"Where does the Trump family business end and where does American foreign policy begin?"

 

XMAS CELEBRATION WITH ONE TOKEN JEW BY ACCIDENT OF BIRTH

The most important question facing Americans today is no longer, "What is Donald Trump's foreign policy?" It is, "Where does the Trump family business end and where does American foreign policy begin?" Increasingly, the answer appears to be nowhere.

There are no coincidences in foreign policy—only priorities.

Donald Trump could have chosen Canada for his first presidential trip abroad. He could have chosen Great Britain, America's oldest ally. He could have chosen France, Germany, or even Israel. Instead, he broke with decades of American presidential tradition and chose Saudi Arabia. The message was unmistakable. Before America had fully learned what Trumpism meant, Saudi Arabia already knew. Donald Trump was coming to do what Donald Trump has always done—make deals. Saudi Arabia was not merely his first foreign destination; it was the opening chapter of a new American foreign policy—one in which transactional relationships would replace enduring principles.

Americans are entitled to ask difficult questions. Would Donald Trump be pursuing precisely the same policies if his family possessed absolutely no business relationships throughout the Gulf? Would Saudi Arabia occupy precisely the same privileged position in American foreign policy if billions of dollars were not simultaneously flowing through investments, developments, and strategic partnerships connected to members of the President's family?

And now comes perhaps the most astonishing development of all—the willingness of the United States to provide Saudi Arabia with civilian nuclear technology and assist in the development of commercial nuclear reactors. Congress and nonproliferation experts have raised concerns that the agreement departs from previous American standards by permitting uranium enrichment under circumstances different from earlier "gold standard" agreements negotiated with allies. The implications are profound. Nuclear technology is not another hotel licensing agreement or golf course development. It represents one of the most consequential strategic decisions a nation can make. 

There was once an American principle, imperfectly observed but nevertheless sacred, that foreign policy belonged to the Republic and not to the ruler. Kings had family interests. Democracies had national interests. The President of the United States was expected to subordinate personal ambition, family enrichment, and political vanity to something larger than himself—the enduring interests of the American people and the world at large.

That line has not merely been blurred in the Trump era. It has been bulldozed.

For all of Trump's talk of putting America First, one is forced to ask whether America is first, or merely another subsidiary in the Trump family portfolio.

We are witnessing something unprecedented in modern American history—a foreign policy that simultaneously advances geopolitical objectives while creating extraordinary opportunities for family influence, business relationships, and private financial gain. The distinction between public service and private interests has become so obscured that future historians may conclude that Donald Trump's greatest diplomatic achievement was not redefining American foreign policy, but privatizing it.

When Saudi Arabia prospers diplomatically, does America win? Perhaps. When Saudi Arabia prospers financially while entering into multi-billion-dollar relationships with members of the Trump family, who exactly is winning? Americans deserve to ask the question without being accused of partisanship.

Trump's son in-law has cultivated extraordinarily close relationships with Gulf monarchies while his investment firm manages billions of dollars originating from sovereign wealth funds from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These are not casual business relationships. They are relationships with governments whose interests are frequently and directly implicated by American foreign policy decisions in the Middle East.

At precisely the same time, the Trump Organization continues expanding its enormous business relationships throughout the Gulf states. In 2026 alone, Saudi developer Dar Global announced additional Trump-branded projects in Saudi Arabia valued in the billions of dollars, including Trump Plaza Jeddah and developments in Riyadh.

Perhaps this presents no conflicts whatsoever. Americans are free to reach that conclusion. What they are not free to do is pretend these relationships do not exist.

The problem is not whether corruption can be conclusively proven. The problem is that a Republic should never require its citizens to become forensic accountants in order to determine whether their foreign policy is being conducted in Washington, Riyadh, or at the negotiating table of a private business venture.

Donald Trump promised Americans that he was too wealthy to be bought. America instead received something infinitely more dangerous—a President whose worldview suggests that everything and everyone is for sale. Allies are transactional. Enemies are transactional. Peace is transactional. War is transactional. Loyalty is transactional. Even truth itself appears transactional.

There was a time when Henry Kissinger was criticized because foreign policy was accused of being too cynical. Today's cynicism makes Kissinger appear almost philosophical by comparison. At least Kissinger believed history existed. Trump appears to believe only tomorrow's headline exists.

Foreign policy has become reality television masquerading as grand strategy. The world's most dangerous conflicts are treated as episodes awaiting their next ratings boost. One day there are threats of annihilation, the next day congratulations and celebrations. America's allies are insulted before breakfast and embraced before dinner. Policy changes not merely with circumstances, but frequently with mood, applause, and political necessity.

But perhaps the greatest tragedy is that Trump did not create America's moral vulnerability—he merely exposed it.

The Trump family instinctively understood that Washington had become transactional long before Donald Trump descended an escalator in Manhattan. They merely stripped away the euphemisms. Influence became influence peddling without embarrassment. Diplomacy became deal-making without apology. Foreign policy became branding without disguise. The family business simply became the national business.

America's founders understood precisely the same danger. They feared kings because kings always confuse themselves with their kingdoms. They feared aristocracies because aristocracies inevitably become family enterprises masquerading as governments. Their constitutional experiment was specifically designed to prevent public office from becoming private property.

The greatest irony of the Trump era may be this: Americans elected a President promising to drain the swamp and instead discovered that swamps can become family businesses.

Perhaps history will ultimately judge Trump's foreign policy as brilliant. Perhaps it will judge it catastrophic. That debate belongs to historians. But there is another judgment that need not await history.

No American should ever have to ask whether a foreign policy decision benefits the United States, benefits the Trump family, or conveniently benefits both simultaneously. The moment citizens cannot confidently distinguish between those three possibilities, something precious has already been lost.

A Republic cannot survive indefinitely when its diplomacy resembles a licensing agreement and its foreign policy resembles a family office investment prospectus. America deserves a foreign policy—not a family business plan.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/donald-trumps-confusion-family-foreign-policy-are-one-and-the-same/

How Ben Gurion Got The Bomb - The Genius Visionary That Knew What Would Keep Israel Forever Safe From Destruction!

 

In the past eighty years, there have been clear shifts in the nature of the alliance between the United States and Israel. Though the relationship has changed based on the president or the policy, the history of Israeli nuclear development seems to indicate that the U.S. has always related to Israel with a special tolerance, even in the earliest stages of their interactions. Yet preferential treatment was not simply bestowed upon Israel by the U.S. In the case of nuclear development in particular, the role that Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion's strategies played in these interactions helped to create a political climate in which America could feasibly turn a blind eye to Israeli nuclearization.

This article will tell the story of how Israel acquired nuclear weapons from the diplomatic perspective. What motivated Ben-Gurion's decision to embark on a nuclear program? Why did France and Norway come to the fledgling state's aid? And, most importantly, how did the U.S., under the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations, allow Israel to acquire nuclear weapons?

The Background

The Israeli nuclear program was initiated by Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion in 1952, four years after the state gained independence. Interestingly, in Ben-Gurion's pre-state writings, there is an insistence on the role of technology and science in determining the security of the new state. He once explained his faith in the scientific capabilities of the Jewish people: "Until now we have disseminated our intellectual capital in foreign lands, and helped many nations in the great scientific achievements of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. ... There is no reason why the genius of science would not blossom and flourish in this native land." Although the need for broad scientific advancements is clear, the question of why a newly created state needed such costly and advanced weaponry remains.

Ben-Gurion's preoccupation with the Holocaust is one viable explanation for his insistence on developing nuclear weapons. One cannot overstate the influence on Ben-Gurion's political ideology of his visit to Germany in 1945, during which he visited Displaced Person camps, former ghettos, and concentration camps. As Israeli nuclear historian Avner Cohen notes, "Without the Holocaust we cannot understand either the depth of Ben-Gurion's commitment to acquiring nuclear weapons or his inhibitions about nuclear weapon policy. ... Anxieties became national policy." Ben-Gurion genuinely believed that Israel's conflict with the Arabs could develop into another Holocaust if not prevented.

Ben-Gurion's worries that were rooted in the tragedy of the Holocaust fused with general anxiety over leading the new state of Israel. An aide once described Ben-Gurion emerging one morning from his bedroom looking tired and ill-rested and declaring "I could not sleep all night, not even for one second. I had one fear in my heart: a combined attack by all Arab armies." To the anxious leader, the Arab enemy was not only territorial but also part of the larger continuum of the Jewish Holocaust. This anxiousness can be seen in the heated debates that took place within the Knesset over whether to negotiate with Germany for Holocaust reparations. Ben-Gurion defended the need for the strengthening of the Jewish state. "They [the Arabs] could slaughter us tomorrow in this country. ... We don't want to reach again the situation that you were in. We do not want the Arab Nazis to come and slaughter us." For Ben-Gurion, the comparison of Arabs and the Nazis was not propagandistic rhetoric; he truly believed that the conflict with the Arabs could easily escalate to catastrophe and that nuclear weaponry was the ultimate weapon of defense, the key to ensuring that "Never Again" was more than a rhetorical injunction.

In 1952, Ben-Gurion met with Munya Mardor, who had served as head of the underground organization that facilitated illegal Jewish immigration to Palestine during the British Mandatory period. Mardor was expected to administer the program; a chemist named Ernest David Bergman had already agreed to oversee the scientific aspects. Ben-Gurion placed the nuclear program under the authority of the Defense Minister Shimon Peres. He called the division EMET, a Hebrew acronym for "division of research and planning," which also spells the Hebrew word for truth.

In 1956, when Israel, France, and the United Kingdom embarked on a joint military operation to conquer the Suez Canal, Israel and France became allies. At the start of the 1956 Sinai campaign, Israel agreed to launch the offensive in exchange for a verbal promise from France guaranteeing a nuclear reactor and the necessary uranium. At the pre-Sinai summit at Sevres, near Paris, defense minister Peres closed the discussions with a verbal understanding between the two countries reached. At the close of the campaign, however, the certainty of that verbal agreement was unclear. But internal French politics, specifically the collapse of the Bourges-Maunory government, proved crucial in sealing the nuclear promise.

Abel Thomas, French Prime Minister Maurice Bourges-Maunoury's top aide, was the main force behind the nuclear agreement between the two countries�the actualization of the verbal agreement was the Bourges-Maunory government's last action before it was voted out of office by the French National Assembly. Like Ben-Gurion, Thomas's interest in Israeli nuclear development was tied to the Holocaust. Thomas's brother, who had been a lieutenant in the French R�sistance, was deported to Buchenwald and killed by the Nazis at age twenty-three. Thomas placed the blame on France because of the Vichy government's cooperation with the Nazis. Michael Karpin, an Israeli journalist and author of a recent book on Israeli nuclear history The Bomb in the Basement, writes that Abel Thomas "felt a commonality of fate...he decided he would give as much help as he could to the remnants of the Holocaust. This would become his life's mission." Through the actions in the Sinai campaign as well as Thomas's final push, the deal with the French came to fruition: the Israelis were now prepared for the first stages of the nuclearization process.

France provided a reactor and uranium, but the reactor required significant quantities of "heavy water," a substance necessary to slow down neutrons in order for them to react with the uranium. France could not supply Israel with heavy water, and in 1959 Israel successfully negotiated a deal to acquire the substance from Norway. Karpin claims that, as in the case of France, the Norwegian government agreed to support the Israeli nuclear effort because of its guilt over the deportation of Norway's Jews and its collaboration with the Nazis during World War II. Other explanations center on the commercial gains of such a deal and on the desire to end American and British nuclear monopoly. Thus, while the Holocaust may not have been the sole cause for Norwegian cooperation and while these other political considerations certainly influenced Norway's decision, Karpin makes a compelling case that the Holocaust was the key impetus.

The Eisenhower Administration: Turning a Blind Eye

The U.S. government knew of Israel's nuclear reactor in Dimona as early as 1958; nevertheless, the Eisenhower administration took little action to halt Israel's nuclear progress. Studies have confirmed that as early as March of 1958, the CIA requested a report of Israel's nuclear activities from Bergmann. Nothing followed Bergmann's response and the Americans continued to state that there was no reactor under construction. One illustrative example of passivity in response to information: in early 1958 Arthur C. Lundahl of the CIA Photographic Intelligence Center showed Eisenhower aerial photographs of the Dimona compound, and Lundahl was met with almost no reaction from the president. Lundahl was never asked for further photographs from the Israelis or for follow up presentations with Eisenhower. Indeed, "[he] was left with the feeling that Eisenhower wanted Israel to acquire nuclear weapons." It is clear that Eisenhower had some awareness of Israeli nuclear ambitions, yet he opted for a moderate nuclear strategy, "setting the precedent that the Israel nuclear weapons programs was treated as a special case."

This passive U.S. stance ended abruptly in 1960. In November of that year, an American nuclear scientist named Henry Jacob Gomberg visited the Israeli nuclear reactor in Nahal Soreq at the invitation of the Israeli Atomic Energy Commission. After his visit, he publicly aired his view that Israel was pursuing a nuclear program in Dimona. His suspicion was based on an observation that the scientific training he witnessed did not match the purported civilian nature of Israeli nuclear aims.

Karpin espouses an original theory about the Gomberg admission: he calculates that by the year 1960 there was an extensive network required for the maintenance of the nuclear reactor and its team. In addition, because of the deal struck with France in 1958, scores of Frenchmen were residing in Beersheba, a city near Dimona. Rumors were already circulating, and the Israelis knew that the international community would demand more information before long on the developments in Dimona. Therefore, Gomberg, according to this analysis, was given to the Americans purposely — "to keep the hungry lion at bay, it was worth throwing him a chunk of meat." Indeed, as Karpin points out, Gomberg was never pursued by the Mossad for divulging such an important national secret. Gomberg's report, whether intentionally instigated or not, caused Israeli to break its silence about the nuclear program, and forced the United States to address it. The CIA drew up its report for President Eisenhower on December 8, 1960 and public discourse about Dimona began for the first time. The New York Times published its first piece on Dimona on December 19, 1960, and Dimona was discussed at the President's meeting on that same day.

Ben-Gurion's statement to the Knesset on December 21, 1960, the only time an Israeli prime minister issued a statement about Dimona, reflects Israel's public relations strategy from that point onward: to stop American intervention and internal debate by claiming solely scientific aims. Ben-Gurion presented the aims of the program as follows. "We are presently engaged in building a research reactor with a 24,000 thermal kilowatt (24 megawatt) output, to serve the purposes of industry, agriculture, medicine and science." It is clear in this statement that Israel was less than honest with the U.S. about its objectives and capabilities, leaving it up to the U.S. to guess the scope of Israel's progress. Because Ben-Gurion's half-truths diminished confrontation with the general public, the State Department could then continue speaking of the reactor's peaceful purposes. Ben-Gurion was willing to say what he needed to say, and the Americans were willing to publicly show their belief in Ben Gurion.

The Kennedy Administration: Political About-Face

Upon his election, John F. Kennedy established nuclear nonproliferation as a top priority of his administration. Kennedy feared a nuclear Middle East, and he also resented the fact that the Israelis had received the Nahal Soreq reactor from the U.S. in 1955 as part of Eisenhower's Atoms for Peace Program, a program aimed at nuclear cooperation for the sake of economic development, as they simultaneously developed a larger nuclear program at Dimona. Although the Kennedy administration continued to privately press the Israeli government to increase the transparency of its nuclear program, it achieved very little in the first years of Kennedy's presidency. The U.S. made clear, at almost weekly intervals, that it wanted visitation rights; during the early months of Kennedy's presidency, February to April of 1961 specifically, Kennedy and Ben-Gurion see-sawed on the date for the Dimona visitation. Meetings occurred frequently between the various ambassadors and State Department officials involved, but Ben-Gurion remained steadfast. He used any reason within his grasp�including internal politics, or the Jewish holidays�as an excuse to push off the American visit.

Internal politics at the time were, in fact, tumultuous. Ben-Gurion's Mapai party was embroiled in a scandal known as the Lavon affair, which forced Israeli Defense Minister Pinhas Lavon to resign after a failed Israeli covert operation against Egyptian-owned, American-owned, and British-owned targets in Egypt. The State Department's report to Kennedy about the Dimona visit seems to indicate that the department believed Ben-Gurion's pledges for visitation and also thought that the delays were because of the domestic politics plaguing Ben-Gurion's administration. Eventually, however, in May of 1961, two American Jewish lobbyists, Myer "Mike" Feldman and Abe Feinberg, successfully facilitated a visitation as well as a meeting between Ben-Gurion and Kennedy.

On May 17-18, 1961, two American scientists, Ulysses Staebler and Jesse Croach, conducted a two day inspection of Israel's nuclear facilities. They spent the first day touring the Technion, the Weizmann Institute, and the Nahal Soreq reactor, and they spent the second day on a closely monitored tour of Dimona. After the visit, they reported to the State Department that although the Dimona reactor could eventually produce enough plutonium for nuclear weaponry, there was no evidence of this being the Israeli aim.

The Israelis must have exercised a great amount of discretion and some deception during that visitation. The visit was held on the Sabbath. The scientists were not allowed to bring any measuring tools or collection instruments. The underground plutonium plant was kept hidden. The Israeli scientists spent a great deal of time lecturing the visitors, which limited the actual inspection time. Yet despite this apparent deception, the facile American conclusion about Dimona's purpose indicates that the scientists were not inclined to challenge Israeli promises.

In exchange for this visit, Ben-Gurion had his first meeting with President Kennedy. The meeting, which occurred on May 30, 1961, is described by historians as amicable and relaxed. Though the topic of nuclear development was a priority, the recent visit of American scientists to Dimona created a climate of ease and openness between the two leaders. In fact, though Ben-Gurion stuck to his earlier policy of claiming solely energy and peaceful purposes, he made certain additions that historians like Zaki Shalom and Avner Cohen interpret as hints to Kennedy of Israel's ultimate intentions. Ben-Gurion stated that "Our main�for the time being�and only purpose is to dedicate it to peaceful purposes...after three or four years Israel might want to develop a pilot plant for plutonium separation, which is needed for atomic power, but there is no intention to develop weapons capacity now." Here, Ben-Gurion opened the door for the future transition from peaceful to military purposes. Ben-Gurion reasoned that a future change in policy could always be traced back to this honest senior meeting and blame for duplicity would be avoided. Why Kennedy did not respond to this verbal foreshadowing may be a sign of Kennedy's tacit approval or, at the very least, resistance to fully halting Israeli nuclearization. The meeting guaranteed that the American government tacitly approved Israel's demand that discussions regarding the Dimona project must take place "neither publicly, threateningly, or embarrassingly, but behind the scenes and in a low profile mode."

Memorandums and reports on Dimona nonetheless circulated through the White House and State Department through 1962, and a push for the future visitations remained in the foreground of these memos. In July of 1962, the Egyptians displayed their ballistic missile capabilities, and in that same year, calamity was avoided in the Cuban Missile Crisis. Partially as a result of these events, Kennedy reapplied pressure to freeze the Israeli nuclear program at Dimona.

The "volte-face" in American policy, as historian Zaki Shalom calls it, spelled a renewed distrust in Dimona's purposes and its stage of advancement. Language in the memos at this time changed from discussions on the "visit" to the "inspection" and policy-wise, the Kennedy administration was resolved to "abolish Israel's nuclear activity at Dimona." Additionally, internal White House documents reveal a surge of memos and meetings; these documents reveal that Kennedy came closest of any American president to stopping the actions at Dimona. On May 18, 1963, Kennedy wrote that "American commitment and support would be seriously jeopardized in public opinion and in the West, if it should be thought that this Government was unable to obtain reliable information on a subject as vital to peace as Israel's efforts in the nuclear field." The potential withdrawal of American support was a significant hazard to Israel, and this letter presented the greatest threat so far to the success of the Dimona project. Ben-Gurion refused to submit to biannual visitation, saying that "the 'start-up' time of the Dimona reactor will not come until the end of this year or early 1964...this will be the most suitable time for your representatives to visit the reactor." He also continued to insist that Israeli nuclear aims were civilian in nature.

Kennedy was no longer willing to tolerate Ben-Gurion's wavering. In June of 1963, Kennedy wrote that if inspections and the desired conditions of these inspections did not take place as early as that summer and a satisfactory agreement was not reached, it would "jeopardize the U.S. government's commitment to, and support of, Israel." This memo never reached Ben-Gurion. He resigned from office the day it was cabled to him.

Ben-Gurion's closest aides have debated what role Kennedy's pressure regarding the nuclear reactor had in pushing Ben-Gurion to resign. Many of Ben-Gurion's aides dismiss the idea that the nuclear cause alone caused Ben-Gurion to leave office. They point to the other pressures which must have been significant as well, among them the Lavon affair and Ben-Gurion's deteriorating health. But Pinhas Sapir and Yuval Neeman, who also served as aides to Ben-Gurion, claim that Kennedy's pressure was the single impetus for resignation. Neeman views Ben-Gurion's resignation as yet another stalling tactic which would allow Israel to finish the project. It is certainly the case that Levi Eshkol's succession delayed the American visitations past the summer of 1963, because Eshkol was able to feign relative ignorance and to request time to learn the details of the negotiations. Eventually, under Eshkol's watch, Israel allowed limited visitations to Dimona, but the Kennedy administration never renewed the pressure that they had used during the Ben-Gurion years.

Why did Kennedy fail to stop Israeli nuclearization? In particular, is it possible that Kennedy, a president who made nuclear non-proliferation a top priority of his administration, could not stop the completion of Dimona? Perhaps Ben-Gurion's secrecy was a successful tactic. Kennedy never acquired enough information to merit a strong reaction. Israel to this day continues to give ambiguous indications regarding its nuclear capabilities. When I wrote to Michael Karpin to try and make sense of what exactly was and is known within Israel, he explained "The information is still classified and your�indeed everyone's�confusion about the definition of what Israel has and has not is a direct consequence of Israel's ambiguity policy."

Beyond Kennedy

The nuclear story does not end with Kennedy and his policy about-face. The succeeding pairs of leaders�Levi Eshkol/Lyndon Johnson and Golda Meir/Richard Nixon��each had their own complicated interactions on the topic of Dimona. When the reactor went critical in 1964 and Israel could no longer claim that it was for solely scientific purposes, the Israelis adopted a line first coined by then Defense Minister Shimon Peres in a meeting with Kennedy that "Israel would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons in the Middle East." Thus, a clear transition in policy occurred as Ben-Gurion's ambiguity became Eshkol's and Meir's transparencies.

Political diplomacy, political scientists argue, revolves around nuanced advances by two mutually independent decision-makers. In the case of Israel-American nuclear dialogue, the positions of the two sides met: America's preferential attitude towards Israeli nuclear development was more easily justified because of Ben-Gurion's stealthy policies. Thus, the case of Israeli nuclear history provides a window on way this special relationship played out in real policy.

 https://www.columbia.edu/cu/current/articles/winter2006/how-ben-gurion-got-the-bomb.html

 

Tisha b'Av, Donald Trump, Antisemitism, and the Moral Collapse of the West

 

If one had to choose a single day on the Jewish calendar that best explains the state of the world in 2026, it would not be Yom Kippur or Passover. It would be Tisha b'Av—the day the Jewish people mourn not merely what was destroyed, but why it was destroyed.

The rabbis never understood the destruction of Jerusalem as a military event. Rome did not destroy the Temple because it possessed superior weapons or superior generals. Rome simply arrived at the funeral. The Jewish people had already begun the work of destruction themselves. The Talmud's message is uncomfortable precisely because it refuses to blame outsiders first. Before looking outward, Judaism commands us to look inward.

The sickness of a civilization begins long before its collapse. It begins when truth becomes negotiable, when ethics become subordinate to political expediency, and when societies choose spectacle over wisdom. Tisha b'Av is God's annual reminder that moral decay always precedes political destruction.

 

Dov Landau:

 “There Are Wicked People in Knitted Kippot Encouraging Murder"

*More from Dov Landau :"Landau’s comments are exactly in line with numerous other comments that he has made over the last few years. He’s made his views very clear, for those who are interested in listening to what he has actually said: The state should never have come into existence, the Arabs would have happily allowed hundreds of thousands of Jews to come from Europe and live peacefully in Palestine, Zionists are responsible for all the terrible things that have happened, religious-Zionist soldiers die because of the corrupt teachings of their rabbis, Jews should only learn charedi-taught Torah, and charedim should not participate in the war effort, even if they are not learning, and should not even do any acts of kindness for soldiers - they should not visit them in hospitals or attend funerals or raise money for their wellbeing, and anyone who wants charedim to be subject to the same rules as everyone else and forced to help with the war is evil."*

The rabbis teach that the Second Temple was destroyed because of sinat chinam—baseless hatred. Yet we have trivialized that phrase into little more than a slogan. Baseless hatred is not simply people being rude to one another. It is an ethical disease. It is the inability of a society to recognize the humanity of those with whom it disagrees. It is tribalism masquerading as virtue. It is the worship of ideology over truth and personalities over principles.

The Jewish people have witnessed this disease before. We have watched great civilizations descend into madness while convincing themselves they were morally enlightened. Ancient Rome, Christian Europe, Enlightenment Europe, and twentieth-century Germany all believed themselves civilized. The Jews buried them all.

Today, America and much of the Western world exhibit the very symptoms that Jewish history has taught us to fear. Institutions are collapsing under the weight of their own hypocrisy. Universities have become incubators of fashionable ignorance. Political discourse has become indistinguishable from religious fanaticism. Intellectual honesty has become a liability rather than a virtue.

And perhaps nowhere is this sickness more visible than in the resurgence of antisemitism.

The Jew is once again the canary in the coal mine of civilization. Antisemitism is never merely a Jewish problem. It is a civilizational diagnosis. When societies become incapable of moral reasoning, they inevitably require scapegoats. It has always been easier to blame the Jew than to confront one's own failures. The antisemites of today wear many costumes. Some march beneath the banner of social justice. Others wave nationalist flags. Some come from the political left and others from the political right. Some despise Jews because they are too successful. Others despise Jews because they refuse to surrender their ancient identity. The language changes. The pathology never does.

The Jew remains guilty of history's greatest crime—survival.

One need only observe the moral inversion of our time. Jewish children hiding in schools require armed guards while university students justify calls for Jewish extermination as political expression. Terrorists become resistance fighters. Hostages become footnotes. Democracies are morally equivalent to jihadists. Truth itself has become hostage to ideology.

Tisha b'Av warned us that civilizations lose their moral compass gradually and then suddenly.

This brings us to Donald Trump.

For many Americans, Donald Trump is either a political messiah or a political devil. Judaism permits neither conclusion. The Talmud despises personality cults. Moses himself was repeatedly challenged. King David was publicly rebuked by the Prophet Nathan. The greatest leaders of Jewish history were judged not by their popularity but by their character.

Judaism has no commandment requiring Jews to suspend ethical judgment because a politician moves an embassy, signs an agreement, or delivers a favorable speech. The Torah demands something far more difficult. It demands moral consistency.

Donald Trump represents many of the ethical failures that Tisha b'Av was designed to expose. Arrogance celebrated as strength. Cruelty mistaken for authenticity. Ignorance marketed as wisdom. Vindictiveness confused with leadership. Personal grievance elevated above public service.

The rabbis would not have been impressed by political victories if achieved at the expense of moral leadership. The Talmud asks different questions than cable television asks. Is the leader humble? Does he seek truth? Can he admit error? Does he elevate the ethical conduct of the nation? Does he inspire intellectual curiosity or reward blind loyalty?

By those standards, Donald Trump presents a profound ethical problem.

The danger Donald Trump presents is not merely political. It is cultural. He has normalized a style of leadership in which personal loyalty is valued more highly than truth, where institutions are useful only when they are personally beneficial, and where opponents are not simply wrong but enemies deserving humiliation.

History teaches that demagogues rarely destroy civilizations alone. Their followers do that work for them by abandoning their own moral standards.

Tisha b'Av teaches that God's judgment is not limited to wicked leaders. Entire societies are judged for the leaders they tolerate, excuse, and celebrate. The destruction of Jerusalem was not the result of one corrupt politician. It was the collective failure of a generation that abandoned ethical responsibility.

The rabbis tell us that Jerusalem was destroyed because people ceased rebuking wrongdoing. Silence became complicity. Political loyalty became more important than moral courage.

Have we learned anything?

The Western world is experiencing a crisis of moral imagination. Antisemitism is rising. Democracies are weakening. Public discourse has become poisonous. Religious communities increasingly confuse partisan politics with sacred obligations. Citizens demand rights while neglecting responsibilities. We celebrate wealth while ignoring wisdom.

Sound familiar? It should. The Prophets of Israel wrote extensively about such societies.

Isaiah warned against those who "call evil good and good evil." Jeremiah stood at the gates of Jerusalem and reminded the people that God does not dwell in buildings, institutions, or slogans. God dwells where justice, humility, and truth are practiced.

The lesson of Tisha b'Av is terrifying precisely because it is universal. God destroyed His own Temple rather than permit it to become a monument to hypocrisy. If the Almighty did not spare Jerusalem when it lost its ethical foundations, why should America imagine itself immune? Why should Israel? Why should any civilization?

The Jewish people sit on the floor every Tisha b'Av to remember that no empire is permanent—not Rome, not America, not any political movement or charismatic leader.

The question Tisha b'Av asks us is not whether Donald Trump will save America. It is whether America possesses sufficient moral courage to save itself.

The question is not whether antisemitism will survive. It always has. The question is whether civilization will survive its hatred of the Jew.

The Jew has outlived Pharaoh, Titus, Torquemada, Hitler, Stalin, and the Soviet Union. We will outlive today's antisemites as well. The more difficult question is whether the societies that nurture such hatred will survive themselves.

That is the tragedy of Tisha b'Av. It is also its enduring wisdom. Every generation believes it is too enlightened to repeat the mistakes of history. Every generation is wrong.

 

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/tisha-bav-donald-trump-antisemitism-and-the-moral-collapse-of-the-west/

What Truman Knew and Trump Will Never Know: How to Win a War

 

President Harry Truman

History occasionally gives us presidents who understand that war is humanity's greatest failure and leadership's greatest burden. Harry Truman was one of those presidents. Donald Trump is something altogether different; a man who has spent his entire life confusing winning an argument with winning a war.

Harry Truman never mistook bravado for courage. Donald Trump has never understood the difference.

Truman knew that if America goes to war, the objective is not to produce favorable headlines, move financial markets, negotiate television ratings, or preserve one's political coalition. The objective is victory. Clear, unambiguous, undeniable victory. The enemy must understand your resolve, your objectives, and the terrible consequences of challenging the United States. Truman understood that war is not a real estate transaction where both parties walk away claiming victory. Wars are won when one side imposes its political and military objectives upon another. There are no consolation prizes in war.

Donald Trump, however, approaches war the same way he approaches casinos, universities, steaks, airlines, and virtually every failed business venture that bears his name—with improvisation, self-promotion, and a pathological need to be admired by friend and foe alike. He desperately wants to be seen as a "great negotiator" even when negotiations are inappropriate, dangerous, or strategically foolish. 

Trump has spent his political career treating America's enemies as prospective business partners rather than adversaries whose ambitions must sometimes be defeated rather than accommodated.Trump doesn't understand war because Trump doesn't understand sacrifice. He has spent eighty years avoiding personal sacrifice while demanding it from others. He speaks endlessly about strength while exhibiting one of the most dangerous weaknesses imaginable in a Commander-in-Chief - a compulsive need for personal validation. America's enemies understand this. Dictators understand this. They know that flattery is Trump's kryptonite. Praise him publicly and he will often reward you politically. Criticize him publicly and he will frequently subordinate American interests to settling personal scores.

Harry Truman could not be manipulated by appeals to his ego because his ego was never America's greatest national security vulnerability.

The greatest military leaders in history understood that war requires consistency, strategic patience, and an unwavering commitment to objectives. Donald Trump possesses none of these qualities. His foreign policy philosophy changes by the hour, depending upon who spoke to him last, what cable news segment he watched that morning, or whether financial markets reacted favorably to his latest declaration. America's allies fear his unpredictability while America's enemies exploit it.

Trump's defenders call this unpredictability a strategic asset. It is not. There is a profound difference between strategic ambiguity and intellectual chaos. Strategic ambiguity is deliberate. Trump's chaos is instinctive. Truman deliberately kept America's enemies guessing. Trump frequently leaves America's allies wondering whether he understands his own position.

The most dangerous thing Donald Trump has brought to American foreign policy is his fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of military power. Military power exists to achieve political objectives, not to create dramatic moments for social media or cable television. Yet Trump consistently behaves as though the announcement itself is the accomplishment. He loves the performance of strength far more than the responsibilities that accompany it.

Harry Truman never confused dropping bombs with winning wars. Donald Trump routinely confuses both with producing headlines.

Truman understood an uncomfortable truth that every serious student of military history eventually learns: if a war is worth fighting, it must be worth winning. If victory is not your objective, then military action becomes little more than political theater. Limited objectives may be appropriate. Strategic restraint may be appropriate. Diplomacy may be appropriate. But once force is employed, national leadership must understand precisely what constitutes success and possess both the will and competence necessary to achieve it.

Trump operates in precisely the opposite manner. Bomb today. Negotiate tomorrow. Declare victory on Friday. Reverse course by Monday. Threaten annihilation on Tuesday. Offer concessions on Wednesday. Announce the greatest deal in history by Thursday. It is foreign policy by reality television script—a perpetual search for applause rather than results.

One cannot help but wonder whether Donald Trump has ever seriously studied how America won the Second World War or prevailed during the Cold War. Those victories were not the product of personal charisma or populist slogans. They required institutions, alliances, sacrifice, strategic thinking, and presidents who understood that leadership is often lonely and deeply unpopular.

Harry Truman's approval ratings collapsed during difficult moments of his presidency. He didn't care.  He famously said, "The buck stops here." Donald Trump's political philosophy can be summarized quite differently: "The buck stops wherever someone else is standing." Nothing is ever his fault. Every setback is somebody else's betrayal. Every failure is somebody else's incompetence. Every criticism is somebody else's conspiracy.

That mentality is catastrophic in wartime.

The simple truth is that Donald Trump does not understand how to win wars because he has never demonstrated an understanding of what war actually is. To him, it is another stage upon which Donald Trump performs Donald Trump. There is always another audience to please, another deal to announce, another headline to chase.

Harry Truman understood that presidents are temporary custodians of American power. Donald Trump appears to believe American power exists primarily as an extension of his personality.

Truman knew that history would judge him by whether America prevailed. Trump appears consumed by whether Donald Trump receives sufficient credit. Truman accepted the burden of command. Trump craves the theater of command.

And that, perhaps more than anything else, explains why Harry Truman helped save the postwar world while Donald Trump will spend his presidency repeatedly reminding us that there is an enormous difference between acting like a strong man and possessing the character necessary to lead one.

Harry Truman knew how to win wars because he understood that leadership begins with humility before history and responsibility before self. Donald Trump will never know that because, after a lifetime of self-worship, there is simply no room left in the mirror for history, sacrifice, or statesmanship.

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-truman-knew-and-trump-will-never-know-how-to-win-a-war/

Every faith community, every institution, and every movement must ask itself difficult questions about power, accountability, and the ways we respond when beloved leaders fail. We must honor survivors by changing the culture that too often allows harm to go unaddressed and even deliberately ignored.

 

The film about my father is premiering today. I won’t be there - Most of all, it reminds us that protecting the image of a leader should never be more important than protecting people.

 

The documentary tells the full story of Shlomo Carlebach while challenging Jewish communities to hear survivors and hold leaders accountable 

 

 

Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach

 by Neshama Carlebach

My father, Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach, profoundly shaped Jewish life through his music, teachings, and ability to touch people’s souls. He also caused profound harm. The new documentary The Darkest Light portrays both of these truths with care and precision. It celebrates the transformative impact he had on Jewish life and music while giving voice to the painful testimony of three women who were victims of his harmful actions.

Director Simon Mendes and his team spent years making this film, and I was honored to be one of the subjects. They approached an extraordinarily difficult story with compassion, courage and nuance. To tell only one side of my father’s story would have been untrue.

After much reflection, I have decided not to attend the premiere.

This was not an easy decision. I believe in this film. I believe it deserves to be seen, and I intend to continue supporting it as it travels through the world. But today should not be about me nor about my grief or my struggle to reconcile the father I loved with the man others experienced. Today belongs, first and foremost, to the women whose voices have too often been ignored, questioned, minimized, or dismissed.

For decades, women shared stories of experiences with my father that left them feeling violated, manipulated, and deeply harmed. Some spoke publicly. Others carried their pain quietly. Some were believed. Most were not.

To each of them, I say: I believe you. I see you. I hear you. I believe your pain deserves attention, compassion, and respect. Once again, I apologize for not having had the courage to see it and stand with you sooner. My absence from the premiere is a small gesture of deference to your courage. This moment belongs to you.

I love my father deeply, and I continue to wrestle with the pain he caused. Both truths are important. Believing the testimony of the women who came forward has never required me to stop loving my father. It has required something much more complicated: refusing to let my love for him become an excuse for silence.

I have spent years carrying all of it: I miss him and wish he had lived to know my children. He shaped my life in countless beautiful ways, and he also caused profound pain to others and – in different ways – to me. Those truths are not mutually exclusive. They are the burden, and the responsibility, of being his daughter.

Whenever my father’s name is mentioned, the conversation often turns quickly to his music. Should we continue singing his melodies? Should we stop? I understand why these questions arise, and I respect the sincerity and pain behind them. I continue to wrestle with those questions myself.

But if our response begins and ends with the question of whether we sing Carlebach niggunim, we risk missing the deeper moral challenge before us.

The Darkest Light opens the door to a bigger conversation, challenging us to engage with the complexities of the realities it reveals. The film requires more from us than deciding which melodies to include during Kabbalat Shabbat.

It asks us to build communities where people feel safe enough to come forward – and where those who do are believed, even when what they say is painful. It calls upon us to educate our children about healthy boundaries, consent, and the responsible use of spiritual authority. It demands systems of accountability – rabbis, educators, boards, and institutions willing to place the dignity of human beings above the reputation of charismatic leaders and major donors.

Most of all, it reminds us that protecting the image of a leader should never be more important than protecting people.

If this film leaves us arguing only about my father’s legacy, it will have accomplished far less than it should. If it helps our communities become more willing to hear survivors, respond with integrity, and prevent future harm, then it will have accomplished something far greater.

The conversation provoked by The Darkest Light should not end with my father. Every faith community, every institution, and every movement must ask itself difficult questions about power, accountability, and the ways we respond when beloved leaders fail. We must honor survivors by changing the culture that too often allows harm to go unaddressed and even deliberately ignored.

The film does more than tell a story about the past. It lights the way to a different future, one in which survivors know they will be heard, communities choose truth over denial, and our love for Torah is measured not only by the songs we sing, but by the courage with which we protect one another. This is the future I pray I can help to build.

May this film open our hearts. May it deepen our compassion. And may it move us beyond debate toward healing, accountability, and lasting change.

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-film-about-my-father-is-premiering-today-i-wont-be-there/

Scientists Can't Explain Why Ashkenazi Jewish DNA Is So Unique

 

'They don't want you there': Middle East Maven Trump tells Netanyahu to pull IDF troops from Syria, Lebanon - report

 

'They don't want you there': Trump tells Netanyahu to pull IDF troops from Syria, Lebanon - report

 

IDF sources told the Post the Axios report caught them by surprise, adding there has been no change on the ground in Lebanon or Syria.

ByYONAH JEREMY BOB, GOLDIE KATZ

JULY 14, 2026 20:15

Updated: JULY 15, 2026 04:16

 

US President Donald Trump allegedly told Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Israel should remove IDF troops from Syria and Lebanon during a phone call on Thursday, according to a Tuesday Axios report citing US and Israeli officials.

Trump claimed that the presence of Israeli military personnel in Syrian territory could create tension and may lead to escalation, one US official told Axios.

“They don’t want you there. You should redeploy,” Trump allegedly told Netanyahu, according to the official.

IDF sources told The Jerusalem Post on Tuesday evening that the report took them by surprise and they were unfamiliar with the reported phone call.

The sources stated that there has been no change on the ground and that there were no indications that the situation would change imminently.

US President Donald Trump (R) meets with Ahmed al-Sharaa, President of Syria (L), for bilateral talks at Bestepe Presidential Compound during the NATO Summit on July 8, 2026 in Ankara, Turkey. (credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images)

Amid the developments, Netanyahu is reportedly planning a trip to Washington in the coming days, Walla reported on Tuesday evening. 

Neither the White House nor the Prime Minister's Office have confirmed the prospect of a meeting.

Israel-Lebanon talks continue in Rome

The report came as Israel and Lebanon resumed peace talks in Rome to discuss the implementation of a trilateral framework between Israel, Lebanon, and the US.

The agreement, which was signed on June 26 in Washington, is aimed at disarming Lebanese terrorist group Hezbollah and facilitating the withdrawal of IDF troops from southern Lebanon.

Under the framework agreement, Israel agreed to withdraw troops from two areas, allowing the Lebanese army to take control of the zones and implement measures to disarm Hezbollah.

Trump-Netanyahu call reportedly took place after Trump met with Syrian president

The call also reportedly took place one day after Trump met with Syrian President Ahmed Al-Sharaa on the sidelines of the NATO summit in Ankara, Turkey.

After Trump and Sharaa’s meeting, the American president announced that the US would move to remove Syria’s designation as a state sponsor of terrorism. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the decision to remove the designation was due to “positive changes and counterterrorism actions taken by the Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa” and would open Syria up to more international trade opportunities.

 

https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-902520

Rabbi Breitowitz Explains Some of Judaism's Most Misunderstood Practices - At 23 Minutes or so...Advice From Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky ZTL....Make the time to listen to it all!

 

When A Jew Goes Bad - Rahm Emanuel: Israel is a pariah, US alliance can't survive

 

What Iran & the Mullahs Learned at Trump University - The Fraud & Lies are Forever....

 

A judge issued a scathing ruling over Trump’s deal with the I.R.S.

The Internal Revenue Service office building in Washington 

A federal judge on Monday ruled that President Trump’s lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service was an improper exercise in self-dealing and barred him from claiming that the extraordinary tax protections he received were part of a legitimate settlement agreement.

In the order, the judge, Kathleen M. Williams, also referred the lawyer who brought Mr. Trump’s case against the I.R.S. to the Florida bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. Judge Williams added that she would forward her decision to the New York bar, which is already investigating the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche.

The decision by the Judge Williams did not explicitly kill the deal that Mr. Trump had worked out with his own government to receive what amounted to amnesty from investigations into tax returns that he, his family and their businesses have already filed. But Judge Williams’s scathing ruling exposed the negotiations between Mr. Trump’s personal lawyers and senior officials at the Justice Department he controls for what she says they were: backroom dealings that did not arise from a legitimate legal process.

“The nature of the suit itself and the conduct of the parties and counsel from its filing make plain that this was an attempt to use the court to provide some legitimacy to an agreement to confer immunity to people and entities affiliated with the president and to earmark billions of dollars from American taxpayers to redress grievances not defined in the law,” the judge wrote.

The 56-page decision, issued in Federal District Court in Miami, came two months after the Justice Department released a pair of documents purporting to be formal agreements that settled Mr. Trump’s remarkable suit against the I.R.S. The documents laid out a pair of separate but shocking moves — one granting the president, his family and his businesses wide-ranging immunity from tax inquiries and the other creating a $1.8 billion fund aimed at compensating allies of Mr. Trump who say they were the victims of so-called government weaponization.

After outcry from Republicans on Capitol Hill, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, said the Justice Department would not move forward with the fund. But he said that Mr. Trump’s extraordinary protections from I.R.S. scrutiny would remain in place.

July 13, 2026, 1:08 p.m. ET25 minutes ago

Andrew Duehren

From the outset, Judge Williams, the Obama appointee who released the 56-page ruling in Federal District Court in Miami, had profound questions about the president’s suit. Because Trump was seeking damages from a part of the federal government that he controlled, the judge was concerned that he was effectively suing himself and was on both sides of the case.

July 13, 2026, 1:05 p.m. ET28 minutes ago

Andrew Duehren and Alan Feuer

The judge, Kathleen M. Williams, also referred the lawyer who brought President Trump’s case against the I.R.S. to the Florida bar for potential disciplinary proceedings. She added that she would forward her decision to the New York bar, which is already investigating the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche.

July 13, 2026, 1:02 p.m. ET31 minutes ago

Andrew Duehren and Alan Feuer

The agreement with the I.R.S. included a provision that gave President Trump, his family and his businesses potentially lucrative protection from agency investigations. In June, the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, said the Justice Department stood by the provision.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2026/07/13/us/trump-news?

 

E. Jean Carroll is paid $5.6 million in Trump sex abuse and defamation case

Jennifer Peltz, Associated Press

On Monday, two weeks after the Supreme Court declined to hear President Donald Trump's appeal of a $5 million jury verdict entered against him in a sexual abuse and defamation case filed by E. Jean Carroll, Carroll collected that payment, plus interest, according to court records and her legal team. Trump's lawyers had attempted to block the payment and are now working to reverse it as they await word from the justices on whether the court will grant their petition for rehearing, which was filed last week. The Associated Press noted that "Trump is also appealing $83 million in defamation compensation granted to Carroll by a separate Manhattan jury after a 2024 trial where Trump briefly testified."

 

JD Vance - "Israel kills its way out of its problems" - is a favorite among antisemites....

 

The Israeli Response to Vance   The vice president's critique overlooks a long history of Israeli diplomacy, compromise, and reluctant wars. But worse, it invokes an age-old blood libel. Michael Oren Jul 9   READ IN APP   U.S. Vice President JD Vance  I was recently asked in an interview with i24 News whether I thought Vice President JD Vance was right in saying that, apart from the United States, Israel has no friends in the world. I emphatically answered “no,” and listed the many friends Israel has in South America, Africa, the Arab Gulf, and, most importantly, India. “It’s a country with a population four times that of the U.S.,” I explained, “whose leader, Modi, visited Israel a day before the war with Iran to declare his love for Israel on the Knesset stage.” Several days after the interview, Prime Minister Netanyahu was asked the same question about Vance’s statement and gave precisely the same answer, similarly stressing our excellent ties with India. But in both cases, the interviewers posed the wrong question. What they should have asked, “is JD Vance right when he said that Israel “can’t just kill [its] way out of solving every single national security problem that [it has]’?” The answer is even more adamantly “no!” The charge that Israel uses brute force to resolve all its security problems is firstly, and historically, false. This is the country which, in 1949, signed armistice agreements with four Arab countries that only a year before had tried to destroy us. In 1967, that same country offered to return almost all of the sizable territories we captured in the Six-Day War in return for peace with the Arab leaders who once again sought to annihilate it. Their response was the three “no”s—no recognition, no negotiation, no peace. This is the country, Israel, which returned the Sinai Peninsula, an area more than three times its size, in return for peace with Egypt. We are the nation that signed a peace agreement with the arch-terrorist Arafat who for decades specialized in murdering Israelis. He soon went back to murdering Israelis and still we sought peace with him. Israel is the country which, with the enthusiastic support of Presidents Obama, Biden, and, yes, Trump, tried to avoid war with Hamas by paying it Qatari money. Israel is the country which, arguably more than any other in the world, has done more to avoid having to kill our way out of our security problems. Still, there are some problems that Israel has no choice but to address with force. As Vice President Vance knows full well, there is no diplomatic solution for Israel’s problems with Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. With enemies sworn to wipe us off the map, there is no diplomatic option, only defense. But the charge that Israel kills its way out of its problems, beyond being inaccurate and unfair, is a favorite among antisemites. It reflects the same Jew hatred behind the claim that Israel killed 70,000 Palestinians without noting that half that number were terrorists and many civilian deaths were caused by terrorist rockets or natural causes. Those same racists view Israelis as a uniquely evil people who want nothing more than to murder women, children, and journalists. Alarmingly, the blood libel that Jews kill their way out of security problems has moved from the radical Republican and Democratic fringe to the mainstreams of both parties. This is not to say that Vance and others have a problem with the Jewish state, but the Jewish state has a problem with the propagation, however inadvertent, of classic antisemitic tropes. Addressing that problem is the responsibility of all Israelis, especially our leaders. Though we must never cease striving to preserve our crucial alliance with the United States, we must respectfully but forcefully correct American leaders when they spread falsehoods about Israel, defame our national character, and distort our history. Israel has many friends in the world, we must proclaim. Israel defends itself when it must but makes peace whenever it can.