October 2, 2008
NJ Jewish News is asking Jewish community leaders what issues they would like to hear the candidates address and what questions they want to have answered in a presidential debate. For previous installments in the “What’s at Stake” series, see www.njjewishnews.com/whatsatstake.
“What’s at Stake” will be a regular feature between now and Election Day.
Rabbi Ira Budow, head of school, Abrams Hebrew Academy, Yardley, Pa.:
The presidencies of Bill Clinton and George W. Bush brought unprecedented growth in the United States-Israel relationship. Party differences aside, both leaders worked to strengthen the partnership our country shares with the Jewish homeland by prioritizing Israel’s security in U.S. foreign policy.
Clinton actively supported the advancement of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations to establish peace in the region. The signing of the Oslo Accords in 1993, over which Clinton presided in the White House Rose Garden, signified a turning point. Israel and the PLO recognized each other after nearly a half-century of conflict with an uneasy handshake between Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. Clinton’s embrace of the Oslo Accords represented the first U.S. recognition of a two-state solution and the validity of a Palestinian homeland. This allowed him to play the role of an impartial broker throughout his presidency.
Following the assassination of Rabin and more stagnant negotiations, the U.S. brokered the Wye River Memorandum between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Arafat. This agreement set guidelines for the Israeli pullout from more territory, as well as the Palestinian promise of Israeli security. In 2000, Clinton once again intervened in negotiations over the control of Jerusalem between Prime Minister Ehud Barak and Arafat at the Camp David Summit. Those talks failed, according to American officials, because Arafat refused to accept Barak’s plan for peace.
Bush took a different approach: His adoption of a hands-off position was intended to encourage agreement, without intervention, between the two sides. Upon taking office, Bush established an amicable relationship with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and rebuked Arafat. Bush refused to talk with Arafat, whom he viewed as a terrorist. The problem was further compounded after Bush repudiated Hamas when that group took power following democratic elections in 2006. At a news conference in late January 2006, Bush said, “I don’t see how we can be a partner in peace if you advocate the destruction of a country as part of your platform.”
Despite divergent diplomatic tactics, neither Clinton’s hands-on involvement nor Bush’s laissez-faire attitude established the Israeli-Palestinian accords so desperately sought. What do the candidates propose, going forward, and why do they think the outcome will be different?
Lynn Sherman of Highland Park, chair of the social action committee, Women’s Philanthropy of the Jewish Federation of Greater Middlesex County, and chair of the Sept. 21 Jewish women voters’ forum at Rutgers University:
There are many issues critical to women in this year’s election. I would like some straight answers about where candidates stand on support for Israel, and what plans they have for withdrawal from Iraq.
As a woman business owner, I am concerned about critical economic issues facing us today. I am interested in hearing about candidates’ support for women’s health and wellness issues. With obesity on the rise in men, women, and children, the strain on our health care system will become enormous. We need someone to discuss what preventative measures are in place to help deal with this now.
As a daughter of older parents, social service issues like health care and Social Security are important. The appointments on the Supreme Court and the protection of a woman’s right to choose are really critical to me now. I want to know that the candidates’ ideas are realistic and pointed in a progressive direction.
Paul Tractenberg, professor, Rutgers School of Law-Newark:
For Senator McCain:
• Given your campaign theme of “Country First,” did you select Gov. Palin as your running mate because you believed she is the most qualified person to be vice president and, possibly, president? If “yes,” by what criteria did you reach that decision? If “no,” what was the real reason for your choice?
• Does your emphasis on being a “maverick” mean you will embrace different policies from those of President Bush and the Republican Party on core issues such as tax cuts for the wealthiest and for corporations, and on the war in Iraq? If not, what does being a maverick mean? For example, what will you do to persuade the large majority of Americans who believe our country is on the wrong track that, under your presidency, the country would change direction in meaningful ways?
• Do you agree with Gov. Palin that decisions on the most important issues facing our country should be made on a “no-blink” basis? What does that mean? Do you think decisions should be based primarily on gut instincts, God’s plan, or a thoughtful assessment of the broadest range of relevant information and advice?
For Senator Obama:
• To paraphrase President Clinton, do you really “feel the pain” of many Americans suffering from a declining economy, the sub-prime mortgage disaster, and a lack of affordable heath insurance? Do you believe you have communicated your empathy effectively?
• Are you satisfied with how you have walked the line between your pledge to have a high-minded campaign on the issues and your responses to McCain campaign attacks? What will you do differently in the remaining days until the election?
• Will your thoughtful, nuanced approach to answering questions mean you will have trouble pulling the trigger, so to speak, when you have to make difficult decisions as president?
For the American voter:
• Do you agree this presidential election is one of the most important in U.S. history? If “yes,” how are you preparing to cast your momentous vote? Are you discounting distortions and outright lies and focusing on specific policies and facts?
• Or do you agree with Sen. McCain’s campaign director that this campaign is about personalities more than issues? Should it be? What kind of personal qualities and characteristics do you think are most important for a president to have? Is a candidate’s temperament relevant? What about his/her race or gender?
• Is it appropriate for a voter who feels very strongly about a single issue (e.g., Israel’s security, Roe v. Wade and a woman’s right to choose, the right to “bear arms”) to vote for a candidate who the voter thinks will be better on that issue, even if the candidate’s views on other important issues are anathema?
Herb Horowitz, president of the Central New Jersey Chapter of American Jewish Committee:
The principle of separation of church and state has always been a cherished American value as well as a mandate set forth in our Constitution. In recent years, there seems to have been an erosion of this principle, and candidates are too often now required to demonstrate their support of a particular religious belief in order to win political support from church leaders and sometimes even from rabbinical leaders. It’s as though we are electing a pastor-in-chief instead of a commander-in-chief. How are you addressing this issue in your campaign, and how, as president, will you preserve and enhance the principle of separation of church and state?
How will you go about reducing our dependence on oil from unfriendly countries in the Middle East and elsewhere around the world? The goals of energy conservation, reducing oil dependency, and stepping up the fight against global warming are major policy concerns of the American Jewish Committee.
I would like to ask both candidates to spell out their commitment to a long-term strategy on these issues. Specifically, companies that would develop alternate sources of energy require government policies that encourage this development, as well as a long-term commitment to keep such policies and any tax incentives in place so that the capital markets will commit to investing in these technologies in a meaningful way. Would you support such policies? And, if nuclear power plants are part of your strategy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, how would you pay for the high costs of these plants?
--TOP--
Comment: comments@njjewishnews.com
