Facebook Feed

5 days ago

Yoram Ettinger
2023 Jewish demographic momentum in Israel: bit.ly/40qV0aV ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
Purim Guide for the Perplexed 2023: bit.ly/3ZdlxHY ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

4 weeks ago

Yoram Ettinger
אתגר מרכזי לביטחון לאומי: bit.ly/3xkSwh1 ... See MoreSee Less
View on Facebook

Does Jerusalem Get It?

The assumption that Israel is facing an imperial and an omnipotent American president, who supposedly benefits from a health reform-driven political tailwind, is refuted by the April 21-22, 2010 Quinnipiac University Polling Institute findings. The Institute is quoted often by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN and FOX.

The poll findings document an all time low approval rating of President Obama (45% compared with 65% in January, 2009), while support for Israel is very high, especially among secular and religious Christians. American voters view the Jewish State as a positive domestic – and not only international – issue, which is more popular than the President.

The poll results confirm that the political dividend from the healthcare reform dissipated. Voters do not trust Obama (40%:55%) in handling health and the economy. They accord Congress, which is controlled by Democrats, a 20%:70% disapproval rating.

Other polls indicate that independent and middle class voters – who were critical during the November 2008 Obama and Democratic victories – are deserting Obama. The strongly-supportive Obama voting bloc shrank to 30% from 40% in January 2009, while the strongly-opposing Obama voting bloc expanded to 40% from 14%. Charlie Cook, the leading Washington political consultant, joins most pollsters, projecting a devastating Democratic defeat in the November 2010 Congressional election.

Democratic legislators are aware that their life expectancy (running every 2 or 6 years) is different from the President’s own life expectancy (running every 4 years). They are not willing to sacrifice their own political future on the altar of President Obama’s agenda. They are concerned that the transformation of Obama from a “Coattail President” to an “Anchor Chained President” could demote them, in November 2010, from the majority to a minority status on Capitol Hill. Therefore, some of them announced retirement, some contemplate retirement, some urge the President to refrain from visiting their districts and states and some express reservations about Obama’s legislative initiatives. Slackened Congressional support could transform Obama into a lame duck President.

In contrast to the Israeli and European political systems, US Presidents constitute only one third of the US government, alongside the other two thirds: the Legislature and the Judiciary. American presidents do not control Congress. In fact, they are severely constrained by an elaborate system of “checks and balances” and “separation of powers” (which do not exist in other democracies), by a relatively short-term DC residency (4 or 8 years), compared with the relatively long-term DC residency of the 800 pound Congressional gorillas (20, 30 and 40 years) and by the “Power of the Purse,” which is vested in Congress.

According to the Quinnipiac April 22, 2010 poll, American voters support President Obama’s national security policy (although with a slim majority), but for one issue: Israel!

Overall foreign policy gets a 48%:42% support, the war in Afghanistan – 49%:39% support, counter-terrorism – 49%:41% support, nuclear disarmament – 48%:37% support and Iran – 44%:43% support.

However, 44%:35% oppose Obama’s policy on Israel and the Palestinians, 57%:13% support Israel over the Palestinians and 66%:19% expect the President to demonstrate strong support of Israel. The February 19, 2010 Gallup poll documents a higher level of support for Israel, in spite of White House policy, “Elite” media critical coverage, university campuses’ hostility and the UN and European double standard and anti-Semitism.

The foundations of American support for the Jewish State date back to the 17th century (there are more sites bearing Biblical names in the USA than in Israel!). This support is based are on shared values, joint interests and mutual threats. Most Americans appreciate patriotism, tradition, Judeo-Christian values (the Bible), defiance of nature and human odds, counter-terrorism and democracy. The Jewish State is perceived as a role-model of such values. Moreover, public support for the Jewish State constitutes one of the few consensus issues in the increasingly polarized American society.

US legislators are aware of the world view and sentiments of their constituents, who constitute the major axis of US democracy. Therefore, House Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, co-sponsored a letter, which rebuked the President’s attitude toward Israel and earned signatures of 75% of House Members. Therefore, the senior Democratic senator from New York, Chuck Schumer, is urging President Obama, to improve his policy toward Israel, lest he be challenged by Senate Democrats. And, therefore, the Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Howard Berman, suggested that the President refrain from highlighting Jerusalem and the settlements.

The closer the November 2010 Congressional election, the lower the Presidential approval rating, the harsher the public criticism of Obama, the more vulnerable the incumbents, the more independent (of the President and of their party) grow the legislators and the more defiant they will be of the President (while complying with their constituents), especially on the issue of the Jewish State. For most voters and legislators the Jewish State is a “Motherhood, apple pie and the flag” issue.

It was Congress – in defiance of the Administration – which terminated US military involvement in Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Angola and Nicaragua and provided Israel with a generous package of mutually-beneficial cooperation following the 1991 First Gulf War. It is Congress which is capable of producing a change in the current Administration policy toward the Jewish State and force it to synch with the American People.

Does Jerusalem get it?




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb

Congress – the co-equal and systematic ally of Israel

Presidents propose and Congress disposes

On September 23, 2021, the US House of Representatives voted 420:9 to replenish the Israeli-developed defensive “Iron Dome” missiles, which are increasingly manufactured – and eventually exported – by the US defense company Raytheon, that benefits from the battle-tested “Israeli laboratory.”

The overwhelming vote reflects Congressional realization that the “Iron Dome”:

*Enhances Israel’s posture of deterrence, which is critical to the survival of all pro-US Arab regimes and minimization of regional instability;
*Reduces the need for full-scale Israeli wars on Palestinian and Islamic terrorism;
*Provides an alternative to Israeli military ground-operations against Palestinian terrorists, which would entail substantial Israeli and Palestinian fatalities;
*Represents joint US-Israel interests, militarily and technologically, in the face of mutual threats (e.g., Islamic terrorism) and mutual challenges (e.g., developing world-class, game-changing technologies).

*Constitutes another example of the systematic support by Congress of enhanced US-Israel cooperation.

The decisive role played by Congress in the replenishment of the “Iron Dome” underscores the cardinal rule of the US political system: The President proposes, but Congress disposes.

The involvement of Senators and House Representatives in foreign policy and national security-related issues has surged since the Vietnam War, Watergate and Iran Gate scandals, the dismantling of the USSR (which transformed the world from a bi-polar to a multi-polar) and rapidly-expanding globalization.

In fact, former Secretary of State, Jim Baker, complained about the growing congressional assertiveness in the area of foreign policy: “You can’t conduct foreign policy with 535 Secretaries of State….”  Former Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, criticized Congress for micromanaging the defense budget: dictating how much to spend on particular weapons, imposing detailed requirements and programmatic restrictions, venturing into policy-setting and requesting that the Department of Defense submits mountains of reports.

Congressional muscles 

The US Congress is the most powerful legislature in the world, and it has demonstrated its co-equal, co-determining muscle in the areas of foreign and defense policies on many occasions, such as:

*Imposing sanctions against foreign countries in defiance of Presidents Clinton, Obama and Trump (e.g., Egypt – 2012, Iran – 1996-97 and 2013, Russia – 2017);
*Non-ratification of the 2015 JCPOA, which enabled withdrawal by the US;
*The 2009 non-closure of the Guantanamo Detention Camp was led by Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (NV-D), in defiance of President Obama.
*The 2009 non-confirmation of Charles Freeman to the Director of National Intelligence was led by Senator Chuck Schumer (NY-D);
*The 1999 non-ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty in defiance of President Clinton and the international community;
*The unprecedented expansion of US-Israel strategic cooperation took place despite stiff opposition by President Bush and Secretary of State Baker;
*The Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act overrode President Reagan’s veto;
*The 1984 Boland Amendment aborted President Reagan’s financial and military aid to anti-Communist elements in Nicaragua;
*The 1983 blocking of President Reagan’s attempted coup against the Surinam pro-Soviet regime;
*The 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act mandated congressional authorization of surveillance of persons and organizations, which may threaten national security;
*The 1975/76 Tunney (CA-D) and Clark Amendments stopped financial and military covert support of the opposition to the pro-Soviet regime in Angola;
*The 1973 Church-Case Amendment ended funding of military involvement in Southeast Asia;
*The 1973 War Powers Act overrode President Nixon’s veto;
*The Jackson-Vanik Amendment preconditioned aid to Moscow upon free immigration.

Congress empowered by the Constitution

As documented in the aforementioned paragraphs, one is advised to note that while Congress is preoccupied with District and State issues, it has the power to both propose and dispose in the areas of foreign and defense policies.

The US Constitution aspires for a limited government and a non-monarchical president, and therefore does not limit Congress to overseeing the budget. It provides the Senate and the House of Representatives with the power to act on strategic issues and policy-setting.

The Constitution accords Congress ”the power of the purse,” oversight of government operations, ratification of treaties, confirmation of key appointments, declaration of war, funding of military operations and cooperation with foreign entities, creation and elimination of government agencies, imposing sanctions on foreign governments, etc.

In other words, the President is the “commander in-chief” within constraints, which are set by Congress.




Videos

The post-1967 turning point of US-Israel cooperation

Israeli benefits to the US taxpayer exceed US foreign aid to Israel

Iran - A Clear And Present Danger To The USA

Exposing the myth of the Arab demographic time bomb