Susan Rosenbluth
Friday, Apr. 16, 2004

“John Kerry has the Democratic nomination, but if he wants the White House, he had best do one of his trademark switches on the Israeli-Palestinian War—or the Jewish vote could do to him on purpose what it did to Al Gore by mistake,” said New York Daily News columnist Sidney Zion last month.

Mr. Zion was one of many Jewish pundits who began realizing last month that the Massachusetts senator’s positions on Israel were, at best, troubling.

That’s not to say Jews, who historically vote Democratic, will do differently this year in sizable numbers, but, in a close election, even a few votes in key states could make a difference. As Mr. Zion pointed out, when Democratic Presidential candidates turn against Israel, as did Jimmy Carter in the mid-1970s, many Jews become nervous.

But Mr. Bush’s pro-Israel campaign is not even primarily directed towards Jews who in all probability will still vote overwhelmingly Democratic. Mr. Bush has to worry about keeping the right-wing Christian fundamentalists in his camp, and turning against Israel, as his father did, may be one of the best ways to ensure that these voters stay home on Election Day.

Carter or Baker

The current concern began in December when Mr. Kerry told the Council of Foreign Relations that, as President, he would consider asking Mr. Carter and former Secretary of State James Baker to serve as his envoys in talks between Israel and the Palestinians. Later, he added former President Bill Clinton to his list.

Messrs. Carter and Baker have long been considered anti-Israel; some believe they have crossed the line and should be considered full-blown antisemites.

“I don’t know whether to laugh or to cry,” said Abe Foxman, director of the Anti-Defamation League. “None of those three would be on my list. Two are biased on the side of the Arabs—Carter and Baker—and Clinton tried and failed, so why would we use him again?” Berger and Ross

In early March, Mr. Kerry seemed to back off considering Messrs. Carter and Baker, and, in their place, listed Sandy Berger, Mr. Clinton’s national security adviser, and Dennis Ross, who served as Mr. Clinton’s special envoy to the Middle East.

“In other words, Kerry proposes to settle the Israeli-Palestinian war by bringing in the captains of the Titanic,” said Mr. Zion, calling the Democratic candidate’s choices “meshuga.”

Many Jews remember Mr. Berger for his statements implicitly justifying Palestinian violence against Israelis. In a speech he delivered at Tel Aviv University in 2001, he said the violence was not only a “curse” but also “a blessing” because it might speed up the negotiating process.

A year earlier, in a talk at a meeting of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, Mr. Berger said, referring to Israelis, “If there is no agreement, we may be sadder and bloodier, but then maybe they’ll be prepared to make a deal.”

ZOA president Mort Klein recalled that Mr. Berger’s statements were strongly criticized by many Jewish leaders, and 16 members of Congress signed a letter of protest.

One-Sided Envoy

Mr. Ross is equally controversial. After serving as Mr. Baker’s right-hand man in the senior Bush administration, he became chief US envoy to the Arab-Israeli talks in the Clinton administration. He is recalled as frequently pressuring Israel to make one-sided concessions and refraining from criticizing the Palestinians’ almost constant violations of the Oslo accords.

An investigative report in The New Republic from 1996 concluded that Mr. Ross’ vision of a peace agreement “rested on pressuring Israel,” and even after Mr. Baker left office, Mr. Ross “wound up executing Baker’s anti-Israel agenda.”

In 1991, former Near East Report editor Eric Rozenman called Mr. Ross “a Jewish Arabist” who was responsible for shaping the Bush-Baker policy that was “indifferent to what Israel claimed as vital interests and undiplomatically hostile to Israel’s prime minister.” Mr. Rozenman said Mr. Ross’ policies made the Bush administration “the least sympathetic American government toward Israel in that country’s 43 years.” This was a position confirmed by then-Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir.

Making Amends

Even Mr. Ross seemed to understand that he had been guilty of ignoring Palestinian violations of the Oslo accords in order to preserve the façade of the “peace process.”

In June 2001, he told the Australian Jewish Review, “We became so preoccupied with this process that the process took on a life of its own. It had self-sustaining justification. Every time there was a behavior, or an incident, or an event that was inconsistent with what the process was supposed to be about, the impulse to rationalize it, finesse it, find a way around it, and not allow it to break the process, because the process seemed to have promise. I admit that I did not take into consideration the gravity of the Palestinian incitement. I was too liberal on the subject.”

Despite this admission, Mr. Klein pointed out that, to this day, Mr. Ross continues to demand that Israel make concessions to the PA, regardless of the PA’s violations and pro-terror, anti-peace behavior.

Still Blaming Israel

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed last month, Mr. Ross blamed “Israeli control” for “Palestinian anger” and “lack of reform.”

“Instead of insisting that the Palestinians take responsibility for their own behavior, Ross largely blames Israel for Palestinian violence and corruption, asserting that ‘the Palestinian reform movement,’ whose existence is mostly wishful thinking, ‘withers under the weight of the Israeli siege and the chaos that Arafat cultivates,” said Mr. Klein.

In his piece, Mr. Ross claimed that “pervasive Israeli control…produces deep anger among Palestinians and keeps the reformers on the defensive.”

Responding to Terror

Mr. Klein pointed out that whatever “control” Israel is forced to exercise “is in response to Palestinian terror, not the other way around.”

“Moreover, Ross fails to acknowledge that the Palestinians’ ‘anger’ is caused by the PA’s constant incitement of anti-Jewish hatred and murder in its official media, schools, speeches, and religious sermons,” said Mr. Klein, adding that Mr. Ross also ignored the “fundamental problem: the Palestinian Arabs do not accept Israel’s right to exist within any borders.”

Mr. Klein rejected Mr. Ross’ implication that Arab terror and Israeli self-defense are morally equivalent, and his assertion that the PA must crack down on terror—but only after Israel withdraws from Palestinian territory.

“He makes no mention of anything the Palestinians should be required to do before the withdrawal, thus he would hand Gaza to the PA even if it does nothing to fight terror. If the PA is refusing to make concessions even before it gets land, in order to get the land, why should anyone think the PA will make concessions after they get it,” said Mr. Klein.

A Deadline

At the end of 2001, Mr. Ross wrote a much sterner op-ed in the Washington Post in which he said the US should give the PA a 96-hour deadline “to make a concerted effort to shut down the bomb-making and mortar-producing factories in the West Bank and Gaza.”

Further, he wrote, the PA should have to “report to U.S. officials every 12 hours on their progress” and the US would judge whether or not the demands had been met. If the requirements were not met, wrote Mr. Ross, “the US will suspend relations with the PA until such time as the demands are met.”

Seeking Money

In the Wall Street Journal piece last month, Mr. Ross mentioned nothing about demands or reports on the PA’s progress. Rather, he wrote that the U.S. and the European Union should pour additional funds into the PA, despite reports that the money has been spent to sponsor terror.

“This would be throwing good money after bad. Ross’ theory that giving the PA money would encourage peace has been proven wrong since the Oslo process began ten years ago,” said Mr. Klein.

Further, Mr. Ross demanded that Israelis in both the West Bank and Gaza “get out of Palestinian lives.” Mr. Klein pointed out that more than 98 percent of Palestinians live under the rule of the PA, not Israel.

“The only time Israeli forces go into the territories is for self-defense, to try and stop the terrorists. If there was no terrorism, Israeli forces would never have to enter PA-controlled territories,” he said.

Unsuitable

According to Mr. Klein, Mr. Ross’ record of showing more sympathy for Arab positions than for Israeli positions makes him unsuitable for the post of Presidential envoy to the Middle East.

“For there to be any chance of facilitating a durable and meaningful peace, a U.S. envoy must have an appreciation of the importance of the Israel-America alliance, so that the Arabs understand from the beginning that the U.S. will not join them in pressuring Israel for one-sided concessions,” said Mr. Klein.

He added that the envoy must recognize that the Palestinians have consistently violated all agreements they previously signed with Israel and that the PA does not accept Israel’s right to exist, as demonstrated by its official maps, letterhead, and school textbooks, which show “Palestine” replacing all of Israel.

“Neither Berger nor Ross meets those basic criteria,” said Mr. Klein.

A prominent Jewish leader who was present at Mr. Kerry’s Council of Foreign Relations talk, told the New York Post, “What is Kerry trying to do? Commit suicide? It’s at best naïve and ignorant. Remarks like this are why more Jews are considering voting for Bush.”

Opposing the Fence

Like he has on many issues, Mr. Kerry has expressed opposing views on the subject of Israel’s security fence. Last October, he told members of the Arab American Institute, an advocacy group, that he understood how “disheartened Palestinians are by the Israeli government’s decision to build the barrier off of the green line—cutting deep into Palestinian areas.”

“We don’t need another barrier to peace. Provocative and counterproductive measures only harm Israel’s security over the long term, increase the hardships to the Palestinian people, and make the process of negotiating an eventual settlement that much harder,” he said.

Although Mr. Kerry also said he saw no future “for that tiny sliver of land other than that of two nations living as peaceful neighbors,” many Arab observers saw in his words the possibility that he would favor their side over Israel.

“Clearly, Kerry would continue to support Israel as part of the overall US strategic interest in the region; however, Kerry is a diplomat as well as a politician, and it is best to pay attention to the subtleties of his language,” wrote Genevieve Cora Fraser in The Arab Press.

Supporting Geneva

She noted that Mr. Kerry is a supporter of the so-called Geneva accord, a document masterminded by extreme left-wing former Israeli official Yossi Beilin and written by his friends (none of them serving in the present government) and members of the Palestinian Authority. The document, which is widely seen as one-sided against the Jewish state, has been discounted by most government and opposition leaders in Israel.

Jonathan Tobin, editor of the Philadelphia Jewish Exponent, said, on the Middle East, a Kerry presidency “is almost certain to feel like a continuation of the Clinton administration.”

Endorsing Mr. Kerry, Ms. Fraser said, “It is crucial that the next President of the US be experienced and well-versed in the subtle and not-so-subtle variables that will lead us to a safe and sane future.”

Feeling Closer

James Zogby, founder and president of the Arab American Institute agreed. “We feel closer to Sen. Kerry than we did to many of the other Democratic candidates who were running,” he said, pointing out that Ralph Nader, who is of Lebanese descent and is decidedly pro-Palestinian, received more than 13 percent of the Arab-American vote in 2000. Mr. Nader is expected to do well among Arab-American voters this year, too.

According to Mr. Zogby, more than 80 percent of the Arab-Americans who voted for Mr. Nader did so because of his pro-Arab position on Middle East policy.

“There’s something for Kerry to be concerned about,” said Mr. Zogby.

Clarifying

Mr. Kerry’s speech at the Arab American Institute prompted some Jewish leaders to ask him to clarify his position.

At the end of February, he did so, telling about 50 Jewish leaders in New York that he considered Israel’s security fence “necessary to the security of Israel until they have a partner to be able to negotiate with.”

Asked about the seeming contradiction between the statements made to the Arab-American and Jewish groups, Mr. Kerry’s campaign spokesman, David Wade, said the candidate’s objections to the fence, which he voiced in Michigan, were based on its proposed location in Judea and Samaria, not on Israel’s right to build it.

Unsatisfying

Several people in his audience said they were not satisfied with his position which seeks to set limits on Israel’s right to decide where the country needs the fence.

“You can’t go to Michigan and give nuances to one crowd and then come to New York and give nuances to another crowd,” said Jack Rosen, president of the American Jewish Congress.

Mr. Zogby agreed. “There’s no question that I was none too pleased with reports on what he said to Jewish leaders,” he said, adding that the spin used by Mr. Kerry’s aids to attempt to placate Arab-Americans was that the candidate objects to the location of the fence, not the fence itself.

The UN’s Role

At the meeting with Jewish leaders, Mr. Kerry called Mr. Bush’s foreign policy “arrogant and inept,” and issued a demand for a greater role for the United Nations. Mr. Rosen publicly commented that “the UN has not been a kind home for the Israelis.”

Mr. Rosen then asked Mr. Kerry if he would continue the current Bush policy of vetoing all one-sided resolutions at the UN Security Council.

According to Mr. Rosen, Mr. Kerry “quickly reacted and said he would maintain that same policy.”

A longtime Democrat, Mr. Rosen has become an admirer of Mr. Bush’s Middle East policy. He reportedly gave $100,000 to the Republican National Committee in 2002.

However, he also recognized Mr. Kerry’s longtime pro-Israel record and said he would reserve final judgment on which candidate would receive his vote and, presumably, additional funds.

Yasir a Statesman?

Many Jewish voters are also concerned with Mr. Kerry’s statements concerning PA leader Yasir Arafat. In his 1997 book, The New War, Mr. Kerry refers to Mr. Arafat as “a statesman” and a “role model.” “Terrorist organizations with specific political agendas may be encouraged by Arafat’s transformation from outlaw to statesman,” he wrote, adding that terrorists “whose only object is to disrupt society require no such ‘role models’” as Mr. Arafat. This past month, Mr. Kerry told interviewers on Fox News that The New War shows he would be “a president who does see ahead.” According to the New York Post, Mr. Kerry made his remarks while dismissing noted, pro-Israel historian Paul Johnson as “out of date” for calling the PLO “the quintessential terrorist movement” that has achieved nothing for its people.

Changed His Mind

Asked about Mr. Kerry’s comments, Mr. Wade said the candidate changed his mind “in the years when Arafat rejected peace proposal after peace proposal and failed to stop the violence.”

At the New York meeting with Jewish leaders, Mr. Kerry said he now shares Mr. Bush’s belief that Mr. Arafat must be isolated because he is not a “partner for peace.”

Mr. Kerry later told reporters that Mr. Arafat “blew his opportunity” to be effective in 1999 and 2000.

“He was a statesman in 1995,” said Mr. Kerry, recalling meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders. “As far as I’m concerned, he’s an outlaw to the peace process.”

Dirty Tricks?

When asked about these comments, the National Jewish Democratic Council called those bringing up these facts about Mr. Kerry the “GOP dirty tricks squad.” The Democratic Council cited Mr. Bush’s own refusal to label Mr. Arafat a terrorist in 2002 after the PA had been implicated in the resumption of terrorism.

At the time, Mr. Bush said he would not call Mr. Arafat a terrorist because “he had agreed to a peace process.”

The Republican Jewish Coalition, however, pointed out that, after years of the Clinton administration, during which Mr. Arafat was the single most frequent foreign leader invited to the White House, Mr. Bush cut him off completely.

“President Bush has accomplished something no other world leader has ever attempted: marginalizing the single biggest impediment to peace with Israel, Yasir Arafat,” said the RJC.

The Koch Doctrine

Some observers say former NYC Mayor Ed Koch, a lifelong Democrat who is now a supporter of Mr. Bush, typifies the problem Mr. Kerry faces.

“I am for Bush because I think his position on international terrorism and the Bush Doctrine, which is we will go after terrorists and countries who harbor them, trumps everything else,” said Mr. Koch, adding that he does not agree “with any domestic position” the President has taken.

On face value, Mr. Kerry would look like a natural candidate for the Jewish community. His father and both his paternal grandparents were Jewish and his family tree includes at least two victims of the Holocaust.

Last month, an Austrian genealogist, hired by the Boston Globe, discovered that Mr. Kerry’s grandmother’s sister and brother, Jenny and Otto Lowe, died in the Holocaust. On his web site, genealogist Felix Gundacker noted that Otto Lowe was murdered in the Theresienstadt ghetto in Czechoslovakia in 1943 and Jenny Lowe disappeared in the Treblinka death camp.

Mr. Kerry’s brother, Cameron, converted to Judaism when he married his Jewish wife. And Mr. Kerry says he supports Israel.

The problem is his support stems from the Peace Now branch of Zionists, a group considered radically left-wing and out of step with the mainstream.

Donor Base

Commenting on the possibility that Jewish voters might turn to President Bush in November, Rep Anthony Weiner (D-NY) said, “The Jewish community has not been a battleground until now.”

While all voters are, of course, important to Mr. Kerry, Jews have become a staple of the Democratic Party’s donor base. With Mr. Bush reportedly raising more money than any other candidate in history, any decline in donations for the Democratic candidate would be deeply felt.

“Among the Democratic voter base for whom Israel is a seminal issue, there are many more who are writing checks to Republicans than I have ever seen,” said Mr. Weiner, who identified himself as a Kerry supporter.

Reassuring Donors

Fears that this economic twist could turn epidemic sent the Kerry campaign out last month, conducting one-on-one conversations with traditional Democratic backers who are being reassured that Mr. Kerry will be a strong supporter of Israel.

“Some have said they want to talk to Kerry himself or someone high in the campaign to get a better sense of his support for Israel,” Adam Kessler, a Philadelphia-based lawyer and former Democratic National Committee finance vice chair, told the New York Jewish Week.

According to The Jewish Week, some potential Jewish donors, who had been on “the sidelines” in the Democratic race have signaled their willingness now to participate.

“The campaign needs the boost Jewish givers can provide. According to most estimates, Kerry, who spent heavily in his stunning come-from-behind primary triumph, has a much smaller war chest than Bush, who had no primary opposition and whose fund-raising machine is proving to be one of the most efficient in recent history,” said the Jewish Week.

Most observers say Mr. Bush will not turn away Jewish funds, but is not really in need of them. Mr. Kerry, however, is said to see the Jewish community as not only a source of money, but also a source of activism.

Unwelcome Endorsement

He may need that activism to combat unwelcome statements of support coming his way from some foreign leaders. In the middle of March, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, whose antisemitic tirade last year evoked a personal rebuke from Mr. Bush, announced that he was endorsing Mr. Kerry for President.

“I think Kerry would be much more willing to listen to the voices of people and of the rest of the world,” Mr. Mohamad told the AP. “But in the US, the Jewish lobby is very strong, and any American who wants to become President cannot change the policy toward Palestine radically.”

In October 2003, Mr. Mohamad issued a virulently antisemitic speech in which he called on Muslims to unite against Jews towards a “final victory.” The Jews, he said, “rule the world by proxy.”

Rejecting Mahathir

In a prepared statement, the Republican Jewish Coalition said the endorsement from Mr. Mohamad “only reaffirms that George W. Bush is the best candidate” and the best friend Israel has ever had in the White House.

“With his strong unqualified support of Israel, his principled leadership against terror and global voice against antisemitism, George W. Bush will never earn the endorsement of people like Mahathir Mohamad and his ilk,” said Matthew Brooks, RJC spokesman.

The Kerry campaign rejected any association with Mr. Mohamad, calling his views “totally deplorable.”

Arab Endorsement

Mr. Kerry’s lack of enthusiasm did not dampen the consensus that seems to be emerging in the Muslim world that a Kerry presidency will offer the Arabs a better deal.

According to Amir Taheri, writing in the New York Post, the “Kerry debate” was kicked off by the Saudi daily Al-Jazeera, which published a front-page photo of Mr. Kerry with Prince Bandar bin Sultan Al Saud, the Saudi ambassador in Washington. Several other Saudi papers also ran the “friendship photo” and the “history of a long and close friendship between Sen. Kerry and the Saudi kingdom.”

The pan-Arab daily Asharq Alawsat claimed that Mr. Kerry’s promise to end America’s dependence on Saudi oil was merely “an electoral tactic.” The paper said Mr. Kerry had been introduced to the Saudi ambassador by his fellow Democratic Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy in 1990. According to the paper, the two “worked hard” to organize an exhibition in Boston to introduce “Saudi culture and civilization” to Americans.

Kennedy Understands

The Saudi media has also cited “official documents” that they say testify to the “close friendship” Mr. Kerry has allegedly developed with Riyadh for more than a decade.

According to Mr. Taheri, Mr. Kennedy’s “Arab connection” is even older. In 1976, he toured several Arab capitals, including Baghdad, where he met Saddam Hussein, then vice-president of Iraq.

“Kennedy understands the Arabs because he has visited the region and developed relations with Arab leaders. As the senior figure of the Democratic Party, Kennedy will help put a Kerry administration on the right track with regard to relations with the Arabs,” an anonymous Saudi official was quoted as saying.

Major Break

“Beyond Saudi Arabia, the assumption in Arab media and political circles is that Kerry as President will abandon Bush’s ‘dreams of change’ in the Middle East and restore Washington’s traditional policy of support for the status quo in the Arab world,” said Mr. Taheri.

He cited a senior advisor to Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak who said the Arab world was “certain that a Democratic administration will be more realistic.”

“Bush’s talk of imposing democracy can only de-stabilize the region and produce catastrophe for all concerned,” he said.

Forgetting the War

According to Mr. Taheri, although some Arab politicians understand that a new US administration will not translate to totally new policies in the Middle East, Arab chancelleries are nevertheless doing all they can to freeze issues pending the outcome of the US Presidential election.

A major problem, said Mr. Taheri, is that many Arab leaders do not understand the sea-change produced by 9-11 in most Americans’ view of the world.

“Today it is safe to say that no one can get elected President of the US on an anti-war platform,” said Mr. Taheri, citing the rise and rapid fall of Howard Dean and the poor showing made by Rep. Dennis Kucinich who failed to rise above the level of one percent in Democratic primaries.

“The Arabs should not delude themselves into believing that a Democratic administration will be able to abandon the War on Terror or ignore its root cause, which is the absence of democracy and human rights in countries where religious fascism has established itself as the key challenger to often corrupt and despotic ruling cliques,” he said.

“Old Europe” Too

Mr. Taheri said he had no doubt that some “old Europe” politicians, including France’s President Jacques Chirac, are also hoping Mr. Kerry as President will change Washington’s position not only on Iraq, but also on issues such as the Kyoto Protocol and the International Criminal Court.

“What the outside world must understand is that most Americans now believe that they are threatened by enemies who can strike in the very heart of the US. But the average American’s reaction is quite different from that of the Spaniards who changed their votes because of the 3-11 terrorist attacks on Madrid. Few Americans are prepared to turn the other cheek for Osama bin Laden and societies that helped breed, raise, and finance him. Nor would they share the ‘old Europe’ illusion that one can change the nature of a man-eater by feeding him vegetables and cuddling him,” said Mr. Taheri.

“The problem that Arabs and some in the ‘old Europe’ have is that they do not yet understand that, for a majority of Americans, the War on Terror is a real war—not a pose that can be altered with a change of administration,” he said.

North Koreans for Kerry

Muslim leaders are not the only ones looking favorably on Mr. Kerry. While Mr. Kerry first boasted about and then seemed to distant himself from the fact that foreign leaders opposed to Mr. Bush are looking to endorse the Democratic candidate, he was decidedly nonchalant when, in early March, North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong-il, began looking favorably on his speeches.

While both Messrs. Kerry and Bush are committed to North Korean nuclear disarmament, Mr. Kerry has endorsed renewed bilateral negotiations between Washington and Pyongyang.

North Korea’s official media, which has been scathing in its criticism of Mr. Bush, welcomed Mr. Kerry’s “pledge to adopt a more sincere attitude” towards Pyongyang if elected.

Defensive

Some say Mr. Kerry brought these foreign ills on himself. Several weeks ago, he announced that he had met with foreign leaders “who cannot go out and say this publicly. But, boy, they look at you and say, ‘You’ve got to win this. You’ve got to beat this guy. We need a new policy.’”

At a town meeting in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania in mid-March, Mr. Kerry refused to name the foreign leaders who he had previously said were endorsing his candidacy.

“I’m not going to betray a private conversation with anybody,” said Mr. Kerry, and when boos began to be heard in the crowd, he added, “That’s none of your business.”

Untrue Story

According to Richard Lessner, executive director of the American Conservative Union, Mr. Kerry’s claim that he met with foreign leaders who urged him to defeat Mr. Bush may not be true.

“Exhaustive investigations by various news organizations have pretty much proved not only that John Kerry has not met with any foreign leaders, but he has not even had the opportunity for such meetings,” said Mr. Lessner.

Mr. Kerry countered that he had not met with “foreign leaders,” but, rather, had only heard from them.

Spanish Endorsement

One foreign leader made no secret of his admiration for Mr. Kerry. Spanish prime minister-elect José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who came to power in the wake of the March 11th terror strike in Madrid and has promised to appease Arab terrorists by withdrawing Spanish troops from the American-led coalition in Iraq, said last month he hoped Mr. Kerry would win in November.

“We’re aligning ourselves with Kerry. Our allegiance will be for peace, against war, no more deaths for oil, and for a dialogue between the government of Spain and the new Kerry administration,” he said, adding that “fighting terrorism with bombs with Tomahawk missiles isn’t the way to fight terrorism.”

Mr. Zapatero, whom his Spanish opponents call “the president of Al Qaeda,” suggested that American voters follow the example set by Spain and change their leadership by supporting Mr. Kerry for President.

Bush as Comforter

But a New York Sun poll last month showed that should America suffer a terrorist strike on US soil before elections—as did Spain—it would affect public opinion in a way that favors the re-election of Mr. Bush over Mr. Kerry.

The nation-wide survey showed that 39 percent of likely voters said they would be more likely to vote for Mr. Bush in the event of an attack, while 30 percent said they would be more likely to vote for Mr. Kerry in such an event. One quarter of those polled said an attack would not affect their votes.

More Republicans, 71 percent, said they would be motivated to go to the polls to support their candidate in the event of an attack. Only 58 percent of Democrats said an attack would make them more likely to vote for Mr. Kerry.

Registered independent voters also said an attack would make them more likely to vote for Mr. Bush than for Mr. Kerry, 34 percent to 24 percent. Another 34 percent of independents said their voting intentions would not be affected.

Outside Politics

Both men and women said they would be more likely to vote for Mr. Bush in the event of an attack.

The poll, conducted by McLaughlin and Associates, had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

Mr. Wade said the idea of polling on the prospects of terrorism “is almost gruesome.”

“Such things are outside of politics,” he said.

A McLaughlin vice-president, Stuart Polk, said he understood why presidential campaigns would be loath to comment on the poll, but, he said, “Unfortunately, it’s a real issue. It’s about who you would want as a President in tough times.”

Apolitical Support

Mr. Tobin pointed out that Mr. Kerry, whose service in the armed forces in Vietnam has been a key point of his campaign, should have sent a message after the terrorist act in Spain “to our enemies and doubtful allies that cannot be misinterpreted: America will fight the war no matter who sits in the Oval Office.”

“Rejecting a Franco-German-style appeasement of Islamist and Arab extremists isn’t a Republican or Democratic issue, and it ought never to be treated as one. If the world needed an example of the perils of appeasing terror, they need look no further than the attempts of numerous leaders to buy off Palestinian terrorists with pressure on Israel,” said Mr. Tobin.

Same War

He pointed out that although many Americans and Europeans reject linking the Palestinian war against Israel with the Al Qaeda assault on the West, “there is little doubt remaining that Islamists see Israel as a bridgehead of democracy in the Middle East that must not be allowed to exist.”

“The tragic events of the last three and a half years of Palestinian violence, as well as the decade since the signing of the Oslo accords, have shown that every attempt by Israel and the international community to mollify the Palestinians has been met by increasing doses of terrorism,” Mr. Tobin said, suggesting that Americans and Europeans take note and draw the appropriate conclusions: Al Qaeda will be no more forgiving of appeasement than were Hamas or Fatah.

“The American election should be fought over the question of who is best able to lead America’s war effort in the next four years, not whether or not we are fighting one. Republicans and Democrats can call each other all the names they like, but on that question, there should be no daylight between Bush and Kerry. If there is, the price will probably be paid in blood, not votes,” he said.

Less Admiring

A few days later, Mr. Kerry seemed to heed Mr. Tobin’s advice and asked Mr. Zapatero not to appease Al Qaeda by withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq. The following day, Mr. Zapatero responded by telling Mr. Kerry to mind his own business.

“If there is any reason at all for patriotic Americans to consider voting for a man on the basis of his foreign endorsements, it is that he may be better able to persuade those leaders to act in accord with American interests. Zapatero’s contemptuous attitude toward Kerry gives the lie to that argument. The new Spanish leader is unwilling to consider keeping his country’s commitment to Iraq even though it would probably help Kerry politically,” observed James Taranto on the Wall Street Journal-sponsored “Best of the Web” website.

By the middle of March—after Mr. Kerry had been praised by Messrs. Mohamad and Zapatero—Mr. Kerry’s top foreign policy advisor, Rand Beers, speaking for the campaign, tried to put an end to the foreign endorsements.

“This election will be decided by the American people, and the American people alone. It is simply not appropriate for any foreign leader to endorse a candidate in America’s Presidential election. John Kerry does not seek, and will not accept, any such endorsements,” he said, putting aside the issue that barely two weeks earlier the candidate had been boasting about such endorsements.

Richard Clarke

A few days after making that statement, Mr. Beers himself became the subject of controversy: He is a close friend and longtime colleague of former terrorism czar Richard Clarke who has portrayed himself as a nonpartisan critic of the Bush White House terrorism policies. Messrs Beers and Clarke reportedly taught a class together at Harvard.

According to ABC White House correspondent Terry Moran, Mr. Clarke’s close relationship with Mr. Beers has “discredited” Mr. Clarke in the eyes of many critics and allowed the White House to maintain that “this is essentially a Democrat making these arguments” that the Bush administration dropped the ball in the war on terrorism.

Mr. Moran noted that many Republicans now say Mr. Clarke’s book, Against All Enemies, “is an audition for a place in the next Democratic administration.”

According to NewsMax.com, both Messrs. Beers and Clarke resigned from the White House within a month of each other last year, shortly before the Iraq war started in March.

“When Mr. Beers made a public show of joining Mr. Kerry’s campaign, it set off political smoke alarms in Washington,” said NewsMax.com. “While Beers began publicly criticizing the Iraq war almost immediately, Clarke held his fire for a few months. But by last November, it was clear he and Beers were on the same page.”

Radical Left-Wing Endorsement

An American who offered his endorsement at the end of March may be another political hassle Mr. Kerry could live without. Noam Chomsky, the anti-Israel radical leftwing MIT linguist whom many consider antisemitic, called Mr. Kerry “Bush-lite,” but “a fraction” better than his rival.

Like many observers, Mr. Zion suggested the Presidential election will be decided by a handful of states which do not seem to be leaning either left to the Democrats or right to the Republicans. These states include Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and Missouri.

“A small switch in the Jewish vote in any of them—particularly Florida—could be decisive,” he said.

But Arab-Americans are also becoming a political force and constitute a sizable voting bloc in states such as Michigan and Pennsylvania.

Susan Rosenbluth is editor and publisher of The Jewish Voice and Opinion, a monthly magazine based in Englewood, NJ, promoting classical Judaism. Most articles can be found at the website jewishvoiceandopinion.com.

Editor's note: