Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

On September 9, 2016, at a fundraising event with the LGBT community in New York, Hillary Clinton referred to Trump supporters as “racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic,” and said half of his supporters should be in a “basket of deplorables.” Anyone with a sense of political strategy knew that Clinton’s statement was just plain stupid. It caused many who leaned towards Trump to rally and come together. Soon t-shirts were proudly worn self identifying as the deplorables designated by Clinton. Her statement infused the wallowing Trump campaign with new energy. Yes, it was completely stupid.

But it was also true.

The proof became plain on Friday August 11 and Saturday August 12 through the demonstrations held by various ultra nationalist, white supremacist, and neo Nazi groups in Charlottesville, VA. Go online and look at the images of this group of demonstrators. You will see groups carrying Nazi flags, you will see on Friday night “alt-right” protesters carrying torches that stirred memories of KKK rallies against African Americans. Worst of all, a young man identified as attending the rallies to support his own alt-right views, drove a car into a crowd of counter protesters, killing one and injuring at least 19 others. The video is frightening.

Do you need more proof? Well David Duke, former head of the KKK declared before the protests that these were meant to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. What promises? Well throughout the whole Trump campaign were constant statements, some blatant, some shady, that signaled to those groups now protesting in Charlottesville, VA that Trump was sympathetic to their feelings.

Yes, it is Trump who holds onto this basket of deplorables.

And he continues to do so even in the wake of the violence caused by the rallies of racist, neo-Nazi groups. Beginning with his morning tweets, Trump has failed to call out these groups by who and what they are. In a formal statement later Saturday afternoon, he condemned “hatred, bigotry, and violence on many sides.” On many sides? The implication is that the situation is equally the fault of the counter protesters against racism. This creates a false dichotomy that protesters who believe in evil policies (anti-Semitism, racism, white supremacy) and those who come out to demonstrate against prejudice are equally responsible for society’s problems.

The failure to outright condemn these groups by name further clarifies exactly what Trump is because of the contrast to so many other Republicans and conservatives who have quickly and appropriately condemned these groups and their ideals.  All of this lines up with his failure to 1) mention that Jews were the primary victims of the Holocaust on Holocaust Remembrance day 2) encourage police to be more aggressive and not acknowledge the tragedy of blacks being killed by police. 3) Failure to condemn the bombing of a mosque in Minnesota. 4) failure to apologize to President Obama for his years of leading the birther movement, instead saying his investigations were a good thing.

The basket of deplorables contains a lot more folks than those who demonstrated in Charlottesville. It includes Breitbart News, which tries to justify all Trump does despite mounting evidence of prejudice, sexism and lies. It includes Sean Hannity for simply being a Trump acolyte. It includes any American who cannot see the connection between Trump’s words, mannerisms and behavior and the events that have unfolded in Charlottesville, VA.

Finally, deplorables try to justify Trump by criticizing statements by Obama during his presidency. Did President Obama make mistakes? Absolutely, as no human being is perfect. But he was and is a thoughtful, moral man whose demeanor and behavior inspired calmness and decency. To not see the difference is deplorable.

Read Full Post »

Once again the issue of immigration has risen to the forefront, creating yet another layer of confrontation in our already super contentious political arena. Usually the immigration argument is over handling “illegal” immigrants. Now there is a new issue, providing a limitation on legal immigration in a manner never before considered in the United States. The new proposal would institute a point system in which those who score the highest points would be awarded entry visas. The key ways to earn points are by age (mid to late 20’s), ability to speak English, having a job offer in the United States, and investing in a business venture in the United States.

Critics of this system say it is completely against traditional American values of diverse immigration and providing opportunity to those in need. They cite the words of Emma Lazarus’s poem “The New Colossus” which is on the base of the Statue of Liberty – in particular the verse, “give me your tired, your poor.” Clearly this proposed immigration system would not allow many, if any, of those to enter.

Supporters of the proposed immigration system answer that it is similar to policies in a number of other countries including Canada, Japan and Australia. They say that polls show Americans want to limit immigration in order to protect the jobs of American workers. Further, they criticize “hyphenated” Americans, saying these folks are reluctant to let go of their original cultures.

Let’s begin by looking at the history of immigration in America. First, to deny that ours is a country built by immigrants is to deny a basic truth. Very few Americans can trace their origins back to 17th and 18th century colonial settlers. Even they can be seen as supplanters of those who were here first – Native Americans. Every historical era in our country had immigrants who were hated by Americans already here. Germans, Irish, Chinese, Eastern Europeans, Jews, Italians, Hispanics all have been despised as newcomers. Yet, all of these immigrant populations have made contributions to the growth and greatness of the United States. It is important to note I have not mentioned African Americans because they mostly did not come as immigrants, but as slaves. I will also note that the great contributions of African Americans to our country, are also indisputable, despite the tragedy of slavery.

Immigration policy underwent a great change in 1921, when the American government established a quota system for immigration. This system limited the number immigrants to 3% of immigrants from a country already in the United States, based on the 1910 census. In 1924 this was revised to 2%. The target was clearly eastern and southern Europeans, including Jews, as immigrants from these countries were seen as taking jobs from American workers. This was a major argument against opening up the quotas in the 1930’s to allow Jews and others being oppressed by Nazi Germany to find refuge in our country. The exception to these quotas was if family in America sponsored the immigrant and pledge they would not end up on welfare. This is what allowed both my mother’s and father’s families to enter this country.

In 1965 the per country quota system was eliminated. There was an overall limit to visas with priority given to skill sets and immediate family relationships. Those having immediate family who were U.S. citizens had no restrictions. There was also a “special” category for those seeking refuge. None of these systems required the ability to speak English, emphasized wealth, or having a job offer in the U.S.

So what to make of this latest proposal? Its restrictions would have kept pretty much all immigrants from non English speaking countries in prior generations from entering this country. To make this personal, if these had been the laws in the 1930’s, none of my family would have been allowed into the U.S. Most likely, they would have been murdered by the Nazis and I would not exist.

I believe America’s greatness is based on three key elements. First, we have a system of government that is the envy of the world. Yes, there have been glitches and problems, but we are human and there will be mistakes. Yet, our system, which strikes a balance between the 3 branches, allows its citizens not just to vote, but to protest, to express their views, and to have their basic rights protected, is the best in the world (yes, I might be biased here). Second, our historic dedication to free enterprise allows anyone who works hard the opportunity for success. Again, there are problems and prejudices, but the opportunities provided by a free enterprise system are the best of our world’s choices. Finally, our country’s tradition is to offer the chance to live in freedom and to build a productive, successful life, to people from all over the world despite their origin, resources, or ability to speak English.

Indeed, immigrants who come here, overcome their poverty, plus learn a new language and culture, provide a strength of character and toughness that our country always desperately needs. America not only benefits financially with new resources, but with diversity of culture. The beauty of music, art, and theater from Americans of diverse origins adds to the wonder and greatness of our country.

Further, I deeply oppose the criticism of people as “hyphenated Americans.” All immigrant groups begin their time in America by hanging together. My German Jewish parents lived in Washington Heights, NY with other German Jews. Further, there is nothing wrong with pride in your culture of origin, be it Irish, German, Mexican, Italian, Chinese, African – or any other. The vast majority of legal immigrants find their place in our society – especially by the 2nd generation. Yes, there are anecdotes of immigrants who fail, but the data proves differently.

Emma Lazarus wrote these words added to the base of the Statue of Liberty in 1903. “Give me your tired, your poor; your huddled masses yearning to be free.” Yes, the Statue of Liberty was not originally a symbol of immigration, but when the words of the “New Colossus” were, clearly it had become a symbol of hope and freedom for immigrants. The current proposed change to immigration would force us to change the words to, “Give me your hired, your sure…” That would change the basic nature of our country and America would say goodbye to a chunk of its greatness.

Read Full Post »

I recently saw the 2016 Tony winner for best musical, “Hamilton.” It might be the most brilliant musical play I have ever seen – and I have seen a lot of theater. I rank it with the top shows I have attended in the past 50 years, shows like Les Miserable, West Side Story, A Chorus Line – shows that brought something unique and different to the theater world. Each of these shows innovations influenced the world of musical theater. “Hamilton,” from my perspective, is in this category of an innovative show. So much for the review, if you can get a ticket, see it.

But “Hamilton” is much more than a great piece of entertainment. Its structure, from the way the story is told to the casting of the characters, to the mingling of various musical styles – creates great teaching moments on multiple levels. The story, if you are one of the few folks who have not at least read something about the show, is about the life of Alexander Hamilton, one of America’s founding fathers.

Hamilton was an orphan, an immigrant, and an abrasive, brilliant man. He served as General George Washington’s chief aide for much of the Revolutionary War. He was a key proponent of the new constitution, publishing most of the 85 articles of the Federalist Papers. He then served as the first secretary of the treasury under President Washington, creating a financial system that placed the newly formed United States on solid path. His death was tragic, as he was killed in a duel with Aaron Burr over his political opposition to Burr.

In his unique telling of the narrative of Hamilton’s life, Lin Manuel Miranda treats the history of the founding of our country with great reverence and respect. Unlike most representations of this history, however, Miranda’s story telling method brings to light aspects of the history, and our current nation’s makeup that are often overlooked or buried. Too often our history is portrayed in a way that only recognizes a certain group of white, influential figures. “Hamilton” adds a deeper perspective to our history.

How? Well there are two obvious ways. First, his music is a conglomeration of musical styles: hip hop, rock, jazz and classical Broadway – which includes ballads and blues. He uses hip hop to highlight revolutionary activities – not just in the war but to emphasize how the republic was formed and operated. The flow of musical styles from number to number is sometimes stark yet seamless.   This style acts as a metaphor for the diversity that makes up our country, which can be eye opening yet essential to the way our country is structured and operates. One of the most classical Broadway style numbers is sung by King George, thus representing the “Old World” as opposed to America’s new ways of doing things. During some of his musical numbers Miranda tips his hat to prior musicals with lyrical connections to other musicals, such as “1776” and “Pirates of Penzance.” These references, just like the varying musical styles are (I believe) meant to show how our country is the sum total of such diverse sources, and that all of these sources are a necessary component of who we really are.

The second teaching tool is the casting. Three key characters in this story are slave owning Virginians, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison – 3 of our first 4 presidents. All of them are played by African Americans. Indeed, the casting of this show breaks all the remnants of the old school approach to only cast people of the ethnicity of the original historical figure. The casting mixture of different races and ethnicities hammers home the lesson that our country was founded for everyone, not just an elite group of wealthy white men.

Even more, the show makes sure we understand that it was more than the well known founding fathers who contributed to the strength of our country from its very beginning. For example, during a scene that depicts a cabinet debate over Hamilton’s proposed financial plan, Jefferson states (in a rap style) that Virginia is wealthy, successful and plants seeds, so why should Virginians take on the debt of other states like New York. Hamilton replies (also in rap style) that we know who was actually planting the seeds for Virginians (slaves) and that they were profitable because of slavery. The message is clear. Not only is slavery wrong (highlighted numerous times in the show), but black slaves were the unseen, unacknowledged resource that provided the platform for the Virginians’ (and other southern states) claimed success.

A history of our country that fails to acknowledge the presence and importance of ignored groups (e.g. black slaves, women, who although did not vote contributed to the well being of the new country, immigrants) perpetuates a narrative that allows for the dismissal of so much of the makeup of our country. The United States is NOT just a culture derived from Anglo and white Europeans. It is a conglomeration, from its very beginning, of those English/Europeans, Hispanic, Black, Sephardic Jews as well as probably the most dismissed group – native Americans.

Finally, in trying to describe the makeup of “Hamilton,” the mishmash of musical styles, the mixed ethnicity of the casting, the lack of spoken narrative – the impression is one of a completely disorganized show that cannot possibly make any sense. Yet, when you see the show, this polyglot of people and styles is the perfect metaphor for America at its finest. Somehow all of this comes together to form a work of beauty. That is our country – a polyglot of people cultures and styles that despite differences and disagreements, can be a place of amazing beauty. That is what we need to celebrate on July 4.

Read Full Post »

“Heil Hitler!” began the voice mail. “I’m going to put you in my concentration camps.” The message rambled on in a high-pitched voice with a fake German accent and ended with these words, “You Jews need to stop stealing our money!” The message was left on my office voice mail the night of April 9, right after our congregation’s Jewish Food and Cultural Festival. I heard it the next morning, when I was at Temple getting some things ready for the first night of Passover. We immediately called the police. The officer was so upset by what he heard, I could see him tearing up. “I am Catholic” he said, “and I am so disturbed by hearing this.”

“Are you aware of this?” the email began. The friend of a Temple member saw a posting on FaceBook by a white supremacist that his group was planning a demonstration at Temple Israel. We had not seen it, but went on line to check the posting and the group. Sure enough, the group was calling for a protest at our building because Israel was not letting in enough Palestinians. They called it a protest for diversity. Yet, in looking at the group’s website, they described themselves as European whites. Their basic demands were exactly what you would expect from a white supremacist group.

We have a pre-school of over 100 families with children enrolled. Eighty percent of the pre-school families are not Jewish. Some of them were beginning to panic, as the protest was scheduled to begin during school hours. Again we called and consulted the police. Again, our police department’s response was excellent, giving us lots of guidance, assuring us they knew and were following the man who made the post. They put in place a plan for police coverage. I was not at all worried about this protest having an impact on us, and in fact, as the police predicted, the group did not show up. But the energy spent on preparations and the angst that the threat caused the pre-school and their families was quite disturbing.

At a local middle school, a young woman I am tutoring for her bat mitzvah is regularly called a “good little Jew.” If she makes a mistake some students call it a “Jew move.” She also has heard a joke that goes like this, “What do you call flying Jewish children?” Answer – smoke. Her mom is now working with the Temple, a local Holocaust education organization and the school district (who is being very supportive) to bring in an educational program from the ADL to address these attitudes in the schools that have been affected by anti-Semitism.

At the high school that students graduating this middle school attend, a group of students have been flying Confederate flags on the back of their pickup trucks. After one student stood on the back of his truck waving a flag, some one got so upset that a threat was made against him online. The school heightened security and communicated with all the parents that any student who wished to stay home the next day would have an excused absence. The students flying the Confederate flags were asked not to bring them, as it was causing a disturbance. They agreed but the next day these students plus a few more brought pickup trucks either flying a “Don’t Tread on Me” flag or a banner stating “Make America Great Again.” Some had the symbol of the Republican party others referred to Trump.

Are all of these incidents connected? Absolutely! Since the primary season preceding the 2016 presidential elections, the atmosphere in our country has shifted. Overt expressions of hate, display of offensive symbols, and the belief there is an impurity in our country that must be eradicated have all become acceptable in ways I have never witnessed in my lifetime. The prejudiced dregs of America feel free to express their hatred more openly than ever. Why?

The political left says it is because of Donald Trump. From the opening event of his campaign, which was based on the despising of Mexican immigrants, he made outright expressions of hatred acceptable. We were given excuses by his surrogates – that he is not a politician so does not speak in a politically correct way, that he is just a truth teller, or that the media is misrepresenting what he is saying. All of this was nonsense. The media just reported what he said and people of any conscience objected to the obvious prejudice being openly expressed. Republicans of integrity, and there were many, walked away from their nominee. But Trump appealed to a segment of the country that rarely voted and squeaked out a victory in an election of the perfect storm to upset our political system.

But that is not the complete story.

The left wing shares the blame for this situation. How? Well, I think Bill Mahrer explains that quite well in this You Tube video from his January 27, 2017 show. Here is the link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1r9_tgRgRk

Yes, Mahrer’s language is far more coarse than the language I would use, but his key points are critical. Here is a short summary of his thoughts. Liberals are overly dedicated to political correctness – to the point of placing people whose intent is completely innocent in embarrassing situations. For example, Steve Martin tweeted that when he first met Carrie Fisher he found her beautiful, and then realized how smart she was. He then came under criticism for these comments and issued an apology. Liberals accuse folks of cultural appropriation, of white people taking music, art, and literature of ethnic groups and making them their own. Mahrer points out that America is a melting pot. When did this become a sin?

Add to this the effect of excessive political correctness on college campuses, the institution of trigger warnings, the banning of speakers with whom they disagree, the silly anger expressed about certain Halloween costumes. Most Americans are working people of common sense. They are justifiably annoyed by the insistence of liberals that the content of all our language has to be beyond polite, that it has to be pure and without any hint of even a non-intended insult. The left’s focus on excessive political correctness is irritating to many decent people. What makes this exacerbating is that on issues such as health care, income inequality, and gun control, more people agree with the policies of the left than the right. We need to be fighting for life changing issues and not distracted by our perception of hurt feelings.

As a result, Trump was able to appeal to people through his bluntness. He openly criticized political correctness in a way that enabled him to sell his insulting bluntness as truth telling. All of this gave a green light to people who are now expressing outright prejudice and disguising their bigotry as anti-political correctness. We are seeing the result – open anti-Semitism, open racism, open anti-Muslim words and actions.

So what do we do? We must resist. We must be sure our relationships with other institutions and people who do stand for morality are firm and that we work together to fight prejudice. We must be willing to spend resources on education programs in schools to counter this movement. We must create safe spaces for students who are the victims of bigotry to report and talk about their experiences. We cannot be afraid to engage those who demonstrate bigotry. But we must do all of this in a manner that illustrates the higher morality of our position, of our resistance to these trends. Our words must be expressions promoting peace, justice, and love; for as Michelle Obama put it, “when they go low, we go high.” To that I say, amen!

 

Read Full Post »

searchThis photo is of the desecrated Jewish cemetery in St. Louis

Over the past 2 weeks, the issue of anti-Semitism has been elevated to the top of the pile of criticisms being leveled at President Trump and his new administration. Data from the ADL and the Southern Poverty Law Center has shown increases in anti-Semitic incidents, first over the course of the presidential campaign last year, and again in the opening weeks of 2017. Many critics of Trump accuse him of being anti-Semitic. Defenders of the president respond by saying how can this be if his daughter has converted to Judaism and if all of his grandchildren are Jewish?

The tensions over this began to boil over at a press conference on February 17, when the Chasidic reporter, Jake Turx, asked Trump a question. He began by assuring the President he did not think he was anti-Semitic, because of his family relationships, but asked what the administration was going to do about the surge of anti-Semitic incidents. Trump clearly did not grasp the nuance in the question, taking it as a personal accusation of anti-Semitism. He responded that he was neither anti-Semitic nor racist. When the reporter tried to interrupt to clarify, he told him to be quiet and sit down. This exchange fired up criticism of Trump, especially in the aftermath of the administration’s statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day that did not mention Jewish suffering in the Holocaust.

Finally, after the desecration of a Jewish cemetery in St. Louis, and after much criticism by multiple sources – both Jewish and non Jewish – President Trump issued a strong statement condemning anti-Semitism. This still did not satisfy his critics, who held that Trump must be proactive in his stance against anti-Semitism, indeed all prejudice, instead of reactive. So the question remains, is Trump really an anti-Semite?

I would say he is not. This will upset all my friends who are (justifiably I think) critical of Trump. No, he is not anti-Semitic. Trump is anti Buber, as in Martin Buber.

For those who are not familiar with the 20th century Jewish philosopher, Martin Buber, allow me to offer a short lesson on his theology. Buber maintained that humans engage in two kinds of relationships. The first is our relationship with the items we use to get things done in every day life, i.e. our car, our clothes, our computer, our food. These relationships he calls “I/it” relationships. We are in relation with “things.” The second kind of relationship is with other humans. These relationships depend on personal connections, or what Buber calls “I/thou” relationships. The best “I/thou” relationships are those in which we feel deep and immediate synergy with another person. We have all had that experience. You meet someone for the first time and there is instant connection, instant appreciation, that both people feel. For Buber, the poisoning of human relationships occur when a person engages another as an “it” instead of a “thou.” In other words, when we treat someone like an object instead of a person who shares with us the presence of God within our souls, they become an “it.”

That is precisely what President Trump does. He does not see others as humans within whom God dwells, but as objects to be manipulated. This attitude was obvious from the very beginning of his presidential campaign, when he targeted Mexicans. In fact, he was not expressing his prejudice against Mexicans, rather he was using them to motivate support in a slice of the electorate that is prejudiced against Mexicans, indeed against any person who is not like them. I would bet that on a personal basis, Trump could care less about Mexicans, about Muslims, about African Americans or about Jews. He sees all people as objects, as “things” to be used. This is proven not just by politics, but by his attitude towards women, which his supporters refuse to acknowledge. All he cares about is how he can use and manipulate people’s prejudices against any of these groups to rally support for himself. In Buber’s language, his only relationships are “I/it.” This manipulation, by the way, includes his supporters, who have been played by a master manipulator and showman.

Our country’s great step backwards, I believe, is in the cold, uncaring way Trump, and his administration, looks at the American constituency. He sees us as two camps, either for or against him. If you do not agree with what he says, you are the enemy. He does not see the need to create any “I/thou” relationships with his opposition. This is completely different, by they way, from both the Obama administration and the George W. Bush administration. Both presidents, while certainly manipulative as most politicians, also had many moments where they demonstrated the desire for connection with the “other,” or at least a reaching out to understand the “other.”

In this week’s Torah portion, Mishpatim, we read, “When you see the donkey of your enemy lying under its burden and would from raising it, you must nevertheless raise it with him.” Rashi speculates that this only applies to an “enemy” who is Jewish. But in the Talmud (Baba Metzia 32b) is another perspective. It poses the possibility that your helping an enemy, any enemy, may help create an atmosphere of peace, to turn away his and your yetzeir hara, the evil inclination, which leads to aggression. It is our job, as commanded in this week’s Torah portion (and in the previous verse as well) to reach out and help those who we see as our enemy. It is the only way to change hearts.

President Trump is not anti-Semitic. He is worse. He is completely uncaring as to how his words and actions effect anyone not catering to his whim. He treats people like things, not like expressions of God’s presence.

 

Read Full Post »

search

The new reality is here. Never has the country been so divided, so bitter, and so tense over what will happen next. Those who opposed Trump, who felt he was the most awful candidate ever, are in despair. Those who supported Trump feel that new opportunities for the country are about to happen. Both sides are completely dismissive of their opponents’ feelings. Liberals, sensing a vast difference between Trump and any previous president, feel the future of the country is in serious danger. Conservatives do not understand why liberals cannot simply “get over it,” and accept the new president. Never in my lifetime have opposing political sides looked at each other with such hatred, with such suspicion. What do we do next?

Trump supporters and spokespeople are feeling triumphant. They believe their victory, not just the presidency but holding both houses of congress, gives them a mandate to ignore the concerns of Democrats, liberals, and their constituencies. They see protests against Trump as inappropriate, as just more political nonsense inspired by a biased media. When they hear concerns about prejudice against minorities, against the LGBTQ community, against immigrants; they see these as invented issues, not as genuine fears. They see concerns over Trump’s ties to Putin and Russia as the result of fake news, or of reports by agencies whose integrity they question. In their moment of triumph they could care less about what the other half of the country thinks. Because of all of this, Trump supporters and conservatives are detached from reality.

But so are liberals and Clinton supporters.

Democrats and liberals are quick to dismiss Trump voters as racist, as fools who were just suckered by a con artist. They will use the word “deplorable” when describing the other side. They do not understand how Trump supporters can ignore the facts of his lies, of his denial of provable facts, his easy dismissal of the press, or his constant tweets that degrade anyone doing something he does not like. They see support for Trump as proof of either someone’s evilness or stupidity. Their solution is to organize protests, to take the same approach Republicans did when Obama took office and automatically condemn anything Trump says or does. But the biggest mistake the left makes is to think their “logical” arguments will somehow convince those across the aisle to change their thinking. It will not.

Trump supporters are intoxicated by victory and are convinced they will now steer the country in a better direction. Trump opposers are determined to protest and resist every move the new administration and the Republican led congress makes. In the end, this disparity will only hurt our country even more.

I must be blunt. I am absolutely NOT a Trump supporter, but I am convinced there needs to be another way forward other than protests and resistance that mirrors what Republicans did from the beginning of the Obama administration. Do not get me wrong. If there are attempts to limit basic freedoms, such as freedom of the press, we must protest. If there are oppressive actions taken against various groups of citizens, we must protest and resist. My wife and I have already decided that if the new administration requires Muslim citizens to register, we will register to support our Muslim friends. But protests and resistance should occur if/when oppressive actions occur and be aimed specifically at the public figures or agencies enacting them and NOT at Trump voters in general. It is simply wrong to think that protests and general words of condemnation are the proactive actions that will change the direction of our country.

No, the only way to effectively change our country is to break the ideological bubbles in which most of us exist. For liberals, that means reaching out to those with whom you disagree, not to argue or condemn, but to learn to understand why they feel like they do. It is a mistake to begin by classifying all Trump voters as “deplorable.” Yes, there is a significant chunk of Trump supporters who bought into his bigoted positions or those he inspired in other groups, but the election did not turn on that group. No, the election turned on a specific group of blue collar voters, particularly in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin; many of whom supported Obama but felt abandoned by the Clinton campaign. Their concerns were over the loss of jobs needed to keep them in the middle class and the economy of their communities.

We need to be duplicating the work of Van Jones, the liberal CNN commentator who has been interviewing and reaching out to people with whom he disagrees. As an example, here is an interview he did with a family in Gettysburg, PA before the election to understand why they were supporting Trump.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/12/opinions/van-jones-messy-truth/index.html

The key element is the respect the Trump voters felt from Van Jones, and their admission they learned something from the exchange. An even more informative interview is this one done with a family in Ohio, who voted twice for Obama.

http://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2016/12/06/exp-van-jones-special-cnntv.cnn

These interviews illustrate the tipping point in our country’s electorate. The way to really change the direction of our country is to form relationships with those folks who see things different from us, to listen and understand everyone’s concerns. These meetings should not be done with the agenda of pushing an ideological perspective, or to get agreement on policy, but to listen, learn and hopefully create enough of a relationship so that they will in turn listen and learn about your fears and concerns.

Why should we do this? None of this will affect the occupant of the White House or immediately affect members of congress. Rather, we need to focus on the local level, to create communities in which real change can occur. We need to create local atmospheres in which people of differing ideologies work together for the benefit of the greater good. As we create this locally, it can spread beyond, eventually affecting the state and national levels. It is possible. I have seen this in our local county commission. I have witnessed genuine dialogue between people of differing ideologies who do learn from each other. I recognize this is a long hard path. I recognize that often we lack the patience for this work. Yet I am convinced it is the only way to get permanent change. Need proof? Well, just know that none of the civil rights legislation of the 1960’s could have passed without President Johnson’s relationship with key Republican leaders. The key element that must be reestablished is “relationship.”

You might also ask why conservatives will even bother with this? Certainly some will not. Some will be so immersed in the triumphalism of the moment that they will ignore the need to think beyond the present. They would then be foolish. For if Trump supporters are serious about change that will benefit everyone in the country, they must stop dismissing the concerns of other Americans. They must stop denying that the increase in hate crimes in the last few months is real. They must learn that politicians and politics are all transient. I know, however, there is a significant segment of Americans, that stretches across ideological boundaries who are united by one thing – we want a better country. Most Americans are good hearted, caring people struggling to make life work. Their perspectives are just different. We must start to seek each other out and find ways of coming together. This is hard, but it is what we must do.

I am determined to do this.  Join me.  Let the change in our country begin.

Read Full Post »

140729-netanyahu-0433_239c513079ae4d286dc50a7df841ee31It has now been almost 3 weeks since the United Nations passed resolution 2334 because the United States did not exercise its veto. The resolution, the United States decision not to veto it, and the reaction in the aftermath, are all filled with problems. The whole sequence has done nothing to advance the possibility of peace. Rather, it has inflamed the attitudes of players on all sides, and made confrontation with sordid truths even more difficult than before.

Problems with the resolution:

First, by focusing on the settlements in yet one more UN resolution, this reinforces the false notion that the settlements are the cause of the conflict. I am not a supporter of most of the West Bank settlements, but they are not the cause of the conflict. Rather, they are a hindrance to progress in getting meaningful talks started. The causes of this conflict originate in many events and attitudes dating back to the late 19th century, and are filled with complications, nuances, and realities that most parties refuse to acknowledge anymore. Second, a resolution that lumps development in Jerusalem, particularly the Old City, in the same category as the illegal outpost settlements, obscures the simple truth that Jews (Israel) have a legitimate claim to Jerusalem. It ignores the truth that under Jordanian control (1948 to 1967) Jews were denied access to the Old City and the Jewish quarter of the Jerusalem was destroyed. It is only under Israeli administration that all religions have been granted access to their holy sites.

The final problem with the resolution is strategic. The timing is horrific. On the eve of a new administration that will take a very different approach, the controversy of abstaining from the vote instead of vetoing, it destroys the ability of the left to voice credible opposition to the settlements in the future. Why? Because it has shifted the focus from real issues to the conflict between Obama and Netanyahu. Because it has created inflamed rhetoric on the right accusing Obama of anti-Semitism despite the fact that his administration has provided record setting military aid to and cooperation with Israel. There are legitimate discussions to be had about various strategic moves the Obama administration has made in the Middle East; i.e. some real mistakes have been made; but I have never doubted that his and Secretary Clinton’s or Secretary Kerry’s intentions have been for the benefit of Israel and not to their detriment. This is further demonstrated by Obama’s opposition to the BDS movement that attempts to delegitimize Israel’s very existence.

Truths about the resolution

First, it is necessary to read the resolution. You can do so through this link: http://www.un.org/webcast/pdfs/SRES2334-2016.pdf Unlike numerous other UN resolutions condemning Israeli actions, it also condemns terrorist acts by the Palestinians. It makes clear that both are obstacles to peace. It asserts that the status quo is not sustainable. That is correct. If the 2 state solution will not happen, then the alternative is a one state solution. Does Israel really want that? Demographically this poses a problem for Israel to maintain a Jewish state. The current Jewish population from the Mediterranean to the Jordan River is about 6.2 million. The current Arab population is around 4.2 to 4.5 million – and that does not include Gaza. A higher birth rate among the Arabs would make a Jewish state unsustainable in a couple of generations. Further, unless Israel would grant full citizenship rights to the Palestinians, it will be forced to abandon democratic values and use their military in oppressive ways to control a huge proportion of the population, likely limiting them to very restricted areas and resources. I hate to use the word apartheid, but a non democratic state denying basic rights and citizenship to Palestinians would start to look like that. Let’s also look at the other side of this equation. Some on the left among Palestinians and Jews are pushing for a one state solution. But the hatred of Jews by Palestinian Arabs is way too intense to make this a workable scenario.

But the overriding truth about the resolution is that the settlements are a problem. Yes, those that are in areas likely to be part of Israel in a 2 state arrangement (we have a map of what that might look like from prior negotiations) are not either the cause of the conflict or prevent a solution. Rather, settlements being established in the middle of private Palestinian land, in areas that are clearly designated by the Oslo accords to remain Palestinian, are a smack in the face to a population facing major problems. The inability of Palestinians to simply commute to work, to get medical care, because of the location of certain settlements is an obstacle to even starting meaningful negotiations. There are many settlements that began as illegally established outposts (according to Israeli law) and there is currently a bill in the Knesset, introduced by the most right wing elements, that is trying post facto, to legalize these settlements. Someone please explain to me how any of this contributes to the peace process.

The aftermath of the resolution

This has reduced the chance that those who care about Israel across the political spectrum can even dialogue with each other because of the inflammation of rhetoric.  The most obvious example is the hateful rhetoric by the right against Obama, his administration, and anyone who dares to oppose any position of the Israeli government. This reinforces the false notion that opposition to an Israeli policy or opposition to an Israeli leader – in this case Netanyahu – is anti-Semitic. It is not. The blind support for anything Israel does refuses to acknowledge some severe problems. One is the increasing movement in Israel towards a right wing theocracy. This is evident not just by the power of the most religious/conservative groups in the Knesset regarding settlement policies, but in recent legislation being considered outlawing any worship practice other than orthodox at the Western Wall.

A second result is it adds to the fictional picture of Netanyahu as a victim of an anti-Israel American administration. Americans, especially on the right, love Netanyahu. Why? Well, he grew up in Cheltenham, PA, was educated in America; speaks English like an American, so he feels like one of us. This means we overlook his flaws, which are deep. First, he is once again under investigation for corruption, being questioned recently by Israeli police. His Likud supporters in the Knesset have introduced a bill putting the Prime Minister’s office above criminal investigation. This is the third time Netanyahu has come under investigation for illegal activities. Further, unlike Ariel Sharon, a right wing military man who as prime minister understood the need to moderate for the good of the whole country, Netanyahu pays lip service to causes such as peace and religious plurality, but in his actions caters to the most extreme elements in Israel. His actions indicate his prime interest is keeping his power, not the betterment of Israel.

Finally, the bitter atmosphere created by the failure to veto the resolution makes it impossible to hear truths about the consequences of Israeli policy. In a speech made to explain why the US did not veto resolution 2334, John Kerry outlines the administration’s perspective and its fears of the long term consequences for Israel. He also speaks of the potential for a regional peace Israel has with its Arab neighbors if there would be even some progress on Palestinian issues. You can read the full text of the speech here: https://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2016/12/266119.htm

It is a speech that for the most part should have been given 4 years ago, as a vision and plan for working with Israel to move towards a 2 state solution, and not as an explanation for a stupid decision. In the hateful, polarized atmosphere exacerbated by the passing of UN resolution 2334, no one is paying any attention to some of the cold, hard truths Kerry outlines. He is being cast as anti Israel and even anti-Semitic. Read the speech. He is not anti-Israel or anti-Semitic.

Conclusion

What is the Israel we wish to see? I grew up in a household dedicated to the Zionist vision of a Jewish state that practices democratic values. I have always been proud of Israel’s strength and audacity. At its best moments Israel is a model for the world to admire. Yes, elements in Europe wish to delegitimize Israel. Yes, Arab anti-Semitism is rampant and scary. But the Israel of my dreams holds onto its highest values in the face of pressure. Israel is no longer a weak nation. Its military is second to none. Its economy is based on brilliant technological and business innovations. So Israelis and Jews have to look at ourselves honestly and ask this question, how can we best fulfill the vision of Isaiah and be a “light unto the nations.”

 

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »