Monday, February 18, 2008

Obama's Israel problem

I also expect that the Democratic party will abandon its historic sympathy for Israel, implying that the considerable continuity in U.S. policy toward the Jewish state is a thing of the past; in the future, it will lurch one way and the other, depending on which party controls the White House. Daniel Pipes, 2003.

Pipes' prediction hasn't come true--yet. But it's my belief that one day a majority of the Jewish electorate will wake up and realize that when they're voting Democratic, they're not voting no longer voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Republican Party's tough stand against terrorism will make the GOP increasingly attractive to Jewish voters, despite an idiotic statement by Ann Coulter, in the years ahead.

The Democrats specialize in pandering, and as they build their 21st century version of the Roosevelt coalition, Muslims are being welcomed into their "big tent." There is nothing wrong with that, but what of American-Israeli relations?

In the 2000 election, Al Gore got caught playing both sides of the issue of where the US embassy should be located--Tel Aviv or Jerusalem?

It was just a preview of what the Democrats can expect during this presidential campaign.

Senator John McCain says he is "proudly pro-American and pro-Israel." Will the Democratic candidate this fall, right now it looks like Barack Obama, say the same thing?

If you go by his Israel fact sheet, you might say he will.

But questions remain.

Let's start with Rashid Khalidi. Even when considering the extreme left-wing tilt of most college universities, Columbia University stands out as a bastion of radicalism.
This is the school that invited Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man who says Israel will be wiped off the map, to speak there last year.

Khalidi is a slippery character, who dances around the truth when talking about terror groups like Hamas and Hezbollah.

Obama's first run for Congress was in 2000, he failed in his attempt to unseat Bobby Rush in Illinois' first congressional district. Khalidi, then living in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood, held a fundraiser for Obama at his home.

From Jewish Week:

Ali Abunimah, a Hyde Park Palestinian-American activist, said that until a few years ago, Obama was "quite frank that the U.S. needed to be more evenhanded, that it leaned too much toward Israel." It was vivid in his memory, said Abunimah, because "these were the kind of statements I'd never heard from a U.S. politician who seemed like he was going somewhere rather than at the end of his career."

In 2000, Abunimah recalled, Professor Rashid Khalidi, a leading Palestinian American advocate for a two-state solution and harsh critic of Israel, held a fundraiser in his home for Obama, embarked then on an ultimately unsuccessful bid for the House of Representatives. "He came with his wife," Abunimah said. "That's where I had a chance to really talk to him. It was an intimate setting. He convinced me he was very aware of the issues [and] critical of U.S. bias toward Israel and lack of sensitivity to Arabs. ... He was very supportive of U.S. pressure on Israel?"

Khalidi, now the Edward Said Professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, and head of that school's Middle East Institute, declined to comment on Abunimah's recollections. But in an interview in Tuesday's Daily News, he said he hosted the fundraiser because he and Obama were friends while the two lived in Chicago. "He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi told the paper.

Nevertheless, one Hyde Park source close to Obama, speaking only on condition of anonymity, recalled, "He often expressed general sympathy for the Palestinians -- though I don't recall him ever saying anything publicly."

Not good. Oh, how much money was raised at the Khalidi fundraiser?

Then there is Obama's Trinity United Church of Christ and its controversial former pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He may not be in charge of the church any more, but he'll still be around, and his presence will be felt. The Black Value System is still on the TUCC's web site.

Last year the Nation of Islam's Louis Farrakhan, a racist and anti-semite, was honored with a lifetime achievement award by Trinity United. To his credit, Obama did repudiate Farrakhan last month.

Wright regularly compares Israel to Apartheid-era South Africa, despite the fact that Palestinians living in Israel enjoy greater freedoms than their brethern living elsewhere in the Middle East. Yes, I'm well aware that Arabs living in the occupied territories greatly suffer, but after decades of leadership under the PLO, then Hamas, at some point reasonable people have to look at the Palestian leadership, the men who chose terror over compromise, as the source for the agony in Gaza and the West Bank. People like Wright and Khalidi fail to see that.

And finally, one of Barack Obmam's foreign policy advisers is Zbigniew Brzezinski, a long time critic of Israel. Yes, he has other advisers, but none of them were in Syria last week meeting with President Bashar al-Assad.

A lot of Jewish voters may not see past Obama's Israel problem.

H/T to No Quarter USA for the Khalidi information.

Technorati tags:

4 comments:

Douglas V. Gibbs said...

I think the move away from Israel by the Dems is in full swing, and will complete itself in the coming four years.

Michael Hall said...

"But it's my belief that one day a majority of the Jewish electorate will wake up and realize that when they're voting Democratic, they're not voting no longer voting for Franklin D. Roosevelt."

Well, let's see now. I'm 49, which I would imagine puts me somewhat above the median age of potential Jewish voters, yet obviously I'm far too young to have voted for FDR. Which makes the comment above come off as rather stupid. Since history tells us that Roosevelt hardly distinguished himself in the cause of Jewish refugees fleeing the Nazi meatgrinder (see the voyage of the MS St. Louis, for starters), the statement is doubly stupid. And as we know that there was no state of Israel established during FDR's lifetime to which he could lend even his theoretical support, the snarky comparison to the purported intentions of today's Democrats can fairly be said to have hit the trifecta of stupidity.

Of course, as a Jew myself I don't happen to believe that uncritical support of all Israeli policies, regardless of merit, is in any way of benefit to Israel itself, or to the long-term aspirations of the Jewish people. But it's also obvious that such an discussion is clearly beyond the scope of this website.

Marathon Pundit said...

Michael...I live in an area with a lot of Jewish people, and voting for Dems is something that's been passed down for generations.

I don't want to insuld the astuteness of my readers, who are aware that Roosevelt's last election--while he was a sick man, but that's another story--was in 1944. The legal age to vote was 21 then, so the youngest FDR voter then would've been born in 1923, which would make them 85 today.

The Republican presidential candidate to win a majority of the Jewish vote was Coolidge in 1924, so my FDR reference, elected four times, isn't that far off.

Oh, he was a weasel about Jewish refugees, you are right about that, and probably knew more about the holocaust than he let on.

Anonymous said...

Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi's Double Standard on Grammar for Jews

by Jonathan Schwartz
Anti-Racist Blog
February 22, 2008
http://antiracistblog.blogspot.com/2008/02/columbia-university-professor-rashid.html

According to a paper published this month in the Middle East Quarterly, Columbia University Professor Rashid Khalidi thinks different rules of grammar should apply to the Jews than to all the other nations. That's right , grammar.

We know that in Khalidi's opinion the Palestians and everybody else gets a state of their own, except the Jews.

But – grammar? Surely the Jews are as entitled as other peoples to use definite articles. Here's the passage.

Khalidi is also guilty of inconsistent methodology in applying rules of grammar. He often uses "a people" in the ordinary manner, as a near-synonym for nation, writing: "The Palestinians are a people with national rights."[1] Or: "This remarkable book recounts how the Palestinians came to be constituted as a people."[2] He justified the terrorism of the second intifada by arguing that the "violence, which has broken out, has been the natural result of a people desiring its independence"[3] Khalidi misunderstands the phrase "a people" only when discussing the phrase "land without a people."[4]

Khalidi does this in order to claim that those disingenuous early Zionists falsely claimed that Palestine was "empty."

Rashid Khalidi… writes that, "In the early days of the Zionist movement, many of its European supporters—and others—believed that Palestine was empty and sparsely cultivated. This view was widely propagated by some of the movement's leading thinkers and writers, such as Theodore Herzl, Chaim Nachman Bialik, and Max Mandelstamm, with Herzl never even mentioning the Arabs in his famous work, The Jewish State. It was summed up in the widely-propagated Zionist slogan, ‘A land without a people for a people without a land.'"[5]

Khalidi's statement is factually wrong. Rather than check Der Judenstaat, he refers to an academic work that was inaccurate.[6] Herzl mentions the resident population of Palestine, albeit in the context of discussing possible locations for his projected Jewish state. He was prescient in his analysis of the political impact that the inhabitants were likely to have on the Zionist project. Immigration, he explained, "continues till the inevitable moment when the native population feels itself threatened and forces the government to stop a further influx of Jews. Immigration is consequently futile unless we have the sovereign right to continue such immigration."[7] To say that Herzl at the time he wrote Der Judenstaat had little interest in the existing population beyond assessing their probable impact on Zionism is fair. To state that he "never even mentioned" the Arabs of Palestine is untrue. Nor did the phrase "land without a people" ever appear in Herzl's books, letters, or diary.[8]

There is more. It turns out that the phrase "A land without a people for a people without a land" was not a Zionist slogan after all. Just another "fact" invented by Edward Said and the PLO.

[1] Rashid Khalidi, "Observations on the Right of Return," Journal of Palestine Studies, Winter 1992, p. 30.

[2] Rashid Khalidi, jacket blurb for Baruch Kimmerling and Joel S. Migdal, The Palestinian People: A History ( Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 2003).

[3] Rashid Khalidi, "To End the Bloodshed," Christian Century, Nov. 22-29, 2000, p. 1206.

[4] Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, p. 101.

[5] Khalidi, Palestinian Identity, p. 101.

[6] Khalidi relies on Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Recourse to Force, 1881-1948 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), p. 41.

[7] Theodore Herzl, The Jewish State, Sylvie d'Avigdor, trans. (London: Nutt, 1896); idem, The Jewish State, Sylvie d'Avigdor, trans. (New York: Dover, 1988), p. 95.

[8] Garfinkle, "On the Origin, Meaning, Use and Abuse of a Phrase," p. 539.