Editor’s note: This op-ed is by Barrie Dunsmore, a veteran commentator and former ABC News diplomatic correspondent. It originally aired on Vermont Public Radio.
In the reports that Republicans won the seat once held by the discredited New York Democratic Congressman Anthony Weiner, (and held by Democrats since the 1920s), there was a troubling subtext. I have not seen detailed exit polls that support this analysis, but anecdotal evidence was offered on National Public Radio and in The New York Times that Jewish voters who normally support Democrats voted Republican as a protest against President Barack Obama’s treatment of Israel. The ninth congressional district in Brooklyn/Queens is largely working class and nearly 40 percent Jewish.
Former New York City Mayor Ed Koch, a Jewish Democrat, endorsed winner Bob Turner, a Catholic Republican. Koch said this was a way to “send a message” to Obama on his policies toward Israel. The losing Democratic candidate David Weprin is an orthodox Jew. But during the campaign, he was criticized for his support for a proposed Islamic Center in lower Manhattan , not far from Ground Zero.
If indeed substantial numbers of Jews deserted the Democratic Party over Obama’s attitude toward Israel, this is very bad news on many different levels – although it is not really surprising.
I understand why Jewish Americans remain vigilant and sensitive to the security of Israel. And obviously there have been some very significant changes in the Middle East in recent months that have created new uncertainties. But that said, there is not the slightest evidence that the Obama administration is backing away from America’s long-term commitment to Israel ’s security. Not the slightest. I can see why there could be some doubts — although not because of anything that Obama has actually done. That doubt has been fostered by the behavior of the large majority of both Democrats and Republicans in the United States Congress – abetted by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Last May, a joint meeting of Congress gave Netanhayu 29 standing ovations as he delivered the hardest of hard-line speeches that contained not a ray of hope for peace. It would be missed by few, and certainly not by the American Jewish community, that this lavish congressional reception occurred immediately after Netanyahu had openly insulted the president of the United States by using a ceremonial photo-op in the Oval Office to deliver a stern, seven-minute lecture to Mr. Obama that was televised world wide. Among other things, he implied that Obama didn’t truly understand the Middle East or the history of suffering of the Jewish people.
What was particularly egregious about Netanyahu’s Oval Office performance was that it was based on a deliberate distortion of what Obama had said in a speech the day before, when he called for peace between Israelis and Palestinians based upon the existing borders prior to the 1967 Mideast War. The Israeli PM made it seem as though Obama was demanding total Israeli capitulation. In fact,, Netanyahu conveniently omitted the qualifying phrase Obama had used — that those borders should also be based on “agreed-upon land swaps” – meaning Palestinians would give up land containing Israel’s major settlements in return for Israeli land, probably in the south. This is a formulation which has been understood and agreed to in principle by all the parties for at least a decade. Yet, Republican presidential hopeful Mitt Romney jumped in to accuse Obama of “throwing Israel under the bus.” That was absolutely false. But average voters don’t follow these matters closely, so when they consistently hear such allegations they can be forgiven if they have an impression that Obama is anti- Israel. The Congress can not be so easily forgiven. Most members, especially the leaders, know better.
But congressmen do not lose their seats for being too pro-Israel. That may explain why last month a quarter of the entire House of Representatives — 26 Democrats and 55 Republicans (a record number for a single congressional recess) – seemed perfectly comfortable going on a week-long freeload to Israel. This at a time of great public angst because of continuing high unemployment and America ’s failing economy; at a time when members of Congress were supposedly at home listening to their very troubled constituents. Instead these House members were guests of the American Israel Education Foundation, a charity tied to the powerful Israeli lobby AIPAC – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. According to published accounts each member and each spouse cost the sponsors a minimum of $8,000 for business-class airfare, first-class hotel rooms and meals.
In The New York Times account of these junkets, House Republican Leader Eric Cantor, described by the Times as the most powerful Jewish member of Congress, brushed off the trips’ critics. “The White House and president have not been as clear as where it stands and he stands on the relationship (with Israel ),” said Mr. Cantor, “and that has added interest on the part of the members.” This suggestion, that somehow Mr. Obama is not to be trusted when it comes to Israel’s security, has thus become an insidious weapon of choice for the president’s political opponents.
It is true that this year Obama did propose that Israel maintain a temporary settlement freeze in Palestinian territory, as a way of encouraging a new round of peace talks. (All presidents going back to Jimmy Carter have considered the settlements obstacles to peace.) But Netanyahu loudly refused, while defiantly stepping up settlement construction. If Obama is to be faulted it is that he has accepted Netanyahu’s evident contempt far too graciously – and acquiesced much too easily in the Israeli leader’s intransigence.
Before deciding on the basis of specious information that Obama is a danger to Israel, all Americans, Jewish or not, should consider what very knowledgeable Israelis are saying. As I’ve noted previously, since Israel ’s inception in 1948, only 18 men now living have served as heads of the Israeli Defense Forces, the Mossad intelligence agency and the Shin Bet internal security service. Four are old and inactive. Of the remaining 14, 12 have recently challenged Netanyahu’s policies, not Obama’s, as the real threat to Israel ’s future.
.
