Matthew Yglesias: Non-Liberal Jews Are Disloyal To The US

That is the implication from Matthew Yglesias's attack on Elliot Abrams: Elliot Abrams Denounces American Jews for Not Exhibiting Sufficient “Dual Loyalties”

At issue is what Abrams wrote as one of the participants in Obama, Israel & American Jews: The Challenge—A Symposium

But my own sad prediction is that among non-Orthodox Jews, the real divide will be between activists (whether leaders of community organizations, synagogue officials, major donors, or regular synagogue goers) and the broader majority of Jews. The activists will dump Obama; the rest will not, for their commitment to Israel and, for that matter, to Judaism is simply less powerful than their secular religion—liberalism as represented in the Democratic Party. Whatever excuse they supply themselves (for example, the Republican candidate for president, or even vice president, will undermine “a woman’s right to choose”), they will be displaying their priorities. Israel is simply not near the top of their list.

For which reason, more committed Jews can only thank God for the greater commitment of so many evangelicals—whose party loyalties have not become a religious faith and who will indeed dump Obama if he abandons Israel in a time of peril.

Yglesias counters:

But of course most Jews will vote for the political party that advances the policy agenda, including on abortion rights, that most Jews agree with. What on earth else are people supposed to do?

Is Yglesias claiming that Israel is not part of the policy agenda of the Democratic party? Good to know--but it is not true. A 2007 AJC poll of Jews showed that Israel was very much a part of the Jewish Democratic agenda, leading up to the 2008 election:

34. How important would you say being Jewish is in your own life?
Very important	61
Fairly important	29
Not very important	10
37. How close do you feel to Israel?
Very close	30
Fairly close	40
Fairly distant	21
Very distant	8
Not sure	1
38. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “Caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew.”
Agree	69
Disagree	28
Not Sure	3

19. In deciding who you would like to see elected president next year, which issue will be most important to you? Please select one of the following:
War in Iraq	16
Economy and jobs	23
Terrorism and national security	14
Health care	19
Support for Israel	6
Immigration	6
Education	4
Energy crisis	6
Not sure	5

The apparent discrepancy between the results of the last question and the others is due to assumption--severely questioned now during Obama's presidency--that Israel's safety is secure under the leadership of the US.

Thus Abrams writes:

Poll data and impressionistic evidence suggest that American Jews are increasingly dubious about Barack Obama’s Middle East policy. Most major Jewish organizations, except those that exist solely to support the Democratic Party, have weighed in with anxious complaints, and Democratic politicians also have backed away from public support for the Obama approach.

This is a useful test of American Jews and their leaders: which is the deeper commitment, to Democratic Party politicians regardless of their policies, or to the security of Israel? [emphasis added]

The context is clear: Abrams is addressing the issue of blind loyalty to the Democratic Party--a blindness that will cause them to ignore the issue of  the security of Israel (an ally and asset of the US).

Is Yglesias claiming that Israel's security is now not in the US interests?
Is Yglesias now claiming that conservative Jews have dual loyalties?

To say that  would be twisting his words--just as he twists the words of Elliot Abrams.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad

See also: Memeorandum

Technorati Tag: Matthew Yglesias and Jews and Democrats.