As Tuesday approaches like the galloping troika, a friend pointed me to two pieces that reveal the evolution of Obama's thinking re Israel/Palestine. I'm gaga for Obama; but I revisit these pieces tonight just to remind myself and readers of how important the Israel lobby is in our public life.
I'm going to frame the two pieces with comments from an important speech about Obama by his "good friend" Lee "Rosy" Rosenberg, a Chicago venture capitalist in the media business who is on the board of AIPAC. Rosenberg introduced Obama at AIPAC
last June and said that he had first met Obama over lunch during "the initial stages of his Senate campaign, to discuss the U.S.-Israel relationship." That would have been 2003. Rosenberg became a big donor and had many more meetings with Obama. "I can personally attest that Senator Obama is a genuine friend of Israel," Rosenberg told AIPAC. "In January
2006 Senator Obama fulfilled a pledge he made to the Chicago Jewish
community" and went to Israel for the first time.
Obama traveled along with two AIPAC board members, including Rosenberg. "Senator Obama has personally seen the dangers Israel is up against and he understands Israel's desire for peace." Obama met Palestinian
students in Ramallah, and told them that if they were
waiting for America to distance itself from Israel "they were
delusional."
The first piece is by a young activist, reporting on that meeting with Obama in Ramallah back in January 2006. "Katie" writes:
The
Arab governments need to embrace democracy, not theocracy. When you
allow the will of God to influence the laws of your country, you will
not win the support of the US. (What about Israel claiming they have
the God given right to rule this land?) The Arab governments need to
renounce violence against civilians. (What about 100,000 dead Iraqis,
were all of those people terrorists, Baathists, foreign fighters or
were some of them civilians?) The US is opposed to theocracy and
terrorism and if the Arab governments want to create a paradigm shift,
they need to address these concerns of ours.
So
then I asked him, “You say the US is opposed to theocracy and
terrorism, how can you explain to the Palestinian people how the US can
be opposed to these things but still supports a state that has racist,
oppressive, unjust and apartheid policies. And do you see how this
paints an inconsistent picture to the people of the Middle East?”
He
began his answer by saying he would not accept the assumptions I made
and therefore was not going to address that part of my question. He said
he could understand the Palestinian view that the policies of the US
were one sided but he said the relationship with Israel was not going
to change. My high hopes for Barack Obama’s foreign policy ideas were
shot down!
The second account is Ali Abunimah's seminal 3/07 piece on Obama's turning-away-from the Palestinian issue as he formed national ambition. I'm sure a lot of you have read it. Some of it bears rereading. Note that Abunimah's relationship with Obama precedes Rosenberg's. As does Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi.
unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign
fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that
occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy
and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli
conflict.
The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering
in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary
campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States
Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.
As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet
him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't
said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary
race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He
referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"
But Obama's gradual shift into the AIPAC camp had begun as early as
2002 as he planned his move from small time Illinois politics to the
national scene. In 2003, Forward
reported on how he had "been courting the pro-Israel constituency." [This would have been the time that Obama had lunch with Rosenberg.] He
co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the
state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government. Among his
early backers was Penny Pritzker — now his national campaign finance
chair — scion of the liberal but staunchly Zionist family that owns
the Hyatt hotel chain….
If disappointing, given his
historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama's
about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is
necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it
keeps him in power…
Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for,
and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can
there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the
Middle East.
Obama plans to watch the Election Night returns at a Hyatt Hotel in Chicago.
"He co-sponsored an amendment to the Illinois Pension Code allowing the state of Illinois to lend money to the Israeli government."
My blood is boiling and I want to laugh hysterically at the same time.
"Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can "bundle" small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it's worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama's legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.)"
-Ali Abunimah
Richard, will you write to Obama and urge a more balanced policy towards Palestine? I know you are in favor of one.
The question put to Obama: “You say the US is opposed to theocracy and terrorism, how can you explain to the Palestinian people how the US can be opposed to these things but still supports a state that has racist, oppressive, unjust and apartheid policies. And do you see how this paints an inconsistent picture to the people of the Middle East?”
'He began his answer by saying he would not accept the assumptions I made and therefore was not going to address that part of my question. He said he could understand the Palestinian view that the policies of the US were one sided but he said the relationship with Israel was not going to change.'
Obama, like all his cohorts in corrupt Washington who for decades have been bought off and intimidated by the Jewish Zionist ethnic racket, is clearly going to take the 'fingers in the ears' approach regarding the plight of Palestinians and Israel's institutional racism. Obama and the rest know the second they admit the truth, all their overblown accusations of racism in this country designed to engender white guilt immediately ring hypocritical and hollow. How convincing are politicians who maintain that mild opposition to open borders or affirmative action is "racist" in America even as they underwrite, enable and encourage the most vicious Jim Crow race laws since apartheid S. Africa in Israel? The contrast is stark, and untenable, and the Democrats are the guiltiest of all on the issue. If Obama continues his current position as president, he will go down as the most hypocritical and disgraceful Uncle Tom in history.
Dan Kelly, please keep whispering in Phil's ear. Or bang on his head.
Phil, assuming you have been truthful about being against Zionism, you are an extremely deluded soul, if you really think Obama will change anything substantial( ie, your comment that you are "gaga" for Obama.) More and more, it becomes clear that only collapse of the American economy will change anything– the US is now joined at the hip with Israel. The two of them will prosper or fall together. It is the misfortune of a small minority of Americans that we hope, beyond hope, that America can return to its better self, separate itself from the ethnoreligious state of Israel. But sadly it won't be able to, without collapse of the economy and enormous weakening of its influence.
I noticed, when Obama was asked a couple days ago if there were Republicans he respected, he singled out Charles Percy.
Hmmmm….
For those new to the topic of the lobby:
The 1984 defeat of Sen. Charles Percy (R-Ill.) — the chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee who crossed the lobby once too often — is one of several in recent years ascribed to pro-Israel money. "All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy," Dine claimed in a speech after the 1984 election. "And American politicians … got the message." (from the Washington Post, June 13, 1991)
can be found, along with other interesting stuff, here:
link to lukeford.net
"I noticed, when Obama was asked a couple days ago if there were Republicans he respected, he singled out Charles Percy."
The test will be in whom he appoints. Obama throws bones to the anti-Zionists (Percy), and respect to the Zios (Ross, Emanuel). Like Clinton, he understands triangulation. The problem with these types of politicians (and people) is that they are all spin and no substance, and always err on the side of corrupt power. They have no core principles, values, ethics, honor, or nobility. And that includes McCain. The two-party regime wins every time by forcing Americans to choose between two servile, empty suits.
One other point on Obama as a pro-Zionist Uncle Tom: a reputation like that is going to shatter his presidency and destroy his chances for re-election. Blacks despise Uncle Toms as much as Palestinians despise Zionist collaborators. Rham Emanuel and his ilk are going to be Obama's 'tire necklace', which may be exactly why the Zionists are insinuating themselves onto his presidency as we speak. They want to strangle him in the cradle.
I've only posted here sporadically but here goes;
Change in the U.S. attitude will have to come from without, not from within. In other words, there will have to be a significant change in the regional balance of power such that it is unequivocally clear to both Israel and the U.S. (but especially Israel) That peaceful compromise represents their best chance for lone term security.
By change in balance of power, I mean things even sympathetic American Jews will likely find repulsive. That is, a heavily armed Hizbullah, a nuclear Iran and less accommodating Arab rulers (puppets) It also means a A U.S. failing to achieve its policy goals in Iraq.
Without these changes, there will never be any incentive to reach a just solution. Nation states don't give up land and power just to be fair.
"By change in balance of power, I mean things even sympathetic American Jews will likely find repulsive. That is, a heavily armed Hizbullah, a nuclear Iran and less accommodating Arab rulers (puppets) It also means a A U.S. failing to achieve its policy goals in Iraq."
The assumption that if this so-called balance of power changes,that Jews will be threatened would be laughable,if it weren't paraonoid,–Jews might do well to reflect on the fact that everything they fear is at least partially caused by Israel's treatment of the Palestinians..and agression towards countries like Lebanon and Syria..
and that if they are perceived as being connected to promoting war with Iraq and/ or Iran,REAL antisemitism is sure to follow..
The affect of an Obama presidency WILL shift American and Israeli policy towards a more even-handed approach.
And, because Obama retains close and confident relationship with Israel, he will be able to shift the range of Israeli electorate public opinion and administration's public opinion, to within a range of policies that enhance the prospect for peace.
There is NO WAY that the US will initiate an anti-Zionist position, as in seeking a single state or isolation of Israel.
The only idiotic path that Israel could take would be to support Netanyahu overwhelmingly. If he wins a majority (extremely unlikely), then things will get worse.
And, the only way that he would win a majority would be with a new wave of terror from within Palestine or from outside.
The Palestinian leadership (even including Hamas) does NOT seem to seek a nutty Israel to gain victim propaganda points, and instead seeks either quiet, consiliation (perhaps waiting for actual military victory, which is delusional).
Could a landslide victory embolden Obama to rethink his allegiances?
Would he need the AIPAC seal of approval for a second term?
Judy,
Obama does not take the positions on Israel because of pandering, but sincerely because of his reasoning.
Zionist money and power have absolutely nothing to do with it, Judy.
Obama is an independent thinker, and he sympathizes with the eternal plight of the Jewish people, which justifies this last century of trying to ethnic-cleanse Palestine.
Judy,
Please note that Paz is writing as satire, not as an actual advocate.
Some of his arguments are good (originating in good argument), but he always slips in his bias as ridicule.
Judy,
Some of my arguments are indeed excellent, you just need to understand Jewish nationalist exceptionalism to appreciate them.
PAZ,
I know you think that you are furthering your cause by your caricature, but the static creates a world of confusion rather than of argument.
Why do I know a Witty post without even having to read the name that goes with them? No offense, Witty, but you really are like a broken record.
At Madrid,
Stop complaining about what Witty says just because you don't like what he says.
Ok, Michael W., but I wasn't complaining. To be honest, I used to complain. This time, I was simply making a brief observation. Thanks for your response!
Obama is an independent thinker, and he realizes that keeping the status quo in the Middle East is the most effective way to further USA interests above all others and enhance the reputation of the USA in the world as a true moral giant among nations. He's trying his best to implement in the world what we have right here in the good old USA.
You know a Witty argument because it does not fit the "good guy/bad guy" comic book oversimplification.
I'm going to be disappointed no matter who wins the election. But how can anyone who dislikes hidden power support a candidate like Obama who is either very secretive, or has few ideas of his own, and is driven largely by ambition? What's to like in either major candidate? Either way, it's likely that government will be managed behind the scenes with contempt for most Americans.
I think Obama has thrown in his lot with the lobby, at least for his first term. We have enormous problems to be fixed that have nothing to do with Israel: regulating finance, managing diminishing water supplies, staunching the death spiral bleed-out of our national debt, a massive restructuring of our economy, etc, etc. All of these issues require him to maximize legislative and media support. The lobby is a reality that can't be ignored. I wish Israel-firsters could be swept out of the corridors of power too. (Not Jews in general, who have been way better for the country than the Protestant establishment who preceded them in every way except the Israeli issue.) But they ARE there, and he needs their cooperation. In my assessment, he's not a lobby 'true believer', but rather a pragmatist: he'll do what he can without jeopardizing his ability to solve the critical problems. For example, I doubt we will see any cuts to military spending. However, I do expect to see a massive effort to reign in corruption and mismanagement in the Pentagon. DoD hasn't received GAO certification for accounting in how many decades? Big money comes in every year, and literally no one can tell where it all goes; it's a disaster. That's the kind of 'first order' damage control I expect to see, the kind that can't be attacked as 'partisan' or 'weak' or 'naive'. And as much as I would like to see the the political and economic tribute to Israel cease to flow, it would be a very poor use of his limited political capital. America will be better off if he puts that issue on the backburner. Besides, as long as (BUT only as long as) the warmongering and murdering stop, I am very, very strongly in support of a 'slow' method of solving our Israel problem. A gradual change of attitudes and easing of fears is preferable to an abrupt change in policy that frightens and alienates millions of people. Angry and frightened people don't show use their best judgment. It's important that a critical mass of American Jews are on board with changes in American foreign policy because it's the right thing to do. But again, only so long as the warmongering, murdering, and torturing stop. The worst excesses of the twisted moral freaks who call themselves neoconservatives (read: Wolfowitz, Feith, Rhodes, etc) must cease, and be rolled back.
Colin Murray: "I wish Israel-firsters could be swept out of the corridors of power too. (Not Jews in general, who have been way better for the country than the Protestant establishment who preceded them in every way except the Israeli issue.)"
Which Protestant establishment are you talking about? The one that wrote the US Constitution, founded, organized and largely built the country, fought a civil war to end slavery, and innovated its way to turning the US into the greatest power on earth? That Protestant establishment?
The Nation of Zion has brought America nothing but trouble. It uses demagoguery to pit race against race and scratch its way to the top on the backs of minorities; its Wall Street banksters and many of its business “leaders” are unethical, chicanery-prone con artists and hustlers; its "artists" are Hollywood sleaze merchants and smut peddlers and Madison Avenue hypnotists, its ideologues lied and manipulated America in the Iraq war and the Mideast quagmire…the entire Nation of Zion could emigrate en masse to Israel and America would be incalculably better off.
Oh yeah, let's compare the impact of the WASPS with the subsequent impact of the American Jews.
Richard, I have a hard time envisioning that anyone who broke bread with Edward Said could be so wrong on the I/P conflict. I have hope that Obama's position really *is* just politics.
A girl can dream…