The danger of covid--and lockdown--in Israel: is anyone listening?

(Latest update: January 3, 2021) 

According to the most current figures available for Israel, the total number of recorded cases of covid in Israel is 419,312. This covers the period March, 2020 (when covid first came to Israel) and December 30, 2020 (the latest date data was available for this essay). 

This number means that Israel's Health authorities have told us that there have been in Israel a total 419,312 people who have tested positive for covid-19, or Coronavirus. Of those 419,312 covid-positive Israelis, a total of 3,314 have died. 

Do some math. Divide the total number of those who have died by the total number of Israelis who have tested positive (3,314/419,312). That yields a number: .007903. This number is just under 8 tenths of one percent. That's the mortality rate for covid in Israel.

A survival rate is different. A survival rate tells us how many people with covid are still alive. Therefore, if approximately 8 tenths of one percent have died, then we can assume that the remaining 99.2 percent of covid-positive Israelis have survived. 

That's right. After nine months of panic, confusion and anger, Israel's covid survival rate is app. 99.2%. This 99.2% survival rate is for all ages and all demographics. Literally 99.2 percent of everyone in Israel who has tested positive for covid-19 since inception, has lived.

That's how dangerous covid is in Israel. Nevertheless, covid is still considered to be extremely dangerous--so dangerous that our tiny nation has begun its third lockdown to fight covid. Apparently, a 99.2% survival rate just isn't good enough to keep us not locked down.. 

To understand exactly what this 99.2% survival rate for covid means, think for a moment about the survival rate for men with lung cancer in Israel. Only 33% of men in Israel diagnosed with lung cancer survive (here).

In a report dated, May 31, 2020, the Israel Cancer Association reported that "about 80,000 Israelis have died from the harmful effect of smoking" (here) over the past decade. That adds up to about 8,000 (mostly) lung cancer deaths a year.

By March 2021--the end of one year of covid--will covid also have killed 8,000 Israelis? Well, right now, the end of nine months of covid, there are only 3,314 deaths. For covid to kill 8,000 by March, 2021, Israel would have to see more covid deaths in the next three months (4,686) than in the first nine months combined. Since Israel is now aggressively inoculating its population, that doesn't seem likely. 

This is an important observation, especially when you attempt to compare how Israel reacts to both diseases--covid and lung cancer. For covid, we panic. We fine violators. We shut down Israel's economy. We force lockdowns. 

By contrast, we do almost nothing to stop lung cancer. How can Israel stop or slow lung  cancer? According to at least one opinion, the leading risk factor of lung cancer in Israel is smoking. What does Israel do to protect Israelis from smoking death? Close to nothing.

Specifically, is smoking banned in Israel? No. Are smokers arrested? No. Are people caught congregating in groups to smoke fined? No.

Are smokers prohibited from going to work? No. Are smokers quarantined until a blood test shows no nicotine in their bloodstream? No.

Why not? Israelis are banned, prohibited and otherwise limited and locked down in order to stop a contagious disease (covid). Why aren't Israelis prohibited, banned or limited from smoking with similar prohibitions in order to stop a smoking disease--especially one that will probably kill more people in one year than covid? 

There are other inconsistencies with our treatment of covid. Look at the  economic dislocation we have suffered. So far, 3,314 Israelis had died from covid. That means that the lives of 3,314 families have been devastated. Those losses are tragic.

 But the covid tragedy goes beyond physical death. For example, so far this year, some 40,000 businesses have been forced to close (here). That means that the lives of as many as (at least) 100,000 Israeli business owners' families have been  shattered by covid, if one includes spouses and children. Those losses are also tragic.

Who has weighed the tragedies of 3,314 shattered families with/against up to 100,000 shattered family lives? The price Israel pays to fight covid with lockdowns is the price of 100,000 people losing their livelihoods. 

Who determined that the attempt to save lives required the loss of up to 40,000 family businesses in 2020 and perhaps another 60,000 in 2021 (ibid)? Does anyone in the government care about these losses?

Covid's lockdown tragedy doesn't end with shuttered businesses. On top of the business losses, there are losses attributable to depression and suicide: since March, 2020, Israel has seen "unprecedented levels of suicide calls" to crisis hotlines (here). So far (through November 5, the latest date available), Israel has seen as many as 13 suicides in a single 11-day period--and 252 suicide attempts in the same period (ibid). This is horrific.

How many suicides will covid's lockdowns and business losses provoke? How many families of failed business owners will suffer the trauma of increased family abuse brought on by covid-created fear, worry--and the frustration of being unable to feed and house one's family? 

The impact of covid gets worse: between March, 2020, when Israel's first covid death occurred, and November 2020, the latest date for stats, women in Israel seeking shelter from domestic abuse soared by 350% (here). Has anyone included these tragedies into the calculus used to determine a lockdown?

Israel has a 99.2% survival rate. Therefore, we lock down because.....? We force the shuttering of thousands of small family businesses, driving many out of  business forever because.....? We force an unprecedented number of women into shelters to escape abuse provoked by lockdowns because.....?

Remember, doctors are not at all convinced that lockdowns do more good than harm; in fact, according to some, lockdowns do more harm than good (here). In the face of such uncertainty, why embrace the known harms done by locking us down?

We don't even know if the razzle-dazzle-new-science of our inoculations will actually work (here). All we know for certain is that, in Israel, covid has a 99.2+% survival rate. Doesn't such a survival rate suggest anything to anyone?

Certainly, lockdowns might be necessary. There might well be good reasons for a lockdown. But where are those reasons? Have you seen any? 

At least one politician in Israel has already said the lockdowns are political, not medical. Because none of us has been shown the medical data to support any lockdown, his accusation goes unanswered. Yes, he could be wrong. But then, absent data, he could be correct.

Where is the data to support the lockdown? Why haven't we seen it? Does it exist?

This latest lockdown in Israel, begun Sunday, Dec 27, 2020, is scheduled to cost Israel between 2.5-3 billion shekel a week (here). Israel risks immense economic damage to do what--to protect us against a disease that has a 99.2% survival rate? 

In Israel, an unintended consequence of four elections in two years

 On Tuesday night, December 22, 2020, the Israeli Knesset (Parliament) dissolved (here). It dissolved because of a Parliamentary rule. That rule was simple: Members of the Knesset (MKs) had to vote to create a new 2020 federal budget by December 23, 2020. If the vote for that budget failed in the Knesset (it failed by 2 votes on December 22, 2020 (ibid)), then the Knesset would automatically dissolve. 

In essence, this Knesset dissolution signaled that the current government had proven to be "unworkable". Dissolution meant that the Knesset saw only one solution for this "unworkable" government: a new election. Why? Because that's what happens when the Knesset dissolves. An election is required.  

Apparently, Israel really believes that a new election is the solution to a broken government. Yes, a new election is just what the doctor ordered. It would bring into the Knesset a clean slate of MKs who would be more cooperative, less interested in political name-calling and more focused on completing the requirements of the nation's business.

Really? Of course!

According to Knesset rules, once a Knesset dissolves, a new national election must be held within the following 90 days. For this upcoming election, that meant an election date of March 23, 2021.

That's the theory. In practice, the actual date could be moved.

If you read Israel history, you know that national elections in Israel are held every four years. But that's just more theory. In reality, the typical Israeli government falls apart sooner than every four years. 

This March 23, 2021 election is no different. But then, it's also very, very different.

You see, this upcoming March 2021 election is unique. It will be the fourth election in two years. 

This is uncharted water even for Israel's volatile political scene. It's never happened before. It is, if you will, a 'world's record' for this Jewish State. 

It's also a sign that something is broken in Israel. Very broken.

Israel's election problem is dangerous. Lately, Israel has found that it can't elect anyone. It keeps trying. But it fails.

That's not how a democracy is supposed to work.

Israel has a "democracy" problem, all right. Democracy is supposed to mean the art of agreement. But members of the government cannot seem to agree on anything. Not having a national budget in place (the reason the Knesset dissolved) is not the only problem plaguing this government. It's just the problem that collapsed the Knesset.

In theory, a government cannot operate without a budget. That's why the Knesset dissolved. But then, 2020's budget crisis has proven that, bottom line, a government can work without a budget. It simply works with a version of the last approved budget (in this instance, 2019). It's not ideal, but it works.

Not in Israel. In Israel, if there's no budget, the government, apparently, has to be abandoned.  

At least, that's the way it looks. "Budget" seems just an excuse to go to new elections. "Budget" hides what's really wrong--a breakdown of Israel's democracy.

Back in March 2020, Israeli voters saw the failure of the third of three election attempts to chose a Prime Minister. Voters were growing weary of election campaigns because in Israel, such campaigns are filled with more name-calling tantrums than policy discussions. 

In Israel, election campaigns are wearing. They don't educate or inform. They annoy.

Voters want results from their elections, not endless bickering. But by March 2020, the only solution for three failed elections that anyone could see was to form a "unity" government between Benjamin Netanyahu's Likud Party and Benny Gantz's Blue-White Party. These two men were chosen to create that 'unity" government because they were the two leading vote-getters of that election. 

The "unity" government was finalized in May, 2020. It lasted, maybe, seven months.

"Unity" for these two political enemies was not a match made in Heaven. It seemed more a match designed in Hell--and so it proved. 

Gantz and Netanyahu couldn't bond. If democracy is the "art of compromise",  this democracy knew none of that. Gantz and Netanyahu couldn't agree on "unity". They couldn't agree on a budget. They wouldn't agree on how to deal with the pandemic. Since the very beginning of this so-called unity government, the only thing the two men could create together was what one observer called, a "monstrosity" (here)--a government that was too big, too unwieldy and too crowded with people who seemed born to hate each other, to be effective.  

That hurts democracy. It undercuts what makes a democracy work--compromise and agreement.

The result was predictable. Lots of infighting. Lots of accusations. Plenty of back-stabbing and political sabotage--and no action. 

The result was a political crisis. This happened because politicians tried to do the impossible. They tried to mix political water (the demands of Gantz's Blue-White Party) with political oil (the demands of Netanyahu's Likud Party). No one in Israel seemed to understand that water and oil do not mix.

For the last several months, a fourth election in two years has seemed inevitable. Will yet another election really yield a different election outcome? Polls suggest no. We will end up, these polls suggest, with the same mess we have today.

That's not how a democracy is supposed to work.

Some in Israel expect that the campaign rhetoric in this election could be the ugliest and dirtiest in Israel's long and predictable history of dirty, ugly elections (here). Given the a political hatred that festers in Israel right now, they might be correct.

The problem is Netanyahu. It seems that more than half of Israel hate his guts--passionately. But it also seems that more than half of Israel also believes Netanyahu is Israel's best and smartest politician. To many, he's the best Jewish politician on the planet to deal with the kind of unrelentingly hostile, anti-Jewish attitudes Israel faces every day. Indeed, some in Israel feel Netanyahu is the only politician in Israel capable with dealing with that hostility.

The point here is, Israel needs Netanyahu. But too many in Israel hate him.

The unintended consequence of all this could do serious harm to Israel's democracy. Think about it: for two full years now, all four of these elections (including the one coming up) have been run by anti-Netanyahu-ers who have urged-urged-urged voters to vote Netanyahu out of office specifically "to protect Israel's democracy". 

For two years, that's all (or, almost all) voters have heard.The result of all these "save democracy" slogans has been dramatic: three failed elections, with no leader chosen. 

Is this what a democracy gives us--failure after failure? 

Voters have limited patience. How many elections are they supposed to endure? Voters are told to stand up for "democracy" (and get rid of Netanyahu). But when that "democracy" leads so consistently to failure, how do you expect voters to react? 

For voters, all these fruitless elections have proven very instructive. These elections highlighted two facts: (1) they were about "democracy";  but, (2), they failed to fulfill their democratic purpose--to elect someone.

Is this how a democracy works?

Another failed election could be trouble. Big trouble. If the best "democracy" can do for Israel is  failed elections, voters might want something better. They might wish to say, "good riddance" to the bad "democracy" they see.

Where will the fourth election lead? Stay tuned. Just don't be surprised if the march to the Final Jewish Redemption begins because voters have concluded that democracy has failed. They yearn for something better.

Chanukah, the State of Israel--and why it's important to celebrate this holiday

 (Note: This is an opinion piece. You are free to disagree. But if you do, perhaps you can tell me in the comments section available below. I'd be interested in what you have to say. Thanks )

(Last update: December 18, 2020)

Despite the fact that the Chanukah story took place more than 2100 years ago, this story is no fanciful ancient tale. It is instead a story that keeps repeating itself--even today. 

We might be wise to remember this.

On one level, Chanukah is about the clash of fundamental ideas about man, the world--and G-d. The Greeks of the Chanukah story believed in the existence of gods who ruled over our world. They believed in the power of Reason. They celebrated the human body.  

The religious Jews of the Chanukah period would have none of this. They didn't believe in multiple gods. They didn't believe that the Divine had physical form. Instead, they believed that their Heavenly Ruler was, in fact, not visible. Finally, they certainly didn't believe in celebrating the beauty of the human form. 

The Chanukah story is about two cultures. One culture, the "enlightened" Greeks, was called Hellenist. The other culture was religious Judaism. If ever there were two cultures which were diametrically opposed to each other, it was Greek Hellenism and religious Judaism. 

Hellenists believed in gods, all right--multiple gods who had form, shape, physical appearance and all-too-human appetites. Religious Jews believed in a G-d who was a single, singular Divinity who had no shape, no form, no physical appearance and none of the Greek gods' human appetites and failings.

The Greeks could  not believe that anyone would worship something invisible. That, to the Greeks, made no sense. 

Religious Jews didn't care what Hellenists thought.  The Hellenists, meanwhile, were offended by a Jewish G-d no one could see. 

To the Hellenist, Reason was everything: it drove their philosophy. It drove their inquiries into the natural world. It stood above all else. 

Religious Jews didn't buy that. For them, it wasn't Reason that was Supreme. It was G-d Himself. Reason, while important in Judaism, was secondary, not primary.

This was heresy to the Greeks. Again, to those so committed to the Supremacy of Reason, such an assertion--that there was something higher than Reason--made no sense. It was impossible. 

The religious Jews of Israel were simply not interested in Hellenism. These Jews would not accept the idea of worshiping multiple gods. They would not accept Reason as Supreme. They would not glorify the human form. They would not, as Hellenists often did, surrender to and then ennoble their carnal desires. 

The classical Hellenist world and the world of religious Judaism were poles apart (here). They were like water and oil--unmixable.

During that period in the 2nd Century BCE, many non-religious Jews flocked to Hellenism. They embraced the Greek culture--all aspects of it. Religious Jews rejected Hellenism. 

Israel society became divided, Hellenism vs Judaism. Some Jews embraced Hellenism and rejected their own Judaism. Other Jews clung to their traditions. 

That divide--along with a growing number of  seriously anti-Jewish actions by the Hellenists ruling over Israel--led to open conflict between the 'enlightened' Hellenist (both Jew and not Jew) against a band of Jews led by an "ultra-religious" Jewish family of Priests.  

Of course, the Chanukah story is about the wars fought between these Jews of Israel against their Hellenist enemies. The Jews at that time fought to throw the Greeks/Greek sympathizers out of the Jewish Holy Temple. They fought for the right to worship as they pleased. They won.

But this Chanukah story has another side to it. We can describe that 'second side' as, Jew vs Jew. 

Assimilation--specifically, the  movement of Jews away from their own religious traditions to other non-Jewish (and sometimes anti-Jewish) traditions--has been a Jewish problem for more than 2,000 years (here). Since the time of the Tanach, the history of the Jewish people has been characterized by two recurring themes: a history of the struggle of Jews against nations intent upon destroying the Jewish nation; and a story of Jews resisting other Jews who would stamp out major aspects of our Judaism. 

That double theme continues today. Even in 2020, there are groups in the world who seek the destruction of Israel. Even in today's Israel, there are individuals and politicians who demonize Israel's ultra-religious population--or who express disgust at Israel's Zionists who wish to settle our land. 

Even in 2020, we see in Israel political leaders who decry the 'Jewish'  nature of Israel. They speak openly of making Israel into a 'democratic' state. They want to erase what is 'Jewish' about Israel.

This is the modern Chanukah story: Jew vs Jew, Leftist vs (Rightist) Zionist. This Jew vs Jew story echoes the original Hellenism vs Judaism conflict. It's the modern version of the original.

The point of the Chanukah story of 2020 is that Hellenists--both old and new--forever attempt to destroy the Jewish religion in Israel. The Hellenists of old failed. But then, so do their modern spiritual descendants. 

My life--thanks to HaShem--has spanned, literally, three generations. During that time, I have  been blessed to have seen multiple Jewish, Chanukah-like victories. For me, the first such Jewish victory of these generations occurred in 1948 with the founding of the world's only Jewish State, Israel. 

Since then, I have seen other generational Jewish-Chanukah-like victories. These include the fact that, by 2020, there is more Torah in Israel that in any other place in the world--and, just as important--there are now more Jews in Israel today who believe that HaShem's Divine Hand affects our daily lives, than in any other place in the world. 

As one looks back across the last 72 years of religious Judaism's struggles in Israel, one is startled. What we see is nothing less than the echoes of the original Chanukah story. We see Jewish victories.

These are the lessons of the Chanukah story in our generation: first, the population of Israel's Torah-oriented Jews only grows stronger as time passes, not weaker; and, second, religion in Israel, despite what you might read in the news, is ever-more-bright, decade after decade. You can actually see this happening, especially when you compare 2020 to the period, 1946-48, when the founding of modern Israel unfolded.  

The struggle of the Chanukah-like Jew vs Jew conflict in Israel continues. But as this struggle continues, the Chanukah story is nevertheless retold every year, not just by the symbolic lighting of candles. It is retold as well because each year, our religion continues to spread--not recede--among Israeli Jews; and by that spread, Judaism triumphs.

That's why it's so important to celebrate Chanukah. The existence of Israel has proven that religious Jews are winning the modern battle for religious freedom. In small ways each year, we do relive the victory of the original Chanukah. 

Perhaps this awareness can help us enjoy the victory of the original Chanukah. Indeed, perhaps this is why it might be wise to keep these ongoing Jewish victories in mind when you light candles tonight for the last day of Chanukah, 2020. It may give you reason to celebrate the Jewish victories within your own generation.

Happy Chanukah!

How December 10-14, 2020 could turn into the "11th hour" for Donald Trump

 

Just before midnight on Monday, December 7, 2020, the state of Texas filed a lawsuit with SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the US) against four US states: Georgia, Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. This lawsuit alleged that "these states violated the Electors Clause of the US Constitution because they made changes to voting rules and procedures through the courts or through executive actions, but not through the state legislatures" as required by the Constitution (here). 

It would appear that Texas sees itself as having the right to ask SCOTUS to intervene in the 2020 electoral selection processes of these four states because Texas argues that the way in which these states violated Constitutional election requirements granted those four states advantages to certain voters not available to voters in other states (thereby violating the Constitutional concepts  of "due process" and "equal protection") (here). You can read the full details of this submission (here).

I think that's the basics of the Texas case. If someone wishes to 'set me straight', please do so through the "comments" section below (I will amend the essay to reflect your corrections). 

When this lawsuit hit the media (on Monday, December 7th), some typically pro-Trump observers suggested that the argument presented by Texas to the Supreme Court should get very high marks for "creativity". But they saw the chances of the lawsuit being successful as, at best, slim. One such observer said that, by any measure, this lawsuit appears to be the legal equivalent of a "Hail Mary" pass--a last-second act of desperation which has only a minor chance of succeeding (ibid). 

Some in the anti-Trump press were less circumspect in their reaction. Put simply, they laughed at the suit. They pointed out that, as of the December 7-8th time-period, the Trump attempt to get the courts to overturn the election had achieved a 1-51 record in the post-election litigation win-loss count (here). That meant that Trump had just a single court win in 52 attempts (if their numbers were correct). At least one of these voices mocked the Trump post-election legal efforts as  "Bizarro world desperation" (here).

The next day, December 8th, SCOTUS did something the anti-Trump media felt disinclined to report--but which could change everything. The Court issued an order (request?) that the four states being sued had until December 10 to argue against the alleged accusations of the suit (here). The deadline for these argument(s) was listed as 3 pm December 10th. 

While this suggests that the Court has not dismissed the suit out-of-hand, one cannot infer anything else from this action. We will have to wait until the Court rules on what it receives from the four states to see in what direction the case goes. At least, that's my opinion. 

The day after that, December 9th, the suit before the Court got interesting. On that date, four Amicus briefs ("friend of the Court") requests were filed with  SCOTUS, the  most significant of which came from the AG (Attorney General) of the state of Missouri. This brief was submitted to support the Texas AG's suit. This was significant because this Amicus wasn't a solitary voice in the proverbial wilderness. It brought with it the support of 16 more states (for a total of 17 states supporting Texas, plus Texas) (here, page 1). 

An 18th state, Arizona, also sent in a separate Amicus brief. This Arizona document appears to support the basic nature of the Texas case, but appears to add its own legal arguments for its support (here). 

This is an important development because, while having a total of 19 states (as of December 9th) submit/support a suit in SCOTUS certainly does not change "the legalities" of the case, it could change what at least one legal observer has called the "optics" of the case before the Court (here). This is to suggest that, suddenly, this lawsuit isn't a just case of one state (Texas) "going rogue"; it's now about a total of 19 Attorneys General alleging that the four states named in the suit had broken laws explicitly detailed in the US Constitution (ibid), violations that in some important way harmed their own election results (read the submissions (above) for details). 

19 states seeking legal redress from SCOTUS adds up to  38% of all US states seeking "justice". 38% is not an inconsequential number. Indeed, if over the next 50 hours or so more states support Texas in this suit, the Court could be looking at close to half the states objecting to how certain states violated the Constitution during this election. This might be interpreted as a kind of "legal national uprising" against this election. 

A host of US states supporting Texas could suggest a 'shot across the bow' of SCOTUS. It certainly shouts, 'THIS IS IMPORTANT!"

Will this case--and its supporters--now cause SCOTUS to sit up and take notice? Of course not. Or, well, maybe not. 

Or, then again, maybe yes. We don't know.

The point here is that this lawsuit might not succeed. This lawsuit could end up being Donald Trump's last chance to get the justice he says he deserves. This Texas case may become the end-of-the-line for Trump's bid to overturn the election results. 

Will this Texas case be nothing more than a 'Hail Mary' pass--an '11th hour' act of desperation? Stay tuned. We should find out soon enough.

--

PS: perhaps you wish to ask, since I live full-time in Israel, why should I care about what's happening in USA? 

It's a good question, so I will answer it. I worry about the 2020 US election precisely because I worry about Israel. That is, I specifically worry about Israel-US relations under a Biden administration. I am not the only one who feels this way (here).

I believe a Biden win will be bad for Israel. I worry about how Israel's international--and new Regional--status could change with a Biden administration in power in Washington.

I want what I feel is best for my country--Israel. That's why I write about the 2020 US election.

Donald Trump and the American betrayal: there's a message here US Jews should not ignore

 (Last update: December 9, 2020)

The title of this essay is unclear. It can have more than one meaning. 

First, it can mean that US President Donald Trump has betrayed America. For some in America, that is precisely why Trump was impeached by the US House of Representatives at the end of 2019. This is also why he has--so far--lost the 2020 national election. 

Such is the destiny, many in America say, of those who would betray their country. Such is Trump's destiny.

But this same title might mean something else: that America has betrayed Donald Trump. For other Americans, that is precisely why Trump is "losing" the 2020 election. He had accomplished much as President, these voices say, despite having to contend with a hostile, anti-Trump-obsessed media--and equally obsessed Democrat politicians. According to these American voices, Trump's current election problems derive in large measure from a corrupt media narrative that has successfully seduced enough Americans to destroy the Trump Presidency by voting for Joe Biden.

In truth, this essay is about both meanings.

In one sense, Donald Trump has indeed "betrayed" America. After all, he has become only the third US President in American history to be impeached. His behavior has, in other words, offended enough Americans that his impeachment became a necessity. 

Trump had 'misbehaved'. He had to be punished for his 'sins'; and he was. 

But that very impeachment revealed how it was America itself that might have betrayed its President. During the months leading up to that impeachment, Americans were told repeatedly (by the mainstream press) that Trump had committed crimes for which he needed to be impeached. 

During that same period, too many Americans accepted that drumbeat. Too few objected. The result was, according to some, America betrayed its President with a bogus impeachment.

Why was Trump impeached? Do you remember? 

Well, in the opening statement of Trump's impeachment trial, the Democrats' opening argument was presented by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff (Calif-D). In that statement, Schiff did not accuse Trump of having committed treason. He did not accuse Trump of bribery. He accused Trump of seeking to "perpetuate himself in office by inviting foreign interference and cheating in an election" (ibid).  Trump needed to be impeached, Schiff argued, because Trump was a man "who would subvert the interests of his nation to pursue his own interests" (here).

Is this what you remember of his impeachment? Trump was impeached for "pursuing his own interests"? Really?

Yes, really. That is what Adam Schiff said about impeaching Donald Trump.

Here are some of Schiff's other allegations:

-Trump was a man "who would be a king" (ibid).

-Trump had worked to secure foreign interference in our democratic elections" (ibid).

-He had tried to use US State power to influence the Ukrainian President to act in a way that would "advantage himself [Trump] in our democratic election"...to win re-election in 2020" (ibid).

-He had tried to start a [corrupt] "investigation...into former Vice President Joe Biden, who had sought the removal of a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor during the previous US administration" (ibid).

The list of his accusations goes on. You can read them all here. 

The bottom line here is that Donald Trump was not impeached because of "high crimes"--that is, because of bribery or treason. He was impeached for, essentially, what the Constitution calls, "misdemeanors"--crimes so inconsequential they are generally not worth prosecuting. 

What were Trump's misdemeanors? He had "abused his power". He had "obstructed" Congress" (here). 

Some in America today say that the 2020 elections were corrupted by several forms of illegal election "abuses"--and by outright fraud. These allegations have yet to be proven in court. Nevertheless, while the media in America has repeatedly called Trump "corrupt", the alleged "corruption" (fraud) of the 2020 election didn't come from Trump; it came, allegations say, from Democrats trying to unseat Trump.

Corrupt elections stain a nation's democracy. They suggest a betrayal of the most basic of a democracy's promises: honest and trustworthy elections. 

Who is now being accused of betrayal--Trump, or his enemies? His enemies.

Of course, Trump hasn't proven his case. At least, not yet.

Will he? G-d knows.

Nevertheless, the operative word here is not "proven". The operative word here is betrayal. 

The courts will decide what is the correct way to view the 2020 election: either Trump's allegations of fraud are correct; or, his enemies' saying Trump's allegations are "Pathetic", "Bizarre" and "Baseless". We will let the courts sort that out.

For our discussion, however, it's "betrayal" that counts. Betrayal involves dishonesty. It refers to "throwing someone under the bus". Is that what has happened in the 2020 elections--the attempt to throw Trump under the proverbial bus?

In America, some have argued that Trump betrayed America because he was power-hungry. Others have said, it wasn't Trump who was power-hungry, but a group of politicians and media personalities. They, not Trump, had betrayed America.

Who is correct? You tell me.  

Unfortunately for US Jews, betrayal is not limited to politics. It applies as well to Jews. 

In fact, one can argue that Jewish history is all about the betrayal of Jews. You see, betrayal is what happens to Jews when a surrounding non-Jewish culture needs a scapegoat. At one critical national or regional moment, Jews are betrayed. They are denounced. Their rights are taken from them. They are betrayed ("handed over") to federal or local authorities. They are oppressed. They are attacked.

Because they are Jews.

This is exactly what happened to Jews in the Biblical Exodus story. It's what happened to Jews in the Purim story. It's what happened in the Chanukah story. It's what happened in Europe during the Crusades. It's what happened during 17th-20th century pogroms in Europe and the Middle East.

It's what happened in the Holocaust. 

It continues. Around the world,  news stories fill with anti-Semitic sentiments. Everywhere, , people demonize Jews in speeches, on videos, in articles, in op-ed essays. Such attacks are part of a surrounding culture that finds such sentiments to be "normal" or "understandable"--or "true".

Betrayal is part of the darkness that has always threatened to engulf Jews. It is the "dark" part of Jewish existence that haunts both Jewish victims and their non-Jewish victimizers. 

One can argue that America has turned on its President. Will it now turn against its Jews?

If you don't think this is possible, consider this: Donald Trump has too much of a Jew track record. He's supported the Jews  too many time. He has, arguably, done more to help the Jewish State than any of his predecessors. 

For example, he moved the US embassy to Jerusalem. He recognized the importance of Jewish sovereignty over Judea Samaria. He appointed Nikki Haley to the UN, and she--with Trump's approval--did what no past President has done: she defended Israel as no US UN Ambassador had ever done. 

No other US President did so much for Jewish Israel. No one.

As things in America now stand, Joe Biden is scheduled to become the next US President on January 20, 2021. If that happens, will he build upon Trump's pro-Israel policies? Or, will he return to Obama's indifference and hostility?  

A look at Biden's early appointments suggests that a Biden Administration will not bring to Washington many pro-Israel, or even pro-Jewish, ideas. Too many of Biden's appointments-to-date helped to craft some of Obama's most anti-Israel policies. Caroline Glick warns that these appointments will not bring less antisemitism to America. They will instead bring a new kind of Jew-hate to America (here). 

Do you really believe these Obama-era appointees are eager to support a view of Jews and Israel that is kinder and gentler than Trump's view? 

More concerning for America's Jews is the rise of Progressivism in America. As Glick has pointed out (in yet another article on this same topic), progressives in the US have already, in essence, consigned Jews to the political outhouse called, "being white" (here). To a Progressive, "being white" may not be the ultimate in racism. But if you are looking for a racist, some Progressives believe, you might want to start by talking first with a white person--any white person (here, here). This means that, to a Progressive, Jews become "the perfect nemesis" (ibid). In plain English, this means simply that Jews in a Democrat-run, Progressive America may well end up with a target painted on their collective back. 

Jews are very close to being labelled with such a target.  Therefore, December 2020 might be the perfect moment for each US Jew to ask a simple question: does Progressivism-combined-with-a-Biden-America contain a message I should be thinking about? 

I don't see many US Jews asking such a question. 

In my opinion, the incoming Biden Administration, along with such friends as Black Lives Matters and ultra-Liberal academic supporters, could be preparing to betray some of America's most cherished ideals. These include (but are not limited to) such democracy-related concepts as a free press and the freedoms of speech and religion. Does this suggest that America also prepares to betray its Jews, who so benefit from these particular freedoms? 

Most US Jews will probably laugh--if not scoff--at such a thought. But do they scoff at their peril? 

From Israel, it certainly looks like Jews in the US are 'whistling in the dark'. With more than 70% (according to some numbers) of US Jews having voted for Joe Biden, it would appear that US Jews truly believe they'll be just fine in a society led by a Biden administration. PersonalIy, I see that as a gross--and dangerous-- mistake. 

What do you think? More important, what do you think US Jews should do?