What do the Midterm Elections Say about the Jewish Vote?

In the recent elections, Democratic candidates garnered a somewhat smaller-than-usual percentage of Jewish votes. One interpretation of these results not only distorts them drastically but reflects an increasingly misguided mindset about the necessary affinity between Jews and liberalism. Seth Mandel writes:

Just as Darron Smith [in the Huffington Post] thinks blacks who don’t vote for Democrats are in some way voting against their “blackness,” and Ann Friedman [in New York Magazine] can write that Republican women aren’t “truly pro-woman,” the idea undergirding [Emma] Green’s conclusion [in the Atlantic] is that liberalism is political Judaism. That’s insulting to those who take their Jewish faith seriously, and . . . it’s also, crucially, wrong. There has been no major swing of the Jewish vote away from Democrats, and there likely won’t be. But incremental gains [of Jewish votes] by the GOP are not evidence of Jews being less Jewish; they’re exactly the opposite. . . . [Green’s] analysis is just one more example that modern liberalism requires its adherents to sacrifice all other aspects of their identity for The Cause.

Read more at Commentary

More about: American politics, Jewish vote, Liberalism


If Iran Goes Nuclear, the U.S. Will Be Forced Out of the Middle East

The International Atomic Energy Agency reported in May that Iran has, or is close to having, enough highly enriched uranium to build multiple atomic bombs, while, according to other sources, it is taking steps toward acquiring the technology to assemble such weapons. Considering the effects on Israel, the Middle East, and American foreign policy of a nuclear-armed Iran, Eli Diamond writes:

The basic picture is that the Middle East would become inhospitable to the U.S. and its allies when Iran goes nuclear. Israel would find itself isolated, with fewer options for deterring Iran or confronting its proxies. The Saudis and Emiratis would be forced into uncomfortable compromises.

Any course reversal has to start by recognizing that the United States has entered the early stages of a global conflict in which the Middle East is set to be a main attraction, not a sideshow.

Directly or not, the U.S. is engaged in this conflict and has a significant stake in its outcome. In Europe, American and Western arms are the only things standing between Ukraine and its defeat at the hands of Russia. In the Middle East, American arms remain indispensable to Israel’s survival as it wages a defensive, multifront war against Iran and its proxies Hamas and Hizballah. In the Indo-Pacific, China has embarked on the greatest military buildup since World War II, its eyes set on Taiwan but ultimately U.S. primacy.

While Iran is the smallest of these three powers, China and Russia rely on it greatly for oil and weapons, respectively. Both rely on it as a tool to degrade America’s position in the region. Constraining Iran and preventing its nuclear breakout would keep waterways open for Western shipping and undermine a key node in the supply chain for China and Russia.

Diamond offers a series of concrete suggestions for how the U.S. could push back hard against Iran, among them expanding the Abraham Accords into a military and diplomatic alliance that would include Saudi Arabia. But such a plan depends on Washington recognizing that its interests in Eastern Europe, in the Pacific, and in the Middle East are all connected.

Read more at National Review

More about: Iran nuclear program, Israeli Security, Middle East, U.S. Foreign policy