"Whatever the AJC and ADL say, Mr. Obama can expect to
pay a substantial political price in 2012 for his antagonism toward Israel and
feckless courting of its enemies."
I certainly hope so. But where will the Jews be on this?
The editorial below, by Douglas Feith, is correct as far as
it goes. It fails, however, to point out that one cannot completely separate a
president's attitude towards Israel (or any other foreign society) from his
general principles. Obama's position on Israel is consistent with his
comprehensive leftist agenda - big government, pro-union, cradle to grave
entitlements at home; and pro broadly anti-American groups abroad
(anti-American closely translates as anti-market, anti-business). At this point
in its history Israel is a symbol of the achievements of individual diligence
and ambition in a market environment. In this it is the antithesis of every
other society in the middle east - save for the small Gulf states. Instead of
admiration it evokes resentment and envy, not only in the middle east, but
throughout Europe and elsewhere. Obama shares in this, sympathizes with it. His
record reflects that.
The American Jewish (predominantly "liberal")
establishment is sadly out of date on this. They do not know how to respond to
the fact that politically Israel's support has shifted from the left to the
right of American politics. They have been abandoned by their leftist allies.
Some American Jews have chosen to go along and have turned on Israel. I
distinguish between criticisms of the Israeli government - which clearly should
not be labeled as anti-Israel as such - and criticisms of a more fundamental
nature that mask an hostility to the very existence of Israel as a nation
state. - In some cases they brazenly express that hostility.
The message of the ADL and the AJC, addressed here by Feith,
is that Jews should not abandon their liberal orientation and reflexive,
slavish support of the Democratic party. Rather they should use their
considerable power to turn Obama-like hostility into support for, or at least
acceptance of, a firm American-Israeli alliance. A glaring example is the
carefully crafted pronouncement in support of Israel by Obama at the UN -
something produced as a clear response to the recent loss of a key
Democratic/Jewish congressional district in New York. Mr. Obama felt the tug of
the purse-strings and the swing-votes and he responded.
As Feith points out, the Israel issue was fair political game
until the recent shift from left to right. Now, all of a sudden, it's
inappropriate?
No! I could not disagree more. Jews should reject Obama's
entire agenda, of which the Israel-issue is only a representative part. And
they should do so with conviction and pride.
·
NOVEMBER
2, 2011
Israel
Should Be a U.S. Campaign Issue
Major Jewish groups are
trying to shield Obama from legitimate criticism.
By DOUGLAS J.
FEITH
Pro-Israel organizations have long been active in American
politics, promoting friendly relations between the U.S. and Israel. Jewish
groups, in particular, have helped ensure that candidates' attitudes toward
Israel would be an important element in congressional and presidential
elections. Yet now, two venerable Jewish organizations, the American Jewish
Committee (AJC) and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), are saying that it is
improper to do this in the case of President Obama. They have taken the initiative
to shield Mr. Obama from the political consequences of his cold treatment of
Israel.
The AJC and ADL are jointly promoting a "national pledge for
unity on Israel." Its essence is that "America's friendship with
Israel . . . has always transcended politics" and that "U.S.-Israel
friendship should never be used as a political wedge issue."
Explaining this effort, ADL chief Abraham Foxman lamented that
presidential candidates have recently "challenged their opponents'
pro-Israel bona fides" and "questioned the current administration's
foreign policy approach vis-à-vis Israel."
True, every political movement wants unity in support of the
common cause. But since when have American supporters of Israel believed that a
candidate's attitudes toward Israel should be kept out of electoral politics?
Since never.
In 1984, pro-Israel groups exerted themselves to block the
re-election of Illinois Republican Sen. Charles Percy, the prominent chairman
of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who was an outspoken critic of Israel
and champion of U.S. engagement with the Palestine Liberation Organization.
Percy lost and, in an election night interview, attributed his defeat to the
Israel lobby. Other politicians who met a similar fate include Reps. Paul
Findley (R., Ill.) and Cynthia McKinney (D., Ga.).
When running against President George H.W. Bush in 1992, Bill
Clinton took full advantage of Mr. Bush's testy relationship with Israel. As
the New York Times reported in March 1992: "Some leaders of American
Jewish groups predicted today that President Bush would pay in the November
election for his demand that Israel freeze settlements."
One such leader spoke of the "anger and dismay in Jewish
communities over Bush Administration policy that is increasingly perceived as
one-sided and unfair against Israel," adding "I imagine it will be
translated into an unwillingness to vote for this Administration or contribute
funds." By the way, the speaker was Jess Hordes, Washington director of
the ADL.
President Obama came into office determined to distance the U.S.
from Israel and to portray Israel as the impediment to Middle East peace. He
insisted on an unprecedented Israeli settlement freeze, exceeding the demands
at that time of the Palestinian Authority itself. And he went along with the
PA's refusal to renew direct negotiations with Israel, agreeing that the
Palestinians could use U.S. officials to conduct indirect talks. Meanwhile he
offered "engagement" to Israel's Iranian and Syrian enemies, a vain
policy that failed as the courted regimes rebuffed the offer and brutalized
their own pro-freedom demonstrators.
Mr. Obama also orchestrated a public imbroglio with Israeli Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, walking out of a White House meeting with him in
2010 and refusing to be photographed with him. Quarrels between the men this
year have been openly bitter.
This vexed Mr. Netanyahu and the Israeli public in general, which
overwhelmingly views Mr. Obama as anti-Israel, and it antagonized not only the
president's domestic political opponents but also many Democrats in Congress.
When Mr. Netanyahu addressed Congress in May, most Democrats, including the
leadership, joined in the numerous standing ovations that were obviously
intended to contrast the affection for Israel on Capitol Hill with the bad
feeling emanating from the White House.
So anyone truly intent on preserving unity among Israel's friends
could do so by building on the substantial bipartisan opposition to Mr. Obama's
policies on Israel. Instead, the AJC and the ADL are working to protect Mr.
Obama.
These organizations exist in large part to defend the Jewish state
from unfair criticism, pressure and attacks. But they are defending President
Obama from well-grounded charges that he has subjected Israel precisely to
that.
If the AJC and ADL want to defend Mr. Obama straightforwardly,
they could do so. They might argue that his record on Israel is not
unremittingly hostile. They could try to balance some of the healthy features
of the U.S.-Israeli relationship—for example, the continuation of defense
cooperation—against the bad parts. But it's not a strong argument, which
explains why they are claiming to uphold a venerable (though previously unheard
of) principle of unity that precludes criticism of a president's position on Israel.
Whatever the AJC and ADL say, Mr. Obama can expect to pay a
substantial political price in 2012 for his antagonism toward Israel and
feckless courting of its enemies.
Mr. Feith, a
senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, served as under secretary of defense
from 2001 to 2005.
Copyright 2011 Dow Jones & Company, Inc.
All Rights Reserved
