Barouch LevyThe writer is an American immigrant who lives in the beautiful Shomron (Samaria) and raises strawberries.
Perhaps a most significant aspect of the upcoming Presidential election for Jewish voters is its definitive nature. What is to be defined is this constituency, the Jewish voters themselves.
Jewish voting behavior has always been a kind of litmus test of this public's values and outlook. But now, in November, how that public votes, may be so defining, that the decision made by the Jewish voter, or so called Jewish voter, may well determine if that voter can continue to be defined as a Jew.
The incumbent has an attitude, positions on issues, and relationships with public personalities, which spell out a clear outlook on Judaism and Jews. Thus, correspondingly, a Jewish vote for or against Obama, indicates what that particular Jewish voter thinks about Jews and Judaism.
Let's look at Obama's record in the Pollard affair. Jonathan Pollard has been incarcerated for 27 years in a life sentence for passing classified information to an allied nation, Israel. As is well known, it is the traditional policy of some if not many in the State Department and the intelligence agencies to limit Israel in its effort to protect its citizens and existence. The thinking is that by doing so, the U.S. government will incur favor with Israel's enemies, and thus benefits will accrue from the grateful Arab/Islamic world to the U. S., or more rightly put, those well enough in place to derive these benefits.
Examples of this policy are the American arms embargo during the Israeli war of Independence (which caused Truman to lose the vote in New York) , and the removal of Israeli presence in the Sinai in 1956, which in essence lead to the 1967 war.
During the Reagan Administration, another round of this policy was executed; which at best, was that information on terrorist threats and the development of genocidal weapons development was not forwarded by the U.S.to Israel, in violation of a standing agreement. At worst ,there was actual American aid in the development of such weaponry.
Pollard, then working for U.S. naval intelligence, in the course of his work, became aware of this, and warned Israel of the threats. As a result not only was the Jewish People quite possibly spared a mega massacre, but the honor of the US was preserved by the foiling of these plans. When Pollard's involvement in all this surfaced, he was met by a disingenuous wailing and unwarranted, bogus and/or unverified claims of compromising America security, endangering agents, spying and disloyalty, al motivated by monetary greed.
As a result, Pollard has suffered injustice, similar if not worse, than in the Dreyfus affair and has been imprisoned in conditions not unlike those in Third World dictatorships.
Obama, the incumbent, at the stroke of a pen, could put an end to this American moral fiasco, reeking with anti-Semitism. Former CIA director, James Woolsley, recently wrote, "For those hung up by the fact that he's an American Jew, pretend that he's a Greek or a Korean or Filipino American and free him". Why doesn't do this? Obviously he's pandering to the large, politically potent anti-Semitic bloc.
Perhaps it's worse than that. Perhaps he identifies with that bloc.
The Jewish voter, how does he relate to Obama and the Pollard affair? The opinion polls indicate that the majority of them will vote for Obama, not withstanding his reluctance to free Pollard.
During the Civil War, a perplexed Abraham Lincoln, labeled Judah P. Benjamin, the Jewish Vice President of the Confederacy, "The Israelite with the Egyptian heart". Lincoln, if he were alive today, would surely have questions about the Jewishness of the heart of much of the present Jewish electorate.
In Egypt, Morsi, who has recently come to power, is a member of the Muslim Brotherhood. The Muslim Brotherhood has been active in Egypt and the Arab world for years and is known to be a vicious anti-Jewish, anti-Israel political organization. Quite recently, he led a rally calling for the destruction of Israel. The Obama Administration has been relatively favorable to the Hamas and to Morsi.
One of the reservations uttered by an Obama spokesman was that, “We will have to see how he treats minorities.". There could have been a directive to see how Morsi deals with the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. But there wasn't. That is because it doesn't concern Obama. This is because it is clear that it also doesn't concern Morsi.
Does it concern Jewish voters that it doesn't concern Obama, that at the propitious time, the Israeli embassy in Cairo will be destroyed by a rabid mob as it was last year ?.
This should not come as a surprise. Before Obama was elected, he listened for years to the sermons of the vocal anti- Semite, Jeremiah Wright in his Chicago church. Wright is also known for his friendship with the even better known anti-Semite, Louis Farrakhan. How did this impact on Jewish voters then? An overwhelming majority paid it no mind and voted Obama.
Fortunately since then a little Jewish "saychel" (intelligence) has appeared, and with sobriety, support for Obama has slipped. How can Jews not see themselves targeted by such associations? Hitler, it is known, also sought out the most assimilated. Perhaps those still supporting Obama are "more" than assimilated?
Most significant of all in this assessment is Iran. Even the most obtuse know that a nuclear Iran would be an existential threat to Israel and this includes the Jewish voter. For the last four years Obama has been ineffectual in impeding Iran's march towards obtaining nuclear capacity. A few days ago an Obama spokesman said that if Iran was on the verge of a nuclear "breakthrough", U.S. intelligence would be aware of this and the U.S., under Obama, would stop Iran from obtaining the bomb. This is most unreassuring.
The same military, economic and political repercussions that Obama, during the last four years has shied away from, would most likely guarantee a continued Obama inactivity, even at the zero hour.
All this being true should show the Jewish voter, that in the Iranian issue, Obama is indifferent or at least not much help. However, the debate reported in the Israeli media (circa August 10th), where it was reported that the military establishment is split with the political leadership in Israel over Iran, is quite revealing. The debate revolves around the question, not if Israel has the capacity to deal with Iran and the Arabs in the aftermath of an attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure, but whether or not Israel should attack Iran in defiance of Obama!.
Clearly if this split is accurately reported, this means that the Israeli military believes that the warnings and threats emanating from Obama are a greater threat to Israel's existence than a nuclear device in the hands of Iranian mullahs! What the military is telling Netanyahu is that if Israel defies Obama to maintain its existence, Obama, will retaliate much in the same way
Casper Weinberger and others in the State Department and the intelligence agencies reacted to Pollard's defiance and insubordination, which strenghthened Israel in the face of the Iraqi threat. Obama, who is indifferent to the pathological anti-Semitism which demands that Pollard never see the light of day, will react similarly to Israel as a whole, if he is confronted by the Israeli insubordination of an attack on Iran.
The reaction these people are worried about is full support by Obama for a Palestinian state, the "day after" the Iranian threat is dealt with by Israel. Clearly an Obama supported Palestinian state is an existential threat to Israel. The military is right in this respect.
Perhaps a year ago, Obama equated Israel's aspiration for security with Arab aspiration, in the region labeled in the U.S. media as the "West Bank", to be free of "humiliation", i. e. at the hands of Israel.
That's how it is. There are those outraged and offended by Pollard. The Moslem Brotherhood is offended by Israel. Louis Farrakhan in his perverted thinking feels that Jews degrade blacks. Iran and the Moslem world are "victimized" by Israel. General Haig reported that Ronald Reagan was enraged after Israel destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor.
How will Obama feel about Jews if and when Israel humbles Iran? If he sees that as Israel humbling him? We see how Obama feels about Israel and Jews now. It is before election time. He is circumspect. He needs Jewish help. He has gotten Jewish support his whole political career. As a black man in America in general, he has been the beneficiary of the innate Jewish teaching of all human potential in the eyes of G-d. Perhaps that's part of the problem. He is a master of obfusification.
But one should know by now, that if he should be victorious in November, his opinions on Jews Israel and Judaism will perniciously impact on Jews Thus it behooves the Jewish voter to distance themselves from him, if only from a Jewish perspective.
It should be noted that large numbers of impoverished Jews and others receive significant and necessary aid from governmental programs which would very likely be diminished by an Obama defeat. However, the Torah admonishes a Jew, who only see his narrow self interest or even a narrow public interest when it says, it such a situation, "What have you see in your own blood that indicates that your blood is redder than his?" .As important as social benefits may be, that are also many other issues as seen in this article, which a Jew must not ignore, because they are so overriding.
Yes, blood. The Torah teaches us, "Do not stand idly by the blood of your brother".
Every day Jonathan Pollard suffers.
American anti-Semitism is at its highest since the Second World War.
Israel is threatened by Egypt more than anytime perhaps since the Yom Kippur War and by Iran's surrogate in Lebanon.
Most of all the centrifuges in Iran are spinning.
If a Jew cares about his brother, he can't vote for Obama. If he does, it means that he doesn't care about his brother.
If a Jew doesn't care about his brother, than he isn't a Jew at all. But he can be defined, if he has certain culinary habits, as a bagel eater of Jewish ancestry.