Democrats lose NY-9. What does that mean?

Lest Republicans and Sean Hannity become too enamored with the first Republican win in district NY-9 since 1922, let us remember that the election was a referendum on one, and only one, issue. Obama's anti-Israel policies.

It was a not a general dissatisfaction with Obama, or Democrats, or Obamanomics. Dan Senor wrote the conclusive article:

A Public Policy Poll taken days before the election found a plurality of voters saying that Israel was "very important" in determining their votes. Among those voters, Republican candidate Robert Turner was winning by a 71-22 margin. Only 22% of Jewish voters approved of President Obama's handling of Israel. Ed Koch, the Democrat and former New York mayor, endorsed Mr. Turner because he said he wanted to send a message to the president about his anti-Israel policies.

Dan Senor: Why Obama Is Losing the Jewish Vote - WSJ.com
Wed, 14 Sep 2011 17:02:00 UTC

The PLO first suggested that all Israeli negotiations must begin with 1967 borders. IOW, a roll back of the war. That was Obama’s recommendation which began the real stare-down and snubbing of Netanyahu, and the temper trantrum after he left the White House.

Anyone who has ever visited the tiny country of Israel can tell you why the 1967 borders are totally untenable. Even a 12 year old can see it. IT IS INDEFENSIBLE.

It is a testament to Israeli desire for peace that they have already given up so much land. But it sure was stupid and silly strategy.

This morning Ari Fleischer said jokingly on Twitter, “Obama calls for NY-9 to return to it’s pre-1967 status. Last time an R held the seat was 1922.”

But Obama's issues with Israel were apparent much earlier than his academically cleansed but practically silly stance on Isreali borders. As Mr. Senor recounts:

February 2008: When running for president, then-Sen. Obama told an audience in Cleveland: "There is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel." Likud had been out of power for two years when Mr. Obama made this statement. At the time the country was being led by the centrist Kadima government of Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni and Shimon Peres, and Prime Minister Olmert had been pursuing an unprecedented territorial compromise. As for Likud governments, it was under Likud that Israel made its largest territorial compromises—withdrawals from Sinai and Gaza.

That was only the beginning of his heroic gaffes with Israel, as he firmly grasped the Progressive narrative in preference to any historical reality. Mr. Obama has repeatedly called for Israeli society to engage in serious self-reflection, separated Jerusalem with Israel in his speeches, and naively parroted Progressive talking points which express solidarity with Hamas and Iran.

No doubt Obama will soon travel to Israel. I wonder if Netanyahu will make him eat alone like Obama did.