Rosner, in Haaretz, agrees with me that the general election will at last bring a robust debate of our Israel policy:
Israeli experts on American politics said in recent weeks that a campaign between Obama and McCain will place Israel at center stage and will require extreme caution on the part of Israel. McCain is hoping to attract Jewish American votes, both because of his many years of support for Israel, and also as a result of the endorsement he received from Senator Joe Lieberman.
Lieberman is often mentioned as a possible member of the McCain administration, possibly as secretary of defense.
One reason why McCain can draw Jewish votes is that he is free of the burden of George Bush, who in spite his support for Israel, cannot easily attract Jewish voters because he is a conservative evangelical. McCain, on the other hand, has adopted moderate policies domestically, and will allow Jewish voters to choose him with greater ease.
Lieberman came into politics as an antiwar dove. Now he's defense secretary? Look what militarized Israel has done to my people!
McCain can attract Jewish voters because he isn't really a Christian, and they know it. Obama, on the other hand, is clearly a Christian (which is one reason that many Jews dislike him) and has recently been dragged trough the mud by the media for allegedly having a Messiah complex, and for having followers with a near religious devotion to a candidacy.
As far as campaign math goes, that's a pretty good tradeoff for Obama: the Jews, the atheists, the militarists and the money-worshipping types can vote for McCain/Lieberman, everyone else for Obama.
…in fact, the entire narrative is playing itself out like the plot line from 'The Stand.'
Maybe McCain should move his campaign headquarters to Las Vegas.
Obama will still overwhelmingly attract the Jewish vote, especially if he takes a sober stand on Israel.
FEW Jews vote the xenophobic approach. They/we just want our family and family of friends to be safe and respected.
If he can bridge communities, in a kind manner (not rancorous, not disrespectful), he will be a real public servant.
Even if it is accurate that Jews comprise the new meritocracy (which I contest, except in a few cities), they/we generally don't vote that class orientation predominantly.
On the contrary, we still vote progressive, humane.
It is true that Bush's evangelicism turned off even likud Jewish voters. I have an uncle who loved Reagon, loves Likud, but remembered the first Bush's anti-semitism, and was repulsed by Bush 2's incompetence and corruption.
But, my aunt and uncle are likely to vote for McCain. My mother will likely vote for Obama, avid Zionist and all.
She even speaks derisively of Leiberman (of whom she was so proud to be running for vice president, the first Jew to even be considered), since he pushed for the Iraq war, which she rationally understands as an utter waste.
I doubt VERY much that Phil's parents will vote for McCain.
"I have an uncle who loved Reagon, loves Likud, but remembered the first Bush's anti-semitism"
What is his (your) evidence that Bush I was an anti-Semite? Was it simply the fact that Bush I didn't blank-check Israel's loan guarantees? Such are the myths that emerge from the fever swamp of Jewish Zionism: Question any aspect of blanket, unconditional US support for Israel, get declared an anti-Semite.
No wonder that particular epithet is quickly becoming a compliment.
If only the US government had been populated by more "anti-Semites" in the run-up to the Iraq war; maybe we wouldn't be bogged down in Iraq right now and a million or so Iraqis would still be alive.
Ed, you are being antisemitic. As a group, Jews span the spectrum of beliefs and politics, in America, the world, and even in Israel. There are even the Williamsberg Jews out of Brookyln who openly condemn the state of Israel. Therefore your comments are just not accurate. Try "Likud-supporters." Also, remember that there are a LOT of Christian Zionists. So please stop being an antisemite.
Witty: "I have an uncle who loved Reagon, loves Likud, but remembered the first Bush's anti-semitism, and was repulsed by Bush 2's incompetence and corruption."
What is George Herbert Walker Bush's anti-Semitism, of which you so casually speak? His advocacy of a (temporary) delay in loan guarantees for resettling Russian Jews in the West Bank? James Baker's comment in conversation–"Fuck the Jews. They don't vote for us anyway"?
go away Richard, with your sliming of our past presidents. You're a disgrace.
present the evidence, or shut up.
Richard is so used to complaining to his friends and relatives about those "antisemitic" gentiles, that he forgets not everyone shares his neuroticism.
Rosner gets it wrong, wrong, wrong, as usual. Phil fails to call him on it, although he mentioned in a previous post a demographic figure of Jews making up less than 2% of the American population.
Rosner wants to deflect, Phil, who is usually sharper with his laser scalpel, lets him deflect on this one.
It's not about Jewish votes. It's about money and public support, which runs into publicity.
That's what McCain wants – money and propaganda support. Why does nobody call it what it is?
"Rosner, in Haaretz, agrees with me that the general election will at last bring a robust debate of our Israel policy"
Phil, I disagree. This country will never have "a robust debate of our Israel policy" because 'your people' are in control. And they are experts at setting the agenda. So, as long as average Americans are stupid enough to accept this control, there will be no debate. [But there WILL be plenty of pornography, war and otherwise.]
Rosner is such a dumb ass. Jews are going to vote for McCain because he's a moderate? Wishful thinking from Haaretz's "journalist from AIPAC."
"Lieberman came into politics as an antiwar dove. Now he's defense secretary? Look what militarized Israel has done to my people!"
One has to wonder to what extent this flirting with Lieberman — first by Gore in 2000, and now (allegedly) by McCain — is an attempt to pander to Jewish voters. It seems to be working out rather badly.
Although it's impossible to prove it, having the whiny, uncharismatic Lieberman as vice presidential nominee may well have cost Gore the close election.
Lieberman himself had a close scrape in his last re-election battle. His challenger Lamont was ahead of him for awhile in pre-election polls. Lieberman's neocon bellicosity didn't play well on the border of New England's "impeachment belt."
Why, then, would McCain consider this controversial figure, who might well be an electoral deadweight, for a cabinet position? Pandering is the only reason I can think of.
Hey John, why not draft Joe for veep candidate? Then the "McShame-Loserman" ticket can go down as a footnote in electoral history. Works for me …
Jim Haygood,
It's a surprise for me to see you falling into the same trap that Rosner sets. Language is important. It's not about "Jewish voters". It's about Jewish money and Lobby support. Don't let yourself fall into the habits that the Lobby and Mainstream Media are trying to frame around your head.
1. It's not "Jewish Voters". It's really organized Jewish money.
2. Hamas did not "overrun" the Gaza Strip. They really were democratically elected in both the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.
3. It's not "Palestinian violence" followed by "Israeli retaliation." It's really Israeli occupation followed by Palestinian violence to evict the occupiers and secure freedom.
Phil says, "Look what militarized Israel has done to my people!"
Well, here's a closer look from an Israeli journalist:
Why we won't have peace, why we and/or USA will be bombing Iran: link to lrb.co.uk
Lieberman's opportunism reminds me of what Thomas Mann said to a colleague who joined the Nazis after being anti-Nazi: "At least no one can accuse you of having changed your coat, you always wore it rightside out." Meaning that the guy always looked out for #1.
I think that a lot of American Jews will support Obama simply because he's the candidate of their beloved Democratic Party. Don't underestimate their loyalty, especially since McCain is so wrong on the Iraq War.
"To fight, you must be brutal and ruthless, and the spirit of ruthless brutality will enter into the very fibre of national life…"
– Woodrow Wilson