Obama: Eye to Eye with Israel -- or Wandering Eye?

For those who believe that the key to lowering the political temperature in the Middle East lies in snuffing out the pilot light on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Senator Obama's otherwise transcendent race speech offered little of his trademark hope.

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," as he characterized that of Reverend Jeremiah Wright, is "profoundly distorted." Once again, whatever you may think of them, Israel's policies toward Palestine were accepted as Bible.

In fact, though, there's a brewing discontent with Obama on the part of Israel hard-liners. The American Spectator's Robert Goldberg recently unearthed a 2003 interview with Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman, Tony McPeak, already in the news for comparing Bill Clinton's campaign tactics to McCarthyism. The conservative and Israeli press have jumped all over it.

The comment deemed most controversial came in answer to the question of what was holding up the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. McPeak replied: "New York City. Miami. We have a large vote... here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

Instead of using cities with large Jewish populations as code words, he'd have been better off using the word "Jews." But read the rest of article to see if McPeak's comments warrant Goldberg's conclusion that "Obama has a Jewish problem."

"Obama can issue all the boilerplate statements supporting Israel's right to defend itself he wants," Goldberg writes. "But until he accepts responsibility for allowing people like McPeak so close to his quest for the presidency, Obama's sincerity and judgment will remain open questions."

The Obama campaign dissociated itself from McPeak's statements. Still, the issue is not about to go away. Scott McConnell provides the background in an American Conservative piece titled "Obama's Israel Test: Is the lobby losing its grip?"

"On the surface, the tie between Barack Obama and Israel's establishment supporters is warm and comfortable," he writes. Last year, speaking at AIPAC's annual conference, Obama declared that "Israel was America's 'strongest ally' in the region [and] assured his listeners that he would neither 'drag' Israel to the negotiating table nor 'dictate' what would be best for the Jewish state's security."

But, Ed Lasky, editor of the neocon site American Thinker, who was present at the AIPAC speech, was unconvinced. McConnell quotes him: "[Obama's] speech was desultory. . . . lacking the spirit and energy that are. . . [his] trademark. He clearly seemed to be going through the motions." That's not inconceivable since, successful as his online fundraising has been, Obama is less reliant on organizations like AIPAC than candidates have traditionally been.

Israel hard-liners have harbored concerns about Obama since his attendance at a 1998 dinner where the late advocate for Palestinian self-determination, Professor Edward Said, gave a speech. In fact, a picture of Obama engaged in conversation with Said foreshadowed Rev. Wright's YouTube clips. Couple that with a 2000 picture of Said poised to throw a rock across the Lebanon-Israel border in the general vicinity of Israeli soldiers and you have a synergy made in hell.

Regarding Wright, though, the "Anti-Defamation League says it has no evidence of any anti-Semitism" on his part, as Jodi Kantor reported in her 2007 New York Times article on Obama's faith. Like Wright's denunciation of the US, Said's throw is considered by cooler heads to be a heat-of-the-moment aberration. In fact, Said, one of the two-state solution's first proponents, not only called for Palestinians' rights of self-determination, but respected the Zionist claim to land.

Obama, meanwhile, also draws fire from Israel hard-liners for other advisors besides McPeak with whom he surrounds himself. For example, McConnell writes, former national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski who "for three decades... has quietly advocated that the United States take the initiative in outlining its vision of a Palestinian-Israeli settlement."

But the most bitter pill of all for Israel hard-liners to swallow is who might replace them at Obama's table: the new breed of conciliatory Jews -- those who "support a two-state-solution [and] have long taken a backseat to AIPAC and the neoconservatives." In other words, to the hard-liners, traitors to their own kind.

Comments

[betz55]

Cut US aid to Israel.The US should stop pandering to Israel and it`s destructive policies.Cut off aid and stop the loan guarantees.Demand peace and fair settlement with the Palestinians and extract the US from Israel`s damaging,harmful,and negative policies.Israel is not a third world country. It is a theocracy that uses US monetary aid, which requires no accountability,to oppress the Palestinians, perpetuate apartheid,and build settlements in the occupied territories.Israeli policies are not longer in line with US policies,and,as a result are making the US more of a target than ever in the Islamic world.If Israel cannot exist without the U.S. giving them billions of dollars every year,then the Israels need to pack their bags and move on. Each year US aid to Israel gives each man, woman, and child the equivalent of over $1500.00 each while cutting programs in the US due to "funding".Why on earth are American taxpayers forced to give 10 billion dollars yearly to Israel when our own people are homeless or soon to be, have no jobs, no healthcare.There is no justification for forcing the U.S. public to pay for health care,education, and housing for the Israelis while their our own people go without.

[larry278]

This race has gotten to the point of creating another group which uses the letters ADL to identify itself. The new orginazation calls itself the Anti-Defecation Louts who openly state that they don't give a crap about anyone or anything. They have a program of Atavistic Anarchy. They have no solutions. Disorder & destruction is their goal. Negative Nilism is one of their tools. I think I'll wait till Monday to see if the Anti-Defecation Louts still exist.
larry lynch

[wilhelmR]

Ed Lasky is distorting everything about Obama. I corresponded with him and he wasn't able to reply to any of my points of why I believe Obama was not and could not be against Israel and much less against the Jewish people. All he had to say was: "Israel would not be free until ALL her enemies are destroyed." In the language of discourse it is impossible to have any type of communication with anybody who doesn't understand the modern philosopher Wittgenstein who says that a language of communication is composed of the formal language (English) + intentionality.

[BeyondGoodAndEvil]

The hardliners need to give up their hard line because it simply isn't working. Their continued obstinacy does nothing but inhibit progress, meaningful talks, or a negotiated fair solution for Palestinians and Israelis.

[argeec]

The accelerating influence of the internet is a big problem for AIPAC and ADL.
With more information available, people are beginning to realize that their right wing views are not the only way to think about the middle east.

[Dap]

Sounds conspiatorial?

[wldnswmmr]

It's difficult to see what this post is trying to say. Is the American political process going to devolve into something like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks where every last "associate" of a political candidate must be vetted for absolute fealty to the party line? So that McPeak must be not only denounced by the Obama apparatchiks, but must be "liquidated" as well for non-Obama statements? This is getting nuts. Now he's accused of being soft on his pro-Israeli stance because he seemed "desultory" and even talked to Edward Said, who threw a rock. This kind of ideological purity is going to choke the life out of real discussion.

[nypoet22]

"the conservative and israeli press?" Excuse me, but the israeli press has a VERY wide range of opinion, so it's completely unfair to characterize it as a monolith like the conservative press. The way you just treated this issue furthers stereotypes of israel as an "evil nation," just like the Cons treat israeli actions as sacrosanct regardless of who does what. Like ourselves, they are a democratic country currently saddled with some poor leadership, and we'd serve our interests better by treating it that way, not buying into the all-or-nothing thinking that constrains the right wing. are Libs no better than Cons on this issue?

[Aaror]

There is a reason Jews are beginning to seek peace over Zionism. Living with rockets hitting your territory is scary. It is not surprising that eventually the Jews over there would influence the Jews over here, especially since the general Jewish liberal tendancies don't go so well with persicution and perpetual war.