Alon Pinkas

Ambassador Alon Pinkas is the former consul general of Israel in New York, chief of staff for former foreign ministers David Levy and Shlomo Ben-Ami and member of the Israeli delegation at the Israel-Syria peace talks in 2000 (more of his bio here). He is now one of the eight panel members of The Israel Factor - the Haaretz ranking of the American Presidential candidates.

Pinkas will discuss issues related to U.S.-Israel relations, to the American Jewish community, and to The Israel Factor. Readers can send questions to rosnersdomain@haaretz.co.il.

Dear Alon,
Two questions we got from readers:

1. Knowing the Jewish community of America, do you think it will ever vote in larger numbers for the Republican Party? (Joe Levi)

Given the socio-cultural characteristics of the American Jewish community, and the issues that divide America, I very much doubt that the general figure for voting Repulican across the board will ever exceed 50 percent in the best case (for Republicans).

I think that if you measure Presidential, Congressional and Gubernatorial combined, nationwide, that number will never exceed 35 percent - 40 percent. However, in individual races, whether presidential or for the House, I can see a vote of over 50 percent under certain circumstances.

2. Do you see Jewish support to Israel as stable and reliable as it was in the past, or do you think it is declining? (Bill Abrams, IL)

I see Jewish support stable and consistent among those who identify and associate themselves with Israel. Yet the level of association and identification with Israel is dwindling as a result of intermarriage, lack of knowledge about Israel and an ongoing Jewish identity crisis among younger American Jews, from collage age to approximately 40.

Dear Alon

Let's get more specific on the politics of Israel in America.

In an interesting article in the Jewish Forward, California Democrat Rep. Howard Berman blames the Republican Jewish Coalition for "making a conscious effort to destroy" the "bipartisan consensus" on Israel. In this, he refers to ads published in Jewish newspapers across the
country, arguing that Democrats are not as strong in their support of Israel as Republicans.

This "cheap ploy," he argues, "will inject uncertainty into the American-Israeli relationship - and ultimately make Israel less secure."

Do you agree?

Rosner

Howard Berman's contention about the Jewish Republican Coalition is essentially true, yet his conclusion about Israel becoming less secure as a result of cracking the "bipartisan consensus" on Israel is somewhat exaggerated.

Jewish [limited] support for Republicans is a brand new phenomenon in American politics which started tentatively during the Reagan years and has evolved steadily for reasons having little to do with Israel or the two parties' positions on the Middle East.

Since the 1930s Jews have been an integral part of the great Democratic coalition: ethnic minorities, trade unions and big metropolitan politics. In the 1950s-60s Jews supported Democrats across the board in astounding numbers, when, especially along the big east-coast cities Democratic candidates were paying tribute to "The three 'I's": Italy, Ireland and Israel.

At the same time the Republican Party, especially the north-east strain of Yankee republicanism, was closed to Jews. During the civil rights movement of the 60s and the JFK and LBJ years, Jews were voting for Democrats as a matter of automatic and instinctive act.

But since the 1980s and especially in the 1990s, Jews increasingly became more affluent and suburbanized and felt that in many cases Republicans better reflected their values and concerns. Add to that a certain level of animosity that many Jews felt toward Jimmy Carter and support they lent Reagan, the man they believed facilitated the eventual fall of the Soviet Union. Oddly enough, the president on whose watch the USSR actually collapsed - George H.W. Bush - was, unjustifiably, one of the least liked presidents by American Jews.

While a vast majority of American Jews voted for and supported Bill Clinton (Jewish voting patterns in presidential elections are still at a historial average of 70% for the Democratic candidate), his divisive tenure allowed others to side with the Republicans, a process concurrent with further affluence and a retreat from traditional liberalism. Many Jews felt alienated from the liberal base of the Democratic Party, predominantly on social and ethnic issues, not only in respect to Israel. To this we have to add a simple fact of political life: since 1994 the GOP control Congress (excluding a period in which the Senate was all tied), and its congressional leadership was indeed pro-Israeli, but more so, anti-Palestinian and anti-Syrian. These tones did not go unnoticed by Jews.

The Jewish Republican Coalition's argument, according to which Republicans are reflexively more pro-Israel than Democrats is absolute nonsense, and has more to do with the alliance of the Republican right with the pro-Israel Evangelical Christian right. Using that argument is cynical and in the long term potentially dangerous, but it is a perfectly legitimate argument appealing to those Jews who feel that if all is equal between two candidates, their respective position on Israel and their relative support of Israel will be the ultimate deciding factor.

To infer from this development that bipartisan support for Israel is endangered makes some sense. If Republicans convince Jews that support of Israel is a trademark of the GOP, yet Democrats are "weak" on national security, a euphemism for the war on terror which affects Israel, then they can win more votes than they ever succeeded winning.

To assume that Israel's security may as a result be compromised emboldens the argument: if you care about Israel's security, vote Republican in November.

That is a complete fallacy.

Dear Alon,

As in this coming week we will publish our second survey of The Israel Factor, in which we rank the American Presidential candidates, let me start with a couple of questions about your role in it. These reflect
questions and comments we received from readers after we unveiled the project last month. So here it comes:

Best,
Rosner

1. What would you tell people this project is an outrageous meddling in American internal politics?

Globalization, interdependency and the interconnectedness of the modern world has reached such levels that the issues, outcome of elections and subsequent policies adopted in almost any country attracts the interest of almost every country.

Elections in Israel, Britain, Venezuela or Mexico have an impact well beyond their borders. The implications are not just confined to the conduct of foreign policy, regional stability or how a given country's interests are affected, but have a direct influence on trade, finance and world economics. This is especially true when elections are being held in the United States, the world's sole superpower and largest economy. The world perceives the U.S. to be an empire. Perhaps a reluctant empire, perhaps not a traditional empire, but nonetheless an empire stretched across the globe.

Israel's relations with the U.S. are not merely part of its foreign relations or foreign policy. For a variety of reasons (political, diplomatic, military etc.) they are nothing less than a central tenet, or pillar of Israel's national security. Consequently, Israeli decision makers and those in the outer circles influencing decisions and policy formulation have a critical interest in U.S. elections, whether congressional or presidential.

That has been the case more or less since John F. Kennedy won in 1960, and the interest has grown exponentially as relations between the two countries developed into a "Special Relationship" under and since the presidencies of LBJ and Nixon.

Yet at the same time, observing, following and analyzing U.S. elections must not be confused with actual involvement or meddling in those elections, on any level. That is a right exclusively granted to U.S. citizens. Even talk of "Who would be better for Israel?" must be confined to the academic or media discourse.

I admit that when American Jews speak of a particular candidates' foreign policy qualifications and inclinations and focus on his or her "Israel policy" I feel very uncomfortable. When the debate becomes semi-public: "Is he good for Israel?" and so on, my discomfort grows.

The best president for Israel would be the best president for the U.S. and vice-versa. A president who is considered "good" for Israel, yet is unpopular in the U.S. will ultimately attract criticism to his foreign policy and Israel will not benefit in the long run.

I would hope that when deciding to vote for a president, a house or senatorial candidate, the voter considers several factors, especially the domestic American agenda and policies.

2. Give us a sense of the way with which you decide how to rank each candidate - what are the key considerations.

The ranking of candidates, especially those in presidential elections is based on several factors. Some are constants and some are changing variables that evolve during a lengthy campaign.

The prerequisite is a deep knowledge of the candidate. That demands reading, digesting and processing large amounts of data on a regular almost daily basis. Where is the candidate from, what was his or her last political position, the candidates' speeches, writings, experience, past voting records, positions on a wide scope of issues (foreign policy being just one).

Then there is the campaign itself (when it actually starts, which is not the case in regards to 2008). How a candidate positions him/herself, how they react to political challenges, foreign policy ongoing crises or events. Who are their advisers, where do they seek intellectual support for policies, have they formulated a sustainable policy or are they pandering to various audiences and pressure groups (who are these groups and what power and leverage do they have on the candidate), the sources of their campaign contributions.

Then, inevitable, there are polls which need to be followed closely, carefully and at the same time critically.

As the field of candidates is diluted and becomes clearer, ranking becomes somewhat easier because they are forced to clarify and expound positions that for political reasons they left vague.

3. Can you tell us, generally, what factors changed your ranking from last month to this month?

I checked the differences in my ranking from last month and found that they were incremental. I attribute that to more - but not enough - statements, speeches and exposure candidates receive as time progresses.

That does not necessarily mean that I may not change rankings in a more acute way in the future. The more a candidate is exposed, the more we know about his or her political surroundings the better we are equipped to make a judgment.

Remember that although this is a project conducted by an Israeli newspaper (Haaretz) and the natural tendency would be for me to look at a candidate's foreign policy qualifications, previous positions on the middle east (including obviously the war in Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions) and experience and insights, I make an honest effort to factor into my assessment domestic U.S. issues so that the candidate's profile will be as robust and whole as possible.