Like Pejman Yousefzadeh and (apparently) the rest of the Jewish community, I'm personally outraged that the Obama Administration has yet to discover time travel, and thus was unable or unwilling "to forcefully speak out against instances of anti-Semitism in the Democratic Party" -- namely, a statement by Rep. James Moran (D-VA) from September 2007 (over a year before President Obama took office). One would think if you're going to have one keynote example of Obama's supposed unwillingness to take on anti-Semitism, it would be a good one -- "good" defined here as "not requiring one to violate the laws of physics."
Shifting tactics from examples of Democratic anti-Semitism that occurred before Obama took office, Mr. Yousefzadeh then turns to examples that don't involve Democrats, also mentioning a collection of anti-Semitic cartoons posted on "progressive blogs". Alas, most of them show up on Indymedia, which, as the name might hint at, isn't associated with the Democratic Party (of course, even if some random yahoo who identifies as a Democrat says something anti-Semitic, that doesn't actually obliged the President to issue a response). Perhaps we can merge the two complaints together and inquire why the President hasn't come out against Lenin?
And don't get me started on the ridiculous double-standard wherein we can impute the President's "unwillingness" to condemn cartoons published on a website that 99% of Americans have never even heard is evidence of his contempt for Jews, but dare mention* racism amongst the Tea Partiers and you're playing the dreaded Race Card.
* Or, since Mr. Yousefzadeh, despite his recitation of Jews' apparent fear that we'll be "tarred as racist by a charismatic president who is a gifted orator," doesn't actually give an example of President Obama calling anybody -- much less a Tea Partier -- racist, have a "supporter" do it. Apparently, Obama's oratorical skills are so great that they transmute onto all the faithful.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
I didn't think it was possible to fit that much passive tense into 2,000 words.
I also liked this bit: "My synagogue is right across the street from the Obamas’ house, which helps in perceiving the nature of the president’s connection with the Jewish community."
I can see Russia from my house!
For the win.
Also, I used to live across the street from that synagogue.
David,
So, is your point is that the President has shown himself to be one who would fight for concerns that matter to the Jewish community rather than, as other writers - and not just Yousefzadeh - have noted, he appears to be quite indifferent to Jews and to Israel?
Chicago's Joseph Aaron is quoted in the article I cite, saying: “What you do come up with is someone who doesn’t really understand our attachment to Israel or Israel’s importance to Jews as a people, a president who doesn’t have a gut love for Israel like some of his predecessors, but someone who understands the Palestinian position better than any president we’ve had, someone with no natural affinity for Jews or Israel, and someone who approaches the Middle East, as he does most everything else, dispassionately and with a burning desire to fix the problem.” (Emphasis added). That seems to be a perfectly reasonable assessment.
As exhibit A to that, I cite this from the article, which relates to Ms. Clinton's reading the riot act to Netanyahu, going far, far beyond the sin of building in Jerusalem:
The following day, during a 43-minute harangue, Clinton delivered a set of ultimatums to Netanyahu. Prefacing each remark with the phrase “I have been instructed to tell you,” she demanded that Israel release a substantial number of Palestinian prisoners as a token of goodwill; lift its siege of Gaza; suspend all settlements in the West Bank and Jerusalem; and agree to place the question of the status of Jerusalem up front at the peace-talks agenda.
“If you refuse these demands,” Clinton told Netanyahu, according to informed sources, “the United States government will conclude that we no longer share the same interests.”
Obama is not shown being any sort of friend.
I am more than convinced that the President understands why Jews have an affinity for Israel and is in sympathy with our aims. I do agree that he probably has as deep an understanding of Palestinian problems as any president, and that he possesses a "burning desire to fix the problem."
David,
You write that "the President understands why Jews have an affinity for Israel." (My emphasis.)
That is a pretty telling choice of words, David. I trust that you realize that what he "understands" is not the same thing as having a "natural affinity for Jews or Israel." I think I understand the Islamist point of view but I have no natural affinity towards it. Do you think Obama has a "natural affinity for Jews or Israel"? Do you think he has shown any "natural affinity for Jews or Israel"?
My view is that, for Jews and Israel, he is a disaster. For the US, he has not shown himself to be all too much either. He has not behaved like a liberal. He has betrayed liberal values, showing greater affinity for tyrants than supporters of democracy. FDR and Truman must be turning over in their graves.
Anyone who espouses such a binary view of sympathy (exclusive to either one party or the other) is, in this situation, an obstacle to peace.
FDR certainly never associated himself with tyrants in any way.
That is a pretty telling choice of words, David. I trust that you realize that what he "understands" is not the same thing as having a "natural affinity for Jews or Israel."
It may not be the only telling choice of words. I need to ask what a "natural affinity" would be. I'd assume affinity would mean having an greater appreciation for its
object, relative to most other things. Does he need to have, for example, greater love for Jews and Israel than for Armenians (which in any event is arguably true if we consider the continued presidential policy of non-recognition of the Armenian genocide)? And if that is what a natural affinity is, what's so great about it? Why is it reasonable to expect him to play favorites as opposed to keeping the same basic approach?
joe,
So, my view is binary and an obstacle to peace? Get real, joe.
The biggest obstacle, just now, to peace is Obama. And, by the way, the writer most akin in UK paper, The Guardian, to what I would call David's position, namely, Jonathan Freedland, also thinks Obama has messed up big time and needs to change course dramatically. In fact, he has Palestinians saying the same sorts of things about Obama's peace plan that Eliot Cohen wrote in the Wall Street Journal soon after Obama's approach to the dispute became clear - namely, that Obama has made negotiations essentially impossible.
joe,
Affinity, as in "[a] natural attraction, liking, or feeling of kinship." [Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.]
Then as long as no one expects the president to show a greater degree of natural fellow-feeling for one group of human beings over another, I don't see a problem with "someone who approaches the Middle East, as he does most everything else, dispassionately and with a burning desire to fix the problem."
So, my view is binary and an obstacle to peace?
In this context that depends on whether you essentially only appreciate the national aspirations of one side.
joe,
I think that the President has not acted dispassionately. He has sided with the Palestinian Arabs and his understanding of the dispute is, by and large, colored through and through with pro-Palestinian Arab bias of the type one schooled on the subject by Rashid Khalidi would show. That, I think, explains how the President, over the issue of Jerusalem, could read the Israelis the riot act regarding Gaza - pre-flotilla, by the way.
The one president I can think of who was, in some sense, dispassionate was Bill Clinton. He was friendly towards all involved without badmouthing anyone while in office. Of course, after he left office, he pretty much blamed everything on Arafat and on pretty much the same terms that Saudi Prince Bandar has done, but that is a different matter.
The most dispassionate view of the dispute I have read comes from Benny Morris - in One State, Two States - who clearly and dispassionately shows that, while there are Israelis who have little interest in peace, essentially the entire thrust of Palestinian Arab thought and politics opposes any peace which keeps Israel as a permanent presence in the region. So, a dispassionate view of the matter would, I think, have to take into consideration that possibility - and I think it is a fact - , something the President appears disinclined to do, at least in public.
Instead, the President thinks that by pushing on the Israelis, he will convince Palestinian Arabs that there is room for settlement. That, to me, is beyond naive. It is, in my view, antithetical to the future of Israel because it completely misunderstands the issues.
Your views are well known by now, and I won't go into all that, but regardless of whether you think he's dispassionate it is clear that some people characterize Obama that way and think it is wrong.
joe,
What I think is being said in the article I cited is that the President has no warm spot in his heart for Jews or Israel. Hence, he makes his policies without any consideration of their impact on Jews or Israel.
Translating what the article is saying into simple English, Obama is no friend of the Jews or Israel, a position which, historically speaking, has always been a disaster for Jews because most of the world has, historically speaking, been rather passionately opposed to all things Jewish.
What is this "no warm spot" nonsense? If the speaker wants to go ahead and claim some degree of antisemitism, let them him make his case. If not, the only interpretation that seems supported is a claim that preferential treatment is warranted, in which case, again I say the speaker should come out and say it. Which is it? I don't know, these are weasel words we're dealing with.
joe,
I do not recall using the "A" word. I said he has no soft spot for Jews, which is a different thing. And, historically speaking, lacking a soft spot for Jews has always been a disaster for Jews.
I do, of course, think that the President should be pro-Israel. Israel, after all, is an ally of the US and has helped keep the peace, most particularly between Jordan and Syria and has, to some extent, stifled Syria's efforts to conquer Lebanon. And, both the US and Israel are democracies, which counts for something. And, Israel is a major league country when it comes to technology, with its citizens filing more patent applications than any other country except the US and with more inventions, per capita, than any country on Earth. So, those are a few good reason to be pro-Israel.
At the same time, the US needs to balance that support with its need to protect the supply of oil which, at present, means standing with the Saudis, to one extent or the other.
I think David thinks that the US should be pro-Israel, just like it is pro-UK. David has a different idea of what that support may mean but, of course, that is a different matter.
What is your definition of a soft spot? Is a soft spot different in kind from how Obama views and relates to any other group? Are you saying he has soft spots all over except for Jews- and if so how is that not "the A word"? Hell if I know. I don't read minds. That's why it's evasive language.
And for the record I never said the US should not be pro-Israel, not unless being pro-Israel is code for "give Israel every benefit of the doubt, such that you basically view it with a completely different lens than the one you reserve for the rest of the world" (which various people do, of course, especially when religion gets involved). Sorry, but chewing out an ally is part of the two-way street of giving billions in aid, that is how "special relationships" work.
joe,
I think we may be beginning to hog the conversation. I have made my point but will, since you claim I have written vaguely, try a bit better to explain what I think. I realize that substituting one word for another will result in your repeating your contention that words that substitute for "soft" or "warm" are vague so I shall try a different approach - i.e. by a loose analogy.
Shift gears from Israel to Europe and shift dates from the present to the 1930's. There was a major school of thought in the US which saw Nazi German empire as a lessor threat than the Communist Russian empire. One without a warm spot for Jews would readily understand and see something to the Nazi position. Such view was, in fact, not limited to right wingers. It was a view held by much of America's elite, most especially at the country's top colleges and universities and it had enough support to result in pro-Nazi and fascist demonstrations at places like Harvard, where the President of the college had much sympathy for the Nazis.
Such people did not, by and large, consider themselves particularly anti-Jewish (although there were a great many prejudiced people among more than a few such people, just like today). Such people primarily looked at revived Germany and Italy and marveled at their progress, thought that, most especially, Germany had been mistreated at the end of WWI and were willing to overlook that such countries were antithetical to democracy and human rights and that such countries, most especially Germany, hated Jews and were unwilling to accept the presence of Jews - something that was elided into denial by the elite, just as it is elided into denial by those who side with Palestinian Arabs today, notwithstanding overwhelming evidence that such view predominates among the elite among Palestinian Arabs. In fact, those Americans basically, if we go by books written on the subject (e.g. The Third Reich in the Ivory Tower, by Stephen H. Norwood) lacked a soft spot in their hearts for Jews, whether or not they were, on an individual basis, Antisemitic. To the non-Antisemites, the concerns held by Jews were not their concerns and, if that meant the end of Jews, they were indifferent.
I have not chosen the WWII period to say that we are in the same period. I merely want you to understand what I mean by lacking a soft spot (and words to that effect). In short, it means, looking at Obama, that the reasonable concerns of Jews are not those of Obama. His concerns are entirely elsewhere. He could care less if Jews or Israel disappeared, as his policies make clear.
Except that is an irresponsible, bogus claim when the president acknowledges Israel as an ally and pledges to defend it, signs over billions in aid, and (see David's link above) praises Zionism. This is what I mean when I say we've moved beyond rational claims, when anything short of a blank check is called not caring or worse. If that is called indifference then even groups Obama considers enemies must have it pretty easy!
Any it's really the only case I can think of where we are told to put another country on a pedestal beyond reproach. I can't imagine a situation where Obama would be called out by critics as being insufficiently "loyal" to Great Britain, to name another state where there exists a special relationship. Why is the discussion only elevated to an obligation of loyalty (almost implying an oath on a constitutional level).
But I agree we should probably drop this discussion, so there you go.
joe,
Obama, when he wanted Jewish votes and money, praised Israel and said he thought that Jerusalem should remain undivided in Israeli hands. That was before he was president. It was meaningless BS from Obama.
When he pocketed Jewish support, he forgot his pledges and likened American support to Israel to recompense for the Holocaust - which only a person indifferent to Jews, Jewish history and Israel or the history of that part of thew world would ever say. Were he to simply drop aid to Israel, there would be a major outcry from the vast majority of Americans who do not share the President's view that appeasing the Arabs at Israel's expense is a wonderful idea.
I think, in this instance, David is disingenuous to cite the electioneering candidate to the candidate who, on day one, ordered his administration to loosen ties with Israel in favor of building stronger ties with Israel's enemies.
I think Obama has failed to show a "natural affinity" for India, the world's largest democracy, the regional counter-balance to China and a nation under longstanding, constant terrorist attack by Muslims (as well as periodic attacks by Sikhs, Tamil Tigers, Maoists...). I know Obama lacks such an affinity because he had Pakistani friends and visited Pakistan as a young man, while failing to visit India, and because he continues to cooperate with the Pakistani government rather than making them outcasts as they deserve (this being a regime that continues to honor the scientist who passed nuclear secrets to Iran).
Also, Obama hasn't sided with Hindus on the domestic question of who will control the Ayodhya site, which is clearly only the latest sign of his being a SecretMuslim (TM).
Seriously, I could bring out WAY bigger gripes of people under Obama's direct authority (as opposed to "supporters" or a Democratic congressman) exhibiting anti-Indian sentiment than Yousefzadeh can scrape up regarding Jews and Israel. Yet somehow I soldier on thinking that Obama doesn't owe India anything special beyond what India does to serve American national interests.
Would it be nice if the U.S. had a stronger pro-India policy and made exceptions for it (e.g., if Clinton had sanctioned only Pakistan in the '90s when both countries went nuclear) based on its being a democracy and the most liberal country in the region in terms of social freedoms? Sure. Am I going to claim that Obama is "indifferent" to Hindus or "not any kind of friend" to India? No, because I don't have a victim complex that translates a lack of special favors into ZOMG HE'S BIASED *AGAINST* US.
Post a Comment