A new Pew Research Center poll demonstrates that Republicans are much more sympathetic to Israel than Democrats, a wider partisan divergence than has ever existed before. The poll finds that when asked if their sympathies are more with Israelis or Palestinians, 66 percent of Republicans choose Israel compared with 49 percent of independents and just 39 percent of Democrats.
The divergence is significant for several reasons.
The first is that it is Democrats and not Republicans who have been the mainstay of the Israeli government and lobby’s support in Congress since the establishment of the state, starting with Jewish members of the House and Senate. The current 113th Congress is typical: of the 33 Jewish members of the two Houses, only one (Rep. Eric Cantor of Virginia) is a Republican.
As for Jewish voters, in the 2012 election 70 percent voted for President Obama which was close to the norm. Even in terrible years for Democrats, like the 1972 Nixon-McGovern blowout, Democrat McGovern received 65 percent of the Jewish vote. As for campaign contributions, it is estimated that 60 percent of the money that the Democratic party raises comes from Jews, far dwarfing the contributions of a few highly publicized Republican donors like Sheldon Adelson.
In short, it makes sense that Democrats have always taken the lead on matters relating to Israel, with Republicans playing catch-up, and none too well. Yes, they offer hardline rhetoric but, on nuts and bolts issues like the Israel aid package and making sure that U.S. pressure is not applied to Israel, it is the Democrats, like Vice President Joe Biden, who are the ball game.
The second reason that the partisan divergence is significant is that few Jews vote Democratic based on Israel policy. According to the comprehensive American Jewish Committee survey of Jewish public opinion, only 4.5 percent vote with their eye on Israel. That number is dwarfed by the 80 percent whose vote turns on the economy, health care and social security.
Nonetheless, it is those donors and voters who do think of Israel first when making their political choices that has produced such wall-to-wall support among Democratic elected officials. Why not? On one side there are people whose vote and financial contributions turn on Israel while, on the other, there is… nothing.
Until now there has been no force within the Democratic party arguing that America’s uncritical support of Israeli policies may be bad for America and that it, by helping to sustain the 45-year-old occupation, is morally wrong. Among Republicans, indifference to the moral implications of the occupation would not be expected to cause much concern, but among Democrats it should.
And now, according to the Pew poll, it probably is.
So far, this divergence has not been reflected in policy as President Obama’s trip to Israel indicated. In Jerusalem and Tel Aviv, his excessive rhetoric about his devotion to Israel seems, in retrospect, almost like parody. It is as if he decided that if those who doubted his support for Israel as demonstrated by his administration’s actions remained dissatisfied, he would give them the kind of over-the-top rhetoric that would make AIPAC blush. And he did.
And no one complained. The lobby loved it and few others cared.
But, as the Pew poll demonstrates, the Democratic party is changing. As the Democratic party increasingly becomes the party of blacks, browns and newer immigrants, support for Israel declines. And why wouldn’t it? After all, Palestinians might not look quite so alien to non-white Democrats. And the Israelis might not seems so “just like us” to them.
Moreover, it is not just “minority” Democrats who are likely to move the Democratic party away from undying devotion to Israeli policies. It is also the party’s activist base which has been dominated by anti-war types since the Vietnam War.
Support for Israel’s hardline policies is a natural for the Republican grassroots; it perfectly fits in with their worldview. Democrats should be expected to be more sympathetic to Palestinians. And, as I know from years of personal experience on Capitol Hill, they are, but are simply afraid to antagonize the lobby.
But what if, suddenly, they start hearing from the party’s base not that they should support Israeli policies but that they should support an end to the occupation and security and sovereignty for both Israelis and Palestinians?
What if the 61 percent of Democrats who are not more sympathetic to Israel than to Palestinians started sensing their own strength and began pushing back? What if the issue of U.S. support for the occupation started being raised in Democratic primaries and affected campaign contributions too?
What if, as the Pew poll demonstrates, the Republican party became the home of Israel hardliners while the Democratic party with its base of labor, gays, non-whites, liberal Jews and progressives became the party of those who want their country to finally become the Middle East “honest broker” we pretend we are.
That could make all the difference.
The Democratic party is changing and the rate of change will accelerate as its base continues to be transformed. Let the lobby shift its attention to the Republicans, its natural home, while Democrats finally reject a policy that is the vestige of the bad old days. No, Obama is not going to bethatchange, nor will Joe Biden or Hillary Clinton. That change, like the opposition to the Vietnam War, will have to come from the grassroots. And it will.
Healing Israel/Palestine
Democrats Not So Into Israel Anymore
|
MJ Rosenberg is Special Correspondent for The Washington Spectator where this originally appeared.
The loathsome Rosenberg strikes again. He must be petitioning for a better severance pay from AIPAC.
Mohammed Rosenberg is right about the democrats turning on Israel. But definitely wrong about Jews in congress. Most of them, like Mohammad Rosenberg would be indifferent to a mushroom cloud over tel Aviv. BTW if the lobby is so powerful how come Mohammed Rosenberg is still alive and kicking
Aside from religious and cultural differences, over at least the past 10 years, the Democratic and Republican Parties in the USA have consistently supported corporate financial/military/industrial war making policies, undemocratic elections, perpetual armed aggression against millions of unarmed people throughout our world, and legislation such as the U.S. National Defense Authorization Acts that trash the U.S. Constitution, U.N. Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Perhaps new parties in the USA (Justice, Green & Libertarian?) are needed to honor the basic human values and the objectives of a more civil democratic world government.
The basic human values and rights – of justice, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness have been proscribed by Constitutional Law, the U.N. Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Shouldn’t those values be honored?
Yes. let’s start in Syria. 90,000 have been slaughtered there
Sammy, you are right, we should start in Syria. I just wonder if you know who are the players(real players) in the vicious circle, that seeking the destruction of a sovereign country and its people and not just a government, as we have been sold similar lies in the very recent past? If you have figured it out, then you would know what is wrong with our world today. Greed and dominance, and not democracy and human rights. That is why your answer was correct, but ,I have a suspicion,not its under tone, or what you intended. Am I wrong?
Are you suggesting Israel and te US are behind the destabilization of Syria. You see, that is what is wrong in the Arab world. They always shift blame onto others. The Assad family have a dark past of genocide.
Here, here! I am pro-Israel, pro-Palestinian and pro-peace. Hope the trend toward a demand for a fair agreement that works for everyone continues. Thanks for a great article.
I echo Carrie Vanston’s sentiments.
There have been two major ‘inversions’ in American politics that I can think of. The first was the Democrats’ being the favorite of segregationists, from the time of the civil war until the civil rights era in the 1960s, when they renounced racist policy definitively.
That was bold.
A heavy political price was paid, which Nixon exploited with his southern strategy, and which the Rep.s continue to exploit to this day. Meanwhile the Dem.s are a party somewhat redeemed for their gesture and new commitment.
The other major inversion is trickier; it started about then, and continues through the present. That comes about from the split up of the neo-Libs and neo-Cons, which residual energy, you could say, nucleates the animus felt between the parties today.
Prior to that point, and forgive my over generalization, neo-cons, Rep.s, and the militant southern establishment, were all of the ‘exclusive’ persuasion; i.e. Jews were not invited into their clubs. The hasty realignment, then, I would say, is due to the military oriented neo cons’ requirement for a sturdy outpost in the ME, and the entangled requirements of electoral politics at home. You can’t be against Jews while pressing the case for Israel.
I would say that this marriage is a bit cynical, or at least superficial; I sense those people have not come so far as to, say, marry a Jew, or vote for one, but rather create, then oblige the religious right’s embrace. And I believe the old prejudices would reemerge approximately instantly if the ME military situation went away.
That’s tricky, I know; it’s how I feel this unlikely embrace has come about, the unlikely prejudiced sector embracing Jews is too sudden, too striking. I believe there is a deep difference in the relative quality of love of Jews and Judaism between Rep.s and Dem.s; I would say, in the latter case, it is more heartfelt, and more of a piece with liberal thinking.
As for the American Dem. I am one and speak for myself. We Dem.s favor the underdog, at least in my age. That includes blacks and Jews. Rep.s’ conservatism is more about maintaining an older order. Dem’s see this must be unwound in the names of peace and justice; also, it felt so good to be on the liberation side in the ’60’s.
And there, finally, is the crux of the problem – vis a third down-trodden, the American ‘indian.’ This liberal impulse carries a curse for American’s. The liberal must always feel guilt for the treatment of our indigenous population – a crime now beyond redeeming, directly. We used to watch cowboy and ‘indian’ movies, white cowboys huddled in the settlers’ cabins, or within encircling wagons, shooting invading indians by the score.
Today those scenes of brave settlers are horrible. There we see our real mortality; not of the flesh but of the soul. And there we see Palestine. I pray, with 66% of American Jews, that Israel make that redeeming move.
That would be bold.
I’d like to be as optimistic as Mr. Rosenberg, but he has skated over the key issues: money, money and money. When, why and how will the new base of the Democratic Party send donations that even begin to compete with the 60% of the party’s budget provided by American Jewish hawks (hawks on Israel, anyway)? In any case, the donations they do sed will be tied to issues more important to them than Israel. I’m pinning my hopes, such as they are, on the activists Mr. Rosenberg inspires, myself among them. Except for Jews and Evangelical Christians, Americans don’t care about what our tax dollars are doing to the Palestinians. We have to make them care.
I’m sure, Mary, that most Jewish contributors to Democrats are because they are liberals and doves. Those who are not, contribute to the Republicans. And I’m sure that these Democrats would applaud a two-state peace agreement with the Palestinians.
I am unfamiliar with the history of Mr Rosenberg so this may make little sense.
As a somewhat seven-year-in Jew by Choice, I not only side with Israel, Palestine and peace, but therefore oppose the current Israeli government. I’ve watched Israeli’s moral high ground erode for 25 years, and not because of Palestinian crimes against it. And since becoming Jewish, have entertained a parade of old-friend and newfound Jews who shared their latest months-long trip to Israel: here’s a clip, “Palestinians are animals, animals,who can never be trusted to make peace. (Lovely.) And these paraders are in the intelligence game (of unspy varieties). They wouldn’t even say such things about animals.
Some democrats are at least within smelling room of an intelligence game also, and with similar encounters may have cooled toward Israeli policy and behavior. Still the cause of Israel sends chills up their spine, Survey questions often do not ask which of these two Israels one supports or not..
YY
Is there something that give you a unique perspective as a Jew o choice. I doubt you would have become a Jew by choice in a place like Germany when it was uncool in the 1930’s and 1940’s. It was hard to be a Jew by both in the Soviet Union. But it is sad that a Jew by choice wold abandon the only country in the world where a Jew by birth can live as a Jew. I don’t know if a Jew by choice can understand this because adopting a religion and joining an ethnic groups is not juts about being cool.