In the fall of 1948, the state of Israel was legally established by way of a vote in the United Nations General Assembly. Eleven minutes after the roll call, the United States recognized the Jewish State. Soviet support soon followed. Although the two Great Powers were in agreement, some American Jewish organizations only grudgingly and belatedly accepted this solution for dealing with the plight of world Jewry.

If we define Zionism, in its most basic sense, as the effort to create a nation-state for the Jews in their ancient home in the Middle East, we can best clarify the cross currents of policy and history that would soon beleaguer the American Zionist movement.

In the period immediately following World War I, until the horror of the Holocaust was publicly revealed in the early 1940’s, various streams of American Jewry considered themselves anti-Zionist; i.e. not supportive of their brethren’s efforts to create a Jewish State in the Middle East. This was so for a variety of political, religious and social reasons, but the split was ever-present beginning as late as the end of the nineteenth century. Only with the gradual un-peeling of the enormity of the Holocaust came a widespread recognition that the most viable solution for the plight of the remnants of European Jewry was a state of their own. Despite the presence on the land of a hostile Arab community that had been living alongside its Jewish neighbors, world leaders ignored reality and hoped for the best. Their plans and expectations were not to be.

Political battles between Arabs and Jews would, and still continue, and wars would be fought; Israel has survived. But, victory in the June 1967 Six Day War brought her a new set of existential problems based upon an increase in territory and an unfriendly population. It is those problems that remain at the heart of American Jewish concerns.

A majority of the American Jewish community has, since the days of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, sided with the Democrats and been politically liberal. Most of those Jews then, and today, are not religiously Orthodox and identify with the Reform and Conservative religious movements. But, as I discussed in an earlier Blog, divisions between the various religious streams has intensified both socially (e.g. abortion, religion-in-the schools, same sex marriage, etc.) and politically, especially regarding the future of Israel and the territories she occupied following victory in the Six Day War.

Remarkably, until relatively recently, strong American political support for Israel was a bi-partisan political issue. Unfortunately, during the Obama era, that began to change. The policies and actions of President Trump only intensified the political polarization and debate among America’s Jews, and not only regarding the Middle East. While  this has created  a difficult predicament for them, it is particularly problematic and even dangerous for the safety and security of Israel. Why? The next Blogpost will provide some answers.

…do not unto others. That is all of the law. The rest is commentary.” (Hillel, First Century Jewish Sage)

The quotation that begins in the title represents, for me, a foundational principle of what it means to be Jewish. Justice, respect for “the Other,” compassion and understanding. That’s what makes Judaism so embracing and meaningful. I would hope, for most of the five million or so American Jews, it is as well. But, the evidence is increasingly contradictory. Some personal perspective:

My earliest years were spent residing in a diverse public housing project in Brooklyn, New York. Irish, Italians, African-Americans and Jews lived relatively comfortably together as friends, celebrating each others’ holidays and sharing social events. We were certainly different in many ways, but always respectful of each other. At the age of nine, our family moved to a more ethnically/religiously  Jewish neighborhood in Queens, New York. Thankfully, the social norms learned in Brooklyn, stayed with me.

Attending public schools and then Queens College (a part of the City University of New York), I experienced an exciting educational environment during a time of social turbulence, when the Vietnam and Civil Rights eras were at their height, especially on the nation’s campuses.

Prior to my senior year of college, I travelled to Israel to study.  For me, before witnessing the country first-hand, Israel was a place modeled on Leon Uris’s famous novel, Exodus. Preparing to study at Hebrew University in Jerusalem required becoming more proficient in Hebrew. In order to do that prior to the start of formal classes, (and solely because of dorm space restrictions), meant living in East Jerusalem, primarily amongst the Palestinian community. Over time, from my new Arab and Israeli friends I learned a great deal about Middle Eastern culture, politics and history. Also, I did my best to understand the basic tenets of Islam, particularly within the context of the Arab-Israeli conflict.

I repeatedly returned to Israel and other countries in the region as both a Ph.D. student at UCLA and an academic fascinated by the Middle East. Once I received my Doctorate,  career interests demanded maintaining close ties with Jews and Muslims. So, along with teaching at a number of colleges and universities, I was employed in a political/administrative/educational  role with a number of Jewish socio-political institutions, including the American Jewish Committee and as Executive Director of the Baltimore Jewish Council for 26 years, beginning in 1990. OK. Enough background. Time for Donald Trump and his administration.

Donald Trump’s relationship with the American Jewish community and Israel seems to have been strongly dictated by business and familial connections. Yes, his daughter Ivanka is married to an Orthodox Jew; as a New York businessman Trump attended countless Jewish institutional events and marched in New York’s annual Israel parade. He has had numerous Jewish employees and colleagues. Other than also  developing business ties to various Arab and Israeli investors before formally running for President, that’s about it. What are the current problems and dilemmas? The rest of the story will follow in my next post.

In 1964, Republican Presidential candidate Senator Barry Goldwater made comments defending extremism. Those remarks ultimately helped sink his campaign. About a year ago, President Donald Trump implicitly defended Nazis and other white supremacists following a race riot in Charlottesville, Virginia. Racism, of course, had been an element in Trump’s behavior and character way before the 2016 campaign. Reflected by hateful policies, particularly towards Muslims and Hispanics, the post-Charlottesville period in America is challenged by some curious juxtapositions.

For example, a President and administration that is decidedly unpopular with “people of color,” has embraced and been embraced by the Christian Right and significant segments of the American Jewish community, two groups that are socially active and remain intensely concerned about race relations. Why?

Regarding the former, Evangelical Christians (and certainly right-wing Catholics and Jews), are decidedly more comfortable with certain socially restrictive public policy positions than their centrist and left-of-center religious brethren. Especially regarding  constitutional restrictions on issues of church-and-state, most Americans believe in significant separation between them; religious conservatives tend not to.

Even without doubting the religious sincerity of “believers” on all sides, the political ramifications of supporting certain social/religious policies can be intense. Abortion, state support of religious education, religious displays on public property, etc., are just some of the more contentious issues in the public policy arena. With Republican politicians generally sympathetic to the Religious Right, Democrats, and the politically unaffiliated usually share more mainstream views. Unfortunately, disagreements over general attitudes can quickly become highly divisive. The effort to confirm a new Supreme Court nominee, for example, has the potential to shift American society in tectonic, more conservative directions. (The utter hypocrisy of the Religious Right is seen anew in this battle. One would assume that ratifying a possible rapist would be of concern to them. Instead, to quote the front page of today’s New York Times, “a growing number of evangelical and anti-abortion leaders” are threatening that their voters will stay home in November if the Senate does not quickly confirm their choice for the Supreme Court, despite the allegations made against him.  These people are without shame and/or values).

Beyond this administration promulgating views considered by many Americans to be outside the mainstream, and the possibility of their becoming solidified in legal decisions, it is the raw, vitriolic displays of  extreme rhetoric, hate and negativity that seem to be corroding our culture and society.  Discord becomes threats, and our country’s moorings in civility and truth start to become unhinged. The President’s lawyer tells us that “Truth isn’t truth,” and a top Trump adviser promotes “Alternate facts.” No wonder George Orwell’s classic novel of totalitarianism, 1984, is again a bestseller. Yet it is again the President and his Enablers who repeatedly raise the dialogue to the point of (and sometimes to encompass), violence.

Few individuals could honestly believe much of what Trump and company assert. The Washington Post alone has tracked over 5,000 untruths since January 20, 2017. Yet, the right-wing religious disciples of dissimulation merely nod in agreement. Presidential support for their issues is more important than the hypocrisy displayed and the damage they do to American society. Heaven help us!

Despite all of the above, there is one country,  Israel, that has embraced Trump almost as intensely as his base of supporters in the United States. And that is one of the reasons why,  to this observer, Israel’s long term future as a democratic, Jewish State, is threatened. That will be the subject of my  next Blog post.

Before we return to reviewing additional policies and actions of Trump and his Enablers, recent books and op-eds compel me to now focus on the “fool-in-chief.” Here’s what’s relevant.

Trump’s major focus in life has always been the acquisition of wealth. He is rich (though apparently not as wealthy as he insists). He is also, based upon the number of bankruptcies his companies have engendered, not an especially astute businessman. His colleagues in the financial world report that he doesn’t pay his debts. In other words, as his months in office so sadly reveal, he can’t be trusted. Because of this reputation, he has had to seek funding for his real estate empire abroad, especially by-way of Russian oligarchs and other nefarious characters.

So what we have is a very thin-skinned con-man who has little credibility or integrity; someone few would likely consider as Presidential material. Nevertheless, reality intrudes and in November 2016, he is elected.

In the first months of the administration, a Cabinet meeting occurred whose opening minutes were televised. They can only be described as “unbelievable.”  Initially, the President was fawned over, and praised and thanked in the most “kiss-ass” terms by each member of the Cabinet. This was not Stalin’s Russia nor a scene from Game of Thrones. Apparently, acceding to Trump’s wishes, then Chief of Staff Reince Priebus had orchestrated this airing of individual delight at being “allowed to serve” Donald Trump.

Jump ahead to the first week of September (2018), wherein The New York Times published an anonymous op-ed written by a “senior administration official,” delineating the incompetence of the President, thereby joining a chorus of other sources in describing him as “amoral” and unfit to serve. What happened?

Has the Cabinet and staff only now removed their blinders and begun to recognize how problematic and dangerous their boss is? Not only is he ignorant of history, politics, economics, etc., it has been heavily reported that he does not even try to learn what he must to properly do his job. He has no patience for serious briefings, is quick-tempered, with no attention span. In other words, he is a relatively ignorant narcissist who,  psychologists have suggested, is pathological in his lying and inability to distinguish fact from fiction. He believes he is almost always correct, rarely apologizes, and is dogmatic in his world-view. (As I complete this Blog, Trump, despite an authoritative report and analysis, claims–without any evidence–that approximately 3,000 people did not die as a result of  the hurricane that  destroyed Puerto Rico last year. Rather, the “real” number was under 20; Trump says that it’s a “conspiracy against him” to argue otherwise).

Often comparing himself to Abraham Lincoln, no past President comes to mind (well, maybe Richard Nixon), that bears even a smattering resemblance to this most dangerous of Presidents. This is the man Trump’s Enablers have facilitated in office, thereby increasing actual threats to our society and national security.

A debt of thanks to the American media. Whether liberal and progressive, conservative and libertarian, without them we would be in severe trouble. (Fox News and its avatars of  untruth and purposeful deception are not deserving of thanks; they are a major part of the problem). As we have hopefully learned from the past, tyrannical leaders and false prophets cannot long remain in power without their own media puppets. Given the public imprimatur of respectability granted Fox and their like, some examination is required.

As is the case with most tyrants, an ability to attract adherents is directly related to their control, use and manipulation, of the media. Be it led by Josef Goebbels (Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda), or promoted in Russia’s broadsheet, Pravda, political movements thrive on publicity and public praise. Without Fox, the Trumpian creed would have had difficulty in reaching its mass audience. While other media platforms were and are also compliant, the daily and purposeful expressions of illogic and falsehood by Fox reaches millions of people ready to believe, including a few years ago,  an ill-suited candidate for office who then became President.

Today, Trump gets his news and ideas from the Fox crew and then goes on to develop policies based on what he heard regardless of their origins and/or validity. That’s the problem. Audiences throughout history are usually ready to believe the simplest explanations, especially when they find them supportive of their current attitudes. Even when the President’s attorney and “Court Jester” Rudy Giuliani states that “Truth isn’t truth,” too many of us are ready to say “exactly,” if that suits our predispositions.

While I am not suggesting that everyone must read The New York Times or Wall Street Journal or listen to CNN and NPR, the public must hold all media outlets accountable for their sometimes reckless and dangerous reporting. The First Amendment must remain sacrosanct, but that doesn’t mean Oliver Wendell Holmes was wrong when he questioned the legality of yelling “Fire” in a crowded theatre.

Of course, it is our master con-man and incompetent President who has significantly helped grace the media purveyors of untruth and distortion with a veneer of credibility. While Enablers in the media remain remarkably complicit, it is to the top of the pyramid we must now turn.

Specific policies usually originate from general ideas.  Once those policies begin to be implemented, the action process begins. Yet, only a small minority of ideas have actionable consequences. The 2016 Republican effort focused upon must-do ideas designed to keep faith with Trump’s base.

Racist-tinged policies were obvious throughout the campaign. Mexicans ( and other Hispanics), were rhetorically tarred and feathered along with Muslims. On a more selective basis, so were African-Americans. Once the election was over, those attitudes became encompassed in policies that sought to restrict immigration on the basis of race and/or religion, tighten voting requirements, and restrict health care. Each would disproportionately harm people of color. As if this was not enough, six months into his term Trump applauded the “good people on both sides” who were involved in a race riot in Charlottesville, Virginia instigated by white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Within the same time frame, a ban on Muslims entering the United States and severe restrictions on our southern border were enacted. The latter included a Child Separation component whose most relevant  comparison was the forced removal of Jewish children from their parents by the Nazis during World War II.

In terms of the environment, Trump withdrew the United States from the international climate agreement, opting for further destruction of the planet in order to appease  supporters and/or those who denied climate science.

Internationally, the President projected his prejudices (e.g. “shit-hole countries”), Obama envy (i.e. nullifying agreements created by his predecessor), ignorance and recklessness. In essence, the world became a stage for Trump to play the role of “global leader” despite his lack of gravitas, understanding of history and leadership qualities. The “con man”  was always in close proximity to the launch codes, but that seemed not to matter to our “Enablers.”

So far, in this enumeration of problematic policies and actions, I have avoided discussing the administration’s support for the Religious Right, extremists in general, and Israel and the Middle East.  Concerns about the media, along with sharing some insights into the personal behavior and attitudes of our “leadership” cadre are up next. Stay tuned.

In his seminal study of the Third Reich, The Last Days of Hitler, British historian H.R. Trevor Roper pulled no punches as he sought to assign responsibility to those who assisted Hitler in carrying out plans for world conquest, mass murder, and purposeful evil. Right at the top of the list, by Hitler’s side, was perhaps his only identified “friend,” Reich Armaments Minister and Chief Architect, Albert Speer. Speer, well-educated, an aristocrat, and a bureaucrat’s bureaucrat, served 20 years in Spandau Prison for his crimes. In his own memoir, Inside the Third Reich, Speer admits to knowing about and willingly assisting  in  Hitler’s attempt to achieve his pernicious designs for Germany and the world.  He understood and knew what he was doing.

Because Albert Speer is the prototypical Enabler, it is important for the reader to understand  my  designation. For that, I turn to Trevor-Roper: “Whatever the errors of judgment and neutrality of conscience, which enabled him to acquire and retain the personal friendship of the most bloodthirsty tyrant in modern history, it is quite clear that in Hitler’s court Albert Speer was morally and intellectually alone. He had the capacity to understand the forces of politics, and the courage to resist the master whom all others have declared irresistible….Nevertheless, in a political sense, Speer is the real criminal of Nazi Germany; for he, more than any other, represented that fatal philosophy which has made havoc of Germany and nearly shipwrecked the world. For ten years he sat at the very centre of political power; his keen intelligence diagnosed the nature and observed the mutations of  Nazi government and policy; he saw and despised the personalities around him; he heard their outrageous orders and understood their fantastic ambitions; but he did nothing.” (Emphasis added)

Obviously, America is not Nazi Germany and its leaders are not promoting Genocide. But,  practices, policies and beliefs of members of the Trump administration and its acolytes bear too many similarities to their precursors for us to  remain silent. If someone knowingly, by commission or omission,  advances an evil idea, action or policy, they are enabling it to succeed. Be it racism towards Muslims or Hispanics, the Disabled, African-Americans, et al, one cannot avoid the pejorative taint of the practitioner if they themselves are in a position of being able to impede or otherwise make a difference in modifying the negative behavior. The goal should be to do no harm. As the Jewish sage Hillel put it, “That which is hateful to you, do not unto others. That is all of the law. The rest is commentary.”

We can wordsmith this to death and accomplish nothing in the process. Most of you who  continue to read my blog posts will know what I mean. For others, ask the question and I will try to satisfactorily reply.

In my next few posts,  I will  review the policies I am concerned about, their promoters and practitioners, targeted audiences,  means of engagement,  repercussions for our country and, finally, how we can and should fight-back.

Being a Political Scientist by education, professional training and both academic and executive experience, I am dumbfounded that I have no choice but to express my  strong  views publicly at a time of national trepidation, political chaos and fear for the future of our country. It is more than Donald Trump. In fact, as I am about to delineate, it is those who have Enabled Trump that create my heightened concern and wrath. Why do these Enablers assume  an  inordinate place in the hierarchy of disreputability and danger that our country now faces? It is time to review some history and historical commentary. But, before I do so, and since this is my first blog post, I will introduce myself.

I am a graduate of Queens College of the City University of New York with a BA in Political Science granted in 1970, followed by an MA and Ph.D. in Political Science earned at UCLA. My specializations were in the areas of American foreign policy and government,  international relations, and the politics and international relations of the Middle East. Of continuing and special interest within those sub-areas is political decision-making, particularly at the American presidential level. (Thus, perhaps, my particular sensitivity to the apparent mismanagement of  foreign affairs by Trump and his associates).

In the years during and since achieving my Doctorate, I taught Political Science in the California State University system, at UCLA, and at various institutions in Maryland, where I now reside. I have also served as an Executive for the American Jewish Committee and other Jewish institutions in Los Angeles, Seattle, Houston and Baltimore. In the latter, I was Executive Director for the Baltimore Jewish Council, where I primarily led staff and lobbied on behalf of American Jewish political interests, especially the United States’ relationship with Israel. I retired from the latter position (after 26 years), in June of 2016.

Today, I have heightened concerns for the moral, political and economic health of our country along with Israel’s future as a dynamic and tolerant nation. Thus, Skepticart. I welcome an interchange of ideas and civil dialogue.

Thanks for joining me!

Good company in a journey makes the way seem shorter. — Izaak Walton