Please, Sen. Obama, Stop Talking About Israel
Why are we playing the Republicans game?
Months ago the Republicans and certain Democratic campaigns began pushing the meme that Jews won't vote for Obama. That line was accompanied (what a coincidence) with millions of anonymous e-mails warning Jews that Obama was a Muslim, a Hamas lover, a friend of Israel's enemies.
Obama's Jewish supporters like me had no choice but to respond. And we did.
But enough is enough. Jewish Democrats who still do not intend to vote for Obama are not going to be persuaded. Read the coverage. Listen to what they say. They decided they would not vote for him the first minute they saw him.
They don't trust him. And they won't. And it would take surgery well beyond modern technology to change Obama into someone they can support.
The good news is that there are so few of these people. A huge chunk of the money Obama has raised on line comes from Jews. Young Jews overwhelmingly supported him in the primaries and the rest will support him in the general. (Exhibit A: Ethan Tucker, Hadassah Lieberman's son who adores his step-dad and grew up with him, is a young rabbi who both supports Obama and gives him money),
Obama needs to focus on Jews like Ethan not people who are uncomfortable with his race and care less about America than about the level of US support for the status quo in Israel. Those people are voting for McCain.
But I am not writing this as an Obama supporter. I'm writing this because the ridiculous focus of the media on the candidates' pandering to Jews is bad for Jews. It makes us look like our loyalty is elsewhere. It conveys the message that we are not really Americans, but simply people who live here.
Enough. If Obama gets only 70% of the Jewish vote, instead of the usual 78%, so be it. He'll be liberated to promote a secure peace for Israel and the Palestinians. And he'll still be getting a larger chunk of the Jewish vote than he's likely to receive from any other white group. Jews have always been more progressive on matters of race than most other whites. But that does not mean all of us are. We have our racists. So does every other group. They should be ignored, not catered to.
If the Obama Presidency is going to be truly different from those of the recent past, he needs to stop with the single-issue focus. It's bad for him. It's bad for the country. And it's bad for the Jews.
Here's my prediction. If Obama gets the same percentage of Catholics and Protestants that he gets of Jews, he'll win a 50 state landslide. Keep your fingers crossed (or whatever).
Another repulsive e-mail. If Obama can talk to Iran and Hamas, he can sure talk to American Jews.
You blame Hillary for introducing race into the campaign, but there is no greater offender than you.
There are certainly a lot of American, Jewish Democrats, including my own Rabbi and myself, who are going to vote for Obama and who are in fact color-blind - of course we see him as an african-american, any sighted person can see that, but we see him as a human, as an intellect. His race doesn't make any f***ing difference and it is offensively presumptuous of you to suggest otherwise.
May 23, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are a truly good person. Color blind. I applaud you.
May 23, 2008 10:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yup! As opposed to Mendi Rosenberg who is just plain blind, and blöd (that's German; look it up.)
May 23, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like the idea that MJ is responsible for race in the campaign! That's adorable. Somehow I don't think he called Hannity and Colmes read TPMCAFE and and then decided to play Rev. Wright on a loop. Nor do I think that Bill Clinton googled Rosenberg and then decided he should compare Obama's South Carolina victories to that other black candidate.
Come on people let's see if we can get responses to this posting above the top two rows of Andrew's snazzy little commenting pyramid.
The real question in MJ's post is what does it achieve for Obama to tell Jews to look past his race (as if acknowledging that being black makes him less friendly to Israel) and to pander to Jews in Florida and promise he will be with Israel no matter what?
He should talk to them and tell them he will protect Israel as a Jewish state for all 8 years of his presidency. He would leave all options on the table for defending Israel if Israel needs it but his primary objective would be to defend Israel through a negotiations process that leads to 2-states.
If the Jews of Florida can't handle that, then MJ is right....who needs them?
May 23, 2008 10:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm Jewish and I certainly don't support Israel as a Jewish state. To support Israel as a Jewish state is bigoted and discriminatory.
That's like saying that the USA is a Christian state, with others living here as well.
I tell you, you scratch an American Zionist and I think you very well have better than a 50% chance of finding a racist. And I never thought I'd have to come to that conclusion.
But posts like yours and others' have convinced me there's a reckless insularity and a total disregard for other people's rights in the ranks of supporters of a totally Jewish state or totally Christian state or totally Islamic state or totally Anything state.
May 23, 2008 6:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
70 percent? If Obama gets 70 percent of every demographic group out there (other than, say, Appalachian racists) he'll win in a walk.
I have read some wonderful pieces written by fairly eminent rabbis and other Jewish leaders who do their level best to expose the lies about Obama circulating by email. That there are going to be people who choose to believe these lies is inevitable, and sad. And they are not limited to the Jewish community, either. I recently helped correct that same misapprehension in someone who is a naturalized American citizen (who was already primed to vote for him!) and pointed out that there are some truly malevolent people found in the undercurrents of this campaign.
May 23, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has not had time or breadth of experience to overshadow his shadowy neighborhood.
He needs to swallow his pride and thank God he has a chance to work as VP under Clinton for 8 years.
This would give him time to build credibility nationally.
You guys are attacking the messenger. Middle America does not know who this guy is.
With patience and foresight, he will be a fine president in 8 years.
He goes for it now, he is cooked.
May 23, 2008 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dream on.
May 23, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delusional much?
May 23, 2008 1:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
frogworld writes:
Very true! And that ignorance is a two-way street -- witness the recent Bitter-gate incident.
May 23, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is a segment of society (includ. a part of the Jewish community) that would never vote for Obama because of his race, a fact, and something we all need recognize and then, go forward...
May 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right.
As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. So will racists.
You can do something about the poor (like help them) but racists, you leave them alone, like rattlesnakes.
May 23, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's incredibly simplistic and NOT been endorsed by any of the great activists dealing with race issues.
Yes, sometimes racism is a behavior of inbred, paint chip eating, morons. More often, racist tendencies are a complex knot of ordinary associative thinking and conflations, misconceptions, cultural mistrust, and economic competition in otherwise normal people. That knot can be untangled albeit difficultly.
One of the reasons Obama has been so successful because he does engage people and his good human qualities, such as sincerity and good judgment, tend to transcend mistrust and racism, at least somewhat.
Not to say he'll magically end racism or anything.
But even if one in ten borderline racists improve their world view, it's a pretty significant step.
Regardless, whatever color Obama is, or even if he was named John Smith, he'd still be an unusually bright and capable candidate, excellent speaker, and an American phenomenon. He could be 110% white and have a foreign father, raised by a single mother and grandparents, living for a while abroad, and then attending Columbia and Harvard and distinguishing himself, and then becoming a grass roots organizer, and so on, and he'd still be an amazing American success story.
That Obama is mixed and was raised in a multicultural (mostly asian and white) environment with brown skin, only adds to his complexity and quality imo. But it's just a nice bonus not a big deal.
So, I don't like this focus on race. I'd never vote for a candidate on race, or gender, one way or the other.
Kennedy was about as white as it gets, and Irish Catholic seems a rather silly controversy now, but there's no doubt he (and RFK) had something special. Even Teddy, for all his hardship, has become the "Liberal Lion of the Senate."
Obama is very different in background, but has those same qualities. I think they're transcendent human qualities. And while most people have them in daily life, it's very difficult to preserve them in politics and takes an exceptionally well centered person.
May 23, 2008 2:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is an odd attitude. Are you claiming that there cannot be former racists? What happened to the idea of redemption?
May 23, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
out of the loop asks:
A good question! I think one should ask Sen. Robert Byrd (D - VW), who is a former/reformed Klansman, but also an ardent champion in the U.S. Senate of Rosenberg's causes as well as of anything else that weakens the State of Israel.
Which begs a larger question of anti-Semitism: is it curable?
May 23, 2008 9:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ, I usually agree with everything you say, not excluding your post above... but early childhood education and exposure to multi-ethnic milieus, along with interracial team or club experiences in the early years can go a long way towards ending racism.
Most people learn racism from their parents or other family, and by putting children together in groups that make them depend on one another as teammates or fellow club members teaches lessons that makes it all the harder for bigots to pass thier prejudice down the legacy lines.
The best way to beat prejudice is to give children an opportunity to know and befriend other children of other races, long before their parents can poinson their minds.
it is awfully hard to tell a 5-year old that their black friend is somehow bad, if they have already learned to trust that black child.
Same for any race, religion or nationality.
This is one of the only ways to beat this problem, but it works.
May 23, 2008 6:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for this post, which I appreciate very much. Having said that, I think it might have missed a very big part of the problem--which I also think is the reason why a certain portion of Jewish voters are having trouble supporting Obama.
The issue begins with this question: When American Jews talk about Israel, what are they actually getting at?
The answer is: The Holocaust.
This is a very difficult and complicated issue that goes far deeper than notions of race or racism and extend far beyond the limits of a blog comment. I don't want to judge people who have these concerns, nor refute people who may think those concerns are illegitimate. I just want to point it out.
Now...from what I have seen so far, I believe that the Obama campaign has not yet realized this fundamental aspect of American Jewish identity. I don't know why, but I have a hunch that it comes from the kind of experts Obama has gathered to himself. Again: these experts are good, but they are also not the kind of expertise that has brings this awareness about American Jewry (for better or for worse). As a result, this particular sector of the Jewish vote that has concerns about Obama do not yet feel that their concerns have been heard.
So, when the Obama campaign says that he wants to meet with Ahmadinejad (e.g.), they need to realize that this, too--fairly or unfairly--makes certain Jews think of the Holocaust and undermines their support for Obama.
And when the Obama campaign refuted Wright by talking about race, they need to realize tha this, too--fairly or unfairly--failed to address Jewish concerns about the Holocaust and undermined their support for Obama.
At this point we could go back and forth about whether or not it is good for American Jews to be concerned about these issues and whether or not it is fair that Obama has been handicapped with this challenge. Those are important sociological discussions. But for now, it is politically critical for the Obama campaign to recognize that the discussion about Israel is in fact a larger concern that American Jews have about the Holocaust and about their government's perspective on it.
Can the Obama campaign afford to walk away from those voters? If they were walking away from them intentionally and understood why they were losing that support, I would say 'Sure. Walk away.' But I have yet to be convinced that they really do understand what is happening. I don't blame them for being in that position, but I would like to see them take more of an interested in understanding why they are having this trouble, realizing which concerns are coming into play here, and then making the decision.
To say simply "It's Israel," seems to dismiss that conversation even before it gets started.
May 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very, very astute observation, Mr. Feldman. Regrettably, in their zeal to keep Senator Obama from what they think is pandering, Messrs. Rosenberg and Levy would call Jews' quite legitimate concerns about another Holocaust hysterical.
May 23, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Mr. Jeffrey Feldman Esquire with the nice suit and nicely cropped photo and nice head of hair and oh-so-rational superior comment:
I'm an American Jew (yes, balding) and I'm over my own personal American Jew Holocaust Hysteria (though not the balding). How about you? Have you given up your American Jew Holocaust Hysteria? Sounds like you haven't, and sounds like you assume it's something that comes with birth like the umbilical cord. That would be a nice trick.
I wish we had been brought up with the Golden Rule instead of Eye for an Eye. I think the American Jew Holocaust Hysteria might have subsided by now and it wouldn't still be what we ourselves and other people associate us with.
Imagine that!
That said, there's one more thing I'd like to tackle. Your words:
(In a calm, superior, patronizing voice -"Now...from what I have seen so far, I believe that the Obama campaign has not yet realized this fundamental aspect of American Jewish identity [Holocaust Hysteria]. I don't know why, but I have a hunch that it comes from the kind of experts Obama has gathered to himself."
Well, now Mr. Jeffrey Feldman nicely cropped photo Esquire, this seems to me a 'color-blind' subconsciously racist assumption on your part. OF COURSE OBAMA, and everybody else in the known universe, is aware of the American Jew Holocaust Hysteria! It's all you talk about and think about even when you think you're talking and thinking about other things!
Obama and his advisors (yes, THOSE advisors) are treating American Jews to a new experience - that of being reassured by a technique OTHER THAN UTTERLY PANDERING. Obama is trying to reach American Jews as Americans first and Jews somewhere down the line after human being, man, woman, husband, wife, mother, father, grandparent, aunt, uncle, lawyer, doctor, streetsweeper, inmate, whatever.
Maybe you'll like being treated with political respect and as an equal rather than an object of pity, if you'll give it a chance, Mr. Jeffrey Feldman Esquire who used to dirty his diaper.
May 24, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg--
If Senator Obama takes your advice, I personally will make sure President McCain sends you a thank-you note on November 7. If he wants to win Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Ohio, he damn well better keep talking about Israel in the very same way he did yesterday.
The reason you don't want Obama talking about Israel during the campaign is because you don't want him proclaiming an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security as he did yesterday, lest he then be unable to pull a Bush-Baker and start threatening the people of that embattled democracy if they don't accept your version of territorial compromise. Of course, you don't have to live with Hamas and Hezbollah rockets killing your children if Israel withdraws to lines that are a security risk as a esult of those kinds of threats.
I thank G-d that, Senator Obama's campaign manager, David Axelrod, and his prominent Jewish supporters like Rep. Robert Wexler (D-Fl.)live in the real world--unlike you-- and,if they read your advice, would to immediately tell you to get real.
May 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nonsense. If any of us, Americans, Jews, Muslims, Palestinians, or Israelis, want a President Obama (or a President McCain for that matter)who can actually accomplish anything, the candidate simply can't be boxed in to the tried-and-true roadmap to failure. This is exactly what we've had for decades. Israel is in a stranglehold, as much of its own doing as of any enemy that actually exists or that it can conjure up. My personal belief is that the answer is out-of-the-box, one state, and not the two-state compromise that for all intents and purposes tears the heart out of the heritage of both peoples in their homeland. But that's another story. Suffice it to say, but pushing the candidates to accept the 'common wisdom' is only buying time to tighten the noose around everyone's neck- the US included.
May 23, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're an idiot who obviously have never run a campaign for federal office outside of, maybe, Idaho.
Attention all Obama supporters: your Commander-in-Chief has given you an order--quit bashing Israel and join him in his unshakeable commitment to that country's security.
May 23, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Other Alan writes:
That's awfully naive. How do you think our democracy works, i.e. how candidates for office gain support from the various interest groups, be it the unions, women's rights groups, gay rights groups, business interests, etc.?
Answer: they all demand, and get!, explicit commitments -- on the record, to support and promote their agendas. IOW, the candidate is boxed-in, and everyone who is in favor of any particular issue applauds it.
The problem is with the issues one happens to disagree with, but that's life in a two-party system: you'll never find a candidate that conforms to your agenda 100 percent.
May 23, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
apacmember:
Amen to every word you wrote. I'd like to emphasize and repost your following passage, which deserves to be read more than once:
That's exactly is the crux of the matter. Jewish-American Peaceniks like Rosenberg, while sincere and well-intentioned, advocate territorial concessions which will have no effect on their own lives, but may put 5.5 million Israeli Jews in mortal danger.
Moreover, I believe that none of them would ever think of subjecting themselves or their families to a similar risk.
May 23, 2008 10:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
stop raping Palestine and stuffing it into little concentration cantons, treat Palestinians like you would like to be treated (like equals, which they are...or are you a dreadful racist? hmm. heard of the golden rule?), and you will see rockets and attacks on Israel stop.
but you're too fearful because you're trapped in holocaust hysteria (yes, you are diagnosed, definitely) and will continue forever to play the cause-and-effect game until you grow too weak to dominate.
I'm a third-generation American Jew, btw, and I totally respect myself and love my own existence and have no hangups about my and our futures as human beings, Jewish or not.
wish you could say the same
May 24, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
lapiltz commands:
Oh my! You have no clue, do you? I'll take a wild guess that you've never even been to Israel (or to a concentration camp, for that matter), and everything you know about the Israeli-Pal. conflict is from TV and the various Left wing (= anti-Israel) publications.
Lord, why oh why is ignorance bliss? I beg you, Lord: please, PLEASE!!!, make the ignorant suffer at least some of the pain they inflict upon the rest of us.
Oh lapiltz, you poor ignorant schmuck: the amount of therapy you need could easily make George Soros into a millionaire (from a billionaire.)
May 24, 2008 4:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear iaf: Stands for "I Am Foolish?"
How mature and decent of you to wish your personal God to rain down punishment on someone you disagree with. It matches perfectly with your political stance over Palestine. By the way, are you 12?
Perhaps you might not ever get over your own personal Jewish Holocaust Hysteria, but most American Jews (and Israeli Jews as well) are well on their way beyond your stunted non-growth. You should congratulate us; we represent hope for you. You don't have to be blind to others' suffering forever, not even the suffering you yourself support and cause.
I have been to Israel, the camps, etc. So much for your guesses. They are about as accurate as your own immature psychoanalyzing. Don't worry, though, it need not be a permanent condition. I think you could pray to your God that you be healed from your lack of political and spiritual maturation.
I will never deign to respond to someone like you as long as you refuse to understand there are at least two valid sides to every equation. It's basic math. You, iaf, do not add up.
May 24, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
lapiltz writes:
So, were these real trips, or LSD-induced 'trips'? I mean,
what gave you the impression that Palestine was 'raped' and the Palestinians 'were stuffed in concentration cantons'? Was it the never-required forced labor? The non-existent crematoria? The fact that every Palestinian in the territories has the right to file a lawsuit against the IDF in an Israeli court, as well as to petition directly to Israel's Supreme Court? (And they do, and win some of their cases.)
Compare that with the U.S. occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan that your tax dollars and mine pay for. Indeed, the Iraqis and Afghanis have no legal reprieve against the U.S. military. This morning this little pearl came through the wire; it demonstrates how we cover up our own atrocities. Inquiry findings were sealed -- of course. The story itself was buried on the bottom of page 19.
I think a fully Americanized, emancipated, assimilated, Holocaust-complex-free Jew like yourself has plenty of Tikkun Olam to do at home. Maybe then you'll earn the right to lecture the Israelis on their misdeeds. (And when you do lecture the Israelis, please keep your rhetoric free of the Nazi-era phraseology, or no one will take you seriously.)
May 24, 2008 7:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
MJ should take a deep breath and maybe a walk. I understand Israel is his bread and butter, and he's against existing policies, and we're all tired of the pandering and the false terms under which kooks like Dershowitz insist on having the debate. Fine.
Having said all that, Israel is an important issue, and most Americans are committed to supporting Israel in principle, if not every policy they adopt, and particularly not those which are short sighted.
I don't see MJ's problem with Obama's comments on Israel.
Obama is telling he truth and addressing the issue in a serious manner. Do we not expect MCain to attack on this issue fully in the GE campaign? OK, then Obama is going to have to address it, and he seems to be doing so in the right way now.
So, chill out MJ. You've being a bit hysterical and myopic on an issue you're too close to.
May 23, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I worked at Aipac in 1982, Steve Rosen, now on trial, sent me an e-mail.
"A lobby is like a night flower: it thrives
in the dark and dies in the sun.”
That is what all special interest are.
And I've got a flash light. Thank God for the internets.
May 23, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
and viva la blogs!
May 23, 2008 7:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you both had email in 1982? Did AIPAC invent it? Perhaps in league with Al Gore inventing the internets?
May 24, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very enlightening perspective. I hope his campaign heeds this advice. And also heeds advice not to put HRC on the ticket.
May 23, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
whoa that was weird--Andrew I don't think the "new and improved comments system" is working completely LOL.
anyway, to finish my comment: can Obama supporters please understand that not everyone who doesn't support him is a racist? and to call Jews out on this is really ridiculous. who the hell do you think marched for civil rights in the 60s with black people? or are you all too young to remember that?
to win, you're going to need all our votes--not just the hardcore Obama fanatic vote--so please stop insulting us.
May 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
May 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan writes:
Come on, tnathan: if I didn't know you better, I could conclude that you're accusing Rosenberg of being 'consistently inconsistent' (or ... 'sequentially inconsequential'? 'continuously incontinent'? Lord, I'm getting confuesd here...)
In any case, let me assure you that M.J. is nothing of the sort: it's just a temporary mood swing -- his time of the month, ya know..., or maybe a very mild case of estrogen poisoning? ;-)
May 24, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is that Jewish outreach has been reduced to talking about Israel. Whereas survey after survey has shown that (gasp!) the most salient issues to American Jews are things like health care and education. Partly because of our ridiculously myopic institutions, we've been caricatured as one-issue voters. But our progressive roots are too deep in this country, and our history of fighting for civil rights, equality and economic and social justice is too strong to just fade away at the mention of Israel. Obama hinted at this in his speech the other day, but as one of his most fervent supporters, whose car sports a bumper sticker with his name written in Hebrew letters, I wish he'd go further, and whip up some Righteous Indignation, to quote Heschel, about the problems we've got right here at home.
May 23, 2008 4:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me remind you that we live in a free country (so far). Every voter has a right to vote based on any issue(s) he or she wants. If 90% of Blacks vote for Obama because of ethnic pride, it's fine with me.
If for some Jews surviving the Jewish state of Israel is a priority, this should be fine too. If I have a hint that a candidate shares the M.J views, I'm not going to vote for such candidate, no matter what.
May 23, 2008 4:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, everyone has a right to be a one-issue voter. And everyone also has a right to not be stereotyped as a one-issue voter when, in fact, they take many issues into account. I am NOT criticizing Jews for whom Israel is the most important issue in a given election. I'm criticizing politicians and pundits who think that such thinking is universal among Jewish voters. It's not. I fully expect candidates to talk about Israel in Jewish settings. But I also expect them to talk about much more.
May 23, 2008 5:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
jmatz writes:
I don't think anyone in the Jewish community is worried about Obama's progressive roots or leanings. They are concerned with his commitment to Israel -- partly because his voting record in the Senate is thin, because his inner circle included several advisors hostile to Israel (Rob Malley, Zbig Brezinski, Rashid Khalidi), because of Rev. Wright's anti-Israel diatribes, and, primarily, because the Repugs made this a campaign issue.
The "good news" is you shouldn't worry about Obama's progressive issues -- they're coming. I guarantee you the Repugs haven't forgotten about them. (The real campaign hasn't begun yet.)
May 23, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree, MJ. The more Obama talks to Jews, the better. Even today's article in the Times as a follow up to Jodi Kantor's piece the day before is an example of his ability to go to the source and deal with it rationally and head-on. His Philadelphia speech on race was the same. Let this unusually skilled person persuade people the old-fashioned way: with his diplomacy, intelligence, and leadership.
May 23, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sent by me to Obama's website, in response to the headline quoted just below.
"Obama Promises 'Unshakable Commitment' to Israel in Florida"
What does that mean? "Unshakable Commitment" to whatever any Israeli government wants to do? Bomb Iran? More settlements? More killings? More shunning of the US by allies and potential allies? For what percentage of the American vote do you pander in this way? Why not support a real possibility of peace -- align yourself with Jimmy Carter, the majority of American Jews and the majority of Israeli Jews. And read these two letters:
Letter
Obama and Israel
To the Editor:
As an American-Israeli Jew, I would like to express my deep gratitude to Thomas L. Friedman for his May 18 column, “Obama and the Jews.”
Barack Obama appears to have grasped something that still escapes the conservative leadership of the American Jewish community: It’s both dishonest and dangerous to continue to behave as if there were some magical way to achieve a peaceful Israel without also achieving a Palestinian state.
A majority of both American and Israeli Jews have said they would support a two-state solution; I wish our leadership would understand that, and act accordingly. If we’re truly pro-Israel, we must also support a vigorous peace process with the Palestinian people.
It’s worth noting that peace would not only be what’s best for Israel, but would also, not incidentally, free the Palestinians from a deadly system of occupation and repression. As we say in our prayers: Amen, speedily and in our days.
Emily Hauser
Oak Park, Ill., May 19, 2008
To the Editor:
The impediments to peace identified by Jeffrey Goldberg date at least to the time when Yitzhak Rabin was prime minister of Israel.
I was a member of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations from 1986 to 1998. I remember the last talk that Mr. Rabin gave in the United States to the conference. He admonished us. In strong language, he reminded us that Israel was a powerful country whose survival was no longer in question.
He essentially told us to give up a victim mentality and be prepared to engage in making peace. He was clearly annoyed with the lack of support he was receiving.
Tragically, he was assassinated soon after that talk, and the conference leadership has never learned the lessons that he tried to teach.
(Rabbi) Mordechai Liebling
May 23, 2008 6:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hector asks:
My guess is: it means that if your #1 priority is the Peace Now agenda, you won't be happy with the Obama presidency.
Hmm, at this point Obama aligning himself with Jimmy Carter must be the #1 wet dream of the GOP.
As to the Israeli majority, here is the latest poll regarding Israeli citizens' attitudes towards a possible deal with Syria which would entail a pullout from the Golan Hights.
Finally, here's the latest column by one of Israel's most committed Peacenik journalists, Haaretz's Bradley Burston.
Rosenberg, read and weep.
May 23, 2008 11:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's hoping that McCain gets smart - gets Mentum - and takes his Likudik Warmongers with him
And don't let the door hit their butts on the way out
May 23, 2008 8:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Rosenberg writes:
Is that a fact? I'd like to see some reference. And don't get cute about the meaning of the word 'huge'.
I disagree -- the media reports on what Obama does; no one in the media forced him to give a speech in a Florida synagogue.
Which begs the question: if you think this media focus is bad for the Jews, then who twisted your arm to write about it on TPM? Wouldn't it be wiser to sit on your hands?
Oops, I forgot: you don't do 'wise'. I beg your pardon.
May 23, 2008 9:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hmmm, what troubles our Jewish brothers and sisters? The fact that Wright has an association with Farrakhan, or that Farrakhan is actually doing something beyond badmouthing Jews and Judaism?
I can understand that some feel that they have to be extraordinarily vigilant about the language that their detractors use. However,let's be for real: Farrakhan, odious as he is (and that's why I didn't attend the MM March), is essentially a paper tiger. He and the NOI probably have done more physical damage to blacks than whites, a case in point is Malcolm X.
Now, I've always felt that the relationship between blacks and Jews radically declined during the civil rights era when black militants started associating the plight of blacks with other 3rd world folks, and Jews became "white" even though some of them were getting killed during the freedom movement. ML King was a big supporter of Israel and Jews; his death may have been one of the reasons that the "special relationship" between blacks and Jews soured; he wasn't there to advocate a sense of unity and justice.
(It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if KIng had taken a nuanced position regarding the Palestinians have a homeland while still supporting Israel. That really would have tested the bonds od trust. But that's a digression.)
Jeffrey Feldman is right: the Holacaust guides a significant portion of American Jews, especially those of a certain age.
How much consideration should Team Obama be giving to that sentiment, feelings and attitude? It can't help but be taken into consideration.
However, there is an unsettling level of sucking up and pandering to some members of the Jewish community. Does this mean that Obama and American foreign policy has to take into every consideration of Jewish Americans and of Israel?
I accept Israel and an ally and friend, but our interests as nation-states aren't always the same.
Obama may represent the best last chance for the US, Israel, the Arabs, and people of good will to try and settle an issue that's been going on since 1948. It's risky. Undoubtedly many Jews will only trust those who unswervingly pledge concern about Israel.
Yet Jews have "friends" like John Hagee who rationalizes the destruction of Jews as divinely sanctioned by God choosing Hitler as his instrument? Or Rod Parsely flamming the fans of hatred of Muslimss. Is that good for the Jews?
These are troubling and risky times, and I'm not one predisposed to tell Jews and Israelis what's in their best interest. However, just as some blacks have tendency to get shackled by the past and see racissm as a filter for everything, Jews, American and Israelis, will have to get beyond the Holacaust; they are not the underdogs anymore. They are a strong people who have weathered one of the worse storms of human existence.
I have a problem with Israel's relationship with Palestinians, but I will not sanctions the destruction of Jews. On the other hand, I don't think that some of the actions and positions of Jews and Israelis are in their own best interest.
Ahmadinejad is like Farrahkan, a paper tiger who likes to run his mouth. He doesn't have any real effective control over Iranian military or foreign policy. I suspect that the powers that be in Iran knows that if they even think about launching a nuclear attack on Israel, it and the US will wipe it off the map.
So how do we deal with the fears of our Jewish brothers and sisters? Well, I think that Obama ought to talk to them like adults. I also think that if he and when he speaks to Ahmadinejad and the real powers in Iran, he ought to lay down the law: you'll be respected and treated like a significant power in the region when you act like one: No nukes and cut out the BS with Hamas and Hezbollah. Israel? Cut out the settlements and go back to '67 borders (no return of Palestinians; give them settlement).
Then we can turn attention to bin Ladin & al Qaeda, take care of that BS, and then work on another Middle Eastern problem: lack democracy in the Arab world.
May 23, 2008 9:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thoughtful post, normankelly, but I would not assume most Jews are supportive of that unhinged pair of zealots like Hagee and Parsley. I doubt that a majority of AIPAC, ADL and AJC members are. The only reason these wackjobs have been given any knd of welcome in the organized pro-Israel community is that much of academia and the liberal media--NPR, Nation, TPM Cafe-- is so hostile to keeping Israel secure from terror.
May 24, 2008 7:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
normankelley:
Thanks for an interesting, well-intentioned post. Here are a few points to consider. You wrote:
When a relationship hinges solely on strong leaders or personalities, but does not extend to the regular folk, then it won't endure. Here is how this translates to Israel and the ME.
I take great pains to explain to my fellow Americans that Israel is our only reliable ally in the ME -- because the people of Israel, not just its leaders, feel great kinship and admiration for America and Americans, regardless of which Party is in power. For the most part, the feeling is mutual, hence the friendship is durable.
That's not the case with our other allies in the region, whose population hates our guts, and NOT primarily because of our support for Israel -- a common fallacy promoted by some, for obvious reasons.
Moreover, I tell people the peace treaties that Israel signed with Egypt and Jordan are, for now, worthless pieces of paper -- because they rely only on the good will of these two countries' current leaders, while the general populations still express enormous animus/hatred towards Israel (again, NOT only because of the Palestinians.)
As these leaders age and exit the stage, there is no guarantee their successors will adhere to these treaties. Paradoxically, the danger is greater if/when these countries democratize, cf. Hamas.
Fine, you may think that, and I may join in with you on a case by case basis. However, it's dangerous to assume that you know what's in the best interest of the Jews or Israelis. I have Black friends, but I'd be very wrong to claim that I know what it's like actually being Black, because I don't -- and I never will. It's equally wrong to advise the Jews to "get beyond the Holocaust." The trauma is too deep, it happened only 65 years ago, some of the survivors and witnesses are still with us, and there are clear signs -- in Africa and elsewhere, that humanity has not learned the lesson.
Finally, you write:
IMHO, that's a bad idea: if we wish to avoid being labeled an imperial power, we must avoid telling other countries what to do. (I'll grant exceptions to this rule WRT "crazy" countries like Iran or North Korea.) This is especially true of democratic allies like Israel, whose 'will of the people' must be respected even when it differs from ours. This is a moral thing to do, since it's the Israelis who'll enjoy/suffer the consequences of their decisions and actions.
OTOH, if a U.S. President forces the Israelis to act in accordance with our national interests rather than their own, then the responsibility for the consequences shall be ours, in which case we might as well declare Israel the 51st state and run its affairs directly from Washington, D.C.
May 24, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a bit late to this conversation but I fully agree with MJ's post.
Imo, and I have stated this before, the most pressing foreign policy issue for the US should be leading the effort for resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
These reasons being are mainly two fold in my thinking. First and foremost Israel would be a safer country. Secondly is that by resolving the dispute the heart will be cut out of the rationale for the violent terrorist movement within Islam. While probably most middle-eastern Muslims are pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli most aren't radical. I think regional animosity towards Israel would drop significantly, the extremists within Islam would become isolated and would allow effective, intelligent strategies to develop to deal with terrorism.
And hopefully if Obama is the candidate and triumphs in the general election he will put his full energy into solving the dispute for the good of Israel, the region, the US and the world as a whole.
May 24, 2008 2:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can't believe you had "no choice but to respond". I mean, look at how often you post. Admit it. If it hadn't been that, you would have written about something else.
May 24, 2008 10:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Read the coverage. Listen to what they say. They decided they would not vote for him the first minute they saw him. They don't trust him. And they won't. And it would take surgery well beyond modern technology to change Obama into someone they can support."
You shouldn't judge Jewish people. They're not all the same.
May 24, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto, for God's sake read what you're commenting on.
May 26, 2008 2:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F bloviates:
My God, you are truly a first-class idiot. Your reading comprehension is below second grade.
You quoted a few sentences while completely ignoring language just before and after those sentences which completely changes what you claim to believe what MJ is saying. As in, one hundred eighty degrees. Below is the full context, with the crucial parts of what you left out in bold and italic.
Translation, for folks like Otto whose reading comprehension never left the first grade level:
1) There is a subset of Jews who will not vote for Obama no matter what he says. "They are not going to be persuaded." This group consists of "Jewish Democrats who still do not intend to vote for Obama." That qualifier is important, Otto. You learn about that stuff after the first grade.
2) Those people are few in number, and moreover they are a minority of Jews. That's what MJ meant when he wrote: The good news is that there are so few of these people. A huge chunk of the money Obama has raised on line comes from Jews. Young Jews overwhelmingly supported him in the primaries and the rest will support him in the general. (Exhibit A: Ethan Tucker, Hadassah Lieberman's son who adores his step-dad and grew up with him, is a young rabbi who both supports Obama and gives him money),
In other words, Otto, MJ is saying that, Jewish people are, um, not all the same.
Thanks for playing, Otto. Ås for reading comprehension, you might want to start with Dick and Jane for a while.
May 26, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good grief, Otto.
He was talking about that fraction of the Jewish people who cannot be convinced to vote for Obama, explicitly stating that he considers it to be a minority fraction.
May 26, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink