Wait and See Before Crying ‘Son of Carter’ : Israel: Clinton’s appointees have solid foreign-policy experience; give them a chance.

With the Clinton Administration still transitioning, we have already been hearing cries of gevalt (help) from some quarters in the pro-Israel community.

While it is true that the lineup at the State Department and National Security Council has been described as “son of Carter,” if you think about it for a moment, where else could a Democratic President-elect go to find people with solid foreign-policy experience? Unlike some of the top slots in the domestic departments that can be filled by coalition-builders, shrewd attorneys, accomplished administrators or brilliant academics, when it comes to national security policies there is no substitute for hands-on experience. It’s not a question of what or even who you know but also where you have been. This is particularly so given the large number of world trouble spots that will need immediate attention by the new Administration.

As for the pro-Israel community’s antipathy to the Carter Administration--despite its signal achievement of the Camp David accord--a negative perception is definitely out there in the hinterlands, and to some extent it has been reinforced by President Carter’s actions since leaving office.

Israel’s supporters are sufficiently sophisticated to realize that statements and promises made during political campaigns are not always translated into policies. But the rhetoric of the Clinton campaign was strongly supportive of democracies in general and Israel in particular. Add to this the positive voting records and inclinations of Vice President-elect Al Gore and Defense Secretary-designate Les Aspin, along with the public and private utterances of those named for positions in the national security area, and expressions of concern are not only premature at this point but unwarranted and unfair. If, in fact, it turns out that a Clinton Administration spawns policies considered hostile to Israel and displays insensitivity to its legitimate security concerns, there will be ample opportunities for the Jewish community to express its unhappiness.

Unless everything we know about the President-elect is wrong, why wouldn’t we expect a President who has always worked well with and has been comfortable with Jews and who values democracy over dictatorships not be a firm friend of the Jewish state?

To be further reassured, Israel’s supporters should remember that it is the rightness of Israel’s cause that resonates with the American public and Congress despite the higher standards that Israel is held to than its neighbors. For most Americans, Israel is still their country’s most tried and true friend in the region.

Of course, U.S. foreign policies in the Middle East cannot be expected to always dovetail with those made in Jerusalem. But as long as there is confidence that the new Administration will try to do what is right and just and in accord with our own values, Israel’s friends should not despair and certainly not before Bill Clinton takes the oath of office. At the very least we should wait and see, and perhaps speculate as to what the relative anxiety level would be had George Bush come out ahead last November.