When examining the Presidential election campaign, it is tempting to focus on the polls, the debates, the television commercials, and the candidates’ speeches. But from the perspective of most Israelis the dominant issue is much more profound. It concerns not only the Iranian nuclear threat, but thousands of years of Jewish history.
Jews as a people first lived in Eretz Yisrael, the Land of Israel, over 3,000 years ago. In addition to practicing what we now know as the Jewish religion, they established a political community that governed the land, albeit with interruptions, for over a millennium. During that lengthy period, there were two national disasters that terminated the exercise of Jewish sovereignty, the destruction of the First Temple in 586 B.C.E., and the destruction of the Second Temple in 70 C.E. The latter calamity led to an exile that lasted for nearly 2,000 years.
The reestablishment or reconstitution of Jewish sovereignty in Israel in 1948 is rightly seen as one of the major developments in Jewish history, and has led to the incredible flowering of Jewish life in all its dimensions. There is no need to rehearse Israel’s accomplishments in sixty-four years of renewed sovereignty. Rather it is essential to focus on the threat to the existence of that reconstituted Jewish state represented by Iran’s attempts to acquire nuclear weapons. It is no exaggeration to assert that the emerging threat rivals the destructions of the two Temples in historical significance and the Holocaust in terms of the threat to Jewish lives.
What does this rumination on Jewish history have to do with an American election? The political and military reality today is that Israel, in to respond to the threat from Iran, is dependent to a large extent on American political and military support. This is not the occasion to examine the prospects of Israel’s “going it alone” vis-à-vis Iran. But it is widely agreed that the prospects of eliminating Iran’s nuclear threat are much greater if the U.S. participates in any needed military action. And given the preeminence of the President with respect to American foreign policy, the 2012 election is proving to hold great significance for Israel.
There is no suggestion here that the only way to deal with the Iranian threat is through military action. Nevertheless the case can be made that sanctions and diplomatic pressure from well-intentioned Western countries will not be able to deflect the ayatollahs from their drive to harness nuclear energy for military purposes. And of course the announced primary target is Israel, a state that has been demonized by the Iranian religious and governmental leadership for over 30 years.
Over a history that extends back even before 1948, Israelis have realized that although the use of military force should never be the first choice it is sometimes necessary, and can achieve important national goals. In the present circumstance there is no Israeli who wants to attack Iran’s nuclear program as a first choice. Yet there are many who have come to the conclusion that such an attack is preferable to the alternative of sitting back and waiting for sanctions – even “crippling sanctions” – to work while Iran plows ahead to acquire nuclear weapons. For following that would be a period in which reliance on deterrence would be the key to Israel’s security.
Deterrence worked during the Cold War between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. But it depended on rational analysis on both sides. Many Israelis are not confident that the same calculations would work with a nuclear-armed Iran. Moreover, Israeli military analysts understand that Iranian nuclear-tipped missiles are not simply a threat of Israel’s destruction, as if that were not enough. The threat of their use would also be likely to deter Israel from responding to various provocations from neighboring countries or groups. That would necessitate a radical restructuring of Israeli military doctrine and strategic thinking in an unfavorable direction.
In light of the foregoing, it is essential for Israel to have a U.S. Administration that will back Israel vigorously and not undermine its position. So from the perspective of supporters of Israel, the posture of the American political parties, members of Congress, and the President is a highly consequential consideration.
Prior to 1967 there was little doubt that the Democratic Party was more supportive of Israel than the Republican Party. It was not just a matter of recalling the recognition of Israel by Democratic President Harry Truman in 1948. It was also a matter of Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower coming down hard on Israel after the 1956 Sinai Campaign, when he exerted extreme pressure on Israel to withdraw. It was also Secretary of State John Foster Dulles’s clear lack of empathy for Israel’s situation. Indeed, on my first visit to Israel in 1960, the most common questions that I encountered involved “why are Eisenhower and Dulles treating us so shabbily”. But 1967 proved to be a turning point.
Not only did Democratic President Lyndon B. Johnson fail to deliver on the promises of the Eisenhower Administration when Egypt provoked the crisis. But after the Six Day War, a number of people on the left, shocked by Israel’s acquisition of territory, began to criticize Israel. The Democratic Administration did back Israel strongly at the UN Security Council when Resolution 242 was drafted. But by 1972 the party was led by a Presidential candidate who was lukewarm to Israel and whose foreign policy intentions were not helpful to Israel. Furthermore the leftward turn of Democratic activists weakened their party’s support for Israel.
Meanwhile Republicans began to take over the internationalist orientation that many Democrats had abandoned. But most Presidents of both parties understood that given the array of international forces opposed to Israel it was necessary for the United States to be a forthright supporter. Beneath the surface, however, over the past 40 years there has been a definite slippage in support for Israel among activist Democrats and, lately, Democratic members of Congress. Meanwhile the Republicans gradually came to embrace the cause of Israel. Looking at today’s Congress, in general the Republicans are much more staunch supporters of Israel than the Democrats. And those who openly oppose Israel’s interests on one or more issues are overwhelmingly Democrats.
The apotheosis of this trend was apparent to all at the 2012 Democratic National Convention, when the party platform omitted several key items from previous platforms that had symbolized support for Israel. Presumably such changes would have been cleared with the highest levels of the party structure. In response to public outcry and pressure it was decided (presumably by the President) to reinstate a symbolic clause declaring Jerusalem to be the capital of Israel (which it is, regardless of what either party says). D
On the voice vote to reinstate that clause, which had to be taken three times, most observers believed that the assembled delegates had not provided the required 2/3 majority, and probably not even a simple majority. When the Chair, exercizing its prerogative, declared that the motion had carried, there was considerable booing in the hall. What should a pro-Israel voter make of such a spectacle?
Of course the main focus has to be on the two candidates for President. The problem is that one candidate, President Barack Obama, has a four-year foreign policy track record, while his opponent, Mitt Romney, is running mainly on promises. Therefore it is hard to judge what a Romney Presidency might look like, but we certainly do know what an Obama Presidency looks like.
Even now, in the third debate of the campaign, President Obama—responding to Romney’s criticism–stressed that he had visited Israel in 2008, before the election (he has not been there since). But his references to that trip focused on his visits to Yad Vashem and to Sderoth, both of which represent Jewish victimhood. They are consistent with the President’s 2009 Cairo speech, when he seemed to imply that the primary reason that Israel was created was because of Western guilt over the Holocaust.
There are two types of problems that arise with President Obama’s approach to Israel. On the level of strategy or basic concepts, he does not appear to elevate Israel to as high a priority as many supporters of Israel would like. Clearly he has been trying to curry favor with Arab and more broadly Muslim states, which led to his famous comment about putting daylight between the U.S. and Israel. It might be inferred that he sees enthusiastic support for Israel as undermining his efforts to establish better ties in the Arab world. On the other hand, he has generally been strongly supportive of close military and security ties between the U.S. and Israel.
Turning to tactics, Obama critics have compiled a long list of what they consider to be his failings. One of the most complete compilations was published by Anne Bayefsky and contains over a dozen items. Among them are the “daylight” comment, the introduction of the concept of a settlement freeze that has led to major stumbling blocks in Israel-Palestinian negotiations, the perceived personal insults to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on various occasions, the suggestion that negotiations for a settlement of the status of the West Bank begin from the position of the 1949 armistice lines, which Israel regards as indefensible, and efforts to prevent Israel from taking action against Iran’s nuclear program. It is fair to say that all of these incidents taken together appear to form a pattern that represents much less than enthusiastic support for Israel.
What about Mitt Romney? As stated, we have little to go on here, aside from notoriously unreliable campaign rhetoric. But it is worthwhile to point out that while his opponents have roundly criticized Romney for flip-flopping on a number of policy issues, his views on Israel have been rather consistent. He shares Prime Minister Netanyahu’s view that the critical issue with respect to Iran is reaching nuclear capability, as opposed to the President’s stress on acquiring nuclear weapons. Moreover, he has expressed support for Israel on a fundamental level and his strategic outlook is consistent with strong support for Israel as a key ally in the Middle East.
As well, his desire to increase American influence in the region would be beneficial to Israel. Does that mean that he would respond positively to any request from an Israeli prime minister? Hardly. But it does suggest that he would be well-disposed to entertain arguments from Israel on issues that are vital to Israel’s security.
Where does this leave an American voter for whom Israel is very important? It depends on how one orders his or her priorities. Those who put Israel’s well-being as their top priority are likely to lean toward Romney, while those for whom Israel is third or fourth on the list are likely to find manifold reasons to be inclined to support Obama. From Israel’s perspective, in any case, the choice is crucial–this is not just another Presidential election.
(Harold Waller is a Canadian Institute for Jewish Research Fellow,
and Professor of Political Science at McGill University, Montreal.)
