Gary Rosenblatt: They’re all the same on Israel
By Ami Eden on Feb 14, 2008 in Presidential Race |
In his latest column, New York Jewish Week editor Gary Rosenblatt tackles the question of which candidate in the current presidential race is best for Israel.
His answer? Don’t fool yourself — it’s a wash.
To make his case, he starts with a comparison between President Clinton and the current President Bush.
Two very different men, Clinton and Bush, and two very different approaches to the Mideast conflict. But they ended up in the very same place, pushing the Israelis and Palestinians for an unrealistic peace process. And you could make a case for either that what they did, with the best of intentions, ended up leaving Israel more vulnerable.
From there, Rosenblatt moves to 2008, and his conclusion that Israel is not the key factor separating the three leading candidates:
Which brings us, at last, to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain. And while they each have their strengths and weaknesses on a range of domestic and foreign affairs issues, I would argue that they would be much the same on Israel — supporting what has become the Washington point of view toward Mideast peace. It calls for a continuation of the Clinton and now Bush approach of negotiations, concessions and compromises under the premise that a Palestinian state can be created that will live in peace with Israel.
Only Rudy Giuliani among the leading ‘08 presidential candidates opposed that basic premise, writing in Foreign Affairs last fall that the Palestinians need good governance and an end to violence before negotiations could begin. But he’s no longer running.
With the remaining three, you can feel comfortable with each, focusing on their strong pledges for Israel at AIPAC conferences and other forums, their voting records and support for Israel in its war with Hezbollah in 2006, as well as their disdain for negotiating with Hamas.Or if you prefer, you can note that Hilary once kissed Mrs. Arafat and never forgive that awkward moment; you can choose to believe that Obama would be too eager to champion diplomacy over military spine in dealing with Israel’s enemies; and you can focus on McCain suggesting in a May 2006 interview with Ha’aretz that he would send “the smartest person I know,” either James Baker or Brent Scowcroft — anathema to Israeli supporters on the right — as potential Mideast envoys, “though I know that you in Israel don’t like Baker.”
In the same vein, you can study each candidate’s list of two-dozen or so advisers on foreign policy and concentrate on the one or two with questionable support for Israel as proof that the candidate would choose either of them to be secretary of state.
My point is that it all depends on how much you want to convince yourself that the person you oppose for president would be a disaster for Israel. But the reality is that each of the three remaining frontrunners would approach the Mideast conflict with essentially the same outlook and intention, and with the premise that Israel-Palestinian negotiations should be encouraged and supported, much along the lines of the Clinton and now Bush efforts.
Upsetting? Comforting? That’s your call, but don’t come away believing one or the other will be dramatically different when it comes to Israel any more than you believe the long line of empty pledges to move the U.S. Embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.
So base your choice on a host of other very real factors from personality to integrity to domestic issues to Iraq to a variety of foreign policy concerns, including acknowledging and identifying the very real threat of Islamic militancy.
But if you tell me you’re voting for one or the other based primarily on what he or she would do or not do for Israel, I’d say you’re only fooling yourself.
How can anyone Jew vote for a man who boasts as his advisor Jimmy Carter. In my book it just doesn’t cut it. In addition to Jimmy Carter, Obama has other cater advisors who are blatantly anti-semitic.
PG | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
True, the positions are consistent, and the State department always pressures the President to be more pro-Arab.
Which candidate would be more likely to put real pressure on Israel?
I would think that candidate is Obama, since there are more people close to him who are pro Arab and against Israel.
Julius | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Dear Julius: Either please supply the names of the “persons close to Obama who are anti-Israel and pro-Arab” or shut up.
Paul Ephross
paul ephross | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Paul:
How about Zbenew Brezinski?
Beatrix | Feb 14, 2008 | Reply
Mike Huckabee is still in the race! Here’s his position on Israel:
I am a steadfast supporter of Israel, our staunch ally in the War on Terror, the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, and our greatest friend in that region.
The United States must remain true to its long-standing commitment to the Israeli people.
As President, I will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology she needs to defend herself from those who seek her annihilation.
I’ve visited the Middle East extensively over the past thirty-five years, including nine trips to Israel. I salute and support Israel as our staunch ally in the War on Terror and our greatest friend in that region. As the only fully-functioning democracy in the Middle East, Israel occupies a unique position both geographically and geopolitically. Israel is an important partner in the spread of freedom and democracy throughout the Middle East and the world.
The United States must remain true to its long-standing, bipartisan commitment to the Israelis. I will always ensure that Israel has access to the state-of-the-art weapons and technology she needs to defend herself from those who seek her annihilation.
Go to http://www.mikehuckabee.com and find out about Mike Huckabee yourself.
Carol | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
I won’t vote for Obama since his many of his senior advisors are notoriously anti-Israel.
The appointment of Zbigniew Brzezenski as the most senior foreign policy advisor in Obama’s team is of great concern among supporters of Israel since Brzezenski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. He has a clear and consistent anti-Israel record that can be easily documented. For more than 30 years, Zbigniew Brzezinski has distinguished himself as one of Israel’s greatest foes in Washington. Mark Brzezinski, Zbigniew’s son, also on Obama’s team, has openly called for unconditional negotiations with Iran.
Dr. Susan Rice is a senior foreign policy advisor on Obama’s team as well. She is likely to be on the short list for a top position in an Obama administration, perhaps in the same role Condoleezza Rice served during President Bush’s first term: national security adviser. Susan Rice was John Kerry’s chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride “roughshod” over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice.
Major financial support for the Obama campaign is from George Soros. He has also openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel.
Sumner Kagan | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
What Zbigniew Brzezenski did in Damescus the day Imad Mughniyah was screwed and burnt?
I wonder what Obama has to do with the Syrians and he even wasn’t elected yet in his party, not to mention presidency…..
Abe Bird | Feb 15, 2008 | Reply
Mike Huckabee! Great for Israel, great for America. Would put an end to pressuring Israel for suicidal concessions to appease the oil producers. Brokered convention, baby.
Cindy | Feb 17, 2008 | Reply