With American election season marching on, there isn’t a Jew in the American Exile who isn’t worried sick over who to vote for. There has been a lot of uptalk about McCain, and for Obama, downtalk. One friend, a generally liberal, socially conscious Jewish girl, told me blunt, “A vote for McCain is a vote against Israel.” Another friend, generally more conservative, helped me come to the following thoughts:
On domestic issues, Obama is much more in tune than McCain with Jewish values. Obama will act with compassion to help the downtrodden in America, through universal health insurance and poverty programs. He will also do far more than McCain to combat problems that cross national boundaries, such as hunger and AIDS. He is better for the Earth. Most importantly, Obama will put good judges on the Supreme Court. A vote for McCain is a vote against freedom of speech, freedom of the press, sexual freedom, reproductive freedom, and freedom of religion; a vote for corporate freedom at the expense of the individual. Even for the Supreme Court alone I would feel morally at fault should I vote for McCain. Ah, but what of Israel? If Obama is bad for Israel, I would feel equally irresponsible voting for him. So I’ve been schpitzing a lot over who to vote for in the general election.
Both McCain and Obama will encourage the tired, failed land for “peace” approach and support an Arab state in Judea and Samaria. He may be more anti-Israel in his sentiments, but if he is elected, Obama will focus on domestic policy and Iraq, leaving Israel largely alone. If McCain were president, he would make Israel a priority. McCain wants “victory” in the Middle East, which means he wants Israel to essentially act as a representative of American-style capitalist democracy against the evil Muslim/Arab nations. Polarizing and secularizing Israel against the Arabs, all while legitimizing Palestinian nationalism is a recipe for unending war, not peace. I’d rather have an anti-Israel president who lets Israel be, than have a supposedly pro-Israel president who pushes Israel into disaster.
That still leaves the issue of Iran. I was very disturbed by Obama’s appeasing tone towards Iran. If Israel expects to survive Achmadinejad, we need the threat that, should Iran attack Israel with a nuclear bomb, Iran would be, to steal Hillary’s phrasing, obliterated. Fortunately, though it is impossible to know for sure, based on news reports it seems very probable that Israel has nuclear missile submarines. Having those would give Israel the unassailable ability to respond in kind to a nuclear attack. If you think Israel presents a clear second strike threat to Iran, then Israel does not need the US to threaten Iran, and in that case Israel is better off having the US talk to Iran. Iran polarizes the Muslim world against Israel, because a common enemy allows the Arab nations to set aside their differences and accept Iran. By talking to Iran, the US could weaken Iran’s diplomatic position among the Muslim countries, which is to Israel’s advantage. If you think Israel does not present a credible second strike threat, maybe Israel needs McCain. I think the chances are better than even that Israel does present Iran with mutually assured destruction.
So, Jerusalem, Tehran, and domestic justice considered, though I worry about his heightened interest in Israel since the AIPAC speech, I currently plan in November to vote for Obama.
July 19, 2008 at 5:58 am |
In considering the candidates, the following Israeli phrase comes to mind: “zo nevela v’ zo trefa”, one is a corpse and one is unkosher. Let me preemptively say that this is not a reference to the age of Sen. McCain. Neither candidate is particularly palpable and many Republicans will hold their nose while inking the McCain bubble. But in terms of Israel and the Middle East, the Arabs must fear the United States. With Obama touting unconditional talks with Iran, a known sponsor of terror (including Hezbollah and Hamas), the United States will not be feared. Iran and every other arab nation and terrorist organization will have carte blanche to attack Israel and possibly the United States.
In the news, if it bleeds it leads. Knock on wood, we never have another terror attack on US soil (and Israel of course, but unfortunately that’s a long way off), but we haven’t heard of all the attacks that have been thwarted since 9/11 because it wasn’t lead-worthy. I think part of the credit for that has to go to the Bush administration. For the most part, the Republican party understands that we have a military and it can be used. Which is why Obama is not the right choice for America or Israel.
July 20, 2008 at 2:27 am |
Okay, so if I follow your logic:
1) Obama will actually engage in diplomacy, as opposed to assuming the outcome of it.
2) Therefore nobody will fear the United States.
3) Therefore the Arabs have carte blanche to attack Israel.
Neither of those deductions follow. What ever happened to war being a last resort when diplomacy is exhausted? Sometimes the military is actually more effective when used as a diplomatic threat. Nothing is gained by taking diplomacy off that table completely. In my experience, in fact, giving the silent treatment only serves to make people more angry. There is nothing wrong with aggressive diplomacy. You essentially claim that only a conservative Republican can save America from the onslaught of foreign terrorists. I presume that we had better all leave the American poor to starve and destroy the rights to privacy and habeas corpus, otherwise the illegal immigrants and welfare queens will follow on the heels of all the evil Muslims!
Who is to say that Obama will cause vulnerability? Bill Clinton also protected America from several terrorist attacks. As I remember, George W Bush was in part to blame for the security lapses that led to Sept. 11.
America doesn’t need a leader that operates on the basis of xenophobia and self-righteousness. What we need for Israel, and what America needs as well, is a leader that will come up with real solutions to problems. Which is the more pressing domestic issue, global warming or illegal immigration, abortion or extreme poverty? I think the answer there is clear. Neither will the Arab Israeli conflict be solved by short term security and truces. The conflict is deeper than that. American needs to stay out of Israeli internal politics, where it can do no good. John McCain will refuse to talk to Iran, but he will very likely pressure Israel to talk to the Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Seems a little backwards to me!
January 7, 2009 at 5:22 pm |
“engage in diplomacy”
Diplomacy is not a word that reflects any substance. Saying Obama will engage in diplomacy is like saying that I will use a spoon. To do what? To persuade the Ayatollah to stop building a device that will leave the West no choice but to acknowledge the lunatic as an “equal”? Or maybe the Great Charmer of America will talk Vlad Putin out of doing everything to rebuild Russia’s might and drag a few satellite states along? Unless Obama will somehow charm these types of leaders, say goodbye to the West’s power to do anything. So please, let us not fall into the euphoria that Obama has inspired. Its simply a soap bubble that would have burst early in the campaign had the media not adored this guy.
And oh the Arabs! The only thing that will solve the Israel-Arab conflict is if the entire Jewish population of Israel commits mass suicide. There is nothing short of ending the existence of Israel that will pacify the Arabs. See what happened when Israel ceded Gaza to the Palestinians? Lebanese school children learn that Israel is actually “Occupied Palestine”, to say nothing of their Palestinian counterparts who have never seen a modern map of the Middle East.