In recent years, two of the Monitor’s stimulating offerings elicited more than the usual amount of reader consternation. One of those columns argued against the presidential viability of a certain Alaska governor turned television oddity named Sarah Palin (remember her?); the other dismissed any hopes then being expressed by Republicans that President Obama would lose a significant amount of Jewish support in 2012.

Not to say the Monitor told you so but…the Monitor told you so. Three years ago, both on Commentary magazine’s Contentions blog and in The Jewish Press, your modest correspondent argued that Obama enjoyed two important advantages that made it all but certain he would enjoy another landslide victory among Jewish voters: He’s an articulate, non-threatening black man (a factor not to be underestimated when considering the voting psychology of liberal and moderate Jews) and he is adamantly opposed to and by the Christian Right.

The Monitor suggested that readers look to the presidential election of 1984 for a little historical context.

For a Republican, Ronald Reagan had done well among Jews in 1980, winning 39 percent of their votes and holding the incumbent president, Jimmy Carter, to a 45 percent plurality. (Third-party candidate John Anderson got the rest.)

And then came the 1984 National Survey of American Jews, conducted between April and August of that year, which found that while 39 percent of respondents acknowledged having voted for Reagan in 1980, some 53 percent said that, in hindsight, Reagan was the candidate they would have preferred.

So Reagan seemed poised to at least hold on to his 1980 share of the Jewish vote and quite possibly exceed it.

In addition to Reagan’s performance in office, there was, in 1984, the Jesse Jackson factor. The civil rights activist was running for the Democratic nomination, and during the course of the campaign many of his past derogatory comments about Jews and Israel resurfaced, fueled both by his reference, in what he thought was an off-the-record conversation, to New York City as “Hymietown” and his reluctance to separate himself from Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan.

The Jackson factor was widely thought to threaten the Democratic Party’s decades-old hold on Jewish loyalties. But once the votes were counted in November, Reagan actually ended up losing significant ground among Jewish voters. Exit polls on Election Day indicated Reagan only won between 31 and 35 percent of the Jewish vote, while between 65 and 69 percent went to Democrat Walter Mondale.

Indeed, roughly 30 percent of those Jews who had voted for Reagan in 1980 went for Mondale in 1984.

Reagan’s increasingly vocal embrace of the New – specifically, the Christian – Right scared Jews more than anything said by either Jackson or Farrakhan. Nearly 80 percent of Jews, for example, had an unfavorable opinion of the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the most visible face of the Christian Right (never mind that Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin had presented Falwell with the Jabotinsky Prize in recognition of his strong support of the Jewish state). Falwell, in fact, was significantly more unpopular among Jewish voters than Jackson.

How does this relate to Obama and Jewish support?

For one thing, the Republican Party’s identification with the Christian Right is immeasurably stronger today than it was 28 years ago, making it unlikely that liberal or moderate Jews will find a comfort level with the GOP anytime soon. For another, the current generation of American Jews is not nearly as supportive of Israel and Israeli policies as were their parents and grandparents – and support for Israel was the one factor that in the past might have swayed some liberal Jews to vote for a Republican.

But never mind 1984. If Jimmy Carter, fresh off a disastrous term in office and displaying a palpable animus toward Israel, could, in 1980, still outpoll his Republican opponent among Jews (and absent the Anderson candidacy Carter would have won at least 55 percent of the Jewish vote), there was never any reason to believe a mediocre Democratic president – especially a likeable African-American who talks a good liberal game – was in any danger with Jewish voters.

A sexual abuser is someone with visceral urges who often spirals down into an abyss from which he usually cannot fully recover. Research shows that sex offenders are among of the most difficult to treat, as their behavior is caused by such powerful forces.

There are clear mental dysfunction and depravity that go along with being an adult who sexually abuses children. This is an explanation, not an excuse. Perpetrators deserve our empathy – possibly – but need to be dealt with justly and in methods that ensure our children’s safety, without any compromises. It is a sad fact that for each perpetrator there isn’t only one victim, but more likely there are sometimes scores and even hundreds of victims. That sounds hard to believe, but simple math tells us that stopping just one perpetrator may protect hundreds of potential victims.

Most abusers have at one time themselves been abused and now prey on others. For many of us this is difficult to fathom; how could someone so acutely aware of the pain and suffering abuse entails now mete out those same feelings onto another?

Let us try to understand this psychological phenomenon from a theoretical perspective. When people are sexually abused, much of the inherent power and control they once had over their bodies and minds becomes either severely compromised or downright damaged. When the abuse takes place repeatedly, the power and control we speak of can become a distant memory, and victims often develop serious trauma.

The question for the victim now becomes, how can I regain that elusive power and control? Unfortunately, the form of power and control he knows best is sexual abuse – and to regain it he perpetrates what happened to him onto another. It is important to note that the former victim, now abuser, is most likely unaware of the trajectory and evolution of his own thoughts; he is merely desperate to recover what has been missing from his life all these years. This absolves none of his personal responsibility; he remains fully culpable for his actions, but it is important to examine his motivations.

Now that we understand why abuse occurs, the question becomes, what can we do about it? There are many ways, and addressing only one aspect or having one direction won’t fully incorporate what is necessary to eliminate abuse from our midst (although, complete eradication is most likely impossible).

I believe an increase in education as to the effects of sexual abuse on victims – rather than dry statistics of abuse prevalence – may help. Too often I hear, “It happened so long ago, can’t the person just get over it?” Many fail to comprehend the association between abuse and long-term trauma, and don’t understand why there is a significantly increased risk of serious mental issues in victims, such as depression, anxiety, addiction and suicide.

In addition, as described above, abuse becomes repeated and multigenerational. The facts are out there, they merely need to be disseminated. An increase in knowledge invariably causes an increase in sensitivity and understanding. Sadly, almost ninety percent of abuse never gets reported – in all communities. But the courageous few who do come forward, need our full backing and support.

As to our own community, it has been copiously documented by the media how we responded in the past to cases of abuse – everything from, “this doesn’t happen in our communities,” to “it’s a chillul Hashem to allow this to get out.” By increasing our understanding of what abuse causes, rather than merely stating that abuse exists (which at this point is difficult for anyone to deny, though some inevitably try), we might discourage cowardly individuals from within from attempting to prevent deserved justice. While this may be only a small step towards eradicating wrong from the world, it can, hopefully, be a start.

President Obama won 69 percent of the Jewish vote according to an exit poll.

The poll, posted on CNN’s website, was commensurate with projections by preelection polls by Gallup, the American Jewish Committee, among others, that Obama would win between 65 and 70 percent of the Jewish vote.

Both parties blitzed Jewish voters in swing states, particularly Ohio and Florida, ahead of the election.

Jews constituted 2 percent of the overall CNN response group, but the network did not reveal the total number of people polled, so it was impossible to assess a margin of error.

Republicans noted the discrepancy between Tuesday’s numbers and the 78 percent Obama garnered in 2008 exit polls.

Democrats, citing a more recent broader study of the 2008 results, now say Obama earned 74 percent of that year’s Jewish vote, and suggested that Tuesday’s showing was within the margin of error.

On social media, Republican and Democratic Jews argued over whether Tuesday night’s results showed a substantial drop in Jewish support for Obama.

Two organizations — J Street and the Republican Jewish Coalition — planned to release separate exit polls on Wednesday morning.

Can we trust Haaretz reporting on polls?

After Eldar and Levy on those “apartheid” stories?

Here’s the latest, “For the right man, Israelis would make peace” which makes the claim that

“The consensus is moving to the right, but that doesn’t mean Israeli Jews won’t support a deal with the PA if the right leader comes along, a new study shows.”

The May (five months ago!) data is from Tel Aviv University’s Walter Lebach Institute for Jewish-Arab Coexistence, but it seems not even to be up at its site.

Some findings:

- 80 percent of Israelis don’t believe it’s possible to make peace with the Palestinians. Half of them don’t believe it’s ever possible to make peace, while half don’t believe it’s possible in the foreseeable future. About two-thirds support a diplomatic solution, but many more still eagerly buy the convenient argument that there’s no partner.

- 87 percent of secular Jewish Israelis believe in the need for peace with the Palestinians, but only half the religiously observant and a smaller percentage of the ultra-Orthodox believe this. Traditional Jews have moved to the right and are now in the middle of the road.

- Only about 20 percent of secular Jews see the demographic threat as an existential problem and only one-third believe the occupation and the settlements are creating a security threat to Israel.

- Nearly half the respondents consider Palestinian terror a major security problem.

- Within the Green Line, the number who consider themselves rightists or right-leaning has increased from 41 percent to 48 percent. Two-thirds of this increase comes at the expense of those who say they hold centrist positions. But between 2002 and 2012 the left has strengthened; it has grown from 20 percent to 25 percent.

- 60 percent of the public supports a democratic solution to the conflict, 22 percent of Jewish residents of the West Bank prefer the authority of the rabbis to the authority of the elected institutions.

-  Six percent of the respondents (14 percent of the settlers ) see the use of violence to prevent withdrawal from the West Bank as legitimate, while 59 percent (70 percent of the settlers ) believe that the public only has the right to fight for its beliefs within the law (compared with 31 percent and 45 percent respectively at the beginning of the decade ).

- Around 37 percent of the secular respondents see the settlers as pioneers, compared with 32 percent in 2005, and 35 percent see them as “the bedrock of our existence,” compared with 23 percent in 2005.

The really silly item Eldar emphasizes that

the hard core of settlers as represented by Gush Emunim, which has pushed the Israeli government and public to settle in the territories, hasn’t spread its messianic ideology among the public, or even among the settlers. It turns out that the main motivations for living in the territories, including among many of the religious, are comfort and quality of life.

But that was the point, that it is natural for Jews to live in their homeland.  The vanguard always needs a more powerful ideological motivation but in pulling over the masses, the reasons for their remaining can assuredly be such mundane, for Eldar, ones.  Doesn’t alter the reality.

He also claims the report indicates

…it’s possible to evacuate half the settlers with their consent if they are offered compensation equivalent to up to 300 percent of the value of their property.

but also the public is split

between people with a neo-Zionist outlook who emphasize a nationalist-religious agenda and a moderate Zionist majority that focuses on the land inside the Green Line and promotes a social agenda.  Therefore, the right is advancing its agenda unhindered, the researchers say…the occupation remains on the margins of the[centrists'] political concerns.

I think that’s good news.

Visit My Right Word.

The head of the European Jewish Association has called on the Ukrainian government to ensure the safety of the country’s Jews in the wake of the election to parliament of an anti-Semitic party.

“We are not presuming of course, to interfere in internal Ukraine affairs and its voters’ decisions, however we are very concerned about the safety of Ukrainian Jews and are seeking to prevent expansion of anti-Semitism in Europe,” Rabbi Menachem Margolin said in a statement.

On Oct. 28, the ultra-nationalist Svoboda (Freedom) Party, making unprecedented gains in Ukraine’s parliamentary elections, garnered 12 percent of the vote, after winning less than 1 percent in the previous election, in 2007. The percentage means that the party can control a parliament faction for the first time.

Party leader Oleg Tyagnibok has called in the past for purges of the approximately 400,000 Jews living in Ukraine, as well as other minorities. The party has held several protest rallies against the presence of Jews in Uman, in the center of the country.

Several attacks on Jews over the Sukkot holiday across France have exemplified a whopping 45 percent reported increase in anti-Semitic attacks in the country in the first eight months of 2012.

Among the attacks was one against a Jewish family in their sukkah by unidentified assailants.  The ten-member family, including small children and an eight month-old baby – were eating in their sukkah when a group of men began shouting obscenities at them from the street in Arabic and then hurling rocks at them.  Among the slurs was “Dirty Jews, go home” and “we’ll get you!”

One woman was injured in her back, but no other injuries were reported.  The attackers fled the scene before police arrived.

Among the incidents were 101 considered “violent”, including the heinous murder of four people – a father, his two children, and the daughter of the nearby Jewish school principal – in Toulouse on March 19.

Last week’s U.S. presidential debate was a victory for Romney on all accounts, especially if one judges by the closing statements, where Obama couldn’t muster any specific reason why voters should re-elect him aside from the fact that he was trying really hard as president.

Even when Obama wished his wife a “happy anniversary” – which appeared, at least to me, a totally unromantic political move – Romney smoothly countered wishing the President a happy anniversary and joking how “romantic” it must be for the president to be spending his wedding anniversary with Romney.

Looking at polls on how people view the candidates, I’m beginning to wonder why it is that Obama leads Romney in national polls and whether that is going start to change in a big way.

On the economy, which is the top issue among voters, Romney has long maintained an edge against Obama. In a Wall Street Journal-NBC poll conducted in April, for example, 40 percent said that Romney had “better ideas to fix the economy” to Obama’s 34 percent. A Rasmussen poll a few days before the debate, showed that 51 percent trusted Romney on the economy to Obama’s 44 percent.

In “likeability,” Obama has traditionally had Romney beat. In that Wall Street Journal-NBC poll from April voters were asked questions like “who do you think would be better at. . .being easy going and likable?” or “caring about average people?” or “looking out for the middle class?” Obama beat Romney two-to-one or better on each.

But in post-debate polls of people who watched the debate conducted by CBS and CNN Romney did a lot better. In the CBS poll people said they liked both candidates. In the CNN poll, Romney beat Obama on likability 46 to 45 percent. A whopping 58 percent said Romney “seemed to be the stronger leader” to Obama’s 30 percent.

In the April WSJ-NBC poll, Voters said they would choose Obama over Romney 49 to 43 percent. But if the likability gap is closing and people favor Romney on the most important issue, it is hard to imagine why voters would still choose Obama over Romney. And indeed, the latest Rasmussen poll from October 6th gives Romney a two-point lead over the President (49-47 percent). In that poll, one-third of respondents were interviewed before the debate, so if all were interviewed after the debate it’s possible that the gap would be even wider in Romney’s favor.

Since the debate, the New York Times reports that Romney is focusing on his “softer side,” telling personal stories and showing a 10-minute biographical video before rallies. If Romney and his team can succeed and keep that “likability gap” closed, there may be reason to believe that Obama can be beat in November.

Oh, and if you still haven’t seen the debate, here it is:

Canadian rabbis want the Canadian federal government to reconsider cuts to the federal prison chaplaincy program, which would eliminate non-Christian clergy.

If the cuts are enacted, non-Christian federal inmates will be expected to turn to Christian prison chaplains for religious counsel and guidance.

Canada has about 80 full-time prison chaplains, all but one of whom are Christian; there are about 100 part-time chaplains, 20 of whom are non-Christians, according to CBC News.

In an e-mail to reporters on Thursday, the office of Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, sought to explain the cost-cutting move.

While the government “strongly supports the freedom of religion for all Canadians, including prisoners…[it] is not in the business of picking and choosing which religions will be given preferential status through government funding,” he wrote. As a result, the minister continued, chaplains in the Correctional Service of Canada “must provide services to inmates of all faiths.”

Less than one percent of Canada’s 15,000 federal prisoners are Jewish, according to corrections data from the last fiscal year.

The Canadian Rabbinic Caucus on Friday called on Toews to reconsider the cuts, saying in a statement that its members “are deeply concerned that non-Christian inmates will be deprived of religiously specific spiritual nourishment at a time in their lives when they most clearly need it.”

Monique Marchand, president of the Interfaith Committee on Chaplaincy, which advises the correctional service on the spiritual care of inmates, said the full-time prison chaplains now will be “coordinating” the pastoral care of minority faith inmates. That means, she explained, that they will request local clergy to donate their services at no charge to the government.