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.
I think you are being naive if you don’t think people, particularly Israelis, are not going to view this as direct interference in internal Israeli policy. I believe you are going to see a strong reaction to this. Most Israelis, as you yourself have admitted, do not view your ideas for what Israeli policy should be as representing their viewpoints, and if Obama is adopting them, as he is indeed adopting your “progressive” phraeseology, then he should not be surprised if there is a lot of anger and mobilization against his campaign. Rosner is no “right-winger” and if someone like him is concerned, then that shows something.
I am becoming more convinced daily that Obama will not be able to win against McCain. His wife’s comment (and, yes, what his wife says can not be excluded from the campaign) that only now she is “proud of being an American” shows a lot of arrogance, that somehow the American people are morally bound to elect Obama as President. I see how Hillary also criticized him for apparently saying that he was “unconditional engagement” with countries like Syria and Iran. This just shows that he is going to carry out a Jimmy Carter-like policy of appeasement of hostile regimes. Again, that may be what you want, but I don’t believe the American people want a reply of Carter’s disastrous foreign policy (and I am NOT referring to his involvement in the Sadat-Begin talks which he initially opposed, according to a new biography of Begin), I am referring to his general foreign policy . (Americans look at things beyond the Israeli/Arab conflict).
As a counter point, please note that AIPAC is actively interfering in American politics and elections, including the presidential election now, and has been for decades.
However, this pro-Israel lobby heavy involvement in American INTERNAL politics is par for the course and acceptable to Americans, chiefly because most Americans do not know about it and AIPAC and the lobby….
Nothing wrong with a foreign government interfering in a nation’s elections, lobbying to pass laws that will benefit the foreign nation, change a foreign policy….
Speaking has a member of aipac I’d like to point out something to American Goy ( a term which nobody that I know uses btw ) AIPAC is made up of American citizens. And believe me nobody takes direction from Israel. If you think that American Jews have no right to participate in American elections say so. But don’t put out outright lies.
Did you see the debate last night on MSNBC? You can watch it in full or by segment on NYTimes’s website. i was incredibly uncomfortable with Tim Russert lumping all American Jews together with Israel supporters (it was insinuated that American-Jews stand by Israel 100% and believe it is right all of the time… ie. right-wing zionist mentality). The way the question and discussion went made it seem like American-Jews would drop Obama in a second if he showed any wavering on being Pro-Israel… it was really awful… and dangerous in my humble opinion. when are American-Jews going to be seen for the politically diverse group that they are (some Jews couldn’t care less about Israel *gasp!*)… oh, and that they don’t control American politics!!!!
Speaking as a Jewish-American with a great interest in politics – I really lilke what Obama said. I agree with Bill to some degree – AIPAC has every right to lobby and strong arm politics as they wish. It’s not interference – it’s the American political system. However, I put them on par with the NRA. They are bullies and a great deal of time their blind pursual of their agenda makes them miss the forest for the trees and work against what I ultimately believe to be their own interest.
Obama clearly understands this – as do progressives like Richard and myself do believe that the end to a safe secure Israel is through negotiations and peace. The neo-con idea of eternal war – particularly with Iran will only add to more bloodshed, and insecurity.
I would expect that many Israeli’s understanding of the nuances of American politics, and AIPAC’s role in it have as deep un understanding of my own understanding of the nuances of Israeli politics (ie I don’t feel that I do have a deep understanding). It doesn’t surprise me at all that they would misunderstand Obama’s comments.
But Obama has worded exactly what I feel. Too many American Jews are EXTREMELY ignorant of the most basic elements of Israeli politics and easily buy into the pro-Likud=pro-Israel arguement. I’m sick of what the neo-cons have done to US foreign policy the last 8 years – and the only hope for all of us is to find someone with the guts to un-do it. I think Obama is the most likely candidate for that. Clearly McCain is the opposite (and Clinton probably somewhere between the two…)
Seeing as how two of AIPAC’s high ranking members will soon be tried for espionage, I think American Goy may have some legitimate concerns about this treasonous organization and its treasonous membership. There is no doubt that money and particularly Zionist money has become too important in our political process. Especially without any real srutiny from our Zionist/Corporate controlled media. This Lobby is why there was no meaningful investigation of the Mossad spies that followed the hijackers around the United States in the year before 9/11. 9/11 of course made the Iraq war for Israel all possible. Had Iraq gone alittle better I’m sure we would already be at war for Israel in Iran. Did you see all those yapping Zionists talking heads on cable news after the NIE report was released. Those were all Zionist members of AIPAC also. I sure of it.
Re: ethnic lobbies in USA.
I have spoken to Mr. Silverstein re: my views of ethnic lobbies lobbying for the benefit of a foreign government.
Let me just say that we have agreed to disagree 🙂
And by ethnic lobbies, I do not mean just AIPAC – there is the very powerful Cuban Exiles lobby which has been exerting very effective pressure on US politics about their single issue interest – Cuba economic blockade.
While it is true that it is legal, and Mr. Silverstein and Mr. Scott Ritter believe in the freedom of speech taken to the extreme of lobbying on behalf of a foreign government, I do not.
My personal view.
Re: AG
AmericanGoy is my calling card – *I* call myself that.
Feel free to google me.
Cheers everybody!
They were staff members and not the highest ranking though not the lowest either.
Oh God…must we go there? This borders on hysteria.
How dreary. Are you channeling Ward Churchill?
Indeed there will be…fr. you, Rosner & the Likud. That’s it. No one else in Israel will give a crap, nor should they.
That’s preposterous & I’ve said just the opposite. The majority of my views are accepted by the majority of Israelis.
I assure you Obama is not “adopting my views.” His views are his own & influenced by his own view of the conflict. As president, he will implement a policy close to Bill Clinton’s with some nuances perhaps. This will annoy you no end no doubt. But you are a supporter of the settler movement & yr views are by no means representative of the avg. Israeli. Obama’s policies will be acceptable to the majority of Israelis.
Being the respected political observer you are I accord you utmost deference & whatever you predict will undoubtedly happen. From yr mouth to God’s ears, as it were (!).
As usual, you mangle reality. What Obama said was that he was in favor of talks with Iran & Syria “without preconditions.” He did not say he was in favor of “unconditional engagement” & I don’t even know what this means.
Aw c’mon. You’re full of hot air. His policy will be similar to Clinton’s as I already wrote. Except for a few disastrous mistakes like Rwanda & not pursuing Bin Laden muscularly, Clinton’s foreign policy was first-rate; as will be Obama’s if he is elected.
AIPAC certainly doesn’t take direction fr. the Israeli gov’t. But it is profoundly influenced by certain sectors of the Israeli political scene–the far-right nationalists & Likud which are farther to the right than the Israeli gov’t–at least the current one. If Netanyahu wins the next election then AIPAC WILL be taking direction fr. Israel; or at least doing Netanyahu’s bidding.
Richard,
I heard a poll reported on Israel radio (the “Hakol Diburim” show) yesterday where they asked Israelis “who would you rather have as President-Hillary or Obama?”. (I imagine the polling was done before Obama’s remarks about the Likud). The results were
Hillary 62%
Obama 22%
So apparently Israelis ARE concerned about Obama.
I don’t trust polls unless I know who did them; what the questions were, etc. All I can say is that I’m glad Americans are voting for U.S. president rather than Israelis. As far as I’m concerned Israelis haven’t voted right since they elected Yitzhak Rabin.