A few years back I had an argument with one of my journalistic mentors, who is Jewish (almost all of 'em were). I was naming Jewish names in power and he bridled. "But are they Jews qua Jews?" Why call attention to their religion when it has no significance next to the fact that they are: smart, hardworking, and have attained high status. It was a fancy Latin way of saying what Martin Luther King said, Don't judge them by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. He was implying that I was anti-semitic.
Last night on NBC Nightly News they did a piece on Proposition 8 in California, the anti-gay-marriage measure. And the reporter said that Prop 8 passed in good measure because of blacks and Hispanics, who tend to be more church-going than educated whites. (That was the thrust of the statement, not verbatim.) There were fotos of the aforesaid blacks and Hispanics going to church.
This was of course a sociological generalization. I doubt that it applies to Barack and Michelle Obama. But it is a true and acceptable generalization. No one is accusing NBC of racism. We know there is some truth to the statement. There is something predictably black and Hispanic about this behavior, and so the modifier is accepted.
When I look at the five or more Jews who joined Obama on stage last week for his first press conference (of the 20 people on stage) I follow my friend's counsel and ask, Are they Jews qua Jews? Who am I to point out their religion, any more than say John Podesta being Greek-American or Eric Schmidt of Google being German-American. And the answer for me is that in the case of Rahm Emanuel and Larry Summers, Jewish means something; it means an identification with the state of Israel, which other Americans do not share (Did you notice all the Christian Zionists playing a large role in the late campaign? No). This generalization probably applies to Penny Pritzker too, and to Robert Rubin; I'm not sure, don't know. Maybe even Robert Reich.
Some weeks back Ralph Seliger said that my non-Zionism is merely expressive of the "diversity" in the Jewish community. This was a misrepresentation. Yes, there is diversity on this issue. There are many Jews like me who don't go in for Zionism. We are marginalized and not welcome, by and large. Anna Baltzer, a good Jewish girl, has been invited to one synagogue in her years of talking about Palestine at hundreds of venues. This blog was shunned by an old friend, a good liberal Jewish editor. Muzzlewatch is devoted to the blacklisting and censorship within the Jewish community, all aimed at creating an orthodoxy around the issue: We support Israel. This makes Jews different by and large from other Americans. I venture that the percentage of Jews who feel very strongly about Arabs is higher than the percentage of blacks and Hispanics who feel very strongly about gays. That's why Joe Klein spoke of "Jewish" neocons. And this Jewish feeling is more important than that black and Hispanic one. For the issue that is so important to Jews is merely tearing the moral heart out of American foreign policy in the most dangerous region in the world.
"For issue that is important to Jews is merely tearing the moral heart out of American foreign policy in the Middle East."
I'd say that Jewish interests in American are doing more than tearing the moral heart out of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Israel alone is more of a financial burden than the 3 or 4 billion dollars yearly that is officially thrown around. In a sense the dual identity acceptance, along with the general hostility towards traditional America, is breaking America down, and setting an example for other immigrant and minority groups to do the same.
That the safety of Israeli civilians is important to most Jews should be respected, not criticized.
My sense is that your personally inquiring into the political sentiments of individuals in public office is relevant.
The criticism of counting heads and names, is that your investigation then extends beyond inquiry into the political sentiments and ideology of those in office, into ethnically based screens.
And, further, that you don't convey the distinction between individuals that have committed, vs conditional political views.
You have more work to do. The collection of names is at best a starting point. To publish anything of merit from that observation, takes much more inquiry.
And, posting here, is publishing.
I could care less what day these people celebrate the Sabbath. What I care about are their ties to Israel and the policies those ties generate. These people's identity should be corrupted Americans. Corrupted by Israeli nationalism and graft. They hide their corruption behind religion because it works, but their religion is not what guides them; money and power are their guiding lights.
That the safety of Israeli civilians is important to most Jews should be respected, not criticized. On the other hand, the safety of Americans is important to most Americans and should be given more than a boilerplate fig leaf for policies not in the USA's interests net.
My sense is that your personally inquiring into the political sentiments of individuals in public office is relevant. Of course.
The criticism of counting heads and names, is that your investigation then extends beyond inquiry into the political sentiments and ideology of those in office, into ethnically based screens. How do you separate them? It's not for nothing that most Jews first want to know, is he or she a Jew? History is telling, and its a sword that cuts both ways.
And, further, that you don't convey the distinction between individuals that have committed, vs conditional political views.
Politicians are notorious for fudging their commitments. Conditional political views are usually masked by humanitarian rhetoric.
You have more work to do. The collection of names is at best a starting point. To publish anything of merit from that observation, takes much more inquiry. Yes, try to unveil the veil, and make sure you keep secretly collecting and analyzing the names.
And, posting here, is publishing.
Yes, equal to a headline or main article in the OP page.
The Jewish tolerance and concern for homosexuality is another nail in its coffin. With an unwavering commitment to wealth, debt and the family. It really is backing all sides.
It is a divisive issue, but the blogosphere is waking up to these domestic (smut) issues being nothing other than a ploy to divide and distract everyone from more important issues that effect everyone.
And the Gay issue is likely to create more focus on Jewish influence and policies. It is after all, the question that the jewish lobby asked Ahmadinijad about when he visited New York.
"It is after all, the question that the jewish lobby asked Ahmadinijad about when he visited New York."
DO YOU REALLY THINK THEY ASKED IT OUT OF CONCERN FOR IRANIAN GAYS? ARE YOU THAT NAIVE?
"That the safety of Israeli civilians is important to most Jews should be respected, not criticized."
Richard, should Jews care equally about the safety of Japanese people? Are Jews allowed to proactively favor a tribe of people? What if the English or Germanic people decided that their safety was paramount? What if the girding of their belief was that non-English or non-Germans would undermine communal safety and that all outsiders should be deported or placed into special zones within cities? Would you respect such opinions? What if Englishmen decided to lobby for a return to apartheid in SA as a way to reduce crime against fellow Englishmen? Do Englishmen or Germans differ from Jews?