. Similar to the Reconstructionist, Reform, and many in the Conservative movements, many Jewish Renewal rabbis view the death penalty as an outdated, cruel, and inhumane practice that should not be part of a modern legal system. As an active member of OHALAH myself, though I have not met all members over the years, this author has yet to personally encounter one rabbinical colleague who supports Israel’s death penalty bill.

Modern Israeli Rabbinic Voices

Many rabbinic death penalty abolitionist voices in modern-day Israel draw upon these rabbinic voices in opposition to the death penalty. Rabbi, lawyer, and Member of the Knesset Gilad Kariv is a leading opponent of the bill to impose the death penalty on terrorists in Israel, characterizing it as a “populist,” “unconstitutional,” and “extremist” measure that will lead to the intensification of terrorism rather than its eradication. He has argued that the legislation is unbefitting of a democratic state and that it constitutes a “racist law”.  Kariv has consistently opposed the proposed bill initiated by National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and other right-wing members. He has been removed from Knesset National Security Committee sessions multiple times for clashing with Ben-Gvir and for protesting the behavior of proponents who wore symbols representing different methods of execution.

I personally witnessed many other Israeli rabbinic abolitionists when I had the profound honor of representing L’chaim members at a powerful gathering of Israeli and Jewish human rights groups for a webinar focused on the proposed bill to impose the death penalty on non-Jewish terrorists. Rabbis for Human Rights in Israel (RHR) hosted an online Hanukkah event titled “We Will Drive out the Darkness by Increasing the Light.” Representing RHR were its Executive Director – and October 7th terror attack survivor –  Rabbi Avi Dabush, as well as Rabbi Kobi Weiss. Both rabbis have passionately spoken against the death penalty bill in the Knesset recently. They were joined by Rabbi Jill Jacobs, the Executive Director of T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights for a most enlightening conversation that framed the death penalty within Jewish law and the lighting of the Hanukkah candles. Rabbis for Human Rights has 100-170 members, including ordained rabbis, rabbinical students, and rabbinic leaders from various denominations. T’ruah: The Rabbinic Call for Human Rights, in turn, represents a network of more than 2,300 rabbis and cantors from all streams of Judaism across North America, as well as members in Israel. The contemporary rabbinic voices in these groups merit serious consideration for anyone evaluating the death penalty from a rabbinic lens.

Heeding L’chaim’s Call

As the various rabbinic sources above demonstrate, there are indeed mul­tiple reas­ons for Jews to oppose the death penalty. Not all rabbinic voices will agree on the reason, but many do indeed concur that Israel’s death penalty bill must not come to fruition. A forthcoming Jewish communal statement from various partnering Jewish and communal organizations will soon reflect this truth. As for L’chaim, we have outlined many of these reasons for supporting abolition – and others – in a recent Hanukkah post that enumerated “8 Reas­ons to Vote Against the Death Penalty this Hanukkah.” Beyond the religious arguments cited above, the death penalty – first and foremost – would incite martyrs and invite murders in Israel. It furthermore viol­ates the human right to life, always con­sti­tutes tor­ture, risks execut­ing the inno­cent, is racist in its applic­a­tion, and – from Adolf Hitler to Don­ald Trump to Ben-Gvir – has been used as a polit­ical tool, par­tic­u­larly dur­ing elec­tion cam­paigns. L’chaim has also illus­trated how many exe­cu­tion meth­ods are dir­ect Nazi legacies, includ­ing fir­ing squad, gass­ing, and lethal injec­tion. Famed death pen­alty abol­i­tion­ist Elie Wiesel best artic­u­lated L’chaim’s stance when he said of cap­ital pun­ish­ment – in the shadow of the Holo­caust – that “death should never be the answer in a civ­il­ized soci­ety.” Members of the Knesset – and all death penalty proponents –  should heed Wiesel’s mes­sage and the thousands of rabbinic voices that stand with him in recog­nizing that executions are not the answer – and that Israel’s proposed death penalty bill should not be the answer now.