Posted October 17 2008 by Brian Blum
Another Israeli Take on the Upcoming U.S. Elections
I just received my absentee ballot for the upcoming U.S. elections in the mail and I’m psyched. Yes, I know that some critics will question whether an American living outside the country has the moral right to vote for a president of a country in which he is no longer living. But I plan on exercising my democratic right. So, here’s my take on U.S. politics – from an Israeli point of view.
First of all, it’s clear – even from here – that this November’s presidential elections represent a perhaps unique opportunity to steer the U.S. in a new direction, one that can help move the country away the political, social and economic animosity that has increasingly divided Americans. Both candidates know this – from Barack Obama’s repeated calls for “change” to John McCain’s positioning as a “maverick.”
On the international stage, the world is at a crossroads. From the war in Iraq to the potential of not only a nuclear Iran, but nuclear armed terrorists who would be even less afraid of using weapons of mass destruction. Al Qaida, Hamas and Hezbollah are anything but on the retreat. Terror in Pakistan, India and Afghanistan is back in the news. Whichever candidate wins in November will have no choice but to address these threats quickly and decisively.
The catastrophe on Wall Street is also waiting for the kind of guidance only a new president can provide. As we all know now, the credit market’s stupendous decline is no longer just a U.S. domestic issue (for the Israeli perspective, just take a look at how the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange has crashed along with the rest of the world).
No doubt, the candidates will have a lot on their plates this fall. But to read the news in Israel, you’d think that there was only one issue of importance on the agenda: Who will be better for this country? Israelis are not totally off base here. Obama and McCain, not to mention vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden have jumped through hoops to address all the major Zionist talking points, with each trying to one-up each other in terms of their support for the Jewish nation.
Israelis on the right wing side of politics (which includes a large percentage of Anglo immigrants here) tend to be pro-McCain, citing his experience and a more hard line approach to terrorism. They decry Obama’s naïveté and his repeatedly stated eagerness to meet with Iran and other totalitarian enemies, in contrast to McCain’s policy of continuing the Bush doctrine of isolation.
Yes, Obama would probably have a tete-a-tete with Iranian president Ahmadinejad, but my guess is that it would go nowhere and Obama’s foreign policy will quickly look much like McCain’s. And another 9/11 event – God forbid – would see either candidate responding in a similar fashion.
On the Israel-Arab peace process, Obama would be hard pressed to demand radical concessions from the country (the pro-Israel Congress wouldn’t let him). And the assumption that liberal Democrats are tougher on Israel than Republicans is not necessarily grounded in reality. Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton was a great friend of this country while the Annapolis process, initiated by George Bush, has bore little fruit and even catalyzed outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into making far-reaching – and in my view irresponsible - statements essentially giving away the store that will brand any future prime minster (whether Livni or Netanyahu) as backtracking on a publicly stated “agreement.”
Ultimately, though, my take is that there’s just not that much difference between the candidates when it comes to foreign affairs. A little window dressing here, a rallying cry there. What’s really important is domestic U.S. politics. And that’s where I think Obama trumps McCain.
I truly believe that Obama’s mantra of change will make a difference. Even if it’s just psychological, the U.S. – and the world - needs that message to begin the process of healing. And in terms of other domestic U.S. issues – from a woman’s right to choose and funding for sex education and birth control, to environmental policies and the teaching of intelligent design in schools – I favor Obama’s stance.
And then there’s Sarah Palin. I’m sorry but what was John McCain thinking when he nominated a small town mayor with a scant two years as the governor of a state with the third smallest population in the U.S.?
Palin effectively destroys the Republican claim that their team has a lock on experience. Palin says that she can be effective in foreign policy because Alaska shares borders with two countries. Has Canada ever gone to war with the United States? Have there been any military conflagrations between Russia and Alaska since Palin was elected? Give me a break.
When it comes to her own education, Palin’s personal record is pitiful. Four semesters in community college, while bouncing back and forth between colleges in Idaho, Hawaii and Alaska – compare that to Obama’s Ivy League pedigree and subsequent legal practice. I’m not saying that being a lawyer is necessarily an asset, but it at least means that you’re reasonably smart and have completed a rigorous program of graduate studies.
I could go on and on – from the beauty pageant winner to gun toting hockey mom to her support for the “Bridge to Nowhere” – is this really who you want a stone’s throw away from the presidency when the Republican nominee is 72 years old and not in the best health? Obama’s pick for vice president, Joe Biden, by contrast, rounds out the relative inexperience in Obama’s record, is one of Israel’s staunchest supporters, and has 36 years of distinguished service in the Senate.
This year’s U.S. presidential election stands to be one of the most critical in years. However, if all the heaviness of the decision making process is making you feel a tad morose, lighten up. Check out the Sarah Silverman (pro-Obama) and Jackie Mason (pro-McCain) videos that are circulating around the web. Whoever’s got the funnier clip, vote for that candidate.
Now, that’s wasn’t so hard, was it
Add This Blog to Your Technorati Favorites
Jewish Blog, Jewish, Jewish Leadership, Jewish News, Jewish Values, Jewish Events
7 Comments currently posted. 
David H. says:
Tzioni says:
“Yes, Obama would probably have a tete-a-tete with Iranian president Ahmadinejad, but my guess is that it would go nowhere and Obama’s foreign policy will quickly look much like McCain’s. And another 9/11 event – God forbid – would see either candidate responding in a similar fashion.”
= Pure speculation.
“On the Israel-Arab peace process, Obama would be hard pressed to demand radical concessions from the country (the pro-Israel Congress wouldn’t let him). And the assumption that liberal Democrats are tougher on Israel than Republicans is not necessarily grounded in reality. Let’s not forget that Bill Clinton was a great friend of this country while the Annapolis process, initiated by George Bush, has bore little fruit and even catalyzed outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert into making far-reaching – and in my view irresponsible - statements essentially giving away the store that will brand any future prime minster (whether Livni or Netanyahu) as backtracking on a publicly stated ‘agreement.’”
Um hi, Bill Clinton was the man who pushed Oslo…you know, the thing that gave the PLO weapons, mobility, and political legitimacy and led to the Oslo War, the “second intifada?” (Oh, that’s according to Fatah themselves btw — http://www.memritv.org/search/en/results/0/0/0/0/2/0/0/0/0.htm?k=ziyad%20abu%20%27ein&bAdvSearch=false)
The thing that led to thousands of Jews killed and thousands more maimed? Oh yeah, that’s a great friend right there. If not for Oslo, we wouldn’t have had Annapolis. But you’re right, President Bush has been terrible for Israel. Aside from his push of the disastrous “peace process” with terrorist organizations committed to destroying Israel (whom he calls “moderates,” presumably because they kill Jews “moderately”), Bush signed a waiver every 6 months for the last 8 years to avoid implementing the Jerusalem Embassy Relocation Act of 1995 (which he promised to implement when he was campaigning for President — that’s why I think most people take McCain’s promise to do so with a grain of salt).
As for the statement that the “pro-Israel Congress wouldn’t let him,” that’s an absurd comment. You’re talking about 2 separate branches of the US government. The President can and has pushed for drastic concessions from Israel since and including Oslo, and Congress does not enter into the picture. And that’s assuming that the bipartisan support for Israel within Congress is a given, which is becoming increasingly unclear (remember that anti-Ahmadinejad rally that Sarah Palin was dis-invited from recently at the behest of Democratic organizations? The one in which Hillary Clinton put partisan politics above support for Israel and refused to speak?). it seems both candidates will be pushing for more concessions from Israel if they win, though by all indications, Obama will have less concern for Israel’s security than McCain. And you can’t blame President Bush for Olmert’s spinelessness. He is a leftist himself (as is his entire family). However, I think you do undermine you basic charge here, i.e. the assertion that the President’s approach to Israel will not really make any difference — since you are asserting that Bush had a profound (negative) effect on Israel’s Prime Minister’s statements and policies. This holds true whether Olmert’s in charge, or Livni, or even Netanyahu — the pressure from the US administration can unfortunately be very significant (remember Netanyahu’s first term as PM? Remember Wye? Hebron?).
hmmm says:
I’m amazed by how many people support Israel and yet would never “lived” there. Honestly if your loyalty lies in Israel move to Israel. My primary concerns are for americans who need medical insurance, and kids who need crucial funding for their education.
To me it is just funny how many people have such a strong tie to israel and the maximum they have stayed in israel would be about a year or what about the jewish americans who never went to Israel and are putting Israel as a top concern for American politics.
If other americans like Africans were to vote based on African foreign relations, people would make comments such as go back to africa.
so I see this as no different.
your alliegence is to israel not america. so go back to israel and join the idf and support israel with ur actions instead of tainting the american voting process.
brianblum says:
Huh?
I have lived in Israel for 14 years. Were you even reading the article?
BB
Jonathan Kamens says:
To “hmmm”:
If you think that African Americans (by which I mean, literally, American citizens who recently immigrated here from African countries, not Black people) don’t vote based on African foreign relations, or Palestinian Americans don’t vote based on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, or Somali Americans don’t vote based on Somali foreign relations, or Canadian Americans don’t vote based on Canadian foreign relations, etc., then you are extremely confused.
Just as some American Jews are single-issue voters on Israel whereas most treat Israel as just one of many issues to consider, some members of those other nationalities are single-issue voters based on their own home countries, whereas most treat their own countries as just one of many issues to consider.
Any attempt to claim differently is nothing more than the classic anti-Semitic attack of criticizing Jews for something that everyone does.
As for why even those of us who don’t currently live in Israel still consider it an important issue, well, there are too many reasons, all legitimate, to list here. The most important one of them is that the reason why Israel exists is that we learned from the Holocaust, as well as from multiple tragedies throughout Jewish history, that when people decide it’s time to oppress the Jews, there’s no one we can rely on to help us. We need a secure Israel because we need a place to go when we’re no longer safe where we are.
If you think that sounds paranoid, then you don’t know much about Jewish history.
hmmm says:
please don’t throw the anti semetic comment or the self hating jew card.
the fact is, if you are jewishh yo should be in israel. that is what hashem gave us.
I am not mistaken when it comes to first generations voting processes based on their parents nationalities. iam well involved in politics and more importantly the census.
I am certainly not paranoid. I also don’t view israel as a homeless shelter. I am dissapointed that you do.
brian, sorry iwasn’t commenting on ur post. I was commenting on comment number 2
Tzioni says:
hmmm, you were addressing me with your comment? Alright, I will respond then.
“I’m amazed by how many people support Israel and yet would never ‘lived’ there. Honestly if your loyalty lies in Israel move to Israel.” … “your alliegence is to israel not america. so go back to israel and join the idf and support israel with ur actions instead of tainting the american voting process.”
1) You have no idea whether I live in Israel or not, whether I would ever live in Israel or not, or whether I plan to live in Israel or not. Frankly, I think you’re way out of line presuming to know any of these things.
2) Questioning a Jewish citizen’s loyalties to the US because of concurrent loyalties to Israel is a classic anti-semitic canard (as expressed nicely in Jonathan’s comment regarding attacking Jews for something that every ethnic group does)– I’m sure you realize this, despite your protestations at the very suggestion. In response to this Mearsheimer & Walt-esque accusation, I’ll respond the same way as Justice Louis Brandeis: “A man can be loyal to his family, his city, his state and his country, and need have no fear that these loyalties will conflict.” Having multiple loyalties does not necessarily mean those loyalties are mutually exclusive or conflicting. On the contrary, support for a strong Israel is very much in the best interests of the United States. So is fighting terrorism.
3) Furthermore, in suggesting that voting according to one’s interests somehow “taints the American voting process,” you demonstrate a profound ignorance of the principles upon which this republic was founded.
4) Whether a Jew lives in Israel or not, he is still obligated to care about the welfare of his fellow Jews. Consequently, opposing disastrous policies like Oslo that have only led to Jews dying and being injured is important whether one lives in Israel or not.
5) “I also don’t view israel as a homeless shelter. I am dissapointed that you do.” — Agreed. Israel is much more than merely a place of refuge after the Holocaust (though it is that too). There is a reason the Uganda Proposal was rejected — there is only one Eretz Yisrael.
Good analysis. I remember my one absentee presidential vote from Israel. I voted for Walter Mondale.