Day 132 of Nat'l Emergency: Lawn Sign for Justice, Petty President, Will Trump Take a Shot

We have proudly joined the woke lawn sign brigade. Designed by Gilda, our sign displays an illustration of eight children of various ethnicities next to a Martin Luther King Jr. saying, “Injustice Anywhere Is a threat to Justice Everywhere.”

Presidential adviser and not-too-secret white supremacist Stephen Miller notwithstanding, Jews have been at the forefront of civil rights activism. We believe in the legitimacy behind the Black Lives Matter movement but have been repulsed by the open antisemitism and anti-Israel stances of some of its leaders and followers, made all the more reprehensible by the organization’s failure to call out repression and discrimination common in Arab Moslem lands. 

Our sign already has won approval from neighbors. We’re at the end of a cul de sac so the sign will get limited exposure. But it’s the sentiment that counts, not the number of eyeballs that see it.

Petty President: The pettiness, the mean-spiritness of Donald Trump continues to know no bounds as it continues to amaze. His latest denigration of the office of the president involves the removal of the official portraits of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush from a public viewing area and their placement in a non public room of the White House.

He couldn’t remove Barack Obama’s portrait because it has not been officially unveiled in deference to the longstanding animosity Trump has toward his immediate predecessor.

One has to wonder how Trump will be treated by his successor, an especially trenchant thought if it is Joe Biden in 2021 or a different Democrat in 2025. Will he be invited to ceremonial functions? Will he be shunned by the members of the exclusive Past Presidents club? 

Will foreign governments welcome him, not that he was an avid jet-setter before his election? As he was not overly complimentary to most foreign leaders while in office, his options for frequent flyer points are limited. Okay, he could visit Turkey, Russia, Brazil. And Israel. Perhaps his good buddy Kim Jong-un will invite him to a deeper visit inside North Korea. Or Xi Jinping might want to show him China’s biological warfare labs that Trump is always talking about.  

Will He Take the Shot? Should an anti COVID-19 vaccine be introduced while he is still in office, will Trump display presidential leadership by publicly taking the shot, or will he punk out and reinforce the cautionary call of the anti-vax brigade that rejects all types of inoculations? Perhaps he will claim an exemption to the injection because of a flareup of his bone spurs.

The current fight over wearing a mask to contain the pandemic’s spread will be child’s play compared to the opposition anti-vaxers will wage, especially if anyone administered the vaccine becomes infected (https://nyti.ms/2OAxMM1). 

It is truly a sad time when the health care system once touted as the best in the world has become a shell of its former prominence. 

Feds vs. States: Where does federal vs. state responsibility begin? States’ rights vs. federal authority. 

During the coronavirus pandemic, Trump has chosen to push responsibility for containment of the virus to governors, except when he sees political gain advocating opening up the economy and schools. He is trying to strongarm states to do his bidding even as case numbers and deaths rise. But his bottom line is that states, not he, are responsible for the pain the country is experiencing.

On the other hand, having clearly lost his bid to be a successful wartime general in the battle to beat COVID-19, Trump has shifted gears to be the law and order president by sending in federal troops to Portland, OR, to arrest and control Black Lives Matter and related protesters. No state or local official asked for federal troop assistance. Indeed, they have vociferously rejected their presence.

But Trump doesn’t care because this narrative fits the image he wants to project to his base and to voters who might feel threatened by the protesters. 

Day 45 of Nat'l Emergency: Family Mystery Half Solved

The mystery began for me in the middle of the night. Early Friday morning.

I couldn’t fall back asleep after a nocturnal awakening. I opened Facebook on my iPhone. Laura, a cousin in France, had posted an appeal. She asked for help in translating a short note in Yiddish she had found on the first page of her deceased maternal grandfather’s prayer book, his siddur. She included a picture of the note.

I don’t speak or read Yiddish but the letters resemble Hebrew. Perhaps I could make out some words. I was thwarted in my attempt to read the note. I couldn’t make heads or tails out of it until I turned the picture upside down. I remained stymied for a while until I figured out the one word third line was the family name of her grandfather.

I also deciphered the year of the note. It was written according to the Jewish calendar using letters with specific numerical values. To calibrate it I got out of bed and searched for my 1962 8th grade graduation yearbook from Yeshiva Rambam, hoping it would contain a Hebrew calendar date I could use as a reference. It did. The year of the note was 1959.

Unable to translate more text I sent the note to friends and relatives seeking help. On her side of the Atlantic Laura was similarly engaged.

About the same time, with outside help, we independently configured the puzzle. Here’s the text:

“As a testament to my appreciation to the Borensztejn family,

From Golda Meir

11 Iyar 5719” (May 19, 1959)

Laura believes he received the siddur during a trip to Israel. “He never mentioned that he had met her (Golda Meir) during this trip … If it IS her writing and signature, why ? What did my grandfather do? Or another member of the family?,” Laura wonders. “I am EXCITED but I don’t get it!”

We solved the mystery of what the note said but a larger mystery remained. What did Laura’s grandfather do to merit this personalized, handwritten note from the then Israeli foreign minister and future prime minister?

We may never know.

Foreign Affairs: This is not the first bit of international intrigue involving Laura’s maternal grandfather. Along with his wife and some extended members of their family he emigrated from Poland to Lens in northeastern France, in the 1930s. Before Nazi Germany invaded, Laura’s grandfather urged his relatives to move south. Only his immediate family went with him to Lyons. But they weren’t safe there, either. 

Warned they might be picked up in a roundup of Jews, her grandparents fled with their two daughters to the border with Switzerland. Because Bonnie, Laura’s mother, was a baby, the Swiss allowed the family to enter, but placed them in three separate refugee camps, one for the father, one for seven-year-old Miriam, and the third for Bonnie and her mother. 

For three years they remained in internment. Miriam was able to see her mother and sister from time to time but her father could not see any of his family. After the war ended the family re-united. They returned to Lyons. 

Their family in Lens was killed. The Nazis rounded up the Jews from Lens on September 11th, 1942. It was Rosh Hashanah, the Jewish New Year. Among them were Laura’s grandmother’s elder sister, Rosalie, and her daughter Betty. They were sent to Belgium, to a place called Kazerne Dossin (now a memorial, museum and documentation center on Holocaust and Human Rights in Mechelen, Flanders). They waited there two days before being shipped out on Transport X, arriving in Auschwitz-Birkenau on September 17. 

There is no archival record of how or when Rosalie died, but official papers show Betty was selected as a forced laborer. She died of unknown circumstances on October 20, 1942. Portraits of Rosalie Fursetzer and her daughter Betty Mohr are part of the memorial and the Memorial Wall at the barracks of Kazerne Dossin.

According to Kazerne Dossin, “X Transport included 1,048 deportees, including 229 children less than 15 years … The youngest was Josef Jozefowicz, aged one month and a half.”  Only 17 survived the war. 

Shalom Yisrael Needs Your Help

Eleven years ago Gilda and I joined an amazing group of volunteers, Shalom Yisrael of Westchester. For more than 30 years Shalom Yisrael has been dedicated to building bridges between Israeli and American Jews. Each year since we began our association with Shalom Yisrael in 2010, the organization has brought eight Israeli women to America for much deserved rest and relaxation. Much deserved because they are involved in professional and volunteer work in their communities along the dangerous borders with the Gaza Strip and Southern Lebanon. They have been social workers, educators and healthcare professionals who often are first responders when terror or tragedy strikes. 

This year our eight guests reside in the northern region of Israel, within easy range of Hezbollah rockets. They have devoted decades to easing the tensions and burdens of their neighbors, both Jewish and Arab. 

Our guests will arrive April 26 and depart May 3. During their time in New York, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia,  they will visit Jewish day schools in as well as senior centers, cultural institutions and social welfare organizations. They will be hosted by volunteer families.

The Shalom Yisrael program costs more than $25,000 each year. Funding is solely by tax deductible contribution. All of our workers and host families are volunteers. No one is paid for their efforts. 

If you would like to help provide a once in a lifetime experience for these deserving women, please click on the link to our GoFundMe page: 

https://charity.gofundme.com/o/en/campaign/2020-shalom-yisrael-westchester

1-Issue Voting Behind Jews for Trump. How Sad.

A friend forwarded a video said to be trending all over South Florida, in other words, the retirement home of many Jews, key voters in all elections. It’s a video of Cantor Sagee Goldenholz of Temple Beth Shalom of Boca Raton, speaking at the Republican Jewish Coalition gathering last year about why he and others are leaving the Democratic Party and joining the Republican Party (

https://www.facebook.com/michelle.l.terris/videos/10222159708763441/).

My takeaway from this video is the speaker is advocating Jews should be 1-issue voters. Vote for the candidate who does the best for Israel, in their eyes. Anything else is irrelevant.

And so, the strong suggestion is that Jewish voters should turn their backs on decades of support for liberal democratic (small l, small d) values. What matters is loyalty to Israel, not to America.

Never mind that Trump wants to remove affordable health care from millions of Americans. Israel won’t be affected.

Never mind that Trump wants to close down Planned Parenthood. Israel won’t be affected.

Never mind that Trump wants to end a woman’s right to choose. Israel won’t be affected.

Never mind that Trump ordered the separation of asylum-seeking families at the border in a move reminiscent of WWII refugees. Israel not affected.

Never mind that Trump gutted environmental regulations. Israel not affected (not yet).

Never mind that Trump abandoned allies in the field. Israel not affected (not yet).

Never mind that Trump speaks to Jews in anti-Semitic tropes. Israel not affected.

Never mind that Trump has denigrated the office of the president and America’s standing in the world. Israel not affected (it has its own leadership issues).

Never mind that Trump abuses the truth almost every time he speaks or tweets. Israel not affected (not yet).

Never mind that Trump’s immigration policies would have kept many Jews from entering the United States had they been in force when they arrived. Israel not affected.

Never mind that Trump has created an atmosphere that has emboldened white nationalists to openly espouse anti-Semitism. Israel not affected.

The list could go on. 

Yes, Trump moved the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and recognized annexation of the Golan Heights. Has the rest of the world rushed to congratulate Israel or Trump on the bold moves? Has it saved any lives in Israel. Has it made Israel safer (let’s be honest—no one presumed Israel would ever give up the Golan).

From my vantage point Trump is playing American Jews for suckers. He is trading on good PR actions to woo Jewish voters. But as we have seen with the Kurds, he will abandon friends and allies when he deems it beneficial not to U.S. interests but his own. 

American Jews have every reason to be bi-partisan in their selection of political parties to support. FDR was not a fan of Jews. Neither was Nixon. The State Department, long a Republican stronghold, preferred Arabs over Jews. Most Jewish congressmen and senators aligned with the Democrats. 

An emotional vote is as valid as a reasoned one. If the Jews of South Florida or anywhere want to back Trump because of his support for Israel, so be it. I only hope they balance their decision by the impact a vote for Trump and Republicans in Congress and in their state houses will have on their social security, their health care, the health of the planet, their dedication to civil rights and other issues they have supported and championed for the last 80 or more years. 

Three Plans to Solve Vexing Issues

I’ve got three game-changing plans to solve vexing issues of the day. They require some tweaking before implementation, but I have every confidence they would be successful.

Plan 1—Control the incendiary impact of social media on politics.

No one can seriously dispute the fact that social media has been infiltrated by agents hoping to sabotage our free and open elections (as well as those in other democratic countries). The challenge is how to contain the spread of misinformation and disinformation. 

Israel, for example, stops all television political advertising 24-48 hours before citizens vote. 

We could and should do better. 

We should impose a 30-day (or longer) pre-election moratorium on any electronic political advertising, commentary, or tweeting punishable by a mandatory 90-day jail sentence for offenders, even presidents.  

Also, companies that have Internet platforms would face double scrutiny and punishment—all their C-level executives would face jail time for any infractions. A company itself would be fined $1 million for a first infraction; fines would double for each subsequent violation. 

These penalties surely would get the attention of corporate officers. 

Yes, First Amendment zealots would condemn this restraint on speech, but the future of our democracy depends on keeping our political dialogue honest and domestic. 

Plan 2—Simplify the democratic socialism vs. capitalism debate.

Trumpers say Democrats are trying to impose socialism on our country, even as they carry signs that warn politicians to keep their hands off their Social Security checks. 

My plan is a simple one: For those who fear socialism, let them opt out of the services and benefits government provides, such as the aforementioned Social Security, or Medicare, Medicaid, municipal water and sewer systems, public schools, emergency medical and safety services, and public parks and recreational facilities, to name a handful. 

If citizens choose to defer on building their own wells, let them pay exorbitant rates for the convenience of turning on the water tap in their homes. If they call 911, emergency services would first advise them of the cost of sending a police car, ambulance or fire truck to their assistance. Credit card payment upfront before any help would be dispatched. 

I, for one, am tired of hearing people badmouth democratic socialism. It has worked in Scandinavian countries. It can work here. 

The question becomes at what point do people shift from a totally capitalist mentality to one that embraces the ideal that it is in the common good and welfare for all of our residents (yes, illegals as well) to be healthy and capable of contributing to society and paying taxes (which many illegals do. BTW, I am not advocating for illegal immigration, but am just recognizing the reality of their presence).

Anti-democratic socialists fear rich citizens and corporations would have to give up some of their wealth. I know, it would be a burden on billionaires and mega-millionaires to own only two or three mansions and yachts. But I am confident they would find the moxie to live through any discomfort. Similarly, corporations should lose the ability to earn millions without having to pay federal taxes. They are, after all, availing themselves of the benefits our government is providing, such as safe and secure borders. 

Plan 3—Contain anti-Semitism and BDS activists.

Anti-Semitism has been around for more than 2,000 years. Whether it be fueled by religious intolerance, economic insecurity, scapegoating, fear of the different or just plain old fashioned ignorance, anti-Semitism is like the cockroach—it resists eradication. 

BDS is a cancer. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is but another manifestation of anti-Semitism, cloaked in an anti-Israel, pro-Palestinian manifesto. 

My solution (incapable of being implemented but I can dream) is that people who are anti-Semites or who support BDS should not be able to benefit from any invention or other product/idea that originated from a Jewish mind or in Israel. Inventions such as the Salk polio vaccine or the Waze GPS-based navigation app. Or pill-cam colonoscopy screening. 

The list is too exhaustive to reproduce here, but suffice to say everyday life would be far different without the contributions of Jews. And that extends to the arts and entertainment, as well.

Impeachment Charges, Biden Lets Loose and Historic Facts

Here’s an example of what one of my graduate school journalism professors called a “nothing new” headline:

“House Impeaches Trump.”

Here’s another example:

“Senate Acquits Trump.”

It doesn’t take a genius to know as sure as the first headline will be realized before Christmas, the second will follow in short order, possibly before the end of January.

Unless Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has an epiphany and switches his allegiance from the autocratic orangeman in the White House to the U.S. Constitution there is scant expectation Trump will face any penalty greater than history’s assessment of his guilt. 

However, in the debate over what charges the House of Representatives should level against the nasty-man-in-chief, there is an important bit of politics that must be played out. Should Trump be charged merely with abusing the power of his office for personal and political gain through an attempted bribery of the president of Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden in return for arranging a White House meeting and unfreezing Congressionally approved military aid, or should the House lay out a laundry list of offenses including obstruction of justice? 

Those in favor of the former argue it would be a more focused indictment, easier for the public to wrap its mind around. That argument, however, presumes the possibility of a conviction. 

Ha! It will never happen (not “would never happen” which implies “maybe;” under McConnell it is a certainty the Senate will not convict).

The Democratically controlled House, therefore, should engage Republican hands by throwing the kitchen sink at Trump, forcing GOP senators to go on the record to condone each and every behavior that is injurious to American interests and constitutional norms. Make each senator run on his or her compliance with actions they would never tolerate if a Democratic president undertook them. 

A Biden Bite: A show of raw emotion was just what Joe Biden needed to spark his candidacy. But I would suggest the former vice president should not have called an Iowa farmer a “damn liar” during a campaign stop Thursday for regurgitating Trump and Fox News charges that he sold access to the Obama presidency and helped his son Hunter obtain a lucrative job with an energy company in Ukraine, a position for which he had no experience.

Instead of directly insulting the 83-year-old retired farmer, Biden should have countered thusly: “You’re repeating falsehoods, lies, that were created by Russia and Vladimir Putin and promulgated by his corrupt ‘useful idiot’ in the White House and his unscrupulous supporters in the House and Senate. You’re repeating a false narrative which is undermining our democracy.”

Biden took a more in-your-face response. It displayed fire in the belly that has been lacking and, if he is fortunate enough to secure the Democratic Party nomination, will be required if he is to successfully confront Trump.

Historic Facts: Just when you thought the public could not get any crazier, here are two stories that boggle the mind:

A majority of Republicans believe Trump is a greater president than Abraham Lincoln (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7742883/Majority-Republicans-think-Donald-Trump-better-president-Abraham-Lincoln.html). I’ll let you parse that one without further reflection on my part.

Here’s the Mideast Problem in Brief: In a speech in November, Riyad Al-Aileh, a Palestinian political science lecturer at Al-Azhar University, said Jews only came to the region “as invaders 70 years ago.” Another Palestinian “intellectual,” Abir Zayyad, an archaeologist and member of Fatah’s Jerusalem branch, asserted “We have no archaeological evidence of the presence of the children of Israel in Palestine in this historical period 3,000 years ago, neither in Jerusalem, nor in all of Palestine.” 

So there you have it—A rejection not only of Jewish heritage in the land of Israel but also, by inference, of the existence of Jesus, his visit to the temple in Jerusalem and his later return to the city, his trial and crucifixion. A rejection of Roman historical records. It makes one wonder how any peace can be achieved when one side is so delusional. 

Look Past 2020 To See Future of the Republic

While most political views are focused on 2020, a longer lens to 2024 and beyond may be more informative as to the future direction of our republic.

Some never-Trumpers retain a pipe dream that an alternative, such as Bill Weld, Nikki Haley or John Kasich, could wrest the Republican Party presidential nomination from the incumbent, Donald Trump. They are seeking the remnants of the soul of what was once a Grand Old Party. At one time it could be argued, and was, that working with Trump inside the White House and in Congress helped to restrain his excesses. But that argument for too long has not held water. Anyone who continues to take a federal paycheck inside the current administration or is a Republican member of either house of Congress, ostensibly as a public servant, has clearly sold his or her soul. Moreover, those who already abandoned ship should be under a patriotic obligation to reveal on the record Trump’s illegal and unpresidential acts.

Almost any Republican of stature and integrity would be better than Trump not because their domestic social and fiscal policies and international agenda would be markedly different, but rather because they would convey their positions in a more statesmanlike, mature fashion. Abortion rights still would be restricted; conservatives would be nominated for federal court appointments; Iran and North Korea would still be trouble spots; Israel would be favored over Palestinians. But their tone would be better. They would be more appealing to suburban women. They would not be a constant source of lies. A less provocative president would probably have long enough coattails to secure a GOP House and Senate. Democrats would try but mostly fail to influence legislation.

In this Age of Trump, party apparatchiks have sold their souls. At his behest, they have stacked the deck against any inside insurrection. One can hardly blame Trump for doing what comes naturally to almost all incumbents.

The lurking dilemma for the GOP and the nation is, who will win the battle for control of the party come 2024. Will the party look for a Trump protege or will it seek to revert to its traditional policy planks and level-headed leaders? The answer may depend on how much Trump loses by or how much he wins by in 2020 (assuming, of course, he doesn’t declare an emergency if he loses and refuses to accept defeat, and if he wins doesn’t try to repeal the 22nd Amendment limiting terms of office, or simply ignores it).

Trump has shown he is like a dog gnawing on a bone he will not give up. He fixates on a topic, abetted by social media that, regardless of 2020 results, will continue to carry his mean spirited, divisive missives. Win or lose he will defend his legacy to the extreme, making it difficult, but not impossible, for the rational wing of the party to appeal to mainstream Republicans.

Our democracy works best when we have robust dialogue between Democrats and Republicans, when compromise is virtuous and the public welfare is foremost in the minds and actions of our elected and appointed officials. Grifters, incompetents, party hacks, and outright liars have reduced America to a shell of its once internationally-held glory, a status held under Democratic and Republican presidents.

We could return to those halcyon days when our word was our bond, a post-Trump world, but only if enough Republicans reconnect with their souls.

Jewish Loyalty Should Not Be Questioned

Amid the never-ending fusillade of Trumpifications, it is hard to keep up with the outrage of the moment that requires comment. Perhaps most upsetting to me is the tumulter-in-chief’s assertion that Jewish Americans who vote for Democrats—in other words, any Jew who doesn’t vote for him—are dumb and guilty of disloyalty to America, to Jewish people and to Israel.

For the better part of a year several high school chums and I have engaged in email debate on Trump, Israel, which party to support, and social values in general. It has gotten so intense, at times, that one of the group no longer wants to read my blog or my responses to what I consider some of his outlandish beliefs. 

Recently another fellow theorized that secularism has become the new religion of American Jews who vote Democratic. To which the first one piled on by stating, “Their parents raised their children to be just like any American child. They (many, not all), made sure to speak English at home so the children would not talk like “greenery”. They wanted their children to assimilate into the American culture. Just like the Israelis stoke (sic) the Yemenite children from their parents, the European-born Americans removed their Judaism from their children. Since the parents worshipped FDR, who actually sold out that generation and refused to help the Jews fleeing extermination, the next generation felt they had to uphold their parents’ decision. Many of us woke up and went right; many have remained with the same mindset.

“Trump was right in what he said; the problem was HOW he said it.”

No way I could remain silent after that broadside. I started to type a response: “Secularism seems to be the reason given for Jewish support of Democrats. I guess they identify with civil rights. With labor and union rights. With voting rights. With environmental rights. Not too many Republicans favor those initiatives these days. I guess it didn’t hurt that Truman, a Democrat, recognized Israel. Maybe they didn’t like the fact Eisenhower forced Israel to give back the Sinai in 1956.”

As for blaming FDR for slamming the door on Jewish refugees, it behooves us to look to the proponents of the 1924 immigration bill that restricted immigration from southern and eastern Europe. The sponsors were Congressman Albert Johnson and Senator David Reed. Both were Republicans! Who fought against it? Rep. Emanuel Celler, a Democrat! 

I was about to continue when another high school buddy asked for comments about an article in Tablet magazine on American Jews and whether the Democratic Party is becoming unsalvageable (https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/289871/democratic-party-becoming-unsalvageable?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=ed6da33e59-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2019_08_22_04_40&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_c308bf8edb-ed6da33e59-207772409). 

Here’s what I wrote: 

It is unacceptable what some—some—Democrats are saying and the failure of leadership to strongly admonish them, including removing them from committee assignments. 

That said, a few bad apples will not destroy the Democratic party. Just as McCarthy and Goldwater and Nixon and Agnew and Bush II didnt destroy the Republican party. 

The Israel of today is not the Israel Democrats embraced. As I think about it, it increasingly resembles Republican traits—discrimination against segments of Jewish society (Ethiopians), discrimination against Israeli Arabs, forced expulsion of foreign workers, repression of Palestinians (we can argue if that is justified at least part of the time), efforts by the government (of Bibi Natanyahu) to fear monger votes based on Arab-Israeli voting, actions by Bibi to try to curtail the rule of law by reducing the power of the Supreme Court, cozying up to autocrats and despots. The list could probably be expanded but that’s enough for starters. 

So without denying that Palestinian intransigence is the reason no peace has broken out between the two groups, let’s keep in mind that the Camp David accords were signed when Carter was president. The Oslo accords when Clinton was president. Clinton again for the Camp David summit which Arafat sabotaged. The point is, Democrats have labored hard to broker a deal. 

Trump and before him Bush II unchained Sharon and then Bibi to do as they please. 

Israel today has a public relations problem. It needs to transmit to the world, daily or at least weekly, the following statistics:

*How much food is sent into Gaza assuring no one is starving. 

*How much medical supplies are provided Gaza residents. 

*How many Palestinians are treated in Israeli hospitals and doctors’ offices. 

*How many Palestinian workers from Gaza and West Bank work in Israel. 

*How many Palestinians attend universities in Israel, Gaza and West Bank. 

*Examples of the anti Jewish curriculum taught in Palestinian elementary schools and beyond. 

*How many acts of terrorism are perpetrated throughout Israel daily/weekly/monthly. 

*How many times Palestinians rejected specific peace proposals. 

*How speeches in Arabic are different than what Palestinian leaders say in other languages. 

*How Palestinian newspapers and radio/TV/internet sites portray Israel and Israelis. 

*How the standard of living and employment and education in the West Bank and Gaza compare to those in Egypt, Syria, Jordan and Lebanon. 

I am sure there are other statistics that would all but eliminate the impression that Israel has been a repressive ruler. To change perceptions this data must be constantly transmitted. Letting the world know about its high tech industry, its agricultural and ecological gains, its scientific and medical advances, etc., will not change the trajectory of opinion on Israel as long as it has the image of a cruel oppressor.  Congressional visits must be targeted at Palestinian actions to show that they live better than under Arab leaders and that it is not Israel that holds them back. 

The American people time and again have supported freedom fighters around the world. The challenge Israel faces is to flip the narrative that the Palestinians seek freedom and Israel doesn't.  

Congresswoman Tlaib and other Democrats are winning the pr war because Israel is losing it by failing to tell its side and because Bibi is doing all he can to stay in office including embracing actions that turn off non orthodox Jews around the world. He is drying up the reservoir of good will Israel has among tribe members. 

So, in short, Democrats don’t want to abandon Israel. They want Israel to live up to the ideals of its founders and the early pr success it had as a country of limitless possibilities for all. 

Questions for Democrats From Me and The Times

To get an Op-Ed piece published in The New York Times you have to give the paper a three-business-day window to review your submission. The Times says it will contact you if they plan to use it. Otherwise, you’re free to publish it anywhere else it might be deemed worthy.

Last Friday night I emailed to The Times 10 questions that should be asked of each Democratic presidential hopeful during next week’s debates. Apparently, great minds think alike, because The Times had been working on a similarly themed idea which it unveiled Wednesday. The Times formulated 18 questions to which 21 candidates provided video responses (https://nyti.ms/2NbBe1Z). 

Having not heard back from The Times by Wednesday night, herewith are my questions (since expanded to a dozen): 

1. Will you support the eventual Democratic party nominee and not run a third party candidacy?

2. What will be your first five executive orders upon taking office?

3. Given what we now know about Donald Trump’s activities before and after the 2016 election, would you support a criminal prosecution of Donald Trump?

4. What action by the Trump administration has most enraged you and how would you counteract it?

5. If the Senate remains in Republican control, how would you counter Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s stranglehold on legislative affairs moving forward?

6. What steps would you take to improve our trade position vis-a-vis China?

7. How would you stem the flow of undocumented immigrants across our southern border?

8. Which country or entity or concept is America’s number one enemy today and in the future?

9. Should the Palestinians have their own state or should they become citizens of Israel and other Middle Eastern states where they reside?

10. What is your position on the impact and viability of technology companies, banks and investment houses that have grown “too big to fail.” Should they be broken up or more intensely regulated? 

11. Are some Afro-Americans entitled to reparations? How would you define reparations?

12. What steps would you take to improve health care?

For those who chose not to click on the link to The Times feature, here’s a list of its questions (added benefit: each question is linked to the candidate responses). You decide whose queries, mine or The Times, were more incisive. 

1. In an ideal world, would anyone own handguns?

2. Would your focus be improving the Affordable Care Act or replacing it with single payer?

3. Do you think it’s possible for the next president to stop climate change?

4. Do you think Israel meets international standards of human rights?

5. Who is your hero, and why?

6. Would there be American troops in Afghanistan at the end of your first term?

7. How many hours of sleep do you get a night?

8. Do you think illegal immigration is a major problem in the United States?

9. Where would you go on your first international trip as president?

10. Describe the last time you were embarrassed. Why?

11. Do you think President Trump has committed crimes in office?

12. Do you support or oppose the death penalty?

13. Should tech giants like Facebook, Amazon and Google be broken up?

14. Are you open to expanding the size of the Supreme Court?

15. When did your family first arrive in the United States, and how?

16. What is your comfort food on the campaign trail?

17. What do you do to relax?

18. Does anyone deserve to have a billion dollars?

Three Weeks Since My Last Post

With Donald Trump a) threatening to totally annihilate Iran, b) obstructing congressional inquiries by ordering subordinates past and present to ignore subpoenas, c) vindictively planning to send asylum seekers to Democratic strongholds in Palm Beach and Broward Counties in Florida, d) hurling insults at Democrats and Republicans who question his fitness for office, and while Mother Nature imposes her will on the heartland through rains, floods and tornadoes, and a human traffic jam at the top of the world kills those making the quest of their now ended lifetime, you might be wondering what have I been doing since my last post May 7?

An appropriate question. Let’s see. For two weeks beginning May 5 I was engaged with the eight guests of Shalom Yisrael Westchester, eight extraordinary women from the communities in the northwestern Galilee in Israel close to the Lebanese border. 

This was the second consecutive year Shalom Yisrael hosted women from the north after eight years of bringing first responders from the border area with the Gaza Strip. The north has been comparatively quiet since the second war in Lebanon in 2006. But memories linger of rocket attacks and firefights. 

Life in a free fire zone can alter everyday events. Pizza delivery became dependent on the range of Hezbollah rockets. Prior to the second conflict, any address north of a specific street in coastal city Nahariya was too risky for drivers as it was within range of Hezbollah rockets. With greater firepower, Hezbollah rockets can now reach Haifa and beyond.

Engaged with the everyday concerns of work or what movie to see, the long-term concern of war with Hezbollah is never far from their thoughts. “It is not a question of if, but when will be another war,” said Alegra, a social worker from Nahariya specializing on prevention of violence toward the elderly.

Two weeks is a long time to be separated from family, even if it’s for a well-deserved respite from tension. During their fortnight in New York, Washington, D.C., and Philadelphia, they visited some of our national treasures, monuments and museums, including the Freedom Tower, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Vietnam and Lincoln Memorials, the Liberty Bell, the Capitol. But perhaps the most relevant and impressionable parts of their trip were visits to three Jewish day schools in Westchester and Rockville, MD, and a community-wide commemoration of Yom Hazikaron (Israel’s Memorial Day) at the JCC of Mid-Westchester where they met American Jews who were fully invested in the people and future of Israel.  

Okay, Time for Some Trump: Naturally, some of my time was spent in Internet dialogue about The Donald and the many contenders for his Oval Office seat. One, in particular, centered on whether Democrats had become the party of freshman Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and her in-league-radicals Representatives Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. 

“The Democratic party will be the party of whomever secures the presidential nomination,” I wrote. “Last I checked she wasn’t running for president.”

I also provided some cautionary thoughts about getting too crazed about the three showstoppers: “Stop falling into the trap of making her and Tlaib and AOC the Democratic Party. They are merely the media’s squeaky wheel getting all the attention because they are different. Trump was different. He got the attention. He was running for president. They aren’t. He changed the GOP. They cannot change the Dem Party unless you fall into the media trap and let them.”

But for a more dystopian view of our political future, I wrote the following to a friend this morning: 

“Regardless of who wins the presidency, stability in our democratic republic is lost for the foreseeable future, a legacy of the Tea Party or actually to Newt Gingrich’s ‘us vs. them’ governing strategy rather than a joint governing philosophy. 

“If Biden or any Dem wins we will have a more mature, hinged person in the White House. If Dems don’t carry both houses then GOP will thwart any initiatives and they will investigate everything.  

“If Trump wins and GOP controls both houses he will unleash Armageddon on all aspects of federal government. Say goodbye to social welfare programs and every regulatory agency. Dems will be powerless to stop the dismantling of more than a century of progressive government. 

“If Dems keep the house they will continue toothless investigations but not be supported by a gutted judicial branch. If Dems win the Senate but lose the House expect no more court confirmations, though Trump would try to make executive appointments. If Dems win both House and Senate expect impeachment and perhaps conviction which Trump would challenge and set off a never before experienced constitutional crisis. 

“I stand by my months’ ago prediction that if Trump loses Electoral College tally he will invoke emergency powers to void election results by claiming fraudulent voting. 

“In other words, wear your seatbelt at all times. The road ahead is rocky and we have no brakes.”   

Death on The Mountain: During the course of my 30-plus year business publishing career, I must have listened to more than 150 motivational speakers. Terry Bradshaw gave one of his first public speeches at one of my publication’s conferences, a talk he mostly reprised when he was inducted into the football Hall of Fame in Canton, Ohio. During the first keynote speech I heard back in 1977, I learned from Ken Blanchard how to be a One Minute Manager. 

Perhaps the most memorable keynote speaker was Jim Hayhurst, the oldest member of the 1988 Canadian Mt. Everest climbing expedition. Hayhurst used his experience to craft a message that explained success comes from teamwork, from trusting in the competence of others, that you can’t do everything yourself. 

He related those truths as he told of the moment during the climb when his 20-year-old son lost his footing and got wedged on an outcropping over a sheer drop of several thousand feet. Hayhurst wanted to be the one to toss him a lifeline, but he realized someone else had a better chance of success, for one inadvertent move by his son reaching for the rope could mean he would lose his balance and fall to his death. His trust in another was rewarded. 

I can still picture Hayhurst as he delivered his talk. Middle aged—47–when he undertook the climb, Hayhurst did not project the image of an intrepid, athletic climber. Rather than stride confidently he seemed to galoomph across the stage. 

Aware of his limitations, Hayhurst emphasized the value of preparation and setting realistic goals. Death can come swiftly without warning in the frigid, oxygen deprived atmosphere near the summit. Many expire on the trek down. Caution is more than a byword for climbers. 

Ultimately, the expedition failed to reach the peak—two climbers came within 2,000 feet of the summit—but they all came back alive. That was their realistic goal.

I think of Jim Hayhurst every time I read or hear about the unfortunate men and women who have lost their lives clinging to their dream of conquering Everest. 

A Look Back at Life Magazine March 7, 1949

Ever since Gilda retired two months ago our lives have changed in obvious and some not so subtle ways. We no longer wake up before 6 am to get Gilda to work in Manhattan. We often can stay in bed past 9 or even 10 am, and I am talking weekdays! With eight hours or more of sleep I believe my apnea is diminishing. 

I won’t bore you with more details (maybe in another post) except to say that her retirement meant we were able to celebrate my 70th birthday together all day Wednesday. Truly enjoyable. 

But to return to my opening comment about changes to our lives for one more example, Gilda has embarked us on a decluttering crusade worthy of Marie Kondo. Having tackled our attic in pre-retirement mode, she thrust her shovel into the detritus of our children’s former bedrooms and the living room. Marie Kondo says jettison anything that doesn’t give you joy. Of course, that presumes joy is shared, or not, by both partners. As a mild hoarder I can attest that I find more joy in our miscellaneous possessions than Gilda does. 

Which brings me to the central theme of this blog. Gilda wanted to throw out a collectible issue of Life magazine dated March 7, 1949, the day after I was born. Now, I know many people collect facsimiles of a newspaper front page of their birth day, not realizing that the stories reveal what happened the day before their birth. 

Life magazine was a weekly back then. Each issue costs 20 cents; yearly subscriptions $6. 

Leafing through the edition I retrieved from the disposal pile, I paused to read interesting editorial and advertisements as current back then as they are today.  Israel was a topic of debate in 1949, the year after its founding. A letter to the editor from Walter Fried of New York, N.Y., stated “I am glad to see that your attitude toward the new state of Israel has changed” from being against the formation of the new state “or rather you were against the way in which it was formed.”

Turning the page I came across an ad for an Anglia economy car built by Ford in England. What intrigued me was the gas mileage for the 4-cylinder two-door vehicle—up to 40 miles per gallon! Most cars today cannot match that efficiency. 

Bryce Harper just signed a 13-year contract with the Philadelphia Phillies for $330 million. It is part of free agent legacy in baseball attributed to the actions of Curt Flood in 1969 and later by Dave McNally and Andy Messersmith in 1975. But how many of you know about Danny Gardella and his 1949 battle to invalidate the reserve clause that bound players to their teams even after their contracts expired? Read more about Gardella’s bid to crack the reserve clause by clicking on this link: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Gardella

Presidential pique with journalists as well as presidential cussing did not begin with Donald Trump. Or with Harry S. Truman. Life noted his displeasure with Drew Pearson, reporting, “Pearson approached the President face to face after a press conference—and some observers had the impression Truman would gladly have taken a swing at Pearson if a Secret Service man had not moved in.” 

Jim Acosta of CNN, are you paying attention?

Life further noted that Truman used the term “s.o.b.” in public, a rare display of vulgarity by a president back then, but apparently not in the age of Trump. 

A few weeks ago the military was chastised for the poor condition of housing for servicemen and their families. Here’s a headline from Life: “New Army Has a Housing Scandal. It finds that Fort Dix GIs live in shacks and even a chicken coop.”

Inside Life’s 138 pages fashion was presented, as well. The big trend of the day—“Slit skirts, they show a little more leg.” The slits could be from four to nine inches long, in back or up the side of the skirt. 

“The new style has an interesting by-product: under the right conditions of light and motion a spectator can catch a fleeting glimpse of the long-veiled upper calf and knee.” 

Sacré bleu! Can nothing be left to the imagination!?!

With the failed Trump-Kim Jong-un summit in Vietnam fresh in mind, here’s Life’s March 7, 1949, nine page report, “Indo-China: It is rich, beautiful colony which France may lose.”

The prescient series of articles came five years before France withdrew from Vietnam after its defeat at Dien Bien Phu and 26 years before the last American died in a war that took 58,220 U.S. lives and some 3.2 million Vietnamese from the North and South. 

Life ceased weekly publishing in 1972, the year I began my career as a journalist. 

History, Realpolitik Lessons from Khashoggi Killing

Here’s what history teaches us: When an absolute monarch or would-be-monarch-with-absolute-powers expresses displeasure with someone within their access there are bound to be sycophants who will eliminate the source of that displeasure. 

Did Henry II of England command the death of Thomas Becket, archbishop of Canterbury, or did he merely express frustration of his one-time friend and current antagonist when he is said to have said, “Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”

Who knows? All we do know is that four of Henry’s loyal subjects rode to Canterbury and did away with Becket in the cathedral. 

That was in the year 1170. Yet, even in medieval times kings accepted responsibility for actions taken on their behalf, at least when the murdered is well known and admired by the populace. So Henry accepted blame and took some, light, punishment. 

In 21st century Saudi Arabia—among the remaining principalities that could pass for having Middle Ages morals and values—the monarchy is not prone to accept human frailty or responsibility, no matter how damning the evidence of its complicity appears to be in the murder of Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, an outspoken critic of the Saudi regime living in the United States. Khashoggi was killed October 2 inside the Saudi Arabian embassy in Istanbul by a Saudi hit squad linked to the crown prince after he was lured there on the pretense he could obtain proof he had divorced his wife so he could legally marry his Turkish fiancee (Though Turkey is an Islamic country, it does not accept polygamy.) 

Targeted assassinations of a country’s dissidents are not exclusively a Saudi province. Kim Jong-un has dispatched operatives to permanently silence voices, even those of relatives, he doesn’t want talking about his treatment of North Korea. Vladimir Putin has seen fit to rid the world of Russian truth-sayers about his autocratic rule of Russia.  A common thread among these tyrants is that with impunity they care not that these rubouts may occur on foreign soil. 

(These assassinations are distinctly different from those perpetrated by Israel. Israel has killed terrorists involved in the murder of its citizens and those who incite other to seek its destruction. Similarly, the United States approved the assassinations of al-Qaeda and ISIS leadership.)

The brazenness of the Khashoggi killing, with lurid as yet unconfirmed details of torture, dismemberment with a bone saw, and the pathetic, infantile attempt to explain away his disappearance and subsequent admission of the cause of death, has challenged the sensibilities of many in the Western world and those in the Middle East who are not in the Saudi sphere of influence.

But let’s keep in perspective the fact that Khashoggi was a journalist, a contributor to The Washington Post. Had he worked in another profession, or for a less renowned publication, the American furor over his murder might have been no greater than the outcry over the deaths of the 45 other journalists killed around the world in 2018. 

As he hardly has met an autocrat he doesn’t feel akin to, Donald Trump is loathe to criticize the Saudi monarchy. He is mindful, some say too mindful, of the extensive investment Saudi Arabia intends to make in American arms and aircraft (Trump inflates the price tag, but it is substantial in dollars amounts and the number of jobs it will support). As with other presidents before him, Trump’s response to Saudi indiscretion is tethered by realpolitik. 

The bottom line is America will hyperventilate for a while over Khashoggi’s assassination, Saudi Arabia will remain ruled by reactionaries, and despots will continue to confront, assault and kill their adversaries wherever they choose. Recall that for all his bluster about Saudi Arabia’s complicity in killing Khashoggi on Turkish soil, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, president of Turkey, had no regrets about having his thugs attack protesters during his visit to Washington last year. 

Supreme Court Aside, Why Do Evangelicals and Republicans Stay Silent on Trump?

Ever the showman Donald Trump is expected to reveal Monday night his next conservative, court-packing nominee for a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court. It is his constitutional imperative to select a nominee; it is within his rights and privilege to choose a jurist he believes will decide the law based on the values and principles he espouses. Forget for a moment that Trump waffles on principles and displays no values, especially as they relate to family. 

I don’t agree with them, but I can understand why evangelicals support Trump. He promised them a conservative federal court. He is delivering on that promise, thanks in no small measure to Mitch McConnell’s obstructionist strategy to deny a hearing to President Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. 

Support, however, does not mandate blind, unswerving allegiance. It does not prohibit conscientious objection to policies that are aberrant to their Christian faith. They should not have to twist Scripture inside out to justify abhorrent behavior. 

The Catholic church, after all, is just as dedicated to the abolition of abortions, yet its leadership, all the way up to the pope, has been intensely vocal in criticism of Trump’s behavior towards migrant families. 

So I am puzzled by the silence flowing from an evangelical community that is accustomed to hearing fire and brimstone penalties to anyone who acts contrary to god’s and Jesus’ admonitions.  

Let me reiterate: While I do not condone one-issue voters, I recognize their right to follow their narrow public consciousness. I have too many friends who voted Trump because they perceived his support of Israel stronger than the alternative, reinforced by his shift of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. 

They remain friends. We try not to talk politics, as I cannot condone their silence, and that of millions who I do not personally know but who profess to be god-fearing, in the wake of Trump’s flagrant abuses and miscalculations. Those millions include elected Republican officials. 

Where is the outcry, the condemnation, or at least an expressed revulsion at a zero-tolerance policy that ripped children from their parents? Should they not be repulsed by the ineptitude of their government not being able to expeditiously reunite families?

Even Democrats acknowledge industry is weighted down by too many regulations. But where is the sense of outrage from Republicans over the revocation of laws that protect our water, land and air quality? 

Do rank and file Republicans, along with Independents and Democrats who voted for Trump, not see that the tax bill provides meager relief to the vast majority of Americans while rewarding the wealthy and corporations with riches beyond their expectations? 

As other countries respond to Trump’s tariffs by targeting products from states he won, why are they silent when their livelihood is at stake? It’s not “America right or wrong” time when it is painfully obvious to all but Trump that winning a tariffs war is not easy.

Do they not see Trump was snookered by the North Koreans, that his boast that we could sleep more easily now because Kim Jong-un agreed to denuclearize was as empty as his claim to educate the gullible and desperate at Trump University? 

And what about our stature in the world? Do they not understand that “America First” runs counter to the principles and leadership embodied by the United States after World War II? That it was that global, communal ethos embodied by NATO and the Marshall Plan that enabled Western European civilization to reconstruct itself after the war’s devastation, that it forged successful economic and political recoveries in Japan and South Korea after two devastating conflicts? 

How do they square Trump’s campaign rhetoric that he is a big builder who will draw up a huge infrastructure investment list with the reality he not only has not initiated a building program but he also has stymied perhaps the most important project, construction of a new rail tunnel under the Hudson River critically needed to support the Northeast which represents more than 10% of the nation’s economy?

Despite Trump’s repeated efforts to hamper it, the Affordable Care Act remains popular. How can they justify a disregard for the health needs of millions? Isn’t caring and concern for the sick part of their religious creed? How can they remain silent when the Trump administration, in support of infant formula manufacturers, disregards scientific data that breast milk is better than baby formula, and compounds the heresy by blackmailing other countries to follow its dictates at the United Nations-affiliated World Health Assembly? How humiliating that Russia—Russia!—had to save the day for truth and science! (https://nyti.ms/2J0WJuV)

And speaking of Russia, how can evangelicals and ordinary Republicans acquiesce to the bromance Trump has with Vladimir Putin? Democrats are not demanding an invalidation of the 2016 presidential election. They are demanding admission that Russia interfered with it. They are demanding Trump instruct appropriate federal agencies insure it doesn’t happen again. To date Trump has not. 

With all that Trump has accomplished in undermining the values and doctrines of America, Republicans have steadfastly stood behind him. It is foolish to presume they will abandon him in the 2020 election. 

The only way to unseat him will be if enough citizens who failed to vote in 2016 realize their voices can and must be counted to avoid a decades-long descent into despair. 

In 2016, roughly 100 million eligible voters stayed home.