The Future of the Alliance
By Michael Oren

Supporters of Israel are intensely interested in which of two presidential candidates, John McCain or Barack Obama, is “best” for the Jewish state. Of course, “best” is an inherently subjective concept, colored by whether one regards settlements as beneficial or disastrous for Israel, for example, or the creation of a Palestinian state as essential or deadly. The word also assumes a substantial degree of familiarity with the candidates’ positions on issues that impact Israel either directly or collaterally. Attaining such clarity from politicians is difficult even in normal times. But during an election year, it is especially daunting. Speeches by presidential hopefuls geared to special constituencies, statements from commentators and aides, misquotes and gaffes-together these can cloud the contenders’ platforms, particularly on matters as complex and controversial as the Middle East. Moreover, more than a little disinformation on Obama and McCain has been disseminated by opponents and interested parties, further obscuring their true views.

Nevertheless, by carefully combing the mass of speeches, interviews, and press releases, a picture of the candidates’ policies can still be culled. A map of where Obama and McCain stand on the peace process and other issues crucial to Israel-the War on Terror, the Iraq War, Iranian nuclearization-may be drawn, and points of distinction flagged. And on the basis of these findings, it is possible to speculate how a McCain or an Obama presidency might interact with Israel, to its benefit as well as its detriment.

After Bush
By necessity, any analysis of the policies of the two candidates must begin with an assessment of the legacy that the president-elect will inherit. During his eight years in office, George W. Bush established new standards for the term “pro-Israel.” He repeatedly affirmed Israel’s right to defend itself against terror, and praised its value as America’s primary Middle Eastern ally. He also expressed a deep ideological attachment to Israel as a democracy and, spiritually, to Israel as the biblical homeland. “You have raised a modern society in the Promised Land, a light unto the nations… [and] a mighty democracy,” he told the Knesset during Israel’s sixtieth anniversary celebrations.[1] And “you can always count on the United States of America to be at your side.” Less publicly, the president also authorized an unprecedented level of cooperation between the U.S. military and the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), including intelligence sharing, anti-terror training, and the joint development of missile defense systems.

On the peace process, by comparison, Bush was less categorical. He became the first American president publicly to endorse the emergence of a Palestinian state and, to that end, he opposed the expansion of Israel’s West Bank settlements. Yet Bush also rejected a large-scale repatriation of Palestinian refugees to Israel as well as a return to Israel’s 1967 borders, insisting that any treaty take into account the “current realities” created by the settlements. He refused to deal with Hamas and Hezbollah, even obliquely, portraying them apocalyptically as the embodiments of “darkness” and “evil.” More radically still, Bush reversed the formula, embedded in UN Resolution 242, of territory-for-peace. If previous presidents required Israel to relinquish territory first and only then receive peace from the Arabs, Bush demanded that the Arabs recognize Israel’s existence and renounce violence in advance of retrieving captured land.

Bush’s policies disappointed many on the Israeli left who longed for a more activist American role in peace-making, and antagonized Israeli rightists who resented his support for Palestinian sovereignty and his demands for a settlement freeze. Still, Bush remained singularly popular in Israel-considerably more so, in fact, than in the United States. “You have been a true leader,” Benjamin Netanyahu, head of the Likud opposition, lauded the president in Knesset. “You have never hesitated from fighting tyranny and defending freedom.”[2]

The pro-Israel paradigm established by Bush poses a hefty challenge for Obama and McCain. Neither candidate, though, has shied from meeting it. In spite of some initial questions surrounding his affection for Israel, Obama has been unexceptionally Zionist, asserting that “the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea,” and that “Israel’s security is sacrosanct.”[3] McCain, no less effusive, has praised Israel as a bastion of democracy and social justice. He took out time from his campaign schedule to visit Israel and toured the towns along the Gaza border that were regularly shelled by Hamas. Obama is scheduled to make a stopover in Israel in late July, en route to Iraq.

McCain and Obama have both pledged to maintain Israel’s strategic edge by supporting Bush’s proposal for increasing military aid to the Jewish State by $30 billion over the next decade. Both have called on the Arab states to recognize Israel in advance of Israeli territorial concessions; both have vowed to take an active, hands-on, role in the search for peace. Nevertheless, in their approach to that process, and their conception of its outcome, the candidates evince some subtle-and potentially significant-differences.

Parsing the Palestinian question
Take, for example, the issues of Israeli settlements and the borders of any future Palestinian state. While McCain has avoided criticizing Israel’s settlement policy and balked at delineating the contours of “Palestine,” Obama has impugned the settlements and taken up Bush’s call for a “contiguous” Palestinian state free of Israeli roadblocks and joined by West Bank-to-Gaza routes. McCain, who did not meet with Palestinian leaders during his Israel visit, has emphasized the Palestinian Authority’s duty to clamp down on terror in accordance with the Road Map “We must ensure that Israel’s people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership willing and able to deliver peace,” he stated.[4] Obama, by contrast, has refrained from mentioning the PA’s responsibility in suppressing terror.

Obama and McCain have also differed over aspects of Israel’s domestic politics and foreign relations. Obama has expressed strong reservations about the Israeli right, complaining to American Jewish leaders that “there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel then you’re anti-Israel.”[5] He has also welcomed the renewal of peace talks between Israel and Syria, and has urged the White House to “support the parties’ efforts to achieve their goal of a negotiated settlement.”[6] McCain, however, has not revealed a preference for one Israeli party over another and has withheld comment on the Syria-Israeli discussions. Generally, though, he shares Bush’s reservations about negotiating with Damascus “with no preconditions”-presumably, eschewing terror and forfeiting all claims to Lebanon.

Both candidates have deplored Hamas as a terrorist organization committed to Israel’s destruction. McCain’s position on Hamas has hardened considerably since 2006 when, shortly after organization’s electoral victory, he told a reporter, “They’re the government [and] sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them.”[7] His campaign subsequently retracted the remark and characterized Hamas as a force dedicated not only to Israel’s destruction but to the annihilation of the United States. McCain has endorsed the conditions set down by Bush for including Hamas in peace talks-renunciation of terror, recognition of Israel, and acceptance of previous Israeli-Palestinian agreements-but so, too, has Obama. Yet the Democratic contender seems less adamant than his Republican rival in opposing all communications with Hamas. Obama waited five days before distancing himself from former President Jimmy Carter’s meetings with Hamas officials; McCain condemned them instantly. And while McCain withheld comment on Israel’s ceasefire with Hamas, Obama greeted it as an opportunity to “bring calm to the people of southern Israel, improve life for Palestinians in Gaza, and lead to the release of [captured Israeli corporal] Gilad Shalit.”[8]

Obama and McCain also appear to diverge on the peace process’s most divisive issue: Jerusalem. Though supportive of talks to demarcate the final borders of Jerusalem, McCain has been unambiguous in his willingness to recognize unqualified Israeli sovereignty over the city, even prior to negotiations. “Jerusalem is undivided,” he declared. “Jerusalem is the capital and we should move the [U.S.] embassy to Jerusalem before anything happens.”[9] Obama similarly announced that, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” surprising many of his listeners at a convention of AIPAC, the pro-Israel lobby.[10] But he quickly qualified that assertion, explaining that the city’s final status must be determined by Israelis and Palestinians alone and sealed by “an agreement that they both can live with.” Obama has not mentioned moving the American embassy to Jerusalem.

The most fundamental distinction between McCain and Obama on the peace question stems from their perception of the Arab-Israeli conflict and its relationship to other Middle Eastern disputes. According to the Des Moines Register, Obama told Iowa voters that “nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people,” but later claimed that he had been misquoted and had actually said that Palestinian suffering resulted from “the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel and renounce violence.”[11] In his AIPAC speech, Obama assailed “those who would lay all the problems of the Middle East at the doorstep of Israel.” But in an interview with The Atlantic, he described the conflict as a “constant wound” and “constant sore” that “infect(s) all of our foreign policy” and “provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists.”[12] In spite of these reverses, Obama’s position seems to reflect the view, long-held by the State Department and reified by the 2006 Iraq Study Group, that the Arab-Israel conflict is a major cause of Middle Eastern upheaval. Tellingly, perhaps, Obama’s campaign has been associated with several former State Department officials and foreign policy experts known to favor intensified American pressure to secure Israeli concessions.
McCain’s position, in this critical case, is unequivocal. “[I]f the Israeli-Palestinian issue were decided tomorrow,” he has maintained, “we would still face the enormous threat of radical Islamic extremism.”[13] Defeating that fanaticism, McCain contends, is the prerequisite for-rather than the consequence of-Israeli-Palestinian peace. Neither he nor any of his advisors have indicated a readiness to apply greater pressure on Israel.

On the basis of this comparison, it is reasonable to expect a McCain administration to maintain and perhaps accelerate the Annapolis process initiated by Bush last November, insisting that both Israelis and Palestinians live up to the Road Map’s requisites. But McCain is unlikely to ratchet up pressure on Israel, to oppose Israeli claims to Jerusalem, or to link the Israeli-Palestinian conflict with any of the region’s manifold struggles. He will not deal with Hamas, even in context of the national unity government that the organization is currently considering with the Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. An Obama presidency, however, may well launch an entirely new initiative, one based on zero tolerance for Israeli settlement-building and checkpoints, as well as on the belief that the road to Baghdad and Teheran runs through Bethlehem and Nablus. Obama might be expected to show deeper sympathy for the Palestinian demand for a capital in Jerusalem and greater flexibility in including Hamas in negotiations, if only indirectly, through the national unity coalition with Abbas. Obama will probably seek a broader accord, including Syria as well as other Arab countries, while McCain would focus on the Israeli-Palestinian dimension. McCain’s démarche is unlikely to ruffle the U.S.-Israel relationship; Obama’s is liable to strain the alliance, especially if, as recent polls predict, Netanyahu and the Likud return to power.

How they will fight
In addition to the peace process, Israel has a cardinal interest in the candidates’ attitudes toward other Middle East-related issues, beginning with the war on terror. Here, too, President Bush established a new paradigm based on preemptive action against suspected terrorists and their backers. This aspect of the Bush Doctrine accorded well with Israel, which, since its establishment, has reserved the option to strike its enemies preemptively. Obama and McCain, however, are markedly divided over the policy and the means for battling terror in the future.

Though both have reiterated their readiness to meet terrorist threats with force, McCain has never abjured preemption, stressing his commitment “to uncover [terrorist] plots before they take root.”[14] But Obama’s recent comments suggest that, rather than embark on preventative military incursions, he prefers to treat terror as a criminal act to be prosecuted post-facto by the courts. “[I]n previous terrorist attacks-for example, the first attack against the World Trade Center (in 1993), we were able to arrest those responsible, put them on trial,” he explained to ABC News. “I have confidence that our system of justice is strong enough to deal with terrorists.” [FOOTNOTE NEEDED]

Further insight into the candidates’ divergent approaches to combating terror can be gleaned from their reaction to the Supreme Court’s June 12, 2008 decision granting security suspects the right to petition civilian courts. The ruling, Obama said, was “an important step toward reestablishing our credibility as a nation” and “rejecting a false choice between fighting terrorism and respecting habeas corpus.”[15] McCain, on the other hand, called it “one of the worst decisions in the history of this country.”[16]

The War on Terror, for both candidates, is inextricably linked to the conflict in Iraq. McCain sees the latter as a natural extension of the former; Obama views the second as a dangerous diversion from the first. Unlike the candidates’ stances on the peace process and the fight against terrorism, which are often open to interpretation, their statements on Iraq leave little latitude for debate.

Obama asserts that the Iraqi war has drained America’s resources and inhibited it from effectively fighting terror. He denies that the surge has sufficiently reduced violence in Iraq, compelled the Iraqi government to fulfill its sovereign responsibilities, or helped bridge the country’s ethnic differences. In keeping with the recommendation of the Iraq Study Group, he has called for a sixteen-month phasing out of the American military involvement. Apart from a “residual force” which will stay behind to guard the embassy, train Iraqi troops, and hunt down al-Qaeda, there will be no permanent American bases. Though he has acknowledged the need to make “tactical adjustments” as the withdrawal proceeds, Obama has determined that “it is time to end this end this war” and focus on Afghanistan.[17]

McCain insists that America “is winning and will win” in Iraq, which he regards as the central theater in the struggle against Islamist terror.[18] An ardent defender of the Bush administration’s “surge” strategy, he believes that withdrawal at this time will endanger Americans at home and bolster Iran and al-Qaeda. McCain has repeatedly cited 2013 as a target date for withdrawal, though he once said that U.S. forces might remain in Iraq for as long as a century, following the Korean model.

These disparities are rife with ramifications for Israel. Long-time advocates of preemption, Israelis may be disappointed by an Obama administration that abandons the tactic and recoils from further preventative action against terrorists. They will have to grapple with the fallout of an American evacuation from Iraq, which is almost certain to be perceived in the region as an Islamist triumph. Still, Israel could benefit from a United States that is less inclined to pursue polices unilaterally and more in line with international opinion.

The situation might be reversed under McCain. The U.S. would continue to press its anti-terror campaign in the Middle East and stay the course in Iraq but remain to a large extent isolated globally. The Israeli ideal of an America that is engaged militarily in the Middle East and in synch with the international community may well prove elusive.

Addressing the Iranian challenge
Yet the ultimate crucible of the candidates’ positions affecting Israel lies not in the peace process, in the War on Terror, or even in Iraq, but rather in the burgeoning crisis with Iran. The master of Hamas and Hizbollah, the dominant partner of Syria, and the rising regional hegemon, Iran poses multiple threats to Israel’s security-and, through its nuclear program, a danger to Israel’s very existence. The Islamic regime that routinely pledges to “wipe Israel off the map” could easily transfer nuclear weapons to one of its terrorist proxies while prompting other Middle East states to achieve to develop similar armaments. Israel could soon find itself in the epicenter of a nuclear neighborhood that is relentlessly hostile and volatile. On no other issue are the Jewish State’s interests in the platforms of McCain and Obama so paramount and, potentially, existential.

As McCain’s stance on Hamas once hardened, so too has Obama’s on Iran. After initially ranking Iran with Cuba and Venezuela that “do not pose a serious threat to us the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us,”[19] Obama later assured AIPAC members that “the danger from Iran is grave, it is real, and my goal will be to eliminate this threat.” He swore to employ “all elements of American power,” including military force, to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapons.[20] Throughout, though, Obama has emphasized the need for discussions with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, “without self-defeating preconditions, but with a clear-eyed understanding of our interests,” to locate points of common interest and possibly diminish tensions.[21]

More consistently than Obama, McCain characterized Iran as a threat to the free world, “hell-bent on the destruction of Israel, hell-bent on driving us out of Iraq, [and] hell-bent on supporting terrorist organizations.”[22] To deter Tehran, he has recommended a multi-tiered strategy of escalated sanctions and divestment campaigns, without ruling out an eventual use of force. “The military option has to be there,” he insisted. But contrary to Obama, McCain rejects the very notion of dialogue with Ahmadinejad. This, he argues, would weaken Iranian moderates and reinforce the radicals. “It’s hard to see what such a summit would actually gain,” McCain observed, “except an earful of anti-Semitic rants and a worldwide audience for a man who denies one Holocaust and talks… about starting another.”[23]

The McCain-Obama split over Iran was poignantly reflected in their reactions to the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment passed in September 2007 and the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) issued three months later. Endorsed by three-quarters of the Senate, the amendment recognized the Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist group and authorized the use of “all instruments of United States national power” to protect Iraq from Iran and its proxies. Though neither senator participated in the vote, McCain hailed the bill for sending “exactly the right message-to Iran, to the region and to the world.”[24] Obama, however, derided what he perceived as “saber-rattling” and a “reckless” attempt to perpetuate the American intervention in Iraq and possibly justify attacking Iran.[25] In a similar vein, Obama embraced the NIE as “a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy,” while McCain rebuffed it. “We don’t want the intelligence agencies to make the policies,” he said.[26]

The Obama-McCain split over Iran presents Israel with life-and-death dilemmas. Israel would certainly gain from a president who garnered international legitimacy by exhausting all possible options with Iran, including offers to communicate, before resorting to violence. But if diplomacy fails to modify Iranian behavior and instead furnishes Tehran with time to complete its nuclear weapons program, the outcome for Israel could be catastrophic. Compounding the stakes for Israel is the fact that-according to current Israeli Defense Forces estimates, Iran will possess an operational nuclear weapon by 2009, rendering either Obama’s dialogue plan or McCain’s sanction strategy moot.[27]

Alliance in the balance
The presidential election of 2008 is arguably the most pivotal for Israel in its sixty years of existence. The next occupant of the White House can immensely influence the course of Israel’s relations with the Palestinians, the Syrians, and a range of Arab regimes. He can alter or maintain American policies on Jerusalem, the settlements, and negotiations with Hamas, and influence the shape and nature of any future Palestinian state. By upholding or disavowing preemption or by reducing or augmenting American troop strength in Iraq, he can radically sway the Middle East’s balance of power. Most fatefully, in his determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weaponry, he can fortify Israel’s security, if not ensure its survival.

Four months is a long time in a national election, especially one so heatedly contested and close. The Middle East, the world’s most protean region, is supremely subject to change. No doubt the candidates will adjust their positions as circumstances shift; they will persist in conveying different messages to different audiences, in clarifying and qualifying their stands.

Yet, in spite of these correctives, the core platforms are unlikely to change. While both aspirants will honor Bush’s pro-Israel legacy and actively pursue peace, McCain would be less prone than Obama to pressure Israel for concessions and more inclined to take the Palestinian Authority to task for its Road Map infractions. Obama may prove more flexible than McCain in admitting some role for Hamas in negotiations and recognizing Palestinian claims to Jerusalem. McCain would preserve and Obama would renounce much of his predecessor’s policies on preemption and the war on terror; Obama intends to remove American troops from Iraq and McCain plans to retain them. Though unwilling to rule out any option vis-à-vis Iran, Obama wants first to talk with Ahmadinejad and other Iranian leaders. McCain rules out dialogue but prefers to levy intensified sanctions on Iran before resorting to force.

Gaining an appreciation of these aspects of Obama and McCain platforms will remain vital for supporters of Israel, irrespective of what they think is “best” for it. For them, this analysis can continue as a constructive guide throughout the period leading up to November 4th, and thereafter, a useful reference for the next president of the United States.


[1] President George W. Bush, Address to the Knesset, May 14, 2008 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2008/05/20080515-1.html

[2] Benjamin Netanyahu, Greeting to President George W. Bush in the Knesset, May 14, 2008. http://www.netanyahu.org.il/page2.asp?topic_id=87&topic2_id=291&sub_topic_id=1

[3] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of Barack Obama, The Atlantic, May 12 2008

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php

[4] Transcript of McCain Speech to AIPAC, June 2, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

[5] Obama comments to closed-door meeting with Cleveland Jewish community leaders, February 25, 2008 http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1203847465591&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

[6] Article on Obama’s letter to President Bush, June 25, 2008: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560118,00.html and link to the actual letter, in PDF form: http://www.aipac.org/Publications/index_13495.asp

[7] Video of the Interview: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/15/exclusive-video-mccain-wa_n_102031.html and op-ed by the reporter who interviewed McCain, Jeffrey Rubin: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/15/AR2008051503306.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

[8] Obama’s letter to President Bush, June 25, 2008: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3560118,00.html and link to the actual letter, in PDF form: http://www.aipac.org/Publications/index_13495.asp

[9] McCain on moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, June 7, 2008: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990903.html

[10] Transcript of Obama speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

[11] FactCheck.Org, April 27, 2007.

[12] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of Barack Obama, The Atlantic, May 12 2008

http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/obama_on_zionism_and_hamas.php

[13] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of John McCain, The Atlantic, May 30, 2008 http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_on_israel_iran_and_the_1.php

[14] McCain Campaign Website Statement: http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/issues/054184f4-6b51-40dd-8964-54fcf66a1e68.htm

[15] Story of Obama interview ABC News (with link to interview video), June 17, 2008 http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/Story?id=5184811&page=1

[16] Fox News Story, June 13, 2008: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/06/13/mccain-guantanamo-ruling-one-of-the-worst-decisions-in-history/

[17] The New York Times, July 21, 2008.

[18] CNN News Story, May 15, 2008: http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/15/mccain.2013/index.html

[19] CNN News Story, May 19, 2008: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/19/mccain.free.trade/index.html

[20] Transcript of Obama speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

[21] Transcript of Obama speech to AIPAC, June 4, 2008: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=91150432

[22] Jeffrey Goldberg Interview of John McCain, The Atlantic, May 30, 2008 http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/mccain_on_israel_iran_and_the_1.php

[23] Transcript of McCain Speech to AIPAC, June 2, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

[24] Transcript of McCain Speech to AIPAC, June 2, 2008

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/mccains_speech_to_aipac.html

[25] Press Release by Obama Campaign, as posted on The Atlantic, Sept. 27, 2007: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/09/kyllieberman_postgame.php

[26] NY Sun Story, Dec. 20, 2007: http://www.nysun.com/national/in-a-rare-move-kissinger-endorses-mccain/68421/

[27] YNetNews Story, Dec. 16, 2007: http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3483116,00.html

Mr. Oren is senior fellow at the Shalem Center and the author of Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present, (W.W. Norton, 2007).

RSS 2.0 | Trackback