Richard has urged me to get over my habit of generalizing. I have always responded that generalizing is a tool of analysts and the goal is always to challenge the generalization, see if it holds water. Thus Steven Waldman and two other experts on the evangelicals spoke
repeatedly of the political behavior of "white Evangelical Protestants"
on PBS the other day. Evidently that behavior is predictable. Thus Nick Lemann said of the last ruling class in the U.S. that it was an "Episcopacy," using a religious descriptor to blanket an elite, because Episcopalian summoned ideas about patrician values and manners that he thought were helpful to a reader; and I agree. Thus Joe Klein spoke recently of the divided loyalties of "Jewish neoconservatives." Abe Foxman challenged him, as he challenged none of the other religious generalizers, not to use the word Jewish. They just happen to be Jews, he was saying. In the same way that people just happen to be brunettes, or like the color blue.
In fact, Grant Smith of Irmep is about to come out with a new book about the birth of the lobby in which universalist Jews protested in the early 60s that there is no such thing as a Jewish vote, it's not predictable in any way. A long time ago.
For myself, I can only say that the distinction between Jews and non-Jews was extremely important in the culture I grew up in, as presumably it's important to Catholics and Muslims as well with respect to their groups. We thought about it all the time, and it was considered an imperative to only marry someone of that tribe, from all the juicy bipeds available in the world. These were not strictly religious or cultural issues. To suggest that the high wall my friends and family saw between us and the non-Jewish world had no political implications is folly. In fact, there are political orthodoxies. As a Jewish math professor, David Klein, has lately shown, it is extremely important to the Israel lobby to enforce unanimity on Jewish ideas re Israel in the U.S. And so they chase Finkelstein from every perch he tries to find in this world and make him out to be a crazy. As Aaron Ahuvia of Brit Tzedek has stated, the politics of American Jewish opinion is dominated by a "well-funded" group on the right, which I would say flows easily into Ahuvia's two other righteous compartments: the Mel Levine "worrieds," and the Jerrold Nadler "realistic doves." If Jews are so diverse, why do 58 percent of American Jews support that intolerant concept: an undivided Jerusalem? Because of indoctrination, for one thing. Even Jeffrey Goldberg has lately pushed urgently for glasnost on these questions, for open debate, for "blunt" argument against rich supporters of an undivided Jerusalem.
As it is, there is a litmus test in my community on giving any ground at all
to anti-Zionists. This ought to change. Many anti-Zionists support
a two-state solution out of a desire for peace. (I do.) Right now Jewish anti-Zionist opinion is weeded from the garden of Jewish life, though even Ahuvia and Michael Walzer acknowledge our presence. Humanist/universalist ideas are growing in all religious communities. It is why Saif Ammous cherished Mahmoud Darwish's presence, he was a universalist who didn't look at people's religion. Ammous is not a religious generalizer, I am. I say intolerance in Islam is being jostled by people who believe in free speech and women's rights. I say Christian evangelical orthodoxy is being challenged by young voters who will vote for a pro-choice candidate because he's so good on other issues. Until these orthodoxies cease to be ortho– politically correct– I will insist on my right to generalize about pervasive structures of thought….
