I finally caught Tim Russert’s question in the Cleveland debate Tuesday night about whether Obama would reject Louis Farrakhan’s support, a man who once called Judaism "a gutter religion." Russert’s follow up was, " What do you do to
assure Jewish Americans that, whether it’s Farrakhan’s support or the
activities of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, your pastor, you are consistent with
issues regarding Israel…"
Three quick impressions:
Obama is the coolest candidate I’ve ever seen but he seemed close to flustered on these questions. He kept speaking of his support in the Jewish community and support for Israel and his desire to solidify the black-Jewish alliance that played such a role in the civil rights movement. He seemed a little nervous to me. His answer was awful. There was no nuance at all, no suggestion comparable to what he suggested in his meeting with 100 Jews from Cleveland last week, that there has to be a more open debate about Israel in this country and that Israel is not always right. I simply don’t believe him when he says what he said in the debate, I believe he’s pandering. More craven evidence of the power of the Israel lobby in our politics.
Hillary was worse. She said that Obama should reject Farrakhan, rather than simply "denounce" him, because the consequences of Farrakhan’s rhetoric are "so far-reaching." This seemed to me a clear Holocaust reference. How helpful is Holocaust rhetoric to addressing our support for Israel in a presidential campaign? It is purely emotional–demagoguery in its own special category.
Russert also failed the question. Why is it that a candidate must assure Jewish Americans about his being "consistent" on a foreign country, Israel? Isn’t this an acknowledgement that American Jews feel dual loyalty? Isn’t a call to consistency code for political correctness on this issue, rather than exploration of a miserable situation in Israel/Palestine? Should Russert be honoring dual loyalty feelings, or challenging them? Wasn’t Irish-American support for the IRA a controversial issue, rather than a Law of Politics, as Russert seemed to say? And is supporting Israel an American interest or a Jewish American interest? If only the latter, shouldn’t that be the subject of journalism?
As I have said several times now, Obama’s leftwing background and the groundswell popular movement against Israel in this country assure that there will be a robust debate over our support for Israel before too long. The Democratic debate did nothing to advance the issue.
