Left, Right And The Jews

I

n the 1950s, the late social commen-
tator Milton Himmelfarb observed,
"Jews earn like Episcopalians but
vote like Puerto Ricans."
Some 60 years later, not much has
changed and the question is why.
Norman Podhoretz, the former editor
of Commentary, gives us his answer in his
book, Why Are Jews Liberal? The analysis
comes from an intellectual who was a
member of the New Left that was much
more radical than traditional liberals but
who transformed to become a cofounder
of neoconservatism.
Podhoretz discusses the persecution
of the Jews, starting with the birth of
Christianity, pointing out that anti-
Semitism resided primarily on the Right.
Thus, it was natural for Jews to identify
with the Left, Podhoretz reports, as he
moves his story from history to an account
of Jewish political activity in the U.S.
He offers dizzying statistics to show
what most of us know — that Jews always
voted in large numbers for Democrats.
This bloc-voting pattern, he says,
never changed regardless of whether the
Republican candidate might be more in
tune with Jewish interests.
In explaining his own conversion,

Podhoretz said that it was time
to recognize that the Left had
displayed the very anti-Jewish
and anti-Semitic charateristics
historically associated with the
Right. The latter had come much
more sympathetic to Jewish
causes, particularly Israel.
He cited two "traumatic"
events — the miraculous
victory by Israel in the 1967
Six-Day War and the New York
teachers' strike a year later.
The aftermath and reaction to
the war unleashed a torrent of unexpected
anti-Semitism, and the strike brought into
the open virulent anti-Semitism from
blacks even though the teachers' union,
while having Jewish members, was not a
Jewish organization nor did it have a Jewish
agenda.
... Jewish liberals were managing
then — and still manage today — to
avoid a serious confrontation with the
great political changes that had been tak-
ing place for some time and were now
staring them in the face he writes.
After some 280 pages of analysis, he
devotes about 10 pages at the end to
answer his question why Jews continue to

be liberal.
Basically, Jews have adopted
what he calls the "Torah" of
liberalism, which, in many
cases, rejects the Torah of
Judaism. Writes Podhoretz:
"To most American Jews
then, liberalism is not ...
merely a necessary component
of Jewishness; it is the very
essence of being a Jew. Nor is
it a 'substitute for religion': It
is a religion in its own right."
Making the point more "bru-
tally': Podhoretz says that liberals feel that
they must justify the space they take up on
Earth but not as commanded by ... God,
but by "clinging ... to certain currently
fashionable concepts of what constitutes
progress and how to define justice ... even
if obedience to them could be tantamount
to committing suicide."
Whether one agrees with Podhoretz or
not — the issue is a complex one involving
history, sociology, and religion even though
Podhoretz rejects these — he is right that
Jews have not voted their own interests.
I believe it would be safe to conclude that
no other ethnic, religious or racial group,
except perhaps blacks, has been so predict-

able and one-sided in its political decisions.
Knowing that it can "depend" on the
Jewish votes, Democrats have not been
as supportive as they have in the past on
Israel. And Israel must be a — if not the
— priority for Jews.
Gay rights, abortion, integration, gun
control, the environment and other social
issues are justifiably vital to Jews. But
they do not involve the well-being of the
Jewish people nor do they guarantee the
security of Israel.
While Podhortez's book is too pugna-
cious ("Torah" of liberalism?), too one-
sided, too black and white, if nothing else
perhaps Podhoretz's book will prompt
Jews to become more selective — even a
little bit —in deciding whom to support.
They sure ought to become more dis-
cerning. The black community has dis-
cussed this issue among its own for some
time, questioning whether its traditional
support for Democrats helps or hurts its
causes.
It's time for Jews do to the same. Indeed,
this introspection is long overdue.

Berl Falbaum is an author and Farmington Hills

public relations executive who teaches journal-

ism part-time at Wayne State University, Detroit.

Obama Should Revisit Israel

Jerusalem/JTA

I

n the year since President Obama
visited Jerusalem as Candidate
Obama, much has changed.
Running for president he, of course,
leveraged his presence here to mobilize
his supporters in America. Obama's visit
undoubtedly helped demonstrate his
international savvy and further endeared
him to the American voter. He spoke
from the heart with his legendary elo-
quence of the dangers posed by terror
from Gaza and Israel's right to defend
itself at all cost.
When Candidate Obama, then a U.S.
senator, kissed the stones of our revered
Western Wall and shed tears at the sober-
ing Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial,
we were confident that, were he elected,
Israel again would have a true and trust-
ed friend in the Oval Office.
Israelis therefore looked on with the
same pride and admiration shared by
untold millions of Americans as President
Obama was inaugurated and assumed

leadership of the world's most
powerful nation. Israel, like
many in the global commu-
nity of nations, was eager to
witness the positive change
heralded by his administra-
tion. On both the domestic
and foreign policy agendas,
the president's pledge for a
new direction gave hope that a
new era was upon us.
Regrettably, it quickly
became clear that our
good will and hopes were
likely misplaced. Rather
than looking to accommodate and truly
understand Israel's conflict with the
Palestinians, we began feeling new pres-
sures within mere weeks of the Obama
presidency.
Regularly overlooking or ignoring
the realities of a decades-old war with
our Arab neighbors, the main issue for
President Obama seemed to become the
growth of our settlements. Rather than
address the real sources of distrust, the

Obama administration focused
on limiting the legitimate
growth of Jewish communities.
Ignoring these outposts' role in
our common struggle against
terrorism and extremism, they
sought to decide for us how and
where our families could build
and develop their towns.
We have no doubt that these
statements and positions were
motivated by a legitimate desire
for progress, but they ignored
realities and created obstacles
between us and the Palestinians,
rather than removing them.
Israel is facing a genuine, grave threat.
The American administration must
understand that such an existential chal-
lenge commands our focus and resources.
I refer to the very real threats of an Iranian
despot who repeatedly has declared
his commitment to our destruction.
Dismissing historical truths of the Jewish
people's past tragedies and our legitimate
rights to our own hard-earned homeland,

this madman rants and rails and seeks
to call into question — with classic anti-
Semitic chutzpah — our very existence.
As a man of peace who will soon
hold the title of Nobel Peace laureate,
President Obama surely knows that the
Land of Israel and the Jewish people
always have and always will be commit-
ted to true peace. Yet true peace requires
concessions by all sides.
I appeal to the president to revisit
this land and see just how much has
changed in the past 12 months. I am
confident that such a experience will
deepen his understanding immeasurably.
Certainly, it will help him better formu-
late America's vital positions concerning
Israel and our neighbors.
But most of all, it will help us renew
our faith that the White House and the
American people truly understand our
plight and are committed to helping us
overcome it.

Danny Danon is deputy speaker of the Israeli

Parliament and chairman of World Likud.

December 3 • 2009

31