Earlier this month, a Pew Research Center survey examining attitudes about foreign policy among the U.S. electorate found that Americans continue to strongly favor Israel (54 percent) over the Palestinians (19 percent). Yet the survey also indicated a number of trends that suggest a possible erosion of the long-held bipartisan pro-Israel consensus.

Notably, while figures show sympathy for Israel has remained relatively consistent over the past few decades, there has been a slight uptick in sympathy for the Palestinians, 14 percent to 19 percent, from July 2014 – with a substantial increase in support for the Palestinians among respondents ages 18-29, also known as millennials.

At the same time, Pew’s data confirmed a partisan divide on Israel. While support for Israel among Democratic voters has remained steady over the past few decades – 44 percent in 1978 compared to 43 percent today – there has been a sharp rise during that time in Republican sympathy for Israel, 49 percent to 75 percent, and a modest gain among independents, 45 percent to 52 percent.

Only 33 percent of Democrats who describe themselves as liberal support Israel, while 40 percent sympathize with the Palestinians.

The survey revealed a further divide within the Democratic electorate itself. Hillary Clinton supporters were more likely to sympathize with Israel than the Palestinians, 47 percent versus 27 percent, while Bernie Sanders supporters favored the Palestinians over Israel by 39 percent to 33 percent.

“Evidence has been accumulating for some time of a division among Democratic voters over Israel,” said Dr. Theodore Sasson, senior research scientist at the Cohen Center for Modern Jewish Studies and the Steinhardt Social Research Institute at Brandeis University. “The left wing of the party is more critical of U.S. support for Israel.”

Dr. Jonathan Rynhold, director of the Argov Center for the Study of Israel and the Jewish People at Bar-Ilan University, said that generally the American public’s sympathy toward Israel has been growing since 2000.

Yet Americans have become more divided over policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and those divisions “increasingly line up with the main ideological and political divides in America,” he noted.

“Since younger Americans are more liberal, and each generation is more liberal than the previous generation, they are less sympathetic toward Israel and more inclined to believe that the U.S. should adopt an even-handed approach toward the conflict,” Rynhold told JNS. “They are also more critical of Israel’s use of military force against Hamas and Hizbullah.”

“I doubt the level of hostility [in America] will reach the levels we see in Europe,” said Brandeis’s Sasson. Rynhold echoed that sentiment, saying the gap on Israel between the American left and the European left remains wide.

“American liberals are far more sympathetic to Israel than the European left,” Rynhold said. “The gulf remains huge. The debate in the U.S. is over siding with Israel or being even-handed, and that goes for the Democrats as well. Whereas on the European left, the debate is over [being] anti-Israel or even-handed.”

Yet fears persist about the growing liberal electorate’s views on Israel, especially among younger Americans.

“Over time, as the percentage of liberals among Democrats increases, the party’s support for Israel could well become more conditional on what they perceive as Israel’s willingness to support a two-state solution and perceptions related to other liberal causes inside Israel,” Rynhold said.

(JNS)

My gut feeling about the antipathy and unreliability of the American Democrats towards the State of Israel is shown in the numbers in this article:

The US may offer Israel the ‘largest single pledge’ of military assistance in US history
Republican Lindsey Graham and Democrat Chris Coons were behind the letter, which was signed by 51 Republican and 32 Democratic senators*.
Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz was one of the signatories, while Sanders was not.

And besides those numbers, don’t forget that POTUS wannabe Bernie Sanders has not shown support for the bill.

I have no doubt that the timing of the bill is connected to the campaign, but the important thing to remember is that the two Democratic frontrunners are extremely problematic when it comes to Israel. It is beyond ambivalence or neutrality. Hillary Clinton has a long history of anti-Israel policies and statements. She also has some gevaltik pro-Israel (or good faker) speechwriters, so listening to Hillary talk, you’d think she’s the epitome of pro-Israel, but it’s an act. As the late President Ronald Reagan was known to say, “I don’t know how someone not an actor can be President.” (Sorry for the paraphrasing, but I haven’t found the exact quotation online.)

And radical Leftist Bernie Sanders has shown and stated much more sympathy and understanding for the Arabs, even the Gazan terrorists, than for Israel and Israelis.

Just because they mantra over and over that they love Israel and are pro-Israel means nothing. It’s just words! Think of abusers who claim “love” as they beat and punish their victims!

One thing, no doubt, is that the Republican frontrunners will be better for Israel than the Democrats, especially since the Bush Machine does not control them. I am very relieved that the grassroot Republican voters defeated the Bush Machine in the early primaries.

*{author’s emphasis}

It bears noting that the positions taken by the two contenders for the Democratic Party presidential nomination regarding Israeli foreign policy are at odds with those of the elected government of Israel.

Thus, Senator Bernie Sanders and former secretary of state Clinton, whose party used to pride itself on almost total support for Israel, are sharply critical both of Israel’s alleged failure to make greater efforts to entice the Palestinians into renewed negotiations and its policy on settlements.

In fact, both Mrs. Clinton and Senator Sanders are hewing to the Obama/Kerry/J Street line that Israel’s judgment concerning what’s in its best interests must take a back seat to the views of others who are more realistically attuned to Israel’s needs.

While disputes between Israeli governments and U.S. administrations have been far from rare, the Obama administration and candidates Sanders and Clinton no longer dwell on U.S interests in their criticism of Israel but rather on how much more they know than Israelis themselves about what’s best for Israel.

This form of preachiness is unknown in the ordinary interactions of nations but has become quite de rigueur when American officials come down hard on their Israeli counterparts.

The latest manifestation of this phenomenon was evident in the contretemps that developed this week between Israel and the U.S. after Prime Minister Netanyahu declared that the Golan Heights, captured from Syria during the 1967 Six-Day War, would never be turned over to the Syrians.

Mr. Netanyahu, speaking during a Cabinet meeting held on the Golan Heights, said Israeli control of the Golan was essential to its security interests:

We are here on the Golan Heights. This is the first time that the government of Israel has held an official meeting on the Golan Heights in the 49 years that they have been under Israeli rule. The Golan Heights have been an integral part of the Land of Israel since ancient times; the dozens of ancient synagogues in the area around us attest to this. The Golan Heights are an integral part of Israel in the new era. During the 19 years that the Golan Heights were under Syrian occupation, when they were a place for bunkers, wire fences, mines, and aggression, they were for war. In the 49 years that the Golan Heights have been under Israeli rule, they have been for agriculture, tourism, economic initiatives, and building. They are for peace. In the stormy region around us, Israel is the stabilizing factor; Israel is the solution, not the problem…. The Golan Heights will forever remain in Israel’s hands. Israel will never come down from the Golan Heights.

The State Department quickly responded. On Monday night, spokesman John Kirby said the Obama administration does not consider the Golan Heights to be part of Israel:

The U.S. position on the issue is unchanged. This position was maintained by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Those territories are not part of Israel and the status of those territories should be determined through negotiations. The current situation in Syria does not allow this.

But what about the Golan’s obvious impact on Israeli security interests? They were not even alluded to by Mr. Kirby. Yet according to Aaron David Miller, who served both Democratic and Republican presidents as a Mideast negotiator and was involved in attempting to fashion an accord between Israel and Syria on the Golan issue, said that had an agreement been reached, “the results might have been catastrophic for Israel and for the U.S.”

In a column published in the Wall Street Journal Mr. Miller went on to explain,

What we failed to realize was that of all of Israel’s peace efforts…any deal to return the Golan Heights occupied by the Israelis in 1967 was likely to be fraught precisely because Mr. Assad was so cruel in his policies and that his regime consisted of an Alawite minority governing a Sunni majority…. [so] perhaps it would have only been a matter of time before Syria experienced real instability…. What can be said with certainty is that had Israel given up the Golan, the situation today would have been much more complex. In response to the Syrian civil war and the rise of Islamic State, Israel would have faced a hot front confronting Hezbollah, Iran, and a range of Islamist jihadis. Given the Golan’s strategic importance, Israel would have had to reoccupy it and would have found itself in the middle of Syria’s civil war…

Thus, Miller’s common sense message is that in areas of great instability, political settlements are problematic for the simple reason that nothing agreed to can be reliably viewed as authoritative. Yet Israel is constantly rebuked in the United Nations for not making the concessions necessary for a settlement of the issues between it and the Palestinians.

New York Jews are losing their taste for Hillary Clinton and are moving towards Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden, according to a new Siena College poll.

A majority of 54 percent of Jews in New York view Clinton as “unfavorable,” slightly more than the state average of 51 percent. If primary elections were held today, Clinton would come out on top but only with a plurality of 45%, compared with 24 and 23 percent for Biden and Sanders respectively.

Among Jewish voters, according to JPInsider, registered Democrats would give Clinton only 36 percent of their votes. Biden would win 31% of the Jewish vote, and Sanders would pick up 25 percent.

Clinton is in a tailspin and cannot dig her outsell of her deepening e-mail scandal hole, which makes Sanders look more appealing. Biden still has not announced if he will run, and if he does throw his hat in the ring, he will grab support from those who so far have backed off because of his procrastination.

Siena College pollster Steven Greenberg said:

For the first time ever, Hillary Clinton is under water with New York voters, facing her worst favorability rating ever in her adopted home state. Her favorability rating has seen a net drop of 21 points since July.

However, Clinton is the choice of New York Democrats

On the Republican side, Jews favor Marco Rubio.

Statewide, the Siena poll showed that a majority of Democrats want Biden to run for president.

Trump still leads the Republican field, with a commanding lead of 34% compared with only 14% for Carson and 11% for Bush.

Greenberg added:

Biden runs best against the three leading Republican candidates, and he runs stronger against each of the three than does Clinton with Democrats, Republicans and independents.  Though Sanders has a bigger lead against Bush than does Clinton, she has bigger leads than Sanders against Carson and Trump.

Florida Jewish Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, one of the most senior Democrats in the party and Democratic National Committee chairwoman, has come out in favor of the nuclear deal with Iran, the Miami Herald reported Sunday.

Her district includes a large number of Jews, and she has been under heavy pressure to oppose the agreement. Last week, Vice president Joe Biden met with her and with Florida Jews and apparently helped sway Schultz.

Her support is a blow for opponents to the deal, who were given an uplift last week when Maryland Jewish Sen. Ben Cardin finally announced he will vote against the agreement but proposed an alternative.

Schultz issued a five-and-a-half page statement to the Herald, in which she wrote:

I have subsequently come to the conclusion that the agreement promotes the national security interests of the United States and our allies and merits my vote of support…

This agreement is not perfect. But I join many in the belief that with complex, multilateral, nuclear non-proliferation negotiations with inherent geopolitical implications for the entire world, there is no such thing as a ‘perfect’ deal.

Like most other Democrats supporting the bill, she voiced concerns and specifically stated she worries about Iran getting “additional resources to divert to their nefarious activities.”

Schultz added:

Initially sharing those concerns propelled me to thoroughly explore the viability of an alternative agreement… [but] analysts across the academic and political spectrum agree that if the U.S. walks away from this agreement, it will be impossible to maintain a robust sanctions program against Iran.

She expressed little worry about Iran’s holding to the agreement’s requirements for monitoring systems and inspections, saying:

Even if Iran cheats, with this agreement in place it is clear to me that we will know much more about their nuclear program than we do now, which will give us the ability to more effectively eliminate it if that ever becomes necessary

The statement is an incredible admission of one of the plan’s biggest holes because by the time the P5+1 powers “know much more about their nuclear program than we do now,” Iran would already have a bomb. That would make it even more difficult to “effectively eliminate it if that ever becomes necessary.”

Even more worrisome for Jews is her statement that her decision was partly based on her being “a deeply committed member of the Jewish community. Schultz said last week she would announce her decision on the Iran agreement with her “Jewish heart.”

Schultz thinks she is supportive of Israel and stated:

The thorough, pragmatic, and factual analysis I have done and my fervent desire as a Jewish mother to ensure that Israel will always be there — l’dor v’dor — from generation to generation — leads me to the conclusion that this agreement provides the best chance to ensure America’s, Israel’s and our allies’ security today and tomorrow.

One of the mistakes of opponents to the nuclear deal with Iran was focusing on its danger to Israel. Their argument should have centered on the agreement’s being a danger to U.S. citizens, whether they are Jewish or not.

Anyone deciding with a “Jewish heart” to support the deal while maintaining that she or he is committed to Israel’s security has not been able to explain why almost every Israeli leader, including Opposition leader Yitzchak Herzog, is against the deal.

Most Americans also are against it, including those in Florida.

A Quinnipiac poll last month showed Florida voters oppose the pact 61 percent to 25 percent.

Iran continues to make President Barack Obama look like a used mop while knowingly or unknowingly providing ammunition for wavering Congressional Democrats to decide to vote against “ObamaDeal” and retain American sanctions.

Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s latest missive to mock President Obama was tweeted on Saturday in the form of a silhouette that shows the President pointing a gun at his own head.

The message above the picture repeats the same disparaging tweet that the Ayatollah sent out a week before and only three days after the United States and the other P5+1 powers signed a nuclear agreement with Iran:

If any war happens, the one who will emerge loser will be the aggressive and criminal U.S.

The U.N. Security Council jumped for joy and almost immediately approved the agreement, leaving the United States as the only possible holdout and whose rejection would only affect American sanctions, while foreign corporations already are lining up in Tehran to stuff Iran’s and their own pockets.

President Obama has not responded to the tweets, the latest have been re-tweeted more than 1,200 times, which might be the best thing for Twitter’s stock since it went public.

However, even the Democrats on Main Street, America do not take kindly to a foreigner mocking their president. Patriotic cloth is part of the American wardrobe that is also worn by Democrats who support senators like Church Schumer and Ben Cardin, both of them key votes in the battle to accept ObamaDeal or reject it by a veto-proof majority.

As much as Schumer, Cardin and other undecided Democrats care about supporting President Obama, they have to keep in mind their ultimate bosses – the voters – if they want their votes come election time.

Khamenei’s making Obama look like a wimp could be just the ammunition the Republicans need to ditch the American side of the deal.

(JNi.media) There are 188 Democrats in the House and 44 in the Senate, and over the next two months millions of dollars and unprecedented lobbying efforts will be invested in courting their votes on the Iran nuclear deal.

The math is relatively simple: both Republican-led houses of Congress are expected to pass a resolution rejecting the deal, some time in early September. President Obama will then veto the resolution, which will return to Congress. Starting at that point, Congress will have 10 days during which to try and overturn the veto with a two-thirds majority.

This is when the Democrats in both houses will become the most important people on the planet, because the Republicans cannot overturn the Presidential veto on their own.

And as is often the case in such competitions, the discussion is not so much about the validity of the deal itself—which has both strengths and very obvious weaknesses—but about conflicting loyalties. Many Democratic lawmakers will have to decide between their President and their pro-Israel voters.

And as there are significantly more Jewish voters backing Democrats than Republicans, the President has a serious challenge on his hands.

In this context, it’s important to note that the NY Times, that bastion of pro-Obama politics, is not a big supporter of the deal, regardless of the exclusive access to the President it has enjoyed. This week, the Times published its own version of The Iran Deal for Dummies, or, as they headlined it: “The Iran Deal in 200 Words.”

Here are some of the key assertions in that article—redacted for effect:

Can Iran keep enriching uranium? Yes.

Will inspectors have access to military facilities? The provision is short of “anywhere, anytime,” because the inspectors first need to present evidence.

How can the US be sure Iran won’t cheat? It can’t.

AIPAC’s newly hatched Citizens for a Nuclear Free Iran, is reported to be spending close to $5 million on an ad campaign in a large number of Democrat-leaning markets. Their first ad, titled “The Iran nuclear deal. Good deal or bad deal?” states a short list of talking points against the deal:

Iran gets to keep its 18 nuclear facilities, its 50 military facilities remain out of reach for inspectors, Iran has cheated the UN 20 times in the past, Iran is the Number 1 sponsor of terrorism.

According to sources cited by The Jewish Voice, AIPAC’s full media buy breakdown for the anti-Iran deal campaign includes:

Baltimore: $167,600; Boston: $263,850; Charleston-Huntington: $56,275; Chicago: $114,675; Dallas: $251,625; Denver: $158,200; Detroit: $222,700; Fresno: $16,965; Hartford: $128,055; Honolulu: $44,605; Houston: $234,750; Indianapolis: $110,735; Laredo: $28,904; Las Vegas: $132,770; Los Angeles: $415,350; Miami: $179,050; New York City: $474,700; Omaha: $66,045; Panama City: $23,960; Philadelphia: $151,400; Phoenix: $181,840; Pittsburgh: $91,500; Portland: $98,818; Providence: $60,105; Richmond: $41,319; San Antonio: $100,575; San Diego: $142,525; Seattle: $202,975; Tallahassee: $26,800; Tampa: $168,240; Washington, DC: $444,900; West Palm Beach: $96,300.

The White House has begun its own, massive media campaign in favor of the deal, with briefings by Secretary of State John Kerry, Energy Secretary Ernest J. Moniz, and Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew. All three senior officials are also scheduled to appear on Thursday before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in the first open hearing on the deal.

Israel’s US ambassador Ron Dermer has been meeting with conservative House Republicans, asking them to “derail the accord,” as the NY Times has put it.

Republican presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz (R-Tx) has already called on Democrats to choose “whether to vote to protect the national security of this nation, to stand with our friend and ally the nation of Israel and to protect the lives of millions of Americans, or in the alternative, whether to value partisan loyalty to the White House above the most solemn responsibility each and every one of us has.”