What if a President Hillary had recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital?

From the endless stream of press releases emerging from the headquarters of liberal and progressive Jewish organizations, not to mention the high and low dudgeon of a cash-starved, forever-schnorring leftwing weekly The Forward, one can easily conclude that the masses of American non-Orthodox Jews are – at the very least – disturbed by the moving of the US embassy to Jerusalem.

Would that it were so. Would that the rapidly evaporating, pew-abandoning, intermarrying, illiterate (both Jewishly and, like most Americans, regarding international affairs), reflexively Democrat-voting, barely nominal members of the American Jewish community care enough about Israel to even have a negative opinion about yesterday’s move.

Alas they don’t. In fact they could not possibly care less. Israel, like Jewish continuity, is not their ‘Jewish’ priority; certainly not as important as such “tikkun olam” issues as abortion rights, transgender acceptance in the US Army, and preventing Hanukkah Menorahs from appearing on public property.

If anything, the long-overdue fulfillment of a congressional decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital (not to mention the broken campaign promises of at least three successive US presidents) should yield little more than a yawn of indifference on the part of liberal Jews.

And yet … and yet we are gifted with a hue and cry of equivocation over this lack of sensitivity to Arab feelings and questions over the premature timing of a move that will surely derail a “peace process” whose whereabouts have long been unknown. Not to mention declarations of “sadness and pain” by dancer-turned-chief Reform rabbi Rick Jacobs over the deaths of a half dozen mass-murderer wannabees attempting to storm Israel’s border with Gaza.

So what’s behind the protestations of normally pusillanimous leaders of liberal Judaism? And are they indeed – for a rare change – speaking on behalf of their religiously and ethnically moribund minions?

An article in the latest Forward might offer a clue. The headline to this crie de couer by its Israel-based and not yet anti-Zionist stringer Shoshanna Keats-Jaskoll reads: “Moving the Embassy to Jerusalem Makes Me Giddy – Until I Remember Who’s Doing It”.

Indeed. While this historic move would hardly merit a yawn under normal circumstances, it suddenly stirs nausea and revulsion because it was made by Donald Trump. Hence, if for Ms. Keats-Jaskoll, who defines herself as “an American Israeli mom, branding consultant, lover of chocolate and seeker of truth”, a game-changing act in support of the Jewish People can feel like cocoa ashes in her sensitive mouth, how much more bitter it must be for liberal US Jews whose devotion to the Democratic platform – as interpreted by their rabbi Bernie Sanders – pales by comparison to their visceral hatred of the current White House occupant.

It might not even be too farfetched to argue that were Israel going down in flames under a massive Arab-Iranian-Turkish onslaught, liberal American Jewry would protest a decision by this POTUS to come to its rescue. They would adamantly oppose ANY help from that orange-haired, misogynist, anti-Semitic, immigrant hating, Islamophobic barbarian who, if not in collusion with the Russians, might as well be.

So what would be happening if Hillary Clinton were president and it was she who had made the decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem? Yes, I know it’s farfetched. There is no way a liberal Democrat despite (because of) her heavily Jewish support would do anything that might actually de-isolate Israel in the international arena and throw America’s strategic and ideological ally a crumb of partisan support.

Yet, while this might be true for most Democrat presidents a President Hillary might be an exception. After all, with her record of ethics, a $50 million ‘gift’ by a Jewish oligarch to her ‘charitable’ foundation plus a few million in ‘speaking fees’ to her beloved soulmate could easily have purchased the very decision that Donald Trump made out of personal conviction.

So how then would Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the editors at Forward, the Soros puppets at J Street, and the pundits at Israel Policy Forum have reacted under such circumstances? One is tempted to think they might rise to the occasion and celebrate the move or, at the very least, let it pass. Unfortunately neither of these would be the likely scenario. Because leaders of organized liberal Jewry – or what’s left of it – have a need that goes beyond worshipping at the Democratic altar. It is a need to be Jewishly relevant, to show “Jewish” leadership. And the only way they can do this is by taking positions that are at least critical if not in total opposition to Israel.

As American Jewry ebbs and wanes into the sunset of history, and Israel emerges ever stronger, more successful, more Jewishly proud, and more at the vanguard of every creative endeavor, the flailing former dancers and descendants of red-diaper babies have no way of making themselves “Jewishly” relevant other than by ramping up their hostility to the Jewish State, and in doing so, giving their fleeing adherents further justification for their race to oblivion.