The Impeachment of Reason

 

Impeachment has become a household word, nowadays. We hear and read that the Legislative branch (yes, the very same one that was created as part of the “checks and balances”) of the U.S. government is planning to impeach former President, Donald J. Trump. We witness many discussions and debates, by various analysts, mostly media people and unfortunately, even some U.S. politicians who are clueless about their own U.S. Constitution, in general and on the Articles of Impeachment, in particular.

Since I am an American, some turn to me to ask my view on this issue, seeking some clarification.

I always suggest that we start by defining terms.

“Impeachment” according to the Cambridge Dictionary is “to make a formal statement saying that a public official is guilty of a serious offence in connection with their job, especially in the US:” This teaches us that impeachment can only apply to a person who holds an official public office.

Next, let us see what the U.S Constitution states regarding impeachment. A basic Google search has produced, among others, an article by the NYTimes. In it, the writer states in plain everyday language that: “The Constitution permits Congress to remove presidents before their term is up if enough lawmakers vote to say that they committed “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” I have no reason to doubt the NYTimes on the accuracy of this statement.

What we learn from these two sources then is that:

A. Only a person who is a public official, not a private citizen, can be impeached.

B. The process can be done only while they, in this case, presidents, are still in office.

C. The penalty for an impeached official, upon conviction, is their removal from office. 

As far as I am concerned this is clear, simple, and straightforward. One does not need to be a rocket scientist to be able to grasp the concept. All one needs is a healthy logic and sound reason.

At least that is what I thought until this afternoon.

A friend, a fellow Trump supporter, one who I hold in high esteem, called, and asked me to explain to her what the “impeachment” entailed. I shared her with the above information. She sounded confused.

I decided to simplify it for her by providing an example. “Let’s say,“ I started, “that a lawyer who had been working for a certain law firm for a number of years, decided to leave his job, move to another town and start a clothing business.” So far so good. “Now,” I resumed, “suppose that after he had left his firm, one of his colleagues who resented him, decided to get him fired. Can he do that? Can you fire someone from any place of work where he is no longer employed?” I asked.

“Of course not, “answered my friend without hesitation.

“Great,” I thought to myself. That should be easy. “Now,” I moved on, “let us pretend that the lawyer who left the office, moved to another town, and opened a clothing business, is President Trump…” A long silence on the other side of the telephone line prompted me to ask, “hello, are you still there?”
“Yes,” she responded hesitantly, “but the media keeps telling us that he is still going to be tried. Let us hope you are right, let us……”

“Wait a minute,” I interrupted her. “Do you believe that Donald J. Trump is still in office?” I probed her. “No, of course not,” she answered very confidently. “Biden is the President. The media shows him sitting in the White House signing executive orders……He is the sitting president.”

“Then,” I persisted, “in that case, since Donald J. Trump is not the President, he is now a private citizen like you and I, correct?”

“yes…..”

“Therefore, according to the U.S. Constitution, he cannot be impeached. Unless, of course, there are two presidents or there is something that you and I and many others do not know…..,” I added.

“No,  it is clear that Trump has conceded. He is no longer in the White House,” I heard her assuring answer. I decided to leave my disagreement with her regarding Trump's "conceding" to another occasion. One step at a time.

Just as I was about to heave a big sigh of relief, I heard her say, “But in the news….well,” she added realizing her predicament, “as I said, I hope you are right….”

Unfortunately, she is not the only one who views this unequivocal issue in such a bewildered manner. Many people that I consider intelligent and perceptive seem to have difficulty grasping such a very straightforward issue.

I fear that my friend, along with many others, have lost their ability to think independently. Their judgmental faculties have been assailed and are in danger of being removed from them. They, themselves, it seems, have become subject to an impeachment. In their case, it is the impeachment of reason  

Yisrael - The National Jewish Home or a home for Jews?

 Special thanks Moshe Schwartz who inspired the titular question of this article

Almost three quarters of a century after its birth, who would have imagined that the essence of the State of Yisrael would still be a focus of debate and mostly among Yisraelis?

The subject was brought to my attention a couple of weeks ago. One of my friends told me that her youngest son who is in high school was given an assignment on the issue. Students, she told me, were requested to deliberate on whether Yisrael’s National anthem, “Ha’Tikvah,” which includes expressions to the yearning of the “soul of a Jew” to Zion should be revisited. Following such pondering, the students were instructed to express an opinion on whether its lyrics which, do not mention non-Jews should be modified and include other minorities such as Druze, Muslim, Christians, and others who are Yisraeli citizens.

As a frame of reference, the teacher suggested a few sources. One of them was an article entitled “Lost in Translation – Hatikva in Arabic Too” was written by Gadi Benmark. In it, Benmark evokes that Yisrael follows the example of Canada. There, the anthem, “Oh Canada” was originally written in French, in the seventeenth century when Canada was “The New France.” The British, who arrived much later, explains Benmark, evidently felt that the French version excluded them and hence added an English language version, which is not a translation of the French one. “So now,” comments Benmark, “it is a national universal song that every Canadian, of every origin, can sing proudly.” In conclusion, Benmark suggests that Yisrael duplicates the Canadian experience so that every Yisraeli can sing the version that suits them.

With all due respect to Canada, not only do I consider such an analogy inappropriate, I also deem it an insult.

I am afraid that no matter how one addresses it, neither the French, nor the English possess the same bond to Canada, which is a few hundred years old, as the one that Jews have forged with the Land of Yisrael for over a few millennia. And I am not even touching upon the Biblical connection, as I much as I hold it true, simply because I believe that in today’s geo-political environment, religious arguments are irrelevant. The union between the People and the Land, in the case of the Jews, reflected itself for thousands of years not only in religious rituals and customs. It also paraded itself in Literature, Art, Archeology and documented historical accounts.

Canada, unlike Yisrael, was created in a unilateral move by the British in 1867. The British Parliament then passed the North America Act. Canada was introduced into the family of nations in an arbitrary step by a colonial power. Its purpose, its goal, its core, and its nature were left undefined.

The creation of the State of Yisrael was anything but an arbitrary move by one government. No act of one state, one parliament or a single colonial power decreed its  foundation or created it. Its idea, yes, but not its actual creation.

From the very first moment of the inception of the notion, starting with the Balfour Declaration, Yisrael (AKA Palestine, the artificial name given to it by the Romans in 135 C.E.) was defined as the place where a National Home for the Jewish People, not just a home for Jews, would be erected. The State of Yisrael was decreed as Jewish in its essence and by more than one source.

The Jewish character of Yisrael was further reinforced in the San Remo Accord of 1920 which was voted upon by the Supreme Council of Five that acted as an International Court of Law. It was an International Order, not just an Act of Parliament of one power.

And then, of course there was U.N resolution 181 of November 29, 1947. In it, the family of nations, voted to establish two states in Eretz Yisrael, one Arab, and one Jewish. The Jewish State was born following a democratic vote after a long painful labour period.

Ironically enough, more than the Jews defined the nature of their state, the Gentiles did.

As a Jewish state, the only Jewish state on the globe, might I add, Yisrael should adhere to the designated nature and substance decreed to it. It should keep the blue and white flag with the powerful symmetric Star of David at its center. It should maintain the emblem of the Menorah that adorned the Temple of Solomon and it should keep the words of Ha’Tikvah intact.

If someone feels that certain lines in Yisrael’s Jewish National Anthem are hard for them to digest, I suggest they refrain from singing it. Losing our national identity at the cost of accommodating others is not an option, I am afraid. Turning Yisrael from the Jewish National Home to merely a home for Jews is a risk we cannot afford to take. That is one of the most important lessons that our Jewish history curriculum has taught us.

We cannot and should not allow ourselves to fail that course.

Am Yisraek Chai 

The Weakest Link

 

We are all part of a chain in one way or another. Some are a link in a family line, others are the connectors in the history of an ethnic group, a nation, a social, cultural or any other assembly.

That link is not always staring at us or is clearly visible. Sometimes, we need to search for it, join scattered dots, cross- check facts or dig deep to discover it. In some instances, we may be lucky enough and discover that tiny clue which will lead us to the component that we are in search of. In others, unfortunately, we may find that the weakest link is not only weak, but also nonexistent.

In 2002, I embarked on the quest for one.

It happened when my daughter and I attended a summer school programme in Yiddish studies at the University of Vilnius, Yiddish Institute.

Over one weekend, we went to visit both my parents’ hometowns.  My mother’s, Smorgon, was first on the list. Since I had visited the place two years earlier, I was rather familiar with its layout which, incidentally, unlike that of my father’s and others that I visited, changed considerably since the time my mother had lived there.  

My mother’s house was no longer there. The large and menacing grey Pravoslav Church that had once stood there and which my mother could see through her bedroom window, was demolished once the Soviets entered town. The only remnant of the days gone by was the habitual market day which took place on Wednesdays.

Just as I had in my first visit, two years earlier, I tried, again, to find some information about my family’s history, a shred of evidence, a weak link that could reconnect me to that place.

Our tour guide, Regina, a Yiddish speaker herself, was immensely helpful. She was able to find one man who was seventeen years old when WWII broke out. Surely, I thought to myself, he would have heard of the Kozlowsky family (fictitious name, for obvious reasons). My grandfather owned a big, successful wholesale business. He was the richest man in town and their big spacious home was located near the city square.

The old man we met (in the photo below) who was eighty years old at the time, was blind and could not remember much. I tried to help revive his memory and mentioned the name of my grandfather’s competitor, Bernstein (likewise, a fictitious name) but to no avail. Nothing!

I felt empty. I had brought my daughter all the way for nothing, no proof, whatsoever, of a world, part of her world, that once was. The missing link was nowhere to be found.

Our next stop was my father’s hometown. A poor place with a few scattered houses where time stood still. No slight chance of finding the long searched for missing link, there, it was obvious.

“Is there another place you wish to visit before we head back to Vilna?” Regina asked me, noticing my great disappointment.

“Oshmiany,” I responded automatically.

Both my daughter and Regina looked surprised. “Why?” probed Regina, “did you have any family there?”

“No,” I said, “But my parents used to mention that name more than once. I am curious to see it.”
“Interesting,” observed Regina, “I happen to know a Jewish family there, the only Jewish family left there.”

Like my father’s hometown, not much seemed to have changed in that small community since the war ended, according to Bluma De Leon.

Bluma, a woman in her eighties, lived with her daughter, her son in law and two granddaughters in a small house, surrounded by farms, in an area sprinkled with what seemed to have been semi built houses, and many ruined ones.

Somehow, she managed to survive the war and moved to Oshmiany after it ended.

“I was born in Kreve,” she started her story, in Yiddish, of course, “where my father owned a small retail store.”

“Kreve?” I asked, “it was not far from Smorgon, was it not?” I knew the name since my grandmother used to tell me stories, in Yiddish, about life in those little shtetles. I could see them in my mind’s eye. I could draw a map and place each and everyone of them on their approximate locations.

“Yes, I knew Smorgon. I used to go there with my father,” she answered without hesitation. A glimmer of hope was ignited in me. A sliver of light was shinning towards me from afar.

“You have been to Smorgon as a child?” I asked with my mouth wide open and sparkling eyes. “What did you go there for?” I persisted as if clinging to the edge of a lifeline.

“My father used to buy supplies such as flour and sugar from Bernstein.”

“Wrong name, wrong link,” a tiny voice whispered to me as I sank deeper into the armchair in which I was seated. And just when I was ready to give up, I suddenly heard Bluma’s voice as if in a dream, “herring, however, the best herring, he bought from Kozlowsky."

I jumped in my seat. “Did you say, ‘Kozlowsky?’” I heard myself saying.

“Yes, because he was famous for his herring. It was the best there was.” As the tears began gushing down my face, I stood up, walked to Bluma, hugged her and in a strained voice said, "I am his granddaughter. You are the evidence I have been looking for, the living proof, the confirmation that the chain has never been broken. Thank you,"

“But I am just a weak eighty years old woman,” she added, as she was wiping her tears.

“Even the weakest link can, sometimes, become the strongest one.” I whispered to her as we stood there holding each other for a long while.

A Miracle called "The Jewish People"

 

“Every day, many a miracle happens to the sons of Israel. Were it not for G-d’s miracles, we should -Heaven forbid! – have perished long ago” – Yonatan Eibschutz

“There are two ways to live your life. One is as though nothing is a miracle. The other is as though everything is a miracle.” – Albert Einstein

Our long and eventful Jewish history is without doubt a testimonial to the first quote. Channukah, but one example, is always reminiscent of G-d’s marvels, past and present. Our entire Jewish existence, I believe, is a unique phenomenon. Each Jew, irrelevant of whether they regard themselves as such or not, is a miracle.

Some Jews, unfortunately, fail to see their lives as such. They are the ones Einstein is referring to in the former part of his quote. Others, like myself, live our lives as Jews “as though everything is a miracle,” as though each and every one of us is a wonder on their own.

Before anyone jumps at me and accuses me of arrogance or practicing some form of  “Jewish elitism,” let me explain.

As many of my readers know, both my parents were Shoah survivors. To have come out of the abyss, from the netherworld, to have survived its infernal fires, to have been reborn, gather the shambles of one’s life and build a bigger better temple, raise a family and rebuild trust in a vile world is miraculous. That, coupled with resuming to live one’s life as though “everything is a miracle,” eventually turns one into a miracle.

The fabric of our Jewish history is woven with many such astounding stories. “Miracle” is our Jewish middle name.

Much to my dismay, though, some fellow Jews continue to regard our existence as the first part of Einstein’s words suggest. “We were always meant to be a small nation,” told me a Jewish acquaintance once when I bemoaned that we are losing too many Jews to assimilation. According to her, there is nothing miraculous about our two thousand years of enduring, persecution, pogroms, discrimination and forced conversion. These were, if I follow her logic, merely some milestones to ensure that we fulfilled our destiny to remain a small nation. What a slap in the face of our Jewish heritage such a view is. In her perspective, so it seems, we are just like everyone else, just a nation among the nations with no unusual history, no unique set of beliefs and no Torah. She is, of course, entitled to hold that belief.

I, however, refuse to prescribe to that kind of a notion. I believe in miracles.

I consider my parents’ survival and the survival of many of our Jewish brothers and sisters through hard and dangerous times, a miracle. Moreover, to have been born to a miracle, by default, makes one a miracle. I am a daughter of two miracles. Hence, my birth, my gift of Life is, itself, a miracle.

Furthermore, I hold the view that a miracle should never be wasted. To preserve one’s life as a miracle, one needs to recreate miracles, spend their time on this earth, strive relentlessly and act constantly in a way that would keep the miracle going.

In the words of our wise Talmud, “Hope for a miracle but don’t depend on one.” (Megillah 7b)

In other words, miracles do not just happen. One should never depend on them.

In my words, one should keep the faith, never give up and create a fertile ground for miracles to transpire. That, too, as our few millennia old Jewish history, has proven, is attainable .

May this Channukah season be full of miracles and every blessing to all

Songbird

 

His name is Chaim Zippel, and he is fifteen years old.

I met Chaim when he was about two years old. It happened in London. At that time, his mother Zina, was one of my clients when I worked as a personal trainer with Orthodox women in the Jewish community.

I remember Chaim sitting and watching us while Zina and I were engaged in our exercise routine. He was generally quite talkative and always, always smiling. Little did I know then that behind this smiling face was a well-hidden talent that this young child was harbouring inside.

It was only about ten years later, earlier this year that I received a message from Zina telling me to watch a T.V. programme entitled “School of Music,” a show I had vaguely known. “You will see Chaim on it,” she wrote.

On the scheduled day, I dropped everything I was doing. What a wonderful surprise awaited me. Chaim’s smiling face, the same beautiful face as I remembered it, was staring at me from the T.V. screen. The voice, however, that voice left me mesmerized. I felt my heart melting and my eyes welling. The song was “Let it be,” by the Beatles, written by Paul McCartney

“How long have you been singing?” I asked Chaim when I spoke to him several days ago, “since I remember myself,” came the quick answer.
“And why did you choose this particular song?” I guess he could hear the hint of surprise in my voice.
“I didn’t,” he responded. “It was selected for me.”

We both knew why this begging to be asked question came up. McCartney’s lyrics refer to his own mother Mary albeit is generally associated with the Christian Mother Mary. Chaim took the liberty to change it into “Mother Rachel.” “There is no way in the world,” Chaim retorted when I addressed it, “that I would sing about ‘mother Mary’ on an Yisraeli T.V. Show.”

With your permission, dear readers, let me rewind here and take you back to how and when it all started.

Chaim and his family made Aliyah from London about six years ago. Shortly, thereafter, his maternal grandfather once mentioned the Yisraeli T.V. show, of which, of course, Chaim knew nothing. His grandfather further suggested that Chaim should watch it.

One day, out of curiosity, Chaim and his mother decided to google the programme and it so happened that auditions for its fourth season were about to take place. Chaim decided to apply.

Needless to add, it was a long and tedious process, especially for an observant young man who was trying to shuffle between school requirement, voice lessons, his voluntary work , the ongoing tryouts as well as recording and filming sessions. These, as we can imagine, can make one’s life incredibly stressful.

"Yes, “ said Chaim in response to my question as to whether he wishes to make singing a future career, “definitely!” Chaim hopes to include a variety of styles in his repertoire as well as songs in different languages. In addition to singing in Hebrew, Chaim has recorded songs in Yiddish, English and lately a duet in Italian with the IDF Chief Cantor, Lt. Col. Shai Abrmason.

Chaim wishes to express his gratitude to the many who have stood by him on the path of this journey and have helped him get thus far.

First, of course, to his parents, Zina and Phillipe. Special thanks go to Harel Skaat, his mentor in the “School of Music” with whom he is still closely in touch and who is always there to offer his support and good advice. Chaim also wishes to acknowledge the great support he received from Rivka Rappoport, Founder of the Rappoport School. Finally, Chaim wants to give thanks to Nahum Levi, his voice teacher with whom he has been working for the last five years.

We wish Chaim the best of luck with his singing career and look forward to hearing more of his songs in the future.

My Take on the Latest Presidential Debate

 

Anyone who, like myself, had hoped that Trump would deal Biden a knockout and confuse him with the barrage of serious accusations of corruption, compromising national security, money laundering and child pornography, was perhaps disappointed. Trump, however, achieved something far more important.

Pre-debate polls showed that Trump had been leading among the male population but is trailing among women all over the continent.

Therefore, Trump’s first goal, at the debate, was to address suburban married women with children. They were the crowd he was addressing with two important missives. In the first, character related, he wanted to pass the message that he is not the relentless bully he had been portrayed as. He wanted to impress upon them that he acknowledges his opponents, responds to his challenges, resolute but not verbally abusive towards them or kicks them when they are on the ground. These are traits that women abhor.

Content wise, Trump wanted to plant hope that the vaccine is on the way, that the economy would not be crippled, people would not be fired, and children will not remain at home. One does not treat the pandemic lightly, but one does not take measures which will kill the sick in other ways.

Trump’s second goal was focused on exposing Biden’s lies. My friend, Niv Arot, summed up four such lies:

1. Biden said, “I have not received one dollar from any other country” – he did receive, through his son and from foreign companies. The amount is, at least, 10 million dollars. Now that the emails have surfaced out of the laptop, Trump repeatedly asked him about that, and Biden barely answered.

2. Biden said that no one had lost their health insurance because of ObamaCare. That is a blatant lie. Many lost their insurance and that will come back to bite him.

3. Biden lied about the Corona when he called Trump a “xenophobic” for banning Chinese from entering the U.S. The tweet, however, is still there.

4. Biden stated that he would never liquidate the oil shales. This is another brazen lie. In the coming days, the campaign will concentrate on refuting these lies.

Trump’s third goal was to repeat and strengthen the notion that he is a go-getter, unlike Biden, the politician. One of the strongest themes that he kept repeating was “Where was Biden 8 years when he was Obama’s Vice President? How come he never pushed any of the beautiful projects which he is taking about today?” In other words, “all talk, no action.”

There are ten long days to the elections. Indeed, many have already voted but the expectations are that, on Election Day, about one third to three quarters of the voters will exercise their voting rights. More exposures will be published, in line with Bannon’s strategy of delayed release, and Biden’s main message that he is a “man of honour and truth, may collapse.

It all depends whether the traditional media will continue to flex a muscle and hide the truth from the nation. It is an extremely unusual phenomenon which I have never encountered before, the erasure of any known journalistic standard. It is, though, a subject for a special article when the dust settles.

Back to the first and important point, women. It is essential to note that Meagan Kelly, an ex-presenter at Fox News who, following a dispute with Trump in 2016, left Fox for NBC, fired from her job after a year and a half and nowadays is starting a career as the presenter of her own podcast. She is a moderate conservative, very practical, not a blind supporter of Trump, one who does not hesitate to criticize him when needed and, of course, symbolizes the “suburban family woman.”

Following the debate, Kelly wrote: "Trump won this debate, handily. Biden wasn’t a force at all. Trump was substantive, on-point, well-tempered. Definitely helped himself, when it mattered most," I fully agree.

"Germany, at Odds" - by Eldad Beck

 

The first time that I experienced anti-Semitism it came from a young German man.

It was in the seventies when I attended school in England.

One morning, a fellow student, Alfred, a pleasant young man from Frankfurt, came into class, sat next to me, and said, “I have a joke for you.”

“There was, once, a military base,” started Alfred in a thick German accent as a wide smile was spreading over his face. “English soldiers were prohibited to smoke in the bathroom, the French in the kitchen but Jews were allowed to smoke in the ammunition room.”

The truth? I did not know how to react. For a split second, I did not even comprehend the anti-Semitic nature of the joke. I liked Alfred and, as an optimist, I tried to console myself, after I sobered up, that he, himself, failed to understand the essence of his joke and, especially, the fact that he told it to a Jew and a daughter of Shoah survivors.

Deep inside of me, I was hoping that the German people of that era had not yet digested the crime which, part of their parents’ generation, were guilty of. I was expecting a different Germany, a better one, one that assumes responsibility of its past, internalizes its lessons, and contributes to creating a more sensible world.

Beck’s excellent book, “Germany – at Odds,” was an ear deafening wake up call.

It is for a reason that Beck elected to entitle his book by that name, a choice which, in my view, leaves no room for doubt. Beck does not present the essence of today’s Germany as a question which he is about to research. Beck has already conducted the research, and thoroughly. He cites and documents, in his book, the reality that exists in that country, a reality that is clear and obvious. Germany, as described in Beck’s book, is, indeed, different. It is different than what many wished it to be, especially those who carry the scars of its past and their offspring who carry them on their soul.

The series of shuddering descriptions and documentations, which Beck weaves artfully and skillfully into his book, exposes growing tendencies in certain segments of the German population to hide that which their country had experienced and sweep the Shoah under the carpet. Sadly, in many cases, it is done to please a reality which is dictated by demographic, political or ideological factors.

A captivating, very well documented and thought-provoking book. Highly recommended.