Yesterday’s LA Times had a front-page story making a point I’ve also made: supporters of Palestinian self-determination have high hopes in Obama:
Obama is a U.S. senator from Illinois who expresses a firmly pro-Israel view of Middle East politics, pleasing many of the Jewish leaders and advocates for Israel whom he is courting… And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to [Rashid] Khalidi, and words like those at the professor’s going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
True, and important. The piece was promptly attacked by the Nation. Jon Wiener faults the LA Times for bringing up years-ago meetings with Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi and putting them on page 1. He says the story hints slyly that Obama is not pro-Israel. Ari Berman made a similar criticism in the Nation last
month when he said that reporters shouldn’t be going after Obama’s connections with Khalidi. I think these guys are afraid that Obama won’t win if this sort of story comes out. And maybe they’re right. Israel-firster Ed Lasky, for instance, is one of a pack of neocons who hammer unfairly on this issue from the right.
But Lasky has the right to know the facts, and so do I.
The LA Times should be celebrated for putting this story on page 1. It’s about time we had a conversation about Palestine in the American press. We need more information, not less information. Think about it: we’ve spent eight years, or 20 years, not knowing what our leaders’ real agenda was re Israel/Palestine. Don’t we want to know this about Obama, McCain and Hillary?
Of course, Obama hasn’t said a word about this stuff, and we all know
why. Politics! But since when should journalists serve that aim? So what that these are ten-year-old meetings! I want newspapers to probe how Obama feels about Israel and Palestine. I want to know about his connections to Ali Abunimah and other Arabs, and to Jews as well. The LAT just put the late great Edward Said on the front page– good for them!
The louder and more prominent this conversation is, the better-informed Americans will be about issues that have enormous impact but that have been marginalized. Bring it on. I think my side will win; and that a popular acceptance of the cause of Palestinian self-determination will bring our country forward. Not for nothing is Obama a progressive.
Of course if we have that wide-open conversation and I lose, and the people decide that an Israel-right-or-wrong policy is in the American interest, that’s democracy. It’s a lot better than what we have now.
Related Posts
- Why Is Khalidi Silent?
- ‘LA Times’ Should Release Transcript of Obama/Khalidi Event
- Neocons Are Smearing Obama for a Reason
- McCain Likens Party for Rashid Khalidi to Gathering of ‘Neo-Nazis’
- Abunimah in ‘The Nation’: ‘Obama shouldn’t defend the institutionalized bigotry [in Israel] that the civil rights movement defeated in this country’
{ 13 comments }
Hell hath frozen over. I actually agree with this one. But let me bounce this one off the pig Weiss fan base. An example of the honest thing to do with the whole Wright-church story would have been to say that this is my church, this is the minister that I love and I like his sermons, I like his outlook, and that's why I've been there 20 yrs. But he didn't do that did he. It's possible, just possible, that he's just another politician, not the messiah.
One consequence of describing Obama as primarily a progressive and on Israel/Palestine/Iraq/Iran in particular, rather than as a mediator, is that those that are attracted to Obama AS a mediator, might renounce their support.
Which ends are you pursuing, and why?
I know a number of former Edwards' supporters, that at the time of my state's primary, described Clinton as "OBVIOUSLY" more progressive than Obama. That his position of "bringing us together, making a place for all at the table" was a position that likely would result in corporate dominance and more of the same, resulting from his naivete.
Thas right SOG. He's just another pol. He is already surrounded by the remoras and leeches representing a country that didn't have people but now do and the name of which now escapes me.
Sword of Gideon: Interesting comment. So you are a fan of the American Thinker line of thought? What do you think about their occasional lapse into racism?
Is there any chance to convince you to stop insulting Philip? But the pig is a interesting choice, historically. What made you choose it?
********************************************
Philip, I agree with Richard on this issue.
The topic has to be handled with utter care.
I don't see the left having the resources to counter the rights propaganda machine that could be raised by a careless handling of the subject. It could be the most dirty campaign, you have ever witnessed. The mindset is shaped by centuries of media treatment …
But hmmm? It would be interesting to see the results of a study of the reactions of average Joe to the arguments of Lasky vs. Mondoweiss and Magnes Zionist or Richard's Tikun Olam.
shabbat shalom
Sword of Gideon: Interesting comment. So you are a fan of the American Thinker line of thought? What do you think about their occasional lapse into racism?
Is there any chance to convince you to stop insulting Philip? But the pig is a interesting choice, historically. What made you choose it?
********************************************
Philip, I agree with Richard on this issue.
The topic has to be handled with utter care.
I don't see the left having the resources to counter the rights propaganda machine that could be raised by a careless handling of the subject. It could be the most dirty campaign, you have ever witnessed. The mindset is shaped by centuries of media treatment …
But hmmm? It would be interesting to see the results of a study of the reactions of average Joe to the arguments of Lasky vs. Mondoweiss and Magnes Zionist or Richard's Tikun Olam.
shabbat shalom
Leander,
Richard Silverstein is the blogger of Tikkun Olam. A different person, though with many similar views.
Just to clarify.
It would be a mistake for me to take his credibility and use it for my own embellishment.
All good questions raised above in this thread. Obama has his nuanced and stylish eyes on the prize. If he gets it, I doubt he knows at the moment what he will do with it. He's left enough little red flags to go around. Which to look at? If his campaign
approach morphs into his actual governing approach, he might actually be a real mediator. Seems at the very least, a gamble on him instead of Hillary or McCain will change the ruts, among the three.
But his wife worries me. Yet not as much as Hillary or McCain, so there you go.
"Leander,
Richard Silverstein is the blogger of Tikkun Olam."
Yes, Richard,
I should have used Richard Witty first and Richard Silverstein second. I know Richard S.'s blog. I might even read his blog slightly longer than Phil's.
The mediation path usually results in more change than the ruts, and with consent rather than animosity, and therefore more permanent.
The mediation path usually results in more change than the ruts, and with consent rather than animosity, and therefore more permanent.
Michelle Obama's thesis on race in USA is available on internet, though it is now officially blocked until after the November elections. Take a look. I'm coming to the conclusion that Islam, Likudeland, La Raza, and Black America are all arrayed against the european-derived peoplehood. MSNBC's special last night on race relations seem to cement this regarding the Black America view. It's a shakedown, using white (nonevangelical) Christian guilt and secular white goy guilt; the irony is the use of the premises via the white-goy originated Enlightenment versus the rest of the world, which has not been tested by real power in the last few centuries; except to the extent it has, it has failed miserably.
Let's hope so. Is it naive to suspend experienced cynicism?
Comments on this entry are closed.