Jewish Prejudice Toward Evangelicals?

Charles Krauthammer is a syndicated columnist who is extraordinarily gifted, and who also happens to be Jewish.

He said some remarkable things recently about Jewish attitudes toward evangelical Christians:

Many Jews, particularly American ones, are nervous or scornful about the support that American evangelicals have shown for Israel. They say that this support is double-edged, or bad news, or embarrassing. Krauthammer will have none of it. "I embrace their support unequivocally and with gratitude. And when I speak to Jewish groups, whether it's on the agenda or not, I make a point of scolding them. I say, 'You may not want to hear this, and you may not have me back, but I'm going to tell you something: It is disgraceful, un-American, un-Jewish, ungrateful, the way you treat people who are so good to the Jewish people. We are almost alone in the world. And here we have 50 million Americans who willingly and enthusiastically support us. You're going to throw them away, for what? Because of your prejudice.' Oh, I give 'em hell."

Comments

[Spag]

I thought only evangelical Christians were prejudiced?

[Joe Guarino]

Well, as you know, Spag, that is the perception that is often assiduously cultivated. But the truth is a bit more complicated than that; and sometimes the accusers might be harboring their own prejudices, as Krauthammer points out.

[Sue]

Krauthammer uses the unsustainable "Many Jews" without referencing who they are - journalistically, that's illegitimate. How many "some people say" can we tolerate without a citation?

His personal support for the groups is fine; it's his opinion. If he likes "scolding" Jewish groups, well, it's their dime that's paying him to speak. He can give them all the "hell" he wants.

There is no single voice (aka a Pope) or organization who speaks for all Jews. Never has been.

His is one voice, one opinion. This "Many Jews" - his first two words in your citation - is hardly an accurate representation of anything. That which is built from it (the rest of the citation) is of equal value.

And even if "Many Jews" were 'nervous' or 'scornful,' then perhaps 6,000 years of history give them the right to question motives of groups telling Jews what they ought to do. But without data, his claim is specious and his personal opinion is just that.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, it was not Krauthammer who used the words "many" or "scornful" or "nervous". Instead, it was the author of the piece about Krauthammer who said those things.

But clearly Krauthammer has certain convictions on this topic. I agree that it would be interesting to see accurate data regarding the extent of Jewish prejudice toward evangelicals.

[bubba]

"And even if "Many Jews" were 'nervous' or 'scornful,' then perhaps 6,000 years of history give them the right to question motives of groups telling Jews what they ought to do."

That particular comment, coming from that particular commenter, achieves the ultimate in ironic self-unawareness.

[Stormy]

Israel needs to willingly accept support from any quarter that is willing to provide it (honestly). After all, Israeli Jews and American Jews believed Barack Obama when he said that he would be the best friend that Israel had, and many Israeli Jews (and American Jews) believed it.

http://www.israelnewsagency.com/barackobamaisraeljohnmccainpresidentuselectionsdershowitzterrorismiranjewishvotepalinidf48110408.html

That friendship is questionable when we look at Obama's actions in 2009 and who Obama's best friends are...starting with George Soros, Rahm Emanuel, and Jeremiah Wright. Of course, the promise of friendship to Israel was just another Obama campaign promise, wasn't it?

[Joe Guarino]

Apparently it was, Stormy. And at a precarious time, with Iran developing nukes. Perhaps, the Jewish people concerned about Israel need to recognize Obama as the problem, instead of evangelicals.

[Spag]

Perhaps the use of the word "some" instead of "many" would be more placating. Of course, Sue never disputes what is written she just argues over the adjective. Maybe "no" would be even better. I question whether she would argue over the following statement: "Many evangelicals support Sarah Palin" My guess is that is automatically valid and serves as just another reason to discount them in certain quarters.

There is another school of thought which is to let Israel fend for itself without any American assistance or support. Of course, "some" might find that to be prejudiced too. If we defined "many" as more than half, then I would hazard to guess (actually I really don't have to) that "many" Jews are liberals. That is the crux of the argument. The displeasure over Evangelicals who may be some of the biggest supporters of Israel but just don't subscribe to a Left wing agenda in America.

There is a whole book published recently by the Norman Podhoretz (also Jewish) entitled "Why Are Jews Liberals". He makes some of the same arguments as Krauthammer, and my guess is that Sue would have a real problem with the title. It seems that the problem exists even when other Jews tell Jews what they "ought to do" despite 6,000 years of the same lineage. The motives of those Jews are apparently being questioned and the great sin appears to be straying from common liberal thought.

It's prejudice, pure and simple, but it seems to have political prejudice as a component as well.

[Joe Guarino]

It was a bit surprising to me to observe, over the last 15 years or so, the political left take up the cause of the Palestinians over Israel, despite the fact that the American Jewish community was firmly placed within the progressive tradition. It then became apparent that some Jews are not as unilaterally committed politically toward protecting Israel. Within Judaism, there is some diversity of practice and belief, and as Sue suggests, we cannot assume they are monolithic.

Those for whom Israel is less important will not be swayed in any way by evangelicals' support for a Jewish state. But for those liberal Jews who hold Israel to be very important, the support of evangelicals must create at least some internal conflict-- even if it does not lead to overt solidarity.

[Sue]

Joe, you wrote, "Sue, it was not Krauthammer who used the words "many" or "scornful" or "nervous". Instead, it was the author of the piece about Krauthammer who said those things."

I didn't click on the article. The way you cited it made it appear those were Krauthammer's words. Whoever said it, when I hear that "many" or "some" say something without citation, (no matter who quotes it), I get edgy about accuracy.

I don't think you can conflate diversity in opinion within K'lal Yisrael (the global Jewish community) with support for the political state of Israel ("Medinat Yisrael") - you seem to have confused it with evangelicals' often-stated support for the historical Israel of the Bible ("Eretz Yisrael"), which is not the same thing. It might take me 6,000 years to explain the difference, but it's a huge chasm.

"Many Jews" are reluctant to believe that "some" evangelicals' support for Israel is really support for the State of Israel in the modern world and not really support for a vision of the biblical nation that, when the galut (Diaspora) ends, will foretell the second coming of Christ, a very important evangelical belief (I respect that belief even if I don't agree with it).

So, comments about adjectives notwithstanding, "many Jews" are concerned with exactly what "some evangelicals" support. I hope we can get past the snark to discuss an important topic.

BTW, bubba, the oldest Jewish joke is "Two Jews, Three Opinions," but you might have to be Jewish to get it.

[Joe Guarino]

Sue, I think you may be demonstrating some of the internal conflict to which I referred in my last comment.:)

I certainly don't equate any diversity of opinion in the world's Jewish community with support for the political state of Israel. Far from it, as my previous comment suggests.

I think there is little question that the evangelical community-- probably with some exceptions-- as a general rule supports the existence of the political state of Israel, notwithstanding the skepticism among Jews on the point that you cite. There are biblical reasons for that support, although your citation of a perceived connection with the second coming is not the interpretation I have typically heard from within the evangelical community.

And even if that were the reason for evangelicals' support of the political state of Israel, why should that theological perspective matter to Jews? Of course, the two faith traditions are going to disagree on theological matters. But in practical terms, would it not be gracious, at the very least, to acknowledge and express gratitude for support?

[bubba]

"BTW, bubba, the oldest Jewish joke is 'Two Jews, Three Opinions,' but you might have to be Jewish to get it."

I don't have to be Jewish to understand your obliviousness to the hypocrisy of you, of all people, moralizing about someone telling someone else what to do.

The irony is incredible.

[Spag]

It is an important discussion which is why the initial dismissal of Krauthammer's point was puzzling.

Sue, in your last comment you actually concede the point from the original post about many Jews being "nervous" that you first dismissed when you wrote:

""Many Jews" are reluctant to believe that "some" evangelicals' support for Israel is really support for the State of Israel in the modern world and not really support for a vision of the biblical nation..."

Beyond that, Krauthammer alludes to concerns broader than simply support of Israel by evangelicals, and that is a prejudice against evangelicals themselves independent of support of Israel.

In layman's terms, I think what he wrote is simply "a lot of my fellow Jews have an unsettling disdain for evangelicals that appears in many cases to be based on a form of prejudice. That is too bad because evangelicals are some of the strongest supporters of the State of Israel."

So there are two points. One, is Krauthammer right about prejudice against evangelicals within the Jewish community. Two, is he right that Jews who aren't friendly to evangelicals should reconsider their attitudes in light of the ardent support of the State of Israel by evangelicals?

Joe's point is well taken, too. Should it matter why evangelicals support Israel? Would it be better according to some Jews if evangelicals were opposed to or neutral towards Israel? That leads me back to Krauthammers point. Why not accept that support unless you have a prejudice against the supporter?

[wayne stutts]

How any American Jew can back the Obamba regime is beyond my thinking. I'm not sure just how much President Obamba would defend Israel against Iran.

[Spag]

I'm not sure I would go that far, Wayne. I don't think it is a requirement that American Jews blindly support the State of Israel any more than I think Italian's such as Joe and myself feel we must defend Italy at all costs. That certainly wasn't the case during World War 2. I think Americans- Jew or not- would favor Israel over Iran.

But your comment does come back to Krauthammer again. Any action taken by Obama in such a conflict would have to have the support of the American people. As Krauthammer points out, a great swath of that support would come from evangelicals.

Now suppose those evangelicals had a change of heart and decided to go tea party on the subject and oppose U.S. support of Israel in any such conflict to such a degree that politically Obama couldn't act to assist Israel. Who would get the blame? Isn't this exactly Krauthammers point?

[Joe Guarino]

They did support Obama, Wayne, about 70/30 if I remember correctly. But I wonder what will happen next time.

Sam, there is even a broader point to be made than that which Krauthammer emphasized. If you look back at history, evangelicals were a key part of the fabric of early America-- both from the standpoint of culture but also from the standpoint of influence upon governance.

And the fabric that was weaved created an environment that overall welcomed the Jewish people and allowed them to prosper here. Yes, there were exceptions. But overall, America has been very good to American Jews; and Jewish Americans have overall thrived here. The constitutional prohibition against the creation of a state church assured there would be a condition of religious pluralism in which Jews could coexist in American society with Protestant and Catholic Americans.

I offer but one example of the phenomenon I am describing. The church of which I am part-- the Baptists-- played a key role in advocating that there be no state religion. They knew what their experience had been back in Europe.

And we need to remember that, during the time of the early American Republic, the Protestant faith traditions were probably more conservative and orthodox on matters of faith and practice than they are now. This is the environment in which religious pluralism was permitted.

[Sue]

Sam, you wrote, "So there are two points. One, is Krauthammer right about prejudice against evangelicals within the Jewish community. Two, is he right that Jews who aren't friendly to evangelicals should reconsider their attitudes in light of the ardent support of the State of Israel by evangelicals?"

It's impossible to say what all Jews should say, think or do (just like "all Christians" don't agree). Speaking for myself, I do not see American Jews like me as prejudiced against evangelicals; I might question the basis of their support for the State of Israel. If that support is for an independent State of Israel with rights to self-determination and self-protection, then that's just fine. But what we learn when we read deeper is often that support isn't for Israel to exist long-term. It's a step in a series of events that do not coincide with long-term Israeli survival.

Jews aren't prejudiced against evangelicals. They don't agree with much of their social, religious and political agenda. Disagreement does not equate to prejudice or have we lost that from our conversation?

Your second point is similar to the first: should Jewish people reconsider their support of evangelicals because one point in their platform supports Israel? I don't. I think that a total platform is what merits my support and in many aspects, I disagree with many of evangelicals' political and social stances. Sorry, it's not a litmus test (support Israel = I support you).

This is a complex religious/political situation and easy answers aren't possible. I appreciate the general moderate tone of the discussion (with obvious exceptions).