Is anyone else here surprised that there has been no comment on this angle from the segment of paleos that is fixated on anti-Israelism and the “Jewish neocon cabal” ? I guess it should be seen as an encouraging sign. Then again, they seem to comment negatively on Bush to the exclusion of even noticing the Democratic candidates.

“Thus, of the five serious candidates, there is one Jew, two half-Jews, and one whose better half is a Jew.”

*****
Funny thing, that. Apparently, the one (ex) Democrat who was most supportive of Israel was Dick Gephardt, who, I assume, had no Jewish connection whatsoever.

Of course if you’re Catholic or a religious Christian (like Pat Buchanan or Ashcroft), and you’re conservative, you can bet that a whole host of psycho-religious analysis will follow.

I think this only matters tangentially; the elites in the country, particularly elites in the world of opinion, ideas, media, and politics are disproportionately Jewish. As religious minorities they have a different perspective than the Christian majority, though I’m not sure it’s so different from that of any other minority.

WRT Jewish & former/part Jewish presidential candidates, you neglect to mention Arlen Specter, Barry Goldwater, Michael Dukakis (wife), and the fact that the national media covering the presidential campaign is massively overrepresented by liberal Jews. Take Ron Brownstein for example, the LA Times editor who regularly participates in roundtable chats on the campaign w/ ABC (Despite one recent exception, the LA Times is notorious for its censorship of immigration reform groups like americanpatrol.com that have tried to advertise in the LA Times & its affiliated publications.) With extraordinary Jewish control of the management at NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN, is it any coincidence that there is little or no scrutiny of the candidates’ positions on middle East policy or on their blindly conformist open borders immigration platforms? Just wondering….

It should be noted that none of these candidates were born liberals and none could have gotten to where they are without massive support by non-Jewish people.

“With extraordinary Jewish control of the management at NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN, is it any coincidence that there is little or no scrutiny of the candidates’ positions on middle East policy … ?”

Chris seems to be making the common mistake of thinking that the predominantly Jewish liberal media is pro-Israel. To anyone not blinded by anti-Israel bias, watching a few stories about Israel on, say, ABC World News Tonight would relieve one of such notions.

Chris writes:
“With extraordinary Jewish control of the management at NBC/ABC/CBS/CNN, is it any coincidence that there is little or no scrutiny of the candidates’ positions on middle East policy…”.

You forgot Jewish control of major banks, Wall Street, Hollywood, Detroit, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, NASA, IRS, INS, IBM, Microsoft, PG, etc, etc. Not too mention Jewish power over your remote TV controller and Jewish Alpha Rays transmitting into your brain.

No problem, we are on to them!

Since them damn Jews control ABC I wonder why they have employed blatantly pro-Palestinian anchor Peter Jennings all these years.

Y’know, I still remember his strange affect when he was reporting from Munich during the ‘72 Olympics when the Palestinian freedom fighters were obliged to murder those oppressor Jewish athletes who were occupying Palestinian dormitory bunks. Anyway, I remember a panel discussion on ABC live from Munich, and while veteran sportscaster Jim McKay was desperately holding back tears, Jennings was sitting there with a bizarre half-smirking sort of smug look on his face. It wasn’t until decades later, when I read of his involvement with the Palestinians at that time (even to the extent of having a Palestinian sweetie for some years), that I realized that, no, I wasn’t misinterpreting his expression, and yes, he *was* feeling smug.

Or maybe he was actually thinking that the murders would somehow be a big boost for Zionism.

“It wasn’t until decades later, when I read of his involvement with the Palestinians at that time (even to the extent of having a Palestinian sweetie for some years …”
*****

Who was, I believe, Hanan Ashrawi.

I don’t think it needs to degenerate into conspiracy-theory talk to acknowledge the attitudes, opinions, and values of the ethnic group that dominates the major cultural institutions in this country deviate from those of the Christian majority. It is not a conspiracy theory to say those values will get translated somehow, and that one way might be a failure to explore this anomoly among Democratic presidential contenders.

Perhaps Jews are represented in media to a much greater proportion than their proportion of the population, but that could still be much less than 50%. You could list 10 big names in the news media who were all Jewish, but that would not tell me whether or not there were 20 non-Jewish names that were just as influential.

Many of the points about pro-Palestinian bias at ABC are valid. This is true just as it is true that many Jews are uncomfortable with the Likud party and its refusal to pull back many of the new settlements. It is possible to be pro-Israel (which I am), and mindful of the profound influence of liberal Jews in the US media. There are many American Jews that do tremendous work to advance the cause of immigration reform and a traditional conservative agenda (eg. Paul Gottfried, Dan Stein & Michael Savage). That said, please let me know why people like John Podhoretz, Irwin Stelzer et al insist on an ultra liberal immigration policy for the US while saying nothing about Israel’s policy of immigration only for Jews. What about the billions that the US gives to Israel in foreign aid? Shouldn’t this be conditional on their adaptation of more free market reforms? Shouldn’t it gradually be phased out? It is unlikely you’ll ever see such questions discussed in a national political campaign. There are some things even Peter Jennings won’t talk about.

There’s no great mystery about the relative lack of debate on aid to Israel. Perhaps Chris hasn’t noticed, but Israel is an ally surrounded by enemies who unrelentingly and devotedly seek her destruction. There is a strong consensus in American politics to defend Israel’s existence, including with loan guarantees for military spending. Furthermore, those who disagree with this policy have often tended to display, not just rational criticisms of the policy, but an underlying hostility to Israel, an attitude which, given the actual circumstances of Israel’s existence and the continual threats to that existence, can be reasonably taken as anti-Israel or anti-Jewish. That is why such views are not welcome in lots of places.

However, mainstream media and politics does not exclude all dissent on Israel, not by a long shot. Robert Novak has never written anything about Israel that was pro-Israel, yet he continues to be a respected mainstream journalist, making millions on tv. Despite Buchanan’s manifest hatred for the Jewish state and his rationalizations of terrorists, he continues to appear on mainstream television programs such as the McClaughlin Group. John McClaughlin himself has been unremittingly hostile toward Israel and America’s pro-Israel policy, yet his program remains on NBC, Sunday mornings. Peter Jennings sides with Palestinian terrorists and remains one of the highest paid people on tv. Need I go on?

Indeed, one of the things that tends to disqualify certain critics of Israel is the sort of argument that Chris just made, the notion that no criticism of Israel is allowed. It’s so obviously untrue that people who say it appear to be motivated by animus and so get excluded more than some of the mainstream critics of Israel whom I’ve mentioned.

For better or worse, and I am not saying this to accuse Americans in general of anti-Semitism, I think the prevalence of Jewish affiliations among the Democratic candidates is - to the extent the media choose to publicize it - a boost for President Bush.

Jews are disproportionately represented among America’s power brokers, and most Americans know it. There is no point in engaging in conspiracy theorizing about it, it is simply a fact. It is also a fact that most Americans know very few, if any, Jews personally and assume that Jews are very liberal. With limited exceptions in old towns like Charleston, Newport and New York, Jews in significant numbers are relative newcomers to America. At the risk of generalizing, American Jews tend to be clustered in discrete cities and suburbs. Gentiles from around New York City or Los Angeles may know hundreds of Jews, while people from states between the Northeast and Southern California may know none at all. The Jewish presence in rural America is almost non-existent, because they have no roots there.

All of that is to say that to most Americans Jews are unfamiliar (except as TV and movie characters) and somewhat alien. I do not think we will see a Jewish president any time soon (unless, somehow, a Jewish candidate could get through an election without people knowing that he is Jewish). I’ll go so far as to say that a reasonable black man of the ilk of Colin Powell would stand a far better chance of being elected president than does, say, Joseph Lieberman.

As hispanic and Moslem immigration (which American Jewish organizations, suicidally, support) increases, it will only become more difficult for Jewish candidates to win. There is real anti-Semitism among both groups, as there is among black Americans, a bedrock Democratic constituency that may extract its pound of flesh this year (a black running mate on the Democrats’ ticket?).

It is also interesting to note that Lieberman, Kerry and Dean, who are all Northeastern liberals, are quite open about their Jewish connections. Clark, who grew up in Arkansas, hasn’t said much about his. Perhaps he knows something they don’t; many people in the rest of the country find the Northeast alien altogether.

For an interesting if somewhat rambling meditatation by a perceptive immigrant on his attitudes toward Jews, I would recommend this by John Derbyshire: http://olimu.com/WebJournalism/Texts/Commentary/JewsAndI.htm HRS

Superbly well stated as usual, Mr. Auster.

Would just like to say that no nation on earth can survive with open borders, not Israel, not the United States. If there are Jews who truly believe (without, perhaps, quite realizing that this is what they believe) that Israel has a right to borders but the United States does not, obviously they need to justify those views, and join our team. On the other hand, as for those palaeos who want to close America’s borders (as do I) but are endlessly carping about Israel’s treatment of those dear Palestinians, as if there were not a hundred other places where peoples with 1% so much blood on their hands were being treated a hundred times worse…feh.

I thoroughly agree with Mr. Auster’s last post. I would also point out that criticism of Israel is far more common now than it was thirty or forty years ago. Back then, it was indeed rare. Any “Jewish domination of the media” or Jewish conspiracies have become increasingly ineffective! By the way, Israel has taken in some non-Jewish immigrants, and has suffered a growing problem of outright illegal immigration as well as the arrival of people posing as Jews. A substantial number of “Russian Jews” going to Israel are ethnic Russians with little or no Jewish ancestry. The last two Tsars must be spinning in their graves!

Re Mr. Sutherland’s comment that Clark doesn’t talk about his Jewish background, I heard him give a speech in N.H. the other day in which he described his upbringing. He said, “My father was Jewish, my mother was Methodist, and a decision was made that I would be raised Methodist.” He went on to describe his childhood experiences in his church and so on.

I would like to thank Howard Sutherland for his frank comments. It seems to me, however, that at least by implication, he vastly overstates the amount of hostility to Jews among white Americans in general, as opposed to blacks or Hispanics. There has been little feeling against Jews among native-born whites since the 1940s. By the way, my own sense of things was that, in the 2000 campaign, Lieberman made a better impression on people than his running mate, and might have beaten Bush, had he been head of the ticket.

The assumption that liberal American Jews are putting Israel’s interests ahead of America’s is false. Being liberals, they advocate the same suicidal policies for both countries. Liberal American Jews loved Israeli prime ministers like Golda Meir and Yitzhak Rabin (after he shed his warlike image) because they were socialists. They disliked Begin and detest Netanyahu and Sharon because they are less socialist and actually fight for Israel. For America they advocate open borders, for Israel many advocate an Arab right of return. Each position, carried to its conclusion, would destroy the country in question.

My own experiences with Jewish Americans (and, referring to my earlier post, I am one of those New York area Americans who knows many Jews) make me think that Jewish liberals are far more passionate about the black civil rights movement, which for them is the summum bonum of America, and rights for immigrants than they are about the survival of Israel.

Now some of those pesky neo-conservatives may be another matter… If you were to ask me whether Richard Perle, an American, truly values the American national interest more highly than the Israeli, I would have to say that I do not know, but his actions lead me to believe that he might. HRS

Like Mr. Sutherland, I know lots of Jewish folks - even though I live in the middle of the country. My overall impression is that 1) they are overwhelmingly liberals and 2) are actually quite conflicted about Israel - often expressing vehement opposition to overtly nationalistic actions by Sharon and the Likud that I, as a traditonalist, support. Just listen to NPRs coverage, for heaven’s sake! I get the impression that these Jewish liberals are more than a little embarrassed by Israel - especially when there’s a statement made about the importance of Israel retaining its Jewish identity. As to those Jewish right-liberals (aka Neocons) who support Israel’s right to control its borders but deny the same to the USA and every single European nation - they should be hammered for their hypocrisy at every opportunity! Take no prisoners!

While it is certainly true that Jews are present in the media far out of proportion to their presence in the general population, and that their presence in the media has influenced the media in many ways - especially in the treatment of racial issues, the mainstream media’s coverage of Israel has been highly critical of the Israelis - even to the point of being pro-Palestinian. The Evangelical Protestant media is considerably more sympathetic to Israel than the liberal media with its legions of Jewish producers, editors, etc.

I expect that all of this is much more an indicator of the liberalism which is the de facto religion of many American Jews. The media and other institutions in this country would be far better off if the Jewish population here would simply repent of worshiping their idols of liberalism and return to the type of traditional Judaism exemplified by Rabbi Lapin and Don Feder.

I probably have talked to over a hundred jews about politics via the Hillel at my college, hebrew school family, but still this is mostly anecdotal, so I don’t know how much this would hold up on Jews and politics, but anyway…

The majority of Jews I know are liberal simply by inclination-family and community- but not particularly interested in politics. So on issues like abortion, the environment, gun control, and the like they tend to have conventional liberal attitudes. Most of them are also very pro-Israeli. However the common “Apartheid for Israeli, but multiculturalism for the US” stereotype does not hold true, as most of them are against affirmative actino and third world (or at least illegal immigration.) I think this makes sense as while it easy for someone who is Jewish to take an impassioned stand on Israel without thinking about the issue much, issues like affirmative action and immigration are so self-evidently stupid that one has to be totally immersed in liberal politics to actually hold the left wing stances. Hence the majority of the Jews I know who are for open borders and illegal immigration are generally more supportive of the Palestenians; however I will say they would tolerate degrees of ethnocentrism by Israelis that they would find despicable in the U.S.

One thing that has also struck about most Jews I know, though this may be reflective that most I know are from DC or the NorthEast is a hostility towards the South and Middle America which they assume is a bastion of anti-Semitism. This seems to be reflected in a recent AJC poll that found that despite the huge fawning for Israel and griping about anti-Semitic by the Religious Right-over 40% of all jews still believe that MOst or Many Christian COnservatives are anti-Semitic, more than any other demographic except muslims.

The anti-Israel Jewish liberals Carl describes also bear a resemblance to the “non-Jewish Jews”—the secular Communist Jews who wanted to do away with Judaism and the Jewish people as atavisms that stood in the way of One World. Meanwhile, ironically, certain American Christian groups believe in the Jewish people and their special role in the world more than these non-Jewish Jews do. Does God have a sense of humor, or what?

This, by the way, seems to be the exact opposite of the situation in imperial Rome described by Gibbon, in which the Romans persecuted the Christians and (except when the Jews revolted against Roman authority in Palestine) tolerated the Jews. Why the different treatment? The Jews were an ethnic people, and so could fit, as one ethnic people among others, in the multiethnic Roman empire which was tolerant of all peoples and sects so long as they honored the emperor. But the Christians made universalist claims that went beyond ethnic nationhood and didn’t accept the Roman gods, and so were seen as threatening to the Roman state.

Back then the Jews were religious and particularistic, and so could live side by side with other particularisms under a common imperial umbrella. Today, having become secularized, they’re predominantly universalistic, and so are on a crusade to dissolve all (locally dominant) particularisms, including their own.

Liberalism is anti-existence, anti-life.

Mr. Sutherland writes:
“I’ll go so far as to say that a reasonable black man of the ilk of Colin Powell would stand a far better chance of being elected president than does, say, Joseph Lieberman.”

May be Powell stands better chance than Lieberman, but there are 11 Jewish US Senator and no blacks. Most Jewish senators are Democrats and lefties to various degrees. But there are a few Reps and moderates. If Jews have no problem winning states at large, admittedly mostly on left and right coasts and a few in Midwest, why a right person would not run well in the remaining parts of the country?

I would guess that a moderate Jewish Senator or governor from a southern state will do well in the ‘fly-over’ country.

To add to Mik’s comment, probably no state has shown as much animosity toward Jews in the past as has Minnesota— not enough colored folks to kick around, I guess. But Hubert Humphrey’s old seat has been won by Jews repeatedly since 1978. Two of the three were Republican and all (like Humphrey) were born outside the state.

Lawrence,
I suspect one example of a “non Jewish Jew” with the One World agenda is George Soros. Just read S. Trifkovic’s article about him (Chronicles, Feb. 04) and it would appear that he is facilitating a bizarre blend of abortion on demand & gay rights, Gypsy/”Roma” empowerment plus dissolution of old fashioned nation state patriotism (at least in the E.European countries he is showering his millions on). You make compelling points about Israel’s ongoing need for substantial military aid & its existential crisis w/ enemies on all sides. Fair enough - they should be given what they need. Doesn’t it strike you as odd though that American taxpayers may ultimately finance truly secure, militarized borders for Israel & Iraq, and yet not be allowed to defend their own border with Mexico? With regard to liberal Jews in the media, I suppose I am thinking of a fraction of Ashkenazi Jews who have reflexive views on immigration & multicultarism (eg. Larry King, Geraldo Rivera,
Michael Medved, Charles Krauthammer). For these folks, it is always 1943, and they can’t grasp the fact that while immigrants tended to be much more self reliant & law abiding before 1965, they are demonstrably more likely to be a burden today. A good example of this mindset was seen in the ‘95 Firing Line debate when Ira Glasser denounced Buckley, Brimelow et al for defending the 1920s restriction laws. To Glasser, racist American immigration law was partly to blame for the holocaust. This rationale has been debunked by others so I won’t rehash it here.
Lastly, one thing that wasn’t noted is the fact that Jewish Democrats give so generously to their party, maybe half the total. Would the candidates’ playing up their Jewish roots help with contributions? Or do folks like George Soros & Stephen Spielberg really care? Just as the religous right has its demands on the GOP, what do the Jewish media elites in Hollywood expect of the Democrats? Is it just a nebulous package of conventional liberalism (abortion, affirmative action, more social programs & hand outs)?

“Doesn’t it strike you as odd though that American taxpayers may ultimately finance truly secure, militarized borders for Israel & Iraq, and yet not be allowed to defend their own border with Mexico?”

This same point has been made many times by immigration restrictionists including myself. It’s a totally unacceptable double standard, and Jews and others who take that position should be challenged on it at every available opportunity.

But as I’ve said before, the way to end the double standard is for the American friends of Israel to have the same concern for America’s national integrity and survival that they have for Israel’s. Unfortunately, many people on the paleoconservative right have taken just the opposite position. They say, “Since the neoconservatives care about Israel’s national integrity and don’t care about America’s, therefore we won’t care about Israel’s.” This is an unprincipled position driven by resentment. It shows that many paleocons hate neocons and Israel more than they love America.

A principled traditionalist conservative cares about the preservation of existing nations. Therefore he will support both Israel and America.

Mr. Auster,
Israel, as I know it, is not so anti-immigrant as people on this board make it to be. And I’m not talking about Ethiopian Jews. Israel, like the U.S., has allowed itself to be flooded with Arab, Filipino, and Balkan laborers. It’s the same cheap labor syndrome we have in this country. Israel is so addicted to cheap Arab labor that it allows suicide bombings to continue. Really, all Israel needs do to reduce suicide bombings to zero is to block all Palestinian entrance into Israel. But they refuse to do so, singing that ole cheap labor song.

I’m not sure I’ve heard of any suicide bomber who was a laborer officially allowed inside the Green Line to work. Most of the suicide bombers have simply walked past some unguarded spot in the Green Line which, incredible as this is, has been open and unguarded at many points during all these years as the suicide mass murders have continued.

Personally, I wouldn’t have been able to continue living one day in a country where we were letting people just walk into the country to blow us up in some random manner in buses or restaurants. I don’t know how the Israelis could have tolerated this for one day, let alone ten years. It seems like the ultimate in Eloihood.

Mr. Auster writes:
“I’m not sure I’ve heard of any suicide bomber who was a laborer officially allowed inside the Green Line to work. “

I seem to recall that some explodies worked in Israel at some time before commiting murder. I’m not sure if anyone was employed at the time of of his/her explosion.

Ten years ago I have found that the Green Line is totally open in most places. I decided right then that Israelies are on suicide mission and cannot be helped.

Unfortunately I see too little evidence to the contrary.

I believe the Passover suicide bomber of a couple of years ago was a busboy in the restaurant where dinner was taking place. In fact, I seem to remember he was waived through security, because the restaurant employees recognized him as one of their own. Still, overall, if Israel would just finish the wall, lock the Arabs out, and leave them to suffer the consequences of their own policies, Palestinian will would crumble quickly. But Israel will not lock them out. They’ll continue to pass into the country as cheap labor and they’ll continue to make mischief or worse.

Mr. Auster’s comments on Roman attitudes toward the Jews slightly exaggerate their tolerance,and somewhat overstate Jewish exclusivity in the early Empire, when there was a considerable amount of conversion to Judaism. While some Romans were downright philo-Semitic, the Empire wound up prohibiting the circumcision, and hence the conversion, of Imperial subjects who had not been born Jews.

To expand on Mr. Levine’s comments, Judaism actually was an expanding, proselytizing religion in the empire through the fourth century, when a more thoroughly Christianized state began to repress and persecute them. See Robert Wilken’s John Chrysostom and the Jews and Marcel Simon’s Verus Israel, and the texts in Amnon Linder’s The Jews in Roman Imperial Legislation, for more details.

Mr. Levine and Agricola have read more recent scholarship on this subject than I. My limited knowledge of it comes from Gibbon, published in the 1770s. :-)