Jewish Single-Issue Voters

[VLinvictus]

The Topic:

American Jews whose only electoral concern is the security of the State of Israel and who will vote for a candidate based only on his or her perceived stance on this issue -- ignoring domestic concerns that affect the United States -- are traitors.

Agree or disagree?

[agnon1]

No, they're Jewish Republicans.

[agnon1]

Seriously, it is somewhat problematic but related to the topics touched on in your other thread.

I would argue that you would then need to include evangelical Christians who vote along the same lines as traitors as well. And you would have to show that supporting Israel carries with it other positions that are harmful to the overall well-being of the American commonwealth--more so than supporting an oil-based economy that fuels many awful political regimes. I would also argue that any one who votes for guns rights as their main concern are equally traitorous to the safety of Americans. And anyone who does not support green poisitions is traitorous to the world overall....

I think that it is possible to vote as an American citizen for politicians who will support the state of Israel--it is not a prioiri a sin to do so nor does it reflect automatic disregard for the safety of this nation, imho.

[VLinvictus]

Very thoughtful, Agnon.

Admittedly, traitor is an extreme word, but debate questions should be extreme to get people thinking.

Also it is clear that they are not actually traitors in the formal sense. However, if one is a citizen of a country, should not one's priority be the security and welfare of one's own country and not another sovereign state?

So, if one decides to vote for candidates solely because one believes he or she will be "good for Israel," isn't that misguided at best, or at least does it not show a serious misplacement of priorities?

There are plenty of other single-issue voters -- abortion, gay rights, gun rights, etc. -- yet these examples at least pertain to the voters' perceptions of the welfare of the United States.

If it should ever come to pass that the national interests of Israel and the US diverge, perhaps say over war with Iran or the like, what should one think of an American Jew who would support Israel's position regardless of whether or not is contradicted the interests of this country?

[Howiedds]

agnon:

No, they're Jewish Republicans

LOL!

Good to see you here.

[Howiedds]

VL:

Admittedly, traitor is an extreme word, but debate questions should be extreme to get people thinking.

Right, but I think we all knew you were saying it for effect


Also it is clear that they are not actually traitors in the formal sense. However, if one is a citizen of a country, should not one's priority be the security and welfare of one's own country and not another sovereign state?

Buruch HaShem, we have never had to make that choice, a testament to both countries.

So, if one decides to vote for candidates solely because one believes he or she will be "good for Israel," isn't that misguided at best, or at least does it not show a serious misplacement of priorities?

I know many traditional Jews who voted for Bush last time because of his stand with Israel, and because Liberals are sometimes less adamant and more "even handed." I wonder if they think Bush's policies over the last 5-6 years have made Israel safer or added to the tinderbox in the Middle East by his incompetent handling of the area.

If it should ever come to pass that the national interests of Israel and the US diverge, perhaps say over war with Iran or the like, what should one think of an American Jew who would support Israel's position regardless of whether or not is contradicted the interests of this country?

Can you see foresee such a divergence of interests vis-a-vis Iran? I tend to think that when push comes to shove, America will depend on Israel doing what it cannot regarding Iran and its nuclear program.

[metis]

Can you see foresee such a divergence of interests vis-a-vis Iran? I tend to think that when push comes to shove, America will depend on Israel doing what it cannot regarding Iran and its nuclear program.

Hi there Howie:

But you well know the U.S. will still get much of the blame if Israel were to attack Iran. 

BTW, did I mention about your Dallas Stars being beat by my Red Wings?     Hehehehehehehehehe.

[Clyde5001]

Israel's well-being is an issue.

So is Canada's. So is Britain's.

We need to watch out for our allies. We have an added incentive regarding Israel because family lives there. But our home is America. That comes first.

That being said, I would likely never vote for a candidate who I didn't trsut on Israel. But that's the negative.

BTW, it's interesting to see how some things never change from website to website.

[metis]

Clyde, welcome aboard! 

[Clyde5001]

Hey!

[Akiva]

"An attitude of distrust toward the possibility of maintaining Jewish life in the United States is, moreover, unfair to our country.  Our duties as citizens are not fully discharged by rendering obedience to its laws, or even by participating patriotically in its defense in times of war.  We have a part in the social, economic and cultural life of America, and, unless we give to the common welfare of the American people the best that is in our power to give, we are not doing fully to our country."

-Mordecai Kaplan

[river]

Hey Clyde,

Welcome!   How goes it?   Stick around.

No, I don't think Jews are single issue voters.  But I do prefer Hillary over Obama and McCain.  She has the experience, and I do think she has more knowledge about politics and the world in general than Obama.  Ever since Rev. Wright made his fascinating speeches, I had to wonder if Obama just rarely attended church, or he knew his feelings and stayed friendly with him anyway.  I still wonder, even though he claims he didn't know.  And that's the other part I have trouble believing. 

Rev Wright, who, imo, is really not right, reminded me of a scene from the movie Chicago.  The closing speech in the form of a tap dance that Richard Gere danced around in the court room.  And then I wondered if the Rev was pulling the strings of Obama when Obama said, he never knew what his preacher believed and what close friends he was with Rev. Farrakhan.   LOL!   Another tap dance.

As to McCain, well I think he's too old for such a heavy job, and I worry about the judges he may appoint, thought I doubt he would be as bad as Bush in his appointments.  There must be some reasons why the Conservatives don't like him. 

I think he'll do what the older Bush did and find someone who didn't have much of a written history on certain hot issues, such as Souter, although Thomas was obviously appointed because he was an African American, and there is usually a black justice on the Court today.  Of course he is the most conservative judge on the Court.  Don't know if the older Bush was aware of that or not.  In addition, after reaping the many benefits of former more liberal Courts, he turned his back on his fellow African Americans who benefited by a moderate court, and went about as far to the right as you can get.  But the more interesting Supremes-related story came from the AP, which reported over the weekend that Justice Thomas didn’t utter a single word during oral argument this term. and the the last time Thomas asked a question was Feb. 22, 2006.  He'll be 87 this month. In 1994, Thomas performed, at his home, the wedding ceremony for radio host Rush Limbaugh's third marriage. Just a bit of trivia.

As to the wars.  I'm not sure any of them can come through with whatever they're now promising.

[river]

I don't know what website I got that info about his age.  How strange.  I've been looking for it, but so far haven't found it.  I was surprised by the age myself.  I'll keep looking.

[river]

Well, I know I'm not loopy.  So I read it somewhere.  The only justice about that age is Stevens, and he was born in 1920, which would make him about 87-88.  But I wasn't reading about him at the time.  Maybe I'll come across it one day again.  I just finished looking, and since there are multiple pages on Thomas, and I searched several before, I don't know where it was.

[julrich]

everybody decides how large the scope of his voting group will be in every election, even when he stays home.   In our presidential 2-party system we get few choices and most are not good.  You can still vote against alcohol, but remove yourself from the two brands of political consensus that choose the most likely winners.  Voting outside the major consensus fields in order to protest on an issue is more of a wasted, passive gesture than a practical political action. 

What I don't get is why pro-Israel Jews get to be considered the Jewish bloc vote when the heritage of the Hebrew Bible is to stand with God outside the state as a prophetic criticism of the abuse of power?

shalom
big julie

[WorldWarrior]

River--hi--yes that wrong age for Thomas really is odd. I'd be interested where you saw that too.

One of the big problems that many people had with the Thomas confirmation was that because of his age he would be sitting on the Court for a long long time.

Thanks for the info about the Rush Limbaugh wedding--I find that of extreme interest too.