Tikun Olam-תקון עולם: Make the World a Better Place

Shmuel Rosner reports with displeasure an important statement Barack Obama made in his meeting with Ohio Jewish leaders yesterday about what it means to be a pro-Israel presidential candidate. What it does NOT mean is that your views have to coincide with those of Likud. It’s been a good few months since I’ve read anything this good from Obama about the Israeli-Arab conflict. Admittedly, it’s not a dissertation and it’s not comprehensive. But given where it is at this point in a heated, nasty campaign season I’ll take it (the Obama quotation is via Shmuel Rosner):

I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have a honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress. And frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward. And that I think is something we have to have an honest dialogue about.

There are those on the left like Ali Abunimah who will never be with Obama. As for me, this statement indicates that he “gets it.” You know in this potential president’s body beats a heart that yearns to do the right thing regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I will concede that Obama has done and said things in this regard over the past months which I’ve criticized. Things which indicated that he was trimming his political sails on behalf of AIPAC. And I wouldn’t argue that Obama is a candidate who deserves carte blanche for one good statement (in fact, there are elements of this comments here which I thought were standard AIPAC talking points). But I believe in giving credit where it’s due and it IS due for this forthright statement.

Indicative of how the pro-Israel Jewish press received this comment, Shmuel Rosner immediately pounced on it as an impermissible expression of political preference on the part of an American politician. In other words, Obama was somehow interfering in the Israeli political process by saying what he did:

Would Obama be supportive of an Israel governed by Likud?

No, the candidate did not say that he will not support Israel in such a case…But he did make a questionable comment that can be seen as meddling in the internal politics of Israel…

Here’s what I think he was saying:

I do not agree with the policies of the Likud Party. I also don’t think it is mandatory for someone to accept the policies of the Likud as to be considered a friend of Israel. That’s why you can still count me as a friend.

The thing worthy of attention here: Obama was not shy about expressing political preferences regarding Israel. The fact that Obama does not agree with the policies of the Likud Party should not be an astounding surprise. And of course he is right: Supporting Likud and supporting Israel is not the same thing. However, the fact that Obama mentions a party by name – singling it out as an example – can be seen as more problematic. By doing so, he is basically telling both American and future Israeli voters this: If Israel elects Netanyahu and Americans elect Obama – we might have a problem.

As usual, Rosner gets it all wrong. Obama is not at all saying he disagrees with the Likud or that he could not work with a Likud government. His statement has nothing to do with internal Israeli politics. It has everything to do with U.S. presidential politics and the definition of what a “pro-Israel” candidate is. Do all candidates have to be holier than AIPAC to deserve Jewish support? Do they have to hew to a policy agenda to the right of the Likud to have credibility? Obama’s correct answer is, “not at all.”

Does this mean that if Obama had a vote in Israel he would vote against Likud? Maybe so. But it says nothing whatsoever about how he would interact as U.S. president with a Likud prime minister. Not to mention that if our next president’s name was McCain and the next prime minister’s name was Netanyahu, I’d predict relations would be no less rocky. McCain doesn’t suffer fools gladly. And Netanyahu is one nasty, strutting, sour and unlikable politician and human being. How do you think McCain would get along with him? I have no doubt that if McCain becomes president he would project a much more robust engagement with Israeli-Arab affairs than Bush has, and that he would have a policy not that much different than Obama would. And this would bring him into conflict with a recalcitrant, obstreporous and obstructionist Netanyahu.

Rawstory also covered the Obama meeting and did me the favor of linking to a critical reference I made here to Rosner’s conservative politics. Its coverage also includes interesting CNN video footage on the same subject.