Author Archives: Rabbi

“Esther Hayut has made her decision; now let her enforce it!”  This potential reaction should give pause to Israel’s Supreme Court as it poises to (again) overrule the Knesset, Israel’s legislature, and invalidate the “reasonableness clause,” the first and mildest prong of the judicial overhaul that the government has promised to execute.

This quotation is a paraphrase of what Andrew Jackson, the seventh president of the United States, allegedly declared in response to a decision of the US Supreme Court with which he vehemently disagreed, nearly provoking a constitutional crisis in a democracy that was less than fifty years old. In the 1832 case of Worcester v. Georgia, Chief Justice John Marshall (in a 6-1 decision) ruled that the Cherokee Indian tribe was a sovereign nation which meant that the laws of the State of Georgia did not apply there. This contradicted President Jackson’s policy of limiting Indian territorial expansion and applying state law to these areas.

Marshall defied Jackson, who held that federal law in any event superseded state law, and this retort was attributed to Jackson: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it!” It meant that Jackson was not inclined to enforce a ruling of the Supreme Court that he felt exceeded the Court’s authority. Whether or not Jackson actually said it is immaterial, as indeed he took no measures to enforce the ruling, nor did the State of Georgia abide by the ruling, and Jackson proceeded with his policy of Indian removal. It is even more interesting, and relevant to our current situation in Israel, that Chief Justice Marshall opposed Jackson’s candidacy for president in 1828 and deemed him unfit for office. But Jackson was elected anyway, the people’s choice, and his visage still adorns the $20 bill.

As Marshall died in 1835, the case had no practical, lingering consequences but it is instructive on how democratic societies deal with branches of government that overstep their authority. A stable, functioning democracy relies on checks and balances between the branches. While there are ample checks on Israel’s legislative and executive branches – the primary ones being the collapse of the coalition and new elections – there is absolutely no check on the Supreme Court. It is unbounded by any limitation on its authority and any propriety on the scope of its jurisdiction over the policies, decisions, and legislation of the government, as well as over the lives of Israel’s citizens. It is unelected, essentially self-appointed, and has unilaterally, illegally, and undemocratically set itself up as the ultimate authority in society.

In a democracy, the people rule, and in a representative democracy, the people rule through their elected representatives and the government formed by those representatives. It is seemingly lost on the demonstrators – energized by their signs, slogans, and costumes – that a democracy that can only endure by relying on an undemocratic institution is not a true democracy. Indeed, it is not just a feeble or flawed democracy but one which does not really exist, and more akin to the plethora of “People’s Republics” or “Democratic Republics” that proliferated under Communism. There, the people voted, but absolute power was vested in an undemocratic entity – the dictator, also known as “the people’s choice.” In Israel, where absolute power is vested in another undemocratic entity known as “the Supreme Court,” the differences are marginal. Here, too, the people don’t really rule.

If only the protesters thought beyond their slogans – “Titnagdu,” “Oppose!!” – and realized the implications of their protests. They are fighting against democracy under the guise of trying to preserve democracy.

The Court’s invalidation of the “reasonableness clause” would signal that it will not tolerate any limitation on its power and, as such, would render futile and meaningless any further judicial reforms. That is probably the point of this entire endeavor, which features the judicial farce of a chief justice whose tenure expires next month and is therefore rushing this matter to decision in order to spearhead that decision. Added to the farce is the reality that Chief Justice Hayut has already announced her opinion in the case, which in a normal judicial setting should lead to her disqualification or recusal. No judge should ever sit on a case in which he or she has already made up his/her mind before hearing any arguments in the matter. No civil society and no democracy committed to the rule of law should accept such a mockery of justice. That it is considered normal in Israeli jurisprudence itself cries out for reform.

Given the peculiar circumstances, and the rush to judgment, it would be unsurprising if the Court voided the “reasonableness clause,” and, in a real show of judicial tyranny (call it a judicial coup), declared that the Prime Minister is unfit for office as morally incapacitated and legally compromised. Such leads me to conclude that the latter will not happen, in a risible show of sham objectivity, while embracing the former and putting the brakes on any judicial reform, ever. And then what? Who will say, “Esther Hayut has made her decision; now let her enforce it!” 

We tend to bandy about the word “crisis” pretty freely, and few things unrelated to security matters are genuine crises. But this would be a crisis. A Court that invalidates a Basic Law, having itself declared that Basic Laws are the structure of a constitution and thus beyond the Court’s authority, would be a Court that is out-of-control and running roughshod over the people and its government.

It is discouraging that there are politicians and other officials who have openly stated that if the Court exceeds its authority and is challenged by the government, they will support the Court and not the government. But Israel’s Supreme Court – like the Supreme Court in every country in the world, democracy or autocracy – is not sovereign. The people are sovereign, and the people’s will is reflected in the government, not the Court.

As the powerful never relinquish their power without a fight, expect the Supreme Court to fight, aided by an opposition and a media establishment that despises the current government. The test of democracy is not measured by heeding an illegal Court decision but by the extent to which the government represents the people and enacts the laws under which we all live. That also means establishing appropriate checks on the Court’s power through changing the nomination procedures, limiting the Court’s jurisdiction to legal matters – cases and controversies that reflect conflicts of laws – and reining in the unlimited powers of the government’s legal advisors, who have usurped so much power that they see themselves as still another and also unelected branch of government.

Nothing points out the dire need for judicial reform more than the stark reality that the government’s “legal advisor” refuses to represent the government in these matters but is her own authority, the “legal advisor’s opposition to the commission that intends to investigate illegal spying on Israeli citizens, as well as the High Court’s continued preclusion of the government’s intention to expel the thousands of illegal migrants who are now also rioting in the streets. Something is way out of whack.

A real democracy affirms the sovereignty of the people, whose representatives are answerable to the people and can be voted out of office, as well as the independence of the judiciary that limits government encroachment on the people’s defined and legislated rights. That would be normal. What we need is both a Court that humbly accepts its limits and an Andrew Jackson who can forcefully remind the Court of its limitations. Count those among the blessings of the New Year for which we should pray.

(This is the fourth year that I am answering questions in the Jewish Press forum entitled “Is It Proper?” All the rabbinic responses and more can be read at Jewishpress.com)

Is Torah-true Judaism inherently aligned with conservative politics, liberal politics, a combination, or neither — or is this the wrong way to think about the Torah? 

Of course the Torah is a conservative treatise!

Nonetheless, it is unequivocally wrong to evaluate the Torah along political lines. The Torah is the Dvar Hashem, the word of G-d, and thus the Torah is trivialized if we try to squeeze it into a man-made ideological construct. The Torah was not intended to strengthen conservatism or weaken liberalism, or vice versa, but rather to make us better, more moral and rational people who respond promptly and enthusiastically to G-d’s commands and propagate His ethical norms across the world.

Having said that, a cogent analysis of the question requires us to adopt some definitive framework of conservatism and liberalism. As the definitions and emphases differ, the conclusion may shift as well. But let’s take one common expression of the differences between conservatism and liberalism.

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility, limited government involvement in society, free markets, low taxes, the right to bear arms, accountability for one’s misdeeds, and traditional marriage and morality, and cherish loyalty, respect for authority, stability, and sanctity.

Liberals believe in big government that provides citizens with every conceivable need or desire, controls and regulates the economy to achieve desired social outcomes regardless of talent, effort, or fairness, individual liberty that allows even for the shattering of moral norms, high taxes to feed the government behemoth, rejection of traditional morality in favor of personal autonomy, strict gun control so that – ideally – government has a monopoly on force, and vitiating personal responsibility and excusing bad behavior by attributing it not to the criminal but to the society and community. Liberals generally reject biblical morality (at best, it is a private matter; at worst, morality is completely subjective) and perceive reason as the primary source of good conduct. Liberals inherently distrust authority and cherish openness to new experiences, diversity and change.

The Torah prizes personal responsibility (I wrote two volumes on “The Jewish Ethic of Personal Responsibility”), free markets tempered only by limitations on unfair competition and an individual’s obligation to assist the downtrodden, and obviously an objective morality that is based on G-d’s word. There are liberal elements to the Torah but it is overwhelmingly the source of conservative ideas and values.

Is it appropriate to discuss politics at the Shabbos table?

“Our speech on Shabbat should not be the same as our speech during the weekdays” (Shabbat 113b), both in terms of content and tone. To insert the tawdriness of politics onto the holiness of the Shabbat table is self-defeating and a waste of time. That includes such matters as the unseemly conduct of most politicians, their shenanigans and vanities, their deceitfulness and corruption.

Nevertheless, from a technical perspective, politics is generally defined as a set of activities associated with making decisions or distributing resources in a group, society, or nation. That is politics, which then essentially is the implementation in public affairs of the policy preferences of a particular group. Those policy preferences usually reflect the values of the decision maker or allocator of resources, which brings us to a most worthy and appropriate topic for a Shabbat table.

What are the values that society and its laws should reflect? What values are imparted by the weekly sedrah that should inform our society’s decisions? What values (and thus policies) should we seek in our elected leaders? What is the Torah’s view of the ideal society, how do we get there, and who can get us there? How does the Torah prefer we allocate society’s resources? These are edifying questions for discussions at the Shabbat table and far superior to mundane chitchat – and perhaps even Divrei Torah that children bring home from yeshiva and read (often, with less than complete comprehension).

Additionally, time should always be devoted to how a Torah society in Israel can be constructed. Throughout the two millennia of exile, Jews were often sought-after advisors to Gentile kings and rulers. That perspicacity has not always been on display in our self-governance in Israel. What is the politics of Torah? That, too, is a commendable topic for Shabbat discussion.

Should a parent encourage a child who wants to join the U.S. Army?

Throughout the exile, Jews have always served in the military of our host country (sometimes voluntarily, sometimes coerced). In its ideal expression, service in the US military repays the United States for the hospitality and graciousness it has shown to the Jewish people, particularly in allowing massive Jewish immigration at the turn of the 20th century. This provided Jews with a haven when Europe became even more threatening and inhospitable. We must always appreciate the malchut shel chesed (the kingdom of kindness) that welcomed millions of Jews in a way that other nations did not while ensuring our freedoms and rights. Contributing to its security conveys our gratitude in an honorable way.

Certainly, there will be hardships for Jews in the American military – Shabbat, Kashrut, etc. – so the recruit will need tremendous spiritual fortitude to withstand those challenges.

But young Jews who wish to become soldiers are better advised to enlist in the Israel Defense Forces. Notwithstanding America’s kindnesses, why fight to prolong the exile when you can fight to defend Jewish sovereignty in our divinely ordained homeland? Indeed, the IDF soldier fulfills three mitzvot that cannot be fulfilled by the soldier in any other army: the settlement (Yishuv) of Eretz Yisrael, preserving Jewish life (Pikuach Nefesh), and Kiddush Hashem, the sanctification of G-d’s name implicit in the Jewish people exercising sovereignty over our homeland. And mitzvah observance in the IDF is much easier.

The fulfillment of those mitzvot transforms our lives. It is common today for young American Jews to enlist in the IDF, especially after their year or two learning in Israel. Parents should encourage interested children to join the Israel army if they are inclined to join a military. Nevertheless, we appreciate their service in any military that is a force for good in the world.

Is it proper to send your kids to sleepaway camp if they receive tuition assistance?

This is a loaded question that routinely comes up in tuition assistance application forms. The simple answer is that chinuch must be the number one priority of every Jewish parent. It is true that there was a time when parents did not buy homes or take vacations because their earnings were first spent on their children’s yeshivah education. That has changed, which led one of my members who was active in local schools to tell me more than once that “we don’t have a tuition crisis; we have a priorities crisis.”

There is something wrong, even immoral, with parents who rely on scholarship assistance (read: other people’s money), and yet go on vacation during yeshivah break (because they too need to relax) or have the grandparents take them to an expensive hotel for Pesach (because it’s the grandparents’ money and they have a right to spend it as they please.) They do, but still…

From this perspective, sleepaway camp for children who receive tuition assistance is an extravagance, and justly raises the ire of other parents and the scholarship committees.

Nonetheless, that is the simple answer, and reality does not always accord with the simple. There are cogent arguments to be made for sleepaway camp even in such circumstances: camp is also educational, it is important socially, and what else are working parents supposed to do with their children during the summer? They need to be supervised in a productive setting.

It is a real conundrum. Is it proper? It is a bad look, to be sure, but sometimes it is necessary. As such, it must be resolved on an individual case by case basis, with the predominant obligation always that parents are primarily responsible for their children’s tuition. That is their priority in parenting.

And, one offer, as Elul has begun. You might enjoy, and even find inspirational, my book “Repentance for Life,” available from Kodeshpress.com, at Amazon, and at fine stores. Chodesh Tov!

     Today, the morning after the Knesset voted to repeal the “Reasonableness Clause,” the sun rose. The sky was blue, the birds chirped, the summer heat remained, and Jewish men put on tefillin. Somehow, life went on as normal, if still reeling from the mayhem in the streets. Israelis did not awaken to a dictatorship; indeed, the State of Israel was slightly more democratic and perhaps, down the road, will even be more Jewish. Yesterday, I even saved some money as shopping was limited, although it is depressing that merchants and workers lost a day’s wages because of the virtue signaling of some corporate bigwigs.

     The judicial reforms have taken on the character of Chinese Water Torture, drip by drip, month after month and week after week of incessant demonstrations, threats and recriminations, dire warnings about the end of life as we know it, insubordination in the IDF (although the extent of that seems wildly exaggerated), and violent attacks on ministers and Knesset members supportive of the legislation. The irony should not be lost that those who scream the loudest about the imminent threats to democracy are those who engage in tactics that are hallmarks of dictatorships, including the refusal to accept the results of elections and their consequences, and taking to the streets as a mob to overthrow the duly elected authorities. It is as if they maintain “we have to destroy the democracy and make ourselves the permanent rulers in order to save the democracy.”

     Perhaps the error made by the government – whose constituent parties had been promising judicial reform for years – was not presenting an entire bill at one time but rather introducing the reforms piecemeal. Thus, only one plank was enacted, which presages that future reforms will generate the same foolish, counterproductive, and self-destructive protests, strikes, and irrational fears.

     It was German Chancellor Otto von Bismarck who said that “laws are like sausages. It is best not to see them being made.” It was imprudent to negotiate with the opposition in the President’s House, a colossal waste of time as not one opposition representative compromised on anything and only sought delay after delay. But the members of Israel’s Knesset are not warring nations, all rumors to the contrary notwithstanding. There is no need for summit meetings at the (presumably) apolitical President’s residence. Laws should be proposed, debated, and resolved, one way or another, in the appropriate Knesset committees and in the corridors of the legislature where members and their staff can meet in private to try to gain consensus. And then, in a true democracy, the legislators vote, the winners applaud, and the losers accept the decision and pledge to use the legislative atrocity as campaign fodder in the next election.

     In the end, the vote in favor of the “Reasonableness Clause” was overwhelming, 64-0, if only because of the childish boycott of the opposition. It is worthwhile to recall that Oslo I passed with a smaller majority (61-50, with 8 abstentions) and Oslo II with an even smaller majority (61-59), and in both cases, a majority of the Jewish Knesset members voted against the agreements. And those bills were much more momentous and consequential than is any item on the judicial reform agenda. The Oslo Accords got many Jews killed, recognized the PLO, brought them into the heartland of Israel, gave them weapons, territory, and diplomatic cover. I do not recall anyone in the mainstream media lamenting the narrow majorities (in which the Arab MK’s provided the parliamentary margin of victory), the lack of national consensus, the rush to a decision, or the illegitimacy of a government that campaigned on not recognizing the PLO. Nor did the President at the time beg for negotiations in his residence or bellow about the dangers facing Israel. No one will die because of tinkering with the judicial process and yet one would think the sky is falling. It is not and it will not. Perhaps the media is biased? Perhaps.

       This particular bill does not change the judicial dynamic all that much, although it is a good start as “reasonableness” has never been a factor in judicial decision-making. Judges are supposed to interpret the law, not pass judgment on whether a law, decision or policy is reasonable. Their notion of “reasonable” is no more salient or sagacious than that of the legislators, and no law afforded them the right to issue decrees on such grounds. Thus, the Court literally had no authority to rule on such a basis and usurped the legislative and executive role in doing so.

     Yet, power – even or perhaps especially illicitly seized – is not easy to relinquish. One hopes that the Court will take to heart this legislative rebuke and unilaterally limit the scope of its heretofore unlimited powers. It is unlikely, although possible, that the Court will void the repeal of the “Reasonableness Clause” as unreasonable, but that would really provoke a crisis. There is no law that makes the Supreme Court the ultimate and final authority on everything in the State of Israel. What is more likely given the temperament of some of the justices is that they will begin invalidating legislation, appointments, decisions or policies not because they are unreasonable (or because they contradict some existing law, which is legitimate) but because the Court finds them “illogical,” “unfair,” “biased,” “disproportionate,” “arbitrary,” or “unwarranted,” or some other synonym for “unreasonable.” Let us hope that too does not happen or the Court’s legitimacy will be forever tainted.

      It is helpful to recall President Andrew Jackson’s rejoinder (1832) when he felt that US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall had overstepped his authority and prevented the expansion of US sovereignty into Indian territory: “John Marshall has made his decision; now let him enforce it.” (The quotation is perhaps apocryphal; the reality is that Jackson did not enforce Marshall’s decision.) America could survive that. Israel is a smaller country, and largely family, where disputes can continue for generations and where we have real enemies with which to contend. Let us pray it never comes to that either, where a Supreme Court decision is so outrageous and blatantly political that the political branch just ignores it. Courts in America operate with a principle known as “judicial restraint” and courts in Israel would do well to learn and implement that principle.

      The “Reasonableness Clause” repeal, despite the hoopla, the overheated rhetoric, and the doomsday prophecies, does not accomplish that much on its own. Several other key reforms are essential, including limiting the authority of the Attorney General (technically called the “Legal Advisor,” but one whose advice must always be taken; that, too, is absurd). Similarly, changing the composition of the judicial selection committee to make it more political is a good thing, not a threat to our existence. For some reason, people in Israel assume that a judge appointed by political party nomination is beholden to that party forever, regardless of the nature of the law on which the judge is ruling. In the American experience, that is decidedly not so. One of the bitter ironies of recent American history is the number of justices nominated by conservative Republican presidents who then turned out to be anything but when they sat on the Court (see Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Conner, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, and others). This anxiety is a poor reflection on Israel’s future justices and perhaps results from Israel’s Supreme Court overinvolvement in partisan politics. One way to remove the Court from politics is to grant them jurisdiction only on cases and controversies that affect aggrieved parties, and not just someone who does not like a particular policy.

      Finally, a need for some check on the Court’s decision-making is necessary. The Knesset must pass an override clause, which should be used sparingly. I would suggest a Knesset majority requirement of 65, 67 or even 70 votes that ensures that any override has broad support – certainly broader than the Oslo Accords or the Gaza Expulsion had.

     Compromise is always welcome. More importantly, we need cooler heads and calm reassurance. The protesters who were led to believe that riots and anarchy define the political process should think again. Chaos will not accomplish anything productive and will certainly not topple the Netanyahu government, the true objective of so many of them. It is inconceivable that they would rather see the country destroyed than live with a Supreme Court whose powers are simply comparable to almost every other Supreme Court in the world. They should look around and see that the earth is still rotating on its axis, the sun is still shining, the land of Israel is still beautiful (if a bit hot), and the State of Israel, with God’s help, is flourishing and will continue to flourish.

“Be careful what you wish for,” said Aesop long ago.

Too many Israelis – politicians, journalists, and civilians – are concerned that Prime Minister Netanyahu has yet to be invited to the White House. It is widely, and accurately, perceived as a snub, and is being used to promote the notion that the Netanyahu government is reeling, cannot succeed, has lost international support, has alienated the US, and must be replaced. But that is just another cudgel being used by Netanyahu’s permanent, relentless enemies, and has little merit.

Like a Rorschach test, each commentator sees the snub in line with his or her own personal preferences or aversions. Netanyahu has failed to embrace the two state delusion with sufficient ardor. Netanyahu is not supportive enough of Ukraine and has reached out to China. Netanyahu is building too many “settlements,” even in Yerushalayim. Netanyahu is advancing judicial reforms that have irritated President Joe Biden and undermined democracy. And even more risibly, and recently, Netanyahu presides over the “most extreme government” in fifty years.

Let’s get real. Biden sees the government of Israel today as “extreme.” Then again, he characterizes his adversaries in Washington and elsewhere as “extreme MAGA Republicans.” He has denounced the US Supreme Court for its “extreme” decisions and composition. His administration has labeled parents who want to exercise greater control over their children’s public education and thus petition local school boards as “domestic extremists” (a Biden associate even called them “terrorists.) “Extreme” is the Biden insult of choice for each and every one of his adversaries. 

Granted, Joe Biden has never been known for his extensive vocabulary and and great intellectual heft even when he was compos mentis. In his declining state, he falls back on pet phrases and cliches without giving much thought to what he is saying and their implications. For example, his criticisms of the proposed judicial reforms here are typically shallow (“a threat to democracy,” as is everything the left opposes in the US and in Israel) even though Israel is seeking a judicial system more akin to the one in the United States, including the method of judicial appointments and limitations on jurisdiction. Even worse, it is Biden who has taken to undermining the independence and legitimacy of the US Supreme Court, recently saying (in his terse and muddled way) “this is not a normal court.” That means that a US Supreme Court that applies the law rather than Biden’s own policy predilections (on affirmative action, student loan forgiveness, freedom of speech, etc.) is “not normal” and needs to be changed. His party has indeed proffered some, well, “extreme” proposals for reining in the Court’s powers, which if passed will inevitably shatter the delicate checks and balances that exist in the American political system. And yet he finds fault with Israel’s governance and legislation. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black.

Who isn’t “extreme” in the Biden lexicon? Jew hater Ilhan Omar is not extreme, she is “beautiful.” Cory Bush, Ayanna Pressley, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Eric Swalwell, Adam Schiff and others – they are not extreme. They are good Democrats, allies of Joe Biden. No Biden ally can ever be extreme, no Biden adversary can ever be anything but extreme. If Smotrich and Ben Gvir are “extremists” in the Biden world view, it is only because they stand up for Israel’s interests fearlessly and definitively – a strong hand against our enemies, the right of Jewish residence throughout the land of Israel, determined opposition to the two state delusion, and a yearning to foster the Jewishness of the Jewish state. This is all anathema to Biden, and music to the ears of the faithful Jew and proud Israeli. We should all merit being called “extreme” by Joe Biden, a clear indication that we are on the right path with values that are rooted in the Torah and that are non-negotiable.

My own sense is that there is no Biden-vitation because this is still payback for Netanyahu’s anti-Iran speech before Congress in 2015 that embarrassed Barack Obama and his Vice-President, Joe Biden. Sure, that was eight years ago, but Biden has a great memory for that, even if not for many other things. When will there be a Biden-vitation? When it suits Biden’s political purposes during the election year – and/or when he wants something from Israel. And there’s the catch.

Having lived in America most of my life until 2020, I recognize something that veteran Israelis don’t. Most White House visits of foreign leaders are not news stories in America, and most are not even covered. Visits take place almost weekly. They may be newsworthy in the visitor’s home country but they are not in America. They make the news when the leader is an adversary – summits with the leaders of Russia or China are good examples – or when some conflict between the leaders is expected. Most leaders come to the White House because they want to look good in the eyes of their countrymen for political reasons or because they want something from the United States. 

Does Israel want something from the United States? Certainly, but the objectives are achievable without the pomp and pressure of a White House visit. Israel looks to America for diplomatic support in a hostile United Nations environment, which it received unequivocally in the Trump years, less so under Biden but still extant. The military assistance Israel receives from the US is fixed in a long term agreement and the funding is anyway spent entirely in America and not in Israel, so no changes there. Most importantly, Israel has turned to the US for leadership and an effective challenge to the Iranian nuclear program and there the US has fallen woefully short under Democratic administrations. With Biden poised to repeat the Obama appeasement – billions of dollars to Iran and sanctions relief in exchange for unverifiable promises from a rogue government – little is to be gained from a personal meeting. Public criticism of the Biden plan will be perceived as a “political” attack, while public support will undermine Israel’s anti-Iran position and distress Arab allies across the region. Merely restating each side’s positions and hearing Biden mumble vacuities like “all options are on the table” are not worth the transportation costs to get to Washington.

And there is a price to be paid for such a meeting. Israeli leaders are expected to arrive with “gifts” – concessions to the Palestinians in terms of prisoner releases, money in the PA coffers, or worst of all, the expectation that Israel coordinate its IDF counter-terror efforts and even its anti-Iran measures with America. These days, that is foolhardy in the extreme. There are repeated reports about how Obama sabotaged some of Israel’s preparations for an Iran conflict – and the same people who did that and served Obama now serve in the Biden administration. If sharing information in private is one goal of a White House visit, it is sensible to stay away.

The nonvitation is also a consequence of the declining support for Israel in the Democratic Party, which traces to Jimmy Carter and even Bill Clinton (who made Netanyahu’s life miserable in the Prime Minister’s first term) but primarily to the sentiments expressed by Barack Obama in 2008. Meeting with Jewish Democrats during his campaign, Obama said “I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel.” That is fair enough, but imagine the ferocious storm that would erupt if Israel’s Prime Minister ever said that “to be close friends and allies with the United States does not mean that Israel has to embrace the platform or policies of the Democratic Party.” Biden today is simply echoing Obama’s distaste for the people of Israel and their voting patterns, distancing the US from Likud while presuming to befriend an Israel that has been governed by Likud for the better part of four decades. The nonvitation is personal and should be seen, and ignored, as such. 

While the aging Democrats in Congress still support Israel, that support is muted whenever it conflicts with administration goals. Biden’s harsh rhetoric towards Israel’s elected government, his disparagement of Israeli democracy (while he tramples on the norms of American democracy!), and his shameless interference in Israel’s domestic affairs and internal governance are a continuation of that Obama distaste. That contempt is mirrored in the gamesmanship over the Bidenvitation as well as the stumbling blocks Biden is placing on the road to normalization with Saudi Arabia. 

There is a valuable life lesson is this as well. Sometimes the best way to get something is by not showing you really want it. Pronouncements from Israel along the lines of “there really is no need for a personal visit,” “we have constant open lines of communications,” “we are busy developing  our relations with China, Russia, Africa and Europe” all signal to the Americans that a White House visit by PM Netanyahu is unnecessary and even superfluous at this time. When you show you don’t care about something you don’t have, its deprivation loses its force. You can’t hold something over someone’s head if their head is elsewhere. If and when the invitation comes during the American election year, Israel should be coy about accepting it immediately, not wanting to become embroiled in America’s political maelstrom. If an important issue arises, a phone call works just as well, and requires no strings and preparation.

Of course the Israeli media will not stop talking about the nonvitation, a convenient tool with which to disparage the prime minister. All the more reason for this government to assert that it is not seeking a Bidenvitation at all as the alliance is strong and is based on shared interests and values far more than on breaking bread, drinking coffee, posing for pictures in the Oval Office or enduring a state dinner. And the demands on Israel to have such a meeting will be extreme. It is not worth it, certainly not when Joe Biden is undermining American democracy with his incessant attacks on the US Supreme Court. Let President Herzog enjoy his visit and photo ops. He can’t concede anything, anyway. 

Those who keep wishing for a Bidenvitation should be extremely careful what they wish for. And that is no fable.