editorials
From Fist Bump to Poke in the Eye
T he U.S. relationship with Saudi Arabia has
always been complicated. With the recent
decision by the Saudi-led OPEC Plus cartel to
scale back oil supplies by up to 2 million barrels
per day in order to bolster international oil pricing,
the complicated relationship between the U.S. and
Saudi Arabia became downright confrontational.

President Biden pledged last Tuesday to
impose “consequences” on Saudi Arabia. In
explaining what that meant, White House per-
sonnel spoke of a willingness to re-evaluate the
entire U.S. relationship with the kingdom and an
openness to considering retaliatory measures
proposed by members of Congress and others,
including the curbing of arms sales and permit-
ting legal action against the OPEC Plus cartel.

Although the president was intentionally vague
regarding the details of what would happen and
when, he was direct and clear in his promise that
“there will be consequences.”
Mr. Biden has reason to be upset. Last July,
Biden made a much-publicized and highly criti-
cized relationship-mending visit to Saudi Arabia
despite a campaign promise to make the king-
dom an international “pariah” for the 2018 killing
of the journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Upon arrival in
Riyadh, Biden avoided an embrace or warm hand-
shake with the 37-year-old de facto Saudi ruler,
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS), who
the CIA says ordered the murder and dismember-
ment of Khashoggi, and defaulted to a fi st bump
Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
— which made critics even more upset, as it was
viewed as the equivalent of a brotherly embrace.

Nonetheless, following discussions during the
visit, U.S. offi cials said they reached an under-
standing that Saudi Arabia would increase oil
production in the fall and lower gasoline prices
heading into the critical, upcoming midterm elec-
tions. And now, MBS and the Saudis have done
just the opposite.

To some, the move looks like an attempt by
MBS to discredit Biden and infl uence internal
U.S. politics for the benefi t of Saudi friend Donald
Trump and the Republican Party. To others, it
represents a tilt by Saudi Arabia and other Gulf
states in favor of oil-producing Russia, by making
it more diffi cult for Western nations to imple-
ment a planned December price cap on Russian
oil exports as part of a sanctions program in
response to Russian aggression in Ukraine. Both
are probably right.

And while the president is right to focus on
meaningful consequences for Saudi betrayal,
there is no need for an immediate response.

Instead, Biden is properly working through
numerous political, economic and military equip-
ment-related options and considering their con-
sequences. Virtually every proposed response
will have clear intended consequences and many
potential unintended ones. Moreover, it is still
possible that the planned OPEC Plus production
cut may not be quite as consequential as initially
projected. Biden’s challenge is to formulate a Saudi
response that satisfi es his domestic political
needs, is careful not to aggravate the fragile U.S.

economy in the run-up to the midterm elections
and preserves international agreements relating
to Russia and elsewhere around the world. There
are a lot of moving parts. Don’t rush it. JE
M embers of Congress are privy to a lot of
nonpublic information. And because they
regularly introduce legislation or participate in
closed-door committee investigations or inquiries,
many members become aware of information or
a new regulation being considered or a law in the
making that can have a signifi cant impact upon
various business sectors and many publicly traded
companies. They learn these facts as part of their
work, and they get that information long before
members of the public.

The law prohibits insider trading, or the buying
or selling of stock based upon nonpublic informa-
tion. Members of Congress are subject to those
laws just like everyone else. But it is often very
diffi cult to prove awareness of or use of nonpub-
lic information in connection with specifi c stock
transactions. Nonetheless, it is a clear confl ict of interest for
members of Congress to make personal invest-
ment decisions when they possess confi dential
10 OCTOBER 20, 2022 | JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
information not known to the public. Yet, we
regularly hear about senators or representatives,
or members of their immediate families, who
have traded in stocks directly impacted by some
aspect of congressional review or action.

Those activities could be legal, or maybe not.

But they unquestionably look bad. And it is
reported that nearly 20% of the 535 members of
Congress — including members of leadership on
both sides of the aisle — are buying and selling
stocks where there may be a confl ict of interest.

Public trust in the federal government is at an
all-time low. According to a recent Pew Research
Center report, less than 30% of Democrats and
less than 10% of Republicans trust government
always or most of the time. But notwithstanding
the deep political and cultural divides in our
country, close to 80% of all voters — Democrats,
Republicans and Independents — reportedly sup-
port banning members of Congress from trading
stocks. It is diffi cult to think of another current
legislative issue on which such an overwhelming
majority of American voters agree.

A number of bills have been introduced in the
House and the Senate to address the congres-
sional stock trading issue. Their common theme
is the imposition of signifi cant restrictions on
the ability of congressional lawmakers and their
immediate family members to profi t from trading
stocks and other securities, with serious penalties
for violations. Although House Speaker Nancy
Pelosi indicated a short while ago that a bill would
be brought to the House fl oor for a vote, that plan
was scrapped and consideration is now delayed
until November, or even later.

Delay on the enactment of a congressional
stock trading ban is a mistake. The longer con-
gressional stock trading goes unchecked, the
more the image of congressional ethics is dimin-
ished. We encourage prompt consideration and
adoption of a ban on congressional stock trading.

It is the right thing to do. JE
The Presidenti al Press and Informati on Offi ce / CC BY 4.0
Ban Congressional Stock Trading



opinions & letters
Both the Left and the Right
Have Turned on the Jews
BY IAN HAWORTH
I ’m a British Jew who works in the world of
American conservative media, and the behavior
of the conservative movement over the past few
days has been honestly terrifying.

As we witness supposedly anti-antisemitism
conservatives brush the open and unapologetic
antisemitism of cultural figures like Kanye West
under the rug in exchange for the second-hand
cultural attention his presence might provide —
as well as cash and clicks — a familiar and brutal
reality has resurfaced for Jews:
No one cares about us.

Both sides of the political aisle are quick to rally
against antisemitism when it is politically conve-
standing firm when doing so presents the possi-
bility of damage — whether that damage is politi-
cal, cultural or financial.

In addition, one must ask: What are principles if
they are so easily cast aside?
Conservatives claim to abhor antisemitism, and
yet foolishly believe they can ride the coattails of
non-conservative loose cannons like Kanye West
and greedily feed off the cultural scraps that fall to
the ground; all while trampling on the supposed
principles that were their “hills to die on” in their
battles with the opposing side.

West, who in a matter of days argued that Jared
Kushner sought peace in the Middle East to make
money, repeatedly promoted the radical Black
Hebrew Israelite conspiracy theory that American
blacks are the “real Jews,” implied that Jews cre-
Both sides will happily throw the fight against
antisemitism — and, by extension, the Jews —
under the bus in exchange for the chance to
engage other (larger) political groups.

nient. On the left, when figures like Marjorie Taylor
Greene engage in antisemitic rhetoric, they wring
their hands and cry to the skies. Meanwhile, on
the right, when figures like Ilhan Omar engage in
antisemitic rhetoric, they wring their hands and
cry to the skies.

Except both sides will happily throw the fight
against antisemitism — and, by extension, the
Jews — under the bus in exchange for the chance
to engage other (larger) political groups they’d
much rather have under their increasingly value-
less banner.

The truth is that there is now no true political
home for Jews in the United States, if there ever
really was one. In recent months and years, both
sides have demonstrated that they care about
Jews right up until a more tempting opportunity
presents itself.

Of course, it’s phenomenally easy to remain
principled in the face of an adversary whose
values are antithetical to your own, an adversary
your audience already loathes. There is no inher-
ent bravery in the left calling out Marjorie Taylor
Greene, and there is no inherent bravery in the
right calling out Ilhan Omar.

There is difficulty, and therefore bravery, in
ated cancel culture and announced that he would
be going “death con 3” on “Jewish people,” has
shown no signs of apologizing.

And yet, days later, conservatives celebrated
West — an open and unapologetic antisemite
— on the red carpet, labeling his very presence
iconic. A line has been crossed.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez spoke with Jeremy
Corbyn and said veiled antisemitic things in the
past, and conservative media — myself included
— never let it go. And quite rightly so.

West, who has far more cultural influence than
Ocasio-Cortez, pushed multiple explicit antise-
mitic tropes, and what was the result?
Many high-profile conservatives shrugged and
moved on that same day. Some didn’t even shrug
at all.

Now, many have responded to my vocal criticism
of this appalling conduct with “whataboutism,”
declaring that the leftist media ignores antisemi-
tism all the time.

Yes, they do. So what?
I was under the impression that we were meant
to be the principled ones. If that is true, where on
earth are our principles?
I do understand the attitude of wanting to bring
culturally powerful people into our tent based on
their supposedly aligned views on single-issue
topics. (Let’s leave aside for now the fact that
West’s “pro-life” views are based on an antise-
mitic conspiracy theory.) However, if there are
no entry requirements to the ideological tent, if
admission numbers are the only metric of value,
what does that tent even represent?
Until our movement is willing to look in the
mirror and stick to their supposed principles, the
Jewish people cast out from this tent will wonder
whether any of this is worth fighting for.

Yet again, Jews are alone. JE
Ian Haworth is the host of “Off Limits with Ian
Haworth.” letters
Court and Torah Law Conflict
With regard to its recent decision to force Yeshiva
University to allow LGBT groups to have their
own club, it seems that the Supreme Court of
New York has overstepped its bounds (“Why
Mainstream Jewish Groups Didn’t Defend Yeshiva
University,” Oct. 13).

The board of the university has the right to
decide if any group should be sponsored by the
university. A group which mainly focuses on the
sexual activity of the group would seem out of
place, even with regard to heterosexual interests.

Torah law forbids men to lie with men as they
would lie with women. This is a matter of our faith.

It must be adhered to, no matter what the current
political dogma dictates.

Until about 50 years ago, homosexuality was
considered a psychological abberation, a failure
to reach developmental milestones (Freud) or mis-
placed sexual attraction (Krafft-Ebing).

Any Supreme Court is on slippery grounds
when it makes up rules for a faith-based insti-
tution. The board of Yeshiva University might
be taking a politically, and financially, incorrect
position in this matter but it is following Torah law
correctly. JE
Aryeh Wood, Philadelphia
Letters should be related to articles that have run in the print or
online editions of the JE, and may be edited for space and clarity
prior to publication. Please include your first and last name, as
well your town/neighborhood of residence. Send letters to
letters@jewishexponent.com. JEWISHEXPONENT.COM
11