Article

2010-04-11 Home Front: Politix

By Jeff Jacoby

In the wake of the diplomatic fight that the Obama administration went out of its way to pick with Israel last month, two high-ranking members of the US House of Representatives Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Minority Whip Eric Cantor invited their colleagues to sign a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter reaffirmed the signers' commitment to the unbreakable bond'' and extraordinary closeness'' that exists between the United States and Israel, and declared that our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.'' It expressed dismay at the highly publicized tensions'' between the White House and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and pointedly counseled the administration to resolve its differences with Israel quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies.''

The letter was polite, but there was no mistaking the implicit rebuke of the president for treating Israel so shabbily. Nor, one might think, was there any mistaking its bipartisan appeal: It was signed by 333 members of the US House, more than three-fourths of the entire membership.

The Hoyer-Cantor letter wasn't the only apparent evidence in recent weeks that American friendliness for Israel crosses party lines. At the national conference of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, for example, two of the featured speakers were US Senators Charles Schumer, a staunch Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, an equally staunch Republican. In a Gallup poll released in February, Israel was one of the five countries most positively viewed by a majority of US citizens: 67 percent expressed a favorable opinion of the Jewish state. And the president's tilt against Israel has been denounced as bluntly by GOP loyalist Liz Cheney (President Obama is playing a reckless game of . . . diminishing America's ties to Israel'') as by lifelong Democrat Ed Koch (It is unimaginable that the president would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion.'')

Peer a little more closely, however, and the wall of pro-Israel solidarity turns out not to be quite so well, solid.

Take that Gallup survey, which found that 67 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Israel. The same survey also found that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 63 percent of the public stands with Israel more than quadruple the 15 percent that support the Palestinians. There's not much doubt that the American mainstream is pro-Israel.

But look at the disparity that emerges when those results are sorted by party affiliation. While support for Israel vs. the Palestinians has climbed to a stratospheric 85 percent among Republicans, the comparable figure for Democrats is an anemic 48 percent. (It was 60 percent for independents.) And behind Israel's Top 5'' favorability rating lies a gaping partisan rift: 80 percent of Republicans but just 53 percent of Democrats have positive feelings about the world's only Jewish country.

Similarly, it is true that 333 US House members, a hefty bipartisan majority, endorsed the robustly pro-Israel Hoyer-Cantor letter to Clinton. But there were only seven Republicans who declined to sign the letter, compared with 91 Democrats more than a third of the entire Democratic caucus. (Six Massachusetts Democrats were among the non-signers: John Olver, Richard Neal, John Tierney, Ed Markey, Michael Capuano, and Bill Delahunt.)

From Zogby International, meanwhile, comes still more proof of the widening gulf between the major parties on the subject of Israel. In a poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute last month, respondents were asked whether Obama should steer a middle course'' in the Middle East code for not clearly supporting Israel. There is a strong divide on this question,'' Zogby reported, with 73 percent of Democrats agreeing that the President should steer a middle course while only 24 percent of Republicans hold the same opinion.''

Taken as a whole, America's identification with Israel is as stout as ever the special relationship'' between the two nations still runs deep. But the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down. Republican friendship for Israel has never been more rock-solid. Democratic friendship especially in the age of Obama is growing steadily less so.

Posted by ryuge 2010-04-11 09:18|| || Front Page|| [11131 views ] Top

#1 Now poll the percentage of American Jews who vote and/or support the demokratic party vs. the Republican party. Cognitive dissonance personified. I've read a number of articles by Podhoretz and Goldberg about this but still find it stunningly illogical....
It will be interesting to see of Oblahblah has finally done enough to break the mindlessness of American Jews on this...if he has, money and influence disproportionate to raw numbers may flow to the right.

Posted by NoMoreBS 2010-04-11 11:12|| 2010-04-11 11:12|| Front Page Top

#2 Never mind Israel---Israel will survive and prosper with or without USA. Don't these people get whom Obama is going to scapegoat when he can't deliver on his promises?

Posted by g(r)omgoru 2010-04-11 12:19|| 2010-04-11 12:19|| Front Page Top

#3 Israel will survive and prosper with or without USA.

Heh.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-04-11 12:22|| 2010-04-11 12:22|| Front Page Top

#4 NoMoreBS - The problem is even more nuanced, and worse, than may appear.

I'll discount the whole "dual loyalty" canard - since using it can cut both ways. Still, if you throw that out, a simple random sample of American jews would give the same result - crazy democratic bias. It's hilariously the opposite of the nonsensical "What's wrong with Kansas" book by that Franks guy.

I still await the non-ethnic polling - i.e. not so much of "jewish-americans", but of religiously observant americans. I suspect that to the extent they are jewish, they are also republicans. I suspect the leftism is more secular than religious. Almost the opposite of blacks, which may be the most religious component (if not the only) still dominant amongst democrats.

Posted by Halliburton - Mysterious Conspiracy Division 2010-04-11 12:26|| 2010-04-11 12:26|| Front Page Top

#5 Almost the opposite of blacks, which may be the most religious component (if not the only) still dominant amongst democrats.

Almost, but you're forgetting the liberal strains of the US Episkopal choich and attendant Quakerism. Small but damn strong, trust me on this.

Posted by Shipman 2010-04-11 12:42|| 2010-04-11 12:42|| Front Page Top

#6 which may be the most religious component (if not the only) still dominant amongst democrats.

The donk party is very religious. But it is the Church of Government at which they worship.

Think I'm kidding? Who used to provide education? Churches. Now? Government. Who used to care for orphans? Church orphanages. Now? Government. Who used to care for the indigent elderly? Church homes. Now? Social Security. Who used to provide eternal life? Churches. Now? Obamacare.

They won't be happy till we all worship at the same ~~church~~ sorry, mosque.

Posted by Nimble Spemble 2010-04-11 12:49|| 2010-04-11 12:49|| Front Page Top

#7 The Lubavicher Jewish town near us has formed quite a convenient political alliance with the Dems which allows them to flaunt building codes etc. A fair number of Conservative Jews I know are very liberal politically as well.

NS touches on why - they dislike, hate and/or fear Evangelicals and to some degree Catholics and want their influence on society to be removed.

Posted by lotp 2010-04-11 13:08|| 2010-04-11 13:08|| Front Page Top

#8 ...they dislike, hate and/or fear Evangelicals and to some degree Catholics and want their influence on society to be removed.

...and when the Obamajugend decide it's time to start breaking some crystal, guess what? It'll probably still be Evangelicals putting their asses on the line to save Jewish refugees.

Posted by Ricky bin Ricardo (Abu Babaloo) 2010-04-11 13:22|| 2010-04-11 13:22|| Front Page Top

#9 Who used to provide education? Churches. Now? Government.

Nimble Spemble, I've recently been reading a history of Cincinnati. I can't speak to your other points, but education in this country started out as small, private enterprises at all levels from primary to tertiary, some of the primary and secondary schools subsequently moving to community sponsorship as the middle of the 19th century approached. The churches (specifically the Catholic church) did not get involved in the education biz. until later, when there were enough Catholic children of school age to be troubled by the anti-Catholic slant of public education.

Posted by trailing wife 2010-04-11 16:17|| 2010-04-11 16:17|| Front Page Top

13:26 Frank G
13:12 Regular joe
13:12 mossomo
13:11 swksvolFF
13:08 Abu Uluque
13:00 swksvolFF
12:59 Regular joe
12:55 Skidmark
12:53 Skidmark
12:52 Abu Uluque
12:50 Abu Uluque
12:49 Skidmark
12:48 NN2N1
12:46 Skidmark
12:44 Bobby
12:43 Abu Uluque
12:41 Bobby
12:38 Skidmark
12:31 swksvolFF
12:30 Skidmark
12:22 Abu Uluque
12:19 Abu Uluque
12:17 Abu Uluque
12:17 Skidmark