The waning American Jewish liberal {American Jews are moving rightward}

Along with the rest of their compatriots, American Jews are moving rightward on issues ranging from the Israel-Palestinian conflict to civil rights and the environment.

The annual convention of the Central Conference of American Rabbis, held in Jerusalem about a month ago, provided perhaps the most cogent evidence of the political process American Jews have undergone in the past year. Among American Jewish organizations, the Central Conference (CCAR) has long drawn attention for its dovish approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, recurrent calls for dialogue, and opposition to the use of force and to the settlements. But at its convention in Israel in March, the alliance of Reform rabbis showed a new political face. Along with the solidarity tours intended to show support for the people residing in Zion - even if it happened to be a settlement - leaders of the rabbinical union declared their unswerving support for the policies of the Israeli government, and expressed harsh criticism of the Palestinians.

CCAR President Rabbi Martin Wiener presented the shift in his organization's position as the result of a soul-searching the movement has conducted since the intifada broke out. "Many of us who supported the Oslo process in the past decade have to admit that the Palestinians do not want peace," Wiener said during his visit to Israel.

The crisis experienced by the Israeli peace camp at the start of the Al-Aqsa Intifada has in the past year spread to the strongholds of the left wing of American Jewry. Public opinion polls indicate that the American Jewish public is showing extremely similar behavioral patterns to those of the Israeli public, although they have not entirely abandoned their faith in a political solution. American Jews are expressing clear reservations about the Palestinian Authority and disappointment with a process they had supported until a year and a half ago.

In January 2001, a poll commissioned by the American Jewish weekly Forward examined the degree of identification of the American Jewish public with the main political trends in Israel; 39 percent of respondents said they identified with the right. Last November, the pollsters asked the same question; this time, 49 percent expressed their identification with the Israeli right. Another survey, conducted by the American Jewish Committee, suggests strong criticism of the Palestinians - 93 percent felt the Palestinian Authority and Yasser Arafat were not doing enough to thwart terror.

Admittedly, this is a rather conventional belief among Jews in the past year, and American Jews are no different from other Jewish populations. However, the response to the other question in the poll - What is the Arab objective in the war with Israel? - reinforces the claim that American Jewry has gone a long way since the time it was a symbol of dovish beliefs and a desire to see reconciliation between Israel and its Arab neighbors. Seventy-three percent of Jews taking part in the study responded that the Arabs' objective in the war is to bring about the destruction of the State of Israel.

One figure involved in American Jewish politics said that two years ago, such a finding would have raised concerns of a serious flaw in the polling method; today it is accepted as obvious.

Nevertheless, interpretation of the shift in the political atmosphere is not uniform. Organizations identified with the right wing view recent trends among American Jewry as proof that the U.S. Jewish community has finally adopted their political viewpoint, abandoning the illusion of a settlement with the Palestinians and the dream of reconciliation based on the land-for-peace formula. Organizations identified with the left try to explain away their own bewilderment by positing that American Jewish viewpoints are simply a reflection of the views of the Israeli public, and provide further proof that aside from each individual's personal beliefs, it is vital not to question the stand of the elected Israeli government.

"There is now an understanding among American Jews that the peace process had nothing more to contribute after Camp David," says Jim Colbert, of the hawkish Jewish Institute for Security Affairs (JINSA), which always opposed the Oslo accords, and worked hard to persuade the Jewish public and the American administration that Arafat is not and never will be a worthy partner for dialogue. "Until the start of the intifada," says Colbert, "the Jewish community exhibited less understanding for Israeli responses and for the war on Palestinian terrorism, but after Camp David, the critics either quieted down or began to understand that the measures being taken by Israel are justified."

But the American Jewish left doesn't see it that way. Lewis Roth, assistant executive director of Americans for Peace Now (APN), attributes the shift to a reflection of the Israeli response to the intifada, not necessarily an admission of mistakes made at Oslo. "American Jews want to support Israel and this desire grows stronger when there is a security threat," says Roth. He relates that since the start of the intifada, his organization has actually been the focus of much more interest from American Jews, and has seen an increase in the number of contributions from individual benefactors.

But at the national level, APN's efforts to influence the general political platform of American Jewry are making little headway. The organization is a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, which is considered the political spokesman of the American Jewish community, but has failed in all its attempts in the past two years to moderate the rhetoric of the Conference of Presidents or to influence its decisions.

The biggest problem for American Jews who identify with the peace camp is voicing criticism of the government of Israel while the State of Israel is under fire. It means walking a thin line between legitimate political expression and accusations of disloyalty to Israel. "There is an antagonism toward anyone expressing a dovish position, which causes these individuals to stifle themselves," says J. J. Goldberg, an author and the editor of the Forward, who is considered a prominent voice among Jewish liberals. "They would say that you are anti-Semitic and anti-Israeli, and when you try to run for a position in the Jewish leadership, they wouldn't let you forget it, even if you prove it isn't the case," he says.

Mike Tabor, an author and organic farmer in Maryland, found himself confronting this phenomenon last winter, when he violated a commitment he made to himself 30 years ago not to intervene in Israeli politics. Tabor went to see the situation in the territories with a delegation of Rabbis For Human Rights. "Since I first visited Israel in 1970, I believed that `armchair Zionists,' who shout out in favor of Israel's rights to the territories, must not intervene in what is going on, and for the same exact reason I too, despite the fact that my opinions are the opposite, must not get involved," says Tabor.

Nevertheless he came, visited Palestinian settlements and Bedouin tribes and planted saplings where the IDF had uprooted trees in the West Bank. Upon his return to the U.S., Tabor offered impressions of his visit at several gatherings, at which the audience generally let him speak his piece without interruption. Nevertheless, he sees the need to emphasize that he is not criticizing Israel. "I speak only about the need for human compassion, for a Jewish soul, so that we understand that these are people we are talking about, not animals. I do not condemn Israel's existence," says Tabor.

Americans for Peace Now also takes pains to explain that it does not object to Israel's right to defend itself from terror, only that it wishes to add a "diplomatic horizon" that will offer Palestinians hope at the end of the road.

Over the years, Israel has worked hard to bolster the notion that it is the duty of American Jewry not to level criticism at the government of Israel, especially not at times of distress. Israeli prime ministers have embraced leaders and organizations that expressed support for their positions, and held opponents at a distance, in the knowledge that a photograph with an Israeli prime minister or his appearance at the gathering of one or another organization can be worth a great deal in political power plays within the community.

In recent decades, the key organizations, chiefly the Conference of Presidents and the pro-Israel lobby AIPAC, have represented what are considered to be right-of-center political viewpoints. It is unclear whether this is a cause or a result - have the groups become more right-wing in order to adapt themselves to the positions of Israeli governments during this period, or have Israeli governments bolstered the rightist forces within the American organizations?

The need for solidarity with the Israeli government is not the only factor contributing to the rightward shift in American Jewry. J. J. Goldberg feels that the Israeli peace camp is partly responsible for the right's increased domination of Jewish public opinion in the U.S. "In Israel, there is disagreement between those who believe that the solution will come by force of arms, those calling for a Palestinian state, and those who believe in unilateral separation, but the latter two positions have not been voiced in the United States. No one here has heard of the Council for Peace and Security and no one knows that there are high-ranking army officers who express other positions," says Goldberg. He also asserts that the fact that the Israel peace camp lacks any clear leadership prevents it from holding a dialogue with American Jews, leaving the arena to those who represent the government line. This fact, as well as the discomfort American Jews feel at expressing criticism of the Israeli government, is leading, Goldberg says, to the self-imposed silence of American liberals, which in turn causes their disconnection from Jewish political life.

The rightward tilt of the American Jewish community is not reflected simply in relation to Israel, but also in the domestic political and moral systems. The Republican Party in the U.S. is still a little tipsy from the results of a public opinion poll held three months ago. The poll caused a storm after it was found that if the elections were held today (that is, on the day the poll was taken), George Bush would win 42 percent of the Jewish vote, while Al Gore would win only 39 percent. In the real elections held in November 2000, Gore was estimated to have taken about 80 percent of the Jewish vote, and Bush a mere 18 percent. The Democrats have claimed that the poll is meaningless and inexact, but all sides now admit that even if it does not reflect a turnaround in the political positions of American Jews, it is, at the very least, evidence of immense approval of the Republican president.

The standard cliche used to describe the political patterns of American Jews says that American Jews live like Presbyterians but vote like Puerto Ricans. In other words, they are at the higher end of the income and education spectrum, but vote like a minority group - for the Democrats. The latest data may not overturn this truth, but does slightly undermine its foundations. Matt Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, which commissioned the survey, said after the poll's release that it reflects a historic level of support "that derives from the leadership of President Bush and from his deep friendship with Israel and American Jews." Brooks also predicted that the poll foretold a historic turnaround in Jewish voting patterns in the 2004 elections.

The Democrats actually concur with Brooks' first statement, but they do not see it as the harbinger of an upheaval. "In the presidential elections, a Democratic candidate will not receive such large shares of the Jewish vote as Clinton and Gore received," admits Ira Foreman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council. "You don't have to be a genius to understand the immense wall-to-wall levels of support for the president and his pro-Israel policies," says Foreman. Public approval ratings of the president's performance sometimes reach 90 percent; American Jews are also part of this public.

One of the most clear-cut conclusions found in every poll held among American Jews since September 11 is the increased level of patriotism and identification as Americans. Seventy-four percent of respondents to a Forward poll held in November 2001 said that the attacks had strengthened their American identity, and 91 percent of Jews who took part in a poll commissioned by the Republican Party said they support America's war on terror. Stronger identification as Americans also includes stronger identification with the president, even if he happens to be a Republican for whom most Jews did not vote.

However, even this trend is evidently not strong enough to break the traditional alliance between the Jews and the Democrats. Everyone forecasts a decline in support for the Democratic candidate, and this has past precedents. For instance, when Jimmy Carter was conceived as being too tough on Israel, many Jews preferred not to vote. But the feeling is that by 2004, the American agenda will be refocused on domestic affairs, at which time Jewish voters will return to the Democratic fold. Even the survey commissioned by the Republicans found that despite immense Jewish support for Bush's foreign policy, support of his domestic policy had barely risen among the Jews.

Obviously, much also depends on who the democratic candidate will be in 2004. If Jewish Senator Joe Lieberman runs for the party's nomination, or if he again runs as the number two man on the ticket with Al Gore, the Jewish public can be expected to once again support him en masse. The fact that the Democratic Party ran a Jew as its vice presidential candidate in the 2000 elections was taken to heart by the Jewish community, and filled it with pride. There is no doubt that a central role for Lieberman would make it harder for the Republicans to sidetrack the Jewish vote.

And then there is the legacy of former President Bill Clinton. Does his complete identification with Camp David deter the Jews - who consider the July 2000 summit a negative development - from casting a vote for another Democratic candidate? Neither side thinks so. "We believe the Clinton administration was not an effective administration for Israel, but that has no bearing on any other Democratic candidate today," says Jim Colbert of the hawkish JINSA. Ira Foreman, of the National Jewish Democratic Council, adds: "The Jewish public likes Clinton."

To date, the only attempt by the Republicans to tarnish the Clinton legacy was made by White House spokesman Ari Fleischer, and it ended in mortification and apology. In a conversation with reporters, Fleischer hinted at Clinton's blame for the outbreak of the intifada, alleging that the former president attempted "to shoot the moon" and by pushing the parties beyond their capabilities, managed to increase the level of violence. Fleischer was rebuked, and had to go back to the reporters and apologize for what he said, although it is not inconceivable that the spirit of his words will arise in the more distant future, in the election campaign.

Ari Fleischer has recently been stepping up his activities as the "Jewish face" of the Bush administration. He takes part in conferences of American organizations identified with the right, and at a large convention recently held by the Chabad movement in Washington, said that "If the president were here this evening, he would look out on the audience and say: `What an axis of good,'" in a paraphrase of the President's "axis of evil" speech.

Perhaps more significant than present-day American Jewish support for President Bush is Jewish avoidance of criticism of the Administration for its recent moves to restrict human rights as part of the war on terror. In the poll taken by the American Jewish Committee, 72 percent of Jews said they would agree to concede some of their civil rights in order to help to enhance security. Although this finding is in sync with the general feelings of the American public, it is somewhat remarkable in light of the fact that American Jews have always stood in the front ranks of the human rights struggle in the United States. The fact that nearly three of every four American Jews is willing to curtail civil rights, including, for instance, permitting the use of ethnic profiling in interrogations, portends a genuine change of attitude, especially when it comes on top of other evidence of erosion of the Jewish adherence to the liberal agenda. The main issue in this context is separation of religion and state, which is considered a red line for American Jews. However, this doctrinaire attitude toward religion and state has recently been challenged in some quarters. Of special note is the disagreement over President Bush's initiative to transfer federal funds to religious institutions engaged in welfare activity. The Jewish establishment has in general come out against the initiative, which violates constitutional separation of religion and state, but for the first time ever, there are also some voices and groups in support of the Bush initiative, mainly because it would provide budgetary assistance to Jewish communities trying to preserve Jewish life with limited resources. "Supporters of Bush on this matter represent a marginal share of the community," says Ira Foreman. "The prevailing sense of the Jewish community is that the primary target audience of the President and the Republicans is the Christian right.

Bush's civil agenda still deters most Jews. Issues of religion and state, as well as his opposition to abortion, his reluctance to restrict the right to bear arms, and the marginal importance he assigns to environmental quality are eventually leading the Jews to the Democratic candidates.

Nevertheless, the Republicans are scoring new gains every day, be they disturbing the uniform Jewish front against funding of religious institutions engaged in welfare activities, dividing the Jewish community on the subject of tuition vouchers for private (usually church-run) schools, or the recent troubles experienced by Jewish organizations in their campaigns in favor of social legislation.

The issue of protecting the environment recently fell as the last stronghold of uniform Jewish opinion, with both B'nai B'rith and the Orthodox Union expressing support for the President's idea of permitting oil drilling in a nature reserve in the Arctic regions of Alaska, a plan that is opposed by every environmental advocate in America. "It's only a minority of Jews that opposes the liberal agenda," declares J. J. Goldberg. "The minority has simply become more vocal and more aggressive," he says, "while the liberal majority has lost its will to fight, and prefers to withdraw and engage in other public activity, outside Jewish politics."

I worked with many Jewish engineers. These are people who have to use logic in their profession. I had many many political arguments with them. They complain a lot about certain things like quotas, crime, etc etc. When I tell them I agree with their position but ask how come they vote for the deomocrats who espouse all the things they are POed at, all I got was mumblings about the GOP being no good etc etc

It used to drive me goofy

This is good news!

I'll believe it when I see checks going to the RNC and not the DNC. That is not occurring. Clinton is running around the country collecting bags of cash from Jews. Older people donate most, they are also the most Democrat (95% over 65 in Philly voted for Gore, 78% of those 30 to 49 voted for Gore).

Another problem is this supposed great shift is fueled by identity politics. The GOP doesn't play that game much at all.

I am really stunned by the American Jewish non-support of 2nd Amendment rights. First, for all of the reasons stated by Basil, but also are they unaware that EVERYONE in Israel is packing heat and have been doing so since Israel was reestablished? I visited there in 94 and even the little old lady who organized our USO tours had a pistol in her purse.

This article is a little deceptive because it treats liberal American Jews as if they are different than any other liberals. In fact, they are the same -- they are liberal only insofar as they do not have to pay a price for their folly.

Liberals tend to become conservative under some very specific circumstances. Usually it is when THEY are mugged on a street corner, when buildings in THEIR city are toppled to the ground by terrorists, when THEY sit down to file their income taxes, etc.

I always supported the Serbs. Besides the facts that Serbs taking in Jews during WW2, I was arguing years ago that Chechens = KLA = Kashmiri terorrists = Middle Eastern terrorists. People who think that each individual group has only local agenda are fools.

"his [Bush's] reluctance to restrict the right to bear arms..."

This amazes and perplexes me, as well. But I hear it from my brother, my sisters, most of my cousins, etc. There is an organization that seems to understand - Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership. But I have only heard of them, and don't know any members. Residents of the Warsaw Ghetto had only about a dozen weapons, and held out for weeks. Why, with that history, would we not consider being armed and ready a sacred duty?

Interesting you would post this considering your support of the ADL and bashing of the Catholic League.

Don't have a very high regard for the intellectual of conservatives do you?

By the way, you were called on your false statement about the Catholic League. Why haven't you responded?

Thanks for the ping(s).

Many Palestinians are not interested in peace, and the ones who do keep silent because they also might end up as 'collaborator'.

The left fails to see that no peace can be made with terrorists and will keep convincing people that the Arabs want peace. The Arab nation that want peace already made peace with Israel a while ago.

How then do they square their fear of an armed civilian society with the undeniable fact that THEIR UNarmed society was herded like sheep to their deaths a mere 60 years ago?

Holding to two conflicting truths is cognitive dissonance. This is a form of mental illness. This is the problem with liberalism.

And I'm not being facetious.

The Warsaw uprising wonderfully illustrated what a mere handful of firearms can unleash against one's foe - even a foe as vicious and combat-tested as the Waffen S.S. Think of the damage Warsaw's civilians could have inflicted if every single person willing to fight had had a rifle and twenty rounds of ammunition. You would have seen a few thousand snipers holing Fritz heads from every frigging nook and cranny of the community. I'm sorry to hear about your relatives' stance on gun ownership. Do you have any idea if they're familiar with Nazi Germany's gun laws in the '30s, and the concern Hitler took to make sure Jews were among the first to be 'legally' denied guns? (I ask in seriousness.)

New York´s senators, Hillary Clinton and Charles Schumer, center, join Jewish leaders John Ruskay, left, Ezra Levin, second from left, James Tisch, second from right, and Malcolm Hoenlein, right, at a solidarity rally for Israel in New York on Sunday, March 24, 2002.

I'm considering selling used cars on Free Republic. All the signs of suckers are here. They want to believe so bad, they will buy anything. A quick look at the posting histories of those pushing this theory or a scan of big donors at the FEC would disabuse them of the notion any radical shift is underway but they don't want to know. They want to believe.

Can't say I haven't there too. I thought Hillary was a goner after her comments about Jews and her husband's messing up Israel. I thought not only would she be defeated but there would be some shift in the Jewish vote. Same thing with blacks. Floyd Flake jumped on the GOP bandwagon and pushed school vouchers which inner city blacks are desparate to get. Privatizing Social Security was sold to the black community (black men only collect for a year or so. They are paying SS taxes all their lives to fund the pensions of white, often wealthy, females). The result of that was the black turn out for Democrats was about the largest in history. 91%. Jewish vote was nearly 80%.

We should not stop trying but we should not play pretend either.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.