Donald Trump and Achashveirosh: Thoughts Pre-Purim 5776

With the hysteria surrounding the sudden, seemingly inexplicable rise of Donald Trump, many left-leaning-liberals have sought to compare Trump to Hitler, the rise of the Nazis, or both Hitler and the Nazis (or Mussolini). In religious terms, there's a hysterical fear that Trump is Haman.
I don't see it. I find it hard to imagine that a man with an Orthodox Jewish daughter who he calls his "right hand man" is suddenly worse than Hitler. I also don't think that the knee-jerk hysteria really helps anyone, but that's another matter entirely.
If I were to compare Donald Trump to any figure in Megillat Esther, I'd have to say that Trump is King Achashveirosh. Consider the following:

• When confronted with a new, challenging situation which might possibly complicate matters politically (i.e. his wife refuses to attend his party, representing a slight to the king), Achashveirosh calls together his advisers, listens to their points of view, and makes a decision to go with the most logical position. Donald Trump to this point has been amazingly vague about what he'd do in different challenging situations, but he's basically said, "Look, I'll have a bunch of smart guys, and they'll give me the options, and I'll make a decision." Sound familiar?
• When Achashveirosh didn't like his wife's behavior, he got rid of her and found himself a new, younger wife. Sound familiar?



Gold Plated Accouterments on the Trump Jet

• Achashveirosh makes a big show of his supposed wealth, inviting guests to lavish parties with incredible gold goblets and tapestries of fine fabrics. While Donald Trump doesn't invite us regular folk to any of his parties, he has no problem giving the world a tour of the gold-plated seat belts on his personal jet with the world via YouTube.

This only begs the question: If Trump is Achashveirosh, what sort of character was the Persian king: Good for the Jews, bad for the Jews, or somewhere in between? As with all political analysis, it's impossible to know. Yet, I would like to suggest an interpretation based on a comment of the Vilna Gaon in the third chapter of Esther.

Fed up with Mordechai's refusal to subjugate himself and fueled by insane, anti-Semitic hatred and rage, Haman decides that the best course of action is to commit genocide, and wipe out the Jews. So he approaches the king and asks for permission to carry out his plan. Yet, when we look carefully at the language of the text, we find that he says one thing to the king, and writes something quite different in the edict he publishes to the world.

וַיֹּאמֶר הָמָן, לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ--יֶשְׁנוֹ עַם-אֶחָד מְפֻזָּר וּמְפֹרָד בֵּין הָעַמִּים, בְּכֹל מְדִינוֹת מַלְכוּתֶךָ; וְדָתֵיהֶם שֹׁנוֹת מִכָּל-עָם, וְאֶת-דָּתֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֵינָם עֹשִׂים, וְלַמֶּלֶךְ אֵין-שֹׁוֶה, לְהַנִּיחָם

אִם-עַל-הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב, יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם; וַעֲשֶׂרֶת אֲלָפִים כִּכַּר-כֶּסֶף, אֶשְׁקוֹל עַל-יְדֵי עֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה, לְהָבִיא, אֶל-גִּנְזֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ

And Haman said unto king Ahasuerus: 'There is a certain people scattered abroad and dispersed among the peoples in all the provinces of thy kingdom; and their laws are diverse from those of every people; neither keep they the king's laws; therefore it profits not the king to suffer them. If it please the king, let it be written that they be destroyed; and I will pay ten thousand talents of silver into the hands of those that have the charge of the king's business, to bring it into the king's treasuries.' (Esther 3:-9)

When Haman approaches Achashveirosh with his request to destroy the Jewish people, he describes the dispersed, unpatriotic nature of the people, he says that, אם על המלך טוב ייכתב לאבדם - which we translate to mean "If it please the king, let is be written that they be destroyed." While we know the full meaning of the word לאבדם - as he immediately sends out letters להשמיד להרג ולאבד את כל היהודים מנער ועד זקן - "tto destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women on one day...", it is quite possible that Achashveirosh himself didn't understand his request in that manner. While לאבד means to "make lost" a nation, perhaps he understood the request in terms of their assimilation into the larger culture. After all, what king would want the nightmare of mass casualties and battles in the streets? Recent history has shown us that when you unleash unrest, you don't really know where things will lead.

This question takes on greater import especially in light of Achashveirosh's vitriolic protests at the second party, when Esther begs for her life and the life of her people. The king seemingly has no idea what she's talking about, wondering: מי הוא זה ואיזה הוא - "who and where is the person that would do such a thing?!" (Esther 7:5) I always assumed that the king is simply bluffing, pretending not to know what she's talking about. But is it at all possible that he really didn't know precisely what Haman was planning, and the scope of his wickedness?

This is especially interesting to me in light of the commentary of the Gr"a on this section, and especially the strange pesukim at the end of the section (3:14-15). The Vilna Gaon writes that Haman didn't publicize his full plans for fear that the Jews would exert political pressure to avert the decree. Is it possible that Achashveirosh - like many political leaders - said to Haman: "Do what you want. I don't want to know the details." And that he really didn't know - putting him in a very different light than we normally see him.

According to this interpretation, Achashveirosh isn't bumbling. Nor is he wicked, although "making lost" an entire people doesn't sound so great. (But at least it's not genocide.) He's a shrewd political operator, manipulating people to achieve his personal goals, accrue power, and solidify his control over his kingdom.

Maybe that's what make people so nervous. It isn't that Trump himself is wicked, per se. Rather, it's all about the "Art of the Deal." Everything is negotiable. There's no way of knowing what deal he'd strike. That, in a world leader, is a frightening prospect indeed.

President Obama's Un-Presidential Bucket List

At the recent White House correspondents' dinner, President Obama joked about the fact that because he's in the "fourth quarter" of his presidency, people are asking whether he has a "bucket list". According to "The Hill",

"Obama mocked critics of his recent unilateral moves, saying he maintains "something that rhymes with 'bucket list."
"Executive action on immigration? Bucket," Obama said to laughs. "New climate regulations? Bucket. It's the right thing to do.

Essentially, the President of the United States used a subtle rhyme to allude to a crude four-letter term, allowing him essentially to curse without cursing.
It was funny and clever. But it was also inappropriate.
This isn't the first time members of the Obama White House have resorted to profanity to make their point. Late last year, Jeffrey Goldberg famously quoted a senior administration member calling Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu a chicken#$@!. Whether you agree with the administration's position or not, use of profanity - and even the allusion to profanity - is unbecoming of a head of state, and reflects badly not only on the individual who makes the comment, but on the people he or she represents. Do we really want to see members of Congress cursing (using veiled references, of course) at each-other, or at the President when they disagree?
Many Americans may indeed speak this way in their private lives, and we certainly hear plenty of profanity in the media. But there has always been a higher standard of discourse in the public sphere. This latest example of presidential license does not bode well for respectful and courteous discourse in the future.
This isn't to suggest that politician have to like or agree with each other. Far from it. Yet we can and should expect them to creatively and cleverly insult one-another without having to resort to vulgarity. The President - and his writers - could have, and should have, left this joke off the speech.

Non-Essential Employees

Imagine writing the following email to your boss:

Dear Boss,
Having noticed that the offices experiencing budgetary challenges, I have come to recognize that I don't need to work over the next several days. I reviewed my job position and responsibilities, and have concluded that my tasks are not really essential to the proper functioning of the office. So, I will be taking unpaid leave for an unspecified amount of time. See you when I get back!
Fondly,
Your Employee

Odds that your job would be there when you return? Minimal. After all, if you yourself don't think that your job is essential, how do you think that your boss should feel?
Now imagine receiving the following note:

Dear Employee,
Having reviewed our budget, we now recognize that we must temporarily suspend all employees that we consider non-essential. After studying your job position, we have determined that your job does not fit the "essential" description. We will let you know when economic conditions improve, and ask you to return to the office at that time.
Sincerely,
Your Boss

I wonder: How would I feel if I received such a message? How would I take it to know that what I did was "not-essential"? It can't be a great feeling.
Isn't that just what the United States government is saying to eight hundred thousand of its employees?

Meet Herman Cain

On this week's Fox News Sunday, Herman Cain, who just announced that he's running for the Republican primary for President, was asked by host Chris Wallace on whether he would offer the Palestinians anything in negotiations for peace, Cain bluntly answered: "Nothing."
"I’m not convinced the Palestinians are really interested in peace. If the Palestinians come to the table with Israel, with a genuine offer, that the two of them can sit down and negotiate, the United States would in fact try to facilitate that discussion," said Cain.
"But if we look at history, it has been clear that the Palestinians have always wanted to push the Israelis and push Israel for more and more and more."
(Note to Cain - check the facts on the Right of Return. Oops.)
Will Cain win? Who knows? (You really can't tell anything about American politics anymore.) But his rhetoric certainly helps the discussion.
I'm not a Barack Obama hater. I really do think that he wants to do what's best for Israel, and help Israel achieve a peace agreement. He's really been on the forefront of sanctions against Iran, funding Israeli defense - very strong indeed. But trying to push Israel into a corner only emboldens the Palestinians to expect ever greater concessions - which they won't get, and only further delays the possibility of peace. Tell them that they get nothing, and then maybe they'll be willing to make the concessions necessary to get a deal done.

I Thanked My Congressman. Have You?

I'm a big, big AIPAC supporter. Even before I moved to Israel, I got involved in AIPAC, attending the policy conference in Washington, local event in Michigan, and even bringing in AIPAC representatives to our shul for a small event. I really came to the conclusion that one of the best ways American Jews can support the Jewish State is by getting involved in the legislative process. Simply put, United State's support for Israel provides crucial backing to the Jewish State, both in financial terms, but also in the international community. Putting our energy into ensuring that the US government continues to support Israel is a great investment of time and energy.
This week, seventy five percent of the US House of representatives signed a letter encouraging the US to stand behind Israel's right to self-defense. Without a doubt, the UN is eventually going to get around to criticizing Israel for its commandos acts of self-defense on the "Peace Flotilla" ship. The letter from Congress to President Obama demonstrates the strong support that Israel has across the country, and how important it is for the US to stand behind Israel's right to self-defense.
My congressman, Rep. Sander Levin, signed the letter. I know, because I checked. And I also don't believe that because he's Jewish, we should take it for granted that he's going to sign these types of letters, and make Israel a priority. So I called to thank him. No, I didn't speak to him - but I did leave him a message.
It was pretty easy. I looked up the phone number in Washington on his web site, and asked for the name of the legislative assistant for foreign affairs. Turns out that her name is Erin Hughes. I asked to speak to Erin, and explained to her that I'm a constituent of the Congressman living in Israel (which surprised her) and that I wanted to thank him for signing the letter. She clearly appreciated the call, and told me that she'd convey the message.
That was it. Not a big deal. Took about five minutes. But it is a big deal, especially if enough people do it.
I thanked my Congressman. Have you?

A Wacky Video about Chanukah

Little did I know that Senator Orren Hatch of Utah (Mormon) was such a big fan of Chanukah. He apparently has written a Chanukah song that was recorded in New York (sung by a Syrian-American singer). I'll reserve judgment on the song; I just love the idea that the Senator wrote it. Also, check out his necklace on the video.
It's also worthwhile to note Jeffrey Goldberg's comments about Chanukah in the article about the song. He writes,

Hatch said he hoped his song would be understood not only as a gift to the Jewish people but that it would help bring secular Jews to a better understanding of their own holiday. “I know a lot of Jewish people that don’t know what Hanukkah means,” he said. Jewish people, he said, should “take a look at it and realize the miracle that’s being commemorated here. It’s more than a miracle; it’s the solidification of the Jewish people.”
He’s right. Without Judah Maccabee’s militant intervention in 167 BCE, the Syrian program of forced Hellenization might have brought about a premature end to the Jewish story. But, for such a pivotal figure, Judah Maccabee is one of the more misunderstood leaders in Jewish history. He was not, for one thing, a paragon of tolerance. One of contradictions of Hanukkah—an unexplored contradiction in our culture’s anodyne understanding of the holiday—is that the Maccabee brothers were fighting not for the principle of religious freedom but only for their own particular religion’s freedom. Their understanding of liberty did not extend even—or especially—to the Hellenized Jews of Israel’s coastal plains. The Maccabees were rough Jews from the hill country of Judea. They would be amused, if they were capable of amusement, to learn that their revolt would one day be remembered as a struggle for a universal civil right.

On the one hand, it's a tragedy that a Mormon Senator from Utah is teaching Jews about the religious and spiritual nature of Chanukah. But it's also incredible - and truly American phenomenon. I emailed Hatch, thanking him for not the song so much, but his continued support for Israel. (He's a co-sponsor of pending legislation for tougher sanctions on Iran. Very important stuff.) Enjoy the song - or at least what it represents. And then go and teach your children an authentic Chanukah song.

Right-Wing Reactionism: Why Can't We Be Civil?

It's hard to be a right-winger nowadays.
Yes, I find the recent pressure that the Obama administration has been putting on Israel very upsetting. If you've been reading this blog, you'll know that I think that lumping all settlements together denies realities on the ground. You cannot compare huge cities with thousands of residents to trailer parks surrounding a mound of dirt. And I really don't agree with the notion that Israel has to make concessions while the Palestinians sits idly by waiting for Obama to pressure Bibi to hand over the keys to the kingdom.
But right-wingers are just nuts.
Yesterday I noticed on Hirhurim an ad for a protest that was to take place in Yerushalayim yesterday afternoon. It just so happens that we were planning on being in town to meet someone for dinner anyway, so for a brief moment, Rena and I considered bringing the kids to the protest. I'm really glad that we didn't, especially after I saw the article about the protest i the Jerusalem Post.
I certainly respect and agree with the opinion of Rabbi Shalom Gold, who said,

"Mr. Obama, we started demonstrating 16 years ago," said Rabbi Shalom Gold, the founder of Kehillat Zichron Ya'acov in Jerusalem's Har Nof neighborhood, alluding to the early days of the Oslo Accords. "You were in your '30s and you probably didn't know the first thing about Eretz Yisrael... but we're part of God's divine plan, we're here and we're staying here!"

But the protest itself, and the imagery portaying Obama as anti-semitic and anti-Israel, are just over the top.

The Jewish National Front, which is backing the protests, said in a statement: "We decided to launch a campaign against the president of the United States and to say that Barack Hussein Obama is bad for the Jews."
"From the moment that he entered the White House, we have been feeling anti-Semitism and hatred toward Israel."

Really now? Anti-semitism? Do you know how many Jews serve in Obama's administration? You might not like or agree with Rahm Emanuel. But he's pretty Jewish. Very Jewish. Oh, and hatred towards Israel? Every time someone says something you don't like, all of the sudden he's a Jew-and-Israel-Hater?
And then I read this article, about people sending hate mail to officers of the IDF.
These types of displays do nothing for those who seriously disagree with the change in American policy. They allow those who disagree with us to deligitimize us as "crazies" who will stop at nothing to achieve their goals. They feed into the worst stereotypes of "settler youth" and right-wing activists. And if they don't stop their hateful and bigoted rhetoric, they'll soon find that they themselves their own worst enemies.
Just to be clear: Mr. Obama, I believe that you are a friend of Israel, and abhor those who would call you anti-Semitic. I thank you for your support of Israel, and respect your desire to promote goodwill throughout the Middle East. I also find your desire for even-handedness and honesty refreshing.
In that spirit, I invite you to see the truth about the settlements you demand halt all construction. While our Arab neighbors certainly don't like them, they are not the obstacle to peace. Until all moderate Arab nations overcome their instinctive hatred of Israel and accept our right to be here, in God's promised land permanently, speaking of peace deals, concessions and the like seems incredibly naive. Furthermore, your view of Arab demands and expectations seems especially shortsighted from this side of the Atlantic Ocean.
Is it really so hard to disagree with civility?