Ann Coulter: Democrats and the Jews

[abu afak]

Ann Coulter is welcome in my Orthodox synagogue anytime
by Ben Shapiro


December 3, 2003

This week, Ann Coulter caught flak from the liberal Jewish community for her latest column, "The Party of Ideas." In her column, she deconstructs the Democratic presidential candidates and exposes them for the panderers they are, especially with regard to the Jewish community.

"In addition to having a number of family deaths among them," she writes, "the Democrats' other big idea -- too nuanced for a bumper sticker -- is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There's Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised."

As Coulter points out, claiming that you have a Jew in the family or Jewish blood running in your veins doesn't mean anything when push comes to shove: "The Democrats' urge to assert a Jewish heritage is designed to disguise the fact that the Democrats would allow the state of Israel to perish as Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter Jewish women and children." Coulter rightly criticizes the Jewish community for falling for this ridiculous campaign ploy: "And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering."

Of course, an assertion like that arouses liberal Jews, who feel that they fulfill their Jewish obligations by eating bagels and lox, and only proclaim their Jewishness when they sense any hint of anti-Semitism from the political right wing.

Never mind that Coulter is clearly on target with regard to the Jewish community. In the distant past, the Democratic Party earned the respect of Jewish voters by representing religious tolerance while maintaining moral values. Today, the Democratic Party buys the Jewish vote with a few pints of Jewish blood. Democrats secure the Jewish vote by suddenly discovering a Jewish relative or appointing a Jew to a position of power.

Coulter is clearly correct to point out that Jews must be aware that just because someone has friends who are Jews does not assure pro-Jewish policies. Current Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, who claims Jewish sympathies because his wife is Jewish, refers to Hamas baby-murderers as "soldiers" in the Arab-Israeli war, says that America should not take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and states that Israel must abandon Judea and Samaria to Arab terrorists.

Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, falsely averred on "Larry King Live" that Judaism has no core convictions about abortion; rather, he lied, abortion is "a matter of personal judgment. And like everything else in Judaism, ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide what we think is right." Hillary Clinton, who attempted to establish Jewish lineage, kissed Yasser Arafat's wife after Suha Arafat claimed that Palestinian-Arab children were being poisoned by Israeli troops.

Yet liberal Jews continue to kvell whenever any Democrat discovers Jewish identity. When Hillary decided that she was Jewish-by-long-lost-relation, New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf explained that "Jews will now feel that she's almost one of their own. It will make it easier for Jews to connect with her." When Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, announced his 2004 campaign, Jewish groups immediately rushed to support him, despite his wavering support for Israel and outright misrepresentation of authentic Jewish values.

But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism.

Why are liberal Jews susceptible to pandering? Because it validates their anti-Judaic lifestyle. Deep down, every Jew still has a spark that resonates to authentic Jewish values and attitudes, values that are clearly in line with the politically conservative position. When prominent Democrats identify themselves as Jewish, or Jewish-sympathizing, it becomes easy for liberal Jews to justify their own betrayal of authentic Judaism. "What's wrong with being liberal? Howard Dean's wife is Jewish, and he's a liberal! He can't be bad for the Jews!" "Look at Joe Lieberman! He's observant, and he's a liberal! Leftism can't be anti-Judaic if Joe champions it!"

Liberal Jews may not like what they hear, but Ann Coulter is right. The Democratic Party has played the demographic Jewish community like a gefilte fish. If liberal Jews want the right to start screaming anti-Semitism, they need to start acting in concert with authentic Jewish values first.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20031203.shtml

[RichardP]

Originally posted by abu afak
Ann Coulter is welcome in my Orthodox synagogue anytime
by Ben Shapiro


December 3, 2003

This week, Ann Coulter caught flak from the liberal Jewish community for her latest column, "The Party of Ideas." In her column, she deconstructs the Democratic presidential candidates and exposes them for the panderers they are, especially with regard to the Jewish community.

"In addition to having a number of family deaths among them," she writes, "the Democrats' other big idea -- too nuanced for a bumper sticker -- is that many of them have Jewish ancestry. There's Joe Lieberman: Always Jewish. Wesley Clark: Found Out His Father Was Jewish in College. John Kerry: Jewish Since He Began Presidential Fund-Raising. Howard Dean: Married to a Jew. Al Sharpton: Circumcised."

As Coulter points out, claiming that you have a Jew in the family or Jewish blood running in your veins doesn't mean anything when push comes to shove: "The Democrats' urge to assert a Jewish heritage is designed to disguise the fact that the Democrats would allow the state of Israel to perish as Palestinian suicide bombers slaughter Jewish women and children." Coulter rightly criticizes the Jewish community for falling for this ridiculous campaign ploy: "And that, boys and girls, is how the Jews survived thousands of years of persecution: by being susceptible to pandering."

Of course, an assertion like that arouses liberal Jews, who feel that they fulfill their Jewish obligations by eating bagels and lox, and only proclaim their Jewishness when they sense any hint of anti-Semitism from the political right wing.

Never mind that Coulter is clearly on target with regard to the Jewish community. In the distant past, the Democratic Party earned the respect of Jewish voters by representing religious tolerance while maintaining moral values. Today, the Democratic Party buys the Jewish vote with a few pints of Jewish blood. Democrats secure the Jewish vote by suddenly discovering a Jewish relative or appointing a Jew to a position of power.

Coulter is clearly correct to point out that Jews must be aware that just because someone has friends who are Jews does not assure pro-Jewish policies. Current Democratic front-runner Howard Dean, who claims Jewish sympathies because his wife is Jewish, refers to Hamas baby-murderers as "soldiers" in the Arab-Israeli war, says that America should not take sides in the Arab-Israeli conflict, and states that Israel must abandon Judea and Samaria to Arab terrorists.

Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, falsely averred on "Larry King Live" that Judaism has no core convictions about abortion; rather, he lied, abortion is "a matter of personal judgment. And like everything else in Judaism, ultimately, it's up to each of us to decide what we think is right." Hillary Clinton, who attempted to establish Jewish lineage, kissed Yasser Arafat's wife after Suha Arafat claimed that Palestinian-Arab children were being poisoned by Israeli troops.

Yet liberal Jews continue to kvell whenever any Democrat discovers Jewish identity. When Hillary decided that she was Jewish-by-long-lost-relation, New York political consultant Hank Sheinkopf explained that "Jews will now feel that she's almost one of their own. It will make it easier for Jews to connect with her." When Joe Lieberman, a semi-observant Jew, announced his 2004 campaign, Jewish groups immediately rushed to support him, despite his wavering support for Israel and outright misrepresentation of authentic Jewish values.

But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism.

Why are liberal Jews susceptible to pandering? Because it validates their anti-Judaic lifestyle. Deep down, every Jew still has a spark that resonates to authentic Jewish values and attitudes, values that are clearly in line with the politically conservative position. When prominent Democrats identify themselves as Jewish, or Jewish-sympathizing, it becomes easy for liberal Jews to justify their own betrayal of authentic Judaism. "What's wrong with being liberal? Howard Dean's wife is Jewish, and he's a liberal! He can't be bad for the Jews!" "Look at Joe Lieberman! He's observant, and he's a liberal! Leftism can't be anti-Judaic if Joe champions it!"

Liberal Jews may not like what they hear, but Ann Coulter is right. The Democratic Party has played the demographic Jewish community like a gefilte fish. If liberal Jews want the right to start screaming anti-Semitism, they need to start acting in concert with authentic Jewish values first.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/b...20031203.shtml

I find it ironic there has been no comment on this thread. Ann Coulter, love her or hate her, has made valid points regarding the Demo’s pandering of the liberal-Jewish vote. Haven’t folks ever questioned how or why, when they need our vote, candidates come out of the closet, exposing their “Jewish” connection?
Bush has made more than a few faux pas during his term as President. However, one doesn’t have to have psychic powers to predetermine the future for Israel, the US or the other western-democracies: if, G-d forbid, a Democrat was to win the Presidential election.

[Mediocrates]

I would prefer to leave off the specifics of Mr. Shapiro's critique because I think there are some flaws in it and it appears to be a thinly veiled slam at non Orthodox Jews. Ok so everyone is entitled to their own identity Mr. Shapiro, let he who is w/o sin...and so on.


But I think the wider political question is this. For decades the Democratic party has automatically assumed "The Jews are with us.." and taken us for granted. In truth the Democratic party has for a long time dropped any concern or action on Jewish or Jewish-American issues in the US and focused on issues that appeal to Jewish-American's self perception and perceived values:

Labor unions, women's rights, immigration, egalitarianism, senior care, public education reform, etc. Yet for most of those issues with the exception of women's rights and reproductive rights, few really touch directly on our lives. They are to be sure, national issues but we don't live in the inner city, aren't in the group of people with no medical care or can't afford college, aren't a force in unions (anymore). The few million of us in the US are for the most part middle class dual income urban/suburbanites. And while we might feel an affinity for all those other issues for their own sake and see a need to address them 'liberally' we are for better or worse victims of our own success.

The Democratic party was happy to go into the Jewish community and prompt cooperation with the Freedom Ride movement. We were happy to do that. After all it wasn't so long ago that Jews couldn't vote, own real estate or hold public office (in my own state, NC Jews were given that right in 1868 fully 3 years AFTER passing the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments).

But what did we get out of the bargain? A faint promise to 'support Israel'? That's been pretty uneven and very hard fought. What about the values we want now? What about public support of Hillel schools? What about Jewish museums? What about hate crime legislation, what about Koby's Law?

(2001)
http://www.jlaw.com/LawPolicy/kobymandellact.html
(2003)
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...4&congress=108

See instead of taking us for granted and telling us to go find new allies we might have to hold our noses over, they should be addressing our issues. Unlike the Democrats who want to tell us to do nothing as long as our hearts are pure and our hands are clean, we have to deal with the Republicans who are at least willing to trade. And if they will address our national and international interests, for whatever reason then I for one am willing to, as we used to say on Wall St. to "not look too hard up that rhino's ass."

That is the lesson the Democrats have to learn. Today either they are indifferent to Jewish interests and not just Israel but solid middle class domestic issues or they simply take us for granted. I think it's something of both. I think they have been comandeered by their own extremists as much as have been some of the Republicans. Because when Al Sharpton starts making sense, you know you're in deep. And it's also true that they're playing the Jew-Liberal card too heavily. They believe they will always support them even if it means losing out ourselves because we all just want to be 'nice'. The time for 'nice' is over. I and many of the people and fellow Jews are not 'nice'. We're not waiting around for someone to tell us how grateful they are. Not anymore. Not when Democrats rub shoulders with CAIR and AMC and flat out deny the need for vouchers sometimes and deny all the good work that religious organizations do every day.

And it's not just them. We are as guilty. American Jews will always tell you about how interesting some other culture is but theirs. They will always support some far off place or some group here in the US who wants to preserve their history and identity as long as no one reminds them where they came from. They will always tell you how Jewish they are as long as you never bring it up yourself. They will always want to listen and appreciate everyone else's POV when it comes to Palestinians murdering people. They will always warn you of the dangers of 'extremist fundamentalism' w/o once understanding how important cultural and religious education is for their very survival as a people. They will always tell you they hate religion while regaling you of their latest trip to the their new Buddhist temple or Quaker Hall or Unitarian Fellowship. This is the group the Democrats count on. People always willing to subsume their interests beneath those of people who are quite open with how indifferent, sometimes openly hostile to those Jews.

Is it striving? Low self esteem? Shame? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I hear a candidate claim some pittying long lost connection to his/her Jewish roots I am ashamed to be associated with public statements of Judaism and Jewishness which are no different from brand names and shoe logos.

[RichardP]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
I would prefer to leave off the specifics of Mr. Shapiro's critique because I think there are some flaws in it and it appears to be a thinly veiled slam at non Orthodox Jews. Ok so everyone is entitled to their own identity Mr. Shapiro, let he who is w/o sin...and so on.


But I think the wider political question is this. For decades the Democratic party has automatically assumed "The Jews are with us.." and taken us for granted. In truth the Democratic party has for a long time dropped any concern or action on Jewish or Jewish-American issues in the US and focused on issues that appeal to Jewish-American's self perception and perceived values:

Labor unions, women's rights, immigration, egalitarianism, senior care, public education reform, etc. Yet for most of those issues with the exception of women's rights and reproductive rights, few really touch directly on our lives. They are to be sure, national issues but we don't live in the inner city, aren't in the group of people with no medical care or can't afford college, aren't a force in unions (anymore). The few million of us in the US are for the most part middle class dual income urban/suburbanites. And while we might feel an affinity for all those other issues for their own sake and see a need to address them 'liberally' we are for better or worse victims of our own success.

The Democratic party was happy to go into the Jewish community and prompt cooperation with the Freedom Ride movement. We were happy to do that. After all it wasn't so long ago that Jews couldn't vote, own real estate or hold public office (in my own state, NC Jews were given that right in 1868 fully 3 years AFTER passing the 13th, 14th and 15th ammendments).

But what did we get out of the bargain? A faint promise to 'support Israel'? That's been pretty uneven and very hard fought. What about the values we want now? What about public support of Hillel schools? What about Jewish museums? What about hate crime legislation, what about Koby's Law?

(2001)
http://www.jlaw.com/LawPolicy/kobymandellact.html
(2003)
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...4&congress=108

See instead of taking us for granted and telling us to go find new allies we might have to hold our noses over, they should be addressing our issues. Unlike the Democrats who want to tell us to do nothing as long as our hearts are pure and our hands are clean, we have to deal with the Republicans who are at least willing to trade. And if they will address our national and international interests, for whatever reason then I for one am willing to, as we used to say on Wall St. to "not look too hard up that rhino's ass."

That is the lesson the Democrats have to learn. Today either they are indifferent to Jewish interests and not just Israel but solid middle class domestic issues or they simply take us for granted. I think it's something of both. I think they have been comandeered by their own extremists as much as have been some of the Republicans. Because when Al Sharpton starts making sense, you know you're in deep. And it's also true that they're playing the Jew-Liberal card too heavily. They believe they will always support them even if it means losing out ourselves because we all just want to be 'nice'. The time for 'nice' is over. I and many of the people and fellow Jews are not 'nice'. We're not waiting around for someone to tell us how grateful they are. Not anymore. Not when Democrats rub shoulders with CAIR and AMC and flat out deny the need for vouchers sometimes and deny all the good work that religious organizations do every day.

And it's not just them. We are as guilty. American Jews will always tell you about how interesting some other culture is but theirs. They will always support some far off place or some group here in the US who wants to preserve their history and identity as long as no one reminds them where they came from. They will always tell you how Jewish they are as long as you never bring it up yourself. They will always want to listen and appreciate everyone else's POV when it comes to Palestinians murdering people. They will always warn you of the dangers of 'extremist fundamentalism' w/o once understanding how important cultural and religious education is for their very survival as a people. They will always tell you they hate religion while regaling you of their latest trip to the their new Buddhist temple or Quaker Hall or Unitarian Fellowship. This is the group the Democrats count on. People always willing to subsume their interests beneath those of people who are quite open with how indifferent, sometimes openly hostile to those Jews.

Is it striving? Low self esteem? Shame? I don't know. What I do know is that every time I hear a candidate claim some pittying long lost connection to his/her Jewish roots I am ashamed to be associated with public statements of Judaism and Jewishness which are no different from brand names and shoe logos.

Well articulated, Mediocrates; much food for thought! Thanks!

[varian]

*******************************
"But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism."

"Why are liberal Jews susceptible to pandering? Because it validates their anti-Judaic lifestyle. Deep down, every Jew still has a spark that resonates to authentic Jewish values and attitudes, values that are clearly in line with the politically conservative position. When prominent Democrats identify themselves as Jewish, or Jewish-sympathizing, it becomes easy for liberal Jews to justify their own betrayal of authentic Judaism. "What's wrong with being liberal?"
*******************************

When Elijah returns will he have to ask American Jews?:
"How long will you hobble between two opinions? If the L-rd is G-d follow Him;"... but if American secularism is your god, follow it. Your choice!!

[Alfred]

This November a very large proportion of American Jews will be faced with a moral quandry.

If they vote Democrat as they usually do, there is a good possibility that Israel will no longer be the center of our foreign policy vis a vis the Middle East. This may be the end of Israel as we know it. On the other hand, if they vote Republican, they will be voting against their main philosophy- Liberalism, but they will be voting for continued support of Israel.

So it may boil down to voting for Israel or voting for Liberalism. (Depending of course, on who the final Democratic candidate is....but it doesn't look good for Israel in the current line-up -Lieberman excepted).

I suspect however, that at least 80% will choose political/religious philosophy (Liberalism) over Israel.

Which leads to the quote from Ann Coulter:

"But for most liberal Jews, authentic Judaism is an afterthought. These Jews are born Jewish, but they don't think Jewish, and they certainly don't act Jewish. When American Jews are identified as a demographic group, observers should note that the vast majority of them do not practice authentic Judaism -- they practice secularism."

Which leads to Alfred begging the question:

The world of nations took away much of Palestine from the Arabs in 1948 to restore a homeland for the Jews of the world. A place where, hopefully, there would never again be a holocaust, a diaspora or a pogram. To create this new land, which admittedly was a restoration of a long lost people to their original homeland; the UN (Europe and the USA) dislocated quite a few Arabs in the process. These Arabs had for the most part lived on that land for the past 2,000 odd years.

The question I am begging: If the Jews of Europe, the USA and much of the rest of the non-Israeli world 1) continue to vote for governments who do not support Israel; 2) if these non-Israeli Jews no longer feel threatened in their adopted countries, and 3) if most of the Jews of the world have no desire to move back to a "homeland;" should not the UN reconsider its original formation of Israel? And should not the UN revoke its charter?

Has not the original purpose for the re-creation of Israel lost its charm? Do not most of the world's Jews live in other countries and support (by their votes) anti-Israeli philosophies?

Something to consider in light of the Ann Coulter article. You may see the UN bringing this subject up in the coming years. As the years go by, Europe will certainly want the UN to reconsider. Demographics alone will force the issue. I post this as a thought inspiring question, not as a provocative statement

[Kev]

Good one Mediocrates!

Has not the original purpose for the re-creation of Israel lost its charm? Do not most of the world's Jews live in other countries and support (by their votes) anti-Israeli philosophies?

Something to consider in light of the Ann Coulter article. You may see the UN bringing this subject up in the coming years. As the years go by, Europe will certainly want the UN to reconsider. Demographics alone will force the issue. I post this as a thought inspiring question, not as a provocative statement

Im not Jewish, so I am not going to partake in this convo, but I would be interested in hearing what others seem to think about this question as well.

For I too have been suprised at the lack of interest shown Israel by many secular Jews that I know.

[Oh Jerusalem]

Originally posted by Kev
For I too have been suprised at the lack of interest shown Israel by many secular Jews that I know.

That would also be true of secular Israelis.

It's sort of simple. If you're really secular, you're just another biological being. So what rationale is there to supporting a Jewish state?

That's putting it in a nutshell.

Anyway, anyone else see the latest Howard Dean fashion show?

Source: Yahoo News

[Donna]

Originally posted by Oh Jerusalem

Anyway, anyone else see the latest Howard Dean fashion show?

Source: Yahoo News [/B]

He's such fashion maven.

[Mediocrates]

Has not the original purpose for the re-creation of Israel lost its charm? Do not most of the world's Jews live in other countries and support (by their votes) anti-Israeli philosophies?

Something to consider in light of the Ann Coulter article. You may see the UN bringing this subject up in the coming years. As the years go by, Europe will certainly want the UN to reconsider. Demographics alone will force the issue. I post this as a thought inspiring question, not as a provocative statement

Countries don't 'go out of vogue', do they? I can't imagine there is still a reason to defend the Puritans from the outrages of the Dutch and the English and so therefore preserve the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is there? Nationhood is nothing like affirmative action.

But that's hardly the point. Countries don't have to defend or explain their existance. We no more demand a recertification of Israel any more than we demand the recertification of France. That's why we have Sovereignty. Israel wasn't created simply because the world needed a veal pen into which to pour some Jews and get that pesky problem off their blotters. Israel was created because it was time for them to have a country of their own, it was the right thing to do, a rational response to create a homeland for a diaspora people.

Diaspora Jews in the west enjoy success and safety and to some degree assimilation - some would say too much. But that is not a factor in some other place - in some other country. It does not imply that Israel is a temporary place, a refugee camp open only until the fate of world Jewry is stable. For that was the case before. In 1945 American Jews enjoyed similar freedoms as they do now - the differences from now were under the covers. So that in an of itself is not a reason to assume that somehow Israel enjoys less 'legitimacy'.

[Alfred]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Countries don't 'go out of vogue', do they? I can't imagine there is still a reason to defend the Puritans from the outrages of the Dutch and the English and so therefore preserve the Massachusetts Bay Colony, is there? Nationhood is nothing like affirmative action.

Excellent response Mediocrates.........however.

Now, I am mostly pro-Israel but I want to correct a few misconceptions many make. In doing so, I will argue that Mediocrates has it backwards.

My argument is that the creation of Israel WAS an act of affirmative action....affirmative action on a grand scale; and that there is NO comparison between the re-creation of Israel and the creation of the USA.

Let's examine affirmative action. Isn't affirmative action an act (by parties in power) who have a sense of guilt to correct some historical wrong originally done on a people who are currently in favor? Affirmative action in this country was developed by guilt-feeling Liberals to correct the historical wrong of slavery. It was also an attempt to help a lower class to become mainstream by creating (by force) preferential treatment.

Sounds like the creation of Israel to me.

You have guilty-feeling Europeans and Americans (primarily) who felt that they owed the Jewish world something after the Holocaust. The UN then, through affirmative action, codified the partition of Palestine which soon after became the State of Israel. By moving the Jews from the Diaspora to the newly created homeland the guilty-feeling nations of the world would 1) cancel out a historical wrong (the Diaspora), 2) create for modern Jews a homeland, and 3) give the Jews a State so that they would no longer be a lower class within host nations, but could be equals in the world of nations.

Now, was the UN actually correcting a "historical wrong?" Mediocrates argues that "Israel was created because it was time for them to have a country of their own, it was the right thing to do, a rational response to create a homeland for a diaspora people".

Surely the Arabs would argue that the diaspora was NOT a historical wrong. And frankly, the diaspora was no more of a historical wrong than was any other migration or conquest throughout history. The Gauls, Franks and others migrated to Italy. The Franks migrated to France. The Celts then Anglo-Saxons then Normans migrated to England. The Spanish conquered and occupied South America. The English migrated to the future USA. The English occupied Canada, Australia and South Africa. The Americans moved West and put the Indians into reservations. The Greeks, Romans and the Arabs conquered Palestine, and the Hebrews conquered Palestine previous to that. In each of these migrations or conquests there were "holocausts" to some degree.

Exactly why do the Jews demand that their "historical wrong" take presidence over other historical wrongs, other disasters, other holocausts and other mistreatments? The answer is affirmative action; affirmative action on a grand scale.

(there is actually a religious argument to be made in this saga, but we don't want to cloud this secular discussion with biased fantasy and tired old fables).


You see, to my knowledge, there has never been a nation formed in the way that Modern Israel was re-formed. It was not a nation created in the manner every other nation was formed...by conquest or mass migration. It was created by government fiat...by affirmative action.....as a gift to a politically connected people who had been wronged.

Originally posted by Mediocrates
But that's hardly the point. Countries don't have to defend or explain their existance. We no more demand a recertification of Israel any more than we demand the recertification of France.

Actually, that is EXACTLY what is going to happen. As pointed out above, there is no comparison between the formation of France and the re-formation of Israel. It WAS and act of charity by the nations of the world, and it WILL be thought of in the future as being "conditional."

Originally posted by Mediocrates
[B]That's why we have Sovereignty. Israel wasn't created simply because the world needed a veal pen into which to pour some Jews and get that pesky problem off their blotters. Israel was created because it was time for them to have a country of their own, it was the right thing to do, a rational response to create a homeland for a diaspora people. ]

No, Israel WAS created "because the world needed a veal pen into which to pour some Jews..." Either because of guilt feelings or for more anti-semitic motivations, the UN decided to give the Jews much of their long-lost homeland.

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Diaspora Jews in the west enjoy success and safety and to some degree assimilation - some would say too much. But that is not a factor in some other place - in some other country. It does not imply that Israel is a temporary place, a refugee camp open only until the fate of world Jewry is stable. For that was the case before. In 1945 American Jews enjoyed similar freedoms as they do now - the differences from now were under the covers. So that in an of itself is not a reason to assume that somehow Israel enjoys less 'legitimacy'.

In the future, the enemies of Israel will use the fact that Israel is a "UN creation" to try to de-certify the State of Israel within the UN. One of their arguments will be that the Israel was re-formed (on the backs of the poor Palestinians) for the express purpose of being the new homeland for the persecuted Jews of the world.

They will then argue that a majority of Jews in the world have no desire to live in Israel....so why was it so necesary to create it? Israel will have become an "undue burden" in the region, causing "undue hardship and turmoil," and is not even fullfilling its original purpose for being. Their arguments will be supported by the fact that the political parties of the countries who will make this argument will in large part be supported by local Jews who theoretically should be enjoying life in the UN-created State of Israel, instead of within the enemies of Israel.

It will be very tough to defeat this argument, and ideology will probably always be more important than a State of Israel in the mind of most secular Jews. For that ideology is a religion in itself, and religion will always triumph over non-essential little "complications". The religion of Liberalism has the goal of world-wide socialism (a world without borders) which will become more important than the tiny little "embarassment" of Israel.

[Mediocrates]

Taken through a microscope I suppose it's possible to make that argument. But it's simply not accurate.

At the end of WW2 the world looked radically different than it did 10 years earlier. At the end of WW2 almost 750 million people living under the Union Jack. There were movements to 'form nations' out the rubble of colonialism all over the world. The Indians, the Indonesians, the Pakistanis, the Jordanians, the Iraqis, the Iranians, the Tanzanians, the Nigerians, the Ghanians, the Malay, the Vietnamese........and the Jews living in Palestine too. In fact the only thing that is uniquely Israeli vis a vis the post colonial experience is that there were significant numbers of Jews living elsewhere. We were an identifiable diaspora culture as opposed to all those others which had no diaspora history or large relative numbers of them living elsewhere.

I think what is unique is NOT that the UN got involved. What was unique was that the British had at least some of the foresight to understand that dissolving their mandate on their own would result in the extermination of Israel or at the least a civil war. Which it did anyway......

The British coopted the UN to lend its voice and force to this new thing called "post colonialism". In that sense the creation of Israel was not really a guilty act in response to the Shoah but merely the one of the first of many UN experiments in precisely HOW to form countries. By 1949 the UN essentially gave up on it's grand experiment and left the entirety of post colonial nationalism up to the colonial powers, the terrorists, civil warriors and others themselves.

[Alfred]

Some good points there, but since when is the UN concerned about accuracy? My point still stands.

[CZ_2004]

Neo Conservatives and Christian Conservatives are among the biggest supporters of Israel in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. They provide political and financial aid for Israel. They have been seen as replacing Liberals and Democrats as the main support for Israel. The attacks on September 11th and the War on Terror have brought the right and Jews closer together than ever in the past. Is there any reason to question whether the goals are the same when it comes to Israel?

A study by Professor Kenneth D. Wald of the University of Florida and University of Texas Professor Elizabeth A. Oldmixon, presented their findings at a conference on The Religious Dimension in World Politics, organized by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies at Israel's Bar-Ilan University.

The study analyzed voting in the House of Representatives from 1997 to 2002. It found that "in a very short period of time, support for Israel became more partisan, more ideological, and more religiously driven."

It noted widespread support for Israel in both houses. Now, "support for Israel was overwhelming, with many more Democrats and African-Americans supporting than not supporting Israel," the researchers wrote.

Jewish senators and legislators in the United States with large Jewish constituencies have been among Israel's strongest supporters.

In the 105th Congress, from 1997 to 1998, liberals were Israel's strongest supporters, "perhaps ... because they viewed Israel as the more vulnerable group." However by the 107th Congress, between 2001 and 2002, "It is not Jews, Democrats and liberals who are carrying Israel's banner in the House. Rather, it is Jews, evangelical and fundamentalist Protestants, Republicans and ideological conservatives," the researchers wrote.

"We might expect evangelicals to be relatively less supportive of Israel because ... they hold negative opinions about Jews," the report said referring to several studies published since 1966.

Nevertheless, "The unwavering support for Israel of born-again Christian politicians such as (House Majority Leader) Tom DeLay and President Bush is explained by reference to their 'devout religious beliefs,'" they wrote.

Oldmixon told the conference she suspects the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks in New York and Washington made congressmen "more sensitive to domestic terror threats faced by Israel. For the neo-cons it's more an admission, 'We need to go get them.' For the religious conservatives this was ... not really strategically motivated. It was more from the standpoint, 'Look at these godless terrorists,'" she said.

The changing attitude towards Israel could divide the Democratic Party, since Jews, blacks, and liberals have been at its heart for decades, the researchers wrote.

They cautioned the Jews against relying on the evangelicals as "an unwavering source of support for Israel."

"What would happen to this support if Israel decided to withdraw from part or all the West Bank?" they asked.

They quoted Republican Sen. James Inhofe of Oklahoma, as having said the battle in the West Bank is not political but "A contest over whether or not the word of God is true."

"Does this mean that by going against the word of God in this or other ways, Israel would give up her right to American support?" the researchers asked.

"Secular (American) Jews and other secular Americans who care deeply about Israel must be cautious about relying too heavily on evangelical support," they concluded.


With all the help from the Neo Cons and the Christian Conservatives, are the best interests of Jews being protected? Is support for Israel the same thing as support for Jews?

The problem between pro-Israel Jews and pro-Israel Christian Conservatives is that the Christians believe that, come Judgment Day, Jews will have to convert to the true faith or be doomed for all eternity. The is the future for Jews in the Christian Conservative world. The long term survival of Jews is only an issue in bringing about the return of Christ. Jews are players in the Christian play who disappear in the 3rd act. It seems that Christian Conservatives only need Jews now to bring an end of Jews in the future. The Christian Conservative may try to hasten events in the belief that they are bring about the return of Christ and cause the death of million of Jews in the process. Jews must be on guard and not allow themselves to be pawns in someone else's idea's of their fate.

Jerry Fawell has stated

Millions of Jews will be slaughtered at this time but a remnant will escape and God will supernaturally hide them for Himself for the last three and a half years of the Tribulation, some feel in the rose-red city of Petra. I don't know how, but God will keep them because the Jews and the Chosen People of God." (December 2, 1984 sermon)

For Fawell, the Jews -- while they are very nice people that Christians support -- are the martyrs and the cannon fodder of Armageddon, enacting war, suffrage, and destruction only to have their remaining few souls converted to Christianity. Jerry Fawell also claims the Anti-Christ is a Jew.

Pat Robertson is another who has no use for Jews except either to get them converted or else slaughtered in the final cataclysm. Go read "The End of the Age" Pat Robertsons vision of the apocalypse. According to Pat, "The Jews will cry out to the one they have so long rejected, and He will come in heavenly power to give them deliverance.

The evangelicals like Fawell and Robertson and their followers believe Christians will be raptured to heaven before all the fighting between Jews and Muslims starts. Everyone left will face mass death and destruction. They are definitive and absolute about the future, and their theology does entail the destruction of millions of Jews in the battle of Armageddon

At the end of the day Jews only have other Jews to rely on. That's how it's always been for Jews. It is important to acknowledge the help Jews have gotten from Christians and the right but Jews must also be prepared for the day when Jews are forced to take sides in their own survival.

[abu afak]

x.. error see next page