 |
| Democratic Presidential candidate, Bernie Sanders (The New Yorker) |
I had always thought that if a Jew became a serious candidate
for President, I would very likely support him. Of course that support would
have been dependent on whether his political views for the most part reflected
my own. But I must admit that it is a matter of pride to see ‘one of my own’ as
President of the United States. So being
a Jewish candidate is weighted heavily in my consideration of whether to vote
for him.
This was the case with Joseph Leiberman – when Al Gore chose
him as his running mate. Even though I tended to lean more with George Bush
politically, I felt at the time that Gore’s views were close enough to mine so
that his VP choice swung me over to his side. And certainly Lieberman’s views
were similar to mine.
My pride was not only that an observant Jew was chosen by
the Democratic nominee, it was in the fact that Leiberman’s addition to the ticket
actually improved Gore’s odds in the polls. Before Leiberman, Gore trailed Bush by
10 percentage points. After Leiberman the race became a dead
heat.
I recall a poll conducted by one of the leading newspapers
at the time asking voters whether
Leibeman’s Orthodox Judaism would hamper his job as President - which he would have been
a ‘heartbeat’ away from if elected. The answer surprised me. A common response
was that his religious views were considered an asset. One that gave him an
ethical advantage.
That was a seminal moment for me. It showed me that mainstream
America is not only - NOT antisemitic, but that they are actually philosemitic
- unlike any other country in the history of the world.
Image that, I thought. Observant Jews were now seen to be
the most ethical of people. America is truly different. This is not like the
golden era of Spain that lasted about 500 years where Jews thrived. This was a
sea change in attitude by the non Jewish world in America. Esav did not hate Ya’akov
in this country. Especially if he was
observant.
(I have since learned that I was wrong about Gore and am glad he was not elected. To quote an old cliché, it seemed like a good idea at the time.)
It is still a tribute to the American people that Bernie
Sanders’ Judaism is a non issue - no matter what side of the political aisle
they are on. But I am sorry to report that I cannot and do not support him. That
Bernie Sanders is not observant is not the issue. The issue is that his views
on Israel are at best naïve and at worst - it would cause great harm to the Jewish
State if his views became policy.
It is one thing to express sympathy for the plight of Palestinians as he
does. I too have expressed sympathy for their plight. I just see the blame for
that placed squarely on the Palestinian leadership and on a base underlying Muslim/Arab
hatred of the Jewish people. That foments a constant stream of violence to
which Israel must react - sometimes harshly - in order to protect its people.
First, I would never support a socialist for President, Jewish or
not. But even if I would tolerate his socialism, his attitude about Israel is unacceptable.
And his attitude will have a definite impact on the Democratic party. Because of
his wide popularity among various demographics, primarily among the young, the
DNC (Democratic National Committee) is letting him choose 5 of the 15 people that
will form the party platform. 2 of the people he has chosen are not ‘Israel
friendly’ to say the least. When a Jew chooses people that are as overtly anti Israel as
James Zogby and Cornell West – that becomes
extremely problematic to me.
James Zogby is the President of the American Arab Institute
and supports BDS. But his views seem tame compared to Cornell West who also
supports BDS. Here is a glimpse of West’s views with respect to Israel and the
Palestinians from a 2015 article in Salon:
“It’s ugly, it’s vicious, it’s brutal”: Cornel West on Israel in Palestine… there is no doubt that Gaza is not just a “kind of” concentration camp, it is the hood on steroids.
West made a point of insisting that raising the Palestinian flag should not be seen as an act of narrow nationalism, but rather as an act of solidarity with an oppressed people…
Of course then he added the obligatiory disclaimer about not being antisemitic – just
anti Zionist.
I realize that party platforms have become pretty
meaningless these days. (I think Trump actually said that he doesn’t care what
his party’s platform says.) But I disagree. It’s true that the platform has
little to do with what a President’s actual policy will be. But I don’t think
it can be ignored. If you have a party platform that advocates changing the way
it deals with Israel – as now seems will be the case, it should give supporters
of Israel pause.
If that party’s candidate does not completely disavow that
portion of the platform, that could spell disaster in the future. Because it
sets up a mindset that that party should be more even-handed in dealing with
Israel that a President may take into account. In ‘Middle-Eastern speak’ that translates into less intelligence
sharing; less military aid; and less foreign aid; all in the guise of being
even-handed. A tilt like this could weaken the military edge Israel has over
its neighbors and make them far more vulnerable.
There is not a doubt in my mind that terrorist entities like
Hamas and Hezbollah will take advantage of any weakness they perceive in Israel’s
defense capabilities as a result of a shift in American policy. Israel does not
need to be in this position. They need all the help they can get.
Which leaves me with a dilemma. I do not see how I can
support Hillary Clinton if she does not disavow any kind shift away from
supporting Israel by her party. On the other hand. I can’t think of a worse
choice for President than Donald Trump. I guess I will have to wait and see how
this all plays out over the next few months. But I will not vote for a
candidate whose party platform weakens Israel. As of now however, no endorsements.
