February 28, 2008
Israelis are following the American presidential election as if they themselves were engaged actively in the current campaign and not only observers. This process is not limited to the candidates’ positions on foreign policy and national security issues, but it also concerns personal issues, their teams of advisers, and more.
Understandably, Israel’s political leaders, as well as the people on the street, recognize that Israel’s safety and security is directly linked to sustaining and maintaining strong support from the United States. Both militarily and diplomatically, Israel relies on the United States as its major ally, laterally and internationally.
Looking to the future, Israelis do not want change that they cannot control or that they cannot influence. Israelis still fear that the next American president may decide to walk away from Israel and leave her to fend for itself in an increasingly tense Middle East. What many Israelis do not understand is that barring an absolute 180-degree turn of events or a radical change in American politics — both of which are not only unlikely but also probably inconceivable today — U.S. ties with the Jewish state are unbreakable. The problem is that Israelis, like Jews throughout history, are always waiting for the other shoe to drop.
These attitudes persist despite the remarkably close relationship between the State of Israel and recent American presidents. Israelis saw Ronald Reagan as the best friend Israel ever had in Washington until their haver Bill Clinton outdid him with his affection. Israelis were extraordinarily afraid that a George W. Bush presidency would replicate the admittedly frosty — but still secure — days of his father’s presidency, only to believe now that Bush II was the best friend Israel ever had in the White House.
American immigrants to Israel tend to focus their attention within the American scene exclusively on foreign and national security issues. Whether Democrats or Republicans, they do not exhibit great concern for the array of social and economic issues facing the United States. They have very limited concern for the future composition of the U.S. Supreme Court, immigration policy, health care, American anti-Semitism, or even restrictions on civil rights and civil liberties imposed on U.S. citizens (except, perhaps, to the degree that the Department of Homeland Security may restrict the ability for expats and all Israelis from visiting the States).
Daphna Berman recently reported in Ha’aretz that in voting by Americans living in Israel, part of a Democrats Abroad primary that will determine the allocation of 4.5 delegate votes at the Democratic National Convention — 54 percent preferred Sen. Hillary Clinton to 46 percent for Sen. Barack Obama. (Overall, Democrats Abroad supported Obama).
The vote suggests that Democratic Israeli Americans perceive Sen. Clinton as having a stronger, more predictable record of support for Israel. On what facts this conclusion is based is unclear. During the primary season, Obama has been subjected to a whispering campaign of personal attacks and accusations concerning his Chicago minister’s affiliation with the Rev. Louis Farrakhan, Obama’s circle of Middle East advisers, and his “potential” Middle East policies. Hostile Obama columns and blogs, which continue to be repackaged and recirculated, almost of all which are speculative and filled with “guilt by association,” tend to reinforce Israelis’ latent fears. (All of this innuendo will likely be heightened by the photograph just released, reportedly by the Clinton campaign, of Obama during his 2006 visit to Kenya dressed as a Somali elder.)
On the other hand, few have forgotten first lady Hillary Clinton’s kiss of Suha Arafat during her visit to Israel in 1999, and yet Israelis believe she has seen the light and is a more known entity.
As America faces its first election since 1928 in which neither a sitting president nor vice president is running, Israelis are searching for their new best friend. Given Democratic Israeli-American preferences for Clinton — as well as among Israelis in general — it is reasonable to assume that this group might well support Republican John McCain in November. Some political pundits suggest that the Republican vote among American Jews — many of whom have been growing more conservative and hawkish in general — may be as large (39 percent) as it was for Reagan in 1980.
Israeli Americans, as well as many Israelis, believe that any U.S. or outside effort viewed as evenhanded or sensitive to Palestinian or Arab concerns, making more demands on Israel than has President Bush, can be interpreted as anti-Israel. Fear of “pressuring” Israel appears to be growing even among American Jews who, presumably, are concerned about domestic issues. For them, Obama represents a double, even quintuple, whammy: a relative unknown who, despite a spotless voting record on Israel, has yet to prove he defends Israel in his heart, is subject to a whispering campaign that suggests he doesn’t, has not been subjected to Clinton’s trial by fire on the Middle East, and takes positions, especially on negotiating with Iran and opposing the war in Iraq, that may be too liberal for the taste of hawkish pro-Israel voters.
Dr. Gilbert N. Kahn is a professor of political science at Kean University in Union.
- Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com