Obama and the Jews
Bookworm on May 22 2008 at 9:34 am | Filed under: Anti-Semitism, Barack Obama, Jews, Media matters
I read an interesting pair of articles today — bookends, if you will — that discuss Obama’s increasingly tortured relationship with American Jews.
The first, by Sabrina Leigh Schaeffer, notes two things: first, Obama’s Israel-friendly rhetoric and, second, his numerous associations with people who are openly antisemitic and actively hostile to Israel. What thinking people have realized is that, because he has no Senate record to speak of, his rhetoric is just that — talk. However, his associations are actions. These are the people with whom he has chosen to spend time, from whom he has sought advice, and they represent the intellectual area in which he feels comfortable. From a Jewish perspective, they are not nice people:
While Reverend Wright’s anti-American and anti-Semitic ravings captured the attention of the public for weeks, it’s simply his theatrics that appear to make him the most repellant of Obama’s friends. The senator has tried to dismiss Wright as a “crazy uncle,” but if you take a closer look at the crowd the senator runs with, it appears he has a whole lot of crazy relatives to disinvite from dinner.
It was widely circulated that Wright supported — and even publicly commended — radical black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan. Yet little has been said about Sen. Obama’s relationship with Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Catholic pastor at St. Sabina, also on the South Side of Chicago. In 2004, Obama told the Chicago Sun Times that Pfleger was one of his three spiritual mentors.
Pfleger’s name became more widely recognizable two years ago when Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich appointed a Farrakhan aide to serve on a hate-crimes commission. When the appointee, Sister Claudette, refused to denounce Farrakhan’s racist and anti-Semitic remarks, three Jewish members on the commission resigned — a situation that prompted Pfleger to respond, “good riddance.”
No less reprehensible than Reverends Wright and Pfleger is the Obama campaign’s national co-chairman, retired Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Merrill “Tony” McPeak, who has made numerous anti-Semitic and anti-Israel comments. While the general has a long blame-Israel-first record, the most repugnant remark came during a 2003 interview, when he blamed the Jewish-American community for the failure of the peace process between Israel and Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat.Despite calls on Senator Obama to remove McPeak as a key adviser, the general continues to serve on the campaign.
Obama’s support among radicals in the Palestinian community — and even from Ahmed Yousef of Hamas — has not gone unnoticed. In fact, in 2003 Obama helped honor Rashid Khalidi, a well-known critic of Israel and advocate of Palestinian rights, at a celebration where anti-Israel poetry was read and the United States was sharply criticized.
[snip]
Last month, another concerning relationship came to light between the Obamas and Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of the Toledo-based Islamic organization Kindhearts for Charitable Human Development — a group shut down in 2006 for raising money for Hamas. Until recently, El-Hady had a personal website on the official Obama campaign site and Michelle Obama was listed as one of El-Hady’s three “friends.”
What’s really impressive is that the above list is incomplete. It neglects others such as Robert Malley, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Samantha Power, to name just a few more off the top of my head. In other words, once you ignore what Obama is saying — and these words are not backed by any history or action — and start looking at what he’s doing, you see that he hangs with and seeks advice from people who are antisemitic and actively hostile to the only liberal democracy in the Middle East.
That was one article.
The second article was one in the New York Times and it’s very different. It’s entitled Many Florida Jews Express Doubts on Obama, and it makes clear that the problem isn’t Obama, it’s the Jews. The article talks about how many of the Jews won’t vote for him because he’s black, it talks about the silly rumors that some Jews raise, it talks about Obama’s nice speeches on Israel, and it glosses over Jeremiah Wright entirely. It mentions Jesse Jackson as an example of a black man who is antisemitic. However, the one thing the article assiduously ignores is Mr. Obama’s apparently compelling need to surround himself with people who hate Jews. While the article’s phrasing is friendly, folksie even, it is, in fact, a nasty swipe at Florida’s elderly Jewish community and a puff piece aimed at resurrecting Obama’s reputation with Jews who are seriously concerned about a man who talks the talk, but doesn’t walk the walk.
What the New York Times has written doesn’t come close to being journalism. It’s a mean little piece of propaganda aimed at deodorizing a nasty smell that just keeps wafting up from its chosen candidate.
Email This Post To A Friend
20 Responses to “Obama and the Jews”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Book,
The NYT is practically headquarters for antisemitism this side of the Atlantic, at least outside of academe. That was a nice juxtapostion of those two articles. I guess antisemitism is not worth mentioning in the major media these days…passe, compared to all the other forms of bigotry and denial out there…
Bookworm, Brzezinski and Powers are not anti-semitic, although they have called for a more “balanced” treatment of Israel as the US formulates its Middle Eastern policy. They have been criticized for their endorsement of the paper written by Walt and Mearsheimer, which could be called wrong-headed but not motivated by racism. We will never be able to have a healthy debate on the proper level of American support for Israel when people insist on calling those that disagree with them anti-semites. It is a despicable habit that silences much-needed debate in a democracy.
echecone,
A while ago Bookworm printed the way to distinguish anti-Zionism from antisemitism. i looked for it but couldn’t find it. Book, perhaps you could locate it? One feature though is to hold Israel to a higher standard than that expected of any other country.
I leave you with these words of Martin Luther King.
Anti-Zionism = Anti-Semitism”
- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
“. . . You declare, my friend, that you do not hate the Jews, you are merely ‘anti-Zionist.’ And I say, let the truth ring forth from the high mountain tops, let it echo through the valleys of God’s green earth: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–this is God’s own truth.
“Antisemitism, the hatred of the Jewish people, has been and remains a blot on the soul of mankind. In this we are in full agreement. So know also this: anti-Zionist is inherently antisemitic, and ever will be so.
“Why is this? You know that Zionism is nothing less than the dream and ideal of the Jewish people returning to live in their own land. The Jewish people, the Scriptures tell us, once enjoyed a flourishing Commonwealth in the Holy Land. From this they were expelled by the Roman tyrant, the same Romans who cruelly murdered Our Lord. Driven from their homeland, their nation in ashes, forced to wander the globe, the Jewish people time and again suffered the lash of whichever tyrant happened to rule over them.
“The Negro people, my friend, know what it is to suffer the torment of tyranny under rulers not of our choosing. Our brothers in Africa have begged, pleaded, requested–DEMANDED the recognition and realization of our inborn right to live in peace under our own sovereignty in our own country.
“How easy it should be, for anyone who holds dear this inalienable right of all mankind, to understand and support the right of the Jewish People to live in their ancient Land of Israel. All men of good will exult in the fulfilment of God’s promise, that his People should return in joy to rebuild their plundered land.
This is Zionism, nothing more, nothing less.
“And what is anti-Zionist? It is the denial to the Jewish people of a fundamental right that we justly claim for the people of Africa and freely accord all other nations of the Globe. It is discrimination against Jews, my friend, because they are Jews. In short, it is antisemitism.
“The antisemite rejoices at any opportunity to vent his malice. The times have made it unpopular, in the West, to proclaim openly a hatred of the Jews. This being the case, the antisemite must constantly seek new forms and forums for his poison. How he must revel in the new masquerade! He does not hate the Jews, he is just ‘anti-Zionist’!
“My friend, I do not accuse you of deliberate antisemitism. I know you feel, as I do, a deep love of truth and justice and a revulsion for racism, prejudice, and discrimination. But I know you have been misled–as others have been–into thinking you can be ‘anti-Zionist’ and yet remain true to these heartfelt principles that you and I share.
Let my words echo in the depths of your soul: When people criticize Zionism, they mean Jews–make no mistake about it.”
From M.L. King Jr., “Letter to an Anti-Zionist Friend,” Saturday Review_XLVII (Aug. 1967), p. 76.
Reprinted in M.L. King Jr., “This I Believe: Selections from the Writings of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.”
Great post, Bookworm. I just added it to my Facebook profile.
BHG
Political leaders are best served by having advisors of widely varied beliefs and points of view, and it serves no purpose to quarrel about who is anti-semitic and who is not. But can we all agree that Israel and her opponents should be held to the same standards of behavior and that anyone who argues otherwise is not serious about finding an honest, moral, just peace in the Middle East?
I never knew MLK held those views or wrote those words. Thank you, Lulu.
He does not hate the Jews, he is just ‘anti-Zionist’!
People all over the world do not hate America or Americans, they are just anti-American and opposed to American policies.
Or, if they do hate America or Americans, it is because of those self-same policies.
Of course, why then anti-American sentiments aren’t the exact same as hatred of America and Americans, is best left to the philosopher and logician to resolve, for common mortals such as us it is beyond the scope of our vision.
Don, I couldn’t agree more. Which is why I’m still wondering why Brzezinsky and Powers are anti-Semitic or even anti-Zionistic. The knock on the former relates to his observation that the effect (not the intent) of Israeli retaliatory attacks in Lebanon were equivalent to killing the hostages, a reference to the loss of moral high ground and leverage in the eyes of the world community because the collateral damage was far greater than the original attack. Similar criticism occurred when the Serbs in the 90’s used disproportionate attacks on Croats. This is neither an anti-Semitic comment, nor a double standard on the part of Brzezinsky. Similarly, Powers is referred to as anti-Semitic or anti-Israel because she endorsed the findings of the Walt/Mearsheimer report, which questioned the strategic benefits to the US of such disproportionate support of the country, and which drew as much praise from pro-Israeli commentators (although more in Israel than the US) as it did criticism. While you can legitimately quarrel with many findings in the report, the main point of it is that Israel receives more aid by far than any other ally and is the only one that does not have to account for its use, and that such “unequal treatment” of Israel may not be in the US’ interest. If Bookworm is interested in equal treatment for Israel versus all other countries and other countries, then she should not label as anti-Semitic those that are calling for exactly the same.
Lulu, I wonder how we can have a rational discussion on the proper amount of support for Israel if every criticism of the country’s actions is construed as anti-Zionist and thus anti-Semitic. MLK’s words are no doubt eloquent, but we are far past the time when Jews are denied entry into Wall Street firms and white-shoe law firms…they now are partners in those firms, which is a great thing. Not sure what it has to do with legitimate disagreements on Middle East policy though…
I think the answer to the concern about Obama’s advisors, all of whom have been in one degree or another hostile to Israel, lies in the unique nature of the debate about Israel. Unlike disagreements between other countries, which go to trade issues, or water issues, or border disputes, or type of government, the dispute here is binary and absolute: Does Israel have the right to exist? Israel and her friends say she does. The Palestinians and Arabs, in their charters, their rhetoric, their religion, and their actions say she does not, nor do her citizens. For the Palestinians, other Arabs, and Iranians, it’s not about a village or a river or a water well. It’s about the genocide of a people and the destruction of a nation. They’ve been quite clear about this.
Israel, Jews and friends of Israel, therefore, have to accept that those who consistently support the Palestinians are either fools or they have an agenda. That is, they’re fools if they go around spouting off about two state solutions and peace, and completely ignore that the Palestinians give this concept lip service only. When the two-state issue was really available, Arafat said no. When Israel makes concessions, Palestinians make none. The Hamas charter, Hamas rhetoric and Hamas actions make clear that they seek a Jew-free one-state solution. In the face of that talk and those acts, only a fool could pretend that a two-state solution would work, if only Israel (not the Palestinians, just Israel) would give a little more, and a little more, and a little more, and a little more.
Alternatively, if these advisers who keep pushing the Palestinian viewpoint, all the while loudly proclaiming their support for Israel, are not fools, then they must be aware of the actual Palestinian (Arab, Iranian, Muslim) solution, which is the end to Israel’s existence. And they therefore must be antisemitic, no matter how loudly they proclaim that they love Israel and the Jews and just want peace.
Remember, it was the Romans who made a desert and called it peace.
Ultimately, when one side wants only to live in peace, and the other side seeks only blood or destruction, you have to choose your sides. There is no middle. And one when Presidential candidate consistently chooses as his advisers those who opt for the side that advances death and destruction, no matter how prettily they wrap it up in nice phrases about two state solutions and peace, you begin to get suspicious (to put it mildly).
Incidentally, on this subject, I acquit Bush of being evil. I think he’s one of the fools, with his talk of two state solutions. I also think he’s finally begun to realize that he’s been used, with his speech to the Knesset being the first acknowledgment of his former failure of understanding. I reserve judgment on Condi Rice, since I haven’t yet decided if she’s merely a credulous fool or if she too has a deeper agenda.
The moment the Palestinians stop calling for and acting to achieve Israel’s destruction, I will take seriously their claim that they seek a second state (and we’ll just ignore that Jordan was created out of whole cloth decades ago to be precisely that), and I’ll be less suspicious of those in the West who are their champions.
As long as the situation on the ground is binary, though, I’m going to view as hostile those who choose the side of death over the side of life — and that’s true no matter how they protest their deep and abiding philosemitism.
Let’s put it this way, Echiccone: it would certainly help appraisals of whether Carter and Brzezinsky are or are not anti-semitic if we could measure whether they condemned the Palestinians and Israelis equally and based upon same criteria. If they don’t, can we then impute bias?
Can we agree on this?
You’re too reasonable for this irrational world, Book.
Can we agree on this?
Danny, you and EC can’t even agree on what historical events actually occurred. Whatever agreements develop on the subject of your question, will be superficial at best.
Book is right beyond a doubt. Those hostile to Israel all want to wipe out its existence and commit genocide of its people, and those who consistently support groups hostile to Israel (like the palestinians) are totally stupid or evil. Israel has done nothing but good in the region and only want peace, as the article in the WSJ so clearly showed today, and the Jewish state is only fulfilling God’s will. Anyone who opposes Israel’s will should fear God’s wrath and pay heed to what happened to the Romans, whose empire collapsed because they messed with the Jews. Americans must choose sides: the right side or the evil one. I know which side I’m on.
dg, try and get an actual intel analysis of your opponents before doing a fake half baked parody attempt.
dg almost inadvertently brings up a good point. The truth is that most on the American left who criticize Israel and propose the two-state solution do not, in fact, want to see Israel destroyed. They just cannot wrap their heads around the idea that the Palestinians are serious about committing genocide and driving the Israelis into the sea. It’s not that the Palestinians have tried to hide their desires or that the American left shares those desires. The American left simply cannot believe and do not believe what the Palestinians are saying. In Bookworm’s parlance, that makes them fools. It does not, however, make them anti-semitic and attaching such labels does not further the dialogue any more than Helen’s labeling all white Americans “racists or recovering racists” further the racial dialogue in this country. Such name-calling is singularly pointless.
Still, my question remains, “But can we all agree that Israel and her opponents should be held to the same standards of behavior and that anyone who argues otherwise is not serious about finding an honest, moral, just peace in the Middle East?” I seriously doubt you will find a single advisor in Obama’s camp, anti-semitic or not, who holds the Palestinians to the same standard of behavior as they do Israel.
Don, I agree with your condition but wonder whether you don’t need to carefully define the behavior. What I mean by that is Jews before the founding of Israel resorted to what we would call terrorism (e.g., bombing the King David hotel, targeting British officers) in order to win a state. They did this because they lacked a modern army with which to compete with the occupying British forces. Now, the Palestinians are in the same position. Of course, the Jews at that time were not seeking to eradicate the Arabs from the area–this was well documented in today’s WSJ article, which I think DG referenced–so it was not the same brand of terror/guerilla warfare that Islamic groups employ. Nonetheless, the test cannot simply be: if you use tanks it is legitimate but if you use molotov cocktails it’s not. Do you see what I mean?
Now, why do you think that Powers and Brzezinski don’t hold Israel and the Palestinians to the same standard? Also, why are you so confident that the Palestinians think so monolithically about Israel? And why are you so confident that there is not a single Israeli that wants to eliminate all Palestinians? I am not an expert on this area, so I’d like to know how it is so clear-cut.
Echeccone – you state that…”Jews before the founding of Israel resorted to what we would call terrorism (e.g., bombing the King David hotel, targeting British officers) in order to win a state.”
First, did you mean some Jews or all Jews. Second, this was a military target. In most circles, terrorism is defined as acts of violence directed against civilians in order to sow terror and confusion in civilian populations. You could have chosen another example, such as the raid at Deir Yassin by Begin’s Irgun and you would have been more accurate. However, in that case the raid was roundly condemned by Ben Gurion’s Haganah, the dominant Jewish liberation organization, which actually considered arresting Begin. Oh that “responsible” Palestinian authorities would ever consider doing the same. However, I challenge you to cite a case where Israel intentionally brought military action against the Palestinian civilian population.
Where your thesis breaks down is that Gaza is an independent entity and it is Gaza that is waging war against Israeli citizens, not the other way around. Also, Israel has multiple times extended the offer of peace and independence to Palestinians only to have the Palestinians spit the offer back in their face. For example, I knew right away that the Oslo Accords between Arafat and Israel were a sham (a “Hudna”) when, shortly thereafter, it was revealed that Palestinian children were still being taught that their life objective was the eradication of Israel.
The original formula still applies – if Israel lays down its weapons, it dies. If the Palestinians lay down their weapons, they get peace. I know Palestinians that understand this (ergo, I agree with you that Palestinians don’t think monolithically – unfortunately, those willing to live side-by-side with Israel are a voiceless minority – they get killed for expressing their views). How come you don’t get it?
I know very good, decent Palestinians (here in the U.S.) who want nothing but peace. I recognize their human qualities as individuals and extend them my sympathy as one human being to another. As a group, however, Palestinians pretty much stand all the way at the back of the line of the “peoples” around the world deserving of human sympathy. Their misery is their own doing – and that of their fellow Arab nations and Islamic supporters.
DQ, you wrote…”The American left simply cannot believe and do not believe what the Palestinians are saying.” I respectfully disagree – I just think that most believe, but don’t care.
YM, good job! You get today’s “Spot the Troll” Award!
Hi echeccone,
I thought we were having a reasoned argument until I read, “why are you so confident that the Palestinians think so monolithically about Israel? And why are you so confident that there is not a single Israeli that wants to eliminate all Palestinians? ” Come now, no one is saying that every single Palestinian is genocidal or that not a single Israeli is. Your usual analysis is too rigorous to set up such useless strawmen. But the fact is that the Palistinian leadership makes it crystal clear that they seek the elimination of Israel and the Israeli leadership makes is crystal clear that they do not seek the elimination of the Palestinians.
And it is unquestioned that the Palestinians have spent the last half century targeting civilians in Israel and celebrating every civilian death. Israelis have targeted only military targets, intentionally killed civilians only when they were being used to shield military targets and mourned the lost of civilian life. Yet the Powers’ and Brzezinski’s of the world greet every Palestinian civilian death with condemnation of Israel and every Israeli civilian death with a yawn. Is it really so hard for the American left to say, out loud, that those who target civilians (and use civilians as shields) are more worthy of condemnation than those who seek to avoid civilian casualties? Until they do, I submit that their morals are suspect and their suggested solutions are not to be taken seriously.
EC seems to think that every military officer agrees with a policy of war towards a nation because they carry it out. Just because Palestinians obey their people’s extermination policies against Israel, does not mean all Palestinians agree with such policies. But such is also irrelevant as well.