Spell Check

Posted on February 4, 2016 | 8 comments

Many young people today have forgotten the art of spelling, if only because easy texting depends on the absence of vowels. And “spell check” (some sophisticated programs were developed here in Israel) enables a youngster to type without regard to proper spelling because misspelled words are automatically corrected. Certainly anyone who rights (!) anything quickly learns the limitations of “spell check,” but I have also learned that transliterating Hebrew words triggers the “spell check” in ways that are humorous, insightful, and occasionally absolutely profound.

For example, my use of Mishpacha (family) was corrected to “mishap ha,” which could occur in families that are careless, or in which one jokester loves to sprinkle the floor with banana peels. Mechutan (the in-laws) became “me human,” a plea for understanding, sensitivity, or at least a request for civilized treatment (fortunately, I have been blessed in that regard). Nefesh (soul) was changed to “necessary,” which is certainly true even if not entirely definitive.

“Spell check” obviously struggles with death. Avelut (mourning) has been transformed into “a rout,” or “a slur.” The former is a prevalent sensation upon the death of a loved one, as the survivors often feel defeated and overwhelmed, and the latter is best omitted from a eulogy. When the nifeteret (deceased woman) became the “niftiest,” it was clear that sometimes the eulogy can write itself.

Theological positions are frequently staked out. Maharat (the woman ordained by the neo-Conservatives) was perceived as a “Maharaja,” a royal position to be sure but not necessarily implying any religious connotation. Conversely, musmachim (men who achieve true rabbinic ordination) became “mustache,” a compromise between the beard favored by most rabbis and the clean-shaven few. Eilu v’eilu (these and these… are the words of the living G-d) is our understanding of a true machloket, a rabbinic dispute in which both sides have halachic validity. But when it is used frivolously, or to justify heretical or unacceptable positions, it metamorphoses into “evil veiled.” That’s not me talking; that’s “spell check.”

I have seen Halacha (Jewish law) become “headache,”which it is to some, sad to say, but to others, it is a “Hibachi,” whose use on Yom Tov has triggered discussions of the appropriate application of Jewish law. The finer points of Halacha often generate Sheilot, some of which are invariably “shallow,” but deserve to be answered anyway. Sometimes the answer is “no,” and the item in question becomes an “issur” (a forbidden substance) with which some people take “issue.” The Shulchan (Aruch) was not the code of Jewish law but a “Sultan,” who was an authority in his own right. And a Korban (offering in the Bet Hamikdash) was actually spelled as “Korean,” many of whom have a real affinity for the Talmud, and probably Seder Kodashim.

Shuls became “ships,” on which those who lose kavana (concentration) can sail during services. That can also happen when the davening (prayer) becomes “deafening,” the bane of many Shuls. But Shuls (obviously a word with diverse meanings) can appeal to our “souls” and also occasionally be a home for “shills.” Shuls should be welcoming to everyone. After all, gerim (converts) are just trying to “get in,” a process that can be “grim” if conversions are sought for the wrong reasons. In a shul populated by misnagdim (who are by no means “misanthropes”), a chasid might feel “chased.” After Shabbat, we say havdala, whether or not we are in “Havana,” but why would we be, especially since Cuba is still not a free society?

I tried to wish everyone bsorot tovot (good tidings) but it went right to the “Baptists.” And just as well. I’m sure I’ve missed dozens of other Spell Check specials. The lesson is that it is hard to keep track of all the subliminal messages we send whenever we put fingers to keyboard.

8 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Machshava/Jewish Thought

Hilarious. Not.

Posted on January 27, 2016 | 6 comments

Hillary Clinton remains the odds-on favorite to win the presidency, and a more depressing opening to a column is difficult to conceive. She is front and center in the decline and fall of the American political system and a prominent exhibit in how the bar for presidents has been reduced almost to ground level. Consider the following.

Go and watch the movie “13 Hours” about the heroism of the US Special Forces team who saved dozens of Americans from certain death in Benghazi. If you can overlook the earthy language typical of militaries, one thought emerges from the aftermath of this diplomatic debacle: the utter irrelevance of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton during the assault on the American compounds there. The American President and the Secretary of State, the two individuals primarily responsible for the safety and security of American diplomatic personnel abroad, were simply AWOL.

When the phone rang with the emergency at 3:00 AM, Hillary Clinton didn’t answer, turned over, pulled the blanket and pillow over her head and went back to sleep.

One can debate whether this was incompetence or venality. Both politicians are completely unmentioned in the movie, and the only indirect reference to subsequent events is when, almost eight hours into the assault, an American television feed reported that in the US officials were saying the attack was a “street protest,” one of those under assault said: “Street protests? There are no street protests. What are they talking about?” The Clintonian explanation falls short; there wasn’t the fog of war as much as there was the murk of mendacity.

There were two main failures. The first was the refusal by Clinton to bolster security at these compounds despite intelligence warnings – and prior and repeated pleas from the Ambassador –that such was needed, and long before the Arab terrorist strike occurred. The second was the refusal by Obama and his underlings to order American Special Forces stationed in Italy – just four hours away, and fueled and ready to go – into Benghazi on a rescue mission. Of the four Americans who were murdered, three were killed more than ten hours after the assault began. Repeated radio requests for assistance were simply turned down without explanation.

It is easy to understand how Obama’s dream of becoming the first President in almost a century not to send American forces into combat on his own accord has cost and will cost American lives. It is even easier to understand the price the United States has paid across the globe for such fecklessness, and it underscores the bravery of the troops who fought and fight without the support of the ruling political establishment but for love of country and their brothers in arms, honor and duty.

Some of these points were raised in the risible Benghazi hearings in Congress, a spectacle that did not do justice to the men who fought and the politicians who let them down. To the mass media, Hillary Clinton emerged the victor, presumably because she didn’t break down on the witness stand and confess her guilt. The fact that she lied repeatedly (classic takeaway: the email to her daughter blaming the attack on Al-Qaeda elements at the very same time she’s peddling to the public the lie about the Mohammed-mocking video as the proximate cause of the attack) was willfully ignored, perhaps because Hillary Clinton lying is not exactly breaking news. (I met her in 1992, sat three feet from her across a table, and asked her two questions. Both answers were lies. This was four years before the late Bill Safire labeled her “a congenital liar.” Today, even provable lies are ignored because they are so commonplace.)

But the hearings were designed to fail. Rather than have one or two lawyers ask questions, the

sessions were a merry-go-round, with too many preening politicians and others simply fawning for the camera. There were too many participants with too little time to accomplish anything substantive, much like the current Republican debates.

A number of Republican representatives asked probing, uncomfortable questions, but even those questions took far longer than necessary considering the limited time each questioner had. All Hillary had to do was obfuscate for three or four minutes, even under tough questioning, and the session was over. Well, not quite over, because the microphone then shifted to the Democrats who pummeled her with brutal questions such as: “On a scale of 1-10, how great are you, 20 or 100?” Or, “These hearings are terrible. Will you ever be able to forgive us?” Vicious, nasty questions that somehow she was able to parry…

There was none of the momentum that examiners seek to develop when a hostile witness is being questioned, no continuity in the interrogation, and too much opportunity given to her to ramble and kill time. First-year law students would know to frame questions that required just a yes/no answer, and first  year associates would know how to follow up and focus on points when she was caught dissembling, rather than abruptly shift the line of questioning.

There were inconsistencies, ineptitude, lies, and policy failures all exposed but they were lost in the sea of befuddlement and bewilderment that did a disservice to the country and the victims.

It is clear that both Obama and Clinton prioritized saving their necks and developing cover stories rather than explain what they did or didn’t do, why assistance was not sent, and why people were left to die, all in order to protect a political narrative. Few will remember how, for almost two months after September 11, 2012, CBS hid an interview with Obama at the time in which he declined to label the attack “terrorism,” and even fewer will remember how Candy Crowley – the “moderator” in the CNN debate between Obama and Romney – leaped to Obama’s defense with an utter falsehood.

It is outrageous that Hillary is never asked about this matter but even to be asked about it at this point would not make a difference. The Obama team has perfected the two-step dodge. When they are asked about something nefarious or corrupt that has happened, they say they cannot answer because the matter is under investigation. That investigation then takes months. If the investigation is ever finished, and the results are even detrimental, they then say that “this is old news that has already been investigated,” or “you should ask the Justice Department.”  If only Nixon had been this clever; well, even that might not have saved him, because at the time there were Republicans in Congress who actually had a functioning conscience. If there is a Democrat in Congress who has a conscience and is not a partisan hack, please identify yourself.

Even the Clinton email scandal has been buried under an avalanche of falsities, prevarications and sheer corruption. It is obvious that she broke the law multiple times through the mishandling of classified information. It is unconscionable that she will likely get away with it. Even if the FBI recommends an indictment, the US Attorney need not prosecute, and even if she is indicted, Obama can always issue a complete pardon. And even if she was indicted and not pardoned, the Democrat electorate today is such that they would vote for her anyway.

She has evaded real scrutiny by claiming to have made a “mistake”  out of a desire for convenience, and that has so far successfully concealed the real scandal: not the server itself but the reason why the private server, walled off from the prying eyes of the public, the media and prosecutors, was used in the first place. My guess is – and this has been reported without much publicity – that the private server was necessary to monitor and delete at will proprietary information relating to the management and activities of the Clinton Foundation, one of the biggest pay-for-play entities in the world. Bill and Hill created this lucrative organization as a money-producing machine, hidden from the public eye, in which, under the guise of doing “good works” (apparently, barely 10% of their intake of hundreds of millions of dollars annually is spent on anything productive) they use the machinery of government to assist their donors with contracts and contacts. They rake in tens of millions of dollars every single year, and it seems there are numerous people just out of government on their payroll.

It is interesting how the latest reports revealed that all the revenue is funneled to a Canadian charity, which then subsidizes the Clinton Foundation with its largesse, all benefiting from Canadian law that shields the identities of donors to charitable organizations – unlike US law.

And the whole scam depends on Hillary Clinton being elected to the White House – a windfall to all their donors if she wins and a great misfortune to them if she loses. There is a lot more riding on this election than the future of this country and the free world.

Only someone counting on the ignorance of the electorate could proclaim herself a “proven fighter” (for what? Against who or what?) and a “proven leader” (for who and for what?) and get away with it.

As New York Senator, she accomplished nothing – no major initiatives, no legislation, no ideas  – although I have heard she did provide good constituent service. And as Secretary of State? Forget for a moment that the world is in a shambles, and that the situation in every area of the world has deteriorated. Forget that the Middle East is aflame, that she has open disdain for Israel’s Prime Minister and a blind spot when it comes to Israel’s true interests, that relations with Russia have been “reset” to the Cold War, that Europe is being overrun by Muslims and their terror, that traditional US allies are dismayed or dejected at their treatment from this administration, that the United States on her watch ceased being a world leader, that nuclear proliferation among evildoers is the real legacy of this administration, and that the forces of malevolence across the world are on the march.

Forget all that and ask a simple question: is there one place on the globe where Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State was able to advance a single American foreign policy interest – the very task of the office she held? I can think of none. And that qualifies her for … a promotion? Only in America.

The current disarray in the Republican Party –some of it natural to the primary process, some of it sidetracked by side shows – does not bode well for the election or the country. The media will protect Hillary like an etrog, even in the unlikely event that she is indicted. They have that much invested in her election.

But not as much as Hillary and her donors have invested. And there is nothing hilarious about that.

 

6 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Birth of a Religion

Posted on January 15, 2016 | 4 comments

Last Thursday night, a Philadelphia police officer was shot in cold blood and wounded by a man in Muslim garb, shouting Islamic slogans, and purporting to act in the name of ISIS. Jim Kenney, the Mayor of Philadelphia, was quick to shoot down the assailant’s own stated motive: “In no way shape or form does anyone in this room believe that Islam or the teaching of Islam has anything to do with what you’ve seen on the screen. It is abhorrent. It is terrible and it does not represent the religion or any of its teachings. This is a criminal with a stolen gun who tried to kill one of our officers. It has nothing to do with being a Muslim or following the Islamic faith.”

This follows the playbook crafted for many years by President Obama, who resolutely rejects the notion that there is such a thing as “Islamic terror,” “Islamist terror,” “radical Islamic terror,” or any and all associations between terror and any Muslim. ISIS “has nothing to do with Islam;” that is to say, Islamic State is not Islamic and also is not a State. Its entire name is a lie! Leaving aside the question who is Obama to decree what is or isn’t Islamic (how can he speak in the name of Islam when he denies being a Muslim?), his renunciations would be more credible if they were applied universally to other groups.

For example, the rare attack by a white on a black in America is never a crime committed by one racist criminal but always a sign of the endemic racism that infects all of white America and a legacy of slavery 150 years ago. It reflects on everyone, not just the individual perpetrator. The rare attack by a Christian on an abortion clinic is always a sign of the radicalization of Christianity in America, spurred on by radical priests and ministers. All Christians are expected to take responsibility for the acts of the individual. The president and his minions have never been heard saying “This has absolutely nothing to do with Christianity.”

And Jews? The even more rare attack by a Jew on anyone is always met with communal guilt and recriminations, and a failure of the perpetrators’ parents, grandparents, teachers and neighbors. If a Jew jaywalks (shame on him!), he and his community will be denounced by Jewish organizations across the world. He will be subjected to public ridicule. Commissions and committees will be formed to deliberate where we as a people went wrong to produce such miscreants, whether or not the appellation “chosen people” is still deserved, and speculate whether there is any hope for the Jewish future. If he is an Israeli Jew, the UN Security Council will condemn him an, depending where he jaywalked, accuse him of being a war criminal.

The acts of an individual – Jew or Israeli – are always perceived by this government and the political left as a sign of the moral decay caused by the “occupation” and the rot at the core of Jewish society. It is never – never – construed as just the act of an individual lacking any connection to Judaism or Israel. It is always perceived as a reflection on Judaism, otherwise it would not be a shonda(!).  We should be able to avoid the specter of the shonda (!) by saying that they perpetrator should not be considered a Jew and his act has nothing to do with Judaism. But we don’t.

And one need not look further than the misdeeds of a couple of rabbis in the last few years, and the screaming headlines and seething discourses on the failed state of the rabbinate.  All rabbis are somehow tainted and suspect and require re-training and supervision. It is never the individual; it is always the group. Except when it comes to Islam.

Well, everyone can’t be wrong. And there are Muslims who denounce the terrorists, the terror, and lament the perversion of Islam, as Obama is quick to emphasize. If it isn’t Islam, then what is it?

The terrorists have invented a new religion, and we have just been to slow to acknowledge it. There is a religion called “Islam.” There is a new religion that should actually be called “Is-not-lam.”

Islam is a religion of peace that respects all mankind and is tolerant of all religions. Isnotlam is a religion of war, permanent and perpetual holy war. Islam treats all people with respect and dignity and affords them basic human rights. Isnotlam is locked in an endless struggle against all non-Isnotlamists who are heretics, fiends and infidels; indeed, Isnotlam even targets Muslims and has murdered more Muslims than it has murdered non-Muslims.

Islam represents the submission of the individual to God’s will and sees life as a paramount value. Isnotlam sees death and martyrdom as desirable – the epitome of one’s life work – and the application of that value to others, willing or unwilling, as a fundamental religious commitment. Islam co-exists in peace and harmony with all nations and creeds. Isnotlam seeks world domination and the imposition of Isnotlamic law on every other person on the globe even at the point of a sword.

What makes it especially confusing to the outsider is that both Islam and Isnotlam revere the same texts, dress in similar ways, speak the same language and abide by many of the same customs. But Islam underscores the tolerant portions of the Koran, whereas Isnotlam has distorted the Koran into something that is unrecognizable to the true Muslim. It makes it very difficult for the outsider to distinguish between the true Muslim and the Isnotlamist.

Muslims justifiably do not want to be lumped together with Isnotlamists, and do not want the actions of a few tens of millions Isnotlamists to reflect poorly on them. And what is particularly outrageous is that the Isnotlamists do not hesitate in judging other individuals by the groups to which they belong. They will wantonly murder Jews all over the world because they have a grievance with Jews or Israelis in Israel. They will wantonly murder Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Kurds, Yazidis, and others – Americans, Europeans, Russians, Africans and Asians – only because they are part of a disfavored group (i.e., everyone else on the planet) and not because of any particular grievance they have with those individuals.

The relentless insistence by Obama and his acolytes that persistent terror by Muslims has absolutely nothing to do with Islam sounds ridiculous and clueless until one realizes – as sadly, the President has not yet – that the problem is not Islam  but the new faith, Isnotlam. We are at war with Isnotlam, and would Obama recognize that and swiftly. Isnotlam through its various constituents – ISIS, Al Qaeda, Boko Haram, the Taliban and assorted other groups – is causing tremendous harm across the world and has intensified its threats to all non-Isnotlamists.

Rather than saying what the terrorists are not – Muslims –and whose ideology they are not following – Islam – world leaders should boldly declare war on Isnotlam. We can only hope and pray that Isnotlamists are outnumbered by the good people on whom they are inflicting death, suffering and fear, and that those good people – freed of any accusations of Islamophobia and the like – can prevail in this world war.

And, apologists for terror, please don’t accuse me of Isnotlamophobia. We live in very serious times and cannot be distracted in this struggle, the civilized world’s quest for victory and survival. It would certainly help the cause if followers of Islam unequivocally denounced the followers of Isnotlam.

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events

The Candidates on Israel

Posted on January 8, 2016 | 4 comments

There must be a better way to elect a President.

The interminable campaign – I think the candidates for the 2020 election are already organizing – becomes a little more serious in a few weeks when real live Americans actually start voting. It is bizarre that so many candidates have already dropped out, long before even a single ballot has been cast, but not as bizarre as the fact that there were so many candidates to begin with.

It is a good time then to look at each of the Republican candidates for president and their attitudes towards Israel. Three caveats are in order. First, I am among those who believe that the Israel factor should not be the sole determinant of a person’s voting patterns. It goes without saying that an anti-Israel candidate could never win my vote. Nonetheless, if a candidate rated 90% support (however that is measured) and another candidate measured 80% support, it is not unreasonable to examine his/her positions on other issues. This is especially so since those other issues will tend to influence their dealings with Israel.

Second, it cannot be underscored enough that, fortunately, Israel is not a major issue in this campaign, or, for that matter, in the world today. An analysis published last week of the anticipated global hot spots in 2016 did not even mention Israel. Israel would benefit inordinately from the benign neglect of American diplomacy, which would certainly be an improvement over the hostile American diplomacy of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry era and also allow Israel – if it can summon the will – to take the elementary and effective security measures needed to stem the rising tide of Arab terror.

Third, any of the Republican candidates – and I mean any – would be an improvement over the current occupants of the White House and Foggy Bottom. Like many erstwhile American allies, Israel has been treated by the Obama administration more like a nuisance and an irritant than as a friend and ally. Of course, it hasn’t been completely negative; that can never be given Israel’s strong support in Congress and with the American people. But Obama has been an annoyance to Israel since the beginning of his tenure, and that is manifest not only through the strengthening of Israel’s enemies (Iran’s nuclear bomb is at the top of that list, along with US support for the Muslim Brotherhood) but also through PM Netanyahu’s persistent fear of taking the initiative against Arab terror and changing the dynamic of the conflict, both in order to avoid provoking Obama.

None of the Republican candidates bear that animus, or at least that ill-concealed contempt for Israel and its leaders that Obama and his acolytes have had, and that Obama spent 20 years listening to his pastor’s sermons.

That being said, the Republican candidates on Israel break down into three different categories: superstars, establishment and ciphers.

There are four superstars in the Republican galaxy on the Israel question, in no particular order: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, and Marco Rubio. It is not just the kishke factor that excites some Jews but rather their essential worldview. They see Israel as a friend, not just an ally. They see Israel’s fight against Arab-Islamic terror as identical to America’s fight. They would not – as John Kerry does every time – rattle off the egregious Islamic terrorist acts across the world (from Bali to San Bernardino) and never mention Israel as a victim of Arab-Islamic terror.  They do not share the Obama-Kerry opinion that “Islamist terror” (strike that – Obama-Kerry never attribute Muslim terror to Muslims; call it “violent extremist man-made disasters”) in Paris, Madrid, London, New York, etc., etc., is unconscionably evil, whereas Arab terror in Israel against Jews has a rationale, is understandable, and really all Israel’s fault anyway.

That is a completely different worldview. Added to that, these superstars have no illusions about a “peace process,” have no interest in the creation of an irredentist Palestinian state that will serve as a base for radical Islam, and are rightfully content to let Israel handle its diplomacy and settle in its heartland as many Jews as it deems feasible. Strangely, they do not wish to dictate to the sovereign State of Israel where Jews should live! It is impossible to imagine that any of these four gentlemen would become more enraged by the building of a few homes in Samaria than by the detonation of a nuclear bomb in North Korea.

For years, Mike Huckabee has become a fixture at banquets of pro-Israel Jewish organizations and delivered speeches that could shame Israeli prime ministers with his unabashed support for a strong, confident Israel, the fulfillment of Biblical prophecies. Ironically, Cruz and Rubio’s foreign policy approaches differ markedly – except when it comes to Israel. All three – and Ben Carson – root their love for Israel and their appreciation of Israel’s historic rights and unparalleled struggles to the Bible. That depth of understanding and commitment is not subject to change. It is hard to imagine any of them lambasting Israel for defending itself against Arab terror, calling for restraint and “proportionate” (and thus ineffective) responses, or pressuring Israel to make more concessions to purchase ephemeral “good will” from its Arab enemies.

Then there are the establishment candidates, those who are pro-Israel, support Israel, want a strong Israel, but are also wedded to the traditional American diplomatic posture that supports the “peace process” – notwithstanding how ludicrous the phrase, much less the process, has become. They seek to balance support for Israel with alliances with Arab nations as well. That is not inherently bad, except when it leads the United States into the quagmire of double standards – castigating Israel for trifles while ignoring extreme violence, abuses and corruption in those Arab allies.

Numbered in this group are Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and John Kasich. They are all what we would traditionally call “pro-Israel” – make no mistake about that – but they differ with the superstars in being grounded more in realpolitik than in a heartfelt attachment to Israel based on values and policy. In truth, we have never really had a President of the first category. Even Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush, both motivated by good instincts, were still bound to the machinations of their diplomatic corps – some of whom served, it seems, for many years, and in both Democratic and Republican administrations. George Bush I was clearly in this “Scowcroft” mold, and further slanted by the execrations of James Baker.

The giveaway in all this is any reference to the phrases “revive the peace process” or “good will gestures.” These reveal that a candidate is beholden to Arabists at the State Department, has based his diplomatic goals on hackneyed clichés unrelated to reality, and will conduct the usual push and pull with Israel even as Israel tries to navigate through the treacherous waters of the hostile, barbaric neighborhood in which it is situated.

That notion of “reviving the peace process” leads to the third category – the ciphers. They are candidates whose positions are difficult, if not impossible to discern, and in this category we find Donald Trump, Carly Fiorina and Rand Paul. A cipher is not bad, just risky, because it is really unknown how they would respond to any situation. Rand Paul is an admitted isolationist, and therefore long perceived as hostile to Israel. That is untrue, as he has made clear and without compromising his values. Even Rand Paul has come around to accept the importance of military aid to Israel, not only because it benefits the US economy (70% of that aid is spent in the US helping American companies) but also because he recognizes Israel’s role in furthering US interests in an unstable part of the world. He lost favor years ago because of his opposition to foreign aid (again, he has backtracked on military aid to Israel) but it is hard to quibble with his comment that it is nonsensical for the United States – broke and indebted to the tune of $19,000,000,000,000 (nineteen trillion dollars; that’s a lot of zeroes) – “borrowing money from the Chinese to give to foreign countries.” There is something quite sensible about that.

Carly Fiorina is an excellent candidate – talented, articulate, grounded, and capable. But support for Israel must be based on something more than “I’ve met Bibi.” I’ve met Bibi too, but he has also met a lot of other people too. Carly will be a cipher until she addresses these issues more explicitly.

Which brings us to Donald Trump. (If elected, will he be referred to as “The President” or “The Donald”?) As a New Yorker, he certainly has a long and positive history with Jews. Many Jews – religious Jews also – have worked and still work for him. Famously, he was once the Grand Marshal of the Salute to Israel parade. But his campaign has been based on being the “anti-politician,” not bad per se(others have been elected running on that platform, like U.S. Grant), but rendering his stance on the issues, even on other issues, unknowable. He has boasted of his “unpredictability,” that he will not reveal his positions in any depth or detail so as not to give our adversaries any advantage.

That sounds better that it actually is, and what it is – is ludicrous. No one would buy a suit of “unpredictable” size, order “unpredictable” food in a restaurant, or marry someone of “unpredictable” character. Why then would anyone vote for a president who rejoices in his unpredictability? He needs to become slightly more specific on the issues. It is not enough to answer questions about specifics – the Middle East too – by saying “they won’t know what hit them,” “their heads will spin,” or “I’m rich and successful.” Indeed, not all of his deals were successful, as the WSJ reported last week, as a number of his companies went into bankruptcy and he teetered on the brink of personal bankruptcy himself.

Does anyone know how Trump relates to the Middle East? To Israel? To the settlements? To the “peace process”? To the Iran nuclear deal (except that it is the worst ever)? If Israel annexed Judea and Samaria, how would he respond? He hinted that he is not averse to the re-division of Yerushalayim or asking Israel for “sacrifices” for peace. I would state clearly my feelings for Trump as President – he is entertaining to be sure – but I too choose to remain unpredictable.

To quote Donald Trump, both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton would be “disasters” on the Israel factor. Sanders is a hard-core leftist whose sympathies are not with the Jewish state. And all we need to remember about Hillary Clinton is this: as the world burned, ISIS expanded and Islamic terror metastasized across the globe, Iraq fell and North Korea further developed its nuclear program, she chose to harangue – in most personal, insulting and undiplomatic language – Israel’s Prime Minister because a minor municipal official in Yerushalayim announced that day tenders to build apartments in the northern part of Yerushalayim. That is treatment that she never afforded any rogue, any scoundrel, or any terrorist across the world, and only those who don’t wish to see it will fail to see it.

As most of her Jewish supporters care more about abortion rights than Israel’s survival, this should not trouble them. But it does give us an insight into her mindset and worldview going forward. Voter beware!

Of course, any leader can change while in office, so we can only rely on current assessments. At this point, any and all Republican candidates would be far superior, for the United States and Israel to the alternatives.

 

4 Comments

Posted in Contemporary Life, Current Events, Israel