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.

The Middle East has a special way of exposing frauds...

The Proof of Trump’s Ignorance of the Middle East Is in the Pudding of Mistakes

 

Trump's $400M plane gift from Qatar

 

There is a familiar political pathology in America: the belief that a sufficiently loud man, armed with enough self-regard, can bully history into obedience. Donald Trump is the latest and most flamboyant specimen of this disease. He has never merely claimed to understand the Middle East; he has acted as though his ignorance were itself a form of genius, as though instinct, bluster, and a talent for television could substitute for intelligence, memory, discipline, and judgment. The tragedy is not simply that he misunderstands the region. It is that he mistakes his misunderstanding for mastery.

The Middle East has a special way of exposing frauds. It does not care about branding. It does not care about poll-tested phrases or reality-show swagger. It does not care how many times a leader declares himself “strong” or “smart.” The region has humiliated kings, presidents, generals, and diplomats who arrived convinced that they alone had cracked the code. Trump belongs to that long and embarrassing procession of men who imagined that certainty was a substitute for knowledge. It never is.

The old saying is that the proof of the pudding is in the eating. In Trump’s case, the proof of his grasp of the Middle East is in the outcomes he leaves behind: confusion dressed up as dealmaking, vanity dressed up as strategy, and improvisation dressed up as doctrine. Every misstep reveals the same thing: this is a man who wants the prestige of statesmanship without the discipline of statecraft. He wants the applause of hard decisions without the burden of understanding what those decisions actually mean.

If there is a single historical comparison that should haunt Trump, it is not some flattering businessman’s tale, but the cautionary example of Neville Chamberlain. Chamberlain also believed that personal confidence, concessions, and theatrical gestures could buy peace from dangerous men with dangerous ambitions. He returned waving paper; history returned with war. The lesson was never that diplomacy is worthless. The lesson was that diplomacy detached from reality is delusion with stationery. Trump, in his own way, has inherited that same temptation: to confuse motion with progress, ceremony with achievement, and a headline with a strategy.

Then there is Jimmy Carter, whose Middle East legacy is a study in the dangers of moral vanity unaccompanied by strategic clarity. Carter was not Trump’s mirror image in temperament; he was its opposite. But both men shared an American habit of believing that the region could be tamed if only one could find the right formula, the right pressure, the right combination of egos at the table. The Middle East is not a self-help seminar. It is not a place where human sincerity magically dissolves ideology, power, theology, and grievance. It is a place where weakness is read as invitation. Carter learned that too late. Trump has never seemed interested in learning at all.

What makes Trump so dangerous is not that he is uniquely original. It is that he is so recognizably American in his arrogance. He sees the world as a deal sheet, a balance of wins and losses, a contest in which every other actor will eventually do what is rational if only the pressure is applied long enough. But Middle Eastern politics has never been governed by the narrow rationalism of American boardrooms. States, militias, clerics, and strongmen often act from honor, vengeance, ideology, historical memory, and strategic patience. They are willing to absorb pain for long-term gain. They are willing to wait. They are willing to let the other side grow tired, distracted, or vain. Trump’s greatest weakness is that he appears incapable of imagining an opponent who does not think like a developer in Manhattan.

That blindness matters, because the region punishes not merely bad intentions but shallow comprehension. A president who mistakes rhetoric for leverage will soon discover that adversaries notice the difference. A president who believes threats can be made credible by shouting louder will find, sooner or later, that the world has already measured his seriousness and found it thin. A president who mistakes spectacle for policy will leave behind not peace, but a stage-set collapsing under its own weight.

The Rambam insisted that genuine wisdom begins with an honest perception of reason, rationalism and  reality. That is precisely where demagogues struggle. A demagogue is not merely someone who inflames passions. He is someone who becomes captive to his own mythology. He begins to believe that applause is evidence of truth, that personal charisma can suspend geopolitical reality, and that every setback is someone else’s fault. Such leaders do not merely deceive the public. Eventually, they deceive themselves.

The Jewish tradition has always distrusted exactly this sort of grandeur.That is a hard lesson for a narcissist, because reality is always less flattering than the fantasy he constructs around himself. Trump has built an entire political identity on the refusal to be corrected. He does not merely reject expertise; he treats expertise as a personal insult. He does not merely dismiss criticism; he turns it into proof of his superiority. That posture may thrill followers who crave simplifications. It is catastrophic in a region where simplification is the shortest road to defeat.

The Middle East is full of leaders who understand one another’s weakness better than Americans do. They know when a president is performing strength and when he is exercising it. They know when a promise is backed by conviction and when it is merely backed by a microphone. Trump’s politics have always depended on making the audience feel that he is the only adult in the room. The problem is that the room he keeps entering is filled with people who have spent generations learning how to outlast men like him.

America deserves leaders who know the difference between cleverness and competence. It deserves leaders who understand that history is not a set of marketing opportunities. It deserves leaders who can read the region before trying to remold it. Trump has offered none of that. He has offered noise, vanity, bravado, and the persistent illusion that the world will bow to him because he says it should. That is not leadership. That is a form of political solipsism.

And so the pudding remains. Every blunder, every misread, every inflated claim followed by diminished reality adds another spoonful. The Middle East has already passed its judgment. The verdict is not subtle. Trump did not bring clarity to the region. He brought confusion. He did not deepen American understanding. He advertised American ignorance. And in the end, history will remember what it always remembers: not the volume of the boast, but the size of the collapse.

*

The best Orthodox Jewish blogs curated and ranked based on multiple factors, including content relevancy, subject expertise, posting frequency, and freshness of content. Blogs with highest credibility within the Orthodox Jewish space are ranked higher. This list is updated regularly to ensure it reflects the most active, influential, and valuable Orthodox Jewish blogs on the internet today. https://bloggers.feedspot.com/orthodox_jewish_blogs/

 

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/the-proof-of-trumps-ignorance-of-the-middle-east-is-in-the-pudding-of-mistakes/

 

Nobel Prize Winning Game Theory on Israel vs Hamas’ w Prof. Robert Aumann

 

"An America Without Israel, Is A Weaker America"

 

Trump in Turkey (Israel's Best Friend)

 

BREAKING NEWS: Netanyahu Reacts To Trump's Meeting With Turkey's Erdogan Forbes Breaking News

 

מָה רַבּוּ מַעֲשֶׂיךָ יְהוָה, כֻּלָּם בְּחָכְמָה עָשִׂיתָ, מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ קִנְיָנֶךָ

 

Witkoff & Kushner To Funeral For Negotiations with the Ayatollah’s Turban

 

There are diplomatic missions, there are peace summits, and then there is the inevitable next chapter in the foreign policy of Donald Trump: dispatching Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner to the funeral of Iran's Supreme Leader—not to pay respects, but to negotiate directly with the Ayatollah's turban before it is lowered into the ground.

Why waste time with governments when you can negotiate with the wardrobe?

One can almost imagine the scene. The funeral procession moves solemnly through Tehran. Millions gather in mourning. The clerics chant. The cameras roll. Then, emerging from a black SUV, comes the American negotiating team carrying leather portfolios and term sheets. Before the mourners can finish reciting the prayers, someone whispers, "Quick! See if the turban is willing to make a deal."

Perhaps the turban is more flexible than the regime that wore it.

After all, this has become the defining illusion of Trump's approach to hostile dictatorships: every fanatic is merely an overlooked real estate developer waiting for the right offer. The problem is never ideology, revolutionary theology, or decades of declared hostility. The problem, apparently, is that nobody has offered sufficiently attractive financing terms.

Maybe the turban simply needs a better incentive package.

The satire writes itself because reality increasingly resembles political theater. Every crisis becomes another episode in which America's adversaries are assumed to be one meeting away from moderation. Never mind that revolutionary regimes often interpret negotiations as opportunities to gain time, divide alliances, and strengthen their strategic position. In this worldview, history is replaced by optimism wrapped in transactional language.

One can picture Kushner presenting glossy architectural renderings. "Imagine this," he says. "The Islamic Republic Luxury Peace Resort. Waterfront access. Golf course. International investment. We can call it Ayatollah Towers."

Meanwhile, Witkoff quietly asks whether sanctions relief can be bundled with complimentary valet parking.

The mullahs need not even answer immediately. They understand that every American envoy arriving in Tehran signals something valuable: Washington wants an agreement more urgently than they do. In negotiations, desperation is a currency. Revolutionary regimes know how to spend it.

This is not merely about one funeral or one negotiation. It is about confusing ceremony with strategy and symbolism with leverage. A regime built upon ideological conviction does not suddenly abandon its ambitions because another delegation arrives carrying promises of economic normalization. The cemetery is not a conference center.

Perhaps the final negotiation will indeed take place—with the turban itself. It cannot reject proposals. It cannot demand concessions. It cannot enrich uranium. It is, in many respects, the easiest negotiating partner imaginable.

If only America's adversaries were as accommodating as their headwear.

One can almost imagine the scene. The funeral procession moves solemnly through Tehran. Millions gather in mourning. The clerics chant. The cameras roll. Then, emerging from a black SUV, comes the American negotiating team carrying leather portfolios and term sheets.

Standing just beyond the security cordon is a fictional welcoming committee. A few smiling Chabad emissaries have somehow managed to appear—as they seem to do in every corner of the globe—with a table of kosher sandwiches, bottled water, and warm hospitality for every Jewish visitor, regardless of politics. "Before you negotiate with the turban," one jokes, "at least have something to eat." When Kushner is asked "are you Jewish", he pockets a sandwich to take home to his wife; "now you know"!

Nearby, Jewish travelers of every stripe gather around the kosher food, arguing animatedly—as Jews have done for centuries—about whether any of this is a good idea. The only point of unanimous agreement is that nobody should negotiate on an empty stomach.

Meanwhile, the diplomats hurry past the buffet. After all, history cannot be allowed to interfere with the next photo opportunity.

The irony is delicious. The kosher food is unquestionably real. The hospitality is genuine. The optimism about striking a grand bargain with revolutionary ideologues remains the most fictional thing at the funeral.

Political satire succeeds because it exaggerates recognizable tendencies rather than inventing them. The joke is not really about a funeral, a turban, or another diplomatic mission. The joke is about believing that every geopolitical problem has a transactional solution if only the salesman is persistent enough. History, unfortunately, has rarely been impressed by salesmanship. Ideological revolutions have seldom been negotiated into retirement. They end because ideas lose their power, regimes lose their coercive capacity, or determined adversaries impose costs that can no longer be ignored.

Even a turban knows that.

REPUBLISHED

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/witkoff-kushner-to-funeral-for-negotiations-with-the-ayatollahs-turban/

America at 250: The Founders Could Not Imagine the Tragedy of Donald Trump

The danger is bigger than one president: it is a culture that prizes personal loyalty over constitutional government

There is a bitter irony in celebrating America's 250th birthday while asking a question that would have bewildered James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and George Washington: How does a nation born in rebellion against the cult of one man become so consumed by another?

The Founders feared kings. They feared demagogues. They feared mobs intoxicated by emotion rather than reason. They feared factions that would substitute loyalty to personalities for loyalty to the Constitution. Read the debates of the Constitutional Convention. Read The Federalist Papers. Read Washington's Farewell Address. Their anxiety was never merely about foreign enemies. It was about what free people might willingly do to themselves.

America was designed to produce citizens—not courtiers.

The rabbis of the Talmud understood the same danger long before Philadelphia. The Mishnah teaches, "Pray for the welfare of the government, for were it not for fear of it, people would swallow one another alive" (Pirkei Avot 3:2). Government is necessary because human beings are imperfect. Yet the same rabbinic tradition refuses to sanctify rulers. Government is indispensable, but rulers remain accountable to a law higher than themselves.

The Talmud repeatedly insists that no king stands above the Torah. The prophet Nathan publicly rebuked David. King David's greatness lay not in being flawless, but in accepting moral judgment. Jewish civilization does not celebrate infallible leaders; it celebrates leaders who remain subject to justice.

Perhaps no rabbinic maxim is more relevant than Hillel's timeless warning: "Do not separate yourself from the community, and do not trust yourself until the day of your death" (Pirkei Avot 2:4). Even the righteous are cautioned against believing themselves beyond error. If an individual should never place absolute trust in himself, how much less should an entire nation place absolute trust in any politician.

Donald Trump has become not merely a politician but the gravitational center of American public life. Every debate bends toward him. Every crisis is filtered through him. Every election becomes a referendum on him. Admirers often defend him reflexively, while critics frequently define themselves almost entirely in opposition to him. The individual eclipses the institution.

That inversion should alarm conservatives as much as liberals. The Constitution was written precisely because the Founders assumed no leader, however talented or popular, could safely be trusted with unbounded public devotion. Their political philosophy and the rabbinic worldview converge on one essential point: human beings require restraints because power magnifies human weakness.

The Talmud goes even further. In Sanhedrin, the sages debate the powers and limitations of kings not to glorify monarchy but to restrain it. Elsewhere, the principle "The law of the land is the law" (Dina de-Malkhuta Dina) affirms the legitimacy of civil authority while never suggesting that rulers themselves become objects of reverence. Law—not personality—is sovereign.

Moses, the greatest leader in Jewish history, was denied entry into the Promised Land. Why? Because Judaism insists that no leader is indispensable. God's covenant outlives every individual. The mission survives the man. That may be the most profound political lesson in the Hebrew Bible.

America's Founders reached a remarkably similar conclusion. George Washington's greatest act was not winning the Revolutionary War but relinquishing power. He demonstrated that the presidency belongs to the Constitution, not to the president. Washington and Moses, though separated by millennia and radically different contexts, each embodied the principle that enduring institutions matter more than personal glory.

The deeper tragedy is cultural. Politics has ceased to be primarily about preserving liberty and has too often become performance. Outrage is monetized. Humiliation substitutes for persuasion. Celebrity overshadows character. Every day demands another spectacle. The Founders envisioned public servants; modern America too often rewards public performers.

Donald Trump did not create every weakness in American civic life. He emerged from a culture already captivated by celebrity, polarization, and perpetual outrage. In that sense, he reflects broader currents as much as he shapes them. Yet the constitutional question remains unchanged: Will Americans remain loyal first to institutions and principles, or increasingly to personalities?

The rabbis taught that machloket l'shem shamayim—disagreement for the sake of Heaven—strengthens a community because truth emerges through honest argument rather than unquestioning loyalty. The debates of Hillel the Elder and Shammai became sacred precisely because neither side demanded blind allegiance. A civilization that values argument over adulation is more likely to preserve its freedom.

Two hundred and fifty years after the Declaration of Independence, the challenge is not whether America can produce another charismatic leader. It is whether Americans still possess the civic discipline to remember that the presidency is an office, not a throne; that patriotism belongs to the Constitution, not to a person; and that the Republic is always greater than the personality temporarily entrusted to lead it.

The Founders warned against concentrated political power. The sages warned against concentrated moral certainty. Together they teach the same enduring lesson: free societies survive not because they discover perfect leaders, but because they refuse to treat any leader as perfect.

 

REPUBLISHED *FEATURED POST*

https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/america-at-250-the-founders-could-not-imagine-the-tragedy-of-donald-trump/

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people possess the right to live freely in their ancestral homeland, to shape their future, defend their dignity, preserve their civilization and contribute their values and wisdom to humanity.

 

What Zionism Is and What It Is Not

By Ari D. Berman

In parts of America and Europe, the word “Zionism” has become little more than a slogan shouted by opposing sides at protests. It can be a term of pride or a biting shorthand for anger toward and condemnation of Israel and its supporters. This has led to a profound misunderstanding of what Zionism is and what it is not. The misuse of the word has flattened its dimensionality. It has, effectively, lost its meaning in the larger public.

Zionism is the belief that the Jewish people possess the right to live freely in their ancestral homeland, to shape their future, defend their dignity, preserve their civilization and contribute their values and wisdom to humanity. A Jewish homeland is understood as the primary vehicle for Jews to build a flourishing society, with all its residents, non-Jews and Jews alike, that manifests and broadcasts the core Torah values of human dignity, justice and compassion. The term predates the modern state of Israel by decades. And the origin story of Zionism began centuries before that.

In the Book of Genesis, we are told how God blessed Abraham and his descendants with a land from which they would be a blessing to “all the families of the earth.” That promise was held in the hearts of the Israelites during 400 years of bondage in Egypt. It inspired their return to the birthplace of their ancestors, as well as the founding of the first Jewish commonwealth, which grew, under King Solomon, to become a center of commerce, wisdom and morality.

Expulsions of the Jews from Israel, first in the Babylonian era and then in the Roman era, gave rise to a collective mourning that is expressed again and again in Jewish liturgy. To this day, Jews prevail upon God three times daily for the blessing of the land on which they can build a society. And in the blessings after meals, they thank God for giving us a “precious, good and spacious” land as a heritage.

The longing for the land translated into continued Jewish presence throughout its long history of foreign rulers, including a significant increase in Jewish communities in the 19th century. At this point, the modern Zionist vision began to take root.

In his 1896 seminal text on the idea of Jewish self-determination, “Der Judenstaat,” Theodor Herzl envisioned a Jewish state that would benefit humanity, writing, “Whatever we attempt there for our own benefit will redound mightily and beneficially to the good of all mankind.”

In the wake of pogroms in Russia and the Dreyfus affair in France, Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement, believed that Zionism would unshackle the Jews from the constraints of physical fear as well as professional, social and generational discrimination. It would enable them to create a society that would serve as the fullest expression of themselves and to contribute most robustly to the world.

Early Zionist thinkers envisioned Jews and non-Jews living peacefully alongside each other in an inclusive country that adhered to the highest of moral callings. The mission of Zionism, as expressed by the early-20th-century journalist Ahad Ha’am (a nom de plume), was to create “a Jewish state and not merely a state of Jews.”

Israel’s first prime minister, David Ben-Gurion, espoused a similar idea, saying that Israel’s ultimate successes would be determined “not by its riches or military power nor by its technical skills but by its moral worth and human values.”

From its inception, the Jewish homeland committed itself to both Jewish self-determination and the full dignity and equal citizenship of people of all faiths and backgrounds. This commitment is enshrined in Israel’s 1948 Declaration of Independence, after the country’s establishment by the United Nations. Like many national ideals, it has been tested by war, fear, extremism, political failure and competing national aspirations. The reality today does not always reflect the fullness of the vision of early Zionist thinkers. And yet the challenges and setbacks of any given moment do not invalidate the underlying promise of the idea itself.

Just as America’s founding democratic ideals continue to unfold imperfectly, the promise of Zionism is not one that is finished in its creation but an ideal that is refined and built upon each generation. Israel has advanced on that promise by creating a society built on freedom, opportunity and the rule of law, as well as by generating breakthroughs in science and medicine that improve and save lives around the world. A belief in the potential of Zionism is a belief in the obligation to continue to create the ideals for which it strives.

None of this means one cannot criticize the policies and practices of an Israeli administration. Anti-Zionism, however, goes much further and rejects the idea of Jewish self-determination entirely. Those who would deny the Jews the right to a Jewish state, in a world that comfortably accepts Muslim and Christian states, are discriminating against Jews. It is here that anti-Zionism crosses over to antisemitism.

Reducing Zionism to flags, slogans or epithets provides cover for those who seek Israel’s destruction and ignores all the good the Zionist project has wrought. An Israeli research hospital that is home to both Jewish and non-Jewish scientists, doctors and nurses, all working toward the same goal, is a Zionist enterprise. So, too, is Israel’s court system, composed of Jewish, Muslim, Christian and Druze judges.

When a pro-Israel Jewish university, like mine in New York, educates psychologists who restore dignity, attorneys who protect the vulnerable, social workers who strengthen families, dentists who provide care to underserved communities or scientists who pursue groundbreaking discoveries — empowering students from every background to bring healing, dignity and opportunity into the world — that is also inspired by the Zionist mission.

While the modern state of Israel was founded on the ashes of the Holocaust and served as a safe haven for refugees, Zionism always aspired to be more than simply an answer to or refuge from antisemitism. It was a means of allowing Jews to live to their greatest potential, unfettered by the restrictive, often brutal, experiences of living in foreign lands. Zionism is thus an answer to a 3,800-year-old yearning, not only a response to a modern crisis.

Seen through the lens of its history and ultimate purpose, Zionism becomes a framework for constructive dialogue and renewed inspiration. From its biblical beginnings until today, Zionism has carried one of humanity’s most enduring ideas: that a people, rooted in its values and returned to its homeland, can build a society that honors faith, dignity, responsibility and hope.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/07/01/opinion/zionism-jewish-israel.html