Too much Israel: Small, vulnerable and endangered

May 06, 2007
Bob Shrum, a senior Democratic political adviser, was a young man during the 1976 election campaign. He worked for an unknown candidate named Jimmy Carter, who was about to astonish the political establishment with an unexpected victory, first in the Democratic primaries and afterward in the presidential race.

When that happened, Shrum was no longer with Carter. He had resigned from the campaign and provoked a small scandal.

In the first election campaign after Watergate, Carter promised the voters that he would always tell them the truth. But Shrum, after a short period of work with him, decided that the candidate was lying. All the time. Among other things, he claimed that Carter had told him that he no longer wanted to hear any declarations about the Middle East or about Lebanon, because his rival, Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson, had all the Jews on his side in any case. Carter adamantly denied this claim: In spite of his disappointment with Jewish voters, he claimed that his pro-Israeli position would not change.

Last Thursday, and on the Thursday before that, the Republicans and the Democrats held the first two televised debates of the 2008 election campaign. Any Israeli who listened to them could have been pleased. Republican Congressman Tom Tancredo said, "If there is a threat to the existence of the State of Israel - which is by the way, I think, a potential threat to the existence of the United States - then you have to come ... to the aid of Israel." Democratic Senator Barack Obama said: "Israel has been one of our most important allies around the world."

We can hope that they said these things because they believe they are true. We can also assume that the candidates know that the voters think like them. Support for Israel is required even of someone whose chances of winning the Jewish vote, or receiving Jewish funding, are slim.

Last week the Israel Project published a survey about the views of American "elites" on issues related to Israel. Fifty percent consider Iran a serious threat to the U.S. Sixty-three percent have a warm attitude toward Israel. Over 80 percent believe that it is one of America's most important allies.

Nevertheless, a not entirely pleasant feeling was palpable during the presidential debates when Israel was mentioned: the sense that it is not a strong country on whom America can rely, but rather a threatened fledgling, in need of protection. If Iran gets nuclear weapons, said Senator John McCain, that would be "a real threat to the State of Israel." The moderator added fuel to the fire when he asked the panel's members what they would say if they were president of the United States and received a phone call from the Israeli prime minister, saying that he was about to attack the nuclear sites in Iran and requesting American assistance.

Eighty percent of those who replied to the Israel Project survey believe that "Israel is a small and vulnerable country," and we can only guess that the war in Lebanon last summer did not help the country's strong image. This is beneficial in the short term: The candidates are rallying and promising that they will not allow Israel to be harmed, competing with one another by offering demonstrations of affection and boasting of a perfect voting record. But for the long term this is a worrisome trend: Already now the U.S. administration seems to believe that Israel does not have the ability to adopt a policy that is different from its dictates.

We can be impressed by the replies of the candidates, the wall-to-wall support for Israel, but we can also regret the fact that Israel is so high on the American agenda. "Israel" was mentioned 18 times during the Republican debate, as compared to only one mention for a giant like Russia, and only three for a great power like China. With the Democrats, the results were more modest: only three mentions of Israel. Yet this was more than the mentions of Great Britain, Egypt, Australia, South Africa, Brazil or Canada, and almost the same as those of neighboring Mexico.

Only Iraq and Iran - the current, urgently problematic state and the one that threatens the future - were mentioned substantially more than Israel. It is not certain that Israel wants to be included in this group, even if it is clear that its name was always mentioned positively and the others always negatively, since this is the group that is described in big letters by the label: "Caution - dangerous area!" Therefore, we would be happier to be forgotten a little.

More American politics and Israel on Rosner's Domain:

The Democratic debate: End of anti-war happy-talk?

Cautiously, the Israel Factor panel looks more favorably on Obama