In the past, I’ve periodically mentioned my cousin Andy Elisburg who is the General Manager and Executive VP of the Miami Heat NBA team. (As I’ve noted before, but for those just joining the party, no, that is not a typo, but his wing of the family changed the spelling very long ago.) And today, we head in that direction again. But not to Andy. Instead, we take a detour. One that brings us to his niece, Abby Berger, who is a junior in high school. The other week, her grandmother Nancy sent me a copy of a short speech that Abby gave. Now, I often get sent things that friends, relatives and acquaintances have written, including pieces that their children wrote -- which they figure, as a writer, I’ll be interested to see, and even impressed by. And I do like to see them. But a little perspective is needed here first before going any farther. The challenge when sent material is how to respond. Because over the years it's part of what I do for a living, and I’ve been given screenplays, novels, articles and stage plays written by professionals, some of them Tony, Emmy, Writers Guild, and Humanitas award-winners, to get my reaction and suggestions, and have also edited several books, as well, and more, going back to when I was the head writer in the Universal Picture publicity department. I always tell the person first that I will be totally honest with them, if that’s what they want. (They always say, yes, absolutely -- though most don’t mean it. What they want to hear, and often even expect, is "Not since William Faulkner has literature moved me so much -- and that it my brutally honest opinion.") But, yes, when the person is not a professional I do always keep in mind the background of the writer and the work’s intent. Still, though, because I always really do try very hard to be honest -- and polite -- it’s very often a concern wondering what I’ll have to say when I dive into a work, holding my breath that the piece will be nicely done. I thought Abby’s speech was superb. Not just for the writing, but for what it said. Explaining her experience living in a world most people never see, or even consider. And a world that today is especially deeply important and meaningful. As her grandmother put it, a world where “we often have no idea what children, hear, see and process.” This was for her confirmation at temple, about being a child growing up over the years amid all the normal pressures someone young faces, just trying to find your place in the world and staying firmly who you are, when additionally surrounded by an outside environment that is very different, at times even hostile, from one’s Jewish homelife. I asked for permission to use Abby’s speech and whether she wanted me to use her name or preferred not. She gave her okay to both. Given what she writes, I'm not surprised. Though I nonetheless admire her decisions. And am glad because she deserves the credit. Here is her speech. I think it’s wonderfully written, thoughtful and moving. And very meaningful, most especially today. Shalom everyone, I’m Abby Berger -- and by now you know the prompt of my speech: how to explain to a room full of Jews what Judaism means to me. As poor Rabbi David knows, I struggled with this speech. On the surface, being Jewish is just what I am. I have the signature Ashkenazi curls, I love matzah ball soup, and I like to throw random yiddish words into my sentences for fun. I’ve always known these things. Yet I’ve been fighting to prove I exist ever since elementary school. One of my favorite Jewish concepts is Tikkun Olam. In your program, it is defined as “healing the world.” It can also be defined as “improving the world.” As kindergarten me saw a giant Christmas tree go up every December, and nothing else -- I decided that the way I would improve the world was through education. And that’s what I did. I taught my fellow classmates about Hanukkah every year, by bringing props and telling stories. With help from my mom, I even got the front office to put up a menorah and dreidels next to the tree, every year. I left elementary school quite proud of my accomplishments. Mazel Tov!- I had won! And then came middle school. This was the time of braces and growth spurts-I joined orchestra, and I learned about the “glories” of Algebra. This was also when I was properly introduced to the Holocaust. I learned about it from Hebrew school, and a little bit in 8th grade, but I also learned through books. The only Jewish characters I could find in chapter books were always about the Holocaust. So of course, I read them, and I learned. I kept this history in the back of my mind, but as a middle schooler, we tend to forget things, and I didn’t really think about it. Until one day, in orchestra, I saw a swastika carved into my cello. I don’t know if you’ve ever seen a cello up close, but it has a tough top coat- to get a scratch through is difficult. To find out that someone had taken the painstaking time to carve a symbol of hate on such an innocent canvas -- that was baffling for me. Talk about a wake-up call. I reported what happened to my teacher, and soon the school counselor gave a presentation on hate symbols and why they can hurt people. I then continued to educate those around me about Jewish holidays and the deliciousness of matzah ball soup. (although first I had to explain what matzah was). So I left middle school, proud I had made a difference. Mazel Tov! -- I had won! And then came high school. Oy. Gavolt. In between classes, extracurriculars, and learning to drive, I soon realized that I was the only practicing Jewish student in almost 2,000. To say I experienced some antisemitism is to put it lightly. Students would do the nazi salute and post holocaust memes, and teachers would let them get away with it, with nothing more than a warning. I’m sick of it. By now, I have come to realize that the common denominator for all of these incidents was that people didn’t know I was there. They didn’t know a Jewish student went to their school, and witnessed what they did. So I'm doing what I do best- educating. I remind my little Southern Indiana town that there is a whole world of people who are different, and some are quite close to home. Now, how does this answer the prompt? What does it mean to be Jewish as a public school student in Southern Indiana? It's the moment of hesitation to put on a Star of David necklace. It's not hesitating to correct someone's mispronunciation of a holiday. It’s the telling and retelling, and retelling, of the story of Hanukkah every December. It’s making challah. It’s eating- lots and lots of eating. It's keeping a list of anti-semitic moments I've experienced. It's the plan to use that list to start a revolution. These are all answers I’m sure Rabbi David did not see coming. For me, to be Jewish is to exist. To take up space, and learn, and educate. To hope for the better, but to start on the problem now. So Shalom, I’m Abby Berger. And I’m proud to say that as a Jew, I exist.
4 Comments
Well, of course, it's started again. The cry on Fox and elsewhere about the far-right bringing out their old chestnut, perfect for the season. Yes, if there's a twinkle in their eyes and a glow to their noses, that can only mean one thing. Ranting about the "War on Christmas" is back! So, okay, I figured that if they can keep chucking out this golden oldie, so can I. I posted this tale a decade ago in 2013, and it seems just as fresh as ever to repeat. This is an article I initially published on the Huffington Post almost 17 years ago to the day -- December 12, 2006. In fact, although it wasn't the first piece I wrote for them, it's actually the article that got me to the Huffington Post. Let me explain... In very early January of 2006, I was literally heading out the door to drive to the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. And as I grabbed my luggage, a thought popped into my head -- what if the War on Christmas was reported on like it was a real war? I started laughing, but knew I couldn't write it at that moment, walking to my car. And I couldn't write it during CES either. And when I got back home, I had to first write my long overview of the show, which took another week. By the time I could sit down and finally write the War on Christmas article and finish it, we were past mid-January. Not only was it too late for anyone to publish the piece, I really didn't know what outlet would? I looked around, but came up empty. I was annoyed, since I liked the article, but it was a man without a country, no where to go. Then another thought popped to mind -- what about this new website I'd heard about, the Huffington Post? I looked into them, they seemed interesting, and I gave them a try. Alas, even back then in their early start-up days, they were slow as anything to respond. I kept following up, relentlessly writing back -- for months. With no answer. Undaunted, I kept trying, as much because I was annoyed at the rudeness and wouldn't give in to that as I was interested now in writing for them. At last, someone replied -- somewhat-apologetically. At this point were were probably in April, a tad late for Christmas (though I supposed I could have rewritten for a War on Easter...), but I still pursued writing for the Huffington Post on general principle, and eventually they accepted me. I didn't get the War on Christmas article posted, of course, but I started writing for them at that point, regardless. As the next Christmas neared, though, I realized I could post the article for the coming holiday. If only Bill O'Reilly and the far right would again yammer about the War on Christmas, then the story would be timely again. Oh, please, act like foolish bullies again, I thought, as visions of sugar plums danced in my head. And sure as people hate fruitcake, there was Bill O'Reilly outraged at it, at the ridiculously idiotic War on Christmas. And so, a year late, with a few updated rewrites, I finally posted the column that had gotten me interested in writing for the Huffington Post in the first place. And so it was, again, as I said, that last night Bill O'Reilly brought out his annual self-serving rant, just as sure as people bring out their Dickens every Christmas Eve. And so, if he can keep bringing it back, so can I. Harken back to a simpler time, when a simpler man was president, George W. Bush. Here then is that original story, seven years later, still timely... Oh, and if the far-right continues to have their head explode by their belief that there is actually, truly a "War on Christmas," I can't imagine how they'll react next year when they discover that the first night of Hanukkah in 2024 begins on...December 25! Yes, really. Fa la la. War on Christmas Going Well, President Says to Stay the Course
With intense fighting continuing, the Administration claims today that government forces have finally made significant headway in the War on Christmas. The intensity of the conflict, which recently marked its first anniversary, has caught many in the White House by surprise. Experts there initially believed it would never continue long past last Thanksgiving, certain that government forces would be greeted by visions of sugarplums. "We have received dispatches from our generals that several stores are now, in fact, greeting their customers with wishes of 'Merry Christmas'" reported White House spokesman Tony Snow. "The strident sounds of 'Happy Holidays' are no longer the only ones heard." The press secretary's statement was reinforced by the words "Mission Accomplished" strung up behind him in colorful twinkle lights. When asked whether this upturn in activity may have more to do with it simply being the Christmas season than any actual military engagement, Snow replied that it is long White House policy not to comment "because there is an ongoing War." Success does not come easily, however. Casualty figures were released for the previous week, and equaled the all-time high of zero. This brings the total casualties for the War since its start to zero. These statistics do not include religious conversions, because such information is closely guarded. Sources at the Pentagon, however, speaking under condition of anonymity, say that the number is zero. Nonetheless, anti-government critic Bill O'Reilly believes that the Bush Administration has not been forthcoming about the truth and suggests that conditions are far worse than reported. "This War on Christmas has been a debacle, and that's No Spin. We have facts about this," the Fox commentator related, bouncing almost uncontrollably in his chair. "There is an A&P in Fincastle, Kentucky, which refused to put a crèche in the frozen foods section! The store 'claimed' that it was a major health violation, but, please, c'mon, if you really believe in the Christmas spirit, there is nothing healthier than having Christmas in your heart." Then, O'Reilly added, "Pinhead!" to no one in particular. Early reports of revelry had showed revel insurgents surprising the government, which had expected Christmas to be embraced by all faiths. It was the campaign codenamed Operation Holy Night that helped government patrols uncover insurgency bases, centered around malls. "It was pretty bad in the days leading into December," said Sgt. Thomas Granville of the 31st Battalion, stationed in Bennington, Vermont. "My men came upon a pack of shoppers leaving a Banana Republic openly wishing everyone 'Happy Holidays,' and we had to open fire to disperse them." The guerilla celebrants returned the onslaught in heavy action by yelling some very bad things at the soldiers. The War on Christmas has been raging since the day after last Thanksgiving. For the first week, however, it went unfunded until Congress voted an initial $350,000, an amount which has since grown to $18 billion. This has been a point of contention for critics, as well. "Just look at our troops!" Fox's O'Reilly yells. "We are drastically undermanned, and that's No Spin. We have 60,000 soldiers in the field fighting this, and we should have 12.5 million. That's a fact. Generals are afraid to tell the President because they're bleeding hearts, scared it'll create civil unrest. But it gets worse, my friend! Our boys have been forced to fight without the proper protection. All we've outfitted them with are tanks and jets - where are the Nazarene statuettes to put on the dashboards?" After which, O'Reilly added, "Shut up!" for no apparent reason. Some independent analysts, however, have done studies which show that the War on Christmas is actually going better than even the White House has realized. "There are about 300 million Americans," noted John Zogby of the non-partisan Zogby Poll, "and 270 million of them are celebrating Christmas this year. In the War on Christmas, Christmas won." Not so fast, insists John Gibson of Fox News. "There is only one true religion, and 30 million infidels in America still don't believe in it. That's a lot of Godless heathens going to Hell, and they could all drag the rest of country down there with them." When asked for a comment about the War on Christmas, the Vatican initially had no response. However several hours later, a spokesman called back to read a statement from His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI: "My understanding is that Christmas is celebrated in Church, the home and the heart. It would seem to me that anyone who loses the spirit of Christmas because somebody didn't greet him properly doesn't really grasp the concept of Christmas in the first place. But what do I know? I'm just the Pope." One of the biggest complaints of Administration critics is that the War on Christmas has been so poorly run, ultimately forcing the replacement of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. "The White House keeps changing their story about why this War began in the first place," screams O'Reilly of Fox. "And that's a fact! First, they said 'Happy Holidays' was about some liberal, bleeding-heart propaganda about good will to all men, celebrating Christmas, Hanukkah, Kwanzaa and the New Year. Then, they said it was to put the X back in Xmas. Now, they say the reason was to find Santa Claus and bring him home safely. They can't figure out which story to tell." And then O'Reilly adds with a smirk, "And they haven't been able to find Santa Claus." But the bigger problem for O'Reilly is where it all goes from here? "The Bush Administration has no exit strategy. Does it stop at Christmas? Easter? Arbor Day? The Oscars? Will we become so 'Politically Correct' that Americans will be required to celebrate any holiday any way they want? That's un-American, my friend, and that is No Spin." Afterwards, O'Reilly added, "I said, 'Shut up, Pinhead!'" for no known reason. While the White House was hoping that the recently-released Baker-Hamilton Commission would provide a solution to the War on Christmas, no such answer was forthcoming. The study did note, however, that the President had to change course, because going over the river and through the woods was taking far too long. At his daily press briefing White House press secretary Snow (who changed his name to honor the war) commented, "I think it's fair to have honest disagreement over the War on Christmas. But the President of the United States simply reserves his Constitutional right to decide what can be considered honest. And it's clear that any disagreement by its very nature is divisive and therefore not honest. Anything further, I can't comment about because this is an ongoing holiday." Following Snow's statements, a voice in the back of the press room was heard yelling, "Just shut up!" Back in 2008, I wrote a piece for the Huffington Post about new discoveries surrounding the holiday classic, Handel's "Messiah." Several months later, I followed it up with additional revelations. Given that 'tis its season yet again - it seems like a fine time to repeat the story, as just another of the many holiday traditions. Sort of like a very early, 18th century version of "The Grinch." But have a glass of nog, as well. Fa la la... Over the passage of years, we lose track of the conditions that existed when artworks were created. When those years become centuries, the history vanishes, and all that remains is the work itself.That is, until someone researches that history, and puts the piece in its original context.
And that brings up Handel's "Messiah." By any standard, it's a brilliant piece of music, which has understandably lasted 250 years. Even to those who don't share its religious underpinning, the music is enthralling, and part of the celebration of the Christmas season. Oops. Now comes this detailed, deeply-researched article in the New York Times by Michael Marissen. "So 'Messiah' lovers may be surprised to learn that the work was meant not for Christmas but for Lent, and that the 'Hallelujah' chorus was designed not to honor the birth or resurrection of Jesus but to celebrate the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple in A.D. 70. For most Christians in Handel's day, this horrible event was construed as divine retribution on Judaism for its failure to accept Jesus as God's promised Messiah." Oops. Mr. Marissen does an impressive, scholarly and even-handed job uncovering the history of Handel's "Messiah." If anyone is interested in that history, do read the article. At the very least, read it before stating an opinion on it... To be clear, this is not about political correctness. This is about correctness. The truth, we are told, shall set us free. Either we go out of our way to learn the truth in our lives - and embrace it - or we bury our heads in the sand and listen to the sounds of gravel. People will still listen to Handel's "Messiah" for centuries to come, whatever the reality behind it. The music is glorious. The words? Well, be honest, it's a fair bet that most people don't know exactly what's being sung about anyway - it's 2-1/2 hours, for goodness sake. Most fans wouldn't listen to "American Idol" for that long. People tend to tune out Handel's "Messiah" about six minutes in and let the music wash over them. When the "Hallelujah Chorus" is about to begin, they get nudged and sit up straight. And even at that, the only words most people know are "Hallelujah" and that it will "reign forever and ever." (Some people probably think it's about Noah's Ark.) So, in some ways, the libretto of Handel's "Messiah" is not of critical importance 250 years after the fact. And that might be the biggest joke on Charles Jennens, who wrote the text and apparently saw the work as a way to confront what he believed was "a serious menace" in the world By having his friend Handel set his pointed tracts to music, Jennens felt that would help get his point across more subtly to the public. The result, of course, was that the spectacular music swamped over the words, and over time they took on a completely different meaning. This is known as the Law of Unintended Consequences. Or also, be careful what you wish for, you just might get it. Somewhere up in heaven, or more likely down in hell, Charles Jenniens has been pounding his head against a wall for the last couple hundred Christmases, screaming, "No, no, no! Don't you people get it?!! It's supposed to be about celebrating the destruction of heathen nations, not the embracing love of mankind. You people are so lame!" And it gets worse, because starting the day after Christmas - until the next Christmas when Handel's "Messiah" starts playing again - Jennens berates himself all year, wondering if he screwed up his work and didn't make it clear. Like maybe he used too many metaphors, or commas. Or perhaps in Scene 6, when he wrote, "Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron," he should have explained who "them" was or described a different bludgeon. No doubt there will be some people aghast by the revelations (no matter how valid) about the writing of Handel's "Messiah." I also have no doubt that almost all those who are aghast have never sat through the 2-1/2 hour work. Nor that most of those ever paid attention to what the precise words actually were. But they will be aghast anyway. On the other hand, most people who have sat and sat through a 2-1/2 hour performance of Handel's "Messiah" likely welcome having an excuse now not to have to do so again. Mr. Marissen concludes his study with a thought on the subject. "While still a timely, living masterpiece that may continue to bring spiritual and aesthetic sustenance to many music lovers, Christian or otherwise, 'Messiah' also appears to be very much a work of its own era. Listeners might do well to ponder exactly what it means when, in keeping with tradition, they stand during the 'Hallelujah' chorus." And while singing along, they might want to add a "Hallelujah" for the truth, as well. And that, I thought, was the end of the story. But it wasn't. A few months later, while reading Volume 9 of Will and Ariel Durant's majestic Story of Civilization, entitled "The Age of Voltaire," I came upon their extensive discussion of Handel. After the passage on "The Messiah," the Durants continue on with the composer's life and eventually reach five years later, April of 1747, when Handel had hit hard times. Not only had he written a string of failures and needed to close his theater, but he went into a sort of retirement, and rumor passed that he may even gone insane, though perhaps it might have been mental exhaustion. (The Earl of Shaftesbury remarked, "Poor Handel looks a little better. I hope he will recover completely, though his mind has been entirely deranged.") However there was yet more to Handel - and to the story relating somewhat to the controversy today about "The Messiah." The Durants write -- "...Handel, now sixty years old, responded with all his powers to an invitation from the Prince of Wales to commemorate the victory of the Prince's younger brother, the Duke of Cumberland, over the Stuart forces at Culloden. Handel took as a symbolic subject Judas Maccabaeus' triumph (166-161 B.C.) over the Hellenizing schemes of Antiochus IV. The new oratorio was so well received (April 1, 1747) that it bore five repetitions in its first season. The Jews of London, grateful to see one of their national heroes so nobly celebrated, helped to swell the attendance, enabling Handel to present the oratorio forty times before his death. Grateful for this new support, he took most of his oratorio subjects henceforth from Jewish legend or history: Alexander Balus, Joshua, Susanna, Solomon and Jephtha. By contrast, Theodora, a Christian theme, drew so small an audience that Handel ruefully remarked, "There was room enough to dance." No doubt, Charles Jennens, author of the text for "The Messiah," is spinning even faster and deeper in his grave. But quality does win out over time. And so does transcending decency. And that, perhaps, in part, and in the end, may well be what we're left with. Hallelujah, indeed. I’ve officially grown annoyed by Republicans pointing to anti-Semitism on college campuses and proclaiming that liberals have their own big anti-Semitism problem. (And I’m almost equally annoyed at liberals not pointing out why this is a crock and instead many just say in response, “Yes, anti-Semitism crosses all political borders.”) Before going any further, for a starting point, just to put the marker in the ground: liberals -- and even liberals in college -- do not go around with signs and tiki torches and wear swastikas while crying out “Jews will not replace us!!” and then have their party leader state that “there are very fine people on both sides.” Nor do they have someone on their side like Nick Fuenetes, so prominent within the party that the Republican Party leader recently invited him to dinner at Mar-a-Lago, who just yesterday went on a livestream rant about killing all "perfidious Jews" and non-Christians in the U.S. Yes, really, here's the story. And to be fair, he didn't call for killing them all, but rather for their "absolute annihilation." (By the way, there are about 120 million such people, for those keeping track.) And, almost more to the point, not have his dinner host Trump or any Republican officials I'm aware of instantly denounce him with galled outrage. And second, yes, anti-Semitism and racism do cross political lines. There are definitely anti-Semites and racists everywhere. That said -- it doesn’t mean that such things are equal across the board. It’s like when there’s a bill in Congress and every member of one party is for it, and every member of the other party is against it…except for just one person, and so the first party cries out, “See, it’s a bipartisan bill!!” Well, theoretically, yes. But in reality, no, the bill isn’t bipartisan at all in the sense that most people think of bipartisanship, where both sides have come together in agreement, rather there is a perfectly clear and obvious dividing line of opposition. So, yes, there are absolutely anti-Semites and racists among liberals, just like among conservatives. And most every group. But -- going back to our first, foundational flag in the ground point -- liberals marching around with swastikas and tiki torches crying out, “Jews will not replace us!!” and calling for the "absolute annihilation" of Christians is not a thing. But with those foundational realities out the way, there are a two other very important, specific points to recognize in the reprehensible anti-Semitism activity we have been seeing on college campuses. One of those is that people can take totally different routes and end up at the same place. During the Civil Rights era, some people could say that they were against busing children to school because the rides were two hours long each way and a problematic burden for little kids -- and other people could say that they were against busing children to school because they believed that Blacks were an inferior race and didn’t want White and Black children mixing with one another because that would corrupt the Whites. Both views end up at “We’re against busing” -- but how they got there are worlds apart. One is based on logistics, the other on virulent racism. With college campuses today, similarly, some administrators can say they accept anti-Semitic and racist speech by students, because the whole point of free speech is to defend it, no matter how vile that speech is -- while others can say they accept anti-Semitic and racist speech because they fully agree with it. Again, both views end up at the same point, defending detestable, loathsome speech -- but how they got there is worlds apart. One comes from defending all free speech, the other is by reinforcing malevolence, xenophobia and anti-Semitism. (It must be added for clarity that when such abhorrent speech moves to action and violence, that is another matter entirely. As is the support of genocide, which moves everything across the line to “hate speech,” which is, in fact, actually illegal for the danger and harm it risks to others.) And the other disingenuous argument extreme-right Republicans and conservatives make when trying the suggest that liberals have the same anti-Semitic problem as conservatives is that it’s based on the erroneous assumption that all the anti-Semitic activity by college students we see on campuses is liberal -- because supposedly by GOP definition, all college students must be liberal since apparently only liberals go to college and no respectable young conservative would ever go to a university. Now, to be clear, I am absolutely sure there are liberals on college campuses taking part in anti-Semitic actions -- just as sure as I am that there are conservatives doing so, as well. In fact, I could make the argument that, given how White Supremacists and neo-Nazis are a part of today’s Republican base -- and a college campus is, in part, a microcosm of the outside world -- it follows therefore that is more likely that more conservative students on college campuses are the ones pushing anti-Semitic action. Now, mind you, I don’t know if that is even remotely true -- it might not be, most might be liberal. But…a) it’s not an unreasonable argument with the realities of today's GOP, and b) we don’t know one way or the other. So, to just assume they’re all or even mostly liberal -- merely because it’s a college campus (where the massive majority of students are not taking part in anti-Semitic activity) doesn’t mean it’s all or mostly liberal. Anti-Semitism on college campus is a horrible problem. Just as it’s a horrible problem in the outside world. Just as racism and white supremacy is a horrible problem wherever it occurs, whether on a college campus or anywhere in the world. And just as calling for genocide is ghastly, inhumane and unacceptable towards any group of people. And there are indeed liberal anti-Semites and racists, just like they exist among conservatives. And moderates. And radicals on all sides. But the world isn’t equal. And even if all the above reality wasn’t true and -- purely for the sake of argument -- let’s say the pockets of anti-Semitic activity on college compasses has been done entirely by liberal students, and (against all rational logic) zero conservative students are participating in the slightest…Republicans, even at that ludicrous argument, don’t get to say, “See! The problem is equal with the Democratic and Republican parties. It’s the same!!” Because it’s not even remotely close to the same. At worst -- and it would be profoundly awful, but it’s still “at worst” -- in this just "for the sake of argument" situation, Democrats would have a problem of anti-Semitism among groups of liberal college students, a problem that stems from the belief that they are protected by free speech, regardless of how vile the speech is. While at best, Republicans have a problem with white supremacists, neo-Nazis and anti-Semites as a core of their party’s base, and have a racist, anti-Semitic party leader who has enabled racism, xenophobia and hatred supported by almost all their elected officials. The anti-Semitism by liberal students on college campuses is horrific. And should be called out by liberals. And for the most part, it is. The anti-Semitism, racism, white supremacy, neo-Nazis and xenophobia is the base of the Republican Party enabled by its leader is overwhelmingly, other-worldly worse and far more pervasive. And not even remotely the same. And should be called out by conservatives. And for the most part, it isn’t. Republicans love -- just loooove -- to tell us how much they love, love, love Israel and stand by Israel. Never mind that the reason they loooove Israel has next to nothing about Israel as an ally of the United States in the Middle East, but because of the (of course) Bible and End Times. Because Israel is where the final conflagration will take place, and it will go up in flames and all the Jews there will go up in flames, unless they convert to Christianity. But putting that aside, Republicans still love, love, love Israel and love telling us how much they loooooobe Israel. One of the very first things new, unanimous GOP Speaker Mike Johnson did -- after telling us he was ordained by God to be Speaker -- was release a photo of him on the telephone with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, telling the P.M. that he loved Israel and stood by Israel. Because Republicans in Congress just love, love, love Israel. All Republicans do. Including the leader of the party. Just this past Saturday, in a speech in Las Vegas, Trump cried out how much he looooves Israel: "The United States will stand with Israel," he shouted. "ALL the way, 100% without hesitation, without qualification and without any apology, we're not going to be apologizing." That said, when President Biden put forth his aid package for Israel, Ukraine and the border, House Republicans wanted to separate Israel from that -- never mind that Ukraine is fighting for democracy against Russia which is not just one of the main enemies of the Untied States, but also one of Israel's enemies, so much so that when a plane from Jerusalem landed the other day in Russia, the passengers were attacked with police pretty much just watching. And never mind that for the past six years (if not longer), Republicans have been shouting from rooftops about how the biggest national security crisis for America is protection at the southern border. But House Republicans chose to separate Israel from everything else in the aid package because they really love Israel so very, very much that it had to stand alone!!! Of course, when it came time to actually put up a bill in the House for that standalone aid to Israel, it turned out not to be so...well, totally standalone as you'd think. Rather, House Republicans had a pesky rider attached to it. A "qualification" you might call it. The GOP proposed bill offsets $14.3 billion in aid to Israel with (are you ready...) a cut of $14.3 billion from IRS!! Yes, really. That's home truly important the GOP considers its deep love of Israel. House Republicans say they will only support Israel (who they insist they loooooooove) if we take away $14.3 billion earmarked for the Internal Revenue Service as mandated in the Inflation Reduction Act. Money that will help reduce the national debt by collecting unpaid money from the wealthiest Americans who have been cheating on their taxes. Which means, of course, that even putting aside they House Republicans are attaching an offset before they'll pass an emergency aid bill for Israel, who they insist they loooove, as a matter of national security -- but their offset not only won't pay for the aid to Israel (who they insist they love, love, love), but cutting money from funding to the IRS for collection of the wealthiest tax cheats will actually increase the debt! As Joe Scarborough put on his Morning Joe show -- "We'll protect the Jews if you protect the billionaires. We want billionaire tax cheats to get away with stealing more money from the American people. We'll let you protect the Jews, Joe Biden, but you have to let us protect our donors, our billionaire donors that are tax cheats.'" Or as Rep. Ted Lieu (my Congressman) wrote on social media -- "Dear @HouseGOP: You are conditioning aid to Israel. Never before has Congress required an offset for foreign aid. And your offset protecting billionaires would actually increase costs. Why are you singling out Israel for differential treatment, during her greatest hour of need?" So much for no "qualifications". And not "hesitating". But then, that's because -- aside from being lying, disingenuous hypocrites -- it turns out that there is one thing that Republicans love, love, looooove more than Israel and Biblical End Times, and that's cutting taxes for the wealthiest millionaires, billionaires and corporations. Even if it comes at the cost of national security. Because this GOP bill does. Democrats in the Senate have already said it is a non-starter. The White House also put out a memo which said, in part -- "...after the worst terrorist attack in its history, House Republicans are engaging in a dangerous political stunt that for the first time in American history demands emergency national security funding be fully offset." It adds that by their actions, Republicans are "politicizing our national security interests" which would "set an unacceptable precedent that jeopardizes the United States’ ability to reliably support Israel’s self-defense into the future." But still, putting national security aside -- and Israel's security aside -- Republicans insist that they just love, love, loooove Israel. It turns out that it's just Israelis who Republicans don't seem to care much for. Especially those who burn and go to Hell. |
AuthorRobert J. Elisberg is a political commentator, screenwriter, novelist, tech writer and also some other things that I just tend to keep forgetting. Feedspot Badge of Honor
Categories
All
|
© Copyright Robert J. Elisberg 2024
|