Senator Obama and Observations of a Jew: Part II

In a previous post, I examined the candidacy of Barack Obama from the viewpoint of a Jewish observer. I explained that my opinions differed greatly from that of my more conservative relatives, many of whom had reservations about the support a President Obama would give Israel. I quoted at some length an article by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times in which Mr. Friedman listed a number of rumors and falsehoods being circulated that suggested Senator Obama would abandon support of the State of Israel.

Mr. Friedman dismissed those concerns and concluded,

Personally, as an American Jew, I don't vote for president on the basis of who will be the strongest supporter of Israel. I vote for who will make America strongest. It's not only because this is my country, first and always, but because the single greatest source of support and protection for Israel is an America that is financially and militarily strong, and globally respected. Nothing would imperil Israel more than an enfeebled, isolated America.

The rumors that circulate and about which Thomas Friedman wrote cannot be easily invalidated. Was Senator Obama "too" friendly with Palestinian supporters while in the early years of his political career in Illinois? I have read no creditable recounting of any such anti-Israel bent. Actually, a review of his activist activities in Chicago reflects close relations with Jewish organizations and mutual efforts to help the poor and underclass. In the interview with Jeffrey Goldberg published in The New Republic, Senator Obama spoke of the ironies:

The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it's more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don't think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they've interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn't flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they've seen me operate in difficult political situations.

The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I'm University of Chicago, I've got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I've been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it's curious.

What of alleged anti-Israel statements? I would suggest that, while the Right has consistently misquoted all politicians on the Left, the rumors about Senator Obama have been particularly misleading. For example, Fox News, last year reported that the Senator had said, ""No one is suffering more than the Palestinian people."

The entire quote, from a 2007 South Carolina debate, conveyed a different message:

"Nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence, and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region. Israel is the linchpin of much of our efforts in the Middle East."

A comprehensive analysis of GOP efforts to paint an anti-Israeli label on Obama shows the cynical nature of the attacks and how devoid of reality and honesty they are. The editorial in the New York Sun published in January, 2008, is far too long to copy here, but readers willing to exercise an open mind should check out: http://www.nysun.com/editorials/obama-and-israel/69154/

My cousin and I represent two points of view as to which candidate would be the better choice insofar as a realistic and positive approach to fostering peace in the Middle East and providing security for Israel. We agree that the safeguarding of the only democracy in the region is of vital importance; we do not agree fully on the identity of the man and political party who would be the better.

My cousin believes, along with many, that Senator Obama's over-broad statements as to direct negotiations with terrorist groups and regimes strengthens those groups and regimes, granting them validity and legitimacy. These statements of intent have been the focus of articles in the blogs and publications of the Right; they have also been seriously challenged by, for example, the New York Times editorial staff which published a strong repudiation of Mr. Friedman's article.

I respond that Senator Obama has since explained (changed his mind?) that he accepted that direct talks with a president would be preceded by discussions with staff and the presidential meetings would be a highly structured event. There is no doubt that overly broad statements and repeated "clarifications" give support to the notion that Barack Obama is naïve and inexperienced and would be totally inadequate in discussions and negotiations with foreign leaders and regimes. On the other hand, no one disputes his intellectual competence or that he will be assisted by experienced advisors. The present President Bush has no intellectual curiosity and been "advised" by the neo-conservatives. I submit that Senator Obama looks better to me every day.

Why do I continue to support Senator Obama?

I am, of course, bothered by Senator Obama (and Senator Clinton and, for that matter, all American politicos - almost) and a concern that any of them might not give the support, financially, militarily and diplomatically, to Israel that I would like.

I think that Obama is in the process of moderating the broad sweeping statements that have created much suspicion in the minds and hearts of Jews. However and here is where my cousin and I differ, I believe a few basic things.

First, I do not believe, today in this age of the Internet, world-wide instant communication, and a more sophisticated electorate, that any U.S. president will allow Israel to be destroyed. There is and has been a bi-partisan consensus that Israel must survive. This is unlikely to change.

This isn't 1938 or 1939 and the Voyage of the Damned nor is it 1943 and 1944 when news of the Holocaust was not common knowledge. Cable News, for example, is a big difference as is the proliferation of Internet blogs and websites. These cover the spectrum of political opinion; I read The Huffington Post, The Nation and The New Republic as well as Human Events: I watch both Keith Olbermann and Fox News. (I draw the line on Ann Coulter.)

Second, the Israeli people appear to have a substantial segment of its population that is aware that sooner, and not later, there has to be an accommodation with the Palestinians. If not, sheer population growth will make Israel a Jewish-minority nation.

Finally, while I may and do wish Obama were more pro-Israel (assuming he isn't now), the price of having another GOP president and the harm that could befall the US citizens through a further rightward movement of the Supreme Court seems extremely high. The present Administration, which Senator McCain does not appear willing or able to reject, has brought a great diminishing of our civil liberties: rendition, abrogation of the Geneva conventions, presidential signing statements, warrantless searches, acceptance of torture as a legitimate governmental resource, and others, including the adoption of Christian prayer and practices in schools and government activities.

I wish this were a perfect world and I wish Senator Obama were a perfect candidate; I just do not see anyone better.