Separating the Sexes - Just Like the Nazis Did

Rabbi Aviezer Piltz (JTA)

I have no clue why this clown is given any recognition at all, let alone the honor of being a Rosh Yeshiva and given any prominence in United Torah Judaism, the political party of the Charedi world in Israel.

How dare I call Rabbi Aviezer Piltz, a prominent Charedi Rosh Yeshiva, a clown? That’s because of my respect for the Charedi world. I don’t want to say what I really think of him.  Being a clown is an honorable profession. Just like being a Rosh Yeshiva is. Both provide a valuable service. A Rosh Yeshiva teaches our young Torah. And clowns make people happy. In my view  Rabbi Piltz doesn’t deserve to be a Rosh Yeshiva of a dog pound.

If I were a parent of a child in his Yeshiva, he would be out of there in a New York minute after hearing about what he had to say recently in Bnei Brak as reported by JTA. In reference to Israeli law forbidding separation of the sexes on public buses he said: 

“Start to organize, to ride separately,” he said at the event Saturday night in the haredi enclave of Bnei Brak. “It’s forbidden to travel on gender-separate buses. Is there a state in the world where they don’t allow [gender] separation on buses? Apart from this country, here they don’t allow it. This is a state of idol worship. Even the Nazis, may their names be erased, knew that there should be separate living quarters for men and women.” 

Obviously this fellow is not a survivor - or a child of survivors. Because if he is, he would have never said that. The idea of separating men and women as they marched to their deaths in Nazi death camps is in any way comparable to separating men and women on separate buses is offensive in the extreme! What does a survivor who lived under those conditions think about such a comment? 

The idea that anyone would make that comparison disqualifies them from any position of leadership and responsibly. Much less  be in a position of influencing young people that often treat their Roshei Yeshiva like icons.

How stupid this fellow must be. It doesn’t matter how ‘brilliant’ he might be in his Torah knowledge. He is still stupid if he does not know enough to make such comparisons even in private, let alone in public. I can only imagine what else he says to his students in private.

No matter how anyone feels about separating the sexes, even if they are strong supporters of separate buses for men and women, Piltz’s comments are condemnable. And yet, maybe I’m wrong but I have not heard any condemnations from his colleagues on the right. Where are they? Why the silence? Do they agree with him?

I understand their views and their passion. A crowded bus filled with men and women by its very nature would mean inadvertent contact between men and women. I get it. Separate buses is an understandable request. But there are other ways to solve that kind of problem. For example to simply limit the number of people to the number of seats on a bus. That would eliminate crowding. Nevertheless, I can understand why they might be upset by a law that forbids separating the sexes. But declaring what the Nazis did is better?! Really?!

Why not give them what they want? That is because buses are there to serve the public. Not just a limited constituency. If a half empty ‘male’ bus stops to pick up passengers who want to get to their destinations without delay – and there are women waiting at that stop - why should they be inconvenienced by a stupid rule? Why should they forced to wait for the ‘female’ bus?

There are some in the more extreme portions of the Charedi world that believe that all public transportation should be gender specific. They will never sit next to a member of the opposite sex on a bus.  But this is not a mainstream standard and should not be made a matter of policy on any public conveyance. 

There is a well known Teshuva (responsum) by R’ Moshe Feinstein that states (if I remember correctly) it is not a violation of Halacha to sit next to a woman on a bus. Should Israeli law require a a religious standard that is greater than that of R’Moshe? 

There is a famous story about R’ Shlomo Zalman Auerbach where an immodestly dressed woman sat next to him on a bus. He stood up and walked over to the exist as though the next stop was his destination. Even though it wasn’t. He walked the rest of the way so that would not embarrass that woman by just moving to another seat. She might have taken offense at that.

I mention this story to show not only his great Midos (good character) but in this instance to show that one of the most respected Gedolim of the 20^th century had no problem traveling on a bus where the sexes were not separated. Is Rabbi Piltz more religious that R’ Shlomo Zalman? He must think so! But as far as I’m concerned he is as phony as a 3 dollar bill. And the lack of any critical comment about that from the right does not speak well of them either. It will only encourage more statements like that. And as I said, I am not aware of any such criticism.

Where, oh where are the R’ Shlomo Zalmans of our day? They do not seem to exist. 

Chazal tell us that just before the advent of messianic era the face of our leadership will be like the face of dogs. They might look like leaders, but they are followers. Just like a dog might run ahead of their master and look like they are leading him, the truth is that they are always looking back at their masters to see which way they are going. Despite appearances, dogs do not lead. They follow. This seems to be the order of our day as leaders tripping all over themselves to prove how Frum they are to their colleagues and the people that look up to them as leaders. They are looking over their shoulders. Not leading. 

I guess Moshiach really is on his way.

Adam Schiff Must Go!

House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff (VIN)

It’s a slow news day. That’s when I will often turn to politics. Which in this case is about what is happening to Congressman Adam Schiff.

Finally! It’s about time someone called out this media hog. House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s mask of impartiality is off. According to him there had to be collusion between Trump and the Russians to influence the election in Trump’s favor. 

Despite Mueller’s committee finding enough evidence to file multiple indictments over the course of his 2 year investigation; despite what has to be one of the most thorough investigations of its kind since Ken Starr’s investigation of Clinton; despite the fact that Mueller’s committee declared that there would be no more indictments; and despite the fact that  Attorney General William Barr’s summary of Mueller’s report declared that there was no collusion with Russia by Trump or the campaign.

But don’t confuse Congressman Schiff with the facts. According to Schiff, there HAD to be collusion – as he has been saying all along! There is just too much evidence of it. There were too many Trump campaign operatives that admitted having conversations with Russians - for Trump  or his campaign not to have had a hand in it. 

And now we even have a motive…  handed to us on a slilver platter by one of the must trusted members of Trump’s inner circle, Michael Cohen. He testified that he was negotiating with the Russians on behalf of then candidate Trump long into the campaign for purposes of making millions of dollars on a hotel deal with them. Trump, Cohen said, lied about it because he didn’t think he would win the election anyway. (Nobody did!). 

Schiff must be beside himself. How could Mueller not conclude there was no collusion?! Schiff therefore continues to insist that there was. He wants to see the whole report so he cam make his own determination. 

That’s nice. I think we all should. But that won't change the fact that Mueller said there would be no further indictments. What happened to his description of Mueller as the most trustworthy person in the history of mankind? A man beyond reproach! What happened to the confidence he expressed in the committee's conclusions?

I’ll tell you what happened. Schiff was sure there would be indictments of the President and members of his family. He was sure that Mueller would prove there was collusion. There HAD to be. There were so may indicators! 

At this point let me state the obvious. In the interest of full disclosure, I admit I can’t stand the guy. Why? He is just so smug and cocksure of himself. So self righteousness. He tries to project an image of integrity and objectivity that is beyond reproach. But he is now exposed for the partisan Democrat he always has been. He can say all day long that it isn’t political. It is.

I therefore agree with the Republican members of his committee. He should resign as Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. Which is in the process of nothing more than a fishing expedition to find some dirt on the President. I can’t believe the American people buy this as a legitimate investigation now that the man everyone said had impeccable credentials found nothing indictable about the President on the issue that was in question. Now Democrats are trying to find other issues to question.

As expected, Democratic leaders stand behind Schiff. No surprise there. But it should not be lost on anyone that Republicans have not asked anyone else to resign from any of the committees investigating the President. Even though many of them feel the way I do about them all being fishing expeditions. 

After Mueller, there should be little doubt about that. This is now all political. It is the Democratic Party that is doing this. Not ‘congress’. In spite of the fact that Republicans are on those committees. Democrats are using congressional committees to further their political agenda. Which is - at least in part - to regain the White House in 2020. 

If you are a Democrat, it is very likely that you believe that furthering this Democratic agenda will save America from the ‘despot’ in the White House and his party. A man and party that  are destroying the values Democrats stand for. Which are the values of moral relativism that shift with the winds of time. Having little respect for the core Judeo-Christian values that made - and still make this country great!

I know that my liberal friends on the left (...and they truly are my friends - whose views I respect despite my often strong disagreement with them) will see this the way Democrats do. And reject my take about Mr. Schiff and the values I attribute to the Democratic Party.  I’m sure they see Schiff as a hero. And see the values Democrats stand for as the right ones. 

That’s fine. But I stand by my views. As far as I am concerned Adam Schiff has lost any shred of credibility he ever had. And I stand by my belief that Democratic Party values have shifted based on the changing morality of our time.

Finally, just to reiterate my views  about the President, his innocence with respect to collusion says nothing about his character flaws. Which are many and major. Listing them would take up far too much space here and are beyond the scope of this post. Not to mention the fact that I have mentioned them many times before.

This post is not really about Trump. It is about Democrats and their high minded assertions. Fishing expeditions are not high minded. They are low minded attempts at finding dirt. Making them not much different than what they have accused Trump of doing to Clinton during the 2016 campaign. 

I don’t think my opinion about politicians has ever been lower than they are right now. 

Justice Denied! - A Tale of Two Criminals

Kendall Felix - sentenced to 2 and 1/3 to 7 years for murder (VIN)

I cannot understand what has happened to the criminal justice system. If this isn’t a case of revolving door justice, I don’t know what is. From VIN:

Kendall Felix was sentenced to two and a third to seven years in the 2014 killing of Menachem Stark.  According to the Brooklyn Eagle (http://bit.ly/2TDo5wf)... 

I can’t help but contrast the crime committed by Mr. Felix and his friends with the crime committed by Shalom Rubashkin and the sentences handed down in each case. Rubshkin was convicted of a $26 million bank fraud. He was sentenced to 27 years in a federal prison. Felix got 2 and a third to 7 years for a murder. Needless to say, the comparison of the 2 crimes and the attendant sentences is an outrage.

This is not to say that Rubshikin is a Tzadik.  As noted in his Wikipedia bio: 

He was cited for issues involving animal treatment, food safety, environmental safety, child labor, and hiring of illegal immigrants. (He was not convicted of any of those charges).

Rubashkin was convicted in November 2009 on 86 charges of financial fraud, including bank fraud, mail and wire fraud and money laundering. Prosecutors had claimed the company intentionally defrauded St. Louis based First Bank on a revolving $35 million loan by faking invoices from meat dealers, inflating the value of the company. 

Shalom Rubashkin - sentenced to 27 years for bank fraud

He relied on his business to generate enough money to pay back the loan in a timely fashion. When his business failed he could not pay back it back.  The money was lost. That the failure of his business was not his fault was irrelevant. The crime was committed.

Be that as it may, the punishment he received for a first time non violent financial crime was excessive. No one was killed. No one was hurt. 27 years in prison for that was almost universally deemed unjust. Nevertheless it was upheld by the justice system all the way up to but not including the Supreme Court – who denied a petition to hear the case.  His sentences was eventually commuted by the President to ‘time served’ to almost universal approval. But he still spent 7 long years in prison for a non-violent first time offence.

Contrast that with what Kendall Felix did and the sentence he got. Felix and his associates kidnapped and murdered Menachem Stark, a Chasidic Jew - and then he tried to destroy the evidence by setting the body on fire and then throwing it into a dumpster. 

2 and 1/3 years for that?! A young man kidnaps and murders another human being and gets what amount to a slap on the wrist? Really?! This is justice?! If anything the 2 sentences should be reversed!

There are those who say that the victim was no Tzadik and angered a lot of people, via some of his business practices. I have no way of knowing that one way or the other. But that is entirely irrelevant.  He did not deserve to be murdered.

I know that congress just passed prison reform legislation where first time white collar criminals will not be given such draconian sentences. That might be good on the white collar crime side of the ledger. But what about the other side? What about revolving door justice for murderers? How in any real sense can Felix’s 2 and a 1/3 year sentence be seen as anything other than getting away with murder (in relative terms)? How can anyone see that as justice?

Well, I guess someone can: 

Judge Danny Chun said that he awarded the relatively light sentence to Felix because of his age at the time of the crime, his college degree and the fact that he was not the mastermind of the plot to kidnap the 39 year old father of seven. 

A college degree? That deserves a reduced sentence for a kidnapping and brutal murder?! What is the matter with this guy?! Would Rubashkin have gotten a lighter sentence if he had a college degree? No need to answer that question. I think we all know the answer.

The Anti-Vaxxers are Literally Sickening

Rockland County - a measles outbreak has been declared an emergency (NPR)

Chamira Sakanta Me’Issura. Our sages tell us that putting our health at risk is more severe in God’s eyes than violating His commandments in the Torah. I believe that this phrase was never more apropos than it is now. 

The vast majority of medical experts have been very clear. Refusing to vaccinate one’s children for measles puts them at risk for contracting the disease. 

Measles is a virus that can remain airborne for up to 2 hours. Long after the infected person is gone. Making it extremely contagious and dangerous. Especially for very young children and the elderly. That means there is almost no way to protect oneself if there is even one individual with measles in the community. Wherever he or she goes, they will leave an airborne virus that will last for hours without anyone being aware. The unprotected can enter that room and expose themselves to the virus and not be symptomatic for up to 21 days. Making it near impossible to trace when and where they were exposed.

The best (and perhaps only) way to protect oneself from exposure is to be vaccinated. There are no credible medical experts that would dispute this simple fact. Nor would most religious leaders. which is why so many of them are calling upon all parents to vaccinate their children. This puts rabbinic leaders and medical experts on the same page. For those who see the statements of their rabbinic leaders as Daas Torah - this certainly qualifies.

And yet there are the so called anti-vaxxers among us - Orthodox Jews that refuse to vaccinate their children based on junk science. Which claims that vaccines are more dangerous to one’s health than the diseases they are supposed to protect against. Like the discredited claim that the measles vaccine causes autism.

How can they make that claim considering all the evidence against it? Because they don’t believe it is junk science. They are convinced that there is a conspiracy by ‘Big Pharma’ to hide the truth from the public because their vaccines are responsible for billions of dollars of profit. They have a lot to lose and the power to mislead the public about the ‘science they know to be true’.

I guess Daas Torah is not to be adhered to when it contradicts their facts. It is almost as if they believe their rabbinic leaders are co-conspirators with Big Pharma. Or that their rabbinic leaders have been duped by them. 

What about the Chasidic world? Chasidim have their own version of Daas Torah by virtue of their Chasidic Rebbes. If a Chasidic Rebbe tells his Chasidim to do something, they do it. If a Chasidic Rebbe tells their Chasidim to get vaccinated - that is what happens. 

This brings me to Rockland County, the home of Monsey, New York. A measles outbreak in this heavily Chasidic enclave has been declared  an emergency by public health officials. Apparently the Chasidic leaders in those communities chose to ignore the advice of medical experts and have allowed their Chasidim to refuse vaccinations for their children.

Why they have allowed this choice to be made is a question worth exploring. Do they think they know more than medical experts about health issues? Is that they don’t trust non Jewish or non religious Jewish doctors? Is it that they are not going to be told by secular authorities how to run their lives? Is it because they think that some of the junk science isn't junk? Are some of them conspiracy theorists, too? 

What ever the case may be, their decision to ignore the near universal medical advice of experts - has resulted in illnesses in their children that could have easily been avoided. Either that, or there are many Chasidim that aren't as trusting of their Rebbes as they are thought to be. 

What we have here is a sorry state of affairs for a variety of reasons. Anti-vaxxers are endangering their own children. They are responsible for the spread of the disease. And they are creating a huge Chilul HaShem – by making it appear that religious Jews are a bunch of ignorant fools. Or worse - that Jews are guilty of infecting the public with serious diseases!

Shades of the middle ages! Can anyone say Bubonic Plague?! If this doesn’t exacerbate antisemitism, I don’'t know what does!

It should be noted that Rockland county isn’t only the Orthodox community affected by a measles outbreak. Detroit’s Orthodox Jewish community has suffered its own outbreak.

Detroiters are not, however, among the anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorist crowd. All it takes is one visitor from ‘out of town’ that contracted the disease elsewhere to create a crisis. In Detroit it began with a visitor from Israel, who picked up measles from one of the affected  communities in the New York/New Jersey area. Interestingly, he had thought that he had contracted the disease as a child, and was immune. He apparently didn’t and wasn’t. 

Meanwhile the rest the community has risen to the occasion and is in the process of getting booster shots to make sure they are immune. To put it the way Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein did on Cross-Currents:

The situation (in Detroit) is somewhere between precaution and panic, the latter averted only because of strong, deliberate action by community rabbonim, Hatzola, and the county medical authorities.   

Back to Rockland County. The cases are clustered in eastern Ramapo (New Square, Spring Valley, Monsey). Health officials did not take this lying down. From VIN: 

Rockland County Executive Ed Day and County Health Commissioner Dr. Patricia Schnabel Ruppert announced fines totaling over $70,000 to nine schools that did not comply with the Health Commissioner’s order to keep un- or under-vaccinated students home from school and provide vaccination and attendance records to the Rockland County Department of Health (RCDOH) during the measles outbreak. 

The Washington Post reports:

(A)uthorities will not be searching for children who are not vaccinated but are expecting parents and legal guardians to step up and get children vaccinated. However, he said, parents and guardians who are found to be in violation will be held accountable and their cases will be referred to the district attorney’s office. Such a violation will be considered a misdemeanor, punishable by a $500 fine or up to six months in jail.

How sad that it has come to this. Even sadder is the major Chilul HaShem this is causing.

Sexting - Did She or Didn’t She?

Lev Bais Yaakov (VIN)

Has justice been served? Hard to say.

A story in VIN describes an incident that may or may not have happened. Back in 2013 an anonymous woman called  Lev Bais Yaakov - a religious all girls high school - and reported that she had seen a nude selfie of one of their students that had been texted to her son.

It is fair to say that if this was true, it was grounds for expulsion. If there is one thing that Bais Yaakov schools focus on the most - it is Tznius. Dressing modestly in accordance with religious standards is part of their basic code of conduct. Obviously, a girl that  texts a boy a naked picture of herself is in gross violation of that code.

I understand why a religious school would have zero tolerance for that. But I’m not sure I would have expelled her without giving her an opportunity to do Teshuva, if indeed the accusation was true.

People make mistakes. Sometimes serious ones like this. Especially teenagers. Expelling her would almost assure that her reputation would be ruined in ways that can never be taken back. Including ruining her chances for marriage. It is highly unlikely that anyone that had done something like that would be considered marriage material. Even if she weren’t expelled. But an expulsion for that kind of infraction would very likely seal her fate.

The problem is that we have no way of knowing whether this event ever happened. An anonymous caller made that claim without providing any evidence of it. And even though the school initially claimed to have investigated it - that proved not to be the case. School officials reacted without seeing any evidence and without ever talking to the boy who allegedly received the text.

They sent out emails to all the parents of her classmates saying that she was expelled for reasons related to her reputation. Even though the student in question had no history of doing anything like that. That student’s life was ruined. All on the basis allegations from an anonymous caller.

And there is something else. The student in question was learning disabled (LD). The school was not really equipped to handle LD students. She therefore struggled with her studies and was not a very good student. Having a student like that in a school might have been considered a liability by school officials. And that might have also provided a motive to some parents who don’t want LD students associating with their children – to try and so something about it.

Point being that there is no way of knowing whether the accusations were true, or the act of an unscrupulous parent who refused to identify herself.  That is in and of itself suspicious. Why didn’t she identify herself? If her allegations were true, what did she have to fear? She might have even been considered a hero by the school and the parent body for exposing a wayward child that was ruining the school’s reputation!

School officials decided to simply believe her accuser and acted upon it. No thought was apparently given to whether those allegations were true.

Once she was expelled, no religious school would have her. What kind of school officials in their right minds would allow into their school a teenager that texts naked pictures of herself to boys?! She ended up in a school for wayward teens. Not a healthy environment for teens that aren’t actually wayward.

Her parents sued the school. Which begs the question of whether or not they had gone to a Beis Din or not. Be that as it may, VIN reports in their headline the following:

Just One Week Into Trial, Lev Bais Yaakov Settles With Former Student For Undisclosed Amount. 

I’m glad the case was settled. I just hope this young 19 year old woman regains her reputation. Because all the money in the world is not worth losing one’s good name.

HT/DK

No Collusion! Told You So. Now Let's Move On

Man of the Hour: Robert Mueller (Action News)

There  was not a single member of congress that did not have faith in the integrity of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Not Republicans and certainly not Democrats.

That did not stop the President from debasing  him on an almost daily basis. Accusing him of conducting a ‘Witch Hunt’. (To Mueller's credit, he completely ignored the President's slings and arrows and continued to work diligently until his committee’s investigation was complete.)  

I can’t even count the number of times I heard the President say ‘No Collusion’. At which the vast majority of Democrats must have smirked each time they heard it.

Media hog - and House Intelligence Committee chairman, Adam Schiff never wasted a opportunity to describe the ‘overwhelming evidence’ of collusion that Mueller’s investigation already suggested well before they completed their task. To Schiff and his fellow travelers, it was a no-brainer. It all pointed to Trump’s collusion with the Russians to throw the election - and the later obstruction of justice by the President (and/or his men ) in the firing of former FBI director, James Comey.   

The mainstream media did not lag too far behind Adam Schiff and company in assuming guilt. Although pretending to be objective in their reporting, the bias came through loud and clear. His guilt was so obvious that it was only a formality to be declared when the time finally came.

I for one never believed that the President was guilty of collusion – and said so many times. After about a year of investigation there had been no indication of that from the Special Counsel. I thought that a year was surely enough time to find such evidence. The  reaction to that by the left was to dismiss that kind of thinking. Saying that I do not understand how a Special Counsel works. They are thorough. They will investigate every possible avenue to determine if a crime was committed. That takes time. And they had the time and the resources to do it. 

The left was convinced that at the end of the day, Trump, his son, his son in law, as well as many others that worked on the campaign will be looking at serious prison time for the crimes they committed.

Well, that is partially true. They were that thorough. After 22 months; over 2800 subpoenas; 34 indictments or guilty pleas (6 of whom were former Trump advisers); and $24 million of our money spent on this investigation - I don’t think there is any doubt about how thorough Mueller was. But it turns out that I was right on the main issue. Mueller’s long investigation concluded exactly what the President has been saying all along. To the surprise and huge disappointment of Democrats there was no collusion at all with the Russians.  None! Zilch! Nada! Zero! Just as I believed there would not be. And there will be no further indictments.

The other issue Trump was investigated for (and for which the Special Counsel was created) is whether the President obstructed justice by firing Comey. Trump was accused of firing him in order to obstruct  his investigation of him. 

That must have seemed like a sure thing to Democrats. But that bubble burst too. Mueller concluded that there was not enough evidence of that to indict the President or any of his family. While he said it did not exonerate him either, the conclusion should be clear. If there is not enough evidence to indict- then he should be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’. And there was not enough evidence to prove that. Besides in my view it’s hard to say there was obstruction of justice when there was no crime in the first place.

As far as I’m concerned,  ‘Game Over’. It’s time to move on and deal with the real issues. In fact in  a rare instance of journalistic integrity, the mainstream media seems to be sympathetic to that point of view as I have noticed them making that challenge to Democrats who refuse to let go.

And refuse they do. In spades. In almost every case, Democrats are unsatisfied with Attorney General  William Barr’s summary of the report. They insist on making the full report public so that the can go over it with a fine tooth comb and find some crime to pin on the President.

Mueller left open the possibility that Trump might be guilty of obstruction since they could not find enough evidence to prove him guilty. And by golly Democrats are determined to find it!  From their perspective - absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Put another way, they are presuming him guilty until his innocence is proven. 

And even if they don’t find any evidence of obstruction, they are not giving up so easily. Now that they control the House they have initiated a multitude of other investigations into every aspect of President’s life.

That said, I don’t think they are looking at impeachment. What they are looking for is as much dirt as they can to throw at him in 2020. (...as of they don’t have enough?)

That is what this is all about, despite all their talk about congressional responsibility of ‘checks and balances’ and oversight. They might think they sound high minded. But I think the public, and perhaps even the mainstream media sees right through them at this point. Democrats are in ‘Witch Hunt’ mode. And wasting a lot of taxpayer money in the process.

I’ve said this before but it bears repeating: If they are really so interested in the integrity of America’s public servants, they ought to put themselves under the same scrutiny. I wonder how many members of congress (in both Houses) would survive the kind of intense scrutiny the President is getting. Not too many, I’ll bet.

I know all this sounds like a ringing endorsement for the President. But it isn’t. I am still ambivalent about him because of his lack of character - and  the way he constantly embarrasses himself, his office and the country. His behavior in office on an almost daily basis is so bad that - much as I support most of his policies - I’m not sure that is enough for me to support his reelection in 2020.

Meanwhile, I think Democrats might be shooting themselves in the foot by their relentless pursuit of Trump in this manner, instead of focusing on the issues of the day. I wonder how many open minded voters feel about what the Democrats are doing? I think even the mainstream media recognizes this. Which is why they are turning the tables on Democrats - forcing them to defend their dogged pursuit of this. In my view if Democrats keep this up - their chances of wining in 2020 decrease.

Which may be a good thing the way they are going lately. At least with respect to support for Israel. Which  has once again shown to be lacking. Some of the current contenders are boycotting AIPAC, a pro Israel lobbying organization. From Fortune Magazine: 

Following a call from group MoveOn to 2020 presidential candidates to boycott the conference, many appear to be heeding the group’s call. Thus far, Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (N.Y.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); former Rep. Beto O’Rourke (D-Texas); South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg; Washington Gov. Jay Inslee; and former Housing and Urban Development Secretary Julián Castro have all said in recent days that they will not attend the event… 

God forbid if any of these candidates win the election. It will not bode well for Israel. It will however bode very well for a more ‘even-handed’ approach that will surely auger in more UN condemnations of Israel, and even a Palestinian State on the West Bank. Which will take its place right alongside Gaza. Which would be an outcome too terrible to contemplate!

Ocasio-Cortez: I Am With Her On This One

Time cover - Is this the new face of the Democratic Party?

I often describe myself as leaning conservative politically. One may wonder why I just don’t come out and say clearly that I am a conservative. The truth is that on most issues I am. Which is why I’m on board with most of the President’s conservative policies – albeit not the man himself. Who keeps on embarrassing himself and the country.

As he did once again last week by trashing a hero like John McCain. Six months after he died. That is a disgusting new low for the President. What is the matter with that man?! We all know that Trump didn’t like him. What does he gain by bringing it up again. And again! But I digress.

As I started saying I am conservative on most but not on all issues.Such as gun control. I side with liberals on this one. In fact I actually agree with progressive Democrat, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. From the New York Post: 

Ocasio-Cortez spent some of her Wednesday night tweeting about political issues, including gun control in the wake of the New Zealand mosques massacres.

“Sandy Hook happened 6 years ago and we can’t even get the Senate to hold a vote on universal background checks,” she wrote. “Christchurch happened, and within days New Zealand acted to get weapons of war out of the consumer market.

“This is what leadership looks like,” she wrote with a downward-pointing arrow emoji to a video of a speech by the New Zealand prime minister announcing the weapons ban. 

How right she is. I am so tired of pro gun lobbyists who try and convince the rest of us that any limitations on gun ownership at all is a violation of the 2^nd amendment (the right to bear arms). No one questions that constitutionally guaranteed right. But nowhere in the constitution does it say that one may own assault rifles. Banning them would still enable citizens to own guns. 

In my view the fact that assault type weapons are freely available, easily purchased, and the ease with which they can be converted from semi-automatic to fully automatic makes it the height of irresponsibly for congress to not legislate against it. That is the type of weapon favored by mass murderers. If I understand correctly that was the type of weapon used in the majority of mass shootings. It enables the shooter to kill many people in a matter of seconds. 

What possible good do guns like that do for anyone? How does that benefit gun owners? Guns are not toys. But gun enthusiasts seem to treat them that way. There is no way that anyone can convince me that banning assault weapons is unconstitutional. 

Nor will anyone convince me that it wouldn’t matter since mass murderers will find other ways to do it. Sure they will try, but there will be a lot fewer victims since they won’t be able to use their weapons in rapid fire mode. 

Those kinds of weapons should be reserved for the military or police SWAT teams. Legislation should pass that would make private ownership of any kind of illegal guns meet with a stiff penalty. And the more dangerous the weapon, the greater the penalty. As well - there should be an end to revolving door justice. No longer should a felon committing a crime with a lethal weapon be given a slap on the wrist. This is plain old fashioned common sense. I am willing to bet that most Americans would support such a ban as well as an end to ‘slap on the wrist’ justice.

What about the age old cliché that says ‘If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ There might be some truth to that. Bur I am not advocating outlawing all guns. Just assault weapons. This is where law enforcement comes in; and the stiff penalties; and ending revolving door justice. No one will convince me that in the vast majority of recent mass shootings - lives couldn’t have been saved had the mass murderers not used automatic weapons.

Which brings me to what happened in New Zealand in the almost immediate aftermath of that bloodbath. Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern had absolutely no problem passing exactly that kind of legislation. It took her a matter of days. With the vast majority of New Zealand citizens supporting it. There was no public outcry or protest of any kind. True - they have no constitutional protection of gun rights. But that is not the point. The point is it’s obvious that this common sense law is one that most people would approve of.

Ocasio-Cortez is completely correct in her assessment of congressional unwillingness to pass even something as the basic as universal background checks. That would not hamper anyone from owning any gun - except for convicted felons and the mentally disturbed. Even assault rifles!: Why there is opposition to even that, is beyond me. In my view anyone in both houses of congress that opposes that kind of legislation should be voted out of office in the next election!

Off my soapbox.

The President and Golan Heights

Is the President campaigning for the Prime Minister? (Jerusalem Post)

This is one reason I have a love/hate relationship with the President. This time it is the former. The President made headlines again yesterday by declaring American support for Israel’s sovereignty over the Golan Heights. This unprecedented move broke decades of American opposition to such a move, even after Israel officially annexed that area in 1981.

American policy until yesterday was in line with the rest of the world. Which considers the Golan Heights occupied territory. That was reiterated yesterday by a near unified reaction by the rest of the world, rejecting any such recognition.  

That was no surprise to me since Europe never wastes a minute seeing Israel as an aggressor that oppresses those under it’s illegal occupation. Europe's latent antisemitism is alive and well, albeit disguised as having an even-handed policy with respect to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

The liberal critics in this country were not much better. They say that this was a naked political move on the part of the President to bolster Prime Minister Netanyahu’s chances at the polls in a few weeks. That may very well be true. But so what? It wouldn’t be the first time an American administration meddled in Israeli politics by either party.

Then there is the argument that by Trump recognizing the Golan Heights, he places an American imprimatur on unilateral annexation of foreign lands. That is what Russia did by taking over Crimea - a part of the Ukraine that borders Russia - and annexing it. It is kind of ironic that Russia was one of the first to condemn the US for doing that since they have no problem doing the same thing. But why would Russian antisemitism expressed in this disgusied way be any different than the rest of Europe?

One may legitimately ask, what has been gained by doing this? The facts on the ground will not change. The status quo will remain as is – just as it has been for 52 years ever since Israel captured that area during the six day war. Much the same as the US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital changed nothing.

If that’s true, why upset the entire Arab world and their sycophants in Europe with this unilateral action? Shouldn’t the final status of the Golan Heights be settled via an overall peace agreement? And until then allow things to remain as they are without inflammatory comments?

Good question.

But what many people ignore in this equation is how Israel feels about it. And why they feel that way. The vast majority of Israelis believe that Israel should never relinquish control of that area. My guess is that there is not a single mainstream politician in Israel that wouldn’t applaud what the President did. I would be shocked for example if Netanyahu’s chief opposition, Benny Gantz, would do anything other than fully thank the President for recognizing the necessary status quo.

Why is this any different than what Russia did in Crimea which was internationally recognized as part of the Ukraine? Doesn’t it undermine US condemnation of that – as many pundits have been saying? No, it doesn’t because the situations are anything but parallel.

Israel never had designs to capture that territory. Even though Syria (which the Golan Heights was part of prior to 1967) used it as a base to target Israelis just across the border. Those heights provided a convenient means of doing so. Israels were in constant danger of being fired upon by Syrian snipers. And every so often that happened!

Despite that Israel would not invade a foreign nation and annex any of their land. So what happened?

Led by Egypt in June of 1967  Israel was attacked by Syria simultaneously along with all of its neighbors (except Lebanon). The purpose of that attack was to destroy the Jewish state entirely and ‘take back’ the land Zionists ‘stole’ from them in 1948. 

In the course of that war, Israel penetrated Syria and captured the Golan Heights. Thus forever ending sniper attacks against Israel by Syrian soldiers. This was a strategic and defensive move against a hostile country dedicated to its destruction. Brought on by a war that Israel did not start. Israel was attacked and defended itself.

There is not a political leader in Israel’s history that didn’t understand the reason for Israel permanent occupation of the area. Every single Israel prime minister supported that. This was never a left-right issue. It was a survival issue. The world’s rejection of it didn’t matter.

This was not the case with Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea. This was merely a land grab by Russians against a country they were not at war with. They were not attacked. No Ukrainians were shooting at Russians across the border. Russia’s only claim was that Crimea was culturally Russian and that its residents supported Russia taking it.

That said, at the end of the day, the US declaration recognizing Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights did not really accomplish anything concrete. Which may very well mean that the President did in fact do it for political reasons - both here and in Israel. It is a move popular with his Evangelical base here which has always supported Israel’s perspective on this issue. Not to mention supported by most Orthodox Jews. 

And it helps Netanyahu, whom Trump supports. Let us also not forget how popular the President is in Israel. Netanyahu has campaign posters featuring him together with the President - claiming with some justification that under the leadership of both of them, the relationship between the US and Israel has never been closer.

Of course critics on the left will say that this relationship is meaningless and has added nothing concrete to Israel’s survival. And that instead it has weakened US support by alienating Democrats and the rest of the world. There is some truth to that. But I would argue anything less than complete capitulation to Palestinians demands would not have any support from Europe anyway, And that Democratic support has always been more or less conditional. Their support was tied to how Israel’s policies were advancing the (non existent) peace process - based mostly on the Palestinian perspective. Netanyahu’s  polices are seen as counterproductive to that. 

I do not agree. I doubt that Israel would be any closer to peace now if a Democrat were in office still complaining about settlements. My own opposition to settlements is only against those deep into the West Bank that did nothing except - at best exacerbate tensions with Palestinians that live there. And at worst cause death and destruction. And in the past because I saw any settlement activity hurting Israel’s relationship with the US.  The latter is clearly not the case now.

Furthermore just because there is nothing immediately tangible doesn’t mean that Israel doesn’t benefit. The idea that the most powerful nation in the world by far stands with Israel sends a valuable message to the world. It also sends a valuable message to Israelis about who their real friends are. And thank God it is America.

One might say that the Israeli bubble might burst after the Trump peace plan is revealed. It may be true that Israel might be asked to make sacrifices for peace that they are not comfortable with. Especially under a right wing government. But that plan is a non starter anyway since Palestinians have already unequivocally rejected any plan the Trump administration comes out with. Sight unseen.

What about a postscript? What happens if Trump loses to a Democrat in 2020? Or even if he wins what happens in 2024? Good question. Some of the more progressive Democratic candidates have already declared that they will reverse many of Trump’s decisions in the Middle East. Including rejoining European support of the nuclear deal with Iran and lifting sanctions against them. Or returning the US embassy to Tel Aviv. Or re-designating the Golan Heights as occupied territory. .

I hope that doesn’t happen. My hope is that whatever happened now will remain as is regardless of who wins the next election. Even if they did not agree with it, changing things back to the way they were will do nothing for anyone. 

In the meantime, I could not be happier with the President’s clear and unambiguous support for the Jewish state. Even if it is only moral support and symbolic. I never thought I would see the day that Israel would get the kind of support form the US that it has now. How wrong I was.

Update
Apparently Trump’s policies with respect to Israel has had a positive impact on at least some European countries. Who put their antisemtism aside and for the first time have rejected a portion of a UN Human Rights Council resolution they had supported in the past which singled out only Israel for condemnation. As the link below says, this is unprecedented!

These EU states just took an unprecedented stand for Israel at the UN Human Rights Council - Jewish Telegraphic Agency 

Thank you Nikky Haley for your help in getting us there.

Please note

This should not be seen as an endorsement for the President’s reelection. All it is - is an appreciation for his strong support for Israel.

Nichum Aveilim Done Right

Rav Hershel Schachter

What better time than the happiest day of the year to talk about death. So sit back, relax, have another beer, and enjoy. 

One of the most important contributions Rav Hershel Schachter has ever made to the Jewish people are his own children.  At least one of whom is a genius. With a mind that surpasses that of his own father, Rav Schachter himself. 

If my information is correct (which it rarely is) the producer of the video below is Rav Schachter’s son. Which illustrates the greatness of Yeshiva University. What other Yeshiva could produce a Gadol whose children can make the kind of lofty contributions to Judaism that he has? Right?

Of course right!

(I don’t know his first name) Schachter has produced the quintessential instructional video. It is beyond mere Hilchos Nichum Aveilim - Jewish law regarding how to pay a Shiva (condolence) call. It is literally an unprecedented step by step breakdown of how to do it in ways better than just OK. With many examples illustrating each step.

Doing it this way is better even than the author of the Shulchan Aruch herself could have ever imagined. And she had quite the imagination.(Yes, that is how good it is!)

To say it goes beyond Lifnim Meshuras HaDin is a gross understatement of near existential, multidimensional, multifaceted, and multi-nefarious proportion. In fact I believe one can earn instant Olam HaBah if one meticulously follows the guidelines in this amazing video next time they pay a Shiva call.

This is no small matter. How often do we attend a Shiva house and not know what to say? Can anyone imagine what an Avel (the bereaved) might think if you are sitting across from him with nothing to say? 

That is so AWKWARD!!! Hurtful even! Hasn’t the Avel suffered enough? Do you have to add to his pain by your mere presence?  What a Chilul HaShem! Shame on you!

Where was I...?  Oh, yeah.

Even though I’m sure many of you have seen this before… many, many,  times… ad nauseum… I believe that it is worth seeing again.

And again.

And again.

Besides, you’ve never seen it here so it doesn’t count. And there may actually be someone that hasn't seen it yet, hard as that is to believe.

It is therefore with great pride, pleasure,humility, pomp and circumstance (especially ‘pomp’) that on this day, the holy fast day of Ramadan, I present this video for your edification and pleasure. Watch it! Commit it to memory! And please, please don’t laugh. Death isn’t funny. 

Bernie Sanders, Israel, and Apartheid

Jane and Bernie Sanders

Bernie Sanders may have the credentials to speak on a variety of issues. But Israel is not one of them. At least not as a Jew. How sad it is that someone who was born a Jew has not only abandoned Judaism, but has become one of Israel’s biggest critics.

Not that a Jew - or anyone else for that matter - can’t criticize Israel. That does not make them an antisemite. But comparing Israel in any way to South African Apartheid crosses that line. Those who say things like that might think they are fooling people by saying that they are not antisemties because they are only criticizing Israel (Zionism). Well they aren’t fooling me. Bernie Sanders is an antisemite. A Jewish one. Yes it is possible for people to be self hating Jews.

First let me dispense with any claim he might make to being loyal to Jewish values. Once a Jewish man marries a non Jewish woman - as Sanders has - he has given up any right to claim he cares about Judaism. Because by marrying out, they assure that their Jewish line ends with them. None of their children will be Jewish. By doing something like that they have abdicated the right to say they are a Jew in any meaningful sense of the word (except of course by accident of birth). 

In the case of Sanders, his values are clearly not Jewish. They are socialist. 

Now some of those values might have Jewish content. But that too is by accident. Claiming for example that his socialist views are a reflection of the real Jewish value of Tikun Olam is a mere happenstance. He did not embrace socialism because it was a Jewish value. Even if he might claim that is why he embraced it. He is either fooling us or fooling himself. If he truly cared about Judaism, he might start with Kashrus or Shabbos - 2 of the most basic components of Judaism. And he would surely not have married out.

It is true that as a young man he spent some time on a Kibbutz (Israeli commune). But that adds nothing to his Jewish credentials. It only adds to his socialist credentials. For those that are not familiar with what a Kibbutz is – it is a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs. If that sounds vaguely familiar, it should be. It is the definition of communism. Israel had lots of them back when Sanders was young. Today hardly any exist anymore.

Which brings me back to his embrace of the antisemtic canard about comparing Israel’s treatment of Palestinians with South African apartheid.

If you ask a black South African now living in Israel that lived through that period in South Africa, he would laugh at you.The amount of cruel anti black legislation and treatment of black South Africans then versus the way the State of Israel treats its West Bank Arabs now are worlds apart. 

I have never denied that life for Palestinians under Israeli rules isn’t hard. It’s very hard. But Israel’s security needs forces them to do the kinds of things they would never do under normal circumstances. Let us take 2 examples that are often cited as examples of mistreating Palestinians. 

One is the wall built on the border of the West Bank. Yes, that makes it difficult for Arabs. But it has also saved countless lives that might otherwise be subjected  to suicide missions by a terrorists crossing over from that area.  which used to happen a lot. Ever since that wall was built, there have been no suicide attacks. 

Another hardship on the Palestinians is the consuming and often degrading extra scrutiny they get when crossing at checkpoints. That too is done for security reasons.  Not becuase of any inherent  racism. 

Furthermore, none of this would happen if Israel didn’t have to protect itself. But a long history of terrorist attacks has given them no choice. 

Racism? The Israeli Arab citizen full citizens civil and full voting rights. They are well represented in the Keneset by fellow Arabs. As a group they have prospered. If I understand correctly Israeli Arabs on average have the highest standard of living of all of their Arab neighbors. 

It therefore is sickening to compare a country whose security needs require the kind of vigilance that inconveniences some of its residents to the racist Apartheid regime of South Africa. 

Whose fault is it anyway? Who is really to blame for Palestiaisn suffering? It isn’t Israel who does what it has to do to protect its citizens. It is their own Palestinian leaders. Even the so-called moderates who continue to tolerate if not encourage violence as a means toward their end. If paying compensation to families of their suicide ‘martyrs’ doesn’t show what they are all about, I don’t know what does. They continue to use their own people as pawns – labeling them as victims of Israel when it they who are actually perpetuating their victimhood.

Which brings me back to Sanders and his support of those who say that Israel is repsonsible for the   ‘Apartheid-like’ conditions of Palestinians. Sanders is either ignorant or lying. If he was true to his Jewish roots he would take a closer look at why the Palestinaisn suffer and blame it on those that deserve it. If he did and was honest about it, instead of clinging to that antisemitic canard he would praise Israel for their restraint in carrying out their security needs.

The Great Blue and White Hope

Benny Gantz - the Great Blue and White Hope?

Yes, I am still a Netanyahu fan. Although I do have some reservations about some of the things he has said and done, I believe he has helped his country a lot  more than he has hurt it.

One may ask, what about the Israel’s Attorney General announcing that he will seek indictments against him? Well, yes that is one of my reservations about him. On the surface the allegations sound pretty serious: Breach of trust, fraud, and bribery. Would anyone with any sense of ethics vote for him? 

The answer is apparently yes. It appears that enough will in the next Israeli election to keep him in office.

Let us examine the exact nature of the crimes. But instead of using my own admittedly biased words, let me quote the words of perhaps the biggest Netanyahu basher in all of Jewish media, Chicago Jewish News editor and publisher, (and hard core liberal) Joe Aaron. Hardly a week goes by where he doesn’t have something truly nasty to say about him.  However in his weekly column of just a couple of weeks ago he said the following: 

While I bow to no one in my absolute contempt for how he has behaved as Israel’s leader… I think the investigations into him have been run by the Israeli version of the Three Stooges…

Consider the charges against Bibi. That he took gifts of expensive cigars and champagne from machers he did favors for. And that he tried to get media big wigs to give him favorable coverage. I mean it’s not so simple, but that’s the essence of it. A politician wanting to get good press and those who he does favors for giving him some nice presents. Stop the presses. 

This doesn’t make what Netanyahu did legal or ethical. But relative to what other leaders have done (e.g. Former Israeli Presidents Moshe Katzav who was convicted of rape; Ezer Weizmann who was convicted of taking serious money in bribes, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and former Ashkenazi Chief Rabbi Yona Metzger – same thing) he’s a choir boy.

As Aaron notes, there is a joke going around in Israel:

(W)hen you ask an Israeli politician for his cell number, he isn’t sure what you mean.

Netanyahu will surely have his day in court. But cigars and champagne? This will not bring him down.The Israeli voter sees this. Which is why he is likely to be re-elected despite his legal troubles. 

His biggest challenger is former IDF Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz. He has joined with Yair Lapid to form a new party: Blue and White. Initial polls showed them beating Netanyahu’s Likud. But Gantz has lost ground to him recently. According to an analysis by Ha’aretz, the wheels are coming off of his election campaign: 

The gap between Likud and Kahol Lavan (Blue and White) has closed and Netanyahu’s governing coalition of right-wing and religious parties once again has a majority that would deliver him victory. 

For a more detailed analysis, read the editorial. The point is that Netanyahu retaining power is as likely as ever.

But why indeed is Netanyahu so popular? Why does he keep getting reelected? Why are the pending indictments not doing more harm to his chances? I think part of the answer can be found in his many accomplishments during his long tenure in office. Such as forging new relationships with countries that Israel did not have in the past. Including (and perhaps especially) some of the Arab states. 

Say what you will about Saudi Arabia, but forging a positive relationship with a country that in the past was one Israel’s most virulent critics is no small thing. True, it is the shared common enemy of Iran that made this possible. But Netanyahu must be given credit for recognizing the opportunity and seizing it. Another major Arab country is Egypt. Under Netanyahu, Israel’s relationship with them has never been better.

That said, I don’t think that is the main reason Netanyahu is so popular with voters. I think it his determination to provide Israeli citizens with security. But don’t take it from me. Take it from Rabbi Elchanan Poupko. In an Arutz Sheva article he describes what happened to him when he was a student in pre-Netanyahu Israel back in 2001: 

Living in Jerusalem in those years was not too different than living in Sarajevo or Baghdad. Sure, if you stayed home or in your neighborhood life can be pretty safe. Taking a bus or going to the center of town? That was playing Russian roulette.

Now, living in New York, I still go back to visit Jerusalem. My eyes fill up with tears seeing children playing safely on the streets. My heart is warmed seeing the myriad of visitors from around the world enjoying the unparalleled exotic beauty of Jerusalem. I am happy for them, and wish it could have always been this way, but it wasn’t. Yes, there is still terror, children must be given careful instructions, but the streets are safe. 

In Israel, when people vote, the years of war and terror leave their mark. Proud of Netanyahu or not, he lived up to the primary duty of a leader—he kept his people safe. Despite allegations of possible bribes—taking cigars and champagne when he should not have— he was voted in in the past, and will likely be voted in again in the future. 

Israel is a country of law and will decide on the legal aspects of the allegations. However, as Netanyahu is deemed responsible for the happy childhood of all those children in Israel today—a childhood I did not have— it is easy to understand why he is supported by so many of my peers and friends. Those who grew up knowing terror see Netanyahu as savior, and perhaps rightfully so.

 Elections for the twenty-first Knesset will be held on Tuesday, April 9^th

Impossible Choices

Former Vice President Joe Biden

The middle is disappearing. The centrist Democratic party of Bill Clinton is no more. Now it’s all about how far left one can push it. That became painfully evident to me when a potential Democratic candidate I thought to be a centrist made the following comment:

I have the most progressive record of anybody running … anybody who would run. 

This comment was made by the former Vice President - 76 year old Joe Biden. Although he has not yet officially announced, he is leading in the polls. This kind of tells you where the Democratic party is headed, if it isn’t already there.

Being progressive is the idea that the values of the past pale in comparison to the values of the present. Progressives are forever trying to affect social change based on humanistic values. Moral relativism is what guides them rather than tradition.  In other words the values of the day are considered enlightened. Change based on them is pursued regardless of how that change will be viewed by traditionalists. Whose values are seen as obstacles to progress.

Moral relativism is in a constant state of flux. It is the philosophy of a humanism that espouses complete freedom to do as anyone wishes as long as it doesn’t hurt others. The idea that there is a God that determines our morals plays no part in their pursuits. It is all about what enlightened man wants.

This is on contradistinction to conservatism.  (For purposes of this post, I am limiting the term to its social rather than its economic context.) Conservatives have an objective moral sense that is fixed to traditional values. Such as those found in the bible - the word of God. Values which are discarded by progressives as archaic, irrelevant, and even immoral by their more enlightened standards. Tradition is seen as an obstacle to social progress in a humanistic terms. (Hence the name ‘progressive’.)

Progressives might counter and say the using religious values - is just as relative. Different religions have different traditions, values, morals, and ethics which might contradict each other.

That is true. But what is also true is that a lot of traditions, values, morals, and ethics are shared by almost all religions based on a common understanding of what God wants via their own traditions. Conservatives believe that  there are universal truths that are not upended by the cultural milieu of our time.

An illustration of the dichotomy between progressives and conservatives can by found in whether one is in favor of – or opposed to - gay marriage. Progressives will say, why not? Who are they harming? Conservatives will say that tradition tells us that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. And that society should not legitimize it with a formal recognition.

How should society proceed? What kind of culture will we live in? To answer that, I think it helps to consider what kind of culture we want our children to be raised in. That is the issue that divides us. Live and let live may work for progressives. But for conservatives the influences of the culture we live in can be greatly impede the values we try and instill in our children. No matter how much we try and shelter them from it. Life doesn’t work that way.

It is beginning to appear that the Democratic party is quite ready to abandon all traditional values in favor of the humanistic moral relativism that is the basis of progressive values. They are increasingly of mindset that we can all live in a permissive society and that those with traditional values will still be able to maintain them. But when a culture that rejects those values is so pervasive; sometimes even ridiculing them – it is hard for that attitude to not seep in.

If Joe Biden, the most popular of all the Democrats running, is a progressive, is there any question where this country will be headed if he is nominated and elected? Or any of most of the other Democrats running for President?

I for one will find it hard to endorse any Democrat from among the current crop. Including Biden. Which leaves me with an impossible choice. Because the only candidate for President that is not a progressive (with the possible exception of Amy Klobuchar who is unlikely to be the nominee) is the current office holder. And yet his entire persona is anathema to the very traditional values that I would like to preserve in this country.

I don’t know. Maybe I have this all wrong. Maybe it’s just rhetoric. It is often said about Democrats that they run from the left but govern from the center. If that’s true, maybe there is hope. Nonetheless, as things stand now, I see no candidate currently in the running that I could in good conscience vote for.

What is Antisemitism?

Rav Elchonon Wasserman (Wikipedia)

There is no question that most American Jews that are Orthodox support the President. Although I believe that it is more prevalent among the right than the left, I nevertheless believe that support is broad based and encompasses both the right and left of Orthodoxy.

This is in stark contrast with the vast majority of non Orthodox American Jews. whose opposition to the President surpasses the rest of America. In statistics  cited in the New Jersey Jewish News, only about 20% of American Jews approve of the President while the percentage of all Americans is 37%. On the other hand Orthodox Jews that approve of the President is currently at about 75%.

Part of these statistics might be related to the President and antisemitism. Non Orthodox Jews see the President as a bigot that encourages it. They will point to his refusal on many occasions to fully condemn it – only having reluctantly done so after much public criticism. As was the case after Charlotesville.  Orthodox Jews on the other hand seem to ignore that believing that Trump is the most philo-Semitic President in American history.

How is that possible? How can a man whose behavior is right there in front of everyone’s eyes - be judged so differently by people of the same religion? Aren’t we all witnessing the same thing?

The explanation for that might be found among the words of Eliyahu Stern in a recent Tablet article. Although I do not agree entirely with his somewhat startling analysis as I understand it - I believe he touches upon the mindset of these two segments (Orthodox and non-Orthodox). Which helps explain why there are so many Orthodox Jews that support Trump and so many non Orthodox Jews that don’t.

In short he sees Orthodox Jews not caring all that much about antisemitism – as typically understood. Traditionally in this country, antisemitism has been defined as discriminating against Jews in material ways. Such as barring access to certain schools, professions, and in other ways hampering their pursuit of material success. These are the things that concern non Orthodox Jews the most and it is the kind of antisemitism that has been fought from day one. Successfully I might add.

According to Stern, it is the spiritual component that concerns Orthodox Jews the most. Material success is at best secondary. So that when the centers of power promote polices that enhance the spiritual component of their lives, they see it as the ultimate value. As such they will support whomever will advance that agenda first. 

Citing the research of Professor Marc Shapiro, Stern noted that this was demonstrated in pre-Holocaust Europe when Hitler and Stalin first came to power. Both of these dictators were seen as an unfavorable option for the Jews. But Jewish leaders like Rav Elchonon Wasserman chose Hitler over Stalin. Meaning that given the choice to live under one over the other, the clear choice was the guy whose political views only wanted to destroy us physically. That was Hitler’s Nazism. Stalin’s Marxism wanted to destroy us spiritually.

Now before anyone asserts the obvious, no one knew that Hitler wanted to commit genocide in 1933 when he first came to power. Genocide obviously accomplishes both aims. Most Jews believed that despite Hitler’s oft stated antisemitism – including his virulently antisemitic rhetoric in the Reichstag (Germany’s parliament) it was just that: rhetoric. Jews apparently believed they would somehow survive Hitler. Especially of that belief, says Stern, were Orthodox Jewish leaders: 

German Orthodox leaders directly appealed to the German chancellor (Hitler), arguing in 1933 that “Marxist materialism and Communist atheism share not the least in common with the spirit of the positive Jewish religious tradition, as handed down through Orthodox teachings obligatory on the Jewish People. … We have,” they recalled, “been at war against this religious attitude.” Orthodox leaders sought to find common ground with Hitler by demonstrating their own virulent hatred for left-wing and progressive Jews. They proclaimed: “We have always combated the corrosive spirit of materialism with religious idealism.

In their attempt to curry favor with Hitler, Orthodox leaders not only stressed their own loyalty to the German people, but went out of their way to stress the structural similarities between Hitler’s position. “We seek a Lebensraum within the Lebensraum of the German people,” they maintained.

The German rabbis’ position was reaffirmed by the leaders of the Polish branch of the Agudath Israel party who aligned themselves with Pilsudski’s nationalist union.  

That, says Stern, is similarly reflected today by Orthodox Jews in America who overlook Trump’s less than enthusiastic condemnation of the Nazis who marched in Charlottesville. It also allows Trump to criticize other Jews like leftist George Soros without fear of being accused of antisemitism. 

Stern implies that it is almost as if  Trump only cares about Orthodox Jews and sees antisemitism through their (our) eyes. The old time antisemitism about quotas etc, hardly matters at all to Orthodox Jews who as a whole never looked at being admitted to Harvard or Yale as a prize worth fighting for. 

Orthodox Jews look at what Trump does for their spiritual values and pay little heed to what he does about the other aspects of antisemitism in society. A society which in any case is seen as one in which to minimize our participation in that it hurts the very spiritualism we seek

Non Orthodox Jews, on the other hand hardly saw antisemitism in spiritual terms. Their fight was mostly - not about our religious rights. But mostly about our civil rights.

That said. I part company with Stern in the sense that Orthodox Jew do in fact care about the material welfare. They (we) do care about our civil rights. I would add that many of us that support the President’s policies are nevertheless just as abhorred by his lack of  character and other flaws that make him unfit to hold his high office. I count myself among them.

Nor do I think we can draw a direct line of Jewish support for  Hitler in prewar Germany - to support in 2019 of the current President of the United States. Any comparison of Trump to Hitler – even in this context is itself abhorrent. Furthermore to suggest that Orthodox Jews somehow tolerate any antisemitism in any form is equally abhorrent.

But I do think that there is an element of truth to what he says motivates both sides and it is definitely worth thinking about.