Har Zion's Jewish voters weigh presidential race

Hillary Clinton played kissy face with the wife of Yasir Arafat. Barack Obama's pastor had harsh, harsh words for Israel. And John McCain declared that America is a Christian nation.

Oy.

In the electoral battleground that is Pennsylvania, where are Jewish voters to turn?

At Har Zion Temple, one of the largest, oldest and most prominent synagogues in the Philadelphia region, two heavyweight political operatives battled Monday night to provide an answer.

Moderator Marc Howard, a veteran TV anchor, joked that he purposely wore a tie colored neither red nor blue but pink, "the only safe color in a gathering such as this."

On the right stood Matthew Brooks, executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition in Washington. On the left was Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council in the same city.

The men are good friends and deadly opponents.

Obama? He's known in Chicago as "a pro-Palestinian activist," Brooks contended.

"Simply false," Forman responded.

"If you throw some mud and it doesn't stick, throw some more," he said, his voice rising in sarcasm. This nastiness "is such a dysfunctional thing for the American Jewish community to do."

At Penn Valley's Har Zion, its soaring stained-glass windows colored every shade of blue, the two debaters turned again and again to which of the three candidates would be the most ardent supporter of Israel. And they revealed the so-called "Jewish vote" to be anything but a monolith.

In Pennsylvania, in this synagogue, on this night, the old saw "Is it good for the Jews?" showed itself to be a question with multiple answers. About 220 people turned out to hear what those might be. Shalom TV was there, its cameras running. So was the president of Gratz College in Melrose Park for this first event in the Gratz College Speaker Series, presented by the Jewish Federation of Greater Philadelphia.

No one in the crowd appeared to feel the need to hold back impromptu applause, spontaneous jeers, or even a shout of "No!" or "Absolutely!"

"If you want to snicker," Forman told the audience at one point, after his suggestion that both Clinton and Obama vigorously backed Israel produced murmurs, "look at the statements."

He argued - all night, at times to no avail - that because all three candidates had cast votes and made public statements, in some cases over decades, they had established records that made it possible to evaluate their positions reliably.

"We have three pro-Israel candidates," Forman said, eliciting some groans.

Brooks got the same treatment when, as the discussion turned to abortion, he said it was impossible to predict how a Supreme Court nominee might vote once seated.

"Wrong!" came a voice from the audience.

And his mere mention of "compassionate conservative" brought derisive laughter.

But all the heat did shed some light:

What had been a solid Democratic voting bloc of Jewish voters has become more open to GOP views, particularly on foreign policy, during the last decade or so. Between 1992 and 2004, the percentage of Jews who voted for the GOP presidential candidate more than doubled to 25 percent, the speakers agreed.

Jewish voters in the audience, judging from their response, are thrilled that Saddam Hussein is dead and gone. But they're not crazy about the mess that is present-day Iraq. And they're plenty worried about Iran.

For 90 minutes, the discussion roamed from Afghanistan to health care to separation of church and state, returning always to the subject of the Israeli homeland and which American candidate would be its most devoted champion - a question that grows in import as Pennsylvania's April 22 Democratic primary nears.

"We are at ground zero at what will decide who will be the Democratic nominee," Brooks said. "Unfortunately, political discussion these days does not reach to the highest levels. . . . We hear charges of 'Judas' and 'McCarthyite' and 'Monster' - and that's just from the Democrats among themselves."