Monday, December 11th | 23 Kislev 5778

Close

Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

Subscribe
September 25, 2017 12:01 pm

Can Liberals Overlook Trump’s Flaws and Embrace His Policies?

avatar by Jonathan S. Tobin / JNS.org

Email a copy of "Can Liberals Overlook Trump’s Flaws and Embrace His Policies?" to a friend

US President Donald Trump delivers his first address before the UN General Assembly. Photo: UN.

JNS.org – Is there anything that would entice liberal Jews to stand with President Donald Trump or to join with him in trashing former President Barack Obama’s legacy?

The obvious answer is nothing. In the wake of Charlottesville, most voters’ disgust with Trump is at an all-time high — but especially liberal Jews, who were already appalled with him. Moreover, the longer that Trump is in office, the better that his predecessor looks to many Americans, if only for his more presidential temperament — if not his policies.

Yet a desire to defend Obama’s record has been very much in the news these days. One especially egregious instance took place at the US Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington.

That museum’s board is made up of both scholars and political appointees. So it was little surprise that after eight years of being packed with loyal Jewish Democrats (following eight years of Jewish Republicans appointed by George W. Bush), the board would commission a study about the events in Syria, which was essentially a whitewash of Obama’s dismal failure to act to prevent what is arguably one of the worst human rights disasters of the 21st century.

Related coverage

December 11, 2017 3:35 pm
0

New York Times Movie Review Praises ‘Devastating Indictment’ of Israel

Sometimes the worst anti-Israel venom from The New York Times shows up not in the news or editorial columns, but...

The report was a scandal that undermined the museum’s mission by exonerating Obama for his decision to let Syria and its people burn, even when chemical weapons were being used to kill innocents. The shock that the study generated forced the museum to almost immediately withdraw the document.

The lesson here was not so much the chutzpah of those involved in this disgrace, but the extent of the loyalty that prominent Jewish Democrats still feel for Obama — especially now that he’s been replaced by Trump.

Yet as dismaying as this episode was, we may soon witness a similar scenario being played out on a far greater stage, as Jewish Democrats are faced with a choice about how to react to Trump’s efforts to roll back the Iran nuclear deal.

The Iran deal was Obama’s signature foreign policy achievement. In order to prevent a dubious Congress from preventing its confirmation, Obama made it a litmus test of party loyalty, and Democrats filibustered Republican efforts to vote it down.

One of the key episodes of that battle was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s mistake in accepting a GOP invitation to address a joint session of Congress to speak out against the accord. Obama was able to pressure most Democrats to view this as a personal insult, and Netanyahu’s speech undermined opposition to the deal.

But another key test awaits Jewish Democrats. With Trump intent on either renegotiating the deal with Iran or nullifying it, the Jewish community will soon be faced with a difficult choice.

If this issue were removed from partisan politics and personalities, the debate would be one-sided. Support for an effort to either improve or throw out an agreement that empowered and enriched the world’s leading state sponsor of terror — a country that is still intent on destroying Israel — would be a no-brainer.

Instead of seizing, in Obama’s words, an opportunity to “get right with the world,” Iran has used the last two years to become even more aggressive. The ayatollahs’ military expedition in Syria has established what is, for all intents and purposes, a land bridge to its Hezbollah terrorist auxiliaries in Lebanon. Along with the Iranians’ renewed alliance with Hamas, Tehran now has the ability to launch a three-front war against Israel at any time of its choosing. Moreover, the terms that Obama negotiated for the nuclear deal have done nothing to make the world safer. At best, the deal merely puts off an Iranian bomb for a few years.

In other words, the Iran nuclear pact is an indefensible swindle negotiated by an administration so determined to get a deal at any price that it abandoned every principle that it should have defended. Were it not the personal project of Obama and the particular object of Trump’s enmity — a point emphasized during his address to the United Nations — it would likely be roundly denounced by every segment of responsible Jewish opinion.

Yet because many Jews see this fight as a political battle, rather than a genuine security threat, reactions to Trump’s effort are predictably partisan.

Jonathan S. Tobin is opinion editor of JNS.org and a Contributing Writer for National Review. Follow him on Twitter at: @jonathans_tobin.

The opinions presented by Algemeiner bloggers are solely theirs and do not represent those of The Algemeiner, its publishers or editors. If you would like to share your views with a blog post on The Algemeiner, please be in touch through our Contact page.

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

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner
  • LtcHoward

    First, let me correct Jonathan Tobin on one remark: the Netanyahu speech to Congress was not a mistake. The Congressional invitation was staffed by a bipartisan group of congressional aides. The White House was fully aware of the invitation. It was Ben Rhodes who intentionally shows as a strategy to make loyalty to the Democratic Party the knife that would divide the American Jewish community from its support of Israel. The White House following Ben Rhodes strategy decided to remain silent and then to ambush Netanyahu. Ben Rhodes has publicly bragged about this and that he used American liberal Jews to carry his false message and its false assurances.

    Representative Adam Schiff was a willing participant in this deceit. As long as American Jews tolerate people like Adam Schiff, Mel Levine, and others who used their “Jewish credentials” to help sabotage both Israel and the United States there is only one hope for Israel . Its support by American Christians like me, especially American military officers who have visited Israel and have seen on the ground the terror that has been unleashed by the Palestinian Authority.

  • Edward Rabin

    Most Jews admire Obama for his poise, dignity and obvious intelligence.They allow his personal qualities to blind them to his foreign policy blunders — especially the Iran deal. The same thing happened with FDR. He was idolized for his charm and domestic policies by most Jews. At the same time he was doing everything in his power to prevent Jews who were fleeing the Holocaust from coming to the United States. At times he felt compelled to make some insignificant gestures that saved the lives of some Jews, but in general he did as little as possible. Nevertheless, he never lost the support of most American Jews. When will we learn to distinguish between personal charm and national policies?

  • Liberals should remember President Carter’s mishandling of the Iranian Revolution and subsequent American hostage crisis. Israel’s security is imperiled by Iran’s state sponsorship of terrorism and nuclear program. And stopping Iran from becoming a nuclear power is a rational policy.

  • Thought is Free

    The Jewish Democrats appear to have collectively lost their minds. Supporting Obama at all costs is so ridiculously stupid it is stunning.

  • Edward Rabin

    Most Jews love Obama’s poise, dignity and obvious intelligence. They allow his good qualities to blind them to his foreign policy blunders — especially the Iran deal. The same thing happened with FDR. The Jews generally idolized FDR, while he did everything in his power to do as little as possible to help the Jews of Europe escape annihilation. When will we learn that personal qualities and national policies are two very different things?

Algemeiner.com