Wednesday, July 8, 2015

Say "Good-Bye" to the Democrats

Michael L.

byeCan one be considered supportive of the Jewish people if one is hostile to the Jewish state?

I certainly would not think so, but I would bet that more and more Democrats think that way.

Writing in the Times of Israel, David Horovitz tells us:
Three quarters of highly educated, high income, publicly active US Democrats — the so-called “opinion elites” — believe Israel has too much influence on US foreign policy, almost half of them consider Israel to be a racist country, and fewer than half of them believe that Israel wants peace with its neighbors. These are among the findings of a new survey carried out by US political consultant Frank Luntz.

Detailing the survey results to The Times of Israel on Sunday, Luntz called the findings “a disaster” for Israel. He summed them up by saying that the Democratic opinion elites are converting to the Palestinians, and “Israel can no longer claim to have the bipartisan support of America.”
Israel is the only country on the entire planet that cannot coax the United States into recognizing its capital, yet somehow Israel is said to have too much influence on US foreign policy.

I have been arguing for years that the Progressive-Left and the Democratic Party have betrayed their Jewish constituency through accepting the BDS movement as part of the larger coalition.  It would be something akin to telling black people that if they wish to remain Democrats than they will just simply have to get used to the fact that the Ku Klux Klan has a seat at the Democratic Party table.

The movement to boycott, divest from, and sanction Israel has nothing to do with peace.  BDS has nothing to do with social justice or universal human rights and everything to do with the Palestinian-Arab determination to weaken, undermine, and eventually eliminate Israel as the national homeland of the Jewish people.

76% of Democrats think that Israel (i.e., the Jews of Israel) have too much influence on American foreign policy.  76%!

47% of Democrats - almost half! - think that Israel is a racist country, whereas only about 13% of Republicans think so.

88% of Republicans understand that Israel wants to live in peace, but only 48% of Democrats understand this.

This polling data was put together by Republican pollster Frank Luntz who I remember very clearly as a regular FOX News guy during the Bush II years.  This will incline some people to dismiss the numbers, but they are certainly consistent with my own experience as an activist and writer.

Unlike Luntz, however, I do not think that these findings represent a "disaster."

The Democratic Party has enjoyed the blind loyalty of American Jews for far too long.

If American Jews want bi-partisan support for Israel then we need to do a better job supporting both political parties.  The Republicans support Israel and the Jews despite the fact that most American Jews detest the Republican Party.  But Jews are funny that way.  For example, we have no better friends on the planet then Evangelical Christians, yet we tend to despise Evangelicals.

It makes me wonder if diaspora Jews, as a whole, do not suffer from some form of collective Stockholm Syndrome?  We donate time and money and blood and sweat to those who do little more than perpetually kick us in the head, while those who actually do support us, we disdain.

There is something fundamentally wrong with this.  We should not be like Barack Obama.  That is, we should support our friends and oppose our enemies.  This is what I like to think of as a little something called "normal."  Others might term it "common sense," but whatever you call it, it is in short supply among diaspora Jews.

There are those who claim that Evangelical support for Israel is only out of some malicious post-Apocalyptic End-of-Days scenario in which Jesus will return and show Adolph Hitler and the Catholic Church - to paraphrase Pat Condell - just how Jews should really be dealt with.  I think that the people who believe this of Evangelicals are fundamentally bigots.  They are assigning evil, essentially, to millions of their fellow Americans for no other reason then that they disagree with their political views.

It may very well be that for some Evangelicals support for Israel is, indeed, out of some hysterical theocratic nightmare drama, but for many, many others it is because the Bible is their book along with the New Testament.  The place names of towns throughout the United States are directly out of the Hebrew Bible.  Their entire way of being - for better or for worse - is heavily derived, ultimately, from Jewish theological traditions.

And then, of course, there is Genesis 12:3 which, in the King James Bible, reads as follows:
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
For millions upon millions of devout American Christians, this is why they support Israel.

They recognize and honor the fact that their own spiritual-religious heritage points to the Holy Land, the Land of the Jews.

If the Democrats wish to turn their backs on the Jews for moral reasons, no less, then let them do so.

As long as I am paraphrasing, let me mangle a little Gloria Steinem:
The Jews need the Democratic Party like a fish needs a bicycle.
I, for one, believe in supporting our friends, not our enemies.  Furthermore, it is only through such support that we can ever hope to influence, and in some measure reform, conservative political elements in the United States, or the West, more generally.

I am not a Republican.  Not yet, anyway.  However, given the general disdain of the Democratic Party for the Jewish State of Israel, it takes a special type of Jew to continue to worship at that altar.

Some might even say that it is a form of idolatry.


  1. "Can one be considered supportive of the Jewish people if one is hostile to the Jewish state?"

    The same way someone could be supportive of Geronimo by giving him all sorts of adulation while denying the right to return to his home.

    As to the present political parties, why can't there be a party that will fight the Obama Mideast agenda as though there was no assault on the ACA and fight the assault on the ACA as though there was no Obama Mideast agenda?

    1. LOL!

      That's a terrific comment.

      I don't know that everyone will get the reference, tho.

      For those of you who may not be aware, Sar Shalom is referring to David Ben-Gurion's famous statement in 1939, "We will fight the White Paper as if there is no war, and fight the war as if there is no White Paper."

    2. I'm sorry, but what is the ACA?

    3. Affordable Care Act is my guess.


    4. You are correct, ACA is what is commonly called "Obamacare."

      Several weeks ago, I got a call from the DCCC asking if I could help stop the Republican agenda. I asked the caller about the Democrats' position on the Middle East and he responded that he had no idea, but that he did know the the Republicans were trying to undermine the ACA.

    5. Sar, why do you think ACA is such a good deal? Did you actually buy an ACA insurance yourself? They are horrendously expensive catastrophic coverages with deductibles so high, you are better off paying for medical expenses out of pocket. Isn't it kind of wrong to force things on people that don't actually apply to you?

    6. "Affordable Care Act is my guess."

      You know, I feel like such an idiot, because last weekend my friend was talking about ACA and I had to ask then as well. I have no trouble with FDR, the WPA, JFK, or LBJ, but that one I just can't seem to get my head around.
      BTW, sorry for the OTC, LOL.

  2. "Three quarters of highly educated, high income, publicly active US Democrats" are ill-informed it turns out. They are buying into European style anti-Semitic conspiracy theories about Jews and power, but are too stupid to notice.
    BTW, way back when, the "highly educated" used to vote for Republicans. They were considered by rank and file Dems as elite snobs who thought they knew what was good for everyone else.

    1. But now the Democratic Party brags about being highly educated elites, i.e., all their ideas are "scientific" and beyond reproach (totalitarian left anyone?) and that the Republican base are work a day morons and out and out racists. Just tune in to Bill Maher, Rachel Meadow, etc., for heavy doses of this kind of bullshit. I may not agree with many of the positions of Republicans whom I know, but I find they defend their positions quite intelligently. I find that most of the Democrats that I know cannot state the opposition's positions honestly for the most part, and every black Republican is an Uncle Tom. How disrespectful is that?

  3. btw, they recently held one of their regularly scheduled anti-Israel / anti-Jewish flipouts over at dkos because Hillary is not jumping on the BDS bandwagon, but no mainstream American politicians are.

    They seem to hope that Bernie Sanders will turn on the Jewish people and, thereby, prove himself to be a worthy Jew, but many are unhappy that he has failed to live up to expectations.

    It is interesting, as someone familiar with that joint, to see both Armando and Jay Elias participating. I was quite surprised to learn that Armando is unfamiliar with BDS. I take that as a good sign.

    Jay Elias, is an Israeli expat who, I believe, works the entertainment / TV industry and was an exceedingly well-respected individual when I was there, but who dropped out for awhile and now seems to be back.

    I even recall - although I could certainly be wrong - that he was involved in the Sopranos is some capacity.

    In any case, he seems weaker and more bloodless in his support for Israel... if you could call it "support."

    I suppose he supports Israel. He should. He soldiered for her.

    But there is an emptiness to his words that I find just bland, bloodless, and boring.

    All the passion is on the side of the anti-Zionist / anti-Jewish Left.

    Pro-Israel "liberals" are too busy apologizing to be effective.

    So long as they believe in the "Occupation" then they have no case.

    They are trying to defend that which is indefensible.

  4. To paraphrase LBJ, "Therefore, Gentlemen, What?" Let's say that all of the DNC makes so called antizionism a plank at their national platform next year. Let's they say they call for the ethnic cleansing of all US-Israel dual citizens. Let's say President Hillary breaks all relations with Israel, closes the embassy and goes home. Let's say flying the Israeli flag on private property becomes as illegal as flying the Confederate flag on public property. Let's say the US stops issuing visas to Israelis.

    I'd say the odds are 5/2 against that happening but let's say that it does. Then what?

    1. Trudy,

      none of that is going to happen.

      The situation is far more incremental than that.

      If Hillary Clinton becomes POTUS we can, more-or-less, expect the same garbage that we're getting now in terms of Israel.

      I certainly will not vote for any Democrat, but I suspect that she will not be quite as hostile as Barack Obama.

      But, she will be insisting that the Jews make concessions to the Arabs and those concessions will be entirely counterproductive, because it simply does not matter how many concessions Israel makes or what kind of concessions it makes. If Israel were to release every single Arab within Israeli prisons and declare the Green Line as its final borders, removing the IDF to behind those borders, and vacate the eastern section of Jerusalem, not allowing a single Jew onto the Temple Mount, the Arabs would still seek the obliteration of the Jewish people on Jewish land.

      If every single Jew in Israel were to hold hands, facing Mecca, and hop up-and-down on one foot while playing the kazoo, naked, it would not matter.

      But, I tell you what, let's say the DNC makes anti-Zionism a plank at their national platform next year. It is not going to happen, of course, but I will play along.

      That would mean that the Democratic Party is in open warfare with the Jewish people.

      And what that means is that a strong majority of Jewish people will (or should) vacate the party and do everything in their ability to support the oppossing party, the Republicans, in this case.

      If that were to happen, I would join with the Republicans in a flash, but that is not happening. I may join the Republicans, anyway, but that is still not happening.

      And they are certainly not going to call for the ethnic cleansing of all dual-citizenship American Jews... not anytime soon.

      And if there is a president Hillary - G-d forbid - she will not break all relations with Israel, nor close the embassy.

      Do you honestly believe otherwise?

    2. I would not venture a guess as to what Hillary would do if elected, but one thing I can confidently say is that she did not spend her formative years palling around with the likes of Said and Khalidi. That will affect her propensity to make the types of demands Obama has been making.

    3. No, she was a Goldwater Girl.

      But, ya know what, Sar Shalom?

      The American Jewish Left is going to support the Democratic Party nominee and that nominee - likely to be Clinton - is going to continue the generally same policies vis-a-vis Israel, i.e., the Jewish people, and the degree and extent of progressive-left, liberal, Democrat disdain for the Jewish people and the Jewish state of Israel is going to continue to increase.

      Do you get a sense that things will improve with yet another Democratic president in the White House?

      I don't fucking think so.

      They are going to keep the pressure on and build up the hatred until serious violence erupts.


    4. Hillary is much closer to Huma than Obama ever was to Khalidi. Do you think missy Muslim Brotherhood is better disposed towards Israel?

  5. I suspect we will see ISIS, Hezbollah and Hamas flags at the DNC in Philly. I eagerly await some American woman who converted to Islam, ran off to Syria to fight for ISIS, got fed up, came home and decided to work for the Hilllary campaign to be trotted out on stage as the new face of empowered feminist America.

    Have fun with a party of racists for whom without fear and hatred would have no more than 130 votes in any election.

    1. Catherine, surely you can create a better argument than this.

      Why would you expect any group to support a political party that supports those who would do them harm?

      Obama supported the Brotherhood.

      The Brotherhood is the parent of Hamas and Qaeda and it called for the conquest of Jerusalem.

      Yet, you still expect Jews to support the Democratic Party?... the very party headed-up by the guy that supports the Muslim Brotherhood?

      It simply defies common sense.

      If you are capable of an argument in opposition to my reasoning, please go forth and make one.

    2. Haters hate. Do you really think a party that hates blacks, gays and immigrants is going to stop there? Go read the the American Conservative, the magazine of Pat Buchanan, that bastion of the Republican party and tell me that there is no anti-semitism there. I'm not buying Luntz's poll, but even if is correct it is the result of misinformation, which can be corrected with a competent public relations campaign explaining the real problem in Israel and the territories (that is, that the Palestinians are both ruled by fascist kleptocracies who have no interest in changing the status quo) while the evil inherent in the Republican party can't be changed by argument.

    3. Haters hate. Do you really think a party that hates blacks, gays and immigrants is going to stop there? Go read the the American Conservative, the magazine of Pat Buchanan, that bastion of the Republican party and tell me that there is no anti-semitism there. I'm not buying Luntz's poll, but even if is correct it is the result of misinformation, which can be corrected with a competent public relations campaign explaining the real problem in Israel and the territories (that is, that the Palestinians are both ruled by fascist kleptocracies who have no interest in changing the status quo) while the evil inherent in the Republican party can't be changed by argument.

    4. It is axiomatic economic theory that people vote their own self interest. Republican economic theory benefits the top 1% at the expense of the rest of us. The only way Republicans get votes is to have people vote their emotions, not their self interest. This has been their policy since Nixon's southern strategy. Do you really think it was an accident that Reagan started his campaign in Philadelphia, Mississippi? And let's go through the Republican presidents since Israel was created. Precisely which one was a good friend to Israel? Actually, the best friend for Israel was probably LBJ. Which, by the way, nicely segues to Robert Novak, another bastion of the Republican Party, who was so close to Cheney and Libby that the Valerie Plame affair went from Cheney to Libby to Novak. And Novak, rivaling Buchanan for chief Republican anti-semite, to the end of his life was promoting the noxious lie that Israel targeted the Liberty. Finally, I think you just don't understand Obama. He, like Buber, believes in dialogue as a way of reaching compromise, the golden mean, and hence agreement. His problem is that he doesn't understand that he is dealing with people for whom agreement. Rather for Persians and Arabs the goal is winning, thus any agreement represents loss unless the other side capitulates. People who wish to enter into negotiations need to keep in mind the idea expressed in the book "Getting to Yes," the concept of bATNA, best alternative to a negotiated agreement. That has been Obama's problem not just when dealing in the Middle East, but in dealing with Republicans. That said, hes was left with an absolutely disastrous Bush foreign policy.

    5. joseph,
      I've just read your two comments, and they strike this life long Democrat as time worn cherry picked talking points. If you are going to say that Robert Novak and Pat Buchanan are "bastions" of the Republican Party, isn't it also fair to say that former Klansman Robert Byrd is a bastion of the Democrats? How about Al Sharpton? There's a real role model for you, huh?
      How about William Buckley? He certainly wasn't an anti-Semite. How is it that he wasn't a "bastion" of the Republicans and Pat Buchanan is?
      If the Republicans are only about the 1%, how do you explain the Tea Party?
      Let me guess, they're only in it for all that yummy, yummy racism which they thrive on above all else, right?
      And Democrats never appeal to voters based on emotion. Is that your contention?
      As for your comments on Obama's ineptitude, in the end you still seem to want to blame it all on Bush. But it's not Bush whom the Iraniums are taking to the cleaners. And Bush didn't give the Cairo speech in front of the Muslim Brotherhood or make nice, nice with Morsi. Morsi, as an electioneering tactic, kept calling for the conquest of Jerusalem, yet didn't come in for even a mild tongue lashing from Obama. Compare this to Obama's comments on Netanyahu's unfortunate remarks on the eve of his re-election. Compare it to Israelis building apartments in Jerusalem.
      How do you explain the prevalence of malevolent articles about Israel in the NYT, the Nation, Daily Kos, the Guardian, and BBC?
      What about the emotional blackmail used by Noam Chomsky and others of his ilk aimed at liberal audiences?
      How about the emotional blackmail used by the pro-Palestinian movement and promoted in liberal publications and on college campuses across the entire western world? And how does one explain their emotionally charged, poised for some violence, reactions, when your own contention is that is only Republicans who vote based on emotions without any regard to facts or their own perceived self interests?

  7. Joseph,

    I'm not buying Luntz's poll, but even if is correct it is the result of misinformation...

    Where do you imagine that "misinformation" has come from? Do you believe it is some sort of unfortunate mistake? Or possibly from the media? The academy?
    What percentage of people working in the American academy ( humanities and liberal arts) and the media tend to vote Democrat, to be liberals?

    which can be corrected with a competent public relations campaign...


    Who is going to run that campaign?
    Which liberal newspapers and journals will do that? Which of the television and cable broadcasting networks will be happy to put the record straight?
    Here is a list of organizations for you to contact to help:

    Washington Post
    L.A. Times
    The Nation
    Daily Kos
    Time magazine

    I could go on.

    I look forward to seeing the campaign. And wish it every success.