For many American Jews, choosing who to support in a presidential election comes down to a simple litmus test proposition: Which candidate will be better for Israel? Among an increasingly vocal group of Jews, the answer to that question has meant voting for a Republican. It is true that the vast majority of American Jews are Democrats, having supported both Gore and Kerry by wide margins. But George Bush received 26% more Jewish support in 2004 than he did in 2000, and that trend seems poised to continue.
Throughout the Democratic primary race, Barack Obama has been accused of being anti-Israel on a number of different occasions. Some of this was the product of false and spurious email campaigns aimed at portraying Obama as a Muslim-in-disguise. In a less conspiratorially ridiculous context, Obama has been condemned for including, among his vast array of foreign policy advisors, individuals who have been critical of some aspect of Israeli government policy.
Suggesting that someone is anti-Israel because he disagrees with an aspect of Israeli policy is tantamount to calling those who have been critical of the Bush administration anti-American. This is, to be sure, the strategy that neoconservatives have employed since the invasion of Iraq, and it strikes a particularly un-American -- and un-Jewish -- tone. For American Jews to choose our next president based on such assessments will be enormously dangerous, both for the United States and for the State of Israel.
There are, of course, some who use concerns about Obama's Israel policy to thinly veil their real worries about having a president whose middle name is Hussein. But for the larger majority for whom an honest assessment would be welcome, it is clear that we must look at the statements of both candidates as well as the impact their policies could have.
Both candidates have made strong statements in support of the unique relationship that the United States shares with Israel. Early on in the campaign, Obama stated his view that "the United States' special relationship with Israel obligates us to be helpful to them in the search for credible partners with whom they can make peace, while also supporting Israel in defending itself against enemies sworn to its destruction." McCain has made similar overtures. He was also quick to suggest on Sunday that, though his earmark reduction plan would cut off all U.S. aide to Israel, it would not be his intention to do so.
With near identical proclamations about the need to continue to strongly support Israel, one must turn to their policy positions to find their true differences, many of which are quite dramatic.
John McCain's foreign policy philosophy is identical to the neoconservative ideology of President Bush. McCain has advocated an open-ended commitment to occupy Iraq and has continued to assert the possibility of a military action against Iran. Like President Bush, he is willing to prioritize Iraq above the war in Afghanistan, despite its being the epicenter of Al Qaeda.
What has the Bush foreign policy meant for the region thus far? Among other things, the destabilization of Iraq has caused a Sunni-Shiite civil war that threatens Israel's long-term stability everyday that it continues. Where the power in the region was once balanced between Iraq and Iran, the administration allowed Iranian influence to fill the post-Iraq power vacuum, making it significantly stronger and more difficult to contain. Hezbollah has grown substantially stronger in Lebanon, both politically and with respect to its militia. Another conflict with Israel could certainly be on the horizon. Syria, too, appears to be preparing for hostilities with Israel, with recent reports suggesting that President Assad believes war to be a real possibility.
With such disastrous consequences, the result of horrifically incompetent American policy planning, one thing must be universally understood. Though George Bush may be a friend of Israel, his policies are certainly not. John McCain's candidacy thus begs the question: What could a continuation of a Bush foreign policy mean for the region?
A McCain/Bush worldview will mean continued destabilization of the Middle East, which will pose a serious security risk to Israel. If McCain attacks Iran, as he has suggested he is inclined to do, the Sunni-Shiite conflict in Iraq could easily morph into a Pan-Arab conflict, in which recruiting aims could be achieved, in part, by launching sustained attacks against Israel. Four to eight more years of neoconservative policy has the potential to set off a powder keg of chaos, from which hard-liners and fanatics will likely ascend to power.
The State of Israel cannot afford to have the United States continue a policy of occupation and destabilization. The consequences would be perilous. Barack Obama's reasoned approach to the Middle East will mean more stability, more accountability, and a policy agenda that will help shield Israel from the brink.
There is little doubt that the politics of the Middle East and the safety and security of Israel will look quite different at the end of a McCain or Obama presidency. But with McCain's puzzling willingness to continue a policy that means nothing but risk and danger for Israel, the choice should be utterly obvious. There are, it seems, few things more anti-Israel than being pro-McCain.
How sad my friend! Any American voter should vote a litmus test of what is best for America. You are way off base here Sir.
The United States interest is clearly in strengthening the U.S> relationship with the Arab nations. Arab (accurate) perceptions that the U.S. is fostering mistreatment of the Palestinians clearly feeds terrorism (though it is not the only cause).
I am ashamed, a an American Jew, that the Israel lobby has damaged the U.S., and poses a future threat.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976662.html
There you go, problem solved!
Whatever one's position on the Arab-Israeli conflict, I fail to see how anyone could be so lacking in intelligence to believe that this gambit contains a shred of credibility. So, those who disagree, please educate me.
Really? It is not the major reason we were attacked on 9/11? Please spell out what will happen to the US if Israel is taken over by Muslims?
The United States interest lies in playing an even hand in the Middle East. As a Jewish-American, I am disgusted by people like you, without any evident loyalty to this country, except to see how you can pressure politicians and manipulate the public to support anyand all misguided Israeli policies.
The left in the US has developed a racist anti-Semitic twinge that is ugly.
The excuse that the reason American foreign policy in the middle east points towards Israel Ignores 50+ years of American interference in the region and not just its relationship with Israel.
If you think Iran hates the US because of Israel you are diluted and ignorant. Go look up US policy towards Iran starting with the Shaw.
As far as the Palestinian-Israeli issue. To all those in the west that think they know – go live there before you P(ass) judgment. Israel is not in the right anymore then the Palestinians are. Its not so black and white. But the sheer ignorance and hatred towards Jews appearing the Left in the US (including the likes of Noam Chomsky) are really the standard bearers for the new-American anti-Semitic movements that Jews in the US have to deal with – not to mention the insidious influence of Arab scholars that have penetrated the universities in the US.
If you go to a political rally for the Left in the US, you will experience hatred even if your not Israeli and even if you do not support Israeli policy. The contradiction is astounding.
There is no 'unique' or 'special' relationship with Israel, we're a nation manipultated and terrorized by Israel, Zionists and AIPAC into doing whatever Israel wants at our own expense and the expense of Arabs and the world. Regardless of which political party Jews or anyone votes for, they will put Israel above ourselves and the entire world.
Enough, already. This mass hysteria and madness about Israel must end.
Poor Israels long term stability is threatened by the carnage in Iraq? Well then, why did Israel, Zionists and their lobbying minions manipulate us into invading Iraq for them? ANd for two years they've been spreading the same lies and hysteria to manipulate us into invading Iran. What about Iraqs longterm stablity? And Americas? And the dozens of nations in the region? Hezbollah is stronger because of Israels bloody and failed invasion of Lebanon in 2006, in which the resistance group kicked Zionist ass.
You have the audicity to make this statement: The State of Israel cannot afford to have the United States continue a policy of occupation and destabilization. Pro-Israeli lobbies are responsible for our policy of occupation and destabilization and it's all for Israel; finally Israels illegal creation brought destablization to the region and is currently involved in a 60 year military occupation.
If you did not care, why would you expend such negative energy engaging in this issue?
The UN General assembly is a non-binding body and offered a suggestion of the Partition of PALESTINE, creating two states that the Jewish Zionists immediately violated the borders and rules of the suggestion because the General Assembly demanded that a Jewish part of Partition 'not disturb the indigenous Palestinian population'.
Oh and you're a liar about expanding into an empty field; Israel has annexed land and homes from Palestinians who have documented proof of ownership going back thousands of years.
Americans are becoming increasingly aware that Israel is our number one geopolitical liability, a millstone around our neck, the leading cause of justifiable worldwide animosity towards the US. Sooner or later, all great powers act in their own best interests and the best interests of the US do not include maintaining a "special relationship" with Israel, an exclusionary, expansionist occupier and ethnic cleanser state.
I am confused. Or maybe you are. McBomb is Israel's future go-to guy.
The Iraq war and the upcoming one on Iran are among other things proxy wars for Israel. And they are wildly supported by Israelis and their senator in Congress, Lieberman. When we take out Iran for Israel it can play the role of innocent bystander. Meanwhile pan-Arab fury will be directed at us, not at Israel. Seems to be a winner for Israel.
Plus, not only do we fight Irael's wars, but we send the country billions of dollars annually so it can persecute Palestinians or periodically bomb Syria or invade Lebanon or otherwise further destablize the region. Thus Israel has all the benefits of a 51st state without having to pay U.S. taxes (ordinary Americans do that for them). Things are great in Israel. I'm confused as to why you want to halt the gravy train? While Obama probably won't have the courage to stop it, McBomb enthusiastically supports it. He's Israel's man.
Yes, Israel wants Iran's regime taken out. But, so do the majority of countries in the world, that see Iran's wmd program as a threat.
"Things are great in Israel" HAH! What a rediculously ill-informed comment. Israeli's are under constant threat of rocket attacks and suicide bombs. Their neighbors threaten them daily. This Syria that you mention, completely supports terrorist groups that engage in terrorist acts on Israeli citizens. I'm sorry, but if a country were to support terrorists taht strike our country, like, oh lets say afghanistan, we invade, occupy, and create a new government. Israel does what it needs to do to protect its citizens.
Thats not to say that everything they do is right. I can agree with you that they participate in unethical treatment of Palestinians.
And, I gotta ask, what wars have we fought for Israel? We went into Iraq for a: wmd, b: oil c: we believed he was a threat to the region. That doesnt just mean Israel, it means Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, and other allies in the region. And by the way, we give aid to those other allies in the region along with our aid to Israel, including aid to Palestine.