What Does the Bush Victory Mean for Israel and the Mideast?

Henry Srebrnik, [Calgary] Jewish Free Press

Let's get right down to it: When Israelis heard that George W. Bush was re-elected president of the United States, there was dancing in the streets.

On the other hand, there were plenty of long faces in France, Germany, and elsewhere in Europe, where public opinion overwhelmingly lined up behind John Kerry. I suspect not too many people were smiling in Damascus, Ramallah or Tehran, either.

From Prime Minister Ariel Sharon down to the person on the Egged bus, American foreign policy, especially as it will impact the Middle East, was naturally first and foremost on their minds.

Whether it be the continuing chaos and savagery in Iraq, the nuclear ambitions of a very threatening Iran, the support given to terrorist groups like Hezbollah by Syria, or the situation of the Palestinians in a post-Yasser Arafat world, the attitude of the American administration will be paramount.

Washington has in recent months directed a series of warnings toward Syria, which is facing the prospect of U.S. trade sanctions, and to Iran, which has been heavily criticized for pursuing a nuclear weapons program.

Bush will certainly pay less attention than Kerry would have to European criticism of Israel and will also increase the pressure on Arab states to rein in Islamist terrorists.

Obviously, most Europeans are in no mood to help the U.S. effort in Iraq. But would France and Germany (not to mention Canada) have really been all that willing to heed Kerry's plea to commit forces to that war? It's unlikely, to say the least!

While the leaders in most Arab capitals looked at another four years of Republican rule with resignation, at best, interim Iraqi prime minister Ayad Allawi, not surprisingly, had a different take, praising Bush, again, for liberating his country from Saddam Hussein's grip.

But he is being a bit too polite. If Iraq is indeed to be set on the road to democracy, or even stability, in advance of that country's scheduled elections in January, the U.S. must set its mind to forcefully crush the terrorists and Ba'athists who control so much of the Sunni heartland. Otherwise the war will indeed have been in vain. And once that's done, it should hand power over to an Iraqi government, and leave quickly, lest that new regime loses legitimacy.

The Palestinians too were less than pleased with Bush's victory. "We hope there will be a change in the policy which gave support for Israeli Prime Minister Sharon and refused cooperation with President Arafat," remarked the Palestinian foreign minister, Nabil Shaath.

The PLO head had been treated as a serious partner for peace by Bill Clinton, rather than as the corrupt impediment to progress he has shown himself to be. But unlike his predecessor, Bush did not meet with the late Palestinian leader even once during his first term.

Bush also opposes a Palestinian "right of return" to areas they fled in 1948, which would effectively mean the end of Israel, nor has he criticized the building of the security fence. But he did reiterate, following his re-election, that he will "continue to work for a free Palestinian state," as part of the "road map" to peace first unveiled in 2003.

With Arafat's departure, the Palestinian leadership will now be preoccupied with an inevitable power struggle, which might even descend into armed conflict, to replace him. In Gaza, especially, the extremists in Hamas might attempt to take power.

Arafat's place has been taken by the current and former prime ministers of the Palestinian Authority, Ahmed Qureia and Mahmoud Abbas, who have divided Arafat's responsibilities between them. The Bush administration regards both as suitable partners in any peace talks. Abbas supports a two-state solution and signed the Oslo Accords on behalf of the PLO in 1993.

Obviously, these remain perilous times for Israel. The day following Bush's victory in the U.S., Sharon also faced an important vote, this one in the Israeli Knesset. With the backing of opposition parties, he won a 64 to 44 vote to fund the evacuation, resettlement and redeployment of Jewish settlers and Israeli troops from Gaza and parts of the West Bank beginning next summer, as part of his unilateral disengagement plan unveiled last February.

Sharon told Israelis that "painful compromises" were required. He said that he feared for the demographic future of Israel if millions of Arabs remained under its rule. But the Gaza settlers feel betrayed by their former champion.

Sharon's own Likud Party remains deeply divided on the withdrawal, and 17 of its 40 members cast their votes against the funding bill. Nationalist and religious parties, usually allied with the prime minister, also refused to support it. Since June, he has led a wobbly minority government which could fall at any time. So he definitely needs Washington's support.

But what else is new? "The sentiment against Israel is powerful throughout the Arab world and on that score the United States is always dragged in as a champion of Israel." So noted a New York Times editorial--of September 3, 1951!

But it was a sad commentary on the American Jewish community's diminished sense of solidarity that while Israelis were hoping that Bush would be re-elected, most American Jews voted against him.

Preliminary data indicates that Bush achieved roughly a five point increase over the 19 per cent he won in 2000 but Republicans had hoped for bigger gains. So three quarters of American Jewish voters supported Senator Kerry.

Whatever one may think of the current war in Iraq, it should be recalled that Kerry in 1991 voted against liberating Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's occupying armies. Did American Jews not remember that Saddam lobbed 41 missiles at Israel during that conflict?

How has it come to this? Have we once again entered a period in North America where most Jews are, despite their "official" line that "we are one" with Israel, really "non-Zionists?" After all, only since World War II and the terrible lessons of the Holocaust did Jews unite completely behind the Jewish state. Sometimes I wonder whether this is still the case.

Lament from the Ivory Tower

Henry Srebrnik, The Calgary Herald

It's egg-on-face time. The week before the U.S.presidential election, I predicted on the Herald's editorial page that John Kerry would make George W. Bush a one-term president. Indeed, I thought Kerry would win quite handily.

I was of course very wrong. So why did I misread it so badly?

I guess I've been living in an academic bubble for so long that its very atmosphere has, as it were, seeped into my thinking. Even though I considered George Bush worthy of a second term, I nonetheless fell victim to the ideological "hegemony" of the liberal intelligentsia, who by and large control the major American newspapers and universities, and, in that sense, frame the very political debate.

Like them, I came up with all the reasons that made it seem that Kerry would (or in their case, should) win in 2004. Since the ability to articulate and explain policies and analyze data and facts is our stock in trade, I was particularly impressed by Kerry's clear superiority in the presidential debates.

It's clear I overestimated the Democratic tilt among newly registered voters, who either split more evenly between Bush and Kerry or in many cases didn't bother to vote, while underestimating the Christian evangelical vote for Bush. That last, for someone like myself, who does recognize the power of religious values, was unpardonable.

The economy was clearly less of an issue than I thought it would be. People do not always vote their pocketbooks. I've been saying that to Marxists and socialists for decades--but I forgot to take my own advice.

Finally, the American people is more steadfast in supporting the war on terrorism and the ongoing battle in Iraq than I gave them credit for.

Well, I did get one thing right: Ralph Nader was not a factor this time around.

There is indeed, as Richard Nixon famously remarked, a "silent majority" that doesn't care about Michael Moore's propaganda movies, Robert Redford's threat to leave the U.S. if Bush won, or Bruce Springsteen's political advice.

Why John Kerry will win the American Presidency

Henry Srebrnik, [Charlottetown, PEI] Guardian

With just one day to go before election day in the United States, most polls show President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry running neck and neck, both in the popular vote and in the Electoral College totals.

The Electoral College works this way: each of the 50 states is allocated a number of electors equal to the number of its U.S. senators--they all have two-- plus the number of members in its congressional delegation in the House of Representatives, which varies by population.

So California, the largest state, has 55 electoral votes, while small ones like Alaska and Wyoming have only three. As well, the District of Columbia, the federal capital of Washington, gets three electoral votes.

In 48 of the states, whoever wins the popular vote gets all of the electoral votes. Maine and Nebraska both use an alternative method. These states divide themselves into a number of districts, and the winner of each district is awarded that district's electoral vote. (Maine has four electoral votes, Nebraska five.)

So the election really consists of 51 separate contests. As there are 538 electoral college votes, whoever wins 270 or more becomes president.

I have been following the contest state by state, and I predict a Kerry victory. In fact, I am surprised at how big the electoral college margin for Kerry looks to be, if the states all go the way I think they will.

The popular vote, nationwide, will be as follows: John Kerry 52.5%; George Bush 47%; Ralph Nader, 0.5%. This will translate into more or less the following electoral college numbers: John Kerry 317; George Bush 221.

Why will Kerry win so handily?

The major elite disseminators of public opinion--the university professoriat and important newspapers such as the New York Times and the Washington Post-- all in the main support Kerry. The perception of Bush as an intellectual lightweight by these groups was reinforced during the three presidential debates, in which Bush was clearly no match for the more articulate Massachusetts senator.

On the level of popular culture, Hollywood personalities, film makers and rock stars are doing their utmost to sway people on his behalf. They will influence many wavering or undecided voters. Michael Moore alone has been worth thousands of votes.

Voter registration is way up in many states, and most of these new voters, in particular African-Americans and Hispanics, will favor Kerry.

The Kerry campaign's ads, in particular those produced by so-called "527" independent advocacy groups, have been much more effective than those put out by pro-Republican groups.

The Democrats are still fired up over having had the 2000 election "stolen" (in their eyes) from them in Florida. The Supreme Court intervened and stopped the recount thus giving the election to Bush. Al Gore, remember, won the overall popular vote that year. There is for many Democrats an almost visceral hatred of Bush.

Both the Iraq war and the domestic economy also work against Bush. Unemployment and job losses due to outsourcing are a major factor in swing states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, and a declining stock market has reflected this despondency. The ballooning deficit, due to massive military spending and tax cuts, and record-breaking oil and gas prices, have also been sources of concern.

More than 1,100 Americans have been killed in Iraq, in a war that shows no signs of ending. Kerry, like Dwight Eisenhower in 1952 during the Korean War, and Richard Nixon in 1968, when Vietnam was the major issue, claims he will somehow get America out of this quagmire. Bush, on the other hand, appears adrift.

And the Democrats are also responsible for spreading a "whispering campaign" about the possible re-institution of the draft. This scares middle class voters, who don't want their kids blown up or beheaded in Iraq.

Bush's pro-life stance and opposition to gay marriage and stem cell research will indeed win him votes among his evangelical Christian base, but may cost him more among moderately liberal Republicans.

And when things aren't going well, the incumbent gets blamed even for matters beyond his control, such as the shortage of flu vaccine in the U.S. this fall.

Finally, left-wing candidate Ralph Nader, who captured almost 3% of the popular vote in 2000 and cost Gore some states, including Florida, will not be a spoiler in this polarized election climate. Almost all of his supporters will move into the Kerry column.

In 2000, Bush won 271 electoral votes to Gore's 266. But in 2004, Bush is facing a "perfect storm" and it is hard to see him surviving it. The political stars are aligned against him.