Largest American Jewish weekly endorses Bush, Lazio
Jewish Press Endorses George W. Bush, Rick Lazio
Week of November 3, 2000
For The Jewish Press, determining which of the two major-party candidates we wished to see in the White House for the next four years inevitably led to a point-by-point comparison of the positions of Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore on a series of issues of concern to the Jewish community.
Certainly we are mindful of the vigorous, at times acrimonious, debate over issues of such import as the economy, Social Security, Medicare, taxes, health care, military preparedness and, of course, the overriding question of who has the greater potential for leadership in the turbulent years to come.
But, frankly, most of those issues have become buried in such a morass of impenetrable rhetoric and hyperbole that while there may indeed be meaningful differences between the candidates, they are not all that easily identifiable.
However, we do believe that on certain core Jewish concerns there really are discernible distinctions to be drawn. With that in mind, our choice for president this year is George W. Bush.
Of course, Israel is a central concern of ours. As Americans, we are sensitive to our country’s national security interests in maintaining a stable Middle East. During the heyday of the Cold War, that region was vital to American strategic planning. Even now, years after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. -- as the world’s only superpower with worldwide responsibilities -- still requires constancy in that part of the world.
As Jews with a special affinity to the Jewish state, we recognize that a rapprochement between Israel and its Arab neighbors is essential for Israel’s well-being. But this recognition is the beginning of the inquiry, not the end. The key question is not whether one favors accommodation between Arabs and Israelis, but how best to secure that accommodation. And this brings us to the posi
tions of Mr. Gore and Mr. Bush.
The stark reality is that the Clinton policy of unswerving support for the Oslo process — despite the clear absence of reciprocity on the part of the Palestinians — has brought the Middle East to the brink of war. Seven years of winking at and overlooking the failure of the Palestinian side to meet its obligations, while at the same time insisting that Israel deliver on what it promised, has led to dangerously unreasonable Palestinian expectations and the notion that at the end of the game the Palestinians will achieve their goalsthrough unilateral Israeli concessions.
Not only has the above scenario allowed Arafat to avoid preparing his people for peace with Israel — which was a central plank of the Oslo Accords — but it also cemented in his mind, and in the minds of Palestinians generally, that there was always something more to be had beyond any Israeli offer. The Palestinian savagery visited upon Israelis , coupled with Arafat’s cynical celebration of the violence, serves as a graphic illustration of what should have been apparent for a very long time.
The twin evils of treating Israel as something less than an ally and pressuring it to make unilateral concessions stand out as the defining mode of Oslo, and in that regard the statements of the candidates are revealing.
Mr. Gore told The Jewish Press that President Clinton “is the best friend Israel ever had in the White House.” Questioned about whether he would continue the policy of pressuring Israel, he responded: “What pressure? The president is acting only as an honest broker and in any event, consistent with the wishes of the Israeli government.”
In truth, this response is the typical refrain of those in the Jewish community who have championed Oslo. Yet who among us can forget President Clinton’s savaging of Prime Minister Netanyahu when the latter insisted on reciprocity? Mr. Netanyahu was regularly disparaged in public statements from the president and Secretary of State Albright on down. And the president’s engineering of the electoral victory of Ehud Barak — among other things, he shamefully dispatched his political pit bull James Carville to aid Barak’s campaign — hardly reflects a policy of support for the will of the people of Israel.
And there is another important factor to be taken into account. In recent years, some extraordinarily wealthy members of the Jewish community, major contributors to the Democratic Party, have become part of a cadre of Jewish advisers to President Clinton. They happen to be strong supporters of Oslo, which is their right. But the problem they have created is that they have served to provide cover for the president in his reliance on Oslo to the detriment, we believe, of Israel.
Yet these are the very individuals — one was actually reported to have told President Clinton at a dinner that then-Prime Minister Netanyahu was not interested in peace with the Palestinians — who no doubt will play the same role with a Gore Administration and continue to preclude input from other elements in the American Jewish community.
So with respect to Israel, we fear that a Gore presidency would mean more of the same slavishobeisance to Oslo and more of the same cover provided by “fat cat” Jewish donors. This is not to suggest that Mr. Gore is anti-Israel, only that he seems ready to continue policies that have proven so disastrous.
On the other hand, though we were disappointed that Gov. Bush did not make the Middle East more of an issue in the campaign, we did note that whenever he was asked about the U.S. role in the Middle East, he invariably replied that he believes in “standing with an ally” and in allowing the parties to resolve their differences without having solutions imposed upon them.
A review of the candidates’ respective positions on a variety of other issues as well leads us to urge support for Gov. Bush. Soon after he was selected as Mr. Gore’s running mate, Senator Joseph Lieberman suddenly changed his stand on a whole host of matters -- including moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem -- doubtless to bring them into line with those of the head of the ticket. Thus he became an advocate of affirmative action, gay rights and outreach to Louis Farrakhan. He no longer opposed late-term abortions and became more tolerant of Hollywood’s vulgar standards. And he became a staunch opponent of tuition vouchers.
When one engages in this sort of analysis, it be
comes clear that Gov. Bush is in sync with many of us in the Jewish community, and it is unfortunate that the advent of Mr. Lieberman seems to have persuaded Mr. Bush not to actively court the Jewish vote -- a decision reflected in the relatively low level of his poll support among Jews.
We are aware that not everyone in the Jewish community agrees with our views, but we rather think that Governor Bush overlooked a significant source of possible support. Although it is now late, it may not be too late for him to seek more support in the American Jewish community.
All things considered, the prudent choice for president this year is, in our view, Gov. George W. Bush.
Rick Lazio Is Our Choice For U.S. Senator From N.Y.
When Hillary Clinton announced for the United States Senate, the first thing that came to mind was her earlier infamous call for the establishment of a Palestinian state when few in America were speaking along those lines. But, although it was tempting to close the book on her candidacy at that point, we decided to keep an open mind. The last thing we wanted to have happen was for her and her opponent to think that she had no chance with our constituency in the Jewish community, with the result that our issues would never be debated and given prominence.
Indeed, at the outset of the campaign Mrs. Clinton seemed to be moving toward a more conciliatory approach and was indeed reaching out on a variety of issues, including Israel. Of course, we recognized that at the time, New York’s Mayor Rudy Giuliani, an unabashed champion of the Jewish State, was still her putative opponent and doubtless spurred her on in this regard. In fact, however, when the Mayor had to withdraw from the race and was replaced by Congressman Lazio, Mrs. Clinton’s efforts in the Jewish community simply dried up. And it was only when the Lazio campaign kicked in with a Jewish focus that the First Lady began to be heard from again on Jewish issues.
In any event, although there were glimmers of hope, Mrs. Clinton never really appeared to strike a resonant chord and never really embraced our community. She was never able to erase the memory of her advocacy of a Palestinian state, nor that of the Suha Arafat incident. Despite the fact that U.S. law required that the American Embassy in Israel had to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — which would acknowledge Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — by May 31, 1999, she steadfastly defended the Clinton Administration’s decision to allow the Palestinians to negotiate that question as part of the Oslo process. And to complete the circle, one need only consider that her formal statement in reaction to the recent outrageous U.N. Security Council Resolution condemning Israel for its response to the Palestinian violence, although condemning its one-sidedness, simply ignored the fact that the Clinton Administration abstained in the vote and did not exercise its veto power. It was only when she was asked about it afterwards that she criticized it.
In sharp contrast, Congressman Lazio has taken a far more forcefully positive approach to the Jewish State. He has called for the prompt relocation of the Embassy and, from the outset, condemned the Administration’s abstention vote in the Security Council.
But our support for Congressman Lazio does not arise out of a focus on this or that statement of his or Mrs. Clinton’s. When Mrs. Clinton made her statement about the establishment of a Palestinian state, such sentiments had theretofore been limited to the political left/Third World crowd that was uncomfortable with the notion that a Jewish state would be established in the midst of an otherwise Arab Middle East. And the fact that she could say what she did at that time reveals a certain mind-set on such things. We think that episode was of a piece with her outrageous silence in the face of Suha Arafat’s calumny that Israel gassed Palestinian children, her visceral acquiescence in a decision not to prevent criticism of Israel in the U.N., and in a refusal to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel — even when the law requires it. It speaks volumes as to what kind of Senator she would be when it came to Israel.
When Rick Lazio came to The Jewish Press, he said something that still resonates with us. He said that in his view, “The security of Jews around the world is directly tied to the security of the Jewish State.”
One of the great emerging issues in American politics is the growing power of Arab-Americans and its effect on American support for Israel. In that context, we believe that a Senator Lazio would be a reliable ally whereas a Senator Clinton would not.
thejewishpress.com |
