Today's Republican and Democratic platforms amply illustrate serious divides between the two major parties' attitudes toward Israel, a factor that could play a major part in determining who wins the presidency. Foreign policy continues to be a pivotal point in many voters' minds — particularly as it pertains to the Middle East, where Israel has long been America's staunchest ally — but the two countries' relationship is currently frayed.
Four years ago, a large contingent of delegates vigorously sought to remove various pro-Israel planks from the official Democratic presidential platform. One, affirming that Jerusalem should be considered the eternal capital of the Jewish State, was put back in over substantial opposition. The 2016 document is marginally more even-handed but notably less positive than its Republican counterpart.
While the Republicans categorically condemn the continuing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement against Israel as one of several "alternative forms of warfare" against the Jewish state, and reject "the false notion that Israel is an occupier," the Democratic platform committee fiercely fought over an amendment that would have rebuked Israel for its "occupation" of the West Bank and for creating "illegal settlements" that have come at the expense of Palestinians. (The vote to defeat the amendment was 95-73.)
While Democrats pledge "to work toward a two-state solution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict ... that guarantees Israel's future as a secure and democratic Jewish state ... and provides the Palestinians with independence, sovereignty, and dignity," Republicans "oppose any measures intended to impose an agreement or to dictate borders or other terms."
The GOP is also distinctly more assertive on Jerusalem, recognizing it as "the eternal and indivisible capital of the Jewish state," and calling for the American embassy "to be moved there in fulfillment of U.S. law." Democrats, on the other hand, continue to regard Jerusalem as "a matter for final status negotiations."
The Republican platform not only opposes efforts to impose an agreement or its terms but also demands "the immediate termination of all U.S. funding of any entity that attempts to do so" — thus rejecting a possible U.N. Security Council resolution specifying a final status outcome to the conflict, which the Obama administration has reportedly considered supporting.
Ranking American presidents according to their beneficence toward Israel is a national pastime in the Holy Land, and always a source of intense conjecture and contention if of little practical value. Usually near the top of the heap are Harry Truman (whose administration was the first in the world to recognize the new state of Israel in May of 1948), Ronald Reagan (who in his second term granted Israel access to expanded weapons systems and opportunities to bid on U.S. defense contracts), and George W. Bush (who provided Israel with $9 billion in conditional loan guarantees and whose so-called "Bush Roadmap" recognized the need to take into account changed "realities on the ground," asserting that "it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949").
Among the least popular American presidents in Israel were Dwight Eisenhower (who was more interested in courting the Arab states, especially Egypt), and Jimmy Carter (who as president and thereafter appears to have bent over backward to recognize a Palestinian homeland in the face of the Arabs' oft-repeated refusal to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state).
Mr. Obama has already joined the bottom-dwellers. He quickly lost credibility when he bypassed Israel in the first trip he took to the Middle East as president, and whatever popularity he may have once had plummeted precipitously over the course of his two terms — helped in no small measure by his famously frosty relationship with Israeli Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu. Last year more than 60 percent of Israeli Jews named Mr. Obama as the "worst" U.S. president for Israel over the past four decades.
It's no state secret that, no matter what the Democratic platform says, Hillary Clinton is likely to continue Mr. Obama's Israel policies. Like him or not, Donald Trump has always been an outspoken supporter of Israel, as has been his running mate Mike Pence, and they are flanked by a strong contingent of pro-Zionistic advisers, not the least of whom is Trump's savvy and articulate daughter Ivanka, who converted to Orthodox Judaism before her marriage.
It's a good bet that Israelis will be watching this election as closely as Americans.
Kenneth Lasson is a law professor at the University of Baltimore. His latest book, "Defending Truth: The Quest for Honesty about Jews and Israel," is due out in the fall. His email address is klasson@ubalt.edu.