A Dose of Nuance: Those shifting Trump winds

T. Belman. Yesterday and today I posted a number of articles that made the point that Jewish Americans must get on the train if they want to avoid irrelevancy. Daniel Gordis argues it is happening. But he continues to believe that Trump is the person that the media have portrayed him to be. He said “I was stupefied that so many American Jews could just ignore what Trump had said about women, people with disabilities, African Americans, war heroes and Gold Star families. Or that they were no longer bothered that the future leader of the United States had refused to say he would accept the outcome if he lost.” Hey Gordis, get over it. He is not the ogre you believe him to be. His actions and future policies will be good for all those groups. American Jews should drop their belief in their own moral superiority and see the world through different lenses.

As numerous American Jews now climb down from the ‘never Trump’ tree they face a test.

By Daniel Gordis, JPOST

Donald Trump

It did not take long for the winds to shift. American Jews, prominent and otherwise, who had expressed disdain for Donald Trump and had, ostensibly, shared the widespread revulsion at his many campaign utterances, have decided that it’s time to get on the winning side of history.

In meeting after meeting, email after email, friends and colleagues are telling me that the horrified opposition is not where they plan to situate themselves for the foreseeable future. For American Jews, and for Israel, they say, “We’ve simply got to work with this guy.”

Over cocktails, I told a leading Orthodox congregational rabbi long associated with the Republican Party that I was stupefied that so many American Jews could just ignore what Trump had said about women, people with disabilities, African Americans, war heroes and Gold Star families. Or that they were no longer bothered that the future leader of the United States had refused to say he would accept the outcome if he lost (to name but a few of my issues with him).

He was not happy with my take. “He deserves an opportunity to do teshuva [repentance], no less than anyone else, doesn’t he?” he asked. Well, I asked, would he not first have to apologize for what he said and all the hatred he sowed? “The Rambam [Maimonides] isn’t the only standard in Judaism, is he?” asked my rabbi friend.

So in light of the current political upheaval, it seems that Maimonides’ standards for what constitutes genuine repentance, normally the default Jewish position, no longer matter very much.

Gone, as well, are Maimonides’ rulings on the use of foul language (Guide 3.8).

“Grab ’em by the ***** Trump” has gotten even Maimonides demoted.

Then there was the (infinitely more compelling) argument that the new American political reality could be a game-changer for Israel: there may never have been a president whose instincts about Israel were so positive. No longer would the default sentiment be that Israel is “a problem that needs addressing.”

Now, the logic goes, Israel will have an instinctive friend in the White House, someone who – along with Congress – could radically change America’s rhetoric and policy regarding the Jewish State.

That is actually true. While the notion that Jared Kushner is going to bring peace to the Middle East sounds laughable, the notion that a control-alt-delete might be good for Israel is not incorrect.

For years, the world has pressed Israel to exchange territory in exchange for Palestinian recognition of Israel’s right to exist. That has not worked, because the demand itself is a capitulation to Palestinian revisionism. The United Nations recognized Israel’s right to exist in 1947.

Thus, an administration that made it clear to the Palestinians that gone are the days of the United States ignoring Palestinian tactics – their continuing denial of Israel’s right to exist and of a Jewish link to Jerusalem, the fomenting hatred of Jews in their schools, their naming streets and squares after suicide bombers – just might get the Palestinians to come to the negotiating table.

That possibility cannot be completely discounted.

Let us thus grant, simply for the sake of argument, that some of Trump’s policies might be good for America’s economy.

Or that his administration will be friendlier to Israel than any administration in recent memory. Or that a much less activist Supreme Court will be better for America in the long run. Or that it’s high time that excessive political correctness in the United States came to a screeching halt. Perhaps some of that is even true.

The rub is that states and religions – just like people – are rightly judged largely by the company they keep.

Many of us are devoted to this embattled country of ours and want to believe that at its best, the Jewish state can reflect the best of the Jewish tradition.

And we believe that the Jewish tradition stands for values – like decency, respect, intelligent discourse – that make it worthy of our reverence.

The challenge, then, for those who see in Donald Trump’s policies (or in Hillary Clinton’s defeat, because of her many faults) a new opportunity, is going to be to learn to assume that position while distancing themselves loudly and vocally from everything that is deplorable about Trump’s personality and his verbiage.

We take pride in the fact that the Zionist movement had women running for office and voting as early as 1898, long before any European country. We are justly proud that Israel elected a woman head of state long before anyone had heard of Hillary Clinton – because we believe that decent societies show no less respect to women than they do to men. That means that even those Jews who want to jump on the Trump bandwagon have a Jewish responsibility to repudiate his misogyny loudly and clearly, not just now but until he apologizes profusely – and changes.

If we take pride in Israel’s reaching out to Syrian wounded even as Syria remains in a state of war with Israel, Jews need to remind Donald Trump that human pathos is the hallmark of a great society.

So, too, has been immigration – to the US no less than to Israel.

If we are duly proud of Israel’s commitment to getting our prisoners of war home, even American Jews who do not wish to languish outside the Beltway’s circles of power need to say unequivocally and continuously that what Trump said about John McCain was reprehensible. And that Trump needs to apologize.

The examples are endless, but the point is clear. As numerous American Jews now climb down from the “never Trump” tree because of how things played out, they face a test. Even as they embrace this new power, will they also have the courage and temerity to speak truth to power – as the giants of our tradition have always done? At stake is nothing less than the question of whether our Jewish commitments are also moral ones.

The writer is Koret Distinguished Fellow and Chair of the Core Curriculum at Shalem College in Jerusalem. His new book, Israel: A Concise History of a Nation Reborn, was just published by Ecco/HarperCollins.

December 2, 2016 | 43 Comments »

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

Leave a Reply

43 Comments / 43 Comments

  1. @ bernard ross:

    Just a comment on the beginning of your erudite post. That is Bedford Forrest’s saying to “get there first with the most men”…as his remedy for the best chance of victory. Also the kind of soldiers I’d want with me. In fact I think that Sharon’s success in harrying the enemy when he got even a slight advantage was what gave him his well deserved reputation as a soldier..

  2. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Man, this is annoying.

    LOL, I thought I explained that to you… from my perspective of you “being too kind”. first of all its a figure of speech not to be taken literally AND especially not personally. My perspective, perhaps not Lt Howard’s perspective, is that your posts focus on the arguments that the lunatics are making using the same rational.. logical reasoning…which is being kind. My tendency is to NOT afford them that respect because I have no interest in convincing them otherwise because I dont even believe that their “arguments” are honest or sincere. Hence I tend to instead employ the emotional approach like this one:
    bernard ross Said:

    Sebastien Zorn posted a quote:

    “For Yom Ha-Zikaron, our kavanah [intention] is to open up our communal remembrance to include losses on all sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In this spirit, our framing question for Yom Ha-Zikaron is this: On this day, what do you remember and for whom do you grieve?”
    ross replied
    Yes, I grieve for arafat, hitler and himmler, etc… its absurd to consider these psychopathic freaks seriously.

    I could have opted for constructing a logical argument but instead I attempted to portray the absurdity of it in a way that I thought folks would get. I asserted that the rabbi’s assertion was equivalent to sorrow for arafat and hitler…. which is what I feel.

  3. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    In this case I apologize since my intention was very different.

    If you had depicted someone as a worthless son of a bitch and I had responded that you were being too kind in your description of him, how would you have taken that?

    I was agreeing with you and then saying that it is even worse. My current beef with Gordis is that he presented partial and incomplete information on Keith Ellison and a way to mislead the Jewish community.

    Anyway, here is a current update are the Keith Ellison and the Jewish community:
    “Saban, ADL’s Greenblatt: Ellison Clearly an Anti-Semite” Published: December 3rd, 2016

    Movie mogul and major Democratic party donor Haim Saban on Friday night at a Brookings Institution dinner attacked Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison, a leading candidate in the race for chairman of the Democratic National Committee, calling him an anti-Semite.

    Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean dropped out of the DNC race on Friday, urging Democrats to elect only a full-time chairman, implying Ellison would not make an effective party leader because of his Congressional commitments. Speaking on Friday to state party chairs in Denver, Ellison said that if he’s elected chairman, he’d consider leaving Congress to devote his attention to rebuilding the party.

    The fact that Ellison may be the next Democratic party decision maker stirred up Saban’s harsh response.

    Speaking from his table at the dinner, Saban said: “I would just like to clarify something about Keith Ellison and him running for head of the DNC. […] I think it’s important for this audience to know. First, The fact that Keith Ellison is a Muslim is a non-issue at all. That is not an issue. With that out of the way, if you listen to Keith Ellison today and you see his statements, he’s more of a Zionist than Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Begin combined. I mean, really, it’s amazing, it’s a beautiful thing.”

    Then Saban delivered his punch line: “[But] if you go back to his positions, his papers, his speeches, the way he has voted – he is clearly an anti-Semite, an anti-Israel individual. Words matter, and actions matter more. Keith Ellison would be a disaster for the relationship between the Jewish community and the Democratic Party. Now I’ve said what I had to say.”

    On Thursday, ADL CEO Jonathan A. Greenblatt, not a rightwinger in anyone’s book, issued an almost identical statement, albeit in a less blunt style:

    “When Rep. Ellison’s candidacy to be chair of the Democratic National Committee was first reported, ADL did not rush to judgment. Instead, we took a hard look at the totality of his record on key issues on our agenda. We spoke to numerous leaders in the community and to Mr. Ellison himself. ADL’s subsequent statement on his candidacy appreciated his contrition on some matters, acknowledged areas of commonality but clearly expressed real concern where Rep. Ellison held divergent policy views, particularly related to Israel’s security.

    “New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel. In a speech recorded in 2010 to a group of supporters, Rep. Ellison is heard suggesting that American foreign policy in the Middle East is driven by Israel, saying: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

    “Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying. His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

    It appears that with or without Ellison at the Helm, rank and file Democrats are abandoning their party’s traditional relationship with the Jewish State. Israeli born Prof. Shibley Telhami, introduced a survey of “American attitudes on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict” at the at the Brookings Institute Saban Forum 2016, using 1,528 panelists with a 2.5% margin of error, that included the question: “Is Israel an ally or a burden to the United States?”

    Most respondents, 76%, across party lines, agreed that Israel is a strategic asset to the U.S. But a majority of Democrats (55%), say that Israel is also a burden.

    The breakdown by age of respondents across the lines regarding the notion that Israel is a burden: 61% of people 55 years of age or older disagree that Israel is a burden to the U.S., while 31% agree that it is a burden.

    51% of 35 to 54 year olds disagree with the notion of Israel being a burden. But only 49% of 18 to 34 year olds disagree with it.

  4. I will end this discussion by making fun of myself on a humorous note:

    Sticks and stones may break my bones, but to be accused of kindness. Well, sir, that’s just insupportable!

    As they say in the English subtitles to Kdramas, “I’m leaving first.”

  5. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    There are fallacious arguments and arguments based on false facts, like the demographic dud, and the misrepresentation of international law. And, Oslo, clearly did not bring peace.

    exactly, “logic” was found to support those arguments… people accepted the “reasoning” and years later some still dont see that it did not turn out as predicted. Another argument which is a basis for an Israeli military strategy is that stability in the lands of the enemies is a good thing.. however, my view, and the last few years prove the opposite… that chaos and disorder in the lands of the enemies is a good thing…. because it weakens the enemies and makes them an easier adversary if war breaks out AND it keeps them busy with their own problems.. I submit… arab spring and euro spring.
    No doubt the contrary argument is rife with “logic”

  6. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    He didn’t respond to:

    What do you think about the following comment somebody made:

    actually, I did respond… both in this post:
    bernard ross Said:

    You see that the answers to your posted commenters dillemas are really quite simple,…..

    and in this post:
    https://www.israpundit.org/archives/63619851/comment-page-1#comment-63356000180247
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    which contains the following sentence:

    “The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—the instinct to protect their own people first, or to mourn our losses first.”

    although I cannot respond to all of the sentences in your last few very long posts I did deal with both the gist of “what I thought…” AND that specific sentence, as follows:
    bernard ross Said:

    Zorn post:
    I wrote to the dean who had written this paragraph, a friend from whom I’ve learned a great deal over the years and whose commitment to Israel and Zionism is sincere. The response was immediate: “…we are trying to engage with these issues and with each other with greater openness, courage, and respect than I think has been possible in most other corners of the Jewish community here.”

    The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—
    My reply:
    I find the writer has the same problem as those he writes about. How can he consider that dean sincere in his commitment to Israel and Zionism…. and why does he only recognize the absence of “innate instinct in the students and NOT their teacher. In fact, this whole tome illustrates to me that the writer is basically in the same dillema as those he writes about. The writer seeks intellectual explanations for a psychopathic lack of connection and empathy.
    One thing that clued me in was this absurdity:….

    you can check my original reply
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    I was going to tell him it was from the article I cited which he (and you) didn’t read by Gordis written five years ago.

    here is who you said it was from:
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    What do you think about the following comment somebody made:

    I referred to the commenter/writer’s observations of others AND to the commenter writer himself…
    so whats the problem?

  7. I did read and consider the links provided. When Gordis debates ,much of what he says sounds good and is correct.

    However, although many of his life actions are good , too many of his actions are destructive. Given that Israel does not have much maneuver room a bad action can be fatal.

    It is Gordis’ bad, destructive actions that I tried to focus on
    .
    My suggestion is that Ted commission a joint article by Bernard Ross and Sebastien Zorn which focuses on actions on which they both agree. We could all learn so much from that effort

    In the meantime I have benefited from their robust interaction.

  8. bernard ross Said:

    logic, like lawyers, can be found to support any argument.

    Not really. There are fallacious arguments and arguments based on false facts, like the demographic dud, and the misrepresentation of international law. And, Oslo, clearly did not bring peace. It just brought the battlefront closer to home. But, they can’t let go of it. Could be the subject of a satirical skit: “I can see Ramallah from my house.”

  9. bernard ross Said:

    presenting the enemy as innocent victims equal to your own family

    He didn’t respond to:

    What do you think about the following comment somebody made:

    which contains the following sentence:

    “The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—the instinct to protect their own people first, or to mourn our losses first.”

    I was going to tell him it was from the article I cited which he (and you) didn’t read by Gordis written five years ago.

  10. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Rabin, Yossi Beilin and Peres, for example, justified the Oslo betrayal on Zionist grounds. Much harder to fight than an open enemy who just supports the killers of our people no matter what. Harder to convince people who could go either way. Muddies things. Emotion can be more persuasive than reason with a lot of people.

    this illustrates the difference…. for me these are not intellectual arguments to be won by logic…. logic, like lawyers, can be found to support any argument. thats why it is used to muddy waters but when the issue is emotionally personalized people wake up from their comas and see that the real logic is brought home by emotion which brings them back from the realm of psychopathy to that or emotion.
    here is an example of emotion which clarifies and focuses the logic when making decisions:
    bernard ross Said:

    your rabbis would wonder who is the enemy, should I shoot, perhaps he really would rather surrender, what about his children, what about those innocent victims… should I die so they can live… perhaps I should uncock my rifle and mosey over for a peace chat. The reason that the answers are so simple for me is that I put my son in that situation and realize without a single shred of doubt that I would want him to shoot the enemy absolutely dead immediately, I would not want him to take him prisoner or to leave him alive… thats because when it is my son it all becomes clear. His only danger would be a Yaalon who would risk his life for some ludicrous principle which murders my son or as a pretext for cynical criminality. I have the same view of the supposedly “ethical” IDF who saves enemy lives and the families of whose who teach their children that Jews are sons of apes and pigs. I would advise my son not to go to Israel and join the IDF because the lives of enemy children are worth more to the “jews” running Israel than his life will be worth to them.

    the logicians would ask, as they never fail to do, what do you say to the poor enemy, muslim or migrant children…. I say nothing because my sons life is worth billions of their children.
    the arguments of zionism, ethics(that the crook yaalon used), humanitarianism, etc… these are all red herrings meant to render the decisions into intellectual exercises rather than questions of your family’s survival.

  11. @ bernard ross:
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    “In a way, this is worse. Somebody who means well can go places that somebody who is clearly an enemy can not. Harder to convince people who could go either way. Muddies things.”

    Will you please respond to what I actually wrote!

  12. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    He said (and you agreed) that I was being kind to Gordis.

    dont remember agreeing with it but I woudnt pay it no mind… he used a figure of speech.. why take it personally? But, now that you mention it perhaps you were being too kind 😛 . Probably Lt. Howard and I take these folks as much more dangerous than most Jews, who see the discussion as an intellectual discussion of opinions whereas I see them as dangerous people to other Jews spreading dangerous propaganda, convincing Jews in dangerous and suicidal behaviors… presenting the enemy as innocent victims equal to your own family

  13. Dean drops out of DNC chair race, opening path for EllisonIn face of criticism over Israel comments, Minnesota congressman says he may leave his seat to dedicate his time to run Democratic Party
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/dean-drops-out-of-dnc-chair-race-opening-path-for-ellison/?

    who could have imagined that an anti semitic, anti Israel, anti zionist muslim could take over the democratic party… and supported by the “useful idiot” or perhaps just plain greedy and opporutunistic, Jews Sanders and shuman.
    Of course ellison will leave his seat to run the democratic party… this is a huge win for all that muslim money infiltrating the USA and its institutions, colleges, gov, security orgs… and not the most usually winning party who takes the reins of powers.
    They will now suceed in driving away jews from the party which is what they want because the Jews are the only brakes on the dem party support of muslim infiltration, anti semitism, and anti Israelism in the party. The remaining opportunistic jews will have no effect on braking this phenomenon. Time for Jews in america to start worrying… and time for all other americans to worry too because the usual canaries in the coal mine are dying… and the rest of america is next. They already got in a muslim president, a candidate with a muslim brotherhood handler with top secret security clearance and now a muslim controller of the top party to govern. Nothing short of a purge of gov and institutions will stop this fearsome wave from drowning the nation. Duh… its the muslims stupid.

  14. @ bernard ross:
    “Straw man” refers to an argument not a person. He said (and you agreed) that I was being kind to Gordis. I was not being kind. I initially slammed him for being somebody who just tried to turn people against Israel like Peter Beinart (I found an ad for a debate between them at Columbia.)

    I didn’t even include the article I was amazed to find by David Horowitz who also found him to be a confused centrist. In a way, this is worse. Somebody who means well can go places that somebody who is clearly an enemy can not.

    Rabin, Yossi Beilin and Peres, for example, justified the Oslo betrayal on Zionist grounds. Much harder to fight than an open enemy who just supports the killers of our people no matter what. Harder to convince people who could go either way. Muddies things. Emotion can be more persuasive than reason with a lot of people. Unfortunately. Religious doctrine is neither here nor there. Religiously minded people pick and choose the texts that support their positions. Religions (or political ideologies, for that matter) that don’t allow that kind of flexibility don’t survive. People want to have their “orthodoxy” (of whatever kind, including liberal revisionism) and eat it too, so to speak.

  15. @ bernard ross:

    Oh, you’re quick! And, now looking at this clip again after almost 40 years, I’m starting to wonder about the imagery involving a wall and rioting arsonists outside a burning building carrying the teacher who is wearing distinctive antiquated garb off to – what, lynch him?

  16. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    The more profound question is why do liberals accept apologies from anti-semites who stand to benefit from apologizing?

    why do you consider this a “profound” question? To me it seems a waste of time…. (nb not an attack on you)

  17. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Right. Well, the point is that if he (or you) had taken the time to read what I actually wrote (including cited) you would not have wasted your time attacking a straw man.

    I did take the time
    who is the “straw man” which you say I attacked? I hope you are not referring to yourself… I attacked the commenter you cited and those about whom he wrote, plus the generic exampes they demonstrated.not you

  18. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    all those opportunistic jews you cited just sought to avoid complaints from other jews. they havent changed.
    Leftist jewish leaders and media hounds need to apologize to trump and his family for the outright scandalous lies and propaganda which they spread AND continue to spread about him. They must do penance or be enemies… There is no excuse, justification or even explanation for their foul and filthy behavior.
    The Teshuvah is theirs to do, they have deeply wronged trump and intentionally twisted his words to defame him in the most egregious manner. They must publicly come out and mea culpa.
    If I was trump I would destroy them.

  19. The more profound question is why do liberals accept apologies from anti-semites who stand to benefit from apologizing? Examples, Obama, Ellison, Jesse Jackson, Mel Gibson.

    You know, when I was a Marxist, we considered that the strongest argument was from somebody on the other side who was admitting something it was not in their interest to admit.

    Of course, that argument gets tossed out on its ear when faced with today’s Jewish — well, I was going to say Lemmings but that’s a myth, you know, the lemmings didn’t commit suicide. They were murdered for a fake documentary on lemming suicide. So really there is no precedent. Instead of lemmings, the term should be Jewish accomodationists. Not sure if the Judenrat and their ilk were liberals so it doesn’t even rest on that.

  20. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Sun Tzu’s Art of War is one of his favorite books.

    its funny, I read the same elsewhere, all those folks trying to figure trump out, all that uneccessary intellectualism. He is transparent, I see no mysteries. He operates like a savvy businessman and construction developer NOT like a politician. I dont needs sun tzu to see how he operates… its all common sense. Trump has been consistent to his MO even when folks think he is inconstistent. Not being a politician he has no problem expressing one thought today that appears to be contradicted tomorrow. He identifies his goals and what he must do to achieve them, if things change so does he, if he makes an error in judgement he changes without apology. If you cross him he is vengeful and teaches you a lesson.. ask cruz, kelly, murdoch… AND you become his enemy. He may appear to move on and embrace his enemies but I expect that is merely a tactic to maintain control.
    Mattis and trump have a similar economic way of seeing things 😛 :

    “I don’t lose any sleep at night over the potential for failure. I cannot even spell the word.”
    “I come in peace. I didn’t bring artillery. But I’m pleading with you, with tears in my eyes: If you fuck with me, I’ll kill you all.”
    “Find the enemy that wants to end this experiment (in American democracy) and kill every one of them until they’re so sick of the killing that they leave us and our freedoms intact.”
    “Be polite, be professional, but have a plan to kill everybody you meet.”
    “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.”
    “You cannot allow any of your people to avoid the brutal facts. If they start living in a dream world, it’s going to be bad.”
    [Israel should take note of the following 2:]
    “There are hunters and there are victims. By your discipline, cunning, obedience and alertness, you will decide if you are a hunter or a victim.”
    “No war is over until the enemy says it’s over. We may think it over, we may declare it over, but in fact, the enemy gets a vote.”

    Mattis and Trump…. one liners…. bottom liners…. not interested in many questions.
    (reporters freak out because they have questions and they dont care)

  21. @ bernard ross:
    Right. Well, the point is that if he (or you) had taken the time to read what I actually wrote (including cited) you would not have wasted your time attacking a straw man.

    For those who are unfamiliar with this concept, it’s an important one that keeps being relevant:

    “Debaters invoke a straw man when they put forth an argument—usually something extreme or easy to argue against—that they know their opponent doesn’t support. You put forth a straw man because you know it will be easy for you to knock down or discredit. It’s a way of misrepresenting your opponent’s position.Feb 4, 2016
    Grammar Girl : What Is a Straw Man Argument? :: Quick and Dirty Tips ™”
    http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/what-is-a-straw-man-argument

  22. @ bernard ross:
    You said it yourself, they’re lunatics. But, they are starting to have second thoughts under pressure from our side:

    I’m quoting in full because Haaretz only lets you view an article without paying once:

    “ADL Slams Keith Ellison’s ‘Disturbing and Disqualifying’ Remarks on Israel
    Poised to become the next chair of the Democratic National Committee, Ellison is under fire a 2010 recording in which he criticizes U.S. support of Israel; Sen. Schumer defends Ellison, who says his remarks were taken out of context.

    Rep. Keith Ellison, a Democrat from Minnesota, speaks at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 25, 2016. Andrew Harrer, Bloomberg
    Anti-Semitic mud thrown at Rep. Keith Ellison to counter attacks on Steve Bannon
    LISTEN Keith Ellison, favorite to run the DNC, praises Castro for defeating ‘apartheid forces’
    Jewish Democrats back Muslim lawmaker to become party chair
    Support for Rep. Keith Ellison’s bid for chair of the Democratic National Committee  hit a snag with the American Jewish community following the revelation of an excerpt from a 2010 speech in which he said that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East was “governed” by Israel. 

    The Anti-Defamation League released a statement Thursday saying that Ellison’s remarks in the speech raised “serious doubts about his ability to faithfully represent the party’s traditional support for Israel.” Ellison dismissed the accusations, saying that his remarks were taken out of context.
    In the recording, Ellison said: “The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes.”

    The 36-second audio recording of a snippet of Ellison’s speech was published by the Investigative Project on Terrorism on November 29. According to the IPT, the recording had been made at a fundraiser for Ellison’s re-election campaign, hosted by Esam Omeish, past president of the Muslim American Society.
    “Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying,” Jonathan A. Greenblatt, CEO of the ADL said in the organization’s’ statement. “His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests. Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S.”
    Shortly after the statement was released, Ellison had responded to Greenblatt, saying he was “saddened” by the ADL statement and that the audio clip released had been “selectively edited and taken out of context.” Ellison also said Steven Emerson, founder of The Investigative Project, the group that released the audio, had been called an “anti-Muslim extremist” by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

    “My record proves my deep and long-lasting support for Israel, and I have always fought anti-Semitism, racism, sexism, and homophobia – the same values embodied by the Anti-Defamation League,” Ellison said.
    “I believe that Israel and the U.S.-Israel relationship are, and should be, key considerations in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East,” he added.
    Ellison is considered the front-runner for the DNC leadership position, and has been endorsed both by Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer and former presidential candidate Senator Bernie Sanders. A five-term congressman, he is the first-ever Muslim member of the House of Representatives and the first African-American to represent Minnesota in Congress. 
    Late Thursday night, Schumer issued a statement declaring “I stand by Rep. Ellison for DNC chair.”
    Schumer said that he and Ellison “have discussed his views on Israel at length, and while I disagree with some of his past positions, I saw him orchestrate one of the most pro-Israel platforms in decades by successfully persuading other skeptical committee members to adopt such a strong platform.” He said that Ellison has committed “to continuing to uphold that platform and to convince others that they support it as well” if he is elected head of the DNC. 
    In his statement, Greenblatt noted that before hearing the 2010 speech, the ADL had “appreciated” Ellison’s “contrition” for statements he had made in the past, “acknowledged areas of commonality” yet “expressed real concern where Rep. Ellison held divergent policy views, particularly related to Israel’s security.”
    Greenblatt’s mention of “contrition” referred to Ellison’s statements when he was a young supporter of the Nation of Islam led by Louis Farrakhan in the 1980’s and 90’s.
    On Thursday, that period of Ellison’s life was also in the spotlight after CNN featured an article on Ellison’s past, reporting that the frontrunner for DNC chairman “faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic figures.” 
    CNN said that an examination of those writings failed to reveal examples of anti-Semitic statements by Ellison himself, but pointed to numerous times when he defended Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and others accused of anti-Semitism. The CNN piece highlighted a “scathing” article Ellison wrote for the University of Minnesota newspaper in 1990 under the name “Keith Hakim.” 
    In the article, Ellison defended the Africana Student Cultural Center’s invitation to a speaker, militant civil rights and black power leader Stokely Carmichael, also known as Kwame Ture who had, in the past, accused Zionists of Nazi collaboration in World War II and called for the destruction of Zionism, after the university president denounced Ture’s positions. 
    Ellison wrote, “Whether one supports or opposes the establishment of Israel in Palestine and Israel’s present policies, Zionism, the ideological undergirding of Israel, is a debatable political philosophy. Anyone, including black people, has the right to hear and voice alternative views on the subject — notwithstanding our nominal citizenship.”
    He charged that the university, in opposing the speaker, was maintaining a position that “political Zionism is off-limits no matter what dubious circumstances Israel was founded under; no matter what the Zionists do to the Palestinians; and no matter what wicked regimes Israel allies itself with — like South Africa. This position is untenable.”
    Ellison renounced his support for the Nation of Islam in 2006, when he first ran for Congress, declaring that “at no time did I ever share their hateful views or repeat or approve of their hateful statements directed at Jews, gays, or any other group” and stating that he “rejects anti-Semitism in any form and from whatever source.”
    In a post he published on Medium on Thursday, Ellison revisited his position, writing that “in my effort to pursue justice for the African-American community, I neglected to scrutinize the words of those like Khalid Muhammed and Farrakhan who mixed a message of African American empowerment with scapegoating of other communities. These men organize by sowing hatred and division, including anti-Semitism, homophobia and a chauvinistic model of manhood. I disavowed them long ago, condemned their views, and apologized.”
    During his decade in Congress, Ellison has worked closely with Jewish organizations on the left, who are now supporting his candidacy for the Democratic leadership post enthusiastically, along with the rest of the progressive wing of the party. Meanwhile, in right-wing media outlets, blogs and organization, and on alt-right social media a consistent stream of negative information and opinion against him has been flowing since his candidacy has been announced. 
    Ellison supports a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and has supported defense assistance to Israel, though many mainstream Jewish organizations have expressed concern over the fact that Ellison voted against supplementary funding for Israel’s Iron Dome anti-missile system in 2014 and his strong support of the Iran nuclear deal.
    read more: http://www.haaretz.com/world-news/u-s-election-2016/1.756569

  23. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Don’t take Trump so literally.

    why not, its been pretty accurate most times, just simplistic
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    He did not really shoot from the hip without looking or he would have lost:

    he never shot in battle. Planning before is one thing, engaging the head before shooting is another… but in a battle shoot first and ask the enemy questions later… I would prefer that person on my side, not one who risks my life to ask the enemy questions.
    Dont confuse calculations to make your shots with holding fire to ask questions. You are th one being literal. I have never from the begining had any misunderstandings of trump, I think I understood him fine.
    The point I was making is that Israel and the Jews need to identify and destroy their enemy, which should be obvious.. Lt Howard sees the danger… the rabbis are asking questions… a talmudic trait.
    In dangerous situations that we have now we need less talmudic commiseration and more elimation of threats. There is no need for questions as the enemies are obvious. If someone tries to kill you , you should not be asking questions.. you should kill him first.
    Or you can be like those rabbis and the pre shoah Jews and ask questions…. but in such circumstances I suggest to expect the worst.

  24. @ Sebastien Zorn:
    Why is it that Lt. Howard immediately sees the danger of ellison and the muslims but those lunatic rabbis cannot? Lunatic Jews who cannot even see the danger when every day the leftist muslim alliance is stalking their children in campuses across the nation. A people who do not protect their children, or even see that they are in danger, and are concerned about the welfare of enemies in far away ramallah…. the same enemies who belong to the dangerous creed……. what more could HaShem do to warn such self absorbed fools of the coming pogroms on their own children which they support. Everything that the nazis were doing before the shoah the leftist muslim alliance is doing right now to their children and Israel… and these lunatics give them money to to it. How crazy is that? Jews are blind fools once again… being given warnings and missing the obvious. Who is attacking their children, who is attacking jewish academics and activists, who is attacking Israel…. duh?????????????

  25. @ bernard ross:

    Don’t take Trump so literally. Sun Tzu’s Art of War is one of his favorite books. He did not really shoot from the hip without looking or he would have lost:

    “26. Now the general who wins a battle makes many calculations in his temple ere the battle is fought. The general who loses a battle makes but few calculations beforehand. Thus do many calculations lead to victory, and few calculations to defeat: how much more no calculation at all! It is by attention to this point that I can foresee who is likely to win or lose. ”

    “20. Hold out baits to entice the enemy. Feign disorder, and crush him.

    22. If your opponent is of choleric temper, seek to irritate him. Pretend to be weak, that he may grow arrogant. ”

    http://classics.mit.edu/Tzu/artwar.html

  26. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    “For Yom Ha-Zikaron, our kavanah [intention] is to open up our communal remembrance to include losses on all sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In this spirit, our framing question for Yom Ha-Zikaron is this: On this day, what do you remember and for whom do you grieve?”

    Yes, I grieve for arafat, hitler and himmler, etc… its absurd to consider these psychopathic freaks seriously.

    I wrote to the dean who had written this paragraph, a friend from whom I’ve learned a great deal over the years and whose commitment to Israel and Zionism is sincere. The response was immediate: “…we are trying to engage with these issues and with each other with greater openness, courage, and respect than I think has been possible in most other corners of the Jewish community here.”

    The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—

    I find the writer has the same problem as those he writes about. How can he consider that dean sincere in his commitment to Israel and Zionism…. and why does he only recognize the absence of “innate instinct in the students and NOT their teacher. In fact, this whole tome illustrates to me that the writer is basically in the same dillema as those he writes about. The writer seeks intellectual explanations for a psychopathic lack of connection and empathy.
    One thing that clued me in was this absurdity:
    Sebastien Zorn Said:

    Why are their instincts so different from those of my generation? Four factors seem to me central.

    interesting to me is that the writer only spoke of his time forward… the shoah and the thousands of years of jewish suffering and slaughter did not figure into it. The writer is even divorced from the suffering of his own parents..who was to blame for that? For me this writer is a typical american jew of the me generation that sees everything in terms of his own limited personal experience and is even out of touch with the pinnacle of Jewish torture and suffering… never mention that which the american jews were clueless… the gestapo at the door “aufmachen juden”… the lucky ones who escaped the bloodfest… Jews with this knowledge never feel safe anywhere… they never assume their security…any Jew who knows anything about this knows that american jews are in just as much danger as german jews then… an not because of the obvious transparent number of classical anti semites… but by the growing danger they do not see because to them it seems impossible to comprehend. How else can the american jew supporting the leftist and muslim already proven dangerous to their children in schools… how else can these lunatic jews be talking of peace with the muslims, supporting muslim jew killer supporters like ellison….. aligning themselves with the greatest global threat to western europe and north america…. calling for an influx of the most dangerous collective to jews and christians alike… how else can they be viewed. The authors concerns are already an anachronism because the bigger threat is that the same jews who are abandoning Israel are being seen by their fellow americans to be aligned with the threat to america. Every day commenters point out the numbers of jews, like soros, supporitn the muslim immigrations. the leftists and local muslims who these lunatic jews support are using them as “useful idiots” but the danger is alienating those other normal americans who support or are neutral to Jews. When the left abandons the muslims, when the catholic and lutheran charities stop taking billions to settle them… everyone will forget their folly but they will remember the Jews betrayals.
    Beware, the same arrogance and ignorance of pre WWII germany is present.

  27. Sebastien Zorn Said:

    ” I hope you didn’t shoot from the hip first and ask questions later in battle.

    Actually, I hope that he did shoot first and ask questions later in battle. Certainly that would be the sort of person I would want on my side in a battle. Definitely I would not want those rabbis about whom you posted a very long commiseration written presumable by a Jews who had similar issues to those he was complaining about. Shooting first from the hip is what the hevron soldier did, which is what I want. I dont want rabbis and leaders who want a long talmudic intellectual commiseration about something which is, in fact, very very simple…. to those who get it.
    In fact, you unwillingly stumbled on a trumpism…. something expressed very simply but which, if one looks closely, explains the whole real issue. Your accidental trumpism reads like this:
    “In battle, shoot first and ask questions later”
    whereas your rabbis would wonder who is the enemy, should I shoot, perhaps he really would rather surrender, what about his children, what about those innocent victims… should I die so they can live… perhaps I should uncock my rifle and mosey over for a peace chat. The reason that the answers are so simple for me is that I put my son in that situation and realize without a single shred of doubt that I would want him to shoot the enemy absolutely dead immediately, I would not want him to take him prisoner or to leave him alive… thats because when it is my son it all becomes clear. His only danger would be a Yaalon who would risk his life for some ludicrous principle which murders my son or as a pretext for cynical criminality. I have the same view of the supposedly “ethical” IDF who saves enemy lives and the families of whose who teach their children that Jews are sons of apes and pigs. I would advise my son not to go to Israel and join the IDF because the lives of enemy children are worth more to the “jews” running Israel than his life will be worth to them.
    I have often said that if the enemy fired one rocket at my children I would INTENTIONALLY go and kill every last one of his children.
    I was once admonished for that statement by a supposedly religious Jew who “knew” the Torah. He didnt change my mind.

    One of the things that everyone hated about trump, especially intellectual elitist Jewry, was his seemingly crude ability to articulate a problem and solution in one simple sentence.. here was the first gem which proved him to be a relative genius in a nation of fools:
    “Lets stop muslim immigration until we can figure it out”
    He saw that muslims were the problem, he did not know which muslims were the problem, his solution was to err on the side of caution and ban them until we could figure out which ones are the problem. The intellectual Jews and the fake self appointed rabbis would have wanted years of talmudic questioning into Islam, into muslims etc etc etc.
    You see that the answers to your posted commenters dillemas are really quite simple, I am sure that Trump would have the solution in a single sentence for this seemingly complex Jewish dillema. Intellectuals always want to render the simple into complexity because it inflates their egos… after all if it were simple no one would need them.

    My intellectual reaction to your commenters post was that those Jews are dangerous defective damaged persons unable to accurately assess reality and therefore unqualified to advise or lead Jews in their struggle for survival AND they are emotional psychopaths unable to empathize or relate to their own except intellectually. I dont know why they are like that, I could figure it out but my priority would be to recognize them as dangerous in the same way as I recognize other dangers to the Jews, like the muslims.

    Another more obtuse reaction to the long post is a long held speculation of mine, not a conclusion, that through the ages AND in current times we have been misled by those who were meant to be our wise religious rabbis and possibly even the “sages”. In todays times I see “true torah” black hatters with peyot cavorting with the enemy Jew killers… apparently Jews were also told not to escape the holocaust for Israel in the shoah. The rabbis in your post are another trap for Jews… perhaps we should not take our decisions based on the advice and analysis of those who have so often proven to be fallible and immoral. Perhaps we are given them to regularly show us that they are fallible and unreliable. being men. If they can be regularly fallible and unreliable today then why not thousands of years ago too? Perhaps that is one lesson here.

    32 But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the LORD, I will put My law in their inward parts, and in their heart will I write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people;…

    33 and they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying: ‘Know the LORD’; for they shall all know Me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD;
    http://www.mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt1131.htm

    Looks like those “rabbis” didnt get that memo

  28. @ LtCol Howard:

    You misread my post. Look at the links to the articles I cited. Daniel Gordis talks out of both sides of his mouth. One minute he sounds like a Zionist, the next, anti.

    I concluded that he is “one confused puppy. Confused but articulate. The kind that can do the most damage.” I hope you didn’t shoot from the hip first and ask questions later in battle.

  29. @ LtCol Howard:

    What do you think about the following comment somebody made:

    “No day of the year in Israel is more agonizing than Yom Ha-Zikaron—the Remembrance Day for the Fallen of Israel’s Wars. For 24 hours, the country’s unceasing sniping gives way to a pervasive sense of national unity not apparent at any other moment; honor and sanctity can be felt everywhere.

    Israel’s many military cemeteries are filled to capacity with anguished families visiting the graves of loved ones. Restaurants are shuttered. One of the country’s television stations does nothing but list the names of the 23,000 men and women who gave their lives to defend the Jewish state, some of them killed even before independence was declared and the last of whom typically died only days or weeks prior to the commemoration.

    Twice on Yom Ha-Zikaron, once in the evening and once again in the morning, the country’s air raid sirens sound. On sidewalks, pedestrians come to a halt and stand at attention, and even on highways, cars slow and stop; drivers and passengers alike step out of their vehicles and stand in silence until the wail of the siren abates. For two minutes each time, the state of Israel surrenders itself to the grip of utter silence and immobility. During that quiet, one feels a sense of belonging, a palpable sense of gratitude and unstated loyalty that simply defies description.

    I mused on this fact as I read a recent message sent to students at the interdenominational rabbinical school at Boston’s Hebrew College, asking them to prepare themselves for Yom Ha-Zikaron by musing on the following paragraph: “For Yom Ha-Zikaron, our kavanah [intention] is to open up our communal remembrance to include losses on all sides of the conflict in Israel/Palestine. In this spirit, our framing question for Yom Ha-Zikaron is this: On this day, what do you remember and for whom do you grieve?”

    It is the rare e-mail that leaves me speechless. Here, at a reputable institution training future rabbis who will shape a generation of American Jews and their attitudes to Israel, the parties were treated with equal weight and honor in the run-up to Yom Ha-Zikaron. What the students were essentially being asked was whether the losses on Israel’s side touched them any more deeply than the losses on the side of Israel’s enemies.

    That is a stunning question. Obviously, there are innocent victims on the other side of any conflict. Such is the horrific nature of war. American troops killed many thousands of innocent Germans, Japanese, and others during World War II. But could one even begin to imagine President Franklin Delano Roosevelt saying to Americans, while the Second World War was raging and young American men were clawing and dying their way across Europe and the Far East, that Memorial Day ought to be devoted in part to remembering those among enemy populations who died at our hands? There is, perhaps, a place for such memories. That time is when the conflict has abated, when weapons are set aside, when healing has begun. That time did not arrive during FDR’s lifetime, and it has not yet come to Israel.

    I wrote to the dean who had written this paragraph, a friend from whom I’ve learned a great deal over the years and whose commitment to Israel and Zionism is sincere. The response was immediate: “It could be that we got this one wrong, I’m not sure yet. The only thing I’m sure of is that we are trying to engage with these issues and with each other with greater openness, courage, and respect than I think has been possible in most other corners of the Jewish community here.”

    The heartbreaking point was this: in the case of these rabbinical students, there is not an instinct that should be innate—the instinct to protect their own people first, or to mourn our losses first. Their instinct, instead, is to “engage.” But “engagement” is a value-free endeavor. It means setting instinctive dispositions utterly aside. And that is precisely what this emerging generation of American Jewish leaders believes it ought to do.

    Why, after all, would a genuine supporter of Israel ask students to think about Yom Ha-Zikaron in such a fashion? Probably because without such an accommodation, the dean might have had to deal with a small but vocal minority of students who would be incensed at the overly particularist, Zionist, nationalist nature of Yom Ha-Zikaron, at the narrowness of a day devoted to mourning our own dead and not the dead of our enemies.

    This kavanah to rabbinical students was not my first brush with this worrisome phenomenon among those training to be the religious leadership of American Jews. In April, before I learned about this Yom Ha-Zikaron incident, I wrote a column in the Jerusalem Post pointing to the problem of rabbinical students who are increasingly distanced from Israel. I noted an example of an American rabbinical student who had elected to celebrate his birthday in Ramallah, and another who was looking to buy a new prayer shawl and sent out an e-mail asking for advice about where to buy one—with the proviso that the tallith could not have been made in Israel. I said nothing about how widespread the phenomenon is, because we do not know. But it was time to acknowledge the situation, I argued, so that we might begin to address it.

    Reaction was swift, and most of it consisted of variations on the theme that such troubling ideas “didn’t come from my part” of the Jewish world. Many people quickly wrote to say that the phenomenon I was describing must be limited to the Reform movement. But the truth was that not one of those particular examples had come from Hebrew Union College, the institution that ordains most Reform rabbis. Deans of various rabbinical schools from all walks of non-Orthodox Jewish life quickly circled their wagons in response to my column. Two sent an emissary to meet with me in Jerusalem, suggesting that I had exaggerated the problem and accusing me of making their fundraising challenges all the more difficult.

    Another dean, who disagreed with my suggestion that the Jewish community provide financial and other support to rabbinical students who are publicly supportive of Israel, wrote, “I want to acknowledge that I am intimately acquainted with—and concerned by—the trend you are describing. But I have to take issue with some of the ways in which you’ve characterized the problem (and therefore the solution).” Still another wrote to students saying: “I am indignant about Gordis’s article, because I know you. I believe, with every fiber of my being, that each of you is capable of expressing your relationship to the state of Israel, however complicated and challenging it may be, in a thoughtful, nuanced and professional way”—as if the problem lay with a lack of articulate expression among the students and not with their positions. This last note essentially reassured students that as long as they expressed themselves articulately, what they actually said made no difference whatsoever.

    But there was another reaction, too, and it came not from the deans, but from students at these schools, as well as from communal professionals and even rabbis out in the field. “I deeply appreciate this article,” one student wrote to me. “I know that in various e-mails and conversations [my school] is trying to deny the validity of your words as representative of them, but I wanted to express how wonderful it felt after…years of pain and struggle over this to read someone else capture the Israel environment on [my] campus.” A communal Jewish professional in the South wrote, “Just yesterday I had a conversation with a synagogue that is interviewing recent graduates of [two rabbinical schools from different movements]. Students from both these schools have expressed opinions that are nothing short of hostile to Israel.”

    Then, a rabbi in the field wrote me:

    Interesting column. Unfortunately, not an entirely new phenomenon. [Some years] ago, one of the rabbis of [a major New York synagogue] refused to shake my hand when I was introduced as a major in the IDF. And a few years back, [an] avowed Zionist [dean of one of the schools in question] told a group of rabbinical students that if he were around at the time, and had a say, he would have voted against the establishment of the State of Israel.

    Students in Jerusalem and in the States asked to meet with me, and on almost every occasion, they spoke about how lonely it can be for an unapologetically pro-Israel student at some of today’s rabbinical schools. (This phenomenon is, not surprisingly, almost entirely absent on Orthodox campuses, although, alarmingly, it is becoming an issue on the left end of Orthodoxy, too.)

    The number of vocally anti-Israel students is probably small, but their collective impact is far from marginal. These students are shaping the discourse about Israel in America’s rabbinical schools. And worse, because Israel-related conversations are becoming highly charged and many campuses seek to avoid friction at virtually all costs, these vocal students are effectively shutting down serious discourse about Israel. (One campus dean actually instructed students to cease all e-mail discussion of Israel, while every other political topic remained fair game.)

    Many readers at this point would want me to “out” the schools, or deans, or students in question. But that, it seems to me, avoids the important work. The players involved will change over time. What needs to be done is not to embarrass individuals, but rather, to do our best to understand what is unfolding on the campuses that are producing America’s future Jewish leaders, why is it happening, and then, perhaps, what might be done to combat it.

    What has happened to this generation of young rabbinical students? Why are their instincts so different from those of my generation? Four factors seem to me central.

    _____________

    Memory is the first factor. As I have chatted with these students over the past months, it has become clear that the profound differences in our instincts and loyalties can be traced, in part, to the differences in our formative experiences. I shared with some of them my earliest memory of Israel. It was June 1967, and I was almost eight years old. As on almost every night at dinner, our little black-and-white television was tuned to Walter Cronkite. But on this night, my parents didn’t eat. They didn’t even sit at the table. All they did was feed us, watch TV, and pace across the kitchen as the news of the Six Day War unfolded.

    “We’re not hungry,” my parents said the next evening when they did not eat once again, and I asked them why. But how could they not be hungry at dinner time? And two days in a row? My Zionist commitments have some innate root in the simple fact that with Israel seemingly on the very precipice of destruction, my parents couldn’t eat.

    But when the students with whom I was speaking shared their formative memories of the Jewish state, the differences were profound. One said that his earliest memory was of the day that all the students in his Orthodox day school were summoned together for an assembly, and they watched as Israel and Jordan signed a peace treaty. For another, it was the intifada of the mid-1980s, and the images (again, on television) of helmeted IDF soldiers with rifles chasing young boys who’d thrown rocks.

    My formative memories were of Israel on the verge of extinction, while theirs were of Israel being recognized by its neighbor or of the seeming imbalance of Israeli-Palestinian power. That alone explains a great deal.

    Those differences in memory lead to the second major divide: students today cannot imagine a world without a Jewish state. Despite the ongoing conflict, the fundamental goal of political Zionism—the dream of creating a sovereign, secure Jewish state—has been so utterly successful that these students cannot imagine that Israel is actually at risk. After a meeting with a group of rabbinical students in Jerusalem, one of the participants wrote to me: “my classmates shared with me that they had never imagined that Israel could be so fragile as to be fighting for her very existence. Your angle really seemed to hit them hard.” It had never occurred to me, when I reminded these graduate students of Israel’s ongoing vulnerability, that I was saying anything that wasn’t utterly obvious.

    Beyond what I believe to be their naïveté about Israel’s security, however, these rabbinical students also have no sense of how utterly different American Jewish life is from what it would have been without a Jewish state. Whether or not they are supporters of AIPAC, they take it as part of the natural state of things that thousands of American citizens feel comfortable ascending the steps of Capitol Hill on the day its annual policy conference devotes to lobbying. Never do they ask themselves why virtually no one ascended those very same steps between 1938 and 1945 to demand that the United States do at least something to save the Jewish people from extinction. There were millions of Jews in America then. They knew what was happening. Yet American Jews of that era lacked the confidence and the sense of belonging that this generation of students takes for granted. And these students have little sense of how the very existence of a Jewish state contributed to this utter transformation of American Jewish life. Ironically, the very sense of comfort that enables some of these students to work to marginalize Israel is a direct result of the Jewish state itself.

    In conversation with these students, there’s one word in particular that makes them squirm with discomfort, and it represents the third way in which their generation differs. That word is “enemy.” There is something hard and non-malleable about the term “enemy,” and today’s students are loath to use it. They are disturbed by the intractability of the conflict in Israel, but they refuse to draw any conclusions from Palestinian recalcitrance. Dan Kaiman, the student who celebrated his birthday in Ramallah, wrote a piece in the Jerusalem Post in response to my column, explaining that

    I chose to have one of my birthday celebrations in Ramallah to honor, respect, and value the relationships I have built with a people and place I care deeply about. I also celebrated my birthday here in Jerusalem for the same reasons. I believe in a Zionism that desires peace, safety, and cooperation among Jews and Arabs. This Zionism is rooted in the ideals and vision of great Zionist leaders such as Chaim Weizmann and Judah Magnes. Their vision was one of cooperation; a vision of Jews and Arabs able to live side by side.

    It is a staggering misreading of Zionist history to mention Chaim Weizmann—Israel’s first president and a lifelong activist for a Jewish national homeland—and Judah Magnes in the same breath. Magnes was a believer in a binational state. He and Weizmann were ideological antagonists, not allies. But when the subject is “peace,” the details of history are subordinated to the furtherance of that all-encompassing agenda.

    As Rabbi Scott Perlo, another respondent to my Jerusalem Post column, wrote: “I readily concede that there is a decided slant to the left of center in most of our seminaries….But people misunderstand the nature of this slant. We are not the generation of rabbis hoping to abandon Israel. We are the generation of rabbis who hope that God will give us the merit to be peacemakers.” How a rabbi holding a pulpit in West Los Angeles is going to become a peacemaker in the Middle East is never explained. But one thing is clear from Perlo’s article: peacemaking, this generation believes, requires imagining that we do not have enemies. Neville Chamberlain would have appreciated the company.

    And while one can surely forge meaningful relations with people in Ramallah, it requires a stunning suspension of the particular for Kaiman to call Ramallah a “place I care deeply about” and to say that one cares about Jerusalem “for the same reasons.” Does the fact that Ramallah recently dedicated a public square to Dalal Mughrabi—the terrorist who participated in one of the worst attacks on Israeli civilians that killed 37 people—in the presence of Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas and thousands of other celebrants make no difference? Does the fact that there were PLO posters in the bar where the birthday party was held not make it difficult for a future rabbi to have a beer there? For this, too, Kaiman had an explanation:

    I am aware of the [posters] on the walls and the incredible complexity of this conflict….There are also many places in Israel where I feel uncomfortable as a liberal Jew, a Zionist, and an American. Feeling uncomfortable is not an invitation to disengage, close myself off, or stop listening (or, in my specific case, celebrating). I find that by engaging those with whom I may not agree, I am provided with opportunities to learn about myself and others, and begin to transform discomfort into opportunity.

    “Engagement” is a gloriously vague notion, so evanescent in its purposes and intentions that it casts a fog over the clarity provided by genuine commitment: to loyalty, or heritage, or love, or sanctity, or duty. It is the sort of benign interaction that one can have even with enemies. Engagement is particularly easy if you refuse to acknowledge that the people who continue to celebrate those who have killed you are your enemies.

    If you asked a Jew at any other time in the history of our people whether or not he had enemies, the notion that he should consider the possibility he did not have enemies would have occasioned a blast of the mordant humor that has helped keep our tribe alive through the millennia. Today, however, the discomfort with the idea of “the enemy” and the intolerability of being in a drawn-out conflict has led these students to the conviction that Israel must solve the conflict. The Palestinian position is not going to shift; that much they intuit. But having enemies, and being in interminable conflict, is unbearably painful for them. So Israel must change. And if it will not, or cannot, then it is Israel that is at fault. In which case, it makes perfectly good sense for these future Jewish leaders to refuse to purchase prayer shawls manufactured in Israel and to insist on demonstratively remaining seated as the prayer for Israeli soldiers is recited in their rabbinical-school communities. They will do virtually anything in order to avoid confronting the fact that the Jewish people has intractable enemies. Their universalist worldview does not have a place for enemies.

    The final difference between these young Jewish leaders and those who preceded them is perhaps the most disturbing. This new tone in discussions about Israel is so “fair,” so “balanced,” so “even-handed” that what is entirely gone is an instinct of belonging—the visceral sense on the part of these students that they are part of a people, that the blood and the losses that were required to create the state of Israel is their blood and their loss.

    Judaism’s commitment to particularism may be based in instinct rather than ratiocination, but it need not be mindless. No thinking Zionist ought to deny that Israel is deeply flawed or that its leadership makes grievous mistakes. Israel, like all free societies, needs internal criticism in order to improve. The right of these rabbinical students to criticize Israel is not in question. What is lacking in their view and their approach is the sense that no matter how devoted Jews may be to humanity at large, we owe our devotion first and foremost to one particular people—our own people.

    All this is simply a reflection of the decreased role of “peoplehood” in Judaism. What we are witnessing is a Protestantization of American Jewish life. By and large, today’s rabbinical students did not grow up in homes that were richly Jewish. More often than not, these students came to their Jewish commitments as a result of individual journeys on which they embarked. They sought meaning, and found it. They sought prayer, and learned it. Their Jewish experience is roughly analogous to a Protestant religious awakening. The Protestant religious experience is a deeply personal one, not a communal one. Worship in the Protestant tradition is about reaching for the divine, while in the Jewish tradition, it is no less about creating a bond with other Jews. In Protestant liturgy, history is almost absent, while in the Jewish prayer book, it is omnipresent. The replacement of communal faith by personal journey among today’s young Jews is a profound reflection of the degree to which Christianity has colored their sense of what Judaism at its very core is all about.

    What American Protestant feels any instinctive loyalty to a Protestant in Taiwan? Can one speak of “the Protestant people?” One can’t, really. Judaism is different—or, at least, it was different. What these students did not learn on their Jewish journeys, because they were not raised that way, was the instinctive Jewish sense that Judaism is, at its core, still a matter of “us” and “them.” To this generation’s students, that claim strikes a horribly discordant tone. To be sure, Jewish tradition is extraordinarily nuanced and generous when it comes to the question of how Jews are to treat non-Jews. But it is a simple matter of fact that Jews have always been taught to care, first and foremost, for other Jews.

    “Why was Abram called a ‘Hebrew’?” the Midrash asks, and replies: the word “ivri” (Hebrew) refers to the bank of a river. The Jews were from one bank of the Euphrates; the rest of the world was from the other. There is an “us” and a “them” in Judaism’s worldview. It doesn’t make “us” always correct, or “them” automatically wrong. But it actually does mean that Jewish authenticity requires caring about ourselves before we care about others, just as we are to care for our own parents and our own children first. As the Talmud notes in the tractate of Bava Metziah:

    If you lend money to any of My people that is poor: [if the choice lies between] my people and a heathen, ‘My people’ has preference; the poor or the rich—the ‘poor’ takes precedence; your poor [relatives] and the [general] poor of your town—your poor come first; the poor of your city and the poor of another town—the poor of your own town have prior rights.

    Today’s universalism leaves no room for the particularism that has long been at the core of Jewish life. And the evaporating devotion of some portion of today’s rabbinical students to Israel is a direct result.

    What too many of these students do not understand is that the Jewish tradition makes a bold claim—the claim that we learn caring, and we learn love, from that which is closest to us. To love all of humanity equally is ultimately to love no one. To care about one’s enemies as much as one cares about oneself is to be no one. There needs to be priority and specificity in devotion and loyalty. Without them, we can stand for nothing. And without instinctive loyalty to the Jewish people, Jewry itself cannot survive.

    _____________

    What appears to be, at first blush, an issue of weakening Zionist loyalties is thus actually something far more worrisome. The real issue is a traditional Jewish lexicon, which includes notions such as “us” and “them,” which bespeaks concentric circles of loyalty and devotion, which does not deny the indisputable fact that the Jews and their state have real enemies, which understands that not everyone can be loved into submission or peace.

    What to do with that lexicon is a matter on which reasonable minds can differ. Israelis differ on those questions, and American Jews (and others) can, and should, as well. But when we have reached the point at which future rabbis can insist on boycotting prayer shawls made by Jews in Israel and yet are permitted to remain rabbis-in-training, something has gone horribly awry. When rabbinical students love Israel and care about Ramallah in the same way, the particularism that has been the hallmark of every functioning Jewish community in history has begun to erode. When PLO posters advocating the death of Jews are no reason not to drink a beer and sing “Happy Birthday” in that bar, we have produced a generation of future leaders whose instincts are simply not the instincts that have any chance of preserving Jewish life.

    Responding to this challenge in rabbinical-school settings will be no easy task. It is a matter of admissions and student selection, of curriculum and assigned reading, of how to use the experience of a year of study in Israel—still required by most of them—and more than all, of raising the flag of particularity and distinctive loyalties high and unabashedly, because some portion of today’s students need to learn love of peoplehood no less than they need to learn Talmud. Addressing that need is going to require that rabbinical schools cease circling the wagons, and instead acknowledge the depth of the challenge they now face.

    _____________

    I stood silently this year as the siren sounded on Yom Ha-Zikaron. I remembered the too many military funerals that I’ve attended at Mount Herzl. I thought of my debt to those thousands whose deaths have made our lives here possible. I thought about my son and my son-in-law, both in the army, as well as our next son about to go in, and offered a silent prayer for their safety. But, I will confess, I also thought of those across the ocean who saw fit to mark the day by mourning the losses of our enemies and who did so with the sense that that was the noblest sentiment possible. Intellectually, I can understand them, just as I appreciate the universalist context in which they were raised and in which they were taught to think. But I have come to fear the influence they may have over Jews yet unborn—and over the future of the Jewish people as a whole.

  30. @ bernard ross:
    What an excellent and articulate summation of the number one
    problem facing the Jewish people and Israel: namely the Jews!
    Specifically, the morally superior leftist dregs that would hold the
    doors open to the cattle cars to expedite the Jews to their deaths
    should there be a Holocaust II. Islamists and the useful idiots that
    enable them must be in a perpetual state of glee and
    wonderment at the legions of these perfidious, disgusting dreks
    that aid them in the fulfillment of theit hateful Islamist agenda.

  31. Send this to Rabbi dan Gordis. Tell him that his critical words for Donald Trump were mistaken and we would like to hear a sincere admission of error from him. Tell him that his
    kind words for Keith Ellison were mistaken and that we would like to hear a sincere confession of error/guilt from him. Here are some of Keith Ellison’s words which were highlighted by a prominent rabbi/scholar to illustrate the remarks by Ellison as you perturb every supporter of Israel, both Jewish and non-Jewish.

    FULL TRANSCRIPT OF KEITH ELLISON’S REMARKS AT ESAM OMEISH FUNDRAISER
    IPT News March 23, 2010

    “Salaam aleikum brothers and sisters. First of all let me tell you, this day, this huge day where the President signed the healthcare bill, should know that the Muslim community was at the very forefront of this effort. There is not 25 Muslim clinics, there is not 30; there is about 35 clinics founded by Muslims throughout the United States. And it seems like every single day there is a new one being formed yet again. We got big ones in Chicago, in Los Angeles, but also throughout Ohio, Michigan, Virginia, Maryland, New York, all through Florida. All over the country we see the Muslims responding to the healthcare crisis that the American people are going through. We see doctors, like my dear beloved brother (Omeish) who does, who heals the sick, who takes care – [laughter]

    “There is a lot of Musl-, there is a lot of medical talent in the Muslim community, and Dr. Omeish is one example of a person who meets people in their most dire circumstances and restores them and their loved ones back to health. So we just want to say all praise is due to Allah for those Muslim doctors and nurses and physicians who every single day heal Americans even as they themselves have to sometimes face discrimination in our airports, discrimination in language thrown around on the TV and things like that. Kind of reminds me of the great Muhammad Ali who was fighting in the Olympics as he was the victim of discrimination. He was wearing USA across his chest but still he came home and got less than 1st-class treatment in his own country that he was fighting for. But that didn’t stop him from being excellent and it doesn’t stop these Muslim doctors from being excellent every single day. All praise due to Allah for their faith and their iman. And so let me just thank you again, Dr. (Omeish), for opening up your home and your lovely wife and your family, this beautiful place. All of us, we go home to escape the world, do we not? So when you open your home up to us, it is an act of tremendous generosity, and we are very grateful. Thank you very much.

    “So as the Muslim community is moving forward here in the United States, I want to tell you that things are going very well. Things are going well because not only this healthcare debate there was a group of Muslim physicians and medical professionals who beat the doors down and talked about to every member of Congress about the need for federally qualified healthcare centers. I mean can you imagine? They expected the Muslims to come just talk about civil rights. But we’re talking about things that affect the American people, because we are the American people. You know? And so this was an incredible thing. But more than that, more than that, Muslims are acting on all areas of life.

    “I want to let you know that over the past four years it’s been a pleasure to be in the Congress. It’s been an amazing time to be here, all kinds of things that have happened. Another interesting thing, development in the last 24 hours is that the American Israel Political Action Committee was on [laughter] Capitol Hill just today, and they were all over the place. And they had their dinner last night. Some of you might be a little upset to know that I went. But I always go and I am going to tell you why I go. Because I want to know what’s going on. [Laughter.] Correct? I want to hear what everybody has to say. Right? And I want you to know that the level of organization that they display is considerable. And you should be, you should watch that level of organization. You should know that they only got one issue – and that is to try to say that whatever Israel does is just fine.

    “But I want you to know there is a growing awareness in the US Congress and in the executive branch that everything anyone does, including Israel, is not fine. Right? And there are real questions being asked. But let me just tell you, this effort to stop settlements throughout East Jerusalem and throughout the rest of Palestine cannot be something that only the President carries on his shoulders. The American people have got to stand up and say something. And who’s going to say something if you don’t say something? So today you know I am in a meeting with these folks. They live in my district, they are my constituents. I have a moral and legal obligation to meet with them. And they tell me what’s on their mind and I tell them, ‘Do you stand,’ I ask them, ‘Do you stand with the President on stopping settlements in East Jerusalem, because that is the policy of my president and I want to know if you’re with the President. Are you with the President?’ [Laughter.] You know? You understand? And so the thing is, you could do the same thing. And then make them, ‘Err, I don’t know, we’re thinking about it. You know it’s not –’ Seriously. You know ‘Oh and you know East Jerusalem, everyone knows that you know it’s going to be part of the final status agreement anyway, and there’s going to be swaths.’ No, no, no, no, no. Freeze, freeze, freeze. And then they want to tell me, well you know the real issue is, the real issue is Iran. That’s what they want me to think the real issue is, and this, we need to not worry about East Jerusalem, we just need to worry about Iran. I said, ‘Well if East Jerusalem is a small thing it doesn’t really matter. Why don’t you suspend?’ Right? If it’s such, if Iran is such a big deal, is it a big enough deal for you to suspend your building houses, colonizing what will be the future state of Palestine? This is an important issue, and we should not let the President be out there by ourselves.

    “Now some of us might think to ourselves, ‘The President hasn’t done enough this, he hasn’t followed up on his Cairo vision enough.’ Let me tell you, all those things may be true, but we’re not talking about perfection. We’re talking about what we all need to be doing. And I am telling you that the Muslim community in America needs to be among the first to say the President’s right. Stop, you know why are we sending a mill-, $2.8 billion dollars a year over there when they won’t even honor our request to stop building in East Jerusalem? Where is the future Palestinian state going to be if it’s colonized before it even gets up off the ground?”

    Male: ‘The capital of Palestine.’

    Keith Ellison: “The capital. The capital. And where is it going to be? And who’s, and it can’t, and I know some of you might be thinking, well Keith you know we can’t really say anything because if we do then we’re going to get attention from the government we don’t want. I am telling you, I don’t believe that’s true because if we hang together and we do the right thing, we say the right thing, I think we can succeed, insha’allah.

    “So it’s the right time. It’s the right time. Because now, all we got to do is stand up next to the President. We don’t have to even get out front on this issue. Now you got Clinton, Biden and the President who’s told them – stop. Now this has happened before. They beat back a President before. Bush 41 said – stop, and they said – we don’t want to stop, and by the way we want our money and we want it now. [Ellison laughs.] Right? You know, I mean we can’t allow, we’re Americans, right? We can’t allow another country to treat us like we’re their ATM. Right? And so we ought to stand up as Americans. Now some of us have affinity for other places around the globe. Some of us are new Americans and adopted America as our home. But whether you’re born here or whether you accepted America as your own voluntarily, this is our home. Right? All of our home equally, and we can’t allow it to be disrespected because some, by a country that we’re paying money to. So I am just saying if there was ever a time when we could stand up on this issue, we need to stand up on it now. We need to also, we need to also, so if we could get letters to the President saying, ‘Mr. President, I think what you’re doing is the right thing and we support you,’ that would be a benefit.

    “Let me move on to a slightly related issue. Because we’re a diverse community and because we’re an international community, we should be building the bilateral business relationships between the United States and the Muslim world. We should be, let me say it one more time. What’s going on with the US-Libyan relation, business relationship? We got to build it up. Morocco, we got to build it up. Saudi Arabia, we got to build it up. The Gulf countries, we got to build them. Pakistan, we got to build them. We need to have so much goods and services going back and forth between this country and the Muslim world that if we say we need this right here, then everybody is saying, OK. Do you understand my point? If you, I mean you’ve got to be strategic. And these things are not overnight, they’re not a one and done. It takes time to build these relationships and they got to be built.

    “If you have come to America, if you’ve left Syria, let’s do something about that sanctions bill that prohibits the trade. If you left North Africa or Malaysia or Indonesia, I know that there’s something over there we can sell and there’s something from there we can buy here. These business relationships can be leveraged to say that we need some, a new deal politically. Do you understand what I am trying to say? And so, and bring some of your, you know, friends who may not be Muslim along too. I mean if they, you know I mean I on the 27th I’m going, I’m bringing 16 Minnesota companies to Saudi Arabia, Riyadh and (Ad) Dammam (city on the Persian Gulf). And it’s the 2nd time we did it. It is going well. They are looking for a deal. Who can blame them? That’s what business people do.

    “I’m looking for public diplomacy. You understand what I am saying? Public diplomacy. And this is not to say that I don’t want the U.S. to be friends with Israel. I just want the United States to have a lot of friends. Right? And to be in a position with the friend to say – you are wrong and you must stop. But now we say it and it doesn’t happen even though our GDP is you know four times larger than the 2nd largest country. Right? It just doesn’t make any mathematical sense. But it makes all the sense in the world when you see that that country has mobilized its Diaspora in America to do its bidding in America. The question is, with all of us here, we ought to be able to do at least as much. You understand what I am trying to say? That we got a lot of work to do. I’m working on it. We’re working on it together, and by supporting with my campaign you’re keeping me in business doing this stuff.

    “I’m telling you now, with some of the money that you give to me, one of the things I do is I make sure that in Minnesota that whoever I’m supporting wins. And I tell them, this is the hard-earned dollars of Muslim-Americans. OK, so they know. When I, when people on Capitol Hill want me to hand them some money and if I give it to them, I say this is the hard-earned dollars of people who really put it down every day you know and put up with some mess sometimes they shouldn’t have to put up with, and I want you to remember that.

    “And by doing that I want you to know that when they, the first time we had, I had to deal with a bill that dealt with this whole Middle East issue, you know we had five members vote ‘no’ on this bill, what, when, on this Operation – remember right after Operation Cast Lead we had 5 vote no and we had 22 vote present. A lot of brothers and sisters didn’t know that a present vote is a, is standing up and saying I am here, but it’s a refusal to vote for it. It’s not voting for it, and by explaining to people that you know if I had voted no we would have had 7 no’s and everybody else yes. But because we told people – well you can do this middle thing, we ended up with 27 people saying no. Next thing you know they have another bill when they want to denounce the Goldstone Report. Everybody know what the Goldstone Report is? (Yes). So then I claimed time in opposition to their resolution to denounce the Goldstone Report. You following me? And we organized a bunch of speakers to say, why are you going to denounce a report that you haven’t even read? Right? Just because somebody says so? Please. You know? We’re not trained seals here, I hope, jumping through hoops of fire, right? We at least read the bill. Think for ourselves a little bit, right? Anyway, we had 58 people who either voted no or who voted present, refusing to vote for it. And a lot of people took what they call a Mississippi walk, you know what I mean, what that is? It’s time to vote but you just [laughter] – oh I missed the vote?! (laughter), oh, how did that happen? You know what I mean? A lot of, and they were there on that day so I know they just decided not to vote. And that’s the Mississippi walk, that’s what the Mississippi walk is.

    “So then it comes up that we’re trying, that the situation for the people in Gaza is just – I don’t care if you’re Muslim, I don’t care if you’re Christian, I don’t care if you’re Jewish. I don’t care if you’re Buddhist or Hindu or secular altogether, what’s happening to those people is wrong. It’s morally wrong. It’s morally wrong. So we got 54 people to sign a letter saying it’s wrong and you need to open up the crossings right away. Of course, these people who are meeting today, you know, call us the Hamas 54 (Ellison laughs), with you understand what I am saying, which is ridiculous. So what they’re saying is, anybody who even asks for children to have human rights is a terrorist. (man says, or anti-Semitic). Right. Or anti-Semitic. And this has nothing to do with being anti anything, this is about being pro something. It’s about being pro human dignity. And I’ll, you know and so here is the thing. I don’t want to be the one who, I want to win. You know what I mean? Sometimes people run for office and I always tell them, brother you remember when you were running, I say you know what, you may not win, but you run like you’re going to win. Right? Because only Allah knows who’s going to win and sometimes you win, and sometimes you lose the first time, win the next time. You know what I mean [audience – yes, yes]. So we gotta keep on running, cause I lost the first time I ran. But what I am saying is we can decide whether we are going to fight hard, right? And I am telling you, that with your help, we are able to take Muslim presence on Capitol Hill from zero to a real player. And this is what we’re trying to do and we got to do it in every state house in America, we got to do it in the Capitol Hill.

    “And so I’m going to take my seat in a moment. I’ve talked a lot about foreign policy stuff and a little about the health care bill. But the message I want to send to you is that what you’re doing by donating to this campaign is positioning me and positioning Muslims in general to help steer the ship of state in America. You understand what I am saying? [Another person says, “Yes”] Steer it in a direction that makes sense. The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of seven million. Does that make sense? [A male says “no”]. Is that logic? Right? When the people who, when the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes. Can I say that again? When the region, and I’m talking about Africa and South America, there’s Muslims in South America y’all, did you know that? [replies of “yeah] Did you know? Everywhere. Even all the way to the Philippines. Right? All the way up in Norway, all the way down to the, to South Africa, all the way to the tip of Sri Lanka, everywhere in between. The fact is when the people, when the Americans who trace their roots there actually start getting engaged in this thing, it changes it.

    “We can see the changes already. We got more civil rights organizations than we’ve ever had before. The civil rights organizations that we have had to do a lot of tough fighting but they are still standing. CAIR has not fallen, they are fighting and struggling every day. Right? I am telling you that every Friday my brother calls the adhan in the Capitol. Is that right? [Male replies ‘Alhamdulillah.’] Under the Capitol dome. [Male says, ‘Yes sir.’] And whenever, is that right? [Replies of “yes” and “Alhamdulillah”]. And I am telling you that the Muslim Hill staffers are a group of high, highly, highly competent professionals. Brother Assad Akhtar, yeah, who did such a great job. And so when I go to the Muslim Hill st-, when I go to Jumuah, I can get an update on Sudan, on Pakistan, on the health care bill, on the financial services bill, and on what’s really going on in the Senate. And nobody really knows that. [Laughter]. So you know what I mean [Laughter.] Right, right. Nobody really knows that.

    “So, so we are emerging as a community. We are involved in politics but we are also engaged in medicine. Do you know that there is a Muslim brother about to buy the Los Angeles Rams? [One guys says ‘Saint Louis.’] Saint Louis Rams. [Laughter and commotion over few words] Rams, but the Rams. Muslim guys getting ready to buy the Rams. [Male says, “not Rush Limbaugh] Not Rush Limbaugh. [Laughter.] You know those players said we will not play for that racist, we will not play for that racist. But they’ll say, we’ll play for the Muslim guy. [Laughter, someone claps.] You know alhamdulillah. So, so, and do you know that Ethan Allen, owned by a Muslim, right? Do you know Muslims engaged in all kinds of things, really a part of this country. We’ve got to move for-, and you know by the way, do you know it used to be a Muslim was a person who either was an African-American who sought Islam as a refuge from American racism or was somebody who traveled from overseas and became a new American. We got Muslims who are converted to Islam from all walks of life. You know what I am saying? Imam Hamza Yusuf, right? All these brothers and sisters coming in. And it’s a beautiful thing. But you know what, if you measure progress by the day, you might not see it. If you measure progress by the week you may not see it. But if you measure progress by the year, in two years, in three years, in 10 years, in 20 years, it’s unmistakable progress, unmistakable, unmistakable progress.

    “We got Muslim interns doing such a good job, the racist people say that they are spies. Do you all know about that? Now if they weren’t doing good job somebody would say – we don’t care. If they weren’t doing a good job nobody would even care that they, they wouldn’t even know. But they’re doing a good job, they’re doing a fine job, they’re representing you well. And you’re, and this is something that you will see you know within our lifetime. So I am asking for your help. I need your support. I need your financial support, I need your dua. And you know that you are in my dua. I keep you in my prayer. I keep the ummah in my prayer constantly. Because I am so, I believe, and I believe that the American Muslim community is a blessing to the Muslim community throughout the whole world, and to America itself. And so the thing is, and you all are proving it every day.

    “So with that I just want to, I want to begin to wrap my comments up so we can have some dialogue. But I just want to again thank Dr. Omeish, and let brother Esam know that he is my beloved brother. [Esam Omeish says, ‘Same here’ (crosstalk over few words).] And I love you and you are the best and your family is so beautiful, and again, you know, you put it out there and you ran. I hope you run again. Do we hope he runs again? [replies of yes, ya Allah, applause over few words]. And when he runs he won’t run only to represent the Muslim community, although he will represent the Muslim community. He will be running to represent every patient who needed to get some good medical service. He’ll be running to make sure consumers get treated fairly. He’ll be running to make sure that justice and fairness is the order of the day. And with that I am just gonna have a little bit more of this tea and say I do – [Male says UI few words]. Alright. So OK, so the computers are upstairs if you want to do it online. And deadline is the 31st of March. Any other talking points? Ok good. Thank you. Jazakallahu.” [Applause.]

  32. @ Sebastien Zorn:

    You are much too kind to Dan Gordis.

    Remember that Gordis joined with a small number of arrogant, self-appointed Jews to renounce the Levy report. In doing so he gave away the birthright of every Jew in the world, which was given by the league of Nations and then reaffirmed by the United Nations for “close settlement” in Palestine which was defined in that resolution as the territories that are now called in the West: Israel, Jordan and the West Bank.

    After the last Israeli election, Gordis appeared on a discussion panel (believing that the left had won) and espoused various views of Prime Minister Netanyahu which he should apologize for as example of giving an apology to someone you have gratuitously offended. The world is still awaiting for his public apology.

    Concerning Trump’s McCain comment I claim a special view as a decorated military officer. One should read the entire discussion of what Trump actually said… Not what the mainstream media reports. I agree with Trump that becoming captured does not make one a hero. But I also agree with Trumps follow-up which was not reported in the press… That it was McCain’s strong leadership and great personal heroism as a prisoner that made McCain a hero. It is difficult to imagine anyone being as strong as McCain was to resist torture and to maintain the highest standards of the military code of conduct.

    More recently, by omission and partial truth, Dan Gordis defended and supported the campaign of Keith Ellison to become chairperson of the Democratic National Committee. My commanding officer, also a Christian, presented definite evidence that Ellison continues to be a supporter of the Muslim brotherhood. Instead of a respectful dialogue, Rabbi Gordis chose to answer with insults. My commanding officer is still waiting for Rabbi Gordis’ apology.

  33. the democratic party is for the 3rd time allying itself with the interests of a dangerous migrant collective. President Hussein was brought up in Indonesia, Hillary with the muslim brotherhood sidekick and handler, and now they want to have an anti semitic anti zionist, anti Israel lover of the hitler farakhan and hobnobber with muslim terrorist orgs… Keith ellison.
    And who are his greatest supporters?????? Two lunatic Jews…sanders and schumer. Once more, Jews identifying with a group whereby the trending global populist perception is that the group is very dangerous to any nation who allows them entry. Jews once more choosing to support the entry of the most dangerous collective on earth into the land which welcomed the Jewish people. I predict that Jews are going to be greatly hated by the american people because they are supporting this collective. Now the Jews will not only continued to be hated by the leftists and muslims they support but soon will be hated by ordinary americans who will wonder why jews want more dangerous muslims in their nation. They are already asking these questions. The trend is that folks are waking up to the danger of muslims and they will see jews supporting them.
    Jews should be welcoming islamaphobia and rejecting muslim immigration instead they welcome muslim immigration and reject islamaphobia…. false “principles” of a delusional people. Islamaphobia is a reasonable fear.

  34. Over cocktails, I told a leading Orthodox congregational rabbi long associated with the Republican Party that I was stupefied that so many American Jews could just ignore what Trump had said about women, people with disabilities, African Americans, war heroes and Gold Star families. …..

    a comment typical of delusional american jews. Take note that there is nothing is this comment related to JEWS!!!!!!! Pontificating, moralizing and yet NO Jewish issues mentioned.

  35. the horrified opposition is not where they plan to situate themselves for the foreseeable future. For American Jews, and for Israel, they say, “We’ve simply got to work with this guy.”
    ………
    He was not happy with my take. “He deserves an opportunity to do teshuva [repentance], no less than anyone else, doesn’t he?” he asked.

    Actually, it is that very large number of Jews who voted for the dangerous crook, who aligned themselves in support of an existential danger to their host nations citizens, who shamelessly slandered and libeled Trump, his family, Bannon, Sessions and the trump supporters. It is these arrogant, elitist, slandering Jews who need to be doing Teshuvah. It is not for them to decide to work with the man who they shamelessly slandered …. if I was him I would not be happy about doing anything good for those Jews. Those Jews are a disgrace to all Jews with their pontificating, pompous elitist lying finger pointing…. spreading libels when all Jews are supposed to know of the danger of spreading libels. Most of all, these lunatic Jews have continue to existentially endanger all their fellow Jews. The specter of a majority of Jews living in a nation, accepted by their fellow citizens as equal…. the fearsome specter of those Jews supporting the migration of dangerous people into their host nation is a major existential error for Jews. These Jews are daily giving credence to the real and palpable perception that Jews are a fifth column bringing in floods of foreigners who are a grave danger to their neighbors. I cannot stress this enough, these Jews are clueless about history and the place of the Jews in that history. these Jews beleive that they are standing up for principles but in reality and in perception they are a facilitating an invasion of dangerous slaughtering marauders onto their neighbors who gave them welcome and are now being betrayed. Jews must be careful of this behavior, they cannot later claim innocence for this dastardly behavior. They must stop pointing fingers at others and look at how their collective behavior is perceived by their neighbors. If things go bad the Jews will go down the drain with those they support. Jews should always be supporting that which is safe for their host nation.

  36. What a slimy, disengenuous, intellectually dishonest hypocrite! Just this past
    February he issued an echo of Hillary Clinton’s blood-libel against Israel, further serving the cause of de-legitimizing Israel in the eyes of the laughably so-called “international community” by saying Israel is no better than Saudi Arabia when it comes to women’s rights. Oh, well, he’s not exactly like Hillary, she compared Israel with Iran!

    http://www.jpost.com/Magazine/Opinion/Before-we-preach-to-Israelis-living-abroad

    He calls for Trump to apologize where no apology is due. The sexual allegations were debunked. The other attributes of the people he justifiably slammed were either coincidental or examples of political correctness running amok and being used opportunistically to further venal agendas.

    Oh, and Maimonides? He clearly picks and chooses his Maimonides. But NOT: My favorite and I’m sure yours: “Kindness to the cruel leads to cruelty to the kind.”

    On the other hand, this article he wrote in 2011 is very good. I read most of it, his writing is a bit stuffy but I got the gist.

    https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/are-young-rabbis-turning-on-israel/

    I found the reference to it in this one:

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/95984/jewish-enemies-israel-david-solway

    which I got by googling: daniel gordis discover the networks

    When I googled: daniel gordis camera

    I got

    http://www.cameraoncampus.org/blog/tag/daniel-gordis/

    He seems to be one confused puppy. Confused but articulate. The kind that can do the most damage.