Tag Archives: politics

“Zohran Mamdani Has Many Virtues. But He’s Also a Virulent, Relentless Hater of Israel” – by Rabbi Eric Yoffie    

04 Thursday Sep 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Introductory Note: I am not a New Yorker, but I have been waiting for someone to express the truth about NY’s Democratic mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s true positions about Israel and why his hostility to the State of Israel is so upsetting to me.

My friend and the former President of the Union for Reform Judaism, Rabbi Eric Yoffie, is as astute an observer and moral voice of American Jewish life and Israel as there is in the American Jewish community. He writes semi-frequently on pressing issues facing world Jewry in Israel’s newspaper Haaretz. The following piece appeared today, and I thank Eric for writing it. It ought to be read by every Jewish New Yorker before the election. If you have Jewish friends in New York, please share this with them.            

Sept. 4, 2025

Before and after the election, my plea to the Jewish citizens of New York City is: Use mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s Democratic Party primary victory to educate people about Israel.

Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor, is charming, attractive, bright and a natural politician. Energetic, enormously talented and only thirty-three years old, in the Democratic primary he ran a brilliant campaign.

Is Mamdani too good to be true? Unfortunately, he is.

Despite his many virtues, this attractive, articulate man, with the popular touch and Trumpian feel for politics, is a virulent, relentless anti-Zionist.

Like most New Yorkers, I was profoundly impressed by Mamdani and by his remarkable ability to reach voters of different age groups and ethnicities. I was impressed too by his message: He did not offer platitudes or complicated position papers, but hammered home the point that the cost of living is killing ordinary people. Former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo and his other establishment rivals never had a chance; coming across as stodgy and out-of-touch, they lost to their dynamic younger rival by double digits.

But his beliefs about Israel are clear. Mamdani has expressed them repeatedly, and without equivocation. From his earliest days as a political activist as a student at Bowdoin College, he has declined to say that Israel has a right to exist as a Jewish state. He held this view on the day of the deadly massacres of October 7, and held it just as strongly on October 8.

When he became a candidate for mayor of New York, a city with 1.5 million Jews, Mamdani was obligated to spell out specifically how he would deal with Israel issues. His refusal during the Democratic primary to condemn the use of the phrase “globalize the intifada” drew the most attention. He claimed that the term did no more than express solidarity with the Palestinians, but many Democrats and others, and certainly many Jews, rightly insisted that what it meant was “kill the Jews.”

Responding to the pressure, Mamdani said that he would discourage the use of the phrase but would not denounce it, a tweak that satisfied few of his critics. If the phrase was offensive, why not condemn it outright?

His hostility to Israel was expressed in many other ways as well. He indicated that as mayor, he would implement some form of boycott against Israel, and has advocated an academic boycott of Israel’s universities, consistent with his support of the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. He promised not to visit Israel if elected mayor, breaking a longstanding precedent.

And how have the Jews of New York responded to Mamdani’s statements and threats?

To the surprise of many, most have not seemed overly concerned, or at least less concerned than one might expect. The reasons for this are not entirely clear.

One possibility is that most of New York’s 700,000 Jewish voters, like most other New Yorkers, think it is a foregone conclusion that Mamdani will win, and therefore a “wait-and-see” approach may make sense. After all, his major competitors are New York’s corrupt current mayor, a no-name Republican and a former Democratic governor of New York who has lots of baggage and barely seems to want the job. It would take a near miracle for any of them to beat Mamdani.

Another possibility is that the majority of Jewish New Yorkers – myself included – tend to be left-leaning in their politics, and therefore are sympathetic to Mamdani’s progressive views on domestic politics. It is these issues that have dominated the public discussion until now.

To be sure, attempts have been made to draw away Jewish support from Mamdani by painting him as a domestic radical, if not a raving socialist lunatic. Most Jews are not radicals, and would not support Mamdani if they saw him as the dangerous extremist that his opponents claim he is. Despite what Republicans say, New Yorkers are not clamoring for Lenin; in an economy made unstable by Trump’s tariffs, what they want is to get ahead and support their families, and Mamdani is promising to move them in that direction.

In short, Mamdani is an attractive candidate with an attractive platform. And while Jewish leaders have tried to raise the alarm about his Israel views, it has been difficult, in the quiet summer months to generate interest and concern among the broader Jewish community about this candidate’s relationship to Israel.

This issue is even more fraught in the current moment, as it appeals strongly to young Jews in particular, many of whom are justifiably furious at Israel’s actions in Gaza. These same young Jews often argue that as mayor Mamdani will have no foreign policy role. They therefore resent any effort to criticize their candidate for his Israel views. “Why are we even talking about this?” is a question that is often heard. “This race is about New York, not Israel.”

Are we to conclude from all of this that Mamdani will pay no price for his opposition to a Jewish state?

It is hard to say. There is no denying that Jewish support for Israel has declined as the war in Gaza drags on and the death toll of innocents grows. New York Jews are angry at Israel, furious about Gaza and sickened by the Kahanists who sit in Israel’s cabinet. And we should remember that despite his outspokenness on Israel, Mamdani won a decisive victory in the Democratic primary.

Nonetheless, I believe that in the two months that remain before the general election, as the election heats up and Mamdani’s views are subjected to far more intensive scrutiny, the dynamics of the race will change.

Support for Israel has declined, but it has hardly disappeared, and Jewish voters who have not been paying attention to the mayoral race – and that is the majority – will begin listening to what the candidates have to say. And I am betting that when they do, they will not like at all what they hear from Mamdani.

Mamdani, in my view, is playing an ugly little game with Jewish voters. In the Gaza era, presided over by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, it is not a problem to be a critic of Israel. Critics are everywhere, particularly in the Democratic Party, and even Israel’s most stalwart supporters are calling for more “balance” in America’s approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Some of Mamdani’s supporters, taking advantage of the growing debate, are slyly suggesting that he is simply another critic among many amid the ongoing war.

If this were true, of course, there would be little or no controversy. If Mamdani were promoting some form of a two-state solution, I would be voting for him myself.

But Mamdani is not a critic of Israel, he is a hater of Israel. Despite some very minor rhetorical adjustments, he remains what he has always been, an opponent of a Jewish state. His toxic disdain for Israel puts him so far out of the mainstream of the Jewish community that it will not be easy for Jews with even minimal attachment to Israel to support him. And while some will, given the alternatives, they will do so with reluctance and concern.

It is also true that Mamdani has said not a word about Islam’s miserable record in promoting both democracy and religious pluralism. Israel, where 20 percent of its citizens are non-Jews has a better than average record in that regard. Since Mamdani opposes the Jewish character of Israel, he should have the decency to speak up about Pakistan and other countries in the Muslim world that are neither democratic nor pluralistic.

What should Jews do in this election? I don’t tell people how to vote, and as I have indicated, I believe it is almost certain that Mamdani will be elected.

But both before and after the election, my plea to the Jewish citizens of New York City is: educate, educate, educate. Use Mr. Mamdani’s primary victory as an occasion to educate the people of New York about Israel.

This means making it clear that thoughtful criticism of Israel at this difficult moment is both welcome and necessary, and will be encouraged from all candidates. This means offering our own criticism, and calling for a resumption of diplomacy and an end to the war in Gaza. This means demanding that Mamdani stop the word games and be honest, finally, about what he really expects Israel to be and do.

And this means saying to the citizens of New York and the people of the world that there must be a Jewish state, and that saying there should not be a Jewish state is an act of hostility against the Jewish community and Jews everywhere.

Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker Tells it Like it Is

26 Tuesday Aug 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

I am posting what the historian Heather Cox Richardson reported on August 26 in her Substack (worth subscribing) from a powerful speech delivered by Illinois Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 25 in Chicago that everyone ought to read, assuming you had not heard or read it already:

Calling Chicago, Illinois, a “a disaster” and “a killing field,” Trump referred to Illinois governor J.B. Pritzker as “a slob.” Trump complained that Pritzker had said Trump was infringing on American freedom and called Trump a dictator. Trump went on: “A lot of people are saying maybe we like a dictator. I don’t like a dictator. I’m not a dictator. I’m a man with great common sense and a smart person. And when I see what’s happening to our cities, and then you send in troops instead of being praised, they’re saying you’re trying to take over the Republic. These people are sick.”

This afternoon, standing flanked by leaders from business, law enforcement, faith communities, education, local communities, and politics at the Chicago waterfront near the Trump Tower there, Governor Pritzker responded to the news that Trump is planning to send troops to Chicago.

He began by saying: “I want to speak plainly about the moment that we are in and the actual crisis, not the manufactured one, that we are facing in the city and as a state and as a country. If it sounds to you like I am alarmist, that is because I am ringing an alarm, one that I hope every person listening will heed, both here in Illinois and across the country.”

He acknowledged that “[o]ver the weekend, we learned from the media that Donald Trump has been planning for quite a while now to deploy armed military personnel to the streets of Chicago. This is exactly the type of overreach that our country’s founders warned against. And it’s the reason that they established a federal system with a separation of powers built on checks and balances. What President Trump is doing is unprecedented and unwarranted. It is illegal, it is unconstitutional. It is un-American.”

Pritzker noted that neither his office nor that of Chicago’s mayor had received any communications from the White House. “We found out what Donald Trump was planning the same way that all of you did. We read a story in the Washington Post. If this was really about fighting crime and making the streets safe, what possible justification could the White House have for planning such an exceptional action without any conversations or consultations with the governor, the mayor or the police?”

“Let me answer that question,” he said. “This is not about fighting crime. This is about Donald Trump searching for any justification to deploy the military in a blue city in a blue state to try and intimidate his political rivals. This is about the president of the United States and his complicit lackey Stephen Miller searching for ways to lay the groundwork to circumvent our democracy, militarize our cities, and end elections. There is no emergency in Chicago that calls for armed military intervention. There is no insurrection.”

Pritzker noted that every major American city deals with crime, but that the rate of violent crime is actually higher in Republican-dominated states and cities than in those run by Democrats. Illinois, he said, had “hired more police and given them more funding. We banned assault weapons, ghost guns, bump stops, and high-capacity magazines” and “invested historic amounts into community violence intervention programs.” Those actions have cut violent crime down dramatically. Pritzker pointed out that “thirteen of the top twenty cities in homicide rates have Republican governors. None of these cities is Chicago. Eight of the top ten states with the highest homicide rates are led by Republicans. None of those states is Illinois.”

If Trump were serious about combatting crime, Pritzker asked, why did he, along with congressional Republicans, cut more than $800 million in public safety and crime prevention grants? “Trump,” Pritzker said, “is defunding the police.”

Then Pritzker turned to the larger national story. “To the members of the press who are assembled here today and listening across the country,” he said, “I am asking for your courage to tell it like it is. This is not a time to pretend here that there are two sides to this story. This is not a time to fall back into the reflexive crouch that I so often see where the authoritarian creep by this administration is ignored in favor of some horse race piece on who will be helped politically by the president’s actions. Donald Trump wants to use the military to occupy a U.S. city, punish his dissidents, and score political points. If this were happening in any other country, we would have no trouble calling it what it is: a dangerous power grab.”

Pritzker continued: “Earlier today in the Oval Office, Donald Trump looked at the assembled cameras and asked for me personally to say, ‘Mr. President, can you do us the honor of protecting our city?’ Instead, I say, ‘Mr. President, do not come to Chicago. You are neither wanted here nor needed here. Your remarks about this effort over the last several weeks have betrayed a continuing slip in your mental faculties and are not fit for the auspicious office that you occupy.’”

The governor called out the president for his willingness to drag National Guard personnel from their homes and communities to be used as political props. They are not trained to serve as law enforcement, he said, and did not “sign up for the National Guard to fight crime.” “It is insulting to their integrity and to the extraordinary sacrifices that they make to serve in the guard, to use them as a political prop, where they could be put in situations where they will be at odds with their local communities, the ones that they seek to serve.”

Pritzker said he hoped that Trump would “reconsider this dangerous and misguided encroachment upon our state and our city’s sovereignty” and that “rational voices, if there are any left inside the White House or the Pentagon, will prevail in the coming days.”

But if not, he urged Chicagoans to protest peacefully and to remember that most members of the military and the National Guard stationed in Chicago would be there unwillingly. He asked protesters to “remember that they can be court martialed, and their lives ruined, if they resist deployment.” He suggested protesters should look to members of the faith community for guidance on how to mobilize.

Then Pritzker turned to a warning. “To my fellow governors across the nation who would consider pulling your national guards from their duties at home to come into my state against the wishes of its elected representatives and its people,” he said, “cooperation and coordination between our states is vital to the fabric of our nation, and it benefits us all. Any action undercutting that and violating the sacred sovereignty of our state to cater to the ego of a dictator will be responded to.”

He went on: “The state of Illinois is ready to stand against this military deployment with every peaceful tool we have. We will see the Trump administration in court. We will use every lever in our disposal to protect the people of Illinois and their rights.”

“Finally,” he said, “to the Trump administration officials who are complicit in this scheme, to the public servants who have forsaken their oath to the Constitution to serve the petty whims of an arrogant little man, to any federal official who would come to Chicago and try to incite my people into violence as a pretext for something darker and more dangerous, we are watching, and we are taking names. This country has survived darker periods than the one that we are going through right now. And eventually, the pendulum will swing back, maybe even next year. Donald Trump has already shown himself to have little regard for the many acolytes that he has encouraged to commit crimes on his behalf. You can delay justice for a time, but history shows you cannot prevent it from finding you eventually.

“If you hurt my people, nothing will stop me, not time or political circumstance, from making sure that you face justice under our constitutional rule of law. As Dr. King once said, the arc of the moral Universe is long, but it bends toward justice. Humbly, I would add, it doesn’t bend on its own. History tells us we often have to apply force needed to make sure that the arc gets where it needs to go. This is one of those times.”

Why Zionism and Israel Matter? 4 Book Recommendations

15 Friday Aug 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

This is my third consecutive post in a series of three concerning the meaning and importance of liberal Zionism and the State of Israel.

In this torturous, confusing and challenging era for Jews since October 7, 2023, I believe it’s worthwhile to read or re-read books that can help focus our moral, Jewish and liberal Zionist compasses. To that end, I recommend 4 volumes:

Gil Troy, The Zionist Ideas – Visions for the Jewish Homeland – Then, Now, Tomorrow with a Foreword by Natan Sharansky (New York: JPS Press, 2018)

“The Zionist Ideas is a must-read, a comprehensive Zionist Bible for the twenty-first century. The outstanding scholar and community leader Gil Troy presents an impressive range of thinkers, from yesterday to today, from left to right, illuminated by his extraordinary commentary, all of which affirm the enduring moral character of the Zionist idea: that Zionism, beyond safeguarding the Jewish state, is anchored in a humanistic ideology of universal resonance.” –Irwin Cotler, former minister of justice and attorney general of Canada and human rights activist.

Yossi Klein Halevi, Letters to My Palestinian Neighbor – with an Extensive Epilogue of Palestinian Responses (New York: Harper Perennial, 2018)

“The most insightful description of this deep-rooted conflict–from the Israeli perspective–which I have ever read . . . A master linguist, Yossi Klein Halevi has voiced the hopes and feats of many Israelis, as well as many Zionists in the diaspora.” –London Jewish Chronicle.

Ari Shavit, My Promised Land – The Triumph and Tragedy of Israel(New York: Spiegel & Grau, 2013)

“With the heart of a storyteller and the mind of a historian, Ari Shavit has written a powerful and compelling book about the making of modern Israel. No country is more emotionally connected to the United States, and no country’s fate matters more to many Americans. And yet until Shavit’s My Promised Land, it has been growing more difficult to sense the character of Israel through all the caricatures. This book is vital reading for Americans who care about the future, not only of the United States but of the world.” –Jon Meacham, American presidential historian and author of Thomas Jefferson: The Art of Power.

Rabbi John L. Rosove, Why Israel and its Future Matters – Letters of a Liberal Rabbi to the Next Generation (New Jersey: Ben Yehuda Press, 2019; reissued after October 7, 2023)

“Rabbi Rosove shares 11 compelling letters directed at his two sons, but this fascinating work is in fact aimed at an entire generation of perplexed young Jews. He delineates the just case for Israel with precision and delicacy, sans fluff or pandering. This is a book which strives to combat Israel haters and bashers and gives real tools and answers to those liberal Jews who feel somewhat frustrated and confused about Israel. A must-read!” – Isaac Herzog, President of the State of Israel.

All 4 books are available from their publishers or on Amazon.com.

“Why progressive Jews mustn’t give up on Zionism” – JTA, August 3, 2016

10 Sunday Aug 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Despite the rightward turn of the Israeli government, we continue to believe in the Zionist enterprise and the viability of the State of Israel, write four leaders of progressive Zionism.

AUGUST 3, 2016 

[Introductory notes: Simultaneously with my posting of my blog on August 6, 2025 – “What does it Mean to be a Liberal American Zionist?” – the British-born former Director of Policy Analysis at AIPAC, Michael Lewis, posted the following article on LinkedIn that was originally published by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency (JTA) 9 years ago, almost to the day, that I co-wrote along with my colleagues (see names below). I thank Michael for posting this. I had forgotten about it. Little has changed, however, in my thinking about what it means to be a liberal Zionist except today, because so many “progressive” Jews no longer identify as Zionists, I prefer to be called a “liberal” Zionist. One more thing. Though the vast majority of Israelis today believe, after October 7, that a two-state solution is unlikely ever to happen, there is still no alternative if Israel is to remain both Jewish and democratic. When I think of the current relationships between the United States and Germany and Japan, no one would have thought such alliances would have been possible in 1945. Perhaps, once this horrendous war ends, there might be a new light showing the way along with the will amongst our two peoples to chart a course that will enable Israel and the Palestinian people to live next to each other in security and peace.]

NEW YORK (JTA) — As progressive American Zionists, we take seriously the critique of Israel and Zionism by professors Hasia Diner and Marjorie N. Feld, contained in their Aug. 1 Haaretz article, “We’re American Jewish Historians. This is why we’ve left Zionism behind.”

However, unlike them, we affirm progressive Zionist values. And those values mandate activism in order to ensure that Israel is both a democracy and the national home of the Jewish people.

The difference between us and professors Diner and Feld is that we continue to believe in the Zionist enterprise and the viability of the State of Israel, despite troubling trends: the rightward turn of the Israeli government; the corrupting influence of the nearly 50-year Israeli occupation of the Palestinian people in the West Bank; the growing messianic nationalism of the settler movement; the ultra-Orthodox influence on the Israeli government and its control over Jewish religious life; the second-class status of Palestinian Israeli citizens. We have a duty as Diaspora Zionists to critique Israeli policies whenever we believe that the State of Israel violates Jewish and democratic values as articulated in Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

For us, Jewish “nationalism” cannot be the sole objective of Zionism. Rather, Zionism and the Jewish nation is a means towards the perfection of the Jewish people and the world (tikkun olam).

Since its establishment, Israel has meant many things to many people: a haven from persecution, a catalyst for Jewish renewal and a place where the rhythms of civic life are Jewish rhythms. We regard the State of Israel as the Jewish people’s laboratory of Jewish ethical living, one that has seen unparalleled achievements and successes, as well as considerable deficiencies and failures. We regard the founding of the state as a consummate historic opportunity, to test the efficacy of Jewish ethical values, institutions and the diversity of Jewish peoplehood all while holding onto political power as a sovereign state.

Sadly, the professors base their argument on the highly reductionist notion of Judaism as simply a religion, and they even seem to breathe life into the 40-year-old defamatory attempt to label Zionism as racism. They suggest that it was Israeli homogenization that led to the demise of Jewish communities around the world, as if the great holy communities of Warsaw, Vilna and Krakow would somehow be intact today if it weren’t for…Zionism.

They also deeply oversimplify the reality here in the U.S., with its religiously neutral environment. America, and American Jews, have championed the “Goldene Medinah” — the Golden Land — as the great melting pot and exalted land of assimilation and acculturation. But today, Jews throughout the U.S. struggle with the challenge of balancing the benefits of American religious freedom while responding to communal trends in which Jews struggle to find connections, meaning and relevance in being Jewish.

As Zionists, Israel is the center of global Jewish life, and, it is important to recognize, it has managed to create a vibrant and creative Jewish society with a rich and incredibly ethnically diverse Judaism. Yet, Diaspora Jewry is a partner in assuring Israel’s viability as a democracy and a Jewish state, and its security as a sovereign nation. Our role in the Diaspora is different than that of Israeli citizens, but it is no less important. Indeed, our two centers need each other’s wisdom and support.

Professors Diner and Feld seem to have been defeated by their mythic understanding of Zionism and Israel. Though there is merit to their legitimate concerns about the “other” and what Jewish nationalism must do to include non-Jews as equal citizens in the state, it is unfortunate that they are turning away from Zionism altogether. Their relationship with Israel seems to be conditional. We would like to suggest an unconditional relationship to Israel. That means, like family, when we see troubling trends and abhorrent behavior, rather than disavow the entire enterprise, we prefer to roll up our sleeves and get more involved.

They are right that the Palestinians are entitled to empathy, justice and redress. Israel cannot continue to occupy another people and remain true to its democratic and Jewish values. The only way to preserve Israel as a Jewish state and a democracy is for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into negotiations leading to two states for two peoples.

Similarly, Israeli Jews and Diaspora Zionists must actively engage non-Jewish Israelis to address the real tensions within Israel’s identity as a Jewish and democratic state. Making Israel both more democratic and more Jewish is a serious challenge, but it is the essential struggle of Zionism. And as we reject Professors Diner and Feld when they give up on Israel as a Jewish state, we oppose Israelis and other Jews who take actions that threaten Israel’s essential nature as a democracy.

Ultimately, our vision of progressive Zionism — which is embodied in the Israeli Declaration of Independence and the Zionist movement’s Jerusalem Program — is one grounded in hope and action. And we will continue to strive to fulfill this vision to ensure a just, secure and peaceful future for all Israelis, and an Israel that can be a dynamic inspiration to Jews around the world.

(Rabbi Josh Weinberg and Rabbi John Rosove are the President and Chair of ARZA, the Association of Reform Zionists of America. Gideon Aronoff and Ken Bob are the CEO and National President of Ameinu.)

Original JTA article link – https://www.jta.org/2016/08/03/ideas/why-progressive-jews-mustnt-give-up-on-zionism

What Does it Mean to be a Liberal American Zionist?

07 Thursday Aug 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , ,

Even before Hamas’ attack against Israel on October 7, 2023, the definition and meaning of “Zionism” had increasingly come to be understood in far-left-progressive circles in the United States and around the world in strongly cynical and pejorative terms. Zionism became even more so understood negatively once Israel began its morally just counterattack against Hamas beginning on October 8th and later against Hezbollah, the Houthis and Iran. Those who were in league with the world-wide anti-Israel movement before October 7 and who had sought for years to re-frame the Zionist narrative as discriminatory, racist, colonialist, and a product of European imperialism discovered that they were gaining increasing support among many politically progressive left-wing Americans who claimed the humanitarian mantle against what they believed was Israel’s military over-reaction to what Hamas did to Israelis on that bloodiest day in the history of the State of Israel.  

Every people has the right of self-definition, and we Zionists – and especially we liberal American Zionists – have that right as well.

I believe that this is the time for us to take back our liberal American Zionist narrative and lead with it whenever we discuss with those who know much or little about the history of the Zionist movement and the State of Israel. That is what I want to do in this blog post, to express why I am a proud liberal American Zionist despite my deep protest against the policies of this most extremist Israeli right-wing messianic government in the history of Israel.

I am a proud liberal American Zionist and as such I believe in the right of the Jewish people to a state of our own in our historic Homeland and in the right of the Jewish State militarily to defend itself when attacked by terrorists and hostile states.

As a liberal American Zionist I affirm that the universal humanitarian values advocated by the ancient prophets of Israel, developed by rabbinic tradition over the past two millennia, and included in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, namely that justice, equality, human rights, compassion, and peace must be core values guiding every Israeli government’s policies, its military and civil society.

As a liberal American Zionist I am proud of what the Zionist movement and the people and State of Israel have accomplished in virtually every arena of human endeavor including immigration and the absorption of refugees, agriculture, education, the sciences, medicine, bio-technology, cyber, culture, the arts, diplomacy, human rights, civil society, and self-defense.

As a liberal American Zionist I understand that the intent of Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran is to destroy the State of Israel and murder as many Jews as possible in their messianic zeal to establish an extremist caliphate over all of historic Palestine “from the river to the sea.” As one example of this murderous intent, Hamas’ leadership said early on in the war that 100,000 Palestinian martyrs were not too many to fulfill its extremist mission to murder Jews and destroy the Jewish state.

As a liberal American Zionist I am proud and grateful that the United States historically has been Israel’s most important and generous ally and that Israel’s security needs have enjoyed bi-partisan American political support.

As a student of Israeli and Middle East history, I know that Israel has tried many times to resolve diplomatically the Israeli-Arab and the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts resulting in two-states for two-peoples as a matter of justice for the Palestinians and enlightened self-interest for Israel, but that extremist and uncompromising Palestinian leadership has walked away every time.

As a liberal American Zionist I acknowledge that I am not an Israeli citizen, that I do not pay Israeli taxes nor do I send my children and grandchildren to the Israeli military to fight in Israel’s wars. Only Israeli citizens have the right to take the decisions that directly impact their lives and well-being. However, as an American Jew and liberal Zionist who loves Israel I believe that I have the right to share my ideas and criticism of Israeli government policies that I believe are harmful not only to Israel’s own best interests as a Jewish and democratic state but to my security and well-being as a Diaspora Jew and my liberal Jewish and democratic values.

As a liberal American Zionist, for months I have felt the anguish, grief and rage of what Hamas did on October 7th. I continue to worry daily about the survival of the remaining hostages and the well-being of their families and the families of the Israeli soldiers killed and injured in this war. I have worried as well since this war began about the suffering of the two million Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

As a liberal American Zionist I believe that Israel, in fighting this just war has not always fought the war justly. It ought to be clear that Israel has crossed many red-lines despite all the challenges and difficulties in fighting a war against a non-state actor that deliberately hides behind and uses its own people as human shields. Israel’s massive killing of tens of thousands of Palestinian civilians and its use of humanitarian aid as a weapon of war are immoral and un-Jewish.

It is American policy that Israel and all recipients of U.S. weapons must adhere by law to standards concerning humanitarian aid and the use of force. As painful as it is for me to say this because I have always supported American military aid to Israel throughout my life, I support those 27 Democratic Party Senators who voted recently to halt the sale of offensive weapons to Israel as a way to put pressure on PM Netanyahu and his extremist government to end this war now, to stop the suffering, the starvation, the killing of civilians, and the deaths of Israeli soldiers and hostages.

These 27 Senators are friends of Israel, every one of them. They have always supported Israel’s true security needs. In their vote to withhold offensive weapons now after all these months of war they carefully distinguished between those weapons and the defensive weapon systems of Iron Dome, Arrow, and David’s Sling, which save Israeli lives. These Senators should not be criticized for their vote or accused of being anti-Israel. They are not that. They instead should be praised for acting on behalf of the best interests of Israel and the Palestinians and for applying necessary pressure on this extremist Israeli government to do what is just and compassionate – to end this war now, to bring home the hostages immediately, to pour massive humanitarian aid into Gaza, and to stop the killing and injury of Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians.

The vast majority of Israelis themselves and the vast majority of the American Jewish community agree that the war must end now, the hostages returned home, and humanitarian aid be provided in quantities that can stop the hunger and starvation.

I say all of these things as a committed liberal American Zionist and as a lover of the people and State of Israel.

The North American Reform Jewish Movement has issued the following statement on Starvation in Gaza

28 Monday Jul 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

The ongoing crisis in Gaza is a devastating reminder of the immense human cost of war. Nearly two years into Israel’s war against Hamas, Israelis are still waiting for the return of their loved ones held hostage, and innocent Palestinians are caught in a mounting humanitarian catastrophe. Hamas has repeatedly demonstrated its willingness to sacrifice the Palestinian people in its pursuit of Israel’s destruction, but Israel must not sacrifice its own moral standing in return. Neither escalating military pressure nor restricting humanitarian aid has brought Israel closer to securing a hostage deal or ending the war.

While long-delayed and not-yet-certain to be more effective than previous efforts, we are encouraged by Saturday night’s announcement that the Israeli military would revive the practice of dropping aid from airplanes and make it easier for aid convoys, including those from the UN’s World Food Program, to move through Gaza along “designated humanitarian corridors,” and to temporarily cease fighting in Gaza for a humanitarian pause.

No one should be unaffected by the pervasive hunger experienced by thousands of Gazans. No one should spend the bulk of their time arguing technical definitions between starvation and pervasive hunger. The situation is dire, and it is deadly. Nor should we accept arguments that because Hamas is the primary reason many Gazans are either starving or on the verge of starving, that the Jewish State is not also culpable in this human disaster. The primary moral response must begin with anguished hearts in the face of such a large-scale human tragedy.

Our tradition teaches that all people are created b’tzelem Elohim—in the image of God. One consequence of this is the moral priority, which is affirmed throughout the Bible and rabbinic tradition, of feeding the hungry—both for the individual and for the self-governing Jewish community.

More than a few members of the current Israeli government have publicly called for Israel to decimate the Gaza strip. The most recent was Heritage Minister Amichai Eliyahu who, on Thursday lauded the Israeli government for “racing ahead for Gaza to be wiped out.” He added: “Thank God, we are wiping out this evil.” Of equal concern are far-right Israeli politicians who advocate for Israel to permanently push most Gazans from much of Gaza and replace them with Jewish settlements. We condemn all such statements. They do not represent Jewish values nor those embodied in the Zionist vision that produced Israel’s Declaration of Independence.

Despite PM Netanyahu’s calls to ignore these full members of his cabinet, their presence in this government has consistently morally compromised Israel’s actions.

Starving Gazan civilians neither will bring Israel the “total victory” over Hamas it seeks, nor can it be justified by Jewish values or humanitarian law. It’s hard to imagine that this tragic approach will bring home the 50 remaining hostages, including the 20 whom we pray are still alive.

It’s imperative that the Government of Israel ensures that the recently announced plans to deliver humanitarian aid succeed as Israel works with international partners to ensure its safe and sustained delivery and do whatever possible to reduce or eliminate the shootings and other injuries sustained at food distribution centers. We applaud Israel’s green light for foreign nations to resume providing humanitarian aid to the Gaza population desperate for food and are confident that they will do all they can to ensure that such aid does not fall into the hands of Hamas.

As Israel has effective control of 70% of Gaza, with the intent to remain in significant swaths of it, even if only temporarily, it should be directly involved, facilitate and cooperate with the international community, international humanitarian NGOs, and regional friends, to take urgently needed actions, such as these suggested by Israeli Reform rabbi and Member of Knesset Gilad Kariv:

• To prevent the alarming number of civilian deaths in and around the food and humanitarian aid distribution sites.

• Opening a significant number of food distribution centers at various locations across the Gaza Strip.

• Large-scale entry of infant formula (especially liquid formula) and ensuring safe delivery to both functioning medical centers and the few remaining international aid facilities.

• Establishing secure methods—potentially through cooperation with regional countries—for delivering food supplies to aid organizations and international agencies.

• Resuming sufficient water supply to population centers in Gaza, in accordance with international health standards.

• Authorizing and assisting in the supply of medications, the establishment of field hospitals and clinics operated by remaining Palestinian medical staff, by foreign governments and by international agencies, especially in areas where hospitals have ceased functioning.

Finally, while it is imperative that Israel and the U.S. resume diplomacy to bring home all hostages and end this war, denying basic humanitarian aid crosses a moral line. Blocking food, water, medicine, and power—especially for children—is indefensible. Let us not allow our grief to harden into indifference, nor our love for Israel to blind us to the cries of the vulnerable. Let us rise to the moral challenge of this moment.

The Abuse of Power in This Era

08 Tuesday Jul 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

The Judeo-Christian tradition, upon which the United States was founded, promoted the notion of “covenantal politics” as a means to create an ideal society based upon human rights and dignity, equality and opportunity, justice and respect, accountability and responsibility, forgiveness and reconciliation, personal growth and freedom, all based in the principle articulated in the book Genesis that the human being is created b’tzelem Elohim, in the Image of God, thereby affirming infinite worth and dignity in every woman, man and child.

In this era of Donald Trump, the question before us is the same question that has always challenged Americans since our nation’s founding: What is political power for? Is it to sate the personal ambition of a politician, or is it to nurture a covenantal America in which politics is the means to further a more just and inclusive nation? If politics is only about ambition and power, then power renders as irrelevant morality and conscience, and it elevates amorality, illegality, sedition, insurrection, violence, and murder.

I know I’m not alone in my disgust and feeling of foreboding about what is happening to American democracy and the spirit of fair play and common decency under the aggressive disregard for human dignity under Donald Trump. Yes, there are still many good people and servant-leaders in every arena of our society committed to the well-being of others. We are watching now, for example, how many good people are doing everything possible to save victims of this horrendous flooding in Texas. And there are many among our political, business and educational leadership, religious and social justice activists, jurists, legal scholars and advocates, journalists and writers, entertainment and sports luminaries actively fighting for what I describe above as our nation’s “covenantal politics.” Certainly, not all is lost yet and mid-term elections will surely come and the vast majority of Americans who now disapprove of Trump’s aggressive disregard for human rights and the fundamental needs of most Americans will have an opportunity to vote against him and his minions.

I have been thinking a great deal about the use and abuse of power since Trump became President again, as he wields it like every common dictator does around the world, for his own purposes and interests. Note the column one story in this past Sunday’s New York Times (July 6, 2025) that describes in detail how Trump’s financial fortunes dramatically reversed since becoming the Republican candidate for President a second time and then winning the presidency again. He was on the verge of financial ruin (hardly a successful businessman he), but now has monetized the presidency to such an extent that he has turned his losses into massive wealth and power. His is a disgusting display of corruption the likes of which America has not seen in the presidency in our nearly 250 years of existence and that no one in his party even talks about much less does anything about.

As I have thought about power, here are a few quotations that offer additional insight and its character and purpose:

“Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” ―Lord Acton, English Catholic historian (1834-1902)

“It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it, and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it.” ―Aung San Suu Kyi (Burmese Politician and diplomat, b. 1945)

“It is said that power corrupts, but actually it’s more true that power attracts the corruptible.” ―David Brin, American author (b. 1950)

“The true measure of a man is how he uses his power.” ―Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Nobel Peace Prize Winner (1929-1968)

“With great power comes great responsibility.” ―Voltaire, French Enlightenment author (1694-1778)

“The most common way people give up their power is by thinking they don’t have any.” ―Alice Walker, American writer (b. 1944)

“The only maxim of a free government ought to be to trust no [person] living with power to endanger the public liberty.” ―President John Adams (1735-1826)

“We know that no one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it. Power is not a means; it is an end. One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship. The object of persecution is persecution. The object of torture is torture. The object of power is power. Now you begin to understand me.” ―George Orwell, British writer (1903-1950)

“Power is of two kinds. One is obtained by the fear of punishment and the other by acts of love. Power based on love is a thousand times more effective and permanent then the one derived from fear of punishment.” ―Mahatma Gandhi, Indian philosopher and non-violent champion (1869-1948)

The Case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia – An outrage if ever there is one!

04 Friday Jul 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

I am not a lawyer, so I rely on the expertise of legal scholars who are able to communicate clearly to the public what is at stake in cases in which the United State’s government’s actions defy the US Constitution and the law.

I am posting here Joyce Vance’s “Civil Discourse” missive (worth subscribing) because the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, when understood, ought to outrage anyone who cares about American democracy, the rule of law, the separation of powers, the independence of the judiciary, the truth and common decency.

Joyce Vance is an American lawyer who served as the United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama from 2009 to 2017. She was one of the first five U.S. attorneys, and the first female U.S. attorney, nominated by President Barack Obama.

Ms. Vance describes in detail the case against Mr. Garcia and the cruel treatment he has received deliberately by the Trump Administration and by Donald Trump himself.

Ms. Vance concludes:

“This case, which has brought issues of due process and the prospect of the executive branch of government ignoring orders issued by the judiciary to the forefront of Americans’ minds, will stand as one of the most important cases in American history.”  

I urge you to read the entire post below as it not only paints a terrible legal picture, but a horrendous moral one.

I have felt outrage, along with so many millions of Americans, about Mr. Garcia’s treatment since this case first became a national story months ago. Now that he has been returned to the United States and is being charged with federal crimes as a cover to whitewash what Trump and his minions have done to him and the rule of law, we know much more about what actually happened to Mr. Garcia in El Salvador and what the Trump Administration is capable of doing to any one of us.

Here is Ms. Vance’s report today – July 4, 2025

The Civil Case:

On March 24, 2025, Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s wife filed a civil lawsuit on his behalf in federal district court in Maryland. The defendants included Attorney General Pamela Bondi, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The Trump administration had just deported Venezuelans it claimed were gang members to El Salvador, although ultimately it came to light that significant numbers of them weren’t. The Trump administration violated a district court’s order that the men not be turned over to El Salvador, which was ultimately reversed by the Supreme Court.

It’s not unusual for plaintiffs in civil cases to amend their initial complaint as new information comes to light. On Wednesday, Jennifer Stefania Vasquez Sura, Abrego Garcia’s wife, asked the court for permission to do so.

She explained that “the Government filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Complaint as moot, arguing that because it had returned Abrego Garcia to the United States, Plaintiffs have received all the relief they sought.” She wanted to amend her complaint to “clarify that the relief they seek remains live, notwithstanding Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States.” Three new items are included in the amended complaint:

  • “The proposed Amended Complaint details the Government’s defiance of court orders after this Court granted preliminary injunctive relief.”
  • “[E]vidence that emerged in a June 2025 whistleblower disclosure from former DOJ official Erez Reuveni, who was previously counsel for the Government in this case. The new allegations include government officials internally acknowledging that Abrego Garcia’s removal was an “administrative error” while simultaneously working to prevent his return and to make post-hoc justifications. These revelations provide evidence of deliberate misconduct that was unavailable when the original Complaint was filed.”
  • “Abrego Garcia’s first-hand account of torture and mistreatment at CECOT, as well as developments regarding his return to the United States and the Government’s stated plan to remove him again.”

The proposed amended complaint, which is attached to the motion for permission to file it, contains predictable but still shocking revelations about conditions at CECOT. The conditions, as alleged, are more like a concentration camp than a prison in the United States, and there is little doubt that if established, the allegations made about those conditions would run afoul of the Constitution’s prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. Although the government has maintained that once delivered to El Salvador, these men are no longer in U.S. custody, that argument is paper-thin, or at least it should be, since the U.S. government is paying El Salvador to house these men. The allegations made by Abrego Garcia will likely play prominently in litigation over this issue.

The new allegations in the amended complaint include the following:

“Upon arrival at CECOT, the detainees were greeted by a prison official who stated, ‘Welcome to CECOT. Whoever enters here doesn’t leave.’ Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was then forced to strip, issued prison clothing, and subjected to physical abuse including being kicked in the legs with boots and struck on his head and arms to make him change clothes faster. His head was shaved with a zero razor, and he was frog-marched to cell 15, being struck with wooden batons along the way. By the following day, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia had visible bruises and lumps all over his body.

In Cell 15, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia and 20 other Salvadorans were forced to kneel from approximately 9:00 PM to 6:00 AM, with guards striking anyone who fell from exhaustion. During this time, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was denied bathroom access and soiled himself. The detainees were confined to metal bunks with no mattresses in an overcrowded cell with no windows, bright lights that remained on 24 hours a day, and minimal access to sanitation.”

And although the complaint alleges that El Salvadoran prison officials acknowledged that Abrego wasn’t a gang member, they threatened him with physical harm at the hands of gang members in the prison:

“As reflected by his segregation, the Salvadoran authorities recognized that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia was not affiliated with any gang and, at around this time, prison officials explicitly acknowledged that Plaintiff Abrego Garcia’s tattoos were not gang-related, telling him ‘your tattoos are fine.’

While at CECOT, prison officials repeatedly told Plaintiff Abrego Garcia that they would transfer him to the cells containing gang members who, they assured him, would ‘tear’ him apart.

Indeed, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia repeatedly observed prisoners in nearby cells who he understood to be gang members violently harm each other with no intervention from guards or personnel. Screams from nearby cells would similarly ring out throughout the night without any response from prison guards on personnel.

During his first two weeks at CECOT, Plaintiff Abrego Garcia suffered a significant deterioration in his physical condition and lost approximately 31 pounds (dropping from approximately 215 pounds to 184 pounds).”

During a conference call with District Judge Paula Xinis in Greenbelt, Maryland, the government acknowledged it intended to deport Abrego Garcia again, this time to a third country. That would not violate the withholding order that prevented them from sending him to Venezuela. The government’s lawyer represented that it didn’t have imminent plans for deportation, but Abrego Garcia’s lawyers told the court, “We have concerns that the government may try to remove Mr. Abrego Garcia quickly over the weekend, something like that.” They asked for an emergency order that would bring him to Maryland if he were released in Tennessee, where he is facing the criminal charges the government filed against him when they returned him from El Salvador.

Abrego Garcia remains in federal custody in Tennessee while the Magistrate Judge considers whether to release him—she previously ruled he was entitled to release, but she was concerned about the deportation issue.

Judge Xinis set a July 7 court hearing in Maryland to discuss the emergency request and other matters. Today, she rejected the government’s request to delay the hearing to a later date.

The same week Abrego Garcia’s wife filed her original complaint, Defendant Kristi Noem traveled to El Salvador to “visit” CECOT prison. She posed for this photo in front of a cell full of prisoners.

A report from the CATO Institute suggests that although the government claims all of the men it sent to Venezuela are “illegal aliens,” in 50 of the 90 cases where they were able to identify how the men entered the United States, the men said that they entered the U.S. legally, with government permission, at an official border crossing point.”

The Criminal Case

The government attempted to save face when it returned Abrego Garcia from El Salvador by filing criminal charges against him involving the transportation of people who were known to be present in the U.S. without legal immigration status. Comments made by government officials went far beyond the facts alleged in the indictment—a clear violation of DOJ policy—in describing his conduct and claiming he was a serious violent criminal who, among other things, had sexually assaulted women.

Last week, there were reports that the government’s key witness, Jose Ramon Hernandez Reyes, likely the owner of the car Abrego Garcia was driving during the incident he was charged with, was a three-time convicted felon. The deal the government cut with him allowed his early released early from federal prison to a halfway house in exchange for his cooperation in the case.

An official with Homeland Security Investigations, part of ICE, testified Hernandez Reyes would have been deported but for his cooperation with the government. The Washington Post reported that he said in court that the government “is also likely to give him a work permit.”

In the meantime, Abrego Garcia’s attorneys have asked District Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw Jr. in Tennessee to enforce local rules that prohibit the Trump administration from making “extensive and inflammatory extrajudicial comments about Mr. Abrego that are likely to prejudice his right to a fair trial.” The motion continues, “These comments continued unabated—if anything they ramped up—since his indictment in this District, making clear the government’s intent to engage in a ‘trial by newspaper.’”

Abrego Garcia’s lawyers raise four points of concern in their pleading:

  • “[T]he government has relentlessly attacked Mr. Abrego’s character and reputation in dozens of public statements … Many of the government’s statements have been highly prejudicial and serve no justifiable law enforcement purpose—and reflect nothing more than the lengths the government will go to in its efforts to paint Mr. Abrego as a dangerous criminal to deflect from its mistake.”
  • “[T]he government has expressed opinions about Mr. Abrego’s guilt and the evidence in this case in ways that go far beyond the limited disclosures permitted” by local rules of court.
  • “[T]he government’s statements have been contaminated with irrelevant and false claims that the DOJ ‘knows or reasonably should know are likely to be inadmissible as evidence in a trial or that would, if disclosed, create a substantial risk of prejudicing an impartial trial.”” As an example, they offer that, “at a press conference announcing these charges, Attorney General Bondi recounted allegations from unreliable alleged coconspirators that Mr. Abrego ‘abused undocumented alien females,’ ‘trafficked firearms and narcotics,’ ‘solicited nude photographs and videos of a minor,’ and ‘played a role in the murder of a rival gang member’s mother.’” They also objected to what they call unsubstantiated claims that Abrego Garcia is Mr. Abrego is a “wife beater” and “domestic abuser.” They conclude that “These assertions are not only irrelevant and inflammatory, but also based entirely on inadmissible hearsay.”
  • “[S]ince the indictment was unsealed, the government has made nearly three dozen statements about the fact that it has charged Mr. Abrego with a crime, without reference to the presumption of innocence.”

In a normal administration, an Assistant United States Attorney who did any of these things would most likely be seriously sanctioned by internal DOJ disciplinary mechanisms. But here, the concern is about the Attorney General of the United States and other high-ranking officials. We are no longer surprised by much, but we should reclaim our ability to be shocked by the truly outrageous. Because that’s exactly what this is.

It is the job of defense lawyers to put the government on its back foot. But they’ve made the claims in this case knowing that they will be thoroughly tested. In their motion, Abrego Garcia’s lawyers ask the court for a very simple sanction: they want him to “issue an order directing the parties to comply with Local Criminal Rule 2.01,” the local rule that prohibits these out-of-court statements. This afternoon, Judge Crenshaw directed both sides to stop making public statements about the case. It’s not clear from his two-sentence ruling, “Motion (69) is GRANTED. All counsel are expected to comply with the Local Rules of this Court,” whether the order extends to DHS employees in addition to DOJ employees, which Abrego Garcia’s lawyers requested.

Despite this limited action, the motion was a strategic one that hints at the kind of arguments that will be used to argue a guilty verdict, if the government obtains one, should be reversed because the jury pool was tainted by the government’s own statements to the public. The motion also recites that, “The Vice President, a Yale Law School graduate, went so far as to flatly lie about Mr. Abrego, calling him a ‘convicted MS-13 gang member,’ notwithstanding that Mr. Abrego in fact has never been convicted of any crime at all.” Abrego Garcia’s lawyers are busy making a record.

This case, which has brought issues of due process and the prospect of the executive branch of government ignoring orders issued by the judiciary to the forefront of Americans’ minds, will stand as one of the most important cases in American history. We don’t yet know how it will end. It is a very dangerous moment for our democracy, one we should all pay close attention to. Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse. Your support, and your paid subscriptions help me devote the time and resources necessary to this work.

I Protest President Trump’s Call-up of the California National Guard

08 Sunday Jun 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ 2 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

President Trump has wanted to use the US military and states’ National Guard as a show of his concentrated federal power since his first term. He even wanted to shoot demonstrators in the legs who were protesting police brutality against the George Floyd murder by police in a demonstration outside the White House. Now, he is getting his long-held wish to hold a military parade on the streets of Washington, D.C. next week on his 79th birthday just as autocrats around the world love to do to intimidate and threaten civilian populations in their countries.

Yesterday and today, while circumventing the legitimate authority of California Governor Gavin Newsom to call up the California National Guard (if it would be needed –  Governor Newsom does not believe it is needed), Trump has himself called up 2000 National Guard troops and deployed them in Los Angeles citing a rarely used provision within Title 10 of the U.S. Code on Armed Services  ”10 U.S.C. 12406,”  that has been activated only when “there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.” That is NOT happening in Los Angeles County. Governor Newsom has stated that local police departments are acting responsibly, as opposed to the charges of the President.

The White House sent out this letter yesterday, insulting the Democratic leadership of the State of California, and falsely characterizing the situation in Los Angeles as out of control. The letter is transparent. It is part of Trump’s retributive justice against blue states generally and Democratic political leadership in California specifically. Of course, the great irony of this White House statement is that Trump pardoned hundreds of convicted criminals serving prison time for attacking the government of the United States, killing and injuring dozens of police officers who were guarding the nation’s Capitol on January 6, 2021:

“In recent days, violent mobs have attacked ICE Officers and Federal Law Enforcement Agents carrying out basic deportation operations in Los Angeles, California. These operations are essential to halting and reversing the invasion of illegal criminals into the United States. In the wake of this violence, California’s feckless Democrat leaders have completely abdicated their responsibility to protect their citizens. That is why President Trump has signed a Presidential Memorandum deploying 2,000 National Guardsmen to address the lawlessness that has been allowed to fester. The Trump Administration has a zero tolerance policy for criminal behavior and violence, especially when that violence is aimed at law enforcement officers trying to do their jobs. These criminals will be arrested and swiftly brought to justice. The Commander-in-Chief will ensure the laws of the United States are executed fully and completely.” -Karoline Leavitt, White House Press Secretary

Erwin Chemerinsky, the dean of the law school at the University of California, Berkeley was quoted this morning in the NY Times (link to the full article is below):

“For the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling. It is using the military domestically to stop dissent.”

I agree.

A friend rightly compared Trump’s action this weekend to the arson attack on the home of the German parliament in Berlin on Monday, February 27, 1933, four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. The fire, allegedly set by the Nazis themselves, was used to weaponize the NAZIs on their rapid march to destroy what was left of democracy in Germany.

Though I do not believe that we in America are experiencing 1930s Germany, the desired march towards autocracy by this President is obvious.

Now is the time for us to protest Trump’s over-reach. We best remember the warning of the German theologian and Lutheran Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892-1984) who aptly wrote about the consequences of passivity in the face of anti-democratic governance and brutality:

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and Id did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Read the NY Times piece on this action here: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/07/us/trump-national-guard-deploy-rare.html?smid=nytcore-ios-share&referringSource=articleShare

“We all want to change the world” – by Kareem Abdul-Jabaar – A Review

01 Sunday Jun 2025

Posted by in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

Kareem Abdul-Jabaar’s newly published book We all want to change the world – My Journey through Social Justice Movements from the 1960s to Today is a sweeping, thoughtful, self-revelatory, honest, and inspiring review of most of the major social justice movements and human rights challenges in the United States since the 1950s when Kareem was coming of age as a African American athlete in New York City. One of the greatest basketball players in the history of the NBA, Kareem is now among the most prolific writers, probing thinkers and public intellectuals in America.

I read Kareem’s Substack newsletters from start to finish each time he publishes (twice weekly) and I find him always smart, rational, intellectually honest, thorough in his research, moral, and entertaining with his short videos of extraordinary athletic feats, musical selections, and cultural moments. Just as his Substack newsletter is worth reading, so is his newest book.

Kareem covers the impact on American society of the movements for Free Speech, Civil Rights, anti-Vietnam War, Women’s Liberation and Gay Liberation, and the cultural, emotional and psychological mindsets that spawned the courageous leadership that furthered human rights and opportunities in the United States for discriminated groups of Americans.

Kareem describes his personal mantra as that inspired by civil rights activist Fannie Lou Hamer’s adage: “No one is free unless everyone is free,” and what Dr. King said in another way: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

As a young black man growing up in the 1950s and 1960s in New York City, becoming a famous athlete, meeting Dr. King, Mohammad Ali, and other leading black sports, entertainment and human rights figures, and reading constantly from the time he was a teen-ager, the shy, intellectual, self-reflective and compassionate young man felt compelled to think not only about himself and his athletic career and the moral compromises that many fellow black athletes felt they had to make in order to further their careers, but about every individual struggling for dignity beyond the stereotypes and cultural definitions that oppressed them.

Kareem wrote:

“Writing [the chapter on Civil Rights as My Gateway Movement] was especially challenging for me. As I chronicled the history of decade after decade of civil rights abuses and the martyrs who gave up their lives in pursuit of the freedoms already promised by our Constitution, I felt the rising heat of frustration and anger from my younger days. I needed to take frequent breaks to remind myself that frustration and anger by themselves accomplish nothing. Injustice is fueled by indifference, but passion without a plan is just as destructive. For me, the fiery passion of my youth needed to be channeled in order for me to do my part to bring about justice.”

This book is well-researched and well-written, and it lays out the historical facts and events of each of the human rights movements Kareem discusses in detail. He first presents those events historically, then dives into the emotional, social, and psychological challenges the leaders and followers of each movement confronted. For me, about three years younger than Kareem (age 78), I remember so much of what he describes, and I appreciate his insights about the forces that propelled the leadership of each movement to do what they did, as well as the baked-in cultural norms that reflected (and still reflects) the thinking of massive numbers of Americans.

Among other self-revelatory sections of the book, Kareem describes himself as a feminist. He wrote:

“As a Black teenager growing up in New York City, I loved books, movies, television, and music. Looking back on all that I was exposed to, I see now how those popular art forms conspired to produce a pounding thrum of dangerous misogyny, an insistent earworm that ran through my generation as it had so many generations before. With this evolving women’s movement, as more and more voices joined the chorus protesting misogyny, our heads were cleared enough to choose for ourselves. That’s how it was for me.”

In his epilogue, Kareem confessed:

“The biggest challenge I had in writing this book was the frequent breaks I had to take due to the build-up of frustration and anger. Again and again in my research, I saw the same pattern: basic human rights denied, indignities and disrespect piled on, and the refusal of oppressors to acknowledge why they were wrong. The worst was the complicity of so many people who disagreed with the discrimination in principle but who were too complacent to act. They might justify their collusion with ‘What can I do?’ but they already know the answer. They just don’t like it.”  

He concludes the book discussing the ongoing need for open and public protest in all the areas he discussed:

“The Founders enshrined the right to protest in our Constitution. They did that because they knew that the forces of self-interest and corruption would always try and to subvert the ideals of democracy they laid out.”

Kareem can be forgiven for the human rights issues he did not include in his book. However, there is one that Kareem does not discuss in this volume – the oldest of all hatreds, antisemitism. I’ve wondered why he didn’t discuss it specifically since it has become a major issue in North America, on college and university campuses, and around the world especially since Hamas’s brutal attack, murder and rape of 1200 Israelis and others on October 7, 2023 in Southern Israel and reactions to Israel and Jews as a consequence of the ensuing war between Hamas and Israel.

On October 9, 2023, two days after the Hamas attack, Kareem wrote in his Substack newsletter of his support of Israel. He condemned Hamas categorically, and elsewhere he described antisemitism as “especially heinous.” Kareem was the 2022 winner of Canada’s “Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center’s first Ally Against Anti-Semitism Award,” so his pro-Jewish and pro-Israel bona fides are undisputed. Given Kareem’s 1.1 million Substack readers and the likely large number of people of color, athletes, and liberal-left readers who will read this book (as well as interested moderates and conservatives), I would have appreciated his discussion of antisemitism, its nature and history going back thousands of years and reemerging today in the United States, especially in this post-October 7th period in which so many on the far left publicly have identified with Hamas against Israel and Zionism and so many on the far right who openly court and identify with neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists, including the sitting President of the United States.

Hamas is among the most brutal, undemocratic, unenlightened, Jew-hating, extremist Muslim terrorist organizations in the world. It is one thing for decent people to want peace and justice for the Palestinian people in some kind of a demilitarized state of their own alongside a secure and democratic Jewish State of Israel, but it is something else entirely to support Hamas and its call for a free “Palestine from the River to the Sea.” That position means the destruction of the State of Israel and the murder of Jews. It is antisemitic Jew-hatred.  

There is a strong human rights case to be made about this oldest of hatreds that would have merited Kareem’s inclusion of a discussion of antisemitism in his book. Historically, the evidence is clear that in every country in which Jews have been discriminated against, attacked and accused of corrupting the soul of a people or nation, human rights generally and democracy specifically have been diminished and/or destroyed. To me, antisemitism would have been an obvious chapter to write about. I’m disappointed that Kareem didn’t take the opportunity to address Jew-hatred head-on, especially because I know he understands what antisemitism is and its “heinous” character. It was a missed opportunity to educate those very groups and individuals in which antisemitism has taken root and found a home in recent years on both the far left and the far right.