Drudge is reporting that Obama’s sunrise visit to the Western Wall set off a mob scene and cries of Jerusalem is not for sale. You’d think this would be an opportunity for journalism and open discussion of American policy. Wrong.
Today on Andrea Mitchell’s politics show on MSNBC, she mentioned Obama’s Jerusalem pander at AIPAC and then asked asked Richard Holbrooke, a possible Secretary of State to Obama, about how Obama’s doing on the issue. Holbrooke basically ended the discussion. He said, Look we all know that this is a politically loaded question for any politician. I.e., there’s orthodoxy here, a politician is going to toe the line. And Mitchell accepted the answer.
More important, where is the Jewish Democratic money on this issue? Where is Rahm Emanuel. Where is Haim Saban? What is the significance of the fact that polls show that 58 percent of American Jews are against dividing Jerusalem?
Alas that last statistic underlies Holbrooke’s dumb show: Neoconservative views on Jerusalem pervade Jewish life; and so Jerusalem is where the money is. Obama has absolutely no political cover in saying, Jerusalem is an international city and must be shared by all faiths, including Muslims who want to pray at the Dome of the Rock and are not allowed into the Holy City–as the U.N.’s Bernadotte did, till the Stern gang assassinated him. The Israel lobby has Obama in its clutches. And he cannot begin to escape it because Andrea Mitchell, who is herself Jewish and Richard Holbrooke, who I believe is also Jewish, have no sense of public accountability here, cannot say what they actually know about this question, let alone let us know where the party powers stand.
This is about religion in politics. Like abortion, or gay marriage, it’s something some people feel keenly about. Other Americans have a right to weigh in on this. They can’t until they’re informed.
Related posts:
- Please Greenlight this Western: ‘Shootout With the Israel Lobby Over Dividing Jerusalem’
- Will Rising Political Temperature over Iran Compel Journalists to Look at the Israel Lobby?
- (Oy) Obama chooses 3 Jews as Middle East envoys
- Iran/Israel Lobby Issue Is too ‘Sensitive’ for Chris Matthews
- Why O Why Has Obama Abandoned the Palestinians? (The Left Ignores the Lobby)
{ 17 comments }
When Obama visited Bristol, VA., Andrea Mitchell said all that needed to be said concerning her attitude- and that of the mainstream media- about anyone outside of the elites represented by Philip Weiss, the media establishment, and Obama himself. Indeed, the Obama campaign made no effort to distance itself from her divise remarks, even with the shadow cast by Obama's own remarks about the supposed guns-n-religion- clinging fringe in flyover land. His disdain, and that of the above mentioned parties, is well apparent. Let's see how it plays after Obama's preordained election, Philip.
______________________________________________________________________________________
"This is about religion in politics."
Amen.
______________________________________________________________________________________
Phil,
If I'm correct, Andrea Mitchell is looking over her shoulder at her boss Jeff Zucker.
A Jewish gentleman you wrote about:
http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=1137
"Lately broadcast reporter John Hockenberry related that he wanted to do a piece on the hijackers' motivationafter 9/11 but that NBC executive Jeff Zucker scotched the notion:
"Maybe," Zucker said, "we ought to do a series of specials on firehouses where we just ride along with our cameras. Like the show Cops, only with firefighters."… [H]e could make room in the prime-time lineup for firefighters, but then smiled at me and said, in effect, that he had no time for any subtitled interviews with jihadists raging about Palestine. [Weiss's emphasis]"
"What is the significance of the fact that polls show that 58 percent of American Jews are against dividing Jerusalem?"
Why not take a poll of the other Americans? You stated that the average American can't weigh in because they are uninformed, and I don't know how true that is. How are Jews being informed? Lots of non-Jews go to Israel, and the rest can read between the lines. The issue isn't that difficult at heart, and the average American knows that people don't like having land taken from them.
I have plenty of contact with average Americans, and there is plenty of resentment of Israel. Are the historical and political facts always straight? No. Why should the average American know the gory and mundane details of Palestine's history and politics? What does the average Jew know about Taiwanese politics or history? Not much, I'd guess. But no one is calling Jews uninformed.
It's not scientific, but I asked a truck driver the other day about the cost of diesel, and he went off on the Iraq war and what a waste it is. I then asked him about AIPAC, and he stated that Israel should fight its own wars and carry its own weight.
Jews are being discusses among the supposedly unwashed and unsophisitcated. I heard an old man who would be described as unsophisticated and unwashed by media types discussing the issue over a burger with his grandson.
What will happen when the people who want an elected office understand that 2% of the population(basically unassimilated foreigners among us) can't run a nation? Will we be free of the Jewish influence?
Holbrooke's background.
And, Obama's point that Israel and the US are in a permanent close relationship is FACT.
Incremental reform is the most that will change in the relationship.
And, that is a good thing, that reform occurs, and that it is limited to reform.
"Undivided Jerusalem" is a mountain out of a molehill. What are the practical alternatives?
1. Jewish control over all of Jerusalem
2. Divided Jerusalem
3. Palestinian control over all of Jerusalem
4. International peaceful control of Jerusalem
5. Civil war in Jerusalem
Maybe international control is possible. It hasn't happened yet. Maybe a divided city is possible. That only happened prior to 1967, and Jewish sites were abused, and travel to their primary shrines was prohibited. (People remember that stuff.)
Rhetoric isn't enough.
Right, Witty. International control was Bernardotte's idea, wasn't it? As I recall, the Zionists din't much care for it, either. Or was there some other reason they murdered him?
I bet an American popular referendum would be overwhelmingly
in favor of international control–with most independents and self-described Christians thinking its a no-brainer–only the Christian Zionists would be against it.
Maybe I should temper my statement:
[1] As you may know, a key dispute between Israel and the Palestinians is about certain areas of East Jerusalem, which Israel has occupied since the 1967 war. Past negotiations over a peace agreement have broken down because both sides want to control these areas. Just based on what you know, are you more inclined to believe that Israel should have control, the Palestinians should have control, or that both sides should allow the UN to have control unless they later come to some other compromise? [choices randomized]
May 2003
May 2002
Israelis should have control
26%
25.5%
Palestinians should have control
6
6.7
UN should have control
55
57.3
(Don't know)
-
9.7
(Refused)
14
.8
Organization: PIPA
As you may know, there is currently a major conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians about the future status of Jerusalem, because both parties see it as their traditional capital. It has been proposed that Jerusalem become an international city that would be policed by an international police force, so that they can each have their capitals in different parts of the city. Do you think the US should or should not support this idea?
Should support
50.7%
Should not support
33.8
(Don't know)
15.0
(Refused)
.6
http://www.americans-world.org/digest/regional_issues/IsraelPalestinians/un_role.cfm
What is possible?
What is safe?
Traditionally, capitals are placed at the most secure part of the jurisdiction, not at the frontier.
Certainly, NOT in an international enclave.
I thought it would appealing for the capital's to be close. In the event that the communities became friendly, the prime minister of Israel could take a leisurely walk to visit his/her friend, the prime minister of Palestine.
That seems far off, that the communities trusted (earned) each other enough to share the space.
How would you see that evolving?
That trust-building?
Witty: "How would you see that evolving?
That trust-building?"
A good starting point would have been for the Zionist terrorists to NOT murder the man who wanted to create such a city. The Zionist cliche is that the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. I would say it applies just as well — if not better — to the Zionist side. Example #1: U.N. control of Jerusalem.
Given the history of the region, I can't imagine why any Arab would trust any negotiation spearheaded by the USA, England, or France.
I heard it just last night on MSNBC's Dan Abrams show (I think), but Andrea Mitchell seems to be going out of her way to try to "kneecap" Sen. Obama at every turn. I forget exactly what it was she said but my first thought is that this woman clearly has a Zionist agenda. It was something along the lines of Jews/Israelis have every reason to fear/distrust Obama as he is not sufficiently a friend of Israel to merit their support.
Non jews like myself have been vocal on the Isr-Pal issue…writing letters and making phone calls to our congresspeople.
However, no matter how logical or ethical or realistic our pleas for fairness or evenhandedness in the Israeli issue, it has no impact on the politicans.
This is an issue that evidently cannot be solved by using the usual citizen tools.
What do people do when their reasonable actions to resolve an issue go unanswered?
They eventually esculate their political actions to more extreme measures.
American, how about trying to set up a lobby before you start sending bombs in envelops or whatever other "extreme measures" you have in mind? I mean, if there are enough people "like yourself", you could become pretty powerful.
Phil – the crux of the problem is there are too many shrewd and gritty Jews "interviewing" other shrewd and gritty Jews on TV and in print. The media, academia – totally stultified at best, at worst a virtual conspiracy.
'The dumb show suggests the extent to which our journalism is captured by the Israel lobby.'
It's almost total in the MSM, and like the political parties, the Lobby owns both sides, librul and conservative. So much so that those markers don't mean very much any more, as every other issue makes way for Israel.
They are the players, dominating both teams, and they don't have to worry about working the refs because they have those bases covered too.
'Like abortion, or gay marriage, it's something some people feel keenly about. Other Americans have a right to weigh in on this. They can't until they're informed.'
And able to participate in public discussion of the issue. And while the issue of religioon in politics is important, the reason us natives are so restless isn't some abstract philosophical point like that, it's that our sons and daughters seem increasingly likely to pay for the Lobby's paranoia with their chance to lives lives of peace and prosperity, if not with their lives.
Not to mention the antidemocratic effects on our democratic institutions (governance and information primarily), of a highly motivated cadre, cabal if you like, of people driven by an agenda based on the interests of another country. One which involves the rest us in their millennial struggle with the Muslims and the Arabs, a billion strong enemy they are happy to send other, expendable people's sons and daughters to fight.
'American, how about trying to set up a lobby before you start sending bombs in envelops or whatever other "extreme measures" you have in mind? I mean, if there are enough people "like yourself", you could become pretty powerful.'
Sounding a bit defensive Peter. Understandable I suppose, but then so is the comment American made. Zionists have made their bed and will have to lie in it. If they are permitted to act as if nothing should get in the way of what they think is right for their country (Israel) – then surely there should be no objection to Americans like American doing what they think is right for their country (America).
If they keep being suppressed, there will be a beach ball effect if/when the shit hits the fan, which if you read the tea-leaves, is a distinct possibility.
The best disinfectant against this is the sort of sunshine spotlight Phil trains on these issues, in posts like these.
Now all we have to do is get him a byline in between Brooks and Friedman and Kristol somewhere.
Comments on this entry are closed.