I’m a devoted Chris Matthews watcher because he’s so street-smart and so knowledgeable about political history (and also a former Peace Corps volunteer). Last night he was the one guy on his show to understand the ravishing power of Obama’s victory speech. He compared Obama to Roosevelt in ‘32. He also said that Obama’s victory could send a chill thru Hillary’s "donor-base," which Matthews said is in Manhattan and the west side of Los Angeles. These people want to back a winner; they may feel misled by the Clinton team. He went on to talk about Hillary’s support from New Yorkers who have moved to Florida.
Florida, Hollywood, Manhattan. This is coy and irresponsible. Matthews never talks about Jews in politics directly. He talks about blacks, about Irish-Americans, not Jews. He obviously believes Jews are important in our politics–I’d note his endless and great riffs on neocons and their supporters–but as a guy who anatomizes the id of American political life, he owes it to his viewers to take on the Israel lobby headon. As it is, he confines himself to hinting, as he did last night. Or as he did five years ago when he asked one of his guests, with a big-eyed and virginal air: Why are political attitudes toward Israel in Europe so different from American attitudes? This is a political question, he knows the answer.
Matthews’s coyness is evidence of the great problem here. A fearless guy is afraid to even discuss the lobby. Why doesn’t he have Walt and Mearsheimer on air to talk about their ideas? I believe that Matthews knows he would pay a significant price for doing so, let alone talking about Jewish money in the Democratic party.
John Mearsheimer tells me that Matthews is hardly the only informed person who privately expresses support for his ideas while refusing to do so publicly. He says, "Many people — both inside and outside the Beltway — have told me and Steve [Walt] privately that they agree with our views on the lobby and its harmful influence on US foreign policy, but that they are afraid to say so publicly because they fear that the lobby will come after them and damage their careers."
Pathetic.
(P.S. A couple readers have wondered whether Mearsheimer was speaking directly of Matthews. No. He was speaking of the general class of Matthews-like sheeple, I mean people)
Related posts:
{ 35 comments }
Cool I just posted on this same topic at Mondo White Boy. Is It Time To Demand Affirmative Action In America's Mass Media? http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2007/05/is-it-time-to-bust-corporate-media.html
Don't laugh Weiss. Look at what happened to Imus.
If Mathews were to do that, the only place we would hear from him is on his own site on typepad….an effect I am sure you're familiar with.
How is it pathetic? The Lobby's list of destroyed and mangled careers is long and illustrious, and includes Chuck Percy, Paul Findley, Norman Finkelstein, Amy Pagnozzi, Cynthia McKinney, George HW Bush and on and on and on. People like me know when Matthews is talking about Israel, and that's fine. Let people educate themselves and get clued in.
Christian Science Monitor Article on what Israel costs us…(I mean the goyim)
Economist tallies swelling cost of Israel to US
By David R. Francis | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
Since 1973, Israel has cost the United States about $1.6 trillion. If
divided by today's population, that is more than $5,700 per person.
This is an estimate by Thomas Stauffer, a consulting economist in
Washington. For decades, his analyses of the Middle East scene have
made him a frequent thorn in the side of the Israel lobby.
Is U.S backing of Israel worth it?
For the first time in many years, Mr. Stauffer has tallied the total
cost to the US of its backing of Israel in its drawn-out, violent
dispute with the Palestinians. So far, he figures, the bill adds up to
more than twice the cost of the Vietnam War.
And now Israel wants more. In a meeting at the White House late last
month, Israeli officials made a pitch for $4 billion in additional
military aid to defray the rising costs of dealing with the intifada
and suicide bombings. They also asked for more than $8 billion in loan
guarantees to help the country's recession-bound economy.
Considering Israel's deep economic troubles, Stauffer doubts the Israel
bonds covered by the loan guarantees will ever be repaid. The bonds are
likely to be structured so they don't pay interest until they reach
maturity. If Stauffer is right, the US would end up paying both
principal and interest, perhaps 10 years out.
Israel's request could be part of a supplemental spending bill that's
likely to be passed early next year, perhaps wrapped in with the cost
of a war with Iraq.
Israel is the largest recipient of US foreign aid. It is already due to
get $2.04 billion in military assistance and $720 million in economic
aid in fiscal 2003. It has been getting $3 billion a year for years.
Adjusting the official aid to 2001 dollars in purchasing power, Israel
has been given $240 billion since 1973, Stauffer reckons. In addition,
the US has given Egypt $117 billion and Jordan $22 billion in foreign
aid in return for signing peace treaties with Israel.
"Consequently, politically, if not administratively, those outlays are
part of the total package of support for Israel," argues Stauffer in a
lecture on the total costs of US Middle East policy, commissioned by
the US Army War College, for a recent conference at the University of
Maine.
These foreign-aid costs are well known. Many Americans would probably
say it is money well spent to support a beleagured democracy of some
strategic interest. But Stauffer wonders if Americans are aware of the
full bill for supporting Israel since some costs, if not hidden, are
little known.
One huge cost is not secret. It is the higher cost of oil and other
economic damage to the US after Israel-Arab wars.
In 1973, for instance, Arab nations attacked Israel in an attempt to
win back territories Israel had conquered in the 1967 war. President
Nixon resupplied Israel with US arms, triggering the Arab oil embargo
against the US.
That shortfall in oil deliveries kicked off a deep recession. The US
lost $420 billion (in 2001 dollars) of output as a result, Stauffer
calculates. And a boost in oil prices cost another $450 billion.
Afraid that Arab nations might use their oil clout again, the US set up
a Strategic Petroleum Reserve. That has since cost, conservatively,
$134 billion, Stauffer reckons.
Other US help includes:
• US Jewish charities and organizations have remitted grants or bought
Israel bonds worth $50 billion to $60 billion. Though private in
origin, the money is "a net drain" on the United States economy, says
Stauffer.
• The US has already guaranteed $10 billion in commercial loans to
Israel, and $600 million in "housing loans." (See editor's note below.)
Stauffer expects the US Treasury to cover these.
• The US has given $2.5 billion to support Israel's Lavi fighter and
Arrow missile projects.
• Israel buys discounted, serviceable "excess" US military equipment.
Stauffer says these discounts amount to "several billion dollars" over
recent years.
• Israel uses roughly 40 percent of its $1.8 billion per year in
military aid, ostensibly earmarked for purchase of US weapons, to buy
Israeli-made hardware. It also has won the right to require the Defense
Department or US defense contractors to buy Israeli-made equipment or
subsystems, paying 50 to 60 cents on every defense dollar the US gives
to Israel.
US help, financial and technical, has enabled Israel to become a major
weapons supplier. Weapons make up almost half of Israel's manufactured
exports. US defense contractors often resent the buy-Israel
requirements and the extra competition subsidized by US taxpayers.
• US policy and trade sanctions reduce US exports to the Middle East
about $5 billion a year, costing 70,000 or so American jobs, Stauffer
estimates. Not requiring Israel to use its US aid to buy American
goods, as is usual in foreign aid, costs another 125,000 jobs.
• Israel has blocked some major US arms sales, such as F-15 fighter
aircraft to Saudi Arabia in the mid-1980s. That cost $40 billion over
10 years, says Stauffer.
Stauffer's list will be controversial. He's been assisted in this
research by a number of mostly retired military or diplomatic officials
who do not go public for fear of being labeled anti-Semitic if they
criticize America's policies toward Israel.
Editor's note: A previous version of this story incorrectly reported
the amount of housing loans guaranteed by the US.
See also: Editor's note regarding objectivity in this column.
Of course he doesn't talk about Jews. If he did, he'd have every member of the ADL and all the other militant Jewish organizations hounding him for life. He'd never hear the end of it. The same goes for every other media personality and public figure. If you're a gentile and you talk about Jews, you immediately get branded an anti-Semite. That's organized Jewry's method, and it has worked in America for decades to allow Jewish Zionists to get a stranglehold on the country. But their problem today is that they can't control conversation around the water cooler, on the internet and in world media. The echo chamber they've created in American media is not a reflection of reality, it is a Disneyland reality that enables the continuation of their dysfunctional, stunted behavior. Sooner or later, reality will intrude on their fantasyland whether they like it or not. In fact, it seems the entire country is in for a painful dose of reality for allowing this to go on for so long.
EWd…great point…."sonner or later reality will arrive…."
The simple reality is that no great power has ever "won" in South Asia. Not the Brits–who were much smarter than the neo Cons–forget the IQ test B.S.
not the Russians
and not our neo Cons.
Internet: hmm i ma a little worried that they will censor the internet. Whatr pretext would they use? Say after a cyber attack from China or organised criminals.
What do u think, Ed?
Americans will lose in Afghanistan and Iraq. We will lose b/c we will tire of it.
Anon: "Internet: hmm i ma a little worried that they will censor the internet. Whatr pretext would they use? Say after a cyber attack from China or organised criminals?"
It's already happening under the guise of protecting us from "hate speech." Canada has laws to protect groups from defamation. This allows them to prosecute Internet critics of Israel.
Chris Matthews was misty-eyed last night. He was very excited about Obama's victory and he was waxing poetically about how "a son of Kenya" may be prez. Matthews also said that people, especially Peace Corp volunteers (such as himself), must feel uplifted that a son of the third world might actually lead the USA.
Weiss touched upon the fact that Matthews dances around the subject of the Lobby. This is true. Matthews is from Northeast Phila and he worked for Tip O'Neil. He knows ethnic politics from growing up in the big city and he witnessed it up close on the Hill. Matthews won't directly discuss the topic of the Lobby because he has a good gig and doesn't want to rock the boat. He may be an Irish boy from a rowhouse, but he's not stupid and he has survival skills.
As proof of his intellect and survival skills, Matthews was smart enough to join the Peace Corp. For those of you that do not know, Philadelphia's Edison High and Father Judge High (NE Phila) lost the most former students during the Vietnam war. While Matthews attended LaSalle College High (for the smarter or wealthier Catholics) and not Judge, he surely knew many Judge boys who shipped off to SE Asia.
You can look at it a few ways, Matthews was too smart to go to Vietnam or lacked the courage to go to Vietnam. Or maybe Matthews is too smart to discuss the Lobby or he does not have the courage to discuss the Lobby.
Either way, Matthews is a survivor.
It's not the Jewish American fault; it's the goys here–they fully deserve what they get.
Are you sure that being in the Peace Corp exempted one from mil service??
Let me know…
Yes, It's the Lobby:
"Political Fear" Drives US Support for Israel
James Abourezk
Former US Senator from South Dakota
December 3, 2006
James Abourezk, formerly US senator from South Dakota, describes below what drives US Mideast policies. He is responding to Jeffrey Blankfort's rebuttal of Noam Chomsky's allegations.
Dear Jeff:
I just finished reading your critique of Noam Chomsky's positions in an e mail sent to me by Tony Saidy.
I had never paid much attention to Chomsky's writings, as I had all along assumed that he was correct and proper in his position on the Arab-Israeli conflict.
But now, upon learning that his first assumption is that Israel is simply doing what the imperial leaders in the U.S. wants them to do, I concur with you that this assumption is completely wrong.
I can tell you from personal experience that, at least in the Congress, the support Israel has in that body is based completely on political fear—fear of defeat by anyone who does not do what Israel wants done. I can also tell you that very few members of Congress—at least when I served there—have any affection for Israel or for its Lobby. What they have is contempt, but it is silenced by fear of being found out exactly how they feel. I've heard too many cloakroom conversations in which members of the Senate will voice their bitter feelings about how they're pushed around by the Lobby to think otherwise. In private one hears the dislike of Israel and the tactics of the Lobby, but not one of them is willing to risk the Lobby's animosity by making their feelings public.
Thus, I see no desire on the part of Members of Congress to further any U.S. imperial dreams by using Israel as their pit bull. The only exceptions to that rule is the feelings of Jewish members, who, I believe, are sincere in their efforts to keep U.S. money flowing to Israel. But that minority does not a U.S. imperial policy make.
Secondly, the Lobby is quite clear in its efforts to suppress any congressional dissent from the policy of complete support for Israel which might hurt annual appropriations. Even one voice is attacked, as I was, on grounds that if Congress is completely silent on the issue, the press will have no one to quote, which effectively silences the press as well. Any journalists or editors who step out of line are quickly brought under control by well organized economic pressure against the newspaper caught sinning.
I once made a trip through the Middle East, taking with me a reporter friend who wrote for Knight-Ridder newspapers. He was writing honestly about what he saw with respect to the Palestinians and other countries bordering on Israel. The St. Paul Pioneer press executives received threats from several of their large advertisers that their advertising would be terminated if they continued publishing the journalist's articles. It's a lesson quickly learned by those who controlled the paper.
With respect to the positions of several administrations on the question of Israel, there are two things that bring them into line: One is pressure from members of Congress who bring that pressure resulting in the demands of AIPAC, and the other is the desire on the part of the President and his advisers to keep their respective political parties from crumbling under that pressure. I do not recall a single instance where any administration saw the need for Israel's military power to advance U.S. imperial interests. In fact, as we saw in the Gulf War, Israel's involvement was detrimental to what Bush, Sr. wanted to accomplish in that war. They had, as you might remember, to suppress any Israeli assistance so that the coalition would not be destroyed by their involvement.
So far as the argument that we need to use Israel as a base for U.S. operations, I'm not aware of any U.S. bases there of any kind. The U.S. has enough military bases, and fleets, in the area to be able to handle any kind of military needs without using Israel. In fact I can't think of an instance where the U.S. would want to involve Israel militarally for fear of upsetting the current allies the U.S. has, i.e., Saudi Arabia and the Emirates. The public in those countries would not allow the monarchies to continue their alliance with the U.S. should Israel become involved.
I suppose one could argue that Bush's encouragement of Israel in the Lebanon war this summer was the result of some imperial urge, but it was merely an extension of the U.S. policy of helping Israel because of the Lobby's continual pressure. In fact, I heard not one voice of opposition to the Israeli invasion of Lebanon this summer (except Chuck Hagel). Lebanon always has been a "throw away" country so far as the Congress is concerned, that is, what happens there has no effect on U.S. interests. There is no Lebanon Lobby. The same was true in 1982, when the Congress fell completely silent over the invasion that year.
I think in the heart of hearts of both members of congress and of the administrations they would prefer not to have Israel fouling things up for U.S. foreign policy, which is to keep oil flowing to the western world to prevent an economic depression. But what our policy makers do is to juggle the Lobby's pressure on them to support Israel with keeping the oil countries from cutting off oil to the western nations.So far they've been able to do that. With the exception of King Feisal and his oil embargo, there hasn't been a Saudi leader able to stand up to U.S. policy.
So I believe that divestment, and especially cutting off U.S. aid to Israel would immediately result in Israel's giving up the West Bank and leaving Gaza to the Palestinians. Such pressure would work, I think, because the Israeli public would be able to determine what is causing their misery and would demand that an immediate peace agreement be made with the Palestinians. It would work because of the democracy there, unlike sanctions against a dictatorship where the public could do little about changing their leaders' minds. One need only look at the objectives of the Israeli Lobby to determine how to best change their minds. The Lobby's principal objectives are to keep money flowing from the U.S. treasury to Israel, requiring a docile Congress and a compliant administration. As Willie Sutton once said, "That's where the money is."
Jim Abourezk
Pat Buchanan and John MacLaughlin continue to have national media exposure, and each are known to bash — excuse me — make cogent and long overdue critical remarks concerning Israel. I guess they wear bullet-proof vests and stuff, such scary times for
people willing to criticize the Jews.
This is interesting. A company with ties to Israel is counting the votes in the Iowa Caucus:
http://www.dailypaul.com/node/19098
Yay, horrah for Pat and John–I guess, for real Jewish American patriotism, we have to settle for Phil…. Gee, that's depressing.
Matthews was given a print-out of the Mearsheimer/Walt LRB article the year before last at USC in Los Angeles and mentioned that he was going to read it on the plane back to D.C. He is yet to have Mearsheimer & Walt on his broadcast (see the last part of the following article:
http://media.www.dailytrojan.com/media/storage/paper679/news/2006/04/12/News/Msnbcs.hardball.Films.Live.Segment.On.Campus-1845603.shtml?norewrite200604122103&sourcedomain=www.dailytrojan.com
Even Seymour Hersh had the courage to mention the Jewish money flowing into Hillary Clinton's campaign:
http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/2/seymour_hersh_white_house_intensifying_plans
O Sure. they have never said 'jewish money' or anything that overt
There are efficient ways to control an american president. Obama is probably a sitting duck for blackmail. Ron Paul could be a sitting duck for another kind of hunter and any one of them would be controlled by a single terrorist attack in american territory. The political entity is lost for americans. What hope you have left is in the public institutions. For now.
What would happen if Matthews came out of the closet on The Lobby? Does anyone remember what the JDL tried to do to Congressman Daryl Issa?
The gross problem with the analysis of "Jewish Lobby" or "Jewish money" is the presumption that it is monolithic.
Jews that contribute are individuals, and contribute to campaigns according to their individual perspectives, which is VARIOUS.
Phil is negligent in not reminding that in EVERY posting on the content, and not as an apology.
"Jewish money" in politics is a description of INVOLVEMENT in the political process, not of dominance.
It is the fulfillment of political process, a politically aware, politically participating, diverse participation.
That it is significant AND diverse is a source of PRIDE for me, not of apology or of criticism.
Richard,
Come on!! You're not naive, you're entirely disingenuous!! You're purposely misleading. You're lying, both to others and to yourself. The grass roots donating by individual jews, highly organized and directed by jewish organizations and aipac, is focused on the interests of one nation, and that nation is not the US – it's Israel.
That's about a monolithic as it gets.
And sure, it's involvement in the political process. But you neglect to mention that it's involvement for the benefit of another country – literally giving Israel a blank check to behave in the most bestial and oppressing ways.
Paul Malfara – Does that mean you can get back the $15,000 some dollars I have donated to candidates that act responsibly for the environment and were recommended by The Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Foundation, Sierra Club, and other pro-environment organizations?
I never got the letter from the evil cabal that I was supposed to be donating my money in a certain way. And here I thought I was being a good American and a good Jew by participating in our democratic process for the betterment of our country (that's the USA wise guy) and the world we leave to our children.
I know it is a hackneyed and misused term by some, but you really seem to be an anti-semite and a bigot. Thanks a lot for making me look like a fool for telling Jews who complain about anti-semitism that they are living in the past.
Mainline Jew, while it may intimidate politicians and wield power in main stream media the 'anti semite' charge is worthless here it's something like Goodwin's law – use it and you've automatically lost the argument.
Is it 'anti semitic' to say that Israel receives support from the Jewish community? Why does it receive more support from Jews than say (oh just for fun) Armenians?
I also am Jewish and PARTICIPATE in the political process by giving time and money to candidates that I support.
If Jews do so to a greater extent than other Americans, that is a sign that Jews are MORE committed to what America is really about (democratic participation).
You live in a fantasy (a propagandized, self-believing one) to assume that Jews donate in ANY monolithic manner.
If Phil wishes to contest AIPAC, it is best that he NAME them explicitly, and probably even more specific than that.
Otherwise his commentary is negligent to the point of encouraging a form of fascism.
The term "anti-semitic" is useful if it is used not as a name but as a description, and clearly.
Mainline Jew,
Your labeling me an "Anti-semite", not to mention a "bigot" bothers me not in the least. It is not just a hackneyed and misused term, it is a diluted and meaningless term in the arena of present-day American social and political life, and the new third definition of the term, "anyone who repeatedly criticizes the actions of the State of Israel" makes me want to wear the badge with honor (at least for that third definition; the other two don't apply).
By the way, I too am from the great State of Pennsylvania, and though more of my friends come from Havertown as opposed to Haverford, I have many Jewish friends who would laugh at your accusations.
Kudos to you for donating to good causes; I never stated that ALL Jewish donations were guided by AIPAC and their ilk. But open your eyes to reality; I suggest you read Haaretz a bit more often; you'll learn truth their that you never see in your American Mainstream Media. They have run stories on how the Jewish money flowed from New York and North Jersey to campaigns of aspiring politicians in Arkansas and Alabama whose only attribute was that their opponents were deemed "unfriendly to Israel." Now, those donors, who had never stepped into those congressional districts, broke no laws. I agree. Were they "participating in our democratic process for the betterment of our country"? (wise guy?? – you're not making ethnic jokes about my Italian surname, are you?)
You tell me if they were participating for the betterment of our country. If you ask me, they were representing the interests of another country. And if you ask me, the majority (not all) of Jewish donations follow similar paths, assuring the election only of Congresspeople friendly to the agenda of Israel. It will continue, until the tide of populism that is growing in the US, washes it away. Peacefully, I hope.
"And if you ask me, the majority (not all) of Jewish donations follow similar paths, assuring the election only of Congresspeople friendly to the agenda of Israel."
An innaccurate assumption.
"agenda of Israel".
Only idiotic American administrations have accepted permanent Israeli expansion. Only one that I know of to date.
I promise you that it was a very slim minority of Jews that voted for him.
To paul malfara…your analysis is correct. Let us hope that we can take back our country peacefully.
I am not entirely optimistic about that. the dual loyalists appear to be a stubborn bunch.
Dear Richard Witty:
Please leave off the worn out ploy of turning every discussion of the Uber Zionist into a discussion about "The Jews".
That said, the fact that maybe 20% of Jews don't support Israel as their mother ship and don't care about it doesn't mean that other 80% of Jews supporting Israel aren't monolithic enough to call it monolithic.
If you weren't a prime example of the monolithic Jew you wouldn't spend all your time in defense of "The Jews".
Cal…when you meet Europeans you realise how brainwashed we have become over here about the ME and the Isreal lobby.
I suspect their descent from the acme of their power to the abyss will be brief in time. The cause will be economic, I reckon.
They gotta be concerned by Huckabee's 34% and Ron Paul's 10%….that is 44% with a alrge turnout. Huckabee aint gonna be too keen to subsidise Jewish nationalism or have more men die for Israel.
I am hearing rumors that the neo Cons have not given up on attacking Iran. That would deepeb the recession as oil would surely climb to $150.
"… Hillary's 'donor-base,' which Matthews said is in Manhattan and the west side of Los Angeles. He went on to talk about Hillary's support from New Yorkers who have moved to Florida."
It's clearly abnormal to be obliged to speak in code to avoid naming an ethnic group. One doesn't need to employ circumlocutions such as "Caribbean emigres to South Florida," when one can simply say "Miami Cubans." Similarly, euphemistic workarounds such as "immigrants from the south in California" are unnecessary when one can simply say "Mexicans" or "Latinos."
By publicly alluding to the Manhattan-Hollywood-Palm Beach axis in code that we all understand, Matthews is basically saying "Help, folks — there's a taboo at work here, and I've got a gun pointed at my head."
What more can he do to express the limits of his journalistic confinement — flash his left palm at the camera, with the scrawled message "Vanunu M. was hijacked in Rome Itl 30.9.86.2100 came to Rome by BA fly 504"?
Matthews is telling us that the ideological balance of broadcast journalism is systematically warped by imposed institutional taboos. Oh well, we can always turn to print journalism, where the New York Slimes supplies "balance" by adding neocon Bill Kristol to its editorial roster. *sigh*
This just perplexes me.
How is it that Jews don't get that living in the US with all it's benefits and using their votes and money for a foreign country's interest instead of the US's is what earns their community the disgust of Americans?
Hello…????….do they really think that the holocaust gives them immunity from accusations of disloyalty or even treason?
Huh? isn't that very behavior and thinking that is causing a large part of the Jews problems?
For gawds sake, wise up people…those who want to live here should be American first…those who want to be Israeli should live in Israel. How hard is that to understand?
Voting Our Hopes, Voting Our Fears
Forward Editorial
Fri. Jan 04, 2008
Maybe it’s the weakness of the candidate field. Maybe it’s old habits dying hard, or unfamiliar threats flaring up. Whatever the cause, there seems to be a sharp increase in talk among Jews, some in the most unaccustomed circles, who plan to cast their votes this year on the basis of Israel’s security needs.
The evidence is anecdotal and impressionistic, but the echoes are insistent. It can be heard in organizational boardrooms and shul lobbies, over dinner tables and on the editorial pages of even the most liberal of local Jewish weeklies. Repeatedly we hear that American Jews want a president who gets the Iranian threat, who’s not afraid of war. Israel, they say, has no margin of error.
The shift in tone, if genuine, is sudden. The American Jewish Committee found last November, in its latest survey of American Jewish opinion, that barely 6% planned to vote according to Israeli security issues. Most were voting on health and the economy. The only real question was which Democrat to support.
But that was November. A few things have changed since then. One is the National Intelligence Estimate, released December 3, which suggested Iran’s nuclear threat is not as pressing as we’ve been told. Jerusalem strongly disagrees. Israel now worries that the report will tempt America and the world to back away and leave it to face the threat alone. We are confused, torn.
Then came the assassination of Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan, throwing the giant nuclear-armed Muslim nation into turmoil. Now the threat of an Islamic bomb in radical hands is not theoretical but real. Everyone’s nervous, Jews very much so. We want decisive answers.
Unfortunately, we’ve been in this movie before. Five short years ago, some prominent Jewish personalities supported President Bush’s Iraq War plans because they wanted to help Israel. Instead, the war proved a calamity. America and Israel ended up in as deep a hole as ever. To top it off, the belief has spread like wildfire that Israel and its American Jewish allies bamboozled America into the quagmire.
In fact, that war had little to do with Jewish opinion. The president and his administration were hell-bent on war. The American public backed the president. Most Jews opposed him. Jewish voices for war were a relative handful of conservatives and hawks.
This time, if our radar is accurate, Jewish sentiment is far more hawkish. We’re scared — liberals and conservatives alike, doves as well as hawks, Orthodox and Reform. We’re afraid of Iran. We’re afraid of Pakistan. We’re scared of European passivity. We want to know that the next administration will do what’s needed to keep Israel safe.
Around us, most of our fellow Americans yearn for change, after eight years of George Bush’s misadventures. That probably means a Democrat in the White House next fall, though nothing is certain. The Republicans are mostly promising more of the same. Few Americans, and fewer Jewish Americans, welcome that.
Awkwardly for Israel’s friends, all the Democratic candidates, partially excepting Hillary Clinton, argue strongly for multilateral diplomacy to contain Iran. They favor war, if at all, as a very last resort. In our current state of anxiety, that might sound just a bit like indecision or worse. Talk to Iran? What comes next — talking to Hamas?
The Republicans sound tougher. With the sole exception of Ron Paul, they all insist that Iran must be stopped from going nuclear, regardless of cost. And so, suddenly, Jews who gushed last fall about Hillary and Obama are sheepishly talking up John McCain and even the Bible-thumping Mike Huckabee.
Not that Jewish voters will decide the election. Conventional wisdom says there aren’t enough. On the other hand, about 4 million Jews vote. If just 15% switch loyalties, that’s 600,000 votes — enough to tip Florida, Arizona, Missouri and a few other states. It’s happened before.
So that is the way the choice looks at this moment — a plunge into the gentle unknown, or more tough talk and tax cutting.
On the other hand, some might choose Plan C: Wait for a Democrat to take office, and then push hard for military action. It might work, despite what the public seems to want. And if it turns into another mess, nobody will notice, will they?
I could not post my comment because of the spam filter. I put it at: http://tinyurl.com/yqyu9w .
CELEBRATE and URGE the participation of Jewish voice in American politics in the areas that we care about:
Just and effective economy
Social justice
Rational foreign policy (including support for the security of Israel)
Environment
FIGHT the misrepresentation, you "TRUTH-SEEKERS"?
i can only laugh when i read about mainline american news and political reporters fearing the jewish lobby-press- and the corporate pressure of putting their careers on the line.
all i can hope for is blowback.
The third rail of politics is such that even mentioning the third rail is a third rail in itself.
Comments on this entry are closed.