Former President Donald Trump’s unprovoked attack on former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is raising serious questions about whether Trump can lead the nation effectively on the world stage if he runs for president again in 2014.
Though he emphasized that he still supported Israel, regardless of his anger toward Netanyahu, Trump said he resented Israel’s former leader for recognizing Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election after the networks called it.
Trump also said that he had not spoken to Netanyahu since then, and implied that if Netanyahu had supported him, other world leaders might have followed, and he would have stood a chance at contesting the election results more effectively.
Essentially, Trump said that Netanyahu ought to have interfered with an American election, and jeopardized his country’s relationship with the United States, in return for the help Trump gave Israel in general and to Netanyahu in particular.
Netanyahu responded without escalating the fight, noting that as Israel’s leader, he had no choice but to congratulate Biden. Left unsaid was that he was worried about the anti-Israel turn of the Democratic Party and could not afford to alienate it.
There is a chance that Trump could win in 2024 — and that Netanyahu could return as prime minister of Israel. That could have been an opportunity for renewed, stronger ties — but Trump has now placed that relationship in an awkward position.
Trump fans are alarmed that he continues to sit down with establishment media outlets and left-leaning reporters, such as Axios’ Barak Ravid, who broke the story of Trump’s attack on Netanyahu.
In the past, such outlets did nothing but attempt to undermine Trump’s presidency, and yet he seemed desperate for coverage by the likes of the New York Times. The fact that the pattern has continued suggests that he has learned little from the experience, despite his opposition to the “fake news.”
Pro-Israel advocates are also worried that Trump, in his recent remarks, seemed to accuse Netanyahu of trying to avoid a peace deal with Palestinians, while crediting Palestinian Authority Mahmoud Abbas for wanting one.
Not only is that statement untrue, but it suggests a future Trump administration could actually be more pro-Palestinian, out of spite.
Several other Republican hopefuls could run in 2024, and Trump has just given them material to make a case against him.
https://www.axios.com/trump-netanyahu-disloyalty-fuck-him-276ac6cc-3f70-4fba-b315-c82a59603e67.html
The story of Noah is familiar; the details, less so.
Noah is often seen as an ambivalent figure. He was righteous -- but only for his generation. What was his deficiency?
One answer suggests itself: knowing that the world was about to be flooded, he built an Ark for the animals and for his own family -- but did not try to save anyone else or to convince them to repent and change their ways (the prophet Jonah, later, would share that reluctance).
Abraham, later, would set himself apart by arguing with God -- with the Lord Himself! -- against the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, saying that they should be saved if there were enough righteous people to be found (there were not).
Still, Noah was good enough -- and sometimes, that really is sufficient to save the world. We don't need heroes every time -- just ordinary decency.
Hi all -- as I noted last month, I'm going to be closing down my Locals page, at least for tips and subscriptions -- I may keep the page up and the posts as well, but I'm no longer going to be accepting any kind of payment.
Look for cancelation in the very near future. Thank you for your support!
An interesting weekend -- one of the last of Daylight Savings Time -- in which there is much to celebrate, much to contemplate, and a bit to worry about.
The Gaza peace deal is shaky, but holding, after the living hostages returned; the shutdown is still going on, with no end in sight; the China trade war is heating up; and the confrontation with Venezuela continues to escalate.
The "No Kings" protest was a dud, despite the media's attempt to inflate it. What I find fascinating is that the Democrats have basically stolen the rhetoric and the imagery of the Tea Party protests, circa 2009. They claim they are defending the Constitution -- just like the Tea Party did.
On the one hand, this is good. How wonderful to have a political system in which both sides, bitterly opposed though they are, articulate differences through the Constitution -- and not, as in so many other countries, outside it.
On the other, this is sheer hypocrisy for the Democrats. Not only did they malign the Tea Party as ...
