Ha’aretz’s careful analysis was echoed by other Israeli opinion-shapers in the days following Lieberman’s selection as the first Jew chosen by a major party for the vice presidential ticket. While most welcomed the choice of the Connecticut senator, few expected it to have any real impact on Washington’s Mid-East policies. “Our deep connection with the United States is not based on how many Jews are in the White House or on Capitol Hill,” said Natan Sharansky, the former Soviet dissident who is now an Israeli politician. “It has to do with the values that are important to both countries. The fact a Jew takes a high position doesn’t always mean that it brings about a positive response for Israel.”
Palestinian leaders, too, discounted suggestions that Lieberman’s Orthodox Judaism would shape U.S. attitudes toward Israel. “There is as much diversity in the American Jewish community on the Middle East question as there is anywhere in the whole world,” said Saeb Erekat, who has led Palestinian negotiations with Israel through most of the last nine years. “Yes, the United States is Israel’s main strategic ally, but that doesn’t stem from the fact that one person or another in the administration is Jewish. Israel is part of American political life and this is the way things are between the two countries.”
On the streets of Jerusalem’s Old City, other Palestinians expressed similar sentiments. “I don’t think a Jew would have an effect on the foreign policy of the United States,” jewelry store owner Muhammed Salhab, 48, told Newsweek. “The U.S. will do what serves its interests in foreign affairs whether the vice president is Jewish or Christian or even if the President himself was Jewish.” Store worker Munther Ghoalim, 27, agreed. “It will not make a difference. America is always beside Israel, you can see that from the newspapers or when someone important talks about the peace process. The Palestinians feel that Israel is the 51st state of America and that is true. That is not something new and he [Lieberman] will not do something new for Israel.”
What is new, though, is the changing nature of Israeli attitudes toward senior Jewish officials from other countries. Israel traditionally has had complicated relationships with such people, especially on occasions when they may have expected special treatment from a co-religionist. Henry Kissinger’s appointment as Secretary of State in 1973 is a case in point. While many Israelis were proud of his selection, some Jewish extremists later dubbed him “Jew Boy” because they perceived his mediation efforts after the 1973 Yom Kippur war as weighted toward Arabs. Israel also had its share of disagreements with Bruno Kreisky, a Jew who served as Chancellor of Austria from 1970 to 1983. “Every time a Jew was appointed to a senior posting abroad, Israel expected special treatment,” recalled the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth in its comments on the Lieberman pick. “It didn’t always happen. Prime Minister Golda Meir, for instance, couldn’t stand Kreisky because of his support for the Palestinians.”
Yet if Israeli reaction to the Lieberman choice underscores an evolution in Israeli political thinking, other attitudes remain unchanged. On the streets of Israel, Jews were proud about the success of “one of us”–and concerned that the high profile appointment could lead to an anti-Semitic backlash. “When there is a Jewish person in a position of great power,” said Nicole Prutzky, 19, a recent migrant from Peru, “people who hate Jews will say that the Jews want all the power. I think Gore’s choice of Lieberman is not good for the Jews because anti-Semitism will grow.” Sharansky was more upbeat. “I know that in the back of many people’s minds is the concern that such visible success for a Jew will bring anti-Semitism to the surface,” he said. “But the United States proves every time that it is stronger than any prejudices within its own society.”
