From The Abba Eban film we learned the important role that President Truman played in the creation of Israel. The presidential politics of the U.S. still remains central to Israeli politics. See the new blog at Haaretz and contrast it with the fact that in our class of 40 [120 votes] Gingrich did not get a single vote while here he is second only to Giuliani. Why do you think so? Click here to see the Haartez Blog: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerPage.jhtml
Thursday, September 07, 2006
About Me
-
- Name:Muqtedar Khan
Dr. Muqtedar Khan is Assistant Professor in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the University of Delaware. He is a Non-resident Fellow at the Brookings Institution. He is the author of American Muslims: Bridging Faith and Freedom (Amana, 2002), Jihad for Jerusalem: Identity and Strategy in International Relations (Praeger, 2004).
Previous Posts
- Criticize Israel and You are an anti-Semite! Rosa...
- ISRAEL AND THE PALESTINIANS This is an important...
10 Comments:
I think the reason that Gingrich did not get any votes in our class poll has to do with his domestic politics more than his stance on Israel. The Haaretz blog is basing their ratings on how each potential candidate feels about Israel and not factoring in anything else. If Gingrich were to come out tomorrow saying that he is in favor of punching babies and giving all US citizens a million dollars, it would be something more for Americans to consider, but punching babies and giving away money doesn't impact Israel, so their rating of him probably wouldn't change.
Haaretz is basically ranking the candidates on who would be the best for Israel, not who would be the best in general for the United States.
Well quite simply, the Haaretz piece is concerned solely with which candidate's potential presidency would most benefit Israel. I have no doubt that some segment of the population actually sees this as the only criteria, but thankfully, none of them are in our class and we recognize how utterly unelectable Newt Gingrich is.
I would think that he is already strongly disliked by a majority of the US population, and that's never a good thing going in. He was a running joke by the end of his political career, a career which ended almost ten years ago! Gingrich is also - to say the very least - prone to controversy, and who knows what may come to light during a presidential bid. He is not a likable man by any stretch of the imagination. Beyond the many ad hominem complaints to be made about his worthiness, Newt is too socially conservative to achieve the mass appeal required for a successful candidate (especially in light of his rather amoral tendencies in personal life). Despite his failure to garner a single top 3 vote in class, he should have support from the out of touch hyper-conservative fringe, nothing legitimate though.
If this blog based its poll on candidates' overall political views, the results would be entirely different. The panelists who rated Gingrich second to Guiliani were basing their opinions solely on his stance with Israel and the Middle East, and thankfully Haaretz makes that pretty clear. Hopefully people dont get the wrong idea and actually think Israelis want him to be our next president.
Its pretty obvious why Guiliani came out first in this poll, and not for the same reasons he did so well in class. Guiliani and Gingrich's statements regarding Israel seemed to be the most starkly pro-Israel out of all the other candidates. Guiliani's quote that Israel is America's best friend coupled with all his Arafat bashing is most likely what tipped the scale in his favor.
I was pretty suprised that Hillary did so well in the poll, because many Israelis are very bitter about her friendly meeting with Arafat's wife after she'd accused Israel of poisoning Palestinian water. I'm interested in seeing how these ratings progress over the next few months.
To me this makes sense because Newt Gingrich is a stonch conservative and generally speaking conservatives tend to be more likely to unequivocably back Israel. Therefore it makes sense that the Republican candidates did better than the Democratic candidates for the most part.
However this was not the question you asked in class. In class if I remember correctly the question was "Who would make the best president?", and who would make the best president for the US would not neccesarily make the best president for Israel. Yet with all that said I don't see the United States' undaunting support of Israel wavering anytime soon, especially with the current situations in Iraq and Iran.
Our unscientific vote in class had more to do with name recognition and perception than political positions and political realities. In addition, a good position on Israel does not necessarily equate to votes in a Presidential Election. Perhaps, a negative stance on Israel would reduce Presidential Potential, but since almost all candidates support Israel, supporting Israel does not distinguish him or her in any way. Newt Gingrich’s position on Israel has little positive effect in a race where all other candidates support Israel.
Personally, I value integrity and conviction in my political leaders. Ideally, my leaders should act as Platonic Guardians, always acting from their perspective in the best interest of the people regardless of the political winds. If their perspective leads them to astray from what the people view as their best interests, the people have the power to elect another leader. The Congress and President should act as the Platonic Guardians of the people – especially the Senate and President which the Founding Founders may have created for this role. Perhaps the Supreme Court may have commandeered this responsibility from the Legislature and the Executive, but the elected officials should repossess this important role.
Judicial Restraint and Elected Officials as Platonic Guardians. Good Combination.
Now, many candidates are available, but one stands above the rest in my mind – Senator John McCain who has consistently demonstrated his outstanding character and conviction through pushing the McCain-Feingold Act and opposing torture by the current administration.
McCain for President in 2008!
Considering that Haaretz is an Israeli newspaper, and that the poll was based only on the candidates' attitudes toward Israel, the results should be no surprise. Giuliani and Gingrich seem to use much stronger language in their support of Israel and their denouncing of organizations like Hezbollah and Hamas, and that's probably what put them at the top.
I agree with everyone else that the reason that the results in our class poll were so different was because we were asked "Who do you think would make the best President?"....not "Who do you think would most support Israel?"
On a side note, I have to say that I'm very curious about Obama coming in last place. In his Haaretz profile he seems to have more pro-israeli quotes and info than some of the candidates who scored almost a whole point higher than him. There was an article on the site insisting that it probably had nothing to do with race...but I still don't think the whole thing looks very credible.
This post has been removed by the author.
I would have to agree with Ted on this and say that certainly the Haaretz polling system was based on who favors Israel the most, rather than who will be a good candidate for presidency. Definitely, the support of Israel is on the top of the checklist for the requirements to become the President of US; however, I don't think that people will solely vote on the basis of who supports and who doesn't support Israel. There are many people that don't support Israel, but would vote for John McCain based on his other political agendas. I think a pre-requisite to run for any sort of office is the recognition of Israel, specifically in the matters of the so called Israel’s right to defend.
The large discrepancy in the results of both the votes taken in class (120 votes from 40 students) and the rankings on Haaretz’s website (decided by a bi-partisan panel of eight academics and former government officials) makes more sense when understood in their very distinct contexts. Although the vote was taken in an Arab-Israeli politics class, the votes were not delivered solely on the basis of the candidates position in regards to American policy towards Israel, unlike the panelists from Haaretz’s website. Furthermore, the panelists, while holding opposing views in some instances, were all virulently pro-Israel. There is no evidence to prove that even a majority of the students in the class are pro-Israel just as the gender make-up of the class is not in any way indicative of the female to male ratio of the University of Delaware. Also, the students in the class are likely to be a great deal more liberal than the panelists, which has both conservative and liberals, and the rest of the citizens of the U.S. The latter is the case because first, statistics have shown that the vast preponderance of college and university students in the United States are relatively more liberal than non-students. Secondly, because as seen in the 2004 presidential election, the Northeast is one of the few “blue” or more liberal areas of the country. However, even though students, especially in the Northeast, tend to be relatively more liberal, Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona received double the amount of votes (32) than his nearest challenger Democrat Al Gore (16) and Republic Rudy Giuliani came in a close third (15). Rudy Giuliani came in first on Haaretz’s website rankings and John McCain came in third. I would contend that the similarity in the two rankings has little to do with any commonality in the thinking between the panelists and the students. I believe this point is conveyed by the fact that Newt Gingrich came in second in the rankings by the panelists yet did not receive a single vote by the students. Rather than Gingrich being an anomaly between like-minded panelists and students, it proves that there is a partial coincidence between the presidential candidates that the students believe will be best for themselves, their families and their country (the U.S.) and that the panelists will be best for themselves, their families and their country (Israel).
The poll was solely based on the support each candidate has toward Israel. The Haaretz's website creates this assumption as well and makes it quite clear. It is intersting to notice the support for all of the candidates. My belief is that U.S. foriegn policy is going to be pro-Israeli through out my lifetime. Until something detrimental happens in anohter country that would distract our focus on Israel national soverignty, like a genocide of the palestinian people. Wait...this woldnt even create politicains to create foreign policy that wouldnt support Israel. Also the outcome of the Haaretz's poll and the class poll comes down to name recognition. This is why Rudolph Giuliani has the most support and in the in class poll Newt Gingrich didnt recieve any votes.
Once again our media is a product of ignorance
Post a Comment
<< Home