The NY Times began its story on Clinton and Obama’s appearances at the AIPAC national policy conference with this paragraph:
As Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama compete for Jewish donors and voters, Mrs. Clinton is following a tried-and-true rule of hers from New York — support Israel to the last — while Mr. Obama is trying a more delicate strategy that hit some bumps this week.
Hillary clearly is shooting for the Jewish fat cat donors, the typical AIPAC national leader. She really has no interest in what American Jews believe. Nor does she care that the fat cats represent no one but themselves and a thin slice of the right wing of this community. It’s the money she cares about and the power they represent within the confines of the national party.
Obama, however, is following a much more nuanced path which makes him a far more interesting and provocative candidate. Can you imagine a presidential candidate uttering the word “Palestinian” before the most red meat pro-Israel crowd in the entire U.S.? As I’ve written here, it takes guts. I think guts is what we need in a president at this juncture in our existence. Hillary Clinton may have guts but she’s sure not showing any in this campaign so far. I guess you could say it takes a kind of guts to say: “I’m not apologizing for supporting the Iraq war and if you don’t like it go elsewhere.” But that’s not exactly the kind of guts I had in mind. I’m talking about the guts to tell an audience something it needs to hear but doesn’t want to. Bill Clinton could do that and get away with it. I guess Hillary either doesn’t trust herself or her audience enough to do that. And that says something about her and what type of candidate she is and what type of president she would be:
Mr. Obama, meanwhile, is making a personal overture to Jewish voters that threads together history from slavery to the Holocaust to Jim Crow. Yet he is also talking about the needs of the Palestinians. Less experienced than Mrs. Clinton in the thicket of Jewish and Middle Eastern politics, he became a bit tangled in the eyes of some voters during his appearance Monday at the same conference that Mrs. Clinton attended, a forum sponsored by the America Israel Public Affairs Committee, known as Aipac.
Several Jewish conferencegoers said they were concerned by Mr. Obama’s remark Sunday in Iowa where, in a reference to the Middle East, he said, “Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.”
Mr. Obama has said in the past that both Israelis and Palestinians had “suffered” because of the lack of a peace agreement, and a spokesman said on Tuesday that Mr. Obama believed “the security of Israel should be America’s starting point in the Middle East.” Yet by singling out Palestinian suffering on Sunday, Mr. Obama could be tempting fate with some Jewish voters.
“Awarding first place in the suffering matrix is odious and infelicitous,” said Rabbi Steven Silver of Redondo Beach, Calif., after listening to Mrs. Clinton speak at a reception at the Aipac conference. “I think a lot of Americans would find that comment offensive, too.”
Mr. Silver’s son, Jesse, a college student who supports Mrs. Clinton, said he was spreading the word at the conference about Mr. Obama’s remark.
“It’s just clumsy of him to say that on the eve of the Aipac conference,” Jesse Silver said. “His inexperience is showing.”
Can someone please explain to me how a single rabbi from Redondo Beach and a single college student constitute a serious representation of Jewish opinion or even AIPAC opinion concerning Obama?? I have no doubt that there may be some concern among some AIPAC leaders about Obama’s pro-Israel “bona fides,” but these two vignettes are not very convincing even as “bumps” as the reporter calls them.
There is one theme that I wish every reporter who ever writes about AIPAC would remember. It represents nothing but itself and the thin slice of hardline pro-Israel Jewish opinion that exists in this community. The majority of American Jews do not agree with many AIPAC positions. For example, the latest Gallup poll says 77% of American Jews oppose the war, the second highest percentage of any religious group in this country. Yet, unbelievably Nancy Pelosi was BOOED (you heard me) when she told an AIPAC audience that the Democratic Party opposed the war. That says it all in a nutshell. When will reporters start reporting that?
At any rate, there was more of Obama’s preaching which I liked:
…While Mr. Obama flatly said at one point, “I am pro-Israel,” he also pointedly mentioned the Palestinians.
Toward the end of his speech, after heaping praise on Israel, he said, “All of us are committed to two states living side by side in peace.” And as soon as there were Palestinian partners who “renounced violence,” he added, peace negotiations with Israel should unfold. These remarks drew scattered applause.
Mr. Obama also set off some murmurs at his reception by talking about cynicism, which he alternately called the “biggest enemy” and “one of the enemies” of peace in the Middle East.
“One of the enemies we have to fight — it’s not just terrorists, it’s not just Hezbollah, it’s not just Hamas — it’s also cynicism,” Mr. Obama said.
You see, you can’t denounce cynicism at an AIPAC conference because delegates know its another word for peace and AIPACers prefer the existing situation to peace. They’re scared as hell of peace because they know peace means compromise; peace means giving up settlements; peace means giving up Greater Israel; peace means a Palestinian state. The fact that it also means Arab recognition of Israel and an end to Palestinian terror apparently means little or nothing to them; or else they simply do not believe that Arabs are capable of ending their deadly campaign against Israel. There’s only one word for that: cynicism. And AIPAC apparently believes in cynicism as far as the Israeli-Arab conflict is concerned.
Your assertion that AIPACers are against peace because they don’t want to give up the settlements is a gross falsehood and one that is unfortunately shared by most of your compatriots on the left, Jews and non-Jews.
The skepticism of many Jews and Israelis towards peace with the Palestinians is not due to any “greater Israel” strategy, but to the reality of unremitting Palestinian violence and hostility. I am an American/Israeli who lives in Israel (and an AIPAC member), and like many I was in favor of the Oslo accords and voted for Rabin and afterwards Peres. However, after the appalling reign of terror imposed on us by the Palestinians (this was before walls and checkpoints, mind you) I and many like me threw “the peace process” into the garbage and voted for Sharon.
Since the, I’ve seen no reason to modify my stance. Terror continues apace. The disengagement was followed by the pointless firing of rockets into Israeli territory. Hamas was elected on a platform of no recognition, and the continuance of their glorious “resistance”. This isn’t “cynicism”. It is common sense.
Everyone with a historical perspective longer than the last newspaper headline remembers Oslo, the many compromises Israel made, and what the response was of the Palestinians. That doesn’t mean that peace can’t be explored, but the door should be opened a crack, not thrown wide open. The only strategy that has a possibility of working is relentless international pressure, including economic pressure, to recognize Israel and crackdown on terror, and I doubt that even this will work. In the meantime, if you on the left continue to misunderstand people like me, and lump us with the settlers, you will alienate the deciding majority of Israeli society, without whom peace is absolutely impossible.
The foolhardiness of your views is apparent to most people except yourself. I could just as justifiably precisely mirror what say with the following: “The skepticism of many Palestinians toward peace with Israel is not due to any desire to destroy Israel, but to the reality of unremitting Israeli violence & hostility.” Two can play at yr game.
Remind me again of what they were. Which settlements were withdrawn? Which new settlements weren’t built? When was that Palestinian state recognized? All called for by Oslo & never realized. I’m not saying the Palestinians were angels. Just that there’s more than enough blame to go round & you apologists do your side no favors by stooping to such inaccurate historical propaganda.
No, I think you misunderstand yourself. Along with many other Israelis you fancy yourself an enlightened human being. Like Irving Kristol you were just mugged by reality (or the Palestinians in yr case). But you can’t have it both ways. You can’t call yourself enlightened and refuse to accept the necessity of withdrawal to ’67 borders in return for Arab recognition & an end to hostilities. That’s the bottom line. You either accept that or you’re as good as a settler as far as I’m concerned.
Someday the majority of Israelis will accept a withdrawal to ’67 borders. Either that or it will be forced upon them by the “relentless pressure” of the international community.
“I was in favor of the Oslo accords and voted for Rabin and afterwards Peres.”
And who killed Yitzhak Rabin, who was serioulsy working for a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians? An Israeli let into the square by the Israeli Shinn Bet(sp?).
“Hamas was elected on a platform of no recognition, and the continuance of their glorious “resistance”.”
You are ignorant of the fact that it’s Hamas’s position of recognition of Israel as a state within the pre-June 1967 borders.
“The only strategy that has a possibility of working is relentless international pressure, including economic pressure, to recognize Israel and crackdown on terror, and I doubt that even this will work.”
You are living some kind of dream. Many people in Israel don’t even share your position. The only strategy that will work, will be for the U.S. to put pressure on Israel to agree to a contigeous Palestinian state. This could be along the lines of an unofficial agreement worked out in Geneva Switzerland between some Israeli and Palestinian officials and former President Jimmy Carter in 2003. I believe that Obama will in fact properly put pressure on both sides, and that he will make it a top priority to settle the Israeli-Palestinian dispute.
That article is a great description of the way the two candidates are maneuvering their individual way through the minefield of financial support. I would like to see edwards announce that he had made the mistake of pandering to this lobby because of their financial and political power, he ought to go and yell it from the mountaintops, he will wish later that he had done that, he ought to reframe the debate and make it about the powers that led us into war, he stands no chance of competing otherwise. i believe that if he takes that stand he would attract disenchanted voters and at the same time emasculate aipac of the furtive power they wield by making their agenda known to the mainstream american voter who is oblivious to this very pertinent fact. As you can tell i dislike the way aipac operates and the way they have been able to maintain their position as the elephant in the room for as long as they have. i realize this is all wishful thinking on my part.
one day soon i hope they are made to register as the agent of a foreign government.
There is a very serious problem right now that the United States – under the Bush/Cheney neo-con foreign policy is currently viewed as having given up any sort of pretence of having ANY sort of independence in brokering the Isreali-Palestinian conflict as opposed to being 100 percent supporter of Israel.
As an American citizen who happens to both be Jewish and a Progressive, I have trouble believing, despite any protests to any sort of nuanced policy – that AIPAC is anything short of a 100-percent supporter of the Neo-con AND REPUBLICAN ideology. Sure they may support some Democratic candidates – but those will always be in States/Districts where a Republican has no chance to ever be elected (New York City, Chicago, and so on).
I’m sure there are rank-and-file supporters of AIPAC (like MarkC perhaps) who feel otherwise, but the people pulling the strings in that organization will ALWAYS ultimately undermine Democratic policy.
Furthermore – it seems to me most American Jews (at least the ones I am in contact with) are EXTREMELY ignorant of the political debate that goes on WITHIN Israel. They may have some ideas of who the players are (Olmert, Peretz, Netanyahu and so on) – but I doubt they truly understand it. It is equally clear to ME that AIPAC, as they are aligned with the right-wing neo-cons in this country – are equally aligned with the most right-wing political element in Israel.
I can’t believe there is any Democrat who seriously wants a war with Iran, particularly an attack by the US with nuclear weapons. But there is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly what the neo-cons – (and the extreme right in Israel) are after…
Never mind. I can see that you’re an idiot.
MarkC, you make a very strong defense of your position and you have exposed the fallacies in Dans assertions. The truth is disarming and usually causes the fallacies that come under its scrutiny to resort to other tactics which allow it to continnue its charade.
yeah that.
This is the best that AIPAC & its supporters has to offer in the way of argument.
Say what? Unless you mean this ironically (which it doesn’t seem you do), you’ve completely undercut every single previous comment you’ve published at this blog. You say you’re an opponent of AIPAC & MarcC is an ardent supporter. I’m confused…
This is the best that AIPAC & its supporters has to offer in the way of argument.
it was my way of say what you said richard.
Marc C I don’t get your position. You seem to contradict yourself. You said.
Then in the next paragraph you said:
Since the Oslo accords were about dismantling the settlements, and AIPAC by your own admission supports the settlements, why would you support Oslo or vote for Rabin? That makes no sense.
Since I believe is not possible without dismantling the settlements, in my view aipac is an obstacle to peace, not to mention justice.