The Case for War

[Music] You are listening to an art media podcast. [Music] I feel this is a coffee-on-on moment. What I sense in much of the criticism in the West is an unconscious pacifism. It's a Milchemet Mitzvah. It's an obligatory war. When 93% of Israeli Jews are telling you, "This is a Milchemet Mitzvah." We should be standing together. [Music] Hi friends, this is Didiel Hartman and Yassi Klein-Alebi from the Shalom Hartman Institute. And this is our podcast for Heaven's Sake, a collaboration of the Shalom Hartman Institute and art media. Today is Thursday March 5th, and this special episode is entitled "The Case for War." Before we dive in, I want to let you know that I'm planning to be in South Florida later this month, and I hope you will join me in person at our first ever Florida Leadership Conference. There I, along with my esteemed Hartman colleagues, will be speaking about what this moment means for Israel, the Middle East, and the Jewish people. More information at the link in the show notes. I hope to see you there. A case for war, Yassi. Part of me feels strange, even having this as our subject. I, you, 93% of Israeli Jews support this war. We see it as a self-evident war of self-defense. To use Jewish terms, it's a Milchemet Mitzvah. It's a war that everybody has to show up to, and everybody has to play their role. Yet part of the loneliness and the alienation that we very often hear feel in Israel is that we seem to so often be on a different page than so many other people around the world, people who used to be our friends or many of them still who are our friends. And that alienation also includes a not insignificant portion of the Jewish community. And so today's podcast is to them. Now, Yassi, I don't know whether you and I have the ability to convince anybody. I don't know if anybody even listens anymore to anybody. When I look and see, you know, if you vote Democrat or wherever you are, then you're off the charts against the war. And what is it, President Obama, who today says, you know, my thoughts are now with the innocent civilians in Iran. Not something that he said when tens of thousands of them were being killed or were being subjugated by a horrific dictator. But I don't want to get into these polemic. I said it and let's keep it in. But I know what I just said is not helpful. But it's like I feel it is like I feel like I'm insane. Like somebody feels like I don't even know. Like is anybody even listening? So if you see yourself on the liberal camp, then this war is an abomination. If you see yourself in the conservative camp, it's split. But more are for it. You know, again, there's splits on that side too. The Tucker Carlson isolationist wing of the Macaparty. Are also this war is an abomination. But again, on them, I have no moral expectations. As a liberal myself, I feel liberalism speaks at its core to moral responsibilities, to fight for the good, for the right of self-defense. And so as Israel, we don't know what world we're living in. And so what we're going to do today is we're going to talk about how we Israelis feel about this war. We're also really careful whether the United States should embark on a war or not. That's for United States to decide you and I are United States citizens. So I can have an opinion, but I'm not calling on the United States to save Israel. And I'm not advocating. That's for Americans to decide what are in their interests. But there are serious arguments. And today what we want to look at you and I are for each one of us, what do we see? Are some of the core detriments as we're out there. And as I'm here teaching and I'm meeting with hundreds of rabbis and laypeople, I'm hearing and we're reading newspapers that we're reading social media and we're reading the discourse. And how do we think about this moment? What are the cases against the war or what are the arguments against it? And how do we respond? Now in doing so, this is not going to be a graduate seminar in international legal theory. We want to connect to our deepest moral instincts, instincts of let's call it of the marketplace. Because the average person who's critiquing this war is critiquing it from certain core moral instincts that they have. But before we begin, I think a worthy way to frame this is to quote or some of our incredulousness this if there could be a term such as that. Let me just start by an end by quoting the president of France, Macron, who unequivocally and with a very strong moral fortitude condemns the war. I condemn it as a violation of international law. Wow, fantastic. I say, okay. And then he says, but Iran is the one who is the most important person in the world. Iran, which must bear responsibility for whatever will evolve and ensue. Really? I want to understand Iran has a responsibility. The responsibility and history. He says, well, more hangmen of their own people. And no one will miss any of them. Great. So I'm against Iran. I hate them. They're the ones which bear the responsibility. But we want to do something about it, our violation of international law. This is just part of this universe we're in. And so people bear with us. We're just going to talk from our heart. We're going to talk about what we feel, what you want to feel that's up to you. I just have a prayer that partisan thinking leads to mediocre thinking and moral mediocrity. I don't care what side of the political map you are on. Could we for one moment just transcend it? And you and I are, you're going to try to give voice to that. So you'll see you get the first shot. What aggravates certain segments of the West, not of Jews in Israel, but segments of the West to this war? You go on, I'll do one. And if we have time, we'll do another round. We have a lot to talk about. You know, Danielle, I was reluctant to do this topic. And one of the reasons was that I'm not sure that I can articulate what is so self evident to me. You know, there are certain things that you just understand so deeply, so intuitively, that you don't really know how to explain it. I know. And this for me, I mean, you know, I've been living with this issue for 20 years and writing about it and lecturing and now that it's happening, I struggle to find the words. You know, coffee on the former UN Secretary General once famously said, can Israel be right and the whole world wrong? And I feel this is a coffee on on moment. I so much don't care about the critics of this war. I just don't care. I don't believe in their morality. And you know, Danielle, I understood the angst over Gaza. I understood the arguments. There was really a serious concern. It went very deep. And it tore many of our friends apart. It tore you and I apart. I don't understand this. And what I sense is that behind much of the critique against the war, that you quote in Macron and international law, after people who quote international law don't know what international law is, or they'll use international law in an immoral way. And frankly, if international law is a cover for allowing the massacre of tens of thousands of citizens by its own regime, unprovoked, then I think international law is itself a crime. At least the way it's being used now. And so what I sense in much of the criticism in the West is an unconscious pacifism. Unconscious because if you were to ask critics of this war, are you pacifist? They would say, well, of course not. I would have supported the war against the Nazis. And yet listening to that, listening to their arguments, I'm not so sure that many of these people had they been alive then in the 1930s, wouldn't have sided with Charles Lindbergh and say America cannot go to war against Germany. It's not our war. This is an immoral war. And there's another related point here, which is the inability of very large numbers of people in the West to define evil. Or maybe even worse to relativize evil. The hatred for Trump is so deep. And I understand, I understand the loading for Trump because you know how I feel about Netanyahu. Netanyahu is tearing apart Israeli society and Trump is doing the same in America and both are assaulting the democratic institutions and ethos of our two countries. But there are moments when that's irrelevant. And you put that aside and give credit when they're doing something essential. Saving the people of Iran, saving the region from the greatest threat to the instability of the Middle East, saving the state of Israel from an existential threat, saving the world from another 45 years of terrorism. This is what this war is about. And yet to be so obsessed with your hatred for one or the other or both of these leaders seems to me to really miss the point about what it means to confront absolute evil. And you know, as much as I detest what Netanyahu has done to Israel and understand why Americans feel the same toward Trump, neither Trump nor Netanyahu are the ayatollas. There's a qualitative difference in the evil. And if you can't see that, if your hatred for your own leaders leads you to de facto be on the side of the Iranian regime, then I question the moral legitimacy of those who are questioning this war as moral legitimacy. You'll see, you know, I've sitting here listening to you and you and I are on the same side on this war. But do you think anybody's going to be convinced by anything you just said? No, you just did. Let me let me even play it back to you to some extent and I want a challenge you on it. Your argument was you condemned them. You started, say, there is an unconscious pacifism. Okay, that's an argument. That's an argument. Are you in fact advocating in essence a functional pacifism in which every use of power in this sense is always unacceptable? That's an argument. Now, if it's self-seventhed, what is it that they're not seeing? What are the sources of this unconscious pacifism? What is the source of the fact that they could see the evil of Trump and Netanyahu? But they can see the evil in Ayatollah Khmerni. Or, you know, well, you know what, let's say they do see the evil in the Iranian regime, but it's all relativized. Trump is evil, Netanyahu is evil, and the Ayatollah is evil. And there's a flattening of an ability to make distinctions, gradations in evil. That's a large part of the source of the problem. So that is an argument already. I would want to stay with your point, not to the issue that I wanted to raise, but let's play with this issue of pacifism in evil, because I think it's really important. And it is so inherent to our experiences as Israelis. We know that we walk in the midst of evil. I'm not saying that we're always the righteous ones, and I'm not saying that it's never our fault. All of that doesn't matter. We know that there is evil around us, whether that evil is Hamas, whether that evil is Khizbalah, and certainly whether that evil is Khmerni. And the Islamic Shiite regime, we know there even, we know they want to kill us. And that's why I can't remember ever in the history of the state of Israel that 93% of Israeli Jews agreed about anything. And the entire opposition is lining up behind the table. And here is an example. You'll see exactly of what you said, like Netanyahu, don't like it. There's nothing to do with the war. How I think about it, and how I think about the war are two separate issues completely. So that type of distinction is happening. So why is that not happening in so many other parts of the world? And also not all of them, when you speak about, you know, now some European countries are coming on board. As long as Iran fired a drone against a British airbase in Cyprus, okay, now Iran is something we have to deal with beforehand. We didn't. What was the tipping point of your moral condemnation is always quite fascinating. But people around the world, they're not making that move that Israelis are making. And I think a part of it is, is that part of the modern existence doesn't want to see evil. Now it's interesting there, within your country, you're very willing to vilify your opposition. Evil in your midst, you're willing to see. But this evil overseas, like just don't bother me. I get a feeling like people are just tired. Evil is just aggravating. Like really, I have to deal with it. So it's not an ideological pacifism. It's just as long as it's not hitting my C-shore, it's a pacifism growing out of nimbism, not in my backyard. As long as you're not in my backyard, you're not evil. You're not a problem that I want to feel that I have to deal with because other than that, I think you're right. I think you're right. But the problem I believe goes deeper than that. Because there's a trajectory here. I'm not willing to fight evil in Iran. I'm not willing to fight evil anywhere outside my borders. And I will fight the evil that's on the other side of the political divide in my country. But I don't believe that large numbers of people in the West are capable anymore of even defending themselves. I don't believe it. I think that this de facto pacifism has set in so deeply that war itself has become unthinkable. And look, maybe they're right. Maybe we should all become pacifists. But at least say it explicitly. Own it. If that's your argument, make the case for pacifism. Okay, I want to move this to another direction. I want us to try or at least in my remarks, I want to concentrate on what are some of the essential arguments. So the argument that you raised is that it's not evil. And I don't see it. And pacifism is always a moral high ground in that. And it's not viscerally evil for me. Trump is viscerally evil. Right. Ayatollahs are an abstraction. Right. There's no other way to explain the New York Times obituary of Khmernei other than what you just explained. But I want to try to raise a separate additional point. This is a serious argument against this war. And it goes back to Macron who said, you know, this war is against international law. Now, please buckle your seat belts. And I'm not going to bore you with too many categories. But, but I think it's really important to talk about this a little bit. War is acceptable under international law. International law accepts wars of self defense as morally and legally justified and even require. What does it mean to be a sovereign state if you don't have a right to defend yourself and so to go to war to defend yourself is a perfectly legitimate act, recognize and accepted both by legal scholars and you know, just basic common sense. I have a right to live and therefore have a right to defend myself. The problem is is that in life, it always gets a little more complicated because you don't really go to fight after the person punches you. In fact, it's probably silly to fight after a person punches you. It's usually better as you see them coming to punch you to try to punch them first. Now, in essence, most acts of self defense are going to look for some strategic advantage because actually one of the principles of self defense is I want to win. And what's going to effectuate my winning is really important. So within this context, international law gives birth to the category called preemptive strikes. And a preemptive strike says, if they're about to strike and they're about to attack you, you have every right, you don't have to wait. Like, I have to wait till my existence is in danger, especially in the case of nuclear weapons or I have to wait till Iran has such missile capabilities and only after they start to fire, it just doesn't make sense. You're allowed to preempt a strike, but the preemption demands that there be a very clear association between the moment you act. And when it is that you thought that the other side was going to attack, their attack has to be imminent. The term, interesting term here is what's imminent. And I think a lot of the attacks against this war is the notion that it didn't fulfill the criteria of imminent. Just wasn't imminent. And as a result, it wasn't preemptive. And maybe you have some narrative of self defense, but it falls under a category which is not accepted to the same degree under international law. And that is a preventative war, and the New York Times had a whole analysis of the difference between preemptive and preventative. See, everybody knows that right now Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon and the 12-day war set them back. Everybody knows that they're building together with the Chinese thousands of missiles, but right now they're not threatening the United States and they're not threatening all of Europe and they're not a war with the world. They're really mostly obsessed with us, like us were their enemy, and also they have various agendas in the Middle East. So they're saying was this really preemptive? Was it imminent? So the imminent criteria is one of the weaknesses of this war, you'll see, and it is the source if you look at articles and questions, and what is it that made you go to war, why are you going toward? There is nothing imminent. But here I just want to share an Israeli sensibility from an Israeli sensibility. This is not a preemptive strike. We've been at war with Iran for a very long time. This is an ongoing war. This notion that here it is, the war ended, and now we have to, it's like you're in between rounds, like the game is over, and we're going to the second game. There is a lack of understanding of the fluidity of the danger that we're dealing with. So in essence, you're in this ongoing war in which from time to time they're going to strike you, and from time to time you're going to strike them. The notion that the war started, Saturday morning. It's a great point. Now it may or may not answer the American critics about why America needed to go to war, but you know as you said earlier, that's not our case to make. We're making the Israeli case for war, and I think you've just made it. You said one word that for me is absolutely critical in understanding the nature of the threat that we have faced all of these years from Iran, and that is the word obsession. You said that we are Iran's obsession. And we know, Jews know, the way that any people that has ever been threatened knows that when you have a regime that is so obsessed with the crime of your existence, that it turns that into the major focus of its foreign policy, of its internal propaganda, that goes to the lengths of sponsoring Holocaust denial conferences, and then of course backs that up with decades of terrorism directed against us, take that whole package and combine it with an apocalyptic theology. I don't need to explain anything more than that. I know. And again, you know what this is part of my frustration is, how do I find the words for what's just so overwhelmingly self-evident? Here's the subject just came to me. Here I want to connect our two points. Israel, the United States, and a large part of the Western world, has been at war, or Iran has been at war with all of us since when 1979? Yeah. They've been a war with us. They're planning, they're constantly attacking. But if you can't see evil, you don't see the danger. If you don't want to see it, then all of a sudden, one day you wake up and attack Iran, why are you one day attacking Iran? If you're not connecting all the dots, and it's interesting now, the administration is talking this talk, because before they weren't ready to explain why now. And they've been thinking through, because they could start to figure out why now, because President Trump decided now, and that would be the reason. But now they're trying to come up with an explanation why now? So is it that at 11 bombs they were about to build the cases are poor? The stronger cases, they've been fighting America since 1979. The fact that you are taking pauses doesn't mean that this is a new war, and therefore the whole discourse, we feel it here in Israel, but it's your first explanation, which is what makes this war feel that it's a preventative war, and not part of an ongoing war that you've been fighting from the embassy into Iran to the barracks in Beirut, to Iraq, to Syria, to ISIS. You've been fighting this war for decades, but you never wanted to admit that you're really at war because the consequences of that is too difficult. And so therefore part of this unpacking this whole conversation is an ability to recognize the dangers that we face. And when you add to it, there's also another calculation where you have to look at the enormity of the danger, also impacts on what's imminent. If on the table is Iran's capability to have a nuclear weapon, or to have now the discourse in America is to have a missile shield behind which to hide. When is imminent after they have it in which you can't win or does the danger also extend the notion of imminent. Imminence has to take into account when you could win, when you could actually do something about it. So there's this whole stuff going on. I'll see is there another issue that you want to raise as to what's the problem with this war? Yeah, I think there's a related issue to how people in the West critique the war. And generally how they critique a symmetrical war, whether in Gaza or elsewhere. And now critiquing this particular war. There's this sense that people in the West no longer understand what war means. And are so profoundly reluctant to dirty their hands, because war is inherently dirty. It doesn't comport with their values, with their sense of themselves, of the higher nature of their nation. And the practical consequence is that if we were to fight the war according to their norms, it would be impossible to fight. So for example, the reaction to the bombing of the girl school in Iran immediately the outrage kicks in as if this were a deliberate atrocity and not a tragic consequence of war. The notion that tragedy happens in war is more and more absent from their worldview. And the fundamental mistake that they're making to deal is not to draw a clear distinction between war as tragedy and war as barbarism. War as tragedy is when terrible mistakes happen. War as barbarism is when it's not a mistake. It's a deliberate attack. Now no one deliberately attacked that girl school. Not us and not the Americans. We don't know still who did it. Maybe it was an Iranian missile. That's just quote. It was in Southern Iran and Israel's not operating in Southern Iran. But even if we had done it, it happens. Yeah, that's the point. It happens. You know, you'll see when I'm listening, you and I, we've got to war. Like we understand it when war is so for it to generations of people already. You don't even had to think about it. The truth is I don't blame them. Who wants dirty hands? Who wants them? I'd much rather have pure hands. Especially if you're at a geographical distance, you're not existentially threatened by the arid regime and America is not. And I don't think you can make a successful case for an imminent existential threat or maybe even not a long term existential threat. The America probably can take care of itself against Iran. We on the other hand might not be able to or it's allied. Let's again, it's allies are being threatened all the time. America has interest in the Middle East, which go beyond Israel. Right. I'm just hypersensitive right now because I hate this notion that this is our war. I just I find that so nauseating. It's always been nauseating to me. Well, I like David Haru, it's this formulation, the editor of the Times of Israel. He said, of course this is Israel's war, but it's also America's. Right. And the former general Amidroor said on Israeli radio that could you possibly accept that two individuals, President Trump and Prime Minister Netanyahu, each on their own, reached the conclusion that this war was necessary. And decided to work together like is that even something that's possible that we could understand and I like David's articulation. So, you know, we're living in such a different neighborhood and we're being judged by people whose moral categories are shaped by a very, very different experience. And I can't blame them for that, but that leads to one last point that I wanted to raise and then if there's something more you want to talk about. I sense, especially within the Jewish community, where there has arisen a serious criticism of this war. It's not because of Netanyahu, it's because of their anti-Trump sentiments. And you, again, we could understand what you and I think of President Trump or not, that's irrelevant, that always is. But we could give voice to the fact that there are millions and tens of millions of Americans and the majority of the Jewish community that feels that their America is being undermined by President Trump, that their safety in America is being undermined by him. That this is a man who they believe is authoritarian and close to dictatorship, advocating for dictatorship, the rule of law, due process, doesn't interest him. And so, the minute he does anything, their core instinct is, I don't belong on his side. And when they add to it the whole psychological profile, so prevalent in the United States, about the only interest that President Trump has is self-interest and all of the above, the minute he goes to their gut instinct, just as they can't be on his side. And their response is, you're talking to me about nuclear, about dangers, about preventative or preemptive in defense. That's not what Trump is doing. And then they start making lists. This is Epstein, this is any other agenda that you could come up with. It's his own anger and disment, just like what he wants to make peace. He only wants it for the Nobel Peace Prize. Their whole outlook is one of feeling this man is assaulting my America and my safety. And as a result, they can see any pure motives to anything that he does. And then you say why the war in Iran? Of course there's no reason for a war in Iran. And the only point that I want to reiterate, and I spoke about this when I was interviewed by my good friend Abby Poggibat the other day, can we separate our explanation of Trump's motives from our analysis of the benefits of his actions? There is a beautiful term in our tradition which says, you shall love the Lord your God with both your good intentions and also your bad intentions. God doesn't mind if you worship God out of bad intentions. And by the way, under Jewish law, if for example on Russia's Shana, you're blowing the chauffeur. And you blow it just because you want music and what comes out are the right tunes. You fulfill the obligation. Motive is not critical for fulfilling your duty. Just do the, it's not an end's means discussion. It's the end, not the motive. It's one of those few to the right thing. It will in some way influence your inner. Or it has value or it has value in and of itself. It's up to that motivation is not required. And it is so hard to live in countries where you are so split about your leadership. But I think one of the ways in which we could have a moral conversation at dangerous moments such as these is you have to separate your perceived understanding of the motivation of your leader from your analysis of the value of what's being done. And it could be that President Trump is doing this for all the wrong reasons, all the wrong reasons. Just like it's possible that President Trump the only reason why he wanted the hostages to come back was so that he could have a ceasefire and get a Nobel Prize. Who critiqued him for it? We said great. I embrace the results. I embrace the world that you're creating. Separate your animosity and your interpretation of the motivations and ask yourself is there an ongoing conflict? Is there an evil that is here that I have to see? And simply because of the motivations, your interpreted motivations as being flawed of your president as a result you're going to step away from the war. That just seems to me to be so intellectually and morally problematic. And in many ways, Israeli society is a model of a healthier balance or at least as you said, there are moments for transcendence. And this is another one. Like when I hear those criticisms, I don't know what to say almost like really? So you'll see further thoughts that you have before we bring this to a conclusion. Yeah, I'd like to circle back to the 93% of Jewish Israelis who support this war, which truly is an astonishing statistic. And I think it's a combination of Israeli pragmatism along with an innate kind of Jewish sense that actions matter more than motives. That has created an extraordinary situation where even the opposition has suspended its profound doubts of Netanyahu's motives. It doesn't matter. And the other thing here, Danielle, is that as you know, Danielle, I've been in the past. I've accused Netanyahu of the most base motives, including during war. On Iran, I hesitate. This has been his passion for 25 years. He owns this issue and credit where it's due. He is the one who carried this issue very often alone. Now, the other point here that I think is important is that this issue has not only been Netanyahu's. It has been the issue of the Israeli political class across the spectrum from the beginning. In fact, the Israeli leader who first pointed out the danger of a nuclear Iran was Yitzhak Rabin. In 1993, when he was asked, "Why did you sign the Oslo Peace Accords with Yasser Arifat?" He said, "My motive was Iran." He said, "I'm looking to neutralize whatever threat we have on our borders to deal with what is the real existential threat, which is Iran." So this goes back over 30 years. And the father of the Israeli doctrine on Iran is actually not Netanyahu. It's Yitzhak Rabin. And so the bipartisan nature of this consensus over Iran has also helped create this moment and is being reflected in what we see in the polls. You know, I want to end with turning to our friends in the Jewish community in North America. Those who have a relationship with Israel, those who are more on the liberal side of the camp as I am in my political worldview, who are having a very hard time right now. They're having a hard time because this is a Trump policy, but there's another reason why they're having a hard time. And that is that Israel's making life difficult for people. It's like yet again they have to stand up to defend the Israel to their friends and neighbors, and they're just tired of it. Like my rabbinic colleagues have shared with me over and again how congregants are turning to them and saying, "Again, I just don't want to do this." It's like enough. And to nail you know what your average Israeli would say in response to that. I'm not going to be my lavage Israeli and I'm going to turn to you and I want to say, "I love you, I need you." And I understand that Israel is a burden right now. And I understand that it's really hard. And I understand that a whole generation of Jews, the only prime minister they know is a prime minister that they can't identify with. And that Israel so often violates your liberal principles and your liberal values. And now again, so here I want to channel the Yossi. And I want to channel maybe the Purim story. You know, sometimes we don't get to pick. I appreciate there are moments when you could walk or you're not walking away, but where you could just say, "I don't want to be bothered right now." But there are moments where Jewish history demands that you show up. And if there could be a way for you to expand your heart. And connect to one of our core responsibilities to each other when 93% of Israeli Jews are telling you, "This is a Milchemet Mitzvah." Those on the left and on the right, this is a war, an obligatory war. And I don't know how it's going to end. And we don't know if it's going to bring a brand new future, but we have to give it a try. And so with all the inner politics and struggles, I think this is a time where you have to find just that little extra strength. Jewish history will judge you, I believe, at this moment. We should be standing together. So my friends, Yossi, last word? You just said it to Nail. Thank you. Thank you, my friends, and thank you Yossi, and from the case for war to the war itself. Be well and be safe. Cheers to death, ice. Cheers to death, and here we are. I traveled to Washington, D.C. for a Jews against Ice Rally, where ideas met urgency, and the Jewish community united around the issue of protecting our neighbors. In coalitions, you come together about what you can agree on, and it might be that you don't agree on other things, but that's how we win. Join us as we wrestle with what it means to raise our voices and why showing up matters. Listen to On Not Standing Idly By, a new episode of Identity Crisis, wherever you get your podcasts. Here are some other things that are happening at the Shalom Hartman Institute. This past Monday morning, Danielle Hartman joined Journalist and Hartman Board Member Abby Pograbin for an important conversation about the war with Iran and the implications for Israel and the region. Watch her recording at the link in the show notes. Applications for the fifth cohort of the Hartman Teen Fellowship are now open. One current fellow said the following about the program. Participating in the Hartman Teen Fellowship this year exposed me to the biggest Jewish peer group I've ever been a part of. Not to mention the most interested, excited to learn, and knowledgeable Jewish teens I've ever met. To apply or send the application to a teen you know, click on the link in the show notes or visit our website. On Thursday March 12th, the Hartman Institute will be hosting a virtual day of learning entitled in the face of cruelty, Jewish responsibilities to neighbors and strangers. Join us for five sessions with Hartman Scholars, including a live identity crisis recording and sessions with Aaron Dorfman and Daniel Ethwick. To illuminate how our tradition strengthens our response to this moment of profound moral urgency. We will explore how Jewish ethics, human dignity, and our responsibilities to one another guide us in responding to today's crisis. Find out more about the day of learning at the link in the show notes. As you know, for Heaven's sake is part of ARK Media. It's an extended universe of podcasts that includes dance nor is call me back and what's your number. ARK Media is growing with a specific goal in mind, becoming the Jewish town square, a place for meaningful conversation and debate and for fostering a real connection throughout Israel and the Jewish world. To better build this, our friends at ARK Media asked us to share a listener survey with you. The survey takes only a couple of minutes to fill out and is entirely anonymous. Your answers will give the ARK team a better understanding of what can be improved and what needs building. These surveys will really make a difference. Also, as an additional incentive, if you complete the survey, you can opt in to win a special gift box from Jerusalem. The link for the survey is in the show notes. Thank you. For Heaven's sake is a product of the Shalom Harman Institute and ARK Media. It is produced by me, Daniel Goodman, with help from Miriam Jacobs, a Dar Taylor Shector, and a Viva Katmanor, and studio support from GoLive Media. Our episode was edited by Seth Stein. Natal Friedman is our executive producer, and our music was composed by you, Paul Samman. As the episodes can be found at ARKMedia.org, where you can explore more of ARK Media's podcasts. You can watch the video versions of our episodes on our YouTube channel. Follow the YouTube link in the show notes. Also, to receive updates on new episodes, please follow the link to ARKMedia.org and subscribe to ARK Media's weekly newsletter. For more ideas from the Shalom Harman Institute, visit our website at www.shalomharman.org.