“If I knew what the word ‘Anti-Semitic’ meant when I was growing up, it would have been an accurate description of how I felt.” That quotation was from a personal conversation with Houston, Texas, Congressman Mickey Leland that I had with him in the late 1980’s. He is one of the most remarkable individuals I have ever met.

Mickey was born in Lubbock,  Texas in 1944, and died in an airplane crash in Ethiopia in 1989 on a mission designed to help save the lives of Ethiopian Jews. Why am I writing now about Mickey?

He was the epitome of a successful Congressman: well-respected, successful, and always engaging. He was someone you did not want as an enemy, who always fought strongly for what he believed. Of first concern to Mickey was people, the young especially, and most of all, those who didn’t have much and were usually trying to better themselves. He was the model for what all members of Congress should aspire to in their careers.

When my wife and I moved to Houston in 1983 so that I could work as Community Relations Director of its Jewish Federation, I encountered Mickey. He had recently begun a very unique effort, The Mickey Leland Kibbutz Program in Israel. This initiative, in various forms and under different names, eventually went national and became what is probably the longest existing and most successful effort designed to improve relations between Jewish and primarily  minority youth. In Houston, you had to be a High School Junior who lived or attended school in Mickey’s Congressional District (the 18th), in order to apply. The District itself was primarily African-American and Hispanic in population, with a small pocket of Anglo residents.

Mickey was someone who succeeded in bridging racial and religious gaps. As the rare member of Congress who was so popular that people, rather than getting re-elected, was his primary interest. Doing what was necessary to meet his own definition of success became his life’s work. In his youth, he was a self-described “anti-Semite” who would later save Jewish lives, and an American Congressman who was friends with problematic world leaders, among them Fidel Castro of Cuba and Colonel Mengistu, the Marxist Dictator of Ethiopia. He was also a respected African-American politician who repeatedly spoke out when he felt leaders of his own or other racial-religious groups did not live up to the high standards he set for them. Those standards were often unique, sometimes difficult to discern and explain, but almost always determined by their effectiveness in  improving people’s lives.

Over the years, the Leland Kibbutz Program immersed 16 and 17 year old youth in an intensive process of discovery. They explored Israel and the administered territories on the West Bank. They engaged with Arab and Israeli youth. Of special importance were encounters with recent immigrants to Israel, especially Ethiopian Jews. The latter had faced discrimination at home not because they were Black, but because they were Jews. Spending eight weeks abroad, most of the returning students seemed genuinely affected by their personal experiences in Israel. Follow-up with the students over the seven years I spent in Houston, allowed me to witness the incredible success some of them achieved. Some went on to become Military officers, members of the media, and business executives. Certainly, their newly-evident confidence in themselves had something to do with their personal choices and  success.

Mickey created the program as the result of a visit he made to Israel while still a member of the Texas Legislature. In discussions with some of Houston’s Jewish leaders upon his return, he noted how much the kibbutz experience might teach youth from his district. The initial concept of the program was vague in its beginning,  but by its third or fourth year, and as a process of review and follow-up ensued, the program was deemed to be moving in the right direction.

As noted above, other American communities adopted variants of the Leland program, including Baltimore in the late 1990’s. Thankfully, the then newly elected Congressman, Elijah Cummings, agreed to take it on and the program was restructured to reflect local conditions. Eventually, a year-round educational component was added, and a Youth Village, Yemin Orde, became its residential base for students when in Israel. Thanks to the leadership of Congressman Cummings, the program has also become a national model.

Mickey Leland was often irascible, argumentative and demanding. So what? He began the kibbutz program because he was concerned about the youth in his Congressional District. It and its countrywide-variants have been battle-tested, and most work. Young people’s lives are affected in a positive direction. Certainly, Members of Congress where the program is not operative can explore its successes with Congressman Cummings. So far, only Democratic Members have done so. With so many new faces in Congress, now is the perfect time for Members to examine these youth initiatives for use in their own districts. Even Republican Members can take advantage of that opportunity. See what one person can accomplish if they only care enough. Thank you Mickey!

George Herbert Walker Bush, the 41st President of the United States, was buried this week at his Presidential Library,  not too far from his hometown, Houston, Texas, a city I had the pleasure of living in for seven years in the 1980’s. He was then Vice-President under Ronald Reagan.

Although I never voted for Mr. Bush (and disagreed with most of his policies), he was a man who deserved respect and admiration, who cared about his country’s interests before his own. As I look back and remember him as a good example of how a President should act and behave, it is impossible not to compare and contrast him to the present resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Through this brief reflection on both men, we can enhance our understanding of how dangerous the current President is to our country.

Both Bush and Trump went to Ivy League schools; it is not obvious that the latter learned anything about history, politics, sociology or economics while there. Each man also came from wealthy families but, again, one of them worked hard to achieve success while, despite lying about it, the other was given millions of dollars to help him build his career.   Bush was a decorated military hero; Trump avoided military service because of “bone spurs.”

Following graduation from college, Bush (he had already served as a World War II Fighter Pilot), travelled to Odessa, Texas to raise a family and enter the oil industry. Trump immediately joined the family real estate business. Bush soon entered politics, becoming a congressman, envoy to China, UN Ambassador, CIA Director, Vice-President. and was elected President in 1988.

As President, Bush was confronted by two major crises—the fall of the Soviet Union and Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait. While formulating a successful plan for a post-Soviet Union Europe, Bush was able to work with European leaders to secure a successful finale to the Cold War. Likewise, he established a strong multi-country coalition to force Iraq’s retreat from Kuwait,  yet avoided entangling the U.S. in a long drawn-out conflict premised on removing the Iraqi dictator from power. Despite his efforts to secure a second term, strong public opposition to some of  his domestic policies led to a loss to Bill Clinton in 1992. Admired in his post-Presidential years by both Republicans and Democrats, he was our country’s leading elder statesman until his passing.

Trump, on the other hand, faced bankruptcy on a number of occasions, pursued dubious real estate transactions, had a reputation for not paying his bills, and seemed to rely on foreign sources (primarily Russia), to advance his business. His lack of integrity, fed by an insatiable need for acclaim, was cemented with constant lying and a use of conspiracy theories and Hollywood to advance his empire. Eventually, with apparent Russian assistance, he became President in 2017.

Today, in reflection, what do we find? While Trump is arguably the worst President in history, George H.W. Bush is mourned as someone who was decent to everyone, and always displayed a great deal of integrity. He fought the battles that were necessary to keep the country strong and secure. He relied on commonsense and intelligence in making decisions. Most of all, because he recognized he wasn’t an infallible “Sun-God,” he knew when to seek advice and who to seek it from. He deserves to be remembered and mourned, both as a very good man and a fine President.

America has not had a “foreign policy” since Donald Trump became President in January 2017. What it has had is a series of statements, tweets, policy proposals and initiatives that, when viewed in perspective, reveals little in the way of a consistent, comprehensive, approach to interacting with our foreign friends and foes. Some review of the recent past is in order.

Towards Canada and Europe, early positive relationships that began at the onset of the Trump administration, quickly led to broken personal relations, trade conflicts, and outright hostility. In Latin America, threats to invade one country (Venezuela), and little diplomatic interaction and immigration tensions with the rest of the continent, have produced nothing worthwhile. Trump called African nations “shit-holes,” and formal diplomacy has remained troublesome. In the Middle East, the Palestinians are effectively “missing-in-action” towards anything suggested by the U.S.  Most Arab states, with the notable exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Egypt and a few of the Gulf Nations (who together represent an authoritarian-led coalition),  can’t figure Trump out.  With Iran, war is threatened should they not conform to American desires. Of course, Israel loves Trump while ignoring, I believe, a grim reality: Israeli leaders are selling their Jewish souls as a result of a relationship with Trump that is placing their country in existential jeopardy.

In Asia, the Chinese play a dangerous game of trade war with the U.S., while the  North Koreans have run a successful–and also dangerous–bluff around Trump by catering to his stupidity and ego. Such brinksmanship can have severe consequences for each player.

With Russia, the logical evidence reveals a trail of insidious activities that seem to indicate the possibility of treasonous activities on Trump’s part. His puzzling relationship with Vladimir Putin only lends credence to that thesis.

So, where does all this lead in seeking to formulate and then implement a foreign policy for the United States that is rational and promotes our security?

Usually, policymakers rely upon their conception of national interest as a lodestone for devising policy. But, if that guidepost is centered on the concept that for the leader “I am the state,” only the formulator wins. That’s what we have now. Trump recently proclaimed that voters for Republican candidates were voting for him, although he wasn’t on any ballot anywhere in the country. While politically we can shrug, in terms of foreign policy that sort of transference can have the most severe consequences.

A series of misguided policy steps and a process of incoherent policy formulation, will eventually erode our security. Presidents must carefully assemble and rely upon advisers who understand history, economics, and politics. Within this administration we see nativists, egomaniacs and fools. Conceptually, we must get our act together before policies become irreparably damaged. I seriously question whether the bigger concern is Donald Trump, Kim Jong-Un, or Vladimir Putin? Do we really want any of their fingers on a nuclear button?

Last week’s blog featured a small number of key lessons for the Democrats in the aftermath of the recent mid-term elections: 1) don’t underestimate the desire and ability of Donald Trump as he seeks to protect himself and his agenda; remember, just because an action or policy is unethical or illegal, it doesn’t mean anything to him;  2) a rural/urban divide exists but, with a political approach that focuses  on personal consequences and the truth, Democrats can positively appeal to those rural voters seeking assistance and respect; 3) a move to impeach should await the findings of the Mueller probe. There must be irrefutable evidence that “significant” crimes have been committed by Trump; and 4) the Democrats cannot sustain future electoral success if they weaken their leadership for the sake of political spite and personal benefit.

It is this latter lesson that now, as I write, most needs to be stressed. The current House Democratic leader and past-and-maybe future Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, deserves election to the latter position. This is vital if the Democrats are to succeed  in promoting a Congressional agenda that supports—and does not hinder—the defeat of Trump in two years. Currently, as was pointed out in The New York Times (11/19/2018), some Democrats, in their efforts to torpedo Pelosi’s candidacy, are conducting a “weird jihad” designed to “oust her.” History reveals that jihads rarely succeed and often turn on the initiator(s). The country cannot afford to have that happen.

By the way, when you seek to (democratically) oust someone from their position, you should have a replacement in mind that offers more than a fresh face. The question for Democratic insurgents: Who? They have been unable to answer that question or even find a potential candidate to step forward. Few politicians want to commit potential political suicide.

While the Democrats attempt to seek common ground, our fool-in-chief continues to act like a chastised child as a result of themed-term elections. He publicly confronts military leaders (past and present), and complains about how much work he has to do as President. In reality, his lying continues, he seems petrified of the Mueller probe and he remains unhinged. If this country is to prosper, we need Democrats to create a policy agenda that steers a middle-course that will appeal to those who may have voted for Trump. Such an agenda requires leadership from seasoned politicians such as Nancy Pelosi. Instead, right now, we see certain Democrats acting like children playing “capture the flag” Enough!

The mid-term elections were last week and Thanksgiving will arrive soon. Politically, we have much to be thankful for. Lessons learned from last week’s results are many, but I will concentrate upon the most important ones for the Democrats and the country. Here goes:

1. Trump was, figuratively, on the ballot everywhere. For the most part, he and his policies and actions, were repudiated. Thanks to an overwhelming victory by the Democrats in the House of Representatives, our Fool-in-Chief may continue to grumble and project hate, but he can be checked by an aroused public and a watchful House.
2. Don’t take Trump, or anyone of his loyalists for granted. The President can use Executive Orders, Nominations (especially Judicial), and other political maneuvers, to attain what he wants. When he does act problematically, he must be challenged. Even when the Democrats lose a vote or confrontation, by operating strategically they can make sure that their positions are heard. Don’t forget the challenge to Obamacare. Nancy Pelosi was right; stay focused on the big issues that matter to the American people. If the Democrats can do that and maintain a centrist policy agenda, everyone but the Enablers win.
3. Yes, there is a rural/urban divide in the United States, but it is one that is capable of being breached. The country is growing more diverse and politically aware, especially because of social media. No-one likes to be called “Deplorable.” Respect, not opprobrium, should be offered those we disagree with. Name-calling is Trumpian and counter-productive. Hubris must be struck from our personal codes of political behavior if we expect to do well in 2020. As the battle over the Affordable Care Act demonstrated, appeals relying on truth and personal consequences are much more effective than lies and personal attack.
4. When and if the Mueller Report discovers evidence that Trump committed “High crimes and misdemeanors,” that is when it is time to move towards impeachment. Remember, the “Emoluments ” clause of the Constitution (i.e. a President may not receive benefits from foreign governments), has clearly been violated by Trump thru his business interests. But, is that the kind of “Crime” that would move impeachment to a successful “guilty,” verdict in the Senate? Unless the answer is a confident “yes,” it may be better to just insert it into Democratic talking points for use in 2020.
5. Americans remain centrist in political orientation. Progressive candidates won last week, but let’s not move so far leftward in our political agenda(s) that Democratic Party candidates become unelectable in two years. Remember, only a minority of voters operate at the extremes. The vast majority exist from left-of-center to right-of-center. For a given election, voters may sway a little more to the extreme than at other times; but the centrist band does hold true; that’s where the voters are. The Blue Wave in 2018 was real, but it was not a tsunami. It remains centrist in both ideology and appeal.

Other lessons remain, but for the sake of brevity they must await my next post.

What is it about the word “Immigration” that creates such trepidation, not only in America, but worldwide? Obviously, it connotes different things to different people but, currently, it is as potent a trigger word for some as the movies Psycho and Halloween are fear inducers for most moviegoers.

It wasn’t always that way, certainly not in the United States. After all, most Americans, generations past, were immigrants. No matter how distant the relative, they (except, of course, native Americans), arrived on our shores for a variety of reasons, the most prominent one being the pursuit of a better life. That was largely the pattern until around the turn of the century, and then the period following World War I, a time when new borders were being drawn in Europe and the Levant, and people were on the move. Eventually, by the early 1920’s, many of those knocking on America’s door were met with human barriers designed to keep them out, relying on violence in some cases, and the law in others. The culmination of the latter approach was the 1924 Immigration Act, which codified admission by nationality and point of origin, the intention being to allow entry to certain groups (largely those who were white and from western Europe), and to keep out individuals from countries and regions viewed less favorably by many Americans, including President Coolidge and a majority of members of Congress.

The aforementioned immigration legislation was replaced by the 1965 Immigration Act (which abolished the racial preferences and national quotas established by the earlier law). The 1924 act, to make sure no-one misses the trees for the forest, prohibited Jews and other threatened groups from being able to enter the United States at a time of existential danger—Nazi control over most of Europe.

While the 1965 Immigration Act lifted immigration restrictions on certain groups, Latin Americans,  who were not limited earlier, were now targeted. Today, of course,  individuals from south of the U.S.–Mexican border who seek entry to this country, face having their children seized by border agents and transferred to centers that are little better than holding pens. As I write, a few days after election day, one of the major issues upon which voters continue to ponder is immigration. Trump has targeted Muslims and Hispanics, and they have become subject to the worst racial attacks our country has witnessed since the 1920’s.

The purpose of the 1924 Act, according to the Office of the Historian for the Department of State, was “to preserve the ideal of American homogeneity” in deciding who was admitted to the U.S. Within fifteen years from its enactment, Germany began to implement similar policies, using murder and Genocide to keep their country “pure.” Was America, by way of its racial and religious restrictions, an accomplice to that horror? Of course! Are we ready to countenance modern day, largely non-violent yet horrific versions of similar policies and actions?  So far, the answer is not a comfortable one.

Last week, explosive devices were sent to politicians, federal office-holders and Democratic party donors. The common factor: each was politically opposed to Trump; the President had repeatedly and publicly attacked them. In response to the mail bombs, the President called the terror effort a political “distraction”  that had slowed the “momentum”of his campaign efforts on behalf of Republican candidates. By the end of the week, the captured perpetrator was identified as a rabid Trump supporter, living in Florida. A day after his arrest,  the hatred spread again, this time to  a Pittsburgh synagogue. There, during regular Saturday morning prayer services, a person proclaiming “we must kill all the Jews,” slaughtered eleven and wounded six individuals. The legitimation of hate unleashed by this President and his Enablers had finally reared its ugliness in the worst way: Jews being killed because they are Jews.

For too long, many in the American Jewish community felt insulated from attacks against Muslims, Hispanics, African Americans, etc., launched by this President. After all, they argued, “His daughter is Jewish, married to an Orthodox Jew. He has Jewish grandchildren. He supports and loves Israel.” Well, the elixir of hate is clearly more powerful than blood ties.

Since the weekend, American Jews have mourned, held prayer services and vigils, and begun to ask “Again?” Anti-semitism has  always been present just under the surface in American society. It may have been espoused by many, but it was, for the most part, unspoken and publicly practiced only by the “haters” and “crazies” we must usually tolerate as the cost of living in a free society. Loud statements of “Jew-hatred” were sometimes heard, swastikas were sometimes plastered on buildings, but thankfully, until now, violence against Jews was rare in the United States.

But, evil was in the air. A year ago, in Charlottesville, Virginia, following a race riot inspired and led by White Nationalists, the President stated, “There were good people on all sides,” even when one “side” comprised neo-Nazis and other racists. A few days ago, the President happily proclaimed to his supporters that he was a “Nationalist.”

Meanwhile, too many in the Jewish community and other traditionally threatened groups sat idly by when others were verbally and/or physically attacked. In fact, that same week, an African-American couple was gunned down in Kentucky by a white man who was not able to enter an African-American church. These horrific murders received little public attention and even less in the way of widespread rebuke.

Of course, for some, benefits still accrued. Trump was “good for Israel. He moved the American Embassy to Jerusalem and has sent the country all the weaponry it has asked for.” For the general public, he has provided tax cuts and trimmed business regulations. But, to most Americans, I believe, none of this matters. They want unity instead of chaos, and public condemnation of hate regardless of what ethnic or religious group is attacked. So, as we condemn this worst attack on Jews in U.S. history (and all the hateful incidents that have occurred during Trump’s Presidency), we must remain true to an American value best expressed by a mourner in Pittsburgh: “Love thy neighbor. No exceptions.”

Now is the time—about a week before the mid-term elections—to ask ourselves how we can deal with a problematic, serious situation: America is being led by a someone who struggles with the truth, lacks empathy and has few if any salutary qualities. He is racially insensitive and an embarrassment to American values, democracy, and history. Never before have we found ourselves in this kind of difficulty. While President Nixon was arguably psychotic, he was not grossly incompetent nor a fool. Also, as I have pointed out in earlier posts, it is my strongest belief that by essentially playing to the wishes and views of a hard-line Israeli government and their supporters in the United States (largely to secure votes and donors), the Trump administration is providing the political capital which assists the Jewish state’s  move in a non-democratic, potentially fatal direction.

Trump and his Enablers have solidified their support among rightward leaning American Jews, the Evangelical Christian community, and significant segments of donors in both groups. Members of Congress, other American politicians (especially those Republicans now running for office), have also joined in the “Israel, right or wrong” brigade.

How do we counter this obeisance to hatred and help Israel in the process? First, a strong vote for any and all Democrats will send a message. If the American Jewish community votes that way, the effort will be especially potent. American Jews must demonstrate that they cannot be bought, especially at the cost of accepting a non-democratic Israel.

While I expect a significant anti-Trump vote among American Jews, the Enablers encouraging the President and his congressional allies must be publicly called-out and opposed at every appropriate opportunity. We have not done enough of that. The racism and misogyny must stop and American Jewish voices must loudly join the chorus of opposition. Further, where are the prominent Jewish organizations (I exclude from criticism the ADL and J Street, both of whom are already in the battle)? Where are our “Jewish leaders” at the local level, too many of whom are afraid of alienating the Jewish donors that support Trump?

I may be missing something, but when Israeli officials come to the U.S., few are asked to dialogue with Americans who view with alarm the existential threat to Israel presented by Trump. In turn,  we need to request that our Christian and Muslim friends join us in condemning the dialogue of hate perpetrated at official levels. Op-eds, media appearances, panel discussions, etc., are each a means of allowing our messages to reach an audience. Finally, why have we not witnessed massive demonstrations led by ethnic and/or religious organizations protesting the perversity of the present American political scene?

Regardless of political affiliation, the time is now to make our voices heard. This administration’s policies and actions are damaging America, its people, as well as many other countries. But, in all likelihood they will survive; as I have asked in earlier blogs, will Israel?

How does Trump benefit from his political and economic largesse towards Israel? What drives his support? Is Israel really safer under this President and his Enablers?

Trump’s past is filled with Jewish relatives, colleagues and friends. Certainly, access to the President for their generally supportive attitudes towards Israel is a given. In turn, many of those individuals sympathize with the hard-line views and government of Prime Minister Netanyahu. With their shared perspective(s) clogging the policymaking/advice channels, no-one should be surprised at the policy outcomes that result. Even when the opportunity arises to secure concessions from both Israel and the Palestinians in return for benefits that could strengthen the peace process, Israel is granted an embassy in Jerusalem at no political cost, and the Palestinians are not offered any concession that might boost their willingness to negotiate a deal.

American Jews number 5 to 7 million individuals depending upon whom you include in the definition. But, that relatively small number translates into strong political support as the American Jewish community makes up 6%-8% of the electorate and contributes heavily to candidates for office. In all, they are an important voting bloc. Yet despite Trump’s professed sympathies for Israel, their overall political support for the President  remains in the 30% range. Why?

The most likely answer to that question, according to pollsters, is the growing liberalism of American Jews. Not only are liberal attitudes and voting patterns evident, increased identification and support for Democrats is the natural result. In turn, over the last few years Israel has become less of a bi-partisan issue; for almost Israel’s entire existence the opposite was true. The new reality does not bode well for the future. Although Evangelical Christians and  rightward-leaning Jews still register strong support for Israel’s government, the warnings remain. When  increased foreign aid for Israel becomes a divisive factor in the American body politic–along with a slew of other issues–Israel is in trouble. Unfortunately, that is where matters seem to be moving.

What about Congress and the general electorate? Presently, there are nine Jewish Senators (two of them Republicans), and twenty-one Jewish House Members. They have generally been in the vanguard of protecting Jewish interests. Their non-Jewish colleagues in both Houses of Congress traditionally follow their lead on Middle East related issues. Increasingly, Republican support ( especially among the religious right), has grown exponentially.  But, as I have noted above and in earlier blogs, Jews provide votes and campaign donations. If trends play-out, diminishing support for Israel within the American Jewish community will eventually translate to less sympathy for the Jewish state in Congress, regardless of political affiliation.

Despite Trump and Netanyahu’s respective efforts to the contrary, it remains unlikely that  strong negative attitudes towards both leaders will diminish among American Jews, especially the under forty, non-Orthodox segment of that population. That’s why I am so concerned for Israel’s future. I have always contended that the best protection for Israel is a safe and secure America. If, in fact, the present administration does significant damage to the American economy, the climate, and international security, then Israel–a country that is moving in a less democratic, more apartheid-like direction–will be less safe, more threatened and searching for new friends and alliances that can replace a weakened, perhaps less-friendly America. Will the Enablers among us provide a pathway to safety for the Jewish State? History would bet against it. What is to be done?

It has been and remains my contention that only in an environment of American strength and security (and by that I mean more than the military variety), can Israel survive and prosper. The United States is the Jewish State’s primary (and sometimes only) friend and ally; without maintaining that relationship, she will be in trouble, especially over the long term.

Today, Israel’s political leadership, along with a majority of Israeli citizens, have decided that the path to attain security and prosperity is to adopt a hard-line, increasingly non-democratic path of action that has been endorsed by Trump and his Enablers. Unfortunately, too many American Jews have also decided that in the name of promoting   Israel’s security,  they are willing to forsake many of their own core values as Jews and as Americans.  Judaism values justice and compassion; this Trumpian segment of American Jewry shares a skewed perception of an Israel that they believe can flourish in a domestic environment that too often ignores injustice, intolerance and racism. For them, if a two state solution (i.e. a Palestinian state co-existing with a Jewish state), to the Israeli-Palestinian problem is abandoned in favor of a non-democratic, apartheid-like unitary state under sole Israeli (i.e. Jewish) control, it’s ok so long as it maintains American support. They have become willing Enablers of the policies of the Trump administration. Ironically, the People of the Book readily assist a man who proudly proclaims he has rarely read one.

Unfortunately, there are also those (and I am referring  to a small but influential segment of American Jewry), who publicly assert that it is Trump’s “strong” support for Israel that has earned their endorsement; they then use this argument to hide their real concerns: economics and/or race.  Many are relatively wealthy; many are uncomfortable with America’s liberal racial attitudes. Israel and Trump have become the perfect public excuse for helping enable the policies and practices of this administration. Sadly, such individuals may provide the dollars, rhetoric and access, but have diminished their Jewish values in the process.

Before we proceed to a Reality Check in this country, a brief look at the Israeli political scene is important in understanding the context in which all this plays out.

Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu is Israel’s longest serving Prime Minister. He leads a coalition government that is Orthodox in religiosity and intensely right-wing politically. Its support for a two-state solution is waning and Bibi plays Trump masterfully in securing basically everything he wants from the United States. The two countries’ foreign policies are largely in alignment, their economies are doing well, and Trump is in the high 70%-80% level in popularity among Jewish Israelis. But, both governments contain office-holders charged with corruption below and at the highest levels; they, in turn, preside over restive populations that are not afraid to vigorously express their dissent, especially when it comes to arguing core values.

Israel, in the past, has prided itself on  being labeled a “chaotic,” highly charged democracy.  People express their multiple opinions on issues, argue heatedly, and  generally adopt decisions guided by democratic and Jewish values. Today, that’s what is being put to the test.

And in the United States….