The Senator, His Pastor and the Israel Lobby
US Senator Barack Obama was widely hailed for his March 18 speech calming the media furor about the sermons of his pastor for twenty years Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Wright's remarks, Obama said, "expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic, and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America; a view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel, instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam."
It might seem odd for Obama to mention Israel and "radical Islam" in a speech focused on US race relations, especially since Wright's most widely reported comments were about America's historic and ongoing oppression of its black citizens.
But for months, even before most Americans had heard of Wright, prominent pro-Israel activists were hounding Obama over Wright's views on Israel and ties to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan. In January, Abraham Foxman, National Director of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), demanded that Obama denounce Farrakhan as an anti-Semite. The senator duly did so, but that was not enough. "[Obama has] distanced himself from his pastor's decision to honor Farrakhan," Foxman said, but "He has not distanced himself from his pastor. I think that's the next step." Foxman labeled Wright "a black racist," adding in the same breath, "Certainly he has very strong anti-Israel views" (Larry Cohler-Esses, "ADL Chief To Obama: 'Confront Your Pastor' On Minister Farrakhan," The Jewish Week, January 16 2008). Criticism of Israel, one suspects, is Wright's truly unforgivable crime and Foxman's vitriol has echoed through dozens of pro-Israel blogs.
Since his early political life in Chicago, Barack Obama was well-informed about the Middle East and had expressed nuanced views conveying an understanding that justice and fairness, not blinkered support for Israel, are the keys to peace and the right way to combat extremism. Yet for months he has been fighting the charge that he is less rabidly pro-Israel than other candidates -- which means now adhering to the same simplistic formulas and unconditional support for Israeli policies that have helped to escalate conflict and worsen America's standing in the Middle East. Hence Obama's assertion at his February 26 debate with Senator Hillary Clinton that he is "a stalwart friend of Israel."
But Obama stressed that his appeal to Jewish voters also stems from his desire "to rebuild what I consider to be a historic relationship between the African American community and the Jewish community."
Obama has not addressed to a national audience why that relationship might have frayed. He was much more candid when speaking to Jewish leaders in Cleveland just one day before the debate. In a little-noticed comment, reported on February 25 by the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, Obama tried to contextualize Wright's critical views of Israel. Wright, Obama explained, "was very active in the South Africa divestment movement and you will recall that there was a tension that arose between the African American and the Jewish communities during that period when we were dealing with apartheid in South Africa, because Israel and South Africa had a relationship at that time. And that cause -- that was a source of tension."
Obama implicitly admitted that Wright's views were rooted in opposition to Israel's deep ties to apartheid South Africa, and thus entirely reasonable even if Obama himself did "not necessarily," as he put it, share them. Israel supplied South Africa with hundreds of millions of dollars of weaponry despite an international embargo. Even the water cannons that South African forces used to attack anti-apartheid demonstrators in the townships were manufactured at Kibbutz Beit Alfa, a "socialist" settlement in northern Israel. Until the late 1980s, South Africa often relied on Israel to lobby Western governments not to impose sanctions.
And the relationship was durable. As The Washington Post reported in 1987, "When it comes to Israel and South Africa, breaking up is hard to do." Israeli officials, the newspaper said, "face conflicting imperatives: their desire to get in line with the West, which has adopted a policy of mild but symbolic sanctions, versus Israel's longstanding friendship with the Pretoria government, a relationship that has been important for strategic, economic and, at times, sentimental reasons" ("An Israeli Dilemma: S. African Ties; Moves to Cut Links Are Slowed by Economic Pressures, Sentiment," The Washington Post, 20 September 1987).
In 1987, Jesse Jackson, then the world's most prominent African American politician, angered some Jewish American leaders for insisting that "Whoever is doing business with South Africa is wrong, but Israel is ... subsidized by America, which includes black Americans' tax money, and then it subsidizes South Africa" ("Jackson Draws New Criticism From Jewish Leaders Over Interview," Associated Press, 16 October 1987). As a presidential candidate, Jackson raised the same concerns in a high profile meeting with the Israeli ambassador, as did a delegation of black civil rights and religious leaders, including the nephew of Martin Luther King Jr, on a visit to Israel. For many African Americans, it was intolerable hypocrisy that so many Jewish leaders who staunchly supported Civil Rights and the anti-apartheid movement would be tolerant of Israel's complicity.
Thus, Reverend Wright, who has sought a broader understanding of the Middle East than one that blames Islam and Arabs for all the region's problems or endorses unconditional support for Israel, stood in the mainstream of African American opinion, not on some extremist fringe.
That is not to say that Jewish concerns about anti-Semitic sentiments among some African Americans should simply be dismissed. Racism in any community should be confronted. But as they have done with other communities, hard-line pro-Israel activists like Foxman have too often tried to tar any African American critic of Israel with the brush of anti-Semitism. Why must every black candidate to a major office go through the ritual of denouncing Farrakhan, a marginal figure in national politics who likely gets most of his notoriety from the ADL? Surely if anti-Semitism were such an endemic problem among African Americans, there would be someone other than Farrakhan for the ADL to have focused its ire on all these decades.
By contrast, neither Senator Joe Lieberman (Al Gore's running mate in 2000 and the first Jewish candidate on a major party presidential ticket), nor Senator John McCain have been required so publicly and so repeatedly to repudiate extremist and racist comments by Israeli leaders or some well-known radical Christian leaders supporting the Republican party. Foxman, whose organization devotes enormous resources to burnishing Israel's image, has rarely spoken out about the escalating anti-Arab racism and incitement to violence by prominent Israeli politicians and rabbis.
That is no surprise. African Americans, Arab Americans and Muslims all share some things in common: individuals are held collectively responsible for the words and actions of others in their community whether they had anything to do with them or not. And the price of admission to the political mainstream is to abandon any foreign policy goals that diverge from those of the pro-Israel, anti-Palestinian lobby.
Co-founder of The Electronic Intifada, Ali Abunimah is author of One Country: A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse (Metropolitan Books).
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
If being pro-Israel is recognizing that Israel would be wiped off the map in a heart beat by any one and all the neighboring Arab states and Iran if they had the chance like they have been trying to for the last fourty years, then you will run into plenty of them here and in Europe and around the world. That's one fact that is never in dispute and it is the only fact that is preventing a peaceful settlement between the Palestinians and the Israelis and Iran, through its proxies in Hamas and Hezbollah, will make sure it stays that way.
But you don's sound like you want to talk about all the other stuff because it tends to complicate you little rhetorical exercise.
But I have to give you credit for resisting the urge to use the word Zionist in your article.
If you get a chance, try to do some research on the work that the ADL did on behalf of African Americans and Jews during the Civil Rights Movement against the likes of the KKK. You might discover that the friendship between the two peoples goes a lot deeper than you might like.
Frankly, I have been surprised by the muted criticism of Obama's comment about Israel and radical Islam made during his superficial speech on race (which was largely organized around throwing Bill Cosby-style candy to white conservative voters). It seems with Obama, people self-describing as lefties uncritically allow him to throw Jeremiah Wright under the bus, renounce black liberation politics, and blame Muslims for the problems in the Middle East, when they would never let, say, Hillary Clinton get away with making the same arguments. Indeed, it's even more controversial when Obama does it, since Clinton has never pretended to want to be a member of the black community. The reason for the hypocrisy is that many on the left are guided by identity politics rather than a deep commitment to the principle of social justice. This primary season has revealed a lot about the American left, but perhaps in no more profound way than the Obama hypocrisy.
I see since he is black its COSBY STYLE, and whites like Cosby right? The speech is not for conservatives there is no point in anyone talking to conservatives anymore because we all know they are too extreme, stubborn or stupid to accept reality. They will support the OFFICIAL position until they die. People of reason have abandoned conservatives to linger in the fading glory of the Bush administration. Conservative ideals have been tried tested and proven LACKING.
Secondly, how can any honest person call that speech on race superficial. Superfical was invading Iraq because "Sadam was a bad guy". That speech was far from superficial, it was a profound step foward in the American dialoge. Your Bias against all things liberal makes you blind to the reality.
Even the conservatives are members of the black community, and I am sure this Wright conterversy gave plenty of black conservatives pause. You and your Pat Buchanan crowd can keep waiting for Black Gratitude cause the last time i checked freedom was fought for not GIVEN.
Very good article. I was beginning to believe that I, and a few friends, were the only ones who saw the hypocrisy of our Nations policy towards Israel. I remember when George and his Dick were slamming Iraq for "Violating UN Resolutions," something Israel has done every day since the '67 war, when they illegally occupied Palestine. They stood mute as Israel rained cluster bombs down on Lebanese cities over two missing soldiers, leaving behind unexploded "bomb-lets" for the children to find! I can remember no report from that region where Israeli casualties outnumbered those of Palestine. I abhor Islamic Terrorists, but by any reasonable evaluation Israel equals or exceeds their barbarism!
This is a very important issue. (sorry for stating the obvious)
It seems that it can be very difficult for a politician to even try to seem to be impartial in regards to questions and problems between Israelis and Palestinians.
There are some very powerful blocs in this country, that a politician crosses at his or her peril.
Thus, trying to actually be fair and impartial in the struggles in the Holy Land, or in Cuba, or in Venezuela, or in Mexico, (you get the idea), can be like walking in a field filled with land mines; one misstep, and one's appeal to a powerful bloc of voters can be fatally damaged.
I believe that Carter and Clinton both knew that it was dishonest and unproductive to treat issues regarding Palestine and Israel as black and white, because they are not. There is plenty of guilt and blame to go around for everyone to feel thoroughly sullied, and bloodied.
So far, I have seen little evidence that the current crop of Republicans are interested in much of anything other than getting elected.
While Obama may have to distance himself from rhetoric that might be miscontrued in an election sound-bite, he will not distance himself from his considered judgement and desire to be informed. Even his association with Zbignew Brizinski has been put on the back burners in order to not upset those who might not understand the relationship.
The American public, including those who are pro-Israeli, would not be so skittish if they understood that the majority of people in Israel are as tired of the divisions as the Palestinians. This whole concept that the races in this country are more the same than not is directly translatable to the rest of the world. This is so rare. A world vision that does not include the diminishing of anyone. How lovely that it might, for once, come from us.
HuffPost's Pick
A few weeks reading HuffingtonPost now, and still no cravings. MSM warned me I'd have them -- you know, the Britney Fixation. Is joy the first symptom of craving-denial?
Anyway, thankyou for this excelent article.
Very Informative and insightful.
Best read of the week, if not more!
I had the great pleasure of travelling to Israel a few years back...
I'm a well travelled, deeply non-religious, Irish-American, and have found no better place on Earth.
Sad that it is so divided still; like Ireland once was.
Part of the reason I support Obama is, I believe he is the best candidate to broker an honest peace in Israel -- in the best interests of almost everybody on the planet.
I do not see how McCain would be viewed as a honest broker by both sides. Plus, the art of diplomacy is lost on old soldiers.
Jimmy Carter helped prove that lasting peace can be achieved.
Bill Clinton gave it his best effort, and helped broker peace in Ireland.
Senator Obama is the Democrat who is custom-made to solve these kind of problems (unless I have vastly underestimated the quantity of tea -- kool-aid? -- that Hillary consumed in Ireland).
When Jewish voters begin to realize the possibility of a peaceful settlement, and trust Obama's commitment to Israel, yet another demographic barrier will fall.
Absolutely...Israel is always the reason that no peaceful settlement exists. The Palestinian Authority never responds negatively toward any Israeli olive branch.
That's going a bit far, and I know that is what you intended, but there is a lesson to be learned from the tragedy of the Middle East. Both sides in this conflict have trapped themselves in a quagmire by giving too much credence to religious zealots who think their actions are authorized by some mandate from God! This kind of nonsensical loyalty to archaic beliefs is uniformly dangerous to humanity! Whether it is the Roman treatment of Christians, the Catholic Inquisitions, the Nazi crimes against Jews, or the modern Jihadists. All are the twisted interpretations of basically moral beliefs used by unethical people to enhance their own stature!
Sadly,
this is absolutely the case. It isn't enough that he is/must be avidly pro-Israel. He must be an absolutist. Especially, as a black man and a man with an Arabic name. Fairness, morality on this issue, even for those who would like a peaceful, equitable solution for both sides, is that which can never be spoken about in this country.
Great Article.
You have gotten right to the heart of the Middle East conflict and the underlining causes of 911, Americas lopsided exclusive support of Israel over the Palestinians.
America was once considered an honest broker in that historic conflict but once G. W. Bush became president he shamelessly only considered the position of the Israelis and never credibly tried to stop their settlement building on Palestinian territory.
Basically what the pro Israeli warmongers are fearful of is that Obama will once again be an honest broker in that war between Israel and Palestine and stop the Biblical expansion of Israels claim to historic ownership of those territories, which is at the heart of the entire Middle East unrest.
The Obama team should do a much better job of blaming Americans for 9/11. I see it in the posts all of the time and, yet, for some reason, Obama himself never makes the declaration. I see a change for another ground-breaking speech.
Joe Leibermann supports John McCain because McCain promises to make war against Jewish enemies in the middle east for the next 100 years.
That means more to him than being a Democrat.
And so blatantly.
They're not Jewish people's enemies, they're Israel's enemies. I have no particular animus towards Iran, but Israel does.
You ask, "Why must every black candidate to a major office go through the ritual of denouncing Farrakhan, a marginal figure in national politics who likely gets most of his notoriety from the ADL?"
Answer: Because he has a big microphone. Michael Richards and Don Imus are relatively marginal figures, but anyone who spews a racist comment must kiss the rings of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.
If you're going to be against hate-speech, you have to be against all of it.
And, by the way, Jesse Jackson also angered Jews by his reference to "Hymie-town." Some good will may have been squandered.
Farrakhan is an incredibly marginal figure.
I'm sure I'm not the only one who's tired of the way every black politician has to denounce him, as if all black people were responsible for the words of each one of them.
And the rings of the ADL.
What a bunch of crap from a rabid anti-semite.
Wow, you're way off base with that comment.
right on, FreedomLoverX
Isn't it typical that you have a blog name "FreedomLover" and that you try to dismiss discourse as "anti-semitic" - it is the same old smoke and mirrors of false patriotism such as wearing flag lapel pins and saying "God Bless America" and "Freedom fries" while sending our young people in harms way for a lie in order to benefit Israel and fill the pockets of companies like Halliburton.
Guess what...thanks to the internet, the media gag order imposed by the pro-Israeli lobby on this topic will slowly erode and true patriots of this country will tolerate this no longer. Brave people will speak out and maybe then one day we can have hope for a fair and lasting solution in the Middle East that both the Israelis and Palestinians can live with.
Great post.
While Obama cannot ignore the powerful pro-Israeli lobby that has held sway over our politicians for the last 20 or so years, the fact that he has raised money and therefore gets his staying power from average Americans gives one hope that things will change. America's stance on the Israeli-Palestinian issue has made America less safe and the pro-Israel neocons who took us into the Iraq war under false claims have the blood of thousands of young Americans(and even more Iraqis) on their hands.
Obama is our best chance for a fair approach to the Israeli-Palestinian issue - and that could actually mean the possibility of a resolution to that seemingly never-ending problem.
Yep, I am calling you an anti-Semite. Your call for the destruction of Israel is all the proof I need, but this posting proves it. Did it ever occur to you that the reason Obama may recognize that Israel is a staunch and valuablee ally is that she is? No, that would require thinking, which is not in the arsenal of haters like you.
From where I set here in Texas, we're tired of the influence of Israel and would like to see an even handed policy from now on. Both sides have there nuts and extremest and both under the name of their God given rights hurts and disrespects the other. Both sides use the past for justifying the brutality of the other. I'm sick of the whole batch of them.
BigMitch, nowhere does he call for the destruction of Israel. That's absolute slander, and it's people like you who make any discussion about Israel impossible.
Excellent post!!
Unfortunately, I'm sure you'll get demonized and slandered just like the "Israel Firsters" did to Jimmy Carter.
Oh, he is.
His website is electronicintifada.comm" - I used to visit it occasionally. Great photos and articles.
Ali - Obama will have to toe the line just like every other politician (with rare exceptions such as Jim Moran of VA) when it comes to our Government's unconditional support of Israel.
Maybe one day our politicians will be able to discern good Israel vs bad Israel policy, but we'll not start with Mr. Obama.
One day America will also be able to stand by Israel's right to exist without such enourmous cost to our moral standing - but perhaps we need a Jewish Politician brave enought to begin that sea-change.
I hope for the sake of our moral souls that day comes soon
He'll have to toe the line more than your average politician. Being black and having Zbigniew Brzizinsky as an advisor makes him twice damned among hard-right Likud sympathizers.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
