Mc Cain: Bad for Israel?

Follow @icjsr

I am a religious Zionist American Jew, deeply committed to the security of the State of Israel (where much of my immediate family resides). In my community it is not unusual to hear people express support for John McCain because of his Israel policies. Frankly, I'm puzzled. John McCain, like George W. Bush before him, is a disaster for Israel.

John McCain is not George W. Bush, but it is difficult to find much daylight between his views on Israel and Bush's. Indeed, McCain expressly promises to continue Bush's strong support for Israel. If we take him at his word, we should be quaking under our kippot (yarmulkes).

Israel today is in more peril than it was eight years ago. In fact, it is in more peril than it has been since at least the Yom Kippur war of 1973, and perhaps even since its War of Independence. So color me skeptical that Bush's policies have been "good for Israel," as the refrain in my community goes. It is unfair, of course, to assume that Israel's situation today is the result of Bush's policies merely because they have coincided with his terms in office. So let's not assume; let's look.

Israel's gravest external threat comes from Iran. The relevant question, then, is, has Iran become more dangerous to Israel because of Bush's policies, or in spite of Bush's policies? Plainly, the former. The war in Iraq has removed Iran's historic nemesis and counterbalance, strengthening its hand and ambitions in the region. The war has also demonstrated to Iran's leaders precisely why it is so important that Iran develop nuclear weaponry: America wouldn't dare attack Iran once it has attained nuclear capabilities. The mishandling of the war has also weakened America's hand in the region, removing any credible threat of a sustained American military engagement with Iran--Americans just won't stand for it. As a result, our words get louder and louder, but our stick gets smaller and smaller. And finally, Bush's refusal to engage with Israel's closer neighbor Syria--not a traditional ally of Iran's--has pushed Syria further into Iran orbit than it has ever been before, providing a land-bridge for the transfer of weapons from Iran to Hizballah in Lebanon and Hamas in Gaza. Simply put, Bush's policies have emboldened and empowered Iran and improved its regional standing. Israel is left facing the consequences.

Meanwhile, Bush's policies have also strengthened Hamas. Recall that it was Bush who insisted, over then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's strong objections, that Hamas participate in elections in Gaza and the West Bank. This was part of Bush's brilliant neocon-inspired plan to democratize the region. To state the obvious, that turned out badly for Israel too, and Hamas is now in control of Gaza and becoming a graver threat to Israel every day.

So why, exactly, do Israelis love Bush so much? Actually, it isn't that difficult to understand. From the perspective of an Israeli, Bush is a true friend. Israelis live in a tough neighborhood, surrounded by states and movements that expressly seek the destruction of Israel. And here we have President Bush, the leader of the strongest country in the world, declaring himself an unabashed ally of Israel. Indeed, there's no reason to question Bush's sincerity on this point: he really does care about Israel's security. So Israelis can be excused for putting aside the content and effects of his policies and for appreciating his steadfast rhetorical and personal support for Israel. (By the way, this explains the paradox of why Israelis love both Clinton and Bush, despite their radically different regional policies: for Israelis, it isn't about the policies.)

What is more difficult to understand, though, is why American Zionists, who follow American politics closely, insist that Bush has been good for Israel and that McCain's promise to continue Bush's policies is an argument in his favor. The evidence argues otherwise. We have no excuse for ignoring the disastrous consequences of this administration's policies in favor of the good intentions that have spawned them.

I don't base my vote primarily on whether a candidate will be good for Israel. But if I did, I surely wouldn't vote for McCain.

# reads: 129

Printable version

Tell us what you think

The Aussie left/right debate is entertaining, but shouldn't comments be directed to the Goldberg article on McCain? A fundamentalist USA VP might be a risk factor, but a flip-flop opportunistic appeaser under the influence of State, could be a real danger to the free world. And on a minor point: how strongly would the (currently) Christian Barack Hussein oppose jihadism? [My apologies for being a party pooper by injecting a bit of relevance into the debate].

Posted by paul2 on 2008-09-04 13:22:48 GMT

Jeffrey Goldberg's views mirror mine on Bush's ally, John Howard. Even now, many - probably the majority - in our community consider it heretical to suggest that Howard was anything but a great friend to Israel, but in committing Australia to the Coalition of the Willing and like Bush, trashing human rights and compromising the rule of law, he alienated millions. As a result, his foreign policies, including support for Israel, were despised because they were seen as aping those of Bush. This resulted in a massive increase in anti-Israel feeling in Australia and was compounded by Howard's frequent tactic in pushing the race/faith button. This had the desired effect of appealing to the lowest common denominator. It also unleashed levels of intolerance unprecedented in modern Australia. It is no coincidence that anti-Semitism dramatically increased during Howard's 11 years as PM and the ugly effects are still being felt. Like Bush, Howard has the dubious distinction of having not just fuelled the rabid Right, but creating an equally intolerant Left that sees Israel as the greatest obstacle to peace in the Middle East and indeed the world.

Posted on 2008-09-03 00:04:27 GMT

McCain is better for Israel AND FOR THE WEST (!!) because unlike Obama, he is not an appeasing opportunist. Remember his statement on Jerusalem and his loyalty to his (post-Islam) Christian minister until it proved a liability? Talking to Syria and Iran is a threat; they are laughing at the West which is afraid to punish them for their acts. The major problem is that the US executive is pro-Israel, while the State Dept is pro-Arab and both Powell and Rice changed their tune when heading that entrenched bureaucracy whose policy may well be to allow Iran to go nuclear, wipe out Israel and then the US can wipe out Iran and earn the gratitude of the West and the oil-rich Sunni Arabs. McCain is better as he is less likely to stay Israel's hand and thus demonstrate that retreat and appeasement of regimes which define themselves in terms of violent conquest is a losing strategy. The surge in Iraq proves that force and force alone will defeat the Islamofascists of power-challenging Mohammedan societies.

Posted by paul2 on 2008-09-02 13:09:22 GMT

ymr i said they both shared fortunes based on texas tea-oil if you want sources let me know via this portal and ill send you a list of books

Posted by michael kino on 2008-09-02 08:19:30 GMT

youve got it right both jed clampett and gw bush made their money from texas tea-its the iranians and the russians that scare me both mccain and obama will be committed to israel if for no other reason than us strategic interests coincide with israels at least for the forseeable future

Posted by michael kino-at least im prepared to put my name t on 2008-09-02 07:24:41 GMT

The premise of "McCain: Bad for Israel" is badly flawed. The author criticizes Bush for waging an incomplete war against Saddam and reinforcing Iran. Would a pacifist US administration that allowed Saddam's war efforts to continue and expand have been preferable? Would Iran be friendlier to the rest of us with a weak White House? Would the PLO or Hamas be any more accepting of Israel with an even feebler US foreign policy? As the Bush team realized somewhat belatedly, the struggle against Islamo-Fascism will continue for a very, very long time. This won't be a quick victory. Obama's course of appeasement will only embolden Jihadis everywhere. McCain appears to be on the right track. As Ronald Reagan said: "Stay the course" - and he brought down the mighty USSR in just a few years. Goldberg is correct that Israel is in dire peril - but most of this is a result of the incompetence and corruption within Israel itself. Israel shooting itself in the foot repeatedly is a much greater threat than the sabre-rattling of outsiders. Finally, to extend on the very important point made by commenter YMR, Jimmy Carter's allowing the Ayatollahs to take over Iran has produced the nuclearizing Iran that brazenly threatens the entire world today. An Obama presidency running along the same naive lines could produce unimaginable damage to the entire civilized world.

Posted by Jake in Jerusalem on 2008-09-02 07:18:32 GMT

INTERESTING AND IN PART TRUE AMERICA NEEDS A CHANGE OF ADMINISTRATION TO SEE IF IT CAN DO BETTER

Posted on 2008-09-02 06:45:24 GMT

non seqituirs guys its mccain or obama or heaven help gov chilli from moosejaw.its starting to sound like northern exposure.wish i could vote for jed bartlett-now there was a real president-with a good middle east policy-over to you cynics

Posted by michael kino-at least im prepared to put my name t on 2008-09-02 04:00:04 GMT

hey mazeltov something from you guys that wasnt right wing and anti obama

Posted by michael kino on 2008-09-02 03:02:14 GMT

Links

Mc Cain: Bad for Israel?

Tell us what you think