Haaretz is teasing an exclusive interview with Obama in which he says that his opponents are trying to undermine his support in the Jewish community. I’m for a Jewish state, he says, and not for the right of return "in any literal way."
That hasn’t stopped the Israel lobby from going after Obama’s team as crypto-anti-Israel. Here is a rightwinger singling out Rob Malley (a true leader) as anti-Israel. And American Prospect reports that the Commentary crowd is going after author/adviser Samantha Powers for once uttering the words Israel and Iraq and "special interest" in the same breath. The quote from SamPo:
Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole is defined and pursued . . . America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive…. So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests–especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace–seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq. [Emphasis mine]
The American Prospect argues that Commentary is distorting Powers’s meaning. She wasn’t really talking about the Israel lobby. I hope she was. Aren’t you sick of all the code here? Let the issue come out. Let Obama take a meaningful stand on the settlements. Let Walt and Mearsheimer advertise on Obama’s website. Let the American people discuss the issue openly. Let the neocons show us their star-of-David underwear.
And stop claiming that the Jewish community is for a more evenhanded policy in Israel/Palestine. If it is, great, let us see that. If it’s not, let’s talk about it, and see what young Jews can teach their elders. And if Obama is not allowed to say what he really thinks because he needs Jewish money, shouldn’t we be talking about that too? I thought this campaign was about change, and goodbye to special interests…
Related posts:
- Israel lobby makes ‘castrated cattle’ of our Congress
- Once a canard, ‘Israel lobby’ idea is getting naturalized. Yippee
- It’s Not that Obama’s Anti-American– He’s ‘Anti-Israel’
- My Jewish Problem, Cte’d: David Brooks Uses Code Words for the Elephant in the Room
- Has Obama Trapped the Israel Lobby? A Theory…
{ 32 comments }
To me the attack on Power looks like poetic justice, for she has been prostituting herself to the Jewish media elite and organized Jewish community for a long time.
Check out http://eaazi.blogspot.com/2007/12/killing-muslims-under-humanitarian.html .
BTW, Power may not actually have been talking about the Israel Lobby.
The Israel Lobby as Walt & Mearsheimer framed it is a foreign policy issue.
Philip Weiss as often as not addresses the New Jewish elite and the organized Jewish community in terms of their effects on American society.
Now obviously the two standpoints are intertwined, but I spent time at the Joint Massachusetts Legislative Hearing on Sudan divestment in chatting with a lot of the Jewish student activists. While I have found that the upper ranks of the JCPA orchestrated the Save Darfur movement in conjunction with the Neocon leadership as a distraction from Israeli atrocities, the Jewish students approached Darfur as a Jewish responsibility connected with remembering the Holocaust.
Holocaust Promotion is to a large extent a Jewish special interest separate from the Israel Lobby even though the Israel Lobby uses the Holocaust to justify the theft Palestine from the native population.
Holocaust Promotion makes it possible for a wealthy powerful Jewish elite to shield itself from criticism under the cloak of victim status. Even if Israel did not exist, the organized Jewish community would still be devoted to a sort of secular Holocaust religion.
In addition, white conservatives can parade their support for Holocaust Museums and Holocaust shrines as an advertisement for their opposition to racism and anti-Semitism even as they do away for the governmental programs that are trying to overcome the structural disadvantages from which African Americans suffer in the USA.
And here might be where special Jewish interests (and not special Israel Lobby interests) might collide with Power's pet products. The effort or act of Holocaust memorialization can distract from actually fighting ongoing genocides like the Holoexaleipsis (the Great Erasure) that continues in Stolen and Occupied Palestine.
[BTW Power in her general hypocrisy denies that Zionists genocided and continue to genocide the native Palestinian population.]
"Let the American people discuss the issue openly."
Absolutely.
Let's have more democracy in our alleged democeacy.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
"democracy"
I had this feeling, when I read attacks on Obama's foreign policy advisers:
The lobby is trying to deceive voters, voters anxious to find a leader who will cut-off Israel, and lead the international effort to coerce Israel out of the occupied Palestinian territory, deceive them by implying Obama offers that possibility and so they need not clamor about Israel, they need not demand another candidate, who will do to Israel what needs doing.
And, at the same time, they are terrifying Obama, that he will lose the election if he promises to do what those voters want.
All this, because Dennis Kucinich, a courageous character, yet did not have the balls to promise this, as his policy, and thereby have a public showdown, by the voters, at the polls, an up-or-down vote.
J. Martillo:
Very enlightening post. Thank you.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Has 'Obama' become a code word for 'anti-Semitic'?
__________
Being an American first (black or white or Muslim) = anti-Israel lobby = anti-Israel = anti-Semitic. That's the logic.
The German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer wrote a sort of short manual (around 1850): 'How to win an argument'. Rule number one: 'Try to subsume the position of your adversary under a detested category'.
The same thing happened to Ralph Nader. He tried to be very careful how he handled the Palestinian Question only to be buried in Anti-Arab slanders. Nader actually became furious with the Green Party during his 2000 Campaign because they issued a statement on the Intifada that was sympathetic to the Paletinians. Nader's clique refused to understand that they weren't going to get many Progressive Jewish votes because they were running against the Democratic Party, to which Progressive Jews were fanatically attached. The fact that Nader is of Lebanese descent was just icing on the cake for them.
I second the comment that it is great to see the erudite Joachim Martillo here.
When will Americans start to gag on the obscene amounts of money it actually takes to run for office in the United States?
"Let Walt and Mearsheimer advertise on Obama's website."
A uniquely lame proposal, Phil.
Obama has been clear about his positions re: Israel, and should rest on them.
He should not revise them to pander. And, he should not revise them to pander to radicals.
He earns a lot of thoughtful votes, Jewish, black, white, Latin, Arab. He is an appealing candidate.
Rating the candidates in "the 51st state:"
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/giraldi.php?articleid=12280
Besides his Indonesian childhood years (which may mean that he has Muslim friends), the unmentionable attribute of Obama which bothers the Lobby is that he's black. Not in the sense that they want to impose a color bar; rather, that the POLITICS of blackness disturb them.
Jews were disproportionately represented in the civil rights movement of the early 1960s. A landmark in the divergence of Jewish and black interests was the New York City teachers' strike of 1968, which pitted a faculty with substantial Jewish membership against an increasingly African-American student body. The Black Muslim movement was also becoming prominent during those years. Although the absolute numbers are small, more African-Americans have become Muslim than Jewish.
Obama combines both factors: black ancestry, plus time spent in a Muslim country. Although the Lobby can't afford to articulate its worries that Obama's profile is 'crypto-anti-Israel' (Phil's words), it has been imposing repeated loyalty tests on Obama that aren't required of Hillary. Apparently, her exemplary service in voting for every Iraq war bill and every denunciation of Iran have confirmed her status as a "made menschette."
In Philip Giraldi's article, linked by Charles Keating above, Giraldi can't even bring himself to reveal that Obama's middle east minder Dennis Ross is Jewish. Instead, Giraldi delicately tiptoes round the land mine, citing Ross's affiliation with WINEP so that readers can make their own inferences.
Giraldi is obliged to incorporate approved boilerplate disclaimers, such as: "Israeli interest in the outcome of the election is legitimate, because the billions of dollars in U.S. economic and military aid are seen by most Israelis as crucial to their country's prosperity."
WHAT? We don't let U.S. corporations receiving multi-billion-dollar government contracts get involved in pushing individual candidacies. Why is it legitimate for a mendicant foreign aid recipient to take such an unseemly interest in U.S. internal affairs, which can be backed up by intervention in the form of individual contributions from Israel's U.S. supporters? Why does Giraldi defer to ISRAELIS to decide what is legitimate in OUR elections?
Giraldi's article does yeoman service in spreading the word about the disturbingly obsessive interest that a foreign power takes in our political process. But it's clearly been edited to pass the 'anti-semitic filter' in rendering it kosher for Mainstream Media consumption. Not that Antiwar.com is ever going to be mainstream in the world's greatest military empire … wonder why he bothers?
Good points, Jim Haygood. I guess he bothers for the same reason Phil bothers with this blog. And why anybody who posts here bothers to do so. Why did the White Rose bother to distribute leaflets? The members of the White Rose were from socio-economic familes that most in Germany thought at the time would benefit the most from the then status quo. Lucky for us so far, we aren't literally putting our lives and families at stake–at least so far I haven't been visited by anyone citing the Patriot Act for their intrusion into my private domain. .
So, let me get this straight Charles, you and Haygood are like the white rose. which I guess would make we Jews the Nazi's. And much like the white rose your risking death in your valiant effort to oppose we Jews, who again are really nazi's. Who weren't really that bad anyway right because it was really a Jewish boycott in 1933 that cause Hitler, sincere that he was, to protect the Aryan race. Do I have that right?
Last time I looked, Phil posts as a concerned Jew (and under his own real name). I don't know if Jim Haygood is Jewish, or not, but I bet that's his real name too. That's about as courageous and sincere as I get.
Charles, the intention of my badly-expressed question was to ask why Giraldi seemingly filters and pads his essays with elaborate kowtows to the Israel lobby … such as averring that of COURSE it's legitimate for them to participate in the U.S. election by ranking candidates on Israel-friendliness. Maybe it's really his carefully nuanced opinion. But his colleague Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com writes much more frankly about the Lobby's interference, so Giraldi's circumspection does not seem to be a restraint imposed by the venue.
So far, confronting the Lobby hasn't martyred anyone (that I know of). But it did mean tenure denial for Norman Finkelstein, and dozens of similar cases exist. It is still risky for anyone who is publicly prominent in America to take a principled stance against zionist excesses, as the savage criticism leveled against Walt and Mearsheimer shows. Sword of Gideon's attempt to twist statements into grotesque parodies is typical. Very rarely will zionist proponents actually debate facts, because the facts tend not to be on their side. Sophistry is their stock in trade. Always has been. So carry on!
Is any other nation's print media, especially those on a par with
Rosner's employer, rating the USA candidates according to its own national factor? Just curious. Any in, say Europe? If so, do any of them omit Ron Paul while including minor has-been wannabes?
"But his colleague Justin Raimondo at Antiwar.com writes much more frankly about the Lobby's interference, so Giraldi's circumspection does not seem to be a restraint imposed by the venue."
—————
Foreign Thought Police Target US Candidates
By Justin Raimondo
…NOTES IN THE MARGIN
The definitive refutation of the Jamie Kirchick/New Republic/Reason smear campaign against Ron Paul is here. More blogging over at Taki's Top Drawer here and here. That's the spicy stuff they don't let me run on Antiwar.com – don't miss it!
http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=12249
—————
"Sword of Gideon's attempt to twist statements into grotesque parodies is typical."
Fear you all the sword and it's mighty wielder…
http://image.orientaltrading.com/otcimg/71_74.jpg
Obama confronts the same problem that all national candidates in our upside-down system confront: how to do-the-right-thing without being destroyed by the politically-correct juggernaut that presides over America.
Israel is obviously an institutionally racist country. Jimmy Carter calls it an apartheid state, others call it a Jim Crow state. What could be more politically incorrect than supporting such an enterprise? Criticizing it, because it is a Jewish state, and as such is a reflection of American Jewish Zionists. And criticizing Jews, no matter how loathsome their behavior, is taboo.
Left-liberals are caught in a politically correct trap of their own construction, which may well be why so many left-liberal Jews helped construct it.
No question, Jewish activists are masters of the Machiavellian game: triangulate the Right with Christian Zionism and the Left with political correctness, leaven the whole system with a lot of Jewish money, and no one has the guts to open their mouths to speak out against blatant institutional racism. In fact, America is underwriting it. It's positively totalitarian.
But history shows, Jewish totalitarians have always been too clever by half, and as always, are sowing the seeds of their own demise. In many ways, it really isn’t even a matter of debate; its more a question of physics. I sometimes wonder if they don’t actually crave backlash, in a kind of “stop me before I kill again” sense. I’m beginning to believe that the biggest self-hating Jews are actually the Zionists.
Yah Ed, kind of miss those great days don't you. Ein Reich, Ein Volk, Ein Fuhrer.
…Ein Israel.
If I did, I'd be on your side with the other fascists.
Jack-booted a Palestinian lately, Gideon? Or are you another gutless American Zionist, so bold from your armchair halfway across the globe?
Great work, J Martillo….
"I’m beginning to believe that the biggest self-hating Jews are actually the Zionists."
No doubt, brother.
I bet the raging Sword agrees…
Just ready from the backlash from you big Ed. Good thing that Israel exists and that we have the 2nd amendment.
Yeah, I'm sure your locked 'n' loaded and sleeping with one eye open; in a perennial state of agitation, just like the Neocons and Zio’s like to keep you. The irony is, it’s they you should fear the most.
No Ed, its guys like you, you know the stormfront types who I want to be ready for. You know the backlash that will end in my destruction, isn't that the way you put it. Come on though I liked you better when you were honest, call a spade a spade Ed, your an antisemitic piece of shit. Its got history, goes way back.
Calm down, Gideon. You're starting to sound like a hyperventilating dimwit. I know you're smarter than that. Unlike the Zionists, I never generalize about "the Jews." My point is, was, and has always been, Judeofasicsts deliberately bring about the demise of righteous Jews because it advances their own fascist, money-worshipping agenda. Christian charlatans do the same thing. We're all in the same boat. Righteous Jews and righteous Christians (and righteous Muslims, for that matter) have a lot in common. Godless materialists (be they Communist fanatics, Capitalist fanatics or religious fanatics attempting to profit from their religious network) are our common enemy. 95% of mankind can be redeemed. 5% cannot. It's all a question of whether you want to dwell in the river or the sewer. The righteous dwell in the river. Godless materialists dwell in the sewer. They are the 5%. They're proud because they think being in the 5% makes them exclusive. They don't understand that they're the 5% of humanity that is sewage.
Martillo's Law: "The Jewish perception of historic Jewish suffering doubles approximately every century."
It's a lower bound, 's'. I expect there is some strict Martillo's Law regarding "pearlestinians" such as: "The zionist perception of historic jewish suffering doubles approximately every settlement"
Obama's senate and presidential campaigns have been backed strongly by Chicago's Billionaire Pritzker and Billionaire Crown families and by the now-deceased former U.S. Senator Paul Simon's former staffpeople. As former Illinois Congressional Rep. Paul Findley noted in his "They Dare To Speak Out: People and Institutions Confront Israel's Lobby" book, Simon was put into the U.S. Senate after AIPAC people decided that former U.S. Senator Charles Percy was too critical of Israel:
"Early in 1984, AIPAC decided to mobilize the full national resources of the pro-Israel campaign against Percy…AIPAC encouraged fundraising for Paul Simon and mobilized its political resources heavaily against Percy. It assigned several student interns fulltime to the task of anti-Percy research and brought more than one hundred university students from out-of-state to campaign for Simon…
"While most financial support from pro-Israel activists came to Simon from individuals, political action committees figured heavily…By election day, the total had risen to $235,000, with fivty-five committees participating.
"In addition, a California Jewish activist, Michael Goland, using a loophole in federal law, spent $1.6 million for billboard, radio and television advertising which urged Illinoisans to `dump Percy'…
"When the votes were counted, Percy had lost statewide by 89,000 votes…
"…Total expenditures in behalf of the Simon candidacy came to $6.9 million.
"Forty percent–$3.1 million–came from Jews disgruntled over Percy's position on Arab-Israel relations. Indeed, Simon was promised half this sum before he became a candidate. While he was still pondering whether to vacate his safe seat in the House of Representatives in order to make the race, he was assured $1.5 millin from Jewish sources. The promise came from Robert Schrayer, Chicago area businessman and a leader in the Jewish community, whose daughter, Elizabeth, wasa helping to organize anti-Percy forces in her job as assistant director of political affairs for AIPAC."
And "Obama: From Promise to Power" by David Mendell notes:
"The lead organizer of the downtown Chicago anti-war rally (in 2002) was Bettylu Saltzman…Saltzman…was the daughter of a late Chicago-area builder, Philip Klutznick, who left a fortune to Saltzman and her five brothers…For four years, she ran the Chicago-based office of Senator Paul Simon. While working for Simon, Saltzman formeed a close bond with one of Simon's chief political minds–[David] Axelrod, who had co-managed Simon's first Senate campaign. The two would talk on the phone almost daily…By 2002, Saltzman was a major Chicago fund-raiser who could not only tap into her own wealth but had big-money connections that could help raise substantial cash for any political candidate…
"Saltzman first met Obama in 1992…Saltzman and Obama formed a lasting political friendship and she was helpful to Obama when he ran for the Illinois senate.
"So when Saltzman was assembling speakers for the anti-war rally in late October 2002, Obama came to her mind…So Obama agred to speak…"
Speaking of special influence by lobbying groups like AIPAC, one should also note (on the same day that ExxonMobil announced an annual profit of $40 billion)that `The Buying of the President 2004" observed:
"BP, ChevronTexaco and ExxonMobil…have been generous benefactors of George W. Bush's political career. ExxonMobil contributed $117,075 to his campaigns, while BP has given him $96,093 and ChevronTexaco has contributed $82,350…And the trio share another distinction, each donated $100,00 to the Bush-Cheney inaugural…"
Comments on this entry are closed.