Conversation with a Candidate

I had a very nice, interesting and friendly conversation with a Democratic candidate for a congressional position.  She was articulate, committed and clearly motivated.

I brought up the subject of Israel and antisemitism.  She gave me the usual Democratic line which was something to the effect that: “Well, we have to be able to talk about policy of Israel, without it being antisemitic.”

I explained to her that focus on Israel, above and beyond all other democracies, is a reflection of antisemitism., I asked her why we do not discuss the politics of Spain and its relationship with separatist provinces.  Why do we not talk about China and India’s assault on Muslim communities.  Why do we never talk about what is happening in Africa, where 800,000 black Christians have been murdered and two million displaced?  The list goes on of course.  Her answer was that these other matters were of concern when she worked in the State Department.

My pitch to her is that the Democratic party is not going to survive the socialist wing, unless candidates return to core Democratic principles.  We need to stand with our allies, all of them, including Israel.  The very fact that Israel is a “special child” because it is fighting for its existence is something that Democratic candidates need to embrace.

My view to the candidate was that people like her are terrified and intimidated by the hard left of their party, just as Republicans were apoplectic about what they considered to be a threat from the tea party movement.  Republicans now deny that, but it was unquestionably an issue for moderate, mainstream Republican candidates.

I asked the candidate how she would vote on a Bill limiting the so-called “offensive weapons” being sold to Israel.  She said she did not know.  I asked her how she could not know such a thing, given that Israel, along with our other allies, needs to have offensive weapons to protect themselves.  We have sold airplanes, rockets, and all kinds of military equipment to our NATO allies and other countries around the world, some of which are not democracies at all.  Why not Israel?  She did not have an answer to that.

This is the new face of the Democratic party.  The candidate told me that she’s only concerned about local issues and she never hears from the voters about Israel.  I believe her.  Of course that is not the point.  The crucial question with respect to our foreign policy will affect everyone elected to Congress.  People in Congress get to vote on foreign policy issues, and they need to be honest about where they stand on these issues.

Will the candidate, if elected, support American efforts to assist Ukraine?  Will American candidates recognize that “from the river to the sea” means destroying Israel and replacing it with a Muslim caliphate?

The candidate then changed gears, attacking her opponent.  She said to me, “Well, my opponent is good on your issue.”  I explained to the candidate that I found this offensive.  I am not a “one issue” person, but the issue of where the Democratic party is going in connection with its sucking up to left wing socialists and turning a blind eye to bigotry against the Jewish community is a big deal.  It is an issue that candidates cannot run away from, much as they might try.

The conversation with the candidate was interesting, thought-provoking, and disturbing all at the same time.  Clearly, she represents the view of the Democratic party, probably even a more moderate view in today’s world.

I suggested to the candidate that she read a book entitled, Anti-Judaism, which came out a few years ago.  It is a marvelous explanation of the roots of antisemitism, why it exists so robustly today, and how it has manifested in a variety of forms, including an irrational hatred of the state of Israel and its leader.  “Benjamin Netanyahu is not Donald Trump”, I explained.

What was most revealing about the conversation is the candidate’s obvious discomfort with answering questions about Israel, while condemning antisemitism in general.  As indicated earlier, the typical cave in which candidates hide is the one which attempts to distinguish antisemitism against Jews and the Jewish community in the United States from criticism of the Israeli government.

The proof of the pudding, as my mother used to say, is in the eating.  The messaging, demonstrations and behaviors in the United States which are antisemitic and anti-Jewish are always based on hatred for Israel.  The two are intermingled like water and cement.  Mix the two up, and they harden into a nearly unbreakable combination.

Those who hate Israel are not even particularly kind to turncoat Jews who throw their fate with the enemies of the Jewish people.  Make no mistake about it, anti-Jewish politicians may shake the hands of Bernie Sanders, in hopes of being elected, but they hate him for who and what he is.  He undoubtedly knows that but nevertheless opts for fame and fortune over integrity.

My closing thought to the candidate was to repeat an old saying that you cannot repel a barbarian with a broken reed.  To say that disdain for Israel and undermining that country’s national interests as a matter of federal policy is okay, because it is somehow distinguishable from antisemitism makes no sense.

The key to the conversation was the candidate’s inability or unwillingness to tell me how she would vote on Israel issues in Congress.  The response that she will have to think about that or look into it in the future is tantamount to a rejection of core American values concerning support for Democratic allies under imminent threat of destruction.  If a candidate cannot stand up for what is honorable and sensible, that candidate will stand up for nothing.

When it comes to candidates, I am looking for someone who would fit into John F. Kennedy’s book, Profiles in Courage.  There are not many of those people around.

A lobbyist once told me something about politicians.  He said that there are three kinds of politicians.  The one politician, holds her finger in the air to see which way the wind is blowing.  The other politician, the second one, is owned by a particular interest group, usually tied to money.  They are the corrupt ones.  The third politician is incorruptible and firm in her convictions supporting America’s friends and rejecting her enemies.  Unfortunately, the lobbyist observed, the third type of politician is virtually extinct, like the dinosaur who we know about from fossils only.

Being anti-Jewish, in all of its forms and manifestations, including being anti-Israel, has actually become a barometer for Democratic candidates in the primary.  We will see how that plays out in national elections.  With an unpopular President, the prediction is not comforting to members of the Jewish community.