By Judie Jacobson

On Tuesday, Nov. 2 Connecticut voters will go to the polls to elect, among other things, a new United States Senator to fill the seat held by Senator Christopher Dodd, who is retiring at the end of his term. The top two contenders for the post are the Democratic candidate, Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, and the Republican candidate, businesswoman Linda McMahon.

Both candidates have focused much of their campaign rhetoric on the economy, specifically the creation of more jobs in Connecticut and who should or should not receive tax breaks. Interestingly, however, neither has said much about his or her stance on foreign policy – i.e., Israel and the Palestinians and the current peace talks, and how to stem the threat of a nuclear Iran. So, we asked – and we threw in a few questions that touched on other issues as well.

ON THE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN PEACE TALKS
Q: The Obama administration is pressuring Israel to extend its moratorium on settlement construction, which expired last week. The Israelis are against any preconditions placed on the talks. Where do you stand? And what role, if any, do you think the U.S. should continue to play in the talks?

BLUMENTHAL: My dedication to the State of Israel is rooted in deep and longstanding personal ties to the nation and its people. My father immigrated to the United States from Germany in 1935, a time when many Jews were fleeing Eastern Europe to escape ongoing persecution. While my father went to America, other members of our family left for the land that would soon become Israel. They and many of their children and grandchildren, my cousins, remain there today. My close ties to the Jewish homeland constantly remind me that peace and stability in Israel must remain a top priority in the United States Senate.
I believe that a two-state solution is necessary to ensure Israel’s continued existence as the homeland of the Jewish people, and provide security both for Israel and for the Palestinian people. I support the current round of negotiations and am hopeful that they will be able to continue without delay. However, before this objective can be met it is essential that Palestinian leaders stop aiding terrorism. In addition, they must recognize Israel’s right to exist as an autonomous nation with Jerusalem as its capital. We should encourage each side to engage in direct negotiations and help them understand that all parties will have to make concessions to ensure mutual trust and long-term security.
It is important that the United States once again become actively engaged in re-establishing talks between the parties to prevent the peace process from stagnating as it did recently. Although the United States cannot define the terms of peace for Israel or its counterparts, we can work effectively with both sides to ensure that talks progress and that each party can communicate its interests while working toward a lasting peace. In addition, the United States must do more to ensure that Iran, Syria and their proxies cease the clandestine shipment of weapons into this volatile area. There will be no peace in Israel until Israel’s neighbors become full partners in the peace process.

McMAHON: I support a sustainable two-state solution to the conflict. This is both essential to the survival and security of Israel as a democracy and a fundamental American interest. I support Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s recent comments relating to the final status of the negotiations: the Palestinians must guarantee Israel’s security by stating any resolution is truly the end to all violence and that Israel should be recognized as the state of Jewish people.
Nonetheless, a peace agreement is something that must be brokered between the Israelis and Palestinians. It is not the duty of the United States government to dictate the terms of any negotiations or accords. Consequently, I disagree with President Obama calling for a settlement freeze and a prohibition on building in East Jerusalem. This decision only emboldened the Palestinians not to negotiate for peace and talks cannot begin if the terrorist organization Hamas remains influential on one side of the table.

ON IRAN
Q: Do you believe the sanctions on Iran are proving effective in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons? If not, what do you think our next move should be? There is ongoing speculation that Israel may ultimately take military action to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Would you support such action?

BLUMENTHAL: The current political leadership in Tehran has repeatedly demonstrated antipathy toward basic human rights, and an unyielding animosity toward Israel, the United States and many of our friends and allies around the globe. The actions of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at home have been rightly condemned by the world, and the actions of Iranian sponsored groups abroad should face our active resistance. As a United States Senator, I would support strengthening the current structure of sanctions on Iran, and work to increase the pressure on the Iranian regime until it relinquishes its aspirations for nuclear weapons. Some of the actions I would support include gaining international support for an arms embargo, targeted travel bans, freezing of assets, and sanctions designed to impede the flow of refined petroleum products into Iran.

McMAHON: The first, and most important, thing we must do is prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. The CIA has already declared that Iran is capable of producing nuclear weapons within the next few years. While I support building strong international support for sanctions, we cannot wait for the United Nations to enact further restrictions that Iran will simply ignore. I do support the enactment of the recent sanctions by the United States and the European Union on Iran. However, with that in mind, I believe the U.S. cannot allow those who would oppose or maliciously delay sanctions dictate the content or the timing of our efforts. The United States should continue to exert pressure and press for hard sanctions against Iran until the threat is neutralized.
Iran having nuclear capability not only endangers the state of Israel and its people, it endangers the entire world, including the United States.
All options in dealing with Iran must remain on the table.

ON SECURITY
Q: Do you consider it good luck or good planning that we have not had a major terrorist attack on American shores?

BLUMENTHAL: While I am thankful that there has not been a successful attack on American shores since 9/11/2001, the failed Christmas Day bombing, the attempted car bomb in Times Square and the shootings at Fort Hood demonstrate that real threats remain. Protecting America from extremist threats remains a national imperative and it is therefore vital that we maintain a strong offensive posture in the struggle against extremism. We must use both military and non-military methods to target and attack the terrorists where they are; never allowing them to establish safe havens in which to plot, plan and train. This includes targeting Al Qaeda’s organizations in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen as well as its affiliates like Al-Shabaab in Somalia. At the same time, we must do more at home to remedy the unacceptable flaws exposed in our homeland security, and meet the challenges of agile enemies by improving information sharing, bringing together the best technology and the most effective management strategies to get people working across agencies, and to engage the private sector to collect, understand, and mobilize information in real time to improve our national security.

McMAHON: Both. The terrorists only need to succeed once, while we must get it right every single time.

ON IMMIGRATION
Q: What is your stand on the current debate surrounding the immigration issue?

BLUMENTHAL: We need to establish a comprehensive, federal solution to our ongoing immigration problem. We must secure our borders, and crack down on employers flouting the law by hiring undocumented immigrants. Piecemeal approaches to fixing this problem by various states are not the answer – Washington must fulfill its responsibility by enacting a comprehensive solution.

McMAHON: I oppose amnesty. I support legal immigration and I believe much of this country’s strength and prosperity has come as a result of the immense contributions immigrants have made. We have historically welcomed the best workers and the best minds from every country, and I believe we should continue to do so provided it is done legally. We are a nation built on the rule of law, and immigration laws – like all laws – must be enforced. I propose the following specifics:

1) Fulfill and strengthen our commitments on border security and interior enforcement.
2) Require electronic Social Security cards to ensure that illegal workers cannot get jobs and thereby making verification simpler for employers.
3) Modify and streamline the process for admitting temporary workers, if they are needed in an industry, i.e. new visa categories.
4) Strengthen green card and citizenship requirements to a more merit-based system to ensure future citizens will help contribute positively to society.

ON TAX CUTS
Q: Many of Connecticut’s residents in the higher tax brackets are watching closely to see if the Bush-era tax cuts will be rolled back. If you were Senator, what would you urge the President to do?

BLUMENTHAL: I support extending tax cuts for the middle class. My opponent would vote against tax cuts for the middle class unless and until the wealthiest two percent get tax cuts too. I think that is wrong.

McMAHON: I would urge the President to make the current tax law permanent. Allowing the tax law to change as proposed would negatively affect our most successful small businesses and our seniors. It is estimated that $1.821 billion will leave the state and be in the hands of Washington politicians if the proposed tax increases go into effect. Only four states in the union will be hit harder than Connecticut.
According to a study by the Heritage Foundation, the tax hikes would significantly affect the economy in Connecticut, most notably in the number of jobs and change in personal income.
Among the results, from 2011 to 2020, the state of Connecticut would:
– Lose, on average, 8,547 jobs annually.
– Lose, per household, $5,101 in total disposable personal income.
– See total individual income taxes increase by $12.429 billion.