SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Barack Obama Channels Jim Moran

THE PLANK MARCH 3, 2008

Barack Obama Channels Jim Moran

BY JAMES KIRCHICK

Last week, Barack Obama gave a speech in Cleveland to a group of Jewish community leaders. Though Marty has already declared Obama Kosher, there are still some rumblings amongst Jews about what an Obama presidency would mean for Israel, as evidenced in a Times piece on Friday. Much of the attacks on Obama in the Jewish community have been outright smears, trying to paint him as a secret Muslim (Hillary, shameless and desperate as she is, thinks she can get away with this mischief herself). But just because anti-Obama smear artists exist does not mean that legitimate questions about his positions ought also be categorized as scurrilous. A telling line in Obama's speech last week is illustrative of these concerns:

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

If this sounds familiar, it's because it is. In 2003, Democratic Virginia Congressman Jim Moran infamously said that Jews were responsible for the Iraq War. Six prominent Jewish Democratic colleagues of Moran -- including Henry Waxman, Martin Frost and Tom Lantos -- publicly announced that they could not support Moran for re-election, and Nancy Pelosi demoted him from a position in the minority leadership. In his defense, Moran went onto decry the Likudnik conspiracy that was out to get him, attacking the Israeli political party and openly identifying himself with Labor. For instance, in 2004 he told The Hill:

"I'm never going to satisfy people who think we should be giving unequivocal support to the Likud Party."

Such protestations about the all-encompassing power of "Likud" is a trope in the victimization rhetoric of peace-processors who constantly blame Israel for the region's woes while pretending to be valiant friends of the Jewish State.

Hillary couldn't find a better example of Obama's foreign policy naivete than his attempt to intervene in the domestic politics of our most important ally in the Middle East. Given that Likud will probably form the next Israeli government, why would Obama go out of his way to ridicule the party and declare that its sympathizers in America have a nefarious influence on our politics? Statements such as the one Obama made last week are highly unusual and ill-advised for a presidential contender, never mind a president.

Politicians don't write their own speeches. But Barack Obama does not have a reputation for being a detached campaigner, and it's reasonable to assume that he came up with this formulation on his own. Or, in a more charitable analysis, perhaps Obama does not know that much about the metrics of the debate regarding the "Israel Lobby," and is merely delivering the words of his dovish advisors who have long operated under the illusion that they're oppressed and slandered for being dovish. Either one of these scenarios lends credence to the observation that the anxiety about what an Obama presidency would mean for Israel and the greater cause of freedom in the Middle East is hardly just the stuff of smear campaigns.

--James Kirchick 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 21 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

21 comments

I've been reading the Plank for a while but have to admit I have trouble identifying which post is by Michelle, or Jason, or Eve, etc. Chris' I'm pretty good at, though often that's just because they're about movies. James Kirchick, on the other hand, is always identifiable in a few sentences. Like an auteur, his work is quickly identifiable as his, and his only. I guess that makes him the Hitchcock of the Plank or something.

- CharlesFosterKane

March 3, 2008 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with Obama.  I guess that makes me an evil anti-Semite among the Martyites.  Really, whatever.

- glacialspeed

March 3, 2008 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The right has a history of assuming that only it has achieved a kind of spiritiual identity with the national interest.  Thus the current administration finds it hard to accept that people abroad could dislike Bush and the Republican worldview without necessarily being enemies of America.   On those lines, the assumption that support for one particular party and its philosophy is co-extensive with support of Israel itself is a false and dangerous one for the U.S., and Obama is right to draw attention to that.

- ironyroad

March 3, 2008 at 12:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

ridicule?

How is this more than what the former Australian PM had to say about Obama or further over the line than what the current conservative government in Canada is trying to pull re NAFTA?  

More importantly, how is anything from your third paragraph on anything other than a somewhat reactionary assumption the quotes you've cited miserably fail to add up to? Juxtaposing Moran's statements and Obama's was specious at best James.  

- arsonplus

March 3, 2008 at 12:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In an even more charitable, not to mention more likely, analysis, maybe Obama knows about "the metrics of the debate regarding the 'Israel Lobby'" but just doesn't care.  Maybe he was actually discussing a policy stance, not sending out some sort of coded message to identify his feelings about the Jews.

- ratnerstar

March 3, 2008 at 12:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Call me crazy, but what part of not "adopt[ing] an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel" is an "attempt to intervene in the domestic politics of" Israel?  It seems like the opposite.

- grantham

March 3, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Taken in proper context, the statements made by Obama and Moran aren't really very similar.  Its clear that Obama was saying that we can't be militantly and unwaveringly pro-Israel to the point that we are unable or unwilling to consider a broader range of solutions that, while still "pro-Israel", might not be as far right wing (by the way, I willingly admit that I am ignorant as to what pro-Lukid means really, but I am assuming it is a very right-wing, hawkish type of support for Israel).  Moran, by contrast, began by making an anti-semetic statement that would be offensive to a wide range of sensibilities (Jews are responsible for the Iraq war) and then defended himself by suggesting that only the Lukid supporters would have found such a remark to be offensive.   These are clearly different situations.

- japsheeh

March 3, 2008 at 12:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wait. What Obama actually said -- not Moran, but Obama, and as one of Moran's constituents, I bow to no one in terms of recognizing Moran's faults -- was that he feels that Americans should not be faulted for failing to take sides in Israeli politics. Kirchick calls this an "attempt to intervene in the domestic politics of our most important ally in the Middle East."

Which is to say, in Kirchickland, explicitly rejecting a position in favor of one Israeli party is intervening in Israeli domestic politics.

Given that the choice for Democrats is between Obama and Hillary Clinton, doesn't an application of his own logic of situational associationalism require us to conclude that his tendentious arguments against Obama amount to an endorsement of Hillary and her Arafat-kissing ways? On the one hand, Obama uses the word "Likud" to describe an Israeli political party that happens to call itself "Likud." The nerve! On the other hand, Hillary publicly kisses terrorists' wives. Why does Kirchick trust the latter over the former to be a friend of Israel?

- rhubarbs

March 3, 2008 at 12:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Kames Kirchick quotes Obama:

-- I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

And then writes "If this sounds familiar, it's because it is."

Frankly, James, I am not at all familiar with a major American Presidential candidate telling Americans the truth about our relationship to an extremist, ultra-nationalist party like Likud. Indeed, I think that Kirchick's slimy smear in response proves Obama's point.

Four decades of the United States prostrating itself in front of an extremist, ultra-nationalist ideology in Israel HAS damaged our standing in Worls, not just the Middle East, and has allowed Israel to inflict immeasurable damage on itself, Our actions as a Nation have also brought moral ruin on American Jewry many of whose most prominent intellectual figures have chosen to abandon morality in favour of support for Israeli extremists.

Barack Obama was correct to say what he did.

- ndmackenzie

March 3, 2008 at 12:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Also, if Kirchick actually knew the first thing about Jim Moran, he would know that "channelling Jim Moran" would involve a lot more than saying the word "Likud."

Get back to us when Obama wakes his neighbors with early-morning fights with his girlfriend on his lawn, when Obama physically assaults a colleague in the Capitol, and when Obama regularly shows up for public addresses, including speeches at public high schools, visibly drunk. Then maybe we can talk about Obama "channelling Jim Moran."

- rhubarbs

March 3, 2008 at 12:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

To The Plank team

James Kirchick blogs on the Contentions blog over at Commentary - the "neo-con" comic. Given his appalling track record blogging here on The Plank is it not about time you asked him to move all his comments over to Contentions.

Of course, the problem might be that The New Republic can't find anyone else in the World willing to put up Martin Peretz's posts. If that's the case let me assure you that not finding a replacement wouldn't be much of a loss.

- ndmackenzie

March 3, 2008 at 12:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yea, you make a narrow but valid point on that Jamie.

Substitute Likud for Tory and you can see the problem with it; Likud is, after all, a political party of a foreign country.

Then again this is partly your fault Jamie. Yes, you and Marty.

The debate is so narrow and toxic now that even the "O" word is out of bounds. It's "disputed territories" and anyone who raises the question of why Israel is still colonizing land from Palestinians is accused of being an anti-Semite.

I feel sorry for Obama on this subject. Clearly, he's trying to send a signal that he will try and be that "honest broker".

Maybe, "honest broker" is now a trope of the pro Palestinian left as well?

- The Ignorant Populist

March 3, 2008 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

For anyone with a modicum of familiarity about the current state of major American Jewish organizations and their positions on Isael, Obama's analysis on this point is spot on.  This is not to give credence to those who attribute great influence to the  "Israel lobby."  In American politics today, any politician who strays  ever so slightly from the AIPAC line on Israel is likely to get hit with a brick and accused of being at a minimum of being less than friendly towards Israel or at worst of being anti-semitic. Sadly this climate has shut down healthy debate about including some nuance in Israel policy.  Instead of Mr. Kirchick's claims against Senator Obama, the Senator's comments should be seen as showing some political courage and a healthy sign of a fresh set of eyes approaching often intractable problems.

- kabloom123

March 3, 2008 at 1:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

CFK - we should play a game of 'name that author' because Kirchik can often be identified by the title alone (the Gore Bore was easy and this one too).  I've been thinking that we should ask TNR to put the bylines under the title, instead at the end of the article, so we readers don't have to waste time reading a few lines of nonsense, saying "WTF?!" then scrolling down to see the name of the author.  Either that or color code the contributors.  Something.  Anything.

And for the record: I am a Democrat and a Likudnik and I thought Obama's line was 100% accurate.  If Obama said some Likud murmurings to a group of anti-Zionist pseudo-academics, then his line could be suspect.  But he said that line to a group of activist Jewish-American Democrats!  He was speaking truth to power, as it were.

Or, put another way, "Likud" is a code-word for "bad-guy Zionist Jew" only when you are speaking to people who also want to speak in code.   When you're speaking to the actual group of people, then Likud actually means "Likud."

Or, sigh, to put even another way.  Back in the Clinton Administration I had to explain to Likudnik friends of mine that Clinton was a friend to Israel even though he supported Oslo.  Just because we thought Oslo was a mistake, doesn't mean that Clinton thought it was a mistake.  He was going along with his friends (Rabin, Peres) and a slim majority of Israelis.    And I think that is what Obama was saying as well.

- cypess

March 3, 2008 at 1:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We need some remedial reading work here.  Obama wasn't talking about Israeli policy!  He was talking about the 'anti-Israel' trope occasionally thrown around by those who insist on the Likud position. He was talking about rhetoric - not which party is best (and certainly not which has the most influence).

If you criticize someone for arguing that Democrats are ant-American, you're not taking issue with Republicans, you're taking issue with those who straightforwardly argue that Republicanism is a necessary condition for supporting America.

This really isn't a hard distinction to draw.  

- benberger

March 3, 2008 at 1:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is sleazy, even by Kirchick Schtick standards.

Expect a bouquet of roses with a card signed 'pccostello.'

- WoodyBombay

March 3, 2008 at 1:28pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

cypess:

Or, put another way, "Likud" is a code-word for "bad-guy Zionist Jew" only when you are speaking to people who also want to speak in code.   When you're speaking to the actual group of people, then Likud actually means "Likud."

Brilliant.  

And iggy is right- I seem to recall Clinton and Bush supporting Blair in elections, and no one minded.  If the US had said "we would rather have Ksyansov (sp- I'm not going to look it up) than bow to Putin's sham" would Jamie be crying foul?  

I support Israel, and many of its actions, but the comments here are spot-on.  There are different strands of thought within Israel, and to not recognize that is stupid and foolish.  

- boneill

March 3, 2008 at 1:44pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Thanks boneill!

- cypess

March 3, 2008 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"who constantly blame Israel for the region's woes while pretending to be valiant friends of the Jewish State."

They're variants of anti-Semites who claim that some of their best friends are Jews.  They also remind me of the riight-wingers we've all heard say, "I'm for unions in principle, but..."

- jm_rice

March 3, 2008 at 3:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Woody,

Funny you should mention that. The only reason I even read this latest pile by the Pilemaster was to see if pccostello, who must be in Jamie's rather select and miniscule charmed circle of friends, was going to be posting.

- thejauntyboulevardier

March 3, 2008 at 8:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dammit Kirchick!

As a jew, I just want to say, I hate you.

As an Upper West Side Jew, you remind me sometimes of the Christian Zionists...

As a Barney Greengrass patron, move over to Commentary. You make Marty look like Eustace Tilley.

- bendreyfuss

March 3, 2008 at 10:36pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close