Try not to look too far ahead, but keep your eyes on the future.

Full Story: http://www.thejewishpress.com/news_article.asp?article=3837

Someone who read an abbreviated version of "Kerry, Carter and Israel" (my
front-page essay in the May 5 issue of The Jewish Press) wrote that he was
unconcerned about Kerry, because his pro-Israel voting record was "second to none,"
he had "fought" the attempt by the first President Bush in the early 1990`s to cut loan
guarantees to Israel, and he had endorsed Israel`s recent actions against the leaders of
Hamas.

I was intrigued by the suggestion that Kerry`s pro-Israel record was "second
to none," so I looked it up.

The Jewish Virtual Library lists Kerry`s vote on 60 Senate bills, resolutions
and other matters: "Legislative Record of Senator John Kerry on Issues of Concern
to the Pro-Israel Community"
(www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/kerryrecord.html).

I disregarded the 17 measures that passed with 90 or more votes (out of a
possible 100), on grounds that these were not exactly profile-in-courage moments.

(That includes Kerry`s "fight" for loan guarantees to Israel, which consisted of
his joining 98 other senators in 1992 in voting for Sen. Lautenberg`s resolution of
support).

Then I discounted the 18 measures that garnered between 82 and 89 votes.
You don`t get a "second to none" rating by simply hanging around with the 80-plus
percent crowd.

I decided the best indicator of the depth of Kerry`s support would be the
instances where the pro-Israel position got 60 votes or less -- by definition the most
controversial situations, the ones where Kerry`s vote mattered most.

There were 10 of those votes in the JVL list, and Kerry`s record there was . . .
envelope please . . . six pro-Israel votes out of 10. So in the close-call category,
Kerry was basically a 60-40 guy.

The JVL list notes that, in connection with the FY 2000 Foreign Aid
Conference Report, Kerry opposed the pro-Israel position. In 2000, he failed to join
60 co-sponsors of the "Middle East Peace Process Support Act" — a bill calling on
the president not to recognize a unilaterally declared Palestinian state. He also failed
to co-sponsor the pro-Israel "Peace Through Negotiations Act," which attracted 60
co-sponsors.

In 1993, Kerry failed to join 55 senators signing the Grassley/Lautenberg
letter to the State Department, which demanded that it include Hamas in its annual
report on terrorism.

Earlier this year, after the assassination of Hamas leader Sheikh Yassin,
Kerry exasperated even the Forward -- the paper that, two weeks before the New
York primary, had dutifully reported to the Jewish community Kerry`s assertion that
the reason he had named Jimmy Carter as his prospective Middle East envoy was a
"staff mistake."

The Forward repeatedly sought Kerry`s reaction to the assassination, but
could not get a response. On March 30, 2004, it reported that “John Kerry`s
campaign last week used the excuse that the senator was on vacation in Idaho to
dodge repeated requests from the Forward for a statement from him on Israel`s
assassination of Hamas head Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. It is still dodging the matter.”

On April 18, 2004 -- nearly one month after the Yassin assassination -- Kerry
appeared on "Meet the Press" and was asked directly about his position:

MR. RUSSERT: Israel assassinated Hamas leader Rantisi. Do you support
that assassination?

SEN. KERRY: I believe Israel has every right in the world to respond to any
act of terror against it. Hamas is a terrorist, brutal organization. It has had years to
make up its mind to take part in a peaceful process. They refuse to. Arafat refuses to.
And I support Israel`s efforts to try to separate itself and to try to be secure. The
moment Hamas says, “We`ve given up violence, we`re prepared to negotiate,” I am
absolutely confident they will find an Israel that is thirsty to have that negotiation.

Notice that he did not answer the question. (If you think he did, re-read the
answer and then take this short quiz: Would John Kerry (a) support or (b) oppose an
Israeli assassination of Yasir Arafat?). And Kerry`s suggestion that Hamas need only
say it has "given up" violence and is "prepared to negotiate" seems on a par with his
statement that Israel should simply pick up where things left off at Taba and
negotiate.