The Jewish-American apparel

As debate season prepares for kickoff, Israeli policy is a less prominent yet immensely significant element of the conversation.

In general, Jewish-American voters tend to lean toward the liberal end of the political spectrum.

This was, of course, until President Barack Obama made a gaffe in May 2011, when he called for the return to the 1967 Israeli borders. It was a move that infuriated the Jewish community domestically and abroad.

This put a significant strain on the relationship between Washington and Benjamin Netanyahu, the prime minister of Israel.

In the wake of that, Obama focused a significant amount of his early campaigning to the Jewish-American community.

He made appearances at both the Union for Reform Judaism’s biennial and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee conference in March.

His speeches targeted a connection with his audience, making references not only to important political stances but also jokes about his daughters attending bar mitzvahs.

This levity masks a much deeper issue. The foreign affairs choices Obama has made in his first term are going to be of considerable importance in his bid for a second.
Reflecting on his choices will be key source of opportunity for the Romney campaign to make a push.

Iran has been working to develop nuclear weapons, an act that has drastic implications for the very existence of Israel. Mahmud Ahmadinejad has threatened to use such powers against Israel, raising the alarm.

Those who have observed this have cast attention to Romney and Obama, asking how they would handle a possible conflict with one of their most significant political
allies.

In recent months, conversations have included whether the United States should involve itself in some kind of boycott or protest against Iranian insurgence.

With Obama in power, the route of protest might not be viewed favorably. Romney, in many of his conversations on the topic, has attempted to make claims about Obama’s inability to fight for U.S. allies.

In the end, Romney has admitted that his stance does match Obama’s in many ways.
In this instance, the nation has to make a decision about whether it would be supportive of Israel in a war against Iran.

If Iran decides attacking Israel is necessary, it will be well past the time when the U.S. can politely sit and stare.

Neither candidate, during the course of this campaign season, will make a specific decision on this topic. To do so is a guaranteed way to marginalize at least a fair percentage of voters on both sides of the coin.

The real question is what will happen once the winner is elected. That is a political answer the debate season won’t provide.

­— azoot@indiana.edu