By Shmuel Rosner, Jewish Journal
The Jews of Israel oppose the agreement with Iran. The Jews of America support it. The just-released LA Jewish Journal survey turns an assumption into a fact: The two largest Jewish communities cannot agree on a major world development that could significantly change the state of the Jewish state.
Israel will discover today — much to many Israelis’ surprise (because they don’t much understand American Jews) — that it cannot count on the majority of American Jewry to fight the battle against the agreement alongside it. A majority of American Jews will discover today that amid all the noise made by opponents of the deal, not much has changed for them as a group: They support President Barack Obama; they vote Democratic; they approve of the agreement. American Jews are just like Americans, as sociologist Steven Cohen, who oversaw the survey, writes: They are all skeptical about the deal, but their politics dictate the way they ultimately see it.
• • •
There is one question that stands out in this poll as deserving the title “the most troubling.” That is, troubling for those who highly value the bond between Jewish communities. “Does the agreement make Israel safer or more endangered?” Cohen asked his Jewish-American respondents. And they have an answer for him: It endangers Israel.
So here, presumably, you have it all, encapsulated in one question: American Jews support the deal, even though they are skeptical about its outcome, and even though they understand that by supporting the deal, they contribute to making Israel less safe.
But pause before you jump to such a conclusion. What the numbers tell us is a more nuanced story: Jews supportive of the deal are, generally speaking, those Jews who believe that Israel will be safer as a consequence of the deal. Jews opposing the deal are those who believe it endangers Israel. There are very few Jews who support the deal who think it’s bad for Israel.
In other words: Jews — like most other humans — tend to understand the world in a way that is compatible with their beliefs. If they support Obama, they believe Obama. If they believe Obama, they also believe him when he says that the deal is good for Israel’s security. If they believe the deal is good for Israel’s security, they can support the deal with a clear conscience.
• • •
There is not one but rather two great rifts between Jews because of the deal with Iran. There is the rift between American Jews and Israeli Jews, and there is the rift between American Jews and American Jews.
As Cohen writes, “even the pro-Israel segment of the Jewish population comes down in favor of the deal.” But there is no unanimity. In fact, among Jews there is “sharper polarization” than “among non-Jews” on Iran. Jews supporting it are more supportive; Jews opposing it dislike it with more passion.
We should not underestimate the possible consequences of the Jewish American-Jewish American rift. In many Jewish-American communities Iran is becoming a toxic issue. Iran is an invitation for bickering, infighting, acrimony. Although the Jews of America and the Jews of Israel can disagree from afar, the Jews of America (those in favor of the agreement) and the other Jews of America (those against the agreement) have to find a way to keep living their communal life — to the extent that they live a communal life — while having a significant disagreement over a highly volatile issue.
• • •
This is hardly the first time in which the two largest Jewish communities — a combined 80-something percent of the Jewish world — do not have similar priorities.
Jewish-Israeli and Jewish-American opinion on the Iraq War, for instance, generated a textbook mirror image: almost 80 percent of Jewish Israelis supported the war, while almost 80 percent of Jewish Americans opposed the war. Israeli Jews — when it comes to the Iraq War — were more in line with American Mormons than with American Jews. For anyone to presume that American Jews might support a policy, or might urge an American president to support one, just because Israelis see it as beneficial, would be a mistake, as the Iraq War clearly proved.
• • •
Iran is different than Iraq. The agreement with Iran is different than the war with Iraq. In fact, it is different in two ways. First, a war is a matter more serious than an agreement; second, the threat of Iran is more serious than the threat of Iraq.
Thus, opposing the Iraq War was relatively easy and risk-free, conscience-wise. Most American Jews did not think the war was good for U.S. security and no one argued forcefully that it was essential to keep Israel secure. But supporting the Iran deal is different. The U.S. government that most Jews elected strongly argues that the agreement is essential to prevent another war like Iraq — the war to which Jews were opposed. Israel and other opponents of the agreement argue that it is detrimental “existentially” to Israel’s security.
In other words, on both sides of the Iran debate, the arguments are almost overwhelming: oppose the deal — says the Obama administration — and you risk American lives, risk another bloody war in the Middle East. Support the deal — says Israel — and you risk the lives of Jews, the existence of the largest Jewish community in the world, the only Jewish state.
When the debate turns to such dire terms, when the stakes are presented in such a manner, we all know it is going to get ugly. Jews are going to accuse other Jews of warmongering. Jews are going to accuse other Jews of betrayal. Jews are going to compare the behavior of Jews today to their behavior back in the 1930s. Jews are going to have to insist that Israel does not represent their views and interests. Jews are going to get scared, edgy, angry, disappointed.
• • •
Many times in the past, here and in other places, I wrote about our need — the need of Jews — to agree to disagree. But as I said, Iran is different for proponents and opponents. So I am not sure there is really a way to prevent the ugly scenario from playing itself out. In fact, you can count the Jewish rift as a first damaging impact of a troubling agreement with Iran.
Praying for victory would have been better but, well, peace will come from victory so…
The survey is highly suspect and addressed to their audience which is primarily far left. In the same poll they also claimed polling of Americans who are not Jewish. These results differed considerably from the PEW and The Hill Polls which are professional and have No Agenda such as Rosner does.
The Far Mass of US Jewish Organizations are very much against this deal. This includes the leftist and reformed.
Rosner and a few far far leftists such as J-Street are basically anti-Israel and skewed unprofessional polling is just part of their bag of tricks!
Most Diasporic Jews live on a different planet and are losing their connection to the original homeland and her people to the point that they become enemies of Israel.
I wish that Israel would openly distance itself from the influence of ‘liberal’ Jewish Democrats in the U.S. This would provide two benefits. 1. This would help Israelis to ignore the harmful influence of these ‘Jews In Name Only’. 2. We gain more respect from the majority of Americans who already support Israel. While leftist Jews are causing us more trouble the Christians United for Israel CUFI.org already has 2.2 million members after only ten years and is growing stronger and bolder. Jews need to stand up for ourselves and and not be intimidated by the Jewish left.
The Democrat Party has moved far left, and liberal Jews march in lockstep with the Democrats. The relevant phenomenon is that American liberalism has become increasingly hostile to Israel.
Jerry Gordon writes:
@ LtCol Howard:Thank you for your personal historical information and for unwavering support.
The “divide” is between JEWS and unJews.
The later are not only residents of America and neither are the former residing only in Israel.
The unJews include a melange of the classic Erev Rav, (originally non Jewish persons that falsely joined our people with the objective of sabotaging and spying from within), renegade former Jews, anti-Semitic Jews, byproducts of assimilated marriages, and other such creatures.
Rabbinical errors caused that it is impossible to rid ourselves of the unJews and even of the outright capos. So far…
The unJews willingly provide the non Jewish new Nazis and related entities with tools for their trade.
Basically then…
There are no differences between Gal On and her gang, Peres, Livni, Beilin, Ben Ami, etc and “j street flotsam.
Bottom line.
The unJews are the most virulent, mortal enemies of our people.
Unfortunately, apparently some things never change. There will always be an element of the Jewish community that can be termed “court Jews”. My response to Dr. Berenbaum in the Jewish Journal presented some materials that seem to apply to Mr Fuss and to Rob Eshman.
My grandfather, who served in the Roosevelt White House’s said that it was the most liberal Jews surrounding Roosevelt who supported the State Departments anti-Semitic activities with the excuse that American Jews had to show their respect for the existing American immigration laws and that they were upset with any introduction of Holocaust prevention activities to the White House agenda.
My father, a young soldier at the time of the Israeli war for independence ,told me that he was amazed at the dedication of the American military officers (most Catholic and Southern Baptist) and the longshoremen (most Italian and Irish) who worked 24 /7 to load ships bound for Israel so they could be beyond the US territorial waters before the US embargo took effect. They had witnessed the horrors of the Nazi death camps and had vowed “never again”. Needless to say the military officers were sacrificing career advancement for their moral convictions. My father was surprised that the major opposition to Israel came from the American Council for Judaism which he described as mainly composed of upper-class liberal Jews.
I am concerned that American Jews in their blind concern (as Dr. Berenbaum stated)TO SUPPORT THEIR PRESIDENT will also be blind to the nearly unanimous and publicly stated position of the US military: THE DEAL MATERIALLY HELPS RUSSIA AND PLACES THE US AT DIRECT RISK .
Russia has announced that it will sell Iran ICBM technology. Iran does not need ICBMs to attack Israel. ICBMs in the hands of Iran with a nuclear weapon are a threat to the entire East Coast of the United States. They still shout “death to America” in Iran. Several days ago Pres. Rouhani led a parade through the streets of Tehran whose theme was very vocal: “death to America”.
Russia has also announced that it will upgrade that portion of its IBM force both qualitatively and quantitatively that is aimed at the United States. Money coming from weapons sales to Iran will help finance this enhancement of Russian capability which will improve Russia’s position as they announced in terms of their assaults against Ukraine, and in their announced aggravations against Poland and Latvia.
Russia has also announced that they will sell Iran short-range attack missiles which place US naval forces in danger and give Iran a lock control over the essential waterways which control a major portion of international petroleum traffic.
Russia has also announced that they will sell advanced air defense missiles and communications to Iran which would make any nuclear/missile force impregnable to attack.
The “rift” is healthy and natural and the USA liberal Jews will get the short end of the stick.