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?
Dear Dr. Jackson,
I unfortunately do not have the time to continue going back and forth with you about this, but feel that it is very important to state a few quick points:
1. First, it is a complete fallacy to think that OPEC will lower oil prices if America casts Israel to the wolves. Even if, heaven forbid, Israel no longer was in existence, OPEC would NOT change its plans to keep increasing our oil prices by a single penny. OPEC’s whole point is to drive America into the ground economically using the oil weapon. If America gives up supporting Israel, America’s strategic position and intelligence operations will be hurt immeasurably, and there will be NO benefit to us on the oil prices front. The only way to drive down oil prices is to become oil independent here. (And to elect people like me who will make energy independence priority number one.)
2. The past record of Jewish voters is not the point. The point is that in THIS election, Jews were prepared to vote Republican in droves, prior to the misrepresentations campaign by Obama. The truthful media such as Fox was outnumbered ten to one. Throughout the country, people like me who attempted to speak out to the Jewish community about Obama were repeatedly PREVENTED from speaking. I was there; I saw what happened. It was truly an outrage. Most Jews were kept from hearing the truth, pure and simple.
3. It makes no sense to abandon moral (and strategic) support for a country or position based on certain people’s voting patterns. Following that logic, would you also abandon your belief in equality for black Americans, simply because 98% of black Americans voted for Obama? Or would you give up support for friendly Hispanic nations simply because of the large number of Hispanics who voted for Obama? We should stick to moral support of Israel because it is both right and in America’s self-interest.
All the best,
Elizabeth Berney
2008 (and possibly 2010) Republican candidate for Congress, 5th Congressional District of New York
LizBerneyforCongress.com
Liz
Thank you for asking the right questions.
“Following that logic, would you also abandon your belief in equality for black Americans, simply because 98% of black Americans voted for Obama? Or would you give up support for friendly Hispanic nations simply because of the large number of Hispanics who voted for Obama?
Answer: YES!
Liz:
I don’t expect OPEC (or other anti-Semitic oil producers) to lower their oil prices when/if Obama abandons Israel. That isn’t the argument I made.
However, I do expect that when Obama abandons Israel, it will achieve certain short term stabilities in the market and temporarily improve other important security-related areas — and voting for Obama was all about short term issues (not morality). American Jews led the way in their support for the O-man, and he is now our new President. So who am I to disagree with their wisdom?
I appreciate the defense you’ve mounted for your position. I used to play ball with some law school faculty and students back in the late 70s (on Sundays next to Tufts House), and we’d often discuss legal/political issues in between innings. You’re doing the best you can with the meager evidence you have, but unfortunately your theoretical arguments fly in the face of real world politics (and their consequences).
The past voting experience of American Jews is an issue. You can’t be “fooled” into voting for the Democrat nominee in 2008 when all you’ve done for 100+ years is vote for the Democrat nominee. That’s a trend, not an abberation. Your insistance that Jews, this time, were ready to vote Republican is unsupported by history, and pure conjecture.
As for supporting Israel from a moral rather than pragmatic standpoint, again I pose the question. If American Jews themselves see no moral nexus, why should I invent one? American Jews have hitched their star to the Democrat party. Domestically, I will continue to oppose things that are not in my or the national interest (like abandoning capitalism to promote socialism), but as far as foreign policy goes, why object to a change in US-Israeli policy if Obama goes in a different direction? American Jews overwhelmingly want him as president, and it’s the president who sets foreign policy.
Again, I will not advocate harming Israel, but I will no longer try to block the Israeli-related foreign policies of the candidate American Jews have overwhelmingly supported in 2008, just like they did in each of the previous 20 presidential elections.
You’ve tried to assert that supporting Israel has a special moral value in it’s own right, as well as a special strategic benefit to the US. American Jews don’t see a connection between Democrat presidents and this moral value, so why should I? And as far as our US strategic interests are concerned, supporting Israel hurts us as much as helps us by inflaming tensions. I grant you that abandoning Israel has serious long term implications, but American voters (and American Jews overwhelmingly) have only focused on the short term by electing Obama. I’m tired of being the adult in the relationship. Let the chips fall where they may, and when the people vote the Republicans back in power we’ll clean up the mess. [But even then Jews will continue to support the Democrat candidate, so the new fix may not necessarily include the old relationship with Israel. That time may have come and gone because Israel may have come and gone, thanks to Iran’s emerging nuclear capability).
I know this sounds cold and harsh, but that’s the reality of the times. Until American Jews give a damn about the consequences of their vote, neither will I.
And like Ivan, I fully intend to apply this same logic to all other voting blocks. I will continue to oppose efforts to diminish capitalism and turn the US into a welfare state, and open our borders to illegal immigration regardless of the race or national origin of those illegal aliens. I don’t care whether the illegal immigrant is from Lithuania or Mexico. And I don’t care whether the redistributive transfer payment has good intentions or is merely to buy future votes. But when it comes to invading Haiti again so the Black caucus can have their war, or giving economic aid to Mexico because that’s what the Hispanics want, I see no reason to support that either. In fact, I’d be inclined to oppose these just on principle.
Votes matter. If Blacks, Hispanics or Jews want to continuously support a party that works against my interests, why should I care about their special issues? I won’t go out of my way to punish them, but I will no longer support their causes just because it’s the supposedly “moral” thing to do.
Blacks will never vote Conservative/Republican because the majority of them define government as that which gives them things. Illegal immigrants have the same view. Both of these groups are lost causes to my way of thinking.
American Jews have their own complex, internally inconsistent reasons for voting Democrat. Frankly, I’ve long sinces stopped caring why they act this way; instead I only care that they do.
American Jews need to need to clean up their act and understand the consequences of their vote, because the safety net that I and others previously represented is no longer there. We will not save Israel from their stupidity.
Regards,
Phil
Phillip:
I find myself untypically in agreement with most of what you say.
To Liz and PEJ, should we not ask the question, does Israel truly need our support. We are not dealing with little Georgia or the Balkans lying beside a snarling Russian bear, but the most powerful military country in the middle east, thought to be in posession of as many as 100-200 nuclear weapons:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction
Israel basically could send the entire middle east back to the stone age. That does not necessarily mitigate the real threats placed on it from nasty governments and terrorist groups, but what exactly do they require in terms of US support and what benefit have they actually achieved from US support.
I believe that the unflinching support that the government has given to Israel, that has made US and Israeli policy virtually identical, has made it impossible for the US to broker anything in the middle east. That is why we have gotten nowhere and why the Norwegians e.g. made more progress, albeit failing, and why Sarkozy’s recent interventions bear more promise than anything that came out of the Bush administration’s efforts.
Liz, thanks for the interesting demopgraphics, but blaming MSM deception as the reason for Jews voting Democratic is patronizing and untrue and has become the easy answer to all failings of the right of center. Is not this the same media that existed when George Bush won two terms.
You well pointed out the traditional allegiance of Jews with the Democratic party and if there was an initial support of McCain it has more to do with his position as a liberal Republican. There was a skepticism about Obama that was nation wide and lower initial support for Obama in the jewish community paralleled lower support in the nation. McCain was ahead in September. Also, there was a lot of Jewish support for Clinton which initially worked against Obama but as with all demographics of Clinton supporters, most fell back with Obama, as most GOP conservatives returned to McCain.
More significant than the media effect I think was the choice of Sarah Palin. Like her or not, I think there is a visceral distrust of the evangelical wing among Jewish voters, the Falwells and Robertsons. I don’t have the stats but I would venture to guess that Palin had very high unfavorables among the Jewish population as opposed to McCain. I can tell you from my Jewish American centrist position as somebody who initially supported McCain and voted for Obama along with our Republican gubernatorial candidate and congressman, that my enthusiasm for the GOP ticket faded at that time. Also Colin Powell’s.
All that being said, I think there is an overestimation of the importance of the Jewish vote which is a declining demographic. The immigrant vote particularly and the African American vote are an increasing demographic. One very telling stat I read was that although the nonwhite nonimmigrant vote ( African American, oriental, immigrant, hispanic) ran about 30% of the electorate, in the 18-29 demographic it ran over 40% which to some degree explains the shift of that demographic to the left.
Also, Jews are not single mindedly concerned about Israel in the same way that Cuban Americans were focussed on Cuban policy, which is also changing.
Lastly, Ivan are you suggesting a segrationist plank in the GOP platform.
yonkel
segrationist? Not at all. It’s just that I beleive that conservatism is good for all people. When I see Jews, blacks, and illegals all lined up in favor of Black Liberation and the Louis Farakan anti-Israel plank, etc.; I must accept the reality and say NO MORE SOUP FOR YOU! Yes, that’s from the Soup Nazi. So far you have called me a segragationist and compared me to Hitler, but I won’t stoop to that level.
Dear Dr. Jackson, Yonkel, etc
1. The POLLS showed that Jews were moving significantly to the right – 40% were planning to vote for McCain – prior to Obama’s misleading “operation shlep” and campaign of keeping Republican speakers such as me out of critical forums. This is not “conjecture.” It is inappropriate for Dr. Jackson to continue to mischaracterize fact, reliable polls and what occurred really occurred in this election as conjecture.
2. As for whether Israel “needs” our help, first of all, the U.S. obligated itself to send assistance to Israel when Carter insisted that Israel should leave the Sinai and the oil fields Israel developed at Israeli expense. America should not go back on this obligation.
Secondly, Israel is not just facing a few terrorists. It is facing enormous dangers on all sides: the growing nuclear threat from Iran; Hamas is being armed by Iran and other sources with thousands of rockets in Gaza; Hezbollah is being armed with thousands of rockets in Lebanon (thanks to Iran and Syria); and Syria has been moving divisions towards Israel; and Egypt has been arming itself to the teeth with our U.S. tax dollars (we send Egypt 2.2 billion each year of our tax dollars). Plus Israel faces the continuing threat of terrorism from Mahmoud Abbas’ Palestinian Authority and Fatah organization, whose charter still calls for the violent destruction of Israel. Add to that the fact that we are sending $600 million of our U.S. tax dollars to Abbas’ terrorist- promoting government this year. Not a comforting picture.
3. I’m glad to see that Dr. Jackson agrees with me that attempting to curry favor with OPEC by abandoning Israel will NOT lower oil prices. It won’t help America in any other respect either. Instead, it will severely reduce our intelligence capabilities and our ability to manuever militarily in the region.
Enough said.
Elizabeth Berney, Esq.
LizBerneyforCongress.com
Elizabeth. Polls are only important when there is no opportunity for a formal vote. When that opportunity exists, as in a presidential election, it matters little what the polls showed. It only matters what the vote was.
[By the way, their 78% vote for Obama is entirely consistent with their actions over the last 16 years:
Clinton and Perot 1992: 89%
Clinton and Perot 1996: 81%
Gore and Nader 2000: 80%
Kerry 2004: 76%
Obama 2008: 78%
American Jews reject conservatives and Republicans, period. There has been no movement away from this fact in the last 16 years, or even in the last 100. Some years the support for Democrats is higher than others, but it's always extremely high.]
Once again, while I sympathize with your position, the fact is that when given an opportunity to exercise their vote, American Jews always support Democrats presidential candidates (who set foreign policy). The Democrat candidate’s position on Israel (or any other issue for that matter) hardly seems to matter. They supported Obama 78% and JFK 82%. Hardly an abberation. This is a trend, and wishing it was otherwise isn’t going to change things.
American Jews won’t vote for conservatives or Republicans in any significant number, period. I no longer care why. I only know that they do. In an age of multiple media sources, including the Internet, you cannot convince me that 78% of American Jews had absolutely no idea what Obama stood for, and no way to find that information. They didn’t care what his position on Israel was, because they had other issues more important to them (like voting against Republican/Conservative policies and ideals).
So, screw ‘em. Don’t expect me and others to come to Israel’s rescue if Obama sells Israel out. Unless and until American Jews get their act together, they deserve to live with the consequences of their votes.
>I find myself untypically in agreement with most of what you say.
Yonkel. You sell yourself short. :)
We’ve come to the same position, but for different reasons. Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over, expecting different results. I’m guided by ideology tinged with pragmatism, not pragmatism that occasionally invokes ideology.
The next 4 years will be a difficult time for our country. Unlike the Looney Left, I’m not going to start calling Obama Hitler, accusing him of murder, saying that he “lies” every time he acts in a way that I disapprove, etc. I’m not going to vilify him or make up stories about him.
Instead, I’m going to use this time to preserve and protect what material resources I have — all in a legal fashion — and unlike the past, do absolutely nothing to prevent the misery that comes to people who’ve brought it on themselves. I actually wrote about this before
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2006/12/15/a-self-correcting-mechanism/. Here’s an excerpt from that essay on “A Self Correcting Mechanism”.
Always remember that with every adversity, comes opportunity :)
***
Here’s the problem Bush faces today in assessing the very real threat of Iran acquiring a nuclear bomb.
If you take every statement made by that whack job in Iran, and all the other Islamo-fascists who threaten us, and use these statements to justify pre-emptive military action against Iran, the liberals/Democrats/press will have Bush impeached and put in prison for crimes against humanity. Their refrain will be something like this: “You should know these people are just playing to a domestic audience and don’t really mean what they say. You killed a lot of innocent people for nothing, and made even more of the world hate us.”
On the other hand, if these nut-cases go ahead and massacre a few hundred thousand Americans (or Israelis) with the A-bomb, the liberals/Democrats/press will have Bush impeached and put in prison for ignoring the flagrant, connect-the-dot signs that were clearly in front of his face. Again, you can almost hear their words: “They repeatedly telegraphed their plans to you for God’s sake! They made their intentions as plain as day [insert 1000+ direct quotations]. How much more did you need to connect the dots! You got a lot of innocent people killed through your negligence.”
Such is the state of political discourse in America today, thanks to the liberals/Democrats/press who’d rather regain political power at any expense than try to do the right thing for the people of this country.
Had the Left not succeeded in the 2006 mid-term elections, I thought that Bush would have gone ahead and acted (with or without the Israelis) to eliminate Iran’s nuclear threat. If you’re going to be condemned either way for acting or not acting, then you might as well act.
But now that the Dems have taken over both Houses in Congress, I’m not so sure. Bush won’t pull out of Iraq, that much I’m certain of. But it’s less likely now that he’ll expand any action to remove other threats. With the first movement against Iran, Syria or Korea, he would be impeached — and convicted — with unprecedented haste by the Democrat majorities in both Houses.
But the yin-yang of political life also tells us that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, and so we’re left with an interesting situation. Iran will go nuclear, and as a nuclear power, it will not simply stockpile nuclear weapons and wage conventional war. Just as the logic of the early centuries of Christianity made the Crusades inevitable, so the logic of Islam at a roughly contiguous point in its history makes the logic of jihad inevitable. Iran will use all its resources to fulfill its holy mission just as the Crusaders used theirs. But King Richard didn’t possess nuclear weapons to smite his enemies and please his God, and therein lies an important difference.
So what is Bush to do now in face of present realities? If he tries to act and remove a threat, he’ll be removed himself. Moreover, the threat will remain, and be emboldened. If he doesn’t act, at some point we’ll lose New York and Washington, and perhaps LA too if the terrorists really want to show their prowess.
History will then crucify Bush for inaction. Or maybe not, which brings us to the self-correcting mechanism I spoke about earlier as historians look back on the Bush administration.
Consider the yang to this yin. If we wait for the mushroom cloud as “proof positive” of Iran’s hostile intentions before we act, two things will happen.
(1) We’ll all have another 9/11-like Kumbaya moment and the U.S. will retaliate with full force to completely eliminate the problem (including some “collateral damage” in adjoining areas of the world that need to be taken care of too.) No more terrorist threats from Iran, Syria, the mountains of Pakistan, and North Korea just for good measure. After all, if you’re going to nuke one enemy, why not nuke them all? Sure Russia and China will get mad, but they’re not going to launch against us because we took out ‘Lil Kim. We’ll pay reparations to the radiation victims along their borders and offer some additional foreign aid. Then Putin can go back to poisoning his enemies, and China can go back to stealing our military secrets and planning to invade Taiwan, and all will be well with the world.
(2) And, since the terrorist blast against New York and Washington will undoubtedly vaporize all the liberals/Democrats/press who congregate along the East Coast, there won’t be anyone of any consequence left alive to start tearing down Bush (and with him, U.S. national security) for their own personal political gain. It will also, shall we say, diminish the influence of certain academic elites who also live/lived there and go up in the same mushroom cloud. Without their wisdom and the cheerleading from the liberal press that goes along with it, that particular point of view will be rather severely diminished.
Yes I know this is a perfectly horrible thing to say and I’m a perfectly horrible person for saying it. But then again, I don’t live in New York, Washington or LA, and I haven’t made a history of simultaneously condemning Bush for acting and not acting on the same issue. These numbskulls are in the most logical blast zone, yet their hatred for Bush is so compelling they’d rather ignore a real, tangible threat to their lives than support Bush’s efforts to obviate it, for fear that any Bush “success” would elevate him in the history books.
So let the chips fall where they may. If they’re right, and Bush created terrorism, then he should be stopped from provoking peaceful Iran, Syria, and Korea (not to mention the greatest non-threat of all, Al Quada). If I’m right, and these thugs pose very real threats to our national security, then when the next attack comes I at least have the comfort of knowing that I’m not living in the most likely target area. I’ll continue to write my essays, while Dan & Katie, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the LA Times, and Nancy and the gang will have considerably less to say on the subject.
One final thought. If Iran does get The Bomb and decides to use it, the same self-correcting mechanism at work above will also produce a couple of additional effects we all can take advantage of. Without New York City and Los Angeles, New York State and California will more than likely go Red in the next election. And, if you invest wisely today in the surrounding blast zone areas, there will be a lot of new oceanfront land for development in about 20 years when the radiation levels drop to an acceptable range.
Yonkel: By the way, I didn’t mean to imply that you were an idealogue. Just that our reasoning process on this issue was different.
I look at you as more of a “committed moderate” than a member of the looney left.
Ivan:
If I have compared you to Hitler and called you a segregationist, don’t take it too personally, I’ll buy you a beer.
Seriously, though, when you say
“” ….. would you also abandon your belief in equality for black Americans, simply because 98% of black Americans voted for Obama? ….”
Answer: YES!”
That would imply that you are abandoning your belief in equality for black Americans, nuh? Maybe you meant something different, but I am justing making a logical inference.
PEJ:
I still don’t understand your concept.
American policy in regards to Israel should be based on only two things: 1) What is in the best interest of the US, and 2) What is fair and just.
What does the political predilictions of Jewish Americans have to do with anything?
The “best interests” of the US can be defined in different ways, depending upon one’s starting point of view.
In the past I was willing to factor in things like Israel as the only Middle East democracy into this calculation. It’s in our long term best interest to promote democracies (i.e. representative governments) around the world.
Today, in view of President Obama’s antipathy for new domestic oil drilling, combined with our undeniable increasing need for oil until the solar powered Obama myth mobile becomes a reality, our “best interests” are to secure an uninterrupted supply of foreign oil. [This short term immediate need trumps any long term philosophical objective.] Most of the world’s oil producers hate Israel, so it does us no good to antagonize them.
Moreover, what is “fair and just” is a subjective view, unless one accepts my earlier writings about a God-given universal moral code [“It is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human life.” A fair and just universally-shared morality would also prohibit things like elective abortions of innocent human beings.
Democrats, clearly, do not subscribe to a UMC. For them morality is subjective and relative.
In a world where morality (and therefore “just and fair”) are not seen as God-given universal truths, your understanding of morality cannot and should not be used to make policy. It’s quasi-religious to think your definition of morality is superior to mine unless it’s universally shared (in which case, there’s no dispute). And we all know what Liberal Democrats think about the separation of Church and State.
Liberal Democrats are in power today, with Obama as the new President and Pelosi and Reed in charge of Congress. 78% of American Jews helped put them into power. We must live with that reality.
I will not advocate policies harmful to Israel. But when Obama and the Liberal Democrats put their harmful policies forward, I won’t oppose them — unless there is another reason that it hurts US interests (which is unlikely, given the calculation about oil I explained earlier).
Elections are about real things, and have real consequences. This is one of them.
“In a world where morality (and therefore “just and fair”) are not seen as God-given universal truths, your understanding of morality cannot and should not be used to make policy.”
Rabbi Hillel said:
“What is hurtful to yourself do not to your fellow man. That is the whole of The Torah and the remainder is but commentary.”
I was strongly religious for much of my life and have settled into more of a reverant agnosticism where I appreciate religion but do not carry any cards.
I don’t know which UMC you are referring to- yours, mine, the Buddhists, Zoroastrianism.
Mine lives in my heart, and despite its irrelevance that you might percieve, I will continue to be a good neighbor and love and care for my fellow human beings, care for the poor, and try to live up to Rabbi Hillels standard and not worry the commentary.
I have learned that kind and caring people come in all religious and political stripes.
> I don’t know which UMC you are referring to
Yonkel: follow this link.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2007/07/13/the-true-nature-of-human-morality-a-response-to-the-critique-%e2%80%9cuniversal-morality-and-the-morality-of-the-universe%e2%80%9d/
Phillip;
Quite a long thoughtful piece. I am working my way through it.
BTW, I looked at some demographics from pollster.com and actually the shift in Jewish vote toward the Dems was less than the general electorate shift (Raw numbers show a 5% Jewish vote shift to Dems compared to a 9.5% general populace vs a 15% Catholic shift and 10% Protestant shift. However since Jewish support for Kerry was already up in the 70%s that reflects a relatively bigger percentage change among Jewish 2004 Bush supporters. Catholics went from 5% Bush plurality to 10% Obama which reflects a defection of about 14% of the earlier Bush voters vs a defection of about 10% among the Jewish Bush voters. White Protestants moved about 10% to Obama but this reflected about an 8% defection.)
The strongest move to the GOP of any demographics was among gay voters, granted they went 70% for Obama, but they went 75% for Kerry.
Interesting data:
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/demographic_groups_and_votes_2.php
If you need concrete reasons to support our continued alliance with Israel, how about these?
• Israel successfully prevented victories by radical nationalist movements in Lebanon and Jordan, as well as Palestine; many of these at times when the U.S. was rendered impotent to act independently.
• Israel, for many years, shouldered the brunt of terrorism that would otherwise have fallen on the West.
• Israel kept Syria (for many years an overt Soviet ally) in check, freeing us to concentrate on European defense and strategic challenges.
• Israel’s air force is predominant throughout the region, and any policy the U.S. takes in the region must count on this as a strategic asset; even when Israeli airpower is not used overtly, it must be accounted. Consider what our left flank in Iraq would have looked like had Israel not been there holding Syrian, Hamas’, and Hezbollah’s attention.
• Israel’s frequent wars provided battlefield testing of American arms (often against Soviet weapons), without which our current overwhelming superiority would be far less; in which case, our casualties in places like Afghanistan and Iraq would have been considerably more; or, more likely, never even attempted.
• Israel served as conduit for U.S. support of movements deemed unpopular in the United States, providing direct military assistance (e.g., South Africa, the Islamic Republic of Iran, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Nicaraguan Contras); effectively making Israel the U.S.’ main foreign policy partner.
• Israel’s intelligence service assists U.S. intelligence gathering and covert operations.
• Israel has missiles capable of reaching as far as the former Soviet Union, possesses a nuclear arsenal of hundreds of weapons, and cooperates in U.S. research and development of new jet fighters and anti-missile defense systems; thereby assuring regional stability. As the post-WWI parity experiment showed, instability is greatest when adversaries are more nearly equal. Overwhelming military superiority, on the other hand, guarantees peace (other than terrorism) will be maintained. Israel alone cannot provide this, and a similar partnership with a Muslim power is unreliable in countering rogue-states and terror organizations.
• Israel is the only real democracy operating in the region. The demise of Israel would be blow to the cause of representative government worldwide.
American public opinion overwhelmingly favors Israel’s existence even when split on its internal policies. As this article ( http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87402/walter-russell-mead/the-new-israel-and-the-old.html ) illustrates, American support has less to do with strategic considerations and everything to do with what is right and positives accruing from transplanting a modernizing, moderating and culturally similar influence in the middle-east.
The most compelling reason to stick by Israel, however, has to do with trust and being trustworthy. The war we face against terrorism is only part of a larger aggression by radical-Islam against the West generally. We could, of course, abandon Israel, but isn’t that just handing victory to our common enemy piecemeal? It is easy calling Israel a liability, and that is exactly what our enemies want us to think. But, is it really? Let’s suppose we are back fighting WWII and fascist supporters are suggesting: ‘If we just leave off propping up tiny, useless Britain, we can come to some sort of accommodation with Germany more to our advantage’. How might that work? How would we look ourselves in the mirror? We know from Britain’s earlier actions they could be trusted to not stick a knife in our back, but how about those Nazis? Sure they stuck one in Poland’s back, and Austria’s, Holland’s and the Czechoslovak’s; but not ours! How about those other allies we had, the Soviets? How about us? We have built up a relationship with Israel which should not be lightly cast aside for any expedience or self-interest. Yes, it is an unequal partnership, but that is no reason to sell it short or underrate Israel’s considerable contribution spanning six decades to global security, U.S. interests, and regional stability.
Phil suggests because 80% of Jews vote liberal, we conservatives perhaps ought not to support Israel. Implied in his analysis are two assumptions a) that overwhelmingly Jewish support of liberalism is a de facto abandonment of Israel (i.e., why should I support Israel if Jews don’t) and b) support of Israel should depend on some internal interest we cannot shuck. I have already given you what I think are good reasons for supporting Israel independent of a favorable Jewish vote. In answer to the former, I remind everyone that liberal-Jews are generally convinced it is they and the Democrat Party that best supports the interests and preservation of Israel, and with some reason (it is Jews who loose if Israel is wiped off the map). From their point of view, it is we conservatives who threaten tiny Israel by embroiling it in America’s disputes (I know this because it is what my liberal-Jewish wife, extended liberal-Jewish family and many liberal-Jewish friends all believe). They are convinced Israel must bend (as Jews have always bent) if we are to survive. The problem then isn’t Jews don’t support Israel, the problem is they operate from the wrong conception of how nations survive against an implacable enemy not about to relent simply because we shuffle out of their way. The Jewish people allowed themselves to be shoved from place to place avoiding annihilation; which works when it’s just people. You can’t shove a nation around the map, however, the way you shove a people. You do and it ceases to exist. Actually, I am encouraged knowing 1-in-5 Jews still get this. Since the Yom Kippur War, from 1973 to 1996, Jewish-conservatism fell 25%, in large part because there was no serious threat to Israel in that period. From 2000 to 2004 (war on terror), Jewish conservatism rose 26% (24% / 19% of Jewish vote), indicating substantial support of the war in the early stages. Failure to find WMDs, a prolonged war exposing Israel, weak support from Bush and Rice vis-à-vis the Hezbollah attacks, U.S. concessions to Hamas, and liberal peer and media pressure has since eroded half that support.
Even so, it had no significant impact on this election, which would have been lost in any case to a Democrat. I worry that people are, once again, obsessing and casting about for scapegoats. We lost because McCain picked the wrong V.P., because McCain isn’t really a conservative (true, but moot), because liberals steal elections (also true, but moot), because Obama got away with keeping secrets … because Jews let us down. The simple fact of the matter is elections go in cycles and voters are fickle. We talk principle at them, but they persist in thinking balance is preserved through periodically rearranging the furniture (party in power). They are, similarly, convinced this it something to do with fairness (i.e., Republicans have had their shot, now it’s the Democrat’s turn). Voters grow increasingly unhappy (Jews no more so than anyone else) with the status quo regardless which party is in power and demanding “change”. ‘Change’ becomes an obsession, rising like a tidal wave and sweeping all before it. This was the Republican’s time to be swept out and the Democrat’s time flood in. Don’t try to rationalize it. Like everyone else, I held my breath and hoped just this once we wouldn’t – but we did.
Our government also supports and defends countries like Somalia, Lebanon, Haiti and Cote d’Ivoire, despite these countries have even less representation in our voter pool, include people overtly hostile to the U.S., and fewer strategic reasons to fly to their defense. Yet, we do it. We do it because it is the right thing to do. Jews represent less than 3% of the U.S. vote (and shrinking). Of all voter-blocks, the Jewish vote is more a barometer for Jews to worry about than for our conservative friends to worry. If it was 10% (like the Hispanics) or 15% (like the black vote), I could understand this anxiety, but 3%? If Jewish support of Republicans fell 25% out of a voter representation of 3%, that is a loss of less than 1%. Certainly Israel’s continued strategic value to America far outweighs this paltry 1% of voter turnout. We value our conservative friends and ask you ignore the foolishness of those of us who mistake obscurity for security or respond to some insipid ‘change’ mantra.
>Phil suggests because 80% of Jews vote liberal, we conservatives perhaps ought not to support Israel.
Bob, that’s not quite my position. I said that I personally will not advocate any course of action that will harm Israel. But in light of the fact that American Jews overwhelmingly supported Obama — just as they have all other Democrat presidential candidates — I’m quite willing to live by whatever policy Obama pursues toward Israel.
As I look into my crystal ball, I see two conflicting trends. Obama does not want to produce new sources of domestic oil, and the US will need an increasing amount of oil until his solar powered myth mobile becaome a reality some time around 2047.
Given these two facts, I can see Obama dramatically pulling back from Bush’s level of support for Israel, and even selling Israel out all together, to either (a) allow for the uninterrupted supply of foreign oil to feed the US economy (he needs my tax money for his social spending, and without oil the economy — and my tax revenue — grinds to a halt), or (b) pursue a more “balanced” (i.e. pro-Arab) foreign policy as he alluded to in his campaign.
Either way, Israel is screwed. And unlike the past, I will not object, but rather abide by the wisdom of 78% of American Jews in electing Obama to office. [Their 3% of the voting population does not accurately represent their influence in the media, financial, and entertainment communities, which helped shape public opinion to elect Obama.]
I’d like to see Obama keep a strong support for Iarael, but I doubt very much that he will. And when he doesn’t, unlike the past, I won’t object. If American Jews want Obama and his policies, why should I object when he implements policies that aren’t in Israel’s best interest?
Bob — one further comment. As much as it pains me to disagree with you, because I have a lot of respect for the way you come to your conclusions in everything you write, you said something in Comment 67 that gets to the crux of the matter.
“I remind everyone that liberal-Jews are generally convinced it is they and the Democrat Party that best supports the interests and preservation of Israel …”.
I agree, and what’s more, I think it’s time we put this to the test.
American Jews didn’t just kind-of vote for Obama, they put their money, time and resources solidly behind electing him. In light of this, I’m willing to give an Obama presidency free reign with regard to Israel to see if in fact the Democrat party in general, and Obama in particular, have Israel’s best interests at heart.
If Obama does, then there’s no harm to Israel. If he doesn’t, then let the chips fall where they may. It becomes a “teachable moment” as American Jews come face to face with the stupidity of their actions. Then maybe we’ll have less propaganda and financial support given to the opponents of Conservatism in future elections.
It’s too bad the teachable moment may be allowing Iran to become a nuclear power, but I didn’t vote for Obama. 78% of American Jews did.
Phil,
While I can appreciate you’d feel that way (i.e., letting us Jews stew in our own broth), I still beg you to reconsider. Which Jews are you so miffed at, which do want punished – ours or Israel’s? And, why pick on Jews in particular to teach a lesson? Ours was not the only group to bolt. Didn’t the Muslim, Hispanic, and the youth vote swing to Obama just as much? Didn’t the feminist, after much agonizing (and hope from our side), still vote according to party? Didn’t the old media unabashedly guard his back? Didn’t a record number of black conservatives and independents endorse and vote Obama without much thought to his politics in the rush to see one of their own finally fill the Oval Office?
Israel has been a faithful partner in our war on terror. Israelis worked hand-in-hand with Bush I to keep the first Iraq War from turning into a general melee at enormous risk to themselves. My brother-in-law and his family live in Jerusalem, where they were subjected to Scud missiles raining in from Iraq. Israel has gone along with every policy we have pushed since Carter first pressured them into making lopsided peace, often when the overtures have been nothing more than Arab land grabs without security guarantees worth spit, and just as often as political sops for American presidents. Israel also cooperated with Bush II to make the war on terror a success, again and often deferring its own security interests to the greater good of the partnership. Now we propose to just let Obama scrap all that? If Israel is sufficiently damaged from Obama’s inept handling, America still ends up loosing strategically. If you read the Israeli press, you’d realize Jews here see things very differently from Jews there where security takes precedence over wishful thinking. There too liberals dominate, but the split is closer to 40/60. Jews here vote peace without immediate risk to themselves of a botched appeasement. People with families at risk in far away places always vote that way, and it goes a long way to explaining why 1-in-3 American Jews always vote appeasement. Jews there, on the other hand, vote peace or security, but, either way, it is their own necks at risk.
Don’t put so much stock in the ‘disproportionate Jewish influence’ myth, either. We had our day and are still vocal, but we’re hardly the only vocal minority in America. African-Americans, have had greater influence since the early 1970s, feminists drowned out everyone in the late 1970s, Latino activists shouldered us aside in the mid-1980s, and Muslim activists are gaining on us and will soon overtake us. To these you can add Cubans, Asian, and gays as having influence on par with us. How many influential Jewish talking heads, comedians, actors, politicians, financial wizards, &c do you see in the media, and how have we fared compared to the growing representation of other groups? It is groups on the rise that have greater influence than those on the wane out of all proportion to numbers. Jewish influence is shrinking even faster than our numbers. If we retain any influence now, it must be through force of argument or conspicuous success.
[Note: When I look at Jewish commentators, I see a high percentage are conservatives and independents out of all proportion to our voting habits. Look how many Jews post to this one conservative blog, again out of proportion to our numbers. If there are Jews working hard to influence public opinion, it is us more than our liberal brethren. Ergo – so much for Jewish influence since we can’t even seem to persuade our own meshuganim.]
I know it is frustrating loosing an election after we’ve accomplished so much. I also know the frustration of seeing our own leadership go wobbly, acting more like liberals than liberals. But, Obama is inexperienced and ‘blessed’ with a Democrat Congress and Senate – guaranteeing he will over-reach and over-reach so badly the country will demand a return to sanity. I just pray he doesn’t over-reach so far the damage takes generations to repair as has happened before. My most fervent wish is that Obama have a successful and reasonable term in office, even if that means he gets re-elected. I am less concerned which party rules than that, whichever party rules, it does the right things, the right way, and without leaving us crushing burdens. I would love to see the Democrat Party swing away from radicalism, becoming the centrist they always pretend. Maybe they will find playing the radical while out of power is less useful than playing the centrist while in. I pray he also does the right thing by Israel. If he can find a lasting peace formula (that doesn’t screw Israel) and put a lid on terror, more power to him. I just don’t have much confidence he can do it because I know his politics and distrust the way he operates; and, if he does, will be at war with his own party. For all these reasons, we need to be a strong, vocal, vigilant and resourceful opposition keeping things from getting too much out of hand. And, we need your strong voice to do that.
>And, why pick on Jews in particular to teach a lesson? Ours was not the only group to bolt.
Bob: I’m pretty much to the point where I’m applying my reasoning to all groups that have consistently worked against Conservative candidates for multiple presidential election cycles. Blacks fit that category. Hispanics to a large extent too.
My brother and I have been having this debate for a while. He believes we need to act like the adults in the relationship, and keep pulling the liberals’ chestnuts out of the fire when they get into trouble through their own stupidity. I’ve allowed this philosophy to govern my actions since 1992, even though I thought it was wrong headed. The 2008 election has confirmed for me that my initial instincts were correct.
If any group proposes a policy that is a direct threat to my interests (increased taxes, open borders, reparations, quota systems, etc.), I’ll work to oppose it. But if they do things that hurt their own group’s interests, I have no interest in cleaning up the mess. If blacks want a plantation mentality to govern their future, let ‘em. If Hispanics don’t want to learn English, let them suffer too (because I’ll do my best to support English-only legislation). If Jews want us to support Israel, I’ll be glad to do it if Obama does too. And this is the key point — But if Obama (the guy they overwhelmingly supported) screws Israel, I’m not going to do anything to work against that policy.
You know from my past writings that I don’t make decisions about people on the basis of race, skin color, etc. It’s not important to me, just like I never needed to know that you were Jewish until you chose to make that point. It’s your ideas and values that I’ve reacted to in the past (and continue to today), not your ancestry or religion.
I’ll still make individual decisions about helping individual people regardless of race, color or creed as I’ve done in the past. But as far as US policy towards a group or country is concerned, it’s foolishness to ignore the consistent, overwhelming actions of that group.
American Jews, as a group, have nothing in common with my value system as expressed by their repeated allegiance to the Democrat Party in general, and liberal/socialist policies in particular. They want Obama to make US foreign policy, so let Obama do it with an unfettered hand. If and when it backfires on them, so be it.
I’m not entirely convinced that most American Jews really care that much about Israel anyway, which makes it even less important for me to care. [If they did, they’d have voted for McCain … unless they like Obama’s rhetoric about a new US policy in the Middle East, in which case voting for Obama proves the point I just made. Either American Jews liked Obama’s signals about a new Middle East policy, or they didn’t care about that relative to other issues. Either way, Israel is not important to their calculation, so why should it be paramount to mine?].
Everything you said about the strategic and political importance of Israel is correct. Unfortunately, Israel has no oil, and under Obama we’re going to need all the uninterrupted foreign oil we can get. I don’t see how Obama can keep the US economy afloat in foreign oil without abandoning (or at least dramatically altering our relationship with) Israel. If he can support Israel and get us all the oil we need, I’d be very happy. But realistically, Obama will be more inclined to appease Hamas, Syria, Iran, the anti-Semitic UN and others than fight them, so I think Israel is going to get hosed.
Israel under Obama will be “just another country” in the Middle East. Iran will go nuclear. Israel will want to attack Iran, but Obama will stop Israel because it doesn’t want to offend the Arab states who have the oil we and the world need. The UN will condemn Israel for defending its borders against Arab terrorist attacks, and the US will not veto the resolution.
This isn’t the world I wanted, but it’s the one American Jews chose for Israel when they voted 78% for Obama.
It will be a tragedy of immeasurable proportions if Israel is harmed in a significant way by the Obama administration. But Israel is not my country. It is one of many allies we have in the world, and the American people — with the overwhelming support of American Jews — want “change”. So, let’s give it to them on Israel.
American Jews need to get their act together and realize that their collective actions have consequences. I’m no longer willing to expend my limited political capital on protecting them from their stupidity, when they work against my interests. I’ll pick other battles to protect the value system I hold and the material interests I posses. The harming of Israel will be a self-inflicted casualty, and like I said before, a “teachable moment” for others who think the adults will always rescue them from their own stupidity.
Take care, Phil
Phil,
You say, “I’m not entirely convinced that most American Jews really care that much about Israel anyway, which makes it even less important for me to care.”
I can assure you very few American Jews (be they liberal, conservative, secular, religious, or even hypercritical of Israel) are anything less than passionate about Israel’s survival. Trust me, liberal-Jews are convinced we conservative-Jews are the ones who don’t give a fig what happens to Israel, and label us dangerous and deranged.
Do you think it any different as regards non-Jewish liberals and conservatives? They consider you and me a danger to both the nation and world (mostly because they deal more with their own fantasies regarding who we are than who we are). But, so do we sometimes with respect to them. Neither we nor they imagine the others follies; yet, each of us does reduce the other to stereotypes with regularity. Surely you have liberal friends and family enough to know it isn’t they are anti-America or anti-founding principles (at least not most of them). Rather, it is they have such a grossly tortured sense of America and its principles as they can no longer operate without the tortured logic that stretches principles beyond any valid meaning. They too venerate the Constitution, even as they labor to alter it beyond recognition. They too cherish free-speech, even as they deny it to anyone suspect. They too respect the right to worship, so long as it doesn’t dominate the ‘secular’ bubble they created for themselves, but also fearing to allow it loose on the innocent and unwary. They fervently believe there is nothing amiss in curtailing your right to a gun; so long as it is rendered useless for anything other than playing with it in some hyper-controlled environment where no person or animal can get hurt (e.g., indoor shooting range), no government threatened or hampered, and no one feeling the least threatened by you. Heck, they even believe in rights the founders never heard of and would not approve!
Their notions of our government and how it is and should be structured is similarly tortured beyond recognition. How many times have we had to explain to them socialism is not liberalism (at least, not the brand of liberalism the founders bequeathed us), despite that’s the term we’re forced to use for them? Even then, they remain convinced they have it right and we have it wrong. Yet, these are our fellow citizens and family and we’re stuck working with them because we can’t get around them to set things right.
The point I keep making, here, about American Jews, is that your object lesson will be largely lost on them, yet may still damage Israel and Israelis to no point or advantage. This is like cutting off your own nose to tweak someone else (or, to be more exact, the nose of your friend’s cousin rather than the friend with whom you are annoyed). American Jews, if they notice your object lesson at all, will chalk it up to thinking you uncouth. When their policy fails to bring about the desired result of peace and security, they will still blame it on the policies of past conservatives; including any additional damage to Israel. I have shown the advantages of a strong Israel to American interests and Israel’s long patience and faith in us. That faith has been greatly strained by long inconstancy (on our part) and a willingness to treat with Israel’s implacable and irrational foes. Israel now sometimes acts as if it too is on a path of self-annihilation, but only because it has been taught too well to dance our tune and fearing to loose American support. You know earlier Israelis were nothing like today’s Israeli. But today’s Israel is also dependent on America far beyond the Israel that beat back a powerful five Arab-nation coalition in 1949 and three in 1967. It has been constant pressure and the threat of non-support that changed Israel from a lion to something more docile. Had we been less fickle in our support, leaving Israel a freer hand to settle its problems and not constantly butting in to score our own points and giving credence to insatiable Arab demands, Israel might now be both more secure and Palestinians less violent and more satisfied. Our ‘peace process’, rather than bringing closure, has been more like picking away at a wound, never allowing it to heal, and causing it to fester. If nothing else, we owe Israel something in the way of compensation for the damage we’ve caused, and the only compensation we conservatives can offer is to keep after Obama to honor our commitment.
>This is like cutting off your own nose to tweak someone else (or, to be more exact, the nose of your friend’s cousin rather than the friend with whom you are annoyed).
Bob: It’s not my (or my relative’s) nose, because Israel is not my country.
I go back to a simple point. American Jews are much more intrinsically attuned to all things Israel than I am. In their wisdom, they voted overwhelmingly for Obama.
If an Obama presidency doesn’t bother 78% of American Jews, then why should I, a non-Jew, object to what Obama does to Israel?
Israel has been a strong friend and ally. But Obama wants to make nice with other Middle Eastern countries, and the American Jewish voters think that’s just fine. So why should I oppose any policy Obama puts forward with regard to Israel?
America also needs oil, and Obama will not allow any more domestic drilling. [Yes he said he would allow it if certain conditions are met, but they won't be met; and Nancy will block any new drilling anyway in Congress, and Obama won't oppose her, so there will be no new American oil.]
Israel has no oil, and the people who do are largely anti-Semitic. So whatever national security advantages there are to supporting Israel fade in recognition of this fact. I don’t like this calculation, but this is the reality of the world that an Obama presidency has given us. And we need to operate within that reality.
Again, all this was clear before 78% of American Jews voted for Obama. This is why I say they either don’t really care what happens to Israel, or do care abstractly — but have other domestic issues they care more about.
If the overwhelming number of American Jews were really passionate about Israel’s survival, as you contend, they would have voted for McCain. The fact that 78% of them didn’t means only one of two things:
(1) They aren’t as passionate about Israel (in comparison to other issues they are much more passionate about), or
(2) They are in fact as passionate as you contend, and they expressed this passion by voting for Obama — who promised fundamental changes in US Middle East policy.
Either way, you lose the point. If (1) is true, then my original point stands about “why should I care if American Jews don’t”. If (2) is true, then whatever Obama does is embraced by American Jews who passionately support Israel, so why should I object when he allows Iran to go nuclear, or makes nice with Hamas, etc? American Jews wanted Obama, and they deserve the foreign policy they get.
I know that Israelis see things differently and really supported McCain, but they don’t vote. American Jews do, and for 100+ years they have been actively opposing the principles I stand for by always voting for Liberals and Democrats.
I’m not advocating any harm to Israel. I’m just stating what I, and I believe a lot of other conservative, non-Jews have come to believe. I have other things I need to expend my political capital on these next 4 years (protecting my income, my freedom of speech, etc.). I no longer choose to expend that capital on protecting Israel from Obama, when American Jews overwhelmingly voted for Obama.
If American Jews come to believe that an Obama foreign policy harms Israel, they need to act. I wish them well, and I wish them success, but as a bystander, not a colleague in the fight.
When American Jews, as a group, begin to support my values and my candidates, I’ll again fight for some of their causes. Until then, Israel is just another country, one of many allies we have.
If it makes sense to pursue a policy that also helps Israel (like opposing Iran getting the bomb), I will. But I do this not because it may harm Israel, but because they can put the thing in the cargo hold of a ship and blow up NY harbor. This means I’m less concerned about Iran developing a medium range missile, because that missile can’t hit US soil. It may one day, but not for a long time. Until then I’ll fight the immediate battles I need to fight to protect myself and my family, because under an Obama Administration, there will be a lot of them.
Phil
I was told by an American Jew a few years ago “Israel just wants to grab all the land it can!” Scanning the list of names of people who signed the letter in support of William Ayres I see many Jewish names. Many of these are professors, as noted by their affiliation and that makes them smarter than most of us. So your comments make you an Anti-Semite, Racist, Homophobe! All those Obama supporters wanted to feel good and you are bringing them down. Cut it out!
Ivan: yeah, reality always has a way of spoiling the fantasy.
Seriously, though, the people I feel sorry for are the good folks like Bob and Liz Berney, who’ve behaved like responsible adults in making political decisions. They can see what’s coming, and they have every right to be fearful about Israel’s future.
I didn’t begrudge Jewish voters voting for as a block for Lieberman in 2000, any more than I do blacks voting for Obama. We all get caught up in silliness like this from time to time. But in a world where the Left constantly lectures us about looking beyond race, sex and religion, to have one identifiable group constantly vote in overwhelming numbers against my interests has consequences. Maybe, like some people have offered, the vast majority of American Jews are afraid of conservative Chriatians, or maybe they are just socialists at heart, and that’s why they oppose Conservatives and Republicans. Or maybe they’re just idiots. Either way, I don’t care why they work against my interests, I only care that they do.
I’m not vindictive lkike the Left, however. The consequences I envision aren’t to actively work against that group’s interests, but rather to look at their interests through the narrow prism of my own — and to focus on immediate, tangible issues, not broad philosophical ones.
Therefore, whatever happens to Israel under a Jewish-supported Obama Administration, I will accept. I’ll hope that Obama lied about a new Middle East policy to get elected, and will keep the Bush policy intact. But if he doesn’t, I’ll let American Jews fight that battle alone.
The subject of my essay was Israel, but like Bob pointed out, it could just as well have been Black or Hispanic group-think.
Of course you must support Israel! International Law requires settlement by Jews of ‘Palestine’; it also requires surrounding states to recognise the State of Israel. Now this International Law thing is embarasing to politicians so they deny it by turning it on it head. They invented Transjordan/Kingdom of Jordan in contravention of the Mandate and gave the Arabs 78% of the Jewish Homeland; and still it was not enough! And even now we hear of ‘Two State Solutions’ when all the Arabs have ever wanted is 100% of the Jewish Homeland with ALL of Jerusalem as their capital. If International Law is to have any respect then Isarel must be protected from the Arab thieves and liars at any cost. I will happily give up my car and sit in the cold and dark than let the Arabs destroy Israel. For if this were to happen it would be a very dark day for all of mankind and we would quickly descend into the dark ages of the 6th century. Do not let this happen.
Phil’s article is probably one that needed to be written–and I quickly forwarded it to a dozen or so Jewish friends. However let me point out a couple of things. First, that there are American Jews who despise Israel is hardly new. A quick survey of famous American “Jews” might draw the pedestrian observer to conclude that becoming an “intellectually prominent American Jew” might even require being hostile to the Israeli state: think of Noam Chomsky, Norman Finklestein, Jerome Segal, Tony Judt (who in fairness is British, though teaches at NYU), Judith Butler–the list is endless. Edward Alexander’s and Paul Bogdanor’s recent “The Jewish Divide Over Israel”, on the other hand, is but one of a long series of books by Jews–American and otherwise–that warn of the danger of assimilating Israel’s interest to those of “anti-Israel” American Jews. One must remember to distinguish, Jacob Neusner has argued, between these American Jews who are always quick to attempt to control and speak for (neurotically so, I might add) the Israeli state from the banks of the Hudson river–and Israeli Jews who have significantly different interests, interests in general in common with those of the United States. It’s not even obvious to me how referring to Israeli Jews and many assimilated American Jews as “Jewish” is meaningful in anything but a metaphysical sense. Allen Dershowitz’ “The Vanishing American Jew” paints a harsh picture of American Jewish assimilation. Does the “Jewish Hollywood Mogul” really have more in common with yeshiva student in Jerusalem? Or with “California culture?”
Second, I think that Islamic rage at America (and democracy more broadly speaking) has little to do with American support of Israel. Since 1967 the “Palestinian cause” has been a convenient scapegoat used by Arab–and Muslim–leaders to avoid the pitfalls of modernization. The “endless struggle” between Jews and Arabs become a myth to replace the broader incompatibilities between a democratic state and that governed by Shar’ia law. Eliminating Israel will hardly eliminate these more elemental incompatibilities–and, I fear, lower the price of oil.
–my two cents
Nathan Alexander
Nathan,
Eliminating Israel would, at most, provide a brief dip in the price of oil to American consumers. So, too, would an American abandonment of Israel. Rage over Israel is just one part of a larger rage at the West and everything not dar al Islam, and is a matter of indoctrination rather than legitimate grievance. On the other hand, victory in eradicating Israel might actually ignite that part of Islam obsessed with dar al harb to resurrect the oil embargo (or similar measures) in a final, all out attempt at bringing down the West. In the last 50 years, there has only been one instance of Muslims using oil as a weapon; and that turned out a mistake hurting the cartel more than it did us. The only situation, therefore, in which they might try it again, would be one having a real chance of success of increasing their power.
As we have discussed before, many people in the West remain blind to the real middle-eastern view. Because Israel figures prominently in Muslim local politics, they imagine it is the sole bone of contention. The oil-states of the middle-east focus on Israel mainly because it: a) occupies land they deem inseparable from dar al Islam, b) is within striking distance, and c) because it serves as a convenient distraction from the shortcomings of the local Muslim culture in its competition with the West for the soul of its people. Beyond these, they could care less about Israel. At the same time, Israel is an inseparable part of the West, which to Islam is the main enemy and target for conquest. It is the West, and especially the U.S., which bars Islam from resuming its conversion of dar al harb into dar al Islam. In that context, Israel is just one more infidel and far from the major obstacle to the agenda that we are.