fbpx

New Hampshire diary: The Political value of mentioning Israel in the campaign

[additional-authors]
February 8, 2016

1.

Senator Sanders agrees: there is no need for the US to normalize relations with Iran “tomorrow.” He said this at the Democratic debate in New Hampshire last Thursday: “Who said That think we should normalize relations with Iran tomorrow? I never said that. I think we should move forward as quickly as we can.”

But what exactly is “as quickly as we can?”

Everything Sanders said suggested that he is not likely to makes things difficult for Iran if it wants to renew relations (it is not at all clear that Iran wants any such thing). “I would like to see us move forward, and hopefully someday that will happen,” he said. He also said: “a number of years ago, people were saying normal relationship with Cuba, what a bad and silly idea. They’re Communists, they are our enemy. Well guess what? Change has come.”

The 2016 Sanders and Clinton debate about Iran is somewhat of a repetition of the 2008 Obama and Clinton debate about Iran. In fact, they admitted as much as they went back to reminisce about that long gone debate in the previous decade. “As I certainly recall, the question [in 2008] was to meet without conditions. And you’re right, I was against that. I was against it then. I would be against it now” – Clinton said last week. Sanders, much like the 2008 Obama, is the no-preconditions guy. Clinton, much like the 2008 Clinton, wants to advance the talks, but carefully and wisely, without forgetting that Iran is canny and dangerous.

As in 2008 – Clinton has the more measured and more reasonable position. As in 2008, it is not at all clear to me that her position resonates politically with Democratic voters.

2.

Writers have to come up with new material every day or every week. They need the candidates to say something new, to make the race less repetitively predictable. But the candidates do not always need to say new things. A lot of times, what they do is repeat time and again the tested messages that they deem worthy and that they think would resonate with their prospective voters.

Following the candidates in such times becomes less thrilling. However, looking into the things that they tend to repeat has its own value. When a candidate believes that talking about erecting a fence against illegal immigrants in the south is something to be repeated at every campaign event – this means that this candidate believes that the fence will motivate people to vote for him. When a candidate believes that mentioning ISIS at every event is necessary – it shows that candidate thinks ISIS is an urgent political issue in the eyes of voters.

So as I follow the candidates in New Hampshire this week, one of the things I am looking for are these repetitions. Here is one from a candidate that does not seem to be doing very well:

Carly Fiorina – who, according to recent polls, is at the bottom of the GOP field – might not stay in the race for very long. As she goes, so will her promise, repeated time and again, to make her “first phone call” as President of the US to “my friend Bibi Netanyahu.”

Fiorina began using that line long ago. And she was still using it this week in New Hampshire. This means that she deems it useful – either because she thinks that her potential voters want to make sure she cares about Israel or because she thinks Netanyahu is a beloved figure among GOP voters (or because of both).

3.

In the Democratic field, nobody is using Netanyahu to promote his\her chances to get elected. But Israel is used by one candidate – an interesting decision that clearly separates Clinton from Sanders.

Of course, Clinton does not come even close to saying the kind of things that GOP candidates – most notably Marco Rubio, but also Ted Cruz and others – are saying about Israel. On Saturday night, Rubio repeated his usual line about Obama’s supposed betrayal of Israel: “he had betrayed Israel, because he believes that if we create separation from Israel, it will help our relations in the Islamic world.”

But she does use Israel, cautiously, in a similar way: to warn of a possible danger to Israel if her opponent, Sanders, will get elected. Again and again in recent weeks, including in last week’s debate, Sanders chooses to ignore Israel and refrain from mentioning it, while Clinton chooses to allege that Sanders’ proposed policies towards Iran could put Iranian troops “right at the doorstep of Israel.”

Why is Clinton doing this? We have to assume that she believes this to be the case – and is worried about Sanders’ policies. We have to also assume that in a campaign season she deems such allegations useful. Maybe Clinton made the following calculation: Democratic voters that dislike Israel are already lost to her. These are people who are deeply engaged with the left wing of the party, and there is no way for her to make them reconsider their preference. Then there are the people who have not yet decided, some of whom are staunchly progressive in their views but also care for Israel – because they are Jewish,  because they are well educated about Middle East affairs, or because of habit; remember, Israel was and still is very much a bipartisan cause for Americans.

So Clinton uses Israel as a reminder for these voters that tilting leftward on all issues could have consequences with which they might not feel comfortable – such as having Iranian forces at Israel’s doorstep. It is an interesting choice on her part, a choice that will make her the candidate of choice for most of the established US Jewish community (but not necessarily for a majority of Jews – see what happened with the Iran deal).

Did you enjoy this article?
You'll love our roundtable.

Editor's Picks

Latest Articles

Difficult Choices

Jews have always believed in the importance of higher education. Today, with the rise in antisemitism across many college campuses, Jewish high school seniors are facing difficult choices.

All Aboard the Lifeboat

These are excruciating times for Israel, and for the Jewish people.  It is so tempting to succumb to despair. That is why we must keep our eyes open and revel in any blessing we can find.  

More news and opinions than at a
Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.

More news and opinions than at a Shabbat dinner, right in your inbox.