Opinion: Jewish politicians shouldn’t bash Israel to get to the White House

Could a Jew be our next president? Three Jews — Rahm Emanuel, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker (D) and Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro (D) — have indicated interest in the job. Georgia Sen. Jon Ossoff (D) whose father is Jewish, says he is not running — a signal that maybe he is. 

Could any of them even be nominated with the backing of the pro-Palestinian “from the river to the sea” left wing of the Democratic party? The Constitution says there shall be no “religious test” for office. For almost two centuries, this proved to be only a declaration of pious intent. 

In 1928, conspiracy theorists whispered that the “Happy Warrior,” Catholic candidate Al Smith, if elected president, would build a “tunnel to the Vatican.” Smith went on to electoral defeat. 

We thought the issue was settled in 1960, when candidate John F. Kennedy told Protestant clergy, “I am not the Catholic candidate for president. I am the Democratic Party’s candidate for president, who happens also to be a Catholic.” He said presciently, “this year it may be a Catholic against whom the finger of suspicion is pointed, in other years it has been, and may someday be again, a Jew or a Quaker or a Unitarian or a Baptist.”

Kennedy was elected. But today, with antisemitism surging, and support for Israel plummeting, a Jewish president would appear to be a longshot. 

Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has become the lightning rod for the Israel bashing. I have no brief for Netanyahu. He should have anticipated the barbaric Oct. 7, 2023 attack on his people and protected them. Hamas murdered approximately 1,200 Jews and kidnapped more than 250 innocents. His savage retaliation in Gaza engendering a humanitarian crisis, whatever it achieved militarily, lost the moral high ground and the battle for world opinion.

It is too convenient for antisemites to hate Israel, and Netanyahu’s mistakes have only added fuel to the fire. New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani, whose anti-Israel views are beyond cavil, is more popular among U.S. Jews than Netanyahu. Mamdani says he may order Netanyahu’s arrest should he attend the United Nations General Assembly meeting in New York in September. 

Even Jewish politicians have nuanced their once pro-Israel stance. Pritzker supports Israel’s right to defend itself but sharply criticized Netanyahu’s leadership and condemned the American Israel Public Affairs Committee’s influence. Pritzker, a billionaire, was once a heavy AIPAC contributor.  

Shapiro said, “Having a president of the United States who gives a total pass and is a rubber stamp to Benjamin Netanyahu is not in America’s national security interest, and I don’t think it is in the interest of global stability.” 

Ossoff’s softer stance strongly supported Israel’s right to defend itself while heavily criticizing the humanitarian impact of Netanyahu’s Gaza policies.  

Firebrand Rahm Emanuel, Obama’s White House chief of staff, former mayor of Chicago and ambassador to Japan, has pulled no punches. He journeyed to Tel Aviv to savage Israel’s government, claiming that Israel is considered primarily a “territorial pariah” and jawing against America’s “unconditional support” of Israel.

This is not saying much. We should always be against unconditional support of Israel, any more than England, France or anyone else. But Israel is the only dependable ally we have in the Middle East. It is our pragmatic national interest to sustain its existence. British Prime Minister Lord Palmerston famously instructed in 1848 that nations should base their foreign policies on pragmatic national interests rather than on morality, ideology or emotional attachments.  

Emanuel went so far as to argue that the U.S must deny military subsidy and sanction Israel and its leaders: “If I have anything to say about it, every Israeli found attacking Palestinian civilians or their property in their future will be sanctioned.” He added that “every Israeli official who supports such violence” and those “financing illegal settlements” would also “be sanctioned.” Does he mean Americans too? 

Bashing Israel used to be a third rail in American politics; now, it has become a litmus test for Democratic politicians, particularly Jewish ones, seeking to get ahead.  

Emanuel advocates that the “discredited” two-state solution should be replaced by a 23-state solution, in effect putting Israel and the Palestinians in a U.S.-Arab-dominated trusteeship. That institution, he says, must stop financing of Jew killers and teach young children to stop hating Israelis.

This is nothing new. The proposal is laughable. Can the end of antisemitism be taught? Where, by whom and how long will it take?

Emanuel said Netanyahu has led Israel “into a dead-end.” True or not, it is astounding that he would make such claims in Tel Aviv. When in our history has an American politician gone to a foreign country and denounced its leadership?

Is hypercriticism of Israel a form of antisemitism? Self-proclaimed antisemite Roald Dahl sought to justify his hostility in a 1983 New Statesman interview: “There is a trait in the Jewish character that does provoke animosity, maybe it’s a kind of lack of generosity towards non-Jews. I mean, there’s always a reason why anti-anything crops up anywhere.”

My sergeant in the army many years ago, long before Gaza, rounded up what he called “Jewish personnel” and remarked, “There are good Jews and bad Jews. What kind of Jew are you?” 

According to Emanuel, bad Jews live in Israel. Or are some running for office in America? 

James D. Zirin is a former federal prosecutor in the Southern District of New York and a published legal analyst.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to The Hill.