Nothing to fear from Hillary Clinton

Israelis need to take a wider perspective on which of the candidates is good for Israel.

OCTOBER 31, 2016 18:10

Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton accepts the nomination on the fourth and final night at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. July 28, 2016. (photo credit: REUTERS) — Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Hillary Clinton accepts the nomination on the fourth and final night at the Democratic National Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, U.S. July 28, 2016.

(photo credit: REUTERS)

ON A RECENT visit to Israel, I was astounded to hear some people expressing fear about what a future president Hillary Clinton might mean for them and voicing support for Donald Trump. These fears are groundless and misplaced, while Trump would be a disaster for the entire world, including Israel.

Israelis should take note of the unprecedented number of former senior officials from past Republican administrations who have endorsed Clinton. This is not only because their party’s presidential nominee has shown himself to be an ignorant, ill-advised, bellicose, erratic bully, willing to cosset tyrants such as Vladimir Putin while endangering traditional alliances like NATO.It is also because these Republicans see Clinton as a tough, steady, experienced hand running US foreign policy.

For example, John Negroponte, who served as director of National Intelligence and deputy secretary of state under president George W. Bush, was a five-time ambassador and president Ronald Reagan’s deputy national security adviser. He said, “She will bring to the presidency the skill, experience and wisdom that is needed in a president and commander- in-chief. Having myself served in numerous diplomatic and national security positions starting in 1960, I am convinced that Secretary Clinton has the leadership qualities that far and away qualify her best to be our next president.”

Many Israelis, naturally, look at the candidates in rather narrow terms – who they think may be “good” for Israel versus who is “bad” for Israel.

But, this year, a wider perspective is needed. An unpredictable, erratic leader such as Trump, who threatens to unleash global trade wars while tearing up traditional alliances that have formed the bedrock of Western security and prosperity since the end of World War II, could plunge the entire world into a new era of instability. Israel and the wider Middle East would not emerge unaffected.

Clinton offers much more certainty because of her long record in public life. There would be a large measure of continuity with policies pursued by President Barack Obama – and also, for sure, some differences.

But nobody doubts that she would continue to strengthen the US-Israel relationship and protect Israel’s qualitative military edge over all its neighbors while maintaining support for a two-state solution.

However, the traditional approach pursued since the Oslo Accords of having the Israelis and Palestinians try (and fail) to resolve the conflict through bilateral negotiations with US mediation is widely regarded in Washington as having run its course. Among US foreign policy analysts, there is consensus that a new approach is needed.

Some experts in the Democratic foreign policy establishment are arguing for a wider, regional approach that would draw Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states into a more active role.

For Israel, some of the benefits of such an approach might include growing counterterrorism cooperation, as well as the prospect eventually of deeper economic relations with Arab neighbors.

While the regional approach deserves to be explored, there is also growing consensus within Democratic circles that Israeli settlement growth is now severely jeopardizing the future viability of the two-state solution and that Washington needs to consider doing more than just issuing statements every time Israel announces a new settlement expansion.

Obama is mulling making a major speech laying out the parameters of a peace deal before leaving office – or perhaps even sponsoring a United Nations Security Council resolution.

Presumably, if she wins the election, Clinton would have considerable input into those decisions.

In any case, the Israel-Palestinian issue is unlikely to be an early priority for a Clinton administration. With Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas having no desire to re-engage in negotiations and the situation on the ground stuck in an uncomfortable but manageable status quo for now, there are far more urgent issues awaiting her attention.

Top of the list is the situation in Syria, where Clinton is seen as more willing than Obama to use US military power to try to end the bleeding.

In her second presidential debate with Trump, Clinton said she would establish a no-fly zone and safe zones for civilians. That, of course, is easier said than done since Russia effectively controls Syrian air space.

For most American Jews, the choice between Clinton and Trump is easy. This is a community that traditionally gives more than 70 percent of its votes to Democrats in presidential elections ‒ and that number is likely to be even higher this year.

Trump’s crude approach (putting it kindly) to women and minorities, his temperament, his demagoguery, the atmosphere of violence, intimidation and racism surrounding his campaign, as well as his appointment as chief executive of his campaign the head of a far-right media operation that has repeatedly flirted with anti-Semitism, evokes uneasy historical associations for many American Jews.

No wonder we’re amazed when we hear Israelis expressing support for Trump.

The author is special adviser to the president of J Street.