Sunday, August 03, 2008

Obama Scores Low on Israel Factor Test

Obama Scores Low on “The Israel Factor” Test

July 30, 2008
East Meredith, New York
grubeiz@comcast.net

Israeli social scientists have devised a clever psychometric test to evaluate US politicians on attitudes toward Israel. On a scale of 1 to 10, Obama ranks as an “underachiever” in loyalty to Israel. On this scale, the presumptive Democratic nominee scores around 5 - on repeated measurements since the campaign started. Senator Clinton scores around 7.5 and McCain is the most favored. The Republican nominee receives 7.75 on fidelity to the Jewish state. For more details on this original methodology of rating politicians consult Haaretz’s newspaper on “The Israel Factor” project.

Despite his moderate grades on “loyalty” to Israel, many Arab Americans complain that Senator Obama is pandering to the Jewish community. Americans of Arab background accuse him of following Senator Clinton’s compulsion to please the Jewish voters. They perceive him as trying to win over the large campaign donors who passionately support Israel.

But Arab Americans should stay calm and self assured in a post 9/11 environment that is saturated with prejudice. There is an important difference between Obama the person, and Obama the campaigner. His critics must distinguish between his personal predisposition to impact sterile Middle East foreign policies and his campaign management which occasionally compromises in order to achieve victory at the polls.

Obama, the person, has fresh and sound ideas for leading America to change. But his three hundred campaign advisors orchestrate an increasingly pragmatic and self-serving race to the While House. This large cast of advisors essentially shares Obama’s views on a long list of domestic and international issues, but the senator and his advisors do have their differences.

The Obama campaign evolves and adapts as its candidate advances to the finish line. After his narrow victory over Senator Hillary Clinton last May, Obama has entered a new phase in electoral decision making. In order to win over the bulk of the eighteen million voters that supported Clinton in the primaries, his agenda has shifted a notch or two towards a dull Clinton framework for peace making. The shift has occurred without much commotion since both Democratic candidates are not too far apart on most policies.

Barack and Hillary see eye-to-eye on universal health care, on liberal immigration policy, on reduction of economic inequities and on vigilance for global warming. It is the foreign policy on the Middle East that separates them. The two senators have contrasting views on Iran and Palestine. Clinton is not ready to talk to Iranian leaders, but Obama is open for dialogue. The Illinois Senator is keen on reactivating the peace process; Clinton does not show initiative for the formation of a viable Palestinian state.

The Jewish world community favored Clinton because of her long record of commitment to Israel. In contrast, Obama’s image among many Jews remains tarnished, despite his rhetoric on Jerusalem as “the undivided capital of the Jewish state”, on the “right of Israel to defend itself against terrorism” and on US policy of “not putting pressure” on Israel.

Obama is criticized in Israel for appearing “impulsive” on the urgency of pursuing peace with Arabs, for being unable to “appreciate the depth of the war on terror,” for being “friendly” with Iran and for being associated with Islam.

When Clinton withdrew from the presidential race Obama welcomed some of her advisors to his expanding cadre of experts. In an earlier phase of the campaign, Obama listened to foreign policy experts like Jimmy Carter, Rob Malley, Zbigniew Brzezinsky and Samantha Powers. These consultants are now distanced from Obama. The Israeli aversion to Carter and like-minded Arabists may have recently discouraged Obama from using experts who are vocal on Israel’s extended and expanding occupation of Arab land.

The newly recruited consultants in the Obama camp include a few Clinton oriented state- building experts. For example, Dennis Ross is now a leading Obama consultant on the Middle East. To be fair, Ross is a well respected advocate for the peace process; he was the lead mediator for President Clinton’s Middle East peace initiative in 2000. But Ross represents an elitist approach to peace making: his patience for the Arab dissident voice is limited. It is hard to know to what extent Obama’s recent pandering to Israel is a result of a silent ideological Clintonization of his movement.

Arab Americans who still support Obama hope that if the senator reaches the White House he will nudge America in new directions, both domestically and internationally. They reason that he will have to respond to the millions who voted for change. In contrast, Obama’s critics expect him to be partially programmed by his White House staff, just as he is now partially programmed by his campaign staff. For some Bama-skeptics, voting for Barack is choosing the candidate who will do the least harm for the Middle East but who will do some good for the wider American agenda.

As the Clinton influence begins to show more clearly in Obama’s campaign, his score may soon pass the Jewish threshold of acceptance. Nonetheless, the premise of “The Israel Factor” rating system is flawed: America’s unconditional loyalty to Israel may indefinitely suppress the urgency of facing a difficult, but necessary peace settlement with the Arabs.

Imagine Obama as president inspiring a new team of Middle East social scientists, from both the Israeli and the Palestinian sides, to devise a more useful scale for rating US politicians. The new scale would not separately measure The Israel Factor or The Arab Factor. The new rating tool would rather score politicians on their support of “Justice and Security for All in the Middle East.”

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

<< Home