Kesher Talk

Hebrew Lessons: Kerry's Jewish problems
by lawrence f. kaplan
The New Republic
May 10, 2004

Last December, even as John Kerry was beginning his remarkable ascent in the Democratic primaries, his standing with America's mainstream Jewish organizations sank to an all-time low. The nadir came in a December 3 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations, where Kerry recommended dispatching Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, or former Secretary of State James Baker to Israel as special envoys--a tone-deaf proposal, given Carter's and Baker's reputations as vituperative critics of Israel. "I don't know whether to laugh or to cry," Anti-Defamation League (ADL) National Director Abe Foxman complained. "Two are biased on the side of the Arabs--Carter and Baker--and Clinton tried and failed, so why would we use him again?"

Kerry's troubles with the pro-Israel community began in 2002, when he assailed Ariel Sharon for his approach to the peace process. Before long, Kerry was assailing the Bush team, too--for having failed to act as an "honest broker" and for having "restrained the State Department" from intervening in the Israeli-Palestinian maelstrom, especially when the "Arab leaders, I think, are prepared to move." In June 2002, Kerry even proposed inserting American troops into the mix, an idea Israel has long rejected, and, last year, he condemned Israel's security fence as "another barrier to peace," adding that he witnessed how "Palestinian women, traveling on foot, were forced to stand in long lines at checkpoints with their children tugging at their sleeves and their arms loaded with groceries."

After floating his Carter-Baker proposal in December, Kerry only made matters worse by professing astonishment "that we are not picking up somewhere near where we left off at Taba"--the problem with this formulation being that the January 2001 attempt by the Clinton administration and Ehud Barak's government to resuscitate the peace process at Taba was, far from a starting point, Israel's last-ditch effort to placate Yasir Arafat; and it culminated in a torrent of violence. Nonetheless, in January, Kerry offered kind words for the even more controversial Geneva Accord--a "virtual" peace agreement bankrolled by the European Union and drawn up by Yossi Beilin, a former member of the far-left Meretz Party--whose proposals even Barak denounced as "rewarding terror."

For many leaders of pro-Israel organizations, Kerry's pledge to "treat the United Nations as a full partner" simply added to the discomfort--given that institution's decades-long record of singling out the Jewish state for opprobrium. "It's patently obvious that international institutions have a real animus toward Israel," says David Twersky of the American Jewish Congress, "and, if a president wants to be enmeshed by the U.N., it will of course be injurious to Israel." In a similar vein, Kerry's vow that, "as president, I will engage Iran" hardly sits well with those who view the Islamic republic as the greatest threat to the Jewish state. "Christ, even [Representative] Jerry Nadler has been telling [the Kerry team] to take a hard line toward Iran," says the leader of a major American Jewish organization.

The anxiety stirred by Kerry's remarks is of more than mere anthropological interest. "Bush's strong position on Israel and the war on terror," says Malcolm Hoenlein of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, "have established different parameters for the [U.S.] election debate than we've ever seen before." A recent poll by the American Jewish Committee found that, while Bush garnered only 19 percent of the Jewish vote in 2000, today he would draw 31 percent. That may not seem like much of a difference, but, when combined with the fact that Jews turn out to vote at a rate of 80 percent; the sizable Jewish populations in battleground states, such as Pennsylvania, Florida, and Ohio; and the campaign donations at stake, the difference could matter enormously. For those who view Israel as a decisive issue, it already does.

That Kerry should find himself defending his Israel bona fides counts as one of the stranger twists in this election year. After all, Kerry's Senate voting record on Israel qualifies, according to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, as "near perfect."

... So why has Kerry strayed from his own script during his presidential run? Despite his record--which, excellent though it may be, hardly distinguishes him from his fellow senators in the northeast corridor--he rarely, if ever, took the lead on Israel-related issues in the Senate, and, even according to his supporters, remains something of a novice on the subject. "Kerry is not one of the handful of those in the Senate who follows Israel issues minutely," says Ira Forman, executive director of the National Jewish Democratic Council.

Filling the void during the early days of his campaign were advisers who share a very particular view of the Arab-Israeli conflict. Among these was Alan Solomont, who, as well as being a longtime Kerry confidante and top fund-raiser, serves as a member of the executive committee of the left-leaning Israel Policy Forum (IPF) and is an outspoken Geneva proponent with close ties to Beilin. Another voice dispensing wisdom to Kerry on Israel has been Clinton national security adviser Sandy Berger, an animating force behind the failed negotiations at Camp David and Taba, who insists that Geneva dispelled the "myth" that "there is no constituency among Palestinians for a peace settlement that recognizes Israel's right to exist." And, though a Kerry adviser denies that Beilin himself has been in touch with the Kerry team, reached by telephone in Israel, the Geneva architect says he discussed Middle East policy with Kerry prior to the campaign, adding, "Yes, I am in contact with Kerry's camp--I have met with and I speak with Alan Solomont and Sandy Berger."

Facing criticism that Kerry was taking his cues on Israel from the left--criticism relayed mostly in phone calls to Kerry and his national security adviser, Rand Beers--the campaign began to reverse course early this year. On February 28, the Kerry team arranged for the candidate to sit down with Jewish leaders in New York. From left to right, the entire spectrum of U.S. Jewish opinion showed up--Solomont, ADL National Director Foxman, IPF's Judith Stern Peck, American Jewish Congress President Jack Rosen, the Conference's Hoenlein and Jim Tisch, Betty Ehrenberg of the Orthodox Union, and dozens of others. With one exception, the meeting went well. Kerry defended Israel's security fence. He insisted that Israel could not move forward until it had a partner on the other side of the table. He assured that, his avowed fealty to multilateralism notwithstanding, he would continue U.N. Ambassador John Negroponte's policy of vetoing anti-Israel resolutions in the Security Council. And he added former Clinton envoy Dennis Ross to his list of potential envoys. "There wasn't a person who sat and listened to him and left the room without realizing that there has been no presidential candidate who's so prepared [on Israel-related issues]," says Solomont.

Not long after leaving the room, however, the sentiment, at least among some of the attendees, began to shift. It did so because one of the first things Kerry did at the meeting was to blame his aides for the mention of Carter and Baker as possible envoys in his December speech--a claim that several participants double-checked as soon as they walked out the door. The names, Kerry said, had been inserted by mistake, and he had even asked that they be removed. The problem is, in the speech itself, Kerry said, "There are a number of uniquely qualified Americans among whom I would consider appointing, including President Carter. ... And, I might add, I have had conversations with both President Clinton and President Carter about their willingness to do this." Kerry spokesperson Stephanie Cutter even confirmed to The Boston Globe in December that he had spoken with Carter. Today, the campaign offers this explanation: The candidate eventually did speak with Carter--but only after noticing that a draft of his speech said that he spoke with Carter.

For the Kerry team, though, the New York meeting marked a turning point. A few weeks later, it scheduled a second one, this time with Beers and former U.N. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. Participants claim that Beers, a career civil servant and terrorism expert who resigned from the Bush National Security Council, mostly sat and listened, and, when he did comment, seemed poorly versed in the details of issues like the nexus between U.S. unilateralism and Israeli security. Holbrooke, by contrast, dazzled his audience with a catalogue of facts and hard-line pledges.

Kerry's rhetoric has also undergone a profound revision--it now sounds a lot more like Holbrooke's. Gone are references to Taba and Carter. Gone too, in fact, is any trace of the Kerry of earlier this year. Hence, whereas in October, he criticized the fence as "a barrier to peace," today he insists that the "fence only exists in response to the wave of terror attacks against Israel." In his "Meet the Press" appearance last week, the candidate seemed prepared to climb into a tank with Sharon, echoing, among other things, Bush's insistence that Israel has a right to maintain some territory it captured in 1967.

... In Bush, they see conviction; in Kerry, they see an absence of conviction. To be sure, Kerry seems unlikely to flip-flop again during the campaign. The more intriguing question concerns what sort of approach a candidate who, in Israel's case, genuinely has straddled the fence would enshrine in official policy. The answer may lie with the last person who whispers in his ear.

posted by William @ 5/03/2004 03:37:14 PM