Subpoenas Should Start With McCONnell

When it comes to describing what we saw on the floor of the Senate this week, I literally don't know where to begin.

It's tempting to say at the beginning.  And, ordinarily, I might do that.  But I'm going to start at the end, because, in some ways, that's the aspect of this legislative tragedy that's the most revealing.

I am, of course, talking about the effort by congressional Democrats to create a bipartisan committee, with members from both houses of Congress, to investigate the January 6 assault on the Capitol and make recommendations based on their findings.  The template for this effort was a similar commission created in the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks.  The creation of that commission was relatively uncontroversial, as the public response to that horror was somewhat more unified than the response to the Capitol attack.

What a sad, sick difference nearly two decades make.

This time, the bill died by way of a filibuster, the first successful one during Joe Biden's presidency.  And not even everyone showed up to vote.

I am willing to give Patty Murray, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Republican, both of whom would have voted for the commission, a mulligan if they (as both of them said they did) had family issues to address.  I have no idea what to give Kristen Synema, nominally a Democrat but otherwise whatever else she wants to be; even if she helps Democrats keep control of the Senate, it's still hard to care when it comes to her.

But I think no mercy should be shown to the eight Republicans who couldn't be bothered to show up.  Who showed the lack of courage behind their lack of conviction by using the Memorial Day weekend as an excuse to avoid doing the job the taxpayers are paying them to do.  Who showed complete contempt for the Capitol Police and others who put themselves completely on the line to save their worthless skins.

Let's put this another way.

They ran away from doing what the country wanted them to do, and what their Trump-addled voters don't want them to do, in a desperate attempt to hang onto the power they don't want to use.  And, while this dance goes on, the nation slowly rots.

Now let's work backwards from this shameful outcome.

This is what happens when the moral and intellectual level of Republicans in Congress sinks to the point that they care only about keeping the jobs they no longer want to do.

This is what happens when they are willing to surrender their responsibilities to everyone except themselves, and the person running interference to ensure that they keep the jobs they no longer want to do.  They betray their obligations to the people, and even perhaps to their own personal safety and the safety of their staffs and Capitol visitors, to do that person "a personal favor."

They're not so keen on doing favors for the people who put their safety, and even their lives, on the line to protect their increasingly worthless existence.  The proposed commission would have ensured that we knew who organized the attack, how badly our security was compromised, and what steps we need to take in order to ensure that it doesn't take place again.  We will probably still be able to learn what we need to learn about all of those issues, as the Democrats in Congress and perhaps the Biden Administation as well will undoubtedly conduct their own separate investigations.

But we could have, and should have, done this as a united nation, with a united front.  And we won't.  Which certainly explains why the Capitol Police officers feel that the Republicans regard them with contempt.

I almost think that they may be guilty of giving the Republicans too much credit.  I think that the Republicans aren't thinking about the Capitol Police at all.  They are only thinking about themselves.  They are, in fact, acting like people with something to hide.  And, perhaps they are.  Which only makes the need for a full investigation of the January 6 attack all the more urgent.

Because there's a very good chance that at least some of the perpetrators are still in the Capitol.  That many of them, in fact, have been there all along.  And that, as some have suggested, what happened on January 6 was basically a dress rehearsal.  Something that could be instigated and then, over time, normalized through an increasingly complicit media.  Something that could be a "dry run" for a much larger, much more effective attack at a point when our government might even be more vulnerable, and an attack on it much more successful.

When a political leader asks that a crime against an instituation for which he bears official, indeed constitutional responsibility, not be investigated, and does so because he's requesting a "personal favor," it begs the question of how much that leader knows.  It screams, in fact, the possibility that he knows who he's protecting, and why.

And I'm not just talking about Donald Trump.  Yes, Mitch McCONnell is protecting him, but not because he wants to do so.  Even he has openly condemned Trump for his transparently obvious role in the attack.  But, that being the case, why would he regard squelching an above-board, even-handed, full investigation of the attack as a personal favor?

It begs that old, Watergate-era question immortalized by the late, great Republican Senator Howard Baker:  what does he know, and when did he know it?

I don't for a minute believe that McCONnell's posture on a bipartisan investigation of the attack is all about protecting Trump, given that he's already effectively hung Trump out to dry.  It's been obvious from the very beginning that the thugs who assaulted our national legislature knew what they were doing.  They knew where to enter the building, and where to go once they got inside.  They succeeding in effectively holding members of Congress and their staff hostage in their offices.  They made off with sensitive data vital to protecting and advancing the interests of our nation.

There are very few accidents in life.  January 6 wasn't one of them.

What do you know, Mitch?  When did you know it?

Regardless of who investigates January 6, their first subpoena should go to you.

Purity, Or Progress, In Religion And The Middle East?

I'm in my law office, taking a break from relatively routine work on behalf of a client, to do something that I've neglected to do for a few weeks:  update this blog.  It's been one of those very busy months with a lot going on, including a Mother's Day get-together, a wedding anniversary celebration, and no fewer than five auditions for various acting projects.  Funny how finally getting around to adding a reel to your acting web site can stir up interest in you.

But, before that digression goes any further, let me explain what made me take a break here.

Lately, as the age of 64 prepares to give way to the age of 65 on my personal calendar, I find my mind working like an old fashioned Rolodex operating on an automatic pilot, bringing up memories that may or may not by prompted in some ways by current events.  But there are themes.  Religion, perhaps unsurprisingly, has been one of them.  I was, as has been frequently mentioned here, an evangelical Christian for far too much of my early adult life, and, more recently, I underwent an Orthodox conversion to Judaism, having found in it far more wisdom and tolerance, and thus far more of the actual presence of G-d, than I ever did in what I have recently come to refer to as my "Jesus" days.

Current events in the Middle East--specifically, of course, in Gaza--combined with the routine nature of my work, got my mental Rolodex to randomly flip through my current state of affairs, and reminded me of the fact that, down in our terrace-level basement, where my wife and I have literally hundreds of books currently barricaded by mounds of other possessions (some junk, some of lesser degradation), I still have a number of books from my "Jesus" days.  These cover a wide variety of topics--sermon writing, biblical research, marriage, and various aspects of what now would be referred to as "the culture wars."

As I remembered this, I couldn't help thinking that, were I perhaps ultra-orthodox rather than merely Orthodox in my spiritual orientation, I would be on a holy tear sweeping the junk out of the way, finding every last "Jesus" book that might still be on one of our shelves.  But, I've been there before--on the other side of the fence, of course.  In my evangelical era, I would go out of my way to avoid people, events, and things (including movies and books) that I thought might somehow undermine my faith.  This went hand-in-hand with the you're-a-sinner self-loathing that forms the foundation of this religious system, and should make you wonder whether it's possible to have "faith" in God when you have no confidence in yourself, a being made in G-d's image.  Again, I'll have to save a fuller exploration of that for another post.

My point?

It's simply that I've seen how destructive it can be to orient your life around a search for perfect purity in a world where nearly everything, spiritually speaking, is something of a mixed bag:  a spark or more of the divine, shot through with impulses of a lesser nature.  In the end, you find yourself in a corner in which faith in anything, even G-d, or yourself, seems nearly impossible.  Nearly thirty-five years ago, I found myself in such a place--and it ended up being the moment at which I realized I couldn't wait for the "perfect" life to find me.  I understood that even G-d, who had given me the gift of life, expected me to step up and play the leading role in the drama of my existence.  And I realized, to extend the theatrical metaphor, that I could only navigate the stage by learning to make the most of its advantages while not being daunted or defeated by its limits; to accept the good and the bad, without being defined or overwhelmed by either.

So, the "Jesus" books stay.  Along with many, many volumes expressive in various ways of my new faith.  Along with yet others that have nothing to do with either.  These days, my spiritual search is not one for purity; only G-d can provide that.  It's for balance within myself, as well as sharing with others the blessings that I have been given.

And this is why, in addition to the horrific and senselessly tragic loss of life, is why I have spent much of the past week torn apart by the resumption of missile attacks between the Israeli government and the Palestinian terrorist organization Hamas.  It seems as if, in the current climate, both sides have lost the ability to believe that co-existence in any form is impossible, while clinging desperately to the idea that the only solution is for one side to completely obliterate the other--a goal that is as despicable as it is impossible to achieve.

How did the Middle East reach the brink of destruction once again?

When one delves into the most sensitive, complex human conflict on the planet, one owes one's audience an approach that is as balanced as it is well thought out.  That's why I began with my discussion of the desirability to take a balanced approach in matters of faith.  So here goes.

I am a Jew.  A convert, to be sure, but a proud Jew who, even in his Gentile days, supported the right of Israel to exist and defend itself as a permanent, international homeland for the Jewish people.  Centuries upon centuries of the worst persecution in the history of humanity, capped by the nightmare of the Holocaust, along with the origins of the Jewish faith and people in the region, is all that is needed to justify this goal.  Likewise, the state of Israel has the right to defend its existence and its people.

But the modern state of Israel, while founded on the existential principle that it was to be a Jewish state, was founded by men and women who understood the complete history of the region as one that is regarded as holy by the three major faiths of the world, and that has, over centuries, also become a homeland for hundreds of thousands of Palestinian Muslims.  The founders of Israel understood that, for Israel to be a land of peace, it needed to be a land that accommodated the needs of those who were not Jewish, but who were also living in the land of their ancestors.  It understood this in the face of relentless hostility from Arabs both within and without Israel's borders to the existence of a Jewish state.  That is why they organized the nation as a democracy, with rights for people of all faiths, and that is what has undergirded bipartisan support within the United States for Israel's right to exist for decades.  I am proud to have maintained that support for my entire life.  In the face of the current conflict, I proudly maintain that support now.

With that said, I am sorry to say that I also am maintaining that support in the face of facts that test that support in the most extreme of ways.

I am maintaining it in the face of conduct by a segment of the Israeli public that can only be fairly described as ethnic cleansing.  Take a look, and see if you agree with me.  Or disagree.  Better yet, take another look, just in case you weren't sure the first time.

And when the current government of Israel--a far cry from the government of its founders--attacks the terrorists, terrorists are not alone among the victims.

In fact, far too many of the victims are children who have absolutely no idea of what is happening or why, but who are, by the indiscriminate nature of the current Israeli bombardment, effectively being trained to be the next generation of opponents to Israel and its right to exist.

Come to think about it, how is the current Israeli government dealing with these inconvenient truths?

By launching physical instead of merely verbal hostilities on the news media, based on flimsy justifications that they were hiding the enemy.

And its fiercest supporters in the United States are reduced to launching ad hominem attacks against those who would dare to criticize them or the government they support.   Why, Mr. Dershowitz, if I were to play dirty pool like that, I would be forced to remind you that dirty pool like that is a pool that no one can swim in safely.

So, once again, how did we get here?

Two words:  Benjamin Netanyahu, and his willingness to compromise the original vision of what Israel was to be for the sake of advancing his personal wealth and power, in no small part by taking advantage of tragedies and turning them into political opportunities.  This has been his pattern since he first came to power in the 1990s, after the assassination of then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin.  It remains his patter through the present day. 

And there is straight line that has, as its origin point (at least its publicly stated one), a statement that Netanyahu made years ago, in reference to the U.S. and its decades-long, unwavering political and military support for Israel:

America is a thing you can move very easily, move it in the right direction. They won’t get in their way.

America is a thing you can move very easily.  That's real appreciation for the political, military, and even physical risks that this nation has taken on behalf of Israel, even an Israel under the thumb of a man who clearly can't tell the difference between his personal interests and his nation's interests.  Or doesn't care.  Go back to the article linked above for a few moments, and take a look at his comments about the Oslo peace accords.  It goes a long way toward explaining who Netanyahu is, and how he operates.

In fact, this guy sounds awfully familiar, doesn't he?  Sure he is.  Not long ago, we made the forever mistake of electing a President who is just like him.

Donald Trump is, in fact the straight line that runs from Netanyahu's earlier-stated opportunism to the naked aggression that the Israeli Prime Minister is now displaying as he fights to hold onto power in a nation increasingly skeptical of the "security" that he promises, and the price that has been and may be paid for it, especially in the wake of a criminal investigation by his own government of  his conduct, an investigation not unlike the onslaught of investigations the former President is staring at from his Mar-a-Lago hideaway.

During Trump's four miserable years in the White House were filled with giveaways to Netanyahu, who must have felt like every day of Trump's presidency was like the eighth day of Hanukkah.  Recognition of Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel?  Check.  Recognition of Israeli control over the Golan Heights?  Check.  Unlimited amounts of military aid for a nation that has between 80 and 400 nuclear warheads?  Check.  And the list goes on.  Under Trump, American was not merely a thing you can move, it was a toy you could play with morning, noon and night.  And, even prior to the current resumption of hostilities, it was becoming painfully clear that the U.S. was going to be paying a serious price for Trump's obsequious support for his doppelganger.

The result of Trump's toadying has been to make Netanyahu regard the U.S. not as a thing that can be simply moved, but as something he can carry around in his hip pocket, ready to be used as he wishes whenever his political position is threatened in the least.  Just prior to the recent exchange of missiles between Israel and Hamas, that position was under two direct threats:  the previously-mentioned criminal investigation he faces, as well as the prospect that, after several general elections and failed attempts to form a government, the prospect of a unity government that would not only have cut across party lines, but (for the first time) across Israeli-Arab lines as well.  

For Netanyahu, even without the spectre of the law coming after him, this might well have been the political kiss of death.  And it might have not been any better for Hamas.  Both Netanyahu and Hamas are zero-sum players in the Israeli-Arab conflict.  Each of them needs to completely defeat the other in order to be successful.  And suddenly, the prospect of an unprecedented coalition government threatened the interests of them both.  Suddenly, improbably, they needed each other.

And, just as suddenly, a very unpleasant question is on everyone's lips:  is this a war, or a collaboration?  Is this a fight to the death, or a perverse short-term alliance against the prospect of real peace?

If it is, it's yet another Trump parallel--Netanyahu putting his personal self-interest ahead of the interests of the nation he's responsible for leading, even at the expense of other people's lives.  Trump did it with the pandemic.  Perhaps Netanyahu is doing it with the missile attacks.  If he is, there is, sadly, evidence to support the view that it is working.

Advancing a possibility like this one is something I don't enjoy doing.  I'm generally not a fan of conspiracy theories, and theories like this one should make every decent person cringe.  And yet, sometimes, there's real fire behind the smoke. In this case, Tom Friedman of the New York Times says he sees it.

And so do not one, but two columnists in Haaretz, the Israeli newspaper.  If that doesn't raise the prospect of fire behind the smoke, nothing does.

There is a clear lesson for all of us in the U.S., one that transcends conflict in the Middle East.

We are living in an age where the swinging pendulum of history has taken us from a time when universal democracy seemed inevitable to one in which global capitalism has failed to share the wealth it has generated, unleashing justified anger that unprincipled leaders around the world have unjustifiably manipulated for their own benefit, primarly through the use of ancient ethnic hatreds.  Trump and Netanyahu are two such leaders.  And, as a consequence, the U.S. and Israel are both struggling to rise above hate and find a path to peace and economic justice.

The nature and state of our own struggles in this respect are obvious.  Even with Democrats, for the moment, in charge of both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue, the hate-mongers in and outside of the GOP are still trying to raise the temperature of the nation past the breaking point.  The last thing we need to do, for our sake and the sake of Israel, is to satisfy Netanyahu's desire to do the same thing--assuming, of course, that he can continue to stay out of jail.

In other words, it's time for the money we provide to Israel, especially military aid, to come with verifiable expectations that such aid will be used, and will ONLY be used, in a matter consistent with the expectation that Israel will function in a manner consistent with the conduct of a democratic country.  Turning this goal into practical political action will be difficult, given the long history of solid support in this country for Israel.  But American expectations of Israel have changed, and it now appears that the behavior of American politicians is prepared to change as well.

It's time, perhaps past time, to abandon the dead-end of zealotry and reclaim the practice of virtues that help us coexist and even move toward some degree of unity:  tolerance, a willingness to learn, an appreciation of what we have to offer each other in spite of our difference, and, perhaps above all, an optimism about the future, a faith that it can be better than the past.  We need to stop searching for a purity that doesn't exist in the world we wake up in, and focus on progress.  After all, that's all that G-d expects from each of us.  And it's all that we should expect from each other.