A Maturation Moment
Since the commentator and I have lockstepped politically, sharing a world-view, I had assumed — lazily, grossly erroneously — that we arm-in-armed on political matters pertinent to Israel. My presumption scarcely could have been more philosophically foolish. Ain’t nobody behind you, pal. You are dangling solo from the terminus point of the branch. Call me when it’s over. The much-decorated commentator’s reversion to form was a barely concealed declaration of divergence on any matter Israel-related, even though the country is in unprecedented peril. These are delicious days in which to be a Jew. I relish them. But it can grow lonely sitting here in the Coliseum, practically by yourself. Except for the President of the United States, Israel should not presume the concept of natural allies. They are slightly more scarce than natural enemies. They never need to post a Help Wanted sign. In modern wartime when uniforms no longer identify the combatants, the most surpassing value is to familiarize yourself with the players so you can segregate the rotting apples.
Politics Is the Core Explanation
Interestingly enough, the two rooting interests in the Middle East War separate along the lines of their personal politics rather than by any other distinction. Friends and enemies came to their conclusions honestly, extending their core political beliefs one more logical link to oppose or support Israel because of its Jewish nature. The aforementioned political commentator aside, most conservatives/Republicans, being religious adherents, back Israel. Liberals/Democrats, largely non-religious, sway toward the opposite pole. They are blinded by the notion that Israel is cooking Judaism and politics — a moral mismatch — into an unpalatable stew. For liberals, combining the governing values of church and state, which they insist must be isolated, is equivalent to baking a cobbler of grapes and turpentine.
Being Jewish and a Democrat
Knowing your friends (and enemies)in these liquid times is critical — and routinely disappointing. Tough question: Many members of the Culver City Democratic Club are Jews. Where do they stand on Israel’s present crisis? How heavily do their political beliefs control their responses? Dare they say aloud? Or do they find themselves uncomfortably locked into a philosophical crossroads? I presume everyone at last week’s meeting who cheered the heroic-sounding anthem for neutrality advocated by the eminent civil rights attorney Stephen Rohde will voluntarily sideline himself for the duration of this war. Mr. Rohde would sharply disagree with the characterization. He sketched a vast grid of lawbreaking against the Bush Administration, largely related to civil rights violations that he claimed denied certain important freedoms to numerous terrorist prisoners. (Heaven forbid, Mr. Rohde did not label the terrorists as terrorists.) Reflecting the chasm in our world views, Mr. Rohde would say it was only secondary that the civil rights laws allegedly violated by the Bush Administration benefited terrorist prisoners, that his main point was Mr. Bush, for many “high crimes and misdemeanors,” should be impeached. I would counter that Mr. Rohde, as a civil liberties attorney, had a two-fold motivation. Because of his political beliefs, he was in hot pursuit of the Bush Administration. As a civil liberties specialist, his not-so-incidental other motive was a defense of prisoners of war whose rights were violated. He would, I believe, assume the meritless position that it is not clear whether said prisoners intended to kill Americans. His job, he would assert, is to defend those in need of defense. If I have accurately interpreted Mr. Rohde’s actions, shame on an American, especially an important, visible American, for the execution of such actions.
