Can America Elect a Jewish President?

As pundits rank possible Democratic contenders for 2028, Sen. Jon Ossoff of Georgia leads most lists and Gov. JB Pritzker of Illinois scores near the top. Both happen to be Jewish. Ossoff says he has no interest in running, but that’s what they all say.

Can America elect a Jew? Maybe so. Both men are Jewish, but Jewish is not their primary identify. Nor are their views on Israel paramount.

Ossoff just won re-election by 18 points in Georgia, a state with a very small Jewish population. That means a lot of gentiles voted for him.

Yes, you might say, but there are lots of Jewish senators; the presidency is different. Well, America was never going to elect a Black president—until we did, overwhelmingly. It just takes the right candidate. We still have not elected a woman president, but both Hillary Clinton and Kamala Harris were notably weak candidates.

Both Ossoff and Pritzker are not seen as Jewish candidates, but as candidates who happen to be Jewish—just as John F. Kennedy successfully insisted that he was running for president as a candidate who happened to be Catholic. Despite the age-old charge against Jews of dual loyalty, given new credibility by Benjamin Netanyahu’s insistence that all Jews owe allegiance to Israel, an Ossoff or a Pritzker is no more loyal to Jerusalem than Kennedy was to Rome.

Ordinarily, a Jewish candidate might be whipsawed for his views on Israel, long a divisive issue among Democrats. But thanks to Netanyahu’s barbaric policies, Democrats are rapidly moving toward a new consensus. The vast majority of Democrats in Congress now support an end to unconditional aid to Israel. That is also the view of most Jewish voters, and for that matter, most voters.

There is not much difference in the stated views on aid to Israel between, say, Abdul El-Sayed and Rahm Emanuel. As Matt Duss, former foreign-policy adviser to Bernie Sanders, told The Washington Post, commenting on Emanuel’s July speech in Tel Aviv warning that Israel was becoming a pariah, “This is a very conservative, very pro-Israel Democrat, and in that speech, he was laying down a set of measures that was actually to the left of where Bernie was in 2020.”

Among Democrats, despite all the spending of AIPAC, the “Israel right or wrong” caucus is now tiny. In September, every Senate Democrat but one voted for a bill sponsored by Sen. Chris Van Hollen requiring the Trump administration to produce a report on human rights violations in the West Bank. That vote in turn reflected widespread Democratic support for conditioning aid on a ban on settlements.

Even President Trump, who has long posed as the Jews’ best friend, with characteristic opportunism tried to outflank Michigan’s senator-elect El-Sayed by announcing that all U.S. aid to Israel would end this year. This abrupt announcement, welcomed by El-Sayed, came as a surprise to both U.S. and Israeli officials. It had nothing whatever to do with a considered policy change. It was one part partisan politics and one part payback to Bibi for his endless manipulation of Trump.

But Trump’s shift, whether or not he carries it out as initially announced, removes one more obstacle to a drastic change in the posture of most Democrats. Last week, JD Vance sought to trump Trump, with a post on X suggesting that support for Israel was a key reason for the Republicans’ defeat.

MEANWHILE, GADI EISENKOT, LEADER of the Israeli opposition, is likely to be able to form a government. But that’s the easy part. How will an Eisenkot government satisfy the legitimate demands of Palestinians, of American critics of Israeli policy, and the good opinion of citizens of most countries who have branded Israel a pariah?

He can begin by ending the genocide in Gaza. He can even end new West Bank settlements. But how to restore land illegally stolen from Palestinians during the entire Netanyahu regime? Real security for Israel, and redemption of its place among the nations, can come only in the context of a true regional settlement that includes the rebuilding of Gaza, the recognition of Israel coupled with the creation of a Palestinian state, or, alternatively, a binational non-theocratic Israel.

These goals are all but impossible given a weak coalition government whose first political need is to deliver security to Israelis. However, Democrats are likely to keep the pressure on Eisenkot to make a good-faith effort and make at least incremental progress. And Ossoff and Pritzker will be with the majority Democratic position.

In this context, both men, assuming they do run for president, can be judged according to the right criteria, and not pressed on their religion and the bogus charge of dual loyalty. Ossoff is charismatic and can deliver a great speech. But as a senator, does he have the right executive experience? Pritzker has been a great governor and a scourge of Trump. But what does he know about foreign policy?

If these are the questions posed of Ossoff and Pritzker, another barrier could fall. One could be nominated and even elected. And America, after decades of using its influence to reinforce the worst in Israel, could begin to promote the best.