FOR NON-OBSEREVANT, REFORM, and many Conservative Jews in the U.S., Israel either is not an issue of concern or is way down the list of their personal concerns.
For observant Jews - with a few hasidic exceptions - Israel is the #1 issue.
After Obama proved repeatedly that he was no friend of Israel, 65% to 70% of American Jews voted to re-elect him to continue his anti-Israel record. (See citations at end of article.).
I DON'T BELIEVE we - Jews - should be "one issue" voters.
Israel IS important. Most of us have relatives living there.
But unless the U.S. has a strong government, Israel won't have a strong ally.
It may SOUND provincial, but U.S. Jews MUST consider all the issues with which the president must deal.
Having a president of one party and a Congress dominated by the other does NOT mean nothing will be accomplished. Many presidents have had a Congress of the other party and some got a great deal done.
The above an excerpt from Congress, the President, and Policymaking: A Historical Analysis by Jean Reith Schroedel Successful presidents with opposing-party congresses
From the New York Times
When the Republicans took Congress in 1994, for the first time in almost a half century, Bill Clinton, facing re-election, searched for ways to cooperate with Republicans on domestic policy, such as an overhaul of welfare and the quest for a balanced budget.
After losing the Senate in 1986, which gave the entire Congress to the Democrats, Ronald Reagan worked with the opposition to achieve arms control and other foreign policy measures that helped to end the Cold War. To some extent, Reagan was following the 1947 playbook of Harry Truman. After losing Congress to the Republicans, Truman worked with the other party to enact the foundation stones of his containment policy against the Soviet Union, such as the Marshall Plan and aid to Greece and Turkey.
Because the U.S. has a three-prong government - executive, legislative, and judicial, all of theoretically equal power - the leadership of at least the executive and the legislative branches must - if progress if to be made - work together, even if the executive and the legislative bodies are of different political parties.
A number of presidents have had "opposing party" congresses, and many of them have managed to get progressive legislation passed. Lyndon Johnson, a former senator, was a master of getting his New Frontier bills into law, without resorting to executive orders.
The question facing voters in 2016's presidential race - for both parties - is "Can the nominee work with Congress?"
A same-party president and congress does NOT guarantee an agreeable relationship.
Could Trump work with congress? LBJ was at least as politically INcorrect as Trump, and he was said to be the most successful president in dealing with congress. Trump has no political experience, but he has negotiating experience that will be necessary in dealing with congress if he is elected president.
Rubio and Cruz are senators so they SHOULD know how to deal with congress; that was the basis for LBJ's successes; Johnson was a former senator.
On the other side, Sanders is a long-time senator while Clinton spent 8 years in the Senate before briefly becoming Secretary of State for Obama. Sanders is an avowed Socialist (as was Hubert H. Humphrey) while Clinton is an opportunist (she moved to New York only to run for the senate vacancy) who also violated federal law (emails) and is responsible for the disaster at Benghazi.
Despite their politics, the majority of U.S. non-observant, Reform, and Conservative Jews can be expected to vote against Israel and for either Sanders or his opponent.
REGARDLESS of which candidate eventually moves into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, the new president will have to understand that divisiveness over the last 8 years has severally damaged the nation; it will be the new president's job to find common ground with the congress. Likewise, the congress must be prepared to work with the new president.
America has suffered enough.
Resources:
