Scaring Jewish voters

Editorial

The Republican strategy in the final days of the American presidential election was to frighten Jews.

Over the years, Republicans have accused Democrats of frightening seniors by warning them of Republican impacts on economic issues. But there was little compunction – at least among Republican-supporting groups, if not the McCain-Palin campaign itself – to squeeze out a few precious votes in Florida, Pennsylvania and wherever they could hope to scare Jewish voters by warning of catastrophic consequences of a Barack Obama presidency.

Pre-election polls indicated that American Jews were preparing to vote for the Obama-Biden ticket by almost four-to-one margins. Another poll indicated that American voters in Israel were preparing to vote in similar proportions for McCain-Palin. These pre-election polls suggest that American Jews' traditional liberalism was little swayed by the rash of rumors and attacks slung against Democrats, particularly Obama, especially in the closing, desperate days of the campaign. Even so, it is surprising and a bit worrying that American-Israelis and American Diaspora Jews, as groups, appear so contrary. Are American Jewish voters as a whole so much less Zionist than their Israeli-American counterparts? Or does remoteness from the campaign and the candidates breed suspicion? Does proximity breed trust?

Perhaps it is that American voters in Israel rely far more on the Internet and e-mail as sources of American news. In this unmoderated medium, anything goes, as our inbox indicates.

One e-mail, an almost serious-looking affidavit purports to be a legal admission by Obama that he was not born in the United States and is, therefore, ineligible to serve as president. The e-mail also claims to demonstrate that the Democratic National Committee and plenty of others are involved in a cover-up to prevent this information from coming out.

Another much-forwarded message parses what most viewed as a ringing endorsement of Israel by Obama at the AIPAC conference earlier this year and finds a sinister loophole.

"Let me be clear," Obama declared to the AIPAC crowd, "Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper – but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders."

The e-mail writer in this case notes that a contiguous Palestine almost certainly means a non-contiguous Israel, given the simple reality of local geography, with Gaza and the West Bank sandwiching Israel. And it is a fair question as to how a contiguous Palestine would not bisect a safe and secure Israel, but the far more significant aspect of Obama's comments to AIPAC was his unequivocal rejection of a literal Palestinian "right of return" inherent in his commitment to preserving the Jewish identity of Israel. We are a long way from negotiating final status issues like borders, but by ruling out the demographic suicide that is a literal "right of return," Obama efficiently eliminates the worst threat to Israel presented by any potential final agreement.

Another e-mail condemns Obama for the fact that some Palestinians were using the advanced campaign technology made available by the Obama campaign to make online telephone calls to voters in the United States.

Then there is Obama's association with extremist religious figure Jeremiah Wright, which is the most legitimate criticism against Obama, but this was an avenue that the McCain campaign, officially, did not approach. However, as the election date neared, it was clear that Republican talking points had abruptly and unequivocally turned their attention to scaring Jewish voters.

The resonance of these frightful appeals to Zionist voters comes from the fact that the stakes are precisely as high as Obama's attackers say they are. Just as the world refused to take seriously the threats facing European Jews in the 20th century, the 21st century has begun with a clear disposition to underestimate the seriousness and potential of Iran's genocidal promise against the Jews of Israel. But to imply that Obama does not take seriously these threats defies every indication he gave in his campaign.

If we are convinced of the moral, political, historical and practical legitimacy of the Jewish state, we should be far more enthusiastic about defending it, not through fear-mongering, but by advocating for Israel in legitimate political venues.

Israel and the United States have a special relationship based on a complex array of historical, philosophical and practical imperatives. This relationship is not a Republican phenomenon or a Democratic one. It goes to the heart of the two countries' places in the world as self-identified defenders of values like human rights, freedom of belief and expression, legal color-blindness and human equality, however imperfectly realized.

A new administration and a new Congress is an opportunity to broaden the discussion of Israel's moral case, which is a conversation we should welcome.

^TOP