Abrabanel: Musings on the Jewish condition

This is probably the stupidest mistake we’ve yet heard in this endless and noisy election season. A pro-Obama Jewish group, the Jewish Council for Education and Research (JCER), out to secure the Jewish vote in swing states such as Florida, put together a shocking video in which some very senior former Israeli defense officials express support for Obama in the upcoming elections.

We were not surprised at the testimony of the likes of Amram Mitzna, one of the most left-wing politicians on the political map, but we were shocked at the testimony of Uzi Dayan, a smart ex-deputy chief of staff of the IDF and former chairman of the National Security Council – who just became a member of the Likud. Or Efraim Halevy, the former Mossad head who, well, isn’t that stupid. He would never endorse a candidate in a foreign election, we figured.

Turns out, we were right.

“Leading Israelis say they were duped into Obama ad” reads the headline in the International Herald Tribune.

“Ex-generals cry foul over pro-Obama video,” reports the Jerusalem Post.

Dayan told the Post the interview “wasn’t about the campaign, it was about the political and security issues of the Middle East that the next president should be involved in. Nothing was said about Obama or McCain. I don’t want other people to interfere in our elections, and I must not interfere with the elections in the United States.”

He was even angrier speaking to AP (who wrote the IHT piece): “This is pure and simple deceit. I never expressed support for Obama, his approach or his opinions. I’ve also never expressed support for McCain.”

Halevy seconded that: “I was interviewed for a documentary dealing with what issues the new American president must deal with regarding the Middle East. I was asked about the candidates and was complimentary to both.” Asked about his opinion on who was more qualified to be president, Halevy said he had rejected the question, the Post reports.

Even the leftists interviewed – former Mossad man Yossi Alpher and Mitzna himself – said they had not knowingly endorsed Obama.

What we don’t get is this: did the JCER folks think they wouldn’t get caught? Did they think these former generals and intelligence men, most of whom are now politicians, wouldn’t notice?

From NBC’s FirstRead:

No Change To The Map: Although we saw the needle move in Obama’s direction after last week’s events — including McCain’s own stumbles — the newest NBC electoral map this week is essentially unchanged. Obama holds a slight 233-227 lead over McCain. Our only change was moving New Jersey from Likely Obama to Lean Obama after various polls showed him with a single-digit lead there.

According to NBC, the states stack up as follows:

Likely Obama: CA, CT, DE, DC, HI, IL, ME, MD, MA, NJ, NY, RI, VT (157 electoral votes)
Lean Obama: IA, MN, NJ, NM OR, PA, WA (76 votes)
Toss-up: CO, MI, NV, NH, OH, VA, WI (78 votes)
Lean McCain: FL, IN, MO, MT, NC (67 votes)
Likely McCain: AL, AK, AZ, AR, GA, ID, KS, KY, LA, MS, NE, ND, OK, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, WV, WY (160 votes)

We don’t speak Arabic, Farsi or any other language of the Muslim world, so take this with a grain of salt. Still, judging by the English-language editorials we’ve seen coming out of Muslim countries, the coverage of the US presidential election often has a fairly consistent narrative.

Here’s an example from today, in Pakistan’s influential English-language daily The Nation:

The Israeli lobby with its stranglehold over the US financial institutions, media, numerous think tanks and government agencies, not only dictates the US foreign policy but also determines who gets to rule America.

The article is titled “Obama and Jews,” and is written (poorly) by a certain Irfan Asghar, described only as a “public servant.” Asghar seems to wholeheartedly believe the “stranglehold” theory, and offers examples of Obama’s pandering to the Jews:

He has over-egged the pudding by heaping scorn on anti-Israel statements pronounced by Lovis Farrakhan, the anti-Israel Chairman of the Nation of Islam. As Israel dubs Iran’s nuclear programme as the monstrous threat to it, so Obama has articulated that he does not believe that diplomacy above can deter Iran from going nuclear and that there could be a need for stick to bring Iran to heels.

But, explains Asghar, Obama should know that he doesn’t have to listen to the Jews. Why? Because despite all his pandering, they won’t vote for him anyway:

But on having mature reflection, the writer is of the viewpoint that despite bending over backwards to curry favour with the Jewish lobby and pander to its wishes, many Jews would not vote for Obama as they cast doubts on his intentions and policies towards Israel’s security. The why and the wherefore for this is that Obama has fulminated against the war on Iraq and spelled out the strategy of withdrawing US troops from there and rolling out talks with Iran and Syria.

Obama’s campaign isn’t stupid, and includes among the cadre of its most ardent supporters and advisors many senior members of that all-powerful Jewish lobby. I don’t think they’ll be taking advice from these folks. The news here isn’t the content of the advice, but the authentic sincerity with which English-speaking Muslims in Pakistan are trying to wean Obama off the Jewish conspiracy.

The Jerusalem Post printed a nice juxtaposition today of Ehud Barak and Barack Obama talking about Iran.

Barack at an event in Iowa yesterday:

“My job as president would be to try to make sure that we are tightening the screws diplomatically on Iran, that we’ve mobilized the world community to go after Iran’s program in a serious way and to get sanctions in place so that Iran starts making a difficult calculation. We’ve got to do that before Israel feels like its back is to the wall.”

Is he getting it? Possibly:

Obama said in Iowa that after visiting Israel last month, he believed Israel’s “general attitude is we will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. They recognize there are no good military options but they also recognize that from their perspective it is unacceptable to allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon,” he added.

Contrast this to the equally important statement Ehud Barak (ours, that is) delivered last week after a meeting with Condoleezza Rice. The content of the meeting is not public, but Barak’s people told reporters afterwards that the Bush administration was opposed to a military strike. While the defense minister took pains to note that Israel would not tolerate a nuclear Iran, he also expressly acquiesced to American diplomacy in the near term:

“Our position is that no option is to be taken off the table, but in the meantime we have to make diplomatic progress.”

This isn’t too strange. The liberal Obama must demonstrate he understands the danger, while the hawkish Bush administration must demonstrate they are pursuing peace. It tells us little about the actual thinking on Iran of either Obama or Bush, and therefore little about any imminent Israeli or American plans vis-a-vis Iran, but it does at least demonstrate that everyone is speaking a common language.

We’re going to speculate here that Obama’s comments were meant to indicate that on Iran, at least, he is thinking strategically rather than ideologically, distancing himself from running mate Joe Biden, at least on this issue. This is a good thing.

When word of Biden’s selection as VP got to Israel, analysts here started thumbing through the man’s lengthy legislative record and digging up old speeches. We sure did. What does Biden think about Israel? What’s his relationship to the Jews? More urgently, what about Iran?

It seems we’ve missed the point. Little has been said here about Biden’s significance inside America. Let us correct this mistake by bringing to your attention a New York Times piece from yesterday, according to which Obama campaign advisors have already laid out Biden’s task in the run-up to the November 4 election: campaigning in the four swing states of Florida, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

Come again? These states all went for Hillary Clinton by wide margins (though of course in Michigan Obama wasn’t on the ballot). Specifically: Florida: Clinton 49.8, Obama 32.9; Michigan: Clinton 55.2, Uncommitted 40.1; Ohio: Clinton 54.3, Obama 44; Pennsylvania: Clinton 54.6, Obama 45.4. (Source: NYT. Click on the state names for percentages.)

Not only did these states go for Clinton, but more specifically, Obama had a tough time gaining traction among “working-class whites,” that amorphous demographic that, one would think, accounts for at least half of America. He was, the pundits opined, too “aloof” and “detached.”

Now consider Biden: a Catholic, grew up in a working-class family, considered close to the unions. Bingo. The Times even lists in detail Biden’s plan of attack against McCain, which will focus on McCain’s allegedly pro-Bush Senate record and the danger of McCain-appointed Supreme Court nominees. Biden’s Judiciary Committee record and 36 years in the Senate are expected to make his attacks more credible, and presumably the Obama campaign believes anything Biden says won’t count toward Obama’s efforts to appear above the fray.

Those are some clever folks running that campaign.

We suspect that Obama might turn out to be a strategic problem for Israel in facing its greatest immediate threat: Iran.

Consider this: Even if Obama agrees with Israel that Iran’s leadership is genuinely unpredictable (Ahmadinejad publicly gloats that he speaks to the Hidden Imam, the Shi’ite messiah), the simple fact is that his election would dangerously extend the window of opportunity Iran has to develop its nuclear weapon. Besides the months-long process of appointing thousands of top civil servants as the 1.8 million-strong American federal government undergoes a change in leadership, Obama has vowed to pursue a diplomatic course with the Iranian leadership.

That makes for January 2009 + perhaps 4 months of putting an Obama federal government in place + at least eight months of diplomacy before he could bring himself to declare said diplomacy “ineffective” = early 2010. During that time, with serious high-level US-Iranian diplomacy underway, Israel would find itself trapped between a developing Iranian bomb and an American administration that cannot acquiesce to an Israeli action that would torpedo its well-meaning statesmanship.

So, even assuming Obama understands – or comes to understand – the vastness of the danger facing the Middle East’s balance of power, his election grants more than a year’s breathing space for the Iranian program.

Does he understand?

Then Saturday happened, and with it the announcement that Joe Biden, talented, honest, pro-Israel and liberal, would be Obama’s running mate. Suddenly, problematic became downright dangerous.

Biden has consistently held out for a diplomatic solution with Iran, refusing even to upgrade sanctions in 1998 because he didn’t believe Yeltsin could implement them, and just last year slamming Bush’s anti-Iran proposals as “mindless.” On the campaign trail he issued a public threat to move for impeachment if Bush bombs Iran without Congressional approval. He’s even presented a plan for Iraq that converts the country into a decentralized federal republic – the sort of republic that could be free and stable in Europe but would be almost helpless as a counterweight to the centralized, driven Iranian dictatorship next door.

In short, Biden, a good man and unquestioned friend to Israel, is betting the farm on his assessment that the Ahmadinejad regime isn’t as bad, as immediately dangerous, as all that.

Now he’s Obama’s no. 2.