Obama angst points to widening Jewish leadership gap

Last month I wrote a story suggesting the Obama administration is confident it can push Israel on the issue of West Bank settlements without risking a big political backlash from Jewish voters.

That story ignited a flurry of calls and emails from readers disagreeing with me, many from Jewish leadership types, and I had to concede they were right, up to a point: there is a spreading feeling of anxiety about Obama policies in the  circles in which these responders move.

Return to Jewish Week Home Page

Follow the Jewish Week on Twitter

And check out the Jewish Week’s Facebook page and become a fan!

But they were also wrong, as far as I can tell, about the Jewish community as a whole.  I’ve seen no evidence the almost 80 percent support the president received from Jewish voters in November has eroded significantly.

That points to the likelihood the always-significant gap between an Israel-focused  Jewish leadership and rank-and-file Jewry is becoming a yawning chasm.

If you’re an active, involved pro-Israel activist, chances are most of the people you come into contact with are worried about President Obama’s stern position on Jewish settlements in the West Bank, either because they have sympathy for settlers or because they hate the idea of new conflict between Washington and Jerusalem, and are inclined to blame Washington every time tension surfaces.

But if you’re an average Jew on the street, you don’t have much contact with Jewish organizations, almost none with Jewish leaders.  If you’re a pro-Israel activist, chances are  AIPAC’s words are gospel to you; if you’re not, it’s just another spoonful of alphabet soup.

Polls show a diminishing level of involvement with Israel in the Jewish community at large. Jewish voters in general, unlike the nominal leadership of the community, don’t put Israel at the top of their list of political priorities, to the exclusion of almost everything else.

Israel continues to be a “threshold” issue for many; if a candidate meets minimal standards of support for the Jewish state and doesn’t set off any alarm bells with harsh language about Israel or its supporters here,  most Jewish voters are inclined to move on to other issues in making their political judgments.

It’s sort of like the Catholic Church, says Jacques Berlinerblau,  associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at the Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service at Georgetown University (isn’t that a mouthful?) .  American Catholics demand respect for their church and for its leaders, even if they pay little attention to their dictates on issues such as birth control and stem cell research.  Politicians can disagree with the church on these issues without incurring widespread Catholic wrath, as long as  they do it politely and respectfully.

Jewish leaders are right that in their own narrow world, there’s a lot of angst about where the Obama administration may be heading.  Jewish voters, though, don’t seem to be sharing those concerns.

We saw a similar gap last fall.

If you listened to Jewish leaders and the commentators who listen to them, you’d have been absolutely certain Sen. John McCain would shatter modern records for Jewish support for a Republican presidential candidate and that  then-Sen. Barack Obama was heading to an embarrassing defeat.

In Jewish boardrooms and in the conservative press the conventional wisdom said Obama was in deep trouble.

You know what happened; on election day,  some 78 percent (and maybe more, according to some analysts) of Jewish voters lined up for Obama.

The same gap is evident today.  Jewish leaders see nothing but concern among their colleagues and among the pro-Israel activist core.  But there’s no evidence that concern has trickled down to the broader Jewish electorate

Also, that broader electorate isn’t much interested in or supportive of Jewish settlements in the West Bank, and it’s probably not overly enamored of Prime Minister Netanyahu.

Go through an Orthodox neighborhood in New York, and almost everybody has friends and relatives living in settlements; go to a suburban Reform shul in Chicago, and you’ll find few.

I remain  convinced Obama administration officials have an unusually sophisticated understanding of these political realities.

They realize they can push Israel on settlements pretty hard, as long as they wrap their pressure in strong statements of support for Israel and a vibrant U.S.-Israel relationship, without much risk of a backlash (the Catholic analogy again).

They know they have a lot more latitude with Jewish voters than the Jewish leadership claims, but they also know that latitude isn’t unlimited.

Pushing on settlements is fine, but slamming Israel and its supporters like the first President Bush did could touch off a genuine backlash. So could reaching out too energetically to Hamas without the terror group supporting the conditions laid out by the international community.

Georgetown’s Jacques Berlinerblau said the administration has been “devastatingly effective” in its outreach to most religious groups – in part because it understands that gap between the leadership and the rank and file.

He said the administration uses a system of  “firewalls”  in its dealings with the Jewish community — “movers and shakers in the Jewish community who are respected and listen to….who provide strategic intelligence for the administration. They have circuit breakers that helps keep public opinion from boiling over.”

That, plus insiders with a sophisticated knowledge of Jewish politics – starting with Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel – has kept pro-Israel discontent from moving beyond Jewish leadership circles, he said.

“You have a lot of Jewish leaders who are up in arms about administration policy,”  Berlinerblau said. “But it hasn’t caught fire among the Jewish laity.”

It would be a mistake to think that can’t change, he said; the Jewish community is nothing if not volatile when it comes to Israel. But at this stage, there’s no indication this remarkably surefooted administration is likely to make that mistake.

Tags: , ,

4 Responses to “Obama angst points to widening Jewish leadership gap”

  1. Barry Says:

    I only take issue with James Besser’s remark saying, “If you’re a pro-Israel activist, chances are AIPAC’s words are gospel to you; if you’re not, it’s just another spoonful of alphabet soup.” The implication that to be actively pro-Israel demands adherence to AIPAC’s “gospel” is insulting to those of us who have had to put up way too long with the ganse machers who insist that any opinion to the left of Beit Podhoretz is that of a bad Jew. That said, the overall point of the piece is quite consistent with reality-based experience.

  2. A. Settler Says:

    Thank you for this article. As someone who lives in a Jewish town in Judea and Samaria, what some would call a “settlement” with the requisite negative connotation, your article has shown me what is probably the perspective of many Jewish Americans. Israeli Jews, however, have a much different view of your President.

    We’re worried. We’re very worried. When Mahmoud Ahmadinejad both wants to acquire nuclear weapons technology and repeatedly and earnestly declares his intention to “wipe Israel off the map”, we don’t dismiss this as mere posturing. He really wants to do it. Obama’s acquiescence to Iran in the form of a civilian nuclear program instead of outright and unequivocal condemnation of the radical theocracy’s mad race for The Bomb sent the message that he just doesn’t get it. The administration’s linkage between advancing the “Peace Process”, a euphemism for a Palestinian State west of the Jordan river, and dealing with Iran’s military nuclear program is a pathetic attempt to score a few good-guy points by pushing Israel into a corner. Iran will have nuclear capabilities in short order, threatening the Middle East and much of Europe; the negotiations on a Palestinian state have been ongoing for over 15 years with no reason to think they will conclude any time soon. Bad move.

    Obama’s assertion that Israel rose on the ashes of the Holocaust is obscene. Perhaps if the international community had carried out its obligations in Palestine in 1922 there would have been no Holocaust.

    On the issue of freezing building in settlements, even for “natural growth”, it is quite simply a red herring. The issue is not one of building, the issue is Obama trying to show the Arab world that he can dictate to Israel, that the “Israel lobby” is weakened and, by extension, so is the Jewish lobby in the US. You should take this to heart.

    Bush bumbled. Obama omits.

    Oh, as a “settler” I thank you for pointing out that some Jewish Americans have “sympathy for settlers”, but this is entirely unnecessary as no sympathy is needed. We’re fine, really we are. Using our legal mandate to the land (I know that many of your readers probably believe the repeated lies about “Occupation”, but if you can put rhetoric to the side it will take about 5 minutes of searching the Internet to realize that the Jewish State has clear legal title to the “West Bank”; I recommend that you begin with the work of the eminent Yale legal scholar Eugene Rostow and review former President Jimmy Carter’s recent remarks about Neve Daniel) we have built many thriving communities, each with its own character. One of the best things you can do for Jewish unity is urge the members of the “suburban reform shul in Chicago” to visit a settlement (sic) for a completely different, and perhaps opinion-changing, perspective.

  3. derek Says:

    If you’re a fringe left, vaguely, if at all, Zionist Jew, chances are J-Street’s talking points are gospel to you - including the talking point that says in order to claw itself into some recognition, J-Street and it’s enablers need to demonize AIPAC into being the domain of right-wingers, Republicans, machers, old rich Jews etc…

    Guess what? AIPAC is neither right nor left, and I’m a supporter ($36 this year) , though I’m lower-middle class, 26 year old Democrat in Boston. One need not be “right wing” to support Israel which is the whole point of AIPAC - despite the smears by it’s detractros.

  4. John D. Winston Says:

    One of the problems is the use of the words “pro Israel”. Typilcally, it has meant “Israel right or wrong” or “we can’t criticize Israel”. I am glad that J Street and other organizations like Brit Tzedek have indicated that they are pro Israel - pro peace. Another definition - One person at a meeting attended said that pro Israel means that someone does not support Boycotts - so the CUFI group was OK - even though the CUFI group has supported the growth of settmements - one of the biggest barriers to mid East peace. I can’t consider the group “pro Israel”

    As far as AIPAC’s neutrality, I remember reading about a speech “W” gave at AIPAC; “W” spoke only about Iraq and did not mention Israel - and was wildly cheered by the audience. Cheney was wildly cheered in 2005 by AIPAC. I have to agree with the classification of the AIPAC group as out of touch with most Jewish Americans (and Israelis for that matter).

Leave a Reply