|
|
Jewish World Review Oct. 7, 2003 / 11 Tishrei, 5764
The Israel Factor
By
Jonathan Tobin
Will support for the Jewish state be an issue in the presidential race?
http://www.jewishworldreview.com |
The notion that Jews cast their votes solely on the issue of Israel is more
myth than fact.
Of course, you might forget that if you listen to some of the rhetoric aimed
at Jews by presidential candidates. Can it be that Israel is once again a
presidential-election issue?
For all of the alarmist rhetoric we often hear from Jewish groups, the truth
is that Israel simply hasn't been an issue during the last two elections. It
was conspicuously absent from the discussion during the 2000 George W. Bush vs.
Al Gore match-up, as well as in 1996, when Bill Clinton bested both
Republican Bob Dole and independent Ross Perot to win re-election.
BURNING THE ELDER BUSH
Bush's disdain for Israel and efforts to isolate its leaders were deeply
resented. The hostility of his Secretary of State, James A. "bleep the Jews"
Baker III, toward Israel was the icing on the cake. This probably didn't cost Bush
the election, but he did get the lowest total of Jewish votes by a
major-party candidate since Barry Goldwater, and set back GOP efforts to make inroads
among Jews by a decade.
The issue disappeared entirely in 1996, as neither of Bill Clinton's c
hallengers could credibly present themselves as more pro-Israel than the president.
Nor was the 2000 election much of a test of affection for Israel. Despite
some outreach efforts to the pro-Israel community, George W. Bush was fatally
handicapped by the association with his father, as well as by the fact that the
Democrats nominated a Jew, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, for vice president.
Ironically, Lieberman, who is attempting to move up on the ticket this time
and become the first Jewish president, isn't the only Democrat candidate with
Jewish roots. Gen. Wesley Clark's father was Jewish (Clark was raised as a
Protestant, and is currently a Catholic); Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts
recently "discovered" that his grandfather was Jewish; and former Vermont Gov.
Howard Dean is married to a Jew, and his children were raised as Jews.
Will any of this appeal to Jewish voters? I doubt it, but as a minyan of
Democrats line up for the chance to knock off Bush the younger, some of them have
not been shy about attempting to use the Middle East to make some political
hay.
DEAN GIVES THEM AN OPENING
The latest entrant to the Democratic race may soon face some of the same
treatment. A political greenhorn, Clark has been all over the place on the war in
Iraq. But he has stated support for the idea that NATO troops could serve as
peacekeepers in Israel, as well as for an enhanced international component to
Middle East diplomacy.
That immediately drew fire from the Jewish Institute for National Security
Affairs, which pointed out the dangers for Israel involved in bringing American
soldiers, or more European or U.N. diplomats, into the conflict with the P
alestinians.
The decision of Lieberman to use the Israel issue against Dean is interesting
because it may be his best chance to rally Jewish voters to his flagging
campaign. Lieberman is seen by some as having trouble raising Jewish money. That
is happening for two reasons, one of which is based on nonsense, while the
other is rooted in hard fact.
On the one hand, some believe Lieberman's election, would stir up more
anti-Semitism. That is patently false, as his well-regarded run for the vice
presidency in 2000 proved. But others are right to worry whether Lieberman or any
Jewish president would be so eager to prove his "evenhandedness" on the Middle
East that they would bend over backward to show no favoritism to Israel.
But Lieberman is probably barking up the wrong tree here. After all, many of
the liberal Jews who will help determine the outcome probably are supporters
of "evenhanded" policies toward Israel themselves.
But if Dean or Clark do emerge from the pack, they will have to be wary of
anything that will make them seem to be too closely identified with an
anti-Israel tint. In a close election, a swing of a few Jewish voters in key states
could prove fatal to Democratic hopes.
And that's where one major difference from 1992 comes in. Because, in stark
contrast to his father, George W. Bush is regarded by most Jewish voters as
sympathetic to Israel.
A DIFFERENT BUSH
Some on the Jewish right are still unhappy about Bush's support of the
road-map peace plan and a Palestinian state, a position now shared by Israeli Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon. But given the fact that any of the Democrats would
probably emulate Clinton in his support for the Israeli left, Jews who bash Bush
from the right have no place to go.
And as November 2004 gets closer, we can probably see even less interest from
the White House in any plan that makes Israel uncomfortable. That will allow
Bush to help secure some key Jewish votes and firm up his hold on conservative
Christians, who are more fervently pro-Israel than many Jews.
It is unlikely that 2004 will see a return of the old-time pandering to
Jewish voters, which once had every challenger falsely promising to move the U.S.
embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But, given the fact that Israel
is still assailed by a bloody Palestinian terror war, it would be foolish to
think that Israel is a negligible factor. If the GOP can label a Democratic
candidate as soft on Israel, it will hurt them.
Despite the current banter, it's hard to imagine Israel being an issue next
spring in the Democratic primaries. But if the Democrats aren't careful,
history might reverse itself, as a Bush turns the Israel factor to his advantage
this time.
In fact, it has been 12 years since Israel was a factor in a presidential
election. In 1991, President George H.W. Bush's administration was seen as
hostile to the State of Israel and many American Jews were eager to do anything to
boot him out of the White House the next year. 
In August, Dean gave an opening to his rivals by stating that the United
States must be "evenhanded," in its policy between Israel and the Arabs. This
prompted Lieberman to publicly chastise Dean for abandoning Israel. Kerry, the
putative Democratic front-runner until Dean mobilized anti-Iraq war sentiment on
his behalf, chimed in on that score, and then one-upped Lieberman by seizing
upon a Dean quote in which he referred to Hamas terrorists as "soldiers."
Though he hasn't a single Jew in his Cabinet, the presence of many pro-Israel
voices in the administration (the neoconservative cabal that leftists are so
worried about) has led to the crafting of a policies that are seen as closely
aligned with that of Israel. In particular, his refusal to meet with Yasser
Arafat, whom he rightly regards as a terrorist, is deeply satisfying to most
pro-Israel voters.