George Soros on AIPAC

George Soros has written an excellent article in the New York Review of Books, "On Israel, America and AIPAC." He calls on Israel and the US to deal with Hamas. He says:

AIPAC's mission is to ensure American support for Israel but in recent years it has overreached itself. It became closely allied with the neocons and was an enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq. It actively lobbied for the confirmation of John Bolton as US ambassador to the United Nations. It continues to oppose any dialogue with a Palestinian government that includes Hamas. More recently, it was among the pressure groups that prevailed upon the Democratic House leadership to drop the requirement that the President obtain congressional approval before taking military action against Iran. AIPAC under its current leadership has clearly exceeded its mission, and far from guaranteeing Israel's existence, has endangered it.

He takes on the American Jewish Committee's attacks on critics of Israel, which were praised by Bill Clinton, as I noted earlier. On behalf of the AJC, Alvin Rosenfeld attacks as anti-Semites Jews such as Tony Judt and Richard Cohen, and gentiles as well. Soros says:

Whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC's influence is highly doubtful. Any politician who dares to expose AIPAC's influence would incur its wrath; so very few can be expected to do so. It is up to the American Jewish community itself to rein in the organization that claims to represent it. But this is not possible without first disposing of the most insidious argument put forward by the defenders of the current policies: that the critics of Israel's policies of occupation, control, and repression on the West Bank and in East Jerusalem and Gaza engender anti-Semitism.

The opposite is the case. One of the myths propagated by the enemies of Israel is that there is an all-powerful Zionist conspiracy. That is a false accusation. Nevertheless, that AIPAC has been so successful in suppressing criticism has lent some credence to such false beliefs. Demolishing the wall of silence that has protected AIPAC would help lay them to rest. A debate within the Jewish community, instead of fomenting anti-Semitism, would only help diminish it.

Hooray for Soros! I don't know that it will have much effect. It's interesting that Bill Clinton is already undermining Soros, who has been one of the main benefactors of the Democratic Party through Move-On.org and other contributions. So, Soros' concern about whether the Democratic Party can liberate itself from AIPAC is well founded.

AIPAC supporters are already returning fire, see for example this article in Forward.

Bill Clinton Attacks Jimmy Carter for Jew Money

The following is from an email from the AJC:

President Clinton Thanks AJC for Efforts on New Carter Book

Former President Bill Clinton, in a handwritten letter to AJC Executive Director David Harris, voiced appreciation for his efforts to expose the inaccuracies in President Jimmy Carter’s book on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Thanks so much for your articles about President Carter’s book. I don’t know where his information (or conclusions) came from …” said Clinton. “I’m grateful.”

Normally, one ex-President does not attack another, but apparently Bill and Hillary need money, and Jews have a lot of it. Bill is a smart guy, but he has the morals of a snake. His successor is stupid and has no morals at all. Poor America!

Jimmy Carter was intelligent and had morals. He would not negotiate for hostages. His undoing was that Ronald Reagan, unlike Carter, was willing to deal with Iran to get the hostages back and win the election. (Remember Iran-Contra?) Carter chose principle over being re-elected. And although he negotiated the Camp David accords, the Jews hate him because he is even-handed. Just like they hate Franklin Roosevelt, who liberated the surviving Jews from the concentration camps, because he was not willing to kill more Christians to save the Jews earlier. No one is likely to call Clinton or Bush even-handed in dealing with Israel and the Jews. Elliot Abrams, who was convicted of a felony for Iran-Contra, is one of Bush's senior national security advisers on the NSC.

Israel's Answer to Kristof

The Jerusalem Post has an op-ed replying to Nicholas Kristof's column on Israel. The bottom line is that Israel wants peace, but nobody else does. Sure, Israel wants peace if you call "peace" unconditional surrender by everybody else in the region. Israel wants peace about as much as Osama bin Laden does. Call a spade a spade! Israel hates all of its neighbors. It's not interested in peace.

Reagan's Courage Or Lack Thereof

Reading over VP Cheney's speech to AIPAC, I noticed that he mentioned the terrorist attack in Beirut in 1983 that killed 241 Marines. As he said, the US under Reagan withdrew from Beirut -- pulled out immediately; it did not "stay the course." That certainly qualifies as cowardice under today's definition by the Republicans of what Iraq withdrawal means. Yet, today Reagan is praised as a courageous leader who defeated Communism. Which is it? Is Reagan a courageous leader (in Europe) or a coward (in the Middle East)?

The Economist on AIPAC

The Economist magazine reports on the recent AIPAC meeting. AIPAC got every politician who counts to come kiss its feet. Cheney was particularly prominent in paying obeisance. Its violently right wing attitudes opposing Middle East peace on any basis expect complete surrender to Israel are its most identifiable characteristic, but The Economist points out that many American Jews are considerably less hawkish. And as I've mentioned earlier, many Israelis are less hawkish. Nevertheless, it says this is the best of times and the worst of times for AIPAC. Because of AIPAC's predominant position in Washington, it appears to be the spokesman for all American Jews. The article says that George Soros is considering starting up a liberal counterpoint organization to AIPAC, but so far he hasn't done so. He has written an excellent article in the Financial Times calling on the US and Israel to deal with Hamas. The Economist says:

The lobbyists had every reason to feel proud of their work. Congress has more Jewish members than ever before: 30 in the House and a remarkable 13 in the Senate. (There are now more Jews in Congress than Episcopalians.) Both parties are competing with each other to be the “soundest” on Israel. About two-thirds of Americans hold a favourable view of the place.

Yet they have reason to feel a bit nervous, too. The Iraq debacle has produced a fierce backlash against pro-war hawks, of which AIPAC was certainly one. It has also encouraged serious people to ask awkward questions about America's alliance with Israel. And a growing number of people want to push against AIPAC. One pressure group, the Council for the National Interest—run by two retired congressmen, Paul Findley, a Republican, and James Abourezk, a Democrat—even bills itself as the anti-AIPAC. The Leviathan may be mightier than ever, but there are more and more Captain Ahabs trying to get their harpoons in....

But the growing activism of liberal Jewish groups underlines a worrying fact for AIPAC: most Jews are fairly left-wing. Fully 77% of them think that the Iraq war was a mistake compared with 52% of all Americans. Eighty-seven per cent of Jews voted for the Democrats in 2006, and all but four of the Jews in Congress are Democrats.

An even bigger threat to AIPAC comes from the general climate of opinion. It is suddenly becoming possible for serious people—politicians and policymakers as well as academics—to ask hard questions about America's relationship with Israel. Is America pursuing its own interests in the Middle East, or Israel's? Should America tie itself so closely to the Israeli government's policies or should it forge other alliances?

Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former national security adviser, worries that America is seen in the Middle East as “acting increasingly on behalf of Israel”. Condoleezza Rice, the secretary of state, has compared the situation in Palestine to segregation, and argued that there could “be no greater legacy for America than to help bring into being a Palestinian state”. Philip Zelikow, her former counsellor, argues, in diplomatic language, that the only way to create a viable coalition against terrorists that includes Europeans, moderate Arabs and Israelis, is a “sense that Arab-Israeli issues are being addressed”.

Cowardice on Israel

Nicholas Kristof's column in yesterday's NYT was right. American politicians avoid criticism of Israel, no matter what Israel does. He correctly touts Jordanian King Abdullah's speech to the US Congress. And he correctly points out that there is much more criticism of Israeli policies in Israel than there is in the US. Kristof said:

One reason for the void is that American politicians have learned to muzzle themselves. In the run-up to the 2004 Democratic primaries, Howard Dean said he favored an “even-handed role” for the U.S. — and was blasted for being hostile to Israel. Likewise, Barack Obama has been scolded for daring to say: “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.” In contrast, Hillary Rodham Clinton has safely refused to show an inch of daylight between herself and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.

A second reason may be that American politicians just don’t get it. King Abdullah of Jordan spoke to Congress this month and observed: “The wellspring of regional division, the source of resentment and frustration far beyond, is the denial of justice and peace in Palestine.” Though widely criticized, King Abdullah was exactly right: from Morocco to Yemen to Sudan, the Palestinian cause arouses ordinary people in coffee shops more than almost anything else.

He points out that last year while Palestinians killed 17 Israelis, of whom one was a child, the Israelis killed 660 Palestinians, of whom 141 were children.

It's ironic that Americans, especially American politicians who fear AIPAC, are so much more conservative in their support for oppresive Israeli policies than Israelis are themselves.

Too Bad Kahlid Sheik Mohammed Didn't Confess with Constitutional Protections

It's too bad that Khalid Sheik Mohammed confessed under the undemocratic conditions in Guantanamo. It makes the confession less believable and deniable by those who don't want to believe it, although it probably is true, at least part of it. The fact that he confessed to almost everything bad that's happened in the last 10 years are so, seems questionable, but he probably did at least some of them. The confessions to the ones he didn't do are probably due to torture, which makes you confess to almost anything whether you did it or not, or due to the fact that he wants to take the heat off of those who actually planned the other attacks.

In any case, the administration would have greatly aided its case in the court of world opinion by adhering to the rule of law in the treatment of its prisoners.

Listen to King Abdullah

King Abdullah of Jordan addressed a joint session of Congress and appeared on the PBS Newshour. He made an eloquent plea for peace in the Middle East, which he said should start with the Israel-Palestine issue. Here's the comment by James Zogby on the Huffington Post; not surprisingly Zogby liked the speech.

Review of Jimmy Carter Book on Israel

See this review of Jimmy Carter's book on Israel from the New York Review of Books.

Israel Gets More Foreign Aid from the US than the Continent of South America

Earlier I noted that the 2008 foreign aid budget for Israel, which Tom Friedman says has one of the strongest economies in the world, was about $2.4 billion. This USA Today article dealing with Bush's trip to South America says that aid for all Western Hemisphere countries, where tens of millions of people live in poverty, is slated to be $1.45 billion for 2008, cut from $1.6 billion this year.

Rice Mismanages Relationship with Russia

Despite Robert Gates' protestation in Munich that "One cold war is quite enough," we seem on the verge of a second one. Gates' remarked were prompted by Putin's speech in Munich, including statements such as, "Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force - military force - in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts." And "We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law."

So how did Condi Rice let us get into this mess? She made her career, academically and politically, as an expert on the Soviet Union. If there is one relationship she should be able to manage, it's the one with Russia. Yet, we stay silent while Russia is straying far from the democratic ideals we once saw taking root there, and it wins international sympathy when it accuses the US of failing to respect international law. What's wrong with this picture?

When Bush looked into Putin's heart and saw a good man, did he consult Condi? I think Condi, based on her study of the old Soviet Union, looks at Putin and sees another Stalin or Brezhnev. These divergent view have produced stalemate, while the Pentagon coasting along on orders from its old boss, Rumsfeld, is planning anti-ballistic missile (ABM) sites in Poland and Czech. Interestingly, one of Bush's first affronts to international law was his decision to unilaterally leave the ABM treaty. A better man would have proposed to renegotiate it, not just dump it. The ABM treaty was intended to avoid the very problems now straining the US-Russian relationship. Do something, Condi!

For a different take, but one which doesn't really blame anybody much, see this Washington Post column by Fred Hiatt.

Giuliani & Vietnam

Giuliani seems to be leading the polls as the leading Republican candidate for President. Much of the enthusiasm for him seems to come from people who want a strong leader on national defense, and like him because of his actions during 9/11. As noted below, most of his support probably comes from fellow draft dodgers who feel guilty about avoiding the draft during Vietnam.

As a Vietnam veteran, I'm not happy about people who avoided the draft being touted as strong leaders on national security. Look at the mess we got with George Bush II (& Cheney) who ran on exactly that basis. This article links to several other articles about how Giuliani avoided the draft. I suspect that if he pushes 9/11 too hard, it will come back to haunt him; he talked a good game, but he didn't really do much. The World Trade Center is still basically just a hole in the ground. That may not be Giuliani's fault, but he didn't solve the problem either. Casualties of 9/11 got Federal money; I don't know that New York City did much for them. We'll see how it plays.

The strength of Giuliani's campaign has got to be embarrassing to Bush because the main reason that Giuliani gets so much credit for his performance after 9/11 was that Bush and Cheney were essentially missing in action immediately after the attacks.

Obama's Speech to AIPAC

Here's a link to Obama's speech to AIPAC. I haven't read it, yet, but I'm guessing it's better than a lot of Republicans' speeches to AIPAC, but probably not as tough on Israel as I would like. Can't offend those big contributors!

Walter Reed No Surprise

As a Vietnam veteran, I'm not surprised at what happened at Walter Reed Hospital. This country has not respected its veterans since World War II. The difference between World War II and subsequent wars is that almost everybody served in WW II, but fewer and fewer served in subsequent wars. The Korean War was close enough in time to WW II that some of the same respect carried over to Korean veterans, but they did not rate the "Greatest Generation" profusion of thanks that the WW II vets got. Of course, many Korean vets, like my father, were also WW II vets.

In essence, WW II vets looked out for each other. There were enough of them to dominate politics, business, and most other sectors of local and national life. Plus the war had come close enough to home, beginning in Hawaii and affecting every household with rationing, defense jobs, and other direct impacts, so that no one could ignore it, even if they didn't fight. Korea was less intrusive; Vietnam even less, and Iraq, with no draft, almost not at all. How many households today are making significant sacrifices because of Iraq? Outside of military families, not many. And those profiting the most -- Halliburton, and other unscrupulous defense contractors -- seem to represent the very worst of America.

While Vietnam vets were off in Asia, their draft avoiding cohorts were getting ahead in life. But, especially because of avoiding the draft, they felt guilty about it, and therefore tended to do whatever they could to bring down the returning veterans, such as calling them war criminals, baby killers, etc. The draft dodgers tried to make the returning veterans into second class citizens, in order to make themselves feel better about not serving. This was especially harmful to the lower class soldiers, often poor and black, who came back and found it harder to get jobs and re-integrate into society. When I was working at the State Department in Washington, I was struck by the fact that there were probably more Vietnam vets sleeping on the steam grates outside of the State Department than there were working inside of the building.

Iraq is probably somewhat better for the veterans because there is no draft. Thus, their cohorts can feel less guilty about not fighting there, especially if they go around saying they support the troops. Saying they support the troops has the additional benefit of encouraging someone else (besides them) to go fight in Iraq. So, Iraqi veterans are probably treated somewhat better than Vietnam veterans were, despite abuses like Abu Ghraib and the various murders and rapes currently under investigation, which probably surpass the atrocities committed in Vietnam. These things happen; war is hell, but compared to Vietnam, the Iraqi vets pretty much get a pass in the atrocity department. Again, partly because to reduce these atrocities, you need better quality troops, college educated from good families, exactly the type that are avoiding going. But despite all the talk about supporting the troops, Americans really don't. They go on about their lives. Hence, the atrocities at Walter Reed. And Iraqi vets should not think that once the war is over, having "veteran" on their resume will help them get a job; it will probably work against them.

Aid to Israel

In his February 28 column in the NYT, Tom Friedman wrote about Israel:

''The economy is blooming, growing in the last quarter of 2006 by almost 8%,'' said Sever Plocker of the Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, who is one of Israel's top economics writers. ''Foreign direct investment is flowing in at unprecedented rate -- $13.4 billion in 2006. The high-tech sector exports are approaching $18 billion, and the stock exchange is at an all-time high. The shekel is stronger than ever, the inflation nonexistent. Interest rates are lower than in U.S. or Britain, the budget deficit less than 1% of G.D.P., and the balance of payments is positive, which means Israel achieved its economic independence and is actually a net creditor to the rest of the world.

''In short, we never had it so good in the economy.''

Yossi Vardi, one of the founding fathers of Israel's high-tech industry, told me that in the last month alone, four start-ups that he was an investor in were sold: one to Cisco, one Microsoft, and two to Israeli companies. ''In the last nine months I've probably invested in at least nine new companies,'' added Mr. Vardi, all started by ''kids 25 to 35 years old.''

Meanwhile, the US continues to send billions in "foreign assistance" to Israel, which according to Tom Friedman has one of the most vibrant economies in the world. The following is from a Congressional Research Service report on Israel (page 18):

Israel has been the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid since 1976. In 1998, Israeli, congressional, and Administration officials agreed to reduce U.S. $1.2 billion in Economic Support Funds (ESF) to zero over ten years, while increasing Foreign Military Financing (FMF) from $1.8 billion to $2.4 billion. The process began in FY1999, with P.L. 105-277, October 21, 1998. Separately from the scheduled ESF cuts, Israeli has received an extra $1.2 billion to fund implementation of the Wye agreement (part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process) in FY2000, $200 million in anti-terror assistance in FY2002, and $1 billion in FMF in the supplemental appropriations bill for FY2003. P.L. 109-102, November 14, 2005, the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, 2006, provided $240 million in ESF, $2.28 billion in FMF, and $40 million for the settlement of migrants to Israel. H.R. 5522, the Foreign Operations Appropriations bill, FY2007, passed in the House on June 9, 2006, appropriates $120 million in ESF, $40 million for migration and refugee assistance, and $2.34 billion in FMF (of which $610 million may be spent for defense acquisitions in Israel), for Israel. The Senate has not yet passed a bill....

Congress has legislated other special provisions regarding aid to Israel. Since the 1980s, ESF and FMF have been provided as all grant cash transfers, not designated for particular projects, and have been transferred as a lump sum in the first month of the fiscal year, instead of in periodic increments. Israel is allowed to spend about one-quarter of the military aid for the procurement in Israel of defense articles and services, including research and development, rather than in the United States. Finally, to help Israel out of its economic slump, P.L. 108-11, April 16, 2003, provided $9 billion in loan guarantees over three years, use of which has since been extended to 2008 and may be extended further. As of September 2006, $4.5 billion of the guarantees remain unexpended.

According to State Department budget documents, for 2008 the budget requested $2.4 billion in Foreign Military Financing (FMF) for Israel out of a total budget of $4.536 billion, or about 53% of all of this assistance for the entire world. On the other hand, the budget includes no funds for Israel from the Economic Support Fund, which also totals over $4 billion worldwide.

Names from the Past

Larry Pezzullo, the subject of this book by his son Ralph, worked in the same suite of offices I worked in when I was working on the Brazil desk early in my State Department career. I think he was preparing to go to Uruguay as ambassador.

Chas Freeman, who was DCM (#2) at the embassy in Bangkok when I was assigned there, and went on to be ambassador to Saudi Arabia among other things, has written several articles;
--A talk to new members of Congress entitled, "National Security in the Age of Terrorism," and
--A series of articles on "Diplomacy and Empire."

Terri Jones and her husband David have written an article on global warming, "The Zen of Global Warming." I worked with Terri in the State Department's OES (Oceans, Environment and Science) bureau in the early 1990's.

No Jewish Stereotype

On the same day, the New York Times ran a story about how a Jewish family running a junk business in Michigan is educating and broadening the vision of the Protestants managing the business for them, and this IPS article appeared on the internet about how Elliot Abrams is controlling US foreign policy according to Israel's dictates.

The people who actually started the Iraq war were all Anglo Protestants, as far as I know: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Franks, Powell. But behind them, pushing hard were many Jews: Wolfowitz, Feith, Libby, Perle, Adelman, Kristol, Abrams, and others.

The problem is that the Jews appear to reap benefits for Israel, which calls into question their loyalty to the US. Did they want this war because it was good for America or for Israel? Do they believe that America's best interests are always the same as Israel's? Bush's motives, of course, are questionable: Did he take Baghdad and capture Hussein to show up his father? If so, it was his own hangup; he wasn't doing another country's bidding.

Jews can be a power for good when they have a broader vision of the world, but many of those in power in America seem to have a vision that puts Israel first. Sadly the state of Israel has distorted the role of Jews in America. The fact that Israel seems to be more and more corrupt and unjust, both internally and in its foreign affairs, makes this Israel-first policy more harmful to America's image abroad. Israeli officials are on trial for rape and various types of corruption. It's not a state that I would want to be associated with, but Bush, perhaps under Jewish pressure, has remade the US more and more in the image of Israel, instituting torture, violation of human rights, privacy, etc. On the other hand, other Jews -- Senator Feingold for example -- are in the forefront of the movement to protect citizens from these affronts.

I object that Jews do not appear to be pulling their weight in the war in Iraq, unlike World War II, where they did. But in general the war in Iraq is being fought by poor people from small, rural towns, where there aren't many Jews. Wealthy, big city dwellers aren't fighting the war, whether they are Jewish or Christian.

Religion of Veterans

This information about the religion of military service members in 2001 comes from the Population Bulletin for December 2004, page 25. It states that "Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are underrepresented in the military relative to their share of the civilian population."

Religion

When sociologist Morris Janowitz
reported on the social origins of soldiers
in 1960, he was able to identify
general patterns and trends in their
religious affiliation, albeit from fairly
poor data. He found an overwhelmingly
Protestant majority, disproportionately
Episcopalian, but with an
increasing representation of Catholics
and a small percentage of Jews. Soldiers
were less likely to be Catholic
than the general public, but the military
reflected the general range of
religious diversity in America.33
While Janowitz was writing about
the conscription-era military and his
data on religion were weak relative to
other variables, his findings provide a
baseline for studying the religious
affiliation of today’s volunteer military.
There are few comprehensive
statistics on religious affiliation in the
civilian population, in part because
the principle of separation of church
and state precludes federal statistical
programs, such as the decennial census
and current population surveys,
from collecting data on religion. We
do know the civilian American population
has been moving away from
the traditional Christian religions and
toward other religious groups or
eschewing any religious affiliation.34
This latter trend is particularly pronounced
among young adults, exactly
the age groups most likely to enter
the military. In general, the armed
forces show lower religious affiliation
than the civilian population, even
among civilians ages 20 to 39 (see
Table 5). A larger share of military
than civilians reported they are Christians
but are not Roman Catholic/
Eastern Orthodox or Protestant, or
do not specify a denomination. This
category includes such Christian
groups as Mormons, Seventh Day
Adventists, and Jehovah’s Witnesses,
as well as the Christian and Missionary
Alliance, Church of God, Seventh
Day Adventist, and Assemblies of
God. Smaller Protestant groups have
been increasing since the 1960s,
while the older, larger Protestant
denominations such as Presbyterians,
Episcopalians, Lutherans, and
Methodists have declined. But religious
affiliation data are often inconsistent
because of the different ways
the data were collected and analyzed:
Religious affiliation for military personnel
is recorded regularly by the
Department of Defense, while religious
data for civilians is obtained
from surveys such as the results from
the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS)
conducted by the National Opinion
Research Center reported in Table 5.
About one-quarter of the American
population considers itself to be
Roman Catholic, according to the
GSS survey. Catholics are slightly
underrepresented in the armed
forces, as are almost all other traditional
religions.
There have been indications of
increasing religious diversity in the
armed forces, including growing
numbers of Muslims.35 However,
Jews, Buddhists, and Muslims are
underrepresented in the military relative
to their share of the civilian
population. The number of American
military personnel who claimed to be
atheists or to have no religion was
slightly higher than the GSS estimate
for civilians ages 20 to 39, the age
range for about 80 percent of military
personnel. About 11 percent of military
personnel did not provide religious
affiliation data or claimed affiliation
with other religions, almost
four times as high as the GSS data for
the 20-to-39-year-olds. Other recent
surveys also have reported greater
identification with no religion or
other nontraditional religions than
the GSS, but results vary greatly
depending on how data are collected.
Recent data suggest that military personnel
generally have a lower affiliation
with mainstream religious
groups than the general population."

Jews Served in Greater Numbers in World War II

Although the above article indicates that Jews currently serve in the military in numbers smaller than their general share of the American population, they appear to have served in greater numbers in World War II.

A Jewish publication, JewishJournal.com, states that Jews served in World War II in greater numbers than their portion of the general population. The article says:

"Approximately 550,000 Jewish Americans served in the armed forces during World War II, about 4.23 percent of the total number of troops. Both Roosevelt and General Douglas MacArthur praised their bravery specifically. During the war, 52,000 Jewish soldiers received an award or decoration of some kind and 11,000 were killed."

Another article says:

"When the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, and the United States declared war on Japan and Germany, American Jewish men and women responded to their country's call for the armed forces. More than 550,000 served in the Armed Forces of the United States during World War II. About 11,000 were killed and more than 40,000 were wounded. There were three recipients of the Congressional Medal of Honor, 157 received the Distinguished Service Medal and Crosses, which included Navy Crosses, and 1,600 were awarded the Silver Star. About 50,242 other decorations. citations and awards were given to Jewish heroes for a total of 52,000 decorations.

"Jews were 3.3 percent of the total American population but they were 4.23 percent of the Armed Forces. About 60 percent of all Jewish physicians in the United States under 45 years of age were in service uniforms."

From a JTA article about Jewish veterans buried in Arlington Cemetery:

"Poch, a conference planner who has made it his hobby -- and mission -- to chronicle the cemetery's Jews, has cataloged the location and history of the 2,500 Jewish dead buried at Arlington.
"Poch, who twice crisscrossed the cemetery's 250,000 graves looking for Jewish veterans, frequently returns to the cemetery with interested Jewish tourists.
"For Poch, who performed two years of non-active, stateside duty during the 1960s, this has become an imperative.
"'There's a myth that Jews don't fight and don't serve,' he said during a recent visit to the cemetery.
"'I want to know who these people were,' he said, pointing to one of many graves he has catalogued."

It's not scientific,but 2,500 Jewish graves of 250,000 total Arlington graves is only 1%, half of the 2% of the population that is Jewish.

However, a page on the Arlington Cemetery web site says there are 1996 Jewish veterans buried there; the other 500 or so are apparently family members of veterans. More than 300,000 people are buried at Arlington, according to the web site. Again, it looks like less than the 2% of the general population.

Another Jewish web site lists 1,633 Jewish veterans of World War II buried in American cemeteries overseas run by the American Battle Monuments Commission, and 519 veterans of World War I. The Commission says its cemeteries hold about 125,000 total war dead. This would be almost the 2% general Jewish population (about 1.7% of graves versus about 2.2% of population).

Jews in Congress

I wondered how many Jews there were in Congress, and then I found this nice list on the Internet from JTA, whatever that is. There are 11 Senators and 26 Congressmen. Here is the list:

U.S. SENATEBarbara Boxer (D-Calif.)Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.)Carl Levin (D-Mich.) *Norm Coleman (R-Minn.)**Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.) **Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.)Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)Arlen Specter (R-Pa.)Russell Feingold (D-Wisc.)Herb Kohl (D-Wisc.).

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESHoward Berman (D-Calif.)Susan Davis (D-Calif.)Bob Filner (D-Calif.)Jane Harman (D-Calif.)Tom Lantos (D-Calif.)Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)Brad Sherman (D-Calif.)Howard Waxman (D-Calif.)Peter Deutsch (D-Fla.)Robert Wexler (D-Fla.)Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.)**Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.)Ben Cardin (D-Md.)Barney Frank (D-Mass.)Sander Levin (D-Mich.)Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.)Steve Rothman (D-N.J.)Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.)Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.)Steve Israel (D-N.Y.)Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.)Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.)Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.)Martin Frost (D-Texas)Eric Cantor (R-Va.)Bernard Sanders (Ind-Vt.).

However, my Congressman, Ed Perlmutter, is not there. He is an evangelical Christian, but I read that his parents are both Jews and that they helped his campaign by raising a lot of money from their Jewish friends. So, I'm guessing that there are more members of congress who would be listed if "Jew" were defined more broadly, and because of the sympathy of many perhaps secular Jews for the state of Israel, for my purposes, it should be broadly defined.

Forward counts 13 Senators and 30 Congressmen:

Senate (13)
New Members: Ben Cardin (D-Md.); Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)
Re-elected: Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.); Herb Kohl (D-Wis.); Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.)
Returning: Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.); Norm Coleman (R-Minn.); Russell Feingold (D-Wis.); Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.); Carl Levin (D-Mich.); Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.); Arlen Specter (R-Pa.); Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

House (30)
New Members: Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.); Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.); Paul Hodes (D-N.H.); Ron Klein (D-Fla.); Steve Kagen (D-Wis.); John Yarmuth (D-Ky.)
Re-elected: Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.); Shelley Berkley (D-Nev.); Howard Berman (D-Calif.); Eric Cantor (R-Va.); Susan Davis (D-Calif.); Rahm Emanuel (D-Ill.); Eliot Engel (D-N.Y.); Bob Filner (D-Calif.); Barney Frank (D-Mass.); Jane Harman (D-Calif.); Steve Israel (D-N.Y.); Tom Lantos (D-Calif.); Sander Levin (D-Mich.); Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.); Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.); Steven Rothman (D-N.J.); Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.); Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); Allyson Schwartz (D-Pa.); Brad Sherman (D-Calif.); Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D-Fla.), Henry Waxman (D-Calif.); Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.); Robert Wexler (D-Fla.).
Gary Trauner, the Democratic nominee for Wyoming’s single House seat, narrowly trailed incumbent Rep. Barbara Cubin at press time, and had not conceded the race.

Jews make up about 2% of the American population. In the Senate, at 13 of 100, they make up 13%. In the House, at 30 of 435, they make up about 7%.

Now, the question for me is how many of these are military veterans, and of those, how many served in combat?

American Jews' Indifference to Holocaust

An op-ed in the New York Times reveals that as World War II approached, American Jews were often indifferent to the fate of European Jews threatened by Hitler's final solution. Jews often blame gentile Americans and Brits for being indifferent to the fate of Jews in Hitler's concentration camps, but new letters found from Anne Frank's father, Otto Frank, pleading for help from American Jews before World War II, show that they were also indifferent.

The op-ed by Daniel Mendelsohn says that Otto Frank's letters were much like his uncle's. He says that a large number of Jewish Americans "found themselves the often helpless objects of poignant entreaties by old friends and relatives trapped in Europe as the cataclysm approached."

Mendelsohn says that after his grandfather died, he found "a cache of desperate letters from an older brother in Poland, written throughout 1939, begging for money, affidavits for visas, anything to save him and his family.... That my grandfather never mentioned this correspondence to us was an indication of the shattering guilt he must have felt at not having been able to help his family. It is a feeling shared by many Jews in America after the war, who are likely to have kept such feelings similarly hidden from their children and grandchildren."

Of course, Mendelsohn expresses his hatred of gentile Americans toward the end of his op-ed, noting: "the appalling failure by the United States to do more for would-be immigrants. (Among other things, Frank's letters are a concrete reminder of the crushing diplomatic obstacles facing would-be immigrants, a fatal Catch-22 that even American diplomats at the time were shamed by.)" The implication is that Jews, who are always looking for a bargain, would have saved their relatives if the US government had set the price for visa processing at something less than $5,000.

The US government has done almost exactly the same thing regarding Iraqi refugees, until recently making it extremely difficult for Iraqis, even Iraqis who have risked their life to help Americans, to come to America (a total of about 400 up to now, according to the Washington Post). The Iraqi deaths come on neighborhood streets, rather than in Auschwitz and other death camps, but the deaths are just as permanent. Where are the Jewish voices lamenting this immigration policy? They criticize Roosevelt for not invading France earlier, which would have caused the deaths of more Christian soldiers, and they are happy to have Christian soldiers dying in Iraq to protect Israel from Iraq and Iran. You didn't, and don't, see a high percentage of Jewish soldiers fighting for Jewish interests in World War II or in Iraq. They only fight in Israel. It would be interesting to compare the number of American Jews fighting in uniform in Iraq and the number of American citizens in uniform in the Israeli military. This information is hard to come by; I think it's because it would show Jewish loyalty to America and to their own relatives in a harsh light, as the Otto Frank letters do.

An earlier NYT news article on the Otto Frank letters says that he wrote to his college friend Nathan Straus, Jr., who was the director of the federal Housing Authority, a friend of Eleanor Roosevelt, and the son of a co-owner of Macy's. He had the money and connections to help Otto Frank if he had wanted to.

The latest example in the news of an American fighting for Israel is Michael Oren, the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East 1776 to the Present. Born in America, with four degrees from American universities, he was a paratrooper in the Israeli army. I don't see anything in his Wikipedia bio about serving in the US army.