A Possible Historical Reversal: Iran, Obama, Jews and the Democratic Party

Iranian Nuclear Capabilities May Enable Another Holocaust and the Jewish Vote May Be In-play for the First Time in Modern American History

By Elad Yoran

Jewish people were amongst the earliest settlers from Europe to the New World. Since before the American colonies declared their independence in 1776, Jews were prominent members of American society. Early American Jewish society was noted for its political diversity. During the Civil War, Jews living in the South joined the Confederacy alongside their non-Jewish neighbors and fought against the Union Army, which included Jews from northern states. However, this political diversity changed with the wave of Jewish immigrants that came to the United States during the last decades of the 19th and early decades of the 20th Century. Since then, Jews have consistently voted Democratic by overwhelming margins, historically over 70% since 1916.(1) Political historians note that Roosevelt’s awareness of the solidity of Jewish support in the 1940 Presidential election may have reduced leverage for Jewish leaders to influence US policy regarding destruction of the rail lines leading to the concentration and death camps, despite evidence of the atrocities being committed.(2) A few rare elections have provided more “balance” in which Republican candidates garnered 30% or more of the Jewish vote, with the high water mark being Ronald Reagan in 1980 with 39%. Given these historical trends, is it possible that the Jewish vote may be in play in 2010 and 2012? Also, given that Jews make up approximately 2% of the US population, does it really matter?(3) The answer to the second question is yes. If the answer to the first is also yes, then upcoming elections may be tipped in the Republican direction. Furthermore, if the shift proves more than a temporary phenomenon it could mean the end of a century-long relationship between the Democratic Party and American Jews.

Though only two percent of the US population, one important reason the Jewish vote matters is that Jews are concentrated in critical swing states: Florida (more than 650,000), Pennsylvania (nearly 300,000), Ohio (nearly 150,000) and New Jersey (nearly 500,000), where a small shift in voting patterns could tip the election. New York and California are not normally considered swing states, but with more than 1.6 million Jews in New York and 1.2 million in California, a meaningful shift in Jewish voting patterns could put them in play. Other states, including Massachusetts (approximately 275,000), Maryland (approximately 235,000) and Illinois (approximately 280,000) are less likely to be impacted by a shift in Jewish voting patterns as they are too solidly for one party.(4) A second reason this matters is that Jews are disproportionately large contributors to political parties and candidates. As is the case with Jewish voting patterns, Jewish political contributions are overwhelmingly made to the Democratic Party.

It is important to note that the Jewish population pays attention to a wide range of issues, not just Israel and its security. Furthermore, it is not known where Israel ranks on the list of priorities of American Jews, nor do we imply that Jews are the only ones who care about Israel. Americans of diverse backgrounds, socio-economic status, and religions care about and support Israel. However, for the sake of this article, we will speculate how “Jewish issues” specifically dealing with Israel affect Jewish voting patterns.

Jews and the election of 2008
Many traditional Jewish issues were prominent in 2008, the most notable of which pertained to Israel’s security. In the spring of 2005, Israel withdrew completely from the Gaza Strip and as a result suffered a three-year barrage of near-incessant rocket fire, terrorizing the lives of civilians in southern Israeli towns, such as Sderot and Ashkelon. The Gaza situation deteriorated until January 2009 when Israeli forces temporarily entered the area, stopping (thus far) Hamas from firing rockets at Israeli civilians. In 2006, Hezbollah and Israel fought a small-scale war in which the entire population of northern Israel, including large cities such as Haifa, was at risk to Hezbollah’s larger and more destructive rockets. Under normal circumstances, these events would be of utmost concern for anyone concerned about Israel’s security. However, by the 2008 summer presidential campaign season, these incidents took on even greater significance, because both terrorist organizations are proxies of Iran. By 2008, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had long since infamously denied the Holocaust and declared that Israel should be, “wiped out from the map of the world.”(5) These threats, when coupled with Iran’s ongoing pursuit of nuclear capabilities, became existential, creating the possibility of another Holocaust.

It seems logical that John McCain would have appealed to Jewish voters given he echoed outgoing President Bush’s demonstrated track record of being strong on Israel’s security, whereas Barack Obama was a relatively inexperienced figure with uncertain and inconsistent positions. On the issue of Iran, Obama’s willingness to engage without preconditions left him vulnerable to being portrayed as weak and naïve by Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary and McCain in the general election. In response, Obama vacillated with enough ambiguity and “left every option on the table”, the customary euphemism for military action, to create an impression of strength, especially for the growing numbers who wanted to believe in him.

Candidate Barack Obama, sensing that he needed to burnish his pro-Israel credentials, visited Israel in July 2008. In a well-televised interview, while standing in front of a house that had been destroyed by terrorist rockets, Obama declared that he would take any action to protect his wife and children: “The first job of any nation state is to protect its citizens. And so I can assure you that if -- I don't even care if I was a politician. If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.”(6) This image of Obama in Sderot was interpreted by many American Jews as evidence that Obama would be strong on Israel, essentially eroding the distinction between the candidates on this issue.

All Issues Overshadowed by the Economy
The economic collapse in September 2008 was a boon to the Obama campaign. It consumed the available oxygen and left all other issues, including Iran and Israel’s security, neglected. Polls at the time indicated that on these other issues John McCain was at least Obama’s equal.(7) While Obama was not an economics-minded individual (as much as he is a social policy-minded individual), there is no doubt that he seized the issue with force of eloquence that his rival could not match. Swept into office with lofty oratory skills and an adoring media that was all too ready (and not discouraged by the candidate) to compare him with perhaps the greatest of all Presidents, Abraham Lincoln, Obama entered office with outsized expectations to match his rhetoric, and sizeable Democratic majorities in both the House of Representatives and the Senate to enact his agenda.

After a promising start, highlighted by the passing of a nearly $800 billion stimulus plan, the Obama administration has fallen on tougher times from healthcare, to budget deficits, to Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan and more. Increasingly, it is becoming apparent to the American people that while Obama campaigned as a bipartisan centrist, he intends to govern as a leftwing liberal. As a result, an element of wariness and suspicion has entered into the American people’s perception of Obama, many of whom previously viewed him through rose-colored lenses. This shift is evident in recent polls which show a dramatic fall in Obama’s popularity.(8) According to Rasmussen Reports Daily Presidential Tracking Poll, more people strongly disapprove of Obama than strongly approve by a meaningful margin of 8%, a dramatic shift in only a few months.(9)

In general, Jews have supported and continue to support President Obama. However, in keeping with the general population, a similar declining trend in Obama’s standing may be emerging for Jewish voters. I have found that even Jews on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and elsewhere have reacted in much the same way as the American people have. Granted, this is an unscientific finding, but the sense that Obama’s support among Jewish voters is waning is hard to deny. Jews are viewing Obama more critically than before.

In seven months of office, President Obama has established a track record of taking positions that are disturbing to those who care about Israel’s security. First, he has deliberately and repeatedly criticized Israel while taking a much softer stance with the Palestinians, Israel’s Arab neighbors and other non-Arab Islamic countries, including Iran. Second, in reaching out to the Islamic world, Obama justified Israel’s existence as resolution of the Holocaust rather than on the well-established historical ties between the Jews and their ancestral land. Then, as if to prove his point, make amends and restore his Jewish-friendly credentials, he immediately jetted to Munich to deliver a speech at Dachau. To many, Obama’s positions embody severe double standards. With the exception of Israel, Obama seems to believe that the US should not interfere in internal matters of other countries, such as not supporting (even with just words) the Iranian citizens who put their lives at risk in the pursuit of democracy following their elections in June; or as the case may be, in supporting a leader in Honduras who was implementing Chavez-like usurpations of power but was ousted with the backing of the Honduran people and congress. In Israel’s case, however, Obama feels perfectly within his right to determine from Washington, DC where in Jerusalem Jews should be allowed to live. Only recently, Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to Mary Robinson, a diplomat with a long record of anti-Israel and anti-Semitic positions, brought to light most glaringly when she chaired the infamous “World Conference Against Racism” in Durban, South Africa in 2001. Instead of concentrating on its purported objectives, Durban was virulently anti-Semitic, anti-Israel, and at least implicitly, anti-American.

An obvious question is whether this sense of erosion of Jewish support is a blip or the beginning of a larger trend. Perhaps a better question is whether events on the horizon can create a scenario in which the Jewish vote will be in play for the first time in modern history. Of all the potential events, the one that looms darkest on Israel’s horizon is a nuclear-capable Iran, and with it the real possibility of another Holocaust.

Iranian Nuclear Capabilities May Enable Another Holocaust
It is an irrefutable fact that Iran continues to develop nuclear capability. As of June 5, 2009, the New York Times reported, “atomic inspectors reported Friday that the country has sped up its production of nuclear fuel and increased its number of installed centrifuges to 7,200 — more than enough, weapon experts said, to make fuel for up to two nuclear weapons a year, if the country decided to use its facilities for that purpose.”(10) On September 9th, 2009, The Wall Street Journal reported, “Glyn Davies, Washington's chief envoy to the International Atomic Energy Agency, also warned that the latest report by the nuclear watchdog shows that Tehran is either very near or already in possession of sufficient low-enriched uranium to produce one nuclear weapon, if the decision were made to further enrich it to weapons-grade.”(11) Though Iran claims that its nuclear program is for peaceful civilian use, there is no way we or anyone outside the highest echelons of Iranian government can distinguish between Iranian civilian and military nuclear programs. Leading experts think that Iran is less than one year away from enriching enough material to be used in a nuclear weapon. The International Institute for Strategic Studies, a London-based think tank, predicted that “during 2009, Iran will probably reach the point at which it has produced the amount of low-enriched uranium needed to make a nuclear bomb.”(12)

Given the ticking clock on this timeline, the non-military options, such as sanctions, available to the world are quickly vanishing. Facing these prospects, what is Israel to do? What can it do? What should the United States do? What will it do? Twice before, Israel prevented an enemy sworn to its destruction from acquiring nuclear capabilities. In 1981, in a daring air raid, Israel destroyed Saddam Hussein’s nuclear facility in Osirik, Iraq, and more recently, in 2007 it destroyed Bashir Assad’s secret nuclear reactor in Syria. Pulling off a similar result in Iran would be orders of magnitude riskier.

President Obama has addressed this topic with his usual flair for words. On the surface, he seems to say a lot of impressive things that sound strong. However, when one really listens, all of his speechifying comes down to this; Obama has indicated that he is not in favor of Iran acquiring a nuclear capability. Big deal. Americans, Jewish or not, have to examine the real possibility that an Obama administration may leave Israel to face another potential holocaust at the hands of the world’s most deadly and dangerous regime on its own.

If anyone of us were the prime minister of Israel, what would we do? Would any of us, in his shoes, entrust the fate of our people in the less-than-satisfying rhetoric of Obama?

Lucky for Israel, it is not just Jews in America that care about its existence. Over the last four decades, the ties between Israel and the US have grown commercially, culturally and strategically. Israel is an important economic partner of the United States. More Israeli companies are listed on US exchanges than are listed from any other country, and many top US technology firms (such as IBM, Intel, Motorola, Microsoft and dozens of others) conduct significant R&D in Israel. However, the ties that bind America and Israel are not merely economic, and include a profound common heritage and values. Of all the countries in the Middle East, Israel is the only pluralistic democracy where the rule of law, minority rights, and civil liberties flourish. Israel is also one of America’s most reliable international allies. Americans recognize that the ties that connect the US and Israel are in America’s interest as well. They are proud of these ties and are supportive of the relationship. Americans will not turn their back on Israel, though Obama may not share this view. In the end, however, it may be American Jews that turn their back on President Obama, and if other Democrats are not careful, America may turn its back on them as well.

NOTES:
1 The Jewish Virtual Library
2 Harry Feingold “Courage First and Intelligence Second: The American Jewish Secular Elite, Roosevelt, and the Failure to Rescue,” ed. Verne Newton FDR and the Holocaust, pp. 51-88.
3 The Jewish Virtual Library
4 The Jewish Virtual Library
5 CNN.com
6 The New York Times
7 Gallup.Com
8 Washington Post
9 Rasmussen Reports
10 The New York Times
11 The Wall Street Journal
12 The International Institute for Strategic Studies