Why are Obama and his surrogates now making opposition to Israel a partisan issue and attacking Republicans for being pro-Israel?

Why are Obama and his surrogates now making opposition to Israel a partisan issue and attacking Republicans for being pro-Israel?(JPost).By Caroline Glick.Less than 100 days before the US presidential elections, the Obama administration is openly denying Israel’s sovereignty over Jerusalem. Can this be a vote-getter? Last week, the Emergency Committee for Israel released an ad titled, “O, Jerusalem.” The commercial showed administration officials squirming when asked to name the capital of Israel, and highlighted the recent refusals of White House and State Department spokespeople to acknowledge that Jerusalem is Israel’s capital city. The underlying message of the ad was that the administration’s policy is out of step with the views of the majority of Americans. Barack Obama’s position is certainly a political outlier. The 1995 Jerusalem Embassy Act, passed nearly unanimously by both houses of Congress, explicitly stated that it is the policy of the United States that Jerusalem should be recognized as the capital of Israel.

The law granted the president a right to postpone the transfer of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem on national security grounds. But the law’s recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital was unconditional. 

During his visit to Israel earlier this week, presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney highlighted the fact that he holds the consensus view of the American public on Jerusalem. In his speech in Jerusalem on Sunday afternoon, Romney said simply, “It is a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel.” The Palestinians were predictably enraged. Also predictably, the Palestinians chastised Romney for another statement he made that was equally rooted in America’s bipartisan consensus. Romney noted that other things being equal, cultures that uphold and protect political and economic freedoms are more prosperous than cultures that don’t.
Obama is making his hostility to Israel a wedge issue. As Republicans repeat traditional positions, the Democrats are rendering conventional statements of amity with the Jewish state controversial. It is the Obama White House and its surrogates who are attacking those who recognize Israel’s capital as diplomatic flamethrowers. It is the Democrats who are demonizing American supporters of Israel as disloyal. Obama’s assault on Romney is an extension and amplification of his Jewish proxy J Street’s campaign against Congressmen Allen West of Florida and Joe Walsh of Illinois. Last month, J Street released ads attacking West and Walsh for being even more pro-Israel than most of their pro-Israel congressional colleagues. After Romney returned from Israel, J Street released a new ad attacking Romney for being nearly as pro-Israel as West and Walsh. What has changed? Why are Obama and his surrogates now highlighting Obama’s hostility? Why are they making opposition to Israel a partisan issue and attacking Republicans for being pro-Israel? Much of the answer was provided by by J Street president Jeremy Ben-Ami last week. In an interview with The New York Times, Ben-Ami explained, “Every single number indicates that there is simply no such thing as a Jewish problem for the president. The people who only vote on Israel didn’t vote for Obama last time and know who they are voting for already.”
In other words, Obama has given up on the pro- Israel vote. He’s going for the anti-Israel vote and the indifferent-to-Israel vote. True, Obama outrageously markets his anti-Israel platform as pro- Israel. For instance, J Street attack ads on pro-Israel Congressmen West and Walsh present them preposterously as “anti-Israel.” So, too, Friedman and Rothkopf write that by supporting Israel, Romney is harming Israel, because it is Israel’s vital interest to be diplomatically coerced into surrendering to its Palestinian enemies. Although this seems merely ridiculous, it is actually insidious. These arguments are implicit messages to three groups. For out-and-out anti-Semites, they reinforce the paranoid belief that Jews and Israel are so powerful that even the president is afraid to openly say what he thinks about us. For socially conscious Israel-haters, the messaging enables them to continue bashing Israel without fear that they will be accused of being anti-Semites. And for American Jews who are indifferent to Israel, the messages give them cover to vote for Obama without having to admit that they couldn’t care less about Israel.
Obama’s reelection campaign strategy has mystified many observers. Why, they wonder, is he playing to his base instead of moving to the Center? Like his attacks on free enterprise and Catholics, his attacks on Israel seem to indicate that he doesn’t care about getting reelected. But this is not the case. Evidently, Obama’s campaign strategy is to conduct multiple micro-campaigns rather than one national campaign. Apparently his data indicate that he will win or lose the election depending on how a few key districts in swing states vote. Based on these data, his campaign strategists have plainly concluded that some of these decisive districts are populated by anti- Semites, Israel-haters and indifferent Jews for whom his absurdly marketed anti-Israel positions resonate. Aside from that, these positions clearly resonate with him. Consequently, they will certainly form the basis for his policy towards Israel if he wins a second term in office.Hmmmm......Obama: "“I’m also mindful of the proverb, ‘A man is judged by his deeds, not his words.’ So if you want to know where my heart lies, look no further than what I have done.”— to stand up for Israel."Read the full story here.