Because Nader said so, that’s why
Here’s how crazy this election has become: Republican Jews are beginning to take Ralph Nader at his word.
A Republican Jewish Coalition email titled “Nader Calls Out Obama’s ‘Pro-Palestinian’ Past” quotes the Pinto-phobic election spoiler from Sunday’s “Meet the Press” appearance. Here’s what Nader told Tim Russert, referring to Obama:
He’s run a brilliant tactical campaign. But his better instincts and his knowledge have been censored by himself. And I give you the example, the Palestinian-Israeli issue, which is a real off the table issue for the candidates. So don’t touch that, even though it’s central to our security and to, to the situation in the Middle East. He was pro-Palestinian when he was in Illinois before he ran for the state Senate, during he ran–during the state Senate. Now he’s, he’s supporting the Israeli destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people. He doesn’t have any sympathy for a civilian death ratio of about 300-to-1; 300 Palestinians to one Israeli.
Here’s how RJC executive director Matt Brooks spins Nader’s (unsubstantiated) assertion that Obama “was pro-Palestinian” before he ran for the state Senate:
“Ralph Nader added to the debate on Senator Obama’s views on Israel and the Middle East and raised serious doubts and questions about the true leanings of Senator Obama on these important issues….
People should be very skeptical of Barack Obama’s shaky Middle East policies. When a long-time political activist like Ralph Nader, with a well-documented, anti-Israel bias, claims that Senator Obama shares this anti-Israel bias, that is alarming,” said Matt Brooks. “If Senator Obama supports Ralph Nader’s policies, which consistently condemn Israel’s right to defend itself against terrorism, and if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president, it once again raises serious questions about his grasp of the geo-political realities of the Middle East and puts into doubt his commitment to the safety and security of Israel. These are important questions we in the community will be asking.”
Here’s another question: Since when did the ”pro-Israel” community start relying on Ralph Nader to vet presidential candidates?Nader, whom the RJC reminds us has a “well-documented, anti-Israel bias,” is disappointed in Obama because Obama has not been anti-Israel. In fact, according to Nader, Obama has apparently supported the destruction of Gaza and doesn’t care how many Palestinans the Israelis have killed. The average listener might think, “So if someone with an anti-Israel bias disagrees with Obama, wouldn’t that mean Obama is pro-Israel?”
But wait. Nader may be unreliable in his Israel politics, suggests the RJC, but when it comes to characterizing Obama’s “true leanings,” he is suddenly unimpeachable.
(Does the RJC also take Nader at his word when he says Israel is complicit in the “destruction of the tiny section called Gaza with a million and a half people”?)
Then there is this rhetorical gem from Brooks: “…if Sen. Obama has only reversed his positions to run for president…” Why “if”? Obama has been in elected office since 1997, and public figure for a number of years before that. Can the RJC confirm Nader’s characterization of Obama’s ”pro-Palestinian” former life in word or deed?
The RJC is about winning votes for Republicans — it’s not an American Jewish policy-making body on Israel or anything elese. But there is this weird trend afoot that the words and actions of politicians are no longer enough to count them as pro-Israel — somewhow, they need to convince us of their “true leanings,” that their blood runs blue and white. It’s a bizarre new standard — and an earlier generation of Jewish Republicans would blanch to think that their offspring would risk alienating pro-Israel politicians of either party with innuendo and shifting goal lines.
Advertisement
JustASC is written by Andrew Silow-Carroll, Editor-in-Chief of the 
February 26th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Note: Revised
If Jewish publications don’t examine concerns about candidates regarding Israel and the Jewish community, who will?
You have successfully proven Mr. Brooks is a political partisan. Yet there are many Americans of all political persuasions who have wondered if a President Obama would support Israel. You are also correct that Ralph Nader mischaracterizes Israeli actions and intentions as do so many other pro-Palestinian activists. Does that mean he can’t tell which side of the Arab-Israeli conflict Mr. Obama used to sympathize with?
Mr. Nader isn’t the first Palestinian advocate to express frustration that Mr. Obama’s stance toward Israel has changed since entering national politics. Ali Abunimah wrote on the anti-Israel website, Electronic Intifada, of an encounter with Senator Obama at a gathering in December 2004:
“[I] went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, ‘Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.’ He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, ‘Keep up the good work!’”
Maybe he was just being a typical politician telling whoever crossed his path what he thought that person wanted to hear. Or, perhaps other Palestinian activists are keeping these stories to themselves hoping the result will be a friend in the White House.
Better yet, from the Arab-Muslim point of view, he would be a friend in the White House who made it there at least in part because of his many major Jewish donors, while Jewish newspaper editors shot down any incoming suggestions of the candidate’s anti-Israel ties or sentiments, taking apart the messenger when it is candidate whose record, statements, and yes, his “true leanings” that need to be dissected.
What I think would be far more valuable to the Jewish community would be to thoroughly examine Senator Obama’s adult life with regards to his positions on Israel, his concern (or lack of concern) with anti-Semitism among colleagues and his attitudes toward the Jewish community.
I hope the answer you find is that Senator Obama is as friendly toward Israel and the Jewish community as Senators Clinton and McCain, both of whom also have had some troubling associations, advisors and positions on Middle Eastern issues. Any concerns raised about those candidates deserve scrutiny as well.
However, unlike Mr. Obama, Mrs. Clinton and Mr. McCain have long histories of friendship with the Jewish community, and public records that go back decades. They have been thoroughly vetted by the press in previous national campaigns.
How many of those vouching for Mr. Obama’s pro-Israel credentials had even heard of him prior to the 2004 Democratic National Convention? As advocates for strong American-Israel ties, part of their job is to build relations with all candidates. Thus, they are less likely to be critical of any potential power holder, choosing instead to emphasize areas of cooperation and agreement.
The press–especially the American Jewish press–has a different responsibility. Investigating–rather than dismissing–concerns about a Presidential candidate’s support for Israel and his tolerance for anti-Semitism among colleagues (besides citing a quote or two made in response to said concerns during a campaign) is an important service that Jewish newspapers need to perform, especially given how gently Mr. Obama has been treated by mainstream journalists.
February 26th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
It seems to me that giving the RJC even the benefit of suggesting that they have a motive other than smearing a Democrat, any Democrat, is ludicrous. The RJC is just another political thuggery using whatever blunt instrument is available to bludgeon the opposition. Truth and reason have no place in our current political climate.
February 27th, 2008 at 9:53 am
Yes, the RJC has a political motive.
Does that mean that we shouldn’t have any concerns about Senator Obama’s close relationship with an anti-Israel pastor who calls the anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan a great truth-teller?
Would you remain a member of a synagogue or church that had its spiritual leader honor such a vicious and notorious bigot as Farrakhan?
May 15th, 2013 at 1:12 pm
982717 879915I discovered your blog website on google and check just a couple of of your early posts. Proceed to preserve up the outstanding operate. I just extra up your RSS feed to my MSN Info Reader. Seeking forward to reading much more from you in a whilst!