Mock debate deceives Cleveland Jewish voters

1.
This debate was as entertaining as it was dishonest, especially on issues related to Israel. Such issues were discussed in length, and I have good reason to suspect the crowd was more interested to hear about domestic issues on which the debaters were able to speak only towards the second half of the event.

It was a sunny, breezy Sunday afternoon in the Beachwood suburb of Cleveland, and two panelists came to represent the two Democratic candidates in a debate aimed at the Jewish community of this area. There were 150 or so people in the room. More old than young, more wearing Clinton buttons (both in English and Hebrew) than Obama's. The event was organized by The Israel Project and the Cleveland Jewish News (and also sponsored by the National Jewish Democratic Council).

Congressmen Adam Schiff of California (Barack Obama) and Anthony Weiner of New York (Hillary Clinton) repeated all the familiar themes from the debate. But they did talk in great length about the Middle East in general and Israel in particular. Two conclusions could be drawn from what they were saying:

Apparently, they suspected that the crowd was fairly hawkish and felt the need to make peace with it.

In the course of doing so they had no problem evading uncomfortable questions and somewhat distorting the position of the candidates.

2.

Both Congressmen provided the listener with many opportunities to mock them for statements and positions not exactly in tune with reality. Obama speaks his mind whatever the audience might be, bragged Schiff. Maybe so, but the same can not be said about his surrogate. Take for example a simple question he was asked: Does Senator Obama oppose Jewish settlements in the occupied territories?

The simple answer is, well, yes. Of course he does. This has been the policy of American administrations for years. But on the eve of this crucial primary voting is seems as if Schiff prefers carefulness over candor. No, he did not say that Obama supports settlements, but he also avoided saying otherwise. His candidate, he says, has never criticized the settlements as being the obstacle for peace. And he repeated what Obama keeps saying - as do his advisors (an example here): Obama will not try to dictate a solution.

But what about Clinton, does she oppose settlements?
If she does, Weiner will not be the one to say so. Apparently, Hillary Clinton will respect the judgment of Israel and its citizens. Or so Weiner believes. He also believes that his candidate will move the American embassy to Jerusalem, something her husband refrained from doing as did his successor. It's hard to know if the crowd really bought into this ridiculous spin, but I didn't see Weiner blush, nor did his nose grow an inch. You can call it cheating, or spinning, or just political professionalism. But trust me: the embassy will not be moved anytime soon.

3.
This was not a good event for the Arab listener - not that I saw one in the audience. Arab states were less than constructive in moving the process forward, said Schiff. Weiner, as was his habit for most of the afternoon, overdid him by saying that he was not even sure there was an Arab partner for peace. Clinton would dispute there is even a moderate Arab state, he said, which I find incredible, but not necessarily credible.

If you heard Weiner today you might have thought he represented Rudy Giuliani, not Hillary Clinton. She is more realistic than Obama he said, and being realistic means understanding that there might not be a moderate Arab leader in the region. And the more hawkish Weiner sounded, the more Schiff felt the need to follow his lead. Does Obama support the division of Jerusalem? No. And may I remind you: he will not dictate the terms of a peace deal.

4.
Only one time was Schiff honest enough as to hint that there might be some difference of opinion between the candidate he represented and the Israeli right wing. He was doing it by repeating something Obama said a couple of days ago, but much more cautiously.

"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 and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," said Obama. And Schiff did the same, without mentioning the party in question. We should not equate support for Israel with supporting a certain view within Israel, he said.

And obviously, he felt uncomfortable with the need to utter such words, knowing that he was lured into a minefield.

5.
If one was looking for some differences between the two, here's one. Weiner believes that Bush turned out to be very good on Israel. He said so. Schiff was begging to differ: Israel is not safer today than it was seven years ago. Nevertheless, this is all about the past. And as for the future, Weiner said that Obama in his worst day will be better than John McCain in his best day. He promised to support him if he wins the race.

So here is one for the record.

Clinton by proxy: Bush good for Israel.

Obama by proxy: not so much.

6.
And last but not least. Weiner was the one attacking more, taking more shots, less civil in this debate. His constant attacks mirrored those of the candidate he represented, and also reflected the pressure under which the Clinton campaign finds itself 24 hours before the vote.
The more the debate continued, the more he elevated the tone of his attacks. When the debate was close to the end, he has decided it was time to use the ultimate weapon.

Obama wants to work with Republicans, to compromise with the GOP, he stated. But this, he said, is mere fantasy. The Republicans do not want to compromise with Democrats on domestic issues. That's why Clinton, the fighter, is better suited for the job. "We might not win the fight but we have to fight it", he continued, and then pulled the trigger: Imagine a candidate with such a compromising approach when it comes to Israel, he urged the crowd.

You know what kind of a President such person will be? he asked. "A Jimmy Carter".