 |
Why Older Jews Have a Problem with Barack Obama |
|
| Hint: It’s Because He’s Black | ||
 by Aaron Hamburger, February 27, 2008 |
||
TAGS:
Barack Obama has been the subject of some serious rumblings among Jews lately, so much so that in January a group of prominent Jewish leaders put out a letter condemning a “whispering campaign” against the Illinois Senator. But why are older Jews so anxious about him? Recently Richard Cohen and Roger Cohen each wrote a column that together usefully illustrate two main fears that Jews of their generation have about Barack Obama:
A) Blacks think it’s acceptable to hate Jews.
B) Because of their experience of racism, blacks identify with other minorities, but not Jews, whom they perceive as whites masquerading as a “false minority.”
Obviously an anti-Semite
Richard Cohen struck first, back on January 15th, in a Washington Post column provocatively titled “Obama’s Farrakhan Test.” Few people symbolize black antisemitism more powerfully than Louis Farrakhan, who once lauded the achievements of Adolf Hitler. Though Cohen does not say that Obama shares Farrakhan’s views, the juxtaposition of these two African-American public figures (who share little besides skin color) inevitably invites comparisons. In reality the only link between these two men is that the magazine run by the daughter of Jeremiah Wright, the minister of Obama’s church, gave an award to Farrakhan. Cohen wonders what Obama makes of all this. (For the record, Obama has stated publicly and repeatedly, including at last night's debate, that he deplores Farrakhan’s
antisemitic rhetoric and disagrees with the award.)
Is it disappointing that Obama’s minister would make such a move? Definitely. But considering that it is possible to play "Six Degrees of Louis Farrakhan" with any prominent African-American politician, such a sensationalizing column could only be justified on the assumption that any potential African-American presidential candidate personally owes Richard Cohen a denunciation of Farrakhan.
The next salvo came on February 11th, when Roger Cohen, in the New York
Times, suggested that Obama might be—gasp!—“even-handed” in his
attitude toward the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Cohen also wrote
that some Jews are concerned because one of Obama’s foreign policy
advisors is former Jimmy Carter aide Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom Cohen
notes in a disingenuous understatement is “viewed as cool to Israel.”
Ostensibly the purpose of this column is to assuage fears that Obama is
somehow anti-Israel. But surely Cohen, a seasoned editorial writer,
knows that many Jews strongly resent diplomats like Brzezinski who
preach “even-handed”—which they read as code for
“pro-Palestinian”—approaches to Middle East politics. (One example:
the heated reaction to Jimmy Carter’s paean to even-handedness in
American policy toward Israel, Peace, Not Apartheid.) Match
“Brzezinski” and “even-handed” to a man with dark skin, and you’ve just
conjured up memories of Kofi Annan and other figures at the United
Nations, a body also “viewed as cool to Israel.”
Michael Schwerner, James Cheney, Andrew Goodman: Jewish and black civil rights workers, murdered together What makes older Jews suspicious of black politicians? In the 1960’s, Jews and blacks worked together during the civil rights
movement. As Cohen
points out, “It was Jews who disproportionately marched for civil
rights and, in Mississippi, died for that cause." Yet racial hucksters like Farrakhan have gone to enormous lengths to deny the Jewish contribution to civil rights, in effect, in Cohen's words, "despoil[ing] the graves of Michael Schwerner,
Andrew Goodman and, of course, their black colleague James Chaney.”
Farrakhan wasn’t the first to make these types of accusations. As
the recent PBS documentary The Jewish Americans showed, several
African-Americans in the civil rights movement rejected offers of help
from Jews, whom they lumped together with Gentile whites as
oppressors. Some blacks even claimed Jews used the Holocaust to market
themselves falsely as victims, a claim that hurt since many Jews fought
for civil rights precisely because they felt a historic responsibility
to do so after the Holocaust. Add to this the well-publicized 1968
United Federation of Teachers strike in Brooklyn, which pitted Jewish
teachers against black parents and administrators. By the end of the
60s, you can imagine many Jews thinking: “We were only trying to help,
and this is how they reward us?” That’s why Richard Cohen is so pissed off by Farrakhan’s
claim that Jews have historically victimized blacks.
Another event of the 1960’s contributing to black-Jewish friction is
the “white flight” phenomenon. Many Jews who’d grown up in urban areas
and then moved to the suburbs were disturbed to see the neighborhoods
of their youth become ghettos, dirty, poor, and crime-ridden.
Jonathan Kaufman in his book Broken Alliance notes:
In the wake of the urban shifts of the 1960's, Jewish neighborhoods in city after city in the North became black. The shift was often accompanied by a rise in crime and a decline in the neighborhood, often the result of city governments cutting back police protection and other city services. For a time in the 1960's, there seemed to be no Jew who did not have a grandmother, a cousin, an elderly aunt, a family friend living in a once Jewish, now black ghetto, hemmed by crime and fear.
The bad blood between Jews and blacks during the 60’s continued because
of several incidents in the following years, for example, when Jesse
Jackson (a veteran of the 60s civil rights movement) made a run for the
Democratic nomination. Thinking he was speaking to a reporter off the
record, Jackson called Jews “Hymies” and New York “Hymietown.” When
word got out, it seemed to confirm the worst fears that Jews had about
how blacks talked about them behind their backs.
"Hymietown": Off the record, so it doesn't count
While older Jews may connect Barack Obama to their troubled history
with blacks, younger Jews don’t have this same bitter history to
overcome. (In fact, as Roger Cohen writes in his column, younger Jews
are more likely to be pro-Obama than their predecessors.) Jews born in
the 80s don’t remember the dust-up over Farrakhan, and react to
Jackson’s “Hymietown” comments (if they’re aware of them) with
laughter, not outrage. Many younger Jews are used to having black
classmates and co-workers, and their image of blacks from the media is
not poor inner-city rioters threatening their grandmothers, but heroes of sports, song, film, and TV. Which is not to say that all tension between Jews and African-Americans has been defused in the millennial generation, or that Jews only recently began celebrating African-American cultural tropes (see, e.g., Norman Mailer's "The White Negro"). But the extent to which African-American culture is now blended into mainstream American-Jewish culture is unprecedented.
How can Barack Obama win over older Jews who doubt his goodwill because
of his race? Roger Cohen writes that Obama has been trying to talk
tough in support of Israel to court Jewish voters. This is probably a
waste of time. Older Jews who mistrust Obama won’t change their minds
because of a speech, no matter how beautifully orated. (In fact, for
these Jews, calling an African-American politician “a powerful orator”
is a putdown: all talk, no substance.)
In speaking about Israel, Obama might be better off sticking to the
tone that appealed to younger, more centrist voters back at the 2004
Democratic Convention, when he described people in red states with gay
friends and people in blue states who worshipped an awesome God. He
could argue that as a staunch Zionist he fears Israel cannot survive as
a Jewish state without a separation and accommodation with the
Palestinians. And how to respond to those who say Middle East peace is
only a Zbignew Brzezinski-style pipe dream? In reply, Obama can simply
point to his own candidacy as an example of another impossible dream
that, a mere forty years after the murder of Martin Luther King, is
closer than ever to becoming real.
 |
Aaron Hamburger was awarded the Rome Prize by the American Academy of Arts and Letters and the American Academy in Rome for his short story collection The View from Stalin's Head, published by Random House in March of 2004. His next book, a novel More... |
Anonymous
Or could it be that older
Or could it be that older Jews are more aware of Obama's record and past history supporting Palestinians and has surrounded himself with anti-Israel staffers? Could it simply be that the older Jews remember Carter and his dislikes of Jews and do not want to see a retreaded administration? Or is it more likely (to boil down your argument) that the older Jews just do not like him because he is black? You may support Obama, but please do it because you are a leftist and not because you are a Jew. Some of us Jews actually like Judaism as a religion...
zbird
where's the evidence??
You say that many older Jews have a problem with Obama.
In general, Obama gets more support from the young and relatively little support from the old. Do you have any numbers showing that Obama's "old Jewish" support is even thinner than his "old" support among all religions? I would think before spending so much time analyzing "serious rumblings" you would find an exit poll or two that shows the rumbling has any substance to it.
--Z
Anonymous
Aaron you are an idiot.
Aaron you are an idiot. Generalizations are seldom true when it comes to human beings.
I am an older Jew and I don't recognize myself in your description. It seems to me that you are doing a lot of projecting here.
Firstly, Obama is not responsible for the history of bad Black Jewish relations. Secondly he has said that he would like to improve those relations since he is a strong admirer of Jewish culture.
Now, while I don''t dilsike Obama that doesn't mean that I would vote for him. That will depend on the Republican candidate and lots of other factors.
I could definitely see myself voting for Obama eight or even four years from now, though. Hence your simplistic assumptions that "older Jews don't like Obama" is nonsense.
Anonymous
It seems to me
that the writer was taking a note from the Cohens' columns and not just pulling it out of his arse. Also, I agree that you can't make generalizations, but I think this would tend to be true for more conservative lefties who are not as willing to branch out politically, like those who are really into Hillary.
I was actually really impressed by what Obama said in the Ohio debate about re-forming a connection between the black and Jewish community, and impressed by how he's come out against anti-Semitism in the black community. It really seems like Obama gets it.
Monosodium glutamate
We dont trust Obama because
We dont trust Obama because he reminds us of Jimmy Carter- Jimmy had Billy Carter, Baraq has Farrakhan. Both Baraq and Jimmy campaigned on "change", but change for what. Both want to play with Iran and dont take Iran seriously. They have the same types of advisors "Zbig Brestinky and Osama Malley'. Young Jews dont have a sense of history. They dont realize that history occurred before OJ took care of Ron Goldman and Nicole Brown.
Anonymous
Well writing
After reading your article about this subject, I believe that you made a good case for Barack Obama on how to mend the differences between blacks and jews that has been at each others throat for over a number of years. While I have seen some Jewish come to his defense, I like to hear more come to his defense on his support of Israel.
mhpine
Its wrong to conflate these issues.
Its absurd to tar Obama as an anti-Semite because his pastor is willing to overlook Farrakhan's anti-Semitism. However, it is wholly legitimate to inquire into the views of any presidential candidate's foreign policy team.
There are two camps in the foreign policy establishment that support an "even-handed" approach that would involve putting greater pressure on Israel. Realists (like Brzezinski and James Baker) do so out of a cynical calculation that it wlll enhance U.S. bargaining position with our Saudi "allies." Certain Liberal Internationalists believe that Israeli obstinacy is the key stumbling block to a 2-state solution. People in both camps have been associated with the Obama campaign.
(As a point of fairness, many of the architects of the U.S. botched handling of Oslo, including the policy of forcing Israel to negotiate under fire at Taba, are affiliated with Clinton.)
If you are a Meretznik that thinks Israel needs "tough love" from the U.S., you are wholly unperturbed by the presence of such advisers in a future administration. If you have views anywhere to the right of that, you might find such views troubling.
Obama has a solid pro-Israel record in the Senate and his detailed statements in Cleveland last Sunday seem thought through and reasonable. His support for sanctions against Iran is comforting but his response to the N.I.E. was problematic. Obama can't be given a pass on Israel simply because right-wing racist Jews wield it as a weapon against him.
Anonymous
It's a well written article.
It's a well written article. The attacks here are obviously worthless. mhpine's comments are as insightful as always. Thanks.
Yehudit
"....Obama can't be given a
"....Obama can't be given a pass on Israel simply because right-wing racist Jews wield it as a weapon against him......"
That's an ad hominem attack. Give us some evidence of "right-wing racist Jews" smearing Obama. Any Jews who criticizes Obama is a right-wing racist? If not, where does that description come from? Not from anything in this blogpost or comment thread.
"....He
could argue that as a staunch Zionist he fears Israel cannot survive as
a Jewish state without a separation and accommodation with the
Palestinians......"
This is boilerplate rhetoric, every presidential candidate is going to punch that ticket. Big deal. The problem for a US president is what to actually DO to achieve that, if anything. all you have to do is turn on the TV to see Israel is not the problem. Israel cannot accomodate with terrorists and survive. as soon as the Palestinians stop being terrorists, talks will mean something. that isn't going to happen any time soon, because Hamas and Hezbollah are in cahoots and are handled by Iran, Fatah and Hamas have a revolving door, and the PA is a joke as it always has been, not to mention being synonymous with Fatah. The best we can do is run interference with the UN and keep collaborating with Israel on military technology (which is what our "aid" really is, as opposed to the pay-offs to Egypt, which are money down the drain), hope the Israeli government comes to its senses, and wait it out. Oh, and neutralize Iran somehow, hopefully without bloodshed.
A real staunch Zionist (which Obama is not, come on!) and someone who is not a babe in the Middle East woods, would understand the above, distance himself from Farrakhan and his ilk without being asked, know enough about the region to not send Zbignew Brzezinski to Damascus, or offer unconditional talks with Iran and Cuba, or be embarrassingly ignorant of military logistics and what we are actually doing in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Your article is an example of the age problem. Like the other commenter said, some of us have been round on this carousel before.
You want to show us how much history you know. But this is not about Blacks and Jews in 1962, and if you try to make it be about that, you nicely draw attention away from substantive concerns NOW about whether Obama understands what's waiting for him out there. He doesn't and he won't, because it contradicts his basic worldview and that of his base.
Yehudit
I just really took in what
I just really took in what an innuendo-driven smear job your article is.
"Why Older Jews Have a Problem with Barack Obama - Hint: It’s Because He’s Black." You offer no evidence of this at all, you just repeat innuendo by a couple of pundits.
"....
Barack
Obama has been the subject of some serious rumblings among Jews lately, so
much so that in January a group of prominent Jewish leaders put out a
letter condemning a “whispering campaign” against the Illinois Senator. But why are older Jews so anxious about him?....."
Sorry, there is no beef here. You leap from one supposition to the next, and they are all rumor. So you are calling Jews racist with no evidence.
"....be justified on the assumption that any potential African-American
presidential candidate personally owes Richard Cohen a denunciation of
Farrakhan......"
Any presidential candidate owes the American public a denunciation of Farrakhan, if Farrakhan publicly approved of him, which he did. And you're ignoring the anti-Jewish statements Jeremiah Wright himself has made, and Obama has weaseled around that.
"....many Jews strongly resent diplomats like Brzezinski who
preach “even-handed”—which they read as code for
“pro-Palestinian”—approaches to Middle East politics. (One example:
the heated reaction to Jimmy Carter’s paean to even-handedness in
American policy toward Israel, Peace, Not Apartheid.)....."
Carter's book was not intended to be "even-handed," the title itself tells you that. It had enormous and numerous factual errors, which he defended. The reaction was heated because the book was a hatchet job. And Carter, like Bill Clinton, takes Saudi money. Brzezinski presided over our limp response to the Iran hostage-taking, and basically enabled the mullahs to get into power, so I wouldn't pick him as a foreign policy advisor, but, hey, I'm an old coot, and racist to boot according to you.
"....you’ve just
conjured up memories of Kofi Annan and other figures at the United
Nations, ...."
The UN treated Israel differently than any other nation long before Kofi Annan came too power, so to refer to him, in order to keep your racism theme working, is beyond dishonest.
"....a body also “viewed as cool to Israel.”....."
Viewed. Cool to. I think you need to read up on the UN. Its condemnation of israel for rescuing its citizens from a PLO plane hijack to Angola, but no condemnation of Idi Amin, who hosted the kidnapping. The "Zionism equal racism" resolution. The fact that Israel is the only country without a seat in a regional group, making it ineligible to rotate into the UNSC. The special refugee department set up solely for Palestinians, while all other refugees - with way more problems - are lumped together in the regular dept. UN reps in Israel immediately spreading the "Jenin massacre" lie without waiting to find out what happened. The UN allowing terrorists to kidnap some Israeli soldiers on the Lebanon border, videotaping it, and refusing to give the video to the Israelis. I could go on.
But that isn't "viewed as cool" to Israel, it's deliberately stigmatizing and isolating and slandering Israel, oh, since about 1970.
"......Older Jews who mistrust Obama won’t change their minds
because of a speech, no matter how beautifully orated...."
That may be the only true sentence in this entire dishonest article.
Anonymous
I dunno. For a column that
I dunno. For a column that tries so darn hard to to get a rise out of its readers -- well, the Jewy ones, yuck! -- there's not much meat on them thar bones. The meander into even-handed apartheid labels is fun, for sure. But once the piece really gets lumbering along, it's myseriously, well, random. News flash: Roger Cohen != "older Jews". Really. He's just this guy. Anecdotally nifty. Statistically not so relevant.
I get it, I do: Mr. Hamburger wants to establish his hipness, distance himself from those yucky types, but not quite outright reject, well, his "religion" You use what you have, right? So, sure, invent a generational thing. You are a young man, Robert! The thing is that it doesn't quite work. Precious. But dumb.
naftali
An Older Jew Remembers Watching Bob Beamon
But your logical jumps pale in comparison. How do you get from Brezinski to Black Man? Brezinski in more than enough. Anyone, a-n-y-o-n-e, who would choose Brezinski as an advisor is pretty clueless regarding foreign policy. Unfortunately, we live in an age where this means more than just not going to the Olympics--lives are at stake. Lots of lives. Millions and millions. How hard is it to figure out that nuclear arms and genocidal maniacs are a bad combination? Evidently, Zbig thinks it tastes like cookies. It don't. That's all I'm looking for in a candidate. Nukes and Nuts don't make cookies. I don't think I'm under analyzing this or asking too much of a presidential candidate to know this.
1 LT JAF
maybe it is because Obama is anti-Israel?!!
Nice try shilling for Obama by trying to make it seem the Jews are just racists. Oh I don't know- maybe not wanting Obama to be the Commander in Chief has something to do with THIS?!
http://www.jewishpress.com/print.do/30283/Obama_Served_On_Board_That_Funded_Pro%2DPalestinian_Group.html
Anonymous
Liberals claiming Jews are just racists?
Wow, never thought I would see the day that in a Jewish blog, a Jewish writer accuses Jews of being "racists" just because they don't support a particular politician. A new low for Jewcy and an embarrassment to free thinkers everywhere:
Joining Trinity United Community Church: Even though his father and stepfather were both Muslims and he attended a Muslim school while living in Indonesia, suspicions based on his days as a child are overheated and unfair. Still, his full name alone conveys the biographical fact that he has some elements of a Muslim background. Saul Alinsky, whose philosophy infused community organizing in Chicago, emphasized the importance of churches as a basis for organizing. There are literally hundreds of churches on the South Side of Chicago that Obama could have chosen from. He selected one that was headed by Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Junior. The anti-Israel rants of this minister have been well chronicled. Among the gems: " The Israelis have illegally occupied Palestinian territories for almost 40 years now. It took a divestment campaign to wake the business community up concerning the South Africa issue. Divestment has now hit the table again as a strategy to wake the business community up and to wake Americans up concerning the injustice and the racism under which the Palestinians have lived because of Zionism." Jeremiah Wright, Jr. Pastor Wright is a supporter of Louis Farrakhan (who called Judaism a "gutter religion" and depicted Jews as "bloodsuckers") and traveled with him to visit Col. Muammar al-Gaddafi, archenemy of Israel's and a terror supporter. Most recently, as head of the UN Security CouncilGaddafi prevented condemnation of attacks against Israel. As Kyle-Anne Shriver noted, The Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan received the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer" Award at the 2007 Trumpet Gala at the United Church of Christ. Wright routinely compares Israel to apartheid South Africa and considers blacks "The Chosen People". Wright sees his role not just as a religious counselor but also as an educator and political activist.Tucker Carlson of MSNBC has called Pastor Wright a total hater and wondered why the ties that bind Obama to Wright have not been given greater scrutiny. Mickey Kaus of Slate has also wondered when the ties between Obama and Wright will receive more criticism, given Wright's seeming bigotry, which is in contrast to the soothing melody of unity that Obama has trumpeted on the campaign trail. Some in the media have taken notice. The New York Times did have one front-page article on Wright by Jodi Kantor in which Wright was quoted as saying that should more information come to light about himself, "a lot of his Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell". After the article came out Wright attacked Jodi Kantor, referring to her Jewish heritage in a way that might create discomfort. This fear is why Pastor Wright was disinvited at the last minute from appearing with Obama when Obama announced his run for the Presidency. Wright admitted in a PBS interview that he understands this distancing from the Obama campaign since "he can't afford the Jewish support to wane or start questioning his allegiance to the Israel" Wright has been disappeared by the campaign; Obama has replaced him with high profile white ministers who do not preach the racial exclusiveness and racial superiority that is a hallmark of Jeremiah Wright; however, they seem to share an anti-Israel bias. Fortunately, bloggers and others have started to note the views of Pastor Wright (which also include an unhealthy does of racial exclusiveness, in Tucker Carlson's words) and . Finally these views may be crossing over to major media outlets. Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen published a recent column that criticized the award to Louis Farrakhan of the Reverend Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award -- an award that supposedly was granted to a man who "truly epitomized greatness". As Cohen noted, Farrakhan is not only a race-baiter but also an anti-Semite and a promoter of anti-Semitism. He falsely accused Jews of cooperating with Hitler and helping him create the Third Reich, has slandered Jews by his insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African-Americans (he has also called Jews "bloodsuckers"). Cohen questions why Obama has stayed steadfast in his allegiance to Pastor Wright over the years. Obama has called Wright his spiritual mentor, his moral compass and his sounding board. He was the man who gave Obama the term, "The Audacity of Hope" after all. He was also the man who told Obama that there are more black men in prison then in colleges -- a statement that Obama parroted until he was told that it was false. What other "facts" has Wright taught Obama? Has he taught Obama to blame 9/11 on America because of our foreign policy? Nevertheless, an Obama spokesman told the New York Times he is proud of his pastor and his church.The church also is the largest recipient of Obama's charitable donations. The pastor married Obama and his wife Michelle and baptized his two daughters. Obama has shown continued allegiance to a man who preaches racial exclusiveness, the superiority of black values over white middle-class values, and whose teaching contains anti-Israel diatribes. All these are sharply at variance with what Obama himself preaches on the campaign trail. One should also note that the governing body of the United Church of Christ has taken a series of anti-Israel actions over the years. A broad coalition of Jewish groups have rebuked the Church for these actions Has Obama, the most famous and prestigious member of the Church and an inspiring orator who can move millions, taken steps to work with his church to moderate its anti-Israel invective? No. He has been honored repeatedly by the church and has been its keynote speaker at various national assemblies. Has he called for change in the anti-Israel approach of the church? No. For those who claim that Obama is the next JFK (an absurd claim and an insult to a revered President that was skewered recently) he is certainly not a Profile in Courage. David Axelrod is Obama's chief political adviser, he is also the man who always comes out to explain that Obama (the master orator) did not really mean some of the offensive off-the-cuff statements he has made about Israel on the campaign trail (see below). Axelrod has also come out with the typical bland statements that Obama does not agree with all the things that Wright says and does. This is a lame defense. Recall, this is a church and a pastor who Obama has relied upon to shape his views, to be his sounding board; the church is the largest recipient of his charity dollars; he proudly states that he admires the church and Jeremiah Wright, Junior. He prayed with Wright before he announced his candidacy for President. He is a beacon for Obama. If a white candidate belonged to a church where the minister promoted an anti-black, anti-Semitic theology he would be roundly subject to criticism (assuming his candidacy would even be viable in the face of this background). Why should Obama get a pass? George Soros: As Obama took steps toward the United States Senate he found a very powerful sugar daddy who would help fund his rise: George Soros. The billionaire hedge fund titan began supporting Obama very early -- as befits a legendary speculative investor or always looking for opportunities. Obama coveted support from George Soros and Soros responded -- along with many family members and probably the Soros ring of wealthy donors. Soros even found a loophole that allowed him and assorted family members to exceed regular limits on campaign contributions. Soros is also a fierce foe of Israel, for years funding groups that have worked against Israel. He is also a man who has flexed his political muscle as a major funder of Democrat candidates and a slew of so-called 527 groups that are active in pushing their agendas (a reliance on international institutions, defeat of Republicans, Bush-bashing, Israel-bashing). He has also openly proclaimed his desire to break the bonds between America and Israel and has written of his desire to erode political support for Israel. Soros also called for concessions to Hamas -- a terror group that has killed many innocent people and that has called for the destruction of Israel. When this came to light, some leading Democrats personally denounced Soros; Obama had a spokesman issue this rather bland statement: "Mr. Soros is entitled to his opinions," a campaign spokeswoman, Jen Psaki, said. "But on this issue he and Senator Obama disagree. Sound familiar? It is similar to the response the Soros campaign has given regarding Obama's close relationship with Pastor Wright.This mild reproach did not prevent Obama from appearing a few weeks later with George Soros at a fundraiser. Soros invests when he sees a large return as likely; he proverbially "broke the Bank of England" a few years ago speculating on the pound. Does he intend to break the American-Israel alliance? "Blood on their hands" Nor did anti-Semitism of another fundraiser seem to ruffle Obama or his campaign. A fundraiser was held at the home of Allan Houston, formerly of the Knicks, and a man who had previously very publicly proclaiming that Jews had Jesus' "blood on their hands" and were "stubborn". The American Jewish Congress protested and noted that Obama would not take any money from someone who had expressed the same sort of remarks about African-Americans. The very same spokesman who addressed the Soros controversy blithely dismissed the concerns of the Jews and said the campaign would not return the money or reject any of the contributions made by Houston. Obama has been a Senator for only a couple of years. His supporters will point to a string of votes that are supportive of the American-Israel alliance (foreign aid, for example). These generally are not controversial and routinely pass by large margins, precisely because they support an ally and serve American interests. But there are grounds to doubt Obama's seriousness on the issue. He has openly advocated outreach towards Iran, a state that makes clear its genocidal intentions towards Israel, funds Hezbollah and terrorism against America, Israel, and Jewish targets around the world. Obama has seemed to excuse attacks against Americans by Iranian-supported terror groups because we have provoked Iran by trying to liberate Iraq (we are in their neighborhood) or as Barack has put it, Iraq is under occupation by America (which makes one wonder how he feels about Israeli settlements). Furthermore, there already are targeted sanctions in place now. They can be employed against Iranians and Iranian groups identified as being terrorists or terror groups. Yet when Congress voted to identify the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terror group-thus making it susceptible to sanction-Barack Obama was not just AWOL (as has been widely noted, Obama has a history of missing votes and avoiding unpleasant decisions) but harshly attacked his political opponents for voting to so designate the Guards as a terror group. This is absurd: the Guard has been implicated in terror attacks against Americans in Iran, Argentinean Jews in bombing attacks in Buenos Aires, and has bolstered Hezbollah in Lebanon. Designating this group as terrorists is crucial in weakening its power. Yet, Obama objected to characterizing them as terrorists. That does not bode well for how seriously a President Obama would deal with Iran or how supportive he would be of our ally. Obama has called for withdrawal from Iraq, which would destabilize the region and lead to a further expansion of Iranian power. He also introduced a Senate Resolution on Iran that strips President Bush of the authority to take military action against it. . Unilateral nuclear disarmament for Israel: Obama has also called for the abolition of all nuclear weapons in the world and said that America, by not openly leading a campaign to end nuclear weapons is "giving countries like Iran and North Korea an excuse." This is naïve beyond belief and is identical to arguments made in the Arab world that justify their pursuit of nuclear weapons because Israel has nuclear weapons. We all know how such a program would operate in the real world: Western, open nations such as Israel would be stripped of the capability of nuclear weapons; dictatorships, such as Iran, would continue to operate their secret programs. Israel's nuclear arsenal has helped offset the strategic peril that comes from being surrounded by much larger nations openly declaring their goal of its destruction. Obama's call would unilaterally work to disarm Israel. Pressuring Israel: Obama has also blamed that "our neglect of the Middle East Peace Process has spurred despair and fueled terrorism" implicitly blaming Israel for terrorism and a sign that a President Obama would pressure Israel. Obama seems to ignore the roles that schools play in the Middle East in the teaching of hatred; the roles of mosques and Imams in stoking terrorism; the glorification of violence and martyrdom in the media; the role of jihad in the Koran.He also was the only Democratic Presidential aspirant to sign a Senate Resolution that would ban the use of cluster bombs. These are the types of weapons used by Israel to counter massed attacks by Hezbollah, and are vitally important to her security; Hezbollah also used the same type of weapons. Does anyone think Hezbollah will refrain from using these weapons? How about suicide bombers who rely on similar types of "ordinance' to inflict mass casualties among civilians? Once again, high-minded rhetoric conceals an agenda of unilateral disarmament of the Jewish state. Advisors: Every Presidential candidate assembles a foreign policy team of advisers. A glimpse into the makeup of Obama's team has leaked to the media. Martin Peretz of The New Republic -- a supporter of Obama and of Israel -- had this to say about Obama's Foreign Policy team:"I have my qualms, as you may know, about Barack Obama, and most especially about what his foreign policy might be. If elected (and actually before he were to be elected), the first decision he would have to make would be who would represent him in the transition to power from early November to January 20. And, frankly, I get the shudders since he has indicated that, among others, they would be Zbigniew Bzrezinski (I don't know much about his son, listed as Mark, but I can guess), Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley." Lake and Brzezenski both earned their spurs in the Carter Administration. The Carter era led to the fall of the Shah of Iran (a stalwart ally of both America and Israel), which gave birth to the Iranian revolution. We all know how well that has turned out. Jimmy Carter, of course, has led a very public campaign of vilification against Israel-defaming it as an apartheid state (a view that Obama's Pastor would concur with). Anthony Lake has been all but retired for the last dozen years-living on a farm in the Berkshires. This makes one wonder what he is bringing to the table, other than his Carter-era pedigree and beliefs. He has been reactivated though-one of his roles seems to be as ambassador to the Arab-American community . The appointment of Brzezenski elicited much dismay among supporters of Israel since Brzezinski is well known for his aggressive dislike of Israel. . He has been an ardent foe of Israel for over three decades and newspaper files are littered with his screeds against Israel. Brzezinski has publicly defended the Walt-Mearsheimer thesis that the relationship between America and Israel is based not on shared values and common threats but is the product of Jewish pressure. Brzezinski also signed a letter demanding dialogue with Hamas-a group whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel and is filled with threats to Jews around the world. After Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel in the summer of 2006, murdered Israelis and took hostages, Israel tried to get its citizens back by moving into Lebanon. Warfare resulted. Brzezinski wrote that Israel's actions amounted to the "killing of hostages" (the hostages being Lebanese caught in the battles). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steve-clemons/zbig-brzezinski-israel_b_25821.html Brzezinski's son, Mark, is also on Obama's foreign policy team. Evidently the apple does not fall far from the tree. Mark recently co-wrote an op-ed advocating that America forge ties with Iran.Susan Rice was John Kerry's chief foreign policy adviser when he ran for President. One of the major steps Kerry suggested for dealing with the Middle East was to appoint James Baker and Jimmy Carter as negotiators. When furor erupted at the prospect of two of the most ardent foes of Israel being suggested to basically ride "roughshod" over Israel, Kerry backtracked and blamed his staff for the idea. His staff was Susan Rice. Drilling down further we have Robert Malley. He was part of the American negotiating team that dealt with Yasser Arafat at Camp David. He has presented a revisionist history of those negotiations since then: presenting a view that blames Israel for the failures of the negotiations. His version has been radically at odds with the views of Americans and Israelis (including the views of American Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross-also an adviser to Obama- and President Clinton). He has spent years representing the Palestinian point of view, co-writing a series of anti-Israel articles with Hussein Agha-a former Arafat adviser. Palestinian advocate. These have appeared in the New York Review of Books a publication that has served as a platform for a slew of anti-Israel advocates from Tony Judt to the aforementioned George Soros to the authors of the Israeli Lobby book Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer. Malley has also called settlements "colonies" -- implicitly condemning Israel as a "colonial" state. His writings have been so critical of Israel that the media-monitoring group CAMERA has a "dossier" on him. (CAMERA also has a listing for Brzezinski). One well-regarded blogger, Rutgers Professor Judith Apter Klinghoffer believes this adviser was Ivo Daalder, who was quoted throughout the article and who is one of the foreign policy advisers to Barack Obama. Professor Klinghoffer is skeptical about Daalder and his feelings towards the American-Israel relationship. . A snapshot of Daalder's views: He has, like Obama, singled out Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz as being responsible for manipulating the levers of power to serve the interests of other countries (it bears reiterating, Perle had no official position in the Administration; Bush, Powell ,Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice-those were the decision-makers). Daalder has seemingly advocated talks with Hezbollah, Syria, Iran. Daalder stated that Israel's bombing of Qana (an attack targeting Hezbollah missile placements that resulted in civilian death) in the war against Hezbollah imperiled Israel's claim to the moral high ground. These and assorted other positions lend credence to Professor Klinghoffer's view.Scott Lasensky has also been appointed a foreign policy adviser to Obama. This step should also be viewed with a gimlet eye. In a book to be published this month, he and co-author Daniel Kurtzer write glowingly of the George H.W. Bush and James Baker's approach towards dealing with Israel, but faulted Bush and Baker for inadequately derailing the pro-Israel lobby which was more skeptical of the push against Israel into Yasser Arafat's arms. He has called for Islamists and Hamas to be brought into the "peace process," before this Mideast moment slips away.He has called residents of Israeli settlements "obstructionists" He has been given the stamp of approval by the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs, a notoriously harsh anti-Israel group . He was also used by CNN's Christiane Amanpour to castigate Israel in her widely criticized CNN's Jewish Warriors "documentary" -- a documentary that has been heavily criticized for its bias and factual errors) Lasensky has been hosted by the activist group Brit Tzedek v'Shalom and will be hosted by Americans for Peace Now , both of which groups have been highly critical of Israel over the years. He has recently called for aggressive American involvement in pushing for a peace agreement between Israel and the Palestinians -- calling for the end of the incremental approach (which is "trust but verify" approach meant to test each side's honesty and ability to bring about peace). Abolishing it would be a foolish and potentially disastrous leap of faith into the unknown. He has called for engagement with Iran. The group for which he works, the Unites States Institute of Peace, was the key organizer of the Iraq Study Group that produced a report that has very troubling recommendations concerning Israel (James Baker, whose approach towards Israel Lasensky admires, was one of the two people who headed the Iraq Study Group). Obama supporters might counter that Obama has a wide range of foreign advisers and seeks input from people with a variety of views. Most likely, Dennis Ross-with deep ties to the American Jewish community-will be headlined in this argument. However, it is unclear what role Ross has on the team. He is clearly angling to join what may be the next Administration in the White House. How likely is it that Ross, who served the Clintons (now Obama's opponents), will hold sway against the triumvirate of key Obama heavyweights: Lake, Brzezinski, and Susan Rice? Obama and John Bolton: Conversely, Obama actively opposed the nomination of John Bolton as our Ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton's track record in support of Israel is impressive.As Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Bolton took started a new project, the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), that has played a very important role in preventing hostile nations (including those in the Arab world) from developing weapons of mass destruction. Boats were interdicted on the high seas, for example, when suspicions arose that they carried suspect cargoes. The PSI was also responsible for helping to put an end to Libya's nuclear program, which led to the unraveling of the A.Q. Khan nuclear weapons black market that has imperiled our friends in the region (and ourselves). While at the United Nations, Bolton was a stalwart defender of American interests and those of our allies. He was also a firm supporter of Israel (next to Patrick Moynihan, probably one of the best) -- a thankless task given the pervasive anti-Israel bias at the UN.Bolton has continued to support the American-Israel relationship after leaving government service -- for example, writing a series of op-eds, the latest of which support Israel's decision to bomb the likely nuclear plant in Syria. Regardless of Bolton's evident talents and drive, Obama worked to derail his career. Was it his views that Obama objected to? Speeches and public remarks: There are those willing to give Obama the benefit of the doubt and rely on his speeches to give comfort. Most recently, the New York Sun took excerpts from a speech he gave to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in Chicago last march. I was there, just a few yards in front of Barack Obama. His speech was desultory and lacking the spirit and energy that are a trademark of the gifted oratory of Barack Obama. He clearly seemed to be going through the motions. The content of his speech gave many listeners qualms, including me. Others have their suspicions about whether Obama truly believes what he is saying in his speeches before groups supportive of the American-Israel relationship. . I think a more accurate reflection of these feelings and ideas are found in unscripted, off-the cuff remarks. As Michael Kinsley wrote, a "gaffe is a mistaken utterance or action which actually reveals what a politician truly believes". Obama has a record of off the cuff remarks that are disconcerting. There is, of course, his well-known remark in Des Moines that "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people" (which sounds like Pastor Wright is being channeled) that created controversy. He later tried to revise history by insisting he had said "Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership". However, the well-respected Fact.Check.org and the Des Moines Register newspaper (which has an audio record) dispute Obama's "redo". He also has objected to Israel's security fence that has all but ended the suicide bombing campaigns that killed so many innocent people. In an interview in 2004 he stated: "...the creation of a wall dividing the two nations is yet another example of the neglect of this Administration in brokering peace."There are not two nations (at least yet) and the security fence is not a wall, it is a fence (only a small percent, less than 5% can be considered a "wall" and that is only because of space constraints and the desire to prevent sniper fire from the Palestinians). His use of the term Cycle of violence" has caused ripples of concern for its intimations of moral equality between the Palestinians and Israelis; as has his elevation of "cynicism" as a core problem in the Middle East, rather than say, terrorism. At an anti-war rally he stated that he was "Opposed to the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other armchair, weekend warriors in the administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throat" .This is disturbing. Obama ignored the role of Colin Powell, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice and other movers and shakers in the Administration. But Perle (who never even served in the Administration) and Wolfowitz (who was a Deputy Secretary) have been lumped together by many anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists as Jews who led us into the Iraq War to serve the interests of Israel. Who has Obama been listening to? His moral compass, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Junior?There are other remarks of Obama's that have struck others as being less than supportive of Israel. . Among them are words that put the onus on Israel to change the status quo in its relations with the Palestinians. He was the only candidate at the National Jewish Democratic Council conference that burdens Israel with that role.There are grounds to be concerned that he would discard the "Road Map" that provides guidelines for negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. He has stated that the "Israel government must make difficult concessions for the peace process to restart." The Road Map places obligations on both sides to take steps simultaneously on the road to peace. Israel is explicitly not obligated to take the first steps. This confirms the views he expressed to the NJDC that he would place the onus on Israel in future peace negotiations. .Shmuel Rosner, the Washington correspondent of the liberal Israeli newspaper Haaretz, noted that that the prediction that Obama would be least favorable of any of the candidates toward Israel may partly be due to the fact that his "supporters come mainly from the left-wing of the Democratic Party and from the African-American community -- from constituencies which are traditionally not that supportive of Israel".But Obama has on his own volition assembled his networks of friends, mentors, financial supporters and foreign policy advisers. In his judgment -- a judgment that he regularly trumpets as being superior to others - these people are worthy of advising him. There are among those friends and advisers key people who seem to display a great deal of antipathy towards the American-Israel relationship. These are the constituencies and associates that should warrant concern among all those who care about a strong American-Israel relationship. His electoral success will send a message to all future politicians that they can willingly ignore the views of those Americans who value a close relationship with the sole democracy and our only true ally in the Middle East. We may see the ramifications of Obama's ascent in the years yet to come. Related AT articles:
Barack Obama's Middle East Expert
The Audacity of Questioning Obama's Commitment to Israel
Samantha Power and Obama's Foreign Policy Team
JewcyCraig
Pasting
Daniel Koffler
Good point Craig
As Hillary Clinton might say, if you're going to post a 6000 word unhinged screed in blog comments, the words should be your own
Anonymous
Wasn't aware that one was
Wasn't aware that one was forbidden from posting articles REBUTTING the outrageous calumny in Hamburger's screed that Jews are racist for not voting Obama.
Okay then- here are a few more reasons Obama is bad for Jews: Anthony Lake, Zbigniew Brezinski, Susan Power, Robert Malley, Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, Tony Rezko, Auchi, wanting "talks" with Iran with no pre-conditions, wanting to flee in retreat from the Middle East and grant Al Qaeda/Iran/Hamas/Hezbullah a strategic victory, supports partial birth abortion as well as killing of the baby after live birth (in case you don't know abortion is against Judaism), serving on the board of Rashid Khalidi's pro PLO organization in Chicago. I will go on in the next 8 months. But any RATIONAL JEW- rather than an American liberal has more than enough reasons here alone to vote against Obama..
naftali
Yeah, But You Forgot That He's Black
:-)
JewcyCraig
Sorry
Simon
I think this was a good
I think this was a good article. It's a fairly uncomfortable thing to point out (hence the hysterically negative comments), but you hit the nail on the head.
gushbasar
im not old, but....
copied from my myspace blog - www.myspace.com/gushbasar
Obama's Muslim background, in any way you look at it can have a very bad influence on the situation in the middle east, in favour of the Arab world.
Following John Cleese's email let me add a bit of my own..:
Americans see the elections as their own internal affair. What they don't realise is that the leader of the U.S.A, is the leader of the world, de facto.
Even today with Iraq and Afghanistan, when an American goes to vote, s/he does not always take in consideration the influence it has on the rest of the world - as you will soon see, it does not revolve only around pulling out of Iraq.
You'll be surprised to know that Bush, though a simple minded oil hungry asshole - was the best American president for Israel.
If you take a closer look at what's happening in the rest of the world you'll see that a Muslim originated president, though with positive values of equality coming from a deprived class - is at these times dangerous for the rest of the world. I'm sure he will be good for America, but the timing is bad:
France, once an enemy due to support of Arab nations originating in it guilty feelings about its colonial past, is now tightening its relations with Israel. It has internal issues regarding the Muslim population, and though not in a blunt opposition to the U.S.A - it is trying to strengthen its status as a leading military and political force in the world, starting in Europe.
Britain has finally woken up to reality (too late), realising that the tolerant policy towards Muslim immigration is causing them serious problems. Britain has in fact become probably the European country that has the best and strongest base for terrorists to bloom and gain political power -making it easy to move freely and directly towards targets all over Europe using legal passports...
Russia is gradually gaining more and more power - financial, military and political status. It supports Iran and Syria - I don't have to tell you what that means.
South America is suffering instabilities that for now are not taken seriously, but when the time is right will erupt and won't step aside as some of its countries are waiting for an opportunity to show their importance in this world.
The problems in the Balkans and the Koreas, the so called isolation of Iran,