Why Democrats recoil from Gaza
David Frum
Good for Shrum for championing Israel’s right to defend itself against the Hamas rocket barrage. He is correct, too, that lasting peace will come only when the Palestinians abandon their hope that Israel can somehow be defeated or destroyed.
Unfortunately, Shrum represents an increasingly minority point of view within the Democratic Party. A Rasmussen poll conducted in the last week of 2008 found that while 62 percent of Republicans backed Israel’s action in Gaza, only 31 percent of Democrats did. Almost three-quarters of Republicans blamed Hamas for starting this war; only a minority of Democrats agreed. Republicans are 20 points more friendly toward Israel than Democrats. And while extreme hostility to Israel does not exist among Republicans, almost one in 10 Democrats describes Israel as an “enemy of the United States.”
This is the political environment in which Barack Obama will be forming policy toward the Jewish state. Friends of Israel should find this worrying to say the least.
Democratic revulsion at Israel’s Gaza operation has multiple roots.
First, Democrats are just generally less likely to support military actions by any nation, including the United States. A 2005 MIT poll found that only 57 percent of Democrats would support the use of American troops even to destroy a terrorist training camp. (Compared to 95 percent of Republicans.)
Second, Democrats hold an inexhaustible faith in the value of negotiation. Untroubled by Hamas’ character as a terrorist movement pledged to the total destruction of Israel and the murder of its population, 55 percent of Democrats believe that Israel should have tried to find a diplomatic solution to the Hamas rocket barrage.
Third, the more closely Americans follow the news, the more likely they are to support Israel. Yet more low-information voters are Democrats than Republicans.
Fourth, Democratic attitudes are poisoned by the influence of an anti-Zionist hard left, a vociferous faction whose ideology can bleed into outright anti-Semitism. The foreign policy page at the Barack Obama transition website, Change.gov, features many disturbing examples of this trend. There you will find questions and comments like the following:
“How might you propose to hold Israel accountable for their awful record of human rights abuses? My personal sense is that Israeli abuse of non-Jewish residents in Middle East is our #1 problem.”
“The root cause of the world's problems is the Israeli occupation of Palestine and the ongoing war crimes perpetrated by Israel.”
“The massacre of the Palestinian people by the excessive forces of Israeli military should be soundly condemned—why is Obama NOT taking a MORAL stand on this holocaust? Shocking!”
“What will you do to help end the illegal and immoral occupation of Palestine, to end the oppression of the Palestinian people by the genocidal government of Israel?
“How will President Obama uncouple the ‘Israeli Lobby’ from the US political process, to prevent its current undue influence over U.S. foreign and domestic policy?”
Obama has better things to do with his time than scroll through page after page of comments on his website condemning Israel as "genocidal" or accusing it of perpetrating "holocausts." Yet it is also true that Obama comes to office with the most opaque record on Israel of any new president since Gerald Ford. Certainly Israelis themselves feel intense doubts about the incoming president: a pre-election opinion poll by the Rabin Center showed that Israelis preferred John McCain by a 12-point margin.
We should all hope that President Obama can overcome the institutional flaws in his party—and the gaps in his own record—in order to sustain the U.S.-Israel friendship through the very great dangers ahead. (And Shrum, we're counting on you to kick him if he doesn't!)
Show: Oldest | Newest
25 Comments
Posted by Kam, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 12:05 am "Democrats hold an inexhaustible faith in the value of negotiation".............This is such a funny comment. Dems have been taught by Carville, Begalla, and yes, Obama to get into peoples' faces and screed until the other person agrees. What the dems haven't learned is that the other person is leaving in disgust not because they have been convinced of anything. Dems believe that the same type of negotiations with enemies is a guarantee of success. When someone is willing and wanting to suffer and die for their beliefs, there is no means of negotiation because there is nothing for which to negotiate.
Posted by MarkJ, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 11:15 am Republicans generally believe that "process" is a means to an end. Democrats generally believe that "process" is an end in itself. Most Democrats will continue to believe in the latter...right up to the day a car bomb explodes on their quiet, tree-lined streets.
Posted by Jethro, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 12:11 pm Your copy is too wide for my screen and no way to scroll left to right. So, I can't read your stuff. Pity ?
Posted by Katie, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 1:13 pm "Third, the more closely Americans follow the news, the more likely they are to support Israel. Yet more low-information voters are Democrats than Republicans." I follow the news more closely than most people I know, and I am a Democrat. I also have taken the time to research the history of the present-day Israel-Palestine conflict, which you rarely get in the news beyond the last attack. What I have noticed is that when I watch or read mainstream news, I often find myself correcting them on blatant misinformation, inaccuracies, or omissions. So maybe people who watch the news support Israel because the news itself supports Israel? Wasn't that the conservative argument for why Obama was so popular -- he was popular in the news, and so he was popular with the people? Among the well-educated democrats, all the "pointy-headed professor types" conservatives seem to loathe so much, there is a fairly strong consensus that while Hamas is not right in what they do, neither is Israel. I think you are correct in saying that, generally speaking, Democrats are less likely to support violent conflict. I personally am not willing to support a conflict when it has been going on for 100 years, and the violence has yet to achieve the ends either side seeks. If someone told you that if you bashed your head against a 100 ft. cement wall long enough, you could eventually bring down the wall, would you keep bashing your head against it, day after day, year after year? My logic is not that I am against war. It's just that in this particular case, it has proven to be ineffective and has not achieved its goals. Perhaps that's crazy logic to see a century of failed war as, well, a failure, but. I don't believe Israel to be genocidal or evil or anything like that. I believe them to be misguided and to be pursuing a policy that will not improve the situation for their people. If you see my, and many other Democrats', beliefs that ongoing military action as not being to Israel's benefit either, then you will see we are are, in fact, also friends to Israel. We just believe that there's a better way of being their friends than cheering them on in a never ending battle. But, keep telling them to bash their heads against that wall. Perhaps 100 more years of bashing will bring it down.
Posted by Jay, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 1:38 pm Katie said, finally, "If you see my, and many other Democrats', beliefs that ongoing military action as not being to Israel's benefit either, then you will see we are are, in fact, also friends to Israel. We just believe that there's a better way of being their friends than cheering them on in a never ending battle." Apparently that would be the surrender option that Democrats pushed so strongly for in Iraq. Of maybe cheering their negotiations while condemning the right to self defense. Israel has been fighting for survival for 60 years, not 100, and negotiating for 50 years. The fighting has kept Israel in existance while the negotiations have accomplished...lets see...the Oslo Accords...land for peace... withdrawal from Gaza...and on an on with never any peace. Perhaps Katie will explain exactly how you negotiate with people who are only interested in your extermination. Too bad Katie wasn't around to provide guidance for the Jews in their negotiation with the Third Reich's on the "final solution". Surely things would have worked out swell.
Posted by orthodoc, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 3:21 pm "I personally am not willing to support a conflict when it has been going on for 100 years, and the violence has yet to achieve the ends either side seeks." The end that Hamas seeks is the destruction of Israel and the obliteration of the Jews. It's in their charter, and very explicitly so. The end that Israel seeks is to be left alone. As the IRA told Margaret Thatcher following an unsuccessful assassination attempt, "You have to be lucky every time. We only have to be lucky once." I assume the analogy is clear.
Posted by jr565, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 3:43 pm Katie represents the liberal world view to a tee in her denunciation of Israel and also her decrying violence. And its so damn myopic and one side its annoying. Its hard to believe grwon people have such a disconnect from reality yet it is quite common. In her worldview Israel and the US are the cause of all problems, and thus also the cause of all solutions. Any and all grievances of their enemies are caused due to actions of the superpowers(and all legitimate apparently) and therefore all that needs to be done to end any violence is for Israel or the US to stop engaging in violence. This is best exemplified in the following paragraph: I believe them to be misguided and to be pursuing a policy that will not improve the situation for their people. If you see my, and many other Democrats', beliefs that ongoing military action as not being to Israel's benefit either, then you will see we are are, in fact, also friends to Israel. We just believe that there's a better way of being their friends than cheering them on in a never ending battle. But, keep telling them to bash their heads against that wall. Because apparently to Katie only Israel and the US can even have a policy to pursue.Palestinians, in her view apparently only react to Israels policies. But if Israel stopped banging their head against the wall violence would instantly end because the Palestians do not have goals and motivations of their own. They are simply reactors. I'd argue that it takes two to tango, and if in fact Israel is at war with Hamas or Iran or any combo it doesn't mean that they are necessarily the cause or that were they to stop fighting that somehow it would mean that Iran would stop arming Hamas or that Hamas would stop firing rockets. It may even be in Israel's interest to stop banging their heads against the wall (to use Katie's comparison), that doesnt mean though that somehow Iran or Hamas wants to cease banging its head against the wall or more accurately that they dont want to caese banging Israel's head against the wall. Remember katie, Israel and Hamas had a ceasefire. Israel gave Gaza to the Palestinians with no preconditions. Yet Hamas is still firing rockets. If someone wants to fight and another person doesn't it doesn't stop the person wanting to fight if the other person withdraws, unless they too want to stop fighting. Also, the argument that Katie is somehow a friend to Israel but just doens't feel like supporting them in their banging their head against the wall is again, one sided. What about Iran supporting Hamas? Does her withdrawing her support from Israel mean somehow that Iran withdraws its support from Hamas? Absolutely not. Think of it as a tug of war. Both sides are pulling on the rope. If all of Israels supporters stop pulling on the rope but none of the Hamas supporters do it doesn't mean an end to the tug of war. It simply means that one side wins. The antiwar stance doesn't in fact stop wars it ensures that the wrong side wins and in fact prolongs wars or makes wars more inevitable.
Posted by Lucy, Thursday, January 8, 2009, 4:07 pm "Third, the more closely Americans follow the news, the more likely they are to support Israel. ...." Not if they've been reading and watching news coverage - American and Internaional - this week.
Post a Comment