Leading American Jewish groups are asking the Iowa Democratic and Republican parties to change the 2010 causes to avoid Shabbat. That’s a mistake as it’s not necessary.

Last week, major national Jewish groups representing Orthodox, Conservative, Reform and Reconstructionist Jews, as well as the National Jewish Democratic Council and the Republican Jewish Coalition sent a letter to the political parties opposing the caucus. The letter was coordinated by the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, the umbrella group for community relations councils, including the Baltimore Jewish Council.

The caucus is scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday, January 23, 2010, which would preclude Shabbat observant Jews from participating.

However, in an era of multiple forms of voting, this request seems unnecessary. While it is nice to be sensitive to everyone’s every needs, it also is not realistic. American Jews now represent less than two percent of the U.S. population. Our needs can be taken care of with early voting, including electronic voting. The issue should be that those votes will then be calculated into caucus results.

However, Iowa does not currently allow for such early voting in caucuses. Changing that is where Jewish efforts should be directed. In doing that, the combined Jewish groups will not only bring focus on Iowa’s multi-cultural community, but bring positive attention to the state’s Jewish community as well. 

Irving Kristol, the “godfather of the neo-conservative movement,” died Friday, Sept. 18 at age 89. The life story of the son of non-observant Eastern European Jewish immigrants reveals how American Jews continue to openly, confidently shape the broader society without retribution.

If it was anything, Kristol’s intellectual journey was fascinating. Praised in his final decades as an icon of the intellectual right, in his earlier years he was a hardcore leftist. Back in 1940, as a City College of New York student he was part of a Trotskyite communist sect that morphed into the New York Intellectuals. In 1973, disenchanted with the Democratic Party’s left-wing, he coined with Michael Harrington the term “neo-conservatism.”

Along the way, Kristol’s many positions of influence included being Managing Editor of the American Jewish Committee’s Commentary magazine (1947-1952), of which he was a lifelong contributor. From 1965 to 2002 he was the co-founder and co-editor of Public Interest. From 1985 to 2002 he was the founder and publisher of The National Interest. He also authored four books, including the 1978 “Two Cheers for Capitalism.”

Now I’m a regular reader of Commentary. I have always found Kristol’s essays intelligent, even though I’d say I only agreed with about half of his conclusions. Still, he made you think about your positions – and he made me reconsider several of mine. (That’s far more than I can say for his son Bill at the Weekly Standard, who I just don’t think has anywhere near the intellectual clout and is much more of a political hack.)

Over the years, Irving Kristol’s choice quotes included:

• “A neo-conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality.” (Nu, Irving, ever hear of self-defense classes?)

• “The danger facing American Jews today is not that Christians want to persecute them but that Christians want to marry them.” (I couldn’t agree more. We’re not being done in by anti-Semitism in this country, but by our inability to convince people that Jewish living is worthy of perpetuating.)

• “A liberal is a person who sees a 14-year-old girl performing live sex acts onstage and wonders if she’s being paid the minimum wage.” (As offensive as that is to some, it has to make you chuckle a little.)

Whatever his perspective, Kristol’s essays had impact, even as the vast majority of American Jews defied his hopes by voting with the Democratic Party.

Regardless, Kristol gave right-leaning American Jews an intellectual comfort in GOP circles. And unlike so many in the political arena today, he was a principled gentleman more interested in stoking ideas than anger. In short, he left an indisputable imprint on the American Jewish experience while shaping the national debate as well. 

It’s never fun when you are invited to a party that you have to attend and you know that a despised fiend will be given the floor. Should you stay or should you go? The World Jewish Congress and other groups are urging the latter. That is, they want diplomats to boycott the September 23 U.N. General Assembly address of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who is fresh off a contested reelection bid in which an unknown number of protestors were beaten and killed in the streets by his henchmen.

Nonetheless, U.N. rules clearly declare that as a head of state the ruler must be admitted to the world body and allowed to address it if desired.

Few readers need detailed reminders of Mr. Ahmadinejad’s pathological hatred of the State of Israel, the United States and freedom in general. Nor are they likely oblivious to his overt interest in making Iran a nuclear power.

While the Iranians say they are pursuing nuclear energy for domestic energy consumption, their years-long refusal of International Atomic Energy Agency inspections has led numerous governments to conclude that they are well-engaged in a nuclear weapons program. When one combines that with Iran’s long-time support for terrorist groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah (which until 911 had killed more Americans than any other terrorist group – remember the Marine barracks bombing in Lebanon?), and Mr. Ahmedinejad’s pledge to wipe out the state of Israel, the concern is palpable.

That noted, diplomats should not walk out of the U.N. hall when the Iranian president takes to the rostrum. Rather, they should simply stand and turn their backs on him. Further, as he speaks they should refrain from any applause or cat-calling. Let him and the world see that he is being shunned for what he is – a pariah.

Meanwhile, let us work to ensure that if the Iranian leader does make other public appearances, that he is met at every turn with a broad coalition of those opposed to his venomous thoughts and actions. He might spoil the mood of the party for all, but that does not mean that he should have a good time doing it.

Talk about letting the fox into the henhouse. A leading candidate to be the next head of the U.N.’s Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) is Egyptian Minister of Culture Farouk Hosni. UNESCO’s 58 member states were set to vote on their next leader on Thursday, Sept. 17 in Paris.

For the record, Mr. Hosni, according to the Anti-Defamation League documents, not only has a history of rejecting cultural relations with the State of Israel, but once even advocated the burning of Hebrew books in Egyptian libraries. At one point, he reportedly said, “I’d burn Israeli books myself if I found any in libraries in Egypt.” He later clarified that statement, saying it was made in anger and not intended literally. OK, then what actually was intended? That he merely hated Israel but would not act on it?

Now there’s a great role model for Arab youth. With cultural advocates like these, who needs books in the first place?

Likewise, he reportedly refused to permit Israeli participation in major Egyptian cultural events, such as the annual Cairo Book Fair and Film Festival.

But it’s not Jews or Israelis that are the Egyptian official’s sole targets. “His role in banning books from the Cairo Book Fair, films from the Alexandria Film Festival, and television shows from being broadcast has come under fire from artists, journalists and intellectuals from Egypt and around the world,” according to ADL officials.

Thus, one is left to conclude that building people-to-people ties to promote peace between Arabs and Jews – long a desired effort for those seeking to create long-term positive relations – is not even an option for Mr. Hosni.

How many times can you say no while hinting at yes? It’s a question raised in the latest announcement by the Vatican that it will soon remind some renegade co-religionists that blatant anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial just might not be the image the Church wants to project in this new century.

That’s part of what comes to mind with the news that Pope Benedict XVI will in upcoming doctrinal talks with the traditionalist Society of Saint Pius X (SSPX) insist that respect for Judaism is mandatory for being readmitted into the Catholic fold. Pius X was the early 20th century pope (1903-1915) who was, shall we say, doctrinaire in his adherence to the strictest application of traditional Catholic teachings.

But the problems with SSPX are even more fundamental than the obscene denial of humanity’s most documented mass crime. The group rejects the landmark 1964 Vatican II Council, which among other things finally, formally absolved Jews from the murder of Jesus of Nazareth – something that had sparked many centuries of bloody anti-Semitism.

This all also reveals the baffling layers of process in the Church, something which confuses outsiders and is often poorly explained by insiders. Indeed, last year the pope lifted the excommunication decree against the Society of Pius X. The group included the British-born Bishop Richard Williamson, a patent and unrepentant Holocaust denier.

So members of the group – including Bishop Williamson – were no longer excommunicated, but not yet readmitted to the Church. In Jewish terms, that seems kind of like being allowed to wait in the hallway during Rosh Hashanah services so that you can hear what’s going on, but being prevented from entering from one of those pesky ushers.

Despite the Vatican’s explanations then and now as to what all this means, one cannot deny that that the pope has already removed the stigma of belonging to the SSPX without any concessions from its leadership.

It is certainly the Benedict’s business as to whom he wants to be in good standing in the eyes of the Church. However, when it comes to ambiguity with Holocaust deniers, he cannot expect to escape a torrent of criticism from those who are simply at a loss of comprehension about understanding such policies. 

Even in an era of $30 billion here and there for various industry bailouts, $20 million still goes a long way. That’s all the more so for a relatively small population that is under-employed, has inadequate schools and needs more food. With that in mind, one has to wonder what the wonks at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are thinking these days with their allocations to a West Bank project.

The Washington-funded operation, according to the Israeli newspaper Yediot Acharonot, has embarked on a $20 million project to fund the replacement of road signs in the area with ones in Arabic. The problem – for the Palestinians – is that the current ones are in Hebrew, although when appropriate some also have Arabic and English. Mind you, most of the ones only in Hebrew point toward Jewish settlements. Besides, many West Bank Arabs read some Hebrew, which they have been exposed to all of their lives.

The official reason for this project is that USAID wants to help the Palestinians prepare for statehood. That in itself is a dangerous statement of intentions. One day, and perhaps sooner than some think, a Palestinian state will come into being. However, new road signs now will not even remotely advance the cause and it’s not USAID’s role to get ahead of the peace process. Rather, Palestinian political hopes will be achieved at the negotiating table when Arab rejectionists of the Jewish state are finally under control.

Besides, what’s wrong with some Hebrew road signs in the West Bank? After all, most of the markers in pre-1967 Israel are in Hebrew, Arabic and English. In fact, the first two are the state’s official languages. One wonders if the Palestinians would simply outlaw Hebrew were they to gain an independent state.

That said, any semblance of Israeli-Palestinian peace will include economic cooperation, which will be enhanced by clear road signage. It may seem like a minor detail, but it speaks loudly about future possibilities and intentions.
Instead of wasting money on irrelevant trappings of potential statehood, let’s pay attention to helping Palestinians promote democracy and tolerance, let alone building schools and clinics.