[ethanbond]

Nope. It’s eschatological Christians who back Israel. Has nothing to do with protecting Jews and everything to do with evangelical Christians’ end times prophecy. The world’s largest military has made decades of foreign policy decisions in accordance with these people’s doomsday fetish.

[richbell]

I'm not sure how you can definitively say "nope". It could just as easily be both, or a third reason.

[acdha]

I agree with the person you’re replying to: there are certainly plenty of conservative Americans Jews even if they’re well in the minority (roughly a third) but there aren’t enough political districts where those numbers are decisive to explain the political lock and the “back Israel to the hilt” voices overwhelmingly tend not to be those districts but ones loaded with evangelical Christians.

This makes sense when you remember why they care so much: their interpretation of the Bible holds that the end times they’re looking forward to will begin with a war involving Israel. They are not looking for peace or long-term happiness, and support any policy which increases the odds of a war. I remember them being very excited by the Gulf War and various points in the Iraq war where it seemed like someone might attack Israel because they’re basically thinking that’s their ticket to heaven showing up.

[ethanbond]

Exactly right! This belief system is so unbelievably appalling to secular folks that they literally cannot believe it. But this is what huge numbers of Americans, and a very powerful political constituency actually believe.

[SauciestGNU]

Yeah I'm not sure about "nope", but I certainly think it's a mistake to assume Jewish people support Israeli government policies.

[ethanbond]

It’s also a mistake to think the current administration’s White House staffers set decades of defense and foreign aid policy.

[SenAnder]

You seem keen on implying this is limited to "the current administration's staff", but that's just what we happen to have data on. Unless proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume this over-representation is the rule, not the exception that applies only to the current admin's staff.

To support this, see my other comment showing the Federal Reserve chair and political donors exhibit the same over-representation (the donor data is recent, but the Fed chair is since 1970, so it's unlikely this is a new thing that suddenly came out of nowhere): https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37465220

It's not limited to the staff either - of the 26 cabinet positions (including president and vice president) in the Biden White House, 7 are held by Jews (2.4% of US population), and just 6 by gentile Whites (55% of US). One of those 6 is Joe Biden himself, and all 3 of his children married Jews. Sources:

https://www.thejc.com/news/world/joe-biden-s-very-jewish-fam...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Joe_Biden#Cabine...

[ethanbond]

> You seem keen on implying this is limited to "the current administration's staff", but that's just what we happen to have data on. Unless proven otherwise, it's reasonable to assume this over-representation is the rule

So this prevalence is an aberration compared to the base rate in the population, and therefore this aberration should be presumed to be the norm? Interesting approach.

[llamaimperative]

You can definitively say “nope” by looking at where the unquestioned US policy support of Israel comes from. It comes from the evangelical right wing in the GOP. They are not fans of Jews per se. They are fans of going to heaven and believe that Israel is a key ingredient for doing that (when the rest of us get slaughtered in a holy war).

When did 34% of the current White House staffers become responsible for decades of US foreign policy?

[stareatgoats]

> They are fans of going to heaven

I can sympathize, heaven seems at least better than the other place. What I don't understand is how eschatological (which are essentially fatalistic) beliefs translate into support for Israel. In a world governed by fate it doesn't matter what you do, it's all predetermined anyway. Which seems to align more with the core Christian teachings: we should not judge (because no-one is essentially free from their fatefully determined destiny).

I could be wrong.

[ethanbond]

Because broad swaths of US Evangelicals believe that Israel needs to be "re-established" for Jesus to return so there can be a holy war. No I am not kidding. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/05/14/h...)

79% of US Christians believe Jesus will have a second coming. https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2009/04/09/christians-v...

The second coming of Jesus is not for fun times. It's for war that kills ~everyone except the true believers, who then get infinite utopia.

4 in 10 Americans and about half of US Christians overall believe we are living "in the end times," and two thirds of "highly religious" adults. I.e. we are approaching that second coming/holy war.

https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/2022/11/17/how-religion...

Combine that with the fact that US Congress is 90% Christian –– dramatically more so than the US public –– and a pretty alarming decision-making environment emerges.

https://www.axios.com/2023/04/23/lawmakers-more-religious-ge...

[0max]

Christian Nationalism is the greatest threat to the continuity of the United States

[stareatgoats]

I think you might exaggerate the number of Christians that support Israel because it will hasten the end times. I'm sure they exist, but it is still illogical to think they can hasten or delay something that is inscribed into the stone of destiny. They have in addition in that case cherrypicked quotes from the bible, in particular ignoring the numerous passages where Jesus warns against predicting the end times as he will "come like a thief in the night" i.e. without a heads up.

Fundamentalists should at least stick to the literal scripture, but I'm not sure they will listen.

[ethanbond]

Well there are plenty of other passages in the Bible that say the exact opposite, e.g. Amos 3:7 "Surely the Sovereign LORD does nothing without revealing his plan to his servants the prophets."

The whole thing is immune to logic, in part due to the obviously self-contradictory passages such as we've just found :)

[omniglottal]

This rationale is fundamentally incorrect. God's gift of Free Will (unto Man) is specifically the power (with faith) to manifest that which is nondeterministic. Where you got this notion of determinism, and thus nonjudgment, is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.

[stareatgoats]

> Where you got this notion of determinism (...) is a fancy set of mental gymnastics which is inconsistent with any known Christian teachings.

Nice try. But I'm assuming you are just unfamiliar with the history of the Christian church. Or if you just want to weigh in on the side of orthodoxy. But there is obviously a logical conflict between the notions of free will vs the deterministic aspect of religious teaching, sometimes called divine foreknowledge.

It has been the topic of more or less heated discussion up through the ages, where some people claim they have cracked the code (St. Augustine primarily). See these Wikipedia articles for a brief overview: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_theology, and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will_in_antiquity#Christi....

Or, maybe it's mainly the link between determinism and nonjudgement that you refer to as "mental gymnastics" etc (even though that's not what you are saying)? Well, granted that's not lifted from any theology that I'm aware of. It just seems a reasonable conclusion, given the premise of a predetermined world. And maybe also a way to sneak in a reminder that religion (and Christianity in particular) is mostly about keeping track of the beam in one's own eye, rather then the mote in someone else's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Mote_and_the_Beam

[SenAnder]

Those Christians are also against abortion and homosexuality, but they've had far less success on those topics - school prayer was removed, and replaced with LGBT flags.

[acdha]

Uh, did you miss the last couple of years where they got a huge ruling allowing them to criminalize abortion, protect religious activities by public employees on the job, laws to ban books, and have been successfully using threats of terrorism to shut down LGBQT events?

The only reason there isn’t mandatory school prayer is because they’d have to agree on whose version to enshrine.

[SenAnder]

Their success in these areas is at best contested and limited - abortion is legal in the vast majority of US states [1] and the US army officially endorses LGBT pride parades [2,3]. It is not remotely comparable to the decades long, unquestioned bipartisan support of Israel.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law_in_the_United_Sta...

[2] https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/dc-politics/us-armed-fo...

[3] https://americanmilitarynews.com/2022/06/heres-how-us-milita...

[ethanbond]

Sorry is the suggestion here that if a certain constituency is not successful across all of its agenda items, then it surely couldn't be behind the success of some of its agenda items?

[SenAnder]

No. The suggestion is that there is a reason for this variance of success. The reason being that they share this agenda item with another group, explaining why they triumph here while they have only middling success elsewhere.

In your own words: We don’t really need to look for a single cause. All of these things are happening and interacting with each other. - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37446682

It's a simple concept - you understood it perfectly well when the topic was different. Why do you suddenly find it hard to grasp?

[ethanbond]

Uh huh... well I'm open to good reasons for this. All the ones that you've mentioned seem like run-of-the-mill anti-semitic conspiracy stuff: they're overrepresented in the current White House admin (an astounding 34% of a body that has unknown/unnamed/questionable impact on US policy regarding Israel), the Federal Reserve Chair has been held by Jewish folks disproportionately (relevant how?), the President's children are marrying Jewish folks (relevant how?).

Now, if you came out saying, "AIPAC is an extremely powerful lobbying group that lobbies for pro-Israel bills and foreign aid," you'd definitely get credit for that. Or "ADL is extremely proactive in 'managing speech' around Israel throughout American culture," you'd get credit for that too.

But no, "Jews are relatively overrepresented yet still clear minorities in positions which are not obviously relevant to US policy or cultural attitudes toward Israel" doesn't hold much explanatory power.

[SenAnder]

Government staff and cabinet [1] and 50% of all donations to Democrats, and 25% to Republicans [2], are not obviously relevant to US policy?

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37473807 - Despite your "clear minorities" phrasing, at 7/26 cabinet positions, Jews are the largest group, followed by gentile Whites at 6, Blacks at 5, and Latinos at 3.

[2] https://www.jpost.com/US-Elections/US-Jews-contribute-half-o...

[ethanbond]

Sure, that’s definitely relevant. It would be great if we could talk about the influence of money in US politics without veering through “the President’s kids married Jews” territory.

FWIW it’s not quite 50%/25% of donations, but a napkin math estimate of donated money. I.e. there are a few mega-donors (about 50) who are more likely than the general population to be Jewish.