9 Comment(s)

1. I think Krauthammer is absolutely correct. I amy not always agree with him but in this instance he is 100% correct.

   Phyllis Ginsburg | Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

2. You may be interested in the following letter:
   (thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html)

   My Neighbor, Barack
   by Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf
   Published on: Mar 19, 2008

   Not everyone can claim to be the neighbor of a Presidential candidate - I can, though, because I am.

   Barack Obama’s Chicago home is across the street from KAM Isaiah Israel, the Hyde Park synagogue at which I’ve served for 27 years. He spoke to our congregation as an Illinois state senator; more recently, his Secret Service agents have made use of our, shall we say, facilities.

   But it’s not neighborly instinct that’s led me to support the Obama candidacy: I support Barack Obama because he stands for what I believe, what our tradition demands.

   We sometimes forget, but an integral part of that tradition is dialogue and a willingness to disagree. Certainly many who call me their rabbi have taken political positions far from mine - just as Barack Obama’s opinions have differed from those of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

   On March 18, the candidate gave a speech that made abundantly clear that he and Wright often disagree. Obama condemned Wright’s “incendiary language,” and “views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but… that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation.”

   Of course, race is only one issue on which Wright has stepped beyond the bounds of civil discourse. He’s frequently made statements regarding Israel and the Jewish community that I find troubling. But to limit our understanding of Obama to the ill-conceived comments of the man who once led his church is dishonest and self-defeating.

   Obama’s strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we’re sidetracked by Wright’s words, we’ll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation.

   Many people remain concerned that Obama isn’t committed to Israel. Some want him to fall in line behind the intransigent, conservative thinking that has silenced Jewish debate on Israeli policy and enabled the Bush Administration’s criminal neglect of the diplomatic process.

   Clearly, though, anyone who thinks Obama waffles on Israel hasn’t been paying attention. In 2007, he spoke to AIPAC about “a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel.” Today, his website states clearly that America’s “first and incontrovertible commitment in the Middle East must be to the security of Israel.”

   For my part, I’ve sometimes found Obama too cautious on Israel. He, like all our politicians, knows he mustn’t stray too far from the conventional line, and that can be disappointing. But unlike anyone else on the stump, Obama has also made it clear that he’ll broaden the dialogue. He knows what peace entails.

   Speaking recently before a Jewish audience in Cleveland, Obama did the unthinkable - he challenged the room. He talked about the need to ask “difficult questions” on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: “I sat down with the head of Israeli security forces,” he said “and his view of the Palestinians was incredibly nuanced…. There’s good and there’s bad, and he was willing to say sometimes we make mistakes… and if we’re just pressing down on these folks constantly, without giving them some prospects for hope, that’s not good for our security.”

   Yet, in spite of all of Obama’s strengths, we’ve been loathe to admit a difficult truth: Among some American Jews, race plays a key role in the hesitation to support the Obama candidacy. We’ve forgotten that Black and Jewish America once shared a common vision. In the civil rights era, I and many in our community stood shoulder to shoulder with the giants of our generation, demanding freedom for all Americans.

   Obama himself doesn’t share our amnesia, however. “I would not be sitting here,” he said in Cleveland, “if it were not for a whole host of Jewish Americans.” That was literal truth, but not everyone remembers it.

   I’ve worked with Obama for more than a decade, as has my son, a lawyer who represents children and people with disabilities. He has admired Obama’s dedication and skill as he worked on issues affecting our most vulnerable citizens.

   Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present.

   Barack Obama is brilliant and open-hearted; he is wiser and more thoughtful than his former minister. He offers what America, Israel, and the Jewish community need: a US President willing to ask hard questions, and grapple with difficult answers.

   I am very proud to be his neighbor. I hope someday to visit him in the White House.

   Rabbi Arnold Jacob Wolf is rabbi emeritus at Chicago’s KAM Isaiah Israel, Illinois’s oldest Jewish congregation.

   SJC | Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

3. Thank you Rabbi for your beautiful, heartfelt, intelligent letter. These days I find myself reluctant to read the postings on these pages. They are often angry, misinformed, hateful screeds from people on the right. I understand people are fearful — I am too. I’m not sure if America can withstand another Republican administration. The thought of having McCain as president is a terrifying thought. Barack is the only person running who has the imagination, the courage and the leadership skills to lead this country at this critical juncture in our history. We desperately need Barack. In response to some of the people who accused Jewish Barack supporters of being “guilty liberals” — the people I know who support Barack may feel guilt but not about our belief in his ability to lead this nation. We’re proud to support him. I’m proud to be support him. Just as I’m proud of being Jewish.

   Bruce Pachtman | Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

4. At this time, I can’t say anything better than the words spoken by Rabbi Wolf and Bruce Pachtman, so I’ll simply wholheartedly add AMEN and AMEN. Martin Shapiro

   Martin Shapiro | Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

5. I have mixed feelings about Obama, and am not yet sure of how I will vote. And I am not at all convinced by Rabbi Wolf’s positive comments - he clearly is more interested in supporting Obama because of his personal connection, because he shares his liberalism, and because of the “symbolism” of supporting a black man and reliving the civil rights struggle. But I am just puzzled by Bruce Pachtman’s comments about “guilty liberalism”. The phrase does not mean, as he seems to think, that you feel guilty about being a liberal. It means you support liberal policy and politicians because it helps assuage a sense of guilt over your own affluence, and America’s past racial sins. Policies are best chosen because they have been shown to work in furthering one’s values, and not for reasons of making oneself feel good or to symbolise that you are one of the “good guys” who identify with victim groups. I have no idea whether or not Mr. Pachtman is an examplar of “guilty liberalism” but the fact that he is so “proud” to support Obama, and attaches such symbolic weight to this act, actually suggests that he might be, contrary to what he seems to think.

   Obama certainly speaks beautifully, but I still worry about his substance, including on Israel, especially given the “black liberation” church background he has come out of.

   Tzvi Fleischer | Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

6. To Tzvi - Actually, my definition of “guilty liberals” is identical to yours. It was a term that was included in a posting on this site. I saw it yesterday but it was actually included weeks ago. The writer implied that white people (or more likely Jewish people) who were backing Obama were doing so because they were “guilty liberals”. It’s just not the case.

   Bruce Pachtman | Mar 25, 2008 | Reply

7. the test of a Presidential candidate (from a Jewish perspective) should not be the warped Council of Presidents of major Jewish Organizations criteria that she or he be to the right of Bibi Netanyahu… but that he or she has internalized the vital interests of Jews and Israel and values the contributions of both to world civilization. ALL the candidates at this point pass the test with flying colors. so now Jews should enlarge on our criteria and must ask the question who will best care for the sick, teach the young, bring hope and jobs to the downtrodden? or isn’t Vayikra (leviticus) 25:25 still part of our agenda?

   avram moshe | Mar 26, 2008 | Reply

8. Dear Avram,

   I don’t want Obama to be to the right of Netanyahu, but I do want a US President who maximises the chances of creating peace, and this means having a real understanding of the obstacles to it on the Palestinian and Arab side. I think even well-meaning attempts to force a settlement, perhaps for “Israel’s own good” as percieved, make peace farther away rather than closer. So I do look for a candidate who, in my opinion, genuinely understands Middle East reality. I have no problem in that regard with anything Obama has said during the campaign - I do worry about the sort of people he is likely to tap as his advisors when President. And this worsens if there are signs, as there are in Obama’s case, that the candidate in the past, at least, sympathised with strongly anti-Israel voices - so he may be susceptable to the policy advice of these advisors to “force” Israel to “solve” the Palestinian problem in a way that will not lead to lasting peace.

   As for caring for the sick, teaching the young, and bringing hope to the downtrodden, I of course support all these goals. I do question where in scripture it is written that this is best-accomplished by an ever-increasing federal welfare state. Politics is about trade-offs, and conclusions about the best means to achieve competing ends, as well as about one’s values. Let’s not pretend “Jewish values” can definteively resolve these tough choices for us.

   Tzvi Fleischer | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply

9. My family and I immigrated to the United States from Canada and settled in Florida in 1996. In order to establish roots and connect with our new community and society we joined a Reform Jewish Temple in Boca Raton, where we had bought a home. There were many instances that we did not agree with the ideology of the majority of the congregation as it was more liberal than we were, but we enjoyed many other things about the Temple. We chose to enjoy the good and to ignore and discard that which we didn’t like. After all, nothing is perfect.

   In March 2006, Hamas won an election in newly-unoccupied Gaza, shocking much of the world. Hamas is an Iran-backed Shia Muslim terror organization whose charter calls for the destruction of Israel. Meanwhile in America, 387 Rabbis signed a petition urging President Bush to not discontinue foreign aid funding to Hamas in order to facilitate “dialogue”. Two of the four Rabbis at our Temple were signatories to that petition. In my view, any money sent to Hamas would be used for weapons or for suicide bombers to attack Israel and kill innocent Israelis. Simply put, these Rabbis were advocating for America to fund the murder of Jews. I found this to be if not repugnant, mortally naive. This Temple stood for something that was diametrically opposed to those things we believed in. We resigned our membership. We left.

   Senator Barrack Obama was in a situation not dissimilar to my own. He was (still is) a member of a church where the Pastor has delivered many sermons which were extremist, incendiary, treasonous, bigoted and racist. The Reverend Jeremiah Wright sermonized that “white America” invented the AIDS virus to kill blacks; He claims America deserved 9/11, that it was just “the chickens coming home to roost”, perhaps because America supported Israel, the evil terrorizer of the Palestinians. Rev. Wright has made many other vile statements that we have all heard by now. Rev. Wright admired and honored the anti-Semite racist Louis Farakkahn with a church award. It is absolutely impossible that Senator Obama did not know what the Rev. Jeremiah Wright stood for, having been a member of that church for TWENTY YEARS! Obama knew of the lunatic ranting, he likely heard it, and he stayed at Trinity United Church regardless. Is it illogical to infer that Senator Obama stood for the same things (until we all found out)?

   Senator Obama recently delivered an eloquent speech telling us about racism from many different angles. This was pure excuse-making, equivocation and spin. Nowhere did he condemn Rev. Wright for black supremacist racism. Nowhere did Obama apologize to Americans for being part of this. Nowhere did he say that he should have left Trinity United Church. He said he could no more disown Rev. Wright than he could his racist white grandmother. That is a lie. We cannot choose our grandparents but we can choose our synagogues, our churches, our spiritual leaders. And besides, Obama’s grandmother did not deliver fiery rants from a pulpit before frenzied crowds like Jeremiah Wright did. If Senator Obama was a man of moral integrity and had a bit of courage, he could have - and should have - left his congregation just like I left mine.

   It is a fair discussion whether Senator Barrack Obama has poor judgement or whether he is simply a liar. In either case, he is absolutely undeserving and totally unfit to be President of ALL Americans.

   Perry Birman | Mar 28, 2008 | Reply

Post a Comment