Columnist James Goldsborough confirmed Thursday, Dec. 2, that he has given the San Diego Union-Tribune two weeks notice of his resignation.  He said he quit  in protest of a decision by publisher David Copley to kill a column he wrote about President George W. Bush's failure to win the Jewish vote.

Goldsborough, who has been controversial in the Jewish community for his criticism of Israeli policies and perceived friendliness to the Palestinians, said he thought that this column was one that most of the Jewish community would actually enjoy.  However, he said, Copley decided that it would be considered offensive by the Jewish community.

Harold Fuson, chief legal officer for the Copley Newspapers, acknowledged that the publisher had killed the column out of concern that it would "give offense to the Jewish community."  But he said he wanted to make clear that Copley did not consider the column to be anti-Semitic.

Goldsborough said he doubted Jews as a group would be offended by the column. Rather, he said,  if any group were to be offended it would be Bush Republicans. Goldsborough submitted his resignation on Monday, Nov. 29, meaning his last day at work will be Friday, Dec. 10.  

The editorial columnist  said he planned to remain in San Diego thereafter to work on unspecified "projects."

Fuson said that Copley has disagreed with Goldsborough columns on Bush in the past, and has expressed his disagreement. The column, in this instance, was comparatively mild in its criticism of Bush, Fuson said.  The attorney said it was the content of the column concerning Jews, not that concerning Bush, which concerned the publisher.

I suggested to Fuson that other columns by Goldsborough probably caused more bruised feelings in the Jewish community than this one.  Why had Copley decided to act now?

Fuson responded that the publisher does not always see Goldsborough's columns in advance of their publication.  

Goldsborough agreed to share the killed column with jewishsightseeing.com, so that the Jewish community could judge for itself.

The column  is printed below.  If anyone would like to comment on the column, pro or con, please send an email to us at sdheritage@cox.net. .                                —Donald H. Harrison

* * *

By James Goldsborough

Winding up a long drive to Northern California last summer, I stopped for dinner in Santa Barbara with Jerry Cohen, a friend of many years. Something was bothering me and I wanted to ask him about it.

I've known Benjamin J. Cohen, Louis G. Lancaster professor of political economy at UCSB, for 30 years, or since we met on a tennis court in Paris in 1974 while he was at the Atlantic Institute and I at the International Herald Tribune. A few years later we crossed paths at the Carnegie Endowment in New York City and later found ourselves in California, old home for me, new home for him. In addition to being my friend for years, he has been a faithful
economics guru.

The subject at dinner was not economics, it was Jews and elections. Jerry comes from an old Ossining, New York, Zionist family. His father was active in the Zionist Organization of America, Jerry was active in Young Judea as a boy, and his brother emigrated to Israel.

Over a good bottle of Santa Ynez cabernet, I told him that George W. Bush was pandering to American Jews by blocking progress on an Israeli-Palestinian accord. Bush kowtows to Ariel Sharon, I said, blocking progress toward a settlement and a viable Palestinian state. Jews voted 4-1 for Al Gore in 2000, I said. Bush wants to win back the Jewish vote by embracing Sharon.

Cohen shook his head. It was a good Italian restaurant, a bit noisy when we arrived, but later quieting down. "It's impossible Jews could ever vote for Bush," he said.

What followed was Cohen's short and moving disquisition on the nature of Judaism. He explained how this religion had spread with the diaspora around the world, following Jews wherever they went, providing a history, an ethical code and social practices to help Jews keep their identity in often difficult circumstances.

Zionism eventually brought Jews back to Israel, he said, where Zionist Israel was to become a model state built on equality and social justice and serving as an example to the world.

But disillusion set in. Israel had been founded on persecution of the Jews, but with the occupation of Arab lands after the 1967 war, "we had become the persecutors," said Cohen. Bush's embrace of Sharon could not replace the disillusion, he said.

In San Diego, I told him, a New York woman came up after I'd spoken at a university and explained how her husband's firm had ten Jewish lawyers. All ten voted for Gore in 2000, but seven planned to vote for Bush this time, she said.

Cohen shook his head. Disillusion over Israel's land occupation was only part of the problem. There was another reason Jews couldn't vote for Bush.

"One of the essential teachings of Judaism is the importance of social justice," he said. "How can people who believe in social justice for all people vote for a man whose politics favor the wealthy over everyone else?"

I was skeptical. Ten people is a small sample size, but the New York woman had spoken of a shift from 100 percent against Bush to 70 percent for Bush in her husband's law firm over four years.

Small sample size, but perhaps large enough for a small wager. Why not bet my friend a case of this good Santa Ynez cabernet that Jews would switch to Bush in 2004? Just as Bush was targeting Protestants and Catholics in the election (and would win both votes), his embrace of Sharon and rejection of Arafat would win him the Jewish vote, too.

It's a good thing I never bet against my feelings.

We've seen the exit polls now and read the stories about how Americans voted for Bush because of his "values." The rich must have better values than the poor, and the old better values than the young, for in this election the older and richer you were, the more likely you voted for Bush.

Poor people and young people preferred Kerry by large margins. Maybe when they get older and richer, their values will improve.

White Protestants adored Bush, going for him 67-32 percent. Even Catholics, Kerry's co-religionists, supported Bush solidly at 52-47.

And Jews?

There was a little slippage. Bush's pandering, his Iraq war and complete abandonment of ten years of progress toward Middle East peace picked up some Jewish votes for him.

Jews went for Kerry by 74-25 percent, compared with 79-19 percent for
Gore four years ago. This time Jews voted against Bush by 3-1 instead of 4-1,
which amounts, by my informal calculations, to about 250,000 votes.

From this vote, there would seem to be a large gap between the "values? of most Jews and the values of Bush. Muslims were another religious group that voted overwhelmingly for Kerry. Exit poll results by two national Muslim groups showed that more than 90 percent of Muslims went for Kerry.

It's not hard to understand why Muslims would strongly oppose Bush, whose policies have proved a disaster for America in the Middle East.

But if my friend Cohen is right, the strong Jewish vote for Kerry indicates a hunger among them not just for peace and justice in the Middle East, but for the same thing at home.