Jews Don't Need Friends Like John Hagee

Or you would have dealt with this issue at the beginning of April.And might have mentioned the good rabbi somewhere in your very late diatribe on this issue.

David, I'm at a total loss. I've been dealing with Hagee since February. The Hitler story broke yesterday. How about, before any future posts, you supply me with a list of rabbis to link to? 

Daniel,

Rabbi Yoffie is the tried and proven leader of Reform Jewry, a man who is widely recognized as an impressive leader to those of us far outside of the Reform movement, and for the record, I myself am hardly Reform.

That you have not bothered to reference his powerful and outspoken view on Hagee suggests that you don't believe that it matters. Well, even Hagee himself has demonstrated that he is concerned about what Rabbi Yoffie says.

So this omission of R. Yoffie, if intentional, is bizarre, particularly for someone trying to convince Jews that McCain's alliance with him is a problem.

Please note that Rabbi Yoffie has responded as well to the latest provocation from Hagee.

David,

You don't really need a rabbi or scriptural scholar to tell you that Hagee's statements are a bit...uh...shall we say, "problematic" semite-wise.  I can't imagine what the substance of your criticism is.  Seriously, what are you trying to say?

Well, I suppose it has been established that one Jewcy writer hates John Hagee.

Now to the substance, beyond the raw, blind, irrational, hate--Hagee has the overwhelming support of the Jewish community. It is surely gratifying that the majority of the Jewish people can be right about something--Christians who love Israel and the Jewish people are to be thanked and not insulted with crazed misrepresentations.

The contrast with Obama's pals is overwhelming.  Obama befriends the kind of people who want the worst for Jews while conservatives happily join in common cause with people who DESPITE a different ideology who express consistent solidarity with OUR interests. The choice is clear as a bell.  I'll stand with John Hagee and I would happily shake his hand.

Jewcy editors must really love Rev. Wright, Ayers, Farrakhan and all the antisemites who love Obama.  Only a real propagandist can look at the bigot and call him OK and look at our friend and call him a bigot.

Jewcy will grow up one day and all of this juvenile anger at good people will recede when they realize that friends are good to have in a world with very few.  I'll take Hagee as a friend even if the whole world loved the Jews. 

David N. Friedman's position--that "Hagee has the overwhelming support of the Jewish community"-- is EXACTLY why Rabbi Yoffie should have been referenced in this post.

David, you're suggesting David N. would be moved an inch by what a reform rabbi has to say? I'm pretty sure David N. is construing "the Jewish community" so as to exclude the vast majority of the Jewish community.

Yoffie is not a Rabbi but does have a constituency.  I surely include the political left since most Jews are leftists.  Hagee has made huge frineds on both sides of the aisle and has greatly mollified leftist icons like Foxman and Dershowitz.  His speeches at AIPAC are always very well recieved and he clearly has a ton of support in Israel from both Labor and Likud.  It is absolutely reasonable to say that he has "majority" support from the Jewish community.

If Yoffie does not fully support Hagee--it is only because he is demonized so unfairly and he does not want to be "tarnished" by such smears--he is a politician and they are very careful to avoid people who are thought of as controversial.

He is not controversial.  He has been unfairly and irrationally demonized. 

Because Mr. Friedman is not whom you are trying to convince to vote for Obama, which is what this is all about anyway, right? You want to convince the Jews in the center and certainly on the moderate Left to vote for Obama, and R. Yoffie-as even Mr. Friedman concedes--does have a sizable constituency. Leading a movement since 1996 that includes 1.5 million people ain't bad, at least, not for Jews.

I would note that it isn't really your fault for instinctively dismissing  his importance. You are on a site that spews contempt for political Jewish leaders consistently. And I have no problem with that, at least, some of the time. However, certain religious leaders are successful not because of a wealthy donor base, but because they speak to a large segment of the masses of Jewry. Rabbi Yoffie is one of those important few. Look a little closer. 

Because Mr. Friedman is not whom you are trying to convince to vote for Obama, which is what this is all about anyway, right?

No, not remotely. 

I would note that it isn't really your fault for instinctively dismissing  his importance.

I didn't implicitly or explicitly indicate any judgment about him one way or another.

Koffler, you wrote,

"I didn't implicitly or explicitly indicate any judgment about him one way or another."

But you did implicitly, you wrote, "How about, before any future posts, you supply me with a list of rabbis to link to?" That did seem dismissive of his importance generally and regarding Hagee specifically, and he is hardly one of many pishers on a "list." It is quite distressing if this isn't better known than that. When it comes to religious matters and confrontation with other religious leaders, we need to look to our own religious leaders at least for input, and not just the PAC leaders of the world.

Can we agree on that?

....and now this election is about Hitler.

I suppose the 2012 race (if we survive that long) will hinge on the candidates views regarding World War I.

--Z

One of the virtues of Judaism is it lacks the sort of political hierarchy of, say, the much more intellectually authoritarian Catholic church. I can't believe that someone would assume that Jewish Americans would tend to first look to Jewish religious "leaders" in deciding how to respond to a religiously contentious, non-Jewish figure, let alone seek some kind of guidance (?) from them for how to assess that figure in the first place.

It's even more ridiculous when you ponder the likelihood that neither David nor a large number of his fellow-travelers in the Obama witch-hunt asked for advice from Jewish theologians or rabbis in deciding what to make of Jeremiah Wright. They - more than likely - just made up their own, uh, minds on the matter. Correct me if I am wrong, David. 

Anonymous,

The Jeremiah Wright debacle was at heart a racial issue, not a religious issue. As to your absurd suggestion that being aware of what major religious leaders are saying on a religious issue is the same as taking directives from the pope, well, that's pretty silly. I am a secularist, but I still have interest if a major Jewish leader happens to be advocating the same position on a Jewish issue that I am, and is making headlines fighting over it.

That doesn't make me a Catholic. Sorry.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/22/mccain.hagee/?iref=hpmostpop

Okay, then I think I see what you're confused about. a) I'm not writing to canvass votes, I'm writing to engage in arguments; b) in particular, in this case, I'm not writing to canvass for Obama votes or discourage McCain votes, I'm writing to make a specific point that I hadn't seen made elsewhere, namely that the Hitler stuff from Hagee is completely in line with and in fact entailed by what we already knew about his ideology, yet the status of our political culture is such that c) hearing the Hitler talk on audio, which doesn't add to our store of knowledge about what Hagee believes, creates a controversy that precisely the same point about God intending the persecution of Jews sans Hitler-mentions did not create; d) in particular, it creates a controversy for John McCain that didn't exist when Hagee was merely on the record hoping to see Israel drown in rivers of blood.

So it's a straightforward analytic point that stands or falls on its own merits no matter how many or few Jewish authorities agree with me, and how great or meager their stature.

I wrote this:

How about, before any future posts, you supply me with a list of rabbis to link to

Because your comments are, yet again, some inexplicable trolling to complain about I know not what. As far as I can tell, your criticism comes to, I didn't include or link to every single worthwhile point that could conceivably be made about this subject. That's what you're on about. But no piece about anything, let alone a short blog post, makes every single point about every single subject that could possibly made. Are you able to get through a print magazine in one sitting without going into some kind of rage because every single article failed to include points that you think should be made? If some  author writes B about X, and you agree but also think A, do you immediately fire off an angry letter? If not, step off.

b) in particular, in this case, I'm not writing to canvass for Obama votes

It doesn't feel like that to me, and it doesn't feel like that to others. Not votes exactly, but support. Many feel you are exceptionally partisan towards Obama. 

As far as I can tell, your criticism
comes to, I didn't include or link to every single worthwhile point
that could conceivably be made about this subject. 

I don't think you understood R. Yoffie's role in all this. I'm not sure you get it even now.

Anon--I don't understand where you think I have said Jews should look to their leaders in deciding how to respond to a non-Jewish figure--since I did not imply or state this is the case.

The fact that Hagee is pro-Israel and a Jew lover requires no wink or nod from our leadership to appreciate.  Indeed, it is precisely because Hagee is theological and generally non-political that Jews should give him some slack.  After all, we do not want our theology (however preferable) to be spun so it is misunderstood and this could easily be done.  It is shear arrogance that leads some in our community to slam and attempt to debase this friend of the Jewish people and this is done only in the context that allows open contempt against conservative Christians.

The difference between Wright and Hagee is dramatic.  Wright's sins are political and his theology deals with a lot of politics--this is why he shows anti-Americanism with his belief that the government brought AIDS to the black community and that the response to 9/11 is a reflection of bad American foreign policy bringing the "chickens home to roost."  Wright is revealed as a racist and unpatriotic--specific and legitimate sins.  Hagee has theology which draws heavily from the Jewish tradition--indeed, his words concerning Hitler mirror those espoused by Esther Jungreis (for example) and his theological point concerning 9/11 as Hashem's possible retribution against a sinful America is right in line with normative Jewish belief which says that the Almighty is active in the world and sends messages.  I don't agree with his theology but his opinions are not to be castigated since there is no sin in making such statements.  Maybe he is right, maybe he is not.  All decent Americans agree that Wright is wrong.

I don't think you understood R. Yoffie's role in all this.

If I were writing something about Jewish religious reactions to Hagee, I would have searched out Yoffie's comments. I'm not, so I didn't. Do you behave like this in real life? Really and truly? Do you believe every writer on earth is obligated to cover stories from the angle that seems most important to you?

I made a series of assertions in this post. Do you have anything to say that's remotely responsive to any of them? 

"It is shear arrogance that leads some in our community to slam and
attempt to debase this friend of the Jewish people and this is done
only in the context that allows open contempt against conservative
Christians."

David N. Friedman, that isn't fair. R. Yoffie, who led the Jewish communal charge against Hagee and CUFI, was very, very careful to note he was only talking about Hagee. Let's take a look:

 “On
Israeli-Palestinian politics, John Hagee and the CUFI are extremists,”
Rabbi Yoffie argued. “They do not represent most Evangelicals, do not
represent most Republicans, and do not represent the American heartland."

"indeed, his words concerning Hitler mirror those espoused by Esther
Jungreis (for example) and his theological point concerning 9/11 as
Hashem's possible retribution against a sinful America is right in line
with normative Jewish belief"

That isn't "normative." That is some in the hardline haredi world. Not something even the Modern Orthodox, never mind liberal Jews--would embrace.  

 And might I remind you that Jewcy pulled out of its alliance with Jewsweek back in the day precisely for Jewsweek echoing such fundamentalist false prophecy. That Katrina was divine punishment for Gaza -- remember that one? Again, not normative, David N. Friedman.

humbly, koffler's post isn't a complaint about whether or not jewish leaders have condemned hagee; rather its that mccain has sought the support of a guy in whose theology the final solution is a positive. your assertion that rabbi Y has already condemned hagee is complementary to koffler's point. i can see your argument somewhat given the headline koffler used but that's a headline and it need only loosely relate to the content. 

Ali, I concede I may have got caught up too much in Koffler's headline, language strikingly close to that crafted and promoted by Yoffie's camp, but ultimately, there was no wrongdoing on Koffler's part, and I shouldn't have been so suspicious.

First, DavidK,  are incorrect if you think that someone like Yoffie is ready to embrace the evangelical center but not a supposed "extremist" like Hagee.  It is surely HIS OWN spin that puts Hagee as an "extremist" when in fairness--he is certainly in the middle.  Where he is exceptional is the enthusiasm with which he supports Israel and his expressed gratitude to the Jewish people.  This is what makes the leftists in the Jewish community so uneasy.  That there is uneasiness is obvious--the question is:  is this discomfort correct and in our best interests and if the Orthodox world is much more warm--what does that say to you, David?

I see your misunderstanding with my characterization of "normative Jewish belief"--please understand the point.  It is normative among Jews to champion abortion on demand, remove any references to Hashem in the public square and  protest a righteous war in Iraq.  What is "normative Jewish belief" is what Jewish history and the Jewish religion has championed through history and is tragic that what is classically, normatively Jewish is no longer supported by a majority of Jews--only perhaps 15-25%--these are precisely the Jews who have no problem with Hagee plus many others.

Hagee's inspiration is overwhelmingly Jewish with some elements from his own theology.

I again address you to the contrast between the love and common cause expressed by Hagee versus the hatred and bigotry expressed by the Obama supporters Farrakhan, Wright and so many leaders in the Islamic world who hope he will ascend to the throne of the American Presidency.  It is vital that the Jewish community understands clearly the difference between a friend and an enemy.

Do you value and look for the difference, David?  Is there any meaning to the fact that Hagee has brought millions of dollars of aid and thousands of inspired X-tians to love Israel and demand support for her future?  Do you see any contrast between that strong support and the statement from Obama I cut and pasted earlier on this thread blaming Israel for Arab violence because of the "settlements?"

I understand that you may not share the Jewish view of the birth pangs of the messiah or the belief that there will be a coming rectification of humanity.  Alas, no one really knows the future.   I would like to hear you say that such speculations are well within the scope of religious leaders to speak about and it is apparent that no secular leader would want to go near such thinking.  It is a measure of tolerance to allow for religious people to publicly exclaim theological positions which do *not* harm anyone.

 It is quite another when "religious" leaders make the kind of political statements that gravely prejudice Jewish life in Israel and implicitly blame Jews for 9/11--etc since this is a direct danger to our community.  Love is better than hate--can't you agree?

The fact that leftist Jews are so uncomfortable with the expressed love of the evangelical community is obvious.  My response is to ask--is that a rational conclusion?  Gratitude and respect means simply saying "thank you."  Arrogance and bigotry dictates that we confuse the lover of Jews with the haters of Jews and I implore you to not take that road--even if you wish to remain a proud liberal.  Don't shake the man's hand and say thank you--just don't mischaracterize a friend as our greatest enemy at the precise time we have real enemies poised to destroy us and so many of us ignore the threat. 

Thank you David N. Friedman for responding to this atrocious article. I have been reading this website for a few weeks now, and it always leaves me discouraged and worried by the foolish shortsightedness of young Jews like Daniel Koffler. It is rare (if not unprecedented) that a Christian pastor has had such strong pro-Jewish views, and all that some Jews can do is spit on him.

I know that this website likes to present itself as a site for hip, young Jews. All I can hope is that this is not a true representation of the Jewish youth. The level of superficiality and vanity in everything on this website is just sickening.

Hagee has said things that are offensive to say the least. Many Jews do not trust Christians period. You can't really blame them either being that Jews have suffered for centuries at the hands of Christians. I suggest Hagee and and all serious Christians read the bookd Our Hands Are Stained with Blood by Michael Brown to get a better idea.

I read it and it sure did open my eyes, mind, and heart about the horrific injustices Jews suffered through the ages in Europe.

Mr. Friedman, although your comment from days ago (I was redirected here from a link in Mr. Koffler's post on Lieberman) should at this point be relegated to a point of historical curiosity, I must respond to say that I find the continued harping on Wright to be a bit ridiculous. Comparing theologically-expressed discontent among the African American community with, and indeed, finding it worse than, the ravings of Hagee is the stupidest thing I've ever heard. It ignores: 1. Centuries of a form of slavery more brutal by historical standards than virtually other (the original political sin conceived in a racism that is still the norm in this country), 2. Quite recent abuses by the government (ever hear of the Tuskeegee airmen experiment, syphilis anyone?) that provide black Americans with a much more intimate and justifiable sense of paranoia when it comes to just how far the Federal government is willing to go to violate your rights and your health in the name of science, 3. The idiocy of castigating Wright's "chickens home to roost" (sic) comment while justifying Hagee's blame of America for 9/11 (on biblical grounds, no less) in the next breath. 4. The idea that we get to define what is and is not someone else's patriotism. 

And all the inconsistencies of the above aside, the most ludicrous implication in your efforts to go beyond merely equating Hagee with Wright, but to define the latter as even worse, is that it plays into a half-baked notion that Black Liberation Theology could find its way into the bully pulpit and be used to contribute to the ongoing and fictitious oppression allegedly felt by no less idiotic white Americans.  

Yes, anonyomous, there is an overwhelming contrast in this political battle.

It is astonishing that you see it in the wrong direction.

Where people see fit to make John Hagee--a pro-American and pro-Israeli figure not linked to John McCain in any real way a campaign issue is pure bias.  Wright is absolutely legit since his views easily reflect poorly on Obama who has a strong association with Wright for 20 years, quotes him liberally and they obviously share anti-American positions.  The attempt to tarnish McCain with Hagee ignores the fact that there is no connection between the two and ignores the fact that there is so little of controversy associated with Hagee.

Further, there is a clear contrast between the inflammatory words of Rev Wright which have proved to be so toxic to Obama and should rightly cost him the nomination since they have been understood in detail and discussed at length.  The words of Hagee, by contrast are never even attempted to be understood in context--only misprepresentations about homosexuals and Catholics that seem inflammatory and really are not.  Wright's comments are highly disturbing and they remind voters that Obama not only has the most liberal voting record in the Senate--he is a radical.  To try to paint John McCain as radical is a joke since he is so moderate--he has more friends who are Dems than Republicans.  Jewcy has made quite an issue of John Hagee--this is clearly over the top and NEVER addresses what he has said and a fairminded understanding of his theology.  The fact that Jewcy makes a spirited defense of extreme Muslim women who send money to Israel's enemies and declare "jihad" at taxpayers expense and then attacks the biggest friend of Israel is certain shame for this group of young Turks.

The fact that the Obama's make continual anti-American statements give voters the solid impression that he lacks patriotism.  Surely, the active US military will clearly see him as not a friend and lacking the kind of virtues demonstrated by Pres. Bush or a potential Pres. McCain--can you argue this point at all?  If Obama gets even 25-30 of military votes it would be a miracle since he so clearly wants to dinimish America's standing in the world--this is his stated plan and purpose. All one can really say is that patriotism is not that important to him--it cannot be said that all potential candidates are equally interested in America's standing in the world and the strength of the US  military.  An additional proof was established for all to see recently when Bush, speaking in friendly territory in Israel, referenced those who would appease terror states and revealingly--for all to see so there could be no misunderstanding--Obama violently protested that the President must have been speaking of himself.  No he was not.  If Obama was clearly patriotic--he would have easily insisted that whoever Bush was speaking about could not be himself.  Instead, when a vague reference of "appeasers" came onto the public discourse-Obama told all Americans that, yes--look at me--I am the appeaser and I don't like to be called to the mat about it.

It is Obama who has declared Wright to be his spiritual advisor and it is Wright who has an entire track record of the worst kind of race-baiting and bigoted, anti-Americanism that should rightly doom his Presidential bid. Despite constant protection in the media, America understands the problem. 

Why don't you? 

"To try to paint John McCain as radical is a joke since he is so moderate"

No one was doing that here. Who do you think said that in this post? Who do you think said so on Jewcy?

 Despite constant protection in the media, America understands the problem.

What protection? The media had a field day, and deservedly so. In the end, it was just too late, I guess. Obama prevailed anyway. I am not dismissing there are serious problems with Obama, nor was I in agreement with Koffler's explicit--nor Jewcy's implicit--support of his candidacy. 

But no one called McCain a radical. Koffler called him a maverick. Hardly the same thing.

And for the record, David N. Friedman, of course I consider Wright much more of a problem ideologically than Hagee. I don't personally think Hagee is an "enemy" of the Jews, but someone very inappropriate to ally with. There is a difference. I can't stand Wright. He cursed America to his flock. Well, fuck him. 

I will even concede that it makes realpolitik sense for the Jewish right-wing to be supportive of their ally, Hagee. But it makes no sense even for Jewish moderates to do so.

As for McCain, well, he is enjoying substantial Jewish support because he is indeed a moderate. My biggest concern about him isn't even policies and platforms that I loathe, but quite frankly, his age.

He's just too old. 

Thanks for posting, David K.  I am addressing the attention Hagee has received on this blog and in other places and the misrepresentations of his positions.  Surely, you must admit that the ONLY reason he is getting all the attention is the attempt to balance the negative impact of Wright on Obama--correct?  It is fine if you feel McCain is too old.  It is not fine to try to slur McCain by tying him to Hagee and those accusations simply are not accurate. 

For the record, the media has PROTECTED Obama from the beginning and they NEVER would have, on their own publicized the problem of Ayers, Wright and Farrakhan or Michelle Obama's words until Fox New and the internet made those those inescapable and they had to say something.  When George Stephenopolous brought one matter up in a debate context--he was excoriated as asking an "unfair" question. The media strongly wants Obama to when and they want to buy anything negative about him.  

Note his remarks in Atlantic Monthly blaming Israel's settlements for the incitement of Arabs--who has exposed this remark for what it is? The Israelis mistrust him, the pro-Israel camp does not want him --what is Jewcy--the anti-Israel camp?  I must suggest--by and large, yes, Jewcy seems to take an editorial stand against the interests of Israel and in direct contrast to Israelis not associated with Peace Now and the radical political left.  This is only to say the obvious that Obama is a radical. 

Again, what does "McCain...is enjoying substantial Jewish support" mean? Obama leads him 61-32.

The good news is that the American Jewish community has serious concerns about Obama and if the poll of 61-32 holds, Jewish support for Obama would  be a lot less than for John Kerry or Al Gore.

The bad news is that more than 60% of the our community will vote for someone who has a chronic need to demonstrate that he is not anti-Israel and must explain away the fact that he attracts a lot of characters who do not like Jews. 

David, I could tell from your mind-numbing, Manichean, debate-framing, false dichotomy of an opening how unilluminating of a this discussion would be. But your Republican talking point of painting the health-care mandate-opposing, price control-opposing candidate of the two possible Democratic nominees as "the (evil) liberal" merits response as it shows just how far out of touch you are. This election will be decided, as all are, by the middle, but more importantly, by issues of competence in government and something other than militarism as the be-all, end-all of American foreign policy. And as such, the Republican candidate, having, by virtue of not just party affiliation but certainly that as well, inherited the opposite legacy, doesn't really stand much of a chance. And as turned on as you are by McCain's supposed moderation, you need to realize that a) it's too late for that to make much of a dent w/the electorate, and b) it's HIS base that's got a floppy weiner and dyspeptic gut about his own right-wing credentials. You really should try not to confuse McCain's real lack of credibility with his own base, with a fictitious scenario whereby Obama is "too close" to his. It just reveals how skewed your perspective is.

Having debunked that non-thought, is there really much reason to go into addressing:

1. How patriotism somehow means that one is not an "appeaser" for conducting back-channel negotiations when the negotiating team in question is Bush (with Iran) or Israel (with Syria and Hamas), but not Obama.

2. How problematic it is for white Americans to discuss their long history of oppression by the Black government and actually be taken seriously. I mean, it must be really rough for you given all that civil-rights abrogating treatment you've surely endured at the hands of the cops over the course of your life as a white, Jewish American - following a 300-year long history of your government condoning the slavery your family served on account of their skin color and background, but somehow I think you'll get over it. As you will this delusion of falsely equating the damage done from disparaging views among Blacks of the government with disparaging views among Whites of Blacks. I know that kind of shorthand helps you forget the point: That societies are what is defined as racist and it's rather meaningless to apply that shortcoming to subgroups within the society. But if your version of colorblind means that it's a rip-roaring proposition to have been a Black man in America then obviously you know less about American history and its effects on attitudes today than does Jeremiah Wright.

Hagee has come under scrutiny because of the legacy of this white/black double-standard when it came to Robertson/Falwell/Graham and what had for a very long time been politically acceptable views on their part as well as statements by the former two regarding their own chicken roosting theologies. Republican candidate Giuliani, as you may remember, was thoroughly embraced by anti-American Pat Robertson and no one made as big an issue out of this or his endorsement of him. Nor would they until the Wright fiasco exposed the, up until now, color-conscious lens applied by the press in covering these anti-American preachers, given their hypocritical treatment given them and the open-arms with which the endorsements of our Southern tele-Evangelical friends were sought by politicians.

If being a hypocritical bullshit artist helps you feel more secure in your patriotism then you can probably understand why it's a sort of patriotism that less and less Americans want to be a part of, at least as you seem to define it.  

Daniel,  I meant McCain's relative Jewish support for a Republican. It's currently high, at least by recent election standards, but we will have to see what actually transpires. If I had to bet at this time, I would guess the highest since Reagan.

David Friedman,

I don't speak for Jewcy, so I can't really answer your assertions that Jewcy is "anti-Israel" from any position of authority, except to say I don't find Jewcy anti-Israel at all, and find such an accusation absurd, even as I have disagreed with Jewcy on numerous issues, including some related to Israel.

What I would say is that this election isn't for Israelis to vote on, and it isn't incumbent on American Jews to vote on "what's good for Israel" as the determining factor.

Urging Americans to vote for what's in Israel's best interest is about as nonsensical as proposing that Israelis should vote for what's in America's best interest. They're both democracies; they both decide, on their own terms, what exactly defines their own best interest.  

Yes, to strongly disagree--the moment American Jews ignore what is in their best interests--including what is best for the state of Israel--they are not doing their jobs as Jews and as Americans. This helps define the hate waged against someone like Hagee who is strongly committed to what is in the best interests of Israel. The American Jew who comes forward and quickly sees a difference and even a disconnect from what is best for Israel and what is best for America bristles when a non-Jewish supporter of Jews stands up publicly since this is such a contrast and this helps explain Hagee hatred among the leftist Jews--almost non-existent among normal Jews.

Perhaps this is the most disturbing aspect of the entire Jewcy blog--standing up in solidarity for the jihadist dirty Debbie while waging a hate campaign against John Hagee. It is such a tough choice since there is so much Judaism bashing and general self-loathing to choose from--one thread seems as bad as the next.

David K seems to implicitly accepts the proposition that Obama (and he truly figures to be the next President) is the weaker choice for Israel's continued existence--but does not care. So this says it clearly--as Jews we don't care about our standing as Jews--we don't care about the Jewish state. We are simply individual citizens with our our autonomous perceptions--period. Correct--I can't get beyond this standard. If this is where you are at--I lose, you win, that's that.

So let's go back to patriotism. Michelle Obama's deadly remarks about the election of her husband was the first time she felt proud to be an American is a clear statement of anti-Patriotism. The Patriot loves this nation and what it stands for in good times and bad--it is not conditional and worst of all--it is not conditional solely upon some individual's electoral fortunes. Her statement is the narrowest kind of level of patriotism and defines pettiness. Incidentally--the myth that she said "really proud" is an insult to the truth (and does not matter so much) since she said "really proud" only after she was told by her handlers that her on the record statement of contempt for America was too harsh and she should tone it down with "really." For those listening--so few in the media--we "really" know what she meant and heard what she said. Some people are more patriotic than others. Alas, the young men who volunteer to defeat our enemies in the war in Iraq are more patriotic than I. Very, very few of them will vote for the disaster-in-waiting--Barack Obama.

I wasn't addressing American Jews in particular, but Americans in general - not that I'm surprised that you miss the point. Feel free to blather on with this nonsensical and utterly unsupported assertion about how it's a raving Evangelist's "love" of Israel that provokes a "leftist Jew's" "hatred", though. It helps everyone to see where you're coming from.

David, there are patriots whose hearts are much, much bigger than their brains. And G-d bless them. They're kind of like the people we watch at the Special Olympics. You watch them with a sense of both inspiration and pity. Pity when they finally come to realize how much their government really doesn't care for their well-being. I suppose this is all well and good when their job is to (among many, many other, more legitimately sophisticated operations), well, basically to throw their bodies at the enemy. But when their job is much higher in the centers of power and to set the agenda on foreign and domestic policy, then it's much harder to be proud of them. 

Let me do you a favor. Since you seem so given to thinking you can decipher what's in Michelle Obama's brain - without having been granted some kind of special access to it, so far as I can figure - I'll take the liberty of telling you what I think she meant. Since I was one of the many people who actually took no offense, had no problem understanding where she was coming from, and didn't see nothing other than the craven misrepresentation that must have borne the thousands of baloney talking points that sprang up in the midst of her words - talking points which you repeat here. And that is that in one's "adult life", which Obama referenced and which you don't take issue with, it's important to have a thoughtful love of something - and not the childish sort of sentiment which you project on to all "good Americans", as you would define them. A thoughtless sort of love might be a mindless nationalism, rather than an a thinking and engaged sense of patriotism that requires productive interaction with the people leading it. Michelle said "country" - which according to GOOGLE can mean "a state: a politically organized body of people under a single government"; she did not say "nation". Subtle distinction for people whose brains are smaller than their hearts, I know. But a crucial one. And if you think it's un-American to have an issue with one's government - especially during one's adult life as opposed to during the childhoods that Right Wingers and their shills seem to want to extend indefinitely when it comes to developing an emotionally healthy understanding of the distinctions between an unconditional love and an uncaring love of things - then you know a hell of a lot less about America than Michelle Obama does, let alone her husband.   

It's Memorial Day. Care about your country. Care about your nation. Care about the War Dead and the sacrifices they've made. Go express all of that easy to express stuff - not that you've done all that much of it here. But if you don't care about whether the government cares about their lives, then it's okay. We understand. We've witnessed your sort of apathy for several years now. And the tide is massively turning against the political powers representative of that kind of un-Jewish philosophy because of it. That might be too bad for you, but my patriotism tells me that since you likely don't care anyway, then it's okay too. Because if you have a problem with it, that's your problem, not mine.  

Jews dont need friends like Daniel Koffler. Jews have been penalized for rejecting a messiah 2 millenia ago. They will be pilloried for rejecting messiah Obama in 2008. Yes, Obama is the messiah, who knows that Iran is a tiny threat to the US, just as our servicement are bieng attacked by tiny Iranian manufactured EFPs.

nu·ance (näns, ny-, n-äns, ny-) def-inability to distinguish between good and bad

Nuance might have to do with the ability to distinguish between a lot of things, Anonymous 10:13. Some of these things might include whether or not an obsession with dividing the world into wholly good and wholly bad things is getting in the way of a neutral evaluation of what is and what is not in your country's interest. It could get in the way of your ability to deal with Iran as Iran, and not as a pretend version of the Soviet Union. It could get in the way of discerning between a true sense of passion and excitement for a national politician for the first time in 40 years and believing that this constitutes a "magical figure" myth that prevents you from critically evaluating what he says. 

It's interesting. More people who deride Obama as a "messianic" figure do a worse job of reading the actual words he says than those who don't. So I guess in that sense he's messianic insofar as religions tend to rely on texts, words and the understanding that words actually have meaning. That's an incredibly broad and charitable interpretation. But it does allow for a sense of differentiation from people whose gut-level, reflexive, instinctual over-reactions to things overwhelm their ability to reason things out. You see, language is funny that way. As is the ability to use it.  

Anonymous, I easily understand why you wish to remain anonymous.  I do not need to know everything in Michelle Obama's mind nor your own to understand the mindset and it is quite familiar given our decayed educational system which produces such rampant anti-Americanism.

I hardly require your encouragement to love our great nation our to care for our war dead.  If your name was public, what might they think of you when you so carelessly characterize our military as having hearts much bigger than brains--as you offer them pity , in the same way we might cheer those with disabilities and mental retardation at the Special Olympics.  I know a few of the great young men who have volunteered for this battle in defending this nation--would you care to give me your name and phone number and I will copy and paste your words about them exactly as they are for their review?  Do you have any shame at all?  These great young men, the most highly educated ever on the battlefield do not any part of your pity since it is a direct insult.  In my own conversations with them, they really appreciate what we are doing there, they believe in the mission, they respect the generals and the President--they are baffled and feel bad about the Congressmen and Senators that bash them daily and the editorials in the newspapers and mostly on the TV.  Unlike bystanders like you and me--they know the score and they, straight up see the value of the battle. Ignorance is a shallow excuse for the contempt you display, Anonoymous.. 

As for your contention that they, like the right wing, is motivated by a kind of supposed "mindless nationalism"--in reality, it is precisely what the educators of the nation lack: basic gratitude.  Anyone and I mean anyone with basic gratitude for this country could never say that they have spent their entire adult life without a sense of pride in their country.  It is impossible. Further, please allow me to help you understand why one dogmatic statement can doom a person so clearly.  Everyone has criticisms for some aspect of what is happening in the country--I happen to have a rather long list.  For every criticism--I have a solution but clearly for all the problems one might recite--this is nation is without a shadow of a doubt the one best hope for humanity.  Note there is no confusion--Michelle Obama said nothing concerning either problems or solutions.  She has simple elite-style raw contempt for America and the subject here is whether or not one is proud to be an American.  This is why her words struck such a deep chord.  Wright believes that America is the chief troublemaker in the world and if something really bad happens--it is merely the chickens coming home to roost.  America is fundamentally, to the Obama's a morally vanquished sate in need of a complete makeover, especially a complete moral makeover.  This is his argument and it has nothing to do with criticism concerning problems--it has to do with the fundamentals of our nation, whether we are a force for good or not, whether our people are basically virtuous and fairminded or generous or not.

To your first point last, it is even worse if you had Americans in mind and not American Jews since this brings up the contrast I referenced.  Americans easily and almost reflexively side with Israel in her struggle for peace and survival--especially now that we see terror in America the way Israel has experienced it for decades. It is the Christian community at large that easily sees Israel and a vital ally and hears the words of our enemies concerning the Little Satan and the Big Satan--linking our nations in common cause against the same enemy.  It is American Jews of the Left who are Israel's fiercest critics while the Christians stand by Israel.  Jews stand by Israel as well but regarding the Jews who don't--these are precisely the ones who want make a demon out of Hagee or Falwell or Robertson so that their own contempt doesn't seem so apparent.

They include people with a big heart, such as I have, not getting offended at such mindlessness. If people knew who I was, they might have higher expectations of my responding to their every misunderstanding - as you evidently do. But "Anonymous" has a life outside of David Friedman's extraordinary needs. 

For one, Anonymous could get offended at your projection of what's in other people's minds. You don't know me, and you wouldn't know me even if you had a few basic details about me. But that doesn't stop you from accusing me of things that your own scurrilously deficient education makes you believe that you can accuse me of. See, I'm not surprised because you do it to Obama. And Wright. Perhaps you've never heard of a Venn diagram. See, I can say what might pertain to - as a hypothetical example - even one soldier, if that, and you conflate that with nasty accusations that you dream me to characterize of the entire U.S. military. See, that offends me. It's simply offensive to anyone with a brain. Putting words in other people's mouths leads to false accusations, and is the kind of thing that the Founders fought against. So maybe it is you that does not appreciate American patriotism. Or as you are incapable of distinguishing it, once again, from nationalism. 

Because your efforts are so offensive to thinking people, and because your previous attempts have been so wrong factually, I will not even bother to address the recycled assertions you sprinkle throughout the rest of your parroted pathetic essay.  I will just leave you to ponder the thought, since thoughts seem so ephemeral to you, that teaching people to have certain emotions should probably be secondary to teaching them how to think rationally. Gratitude is nice, but its a sentiment, not a fact. Teaching people what they might choose to be grateful for when teaching American history is another thing altogether. But this is not a totalitarian regime. We do not teach them what to feel. Perhaps if you valued the idea of understanding facts and concepts more, then you could be less offensive to the thinking people with whom you share your democracy rather than waxing authoritarian on how they aren't really true Americans for emphasizing facts over feelings. You could actually have a discussion on what the topic means to you rather than proclaiming yourself the leader of what everything else should mean to them. Even if you don't have a clue of how to understand that. 

In short, I think you flunked Daniel Goleman's class. Just because you have your anti-pluralistic version of black and white doesn't mean others are less American. It just means you value feelings over facts. See, like feelings, everyone's entitled to his own opinions, but not his own facts. And your country is getting more and more sick of people like you not because they're becoming less American, or less patriotic, but because they know that opinions are like assholes. Everybody's got one. Yours isn't better or more important or shinier than anyone else's. Even though you seem to think it is.  

But if you have cognitive issues or special needs, just let me know - and I will know not to expect so much of you. And I will not take you to task for not living up to the expectations that thinking people have of each other. Seriously.  

Punting and running away in the style of Obama is not unexpected--sticking with the topic, answering questions and staying away from personal attacks is not for you tonight.  Fine.  I understand you have nothing but emotion and empty accusations.  I would rather address the facts and the issues.

Regarding your desire to remain anonymous- it is understandable since no rational person, when challenged regarding support for our troops and nation, would respond not with some mealy-mouthed bit of moderation but a raw attack instead--offering up pity and bringing up the analogy of support for mentally and physically retarded persons who compete in the Special Olympics.  Your anonymous comments are on the record and your distatste for our men in uniform comes through loud and clear in the same way that a sense of Obama's anti-Americanism comes through loud and clear in the eyes of our veterans and our troops.

Regarding your claim that gratitude is an empty emotion--it was the radical Obama's radical wife who made the declaration on her own and since the left centers their rhetoric almost exclusively on emotion--no wonder she described her FEELINGS of pride for her country, that is her total lack of pride in racist, hapless, morally bankrupt America.  My response that gratitude is the opposing sentiment that is almost universally referenced by decent Americans is lost of the likes of Rev. Wright and the Obamas.  Such statements are critical when unknown, inexperienced people come to gain sudden national prominence.  They are clearly expressed, by contrast, of all people, athletes (for example)whose talent is demonstrable and yet they commonly go to love of country and love of the Almighty as the source of their real strength.  These kinds of statements are conspicuously absent in the rhetoric of the presumptive DEm nominee Obama.

The Left grooves on Obama's anti-American statements as somehow, specific evidence of their supposed patriotism--neatly reversing the truth and playing make-believe that in their race-baiting and moral posturing--they are actually high patriots.  This works only if one is willing to throw out our history and any serious definition of what is patriotic and what is not.  Calling current day America to the mat for its supposed racism is not the kind of rhetoric imagined by tolerant America and is so shocking and off the mark it is racist, not honest and hardly the opening salvo of a "discussion."

Jews not only need friends like John Hagee, we are in clear trouble without him and the millions of Christians that are like minded.  There is no question why so many committed Jews are willing to embrace this man and why he gets standing ovations at Aipac, from American Jews on the left and the right and from Israelis on the left and the right.  The compelling question remains why do radical leftists hate this man so much that they will keep trying to smear him?  The burden is on the few to make the argument but there is no argument and only crazed accusations.

If some anonymous guy on this blog is willing to defend the infamous bigot Rev. Wright--as he has done without me pushing him to do so--he stands nearly alone and offers no rationale.

The contrast remains so large it remains very remarkable. 

Its time for Mr Koffler to come out of the closet and declare himself an anti-Zionist. Perhaps he could do an internship for norman finkelstein. He could get a grant from the national bureau of re-education

David, just because you don't mind having someone attack you personally doesn't mean that others need to expose themselves to your melarchy. Defending against them is a full-time occupation, seeing how readily and baselessly how you dispense them - as if that's just a part of your basic discourse. And you don't acc