This is just the left being spooked that Jews might move right, and trying, in turn, to spook Jews into moving back. Pearlstein's example disproves his point. Abrams met with the Pentecostals to get them to accept the administration's policy, not to make administration policy acceptable to the Pentecostols. No Jew should have a problem with that.

David:

Except that anti-Christian sentiment is a powerful thing among Jews.

Not to be picky, but if bright boy is going to throw around [sic], he forgot the second one:

"the Presidents [sic] Administration and current Government is [SIC] engaged in cultural, economical, and social struggle on every level."

Condescension is one of the surest ways around to get hoisted on your own petard.

OJ: Right. That's what Pearlstein is counting on.

Jeff: I try never to jump on other people's tuypos and non-gramaticals.

The e-mailed meeting summary reveals...

Nothing is easier to fake than an e-mail message.

Except that anti-Christian sentiment is a powerful thing among Jews.

That statement is untrue and totally and utterly irresponsible.

Is there anti-Christian sentiment among some Jews? Among some there is (but how many, oj?). Is there a lack of trust for Christian among some Jews? There may be, for some (but once again, how many?).

Especially when there is a nagging suspicion that in certain Christian circles and for some Christians, Judaism doesn't quite cut it (and hasn't for 2000 years).

But this does not add up to: "anti-Christian sentiment is a powerful thing among Jews."

But hey, it's your blog, I guess. (And you can cry wolf if you want to....Though I'm not entirely sure why you want to.)

Yeah, I've been aorund the web a lot and haven't noticed much if any anti-Christian Jewish sentiment.

Nor I. Orrin, did you possibly mean wariness as opposed to a hostile animus?

I've never seen a Jewish voice even come close to this sort of bile, which is gaining on the respectability charts.

The current evangelical fetishization of Irsael
and the rapture theology is an obvious heresy of
an increasingly Judaicized Christendom.

These groups care nothing about the West and might
even have a secret zeal to see it destroyed because of its pagan origins.

"These groups care nothing about the West and might
even have a secret zeal to see it destroyed because of its pagan origins."

J.H.,that could also describe OJ,if you transpose "west" for this country.And he's not so secret.

OJ's comment, "anti-Christian sentiment is a powerful thing among Jews" doesn't strike me as a controversial comment, particularly after applying the OJ discount. Anti-Christian is anologous to anti-semitism. Rather, it is a suspicion among Jews, well-founded in history, that Christian zeal will always turn to active anti-semitism. I don't happen to share this suspicion of American evengelical Christians, some of my best friends are American evengelical Christians, but I certainly understand it.

What bugs OJ is that in certain Jews, often the ADL or secular lefty Jews, this suspicion finds its way into the open in demands that Christianity change the nature of religion. This was obvious in the reaction to Mel Gibson's "Passion", in which some commenters, rather than commenting on the film, basically said that the story of the Crucifixion is inherently anti-semitic. I can understand Christians being annoyed by that, just as I'd be if people tried to suppress the Seder as anti-Egyption hate speech.

Finally, I have my entirely objective experience that many Jews refuse to accept benign explanations for evangelical support for Israel. Pearlstein's article is the perfect example of the sneering dismissal of evangelical friendship for Israel. Many urban, leftist secular Jews, in my experience, suspect (at least half-seriously) that only a thin line seperates rural Christians from members of the Aryan Nation or the KKK.

This can come across as smug superiority. I suspect that more often it is stranger angst. At least, that's the way it comes across in Woody Allen movies.

Al --

You'll have to explain that one to me. From what I've seen, OJ cares only about this country.

I've never seen a more venomous or intolerant form of religious bigotry than Jews denouncing the messianic Jewish movement - Jews for Jesus and similar organizations.

Frank:

That is a very high bar.

Frank: They are nutty cultists. Some venom is only fair.

Frank:

Yes, you have. Much more venomous. And you know it.

Jews have every reason to be wary, to say the least, of Christians. Look at the historical record.

And now a movie's come out that, as many Jews see it, revives the age-old charge of deicide the Catholic Church purportedly cleared the Jews of in 1964.

Heck, anti-semitism is institutionalized. A Sunday sabbath? Easter not on Passover? Both the case because of anti-Jewish feeling in the early Church.

It would help if the Pope showed more contrition for the acts of depravity committed by his predessors and others as a signal that ill will and violence toward "our elder brethren" will never be tolerated again.

Brent: Not to make any excuses for Catholic anti-semitism, but if we can move Islam's relationship with Judaism any where close to that between the European Church and Judaism, we will have worked miracles.

Well there really isn't much conflict between the religions per se. The current animus is because of a dispute over territory which has taken on a religious aspect because of the identity of the players. What tends to be ignored is that there are plenty of Orthodox Arab Christians (like George Habash I think) who are violently opposed to Israel yet no one's calling this a battle between Christians and Muslims against Jews.

If there's a peaceful resolution in Israel (I'm not holding my breath) then relations would improve if for no other reason that Muslim and Jewish strategic interests simply have no other collision points.

Couple of things.

First, OJ writes:

"Except that those who are pro-peace are generally anti-Zionist"

Most of ISRAEL is pro-peace. Are they anti-Zionist?

Then he writes:

"Except that anti-Christian sentiment is a powerful thing among Jews."

I hope you don't mean me. There is nothing anti-Christian in my article. Nothing. There is, however, much that is anti-Christian in the Christian Zionist movement: they are utterly indifferent to the fate of Christian Arabs. I've never seen them disginguish among Arabs. And Christian life in the West Bank has been decimated by the occupation.

If the thread's still alive, I'll come back later and make further comments. Something for David to think about, though: does it not bother you at all that this group meeting with Abrams has placed itself above Israeli law?

P.S.: I was watching a movie tonight when it suddenly occurred to me that someone on this thread accused me of forging a document. If this person has guts, he or she will make the charge publicly; our letters page, perhaps? This person obviously didn't have the integrity to do a moment's research before making the charge; the Apostolic Congress's web site is full of material entirely consistent with much of what I report, and their 2003 meeting with Karl Rove, to take one example, is a matter of public record. What a pipsqueak.

Rick Perlstein

And Christian life in the West Bank has been decimated by the occupation.

No, it hasn't been easy for the Arab-Christian community in the West Bank. Though, it would be more accurate to mention that Christian life in the West Bank has been decimated since the Palestinian Authority took over in the West Bank.

Ummm. Something akin to what has happened to Christian life in Lebanon, perhaps? Particularly, Christian life in south-east Lebanon since the Israeli withdrawal in July 2000; though understandably, since Israel is no longer involved there, the issue is of no interest to anyone (except for those intent on bashing Israel for abandoning the Christian community in south-east Lebanon).

(And of course we know that it's all hunky dory, as well, for the Copts in Egypt.)

Rick -- Is your question whether I object to Ms. Johnson breaking Israeli law by using interest free loans to promote missionary work in Israel, assuming that's what she is doing?

I don't particularly care. I'm not wild about missionary work not being legal, as I tend to think that freedom of religion is a good policy for any country to pursue.

Rick:

Yes, the peace movement in Israel is pretty unabashedly anti-Zionist.

glad the thread is still going. Barry, what have CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS done for Arab Christians lately? (If you're talking about the ones I wrote about, likely not much, not least because they believe that anyone baptized in the name of the Trinity is going to hell--and that's why CHRISTIANS should be offended by these people monopolizing time with White House staff: they are the most corrosive and marginal kind of sectarians).

David, one of these days I'll get to your long email. For now: it doesn't matter what YOU think of Israeli law. It's what groups with close White House ties think of it. If it offends Israel, our cherished ally, shouldn't it by extension worry the White House? Isn't there a modicum of diplomacy involved here?

OJ, if by "peace movement" you mean the vast majorities of Israelis who favor a two-state solution, Zion itself turns out to be pretty darned anti-Zionist. But you're even wrong as regards the peace movement.

This is actually worth a bet. If I email my friend who is the head of Americans for Peace Now (the American branch, closely aligned), and ask, "Are you a Zionist?" I'll bet you $87,466.04 that she says yes.

Rick Perlstein

Rick --

Your question to me was "does it not bother you at all that this group meeting with Abrams has placed itself above Israeli law"? When I say that it doesn't bother me, you say "it doesn't matter what YOU think of Israeli law." But your article doesn't show that Israel is offended, it shows that when you described what was happening to an Israeli official (Moshe Fox, minister for public and interreligious affairs at the Israeli Embassy in Washington), he said: "It sounds against the law which prohibits any kind of money or material [inducement] to make people convert to another religion. That's what it sounds like." You actually talked to the guy, but "Israel" being "offended" seems like a stretch.

If Christian Zionists are less than charitable to Arab Christians, this too is less worrysome than otherwise. These people, whatever there real interests, will stand with Israel against the rest of the world, at least until the state is set for Armageddon.

"[M]onopolizing time with White House staff" is a tendatious way of describing a two-hour meeting with Elliott Abrams. For the record, I have no problem with the White House taking time to explain administration policy to an important voting bloc. Want to talk about the Clinton White House meeting with foreign doners?

Rick:

Of course they aren't going to say they're anti-Zionist and lose all credibility. But they are indeed not much concerned with Zion as a specifically Jewish entity. One difficulty for us all to face is that Israel can not remain a democracy and Jewish.

http://www.forward.com/issues/1999/99.05.14/news.html

Orrin, what was the point of the Forward article?

Rick:

It's generally accepted that the Left isn't generally concerned with the "ideologiocal underpinnings" of Israel--in other words, its Jewishness.

Orrin, are you just deeply misinformed on the subject? Are you aware that the original Zionists, the founders of the State of Israel, were militantly secularist?

Sure. I'm also aware they drove out the Arabs so it would be a Jewish state. Demographic trends suggestr that will be required again. Likud will do it. Will Shinui?

Rather an academic point. They only have 15 seats.

Fine, Labor?

Rick:

Actually, never mind the political parties in Israel--would you approve of Israel forcibly removing non-Jews from its soil, or at least disenfranchising them, in order to preserve its distinctly Jewish identity?