In November of 2005, Alan Dershowitz addressed a crowd of a few thousand Chabad rabbis gathered at their annual conference at the New York Hilton. He spoke about how he had been influenced by the last great leader of Chabad, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, who had passed away some 11 years previously.

Dershowitz has always been a person of strong opinions, ready and able to take on unpopular cases as long as he sees the need and the right. A highly accomplished barrister, he is used to persuading others, and not renowned for being easily persuadable himself.

That is especially true if the matter at hand has to do with things dear to his heart. One of the dearest of things to Dershowitz’s heart has been the defense of his religion and of Israel. So when Dershowitz had seen in the papers that Chabad was honoring Senator Jesse Helms at an  affair in Washington, DC, Dershowitz was infuriated. Helms, he felt, stood against all he thought was best in America, and in particular, he was unfriendly to Israel. How could a Jewish group and its famous leader invite such a man as guest of honor?

Dershowitz told how he took his anger directly to Rabbi Schneerson, popularly known just as the Rebbe. He admitted to the rabbis in 2005 that his letter was embarrassingly intemperate. He asked the “how could you?” — How could you, Rebbe, possibly honor a man who was so opposed to Jewish values and to the embattled Jewish state?

Dershowitz summarized the Rebbe’s reply:

And I received a letter back from the Rebbe, a very, very respectful letter; a letter that I cherish for its content. And he lectured me, but in the nicest way, telling me that you never give up on anybody. You never, ever give up on somebody. Today Jesse Helms may be against Israel, but tomorrow, if we know how to approach him and speak to him, maybe he will turn out to be a champion of Israel.

Today, there a many who are experiencing turmoil and anger as both political parties are undergoing deep internal challenges about what they stand for. Each party is being challenged by a revived and assertive American antisemitism.

The turmoil of our political opponents doesn’t bother us excessively, though, as Ben Shapiro wisely cautions, if the Dems go completely Mamdani, we are all one recession election away from a national disaster.

What does bother us acutely, though, as it did Dershowitz, is when someone we believe to be on our own side seems to have moved away from what unites us and is acting in ways we passionately believe will bring us harm. This feels like betrayal, and it summons forth powerful anger.

It’s a very real issue right now, and understanding how this works can help to clarify, to ourselves at least, what is happening. When figures who had been effective and courageous allies now seem to have deserted the allied cause, we must be one step ahead of the natural and powerful anger that is an instinctive reaction to betrayal. Anger takes over like a well-practiced soldier; reflection goes out the window and we jump into the split second to fight for our lives.

To abandon to ourselves to this angry spiral endangers ourselves and our cause. Fundamentally so, for to cast off into the red-hot reaction that comes so naturally is to surrender our agency to our anger and hurt. There is no greater hurt to freedom than when we unnecessarily surrender our own ability to affect things for the better. We betray our own selves by putting on the red mask.

This does not mean to be imprudent or worse, letting go of reality for the self-medication of wishful thinking. It may well be that we cannot bring about change, and we must vigorously act to protect our legitimate and rightful interests. But we won’t know what the real opportunities are if we haven’t seriously explored the possibilities for effective action due to giving ourselves over to reflexive anger. Addiction to anger is an all too common human failing. It is part of our own personal moral responsibility to break the power of that addiction. Its effect on our politics is observable and it isn’t good.

There is an anger that is righteous. It is not the product of addiction. It is a proper and rational response to threats that cannot be addressed well without it. It is a powerful tool to be used with great care. It is the emotional equivalent to war — we must be prepared to engage in it, but we pray that our preparedness will deter our enemies and move the disagreement towards a less violent mode of resolution.

It is rare that real friends suddenly morph into ruthless enemies who cannot be deterred short of war. What is much more common is that with an effort, we may be able to open up better and deeper lines of communication and relation than we have yet done or imagined.

That is the message that the Rebbe gave Dershowitz in his reply. By not writing off Sen. Jesse Helms as an enemy, by keeping lines of communication open, he came around. As Dershowitz explains, “I had my doubts about it, but as they say, the rest is history. Although I still disagree with Jesse Helms on many issues, when it comes to Israel, he has become our champion.”

When we think of great and successful politicians, we see they had a way of reaching people no one expected could be reached.

Ronald Reagan reached the people the Reagan Democrats — common-sense working people and life-long Democrats who were buoyed by his confidence in them. He was a master communicator and he touched peoples’ hearts, and so won twice, the second time with the greatest landslide in the history of our presidency.

Trump has done the same kind of barrier-crossing. Despite his prickliness, he cobbled together a winning coalition by his very different but still powerful communication skills. We can learn from Trump that expressing opinions on controversial matters is part of communication. We can make a deal that is real when the real issues that must be settled are there on the table for all to discuss.

The Rebbe did not ask Dershowitz to abdicate his opinions. Instead, he focused on the key, an idea that is thoroughly biblical and central to our Western civilization — we have a loving responsibility to our fellows.

This is true on every level. It starts in establishing a loving home, the basis of a living democracy, a home that is not only the training ground of future good citizens, but something prior to it — it is the place where the couple’s loving bond becomes so great that it brings new citizens into the world. From the home, this loving responsibility establishes a series of other relationships, less intensely intimate, but vital for a thriving society — local communities, religious associations, charitable organizations, and the like. And finally, our concentric circles of government — local, state, and federal. All are built on the foundational love that makes political freedom and self-government possible.

All these concentric levels are animated by the hope that our biblical heritage inspires — no one can be left behind by us. People may deny themselves redemption — such is the nature of the freedom God gives humanity — but it is a cardinal duty of each person to refuse to be a party in that denial. And unconstrained anger, addictive anger, spurns that duty.

I am animated by the same issues Dershowitz cited here. They are central to my concerns. They are at the religious core of my life.

I feel deep emotion over the surge of antisemitism that is rising even among those who have been allies. I don’t pretend that a man who continuously espouses medieval conspiracy theories and who embraces the modern blood libel — that Israel’s defense of itself against the Hamas exterminationists is “genocide” —is not properly described as an antisemite. Henry Ford, who funded the fledgling Nazi party in the 1920s and who required everyone who wanted to do business with him to read a summary of the Tsarist forgery The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, also felt hurt when criticized as an antisemite, and was seemingly sincere in his hurt. Many people who have done bad things have been sincere. Our humanity is terribly complex.

But I accept that my goal must be as the Rebbe said — you never give up.

Starting with myself: I cannot surrender the freedom that God gives. And that must be devoted to leaving no one behind — we can expand our effectiveness at this most basic challenge as long as we are alive.

This is not a weak refusal to deal with evil. We reserve the freedom to use anger if that is the only way to be true to our love of others who may be unjustly threatened — or if we ourselves are put in danger.

It is rather an affirmation of our deepest freedom, the one that no tyrant can take from us.

May we never give it up. And may God bless our effort so that, like Dershowitz with Helms, we may live to see our enemies changed into vibrant, leading members of our cause.

READ MORE from Shmuel Klatzkin:

Wendell Berry Shows Us How To Love in Loss

Trivializing Religion Left Us Unprepared for Political Islam

False Confidence Against Jihadism

, 2025-11-23 03:20:00, , The American Spectator | USA News and Politics, %%https://spectator.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/12/cropped-favicon-32×32.png, https://spectator.org/feed/, Shmuel Klatzkin