It saddens me that American politicians have to go through a kind of ritual where they swear that they are the most pro-Israel politician that has ever lived. In some ways it reminds me of how annoying the anti-Castro Cuban pandering has been throughout my whole life. It’s not so much the positions that are espoused that bother me as the way it closes down any flexibility in solutions to break the deadlocks. I consider myself both opposed to the Castro regime in Cuba and pro-Israel (although some would look at my positions and call me pro-Palestinian). But that’s the point of these rituals…to narrowly define the parameters of debate and, therefore, policy options. We can see this process unfolding today in Boca Raton.
Barack Obama today will try to assuage Jewish voters who are concerned about his support for Israel, some of his foreign-policy advisers, his association with a former pastor and even his middle name…
… Obama, 46, will discuss Middle East issues at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Florida, to defuse the criticism, which his campaign said ignores a consistent pro-Israel record.
The Democratic presidential candidate has repeatedly expressed his commitment to Israel’s security and has rejected the Palestinians’ demand for the right of return. He also backs a plan that has angered Palestinians to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv, and recently drafted legislation calling for the economic isolation of Iran.
Representative Robert Wexler, a Florida Democrat and one of the Illinois senator’s strongest Jewish supporters, said Obama would talk about his staunch support for Israel and outline his commitment to thwarting Iran’s quest for a nuclear weapon.
Obama has an “A-plus record” on Israel, said Wexler, 47. “This is going to be a big boost.”
It’s good that Obama is doing some direct outreach to the Jewish community because they’ve been subjected to a lot of disinformation aimed at arousing doubts about his commitment to Israel. And, whatever the merits of Obama’s Middle East policies, he certainly doesn’t err on the side of being too friendly to the Palestinian cause. Concerned Jewish voters need to know that. In fact, it appears that they need to know a lot more.
Much of the criticism of Obama “is not about his voting record; it’s about his mindset, his temperament and his background,” said J.J. Goldberg, editor of the Forward, a New York-based Jewish newspaper. “People are freaked by his middle name” and “they’re not examining the source” of the information.
It should be common knowledge in the Jewish community that ‘Hussein’ is an Arabic, not Muslim, name. As for Obama’s first name, surely people remember the Israeli Prime Minister that negotiated with Yassar Arafat at Camp David in 2000. His name was Ehud Barak. Does that mean that Obama has a Jewish first name?
It’s always difficult to discuss the issue of Jewish support for Israel and its intersection with American politics. Part of the problem is that the reality fits into some of the more unfortunate traditional stereotypes about Jews. To be blunt, the Jewish community is small in absolute numbers but have traditionally been a vital source of campaign contributions to Democratic candidates. And, while their numbers are few, they can be a deciding factor in states like Pennsylvania and Florida that have the power to determine Electoral College outcomes. It’s a challenge to even acknowledge those facts without getting accused of anti-Semitism.
Ironically, Obama has created the exact kind of conditions where he might be free to pursue a more officially balanced approach. He’s done this by creating an enormous small money donor base that makes him unreliant on any single lobbying group for campaign cash. He’s also done it by expanding the map so that he has avenues to victory that do not depend on winning Florida. These exact same conditions, combined with generational changes, have allowed Obama to loosen up his rhetoric regarding Cuban policy. But he obviously does not yet feel free to do the same on Israeli policy. He has come down against the right-of-return (something I agree with, but that should be a point of negotiation, not official policy), for moving the embassy to Jerusalem (something I see as needlessly provocative), for economic isolation of Iran (again, something that should be set by changing conditions, not locked in stone), against foreign aid to Hamas (hard to hold to, given conditions on the ground in Gaza), etc. By adopting the hardline on all these issues, Obama doesn’t distinguish himself from any other American presidential politician. And that worries me only because it raises doubt that he will have the needed flexibility to achieve a breakthrough where his predecessors have failed.
And, it needs to be said that the hardline on the Palestinians is anything but an official Jewish-American (or even Jewish-Israeli) position. But it’s a strong enough position within those communities that it takes courage to stand up to them.
Traditionally, Jews have overwhelmingly favored Democratic candidates, yet Obama isn’t doing as well with these voters as some of his predecessors. In a recent Gallup poll, Obama gets the support of 61 percent of Jewish voters, compared with 32 percent for the presumptive Republican nominee, Arizona Senator John McCain. The last Republican to score that high was Ronald Reagan, who had 40 percent in 1980.
Ronald Reagan got 40% of the Jewish vote partly because he won the election in a landslide, but also because of concerns that President Carter had forced Israel to give up too much in the Camp David Accords. The ongoing Iranian Hostage Crisis was also a factor. Given the ease with which Obama’s opponents have been able to sow doubt in the Jewish community about his commitment to Israel (his middle name, his past associations) it is easy to see why he found it politically expedient to take hardline positions. And I’m not questioning his sincerity so much as hoping that he has a more nuanced and flexible approach than he is forced to put on display today in Boca Raton. Peace in the Middle East and lasting security for Israel has not and will not be achieved using strictly hardline approaches. History has taught us that.
It isn’t “forcing” Israel to give up too much that concerns me. It is the lack of respect for human rights by a few hardliners on each side towards the vast majority on the other side. That is what bothers me.
The violence on each side will continue until someone with both enough courage and enough leadership skills comes along to truly bridge the gulf that separates the Arabs and the Jews.
There are a lot of Arabs living in Israel that were there before 1948, or their parents were there, that just want to live in peace and have an opportunity to see their grandchildren grow and prosper.
the Human Rights records are appalling on both sides, but what most concerns me are policies that make the problem more intractable, like the Settlers’ expansion, the dismantling of the Palestinian Authority, and the ham-handed way that Israel has tried to dictate political outcomes. Or, on the Palestinian side, the use of terrorism that hardens the hearts of Israelis and challenges their democratic instincts, and the teaching of hate and anti-Semitism to their children.
Wherever I see people making the problem worse, I get angry.
kidnappings and land acquisition, which has lead to the neverending killings of many civilians. So the rocket fire from Gaza needs to be seen in that light. We always seem to avoid looking at Israel’s role.
I don’t avoid looking at anything. I blame everyone.
It saddens me that American politicians have to go through a kind of ritual where they swear that they are the most pro-Israel politician that has ever lived. In some ways it reminds me of how annoying the anti-Castro Cuban pandering has been throughout my whole life. It’s not so much the positions that are espoused that bother me as the way it closes down any flexibility in solutions to break the deadlocks. I consider myself both opposed to the Castro regime in Cuba and pro-Israel (although some would look at my positions and call me pro-Palestinian).
As a Yid I agree 1000%
I find this pilgrimage by presidential candidates offensive. It’s equivalent to a pledge of allegiance to a foreign government, especially in the case of Israel.
We need to develop a made in the USA policy, otherwise our hands are tied forever….til the end of time. And it does not advance the true interest of Israel.
I predict there’ll be a backlash – that’ll take events in the wrong direction.
I disagree about “blaming everyone” because, although people on both sides have made mistakes and committed crimes, Palestinians have had their country colonized and have had their property stolen from them and continue to have it expropriated daily — tree by tree, house by house, farm by farm. However, I really appreciate your willingness to look at this issue, even on the front page of your blog.
There is a clear victim and a clear oppressor in the case of the Palestinians, and to place an equal burden of responsibility on both the oppressor and the victim is wrong.
And if anyone doubts there is a clear victim and a clear oppressor, I invite you to visit the occupied territories and see for yourself.
In addition, if anyone thinks that Palestinian citizens of Israel (i.e. those Palestinians whose predecessors have escaped being ethnically cleansed) have equalaity with Jews in The Jewish State, I invite you to study the situation a bit better – from the point of view of those Palestinian citizens, not the propaganda put forward by those who call them “Israeli Arabs”.
And for everyone I recommend that you obtain and read the book The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine by Israeli Jewish historian Ilan Pappe.
See Mattes below for a major deletion in your argument.
But this…
The use of terrorism? If by that you mean the intentional killing of civilians, then I suggest you look up a recent diary of mine, featuring an article by Lawrence of Cyberia concerning Israeli state terrorism, the intentional killing of Palestinian civilians including children by IDF, which you forgot to mention. Most of the killing on both sides is actually retaliatory and has no political or religious intent.
Regarding the “terrorist” meme used in relation to the Palestinians, please see Peace, Propaganda, & The Promised Land to get up to date on the latest US-Israeli propaganda effort to turn Israel into a victim of terrorism after 9/11.
As for the dumb charge that Palestinians teach their children, through textbooks, hate and antiSemitism, another diary from Lawrence of Cyberia put the “Palestinian textbook” claim that Hillary Clinton actually brought up in the Senate, to rest. It is false. On the other hand, I would not doubt that a people resisting and fighting against a military occupation while their homes and lands are being confiscated, the rest of their country colonized, would not teach their children to become fighters at some point in their lives. Afterall, it is not difficult for a Palestinian to see their enemy daily in the form of soldiers carrying rifles and running around in tanks and jeeps menacing their nieghborhoods.
The expectation that Palestinians would just take their military occupation/colonization passively is just as absurd as to have expected the French or Italian resistance not to be more welcoming of the Germans during WWII.
Somehow, through language, censorship, and propaganda, we have learned to talk about Israeli war crimes against the Palestinian people in the West Bank and Gaza as if they were heroic acts of a people under threat, fighting for the very “existence” of their country. The Existence meme of course is just an extention of the victim psychology we have been treated to these past several years. It is all bullshit.
Great post, BooMan. I concur wholeheartedly re the need to nearly pander, if you will, to a certain segment of the Jewish community on these issues.
For all the things that I think are possible on this planet, and they are many, I’m coming to believe that a two-state solution is not going to happen in my lifetime. And I think that’s a real tragedy.
I think also we have to be careful what we wish for. If Barack were to spend his presidency trying to bring peace to the Middle East, would that be the best use of his time?
If he focused on building the green economy, might that emphasis on building an oil-independent infrastructure do more to break us free from the power of Israel than anything else?
It’s not an either/or proposition.
Smarter folks that me know where to pick up the pieces from eight years of neglect and mismanagement and try to restart a peace process. At this point, I don’t know where to begin given the fragmented political situation between Fatah and Hamas. But it’s important that a process is established and that the Arab world see it as a good faith process. If nothing else, that dissipates the instinct for anti-American violence. And that has to be a core national security issue.
That’s a good point.
“where to pick up the pieces from eight years of neglect and mismanagement and try to restart a peace process.“
The United States has no place being involved in any kind of “peace process”. It has proved over and over and over again that it cannot and will never be an “honest broker” between Israel and the Palestinians. The rest of the world, especially the Arab world, figured that out a long time ago. Unfortunately, few Americans have.
“I don’t know where to begin given the fragmented political situation between Fatah and Hamas.“
Do you know how, for what purpose, and by whom this fragmented political situation was created?
“But it’s important that a process is established and that the Arab world see it as a good faith process.“
The Arab world will never see it as a good faith process as long as the United States is involved, and they have a very good reason for that – it never will be a good faith process with the United States as part of it.
“If nothing else, that dissipates the instinct for anti-American violence.“
What “instinct for anti-American violence”? Anti-American violence is not an instinct (or perhaps you just chose the wrong word there?).
And look, it is going to take a whole lot more to defuse the negative feelings about the United States, which are based on a whole lot more than the knowledge that the United States supports Israel against the interest and fundamental human rights of the Palestinians. It has at least as much to do with the United States’ support of bloody dictators against movements toward democracy in the Arab and Muslim worlds.
“And that has to be a core national security issue.“
I agree that the United States’ conduct of its affairs in the Middle East is a core national security issue. I’m just not sure we agree on the specifics.
I don’t disagree with the basic thrust of your arguments but I do disagree that there can be any decent solution for the Palestinians that doesn’t involve the United States. At the same time, there is both a problem of bias here, and of a totally fractured Palestine there.
Thanks for the response.
On the contrary, in order for there to be a decent solution for the Palestinians the United States needs to stay out of it for the simple reason that the United States will ALWAYS favour Israel, which will never accept a decent solution for the Palestinians as long as it has the backing of such a powerful ally.
I trust you are aware of what the Arab League has offered twice and what Israel has twice refused, even as a basis for negotiation. The Arab League offered full recognition of and normalized relations with Israel – embassies and everything – in exchange for a full withdrawal by Israel to a modified 1967 boundary according to the letter and spirit of UNSC Resolution 242. In other words, they offered far more than just peace, they offered virtually everything Israel claims that it wants, and Israel refused. (And by the way, Hamas has agreed with the offer.)
The United States has made no effort – NONE – to pressure Israel to accept this truly generous offer or even to use it as a basis for negotiation.
They always have and they probably always will. Don’t expect me to cry for them or support them. When they want to act human and humane maybe they’ll get treated that way.
Please. That’s just blatant labelism. ALL Palestinians are not like that. Please don’t assign the actions of the few to the many. That’s racist and inappropriate.
I work with a Palestinian, now an American citizen. He hates that people come up to him with their anti-semitism, expecting him to join in. Please don’t put me in the position of having to defend the Jews, he says, but he will, because he’s a good guy.
I’ve known others.
There is no Palestine anymore. So don’t ask me if I’ve been there when you know that’s not even possible.
Have to agree that you generalizations are overboard, since you actually don’t know the rates of crimes against women in Palestine, and just what is meant by an increase. This has been noted before in relation to the West Bank military occupation and the seige of Gaza. When life gets bad apparently scapgoating increases.
“The offenses include domestic violence, rape, incest, child abuse and violent responses to so-called honor crimes, like adultery, that embarrass the clan, family or community.”
Outside of honor crimes, which are rare, in any case, do you know the rates of crimes against women (above)in the USA, compared to Palestine? I suggest you don’t. Overall, I would say, from my impression, that at least rape, incest, and child sexual abuse affecting females is higher in the USA.
Prove me wrong.
Checked the rates of those crimes in the former Soviet Union? in China? in Saudi Arabia? In West Virginia?
Seriously. I don’t tolerate racism or labelism of any kind. Any population has good people and bad people in it, not necessarily in the same proportion. But unless they are ALL, to a person, bad people, such generalizations are outrageous and have no place among true liberals. One of the signs that someone is a liberal is their compassion and tolerance of others.
And Africa.
Can’t agree with you more.
The problem of crime against women is that it is an international one, even though strict Islam may stimulate its own versions. There is of course little question that gender equality remains a big issue in many Islamic countries. But Turkey certainly reveals that in a democratic setting, it can be fought, decreased, and perhaps eventually made obsolete.
Do you view this as I do, a sad area of the world, with tragic violence over the years, but no more so than other areas of the world with greater levels of violence and genocide. Yet, where does our money and attention go? To the land of Judeo-Christian roots. When you are detached from religious sentiments, it’s difficult to feel more empathy for one side over the other. I see suicide bombings by one side, I see a wealthy state with huge military assets on the other, I see settlers who sound like they just got off the boat from NYC. And I see people fighting over a mound of rock and dirt. WTF.
As an atheist I only see the Israelis in the wrong. They are the ones who came in and stole the land from the Palestinians. I support everything that Palestinians do in their attempt to reclaim what is rightfully theirs and I believe that everything that Israel does is wrong.
i’d have gone a tad harder on him, or anyone taking the pro-I hardline stance, but that’s just me. bottom line: it’s the money, and the connections and influence of a small, very small, group of pro-israeli people (often called jews, but there are times when i wonder about that, given all the damage they’ve done to the reputation of “their people” and the state of israel, and their association with jew-hating fundie freaks) running around the Village. yes, just saying “the money” will mean i’ll get called an anti-semite, but from a purely political, realpolitik sort of view, it’s an important fact about campaign finance landscapes and is not that different than in other states with particularly powerful single/special interest groups. anyway, excellent post, thanks so much for the useful formulations.
as always, posts like these remind me of the desperate need for campaign finance reform, the real kind. i do sort of wonder how different obama (and many other pols) could be, if they knew they could win in places like NY or FL, without having to please a tiny, rich ethnic or social minority there first.
I’m confused about why you are writing on Corrente that I don’t talk to you anymore. What is your basis for saying that? Did you send me an email that I failed to respond to or something? You make it sound like we’ve had some find of falling out and I have no idea why you say that.
I’m gonna tread lightly here. Is there a link to show some disproportionate impact on politics by segments of the population?
I appreciate the carefully chosen language above but some might see evidence of the old Jews control the world thing.
As always on this topic, almost all research is biased or immediately accused of bias.
Here’s a London Review of Books review of the controversial John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt book The Israeli Lobby. The second half of it gets more into the influence factor and the many ways it is wielded.
You know enough of these issues to read that review and detect its biases.
BTW- Obama is speaking now in Boca.
Thanks.
As a half-Jew (ethnically and culturally, usually had both Seder & Easter), this tip-toeing is bullshit. The religious belief of being the chosen people with a right to land, whether it’s on the part of fundamentalist Jews or Muslims, has led to so much senseless bloodshed and misery.
As far as the comment about the way Palestinians treat women and children: are you familiar with Orthodox Judaism?
Having lived on the east coast amongst Jewish family members, I took for granted the importance of Jewish-ness. Now that I live out in California, I feel that certain absolute truths I was taught in schools and in family are just BS – that the horror of the Holocaust absolutely justified the state of Israel, that Palestine is nothing but a bunch of terrorists, that Israel is generally progressive and reasonable but for a few extremists…. These things are certainly not unshatterable tenets, but I was consistently taught them from elementary school through to college.
Read Joe Sacco’s “Palestine”. Do it now.
Sorry for the slightly off-topic rant… I just wholeheartedly hate the tip-toe around Israel game. The situation is mutually horrible for both Israel and Palestine, and the simplified pro-Israel view just perpetuates the violence.
Oh, and – I didn’t meant to imply that my part-Jewishness gives me some kind of leeway to be potentially offensive. I just want to make it clear that I am no stranger to Judaism, culturally or religiously.
“The religious belief of being the chosen people with a right to land, whether it’s on the part of fundamentalist Jews or Muslims…“
There is no such religious belief in Islam. Islam does not contain any concept of being “the chosen people”, nor does Islam contain any belief of right to land. The Palestinians’ right to their land is not based on religious belief in any way whatsoever. Christian, Druze, Muslim, and secular Palestinians all have the same rights, and have had the same rights violated. Those rights are based on the fact that their homes were and are on that land, and they have been and continue to be dispossessed by force and ethnically cleansed.
“The situation is mutually horrible for both Israel and Palestine“
Not even remotely mutually horrible. The overwhelming majority of Israelis lead very normal lives sipping lattes in malls and managing to float along most of the time blissfully unaware of what their country is doing to the Palestinians.
“the simplified pro-Israel view just perpetuates the violence.“
Here we are in complete agreement.
Okay, I caught part of the Boca speech on CNN while at the gym. From what I heard of it, what Obama was trying to do was (a) counter the slander that has been going around on email which has been targeted successfully at older Jewish voters and (b) do some goodwill-building. I didn’t see it as being another performance of the hardline ritual as much as a patented Obama pivot. He reminded the crowd of the long-time participation of Jews in the struggle for African-American civil rights. Basically, he said, “Thank you. You got our backs, I’ve got yours.” That was a crowd-pleaser, for obvious reasons. He said that going into Iraq was a blunder of historical proportions, that it made Israel less rather than more secure, and that getting out would give us more flexibility in dealing with Iran and more credibility in the region. He also appealed to the audience’s revulsion at Bush’s policies by saying it never hurts us to talk to people, and that we should always exhaust diplomatic avenues before using military force. (Which is what Bush says we did, but Obama seems to mean it.)
A good speech. The talking heads liked it, too.
“what Obama was trying to do was (a) counter the slander that has been going around on email which has been targeted successfully at older Jewish voters“
Oh yeah – what a horrible slander it is to say someone is a Muslim! Worst slander in the world!
This is how Bush described the opening point for peace negotiations:
Will any Democrat now pay homage to the right wing Likudniks and go right of Bush. Clearly, the left wing position on Jerusalem is the “shared capital” concept. And as to the matter of Palestinian refugees, it is a matter of international law, UN Resolution 194, enacted way back in 1948, that gives them the right of return to their homes and lands, and their villages and towns that were stolen by force. Although only a minority would elect to do so, it is still an injustice that is unresolved.
Obama is obviously catering to a right wing segment of the Jewish community, likely AIPAC supporters, in his harsh positions, whether it is a politically savvy one or not. This is Hillaryland he has stepped into, which is not likely far from McCain-Lieberman country.