Should Those Concerned About Israel Vote for Democrats -- or Republicans?

[happysandyh]

by Daniel Pipes
National Review

October 19, 2010

How should American voters concerned with Israel's welfare and security vote in the U.S. Congressional elections on Nov. 2?

This much is clear after almost two years of Democratic control over the executive and legislative branches of government: Democrats consistently support Israel and its government far less than do Republicans. Leaving Barack Obama aside for now (he's not on the ballot), let's focus on Congress and on voters.

Congress: The pattern of weak Democratic support began just a week after Inauguration Day 2009, right after the Israel-Hamas war, when 60 House Democrats (including such left-wingers as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters) and not a single Republican wrote the secretary of state to "respectfully request that the State Department release emergency funds to [the anti-Israel organization] UNRWA for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance" in Gaza.

In the same spirit, 54 House Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to Barack Obama a year later, in January 2010, asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.

In dramatic contrast, 78 House Republicans wrote a "Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu" letter a few months later to express their "steadfast support" for him and Israel. The signatories were not just Republicans but members of the House Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus.

So, count 54 Democrats for Hamas and 78 Republicans for Israel.

In the aftermath of the March 2010 crisis when Joe Biden went to Jerusalem, 333 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. The 102 members who did not sign included 94 Democrats (including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) and 8 Republicans, a 12-to-1 ratio. Seventy-six senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans, a 5-to-1 ratio.

Voters: Public opinion explains these differences on Capitol Hill.

An April 2009 poll by Zogby International asked about U.S. policy: Ten percent of Obama voters and 60 percent of voters for Republican John McCain wanted the president to support Israel. Get tough with Israel? Eighty percent of Obama voters said yes and 73 percent of McCain voters said no. Conversely, 67 percent of Obama voters said yes and 79 percent of McCain voters said no to Washington engaging with Hamas. And 61 percent of Obama voters endorsed a Palestinian "right of return," while only 21 percent of McCain voters concurred.

Almost a year later, the same pollster asked American adults how best to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and found "a strong divide" on this question. Seventy-three percent of Democrats wanted the president to end the historic bond with Israel but treat Arabs and Israelis alike; only 24 percent of Republicans endorsed this shift.

A survey this month asked if a likely voter is "more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel." Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans prefer the pro-Israel candidate. Turned around, 33 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans would be less likely to support a candidate because he is pro-Israel. Democrats are somewhat evenly split on Israel, but Republicans favor it by a 5-to-1 ratio.

A consensus exists that the two parties are growing further apart over time. Pro-Israel, conservative Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe finds that "the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down."

Anti-Israel, left-wing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute agrees, writing that "traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing." Thanks to changes in the Democratic party, Israel has become a partisan issue in American politics, an unwelcome development for it.

In late March 2010, during a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations, Janine Zacharia wrote in the Washington Post that some Israelis expect their prime minister to "search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections [of November 2010] in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected." That an Israeli leader is thought to stall for fewer Congressional Democrats confirms the changes outlined here. It also provides guidance for voters.

[Firebrand]

The Democrats are running scared and desperate for votes right now. Anything they do or say at this point must be filtered through their fears and strategies to remain in power. The unions are freaked out, too....they too want to remain in power because they corrupt the pockets of Democrats.

I'd not believe one word of the Democrats, especially now when their true colors are coming out. You watch, before this all comes down they will disown their own president....or at least give the image of doing so in order to save themselves.

[Highly Favoured]

Thank you for your post Sandy. It's interesting and informative.

I appreciate it!

[happysandyh]

Thank you for your post Sandy. It's interesting and informative.

I appreciate it!

You're very welcome!

[Tehilah Ba'Aretz]

Sandy, I read that a few days ago and found myself with two opinions. First, the author clearly has an agenda and words his message to promote his agenda. Democrats will not agree that supporting any UN agency is in any way supporting terrorism. They are wrong but still, they will not agree with that evaluation.
On the other hand, the numbers are extremely telling, no matter how the words of the story may agree with a singular viewpoint. I happen to agree with the author completely but I can see how an opponent could pick at the pieces. Its a strong piece and is more insightful than most of the drivel I see spread across the media. Thanks for posting!

[happysandyh]

Sandy, I read that a few days ago and found myself with two opinions. First, the author clearly has an agenda and words his message to promote his agenda. Democrats will not agree that supporting any UN agency is in any way supporting terrorism. They are wrong but still, they will not agree with that evaluation.
On the other hand, the numbers are extremely telling, no matter how the words of the story may agree with a singular viewpoint. I happen to agree with the author completely but I can see how an opponent could pick at the pieces. Its a strong piece and is more insightful than most of the drivel I see spread across the media. Thanks for posting!

I agree! I thought it was very insightful too!!