Print This Post
Jun
13
Until now, the settlement issue has been far from a pivotal part of the American Jewish calculus. Zionism in contemporary America has been an elastic enough concept to contain ardent supporters of the settlement movement and queasy critics of it; in the end they were separated less by settlements than they were united on Israel’s behalf in the wars against Hamas and Hizbullah, the construction of the security barrier and the prosecution of Operation Defensive Shield during the second intifada.
American Zionists were also mollified by the contradictory actions of Israel itself – the continuing expansion of settlements appealing to the Right, and the official willingness to trade territory for peace placating the Left. Everybody could say he or she was at one with Israel.
With Netanyahu in Jerusalem and Obama in Washington, however, these internal fault lines are being stressed. For Obama to retain massive Jewish support while criticizing the Israeli government, he has to provoke American Jewry into an entirely different kind of discussion and alignment.
THIS DEBATE WOULDN’T pit Zionism against anti-Zionism – the easy and conventional argument – but Zionism against Zionism in a way familiar to Israelis but barely comprehended by American Jews. The central question would be whether the settlements are the fulfillment of Zionism’s pioneering spirit or the betrayal of Zionism’s commitment to a democratic state with a Jewish majority.
And Ohio?
You can feel the ground shifting. Yes, it’s predictable that J Street, the well-funded left-wing lobby, would back Obama on the settlement issue. What strikes me as far more revealing is that Ed Koch and Jeffrey Goldberg, a politician and journalist respectively who are centrist or even center-right on the American Jewish spectrum, have become so publicly critical of the settlement movement as an obstacle to peace.
Obama had better hope for hundreds of thousands like them. Jewish support was crucial to his victory in Florida last fall, and more than helpful in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio. Had he not been running during an economic meltdown, which was easily and accurately pinned on the outgoing Republican administration, his victory would have been a squeaker.
His re-election certainly could be.
“The rule of Jewish voting patterns has always been that Jews vote for more liberal candidates who are not believed to be hostile to Israel,” Bayme says. “As long as Obama is perceived to be committed to Israel, he won’t be in trouble. But if this plays out as a real confrontation, then the previous pattern of Jewish voters recoiling is likely to come into play.”
The interesting element that’s been absent from many of the myriad published opinions, however, is the need for the Israelis to make these choices. I’ve never been a supporter of the settlements, but I don’t call Israel my home. For the people that do – Arab, Druze, Christian, Muslim, Jew, Bedouin – whomever else I might be missing – it’s up to them.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 9:46 am June 13th, 2009 in Barack Obama, Government, Israel, Jewish, Ohio, Politics, Religion, Whitehouse09, democracy, leadership, middle east, peace
Comments
3 Responses to “Exactly correct on American Jews, Obama, Israel & settlements, w/Ohio Jewish mention”
Leave a Reply
2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
by Tips and TricksNews Now
While it is Israel’s issue to solve, there is the little matter of American support both militarily and economically.
Jumping into the politics, I have a problem with Obama’s tack here for a variety of reasons. I think that he is over reaching.
There are number of issues here that need to be addressed. The first is the need to come to a consensus on defining what a settlement is.
Without an understanding it makes it difficult to negotiate. Some people argue that cities like Tel Aviv are settlements and others say that they are something closer to a hilltop outpost consisting of a few trailers.
There is no unified Palestinian gov’t. Abbas doesn’t speak for Hamas. Hamas refuses to recognize Israel.
Israel disengaged from Gaza and Hamas turned it into a launching pad for terrorist attacks.
I don’t argue that Israel is blame free, but Obama’s tack doesn’t do enough to hold the other side accountable.
If you look at the rhetoric coming from them you can see that to be so. Mubarak lectures Israel about peace, but does nothing to stop the import of weapons into the tunnels from the Egyptian side.
The humanitarians, the Saudis lecture Israel about this. But they insist on letting girls die in a fire because they think that they are improperly dressed, flog a 75 year old woman for being with a man she is not related to etc.
Flipping back to the Pals, Olmert offered Abbas the following and was turned down:
97% of the West Bank
Right of Return for Palestinian refugees
East Jerusalem
He turned Olmert down because they are unwilling to acknowledge a legitimate Jewish connection.
Bottom line, we can press for peace, but we have to work on building a real foundation for it first.
I actually agree with you almost completely here – but the spate of articles and columns in the last couple of days about how the settlements will be portrayed by both sides so that each can claim a win or not giving in – how do you see that excerbating or abating the problems? I see it as a stall technique.