Mike L.
"The Democratic Party and the Betrayal of the Jews"
In this piece I discuss the changes in the Democratic Party platform viz-a-viz Israel.
It's not pretty, but we cannot ignore it.
The Day of the Dhimmi is Done - Michael Lumish, PhD, proprietor. (mike.lumish@gmail.com)
Jay,
ReplyDeleteI think what I am most concerned about, at least at this moment, are not malicious anti-Zionists, but people such as yourself.
Intelligent Liberal Jews.
You know what I think. I look at the progressive-left and the grassroots of the party and I see people who, when they do not hate the Jewish state, are perfectly comfortable with those who do.
I've got to tell you, my friend, this is a very tough nut.
It seems to me that the two main possible responses are reforming the progressive-left or leaving it.
I have chosen to leave it, but I respect the fact that you have chosen to stay and fight.
My only request to you is that you also respect my choice, which I am very happy to see that you have.
Political sands are shifting beneath our feet.
"In fact, not only is the Democratic Party divided on Israel, but as Ari Fleischer pointed out on CNN right after the debacle, the Democrats are practically split down the middle on this. He cited a Gallup poll from earlier this year showing that only 53 percent of Democrats—versus 78 percent of Republicans—side with Israel in the Middle East conflict.
ReplyDeleteWhich leads to a larger point about the issue and the reason the Democrats went into damage control last night: the Democratic Party’s base is pulling it away from Israel. It’s disturbing that only half of Democrats sympathize with Israel, but as yesterday’s events showed, among the base sympathy for Israel is not nearly that high."
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/09/06/the-democrats-and-israel-what-now-jerusalem/
I am very much looking forward to voting for a Republican for the first time in my life.
DeleteJewish people have to be the only people on the planet who believe that they have a moral obligation to support a political movement that is unsupportive of their own well-being.
Time to move on, Doodad.
Mike, do you know any Jews that actually believe that? Have explicitly expressed that imperative? I certainly don't.
DeleteExplicitly?
DeleteNo, of course not.
Yet we are told that we have a moral imperative to support a president of the United States who, himself, supports the Muslim Brotherhood.
I know that you are in denial about that support... as well as in denial about the meaning of the so-called "Arab Spring"... but support them he does.
I'm not in denial, I've just seen no evidence of it. The evidence that you present pretty often reminds me of the charges made against Barney Frank, that he caused the housing crisis. The evidence is that he gave a speech in support of the GSE's. It's not tenuous evidence, it's no evidence at all.
DeleteBut beyond that, I've never been told that I have a moral imperative to support the President, and to the contrary, I've never felt that way.
Are all votes a matter of moral imperative? If they are, even accepting that a vote for Obama would be a vote against Jewish self-interest (a premise I reject, btw), what is a Jewish woman to do? Or a gay or lesbian Jew to do? For voting for a republican would certainly not be in their best interest either. Should our identity as Jews be the sole issue determining how we vote?
Stuart,
Deletewith all due respect, the fact that you would claim to have seen no evidence of Obama's support for the Brotherhood is the very proof that you are in denial.
Further, I feel reasonably certain that if I point out some of the various ways that Obama has specifically supported the Brotherhood that you would deny that the support constitutes support.
For example, if I remind you that Obama invited the Brotherhood, over the objections of Mubarack, to his Cairo speech you would probably deny that this constitutes support.
If I were to remind that Obama, and others in the administration, met with the Brotherhood on several occasions before Obama helped usher them into power, you would probably likewise deny that this support constitutes support.
Or if I were to remind you of the fact that Clinton flew to Egypt in order to ensure the transition to Brotherhood control, you would deny that that constituted support as well.
So, yes, my friend, I do believe that you are in denial, but it's most certainly not you alone.
But you didn't answer my main question. Is voting always a matter of a moral decision? For everyone? Is it always a matter of identity politics? Are there never conflicts in those identities?
DeleteStuart and Geoffff... and anyone else who might like to weigh in,
Deletethe heart of this thread is the questions around identity and morality.
Stuart asks this:
Should our identity as Jews be the sole issue determining how we vote?
I don't think so and have certainly never thought so before. As far as I am concerned this is less about identity than it is about protecting, and standing with, the Jews of the Middle East. Surely we can agree that for a people to want to protect themselves from ongoing violent hostility is not merely a matter of selfish sectarianism or identity politics.
It's about insisting that the bombs stop falling on the heads of our fellow Jews. Is that "identity politics" or is it just common sense?
It's not about Jews, per se. It's about the ones in Israel who are under siege. The bombs continue to drop and the Arab-Muslim majority continues to teach their children hatred toward us.
And, I am sorry, but it is not "racist" for me to say so.
Is voting always a matter of a moral decision?
Now that is an interesting question.
{Where is the Madscientist when you need him!}
:O)
My claim, one that I am willing to modify or even abandon if I am wrong, is that the Jews are a people who are generally willing to vote against their own rational self-interest for ethical reasons.
This question resonates with Jewish ethics and, for me at least, 19th century American progressivism which was grounded in questions of morality and essential human decency.
If the Jews have contributed anything to this world it is a humane moral code. If the progressive movement contributed anything to the American political scene, it was a politics grounded in universal human rights, i.e., a moral sensibility.
When I hear progressives discuss politics, what I definitely hear is the politics of morality.
The answer, Stuart, is "no." Voting is not always a matter of moral decision, but I venture to say that it is a very strong part of who we are.
Finally, I have to agree with Geoffff that voting against Obama is not just a matter of Jewish interests, but of American interests, particularly in matters of foreign policy.
We'd all like to see a rising middle class, but there is precious little to suggest that the Democrats will achieve that better than the Republicans.
Interesting, and some stuff to chew on. But as to the last paragraph, there is a great deal of evidence that in the past, the middle class has done much better under Democratic administrations than Republican, as have the poor.
DeleteAnd if i understood correctly, madscientist thinks you're being a twat :0). Or maybe he said "voting is a matter of what each voter thinks it is". (A bit humpty dumptyish) He has been invited to join in the discussion.
Delete"Should our identity as Jews be the sole issue determining how we vote?"
DeleteIt's not about what one views as being one's "identity". And it's not about what, involved with that, and as part of that, one views as being one's "Jewish identity".
Would opposing the Kmer Rouge's campaign of genocide against "the bourgeoisie" and "the intellectuals" in Cambodia be about what one views as being one's "identity" -- including what one views as being one's "Jewish identity"?
I know that, for Jewish people who would oppose the Kmer Rouge's campaign of genocide against "the bourgouis" and "the intellectuals" in Cambodia but who are not defending a continuously intendedly genocidally besieged, repeatedly militarily attacked, repeatedly terroristically attacked, universally libeled, now universally propagandically diplomatically besieged, mortally endangered, newly-refounded, liberal democratic, vibrant, culturally diverse, globally technologically medically scientifically scholastically exceedingly beneficent and beneficial, very small, sole nation of a small-numbered long-persecuted long-libeled long-homeless repeatedly mass-murdered people, and who, even, rather, are excusing and defending intendedly genocidal racists -- Western and non-Western -- who are libeling and vilifying and diplomatically attacking and violently attacking that nation, it would be so.
However, defending, and, therein, protecting from harm, a continuously intendedly genocidally besieged, repeatedly militarily attacked, repeatedly terroristically attacked, universally libeled, now universally propagandically diplomatically besieged, mortally endangered, newly-refounded, liberal democratic, vibrant, culturally diverse, globally technologically medically scientifically scholastically exceedingly beneficent and beneficial, very small, sole nation of a small-numbered long-persecuted long-libeled long-homeless repeatedly mass-murdered people is not about one's holding of a "self-identity" view.
It's about doing what's right. It's about doing what's beneficial. It's about protecting people from harm.
"Should our identity as Jews be the sole issue determining how we vote?"
DeleteWhen the slternative imperils us, we not only should, we must.
Voting against Obama because of your disgust at the betrayal of Israel or even because of his tolerance of racism is not voting out of just Jewish identity or self interest (although that would be enough)
ReplyDeleteIt is also certainly in Americans' self interest. Especially women and gays and should be part of American identity. Nor just Americans.
"Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world."
ReplyDeleteNow think about this one for a bit. It is so true.
Yeah, that line grabbed my attention, too...
Delete