The notion that Jews cast their votes solely on the issue of Israel is more myth than fact.
Of course, you might forget that if you listen to some of the rhetoric aimed at Jews by presidential candidates. And for all of the alarmist rhetoric we often hear from Jewish groups, the truth is that Israel simply hasn’t been an issue during the last two elections. It was conspicuously absent from the discussion during the 2000 Bush-Gore match-up, as well as in 1996, when Bill Clinton bested Republican Bob Dole and independent Ross Perot to win reelection.
In fact, it has been 12 years since Israel was a factor in a presidential election. 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 of the White House the next year.
Bush’s disdain for Israel and efforts to isolate its leaders were deeply resented. The hostility of his secretary of state, James A. ‘bleep the Jews’ Baker III, toward Israel was the icing on the cake. 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, and set back GOP efforts to make inroads among Jews by a decade.
The issue disappeared entirely in 1996, as neither of Bill Clinton’s challengers 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, as well as by the fact that the Democrats nominated a Jew, Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, for vice president.
Ironically, Lieberman, who is attempting to move up on the ticket this time and become the first Jewish president, isn’t the only Democrat 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; and 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 as Democrats line up for the chance to knock off Bush the younger, some of them have not been shy about attempting to use the Middle East to make some political hay.
In August, Dean gave an opening to his rivals by stating that the United States must be ‘even-handed’ in its policy between Israel and the Arabs. This prompted Lieberman to publicly
chastise Dean for abandoning Israel. Kerry, the putative Democratic front-runner until Dean
mobilized anti-Iraq war sentiment on his behalf, chimed in on that score, and then 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, as well as for an enhanced international component to Middle East diplomacy.
That immediately drew fire from the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs, which
pointed out the dangers for Israel involved in bringing American soldiers, or more European or
U.N. diplomats, into the conflict with the Palestinians.
The decision of Lieberman to use the Israel issue against Dean is interesting, because it
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 of which is based on nonsense, while the other is rooted in hard fact.
On the one hand, some believe Lieberman’s election, would stir up more anti-Semitism.
That is patently false, as his well-regarded run for the vice presidency in 2000 proved. But others are right to worry whether Lieberman or any Jewish president would be so eager to prove his ‘even-handedness’ on the Middle East that he would bend over backward to show no favoritism to Israel.
Lieberman is probably barking up the wrong tree here. After all, many of the liberal Jews
who will help determine the outcome probably are supporters of ‘even-handed’ policies toward Israel themselves. But if Dean or Clark do emerge from the pack, each will have to be wary of anything that will make him 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. Because, in stark contrast to
his father, George W. Bush is regarded by most Jewish voters as sympathetic to Israel.
Though Bush hasn’t a single Jew in his Cabinet, the presence of many pro-Israel voices in
the administration (the neoconservative cabal that leftists are so worried about) has led to the
crafting of a policies that are seen as closely aligned with that of Israel. In particular, Bush’s
refusal to meet with Yasir Arafat, whom he rightly regards as a terrorist, 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 the fact 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 the fact 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 that candidate.
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: this time
around, a Bush might turn the Israel factor to his advantage.
Advertisement