Lieberman--What Happened?

Senator Joseph Lieberman's political career peaked in the summer of 2000, when he accepted the Democratic nomination for Vice President of the United States. If only 600 or more voters in Florida would have backed Gore instead of Nader, Lieberman would have become the first Jewish Vice President, and would probably hold that office today. He would then be a leading contender for the 2008 Democratic nomination for President.

Instead, the Gore-Lieberman ticket was counted out in Florida, and the Connecticut senator lost the 2004 Democratic Presidential nomination to John Kerry. Now he has also lost the Democratic nomination for his own Senate seat, too, although he plans to run as an independent in the November election.

How and why did such a promising political career crash and burn?

No one realized it at the time, but the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks took Lieberman down along with the Twin Towers. The subsequent War on Terror, especially the invasion of Iraq, had the untintended effect of isolating Joe Lieberman from the mainstream of his party. Lieberman not only voted to authorize the war in Iraq (as did many other Democratic senators), but staunchly defended it since its inception. The Party has gone the other direction.

Iraq opened an opportunity for Howard Dean to mobilize the anti-war faction of the Democratic Party on his behalf early in the contest for the 2004 nomination. At the same, the war boosted the candidacy of Senator Kerry, a decorated veteran of the Vietnam War, whose military record contrasted sharply with that of President Bush, who served part-time in the Texas Air National Guard. Lieberman was "whip-sawed" between those Democrats who wanted a certified war hero and those who wanted an anti-war candidate. Joe Lieberman, alas, was not a veteran and lacked the looks and charisma of either Kerry or Senator John Edwards. On the campaign stump, he often came off as stiff and a bit self-righteous.

Had Iraq turned out better, perhaps most American troops would be home by now, and support for the War would not be a major issue. Instead, we are caught in painful quagmire: "staying the course" means more cost and casualties, withdrawing means a victory for terrorists. Were President Bush up for re-election now, instead of in 2004, he would probably lose, whether the opponent were Kerry, Edwards, or even Lieberman. For Joe, his relatively friendly relationship with Bush has effectively ruined his standing with fellow Democrats without producing any offsetting gains among Republicans or independents.

The Connecticut primary was a "Perfect Storm" for anti-war Democrats who wanted to dump Lieberman. First, they got a multi-millionaire liberal (not very common) named Ned Lamont to challenge the Senator. Most incumbent senators can easily raise enough money to swamp a challenger in a primary, but Lamont was able to neutralize the incumbency advantage with his personal wealth. Secondly, Connecticut has a "closed primary": only those who have previously registered as Democrats could vote in the Lamont-Lieberman race. Leftists were all registered as Democrats already, but independents and moderate Republicans (who might have preferred Lieberman) were excluded.

Now Joe Lieberman wants to run in the general election as an independent, although if elected he would join the Democratic caucus. If history is any guide, winning will be very difficult (1). More likely, he will draw enough votes from the Democratic line to give the Republican nominee Alan Schlesinger a narrow plurality and the Senate seat. I doubt that there are enough Lieberman-backers in the State to elect him without those who regularly vote straight Democratic.

Good luck, Joe, its been nice knowing you. "Zeit gezunt!"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) James Buckley was elected senator from New York in 1970 as the nominee of the Conservative Party. Bernard Sanders regularly wins his House seat representing the entire State of Vermont as an independent. I cannot think of anyone else who has won a seat in Congress in recent years without a major party nomination.

Attacking Israel: Then and Now

"They have said, ' Come, let us cut them off from being a nation, and the name of Israel shall be rembembred no more.'"
Psalm 83:5

"Death to Israel!"
Chant in the streets of Baghdad

"The more things change, the more they remain the same"
French adage

This past Thursday, August 3, Jews all over the world observed Tisha B'Av, the anniversary of the destructions of both Temples (Batei Mikdosh) and the end of Jewish sovreignty in the Land of Israel for two millenia. On this day, as on every other day for the past month, Hezbollah rockets fell on northern Israel.

The nations mentioned in the Psalm cited above (Moab, Amon, Yishmael, Philistia, Tzor, Assyria, etc) are long gone. Yet it is uncanny that the attitude of the nations bordering modern Israel are so similar to that quoted above, written nearly three thousand years ago.

The Muslim Arabs of today are far more similar religiously to the Jews than they are to the idol-worshipping Cannanite tribes that lost their land to the Israelites between the times of Joshua and David. Yet whenever they say that this Land has always been Arab, they are implying that Arabs are in some sense the descendants or successors of these ancient nations.

Just as Purim reminds us that Jews are not safe in exile, Tisha B'Av reminds us that Jews are also not safe in the Land of Israel. The two attempts to establish Jewish rule in the Land both ended in disaster. The rabbis attribute both disasters to the Jews' own failings: idol-worship (First Temple) and baseless hatred (Second Temple). Secular historians would argue that the Jews were not militarily strong enough to withstand the power of the great nations of those times: Babylonia and Rome, respectively. Arabs would argue that the Jews weren't even there .

The Prophets say that someday Moshiach ( the Messiah) will come and bring all Jews back to the Land of Israel, where the Third Temple will be built and peace will descend upon the whole earth. The Chief Rabbinate of the State of Israel composed a prayer which describes the State as "the beginning of the sowing of our Redemption." ( This view is opposed by the Satmar Chassidim, so this prayer was replaced around 1980 at Congregation Beth Jehudah with a Mi Shebarach for "residents of the Land of Israel and Jerusalem" that does not mention the State at all.)

The original hostility to the State of Israel on the part of Arab countries was based on Arab nationalism: the Arabs wanted the same land for an Arab state. However, over a period of about thirty years the main enemies holding this view (Egypt and Jordan) ultimately accepted the existence of Israel and made peace with it. Syria and Iraq, both under the rule of branches of the fanatically nationalistic Baath Party, never accepted Israel and maintained their hostility .

President Bush hoped that after the Baath regime in Iraq was deposed by an American-led force in 2003, a democratic Iraq would become a force for peace and stability in the Middle East. No such luck. Although most Iraqis still hate Israel , the country is so messed-up that it is no longer a threat to any other nation, at least for now.

At the very time that Arab nationalism was fading, Islamic zealotry was fueled by the revolution in Iran. Both Hamas and Hezbollah lust to destroy Israel today, not because of a political or territorial dispute, but because they consider the very existence of a Jewish state (whatever its size or borders) on the Arabian Penninsula to be an affront to Islam. ( Muhammad turned against the Jews of his time when they did not accept his prophecies, and the Quran contains many verses condemning them.) Unlike disputes over land and political power, those grounded in religion are not susceptible to solutions by concessions and compromise.

For this reason, most world leaders, whose policies are not based upon religious convictions (1), fail to grasp the intractable nature of the present Middle East conflict. Secular Israelis, too, are baffled by the unremitting hostility of Islamic fanatics; devoutly religious people, both Christian and Jewish, are better prepared to understand this type of motivation. (2)

Although Hezbollah cannot defeat Israel militarily, the war it started (with both arms and advice from Iran) has already been a success for the terrorist group. Hezbollah rockets have killed and maimed Jews, hurt Israel economically, provoked a response that turned much of the world against Israel, and won over huge masses of the Arab peoples to its side. Since Hezbollah is imbued with the spirit of martyrdom, nothing Israel can do to its warriors could offset the enormous gains for the group noted above.

Since there is no way to convert, appease, or deter Muslim fanatics such as members of Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, all Israel can do is kill them and destroy their weapons. There will be no Nobel Peace Prizes awarded for doing this. The only reward Israelis can hope for in this conflict is survival.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(1) George W Bush is apparently an exception to this rule, which is why some of his attitudes and policies puzzle both foreign leaders and some of his own subordinates. His resolute support for Israel, for instance, springs from his Christian faith.

(2) When Christianity was the age Islam is now (about 1,400 years), Christians were every bit as intolerant and violent toward Jews, Muslims, and even other Christians with differing views as the jihadists are now. Think Crusades.