Political Liabilities in the Middle East
by Ari Scott
Of the many stories that emerged from the political conventions in September, one of the most unusual centered on the removal, and subsequent reinsertion, of the following language from the Democratic Party platform: "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel. The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations. It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths." What was remarkable about this episode was not that the language was ultimately reinserted into the Democratic platform, but that it was even left out in the first place.
Could this change in position portend a dangerous weakening of support for Democrats by pro-Israel voters? Electoral season pandering on the issue of Israel is a well-established and well-understood tradition. Conspiracy theories aside, from a political standpoint support for Israel during election season is a no-brainer[A1] : While certain groups (mainly amongst Jews and Evangelical Christians) strongly support Israel, the fact is that there is simply no substantial political constituency in America that you win for being on the other side of the issue.
Yet the language was still removed. And not accidentally - as the New York Times reports, the reinsertion of the language on Jerusalem into the party platform was only approved after "a voice vote that had to be taken three times because of a chorus of noes in the arena." [Landler, September 6, 2012].[1] Indeed, while the President's campaign has been predictably highlighting the United States' ongoing political support of Israel at the United Nations and the continued dispersal of U.S. military and economic aid in the run-up to elections, single-issue Israel voters have in many cases been appalled by the Obama administration's policies with regards to Mideast peacemaking and defense.
The Obama administration has created several controversies through its policies and statements with regard to its closest Middle Eastern ally. President Obama's early peacemaking overtures stumbled when the United States demanded a ten-month freeze in construction in West Bank settlements in 2009 in order to restart stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, only to have the Palestinians refuse to come to the table while the Israelis bristled at the administration's demand that they maintain the freeze in the absence of negotiations.[2] [Dershowitz, June 3, 2012] His major speech on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process in May 2011 created enormous discontent by stating that the 1967 borders should be the basis of any peace deal,[3] [Landler and Myers, May 19, 2011] a position that goes well beyond previous American positions and adopts the Palestinian position on what was previously an issue referred to "final status" negotiations. Finally[A2] , and perhaps most significantly, America's refusal to give Israel assurances or set firm "red lines" with regard to Iran's development of a nuclear capability outside of International Atomic Energy Agency supervision has led to unprecedented concern and fear in Israel, caused a very public spat between the U.S. President and the Israeli Prime Minister, and could potentially lead to a major rift in relations between the two countries.
Should the Democratic Party be worried about losing support amongst Jewish pro-Israel voters and donors? Given that the U.S. electorate is already closely divided, the two candidates are fighting over a relatively small sliver of undecided or "swing" voters. Pro-Republican lobbying organizations have recently invested approximately $6.5 million in a campaign to woo pro-Israel Jewish voters in battleground states like Florida,[4] where Jews comprise 4% of the electorate in a state where elections are often decided by a far smaller margin. One reason for the interest in pro-Israel voters is that they are a "uniquely swayable bloc."[5] Unlike most other special interests, support for Israel is an issue formally embraced by both parties. By contrast, single-issue voters on most other major issues (e.g., abortion, affirmative action, or gun rights) are generally aligned with a single political party and are amongst the least likely voters to swing.[egm3]
The number of voters that may be swayed by policies on Israel is a hotly debated issue. Regardless of its posture toward Israel, a majority of Jews will vote Democratic in 2012. According to the Washington Post, "Only about 6 percent of American Jews vote solely based on Israel-centric issues and most of them are already reliably Republican."[6] [Horowitz, July 30, 2012] However, other surveys indicate that with Israel in the news, the effect on voters may be more substantial. A 2001 study of historical Jewish voting patterns estimated that around 30% of the Jewish vote is "in play" when the two candidates are seen as having markedly different positions on Israel. [Helmreich, 2001] Similarly, according to the "2012 Survey of American Jewish Opinion Highlights" issued by the American Jewish Committee, 22% of American Jews list U.S.-Israel relations as one of their top priorities when voting for president, and a further 15% name the Iranian nuclear issue.[7]
One final point from the 2001 article seems especially relevant today. The authors of that study note that Israel-based swing voting tends to decline during periods where Israel is seen as secure. That is, that "the decline in Jewish communal identification appears to coincide mostly with a view that Israel and the community do not need it." [Helmreich, 2001] However, with the rise of the Iranian nuclear weapons program, the specter of an existential threat to Israel, and even a "second Holocaust," has dramatically risen in prominence. Both parties would do well to consider that as November approaches.
Ari Scott is a lawyer based in Washington DC who previously studied at the Hebrew University of Jerasulem. The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the opinions of America's Impact.
Bomb Iran? Not Now, Not Ever
By Nick Geballe
Progressives need to push back strongly against the idea of American or Israeli military action against Iran. Instead, opponents of airstrikes too often argue that war should only be a last resort if other efforts to stop Iran from going nuclear fail. This framing of the issue concedes too much. It implies that Iran's getting the bomb would be not merely dangerous and destabilizing but absolutely intolerable. It accepts a false choice between military action and Iranian nukes. And if sanctions, diplomacy, and sabotage fail—as they well might—the hawks can use the war-as-a-last-resort framing to argue that war is necessary.
In a Foreign Affairs article last spring entitled, "Not Time To Attack Iran: Why War Should Be a Last Resort," former Defense Department official Colin Kahl made a powerful case against the military option. Kahl argued that bombing would provoke Iranian retaliation and could easily lead to a rapid escalation of the conflict. Even former Pentagon official Matthew Kroenig, whose case for war Kahl was critiquing, conceded that "Tehran would certainly feel like it needed to respond to a U.S. attack, in order to reestablish deterrence and save face domestically." Iran and its terrorist proxies might attack U.S. ships in the Persian Gulf or American civilians in Lebanon or Iraq, or lash out at American allies like Israel. American or Israeli leaders could face irresistible political pressure to strike back, so the situation could easily spin out of control.
Bombing Iran also risks undermining American interests in the Arab world. Kahl wrote that "a U.S. strike could easily shift regional sympathies back in Tehran's favor by allowing Iran to play the victim and, through its retaliation, resuscitate its status as the champion of the region's anti-Western resistance." Iran's domestic political situation would also change for the worse, as "a U.S. attack would provide ammunition to hard-liners who argue for acquiring a nuclear deterrent." Leading Iranian dissidents have argued that an attack would also strengthen the Iranian regime's control of the country.
With their national pride wounded and their fear of attack dramatically confirmed, Iran's leaders are likely to rebuild their nuclear program, redoubling their efforts. They could expel weapons inspectors and withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. In a few years, we would be back in the same position we are in today. Kahl argued that bombing "would likely be just enough to ensure a costly, long-term conflict without actually compelling Iran to change its behavior." As Gen. James Mattis, the head of Central Command, testified to Congress in March, airstrikes would "just delay" Iran's nuclear quest.
But having strongly attacked the case for war, Kahl concluded that "the United States should not rush to use force until all other options have been exhausted and the Iranian threat is not just growing but imminent." In other words, bombing Iran would presumably be a good idea in a few years if other measures fail. Respected former U.S. diplomat Nicholas Burns hedged his bets similarly at the end of a recent op-ed: "before we launch a third Middle East war, we would be well advised to consider first how we might defeat the Iranian leadership by other means — at the negotiating table." Last March, President Obama implicitly committed the United States to stopping Iran from getting the bomb: "as president of the United States, I don't bluff . . . when the United States says it is unacceptable for Iran to have a nuclear weapon, we mean what we say." This war-as-a-last-resort position implies that war and letting Iran go nuclear are distinct alternatives. But as Kahl argued, this is not the case: it would only be true in the unlikely event that airstrikes led the mullahs to give up on their nuclear program. The doves' dodge also entrenches the idea that a scenario in which Iran gets the bomb would be absolutely unacceptable. As challenging as deterring and containing a nuclear-armed Iran would be, it is feasible—deterrence worked against Stalin and Mao, after all. The old peacenik mantra that war does not solve anything is, in this case, true. After the debacles of Iraq and Afghanistan, progressives should not hesitate to say so.
Nick Geballe is a software developer living in Washington, D.C. He is a co-coordinator of a grassroots chapter of Amnesty International.The views expressed here are his own and do not reflect the opinions of America's Impact.
0 comments:
Post a Comment