Israel and the American Jews

Big Red Car here to talk a bit seriously about two things:

 1. The recent betrayal of Israeli interests by the United States at the United Nations Security Council; and,

 2. The propensity of American Jews to vote for Democrat candidates even when they don’t have Israel’s best interests at heart.

The intention of this chat is not to take a side but to simply point out some obvious implications.

The United Nations Resolution

The United Nations Security Council considered a resolution condemning, among other things, the construction of settlements (houses) in the West Bank and East Jerusalem area of Israel. This is not a new issue and has been brewing for a long time. Israel came to “own” or “occupy” that land at the end of the 1967 War.

For decades (thirty-six years to be exact), the Americans have risen to the defense of their Israeli allies and have vetoed such actions and expressions of public humiliation and condemnation saying it is the job of the Palestinians and the Israelis to make their own peace and it is not appropriate for the Security Council to tell neighbors how to behave with each other.

America, going back to before Jimmy Carter’s Presidency, has taken a direct role in the resolution of the Palestinian – Israeli peace. Any failure, like any success, is a product of American intervention. We own this problem because we have stuck our nose into it.

This past week the United States abstained from voting thereby ensuring the resolution of condemnation would be passed. This abstention made it a certainty that the resolution would pass and that we had abandoned our only worthy ally in the region. We abandoned the Israelis and we abandoned the problem.

It gets worse

The Americans didn’t notify the Israelis of their intention to abstain from voting at the Security Council and, in fact, were the instigating force behind the drafting of the resolution in cooperation with the Palestinians.

Consider this — nobody would have been in the mood to work on or attempt to pass such a resolution knowing the Americans would, as they had for almost 40 years, veto it. The resolution would never have come forward except for American sponsorship and an assurance that the US would abstain from voting against the resolution.

All of this was done in concert with the Palestinians and without consultation with the Israelis. It was a cowardly and shameful betrayal of Israel.

The Americans knew this would happen because they were involved in the draftsmanship, the sponsorship, and tipped the rest of the Security Council off as to their intention to abstain from vetoing the resolution.

This was an American (Obama administration) deal from the start.

Why would Pres Obama allow such a thing to happen?

That’s the easy part of this.

 1. The Obama administration — President Obama himself being the leader of the pack — has had a tough time with Israel and is still angry that the Israelis did not support the Iran nuke deal. President Obama and Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu don’t get along. President Obama’s treatment of the Prime Minister has been child like and petty.


Why wouldn’t these two guys get along? They have similar backgrounds, right?

 2. The Democrats have already lost the Presidential election and there is no necessity to curry favor with American Jewish voters. Now, it is possible to see the true sentiments of the Obama administration and the Democrat Party toward American Jews, Prime Minister Netanyahu, and Israel.

 3. This is punishment for the Israelis and Prime Minister Netanyahu for not having kissed President Obama’s ring in the Iran nuclear deal. It is payback.

What is the real significance?

The real significance is that the Israeli settlements have been labelled as “illegal” by the United Nations. The bell cannot be unrung and no amount of Trump administration wrangling can get this resolution undone.

In the timing alone (less than a month before President Obama leaves office), one sees the perfidy toward and betrayal of the Israelis as well as the true colors of President Obama and his Secretary of State, John Kerry.

With a month until a new administration, the Obama administration took advantage of what they called the “kill zone,” knowing full well it is inconsistent with policies of the President-elect, who specifically asked President Obama not to take this action.



Bit of awkward body language? “Now look, Bibi, you can count on us to take care of you, right?” “Mr. President, that is EXACTLY what I’m worried about.”


One may take comfort that a “legal” determination by a body which has no judicial function is not binding but it is symbolic. That symbolism is strong and likely dampens the possibility for a negotiation leading to a real peace.

The Obama administration whines when President Trump takes a congratulatory call from the democratically elected President of Taiwan saying it is a “break with the One China protocol” while the same administration rips asunder a similar protocol after almost forty years of support for Israel at the Security Council.

Some protocols, apparently, are more important than others.

American Jews and voters

The American Jewish vote has been a steadfast voting block, favoring the Democrats. I am always surprised by that fact.

In 2016, Hillary received 71% v 24% for Trump. That is an IMPROVEMENT from 2012 when Obama received 69% v 30% for Romney.

HRC outperformed Obama by 2% while Trump underperformed Romney by 6%.

These numbers are subject to a lot of differences based on where you mine your data but the bottom line — Jewish votes lined up for Democrats — is irrefutable.

The bigger question is WHY?

Why do American Jews vote for Democrats who have been nothing but a bad steward of Israel’s interests?

You will have to figure that one out on your own.

But, hey, what the Hell do I really know anyway? I’m just a Big Red Car. Happy Hanukkah, y’all.cropped-LTFD-illust_300.png



11 thoughts on “Israel and the American Jews

  1. Great Post. Nail on head. No need for jewish voters now, election lost.

    The American Jewish vote has been a steadfast voting block, favoring the Democrats. I am always surprised by that fact.

    Well choose your geography though. Sure the concentration in NYC and LA yes they are democratic, right? But is this the case in the rest of the country? (I don’t know the answer..)

    My inlaws parents were NYC socialists but my father in our area (Philly) was most certainly a republican (he had those experiences overseas in the camps). He thought USA and capitalism and republicans were great. Even loved Nixon ‘he was good for Israel’ he used to say.

    Was at a family function last night (bris) and both my father in law and his friend (a lawyer for the transit authority) when I asked them 100% stood behind what Kerry did like with no question. Both are NY Style jews. All idealistic in their melting pot. One of them was actually more of a ‘pig’ than Trump. He was in front of me and bragged and showed me his card from Platos in NYC dated 1981 and talked about women and sex non-stop. Tells me a story of going to a party in Brooklyn where you get greeted with a certain sex act upon admission. In the same breath though didn’t think Trump had the demeanor to be President. Typically hypocrisy. Actually brought up something that Trump did in the 1980’s with polish workers as a reason he was a bad guy (good lawyering, eh?)

  2. Doing some catch up and this is one of the issues I’m trying to get my head around. Thanks for the insight.

    I’ve been reading much criticism of Trump from many of the blogs and Twitter accounts that I follow — although some of it is so petty and vitriolic that I have given a few of them a break. So, when this UN/Israel situation came down I thought for sure I would hear from some of these outspoken people — many of them Jewish — and to my surprise not one single criticism. What?

  3. Here’s another perspective from a moderately secular conservative Jew. Liberal Jews are liberal first and foremost. Their religion is less Judaism than it is secular humanism and the progressive agenda. There are similarities to the so-called women’s movement: It’s really about the progressive agenda, and has little in fact to do with women. The vituperation, hatred, disdain and scorn heaped on non-progressive women, is a signal that liberalism is the real goal. Similarly, the liberal Jews first allegiance is, in most cases, to Liberalism. Concern for Israel ranks far down on the list of priorities, and most liberal Jews support the openly pro Palestinian stance of the current administration.

  4. Support of Democrats by Jews is based on history. When the bulk of Jews emigrated to the US, the Republican Party didn’t welcome them. They deliberately excluded them. Some Republicans were anti-Semitic. (Of course, we know a lot of people in FDRs administration were anti-Semites too) A lot of institutions did the same-think the entire Ivy League. One reason the University of Michigan has a large Jewish population is that UM actually enrolled them. The University of Chicago was the same. Deceased Nobel Prize winning economist Gary Becker talked about how the Ivies discriminated against him.

    As we know, once a network is implanted and network effects take hold, it’s really hard to move them. For Jews to abandon the Democratic Party in great numbers, it will take a big disruption. I don’t think this UN Security Council vote is a big enough disruption.

    The Republican Party also doesn’t seem welcoming to secular Jews. Secular Jews have values that are rooted in Democratic Party policy planks. More devout Jews are voting Republican.

    I have a lot of Jewish friends on both sides and have talked about it with them.

    • .
      I agree with your conclusion but Jewish immigration to the US is very well documented because all of it was legal. It is not true that the Republicans did not welcome them and that is the source of their allegiance to the Dems.

      The first wave of Jewish immigration was as early as 1700 and came originally from Brazil. These were Sephardic Jews (later Jews in this time period were Ashkenazic merchants) and they settled in the American colonial seaports to which they first came.

      The big concentrations were in Newport Rhode Island (oldest synagogue in US), New York (known as New Amsterdam in those days), Philadelphia, Charleston SC, and Savannah Ga (second oldest synagogue in US).

      The second wave of Jewish immigration was the Germans in the 1840s. They were leaving Germany for the normal reasons — persecution, anti-Semitism, punitive laws, and economic hardship. They came to America for economic and social opportunity. These immigrants moved to the Midwest, the West, and the South. They were peddlers and store keepers. They made Judaism a national religion.

      The center of much of this movement can be seen in Cincinnati, Ohio which became the center of this second wave of Jewish immigration.

      The third wave of Jewish immigration was the Eastern Europeans in the 1880s. This wave lasted from 1880 to 1924 when the US enacted its first immigration quotas. These Jews came from Russian, Austria-Hungary, Romania. They were all workers rather than merchants.

      These immigrants gravitated to established Jewish neighborhoods in New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, and Chicago — big cities. They were workers and served the garment, cigar, food, and construction industries. These were hard workers.

      The reason I tell you this story is that the advent of Jewish support for the Democrat party came from this last group of immigrants — the workers — who were used to socialism and communism as the governing philosophy of the countries they’d left and which they saw in the US as being evidenced by the liberal tenets of the Democrat party.

      The Dems, even then, were identified as the party of the workers so the gravitation of the Jewish vote toward Dems was natural. It had nothing to do with the Republicans and everything to do with the perceived focus of the Dems (which in those days was accurate).

      It was Eastern European Jews in the big cities who first threw in with the Dems.

      After 1924, there was no large scale Jewish emigration to the US and by then the die was set.

      There is no doubt that the anti-Semitism which you reference is correct but it is not the source of the Jewish Democrat support. That had long since been cast.

      Modern politics is infinitely more complex with the advent of Israel as being a source of Jewish pride and loyalty even amongst American Jews who have never touched foot in that country. The “right of return” binds all Jews together.

      This issue — Israel — has only been present in the minds of America Jews since the end of WWII and the dissolution of the British Palestine Mandate in 1948 and the formation of Israel. The US immediately recognized the new country.

      The Jews continue to be one of the most monolithic voting blocks in the Dem firmament. The Dem party is a conglomerate of voting blocks — Jews, immigrants, Hispanic, black, liberals, Hollywood, LGBT — rather than a homogeneous body created by a common governing philosophy. One could say they are a body of victims.

      The differences amongst liberal, elitist, conservative, ultra-conservative Jews disappear in national Presidential politics. It is a mystery why.


  5. This action has been criticized by the NYT, WAPO, and WSJ as freckles and personal. The left in my little liberal town is saying time to stop being “World police” good for Bambi!

    No leader makes significant policy moves from emotion. Winning is not an emotion but a passion executed on training and skills. This move is pure Nana nana boo boo crap at Trump and Israel. And yes the Jewish vote will follow the DNC even with Chuck Schumer calling out Bambi, it is just what they do.

    Bambi and Valarie Jarred believe that all the mess in the middle east is based on years of abuse based on Islam-0-phobia by non Muslims. If we reset the table giving them a big seat peace will come! Even Alan Dershowitz (a noted liberal) has it correct, Obama will go down as the worst Foreign Policy president ever!

    • .
      Having had 8 years in which to contemplate the Palestinian-Israeli peace process (the US moderated 9 months of fruitless negotiations earlier) to spring this on the next President — who will theoretically have to live with this changed condition for 8 years — is just petty and personal.l

      President Obama will, in fact, go down as the Worst. President. Ever. — to limit it to foreign policy may get some debate though he is really a stinker in foreign policy.


      • Worst. President. Ever.

        When, how did anyone expect something else? We knew just what the heck he was when we elected him, both times. We got just what we elected and, thus, necessarily deserved.

        Three pieces of good news:

        (1) Obama has so far not actually totally destroyed the US and now has less than one more month to do so. Whew!!! We still have to be careful, but so far we’ve nearly dodged that bullet.

        (2) If the US believed that it had committed transgressions, then now it can be secure knowing that it has achieved full redemption via some severe retribution. Right, the trilogy — transgression, retribution, redemption. Yup, the retribution part typically involves some sacrifice, and it surely did this time,

        (3) Now burned into the brains of anyone awake at all in the past eight years is some wisdom learned the hard way, from paying “full tuition”, to borrow from a movie — “I’ll never do that again.” And, now with our redemption, call it a “full and complete pardon”, we have no more guilt to accept any more retribution.

        Or, maybe eight years ago some said: : “Yes, he looks bad, but, think of his background. Now if we just give him a chance, he’ll see his opportunity, be grateful, come around, learn, and do well, maybe even especially well, certainly especially well for some long suffering parts of our society.”. Sorry, Virginia: In a word, nope.

        Some might say that from the beginning it was an experiment. If so, then now they can say it was an experiment that solidly proved its point and never has to be repeated.

        So far mostly Trump has proposed just some common sense, much of it so obvious “a blind man could see it in a minute”, but, to show how bad the last eight years have been, compared with the last eight years, to many people, what Trump says sounds radical. Gee, if we just quit cutting ourselves a thousand places, then stopping the bleeding all over and getting well will look radical to people who saw nothing wrong with the last eight years.

        E.g., Obama has been eager and determined to admit tens of thousands of men from the wars in Syria and Iraq where we know with near certainty that with those men are several Trojan horses of ISIS soldiers just waiting for an order to attack, and with that situation the Obama supporters see nothing shocking; instead they just see Trump’s total common sense reaction as shocking. Ah, the power of mental derangement from political correctness.

        Admitting the Trojan horses looks deliberate. So, if some Arabs attack Israel and the US helps Israel, then the Trojan horses will attack the US? With an Iranian nuke? One the Iranians bought from Pukistan?

        Is there an Obama Mideast jigsaw puzzle with the pieces cut to fit together just one way?

        There’s the old framework for a judgment call: “If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck.” Once we conclude what it is, we know much better what to expect and do.

  6. It’s been so obvious from the start that O threw Israel under the bus. Thank you for this analysis. A much more fair take then what you hear from mainstream media. And, yes, just how the American Jewish voter is apparently so blinded to O’s agenda is very surprising.

    • BRC, you’ve got the best informed and best analysis I’ve seen so far.

      I see very little in the mainstream media (MSM) on conjectures of why Obama would do such a thing or other things that also seem to raise this question.

      There are plenty of conjectures in the comments of some of the stories at Breitbart.

      Somehow I guess that polite company just agrees that (1) the US citizens elected Obama, (2) the US got, really necessarily deserves, what they elected, and (3) it would be impolite to raise conjectures until the consequences of the election of 2008 are over.

      Then in 2017, I expect some books and articles, maybe some video clips, from people with some well informed explanations and evidence. My guess is that some of the content will be stark, shocking, etc. Then this time a year from now, a significant fraction of the better informed US citizens will agree, to borrow from a movie, five words: “I’ll never do that again.”.

Comments are closed.