Below are opinions from two non-Zionist Jewish pals of mine about what Gaza means for the lobby/Obama. In this corner, wearing the white trunks, is Jack Ross, who is optimistic and who I completely agree with, and who was dubbed by Brooklyn Rabbi Ellen Lippmann the silent genius. In the black trunks, from the west coast, Jeff Blankfort, who is pessimistic and I disagree with, but I have to honor for having been right about this stuff when I was writing celebrity profiles and kissing Tina Brown's tuchis (that means feet in British). And maybe he's right this time, too? Jack Ross:
May God help me, but I am going to offer my own cautiously optimistic assessment about Obama and the events in Gaza
based on your posts of the last few days, hopefully while keeping the
human catastrophe in mind. It seems clear to Obama that whatever he's
going to do he simply can't maintain the Bush status quo.
I
see no reason why Obama can't already inch his way back to the pre-Iraq
Bush position, which is clearly where General Jones is. J Street seems
to be laying the groundwork for Jewish support for such a move with its
statement, which I'll give a B+. Reading the tea leaves of David Axelrod's
statements seems to leave plenty of room for that (notice among other
things his praise for Jones' "extensive experience in the area"). This
could, indeed, potentially mean something along the lines Steve Walt
talked about.
And if Rahm Emanuel
and Dan Kurtzer can give Obama the cover he needs to be there on Day
One, so much the better. When Ford or Bush I tried to move decisively
in that direction (to say nothing of Eisenhower
or Kennedy), the Jewish community was squarely against it. Obama has a
serious and credible faction with him this time, even if it remains
weak and arguably compromised. That is the game changer, it will lead
to serious upheavals in the American Jewish community, and it will
ultimately lead to American support for one state [Jack that's a shocker!].
Indeed, if Lebanon was the beginning of the end for the two-state solution, I sense Gaza will be remembered as the beginning of the end for the Lobby.
Now Jeff Blankfort:
I just read the J Street statement and there is nothing either bold or
brave about it, since it used the word,"justified," to rationalize
Israel's attack rather than pointing out, as did Karin Laub in today's
AP story,that it was Israel
that broke the cease-fire on Nov.4 (which was by no coincidence) the
night Obama was elected. Nor does it point out that Israel has been
deliberately starving the people of Gaza
since Hamas took over since initiating such a blockade is an act of
war. Rather than see The Lobby crumble, you will see one Democrat after
another not waiting for a statement from the wimpering, simpering Obama
("there is only one president at a time") and supporting Israel's air
strikes and ground invasion, should that be coming, as well.
Yesterday, as it happened,I was in the SF public library xeroxing pages from the Christian Science Monitor
from August, 1982, two months into Israel's bloody invasion of Lebanon
(which they have masked with the unwitting cooperation of many
Palestinians by pushing their self-serving scenario of the Sabra and Shatila massacre
as represented by the new film,"Waltzing with Bashir," which just
opened in NY.) Back in 1982, there were editorials criticizing Israel
and noting how US support for Israel was going to be reduced, how
Israel was humiliating the president–Reagan at that time– and how
Israel's actions were hurting US interests in the Middle East
and on and on in that vein. The result: Israel's stranglehold on the US
grew to be stronger than ever. Until the Jewish establishment AKA The
Lobby hears and fears the seething breath of an angry public outside
their doors, nothing will change.
Ross has this response:
But U.S.-Israel relations were pretty cool during the Reagan years – early tension followed by Lebanon followed by Pollard, and then followed by Bush I . . . .
