Lessons from Destruction: Efraim Inbar, Israel Hayom, Aug. 1, 2017 — Tisha B'Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, commemorates the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E.
Tisha Be’av Lessons: Editorial, Jerusalem Post, July 31, 2017— During the long centuries of exile, Tisha Be’av’s focus was loss.
Sorry: Trump’s Excesses Don’t Normalize Obama’s: Karol Markowicz, New York Post, July 31, 2017— Last week, President Trump tweeted that the US government “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US military.” The tweet caused a predictable uproar.
Trump’s High-Stakes Tweeting: Victor Davis Hanson, American Greatness, July 2, 2017— Trump’s strongest supporters are sometimes the most anxious critics of his tweeting
The 9th Day of Av Guide for the Perplexed (August 1, 2017): Yoram Ettinger, Ettinger Report, July 27, 2017
In Record, Over 1,300 Jews Visit Temple Mount to Commemorate Destroyed Temples: Times of Israel, August 1, 2017
Trump is Finally Getting his White House in Order: Michael Goodwin, New York Post, July 31, 2017
Donald Trump Struck a Righteous Blow Against Universalism: David French, National Review, July 7, 2017
Efraim Inbar
Israel Hayom, Aug. 1, 2017
Tisha B'Av, the ninth day of the Hebrew month of Av, commemorates the destruction of the First Temple in Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE and the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 C.E. Other calamities that befell the Jewish people are also remembered on this day. The Temple was a religious center, but it also symbolized Jewish statehood. In the distant past, the Jewish state was surrounded by a world of idolatry that was not averse to human sacrifices. It seems that 2,000 years later, the region has not progressed much and the descendants of the barbaric idol worshippers are still with us.
Unfortunately, the contemporary Jewish state is an island of biblical-based Western values surrounded by deadly fanaticism expressed by the jihadist phenomenon. The Islamic State group is being defeated, but its poisonous ideology remains around us for the foreseeable future. Imperialist Persia, today Iran, looks as threatening as it did in the past — this time armed with a jihadist ideology intent on destroying the Jewish state.
On Tisha B'Av, any Jew with a sense of history cannot escape a profound feeling of vulnerability. The Jewish people lost their state twice and went into a long exile. The history of the Jewish existence outside the homeland is characterized by immense devotion to the survival of the Jewish people, often in a hostile environment that inflicted great suffering on Jews more than once.
In the 20th century, the Jews miraculously and against all odds resurrected the Jewish state. The Zionist enterprise turned into a great success story due to the courage, audacity, hard work and incredible talent of contemporary Jews. The 2,000-year-old prayer "Next Year in Jerusalem" was answered. But Israel's military might and its prosperous economy should not obscure the fact that Israel is a small state living in a very bad neighborhood. The existence of small states is always fragile, as the past Jewish political experience clearly demonstrates.
While theological accounts of the Temples' destruction contain useful insights, political analysis of the events leading to the loss of statehood is relevant to Israel's current predicament. The Kingdom of Judea made a critical mistake in its foreign policy orientation, siding with Egypt, a superpower at that time. This miscalculation put Jerusalem in conflict with the rising superpower of Babylon. The price of this strategic blunder is well known. The political leadership of the Jewish state before the destruction of the Second Temple also made a bad strategic choice, rebelling against the mighty Roman Empire. The Jewish freedom fighters were crushed and Jerusalem was burned. Sixty years later, the flame of rebellion was reignited with even more tragic results.
It is difficult to draw clear historic parallels, but several lessons from the past are relevant today. The correct reading of the international arena is an imperative for decision-makers, particularly for those of a small state such as Israel. Identifying trends in the international system is not only an academic endeavor, but critical for Israel's future. Zionist diplomacy from the very beginning tried to enlist a big power to support Jewish national aspirations. Israel succeeded in becoming an American ally. In the near future, there is no replacement for Washington and this relationship must be nourished carefully.
Errors in judgment are more fateful for small states than for big powers. Small states have narrower margins of security. This dictates much caution. The realpolitik paradigm in international relations extols the virtue of prudence. Indeed, Israel's leaders should be prudent in their decision-making. Risk aversion is probably a good rule of thumb. This does not mean that apprehensions about an escalation or the need to use force eventually should have a paralyzing effect on national policy. Determination to follow a course of action chosen even when facing difficulties is a must where hesitations are construed as feebleness. Moreover, the occasional readiness to employ force and its actual use are needed to create deterrence in a neighborhood where the perception of weakness invites aggression. Manifest toughness should complement caution.
Many in Israel advocate bold decisions and activism in foreign policy. Such behavior is inherently risky and very problematic in a dynamic environment where change is not necessarily for the better. Doing nothing and waiting patiently for the foes to make mistakes is not necessarily a bad option.
The past teaches us that zealots demanding action can cause great damage. In Israel, we have zealots who ignore the facts of life on the Left and the Right. The peaceniks who advocate withdrawals, even unilaterally, and are enamored with the idea of a Palestinian state, are just as messianic and misguided as the Jewish settlers who are obsessed with building Jewish outposts on every hilltop in Judea and Samaria. This type of impatient activism designed to force a dream upon reality is often irresponsible.
The leaders of Israel, a small state in a hostile environment, were occasionally forced to take risky decisions (including doing nothing). In many cases, its historic gambles were successful. Yet, history — the ninth of Av in particular — is a good reminder of the need to avoid zealotry, act prudently, secure the support of a big power, and use force judiciously.
Editorial
Jerusalem Post, July 31, 2017
During the long centuries of exile, Tisha Be’av’s focus was loss. Jewish communities throughout the Diaspora were united on this day in mourning the end of Jewish sovereignty. With the return of Jews to their land, the central message of the day should shift from remorse for what was to realization that history can repeat itself. Jews lost their sovereignty. There is no surety that this will not happen again.
Saul Bellow expressed this idea in To Jerusalem and Back (1976), “… there is one fact of Jewish life that is unchanged by the creation of the Jewish state: you cannot take your right to live for granted. “Others can, you cannot. This is not to say that everyone else is living pleasantly and well under a decent regime. No, it only means that the Jews, because they are Jews, have never been allowed to take the right to live as a natural right. To be sure many Israelis refuse to admit that this historic uneasiness has not been eliminated. They seem to think of themselves as a fixed power, immovable, their point has been made, they are a nation among nations and will always remain so. You must tear your mind away from this conviction as you must tear it from civilized appearances in order to reach reality.”
Bellow’s intention was to criticize the nations of the world for their constant attempts to delegitimize Israel’s existence. But we can also draw strength from this reality. Acknowledging the fragility of the Zionist project can help us appreciate it all the more. Because we as a people have experienced loss, the return to autonomy is all the more precious. It should not be taken for granted. We must be vigilant.
As the recent upheaval surrounding the Temple Mount demonstrates, Israel continues to face major challenges. Israel’s many enemies will not go away anytime soon. Fifty years of a unified Jerusalem has not convinced the world of Israel’s immovability. It is no coincidence that the place where Jewish sovereignty is most disputed is the very site that symbolizes more than any other Jews’ undeniable ties to this land. Yet, we should not despair. The Jewish people is uniquely positioned to weather the challenges of the 21st century.
Unlike many European nations that seem awash in a morass of multiculturalism as they face waves of immigrants bringing with them radically different cultures, Israel has a strong sense of identity. We are a people with a rich national and religious narrative that ties us to one another and to this particular slab of land in the Middle East. Days like Tisha Be’av – as well as happier times such as Passover and Sukkot and Hanukka – are reminders of our people’s common past and our roots. We are constantly telling and retelling our story to one another and to ourselves and this story is intertwined in the very geography of the land.
At the same time, unlike less liberal societies, we are a people who knows what it is to live as a guest in a foreign land. The ramifications of political powerlessness are intimately – and painfully – familiar to us. The modern version of the biblical command not to oppress the stranger is to be sensitive to the minorities in our midst in Israel because we too were minorities in Spain, Poland, Morocco and Iraq.
Tisha Be’av teaches us of the destructive forces that can lead a once unified nation to turn upon itself. Today we are witness to divisive elections in Europe and the US. In Israel too we are often divided and polarized by our fears, uncertainties and anxieties. Whether it be the controversy over metal detectors at the entrances to the Temple Mount or the Nation-State Bill, religionization in the schools or solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we are a deeply divided nation. We should not, however, allow our many legitimate and heartfelt differences of opinion prevent mutual respect and cooperation.
As Rabbi Jonathan Sacks noted in a recent TED talk, “the only people that will save us from ourselves is we, the people – all of us together.” No strong leader will do the job for us, not even a messiah. This necessitates moving from a politics of me or of a particular group to a politics of “all of us together.” On Tisha Be’av we are reminded what is at stake if we fail in this endeavor.
SORRY: TRUMP’S EXCESSES DON’T NORMALIZE OBAMA’S
Karol Markowicz
New York Post, July 31, 2017
Last week, President Trump tweeted that the US government “will not accept or allow transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the US military.” The tweet caused a predictable uproar. Liberal politicians and organizations tripped over themselves to condemn the move. What’s interesting about it, though, is the total silence about transgender people serving in our military during Barack Obama’s presidency. It actually wasn’t until July 2016, just last year and a full 7 ¹/₂ years into the administration, that transgender people were allowed to serve openly. Where was the outrage? Where was Elizabeth Warren calling it “shameful” or the Southern Poverty Law Center calling the policy “disgraceful”?
But pointing out hypocrisy like this is frowned up these days as some kind of anti-anti-Trumpism or so-called “whataboutism.” “Whataboutism” was a classic Soviet deflection mechanism. Sure, we have no bread, but have you seen how racist America is? Current usage in US politics, however, is usually to squash legitimate criticism of Obama. The targets of the accusation of engaging in whataboutism are simply trying to see the Trump administration and its predecessor with clear eyes instead of rah-rah tribalism. Obama supporters are so invested in preserving the fiction that his presidency was “scandal-free” and cool under fire that their lack of introspection only serves to weaken their attacks on Trump. Whataboutism isn’t propaganda; critics are merely trying to hold Obama accountable.
When Trump spoke to the Boy Scouts last week, many were shocked by his partsian speech. Yet a few years ago when Vice President Joe Biden spoke to fifth graders at Oaksted Elementary School and peppered his speech with comments on the “God awful recession,” “third party validators” and “upside down mortgages,” few in the media paid attention. In fact, the visit was covered as any other staid stop a veep would make. Where were the cries of inappropriateness?
Health care is another example. The vote on ObamaCare was held in the Senate at 1 a.m. on Christmas Eve. And last month Nancy Pelosi tweeted that “Americans deserve to know what’s in the [GOP] bill.” Yet in 2010, Pelosi famously said that the House had to pass ObamaCare “so that you can find out what is in it.” Cover-of-darkness legislating for me but not for thee. Then there are Trump’s attacks on the media. Sure, Obama didn’t repeatedly brand media that he opposed “fake news” — but what he did was arguably worse. Obama called Fox News “destructive” and ultimately blamed the channel for Hillary Clinton’s election loss. His administration spied on journalist James Rosen, going so far as to baselessly accuse him of espionage and leaking classified information.
In an April New York Times column, “If Donald Trump Targets Journalists, Thank Obama,” investigative reporter James Risen wrote, “Under Mr. Obama, the Justice Department and the F.B.I. have spied on reporters by monitoring their phone records, labeled one journalist an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case for simply doing reporting and issued subpoenas to other reporters to try to force them to reveal their sources and testify in criminal cases.”
Trump may take it too far, but don’t act as if this is the first time a president has lashed out at unfriendly news media. Whataboutism forces the people wearing “Is it fascism yet?” buttons to at least consider the possibility it already was. Politics is rife with hypocrisy, but the fight against pointing out damaging things that happened before the Time of Trump goes beyond that.
Obamaites tell people to hush up about things that will make their side look bad and to focus all attacks in one direction. It’s dishonest and counterproductive. Trump supporters see these attacks as strictly partisan and that makes them more defensive and protective over “their” candidate. It’s a cycle that we should work to break. There are, and will be, plenty of things about the Trump administration that are unprecedented. If Trump critics wish to be taken seriously when they rail against “normalizing” Trump’s behavior, they have to stop calling all criticism “whataboutism” and understand the implications of pretending history began in January.
Victor Davis Hanson
American Greatness, July 2, 2017
Trump’s strongest supporters are sometimes the most anxious critics of his tweeting—not because his is a failing presidency bordering on caricature, but because it is adroitly unwinding the Obama transformation. But why, then, the need to go after failed media has-beens without an audience?
Of course, tweeting commentary and news over the heads of a corrupt Washington media pack is innovative and wise—and to some degree got Trump where he is today by reinventing communications with the public. But burning time ridiculing Arnold Schwarzenegger’s failed “Celebrity Apprentice” gambit or, more recently, the psychodramas and daily inanities of Joe Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski seems a misspent investment of energy.
Yet that said, there are lots of uncertainties about consequences of the latest round of Trump’s seemingly counterproductive tweets, right on the eve of the most important legislative challenges, health care and tax reform, of his young presidency—and at a time when he is regaining momentum, successfully engaging world leaders and issuing executive orders that are overturning the prior eight years of “fundamental transformation” of the country. Is ad hominem tweeting, then, endangering or empowering Trump’s agenda? Or both? Or neither?
Start with the given that there are now regrettably few accepted norms of presidential behavior. Trump’s occasional uncouthness is a symptom, not a catalyst, of the times. Bill Clinton redefined presidential behavior when he had sexual relations with a 22-year-old, unpaid intern (so much for power imbalances as sexual harassment) in the presidential bathroom off the Oval Office, lied about his recklessness to his family and the country, smeared Monica Lewinsky, and then wheeled out to the Rose Garden feminist cabinet officers like Madeline Albright and Donna Shalala to deny and defend his unsavory predatory behavior. After that sordid episode, the apologetic Left lost all credibility as an arbiter of presidential norms.
Indeed, Clinton had brought us into new debased territory. In contrast, George W. Bush for eight years restored honor, integrity, and decorum to the White House. But he was rewarded for exemplary behavior by being branded a Nazi warmonger, as docudrama films and novels appeared imagining his assassination, and even the likes of John Glenn stooped to the Nazi slurs on his character. (“It’s the old Hitler business.”) Out of office, Bush professionally kept quiet and busy as an accomplished artist, as Obama moved the country leftward. For that, Bush was ridiculed by the Left as reduced to a bewildered, paint-by-numbers dabbler.
The emeritus Obama, by contrast, frolics on billionaires’ yachts docked off tropical islands with the mega-rich whom he attacks in Wall Street chats for $10,000 a minute—and takes a day off from his wind surfing to weigh in on Trump’s unfitness. For all that, he remains a progressive icon.
From that brief Bush hiatus, it was a short slide back down to GloZell and Obama’s adoration in the White House of Kendrick Lamar’s “To Pimp a Butterfly” (read some of the “ho’s”, “n—as”, and racist lyrics of that album and cf. the celebration over the corpse of a judge on the cover). In truth, Trump misdemeanors of attacking journalists are acerbated by his transparent over the top rhetoric; Clinton’s felonies were ameliorated by his bite-the-lip, contrived remorse.
Trump, in comic-book fashion, tweets his body slam of CNN; the socialist Bernie Sanders’ wife stands accused of evicting the disabled in what looks to be a real-estate scam by a failed college president. Trump goes after individual washed-up celebrities; Obama indicted an entire people for being lazy, clinging to their guns and religion, intolerant, nativist, and unnecessarily chauvinistic. Take your poison: personal score-settling or mellifluent contempt.
Factored into the Trump’s tweeting controversies are other variables mostly left unsaid by the media: Trump has melted down partisan journalists and left the American progressive media in shambles. It was Obama, not Trump, who established the practice of going after journalists by name, both materially and rhetorically, from surveilling Fox’s James Rosen to using puerile hype to attack Sean Hannity (“You know, I’ll put—I’ll put Mr. Burgess up against Sean Hannity. He’ll tear him up.” [emphasis added]). Obama was angry that a few reporters did not join the cult of Obama worship; Trump is peeved almost no one in the press is disinterested. Trump saw Obama’s precedent, and proverbially trumped it.
CNN is now no longer a news organization, but has been reduced to caricature by Trump hatred. It has been exposed not just as unprofessional and dishonest (firing reporters for fake news reports; apologizing and retracting constant errors of content; producers caught on tape denigrating voters and bragging of their hyper-partisanship and anti-Trumpism), but also has run the gamut from scatology (Anderson Cooper and Reza Aslan) to violence porn (Kathy Griffin, or the jokes about Trump’s plane crashing) to simple fraud (last year’s Donna Brazile revelations).
Sputtering journalists (Jim Rutenberg, Carl Bernstein, Jorge Ramos, Christiane Amanpour.) are exasperated to the point of openly confessing that their craft should give up empirical reporting to deal with Trump, without shame any longer over the partisan propaganda their organizations and colleagues peddle. Those declarations are not a change of course, but a confession of what the media have been doing from the election of Barack Obama. The logical media progression from eerie Obama worship was to creepy Trump hatred.
The Atlantic’s Jeffrey Goldberg recently warned that Trump’s attacks on journalists lowered the bar and put them in danger. He added ominously to his Aspen audience that any violence would be on Trump’s conscience: “And someone, I mean God forbid, someone is going to do something violent against journalists in a large way, and then I know where the fault lies. And we’re heading in this direction, and it’s quite frightening.”…
[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]
The 9th Day of Av Guide for the Perplexed (August 1, 2017): Yoram Ettinger, Ettinger Report, July 27, 2017—According to a legend, Napoleon was walking one night in the streets of Paris, hearing lamentations emanating from a synagogue. When told that the wailing commemorated the 586 BCE destruction of the First Jewish Temple in Jerusalem he stated: “People who solemnize ancient history are destined for a glorious future!”
In Record, Over 1,300 Jews Visit Temple Mount to Commemorate Destroyed Temples: Times of Israel, August 1, 2017—Breaking records, over 1,300 Jews on Tuesday visited the Temple Mount in the Old City of Jerusalem for the Tisha B’av fast commemorating the destruction of the Jewish temples that once stood at the site.
Trump is Finally Getting his White House in Order: Michael Goodwin, New York Post, July 31, 2017—The Mooch comes, the Mooch goes, but the real news, the good news, is that there is now going to be order in the court of Donald Trump.
Donald Trump Struck a Righteous Blow Against Universalism: David French, National Review, July 7, 2017—Before I address the text of Donald Trump’s speech yesterday in Poland, it’s worth pulling up two quotes from our two previous presidents. These quotes, I think, encapsulate the difference between the ideas Trump articulated yesterday and the core ideas of many of his liberal critics.
