Issues and Non-Issues

It's almost laughable. A few months ago I received a slew of e-mails asking me for my opinion on Barack Obama's minister and his views of Israel. Yesterday I received a few informing me that Sarah Palin's church in Alaska is hostile to Israel and recently had a "Jews for Jesus" spokesperson address the congregation.

It's hard to believe that anybody cares about that stuff. I would be troubled if someone had evidence that either Senator Obama or Governor Palin was prejudiced against Jews, or any other minority for that matter. That would be manifested by, say, refusal to hire or socialize with Jews, anti-Jewish remarks, Holocaust denial or opposition to the security of Israel. But no one has made any such charges.

Scouring sermon texts by a candidate's clergyman to find evidence of the minister's bias is absurd. Millions and millions of Protestants, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and others attend religious services where the person in the pulpit indulges in ugly comments about minorities they don't like. (Can you imagine how much gay and Muslim bashing goes on in right-wing congregations -- Christian and Jewish?)

A few years ago I was appalled when a visiting Rabbi at my synagogue gave a sermon on the healing powers of hate (his proposed target was Muslims). I remember going to a service in Philadelphia where the rabbi gave a racist sermon about African-Americans.

That kind of thing is pretty nauseating, but it happens. There have been 43 presidents of the United States and 46 vice presidents. I wonder how many of them would have been eliminated from contention if the bigoted minister standard applied to them. Ridiculous.

I hope that the American people at large are not paying attention to all this whining about candidates' attitudes toward Jews. This is a country with no mainstream anti-Semitic political tradition, a country where as long ago as 1863 President Lincoln repudiated an anti-Semitic statement by his top general, Ulysses S. Grant. It is irksome to hear professional hand-wringers and self-serving partisans pretend that this is Europe where, for obvious reasons, such zealous scrutiny of all statements by political figures is necessary.

Story continues below

advertisement

No matter. For the next few months we are sure to hear lie after lie about the candidates' stances on Israel and Jews. I say "lie" because the truth is that Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin are not bigots, not anti-Semites, and not racists. If they were, we'd know by now. There would be evidence more convincing than that a candidate's cousin attended a "Jews for Muhammad" rally at which one of the speakers said that Israel has a miserable climate.

This is not to say that the Arab-Israeli conflict should not be seriously discussed in the context of the campaign. It absolutely should (although it probably won't be). It won't be because, as is well-known, candidates shrink from saying anything about the Middle East lest the single-issue crowd be offended. It is safer to dodge the subject or to mouth pieties drafted by lobbyists.

But we do need to know if either candidate is prepared to help the United States out of the box it is in. We are in an isolation box. We only talk to people we like and our prestige is at an all-time low.

The Syrians, for instance, seem to be ready for serious negotiations with Israel. We know that because President Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey have been talking to them about peace with Israel.

Of course, we won't talk to the Syrians, which means that there will almost surely be no breakthrough until we change our policy.

Same with Iran. We won't negotiate with the Iranians about ending their uranium enrichment efforts until they abandon those efforts.

And with Hamas. We won't talk to Hamas until they recognize Israel, although the goal of any talks would be to get them to do that. Talk about putting the cart before the horse.

In the last eight years, the United States has developed an approach to negotiations in which we demand, as a precondition for negotiations, the precise thing that the other side assumes would be discussed in negotiations.

And we wonder why we don't get anywhere.

Of course, there are exceptions to our rule. Secretary of State Rice is on her way to Libya to meet with our new buddy, Qadaffi. (No matter that he killed a few hundred American college kids when he blew up Pan Am 103 or that he runs a fundamentalist police state with one of the very worst human rights records in the world.)

I'm not saying we shouldn't talk to Libya. I am saying that a little less hypocrisy on that score is warranted.

President Sarkozy has a rather different approach, one that the next U.S. president might consider. One of the first things he did upon coming to office was to abandon his predecessor's anti-Israel tilt so that France could play the role of "honest broker" rather than pro-Arab cheerleader.

Accordingly, both the Israelis and the Arabs trust him, and are willing to use France as mediator (someone has to play that role now that we don't).

Look at what he has to say about Iran and Syria, and about the French role in the Middle East in general.

On Iran:

"I am convinced that we must resolve the Iranian crisis through dialogue, since it is the only way to escape a tragic alternative that no one desires: either an Iranian bomb, or the bombing of Iran. I hope to continue following this strategy. . . . No effort must be spared to convince Tehran to choose cooperation over isolation and conflict."

On Israeli and Syrian negotiations:

"Indirect negotiations between Syria and Israel are very good for both countries, as well as for the region and for the entire world. . . . France will certainly be prepared to accompany the sides on their way to peace and conciliation, should Syria be interested in this. We are publicly assuming this responsibility, since we are aware that both sides have pinned their hopes on us, and we will never disappoint them."

And, most important, on how France sees its role in the Middle East:

"Since I was elected president of France 15 months ago, I have wished for France to regain its place on the international chessboard. As for the Middle East, a region close to my heart, I want my country to assume the highest responsibility in serving the cause of peace. To this end, we must regain the trust of all sides."

Wouldn't it be nice if the 44th president helped America again find "its place on the international chessboard"?

For better or worse, neither France -- nor France and Turkey in combination -- can move the Middle East off the perilous course it is on. Only the United States can do that, and we've been AWOL for eight years.

That is why the only real Middle East issue this fall is determining which of the two candidates is ready to reassert U.S. leadership in the region. Without it, the situation will almost surely deteriorate and could (think Iran) explode in our faces.