I asked Tom Campbell pointed questions about his stance toward Israel, and his replies are below.
Tom Campbell, who leads in the Republican primary to unseat unhinged Barbara Boxer as US Senator from California, has come in for criticism of his support for Israel being inadequate, if not even hostile.
For example, Jennifer Rubin today wrote:
Tom Campbell, who has zipped into the lead in early polls, is quite another story [than Fiorina]. During his time in the House, Campbell was one of the few Republicans with a consistent anti-Israel voting record. In 1999, he introduced an amendment to cut foreign aid to Israel. This amendment, titled the Campbell Amendment, was defeated overwhelmingly on the House floor by a vote of 13-414. In 1999, Campbell was one of just 24 House members to vote against a resolution expressing congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state. In 1997, Rep. Tom Campbell authored an amendment (also titled the Campbell Amendment) to cut foreign aid to Israel. The resolution failed 9-32 in committee. In 1990, Campbell was one of just 34 House members to vote against a resolution expressing support for Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The resolution passed the House 378-34. But Campbell has taken positions on more than just aid that have raised concerns about his views on Israel. As the Los Angeles Times reported in 2000, Campbell, in his losing race against Dianne Feinstein, “told numerous crowds–including Jewish groups–that he believes Palestinians are entitled to a homeland and that Jerusalem can be the capital of more than one nation.”
Several weeks ago, concerned about Campbell's stance toward Israel, I contacted someone within the Campbell campaign for clarification of Tom Campbell’s views on Israel. I was told that Campbell’s actions in the ‘90’s were about aid funds being taken from sub-Saharan Africa to add to Israel’s economic aid, and he thought this harming the more needy. Similarly, Campbell is a strong supporter of the Vietnam era 1973 War Powers Act, requiring Congressional approval for US forces to be in a prolonged conflict. In 2000, the Supreme Court, however, rejected his and 30 other members of Congress’ petition, re: the continued use of US air power in Kosovo beyond the War Powers Act’s 60-days, as lacking standing. (Congressional Research Service 2004 history of War Powers Act.)
Tom Campbell is known for not being sheepish about his views. In my questions, below, I asked for unequivocal answers, and Tom Campbell did personally reply without equivocation. Every politician should be asked the same direct questions for direct replies. See below:
1. Would Campbell have voted for, against, or abstained in the Senate vote on the Comprehensive Iran Sanctions, Accountability, and Divestment Act (S. 2799)?
Yes, I would have voted in favor. Note that I'm already on record to support Israeli military action, if it comes to that, directed at destroying Iran's nuclear capability. This Act is an attempt to increase the pressure so that Iran does not develop a nuclear weapon. It's worth trying, but my patience has already run out with all forms of sanctions.
2. Would Campbell vote in favor, against, or abstain in the vote on the full $3-billion security assistance aid to Israel in President Obama's proposed budget?
I have always voted for the military aid portion of assistance to Israel. Like the Netanyahu government, in the past and now, I favor lowering the amount of American economic assistance to countries more able to take care of themselves, so that US foreign economic assistance can go to the neediest countries.
3. Would Campbell vote in favor, against, or abstain in the repeated votes in favor of the US recognizing Jerusalem as Israel's capital and moving the US Embassy there?
I always favored the United States paying Israel the respect we pay other nations, of recognizing the capital city of their own choosing, and placing our embassy there.
4.A. Would Campbell require an act of Congress under the War Powers Act in order to send emergency arms and supplies to Israel if attacked?
The War Powers Act is triggered only by the presence of US troops in "hostilities." Nothing in sending arms and supplies to Israel would trigger the Act. So, no, I would not require an act of congress to send emergency arms and supplies to Israel if attacked.
4.B. Would Campbell vote in favor, against, or abstain in his vote for such an act of Congress?
I would vote in favor. My vote in favor of going to war when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait was as much a vote to defend Israel as to defend Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. All three nations were attacked.
5. Does Campbell support, criticize, or have no public position about the Goldstone Report?
I have not read the Goldstone Report, and would need to do so before offering an informed opinion.
6. Does Campbell believe, not believe, or undecided on whether the "Israel lobby" has excess influence on US foreign policy?
All Americans have the right to petition Congress and the President, and those Americans who wish to do so on behalf of a stronger American-Israeli relationship should not be criticized for doing so. The influence of those Americans is not "excess influence."
OK, politicians are politicians, and often say what they think the electorate wants to hear. Campbell’s record of speaking his mind, however, has not followed that tacky pattern. One may agree with him, or not. Most important is to remove Boxer. Carly Fiorina, Campbell’s well-self-funded primary opponent, can directly speak to current issues and differences without selectively tossing mud-covered rocks. That is jackelish. That only aids Boxer, and does not further Republicans or Fiorina.
Tracked: Feb 09, 18:43
Campbell is leading the Republican race to face Barbara Boxer for US Senate in California. His positions on Israel as a Congressman has made him controversial. See Daniel Halper's post at The Weekly Standard, for instance: Tom Campbell's Israel Problem...
Tracked: Feb 09, 20:24
Tracked: Feb 25, 18:21
California Republican Senate primary contenders Tom Campbell, Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore had an hour radio debate today, their first, slated to focus on national security issues. I listened closely to the first 43-minutes, leaving to play 1-on-1
Tracked: Mar 06, 12:02
Tracked: Mar 13, 05:27
Tracked: Mar 13, 05:27
Aside from waiting, and waiting, for Barbara Boxer – a usual friend of Israel – to speak out in its defense, I’ve been waiting for the Republican contenders for the US Senate seat. They and their surrogates and supporters have spoken and spoken 
Tracked: Mar 16, 17:54