It was Charles Krauthammer who identified what he calls Bush Derangement Syndrome, or BDS. In a 2003 column, Krauthammer defined BDS as "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush."

It's a clever phrase, and a devious one. Look how it conflates reaction to the "policies" and "existence" of the president. Thinking people might consider it fair game to oppose a president based on his policies, but Krauthammer's diagnosis suggests that makes no more sense than liking or disliking someone based on his very existence. It's a way of shutting down debate, dismissing as ad hominem the very reasonable arguments by Bush's opponents over policies that have had clear and demonstrable consequences.

And when it comes to these polices and their consequences, let me suggest that the organized Jewish community has suffered not from BDS, but BTS — Bush Timidity Syndrome. That's a condition marked not only by reluctance to oppose the president, but to suspend one's tradition of social activism by hesitating to engage in a debate over his policies in a serious public way.

It's four years into the Iraq war, and there is no subject that has so engaged the electorate. The 2008 election may well swing on this single issue. As I write, the Senate is engaged in a marathon debate about the funding of the war and whether or not a super-majority is willing to force the president to change course and bring home substantial numbers of combat troops.

The Jewish world is hardly a political monolith, but I'm pretty confident in guessing — no, knowing — where Jews stand on the major issues. Israel is pretty easy. The largest groups basically support an emerging Israeli consensus that ultimately seeks two states, Israeli and Palestinian, living side by side in peace, a goal that for the time being is unreachable because of Palestinian rejectionism. This consensus breaks down on the Right and the Left — and especially strongly among the Orthodox, whose influence is magnified by their deep engagement in the topic.

On major domestic issues — health care, the environment, church and state, reproductive choice — Jewish groups tend to be left of center. They are more likely to be in sync with Democrats than Republicans.

On the Iraq war? With the exception of the Reform movement, which has passed resolutions in favor of a troop withdrawal and is highly critical of the Bush doctrine on enemy combatants and the Patriot Act, I can't say for certain where any of the big groups stand. A war that has cost the lives of over 3,600 U.S. soldiers and countless Iraqi combatants and civilians rarely rates a mention on the home pages of the major organizations.

Their relative silence becomes more surprising when you consider the poll data. The American Jewish Committee surveyed American Jews last year. They found that 65 percent felt the United States should have stayed out of Iraq, and 66 percent said Iraq will never become a stable democracy. So it is not as if the Jewish political world is stymied by a divided electorate, as it were.

The truth is that they are stymied by an advocacy strategy that is taking Bush's Middle East policies as a package deal. It's not that we supported the war in Iraq because the war might benefit Israel — polls show we didn't and don't. Instead, our leaders fear that confronting the president on Iraq may sour him on the pro-Israel or anti-Iran agenda. (Remember Jim Baker's immortal line: "F— the Jews; they don't vote for us anyway.")

So now we find ourselves in a position in which Republicans have begun to tear themselves up over the war, and Jews are still sitting on the sidelines.

Consider a single week of punditry. William Kristol admits he faces ridicule for even suggesting that the president has "a good shot at achieving a real, though messy, victory in Iraq." Maine Republican Sen. Susan M. Collins declares, "I oppose the current strategy in Iraq and believe it is time to redefine our mission." Influential blogger James Poulos urges fellow conservatives to "find the emotional and political fortitude to reject the president and rally around their principles," adding that "fanatical allegiance to any war in Iraq that the president pleases is the true ticket to political suicide." And Peggy Noonan, writing in The Wall Street Journal, suggests that the president's self-confidence and detachment in the face of grim poll numbers and worse war news is "extremely irritating," "unnatural," and "weird."

Of course, none of these conservative mutineers are saying anything that Bush's critics hadn't been saying even before he launched this misbegotten war. Enlightenment equals tragedy plus time, apparently. Noonan even writes the obituary for BDS: "Bush Derangement Syndrome," she writes, "suggested that to passionately dislike the president was to be somewhat unhinged. No one thinks that anymore." She goes on to quote "rock-ribbed" Republicans who no longer trust Bush and have removed the "W" stickers from their cars. "Americans can't fire the president right now," writes this former Reagan speechwriter, "so they're waiting it out."

Conservative pundits such as Noonan, and GOP renegades in Congress, have signaled that it is now safe to debate the president's war strategy without being accused of mental illness.

It will be interesting to see if Jewish organizations adopt that very sane approach.