Obama's game is to defeat the Israel lobby from within. He could not defeat the lobby from outside it; because Jews are simply too important in the American power structure. That is why he could not run against the lobby; he promised to try not to pander to it, and then he did pander. But now he is cracking it like a nut, and counting on Jews to do the cracking.
Obama's wedge issue is the settlements. David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel have (surely) told him that Most American Jews are sort of against the settlements, and if he plays it right, he can get a 65/35 Jewish popular break on the question and still get a second term. He will get all the young Jews against the settlements. And Obama is going to use Jewish power on the settlements issue, c.f., Helene Cooper's piece in the Times the other day talking about Obama's stratagem:
Mr. Obama’s administration, from Mrs. Clinton to Chief of
Staff Rahm Emanuel to Mr. [Dennis] Ross, is filled with politicians and
foreign policy experts who have high standing among the pro-Israel
lobby in the United States, but moving Mr. Ross from the State
Department to right next door at the White House could help to protect
Mr. Obama’s flank even further when it comes to Israel.
Obama's leverage on the Jews is the Muslim world and American realists post-Iraq. No, neither is really part of his Administration. He tried to include Chas Freeman and Freeman got ousted. But Obama is playing to these constituencies all the time, to put pressure on the Jewish community. The Cairo speech was intended to wow the Jewish world with Obama's connection to the Muslim world. Then Lebanon and Tehran followed, signals of Obama's power.
Obama needs outside political pressure to help crack the lobby; he needs non-Jews and disaffected Jews to care about the issue. He needs Max Blumenthal and Joseph Dana to dawn Americans what an ugly place the occupation is and what it has done to the Jews, he needs outsider/insider congressmen like Rush Holt, Keith Ellison, Brian Baird and Donna Edwards, who have gotten J Street's assistance, to hold teachins on the Hill about the Gaza onslaught. Most of all, he needs media exposure of the lobby. He needs "60 Minutes" and Brian Williams.
The media exposure will happen at last, for a simple reason: The Israel lobby is no longer congruent with the Jewish community. In the past to attack the Israel lobby meant to attack Jewish power. Jews became extremely defensive, they had seen that before, they said Never again. That is why Walt and Mearsheimer were smeared, because they had made the terrible mistake of not being Jewish. The Washington Post described them as Nazis, and whenever respected Jews in the media dared criticize elements of the lobby, they all hastened to add, Not that I believe what Walt and Mearsheimer said.
The big change politically, and it is J Street's achievement, and Walt and Mearsheimer's too, is that Some Jews are taking on Other Jews. This has made it kosher to criticize the lobby. It's just a matter of time before one of Obama's Jewish surrogates takes on the Israel lobby publicly (Obama won't do it himself; George Bush I made that mistake, when he had his fight over settlements in '91; and he believed that it helped cost him the next election, wisdom he passed on to his stupid and credulous son, who took it to heart).
The other day I had a frank conversation about these issues, for the first time in years, with a Jewish friend in the MSM. That is because we are on the same side now: we support Obama putting pressure on Netanyahu on settlements. My friend said grimly, Obama might not win. He was acknowledging the power of the Israel lobby, even stripped down to AIPAC's core and Malcolm Hoenlein and the older, conservative money. John Mearsheimer says the same thing. Well then how do we defeat the Israel lobby? I keep saying the most powerful political combination will take place when Michael Walzer, who wants to defeat the settler movement, and has a huge following in the Jewish community, hooks up with Mearsheimer, who wants to do the same thing, and has a following in the grass roots and civil servant class. Some day it will happen. Will it be in time to bring about peace? That's another question. But Obama is cracking heads together.
The Lobby has another flank that is open. Right of the republicans
Its Obama, who does not adopt an either/or approach. For Palestine to win (meaning to succeed at achieving a viable state) does not require Israel to fail. Nearly all of the partisan solidarity approaches are either/or approaches. So, Jews in an either/or approach will pick their community. In a win-win approach, most Jews will pick the mutually beneficial. That is why Mearsheimer's initial overly confrontational approach, was the opposite of what succeeds in realizing both peace and justice. Phil, If you take a look at Mearsheimer's early book-signings, op-eds, lectures, they were insultingly confrontational. Walt was more restrained. And sadly, you personally fed that confrontational approach. I like your more nuanced current approach. It relies on persuasion more than confrontation. You've spoken of yourself as "optimistic", but I personally regarded the willingness to demean in a confrontational manner as less than confident, less than optimistic.
Its Obama, who does not adopt an either/or approach. For Palestine to win (meaning to succeed at achieving a viable state) does not require Israel to fail. But it does require the Lobby to fail. Can you honestly tell me that rank and file AIPAC members are for a viable Palestinian state?
"Insultingly confrontational"? Please. We have no moral obligation to support Israel or its lobbying apparatus. What you call "confrontational," I call justifiable outrage at mean-spirited manipulation.
Look who controls Jewish education: Hate-Filled Curriculum of Radical Yeshivas.
"David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel have (surely) told him that Most American Jews are sort of against the settlements, and if he plays it right, he can get a 65/35 Jewish popular break on the question and still get a second term." And that's a good thing? Am I to take that to mean that a little under 2% of the population matters that much? How else should that be read? What's worse is that the "break" is an extremely ethnic issue that takes place in a foreign land. These are the same people who would call me a bigot or a racist for opposing massive illegal, or unwanted legal, communities in my own town. How are Americans supposed to view Jews as assimilated, or of sharing similar beliefs or interests?
I'm sure you got a lot of emotional reassurance from his statements. His approach, combined with the partisan tone of the first article, guaranteed that his valid comments were dismissable. Its as if he didn't want to be heard, didn't want to be effective. As Phil points out, the lobby morphs. It need not fail, but it does need to change. Its similar to Netanyahu's comments yesterday on Iran. Its not necessary for there to be regime change in Iran. It is necessary for there to be policy change.
True. I am also not calling for regme change in Israel yet. I will settle for a policy change. If Israel does not end the Occupation peacefully–and soon, then I reserve the right to revisit regime change.
Because the NRA also matters so much. Until we abandon private financing of elections, the situation will not change.
I agree with all of the commenters above; with the caveat that Witty is being unfair to Mearsheimer, considering what unified power Mearsheimer faced at the time he and Walt wrote their article, then book. M & W are authentic American heros. I also agree with the seminal article by Phil which brought those comments. Here's the kicker: David Duke would agree too I am guessing. Does that make Phil and all the above commenters ispso facto anti-semites? No. When under 2% of the American population has such power, is that good for America (USA portion)? The Palestinians are 20% of the population of Israel, not 2%. And we all know how tiny is he power they have, and even that is seen as something to legislate to prevent…
If you are right let's hope Obama "cracks" the heads before Israel is successful at dragging our nation into a military conflict with Iran. Paul Wolfowitz is back on the beat out in the street. Out of the shadows Paul "warmonger" wolfowitz pushing for that strike http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti... 'No Comment' Is Not an Option TOOLBOX Resize Print E-mail Yahoo! Buzz ad_icon COMMENT 889 Comments | View All » COMMENTS ARE CLOSED Your browser's settings may be preventing you from commenting on and viewing comments about this item. See instructions for fixing the problem. Discussion Policy CLOSE Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post. Who's Blogging » Links to this article By Paul Wolfowitz Friday, June 19, 2009 President Obama's first response to the protests in Iran was silence, followed by a cautious, almost neutral stance designed to avoid "meddling" in Iranian affairs. I am reminded of Ronald Reagan's initially neutral response to the crisis following the Philippine election of 1986, and of George H.W. Bush's initially neutral response to the attempted coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991. Both Reagan and Bush were able to abandon their mistaken neutrality in time to make a difference. It's not too late for Obama to do the same. ###this man should be in prison for killing Iraqi people not writing in the WaPo
I don't compare holding a certain view on Second Amendment rights with holding the nation hostage over the support of ethnic or foreign interests. I'd guess that most people in my neighborhood have legal firearms in their homes, and they are far less of a threat to my safety or interests than the these Jewish voters on either side of the issue are, if Phil's post is correct.
The NRA is only involved with an American issue – gun laws in the USA. The NRA doesn't lobby for gun rights in Canada etc. Until we realize you can not have estates (identity politics) within a nation, the situation will not change.
"…He was acknowledging the power of the Israel lobby, even stripped down to AIPAC's core and Malcolm Hoenlein and the older, conservative money…" It's gonna be really tough… AIPAC/Israel have got their tentacles so firmly clasped around the power brokers in the Democratic Party I would really like to know how some unknown outsiders are going to change the game? Here's yet another example of AIPAC/Israel flexing its muscles — using its selected puppet Menendez [Head of the DSCC] to publicly grovel to AIPAC: Menendez cites history in defense of Israel Speech seems to take issue with themes in Obama’s Cairo talk NJJN Staff Writer [June 18, 2009] http://www.njjewishnews.com/njjn.com/061809/njMen... Obama needs to definitely have this fight out in the open == and not to fold to AIPAC and allow them to underhandedly work in the shadows.
If Obama laid out the case for a more balanced treatment in the I-P situation in a public speech to the American public, he could override our whore congress and MSM. He has that much public trust and mandate at the present. That is what AIPAC and Israel are really afraid of, along with the suspicion that, discounting the Christian Zionist kooks, some 30 million of them if memory serves, the real American consensus is for a balanced handling–and that's despite the fact historical information of the I-P conflict is totally missing so as to keep Americans uniformed as to just what they have been supporting for so many decades, and at what cost to America's good reputation, the one our GIs died for.
Totally right! The jewish power that Phil refers to is simply the 1) heavily stacked jewish media in the US and 2) the fact that according to the WP dems get 60% of their campaign contributions from jews and jewish groups. As voter jews are between 2% to 1.7 % of the population. It always the money.
I thought the article was a tirade, a big splash. Its only when they CHANGED their approach did the content achieve any relevant attention.
Good post, but I'm not sure that Christian Zionists make up 10% of conservative Christians, let alone 10% of the total population. I live in the Bible Belt, and there is a definite difference between the two. Very few conservative Christians that I know would voluntarily give money to Israel, and I seriously doubt that many would volunteer for the IDF. The Christian Zionists (I've seen some who fly Israeli flags) are just nuts, and most other Christians are just as apathetic and uninformed/misinformed as the rest of the population when it comes to the Middle East.
Don't you think that their numbers are grossly overstated. Remember when Falwell claimed that America had 70 million evangelicals. While 70 million Americans may identify themselves as evangelicals, I doubt Falwell spoke for more than a fraction of that number.
If the claim is that Christian Zionists make up 10% of the nation, I believe that is grossly overstated. My experience with conservative Christians is that most aren't Christian Zionists. I believe that even most Christians are only semi-serious, rather than zealots of any type. Why anyone would take Falwell seriously about anything is beyond me. When he made the claim of 70 million evangelicals, the total population was probably around 250 million. I doubt that 25% to 30% of the population was evangelical at that time. Who is claiming that that there are 30 million Christian Zionists in the United States?
The MSM, except for Fox, does not do any favors for the NRA. The NRA does nothing to conceal itself, and all its actions are criticized freely by its political opponents.