As difficult as it is for a Republican like me to acknowledge a Democratic success, and as tough as it is to give credit to Democrats for a "bipartisan" approach to Israel when they have strayed so far into the anti-Israel camp, Biden seems to have placed the US-Israel relationship back on a bipartisan foundation. This is no small achievement, and deserves to be acknowledged.
Back in 2008, I had a public debate with my Harvard Law School professor, Alan Dershowitz, in the pages of the Jerusalem Post, about whether Barack Obama would be good for Israel or not. Dershowitz suggested that Obama could lead the left into the pro-Israel camp; I argued that Obama would do the opposite, given his close association with anti-Israel radicals in the past.
I was right about Obama. But Dershowitz anticipated the path that Biden seems to have taken. It took a Donald Trump in between those two, to place the US-Israel relationship back on the right path and to orient the region toward peace. Biden largely recapitulated Trump's policies on his visit to Israel, with a few perfunctory nods toward Palestinian aspirations, but no concessions.
I still think Biden is a poor president, and I would much rather have seen a second Trump term. But Biden's trip to Israel allowed Democrats to embrace the pro-Israel label. Remarkably, Biden defied the extreme left of his party on Israel, though he is otherwise running the most left-wing administration in U.S. history. He undid much -- not all -- of the damage done by Obama. Very good.
This week’s portion launches the great story of Abraham, who is told to leave everything of his life behind — except his immediate family — and to leave for “the Land that I shall show you.”
There’s something interesting in the fact that Abraham is told to leave his father’s house, as if breaking away from his father’s life — but his father, in fact, began the journey, moving from Ur to Haran (in last week’s portion). His father set a positive example — why should Abraham leave him?
Some obvious answers suggest themselves — adulthood, needing to make one’s own choices, his father not going far enough, etc.
But I think there is another answer. Abraham (known for the moment as Abram) needs to establish his own household. This is not just about making one’s own choice, but really about choosing one’s own starting point. It’s starting over.
Sometimes we start over in fundamental ways even if much that surrounds us remains the same. Sometimes the journey we have to ...
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!
