Obama and the Middle East

MJ Rosenberg was impressed yesterday by a Barack Obama statement on the Israel-Palestine situation. Well, at least sort of:

Nevertheless, I don't judge candidates statements on the Middle East against the ideal but against the pander garbage almost all of them cynically and invariably put out.

By that standard, this is fine.

Well, okay. To me what's actually more intriguing about Obama on this front is just the fact that I think the campaign has spent some level of energy trying to signal to the MJ Rosenbergs of the world that they should be excited about Obama. Normally, candidates want to get the support of the most fanatically "pro-Israel" people they can find, and don't really care about anyone else.

Comments

Well, no. Candidates care about anyone who might vote for them and are generally willing to shade their actual views one way or another to satisfy a set of voters who have drawn a line in the sand on some specific issue.

Posted by MattF | June 27, 2007 10:11 AM

On the merits, it obviously makes sense to try to get a deal with Fatah first. Concern about who is the "elected government" is the sort of democratic messianism I thought we were all over by now.

Posted by Pithlord | June 27, 2007 10:18 AM

Re Obama

A positive comment from Mr. Rosemberg is the best reason one can find for not voting for Mr. Obama.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2007 10:20 AM

Rosenberg is not the most fanatically "pro-Israel" person, but he does envision/excuse keeping Jewish settlers in and around East Jerusalem. Just because he's not Douglas Feith doesn't mean that MJ is not also one of the enablers of Israeli chauvinism.

Posted by otto | June 27, 2007 10:35 AM

Re otto

To Mr. otto, anyone who doesn't demand that the State of Israel go out of business is an enabler of Israeli chauvinism. Thus, the non-enablers are restricted to such individuals as Norman Finkelstein, Noam Chomsky, Juan Cole, David Duke, etc.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2007 10:55 AM

In fact, many people can make a distinction between the chauvinism underlying the colonisation of the land conquered in 1967 and pre-1967 Israel. But many - such as SLC - try to slur the two together, looking - as it were - for a license for Israeli bigotry in the occupied territories.

Posted by otto | June 27, 2007 11:04 AM

For one who believes the direction of a true rapprochement will only come with the end of partition, Obama's statement reads awfully much like same-old, same-old. Abbas himself was born in Safed. I don't see him, in the end, writing off his own heritage, and I don't see the legitimacy of him writing off the heritage of those he presumably represents. The West is still telling Palestinians basically "two-states or die." And Israel's Jews are still stuck with a core anti-native ideology and an absolutist hubris that history (at least the last 2000 years)shows was directed at Jews in such vile fashion.

Posted by The Other Alan | June 27, 2007 11:18 AM

Re The Other Alan

If Mr. Alan is going to pontificate on the issue of partition in Palestine, perhaps he should also pontificate on the issue of partition on the Indian Subcontinent, the former Yugoslavia, the former Czechoslovakia, the former Soviet Union (the Ukraine was part of the Russian Federation for 300 years prior to the breakup of the former Soviet Union).

Re otto

Mr. otto complains about alleged Israeli bigotry in the so-called occupied territories (based on his revelation relative to pre 1967, Mr. otto apparently considers all of Israel to be occupied territory). Apparently, the publication of the forgery, "Protocals of Zion" in the Arab world doesn't rise to Mr. ottos' definition of bigotry. But of course, to Israel bashers like Mr. otto, prejudice against Jews isn't bigotry.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2007 12:01 PM

SLC,

did you know that on this issue, you really act like an asshole?

[I can hear Atrios intoning: "this has been another installment of..."]

Posted by Captain Goto | June 27, 2007 12:08 PM

One near-universal law of political dynamics is that no matter how fanatic a group/individual is on a given issue, there's (almost) always a group/individual even more fanatic on that same issue. This was certainly the rule in the French and various other revolutions.

For example, I recall that our friend SLC denounced Joe Lieberman as "anti-Israel." Since Joe Lieberman's Mid East views are (I think) pretty much close to those of Marty Peretz, Charles Krauthammer, and Norman Podhoretz, it's clear that some people regard those individuals as "anti-Israel."

And I have little doubt that there's someone around who regards SLC as "anti-Israel." But until mental institutions get Internet-access, we probably won't hear from them in the blogosphere...

Posted by RKU | June 27, 2007 12:11 PM

Re "Normally, candidates want to get the support of the most fanatically "pro-Israel" people they can find"
-------
Because those "fanatically pro-Israel" guys are the ones with the $Billions of dollars. People like Haim Saban -- who's raised $1 Million for Hillary already.

Which is why pro-peace Jewish Americans like MJ Rosenberg are pissing into a hurricane. MJ has probably written campaign checks for the sum total of what -- $200?

So who do you think owns Hillary?

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 12:16 PM

Don Williams is absolutely correct in his analysis, but the focus should be less on wealth than on the willingness to expend a tiny fraction of that wealth in ways of high political leverage.

For example, my strong impression is that the fanatic/crazy pro-Israel takeover of the influential AEI thinktank during the 1990s was mostly accomplished by one elderly fanatic/crazy pro-Israel millionaire named Moskowitz or something, who owns a gambling casino just south of Los Angeles and spent just a million or two on the project.

After all, around the same time, the Communist Chinese government pretty much bought effective control of the right-wing Heritage Foundation's China policy for about the same trivial amount of money, which is even more surprising and peculiar.

Basically, the key aspects of success in political policy lobbying/bribery is not the amount of money involved, but the willingness to spend it and the shrewdness to spend it effectively.

My guess is that there are something like 500,000 Americans with more liquid wealth than that crazy guy who bought control of AEI's Israel portfolio...

Posted by RKU | June 27, 2007 12:29 PM

RKU makes a valid point. There are a number of billionaires who do not try to manipulate US foreign policy but rather focus on charity, etc.

That is why it is important to focus on specific acts and documented funding of specific organizations.

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 2:10 PM

Re Don Williams

I have to agree with Mr. Williams. Haim Saban has far too much influence on American Middle East foreign policy. According to Mr. Sabans' prior history, he favors a two state solution, supported the Oslo accords, and supports the Labor Party in Israel (and also supported the election of the traitor Shimon Peres as Israeli president). Any sane analysis of the Oslo accords must conclude that it is the most insane idea any Israeli Prime Minister ever had. For somebody who supported that disaster to have any influence over American or Israeli foreign policy is totally unacceptable. Any American presidential candidate who listens to this schmuck should be immediately disqualified for the office.

Re RKU

Mr. RKU is seriously in error in claiming that I accused Senator Lieberman of being anti-Israel. My contention is that his support for a 2 state solution is hopelessly naive. The Palestinian state is in Amman. If Mr. RKU is looking for a group that would consider me anti-Israel, he need look no further then the Kach party which would consider my views to be hopelessly soft for not supporting an Eichmann solution to the Arab problem in Palestine. By the way, in supporting a 2 state solution, Senator Liebermans' and Charles Krauthammers' views are at great variance with those of Norman Podhoretz who opposes a two state solution.

Re Captain Gato

It is a great honor to be labeled an asshole by a a piece of filth like Mr. Captain Gato.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2007 3:11 PM

SLC, I'm glad to hear that you're a moderate zionist who does not favor an Eichmann solution to the arab problem. We need more zionists like you, or at least fewer zionists to your right.

And I'm fascinated that these people respond to you as if civilised conversation is possible. Who knows where their attempt may lead?

Shalom.

Posted by J Thomas | June 27, 2007 4:17 PM

Re J Thomas

Mr. Thomas is quite correct. It is quite difficult to have civilized discourse with Israel bashers like Mr. otto, Mr. Reality Man, Mr. argiebargie, Mr. Don Williams, etc. Their viewpoint is that the Arabs can do no wrong and the Israelis can do no right.

Posted by SLC | June 27, 2007 4:40 PM

SLC, it would be nice if you actually ever read and responded to what people actually wrote. You don't do this. You act like Ann Coulter debating Elizabeth Edwards over mocking the death of one of the Edwards' sons. You are also a racist who accuses other people of being an "Arab lover" - a direct quote from you. You also admit you've never been to Israel. People in Israel hate people like you. Only the fringes would like you. You would not be welcome in Israel. See, I just admitted that Israelis can do right.

Posted by Reality Man | June 27, 2007 4:56 PM

Re "It is quite difficult to have civilized discourse with Israel bashers like Mr. otto, Mr. Reality Man, Mr. argiebargie, Mr. Don Williams"
-------
I don't recall "bashing" Israel. I did note at one point that I thought Ariel Sharon deserved to be kicked in the nuts for causing the USA needless headaches -- bombing Apartment buildings in Gaza in the middle of the night with US-supplied F16s etc.

As I've noted, while I complain about certain Likudite billionaires hurting AMerica with their malign political manipulations, my fellow progressives in Israel complain about those same billionaires illegally dumping money into the Israeli political campaigns.

Citizens of Israel are generally banned from influencing US politics via campaign donations -- it is only those who have gained (purchased??) dual US-Israel citizenship like Haim Saban who can apply their money. Since 99% of the people of Israel are not billionaires with monumental egos, the problem is not with Israel. If our political leaders are craven whores, the fault lies with we Americans who tolerate that whoring.

Some of AIPAC's money flows are murky but it seems to be generally US financed. The Israelites themselves have complained bitterly over AIPAC members who are happy to provoke war in the Middle East while living safely within the continental USA.

Some of my fellow Americans who are Jewish are the most bitter critics of AIPAC aggression while being at the same time concerned for Israel's wellbeing. People like MJ Rosenberg.

Military snipers don't throw random rounds across the landscape. My target is not "the Jews" or "the people of Israel". It is specific people who are hurting this country -- who are deliberately causing the needless deaths of US citizens.

Posted by Don Williams | June 27, 2007 6:22 PM

By my definition any Jew who can afford to visit Israel and does not is anti-Zionist. For 2000 years Jews dreamed of the privilege of going to Zion. SLC is willing to fight to the last Israeli but is too scared to take a plane and visit his beloved homeland; he is a cowardly self-hating Jew.

Posted by Jeff Gold | June 27, 2007 10:58 PM

People in Israel hate people like you. Only the fringes would like you. You would not be welcome in Israel.

Well, yeah and no. He'd be an embarassment at a party in Tel Aviv for his Know-Nothing style zionism. He wouldn't be welcome in many of the settlements, or Jerusalem for that matter for his lack of religious conviction. He wouldn't be welcome in Russian development towns because he is Jewish (seriously). His crazy racial animosity would only be the deciding factor in why he would be persona non-grata to about a third of Israeli Jews.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 28, 2007 12:57 AM

Re Jeff Gold

I never claimed to be a Zionist, Mr. J. Thomas said that I was. By the way, the State of Israel is not my homeland.

Re Don Williams

Apparently, Mr. Williams is too busy denouncing Israeli/American billionaires to notice that Hiam Saban is not a Likudnik. He is a long time supporter of the Labor Party in Israel and most recently strongly supported the election of Shimon Peres, hardly a Likudnik, to the Presidency of Israel. His support of a 2 state solution is also not a priority item in the Likud arena.

Re Reality Man & Ed Marshall

These two gentleman should coordinate their criticisms better. Mr. Reality Man says most Israelis would dislike me, Mr. Marshall says that 1/3 of Israelis would dislike me. 1/3 doesn't add up to most.

Re Ed Marshall

As my Syrian friend Ammar Kanaan once said, Dr. SLC doesn't discriminate, he is prejudiced against everybody.

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams, who appears to be a conspiracy devotee, is rightly concerned about the influence of money in American political campaigns. I would suggest that he expand that concern beyond people like Hiam Saban to the real threats to American democracy, namely fascist dominionists like Howard Ahmanson and Richard Mellon Scaithe who are scheming to turn the US into a Christian version of the Taliban Afghanistan and are putting their money where there mouths are.

Posted by SLC | June 28, 2007 9:21 AM

SLC, are you a zionist?

I have to admit that, while the result of taking you seriously are in principle not predictable, in practice they have been all too predictable. Oh well.

Posted by J Thomas | June 28, 2007 12:52 PM