In the Times yesterday, a Palestinian diplomat cited the Obama administration’s promising rhetoric about resolving the conflict, and then asked a good question about Obama’s collapse:
“The president in his speech at the U.N. today admitted that the U.S. somehow failed in bridging the gap between the two sides,” the Palestinian representative in Washington, Maen Rashid Areikat, said in an interview on Wednesday. “He said that he feels frustration and he understands the frustration of everybody. That’s good, but I think it goes much deeper. I think what the U.S. administration needs to say is why it failed.“
Put this question another way: Why did Rick Perry come to New York (and so clumsily) align himself with American Likudniks? Put it another way: Why, according to The Hill, did 67 Wall Street executives who had helped Obama the last time defect to Romney? Did Perry want a piece of that action?
Doesn’t Obama want ’em back? As I reported at the time, based on searches of federal records:
The Hill cited economic reasons for the exodus. The execs feel “betrayed” by Obama’s rhetoric about Wall Street, it said, without quoting anyone by name. But I would point out that according to searches of federal filings, three of the five [execs cited by name by the Hill] have given to pro-Israel causes (and a fourth to Jewish ones).
Earlier this week John Heilemann of New York Magazine made the very same point on Chris Matthews: Obama had alienated “a lot of Jewish donors,” because of his Wall Street rhetoric, but also, let’s be clear, his Israel attitude. ”It is a real problem,” Heilemann said. “Because people forget that back in 2008… [before the internet craze for giving to Obama], the core of his support of the financial community, the core of his support in terms of fundraising was Wall Street donors… He can’t afford to lose any major bundler support…”
I don’t know for sure that pro-Israel money is the big political prize here. But it’s certainly a factor in these politicians’ game of international musical chairs.
And the more precise our journalists can be about Areikat’s question– why the Obama administration failed in its highflown promises– the more information American Jews will have about our political presence in American society. And the more easily we can express our diversity.
In a word, more and more young Jews will come out against their parents’ course of reflexive support for Israel.
Perry is in primary mode – he wasnt there for the jewish zionists, he was there for the christian zionists, dog whistlin’ away – the posner piece ( i think it was even on salon) explains this well.
I doubt seriously that question gets answered, and what is the answer, “the jews?” is it? – yea, i dont see that happening. Barack was certainly there to shore up support, but also to put the issue off – and the only way to put the issue off was to kiss Israel’s ass.
I get the sense that Jews know where they stand in American society, and what their political presence is – just ask Dershowitz. He’ll tell you about his generation of Jews. And, if your gonna wait on younger Jews, dress warm. It might be a while.
am i sensing echos of the weimar republic?
“a lot of Jewish donors…… Wall Street donors… He can’t afford to lose any major bundler support…”
major ‘bundler’ support. how does this ‘bundler’ support work? how does wall street ‘bundle’ and why can’t they identify that as part of what the lobby does?
more and more young Jews will come out against their parents’ course of reflexive support for Israel.
i hope so. those kids are going to be inheriting more than their parents legacies.
also Areikat is the PLO’s ambassador to the US. he’s an impressive man. charismatic and smart.
the top recommended comments on this nyt article are very revealing. thus far there is not one on the 1st page that isn’t damning the US/IS alliance