Jennifer Rubin warns in the Politico that "Left could push pro-Israel voters to GOP." And, I suppose in some sense that could happen. It's worth recalling, though, that by the standards of AIPAC, The Weekly Standard, etc., the vast majority of Jewish Americans hold dastardly "anti-Israel" views and want to see the US government get more involved in pushing for regional diplomatic settlements and the institution of a two-state solution.
« The Decline of Potter-Bashing | Main | Optimism? »
Nothing to Fear
18 Jul 2007 11:43 am
Comments (36)
This theme has already been played out. The GOP has spent pretty much the entire length of the Bush Administration trying to be as super-duper-pro-Israel as they can get, and yet 87% of Jewish voters went for the Democrats in 2006. This is no different from the columns which routinely predict that school vouchers will drive blacks to the GOP, or that gay marriage will do the same to Latino voters.
I'm a fairly pro-Israel Jew myself - squarely within the mainstream, I like to think - and yeah, some of the anti-Israel rhetoric on the Left makes me roll my eyes. But I'm not going to change my vote just because of Some Guy With A Sign Somewhere.
Last time I checked the Democratic Party was 110% in support of continued colonization on the West Bank, the Apartheid Wall, 10,000 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails, the arrest and imprisonment of Parliament members without charges, and the continued support for the coup by Abbas and the appointment of the Fayyad regime.
Has something changed recently?
Matt-you miss the point. Its "pro-Israel" (no propaganda there, yes there are so many people out there that are anti-Israel) voters. Not Jewish voters. You know, the Republicans are going to get those Seventh Day Adventists!
I think the case in the article may be overstated, but the hate-israel left plays a much more prominant role than the hate-israel right in politics. I don't hear about many neo-nazi rallies on campus anymore, but left wing anti-israel hatefests are a dime a dozen.
This theme has already been played out. The GOP has spent pretty much the entire length of the Bush Administration trying to be as super-duper-pro-Israel as they can get, and yet 87% of Jewish voters went for the Democrats in 2006.
Yes, exactly. If it was going to happen, it would have happened by now.
The attached link from the 3quarks daily site shows why a peace agreement between the PA and Israel is impossible at the present time. I have stated on numerous occasions on numerous threads that the Palestinian insistence on the resettlement of refugees in Israel is the main obstacle to an agreement, which has been denied by the Israel bashers on this blog. Their denial is now decisively refuted by the author of the thread. The fact is that the Saifedean Ammous' of the Palestinian street are calling the shots through their megaphone in Damascus, Khalad Maashal.
http://3quarksdaily.blogs.com/3quarksdaily/2007/07/my-fathers-fami.html#comments
Dave,
What the hell are you talking about? And the right really loves Israel? Did you ever read or hear about the Left Behind series? If you know about them, you'll know why the right doesn't get much Jewish support.
If you know about them, you'll know why the right doesn't get much Jewish support.
I don't think it has a whole lot to do with evangelics, actually, although I admit I'm not all that tapped into the observant Jewish community. Jews overwhelmingly identified as Democrats long before the Religious Right became a prominent force in the Republican Party.
I'm no expert, but I think it dates back to FDR; traditional notions of "social justice" among Jews are simply aligned with progressive and liberal politics. And that's why I don't think the political alignment will change any time soon.
Also, don't forget that Jews are only about 2% of the electorate, meaning that you'd need a pretty cataclysmic shift in the Jewish vote to make a real difference. We have more clout in certain states and localities due to concentration, of course, but it's unlikely that Israel-related issues will make a big difference in any local elections. The mayor of Miami Beach isn't going to restart the peace process, after all.
but the hate-israel left plays a much more prominant role than the hate-israel right in politics
how much of the so-called-anti-Israel Left's rhetoric and sloganeering becomes actual policy, though ?
"I think the case in the article may be overstated, but the hate-israel left plays a much more prominant role than the hate-israel right in politics. I don't hear about many neo-nazi rallies on campus anymore, but left wing anti-israel hatefests are a dime a dozen."
AIPAC has sponsored radical Christian speakers who have called for Israel to be nuked by Russia or have all Jews killed by Jesus, yet AIPAC calls them friends of Israel. We shouldn't underestimate how much of our "pro-Israel" policies, especially emanating from the right, have to do with the political belief that if Israel makes the West Bank and Gaza fully Jewish, this will put in place one of the last things needed for the Second Coming of Jesus, which will lead to all Jews either having to convert or be damned in Hell. Why do you think that when Tom Delay went to a settlement, he said that instead of seeing an occupation, he saw Israel, which goes against the vast majority opinion in Israel? He was playing to his Christianist base. Mel Gibson has shown that in American society, it is very easy to attack the Jewish people as fundamentally evil and get away with it socially and financially. It is attacking Israeli policy that is taboo in the US, yet somehow not in Israel.
My point was that overt anti-israel propoganda is much more visible today from the far left than the far right. You see this all the time on college campuses. For example, from the the liberal Jewish manazine, Forward.
http://www.forward.com/articles/california-campuses-gain-a-reputation-as-hotbeds-o/
"how much of the so-called-anti-Israel Left's rhetoric and sloganeering becomes actual policy, though ?"
I think that is a fair point, but in the real, world the perception is that the far left anti-israel view is becomming more main stream among "progressives."
Even if the solution is moderate the rhetoric on the left is not. "Let's have a two state solution you Zionist, Nazi, imperialist, racist colonizer."
Dave, the Left Behind series is the second-most popular book series in America after Harry Potter. It calls for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish people. Name me one major lobbying organization that has sponsored a speaker that has called for Russia to nuke Israel. AIPAC, according to a poll of members of Congress, is the second-most powerful lobby in the country after the AARP.
"in the real, world the perception is that the far left anti-israel view is becomming more main stream among "progressives."
The thing about perception is that it is not reality. Perception and reality are very different things. Think how long the Republicans got votes on the perception they were a small government party despite Reagan's huge deficits. Think of the powerful perception that Saddam was behind 9/11.
Re "Jews overwhelmingly identified as Democrats long before the Religious Right became a prominent force in the Republican Party.
I'm no expert, but I think it dates back to FDR; traditional notions of "social justice" among Jews are simply aligned with progressive and liberal politics. And that's why I don't think the political alignment will change any time soon.
"
----------
The Republicans are not really interested in the Jewish vote per se -- there are only roughly 6 million Jews and most of them are middle-class -- neither their votes nor their campaign donations amount to much.
WHAT the Republicans want are the billionaires who finance the Democratic party and who are strong supporters of Israel. People like Israeli Billionaire Haim Saban -- who dumped almost $14 MILLION into the Democratic party in 2000-2002 cycle.
Or billionaire S Daniel Abraham , who destroyed Howard Dean's Presidential campaign in the Iowa primary with a barrage of ads -- after Dean told Joe Lieberman that the US should be evenhanded in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.
What explains the ties of those billionaires to the Democratic Party?? I think it partly results from those billionaires being based in urban areas. Some major players, like deceased Walter Shorenstein, were heavily involved in urban real estate.
The political machines in several major cities -- Philly, etc. -- are controlled by the black politicans and black votes. If you attend a $10,000 plate Clinton rally at the Warwick Hotel in Philly, it's not clear if those bored businessmen are there because they are Democrats -- or because they NEED permits from John Street's city government.
Strangely enough, some of Philly's Jewish billionaires are exceptions to the rule. Walter Annenberg was Richard Nixon's Ambassador to the UK due to his support of the Republican Party. Walter was Republican because his father , Moses, died in prison after Moses crossed Franklin Roosevelt over some Democratic primaries and got sent up the river on a tax evasion charge in retalitation.
Walter's grudge probably explains why Senator Arlen Spector is Republican --even though he votes like a Democrat to the eternal fury of the Republican right.
Even if the solution is moderate the rhetoric on the left is not. "Let's have a two state solution you Zionist, Nazi, imperialist, racist colonizer."
the only time i ever hear that rhetoric is when pro-Israel individuals complain about it. i never hear it first hand. and that makes me wonder if it's just some cherry-picked Guy With A Sign stuff.
not that i'd expect anything like that from a group whose members routinely equate questioning the foreign policy of Israel with anti-Semitic racism...
I sort of think the whole right-wing "Support Israel So the End Times Can Come and God Can Send the Jews to Hell" message cuts against the Republicans. So, they might have to craft a subtly different message.
Arlen Specter doesn't vote like a Democrat, he votes like a coward. He rolled over for the Bush administration on every major Constitutional issue of the last six years, after they made noise about removing him as Judiciary Committee chair.
Walter Annenberg's father Moe was a gangster and a crook, and he deserved his sentence. Walter was merely less ethical than Rupert Murdoch, but perhaps a bit better than William Randolph Hearst.
The Republicans can have all three of them.
I am Reality Man
"I am Reality Man
Posted by Perception Man | July 18, 2007 1:58 PM "
You're blowing my mind man! My mind just exploding. You owe me a new keyboard.
Re "Arlen Specter doesn't vote like a Democrat"
----------
True --but Arlen got the holy crap kicked out of him in his last Republican primary. Republican right spent almost $15 MILLION?? to dump him --even though Arlen had Santorum and Bush's support.
By comparison, his run against the Democrat Hoeffel in the main election was a walk in the park.
Actually, re Arlen's voting record, I meant to say "Partly true". There no denying that he threads the needle a lot. He usually ends up pissing his constituents off, but they become reconciled to him because he ultimately ends up screwing their political enemies as well.
He usually holds court for his constituents in the months before election time -- where he greets them with the aura of a Roman Senator prepared to do some distastful favors for his plebian clients. Then he's gone for the next 5 years.
Right on, mrsd. ibrahim al-jafaari.
"Last time I checked the Democratic Party was 110% in support of continued colonization on the West Bank, the Apartheid Wall... and the continued support for the coup by Abbas and the appointment of the Fayyad regime."
Is this a case of life imitating art? Any of you West Wing watchers (I'm guessing that's most of you) remember what the Arafat character's name was on the show? Wasn't it "Chairman Fayyad"?
Anywho, this is a great day to be an 'entrepreneurial' Palestinian with Fatah connections. I can imagine a few are already thinking of ways to step in front of that $130 million or whatever Bush is planning to send over.
The vast majority of organised Jewish interests in US politics reject any meaningful pressure on Israel to change its policies. Thus while many in the US Jewish communities do not support Israeli behaviour, they oppose meaningful means to change that behaviour, and thus enable Israel's chauvinist / colonialist policies.
There's less difference between AIPAC and the wider Jewish community than is often thought, which is perhaps not surprising, otherwise AIPAC would not in fact be the major Jewish lobby organisation.
Otto,
We need more folks like you speaking truth to power about Organized Jewry in America. Keep at it!
Re otto
Yes indeed, most Jewish organization oppose Mr. ottos' insistence that the Government of Israel agree to out of business and the US policy be changed to force it to do so. Now, of course, Mr. otto will claim that he insists on no such thing and in fact only wants the Government of Israel to make sufficient concessions to the Palestinians to arrive at a peace agreement. Since the only concession the Palestinians deem sufficient is the Government of Israel agreeing to go out of business, we can only assume that Mr. otto is in agreement, despite any claims to the contrary he may state. As proof, se my earlier comment on this thread relative to Mr. Saifedean Ammous.
The vast majority of organised Jewish interests in US politics reject any meaningful pressure on Israel to change its policies. Thus while many in the US Jewish communities do not support Israeli behaviour, they oppose meaningful means to change that behaviour, and thus enable Israel's chauvinist / colonialist policies.
exactly right, otto. Lip service is paid ("oh, how horrible that the IDF crushes women and children to death in Jenin using bulldozers, simply horrible") to the norms of civilized behviour, but little or nothing is said about the everyday brutalities of life under the colonial occupation, much less the repeated violations of UN Resolutions, the repeated and ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions, etcetera etcetera. Think of all the soundf and fury raised against the tactics of the Resistance, and compare that to the silence about the colonies, the land thefts, the olive tree uprootings, the use of aircraft against civilian populations, the random shellings of civilian populations, and the list goes on and on.
As long as American Jewish voters are willing to tolerate and support the illegal colonization, and remain unwilling to identify the 1967 Green Line as the starting point of negotiations, little will change. alas.
Thus while many in the US Jewish communities do not support Israeli behaviour, they oppose meaningful means to change that behaviour, and thus enable Israel's chauvinist / colonialist policies.
We need more folks like you speaking truth to power about Organized Jewry in America. Keep at it!
I disagree with both these comments, but is there any doubt which commenter's team I would rather be on? That's kinda where we are.
Re mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari
"As long as American Jewish voters are willing to tolerate and support the illegal colonization, and remain unwilling to identify the 1967 Green Line as the starting point of negotiations, little will change. alas."
As usual, Ms. al-jafaari is seriously in error. The starting point for negotiations is that the Palestinians drop their contention that the entire State of Israel is the result of illegal colonization and that Palestinians living in refugees camps be allowed to relocate in what is now Israel. But of course, that is a non-starter with the Mr. Saifedean Ammous' of the world, and I suspect with Ms. al-jafaari also. I have a flash for Ms. al-jafaari, it ain't going to happen. Period, end of story.
An insistance on pre-conditions for negotiations is just another way to avoid negotiating at all.
I'm pretty sure that both sides would be OK with ditching the right of return and coming up with a financial to make up for it, but that won't happen if each group keeps insisting that the other give in to its demands before negotiations even start.
"An insistance on pre-conditions for negotiations is just another way to avoid negotiating at all."
Exactly. If the leadership of either the Israelis or the Palestinians had been businesses instead of political organizations, they would have gone bankrupt a while ago just because no one would be willing to deal with them.
Why bother celebrating 40 years of the Israeli occupation when we can celebrate 60 years of Zionist occupation of American political discourse?
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 18, 2007 4:40 PM:"Lip service is paid ("oh, how horrible that the IDF crushes women and children to death in Jenin using bulldozers, simply horrible") to the norms of civilized behviour"
I strongly doubt any such lip service has ever been paid because Israel does not need to. It does not deliberately run people over with bulldozers. Some people get accidentally run over, but that is totally different from the callous and deliberate murder of women and children by Palestinian groups. Which I agree is not normal for civilized people.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 18, 2007 4:40 PM:"but little or nothing is said about the everyday brutalities of life under the colonial occupation"
There is no colonial occupation and what restrictions exist on the West Bank are the direct result of Palestinian terrorism. There were none in 1968 or in 1978. It was the PLO and terrorism that forced Israel to defend itself. End the terror and the restrictions will end over night.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 18, 2007 4:40 PM:"the repeated and ongoing violations of the Geneva Conventions"
This can only apply to the Palestinian side - everything the terrorists do being a violation of the same - but not to Israel which is not fighting a war with anyone.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 18, 2007 4:40 PM:"Think of all the soundf and fury raised against the tactics of the Resistance"
There is no Resistance, only terrorism and I don't see any sound and fury outside the Right.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 18, 2007 4:40 PM:"and compare that to the silence about the colonies, the land thefts, the olive tree uprootings, the use of aircraft against civilian populations, the random shellings of civilian populations, and the list goes on and on."
There are no colonies, there is no land theft. what olive trees that are uprooted by civilians are criminal acts and ought to be punished - not that dead trees compares to dead children - the use of the IDF against terrorists, even the IDF Air Force, is perfectly reasonable and to describe them as civilians is hypocritical given your previous position on the Geneva Conventions, there are no random shellings of civilians except by Hamas and Islamic Jihad with their rockets.
Posted by mrs. ibrahim al-jafaari | July 18, 2007 4:40 PM:"As long as American Jewish voters are willing to tolerate and support the illegal colonization, and remain unwilling to identify the 1967 Green Line as the starting point of negotiations, little will change. alas."
No one else is willing to accept the Green Line as a the starting point, except Israel, so why should America? And yet Israel has done so as the Fence runs more or less along it. However the real issue is that neither Fatah nor Hamas has really accepted the two state solution. Hamas does not even pretend to. As long as there is no partner for peace on the Arab side, there will be no peace.
I want to end the "illegal colonization" of New York by Islamists
I'd be happy to pay more for a cab and my wife never buys those fake designer handbags on the street. They're all kind of wiating around for their own little intifada here in US. Except in the US we are unarmed. DEPORT THEM
Ah, none so blind as those of you who do not see
"[T]he vast majority of Jewish Americans... want to see the US government get more involved in pushing for regional diplomatic settlements and the institution of a two-state solution."
Why should the U.S. get involved at all? The attitude of the Palestinians reminds me of the old joke about the Chinese army officer who was briefing an American reporter on the outcome of a battle during the Sino-Japanese war which started in 1937.
"So far," the officer says, "Japanese casualties: ten thousand! Our casualties: one hundred thousand! Pretty soon, no more Japanese!"
Perhaps the Israels should start using the tactics that their enemies have always accused them of. After all, you may as well be hung for a sheep as a goat. Given that repeated public-opinion polling makes it plain that only a small fraction of Palestinians wishes to live in peace with Israelis; why should Israelis treat them with any consideration whatever?
In response to terror attacks, Israel could shut off electricity and water to Palestinian areas--which should concentrate their minds wonderfully, especially in high summer. None of this endangering IDF troops on raids to capture or kill terrorist suspects. A few days without water, and the Palestinians will practically deliver up terrorist suspects roasted on spits with apples in their mouths. After all, the Ottoman janissaries did a fine job of maintaining order as long as potential troublemakers knew that Ottoman rulers would savagely and unfailingly punish them if they made trouble. And their rule lasted for nearly five-hundred years. As an economist once put it, "People respond to incentives."
Comments closed August 01, 2007.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Why do the Jews hate the Jews? Maybe not enough Maxim photo-spreads of IDF members?
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | July 18, 2007 11:51 AM