|
|
|||
|
|||
|
|
Kerry on the Record: Israel Dave Eberhart, NewsMax.comEditor’s note: This is Part 13 in a series revealing the Democratic front-runner’s track record on the important issues of the day.
Part 1: POWs and MIAs In the new terror age, the Jewish vote may be up for grabs in an unprecedented way. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., knows it and wants to hang on to this traditionally Democratic voting bloc.
But this traditional base may not be so happy with Kerry on issues relating to Israel and national security. For starters, Kerry said he now opposes the war to topple Saddam Hussein, though Israel was one of the direct beneficiaries of this war. Israel gained even more. Already Bush's policies have led to Libya, an arch foe of Israel, dismantling its weapons of mass destruction, and Iran opening up its nuclear facilities. There are additional Kerry flip-flops. Having once criticized Israel for taking steps to protect its citizens from West Bank suicide bombers and having praised terrorist Arafat as a "statesman," Kerry is taking a different stance today. In fact, there's little wonder why Kerry is becoming a pro-Israel hawk. As pollster John Zogby recently noted: "If instead of 72 percent of the Jewish vote, Kerry were to get 69 percent, it’s not many votes, but it could have an impact in Pennsylvania, Florida, Arizona" – all states that were won by small margins in the 2000 election.
"There’s probably going to be about 10 real battleground states and in a number of those places there’s a large Jewish community," advises Matt Brooks, the executive director of the Republican Jewish Coalition, making note of Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan and Missouri. Pundits suggest that President Bush and John Kerry are both strong on Israel. However, Bush’s broad and bold War on Terrorism may tip the balance when weighed against Kerry’s less robust, albeit pro-Israel, record in the Senate. Or as a recent editorial in the Jerusalem Post put it: "American Jews will no doubt cast their vote this November on more than just the question of where the candidates stand on Israel, where the differences between the two are anyway a matter of nuance. But insofar as the war on terror is one of those other questions, the difference between the two could scarcely be starker." In a recent survey of American Jews by the American Jewish Committee, 51 percent identified themselves as Democrats, 31 percent as Independent and 16 percent as Republican. But folks such as Frank Luntz, a Republican pollster, see a historic window opening up in the 2004 race for the White House: "For the first time in my lifetime, a significant segment of the Jewish vote is up for grabs. The Jewish community is the most interested in national security of any voter sub-group, and that plays to Bush’s advantage." Lutz is not alone in the sentiment that if American Jews continue to see terrorism as a priority, particularly terrorism against Jews, it will be harder for Democrats to maintain the high percentages of the Jewish vote that they have had in the past. Needless to say, candidate John Kerry is mindful of the stakes – and, despite a couple of troublesome gaffes and pratfalls re Arafat and security fences, is doing all he can to buff up his pro-Israel image. By example, the Massachusetts senator recently reprised a poetic essay he once wrote regarding a visit to Israel. A taste:
'Enthralled'
"I was enthralled by Tel Aviv, moved by Jerusalem and inspired by standing above Capernaum, looking out over the Sea of Galilee, where I read aloud the Sermon on the Mount. I met people of stunning commitment, who honestly and vigorously debated the issues as I watched and listened intently. I went as a friend by conviction; I returned a friend at the deepest personal level." Roman Catholic Kerry, who claims Jewish ancestors, not long ago had to get busy and mend some fences. In an October speech to the Arab American Institute in Michigan, Kerry referred to Israel’s controversial security barrier as an impediment to peace: "I know how disheartened Palestinians are by the decision to build the barrier off the Green Line – cutting deep into Palestinian areas. We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israelis’ security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder." It did not take long for Israel supporters to cry foul, suggesting that Kerry had given Israel’s legitimate security concerns short shrift. Kerry spin doctors quickly explained to the Jerusalem Post that Kerry’s real objection was to the route of the fence – the senator only objected to the fact that the barrier deviated from the so-called "Green Line," Israel’s pre-1967 border with the West Bank. Nowadays, Kerry carefully describes the barrier as a "legitimate act of self-defense." Whether the damage control worked or not remains to be seen, but the Kerry camp certainly worked to nip the mini-crisis in the bud, perhaps hoping to keep the matter from gaining the same kind of traction his old Yasser Arafat gaffe enjoyed: During the Oslo years, Kerry portrayed Arafat as a "statesman" and a "role model" for other ex-terrorists. That was then. In current Kerry parlance, Arafat is "an outlaw to the peace process." Gaffes aside, in speeches and statements, Kerry is trying to pry open some real daylight between his position and that of his opponent. This past January the Kerry refrain was: "But the Bush administration’s lurching from episodic involvement to recurrent disengagement has jeopardized the security of Israel, encouraged Palestinian extremists and undermined our own long-term national interests." Kerry continued, "In the first days of a Kerry administration, I will appoint a presidential ambassador to the peace process who will report directly to me and the secretary of state – and who will work day to day to move the process forward and make an early assessment of how to build on areas of agreement and disagreement. "The envoy that I will appoint will have the confidence and ability to speak with all parties. After my trip to the Middle East in early 2002, I publicly suggested that President Clinton would be a superb choice for this position, and I continue to believe that." But Kerry has meandered in his choice for U.S. peace delegates. At one point he upset Israel supporters by suggesting James A. Baker III, the former secretary of state, and former President Jimmy Carter – two men thought by some Jews to be biased against Israel. Kerry also has spoken out strongly against Saudi Arabia’s support for Islamic extremism: "[T]he Saudi government is opposed to every form of terrorism, the Saudi regime openly and enthusiastically supports Hamas. The Saudis cannot pick and choose among terrorist groups, approving some while claiming to oppose others."
Right to Respond In stronger rhetoric, Kerry told USA Today in April 2002 that if the U.S. "has a right to respond in Afghanistan to suicide bombers in New York City, and we do, then Israel has a right to respond to suicide bombers in the West Bank." Other facets of Kerry on the Record:
"It’s important for us to leverage the Palestinian Authority in order for them to be stronger than Hamas on the ground."
Meanwhile, according to a report in The Hill, Senate Democrats are concerned with defections by some major Jewish donors to the Republicans, an unwelcome phenomenon that provoked a private meeting recently with nearly 80 Jewish interest groups. An estimated 50 percent to 70 percent of large contributions to the Democratic Party and allied political units came from Jewish donors, a bounty that some lobbyists say may be in jeopardy owing to President Bush’s strong support of Israel and his refusal to negotiate with Arafat.
Editor's note:
Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
| All Rights Reserved © 2009 NewsMax.Com |