Democrats are anti-Israel

Congress: The pattern of weak Democratic support began just a week after Inauguration Day 2009, right after the Israel-Hamas war, when 60 House Democrats (including such left-wingers as Dennis Kucinich, Barbara Lee, and Maxine Waters) and not a single Republican wrote the secretary of state to "respectfully request that the State Department release emergency funds to [the anti-Israel organization] UNRWA for reconstruction and humanitarian assistance" in Gaza.

In the same spirit, 54 House Democrats and not a single Republican signed a letter to Barack Obama a year later, in January 2010, asking him to "advocate for immediate improvements for Gaza in the following areas" and then listed ten ways to help Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist organization.

In dramatic contrast, 78 House Republicans wrote a "Dear Prime Minister Netanyahu" letter a few months later to express their "steadfast support" for him and Israel. The signatories were not just Republicans but members of the House Republican Study Committee, a conservative caucus.

So, count 54 Democrats for Hamas and 78 Republicans for Israel.

In the aftermath of the March 2010 crisis when Joe Biden went to Jerusalem, 333 members of the House of Representatives signed a letter to the secretary of state reaffirming the U.S.-Israel alliance. The 102 members who did not sign included 94 Democrats (including Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi) and 8 Republicans, a 12-to-1 ratio. Seventy-six senators signed a similar letter; the 24 who did not sign included 20 Democrats and 4 Republicans, a 5-to-1 ratio.

Voters: Public opinion explains these differences on Capitol Hill.

An April 2009 poll by Zogby International asked about U.S. policy: Ten percent of Obama voters and 60 percent of voters for Republican John McCain wanted the president to support Israel. Get tough with Israel? Eighty percent of Obama voters said yes and 73 percent of McCain voters said no. Conversely, 67 percent of Obama voters said yes and 79 percent of McCain voters said no to Washington engaging with Hamas. And 61 percent of Obama voters endorsed a Palestinian "right of return," while only 21 percent of McCain voters concurred.

Almost a year later, the same pollster asked American adults how best to deal with the Arab-Israeli conflict and found "a strong divide" on this question. Seventy-three percent of Democrats wanted the president to end the historic bond with Israel but treat Arabs and Israelis alike; only 24 percent of Republicans endorsed this shift.

Gallup on "Sympathy for Israelis vs. Palestinians in Mideast Situation, by Party ID."

A survey this month asked if a likely voter is "more likely or less likely to vote for a candidate whom you perceive as pro-Israel." Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 69 percent of Republicans prefer the pro-Israel candidate. Turned around, 33 percent of Democrats and 14 percent of Republicans would be less likely to support a candidate because he is pro-Israel. Democrats are somewhat evenly split on Israel but Republicans favor it by a 5-to-1 ratio.

A consensus exists that the two parties are growing further apart over time. Pro-Israel, conservative Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe finds that "the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East's only flourishing democracy is breaking down." Anti-Israel, left-wing James Zogby of the Arab American Institute agrees, writing that "traditional U.S. policy toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict does not have bipartisan backing." Thanks to changes in the Democratic party, Israel has become a partisan issue in American politics, an unwelcome development for it.

In late March 2010, during a nadir of U.S.-Israel relations, Janine Zacharia wrote in the Washington Post that some Israelis expect their prime minister to "search for ways to buy time until the midterm U.S. elections [of November 2010] in hopes that Obama would lose support and that more pro-Israel Republicans would be elected." That an Israeli leader is thought to stall for fewer Congressional Democrats confirms the changes outlined here. It also provides guidance for voters.

Mr. Pipes is director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution of Stanford University.





Leonard Fein, noted Jewish leftist, blames Israel for the problems with Turkey in his Forward column recently. Of course it is always blame Israel. The guy has no clue. After the Turks killed 1.5 million Armenians in 1915, the Ottoman Empire fell apoart after WW 2. The military took over, installing a pro Western, secular muslim state. . That has changed. Tuyrkey is now in the Islamic camp. Fein has it 100% backwards, as the left always does on Israel. Turkey wants the Islamic camp-that is why it allowed the extremist muslim group to purposely incite violence.

Observations from Daily Alert from Council president's major jewish organizations:

Turkey's Islamic Revolution Paid for by Wealthy Islamists - Michael Rubin (Commentary)

* Turkey has changed. Gone permanently is secular Turkey, a unique Muslim country that straddled East and West and that even maintained a cooperative relationship with Israel. Today Turkey is an Islamic republic whose government saw fit to facilitate the May 31 flotilla raid on Israel's blockade of Gaza. Turkey is now more aligned to Iran than to the democracies of Europe.
* Outside of public view, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Abdullah Gul, now his foreign minister, presided over an influx of so-called Green Money - capital from Saudi Arabia and the oil-rich Persian Gulf emirates, much of which ended up in AKP party coffers rather than in the public treasury.
* Between 2002 and 2003, money appeared in Turkey's financial system for which government reporting cannot account - an amount that increased from approximately $200 million to more than $4 billion. By 2006, Turkish economists estimated the Green Money infusion into the Turkish economy to be between $6 billion and $12 billion. Some Turkish intelligence officials privately suggest that Qatar is today the source of most subsidies for the AKP and its projects. Thus, Turkey's Islamic revolution was bought and paid for by wealthy Islamists.
* Erdogan equated degrees issued by Turkish madrassas - Islamic religious schools - with ordinary high school degrees. This bureaucratic sleight of hand enabled madrassa students to enter the university and qualify for government jobs without ever mastering or, in some cases, even being exposed to Western fundamentals. When such students still fumbled university entrance exams, the AKP provided them with a comparative bonus on their scores, justifying the move as affirmative action.
* As a NATO member, Turkey is privy to U.S. weaponry, tactics, and intelligence. Any provision of assistance to Turkey today, however, could be akin to transferring it to Hamas, Sudan, or Iran. Does President Obama really want to deliver the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter to a hostile Turkey, as promised, in 2014?
* As mayor of Istanbul, Erdogan quipped, "Democracy is like a streetcar. When you come to your stop, you get off."

The writer is a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute




. Richard Baehr
Mike Pence spoke at an event in Chicago today, and in response to a question about whether Democrats in Congress were wholesale abandoning Israel, ... with a President from their Party who seems to prefer the U.N white and blue, to America's red white and blue, or Israel's white and blue, it was becoming more difficult to get Democrats to break with their leader. Pence said overall Democratic support for Israel was declining due to 3 factors- Obama's internationalism, the support for internationalism among many Democrats, and the pressure from the secular (and Israel hating) left on the Party's elected officials. Why did no Democrats sign on to Peter King's House letter? Because it demanded the U.S. leave the U.N Human Rights Council, a body Obama had the U.S rejoin, and which has attacked Israel in 33 of its last 40 pronouncements . Many Democrats have a soft spot for these international bodies , even one as anti-Semitic as the UNHRC. There are a few Democrats who have been very sold on Israel the past few weeks, including Shelley Berkley, Elliot Engel, and bigger surprise, Jesse Jackson, Jr.
Pence asks Obama: Which side are you on? Good question. : http://tinyurl.com/277bb2c



Congressman Kucinich 111th attacks Israel for flotilla
June 2, 2010
The Honorable Barack Obama

Dear Mr. President,
Israeli commandos, acting at the direction of the State of Israel, attacked and seized a Turkish ship in international waters, in the Mediterranean Sea.At least nine were killed in the incident aboard the Mavi Marmara. Hundreds of civilians were taken into custody and goods were confiscated. Since the United States considers Israel our most important ally in the region, whose survival is a of primary concern, it is incumbent upon the Commander in Chief to call Israel to an accounting for its conduct in planning and executing the deadly military attack in international waters upon a peaceful flotilla carrying citizens from over 50 countries.
The State of Israel's conduct, attacking a Turkish ship in international waters, constitutes an act of belligerence against Turkey, which at one time Israel considered an important ally. It also undermines United States’ troops efforts in Iraq, since your administration's efforts to achieve stability in the region and to withdraw troops from Iraq has depended upon Turkey's cooperation through use of its air bases.

In its violent commando raid on the Mavi Marmara, the government of Israel showed no concern as to how its conduct may affect the lives of defenseless, innocent people, its friends and allies, and in particular the United States. The United States must remind Israel as well as all of our other friends and allies:
It is not acceptable to repeatedly violate international law.
It is not acceptable to shoot and kill innocent civilians.
It is not acceptable to commit an act of aggression against another U.S. ally.
It is not acceptable to continue a blockade which denies humanitarian relief.
It is not acceptable to heighten tensions in a region while the United States continues to put so much blood and treasure on the line.
The State of Israel's action necessitates that the United States, which is Israel's partner in the region, begin to redefine its relationship and to establish such boundaries and conditions which are sufficient for mutual respect and cooperation.
It is incumbent upon Israeli officials to bring forth the truth about the planning for and the attack upon the Mavi Marmara.
No one questions the right of Israel to defend its border, but that defense does not extend to shooting innocent civilians anywhere in the world, anytime it pleases.
Israel must account for our support, for the lives of our soldiers, for the investment of billions from our taxpayers. Israel owes the United States more than reckless, pre-meditated violence waged against innocent people.
The attack on the Mavi Marmara requires consequences for the Netanyahu Administration and for the State of Israel. Those consequences must be dealt by the United States. They must be diplomatic and they must be financial. The U.S. can begin by calling for an independent international inquiry of the Mavi Marmara incident. The integrity of such inquiry necessitates that it not be led by the nation whose conduct is under scrutiny. If our nation fails to act in any substantive way, the United States licenses the violence and we are complicit in it and our own citizens will be forced to pay the consequences.
We the undersigned deeply regret the loss of life. We are also fully aware of the dangers to world security which exist in the region, which is why the United States has been unstinting it its defense of Israel. We have a right to expect that Israel not add to those dangers with military conduct which all people of good will know is neither defensible nor moral. There must be consequences for such conduct. We await your response.
Sincerely,
http://kucinich.house.gov/News/DocumentSingle.aspx?DocumentID=188757



ewish World Review April 29, 2010 / 15 Iyar 5770
Republicans, Democrats and Israel
By Caroline B. Glick





http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Bipartisan support for Israel has been one of the greatest casualties of US President Barack Obama's assault on the Jewish state. Today, as Republican support for Israel reaches new heights, support for Israel has become a minority position among Democrats.
Consider the numbers. During Operation Cast Lead — eleven days before Obama's inauguration — the House of Representatives passed Resolution 34 siding with Israel against Hamas. The resolution received 390 yea votes, five nay votes and 37 abstentions. Democrats cast four of the nay votes and 29 of the abstentions.
In November 2009, Congress passed House Resolution 867 condemning the Goldstone report. The resolution urged Obama to disregard its findings which falsely accused Israel of committing war crimes in Cast Lead. 344 Congressman voted for the resolution. 36 voted against it. 52 abstained. Among those voting against, 33 were Democrats. 44 Democrats abstained.
In February 2010, 54 Congressmen sent a letter to Obama urging him to pressure Israel to open Hamas-ruled Gaza's international borders and accusing Israel of engaging in collective punishment. All of them were Democrats.
In the midst of the Obama administration's assault on Israel over construction for Jews in Jerusalem, 327 Congressmen signed a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton calling for an end to the public attacks on the Israeli government. Of the 102 members that refused to sign the letter, 94 were Democrats.
These numbers show two things. First, since Obama entered office there has been a 13 point decline overall in the number of Congressmen willing to support Israel. Second, the decrease comes entirely from the Democratic side of the aisle. There the number of members willing to attack Israel has tripled.
As discouraging as they are, these numbers tell only part of the story. The pro-Israel initiatives the remaining Democrats agree to support today are less meaningful than those they supported before Obama entered office.
Resolution 34 during Cast Lead was substantive. It unhesitatingly blamed Hamas for the conflict, supported Israel and asserted that future wars will only be averted if Hamas is forced to fundamentally change.
Last month's letter to Clinton was much more circumscribed. It focused solely on ending the Obama administration's very public assault on Israel and ignored the nature of that assault. At the insistence of the Democrats, the administration was not criticized for its bigoted demand that Jews not be allowed to construct new homes in Jewish neighborhoods in Israel's capital city.
This week Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat visited Washington. Congressmen Eric Cantor and Peter Roskam — the Republican co-chairmen of the House's Israel caucus — held a public event with Barkat where they voiced strong support for Israel's right to build in Jerusalem without restrictions.
In contrast, their Democratic counterparts refused to meet publicly with Barkat. They also refused to issue any statements supporting Israel's right to its undivided capital.
In the midst of administration's assault on Israel's right to Jerusalem last month, Representative Doug Lamborn drafted Resolution 1191 calling for the administration to finally abide by US law and move the US Embassy to Jerusalem. Lamborn gathered 18 co-sponsors for the resolution. All of them were Republican.
Acting on orders from Obama, House and Senate Democrats have tabled the sanctions bills that passed overwhelmingly in both houses. This week Obama asked Congressional Democrats to water down the sanctions bills to permit him to exempt China and Russia. In so doing, Obama exposed the entire push for sanctions as a dangerous, time-consuming joke. No sanctions passed in Congress or at the UN will make Iran reconsider its decision to build a nuclear arsenal.
This of course has been apparent for some time to anyone paying attention. And recognizing this state of affairs in January, Lamborn and Representative Trent Franks authored a letter to Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates urging the administration, "to support Israel's sovereign right to take any action it feels compelled to make in its self-defense."
Their letter was signed by 22 other Congressmen. All were Republican. Then there is Iran.

Similarly, since November Representative Louie Gohmert has been working on a resolution supporting Israel's right to attack Iran's nuclear installations. Gohmert's resolution condemns Iran's threat to commit nuclear genocide against Israel and expresses "support for Israel's right to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats post by Iran, defend Israeli sovereignty, and protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within a reasonable time."
To date, Gohmert has racked up more than forty co-sponsors. All are Republicans.
Recent opinion polls show that the Republican- Democrat divide on Israel in Congress reflects a growing partisan gap among the general public. A Gallup poll conducted in February showed that whereas 85 percent of Republicans support Israel, (up from 77 percent in February 2009), and 60 percent of Independents support Israel, (up from 49 percent in February 2009), only 48 percent of Democrats support Israel, (down from 52 percent in February 2009).
To date, both the Israeli government and AIPAC have denied the existence of a partisan divide. This has been due in part to their unwillingness to contend with the new situation. One of Israel's greatest assets in the US has been the fact that support for the Jewish state has always been bipartisan. It is hard to accept that the Democrats are jumping ship.
AIPAC also has institutional reasons for papering over the erosion in Democratic support for Israel. First, most of its members are Democrats. Indeed, AIPAC's new President Lee Rosenberg was one of Obama's biggest fundraisers.
Then too, AIPAC is concerned at the prospect of its members abandoning it for J-Street. J-Street, the Jewish pro-Palestinian lobby is strongly supported by the Obama administration.
According to Congressional sources, AIPAC's desire to hide the partisan divide has caused it to preemptively water down Republican initiatives to gain Democratic support or torpedo Republican proposals that the Democrats would oppose. For instance, an AIPAC lobbyist demanded that Gohmert abandon his efforts to advance his resolution on Iran. Sources close to the story say the AIPAC lobbyist told Gohmert that AIPAC opposes all Iran initiatives that go beyond support for sanctions.
And now of course, as Obama makes a mockery of AIPAC's sanctions drive by watering them down to nothingness, AIPAC's sanctions-only strategy lies in ruins. But again in the interest of promoting the fiction of bipartisan support for Israel, AIPAC can be expected to pretend this has not happened.
And many prominent Republican Congressmen are loath to call their bluff. Like the Israeli government itself, Republican House members express deep concern that blowing the lid off the Democrats will weaken Israel. As one member put it, "I don't want to encourage the likes of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to attack Israel by exposing that the Democrats don't support Israel."
While this argument has its merits, the fact is that many Democrats remain staunch supporters of Israel. Representatives like Shelley Berkley, Nita Lowey, Steve Israel, Anthony Weiner, Jim Costa and many others have not taken stronger stands in support Israel because thanks to AIPAC, they haven't been challenged to do so. If going into the November midterm elections House Republicans were to initiate an aggressively pro-Israel agenda as members like Lamborn, Franks, Gohmert, Cantor, Roskam, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and others are already doing, they would compel Democratic members to join them or risk being criticized for abandoning Israel by their Republican opponents in November's elections.
And that's the thing of it. While under Obama bipartisan support for Israel has eroded, popular support for Israel has grown. Indeed polls show a direct correlation between Democratic abandonment of Israel and popular abandonment of the Democrats. What this means is that the partisan divide on Israel is a good election issue for Republicans.
If as projected Republicans retake control over the House of Representatives in November, they will be in a position to limit Obama's ability to adopt policies that weaken Israel. And due to the widespread expectation that Republicans will in fact take over the House, if the Republicans set out clear policy lines on Israel today, their declared policies will immediately impact Obama's maneuver room on Israel. So too, a clear Republican policy on Israel will motivate pro-Israel Democrats to more stridently distance themselves from Obama on issues related to Israel.
Take the Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Salam Fayyad's threat that he will unilaterally declare Palestinian independence in August 2011. To date, Obama has refused to say if he will recognize such a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. Fearing that he may recognize such a state, Israel has gone out of its way to appease Obama.
If House Republicans and Republican House candidates were to collectively pledge to cut off US funding for the PA in the aftermath of such a declaration, they could neutralize the threat. And if they pledged not to fund a US embassy in such a Palestinian state, they would make it impossible for Obama to continue holding his decision over Israel's head.
As for Iran, if Republicans win the House, they will be in a position to use omnibus budgetary bills to force the administration to provide Israel with the military equipment necessary to win a war against Iran and its allies. This would limit Obama's capacity to threaten Israel with an arms embargo in the increasingly likely event that the Iranian axis attacks the Jewish state.
In some House races, Democratic abandonment of Israel is already a key issue. For instance, in Illinois, the race between Republican challenger Joel Pollak and incumbent Democrat Jan Schakowsky has been dominated by Schakowsky's close ties to J-Street and tepid support for Israel. And recent polling data indicate that once a long-shot candidate, Pollak is steadily closing in on Schakowsky's lead.
Exposing the Democrats' abandonment of Israel will be an unpleasant affair. But it won't add to the dangers arrayed against Israel. Israel's enemies are already aware of Obama's animus towards the Jewish state. Demonstrating that the Democrats on Capitol Hill are following his lead on Israel will not add or detract from Iran's willingness to attack Israel either directly or through its Arab proxies, or both.
Moreover, forcing Democrats to account for their behavior will have a salutary long-term effect on their party and on the US as a whole. Support for Israel is a benchmark for support for US allies generally. Obama's abandonment of Israel has gone hand in hand with the cold shoulder he has given Colombia, Honduras, Britain, Poland, the Czech Republic, Japan, South Korea and other key US allies worldwide. In the long-term, it will be catastrophic if one of the US's two political parties maintains this strategically disastrous policy.
By using support for Israel as a wedge issue in the upcoming elections Republicans will do more than simply constrain Obama's ability to harm the Jewish state. They will be setting a course for a Democratic return to strategic sanity in the years to come. And nothing will guarantee the return of bipartisan support for Israel more effectively and securely than that.




from Richard baehr
Republicans who say they are pro-Israel and Democrats who say they are pro-Israel? Actually, a lot. A few examples:
Congresswoman Ileana Ros Lehtinen, Republican of Florida:
On the U.S Israel relationship: http://tinyurl.com/2e385ma
On the need for sanctions against Iran: http://tinyurl.com/28pcet6

Congressman Howard Berman, Democrat of California, a key committee chairman in the House, has done everything in his power in the last 15 months to delay, and soften sanctions against Iran. Why? Because he is loyal to a fault to Barack Obama, who does not want Congress to get out ahead of his own policies, which have achieved absolutely nothing in those 15 months to stop the Iranian nuclear program. . Berman is concerned with the political security of Barack Obama, not Israel's security.
http://tinyurl.com/y6cfokh

And then there is Jan Schakowsky, Democrat of Illinois, who is loyal to J-Street, even as that group lines up with those accusing Israel of responsibility for dead American soldiers, the ultimate blood libel, according to liberal Democrat Alan Dershowitz. A Jew who claims to support the U.S Israel relationship, and supports Schakowsky over Joel Pollak, really needs to get his or her head examined. There is an alternate explanation for such self-destructive political activity- the Schakowsky supporter is like Schakowsky-- someone who pays lip service to the U.S Israel relationship, but really cares about other things. When the bar is set so low that Schakowsky is considered pro-Israel, then as Bill Maher says, we need new rules.




Support for Israel runs on party lines

By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | April 11, 2010

IN THE wake of the diplomatic fight that the Obama administration went out of its way to pick with Israel last month, two high-ranking members of the US House of Representatives — Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Minority Whip Eric Cantor — invited their colleagues to sign a letter to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The letter reaffirmed the signers’ commitment to the “unbreakable bond’’ and “extraordinary closeness’’ that exists between the United States and Israel, and declared that “our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.’’ It expressed dismay at the “highly publicized tensions’’ between the White House and the government of Benjamin Netanyahu, and pointedly counseled the administration to resolve its differences with Israel “quietly, in trust and confidence, as befits longstanding strategic allies.’’

The letter was polite, but there was no mistaking the implicit rebuke of the president for treating Israel so shabbily. Nor, one might think, was there any mistaking its bipartisan appeal: It was signed by 333 members of the US House, more than three-fourths of the entire membership.

The Hoyer-Cantor letter wasn’t the only apparent evidence in recent weeks that American friendliness for Israel crosses party lines.

At the national conference of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby, for example, two of the featured speakers were US Senators Charles Schumer, a staunch Democrat, and Lindsey Graham, an equally staunch Republican. In a Gallup poll released in February, Israel was one of the five countries most positively viewed by a majority of US citizens: 67 percent expressed a favorable opinion of the Jewish state. And the president’s tilt against Israel has been denounced as bluntly by GOP loyalist Liz Cheney (“President Obama is playing a reckless game of . . . diminishing America’s ties to Israel’’) as by lifelong Democrat Ed Koch (“It is unimaginable that the president would treat any of our NATO allies, large or small, in such a degrading fashion.’’)

Peer a little more closely, however, and the wall of pro-Israel solidarity turns out not to be quite so — well, solid.

Take that Gallup survey, which found that 67 percent of Americans have a favorable view of Israel. The same survey also found that when it comes to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 63 percent of the public stands with Israel — more than quadruple the 15 percent that support the Palestinians. There’s not much doubt that the American mainstream is pro-Israel.

But look at the disparity that emerges when those results are sorted by party affiliation. While support for Israel vs. the Palestinians has climbed to a stratospheric 85 percent among Republicans, the comparable figure for Democrats is an anemic 48 percent. (It was 60 percent for independents.) And behind Israel’s “Top 5’’ favorability rating lies a gaping partisan rift: 80 percent of Republicans — but just 53 percent of Democrats — have positive feelings about the world’s only Jewish country.

Similarly, it is true that 333 US House members, a hefty bipartisan majority, endorsed the robustly pro-Israel Hoyer-Cantor letter to Clinton. But there were only seven Republicans who declined to sign the letter, compared with 91 Democrats — more than a third of the entire Democratic caucus. (Six Massachusetts Democrats were among the non-signers: John Olver, Richard Neal, John Tierney, Ed Markey, Michael Capuano, and Bill Delahunt.)

From Zogby International, meanwhile, comes still more proof of the widening gulf between the major parties on the subject of Israel. In a poll commissioned by the Arab American Institute last month, respondents were asked whether Obama should “steer a middle course’’ in the Middle East — code for not clearly supporting Israel. “There is a strong divide on this question,’’ Zogby reported, “with 73 percent of Democrats agreeing that the President should steer a middle course while only 24 percent of Republicans hold the same opinion.’’

Taken as a whole, America’s identification with Israel is as stout as ever — the “special relationship’’ between the two nations still runs deep. But the old political consensus that brought Republicans and Democrats together in support of the Middle East’s only flourishing democracy is breaking down. Republican friendship for Israel has never been more rock-solid. Democratic friendship — especially in the age of Obama — is growing steadily less so.