Fayyad Sbaihat’s editorial in the Dec. 2 Badger Herald was based more on faulty political speculation than hard evidence. Mr. Sbaihat made a number of claims that are categorically false. The largest and perhaps most outrageous claim is arguing that the Democrats supported the war in Iraq to please their pro-Israel Jewish constituency. The problem is that while most Jewish Americans are indeed pro-Israel, the majority of them are also against the war in Iraq.
Mr. Sbaihat used as an example of war hawks that are both Jewish and pro-Israel, such as Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Pearle, and attributed their views on Iraq to all Jewish Americans. That approach is not only the very essence of stereotyping, it is just plain wrong. The American Jewish Committee in its 2004 annual survey found that 66 percent of Jewish Americans disapprove of the war in Iraq and only 30 percent approve.
Mr. Sbaihat goes on to say, “the flawed intelligence of which the pretext for the war consisted was largely Israeli-sourced.” But Mr. Sbaihat does not offer one bit of evidence. In fact, President Bush and his administration relied on two main arguments that Saddam Hussein was trying to revitalize his nuclear weapons program. In his 2003 State of the Union address, President Bush said, “The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production.”
The uranium intelligence came from the British government and the aluminum tubes evidence were a product of the CIA — neither Israeli-sourced.
As for the election, Mr. Sbaihat made the claim, “Betrayed, the liberal vote stayed home,” because of Kerry’s support for the war. They stayed home? I assure you that there is no way Mr. Sbaihat can provide a figure for this assertion. Is he referring to liberals like Michael Moore and Howard Zinn that supported Ralph Nader in 2000 but supported Kerry in 2004? The numbers do not add up either. In the 2000 election, Al Gore received around 50,500,000 votes and Nader received 2,900,000 votes. In the 2004 election, Kerry received over 57,000,000 votes and Nader received around 400,000 votes. So, Kerry got almost seven million more votes in 2004 than Gore, and Nader received in 2004 a fraction of what he got in 2000. I wonder where those Nader votes went?
Lastly, Mr. Sbaihat writes, “Florida, the battleground state with the largest “Jewish vote,” did not buy into the Democrats’ claims, and being largely in favor of the war, it voted for the war party.” This contradicts Mr. Sbaihat’s earlier contention that the Democrats were in favor of the war. Furthermore, when Florida did go to the president, it most certainly was not because Jewish voters favored him there. According to CNN, 80 percent of Jewish voters supported John Kerry in Florida while only 20 percent supported George Bush.
Since the November election, many people have tried to explain the outcome for a variety of reasons. The Israeli-Palestinian problem was a non-issue this election because a large majority of Americans do support Israel. Mr. Sbaihat would like the Democrats to take a position in which he very strongly believes. The problem is he has a viewpoint that is in the minority of the party and among most Americans. Trying to convince people of your viewpoint by distorting the record and grouping American Jews together on separate issues like Israel and Iraq is disturbing.
Mr. Sbaihat complains of constraints on the freedom to criticize Israel in the United States. His very article serves as a reminder that as Americans, we are free to speak our mind — even when the criticisms are ill-founded.
Jonathan Mandell ([email protected]) is a sophomore majoring in political science.