Loyalty test: Two 'big deals' for U.S. Jews

American Jews were treated to two Biden-style “big deals” - one good for the Jews, one not so good.

Most Jews probably cheered President Obama’s words when he signed the historic health-care bill into law: “The bill I’m signing will set in motion reforms that generations of Americans have fought for and marched for and hungered to see.”

Yet many of these same Jews were enraged and apprehensive later the same day when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu entered the White House for what must have been a let’s-have-it-out confrontation with our president.

Welcome to the unwanted netherworld of dual loyalty. Most American Jews feel fortunate to be both, American and Jewish. We love our country and our people, and in the past few weeks two monumental issues reached parallel boiling points. We can love President Obama for leading the drive for health-care reform, and we can be infuriated with our president for his administration’s abrasive reproach of Netanyahu over an irrelevant sideshow.

The vast majority of American Jews do not favor Israel’s interests over America’s interests. They never needed to decide between the two. They usually vote for Democrats or moderate Republicans who press for a progressive agenda while supporting Israel. They had the best of both worlds.

Some Jews vote for conservative candidates who would reduce services for the poor, lower taxes for the wealthy and launch questionable wars like Iraq, while bolstering even the most hawkish Israeli governments. They represent a minority of Jews here. A check of voting patterns shows that 75 to 80 percent of Jews vote for Democratic candidates each presidential election. Why would the majority of Jews favor the invasion of Iraq or tax breaks for the rich if they voted for Gore, Kerry and Obama?

True, Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts voted for the Iraq war, but the alternative in 2004 was President Bush. Clearly, Kerry staunchly backs a progressive domestic agenda.

Obama’s 2008 campaign presented Jews with a potential dilemma. Obama’s plans for health care and other issues conformed with most Jewish attitudes, but his view of Israel was at best confusing. These conflicting concerns recently came to a head at the same time.

On Tuesday afternoon, March 23, the president made health-care reform the law of the land when he signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Vice President Biden contributed a profanity-laced pronouncement that threatens to go down in history with White House proclamations like “Day of infamy” and “Ask what you can do for your country”: “This is a big (you-know-what) deal.”

Like other humane citizens, most Jews are pleased that more Americans will benefit from affordable health care, including the nation’s estimated 5.1 million Jews.

Rep. Henry Waxman, the subdued and astute congressman whose district covers Malibu, Beverly Hills and other obscenely rich areas, linked Jewish religious beliefs to health care, saying, “The meaning of the seder (at Passover) is that no one should be left behind. It means that everyone should have a seat at the table, that everyone should partake in the afikomen of freedom. On the secular level, that is what the health care bill means to millions of Americans.”

As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Waxman was one of three committee chairs who influenced the shaping and movement of the legislation, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency reported. The organized Jewish community could benefit from wealthy donors whose charitable contributions were threatened by a proposed cut in tax deductions; the reduction did not go through. JTA reported that this might mean a windfall for 120 Jewish nursing homes, 145 Jewish family service agencies and 15 to 20 Jewish hospitals supported by the Federation system.

Another big darned deal was created on March 9 when an Israeli minister announced the construction of 1,600 housing units in an Orthodox Jewish neighborhood in northeast Jerusalem. Biden was in Israel when he learned of it and twice publicly condemned the announcement. The vice president considered it a humiliating experience.

This should have been too petty a matter to bother Biden. This was Jerusalem, not the West Bank, which is necessary to create a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu apologized for the timing of the announcement, but on Friday, March 12, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called Netanyahu and spent 43 minutes berating him.

Interestingly, they all converged on Washington, D.C., a week later when both Clinton and Netanyahu addressed the premier pro-Israel lobby, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, where Clinton declared that condemning the construction announcement was necessary to maintain “an atmosphere of trust.” Clinton’s statement prompts this pointed question: How does building housing units in a Jewish neighborhood spoil trust?

Netanyahu responded that evening with this memorable statement: “Jerusalem is not a settlement. It is our capital.” The next day, Netanyahu engaged in tense talks with Obama’s team at the White House where the president made some unspecified demands. The prime minister left Washington without reaching an agreement.

Obama has some understandable concerns because Israeli cooperation could help improve America’s image in the Arab world. Bush’s policies - especially the invasion of Iraq - left Obama with a massive clean-up job of Arab attitudes toward America.

The president needs to understand that in the long run the Israeli/Arab situation will make no practical difference in other Arab nations. Reasonable steps by Israel would contribute to an upgraded perception, but Obama expects Netanyahu to go further.

After all, Netanyahu suspended expansion of West Bank settlements, but that was not enough for Arab leaders. This move emboldened them to demand elimination of construction in East Jerusalem before they would negotiate. Why? They are probably pressuring Israeli leaders to capitulate to a demand that they have yet to justify.

It is a positive step that Obama and Netanyahu attempted to compromise on their approach to the conflict, but they have not yet reached an agreement. Now Obama is reported to consider an American proposal for a peace settlement. Is this intended as a suggestion or a demand?

Quite a crazy making conundrum for moderate to liberal Jews who are tempted to seek an alternative to Obama. Bear in mind that the younger Bush eliminated Saddam Hussein as a counterweight to Iran, which now threatens to annihilate Israel with a nuclear device.

Obama is reported to be well aware that he needs the Jewish vote for his political health. He has a strange way of showing it.