fbpx

GET HOME DELIVERY! CLICK HERE »

ADVERTISE
pick up locations
HOME DELIVERY
donate

Jewish Journal

Connect. Inform. Inspire.

July 18, 2023

Who Should Pay on a First Date?

People / Dating /

The old adage goes, if you have two Jews, there are three opinions. When it comes to dating, men fear if a woman insists on paying, it means she is not interested, yet some women say they want to pay to show their independence and do not want the man to expect intimacy.

Los Angeles resident Patti Stanger, host of the hit Bravo series “The Millionaire Matchmaker” founded the Millionaire’s Club, where she has made matches across the country. She said women, especially in Gen Z who think it’s their job to pay on a first date need to listen up.

Millionaire Matchmaker Patti Stanger says a woman should not pay on a first date.

“My answer is a big no,” Stanger said. “Once a woman touches money, she becomes masculine energy. You want to make him dinner? Fine. You don’t like him? Sorry. That’s the price of you coming out and giving him company. He offered. No one put a gun to his head. Don’t let him become the lazy lion. He likes the feeling of paying. That’s the feeling of je ne sais quoi that makes him ask you out all the time. You take that away, he becomes the woman, you become the man, and then nobody’s happy.”

Stanger said when it comes to the LGBTQ+community, the general rule is that whoever asks the other person out should pay and usually, it will become evident that one person is an alpha and the other is a beta in the relationship. But anyone taking someone should be sensible according to their means, she said.

“You don’t have to go to Spago, you can go to The Olive Garden,” she said. “You can go to a movie. You can be creative on your dates.”

Stanger said while her male Jewish clients from New York to Miami to the Midwest understand chivalry, some who have moved to Los Angeles do not, where in one case a “gazillionaire” didn’t pay for a woman’s valet parking, which she said is a bad move.

JSwipe founder David Yarus, who also is a speaker who travels to events and gives advice, said while people may think there should be rules, it’s about comfort level.

JSwipe Founder David Yarus says if women want to pay, their comfort should be respected.

“If the question is she should or shouldn’t be able to, I’d question the dynamic overall,” said Yarus, who lives in Miami. “She should be able, empowered, and celebrated to do whatever feels good and most aligned and true to her. If that’s an expressed desire or need (to pay) and her suitor doesn’t receive that with honor and respect, that’s a red flag to me!”

Susan Shapiro has set up 30 couples who have gotten married, and she is known for her innovative teaching style in classes at Columbia University, NYU, The New School and now on Zoom that have enabled even first-time writers to turn their relationship or other experience into articles in high profile media outlets or book deals. So what’s the deal with paying on the first date?

The author of 17 books including the page-turning memoir, “Five Men Who Broke My Heart,” says that it starts with one thing.

“I think communication is key,” Shapiro said. “If you ask someone out, it seems like you are treating and if you don’t plan on doing that the major thing is you should put it out up front. The trick is to be honest. If a guy takes a woman out and all of a sudden, the bill comes and he’s like, ‘yours is $4’ I think that comes off like an insult. If a woman asks a man out, I think the implication is similar, that she should treat.”

 

Shapiro also says when it comes to the LGBTQ+ community, it should be whoever asks the other person out.

Marla Friedson, who hosts the Schumckboys podcast with Libby Walker, as part of the Journal’s podcast network, said her rule has been when she will offer to pay if she is clearly not into a guy.

Marla Friedson, who hosts the “Schmuckboys” podcast on Jewish dating with Libby Walker as part of the Journal’s podcast network. Friedson, moved from Connecticut to Los Angeles, and said there is a reason she has offered to go Dutch.

“If I’m out with a guy and I’m fairly confident I’m not gonna want to see him again, then I will offer to split,” she said. “In my mind, I’m like, if I let him pay for this and then he asks me out again, and I say ‘no,’ I don’t want him to feel like I used him for a drink or a meal. If I’m really into someone, I probably would not offer to split because I know I want to see them again.”

Aaron Raimi and Daniel Ebrahimi are the CEO and CMO of MeetJew, an online group that they started during the pandemic to serve as a Jewish dating platform as an app would act, but on Facebook. There’s a MeetJew survey which uses an algorithm to find suitable matches. MeetJew is responsible for more than 12 marriages, 100 couples dating, more than 20 engagements while boasting 70,000 global members. The group also does in-person events across the country.

MeetJew CEO Aaron Raimi, Daniel Ebrahimi, CMO, and CTO Justin Cohen are helping Jews find love. Raimi and Ebrahimi say they believe men should pay.

“I think there is confusion that men hear women want to be independent but then hear ‘why won’t this guy pay for me?’” said Raimi, who lives in San Diego. “It’s a mixed message and some guys are left wondering what the expectations are. Some women have offered to pay. I pay for first dates because I was raised with traditional values, and I’ve found that women are happy and pleasantly surprised when I pay on the first date and decline their offer.”

Erin Davis, a New York based Wingwoman, who was featured in the New York Post and hosts Shabbatt dinners for singles, said many of her make clients have been scratching their heads.

“This is a massive trend where my male clients come to me and are so confused,” Davis said. “They say they’re not sure if they should pay. It’s a sensitive subject where women may wonder if the man will think he is owed something, so they want to pay if they’re not interested, and I think most men don’t want women to think that. Also, men have told me some female daters dates have said, ‘I’m an independent woman and I want to pay, and don’t like this tradition.”

Davis, who is single, says she was raised “old-school” and believes on the first date a man should pay. She added that it is more convenient for a first date to be a drink, rather than dinner. She was also a host of “Bubbies Know Best” a series where Jewish grandmothers selected people they thought should date each other.

Elan Kornblum, president of Great Kosher Restaurants Media Group, whose Facebook page “Great Kosher Restaurant Foodies” has nearly 80,000 members, said he knows women in some cases are comfortable offering to pay or leaving the tip.

”I’m traditional, so yes, a  guy should pay for it,” Kornblum said of a first date, adding that anyone who takes a person out on a date should be communicative and respectful to both their date and the staff whether it’s a restaurant or anywhere else.

Kevin Nahai, a Los-Angeles based life coach and speaker who specializes in dating and personal relationships, comes from a Persian Jewish family and overcame a stomach ailment, anxiety and depression when he was 19.  He said he thinks there is a clear answer.

“In modern society, there’s a lot more room for splitting dates and I know that some believe whoever does the asking out should be the one to pay,” he said. “My perspective tends to be traditional, and I tell men to set chivalrous and gentlemanly tone, so I tend to advise them to pay for the first date.”

Yitz Jordan, known by the rap moniker Y-Love, said in times in the past when he dates a man that made the same amount as him they would take turns paying but on a first date, it’s usually the guy who asks.

Yitz Jordan, also known as Y-Love, works in programming, media, and one of his goals is to gives Jews of color a voice. A rapper who has performed at some of the hottest venues and still loves to perform. He said in his experience asking men on dates, there was a rule but sometimes exception.

“It’s generally who asks, but it can come down to who makes more,” said Jordan who is not single. “Sometimes, it’s that obvious. In times where I dated a guy that made the same as me, we took turns paying.”

Leah Gottfied, creator, writer and actress on the YouTube series “Soon By You” about Orthodox Jewish dating in New York City, said she believes the man should pay and women should not worry about expectations with a bill.

“In terms of gender equality, there are other places to start,” Gottfried said. “I think when women are being paid equally and treated equally and have equal access and opportunity, I think we can pay for things equally on dates. That a man would pay doesn’t guarantee anything and if a woman is worried about that, it’s probably a sign she shouldn’t be on a date with him.”

Who Should Pay on a First Date? Read More »

Israel is Not a Racist State, in Theory or in Practice

Commentary, Opinion /

On Saturday, July 15 Representative Pramilla Jayapal, Chair of the 103-member Progressive Caucus publicly announced that she has been fighting hard “to make clear that Israel is a racist state.” Thankfully, the leaders of the Democratic Party responded with a strong rejection of her remarks. But because she and so many others like to make this and similar fallacious arguments, it is worth responding to and debunking it in a fuller fashion.

The assertion that the State of Israel is itself a racist endeavor is antisemitic on its face, as no one seems to have a problem with the existence of over 50 Muslim nations and over 100 Christian countries. Calling it “racist” also serves to justify and promote the delegitimization and destruction of the lone Jewish state. Of course, it is important to note that there is a difference between calling the entire existence of the State of Israel itself a “racist endeavor” and criticizing any particular Israeli government policies or practices as “racist.” One is flatly antisemitic, while the other is a criticism of Israel like that of any other country. Jayapal’s retraction openly disavowed the first, but she did not back away from the separate claim that Israel is a racist state in practice, which remains the kind of massively pernicious charge that needs to be backed up with evidence, of which she has none. The attempt to impose an American lens of race on a conflict she does not seem to understand is inexcusable in the context of an elected leader publicly maligning an entire country—and a close American ally.

The reason that she cannot present any evidence to support her position is because there is none, and calling Israel a racist state is counterfactual and ridiculous. The term “Palestinians” as it is used today includes Arabs who are Israeli citizens; Arabs residing in the Gaza Strip and the disputed territories; and Arabs who were displaced as a result of the conflicts in 1948 and 1967. Israel treats all of its citizens, including its Arab citizens, equally under the law. Israeli Arabs enjoy positions in the highest levels of every branch of government, including the legislative branch (the Knesset), the executive branch (the Israeli cabinet) and the judicial branch (the Supreme Court). In fact, in some cases, Arab citizens of Israel have more rights than Jewish citizens of Israel, including the fact that Arab citizens of Israel are not required to serve in the military.

The differential treatment of some members of these groups is demonstrably not based on their race; they all share the same ethnic and racial identity. It is, however, based on their legal status as either Israeli citizens, residents of territories under military administration, or non-citizen foreigners.  All countries in the world “discriminate” between their own citizens and non-citizens; if doing so constitutes racism, then all states are guilty of racism. But they aren’t, of course, and neither is Israel. The entire basis of Jayapal’s argument, which elides these important distinctions, is utterly wrong, and the application of a “racial” standard to questions of citizenship in one and only one instance worldwide is the kind of double standard that is dangerously problematic. If in fact you were looking for systemic racism in the area, you might ask how many Jews are living in (or even allowed to visit) Gaza or Ramallah, as compared to the 20 percent of Israeli citizens that are Arab.

Part of the problem seems to be Jayapal’s (and her friends’) complete unfamiliarity with the history of the conflict and the players involved. Forget the fact that the “progressive” caucus refuses to support the only democracy in the Middle East, and the only country in the region with full equality for women, the LGBT community, and freedom for all religions. This entire episode comes in the laughable context of her and several other progressives skipping an address by Israeli President Isaac Herzog to Congress, in an attempt to protest the policies of Prime Minister Netanyahu. None of them seem to be aware that before he was elected to his mostly ceremonial role Herzog served as the left-wing opposition leader against Netanyahu.

Her willful lack of knowledge is also clearly evident in what Jayapal’s “apology” does not say.

First, in her telling of the failures of the two-state solution there is only one party at fault: Israel. There is no mention of or accounting for the dismal leadership of the PA, which has consistently turned down numerous offers for an independent Palestinian state. For the record, Israel has repeatedly, more than 30 times, offered plans for peace and division of the land. Some of those deals, including the Clinton Peace Parameters, were even supported by Jayapal’s own party—along with much of the Arab world. Again, for the Squad’s edification, Israel (legitimately) gained a total of 26,178 square miles of territory in the defensive war of 1967. To date, it has ceded sovereignty over approximately 23,871 square miles or 87% of that territory. At various times in recent history (including deals proposed in 2000, 2008 and 2014), Israel has offered up to 99.3% of the remaining disputed territory in exchange for peace. Each time the Palestinians refused.

Second, while Jayapal’s statement contains vilification of Israel as a whole and its leaders in particular, there is no mention of the PA or its President, Mahmoud Abbas, who have repeatedly confirmed that the PA will use their very last penny if necessary to pay salaries and stipends to incentivize terrorists who kill innocent Americans and Israelis. There’s no mention of the fact that while Israeli schoolchildren are uniformly taught to yearn for peace, Arab schoolchildren in Israel, Gaza and PA controlled cities are taught to glorify war and terrorism, and that under official PA policy they stand to make more money for their families if they grow up to be killers and martyrs rather than doctors or lawyers.

Third, as she made clear in her statement, Jayapal does not understand—and seemingly does not seek to understand—the Israeli point of view on the Arab-Israeli conflict. Contrasting the Jewish people’s historical trauma from pogroms, persecution and the Holocaust with the Palestinians’ feelings of hopelessness about peace, as her statement does, creates a false framework that depicts the debate incorrectly. The suffering of the Jewish people historically has nothing to do with their legitimate claim to the land of Israel, and implying that this generational suffering is all that they bring to their “side” of the “debate”—as opposed to the Palestinians who just want the same rights as their neighbors (which, again, they have)—completely denies the Jewish people’s religious, historic and indigenous ties to the land. The Jewish people’s rightful ownership long predates the United Nations and well precedes the horrors of the Holocaust. No one ever gave Israel to the Jews—certainly not the Palestinians—and no one can ever take her away. Any two-state solution needs to begin with this fundamental understanding that somehow eludes Jayapal: The Jews are in Israel, and always have been, and will continue to be there, by right and not on sufferance.

The Jewish people’s rightful ownership long predates the United Nations and well precedes the horrors of the Holocaust.

Jayapal’s non apology concludes by turning to her own background, and she lets us know that as an immigrant woman of color, she should be excused for her own antisemitic racism because obviously she is sensitive when a people’s very existence is called into question. Except that, as a practical matter, and despite her race and gender, she continues to dehumanize and implicitly justify terror against Israelis whom she apparently feels deserve just what they get for being so darn difficult and wanting to exist in their homeland.

At bottom, Israel is not a racist state, and does not implement racist policies. Despite Japayal and her friends’ best efforts, nothing will change these truths. But it is high time that propagandists like her be relegated to the dustbin of political history, rather than voted to lead a caucus of over 100 members of Congress.

Dr. Mark Goldfeder, Esq. is director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center.

 

Gabriel Groisman is a partner at LSN Law in Miami, FL, a Jewish rights leader and the former Mayor of Bal Harbour, Florida.

Israel is Not a Racist State, in Theory or in Practice Read More »

House Passes Resolution Condemning Antisemitism and Supporting Israel

News, United States /

The House of Representatives overwhelmingly passed a resolution on Tuesday that condemned antisemitism and rejected allegations that Israel is a racist apartheid state.

The resolution, which passed 412-9-1, stated: “Israel is not a racist or apartheid state, Congress rejects all forms of antisemitism and xenophobia, & the United States will always be a staunch partner and supporter of Israel.” The members of Congress that voted no were Representatives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-MN), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Cori Bush (D-MO), Ayanna Pressley (D-MA), Jamaal Bowman (D-NY), Andre Carson (D-IN) and Delia Ramirez (D-IL). Representative Betty McCollum (D-MI) was the sole abstention.

Jewish groups praised the resolution’s passage.

“ADL welcomes the overwhelming, bipartisan passage of this resolution rejecting all forms of #antisemitism and supporting the U.S-Israel relationship,” the Anti-Defamation League tweeted. “We look forward to attending President @Isaac_Herzog’s address to Congress tomorrow.”

Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI) said in a statement, “On the eve of Israeli President Isaac Herzog’s historic address to a joint session of Congress, we applaud the overwhelming majority of House Democrats for voting in favor of a resolution affirming that Israel is not a ‘racist or apartheid’ state, condemning antisemitism and xenophobia, and expressing support for the U.S.-Israel relationship. DMFI is dedicated to ensuring the Democratic Party remains pro-Israel and this vote is a clear signal that our party remains exactly that—pro-Israel. We’re pleased that 92% of House Democrats voted to support Israel.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition (RJC) said in a statement that “multiple House Democrats voted against the resolution” and asked, “How could any member of Congress oppose this resolution?” The RJC also accused the Democratic leadership of refusing “to hold these radicals accountable.”

The Hill reported that the resolution’s sponsor, Representative August Pfluger (R-TX), said on the floor of the House, “We’ve heard disgusting statements from other members of the aisle against Israel. From my standpoint, we look at Israel as the most important partner in the Middle East. And tomorrow, in fact, as we welcome President Herzog to this very body, to the United States, to a joint address of Congress, it’s critical for the U.S. congress to send a unified message that we stand with Israel and that we unequivocally support our Jewish communities. There is no place for hate, for hateful words.” Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) sparked a firestorm of criticism after calling Israel “a racist state” on Saturday; she subsequently walked those comments back, claiming that she was referring to the policies and some members of the Israeli government as racist, not Israel itself.

Tlaib spoke out in opposition to the resolution on the House floor, calling Israel “an apartheid state” and accusing the Israeli government of being “deeply problematic in the way that they are proceeding in the structure of oppression.”

House Passes Resolution Condemning Antisemitism and Supporting Israel Read More »

Rep. Jayapal Shares NYT Op-ed Decrying “Hysterical Overreaction” to Jayapal Calling Israel a “Racist State”

News, United States /

After walking back her comments from Saturday calling Israel a racist state, Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) tweeted out a New York Times op-ed on Monday decrying the “hysterical overreaction” to Jayapal’s “slight misstatement.”

The op-ed is titled “The Hysterical Overreaction to Jayapal’s ‘Racist State’ Gaffe” and authored by Michelle Goldberg. Jayapal’s tweet quoted a part of the column that read, “The rush to condemn her offhand remarks is … about raising the political price of speaking about Israel forthrightly. … It’s easier for Israel’s most stalwart boosters to harp on a critic’s slight misstatement.”

Goldberg argues in the op-ed that “a state’s leaders and policies can be bigoted without the state itself being irredeemable. That’s basically Jayapal’s stance, which is why she’s not an anti-Zionist.” Goldberg then claims that so many people were denouncing Jayapal’s “offhand remarks” in order to raise “the political price about speaking about Israel forthrightly.” “If you believe in liberal ideals, Netanyahu’s government is very hard to defend,” Goldberg writes. “It’s easier for Israel’s most stalwart boosters to harp on a critic’s slight misstatement — especially when denunciation of Israel is likely to ramp up ahead of the address by Israel’s president, Isaac Herzog, to Congress on Wednesday, which several progressive lawmakers are refusing to attend.”

On Saturday, Jayapal, who chairs the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Israel “a racist state” after pro-Palestinian protesters disrupted a panel she was on during the Netroots Nation conference. The next day, Jayapal walked back her comments, claiming that she was referring to the policies and some of the members of the current Israeli government as being racist, not Israel itself.

Several people on Twitter criticized Jayapal for tweeting out the op-ed.

“’Offhand remarks’ and ‘slight misstatement?’ Seriously? Time for a reality check, Michelle,” American Jewish Committee Los Angeles Regional Director Richard S. Hirschhaut tweeted. “Respectfully, @RepJayapal, this may not be the best rejoinder as you work to move past this unfortunate episode.”

“Right, now you are the victim,” Creative Community for Peace Director Ari Ingel tweeted. “Why don’t you just stand by your statement, you certainly said it with strong conviction. Even your non-apology was a slight of hand, the ‘IDEA of Israel as a nation is not racist.’ As opposed to saying clearly ‘Israel is not a racist state.’”

Zioness tweeted, “Regardless of what @repjayapal meant–and it’s not like she minced her words–saying “Israel is a racist state” to a group of [anti-Zionist] agitators is like throwing red meat to a lion. She never claimed it was a misstatement, said it was intended to ‘defuse a tense situation.’” They added: “There is an overtly antisemitic narrative connecting Zionism/Israel to racism that has resulted in violence against Jewish individuals/communities, across the former Soviet Union, UK/France/all over Europe, and now in the US — especially in the left. It’s deeply troubling that Rep Jayapal, a day after sharing an apology that we took in good faith, is sharing a message intended to minimize the impact of her words. It’s wildly upsetting that [Michelle Goldberg] would write [with] this intention. The extreme gaslighting is so real.”

J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami, on the other hand, lauded Goldberg’s op-ed for saying it “so much better than I could.”

Rep. Jayapal Shares NYT Op-ed Decrying “Hysterical Overreaction” to Jayapal Calling Israel a “Racist State” Read More »

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and the Unintentional Bigotry of Sloppy Thinkers

Commentary, Opinion /

At a recent rambling, boozy dinner, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., referenced a conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was “ethnically targeted” and that the “people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.” Given his other infelicitous remarks comparing Coronavirus policies to Nazi totalitarianism, considering his rubbing elbows with Louis (Jews-are-Termites) Farrakhan and Roger (I-love-boycotting-Israel) Waters, could it be that this scion of the pro-Israel Kennedy clan is anti-Semitic? And with this 69-year-old Kennedy nevertheless claiming that “I’m going to champion the moral argument for Israel and use my campaign as a bully pulpit to do that,” is RFK, Jr. the latest exemplar of this bizarre, new, phenomenon: the pro-Israel anti-Semite?

We live in a strange age. In Eastern Europe, the Midwest and elsewhere, pro-Israel Jew-haters are on the rise. Still, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflects an older, more persistent, more widespread problem: the unintentional bigotry of sloppy thinkers.

Your classic pro-Israel Jew-haters love the Jewish state but hate the Jewish people. Caricaturing Israel as Sparta, these Right-wingers or demagogic populists admire Israel’s plucky, take-no-nonsense foreign policy. Or they simply view Israel as a convenient ally. But, be they Hungarian Orbanists or MAGA anti-urbanists, these opportunistic Israel-backers happily use traditional anti-Semitic imagery to score domestic political points. 

Robert Kennedy Jr. does not match that profile. He is not right-wing. He cherishes Israel’s moral, democratic soul not its military might. But he does occasionally swim in the same fetid, populist waters where Jew-hating ideas, libels, and conspiracies flourish. 

There are two sides to Robert Kennedy, Jr. who was fourteen years old in 1968, when Sirhan Sirhan assassinated Robert Kennedy – in what I argue is the first act of Palestinian terrorism on American soil. On one hand, he seems to be quite a conventional third-generation Kennedy, from the glamorous Hollywood third wife – Cheryl Hines – and a checkered personal history, to an impressive, left-leaning resume. He has won huge payoffs against polluters, and devoted decades to teaching Environmental Law. He made lucrative investments in cleantech, and has authored dozens of articles and some best-selling books. But since 2005, he has become the most infamous Kennedy, as one of America’s leading anti-Vaxxers, long before the Coronavirus controversies. This anti-establishment crusade has given him a healthy disdain for cancel culture. But this obsession has embarrassed his cousins, who have denounced his claims publicly – and it keeps sending him down polluted intellectual and ideological rabbit holes.

It’s depressing and inexcusable but not surprising that Kennedy’s anti-Vaxx conspiracy rants occasionally overlap with anti-Jewish conspiracy diatribes. To Jew-haters, Jews are gelatinous – eminently moldable into their latest dread, with the libel-of-the-day always adhering to Jews’ seemingly super-sticky surface. Inevitably, when the world shut down, some lunatics blamed Jews for inventing the virus, while others blamed Jews for profiting off vaccines against virus. As usual, these nutbars overlooked any tiresome facts, including the many Jews who died in super-spreader communal events.

It’s depressing and inexcusable but not surprising that Kennedy’s anti-Vaxx conspiracy rants occasionally overlap with anti-Jewish conspiracy diatribes.

Robert Kennedy’s longshot campaign for the 2024 Democratic nomination is betting on today’s “Butthead politics” giving his craziest outbursts a pass. If voters can say, “Of course Donald Trump subverted the constitution, BUT I like him anyway” or “of course Biden’s too old BUT at least he’s a Democrat,” perhaps they will say, “Of course, Kennedy’s vaccination rants are nonsense, BUT consider the alternatives.” If Kennedy gets enough such get-out-of-jail-free cards, keeps attracting more attention than his campaign deserves, and enough Democrats despair of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, this Democratic prince-turned-renegade hopes they will have nowhere else to go but back to the latest Kennedy.

As for Jews – and especially Jewish Democrats – Robert F. Kennedy, Jr’s occasional verbal burps are the least of their problems. He has apologized repeatedly for those remarks and others, insisting: “The last thing I want to do is be hurtful to people, particularly Jewish people, who have already suffered more than any other race.”  Although the last word is cringe-worthy, Jews should accept his apology.

After the drunken dinner, Kennedy gave a thoughtful, forty-minute interview to the JNS insisting “There is nobody in the presidential race who is going to be a stronger champion for Israel than me.” He explained, quite convincingly, that “This affection, the affinity relationship with Israel, is part of the DNA of our family.” And he added, pointedly: “It’s been a great disappointment and troubling development to me that the Democratic Party has drifted away from its traditions” – meaning being America’s most enthusiastically pro-Israel political party.

This week in particular, Kennedy’s unintentional missteps are far less troubling than the intentional insults being lobbed at Israel from too many so-called “Progressive” Democrats on Capitol Hill. Kennedy says stupid things when drunk and apologizes; they make demonizing accusations – and then double-down.

The “Squad” Democrats boycotting President Isaac Herzog’s Joint Congressional address celebrating the 75th anniversary of the State of Israel – and the 75-year friendship between America and Israel – are at least being honest. Their actions expose these illiberal liberals as opponents of the Jewish state. Boycotting Israel’s president – who has a symbolic role – let alone this particularly heroic president at this moment in time – shows that these haters reject Israel’s very existence. While some leading Democrats have condemned these boycotters, not enough have. Moreover, the mainstream party leadership has not repudiated these full-time Bash Israel Firsters – whose standing within the Party keeps rising. That’s the “drift” from Democratic tradition Kennedy is attacking, nobly, boldly.

Of course, all forms of Jew-hatred are unacceptable, be they Left or Right, be they obsessed with “the Jews,” “Judaism” or “Israel.” Inevitably, like all haters, these bigots, no matter how well-bred or well-spoken, spread their poisons, encouraging thugs who then lash out at individual Jews. 

Kennedy’s conspiracy kookiness reminds us of the many hats different Jew-haters wear. Pro-Israel Jew-haters often wear baseball caps. Pro-Palestinian Jew-haters often wear Keffiyehs. Jew-hating thugs prefer hoodies, while upper-crust snobs prefer golf caps. Academic anti-Semites flaunt their mortar boards – and Kennedy’s sources, occasionally Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. himself, keep donning tin-foil anti-government hats. All, of course, deserve our contempt, from left to right, Republicans and Democrats. And all should simply wear Dunce Caps.

Gil Troy is the editor of the new three-volume set Theodor Herzl: Zionist Writings, the inaugural publication of The Library of the Jewish People (www.theljp.org).  

Robert F. Kennedy, Jr and the Unintentional Bigotry of Sloppy Thinkers Read More »

Cead Mile Failte Geraldine Byrne Nason, Ambassador of Ireland to the USA

Blogs, Commentary, Podcasts /

Cead Mile Failte Geraldine Byrne Nason, Ambassador of Ireland to the USA!

Cead mile failte is Gaelic for “a hundred thousand welcomes.” These words capture the welcoming heart and hospitality of the Irish people!

It was my honor to interview ⁠Ambassador Geraldine Bryne Nason⁠. She is currently the Irish Ambassador to the United States and for five years served as Ireland’s Ambassador to the United Nations, most recently during Ireland’s term serving on the Security Council as an elected member, working for international peace and security.
After our interview, enjoy a performance by Lisa Hannigan who I recorded at Travel Classics Ireland 2023 at The Lodge at ⁠Ashford Castle⁠.

She is currently the Irish Ambassador to the United States and for five years served as Ireland’s Ambassador to the United Nations, most recently during Ireland’s term serving on the Security Council as an elected member, working for international peace and security. Additionally, she chaired the 62nd and 63rd sessions of the UN Commission on the Status of Women. In 2022 she received Concern Worldwide’s annual Women of Concern Award “in recognition of her outstanding career as a female leader within the diplomatic and civil service and her unwavering dedication to advocating for women’s rights at home and abroad.” Join me in warmly welcoming Ambassador Nason, a true advocate for diplomacy and a beacon of hope in an ever-evolving global landscape.

Lisa Niver:

Ambassador Byrne Nason, thank you so much for making the time to speak with me on this show and for your many incredible years of service. Previous to being the Ambassador of Ireland to the United States, you were Ireland’s Ambassador to the United Nations and secured the seat on the Security Council for Ireland, working for international peace and security.

It was my great honor to be invited twice to the United Nations as a journalist for the Champions of Humanity Project and to represent Ms. Magazine during the UN General Assembly and Gates Foundation Conference. Can you share with my listeners one of your most memorable days working with the UN Security Council and / or what you’re most proud of during your time in that position?

Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason on her last day on the U.N. Security Council.

Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason:

Thank you. So great to speak with you, and you’re right. I’ve just come from a job, a privileged job, sitting representing my country at the Security Council. That’s a once-in-a-generation opportunity.

So, probably my proudest moment was to be elected. We had to fight to get to that table in a contested election, but once there, we decided we would use our representation on that body to reflect what you’ve mentioned in your introduction, humanity, and I think Irish foreign policy and the way in which we have a humanitarian vocation in there was really expressed very well during our time on the council.

If I think of the memorable moments, I certainly, in a rather negative way, remember the 24th of February last year. I sat there through the night as we learned that President Putin had invaded Ukraine. That we had the Ukrainian Ambassador sitting at the table in the Security Council that night. I was looking at him, knowing his wife, his children are back, not knowing what was happening, as Russia invaded an independent, sovereign country. We stand full square with Ukraine still.

So, that’s a moment that’s very poignant, but in a worrying way. Two other things I might say that I carry with me still, at the moment, of pride really. One is that I chaired the work on Women, Peace and Security during our tenure. Women in Northern Ireland make a critical difference to peace in our country. We tried to bring that sense of the role of women being in the room and at the table, negotiating peace for their communities, for their nations.

Ambassador Geraldine Byrne Nason on her last day on the U.N. Security Council.

We hold a record for having brought more women’s voices to the Security Council table, during our presidency of the council, than any other country ever. I was absolutely dogged in my pursuit of the issues that arose around Afghan women and the deprivation and the banning of Afghan children from education, young girls. So, we did a lot to work for women’s role in peace and security, and the other thing, just to finish off, I guess, is that Ireland is unique as a UN member in having an unbroken history of service in peacekeeping.

We’re a small country. We raise our defense forces to help keep the peace across the globe, and we had a groundbreaking resolution that we brought to the council during our time there, looking at what happens when those peacekeepers move on. How do we populate that space when the good work of peacekeepers is done? So, that’s just a flavor of what I was doing as Ireland’s Ambassador at the Security Council.

READ THE FULL INTERVIEW ON WE SAID GO TRAVEL

LISTEN on APPLE PODCAST: MAKE YOUR OWN MAP

Lisa’s book, Brave-ish, One Breakup, Six Continents and Feeling Fearless After Fifty, includes her visits to Dublin to be in the St. Patrick’s Day parade, Kilkenny to learn hurling and Ashford Castle to walk with hawks!

Cead Mile Failte Geraldine Byrne Nason, Ambassador of Ireland to the USA Read More »

you-dont-know-schiff

Bill Boggs

You Don’t Know Schiff /

This week on “You Don’t Know Schiff,” Mark and Lowell sat down to interview one of the greatest interviewers of our generation, Bill Boggs.

Entertainer Bill Boggs is the author of two well-reviewed, laugh-packed, Post Hill Press satirical novels “The Adventures of Spike the Wonder Dog,” (2020), and “Spike Unleashed” The Wonder Dog Returns (2023). He is four-time Emmy Award-winning television host and interviewer, as well as an Executive Producer of three national shows, including “The Morton Downey, Jr. Show.” He has hosted 15 different shows ranging from talk shows to a game show, two series on Travel Channel, a long-running hit on Food Network. Bill has also covered boxing for Showtime, and anchored Weekend Today in New York for WNBC. Bill, along with Richard Baker, created Comedy Tonight, the first syndicated show in history of television to feature only stand up comedians. Bill had long-running success on Channel 5 in NYC with Midday Live with Bill Boggs. He began his career in Philadelphia at WCAU-TV. Bill has interviewed thousands of the most notable people of our time during the past 40 years.

Be sure to buy Bill’s latest book, “Spike Unleashed” The Wonder Dog Returns:
https://a.co/d/7pti5nY

And don’t miss out on BillBoggs on Youtube where you can see many of Bill’s amazing interviews (including Richard Pryor, Sammy Davis Jr., Ram Das, Pete Rose, Miles Davis, and Brook Shields):   https://www.youtube.com/@Billboggs

Bill Boggs Read More »

The Government’s Total Dominance is a Fantasy

Commentary, Opinion /

Israel’s Knesset voted on Monday to advance a key bill in the governing coalition’s judicial overhaul package. The bill – a repeal of the Reasonableness cause is an amendment to Israel’s Basic Law on the Judiciary – it states that “those who have the authority to adjudicate the law, including the Supreme Court sitting as the High Court of Justice, will not judge or issue an order against the cabinet, the prime minister, a minister or any other elected official as determined by law, regarding the reasonableness of their decision.”

Stripping away the standard of reasonableness constitutes a significant leap towards granting boundless power to the government, particularly in matters concerning parliamentary immunity. Passing this legislation as it stands is a deliberate move to shield Knesset decisions from oversight, leaving citizens vulnerable to the whims of the ruling regime. This bill also eliminates administrative review of elected officials, which comes after the court’s January ruling stating that Arye Deri, a former minister, and leader of the Shas party would not be able to serve in the cabinet because of his three criminal convictions and subsequent suspended sentence.

Yet, any attempt to highlight this is often met with the all-too-familiar chorus from parliamentarians: “This is the will of the people.”

The notion that judicial review undermines the “will of the people” is nothing but misguided populism, even when ministerial decisions are the subject of review. Merely because a minister makes a particular decision does not automatically imply that they are reflecting the “will of the people” or even the “will of the majority” (and in a democracy worthy of the name, there are restrictions on majority rule). The true embodiment of the “will of the people” and their sovereignty lies within the framework of the law. Therefore, administrative review serves as a mechanism to ensure governmental compliance with the law, preventing the abuse of authority and guaranteeing that decisions are made without conflicts of interest or undue external influences.

In other words, the democratic principle that grants power to the government with the explicit purpose of utilizing it for the welfare of its citizens inherently justifies external scrutiny of the factors employed in exercising this power.

The roots of the government’s extensive judicial overhaul package can be traced back to three potent forces within Israeli politics. All of these forces, which now exert significant influence, have shaped the scope and direction of the reform efforts undertaken by the government and each of them demonstrates differing levels of apathy or animosity towards Israeli democracy. The first, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Shas leader Aryeh Deri, along with their allies, seek to undermine the judiciary due to their personal legal battles. The second, the Haredi parties advocate for a weakened judiciary to sustain social distortions arising from practices like military draft evasion, labor nonparticipation, and welfare dependency. The third, the Religious Zionist faction, representing the settler movement’s assault on the judiciary, is rooted in its reliance on fundamentally undemocratic terms for the project’s survival and their intended annexation of the West Bank.

Accompanying these three forces is a steady drumbeat of populist rhetoric, intolerance and a willingness to abandon democratic norms which is, of course, what makes the rise of these parliamentarians so dangerous. Some of them have no interest in living tolerantly alongside people with different views and lifestyles and are committed to using the power of the state to drive those people and principles out of public life. They have no desire to abide by the rule of law because that requires the very tolerance they cannot abide by. One only needs to look at settler extremists burning down Palestinian villages to understand the result. Many Israelis can foresee the kind of society that the reforms are really just the first step in trying to create.

Meaning that, if on the political level, the government’s desire for total dominance symbolizes the continuation of the push to ram through a legislative package that would weaken the courts, change the rules of the democratic game and break the established norms and institutions of Israel’s existing order. Then on the public level, the judicial overhaul reflects the most far-right and religious government in the country’s history and its tendency to favor extreme factions on the fringes of the coalition, not only at the expense of mainstream Israeli public opinion, but to achieve a much larger political program of extending Israeli sovereignty over the West Bank.

The current government is not disguising its intentions to expand the settlement enterprise in the territories. Earlier in the year they repealed the disengagement law, and have since made plans for settlement construction and the legalization of illegal outposts at a high rate. Some government members have been writing openly about this goal for nearly a decade. Chief among them is Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich who has been handed broad authority over civilian issues in the West Bank, enabling him to deepen Israel’s presence in the territories, increase settlement construction and thwart Palestinian development. The authorities being transferred to Smotrich — following an extended internal coalition battle over the issue — include enforcement powers over illegal construction, authority over planning and construction for settlements and land allocation matters.

In his piece published in 2017 titled Israel’s Decisive Plan , Smotrich stated “that there is room for only one expression of national self-determination west of the Jordan River: that of the Jewish nation. Subsequently, an Arab State actualizing Arab national aspirations cannot emerge within the same territory.”

He continues writing that “this process will make it clear to all that the reality in Judea and Samaria [West Bank] is irreversible…….and that the Arab dream of a state is no longer viable. Victory by settlement will imprint the understanding upon the consciousness of the Arabs and the world that an Arab state will never arise in this land.”

Meanwhile, MK Itamar Ben Gvir has openly encouraged violence by extremist settlers against Palestinian civilians, calling them “sweet boys”, all while condemning the IDF for referring to the incidents as “nationalist terrorism”. In truth, it’s impossible to separate the attack on the judiciary and the anti-democratic motives within Israel from these factions’ desire to expand Israeli sovereignty over the territories. For without a weakened Court, the above goal could not be realized.

Political Theorist Dr Shany Mor wrote in his article titled Israel is a Democracy on the Brink that he, “ thinks everyone knows this, even if it’s easier to rile up passions about the prime minister’s corruption trial. You don’t get hundreds of thousands of mostly comfortable middle-class people out on the street week after week protesting a change in the procedure for appointing judges. You don’t get people out protesting any policy change at all if they believe they can reverse it in the next election. What has brought out the thousands and the hundreds of thousands is the fear that they won’t get this chance.”

The public protest and its high rate of participation, with hundreds of thousands of Israelis in the streets across the country on a weekly basis, generates significant legitimacy for opposition to the government’s legislative moves. Some 21 percent of all Israelis have taken part in the protests, according to figures collected by the Israel Democratic Institute. That’s the equivalent of 70 million Americans protesting.

For several months now, government actions have not enjoyed full democratic legitimacy. As current polls show, the protests do not only include left-wing voters; a significant portion of Likud (the ruling party) voters oppose the government’s moves. Polls by the Israel Democracy Institute show, for example, that less than a third of voters support the proposed amendment that would block judges from using “reasonableness” to strike down decisions made by lawmakers. Among Likud voters, less than half support the proposal – just 45 percent.

For several months now, government actions have not enjoyed full democratic legitimacy. As current polls show, the protests do not only include left-wing voters; a significant portion of Likud (the ruling party) voters oppose the government’s moves. 

Notable figures, such as Benny Begin, the son of Likud’s iconic founder and former PM Menachem Begin, expressed “that there was nothing left of his father’s vision in the current party”. Yoav Horowitz, former Chief of Staff for Prime Minister Netanyahu and Director General of the Prime Minister’s Office, attended the Tel Aviv protests, and former IDF Chief of Staff and former Defense Minister Moshe “Bogie” Ya’alon was seen protesting outside the home of current Defense Minister Yoav Galant.

In this sense, the Kaplan Street demonstrators represent a powerful civil demand by the main avenue of the public to hold the government to the principles etched in the Zionist doctrine – the Declaration of Independence – which above all represents the Jewish democracy they fear will be lost.

But the effects of the overhaul are not only issues to worry about for a possible nondemocratic future.

There are consequences for the here and now. A recent report by The Marker and Haaretz, found that as a result of the judicial overhaul, Israel has incurred a significant loss of NIS 150 billion since January. The Tel Aviv stock market is stagnant in performance with 0 increases, contrasting with Wall Street’s 15% growth, the shekel is weakening, and cost of living and inflation are increasing. 80% of new Israeli start-ups chose to register their companies overseas rather than in Israel, and foreign investments have experienced a drastic 90% decline this year. Violence in the territories increases at boiling temperatures, nothing has changed on the front of Iran and on a possible normalization deal between Saudi Arabia and Israel, Biden recently said, “we’re a long way from there.” The second Negev Forum, an outcome of the Abraham Accords, where foreign ministers from Israel, the UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Egypt and the US gather to discuss regional issues, develop solutions and expand the normalization process was canceled due to the significant expansion of settlements in the West Bank.

Eighty percent of new Israeli start-ups chose to register their companies overseas rather than in Israel, and foreign investments have experienced a drastic 90% decline this year.

Preparations for the reasonableness standard bill’s final Knesset readings continued on Wednesday morning at the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, regardless of public opinion and the cross-country anti-judicial reform protests that erupted in opposition to the legislation on Tuesday.

This is precisely where the real problem with the government lies: their desire to achieve total domination is a fantasy. There’s never going to be a point where you’ve slain all of your “enemies”. The massive protests show Israelis understand democracies die gradually, the protestors have made clear that no matter how long it takes, they are committed to prevent Israel’s democratic backsliding. The government’s “enemy” is not the Left, the protestors or the opposition, their only real enemy is their inability to reckon with this reality.

By now the political opposition who are garnering increased support among the public should see the protests and the “winds of change” among Israeli civil society, especially within the voting base of the government, as motivation to lay the groundwork for its political program moving forward. Doing so first requires defeating the judicial reforms.

Samuel Hyde is a writer/researcher based in Tel Aviv, Israel. He is the editor of the book “We Should All Be Zionists” by Dr. Einat Wilf and is currently co-writing a second book with Wilf titled “Political Intelligence.”

The Government’s Total Dominance is a Fantasy Read More »