There is much to admire in William Daroff’s account of Jewish organizational response in the aftermath of October 7. The swift mobilization, the coordination with government, the defense of Jewish students and synagogues—these reflect experience and commitment at a time when both are desperately needed.
But this moment also requires a different kind of leadership. Not only the ability to act under pressure, but the willingness to look back with honesty. What has worked? What has not? And have we, as a community, been too slow to ask these questions?
Take the issue of campus antisemitism. For years, the strategy has followed a familiar and troubling cycle. An incident erupts. A film is produced featuring students or recent graduates describing their ordeals. A series of conferences and panel discussions follow, focused on awareness, solidarity, and long-term planning. Then a new academic year begins. A new group of students arrives. And the cycle starts all over again.
At what point do we stop repeating this loop and start asking whether the underlying strategy is broken? Have we allowed ourselves to confuse messaging with impact? Have we put more energy into documenting the crisis than into actually disrupting it?
This is not about assigning blame. It is about accountability. It is about ensuring that the very institutions we have trusted for decades are still aligned with the challenges we now face. When the core assumptions behind communal strategy are no longer sufficient, courage demands that we confront that reality, however uncomfortable it may be.
Daroff rightly reminds us that legacy institutions bring relationships, infrastructure, and staying power. But legacy is not the same as immunity. Have we built systems that welcome dissenting voices, that reward innovation, and that challenge the inertia of comfort? Or have we created an echo chamber that replicates itself every few years while the problems deepen?
The Jewish people have faced catastrophe before. We have endured. But the measure of our leadership now is not only how quickly we respond to crisis. It is how seriously we reflect on the decisions that preceded it. Were we prepared? Were we honest about the threats? And are we willing, finally, to recalibrate?
The Jewish people will be best served if we push our institutions, old and new alike, to constantly evaluate their effectiveness. Not out of cynicism, but out of commitment. Not to tear down, but to strengthen. The future demands no less.
