The Race to Congress Will Determine Israel–U.S. Relations

Washington and Jerusalem have established a pleasant relationship recently. It is a relationship, however, whose foundation is marked by the inability of each side to reach an agreement. Will someone start throwing dishes soon?

About 10 months ago, a little while after the Israeli government decided to freeze the construction of settlements, White House staffer Daniel Shapiro was sent for a talk with Minister Benny Begin from Likud. It was an interesting meeting, and not the last one between the two, as Shapiro is a permanent guest in the corridors of the Israeli government offices.

He barely leaves Israel when he comes back again. On his most recent trip, just last week, he came for a less cursory visit. Every meeting between him and Begin, sources say, is similar: It’s clear that the conversation is flowing and pleasant. The men remain calm in tone, and the mutual appreciation between the two is evident. Points of agreement, however, are hard to find.

In the meeting following the announcement of the freeze, there was disagreement over the question that the freeze was a one-time decision. Begin, who voted for the freeze, was most likely not in complete agreement when he raised his hand. He relayed to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that he would support him this time around but acknowledged that Netanyahu was being set up: In 10 months’ time, demands to extend the freeze would be heard. When he met Shapiro, he apparently tried to check this assumption out. He wanted to hear the American commitment that there would not be another request for a freeze; however, he did not hear what he wanted.

He wanted to hear that the Americans were ready to accept the continuation of construction at the end of the freeze, but again, he did not hear this. Shapiro reiterated that the American position is not, as everybody knows, in favor of the expansion of the settlements. Thus, Begin’s worries have become true.

Anyone who wants to find a political moral in this story can do so: Begin was right. We can draw a statesmanship lesson from it as well: The Americans did not intend to be satisfied with the 10 months. The story also reveals early signs of the overall pleasant relationship between Washington and Jerusalem in the last months — a relationship that contains a lot of intimacy, counsel and negotiations behind the scenes, and many strenuous efforts on both sides not to tread on each other’s feet. This week, a Washington administration official said that there has been much “thoughtfulness” put into the relationship.*

But there was, and still remains, a basic problem: No consensus. The interesting question is, of course, for how long can you sustain a relatively pleasant relationship when the parties disagree on core matters? In other words: Will the moment come when someone, from one side or another, decides to start throwing dishes again?

Looking Ahead

The Palestinian side seems to believe that this moment is coming closer. There is also a date in place: Nov. 3, the day after the midterm elections in the United States. It is the day after Barack Obama is released from the obligation of political agenda and weaned from his obligation to nervous congressmen. What they are missing are well-publicized clashes with the Israeli government.

This is what Palestinian higher-ups, who also didn’t hide their position from the American mediator, are thinking. There was even an objection noted in the protocol: We — the American interlocutor said to his Palestinian friend — do not make “such calculations.”* The Palestinian smiled and said nothing. The American may be saying whatever he wants, and the Palestinian may be thinking otherwise.

And he may not only think so. The recommendation that Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmud Abbas received from several of his advisers who conducted the dialogue with the Americans was clear: This is not the time for a deal. Wait. No matter what the Americans say, the Palestinians believe that “after the elections” is a better time. In any case, the tactical maneuver they undertake at the moment is simple: without explosion, without compromise. The Americans see, understand and nevertheless try to convince that it is worthwhile to proceed. This will most likely not happen, unless the Israeli government decides to fold completely.

In all likelihood, Israel won’t retreat in such a way, among other things, because the communiqués about the far-reaching American proposals in exchange for the freeze were a little premature and a little exaggerated. It is true that the Americans agreed to give quite a lot for the sake of the freeze. By the way, it was a move that is difficult to fathom: Even through an American view, there is no reason to sacrifice strategic assets in order to gain a tactical concession valid for two months.

On the other hand, a large part of what they agreed to give is not exactly related to the freeze and does not depend on it. This week, an American who is very knowledgeable about Israel’s connections in Congress told me the following: Can anyone conceive that Israel won’t get the most state-of-the-art fighter plane because she didn’t agree to freeze construction for 60 days long? Because of 500 houses that may be built during that period, America is going to abandon Israel and let her qualitative military advantage go “kaput”?*

The Loyal from the Left

The voters of the Democratic Party also find it difficult to let it all come crashing down, thus losing its advantage over the Republicans. Although the numbers keep pointing in the direction of defeat, there are Democrats who do not give up. The reason is interesting: They are simply not accustomed to it.

This week, Gallup published the results of an interesting survey on American voters. The Institute naturally asked participants who they were going to vote for in the November elections, but it also attempted to discern why. On the Republican side, there was the expected answer that led the votes: “Favor Republican candidate’s agenda, policies.” But a very high number of Democrat voters answered the question differently. It turns out that they would vote for the Democratic candidate because they “always vote Democratic.” Meaning that it is a matter of a habit, of loyalty — not of a rational choice.

Thirty percent of the Democrats intending to vote for their party replied with this answer, compared to only 15 percent favoring the “Democratic candidate’s agenda, policies.” In addition, similar fractions of Republicans and Democrats (11 percent and 13 percent, respectively) vote for the party because they simply don’t like the opposing party.

No one knows how many seats the Republicans will manage to snatch. The wind changes from day to day. On Monday, encouraging voices in the Democratic camp were heard because of what appeared to be a narrowing of the gap in the Rasmussen poll.

On Tuesday, the winds changed direction again: Gallup presented two models of “voters most likely to vote,” which is different from “registered voters” who also do not necessarily intend to show up at the polls. According to one of the models — based on the assumption that great throngs of voters will take off work on Nov. 2 and come to bolster their party — the Republicans have a 13 percent lead. According to the second model — low show at the polls — the gap is up to 18 percent.

Polling specialist Nate Silver defined them as “terrifying” numbers. In accordance with Silver’s model, the control in the House of Representatives will pass to the Republicans, but they will not enjoy a large advantage with 14 seats.

A Jew from the Right

There are 31 Jewish legislators in the House of Representatives as of today, and four of them — at least four — are in real danger of losing their seats. Gabrielle Giffords from Arizona, a Jewish woman who became famous, among other things, for marrying an astronaut, is fighting for her political life in a state that is not easy for the Democrats.

Ron Klein had a five percent lead over his rival at the end of September, but the race is still defined as tight. Alan Grayson, who is contending in Florida also, is likely to go home. John Adler from New Jersey is in trouble. Although he has a three percent lead according to the poll released two weeks ago, Adler was among the first of the Democrats to support Obama, and some claim that for his continuous support of the president, he is paying a public price in erosion of his status in the Jewish communities in his electoral district — primarily, the Cherry Hill Orthodox community.

But this year’s most interesting Jewish race is taking place in the 1st district of New York State. There are no updated polls, but there’s struggle. Randy Altshuler, a Jew, versus Tim Bishop, a third-round Congressman. Here, however, we should stop and introduce them again: As opposed to the norm, as opposed to the automatic, familiar and the known, Altshuler is a Jew, but also a Republican. Bishop, whose seat is in danger, is a Democratic candidate.

Usually, the Jewish voters choose the Democrats and the Jewish congressmen belong to the Democrats. As was mentioned before, there are 31 Jews in the House of Representatives, but only one of them is a Republican — Eric Cantor from Virginia.

He is indeed not just one, but a Republican who has the title of a senior and influential lawmaker. And yet, one who is the opposite of the 30 on the religion clause. “We are hoping to double the Jewish Republican caucus,” Cantor said in an interview several days ago. “I’m looking for some company in Randy Altschuler.” The candidate has a chance, but a hard battle ahead of him against someone who won almost 60 percent of the votes in the elections two years ago, and 62 percent two years prior to that. He has one advantage: He is a businessman who borrowed two million dollars from his own personal wealth and managed to raise quite a bit. His situation at the bank is in much better condition than his opponent’s.

*Editor’s note: The above quotations, accurately translated, could not be verified.