By Donald H. Harrison
SAN DIEGO–For Jewish voters who love Israel but consider themselves liberal on social issues, this is an agonizing presidential election. There is no way to get all that we want. Clearly President Obama is far more likely to protect women’s control over their own bodies, or gay couples’ right to marry, or affordable health care for the Middle Class than Mitt Romney would. But on the other hand, Mitt Romney seems far more committed to the American alliance with Israel than President Obama is.
There are some who say ‘Don’t worry about Israel; Israel is perfectly capable of defending itself” and I only wish that they were right. However, without assistance from the United States able to deter Iran from its dreams of hegemony in the region, Israel may sooner than we think have to absorb a first strike nuclear attack ordered by Iran’s mad mullahs, who apparently figure that their population and territory are large enough to recover from retaliation, while Israel is so compact that it can be “wiped off the map.”
If this sounds unnecessarily apocalyptic, I remind my readers that there have been others in history who have threatened, just as Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad does today, to wipe out sizeable portions of the Jewish people, and we disbelieved them until it was too late. We tend to be a people who set great store by reason and rational behavior, however, we delude ourselves when we believe other peoples value the same traits. In the Middle East, emotion, hatred, and self-destructiveness often hold sway over logic and reason, and unless we want our Israeli brethren to face another holocaust, we have to do whatever we can to guard against that.
There will be those who watched the final presidential debate on Monday night, October 22, and who will say, “What more do you want? President Obama talked about Israel as America’s closest ally in the region, and about his 2008 campaign visit to Israel in which he sorrowed at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Memorial and visited Sderot, one of the cities enduring regular missile strikes from the Gaza Strip.” Yes, that’s true, and I was glad to hear what he had to say, but Barack Obama sounded just as friendly toward Israel in 2008 and look what happened during his first term of office.
That term was marked by a continued emphasis on making overtures to the Muslim world by putting daylight between the U.S. and Israel; by the administration’s ongoing insistence that even Jewish sections of Jerusalem are not within Israel’s rights to develop ; and by the President agreeing to demands from Turkey to exclude Israel from NATO exercises while permitting participation by countries far less friendly to U.S. interests , and a litany of diplomatic slights and rebuffs aimed toward Israel’s Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu.
I don’t know–and may never be able to tell–whether the President’s favorable words about Israel during this election cycle will be matched by his deeds.
It’s one thing to say before the election that you stand with Israel. But if reelected, will President Obama continue to say and mean it? Or will he figure that with the election settled, the deepest concerns of Jewish voters and contributors no longer are a priority for him, and may perhaps even be a hindrance, in what apparently is his mission for the U.S. to find more common ground with the Islamic world? Put bluntly, will the President abandon Israel in the hope of winning friends among the far more populous Islamic world?
Turning to Governor Romney, one finds a man who seems to have variable positions on a variety of issues–none more confusing to me than health care. His plan in Massachusetts was the prototype for Obama care, yet he is against the national health care plan. Are the differences between them really so major, or is this just political positioning? I don’t get it. Responding in the last debate to President Obama’s allegations that the Romney line on other issues also keeps changing, Romney just didn’t sound very convincing with his comments that when he said such and such, he had included this or that caveat.
Nevertheless, I am convinced that Governor Romney, a devout Mormon, is committed to the survival of Israel, the birthplace of his Christian savior. I believe that he feels a special relationship with us Jews, and that deep in his heart — not only in his throat — he is committed to the survival of Israel and to stopping, really stopping, the Iran nuclear threat.
But what about all those social issues on which I disagree with Romney? Am I willing to sacrifice issues of equity, and the financial improvement for the Middle Class, just for Israel?
Yes, I am.
Whereas, Israel’s protection is an existential issue from which, once a war is started by Iran there can be no course correction, the issues of women’s rights, gay rights, health care, taxes, all are subject to the give and take of domestic politics. I’ll be sure to vote for Dianne Feinstein, a Democrat, for reelection to the U.S. Senate, and have urged the election locally of such Democrats to the House of Representatives as Susan Davis and Scott Peters. They can prevent or moderate any proposed major changes in the social relationships within our country. But they cannot prevent inaction or naive presidential policies toward the Middle East.
So, reluctantly, especially because I have never before endorsed a Republican for President, I call for the election of Mitt Romney to the nation’s highest office. I wish him well, just as I wished Barack Obama well when I endorsed and voted for him last go around. Obama seemingly is a nice man, with a nice smile and an especially nice family, but regrettably I just don’t trust him to protect Israel.
Should President Romney turn out to be a disappointment, as President Obama surely has been, I reserve the right to call for his replacement in the next election. Meanwhile, I will advocate for those progressive social policies at home in which I believe.
*
Harrison is editor of San Diego Jewish World . He may be contacted at donald.harrison@sdjewishworld.com
I congratulate you, Mr. Harrison, on your thoughtful editorial regarding the critical choice that we Jews have to make this November. I believe that you are correct in your analysis and hope that others will consider your words and come to the same conclusion.
Very well put, Don. Congratulations on your principled decision. You’re one of the few willing to look at the big picture rather than through the lens of personal pet topics, as valid as they may be. I think your most important line is “We tend to be a people who set great store by reason and rational behavior, however, we delude ourselves when we believe other peoples value the same traits.” That fact alone is the reason why so many Israelis and Jews worldwide have died: when we delude ourselves into assuming that our enemies share our values, we shouldn’t be surprised to discover (but often too late) that they don’t at all. On the contrary, they take advantage of our values to impose theirs, more often violently than not. No doubt you will receive grief from ideologically blind and intolerant liberals (as I have) for whom devotion to the party line is more important than the survival of Israel. Their intolerance and lack of respect for ideas differing from theirs is all we need to see to appreciate their alleged liberalism, which in fact shares disturbing similarities with fascism. Let them try to intimidate you… and just ignore them. You did good.
Pingback: President Obama and the Jewish vote « THE FIRST STREET JOURNAL.
As a Boston University trained student of The Holocaust and European History, with a father and mother who both served in the US military during WWII, I have studied and have had described the horror of our failure to support the Jewish people in their hour of need. Sadly today, with the Muslim Brotherhood and other like minded groups being given unprecedented access to the White House, while the fruits of the failed Arab Spring experiment have come home to roost with the murder of four Americans in Benghazi, it is time to clearly examine the chances of survival for the Jewish State of Israel and to investigate why America is not standing closer to our democratic allies in Jerusalem. We stand together for the same principles of democracy and human decency, while those wearing suicide belts to kill and maim us are the new fascists of this age. Sadly, the one American political party which expects all Jewish Americans to blindly cast their votes in support is the same party which seeks rapprochement and appeasement with al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood. But it is my fervent hope that the election of Gov. Romney will reset the clock and return America to Israel’s right shoulder.
i finally got it. although i am not a fan of mitt romney’s, president barack hussein obama’s refusal to identify moslem terrorism by that appropriate name poses a threat not only to israel, but to the usa and to the entire world.
Just read your article in the, Jewish world, about why you are voting for Mitt Romney. I loved it! I’m going to share it with my liberal Jewish friends. Thank you for explaining your views so well! R. Bloom, Chabad at La Costa. Looking forward to reading more of your work.
My thinking EXACTLY but explained far, far better than I ever could. Thank you for a fine article.
As always well said, but why do you believe that Israel is the one thing that Romney won’t change his mind about? I don’t believe he can be relied upon.
Because Obama can be relied upon? On June 4, 2008, candidate Obama said in front of 7,000 AIPAC supporters “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided.” Hours later, he changed his mind and said “Well, obviously, it’s going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations.” (See http://cnsnews.com/news/article/candidate-obama-also-called-jerusalem-israel-s-capital-then-backtracked). I wouldn’t call that a reliable and trustworthy person. Obama has proven that he can’t be trusted. Now it’s Romney’s turn.
Walk down the street. Find a person… any person with a pulse.
That person would be better than Obama, who single-handedly seems to be ruining the world as well as the USA.
Very well written and I applaud him for his decision.
I don’t hold the same Trust for Mitt Romney as he does.
I agree that Obama has faltered on some issues, but he has excelled at others. Like getting rid of Osama Bin Laden and getting us out of two wars that have cost us a Trillion Dollars.
He has much more trust in Romney, a Seasoned Politician, who has flip flopped almost daily on issues, than he does for the President who has demonstrated what he believes.
What will he really do? That’s the big question.
We know what Obama has done. Can we trust Romney? Maybe Obama has pissed you off a couple times for not seeing eye to eye, but in the long run he still has your back, he says so and I believe him.
Iran does not have a bomb yet. Calm, calculated action is required. Obama is doing that. Even Meir Dagan, former Mossad suggests more time before we strike Iran.
Romney’s actions speak louder than words for me.
He is a conscientious objector. He ran and hid in France for 31 months (three missions for his church). He failed to serve during the Viet Nam War.
None of his sons have served our great country. They too are conscientious objectors.
Very few Mormons serve their country, they serve their church. They think church missions are greater than protecting our country.
Romney flip flops on Healthcare. One day he created Obama care, the next day he wants to kill it, then the next day he will use part of it. How can you trust this?
I will not vote for Romney. His actions have proven to me he is not trust worthy.
Trust is the key in this election. Romeny has failed that test. The President still has my trust.
Chuck Rickman
The following received from and printed with permission from Arnold Flick:
I agree, although I extend my Democratic background to include concerns domestically as well those regarding foreign policy and Israel.. Obama has seriously blurred the separation of powers in the Constitution and seems to have no sense of economics and the crisis of the debt. While I agree that the rich should pay more taxes, I also think the burden of regulations emanating from the administration is strangling many. I look at Obama as having changed a drifting policy under Bush, and now I think we need to change a “spend first, think later” policy under Obama.
Thanks for your courage.
Feel free to add this letter to the Journal.
Arnold Flick
I agree completely with the author’s sentiments. I’m truly sorry to see that this places me in opposition to the “majority.”
If you are going to vote on Israel above all other poilicies, than frankly you need to move to Israel, and leave the voting to those who are voting based on the country they LIVE IN! You have lost sight of the point of the election…DOH
Thumbs up for this. BTW the Iron Dome was proposed by Bush but sat upon by Obama until election year. The fiasco in Libya should give all allies of America pause. This President is lacking when it comes to foreign policy, Israel included, and all Americans should take these shortcomings into account, not just Jewish Americans.
The Ft Hood massacre is “workplace violence!” The Obama Attorney General refuses to acknowledge any connection between violent jihad and the Mulsim religion! Obama slights Netanyahu on a visit to the White House. Obama does not visit Israel on his tour of the Middle East! What more do you need to see to realize that this man favors the Muslim agenda, which is against Chrisitianity and American values. We can not change the cultural furniture of the Middle East; our troops attempt in vain to change the atmosphere with a spritz of Febreze…it will not work. The best we can do is not have an apologist, who seeks brownie points by embracing a merciless enemy, and whose efforts are seen as a sign of weakness. To have faith in this current administration is to be blind!!!