[The following is by Alana Goodman for Commentary Magazine] One of the most important Democratic donors in the past two decades, whose generous contributions helped pay for the DNC headquarters in Washington, D.C., has indicated that he will not contribute to President Obama’s reelection campaign in 2012, because of the administration’s stance on Israel.
Billionaire financier Haim Saban told CNBC last night that Obama hasn’t done enough to show support for Israel. He also said that he has no plans to contribute to the president’s campaign.
“President Obama has raised so much money and will raise so much money through the Internet, more than anybody before him. And he frankly doesn’t, I believe, need any of my donations,” said Saban.
“I’m very perplexed as to why the president, who’s been to Cairo, to Saudi Arabia, to Turkey, has not made a stop in Israel and spoken to the Israeli people,” he continued. “I believe that the president can clarify to the Israeli people what his positions are on Israel and calm them down. Because they are not calm right now.”
There have been reports that Obama is losing Jewish support after his clash with Prime Minister Netanyahu last week, but this development is the most significant so far. If a key donor like Saban has decided to break with the president, then there are likely others who will follow suit.
Steve Rosen, director of the Washington office of the Middle East Forum, and a former AIPAC official, said that this is part of a trend of Democrats rejecting Obama’s policy toward Israel.
“It’s not happening in isolation. It’s happening in a context in which Harry Reid broke with the president in the last two days,” Rosen told me. “I think that Saban is another step in that direction.”
Saban told CNBC that he will continue to enlist others to contribute to Democratic candidates. The DNC, which has received millions from Saban over the years, hasn’t yet replied to a request for comment.
(Source: Commentary Magazine)
Join the official YWN WhatsApp status
14 Responses
Nebuh let him donate to Torah instead of empty politicians, whatever their policies happen to be at that moment
Finally, the Jewish community is waking up from it’s “slumber”.
Obama was never and never will be a friend to Israel or the Jewish community at large.
Maybe Mr. Saban can donate to agencies that service the homeless, the hungry, etc., if he doesn’t already.
This guy is a rockstar! We like jews with money…but we like them even more when they like us.
best news I heard all day
Obama visited Israel in 2008.
And his contribution to the Obama campaign was limited to $5,000 anyway.
Saban must have been influenced by the Tea Party’s distortion of the Obama administration’s stance on Israel. President Obama merely reiterated Bush’s position; Harry Reid and his cronies in Congress are too dumb to understand the President’s words.
No. 6: My thoughts exactly.
to Dave Hirsch #6,
I don’t think it’s what he said, it’s how Obama expressed it. Furthermore the situation is now different than in Bush’s time. The PA is now partnered with Hamas, a terrorist entity (as defined by the US Dept of State).
charliehall said “Obama visited Israel in 2008.”
But so it is true that President Obama has not visited Israel. Candidate Obama has.
MDG,
It is what he said and sincerely meant!
Charlie Hall, Dave Hirsch, nfgo3 and all other Obama fans, Obama departed radically from the position of former US presidents (including Bush) by leaving the issue of the right of return and the status of Jerusalem open to negotiation AFTER having Israel give up all the territory it possibly can. Israel will then be left with no bargaining chips and a perpetual excuse for Arabs to bomb every city and town in Israel. Bush understood that the right of return is impossible and it would be suicidal for Israel to agree to it.
ladler,
Hey, don’t ever call me such denigrating terms. I might not hate Obama, but I hate Obama’s policies. Can’t you take sarcasm?!
The difficult issue posed by the decision, reported above, of Mr. Haim Saban to withdraw his financial support from President Obama is, will it increase the security of the State of Israel. Mr. Saban’s reason, as reported above, is that “Obama hasn’t done enough to show support for Israel.” This begs the question: will more forceful talk from the US president in support of the State of Israel improve the chances for lasting peace between Israel, its sovereign neighbors and the non-Jews living in Judea and Shomron.
President Obama’s predecessors have been talking forcefully in support of the State of Israel for 63 years, and the result has been a protracted stalemate over borders, refugees and control of Jerusalem. The Palestinian Authority and prior “representatives” of the non-Jews of the former Palestine Mandate have been content with, or indifferent to, this stalemate for 63 years. There is no reason to think that forceful talk from the US will move the Palestinians off their long-standing denial of Israel’s right to existence within secure and defensible borders. President Obama’s statements in the last week have made it clear that he and the US insist that any settlement must recognize Israel’s right to exist within defensible borders. The president has also said that the Palestinian state which emerges from such a settlement must not be “militarized.” That clearly means that the settlement must not leave the State of Israel on the western border of a heavily armed and growing Arab state that could successfully make war on the Jewish state. I do not know why Mr. Saban thinks “more” support from the US is needed for the State of Israel, as the president has clearly supported the State of Israel as much as his predecessors.
There is one other matter for supporters of Israel consider about Mr. Saban’s withdrawal of his support. President Obama demonstrated, in the 2008 election, that a big source of financial support for presidential elections is now internet collections from many small donors, as an alternative to the big donations from larger donors. Withdrawal of Mr. Saban’s support may possibly be readily replaceable. Additionally, many special interests know that they must support “both sides of the aisle,” so that no matter who wins the election, someone representing the special interest can call him/herself a supporter and friend of the winner. It therefore behooves the supporters of the State of Israel to be sure that they have “bet on all the horses” in the race for president. If Mr. Saban no longer wants to bet on the Obama horse, that is his privilege, but supporters of the State of Israel should not be cheering his withdrawal of support – at least not out loud, because when the race is over in November 2012, the State of Israel will still need US support, and keeping that support will require a donor who can call on the winner and be his/her best friend.
As a Canadian, I just have a short comment to make about the current US government – as I see it (and as much of it as I can understand):
If “pro” is the opposite of “con”, then what is the opposite of “progress”?