Israel Matzav

Who's good for the Jews in the US elections?

Yesterday, there was a column in the Jerusalem Post by Samuel Freedman, an author whose work I have sometimes enjoyed. Yesterday's column was about the upcoming elections, and why Freedman believes that what he calls the Republican 'gambit' to appeal to Jewish voters will likely fail. While I agree that, unfortunately, it will likely fail, I also believe that fear of Christians of the type reflected in this article is paranoia that may have been appropriate forty years ago, but is out of place today:

Expect the gambit to fail. And expect it to fail because Jews will vote their values, values that have them demonstrably more fearful of the Republican alliance with the Religious Right than of some Democratic sell-out of Israel. The differences between the mainstreams of the two major parties on Israel policy are marginal at best - to the consternation of conspiracy theorists like John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt and their Jewish apologists such as Tony Judt - but the differences between them on the influence of evangelical Christians are vast.

I don't know about Professor Freedman, but my values include God, the study of His law and family. While the Christian community has a very different conception of God and His laws than I do, that conception is much closer to mine than the Democratic party's abortion on demand and don't have too many children. And surveys have shown - consistently - that the Republican party's rank and file's support for the State of Israel is much stronger than that of the Democratic party.

THE SUCCESS story of Jews in America is inextricably bound up with the decision of the Founding Fathers not to establish a state religion. In Christian Europe, where regimes were formally tied to the Catholic or Protestant denominations, Jews had been reviled, exiled and murdered for merely existing. Jews in America did not want or need a national policy of atheism, as some of today's anti-religious zealots seem to think, but they were able to find a tolerant foothold and ultimately a profound acceptance in a country that had no formal, doctrinal basis for coercion or even persecution.

There's no question that's true. But I have little doubt that battle has been won for the most part. No one is going to establish Christianity as a state religion in the United States today. At the moment, I would be more worried about Islam, which does not share 'Judeo-Christian' values, but we will come back to that.

It is all well and good for evangelical Christians, Republican leaders and some Orthodox and hassidic Jews to tout the Religious Right's fervent support for Israel and a shared social conservatism grounded in the Judeo-Christian tradition. Christian Zionism, though, has already proven itself a resolutely mixed blessing, given its opposition to any territorial compromise, culminating in the Rev. Pat Robertson's declaration last year that God punished Ariel Sharon with a stroke for disengaging from Gaza.

My only question about Robertson's statement is how does he know that's what God did. Is it possible that God punished Ariel Sharon? Absolutely. But I don't think Pat Robertson has a good enough connection to God to know for sure. On the other hand, I cannot accept the left liberal conception that God had and has nothing to do with this. So again, I am closer to the right.

As for the purportedly common ground between Jews and Christians on American domestic issues, it is narrow indeed. Research by a variety of scholars and pollsters - Ken Wald of the University of Florida, Eric Uslaner and Mark Lichbach of the University of Maryland, the survey released just last week by the American Jewish Committee - shows a chasm between American Jews and evangelical Christians on issues ranging from the Iraq war to legal abortion to gay rights.

And here is where we part company completely. I favor the war in Iraq, I oppose unrestricted legal abortion and I oppose the 'in your face' gay rights. And the issues on which I agree with the Christian right are much more important to me than any disagreements I have with them on the latter two issues. (It should be noted here that Orthodox Judaism does differ from Catholicism on abortion. In general, Orthodox Judaism would allow abortions when the mother's life is in danger, God forbid, and would allow some forms of birth control under some circumstances. Consult your local Orthodox Rabbi).

Last night, I discovered that my antipathy towards Freedman's column (a version of which apparently appeared at the National Jewish Democratic Council's web site) was shared by Bill Levinson of Israpundit.

The material quoted by the National “Jewish” Democratic Council is, in fact, similar to Nazi propaganda whose purpose was to incite hatred of Jews. From “Propaganda and Children during the Hitler Years” by Mary Mills at Nizkor’s Web site,

Drawing on several centuries of anti-semitism, Bauer intensifies her anti-semitic assault by making the virtuous German the object of the Jewish hate. …An example of this concept of the Jew as a Christian-hater occurs in Uncovered Jewry, Or A Thorough And Truthful Report About The Horrible Ways The Hidden Jews Desecrate The Holy Trinity.

Rabbi Daniel Lapin’s “Why Do “Jewish Organizations” Promote Hate Between Jew and Christian?” meanwhile adds,

During November [2005], the head of the Anti-Defamation League declared Christians to be the enemies of Jews. “…[Named Christian organizations] and other groups have established new organizations and church-based networks, and built infrastructure throughout the country designed to promote traditional Christian values.”

We do not know where the ADL stands on traditional Christian values, but our understanding is that they are almost identical to traditional Jewish values. While we do not believe that Jesus was actually the son of God or that he rose from the dead, we do believe that he taught the basic value system that is the foundation of all civilized societies. The difference between Christians and others is only what they call this value system.
...

The hate speech in MoveOn.org’s Action Forum was coincidentally not limited to Jews and Catholics, but extended in some cases to Evangelical Christians. Evangelicals were, for example, criticized for supporting Israel, and this should help identify the true enemy. Here is one straight from the Action Forum, and note that nine out of eleven MoveOn.org Action Forum participants agreed with it.

…As an Evangelical Christian, the president is doing his part to hasten armageddon, as evidenced by his middle-east policies. He would like nothing more than full scale war between the Jews, Christians and Muslims, as has been prophesisied in the Bible. Also keep in mind that the Evangelicals have no great love for the Baptists or the Catholics, many of whom the president managed to kill in New Orleans. Yet the president’s Evangelical Christian agenda is largely ignored - and it needs to be exposed.

Christians do not believe that they can do anything to hasten Armageddon or the Second Coming of Jesus. The above smear is in fact a blood libel of Christians, because it falsely accuses them of setting up Jews to be killed at Armageddon. We have no more use for blood libels of Christians than we have for blood libels of Jews or anyone else. It is obvious who the real enemy is, and no one here is stupid enough to let that enemy convince Jews and Evangelical Christians that it is each other.

If that wasn't enough to convince me to trust my instincts (my vote is cast already anyway - it was mailed to the US earlier this week), I can use the Middle East law of the jungle that my enemy's enemy is my friend. WorldNetDaily reports yesterday that

"senior terrorist leaders interviewed by WND who say they hope Americans sweep the Democrats into power because of the party's position on withdrawing from Iraq, a move, as they see it, that ensures victory for the worldwide Islamic resistance.

The terrorists told WorldNetDaily an electoral win for the Democrats would prove to them Americans are "tired."

Why does that not surprise me? But they go even further:

They rejected statements from some prominent Democrats in the U.S. that a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency, explaining an evacuation would prove resistance works and would compel jihadists to continue fighting until America is destroyed.

They said a withdrawal would also embolden their own terror groups to enhance "resistance" against Israel.

"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND.

...

Muhammad Saadi, a senior leader of Islamic Jihad in the northern West Bank town of Jenin, said the Democrats' talk of withdrawal from Iraq makes him feel "proud."

"As Arabs and Muslims we feel proud of this talk," he told WND. "Very proud from the great successes of the Iraqi resistance. This success that brought the big superpower of the world to discuss a possible withdrawal."

Abu Abdullah, a leader of Hamas' military wing in the Gaza Strip, said the policy of withdrawal "proves the strategy of the resistance is the right strategy against the occupation."

"We warned the Americans that this will be their end in Iraq," said Abu Abdullah, considered one of the most important operational members of Hamas' Izzedine al-Qassam Martyrs Brigades, Hamas' declared "resistance" department. "They did not succeed in stealing Iraq's oil, at least not at a level that covers their huge expenses. They did not bring stability. Their agents in the [Iraqi] regime seem to have no chance to survive if the Americans withdraw."

Abu Ayman, an Islamic Jihad leader in Jenin, said he is "emboldened" by those in America who compare the war in Iraq to Vietnam.

"[The mujahedeen fighters] brought the Americans to speak for the first time seriously and sincerely that Iraq is becoming a new Vietnam and that they should fix a schedule for their withdrawal from Iraq," boasted Abu Ayman.

...

Many Democratic politicians and some from the Republican Party have stated a withdrawal from Iraq would end the insurgency there.

In a recent interview with CBS's "60 Minutes," House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, stated, "The jihadists (are) in Iraq. But that doesn't mean we stay there. They'll stay there as long as we're there."

Pelosi would become House speaker if the Democrats win the majority of seats in next week's elections.

WND read Pelosi's remarks to the terror leaders, who unanimously rejected her contention an American withdrawal would end the insurgency.

Islamic Jihad's Saadi, laughing, stated, "There is no chance that the resistance will stop."

He said an American withdrawal from Iraq would "prove the resistance is the most important tool and that this tool works. The victory of the Iraqi revolution will mark an important step in the history of the region and in the attitude regarding the United States."

Jihad Jaara said an American withdrawal would "mark the beginning of the collapse of this tyrant empire (America)."

"Therefore, a victory in Iraq would be a greater defeat for America than in Vietnam."

Jaara said vacating Iraq would also "reinforce Palestinian resistance organizations, especially from the moral point of view. But we also learn from these (insurgency) movements militarily. We look and learn from them."

Hamas' Abu Abdullah argued a withdrawal from Iraq would "convince those among the Palestinians who still have doubts in the efficiency of the resistance."

"The victory of the resistance in Iraq would prove once more that when the will and the faith are applied victory is not only a slogan. We saw that in Lebanon (during Israel's confrontation against Hezbollah there in July and August); we saw it in Gaza (after Israel withdrew from the territory last summer) and we will see it everywhere there is occupation," Abdullah said.

If you support Israel, think about that when you go to the polls on Tuesday.

posted by Carl in Jerusalem @ 8:26 AM