The Friends and Foes Test: A question every national candidate should have to answer

Yesterday, Congressional candidate Brad Lander was briefly detained during a visit to the Palestinian territories ostensibly to help Palestinians pick olives. He used this incident, two weeks before the election,  as a reason to vote for him in New York, slamming the Israelis for their conduct. 

Clearly Lander seems to prioritize support for Palestinians as one of his most important and distinguishing features. 

The question that is rarely asked of candidates, either pro- or  anti-Israel, is how they compare Israel to any other country in their foreign policy. 

Israel's actions are routinely condemned, its morality questioned, its relationship with the United States challenged. Or we hear statements about special the relationship is between the US and Israel. But compared to whom? The implicit assumption is often that Israel is uniquely evil, or uniquely undeserving of American support, or on the other hand uniquely important. Yet nobody seems particularly interested in establishing a baseline.

Here's a simple proposal. Every candidate for national political office should be asked to answer one question:

Rank the following countries and political entities from most to least deserving of America's friendship and support:

• Brazil

• Canada

• China

• Iran

• Israel

• Palestinian territories/Palestine 

• Russia

• Saudi Arabia

• South Africa

• Taiwan

• Turkey

• Ukraine

• United Kingdom

No ties allowed. And you must explain your reasoning.

This isn't a question about which countries have governments you like. It isn't a question about which countries have perfect human rights records. It is about how America should prioritize its relationships with others, taking into account shared values, strategic interests, reliability, economic cooperation and whatever else a candidate believes should matter.

This isn't a gotcha question for during a debate. This is a question that requires careful thinking and a thoughtful, essay-sized answer.

The answers should be fascinating.

Some candidates would prioritize democracies. Others might emphasize strategic alliances or economic relationships. Still others might reveal that their foreign policy judgments are driven primarily by ideological sympathies or antipathies. And many would avoid answering the question altogether, which is also a useful answer.

And that's precisely the point.

It is easy to attack Israel in isolation. It is much harder to explain why Israel deserves less American support that countries with proven records of repression, aggression, human rights violations or antipathy towards the US.

The inclusion of places like Taiwan, Turkey, Brazil, South Africa and Palestinian territories makes the question especially interesting. They represent very different kinds of relationships with the United States. A candidate who criticizes Israel over human rights, for example, would have to explain how those same standards apply to Turkey or Saudi Arabia. A candidate who emphasizes shared democratic values would have to explain how those values weigh against economic or strategic considerations. And a candidate who places Palestine high on the list would have to explain whether that reflects support for Palestinian self-determination, approval of Palestinian political leadership, or some other principle.

Anti-Israel activists should in theory love this question, too. After all, some of them routinely accuse Israel's supporters, especially Jewish supporters, of being "Israel-firsters" who supposedly put Israel's interests ahead of America's. What better way to test that accusation than to ask everyone, including those making it, to rank Israel alongside other countries, including staunch allies?

Surely they would welcome the opportunity to demonstrate that their own foreign policy judgments are based on consistent principles rather than a particular obsession with Israel.

There are no objectively correct answers to every comparison. Reasonable people can disagree about the relative importance of shared values, common interests and dependable alliances. But they should be able to articulate their criteria, apply them consistently and defend them, rather than hide behind slogans and sound bites.

That is what makes the exercise valuable. It forces candidates to make comparisons they usually avoid, and exposes the assumptions behind their positions. 

I suspect we would learn far more from this one question than from a dozen carefully rehearsed answers about Netanyahu, Gaza and the settlements.

Don't just tell me what you think of Israel. Tell me what you think of Israel compared to everyone else.

And if you refuse to answer, explain why you think the question is not valid.

---