Soccer Dad

Who should Jews vote for? II

Stephen Asbel has posted a response to a recent Israpundit entry of mine "Who should Jews vote for?". Asbel, who will not be silent for Zion, (a reference to his blog which is a reference to an upcoming Haftarah), writes:

All the points you make are good ones and I think Kerry has a lot of problems in his approach to security issues and in the political company he keeps that are worrisome for Israel. Having said that, Bush is not a good friend either. Let us remember that he shoved the Road Map down Sharon's throat after his much heralded June 24, 2002 speech should have frozen any further diplomatic activity unless and until the Arab Palestinians cleaned their house and stopped the terror.

Additionally, in a follow-up e-mail Stephen wrote:

Another concern that I did not mention is what will the Bushites do if reelected and they do not have the pressure of facing another election and they therefore do not have to worry about keeping Evangelical Christians, who are among Israel's strongest supporters, and Jews happy on this issue.

I strongly suspect that the favorable statements Bush has made this year on Israel are an attempt to peel away Jewish votes from Kerry. There are large concentrations of Jews in key swing states including Pennsylvania, Ohio and, most importantly, Florida. Even a small increase in Bush's share of Jewish votes could have a huge impact.

Will Bush continue to follow the same policy or will the siren call of the Bush and Cheney family oil interests become irresistible.

It is to my great disappointment that the Democratic party has presented, in Kerry, such an inadequate alternative when there are a number of Democrats who are much stronger supporters for Israel.

By the way, I think it was also Caroline Glick who wrote that Kerry's 100% positive voting record for Israel is of only limited significance because something like 85 to 90 Senators have a similar record and Kerry has never been a leader in championing support for Israel - he just casts votes.

A friend did point out that in the '90s, Kerry publicly criticized Clinton for failing to move the embassy to Jerusalem and came under fire from Democratic leaders for that. I put little stock in that because Clinton himself had attacked Bush 41 for failing to do so and Bush 43 attacked Clinton for the same reason and he hasn't moved the embassy either.

Maybe I am asking for too much but I would like to see a President get up and announce that we have reached the unfortunate conclusion that the Arab Palestinians are not serious about being willing to live in peace with Israel, that any further attempts at a "peace process" serve no purpose other than to undermine Israel's security, and therefore the United States will stand behind Israel as an ally and support whatever it deems necessary to ensure its own security.

Stephen's points are excellent, but I still disagree with his premise that regards to Israel it's the lesser of two evils. His points have been emphasized by a couple of recent Caroline Glick columns.
In "The Price of Friendship" after comparing Ahmad Chalabi's predicament to that of Israel, Glick concludes:

This means we are stuck with hoping for a Bush victory even as the administration itself has forgotten the fundamentals of statecraft and morality: In war and in peace, be good to your friends and bad to your enemies. We can only hope that it regains its bearings soon.

In "Where Bush and Carter converge" Glick conclucdes:

While the Bush administration has sensibly discarded this view as so much nonsense, particularly in the post-September 11 world, for some reason, the Bush administration still clings to Carter's view of Israel.

In the months before the US presidential election, it behooves those who desire an American victory against the global jihad to demand that the Bush administration finally discard the Carter doctrine once and for all. Regardless of how inconvenient it may be for appeasement minded State Department officials to accept, the fact of the matter is that Israel and the US are fighting the same war against the same enemies.

In refusing to integrate this reality into its overall foreign policy, the Bush administration is acting as a Kerry administration most certainly would. It is strengthening America's enemies and weakening the cause of freedom throughout the world.

and a week earlier Glick had compared both candidates a bit more throroughly, in "France - Kerry's Israel problem"

It is hard to know precisely what a Kerry presidency would hold in store for Israel specifically.

Yes, it is true that he seems to pay inordinate respect to outspoken Israel-bashers such as former President Jimmy Carter and Carter's National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski. Then again, Bush appointed the harshly anti-Israel Marine General Anthony Zinni to be his Middle East mediator shortly after assuming office.

Yes, it is true that Kerry seems determined on forcing Israel back to the negotiating table with Arafat and using Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk as his emissaries in spite of the colossal failure of every policy the two men advocated during the Clinton presidency. But Bush has adopted the Road Map, which formally, if not practically, gives the EU, Russia and the UN the status of arbiters in the Palestinian conflict with Israel.

One thing though, is clear enough. In the unrelenting emphasis Kerry places on a certain brand of "multilateralism," he is providing undue, unreasonable and unacceptable legitimacy to a country that does not wish Israel well. Kerry can choose to be a friend of France, or he can choose to be a friend of Israel. But this is one area where he can't have it both ways.

I believe that this last column says it all. I do have misgivings about President Bush regarding Israel, however Senator Kerry will attempt to recreate the Clinton years (and, frankly, the Bush 41 years.)

But President Clinton didn't just subscribe to the view of Peace Now, he also engaged in regular attempts to undermine an Israeli Prime Minister, Binyamin Netanyahu. Embarrassing leaks of the administration's displeasure with Netanyahu were regular features of the NY Times and Washington Post. Meanwhile Yasser Arafat was invited to the White House more than any other world leader. While there are similar leaks even now, I don't believe these come from the White House nor do they seem designed to undermine PM Sharon in Israel as the leaks about Netanyahu did.

And while Stephen's is right to cite the late Eugene Rostow's view American policy was that Israel must withdraw from some not all of Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it's not at all clear that that was the view of Clinton, for whom any failure of Israel to withdraw from those areas was to be matched from areas inside Israel. So President Bush's support of Israel holding onto parts of Judea and Samaria is a reversal of Clinton's view. Kerry who would bring back Dennis Ross and Martin Indyk would revert to the Clinton view of land swaps.

Yes, I have to concede that President Bush hasn't always sounded supportive of Israel, but rarely has his disapproval been matched with any actions. IIRC the administration twice failed to veto a Security Council resolution and should be faulted for that. However the Clinton administration actually voted a condemnation of Israel in the wake of the start of the "Aksa intifada." Again where would Kerry be?

Debra DeLee the CEO of Peace Now has been very active in Democratic party politics at the highest level. Peace Now will continue to have an influential role in the way Democrats govern.

On the other hand, Daniel Pipes made an interesting observation a year and a half ago in "Bush on Israel: Heartburn for All":

Observing these contradictions through two years of the Bush administration leads me to one main conclusion: In key ways - sympathy for Israel's plight, diplomatic support, providing arms - Bush tends to ignore his own Palestinian-state rhetoric and stand solidly with Israel. His statements demanding this from Israel and promising that to the Palestinians appear to be a sop to outside pressure, not operational policy.

In short, look at what President Bush does, not what he says, and you'll find his usual consistency, this time hiding under a veneer of apparent indecision.

If this is accurate, then the road map is for show, not true policy, and U.S. endorsement of a Palestinian state remains remote.

Overall there has been an improvement in the Bush adminstration's approach to Israel in contrast to the Clinton years. I believe that a Kerry victory will mark a return to the 90's, not something that I look forward to.

Bush may demand some of Israel, but he does not give a free ride to the Palestinians. It is a big improvement of making demands only one way. He has agreed to marginalize Arafat, helping Israel's war on terror.

What about a lame duck president who doesn't have to seek re-election? What about the note that was sent warning about that?

I don't buy that note. It was reported by Aluf Benn who is always seeking to undermine Israel's Likud governments. It appears that the note disappeared from the Ha'aretz report, so there's reason to be skeptical of it's existence.

But Bush is motivated as much by principle as he is by politics. I don't believe that he will change in a second term. He has started to change the terms of the debate in the Middle East by standing with Israel more strongly than any other recent president. I don't see that changing in a second term.

Crossposted on Israpundit and Soccer Dad.

Posted by SoccerDad at August 23, 2004 05:50 AM | TrackBack