Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Jews, Muslims, & the Democrats

Expand Messages
  • World View
    Jews, Muslims, and the Democrats By Gabriel Schoenfeld January 2007=20 http://www.commentarymagazine.com/cm/main/viewArticle.aip?id=3D10810 The 2006 midterm
    Message 1 of 1 , Jan 1, 2007
      Jews, Muslims, and the Democrats
      By Gabriel Schoenfeld
      January 2007=20

      The 2006 midterm elections confirmed once again a truism of American
      politics: American Jews remain overwhelmingly devoted to the
      Democratic party. According to exit polling, the tilt this year was,
      if anything, even more pronounced than it has been in the past. Some
      88 percent of Jewish votes went to Democratic candidates, while a mere
      12 percent went to the GOP.

      Along with this lopsided outcome, a historical extreme, comes the news
      that the number of Jewish representatives in Congress has itself
      reached an all-time high. Although Jews represent a marginal sliver
      mere 2 percent of the U.S. population, they now hold 13 seats in the
      U.S. Senate, all but two of them Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania and
      Norm Coleman of Minnesota Democratic. (Bernard Sanders of Vermont,
      elected as an independent, has pledged to vote with the Democratic
      caucus.) In the House of Representatives, Jews, all but one of them
      Democrats, now occupy 30 seats.

      Party affiliation aside, this surely denotes a high-water mark of
      Jewish political representation, just as Joseph Lieberman's presence
      on Al Gore's presidential ticket set a previous mark in 2000. But
      party affiliation cannot be placed to one side. For the paradoxical
      and disturbing fact is that even as Jewish voters remain unwaveringly
      loyal to the Democrats, and even as Jewish representation in national
      office, almost entirely Democratic in color, has risen to an all-time
      high, the Democratic party itself is becoming demonstrably less
      hospitable to Jewish interests. Indeed, on at least one matter of
      central concern the safety and security of the state of Israel the
      party and the American Jewish community may be heading toward a
      slow-motion collision.

      This development is not exactly of recent vintage its historical roots
      can be traced as far back as the late 1960's but it has taken on
      anincreasingly stark aspect as the party has progressively succumbed
      to the influence of its own left wing and to blind hatred of George W.
      Bush. And recently a new element has entered as well, symbolized by
      the election this past November of Keith Ellison, the first-ever
      Muslim member of the House of Representatives, on Minnesota's
      Democratic Farmer-Labor (DFL) ticket. Ellison's story is unique, but
      also a symptom of larger trends.

      "Louis Farrakhan's First Congressman" is how the Weekly Standard
      titled an election-eve profile of Ellison. In the late 1980's, while
      still a law student, Ellison had indeed been an activist in the Nation
      of Islam, Farrakhan's black-Muslim cult. Writing under the pseudonyms
      of Keith Hakim, Keith X. Ellison, and Keith Ellison Muhammad, he
      called for the establishment of an independent black republic in the
      American South and defended the unadorned anti-Semitic pronouncements
      of Farrakhan and his organization. Long after completing law school,
      moreover, Ellison continued to work with the Nation of Islam, joining
      with more prominent black leaders, including the Reverend Jesse
      Jackson and the Reverend Al Sharpton, to help organize the 1995
      Million Man March.

      Ellison was carrying other baggage as well. Critics, particularly his
      Republican opponent, were quick to raise questions about his ties to
      the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), an organization that
      has been linked to radical Islamists and anti-Semites of various stripes.

      But attempts to derail his candidacy on these grounds failed. Under
      fire during the campaign for his associations with the Nation of
      Islam, Ellison wrote a letter to the Minnesota Jewish
      community-relations council in which he admitted that as a young man
      he "did not adequately scrutinize the positions and statements" of the
      Nation of Islam, acknowledged that they "were and are anti-Semitic,"
      and declared that "I should have come to that conclusion earlier than
      I did." On the strength of this and similar statements he proceeded to
      win endorsements from the American Jewish World, a "progressive" local
      paper, and the even more "progressive" Minneapolis Star Tribune, the
      latter of which dismissed criticism of his links to CAIR as "a smear

      Both the ease with which Ellison was able to glide through this
      controversy and the remarkable lack of discomfort his candidacy
      appeared to cause among his fellow Democrats point to the larger
      significance of his election. For the simple fact is that in certain
      respects he is not alone: the past decade or so has seen the formation
      of a group of 40 to 50 Democratic Congressmen who, in varying degrees
      of intensity, have felt free to express an uninhibited hostility
      toward the Jewish state.

      A coarse index of this group's membership was on display last May when
      Hamas, the Islamic fundamentalist terror organization pledged to
      Israel's destruction, won elections in Gaza and the West Bank and
      assumed control of the Palestinian Authority. In response, Congress
      took up the Palestinian Anti-Terror Act of 2006 legislation aimed at
      denying U.S. financial aid to the Palestinian Authority unless and
      until the President could certify that terror groups were not among
      its recipients, that the new Palestinian regime recognized Israel's
      right to exist, and that it remained committed to agreements with
      Israel signed by its predecessors. The bill passed the Senate
      unanimously. In the House, a similar but slightly tougher version also
      passed handily but not without drawing 37 nay votes and 9 votes of
      "present" only. Of the 46 representatives either actively opposing the
      bill or unwilling to vote for it, 41 were Democrats.

      To be fair, not every Congressman who failed to support the
      legislation could automatically be counted as unsympathetic to Israel;
      the State Department had expressed its own reservations about the
      House version on the grounds that it unduly limited American
      flexibility. Still, the number of Democrats ready to oppose so
      straightforward an anti-terror measure was striking, and all the more
      so in light of the Democrats' long record as the party friendlier to
      Israel than the Republicans.

      What explains this turnabout? A full answer would take us on a sojourn
      through the twists and turns not only of party politics but of the
      ideological, cultural, and racial disputes of the past decades as they
      have affected both domestic and foreign policy. But of particular
      relevance in the present context is the demographic ingredient
      exemplified by Keith Ellison.

      The Muslim population of the United States has been steadily growing.
      Although the numbers are hotly disputed the U.S. census does not
      gather information about religious affiliation a middle-range estimate
      tells us there are four to six million Muslims in the country. Not in
      dispute is that they are one of the fastest growing segments of the
      U.S. population, and that with increasing size has come increasing
      potency within American political life.

      Where populations are sufficiently concentrated in America, so too,
      usually, is political clout. As a rule America's Muslims have settled
      in major cities Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, and New
      York where they are still too sparsely present to exercise significant
      weight as a bloc. Smaller localities, however, tell a different story.
      Thus, in Minneapolis-St. Paul, where many immigrants from strife-torn
      Somalia happen to have gathered, Muslims formed an important building
      block of Keith Ellison's electoral victory. In places like Dearborn
      and Detroit, Michigan, where many immigrants from the Arab world have
      settled, Muslims enjoy a far larger degree of political influence.

      But what are their politics? On the whole, this swelling population is
      quite heterogeneous. America's Muslims are not only geographically
      dispersed but also highly segmented. Most are either immigrants or the
      children of immigrants from countries in the Middle East or the Asian
      subcontinent. A rough estimate holds that nearly one million,
      overwhelmingly black, are, like Ellison, American-born converts to the
      faith. In contrast to the situation in Europe, America's immigrant
      Muslims tend to be prosperous, are frequently said to be on the path
      to integration in American life, and in some respects have shown
      pronounced traditionalist inclinations.

      In 2000, most Muslim-American organizations backed the presidential
      candidacy of George W. Bush, drawn by his brand of social conservatism
      as opposed to the free-form liberalism on offer from the Democratic
      party, with its emphasis on access to abortion and gay rights. Since
      then, however, their sentiments have changed.

      There can be no doubting the seismic political effect of September 11,
      2001 on the political orientation of American Muslims. For reasons
      that are themselves disturbing, the principal American-Islamic and
      Arab-American organizations almost immediately adopted an oppositional
      stance vis-a-vis the Bush administration and the war on terrorism.
      Thus, all of them vehemently denounced the Patriot Act, which, with
      its presumed racial profiling and targeting of mosques, was perceived
      to be directed against them. The decision to go to war in Iraq, with
      the American military machine thrust into the heart of the Arab
      nation, was also universally opposed. Stirring perhaps the most
      vociferous response was the Bush administration's strong and
      consistent support - perhaps the strongest and most consistent of any
      administration since 1948 - for the state of Israel as a victim of
      terror and a democratic ally in the war against terror.

      In each of these respects, there was a point of contact between
      American Muslims and today's Democratic party, with its reflexive
      antipathy toward the Bush administration's conduct of the war on
      terror and, especially, its already sizable contingent of voices
      suspicious of or hostile to Israel. Within that contingent, one
      particularly active element has been the Congressional Black Caucus,
      whose membership in recent years has included such reliably radical
      firebrands as Ron Dellums and Maxine Waters of California, Cynthia
      McKinney of Georgia, and Earl Hilliard of Alabama. In addition to
      Keith Ellison, two members of the caucus Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas
      and Albert Wynn of Maryland addressed CAIR's post-election celebratory
      banquet this past November.

      But the Black Caucus is not alone. Other Democrats (joined for this
      purpose by Republicans like former Congressmen Paul Findley and Pete
      McCloskey) have been similarly ill-disposed toward Israel and/or
      American Jews. One thinks of James Moran of Virginia, notorious for
      asserting that the U.S. would never have gone to war in Iraq but "for
      the strong support of the Jewish community." (In fact, as opinion
      polls consistently showed, American Jews overwhelmingly opposed U.S.
      entry into the war.) In California, one newly elected Democratic
      Congressman, Gerald McNerney, accepted an endorsement this past fall
      from the Republican McCloskey, notwithstanding the latter's links to
      the crackpot Holocaust deniers at the Institute for Historical Review.
      And so it goes.

      Nor should one underestimate the degree to which such sentiments, in
      more respectable or diluted form, have been seeping from the fringes
      into the center of the Democratic party - or, to put it perhaps more
      accurately, the degree to which the policies and the attitudes of the
      party's left wing have increasingly come to define Democratic
      discourse in general. An emblematic presence here is the financier
      George Soros, a major figure in Democratic-party politics who in 2004
      donated $15 million to defeat George W. Bush. Soros is also the chief
      underwriter of the web-based pressure group moveon.org, which, in the
      2006 political season, poured heavy resources into the effort to
      dislodge Joseph Lieberman from the U.S. Senate and send an
      anti-Iraq-war activist named Ned Lamont in his place.

      As is well known, this effort scored an early success by wresting the
      Democratic nomination from Lieberman and gaining it for Lamont.
      Thereupon, an undeterred Lieberman announced that he would stay in the
      race as an independent candidate. At this point the Left's
      anti-Lieberman campaign, already a model of personal vilification,
      grew still more vicious, as postings on the moveon.org website began
      to refer caustically to the long-serving Connecticut Senator as "the
      Jew Lieberman," providing yet another alarming clue, if one were
      needed, to attitudes within a segment of today's American Left.2

      Since Lieberman's win in November, George Soros has let it be known
      that he aims to turn his attention to the Israel "problem" in American
      politics by forming a new lobby that will act as a "progressive"
      counterweight to the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC).
      The avowed purpose of this organization will be to mobilize support
      for putting U.S. pressure on Israel to take what Soros regards as
      necessary steps for "peace." One such step, in his view, is to extend
      Israeli diplomatic recognition to Hamas, an organization that, for its
      part, has pledged never to recognize Israel.

      In the course of his long career as a philanthropist, the Jewish-born
      Soros has demonstrated no particular interest in Israel or in
      Judaism beyond, that is, occasionally likening Israelis to Nazis and
      blaming Jews themselves for the contemporary worldwide resurgence of
      anti-Semitism. His entry into this particular fray at this particular
      moment is a signal of where at least some influential donors and
      activists think the Democratic party should be moving. In this,
      indeed, he would appear to be in perfect accord with a number of
      figures near the summit of the Democratic establishment, one of whom
      is former President Jimmy Carter. Long obsessed with the
      Israel-Palestinian conflict, and hardly discreet about his sympathies,
      Carter has recently published a book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,
      that lambastes Israel at every turn as a South Africa-style racist
      state and the principal obstacle to peace in the Middle East.

      A perverse logic is at work in such irrational attitudes, and it is
      one with counterparts on the other side of the political spectrum as
      well. There, the Bush administration is maneuvering to deflect
      complaints from some conservative critics that America's closeness to
      the Jewish state is preventing a general solution to our current
      dilemmas in the Middle East, and that our relationship with democratic
      Israel needs to be revised in favor of a new "dialogue" with rogue
      actors like Syria and the genocidal mullahs in Iran. In an earlier
      era - in the administration of the first George Bush, for
      example - proposals of this nature would have been seized upon by
      Democrats as evidence of Republican indifference to the security of a
      critical ally. Today, the mainstream of the Democratic party is either
      silent in the face of such reckless notions, no matter who voices
      them, or, when vocal, approving.

      In late November, Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, would get a
      dose of the new Democratic disposition. On a visit to the White house,
      Olmert offered some anodyne comments about the American war effort in
      Iraq, declaring himself "very much impressed and encouraged by the
      stability which the great operation of America in Iraq [has] brought
      to the Middle East." To leading Democrats, still flush with their
      successful bring-the-troops-home election campaign, this declaration
      of solidarity with America's war was not to be borne. "I'm shocked,"
      announced Gary Ackerman of New York, a prominent "pro-Israel" Democrat
      and the incoming chairman of the International Relations subcommittee
      on the Middle East. "Most of us here," Ackerman admonished the Israeli
      leader, "understand that our policy [in Iraq] has been a thorough and
      total disaster for the United States." Israel, in other words, should
      get with the Democratic program calling for withdrawal from Iraq,
      whether or not that program conflicts with Israel's well-founded
      understanding of its own security needs.

      Which brings us back to American Muslims. For just at the point where
      the U.S. interest in a strong Israel diverges from the perceived
      interests of the Democratic party, there leading Islamic organizations
      find themselves in tune with the latter. So much is this the case
      that, in the judgment of the political scientist Peter Skerry, we may
      now be witnessing the emergence of a new force in American politics.
      Writing in Time, and citing a whole range of such convergent
      interests, Skerry calls this a "Muslim-liberal coalition" (more
      accurately it might be called a Muslim/Arab-liberal coalition). If he
      is right, and if this coalition can be organized to act with any
      degree of coherence, it could indeed end up, through sheer numbers
      alone, wielding a disproportionate influence on American politics, to
      the clear detriment of the interests of American Jews.

      With the Democratic party now in a majority in both houses of
      Congress, five members of this de facto Muslim/Arab-liberal coalition,
      all of whom voted against the Palestinian Anti-Terrorism bill, have
      already acquired sufficient seniority to rise to committee
      chairmanships. On the Arab side, Nick Rahall of West Virginia, of
      Lebanese Christian descent, is chairman of the Arab-American
      congressional caucus and incoming chairman of the House Resources
      committee. On the liberal or left-wing side, David Obey of Wisconsin,
      a frequent critic of U.S. foreign aid to Israel, is the new chairman
      of the Appropriations committee. (His counterpart, the chairman of the
      Senate Appropriations committee, is the eighty-nine-year old Robert C.
      Byrd of West Virginia, perhaps the member most single-mindedly
      unsympathetic to Israel.) John Dingell, from a district that includes
      Dearborn, Michigan, is now chairman of the Energy and Commerce
      committee. (During this past summer's Lebanese war, Dingell declared:
      "I don't take sides for or against Hizballah or for or against
      Israel.") John Conyers of Detroit, who in unofficial hearings last
      year hosted a parade of hand-picked witnesses blaming Israel and its
      "agents of influence" for the war in Iraq, is the incoming chair of
      the House Judiciary committee.

      These committee chairmen will control key levers of power. Of course,
      that is not the same thing as wielding a hammerlock on congressional
      action. A number of new chairmen, including Tom Lantos of California,
      remain strong advocates of close U.S.-Israeli ties, while some
      Congressmen who may themselves be unfavorably disposed to Israel
      represent constituencies whose sentiments run in the other direction.
      As for the Senate, the Muslim or Arab side of the new coalition so far
      lacks identifiable representation, and at least some prominent
      Democrats, including New York's Charles Schumer, have shown themselves
      willing, if not actually to challenge pro-Arab or pro-Islamist voices
      among their fellow Democrats, then at least to describe organizations
      like CAIR accurately.

      Matters have thus not yet reached a tipping point. Still, it is worth
      bearing in mind that in some states where the balance between
      Republicans and Democrats is close, Muslims are now able to serve as a
      decisive swing vote. In the critical and close-run Senate race in
      Virginia, for example, the Republican incumbent George Allen lost by
      fewer than 10,000 ballots to the Democratic challenger James Webb.
      Approximately 50,000 Muslim American voters participated in this
      election; according to one Muslim advocacy group, some 90 percent cast
      their ballots for Webb.

      This is almost certainly an exaggeration. Nevertheless, a significant
      majority did vote for Webb. American Muslims can thus claim credit not
      only for sending him to the Senate but for handing over the Senate
      itself to Democratic control.3

      Much has been written and spoken in recent months about the so-called
      "Israel lobby" in American politics, a movement allegedly made up of
      influential American Jewish organizations and individuals who
      cumulatively exercise a "stranglehold" over the U.S. Congress, skewing
      our foreign policy in directions inimical to the nation's proper aims
      and interests. As I and others have tried to show, this notion is a
      pernicious slander, and a lie.4 The truth is that, for a variety of
      historical reasons, the degree of influence exercised by American Jews
      in the political arena has always been limited; when it comes to
      Israel in particular, American governments have acted in different
      ways at different times, but always out of their sense of the American
      national interest and with the backing of the American people.

      At any rate, and thanks in part to the stubbornly lopsided Jewish
      allegiance to the Democratic party, the influence wielded by the
      Jewish community has not been increasing but receding, even while the
      numerical representation of Jews in public office has grown. Not only
      is the Democratic party of today farther than ever from the Democratic
      party of Jewish memory, but the steadfast lack of interest shown by
      American Jews in the Republican party has robbed them of any
      possibility of being courted by either party as a potentially valuable
      swing vote. Worst of all is that this reality continues to be denied
      by Jewish spokesmen who most need to recognize and confront it.

      "When it comes to Israel, Democrats and Republicans are pretty much
      indistinguishable," wrote the executive director of the Israel Policy
      Forum, a left-wing Jewish advocacy group, in the aftermath of this
      November's election. "If there are members of Congress who are truly
      antagonistic toward Israel," he continued, "they keep their views
      secret." But this is just so much eyewash, designed to soothe
      political consciences and keep increasingly distasteful facts from view.

      Muslim-Americans have become a group avidly sought after by both
      parties, a group whose numbers are growing and whose group
      preferences, strongly expressed, are and will continue to be taken
      into account. In the foreseeable future, it is highly unlikely that
      American Jews, whose numbers are in any case hardly increasing, can
      play such a role. They can certainly not do so as long as they remain
      unthinkingly wedded to a party that is paying them ever less heed.

      About the Author
      Gabriel Schoenfeld is the senior editor of COMMENTARY and the author
      of The Return of Anti-Semitism (Encounter, 2004).

      Agree? Disagree? Write a letter to the editor
      Let us know what you think! Send an email to
      editor @ commentarymagazine.com


      1 After winning his seat, Ellison distanced himself from CAIR,
      skipping its annual dinner, where he had been scheduled to appear as
      the keynote speaker, and addressing it only by video. He also pledged
      to visit Israel at the earliest opportunity.

      2 Moveon.org ignored privately lodged complaints about these and other
      anti-Semitic postings and only removed them after they became the
      subject of public controversy.

      3 Thousands of Jewish voters also took part in the Virginia election.
      They, too, voted overwhelmingly for Webb=97but they cannot in any sense
      be said to have tipped the scale since, as loyal Democratic voters,
      they were counted in Webb's column from the get-go.

      4 See my article in the November 2006 COMMENTARY, Dual Loyalty and the
      "Israel Lobby."


      Beit Tefillah - Services
      Governor-Elect Deval Patrick to Speak at MLK Shabbat
      Friday, January 12 - 5:45 p.m. Qabbalat Shabbat Service
      Temple Beth Israel, Brookline, MA

      We are delighted to announce that Deval Patrick, who will be
      inaugurated as the 71st Governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
      on January 4, 2007, has graciously accepted our invitation to speak at
      our Qabbalat Shabbat service on Friday, January 12, 2007 in
      celebration of the life and work of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. It is
      most fitting that Governor-Elect Patrick will offer the inspirational
      address, for he has chosen to live and work for the values of Dr.
      King. We will join together on that evening with leaders and friends
      from local churches and other community partners to honor the spirit
      of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. through prayer, music, and shared community.

      As Governor, Mr. Patrick has pledged to take seriously many issues of
      social justice that our Temple Israel community and our community
      partners in the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization (GBIO) have
      acted on in recent years, months, and days. He has pledged to make
      healthcare affordable, of high quality, and accessible to all, working
      with the legislature to enact the Health Access and Affordability Act.
      Governor Patrick has also pledged to act for justice in areas of youth
      education, affordable housing, equal marriage, environmental
      protection law, and compassionate elder care legislation, issues that
      are close to the hearts and hands of many in our community.

      Governor-Elect Patrick has promised to work in relationship with the
      citizens of Massachusetts and has asked for shared responsibility to
      help fulfill his vision of justice. Governor Patrick's values and
      belief in the power of working together was very much shaped by his
      life experiences.

      Coming from a family living on welfare in the South Side of Chicago,
      Governor-Elect Patrick was first inspired to take a role in public
      leadership when his mother brought him to hear Dr. King speak. There,
      he encountered the power of hope.

      Through scholarship and hard work, Mr. Patrick attended Milton Academy
      in Massachusetts and graduated from Harvard College in 1978. After
      college, he worked on a United Nations youth training project in the
      Darfur region of Sudan, returning to Cambridge to attend Harvard Law

      As Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, Mr. Patrick worked on
      a wide range of issues, including the investigation of church burnings
      throughout the South in the mid-1990s, the prosecution of hate crimes,
      abortion clinic violence and cases of employment discrimination, as
      well as the enforcement of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

      We are so very excited to be able to welcome Governor Patrick to our
      community. Please watch your email and your mail for further
      information on this wonderful event in the life of our Congregation
      and a list of the community partners who have agreed to co-sponsor
      this Shabbat.

      We know that you will want to join us for this very special Shabbat
      evening. Our service will be followed by a festive Oneg Shabbat



      I just read the following passage in "Jews, Muslims and Democrats" by
      Gabriel Schoenfeld.

      ...in the judgment of the political scientist Peter Skerry, we may now
      be witnessing the emergence of a new force in American politics.
      Writing in Time, and citing a whole range of such convergent
      interests, Skerry calls this a "Muslim-liberal coalition" (more
      accurately it might be called a Muslim/Arab-liberal coalition). If he
      is right, and if this coalition can be organized to act with any
      degree of coherence, it could indeed end up, through sheer numbers
      alone, wielding a disproportionate influence on American politics [my
      emphasis], to the clear detriment of the interests of American Jews.

      Last time I looked, we Americans are supposed to live in a democracy.
      Normally, we describe a political group, whose power comes from
      sheer numbers alone, as wielding a proportionate influence on American

      While the article states the issue non-hysterically, it reflects a lot
      of the panic that I have been observing at strategy and pro-Israel
      sessions of the Boston organized Jewish community. Nowadays, African
      American political leaders (like Massachusetts Governor elect Deval
      Patrick) generally have to put on a show for rich white American Jews
      at some prestigious synagogue or temple at a religious service just
      before MLK day so that the congregation can pretend that it is not
      racist (see announcement after Commentary article).

      Such Jewish fetes of African American political leaders are an
      exercise in total hypocrisy because the organized Jewish community
      generally worked very hard to stymie the American movement against
      South African Apartheid and because a majority of American Jews
      support Zionist racism, Apartheid, ethnic cleansing and atrocities
      directed against the native population of Palestine. It is hard to
      imagine a more demeaning activity for an African American political
      leader than such MLK minstrel shows staged in front of the Jewish
      community. If the Roxbury Mosque were complete, Deval Patrick could
      take part in a celebration of King's struggle against American racism
      and apartheid right in the heart of the Boston black community with a
      multiracial American community that is in the forefront of the
      struggle against global Apartheid.

      By connecting American blacks to global capital as well as to global
      business and family networks, American Muslims can provide the means
      to eliminate the structural inequality that has been built into
      American society by the theft of Black labor during the period of
      American slavery. American Muslims provide the last best hope from
      American blacks and for all Americans in general because they can
      overcome the racial divide that threatens America more than ever as
      global economic developments widen the gap between haves and have-nots.

      Schoenfeld's article betrays the interest of the organized Jewish
      community in opposing a more equal American society, where race,
      ethnicity, or religion no longer serve to exclude whole classes or
      groups of Americans from political and economic access or influence.

      [Note that Schoenfeld published an attack on Walt and Mearsheimer's
      analysis of the effect of the Jewish Lobby on American foreign policy
      in the November issue of Commentary




      To subscribe to this group, send an email to:

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.