To me, one of the most interesting portions of the CNN foreign policy debate was the section on Iran and Israel. I say this for two reasons.
First, the recent developments in Iran have been staggering. Two weeks ago the IAEA, the UN's nuclear watchdog, released a report stating that Iran is in fact developing nuclear weapons. Furthermore, the IAEA speculates that Iran would have a nuclear weapon within a year if not within six months. This is certainly a stunning development considering that for years the IAEA, Iran, and the rest of the world have danced a shifty game about Iran's nuclear development.
Second, after the debate, I was reminded about a
certain article that I had read earlier this year. Following Obama's tactical changes in middle east policy, the Jewish vote seems to have shifted slightly. In 2008, 8 out of 10 Jewish voters went to Obama. However, this may change considering Obama's recent position on Palestine. Of course the New York Times article (hyper-linked above) does qualify that the Jewish vote isn't a one-issue constituency, but I find it interesting how the Republican base has responded.
A
CNN recap of the debate caught onto this trend. And I quote:
Republicans agree: We love Israel: Tuesday's debate made clear that in the wake of George W. Bush's eight years in office, the Republican Party lacks any sort of cohesive foreign policy vision.
There remains one point of consensus, however: That the United States should do whatever it takes to protect and defend Israel.
With the exception of Paul, the Republican candidates have all taken stridently pro-Israel positions throughout the campaign.
The ante was upped Tuesday by Romney, who made this promise: "If I'm president of the United States, my first trip -- my first foreign trip will be to Israel to show the world we care about that country and that region."
Former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum said he would do the same.
Cain said he would side with Israel if it launched an attack on Iran to disable its nuclear capabilities.
Huntsman went out of his way to praise Israel later, saying this: "Our interest in the Middle East is Israel. And our interest is to ensure that ... Iran does not go nuclear."
So while Israel certainly isn't the most important hot topic issue in the nation right now. I find it interesting how these special interest groups are able to receive so much attention in foreign policy. (Especially considering how Obama has hinted that the United States should be shifting its foreign policy interests towards an Asia-PAC focus.) Certainly, the Jewish vote matters, especially in the swing states of Ohio and Florida, but is that the only reason the Republican nominees are so pro-Israel? While the Republican party has historically been pro-military, it seems more recently that, with the current economic problems, some portions of the Republican party have taken a rather isolationist twinge. That is, an isolationist twinge, with the exception of Israel.
14 comments:
Well of course both parties are shifting their views slightly as to swing votes and become majority party. By only having 2 parties, they can't exactly hold firm in their beliefs whatever they be because they have a wide range of people to impress. In terms of the special attention Israel receives, it probably goes back to our roots in their controversial matter.
I think that Israel will always be a hot topic issue. America supports Israel because it's the only stable democracy in the Middle East, and therefore an ally.
While I can't speak for other Jews, I personally don't think that Obama is anti-Israel because of his '67 borders solution. No one has a good solution for this situation which is why it's such a mess. I'm also not sure that Republican support of Israel is really all that new. It's possible that Republicans are making their support more obvious to appeal to Jewish voters, but, as the article already pointed out, Jews vote based on many issues. Israel is just one of them.
On the subject of Cain's promise to follow Israel into war with Iran, I wonder where the US was before Iran officially went nuclear because it seems now that we are in between a rock and a hard place. That is the entering into a war with Iran which would contribute to even more chaos in that region and possibly cause a global recession due to the large amounts of oil in the Middle East may not be the smartest plan of action. On the other hand, the US want to appease Iran in the face of threats such as President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's to “wipe Israel off the map.”1.
1. Examiner.com Iran Goes Nuclear - Los Angeles City Buzz | Examiner.com http://www.examiner.com/city-buzz-in-los-angeles/iran-goes-nuclear#ixzz1emvHeuDX
I agree with Meredith's view that Obama is not totally anti-Israel, which has been swarming among public opinion ever since his call for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders. There is plenty of evidence demonstrating Obama's support of Israel, as evinced by his pressure on Egypt to honor existing peace agreements with Israel and to protect the Israeli Embassy in Cairo. However, the Republican candidates are using Obama's position on the Israel-Palestinian border conflict as the center focus of their lure of the Jewish population away from supporting the Obama administration, harping exclusively on this decision as evidence for Obama's "failures." In my opinion, these criticisms are invalid on the part of the GOP candidates unless they start to take a more forward-thinking direction.
Personally, I find America’s fascination with Israel ridiculous and outdated, especially given the recent changes in the Mediterranean area. I think that although it would be beneficial for America to keep a strong relationship with Israel, America’s current pro-Israel attitude will potentially damage (and has damaged) it’s relationships with other Middle Eastern countries and other countries in the near vicinity, many of which are opposed to Israel for religious reasons. Given the recent political upheavals in the Mediterranean area, such as in Libya and Egypt, two predominately Muslim countries, it would be in America’s best interest to abandon its pro-Israel attitude in order forge solid relationships with the new governments of both nations. Additionally, I would like respectively disagree with Meredith, since Israel is not the “only stable democracy in the Middle East.” For instance, Lebanon has a republican form of government, a form of government similar to what America is currently employing, but has not garnered the support from America that Israel has, so I do not think that Israel is being given special treatment solely due to the fact that it is a democratic nation.
Israel always has been a hot topic with the US. This isn't solely because of Jewish interest though. This is also a matter of Christian interest. I think that part of why the (Christian) Republicans are so interested in Israel is for their own religious reasons.
And yes Ryan, Lebanon does have a democracy, but it is not particularly stable nor does it have any sort of equality or equal representation. And yes, I realize that Israel does not get an A+ in terms of equality either. I'm not saying that America supports them because they are a Democracy.
Besides the Christian attachment, Israel is the only country in the Middle East that is not Muslim or Arab. And America has never been fond (especially since 9/11) of Arabs or Muslims. So the fact that Israel is not either of those makes them appealing as an ally to the US.
Israel also has amazing technology and medical research. The first text message was sent in Israel, they first created nano bots, they have incredibly advanced warfare technology. So being friends with Israel isn't too shabby for the US in those aspects either.
Personally, I do not find the love of Israel ridiculous and outdated. There are many reasons why it is valid. But besides that, Israel needs the US to stay alive honestly. And Israel crumbling is a horrible idea, not only for the Jews, but for the world. The US's relationship with most Middle Eastern countries is already destroyed, so that should not be a concern. And if it can keep one, it should.
And as for Lybia and Egypt, well their governments are now in turmoil. Abandoning Israel for them would be a stupid move for America, and Israel. Israel would be destroyed in seconds. I say that not only as Jew and an American, but also from having lived in Israel for 4 months. The political situation over there is far more complicated that anyone in America will ever understand.
My younger brother, who is a freshman, was recently required to write an "un-biased" report concerning some of the history of the Palestine-Israel debate. Frustrated, he complained that, "All of the sources I'm supposed to look at are biased!"
I think that politicians have been forced to tip-toe as much as possible around this topic in order to appear "un-biased" but still pro-Israel. It makes you wonder how much of what they say echos their own beliefs.
Although I agree with you, Maya, that Israel is highly accomplished in the fields of technology and medical research, and that a continued relationship with Israel would be beneficial to America, I think that you might have misread my earlier statement. I said that America should abandon is pro-Israeli attitude, not completely abandon Israel. I also vehemently disagree with your suggestion that America should give up on strengthening its relationships with other Middle Eastern countries, since many of them currently provide resources that America desires. Additionally, America has a moral obligation, as do many other countries, to attempt to fix its relations with many Middle Eastern countries and attempt to provide the necessary aide to fix their governments as they wish, since many of the current problems in the Middle East are due to actions by America during the Cold War, and even back to the formation of these countries as directed by Europeans after the first World War. Just because we have a solid relationship with Israel does not mean that we have to forsake all other countries in the Middle East in order to keep that relationship. It is very possible for America to maintain its strong relationship with Israel while still helping other Middle Eastern countries.
I believe that Israel is symbolic of how we are supposed to be protectors of minorities, and is in basic, irrelevant to the ideas of democracy. Israel embodies how we fight for those who cant fight for themselves. As for Iran vs Israel, I do not think that any aggression is good aggression but people have been looking at the US wondering why we support Saudi Kings and other Kings and monarchs in the Middle East, perhaps this would be one instance where that does not come into play. And since nearly the entire bulk of Israel's defences stem from the US (their advanced technology is mostly ours, that we gave them) it would be smart for us to protect our investments both in an established democracy, and the minority because if we are to continue being the envisioned "police force of the world" because we are still the super power, where better to start than our allies to prove that we still fight for the smaller, the weak and that we dont buckle to the whims of an aggressive, yet powerful, minority
I also agree with Meredith that Obama is not anti-Israel. In the Times article, it seems that the Jewish population is overreacting because they call President Obama "Not Pro-Israel" because he is seen smiling and shaking hands with the Palestinian president. And like Meredith said,Republican support for Israel is probably not a novel idea. I believe that the Republican nominees are being especially pro-Israel is of recent because the nomination even now is indecisive. The nominees can't afford to lose any supporters at this point. Additionally, Israel is pretty much the one positive relationship America has in the Middle East.
Ryan, I'm sorry I misread.
But I didn't mean that America should abandon all other ties in the Middle East. I only meant that they should not abandon Israel and that forsaking her for other countries is not the best move. Also that joinging forces with unstable new nations might not be the best idea.
I wish that America could have a relationship with both Israel and other Middle Eastern countries, I just don't know if that is at all possible due to the hatred between them.
I would like to disagree with Amy on the point that it is the only solid relationship in the middle east. For one we have the new government in Iraq and our relationship with Saudi Arabia which has been good since the Persian Gulf war. But I do agree that supporting Israel is in their best interest for votes. The bad thing to say would be that Israel has caused the area to become unstable and that it was a mistake. As for joining with new governments, we have been for a long time, especially with new democratic nations, and as for the middle east countries, I think that there is a rift there that has been set in stone over the ages due to the religous aspects. At some point that will have to change in order for there to be no rifts, they would have to become more like our country, even though the US isnt totally accepting of everything we at least accept different religons, but for now, there can be enough of a change that they will stop hostilities, till then, we will have to take sides to some degree.
That’s okay Maya, and I realize that I am being overly optimistic in my views about America allying itself with politically unstable countries that might potentially damage our strong relationship with Israel. I just find that since America has caused most of the problems in the Middle East due to its ridiculous actions during the Cold War, it should somehow try to help the countries it harmed. Most of the anger directed at America is well deserved and as a result, our actions in the Middle East may be fruitless, but we should nonetheless try to strengthen our relationships with the countries that are willing to accept it.
Post a Comment