Friday, March 23rd | 7 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

September 27, 2012 10:41 am

On the Boil: Obama, the Democrats and the Jews

avatar by Isi Leibler

Email a copy of "On the Boil: Obama, the Democrats and the Jews" to a friend

President Obama campaigning.

The disproportionately high profile of American Jews in the Presidential election contest and the efforts invested by both candidates portraying themselves as supportive of the Jewish State has assumed surrealistic levels.

Overall, Israel’s standing in the US today is at an all-time high. Yet, the Democratic Convention spotlighted the emergence of a hostile anti-Israeli component of the party which threatens to undermine the long-standing bi-partisan support of Israel exemplified by the standing ovations Netanyahu received during his May 2011 address to Congress.

Economic issues will invariably be the dominant factor influencing voters and most American Jews will base their political choice on a multi-dimensional basket of issues. But the majority would like to be assured of the wellbeing of the Jewish state and expect their President to behave towards Israel as an ally and be sensitive to its security requirements.

Although most Jews continue to support Obama, growing numbers, especially the orthodox, have concluded that on the basis of his tortuous Cairo speech and his earlier diplomatic battering of Israel, he is more committed to the Palestinian than the Israeli narrative and will vote against him.

With the impending elections, Obama launched a concerted charm offensive to avoid further defections from his Jewish constituency. He repeated that he will “always have Israel’s back”, emphasized his exemplary record in strengthening Israel’s defense capabilities and reiterated that he had delivered the most pro-Israeli speech at the UN, unprecedented by any US President.

Initially, it seemed he was succeeding. But subsequently, Jewish angst was revived by numerous aspects of Obama’s behavior. There are intensified doubts regarding his genuine intention to resort to the military option if needed to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power. These anxieties were reinforced by Obama’s failure to repudiate the intimidating rhetoric from Administration spokesmen conveying veiled threats against Israel acting independently, especially the offensive remark by Joint Chief of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, who did not wish “to be complicit” if Israel acted against Iran’s nuclear project.

Another cause for concern was the cozy US relationship with Turkey in which the US surrendered to their demands to exclude Israel from joint military exercises or even participate in a conference on global terrorism. There was also Obama’s failure to adequately condemn the Non Aligned Summit which endorsed Iran’s nuclear policy, appointed a Holocaust denier as its new head and whose representatives from 120 countries listened politely to the genocidal ravings of their Iranian hosts.

But the most chilling message was the elimination of pro-Israel components from the current Democratic National Platform. In particular, the deletion of all reference to recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – which conformed to the policy of the Administration. After a huge outcry and following three calls for approval from delegates, it was clumsily reinserted, provoking a flood of audible boos from many delegates.

But other key clauses relating to Israel were not restored. These included reference to “Israel, our most reliable Middle East ally”, condemning Hamas, rejecting a return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and calling for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to be resettled in a Palestinian state rather than in Israel. Washington Post columnist Jennifer Rubin described this platform as “the most radically unsupportive statement of policy on Israel by any major party since the founding of the state of Israel”.

Subsequently, Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s harsh dismissal of Israel’s plea to draw red lines in relation to moving beyond sanctions combined with the president’s refusal to meet Netanyahu during his visit to NY, served to heighten tensions with Israel even before the elections. It also provided a chilling projection of what to expect from a second Obama term.

Why don’t Jews abandon a party that is, at best, ambivalent towards the Jewish state?

The reality for most American Jews is that since the era of President Franklyn Roosevelt, their bond with the Democratic Party is embedded as a political DNA and even considered a quasi-religion.

Yet it is likely that President Obama would have acted even more harshly against Israel were Jews not such an important component of the Democratic party. There is therefore a positive aspect to ongoing Jewish involvement to retain existing Democratic Congressional bipartisan support – in the absence of which Israel’s defense infrastructure would erode and the international community would undoubtedly throw us to the wolves.

So when influential pro-Israeli Democratic Congressmen or prominent Jewish Democrats like Stuart Eizenstat or Dennis Ross retain their party affiliation, even those disagreeing with them should be relieved that within this prevailing dangerous Democratic political terrain there remain influential Jews willing to combat those seeking to distance the US from its traditional alliance with Israel.

Alan Dershowitz exemplifies this. He is a devoted champion of Israel who recently reaffirmed his support of Obama despite having previously condemned his policies, even comparing him to Chamberlain.

To his credit, Dershowitz condemned the Democratic party platform and even after the amendments told the Algemeiner that he was bitter “not only with regard to Jerusalem”, but also with the other crucial issues which were not reinstated. He accused “rogue elements” within the Democratic party, from Arab-Americans to anti-Israeli Jews, of seeking to undermine “the bi-partisan support for Israel which characterized American politics since 1948″ and destroy the US- Israel alliance. He vowed to convey this to the President who he hoped would “make statements prior to the elections reaffirming the contents of his 2008 platform”.

Thus, even those who would aspire to see more Jews demonstrating displeasure with Obama at the polls should realize that it is a disservice to Israel to demonize Democratic supporters like Dershowitz if they speak up and protest against anti-Israeli policies.

This is not an endorsement of those who argue that Jews should avoid regarding Israel as a wedge issue in the elections. It is precisely during the election season that American Jews should maximize their democratic right to influence policy by responsibly criticizing and objecting to policies they consider to be flawed or immoral.

Indeed, to ensure that politicians take greater account of Jewish sensitivities, one would expect mainstream American Jewish leaders, whilst remaining apolitical, to speak out far more aggressively against any party which adopts anti-Israeli positions, whether Democrat or Republican.

This applies especially now, despite that if re-elected, Obama is capable – as he was following the last elections – of reneging on his undertakings. Indeed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently unblushingly told an international journalist that like all politicians, President Obama’s remarks about Israel prior to elections should not be taken too seriously.

Indicators suggest that the majority of Jews will continue to vote for Obama but despite conflicting polls, an increasing minority, especially the most committed, is likely to oppose him and may well provide the lowest level of support for a Democrat president since Carter.

In addition, many Jews, unwilling to sever their umbilical cord with the Democratic party, may well continue supporting their Democratic Congressional representative yet oppose Obama at the Presidential poll – which would actually serve to reinforce bipartisanship towards Israel, currently under siege.

The writer’s website can be viewed at He may be contacted at This column was originally published in the Jerusalem Post and Israel Hayom.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • Panetta’s full remarks

    PANETTA: Look, the fundamental issue is whether or not we agree that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon. And the United States, Israel, the international community, I think, is pretty firm that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon.
    The issue then becomes — if the world community is unified on that position, as I’m sure Israel is, in that sense, unified with us in opposing that — then the issue becomes, all right, what are the factors that would tell us whether or not they’ve made the decision to go ahead and build a nuclear weapon? And to that extent, you know, intelligence, my whole shop, basically looks at a number of factors to try to determine whether or not Iran has in fact made that decision. Now what intelligence basically tells us now is that they have not made that decision. And that while they continue to do enrichment, they have not made a decision to proceed with a nuclear weapon. And I have to tell you that I think the intelligence community, whether it’s Israeli intelligence or United States intelligence, has pretty much the same view. And they also have the same view that if we got intelligence that they made a decision, that there’s a timeline here that involves anywhere from a year or a year and a half, depending on who you talk to, before they would in fact be able to accomplish that.
    So, if what I said is the case, then the question becomes how can we continue to make sure that we are paying attention to the intelligence, that we continue to look at Iran to determine what they’re up to, and yet at the same time, you know, use our capability and the unity in the international community to bring as much pressure as possible on Iran to not move in that direction, but move in a direction that would allow them to be able to abide by international rules when it comes to enrichment?
    That, I think, is how we view the challenge here: Make very clear to them what they can’t do, make very clear that this is not about containment it’s about prevention, but at the same time, give them a door so that we ultimately could hope to resolve this peacefully as opposed to having to take military action.
    FP: But, sir, a decision and the one-year timeline that everybody says to agree on — that sure sounds like a threshold, if not a red line. Isn’t that a point of no return?
    PANETTA: But the fact is — the fact is, look, presidents of the United States, prime ministers of Israel or any other country — leaders of these countries don’t have, you know, a bunch of little red lines that determine their decisions. What they have are facts that are presented to them about what a country is up to, and then they weigh what kind of action has to be taken in order to deal with that situation. I mean, that’s the real world. Red lines are kind of political arguments that are used to try to put people in a corner.
    FP: Well that’s what I was going to ask, if you feel that that’s what’s going on this week, if for whatever reason, that there has been a serious rift in the relationship between Israel and the United States, or that there is politics being used to put you and —
    PANETTA: Let’s just say, when you have friends like Israel, you engage in vigorous debates about how you confront these issues, and that’s what’s going on.
    FP: An unusually public version of that.
    PANETTA: [chuckles] It sometimes, in democracies, plays out in the public.