Two policy positions should disqualify any candidate for president – casting a vote to invade Iraq or distorting Israel’s role in its struggle with the Palestinians.
That would eliminate former Vice President Joe Biden and Sens. Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, the three consistent front-runners for the Democratic nomination. In October 2002, then-Senator Biden joined 76 other senators in voting to send troops to invade Iraq, and Sanders and Warren cannot pontificate on the Middle East for long without placing a disproportionate amount of blame on Israel.
The world was reminded of their choices this past weekend when Sanders and Warren fielded questions about the Middle East, and on Monday The New York Times published a front-page story relating how Biden has been attacked by Warren and Sanders for his Iraq war vote.
The vote to invade Iraq in 2002 was a textbook case of shoddy judgment, especially considering the respected records of some supporters such as then-Senators Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry…and Biden. Israel has made serious mistakes and taken steps that are at least questionable, but overall the Palestinians are far more at fault, yet Sanders and Warren persist in giving the Palestinians a pass for their horrid conduct.
Jewish Insider recounted the contrasting words of three Democratic candidates as they campaigned in Iowa, roughly 6,300 miles west of Israel.
From Mason City on Saturday, Warren said: “The first thing I believe that we should take, is we have to speak out about Palestinian rights and talk about values. We also need to establish Palestinian representation in Washington. We need to make sure that there is aid to the Palestinian people, and that we are helping the Palestinians and the Israelis move to – what has been the official policy in Israel and the official policy of the U.S.A. for nearly 70 years now – and that is a two-state solution that recognizes a home and recognizes dignity for everyone in the region.”
Sanders from Newton the same day: ”We cannot have a policy that is just 100 percent pro-Israel and ignore the terrible suffering that’s going on in Gaza and elsewhere for the Palestinian people.”
Yet, a different perspective came from Sen. Corey Booker of New Jersey, who refused to support leveraging military aid to prevent Israel’s annexation of the West Bank: “I will not redirect funding (from Israel to the Palestinians). I will put more funding into affirming human rights and dignity for the Palestinians, but I will not redirect funding.”
In the Atlantic, Edward-Isaac Dovere described the difference between Booker and Warren’s views: “Booker spoke about finding justice for Palestinians and protecting human rights but emphasized his commitment to standing up for Israel’s right to its own security. Warren made no mention of security, spoke mostly of Palestinians and frustration with Israeli actions.”
Sanders and Warren also ignore recent history. Nearly two decades ago, Israel offered then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat an independent state including all of Gaza, 93 percent of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem. Arafat turned it down and there have been no takers after he died. This deal is obviously not everything the Palestinians want – such as the entire country, perhaps – but is certainly all that they need.
Warren and Sanders also ignored the corruption of Fatah in the West Bank, and the oppressive and bungling rule of Hamas in Gaza.
The proposal to annex the West Bank is only an academic matter at this time. Israel lacks for a stable government, precluding annexation from being an active issue. Elected American officials do not need to reach conclusions now. That and other concerns about a conservative government’s plans and policies must be dealt with, and Warren and Sanders’s proposals are not necessary.
If a moderate or liberal such as Benny Gantz becomes prime minister, all a Democratic president needs to say is: “We appreciate the sensible platform you presented during your campaign. We look forward to working with you.”
Should Benjamin Netanyahu or another conservative continue running the Israeli government, all the new president must tell him/her is: “Please keep this in mind: I am not Donald Trump. We will support Israel’s existence, prosperity and security needs, and listen carefully to your concerns. Again, you must remember: I am not Donald Trump. Make sure you get used to it.”
Biden deserves respect, but he cast the most catastrophic vote in my lifetime in October 2002: He voted to invade Iraq, and we are still stuck there – thousands of military and civilian deaths, and billions of dollars later.
Biden exercised appalling judgment, just as many other senators and House members did. It raises questions as to how he would exercise judgment as president at critical moments. As a secondary reason, who wants to reward him with the presidency after that?
He concedes he was wrong, but the damage has been done.
None of this can justify voting to re-elect Trump. I was equally dismayed with Clinton’s vote for the Iraq invasion and had other qualms about her, but I believed she would unquestionably be a better president. I feel the same about Biden and even Warren and Sanders.
Trump deserves gratitude for aiding Israel and American Jews, but that is hardly sufficient to return him to office. Aside from his erratic decision-making style and his deserved impeachment, he is usually on the wrong side of domestic issues.
I hope the Democrats ultimately nominate someone else to challenge Trump in November. My favorites are former presidential candidates Sen. Kamala Harris and ex-Rep. Beto O’Rourke. There are other current and former candidates who deserve our confidence.
We cannot expect perfection in a presidential candidate, but is prudent judgment and fair treatment for an ally too much to ask?
Republished from San Diego Jewish World