Even from my distant vantage point of living in Israel, I believe it is obvious that the Trump presidency has either created new divisions within the Jewish community or at least expanded the existing ones. One of the biggest points of divergence is over policies pertaining to Israel, where divisions have been growing steadily for decades. A recent poll by the American Jewish Committee helpfully quantifies the current extent.

The gap between American Jews and Israelis regarding President Trump’s approach to Israel is profound. While 77% of Israeli Jews approve of how the president is handling U.S.-Israel relations, only 34% of American Jews do. A majority, 57%, of U.S. Jews disapprove, while only 10% of Israelis do.

On the U.S. decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital and move its embassy there, 85% of Israeli Jews, compared with 46% of U.S. Jews, support the decision, while 7% of Israelis and 47% of U.S. Jews oppose it.

Single-issue voters may continue to support Trump if they view him favorably on that single issue despite deep disagreements over any (or all) other policies. This single-mindedness may seem incomprehensible to others considering how much else needs to be overlooked or dismissed.

I noticed some examples of this tension coming to bear in the aftermath of the horrific shooting at the Tree of Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh. Many in the media explicitly blame Trump for his incendiary rhetoric and Trump had been previously criticized for normalizing white supremacy.

Journalist Julia Ioffe not only blamed Trump for the attack, but also called out American Jews.

The implication here is that supporting a president for policy in one area may have disastrous consequences for people in another area. In this case, support for moving the US embassy to Jerusalem comes at the cost of American Jewish lives.

Writing in The Atlantic, Franklin Foer calls for a variant of excommunication of Trump supporting Jews because their doing so puts other Jews at risk.

Any strategy for enhancing the security of American Jewry should involve shunning Trump’s Jewish enablers. Their money should be refused, their presence in synagogues not welcome. They have placed their community in danger.

Can Jews really be this apathetic or willfully blind towards the physical danger of fellow Jews? I suggest the answer is sadly yes, with ample evidence from Israel.

Many readers may be familiar with Shira Banki, the sixteen-year-old who was murdered at the Jerusalem Pride Parade in 2015. Her murder was met with an outpouring of support and tributes not only in Israel but in the US as well (one person I knew even wrote a song dedicated to her). 

In contrast, I suspect few will recognize the name of Hallel Yaffa Ariel, a thirteen-year-old who was murdered in her home in 2016. But because Hallel was a “settler” even those who bothered to acknowledge her death felt the need to include qualifiers and disclaimers.

The reality is that even if we recognize that all human lives are of value, certain deaths or tragedies affect us emotionally more than others. But I suspect that people notice whose deaths are mourned, or more precisely, those who are worthy of mourning, and those whose are not.

Similarly, many of those who are currently appalled at the rising fascism in the United States have also supported a Palestinian state in which the current constitution, makes Islam the official religion, derives legislation, from Shari’a, imposes a death penalty on selling land to Jews, and currently pays people to murder Jews. 

For as complicated as Israeli/Palestinian politics may be, if we are going by Foer’s criteria for exclusion that, “They have placed their community in danger” then it would not be surprising for Israelis on the ground to be less sympathetic to those who have pushed for a Palestinian state as currently constructed (as opposed to a liberal democratic Palestinian state). Those who have excused totalitarianism when others are threatened should not be surprised when those same others are less than sympathetic to their moral alarmism.

In other words, when you see comments that certain Jews only care about their ideology even as other Jews are living under attack, consider that maybe this has been going on for a while now with the roles reversed. This should not be taken as a justification, but I believe how people have reacted to drastically different lived experiences may explain much about why the Israel/Diaspora relationship is as strained as it is.

With the current violence in Israel continuing without a clear end in sight, Israel is once again receiving support and criticism for its policies. One common refrain found among Israel’s supporters is that the inordinate amount of criticism levied against Israel is actually a form of anti-Semitism. When “anti-Israel” protesters reportedly shout “Kill the Jews” while looting Jewish businesses, it is easy to reach this conclusion. But aside from these violent outbreaks, is there any validity to the argument that the more civil rhetorical attacks against Israel are rooted in anti-Semitism? In her Remarks Before 2010 Conference on Combating Anti-Semitism, Special Envoy to Monitor and Combat Anti-Semitism Hannah Rosenthal offers criteria for distinction:

Our State Department uses Natan Sharansky’s framework for identifying when someone or a government crosses the line – when Israel is demonized, when Israel is held to different standards than the rest of the countries, and when Israel is delegitimized. These cases are not disagreements with a policy of Israel, this is anti-Semitism.[Emphasis added]

Writing for the New York Times in 2002, Thomas Friedman offered a similar contrast:

Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction — out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East — is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest.

There are no doubt other opinions and qualifications which answer this question, but I believe that for the Liberal Left – whose members tend to be some of Israel’s most vocal and vitriolic critics – the definitions cited above are justifiable based on how it views discrimination in other contexts, particularly regarding the US criminal justice system.

Those who follow me on Facebook or Twitter know I try to keep up with politics, though mostly for entertainment value. But while I make plenty of snarky comments at the expense at the absurdities of Conservatives, Liberals, Democrats, and Republicans, few people actually know what I actually believe. Shockingly, some people have even inquired to know as to whom I’m planning to vote in the upcoming election. To that end I would like to share why I intend to vote for the Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson in the 2012 presidential election.

Let me stipulate two points at the outset. First, I am not writing as a “Rabbi” – that is I do not purport to represent my religion, denomination, synagogue, or any other religious organization with which I am affiliated. Second, this is not an endorsement.[1. Not that mine would make any difference.] I am not interested in advocacy nor do I intend to influence how people will vote, be they already decided or undecided. I am writing as a private relatively informed registered independent citizen with the intent to share a perspective. Nothing more, nothing less.

I suppose the first reason why one would vote for a candidate is that one agrees with his positions, and for the most part I do agree with the Libertarian ideology of limited government,[2. It’s important to stress “limited” does not mean “zero”] fiscal conservatism, social liberalism, and general freedom for individuals to make their own decisions and live with the consequences.[3. I am not about to defend the Libertarian ideology in general or from the Jewish vision of an ideal society. I will just say that I do not believe than any grand vision of what one considers a “just” or “moral” society can be legislated effectively, at least not with unjust or immoral unintended consequences. Anyone interested in my vision of an ethical Jewish society should please listen to my class series on Economics and Social Justice in Jewish Law.] I do disagree with Gary Johnson on matters of foreign policy which I find naive. I doubt anyone would agree 100% with any candidate, though I happen to be more aligned with Gary Johnson than any of the other candidates.

Still, my reasons for voting for Gary Johnson are not just ideological, but strategic. It is a near certainty that Barack Obama will carry New York State, in which case the votes of people like myself will have no impact on the results of the election.[4. Were I living in Ohio or Florida I would have a different evaluation of my vote.] The weight of a single vote on the electoral college varies state by state but each vote matters equally towards the popular tabulation.[5. Though due to the sheer number of votes cast, each individual vote is essentially negated in the margin of error] But while the popular vote does not determine the winner of the election, it can still have an impact on national politics.

Currently the US political discourse is defined exclusively by its two dominant political parties: Republican sand Democrats. Other parties are denied a seat at the debating table. As a practical matter this partisan exclusion is necessary to ensure non-fanatical parties or those controlled by crackpots. The sheer size of Republican and Democratic parties indicates that their positions, policies, and ideologies are considered legitimate by a significant subset of the American population. While both parties have their extremists, ideally their positions would be tempered by more moderate voices. From what I understand the threshold for this popular legitimacy is 5% of the popular vote.

Even if one does not agree completely with the Libertarian agenda, I believe it is important for them to to gain legitimacy in this country. A casual observer of US politics can easily see how adversarial our discourse has become. I believe that this is in part due to the binary nature of the two-party system; you’re either with one or against the other. To put it another way, many vote not in favor of one candidate but in opposition of another. In this system neither side needs to uphold its own views, but rather do so just a little be better than the other. Candidates do not need to convince voters, but only to scare them. A legitimate third party could very well force the political discourse back towards positions rather than personalities and perhaps compel a more productive rhetoric.

If course, this could be accomplished with the ascendancy of any of the so-called (and misnamed) “third-parties,” in which case why support Libertarianism? Aside from the practical matter that it already enjoys a great deal of popularity, in many ways it represents a moderation and synthesis of ideas currently popular in both the Democratic and Republican parties (though perhaps with more consistency). Ron Paul is perhaps the most prominent Libertarian, though he has demonstrated that he is not quite the one to lead this cultural revolution. In case you have not heard him directly, here is Gary Johnson’s appearance on The Daily Show.

In the words of our President, it’s time for a change.

A real change.