Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations last week, refuting the claims of Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and thanking President Barack Obama for his strong support for Israel at the U.N. Netanyahu also reminded the world that "the only time that the United States cast a U.N. Security Council veto during the Obama presidency was against an anti-Israel resolution in 2011. As President Obama rightly declared at this podium, peace will not come from statements and resolutions at the United Nations."
Conservatives need to vote for Hillary. Conservative pro-Israel groups that try to persuade progressives to support Israel by appealing to progressive values usually fail because try as they might, their words don't ring true. They come across as condescending. They sound inauthentic because they don't share the values of the audience they are trying to persuade. That's why well-intentioned groups like StandWithUs do more harm than good on college campuses. It's more effective when progressives like me try to persuade fellow progressives to support Israel.
Conversely, my efforts to persuade conservatives to vote for Hillary won't work. I don't speak "conservative." I'd vote for Hillary over any of the Republican also-rans, so for me to tell conservatives to take one for the team and vote for Hillary won't ring true for them. Who am I to tell them to vote for someone they've been conditioned to hate and fear?
But Bret Stephens of the Wall Street Journal (formerly of The Jerusalem Post) is respected in the conservative community, especially the conservative pro-Israel community. And even though I sometimes disagree with him, there's no getting around that he's a brilliant writer. So if you're trying to help your conservative friends and relatives understand the urgent necessity of voting for Hillary, don't listen to me. Instead, send them this column from Stephens, in which he raises and answers the objections to voting for Hillary most often raised by his fellow conservatives.
Or you can share the Cincinnati Enquirer endorsement; the Enquirer has endorsed Republicans for almost a century--until now. Calling Trump a "clear and present danger to our country," the Enquirer endorsed Hillary in part because she possesses "far stronger diplomatic skills than she gets credit for. Yes, mistakes were made in Benghazi, and it was tragic that four Americans lost their lives in the 2012 terror attacks on the U.S. consulate there. But the incident was never the diabolical conspiracy that Republicans wanted us to believe, and Clinton was absolved of blame after lengthy investigations. As the nation's top diplomat, Clinton was well-traveled, visiting numerous countries and restoring U.S. influence internationally. She was part of President Barack Obama's inner circle when the decision was made to go after and kill Osama bin Laden and negotiated U.N. sanctions that led to the Iran nuclear deal."
More and more Republican Jews are supporting Hillary Clinton. Early voting has just begun, but we can follow the money. Nate Silver writes that in 2012, about 70 percent of Jewish political contributions and 70 percent of Jewish votes went to President Obama, but "so far in 2016, of all the money given to major-party candidates by donors who appear to be Jewish, 95 percent has gone to Hillary Clinton and just 5 percent has gone to Donald Trump."
Why? Silver thinks it could have something to do with Trump's anti-Semitic followers, his anti-Semitic (re)tweets, and his anti-Semitic-ish comments to Republican donors, as well as Trump's racism, religious intolerance, and opposition to refugees. Trump's "unprecedented lack of experience in government" might also be a factor.