Does Obama still have the ‘kishkes’ problem?
On yesterday's one-year anniversary of Barack Obama's last trip to Israel, the Orthdox Union's Nathan Diament, on his organization's blog, wrote that the president still has the problem he had back then:
On the eve of this critical and historic trip, I wrote that Obama's task on his trip was "to convey convincingly" to Israelis and Jewish voters in the U.S. "that he is...committed to Israel in his kishkes."
Well, Barack Obama was elected president, with a majority of the Jewish vote to be sure, but he is still struggling with the "kishkes test."The President continues to speak of his "unshakable commitment to Israel's security," yet he does not have the confidence of Israelis, even those on the Israeli left.
The President told American Jewish leaders with whom he met last week that he intends to recalibrate how his policies are presented in the public sphere, but there was little indication of substantive policy changes.
Meanwhile, OU president Stephen Savitsky tells the Jewish Tribune in Canada that he might have been able to defend Israeli settlements if the meeting had lasted longer:
Savitsky might have defended the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria and their right to natural growth, “if there was time, if we’d been there a little longer,” he said. “There was not a lot of time to get into some of those issues.
“The conversation really focused more on the perception that there’s not an even-handed policy…. It looks and appears to us that Israel is asked to freeze natural growth and there’s nothing being asked of the other side,” he continued. “I haven’t seen it, but he [Obama] said that hopefully in the coming months or the near future, they’re going to recalibrate their message [to the Arab side].
Share
Facebook
7 Comments
Comments RSS Feed Reader Comments
Embarassed to read the OU’s apologetics...What was there at that meeting that was more important than making clear to Pres. Obama that the OU constituency, at the very least, is deeply upset by his one-sided, misguided policy regarding settlements (and Jerusalem) in particular, and Israel in general?
@Michael Hess
Since when is the settlement of Jews in the territory of the League of Nations mandate illegal? Hey? Jews have both the biblical and the international law right to settle in Yehuda and Shomron. The only claim Arabs had to Yehuda and Shomron was the right of conquest. And this right, they lost in 1967 when Jordan attacked Israel, and lost Yehuda and Shomron in the following war. Most of the land (90% or so) in Yehuda and Shomron is state land, so there is no-one to steal from, if Jews settle on this land.
Ms. Raivich: Thanks for stating what unforunately appears to be a mystery to so many.
What is it that makes so many American Jews so very uncomfortable with the facts of Jewish legitimacy in the Land of Israel? Why do so many of them find it difficult to unabashedly defend this right?
Why do Arab phony claims and libelous accusations carry such cache with the enlightened amonng us?
I think I know what the answers are, but I thopught I’d ask them anyway.
Since you asked, having been a Jew probably longer than those who have made their comments, I find it immoral that a Jew born in the US, the UK, France.South Africa,Australia--you get the idea--has not only more of a right to live in historic Palestine, then those Palestinian Arabs who were born there and whose families lived there and worked the land for generations, but that any suggestion that those who fled or expelled have no right to return to the land of their birth is rejected out of hand. And then they are asked to legitimize the crime committed against them by recognizing Israel as a Jewish state. The world is growing tired of Israel and its belligerency and only AIPAC and the Jewish establishment’s hold over Congress keeps the US at is side as its faithful guardian. But for how long?
Jeffrey Blankfort is right IF you turn history on its head and deny the Brits their internationally recognized right as a mandate governor to declare a Jewish State in the area east of the Jordon (1918), which the U.N. incorporated in its declaration of an independent State of Israel (1947) - (i was around for the later but not for the former - perhaps Mr. Blankfort, claiming the wisdom of old age, was present for both.)
It would also be a twist of history to force a peace on the victor of a defensive war - including requiring resettlement of folks kept in “refugee” status by their Arab brothers for 62 years (when on the average, historically, folks have moved from refugee status to resettling somewhere in an average of 7 years.) But giving Mr. Blankfort the benefit of the doubt, it must be long past due for most of us “Americans”, descendents of non-North Americans, to end our intransience and settle accounts with Native Americans.
Finally, giving Mr. Blankfort the benefit of the doubt, what say he about the status of almost 1 million Jews chased from Arab lands in the late 1940’s leaving behind real estate 7+ times the size of Israel and wealth worth in excess of $50 billion.
Leave a Comment
To leave a comment, you must first be logged in to JTA. If you are not registered, please click here.
Already a JTA member?
Need to know? Get JTA's free e-newsletters!
Michael Hess
07/25/09 02:26 PM
All of the “settlements” are illegal. There is no reason for the victims to do a thing. The onus is on the land and resource thieves that are stealing from the Palestinians.
In civilized countries the criminal does not dictate his or her sentence or punishment, and the criminal certainly does not get to keep the stolen goods!