Skip Navigation

Does Netanyahu’s Speech Really Matter for US Elections?

There has been much talk surrounding the Israeli Prime Minister’s most recent trip to the United States. Just a few weeks ago, on March 4, Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress without formal invitation from the White House. Netanyahu was invited by Speaker of the House John Boehner, and the Israeli Prime Minister’s decision to follow through with the trip has sparked further partisan divide in the United States, notably regarding an issue that is one of few to receive widespread bipartisan support for decades – the American special relationship with Israel.

Many commentators have claimed that Netanyahu’s visit illustrates his animosity towards the Obama administration’s Israel policy. Furthermore, the purpose of Netanyahu’s visit was to demonstrate his appreciation for the Republican bloc, rather than genuinely discuss his fears for the future of Israel’s welfare. It did not help matters that sixty democrats chose not to attend the speech, including Senator Elizabeth Warren and Vice President Joe Biden, not to mention President Obama. And while Netanyahu claimed that his speech had no relevance to the upcoming Israel elections, others believe that the speech was designed to “claw back at least one or two seats in the upcoming election.”

What exactly made Netanyahu’s visit so controversial, might one ask? The issue at hand is one that is not so new—the foreign relations between the United States and Iran. In September of 2013, President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani and President Obama had a historic phone call that marked the possibility for a new, more diplomatic relationship between the two nations. Iran became more integrated into the world with nine months of negotiations with a six-nation group which consisted of the United States the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Russia and China. However, these negotiations only “culminated in a week of talks in Vienna that failed to close gaps between Iran and [the] negotiating group over the scale of a future Iranian nuclear programme and the speed with which international sanctions would be lifted.”

With the growing presence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) threatening stability in the greater Middle East, specifically Iraq, the United States and Iran have supposedly been holding direct conversations that would most likely enforce a program to strictly monitor Iran’s nuclear program in exchange for US involvement in the defeat of ISIS.

Due to the failure of last year’s negotiations, the six powers are planning to negotiate a nuclear arms deal with Iran in March. This is to the dismay of Netanyahu and many others who fear Israel’s safety and think that any sort of deal would backfire and hurt Israel.

Regardless of motivations for Netanyahu’s speech—Republican appeasement, fear for Israel, or domestic political issues—I am wondering whether this political gambit has any significance for the next major elections in United States politics: the 2016 presidential race?

Jewish Americans vote for the Democratic Party with great reliability. In the 2004, 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, 76 percent, 78 percent and 69 percent of the Jewish bloc voted for the Democratic candidate, respectively. Never has there been a clear, or slight for that matter, majority of Jewish Americans who voted for the Republican candidate.

Netanyahu does have justified fears if Iran were to gain nuclear status, but this fear is not lost on American politicians. If the United States were to negotiate a deal that calls for involvement in Iraq, especially ground involvement, the Democratic Party would have great barriers to overcome in order to win in 2016, since the general American public is against another major military endeavor.

Netanyahu’s visit does have a substantial effect on partisan approval towards him. While, as previously mentioned, Jewish Americans reliably vote Democratic in presidential elections, as of March 2, “Republicans are much more likely to view Netanyahu positively (60 percent) than negatively (18 percent), while Democrats are evenly divided in their views of him: Thirty-one percent favorable and 31 percent unfavorable.” There has been a substantial increase in Independent and Republican support for Netanyahu because of his speech to Congress. This data illustrates that support for Israel is if anything increasing in the midst of the surrounding violence.

Because support for Israel is clearly an important matter regardless of who the Prime Minister is, potential 2016 presidential candidates are gearing up for the coming months and responding to Netanyahu’s visit with critical support. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, a potential 2016 candidate, has been pushing the pro-Israel voting bloc. Most recently, Sen. Graham held a fundraiser in order to raise pro-Israel support. Former Florida Governor and probable presidential candidate Jeb Bush tweeted that Netanyahu’s visit was “completely appropriate.” Potential candidate Rand Paul met with Israel supporter and wealthy casino owner Sheldon Adelson in order to “‘send a message to a lot of American Jewry that really the time to think about who supports Israel is now.’” Governor of Wisconsin Scott Walker wrote an op-ed about how the Democrats and President Obama are using Netanyahu’s speech as a “political football” that will harm relations throughout the Middle East and threaten our national security. Clearly, there is Republican determination to take whatever Jewish votes they can get.

Some would say that Democratic candidates do not need to feel threatened by Netanyahu’s words due to the reliability of the Jewish vote. However, nothing is set in stone. Whatever negative statements Democrats make regarding Netanyahu’s actions could prove detrimental to Democratic pro-Israel voters. But Obama’s Israel policy has been less supportive than many Jews would have wanted, exemplified by the Iran negotiations and past. Democratic politicians must keep in mind the rising Republican determination to win the 2016 presidency. Republicans will continue to push for pro-Israel sentiment in order to sway those more conservative Jewish voters who usually vote Democratic because of the historical pro-Israel Democratic position.

About the Author

Lauren Kotin '18 is a staff writer for the Brown Political Review.

SUGGESTED ARTICLES