Israel irrelevant in campaign - as it should be
gil troy , THE JERUSALEM POST
A JPost.com exclusive blog
If we could devise some kind of objective "Friend of Israel" test, all but the most blindly partisan Democrats would agree that Senator John McCain has a longer, deeper, more meaningful relationship with Israel than does Senator Barack Obama - and fewer advisers who seem very critical of Israel. Even controlling for the difference in age or Senatorial tenure, it is clear that McCain has been a more consistent and enthusiastic Israel supporter.
This does not negate Obama's pro-Israel record or even mean that McCain would necessarily be a "better" president for Israel. Determining what kind of president is good for Israel is an even more complicated matter than quantifying different levels of friendship. But it seems quite clear that John McCain has been a steadfast friend who has stood up for Israel repeatedly.
Moreover, most fair observers can imagine that if McCain's church contemplated a boycott of Israel or if his pastor had denounced Israel, McCain would have been more likely to take a stand, whereas Obama was silent in both situations, which he actually faced.
Still, American Jews and America's many non-Jewish Zionists should not vote for McCain because of his Israel stand. There are many other valid reasons to vote McCain - and many valid reasons to vote Obama. But there are many other bigger issues in this election than support for Israel, especially considering that both candidates have vied to emphasize their respective pro-Israel stands.
The first thing I wrote about this election back in 2007 still holds true: ultimately, especially during these difficult times, the best president for Israel - is the best president for America.
All the hand-wringing about Israel's irrelevance in the American election is inappropriate. There are many other more valid indicators reflecting the disturbing distance growing between American Jews and the Jewish state. In this election, even the most ardent Zionist should take a broader perspective.
The general debate about whether or not to carry on with George W. Bush's policies, the financial meltdown of the markets, the continuing war against terror and the specific questions about what to do regarding Iraq and Iran are much bigger issues than America's continuing support for Israel, which seems assured with both a Democratic and Republican administration.
As - let's be honest - America's controversial but reliable client state - what Israel most needs now is an effective, thriving, America. Canadians used to say that when the American economy sneezes, Canada catches a cold; with Israel, if America is fighting a cold, Israel risks a serious illness.
Israel will do best with an America that can solve its economic problems, improve its diplomatic standing, and stay dominant militarily. Americans need reassurance. They need a plan to avoid a prolonged recession. They need effective leadership able to fight Islamic terror, stabilize Iraq, restrain Iran - and manage North Korea, Russia, China, and a host of other unanticipated world hotspots.
Let us play out the fears bluntly. If Barack Obama is a great president, it will be great for Israel, whether or not he squeezes Israel to make more territorial concessions than most Israelis like (but some Israelis believe are absolutely necessary).
And if John McCain is a terrible president, he will be disastrous for the world, including Israel, even if he never pressures Israel on anything. Of course, the McCaniacs' fear is that Barack Obama will be Jimmy Carter redux, and will be a terrible president who proves hostile to Israel. The Republicans also paint the most optimistic scenario, a great president McCain who also proves to be a great friend to Israel.
Given the sobering conditions America faces it will be hard for the next president to achieve greatness - although the contrast with George W. Bush may give him a great boost. And the dynamics of the American-Israel friendship will be more driven by other events than presidential prerogatives. Besides, this business of predicting friendship and support is a tricky one. George W. Bush entered the White House with a minimal track record regarding Israel. Few can question his obvious, enthusiastic support for the Jewish state as president, but there is a raging debate in the United States and Israel about whether Bush's friendship was good for Israel or not.
Of course, many pro-Israel oriented voters argue that support for Israel is a test case, that a candidate's stand on Israel reflects his approach to foreign policy. That too, however, is very different than basing one's decision on the candidate's Israel stand. In fact, this election offers an opportunity for yet another repudiation of the Walt-Mearsheimer anti-Israel lies.
Polls suggest that the American Jewish community will vote three to one in favor of the Democrat with a more limited pro-Israel track record than his opponent. As we watch American Jews and non-Jewish Zionists choose the president who is best for America, we can once again refute the libels that Israel somehow holds American foreign policy hostage or that Jews vote their narrow parochial interests rather than fulfilling their broader patriotic duty to vote for the best president possible on all fronts.