Why Obama is driving Jews from the Democratic party
Modal Trigger
President Obama does not seem to take threats to Benjamin
Netanyahu's Israel very seriously — and that may cost the Dems.
Photo: Getty Images
A friend who is conservative and Jewish asks a question:
“Given Obama’s hostile treatment of Israel, isn’t it time for Jews to
have their Ronald Reagan moment?”
By that, he means when the Gipper said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
Without doubt, the party under Barack Obama has left those Jews who view Israel’s security as threatened.
Obama recently told a New York Times interviewer, “Because Israel is so capable militarily, I don’t worry about Israel’s survival.”
That’s shocking, considering Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the map once it gets nukes. And even as Obama spoke, the Jewish state was in a mini-war with Hamas, which vows to eliminate Israel and is supported by Iran.
Obama apparently doesn’t take those aims seriously, perhaps believing they are only boob bait for the Muslim masses. But if “kill the Jews” is what the masses want to hear, why assume that isn’t official policy? After all, many thought Hitler wasn’t serious, either.
Israel can’t afford to assume its enemies will only talk the talk, so it must act as if those who say they want genocide really do. That’s why it doesn’t play tit-for-tat when it is attacked, and why it is so nervous about Iran.
But Obama’s lack of worry about Israel isn’t limited to his rhetoric, as The Wall Street Journal revealed. The president’s pique at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached a new high during the Hamas conflict, and Obama is now putting a squeeze on military shipments to Israel.
The State Department insists this is routine, nothing to see here, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense.
Even a “review” of American policy is a warning to Netanyahu and an invitation to his political opponents at home that their nation is at odds with its essential ally.
Some American supporters of Israel, including Democrats, are furious at Obama. And Israeli media report opposition pols there are blaming Netanyahu for “losing” America.
It is obvious Obama wants a liberal lapdog in Israel, a point underscored by his complaint to the Times’ Tom Friedman that Netanyahu’s poll numbers are very high. “Bibi is too strong,” Obama insisted, saying it insulated him from having to make the decisions Obama wants him to make.
In other words, the Israeli public is also wrong for supporting Netanyahu, and Obama knows what’s best for them. He said that to “preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values” of its founders, Israelis must “find a way to live side by side in peace with Palestinians . . . You have to recognize that they have legitimate claims and this is their land and neighborhood, as well.”
As a platitude, that could be harmless. But remember the context. In that statement, made during a war that Hamas started, Obama made Hamas a synonym for all Palestinians.
It’s not, unless he believes all Palestinians, including the relative moderates who govern the West Bank, share the Hamas goal of eliminating Israel.
He’s also undermining the long-standing policy of supporting moderate, peaceful Palestinians with the goal of freezing out the terrorists.
To say, as Obama does, that Israel must recognize that Hamas has “legitimate claims” is to reward it for starting the war. It transfers legitimacy and power from Palestinian moderates to the terrorists.
As one Israeli paper put it, “US livid with Israel? Hamas can’t believe its luck.”
So, is this the moment when American Jews realize the Democratic Party has left them?
Gallup surveyed 88,000 Americans through June and found that 55 percent of Jews approved of the president, while 41 percent disapproved. Among all religious groups, Muslims gave him the highest approval, at 72 percent.
The 55 percent Jewish approval marks a big decline from the 69 percent of the Jewish vote Obama got in 2012, and the 78 percent he got in 2008.
Despite what anti-Semites believe, not all Jews care equally about Israel, and certainly don’t agree on what is best for Israel. Other issues affect their vote as well.
Still, the well-being of the lone Jewish state is a significant factor for many, and they want a president who shares their concern. Given Obama’s recent hostile conduct and comments, a new poll likely would find his support falling even more.
It’s not a “Reagan moment,” but it’s getting closer.
That’s frightening.
Despite his huge lead in the polls, the 600,000 members of the New York State United Teachers will not endorse the governor or any of his opponents. And the state’s second largest union, the Public Employees Federation, went further by endorsing Cuomo’s far-left opponent in the party primary, Zephyr Teachout.
Another group, the Village Independent Democrats, pulled its endorsement of Cuomo running mate Kathy Hochul and switched to Teachout’s, Tim Wu.
Cuomo’s big lead in the polls and reputation for taking revenge couldn’t overcome his pursuit of reform policies the unions resisted. Although the teachers didn’t make an endorsement in the 2010 race, these groups are considered to be automatic supporters for an incumbent Dem.
The revolt is a reminder that Cuomo pushed Albany toward the center in major ways. His property-tax cap was designed to stop runaway spending and taxing, and his extraordinarily bold push for charter schools was a form of torture for the unions.
The governor’s erratic behavior on the Moreland Commission now overshadows those earlier accomplishments. But it is worth remembering that most New Yorkers favor the very policies the tax-and-spend Dems hate, so Cuomo should wear union rejection as a badge of honor.
The mayor has distinguished himself for parting company with his two predecessors. Where they saw cops as the solution, de Blasio tends to see them as the problem.
Not this time. Echoing top cop Bill Bratton, the mayor said that resisting arrest was foolish. “When a police officer comes to the decision that it’s time to arrest someone, the individual is obligated to submit to arrest,” he said.
It seems obvious, but cases from Staten Island to Missouri reveal that too many people think they can just say no. Thanks to the mayor for setting the record straight.
By that, he means when the Gipper said, “I didn’t leave the Democratic Party. The party left me.”
Without doubt, the party under Barack Obama has left those Jews who view Israel’s security as threatened.
Obama recently told a New York Times interviewer, “Because Israel is so capable militarily, I don’t worry about Israel’s survival.”
That’s shocking, considering Iran’s threat to wipe Israel off the map once it gets nukes. And even as Obama spoke, the Jewish state was in a mini-war with Hamas, which vows to eliminate Israel and is supported by Iran.
Obama apparently doesn’t take those aims seriously, perhaps believing they are only boob bait for the Muslim masses. But if “kill the Jews” is what the masses want to hear, why assume that isn’t official policy? After all, many thought Hitler wasn’t serious, either.
Israel can’t afford to assume its enemies will only talk the talk, so it must act as if those who say they want genocide really do. That’s why it doesn’t play tit-for-tat when it is attacked, and why it is so nervous about Iran.
But Obama’s lack of worry about Israel isn’t limited to his rhetoric, as The Wall Street Journal revealed. The president’s pique at Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached a new high during the Hamas conflict, and Obama is now putting a squeeze on military shipments to Israel.
The State Department insists this is routine, nothing to see here, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense.
Even a “review” of American policy is a warning to Netanyahu and an invitation to his political opponents at home that their nation is at odds with its essential ally.
Some American supporters of Israel, including Democrats, are furious at Obama. And Israeli media report opposition pols there are blaming Netanyahu for “losing” America.
It is obvious Obama wants a liberal lapdog in Israel, a point underscored by his complaint to the Times’ Tom Friedman that Netanyahu’s poll numbers are very high. “Bibi is too strong,” Obama insisted, saying it insulated him from having to make the decisions Obama wants him to make.
In other words, the Israeli public is also wrong for supporting Netanyahu, and Obama knows what’s best for them. He said that to “preserve a Jewish state that is also reflective of the best values” of its founders, Israelis must “find a way to live side by side in peace with Palestinians . . . You have to recognize that they have legitimate claims and this is their land and neighborhood, as well.”
As a platitude, that could be harmless. But remember the context. In that statement, made during a war that Hamas started, Obama made Hamas a synonym for all Palestinians.
It’s not, unless he believes all Palestinians, including the relative moderates who govern the West Bank, share the Hamas goal of eliminating Israel.
He’s also undermining the long-standing policy of supporting moderate, peaceful Palestinians with the goal of freezing out the terrorists.
To say, as Obama does, that Israel must recognize that Hamas has “legitimate claims” is to reward it for starting the war. It transfers legitimacy and power from Palestinian moderates to the terrorists.
As one Israeli paper put it, “US livid with Israel? Hamas can’t believe its luck.”
So, is this the moment when American Jews realize the Democratic Party has left them?
Gallup surveyed 88,000 Americans through June and found that 55 percent of Jews approved of the president, while 41 percent disapproved. Among all religious groups, Muslims gave him the highest approval, at 72 percent.
The 55 percent Jewish approval marks a big decline from the 69 percent of the Jewish vote Obama got in 2012, and the 78 percent he got in 2008.
Despite what anti-Semites believe, not all Jews care equally about Israel, and certainly don’t agree on what is best for Israel. Other issues affect their vote as well.
Still, the well-being of the lone Jewish state is a significant factor for many, and they want a president who shares their concern. Given Obama’s recent hostile conduct and comments, a new poll likely would find his support falling even more.
It’s not a “Reagan moment,” but it’s getting closer.
Still clueless on Snowden
Edward Snowden is a traitor, running to China and Russia with his stolen secrets. But the really scary part is the possibility that he’s telling the truth about something. Posing with an American flag, he claimed in an interview that intelligence officials still have no idea how much and exactly what he took.That’s frightening.
Unions revolt on Gov
Many New Yorkers believe Gov. Cuomo has been too generous to state unions and not tough enough on pensions and teacher evaluations. Obviously, the unions think he has been too tough.Despite his huge lead in the polls, the 600,000 members of the New York State United Teachers will not endorse the governor or any of his opponents. And the state’s second largest union, the Public Employees Federation, went further by endorsing Cuomo’s far-left opponent in the party primary, Zephyr Teachout.
Another group, the Village Independent Democrats, pulled its endorsement of Cuomo running mate Kathy Hochul and switched to Teachout’s, Tim Wu.
Cuomo’s big lead in the polls and reputation for taking revenge couldn’t overcome his pursuit of reform policies the unions resisted. Although the teachers didn’t make an endorsement in the 2010 race, these groups are considered to be automatic supporters for an incumbent Dem.
The revolt is a reminder that Cuomo pushed Albany toward the center in major ways. His property-tax cap was designed to stop runaway spending and taxing, and his extraordinarily bold push for charter schools was a form of torture for the unions.
The governor’s erratic behavior on the Moreland Commission now overshadows those earlier accomplishments. But it is worth remembering that most New Yorkers favor the very policies the tax-and-spend Dems hate, so Cuomo should wear union rejection as a badge of honor.
Blasio talkin’ cuff
Never say there is no good news. The Post’s front page on Mayor de Blasio defending cops was the best man-bites-dog story of the last seven months.The mayor has distinguished himself for parting company with his two predecessors. Where they saw cops as the solution, de Blasio tends to see them as the problem.
Not this time. Echoing top cop Bill Bratton, the mayor said that resisting arrest was foolish. “When a police officer comes to the decision that it’s time to arrest someone, the individual is obligated to submit to arrest,” he said.
It seems obvious, but cases from Staten Island to Missouri reveal that too many people think they can just say no. Thanks to the mayor for setting the record straight.
No comments:
Post a Comment