RUTHFULLY YOURS

Professor of Jewish History Yosef Yerushalmi observed that “Zakhor!” “Remember” is enjoined in the Bible 169 times.

Tragically, the behavior of most Jewish leaders reveals that they remember nothing of relevance to a Jewish future. They have forgotten that modern Zionism arose in response to an anti-Semitism that showed itself impervious to the so-called European “Enlightenment.” They have forgotten that it soon became apparent that only Palestine, the ancient homeland of the Jews, could provide the motivation for even secular Jews to make the sacrifices necessary to achieve a state. They have forgotten how prescient the early Zionists were, for their worst forebodings were realized: millions died for lack of the state that could have offered them refuge from their murderers. They have forgotten how, in the wake of the UN’s vote for partition, the reborn state of Israel held on against what seemed impossible odds and went on to create a vibrant, free, prosperous, innovative state in a region mired in chaos and despair. They have forgotten that an umbilical cord attaches them to Israel. They have forgotten—if they ever knew–the extent to which their standing in the United States depends on Israel’s existence, and how vulnerable they will be if Jews once again become a people without a land.

In the early 1970s, historian and rabbi Arthur Hertzberg, as President of the American Jewish Congress, anticipated some of this “forgetting.” He believed that Israel would soon achieve peace with its neighbors and at that point the divergence of Israel’s interests from those of diaspora Jews would become obvious and Israel would lose much of its salience for Jews abroad. Hertzberg did not foresee what has in fact happened: that far from reconciling themselves to Israel’s existence, Arabs would spearhead an increasingly successful world-wide movement to delegitimize her. Nor did he foresee that a plethora of Jewish organizations would emerge, not simply indifferent to Israel but actively hostile to her interests (J Street, Jewish Voices for Peace, Ameinu, the New Israel Fund among others). Nor did he foresee that for the most part mainstream Jewish organizations would transfer their enthusiasm to a variety of trendy left-wing causes, from climate change to gay rights to abortion to gun control, with Israel a distant fifth or sixth on the agenda, if that.

Take the Anti-Defamation League, the organization originally established to fight anti-Semitism. Jonathan Bronitsky has written an informative report on the ADL from the “inside.” Selected to participate in the ADL’s Glass Leadership Institute, a ten month program for a select group of young professionals to be closely involved in the organization, he was unsettled to discover that “the ADL has dedicated itself more and more to matters of social justice in America (e.g. immigration, women’s reproductive health, economic privilege)…[to] advance political agendas that have nothing to do with defending the Jewish people.” When he merely raised questions, says Bronitsky, “the wrath that I encountered, time and time again, was stunning. Are upper middle class, highly educated American Jews so isolated from non-liberal thoughts that even the slightest contestation of their most firmly held beliefs is enough to trigger landslides of emotional chaos?” Bronitzky found the intellectual dishonesty, the pretense that the organization did not tout the Democratic party agenda, particularly disheartening. “It is difficult to convey just how intellectually insulting, how patronizing it was to be told by winking staff members that their organization is nonpartisan.”

The ADL, like most Jewish organizations, is willfully blind to the growing distancing of the Democratic Party, as it marches left, from Israel and Jews. The favorite among Democrats to head the Democratic National Committee has been Keith Ellison, for many years an acolyte of Louis Farrakhan, of “Judaism is a gutter religion” fame. Interestingly it was not Ellison’s hostility to Israel that bothered ADL head Jonathan Greenblatt (who initially supported him). It was Ellison’s suggestion in a 2010 speech (that belatedly came to light) that Jews dictated American Mideast policy that Greenblatt found “disqualifying”—anti-Semitism focused directly on American Jews struck too close to home.

Donald Trump is hated by liberal Democrats because, among other things, he is likely to reverse the entire Obama project. And, far worse, he probably will seek fundamental ways of obstructing its future resurgence — even perhaps by peeling off traditional Democratic constituencies.

The proverbial mainstream media despise Trump. Culturally, he has become a totem of their fears: coarseness, ostentatiousness, flamboyance, and the equation of big money with taste and success. His new approach to the media may make them irrelevant, and they fear their downfall could be well earned.

The Republican Washington–to–New York establishment is alienated by Trump. It finds his behavior reckless and his ideology unpredictable — especially given his cruel destruction of in-house Republican candidates in the primaries and his past flirtations with liberal ideas and politicians. That he has now brought them more opportunity for conservative political change than any Republican candidate in a century only adds insult to their sense of injury.

Note the common denominator to the all these hostile groups: It is Trump the man, not Trump the avatar of some political movement that they detest. After all, there are no Trump political philosophers. There is no slate of down-ballot Trump ideologues. If Trump were to start a third party, what would be its chief tenets? There is as yet neither a Trump “Contract for America” nor a Trump “First Principles” manifesto.

Nonetheless, from the 2016 campaign and from President-elect Trump’s slated appointments, past interviews, and tweets, we can see a coherent worldview emerging, something different from both orthodox conservativism and liberalism, though certainly Trumpism is far closer to the former than to the latter. Here may be a few outlines of Trumpist thought.

Tradition

Trumpism promotes traditionalism. Trump showcases “Merry Christmas!” because his parents did. He believes in dressing formally and being addressed as Mr. Trump. And he insists that his children be well-behaved and polite.

You might object that Trump is thrice-married, Petronian in his tastes, and ethically sloppy or worse in his own business dealings. No matter: Trump seeks a return to normalcy all the more. His personal excesses apparently spur his impulses for traditional norms.

Perhaps Trump is like many Baby Boomers as they enter their final decades: They look back at their parents and grandparents, and wonder how they put up with their offspring — and see how far this generation has fallen short of their forebears’ ideals, which in turn sparks a desire for a return to normalcy in the wayward. Deists were believers in the abstract who otherwise shunned a living Christianity yet thought that active religion had social value for others. Similarly, Trump is a non-practicing moralist who believes traditional morality can restore structure and guidance to society.

So Trump is foul-mouthed but wants a return of decorum; he has been conniving but thinks his own recklessness is not necessarily a model for the nation.

Friday night, during her last show on Fox News, Megyn Kelly asked former House Intelligence Committee Chairman Pete Hoekstra whether he accepted the conclusion by 17 intelligence agencies in a recently released declassified report that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election and that this interference came at the direction of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Hoekstra gave an answer Kelly did not anticipate. He noted that the declassified report represents the views of only three intelligence agencies, not seventeen. Hoekstra also questioned why the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) did not co-author or clear the report and why it lacked dissenting views.

The declassified report issued on January 6 is an abridged version of a longer report ordered by President Obama that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a campaign to undermine the 2016 president election, hurt Hillary’s candidacy and promote Donald Trump through cyber warfare, social media and the state-owned Russia cable channel RT. Although the report’s authors said they have high confidence in most of these conclusions, they were unable to include any evidence for classification reasons.

As someone who worked in the intelligence field for 25 years, I share Congressman Hoekstra’s concerns about Friday’s declassified Russia report and a similar Joint DHS and ODNI Election Security Statement released by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and DHS on October 7, 2016.

I also suspect the entire purpose of this report and its timing was to provide President Obama with a supposedly objective intelligence report on Russian interference in the 2016 election that the president could release before he left office to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s election.

I am concerned both intelligence assessments were rigged for political purposes.

You may remember when Hillary Clinton claimed during the final presidential debate on October 19 that based on the October 7 ODNI/DHS statement, all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had determined the WikiLeaks disclosures of Democratic emails were an effort by Russia to interfere with the election.

Clinton’s remark was not accurate. Although the October memo said “the U.S. Intelligence Community” was confident that the Russian government was behind the alleged hacking, the October memo was drafted by only two intelligence organizations – ODNI and DHS.

Since it came out only a month before the presidential election and was co-authored by only two intelligence agencies, the October memo looked like a clumsy attempt by the Obama White House to produce a document to boost Clinton’s reelection chances. Its argumentation was very weak since it said the alleged hacking of Democratic emails was “consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts” but did not say there was any evidence of Russian involvement.

Fighting Islamophobia is trendy. But it also often becomes a means of enabling and expressing hatred toward others. Especially Jews. It doesn’t take much digging into campaigns against Islamophobia to find the anti-Semitism lurking underneath the bright lights and polished logos.

The Ford Foundation, which in its time had played a key role in the anti-Semitic Durban hatefest, hosted a forum titled, “Confronting Islamophobia in America Today.” Participants included Linda Sarsour, who had promoted the anti-Semitic Muslim practice of throwing rocks at Jews and appeared at a rally for a pro-Hezbollah organization, along with Imam Talib Abdur-Rashid, who had defended Ahmadinejad’s call for destroying Israel and described such a proposed atrocity as a sentiment born of “legitimate anger.”

Why was the Ford Foundation privileging the persecution fantasies of Islamist bigots who believe that plotting the genocide of millions of Jews is somehow rooted in “legitimate anger”?

The loudest voices inveighing against Islamophobia often justify Islamic terrorism, explicitly or implicitly, even while they whine that being associated with Islamic terrorism is a form of Islamophobia. Indeed the campaign against Islamophobia has, among its agendas, the legitimization of Islamic terrorism.

If Islamic terrorism, and its underlying supremacist hatred of Jews, can’t be discussed, then it also can’t be condemned. And, in a perverse twist, Islamic terrorists then become the victims of Islamophobia.

The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has been fundraising aggressively for its “Islamophobia Project”. The FCIR is the work of Trevor Aaronson who had attempted to dismiss anti-Semitic Muslim terror plots against synagogues as an FBI conspiracy.

The FCIR’s Islamophobia Project is run by Trevor and Roqayah Chamseddine.

President Obama once said that as President he aspired to be the progressive Ronald Reagan, and as he prepares to leave office he has succeeded in fundamental if ironic ways.

While Reagan left behind a calmer, more optimistic country, Mr. Obama leaves a more divided and rancorous one. While the Gipper helped elect a successor to extend his legacy, Mr. Obama will be succeeded by a man who campaigned to repudiate the President’s agenda. Barack Obama has been a historic President but perhaps not a consequential one.
***

Mr. Obama was always going to be a historic President by dint of his election as the first African-American to hold the office. His victory affirmed the American ideal that anyone can aspire and win political power. This affirmation was all the better because Mr. Obama won in large part thanks to his cool temperament amid the financial crisis and his considerable personal talents.

Yet his Presidency has been a disappointment at home and abroad, a fact ironically underscored by Mr. Obama’s relentless insistence that he has been a success. In his many farewell interviews, he has laid out what he regards as his main achievements: reviving the economy after the Great Recession, a giant step toward national health care, new domestic regulations and a global pact to combat climate change, the Iran nuclear deal, and a world where America is merely one nation among many others in settling global disputes rather than promoting its democratic values.

Even on their own terms those achievements look evanescent. Congress has teed up ObamaCare for repeal, and Donald Trump will erase the climate rules. The global climate pact is built on promises without enforcement, and Mr. Trump ran against and won in part on the slow economic recovery. Authoritarians are on the march around the world as they haven’t been since the 1970s, and perhaps the 1930s.