25 Nov HYPOCRISY OR HEALTHY? MEETING WITH THE VILIFIED

After a vicious campaign
season with billions of
dollars spent vilifying
one another, name-calling, and competing
who could label the other the bigger threat
to democracy, the election has finally been
decided and whatever outcome you were
hoping for, we should all be relieved it’s
over.
Given the rhetoric leading up to the
election, one would have expected to
see the vitriol kicked up a few notches
higher after it, if that is even possible.
But instead of escalation and increased
warnings and predictions, refreshingly,
there are reasons to be hopeful and
optimistic that we can learn to get along
even through disagreement.
If you didn’t know the history and just
saw the smiles, enthusiasm, and spirit
of cooperation when President Biden
welcomed President-elect Trump to the
Oval Office last week, you might have
thought it was a reunion of two old
friends rather than two bitter enemies
observing protocol. The two men
seated in front of a roaring fire smiled,
shook hands, and pledged a smooth
and cooperative transition. They then
met for two hours for a discussion that
the press secretary described as “very
gracious and substantive.”
Two men who had spent months—if not
the last few years—calling each other
names and railing about the disasters
the other is responsible for, found a
way to shake hands, smile, and make
us believe it was more than just for the
cameras.
While the presidents were following
protocol, an even more surprising
meeting took place this week that
didn’t need to happen. Two of Trump’s
fiercest critics, MSNBC anchors Joe
Scarborough and Mika Brzezinski,
opened their show by reporting that they
had visited Mar-a-Lago to essentially

extend an olive branch to the president-
elect.

The meeting was the first time they
had seen or spoken to Trump in seven
years. Scarborough shared that while
they don’t see “eye to eye on a lot
of issues, and we told him so,” they
discussed such topics as abortion, mass
deportation, and threats of retribution
against political opponents and media
outlets.
Clearly braced for strong criticism, they
shared: “For those asking why we would
go speak to the president-elect during
such fraught times, especially between
us, I guess I would ask back – why
wouldn’t we? Five years of political
warfare has deeply divided Washington
and the country. We have been as clear
as we know how in expressing our
deep concerns about President Trump’s
actions and words in the coarsening of
public debate. But for nearly 80 million
Americans, election denialism, public
trials, January 6, were not as important
as the issues that moved them to send
Donald Trump back to the White House
with their vote. [We] realize it’s time to
do something different, and that starts
with not only talking about Donald
Trump, but also talking with him.”
President Trump was also positive about
the meeting and their commitment
to restart communication. He said, “I
received a call from Joe Scarborough
requesting a meeting for him and Mika,
and I agreed that it would be a good
thing if such a meeting took place.
Many things were discussed, and I very
much appreciated the fact that they
wanted to have open communication …
In many ways, it’s too bad that it wasn’t
done long ago…The meeting ended in a
very positive manner, and we agreed to
speak in the future.”
While many applauded the effort to
heal our country and its discourse, some
cynically suggested that the meeting
was driven by fears of retribution and
governmental and legal harassment
from incoming administration. Others
were outright critical of the hosts,
labeling it “disgusting” and calling for

a boycott of their show, asking,
How can you call a man a fascist,
imply he is a Nazi and then go
meet with him and make nice?
One person wrote on X, “Bend
the knee to the King in order to
save their careers.” Another tweeted,
“Total capitulation after years of railing
about his lack of fitness. Not even an
interview to show their ‘journalistic
integrity.’ Just a pure kiss-the-ring
session. Disappointed and done with
them and their show.”
While many of their fans felt that the
hosts were hypocritical, I actually
came to the opposite conclusion. The
approach should not be to avoid meeting
with someone you have called names,
labeled the enemy and described as
the greatest threat to democracy. The

approach should be to avoid the name-
calling and labeling in the first place.

One lesson of this election cycle and
the meetings of the last few weeks is to
think before calling someone a name,
assigning them a label, or framing them
in an overly negative light. Consider
what would happen if the opportunity
presented itself to meet with that person.
Would you be a hypocrite, based on
your prior comments? Disagree, argue,
advocate, debate. Do so vociferously
and determinedly. But do so civilly.
Do so by arguing about policies and
positions, reject behaviors and choices.
Don’t call names and make comparisons
you can’t walk back. Express concerns;
don’t offer prophecies.
There are powerful debates taking
place now in America and Israel. From
abortion to combatting antisemitism,
judicial reform to IDF service, emotions
are high and feelings are strong. Dialogue
and debate are healthy and helpful but
drawing firm lines in the sand, setting
up paradigms of people being either
with us or against us, getting to a point
that we cannot find any commonality, is
destructive and dangerous.
The Torah tells us that Yosef’s brothers

hated him to the point that v’lo yachlu
dabro l’shalom.” The Ibn Ezra explains,
“v’lo yachlu dabro l’shalom – afilu
l’shalom.” It isn’t that they just couldn’t
talk about the issues they disagreed
about. It isn’t just that they didn’t want
to be close, loving brothers. It isn’t just
that they couldn’t debate respectfully.
“Afilu l’shalom” – they couldn’t even
give each other a shalom aleichem.
The hatred and intolerance had grown
so deep that they couldn’t stand to even
extend greetings to one another or to be
in a room together.
Rav Yehonasan Eibshitz in his Tiferes
Yonasan has an additional insight.
When we disagree with people, we
withdraw from them and stop speaking
to them. We see them as “the other,”
different from us and apart from us. As
our communication breaks down, the
dividers rise up stronger and stronger
and we can’t find a way to break through
them.
If there is a person who you more than
simply disagree with, but their opinion
or practice repulses you, and that person
were in a position to help you when
you needed them, would you not reach
out them? Would you not go meet with
them? If they lost a family member in
a terror attack or tragedy, would you not
cry for them or feel their pain?
םיקידצ םלכ ךמעו :said HaNavi Yeshaya
םלועל ושריי ץרא,” And your people, all
of them righteous, shall possess the land
for all time.” Commentators interpret:
when we are “kulam tzadikim,” all
righteous and worthy of the land?
V’Ameich. When we are part of one
nation, united, unified and getting along.
By the time you read this, the reset on
civility and communication may have
been short-lived and ended. But the
lesson for us should endure. Disagree,
debate, reject opinions or practices but
don’t vilify or call names that would
make you a hypocrite or cause you to
not be able to meet with them or be in
a room.