< link rel="DCTERMS.isreplacedby" href="http://bokertov.typepad.com/ btb/" >

Wednesday, January 07, 2004


The Democratic field: a Jew, a half-Jew, a quarter-Jew and an almost-Jew.
Is that good for the Jews?

by Julia Gorin, from today's Wall Street Journal Online editorial:
The race is on. Not for the presidency, but for the Jewish presidency, and the Jewish vote. Joe Lieberman aside, we recently heard that Wesley Clark whispered to a supporter concerned about his stance on Israel, "Did you know my father was Jewish?" Not to be outdone, within days Democratic front-runner Howard Dean made sure we all found out about his devout Jewish wife and Jewish kids. John Kerry, however, had almost a year on either of them, because he found out back in February that his paternal grandfather was Jewish and his grandmother had "Jewish roots."

But perhaps they are all just following the lead of Hillary Clinton, who in 2000 got a boost to the Senate after the Forward, a Jewish newspaper, reported on her Jewish step-grandmother.

"That's the big thing this season, Jewish ancestry," Mr. Clark said recently . . .

I always thought it was too obvious to spell out, but apparently it isn't: A Jew in the White House would not be good for the Jews. Because the tendency of Jews in power is to bend over backwards to prove evenhandedness--an opportunity that most often presents itself in the context of the Middle East. It becomes the Jewish politician's complex to prove that a Jew is capable of governing without favoring the "Jewish side"--the first result of which is an unobjectively paranoid policy that sells Israel down the river.

We saw it in 1973 during the Yom Kippur War, when Henry Kissinger advised President Nixon against a massive arms airlift to Israel (advice Nixon declined). We saw it again under the Clinton administration, which included half-Jewish Defense Secretary William Cohen, as well as Jewish National Security Adviser Sandy Berger and once-Jewish Secretary of State Madeleine Albright.

It was the policy of this guilt-ridden group to forge ahead with the peace process "no matter what"--a euphemism for making only the Israeli side accountable for its concessions in the Oslo agreement, regardless of how many Jewish corpses such an approach produced.

This, after Candidate Clinton in 1992 offered the following story in answer to how he would handle Israel: He was at yet another deathbed, this time of a dying Baptist minister, who supposedly made Clinton promise that whatever he did, he was not to let Israel down. The Jews ate it up; the story didn't even have to be true.

Today, the very fact that the Jewish-ish contenders have chosen the Democratic Party within which to realize their ambitions --a party where anti-Semitism is troublingly common and includes pandering to anti-Jewish Arab-American groups-- is telling. . .

What we have in Election 2004 are a full Jew, a half-Jew, a quarter-Jew and an almost-Jew (Messrs. Lieberman, Clark, Kerry and Dean, to recap). These candidates sound like Russians trying to cough up a Jewish gene so they can immigrate to Israel. . .

So now it's up to Al Sharpton and Carol Moseley Braun to reveal their Jewish roots. In this day and age, it wouldn't be such a stretch. Recall that in 2002 Bill Clinton told a Jewish group in Toronto that if Israel were invaded, "I would personally grab a rifle, get in a ditch, and fight and die." So not only was he the first black president; he was also the first Jewish president.

Sorry, folks, we already had a Jew in the White House. And it brought us intifada II.