Today McCain has stooped to a new low, that is even shocking to those used to his typical Republican smearmongernig. Today John McCain jumped on Obama's words at the Holocaust Museum in Israel to score some cheap political point. How unbelievably shameless. Here was what Obama said at Yad Vashem:
"Let our children come here and know this history so they can add their voices to proclaim ‘never again.’ And may we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us and who have become symbols of the human spirit."
At the Holocaust memorial, Obama wore a white skullcap as he laid a wreath in memory of the victims of the Nazis.
Later, he said: "I am always taken back to sort of the core question of humanity that the Holocaust raises. That is, on the one hand, man's great capacity for evil, and on the other hand, our ability to come together to stop evil."
He added, "So despite this record of monumental tragedy this ultimately is a place of hope because it reminds us of our obligations and responsibilities hopefully to raise a better future for our children and our grandchildren." He said he hoped he could bring his two young daughters with him on his next trip.
In signing the guestbook, he wrote, "May we remember those who perished, not only as victims but also as individuals who hoped and loved and dreamed like us, and who have become symbols of the human spirit."
So we have Obama at Israel's Holocaust Museum, solemnly speaking to the great loss during the Holocaust, and how humanity has a moral imperative to make sure those crimes against humanity are never repeated.
John McCain apparently saw this as something that needs to be politicized, and perverted into some cynical partisan attack. McCain tried to accuse Obama of "flip-flopping" on preventing genocide! Seriously! He attacked Obama because in responding to a question in 2007 about whether the US military should be used to prevent a "potential genocide" in Iraq, Obama responded:
Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done.
In response to this, as if this even deserves a response, I have just two points. First, this was based on a hypothetical situation in which there was some threat of "potential genocide" in Iraq, which there absolutely is not, and no one has claimed there to be any threat of genocide occurring there. Furthermore, US troops have been absolutely powerless to prevent ethnic cleansing all around the country, especially in Baghdad, which contributed greatly to the massive refugee crisis in Iraq, leaving around 4.5 million Iraqi refugees either displaced internally or in neighboring countries. That was with over a hundred thousand US troops on the ground. The number of troops on the ground isn't the problem here.
That leads to my second point, which is that "preventing possible genocide" is a false excuse to remain in Iraq, and that was precisely Obama's point. He was simply noting the double-standard of saying we need to stay in Iraq to "prevent a possible genocide" (that doesn't exist and isn't in danger of occurring), when the US isn't doing a damn thing about ACTUAL genocide which IS ACTUALLY OCCURRING in places like the Democratic Republic of Congo, or Sudan. Seriously, it is an asinine proposition that we are in Iraq because of "humanitarian" reasons, when the US has a great track record of ignoring genocide, and this isn't even a case of genocide.
So, simply put, Obama spoke some empathetic and solemn words about the meaning of the Holocaust to humanity, and McCain jumped on it in the most shameless and cynical way possible by distorting Obama's (very accurate and legitimate) comments on a completely different subject and using the occasion to inject political smears into remembering the Holocaust and the very serious topic of genocide.
To say nothing of that fact that McCain is essentially saying Obama would let another Holocaust happen, which is an incredibly offensive and reprehensible accusation, no matter the context, and has absolutely no place in politics, let alone from a presidential candidate. Shameless.
Oh yes, and let's recall what Cindy McCain promised on the Today Show in May:
There are clear differences in this race between whatever candidates wind up against each other. That's the beauty of this race. What you're going to see is a great debate. Which is what the American public deserves. None of this negative stuff, though. You won't see it come out of our side at all.
Really Cindy? Look at your husband now, who just used the Holocaust to attack his opponent. Is that not negative?? Furthermore, is that a great debate? Is that an honest discussion of the issues that matter to Americans? Is this what Americans deserve in this election??
Shameless.
Update: I should also point out that Samantha Power, the Harvard professor, Pulitzer-winning author of "A Problem From Hell: American and the Age of Genocide" and outspoken proponent of humanitarian intervention was singled out by Obama to join his campaign after he read her book, because he wanted someone with her values, opinions and expertise advising him on this very topic. To suggest that Obama is opposed to preventing genocide is to have no idea what Obama stands for.
Update #2: And as usual, it is only a matter of time after McCain attacks Obama that his hypocrisy floats to the surface, and this is no exception. Here is McCain back in 1994, talking about the ACTUAL genocides in Rwanda and Bosnia, and how we shouldn't intervene:
I think it's unacceptable, the situation in Rwanda today. I think that it's unacceptable that in Bosnia there's ethnic cleansing going on. I find it unacceptable in many other parts of the world, terrible things that are happening, but it doesn't mean that we use military force to rectify the situation
Nice John, you are utterly shameless, and a gigantic hypocrite on top of that.
And here are pictures of Obama paying his respects at Yad Vashem:
I have been thinking about this whole mess with Hillary, Ferraro and Hillary's hardcore female supporters attacking Obama and others that oppose their views with outrageous and baseless accusations of sexism, and I realized that it reminds me a lot of Bush's way of relating to the world and his response to differing opinions (or let's say how he reacts to democracy). If you recall, pre-2006, if you were against the war in Iraq, or if you had the audacity to question ANY of Bush's policies, foreign or domestic, you were branded "un-American", as if criticism of Bush equaled a rejection of the entirety of America. As if Bush represents America, as if Bush and his policies are America.
We can see the same thing with people who recklessly throw out the term "anti-Semite" or "anti-Israel" to anyone who dares question ANY policy of Israel's, or any part of American foreign policy related to Israel, or even talk too much about the fact that Israel is a state that has policies and influence. As if criticism of specific Israeli policies is tantamount to hating Israel, or wishing the destruction of Israel, or hating Jews, or denying the Holocaust or any number of ridiculous accusations. As if the hardliners in control of Israeli's government speaks any more for Jews than Bush speaks for Americans as a whole.
But none of these things are really about being un-American or anti-Semitic or sexist, they are about brutishly silencing the opinions of others because you don't want to hear them, so you throw out loaded terms such as these to slander your opponents and silence them. It is anti-democratic, it is anti-intellectual, thus it is anti-truth and anti-reality. It is the last desperate fortress of those who can't win on the merits of their arguments, of those who are wrong and know they are wrong and can't admit they are wrong. So when Bush brands his critics un-American, he does so because his policies are based on lies, greed and death, and can't stand up to scrutiny.
When hardline supporters of Israel brand critics of Israeli policies anti-Semitic or anti-Israel, they do so because the policies people criticize are illegal violations of human rights, and they can't continue if exposed for what they are and challenged by an unintimidated international community.
And when Hillary and Ferraro and Hillary's hardcore supporters blast anyone who ever had a negative thing to say about Hillary, or anyone who admits the reality that it is mathematically impossible for her to win as "terribly sexist" or "misogynists", they do so because what people are saying is true, and they are fighting an uphill battle against reality, and the only way to continue to suspend the realization of reality is to intimidate, slander and shout down their opponents, just like Bush, just like hardline supporters of Israel, just like countless tyrants throughout history who have crushed dissent because their positions were so backwards, corrupt and immoral that they could never exist in a free and open society.
And sadly in every example the abuse of these loaded terms makes them eventually lose their edge. People now freely mock Republicans for attacking everyone anti-war as being un-American because the term was used and used and used to the point of absurdity. It lost its meaning and people came to eventually realize that those who peddled the term were corrupt and ignorant, and afraid of truth. To a lesser extent people are starting to realize that the neocons and hardline supporters of Israel are abusing the term "anti-Semitism" in order to crush opposing viewpoints, and that it has nothing to do with the real bigotry against Jews which really does exist in the world. But this is where it gets dangerous, because if the term "anti-Semitism" loses it's meaning, and if the people who use it (and those who they pretend to speak for, namely the Jewish people) are discredited due to overuse, trying to cry wolf too many times, acting too brutishly and playing the victim ad nauseam, then we risk a backlash, we risk real anti-Semitism being ignored.
The same goes for people who claim to be the voice for all women accusing everyone who says or does anything they don't like, no matter how obviously it has nothing to do with sex or gender, of being sexists who are out to get them, constantly attacking others while playing the victim and throwing gender out as both a shield and a weapon, the inevitable result is a backlash, and the term "sexism" losing some of its meaning. There is very real sexism in this country, and in the world, and it does an injustice to that real sexism when you co-opt that term for your own political goals, just as it does an injustice to real anti-Semitism when you use the term to further your political agenda.
I don't want to see a backlash against any of these groups, and I don't want people to start ignoring claims of real sexism and anti-Semitism just because some shameless groups or individuals decided to cynically co-opt these terms for their political agendas, not caring about the repercussions on the very people they pretend they are speaking for. Anyway, it is a dangerous game, and I'm sick of people playing it, which is why I will continue to respond to Hillary and her gang, and to the neocons and the hardline supporters of Israel, and to Bush and the Republicans and anyone else who uses these tactics to silence, slander and bully their opposition.
American politicians generally make a point of not attacking fellow Americans while overseas on diplomatic trips. In fact it is quite frowned upon, for obvious reasons, pretty unusual and taboo. Well leave it to Bush to not rest on tradition. While delivering an address yesterday before the Knesset, the Israeli parliament, commemorating the 60th anniversary of Israel, President Bush said that Sen. Barack Obama and Democrats favor a policy of appeasement toward terrorists, simply because Obama, like many foreign policy experts, believes that diplomacy is a sign on strength, and we can only make progress if we will engage our enemies as well as our allies. CNN reported that Bush compared Obama to "other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis" for his willingness to actually talk to leaders we disagree with (something Bush has strongly opposed for almost 8 years, and look how great that worked out). Bush wasn’t the first person to attack Obama for this, that honor goes to Hillary Clinton, in what was basically the first negative attack of the Democratic primary (fittingly it came from her), when Obama first stated that he would be willing to meet with foreign leaders who don’t agree with us, and Hillary attacked him as naïve and inexperienced, even though his position made absolute sense. Obama didn’t back down, and many foreign policy experts agreed with Obama’s policy of strength through diplomacy. Hillary eventually quieted her attacks on that topic after it became obvious she was on the wrong side of that argument, but Bush apparently thought it was a good one (not the first or the last time Hillary and Republicans will share talking points), so he fired this off yesterday in front of the Israeli Parliament:
Some seem to believe we should negotiate with terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is – the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.
Okay, so I’m going to ignore the fact that Bush just quoted Republican Senator William Edgar Borah there, and move on to point out that diplomacy, talking to your enemies, is not appeasement, and that is not what emboldened Hitler during the events running up to the start of the Second World War. This is something Republicans, ever fond of talking out their asses, don’t seem to understand, as Chris Matthews showed amazingly well last night when he put a right-wing radio host in his place after he spouted a bunch of ignorant nonsense:
That was probably one of the greatest things I’ve seen since:
Anyway, then, not surprisingly, McCain jumps on board:
Asked if he thought Mr. Obama was an appeaser — the Democratic candidate has said he would be willing to meet with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the president of Iran — Mr. McCain sidestepped and said, "I think that Barack Obama needs to explain why he wants to sit down and talk with a man who is the head of a government that is a state sponsor of terrorism, that is responsible for the killing of brave young Americans, that wants to wipe Israel off the map, who denies the Holocaust. That’s what I think Senator Obama ought to explain to the American people.'’
Now it cannot be denied that Ahmadinejad is an unsavory character, but the US government has offered no evidence that Iran is a state sponsor of terrorism, or responsible for killing Americans. In 2007 the Republicans (and hawkish Democrats like Hillary) took the unprecedented step of labeling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, a branch of a foreign government’s standing army (focused on homeland security and defense), a terrorist organization, again, with no evidence to back that up. But that doesn’t make it true, you still need facts to back that claim up, especially such a serious claim. And I have to say that if the use of force by militaries of sovereign countries can now be interpreted as terrorism (as it should, when they actually do harm, war is terrorism), the United States, and to a lesser extent Israel, would be the largest terrorist organizations operating in the world, by the logic of McCain, Bush, the Republicans and hawkish Democrats like Hillary. That is why their throwing around the term terrorism like that was unprecedented, and very unwise—which actually makes Hillary’s (and the Republican’s) positions on foreign policy extremely reckless, irresponsible and ignorant—not Obama’s.
Oh yeah, and then you have McCain two years ago, sounding more like Jimmy Carter than George Bush, saying that we need to negotiate with Hamas, because they represent the Palestinians and we have to deal with the realities of the situation if we want to solve anything, thus proving that the Clintons don’t have a monopoly on hypocrisy and doublespeak after all:
Q: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCAIN: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that."
And then we had former Democrat Joe Lieberman, the GOP’s favorite puppet and McCain’s top cheerleader adding to the pile on against Obama:
President Bush got it exactly right today when he warned about the threat of Iran and its terrorist proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is imperative that we reject the flawed and naïve thinking that denies or dismisses the words of extremists and terrorists when they shout "Death to America" and "Death to Israel," and that holds that — if only we were to sit down and negotiate with these killers — they would cease to threaten us. It is critical to our national security that our commander-in-chief is able to distinguish between America’s friends and America’s enemies, and not confuse the two.
Again, we see that the preferred method of conflict resolution from conservatives is bloodshed before diplomacy. Why try to resolve conflicts peacefully when you can fight til the last one standing, which is essentially what they are all advocating. If they didn’t fight til the last man (or woman or child) was standing, then that would mean that at some point the fighting would end is a cease fire, and they would come together and talk to make peace, which is exactly what they are saying cannot happen. Ceasefires are tools of the weak for McCain and the rest of the hawks, so it wouldn’t make any sense to ever cease fighting, because if you eventually have to stop and make peace through diplomacy, there would have been absolutely no reason to not try diplomacy first, you know, before thousands or millions of civilians were slaughtered, maimed and displaced.
So Obama fired back at Bush, specifically on the issue of engagement with actual terrorists:
It is sad that President Bush would use a speech to the Knesset on the 60th anniversary of Israel's independence to launch a false political attack. George Bush knows that I have never supported engagement with terrorists, and the president's extraordinary politicization of foreign policy and the politics of fear do nothing to secure the American people or our stalwart ally Israel.
And then Obama’s Democratic posse, which has been coalescing around him since his wins in North Carolina and Indiana got his back, first Senator Biden, with color:
This is bullshit, this is malarkey. This is outrageous, for the president of the United States to go to a foreign country, to sit in the Knesset . . . and make this kind of ridiculous statement.
He is the guy who has weakened us. He has increased the number of terrorists in the world. It is his policies that have produced this vulnerability that the U.S. has. It’s his [own] intelligence community [that] has pointed this out, not me.
Well said. Next, Speaker Pelosi went after Bush’s choice of venue, and took a shot at McCain:
We have a protocol, sort of a custom, informally around here that we don't criticize the president when he is on foreign soil. One would think that that would apply to the president that he would not criticize Americans when he is on foreign soil.
I think what the president said in that regard is beneath the dignity of the office of the president and unworthy of our representation at that observance in Israel.
I would hope that any serious person would disassociate himself from the president's remarks who aspires to leadership in our country.
And then Senator Kerry added his criticism:
What an irony to have the current president in Israel blasting Democrats from the Knesset when his policies have actually seen al-Qaeda get strengthened, they've seen al-Qaeda be reconstructed, they've seen Hezbollah get stronger, they've seen Hamas get stronger, Israel more threatened, Iran is stronger and Iraq is in chaos. This is a disgraceful statement by the president ... He ought to apologize to the American people for going to Israel and using the Knesset and the celebration of the 60th anniversary of a state and a people that we all support and that we're all proud of and using it for politics.
Then Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:
Not surprisingly, the engineer of the worst foreign policy in our nation's history has fired yet another reckless and reprehensible round. More than seven years into his Presidency and in the sixth year of the directionless Iraq war, President Bush has yet to learn that his brand of divisive partisan rhetoric is precisely what has made America and our allies less secure. And for the President to make this statement before the government of our closest ally as it celebrates a remarkable milestone demeans this historic moment with partisan politics.
And Howard Dean rounds out the Democratic leadership by going after McCain:
On the same day John McCain is talking about putting partisanship aside, the President launched a cheap political attack while on a state visit honoring the 60th anniversary of Israel, one of America's greatest allies. Bush's outrageous comments are an embarrassment to our country, not based in fact and bring us no closer to our goal of ending terrorist attacks against Israel and bringing peace to the region. If John McCain is really serious about being a different kind of Republican, he'll denounce these remarks in the strongest terms possible.
But of course we know he didn’t denounce them, he parroted them, and then his parrot in turn played the echo chamber. And amazingly enough, Hillary came to the defense of Obama and Democrats for a change, even though she was the first one to raise similar right-wing attacks:
President Bush’s comparison of any Democrat to Nazi appeasers is both offensive and outrageous on the face of it, especially in light of his failures in foreign policy. This is the kind of statement that has no place in any presidential address and certainly to use an important moment like the 60th anniversary celebration of Israel to make a political point seems terribly misplaced. Unfortunately, this is what we’ve come to expect from President Bush.
I applaud her for that, and for not adding "Obama isn’t a Nazi appeaser or terrorist, as far as I know" at the end.
In the end it was a good exchange, because it highlighted how very wrong the Republicans are on foreign policy, like everything else, and it was an occasion for the biggest show of Party unity from the Democrats in quite some time. If we keep our eye on the prize and everything in perspective, we can do some great things come November and beyond. All this gives me hope.
Note: Word on the street is that Obama will "respond forcefully" to Bush today in a speech.
Update: And here is Obama's response:
This is where it is a very good thing that our candidate didn't vote for the war, or vote for the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. He couldn't go after Bush, McCain and the Republicans nearly as effectively if he was complicit in their worst mistakes.
Update #2: McCain responds with his characteristic distortions:
Earlier today, Sen. Obama made a few remarks I would like to respond to. I welcome a debate about protecting America. No issue is more important. Sen. Obama claimed all I had to offer was the ‘naive and irresponsible belief’ that tough talk would cause Iran to give up its nuclear program. He should know better. I have some news for Sen. Obama: Talking, not even with soaring rhetoric, in unconditional meetings with the man who calls Israel a ‘stinking corpse’ and arms terrorists who kill Americans will not convince Iran to give up its nuclear program. It is reckless to suggest that unconditional meetings will advance our interests.
It would be a wonderful thing if we lived in a world where we don't have enemies. But that is not the world we live in, and until Sen. Obama understands that reality, the American people have every reason to doubt whether he has the strength, judgment and determination to keep us safe.
And Obama responds with a complete smackdown:
What's reckless is continuing the Bush-McCain foreign policy that has cost us thousands of lives and a trillion dollars in Iraq, strengthened Iran, enabled Hamas to take Gaza, took our eye off al Qaeda, failed to capture Osama bin Laden, failed to finish the job in Afghanistan, and left us less safe and less respected in the world. No amount of utterly predictable fear-mongering and tough talk can change the fact that John McCain is running to continue the most disastrous foreign policy in recent American history.
BAM!! I suggest McCain take the rest of the weekend off to recover from that verbal lashing. He'll need to be nice and rested for his next dose.
Over a million Iraqis have lost their lives because of Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq. Around 4.5 million have been pushed from their homes and turned into refugees. The cultural heritage of the birthplace of civilization was looted as US soldiers watched and provided protection to one place, the ministry of oil. Over four thousand American soldiers have died, more than a thousand contractors have been killed, tens of thousands of American soldiers and contractors were wounded, and will bear the scars of war, the disabilities, traumas and psychological pain, for the rest of their lives. By the end of this war it is estimated that the US taxpayers will have wasted $3 trillion, all the while our country's infrastructure is crumbling, our education system is failing, our health care system is languishing, jobs are being lost, and poverty is skyrocketing. But Bush hasn't been free of sacrifice either:
"I don't want some mom whose son may have recently died to see the commander in chief playing golf," he said. "I feel I owe it to the families to be in solidarity as best as I can with them. And I think playing golf during a war just sends the wrong signal."
Bush said he made that decision after the August 2003 bombing of the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, which killed Sergio Vieira de Mello, the top U.N. official in Iraq and the organization's high commissioner for human rights.
"I remember when de Mello, who was at the U.N., got killed in Baghdad as a result of these murderers taking this good man's life," he said. "I was playing golf -- I think I was in central Texas -- and they pulled me off the golf course and I said, 'It's just not worth it anymore to do.'"
Although he still managed to set a record for most vacation ever taken by a president, in large part thanks to all the vacation he took before September 11th, 2001 while the CIA was trying to warn him Osama bin Laden was planning terrorist attacks in the United States.
But I guess that is the price to pay for an illegal and unnecessary war for corporate profits and the extension of Israel's hawkish foreign policy goals.
Oh, and I'd like to thank John McCain for supporting the war, and wanting to keep it going for years to come. And of course a smaller shout out to Hillary Clinton, who also followed Bush like a sheep and supported the war for years, but at least she stopped supporting it when the polls told her it wasn't popular anymore. Way to lead!
Update: Keith Olbermann exposed Bush golfing after he said he gave it up out of respect to the dead American soldiers.
Update (5/15): Olbermann follows up on the "giving up golf" lie, here.
So here was McCain a few days ago trying to link Obama with the goals of Hamas, and "terrorists" in general, because according to McCain "terrorists" want Obama to win because he would supposedly engage in foreign policy more beneficial to them (don't mention the fact that the vast majority of people in nearly every country wants Obama to win and the Republicans to lose):
Barack Obama's foreign policy plans have even won him praise from Hamas leaders. Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Hamas Prime Minister said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election. He has a vision to change America."
We need change in America, but not the kind of change that wins kind words from Hamas, surrenders in Iraq and will hold unconditional talks with Iranian President Ahmadinejad.
And here was Obama's response:
And here is McCain yesterday backsliding away from his comments:
It's very obvious to everyone that Senator Obama shares nothing of the values or goals of Hamas, which is a terrorist organization. But it's also fact that a spokesperson from Hamas said that he approves of Obama's candidacy. I think that's of interest to the American people.
[...]
Every issue that the American people want to be an issue, if it's part of their discussions, it's fine with me, it's fine with me. Just as the Rev. Wright’s remarks. I don’t believe that Sen. Obama shares his views in any way, but he has said it’s a legitimate topic of discussion. If that’s what the American people want to discuss, that’s fine.
So now that McCain and the Republicans have tried for days to connect Obama with being friendly with terrorists, now McCain says "well of course I know he isn't pro-terrorist and doesn't share the values or goals of Hamas, and I wouldn't bring it up, but its the voters that are making me do it!" Just like with Rev. Wright apparently. Funny, I don't remember the voters clamoring to associate Obama with Hamas, or the voters clamoring to associate Obama's former pastors comments with Obama, it was the media, the Republicans, and at times Hillary that pushed this. But now McCain is pulling a Hillary and putting the blame on the people, as if voters actually think Obama would be weak on terrorists, and as if people really don't want to be distracted with the issues that actually matter to them. Classic Republican bullshit.
To McCain's credit, at least he didn't say "Obama doesn't share the values and goals of Hamas, as far as I know."
[Last month I wrote about the formation of a new progressive pro-Israel group, J Street, which seeks to provide an alternative to the anti-peace neoconservative group AIPAC and other hardline American Jewish lobby/advocacy groups. Last Sunday the executive director of J Street wrote this in the Washington Post, which I'm reposting here because I think it is very important to get out, and I'm sure almost everyone missed the original publication. Essentially we can't hope to achieve peace in the Middle East, and reduce anti-American sentiment until we recognize the following:]
Six decades ago, my father fought alongside Menachem Begin for Israel's independence. If you'd have told him back then that politicians in the world's last superpower would be jockeying today to see who can be more "pro-Israel," he would have laughed at you. Grateful as I am for decades of U.S. friendship to Israel, I have to wonder, as the state my father helped found turns 60, just who is defining what it means to be pro-Israel in the United States these days.
Some purported keepers of that flame claim that supporting Israel means reflexively supporting every Israeli action and implacably opposing every Israeli foe -- adopting the talking points of neoconservatives and the most right-wing elements of the American Jewish and Christian Zionist communities. Criticize or question Israeli behavior and you're labeled "anti-Israel," or worse. But unquestioning encouragement for short-sighted Israeli policies such as expanding Jewish settlements in the West Bank isn't real friendship. (Would a true friend not only let you drive home drunk but offer you their Porsche and a shot of tequila for the road?) Israel needs real friends, not enablers. And forging a healthy friendship with Israel requires bursting some myths about what it means to be pro-Israel.
1. American Jews choose to back candidates largely on the basis of their stance on Israel.
This urban legend has somehow become a tenet of American Politics 101, which is why politicians work so hard to earn the pro-Israel label in the first place. But it's a self-serving fable, cultivated by a tiny minority of politically conservative American Jews who actually are single-issue voters. Most Jewish voters make their political choices the way other Americans do: based on their views on the full spectrum of domestic and foreign policy issues.
Moreover, the American Jewish community still has a markedly progressive bent. Exit polls suggest that nearly 80 percent of Jewish Americans voted for John F. Kerry over George W. Bush in 2004; some 70 percent of them were opposed to the Iraq war in 2005, according to the American Jewish Committee; and polls show that most American Jews say they favor a more balanced U.S. Middle East policy that's aimed at achieving peace.
2. To be strong on Israel, you have to be harsh to the Palestinians.
Wrong, and counterproductive to boot. One popular way for members of Congress to earn their pro-Israel stripes is to come down as hard as possible on the Palestinians, by using economic and diplomatic pressure or giving the Israelis a freer hand for military strikes. That may satisfy some primal urge to lash out at Israel's foes, but it does Israel more harm than good.
As Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has argued, Israel's survival depends on offering the Palestinians a more hopeful future built on political sovereignty and economic development. As long as Palestinians despair of a decent and dignified life, Israel will be at war. And as long as the only channel for the Palestinians' ingenuity is building better rockets, not even the Great Wall of China will protect Israel's cities from their wrath. Helping the Palestinians achieve a viable, prosperous state is one of the most pro-Israel things an American politician can do.
3. The Rev. John Hagee and his fellow Christian Zionists are good for the Jews.
Hardly. Are Israel and American Jewry really so desperate that we must cozy up to people whose messianic dreams entail having us all killed or converted to Christianity? Hagee, the founder of Christians United for Israel, and his ilk believe that Israel dare not cede any territory in the quest for peace, claiming that the Bible promised all of the holy land to the Jews. In other words, Christian Zionists look at the trade-offs that Israel must make to achieve peace -- and hope to thwart them. Then again, peace is not what these folks have in mind; they hope that Israel will seek to permanently expand its borders, thereby goading the Arabs into a war that will become the catalyst for Armageddon and the second coming of Christ. Do your ambitions for Israel extend beyond turning it into the fuel for the fire of the "End of Days"? Then Hagee and company are not -- repeat, not -- your friends.
4. Talking peace with your enemies demonstrates weakness.
You don't need an advanced degree in international relations to recognize that pursuing peace only with people you like is pointless. Most Israelis know this; a recent poll in the Israeli newspaper Haaretz found that two-thirds of Israelis favor cease-fire negotiations between their government and Hamas, the Palestinian Islamist movement that controls the Gaza Strip, exactly because Hamas is such a bitter foe. But in Washington, we self-righteously refuse to engage -- even indirectly -- with Hamas, Iran or Syria.
Hamas won the most recent Palestinian national elections in a landslide. Do we seriously think that it can be erased from the political landscape simply by assassinations and sanctions? Precisely because Hamas and Iran represent the most worrisome strategic challenges to Israel, responsible friends of Israel who'd like to see it live in security for its next 60 years should be engaging with them to search for alternatives to war.
5. George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had.
Not even close. The president has acted as Israel's exclusive corner man when he should have been refereeing the fight. That choice weakened Israel's long-term security.
Israel needs U.S. help to maintain its military edge over its foes, but it also needs the United States to contain Arab-Israeli crises and broker peace. Israel's existing peace pacts owe much to Washington's ability to bridge the mistrust among parties in the Middle East. So when the United States abandons the role of effective broker and acts only as Israel's amen choir, as it has throughout Bush's tenure, the United States dims Israel's prospects of winning security through diplomacy. The best gift that Israel's friends here could give this gallant, embattled democracy on its milestone birthday would be returning the United States to its leading role in active diplomacy to end the conflicts in the Middle East -- and help a secure, thriving Israel find a permanent, accepted home among the community of nations.
jeremyb@jstreet.org
Jeremy Ben-Ami is executive director of J Street, a lobby and political action committee that promotes peace and security in the Middle East.
When Hillary committed to expanding a nuclear deterrence umbrella over not only Israel, but other allies in the Middle East, something that even Bush and the neocons haven't voiced support for, many people were shocked, yet the media made almost no mention of this fairly insane foreign policy statement. She basically said she would commit the US nuclear arsenal to attacking any country that used weapons of mass destruction against another country in the Middle East. The Middle East, just in case some are unaware, is a giant mess of conflicts. Hillary feels we should throw ourselves and our nuclear weapons right in the middle of it.
Then, just a few days later, she nonchalantly threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran (apparently not realizing that there are millions of innocent civilians in Iran) if the Iranian government nuked Israel. Just imagine, for a moment, if a terrorist group got a nuke from North Korea or a former Soviet republic, and detonated it in Israel. Suddenly there is panic, no one knows where it came from or who was responsible, but Israel assumes it was Iran, whether because they really think it was Iran, or because they want an excuse to annihilate Iran, so Hillary with her finger on the button launches nukes against Iran from submarines stationed in the Middle East. BOOM! Game over. There are countless ways mistakes can be made, and Hillary's willingness to "totally obliterate" Iran turns a bad situation into a nightmare scenario. And not to mention, Israel has its own nukes that it isn't supposed to have (notice, the US doesn't care that Israel have nukes, which only encourage its Arab neighbors to develop them to defend themselves, nor does the US seem to notice that its own bellicosity in the region only proves to Middle Eastern countries that they need a nuclear deterrence if they are to be safe from the US and its allies--just like North Korea is safe).
Anyway, all of these comments show two things: A) Hillary is nearly as hawkish as McCain and the neocons, and B) Hillary, despite all of her bragging about her superior experience, has very short-sighted and naive foreign policy ideas, just like Bush and the neocons. Anyway, at the time all this went down, I wanted to write a blog about it, but unfortunately other campaign coverage took up my time. Here is a repost of an article which mentions some of the reaction to her ignorant Republicanesque bellicosity:
AMERICANS have learned to take with a grain of salt much of the rhetoric in a campaign like the current Democratic donnybrook between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Still, there are some red lines that should never be crossed. Clinton did so Tuesday morning, the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when she told ABC's "Good Morning America" that, if she were president, she would "totally obliterate" Iran if Iran attacked Israel.
This foolish and dangerous threat was muted in domestic media coverage. But it reverberated in headlines around the world.
Responding with understatement to a question in the British House of Lords, the foreign minister responsible for Asia, Lord Mark Malloch-Brown, said of Clinton's implication of a mushroom cloud over Iran: "While it is reasonable to warn Iran of the consequences of it continuing to develop nuclear weapons and what those real consequences bring to its security, it is probably not prudent in today's world to threaten to obliterate any other country and in many cases civilians resident in such a country."
A less restrained reaction came from an editorial in the Saudi-based paper Arab News. Being neighbors of Iran, the Saudis and the other Gulf Arabs have the most to fear from Iran's nuclear program and its drive to become the dominant power in the Gulf.
But precisely because they are most at risk from Iran's regional ambitions, the Saudis want a carefully considered American approach to Iran, one that balances firmness and diplomatic engagement.
The Saudi paper called Clinton's nuclear threat "the foreign politics of the madhouse," saying, "it demonstrates the same doltish ignorance that has distinguished Bush's foreign relations."
The Saudis are not always sound advisers on American foreign policy. But they understand that Rambo rhetoric like Clinton's only plays into the hands of Iranian hard-liners who want to plow ahead with efforts to attain a nuclear weapons capability. They argue that Iran must have that capability in order to deter the United States from doing what Clinton threatened to do.
While Clinton has hammered Obama for supporting military strikes in Pakistan, her comments on Iran are much more far-reaching. She seems not to realize that she undermined Iranian reformists and pragmatists. The Iranian people have been more favorable to America than any other in the Gulf region or the Middle East.
A presidential candidate who lightly commits to obliterating Iran - and, presumably, all the children, parents, and grandparents in Iran - should not be answering the White House phone at any time of day or night.
So this wouldn't seem that important to most people, and I'm sure most people will never know about this, but it is quite important nevertheless: Today J Street, a new progressive pro-Israel lobbying organization was officially launched, for the purpose of providing an alternative to the hardline rightwing neoconservative (and all powerful) AIPAC lobby, which we can thank in large part for our current situation in the Middle East. Here is their mission statement:
J Street is the political arm of the pro-Israel, pro-peace movement.
J Street was founded to promote meaningful American leadership to end the Arab-Israeli and Palestinian-Israel conflicts peacefully and diplomatically. We support a new direction for American policy in the Middle East and a broad public and policy debate about the U.S. role in the region.
J Street represents Americans, primarily but not exclusively Jewish, who support Israel and its desire for security as the Jewish homeland, as well as the right of the Palestinians to a sovereign state of their own - two states living side-by-side in peace and security. We believe ending the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is in the best interests of Israel, the United States, the Palestinians, and the region as a whole.
J Street supports diplomatic solutions over military ones, including in Iran; multilateral over unilateral approaches to conflict resolution; and dialogue over confrontation with a wide range of countries and actors when conflicts do arise. For more on our policy positions, click here.
J Street will advocate forcefully in the policy process, in Congress, in the media, and in the Jewish community to make sure public officials and community leaders clearly see the depth and breadth of support for our views on Middle East policy among voters and supporters in their states and districts. We seek to complement the work of existing organizations and individuals that share our agenda. In our lobbying and advocacy efforts, we will enlist individual supporters of other efforts as partners.
And here is their introductory video:
I'm sure the progressive community, those who know about this at least, are cheering today, because we know all too well the ills AIPAC, and other rightwing pro-Israel groups, have wrought upon our foreign policy as well as our domestic discourse (or lack thereof). Christopher Hayes of The Nation also breathed a similar sign of relief today:
Israel policy is, of course, the area in which this dynamic has been most destructively evident. It's really remarkable that for the last two decades AIPAC has been allowed to arrogate to itself the role of speaking for American Jews on the topic of Israel, despite the fact its actual positions and staff are far, far to the right of your average Jewish American. Now J Street has, thankfully, joined the scene. As former NYC Corporate council Victor Kovner just put in on a press call introducing the organization, "It's long overdue."
It will probably be a hard haul for J Street, for just like previous attempts at challenging the rightwing dominance of AIPAC it will be met with stiff resistance by entrenched hardline interests. I guarantee some of these hardliners will even try to brand J Street and its supporters as anti-Semites, in order to demonize them, in the same way they try to demonize everyone else who so much as utters a criticism of their policies. How's that for democracy?
And yes, if any of these people are reading this, I too must be a rabid anti-Semite. How dare I speak?
The progressive community needs to give them all the help they need along the way. Don't let the "pro-Israel" label turn you off, because they aren't using it in the same despicable way the neocons and AIPAC use it. They are showing that AIPAC and the hardliners have absolutely no monopoly on supporting Israel, and they are showing that Israel is better served through peace and understanding.
I wish them the best of luck.
And please take the time to check out their site, sign up for their updates, let's give them the support they need to make a difference!
Tonight we reached yet another macabre milestone in our disastrous war against the people of Iraq, 4,000 US soldiers have lost their lives for Bush's lies, for corporate profit, and for Israel's shortsighted foreign policy objectives. The American loses are far from the most appalling in this war, as over a million Iraqis have been killed, and over 4 million Iraqis are now refugees. This, of course, never gets mentioned in the media, because we apparently aren't supposed to care about the lives of anyone not American.
Anyway, since Americans are what people respond to, what people care most about, and what are closely tallied, I felt I ought to mark this occasion with a bit of perspective.
And for the record, al-Qaeda killed 2,974 Americans on September 11th, 2001, and although it has taken them longer, Bush and the Republicans have now killed 4,000 Americans*.
*not counting slain American contractors
Update: Here is what 4,000 dead Americans looks like:
The primary is finally over, and now it is really time to get to work. The Republicans still think they can deceive the American people into accepting another 4-8 years of Republican disasters, so we have to keep the pressure on. Any support you can give to Obama's campaign, whether monetary or voluntary will help us keep this movement successful. The time for change is now!
