A Jew Asks Why Are Jews So Liberals?

Tough question. Norman Podhoretz tries to answer this question in an article recently published in the "Wall Street Journal".

Like many other Jewish intellectuals (Bernie Goldberg, Michael Medved), Podhoretz moved from left to right more than four decades ago. Like many other Jews (your humbled blogger, included), he's been hoping for many years that our fellow Jews would come to see that in contrast to what was in the past, our true friends are now located not among liberals, but among conservatives.

Since 1928, the average Jewish vote for a Democrat in presidential elections has been an amazing 75% (far higher than that of any other ethno-religious group). In 2008, 78% of the Jewish vote when to Obama. Except for blacks, who gave him 95% of their vote, Obama scored better with Jews than with any other ethnic or religious group. What makes this even more unbelievable is that despite McCain's long history of sympathy towards Israel and Obama's atrocious associations with outright haters and anti-Semites like Rev. Wright and Rashid Khalidi, Obama beat McCain among Jewish voters by a staggering 57 points!

Today, the Jewish commitment to the Democratic Party has become an anomaly. While other ethno-religious groups have followed the rule that increasing prosperity generally leads to an increasing identification with the Republican Party, Jews still remain heavily committed to the liberal agenda. On abortion, gay rights, school prayer, increased government spending, expanded benefits to the lower classes, greater regulations on business, and the power of organized labor, gun control and assisted suicide, the survey data show that Jews are by far the most liberal of any group in America.

In the conflict between Judaism and "Jewish values", on one side and liberalism on the other, it is the liberal creed that prevails for most American Jews. Which is to say that for them, liberalism has become more than a political outlook. It has for all practical purposes superseded Judaism and become a religion in its own right.

Many such secular Jews, when asked how they would define "a good Jew," reply that it is equivalent to being a good liberal.

In Podhoretz's view, when they look at America, liberals see injustice and oppression of every kind—economic, social and political. By sharp contrast, conservatives see a nation shaped by a complex of traditions, principles and institutions that has afforded more freedom and more prosperity to more of its citizens than in any society in human history. It follows that what liberals believe needs to be changed or discarded—and apologized for to other nations—is precisely what conservatives are dedicated to preserving, reinvigorating and proudly defending against attack.

As such, the Jewish experience in this country bears testimony to the precious virtues of the traditional American system. Surely, then, Jews ought to be joining with conservatives against those who are blind or indifferent or antagonistic to the moral values and the socioeconomic institutions of the traditional American system.

Obama ran on the premise that the American system is seriously flawed and in desperate need of radical change—not to mention a record indicating that he would pursue policies dangerous to the security of Israel. Because of all this, we hoped that our fellow Jews would finally break free of the liberalism of the past. It didn't happen.

The encouraging signs that more and more Jews are showing signs of "buyer's remorse", is perhaps one of the reasons Podhoretz hopes that the exposure of Obama as a "false messiah" will open the eyes of fellow Jews to the falsity of the political creed to which they have for so long been so misguidedly loyal.

Obama's Anti-Zionist Jew II

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu has denied calling White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and senior Obama advisor David Axelrod “self-hating Jews."

Whether or not the Prime Minister used the term, increasing criticism by American Jews of Obama signals a split in the American Jewish community.

The trigger for the growing crisis between Israel and the U.S., and among American Jews, is the issue of “settlements” (which Obama labeled as “illegitimate” in his speech in Cairo nearly two months ago) in which he included Jewish communities in eastern Jerusalem.

Obama revealed that Rahm Emanuel, whose father was an Israeli and part of the underground resistance movement under the British Mandate, tells him everything he needs to know about Israel.

Emanuel has pushed Obama into a head-on collision with the Netanyahu government out of a strategy to demonstrate that the pro-Israel lobby American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) no longer speaks for American Jewry.

Obama's game is to try and defeat the Israel lobby from within, since he could not defeat the lobby from outside it.

But that strategy has backfired, turning into a wall of opposition, both in Israel, where Obama’s popularity rating is near-zero, in the U.S. where Emanuel has simply ignored opposing views of major Jewish organizations, and even in the liberal anti-Israeli American press.

The liberal "Washington Post" has criticized Obama on his policy towards Israel, and an editorial on Thursday went even further. Under the title “Tough on Israel - Why: President Obama's battle against Jewish settlements could prove self-defeating,” the newspaper’s editors wrote:

“One of the more striking results of the Obama administration's first six months is that only one country has worse relations with the United States than it did in January: Israel. The new administration has pushed a reset button with Russia and sent new ambassadors to Syria and Venezuela; it has offered olive branches to Cuba and Burma. But for nearly three months it has been locked in a public confrontation with Israel over Jewish housing construction in Jerusalem and the West Bank.”

The newspaper criticized Obama for his “absolutist demand” for a freeze on all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria and eastern Jerusalem and observed that Palestinian and Arab leaders hardened their positions, while the Israeli public opinion has rallied behind Netanyahu (quite the opposite result that Obama and Emanuel had hoped for).

The turning point against Obama may have been the meeting in the White House earlier this month with American Jewish leaders. The Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations requested a discussion with Obama, but Emanuel decided who would attend.

He used the opportunity to attempt to create an impression of solid support for Obama and show off the relative new "J Street" lobby. Unlike AIPAC, it is active politically and endorsed and campaigned for Congressional candidates who fit their agenda, which includes Israel’s surrendering all of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem that were restored to the Jewish State in the 1967 Six-Day War.

At the same time, he excluded National Council of Young Israel (NCYI) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), both of which support a Jewish presence in all of Israel.

The latest confrontation on a new project for Jews in eastern Jerusalem prompted Alan Solow, chairman of the Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, to state this week, "Hundreds of Arab families have moved into Jewish neighborhoods of Jerusalem and the same right should be accorded to Jewish residents to live wherever they choose in Jerusalem. No government of Israel has or can pursue a discriminatory policy that would prevent the legitimate presence of Jews in any area of the capital."

In response, five leftist groups, including Americans for Peace Now and J Street, criticized supporters of Jews’ rights to build in the area.

While Emanuel is trying to strengthen his position, he faces another challenge on the Obama administration’s health plan. Emanuel’s brother Dr. Ezekiel Emmanuel is Obama’s “health czar,” and the plan is being widely panned in American media, leaving the White House Chief of Staff with two potential failures in the making.

Hands off Jerusalem!

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu issued a sharp response Sunday to Obama's pressure to stop Jews from building in parts of Jerusalem claimed by the Palestinian Authority. Israel's sovereignty in Jerusalem is “not up for debate,” Netanyahu said, and Jews are permitted to build in any part of the capital city, as are Arabs.

Netanyahu implied that the U.S. request was racist, saying before the weekly Cabinet meeting, “Imagine what would happen if Jews were forbidden to live or to buy apartments in certain parts of London, New York, Paris or Rome. There would be an international outcry."

"All the more, we cannot to a decree like this regarding Jerusalem,” he said.

Obama's pressure on Israel is growing and the U.S. State Department summoned Israeli envoy Michael Oren and demanded the halt of construction of Jewish homes in the Sheikh Jarrah neighborhood, near the ancient grave of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon the Just). The property on which the homes are to be built has been owned by Jewish philanthropist Dr. Irving Moskowitz for more than 20 years.

Oren told U.S. officials that Israel would not agree to stop building in the area.

Israel annexed Sheikh Jarrah and other Jerusalem neighborhoods following the Six Day War, in which the city was reunified after 19 years of Jordanian rule in the eastern half of the city. While Israel has maintained sovereignty in the capital city for more than 40 years, the Palestinian Authority continues to demand all areas controlled by Jordan in the 1950s.

Seven Jewish families and an all-day Torah-study program, known as a Kollel, are trying to renew the old Jewish neighborhood of Shimon HaTzaddik (Simon The Just).

The area, where Simon the Just and elders of the Sanhedrin were buried over 2,000 years ago, was a thriving Jewish community from 1895 until 1948, when it was evacuated by the British army during the Arab riots preceding the War of Independence.

In the mean time, former PM, Ehud Olmert is joining the debate. "Obama is making a big mistake by insisting that Israel freeze all building for Jews in Judea and Samaria, former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert wrote Friday in the Washington Post.

In his opinion article, which in effect was an open letter to the president, Olmert reminded the American government that Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East and that its friendship with the United States is one of the country’s “greatest strategic asserts.”

The former Prime Minister wrote that the Annapolis, Maryland Middle East conference in the Middle East in November, 2007 was based on previous agreements with the Bush administration that Jewish population centers in Judea and Samaria would remain part of the State of Israel in any agreement establishing a Palestinian Authority state.

Olmert wrote. "Let me be clear: Without those understandings, the Annapolis process would not have taken on any form. Therefore, the focus on settlement construction now is not useful.”

Olmert noted that a total building freeze is “impossible to completely enforce” and would not help security.

Referring to his own offers for a new PA state, he declared that the U.S. should investigate “why the Palestinian leadership did not accept the far-reaching and unprecedented proposal I offered them. My proposal included a solution to all outstanding issues: territorial compromise, security arrangements, Jerusalem and refugees. It would be worth exploring the reasons that the Palestinians rejected my offer and preferred, instead, to drag their feet, avoiding real decisions.”

Obama's Duplicity: With Iran a Mouse, With Honduras a Lion

The "Wimp in Chief", Obama, squirmed and weaseled his words with the Iranian Mullahs and their puppet-tyrant, Ahmadinejad. He did not publicly lend support to all those Iranians taking to the streets, risking life and limb for more liberty, supposedly, not wanting to be seen as “meddling in Iran’s internal affairs”. If there is anyone on this planet that is not familiar with the Iranian regime, we’re talking about a tyrannical theocracy, known throughout the world as beneath -contempt oppressors of every human right under the sun. He did use the words, "appalled" and "outraged" once pictures went round the world of Iranians demonstrators beaten and killed in the streets of Tehran.

This week, the Honduran socialist president, seeking to gut his country's constitution in a shameless power-grab, reminiscent of his friend, Hugo Chavez in Venezuela was rightly deposed by the country’s military.
Obama's response to the Honduran military removing a dictator-wannabe from office (at the behest of the country’s Supreme Court and the Honduran Congress), and escorting him to the border, was sure and fast. He declared the military action an "illegal coup", in tone with the region's socialist gang: the Castro brothers, Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega.

The OAS has given its full backing to the exiled socialist, especially not now, when has paved the way for Castro's readmission into the organization.

Internally, Obama has the backing of the Communist Party USA which is in full agreement with him and even has some of the same demands of the Honduran people:
•Demands that president Zelaya and other members of his government be returned to power immediately, and that the troops return to their barracks.
•Refusing diplomatic recognition and any military aid to Honduras until President Zelaya is restored to power.
•Calls upon unions and other people's organizations in the United States to actively support “our brothers and sisters in Honduras in resisting this brutal military coup d'etat”.

On this background, it should be reminded of the Iran-Venezuela Axis.

Chavez is a vocal supporter of Iran's nuclear program, which is under United Nations sanctions because of fear among the U.S. and its allies that it may be used to build atomic weapons.
Iran and Venezuela are to sign some 20 agreements in various fields during Chavez's visit to Iran, according to the official news agency IRNA. Chavez's visit to the Islamic republic is the third since Ahmadinejad won the presidency in 2005, Iran's local media reported.

Chavez, the socialist, and Ahmadinejad, the Islamo-Fascist, have become quite friendly. Chavez has threatened military action against the Hondurans to restore his pal, Zelaya, to power. Ahmadinejad has called for Israel’s destructions on numerous occasions.

An unholy alliance is being formed by two disparate forces – Islamo-Fascism and Socialism -- united on a tyrannical bent against freedom, against democracy and human rights, against America. Despite their theoretical differences, these regimes share one glaring, common belief: America is responsible for all the suffering and injustice throughout the world. This overriding disgust with America holds together these disparate, radical regimes.

Whose side does Obama take?

Obama Bows to the Muslim World

Obama's speech in Cairo Thursday called for a sweeping change in Muslim-American relations, based on the establishment of a Palestinian state. He told 3,000 guests at Cairo University that he will put pressure on Israel to cease a Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria. He did not specifically state whether Jerusalem neighborhoods are part of the “occupation” that he said must end.
Obama opened the speech with the Islamic greeting, “Peace unto you” in Arabic and reminded his listeners of his Muslim background and quoted the Koran several times.
Concerning Israel, he made it clear that he will personally pressure for an end to the "occupation” that he said has caused displacement to the Arab population in Israel for 60 years. His speech specifically defined the Arabs in Judea, Samaria and Gaza as a “Palestinian people,” and he mentioned their “suffering” immediately after referring to the Holocaust. He accused Israel of being responsible for "humiliation” of Arabs and blamed Israel for the lack of opportunity for Arabs under PA rule, despite the local Arab economy having enjoyed unprecedented economic growth following the end of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation in the 1967 Six-Day War.
Concerning Iran, he capitulated by asserting that it can have nuclear power if it abides by international treaties.
Speaking in the police state of Egypt, Obama addressed the issue of democracy, which he said the U.S. cannot impose. He added that the U.S. will work with countries “that recognize the will of the people.”
He then praised Islam as a force of religious tolerance and racial equality (!!!) and stated that “Muslims have enriched the U.S. and have won Nobel prizes,” although in fact less than handful of Muslims have won international Nobel prices.
In Israel, Obama's speech was met with mixed reactions ranging from sharp criticism coming from the right to foolish remarks (such as Ofier Pines' or Zeev Boim's) from the left.

Obama strived to strike a conciliatory tone in his speech to the Muslim world, in a balanced tone. So what is the problem? It is exactly in the "balanced tone". US policy should not be balanced! It should side with those who fight terror, not those who either engage in it or are too weak to prevent it.

Palestinians must be sent the message that they have to put an end to terrorism, violence, and incitement against Israel. US should stand by Israel - a fellow democracy and committed ally - in its efforts to achieve lasting security for its citizens. Israel's good faith efforts have been met by unremitting Palestinian violence and what is in effect an internal Palestinian civil war. Peace and security go hand in hand - Israel has repeatedly reached out her hand in peace only to have it slapped back. Obama's remarks to the world's Muslims today appear to mark the beginning of a worrisome shift in U.S. policy.