On "Israel", Clinton, Obama and McCain all aim to be like Bush
Source: Haaretz, 30-03-2008
It's hard to find differences in the candidates' promises on Hamas, settlements and the Palestinians.
WASHINGTON - Two clear signs that April is upon us in Washington are the blossoming of the cherry trees and the interview presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave to The Exponent, the local Jewish (Zionist) newspaper in Philadelphia.
In the fight over Pennsylvania, whose Democratic primary takes place on April 22, every vote counts. Certainly that of the more than 200,000 Jews living in Philadelphia, and that of the less than 50,000 living in Pittsburgh, where they represent 4 percent of the city's population. During the 2004 election the percentage of Jewish voters was a mere 2 percent. It is not surprising: Pennsylvania has 11 million residents and barely 300,000 Jews.
On Friday, Barack Obama embarked on a long bus ride all around the state. He is behind Clinton in the polls, but after two weeks of not particularly encouraging news it seems his campaign is picking up again. A number of polls, including those held by The Wall Street Journal and Pew Research Center, showed that the Jeremiah Wright affair did not really harm him among Democratic voters. Moreover, it turns out that Obama managed to attract to his ranks an important Pennsylvania figure, Senator Bob Casey.
Each state has two senators. One, a Jew, is Republican Arlen Specter. The other, Casey, defeated one of the more hawkish senators, a great friend of Israel', Rick Santorum. In any case, the relationship between Casey and the Clintons is tense. His father was not allowed to speak at the Democratic Party Conference in 1992 because he did not support Bill Clinton's candidacy. Now the son is joining Obama on a tour of Pennsylvania, rallying voters.
But Clinton is holding on to her lead in Pennsylvania, and to bolster it she granted an interview, albeit a short one, to the Jewish newspaper, hoping it would count for something. Clinton, it turns out, does not regret the Oslo process, even though it did not result in everlasting 'peace'. This is what she had to say: "I think what we did in the 90s was beneficial in a strategic way and led to a period where at times, there were no attacks being made, no suicide [self-sacrifice] bombings and no deaths." She also supports the effort to continue the efforts toward peace, even if there are no particular chances of achieving anything.
In any case, most of the Clinton supporters - and those of other candidates - do not place great confidence on the chances of peace. A Gallup Poll showed last week that 59 percent of Americans do not believe that 'Israel' and the Arabs will "settle their differences and live in peace" - whether in the near future or ever. The number of 'optimists' did rise a bit since last year, as a result of Annapolis, but only slightly: 34 percent to 39 percent.
On the eve of the visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region, 38 percent of those participating in the poll also said that most of the American pressure should be directed at the Palestinians, and only 25 percent believe that 'Israel' should be pressed more. Fifteen percent believe that pressure should be put on both sides.
These are the figures that the founders of the new dovish Jewish lobby also read. There has been talk about it for more than two years, but it seems it will be established sometime in April. Among the key figures in the group are Jeremy Ben-Ami, who worked in the Clinton staff of the 1990s. They are trying to draw organizations such as Friends of Peace Now in the U.S. who would give funding to candidates promising intensive American support to a peace process. It will be interesting to watch this development - especially the criteria a candidate must meet for this sort of funding, and the number of candidates who will agree to such criteria.
What, for example, would such an obviously Democratic organization do with the Republican Candidate John McCain, who last week, in a long address on his planned policies, mentioned 'Israel' four times, but not in connection to the peace process: twice as an example of a democratic state, twice in connection with the Iranian threat. Still, during the questions and answers, McCain promised "personal deep engagement" in the peace process and claimed that this is a matter of "highest priority." Will this answer bring him a contribution from the aforementioned group?
At the end of the day it is hard to find differences in the promises being made by the candidates that have survived in the race - Clinton, McCain and Obama - regarding the peace process. All of them want involvement, all are opposed to Hamas, all are in favor of a Palestinian state and against Palestinian terrorism, all are in favor of security for "Israel" and against the settlement construction. All are positioning themselves exactly where the Bush administration now stands. As such there are only two options: Either they all agree that Bush has got it just right - or his position is only what the broad political consensus dictates.
The founders of the new Jewish (Zionist) lobby are basing one of their claims on a single premise: U.S. Jews, the lobby believes, are politically to the left of the Jewish organizations that represent them. This is an argument that could be debated, though it certainly represents an accepted opinion.
In any event, last week it became apparent that half of Jewish Democrats support Obama, the candidate perceived as "leftist," and the other half Clinton, the more "hawkish" of the two. The numbers are quite a contrast when compared with 'Israeli' Jews, who, according to a poll commissioned by the "Keevoon" institute, prefer the familiar Clinton (61 percent) over the fresh-faced Obama (12 percent).
Only, as mentioned before, there is no significant gap between Clinton's and Obama's stated views on the 'Israeli'-Palestinian conflict. Nor is there a clear difference between the Democratic candidates' and McCain on this issue. This is precisely the reason behind the intense search for other signs that indicate what exactly the candidates' true intentions are should they win office: what did McCain say on his visit to 'Israel', what did Obama's advisor write about 'Israel' in a book, what did a Clinton associate whisper into the ear of the head of a major Jewish organization???!!!
At a discussion last week held at the Washington Institute, Rob Malley - a former member of the Clinton administration who took part in 'Israeli'-Palestinian peace negotiations and who is today an Obama supporter, though not in an advisory capacity - began by setting the record straight. "I'm not speaking for anyone else," Malley told participants.
Malley, who was invited as part of a debate on what to do with Hamas, sided with those who support holding a dialogue with the Islamist organization. Obama, Malley's choice to win the nomination, has taken the opposite position.
It's hard to find differences in the candidates' promises on Hamas, settlements and the Palestinians.
WASHINGTON - Two clear signs that April is upon us in Washington are the blossoming of the cherry trees and the interview presidential candidate Hillary Clinton gave to The Exponent, the local Jewish (Zionist) newspaper in Philadelphia.
In the fight over Pennsylvania, whose Democratic primary takes place on April 22, every vote counts. Certainly that of the more than 200,000 Jews living in Philadelphia, and that of the less than 50,000 living in Pittsburgh, where they represent 4 percent of the city's population. During the 2004 election the percentage of Jewish voters was a mere 2 percent. It is not surprising: Pennsylvania has 11 million residents and barely 300,000 Jews.
On Friday, Barack Obama embarked on a long bus ride all around the state. He is behind Clinton in the polls, but after two weeks of not particularly encouraging news it seems his campaign is picking up again. A number of polls, including those held by The Wall Street Journal and Pew Research Center, showed that the Jeremiah Wright affair did not really harm him among Democratic voters. Moreover, it turns out that Obama managed to attract to his ranks an important Pennsylvania figure, Senator Bob Casey.
Each state has two senators. One, a Jew, is Republican Arlen Specter. The other, Casey, defeated one of the more hawkish senators, a great friend of Israel', Rick Santorum. In any case, the relationship between Casey and the Clintons is tense. His father was not allowed to speak at the Democratic Party Conference in 1992 because he did not support Bill Clinton's candidacy. Now the son is joining Obama on a tour of Pennsylvania, rallying voters.
But Clinton is holding on to her lead in Pennsylvania, and to bolster it she granted an interview, albeit a short one, to the Jewish newspaper, hoping it would count for something. Clinton, it turns out, does not regret the Oslo process, even though it did not result in everlasting 'peace'. This is what she had to say: "I think what we did in the 90s was beneficial in a strategic way and led to a period where at times, there were no attacks being made, no suicide [self-sacrifice] bombings and no deaths." She also supports the effort to continue the efforts toward peace, even if there are no particular chances of achieving anything.
In any case, most of the Clinton supporters - and those of other candidates - do not place great confidence on the chances of peace. A Gallup Poll showed last week that 59 percent of Americans do not believe that 'Israel' and the Arabs will "settle their differences and live in peace" - whether in the near future or ever. The number of 'optimists' did rise a bit since last year, as a result of Annapolis, but only slightly: 34 percent to 39 percent.
On the eve of the visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to the region, 38 percent of those participating in the poll also said that most of the American pressure should be directed at the Palestinians, and only 25 percent believe that 'Israel' should be pressed more. Fifteen percent believe that pressure should be put on both sides.
These are the figures that the founders of the new dovish Jewish lobby also read. There has been talk about it for more than two years, but it seems it will be established sometime in April. Among the key figures in the group are Jeremy Ben-Ami, who worked in the Clinton staff of the 1990s. They are trying to draw organizations such as Friends of Peace Now in the U.S. who would give funding to candidates promising intensive American support to a peace process. It will be interesting to watch this development - especially the criteria a candidate must meet for this sort of funding, and the number of candidates who will agree to such criteria.
What, for example, would such an obviously Democratic organization do with the Republican Candidate John McCain, who last week, in a long address on his planned policies, mentioned 'Israel' four times, but not in connection to the peace process: twice as an example of a democratic state, twice in connection with the Iranian threat. Still, during the questions and answers, McCain promised "personal deep engagement" in the peace process and claimed that this is a matter of "highest priority." Will this answer bring him a contribution from the aforementioned group?
At the end of the day it is hard to find differences in the promises being made by the candidates that have survived in the race - Clinton, McCain and Obama - regarding the peace process. All of them want involvement, all are opposed to Hamas, all are in favor of a Palestinian state and against Palestinian terrorism, all are in favor of security for "Israel" and against the settlement construction. All are positioning themselves exactly where the Bush administration now stands. As such there are only two options: Either they all agree that Bush has got it just right - or his position is only what the broad political consensus dictates.
The founders of the new Jewish (Zionist) lobby are basing one of their claims on a single premise: U.S. Jews, the lobby believes, are politically to the left of the Jewish organizations that represent them. This is an argument that could be debated, though it certainly represents an accepted opinion.
In any event, last week it became apparent that half of Jewish Democrats support Obama, the candidate perceived as "leftist," and the other half Clinton, the more "hawkish" of the two. The numbers are quite a contrast when compared with 'Israeli' Jews, who, according to a poll commissioned by the "Keevoon" institute, prefer the familiar Clinton (61 percent) over the fresh-faced Obama (12 percent).
Only, as mentioned before, there is no significant gap between Clinton's and Obama's stated views on the 'Israeli'-Palestinian conflict. Nor is there a clear difference between the Democratic candidates' and McCain on this issue. This is precisely the reason behind the intense search for other signs that indicate what exactly the candidates' true intentions are should they win office: what did McCain say on his visit to 'Israel', what did Obama's advisor write about 'Israel' in a book, what did a Clinton associate whisper into the ear of the head of a major Jewish organization???!!!
At a discussion last week held at the Washington Institute, Rob Malley - a former member of the Clinton administration who took part in 'Israeli'-Palestinian peace negotiations and who is today an Obama supporter, though not in an advisory capacity - began by setting the record straight. "I'm not speaking for anyone else," Malley told participants.
Malley, who was invited as part of a debate on what to do with Hamas, sided with those who support holding a dialogue with the Islamist organization. Obama, Malley's choice to win the nomination, has taken the opposite position.
