Author Archives: Rabbi

At the end of the day – a long “day” in that the Pope’s visit to Israel lasted barely 30 hours – the papal visit was short on substance and long on theatrics, unless one considers, and with some justification, that theatrics is substance in the thinking of many. Certainly, the Pope has influence but not power (still lacking the military prowess to enforce his will, to paraphrase Stalin), but even his influence is limited. As his public appearances here in Israel were limited to select audiences, and naturally heavily weighted to visiting official or Christian sites, the impact to the average citizen was mainly in the form of snarled traffic and closed roads, all due to the intense security generated by his brief stay.

While security is always warranted, and no one desires any unfortunate incident, from my vantage point it tends to be exaggerated. (Did the Kotel – the Western Wall – have to be closed to the public for five hours?) Much ado was made about the childish pranks of mostly young people spraying graffiti and making idle threats, with a handful of people even being placed in administrative detention to prevent them from indulging any negative inclinations. It does give them more attention than they deserve. But much of that even marginal hostility is just the legacy of a bitter and painful history that Jews have had with the Christian world for the better part of two millennia. And it is marginal. Jews properly remember the past, but we need not be paralyzed by it.

Such is easier felt by American Jews today whose experiences with Christians, especially for at least the last half century, have been amicable, if not even amiable. As noted here in the past, and citing the late Irving Kristol, “the danger facing American Jews today is not that Christians want to persecute them but that Christians want to marry them.” That is even truer today than when he said it forty years ago. Thus, the American Jewish experience with Christianity is unique and unprecedented. It has much to do with the First Amendment’s proscription on an official national religion, and even more to do with how American Christianity has evolved.

That relationship never existed in Europe where the scars are real, and does not generally exist even today in Europe where Christianity is in decline due to rampant secularism and the rise of Islam. But for Jews of European background who endured only the hardships of life with Christians and never enjoyed the American experience, the history is still painful, even agonizing. Hence the fringe opposition to the Pope’s visit, which of course passed without any significant protest, but also the ongoing opposition to any cooperation with Christians on any project of joint interest and even the rejection by some of Christian charitable endeavors. The fears of past persecution and proselytizing loom that large.

Of course, the visit – simply by virtue of the fact that it took place – was not innocuous, and these celebrity summits always carry the potential for more mischief for Israel than for any meaningful achievements. And so it was here, aided by an exasperating moral equivalence that is the Pope’s (perhaps any pope’s) stock-in-trade. Anything that presents the Palestinian Authority in the guise of a state, or even as a reasonable interlocutor, hurts Israel. Worse, the Pope’s brief stop – for prayer – at the border wall that surrounds Bethlehem played into the Arab narrative as victims of an oppressive Israel. Certainly, Israel’s countermove by having Pope Francis make a similar stop at the terror victim’s memorial at Mount Herzl Cemetery was a brilliant stroke. But it didn’t quite erase the moral obtuseness implicit in lamenting a barrier that has aided in the prevention of Arab suicide bombings of Jews. Is such inherently unfair? Is it not sporting of Israel to give the Arabs a better shot at killing Jews? If indeed the Arabs seek an independent state, do not most states have borders with fences, walls and official crossings? Would the Pope also lament the imposition on mankind of searches at airports, all because of the threat of Muslim terror?

There is a certain unwordliness that surrounds the Pope’s pronouncements, but each call for a two-state solution is oblivious to the reality on the ground. Neither party wants two states, although Israel in its weakest and foolish moments would settle for two. But no one believes it would last, and so the call for the creation of a Palestinian state remains a codeword for the destruction of Israel, as it always has been.

Indeed, the greatest danger the Pope faced here was being inundated by the deluge of clichés and platitudes, much of his own making. The persistent desire to split the difference, to see everything in balance, and especially to never, ever distinguish between aggressors and victims does an injustice to Jews and to history. It reminded me of an encounter I had many years ago as an attorney, representing a young woman expelled from her Catholic high school because an ex-boyfriend showed up at her school carrying a knife and up to no good. She was expelled because her mere presence brought the boy with the knife into the building, even though she didn’t invite him, didn’t want him there and was likely to be the target of his wrath. When I said that she was the victim here and did nothing wrong, I was told by the chief nun: “Victim or aggressor, what’s the difference?” To which I responded: “If you do not distinguish between the victim and the aggressor, then that certainly explains a lot about our history.” (By the way, my entreaties fell on deaf ears.)

The call for peace, an end to war, violence, unfriendliness and the like is always welcome but ultimately meaningless when confronted by an evil enemy that literally sacrifices its own children to murder other children. “Turn the other cheek” is great advice in theory, but Christians have never practiced it and Jews have not fared well under those regimes which advocated it. Mourning the Holocaust and proclaiming “Never Again!” – as the Pope did, and even sincerely – will not prevent the murder of one Jew, or for that matter, the murder or terrorization of Christians who are also targets of radical Islam across the world, in Nigeria and elsewhere.

Yet, this new custom of every Pope visiting Israel will endure, and these encounters do buttress Israel’s self-image. Pope Francis is a man of contrasts – CEO of a multi-billion dollar enterprise who embraces a simple lifestyle, and yet advocates for a redistribution of wealth that plays well in the Third World but would undoubtedly harm his major donors. As an outsider, it is interesting for me to watch the aura that surrounds him, in which the faithful immediately ascribe perfection to him and deem him a welcome improvement over his predecessor – who of course received the exact same treatment when he was invested with the office. This is an observation, not a criticism. It is an office that is replete with symbolism, and at the top of the list of symbols on this trip was the Pope laying a wreath at the grave of Theodor Herzl, a sort-of apology for the dismissal of Herzl and his vision by Pope Pius X in 1904. I am not sure the wreath did much good for Herzl, or, for that matter, for the course of Jewish history in the 20^th century, but I assume he meant well.

It is fascinating that for all the disruptions and all the hoopla, nothing changes. The Pope has come and gone, the hopeful rhetoric enunciated but just as far from realization.

Ironically, for some Israelis less committed to Torah, the Pope represents a religion that they can take seriously. I still recall Leah Rabin visiting John Paul II in Rome, demurely covering her head with a scarf in his presence, a courtesy she certainly never extended to Israel’s Chief Rabbis. Shimon Peres actually fawned over Pope Francis, and it was somewhat unsettling to see that, on the receiving line at Ben Gurion airport, the only person wearing a yarmulke was the Catholic.

But perhaps, amid all the diplomatic theater, the Pope’s visit will cause some Jews to better tend to their own vineyards, take a second look at the Torah, and recall that G-d’s word emerges from Yerushalayim, and nowhere else. It is that word that shapes, sustains and enriches Jewish life, not the slings of our foes or the praise of our friends.

Many of those in the US and across the world who resented America acting as the world’s policeman are already seeing the consequences of a world that has no policeman at all. President Obama’s policy of US retreat from engagement with the world’s rogues has been a boon for those rogues, and has not resulted in any domestic dividends either.

The foreign policy debacles are obvious and ongoing. Russia is eating Obama’s lunch and gradually reconstructing the Soviet empire.  As Ukraine is whittled down in size, the Baltic States (all hosting substantial “Russian” populations) fear they will be next, followed by the Eastern European states that will seek shelter under a Russian sphere of influence in order to deter a clandestine invasion. (A new phenomenon that challenges the willfully blind: soldiers who wear masks so we don’t really “know” –wink, wink – from which country they come. That ensures the passivity of the countries that have an interest in freedom but a stronger interest in maintaining cordial business relations with the Russians.)

Iraq – as was predicted and predictable – has descended into chaos, with parts of the country already dominated by the Iranians and other parts functioning as al Qaeda strongholds. American influence is nil and all so that Obama could say he ended Bush’s war. Imagine, for a moment, that Harry Truman had sued for peace with Germany and Japan after assuming office, claiming that he did not want to fight FDR’s wars, because both countries posed no further threat to the United States. Continuity in diplomacy makes for greater coherence in international relations and more stability among allies. That continuity has been shattered, and today, few allies, if any, rely on the US in any meaningful way.

The question posed this week in the Economist – “What would America fight for?” – is a good one. One would assume an attack on the homeland would generate some response, but even that is not entirely clear given the present difficulty in determining with any certainty the provenance of an attack.

Iran openly mocks the US diplomatic efforts and has no intention of halting its march to a nuclear weapon. Negotiations per se are considered a worthy diplomatic accomplishment even if America’s strategic positions are degraded as a result. Talk is great if it prevents war; these talks will prevent war in the short term, as the enemy’s intention is to achieve their objectives without war and through those endless talks.

Ditto for Iran’s ally Syria. That rogue state is openly contemptuous of Obama’s threats and red lines. By many accounts, it has recently used chemical weapons against its citizens – again – but the Obama administration’s tactic is to turn its head, as if to say, if we don’t acknowledge it, then it hasn’t happened. That is not a policy as much as it is an incentive to evildoers, who, strange it sounds, occasionally lie about their intentions as well. Unquestionably Obama’s unctuous backtracking, and his enlistment of Russia to bail him out of that self-created predicament, emboldened Putin to execute his plan, now armed with proof that Obama is a lightweight.

Israel has wisely rejected America’s entreaties to surrender its land and make more concessions to its enemies. One can only pray that it will retain its backbone, national pride and patrimony. More interestingly, Israel has in the last few years re-oriented (literally) its trade policy, and within less than five years Asia (primarily China and India) will surpass North America as Israel’s leading trade partner. And so it goes across the globe.

Is there a place in the world where America today is more feared, respected or admired than, say, six years ago? I haven’t found it. Nations that are isolationist tend to find themselves isolated over time, as other nations seek out more reliable partners in order to promote its national interests. The Obama Doctrine, apparently, has only one principle: he wants to be the first president in memory not to send any American soldier into battle in a conflict of his own choosing. Our foes have realized that, and the liberties they are taking within their own countries (Syria, Iraq, Iran) and outside their borders (Russia, China) are the natural consequence.

For sure, Obama sees no primary role for America on the world scene, a corollary of his discomfort with the notion of American exceptionalism. A nation like all nations – as exceptional as is Greece – does not intervene in the domestic affairs of other nations, no matter the brutality of those nations to their own people or the jeopardizing of American interests. Thus, the arsenal of US diplomacy, which once ranged from guns to butter, now consists of several weapons: sarcasm, supplications, nasty words, and the nuclear option, nasty words accompanied by a scowl.

Most international problems are thwarted through deterrence because, as in many of crisis points listed here, once the bad guys act, options become very limited. It is thus the deterrence which has the most effect, short-term and long-term, and America’s deterrence capacity is moribund. Obama’s hackneyed and repetitive response – “which war would you like to start?” – underscores his indifference to governance and the loss of America’s international esteem. A recent poll, for the first time, failed to list the American president as among the world’s top ten leaders. That is as unsurprising as it is dangerous and humiliating.

Obama seems most comfortable in the ceremonial aspects of his job, and the perks of travel, hobnobbing with celebrities and the ubiquitous fund-raising. He is ill-suited to the tasks of policy-making, consensus-building, negotiation or challenging any group in his constituency for the greater good of the nation. The half-decade stall on the Keystone pipeline or this week’s announcement that the government wishes to revert to relaxing credit requirements so housing loans can again be made to people who cannot afford to repay them do little more than solicit the votes of two important Democratic voting blocs (environmentalists and the poor, respectively). The war on women and the income inequality scam are hardy election year perennials that continue to succeed in a populace undistinguished by its faculties of critical thinking. Obama seemed more outraged by the rhetoric of Donald Sterling than by the actions of Vladimir Putin.

But these domestic issues pale before the dangers on the world scene. Like many bad presidents, he likely will have the luxury of eluding the inexorable consequences of his incompetence while still in office (think Fillmore, Pierce and Buchanan, whose lassitude made the Civil War inevitable, but that erupted under Lincoln’s watch). For example, unless there is some military action from a third-party, the next president will have to deal with an Iranian bomb. Gentlemen all, the Iranians will at least have the courtesy to refrain from exploding their nuclear device until their patron’s term is over.

Then it will be someone else’s problem. Like all the rest of us. No Churchill or Thatcher, no FDR or Reagan, loom on the horizon. America, and the free world, deserve better.