Sunday, July 19, 2009

THOUGHTLESS AMERICA

What were they thinking? They weren’t.

Not many of Bernie Madoff’s victims. Not two-thirds of Congress in October 2002, among other instances. Not voters who often entrust incapable candidates with public office.

The fury voiced by Madoff’s victims in past weeks begs this question: How could they take such chances with their fortunes, large or small? Would they gamble their entire paycheck on slot machines each week? It is one thing to invest part of their money with Madoff or anyone else, but nearly everything?

I sympathize with these people, but their grousing affirms that they refuse to take personal responsibility. Hirschhorn family members were quoted by at least three news organizations complaining about Madoff. Carla Hirschhorn of Manalapan, N.J., was quoted in The New York Daily News as saying, “He has destroyed us. We are not wealthy, fancy people. Never were, never will be.”

Her family’s loss was $7 million, according to a Jewish Telegraphic Agency article. That’s not wealthy? Who couldn’t live on $7 million?

Madoff blew $21 million of the American Jewish Congress’s endowment, 90 percent of the account, JTA reported. In fact, Madoff was once a board member of AJCongress, which meant that he influenced the agency’s policies while being entrusted with much of its cash. That’s a conflict of interest.

Alluding to Madoff’s 150-year prison sentence for defrauding clients in a Ponzi scheme, acting co-executive director Marc Stern said, “Mr. Madoff is not going to find any sympathy from us…It doesn’t give us our $20 million back…It is satisfaction mixed with the reality that it does not undo the harm that he did?”

That he did? Perhaps the 25 former staff members who lost their jobs lack “any sympathy” for their old bosses. Did Madoff force them to invest the money? Madoff was no doubt skillful in convincing them to invest the money with him, but in the end it was still their decision.

It is this kind of thinking - true, that is a contradiction in terms - which produces so much trouble in our society. People neglect to consider the consequences of their actions. It is common sense to take into account the potential results of a major decision. If they had that kind of money accrued by Madoff‘s victims, many people would make certain to bank a substantial amount of it before considering investments.

Examples throughout history abound of failure to think things through: Custer’s last stand, the Confederacy’s split from the Union, the North’s application of Reconstruction, the Bay of Pigs, the Vietnam war, to name a few. Recently, tax cuts for the rich, the mortgage scandal and, especially, the invasion of Iraq.

Congress in October 2002 voted to authorize military action in Iraq without bothering to consider the risks.

There were risks, among them a ghastly civil war and an administration which set the stage for thousands of deaths, drained hundreds of billions from our treasury, left government buildings vulnerable to looting, tortured prisoners and furnished multi-billion dollar assignments to private firms tightly linked to the White House.

The public either supported the war or did not care. The relatively few dissenters could not gain traction during the early part of the war. President Bush and Congress were warned repeatedly that the invasion of Iraq would be a high-stakes gamble. All anyone needed to do was follow history.

An acquaintance suggested that Congress’s decision to permit the invasion of Iraq resulted from an emotional reaction to the 9/11 attacks. Congress was not created to act on emotions but to deliberate on the pros and cons on given issues that come before them.

If Congress was to operate according to the emotions of the people, there would be no need for Congress. A form of mob rule would be adequate. The idea of bringing together representatives of the public amounts to a meeting of the minds, presumably some of our best minds.

In other words, they are expected to think before voting on measures which could decide the fate of the world.

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Doubting Obama on Israel

It is poetic justice that Malcolm Hoenlein was assailed for indicating that many American Jews doubt President Obama’s support for Israel.

I had hoped for years that Hoenlein would be ousted as executive vice chairman for the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, almost as much as I hoped that this organization would shorten its name. Now is hardly the time for the right-leaning, Republican-friendly Hoenlein to leave the public scene. Or others like him, as they reflect a natural dilemma for American Jews.

A dual loyalty test was thrust upon American Jews from the instant most of us stepped into the voting booths last Nov. 4. President Obama has proven to be a breath of fresh air after George W. Bush’s eight years of abuse of office and incompetence. Nearly 80 percent of American Jews voted for Obama because, most likely, he would make a good-faith effort to resolve our domestic problems and rebuild our relations with, well, the rest of the world.

Yet we have been confused, or worse, about his stance on Israel. The fate of Israel is crucial to the feelings of even the more disconnected Jews here. Israel is the home of 5.3 million of our brethren whose very lives depend upon wise decision-making by Israeli and American leaders.

Obama has demanded concessions from Israel without exploring the feasibility of some of these measures. His call for an independent Palestinian state ignores recent history, that Israel offered the Arabs their own state in 2000 and the result has been three wars in less than a decade. Israel’s exit from Gaza led to two of those wars, and the Arabs have done nothing to improve areas under their control.

The Arabs persist in firing rockets from Gaza, Iran’s president insists on his threats to destroy Israel and an Israeli soldier remains in captivity at this writing, presumably in Gaza, while Obama and other world leaders urge Israel to make risky concessions.

So it should be no surprise if Hoenlein, a Philadelphia native, told the truth when a conservative Web site, called Newsmax, quoted him as saying that Jewish leaders “are expressing concern about what was said” in the president’s Cairo speech last June 4. The weekly Forward, a Jewish newspaper which reported on Hoenlein’s comments in Newsmax, cited another Hoenlein quote: “I’ve heard it from some of his strongest supporters. It’s expected from his detractors. Even people close to him have said to us that there were parts of the speech that bothered them.”

According to The Forward, the National Jewish Democratic Council stated that Hoenlein’s remarks reflected a mistaken reading of Jewish public opinion. The Union for Reform Judaism sent a letter to Alan Solow, chairman of the President’s Conference, criticizing Hoenlein’s comments.

Hoenlein had twice before made mistakes preparing for election-year events that left the appearance that he was giving Republican presidential candidates an advantage. In 2004, he hosted a reception for the Republican Jewish Coalition during the GOP convention, and drew fire for neglecting to do the same during the Democratic convention for the RJC’s counterpart, the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Last year, he helped organize an anti-Iran rally in which Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, then the GOP vice presidential candidate, was invited to speak, and then she was barred from the rally when it was learned that no senior Democratic counterpart would speak. Practically speaking, Hoenlein’s misadventures probably made no difference in the outcome of either election.

It stands to reason that supporters of Israel are concerned with Obama’s positions on Israel and some of his statements during his June 4 speech. I have harshly criticized Israeli leaders and others for their hawkish views, but I am now worried if Obama will pressure Israel to take steps which could be harmful.

Especially, the president’s urgent drive for a Palestinian state is perilous. Too many questions beg to be answered: Is a Palestinian state even the solution? If such a state is established, what is to stop the Arabs from firing rockets into Tel Aviv? How will settlements factor into the picture?

Hoenlein and other Jewish leaders, even the hawkish ones, are needed more than ever. Right-leaning Jewish leaders have in the past advocated offensive positions which antagonized or confused people who might otherwise be supportive of Israel. Now the Jewish community has legitimate reasons to doubt our president’s intentions.

No matter who occupies the Oval Office or controls Congress, the Jewish community should maintain a watch on our leaders and voice its concerns whenever necessary. Not only the established organizations, which rate mixed reviews, but the entire Jewish community. At one time, Jews were often out in force on issues which affected them, but it does not seem that way now.

Jews who are considered moderates have no movement. Those who wish to become more involved face a serious dilemma. Jews on the left routinely support a Palestinian state, which those in the center or on the right cannot readily advocate.

Jews on the right would undoubtedly concur with less hawkish Jews on some core issues - ending rocket attacks on Israeli towns, countering the Iranian nuclear threat to Israel, questioning the creation of a Palestinian state and releasing Israeli Cpl. Gilad Shalit. Some on the right demand that any movement takes firmer positions such as rigid opposition to a Palestinian state, division of Jerusalem and removing the settlements.

One friend called Obama an “anti-Semite” and another accused the president and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton of “throwing Israel under the bus.”

More power to them if they can launch a large movement on that basis. I do not share their confidence. Perhaps they are right, but many Jews will probably disavow such an approach. No question that common ground exists. It is crucial that we capitalize on this opportunity.