Reply
Thu 31 Jan, 2008 02:06 pm
Why American Jews are wary of Barack Obama
By Lorne Bell - Thursday January 24 2008
Barack Obama
Community voices support for and concern over senator's candidacy
In the race for the American presidency, securing support from Jewish leaders has become a valuable tool in swaying Jewish voters. But as Barack Obama campaigns for the Democratic presidential nomination, some Jews have been increasingly skeptical about the Illinois senator's commitment to Jewish issues, and Israel in particular.
"Given his heritage, background and upbringing, there is no question that he'd be more open than the other candidates to arguments from different perspectives and viewpoints and not hold the standard party line regarding Israel and the Jewish community," said the Rebbe, Grand Rabbi Y. A. Korff.
While Obama is Christian, both his father - a native of Kenya - and his stepfather were Muslim. And an e-mail circulating throughout Israel and the U.S. seems to be preying on Jewish fears, accusing the Illinois senator of ties to Islamic extremism.
The e-mail was met with a quick response from leaders of nine Jewish organizations, including the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the Anti-Defamation League and the American Jewish Congress.
"[The e-mail is an] attempt to drive a wedge between our community and a presidential candidate based on despicable and false attacks and innuendo based on religion," the leaders said in an open letter. "Jewish voters, like all voters, should support whichever candidate they believe would make the best president."
According to the American Jewish Committee's 2007 Annual Survey, 38 percent of U.S. Jews have a favorable opinion of Obama, which places him behind only Hillary Clinton and Rudy Guliani in Jewish esteem. Obama is, however, the favorite among Arab Americans. In a poll released last May by the Arab American Institute, 39 percent of Arab Americans supported Obama, compared to Clinton's 36 percent.
But despite broad support from some Jewish Americans, many still question whether Obama is a good choice for the Jewish community and for Israel.
"There is plenty of legitimate concern with Senator Obama's record," said Suzanne Kurtz, spokesperson for the Washington, D.C.-based Republican Jewish Coalition. "Any of the Republican candidates would be better suited to stand behind issues of critical concern to the Jewish community, including Israel's security."
Obama has, however, stood behind Israel's right to defend itself. During the Second Lebanon War, Obama supported Israel's retaliation against Hezbollah and said the Jewish state should resist any pressure to establish a cease-fire until the threat was eliminated. He also pressed the European Union to recognize Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.
In a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in March 2007, Obama offered his take on the U.S. role in achieving peace in Israel.
"Our job is to renew the U.S.'s efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision," said Obama. "That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel."
But the senator's record at home - especially regarding issues of concern to the Jewish community - is less clear. Obama is a member of the United Church of Christ, which has come under fire for its partnership with the controversial Palestinian Christian group, Sabeel. And a magazine published by Obama's church in Chicago honored Black Muslim leader Louis Farrakhan, who has been criticized for strong anti-Semitic rhetoric. Obama has condemned Farrakhan's anti-Semitic sentiments and disagreed with the church's decision to honor him, though he maintains strong ties to the UCC.
But the Jewish community's concerns do not seem to be tied to outlandish Internet attacks or even Obama's relationship with the UCC. It is the senator's relatively unknown status that raises doubts in the minds of Jewish voters, according to Steve Grossman, former chair of the Democratic National Committee and of AIPAC, and a staunch supporter of Hillary Clinton.
"Barack Obama has not been in the Senate long, nor does the Jewish community beyond Illinois know him that well," said Grossman. "But there are certainly people within the Jewish community who do know him well and think highly of him on a variety of issues, including issues of interest to the Jewish community."
One of those people is Laurence Tribe, professor of law at Harvard Law School. Tribe has known Obama since his days as a student at Harvard and is scheduled to appear in an Obama campaign ad praising the young senator's commitment to helping those in need.
"It was inspiring, absolutely inspiring to see someone as brilliant as Barack Obama, as successful, someone who could have written his ticket on Wall Street, take all of the talent and all of the learning and decide to devote it to the community and to make people's lives better," Tribe says in the ad, according to the New York Times.
Still, Obama's supporters and critics agreed that Jews have an obligation to sort out the facts from the mounting slew of falsehoods peddled on the Internet.
Added the RJC's Kurtz: "We would urge the Jewish community to carefully examine the legitimate record of Senator Obama.
The Jewish Advocate
And another thing--- the super hardcore Jews want MCain to win. Obama made a statement about his religion and it's Christian-- he's not affiliated with Farakan, or however you spell his name.
That article is completely racist and nonsense.
Perhaps you can find an article saying Obama is a Black Panther too?
Gala wrote:You are tedious.
You noticed that too? For somebody that has an obvious hate of Obama, Miller is sure giving him a lot of air time.
Hey Miller, you forgot one. So far you've posted articles about Obama and Latinos, Obama and Babies, Obama not quite black enough, and Asians feeling left out by Obama.
Can't you dig up something to show how unhappy Native Americans are with Obama too?
Gala
Did you bother to read the posted article?
If Miller posted it as testimony to something negative about Obama, he/she didn't read it either.
It's hardly a diatribe against Obama, rather it's a very objective rendering of the subject which, repeatedly, offers points favorable to Obama.
It does not support the argument made by an execrable e-mail making the rounds of the internet that he is an Islamist sleeper. It also makes it clear that any reservations the Jewish community may have is not based on this argument.
It correctly points out the connections between Obama's church and a Palestinian Church group and Louis Farrakhan. It also clearly points out that Obama has condemned Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments, and parted from his church in their honoring of the Black Muslim leader.
At this point in time, unfettered support of Israel is more likely to come from the Right rather than the Left. Obama clearly resides on the Left.
It would not be irrational for strong supporters of Israel to have some reservations about any Democrat becoming president. Once again, however, the article itemizes proof of Obama's support of Israel in the US Senate.
It reports truthfully and without apparent bias on what may be an important political phenomenon as respects Obama's campaign to win the Democratic nomination and the presidency.
Butrflynet wrote:
Can't you dig up something to show how unhappy Native Americans are with Obama too?
I'll give it a try. Are you a Native American?
The quoted article is likely of more potential importance to the interests of Obama supporters in the coming elections than most of the relatively trivial commentary on other threads about the recent debate.
I for one am a bit put off by the sensitivity of many Obama supporters to anything critical or negative. They appear to have very low thresholds of indignation.
It suggests to me that their motives may be merely emotional or the product of superficial enthusiasm, or worse. Many others likely experience a similar reaction to all this, and it is not an effective way for Obama supporters to induce others to their cause.
One of Obama's top policy advisors is Samantha Power. Here's what she had to say when asked how she would advise a president on the situation in Israel and Palestine:
Quote:I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic. But, sadly, we don't just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy. There are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or that are meant to, anyway. It's essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to [leaders] who are fundamentally politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people. And by that I mean what Tom Freidman has called "Sharafat." I do think in that sense, both political leaders have been dreadfully irresponsible. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced.
http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Power/power-con5.html
If you go to the link, you'll notice that the above is not merely her own opinion or feelings on the topic. She was specifically asked how she would "advise the President of the United States" on the matter.
I don't think there can be any doubt who she means by "a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import". Were I a Jew, I'd be very wary of her and of Obama for having her on his team.
georgeob1 wrote:The quoted article is likely of more potential importance to the interests of Obama supporters in the coming elections than most of the relatively trivial commentary on other threads about the recent debate.
I for one am a bit put off by the sensitivity of many Obama supporters to anything critical or negative. They appear to have very low thresholds of indignation.
It suggests to me that their motives may be merely emotional or the product of superficial enthusiasm, or worse. Many others likely experience a similar reaction to all this, and it is not an effective way for Obama supporters to induce others to their cause.
I think the criticism of Miller and the article is not necessarily the article but that she/he has so many Obama threads. She/he seems to have an unhealthy obsession with him.
revel wrote:I think the criticism of Miller and the article is not necessarily the article but that she/he has so many Obama threads. She/he seems to have an unhealthy obsession with him.
Perhaps so. However I doubt that it is any worse than the obsessions of the earnest Obama supporters.
georgeob1 wrote:revel wrote:I think the criticism of Miller and the article is not necessarily the article but that she/he has so many Obama threads. She/he seems to have an unhealthy obsession with him.
Perhaps so. However I doubt that it is any worse than the obsessions of the earnest Obama supporters.
I am beginning to understand it. He was just so eloquent responding to Bill Clinton's unfortunate comparisons of Obama and Jessie Jackson. I don't hear anyone comparing Hillary Clinton with Elizabeth Dole.
video
Finn dAbuzz wrote:Gala
Did you bother to read the posted article?
The article is milktoast. You think it's sympatheic to Obama? I think they are scratching their heads at him. I read it and think, where is this person coming from-- what Jews are they speaking of? The hardcores or the less observant?
Anyway, ask Mildew if he or she read it-- seeing as it was posted to get attention.
This thread does make me wonder about one thing that I will share with you folks. I assume many of you in the U.S. have met some Jewish males in your lives. And, they might have first names like Barry, Harold, Stanley, Irving, Larry, Robert. In fact, for those people that have met many Jewish males, they might start believing that these first names are "Jewish names." No, they are all English names. Yes, secular Jewish parents have been naming their sons with English first names for at least a century (it used to be German first names, i.e., Max for Maximillian).
So, the "medium is the message" so to speak. Secular American Jews want their sons to not alienate their fellow Americans with names that seem less palatable than English names. O.K., today many males of Christian or Jewish background seem to be named with Old Testament names occasionally, i.e., Jake for Jacob; however, the vast majority of American Jewish males from a secular family and over the age of 30 tend to have these English first names.
So, why is Barak Hussein Obama not Bradford Henry Obama? In other words, wouldn't one expect someone who got a mint education, went into politics, and is now running for the highest office be given a name that might not alienate just a few people?
If secular Jewish parents named their sons Stanley and Harold, so if they every became the proverbial Jewish doctor or lawyer their first names would not alienate people, what was going on in naming baby Obama?
I'm sure there's a very simple answer. But, isn't anyone else curious?
Gala wrote:Finn dAbuzz wrote:Gala
Did you bother to read the posted article?
The article is milktoast. You think it's sympatheic to Obama? I think they are scratching their heads at him. I read it and think, where is this person coming from-- what Jews are they speaking of? The hardcores or the less observant?
Anyway, ask Mildew if he or she read it-- seeing as it was posted to get attention.
It's interesting that you can only consider this article in terms of whether it slams or sympathizes with Obama.
Gala wrote: That article is completely racist and nonsense.
Quote: The article is milktoast.
Quite a change of opinion in less than 24 hours.
The article is an excellent example of objective journalism. I wish more were like it.
You and others have assumed Miller's motivation for posting the article is to either slam Obama or tweak Obama supporters.
If the former, then I don't need to know if he/she read it: Clearly not.
If the latter, then it would appear it doesn't matter whether or not he/she read it because it clearly worked.
Foofie wrote:This thread does make me wonder about one thing that I will share with you folks. I assume many of you in the U.S. have met some Jewish males in your lives. And, they might have first names like Barry, Harold, Stanley, Irving, Larry, Robert. In fact, for those people that have met many Jewish males, they might start believing that these first names are "Jewish names." No, they are all English names. Yes, secular Jewish parents have been naming their sons with English first names for at least a century (it used to be German first names, i.e., Max for Maximillian).
So, the "medium is the message" so to speak. Secular American Jews want their sons to not alienate their fellow Americans with names that seem less palatable than English names. O.K., today many males of Christian or Jewish background seem to be named with Old Testament names occasionally, i.e., Jake for Jacob; however, the vast majority of American Jewish males from a secular family and over the age of 30 tend to have these English first names.
So, why is Barak Hussein Obama not Bradford Henry Obama? In other words, wouldn't one expect someone who got a mint education, went into politics, and is now running for the highest office be given a name that might not alienate just a few people?
If secular Jewish parents named their sons Stanley and Harold, so if they every became the proverbial Jewish doctor or lawyer their first names would not alienate people, what was going on in naming baby Obama?
I'm sure there's a very simple answer. But, isn't anyone else curious?
Not me.
I doubt his parents were thinking of him running for president when he was born, and there is no indication that they are members of cultures that have been heavily influenced by centuries of prejudice and oppression. I see no reason why they might have anticipated that his name might alienate anyone. It is ridiculous that it does.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace