The New York Times Is A Disgusting Paper

We know that the NY Times is no friend of Israel or of the Jewish people.  Not just in their editorials, but also in the Op-Eds they happily print.  And while I thought I was done talking about Mahmoud Khalil (see my posts of 3/15/25 and 4/2/25 about him), this past Sunday's edition of the Times (August 10) had an Op-Ed that I felt both compelled and impelled a response.  The falsehoods contained in that Op-Ed simply demanded a rebuttal.  Because people need to know that the Democratic - Mainstream Media Complex is not trustworthy.  At all!

Ezra Klein (yes, I'm sad to say that he is Jewish) is an Op-Ed writer for the Times, who also has his own podcast.  Klein is obviously far left.  That's bad enough.  But to give voice to an Israel hater, an obvious Jew hater, is inexcusable. The Op-Ed in last Sunday's paper contained excerpts from the interview - a softball interview - that Klein conducted of Khalil on his podcast.    

Klein opens his piece by asserting that Khalil's "sole offense had been to speak out against Israel in a way this administration did not like."  There's the first big lie.  Khalil was one of the leaders of the student protests at Columbia University in NYC.  You know, taking over buildings, blocking access to buildings, intimidating and assaulting Jewish students.  Just speech?  That is the way Klein set up the interview.  So, ignore all the rest.  Not to mention Khalil's involvement with CUAD (Columbia University Apartheid Divest), which advocates for the overthrow of the U.S. government, and an end to western civilization.  What government would want foreigners coming in seeking to overthrow their government?   

Here's a really big whopper by Klein:  "...I found inflammatory things said by people near you at different times.  Or by an Instagram account that's part of a group you're a apart of.  That kind of thing.  But I couldn't find that much from you."  Klein has a podcast, so I assume he knows how to do a Google search.  The reality is, this Op-Ed was a puff piece.  Puffing up Israel hater and Jew hater Mahmoud Khalil.  Why?  There can be no other reason than the NY Times and Klein side with Khalil and against Israel and the Jews who support Israel.  And let's not forget this point.  President Trump supports Israel and the Jewish people.  And anything that Trump supports the Left must oppose.  

Let me help Mr. Klein with a few of Khalil's inflammatory comments that Klein said he was unable to find.  Referring to October 7, Khalil said "unfortunately, we couldn't avoid such a moment."  We?  That would be Khalil identifying with Hamas.  Khalil:  "It was clear that the Saudi-Israel deal is very imminent, and Palestinians wouldn't have any path to statehood and self-determination.  So they had to that, according to their calculations - which, it's obvious were not right."  You see that sleight of hand by Khalil?  After identifying himself with Hamas, he remembers to say it was "their" calculation, and was not right.  If he believed it was not right, he would openly condemn Hamas - which he has refused to do on multiple occasions.  Therefore, we must assume that Khalil was fine with the rape, torture, murder and kidnapping of Jews that happened on October 7.  And Klein has no questions about that.    

Khalil then further justified the atrocities of October 7 by saying it was "a desperate attempt to tell the world that the Palestinians are here, that Palestinians are part of the equation."  Let's do a short recap.  Peace between Israel and the Saudis would be no good - why?  Why isn't a peaceful Middle East better for everyone?  Peace is no good because Hamas is a death cult.  They do not value human life.  The Palestinians could have had their own state since 1948, just like Israel.  Instead, Khalil has said:  "The Palestinian people have been living under occupation, ethnic cleansing, and all sorts of crimes since 1948 and we prevailed."  

Ocuupation by whom?  Egypt controlled Gaza from 1948 to 1967.  Jordan controlled the West Bank from 1948 to 1967.  No Palestinian state was created during that time.  Why not?  Israel vacated Gaza in 2005.  At this point I have to ask two important questions that I'm sure I have said previously in the blog.  First, the Palestinians claim that they are refugees since Israel's war for independence, fought from 1948 to 1949.  If so, why didn't they move on, like virtually every other refugee group in history.  We know the Jewish people displaced from Europe and the Arab countries moved on.  Wherever they ended up, they had families.  They established businesses.  The same for the Christians who have been displaced from Arab countries.  There seems to be one group more intent on killing than building.

Which brings me to my second question.  Hamas has received billions of dollars in foreign aid since taking control of Gaza in 2007.  Gaza is on the Mediterranean.  Why didn't they use those billions of dollars to create a seaside resort?  A tourist destination.  Why didn't they build hotels and office buildings.  The UAE, on the Gulf, did exactly that, and they attracted both business and tourism.  Instead, Hamas used all that money to make weapons, buy weapons and build underground tunnels into Israel.  To what end?  To kill all the Jews.  And while Khalil repeats all the Hamas propaganda about Israel, Klein is only too happy to accomodate him, and the Times is pleased to print it.   

I said that this Op-Ed was a puff piece.  Because Klein not only set up the interview to make Khalil look like a victim of the Trump Administration, but he failed to challenge Khalil on any of his anti-Israel comments.  Recall that the Trump Administration had Khalil picked up to be deported, but the Courts have blocked it.  Klein even failed to challenge Khalil on these lies:  "What I stand for, what I'm advocating, is the end of genocide, the end of the occupation, the end of the apartheid regime, and the end of complicity of Columbia University in this regime."  Genocide?  Apartheid?  Regime?  Klein challenged none of it.  

As for the antisemitism demonstrated by Khalil's group at Columbia, Khalil called it "manufactured hysteria."  And Klein?  Here was Klein:  "nobody there ended up as unsafe as you did."  Never mind the fear of the Jewish students.  Never mind the actual assaults on Jewish students.  This Op-Ed piece of trash was printed in the premier mainstream media paper in the country.  Which is why I say the Times is disgusting.  And I would say the same as to Klein; who, as a Jew, should be particularly ashamed of himself.       

Wasn't It Obvious And Predictable?

(Corrections.  There was an obvious error in my Part II post of "The West Has Lost Its Way."  In paragraph three, it should have said "demilitarized" and not "militarized".  There was also a spelling error of "gubernatorial;" and I made a change to more clearly reflect my point about our troops, and those of the IDF, defending freedom and liberty.  As I still work, my first draft of each post is also my last draft.  Nevertheless, my apologies to my readers, and the corrections have been made.)

In the above referenced post, I called the leaders of France, the U.K. and Canada "delusional" for thinking that giving recognition to a Palestinian state would bring peace.  Now that I've read the comments by Ghazi Hamad, a leader of Hamas, the most accurate description of those leaders is "evil."  Evil because it is inexcusable not to expect Hamas to react to their statements exactly as I predicted.  I believe they had to know - but did not care.  Hence, evil.

Hamad:  "The powerful blow that was delivered to Israel on October 7 has yielded three very important historic achievements.  First of all, it brought the Palestinian cause back.  Why are all these countries recognizing Palestine now?"  Why indeed!  Hamad:  "The overall outcome of October 7, forced the world to open its eyes to the Palestinian cause, and to act forcefully in this respect."  Let's not forget that Trump might have been on the verge of getting Saudi Arabia to join the other Arab nations who signed on the Abraham Accords.  But October 7 brought an end to that possibility.  

Take your pick of these two options:  1.  The combined military might of France, the U.K. and Canada is not as great as the military prowess of the terrorist organization known as Hamas.  Therefore those three countries had no option but to capitulate.  To essentially surrender in a war that they are not even fighting.  2.  The West has not only lost its way, but they are cowards.  Afraid of Hamas.  Afraid of their own Muslim populations.  But they know that criticizing, even weakening, Israel, will bring no repurcussions.  At least not for the time being.

As for the demand that a state of Palestine be "demilitarized," here is what Hamad thinks of that:  "The weapons constitute the Palestinian cause...Surrendering our weapons means the end of the resistance and the end of the Palestinian cause."  Recall that after, and referring to, October 7, Hamad said that "we will do this again and again."

Hamad:  "We are the victims.  Therefore, nobody should blame us for the things we do.  On October 7, on October 10, on October one-millionth, everything we do is justified."  Sure, rape, murder, mutilation and torture, killing babies and civilians...it's all "justified."  That is who Macron, Starmer and Carney want to reward with a state.  

So there you have it.  The three Western leaders have simply encouraged Hamas to prolong the war, to prolong the suffering of the civilian population of Gaza, and to make life difficult for the population of Israel, both economically and in terms of lives lost.  Right about now, I wish that I used some choice four letter words in the blog.  Just string together as many as you think of - and then multiply that by 100, and you'll begin to get some sense of what I think of the evil MORONS Macron, Starmer and Carney.  (Moron is not a four letter word.)

 

The West Has Lost Its Way, Part II

So, let's summarize.  Two of the three major powers in Europe, France and the U.K., joined by Canada, say they will give diplomatic recognition to "Palestine," which has never existed as a country.  Did I miss it?  Did I miss where Macron, Starmer and/or Carney insisted that the Jewish people have a right to have Israel accepted by Hamas and the PA as a Jewish state?  147 countries already have recognized a Palestinian state.  Did that bring peace?  

Does anyone really believe that these three leaders giving recognition to "Palestine" will now bring peace?  Maybe these three leaders just feel good about doing this.  Maybe they are virtue signaling.  But if they truly believe that recognition of a state of Palestine at this time will bring peace, then the nicest thing I can say about them is that they are delusional.  Neville Chamberlain apparently believed that ceding the Sudetenland to Hitler's Germany would bring "peace for our time."  Except, Hitler did not see it that way, as shortly thereafter Germany invaded Poland.  

These leaders have lost all sense of right and wrong.  Here is the message that these delusional leaders actually sent to Hamas and the PA/Abbas:  "We demand that Hamas release the hostages.  We demand that Hamas lay down it's arms.  We demand that Hamas leave Gaza and have no further involvement in governing Gaza.  And we demand that the PA/Abbas reform itself, and hold elections next year, and that the new state of Palestine be demilitarized.  We really mean it.  And to prove that we mean it, if you in Hamas and the PA do not do what we ask...we will give recognition to a "Palestinian" state anyway!"

If anyone doubts that that is the message sent by these leaders, and that that is the message heard by Hamas, here is what Hamas had to say.  It will not stop its "armed resistance" until there is an "independent, fully sovereign Palestinian state with Jerusalem as its capital."  By armed resistance, Hamas means what they already said - they will continue to carry out October 7 style attacks against Israel "over and over and over again."  By fully sovereign, Hamas means the right to have a military force, not to be demilitarized.  And when they say Jerusalem as the capital, they mean all of Jerusalem.  Notice they do not even pretend to mean what the Western liberals often refer to, which is "East" Jerusalem.   

So, that's the plan of the West.  Continue to reward Hamas and expect them to fall in line.  Why would they?  They believe they are winning.  In fact, they are winning in the West, where they see nothing but capitulation.  They see that they have succeeded in separating much of the Western world from the one democracy in the Middle East.  Not to mention that they are winning the hearts and minds of young people in the West, who know nothing of the history of the Middle East.  You think young people, and no doubt many leftwing adults, have any idea that the Arabs have refused to have their own state on at least six occasions?  When they talk about "occupied" territory, they are talking about all of Israel.  When they say "from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free," they clearly state there will be no more Israel.  And when they say "globalize the intifada," they mean kill Jews everywhere on earth that they live.

So, that is who Macron, Starmer and Carney are rewarding.  But what about the U.S.A.?  Here is what the State Department, under Secretary Marco Rubio and President Donald Trump, had to say:  "This week, the UN will serve as a host to an unproductive and ill-timed conference on the two-state solution in New York City.  This is a publicity stunt that comes in the middle of delicate diplomatic efforts to end the conflict.  Far from promoting peace, the conference will prolong the war, embolden Hamas, and reward its obstruction and undermine real-world efforts to achieve peace."

The statement continued:  "As Secretary Rubio has made clear, this effort is a slap in the face to the victims of October 7th and a reward for terrorism.  It keeps hostages trapped in tunnels.  The United States will not participate in this insult...Our focus remains on serious diplomacy: not stage-managed conferences designed to manufacture the appearance of relevance."   To which I say - G-d bless President Donald Trump and Secretary Marco Rubio.  

But, for those of us who support President Trump, and who support America and Israel against the terrorists, this fight is far from over.  Just last week, the leading self-hating Jew in Congress, Bernie Sanders, proposed two anti-Israel resolutions in the Senate.  The first bill was a proposal to block $675 million in arms sales to Israel.  This at a time when Israel is fighting a multi-front war.  Yet, 24 Senators (all Democrats, as Sanders caucuses with the Democrats) voted in favor of blocking the aid.  That is one-half of the Democratic caucus!  Not surprisingly, not a single Republican Senator voted in favor of the measure.  Sanders other proposed measure was to stop the sale of rifles to Israel.  That measure got 27 votes - all Democrats.  

There is much talk of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez possibly being the Democratic candidate for President in 2028.  She is not a fan of America or Israel.  That usually goes hand in hand.  Thinking of that possiblility, and seeing the failure of the West to take a moral stance in support of a democracy over an authoritarian terrorist organization, I am reminded of two presidents.  Ronald Reagan, in his inaugural gubernatorial speech, reminded everyone that "Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction.  It is not ours by inheritance, it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.  Those who have known freedom and lost it have never known it again."  

And, of course, President Kennedy in his inaugural address:  "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty."  G-d bless our troops, and the soldiers of the Israeli Defense Forces, for they are on the front lines defending freedom and liberty everywhere.      

The West Has Lost Its Way, Part I

Recently, France and Saudi Arabia sponsored a conference at the UN in order to discuss the Israel-Hamas war.  Ultimately, the so-called "New York Declaration" was signed off by all 22 member countries of the Arab League, the European Union and 17 other nations.  "We condemn the attacks committed by Hamas against civilians on the 7th of October."  Yes, that was a first.  [It would have been better had they specifically condemned the attacks aimed at the Jewish people of Israel, and the worst atrocity committed against the Jewish people since the Holocaust.]  Of course, they then went on to condemn what it called Israel's attacks on civilians. 

Then the statement said that "...Hamas must end its rule in Gaza and hand over its weapons to the Palestinian Authority."  [There's a great plan - transfer the weapons from one terrorist organization to another.]  The Declaration also called for a Palestinian "right of return" for those that left Israel or were expelled.  That's a non-starter, as millions of Palestinians would claim that right, and end Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world.  

The Declaration also called for an end to inciting and hateful material from the PA curriculum.  And that Israel must do the same.  [Israel does not do that.  But can't just condemn one side.  No showing favoritism for the democratic state of Israel over the terrorist organizations.]  (Information from the Times of Israel, 7/30/25.)

Then, French P.M. Emmanuel Macron, made this announcement:  "I have decided that France will recognize the State of Palestine."  [Really?  What are the borders of this new state that you will recognize?  If I had to bet, I'd say he was willling to go by the so-called 1967 borders; which means he would be willing to cede the holiest sites in Judaism to the Arabs.]  

Macron continued:  "We need an immediate ceasefire [how nice, as Hamas refuses], the release of all hostages [Hamas refuses that as well], and massive humanitarian aid for the people of Gaza.  We must also ensure the demilitarization of Hamas [they refuse that too], secure and rebuild Gaza."  I noticed something very interesting about Macron's statement.  He has this fantasy wish-list of what he wants to happen, but he did not make France's recognition of "Palestine" contingent upon any of those things actually happening.  

Not to be outdone, U.K. P.M. Keir Starmer announced this:  "I can confirm that the UK will recognize the State of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September, unless the Israeli government takes substantial steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agrees to a ceasefire, permit to a long term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a two state solution."  

Is Hamas required to do anything?  Kind of.  Hamas "must immediately release all the hostages, sign up to a ceasefire, disarm and accept that they will play no part in the government of Gaza."  [Again, how nice.  Hamas refuses to do any of that.  But Starmer did not see fit to make his recognition of "Palestine" on anything that Hamas must actually do, only on what Israel must do.  Just like Macron.]

Canadian P.M., Mark Carney, piped in - what about us?  Carney:  "Canada intends to recognize the State of Palestine at the 80th Session of the United Nations General Assembly in September, 2025."  "This intention is predicated on the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms, including the commitments by Palestinian Authority President Abbas to fundamentally reform its governance, to hold general elections in 2026 in which Hamas can play no part, and to demilitarize the Palestinian State."  And, oh yes, "We reiterate that Hamas must immediately release all hostages...(and that) Hamas must disarm; and that Hamas must play no role in the future governance of Palestine."  

[Predicated on a verbal commitment by Abbas?  No actual deeds must first take place.  And not predicated on actual actions by Hamas - to the things they say they will not do.  Excellent plan.] 

More Comments On Zohran Mamdani, Often Described As The Likely Next Mayor Of NYC

(Note.  On July 4, I wrote 2 posts about Mamdani - about his politics and about his antisemitism.  What follows are some additional comments, including what appears to be an ever growing anti-Israel, antisemitic Democratic Party.)   

Recall that the mainstream media was all in for Hillary Clinton and against Donald Trump.  The same for Kamala Harris.  To the point of making up lies and reporting half-truths.  Now, let's take a look at two recent articles about Mamdani - one in the 7/25 leftwing New York Times, and the other in the conservative New York Post.  In the NY Times piece, we are told that "Mamdani Faces Barrage of Attacks From Republican New Yorkers."  Of course, if the Democrats still supported America and opposed antisemitism, they would be attacking Mamdani also.

The first paragraph of that article tells us that Mamdani is "visiting family in Uganda."  How nice.  If you were wondering what prompted the visit at this time, you would not get that from the Times article.  In contrast, here is what we find out from the NY Post:  "Socialist NYC mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani celebrated his recent nuptials with a lavish, three-day affair at his family's ritzy, secluded Ugandan compound - complete with masked security guards and a cellphone jamming system."

The Post describes his mother as a "wealthy filmmaker."  We already know that his father is an anti-Israel professor at Columbia University in NYC.  The property owned by the parents is said to be in a wealthy area in Uganda, home to billionaires and millionaires.  And while much of the country was apparently mourning the death of a Supreme Court Judge, Mamdani and his family were engaged in their lavish celebration.  

Wait a second.  Why didn't the NY Times report all this when they said Mamdani was on vacation?  Could it be because it showed what a hypocrite he is?  Like many "leaders" of that party.  A self-described socialist, who proposes policies that sound communist, who is against billionaires, and asserts that he is a man of the people - somehow has no problem sharing in the benefits of his family's extreme wealth.  Rules for thee but not for me?

Michelle Goldberg is an Op-Ed writer for the NY Times.  Last month, one of her articles ran with this title:  "Plenty of Jews Love Zohran Mamdani."  Plenty?  She referenced a poll that said Mamdani had 20% Jewish support.  Is that "plenty?"  You can get 10% of people to agree to almost anything.  

Goldberg:  "I thought it was a terrible mistake for Mamdani to try to justify the phrase "globalize the intifada" on a podcast this month.  He's right, of course, that the literal meaning of intifada is not necessarily violent - it translates to uprising or rebellion - but context matters."  Does "uprising" sound peaceful to her?  What context does she give?  The murder of the two young Israeli Embassy workers in D.C. and the attack on the people in Colorado demonstrating for the release of the hostages held by Hamas. 

The context?  The context is that there were two violent "intifadas" against the Jewish people in Israel, as discussed in the Part II post about Mamdani written on July 4.   Over 1000 Jews - civilians - were murdered during these "uprisings."  Why didn't Goldberg mention that?  Because that is how "intifada" translates in the real world.  And "globalize the intifada" surely means killing Jews wherever on the globe you may find them.  And, as discussed in my blog posts, it's already been happening with increasing frequency - here in the U.S. and around the world.  

What is wrong with Goldberg?  Why is she willing to support someone who has repeatedly refused to renounce the phrase "globalize the intifada?"  I won't repeat everything in my July 4 posts about Mamdani.  But, recall that he also won't condemn Hamas for the murder of some 1200 Israelis on October 7, 2023.  But what's the most important?  Mamdani is "young and energetic and comfortable speaking extemporaneously."  And, "in a cynical and despairing time, he gave people hope."  Other than hope for "free" handouts, what else did he give people?  Get over yourself, Goldberg.  Over half the country does not feel your cynicism and despair.    

So what does Mamdani's predicted victory mean for the future of the Democratic Party and the country?  Yes, two prominent Democrats have, to their credit, spoken out against Mamdani.  Josh Shapiro, the Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, and Rahm Emanuel, former Chicago Mayor and Obama White House Chief of Staff.  Why aren't all, or at least the vast majority, of all elected officials from both parties, condemning Mamdani?  Could it be because, as mentioned in my other July 4 post ("Im Sick Of It!  Really Sick Of It!") nearly 70% of Democrats now have a negative view of Israel?  So what's next for these Democrats?  The U.S. should start supporting the terrorist group Hamas (and Iran and the rest of their proxies)?  Another Israel hater, Ocasio-Cortez, is said to be a realistic candidate for the Democratic Party's 2028 presidential nominee.  G-d help America if that should ever happen.          

Friday Was A Good Day (A Personal Post)

Part I.  My wife and I have been going to the same dermatologist for a number of years.  First, when she worked in another doctor's office.  Later, we went with her when she opened her own practice.  She was always thorough, always nice, always explained everything.  So, my wife and I were quite upset when we learned that she would be off work for a period of months, having been diagnosed with cancer.  What type?  We did not know.  In the meantime, there were other doctors in the office to see patients.

Another one of my doctor's offices is just down the hall from Dr. K's.  Periodically, I would stop in Dr. K's office (when leaving the other doctor) and ask the staff at the front desk how she was doing.  I always asked that they let her know we were wishing her all the best.  When I arrived at my appointment on Friday, I again asked how Dr. K was doing, and said to please give her my best.  While I was sitting in the waiting room, one of the staff said they had a surprise for me.  Out came Dr. K behind her.

As I stood up, Dr. K walked over and gave me a big hug, and was obviously appreciative of our constant good wishes.  I told her that, upon hearing she had some type of cancer, I said to my wife:  "No!  Dr. K is too young, too nice and too pretty for this."  (I know.  In today's world it is impermissible to comment on a woman's appearance.  Too bad.)  Anyway, Dr. K told me how she been diagnosed with lymphoma.  She had noticed swelling of her lymph nodes.  And then got testing.  She had to undergo a grueling six months of chemotherapy.  Dr. K is tall and thin, with flowing red hair.  But she looked a little gaunt after her chemo.  And I suspect her hair had fallen out, as she now had short red hair. 

The conversation continued for a while.  She said she was not yet back to work, even though she had stopped in the office.  I let her know that she had been in my prayers for those in need of healing.  It was just just so good, so inspiring, to see her up and about again.  As the conversation was ending, I said to her that she was still too young, too nice and too pretty to be going through this.  She seemed to be moved by my words.  I hope I remembered to also again wish her a full recovery.  As I left her office, I thought to myself:  "this is a good day.  In fact, this made my day."  

Part II.  Since we moved two years ago, I haven't been going to the small Chabad House that I used to go to for Friday night services.  Nevertheless, I am still on their email list.  So I received an email telling me that Friday night was going to be a special service, and dinner afterward, in honor of one of the congregants who had been such an important part of the community, but who now was moving with his wife to another state.  I confirmed that my wife and I would be there.

In the email announcement, they asked if anyone wanted to write a personal note about this wonderful man who was leaving.  They would compile all the notes and give them to him, so he could know and remember how important he was to the local Chabad community.  Of course, I felt I had to write something.  So, I explained that I had never gone to Chabad for Friday night services, until I started going to this particular Chabad House.  I had gone to High Holiday services at another Chabad for years, but this Chabad where I went on Friday nights was a much smaller, more intimate setting.  And, having been raised in a mostly secular family, I felt like a fish out of water.

I was always greeted warmly in the front lobby by the Rabbi and the "social secretary."  But once inside in the men's section (Chabad is an orthodox group, and the men and women sit separately during services), I really did not know anyone, except for one friend who often went also; but I liked sitting in the front and he liked the back.  But this nice Israeli man always made me feel so welcome.  Not that the others were not nice.  But this man was special.  

On a typical Friday night, there would ususally be between 20 and 40 people showing up for services.  What a pleasant surprise to see that 100+ people showed up to wish this nice man and his wife the best, as one speaker said, "for the next chapter of their lives."  He did not tell me the reason for his moving.  I'm not sure he told anyone.  He only said "Lech Lecha."  In the Torah, G-d tells Abram (later Abraham) to leave his homeland and go a place "that I will show you."  That land, Canaan, later becomes the land of Israel.  

Lech lecha can also be a spiritual journey.  And this very nice man, who I came to consider a friend, is a deeply religious man.  In my email to him, I wished him all the best, and that G-d bless him with good health and a long life.  It was just so good to see such a warm outpouring of support from the Jewish community (of all ages, and undoubtedly all levels of observance and all sides of the political spectrum) for this very nice man.  So I say to my friend:  Be'ezrat Hashem!  (Akin to G-dspeed.)

Two good things in one day.  Friday was indeed a very good day.

"It's Personal." Is it though?

Sad to say, but a family member (more than one actually, but this post concerns one) is still not over the results of the 2024 election.  Meaning, not over Trump.  I have tried over the years to maintain relations with my nieces and nephews (except for one with whom I have had no relationship, perhaps unrelated to this topic) by periodically texting and talking.  Either just to say "hi, how are you," or to wish a happy birthday, or whatever the case may be.

Recently, to one such relative, my texts were going unanswered.  So I asked what the problem was.  The reply was rather shocking - I was asked if I am still MAGA, and a true Trump supporter.  Am I MAGA?  I've voted for Trump three times, yet I've never thought of myself as MAGA.  My self-identity is not tied to any particular politician or party.  I have my beliefs, mostly conservative, and that's that.  If I voted for Trump three times (again, I did) but also have criticized him, am I MAGA anyway?

Am I a true Trump supporter?  I do support Trump.  But, again, I've also criticized Trump.  So, have I been kicked out of the true Trump supporters club?  I just don't think of myself in those terms.  But these comments made me remember one time when I was in court when Obama was President.  I was complaining to another attorney that, contrary to Obama's promises about the ACA/Obamacare, we did not get to keep our insurance policy, and just staying with the same company with a different policy would cost us an additional $2400 a month.  I then added "Obama lied."  

The reaction was quite visceral.  It was as if I had accused that attorney of lying to me, rather than saying Obama lied.  He yelled:  "Don't say that about my President."  He was really saying "Don't say that about me."  But why?  Why is it personal to some people when their side is criticized, or disagreed with?  Why do people react like this?  I've had people say horrible things about Trump, to me.  I may not like it (I usually don't). but it's about Trump.  Trump is not me.  

Here is my analysis.  Some people have so internalized their worldview/weltanschauung that any criticism of their side is taken as a personal affront to them.  Their self identity is wrapped up in their worldview.  The two are inseparable.  Which would account for this family member telling me that it's not just a difference of opinion, it's personal.  Which also explains why it is impossible to have an intellectual discussion of issues with someone like that, because if you disagree with them, you are attacking them, and then it's all emotions.  It's personal.  A very bright friend from college noticed this, and said to me some 54 years ago, that if you challenge some people's worldview, their fundamental assumptions about the world, you may very well get a violent reaction.  

This exchange with this family member also brought to mind a quote from my post "Classical Liberalism," coincidentally posted exactly nine years ago today, on July 17, 2016.  In that post, I discuss the classical liberal treatise written by John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty."  With regards to speech, Mill wrote this:  "If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."

Unfortunately, so many of today's Democrats are no longer classical liberals.  They are Leftists, and we know that Leftists can brook no dissent.