OBAMA: RIGHT-WINGER ?

Posted on May 23, 2011 | 1 comment

     There are only three possibilities that explain President Obama’s mishandling of the US relationship with Israel, his persistent disrespect for PM Netanyahu and Obama’s apparent naiveté about Mideast diplomacy.

     One suggests that Obama is a closet right-winger, a strong supporter of Greater Israel and an avid Zionist who recognizes that negotiations with the Arabs can only harm Israel and so he is doing his level best to ensure that such negotiations never take place. Indeed, Obama’s statement on Thursday prompted the PA to announce (Saeb Erakat) that negotiations will Israel will only ensue if Israel agrees in advance to withdraw to the 1967 lines. That, of course, is a non-starter for Israel and means that negotiations will take not place at all. As such, Obama has cleverly maneuvered the parties into a situation where negotiations are impossible, the status quo remains, and Israel retains its possession over Judea and Samaria forever. Menachem Begin and Yitzchak Shamir could not have planned it better, and it is an ingenious way to secure the Jewish vote in 2012.

    Assuming arguendo that Obama has not secretly joined Gush Emunim, a second possibility presents: that Obama is so incompetent, so inept, and so out of his league on matters of international diplomacy, that he makes grand pronouncements that not only have no chance of being executed in the real world but actually exacerbate the diplomatic climate. It is the foreign affairs equivalent of spending the United States into bankruptcy in order to save its economy. He simply does not realize that words matter, and nuances matter even more. If so, the “smack down in the Oval Office” was well-deserved, with PM Netanyahu displaying a welcome backbone, and lecturing the inexperienced President that illusions are dangerous, that statements have consequences, and that nations have interests, values and principles that transcend a pleasant photo op.    

      The third possibility embraced by many supporters of Israel is that Obama is incorrigibly anti-Israel, a legacy of his both his anti-colonial roots and his decades as a disciple of Reverend Wright and others. All the rhetoric cannot undo the discomfiting body language and tenseness in the presence of Israel’s Prime Minister, and the utter disregard of the nature of a friendship and alliance between nations.   That Obama’s Democratic-Jewish acolytes have rushed to defend his statements as insignificant and mostly misunderstood demonstrate not only where their loyalties lie (to their party over their people) but also reinforce the incompetence on display. When both the Israelis and the Arabs understand a presidential statement as articulating a departure from past policy, a presidential denial of such evinces an admission of ineptitude on the international stage that is stunning.

     One must feel for liberal Jews. Their cognitive dissonance demands that “Democrat equals good,” so Obama must be good (because he is a Democrat) even if he is bad in any number of ways. Thus, they contort themselves into pretzels to rationalize his animosity rather than confront reality.

    Of course, some will say that the President was just echoing past policy, perhaps unintentionally adding a nuance or openness not stated before. That he would do this in a speech ostensibly about the Arab world, whose turmoil in wholly unrelated to the conflict in Israel, means that he was either tossing a bone to the Arab world – reassuring them that he will weaken Israel and nudge it out of existence – or again demonstrating his bungling manner in affairs of state.

     Which is it ? The cacophony of attacks and defenses would tend to highlight “possibility two.”

     We hope the President enjoys his trip to Europe.

1 Comment

Posted in Contemporary Life, Israel, Jewish History

Civil Discourse

Posted on May 18, 2011 | Comments Off on Civil Discourse

     During an 1863 Senate debate on the propriety of President Lincoln’s suspension of the writ of habeus corpus during the Civil War (which allowed the government to incarcerate people without charges or trial), Senator Willard Saulsbury of Delaware took to the floor and began in berate Lincoln in an apparently liquor-fueled harangue. He denounced Lincoln as an “imbecile” and “the weakest man ever placed in a high office.” Ruled out of order, Saulsbury refused to be seated or be quiet. When the sergeant at arms came to escort him out of the Senate chamber, Saulsbury pulled out his revolver, pointed it at the officer, cursed him and said: “If you touch me, I’ll shoot you dead.” Some time later Saulsbury was disarmed, removed, calm was restored, and the distinguished senator’s political career continued intact.

      So much for the halcyon days of civility and graciousness in public life. And this happened to Abraham Lincoln, not Franklin Pierce or some lesser light !

      It is unfair to say that matters are worse today than ever before; in fact, it probably was far worse in the 19th century than today. But that sad fact does not make it any easier to digest the pitiable depiction of politicians and public officials in our society. The pervasiveness of the news cycle exposes everyone’s blemishes and peccadilloes (and worse), so much so that the options in all recent elections seemed to be limited to choosing between the racist or the sexist, the adulterer or the embezzler, the clown or the crook, and the abuser or the thief. It is enough to make one want to avoid voting altogether – which, in fact, is the reality for most Americans.

       The disturbing tendency – exaggerated by the media, that most enthusiastic purveyor of lashon hara – to define a person by one word, one quote or one event is rampant, misleading and ultimately grossly unfair. People are not caricatures, but, often, when we disagree, we reduce our adversaries to such, which is an attempt to score polemical points or intimidate them into silence. It is relatively easy to find a molehill, and to build a mountain of lies and distortions around it.

      These unfortunate tactics are not limited to politics, just like the Gotcha ! gang is not restricted to members of the media. There are times when controversial issues arise in communities that often find people on opposite sides of an ideological, substantive or procedural divide – issues that have no one right answer and on which reasonable people can differ. We mimic the most appalling aspects of the modern secular media – and modern life generally – when we seek to demonize the “other” side on a personal level, or when we attribute to them ignoble or despicable motivations, or when we lift a word or phrase out of context in order to smear an antagonist, or when we concoct conspiracy theories that reflect more our own baser instincts than have any counterpart in reality.

       It is a well-worn cliché, but a most noble sentiment nonetheless, that people must learn to disagree without being disagreeable. Chazal (Brachot 58a) noted that just like the faces of human beings differ one from another, so too our thoughts, minds and personalities also differ. That is not lamentable but normal, and a tribute to the wisdom and glory of our Creator. It is what makes life interesting, and what enables us to learn from each other. It so normal that it ensures the existence of a machloket l’shem shamayim (a dispute for the sake of Heaven) that, Chazal (Avot V:20) teach, will “endure in the end.” A machloket l’shem shamayim has no winner or loser; a decision must be made that offers practical guidance, but the machloket remains, and can be the source of further discussion, review, insight and inspiration.

     In fact, Chazal (Yevamot 14b) make a point of stating that despite the fact that Bet Shammai and Bet Hillel disagreed on hundreds of important matters, ranging from the laws of Shabbat and kashrut to marriage eligibility, they “did not refrain from marrying into each others’ families nor from using each others’ utensils, always evincing love and friendship for each other and in fulfillment of the verse ‘love truth and peace.’”

      Truth and peace may not be natural allies, but they need not be bitter enemies.

      To disagree agreeably – to contend with another and yet remain friends – is a mark of maturity, intelligence and decency. It is far easier to make noise and generate strife than it is to foster peace and mutual respect. The former requires only one person, a Senator Saulsbury-type who can transform a lively debate on the weightiest issues into a madhouse of pandemonium, peril and incivility, and ruin the environment for all. The latter requires humility, tolerance, respect for others, and perhaps even self-respect for one’s innate potential to be good and to do good, to see the best in others and in our institutions, and to preserve a spiritual environment that glorifies Hashem and His Torah.

      It is that spirit and that commitment that guides and sustains us throughout our lives, and quantifies the extent to which the ideas and values of Torah have permeated our core and animate our daily existence – as individuals and as a community – and which elicits the blessings of Heaven for continued success, prosperity and peace in all our endeavors.

Comments Off on Civil Discourse

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

Lessons of the Holocaust

Posted on May 15, 2011 | 3 comments

     The devastation wrought by the Holocaust is still felt in Jewish life, and its scope still boggles the sane and rational mind of the decent human being. The Nazi evil remains incomprehensible, but the Holocaust must engender practical lessons for Jews or its effects will soon fade into the mists of history – especially in an era characterized by genocides perpetrated on almost every continent. What lessons can be drawn from the Holocaust ?

    This question was directed to Menachem Begin in 1981, while he served as Israel’s prime minister, by a group of young American Jews. Begin, one of the great Jewish leaders of the 20th century, experienced the horrors of the Holocaust first hand. His parents and older brother were murdered by the Germans, and he endured almost a year and a half as a prisoner in a USSR labor camp for Polish fighters – experiences that both shaped his world view and his policies as prime minister. His answer (published recently by the Americans for a Safe Israel in their Outpost magazine, November 2010) is more than relevant today; it resonates with ideas and values that should be part of the upbringing of every Jew, and should inform the policies of current Jewish leaders regarding the Arabs of the land of Israel, Iran, and Jewish life across the globe. For sure, the week between Yom HaShoah and Yom Ha’atzmaut is an ideal time to reflect on these matters.

      Begin’s words follow:

     “I believe the lessons of the Holocaust are these.

     First, if an enemy of our people says he seeks to destroy us, believe him. Don’t doubt him for a moment. Don’t make light of it. Do all in your power to deny him the means of carrying out his satanic intent. (Note: one month later, Begin dispatched Israel’s Air Force to destroy the Iraqi nuclear facility at Osirak.)

   Second, when a Jew anywhere in the world is threatened or under attack, do all in your power to come to his aid. Never pause to wonder what the world will think or say. The world will never pity slaughtered Jews. The world may not necessarily like the fighting Jew, but the world will have to take account of him.

    Third, a Jew must learn to defend himself. He must forever be prepared for whenever threat looms.

     Fourth, Jewish dignity and honor must be protected in all circumstances. The seeds of Jewish destruction lie in passively enabling the enemy to humiliate us. Only when the enemy succeeds in turning the spirit of the Jew into dust and ashes in life, can he turn the Jew into dust and ashes in death. During the Holocaust it was after the enemy had humiliated the Jews, trampled them underfoot, divided them, deceived them, afflicted them, drove brother against brother, only then could he lead them, almost without resistance, to the gates of Auschwitz. Therefore, at all times and whatever the cost, safeguard the dignity and honor of the Jewish people.

     Fifth, stand united in the face of the enemy. We Jews love life, for life is holy. But there are things in life more precious than life itself. There are times when one must risk life for the sake of rescuing the lives of others. And when the few risk their own lives for the sake of the many, then they, too, stand the chance of saving themselves.

    Sixth, there is a pattern to Jewish history. In our long annals as a nation, we rise, we fall, we return, we are exiled, we are enslaved, we rebel, we liberate ourselves, we are oppressed once more, we rebuild, and again we suffer destruction, climaxing in our own lifetime in the calamity of calamities, the Holocaust, followed by the rebirth of the Jewish State.

    So, yes, we have come full circle, and with G-d’s help, with the rebirth of sovereign Israel we have finally broken the historic cycle: no more destruction and no more defeats, and no more oppression – only Jewish liberty, with dignity and honor. These, I believe, are the underlying lessons to be learned from the unspeakable tragedy of the Holocaust.”

     Those were the words of Menachem Begin exactly 30 years ago. In the ensuing decades, historic enemies have continued to attack, and new enemies have risen with new challenges and old threats. The people of Israel have been bloodied and the land of Israel dissected. We have experienced unparalleled moments of national unity, as well as heartrending and anguished periods of national strife. We have heard the cries of some Jews and ignored the pleas of others.

       Yet, the hope always remains that the fulfillment of Jewish destiny is quite near – as near, in the language of the Gemara (Sanhedrin 98a), as “today, if we but hearken to His voice.” Then, and only then, our past sorrows will be overwhelmed by the tidings of salvation, Jewish national life will reach its apogee and we will greet Moshiach and the dawn of a new era with joy and gratitude.

3 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel, Jewish History

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