Matthew Yglesias (June 05, 2008) - Undivided Jerusalem (Foreign Policy)

Someone speculated that Obama did this in order to get condemned by Hamas, which is exactly what happened.

Posted by Andrew | June 5, 2008 12:29 PM

Yes, that was disgusting, and even raised a lot of eyebrows in Israel. I sure hope he has a little talk with himself before stooping to such news lows in pandering again. C'mon, Senator, you're better than that. Don't break faith with all of us who really do want change.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 5, 2008 12:30 PM

Yes, that was disgusting, and even raised a lot of eyebrows in Israel. I sure hope he has a little talk with himself before stooping to such new lows in pandering again. C'mon, Senator, you're better than that. Don't break faith with all of us who really do want change.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 5, 2008 12:31 PM

"All your Presidential nominees are belong to us"

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 12:32 PM

Consider "undivided Jerusalem" as something akin to a shibboleth for the pro-Israeli set. Just saying he was committed to Israeli security would not be enough of a difference, the phrase "undivided Jerusalem" was something new and a standout more likely to comfort this group, a group Obama absolutely needs. No one ever said Obama was actually good at hard truths and honesty, just politics.

Posted by Jonathan | June 5, 2008 12:33 PM

Sorry about that!

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 5, 2008 12:34 PM

Actually, pleased to see this. Fellating the extreme elements of the Israel lobby in the US is the only way to get elected President.

Posted by Progressive Jew | June 5, 2008 12:34 PM

1. Palestinians don't vote in U.S. elections.

2. "Secret Muslim" Barack Obama is not exactly in a position to say anything that can be used against him with Jewish voters until after the election.

Honestly, I'd give THIS candidate a pass on THIS pander.

Mike

Posted by MBunge | June 5, 2008 12:35 PM

"Would it really have been so horrible from a "pro-Israel" point of view if Obama had proclaimed himself absolutely committed to Israel's security and just not mentioned anything in particular about Jerusalem?"

Unfortunately, I think the answer to the question is yes.

Posted by bob | June 5, 2008 12:36 PM

Bad on Obama, I didn't notice that when scanning the text of his AIPAC speech. This is the kind of thing that makes American pretensions to global leadership look more than a little ridiculous.

Matt, if you'd do some research before posting, you wouldn't wind up looking like a dilettante:

Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths.

- 2004 Democratic Party Platform (.pdf)
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 5, 2008 12:38 PM

The US cannot be a fair broker in the israelo-palestinian problem because of their staunch pro-israelian stance. The two state solution seems very potent but it is undermined the continuous expansion of illegal settlements in the palestinians territory.

Posted by lamine | June 5, 2008 12:39 PM

I dont mind because I know that this won't matter once he is president.
Israeli negotiators know there would not be any agreement without some accomodation on Jerusalem so it does not matter whatever American president says in the heat of a campaign.

Posted by Benjamin | June 5, 2008 12:39 PM

Someone speculated that Obama did this in order to get condemned by Hamas, which is exactly what happened.

Someone on the internet was an underinformed moron?

Thanks for the warning!
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 5, 2008 12:40 PM

Thanks GMT. That is significantly better. I hadn't seen the exact quote. One would think I'd have more sense than to trust the media...

Posted by Steve LaBonne | June 5, 2008 12:41 PM

The US cannot be a fair broker in the israelo-palestinian problem because of their staunch pro-israelian stance. The two state solution seems very potent but it is undermined the continuous expansion of illegal settlements in the palestinians territory.

Posted by lamine | June 5, 2008 12:41 PM

Honestly, I'd give THIS candidate a pass on THIS pander.

Agreed. It's unfortunate, but given the political realities here, I'm willing to let it slide. I just hope this doesn't become a habit for Obama, though.

Posted by DaveWoo | June 5, 2008 12:41 PM

Very disappointing indeed especially for all of us who support him so that he can breath a fresh air to US foreign policy.

Posted by Nick Kaufman | June 5, 2008 12:43 PM

The US cannot be a fair broker in the israelo-palestinian problem because of their staunch pro-israelian stance.

I agree. And I do not agree with the conventional stance of the US (because I do not see how it benefits the US), and I do not agree with the stance of my party.

However, one would have to be bewilderingly uninformed to think that Obama somehow broke new ground or took a radical stance in saying what he said. It's the conventional wisdom of our political class and the Democratic Party.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 5, 2008 12:45 PM

"Undivided" is far different from unshared. It's basically an inkblot term that Israeli hardliners take to mean a continuation of the status quo, but which would also be a perfectly apt description of the compromise oft floated wherein Palestine and Israel share an intact, undivided Jerusalem as a capital for both nations. Think of it as a "Brussels" solution rather than a "Berlin" solution.

Posted by KobayashiMaru | June 5, 2008 12:47 PM

How would you divide Jerusalem up anyways, without displacing the people who live there? Do we build a big wall and call one side Jewish Jerusalem and the other side Arab Jerusalem, no matter who lives where or what holy site is where?

Posted by JordanT | June 5, 2008 12:53 PM

The larger political problem domestically is that the US news media will point out this pander (because Obama is a Democrat) in order to create their favorite general election narrative: Democrats are wishy-washy, Republicans are steely and resolute. The fact that McCain has already established his Mavericky brand (despite his constant flip-floppery, pandering, and lies)will only exacerbate the problem. Of course, there's really nothing Obama could have done that would have solved this problem. Democrats: damned if you do, damned if you don't, and did we mention McCain is a Maverick!!

Posted by drjimcooper | June 5, 2008 12:55 PM

Good on Obama!

Reuters: "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and (Republican John) McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israeli conflict are the same and are hostile to us."

Now McCain and his toady surrogates like Joe Lieberman are shown to be liars when they bring up that "Hamas endorsed Obama" crap. Obama knows what he is doing.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 5, 2008 12:55 PM

AIPAC whores: as many times as I use this in my posts it never grows old.

The Democrats have had it both ways ever since they took control of Congress. They can talk antiwar and still pass war funding because they've got Bush as an excuse. If Obama is elected, the excuse won't be there and then they'll have to choose between AIPAC and their voter base.

Don't be surprised if we're still in Iraq a few years from now, with Obama as C.in C.

Posted by kafka | June 5, 2008 12:55 PM

1) I didn't like Obama's committment re Jerusalem. After all, the Al Aqsa mosque is the third most holy mosque for Muslims and the Arab quarter of Jerusalem should be given to Palestinians if the obvious security concerns could be fixed.

But as an American, I'm not sure if I should even give a shit -- other than the obvious need to DICTATE a settlement to the Israeli-Palestinian quarrel. And the moral obligation we owe to the Palestinians to get them out of the refugee camps we put them in by our decades of support for Israel.

2) What bothered me more was the following:

"I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. Everything"

"Everything" presumably includes firing up 500 Minuteman missile silos in Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.

I suspect "Everything" does not include demanding that Israel relinguish her nukes so that other countries in the region do not have such a strong incentive to proliferate.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 12:57 PM

Gee, Mr. Yglesias is upset that Senator Osama sucked up to the AIPAC folks. What a surprise! Of course, Mr. Labonne and Mr. MBunge are probably correct. I strongly suspect that President Osama will forget all about this particular suckup if and when he is elected.

Posted by SLC | June 5, 2008 12:58 PM

The best solution I've ever heard to the Israel/Palestine problem involves applying the principle of 'Cut and Choose'.

Basically, both sides are asked to draw up a map showing how they'd like the region to be divided, with the proviso that the other side gets to pick which half they want.

I'd put good money on the maps produced being remarkably similar.

Posted by Tony J | June 5, 2008 1:04 PM

I saw Gershom Gorenberg's excellent blog on this and have replied on my blog. Like the other commentators above I think he may have had no choice on this one. But there is another way of looking at this. Jerusalem isn't the responsibility of the President of the US; it is up to the residents of Jerusalem, Israelis and Palestinians, to decide the fate of their city. Obama is essentially saying he won't as President put pressure on an Israeli government against their better judgment to concede on this; of course if they decide to he isn't going to get in the way. It is really up to Israelis and Palestinians to sort this among themselves, which is not to say he wouldn't apply some tough love in other areas. It might have been a wise move. (The longer version is here.)

Posted by Chris Dornan | June 5, 2008 1:04 PM

P.S. And by "pro-Israel" point of view, I'm not referring to the "pro-Israel" point of view that I think I share with Matt and others.

I'm referring to the AIPAC "pro-Israel" point of view.

Posted by bob | June 5, 2008 1:12 PM

whatever the merits of obama's comments, i highly doubt that 6 million palestinians, and hundreds of millions of arabs, were watching him give them, or will even hear about the details of them.

Posted by jamie | June 5, 2008 1:16 PM

In that the six million Jews in the US make up only about 1.7% of the total population, how is it possible for them to wield such significant power?

Posted by chet | June 5, 2008 1:27 PM

Why did Mr. Obama feel so obliged to address AIPAC the day after he locked up the nomination?
I realize he needs to shore up his support with the AIPAC bloc, but that's just the point. He is reinforcing that he does accept the business as usual agenda of the party. Is this what he means by reaching out to Conservatives?

Posted by Running Dog | June 5, 2008 1:34 PM

In that the six million Jews in the US make up only about 1.7% of the total population, how is it possible for them to wield such significant power?

They don't. If they did, US policy would be very different, considering how most Jewish Americans poll to the left of US policy.

The actual power lies with Christian Zionists, for whom the Jews are just disposable Armageddon pump-primers (C.f., Book of Revelations).
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | June 5, 2008 1:41 PM

Don Williams,

"All your Presidential nominees are belong to us"

That should be, "all your Presidential nominee are belong to us."

Please be more careful next time.

Posted by All Your Base Nazi | June 5, 2008 1:46 PM

Really? Most American Jews poll to the left of US policy on Israel?

Posted by Andrew | June 5, 2008 1:47 PM

SLC, I know you crazy, but do you not see a wee contradiction in this statement?

Gee, Mr. Yglesias is upset that Senator Osama sucked up to the AIPAC folks. What a surprise!

Tell me if you have trouble getting it.

Posted by tomemos | June 5, 2008 1:49 PM

How would you divide Jerusalem up anyways, without displacing the people who live there? Do we build a big wall and call one side Jewish Jerusalem and the other side Arab Jerusalem, no matter who lives where or what holy site is where?

JordanT, you are aware that Jerusalem was divided when Israel was founded, right? Israel seized East Jerusalem in the 1967 War, and some still consider that an illegal occupation. See here for details.

Posted by tomemos | June 5, 2008 1:52 PM

Re Grand Moff Texan's comment "The actual power lies with Christian Zionists, "
----------
1) Oh bullshit. The actual power lies with billionaires who control the news media, who give millions to the political parties and who --for whatever reason -- are strong supporters of Israel.

2) Neocon William Kristol may advance Likudite aims by vacationing with that little creep Gary Bauer -- but Kristol has lived off crumbs from Rupert Murdoch for years. Who do you think subsidizes the hugely unprofitable Weekly Standard?

3) Who do you think John Hagee serves? God or Mammon?

Here, let me help you:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hagee#Financial_controversy

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 1:54 PM

whatever the merits of obama's comments, i highly doubt that 6 million palestinians, and hundreds of millions of arabs, were watching him give them, or will even hear about the details of them.

They don't need to watch, they will hear at the mosque. It's already on Al Jazeera. Obama's going to have to create some ambiguity or doubt to cover over this to recreate perception of being an honest broker.

Posted by Cindy | June 5, 2008 1:56 PM

whatever the merits of obama's comments, i highly doubt that 6 million palestinians, and hundreds of millions of arabs, were watching him give them, or will even hear about the details of them.

They don't need to watch, they will hear at the mosque. It's already on Al Jazeera. Obama's going to have to create some ambiguity or doubt to cover over this to recreate perception of being an honest broker.

Posted by Cindy | June 5, 2008 1:58 PM

"Really? Most American Jews poll to the left of US policy on Israel?"

Yes they do. Just Google it and you'll be even more surprised at the degree to which minority groups like AIPAC are allowed to set the terms of any debate over Isreal and Palestine.

Remember that kerfuffle back in 2000 over lots of Jewish retirees in Florida seemingly voting for the rather anti-semitic Pat Buchanan over Al Gore? No one ever raised the idea that their votes might have gone anywhere but into Goe's account, because everyone in the MSM actually knows that most American Jews reliably vote Democratic, they just don't think it counts when the topic concerns Israel, because that's what the 'conventional wisdom' in DC tells them.

Posted by Tony J | June 5, 2008 2:01 PM

I think it's great that credulous Obama worshippers get to see immediate tacking back to center and the reality of what's to come. The nice diverse man hurt your feelings by pandering. Boo hoo.

You mean change ain't all it's cracked up to be?

You think he might be taking you for a ride on the Hopewagon?

It is hilarious that the Chosen One, the Messiah, no doubt a devout Christian (I don't believe he cynically joined Trinity for political opportunism and then quit for, well, political opportunism) has to come up with a plan for Jerusalem to save it from the Muslims who hate the Jews.

But, now you know, he's not the Messiah. He's a very naughty boy.

Posted by Brian of Nazareth's Mother | June 5, 2008 2:16 PM

Re tomenos

I suppose my comment was a trifle unclear. The lack of surprise referred to Mr. Yglesias unhappiness, not to Senator Osamas' speech.

Re Don Williams

There are a number of refugee camps that are either in the Gaza Strip or the West Bank. If Mr. Williams is so bent out of shape about the Fakestinian refugees, why is he not demanding that the PA take steps to empty those camps and resettle the inhabitants therein? The answer, of course, is that Mr. Williams agrees with the demand that they be resettled in what is now Israel, thereby causing the Government of Israel to go out of business. As with most Israel bashers, Mr. Williams never mentions the Jews who were kicked out of various Muslem countries in the period surrounding 1948 and were resettled elsewhere, mostly in Israel. But of course, in the Don Williams world, they don't count.

Posted by SLC | June 5, 2008 2:24 PM

"Brian of Nazareth's Mother"??

Oh, yes. I remember her. The cinematic version of Hillary Clinton.
---------
Brian: But I hate the Romans. You told me that Roman Centurion raped you --against your will.

Brian's Mother: Well he did --initially.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 2:26 PM

SLC-

WOW!!!1 I was totally unconvinced by your argument, but then I saw that you called Obama Osama, and referred to the Palestinians as Fakestinians, then I realized, with that mordant wit, You Must Be Right!

Posted by rickm | June 5, 2008 2:27 PM

Obama pretends he's not a secret Muslim by pandering to AIPAC

Yglesias pretends he's an enlightened Jew by bashing Obama over it.

And the world keeps revolving.

Posted by spacegoat | June 5, 2008 2:28 PM

"The PACs and the lobbyists will not run my White House! ... Or well, there's always AIPAC, but no one else! Seriously!"

Posted by Ivan | June 5, 2008 2:32 PM

Re SLC's comment "The answer, of course, is that Mr. Williams agrees with the demand that they be resettled in what is now Israel, thereby causing the Government of Israel to go out of business."
-------------
Maybe SLC could point to the post where I said that. So that we don't suspect that he is ..you know .. a lying shithead who makes things up.

I do think that I mentioned in the past that the "right of return" issue could be dealt with if AIPAC took just a small fraction of what they spend on buying the US Congress and gave reparations to the Palestinian refugees.

Although the Solution I have FAVORED is for 4 Million Palestinians to all convert to Orthodox Judaism and to then show up on Likud's doorstep with a total net worth of $7.50.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 2:36 PM

Obama will I suppose say anything to lower the heat from the neocolonialist tourist roquets with no claim to the land. Once elected, I imagine he'll have the good sense to squeeze the nazis good until they cry "anti-Semite!". Then, we can begin the process of deporting the fake Americans like shitfly (SLC). Their loyalty is to The Parasite Homeland and when Obama takes the oath of office - the business of what he calls "remaking our nation" must begin in earnest.

Posted by Trevor | June 5, 2008 2:44 PM

I saw Obama's comment yesterday and, like Matt, was disappointed and concerned (note: I've been a strong supporter of Obama's campaign since he first announced last January).

But I also felt that it was uncharacteristic of Obama to engage in this type of "counterproductive" pandering. (As opposed to rather harmless pandering, such as when a candidate tells a group what they want to hear, but which the candidate believes anyway and/or when the pander is relatively harmless or has no real negative consequences).

MJ Rosenberg, who tends to be a harsh critic of AIPAC, and who strongly supports a just peace in the form of a two-state solution (and groups that lobby for policies, such as the new J-Street lobby), posted about the speech yesterday at TPM Cafe.

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/04/at_aipac_today_obama_shows_how/

MJ had this to say about Obama's Jerusalem "undivided" comment (added as a post-script to his post after I and other commenters asked specifically for his views on this):

"I am not troubled by Obama's reference to maintaining an "undivided Jerusalem." That is what I favor. Unified city, two sovereignties i.e. shared. I love Jerusalem and the idea of walls going up to divide Jews and Arabs is anathema to me. Share it, don't split. I don't know what Obama meant but I believe that his commitment to an undivided city is right."

That sounds about right to me. I'd also much prefer that Jerusalem remain "undivided,” I also have great hope that it will someday be shared, with both Israelis and Palestinians claiming it as their capitol.

Of course, there will be many Palestinians (and other Arab populations) who will see Obama's statement as saying something else, if for no other reason that it was made in front of group that is not supportive of a just two-state solution.

However, Obama has a tough line to walk here, particularly since he is going to have to spend the next 5 months beating back accusations, from people like Sen. Lieberman, claiming that he wants to sit down with Hamas (which while untrue is made even more complicated when a Hamas spokesman states that he’d like to see Obama as President).

If Obama's goal was to get a negative reaction (and statement*) out of Hamas, which he has now successfully done, then I think it was a smart (or at the very least, understandable) move.

* "Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and Mccain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win," - Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri.

Posted by Aaron M | June 5, 2008 2:45 PM

I just got back from a trip to Israel, and the number of liberal people on my trip, including Americans and Israeli soldiers who were nonetheless scared of Obama--essentially because of his name--are people who would be influenced by something like this. I don't have to like it, but Obama knows the cards he holds, and being able to tack left on Israel during the election is not one of them. As President, with a name like Obama, he'll have more sway than most Americans no matter what he said during the primary among the Muslim world.

One other tidbit from Israel, I heard more than a few times that Bill Clinton could be Prime Minister of Israel in a second.

Posted by Joel W | June 5, 2008 2:46 PM

Re Joel W's comment "I heard more than a few times that Bill Clinton could be Prime Minister of Israel in a second."
-----------
I don't like the Likud --but that's one Biblical curse that not even i would visit upon them.

Posted by Don Williams | June 5, 2008 2:53 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Actually, former President Clinton would be a huge improvement of the current occupant, Mr. Olmert. For that matter, Senator Osama would also be a huge improvement.

2. So Mr. Williams now says that he doesn't favor resettling the inhabitants of the Fakestinian refugee camps in what is now Israel. Glad to hear that.

3. If the PA and the Hamas leadership began a program of phasing out refugee camps under their jurisdiction and resettling the refugees, they would find the US, the EU, Japan, AIPAC, and Israel falling over themselves to contribute money to the effort. Even Hiam Saban would kick in for such an activity.

Posted by SLC | June 5, 2008 3:15 PM

JordanT, you are aware that Jerusalem was divided when Israel was founded, right? - tomemos

Yeah, and under that regime, Jerusalem was definitively not a place where people of all faiths had access to their holy sites. Now that Israel has control of Jerusalem, it's done a pretty good job (although not perfect -- Israel panders too much to both Haredi Jews and to Islamic power-brokers in re access to sites) of maintaining access.

Pace KobayashiMaru's wonderful vision of a shared Jerusalem, there is no evidence that such a shared Jerusalem could be a reasonably expected outcome of any peace agreement. Say what you will about the morality of Israel's occupation of the West Bank or whatever, there is a strong case, given past performance with respect to stewardship and access, that at least the Old City must remain in Israeli hands.

Posted by DAS | June 5, 2008 3:16 PM

A lot of comments on these Israel topics are made by people without any personal attachment to them. Laying out a "rational" basis for negotiations that completely dismisses the interests of the parties involved is a pretty absurd start to things.

I see a lot of people in this thread confusing their own beliefs with those of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans. It's true that Americans tend to be more hawkish than Israelis, and that many of the hardline positions adopted by the former are completely negotiable. But it's equally true that not *all* of those positions are unsupported by Israelis, and not all of them are Likudniks. This thread makes a lot of accusations that conflate all of these issues without demonstrating much understanding of them.

Posted by Geoff | June 5, 2008 3:18 PM

So Trevor thinks that we Jews are suspect in our loyalty and should be deported? And probably also thinks that Israel should not have a right of return for Jews. To where does Trevor propose we Jews go?

Is Trevor really a Zionist making Zionist talking points about how "the goyim" really feel and about why we Jews need Israel?

*

Although the Solution I have FAVORED is for 4 Million Palestinians to all convert to Orthodox Judaism and to then show up on Likud's doorstep with a total net worth of $7.50. - Don Williams

I've always found it odd that there hasn't been an effort by at least some Palestinians to try and convert to Judaism to gain a right to live in Israel. You always see people changing what they'd otherwise profess to be core matters of faith in order to live where they want, get a hawt date or whatever. Why not in this case? And what does that mean?

Anyway, it would make a good movie plot: Palestinian refugees decide to convert to Judaism to gain a right to return to Israel. Someone should use that -- but remember that Don Williams and I (and I'll throw in SLC too as a measure of good faith) expect a cut of the gross!

Posted by DAS | June 5, 2008 3:23 PM

How would you divide Jerusalem up anyways, without displacing the people who live there?

Well, the displacement has been happening for a while, with historically Christian areas of Jerusalem being bought up in dubious fashion -- or squatted by extremists -- aided by the bankroll of people like Florida bingo millionaire Irving Moskowitz.

That kind of meddling by private citizens with deep pockets is another reason why the US can't serve as a fair broker in the final status of Jerusalem.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | June 5, 2008 3:26 PM

No time to read through the whole thread at the moment, but wouldn't it be technically feasible (given lots of goodwill and a willingness to negotiate) for Jerusalem to remain undivided as a shared capital? Anyone know if such an idea has ever been floated?

Let's not be so quick to tear into Obama two days after he clinches the nominaion (and I say that as a former Clinton supporter). There's an election that needs winning.

Posted by Jasper | June 5, 2008 3:31 PM

Laying out a "rational" basis for negotiations that completely dismisses the interests of the parties involved is a pretty absurd start to things. - Geoff

Of course there is no "rational" basis for any negotiations anyway ... and that's the real crux of the problem (that and the H2O issue that everyone avoids like the plague). Many Palestinian people were kicked out of their lands by the creation of Israel: what "rational" basis is there for them to accept such a state and hence negotiate with it. Similarly, if any people need a state of their own as a place of refuge and return it is we Jews -- and, if the world has decided that we are allowed to have such a state (which it has), why is that state not given the same free hand in establishing borders, etc., that every single other frickin' state has been given? There is no "rational" basis for Israel to give up any of the land that it won fighting a defensive war.

Moreover, whenever Israel does even a little bit to compromize, are their test efforts rewarded with better security? No? They are viewed as half-assed hypocritical measures and met with sometimes violent opposition ... so why should Israel make any effort?

Whenever Palestinians make any effort to compromise, are their test efforts rewarded with more land or fewer checkpoints? No? So why should Palestinians make any effort?

We don't need people to be rational (as if the Age of Reason was such a peaceful time anyway? they don't teach kids about the 30 years' war in school nowadays I guess?) -- we need the denizens of the region not to take rational measures and make half-way compromises but to take leaps of faith ... but why should we, safe in America, tell the front liners to do such things? And we generally realize this, so we instead internalize the hard-line approaches ourselves ...

Posted by DAS | June 5, 2008 3:33 PM

In that the six million Jews in the US make up only about 1.7% of the total population, how is it possible for them to wield such significant power?
Posted by chet

1. Vast monetary resources translate into clout beyond any proportion to their numbers in the USA.

2. Jewish power and influence within US companies, real estate, Unions, "professional classes", financial institutions, academia, media, NGOs, legal system far greater than raw numbers would suggest.

3. Jews have influence outside any proprtion to their numbers in the ranks of tacticians, staffers, campaign organizers, heavy donors, and senior policy advisors to both Parties. At times, they have a dominant force over a politician (the Neocons), Dick Durbin's career, or a key non-Jewish constituency they manipulate to their purposes - (the Zionists careful cultivation and nurturing of the Christian Zionist Movement).

Not since the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia have Jews had greater power to reshape a country's policies and foreign affairs as they have done in the United States since the 60s.

Posted by chris ford | June 5, 2008 3:47 PM

Not since the Jewish Bolsheviks of Russia have Jews had greater power to reshape a country's policies and foreign affairs as they have done in the United States since the 60s.

Untrue, Chris.

"There is a nasty conspiracy theory going around that your country is run by Jews, a cabal of Jews who set the domestic agenda and run the media."

Turns out their foreign policy is almost wholly run by Jews as well.

Posted by SoCalJustice | June 5, 2008 3:58 PM

Well, I hope Obama just ensured that Sheldon Adelson will only give $50 million to Freedom's Watch's Muslim smear campaign, rather than the $200 million he might have thrown at them.

Posted by agum | June 5, 2008 4:05 PM

Anyone considered the possibility that he actually belives that in actual tangible fact cutting a thriving metropolis in half is not part of a viable settlement, no matter what the passions in play on both sides say about the matter?

Posted by Mike | June 5, 2008 5:10 PM

Agum - if its true, it is no smear.

As for Obama at AIPAC, what he said means nothing. This is a man who turned first on his grandmother who raised him, then on his minister who inspired him and baptized his children. At AIPAC, he turned on his long-time anti-Jewish friends in Chicago, the people who helped him get started in politics. He would throw the Jews under the bus without any hesitation, if he thought it would help him hold power.

Obama is a man of great windy emissions, messianic pretentions (heal the sick and stop the oceans rising - better even than Jesus!) but little character. He is a walking advertisement for strict greehouse gas emission limits.

As for Jerusalem? It is a Jewish city. It is not going to be divided. We are not giving up the Old City, and not giving up the Kotel. Until the Jews came back, the Moslems/Arabs didn't give a damn about the place - look at photos from pre-1967, and you will see east Jerusalem was poor, neglected, dirty, and empty. The "holy" al-Aksa mosque compound had grass growing up through the stones because NO ONE WENT THERE!.

So no, it is not going back. Get over it.

Posted by Eagle613 | June 5, 2008 5:20 PM

Fatah's guy in Jerusalem is going to run for Mayor next time around. Jerusalem's Jewish population is largely Haredi and range from non-zionist to anti-zionist and have an open desire to secede from secular Israel and declare themselves an independent Holy City and they will back the Arab candidate if he wants to do that in a heartbeat. This hasn't happened before because the Palestinians were told not to vote in Israeli elections and they didn't want to screw up negotiations. This will happen now and I have no idea what Israel will about it, but most of the planet would recognize it in a heartbeat.

Posted by Ed Marshall | June 5, 2008 5:55 PM

"So Trevor thinks that we Jews are suspect in our loyalty and should be deported? And probably also thinks that Israel should not have a right of return for Jews. To where does Trevor propose we Jews go?
Is Trevor really a Zionist making Zionist talking points about how "the goyim" really feel and about why we Jews need Israel?" (DAS)

Thanks to The Lobby and its amen corner in the media and congress and all its hysterical adherents we got 9/11. Thanks to them we've already lost an additional 4,000+ young Americans, tens of thousands maimed for life, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis DOA, their country in ruins, America suffering financial convulsions, the loss of its prestige, a foreign policy destined to link us for perpetuity with the pariah of pariah States and now we're on the verge of obliterating yet another non-threatening Islamic Nation, perhaps even Nuking them to satisfy the Israel uber alles bloodlust of neocons, leocons, and ziocons, from sea to shining sea. Hey, why not? If it's "good for the Jews" - let the goyim be damned.

As far as a place to send SLC and his ilk - why not Israel? I have nothing against the existence of Israel and/or a 2-State solution however faint that hope is now. But, this entangling alliance is seriously out of whack and maybe 40% of Jewish-Americans recognize it as well. Enough's enough. Take a tour through America and randomly ask people - "Are we all Israelis now?" See what kind of answers you get.

Posted by Trevor | June 5, 2008 6:03 PM

Re Trevor

How about these apples Mr. Trevor?

Exclusive: US may lift ban on sale of F-22 aircraft to Israel
Hilary Leila Krieger, jerusalem post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 6, 2008

US House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, whose panel has hitherto prevented the sale to Israel of the F-22 stealth fighter jet, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday that he was open to removing the sales restriction to boost Israeli deterrence.

The F-22 "Raptor" has long been regarded as a tremendous potential asset in any Israeli strike on Iranian nuclear facilities, given its ability to penetrate even the most sophisticated radar and other defense systems.

Officials reportedly brought up the possibility of a repeal of the sales ban in meetings at the White House during Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's trip to Washington this week, though his aides declined to confirm the details of the conversations.

"I'm a strong supporter of Israel getting all the material and equipment they need," said Berman, a California Democrat who assumed the chairmanship after the death of Tom Lantos earlier this year. In terms of dropping the ban on F-22 sales, he said, "I certainly would look at it."

Berman, who visited Israel last month, noted that the House recently passed a bill to strengthen Israel's qualitative military edge in any US arms sales, explaining, "We're trying to lay a foundation for a tougher-minded evaluation of what assistance Israel needs."

That legislation needs to pass in the US Senate before it can be signed into law. And any effort by Berman to drop the ban on sales of the F-22 - described in the past as based on protecting the US from the transfer of technology to the wrong actors - would have to be matched in the Senate. Still, as a leading figure in the House on foreign issues, Berman would be a key player on moving such a priority forward.

Israel has been looking for further US support on a variety of defense measures - including developing advanced missile defense capabilities, acquiring smart bomb technology and expediting F-35 sales - with the Iranian nuclear threat looming.

Iran was the focus of Wednesday's talks, with Olmert saying that Bush had answered many of the questions he'd had about the US path, determination and time frame on Iran. He told reporters after meeting with Bush in the Oval Office that "every day we are making real strides towards dealing with this problem more effectively."

Iran was also on the agenda of meetings Olmert held with the US Senate leadership Thursday afternoon before his return to Israel later in the day. Also discussed were Syria and Lebanon, peace talks with the Palestinians, and how to deal with Hamas and the Gaza Strip. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's reopening of national unity talks with Hamas could change that equation.

Berman suggested that US funding for the Palestinians could be jeopardized by these talks. American lawmakers would have doubts about giving money to a government that includes a group labeled a terrorist organization by the US, particularly for training Palestinian security forces.

"It certainly undercuts our ability to do a lot of things with the Palestinians," he said. "Giving money to an authority that has Hamas in it is very different from giving money to an administration headed by [PA Prime Minister] Salaam Fayad" of Fatah.

Palestinian officials said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had demanded clarifications about Abbas's decision to resume unconditional talks with Hamas in a conversation Thursday briefing him on Olmert's visit.

They said Abbas explained his motives to Rice and told her that the initiative was aimed at ending the crisis in the Palestinian arena.

Abbas and Rice also discussed the latest developments and the peace talks between the Israelis and Palestinians, PA officials said. They added that Abbas urged Rice to pressure Israel to halt settlement construction and to implement the road map peace plan.

Khaled Abu Toameh and Yaakov Katz contributed to this report.

Posted by SLC | June 5, 2008 6:14 PM

Re Trevor

How about these apples Mr. Trevor?

?Exclusive: US may lift ban on sale of F-22 aircraft to Israel

Hilary Leila Krieger, jerusalem post correspondent , THE JERUSALEM POST Jun. 6, 2008