Whose Side Are You On?

OK, so Democrats won the election. They were the ones most loudly clamoring to end the war in Iran. Of late, they have been joined by the Vice President, who correctly believes this is what the American people voted for. But I think the electorate was wrong. They have made a big mistake here by putting their financial needs ahead of doing the right thing.

None of this is new. I’ve said it all before. But it is important to understand what the electorate will actually be getting out of this.

One may legitimately ask: How can so many Americans be wrong, in my eyes? Doesn’t the magnitude of the electoral message against the war speak volumes about what the right thing to do really is? How can I say with any degree of confidence that the American electorate was so wrong?

The way to judge whether the electorate was right or wrong is to see who sides with them and who doesn’t. As noted in the Algemeiner:

The Iranian regime has welcomed the Democratic Party’s sweeping victory in the US midterm elections, presenting the results as a rejection of President Donald Trump’s policies and his war against Iran…

Parliament Speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf was among the first senior Iranian officials to comment on the results. In a post on X, he wrote, “Conscience or the cost of living, Americans said No To War, and we endorse this message.” He also warned Washington against disregarding the American electorate’s wishes.

Supreme Leader Mojtaba Khamenei offered a different but equally hostile assessment of the American political system in his latest written statement, declaring that “the process of the US’s collapse has accelerated.”

I don’t know about anyone else, but getting high praise from a terrorist regime like Iran for the way I voted would not make me feel too good. It would instead give me second thoughts about whether I had made the right decision.

Contrast this with what most Republicans had wanted. They did not want to end the war with a whimper, leaving things in worse shape than they were before the war started. They wanted to end the war with a victory against a regime responsible for so much devastation in the world. You know who agrees with them? The Iranian people who are not under the spell of extremist Islamist ideology that rules in Iran.

While some Iranians see the Republican defeat as a setback for an American president they hoped would bring an end to the Islamic Republic, others fear that a Democratic-controlled Congress could weaken Washington’s willingness to confront Tehran. In either case, the response is disappointment…

Tehran has correctly portrayed the Democratic victory as evidence of American opposition to the war. And they are thrilled! But ordinary Iranians don’t share their government’s opinion. For them, it isn’t about which party controls Congress, but which party is more likely to put pressure on the Islamic Republic. The Iranian people don’t think Democrats are willing or able to do that.

Thus, there was a great deal of disappointment in Iran over Republican losses. Everyday Iranians want an end to the regime. Not an end to the war without a victory…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.   

Why Republicans Got Trounced

Vance: "It's the Jews fault"

The Democratic landslide last Tuesday was not an endorsement of the leftward trend taken by the party. While it might seem that the election of a number of far-left Democrats would imply otherwise, I don’t think that’s the case. In the two short years since Republicans achieved successes in both houses of Congress, the American people did not suddenly go from that to becoming Democratic socialists.

I tend to believe that most Americans are centrists. Meaning that despite the pollical affiliations - they are neither Republican nor Democrat ideologues but rather tend to vote for candidates who speak to their issues. In 2024, that meant Trump and the Republicans. After two years of economic disaster, they voted to correct their mistake by rejecting Trump and anyone associated with him. In short, MAGA is dead.

So what happened last Tuesday was not so much a victory for Democrats as it was a total rejection of Trump. The public simply no longer buys a presidency that seemed to do everything it could to lose the trust of the American people. The promise of a Trump presidency making America better than it was under Biden never materialized. Instead, the economy was hurt by economic policies that caused prices to rise quickly and stay there.

Making the economic situation even worse was the decision to attack Iran without finishing the job. We are now left with a prolonged stalemate in which the US military has its guns pointed at Iran but refuses to pull the trigger. Meanwhile, Iran’s countermeasure of blocking the Strait of Hormuz has caused an unprecedented pain to the American pocketbook. Driving up the cost of just about everything else.

Vice President Vance said the war was what everyone voted against. But the truth is that there has been no military action to speak of for months. No American military personnel have been killed or even injured during that time. Truth be told, what the American people really object to is the cost of the war. More precisely, it is the increased cost of living that this standoff with Iran has caused. The bottom line is that it’s really about the bottom line. Not the war itself. Which is not much of a war since there isn’t any fighting going on.

But then Vance decided to blame the Jews, too. That the US had to change its relationship with Israel.

So, according to Vance, it’s the Jews fault…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free  

Why We Are There

Vice President Vance is right. The Iran war is to blame for the political tsunami that happened last Tuesday. You don’t need a PhD in political science to figure that out.

The American people rightly reject the idea of US participation in foreign wars, much less starting one. If the lessons learned from the Vietnam War taught us anything, it is that whatever our noble intentions were in that war, we gained nothing from it. And that we ought to stay out of foreign wars altogether.

The objections to that war were mostly about the American casualties we suffered. Forty thousand American soldiers were killed, and countless others permanently injured, suffered from PTSD, or both.

The same cannot be said about the Iran war, which has thus far been only an aerial war. The objection to this war is mostly financial. Long story short, Iran took control of the Strait of Hormuz, blocking oil tankers from delivering oil to this country and much of Europe. That caused a spike in gas prices and collateral spikes in the prices of all goods that require transportation.

There are, of course, other factors that raised prices, for which the president and his party, the Republican Party, can be blamed. The tariffs placed on goods manufactured in other countries and sold to America made things more expensive, too. But the Iran war is the granddaddy of the issues that made mincemeat of the Republican Party last Tuesday. It was the biggest sweep for Democrats in decades.

What the Vice President is not right about is his suggestion that we should get out of the war now and find some sort of exit strategy to do so. Without achieving the war’s aims. As if that’s going to solve anything. That has been the Democrats talking point from the very beginning. On that issue, he and the Democrats are entirely wrong.

The US did not get into that war for financial reasons. It was not a war of choice against a relatively docile country with no ill intentions toward its neighbors or, ultimately, the rest of the world.

The idea that we should have ignored Iran’s goal of enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels is beyond stupid. Those who think we should have left Iran alone must believe that leaving Iran to its own devices is a good idea. They apparently think that attacking Iran with the goal of destroying its nuclear program was something we could not be remotely successful at. And that therefore we should not have tried/

Really? Even if one might agree that trying to destroy Iran’s nuclear program is not near impossible, that should not free us from attempting it. The alternative is too horrible to contemplate.

Vance and the Democrats think that’s OK? As long as the price at the pump doesn’t increase, that’s all that matters?

I’m sorry. Letting Iran continue their evil ways with impunity is not an option. Some things are more important than money.

Of course, they will argue that the original deal (JCPOA) with Iran slowed Iran down enough. It did slow them down, supposedly.

Enough? What does that even mean? That deal did not address their ballistic missile program, which was in full gear, nor did it address their funding of terrorist proxies all over the Middle East, mo stly targeting our ally Israel and its 7 million Jews. That funding culminated in the October 7 massacre by Hamas.

Nor did it prevent that regime from massacring tens of thousands of Iranians protesting their government. Protesters whom the regime called terrorists!

In what world does a humane nation ignore that? If the US is supposed to be a beacon of light and morality, we cannot allow any country to get away with that litany of evil.

Unless someone has a better idea about how to stop Iran from pursuing its nefarious intent, war was the ONLY option. Those who opposed the war because it raised the cost of gas have a warped sense of morality, in my view.

While the US has not yet succeeded in its goal of fully preventing Iran from getting nuclear weapons, to quote the great Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over.” Getting out now would make the entire war effort almost meaningless…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free  

 

It’s the Economy, Stupid!

El-Sayed declaring victory yesterday

It’s unsurprising that Democrats had a good day yesterday. There was little doubt that they would take control of the House. The Senate, on the other hand, was a surprise. The biggest surprise, however, was the magnitude of their victory.

I had hoped that Republicans would retain control for two reasons.

Republicans tend to be more pro-Israel than Democrats. And while most mainstream Democrats are not anti-Israel, the support of many of them came with strings attached.

The other reason I supported Republicans is that, for the most part, their conservative values tended to be more in line with traditional Jewish values. Democrats tend more towards moral relativism. Which means that their sense of morality is relative to the times. Behavior that is considered immoral by biblical standards is not necessarily considered immoral by today’s cultural standards.

The primary reason Democrats won so big yesterday is the same reason Republicans won so big in 2024: the economy. It was the issue then, and Trump and the Republicans were seen as the solution. Now, a mere two years later, the opposite has happened, and the party in power – the Republican party - is being blamed.

The president’s economic policies did not produce an improved economy. They did the opposite. His tariffs increased prices on many foreign-produced goods purchased by American manufacturers. Who then passed them along to the consumer. His goal of returning manufacturing to U.S. soil was the correct one. But that has not worked out well for consumers. And has yet to be achieved to any significant degree.

Still, tariffs are peanuts compared to what the war against Iran did to the economy. It drove gas prices to levels not seen in years, which increased the cost of anything that needed to be transported by trucks. Most of those vehicles use diesel fuel, which have reached unprecedented prices, creating enormous costs for the transportation industry.

Of secondary importance, but significant nonetheless, was the war itself. Most Americans have been convinced by the arguments made by Democrats that the war was unnecessary. That attacking Iran was a big mistake, causing more harm to the economy than good.

And with respect to the U.S. relationship with Israel, that too became an issue, albeit not quite to the same extent as the economy. The constant haranguing by many Democrats, including Jewish Democrats, along with their willing accomplices in the media, kept characterizing Israel’s defensive war against Hamas causing far too many innocent Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

That view was bolstered by nightly images of the devastation caused by Israeli airstrikes in Gaza. Every night, images of Gaza that looks like Dresden after the U.S. bombing were broadcast by media outlets. Which were never particularly inclined to support Israel in the first place.

They were quite happy to show Israel’s “true colors” as a military occupier executing an Apartheid regime. Caring little about Palestinians living in the West Bank. And caring little about the innocent Palestinian casualties in Gaza. They bought fully into the “blame Israel for everything” narrative promoted by Palestinian “journalists,” Hamas, and their willing collaborators at the UN.

And honestly, looking at the moonscape that much of Gaza has become as a result of Israel’s war against Hamas, it was difficult not to see Israel that way. Without the context that would explain it and make Israel’s case them - those images are devastating to Israel’s image.

These issues helped determine yesterday’s outcome. The Democratic narrative blames Netanyahu for what they perceive as immoral conduct during the war. A view bolstered by the ICJ indictment of Netanyahu as a war criminal.

But blaming him ignores the fact that there was near unanimity among Israeli leaders on both the right and left that Israel had no alternative but to declare war on the group responsible for the October 7^th massacre.

The public did not accept Israel’s explanation that it went out of its way to warn Palestinians to get out of harm’s way before attacking Hamas targets. The images of dead Palestinians, the moonscape Gaza has become, and the constant refrain from Palestinians and their sympathizers in academia and the media that Israel was committing “genocide” all contributed to that rejection.

The result was a huge decrease in American support for Israel, something the new Democratic majority in Congress is surely eager to act upon.

But it’s wrong to blame Netanyahu for the decline in American support for Israel on Netanyahu. True, his reliance on extremist right wing ultra-nationalists to retain power makes him an easy target. It is a legitimate criticism. But his conduct in the war is not…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free 

Israel at a Crossroads

Eisenkot, Trump, and Netanyahu

There has been a lot of understandable hand-wringing over the last few days about events that will affect Israel’s future, which at this moment seems quite uncertain. One of those events hasn’t even reached fruition yet. The midterm election in the US is taking place at this very moment, and the results are far from clear. We have no way of knowing whether the new Congress will be more anti-Israel than the one we have had until now. Even though polls suggest that Democrats who have strongly criticized Israel are likely to win their elections, that is far from certain.

But that isn’t the only thing to worry about. There are several issues, one of which is the disappointing showing for the new Charedi party, Hatzibur HaChareidi. There were a lot of high hopes among many pundits who believed that they would receive enough votes to make a difference. Even if they didn’t get enough votes to secure seats in the Knesset; they would at least get enough to change their trajectory towards a more conciliatory approach to army service and educational reform. It was thought that the expected huge numbers of Charedi voters voting for Hatzibur HaChareidi would effect serious change in that direction. So that the large numbers of Charedim who felt this way could be accommodated.

That was more wishful thinking than reality. The poor showing of about 10,000 votes seemed to show that the Charedi populace doesn’t want change at all. That they are happy with the status quo of learning full-time, not getting any kind of secular education, and avoiding the army. That the hardships and sacrifices the rest of the country has endured—and is still enduring - don’t seem to faze them that much.

So change will not happen. Israeli Charedim have been indoctrinated into thinking along these lines. That they are not willing to serve is bad enough. But that they have become so callous to the suffering of others while exempting themselves from any possibility of such suffering seems to be how they wish to live. I see no hope for change or any kind of reconciliation between Charedim and the rest of the Jewish people in Israel. I see only greater distance being created between them.

Not at all happy about that. To say the least!

Then there is the election itself, which nobody won. And, it seems, nobody will be able to form a government. The enmity between the two camps is so great that a unity government is about as likely as El-Sayed converting to Judaism and becoming a supporter of Ben-Gvir. This will perpetuate the hatred between the right and the left.

I see no alternative to yet another election three months from now, which will likely return the same results. That may mean another election three months after that. On the other hand, the tens of thousands of expatriate Israelis who flew back to Israel to vote against Netanyahu are unlikely to do that again. And the huge Arab turnout that gave them 19 seats in the Knesset this time is unlikely to be repeated. So it is quite possible that a coalition could be formed by voters who will gravitate to one side or the other.

In the meantime, Netanyahu remains prime minister. Which, if you are a supporter, is a good thing…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free 

The Final Solution

Vice-President J.D. Vance and Tucker Carlson

One of the most troubling members of the Trump White House is an individual the president cannot fire.

Vice President Vance is, in my view, the greatest disappointment of the Trump presidency. A man whom I would otherwise admire because of his back story has proven to be a very slippery politician, one who can put other politicians to shame in that regard. He has managed to appear supportive of the President’s foreign policy agenda while simultaneously trying to undermine it.

Case in point.

As far as I am concerned, the President’s military attack against Iran has been a spectacular failure. Not because he was wrong to attack. It was exactly the right thing to do to a nation sworn to destroy both the US and Israel. Iran had openly been pursuing that goal - racing to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels, developing a ballistic missile system already capable of delivering nuclear destruction to Europe, and supporting proxies throughout the Middle East, all of whom were devoted to the complete annihilation of Israel, an important US ally.

There was no alternative to hitting that rogue Islamic nation as hard as the US and Israel, had done.

That did, in fact, set Iran’s nuclear ambition back, as well as weaken its proxies’ ability to destroy Israel. But it was a spectacular failure because the job is not finished. Iran needs to be wiped out. Anything less is a victory for Iran. As long as it exists at any level, it will rebuild and rearm with greater determination than ever.

Negotiating with Iran is a fool’s errand, not only because Iran will never agree to the president’s terms, but, more importantly, because it will surely lie about any agreement it may eventually reach.

This is where Vance’s subtle undermining of the President’s goals comes in. Whenever there is talk about military action, he ends up convincing the President to give diplomacy another try, as though it will work better this time than it did the last.

Vance is also very clever about expressing his views regarding Israel. Knowing that the President is a huge supporter of both Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu, he is not about to criticize the country or its leader directly. But there have been many cases in which his disagreements have surfaced in ways that make it obvious (at least to me) that he has no love lost for Israel or its leader.

To the best of my knowledge, Vance has never spoken with any kind of passion about Israel. To the extent that he has said anything positive at all, it has usually been almost in passing, and with qualifying exceptions. (Yes, I support Israel, but… or Yes, Israel is an ally, but…). Never the kind of full-throated support one would expect from someone who genuinely regards Israel as an important and valued ally.

My guess is that, in his heart of hearts, Vance does not support Trump’s foreign policy, nor does he think much of the State of Israel. But he is able to camouflage that with an occasional positive, if qualified, reference to her.

I wish I were wrong about him. But his friendship with one of the most disgusting Jew-haters in America proves to me that his views are not that far removed from those of his friend, denials to the contrary notwithstanding.

I don’t know how anyone who is a friend of the Jewish people can remain friends with an antisemitic bigot like Tucker Carlson. His attacks against Israel and the Jewish people have been many and vile. For Vance to simply say that he disagrees with him but still considers him a friend means that Carlson’s views do not really disturb him all that much.

Of course, friends do not have to agree on everything. But there are some things that cross a line and should end a friendship. Some opinions are so vile that, as soon as they are expressed, friendships should cease immediately! And yet Vance has yet to break off his friendship with Carlson and, to the best of my knowledge, still considers him a friend.

In today’s Algemeiner Jeffery Lax reports yet another despicable antisemitic act on Carlson’s part:

Tucker Carlson Books has announced a title that reads Peace Is the Only Final Solution for Jews, with a foreword by Tucker Carlson on the cover. It publishes Nov. 17, and Simon & Schuster is the distributor.

The use of the phrase “Final Solution” and “Jews” in the same sentence is about as despicable a comment as anyone can make. It doesn’t even matter what the intent of the book is. It should also be noted that Carlson has now replaced the word Israel with the word Jews, making his antisemitism even more direct…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free

Will the Economy Trump Antisemitism?

Michigan’s Abdul El-Sayed and Maine’s Troy Jackson (The Hill)

It’s interesting to see what political pundits are saying about the midterm elections. Depending on which way those quoting the polls lean politically, it will tell you what issues they believe will determine the results of the election.

If you lean Democrat, you will be focused on the economy and blame the Republican president and his party for not caring one whit about how many innocent Palestinians have been killed. You will point to the war with Iran as being responsible for the high prices of gas and groceries, claiming that the war has done nothing to make us safer. Israel is hardly on your radar. To the extent that it is, you place as much blame on Israel for joining Trump’s war with Iran and buy quite readily into the claim that Israel demolished Gaza and killed tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians (some calling it genocide) in its ‘failed’ war against Hamas in Gaza.

If you are a Republican, you tout the war with Iran as the only thing that prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Iran was supposedly only a week away from enriching uranium to weapons-grade levels. You point to its advanced ballistic missile program and its support of terrorist proxies throughout the Middle East, especially those surrounding Israel. Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and the most important ally the US has in that region, if not in the world. You also argue that after Iran is either defeated or capitulates to all US demands - the economy will revert to its prewar status, when prices were relatively low, stable, and, if anything, on a downward trajectory.

What impresses me about the Republican narrative is their concern over the direction of the Democratic Party. If, as many are predicting, progressive candidates win, the Democratic Party will have a hard time convincing mainstream Democrats that the extremist values of its progressive wing align with their own.

But still, people tend to vote their pocketbooks. They will vote for candidates from the party that they believe can best address their economic concerns,. That usually means voting for candidates from the opposing party (Democrats) against the party is currently in power (Republicans). The only thing that may frustrate that tendency this time is the low esteem voters have for Democrats. Which is not all that different than the low esteem they have for Republicans.

Will voters register a protest vote against any Republican running, despite their low approval ratings of Democrats?

The fact that Republican pundits are railing against the antisemitism that accompanies the rhetoric of many progressive candidates may register with some voters. But the economy, is probably what drives them the most. Besides, the progressive candidates will point to their denials that anti-Israel rhetoric is in any way antisemitic. Deliberately ignoring that such rhetoric drives the increase in antisemitism and its attendant violence in many cases. Thus voters pay little attention to progressives’ that anti Israel rhetoric. Believing their claims that they are not antisemitic. Just anti Israel. underscored by pledges that they will fight antisemitism when they get into office. Besides, antisemtism in just not on the radar of the typical voter. Or they believe the denials of these progressive candidates.

Republican pundits do, however, correctly frame the issue by pointing out that Americans, at their core, abhor attacks against the Jewish people. American’s were genuinely horrified when a synagogue in suburban Detroit was attacked by a Palestinian motivated by the death of one of his relatives – a Hamas operative in Gaza. He was killed during one of IDF’s raid against a Hamas stronghold.

El-Sayed originally characterized that attack as follows: ‘Hurt people - hurt people’. That he later apologized was at best political theater.

More recently El-Syed refused to condemn a disgusting third party antisemitic ad on his behalf directly blaming Israeli ‘genocide’ for the high grocery prices…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free

The Israeli Elections and Hatzibur Hacharedi

Gadi Eisenkot and Benjamin Netanyahu

Just as has been the case with similar polls here in the US that projected winners and losers but proved to be way off, so, too, were the polls in Israel this time. I think this may very well be because pollsters tend to inject their biases into the polls they conduct, skewing the results in their favor. Just a guess. But I can’t think of any other reason why polls in recent years have been so far off in their predictions.

I think it’s pretty clear what the last election was about. A referendum on Netanyahu. The country was pretty evenly divided about him, with passions on both side running high. You either reviled him or thought he was the greatest leader in Israel’s history. Listening to media pundits here in the US who tended to be in the former category, you would get the impression that most Israeli voters hate him. But that is clearly not the case.

Sadly, however, at 53 seats Netanyahu’s governing bloc did not get nearly enough votes to govern. That is due, in part, to the large number of seats (19) won by the Arab parties. Based on all the pre-election rhetoric and promises, there is no way a governing coalition can be formed unless there are defections from one bloc to another or the Arab parties are invited to join a governing coalition.

That just ain’t happening.

There have been suggestions of a unity government. Looking at the issues most people care about in this country, there really isn’t all that much daylight between the two parties. They have essentially the same attitude toward the war with Iran and the war with Iran’s proxies. Eisenkot will probably pursue the same military course Netanyahu did. That will not change.

This will surely disappoint those who think Netanyahu’s tactics in these wars were draconian, and that he was too casual about the n umber of civilians he killed in pursuit of Hamas terrorists. A policy based entirely on his political survival. But Eisenkot would not have done things any differently. In fact, he was chief of staff under Netanyahu until relatively recently. Had he had the kinds of objections Netanyahu’s critics have raised about his conduct of the war, he surely would have resigned well before now.

So what’s keeping them from forming a unity government? It’s the animus the voting public has toward Charedim for insisting on being exempt from military service. That resentment is compounded by their vile pronouncements directed at the government and judiciary for trying to undermine that status.

Netanyahu was seen as coddling the Charedim to retain power. Eisenkot tapped into that anger and swore he would end the exemption once and for all, imposing serious sanctions on draft dodgers.

Another difference is the extremist settlers who have been using violence against Palestinians in the West Bank in an effort to drive them out. Most Israelis do not tolerate these extremists. Netanyahu has looked the other way while paying lip service to condemning them. Eisenkot tapped into that anger, too. But it didn’t do him much good.

There has been a lot of mudslinging against Netanyahu, blaming him for October 7 and calling him corrupt, a traitor, and a liar. He has been accused of undermining Israel’s democracy, prolonging the war, delaying the release of hostages, coddling Charedim, and protecting his extremist right-wing allies who support violent extremist settlers. His wife and children have been attacked, and he has been blamed for ruining the bipartisan support Israel once enjoyed.

It would seem that Netanyahu has generated more anger and incitement against himself than any other prime minister in Israel’s history!

But it turns out that most Israelis did not fully buy into that narrative. In fact, a plurality of voters supported him enough to vote for his party or the other parties in his governing bloc.

None of this surprised me all that much.

The biggest disappointment for me was the poor showing of the Hatzibur Hacharedi party…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free. 

Is Assimilation Necessary for Good Citizenship?

Assimilation is not a four-letter word, although I have heard it mentioned in that context by far too many Orthodox Jewish educators who treat it as though it were. Assimilation is seen by many of them as a destroyer of Jewish values. Values that are not only incompatible with Jewish values but, worse, inimical to them. In fact, if I’m being honest, that is the rabbit hole that Western culture seems increasingly to be going down. Which should not be unexpected in the humanist culture of moral relativism that is increasingly becoming America.

So, even though I might be inclined to agree with the notion that assimilation into a culture like this is harmful to the Jewish soul, I do not subscribe to the absolutist position on assimilation that many Orthodox Jewish educators take. On the other hand, I definitely do not subscribe to the notion that full assimilation into the culture is all good. As with many things, its more complicated than that. Some assimilation is good and, in my view, necessary. Some of it is bad and should be avoided like the plague.

It is kind of like the response of the great Tannaic sage, R’ Meir, who, when asked why he remained so attached to Elisha ben Avuyah, a former sage who became a heretic, responded: Tocho ochel v’klipaso zarek. Loosely translated this means ‘I eat the good and discard the bad’.

Which brings me to an excellent article by Rabbi Avi Shafran about assimilation. He writes:

New York Times opinion writers Frank Bruni and Bret Stephens carried on a conversation in print in the paper’s October 22 edition, seeking some understanding of the unrest in France and elsewhere in Europe. They consider, inter alia, the relationship between the rioting and the rapid, widespread immigration to Europe from other lands (largely Muslim ones, though the word “Muslim” doesn’t appear amid the article’s 1,700 words dealing with immigration).

Mr. Stephens writes:

“I generally think that immigration is a blessing in any society, provided immigrants assimilate to their host societies’ values and cultures. Too often in Europe, that just didn’t happen.”

Considering assimilation into a new society to be crucial to peaceful and proper immigration is a reasonable thesis. But it ignores examples of decidedly unassimilated American communities like Chassidim and Amish, neither of which groups, despite its refusal to dissolve into the American melting pot, has ever fostered antisocial activity or exhibited high rates (or, for all practical purposes, any rates) of violent crime.

This is entirely true. One need not assimilate in order to be considered a member of society in good standing

As Rabbi Shafran notes, it is the culture from which one comes that is the problem, not the fact that one does not fully assimilate. I could not agree more. And indeed, the protests going on right now in Europe are surely, in part, a function of immigrants who have not assimilated. But that is more of a symptom rather than a cause. Immigrants from countries where violence in pursuit of ideological or religious goals is why they don’t assimilate. It may be impolitic to say so, but facts don’t care about political correctness…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.

Will Replacing Netanyahu Change Anything?

Gadi Eisenkot - Israel’s next prime minister?

I hate to disappoint all of Netanyahu’s critics who can’t wait for him to be defeated - and blame him for all the animosity toward Israel - but this attitude is sadly mistaken. Netanyahu has been an easy target for those looking to blame someone for all the criticism Israel receives. But, as I have said many times, Israel’s foreign policy and its approach to Judea and Samaria differ little among the candidates opposing Netanyahu. That is not what is being debated among Israeli voters.

The primary issue animating voters is “Charedim” and what to do about their refusal to serve in the IDF. Netanyahu is being blamed by secular and Religious Zionist voters for protecting Charedi interests - for delaying a vote on legislation that would require every Israeli citizen to serve in the IDF, with few exceptions. Legislation that would include severe sanctions for noncompliance.

Charedim, meanwhile, blame Netanyahu for failing to fulfill his promise to pass a law that would permanently exempt them from military service. This means that both sides will be voting for political parties opposed to Netanyahu.

Sorry to inform those who believe things will change under new leadership, but very little, if anything, will change. Israel’s foreign policy will very likely continue under any new leadership much as it has under Netanyahu. The rest of the world could not care less about the Charedi issue. Most of the world doesn’t even have a clue what a Charedi is.

Congressional animosity toward Israel will likely continue as before, if not get worse. All that hatred directed at Netanyahu will have been in vain.

Those who actually do care about the Charedi issue will be just as disappointed. Although Netanyahu’s opposition has come down forcefully in favor of using draconian measures to force compliance with the draft, I cannot imagine a scenario in which tens of thousands of yeshiva students fill prisons all across Israel. That is simply not going to happen, despite assurances from Netanyahu’s chief opponent, Gadi Eisenkot, that he will do so.

So whether Netanyahu wins or loses, nothing will change, at least not for the better. The world will still view Israel’s legitimate defensive war against the murderous enemies surrounding it as a form of genocide. And there will be little change in the number of Charedi recruits in the IDF.

The Israeli election is tomorrow. I expect voter turnout to be huge, but the electorate will be divided. Polls indicate that Eisenkot has a lead over Netanyahu in terms of the number of seats his party will win in the Knesset. But that does not mean Eisenkot will be able to form a government. He has already pledged not to include the Charedi parties. Although he has left open the door to a possible coalition with the Arab parties.

Finding coalition partners in a Knesset that will probably have more seats held by right-wing parties than by left-wing ones - might mean that Netanyahu will be able to forge a right-wing government despite having fewer seats. Netanyahu actually did that once in a previous election.

And the new coalition will surely be further to the right than the current one. One poll I saw says that Ben-Gvir’s far right party will actually increase the number of seats it wins in the Knesset…

To continue reading - and/or to comment on this post - click on this link: substack. You must subscribe to receive new posts. It's easy and it's free.