UN Security Council Reform? Not So Fast

The preamble to the United Nations Charter pledges “to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war…” Can the UN remain relevant and impactful in world affairs? Behind headlines of global AI regulation and choosing the next Secretary General, key leaders are also charting the future of the UN Security Council, which – as the body tasked with preventing and stopping wars – could come closest to fulfilling the Charter’s defining mandate. 

As the UN General Assembly launches its 81^st annual session, the agenda includes deliberations on reforming the Security Council. Various proposals would favor different approaches and competing interests, but real change won’t depend on which plan is fairer or more efficient. The outcome will turn on what, if anything, the Council’s five permanent members – the “P5” – choose to accept.

Since the selection process for the UN’s next Secretary General will occupy most of the Security Council’s organizational attention, reforming the membership structure will not be less of a priority for the P5 than for the 10 non-permanent members that hold seats in overlapping two-year rotations. Streamlining and integrating the various proposals offers the best chance to advance the reform process.

CONTEXT FOR SECURITY COUNCIL REFORM

As the Great Powers to emerge victorious from World War II, the P5 – United States, Soviet Union, China, United Kingdom, and France – represented the main guarantors and enforcers of the UN’s nascent framework for collective security. In addition to designating them the only permanent members of the Council, the UN Charter accorded them exclusive veto rights, which incentivized their participation. By the 1960s, these five also controlled the world's nuclear weapons, and keeping them in the room talking probably helped keep the world from ending.  

Fast-forward to 2026, and we have a few more nuclear powers, including India and Pakistan which each seek Council seats of their own along with a number of non-nuclear nations of international stature.

Several options have developed in recent years:

• “G4” – adds six permanent members (Brazil, Germany, India, Japan and two for Africa) and expanding the number of non-permanent members.
• African Group – increased representation from Africa, including two new permanent seats with veto power.
• France and Mexico – the P5 would agree to not use their veto in votes regarding war crimes and crimes against humanity.
• Uniting for Consensus (UfC) advanced by Pakistan, Argentina, Canada, Italy and Mexico – no expansion of permanent membership, but more non-permanent seats including a chance for reelection. 

The G4 proposal includes a permanent seat for India, which – given its mutual animosity and hot conflict with neighboring Pakistan – is hardly a recipe for enhancing global security and stability. The same proposal includes Portuguese-speaking Brazil but not its comparably important — and Spanish-speaking — neighbor Argentina, as well as Germany, despite two other European countries already holding permanent seats. 

REALISTIC PATHWAY TO 2030

Perfection is not an option here. No forum can satisfy the interest of every competing government, not to mention of 8 billion humans, while also maintaining global peace security – or even to come close. Of all the ways to improve the UN, especially as it faces open disdain and paralyzing budget cuts from the Trump administration, expanding an unruly body and introducing new combatants and rivalries seems like a recipe for failure and — if it succeeds — yet more contention, self-dealing, and deadlock; even so, it may work if the scales are at least somewhat balanced.

Since well-established regional groups coordinate the election of non-permanent members and organize regular consultations, the interests of specific member states are already reflected in the Council and eventually every nation gets to serve its own two-year term. All member states may attend Council meetings and, when relevant, participate in matters relating to their particular situations.

Nevertheless, given its sweeping mandate, there is wisdom in expanding the Security Council to include influential and powerful member states even without the perk of veto power. It is difficult to enforce and implement Council decisions if modern-day movers and shakers were not even part of the deliberations, notably Argentina, Brazil, India, Japan, Mexico, Nigeria, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, South Korea and Türkiye.

The P5 are more likely to consider expansion proposals that preserve their exclusive veto power and limit additional members to heavy hitters, without turning the Council into another large and unwieldy UN commission. This should also be a priority for every government that values sustainable peace and security in the real world.

The likelihood of different coalitions consolidating behind a single, unified proposal is slim. Given that no changes can be made to the Security Council or the Charter without the assent of all P5, any Council reform probably won’t move so quickly. But if enough member states can be on record in support of a single pragmatic approach, then it will percolate and be available in 2030 – a target date for delivering on UN goals – when U.S. leadership and other wild cards could be ready to rebuild bigger and better.

Israel at 75 is up to us

“When Israel has prostitutes and thieves, we’ll be a state just like any other," was David Ben-Gurion's famous line about achieving a true place among the nations. Decades later, a few of us joined Ben-Gurion's late protege -- and our own beloved mentor -- Ralph Goldman to visit the Tel Aviv home of Israel's first and greatest Prime Minister. Ralph showed us the small kitchen table where BG would read and drink his coffee, and the sink where he'd wash out his own cup when he was finished. Imagine, the founder of modern Israel washing out his own coffee cup...

Fast-forward to today, as Israel celebrates its 75th anniversary. It has fulfilled so much Biblical prophecy, including the ingathering of exiles and shining a light unto the nations in countless dimensions. Israel has a first-rate military and economy, it has top-ranked arts and sciences, and its legitimacy is now almost universally accepted. It's also been home to its share of prostitutes and thieves, and tonight its Prime Minister is known for the kind of extravagant high living that Ben-Gurion wouldn't even have recognized.

 
Benjamin Netanyahu has also assembled a governing coalition that seems hell-bent on erasing the values and political culture to which all the founders including the right-wingers had pledged themselves. His top priority is revoking the independence of the judiciary even as convicted criminals and terror suspects serve in his government and as he himself is on trial for public corruption.

Israel was far from perfect before, and now it certainly faces the greatest challenge to the rule of law in its history. But is it so different from the United States of Trump, Orban's Hungary, Bolsonaro's Brazil, or Berlusconi's Italy? All these leaders and their movements have collaborated together and been extolled by the same MAGA strategists and cheered on by Vladimir Putin. And all these countries remain vibrant societies vigorously debating their identities and futures.

In this century, no major Israeli party has run an election on the Palestinian issue, while Netanyahu has done his best to exacerbate, sideline and leverage it for his own political purposes. Now, belatedly, the Israeli left seems to be connecting some of the dots between occupation, mob vengeance, and rule of law. We'll have to see if it's too late.

So these are the stakes.

Around the world, democracy and decency are on the ballot, and even when they win the results are challenged and denied. Yes, Israel is part of this seamy dynamic. The murderous Saudi crown prince cuts business deals with Netanyahu and with Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, and Sudan's military junta is only too happy to be courted by the Jewish state amid the gun battles of Khartoum. But millions of Israelis have also taken to the streets, and this week even the loyalist American Jewish Federations are considered in play, with Netanyahu declining to show up for the ultimate Israel-Diaspora victory lap.

From that sunny day in 1970 when our ship first pulled into Haifa port, Israel has been part of me. Not as an American Zionist theme park, but as a true homeland with real people and real challenges, and one worth fighting for.

I have hope for Israel's future, and I believe deeply in its religious and prophetic significance. My critiques of Netanyahu et al these past 15 years have certainly cost me professionally and socially, but my intent was always to avert just such a crisis as we see now.

Tonight, after remembering the fallen, I will be celebrating the existence of Israel, the spirit of Israelis, and the aspiration to continue and perfect this sacred and historic undertaking, and never to take its existence or its democracy for granted. Even when it hurts.

Today, honoring the Meron victims

Last week's tragedy hits very close to home for me, as for so many Jews in Israel and the United States, where we're never more than two degrees removed from anyone. Greeting Shabbat Friday night was more difficult than I'd anticipated, as I realized just how many Jews would be missing this and all future Sabbaths — many of whom I could easily have sat across from at a Shabbat table.

Golda Meir was Prime Minister when I attended my first of overnight Lag b'Omer celebrations at Mount Meron, and I've been to a few more over the years. It is always a special, deeply spiritual, overcrowded and utterly crazy experience. I remember some Sephardic families arriving with the sheep they would be slaughtering and eating in large tents over their extended stay, music and hawkers on loudspeakers, bonfires, and hasidic fathers dancing with their three-year-old sons after their ceremonial first haircut. In the 21st century, it's become more high-tech and clearly no less chaotic.

One of those visits was the year after high school graduation, the same point in life as some of Thursday's victims. With various highs and lows over the decades since, it is hard and sobering to imagine if my life had ended decades ago on that night. 

According to Jewish tradition, however we spend eternity isn't nearly as important as what we do with our limited time here on this earth. This life is our only opportunity to accumulate merits, to exercise our free will and choose the path of God, including prayer and hundreds of commandments that guide our days, our annual calendar, and our lifecycle. We must not take this life for granted.

Fulfilling these commandments can be a source of great joy, especially on special occasions like Lag b'Omer, the 33rd day of the annual period of mourning for the thousands of scholars who died from plague two millennia ago. The dead cannot pray, the dead cannot freely serve God. We are supposed to keep our tzitzit (prayer fringes) tucked in when walking past a cemetery, lest we taunt those who can no longer perform such mitzvot (God's commandments).

As the State of Israel observes an official day of mourning for the 45 people who were lost last Thursday night at Meron, opposite the holy city of Tzfat, I urge my fellow Jews to be mindful, recite appropriate Tehillim (passages from Psalms), and make an extra effort to perform mitzvot in the merit of these souls who can no longer fulfill their obligations.

To honor these 45 men and boys who will never again wear tefillin (prayer straps mandated in Deuteronomy), I specifically encourage everyone with access to a set of tefillin to do so today. With special gratitude for the gift we enjoy of life and of service to our Creator. I have no doubt that every one of these holy Jews held the daily mitzvah of tefillin in high regard and never lost sight of its importance, and always considered a pleasure rather than a burden. (The one 12-year old among them must have been so excited about beginning this practice ahead of his 13th birthday.)

They came to Meron to express devotion to a higher calling, and to do so with joy. I ask anyone who can to aspire likewise, today of all days.

May their memories be a blessing.

A Personal Steinsaltz

I first got to know the late Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz (Even-Israel) in the early 1990s when he came to Washington as a scholar-in-residence, together with his adolescent son Meni. I already knew him as the greatest living Torah scholar, having studied Talmud using his Hebrew-language commentaries. There was so much more that he accomplished and impacted, which requires separately a long and thorough reckoning by accomplished scholars. My post is personal.

In 1992, I found myself working in Moscow and spending a couple of Shabbats a month at the relatively new Steinsaltz yeshiva in the wooded suburb of Kuntsevo. The campus had been the dacha of the Mayor of Moscow; it was charming and rustic, and for most of the Russian Jewish young men studying there it was luxurious. I didn’t see Rabbi Steinsaltz diring my time there, but his spirit of reigniting post-Soviet Jewish life through knowledge and fellowship pervaded.

A few years later, I arrived in Geneva to find Meni was getting his start as a Lubavitch emissary ("shaliach") at Beth Habad de Geneve, which led to many other adventures and a deep friendship all its own. Although personally he was affiliated with the Lubavitch movement, Rabbi Steinsaltz engaged and identified publicly with an 'all of Judaism' approach, which indeed may represent the most powerful expression of Lubavitch aspirations.

Not unlike some other spiritual giants, including the Dalai Lama, Rabbi Steinsaltz could also display an impish sense of humor. Always needing funds for his many initiatives, he visited Geneva once and gave a well attended speech. The front row was filled with some of the wealthiest Jews in Geneva — an international set, ready to be appeased as well as impressed. After being introduced and welcomed with great fanfare, the famous sage opened his remarks by noting that people in Geneva only ever want to talk about money. If not for the emanation of holiness through his presence in the room, I am sure that three or four of the organizers would have died from shock right on the spot.

Once in the mid-1990s, I drove from Geneva to pick up Rabbi Steinsaltz at Charles de Gaulle airport and bring him in to Paris for a one-on-one shmooze before his other meetings — is there any better way to spend an afternoon?? With cell phones still a luxury, I waited out front until he came out the automatic doors. After he settled into the passenger seat, I explained respectfully that I couldn't in good conscience risk the life of such a Torah sage. I offered him a choice: He could either keep his seat belt unbuckled or he could continue smoking his pipe. He graciously chose to buckle up and puff away.

The Steinsaltz home in Jerusalem had such an unassuming air of normalcy that I'd have to remind myself who I was with. But that was his way. He was the last person who would ever express any sense of his own importance. His concern for others was constant, and his wisdom just trickled out in the course of conversation.

Through Meni and the late Ralph Goldman, the visionary-in-chief of the Joint Distribution Committee — and sometimes through my official duties — I was blessed with numerous opportunities to experience Rabbi Steinsaltz up close. On occasion I may have been of some use to him, but mostly I was not there through my own merit or importance. Each time was a gift.

I never needed reminding of how precious these encounters were. Now that he's left the physical realm, I feel his presence and his impetus to do more and facilitate more to advance his ethos and vision. And to share some of what I and many others were able to see firsthand of the way he lived his life.

May we all be blessed and sanctified through his memory.

IN BRIEF: With or without annexation, permanent damage has already been done

There's plenty of good analysis on how annexation will be wrong and dangerous, along with much speculation on whether Netanyahu will or won't do it, when, and how much.

MY FOCUS: The permanent damage that's already been caused.

Why aren't there big protests here like in Hong Kong?

A friend asked me why Americans aren’t out protesting Trump in numbers closer to those in Hong Kong, where at one point one-quarter of its citizens were protesting China’s efforts to impose total control. The answer isn't so clearcut, and certainly won't fit into a text message...

In the early days of 2017, of course, millions did turn out across America, though nowhere near on the scale of Hong Kong.

Here are a few thoughts of my own, bearing in mind that I long ago abandoned my doctoral studies in political science:

Whereas Americans still have a chance to effect “regime change” at the ballot box, Hong Kong no longer has any fallback. Despite the 1984 Joint Declaration with the United Kingdom, which transferred Hong Kong back to China, London has little leverage to hold Beijing to its commitments — specifically, maintaining the enclave’s special status for 50 years, until 2047. Especially now, with the Western alliance in disarray and the UK going through its own rough departure from the European Union. So Hong Kong’s situation is both more desperate and more hopeless than many Americans would see for the United States. 

If we do someday reach a point where Americans no longer have procedural recourse and effective constitutional guarantees, then we may also launch a desperate mass mobilization — which would most probably be too late. 

Because Hong Kong’s economic magic depends so much on maintaining the confidence of major financial powers like Europe and the United States, these protesters may actually be able to compel Chinese concessions. Trump’s spiraling trade war and currency competition with the People’s Republic, and his abandonment of human rights as a pillar of U.S. policy, mean Hongkongers can and need to exact a financial toll in order to have an impact. 

If Americans launched strikes and blockades, there would be some impact, but there would be no greater foreign powers ready to weigh in or take over our global role. Even without widespread social action, this American decline is accelerating almost as fast as the depletion of Arctic summer ice.

Nevertheless, the “resistance” and related movements are pushing hard to replicate what’s going on in Hong Kong. Yet the percentage of people coming out to protest remains relatively minor. Most Americans oppose Trump, but they aren’t ready to turn out in force.

Unlike Americans, people in Hong Kong can see exactly what kind of dystopia their current rulers would impose upon them. It’s called mainland China: No due process, no cultural pluralism, no free markets or freedom of speech, blocking of the internet and social media, total surveillance, forced sterilization, concentration camps  for ethnic and religious minorities. For most Americans, the potential outcomes of Trump 2.0 remain at worst hypothetical.

Finally, Pearl Harbor and 9/11 notwithstanding, the United States hasn’t really been invaded for two centuries. So there’s definite complacency that “it” can’t happen here. And for all the fear and revulsion from Trump’s opponents, and Russia’s ongoing “active measures”, we still see his administration as homegrown, and something that will run its course — whether or not that’s accurate. 

This thinking may be wrong, but it’s hard to stir most people enough to march through downtown. And yes, there’s plenty of laziness as well. But there’s also a sense that we can survive this, that I’m still doing better than my neighbor, that they’re only rounding up “illegals”, that the government is so remote from my existence that there’s nothing I can do anyway, that — even if they do start rounding up people just like me — somehow I’ll be taken care of.

Perhaps this last consideration is analogous to the belief of plumbers and Walmart workers and unemployed miners, that somehow we too can be rich someday — and therefore we need to worry about estate taxes and capital gains tax more than who’s being shot by police or being separated from their parents.

Perhaps it’s the difference, not between the haves and the have-nots, but between the want-to-saves and the don’t-want-to-risks. Why risk my friends or my job or my freedom, if I think I can come out on top of the slowly sinking ship?

Ultimately, there is no good reason why more Americans aren’t out marching against racism and isolationism and a dozen other issues — none of which need include a call for impeaching the President. But somehow this is our reality.

History forgotten, Saudi Arabia trumps Pakistan and Iran

President Trump uses American jobs as the reason he’s setting aside the CIA’s report that—as has been inescapably obvious for weeks—Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the brutal murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their Istanbul Consulate. How about the thousands of American jobs already being lost as a result of the President’s new trade war with China—the one he said would be “easy”?

Another reason the President gives is Saudi Arabia’s support for his take-no-prisoners policies against Iran, despite the Islamic Republic’s continued compliance with the multilateral nuclear agreement. Coddling a brutal autocrat—the Shah—was how we lost Iran 40 years ago in the first place. What happens when the Saudi regime is overthrown because we encouraged their excesses? And who will take over then? Meanwhile, the homegrown Saudi animosity against Iran requires no incentivizing from Washington.

In almost the same breath, on Twitter, the President also slammed Pakistan for allowing Osama bin Laden to hide from justice. And what does Pakistan do for us anyway... Well, aside from the fact that our assistance helps stabilize a regime that owns nuclear weapons, and that—with a few well-placed Trump tweets—Pakistan could be far more anti-American than it is—let's stop and really think for a moment about OBL.

Let’s consider not where Osama was hiding, but where he got his start and his cash and nearly all the recruits for his 9/11 attack on our homeland. That’s right—Saudi Arabia!

So, if enabling Osama is the litmus test for cutting off relations, then why is Donald Trump doubling down on the Saudis?

Pittsburgh's uneasy spotlight

You don’t have to be Jewish to have deep feelings about last week’s terror attack in Pittsburgh. And there is no shortage of emotions and deeper meanings to take away from this horror. Here are a few of my own early thoughts.

Of course for many of us, the Pittsburgh attack is close to home. I’ve been in the Tree of Life for a wedding long ago, and Jews are all connected. And as a security volunteer in another synagogue hundreds of miles away, I was actively dealing with safeguarding and with liaison to our local police. But somehow it’s more, and I’m choosing here to leave out the very compelling political and security ramifications because I think there’s something innate that also merits exploration. 

Perhaps we (somewhat like Israelis) have tried to put the shame of victimhood behind us. We watch the massacres and violence around the United States and we sympathize, empathize, pledge solidarity, and step up to help. But now we Jews are in the spotlight, we are the ones receiving sympathy and assistance. Cable news is focused on US. Not Israel, not a multi-ethnic public school, not a military base. 

We have the spotlight right now, and we may not all agree on how to use it. But it feels very strange to be noticed for what was done to us, and not for what we have done -- whether good deeds or bad. Almost unavoidably, we are objectified. Our rabbis are elevated to the national stage, “Shabbat” is a term mentioned by CNN, and the Jewish experience and current trauma have been universalized to a national and international audience.
Maybe this just takes some getting used to. And maybe the pain and sorrow are still too overwhelming.

About parades and insecure rulers

President Trump seems intent on staging some glorious and costly parade, to showcase our military might and — presumably — to celebrate his own power as America’s Commander in Chief. Why does this sound familiar to me?

Nicolae Ceaușescu was still ruling Romania with an iron fist in the summer of 1976, when my parents brought us back for a week-long visit with friends in the lush countryside. In one town near the border with Serbia (then called Yugoslavia), we happened upon a strange spectacle. A few days before Liberation Day, citizens were lining the main street and cheering as soldiers and workers and schoolchildren marched down the middle. It seemed the whole town had turned out for what amounted to a dress rehearsal for the big event — marchers and spectators included. Such was the hero worship of this hollow autocracy, that the farce of national strength and solidarity had to be practiced. 

The spectators even waited as the marchers ran back down a side street in order to repeat the exercise from the top. On TV, I had seen the fancy parades in Beijing, Moscow and even Bucharest, but it had never occurred to me just how absurd was the farce and how insecure the ruler — or to what degree everyone knew it. 

I have been to Paris for the July 14 parade, which is impressive and genuinely popular. It is embedded in the national consciousness, and never about the politicians who happen to oversee France's military professionals.

Romania got rid of Ceausescu's parades in 1989,
but North Korea's Kim is still going "strong"...

I doubt we civilians will be required to practice cheering in advance of Trump's big day, though the President has already branded as traitors any Members of Congress who didn’t stand and applaud for his State of the Union address. Personally, I need no practice. I’ve seen this movie before, about the cult of personality, and I don’t need to watch it again. #SpoilerAlert 

Today we mourn, tomorrow we vote

September 11, 2001, was a Tuesday. Though our leaders seemed to be asleep at the wheel in the months preceding, and in the first minutes of the horror, these attacks were essentially a physical assault from the outside. 

That fateful Tuesday was a primary election day in New York, and it was appropriately postponed. In the years that have followed, and right up to recent days, we have seen our democratic way of life both tested and diminished -- that is on us, not on the terrorists. 

Tomorrow is another such primary day, giving us a new opportunity to honor and reaffirm our democratic institutions in real time. If you are registered as anything other than "independent", then please come out and vote to determine who will be the nominee for your party in the November general election. 

We cannot bring back those we lost on that beautiful sunny day, nor the thousands more we sacrificed in pyrrhic pursuit of vindication in Afghanistan and Iraq. But we can do this little act of faith and commitment to the values for which we have always struggled.

Today we mourn, tomorrow we vote.

Our 'madman' against theirs

With Ban Ki-moon (NOT a madman)

In one of the private meetings I was privileged to join with Ban Ki-moon when he was UN Secretary-General, he shared a basic and important insight about dealing with the North Korean regime. As a native of the territory which is now the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Ban and his family fled south as refugees. Many years later, he confessed to us that even he as a Korean cannot make sense of that regime.

The so-called "madman theory" contends that an unpredictable leader can extract better concessions if the other side is duly frightened. This may explain some of Ronald Reagan's success in the waning years of the Soviet regime. But when the DPRK's Kim Jong-un makes wild threats and U.S. President Donald Trump responds with apocalyptic rhetoric, then the madman theory is out the window, and it's simply a race to macho demonstrations, miscalculation and broken chains of command, any of which can result in catastrophic escalation.

Cooler heads can only prevail when they are among the decision-makers. Trying to out-brag a braggart is hopeless, and with nuclear and conventional weapons threatening millions in Asia and the United States, it's a recipe for Armageddon. Whether out of pride or survival instinct, a true madman (and one who surrounds himself with fawning sycophants) is less likely to back down in the face of escalating threats and more likely to move closer to the brink.

I don't think Mr. Ban or any other level-headed diplomat can make sense of Mr. Trump, and this is a looming liability. With respect to nuclear proliferation on the Korean peninsula, it is cause for alarm.

Remember Stalin? He's back.

Precisely 25 years ago, when we were distributing 250,000 food packages around Moscow, the "Memorial" office was one of many distribution sites. When an elderly recipient saw the U.S. flag on one side of the box, and the Joint Distribution Committee menorah on another, he told my colleague that Stalin's regime had sent him to the Gulag, falsely accused as a spy for the CIA and the Joint. Now, he was receiving a modest but vital gift from the U.S. Government and the Joint. And now, this.

LGBTQ, Jews, and Israel? It's complicated.

Many in the Jewish community seem dazed by the recent incident in Chicago, where marchers with a Magen David-emblazoned rainbow flag were ejected from this year's Dyke March. Though this exclusion seems unambiguously offensive and hypocritical, I believe there are many sides to what happened. Here are a few of my own thoughts:

1. The organizers seem to have taken their own decision, so this need not reflect a consensus within the Chicago LGBTQ community.

2. But in Chicago, of all places... REALLY??

3. We should not assume that everyone demanding acceptance is equally committed to accepting of others. Nor should we assume that everyone with an inherent LGBTQ identity is automatically "progressive", that "progressive" carries the same meaning for everyone, or that Israel and its advocates naturally deserve a place at the progressive table.

4. The Magen David (Star of David) was consciously adopted as the symbol of Israel, a sovereign state with policies and enemies. Attacking that symbol does not necessarily reflect anti-Semitic intent. Within the Jewish community, there is now a flare-up of tensions regarding access to the Western Wall and the underpinnings of the relationship between Jewishness and the State of Israel; with no hint of irony, Chicago's own Jewish Federation -- which has long condemned boycotts against Israel -- is now boycotting any Knesset Member who voted for new restrictions on conversions to Judaism.

5. Israel does engage in a bit of 'pinkwashing' hasbara, as though being the most LGBTQ-friendly Mideast nation outweighs anything it does vis-à-vis Palestinians. Seeing Jews march with a Magen David on their rainbow flag may have engendered some resentment in this regard.

6. Jared and Ivanka, and even President Trump, have been trading on their LGBTQ hip, while the Administration and the GOP shamelessly target that community's equal rights. Many in Israel and in the Orthodox community are disproportionately and publicly supportive of POTUS and his exclusionary, divisive agenda. We may start seeing more reactions targeting Jews and Jewish symbols in misguided retaliation for this perceived complicity. I doubt our organizations or leadership have dared to analyze or prepare much for such potential manifestations.

7. Chicago has a very active and visible Jewish community and a Mayor with well-known personal and family ties to Israel. Somehow, I am not overly worried, especially in light of the widespread coverage and condemnation of the incident.

Do US Jews value pluralism over justice?

I am outraged by Israel's long years of bait-and-switch with Judaism's non-Orthodox denominations, most of whom fervently support and advocate for the Jewish state, culminating in the latest decision to abandon even a compromise of their basic religious rights. This last straw in a long-running scam to exclude and demonize non-Orthodox Jews should rattle us all to our core.

Equally striking, however, is the general contrast between our community's instant and very public outrage over this spiritual and emotional offense, which targets mostly absentee co-religionists who otherwise enjoy freedom of travel and self-expression vs. the daily and hourly humiliation and subjugation of 2+ million Palestinians -- whose plight, regardless of who is at fault, is at least somewhat and significantly in the hands of the same Israeli government which has now again inconvenienced and insulted Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews. 

Unless as a throwaway line with which to blame "the Arabs" and excuse Israel, even mentioning the Palestinians' situation commonly engenders charges of anti-Semitism and perfidy hurled reflexively by Federation leaders, pulpit rabbis, radio hosts, and blog idols of the official pro-Israel line. Speakers are disinvited, academic tenures are threatened. 

The American Jewish Diaspora won't dare notice -- and actively distracts from the reality -- that Palestinians are routinely and daily denied basic human dignity, rights and services, except to blame and denigrate the Palestinians themselves. Yet, for over three decades, to have one integral but single right -- the right to non-Orthodox observance, including "Who is a Jew" -- denied them in the land of our forefathers is an existential crisis demanding urgent moral umbrage.

In most cases, the same American Jewish establishment which once again warns vocally and righteously of the specter of an alienated American Jewry still thinks little of the Palestinians who live within sight of the Western Wall. As a community, we staunchly defend the Israeli Government's actions with regard to the basic rights of Palestinians, then we turn around and expect that same government to show remorse for how it allows us to pray and validate conversions. 

If this is the Light Unto the Nations, then which nations do we mean? And if we cannot even bear to hear the prayers and grievances of those under our immediate or indirect control, then how can we expect God to hear our own entreaties at the site of his Holy Temple?

Trump has no credibility to pledge "Never again"

It has been reported that President Trump will address Tuesday's "Yom Hashoah" Holocaust commemoration at the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum. In addition to Holocaust exhibits and documentation, the Museum very consciously houses the Committee on Conscience and the Center for the Prevention of Genocide.

Today, addressing the World Jewish Congress via video, he pledged, "We must stamp out prejudice and anti-Semitism everywhere it is found." And finally, months after his White House denied the need to mention Jews in connection with the Holocaust, he did mention Hitler's six million Jewish targeted victims. But his rhetoric is very thin on anti-Semitism and the Holocaust, and ignores his administration's consistent refusal to act in support of contemporary victims of mass killings and of racial and religious persecution, even while he and his aides routinely appeal to Islamophobia and other forms of xenophobia here in the United States.

Unless he announces that he's abandoning the border wall, dropping the arbitrary ban on refugees and certain Muslim states, and firing the "Alt-Right" white supremacists and the second-generation card-carrying Nazi working inside his own West Wing, anything he says there can be nothing more than a desecration and betrayal of the memory and lessons of the Holocaust. Singling out Jews for special recognition and protection, while actively sowing fear and hostility toward so many other minorities, does us no favors.

Trump attacks Syria - Context & consequences

I was writing up a new post with some thoughts about this past week's U.S. retaliation against Syrian forces, and decided to record it as a podcast for The Bottom Line. Please listen to the nine minutes and let me know what you think!

What Trump could do NOW on Syria

Following this week's massacre of civilians by Syrian government forces, using specialized chemical weapons, a friend asked me what President Trump should do at this stage. To recall, President Obama averted military intervention by securing Syrian President Assad's agreement to remove all chemical weapons. While Obama should never have thrown down a red line over Syria's potential use of chemical weapons, it could have been catastrophic for the region and the United States had he backed that up when Assad indeed deployed such weapons. 

To be sure, with Russia and Iran's active support Assad has been committing mass murder and devastation against his own citizens. But until last week's indication by Trump's Secretary of State that the UnitedStates is ready for Assad to remain in office, Assad had avoided using more than off-brand chemicals such as dropping barrels of chlorine.

A friend has challenged me to suggest what Trump should do at this point, beyond empty statements. 

So here are a few ideas:

1. A statement condemning would be a good start. 

2. Countermanding Tillerson's explicit approval of Assad's legitimacy would be even better. 

3. Demand that the Russians cooperate in holding Assad accountable and removing these new stockpiles (which Russia may have itself supplied. 

4. Get ahead of the courts and formally rescind the U.S. ban on refugees from Syria who have already been exhaustively vetted -- and call on European nations to redouble their own programs.

Obama came in on the heels of George W. Bush's obliteration of Saddam's orderly dictatorship, which unleashed the cynical and destructive forces of the self-proclaimed Islamic State. That same obliteration freed Iran to pursue its goals in Syria largely unchecked. Obama made some missteps, but he did better than average with what he'd been dealt -- and at least he tried. 

Trump may still have a narrow opportunity to minimize the damage from the current situation, but by accepting Russia's dominance and legitimizing Assad, he's already taken a bad situation and made it so much worse.

Washington, the world's newest Third World capital

Watching the spectacle of TV legend Andrea Mitchell being ignored and ushered out of the seventh-floor parlor of the State Department as she tried to ask questions of our notoriously reclusive Secretary of State and his visiting counterpart, I was reminded of a visit to the President of Azerbaijan nearly 20 years ago.

Our audience with the late Haidar Aiyev was at the Presidential Palace in Baku, overlooking the

As a non-journalist, I was welcome to remain.

sparkling Caspian Sea. To enter the chamber, we had to navigate two dozen reporters, photographers, and TV cameras, recording the whole scene.

We were seated at one long table across from the President's table, with flowers in between. As the junior member of our delegation, I was a few places over from center, next to the U.S. Embassy's political officer. The press were strung out behind us and around the edge of the tables.

Aliyev and our delegation chair exchanged brief greetings and pleasantries. Then, before we got down to the real business, President Aliyev announced, "I would now like thank the members of the press."

As these journalists all raced for the exit, I leaned over and whispered to my new Embassy pal, "In other words, last one out gets arrested." He took umbrage, responding, "The President was merely expressing appreciation!" By the way, such a response can be one symptom of "client-itis", when a foreign service officer identifies excessively with the interests and norms of his or her host country.

Back to the present... This week, for the first time since the end of the Obama administration, the U.S. State Department finally resumed daily press briefings. But the irony of an American Secretary of State whose authoritarian counterparts -- including Russia's foreign minister -- are more accessible to the press than he is boggles the mind.

All those years ago, with the Cold War memories still fresh in my mind and still visible on the faces of the leaders and diplomats across the former Soviet Union, their degree of state control over information was understandable. That comparable optics and limitations are now imposed in Washington, DC, is both shameful and sobering.

Hope for a Friday

For my friends -- liberals and conservatives, Democrats, Republicans, independents -- who reject so much of what Trump stands for:

We are living as though in the World to Come, a fogged-in realm where all our former ideological and political differences now seem so trite, where we share common cause, united in nostalgia for a civilized and aspirational existence that we've left behind. Stripped to our bones, this commonality has the potential to restore and reclaim, to rebuild, to revive our society with new life, while never forgetting how precious and vulnerable are truth, justice, compassion, curiosity, meaning.

Trump reaffirms fight against anti-Semitism

I was pleased to see President Trump explicitly condemn anti-Semitism this morning. Hopefully, my earlier post will be proven wrong over the duration of the President's White House tenure.

Hopefully, this won't be the end of the story: 

• Ideally, he will follow it with actions, as his predecessors did.  
• Condemning, monitoring and combating anti-Semitism should reopen the door to addressing other forms of xenophobia, including Islamophobia, as it did previously in Europe and the United States.
• The Prime Minister of Israel might come to accept that -- while his top priority is to advance Israel's national interests -- this this doesn't obligate him to excuse negative trends affecting Diaspora Jewry, just to please his hosts.

The President was responding to a reporter's question while out and about, and -- despite his claim that he condemns anti-Semitism at every opportunity -- this appears to be his first time since being elected President. We'll have to see if the Administration will take real initiative and convene consultations, coordinate response by law enforcement, and promote respect for minority rights across the country and around the world. 

This is a cause in which the President clearly deserves our full support and encouragement.