Tag: Israel/Palestine
Americans sorted
ISIS and the challenge of radical Islam have emerged as a major theme on the presidential campaign trail, particularly in the wake of the Orlando shooting, the deadliest terrorist attack to occur on US soil since 9/11. Last Monday, Brookings hosted an event launching the results of two new public opinion surveys that gauge the effect of the Orlando terror attack on American public attitudes about Islam and Muslims.
The first survey was conducted two weeks before the June 12 shooting at Orlando’s Pulse gay club, and the other two weeks after. Both were conducted by Shibley Telhami, Nonresident Senior Fellow at Brookings. After presenting the results, he was joined in discussion by William Galston, the Ezra K. Zilkha Chair in Governance Studies at Brookings, and Tamara Cofman Wittes, Senior Fellow and Director of the Brookings Center for Middle East Policy, who served as a moderator.
Contrary to what one might expect, American attitudes toward Muslims and Islam have not worsened, but have become more positive after the Orlando shooting. The two charts below — presented by Telhami — show the change in public perception pre- and post-Orlando.
In May 2015, 53 percent of Americans viewed Muslims favorably, a sentiment expressed by 58 percent of Americans in May 2016 and 62 percent in June, two weeks after the terror attack in Orlando. Americans distinguish between “Muslim people” and the “Muslim religion,” viewing Muslims more favorably than they view Islam. While 62 percent of the people surveyed expressed favorable attitudes toward Muslims, only 44 percent thought the same of Islam.
The point that Telhami and Galston emphasized is that attitudes about both Muslim people and Islam are largely divided along party lines. 79 percent of Democrats have favorable views of Muslims, compared to 42 percent of Republicans (37 percentage points difference). Similarly, 82 percent of Democrats deemed Islamic and Western religious and social traditions as compatible, compared to only 42 percent of Republicans (40 percentage points difference).
Attitudes about the Arab-Israeli conflict and the Iraq War are also split down party lines. When asked “Which one of the two factors do you believe is most important in the emergence and growth of ISIS?” 71 percent of Democrats answered “Going to war with Iraq in 2003,” in contrast to 61 percent of Republicans who think it was “Withdrawing most US troops from Iraq.” The panelists maintained that Americans are deeply polarized. According to Wittes, “if one had to come up with a single headline [to capture the survey results], it would be polarization.”
Someone who has read Morris Fiorina’s Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America would know that what Wittes is talking about is rather party sorting, not polarization. In other words, what the Brookings survey depicts is the process of party purification, where party affiliation now reflects ideology to a greater extent than a generation ago. The opinion distributions in the survey show no evidence of increase in conservatives and liberals, or a decrease in those having more moderate views. Additionally, when presented with dichotomous choices like in the Iraq War question above, or in other questions related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, subjects are only able to choose between two extremes. Given a choice between two extremes, they can only choose an extreme, but polarization of people’s choices is not the same as polarization of their positions.
The fact remains that Republicans and Democrats are largely divided on questions concerning Islam and the Middle East. This divisiveness is even more pronounced in the 2016 presidential election. The election represents ideological sorting of an even greater level than the parties the candidates represent. Only 16 percent of Trump supporters view Islam favorably, compared to 66 percent of Clinton supporters (50 percentage points difference). The “clash of civilization” question, asking whether Islamic and Western religious and social traditions are compatible, tells a similar story. 64 percent of Trump supporters say they are incompatible, while 13 percent of Clinton supporters perceive such incompatibility (50 percentage points difference). With respect to the the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 43 percent of Trump supporters believe the US should support either annexation without equal citizenship or maintaining the occupation; 13 percent of Clinton supporters take that view.
As Galston observed, “in the past political differences ended at the water’s edge. Now, those days are gone.” The surveys reveal that these cleavages are larger than those found in domestic politics on issues like abortion or same-sex marriage. In fact, gaps don’t get much bigger. Islam and the Middle East have sorted out America. Americans need to sort this out.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Trump’s defeat
With Hillary Clinton clinching the Democratic nomination, it is time to consider the far more likely scenario: that she will win the November election, become the first Madame President, and return to the White House in January. What are the implications for America and its foreign policy?
Trump’s defeat, the third in a row for Republicans, will leave the party weakened and possibly divided. It could well lose control of the Senate if not the House. Blame for this will be heaped on those who backed Trump, a blatant racist, misogynist and xenophobe. Balancing acts like this one will look ridiculous in the aftermath of an electoral defeat:
Those who did not support Trump will try to resurrect the direction the party thought it had chosen after the 2012 election: towards becoming more inclusive rather than less. That will be a hard sell once more than 70% of Hispanics (and 90% of African Americans), similar percentages of gas and lesbians, and a majority of women have chosen Clinton. Some of the defeated will try to launch a new party or join the Libertarians. Diehard Trumpies will head off into the white supremacist/neo-Nazi corner of American politics.
The Democrats will seek to exploit their moment of triumph. I imagine top of their priorities will be “comprehensive” immigration reform, including a pathway to citizenship for undocumented people. This would solidify their Hispanic support. I doubt Clinton will reverse her position on the Transpacific Trade Partnership (TTP), but she might well quietly encourage Barack Obama to get it done in the lame duck Congress, before she is sworn in, with some improvements. I hope she will back the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which raises fewer hackles that TTP.
Clinton will want to reassure America’s allies in Europe, Asia and the Middle East. She will look for ways to sound and act tougher on the Islamic State, Al Qaeda, Russia, Iran and China, which have each taken advantage of Obama’s retrenchment from the over-extension of the Bush 43 presidency to press the envelope on what Washington will tolerate. She will maintain the nuclear deal with Iran and likely try to follow a similar model with North Korea. She opt for a no-fly zone in northern or southern Syria, hoping to stop at that.
Clinton will try to sustain Washington’s tightened relationship with India, Vietnam and other Asian powers as well as ongoing moves towards democracy and free market economies in Africa and Latin America. She’ll try to avoid sinking more men and money into Afghanistan and will try to get (and keep) Pakistan turned around in a more helpful direction. Israel/Palestine will be low on her priorities–why tred on turf where others have repeatedly failed?–unless something breaks in the positive or negative direction.
Domestic issues will take priority, including fixes for Obamacare, increased infrastructure and education funding, reductions in student loan debt, criminal justice reform, corporate tax reform and appointment of at least one Supreme Court justice (unless Merrick Garland is confirmed in the lame duck session) and many other Federal judges at lower levels. She will support modestly increased defense funding and tax cuts for the middle class, funded by increases on higher incomes. She will tack slightly to the left to accommodate Bernie Sanders’ supporters, but not so far as to lose independents.
In other words, Hillary Clinton is likely to serve Barack Obama’s third term, correcting the relatively few mistakes she thinks he has made, slowing retrenchment and adapting his pragmatic non-doctrine foreign policy to the particular circumstances and events as they occur. It will take some time for the Republicans, or whatever succeeds them as the second major party, to figure out whether they are protectionist or free traders, anti-immigrant or not, interventionist or not.
Trump’s defeat will be momentous for the Republican party, but it will leave the country on more or less the same trajectory it has followed for the past 7.5 years. If she can keep it pointed in that direction for four more, we should be thankful.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Israel and the Palestinian economy
Yael Mizrahi-Arnaud, who recently completed the requirements for a Masters degree in international economics and Middle East studies at Johns Hopkins SAIS, contributed this post to the Matzav blog of the Israel Policy Forum (reprinted here with its permission). She is a former Israel Air Force officer, and project manager at the Peres Center for Peace. She has conducted research in Israel and Iraq on innovative conflict management solutions.
Recent months have seen an increase in unilateral plans to resolve, or at least mitigate, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Since the Oslo Accords of the mid-1990s, the international community has embraced the consensus that a two-state solution is the only viable outcome. But barring any progress towards that result on the political front, buttressing the Palestinian economy may be the only realm in which tangible results can be achieved. A boost in the Palestinian economy will not only benefit the lives of millions of people and restore waning public confidence in the Palestinian Authority, but also set up the Palestinians as a self-supporting peace partner that can maintain the institutions of statehood.
A new push to buttress the Palestinian economy would stem not from an economic-peace rationale, which sees economic advances predicating political advances and statehood, but rather from the idea that a functioning Palestinian economy is a crucial component in and of itself, independent of negotiations. The desire is to merely keep the door open for a future resilient Palestinian polity, one that can be a viable state and a constructive neighbor to Israel. The Israeli military chief of staff has put it most aptly: “there is a clear Israeli interest, beyond the issue of values, to develop the Palestinian economy.”
Current trends in Palestinian demography and economics provide reason to worry. Unemployment stands at 27 percent, and for people 20 to 24, rises to 40 percent. With half of the population under 18, the Palestinians face a youth time bomb; without avenues for employment and advancement, these youth represent a growing security threat to Israel.
In addition, the Palestinian economy relies heavily on international aid to fuel its consumption, and suffers from a bloated public sector and static private sector. Annual GDP has improved, from -0.4 percent in 2014 to 3.5 percent in 2015. These trends arise due to restrictive and outdated economic arrangements with Israel, as well as poor governance by the Palestinian leadership.
A recent World Bank Report estimated that the PA loses $285 million a year as a result of its current economic arrangements with Israel, which date back to the 1993 Paris Protocol. That agreement saw the creation of an Israeli-Palestinian customs union, and a joint economic committee tasked with overseeing the movement of goods and labor between the two economies. A common truism of the Israel-Palestinian narrative, that the interim often becomes the reality, is nowhere truer than here.
The bulk of this loss comes from value-added tax (VAT) and import duties that Israel collects on the PA’s behalf, which are handed over on a monthly basis. These taxes are known as clearance revenues, and make up two-thirds of the PA’s public revenues. Israel takes a three-percent collection and processing fee on the VAT and import duties.
Any delay in these payments creates instability in the Palestinian economy, as the PA is the largest single employer in the West Bank, employing over 16 percent of citizens. Late payments mean the PA must take out bank loans, turn to foreign aid, or leave a large number of its employees unpaid. The last of these scenarios unfolded in the first quarter of 2015, when 40 percent of public sector wages went unpaid due to Israel’s withholding clearance revenues in protest of the Palestinian move to join the International Criminal Court.
Recent deals that Israeli Minister of Finance Moshe Kahlon struck with PA Finance Minister Shukri Bishara and Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh have led to the transfer of $128 million in unpaid clearance revenues. Coupled with the proposed increase in cooperation in the high-tech, medical, and construction fields, this is a good start.
Still, it is far from enough. Congress also recently voted to unblock $108 million in funds placed on hold after PA President Mahmoud Abbas’s September 2015 statement that the Palestinians were not longer bound by the Oslo Accords. An additional $51 million remains blocked today. Read more
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace Picks April 18-22
- A Conversation on Jerusalem and the Future of the Peace Process with Daniel Seidemann | Monday, April 18th | 12:15-1:30 | Middle East Institute and Johns Hopkins SAIS | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute (MEI) and the Conflict Management Program of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) are pleased to host internationally renowned Jerusalem expert and activist Daniel Seidemann in a discussion with Al Arabiya TV’s Muna Shikaki about ongoing settlement activities in Jerusalem and challenges to an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. Seidemann has observed that Jerusalem is becoming “the central arena for Israeli-Palestinian skirmishing of such intensity that developments there jeopardize the very possibility of a two-state solution and threaten to undermine both local and regional stability.” In the absence of a political dialogue, Israel is extending physical barriers and discussing ideas to more thoroughly separate the communities, particularly in Jerusalem. In this period of growing crisis, what steps can advocates of a two-state solution – in the region and in the U.S. and Europe – take to preserve the prospect? Daniel Serwer (SAIS and MEI) will introduce the program.
- Beyond Migration: The Refugee Crisis in Europe and the Challenges of Immigrant Integration | Monday, April 18th | 3:30-5:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Despite decades of immigration, even the most multicultural countries in Europe are struggling with the scale of the current refugee crisis, and the challenge of integrating the newcomers. This crisis, one of Europe’s biggest of the past century, has the potential to alter the political fabric of the continent and undermine the foundation of post-WWII transnational institutions. The political and humanitarian consequences of the EU’s deal with Turkey have drawn much attention. But what about those refugees who have already made the trip and are now settling in Europe, if only temporarily? Looking back, what lessons can European governments learn from successes and failures in integrating earlier generations of immigrants? Join us for a discussion of the dilemmas of immigration control in Europe, as well as the longer-term issues of immigrant integration, identity, and belonging. Speakers include Henri J. Barkey, Director of the Middle East Program at the Wilson Center, James Hollifield, Public Policy Fellow at the Wilson Center, and Riva Kastoryano, Senior Research Fellow, Center for International Research, SciencesPo, Paris.
- High Stakes at the Gulf Summit: What President Obama Should Get from the GCC Meeting | Tuesday, April 19th | 2:00-3:30 | Center for Transatlantic Relations and Human Rights First | REGISTER TO ATTEND | On April 21 President Obama will attend the Gulf Co-operation Council Summit in Saudi Arabia, with a series of crises confronting the Gulf monarchies. Syria, Yemen and Iran will be key components of the discussions, as well how to prevent violent extremism. Join us for a panel discussion featuring regional specialists on what Obama should achieve in the GCC meeting, and why it matters so much. Introductory remarks will be made by Ambassador Andras Simonyi, Managing Director, CTR. Speakers include Hala Aldosari, Visiting Scholar, the Arab Gulf States Institute in Washington, Brian Dooley, Director, Human Rights Defenders, Human Rights First, and Matar Ebrahim Matar, former member of the Bahraini Parliament. Mihai Patru, Senior Fellow, Center for Transatlantic Relations, will moderate.
- The Idea of Culture and Civilization in Contemporary Turkish Politics: Public Debate, Policy and Foreign Relations | Wednesday, April 20th | 9:30-2:30 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Join us for a conference that explores new ideas among Islamist and secular intellectuals in contemporary Turkey and inquire whether novel understandings exist about the relationship between Islam and modernity, East and West, and the position of Turkey itself within them. The conference will also investigate the impact of these understandings on public debate domestically in Turkey and on its foreign policy, specifically its relations with the United States and Europe, Russia, and the Middle East. This event consists of three panels. Speakers and panels may be found here.
- The Value of Values: Reconsidering the Role of Human Rights in U.S.-China Relations | Wednesday, April 20th | 2:30-4:00 | Wilson Center | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Issues of ideology, values, and human rights are again moving to the top of the United States’ China agenda and underlie many frictions in U.S.-China relations. The competing virtue narratives and disparate systems of the United States and China fuel suspicions in the military, economic, and global governance spheres. Please join us for an examination of values, rights, and ideals in the U.S.-China relationship and in the evolution of regional and world orders. Speakers include J. Stapleton Roy, Founding Director and Distinguished Scholar at the Wilson Center, Sharon Hom, Executive Director, Human Rights in China, Zheng Wang, Global Fellow, and Robert Daly, Director, Kissinger Institute on China and the United States.
- Western Defense Reassurances to Gulf Arab After the Iran Deal: Are We on the Same Page? | Thursday, April 21st | 10:00-11:30 | International Institute for Strategic Studies | REGISTER TO ATTEND | You are invited to an IISS discussion meeting on Thursday, April 21st, on Western defense reassurances to Gulf Arabs after the Iran deal. Panelists include Ellen Laipson, Distinguished Fellow and President Emeritus of the Stimson Center, Michael Eisenstadt, director of The Washington Institute’s Military and Security Studies Program, Caroline Hurndall, Head of the Middle East Team at the British Embassy, and Bilal Saab, Resident Senior Fellow for Middle East Security at the Atlantic Council. The panel will discuss whether post-Iran deal arms sales to Gulf Cooperation Council countries meet the goal of reassurance, whether arms sales from different NATO counties are complementary or competitive, and how the sales are affecting the geopolitics of the region. Following the hour-long panel discussion, there will be a 30-minute Q&A session with the audience. The full event will be on the record and webcast live on the IISS website.
- Protecting Religious Minorities | Thursday, April 21st | 1:30-3:00 | United States Institute for Peace | REGISTER TO ATTEND | Propelled by the atrocities against religious minorities in several Muslim-majority countries in recent years, particularly at the hands of the Islamic State group, senior religious leaders meeting in Morocco in January issued the Marrakesh Declaration to prevent such violence in the future. Join the U.S. Institute of Peace and its co-hosts on April 21 as renowned Islamic legal scholar Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah, who designed the legal framework for the declaration and convened the Morocco meeting, discusses the next steps in ensuring the terms of this call to action can be implemented. The violence wrought by violent extremists creates an imperative for people in the Muslim world across sectarian, ethnic, and national lines to affirm positive teachings within the tradition, address historical points of disagreement and transform the underlying causes of violent extremism into peaceful change.The Marrakesh Declaration courageously acknowledges the oppression and violence against religious minorities within some predominantly Muslim countries. Inspired by the Charter of Medina, which was established in the time of the Prophet Muhammad to guarantee religious freedoms, the declaration presents a way to apply a religious legal and theological framework to uphold human rights. But much of the success of the Marrakesh Declaration will depend on how it is implemented. In this discussion co-hosted by the Network for Religious and Traditional Peacemakers and Sheikh bin Bayyah’s Forum for Promoting Peace in Muslim Societies, he will address the urgency of the Marrakesh Declaration in light of current events. He also will outline plans to work with individuals and organizations to use the declaration as a source of authority and accountability to advance the goals of this call to action.
- A Stronger UN for a Peaceful World—Conversation with Ambassador Natalia Gherman | Thursday, April 21st | 4:00-5:00 | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Women in Public Service Projectand the Kennan Instituteinvite you to a discussion with Ambassador Natalia Gherman, candidate for United Nation Secretary General. Amb. Gherman will outline her unique perspective and goals for new UN leadership, before taking audience questions. Ambassador Natalia Gherman has previously served as acting Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister, and Minister of Foreign Affairs and European Integration of the Republic of Moldova. As a Chief Negotiator, she led Moldova towards the Association Agreement, Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Area, and visa liberalization regime with the EU. She served as Ambassador to Austria and Permanent Representative to the UN Agencies in Vienna and the OSCE, and Ambassador to Sweden, Finland, and Norway.
- The Changing Role of Egypt’s Private Sector | Friday, April 22nd | 9:00-10:30 | Middle East Institute | REGISTER TO ATTEND | The Middle East Institute (MEI) is pleased to host a discussion about the evolving role of Egypt’s private sector and the emergence of new business models to meet the demands of sustainable development. Egyptian business leaders Mohamed El-Kalla (Cairo for Investment and Development), Dina Sherif (The Center for Entrepreneurship, AUC) and Tarek Tawfik (Federation of Egyptian Industries) will be joined by American attorney and investment adviser Samar Ali (Bone McAllester Norton PLLC) for an examination of the changing nature of private enterprise in Egypt. Egypt’s new generation of entrepreneurs and corporate leaders are increasingly prioritizing sustainable development, accountability, and responsible business practices as key tools for economic growth. The panel will discuss the drivers of change, the challenges that private business faces from the state, and how the U.S. government and business community can encourage the new trend. Randa Fahmy will moderate the discussion.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
The difference between Jews
I spent an hour today with two really smart guys: Dov Waxman of Northeastern University and Ilan Peleg of Lafayette College. The occasion was a Middle East Institute event we hosted at SAIS on Dov’s newly published book, Trouble in the Tribe: The American Jewish Conflict over Israel. I can’t review it, because I haven’t read it yet, but the two professors certainly gave me a good deal to think about.
I confess I was uncomfortable with the book’s title. I don’t regard myself as a member of a tribe but rather as an individual who has chosen to be what my parents were: Jews and Americans. Many years ago a co-worker referred to the Jewish owner of the factory we worked in as my Landsmann. That grates to this day. Of course I share with at least some Jews many things: history, culture, beliefs, norms, and support for the state of Israel. But I also share those things with many non-Jews. And I differ from many Jews on some of those things. I am not indifferent to the religious connection, just not willing to prioritize it over everything else and assume a familial tie to someone I had never met.
This turned out to be one of Dov’s main points: many American Jews, especially the millennial generation (of which I am definitively not a member), feel the way I do. We prioritize liberal values rather than ethnic connections. In so doing, we are increasingly at odds with an Israel that has returned to its 19th century roots as a Jewish national movement, especially but not only under Benyamin Netanyahu’s leadership. We want to see Palestinians treated in accordance with liberal values as equals endowed with inalienable rights. Bernie Sanders expressed this view last night in the debate with Hillary Clinton.
So why, I asked, do so many American politicians, like Clinton, support Israel so unconditionally? Even Barack Obama has been assiduous, more so than his predecessors, in protecting Israel from undesired UN Security Council resolutions. Part of the answer is that they get vital support and money from doing so. I’m not going to be able to match Sheldon Adelson as a political donor, but in addition I wouldn’t prioritize Israel as my top issue. He will. Passion counts and most of it is on the side of those who want unconditional support for Israel as the Jewish state. They don’t much care about how Palestinians are treated.
They even deny that they exist, saying they are really just Jordanians. If anyone argues that with you, tell them to talk with a Jordanian and ask what Jews who lived in the Holy Land were called before Israeli independence in the 1948. The answer will shock: they were called Palestinians, albeit Jewish rather than Arab ones. The term “Arab Jew” then applied to the many Jews whose native language was Arabic. Today many use the Hebrew term: Mizrahi Jews, which includes Jews from other than Arab countries.
More important is that Christians, in particular evangelicals, have lined up solidly in more or less unconditional support of Israel. Bernie of course doesn’t have to worry about them, because they will never support him. He is much more interested in that millennial generation, including the young New York Jews he wants to vote for him on Tuesday. So he grabbed the third rail of American politics with both hands and seems to have survived the immediate shock, though I won’t be surprised if Clinton beats him in New York on Tuesday.
Apart from the domestic political issues arising from the palpable split in the American Jewish community, there are potentially serious foreign policy issues. Ilan pointed to the split between President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu over the Iranian nuclear deal and Dov mentioned Israeli opposition to the American role in the fall of Egyptian President Mubarak in 2011. On the Iranian nuclear deal, it seems to me the split is already partly healed: Netanyahu has become a cheerleader for strict implementation, since that is manifestly in Israel’s interest.
But the healing is only partial, because the President is inclined to allow at least a partial return of Iran to something more like its traditional role in the region (in exchange for postponement of its nuclear ambitions) while Netanyahu is increasingly aligned with the Sunni Arab states in actively resisting that. He has also begun to imitate some of their less liberal practices in cracking down on Israeli civil society and making life hard for those who speak out against excessive use of force against Palestinians. That really offends my liberal sensibilities.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Who didn’t come to pander?
Yesterday four candidates for President of the United States (Democrat Clinton plus Republicans Kasich, Cruz and Trump) appeared before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) yesterday and tried to outdo each other in supporting Israel and denouncing Palestinian violence. I imagine my Arab and Muslim readers will see nothing new in this. But they may also assume that it reflects prevailing Jewish views. After all, AIPAC is the leading “Israel lobby” organization and it draws a BIG crowd. What else are these candidates doing if not trying to bring around Jewish voters?
They will be surprised, as will many others around the world, to learn that this Chris Hayes video from last night, featuring the only Jew ever to begin to get close to a major party presidential nomination nomination, is much closer to representing majority views among Jewish Americans, especially those of more liberal bent (who are more numerous than the orthodox). Bernie Sanders wants to reach out to Palestinians and Arabs, who he says cannot be ignored:
Most American Jews in fact vote Democratic: 78% for Obama in 2008 and 69% for Obama in 2012, even after Prime Minister Netanyahu’s intense effort to undermine him. It would be a truly historic shift for Republicans–Trump, Cruz or Kasich–to win more than 50% of the relatively small Jewish vote. That hasn’t happened for 100 years. The only states with enough Jews to make a real difference even in a close race in this year’s election are New York, which has voted Democratic since 1984, and California, which has voted Democratic since 1992. Neither is a likely Republican win this year.
So if it’s not about Jewish votes, what is it about? Some will say money, and I won’t deny, that is a factor. Sheldon Adelson isn’t the only Jewish donor pulling strings to make candidates say what he wants them to say. A lot of the big Jewish money supports Hillary Clinton, which gives her a good reason to show up at AIPAC and say lots of pro-Israel things, even if she is guaranteed the lion’s share of the Jewish vote.
But for the Republicans it is about the Christians, not the Jews, and more than the money. More American Christians think God gave Israel to the Jewish people than American Jews do (44 vs. 40%). Among white evangelical Protestants, that figure is 82%.
AIPAC is a necessary stop for Republicans not because of the Jewish votes, but rather because of the Christian ones. This is especially important for Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, who are in a tug-of-war for evangelical votes. It is simply extraordinary that the thrice-divorced braggart (that’s Trump) can somehow attract votes away from the evangelical preacher’s son (that’s Cruz), but it seems to be happening. Ben Carson, who has joined the Trump camp, isn’t alone.
Trump at AIPAC was at best incoherent. He said he will cancel the Iran nuclear deal and that he will enforce it vigorously. He said he would be more evenhanded–which would put him in Bernie’s ball park–but then advocated moving the US embassy to the “eternal capital of the Jewish people,” Jerusalem. He is apparently unaware that would align him solidly with Israel and wreck prospects for a the mutually beneficial deal he somewhat eloquently insisted upon.
My capital is in Washington DC, not Jerusalem. I have no idea what God thinks or did several millenia ago and I doubt anyone else does either. Most American Jews I know feel the same way, even those who have a great deal of affection for Israel, as Bernie Sanders–who has lived on a Kibbutz–clearly does. What we want is the deal Trump talks about but then makes unlikely. Believe me, he says, I didn’t come to pander. Then he does.
PS: For those of more literary bent, here is the speech Bernie Sanders did not give at AIPAC.
RSS - Posts
