As a largely immigrant population of the 20th century, American Jews tended to vote in a block for Democratic Party candidates. The Democratic Party framed itself as progressive. FDR was certainly a heroic President for most Americans, not least Jews of the period. Democratic President Truman was almost singlehandedly responsible for the creation of the State of Israel post Holocaust, whereas Eisenhower and Dulles did little for Israel in the 1950′s. Similarly, Nixon and George HW Bush were not perceived by American Jews as terribly sympathetic to Israel. And remember, there was a long period of time when Israel was a perceived underdog — the enemy was Egypt, Iraq, Jordan — sizeable and wealthy nation states. With the advent of the Intifada, suddenly Israel went from oppressed underdog to oppressor in the eyes of Europe and American media.

This change in perception is critical. Jewish Americans do not like the association with a media created oppressor. So most will stake out a politically correct position supporting a deal with “Palestine” whatever that is. The truth is, I bet most Jewish Americans would like Israel to “go away” – not as a political entity, but as a media issue. 25 years ago, Ariel Sharon was a mythic heroic figure from 1967 and 1973. The American and European media have morphed him into the Devil. This change in perception mirrors the movement of both left and right in this country viz. Israel too.

So most Jewish Americans, true to their history, have adopted a pc/left posture and some, though few, have opened their eyes to what GWB is doing for Israel and moved their support to GWB. That movement to the right is difficult because, first, you can’t generalize and second, the Jewish history with the extreme right ain’t so great. Fascism, Father Coughlin and Pat Buchanan all blur together and it is a source of great fear amongst Jewish Americans. It is only a few weeks since Buchanan wrote a lengthy piece arguing the US should have been fighting Stalin, not Hitler, during WWII.

So if I had to summarize, I would say the following:

1) American Jews are, first, Americans.
2) There is a very good, logical set of reasons why they have aligned historically with the Democratic Party – FDR, Truman and other Democrats fit better with their vision of Progressive leadership as immigrants, while Republicans tended to at a minimum snub their interests, and at a maximum, express unfortunate anti-semitism (Nixon was probably the worst in this regard).
3) For those Jewish Americans who did care about Israel, Truman was responsible for it, and Israeli leaders from Ben Gurion to Begin trumpted it. By contrast, from Ike to GHWB, the Republican Party tended to be less interested in Israel.
4) GWB has clearly repudiated his father’s past (we should remember the his father associates included James Baker, a noted Israel “disliker” and Fred Malek was ousted from GHWB’s campaign to to his alleged anti-semitism. Prescott Bush allegedly was also a fairly antisemitic fellow, not uncommon for that time) and expressed great sympathy for Israel, especially in light of the GWOT.
5) Nonetheless, American Jews struggle with moving their support to GWB due to the above positive history with Democrats, and the association with Israel that movement might imply — i.e. association with a perceived opporessive Israel viz. Paelstinians.
6) Finally, there is a latent distrust by American Jews of the Pat Buchanan “element” within the Republican Party which, again, American Jews are loathe to associate with.

Complicated, huh?

Actually most American Jews came around the turn of the 20th C., from Eastern Europe. A much smaller population came 100-200 years before that and was mostly German or Sephardic.

I think it does, because one can only be “anti-Israel” if one holds Israel to standard not expected of any other country, including the circumstances of its birth. And Israel is the nation of the Jews. And the last time there was a sovereign nation in that location was 2000 years ago, and was the previous nation of the Jews.

So to be specifically “anti-Israel” is to be anti-Jewish. This is different from criticizing particular Israeli pocies, provided one criticizes the same policies by other nations and recognizes good that Israel does likewise.

The USSR voted for the establishment of Israel primarily because Stalin wanted to deliver a smackdown to the British, not because he was fond of Jews. He grew increasingly anti-Semitic in his old age, which culminated in the arrests and show trials of many prominent Jews allegedly involved in the “Doctor’s Plot.” If Stalin had lived, the bulk of Soviet Jewry would have been shipped off to Siberian camps and many, perhaps a majority would have died there. So much for the high regard the greatest Leftist power of the time had for Jews. And yet many American Jews I have met think McCarthyism was the greatest evil of the 1950′s, not Stalinism. Go figure.

I suspect that Jewish American liberals, like liberals in general(heck, perhaps like human beings in general) prefer to ponder the devil they know, rather than the one they don’t. In the 50′s, it was easier to concentrate on the homegrown phenomemon of Tailgunner Joe (I am no admirer of his, BTW) than on Uncle Joe. It is easier now to contemplate the “evils” of Bush and Mel Gibson and Christianity than it is to consider Hamas, the growing anti-Semitism in Europe, and the ravings of radical Islamists.

I believe this is called “displacement.”

My departed father’s advice to all his children was to vote Democrat because they were the peoples party. I suspect poor Jewish immigrants coming from a very socialist Europe shared this view. Ingrained political habits are replaced slowly in the face of new evidence. It takes time for the new reality to dawn. This is not obvious to those with the interest and intelligence to read La Shawn. The diversity of opinion above is indicative that the process of change is quite active.

National organizations seem out of place anyhow, given what little I know of the teachings of the New Testament. Wasn’t it Jesus himself who declared that a church was simply 2 or more gathered in His name? No mention of grand buildings or bureaucracies.

Transplanted European Christianity (as opposed to American Christianity) brought a lot of anti-semitic baggage with them. Look at the mainline denominations. They all have an ant-Israel streak a mile wide.

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/2005/08/cindy_sheehan_a.php

La Shawn Barber’s got a very interesting topic about the Jewish community and the left. It asks if those who vote Democrat and/or have liberal leanings are aware of the anti-semitism and anti-Israelism that are becoming a growing problem within the p…

Vikingstar I noticed that some of the celebrities speaking against Mel Gibson’s movie were Jewish. “The Passion of the Christ” was the last movie I saw and the only movie I saw that year. I’m not a great movie-goer.

At the request of the Jewish actress who played Mary the line shouted by the crowd, “Let his blood be on us and on our children,” (Matthew 27:25) was left out of the movie. Reading about that got me to thinking. That line was said by a crowd incited by the Jewish leaders who were trying to stampede a pagan authority into doing their will. But on the cross Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34) Which request is God the Father most likely to listen to? Which request should we believers listen to?
Evon

As for things like The Passion, pogroms did not follow. There again if anyone would look beyond the soundbites and rhetoric, they would see that Gibson didn’t slandered a race of people, but was dealing with specific individuals and their actions. To call his film anti-semitic would make no more sense than calling The Godfather anti-Italian, or for that matter calling Rosewood an anti-white film.

So I guess I’m back to being puzzled about the American Jewish loyalty to the Dems.