Lipsky: would be the candidate who best understands the meaning of George Washington’s letter to the Rhode Island Jewish congregation – in which Washington cited Micah and expressed the hope that everyone would sit under his own vine and fig tree and there shall be none to make him afraid.
Podhoretz: would [have been] Marco Rubio.
Rubin: certainly would not be Donald Trump. Those who curry favor with tyrants and who disdain domestic civil liberties rarely are good friends of Israel.
The election’s effect on Israel…
Alterman: will be for both candidates to kowtow to it, to praise it, to celebrate it, to promise to stand with it, and to forget entirely about the Palestinians, the occupation, and the undermining of Israeli democracy by the current government.
Jacoby: will not change much in the short term. Israel will continue to be a loyal U.S. ally, and most Americans will continue to value the Jewish state as a force for good in one of the world’s worst regions.
Lipsky: could be liberating if it elevates to the presidency a leader who is comfortable with the leadership Israel has chosen the way, say, President George W. Bush was with Prime Minister Sharon.
Podhoretz: could be enormous because the Iran deal could be voided by a Republican and will stand if the winner is a Democrat.
Rubin: will be more important than any in recent memory. While it is true that a hostile U.S. administration has forced Israel to develop bilateral ties with Arab countries and world powers in Asia and Europe, there is no substitute for a strong and confident U.S. administration willing to exercise influence in the Middle East. America remains the most crucial force for stability in the region and for maintenance of a strong and secure Jewish state. The absence of U.S. leadership over the last seven-plus years leaves the region bloodier, more unstable, and less free than at any time since the creation of Israel.
A candidate’s Mideast policy…
Alterman: should reflect his or her honest beliefs (in my dreams).
Jacoby: should not be geared toward furthering the disastrous “peace process” or supporting the creation of a Palestinian state. Candidates should declare with conviction that if elected, they will stand with those in the Middle East who embrace justice, democracy, and human rights, and against those who promote terrorism, anti-Semitism, and Islamist hegemony.
Lipsky: would be helped by a careful reading of Vladimir Jabotinsky’s 1940 book The Jewish War Front.
Podhoretz: will be better than Barack Obama’s. Even Bernie Sanders. There couldn’t be a worse Mideast policy than Barack Obama’s.
Rubin: can rarely be assessed in the abstract. Only in practice does a president’s willingness to commit American prestige and his own political capital emerge.
The election’s effect on the Iran nuclear deal…
Alterman: will be nil. It’s over and done with.
Jacoby: may be significant. Any liberal Democrat elected president will endorse the Obama/Kerry legacy and continue to ignore Iran’s violations. But if a conservative Republican is elected, Iran’s bad behavior is less likely to be indulged.
Lipsky: is likely to be minimal unless the winner is committed to retrieving our foreign policy from the United Nations and restoring the constitutional standing of Congress to participate in foreign affairs.
Podhoretz: will be huge if any Republican but Trump wins. Trump will keep the deal.
Rubin: will be less important than the next president’s determination to check Iran’s hegemonic ambitions, support for jihadist terror, and domestic human rights abuses. These have largely been ignored by the current administration, which in turn has unnerved America’s allies and emboldened the common enemies of Israel and the U.S.
