Observers have refused to let go of the question of how much of the Jewish vote the Republican nominee for 2012 can get. Despite the evidence to the contrary, Republicans and some journalists insist that large numbers of Jewish voters will leave their traditional home in the Democratic Party and move to the political right, because Barack Obama has been insufficiently pro-Israel.
There are good reasons for Jews to remain firmly in the Democratic camp. The Republicans' social conservatism is much-discussed, and has been publicly on display during the GOP debates. The least socially-conservative among them, Ron Paul, seems to have flirted with anti-Israel and even anti-Semitic elements in his politics.
But apart from (non-Orthodox) Jews' well-known liberalism, the discussion over a Jewish vote shift is predicated on a misunderstanding of the role of the United States in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: that the level of "pro-Israel-ness" of the president matters for determining outcomes.
American presidents are, in reality, constrained from exercising concrete influence over Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian relations. At best, they can facilitate peacemaking through their involvement, but they cannot force either Palestinians or especially Israel into doing anything they don't want to.
The history of Arab-Israeli and Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has been one of direct interaction between the two sides, initiated only when one or both of them determines it is in their best interest to do so. The 1979 Egypt-Israel peace treaty came about because Anwar Sadat decided Egypt needed American aid and support to stabilize its domestic economy, and Menachem Begin saw the opportunity to remove the key Arab player in the conflict. Jimmy Carter only provided cover and some prompting in the event of actual negotiations.
The 1993 Oslo Accords came about when Yasser Arafat and his close advisers determined the PLO had reached the nadir of its influence and ability, and saw an agreement with Israel as the only way to save it -- while Yitzhak Rabin believed the Madrid talks were going nowhere, and Israel had to resolve the Palestinian issue to focus on other things, including Iran. Oslo was negotiated in near total secrecy: The U.S. was only informed once or twice about it.
The 1994 peace treaty between Jordan and Israel was also negotiated secretly, and built upon years of covert ties. Again, the U.S. was more surprised than expectant when it was announced.
When U.S. presidents have gotten involved, they have very publicly failed. The most dramatic example was Bill Clinton, who threw the entire weight of his office and his personal prestige into the 2000 Camp David negotiations. It's widely argued that Clinton and much of his team were determined to protect Ehud Barak and provide him cover for his discussions with the Palestinians and for his domestic politics. George W. Bush's Annapolis Convention went nowhere.
Beyond this, party and personal ideology of the American president are poor predictors of behavior. It was the Democratic Carter who "helped" Begin removed the major strategic enemy of Israel in 1979, while Democratic Clinton worked as hard as he could to achieve an agreement that met most of Israel's demands. And it was the Republican Ronald Reagan who sold advanced weaponry to Saudi Arabia, against the wishes of Israel; Republican George H.W. Bush who cut off billions of dollars in loan guarantees from Yitzhak Shamir (a Likud prime minister, no less); and Republican George W. Bush who demanded Israel allow elections in the Palestinian Authority in 2006, despite Jerusalem's insistence that doing so would bring Hamas to power (Bush overrode the Israelis).
Any American president will also be severely constrained by a host of other elements, including close allies still remaining among the Arab states; an uncertain future to the Arab Spring; an increasingly assertive Turkey; an unstable Iraq and possibly also Syria; and an Israeli government determined to ignore the consensus in the entire international community on settlements, and similar expectations spreading among American Jewry.
In an election year, it should also be expected that differences between the parties are highlighted, and politicians say things they don't necessarily mean.
Finally, it would be bad for Jews for Israel to become a permanent wedge issue in American politics: It would diminish support for Israel to smaller elements on the political spectrum, make it a constant battle, and drive Jews away from other issues of concern to the community.
We need, therefore, to be more realistic in our assessments. Let's remember our history, and avoid the trap of over-heated rhetoric. American Jews should not expect any of the Republican nominees to be any more pro-Israel than conditions allow.
Follow Brent E. Sasley on Twitter: www.twitter.com/besasley
Bradley Burston: American Jews Need to See Israel's Footnote -- Oscar or No
Huh? Author haven't seen recent a new poll from the Pew Research Center. According to conclusions of that respected center:: “Jewish voters, who have traditionally been and remain one of the strongest Democratic constituencies, have moved noticeably in the Republican direction. ... In fact, Jews are the only religious group analyzed in which the percentage who identify themselves as Republican (as opposed to leaning toward the GOP) has risen significantly.”
American Jews can, should and vote on all issues important to them individually and as a group, including Israel. Each Representative, Senator and presidential candidate can be asked questions about his or her position with respect and dignity on where they are on all issues, domestic or international. Voting for a Party, for a Party Line - that is too Communistic.
But I detest your attempt to present American Jews as simple minded and locked on issue of Israel group. Such attempt is close to anti-Semitic accusation of Jews being un-American, Jews being unpatriotic. Each and every candidate is and will be looked at and considered not just by his/her position on American-Israeli relationship but on the whole sum of issues. Insist otherwise is, as I warn you, will get you into dangerous territory.
That simply is not the case. Most jews (75-80%) vote democratic, not because they think democrats are more friendly towards or supportive of israel. They do it because they believe in progressive policies in general. The 20-25% who vote republican do so for similar reasons on conservative policies.
So I think an article on "Why Jews Should Not Vote on Israel " would be a lot more interesting and useful if anyone was actually doing that.
That's what counts as far as Israel is concerned. Any attempts to divvy up the vote and cause us to spend more time fighting amongst ourselves than fighting for Israel's right to exist in peace and security will be taken as disingenuous, selfish political pandering.
I imagine you saw the Mufti of Jerusalem call once again for the killing of all Jews, NOT Israelis, at the most recent FATAH gathering. They don't deny it. And I believe them.
Yeah, like when Americans ignored news reports until Pearl Harbor woke them up
An alternate title to this piece: Why Brent Should Mind His Own Business
(That's the beauty of America, Brent--Jews can vote how they please)
That's the beauty of America, He can write his opinions regardless of what you think.
Its time israel grew up, moved out, got a job and starting paying its way in the world.
For the same reason Russians should not vote on Russia, Italians on Italy, Egyptians on Egypt, Iranians on Iran and Vaticanians on Vatican.
No! A second Obama term will be a calamity for both America and Israel.
LOL. Same can be applied to Democrats, Greens and Code Pinks. Actually, Code Pink does care about us, yet not the way I like.