Obama: Neither The Lobby Nor Jewish Congressmen Represent Jewish Americans

[Jefferson23]

Akiva Eldar, the Israeli reporter, reveals that, in a meeting with Jewish Members of Congress, the President was apologetic about his tough stand on settlements.

Hopefully, the report is false. Both the American Jewish community and the American people at large support Obama on this issue. The 78% who voted for him are not Israel-firsters or they wouldn't have voted for him in the first place. Jews who put Israeli interests first vote Republican because, since Jimmy Carter's day, they know that the Democrats will promote negotiations and the Republians won't. (Of course, even the Democrats don't do much). And they know that Barack Obama does not share their contempt for Muslims and Arabs.

Also, Obama should not meet with Jewish Representatives about Israel per se. First, none of these guys represent Jews. They represent St. Paul or West Los Angeles or Manhattan or whatever. It is one thing to meet with African-Americans as African-Americans on domestic issues because they are not meeting with the President to convey messages from a foreign government. Members of Congress represent only their own constituency, not their tribe.

snip* On top of that, the lobby is collapsing. The President should read Peter Beinart's amazing piece on the lobby's collapse before he wastes five seconds with AIPAC, Eric Cantor or Gary Ackerman. These people are irrelevant on the Middle East. (Ackerman is the go-to guy on matters relating to Queens and Cantor can speaking for the Republican Robots in Congress).

snip* Ignore these guys, Mr. President. And remember General Petraeus' warning...


in full: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mj-rosenberg/obama-neither-the-lobby-n_b_586819.html

[shaayecanaan]

1. I must admit it is a bit strange...

After all, you don't see Obama meeting with black people to discuss foreign policy vis-a-vis Liberia.

[oberliner]

2. Cuban American National Foundation calls for new US Cuba policy

A 14-page proposal from the Cuban American National Foundation lays out what the document calls “a break from the past” that would “chart a new direction for U.S.-Cuba policy.”

It is the basis of an ongoing discussion with the Obama administration, White House and foundation officials said, and it amounts to the group’s most significant rejection of a national approach to Cuba that it helped shape and that has been defined by hostility and limited contact with the island.

http://havanajournal.com/cuban_americans/entry/cuban-american-national-foundation-calls-for-new-us-cuba-policy/

[shaayecanaan]

4. You'd be pleased to know I have an opinion on the Cuban lobby as well...

it sort of fits in with my general opinion on the wisdom of formulating foreign policy to coddle up to domestic constituencies.

[oberliner]

3. "Ignore these guys" ?

Should the opinions of Dennis Kucinich on foreign policy be ignored as well? Should he only be spoken to on topics related to Northeastern Ohio?

Lots of folks inside and outside of Congress have opinions regarding foreign policy that are worth listening to.

Another bizarro piece from the amazingly prolific self-important blogger.

[Jefferson23]

5. He knows the opinions of the people in question is

worthless on this subject, and he is specific about that.



"Ignore these guys, Mr. President. And remember General Petraeus' warning: the Israeli-Palestinian status quo is endangering America. That should be the President's main concern: keeping America and Americans safe. And that means pushing Israelis and Palestinians to a final status solution, now. Not just for them. For us."


Another bizarro piece from the amazingly self important blogger? Perhaps I misread your opinion of him during a previous conversation where you used a similar label. Part of that exchange you seemed to later clarify your opinion of Rosenberg.

Jefferson23 (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-23-10 02:13 PM
Response to Reply #12
15. " I would argue that 99 percent of Americans have no idea who he is."
If that were true, I imagine that is comforting for those who oppose his viewpoint and his work at Media Matters.
Abolish The Unitary Executive Theory


Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top
oberliner (1000+ posts) Fri Apr-23-10 05:07 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. You disagree?
I could be wrong - he may be more widely known than that.

I don't know anyone who opposes his viewpoint or his work at Media Matters.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x311267

[oberliner]

6. Gary Ackerman is the Congressional Chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee

This has been one of his primary areas of focus in Congress. He has met with the current and most past Israeli prime ministers and the heads of all the Arab countries. It is preposterous to call Gary Ackerman's opinion on the topic "worthless".

With regard to my previous comments on this same blogger, my point in that post was that almost no one knows who he is or has any particular opinion about his viewpoints, pro or con. Thus the "self-important" label I have ascribed upon him repeatedly. Though he is no doubt building a growing internet following thanks to his prolific blogging on the Huffington Post and elsewhere.

I personally find his writing style pompous and grating - sort of like the equally prolific Alan Dershowitz who also manages to pump out numerous pieces on the Huffington Post and elsewhere.

[Jefferson23]

7. So what you said previously about not knowing anyone who disagrees

with his views nor his work at Media Matters was not reflective of your opinion of him...is that correct?

I'm not debating the merits of Rosenberg with you, I believe his background and work as well as his past affiliation with AIPAC
lends him a unique perspective. As well, I enjoy his candor and he has no reputation for smearing people with lies as Dershowitz employs, they
are each different and distinct men.

snip* "Shortly after University of California Press announced publication on my book Beyond Chutzpah, Professor Alan Dershowitz of Harvard Law School began alleging that my late mother was, or I believed she was, a Nazi collaborator during World War II. In an article for FrontPageMag.com (”Why is the University of California Press Publishing Bigotry?” 5 July 2005), Dershowitz stated that “ suspects his mother of having been a kapo (’really, how else would she have survived?’ he asks rhetorically),” while in a statement posted on Harvard University Law School’s official webpage, Dershowitz wrote that “He suspects his own mother of being a kapo and cooperating with the Nazis during the Holocaust” (law.harvard.edu/faculty/dershowitz/). http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/who-was-maryla-husyt-finkelstein/


So, we'll just disagree on the subject, I was just curious about your statement back in April.


Ackerman's position is predictable and you could say, depending on one's point of view, that he has something to offer. But I would disagree,
on many levels. I don't believe Rosenberg is alone with that opinion and with good reason.


"The non-binding resolution, H. Con. Res 362, was introduced just days before the annual American Israel Public Affairs policy meeting in which Iran was the main topic. AIPAC has lobbied Congress heavily to implement sanctions against Iran in language nearly identical to the provisions outlined in Ackerman’s House resolution." http://www.atlanticfreepress.com/content/view/4507/32/ (end)

snip* Ordinarily, the American Israel Policy Action Committee (AIPAC) has an influence on U.S. foreign policy which goes unchallenged. In the case of the current House resolution, H. Con. Res. 362, despite the intense pressure exerted by AIPAC, some members of the United States House of Representatives who initially were about to rubber stamp this reckless non-binding resolution promoted by the powerful pro-Israel lobbying group, are having a change of heart. After receiving many thousands of messages which pointed out that the resolution could be interpreted as Congressional authorization for military action against Iran, some legislators began expressing their own reservations.
On May 19, 2008, a 12-member House delegation led by House Speaker Pelosi met with Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. At that lunch meeting, Olmert proposed that a naval blockade be imposed on Iran in order to stop its uranium enrichment program. Present at this meeting were: Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman, and AIPAC loyalists Reps. Nita Lowey and Gary Ackerman. Three days after this meeting, Mr. Ackerman introduced the resolution H. Con. Res. 362 in the House....

Many people, already alarmed by U.S. and Israeli saber-rattling, were startled at the aggressive tone of the AIPAC resolution. They reacted especially adversely to the clause prohibiting imports of refined petroleum which appeared to demand a blockade. Even if a blockade did not materialize, passage of the resolution could be understood by the Bush administration as a Congressional authorization for the use of force against Iran.

At the very least, passage of H. Con. Res. 362 would indicate a lack of Congressional resolve to prevent the U.S. from expanding America's Middle East war to Iran. This is especially worrisome in light of the fact that, as Seymour Hersh has written in The New Yorker, a Congressional delegation led by Nancy Pelosi has already authorized 400 million dollars for covert operations in Iran aimed at arming dissident groups and subverting Iranian nuclear sites.

Ackerman's middling career in Congress has been dominated by his continual introduction of measures aggressively favorable to Israel. See the Jewish Daily Forward for a 2006 account of Ackerman's power as an extension of AIPAC in Congress. Too bad he wasn't focused more on the SEC back then.


http://blogs.villagevoice.com/pressclips/archives/2009/02/gary_ackermans.php

[oberliner]

8. I think you misunderstood that earlier post (probably my fault)

I apologize if I was not sufficiently clear in the point I was making in that post you referenced. You wrote that some people might consider him to be a turncoat. I responded that I did not think anyone considers him that, as most people don't even know who he is (let alone what his prior occupations were). You then wrote something about my claim being comforting (if true) to those who oppose his viewpoint and work at Media Matters. My response was that I knew no one who opposed his viewpoint or work at Media Matters. I made that comment because I don't know anyone who knows what his viewpoint is or knows that he works for Media Matters. I have never heard this person mentioned outside of internet message boards. I guess I was making a distinction between the real world (where I have never encountered his name or any mention of him) and internet-land where a small cadre of folks do have opinions on his writing, positive and negative.

I think it's fine to argue that you don't agree with Ackerman's stance on issues related to Israel, but I think it's silly to say that Obama should ignore him and that his views are worthless. Being that Ackerman is the Chairman of the Middle East Subcommittee (and a Democrat), it seems preposterous for the blogger to make such a statement.

[Jefferson23]

9. Ah I see, thanks for the clarification, and why you believe no one

knows of Rosenberg here in internet land, as you call it, with a few exceptions of course.

As far as Ackerman, there is nothing silly about ignoring advice from someone who does not support your policy, but does support
whatever AIPAC tells you to do. It is your opinion Ackerman has value, I haven't heard why he does, a Democrat that opposes Obama's
approach to Israel does not qualify him as an asset. His Chairmanship has yielded something the newspapers missed I guessed on his
efforts toward a peace deal. Ignoring bad advice is the essence of his OP, I think that is abundantly clear.

[oberliner]

10. I think his OP is saying something else

He writes (in reference to Ackerman and others): "These people are irrelevant on the Middle East." He is not saying to ignore any "bad advice" he might get from these folks, rather he is saying that Obama should not even be talking to any of them in the first place.

And just to clarify, Ackerman does not oppose Obama's approach to Israel and does not do whatever AIPAC tells him to do. Ackerman supports Obama's policies with respect to Israel and the Middle East. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise.

Some examples:

Ackerman rips critics of Obama on engagement: "Shameless nonsense!"

Calling the last administration's record in the Middle East a "spectacular disaster," Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Middle East subcommittee, came out guns blazing today to ridicule hawks who criticize the Obama administration's efforts to engage Syria as appeasement.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0410/Ackerman_rips_critics_of_Obama_on_engagement_Shameless_nonsense_.html

Rep Ackerman Clarifies Position: Supports Peace, Supports Obama, Supports Settlement Freeze

Well, whatever the Jewish press and Politico thought (or hoped) Ackerman’s views might be, today’s statement is clear: Chairman Ackerman is not saying families shouldn’t grow, or that people should not have babies, but he is saying that settlement construction must stop, period. This is the view that the Chairman, clearly and unequivocally, has articulated today. It is a welcome and important clarification from Chairman Ackerman.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/06/rep-ackerman-clarifies-position-supports-peace-supports-obama-supports-settlement-freeze.php

Matthew Yglesias, noted liberal blogger, said the following about Ackerman:

I did an item critical of Ackerman based on that Politico report, so I feel a special obligation to correct the record. Ackerman, as a Jewish representative from a district with many Jewish constituents, has—like Rep Robert Wexler (D-FL)—an especially important role to play as an advocate for a progressive approach to the region. He should be the kind of member who signals to other members that it’s kosher to be against settlement expansion.

[Jefferson23]

11. He shouldn't talk to them, as in put them on extinction? That is a literal

translation and unfounded unless you apply that reasoning.

Ackerman helped champion the letter via AIPAC and has been given a thumbs up from AIPAC for his efforts. The OP you listed is from June 2009.


AIPAC Applauds Overwhelming Bipartisan House Letter. Friday, March 26, 2010 at 4:12pm

The House letter was being sent to the Secretary of State today with 327 signatures.

AIPAC applauds House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Republican Whip Eric Cantor(R-VA), House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Howard Berman (D-CA) and Ranking Member Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL) and Mideast subcommittee Chairman Gary Ackerman (D-NY) and Ranking Member Dan Burton (R-IN) for their leadership on this letter and for the unprecedented speed with which the effort took place.

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=376301769579

[oberliner]

12. AIPAC has given Obama a thumbs up for many of his efforts as well

Obama's decision to request funding to assist with Israel's missile defense program being the most recent example.

Obama authorizes $205 million for Iron Dome - May 13, 2010

Excerpt:

The American Israel Public Affairs Committee praised the White House announcement.

"This important step, which will reduce the threat from Hamas and Hezbollah rocket attacks, is a tribute to America’s commitment to Israel’s defense and underscores our fundamental security cooperation with Israel, an island of democracy surrounded by a sea of hostile terrorist and totalitarian threats," AIPAC said in a statement. "In approving this funding, President Obama is bringing to fruition his promise to help ensure safety for the people of Sderot and other Israeli communities."

http://jta.org/news/article/2010/05/13/2394806/obama-authorizes-205-million-for-iron-dome

[Jefferson23]

13. Maybe they'll take back their letter they

needed to get out there so fast. Maybe even Ackerman can champion a recall on it, until then, Rosenberg gives sound advice.

[oberliner]

14. Not sure what needs to be "taken back" or "recalled" about this letter

It seems quite benign. Large numbers of Democrats signed the letter. Reading through it, there isn't really anything that I'd imagine Obama would find particularly objectionable.

The letter states that it is "more important than ever for Israel and the Palestinians to enter into direct, face-to-face negotiations..."

It makes reference to the Obama's administrations "best efforts" towards helping make that a reality.

The letter urges the Obama administration to make sure any tensions do not adversely affect the restarting of the peace process.

The letter quotes Vice President Biden's remarks about the role of the US in the region.

It seems that Obama agrees with the thrust of the letter, as he has redoubled efforts to try to facilitate face-to-face negotiations between the Israeli and Palestinian leadership with the US acting as a mediator.

He appears to have heeded the advice of not letting any of those earlier tensions interfere with taking steps toward a peace agreement.

[Jefferson23]

15. Well I'm glad to know you hold that opinion, that the letter seems

quite benign to you. If that were true, I wonder why they even wrote it in the first place and sent it with such urgency.

Obama wasn't doing anything to cause tensions, so HE isn't the one that needed a letter.


Obama appears to have heeded their advice? I don't see evidence of that, not at all.



Israel quietly freezes new building in East Jerusalem
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2010/0427/Israel-quietly-freezes-new-building-in-East-Jerusalem


Obama offered Netanyahu a gentlemen's agreement on Jerusalem



snip* When on Wednesday a senior U.S. official told the Wall Street Journal that Netanyahu had unequivocally rejected U.S. demands for a freeze in East Jerusalem, he conveniently provided the prime minister with a thick smokescreen to hide behind.

The alacrity with which the government confirmed such a 'damaging' report attests this - and we can now presume the crisis is over. As long as Jews aren't building in Sheikh Jarrakh or Ramat Shlomo, America couldn't care less was Israel says or doesn't say over a Jerusalem construction freeze.

Washington understands that Netanyahu can't afford to admit, not even obliquely, that he is treating Jerusalem like the West Bank settlements, where building has been banned until September. As far as the America's is concerned, Netanyahu can run and tell his friends that what goes for Tel Aviv goes for Jerusalem - as long Obama officials don't wake the next morning to newspaper reports that Israel has approved a new building program in the Holy City.

What Obama has demanded from Netanyahu is in essence a 'gentlemen's agreement' that Israel will not launch new building tenders in East Jerusalem as long as proximity talks with the Palestinians continue. Obama needs this commitment in order to convince Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas that that he is not playing into the hands of Hamas.


http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1164679.html