by Isi Leibler
The disproportionately
high profile of American Jews in the U.S. presidential election contest
and the efforts invested by both candidates portraying themselves as
supportive of the Jewish state has assumed surrealistic levels.
Overall, Israel's
standing in the U.S. today is at an all-time high. Yet, the Democratic
convention spotlighted the emergence of a hostile anti-Israeli component
of the party, which threatens to undermine the long-standing bipartisan
support of Israel exemplified by the standing ovations Netanyahu
received during his May 2011 address to Congress.
Economic issues will
invariably be the dominant factor influencing voters and most American
Jews will base their political choice on a multi-dimensional basket of
issues. But the majority would like to be assured of the well-being of
the Jewish state and expect their president to behave toward Israel as
an ally and be sensitive to its security requirements.
Although most Jews
continue to support Obama, growing numbers, especially the Orthodox,
have concluded that on the basis of his tortuous Cairo speech and his
earlier diplomatic battering of Israel, he is more committed to the
Palestinian than the Israeli narrative and will vote against him.
With the impending
elections, Obama launched a concerted charm offensive to avoid further
defections from his Jewish constituency. He repeated that he will
“always have Israel’s back”, emphasized his exemplary record in
strengthening Israel’s defense capabilities and reiterated that he had
delivered the most pro-Israeli speech at the U.N., unprecedented by any
U.S. president.
Initially, it seemed he
was succeeding. But subsequently, Jewish angst was revived by numerous
aspects of Obama’s behavior. There are intensified doubts regarding his
genuine intention to resort to the military option if needed to prevent
Iran from becoming a nuclear power. These anxieties were reinforced by
Obama’s failure to repudiate the intimidating rhetoric from
Administration spokesmen conveying veiled threats against Israel acting
independently, especially the offensive remark by the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey, who did not wish “to be
complicit” if Israel acted against Iran’s nuclear project.
Another cause for
concern was the cozy U.S. relationship with Turkey in which the U.S.
surrendered to their demands to exclude Israel from joint military
exercises or even participate in a conference on global terrorism. There
was also Obama’s failure to adequately condemn the Nonaligned Movement
summit which endorsed Iran’s nuclear policy, appointed a Holocaust
denier as its new head and whose representatives from 120 countries
listened politely to the genocidal ravings of their Iranian hosts.
But the most chilling
message was the elimination of pro-Israel components from the current
Democratic Party Platform. In particular, the deletion of all reference
to recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — which conformed
to the policy of the Administration. After a huge outcry and following
three calls for approval from delegates, it was clumsily reinserted,
provoking a flood of audible boos from many delegates.
But other key clauses
relating to Israel were not restored. These included reference to
“Israel, our most reliable Middle East ally”, condemning Hamas,
rejecting a return to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines and calling
for Palestinian refugees and their descendants to be resettled in a
Palestinian state rather than in Israel. Washington Post columnist
Jennifer Rubin described this platform as “the most radically
unsupportive statement of policy on Israel by any major party since the
founding of the state of Israel.”
Subsequently, Obama and
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s harsh dismissal of Israel’s plea
to draw red lines in relation to moving beyond sanctions combined with
the president’s refusal to meet Netanyahu during his visit to New York,
served to heighten tensions with Israel even before the elections. It
also provided a chilling projection of what to expect from a second
Obama term.
Why don’t Jews abandon a party that is, at best, ambivalent toward the Jewish state?
The reality for most
American Jews is that since the era of President Franklin Roosevelt,
their bond with the Democratic Party is embedded in their political DNA
and even considered a quasi-religion.
Yet it is likely that
President Barack Obama would have acted even more harshly against Israel
were Jews not such an important component of the Democratic Party.
There is therefore a positive aspect to ongoing Jewish involvement to
retain existing Democratic congressional bipartisan support — in the
absence of which Israel’s defense infrastructure would erode and the
international community would undoubtedly throw us to the wolves.
So when influential
pro-Israeli Democratic congressmen or prominent Jewish Democrats like
Stuart Eizenstat or Dennis Ross retain their party affiliation, even
those disagreeing with them should be relieved that within this
prevailing dangerous Democratic political terrain there remain
influential Jews willing to combat those seeking to distance the U.S.
from its traditional alliance with Israel.
Alan Dershowitz
exemplifies this. He is a devoted champion of Israel who recently
reaffirmed his support of Obama despite having previously condemned his
policies, even comparing him to Chamberlain.
To his credit,
Dershowitz condemned the Democratic Party platform and even after the
amendments told the Algemeiner that he was bitter “not only with regard
to Jerusalem”, but also with the other crucial issues which were not
reinstated. He accused “rogue elements” within the Democratic Party,
from Arab-Americans to anti-Israeli Jews, of seeking to undermine “the
bipartisan support for Israel which characterized American politics
since 1948” and destroy the U.S.-Israel alliance. He vowed to convey
this to the president who he hoped would “make statements prior to the
elections reaffirming the contents of his 2008 platform.”
Thus, even those who
would aspire to see more Jews demonstrating displeasure with Obama at
the polls should realize that it is a disservice to Israel to demonize
Democratic supporters like Dershowitz if they speak up and protest
against anti-Israeli policies.
This is not an
endorsement of those who argue that Jews should avoid regarding Israel
as a wedge issue in the elections. It is precisely during the election
season that American Jews should maximize their democratic right to
influence policy by responsibly criticizing and objecting to policies
they consider to be flawed or immoral.
Indeed, to ensure that
politicians take greater account of Jewish sensitivities, one would
expect mainstream American Jewish leaders, whilst remaining apolitical,
to speak out far more aggressively against any party which adopts
anti-Israeli positions, whether Democrat or Republican.
This applies especially
now, despite that if re-elected, Obama is capable — as he was following
the last elections — of reneging on his undertakings. Indeed, U.S.
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently unblushingly told an
international journalist that like all politicians, Obama’s remarks
about Israel prior to elections should not be taken too seriously.
Indicators suggest that
the majority of Jews will continue to vote for Obama but despite
conflicting polls, an increasing minority, especially the most
committed, is likely to oppose him and may well provide the lowest level
of support for a Democratic president since Carter.
In addition, many Jews,
unwilling to sever their umbilical cord with the Democratic Party, may
well continue supporting their Democratic congressional representative
yet oppose Obama at the presidential poll — which would actually serve
to reinforce bipartisanship toward Israel, currently under siege.
Isi Leibler's website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
Source: http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=2603
Copyright - Original materials copyright (c) by the authors.
No comments:
Post a Comment