Which U.S. Candidate Is Better for Israel?

Wondering who to vote for based on your Israel preferences?

Michael Oren, a Senior Fellow at the Shalem Center, a Jerusalem research and educational institute, unveiled a comprehensive study of the vastly different directions a John McCain or Barack Obama presidency would take regarding Israel and Middle East policies. The study, based on the candidates’ comments over the last two years, shows vast disparities in thought on the region and the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Oren said that George W. Bush’s legacy redefined what it means to be “pro-Israel.” Bush had the most distinct Israel policy of any American administration in terms of the peace process, yet he was the first president to publicly call for a Palestinian state and a contiguous one at that.

Bush also began using what Oren calls “code words.” For example, taking “current realities” into account in negotiations on Jerusalem refers to sprawling Jewish neighborhoods in East Jerusalem, described as “settlements” by the international community. Reiterating the concept of a “Jewish state” means that Palestinian refugees would not be allowed to return to Israel in a two-state solution.

Nevertheless, Bush’s pro-Israel stance hasn’t swayed the majority of American Jews, who traditionally vote Democratic.

“American Jews do not place Israel at the top or their priority list,” Oren said. “Even the American Evangelical community is not entirely united around the Republican candidate.”

Out of 130,000 registered American voters in Israel, some 35,000 voted in the 2004 elections. According to Kory Bardash, chairman of Republicans Abroad Israel, an overwhelming 70 percent voted Republican, showing their priorities to be quite different than Jews living in America.

In the Shalem Center study, Oren concluded that Obama would possibly negotiate with a Palestinian government that included Hamas whereas McCain would not. McCain has called on the Palestinian Authority to dismantle terrorist organizations while Obama hasn’t mentioned it. Obama is against “settlement expansion,” words never used by McCain.

Obama would also take a wider, more regional view of Mideast politics, much like the State Department, and seek a “comprehensive” peace which would include both the Palestinians and Syria. McCain would focus on the Israel-Palestinian track before adding another nation to the equation.

On the divisive topic of Jerusalem, Obama declared at a Jewish lobby gathering that the city should be the undivided capital of Israel but backtracked a few days later. McCain on the other hand advocates moving the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

Oren estimates that Obama would put pressure on Israel to give up settlements while McCain would be more sympathetic to Israeli claims to Jerusalem. On Iran, Obama favors open dialogue while McCain would not agree to negotiations unless major preconditions are met, such as halting the quest for nuclear weapons and ending calls to wipe Israel “off the map.”

If Israelis had it their way, a majority would have wanted Hillary Clinton to win the Democratic nomination and then the presidency. Israelis have been enamored with the Clintons since the presidency of Bill Clinton, who was seen as a strong friend of the Jewish state.

“It was an unusual thing,” Oren said. “The way he bonded with the Israeli people was preternatural. He had an intensely and uniquely personal relationship with this country.”

Oren attributed it to the father-son relationship between the late Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Clinton.

Except for a few elite academics, Oren says Israelis are woefully uninformed about American politics. “Israel is a rather provincial country,” he said. “It has no ‘long term’ in foreign policy.”