www.thejewishweek.com

NY Resources

03/05/2008

Email this article

Print this Page

Could Mideast ‘Nuances’ Now Hurt Obama?

by James D. Besser
Washington Correspondent

Jewish doves are hopeful that Sen. Barack Obama’s comments during last week’s private meeting with Cleveland Jewish leaders — including his call for new ideas in Mideast peacemaking — signaled a turning point in the political dynamics of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. But some fear that speaking too loudly about their hopes could hurt his election chances.

“We’ve taken a vow of omerta,” said a longtime leader of the Jewish peace camp, referring to the Mafia vow of silence.

Obama’s remarks were as notable for his bringing up the notion of seeking new ways to settle the Mideast conflict as for their content, since candidates usually limit their comments to the need to support Israel when addressing Jewish audiences.

Given the Clinton campaign’s rejuvenation this

week, with major wins in Texas and Ohio, and the success of their more aggressive tactics, Obama’s comments could prompt a new Clinton effort to raise questions about his approach to the Mideast conflict.

Jewish voters could be a significant factor in an April 22 contest that is the latest make-or-break test for both Democratic contenders.

“It’s very clear that in recent days the Clinton campaign has pulled out all the stops — including doing whatever negative campaigning they felt they needed to do,” said Kean University political scientist Gilbert Kahn. “Now that may mean going negative on Obama with Jewish voters.”

The negative campaign could focus on Obama’s Cleveland comments, but also his controversial Chicago pastor, his endorsement by Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, and even the continuing rumors about a Muslim connection in his past, Kahn said.

A revived Clinton campaign is “not going to be afraid to press very hard on the issues the Jewish community cares about,” said a top Democratic strategist. “They have seven weeks to work the big Jewish communities in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. That’s a lot of time.”

Jewish doves say that Obama’s Cleveland comments, while hinting of change in the U.S. approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, did not give his opponents in both parties a lot of new ammunition.

Obama’s remarks represented “a smart piece of packaging that could be embraced by a cross section of Jewish voters, and it was not dumb in terms of policy,” said Daniel Levy, director of the Prospects for Peace Initiative of the Century Foundation and the New America Foundation, liberal groups that advocate a more robust U.S. role in Mideast peacemaking.

“The Jewish peace camp is excited about the Obama phenomenon, but is probably telling itself all the time: don’t get carried away,” he said. “They are cognizant of the fact it will be difficult to have real change in U.S. policy. And to a certain extent there is a reluctance to give ammunition to his opponents by being too enthusiastic.”

Some mainstream Jewish leaders say Obama found a way to suggest change without alarming those who fear a weakening of the U.S.-Israel strategic alliance.

“Reading the transcript, what leaps out at you are the fundamentals,” said Martin Raffel, associate director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs. “He calls Israel’s security ‘sacrosanct’ and ‘nonnegotiable’; he says Israel must remain a Jewish state; he says Palestinians have to relinquish the right of return, and if that doesn’t happen there is no way to move forward.”

At the same time, Jewish activists say Obama used language rarely heard on the campaign trail, not at all in this year’s presidential contest.

Obama told the group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland: “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 we cannot have an honest dialogue about how we do achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

Obama also said that the current Mideast status quo is “unsustainable. So we’re going to have to make a shift from the current deadlock that we’re in.”

And he called for a “contiguous” Palestinian state. “If you have a Balkanized, unsustainable state, it will break down and we will be back in the same boat.”

To address those concerns, he said, he will “solicit as many practical opinions as possible in terms of how we’re going to move forward.”

That’s hardly radical stuff. In fact, mostly it reflects the positions and policies of the last three administrations — but it stands out in a presidential election process in which all but broad-brush pro-Israel generalities are considered radioactive.

That has given encouragement to Jewish doves frustrated with what they see as the Bush administration’s reluctance to back up rhetorical support for its “road map” for Palestinian statehood with serious, sustained action.

In Obama’s Cleveland comments “there was a sense that this is not business as usual,” said Seymour Reich, president of the Israel Policy Forum (IPF), a group that advocates a stronger U.S. peacemaking role. “There was a new awareness of the issues, of the fact that the Bush administration came into the conflict very late and that a possible new approach may be necessary in 2009.”

But Obama used a new kind of language, he said, speaking in a “nuanced” way that will reassure centrist Jewish leaders, Reich said.

Josh Rolnick, a member of the board of the National Jewish Democratic Council (NJDC) and a solid Obama supporter, attended the Cleveland meeting.

He said Obama’s assertion that the current status quo is not sustainable is “not something you hear people taking about” in big league politics.

Obama did not hint of any sweeping policy changes, he said, but indicated he would be open to new ideas.

“He made it very clear there has to be a dialogue about the best way to move forward, and that the dialogue cannot only be from the perspective of the far right position,” Rolnick said.
But Obama “made it pretty clear that for there to be real change, there would have to big changes on the ground; the Palestinians would have to take some very big leaps,” Rolnick said.

He added it is likelier U.S. policy toward Iran would change in fairly dramatic ways. Obama repeated his call for diplomatic contacts with Tehran.

This week Jewish doves continued trying to figure exactly what Obama’s rhetorical shift might mean both for the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian debate in this country and for U.S. policy if he is nominated and elected.

“We need to be a little like the old Kremlinologists, inferring policy changes on the basis of inflections,” said Dan Fleshler, a Jewish public relations executive in New York, blogger and longtime Jewish peace activist.

He called the Cleveland meeting a turning point because Obama “showed that he understands the complexities of the situation, and that he will not pander to Jews who are only comfortable with confrontational stances.”

Like Obama, Jewish groups on the left are trying to walk a precarious line, he said.

“Some have openly embraced him as someone who will send out a message of change,” he said. “But many are being careful; there is a sense that openly endorsing and promoting him in this political environment could exacerbate the insecurities of American Jews.”

Still, the Republicans — and during the remaining primaries, the Hillary Clinton campaign — will make the case that Obama’s thirst for “new ideas” represents a threat to the special U.S.-Israel relationship.

With Pennsylvania now looming large, the Clinton campaign is in an odd place, said one leading Jewish activist.

“A lot of her support in the Jewish community is coming from Jews who thought Bill Clinton was a great president for Israel,” said this activist, who is supporting Clinton. “But she’s basically keeping silent about his Mideast policies; the impression one gets is that it’s Barack Obama who is now the leading advocate of Clinton administration policies in the Middle East.”

There’s no ambiguity on the part of the Republicans as the Democratic marathon continues.

This week the Republican Jewish Coalition issued a broadside calling Obama “naïve” for his call for talks with Iran and other rogue nations.

Previewing the fall campaign if Obama is nominated, RJC director Matthew Brooks blasted the Democrat’s “shaky grasp of Middle East realities” and said his “proposed policies are not only confusing and inconsistent, but above all, they are naïve and dangerous.”

Hawkish pro-Israel activists say that Obama’s Cleveland appearance just confirms what they’ve been saying all along: that if he is elected, U.S. policy would return to what they say are the failed policies of Oslo.

“American policy has moved to pressure Israel in a stronger way in the past 15 years: promoting [Palestinian] statehood, pushing Israel for one-sided concessions, and with continuous criticism of Israeli self-defense,” said Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America. “With Obama, based on what he’s said, I believe there is reason to expect even greater pressure on Israel.”

Herb Zweibon, chairman of Americans for a Safe Israel, agreed that an Obama presidency would probably not change policies he says are hurting Israel’s security.

“What could be worse than Condi Rice and President Bush?” he said. “I’m not an Obama supporter, but what differentiates him from those two, who continue to demand (Palestinian statehood) within a year, who continue pressuring the Israelis? I don’t see any real difference.”

Westchester Jewish Conference

Westchester’s Jewish Community Relations Organization