Get unlimited digital access to $0.99 for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Op-Eds

Obama and the Jews

Franklin D. Rooseveltreceived 85 percent to 90 percent of the Jewish vote in 1932, 1936, and 1940. How was it, then, that in the run-up to the 1944 election, FDR's top Jewish supporters were worried that he might lose a significant portion of the Jewish vote?

President Barack Obama's election strategists might want to examine this historical episode — especially in light of stinging comments made this month about the president's Israel policy by the editor of the largest American Jewish weekly newspaper.

Gary Rosenblatt, longtime editor of The (New York) Jewish Week, took aim at recent leaks to the press that were apparently intended to undermine Israel's ability to strike atIran'snuclear facilities. One leak claimed to reveal Israel's approximate timetable for military action. A second claimed an Israeli strike would provoke Iranian attacks on Americans. A third exposed an Israeli agreement with Azerbaijan that would have given the Israelis a base from which to launch a raid on Iran.

The Obama administration vehemently denied that it was the source of the leaks. Mr. Rosenblatt isn't buying it. "I have come to believe, reluctantly, that the administration is leaking these stories to the press," he wrote, adding: "[This] strongly suggests that the president views Israel as more of a nuisance rather than a partner regarding Iran, and perhaps the wider Mideast conflict."

Mr. Rosenblatt stopped just short of calling the president a liar. Naturally, one does not use such language when referring to the president. Still, Mr. Rosenblatt's challenge is clear. The president says he has Israel's back; Mr. Rosenblatt says no, his administration is leaking stories to undermine Israel. The president says he is the most pro-Israel president in U.S. history; Mr. Rosenblatt says no, Mr. Obama views Israel as "a nuisance." The president's spokesmen say the administration did not leak the stories; Mr. Rosenblatt says no, they did leak them.

It would be understandable if the Jewish Week editor's blunt words unnerve some of President Obama's Jewish supporters. FDR's Jewish backers harbored similar worries.

The Roosevelt administration's claim that nothing could be done to rescue Jews from Hitler provoked disappointment and anger in the American Jewish community during 1943-1944. Some of the sharpest criticism of FDR came from the editors of the Baltimore Jewish Times — a newspaper where Gary Rosenblatt would later serve as editor for 19 years.

For example, when the administration claimed there were not enough ships to bring refugees from Europe to the United States, an editorial in the Baltimore Jewish Times blasted the "apologists for failure to aid the Jewish refugees" for hiding the fact that the Allies found ships to take tens of thousands of Polish (non-Jewish) refugees to Iran, Uganda and Mexico. The editors stopped just short of calling the Roosevelt administration liars.

In the spring of 1943, the Roosevelt and Churchill administrations held a conference in Bermuda to address the refugee problem. No concrete rescue plans emerged. A sarcastic headline the Baltimore Jewish Times announced: "Bermuda Conferees Agree to Another Conference." Another editorial in the Times denounced FDR's refugee policy as one of "nauseating repetitions of sympathy which lead nowhere and are never accompanied by action."

Then as now, editorials in the Jewish press were often a bellwether of American Jewish opinion. Rabbi Stephen S. Wise, the most prominent Jewish leader of that era and a staunch supporter of President Roosevelt, understood there was no guarantee FDR would win his usual overwhelming share of the Jewish vote in 1944.

At the 1944 Democratic Party convention in Chicago, Wise warned an administration official that FDR's refusal to press the British to open Palestine to Jewish refugees "could lose the president 400,000 to 500,000 votes."

Of course, we all know the ending to that story — ultimately, FDR did win 90 percent of the Jewish vote in 1944. But that came only after the president made a series of election-year gestures to the Jewish community, including creation of a government agency to rescue refugees, admission to the United States of a small number of refugees outside the quota system, and adoption of a party plank supporting Zionism (to match the GOP's pro-Zionist platform).

When CBS-TV anchorman Walter Cronkite began criticizing U.S. policy in Vietnam, President Lyndon Johnson told his aides, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America." He understood what Cronkite represented.

Gary Rosenblatt, too, may represent more than just himself. As a widely respected editor of the largest U.S. Jewish weekly, as a centrist on America-Israel issues, and as someone not known for having been especially critical of the Obama administration before, his views command attention. When it comes to American Jews and Israel, will Mr. Rosenblatt turn out to be the Obama administration's Walter Cronkite?

Rafael Medoff is founding director of The David S. Wyman Institute for Holocaust Studies and coauthor of the new book "Herbert Hoover and the Jews." This article originally appeared on

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Why Israel belongs to the Jews
    Why Israel belongs to the Jews

    There can be no question about the centrality of Israel to the Jewish and Christian religions, but the Muslim claim is tenuous to say the least.

  • Cancel the Netanyahu speech
    Cancel the Netanyahu speech

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu intends to go ahead with his speech to Congress on Iran's nuclear program despite the accusation by Deputy Foreign Minister Tzachi Hanegbi that House Speaker John Boehner misrepresented the invitation. The whole thing is so disingenuous given the...

  • Making a claim on Israel
    Making a claim on Israel

    G. Jefferson Price's commentary refers to the Arab concern for Palestine ("An odd start to America's romance with Saudi Arabia," Feb. 13). But others have claims to that area. What the Arabs now consider Palestine, Jews call Israel or the Promised Land and Christians call the Holy Land. It...

  • Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise
    Netanyahu speech: Neither unprecedented nor unwise

    Op-ed writer Frederic Hill ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 28) faults House Speaker John Boehner for inviting Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress two weeks before Israeli elections. "Democratic nations usually do not interfere in another country's vote," Mr. Hill says.

  • Congress has right to hear Netanyahu
    Congress has right to hear Netanyahu

    In his commentary ("Boehner's unwise move," Jan. 28), Frederic B. Hill claims it was unwise for House Speaker John Boehner to invite Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak at a joint session of Congress because it shows deference toward him before an Israeli election.

  • Let Netanyahu speak
    Let Netanyahu speak

    I find it necessary to respond to Frederic B. Hill's odious and erroneous op-ed, "Boehner's unwise move" (Jan. 28).

  • Netanyahu needs to address Congress
    Netanyahu needs to address Congress

    Contrary to Frederic B. Hill's assertions ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27) both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and House Speaker John Boehner have had little option, considering how the nuclear negotiations with Iran have proceeded.

  • Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders
    Netanyahu visit: Maybe Congress should delegate all its policy work to foreign leaders

    Has Speaker John Boehner has a brilliant idea in inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to Congress on the subject of Iran ("Netanyahu invitation unwise," Jan. 27). What else can he do when, apparently, no Republicans in the House have what it takes to address the issue?...