Posted on 10/19/2004 7:39:27 AM PDT by arnoldknox
(CNSNews.com) - Relying on the traditional support of Jewish voters, the Kerry-Edwards campaign may not welcome news from the Middle East on how the parties to the Arab-Israeli conflict view the election.
Yasser Arafat's Palestinian Authority on Monday gave its first public indication of which candidate it would like to see in the White House next year.
"If [President] Bush wins, he said he would renew efforts to resume the peace process," PA foreign minister Nabil Shaath told the BBC in London. "However, with the staff that surrounds him and with his current opinions, it doesn't look promising."
Under a Kerry administration, however, "it would be likely that several staff members during Clinton's administration would return," Shaath said. "That would be a good thing, but it could take at least a year before a policy is formulated."
Elaborating on the PA's unhappiness with the incumbent, the Palestine Media Center -- an official PA institution -- said Palestinians held the Bush administration responsible for Israel's isolation of Arafat since the end of 2001.
"Bush's refusal to deal with Arafat was interpreted by Palestinians as another "green light'' for Israel to impose and to maintain the siege on Arafat," it said.
The comments add substance to an assessment last July by Israel's military intelligence chief, Major-General Aharon Ze'evi, who was quoted as telling the cabinet: "Arafat is now waiting for the month of November in the hope that President Bush will be defeated in the presidential election and turned out of his office."
The PA view on the election contrasts sharply with that of Israeli leaders, who have echoed the words spoken by former Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu in Washington in 2002: "There has never been a greater friend of Israel in the White House than President George W. Bush."
Last week, in a coordinated survey of opinions in 10 key countries in Europe, Asia and North America, Israel was one of only two countries -- the other was Russia -- where poll respondents favored Bush over Kerry (by 50 percentage points to 24).
Other polls in Israel have indicated that a majority of Israelis are grateful to Bush for going to war against Iraq and toppling Saddam Hussein, a sworn enemy of the Jewish state.
'Force of habit'
Jewish organizations in the U.S. say Jewish voters base their choice largely on domestic issues -- and most are liberals.
Writing in the Boston Globe last month, columnist Jeff Jacoby attributed Jewish loyalty to the Democratic ticket to historical factors.
"In the 19th and early 20th centuries, waves of Jewish immigrants from Europe, where the most anti-Semitic elements of society were often the most conservative, brought with them an intense aversion to right-wing politics -- and an appreciation for the left, which they associated with emancipation and equality."
Jacoby argued that the U.S. in 2004 was a very different country, and said, "American Jews owe it to themselves to base their political loyalty on something stronger than force of habit."
Israel is a very important factor for American Jews.
In its annual opinion survey, published last month, the American Jewish Committee (AJC) found that 75 percent of Jewish respondents felt "very close" or "fairly close" to Israel.
Seventy-four percent agreed that "caring about Israel is a very important part of my being a Jew."
Respondents in the AJC survey backed Kerry over Bush by 69 points to 24.
That support for the Democrats constitutes a drop-off from the last three elections. President Clinton won 80 percent of the Jewish vote in 1992 and 78 percent in 1996. In 2000, Al Gore won 79 percent of the Jewish vote while Bush only garnered 19 percent.
The Republican Jewish Coalition has been drawing attention to some other recent endorsements of Kerry, which it says Jewish voters should be worried about - those of the Arab-American PAC and the Muslim-American PAC.
"Clearly these groups do not support President Bush because of his unwavering support for Israel and his relentless war against Islamic terrorists," RJC executive director Matthew Brooks said in a statement Monday.
"The endorsements of John Kerry by these two anti-Israel groups speaks volumes and should serve as a warning to Jewish Americans who think John Kerry is on their side."
Brooks noted that Kerry called Arafat a "statesman" in his 1997 book, The New War. ("Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encourage by Yasser Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman," Kerry wrote.)
Bush has pointedly refused to invite Arafat to the White House during the past four years, a far cry from the days of the last Democratic administration, at the end of which Time magazine reported that "President Clinton has held more tete-a-tetes with the Palestinian leader than any other world leader during his eight years in office."
On its website, the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) presents what is says are the candidates' records on Israel.
On Arafat, it notes that Kerry said last March that the PA chairman had "proved himself to be irrelevant," but it makes no reference to the 1997 assessment of Arafat as a statesman.
As for Bush, the NJDC noted that Bush in 2002 was quoted as saying he would not label Arafat a terrorist because he "has agreed to a peace process." The council made no reference to the fact Bush made Arafat persona non grata at the White House.
On Israel's security fence, the NJDC highlighted the Bush administration's concerns about the route of the barrier rather than its support for Israel's right to build it.
It also ignored that fact that the administration opposed the right of the International Court of Justice to rule on the matter.
On the other hand, it cited comments by Kerry in February and April 2004 showing that he "strongly supported Israel's right to build" the barrier.
The NJDC made no mention of another Kerry quote on the fence, last October, when he told an Arab American audience the fence was "provocative," "counterproductive" and a "barrier to peace."
"Somebody should put Kerry on suicide watch!"
We'll let the terrorists handle that one.
I'd love to see this story being played better in the media. But somehow, this, and the story that Israelis suppot Bush 2-1 are being suppressed. I barely seen this stuff on Fox.
It's pretty kind of them to take the time and trouble to prove the truth of my tagline!
Whoops, looks like I left out another important endorsement for John Kerry.
Fox News is reporting that the American Muslim Taskforce for Civil Rights and Elections (AMT) has issued an endorsement in support of Kerry. AMT represents several other Muslim groups, including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, American Muslim Alliance and the Islamic Society of North America.
I'm sure Kerry's thinking, "With friends like these, who needs enemies!"
hehehehehe
If President Bush is voted out of office, it will be seen around the world as an anti-war vote and will send clear messages, adverse to American interests. They will be the wrong messages, in the wrong place, at the wrong time:
„« to terrorist organizations --- ¡§You can act with impunity.¡¨
„« to our real allies --- ¡§You are not the kind of ally America values.¡¨
„« to France and our other foreign adversaries --- ¡§Here is your reward for your corrupt opposition.¡¨
„« to the UN --- ¡§It¡¦s okay to pursue your agenda to subordinate the US to your authority.¡¨
„« to Middle-East tyrants --- ¡§Don¡¦t worry about oppressing your people or harboring terrorist groups.¡¨
„« to our military troops --- ¡§America does not really appreciate your service in this ¡¥wrong war¡¦.¡¨
„« to those who died in Iraq --- ¡§You may have died in vain.¡¨
„« to the intelligence community --- ¡§Don¡¦t draw conclusions unless you are absolutely certain.¡¨
„« to the Iraqi people --- ¡§Your freedom and sacrifices are not really important to us.¡¨
„« to the mainstream media --- ¡§Your one-sided partisan reporting and editing works.¡¨
„« to future presidents --- ¡§It is very risky to take bold action to protect America.¡¨
Certainly there are Americans who will take great pleasure in these messages --- the ardent internationalists and ¡§peace-at-any-price¡¨ pacifists as well as the irrational ¡§anybody-but-Bush¡¨ types. But, the vast majority of Congress supported removing Saddam, and, according to the polls, so did the vast majority of the people.
So, I hope, for our future security, that on November 2, most Americans will recall their original support and will realize that sending these messages will make America more vulnerable and less secure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.