Category Archives: Israel

Denial: Update !

Prime Minister Netanyahu today offered President Obama a direct and unequivocal reply to the demand that Israel cease building Jewish homes in Yerushalayim: no. “We will build in Jerusalem as we build in Tel Aviv.”

So far, the sky has not fallen. If Netanyahu retains this dignity and self-respect, he will compare favorably with Menachem Begin, who, as reported by Moshe Zak in the Jerusalem Post (March 13, 1992), knew how to deal with American presidents’ interference with Israel’s right to develop its own land: “As for settlements, too, over which the Administration rebuked Begin during all of his visits to Washington in the following six years, Begin knew how to respond with unconventional replies. “Why is it permitted for a Jew to settle and live in Bethel or Shiloh in the US, towns named after places in Judea and Samaria, but forbidden to build his home in the original Shilo or Beth El?” he asked Carter, and added: “I shall not lend my hand to discrimination against Jews in the Land of Israel.”

And not only with Carter, but at all his meetings with heads of state and government, Begin customarily replied with direct, frank words against anything he perceived as harming Israel’s interests or honor.

It is hard not to long for those days, and painful to ponder that it has been more than 30 years since Israeli prime ministers spoke like that. Here is another example, drawn from the same article, about a confrontation between Begin and that self-described “great Zionist,” Joe Biden, when the latter was a blowhard Senator, from 1982:

“In a conversation with Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, after a sharp
confrontation in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on the subject of the settlements, Begin defined himself as “a proud Jew who does not tremble with fear” when speaking with foreign statesmen.

During that committee hearing, at the height of the Lebanon War, Sen. John Biden (Delaware) had attacked Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria and threatened that if Israel did not immediately cease this activity, the US would have to cut economic aid to Israel.

When the senator raised his voice and banged twice on the table with his fist, Begin commented to him: “This desk is designed for writing, not for fists. Don’t threaten us with slashing aid. Do you think that because the US lends us money it is entitled to impose on us what we must do? We are grateful for the assistance we have received, but we are not to be threatened. I am a proud Jew. Three thousand years of culture are behind me, and you will not frighten me with threats. Take note: we do not want a single soldier of yours to die for us.”

After the meeting, Sen. Moynihan approached Begin and praised him for his cutting reply. To which Begin answered with thanks, defining his stand against threats.”

We say to PM Netanyahu: stand strong, and be strong, and the strength of an eternal people will carry you aloft.

Denial

     A new book called “Denial: Why Business Leaders Fail to Look Facts in the Face – and What to Do About It” (by Richard Tedlow, a Harvard Business School professor) tells the fascinating tale of the decline of the Ford Motor company in the 1920’s and 1930’s, and in particular the debacle of the Model-T. How did that best-selling vehicle suddenly lose its popularity and send Ford into a tailspin ?  Tedlow explains that Henry Ford (also a famous Jew-hater) refused to offer any variety of color to the consumer, saying: “Any customer can have a car painted any color that he wants, as long as it is black.” Instead, the customer went elsewhere. Ford was so convinced he knew best that he ignored explicit and obvious warning signs of impending doom, and the Model-T became a symbol of corporate mismanagement and Ford edged toward bankruptcy.

    Fast forward ninety years to the continued, stubborn mismanagement of Israel’s diplomatic affairs due to the persistent refusal of its leaders to assert a claim to the land of Israel based on divine right and historic justice. The latest travesty involves the contrived imbroglio over new “settlements in East Jerusalem,” not only a canard but reflective of Western intellectual laziness of the highest order. The apartments soon to be constructed in Ramat Shlomo, a Haredi neighborhood located in northern Jerusalem. It is bizarre how Ramat Shlomo [north], Gilo [south] and Maaleh Zeitim [east] are all construed to be in “East Jerusalem.” That is because “East Jerusalem” is shorthand for Arab and not Jewish. But even that is intellectually lazy: Ramat Shlomo was not occupied by Jordan before 1967 but was located in no-man’s land. But now that there is a man there, and the man is a Jew, the world is abuzz.

     Place much of the blame for this at the feet of Israel’s leaders. The announcement during Biden’s visit was foolish, but not for the standard reasons. Rather, since there are no – and can be no – serious negotiations in Israel’s best interests but rather each side jockeys for position in an inane PR contest, the announcement provided a useful pretext to Israel’s enemies – American and elsewhere – to criticize it for “obstructing peace.” That Israel breached no agreement in this announcement, tacit or otherwise, nor even in building in this part of its capital (which it had explicitly said it would continue to do), does not matter at all in the game as it is played today. Israel imprudently agreed to freeze construction in Judea and Samaria for “ten” months (sure) while retaining the right to build in Jerusalem. So why the uproar ?

     Because every concession Israel makes is simply pocketed and then ignored, leading to this week’s newspaper reports that – after Oslo, and Oslo II, and withdrawals from Sinai, Lebanon, Gaza, parts of the Golan, and much of Judea and Samaria – Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is demanding that Israel prove its “commitment to peace” by new concessions. (See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZprVPKi-W6s&annotation_id=annotation_252323&feature=iv, for another perspective, even if I find the glorification of our victimhood in this video distasteful.) This followed by a few days her telephone tongue-lashing of Israel’s prime minister, who listened to the 45 minute diatribe and said little, taking it like a … well, not like a man, or a proud leader of an eternal nation. He should have cut her off, and said he had another call. (In any event, protocol should have dictated that Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman take the call from the Secretary of State, not the Prime Minister; likely, Lieberman would not have been as phlegmatic.) Instead, Netanyahu sighed and apologized, defusing a momentary diplomatic crisis to be sure but planting the seeds for the next one. Weakness breeds weakness.

    Remember Jewish strength and pride ? In December 1981, the Knesset passed the Golan Heights bill, effectively annexing that northern territory. When the American government announced that it was suspending its newly-signed memorandum of understanding with Israel, Menachem Begin called in US Ambassador Sam Lewis, and gave him a tongue-lashing:  “A week ago, at the instance of the Government, the Knesset passed on all three readings by an overwhelming majority of two-thirds, the “Golan Heights Law.” Now you once again declare that you are punishing Israel.  What kind of expression is this – “punishing Israel”? Are we a vassal state of yours? Are we a banana republic? Are we youths of fourteen who, if they don’t behave properly, are slapped across the fingers?… The people of Israel has lived 3,700 years without a memorandum of understanding with America – and it will continue to live for another 3,700.” And then Begin asked Lewis to leave his office, without allowing him to respond. Strength breeds strength, and President Reagan – who, like most real leaders – respected strength and leaders who act in their national interests – soon resumed his customary support for Israel.

    Like Henry Ford (and other corporate failures), Israel’s leaders continue to pursue negotiations that will never lead to peace but can only weaken Israel both internally and externally. Netanyahu must realize on some level that the US administration is interested in his political demise, and Israel’s political decline, and its policies reflect that. The Americans have embarked on a naïve diplomatic course that distances its friends and cozies up to its enemies, with the obvious result that America’s position in the world will deteriorate during the Obama years – as America’s enemies are America’s enemies because of their national interests and aspirations and will remain so despite Obama smooth smile and glib words, even as America’s friends and allies will lie low and wait out this cosmopolitan. But Israel’s leaders stubbornly continue to engage in policies that run counter to its long term interests.

     American Jews are equally obstinate – and thoughtless – in their slavish obsequiousness to the Democratic Party. There are host of domestic reasons why the Democrat agenda is hostile to Jews and traditional values, and several related to foreign policy. Here’s one, Jews: Gallup reported a few months ago that 85% of Republicans pronounce themselves supporters of Israel, but only 48% (!) of Democrats so describe themselves. The Democrats are the home base of the far-left for whom Israel is anathema, and to which Jews are blinded. How blinded ? Jews, overwhelming Obama supporters, completely ignored Obama’s membership in a church whose preacher is a rabid Jew hater – twenty years of sermons about Israel, racism, the devil and other such sublime thoughts. Could it be there is a link between Obama’s current policies and his spiritual background ? Gee, who would’ve thought that ? No one could see that train wreck coming. Sure. Odd, indeed, how a Republican hostile to Israel (think Pat Buchanan) is tarred and feathered, while Jews routinely whitewash Democrats who are hostile to Israel. And that 48% of Democrats supportive of Israel is likely to diminish, not increase.

    It is fascinating still that the Torah provided us with all the lines, arguments and policy positions needed to sustain Jewish possession of the land of Israel. That we refrain from articulating them is counter-productive and self-defeating, and undermines that very objective. We are there for reasons that transcend Obama, the European Union, the UN and any other unsympathetic entity – and for Jews not to make the claim is a sorry indication that that same claim does not yet resonate in Jewish life. We cannot assert a divine mission and mandate if too many of us do not believe it.

     There are pseudo-intellectuals, journalists and diplomats, who constantly declare that “everyone knows what the solution is,” and it is just a question of will and time. They assume a Palestinian state alongside Israel, living in peace and harmony and prosperity. And the evidence for that rosy scenario ? Non-existent. The evidence that Obama will actively engage Iran to thwart its nuclear ambitions ? Non-existent. Rather, they (and we) would do well to heed Tedlow’s definition of denial: “the unwillingness to see or admit a truth that ought to be apparent and is in fact apparent to many others.” For Netanyahu (and Olmert, Livni, Sharon, Barak, Peres, Netantyahu (!), Rabin, etc.) not to recognize this and base their policies accordingly is a dramatic failure of leadership. Eventually life in denial crashes into reality, as Henry Ford learned. So when will we learn ?

Anatomy of Hatred

     When we remember Amalek, certainly we consider their ideology, their hatred of G-d and the Jewish people, their deviousness and cruelty, and especially their assault on the weak and the stragglers. And when we think of Haman, certainly we think of his diabolical plans to exterminate us, his virulent hatred of Jews, and his obsession with Jews that eventually destroyed him. But there is something else to consider: why are they so popular ?

     Amalek attacks, and no one seems to object. (Of course, they probably argued that what Israel was doing – marching through Sinai on the way to conquer the land of Israel – violated international law and the sovereign rights of Canaan.) Haman hatched his scheme and persuaded a very pliable Achashveirosh, but why did everyone else go along so willingly ? The couriers left with alacrity; the decree was published widely, in every province. When the Jews heard the news, there was intense mourning, but was there no group or no person in any of the 127 provinces of the Persian empire – who objected, who questioned, who dissented, who even thought of protecting Jews ? Apparently not.

     This is not a question of why Mordechai is hated, but rather why Haman is so loved? Why are people drawn to evil ? Is it fear ? Fecklessness ? Expediency ? Or is it something else ? Do they support the wicked because they think he will be successful, and then jump ship like Charvona when it looks like it is sinking ? The Megila teaches that when the tide turned, many people feigned being Jewish, i.e., the enemies who hoped for our destruction were defeated, but the common man who one day supported Haman the next day is wore a shtreimel or a kipa seruga, trying to look Jewish. So why are people drawn to evildoers ?

     This is not just a theoretical question. Amalek has become so popular today that most of the civilized world could not really care if Iran acquired a nuclear weapon, and used it against Jews. Indeed, Israel’s politicians and generals travel in fear that some European country will detain, arrest and prosecute them for “war crimes,” even as Iran’s Ahmadinutjob can travel most of the world freely and even be feted like a global celebrity. The hypocrisy is so sharp that it could be the stuff of satire (actually, it is: see www.latma.co.il)

      Israel’s cause does not receive much sympathy these days – from non-Jews and their Jewish accomplices – despite its good works around the globe. The more concessions they make, or wish to make, the less popular is their cause. So what is about the wicked person that earns him so much good will ?

     The average person doesn’t identify with the evildoer, but he is drawn to him like a moth to light. The evildoer represents a life without restraint or inhibitions – a pure yetzer hara (evil inclination). Normal people live with limitations – whether the result of self-control, the impact of law and social conventions, or in our case, the Torah. This is the attraction with the celebrity culture; it is like the freak show in the circus. No normal person would think of living that way – but we get to observe people who can seemingly say anything, do anything, betray anyone, live with any person and choose any lifestyle. All the things that motivate simple people to strive for good – spouses, children, law, rectitude, fidelity, decency, values – none of that applies. The evildoer lives in a parallel universe, flouting the norms of respectable people – and people watch and even enjoy. The parts of the instinctual drive that are ordinarily suppressed can find here vicarious expression.

     Amalek has a very unique niche in the world of the evildoer. They denied G-d, defied G-d – and they did not even need Sinai or Torah to hate Jews/ They were our first enemies, and so made it easier for others. They have active supporters and tacit cheerleaders. They are the unbridled animalistic instinct in man, and make it nearly impossible to look away. Amalek made Jew-hatred kosher for everyone – as does the existence of Israel today. It is a respectable way of defying G-d and hating His people – as if to say, “I’m just defending the rights of the oppressed, I’m just against racism, imperialism, expansionism, Zionism, and nothing more.”

     The love of Haman – like the hatred of Mordechai – both speak to something deep within the human psyche. It opens the faucet on latent human desires in a way that is not easy to control or regulate. Some just watch, amused; others identify and support from a distance; and still others sacrifice themselves wholeheartedly for the cause.

      We cannot fully understand the tranquility that many evildoers have that allows them to concoct their schemes, and wins them so many adherents and advocates. We do know that they are able to seize the weaklings among us, and we do know that our weaknesses – our fears, doubts, hesitation, and even our occasional fecklessness – embolden them, and gain them new activists, and new opportunities to promote their evil.

        This is part of the great struggle of mankind from our earliest history until today, and why we can never forget that it is G-d’ s battle we fight in every generation, and that the war will not end simply because we wish it to end. And with that understanding, we fulfill the mitzva of remembering Amalek and enjoy the true elation of Purim, and will again merit the salvation of G-d from all our foes, speedily and in our days.

Over His Head

     The fall from grace has been as sudden as it has been spectacular. Exactly a year ago, Barack Obama was anointed (inaugurated is too tepid a word) president amid expectations that soared in the stratosphere that he would shortly bring world peace, usher in an era of prosperity, reverse global warming, and perhaps even produce a Cubs World Series victory. After a year of rhetorical flourishes and mindless spending, peace is as elusive as ever, prosperity more elusive than it could have been, and the Cubs missed the playoffs. It is, though, a colder than expected winter across the United States.

     The media pumped up Obama, as now they trumpet the charisma of the new junior Senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, who may save both the nation and Obama himself from the excesses of liberal governance. Americans, like residents of democracies generally, are fickle (see under : Israeli elections), but America has always had a powerful streak of individualism and personal responsibility that made the “welfare and nanny states” either anathema or necessary evils – but evils nonetheless. The pendulum swings back: Americans resent high taxes that simply re-distribute wealth from the productive to the non-productive;  Americans desire freedom of choice that makes mandated health insurance distasteful, and reject the payment of higher premiums in order to subsidize the irresponsible and neglectful; Americans chafe under any restrictions on speech, especially political speech, and never quite understood why corporate financing of campaigns was limited but not union financing of campaigns. (Corporations would at least use company profits they earn in the free market; unions use the dues they forcibly extract from their members. Citizens who resent the political choices of the corporation can take their business elsewhere; union members cannot).

    The saddest conclusion is one that could have been anticipated during the campaign but was clouded by the smokescreen of lofty rhetoric, Bush-bashing and racial-triumphalism: Obama is in over his head. That he could freely admit that he was “overconfident” about the feasibility of Mideast peace shows that he was not well schooled in the essentials of that conflict. That he could recklessly promise to close the Guantanamo detention camp– that has worked well in keeping terrorists incarcerated and Americans safe, despite (and maybe because of) the global propaganda campaign against it – within a year (that has just passed), and ban the water boarding that had been successful in extracting information from several murderous thugs, reveals a naiveté about the nature of the enemy we face and the tools we have in facing it. That he confuses words for deeds shows a distorted approach to governance. After a year of little else than speeches and spending, Americans are dissatisfied, and blaming President Bush for everything is wearing thin. (I don’t recall Reagan blaming Carter after inheriting an even worse economy, marked by high inflation, interest rates and unemployment. Memo to President Obama: there are business cycles. Get used to it.)

     Leaders in trouble will often seek scapegoats, and President Obama has this week set his sights on the bankers and their “obscene” profits and bonuses, a convenient and populist but misplaced target. Since I am not a banker nor beholden to them, I can speak freely. Profits are the objective of any business, and bonuses should reward those who contribute to the production of profit. It is harder to understand the eagerness to tax the bonuses because the banks took federal (TARP) money as part of the BUSH (not Obama) bailout, for two reasons: The banks that are paying bonuses have largely paid back the Treasury plus interest for those loans, so why should there be any further liability ? Secondly, the bonuses received by the bankers are already taxed as income, so why should there by a second, special tax levied against these particular profiteers ? The Constitution would seem to prohibit that as a “bill of attainder,” and a policy that burdens successful businesses more than unsuccessful ones will stifle free enterprise, kill jobs, and move businesses – and banks – overseas.

     Of course, the Obama treasury needs a quick infusion of cash because of the reckless, mindboggling spending of the past year. Bush, too, was harshly – and rightly – criticized for deficit spending, but a quick equation is in order to dramatize the desperate situation the President faces: Obama in one year equaled the total Bush deficit of eight years. That is spending. Or this: the number “trillion” has lost its sense of remoteness and inaccessibility. We speak of spending money or running deficits in the trillions as if it were a figure we can truly grasp.

     Obama’s future is bleak, although by no means does that portend an electoral defeat in 2012. Politics is not like that at all. He can certainly rein in his excesses, govern from the center (in the cliché of the week, although that would undoubtedly offend his liberal base), and let the markets freely and fairly dictate economic winners and losers. He can put the endless Middle East conflict on the back burner, and let Israel grow, build and defend itself. The next election will be shaped by a still unidentified Republican challenger – and Republicans too should avoid the growing tendency to showcase celebrity rather than substance – and by events yet to happen. The economy will undoubtedly bounce back, as will jobs, unless business is further encumbered by stifling taxes and regulations that make hiring unprofitable and unwarranted.

     “Bleak” in this context refers to Obama’s ability to influence events, to lead rather than just talk, to speak in specifics rather than just the generalities to which he has become accustomed. It will require a shift in personality and character. (He should lose the “black” accent he affects when speaking to the “common man,” droppin’ his gee’s and praisin’ everybahdy; it is unbecoming a person born in Hawaii, raised by a white mother and white grandparents in white society, who attended Columbia and Harvard. It is worse than phony.) Many of his policies will be adjusted to fit the needs of the Democratic candidates in the 2010 elections, and then adjusted again to meet his own needs. That itself is problematic, a state of affairs in which everything – but everything – is guided by the goal of winning the election, and not at all about governance or statecraft. And that is how he got elected in the first place, and we – and the world – are suffering for it.

     Every president has to learn on the job, but no one should have to learn everything on the job. When that happens, it is not the fault of the candidate but the fault of the electorate.