Posted on 07/10/2004 11:17:29 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
Congress voted overwhelmingly last week to affirm the Bush revolution in Middle East policy. On Wednesday, by a 407-9 vote, the House "strongly endorsed" two promises made by the President to Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in a letter of April 14: 1) The U.S. agrees that it is "unrealistic" for Israel to pull back to the pre-1967 lines and dismantle its major West Bank settlements, and 2) the U.S. does not expect Israel to resettle Palestinian refugees.
The next day, the Senate passed a similar nonbinding resolution. The vote was 95 to 3.
The Bush doctrine, now ratified by both houses of Congress, radically alters more than 30 years of American Middle Eastern diplomacy. It puts the U.S., for the first time, flatly on the Israeli side of the post-Six-Day War dispute. Not surprisingly, Sharon hailed this as "a great day in the history of Israel."
Only three senators voted against the pro-Israel resolution: ex-Klansman Robert Byrd of West Virginia, John Sununu of New Hampshire and independent James Jeffords of Vermont. Richard Lugar of Indiana, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee, skipped the ballot. So did only one other senator: John Kerry. He was in California.
Why did Kerry absent himself? He had some commitments on the West Coast - meeting with retired auto exec Lee Iacocca, taking a bow at a Hollywood fund-raising concert - nothing he couldn't have skipped to cast a vote on America's new Israel policy.
No, Kerry ducked out because he didn't want to be there. His no-show conveyed a tacit but unmistakable message of dissent.
President Bush's tilt toward Israel is very unpopular in Old Europe, among American foreign policy establishmentarians and in the Naderite wing of the Democratic Party. All three constituencies matter very much to Kerry. His Senate no-show signals to them that a Kerry administration wouldn't be bound by his predecessor's promises or policies.
This may seem politically courageous. In fact, it is not.
True, support for Israel is widespread in the U.S. - last week's margins in the House and Senate make that plain. But those for whom it is the key issue will undoubtedly vote for Bush. No American President (hell, no Israeli president) has ever been such an ardent Zionist.
For run-of-the-mill pro-Israel Americans, Kerry is supportive enough. Democratic Jews (the party's main Israel constituency) aren't really all that concerned about details. They can live with a return to the "evenhandedness" of the Clinton-Gore years. After all, even Jimmy Carter, who was downright unfriendly to Israel, got around 60% of the Jewish vote in 1980. Kerry can expect considerably more than that.
That's why the accusation that Bush's pro-Israel policies are politically inspired - a charge made most recently by Sen. Ernest Hollings (D-S.C.) - are absurd. Sure, Sharon's blessing may do the Republicans some good in Miami or Borough Park, Brooklyn. But there simply aren't enough "Israel first" votes to change the outcome of an election.
George Bush knows this. So does John Kerry. That's why the senator could afford to punt on Thursday. It won't hurt him politically, and it broadens his options if he's elected.
President Kerry will be able to shift back to a more "evenhanded" approach to the Middle East conflict without being accused of flip-flopping. After all, on the day the Senate voted to ratify Bush's promises to Israel, Kerry just happened to be 3,000 miles away.
W will be blessed for this.
Bush is a man of conviction, Kerry is a wafeler that needs to be convicited.
I just don't understand how / why the Jewish voters arn't supporters of the Republican Party. The Dems would screw them in a harbeat whereas the Republicans would support them to the death. What a crazy world.
He more of a Zionist than any Israeli leader?? I think that was meant as a joke, I think....
Tradition, intellectual laziness, stubborness, guilt, etc.
But over half of all Jews under 30 voted for W in 2000, so it appears the younger generation isn't saddled (to the same extent) with the same difficulties.
...votes 407-9 and 95-3. That's not bad at all. So our enemies should know that regardless of how the Election goes, the USA will still be pro-Israel. They should also know, though, that our Republican Party conducts defense affairs in a relatively timely and reasonable manner. The Democrats tend to wait until
threats get way out of hand, then react hysterically.
I think this is a column that was written by Zev Chafets. Great article!!!
Thanks for posting it!
Here's why I think Bush ain't getting the Jewish vote. The Jews that support Israel are actually over there right now, the ones that don't give a dam, or are against Israel, are over here or in Europe.
I just don't understand how / why the Jewish voters arn't supporters of the Republican Party. The Dems would screw them in a harbeat whereas the Republicans would support them to the death. What a crazy world.
I posted this to someone else. I think that the reason the Republicans won't get the Jewish vote is that most of the Jews that support Israel and Zionism are actually over there practicing it. The ones who don't care or are liberal and against it stay over here or in Europe.
So most my liberal Jewish friends are very torn about this election. The ones that aren't completely in denial know that Bush is probably the most pro-Israel U.S. President in history, but at the same time feel the tug of their tradition/liberalism to vote for Kerry.
Up until recently liberal Jews were convinced that the Donkeys were the pro-Israel party, but it's tough to maintain that delusion these days in light of the facts.
That is kinda of screwy. I heard that Bush in 2000 got something like 60% of the Muslim vote.
But over half of all Jews under 30 voted for W in 2000, so it appears the younger generation isn't saddled (to the same extent) with the same difficulties. To the Nam Vet.
I hope your right that they are learning.
I've discussed politics quite extensively with many 'Rat-voting Jews, and many of them are more conservative than they believe themselves to be, or than they're likely to ever admit.
"His Senate no-show signals to them that a Kerry administration wouldn't be bound by his predecessor's promises or policies."
Wow! 407-9 and 95-3 sures makes it look like this is not just a Bush policy but an overwhelmingly supported policy. Nice signal, Skerry!
1-It's not a major issue to most Jews, maybe in the top 5 or 10. In terms of the samplling, if you accept the 2.2% figure for the Jewish population of the US, remember that when asked their religion, about 40% do not respond Jewish, for an assortment of reasont.
2-Republican Jews are irrelevant. When addressing Dem or independent Jews, you have to remember that on the official record, there's little difference between the R and D positions. The case for GWB as a strong supporter of Israel rests on his character. I may accept that, but you're going to have trouble getting a Dem to accept it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.