The notion that Jews cast their votes solely on the issue of Israel is more myth than fact. But you might forget that if you listen to some of the rhetoric aimed at Jews by presidential candidates. Can it be that Israel is once again a presidential-election issue?
For all the alarmist rhetoric we often hear from Jewish groups, the truth is that Israel hasn’t been an issue during the last two elections. In fact, it has been 12 years since Israel was a factor in a presidential race.
In 1991, President George H. W. Bush’s administration was seen as hostile to Israel and many American Jews were eager to do anything to boot him out. This probably didn’t cost Bush the election, but he did get the lowest total of Jewish votes by a major-party candidate since Barry Goldwater in 1964, and set back GOP efforts to make inroads among Jews.
The issue disappeared entirely in 1996, as neither of Bill Clinton’s challengers, Republican Bob Dole and independent Ross Perot, could credibly present themselves as more pro-Israel than the president.
Nor was the 2000 election much of a test of affection for Israel. Despite some outreach efforts to the pro-Israel community, George W. Bush was handicapped by the association with his father, and by the Democrats having nominated a Jew, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman (Conn.), for vice president.
Ironically, Lieberman, who is attempting to become the first Jewish president, isn’t the only Democratic candidate with Jewish roots. Gen. Wesley Clark’s father was Jewish (Clark was raised as a Protestant, and is currently a Catholic). Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts recently “discovered” that his grandfather was Jewish. Former Vermont Gov. Howard Dean is married to a Jew, and his children were raised as Jews.
Will any of this appeal to Jewish voters? I doubt it, but some of them have not been shy about attempting to use the Middle East to make political hay.
Red flags rising
In August, Dean gave an opening to his rivals by stating that the United States must be “evenhanded” in its policy between Israel and the Arabs. This prompted Lieberman to publicly chastise Dean for abandoning Israel.
Kerry, the putative front-runner until Dean mobilized anti-Iraq war sentiment on his behalf, one-upped Lieberman by seizing upon a Dean quote in which he referred to Hamas terrorists as “soldiers.”
The latest entrant to the Democratic race may soon face some of the same treatment. A political greenhorn, Clark has been all over the place on the war in Iraq. But he has stated support for the idea that NATO troops could serve as peacekeepers in Israel and for an enhanced international component to Middle East diplomacy.
The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs immediately pointed out the dangers for Israel involved in bringing American soldiers, or more European or U.N. diplomats, into the conflict with the Palestinians.
Lieberman’s decision to use the Israel issue against Dean may be his best chance to rally Jewish voters to his flagging campaign. Lieberman is seen by some as having trouble raising Jewish money. That is happening for two reasons, one based on nonsense, the other rooted in hard fact.
Some believe Lieberman’s election, would stir up more anti-Semitism. That is patently false, as his run for the vice presidency proved. But others rightly worry whether Lieberman or any Jewish president would be so eager to prove “evenhandedness” on the Middle East that he or she would bend over backward to show no favoritism to Israel.
If Dean or Clark do emerge from the pack, they will have to be wary of anything that will make them seem to be too closely identified with an anti-Israel tint. In a close election, a swing of a few Jewish voters in key states could prove fatal to Democratic hopes.
And that’s where one major difference from 1992 comes in. Most Jewish voters regard George W. Bush as sympathetic to Israel.
Though he hasn’t a single Jew in his cabinet, the many pro-Israel voices in the administration have led to policies seen as closely aligned with that of Israel. In particular, his refusal to meet with Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat is deeply satisfying to most pro-Israel voters.
Some on the Jewish right are still unhappy about Bush’s support of the road-map peace plan and a Palestinian state, a position now shared by Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. But given that any of the Democrats would probably emulate Clinton in his support for the Israeli left, Jews who bash Bush from the right have no place to go.
As November 2004 gets closer, we can probably see even less interest from the White House in any plan that makes Israel uncomfortable. That will allow Bush to help secure some key Jewish votes and firm up his hold on conservative Christians, who are more fervently pro-Israel than many Jews.
It is unlikely that 2004 will see a return of the old-time pandering to Jewish voters, which once had every challenger falsely promising to move the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. But, given that Israel is still assailed by a bloody Palestinian terror war, it would be foolish to think that Israel is a negligible factor. If the GOP can label a Democratic candidate as soft on Israel, it will hurt.
Despite the current banter, it’s hard to imagine Israel being an issue next spring in the Democratic primaries. But if the Democrats aren’t careful, history might reverse itself, as Bush turns the Israel factor to his advantage.
Jonathan S. Tobin is executive editor of the Jewish Exponent in Philadelphia.
Loading ...