|
|

Advertisement
May 31, 2011 | 2:49 pm
Posted by Danielle Berrin
| Tweet |

It’s no secret that there are powerful forces within the American Jewish community who feel deep distrust and doubt when it comes to President Obama’s relationship to Israel. Whether Haim Saban, the billionaire media mogul and largest individual donor to the Democratic Party counts himself in that camp is a worthy question.
What is not worthy is shoddy reporting that projects false conclusions.
Late last week, in a report on an interview Saban gave to CNBC about the Obama-Netanyahu summit, a Commentary Magazine headline declared that a “key Jewish donor breaks with Obama.”
“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,” reporter Alana Goodman wrote.
This of course, is a very significant statement, given that it concerns a major political donor known for his single-issue concern – Israel—but the problem is, it isn’t true.
When asked by a CNBC anchor if he was satisfied with Obama’s clarification about a two-state solution based on the 1967 borders, what Saban actually said was: “[On that point] we’re all good; as an Israeli-American we’re all good.”
Saban’s criticism, which he made of both Obama and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, was that they need to address their differences in private, not at the U.N., not in front of the cameras. Understandably, Saban would like to see the relationship afforded the dignity of confidence between friends.
“The Prime Minister should not be speaking as he has to my President in the oval office,” Saban told CNBC. “That is not an acceptable behavior. Nor is, frankly, President Obama’s handling of every controversy in public, as he has done.”
Even though, under the Obama administration, U.S. military aid to Israel is at its highest in Israel’s history, there remains ambivalence and skepticism regarding Obama’s diplomacy there. Saban seems to be satisfied with Obama’s official policy towards Israel but not with his personal affinity for the Jewish state.
“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 said. Saban also suggested that with a direct address to the Israelis, Obama could assuage their concerns about brokering a Israeli-Palestinian peace deal.
That’s when the anchor asked Saban if he would contribute to Obama’s re-election campaign. Saban replied obliquely; saying that Obama didn’t really need his financial support: “He has raised so much money and will raise so much through the internet, more than anybody,” Saban said, but made it clear that if he were solicited, he would contribute to Obama’s campaign. Saban also said he would remain a “staunch” supporter of the Democratic Party and indicated his money would be better spent educating and influencing members of congress above and beyond the executive cabinet (the idea that U.S. congressional support for Israel is most vital to Israel’s security and prosperity is also AIPAC’s operating principle).
So what’s with the sensational headline that suggests Saban is withdrawing his full political support from Obama?
At best, it’s a shallow misunderstanding; at worst, it’s irresponsible journalism. Haim Saban is a well-worn political influencer and I can only assume, extremely careful and calculated about the statements he makes to the press. What he’s doing here is playing a political game, sending a message to the President that says, ‘Well, maybe I won’t contribute to your re-election campaign unless...’
His goal is clear: he wants the President to visit Israel and talk to Israelis. He wants the President not simply to support Israel but to love, to treat it as more than a strategic interest, but as an ally, a friend.
This is very smart posturing because it sets up the opportunity for a quid-pro-quo. When it comes time for Obama’s re-election campaign and Saban is next on the call list, rather than a guarantee of support, Obama will have to make good on Saban’s request.
Read my profile of Haim Saban here.
Watch the CNBC interview:

5.24.12 at 4:03 pm | . . .

5.23.12 at 12:39 pm | Is the fancy Festival du Cannes snobbish and. . .

5.23.12 at 11:25 am | Self-actualization can be such a drag. Just ask. . .

5.22.12 at 9:21 pm | It took Daniel Mendelsohn's discursive and. . .
5.22.12 at 2:07 pm | A few weeks ago when I was interviewing. . .

5.22.12 at 2:02 pm | There's big buzz coming out of Cannes for Michael. . .

5.17.11 at 8:55 am | While Shriver seeks self-betterment,. . . (446)

3.23.10 at 10:19 am | After a six year engagement, Sacha Baron Cohen,. . . (242)

5.23.12 at 11:25 am | Self-actualization can be such a drag. Just ask. . . (200)





We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
hollywood jewish hollywood jew jewish journal jewishjournal.com celebrity storyblog arts film israel sundance los angeles actor actress life bloghome natalie portman oscars academy awards community movies singer movie music tv jews marriage director tel aviv jesse eisenberg madonna holy rollers adam lambert politics sundance film festival mel gibson entertainment fashion died joan rivers
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
Blogs
Bloggish-mobile
Foodaism-mobile
Hollywood Jew-mobile
Jews and Mormons-mobile
Keeping it Real-mobile
Keeping the Faith-mobile
Morethodoxy-mobile
Nice Jewish Doctor-mobile
Rosners Domain-mobile
Tattletales-mobile
The God Blog-mobile
The Ticket-moblie
Leisure-mobile
Multimedia-iPad
Photos-iPad
Videos-iPad
Passover Reader
| |||||||||
The reason that Pres. Obama has not gone to Israel is that he can not go there and be assured of his safety and moreover, his safety cannot be assured by Netanyahu. Whereas once secular Israelis dominated the elite Israeli units, military as well as police, recent years have seen an influx of religious nutcases who, although they wear an Israeli uniform, they answer not to their senior officers but to their rabbis who are even crazier than they are.
The only way that Obama can go to Israel is to do something dramatic ahead of time such as releasing Pollard. If not, at the very least, we can be assured that the Knesset will not give him anything like the reception Congress gave Netanyahu.
Check what he told Ayalah Hasson, I T V, Friday, June 3.2011, in Hebrew, this is when you can sense more candor and buyer’s remorse. The best part was a zinger thrown by singer Paul Anka, who came along (IMHO a paid trip to sing in the Teshuvah wedding in Ben Shemen Forest), Anka is ahead of Saban, a registered, loyal democrat with severe blinders. I get the impression that despite the good rapport between the two Anka is a wise Republican, who made his disappointment with the current tax policies fly right over Saban’s big ears while entertaining Hasson in Saban’s 15th floor suite. Saban got the dough, Anka got the brain.