Posted October 6 2008
On Jeremiah Wright and Barack Obama
Simulblogged from http://jews4barack.com/react/?p=21…
There are so many things wrong with the attacks leveled against Senator Barack Obama because of his relationship with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright and the Trinity Universal Church of Christ that it is hard to know where to begin a discussion of them.
“The company he keeps”
First and foremost is the fact that even if every offensive, crazy belief attributed to Wright were true, there isn’t an iota of evidence that Obama shares even a single one of them, and ample evidence that he does not. Obama’s attackers have resorted to outright lies in their efforts to make the opposite case; these absurd attacks have been debunked time and time again, on this Web site, on many others, and in the mainstream media.
The attackers are fond of reminding us to “judge the man [Obama] by the company he keeps.” However, they choose to judge Obama only by Wright and a few other supposed Obama associates. This falls apart under close scrutiny for two reasons:
- Many of these supposed associates of Obama aren’t, in fact, associates of his at all. Ayers, Brzezinski, Malley, Soros, and many others who Obama has, at best, met once or twice in his life, are suddenly “close friends,” “key advisers,” “financial backers,” etc. The truth is, they’re not.
- The attackers conveniently fail to mention his many long-time close associates who don’t support their claims. They mention Jeremiah Wright but not Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf or Ira Silverstein; William Ayers but not Robert Wexler; George Soros but not Lester Crown or Alan Solomont.
The attackers say that we must look to Obama’s (supposed) associates to determine his views on Jews and Israel because he has no objective record in these areas for us to evaluate. The absurdity of this claim is obvious to anyone who takes a few minutes to read about Obama’s legislative record and his good relationship with his Jewish constituents and colleagues throughout his career. See, for example, what Obama has to say about Israel on his own Web site, generally and in detail.
“20 years of crazy sermons”
The attackers repeatedly hammer home the point, “How could Obama have sat through these crazy, offensive speeches for 20 years?” There are a number of flaws in this particular angle of attack:
- The sound bites of Wright’s sermons which were circulated around the internet and which precipitated the controversy were intentionally taken out of context to change their meaning and make them seem more offensive. There’s no getting around the fact that some of those comments were pretty radical. However, they were not nearly as radical as the detractors would like you to believe, as you can see for yourself if you watch them in context (see, for example, this video on YouTube).
- Wright served as pastor at Trinity for 36 years. That means he gave over 1,800 sermons during his tenure. To suggest that accurate conclusions about 1,800 sermons can be drawn from two of three minutes of sound bites is patently absurd.
- All of the sound bites were taken from the last few years of Wright’s ministry, years during which, coincidentally enough, Obama was spending most of his time working as a Senator and not attending church often. People change when they get older, and pastors are no exception. It is far more plausible to believe that as Wright neared retirement, the tone and content of his sermons changed, than it is to believe that the Universal Church of Christ, a mainstream, predominantly white denomination, would allow Wright to give offensive sermons on a regular basis for 36 years at the largest church in the denomination. Anyone who has belonged to a church or synagogue whose spiritual leader retired just a few years later than he or she should have knows that this is so.
If you want proof that the Jeremiah Wright demonized by the media is not the Jeremiah Wright who first inspired Barack Obama, all you need do is read the 1990 Wright sermon which inspired the title of Obama’s book, The Audacity of Hope. Both the full text of the sermon and an audio recording (part 2) are available on-line.
“Two degrees of separation”
Now that we’ve shown how absurd it is to claim that Jeremiah Wright’s views have anything to do with Barack Obama’s, let’s move on from the absurd guilt-by-association smear to the even more absurd guilt-by-association-once-removed smear. Yes, that’s right, it’s time to play the Louis Farrakhan game!
Barack Obama has never associated with Louis Farrakhan, never appeared together with Louis Farrakhan, never endorsed a single one of the vile views about Jews and Israel which Louis Farrakhan espouses. This is particularly remarkable given that both Obama and Farrakhan cut their political eyeteeth in Chicago. In fact, Obama would have had to go out of his way to avoid having any association with Farrakhan, and in fact, that is exactly what he did. Not only that, but Obama has repeatedly, over the course of many years, denounced Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, even though that surely was not helpful to his efforts to win the support of the black community in his home town. And so, in typical smear-monger style, Obama’s attackers take the plain fact that Obama has nothing whatsoever to do with Farrakhan and espouses none of his offensive views, turn it on its head, and claim that Wright’s and Trinity’s praise for Farrakhan somehow taints Obama.
Note, by the way, that Wright’s praise for Farrakhan and the award given to him by the church both occurred in the last couple of years. Please consider that in light of the points made above about the change in the tone and content of Wright’s sermons, and about Obama’s near absence from Trinity, during that time.
Furthermore, you will be hard-pressed to find a black church anywhere in Chicago that hasn’t had good things to say about Louis Farrakhan. Jews tend to revile him, and rightfully so, but we have no more right to tell black community whom to select as their leaders than they have to tell us the same thing.
Finally, although Obama never sought out Farrakhan’s support or endorsement and indeed rejected and denounced it when it was given, John McCain actively courted the endorsements of John Hagee and Rod Parsley, knowing full well their bigoted, offensive views on Judaism, Catholicism, and Islam; invited them to campaign with him during his cynical move to the Right to win the Republican nomination; and then, when he had clinched the nomination and their views became well-known, cut them loose faster than you can say “sprint for the Center.” In light of this, the best thing that can be said for the Farrakhan smear against Obama is, “People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.” And that’s being generous.
“Hamas connection”
Let us next deal with the “Hamas connection”. Obama’s attackers claim that the Trinity church newsletter printed, on its “pastor’s page” reserved for Reverend Wright, a “Hamas manifesto.” There are three important facts to note here:
- There is no denying that Wright has proven himself to be virulently anti-Israel. However, (a) in this he unfortunately is joined by much of the American black community, and (b) as noted above, there isn’t a single iota of evidence that Obama shares Wright’s views, and much evidence that he does not.
- The newsletter in question was published in July 2007; see above, again, for more about the change in tone and content of Wright’s ministry during the last few years, and about Obama’s near absence from the church during this time.
- The “manifesto” in question was reprinted from the Los Angeles Times, whose editors apparently considered it sufficiently newsworthy and relevant to merit publication.
Black liberation theology
Finally, Obama’s attackers claim that the “black liberation theology” preached by Wright at Trinity is inherently anti-Semitic. They tend not to go into much detail about how or why this is so. That’s because, quite frankly, it isn’t. It is, at best, hubris for Jews to claim that black liberation theology has anything to do with them.
At worst, it’s an overt lie about the theology of Barack Obama’s former church, intended to hint that he harbors anti-Semitic tendencies in a scurrilous effort to wear down his support in the Jewish community.
“One degree of separation”
It’s not enough for the smear-mongers to falsely claim that Barack Obama respects Louis Farrakhan and agrees with his anti-Semitic views. They take it one step further, and falsely claim that Jeremiah Wright is also an anti-Semite, and that Obama therefore tolerated an anti-Semitic pastor and church for 20 years. The fact is that is that Wright isn’t, and Obama didn’t.
Here’s the first specious argument that the smears use to “prove” that Wright is an anti-Semite:
- Wright holds views that many Jews consider anti-Israel. (true)
- Espousal of anti-Israel views is frequently used as a facade for anti-Semitism. (true)
- Anyone who espouses anti-Israel views is also anti-Semitic. (false, false, false, 100 times false)
- Therefore, because Jeremiah Wright holds anti-Israel views, he must be an anti-Semite. (Bzzt! Wrong answer, try again.)
In recent years, many within the Jewish community have fallen into the dangerous trap of arguing that because some anti-Israel views are actually a front for anti-Semitism, all anti-Israel views are actually a front for anti-Semitism. This is completely and utterly false. Many people support the existence of Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people while at the same time believing that the Arab-Israeli conflict is primarily Israel’s fault, that Israel is the aggressor, and that Israel must change its behavior to end the conflict. Some of the people who hold these views are Jews, who are unfortunately speciously labeled “self-hating Jews” or “Jewish anti-Semites” by some of their coreligionists).
This unfortunate habit of branding as an anti-Semite anyone with views some consider “anti-Israel” is actually extremely dangerous to the Jewish community. It fosters a “boy who cried wolf” mentality among non-Jews, making it that much more difficult for us to address real anti-Semitism.
Addressing the causes and solutions to the Arab-Israeli conflict is certainly beyond the scope of this article (indeed, it might be beyond the scope of anyone but the Messiah, may he arrive speedily in our days!). The intent here is not to say who is right, but rather merely to point out the absurdity of using Wright’s views about Israel to “prove” that he is an anti-Semite.
The other “proof” the smears cite of Wright’s alleged anti-Semitism is his relationship with and respect for Louis Farrakhan.
Here’s what the Jews who advance this argument don’t seem to understand… It’s not all about us. We are not the center of the world. Sometimes a leader of the Black community is just a leader of the Black community.
You can search all you want for proof that Wright has ever expressed agreement with Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic views; you won’t find it. You can search all you want for proof that Wright has ever repeated any of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic views; you won’t find it. The fact of the matter is that Wright respects Farrakhan not for his anti-Semitism, but rather for his leadership within the black community, for his long-standing, successful efforts to elevate Black men from a life of drugs and crime and to convince Black fathers to take responsibility for their children.
Here’s what the Jewish mayor of Philadelphia, Ed Rendell, who is now Pennsylvania’s governor, had to say about Louis Farrakhan in 1997:
“I would like to thank the Nation of Islam here in Philadelphia. To thank you for what you stand for and what you stand for all the good it does to so many people in Philadelphia. And if there is anybody out here… who doesn’t know, this is a faith that has as its principles, the family. This is a faith that doesn’t just talk about family values, it lives family values. This is a faith where men respect their women and children and they manifest that faith by staying in the home with them. This is a faith that doesn’t just talk about being against drugs but is out there every single day and night fighting against drugs. This is a faith that just doesn’t talk about the value of education, it imbues in their children and schools that education is the way to opportunity.”
We Jews tend to focus on Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism, because that is what is most important to us. However, as vile as it is, it is not what is most important to Farrakhan, or to Wright. What is most important to them is addressing the crises faced by the American Black community. In that realm, whether we Jews like it or not, Farrakhan is indeed entitled to respect for his accomplishments, and the fact that Wright has given him that respect no more makes him an anti-Semite than it does Ed Rendell.
Even the Anti-Defamation League agrees that there is no proof that Wright is an anti-Semite, and they said so in an article in the New York Times.
Accusing Israel of oppressing Palestinians does not make Jeremiah Wright an anti-Semite. Respecting Louis Farrakhan’s efforts to lift Black men out of the gutter does not make Jeremiah Wright an anti-Semite. What would make Jeremiah Wright an anti-Semite is anti-Semitic words or deeds said or done by Jeremiah Wright, and you won’t find those no matter how long and hard you search.
The alternative: finding a better way
If baseless smears and guilt by association are what you think we should rely on when deciding where to cast our ballot in November, if none of what has written above has made you question what Barack Obama’s detractors want you to believe about him, then by all means, cast your vote for John McCain. If, on the other hand, you would like to restore civility and honesty to political debate in our country, then here’s what you can do:
Take the time to do your own research. Learn the real facts about our presidential candidates and the real distinctions between them. Whether you decide to vote for Barack Obama or John McCain, your decision should be based on the truth rather than on the warped delusions of people who fear it.
The smear-mongers represent the worst of American political thought. Spend some time reading, instead, George F. Will, David Brooks, and other conservative commentators who present cogent arguments and understand that people can disagree without being disagreeable. For the liberal point of view, Thomas L. Friedman and Bob Herbert are a good place to start.
Visit www.johnmccain.com and www.barackobama.com and learn about the candidates’ views, stances and policies in their own words. Obama’s stance on Israel is clearly laid out on his site (McCain’s doesn’t seem to be, for some reason).
Jewish, pro-Israel supporters of Barack Obama have spent many hours examining Obama’s background, experience, qualifications, record, and policy proposals. They deeply believe that Obama is the right leader for America. Read what they have to say.
Most importantly, don’t be party to the dumbing down of our political process. Don’t pass on the smears. Tell the people who send them to you that you expect better. Stand up for the Jewish value (even if you’re not Jewish — this is a good one!) which regards lashon hara (”evil speech”) as a grave sin, one which harms not only its target but also those who repeat it and those who hear it.
Join with other well-intentioned people as we reclaim our legacy as the world’s oldest democracy and live up to the democratic ideals envisioned by our Founding Fathers over 200 years ago. We are on the cusp of a new era of civility and engagement in American politics. Be a part of it!
Add This Blog to Your Technorati Favorites
Jewish Blog, Jewish, Jewish Leadership, Jewish News, Jewish Values, Jewish Events
8 Comments currently posted. 
Tzioni says:
Tzioni says:
(cut out 5 sorry was in a hurry)
Jonathan Kamens says:
Since when did Jewneric become a platform for Obama campaign propaganda?
Jewneric is a forum for Jewish-themed discussions of all sorts. Since claims that Obama is anti-Semitic and anti-Israel have been circulating in the Jewish community, often citing Wright’s supposed anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism, it is appropriate to discuss those claims here.
I posted this blog entry here because there were comments about Wright in a previous blog entry and I felt it necessary to respond to them.
1) Obama has in fact chosen a large number of people to advise him on foreign policy who just happen to hold views that many would consider anti-Israel. Yes, they include Brzezinsky and Malley and the others you mentioned, as well as Samantha Power (who was fired for other reasons), Tony McPeak, etc. No one is suggesting these people are Obama’s close friends — that’s a straw man argument and you know it. But he does seem to have a penchant for choosing advisers who would be detrimental to the Jewish State. And that is troublesome.
Brzezinski is not one of Obama’s advisers, nor is he anti-Israel.
Malley is not one of Obama’s advisers, nor is he anti-Israel.
Samantha Power is not anti-Israel, nor is she advising Obama on Israel.
Tony McPeak is not anti-Israel, nor is he advising Obama on Israel.
Obama’s close advisers on Israel include Dennis Ross, Robert Wexler, Dennis McDonough, Dan Shapiro, and Eric Lynn.
Every single person mentioned above supports Israel. Claims to the contrary are a manifestation of the false right-wing belief that “right-wing” and “pro-Israel” are synonymous, i.e., “If you’re not right-wing, you’re anti-Israel.” Pro-Israel conservatives have attempted to monopolize the term “pro-Israel” in the same way that religious conservatives have attempted to monopolize the term “values.” It is, frankly, offensive.
In the Republican attacks against Obama’s supposed Israel advisers are also shades of the false right-wing belief that the Arab-Israeli conflict is a zero-sum game, i.e., you can be either pro-Israel or pro-Palestinians, but not both, and either the Israelis or the Palestinians can “win” the conflict, but not both. In fact, the only way the conflict is ever going to be resolved is for both the U.S. and Israel to be led by people who understand that the way out is to recognize that both sides have suffered, both sides have legitimate claims, and a solution must be found which allows both sides to “win.”
Barack Obama understands this, which is why there are a great many Jews, a great many Israelis, a great many Muslims, and a great many Palestinians who respect him, the attacks on him from both the extreme left and the extreme right notwithstanding.
2) One person you did not mention — who Obama in fact was close friends with — is Rashid Khalidi. Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, please explain away that supposed relationship. (And yeah, Obama himself has tried to downplay this relationship when confronted about it directly.)
There is nothing to explain. Khalidi is not the monster that the right has made him out to be (if you think that World Net Daily and Human Events are reputable news sources, you are sadly mistaken). And not only am I not worried about the fact that Obama is on good terms with some prominent Americans of Palestinian descent, I’m overjoyed about it.
The appropriate role of the United States in resolving the Middle East conflict is to serve as an honest broker and facilitator between the two sides. The role of the American president is to serve as the chief broker and facilitator. He cannot do that if he is not respected by both sides, and he cannot be respected by both sides unless he has proven that he is capable of listening to both sides and understanding their disparate points of view.
Barack Obama has proven that, even before becoming president, by forming strong relationships with both the Jewish community and the Palestinian community. He has proven that he can understand and acknowledge the valid aspects of both the Jewish point of view and the Palestinian point of view.
At the same time, he has consistently, throughout his career, renounced Palestinian terrorism and made is crystal clear to the Palestinians that the only way they’re ever going to get anything they want is to stop the terrorism.
3) The people you argue it was unfair to not include in the list of Obama’s longtime supposed associates, well let’s have a look at a couple of them. Reform rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf. Did you even read the link you provided? Is that supposed to reassure supporters of Israel?
“Some want him to fall in line behind the intransigent, conservative thinking that has silenced Jewish debate on Israeli policy and enabled the Bush Administration’s criminal neglect of the diplomatic process.”
— sounds an awful lot like Mearsheimer and Walt. Really? Jewish debate on Israeli policy has been silenced? Could’ve fooled me.
No, it’s not Mearsheimer and Walt at all. They were talking about Jews using their supposed influence over the government to stifle national debate about Israeli policy, not Jewish debate.
Rabbi Wolf is right, and frankly, your comment to which I am responding is an excellent example of what he was talking about.
“Clearly, though, anyone who thinks Obama waffles on Israel hasn’t been paying attention.” — Oh we’re paying attention. We paid attention to his AIPAC speech about Jerusalem and his “clarification” the very next day. (Mind you, McCain’s position on this is no better, but that doesn’t excuse Obama.)
Barack Obama’s position on Jerusalem is the same as that of the U.S. government and the same as that of the Israeli government. I do not think that American Jews can or should expect the American president to be more right-wing on Jerusalem than the Israeli government. For more on this, see http://jews4barack.com/react/?cat=18.
“For my part, I’ve sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel. He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn’t stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he’ll broaden the dialogue. He knows what peace entails.”
That’s the speech in which Obama said:
“This is where I get to be honest and I hope I’m not out of school here. 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.”
Yup, that’s what he said. And that’s what Rabbi Wolf was talking about. And that’s what you’re guilty of in your comment.
Oh and his position on Israel does seem pretty clear — it sounds like it’s very much in line with his major supporter Bettylu Saltzman, a Peace Now devotee who defended the Mearsheimer and Walt paper.
There is absolutely no evidence to support this assertion and reams of evidence to refute it.
Please cite your evidence or retract this claim.
Here are Obama’s two primary statements on Israel. Everything he has said and done about Israel throughout his career has been consistent with these statements:
http://www.barackobama.com/static/Flyers/Issue_Flyers/israel.pdf
http://origin.barackobama.com/pdf/IsraelFactSheet.pdf
Now if you’re a far leftist in Americans for Peace Now or the Union of Progressive Zionists and you think such views are “pro-Israel,” then great. But if you’re like most of us who recognize these views as anti-Israel or at least detrimental to Israel, then this type of support is very troubling.
And there you go, you came right out and said it explicitly. Peace Now is “anti-Israel”. Progressive Zionists are “anti-Israel”. No, sir, they are not.
By the way, do you consider the Religious Zionists of America to be anti-Israel? Because here’s what Rabbi Yosef Blau, its president, had to say about Barack Obama:
Obama maintained good relations with the Jewish community in Chicago during his years in the state Senate and as a U.S. senator. His record on issues of Jewish interest has been excellent. …
If Jewish leaders take a long-range perspective, Obama is an individual that we should want as a friend. …
Anyone who has read Obama’s first book, “Dreams from My Father,” written in 1995, long before he was close to campaigning for president, can tell that his nature is to bring people together. Not to have a positive relationship with a figure of hope and reconciliation, whose record is totally supportive of Jewish concerns, makes little sense. …
Barack Obama’s personality, record and policy proposals reflect a candidate with whom the Jewish community should be comfortable.
4) The Obamas were still giving large donations to the church even in recent years ($27,500 in 2005 and 2006 according to the NY TImes), so even if your argument is that Wright and Phleger and the others in his church suddenly changed their tune and only became extreme in the last few years, Obama was still supporting them at that time.
First of all, Phleger [sic] has nothing to do with Trinity, but nice job trying to throw another piece of guilt-by-association into the mix.
Second, you have distorted my argument. I didn’t say that “others in his church suddenly changed their tune.” I said that Wright changed his tune. There is no evidence that the ministries and good works supported by the church changed. There is no evidence that the beliefs of the congregation changed. There is, in fact, no evidence that anyone changed, except for Wright. Obama continued to support the church because it was still his church, still his community, and still made up of good people doing good works. Good for him for continuing to support it!
I have already written about why I think the Wright of 2007-8 was not the Wright of 20 years ago. There is no point in my repeating myself.
6) And this nonsense about it being only 2 or 3 minutes of snippets taken out of context is a blatant LIE. The entire sermons were available for sale from the church and some of them were available online for a while once this controversy broke — and there was quite a bit more than a few “soundbites.” In context, most of these clips were just as offensive, if not more so.
Well, on this we just plainly disagree. Any sincere seeker of the truth is free to go to YouTube and watch the sermons for him/herself.
Oh and what proof do you have in the first place that the “tone” of Wright’s sermons changed at all?
I have provided that proof already and shall not repeat myself.
Let’s assume for a moment that they did. Obama was still aware of Wright’s views since at least February, 2007 (according to the NY Times on March 6, 2007). How long did it take for him to renounce Wright? How many points did he need to drop in the polls before he distanced himself from his “spiritual mentor?” He explicitly refused to “disown” him long after his horrific views became known — and only did so later when his public support started to wane.
In fact Obama did not “disown” Wright until after Wright essentially disowned Obama. It was not Obama who threw Wright under the bus, it was the reverse. I have a great deal of respect for Obama because he tried to preserve his relationship with Wright right up until the very end, when it became clear that it was no longer possible.
Your insinuation is that Obama stuck with Wright because Obama shares Wright’s views, but there is simply not one iota of evidence of such views in anything Obama has written, said or done throughout his entire life.
Obama stuck with Wright not because he shares Wright’s views, but because he respected Wright as a man, despite the fact that he did not share many of his views, and did not want to disrespect him. You criticize Obama for this; I praise him for trying to preserve the dignity of that relationship despite the fact that it would have been better for him, politically, to cut Wright and Trinity loose.
7) And the fact that he published that piece of Hamas propaganda — you’re talking out of two sides of your mouth here. First you argue that Obama really didn’t know about it. And then you suggest that really, it’s not so bad.
You apparently don’t know what the term “talking out of two sides of your mouth” means.
What it means is when someone asserts two contradictory things at the same time.
It is not contradictory to argue both that Obama had nothing to do with the publication of that column and probably didn’t even know it was published after the fact (how many people actually bother to read their church / synagogue newsletters when they’ve stopped attending church regularly and are spending most of their time in a different state, attending to the little matter of being a U.S. Senator while at the same time getting ready to run for president?), while at the same time arguing that it’s difficult to take this particular offense too seriously when the column in question was printed in the LA Times before it was reprinted by Wright.
And, by the way, have you read it? You’re exactly right — it’s propaganda, and very good propaganda, propaganda which is abhorrent to you and me because we understand Hamas. But it’s not targeted at us, it’s targeted at people who are ignorant of and lack an understanding of the history of the conflict, people, frankly, like Jeremiah Wright. People, frankly, like many Americans. And to those people, no, it’s not terribly offensive in the way that you and I find it so.
Fortunately, Barack Obama is not one of those people.
Marc Lerman says:
I agree with a lot of what you say. However, I refer you to a post I published in January for my full view on the subject
http://jewneric.com/israel-should-not-be-the-only-issue/2008/01/14/
People should be voting for more than an Israel stance. If McCain loves Israel but is going to harm every other aspect of your life, is he still a good choice? What if Obama loved Israel (which I suspect he does since he’s said so a couple of hundred times) - would people find another reason to hate him?
I wish people would open their minds a little more.
Tzioni says:
“‘And there you go, you came right out and said it explicitly. Peace Now is ‘anti-Israel’. Progressive Zionists are ‘anti-Israel’.’ No, sir, they are not.”
I specifically referred to two organizations: Peace Now and the Union of Progressive Zionists. Peace Now is on the payroll of a number of European countries whose foreign policy goals are to undermine Israel’s claim to YESHA (as such, Peace Now is arguably in violation of Israel’s espionage laws) and actively promotes expelling Jews from their homes and pressuring Israel to retreat to pre-67 “Auschwitz borders” that lack strategic depth and would endanger Israel’s major population centers. The Union of Progressive Zionists is a relatively new organization, but one of their major contributions to the Israel discussion has been to promote the program “Breaking the Silence” on college campuses. This program demonizes the IDF and accuses Israel of committing various human rights violations. This is pro-Israel to you?
As for your claim that Malley and Brzezinski aren’t Obama’s advisers, well the Washington Post included them in his list of advisers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html#obama Next you’re going to tell me the Washington Post is too conservative for you? Give me a break!
And are you kidding me when you say Brzezinski and Malley are not anti-Israel? What exactly qualifies as anti-Israel in your book then?
As for Rashid Khalidi, the guy dedicated his book to Yasser Arafat (and opened by praising the anti-Israel fighters in the first Lebanon War) and he serves on the board of trustees of the anti-Israel NGO MIFTAH (and don’t try to tell me they’re not anti-Israel when they refer to Israel’s independence in 1948 as “al-Nakba,” the Catastrophe). He was also the director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa, in 1982, and identified with the PLO to the point where he used the word “we” when describing the PLO’s goals. Oh, and my source for that last bit of info? The New York Times:
The Israelis are out to ”crush the P.L.O.,” said Rashid Khalidi, a director of the Palestinian press agency, Wafa. (Thomas Friedman, “ULTIMATE GOALS OF THE ATTACK ARE ASSESSED DIFFERENTLY FROM THE;TWO SIDES,” NY Times, June 9, 1982)
”If we break the cease-fire now,” argued Rashid Khalidi, a Palestinian professor at the American University of Beirut, ”it would not only play into Israel’s hands but would also divert world attention away from the popular uprising on the West Bank, which is equally important to the P.L.O.’s long-term objectives.” (Thomas Friedman, “FOR ARAFAT, SINAI PULLOUT MEANS OPPORTUNITIES AND CEASE-FIRE SPELLS TROUBLE,” NY Times, April 26, 1982)
The PLO, for the record, was already considered a terrorist organization by the United States at that time. But sure, he’s not anti-Israel according to you.
And yes, I stand by my assertion that you’re talking out of both sides of your mouth here. For example, in your original post you write “There is no denying that Wright has proven himself to be virulently anti-Israel. ” And now you write “often citing Wright’s supposed anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism.” Well it certainly sounds like you’re denying it, or at least that you’re saying it is deniable. Which one is it now? Moreover, you seem not to care either way. And that’s probably why you didn’t include the last line of my comment, which I will repeat:
“And the fact that he published that piece of Hamas propaganda — you’re talking out of two sides of your mouth here. First you argue that Obama really didn’t know about it. And then you suggest that really, it’s not so bad. (After all, someone else decided to publish it!) Well if it’s not so bad because it’s “newsworthy,” then who cares if Obama knew about it or not? Could it be that you don’t really care about this yourself??”
I say you don’t care, because you’re the type of person who is “overjoyed” at Obama’s close friendship with the likes of anti-Israel Rashid Khalidi. You’re entitled to your views, but your idea of what is “pro-Israel” is probably not shared by the vast majority of Jews. But please, continue to obfuscate and deny what’s in the public record. Maybe you’ll succeed in confusing enough people so that they’ll unwittingly support your far leftist, Chomskyite ideas about Israel.
Now do not view these comments as an endorsement of John McCain either. He’s got his own issues when it comes to Israel. But the arguments you’re making for Obama here are misleading.
Jonathan Kamens says:
This is pro-Israel to you?
Pro-Israel, to me, means wanting Israel to exist forever, in peace and security as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people.
There are clearly vastly different opinions about how to achieve peace and security for the Jewish state of Israel. The fact that your opinion about how to do that is 100% different from Peace Now’s or any other organization’s or individual’s opinion does not give you the right to label them anti-Israel.
As for your claim that Malley and Brzezinski aren’t Obama’s advisers, well the Washington Post included them in his list of advisers. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/opinions/documents/the-war-over-the-wonks.html#obama Next you’re going to tell me the Washington Post is too conservative for you? Give me a break!
No, I’m going to tell you that the Post wrote that over a year ago, and that they have a pretty lose definition of what constitutes an “adviser.” The extent of “advising” that Brzezinski did with Obama was to meet with him, I think only once, and to exchange email with him a couple of times. They discussed Iraq, not Israel, and Obama hasn’t received any advice from him in a year.
The extent of “advising” that Malley did with Obama was to be one of several hundred members of the “panels” that were loosely affiliated with the campaign, and to write an email message or two giving his input into the report of his panel. Malley and Obama have never met face-to-face, and, again, it’s been something like a year since Malley has done anything at all with Obama’s campaign.
And are you kidding me when you say Brzezinski and Malley are not anti-Israel? What exactly qualifies as anti-Israel in your book then?
Given my definition of pro-Israel above, I’m sure you can figure out my definition of anti-Israel, and neither Brzezinski nor Malley qualifies.
As for Rashid Khalidi, the guy dedicated his book to Yasser Arafat …
Rashid Khalidi is no saint. He is not, however, calling for the destruction of Israel, and he has in fact been a moderating influence within the Palestinian community. People like Khalidi are the people that we are going to need to deal with if we are ever to achieve peace. Saying that Obama should be criticized for being on speaking terms with Khalidi is basically saying that we should not attempt to make peace with the Palestinians, and I categorically reject that.
We have a moral obligation to try to make peace with the Palestinians, over and over and over again, never giving up, never stopping, no matter how many times it fails, no matter how many times they lie and cheat, because at some point in the future, there is going to be an opportunity for real peace, just as there was with Egypt and just as there was with Jordan, and if we aren’t there, ready to grab it, it will pass us by.
(And no, I don’t think that means trying to make peace at the cost of our own security.)
Your attitude about Khalidi is remarkably similar to McCain’s attitude about Iran — it’s “dangerous” to talk to people we don’t like; it “legitimizes” them. Here’s a news flash for you — if you don’t talk to your enemies, you can’t make peace with them.
And that’s probably why you didn’t include the last line of my comment, which I will repeat:
I did not include the last line of your comment because it was an uncalled for, unfounded personal insult, and it does not deserve the dignity of a response.
You’re entitled to your views, but your idea of what is “pro-Israel” is probably not shared by the vast majority of Jews.
On the contrary, the vast majority of Jews believe that we have to make peace with the Palestinians and that we can’t do that without talking to them. This has been borne out by survey after survey and poll after poll.
Maybe you’ll succeed in confusing enough people so that they’ll unwittingly support your far leftist, Chomskyite ideas about Israel.
I have said nothing even remotely Chomskyite. Another unfounded, uncalled for personal insult.
This is the last comment of yours to which I will respond. I am here to engage in civilized debate, not to sling mud.
Tzioni says:
“And that’s probably why you didn’t include the last line of my comment, which I will repeat:
I did not include the last line of your comment because it was an uncalled for, unfounded personal insult, and it does not deserve the dignity of a response.”
So you’re not answering the question. Just pointing that out in case anyone missed it.
This is pro-Israel to you?
“Pro-Israel, to me, means wanting Israel to exist forever, in peace and security as a Jewish state and homeland for the Jewish people.
There are clearly vastly different opinions about how to achieve peace and security for the Jewish state of Israel. The fact that your opinion about how to do that is 100% different from Peace Now’s or any other organization’s or individual’s opinion does not give you the right to label them anti-Israel.”
That’s a pretty loose definition. But I think the fact that Peace Now spies on Israel for foreign countries and actively works against the rights of my fellow Jews, that gives me the right to label them anti-Israel. And you conveniently left out UPZ and “Breaking the Silence.” Also anti-Israel.
“Rashid Khalidi is no saint. He is not, however, calling for the destruction of Israel ”
He was also the spokesman for the PLO in the 1980s — when the PLO was already considered a terrorist organization and when the PLO was firmly committed to the total destruction of Israel. Furthermore, he is against the “two-state solution.” So basically you’re wrong.
But even if he didn’t call for the destruction of Israel, Khalidi supports the murdering of IDF soldiers, and that’s enough for me to label him “anti-Israel,” wouldn’t you agree? (of course you wouldn’t!) As he said in a 2002 speech, “Killing civilians is a war crime. It’s a violation of international law. They are not soldiers. They’re civilians, they’re unarmed. The ones who are armed, the ones who are soldiers, the ones who are in occupation, that’s different. That’s resistance.”
“Saying that Obama should be criticized for being on speaking terms with Khalidi is basically saying that we should not attempt to make peace with the Palestinians, and I categorically reject that.”
First of all, there you go again with your straw man arguments. But Obama was not merely “on speaking terms with Khalidi” - he was good friends with him. Their families used to eat dinner together. It’s not just someone he happens to know, but someone who he’s chosen to be friends with. I know that makes you “overjoyed,” but it’s disturbing.
Oh, and amongst American citizens living in Israel, McCain is winning by a landslide.
feathermaid says:
One thing I’d like to do at the start of this new year is to move away from the meaningless interactions during the political campaign that just foment fear and distrust. One thing we can all do is come to an understanding about Obama’s name, Many Jews mistake Barack with Barak which means lightning in Hebrew. Barack is actually derived from Baruch, which means “blessed” in Hebrew. If you don’t believe me, check out this fascinating article by David Scheim in the Washington Post (August 28):
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/08/barack_thy_name_is_biblical.html
or:
It’s well researched, with enough stuff about Obama’s name to impress people of other faiths as well!
Since when did Jewneric become a platform for Obama campaign propaganda?
Wish I had time for a full rebuttal, but I will have to suffice with a few quick comments:
1) Obama has in fact chosen a large number of people to advise him on foreign policy who just happen to hold views that many would consider anti-Israel. Yes, they include Brzezinsky and Malley and the others you mentioned, as well as Samantha Power (who was fired for other reasons), Tony McPeak, etc. No one is suggesting these people are Obama’s close friends — that’s a straw man argument and you know it. But he does seem to have a penchant for choosing advisers who would be detrimental to the Jewish State. And that is troublesome.
2) One person you did not mention — who Obama in fact was close friends with — is Rashid Khalidi. Ladies and gentlemen of the supposed jury, please explain away that supposed relationship. (And yeah, Obama himself has tried to downplay this relationship when confronted about it directly.)
3) The people you argue it was unfair to not include in the list of Obama’s longtime supposed associates, well let’s have a look at a couple of them. Reform rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf. Did you even read the link you provided? Is that supposed to reassure supporters of Israel?
“Some want him to fall in line behind the intransigent, conservative thinking that has silenced Jewish debate on Israeli policy and enabled the Bush Administration’s criminal neglect of the diplomatic process.”
— sounds an awful lot like Mearsheimer and Walt. Really? Jewish debate on Israeli policy has been silenced? Could’ve fooled me. Just visit any college campus or turn on CNN and you’ll find plenty of liberal voices (both Jewish and non-Jewish) talking about Israel. Or perhaps he was talking about the more right-wing voices which are in fact silenced in many forums. Or the pro-Israel voices on certain campuses like UC Irvine. But conservatives silencing debate? If they were trying to do that, they’re certainly doing a piss-poor job of it!
“Clearly, though, anyone who thinks Obama waffles on Israel hasn’t been paying attention.” — Oh we’re paying attention. We paid attention to his AIPAC speech about Jerusalem and his “clarification” the very next day. (Mind you, McCain’s position on this is no better, but that doesn’t excuse Obama.)
“For my part, I’ve sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel. He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn’t stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he’ll broaden the dialogue. He knows what peace entails.”
Presumably the “conventional line” is the AIPAC style support for Israel and US-Israel relations that Democrats very proudly support. It’s “disappointing” to this guy that Obama doesn’t stray too far from this approach. He talks enthusiastically about Obama’s speech to a Jewish group in Cleveland. That’s the speech in which Obama said:
“This is where I get to be honest and I hope I’m not out of school here. 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.”
I wonder what will happen when the Likud comes to power in the next Israeli elections (assuming that Livni can’t pull together a coalition).
Oh and his position on Israel does seem pretty clear — it sounds like it’s very much in line with his major supporter Bettylu Saltzman, a Peace Now devotee who defended the Mearsheimer and Walt paper.
Now if you’re a far leftist in Americans for Peace Now or the Union of Progressive Zionists and you think such views are “pro-Israel,” then great. But if you’re like most of us who recognize these views as anti-Israel or at least detrimental to Israel, then this type of support is very troubling.
4) The Obamas were still giving large donations to the church even in recent years ($27,500 in 2005 and 2006 according to the NY TImes), so even if your argument is that Wright and Phleger and the others in his church suddenly changed their tune and only became extreme in the last few years, Obama was still supporting them at that time. Did he really not know what was going on there? Come on. Do you really think he was so woefully ignorant of what went on in the place where he sent his children week after week, whether he personally was in the audience or not? If he was, that doesn’t give me very much confidence in his ability to lead the country.
6) And this nonsense about it being only 2 or 3 minutes of snippets taken out of context is a blatant LIE. The entire sermons were available for sale from the church and some of them were available online for a while once this controversy broke — and there was quite a bit more than a few “soundbites.” In context, most of these clips were just as offensive, if not more so.
Oh and what proof do you have in the first place that the “tone” of Wright’s sermons changed at all? Let’s assume for a moment that they did. Obama was still aware of Wright’s views since at least February, 2007 (according to the NY Times on March 6, 2007). How long did it take for him to renounce Wright? How many points did he need to drop in the polls before he distanced himself from his “spiritual mentor?” He explicitly refused to “disown” him long after his horrific views became known — and only did so later when his public support started to wane.
7) And the fact that he published that piece of Hamas propaganda — you’re talking out of two sides of your mouth here. First you argue that Obama really didn’t know about it. And then you suggest that really, it’s not so bad. (After all, someone else decided to publish it!) Well if it’s not so bad because it’s “newsworthy,” then who cares if Obama knew about it or not? Could it be that you don’t really care about this yourself??