Comments on McCain and the Jewish Vote:
Comments for that post aren't working, and I don't seem to be able to fix it. So, if you want to comment, you can do so here.
UPDATE: The short version of my previous post is, Bush got around 25% of the Jewish vote in 2004. There are reasons to believe that McCain will be more popular among Jews than was Bush, and that Obama will be less popular than was Kerry. Therefore, one can expect McCain to do better than Bush among Jewish voters. Please read the prior post for details before commenting.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Comments on McCain and the Jewish Vote:
- McCain and the Jewish Vote:
the jewish vote is not a monolithic bunch of ingoramuses.
Say what? 25-30%??
I seem to recall that the Democrats got, oh, about 87% of the Jewish vote back in '04.
Dude, I got news for you. There are really not that many Jews who treat all US elections as plebecites on Israel. Most of us care a lot more about what goes on in these here United States, and care a lot more about what a President proposes to do here.
And I'd venture to say that, even among Jews who worry about the effect of US policy on Israel, most have probably figured out that making unending war in the Arab world isn't really doing Israel any favors.
It's not as if the Democrats need to rely on the Jewish vote to win New York and California.
So what's your beef with my post? That you don't think Jews should vote for McCain? Not responsive.
1. When voters actually hear Obama, they like him. He comes across as inclusive, likeable, and inspiring. The people impugning him are thinking this is going to be like Jesse Jackson with "Hymietown", but Jesse Jackson was a divisive figure to begin with. Obama is not. It is easy to make anti-Semitism charges stick against Jackson, Sharpton, Farrakhan, et al. But I don't think they will stick against Obama.
2. Obama is right that a lot of these slings and arrows reflect a pro-Likud outlook that many Jewish voters don't share. Obama's views are broadly consistent with the views of many liberal and moderate Jews, as well as many Jews who don't take a maximalist position in the Israel-Palestinian dispute.
3. Obama is clearly the victim of so many unfair and racist attacks that it sort of tars everyone attacking him and turns him into something of a Teflon candidate. The moment people start talking about Obama and his positions relating to Jewish voters and Israel, a lot of people are going to start thinking in the back of their mind about people who claim that Obama is a Muslim, talk about his studies in a Madrassa, overemphasize his middle name, etc.
I realize that most American Jews don't particular care what the Torah says on this issue, but it is surprising to see a view that is 180 degrees opposite touted as "the" official position of Jewish voters and organizations.
I realize that most American Jews don't particularly care what the Torah says on this issue, but it is surprising to see a view that is 180 degrees opposite touted as "the" official position of Jewish voters and organizations.
Quite aside from what's already been pointed out - i.e., that the political zeitgeist in 2004 was very different from what it is now in 2008 - you're overlooking McCain's own problems with the American Jewish Community. He's described the US as a "Christian" nation, and stated that the founders intended for it to be a "Christian" nation. And one of his advisors is an apocalypticist, who believes that reviving the state of Israel is little more than a necessary precondition to the Second Coming. These are not positions Jews find palatable.
So go ahead, keep trying to smear Obama, Bernstein. I look forward to his swearing in.
However, I am Jewish and am always dismayed by how little attention my Jewish friends give to the Israel question. They are almost embarrassed to be seen supporting anyone other than the most liberal candidate, regardless of his views on Jewish questions. I kid them by saying that no group seems so committed to its own destruction as the Jews.
So I am predicting the usual liberal/conservative/moderate split of Jews--weakness on these issues by Obama (or McCain) won't have much effect.
Who told you McCain is a moderate? Are the promise of war with Iran and continuing a disastrous and never-ending war in Iraq "moderate" positions?
And by "very liberal New Yorker," who are you talking about? Jerry Nadler? What has Hillary done that is "very liberal"? Or are you following media perception here as well?
I will probably vote for McCain. Not because of abortion (although I am pro-choice) or Israel, but for national security reasons. I also think Obama is dangerously left wing on economic issues and will wreck the economy.
The Jewish fence vote? What is that like 0.2% of the voting populace? From a pure numbers perspective, I doubt this would garner any serious strategy concerns, even in battleground states.
Financial contributions might be a different story. I'm guessing that Jewish capital spent in the political process significantly outweighs their 1-2% population representation.
Next we'll be hearing about how George W. Bush supposedly "held hands" with the leader of the state that brought us, and still whole-heartedly supports, Wahhabism. Pshaw.
I really wish I knew people who'd actually bet money that every variable broke Kerry's way in 2004 and that none of them will break Obama's way in 2008. I'd be happy for my financial prospects.
Bush was an incumbent and the war in Iraq was more popular then. McCain won't have the same advantages that Bush had in 2004. It seems to me that McCain is more likely to get about the same level of support from Jewish voters that Bush got in 2000, 19%, rather than the 25% that Bush got in 2004.
That would be anti-semitic, so no.
He will give numerous assurances on Israel, but, probably equally important, he will be given very high marks for standing up to antisemitism in the Black community--as he did when he chided a Black audience for anti-semitism (and homophobia). And, on an emotional level, his debate answer that he would not be standing there were it not for Jewish civil rights workers who put their lives on the line in the 1960s will move a lot of people. When was the last time you heard a "Black leader" give the Jewish community its "props" for the prominent role it played in the civil rights movement without any ifs, ands or buts? In short, I think that if Obama uses his considerable political gift to campaign for the Jewish vote, he can do a lot to offset questions raised about some "secret agenda" and questionable associations.
It also seems plausible that given his popularity among Blacks and progressives generally, he could be effective in delegimatizing in these communities at least the more illegitimate criticisms of Israel and "the Lobby." In the debate, I think, he implied as much. Jews could very well see this (combined with assurances on Israel) as a very positive thing. See interesting Haaretz article that touches on this.
In this context, I note that his indirect mentor, Harold Washington (David Axelrod ran his reelection campaign), had good success in wooing the Chicago Jewish community notwithstanding his solicited and unsolicited support of some of the usual suspects in the Chicago Black community. And that is one reason why I personally do not put much stock in the guilt-by-association trope. The "six degrees of separation" in Chicago "progressive politics" is going to associate just about anybody from that milieu with unsavory characters. In Washington's administration, there were occasional nasty peeps by these types, but those folks were gone by the next morning and never heard from again.
True, Obama's choice of churches was voluntary, so he has got some 'splaining to do, but I suspect that, like Republican candidates who make the pilgramage to Bob Jones the choice was more about political connections/constituents than political agreement.
1. I think Martin Peretz is quite influential among pro-Israel democrats, and his support and defense of Obama means a lot.
2. What if Obama emulates Bush 2000 and names his Secretary of State during the campaign to deflect the foreign policy experience and "anti-Israel" issues? A move like that might very well keep the democratic Jewish vote at traditional levels.
I always found it curious that Jews were supposed to flock to Kerry upon learning that his Jewish grandfather so detested the Jewish faith that he abandoned it for Catholicism.
Yankev, calm down. I was just pointing out that Jacob's idea that Kerry was from a traditional wealthy WASP background like W is absurd.
But in 1980, they voted for Carter.
Differences on Israel...they voted for Carter instead of Reagan.
Not calculating.
I have no desire to argue the theological merits of abortion or revisit the scorn you heaped on the Conservative movement last time this came up. I only mean to add this that non-Jews be aware that the vast majority (2/3rds of Jews can be characterized as Conservative or further left) do not subscribe to the particular interpretation of the Torah you've mentioned.
Given the above, and Obama's other multi-dimensional appeals to Jews I point out in my earlier posts, if all McCain can muster is the one-dimensional notion that (notwithstanding Obama's statements to the contrary), he is more solid in defense of Israel, I think the baseline Repbulican gain in the Jewish vote will be marginal at best.
Obama will win a large percentage of the jewish vote because (a) he is not anti-semitic nor anti-Israel; (b) he is a winner and (c) he is a classic Kennedy type of liberal who most liberal Jewish people support and who will make them and other white people feel good about voting for him (kind of affirms that they aren't racist and that America is not so racist any more).
This is "feel good" and inspirational aspect of his candidacy is what is causing Hillary/Bill fits. They don't know how to combat it.
John McCain is the best candidate for the Republicans but he is looking a lot like Bob Dole (old, tired, under-funded), and he will probably do no better than Dole did against Bill. Certainly, no one is voting for McCain because of his novel ideas about policy issues (he has few). He, like Dole, is the "experience" candidate.
That's his style. Obama is not running a campaign that is about attacking people. Farrakhan probably has some good qualities. Stalin probably had some good qualities. Godwin certainly had good qualities. Obama is a nuanced, careful speaker, and it's amazing that he has managed to use that to great effect, since the prevailing usage of the English language favors short, direct statements. He rejects Farrakhan's views that deserve to be rejected, but would presumably embrace Farrakhan's love of puppies, or whatever warm fuzzy things unfortunately keep Farrakhan going.
Just what, precisely, is wrong with hating the sin but loving the sinner?
Er, painting with a slightly broad brush there. Might as well say that "given Republicans' hostility to Jews as shown by Richard Nixon,Pat Buchannon and James Baker's remarks a few years back..."
True, there is the famous ADL study (though criticized on methodology) suggesting that blacks are more likely than whites to harbor antisemetic viewpoints, and what was once a close relationship (MLK was pro-Zionist) has broken down in the face of the academic and radical left's love affair with Palestinians, but I do not think that Jews reject individual black candidates for that reason, nor do blacks refuse to vote for Jewish democrats on that basis--at least in large numbers. I think, for example, Senators Feinstein and Feingold do quite well in the Black community. Obama rolled up huge numbers in Illinois, and my own Jewish U.S. Rep. strongly supports him.
You are on firmer ground with the issue of Obama's Pastor, which in the long run could cause more problems than the easier stuff of his advisors (he seems to have an equal number of pro-Israel advisors who are actually closer to him) and his no-brainer denunciation of Farrakhan. So far though, and unless he gaffes badly on the issue, I think the problem will be manageable. I suspect some marginal loss, but most of the Jews claiming inexcusable offense are already Republicans/self-identified conservatives long-ago convinced that Democrats will betray Israel, but unable to convince most Jews otherwise to date, and some Jewish Hillary supporters, who have a long time to reconsider pulling the lever for McCain, whatever they say now in their pique.
... or Mel Brooks' hostility to Mel Brooks as shown by his observation, "We mock what we become."
> don't share.
Likud has been out of power for more than 2 years. And their policies are a distant memory now that Israel has withdrawn from Gaza and is getting rocketed from there daily.
People who still drone on about the "Likudniks" just demonstrate thay they are an autopilot and have no real understanding of what is happening
> Netanyahu, Olmert, and Barak (Ehud, not Obama) next
> election
Imagine the American equivalent of that: a choice between Dubya, Kerry, and Bill Clinton.
The overwhelming issue in this election will be, as it is in every election, the economy. The average American voter doesn't really pay attention to what goes on outside America's borders, and, in my opinion, Iraq isn't a big enough deal to most Americans for it to outweigh in importance the economy and jobs in who they'll vote for.
As such, Obama flips some voters in Ohio and Missouri because of the weak economy, which always gets tied wround the neck of the party in the White House. And McCain is advocating the exact positions that voters are inclined to reject this time around: more free trade and spending cuts; while Obama is promising to increase protectionism and to stick it to the rich--always popular policies in a weak economy.
As far as the Jewish American vote goes, I see about a 20-80 split between McCain and Obama. Even if McCain manages to make it 50-50, it won't matter much as Jewish Americans are a consequential portion of the population in only New York, New Jersey, Florida, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and California. All the states besides Florida are too heavily Democratic for a Jewish movement to McCain to alter the outcome, and Bush won Florida in '04, so any increase in McCain's Jewish vote there wouldn't be significant unless he lost some of the other demographics that Bush carried in the state in '04 (e.g., Cuban Americans, evangelicals, active military, etc.), which I don't see happening.
The real wild cards I see in this election are the under-30 and over-70 demographics. Will the under-30s actually come out and vote their numbers and will the over-70s disproportionately go with McCain because of Obama's race? We'll see in November.
Obama knows how to talk to people of different races, and is a real switch from the standard dem black pol who usually harbors anti-jew leanings personally or in his hangers-on. I suspect jews will see this as a chance to reunite the jews and blacks in the dem party under one man, and will flock to him.
Oh, like in 2004, when John Edwards swept them to victory? I know, type a and type b errors, but still. Southern Democrat =/= victory. There are lots of other factors.
Identity politics has been a major part of the Democrat strategy for a long time, but it's not part of Obama's, and this is where Bernstein's calculation goes wrong.
Now, in 2012, 40-50% will vote for the GOP candidate after the Obama policies in the Mideast play out. Just like Carter.
Rabbi Michael Lerner, for one.
I disagree with the suggestion that there is no difference among the three main candidates on Israel. McCain is surrounded by the adoring neoconservatives, and there's every reason to think he will continue the absurd policies of Bush II toward the Israel-Palestinian conflict.
I would expect Obama to be pro-Israel, but to revert to the more even-handed policies of Bush I, which would be a welcome change. As for Clinton, she's probably in between like she always is.
Perry, I have plenty of understanding of what is happening. The current Israeli government, which is not Likud, is certainly skeptical of the peace process, but is also willing to continue to talk and does not renounce the goal of a two state solution with a willing Palestinian partner.
The reason I said that a lot of the criticism of Obama and his advisors as insufficiently pro-Israel is a Likud outlook is because Obama, in the main, basically adopts the Kadima position on the Palestinian conflict. He wants the parties to continue to talk, he thinks Israel is justified in taking steps against Palestinian terrorism unless and until there is some sort of enforceable agreement, and he is skeptical that any such agreement can be reached right now due to Palestinian terrorism and the rise of Hamas.
What Obama's critics seem to be upset about is that he and his advisors still think it is important for the Israelis to continue to talk to the Palestinians. That's an approximation of the Likud viewpoint, not the Kadima viewpoint-- that you simply can't trust these people, one must soundly defeat the Palestinians militarily, and there's no point in a peace process at all. Whatever the merits of that position, it is not held by the vast majority of American Jews, who still hold out the goal (despite being very wary of the Palestinians) that there might be a 2 state solution and believing that goal is, at least in the abstract, worth pursuing.
So my guess is Obama's critics aren't going to be able to score very many points with most of the Jewish community on these issues (and the people these points do resonate with probably weren't going to vote Democratic in any event).
I agree that RA on behalf of the USCJ take a different position. I do not understand where they claim the Torah authority to do so, and this forum is not the place for that discussion. I think you will agree that it would not be the first time that the RA has permitted something that the written Torah appears to prohibit. (Among other things, marriage of a Cohen to a convert comes to mind.)
Perhaps the CJ has changed. I know that I went to Hebrew School and post-Bar Mitzvah education at a CJ congregation, and joined a very active CJ congregation while in law school, under the very dynamic Rabbi Arnold Goodman, may he be well. R.Goodman later became president of the RA and was a proponent of permitting a Cohen to marry a convert. In fact, I was a witness (aid) when he married a Cohen friend of mine to a girl who had converted for the expressed purpose of marrying him. It was my experience during the time that I was CJ (through about the age of 31 or 32) that the average CJ member that I encountered did not especially know or care what position the RA took on anything, so long as it did not cause them personal inconvenience. There were of course exceptions, but they were few, and your experience may be different. But it would take some convincing before I am willing to believe that the RA's position on much of anything can be attributed to the average person who self-identifies as CJ, except by coincedence. If you feel that this observation is scornful, I assure you it is not -- it is simply based on personal observation and interaction with other Jews in numerous cities and states.
I suppose if you're from Chicago you're used to this &discount it.
I'm not from Chicago, I'm not used to it, and I find it a good reason to vote against anyone associated with that mileu.
J. Wright, Ayers &Dorne, Rezko ... any one of those associations alone wouldn't be a killer problem. But the cumulative effect is rather off-putting.
Tenured law professors are that off-putting? NU is still a top school, even if their graduates don't excel on the California Bar exam.
When they're unrepentant former terrorists? Hell yes!
Many things that seem normal in academia or "Chicago progressive politics" look quite bizarre and unpleasant to the rest of the populace.
Furthermore, neither the Shulchan Aruch, the Talmud or any of the other rabbinic teachings are binding documents. There is no support anywhere in the Torah for the proposition that Karos (or anyone else) has the authority to definitively interpret the Torah. This is by no means an attempt to denigrate these documents - quite to the contrary I think their value to the faith increases insofar we see their power as persuasive rather than dogmatic. That does mean, however, that insofar as their views are no longer persuasive, modern Jews are empowered to change the faith.
What the written Torah prohibits or does not prohibit is a personal judgment best left to each Jewish community and individual. You need not accept anyone else's interpretation as correct but if you want other to respect your positions, some reciprocity is in kind.
I apologize for the scorn comment. It was out of place but represents my frustration over the two (related) issues I've stated (binding vs persuasive oral tradition and presumptive statement of what the Torah does or does not require).
As far as the CJ official bodies are concerned, I take them as a barometer of the general feeling of mainstream Judaism. At the very minimum, you have to admit that the Conservative position is closest politically to the mainstream Jewish position - that regardless of our religious attitudes towards abortion, the state ought not to interfere in that essentially personal decision. Such a position does not in any way diminish the respect for potential life (IMO) but rather affirms that, in a free society, such ethical decisions are beyond the purview of the state*.
From what I've read, Goodman has a very even temperament and seems like someone I would be honored to study under. It's funny sometimes how some people move away from the faith and some people think the faith has moved away from them (this is rather universal). Hopefully this doesn't bode ill as the end of all common ground.
_______________________________________________
*Exodus would seem to suggest that killing a fetus is a civil, not criminal matter and therefore not analogous to the Christian position that life begins at conception. Again, in my personal opinion, a combination of birth control and personal responsibility ought to negate the need for most abortions. Both the biblical interpretation and policy preference, however, are ancillary to my point and I don't want to get into an argument over them. Hence, the footnoting of them.
If by mainstream Judaism, you mean the CJ movement and the sentiments of at the very least a plurality of the American Jewish community, then yes, I certainly agree with you.
Rabbi Goodman is an amazing man, and I looked forward to his discussions of the Parsha each Saturday morning, which were much more like a law school socratic dialogue than the sermons I had grown up with.
This may be the position of CJ today. I do not think it was the position of CJ as late as 1982. To me, this position would appear to contradict numerous provisions of the written Torah.
Yes and no. The Sages learn that there is a Biblical requirmenrt that a non-Jewish society execute a Noahide who performs an abortion. As you point out, this is a theology sidetrack that is probably best discussed elsewhere.
I assume you've heard the story of the Jew discovered years after shipwrecking on a remote, unpopulated island. Before leaving he insists on showing his rescuers the major accomplishment of his exile: two ornate but identical synagogues he's built side-by-side from materials scavenged on the island. When they ask, "Why two?" he says, "That one I doven in, and that other one I wouldn't be caught dead in."
If Obama was a BIll Clinton-style centrist, he would be unbeatable, but he is not.
I think they're outliers, but we'll see soon enough.
My dad told me that story/joke on a number of occasions.
DG:
Time will tell, but I hang out with a lot of typical straight-line Dem. baby boomer Jews and not one has even whispered an iota of concern about Obama in the ways you describe.
They have achieved respectability, how ever undeserved, because their respective employers have placed them in prominent positions in the world of a Law Lecturer like Obama. Their meeting reflects more on the universities than on Obama.
Plus in Chicago you never know who you're going to meet. I was introduced a couple of years ago to an affable white-haired man who turned out to have been a respected judge, till Operation Greylord housed him for a number of years at taxpayer expense.
So what am I to assume from this statement:
a. only lesser educated Jews will vote for McCain, and
b. Obama's views will not be those of his earthly advisors, but, more appropriately, those handed down from the heavens.
Those of us not from the university mileu are still bothered by Ayers. That he's accepted in academia does not raise my opinion of him, it lowers my opinion of academia.
If Obama's defense for associating with terrorists is "I was hanging with a crowd that considers terrorists OK" I think it's gonna backfire.
Nope. Those who think terrorists are bad are already going to vote republican. Dems have based the national security piece of the campaign on the presumption that if Bush was against it, it can't be all that bad.
I'd doubt this will change more than a handful of votes, even if Obama comes out and says, "I don't see the problem."
If that were true the Democratic party would be out of business.
Most Democrats and Independents think terrorists are "bad." They might not think terrorists are as big a problem as the Republicans do. They might think terrorists are a solved problem, and it's time for the troops to pack up and go home. They might think terrorists are a problem best solved by "nice guy" means like diplomacy, understanding root causes in poverty, etc., etc.
But outside of academia and "Chicago progressive politics," very few Americans actually like terrorists.
I dunno. See Dohrn and Ayers.
See a Law and Order episode where Jack is kind of sympathetic to a female bomber person who got caught many years later. "You don't know how it was,", he says to one of the skinny, interchangeable female assistant lawyers who wanted to hang the b* for her murders.
Anyway, you don't have to LIKE terrorists. You just have to hate Bush enough to favor whatever he dislikes. IOW, terrorists are less bad than Bush. There's your half.
Now, if you've got the time and the acquaintances--I have neither--ask those who favor Obama if they'd change their vote if he said, "I don't see the problem."
As with the left, when forced to lie and say they don't think commies are good, they follow it up by saying anticommies are worse.
Re: Law &Order.
OK, add Hollywood to academia and the MSM as one of the hyperliberal zones where "no enemies to the Left" still applies. And these are zones that are going to go 99% Democrat/1% Nader anyway.
The battle's for the voters of the middle - some of them centrists, some just not paying attention yet.
I don't think the center is gonna like Obama's friends &associates.
Yeah, Hollywood has some stinkers. But Law and Order seems to go on and on and on. Selling ads. Somebody likes that stuff.
But, as a producer of the old Cagney and Lacey series said of having rich white guys as the only villains they're the only group that doesn't write us outraged letters.
How many centrists do you think there really are?
Who would you rather have supporting Israel, a politician pandering to a few tenths of a point swing votes, or somebody who thinks God wants him to?
And who were the Righteous in Europe? Mostly Christians.
And if the shit hit the fan, who would you expect to hide you, a liberal ontheonehandontheotherhand who'd nuanced his way around any conflict his whole life, or a conservative Christian who supports the Second Amendment?
The only way conservative Christians can be considered anti-Semitic is if Muslims vandalizing synagogues are instantly and impersonally changed to Baptists.
Well, I am not thrilled with any politician who holds a position based entirely on pandering, whether to the Jewish or the conservative Christian vote. A politician ought to support Israel on strategic and moral grounds.
I am pleased that conservative Christians give politicians an additional incentive to do the right thing, though I am not pleased with their reasons for doing so. Personally, I receive the philo-semitism like the missionary about whose health the cannibal is entirely too solicitous. I appreciate the current assistance, but am not thrilled with the motivation for the long term. Let's dream for a moment, and hypothesize a viable peace settlement that does not satisfy Christian theological concerns. Whence the conservative Christian support then? Jimmy Carter's lefty born-again view already faults Israel for being insufficiently devout.
In short, I'll take the support, even welcome it, but it still leaves me with some discomfort. Just as a celebrity probably prefers the company of people who like him for himself as opposed to his fans who idealize him, I prefer support from those who support Israel for what it is, as opposed to what it means to Christian theology. Devout fandom can produce stalkers as well as box-office success. I'll take the box office success, but will be careful at fan events.
As for the "who do you want" question, I do not know that Wallenberg and Schindler were particularly devout or religiously motivated. I think it is a mistake to beleive that brave, decent and moral people do not exist across a large spectrum of religious and political beliefs. And the opposite assumption would also be a mistake. The Devil can quote scripture, and, for example, slavery was subject to much Biblical justification by sincere Christains. Huck Finn knew he was being a sinner when he helped Jim escape, but he did it anyway. Those are the type of people I would depend on.
The former was protected by diplomatic immunity--it was the Russians who got him, remember--and the latter was not.
But most of the Righteous were just folks, except for being gutsy as hell. See Corrie ten Boom. There was an entire village in France--name escapes me--which did a hell of a job. I read about it to find out how where they buried the bodies of the inevitable spoilers, but there were apparently none. They all spoke, afterwards, as did most of the Righteous, of their religious duty.
Other conservative Christians just think supporting Israel is the right thing to do--that includes me--and I hope that, while hiding the American version of the Franks will not come to my lot, nor that running an escape organization will not be testing my management skills, I will be as brave as the Righteous.
If, however, you want to justify Rabbi Lapin's point, I could probably find somebody else to shove into my root cellar.
Richard Aubrey's Chimaxx,
No doubt genuine religious belief often spurs people to do good things. But, not to go all Christopher Hitchens on you, it does not always work that way. I would be very impressed, for example, with stories of gun-toting evangelicals rescuing blacks from lynching parties, but it appears that was not a common event. See, e.g. The Protestant Churches and Lynching, 1919-1939
Of course abolitionism itself was also based on religious principle. I think that for the decent and moral, there is more than enough in religion to support any good and courageous act--admittedly, often with religion providing courage part. I am glad that you think it is just the right thing to do. That support, as opposed to the end-of-the-world religious reasons articulated by some, does not in any way discomfort me.
So, I hope your offer of sanctuary in case of an American pogrom remains open. But if not, I will make other arrangements.
Meantime, have you any friends who are a bit less confrontational? It might be a long forced acquaintance.
I don't have an opinion of how the numbers will break down, but there are at least two middle positions you didn't spell out. One is that of the generally pro-Obama Jews who make Israel a central concern, and believe that the only navigable path to Israel's security is via the formation of a Palestinian state. That's the position I used to hold. Which leaves the "I don't pretend any more to have the remotest clue what will or won't work in the Middle East, so though there's no issue outside of America's direct interests that concerns me more than Israel, I'm voting for Obama on other grounds" Jews, of which there's at least one.
The Jews are returning to their land of unbelief. They are spiritually blind and desperately in need of their Messiah and Savior. — Jerry Falwell
In a church in Kingsport, Falwell told an enthusiastic audience that the Antichrist was alive, walking around somewhere, and was a male Jew.</blockquote>