To Sen. Obama: When In Israel, Please, No Pandering
Senator Obama's decision to include Israel in his overseas tour makes a lot of sense. Although he has been there before, the ever-changing Israeli scene needs to be experienced first-hand. I only hope Obama is not going to Israel in order to impress a small but vocal minority of Jewish Democrats who are uncomfortable with his candidacy.
I say that because, from what I have heard from those voters, there is nothing Obama can say or do that will bring them around. They do not trust him not because of what he says but because of who he is. They suspect that, no matter what he says, his sympathy in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not limited exclusively to Israelis but also extends to Palestinians. After all, how can an African-American whose father's people were African Muslims not have sympathy for Palestinians as well as for Jews?
These people believe that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is a zero sum game. They cannot imagine the possibility that anyone can have sympathy for both peoples. They also doubt the fundamental justice of Israel's case. They believe that anyone who approaches it with any sort of openness will come down on the anti-Israel side. That is why they demand that candidates recite lobbyists' talking points. That is why they do not want candidates, or anyone really, to think about the issue.
In Obama, they see someone who thinks. And even though his lifetime record demonstrates strong support for Israel coupled with the understanding that security for Israel depends on security for the Palestinians, they are skeptical. Or they say they are.
Anyone who doubts that the Israel issue in this campaign is utterly manufactured should take note of Senator Joseph Lieberman's statement this week. Asked why he keeps hitting Obama on the Israel issue, he said, "I've concluded that John McCain is best for our country, then why wouldn't I do that?" In other words, because he prefers McCain to Obama, why shouldn't he use Israel as an issue against Obama whether warranted or not.
The people uncomfortable with Obama are the same people who believe that George W. Bush was the best President for Israel in its history, overlooking the fact that these have been the worst eight years in Israel's history. The Iraq war alone, a misadventure from the get-go, has done more strategic damage to Israel than any action by any President since 1948.
It all comes down to what one considers pro-Israel. Is it rhetorical support for every action Israel takes or is it helping Israel achieve peace?
Here's hoping that Obama is in the latter category. Israel cannot take another four years like the last eight. Neither can the United States which has seen its standing in the Middle East (and throughout the world) suffer not only because of the Iraq war but also because we have abandoned the role of honest broker.
As I said, I hope that Obama is not visiting Israel in order to impress people who won't support him anyway. I hope he is going to demonstrate to Israelis and Palestinians that an Obama administration would turn a new page by engaging in diplomacy to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict starting in the first year of his administration.
I hope that he will meet with both Israelis and Palestinians on his visit, and not limit himself to the Israeli side of the Green Line. He should meet with the people of Sderot and with the people of Ramallah as well. If he visits Jewish West Jerusalem, he should visit Palestinian East Jerusalem. Perhaps he can hold a town meeting with Israeli and Palestinian youth. Together.
And he needs to have one message for both peoples. He should say: "If I am elected president, I will do everything in my power to bring about negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians with the goal of achieving peace and security for Israel and secure state for the Palestinians."
He should not get into specifics. It is the job of the United States to facilitate negotiations between the parties. It is not to delineate borders, draw maps of Jerusalem, determine how many Palestinians can return or decide which settlements can stay and which must go. It is simply to put the weight of the United States behind negotiations and then to do what it can to ensure that both sides live up to the terms of any agreement that is reached.
It is also to recognize that security for one side cannot come at the expense of the other. Security for Israel requires security for Palestinians.
There is no necessity for Obama to get into the details because there already is a perfectly serviceable agreement gathering dust on the shelf. It is the Clinton Parameters which former President Clinton outlined in a speech before Israel Policy Forum just before leaving office in January 2001.
During the last eight years it was considered bad form to speak with enthusiasm about how close President Clinton came to achieving Israeli-Palestinian peace. The Camp David summit in the summer of 2000 was a disaster (the Yasir Arafat/Ehud Barak duo was less interested in peace than in saving their respective careers) but at Taba in January 2001 the two sides came closer to a final status agreement than ever before. The next President needs to build on what Clinton accomplished, rather than rush from his legacy out of partisan resentment.
One thing we do not need from Obama in Israel is the full-court pander. As I said, the Jewish Democrats who do not like him are not going to change their minds. As for the Republicans, obviously they will go for Mc Cain because they are Republicans and prefer the Republican approach to a whole host of issues. Some 25-30% of American Jews are Republicans but only a tiny fraction of that group are Republican because of Israel. Jewish Republicans like the vast majority of Jewish Democrats support their respective candidate based on the whole gamut of issues that affect us as Americans. Israel is just one of them.
That means that Obama - like Kerry, Gore, and Clinton - is going to receive at least 70% of the Jewish vote simply because Jews (next to African-Americans) are the most reliably liberal segment of the electorate. Jewish voters are also the most consistently pro-civil rights, pro-choice, pro-labor and anti-Iraq war voters. Younger Jews, in particularly, are wildly enthusiastic about Obama . (The numbers I refer to are from a host of polls).
So who exactly will Obama pick up by pandering in Israel. I would say nobody. Those Jewish voters who do not want to vote for an African-American or who want a President who will defend the occupation and the status quo are not going to vote for him. Period. Nor will the group that is hell-bent on war with Iran. Fortunately, these people amount to a very few.
There is a far larger group of Jews and non-Jews that can potentially be turned off if Obama goes to Israel and reads talking points. The secret of Obama's success is that he is perceived as a break from the tired politics and policies of the past. Nothing is more tired than mouthing pieties about the Middle East.
And it's not only Jews who will be paying attention. The days when a candidate could pander to some key voting bloc, safe in the assumption that his base wouldn't find out,is long over. Obama's base relies heavily on the internet for its news (younger Americans in general get most of their information from news and opinion websites). And this "new media" almost universally rejects the belief that the best Middle East policy for America (and for Israel) is simply to endorse whatever the Israeli government does whenever it does it.
It's a new day. Let's hope Obama's visit to Israel reflects it
MJ, we must prepare ourselves for some pandering. It is inevitable.
July 11, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
+
July 11, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Although it's unlikely to happen - at least, on this trip - Obama needs to give the Israelis a sit-down and convey to them the facts of life as it pertains to our newly emerging reality:
We’re going to put up with a sharp spike in our Imperial Project casualties, $15 a gallon gas and ostracism of the world that may one day take on in-our-face/bread-and-butter dimensions? All so Israel can continue a regional foreign policy that apes the violent tantrums of a spoiled four-year-old?
...Don't bet on it. There's a gradually waxing distaste among Americans for the "status quo" of our Mideastern policy. If it gets inflamed by one more "dumb war" in the region, a sympathy "not limited exclusively to Israelis" will be the least of worries for that country's domestic U.S. enablers.
July 11, 2008 2:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
A recent poll by worldopinion.org shows 71% of Americans think that the US should take a neutral stance re the I/P conflict.
I've long thought that the Obama teams effort's to convince one-issue Jewish voters that he's A-OK on Israel is a waste of time.
Frankly, given the volatile situation in the region, Obama should never have put Israel and fer chrissakes, Jordan, on the itinerary. The numbnut "advisors" on his campaign who can't see beyond their own narrow interests should be shuffled off to the side. Such pinpoint focusing on electoral politics re Israel ignores the current situation there and in the larger ME. It's unstable as bloody hell all the way around.
Obama's visit should be put off until after he is elected and has some clout. Who knows, perhaps the IDF will finally be greenlighted to invade Gaza and the security situation become too much to contend with. Israeli politicians are beating the wardrums louder alll the time and the IDF's destruction of Hamas schools, stores, clinics, etc in the WB are adding to the hot situation. Then there's the internal political situation in Israel....it's a mess.
Obama should limit his ME visits to our base in Bahrain and Iraq and stay the hell out of Israel and the US/Israeli Protectorate of Jordan for now. Nothing but more trouble will come from this unnecessary visit as Obama will no doubt do the required forelock tugging required of all American politicians who get the special hasbara-inspired tours of Israel's VIP tourist must-sees.
The timing is terrible and completely counterproductive if regional stability and future influence there is of any measure of importance.
July 11, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, lally, Obama has to visit Israel when he goes to the Middle East. Can't see how "ducking" the issue will help at all here. For him to fly over Israel on his way to Iraq would be taken as a duck, and it'd be better to take the inevitable hit as opposed to giving the McCain/Lieberman camp ammo.
MJR, he has to pander to some degree. Tough to see a way around that. You yourself mentioned Roosevelt back in '32 saying he'd do a balanced budget, and earlier still, Lincoln's stance on slavery. Please don't go all McGovern on us this late in the game (sorry, I've read you too long). We need to win here, and if that requires a bit of pandering in the Holy Land, then so be it.
San Fernando Curt, your second and third paragraph are right on the money. But take it to its logical end.
Methinks, to quote Dr. Zaus (sp?) somewhat in the original Planet of the Apes, that if the Neocons and associated nuts keep us riding down this shoreline, they might not like what they find at the end of the trip.
I've noticed over the past several years that more and more people are complaining about our Middle Eastern foreign policy, and it's tilt. If the unmentionable happens, and the Cheneys of the world have their way, you can be damned sure that the result will not bode well for our relationship with Israel, and there will hell to pay when gas hits $10 a gallon, and you'll see much of middle America end up blaming "the jews" for the mess. There have, up to this point, been no sacrifices by middle Americans, and our people aren't up for it with the economy going down, and having been lied to repeatedly about this war.
I hate to see this poor country go down that route, but the Neocons have put us in a really bad situation, and if they insist on doubling down on this, then the only logical outcome of all this lying, $10 gas, defeat and expulsion from the Middle East, and 10% unemployment will be a hunt for scapegoats.
I really, intensely dislike the Neocons for exactly this reason. They seem to have no ability to think farther than one or two moves ahead on the chessboard of Middle East strategy.
Truth be known, social conservatives are just as responsible with all their "end times" crap, but the blame for total disaster will not fall on them. In these situations, blame alwasy tends to gravitate towards minorities of one sort or another.
All of these people (morons) acting in concert have created a very fluid situation, which, I believe, will create a disaster. Just look at the facts. Everything, and I mean everything that Bush touches crumbles into dust. Everything.
Another sad fact is that, when Obama wins, if he takes over an even worse mess than we have now, African-Americans could end up blaming the failure of his administration -- if he fails -- on.... the Jews.
These dumb asses are, in my view, working towards creating a problem (anti-semitism) that, up until this time in American history has been minor compared to other bigotry-oriented problems that we have.
I hope I'm wrong, but honestly don't think I am. Like Charlton Heston in the last scene of Planet of the Apes, if it happens, then damn them (the Neocons) all to hell.
July 11, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
smart analysis, tony
July 11, 2008 5:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tony.
I think Obama should skip Europe and Israel + Jordan until after he's elected.
My preference is for him to spend time abroad by visiting US military bases around the ME, Iraq, Afghanistan, Turkey and even some in the Stans, time permitting. That's where he'll be educated about the situation Americans face vis a vis an attack on Iran.
Israel is not a required stop nor is it en route for American politicians on their way to Iraq.
The ME and SW Asia situation is better viewed through eyes wide open at the bigger picture rather than through the usual tight telescopic focusing on and from Israel.
Oh yeah, the places I mention (in varying degrees) are also strategically critical to the success of our drawdown from Iraq.
July 11, 2008 7:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, one other thing. For those that don't think that large numbers of people could end up blaming the Jews for our misfortunes if we do something stupid, like attack Iran, just look at that shining example, Weimar Germany.
Hitler and his cohorts blamed Jews for Germany's WWI loss with absolutely no justification whatsoever. None. They "had" nothing. This "looks" far worse than that situation, in terms of the number of Jews in power, and ability to influence public policy.
I'd like to see bigotry put into a grave in this country, but if they really screw up, then all bets are off, in my view. 10% unemployment. $10 gas. Expulsion from the Middle East. Pariah status around the world. Military defeat. You have the ingredients for a really nasty meal.
If people disagree with my analysis, then please speak up. Maybe I didn't write it so well, but I believe it is a real possibility.
July 11, 2008 4:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
BTW, FYI, Joseph was a prime minister of Egypt, Esther was a wife of king Ahasuerus, Moses was an adopted grandchild of pharaon. So, as you can see, it always "looks" bad in terms of the number of Jews in power, and ability to influence public policy.
July 11, 2008 7:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 11, 2008 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Believe it or not, the other posters here are trying to have a serious discussion, with heartfelt thoughts and opinions, about a very important topic. Isn't there some other blog you can try to tear up?
July 11, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've expended on a smart analysis by Tony. If there is something in my or Tony's smart analysis that you disagree, plese speak up.
July 11, 2008 7:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg, I agree with you entirely, no pandering indeed.
If Barack is elected and he wants to be a successful President, he must play the role of an honest broker (unlike Bush) and bring peace to Israel and Palestine very early in his presidency. He needs to take up where President Clinton left off.
This is the key to winning war on terror. A settlement in the Middle East will take away from Arab and Muslim youth, the reason to turn jihadi because of their anger with plight of Palestinians.
Isn't it time that both the Israelis and Palestinians live in peace and bring up their youth in a constructive environment rather than hating each other.
July 11, 2008 8:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama must pander.
MJ wrote:
"It is simply to put the weight of the United States behind negotiations and then to do what it can to ensure that both sides live up to the terms of any agreement that is reached"
Let's be honest. Who is responsible for the mess in Middle East?
Zionists and Neocons.
Palestinians including Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all Arab countries want peace and offered Israel peace so many times. Therefore next president needs to apply the pressure on Israel, to force Israel to accept proposals by Hamas, Hezbollah and other peace loving Arabs. The next president can't apply any pressure on Palestinians. First they already agreed to have the peace with Israel. Second, any pressure on Palestinians will only hurt innocent people.
This is the truth, Some American Jews like M.J understand this truth. However, I'm afraid, most of American Jews are not real American patriots and have double loyalty. If Obama tells them the truth, they will not vote for him
July 11, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
When ever serious people try to have a talk about Israel, some antisemitic douchebag like tnathan has to ruin it.
July 11, 2008 10:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Truth hurts.
July 11, 2008 10:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
tnathan, it's extremely annoying that you take my comments entirely out of context.
Jews had no positions of power in Imperial Germany. It was German men making the decisions. Luxemburg was an activist, NOT a governmental leader responsible for the disaster that befell Germany in 1918.
Let me ask you a question -- what do you consider the proper solution here? If Jews are always causing problems, then surely you have some prescription for what ails us? What is it?
July 11, 2008 10:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
July 12, 2008 1:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, that'll work... vote for me (and shut up about Israel) or you'll be responsible for anti-semitism!
Hmm, better keep it secret, otherwise McCain could adopt the same brilliant tactics with African-Americans... vote for me or don't blame me for racism! And for Latinos... vote for me or we'll deport you!
Nosiree... no more pandering to those duplicitous Jews!
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=981690
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/6/10/23142/5640
July 11, 2008 11:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Rosenberg:
Do you ever respond to comments on your posts that support your conclusion but that you know to be inaccurate? I mean, tnathan says: "Palestinians including Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and all Arab countries want peace and offered Israel peace so many times." Really? Not in 1948. Not in 1965, when Arafat (born in Egypt) started the PLO. This was BEFORE Israel occupied part of Jordan (West Bank) and part of Egypt (Gaza). Not in 1991, when the Palestinians cheered Iraq's scud missles going overhead. Except for Egypt and Jordan, no Arab country will even have diplomatic relations with Israel, while they have no problem having relations with other countries, some of which have much worse human rights records (including against Muslims). Remember when Kuwait kicked out 600,000 Palestinians? Anybody care about that? Is it only when Israel does something?
Anyway, as far as pandering goes, Obama isn't aiming at the small "Jewish vote," he's aiming at the much larger "non-Jewish" vote. Most people still support Israel, despite decades now of slanted coverage and petrodollar-funded campaigns in universities, etc. Obama wants to take the edge off of the negative and/or suspicions of the bulk of the country. Fox News, McCain and Co. are trying to portray him as this Muslim radical. His support of Israel runs counter to that.
Finally, while it would be helpful to "solve" the P/I issue, it has never been the source of the Middle East mess, and resolving it will not end the problems there. Osama bin Laden didn't even talk about the Palestinians until the last year or so, as he joined the bandwagon of blame. If U.S. troops are stationed in Saudi Arabia, plenty of Arabs will stay plenty mad at the USA.
July 12, 2008 1:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just in case, tnathan is a neocon troll trying to ridicule the discussion, that's all, folks, just ignore him.
MJ, as always a great analysis.
With Obama, I do worry that the is going to flip-flop on the I/P peace issue in his misguided slide away from offering real solutions to problems long ignored.
He should offer you MJ a post of a senior adviser and then maybe an assistant Secretary of State on the ME affairs.
If it then comes to a public discussion between two Jews ie:
Lieberman on one side and MJ on the other who is better for Israel, no one can accuse Obama of anti-semitism.
Or will they still try anything?
My morning coffee time is over, peace to all,
July 12, 2008 8:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about pandering to the side that has launched four self-described "wars of annihilation" against the Jewish State? Is that okay with you, Rosenberg? Can Obama say to the Palestinians, "We will continue to fund you even as you explicitly target Jewish civilians for murder?" Does that prospect haunt you, Rosenberg?
No? It doesn't bother David Duke either, another anti-"Zionist" who has recently demanded that Obama never pander to the Israelis.
Again I ask: when do we get to read your belated yet impassioned column condemning Abbas' Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades for slaughtering the unarmed Jewish seminary students, Rosenberg?
July 12, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bob,
You don't understand.
Abbas' Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades slaughtered the unarmed Jewish seminary students, because they are desperate. They are desperate because of Israeli occupation. Therefore, Israel should be condemned for slaughtering the unarmed Jewish seminary students, It's exactly what Rosenberg does. Condemning Abbas' Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades would be a destruction.
July 12, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
As one who would like to see Sen. Obama elected, now that his speech to AIPAC and his selection of former Ambassador Dennis Ross as a key advisor on I/P issues has reasasured me and millions like me, I truly pray that neither Sen. Obama nor anyone advising him pays the slightest bit of attention to yet another piece of nonsense from Mr. Rosenberg.
Mr. Rosenberg has spent al year urging Democratic candidates to say nothing about their and their Party's longstanding support for a strong and secure Israel. The reason Obama is competitive in both Florida and Ohio right now is due in part to his and David Axelrod's good sense to treat Mr. Rosenberg and his J Street friends as idiots who, if the world were fair, would be on John Mccain's payroll because Rosenberg's advice to Senator Obama is exactly the advice that Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis--McCain's key aides-- would give Obama to make sure he loses!
July 12, 2008 9:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
aipacmember.
When did Obama select Dennis Ross to be his key advisor on I/P issues? Last I knew, Ross was demuring that he had a key role in Obama's camp.
I would hope MJ and his J Street cohorts could be of use by working to bypass the AIPAC et al checkpoints and facilitating access to the WH by the likes of Ephraim Halevy.
You know, in a way all this stuff is kind of beside the point until the Fall when we will know who will be leading both countries.
July 13, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says that Obama is going to Israel to pander. Maybe he's just looking to get some good falafel and hummus.
July 12, 2008 11:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"It all comes down to what one considers pro-Israel. Is it rhetorical support for every action Israel takes or is it helping Israel achieve peace?"
That's an excellent sentence.
July 13, 2008 10:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Being pro-Israel is to apply the pressure on Israel to force Israel to accept proposals by Hamas, Hezbollah and other peace loving Arabs.
July 13, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
One small vote for pander. Or with Frank Loeser (sp?) "Marry the man today, give him the girlish laughter, marry the man today and change his ways....there-after".
As with the FISA vote and anything else between now and the first Tuesday in November , Obama should do what it takes to get 271 electoral votes.
As for Weimar's "Stab in the back" those particularly blamed were non jewish middle of the road politicians. Thomas Keneally's "Gossip from the Forest" tells that story very well.
July 13, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's Loesser
July 13, 2008 11:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Surely, MJ, after the past several weeks of pandering you cannot realistically hope Obama will do anything but a full court pander while in Israel? I hope I am wrong, but I think you're just fooling yourself. After his performance at AIPAC I think it's inevitable that he go through the usual hoops of pandering when in Israel and he may even go way further in that regard than anyone expects. It's clear now that he's handed his campaign over to the usual crowd of DC consultants and wise men who always advise pandering to every group and Israel is no exception.
July 13, 2008 11:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here is some pandering even Rosenberg can appreciate...anti-Israel pandering:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said on Sunday he used “poor phrasing” in a speech supporting Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.
“You know, the truth is that this was an example where we had some poor phrasing in the speech. And we immediately tried to correct the interpretation that was given,” he said in an interview aired on Sunday on CNN’s “Fareed Zakaria — GPS.”
“The point we were simply making was, is that we don’t want barbed wire running through Jerusalem, similar to the way it was prior to the ‘67 war, that it is possible for us to create a Jerusalem that is cohesive and coherent,” Obama said.
Obama’s campaign has issued similar clarifications since the candidate’s speech to pro-Israel lobby group after he clinched the Democratic presidential nomination early last month.
In the speech, Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee that if elected president in November, he would work for peace with a Palestinian state alongside Israel. “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided,” the Illinois senator said. Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay.
July 13, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Lally, I think you make an excellent point. Senator Obama should confine his visit to the original intention of fact finding in Iraq and Afghanistan. Especially at this time, since we appear to be at the brink of some serious incident happening by accident or design to ignite an attack upon Iran.
The timing for Senator Obama's visit, as you mention, could not be worse. The tour that Senator Obama will receive in Israel and his emotional and spoken response to it will be deeply analyzed by the current Israeli government and by Israeli intelligence to judge his attitude towards future US and Israeli relations.Their conclusions may have an effect on their immediate Iranian policy.
There are too many clues to an upcoming attack to be ignored: The "Bent Spear" incident with a B-52 mistakenly transporting nuclear tipped war heads to Barksdale AFB, the jumping off point for the Middle East; Admiral Fallon's resignation; the Tonkin Gulf like incident with Iranian patrol boats and the U.S. Navy; accusations of Iran providing IEDs to Iraqi insurgents,the Kyl-Lieberman Resolution declaring Iran's Republican Guard a terrorist organization, and now the pending congressional resolution that could authorize a blockade against Iran that could be interpreted as an act of war.
As stated by other posters, war with Iran would be a disaster: massive Iranian civilian casualties, likely distruction of a U.S. Navy vessel with a shocking loss of life, $12 a gallon for gas, astronomical cost of domestic heating oil as winter approaches, transport companies sidelined and blow-back in Iran, Afghanistan and the Saudi oil fields.
Rumors abound that the danger zone for an attack on Iran is the time between the end of the China Olympic Games and the November presidential election.
Lets pray that saner heads prevail and Obama readjusts the Israeli visit and that reason trumps madness regarding any imminent attack upon Iran.
July 14, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink