Author Archives: Rabbi

Trump (not) for President

Posted on May 12, 2011 | 3 comments

      Donald Trump is set to announce within the next two weeks his intentions regarding the upcoming presidential election. He has flirted with running, posed as a candidate on the stump, and even gained media attention and respectable poll numbers. Here’s why he won’t run for president:

     He can’t win, neither the general election nor the Republican nomination, and shrewd, successful businessman do not haphazardly squander their resources on lost causes.

      Trump can’t win, and won’t run, for a number of reasons. As a lifelong Democrat (until very recently) he has no history with the Republican voter, and no visible connection with either Republican officeholders or policies. Granted that in New York being a Democrat is countercultural, owing to the moribund condition of the NY Republican Party (moribund is an overstatement). A businessman who wants to curry favor and contracts with local government is a Democrat by default. Such might be true in a New York context, but does not play well nationally. His political past will catch up to him on the stump.

      Furthermore, beyond the bluster and the populist rhetoric (which appeals to the media far more than to the average voter), Trump has little to offer the Republican voter. His record is largely unknown on the “moral” issues that interest a large percentage of the conservative vote, but likely more liberal than will play in much of the Republican base. A skilled communicator, he is able to concisely summarize the American frustration with a host of intractable problems – China, radical Islam, etc. – and articulate those frustrations in a colorful way, but he is noticeably slender on solutions or even approaches. “Slap a 25% tariff on Chinese goods!” – a wonderful tactic that, implemented, will enrage the American consumer who enjoys the inexpensive Chinese products, and induce the Chinese to close their huge market to American products. The Chinese, being an unfree society, are much more capable of absorbing economic hardship than are Americans. So the threat sounds good, but is ultimately toothless.

    Trump’s personal life is checkered, to say the least, and one that is off-putting (rightly or wrongly) to the average Republican voter. The estimable Newt Gingrich himself suffers from a similar circumstance, and Trump is Newt without the ideas. What might not matter in a presidential election often is a central issue in a primary campaign. And the mere fact that Trump is subordinating his presidential ambitions until his television show completes its season bespeaks a lack of seriousness about the Presidency. That itself is a reflection of the impoverished state of the polity wherein “celebrities” are the choicest candidates – and policies, accomplishments and gravitas are secondary and tertiary considerations.

     Trump is also a businessman, meaning that he runs a business that caters to a specific clientele. When he begins taking positions on issues – pro/anti-abortion, pro/anti -same-sex marriage, pro/anti -war, pro/anti – enhanced interrogations, pro/anti – tax increases, pro/anti – indefinite unemployment insurance – he runs the risk of alienating his customer base, committed to one side or another on any issue. There are many casinos and even more television shows from which people can choose if they are dismayed by the politics of any entrepreneur.

    His strongest asset – besides the outsized personality – has always been the marketing of his name, associated with glitz, glamour, success, and opulence. But what if the “name” is far more substantive than the portfolio ? A presidential candidate is expected to reveal all his present finances, as well as his financial history. Trump has had his share of successes – and very public failures, including near bankruptcy that require extensive reorganization of his holdings.  What if the Trump empire rests on shaky foundations ? Or, imagine if banks owned more of Trump than Trump did, or that his expenditures for long periods of time far exceeded his revenues. If that were the case, Trump would be no more than a microcosm of the American government, with little credibility on the small matter of the pending insolvency of the American government. It is therefore extremely unlikely that he would want to disclose his entire financial world.

     Certainly, the United States has had businessmen who ran for president. The last person who ran for president having never been elected to any office – and an industrialist and lawyer at that – was Wendell Wilkie, who gained the Republican nomination in 1940 and lost to FDR by 5,000,000 votes (out of 50,000,000 cast). The electoral defeat was a landslide, with FDR defeating Wilkie by 449-82. Since then, every nominee has been a politician – with the outlier exception of the war hero Eisenhower. That  is not necessarily a good thing; since the presidency is the highest political office in the land, it makes some sense that a politician should seek it.

     The other example, perhaps more apposite here, is Ross Perot – another populist, outlandish, colorful businessman who inserted himself into the 1992 presidential race – and at one point in June 1992 even led in the polls. He also financed his campaign by reaching into his personal fortune. But the glare of publicity, the lack of any specificity in his platform, and his perceived eccentricity doomed his candidacy. (Perot turned out to be the “crazy aunt in the attic” he often spoke of.) He wound up with 19% of the vote – the most by any third-party candidate – but without any electoral votes. He also handed the presidency to Bill Clinton, who defeated George H.W. Bush by just 43% to 39%. Would Bush have defeated Clinton if Perot had not been in the race ? That remains a very open debate and an unanswerable question, but it easily could have changed the electoral vote dynamics in Bush’s favor.

    As no third-party candidate has ever won election, it is not expected that Trump would run as a third-party candidate. But if he did, he might have the opposite effect of the Perot candidacy. Rather than swing the election away from the incumbent to the challenger (as Perot arguably did), a third-party Trump candidacy would hand the election to the incumbent, assuming  with some logic that Trump voters would not vote for Obama but might have voted for the Republican challenger. But Trump won’t run as a third-party candidate – for the same reason Mike Bloomberg didn’t in 2008: you can’t win, and so it is a waste of time and money. In fact, he won’t run at all.

    So why the tease ? It is good for business. Even pretending to run promotes the Trump brand, far more than would actually running. So look for Trump to announce with much fanfare on his television show finale (or soon after) that he is not running for president but that he, as a businessman, will focus on the more magnanimous act of creating jobs and wealth for others, and that he will support the candidate who has the best plan to create jobs, balance the budget, reverse the deficit, keep American strong, etc. The ratings will be through the roof, and Republicans will return to the less enthralling task of finding a real candidate and viable opponent to President Obama. The White House would love to run against Trump; that is why they mention him frequently, and why they ignore those they consider potential threats like Huckabee, Romney or Gingrich.

   Unless, of course, the pleasures of the ego and the national spotlight prove to be irresistible. In that case, please disregard the above, and only read it when Trump drops out of the race next February.

3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Embracing the Enemy’s Narrative

Posted on May 8, 2011 | 1 comment

(This was first published in the Jewish Press)

Date: Wednesday, May 04 2011

Reportedly, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had been preparing to unveil new Israeli diplomatic initiatives – including the possibility of further territorial withdrawals from Judea and Samaria and even the recognition of a provisional Palestinian state – before last week’s bombshell announcement of a Hamas-Fatah rapprochement.

Even without this latest development, such concessions would have been the wrong moves at the wrong time, for a variety of reasons. Indeed, these initiatives are throwbacks to the unique Israeli policy of preemptive surrender that has been the bane of Israelis for almost two decades.

In the face of relentless intransigence from an enemy who refuses to negotiate, much less to concede anything, Israel’s prime ministers (since the Oslo process began) have felt a compelling need to bypass negotiations and gradually yield to their adversaries everything they seek. It was an error that led to thousands of deaths and injuries through terror and caused the downfall of the first Netanyahu government, and it is as bizarre as it sounds.

Certainly with the Arab world in turmoil, Israel should be focused on preparing to engage a new and changed neighborhood. While Westerners hope, perhaps naively, for the emergence of democratizing forces in the Arab world, it is as likely – if not more likely – that radical Islamic forces will seize control in several countries, including Egypt, Tunisia, Libya, Yemen, and perhaps even Syria.

And with Lebanon already in the throes of its own radical Muslims, Gaza tyrannized by a Hamas that is eager to expand its influence into Israel’s heartland, Europe finally responding to the Islamic onslaught that is overwhelming its culture and undermining its stability, and the United States reeling under economic woes that will dominate the coming presidential election campaign, the further weakening of Israel’s strategic posture serves no rational purpose.

In fact, Israel is currently an oasis of stability in a region that is erupting like a volcano. Even with the recent upswing in Arab terror, Israel’s military presence in the Arab cities of Judea and Samaria has effectively clamped down on the enemy’s violent tendencies. The security cooperation with the Palestinian Authority has also helped, though based on past results that might be a temporary and strategic lull that garners the Arabs plaudits, money, training and weaponry, all to be deployed, potentially, in a future conflict.

The Oslo debacle should have imparted several valuable lessons to Israel, among them: do not delegate your security to the enemy; concessions of whatever nature simply whet the appetite for more concessions; do not expect any concessions to win you favorable world publicity beyond one news cycle; and the maximum concessions one makes at any stage simply serve as the starting point for the next round of concessions.

Certainly the present uncertainty of the Egyptian-Israel peace treaty should give pause to those who would put their trust in pieces of paper signed by unelected autocrats with unclear futures.

The fear of the declaration of a Palestinian state in the fall is overblown, especially if Israel counters with unilateral actions of its own that put facts on the ground and strengthen its strategic position, and not that of the enemy. Israel has the stronger hand, and will have it for the foreseeable future; it just has to play it intelligently.

The secular mindset, however, persists in analyzing the conflict through a purely secular lens, and cannot even entertain, and certainly not embrace, the reality that the Middle East is roiling because of religious conflict (not a dispute over land and nationalism) and that Israel’s foes perceive the conflict as religious, and not secular, in nature.

Nonetheless, there are broader reasons why these “peace” efforts are so misguided. It is bad enough that Israel’s leaders are again considering the further surrender of the biblical heartland of Israel promised by God to our forefathers and their Jewish descendants for eternity. It is even worse that they endorse unthinkingly and uncritically the historical narrative advanced by their enemies.

 

* * * * *
 
Before we embrace the “inevitability of a Palestinian state,” the “legitimate rights of the Palestinian people,” “justice for the Palestinians” and the narrative of “two peoples fighting over one land,” we should have a reality check.

For starters, try to name a “Palestinian” thinker from the 12th century, or a writer from the 13th century, or an artist from the 14th century, or a poet from the 15th century, or a builder from the 16th century, or a scholar from the 17th century, or a merchant from the 18th centuryor a judge from the 19th century. The Palestinians are a 20th century fabrication – and not even an early 20th century fabrication.

For much of the first half of the 20th century, the Jews of the land of Israel were derided by their neighbors as Palestinians, while the Arab inhabitants of the land had no national identity. Palestinian Arab nationalism arose simply as a counterweight to Jewish nationalism. Its sole objective was to prevent the establishment of a Jewish state. As such, it is unsurprising that the “Palestinians” rejected the UN Partition Plan in 1947 – their goal was to thwart the Jewish state, which partition endorsed.

Seen from this perspective, it is even less surprising that after the 1948 War of Independence, there was no indigenous Palestinian national movement in the territories that fell under Arab control. Jordan annexed Judea and Samaria and Egypt annexed Gaza. There was no reason for either country to be solicitous of a Palestinian national movement – it did not exist, either in the world of politics or the world of ideas. When Golda Meir famously stated that “there is no such thing as a Palestinian people,” she was right. But even she did not fully realize how right she was.

Rav Zvi Tau, rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Har Hamor and one of the leading disciples of HaRav Zvi Yehuda Kook, zt”l, writes in his classic For the Faith of Our Times (Le’emunat Eetainu, Volume I) that today’s “Palestinians” are remarkably similar to their namesakes, the Philistines of biblical times. (Of course, there is no biological or historical relationship. It is ironic that the name “Palestine” was slapped onto the land of Israel by the conquering Romans in the second century CE in their effort to eradicate any Jewish presence in the land. The Palestinians have simply adopted the Roman legacy for their own purposes.)

 

* * * * *
 
So, who were the Philistines?

Interestingly, they are not mentioned as one of the seventy nations that descended from Noach, though they do figure in that account (Genesis 10): “And Egypt begat Ludim, and Anamim and Patrusim and Casluchim whence the Philistines came forth ” All the other nations are designated by the phrase “yalad” – begat – whereas the Philistines “yatz’u misham” – came forth. What is the difference?

Rashi comments (10:14) that the Patrusim and Casluchim swapped wives – illicit even in the ancient world – and those relations spawned the Philistines. In other words, the Philistines did not have a normal identity or origin. They did not have to exist as a nation, and they had no place among the seventy nations. They had no real existence or culture, nor did they contribute anything to civilization. They had only one purpose – they were a pseudo-nation that existed only to challenge the Jewish right to the land of Israel.

Indeed, the Philistines fulfilled their role with a vengeance, challenging Abraham, Isaac, Joshua and the Judges, and the first Jewish monarch, King Saul, until they were vanquished by King David.

In effect, the Philistines were an obstruction to the national destiny of Israel, but they existed in order to enable David’s kingdom to flourish. As Rav Kook explained, every human development has to be coaxed into existence, including the sovereignty of the Jewish people in the land of Israel. To ensure that we remain focused on the national objective of Torah – building a model and moral state that is a beacon of God’s morality to mankind – we were provided with a nemesis to guarantee that Jewish national aspirations would never lose sight of the ultimate goal and squander our resources in frivolous endeavors.

Because of the Philistines, we were constantly under siege, and our national identity incessantly challenged. Once Jewish sovereignty was established and fully grounded, and reached its climax in the kingship of David and Solomon, the Philistines, their historical function complete, disappeared.

 

* * * * *
 
Fast forward to the 20th century. With the Jewish national movement in full gear, its counterforce had to be created as well, again to guarantee that the Jewish people actualize and implement its nationalistic ambitions – this time in realization of the ancient vision of the prophets of Israel.

In that milieu, a Palestinian people arose – to goad us, to provoke us, to induce in our people a willingness to sacrifice for the land of Israel, one of God’s gifts to the Jewish people and one that is only acquired through suffering.

It is nearly twenty years since the Oslo futility (and more than sixty since Israel’s independence). The Palestinians have received billions of dollars in international aid – and have still not liquidated even one refugee camp. They still have no indicia of real nationhood and almost no industry except terror. They only came into the world when the Jewish national home was realized, and their entry onto the world stage was through airplane hijackings, kidnappings, threats, murder and terror, which they have since refined via the use of suicide bombers, lynchings and slitting the throats of infants sleeping in their cribs.

For all the glowing reports of world organizations, they are ill equipped for statehood but quite ready to continue their war against Israel from even better circumstances.

In the song of Ha’azinu (Deuteronomy 32:21), Moses chastises the Jewish people – in God’s name – for their future disloyalty: “They provoked Me with a non-god (b’lo el) so I shall provoke them with a non-people (b’lo am).”

Israel is surrounded by nations that have identities and culture, some of short duration and others of longer duration, but within the borders of the land of Israel, the Jews are threatened by a group without any real national identity – a group that is not even seriously reckoned as a nation by other Arab countries.

From the moment we entered the land of Israel in Abraham’s time until the monarchy of David, the Philistines served their function as a divine rod to ensure we did not lose sight of the goals of the Jewish national home. Without bearing any historical or actual connection, it is nevertheless eerie that today’s Palestinians will never be satisfied with any Israeli concession and do not even deign to make a counteroffer in negotiations – when they even deign to negotiate. Their entire existence is as a counterweight to our aspirations; sadly, but for their intransigence, Israel likely would have surrendered all its vital interests long ago.

 

* * * * *
 
It is chilling to behold the secular leaders of Israel accede to the narrative of the Palestinians and grant them rights in the land of Israel, knowing as we do that the ancient Philistines succeeded (because of Jewish infidelities) in dominating the land of Israel for many decades over the course of several centuries.

The Philistines tormented the Jewish inhabitants of the land of Israel, who nonetheless persevered and finally triumphed in David’s time through faith, courage, loyalty to Torah and recognition of the fundamentals of Jewish life.

It is illogical for Israel to contemplate new concessions that will destabilize its own polity at a time when the entire Middle East is racked with instability. From a political perspective, it is foolhardy to deflect the world’s attention from the revolutions in the Arab world by resurrecting the hoary myth that the fate of the Palestinians is critical to Mideast stability; clearly it is unrelated.

It is the height of imprudence to tread down a path that will lead to a retreat to the cease-fire lines in 1948, knowing full well that will only elicit more Arab terror designed to force an acceptance of the return of Arab refugees, a bi-national state, and the disappearance of the State of Israel.

But from a spiritual perspective, ignoring the nature of the enemy while accepting their narrative as real, substantive and equivalent to our claim, based on divine right, testifies to a faltering spirit and a lack of knowledge about Jewish history, identity and destiny.

If we think small, others think small things about us. If we want the world to perceive the conflict as an argument over a few acres of land, then we will always stand convicted as petty thieves who are persecuting a poor and deprived people after we threw them off their land. And in due course, Israel will be pressured to compromise even with Hamas, on grounds of “justice” and the tripe that “you can’t choose your enemies.”

But if we think in grander terms, we will gain strength and faith, revive the Bible as the source of our nationhood and national claims, and hasten the fulfillment of the national destiny of Israel of which the State of Israel is, with God’s help, just the beginning.
 

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History, Machshava/Jewish Thought

George W. Obama

Posted on May 4, 2011 | 7 comments

    President Obama is reaping the well-deserved credit for ordering the killing of Osama bin Laden. While he typically inflates his role (a president gives the order and then gets out of the way of the professionals, and is not involved hands-on in the execution of the mission), he nonetheless appropriately garners the laurels for a successful mission conducted under his watch. If, in the next year, the National Institutes of Health discovers the cure for cancer, Obama will surely assert that “I directed the NIH to find the cure for cancer” and he will be justly lauded for that as well. The nature of the presidency is that the president gets to claim credit for all the good that happens while he is in office, and accepts the blame for all the bad that happens. Obama, at least, has mastered the former, even if he still struggles with the latter.

     The President also needs to learn to share credit with his predecessors, and not project the impression that the world changed on January 20, 2009, and the policies of the Bush Administration immediately became obsolete and discarded. The irony is that Obama’s popularity boost here (however short-lived it might be) results from adopting Bush policies rather than rejecting them. Consider the ways in which the Obama attack on bin Laden was positively Bushian and most un-Obama-like.

     First, the United States acted unilaterally. Even though bin Laden had perpetrated terrorist attacks in many countries across the world, Obama did not deem it necessary to consult allies, assemble a coalition, or seek prior approval from international organizations. It was America at its “cowboy” diplomacy best.

     Second, the US did not even advise Pakistan that it was sending over the Navy Seal visitors (who did not stop at customs or procure visas). It was a willful, blatant, brazen, and unashamed violation of Pakistani sovereignty and territorial integrity. Here, Obama was forced to follow the Bush policy of treating Pakistan as both ally and adversary. (For sure, there are elements in the Pakistani government that are pro-American, and elements that hate America passionately; hence, the duplicity.) It was a Bushian statement to Pakistan that we will take care of American interests first, and you are “either with us or with the terrorists.” Clearly Obama felt, or was advised, that Pakistan could not be trusted with information of the commando operation, and so he did not trust them. After a similar operation in mid-2008 that resulted in the deaths of Pakistani civilians, Pakistan erupted in rage and the US was denounced by both houses of Parliament in Pakistan (as was Bush by the American left). Nevertheless, Obama proceeded and spurned the need to notify the Pakistanis in advance – a good move considering that Osama bin Laden’s hiding in plain sight outside their main military academy had to be known to the Pakistanis, or their incompetence is so breath-taking that their assistance in the war on terror is inherently worthless.

     Third, such an invasion of Pakistani territory was a flagrant violation of international law, for which a Senator Obama (or a community organizer Obama) would have excoriated a President Bush who had orchestrated such an action. It would seem that Obama’s protestations that America is a country of laws, bound and limited by international law, and can no longer be a bully on the world stage all fell by the wayside – quite quickly, and rightly so. When the moral and just are inhibited by the technicalities of law that only serve to protect the wicked, then it is the law that hampers justice and breeds injustice and needs to be ignored or re-defined. Obama has over-lawyered American foreign and military policy – except here, where he adopted a policy of “shoot first, and let the lawyers and diplomats sort it out later.”

    Fourth, the “targeted assassination” policy is one that candidate Obama harshly condemned as a violation of due process and human rights. Yet, the plan here was to kill bin Laden unless he meekly surrendered. There was little interest in arresting him and putting him on trial. He was shot, even though he was unarmed. And – Israelis take note – either bin Laden or an aide used a female human shield to protect them from the Navy Seals’ fire. No lawyers, hostage-negotiators or UN officials were called in: the female human shield was simply shot and killed, along with the person she was shielding. No questions asked, and no quarter given. Take that, Richard Goldstone.

     Fifth, Obama took the fight directly to the enemy with live forces in a daring operation. In this, he eschewed the endless negotiations that have been his diplomacy and the drone strikes that has been his military strategy. He abandoned the Clinton era policy of bombing empty buildings (think Sudanese pharmaceutical factory after the two US embassy bombings in 1998) and “training sites” from the air – which President Bush had already eliminated as not cost-effective, and not effective, period. Instead, Obama declined to bomb the compound from the air and sent American forces on a “kill or capture” mission – just like the old days.

     Sixth, Obama shunned the risk-averse strategies he had previously pursued. It is critical to realize that there was no certainty that bin Laden was hiding in that compound, just an educated guess by the intelligence establishment (that has been notoriously and consistently wrong on a number of matters). Had the raid taken place –and bin Laden not been there, and worse, never been there – Obama would have been lambasted, ridiculed, and derided for unnecessarily violating Pakistani sovereignty and the failure would have stuck to him like the botched rescue of the American hostages in Iran in 1980 stuck to the hopelessly inept Jimmy Carter. But Obama uncharacteristically threw caution to the wind, and acted before crossing all the ‘T’s and dotting all the ‘I’s – a gamble that strong presidents have taken in the past, including his predecessor.

   Seventh, it has become clear – although immediately politicized – that early information on the whereabouts of bin Laden was obtained through the enhanced interrogation techniques that were approved by President Bush (in fact, it was obtained while Bush was still president) and thrust aside by President Obama. Further information was garnered from inmates at Guantanamo, both during the Bush and Obama presidencies – a facility that Obama pledged to close down after he put the detainees into the criminal justice system in the United States. Of course, had Obama succeeded, these same detainees – including the sources of information as to the identity of the couriers who led the way to bin Laden – would have lawyered up and said nothing on advice of counsel, and the mission would never have been contemplated.

    Eighth, Americans, at least for the moment, heard again talk of “terror,” “terrorism,” and “radical Islam” from the White House. Those locutions – legacies of the Bush Administration – were banned by Obama and his minions, who were directed to use strange and ambiguous formulations such as “extremist violence,” apparently of unknown provenance. We also again heard from an American President who spoke of “justice,” put American interests first, acted like a superpower, and was unapologetic about the morality of his actions – just like the old days.

    It is no wonder that the American left is apoplectic, and perhaps not surprising that even Obama evinced no joy at this success. His embrace of Bush policies, and the attendant popularity, hits too close to home, for his political career is rooted in overcoming and reversing the Bush “failures.” It doesn’t look good if Obama’s major foreign policy achievement recalls his predecessor’s no-holds barred determination and unabashed projection of American power.

    The only thing missing was a statement that Obama prayed for the success of the mission, a staple of the Bush years. As reported, after final orders were given on Sunday, CIA Director Leon Panetta went to church to pray, and President Obama went to play nine holes of golf. So be it. But for America, and those who love good and hate evil, George W. Obama did the right thing in the right way at the right time.

7 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

Death of the Evildoer

Posted on May 2, 2011 | 8 comments

    Purgatory gained a new resident, and, at least for one year, the solemnity of Yom Hashoah (27 Nisan) was lightened, with the news that Osama bin Laden had been killed by an elite American Navy Seals team in a fortified compound in northeast Pakistan. The details of the raid are worthy of a Hollywood spectacle, and undoubtedly will be in due course, but it is time to celebrate the death of the mastermind of the worst atrocity perpetrated on American soil in history.

    President Obama can rightly claim credit for this success that greatly weakens Al Qaeda’s capacity and influence. The fact that its founder and charismatic leader was killed by the “great Satan” demoralizes terrorists across the globe, removes a symbol of the “rise” of radical Islam, and likely reduces access to the bin Laden family fortune. Since the “fish stinks from the head,” chopping off the head from the snake of radical Islam is a grave setback that allows moderate Muslims, to the extent that they exist, to come forward and reclaim the legacy they assert is theirs. Certainly, there are al Qaeda cells across the world, and the Muslim Brotherhood is on the ascent in every Arab country with public unrest. Hamas quickly condemned the “assassination of the holy warrior,” something that itself should preclude any American acquiescence to the Fatah-Hamas rapprochement and is reminiscent of the celebrations that erupted in Gaza, Ramallah and elsewhere in the Arab world when the Arab terror attacks of September 11 took place.

       Nevertheless, something was missing from the Obama announcement. It was not only the lack of graciousness to his predecessor. Typically, Obama asserted that he made the capture of bin Laden a priority immediately after he took office, implying… that Bush did not make that a priority? President Bush wrote in his memoirs that the failure to capture bin Laden was one of his “great regrets” as president, especially after pursuing him relentlessly for several years. A more gracious president would have acknowledged that this has been an American priority since 2001, and, to a great extent, even going back to the Clinton administration. Yet, the only reference to President Bush was to incorporate his statement after the Arab terror of September 11 and reiterate the cliché that America is not “at war with Islam.”

     What was missing from Obama’s address (besides smoothness; he is a much better speaker with the dual teleprompter that enables him to move his head right and left than he is with the single screen monitor directly in front of him – one reason he consistently eschews the traditional Oval Office address) was joy. Simple joy, but even what President Bush’s critics would have termed “smug satisfaction” had this occurred under his watch. (I recall a great Bush line, in which he referenced the criticism of his “swagger. In Texas, we call that walking.”) It is as if killing bin Laden was an unpleasant task, for which Americans should feel at least some guilt and sorrow; that he deserved it but we didn’t want to do it and we hope the Muslim world realizes it is not about them, it was just one bad apple, etc.  A smile, a gleam in the eye (even when thanking the unit that succeeded,  acknowledging their exceptional professionalism and courage) – show some joy ! Bush (I and II), Reagan, Clinton – they all would have known how to gloat without overdoing it. But Obama underdid it. Whatever happened to “when the wicked perish there is song” (Proverbs 11:10) ? There were spontaneous outbursts by the crowds that assembled outside the White House, in Times Square, and even at Ground Zero –  “USA, USA !” They had it right; Obama’s passion was missing, and somewhat discordant. Why ?

    Defenders will say that he projected seriousness because the war is ongoing, new terror attacks might be in the offing, and we do not want to provoke these attacks through excessive boastfulness (as if terror against innocent civilians is brought upon them by their own deeds, and not the evil of the terrorists). But maybe there is something else afoot  – the liberal’s aversion to war.

     All this is reminiscent of the famous discussion in the Talmud (Sanhedrin 39b) that during the miraculous salvation at the Red Sea, which necessitated the complete annihilation of the Egyptian military, “the Heavenly angels wished to utter a song of praise before G-d but He rebuked them, saying ‘My handiwork (the Egyptians) is drowning in the sea, and you wish to utter a song before Me’?”

     This passage is popularly understood as a reason not to celebrate the downfall of the wicked, and even the reason why we do not recite a full Hallel on the anniversary of that miracle, the Seventh Day of Pesach. (This is based on a Midrash, even though the Gemara Arachin 10a-b offers a wholly unrelated reason for reciting half-hallel that is the operative halachic principle here.)

     Yet, although the angels were rebuked, Moshe and the Jews did sing a most glorious song upon beholding the death of the Egyptians (“I will sing to G-d for He is exalted above the arrogant, the horse and its rider are hurled into the sea… the mighty sank like lead into the water”), a song that we sing every single morning, and an event that we commemorate every morning and evening. And we do recite Hallel on the Seventh Day of Pesach, just omitting a few verses from two of the chapters; it is not as if we don’t celebrate the event at all but are sunk in grief over the loss of Egyptian life. And in a very similar event – the miraculous destruction of the armies of Sancheirev, the Assyrian king, that also took place on Pesach – the king Chizkiah was criticized by G-d for not singing a song of praise over the majestic salvation of the Jewish people and an abrupt end to the siege over Jerusalem (Sanhedrin 94a). So, which is it – do we sing or not sing, do we rejoice (like the crowds of Americans responding to the news of the death of our enemy or do we remain somber (like the Commander-in-Chief) ?

     The answer is in the statement of the Talmud itself: the angels were rebuked by G-d, not the people who experienced the great victory – who endured the suffering and pain inflicted by the evildoer and now lived to see justice done. The “angels” reflect a divine perspective. From G-d’s perspective, evil itself is a terrible waste of human endeavor, and the death of every human being is a net loss. The most wicked individual was created by G-d in the “divine image,” which he then trampled and abused and then forfeited. We are supposed to acknowledge the divine perspective, because it is an aspiration for all human beings.

     But we are human beings, and in the world of human beings, the suffering of innocent people troubles us and the destruction of the wicked delights us. That is why “when the wicked perish there is song” (Proverbs 11:10), and that is why Moshe sang the song that we sing every day since – about G-d’s exaltedness, and the triumph of righteousness that is heralded by the death of the wicked. That is why Chizkiah was punished and, according the Gemara, not designated as the Moshiach – he did not sing when he witnessed the hand of G-d. If we cannot feel joy when the wicked perish, then our love of justice is impaired.

     Certainly, the boisterous and young crowds chanting “USA, USA” were not praising G-d or singing Hallel, which they might have had their educations and upbringing been different. But they were rejoicing in the death of the wicked and the triumph of good, something that should evoke joy and not guilt, and in the President, a facial expression of satisfaction rather than one who looks like he is chewing gravel.

     The war is not over, but yesterday’s accomplishment was a great milestone. Like the death of Saddam Hussein that abruptly ended the fantasy of some Iraqis that he was still lurking and might return to power, the brutal death of Osama bin Laden sends a clear message to all Arab/Muslim terrorists: there is a day of reckoning for all. President Bush vowed in the aftermath of the Arab terror of September 11 that Osama bin Laden would be captured, “dead or alive.”

      He was, and “dead” is better, and an occasion for rejoicing and thanksgiving. So kudos to the President and his team for a job well done, as bin Laden prepares to be greeted by Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Saddam and Arafat.

8 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Machshava/Jewish Thought, Philosophy, Tefillah