OK, maybe Walt and Mearsheimer were the first guys over the barbed wire, and they left their bodies there. No one’s allowed to touch their ideas now. They were bad and wrong. Worse: controversial. OK. Well, comes now Barack Obama with his weirdass background and his couple slips about Palestinians, and the Jewish leadership is worried, says the Jewish Advocate–
"Given his heritage, background and upbringing, there is no question that he’d be more open than the other candidates to arguments from different perspectives and viewpoints and not hold the standard party line regarding Israel and the Jewish community,” said the Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff.
Party line?
In the race for the American presidency, securing support from Jewish leaders has become a valuable tool in swaying Jewish voters…
Leaders? The article cites Steve Grossman, an important fundraiser. He says Obama seems OK, but he’s a bit unknown.
It is the senator’s relatively unknown status that raises doubts in the minds of Jewish voters, according to Steve Grossman, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and of AIPAC, and a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton.
Last year Grossman attacked Desmond Tutu for saying Palestinians are oppressed. AIPAC. Party line. Jewish leaders. Jewish givers. Isn’t it time for some mainstream journalism about the alleged Israel lobby?
Related posts:
{ 12 comments }
What's needed is a liberal, independant thinking, Jewish candidate, who is supportive of Israel's defense, but also sympathetic to Palestians experience of the nakba and current experience.
Would they get the support of the "Israel lobby", probably but also probably with some negative inferences.
Would they get the white green/progressive vote? Unlikely, as they might be regarded as suspect.
The litmus test would be more severe than even the Israel lobby.
Go and read Mickey Kaus today. I usually like Kaus but he is in the fog that most Jewish-Americans are:
http://www.slate.com/id/2182569
"OK, so he says he wants Mexicans to think of Mexico the way Jews think of Israel. And maybe he's talking mainly about investment, not dual loyalty (though why shouldn't dual citizens have dual loyalties? Isn't that the point?). But would any Israeli emissary or American Jewish leader have the chutzpah to urge Americans to "think 'Israel First'"? I doubt it."
Why do you doubt this, Mickey?
"Isn't it time for mainstream journalism about the Israel lobby?"
Yes!
I have been reading and posting on this blog for a mere two weeks or so, but it has convinced me of what I take to be its main point: the US needs an open discussion about our foreign policy interests and a thorough and explicit re-evaluation of our relationship with Israel.
This blog does a great public service.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Michael Blaine, that's how I see this blog too.
I don't know boys if Weiss keeps this crazy stuff up he may be Finkelsteined where he makes his living. But that may not be a bad thing. The Last Laugh at De Paul:Norman Finkelstein…Associate Professor and Multi-Millionaire http://homo-sapien-underground.blogspot.com/2008/01/last-laugh-at-de-paul-associate.html
The Walt/Mearsheimer book and articles received tons of mainstream media attention.
Why do you think it deserve more than its gotten?
I didn't like the book. I liked the article less.
Charles Keating:
I read a review of the Walt/Mearsheimer book (in the Washington Post's book supplement, I believe.)
Its conclusion was that it oversimplified and exaggerated the influence of the Israel Lobby on US foreign policy; but that the influence is there and should be openly examined I think is irrefutable.
Michael Blaine
http://www.rudelystamped.blogspot.com
Thank you, Phil, for this revealing quote which outlines the habitual tactic of suppressing free discussion:
"[Obama would] be more open than the other candidates to arguments from different perspectives and viewpoints and not hold the standard party line regarding Israel and the Jewish community,” said the Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff.
Morris Dees at the Southern Poverty Law Center hammers on the theme of "tolerance." But in free-speech America, Rabbi Korff insinuates that "openness … to arguments from different perspectives and viewpoints" (which is how I would define tolerance) is a BAD thing in a political leader. I guess some subjects are just beyond the pale for discussion, eh, Rebbe?
I'm still waiting for one, independent-thinking Jewish candidate in either Israel or the U.S. to tell the American people, "Thanks so much for the hundreds of billions in U.S. support for Israel over the decades. Now Israel is capable of pulling its own weight, without the generous military and financial aid. We look forward to a more equal, respectful relationship in the future, which is not marred by an omnipresent fund-raising agenda."
As I say, I keep waiting. But all I hear is … the chirping of crickets.
""Given his heritage, background and upbringing, there is no question that he’d be more open than the other candidates to arguments from different perspectives and viewpoints and not hold the standard party line regarding Israel and the Jewish community,” said the Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff."
Yet again,
I am speechless.
"(…)he’d be more open than the other candidates to arguments from different perspectives and viewpoints(…)"
Obviously, being open to different viewpoints and arguments is to be avoided AT ALL COSTS IN A DEMOCRACY.
That Mickey Kaus quote above is also quite a jawdropper–
"But would any Israeli emissary or American Jewish leader have the chutzpah to urge Americans to "think 'Israel First'"? I doubt it."
Doesn't he read the AJC alerts, the ADL newletters, CAMERA media campaigns, AIPAC funding appeals? Did he miss Rudy Guiliani's latest letter to the Jewish voters of Florida? What was he talking about?
But we are, I will admit, still one step ahead of France, where Olmert once publicly encouraged the Jewish citizens to pack up and settle in Israel.
Given the public record that, e.g., Chaney, Bush, and Rumsfeld reversed their foreign policy stance, and that they represented all along both Big Oil and the military-industrial complex, and assuming they have also always been sincere in what they believed to be in the best interest of their country as a whole, the question is why? Perhaps W & M should write on this topic next.
A key aspect of this question stiffled has been, given 9/11, why attack Iraq, diverting attention and resources from Bin Laden?
Comments on this entry are closed.