There's some concern in the Jewish community about the nominations of (now former) Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) and former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) to Attorney General and Director of National Intelligence, respectively.
Gaetz has generally been pro-Israel but has a couple of odd votes in his record. He also brought a guy named Charles Johnson to the State of the Union. I used to know Charles before he drifted to the fringe. Let's say it was an odd decision.
Tulsi is not anti-Israel or antisemitic (at all) but her somewhat isolationist views have placed her in the company of those who are, at times, anti-Israel. I would put that down to being a former left-wing Democrat rather than anything else.
In evaluating these choices, purely on the issues of interest to the Jewish community, I'd say that you have to look first of all at Trump's other nominees, who are all pro-Jewish/Israel (just check out Pete Hegseth at the Pentagon).
Second, I don't think Gaetz or Gabbard have particularly strong views on Israel -- that is, it's not an obsession for them, in the way that the issue is for people who are truly anti- or pro-Israel. They are more concerned about other things.
Third, Tulsi is skeptical of foreign wars and aid. I think this is fine, especially as Israel is in a position to wind down its wars and there is a healthy debate about how it can wean itself from American aid. I'm not concerned about her at all.
My main concern with Gaetz is about his judgment. He waged war against the conservative Speaker of the House for no real purpose. He's put politics and personal interest above a common cause. And he's made lots of enemies.
That's not to say he wouldn't be the right guy for the job at Justice, if the primary purpose of his appointment would be to clean out the anti-Trump "deep state" veterans. But I'm not sure he's the right guy for the rest of it.
So, overall: I'm not worried. I have my doubts about Gaetz as Attorney General but not on the particular issues of interest to Jewish and pro-Israel Americans. I'm more concerned about the general stuff. We'll just see how it all shakes out.
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 ...
