I have read, and re-read, that post, and I still can't see the point of it. So-called "Jewish influence" over American governments has always been grossly over-exaggerated, particularly by anti-Semites - and anyone who takes them seriously needs a nice Jewish psychiatrist!

As for the other minorities, my bet is, that like every other wave of immigrants to the good ol' US of A, they can't get assimilated fast enough. Next time you see TV footage of the American army in action, look at the faces - every ethnicity in the world, and all of them patriots!
David Duff | Homepage | 02.27.05 - 9:38 pm | #

I think you'll find that many of these "patriots" are just trying to pay their way through college. http://jewssansfrontieres.blogsp...s-under- us.html

And the point of the post was to show that at least one Zionist is as obsessed with the Jew to Gentile ratio in America as Zionists are about the same ratio in Israel.
Mark Elf | Homepage | 02.27.05 - 9:54 pm | #

A couple of points that were left out. About 70% of Arab-Americans are Christians, which is why the term "Arabs and Muslims" is frequently used over here.

On abortion, there is a move by Zionist Jewish organizations to adopt the conservative (often reactionary) social concerns of the Christian Zionists in order to cement their relationship. I read an article by a guy who was on the staff of a Jewish publication who resigned because he was so disgusted at how far to the right the organization was moving. Of course this would move them permanently into the Republican Party.

In the 2000 Campaign Bush got 60% of the Arab & Muslim vote (20% each for Gore and Nader) because he said he was against profiling of Muslims. Boy, did they ever dial a wrong number!
Montag | 02.28.05 - 12:46 am | #

I don't know where Montag got the idea that "there is a move by Zionist Jewish organizations to adopt the conservative (often reactionary) social concerns of the Christian Zionists in order to cement their relationship".

The National Council of Jewish Women is pro-choice. Hadassah is pro-choice. The American Jewish Committee is pro-choice. The American Jewish Congress is pro-choice. All are Zionist, and the first two are the most important Jewish womens' associations in the United States.
Anonymous | 02.28.05 - 1:04 am | #

Good one. Thanks for posting it, Mark.
Dan Marsden | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 1:32 am | #

Whichever rightist group is most anti-abortion and holds its annual meeting a day or two after the Presidential inauguration definitely has links to the Orthodox community.

Most really frum jewish women have children as often as possible. That's simply a fact.

Mark, these are some interesting Orthodox Jewish guys, Mis-Nagid and Frummer.

They aren't political, they are people who have grown up in incredibly insular Jewish communities.

It's a slice of Jewish life without any of the (obvious to me, and I consider myself sensitive) Zionism.
Josh Narins | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 1:34 am | #

Sorry pal. But this is wish fulfillment. There are, as you rightly note, fewer Jews...but now I am sure you will continue and always continue to mouth off about Jewish influence etc etc...The good news for Jews: thogh many do in fact intermarry, they also through such arrangment beget a better understanding and love for things Jewish! You are hyped on rabbitt-like reproduction as a good thing for all that are not Jewish...but it will fianlly make little difference. Look at the Arab-
American vote recently! And as one comment rightly put it: the Arabs in America are mostly Christian and thus will not put up with the nonsense that seems to give you joy.
fred | 02.28.05 - 2:01 am | #

fred's comment reminds me of J. Edgar Hoover's contention that although the Communist Party USA was getting smaller, it was becoming more dangerous because the remaining Comrades were more committed than the tire-kickers who had fallen away. One wag suggested that by this logic when the CP had dwindled to only ONE member we'd have the Revolution!

The Christian Arab-Americans hold nearly identical views with the Muslims. When Christian Palestinian refugees in Gaza in 1950 were holding a choir recital someone had insensitively included the song "Noel" in the repertoire. The choir sang the line, "Born is the king of..." and refused to say the next word, which is Israel.
Montag | 02.28.05 - 3:27 am | #

The question of "jewish" influence is intesresting - its not just about numbers. There is evidence which shows that relgiosity has declined recently in the US, but most people believe that the power of christian influence on government has increased.
Its difficult to assess the influence of Jewish "Zionists". (I think its better to qualify which Jews we are talking about and not lump all Jews together- obliviously many Jews are not Zionists). I’m sure there has been a lot of lazy commentary in the media on this issue.
I suppose two major explanations for US support are:
(1) as a “reward for the services it provides as the US’s “cop-on-the-beat” in the Middle East” - Chomsky
(2)the Israeli lobby.
It really is difficult to assess these two explanations – which are obviously complementary. It is quite possible that the US would have been as supportive towards Israel without the pro-Israel lobby.
I think that the US support for Israel goes against US interests to such an extent (offending oil rich Arab countries and other Muslim populations and states) that I believe that lobby explanation is much more important.
There are a large number of well funded pro-Israel lobby groups that seem to have the ear of Washington. Fortune magazine ranked AIPAC as the second most influential lobby group, for example. There is also a lot of anecdotal commentary from US politicians about the influence of the Israeli lobby. It is difficult to make this case in a short space, however.
Patrick | 02.28.05 - 3:35 pm | #

Patrick - the tail does not wag the dog.
Meaders | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 3:47 pm | #

The US is well known for acting against it's interests. In 1812 it invaded the British Colonies to the north of it to free the people from the yoke of British tyranny. At the point of the invasion people in Upper and Lower Canada had more ties and sympathies with their US neighbours than they did with the British – loyalists not withstanding. According to author Pierre Burton the reason modern Canada exists is because the war of 1812 provided a branching, the beginnings of an independent identification. The US snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. In order to win they needed to do nothing but wait. The US follow-up with the partially successful overthrow of the Canadian government of Diefenbaker in – I think 1956 is just more of the same – providing and continuing long term anti-American feelings in the US's largest trading partner and neighbour. There is also modern day Iraq. Stop and think about it. What could the US have conceivably done that would have been worse? (It could not have used nukes – politically this was just not possible.) I'm sure that with some thought something can be thought of – but that's the point. Every aspect in the way the US has conducted the Iraqi war isolates the United States internationally, increases the likelihood of terrorism in general, and the power of Al-Quada in particular. (To try to head off any arguments about the US needing to overthrow Sadam Husain – it is far easier to crush a government and military than it is to control a country. The US general who estimated half a million people were needed was probably correct in his estimates. Think about what the failure to control Iraq has meant.)
edwin | 02.28.05 - 5:21 pm | #

Fred - "but now I am sure you will continue and always continue to mouth off about Jewish influence etc etc" - can you direct me to a post of mine that has me "mouth[ing] off about Jewish influence"?

Patrick/Meaders - I agree with Meaders. I don't believe that Jewish influence is decisive in American foreign policy on the Middle East or anywhere else. I don't think America's foreign policy planners care much if Americans are liked are not.
Mark Elf | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 8:09 pm | #

Edwin - the fact that the war in Iraq has gone quite badly doesn't mean that it wasn't a rational (if immoral) pursuit of American interests. Ruling classes can and do miscalculate. Welcome back by the way.
Mark Elf | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 8:12 pm | #

"..the fact that the war in Iraq has gone quite badly.."

Stick around, kid, it ain't over 'til the fat lady sings!

The problem for you latter-day zealots is that you can't even feel the ground shifting under your feet. How delicious it will be when that 'no-nothing, Texan cowboy' points to a two-State peace solution, a free and democratic Lebanon, and Ukrainian-style demos in the squares of Damascus and Tehran. Just like when that no-nothing movie actor actually won the cold war!
David Duff | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 8:31 pm | #

Some Dutch guy at my work was telling me how, a couple of years ago, he and his football team played a German team in Amsterdam and the Dutch team won two-nil. As their coach pulled away the Dutch team chanted "two-nil, two-nil." The Germans raised two fingers and, in a reference to how long it took the Nazis to overrun Holland, chanted "two days, two days". You remind me of that story.
Mark Elf | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 8:49 pm | #

Josh - thanks! I've looked at them both, bookmarked them and I'll probably post on them soon enough...but I'm easily distracted so maybe not.
Mark Elf | Homepage | 02.28.05 - 9:48 pm | #

At the end of WWI the children of Germany were starving, so the Danes allowed many of them to be sent to Denmark until conditions improved. The Danes were justifiably peeved when Germany invaded in 1940, since apparently the Germans believed that no good deed should go unpunished.

By the way, speaking of the War of 1812, the British government offered Wellington the command after the 1814 defeat of Napoleon. But he was too good a general to give in to false optimism. He refused to go and advised the government to stop shilly-shallying and accept the terms offered of status quo ante bellum. He definitely was able to recognize a hole when he saw one!
Montag | 02.28.05 - 10:43 pm | #

"Welcome back by the way."

Thank you! Always enjoy your blog.

Mark:
"…doesn't mean that it wasn't a rational (if immoral) pursuit of American interests"

Dave:
"How delicious it will be when that 'no-nothing, Texan cowboy' points to a two-State peace solution, a free and democratic Lebanon, and Ukrainian-style demos in the squares of Damascus and Tehran. Just like when that no-nothing movie actor actually won the cold war!"

Thanks Dave! It is the perfect answer. Extreme arrogance to the point of megalomania has removed rationality from the US decision making process.

Ok Mark, I admit it, it is always possible to build a case for "rational" pursuit.
edwin | 02.28.05 - 10:57 pm | #

'Ed(win)', let me tell you that I am Founder, President-for-Life and, alas, sole member of S.A.D. - the Society Against Diminutives - and, yes, it's true, I don't have much of a social life! Nevertheless, the habit of reducing peoples names to a monosyllabic grunt is, perhaps, one of the few Americanisms which I dislike.
David Duff | Homepage | 03.01.05 - 10:12 am | #

Agreed, countries do act against their interest - Japan bombed Pearl Harbour. Interesting to hear about Canada too. But I am still not sure why the US is so supportive of Israel. I just dont think marxist types of explanations explain its support - but i have an open mind. Regarding Meaders' point about the tail not wagging the dog, I think the US government - and other powerful western governments are often influenced by political lobbies which have far fewer resources than these governments. I think the "wag the dog" metaphor is not a good metaphor. Its more of the tail influencing which direction the dog travels in on some issues - perhaps when it sees squirrels.
Patrick | 03.01.05 - 10:36 am | #

Please accept my apologies David Duff. It wasn't intentional.
edwin | 03.01.05 - 7:10 pm | #

Accepted!
David Duff | Homepage | 03.02.05 - 8:37 pm | #

Just wondering Mark, if you are an anti-zionist then from what angle are you coming from? Are you a socialist.If so: May I ask what is your idea for the the Zionist state? Don't u think a two state solution would only strenghten Zionism as a potent force?

What do you think of the religious opposition to Zionism, such as the Naturi karta Orthodox movement. They believe in the total dismantling of the Zionist state...

Also what do you think would weaken Zionism amongst Jews? Do you think religious movements would have a greater influence? From my experience most Jews do not even believe in judaism and have become very secular...

It seems the greatest foe to the secular Zionist ideology really comes from some orthodox communities, but other then that the more secular Jews are in fact very hard core Zionists....
unclejimbo | 09.17.05 - 5:05 am | #