Why Being Pro-McCain is Anti-Israel

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.

Comments

[jteschke]

The author raises realistic concerns and recent comments are correct. People are tired of the tail wagging the dog, and large scale failure, the quite likely end game of the Bush-McCain strategy following economic problems in the US, might lead to the resurrection of ugly stereotypes.

[tao53nyc]

One of the biggest problems America faces, even after the dust settles from the 2008 elections, is our rather absurd and one-sided relationship with Israel. I know there are millions out there besides me who get sick and tired of being called "anti-Semitic" just because we are highly critical of Israeli policy. The fact is, Israel has been treating the Palestinians in much the same manner as Americans have treated Native Americans for centuries.

This is BAD.

Point is, I shouldn't have to care about, nor be forced via my taxes to subsidize, the State of Israel. Israel has now existed for 60 years. I'm beginning to wonder, when, O'Lord, when it will learn to work without a net? Why should we embroil ourselves, risking both moral and fiscal bankruptcy, in middle-eastern regional arguments that have been going on for 3000 years?

If American Jews (and concerned Christians) want to set up a 501-c-3 tax-deductible "Fund for Israel" and support that country voluntarily, I'm all for it. You may ultimately raise more money that way than the original taxpayer subsidy. But it's my tax dollars and direct interventions by my government in that region that I strongly oppose.

[majormoderate]

I support Israel AND I agree with most of what you say. I am an American Jew who does NOT agree with many Israeli policies. But, I must say, US foreign aid goes to countries where our interests lie. We give money to countries in South America and Africa with democratic governments, we give support to countries who have supported us in our "War on Terror". US Aid to Israel IS in our interest, just like US aid to Palestine is in our interest.

Israel is in a constant state of fear about its security. As an ally, the strongest in the region, we should support it. That, however, is not to say we should not support others in the region. We give aid to Egypt and Palestine. And also, that does not mean to say we should support its all of Israel's policies.

Point is, your taxes are sent to countries all over the world for a plethora of reasons. What about your billions of tax dollars going to Iraq? And I must say, your comment "Why whould we embroil ourselves in middleeastern regional arguments that have been going on for 3000 years", what about Iraq? Those divisions have been going on for over 700 years, yet we got involved there...

[budfox]

American media equates the Likud party as being Israel, for all intensive purposes.

Likud is a rightwing militaristic political party and is comfortable with apartheid solutions for the Palestinians.

[unitron]

"...for all intensive purposes."

The phrase you seek is "for all intents and purposes".

[Researchguy66]

perhaps budfox really meant purposes that are intensive.­..stranger things have been written on HuffPo

[jeffepops]

I believe the proper expression is "all intents and purposes". But, given the premise of your comment, I'm not surprised by your ignorance.

[S1m0n]

"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."

...an act that has occured with dismaying regularity.

[Pocho]

It is about time somebody in the US is anti Israel. Too bad those that are seem to be on the other side.

[americanwhocares]

What does being pro-Israel have to with the American elections? This is America, you should hope that your President is Pro-American. Are you suggesting a litmus test on this issue. That is sick.

[unitron]

You know, if Israel moved out of the Middle East to another part of the planet a lot of these problems would solve themselves.

[Looplinker]

Really now....and where would you suggest...­Antartica.

Most of these problems would have been solved if the Arabs had agreed to a two state solution when it was first proposed in 1947.

[majormoderate]

cool, so start working on that laser that can seperate israel from the rest of the middle east and then the carrier which will move it to the middle of hte ocean.

thanks for your comment though.

[jeffepops]

The Nazi's said the same thing about Jews in Germany. Many folks appear to be okay with Jews living anywhere anywhere other than they are. I think the whole point of Israel is that Jews have gotten tired of being oppressed and pushed out of almost every land they've ever lived in.

[RabidRightRebel]

"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."

Could not agree more. In fact I would suggest that if McCain becomes President the risk of a third world war between the Muslims and Christians moves from being a remote possiblity to being more than likely. You can be sure all the religious fanatics waiting for the rapture will be voting for McCain.