If American Jews won’t support Israel, why should I?
It’s funny how some things stick in your mind.
I remember vividly back in 1972 watching my Jewish roommate “Harry” (he of the Looney Liberal Chronicles fame) wait for the ABC radio news at the top of each hour, hoping to catch an update on the Yom Kippur War. The news broadcast would invariably lead off with a story about the upcoming U.S. presidential election, then a story or two about some woman and her 62 cats in a suburb of Kansas City, and finally end with “Israeli forces continue their battle along the Golan Heights.”
That was it. No elaboration, no details, no indication of whether things were going well or badly for Israel. Harry would slam his fist on the table and swear at the meager time devoted to providing real information on the war for Israel’s survival, all the while pacing back and forth with angst-driven concern.
As a gentile with obvious sympathies for Israel (my nickname was the “gazunta goy”), I shared Harry’s frustration. To me, Israel represented the only outpost of western values in an otherwise worthless part of the world. Not worthless in natural resources mind you, but worthless in anything that remotely advanced the human condition. The theocratic nature of certain aspects of Israeli politics made me a bit queasy, but there was enough secularism in the Jewish state for me to identify with their cause.
Israel was a democracy and its neighbors were tin-horn dictatorships. What more did I need to know? Israel was our friend and ally in the Middle East, and by God I wasn’t going to abandon a friend and ally just to suck up to a bunch of terrorists and thugs who had a lot of oil. They needed us (as a destination point for their oil) as much as we needed them, so who cared if they didn’t like strong U.S. support for, and protection of, the state of Israel?
My steadfast support for Israel remained high throughout the years of Arab hijackings and Arab oil boycotts. You deal with hijackings by hunting down and killing the people who do things like that. And you deal with boycotts by developing your own resources. You don’t give in to bullies, or take the expedient road just to live a nicer lifestyle. You fight for the things you believe in, and protect those who are on your side.
Consequently, when Israel bombed Saddam’s nuclear reactor, I supported them. When Bill Clinton tried to strongarm the Israelis into giving away 95% of the occupied territory in exchange for a phony, legacy-driven peace treaty with Arafat, I opposed it. When Israel wanted to purchase additional U.S. aircraft and weapons against Arab objections, I supported that decision. And when Israel itself wanted to give back part of the Gaza Strip in a misguided effort to make nice with the United Nations, I opposed that; arguing that it would do absolutely nothing to stem the tide of terrorist attacks against Israel, or make the UN less anti-Semitic than it already is.
I continued my unabashed support for Israel in the face of the fecklessness of American Jews. Every election the party that was Israel’s best friend was abandoned by American Jews in staggering numbers. From the anti-Semitic Carter to the self-absorbed Clinton, American Jews gave their money and votes to electing Democrat leaders. George Bush, who is undeniably the best friend the state of Israel ever had — save Harry Truman — is considered to be just one small step above pond scum. Barack Obama, who has no great love for Israel and has more than signaled his intention to dramatically re-align U.S. interests in that part of the world, was supported by over 78% of American Jews in the 2008 election.
And that’s what’s finally done it for me. After forty years of managing this contradiction in my own mind, I’ve finally come to the realization that I’ve been embarked on a fool’s errand. By supporting Israel, I’m supporting a course of action that antagonizes the people who control a significant part of the world’s oil; not just countries like Iran, but other anti-Semitic oil producers around the world.
Under President Obama oil will no longer be necessary. But like he said in his Tuesday night acceptance speech, it may take longer than one term for this new day to arrive. I hope to be alive in 2047, but until then we’ll still need oil. Our new friend Hugo Chavez will sell us all we want after he and the “black man” sit down for a friendly chat, and Iran won’t need as much of its own oil when it goes nuclear in a few years, so there should be plenty of it out there if we don’t piss these people off. And with Obama as president, we won’t.
While we’re pumping billions of taxpayer dollars into developing new solar and electric vehicles that will make today’s Smart Cars look like tomorrow’s SUVs, we’ll still be buying oil from our new anti-Semitic buds. Since we’re not going to develop our own resources, all we need to do to insure a steady, uninterrupted supply is dump Israel. Granted, after that we may need to do a few other things to accommodate their tender sensibilities, like completely withdrawing from Iraq, Afghanistan, the rest of the Middle East, making our women wear burkhas, adopting sharia law in the US — you know, little things like that. But most of these won’t be an issue until Obama’s second term, and we can figure out plenty of ways by then to surrender our principles to keep the foreign oil flowing. For the time being, Israel is the only real thorn that needs to be excised, and I for one will no longer object to its removal.
My decision is not vindictive, but pragmatic. And today, pragmatism — not principles — is the thing that guides our nation the most. American Jews had every opportunity to understand who Obama is, what he stands for, and what he represents. If they supported him overwhelmingly regardless of the consequences for Israel, why should I or any other non-Jews care when Israel gets sold out in the future? Obama will make nice with the Arab states and terrorist groups at Israel’s expense. He will block Israel from defending itself. And I will no longer object.
The issue is simple. I will not work against Israel. But, I will no longer defend Israel, or seek to overturn Obama’s policies that harm it. If American Jews want Obama as our president, then why should I get upset when Obama’s policies are put into action?
Well, it's about time that the irrational support for Israel comes to a close. For my entire politically aware life, I have scratched my head and wondered why Israel isn't roundly condemned and sanctioned by the UN for its militaristic actions and flagrant violations of human rights. Let them be held to the standards that the rest of the world is expected to adhere to.
Phil, apparently luminousball has swallowed so much kool aid that caused him/her to miss the irony in your article
When I was a member of the International Club in Cambridge UK during the early 1960s I heard first hand from the Egyptians and others how Israel killed babies and other horror stories. When questioned about Arab actions they assured me that the Arabs were on the side of the Angels. Obviously each side spins the story but the Israelis I have talked to provide a fairly balanced story, unlike the news correspondent that talked about Israel's 155 mm that was throwing rounds 48 miles into Lebanon (the latest 155 with rocket shells can't even do this, just another journalistic attempt to soil Israel's reputation on the world stage).
I guess that the mindset that led to the holocaust still exists…oops wait that didn't happen and there was no temple on the mount and no jews in palastine before 1948.
Seriously, we do have to consider the possibility that support of Israel should go away since once and future messiah has said that it should. I, on the other hand, still hold to that old fashioned notion that we should be supporting Israel. I would be willing to consider a change to this stance if the messiah would bring home our troops from Bosnia, Germany, UK, Korea, Japan, and others then assign them to militarize our borders with shoot to kill mandates for anyone attempting to cross at other than an authorized crossing and with proper documentation.
Mickey:
It's a real conundrum for me, best summarized in my final paragraph:
"I will not work against Israel. But, I will no longer defend Israel, or seek to overturn Obama’s policies that harm it. If American Jews want Obama as our president, then why should I get upset when Obama’s policies are put into action?"
My car doesn't need a tunup for another 75,000 miles. My tires are inflated properly, and I turn out unnecessary lights in my house. And yet, the US still faces an energy shortage.
Under Obama we're not going to drill for oil domestically, not going to pursue coal or nuclear energy, but instead we'll try to invent a practical solar/wind power that will ultimately, one day, at some future point, maybe possibly fuel the economy. Until then we'll continue to need the world's oil, much of it controlled by Jew haters.
In light of this reality, by supporting and protecting Israel, the US risks incalculable damaging our economy. My inclination is to act morally and do the right thing regardless of the consequences, but the voters of this country have moved the nation away from a moral-based foreign policy to pragmatism pure and simple. Continuing to support Israel when we need the world's oil is not a pragmatic policy.
Even with this, I'd still be willing to buck the trend and support Israel anyway, since it's the objectively right thing to do — except for one important fact. The people in this country most closely tied to the Jewish state don't seem to share my concerns. 78% of them think Obama will either do the right thing for Israel, or his actions will not harm Israel in any significant way.
So, who am I to object? Whatever Obama does to, for, in support of, or against Israel is okay with me. Send them more missiles and planes, or sell them out completely. It's no more of a concern to me now than our policy towards Lower Slobovia.
I found it interesting that Obama choose, not just a Jew, but the son of a former member of the Irgun, the group that fought to get the British out of Palestine and to establish a Jewish state, as his White House Chief of Staff. I refer of course to Rahm Emanuel. Israel is a strategic ally in the Middle East and its enemies are our enemies, too. They hate the U.S. This suggests Obama, ever the pragmatist, may surprise everyone with regard to Israel.
Alan: I thought about that too. It's a nice mixed signal to the world to keep them off balance and preserve Obama's options. But I think the real reason he chose Rahm Emanuel is to keep Pelosi and Reed at bay. Without another Chicago thug like Emanuel in between him and the Congress, he'll lose control of his agenda. With Emanuel, he can not only blunt their moves, he'll be able to offer a few realistic options of his own.
As for Emanuel's support for Israel, I think Emanuel's first concern is Emanuel. If Israel needs to be tossed under the bus to achieve an objective he or Obama want, then Israel will be cast aside without a second thought. After all, American Jews (like Blacks) have proven themselves to be wholly owned by the Democrat party. Emanuel and Obama can do anything they want and still get a significant majority of the black and Jewish vote.
Phillip:
The Jewish vote has always been heavily Democratic since the Jewish migrations in the early twentieth century that brought my grandparents to these shores. Like all Americans, political affiliations are based on many considerations, not only on policy toward ones ancestors country of origin.
The Irish or Scottish vote is hardly based on US policy towards Ireland and Scottland. Jews probably identify a little more strongly with Israel given their history but it does not trump other political considerations.
As much as you might criticize Carter for his current positions on Israel, he was the only succesful president in terms of achieving anything in regards to advancing Israeli security, namely the Camp David accords which has brought a lasting peace with Egypt and Jordan. I would contrast this with virtually nothing having been accomplished since then including Bush II to enhance Israeli security.
Is that Bush's fault?
I think that to broker any peace agreement one cannot be 100% supportive of one side which is the current administration's position. GWB has plenty of credibility with Israel, but little with the arabs. That is why the Norwegians have gotten further and why Sarkozy's openings to Syria are likely to be more fruitful than anything the current administration has accomplished.
I was, of course, simply speculating whether Rahm Emmanual's appointment would have any influence with regard to the U.S. policy toward Israel. It is hardly a significant factor, but offtimes such relationships do play a role in making policy. The Camp David Accords came about largely because Israel was willing to cede back the Sinai which it had captured in war. Other "land for peace" efforts have proven useless. I am not convinced that American Jews vote based in whole or part on a candidate's position on Israel.
Alan: I agree with you completely (although I think Israel's willingness came about after some Clinton-legacy arm twisting). But I particularly agree with your final thought. If Israel is not an important issue to American Jews, then it's 'just another country' to me as well. I don't care much about the future of Iceland if it means hardship to the US for taking a pro-Icelandic position. Isreal's future is now on par with Iceland.
Yonkel: Again, if Jews have no special afinity for Israel, then there is absolutely no reason why I should either. Let them build their own airplanes and bombs, and fend off their enemies by themselves. We should be a disinterested observer at best, or look out for our energy needs at most. And Isreal has no oil.
Alan:
I think the fact that Emmanual is Jewish is less important than his actual stance on the issues and I don't know that chief of staff would be as relevant as secretary of state and foreign office in general. I don't see a huge change in policy towards Israel although I think Obama will be better accepted in the Arab world. Furthermore, I think we overestimate the ability of the US to change the situation which ultimately rests with the parties involved as you pointed out. I do feel that Syria is a key and Bush played that wrong and people like Sarkozy are making inroads.
Something that bears similarity with the Jewish electorate vis a vis Israeli policy, would be the Cuban American electorate, vis a vis Cuban policy. In this, there were probably stronger indications that Obama will break with past policy and I would guess that the travel ban will be lifted that was stregnthened during Bush's administration.
I would be curious to know how the Cuban American vote, which is traditionally Republican, trended especially given that the Latino and immigrant vote in general drifted blue.
One can note that the shift from Bushes margin to Obamas margin 2004-2008 comes to about an 8.9% shift adding Bush's margin of 2.4% to Obama's of 6.5%. Florida moved 8%, slightly less than the national average. Ohio moved 6.1% more significantly less. NC moved 12% and VA 13.2% to the blue and California 15%.
My guess is that Blue states moved more blue and solid red states less blue and states like VA and NC with heavy African American voting more blue.
I would be very curious how the Cuban vote moved compared to the general vote.
There was a contributor on this site who posted a piece that the Dems would fail for their lack of attracting the white male vote. I objected, because of the mathematical irrelevance of who you obtain margins from. Now I would throw it back that the GOP will not survive if they only attract the white male vote. I still maintain that one vote is one vote, however the GOP must be succesful in the demographics that are increasing in the population which is notably young people and immigrants.
Phillip:
"Again, if Jews have no special afinity for Israel, then there is absolutely no reason why I should either. Let them build their own airplanes and bombs, and fend off their enemies by themselves. We should be a disinterested observer at best, or look out for our energy needs at most. And Isreal has no oil."
Agree.
It’s funny how some things stick in your mind.
I remember that the US presidential election was in 1972 (Ford vs. Carter). The Yom Kippur War was in October 1973. Clearly, there were no stories about the upcoming US presidential election before reports of Israeli forces continuing their battle along the Golan Heights. With errors like this in the first paragraph, how seriously can we take the rest.
Actually, in 1972, Nixon was re-elected. So much for what sticks in your mind.
Yonkel: the problem isn't black voters vs. white voters. It's the fact that black voters have alligned themselves with the Democrats because they want the government to give them something (more aid, affirmative action, etc.), and the Democrats are all too willing to buy votes with the public treasury or race/class-based legislation. The same with poor immigrants.
Republicans cannot attract the "black vote", "Immigrant vote", etc, unless they promise individual or race/class-based benefits too.
Ultimately, the public give-aways will collapse the economy and produce a Reagan-type reaction. Republicans need to use the intervening period to re-commit to their core values, and begin educating the public to embrace them as well when circumstances change. Either that, or we'll just abandon capitalism and become completely socialistic.
We don't win by looking at the color of a person's skin or their ethnic origin. We win by embracing our values, and giving voters a real choice in an election.
dking —
October 10, 1973 was the resignation of Spiro Agnew, followed by the nomination of Ford as VP on October 12, followed by the "Saturday night massacre" on October 20, followed by Nixon being forced to comply with the Judiciary Committee subpoenas on October 23.
The Yom Kippur War was October 6 to October 26, 1973.
You are indeed correct it was not the upcoming presidential election as I incorrectly remembered; just a few mundane political events instead that no one in the country was paying any attention to at all.
Phillip:
Black voters and immigrant groups have and will remain Democrat leaning, however, the degree to which that vote is lost will reflect on GOP success.
I would not expect you to compromise on your values, just presenting you with the handicaps.
Yonkel: Mine was more of a general comment feeding off your thought, than one specifically addressed to you.
Take care, Phil
Haven't posted much of late – bad times recently. *Blah*
My sister once referred me and my Jewish best friend as "Yid Kid and Goy Boy."
Gotta laugh!
This is all very interesting but the connections between American Jews and Israelis is tenuous at best. The American political view is dominated by issues that have very little to do with Israel or any other country of origin. Think for a moment about the Irish, Poles, Pakistanis, or any other group that has been in America for more than a generation or two. Do they think about the security of the old country in any deep way? No! They are dominated, in their voting habits, by the things they see on TV and in the newspapers. Men vs. Women (including abortion), Gays vs. Straights, Anti-War vs. Militarism, Conservative vs. Liberal, and many other issues which we all know about. Nietzsche wrote in the 19th century about the Master-Slave mentality. It seems that Jews all over the world, except in Israel, have the slave mentality. What has made America great is the idea that we are all Masters, but some people can’t break out of that and they vote Democrat.
Never ceases to amaze the level of distortion and mudslinging the "pro-Israel" crowd uses; such elegance and artifice.
Half of what Mr. Jackson said is nothing more than classic invention. On what grounds does he dare call President Carter an anti-Semite? On what grounds does he say that President Bush is the greatest friend to Israel since Harry Truman?
Hogwash. President Bush is responsible for lying us into a war which poses a greater risk to Israel – period. The neocons can claim it was merely "bad intelligence" and I'll have to agree; however, the "intelligence" they are referring to is undoubtedly different…
Everyone I know is pro-Israel. Not one person I know who criticizes Israel wants anything but the best for them – not one. But, too, we also want the best for the entire region. Israel and their constant human rights violations is not something I am going to support. You want to call me an anti-Semite? Fine. Just shows how inferior you are.
Mac
You make me laugh. Such a typical ad-homonym attack is typical of liberals, even down to your last 6 words. Not one fact in your comment, but that's OK, I'll give you one. Sometime back I dragged out my atlas and totaled up the land mass of the Arab countries and Israel. It turns out that Israel occupies 0.25% of the middle east and is slightly larger than Massachusetts. Now since the score is 1-zip in my favor, I’ll say you are an anti-Semite.
"On what grounds does he dare call President Carter an anti-Semite?"
*** Oh, I don't know. Maybe the content of his past couple of books, his actions in the Middle East, the comments of people like Michael Medved and other prominent Jews. Little clues, like that. See http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=803755&contrassID=25&subContrassID=0&sbSubContrassID=1&listSrc=Y&art=1
"On what grounds does he say that President Bush is the greatest friend to Israel since Harry Truman?”
*** Bush’s refusal to meet with terrorists like Arafat (unlike Clinton and Carter), Bush’s uncompromised support for Israel vis a vis Iran, Syria, etc. (unlike Clinton’s pressure to sell out Israel for his legacy), the uninterrupted flow of weapons and aid to Israel (vs. Obama’s intentions to diminish this support). Again, little things like that.
Ivan:
"It seems that Jews all over the world, except in Israel, have the slave mentality."
Hitler might have said something similar.
C'mon Ivan, a fair amount of people blogging on this blog are Jewish, do you want to incite a pogrom.
You attack Mac for ad-hominim attacks after attacking all non-Israeli Jews and all Democrats.
I suggest reserving a portion of your brain to consider the possibility that your ideas might be wrong, and although I would encourage you to persue your beliefs, leave some room to consider that those that disagree with you might not all be nincompoops and slaves. This is called humility.
It is this arrogance of the right, very similar to the arrogance of the Left in the sixties that has turned off the silent majority of Americans. I might not agree with many of Obamas liberal viewpoint, but he raised the concept, and McCain, to his credit, concurred that we are first and foremost Americans and that we don't need the cultural warfare that has commanderered the conservative movement.
Buckley Jr. did not mince words, but his opposition to liberalism was always respectful and well thought, not schoolyard tantrums. He did his dog and pony show with Rangel and hung with Moynihan and he spoke with humility and humor. This has been replaced by the Limbaughian "line em up and shoot em mentality" and been flatly rejected by America.
PEJ:
An anti-Semite is by my Websters, "someone who is prejudiced against Jews". Now Carter might be opposed to Israeli policy of the last 20 years, but that is hardly anti-semitism.
Being that the conservative movement is often unfairly labelled as racist e.g. for opposing affirmative action, one should be sensitive to defining policy differences as racial prejudice.
I surely disagree with some of Carter's current thinking on Israel. I do credit him with having helped achieve the most important breakthrough for Israel in the last thirty years, peace with Egypt and Jordan and although he probably is not well liked in Israel for his recent book, in time, the Camp David accords will be his legacy.
Whether Carter is "technically", "spiritually", "practically, or "just one step away from being" 100% anti-Semetic is unimportant to me. In calling Carter an anti-Semite, I'm simply repeating claims made by members of the Jewish community who have formed an opinion on this. I'll leave my point at the contention that Bush (a Republican) is perceived as a better friend of Israel than Carter, a Democrat, was during his term of office — and certainly is now.
By the way, just to be clear, opposition to Isreal (the country's) policies does not make one anti-Semetic. Opposition to Jews in whole or part due to the fact they are Jews does. Anyone who wants to maintain that Carter does not factor being a Jew (vs. being an Arab or Christian) into his calculations is welcome to present the case.
Yes, it's true that Goebbels and Hitler were both influenced by Nietzsche, but what does that have to do with readers being Jewish or pogroms? Maybe you should read chapter 9 of “Beyond Good and Evil” so you could understand the concept of master/slave morality and how it affects every one of us today. In keeping with this concept, I would maintain that the Masters (Rulers), today it’s Bush and after Jan.09 it’s Obama, have a different idea of what is moral from those that are ruled (slaves). Of course the congress and SCOTUS are included in the Master class. If it makes you feel any better, and I doubt that it will, many other groups besides Jews have this slave mentality. Most blacks, some working class white people, most Latinos, most Moslems have the same ideas of “I need the government (Master) to take care of me”
Please remember that it was the totalitarian systems that implemented the pogroms and the “Shut Up!” mentality you promote with your comments. What I’m doing here is defending Israel and the American founders idea of “We are not slaves, but we are all masters of our destiny”
It was very sad to read the article by my fellow University of Chicago graduate, Dr. Phillip Jackson. I was particularly struck by the fact that his decision to abandon his admirable lifelong support of Israel came on the 70th anniversary of Krystallnacht – the night when German Jews were abandoned to the violent hands of the Nazis.
I certainly agree with Dr. Jackson that it is awful that 78% of American Jews voted for Obama despite Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Reverand Wright, Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abundimah, and numerous other haters of Israel and America, and Obama's own record of alarming remarks – such as his 24-hour flip-flop on the fate of Jerusalem, and his “cycle of violence” and “Palestinian suffering” statements. However, this is no reason for those people who are intelligent enough to "see the light" to give up supporting Israel, or to give up on educating American Jews. Many Jews simply did not know the record of Obama and his associates, and were fooled by the Obama campaign.
Obama's campaign made a huge effort to keep American Jews from understanding his record and affiliations. In my own community, I was kept from speaking in most of the synagogues about this vital issue. For instance, my opponent, Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman, scheduled a talk at a local synagogue about why Obama is good for Jews and Israel. When the synagogue agreed to give me equal time to speak about why Obama was NOT good for Jews and Israel, Ackerman and the local Democrats immediately pulled the talk out of the synagogue and re-scheduled it in a local Democrat's private home, where I was not permitted to speak. On another occasion, I was prevented from speaking on behalf of McCain about these subjects at a local synagogue debate, despite the fact that the McCain campaign asked me to be their speaker. A completely unprepared Republican was plucked from the audience instead. At this virtually one-sided debate, the designated Obama speaker completely misrepresented Obama's record on Israel, and no one was permitted to correct it. A detailed article about what occurred can be found at my website at https://lizberneyforcongress.clickandcms.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=28. (The article is entitled: "The Great Debates . . . that were Cancelled by the Democrats and Ackerman")
This sort of thing happened throughout the country's Jewish communities. Unfortunately, the McCain campaign was so out-gunned financially that it was unable to do enough to counter Obama's misleading campaign for Jewish votes.
It is premature to give up on the Jewish American vote. The Republican Jewish Coalition has grown to 40,000 paid members. Instead of abandoning support for Israel, we need to re-double the effort to reach Jewish American voters with the truth. I hope Dr. Berg will reconsider his decision and join in this effort.
Elizabeth Berney
2008 Republican Candidate for Congress – 5th Congressional District of New York
University of Chicago Law School, J.D. 1978
LizBerneyforCongress.com
(with name correction)
It was very sad to read the article by my fellow University of Chicago graduate, Dr. Phillip Jackson. I was particularly struck by the fact that his decision to abandon his admirable lifelong support of Israel came on the 70th anniversary of Krystallnacht – the night when German Jews were abandoned to the violent hands of the Nazis.
I certainly agree with Dr. Jackson that it is awful that 78% of American Jews voted for Obama despite Obama's ties to Rashid Khalidi, Reverand Wright, Electronic Intifada founder Ali Abundimah, and numerous other haters of Israel and America, and Obama's own record of alarming remarks – such as his 24-hour flip-flop on the fate of Jerusalem, and his “cycle of violence” and “Palestinian suffering” statements. However, this is no reason for those people who are intelligent enough to "see the light" to give up supporting Israel, or to give up on educating American Jews. Many Jews simply did not know the record of Obama and his associates, and were fooled by the Obama campaign.
Obama's campaign made a huge effort to keep American Jews from understanding his record and affiliations. In my own community, I was kept from speaking in most of the synagogues about this vital issue. For instance, my opponent, Democratic Congressman Gary Ackerman, scheduled a talk at a local synagogue about why Obama is good for Jews and Israel. When the synagogue agreed to give me equal time to speak about why Obama was NOT good for Jews and Israel, Ackerman and the local Democrats immediately pulled the talk out of the synagogue and re-scheduled it in a local Democrat's private home, where I was not permitted to speak. On another occasion, I was prevented from speaking on behalf of McCain about these subjects at a local synagogue debate, despite the fact that the McCain campaign asked me to be their speaker. A completely unprepared Republican was plucked from the audience instead. At this virtually one-sided debate, the designated Obama speaker completely misrepresented Obama's record on Israel, and no one was permitted to correct it. A detailed article about what occurred can be found at my website at https://lizberneyforcongress.clickandcms.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=29&Itemid=28. (The article is entitled: "The Great Debates . . . that were Cancelled by the Democrats and Ackerman")
This sort of thing happened throughout the country's Jewish communities. Unfortunately, the McCain campaign was so out-gunned financially that it was unable to do enough to counter Obama's misleading campaign for Jewish votes.
It is premature to give up on the Jewish American vote. The Republican Jewish Coalition has grown to 40,000 paid members. Instead of abandoning support for Israel, we need to re-double the effort to reach Jewish American voters with the truth. I hope Dr. Jackson will reconsider his decision and join in this effort.
Elizabeth Berney
2008 Republican Candidate for Congress – 5th Congressional District of New York
University of Chicago Law School, J.D. 1978
LizBerneyforCongress.com
Elizabeth:
I'm not abandoning Israel, any more than I am abandoning Iceland.
Israel is not my country. I'm simply assigning it the same level of support I do any other foreign nation. If supporting it has a direct, tangible benefit to the US, then that's good. If supporting it has adverse consequences for the US, then I don't.
Right now we need oil, and Israel has none. Supporting Israel antagonizes the anti-Semitic nations who control a lot of the world's oil supply. Since Obama's solar powered myth mobile is still years away, we're going to need that oil. The calculation is simple.
In the past I've supported Israel for non-economic reasons, as I stated in my essay. But after 40 years of Jews consistently supporting one party regardless of that party's support for Israel, I asked myself a simple question. If it doesn't matter to Jews whether Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton, Gore, Kerry or Obama is President — and thus in charge of US foreign policy — why should it matter to me?
If Jews in 2008 had suddenly changed path and voted for Obama because they were fooled by him, I wouldn't hold this position. But after 40 years, even a dolt like me can see the issue clearly.
Again I pose the simple question. If American Jews don't particularly care about Israel's future enough to vote for the person instead of the party, why should I care about Israel any more than I do about Iceland?
Seems to me that this set of comments is moving toward fortress America which I would support if we eliminated all foreign aid and UN membership. That way we could bring ALL of our troops home and properly patrol our borders as well as reduce some of the foreign exchange issues raised with millions out of the country.
Don't support Israel, don't support France and all the other USA haters and save lots of money.
Cancel all foreign money transfers unless citizenship is proven or valid documents for presence in the country saves another 20-30 billion. Voila we just fixed the balance of payments.
Seriously, we do need to rethink the whole concept of foreign aid and other welfare payments made to other countries as well as the bleeding ulcer of foreign workers on our soil.
Yeah, Phil, real objective sources in regards to Carter. LOL.
It's classic "criticize Israel and you're an anti-Semite."
As for your bit about Clinton, there are other opinions. For example, you and I can agree that terrorism is a tactic – a cheap one. The Palestinians barely have a decent police force let alone a standing army, so they resort to terrorism. That's how they defend themselves against Israel's aggression (or, what they perceive as aggression). So meeting with Arafat is hardly different than meeting with the Prime Minister of Israel. The only difference is the Prime Minister of Israel uses a conventional, modern army. Clinton was trying to broker a peace deal. That's more than what Bush has done.
Now, do I blame Israel entirely? Of course not. Do I agree with the tactics the Palestinians use? Of course not. But I, unlike you, do not blindly expunge Israel of any wrongdoing. Consider, for example, the blitzkrieg they launched not long ago on an entire country – Lebanon – rather than the deserving party (Hezbollah).
And to whoever called me a liberal, you couldn't be more wrong. I'm a paleoconservative.
Uh-oh, Phil. Paleos are baaaaack.
Jeeze — I thought the Paleos would like me now that I've "abandoned" Israel.
Mickey, to your point. It isn't that I'm advocating this policy. I'm simply facing reality. This is the policy toward Israel that Obama will put forward. He will not support or defend Israel to the same degree Bush did, or McCain would.
If American Jews had opposed Obama, I'd be down for the struggle and keep supporting Israel. But why would any sane person support a foreign country as tied to one ethnic group or religion as Israel is, when US voters of that same ethnic group/religion couldn't care less?
Let Obama do what Obama wants to do about Israel. As for the rest of the world, that's a different matter. Calculations there carry none of the baggage of this discussion, since there isn't an identifiable "French lobby" in the US that routinely votes as a block in national elections.
Double jeeze. I liked you before and I like you now. Call me a paleo or whatever, I get what you are writting about.
On a much lighter note, I've actually read some of your fiction before, Phillip. I'm a rather avid reader and occasionally peruse B&N's site and came across Time Shift. It sounded rather interesting so I bought it. I didn't put two and two together until I clicked on your name and it took me to your home site. LOL.
And yes, I liked the book. Your politics? Not so much.
The thing about Israel is that it is different than other ethnic/national identifications. Absolutely unique in its view of itself as the chosen nation of Yahweh.
It's the only nation I can think of where there is a term for those who hate it: anti-semitism. When we talk about Israel, we are not talking about a political subdivision, we are talking about a race of people with a particular historical and ethnic indentification that is unique among people groups.
So much of Western culture has been influenced and is derived from the Jews. Three of the great world religions find roots in Israel. Our understanding of law, religion, and history come from the Jews.
Discussions the political ramifications of Israel almost entirely misses the point.
Mac — As a capitalist, I'd rather have you like (and buy) my books than agree with my free essays!
By the way, if you haven't read the free Nigerian scam responses on my website, you might give those a look too.
Take care, Phil
[...] Ellis Jackson, writing for IntellectualConservative.com, wonders aloud why he should support Israel when even American Jews don't. Consider some of [...]
Joseph Epstein’s “Thinking Outside the Lox,” published on the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal on Monday, September 15, 2008
[http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122143719228934301.html] points out that the overwhelming support given to the Democrats is motivated by “social justice.” Epstein doesn’t say it, but “social justice” is a code-term for socialism, and the behavior of Jewish voters at the polls simply reflects their preference for progressive causes over the survival of democratic Israel, which so-called progressives see as a “colonial oppressor.”
Mr. Jackson fails to note that despite being members of an ethnic group targeted for genocide, American Jews overwhelmingly vote for candidates who promoted mass murder and genocide by promoting the Communist victory in Indochina. This was certainly the case in this presidential election—Joe Biden voted to throw Indochina to the wolves in 1975.
Ark: In years past I tried to understand why American Jews voted in lock step with a political party that championed abortion, and supported other policies you'd think Jews would avoid allying with, but in the end I come to realize their motivations/justifications don't matter.
Why American Jews support Obama and the Democrats is not as relevant as the fact that they do. It's their actions I'm reacting to, not their motivations. I'll leave that analysis to Jackie Mason, who's given the best explanation I've ever heard for this incongruity.
MM
If I didn't respect your comments I would just blow it off, but it seems you are going a little overboard with "Absolutely unique". In fact the myopic view of Jews seems to be part of the problem. There are smart Jews and dumb ones, thin ones and fat ones, just like everyone else. If I mentioned the Sikhs, the Romanis (Gypsies), Kurds, ad infinitum would you remove the absolutely? I don’t even consider the Jews a race unto themselves. Sure Jews are unique in an American cultural sense, but let’s keep things in perspective.
II,
Do you read Scripture?
Ivan:
Ivan, I was not trying to shut you up and don't imagine that you are anti-semitic, but when you make these broad generalizations like "It seems that Jews all over the world, except in Israel, have the slave mentality." What can I say. If I said "Russians all over the world are drunks" or "Blacks are lazy" or "Italians are criminals".
Now, comment 41 I can generally buy. I don't know about "the myopic view" again, Jews as any other group are individuals with differing viewpoints, so I don't know quite what you are referring to. If you are talking about the chosen people concept, I would guess that most Jews do not particularly believe in that as much as the Christian evangelicals do.
Anywho, since we are in the real of the Jew and I can't quote scripture too well, I can offer an ethnic joke.
Vus titzuch?
President Bush calls in the Head of the CIA and asks, How come the Jews know everything before we do?"
The CIA chief says, "The Jews have this expression :'Vus titzuch?'
The President says, "What's that mean?"
Well, Mr. President", replies the CIA chief, "It's a Yiddish expression which roughly translates to "what's happening". They just ask each other and they know everything that is happening."
The President decides to personally go undercover to determine if this is true. He gets dressed up as an Orthodox Jew (black hat, beard, long black coat) and is secretly flown in an unmarked plane to New York, picked up in an unmarked car, and dropped off in Brooklyn's most Jewish neighborhood.
Soon a little old man comes shuffling along. The President stops him and whispers, "Vus titzuch?"
The old guy whispers back: "Bush is in Brooklyn."
Funny!
MM
Not much. I am opposed to dogma.
Yonkel
Everybody knows that it's Irishmen that are drunks. I won't argue with the other two. Although I do apologize for my too broad generalizations. But that is the nature of this format. Maybe it's just the 70% that vote for democrats.
II,
Well, I guess then your ignorance is excused. You would understand what I wrote about Israel if you had even a passing acquaintance with Scripture.
Dogma? That's a cop out. You are opposed to dogma unless it's your own, I think. Since you apparently have not read Scripture, I wonder how it is that you are so certain of its contents.
Dear Dr. Jackson,
Thanks for your direct response. A few comments on what you wrote:
- Before Obama started his big push (with numerous misrepresentations) to obtain the Jewish vote, the polls showed that Jews were moving significantly to the right. The polls showed that Obama was only going to receive 60% of the Jewish vote before Obama began his shlep campaign. The final 78% figure is attributable to Obama's campaign of making claims to the Jewish community which were not true. Please see my website for some of the false claims made by Obama's representatives to the Jewish community. In addition, if you look on the Internet, you will see videos of elderly Jews being told that if they didn't vote for Obama, they were "racists" and "discriminating against Obama based on his color just like the people who discriminate against Jews based on their religion." Unfortunately, there are a lot of very gullible people in the Jewish community, and a lot of people who don't follow all the issues carefully. Not everyone has a PhD from University of Chicago, as you do. You cannot judge others' understanding of the situation by your own.
Those Jews who really followed and understood Obama's positions voted against him. They were and are extremely frightened by Obama's policies.
- There are many practical reasons to support Israel as well as moral ones. Many of our technological and medical advances come from Israel. Israel is a major source of needed foreign intelligence information. Israel has been a steadfast ally which provides landing bases and other help to U.S. efforts in the region – which other nations in the area often deny us.
- As for oil, Jimmy Carter pressured Israel to give up the Abu Rudais oil fields which Israel developed in the Sinai at the cost to Israel of $17 billion. Those oil fields would have made Israel oil independent as well as enabled it to become an oil exporter. In return for giving up the oil fields, the U.S. promised to provide aid to compensate Israel. It is a U.S. obligation to abide by this commitment.
Moreover, the U.S. should become oil independent and stop purchasing oil from OPEC countries (at the cost of $700 billion per year) in any event. OPEC countries are using our oil payments to fund terrorism against the U.S. and our other allies. Thus trying to cowtow to Mideast oil potentates is no reason to abandon our support for our only true ally in the Middle East.
Sincerely,
Elizabeth Berney
Republican candidate, 5th Congressional District of New York, Election 2008
LizBerneyforCongress.com
Elizabeth:
To your points:
If Obama’s Jewish support was an aberration, I could accept much of your reasoning. Unfortunately, a plurality American Jews have never supported a Conservative or Republican presidential candidate — and it’s the president who sets foreign policy.
Just look at the results since 1960. Below are the totals for the non-Republican candidate(s):
Kennedy 1960: 82%
Johnson 1964: 90%
Humphrey 1968: 81%
McGovern 1972: 65%
Carter 1976: 71%
Carter and Anderson 1980: 59%
Mondale 1984: 67%
Dukakis 1988: 64%
Clinton and Perot 1992: 89%
Clinton and Perot 1996: 81%
Gore and Nader 2000: 80%
Kerry 2004: 76%
Obama 2008: 78%
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/US-Israel/jewvote.html
The high point for Jewish-Republican support since 1916 was the election of 1916, when Hughes received 45% of the American Jewish vote. Harding received 43%, then it was down hill after that (the Democrats received 75-90% until the 1950s. Reagan’s 39% of the American Jewish vote was the “high point” for Republicans in the 20th century.)
The fact is, it doesn’t matter whether the Democrat candidate believes in free trade or isolationism (Clinton on NAFTA vs. Obama on NAFTA), market-driven capitalism or heavy government control of the economy (Kennedy vs. Roosevelt), a muscular foreign policy or a retrenchment of overseas military involvement (Kennedy vs. McGovern), or even US support for Israel. Obama received 78% of the American Jewish vote despite his signals to fundamentally alter US-Israel relations.
Even when a Democrat candidate is “rejected” by Jewish voters, as Carter was in 1980, he still received more votes than Reagan (45% to 39%). American Jews wouldn’t turn to a Conservative Republican, so they went to John Anderson instead. In fact, Reagan actually lost Jewish support from 1980-1984 (39% to 31%).
You can make the point that Obama’s 78% is less than Clinton, Gore, JFK, LBJ and Roosevelt’s American Jewish support, but it’s more than Kerry, Mondale, Dukakis, Carter and McGovern’s level of support.
Any way you want to analyze it, after a century of U.S. Presidential elections, American Jews will not support a conservative or Republican candidate. Period. The Democrat can advocate any policy they want, and still receive a plurality of American Jewish votes.
US foreign policy toward Israel is simply not part of the American Jewish equation. And if it isn’t, why should it be part of my equation? If there is a reason why supporting Israel will further US interests, then I’ll support it. If it won’t, I’ll oppose it. And to be perfectly frank, right now we need all the oil we can import because President Obama will not allow any new domestic drilling, and his solar powered alternatives don’t exist yet.
So why antagonize the world’s anti-Semitic oil producers? I don’t want to pay $7.00/gallon for gas to maintain our present policy toward Israel which American Jews rejected by supporting Obama. I’m not interested in dramatically altering my lifestyle to become one with nature because heating oil is too expensive, just to befriend Israel when American Jews wanted Obama in overwhelming numbers.
As for American Jews being fooled by Obama, with all due respect, that’s simply not believable. Any Jew who wanted to know what Obama’s policies meant could find the truth – from Fox news, to McCain’s website, to the Internet in general, to just informed conversation among themselves. The fact is American Jews don’t care enough about Israel to dig deep, since they have other domestic issues that they hold more important.
All this is fine. If a person wants a socialist state, prohibitively high energy costs to “force” conservation, an end to the Patriot Act, etc., they had their candidate — Obama. But in voting for Obama they also get his Middle East policy. Apparently what Obama will do in the Middle East is less important to them than what he plans to do with the GITMO detainees or Bush tax cuts, so once again I ask the question — in view of this, as a non-Jew and non-Icelander, why should I care about Israel any more than I do about Iceland?
You are correct that becoming oil independent will strengthen our hand, and thus allow us to support a country like Israel without adverse consequences, but in Obama’s world the best-case estimates are that it will take 10 years to replace about 15% of our foreign oil supply. In the meantime, there is to be no more new domestic drilling. While we work toward the Obama paradise of 2018, we’re still going to need Middle East oil.
Supporting Israel to the extent Bush, McCain and other Republican presidents have done/would have done will piss off the anti-Semites. I, for one, am no longer willing to fight that battle and suffer the potential consequences (embargos, oil shortages, artificially rising prices, etc.) when American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama — and with Obama comes his policies.
>Reagan’s 39% of the American Jewish vote was the “high point” for Republicans in the 20th century.
That should have read, "since the 1960s", not the 20th century
Hey Phillip, just FYI here is a little post-mortem on Kos's Research 2000 polls that you and the IC gang so derided several weeks ago. It turns out that rather than being biased toward Obama, they weren't weighted toward McCain enough!
http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/11/11352/204/263/658755
"…because President Obama will not allow any new domestic drilling…"
Kool-aid.
From the Obama site:
>A “Use it or Lose It” Approach to Existing Oil and Gas Leases.
>Obama and Biden will require oil companies to develop the 68 million acres of land (over 40 million of which are offshore) which they have already leased and are not drilling on.
>Promote the Responsible Domestic Production of Oil and Natural Gas.
>An Obama-Biden administration will establish a process for early identification of any infrastructure obstacles/shortages or possible federal permitting process delays to drilling in the Bakken Shale formation, the Barnett shale formation, and the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska.
…Ray