By Larry Gordon

Ann Coulter is obviously a piece of work. And she knows how to draw attention to herself, not apologize, and get a pass so that she can move on to her next bestselling book.

It’s a good thing that
the obscene pejorative and expletive-­deleted term she used was juxtaposed to the word “Jews” as she expressed her chagrin at the Republican candidates for president, who articulated their avid support of Israel in their much-ballyhooed debates last week. Had she used that same term with blacks or Muslims, it would not have slid by so easily and, as you can now see, be almost completely forgotten.

The crazy thing is that even the Jews seem at ease with her decision to use extreme profanity as an adjective to express her vexation about across-the-board support for Israel emanating from the candidates for the nomination. If you missed it, after four or five would-be presidential candidates voiced support for Israel, Coulter tweeted, “How many –– Jews do they think there are in this country?”

The next day Coulter explained that all she meant by that rather unsavory word selection was that we understand full well that Republicans–today anyway–are enthusiastic supporters of the State of Israel and there is therefore no reason to spend time discussing that in a Republican forum when there are so many other issues that need discussion.

That seems like pretty deep commentary. What she really meant is what every pedestrian anti-Semite means when wondering aloud why with only six million Jews residing in the United States, the Jewish community seems so influential and even dominant in so many sectors. That does not necessarily mean that Coulter harbors anti-Semitic tendencies, but rather she calculated a way in which she can garner screaming headlines with a controversy that would not have much staying power. For now anyway, it looks like the calculation was a good one.

When someone tries to marginalize the case of Israel in that way, we have to remember that at least half of American Jews–and maybe more–probably agree with those critics. They harbor critical views of Israel and of the fact that U.S. policy regarding Israel is consistently near the top of the congressional agenda.

Some feel that Israel does not deserve that kind of total support, while others are uncomfortable with the spotlight and all the attention that Jews and Israel attract.

Take the recent campaign to defeat the U.S. nuclear deal with Iran. The White House did not do Israel or American Jews right by trying to marginalize the community for opposing the deal instead of respecting our right to a different opinion than that of the Obama administration. The president intimated that the opposition was largely Jewish by the suggestion that “donor money” to senators and congressmen was at play here and possibly the agent that could sway a vote either way. Mr. Obama is not naive. He knows that when you use the terms politics and money in the same sentence, you mean “Jews.”

Additionally, what does it take in this day and age to realize that Israel is not only a loyal ally of the U.S., but the only stable country in the entire Middle East? Leave the fact that they are a working American-style democracy. If Prime Minister Netanyahu has a serious issue with the Iran deal, then his concerns should be seriously considered instead of minimized and dismissed.

But now comes the next phase of the Iran deal–working to unseat those who were otherwise fairly good supporters of Israel but who, when push came to shove, went with political considerations rather than Israel’s long-term security. That means otherwise good folks like Cory Booker, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Richard Blumenthal may have tough elections on their hands next time around. It is especially Gillibrand’s behavior that was so puzzling. In her defense, she was acting as though her hands were tied, and they probably were by Chuck Schumer and others.

Just look what is going on now with presidential hopeful Ben Carson and his comments on his belief that a Muslim, by virtue of his or her religious persuasion, would not be suitable to be president of the United States. Unlike the Coulter comment about Jews, which has just about disappeared from the news, for Carson his comment about Muslims might become the defining moment in his campaign to date. The liberal media are reluctant or perhaps even prevented from labeling Carson an out-and-out racist because he is African-American and therefore has some inherent protections against the usual media accusations of that type. On the other hand, Carson is also a Republican and extremely critical of the Obama presidency, which means that some of those built-in protections are weakened.

The New York Times took Carson to task the other day, asking how it is that he can believe that being Muslim should eliminate a candidate from the right to be president. The paper suggested that if this is the case, then the existence of canon law should eliminate Catholics from being president and the existence of halachah should discount a Jewish candidate from the position.

I cannot speak in any authoritative way about Catholics and canon law, but halachah and Jews in politics is an entirely different matter. We cannot expect any of those with the most minimal of knowledge about anything Jewish to understand anything about halachah or Jewish law.

There are two things relevant to this discussion about halachah. One is that those Jews in Congress–with few exceptions over the years–have absolutely no knowledge about anything to do with Jewish law, nor have they tried to apply it in any fashion to any policy or legislation.

The other thing is that if anyone at the Times had a speck of familiarity with halachah, they would know that one of its underlying principles is “dina d’malchusa dina,” that the law of the land in which one resides is considered the law. Does sharia share that same doctrine? It doesn’t look like it.

Mr. Carson, who disappoints liberals and especially the mainstream media by being both black and conservative, has people like those at the Times lying in wait, ready to pounce as soon as he utters a word that they can contort and use to bring him down. The Muslim reference, as the Donald Trump Mexican/illegal-immigrant reference, is sticking and will be brought up whenever and wherever these candidates appear. Ann Coulter’s denigration of Jews in the most vile and repugnant terms is already ancient history.

But then again she happens to be one of the few conservatives not currently running for president.

Comments for Larry Gordon are welcome at editor@5tjt.com.

 

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here