Despite Jewish Voters’ Concerns, Leaders Pressure Candidates for One-Sided Mideast Policy

By Allan C. Brownfeld

Usually, when political candidates address Jewish forums, they turn their attention to U.S. policy in the Middle East, apparently believing that this is the way to appeal to Jewish voters. The annual survey of American Jewish opinion conducted by the American Jewish Committee, which was released in December, indicates a far different picture, however.

According to the survey, the past year saw a decline in the percentage of Jews who feel “very close” to Israel—from 37 percent in 2006 to 30 percent in 2007. The issue most often selected as the most important in choosing a president in 2008 was “the economy and jobs,” at 22 percent, in contrast to the war in Iraq, cited by just l6 percent of American Jews.

Asked about the issues that will determine their presidential vote this year, a strong plurality of 42 percent picked either “economy and jobs” or “health care,” the two domestic choices offered. By contrast, only 36 percent picked one of the three Middle East-related suggestions, the war in Iraq (16 percent), “terrorism and national security” (14 percent) or “support for Israel” (6 percent).

Ironically, 15 of the survey’s 38 questions touched on terrorism and Middle East-related issues and another five amplified energy and immigration. The rest involved anti-Semitism, Jewish identity and presidential choices. None touched on economic issues—the very issues most Jewish voters said they care about the most.

As the campaign has proceeded, however, Jewish organizations and leaders have done their best to impose an orthodox pro-Israel policy upon the candidates, and have been harshly critical of any divergence from that path.

A confidential memo questioning Senator Barack Obama’s potential approach to Middle East policy was distributed in January among staff members at the American Jewish Committee. The memo, written by Debra Feuer, the Committee’s counsel for special projects, noted that Obama’s approach to dealing with Iran “raises questions.” It also suggested that Obama placed the burden of solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict primarily upon Israel. Quoting Obama’s statement early in the campaign that “no one has suffered more than the Palestinians,” Feuer questioned Obama’s potential as a peace broker.

“He appears to believe the Israelis bear the burden of taking the risky steps for peace, and that the violence Israel has received in return does not shift that burden,” Feuer wrote. She also expressed concern about Obama’s emphasis on diplomacy, particularly in dealing with Iran and other “rogue states.”

“Frankly some of the commentary I’ve seen suggests guilt by association.”

“The senator’s interpretation of the NIE raises questions,” Feuer wrote, referring to the National Intelligence Estimate, released in November 2007, which determined that Iran had halted its alleged nuclear weapons program in 2003. She included a number of statements Obama has made that encourage diplomatic engagement with Tehran and are critical of the Bush administration. She also noted Obama’s presence at a fund-raiser headlined in l998 by the late Edward Said.

One of Obama’s chief backers, Rep. Robert Wexler (D-FL), argued that the memo reflected “political bias on the part of the drafter of the memo, rather than the facts.” He said he took particular issue with the idea that Obama’s calls for diplomacy should cause alarm within Jewish circles, given that a number of Jewish lawmakers have advocated the same position. “The whole notion that if a lawmaker supports renewed diplomacy with Iran, that that somehow suggests a position that the American Jewish community should be concerned about—well, put me on the top of that list,” Wexler said. “Put [the late] Tom Lantos on the top of that list, put Howard Berman and Gary Ackerman on the top of that list.”

Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign, in an effort to ingratiate itself with Jewish organizations, has questioned Obama’s commitment to U.S.-Israel relations. Ann Lewis, a senior adviser to Clinton and the sister of Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), touted the New York senator’s strong support for Israel during a conference call in January with leaders of major American Jewish organizations. During the call, Lewis contrasted Clinton’s pro-Israel credentials with those of Obama. To make her point, she said that Obama’s “chief foreign policy adviser” is Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. But the job of Obama’s “chief foreign policy adviser” belongs to three former staff members of President Bill Clinton (whom Lewis also served as director of communications and then counselor): Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Greg Craig. But Brzezinski, who says he has advised Obama “only on occasion,” is unpopular with Jewish leaders, in part because of his endorsement of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy.

Negative e-mails about the Obama campaign have assaulted not only the alleged role of Brzezinski but of Obama advisers such as Robert Malley, a former Clinton negotiator at the 2000 Camp David talks who has since written articles sympathetic to the Palestinians (see April 2008 Washington Report, p. 30). Addressing such attacks, Obama criticized some elements in the pro-Israel community that he says equate being pro-Israel with being pro-Likud.

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel,” Obama told a group of Jewish leaders meeting in Cleveland, “and that can’t be a measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

Criticizing those in the Jewish community who seek to impose their own narrow perspective upon U.S. foreign policy, Obama declared: “Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is nonmilitary or nonbelligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”

In its Feb. 22, 2008 issue, The Forward criticized those who have assaulted Obama’s advisers, in particular Malley: “Since the failed Camp David talks of 2000, Malley has written several controversial articles arguing that Yasser Arafat did not bear sole responsibility for the talks’ failure, but that Washington and Jerusalem each bear part of the blame. For this he has been labeled ‘a rabid hater of Israel,’ in the words of The New Republic. The real Malley is a soft-spoken Jewish intellectual who has strong ties to Israel and believes deeply in Israeli-Palestinian peace. He is no ‘hater’ of Israel. And yet, through the magic of the Internet, he has become a global punching bag.”

Danny Ayalon, Israel’s former ambassador to the U.S., says Iran would exploit Obama’s gullibility and race ahead with a nuclear program—an indication to American Jewish groups about the views of the Israeli government.

Non-Profit Partisan Politics?

There is some concern that tax-exempt, non-partisan Jewish organizations are engaged in what can be viewed as partisan political activities. At a February 12 press conference in Jerusalem, Malcolm Hoenlein, executive vice chairman of the Conference of Major American Jewish Organizations, voiced concern about the tenor of the presidential campaign, according to the Israeli daily Haaretz (see April 2008 Washington Report, p. 26).

Rabbi Eric Yoffie, leader of the Union for Reform Judaism, was in Jerusalem at the time of Hoenlein’s remarks and, according to The Forward, “...has found himself increasingly distressed by—and willing to publicly counter—remarks made by other Jewish leaders about the Illinois senator...Yoffie strongly condemned statements by Hoenlein...[and] told The Forward he felt that Hoenlein’s comments had had a profound effect on Israeli politicians and that he was deeply troubled by them...’I was a bit stunned, and as I walked through the Knesset and heard people saying that American Jews are attacking Obama, that made me more uncomfortable still...Everybody who read those comments took them as an attack on Obama by the American Jewish community, and that’s why it’s crucial we need to avoid these comments.’”

A Washington representative of a major Jewish organization who is not authorized to speak to the press and thus spoke on condition of anonymity, said: “Most Jewish organizations are very sensitive about their charitable status, and they can’t be seen in any way as endorsing or rating a candidate.”

Interestingly, while Jewish groups are challenging Obama as insufficiently supportive of Israel, independent candidate Ralph Nader complains that none of the major candidates are dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Obama was “pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate. Now he’s supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million-and-a-half people,” Nader said. “He’s not taking a leadership position in supporting the Israeli peace movement, which represents former Cabinet ministers, people in the Knesset, former generals, former security officials, in addition to mayors and leading intellectuals.”

Fortunately, those Jewish groups which are attempting to impose an “Israel-right-or-wrong” philosophy upon the presidential candidates are not at all representative of American Jewish opinion. Indeed, they are coming under increasing criticism within the Jewish community. In its Feb. 29/March 7, 2008 issue The Forward editorialized: “Yes, Obama has voiced sympathy for the suffering of the Palestinians. He has also worked closely with the Jewish community to help Israel. He has made a practice of listening to both sides; that’s at the heart of his politics. He doesn’t think that sympathizing with Palestinians and supporting Israel need to be mutually exclusive...We second that, and we’ll take it a step further. The best way to show friendship to Israel is to help it achieve peace through dialogue with the Palestinians. The candidate who does that best should be the choice of pro-Israel voters.”

The reason the Jewish establishment has focused on Barack Obama is that the other candidates, perhaps because of their fear of the influence of AIPAC and other elements in the pro-Israel lobby, have taken safe positions of almost total support for Israel and whatever policies its government embraces. Hillary Clinton has largely adopted this approach, as has Sen. John McCain, the Republican nominee, who has received the endorsement of the Rev. John C. Hagee, the Texas evangelical pastor and Christian Zionist leader who argues that it would be a violation of God’s will for Israel to trade land for peace. Hagee suggested that the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was divine retribution for his willingness to make peace with the Palestinians.

Peace in the Middle East is unlikely if the U.S. does not take the lead in brokering a settlement between Israelis and Palestinians. And the U.S. is unlikely to be in a position to assume such leadership if our candidates for president slavishly support whatever policies the Israeli government embarks upon because of fear of the pro-Israel lobby. Especially since the reality is that this lobby does not represent the views of the majority of Jewish Americans, in whose name it pretends to speak.

Jewish voters, more concerned about the economy and domestic matters—as are voters of other faiths—than about the Middle East, join religious organizations to express their religious views, not to find themselves falsely represented by such groups in the political arena. All Americans are the losers in this enterprise as our Middle East policy is distorted and fails to reflect the long-term interests of either the U.S., Israel, or the Palestinians.

Allan C. Brownfeld is a syndicated columnist and associate editor of the Lincoln Review, a journal published by the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education, and editor of Issues, the quarterly journal of the American Council for Judaism.