Meanwhile, the strongest Democratic challenger, Hillary Clinton, who announced her candidacy last month, is likely also to be under pressure to show her unequivocal support for Israel.
Her chief backer is Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media mogul who is a long-time friend of the Clinton family, a major Democratic Party donor and an ardent supporter of Israel.
He has said he will spend "whatever it takes" to get Clinton elected president, and that under her leadership "I believe -- deeply -- the relationship with the US and Israel will be significantly reinforced." He added that "there's no right or left when it comes to Israel."
Saban is supportive of negotiations over a two-state solution, but chiefly to protect Israel from a demographic takeover of Palestinians inside what would become a Greater Israel. "It is not about granting the Palestinian state," he has said. "It's about securing the future of a democratic Israel."
Meanwhile, Saban has echoed Netanyahu's hardline positions on Iran.
Last November, at a meeting of Israeli-Americans also attended by Adelson, Saban attacked Obama for negotiating with Iran. He said, if he were Netanyahu, he "would bomb the living daylights out of these sons of bitches [Iran]" and that the US had "shown too many carrots and a very small stick."
Saban spoke of his dissatisfaction with Obama's attitude to Israel even before he became president. Journalist Avner Hopstein revealed in the Israeli daily Haaretz last month that in an interview in late 2008, shortly before Obama assumed office, Saban had confided that he was "very worried" about the new president.
According to Hopstein, Saban feared that Obama would impose new standards of conduct on Israel in its dealings with the US and make demands "diametrically opposed to that of his predecessors."
Battle of the philanthropists
A battle between "two pro-Israel philanthropists," concluded Hopstein, would create a campaign in which Clinton would have to prove that she is "better for the Jews, for Israel and perhaps even for Netanyahu."
That process already appears to be underway. Shortly before Clinton's announcement of her presidential run, she met Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.
In a press statement afterwards, apparently intended to distance Clinton from Obama's clashes with Netanyahu, Hoenlein said Clinton "thinks we need to all work together to return the special US-Israel relationship to constructive footing."
It is almost certain that the campaign runs of both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in 2016 will depend on financing from hawkish, pro-Israel donors such as Adelson and Saban.
A concern for a growing number of Americans, as their candidates seek to win over such patrons, must be: can a US president and Congress still afford to pursue foreign policy goals separate from those of Israel?
Her chief backer is Haim Saban, an Israeli-American media mogul who is a long-time friend of the Clinton family, a major Democratic Party donor and an ardent supporter of Israel.
He has said he will spend "whatever it takes" to get Clinton elected president, and that under her leadership "I believe -- deeply -- the relationship with the US and Israel will be significantly reinforced." He added that "there's no right or left when it comes to Israel."
Saban is supportive of negotiations over a two-state solution, but chiefly to protect Israel from a demographic takeover of Palestinians inside what would become a Greater Israel. "It is not about granting the Palestinian state," he has said. "It's about securing the future of a democratic Israel."
Last November, at a meeting of Israeli-Americans also attended by Adelson, Saban attacked Obama for negotiating with Iran. He said, if he were Netanyahu, he "would bomb the living daylights out of these sons of bitches [Iran]" and that the US had "shown too many carrots and a very small stick."
Saban spoke of his dissatisfaction with Obama's attitude to Israel even before he became president. Journalist Avner Hopstein revealed in the Israeli daily Haaretz last month that in an interview in late 2008, shortly before Obama assumed office, Saban had confided that he was "very worried" about the new president.
According to Hopstein, Saban feared that Obama would impose new standards of conduct on Israel in its dealings with the US and make demands "diametrically opposed to that of his predecessors."
Battle of the philanthropists
A battle between "two pro-Israel philanthropists," concluded Hopstein, would create a campaign in which Clinton would have to prove that she is "better for the Jews, for Israel and perhaps even for Netanyahu."
That process already appears to be underway. Shortly before Clinton's announcement of her presidential run, she met Malcolm Hoenlein, head of the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations.
In a press statement afterwards, apparently intended to distance Clinton from Obama's clashes with Netanyahu, Hoenlein said Clinton "thinks we need to all work together to return the special US-Israel relationship to constructive footing."
It is almost certain that the campaign runs of both the Republican and Democratic presidential candidates in 2016 will depend on financing from hawkish, pro-Israel donors such as Adelson and Saban.
A concern for a growing number of Americans, as their candidates seek to win over such patrons, must be: can a US president and Congress still afford to pursue foreign policy goals separate from those of Israel?
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
