Doctor Faust in 2008

Anyone who has spent any time around politics knows that there are various paths to power. Most of these paths lie between the high road and the low road. The lowest road is the one that leads to power through destruction of one's opponent. That road is also the path to the garden of cynicism. But if the goal is power, what does a little cynicism matter. The Devil may help you get power. But he'll collect your soul in return.

Over recent weeks, and particularly in recent days, rumors circulate questioning Senator Barack Obama's commitment to a free and democratic Israel. Most recently, the rumor is that Senator Obama's strongest supporters in the Jewish community were defecting to his opponent because he had endorsed former President Carter's decision to meet with representatives of Hamas, generally recognized as a Palestinian group organizing terrorist attacks on Israel. The fact is that Senator Obama immediately and without being challenged to do so stated his disagreement with such meetings. Meeting with heads of state or heads of government is one thing; meeting with groups advocating terror is another.

One does not enter the hornets-nest of the Middle Eastern debate without armor. In my case that armor includes consistent and unwavering support for the U.S.-Israeli partnership and it includes participation in tank maneuvers on the Golan Heights, flights in the back seat of Israeli high performance aircraft, and night naval patrols off the Israeli coast. I have been honored to be the guest of former Israeli prime ministers and have carried out serious discussions regarding mutual security concerns.

Having established that, I can now say that I find it outrageous and the height of political cynicism for any other candidate or campaign, Democratic or Republican, to question Senator Obama's commitment to continuation of the U.S.-Israeli partnership and particularly to do so in a sinister, duplicitous, and scurrilous manner by spreading false rumors. When he campaigns against the politics of the past, and attracts hundreds of thousands of young people and independents as a result, that is the kind of politics he means.

I personally know the leaders of the Jewish American community to be intelligent enough, thoughtful enough, and most of all fair enough to categorically reject the path of cynicism and those cowardly enough to promote it by whisper and innuendo. Perhaps above all others, they know what it is like to be the victims of hateful rumors. In the final analysis, the issue isn't Israel. The issue is honesty, justice, and fairness in American politics.

Comments

[ashleybaines]

I was hoping Obama was going to be different. This story makes me think he's drinking the kosher kool aid.

Until we have an election free of American/Israeli occupation - Americans won't be any more free than the Palestinians.

Our government is riddled with slaves to this oppressive world think.

I am hoping Obama keeps his independen­ce..... and

HOORAY FOR JIMMY!!! -- tell em to stick it where the sun don't shine.

[ResidentChimp]

Obama is an anti-Zionists, just like Carter and you can save your outrage for someone who cares.

[bobo209]

Senator PLEASE DO NOT INSULT AMERICANS.­.what partnership??are you talking about??150 billion since 1948,stolen land, you built a fake state with american money and arms. we partisipate in the genecide of arabs population on daily basis is that the partnership you are talking about??

We have ibvaded an arab country on the advise of israelis??is that the partnership you are talking about??

[Richardini]

Of course, to disagree with our ingrained national policy regarding Israel is to bring down the wrath of all the Republicans and fringe right kooks. I, however, beg to differ with Mr. Hart's opinions. He is another one that support Israel no matter how they flaunt every U.N. mandate, and destroy Lebanon and Gaza whenever they please. They have all the arms, the planes, and probably the big big nuclear weapons but we always must paint them as the victims of those big bad Muslims. Give me a break. The Israeli's have kept the Palestinians in bondage for decades and because of the Bible, we still treat them as the chosen people. What are we afraid of if we criticize them? They are the cause of the Middle East problems. When will we wake up? And we, the arrogant bastards that we have become, make out peace plans and routes for them to follow. Look at Iraq. Who the hell's country is it? It certainly isn't ours. Why do we think that we can control the world with out over 1,000 military bases spread out over the world. Who are the agressors in reality? Our politics is so unmovable and we need an Obama to bring us to a new way of seeing ourselves.

[OSUMercutio]

For all those who are citing U.N. resolutions against Israel, you might not want to give those too much weight given the fact that the U.N. Human Rights Council is made up of countries such as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia:

"Only 25 of its 47 members are classified as "free democracies," according to Freedom House's ranking of civil liberties. Nine are classified as "not free." Four -- China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia -- are ranked as the "worst of the worst." These nations are responsible for repeated violations of the U.N.'s own Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Yet it is they who dominate the council, leading a powerful bloc of predominantly Arab and African nations that consistently vote as a unit."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ronan-farrow/the-uns-humanrights-s_b_83939.html

[elizabethanne1988]

Agreed.

My question is: HOW can Israel be called colonialist?? Jews WERE the original inhabitants of the Holy Land.

The earliest reference to Israel is from the Funerary Stela of the Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah in 1209 B.C.! (And its sitting in museum in Cairo, by the way)

Indeed, ironic perhaps, but the Jews' closest genetic cousins are the Syrians.

The Jews were kicked out of ancient Israel and Judea and their capital of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire under Titus and Vespasian. They were then forced into Exile for nearly two thousand years.

One would think that this tiny group (there are 13.2 Million Jews in the world, compared to 2 Billion Christians and 1.7 Billion Muslims), expelled by Empire, exiled, and then returned to their original homeland after mass destruction in Europe and huge expulsions in the Arab world would elicit sympathy and support among my fellow "Liberals.­"

Obviously, hatred for Jews trumps even the highest liberal ideals.

[SadButWiser]

Please take into account that many Jews became Christians, and many Christians became Muslims. After all, we are talking about thousands of years here. It defies logic and common sense that a Jew born in Russia had more right to a piece of land that is inhibited by an Arab for the last hundreds of years.
There is no hatred of Jews here at all. Why is it when someone raise such facts, is ALWAYS accuse of being anti-semitic.

I once said to a friend that a just solution is what is needed, and he accused me of being anti-semit­ic.hmm..

In my opinion, more that community or race, if there is any group that should value justice more than any one else, it has to be the Jews. After all, no other group had to suffer what they suffered throughout history. I guess they forgot that.

Here is a good read for you..."As the Arabs see the Jews"
http://www.alfredlilienthal.com/arabsjews.htm

[798space]

http://www.shovrimshtika.org/index_e.asp

[argeec]

I get tired of seeing this fantasy repeated.
The Torah itself says that when the jews first came to "the promised land", the land was already occupied. So the jews, led by Joshua, proceeded to kill "every man ,woman, child and beast" there.
The zionists then repeated the exercise in 1947-8.

[fussygorilla]

Elizabeth. O.K. let's go back thousands of years ago and re-draw the map of the world. All of you Americans get out. What is today America belongs to the Indians, the original residents of the land. Do the same to Europe, and in the Middle East, what is today Israel does not BELONG to the jews unless you think God is a Real Estate agent who gives land to groups. And, God is not JUST because s/he chooses one group of people over all other groups. The fact remains that Israel was carved out in 20th entury be the colonialist British to give the european refugees that they did not want, a place to go to.

[Uberbah]

Hardly. If country A has a poor civil rights record yet cites country B for civil rights violations, that should make you *more* concerned about country B, not *less*.

You also need to keep in mind that the U.S. *vetoes* any strong resolutions against Israel.

[SadButWiser]

"For all those who are citing U.N. resolutions against Israel, you might not want to give those too much weight given the fact that the U.N. Human Rights Council is made up of countries such as China, Cuba, Russia and Saudi Arabia"

OSUMercutio, you forgot to add the US and Israel. Both are high on the list. At least the other countries are not occupying someone else land, and that to me is the worst kind of atrocity, worse than slavery.

[who38]

And Freedom House is beholden to whom? Well, no matter; if they said it, it must be true.

[argeec]

There is a new organization called jstreet.org that is a progressive alternative to AIPAC.
Hopefully they will be successful and bring a less militant voice to the discussion.

[who38]

Don't count on it. Why call themselves jstreet; wouldn't istreet be more appropriate if they are an alternative to AIPAC? There is a difference between a jew and an Israeli, and certainly between a jew, an Israeli, and a Zionist. We need to keep these identities separated. At least AIPAC identifies itself for what it is.

[argeec]

Check it out for yourself.

[AlanRockville]

If this is the same interview as I referred to in my post...

http://elections.jta.org/2008/04/09/jta%e2%80%99s-ron-kampeas-goes-1-on-1-with-barack-obama/

then I suggest, as I did below, that everyone listen to it for themselves and decide what is true.

[straightshooter]

Although considered politically expedient, for any presidential candidate to kow tow before the pro-Israel lobby and look the other way while Israel continues to ethnically cleanse, occupy, brutalize and slaughter en masse the native Palestinians only inflames the conflict and certainly does not serve the best interests of the American people. Protecting Israel from legitimate condemnation and funding it with US taxpayers' money to the tune of about $15 million per day, America is joined at the hip with a country that has been repeatedly accused by international human rights groups of commiting "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" against Palestinians, Lebanese and other Arabs, a country that survey after survey has revealed to be despised around the world.

All for what? Inevitably, Israel will suffer the same fate as all racist, colonialist, expansionist settler states dependent on the protection and largesse of a country thousands of miles away. The "special relationship" between the U.S. and Israel will end.

[LeoMarvin]

Stop sugar coating it. If you don't like Israel, say so.

[Uselessboy]

"Israel" is like "America."

It all comes down to which interests within them you mean.

[housemix]

you do yourself, the other posters here, and the entire Israeli-Palestinian issue a great disservice by misrepresenting Israel's legitimate defense of its sovereignty against terrorist attack as a ploy to "ethnically cleanse, occupy, brutalize, and slaughter en masse".
You accuse Israel of committing war crimes and crimes against humanity? From where do these NGO's gather their information? On what grounds do they make these claims? One-sided Security Council Resolutions passed by China and Russia, two of the worst human rights violating regimes in the world.

[jdm58]

"The Devil may help you get power. But he'll collect your soul in return."
Is this what Charlie Wilson meant, when he said "my neighbors in Texas may vote for me, but it is the Jewish bankers in New York who elect me"? If so, then the collective soul of America's government, what soul there is, is already in Israels pocket. I wish just ONE of the candidates would stand for PEACE in the region, instead of triangulating and capitulating. It would be refreshing.

[Gemma72]

Jimmy Carter tried. Look where that got him. He is perceived as 'weak' by 'some' in America for the Iran hostage crisis. But he also brokered the ONLY lasting peace treaty between Israel and Egypt. He was also the most neutral and objective US president wrt to Israel. He also wrote a book on the conflict in Palestine. He is also the only Westerner who respects that Hamas was democratically elected by the people of Palestine.
Its richly ironic that Hamas gets labelled a 'terrorist organisation' and therefore must not be engaged.

The current ruling party in South Africa, led by Nelson Mandela, the African National Congress, was also once labelled a 'terrorist organisation'. The Israeli Defence Force had its genesis in the terrorist groups, the Irgun and Stern Gang.

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

[housemix]

Hamas was not democratically elected by the Palestinian people!! That's absolute nonsense.
do the research! How about this article from the NY Times in 2005?

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/11/29/international/middleeast/29mideast.html

This article cites mass intimidation, violence, ballot fraud, and other techniques used by Hamas to force Fatah out of Gaza and terrorize the population into electing them.
democratically elected? not even close. And you cite Jimmy Carter as a positive influence in this conflict? He wrote a book called Apartheid! And that makes him the most "neutral and objective US president wrt to Israel"?
The parallels you draw between Nelson Mandela and Hamas are disingenuous and utterly reprehensible. The stated purpose of ANC was to promote equality and liberty for all people, while the stated purpose of Hamas is to kill every Jew and turn Israel into an Islamic fundamentalist state. The only freedom that Hamas fights for is their freedom to kill people who don't agree with them. Is it really 'ironic' then that they are labelled terrorists? No, it's actually quite logical.

[57basque]

One of America's biggest mistakes is un-conditional support of Israel. Have they not kept over 70 United Nations mandates? Or did I hear wrong? And just as Abraham would not have dropped the BOMB on Sodom; no child of Abraham today would have the BOMB. So just maybe, who ever does start to take the BOMB apart may end up being true Children of Abraham.

[Binea]

Um..I'm still confused. Who is right ? Ron Paul makes sense..is he right ?

[Cunningham]

TOOOOOOO far right.

[pigsatthetrough]

"Meeting with heads of state or heads of government is one thing; meeting with groups advocating terror is another."
So what would you do, both in Palestine and around the world? Bomb them all, I suppose, until there is no one left. Is that really the way to end terrorism? Perhaps, just perhaps, a meeting with Carter, and down the road the Obama Regime, there will be an end to non discussion. Why you and others are afraid to talk to an adversary, is beyond logic. Carters book is not what many represented it to be, as known by friends and foes of Israel. It is simply a description of what is wrong with the activities of many Israeli administrators and army members in dealings with Palestinians. If the apartheid headline gets you goat, you should not attack him, but perhaps view without the prejudiced glasses what is going on there. Of course there are terrorists, but the definition of same may have something to do with which side of the fence you are living on. Maybe that is too hard for you to comprehend, in your fear of talking with the enemy. By the way, the heads of state, are supposed to be those elected by the people, not those who you want to be heads of state. You may want to review who won the election, even if you don't like or want the results.

[Swift2]

I find it ridiculous that some has-been Democrat with pseudo-int­ellectuali­sm oozing out of every pore, who destroyed his own campaign for president out of arrogance, is still listened to.

[BocaBabe]

Amen to that! Gary Hart is still making "Monkey Business."

[mikekev58]

And he has very bad hair.

[TwoCentsWorth]

Mr. Hart -- There you go again explaining about Obama, by writing the following:

"I find it outrageous and the height of political cynicism for any other candidate or campaign, Democratic or Republican, to question Senator Obama's commitment to continuation of the U.S.-Israe­li partnershi­p..."

This is such a repetitive pattern in this campaign, people are constantly having to "explain" about Obama's "thinking", his "meaning", and now his "commitment".

You all are doing him a disfavor, he should not be hiding behind other people who are his supporters. Obama is brilliant, he is an orator, he is accomplished, and he is a charmer. How about letting him tell us what he is thinking, what his meaning is and what his commitments are?

[LeoMarvin]

I'm sorry, but have you been living in a cave? What do you think every post is on every blog covering the election? They're all the supporters of one candidate or the other explaining something a candidate said or disagreeing with somebody else's explanation. If the candidates had to answer all by themselves every hair-brained accusation, speculation and rumor that's come up just int the last few weeks, they'd still be at it by the end of their second term.

[gevan]

Sen. Obama has done so, but that would appear on a different page.

[ginsburg]

On April 9th Obama in an interview with the JTA said "It's going to be important for Israel to acknowledge that it's going to have to make some territorial modifications to ensure that there is a stable and contiguous Palestinian state that can function..­.." To me that means that Obama advocates that Israel should cut itself into two non-contiguous pieces to enable Gaza which was once a part of Egypt and the West Bank which was once a part of Jordan become contiguous at the expense of Israel makingi tself non-contiguous. That doesn't seem like very smart move for Israel to make and this I am sure is Daniel Kurtzer who is one of his middle east advisers. I can't imagine that Israel could agree to any such thing even though Israel values keeping ties with the U.S. To me Obama is no friend of lsrael. When you surround yourself with anti -Israel advisers as Obama has done you can surely expect to find that those Jews who read are not going to want to support him. These are not false charges.

[antirepublocrat]

It has nothing to do with "cutting itself in two". I believe what Obama was talking about in that statement had nothing to do with the proposed access road (I believe it's supposed to be a tunnel) between the West Bank and Gaza. Even if at grade level rather than a tunnel, the access road would take very little Israeli land and would be easily crossed with over- or under-passes.

I believe what Obama was talking about was ceding some of the settlement areas back to the Palestinian State. There could potentially be quite a bit of land involved, but presumably it would all be in the West Bank and would in no way cut Israel in two.

However, I think you really understand all that and are simply trying to spin Obama's words into something they were not.

[aquarharris688]

Excuse me, Obama does not hate. Why continue to try to portray him as such. "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Can we stop the madness?