The K.F. Stone Weekly

Anyone Surprised?

 

    At about 3:30 this morning Eastern Daylight Time, Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khameni addressed a crowd at Tehran University.  In his televised speech -- which took place during Friday prayers -- Khameni praised President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's election as a "definite victory," and sloughed off any and all charges of vote-rigging.  While he called on those who don't believe the results to use "proper legal avenues," such as requesting the recounting of ballots in their presence, he did not issue a call for a new vote.
 
   Anyone surprised?

   Khameni roundly criticized the street protests and proclaimed that "those who cause violence during demonstrations will be held accountable."  Speaking of Ahmadinejad's 11-million vote victory over his primary rival, Mir Hossein Moussavi, the Supreme Leader lectured, "Eleven million votes difference?  Sometimes there's a margin of 100,000 or 200,000, or 1 million maximum.  Then one can doubt maybe there has been some rigging or manipulation or irregularities . . . . But there's a difference of 11 million votes.  How can vote rigging happen?"

   "How can vote rigging happen?"  Let us not insult anyone's intelligence by presuming to answer the question.  Unbelievably, what Khameni posits -- and expects people to swallow -- is that the larger the criminal haul, the less likely a felony has taken place!  In its own way, it's reminiscent of the old Tammany tyrant George Washington "Boss" Plunkett, who famously proclaimed that "In politics, there are two kinds of graft: honest graft and dishonest graft." 

   Ignoring for the nonce the hundreds of thousands of protesters taking to the streets of Tehran in support of Moussavi, the Supreme Leader proclaimed the election, "A great show in which people indicated their responsibility towards the destiny of the country . . . . It depicted very well people's solidarity with their establishment."

   Oh really?  What about the hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of folks downtown, all dressed in black and green?  With precisely which "establishment" were they expressing "solidarity?" 

   It should be noted that one of the unsung heroes of what is quickly becoming known as the "Twitter Revolution" is a State Department official named Jared Cohen. Cohen, who at 27 is the youngest member of the State Department's policy planning staff, convinced the heads of Twitter to delay a scheduled maintenance of its global network (which would have cut off service) while Iranians were using the service to swap information and inform the outside world about the mushrooming protests around Tehran.  As a result of Cohen's urging, Twitter remained operative, and outsiders could read such tweets as:

• " . . . don't listen to what iran govt says u can or can't do!  You can report the pics/vids coming from Twitter!" and
  
• "We need ppl around world helping to raise the issues put pressure on Iranian gvmt."
  

    After warning all those protesters that they continue gathering at their own peril, Kahmeni then criticized the international media for having the "temerity" to report  that the election pitted "people who support the government against those who oppose it." He then proclaimed that all four presidential candidates -- Achmadinejad, Moussavi, Mohsen Rezaie and Mehdi Karrubi -- all support the Islamic revolution.  Predictably, he also took a swipe at the United States, Great Britain and Israel, labeling them "Zionist ill-wishers."

   Anyone surprised?

   There is no telling where all this will lead.  Some in the West see the massive protests as the opening salvo in what may be the downfall of the Islamic Republic.  Then too, there are others who warn -- and fear -- that the millions who support reform will wind up being bowled over; an Iranian Tienanmen Square. 

   And then there is the American reaction.  President Obama has been, shall we say, intentionally "measured" in his reaction and response.  Predictably, suspects both usual and surprising have attacked the president for not being far more forceful, far more vocal, in his support for democracy and freedom in Iran.  What they are saying is that the president should be exercising far more belligerency -- something like "Ayatollah Kahmeni, tear down this revolution!" -- and far less diplomacy.  The president's initial response was the soul of diplomacy.  First, he said that he was "deeply troubled by the violence," and then went on to say that since no international observers were allowed to monitor the fairness of the election,

    "I can't state definitely one way or another what happened with respect to the election.  But what I can say is that there appears to be a sense on the part of the people who were so helpful and so engaged and so committed to democracy who now feel betrayed.  And I think it's important that, moving forward, whatever investigations take place are done in a way that is not resulting in bloodshed and is not resulting in people being stifled in expressing their views."

   Anyone surprised? And here I don't mean to ask if anyone's surprised that the president is being attacked by Republicans for being "squishy soft" and "not standing up for freedom and democracy like President Reagan."  Rather, I am asking if anyone's surprised at how many people seem to be misunderstanding precisely what the president's game plan is vis-à-vis Iran.

   Many of the president's most starry-eyed partisans have suggested that the current ferment in Iran is due -- at least in part -- to his appeals to Iranians and Muslims.  According to Washington Post columnist Robert Kagan, the president "Never meant to spark political upheaval in Iran, much less encourage the Iranian people to take to the streets."  Rather, Kagan opines, the president's diplomatic strategy calls for dealing directly with the Iranian government -- especially over the issue of nuclear weapons -- regardless of who that government may be.

   I for one do not agree with Kagan.  I believe the president's response to the unfolding events in Iran has been measured for a different reason: that he doesn't want to make this a clash between America and the Imams.  He has correctly concluded that if any reform or "liberalization" is to take place, it must be as a result of the clash of ideas -- between the Iranian people themselves.

   As I write this, word has gone out that the House of Representatives has just  voted overwhelmingly (405-1) to condemn Kahmeni's crackdown on demonstrators and the government's interference with Internet and cell phone communication.  (Libertarian Ron Paul cast the lone dissenting vote.) In the eyes of  House Republicans -- who initiated the measure -- its passage is meant to serve as a not-so-veiled criticism of President Obama.  To House Democrats, it is one of those measures for which one votes "Yay" while firmly holding one's nose.  According to House Foreign Affairs Committee chair Howard Berman, "It is not up to us to decide who should run Iran, much less determine the real winner of the June 12 election."  Up to this point, Berman is solidly echoing President Obama.  What comes next is, as they say, "the rub": "But we must reaffirm our strong belief that the Iranian people have a fundamental right to express their views about the future of their country freely and without intimidation."

   Whether Iranian protests lead to greater reform or repression remains to be seen. But regardless of what happens in the short-run, the genie is out of the bottle.  And once out, genies, like spilled water, are next to impossible to put back.

   Anyone surprised?

 

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Death, Taxes and . . .?

  

   Ben Franklin is undoubtedly the most oft-quoted of all our Founding Fathers.  Consider if you will, a mere five "Franklinisms" that most literate people know but are likely unaware of their authorship:

• "A place for everything, everything in its place."

•  "God helps those who help themselves."

• "Time is Money, money is time."

• "Never leave that till tomorrow which you can do today."

• "There never was a good war, or a bad peace."
  

   My favorite Franklin maxim -- bar none -- happens to be the one for which he is likely best-known:

"Certainty?  In this world nothing is certain but death and taxes."

   Over the course of decades I have added various third "certainties" to  my favorite Franklinism:

• ". . . death, taxes and the swallows returning to Capistrano."
  
• ". . . death, taxes and the L.A. Clippers having a lousy team."
• ". . . death, taxes and Law 'n Order."  
• ". . . death, taxes and the Pres. in trouble with someone."
  

    

This last one -- the president being in trouble with someone -- although not a fact of nature like the swallows, a natural fact like the Clippers or an Arbitron Actuality like Law 'n Order is, nonetheless true and certain.  Consider for just a moment the following:

• When President and Mrs. Obama decided on getting a Portuguese water dog, owners of mixed-breeds and champions of dog pound adoptions criticized their choice. (Bo is hypo-allergenic, the Obama girls hyper.)
  
• When President and Mrs. Obama flew to New York in order to take in a Broadway show, the Fox Phalanx complained bitterly about their extravagance. (They wanted to fly commercial, but the Secret Service nixed it.)
• When it was announced that G.M. had declared bankruptcy, the President was accused of leading the country down the ruinous road to Socialism.  

   Yesterday, the President went to Egypt, gave a major address at Cairo University, and then went out to see the Pyramids of Giza. Today, the president toured Buchenwald with Nobel-laureate Elie Weisel.  Anyone want to guess how many people he's in trouble with?

    In some quarters, President Obama was castigated for speaking of his Muslim heritage and roots before a Muslim audience.  Some self-proclaimed "right-thinking" folks bitterly objected to his quoting the Koran  -- 'Be conscious of God and speak always the truth' -- despite the fact that this passage drew more applause than any in his 55-minute speech.  Those who objected seem to be unaware that in the same speech the president also quoted the Bible, made passing reference to the Talmud, and proudly announced that he is a Christian. 

    When was the last time -- or indeed the first? -- that an American president went before a large Muslim audience in a Muslim country and spoke not only of America's "unbreakable bond" with Israel, but of the Holocaust to boot?  The president told the assembled students and faculty: "Tomorrow, I visit Buchenwald, which was part of a network of camps where Jews were enslaved, tortured, shot, and gassed to death by the Third Reich . . . . Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today."  Indeed, this took courage. 

   What came next took even more courage: "Denying that fact [i.e. the Holocaust] is baseless, ignorant and hateful.  Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve."

   And yet, that third certainty -- about the president being in trouble with someone -- was clearly on display.  President Obama was roundly pilloried in some quarters for speaking fervently about the rights and aspirations of the Palestinians and the creation of a Palestinian state; as if in thus speaking, he was revealing himself to be an enemy of the Jewish State. 

   In speaking of the aims, rights and aspirations of the Palestinians, President Obama urged them to "abandon violence."  "Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed."  He then spoke of how for centuries, "black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves, and the humiliation of segregation."  He stressed that it was not acts of violence that eventually brought about "full and equal rights," but "a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America's founding."

   Many who listened to the president's speech did not hear these words.  Rather, what they did hear was what he had to say to the Israelis: that the United States "does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements."  The president told the assemblage, "This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace.  It is time for these settlements to stop."  In other words, while many found fault with his speaking positively about Israel; about his stressing that the Holocaust did happen, and that 6,000,000 Jews did die; others criticized him for calling upon the Israelis to halt construction of further settlements.

   Then again, the president scored negatively in other camps for what he did not say; for those issues which he did not address.  He had precious little to say about how he hopes to bring Hamas or the Iranians -- who supply Hamas -- to accept a two-state solution.  He did not talk about how continued American military action in Afghanistan and Pakistan will affect his vision for an eventual peace.  While those on the right were pillorying him for even suggesting that America engage Iran without preconditions, the left was accusing the president of being inconsistent -- of disparaging violence even while sending drones into Pakistan. 

   "Violence is a dead end," the president told them.  "It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus.  That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is not how it is surrendered."

   When read or listened to in its entirety, President Obama's speech is really quite remarkable.  It showed courage and understanding, and was delivered with the eloquence and sensitivity for which he has become known in these parts.  This speech was a way of introducing himself to a part of the world that "knows" America and her leaders more as stereotypes than as creatures of flesh and blood.  And despite being taken to task by the Fox Phalanx for "turning his back on America," the president has done the right thing.

   Face it.  If he is drawing fire from both Israelis and Arabs, from Jews and Muslims, from hyper-conservatives and ultra-liberals, then he certainly must be doing the right thing.

   For the three certainties are "Death, taxes, and . . . ?"

©2009 Kurt F. Stone

Comedy, Tragedy, Economy

  

   Horace Walpole [1717-1797], the master of Strawberry Hill and 4th Earl of Oxford, was a noted writer, art historian, antiquarian and member of the English Parliament.  He was also a first-class wit.  His best-known epigram teaches "This world is a comedy to those who think, a tragedy to those who feel."  For Walpole, this was far more than a mere aphorism; it provided, in his words, "a solution of why Democritus laughed and Heraclitus wept."  [Note: Democritus and Heraclitus were two pre-Socratic thinkers, the former known as "The Laughing Philosopher," the latter as "The Weeping Philosopher."]

   Walpole's quip has been banging around my brain the past several days as I digest and contemplate what is being written and said about the emerging Obama economic team and the even more emergent Obama economic strategy.  For those who think -- and thus more likely to find comedy in this world -- the Obama economic team and strategy are laughably Clintonus revivicus -- Clinton revisited. "And he promised the American people a new beginning with new faces!" the thinkers snort.  "What's so new about Volker, Summers and Geithner [who by the way is not Jewish]?  Aren't they all Rubin retreads?  We know what to expect!  More kowtowing to Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.  What a joke!" 

   Then, there are those who feel -- the tragedians. Their lament goes something like: "There's no way on earth Obama's going to be able to fulfill any of his campaign promises.  Universal Health-care, Global Warming, Alternative Fuels -- they're all pipe dreams.  Sure as God made little green apples, he's going to put us into an economic hole from which we're never going to emerge!"

   Could it be that both the thinkers and the empaths have it wrong?  To my way of thinking what President-Elect Obama has laid out so far is not the second coming of Bill Clinton and doesn't mean the stillbirth of his vision for America.  I think a large part of the problem is that those of us who think or feel -- or indeed, both -- have become so accustomed to [and frustrated by] second-rate thinking, shallowness, callowness, cronyism and political slight-of-hand, that we have lost the ability to trust, to believe or even to hope. 

   Yes, many members of Barack Obama's economic team do have a connection to the Clinton White House -- and mostly through Robert Rubin.  But let us ask: if Barack Obama had named people with virtually no connection to the Clinton White House, Treasury of the Fed, would the critics have been any less voluble?  Was he supposed to select people whose only experience was theoretical or -- even worse -- garnered in the Bush White House?  The obvious answer is "no."  And, from listening to what Obama's picks have been saying the past few days, it is clear that their thinking, their understanding of economic reality, has both grown and shifted with the times.   

   One of the things that Americans are going to have to get used to is something which much of the rest of the world has already figured out: that Barack Obama is one hell of a lot smarter than most of us. I don't know about you, but I for one feel much more comfortable and optimistic having a president who is both brilliant and politically gifted.  Yes, we have had really brainy presidents in our lifetime; Carter and Clinton both had  stratospheric I.Q.s -- for all the good it did them.  And, we've had presidents who were politically gifted; Johnson and Reagan come to mind.  But with Barack Obama, we see a man who is both.  Already, he is laying the groundwork for what looks to be a harmonious, highly productive working relationship with Congress.  In selecting Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, Obama has a key man who sees partners and allies where others have seen only enemies and adversaries.  Unbelievably, it may well be that the lame duck 110th Congress will pass Obama's economic stimulus package even before he takes the oath of office January 20th. 

   As noted above, the "tragedians" are already predicting that due to our overwhelming fiscal crisis, the entirety of Obama's campaign promises of social and economic reform are D.O.A. Not so fast.  From what the president-elect has been saying and indicating the past several days, these social and economic reforms are actually part of -- not apart from -- our economic recovery.  His proposed economic stimulus package -- which may well be on his desk for signing come January 20, 2009 -- dwarfs anything ever attempted by the federal government.  And while the professional wet blankets and troglodytes of talk radio have already damned the incoming administration to the fires of Hell, Wall Street and much of the world's financial markets are responding most positively.  No doubt part of this is the result of a collective sigh of relief; George W. Bush and his cowboys are finally headed for the bunkhouse. Most, however, seems to spring from the very real understanding that the United States will once again, after so many years, be in the hands of professionals. 

   From all indications, Barack Obama has a holistic view of the economy.  Health care, green energy investment, education reform and a new approach to regulating financial markets are all part of this view.  One little-noted example of what the Washington Post's E.J. Dionne termed Obama's "decision to tether social and economic policy" came a couple of days ago when, in the midst of naming his economic team, the president-elect also announced Melody Barnes as the Director of the White House Domestic Policy Council.

   Back on March 4, 1933, Franklin Roosevelt took the oath of office and embarked on his "First hundred days."  During those heady hundred days, the 73rd Congress enacted everything from the Emergency Banking Relief Act [March 9], and Civilian Conservation Corps Reforestation Relief Act [March 31] to the Federal Emergency Relief Act [May 12] and the Tennessee Valley Authority Act [May 18]. Many of the nation's leading business writers and financial lions accused both Roosevelt and Congress of being dangerous, out-of-touch Socialists; traitors who were attaching a lethal anchor to the body politic.  And yet, in so many ways, Roosevelt and his New Dealers were proven both farsighted and correct.  They literally saved a nation.

   We can fully expect both those who perceive the world as comedy and those as tragedy to cast vitriolic aspersions upon the Obama Administration and the incoming 111th Congress.  They will accuse them of conspiring to bring America to wreck and ruin; some will even persist in the canard that it was Obama himself who caused the recession and that if only America had voted for McCain-Palin, none of this would have occurred. 

   Be both patient and hopeful of better days to come.  And while you're at it, turn a deaf ear to the naysayers of comedy and tragedy whenever they speak of economy. 

   For as Horace Walpole also quipped:

   "By deafness one gains in one respect more than one loses; one misses more nonsense than sense."

©2008, Kurt F. Stone

Barack Obama: The Enemy of My Enemy

  

Barack Obama's back campaigning on American soil after his tour of Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Germany, Paris and London.  Never has a mere "presumptive nominee" received so much press.  Indeed, the three major news anchors went along with him. And depending on what you read or who you listened to, Senator Obama's world tour was a towering success, an embarrassing failure, or the second coming of John, Paul, George and Ringo.  Obama supporters kvelled over his dignified mien, his ability to articulate issues and the almost nonstop adulation he received everywhere he went.  "Finally, finally," his supporters cheered, "an American leader who isn't an embarrassment."  Obama detractors kvetched about what they saw as nothing more than a brazen breach of diplomatic protocol.  "How dare he," they sniffed, "strut about as if he were President of the United States?  Who does he think he is?" 

   I had to laugh when a couple of the conservative talking heads referred to him as a "liberal elitist."  Only in America could the mixed-race son of single mother who was raised by his grandparents be portrayed as an elitist, while the scion of an east-coast WASP dynasty who, like his ancestors, attended Andover, Harvard and Yale, become a "good-ole boy."
  
   Poor John McCain was beside himself during Obama's week away, feeling the loneliness of the only kid on the block not invited to Disneyland.  The nadir of his week came when he traveled up to New Hampshire, only to be met by a single solitary reporter.  In their desperation, the McCain camp tried to turn the cameras their way, one day hinting that their guy was about to name his V.P.,  another questioning Senator Obama's experience, knowledge and patriotism.  Try as he may though, Senator McCain just couldn't gain traction.  The Obama world tour was just too overwhelming an event for anyone in the media to pay McCain much attention. What airtime they did give him wasn't especially flattering; one day he mistakenly referred to the "Afghanistan-Pakistan border," and another he claimed that "the surge" was responsible for the so-called "Sunni Awakening."  

   Oops!

   I for one was particularly interested in how Senator Obama would come across in Israel.  To my way of thinking, he "hit all the right notes"-- but with a difference: he didn't sound like a politician merely attempting to curry favor.  Rather he looked, sounded and spoke like a man with a passion for justice and a clear understanding of history.    

   Despite this, there is still a hard-core of American-Jewish voters who continue buying in to the "Obama's a Muslim," Obama's Osama's Candidate," "Obama will sell out Israel" schools of thought.  To all of them -- and the numbers are apparently shrinking -- I ask that they both remember and ponder an age-old expression:

   "The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

   Where in the world does the expression come from?  Well, in the Hebrew Bible [Exodus, 23:22], we find God telling the Israelites that if they fully obey, then "v'ayavti et oyvecha v'tzarti et tzo-r'recha," viz: "I will be an enemy to your enemies and an adversary to your adversaries."  Likewise, the Chinese have a saying that goes, "It is good to strike the serpent's head with the fist of your enemy." 

   One living, breathing example of "The enemy of my enemy is my friend" goes back to the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C.E.  For those who remember their ancient history, the Greek city-states -- a tangled web of argumentative antagonists -- managed to put aside their differences in order to go to war against the Persians, who were their common enemy.  In a sense, the various city-states had the Persians to thank for bringing them together -- if only to beat the daylights out of their common enemy. 

   You may well ask: What in the world does this have to do with Barack Obama, Israel and the American-Jewish community?

   The answer is both simple and direct:

    To much of the Arab world, Barack Obama, far from being their "stealth candidate" is, in fact, viewed as just another American politician  in thrall to the Zionists!

   The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   Need proof?  Consider the following editorial cartoons, which have recently run in various Middle Eastern publications:

This cartoon ran in Ar-Risala ["The Message"], a Palestinian Authority publication, on June 22, 2008.  The headline translates: The Wagon [that gets you] to the White House."  The quip translates, "Obama's view."

This cartoon ran in Al-Ghad, Jordan's
only independent Arabic-language 
paper on June 9, 2008.  It simply
reads: "Obama, the American
Candidate."

 
This cartoon ran in the Saudi paper
Al-Watan on June 10, 2008. As one can
clearly see, it is putting McCain and Obama into the same "pocket." 

This example comes from www.amin.org an Arabmedia website which serves as a platform for both cartoonists and columnists from all over the Arab world. This particular cartoon ran in Bahrain.

Finally, we have this example from Al-Ittihad ["The Union"], a United Arab Emirati Newspaper.  Published on June 10, 2008, its headline reads: "Obama: 'Jerusalem should be Israel's Capital.'" 

  

[Note: These and other cartoons were gleaned from the Anti-Defamation League website.]  

    Do the cartoons above provide conclusive proof that Barack Obama was, is, and always shall be a friend of Israel?  For those who already support him, no such proof is necessary. For those who are continually suspicious, no amount of proof, I fear, will ever be enough.  I can even hear some proclaiming, "Ah, it's all a conspiracy!  The Muslims have banded together to make it seem like they're anti-Obama, just so that we'll vote for him."  Oh well, some people just don't want to be confused with facts.

   To me, the facts speak for themselves.  Senator Obama went to Israel as a close ally, spoke there as a good friend, and returned home an even more enlightened candidate. Those who will continually challenge his credentials or demean the true excitement he brings by comparing him to Brittany Spears and Paris Hilton [!] are way off the mark.  Those who truly love America -- its hopes and history, its dreams and energy indeed, its Constitution -- need only look at those who are disparaging Senator Obama in order to understand that the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

• Those who would turn back the clock to the 1920s are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who believe that the purpose of government is to protect the perquisites of the wealthy and oversee the morality of the masses are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who look at the Middle East and see only pipelines and barrels of oil are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.
• Those who run on platforms of fear rather than hope are my enemy; and so too are they the enemy of Senator Obama.

   Yes indeed, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

   And from where I sit, Senator Barack Obama is our friend . . .

 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Maggot in the Cheese

   Flipping through an old album the other day, I came across two photos that brought back some pretty distressing memories: one of then-Senator Dan Quayle, standing and shaking hands with yours truly, surrounded by a bunch of well-dressed gentlemen; the other of then-Senator Jesse Helms, standing and shaking hands with still yours truly surrounded by the same bunch of well-dressed gentlemen. I'm the one in the blue blazer with a fairly dyspeptic look on his face. [Note: Eerily, within 24 hours of posting this piece comes the announcement that Senator Helms has died.]

   The photos were taken nearly twenty-five years ago when I was an officer of something called GOPAC -- the Gold Coast Political Action Committee.  The group's raison d'être was providing a maximum of $5,000 in campaign funds to those members of Congress the group deemed "good and reliable friends of Israel."   While on the surface this sounds both great and straightforward, there was a problem -- that which poet Edna St. Vincent Millay once called "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf."   You see, we were a "single-issue" PAC.  What this means is that the only yardstick we used to measure or evaluate the various representatives and senators was the quality of their support for Israel.  For many GOPAC members Israel was the only issue that mattered.

   "Back in the day," I argued long, hard and -- as it turned out,  unsuccessfully -- for us to use an expanded, more diffuse measuring device: a multi-issue approach. Under this proposal, we would look at where potential recipients stood -- and how they had voted -- on ten or more critical issues after we had first determined that he or she was a "good and reliable friend of Israel."  I remember warning the well-dressed gentlemen that "If the only issue by which we judge these guys is Israel, I promise you that the day will come when we  find ourselves making contributions to people with whom we disagree on most everything else -- like economy, Social Security, healthcare,  the environment, etc. . . ."  In political jargon, what I was arguing for was something called a "Mic-Pac," a "multiple-issue" political action committee.

   I lost that battle.  Hence the dyspeptic, "maggot in the cheese, canker in the leaf" grimace on my face in the two old photos.

   To a great degree, many American Jews still employ this single-issue yardstick in measuring a politician's worth -- no matter whether it be the current "Disaster in Chief" or a candidate for president, the Senate or House.   I can't tell you how many of my university students have informed me that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel ever had."   Whenever I've asked them to back up their statement with examples or facts -- or have asked the simple question "Do you think he's been good for America? -- I'm generally met with either silence or a harangue against Pelosi, Reid, Kennedy and Obama.  In the first case -- about him being "the best friend Israel ever had" -- I presume they mean that he has essentially left the Jewish State alone to do pretty much as she wishes.  Well now, if that's the measure of a "best friend," then I must not understand the meaning of the term.  In the second case -- about W. being "good for America" -- I take the relative silence to be an indication that the person is loathe to say "yes," but can't quite bring him or herself to say "no."   Perhaps they're beginning to discover their own "maggot in the cheese" or "canker in the leaf." 

   In the race between Senators Obama and McCain, this "single-issue vs. "multiple-issue" argument is of absolutely vital, absolutely critical importance.  I firmly believe that the candidate who will ultimately be best for America -- and the world -- on a wide range of issues, will ultimately be best for Israel.  Simply stated, one cannot be "best for America" and at the same time be "not good for Israel."  To my way of thinking, it is counterintuitive. 

   To my way of thinking, there is no contest:  Barack Obama is the candidate who will be "best for America," and therefore "best for Israel." 

   I do not address myself to the benighted souls who persist in forwarding all those emails warning that Senator Obama is a Muslim, a terrorist, or some sort of dyed-in-the-wool Marxist.  These are probably the same folks who believe that Jim Morrison is alive, well, and recording under an assumed voice.

   There are obviously a sizable number of people out there who wouldn't vote for Barack Obama if he were the last candidate on earth; perhaps because he's an African American, perhaps because he's a progressive Democrat.  And some of them are still going out of their way to convince others of the "truths" that they "know" about the senator.  Why just the other day, I received  a rather large envelope from one "Ari ben Canaan" on "Rehov Irgun" in Israel.  [This is obviously a made-up name: "Ari ben Canaan" was the protagonist in Leon Uris' novel Exodus.]  Inside the envelope were nearly a dozen different articles, their assorted authors all "proving" that Senator Obama has long planned on running for president just so he can annihilate the Jewish State.  In his cover letter, Mr. "ben Canaan" compared me to Julius Lowenthal, the "biggest fool on the ship of fools," and told me to "Wake up and smell the friend chicken, Schmuck!" 

    Alice (mom) always taught us not to argue with crazy people, so I chose not to answer him.  But Mr. "ben Canaan" is merely the tip of the iceberg; there are lots of crazy people out there who just won't consider that Senator Obama, who will be best for America, will also be best for Israel.

   I certainly understand how critically important the State of Israel is -- to the Jewish people, to America, and indeed, to freedom-loving people the world over.  At the same time, I understand that many people will base their decision on who they will vote for on the single issue of Israel.  But this is a dangerous trap.  For what will America -- not to mention Israel -- have gained if the next President of the United States continues to support policies that have made us into a fearful nation, enriched the ineffably wealthy, caused our economy to tumble which in turn has forced millions out of their jobs, and left tens of millions without health insurance?

   The answer is nothing . . . absolutely nothing. 

  When it comes to Israel, both Obama and McCain have shown themselves to be "good and reliable friends," no matter what the anti-Obama contingent will claim.  It seems to me that the only way to avoid or forgo "The maggot in the cheese, the canker in the leaf," is to compare the two on issues of peace and economy, environment and education, labor, equality and civic pride. If we can escape the trap of  "single-issue" voting, we will wind up with a president who is not only "best for America," but "best for Israel" as well.  The two are inextricably bound.   

   To my mind, the greatest investment America can make in Israel's future is an Obama presidency. 

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Obama Minyan

   Now that Senator Obama is the de facto [I hate the word "presumptive"] Democratic nominee, the slings and arrows of yesterday are about to become the Titans and Tomahawks of tomorrow.  Make no mistake about it: the Republicans will attack him with every missile in their silo.  And like the "MIRV" [Multiple Independently targetable Reentry Vehicle], their political projectiles are going to be aimed at lots and lots of different targets.

   Indeed, there will be something for everyone:

• Economic Elitists will no doubt be clubbed with the fear that an Obama presidency will lead to the ultimate victory of Marx over Monetarism. 
• Social Conservatives will be warned that an Obama Administration will make abortion, same-sex marriage and the teaching of Evolution mandatory.
• Conspiracy Theorists will be convinced that an Obama cabinet will include Louis Farrakhan, Pastor Wright and perhaps even the ghost of Emma Goldman.
• Zionists will be taught that an Obama foreign policy will sound the death-knell for the Jewish State.
• And of course, the words "lack of experience" will become so ever-present that schoolchildren will no doubt conclude that this must be the senator's middle name.

   Already, one can hear those MIRVs warming up in their silos.

   Let's handle the last two, because to a great extent, they are inextricably bound together.  It is absolutely true that Senator Obama has not been on the national scene nearly as long as Senator McCain.  And, it is equally as true that he has no eponymous legislation for which he can claim credit, ala the "McCain-Feingold" Act.  I for one have often found the "experience issue" to be a non-starter. To my way of thinking, its not always "what you know," but "who you know and trust that knows what you need to know."  If one only peeks behind the curtain of their fears and uncertainties [amply cheer-led by conservative bloggers and all those "entertainers" who pass themselves off as mainline journalists], one will discover something truly heartening: that Senator Barack Obama has surrounded himself with a roster of the "best and brightest," the likes of which have not been seen since the days of JFK.  I will match up Obama's experts and wise men and women against those of McCain six days a week -- and on the seventh we rest.

   Which brings us to the issue of Senator Obama vis-a-vis Israel. 

   Much has been made over the past months, weeks and even days, about the number of so-called "professional Israel haters/anti-Semites" who are "advising" the gentleman from Illinois.  Anyone with email service has received screaming cyber missives warning that Obama is getting all his Israel/Middle East input from the likes of former Carter-era National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, the Kennedy School's Stephen Walt, the University of Chicago's John Mearsheimer and now, former Michigan Representative [and Edwards' campaign manager] David Bonior.

   While none of the aforementioned is going to be invited to our next seder, the influence they have -- and will have -- on Senator Obama's future Middle Eastern strategy is effectively nil, nada, zilch, gornisht.

   As noted in our February 21, 2008 piece -- The Truth About It:

   "According to David Axelrod, the senator's chief strategist, '. . . [Brzezinski] is not an adviser.  We do not call him an adviser and he does not call himself an adviser.  He is a supporter of Senator Obama and they have spoken about the Iraq war once several months ago . . . . The only people who call Brzezinsky an adviser are the Clinton campaign . . ." 

   So far as professors Walt and Mearsheimer go, their names originally became linked to the Obama campaign some time back.  Under what circumstances?  Well, last year, the two professors published a work entitled The Israel Lobby and American Foreign Policy.  Truth to tell, it painted a woeful, damning portrait of A.I.P.A.C. and the power it wields in Washington.  It so happens that the Obama campaign's cyber nerds placed small ads in various spots on the Internet, designed to drive readers to its website.  From experience, I can tell you that the best way to accomplish this is to put in a string of key words . . . like "politics," "Democratic," or "president."  This is precisely what the Obama camp did.  Well, one of these ads popped up on the Amazon page hawking Walt and Mearsheimer's book.  Immediately, the anti-Obama forces began proclaiming "You See!  Obama is one of those Israel haters!" Once this was brought to the Obama campaign's attention, they removed the ad.  But viola, the damage had been done; suddenly and miraculously, Walt and Mearshmer had been transformed into "senior Obama advisers." They were not, and are not.

 

   David Bonior, who signed on with the Obama campaign just in time to represent it -- along with Congressman Robert Wexler -- before the Democratic National Committee, did not have a great voting record vis-a-vis Israel.  And while not trying to soft-peddle his votes -- many of which I find just wrong -- one does well to remember that his district was home to the highest percentage of Palestinians of any district in the United States.  And while one can -- and should -- revile many of the votes he cast while in Congress -- which I do -- one must keep in mind that the first rule of politics is "get yourself [re]elected." Then too, Bonoir was not hired because of his positions on the Middle East, but precisely because, as a former Michigan powerhouse, it was felt that he could best state the Obama case vis-a-vis delegates.  Also, by bringing him on board, it was a clear sign that John Edwards was about to support the campaign.

 

   So just who is advising Senator Obama on Israel and the Middle East?  Who makes up "The Obama Minyan?"  [n.b. A "minyan" is a lawful quorum of ten Jewish adults -- some athorities say only men -- required for reciting Jewish prayers.]

  

   A bit of research available to anyone who wants to know the truth, turns up the following "minyanaires:"

 

• Rep. Robert Wexler: Rob, who I am proud to say is my representative in Congress, is a devoutly religious, Miami-bred member of the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia.  As early as 2002 he was calling for the ouster of terrorist leaders in the Mideast and declared that Israel was engaged in full-scale war.  When it comes to supporting the Jewish State, no one takes a backseat to Congressman Wexler.
• Former Rep. Mel Levine: Mel, a good friend of longstanding [who ironically, was my representative when I was still living in Southern California], was a member of the House from 1982-1992.  Mel comes from a family whose allegiance to Israel is legendary: in 1948, his late father Sid was Western States' representative for the Haganah.  Indeed, one of Mel's earliest memories, as he recounted for my book, The Congressional Minyan: The Jews of Capitol Hill was: ". . . as a five-year old hearing the doorbell ring . . . and being knocked over by a gunny sack filled with God knows what. . . and my dad grabbing me and basically throwing me away from the door.  I learned many years later that that was some type of materiel that was on its way to Israel during the War of Independence." During his years in the House, Mel's was one of the most intelligent and passionate voices ever raised on Israel's behalf.  Bar none.
• Ambassador Dan Kurtzer: Dan was President Clinton's Ambassador to Egypt from 1997-2001, and President George W. Bush's Ambassador to Israel from 2001-2005.  Prior to entering foreign service, he was dean of his alma mater, Yeshiva University.  Now retired, Dan is the first-ever commissioner of the Israel Baseball League. [Which, by the way, drafted Sandy Koufax!]
• Former U.S. Senator Tom Daschle: Yes, I know, Tom is a Catholic, so technically, cannot be counted in a "minyan."  Nonetheless, during all his years in the House and Senate [where he was Minority Leader], Tom was among Israel's strongest and most consistent supporters.  Despite coming from a state [South Dakota] that is home to precisely 99 Jews, Tom is well-known for his efforts on behalf of the Jewish State.  I first met him back in 1986, when he came to South Florida to get acquainted with the Jewish community.  Following a luncheon speech at the Woodlands Country Club, one of the Zionist lions asked him "what was the family name before Daschle?  Are you sure you're not Jewish?"
• Rep. Jan Schakowsky: Jan has represented a Chicago-area district [9] in the House since 1998.  One simply cannot be elected and reelected by such wide margins [75% in 2006, 76% in 2004] from Evanston/Skokie unless they are actively, stridently, vociferously pro-Israel. And this Jan is.
• Penny Pritzker:  Scion of the Hyatt Hotel chain and herself the founder/Chair/CEO of "Classic Residency by Hyatt," Penny is one of the wealthiest women in the world. Holder of a Harvard degree in economics, and a graduate of the Stanford University Law School, Penny is part of a famiy that has been among Israel's strongest financial backers for more than two generations.  Penny is the Obama campaign's national finance director; as such the senator has come under intense fire from anti-Zionist groups who claim that he is "in the pocket of the Zionists."  How can one be anti-Israel and at the same time get slammed by the true haters of Israel for being "overly Zionist?"  Beats me.
• Anthony Lake: The grandson of a Church of England clergyman who came the United States from Oxford to teach New Testament Studies at Harvard, Tony Lake converted to Judaism in 2005.  He has long been a foreign policy advisor to Democrats.  When questioned by Moment Magazine about his support for Barack Obama vis-a-vis Israel, Lake responded: "The question is: Which America is the strongest friend of Israel?  Which America will be the strongest adversary to those who would do us harm?  And clearly, the answer is an America that is unified rather than torn apart by the politics of the past 20 years.  And it is in Obama's DNA to be a unifier while having clear views."
• Denis McDonough: Senior Fellow at American Progress and former Legislative Director for Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, Denis is currently the Obama Campaign's Foreign Policy Coordinator. He is an acknowledged expert on Israeli-Arab relations; an area of expertise that has been sorely lacking for the past eight years.  Denis is a stalwart supporter of Israel, and despite the fact that he is not "MOT" ["A Member of the Tribe"] he is without question a member-in-good-standing of the Obama Minyan.
• Dan Shapiro: Former Foreign Policy Adviser to Florida Senator Bill Nelson.  Dan was responsible for writing the "Syria Accountability Act of 2003," which was intended among other things, to "halt Syrian terrorism and its occupation of Lebanon . . . and to hold Syria accountable for its role in the Middle East."  This measure was co-sponsored by California Senator Barbara Boxer and Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum. That bill became law in December 2003.  Dan also drafted a 2007 measure that prohibits US contacts with Palestinian leadership. He was brought on board largely on the strength of his close relations with AIPAC.
• Lee Rosenberg: A Chicago-based independent venture capitalist, Lee is  both a member of the Obama Campaign finance team, and, perhaps most importantly, the Treasurer of AIPAC. For anyone who watched the senator's address before AIPAC the other day, that was Lee who did the introduction.

   And these, my friends are the front-line members of the Obama Minyan.

   Unquestionably, there will continue to be lots of folks out there from Compton to Caribou who will continue believing [and spreading] lies about Barack Obama being al-Qaeda's "Manchurian Candidate," a "secret Muslin," and an "anti-Semite."  Let's face it: for some people, facts cannot hold a candle to fiction; intrigue is a lot more entertaining than intelligence.

   As for me, I am both proud and humbled to be a part of the Obama Minyan.  And although it has been a longstanding Jewish tradition to never go out seeking "converts," in this instance, and for this purpose, I will gladly break with tradition.

   How about you?

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

  

  

Mr. Obama Goes To Shul

  BOCA RATON, FLORIDA * Senator Barack Obama came to Temple B'nai Torah this afternoon.  As will often happen with candidates out on the campaign trail, his arrival was delayed by several hours.  And although he apologized for being tardy and making us wait, he never did mention the reason for his delay.  As I found out later that night, he had hopped up to Capitol Hill in order to vote in favor of a measure which greatly expands the G.I. Bill.  He could have taken the high, self-serving road and told those assembled why he was late.  He could also have taken the low, "finger-pointing" road and flailed Senator McCain for being one of 22 Republicans voting against our men and women in uniform. 

   Instead, he did neither. 

   This was not his reason for going to shul.

   Rather, he was here, in the midst of approximately 750 mostly-Jewish men, women and teens, to talk about himself, Israel, and anti-Semitism, and to address head-on the virtual St. Vitus' dance of fear that has been such a noxious staple of cyberspace this past year 

   I managed to snag a VIP pass and, guiltily walking past the long line of folks standing out in the rain, was seated about 6 feet away from the senator. Sitting with me were -- somewhat surprisingly -- at least thee lions of the Republican Party and a couple of die-hard Clinton acolytes.  They, like so many in the assembled minyan, were not there because they already supported Senator Obama. Rather, they had come to find out for themselves just who the "skinny guy with the strange-sounding name" is, and whether or not he will be as bad for Israel as so many have claimed. 

   Senator Obama certainly had his work cut out for himself.

   To make the senator's task even more challenging, just the day before he attended shul, the New York Times ran a story entitled "Many Florida Jews Express Doubts On Obama."  In the article, staff writer Jodi Kantor quoted a handful of South Florida Jews who were dismissive -- if not downright hostile -- to Senator Obama's candidacy.  One elderly woman said she would never vote for Obama "because of his attitude on Israel."  A second averred that Obama "is part of Chicago's large Palestinian community."   A third worried that if he were elected, Obama "might fill his administration with followers of Louis Farrakhan."  And yet a fourth opined, "His father was a Muslim and you can't take that out of him."

    No one ever said running for president was easy; especially when you're a guy named Barack Obama, and you're speaking in a synagogue before more Jews than the rabbi has seen since last Rosh Hashana.

    With a mesmerizing mix of eloquence and erudition, articulation and affability, the Senator won over the vast majority of the assembled minyan.  During the more than two hours he spent speaking and dialoguing, Senator Obama made it abundantly clear that he was, is, and always shall be, a staunch defender of the Jewish State.  [One should know a fact: after going over the voting records of both Senator Clinton and Obama vis-a-vis issues pertaining to Israel, AIPAC -- the main Israel support lobby in the U.S. gave both a 100% rating.  That's 100% of the time that both senators voted in a manner that was favorable to the Jewish State.]

   Senator Obama told of how, as a youngster attending summer camp, he had a Jewish counselor who told him about Zionism: 

   "I really connected with it, because in Zionism, there is this sense of rootedness, of having a place and a home.  And for a kid with my unusual background . . . and not knowing precisely where I fit, this struck a tremendous chord."

   When asked about his relationship with a Palestinian professor from the University of Chicago, the Senator said:

   "Yes, I have met the man, but why do people automatically conclude that therefore I must be in agreement with what he espouses?  People do have the ability to listen to those with whom they disagree.  How can one ever make any progress if the only folks they talk to are those with whom they are in agreement?"

   Obama went on to say:

   "I don't want to get in to the 'some of my best friends are Jewish' trap, because it's terribly demeaning.  But I will tell you this: when I first ran [unsuccessfully] for Congress against Bobby Rush, the main argument against me was that I was too close to the Jewish community!  I have always believed that Jewish and African Americans have an historic bond, an historic memory.  I mourn the passing of the time when Jewish Americans and African Americans worked together in harmony to bring about change.  If it weren't for the Jewish community and their central role in the Civil Rights struggle, I wouldn't be here today, running for President of the United States."

   Addressing all the emails that are going around [indeed, I just received one entitled "The Fifty Lies of Barack Obama"], he made a telling point with a fine degree of humor:

   "You know, no one believes those emails that start out: 'I'm a Nigerian who has $5 million in the bank but can't get at it . . . however if you'll only send me a thousand dollars . . .' Or all those medicines that promise to help expand your . . . well, let's not go there . . . [laughter] . . . But seriously, why then do people believe scurrilous rumors?  Promising millions for nothing or potency for pennies has about as much reality as proclaiming that I am a Jihadist."

   Many in the crowd were of the opinion that "George W. Bush is the best friend Israel has ever had."  I hear this from my students more often than is comfortable.  Senator Obama addressed this in words of stark simplicity:

   "In the past seven years, Iran has become infinitely more powerful than ever before. It has given tremendous financial support to the major enemies of Israel. This has all happened under the Bush-Cheney-McCain watch.  How can anyone conclude that the one who empowers your worst enemy is your best friend?  It doesn't make any sense."

   One person in the crowd asked why, in saying he would convene a summit meeting of all Arab countries, he excluded Israel, Obama smiled and answered:

   "Well first, Israel isn't an Arab country; its a Jewish State.  Secondly, they are our strongest ally . . . our best friend in the region.  The countries we would be talking to are the ones we want to convince that someday, somehow, they're going to have to learn how to live in peace with Israel.  If you only talk to your friends, there is absolutely no chance that you're ever going to be able to change your enemies.  That is part of the definition of courage"

    By way of example, Senator Obama mentioned how, when speaking before students at a school of Ramallah, he told them, "One day you are going to have to learn to live in peace with Israel."    

   Did Senator Obama's "performance" make supporters out of everyone in attendance?  Probably not, for he is, as we say in Hebrew, raq basar va'dahm ["merely flesh and blood"]. Nonetheless, I believe he quelled the fear and uncertainty in many hearts.

   There no doubt will always be those who choose to believe the worst about Senator Obama -- or anyone in the public eye for that matter.  There will also always be those who seek to hide incipient racism beneath the veneer of inept rhetoric.  And believe me, I am fully expecting people to write and tell me that I have had the wool pulled over my eyes -- that Senator Obama is a Muslim, ant-Semitic . . . the whole nine yards.  

   And yet, for at least one afternoon, in one shul, the minyan had the opportunity to listen to -- and share with -- a man who reminded us that the Arabic barack and the Hebrew baruch share the same meaning:  "Blessed."

   It was a "sermon" well worth the wait.

   Oh yes: by the end, even the three Republicans were on their feet.

   And don't worry about being late Senator.  You see, ever since Sinai, we've been on Jewish Standard Time . . .

©2008 Kurt F. Stone

The Truth About "It"

   It seems like hardly an hour goes by  without my receiving the "IT" email from a friend, congregant, student or reader.  These emails come in two varieties:

• Those who sincerely want to know if "IT" is true, and
• Those who want to clue me in as to "IT's" absolute, unvarnished truth
  

  The "IT" to which they are all referring is the widely-reported, highly-documented "fact" that Senator Barack Obama is a not-so-closeted anti-Semite who would be an unmitigated disaster for Israel. 

   Regardless of whether the correspondents are seekers of truth or broadcasters of Bull Durham, their emails all contain the same monotonous litany of "facts":

• Senator Obama belongs to a Chicago church whose pastor, the anti-Semitic Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Jr., is both a friend and vocal supporter of the Jew-hating Louis Farrakhan.
• Senator Obama was quoted as telling the people of Iowa that "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people."
• Senator Obama wrote one "Ali Abunimah" that "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."
• Senator Obama has a dismal voting record on all things Israel.  
• Senator Obama is receiving advise on the Middle East from no less an Israel-hater than Zbigniew Brzezinski.

    A few questions are in order:   

• Where in the world are people getting all these "facts?" 
• Why are so many accepting them as the God's honest truth?
• What's the motivation underlying this supposed laundry-list of duplicity?
• Why are so many so willing to accept these "facts" as truth?
• Indeed, is any of it true?

   Let us not be left in suspense.  The above "facts" -- and these are a mere sampling -- are patently false, bogus, mendacious, and just plain fabricated. 

   As Mark Twain once noted, "A good lie will have traveled half way around the world while the truth is putting on her boots."      

   Let's lace up our boots and walk a truthful mile.

   Most, if not all the "facts" about Senator Obama reaching our inboxes come from the vitriolic pen of right-wing blogger Ed Lasky.  His Blog, "American Thinker" has recently run such anti-Obama, anti-progressive pieces as:

• "John McCain Will Keep the Country Safer"
• "Can Anyone Stop Obama?"
• "Obama's Global Tax" and
• "The Left Wing School Agenda and the Banning of Patriotism."

   In preparation for this writing this piece, I chatted up both current and former members of Congress, one of Senator Obama's real Middle East policy advisers, and read more than 50 articles.  I extend thanks and appreciation to my good friend, former California Congressman Mel Levine [one of the senator's real advisers] for providing me with more ammunition than I could possibly use.  Among the facts -- yes, verifiable facts -- I uncovered in my research were:

• Speaking at a foreign policy forum in Des Moines on December 18 of last year, Senator Obama said, "I start with the premise that Israel is a stalwart ally of ours and their security cannot be compromised.  I also start with the premise that the status quo is unsustainable and that what would be good for Israel security will be the kind of two-state solution that allows the Palestinians to live and prosper in their own state and allows Israel to maintain the security of its state . . . . I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like.  It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state." 
• Contrary to what Lasky reports, Senator Obama has consistently and forcefully denounced both Louis Farrakhan and anti-Semitism.
• The Anti Defamation League [ADL] has found "No evidence of any Anti-Semitism by Reverend Wright," and that "Reverend Wright did not endorse Farrakhan's views."
• The Christian Science Monitor reported that Senator Obama ". .  strongly disagrees with any portrayal of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that advocates divestment from Israel or expresses anything less than strong support for Israel's security." [7/16/07]
• That most of the major Jewish leaders in Chicago -- those who have known him longest and best -- are among his most ardent supporters.  These leaders include Congresswoman Jan Shakowsky, Penny Pritzker and Lester Crown.
• That Senator Obama successfully co-sponsored the "Palestinian Anti-Terrorism Act of 2006, which, among other things, "Provides assistance for the Hamas-controlled Palestinian Authority [PA] only during a period for which a presidential certification has determined that no PA ministry, agency or instrumentality is controlled by Hamas unless the Hamas-controlled PA has publicly acknowledged the Jewish state of Israel's right to exist and the Hamas-controlled PA has made demonstrable progress toward purging from its security services individuals with ties to terrorism."
• After speaking at the national gathering of the American Israel Public Affair Committee [APAC], Obama received the imprimatur of Shmuel Rosner, Washington correspondent of the influential Israeli paper Haaretz: "Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass.  So he is pro-Israel.  Period."
• Senator Obama has repeatedly and consistently blamed Palestinian leadership -- and not the Israelis -- for the stalled peace process.  The New York Times noted [3/15/07] that, "Mr. Obama blames Hamas, which controls much of the Palestinian government, for the stalled peace talks; he does not blame Israel."
• On January 9 of this year, the New York Sun [hardly a bastion of political liberalism] noted in an editorial that, "Mr. Obama's  commitment to Israel, as he has articulated it so far in his campaign, is quite moving and a tribute to the broad, bipartisan support that the Jewish state has in America. As a candidate, he has chosen to put himself on the record in terms that Israel's friends in America, at least those not motivated by pure political partisanship, can warmly welcome."
• That contrary to what Lasky claims, neither George Soros, nor Zbigniew Brzezinski are advising Senator Obama on Middle Eastern issues.  According to David Axelrod, the senator's chief strategist, " . . .  [Brzezinski] is not an Adviser.  We do not call him an adviser and he does not call himself an adviser.  He is a supporter and endorser of Senator Obama, and they have spoken about the Iraq war once several months ago, a war which they both opposed from the beginning.  The only people who call Brzezinski an adviser are the Clinton campaign. . ."
• In point of verifiable fact, Senator Obama's advisers on Israel and the Middle East are Mel Levine, Congressman Robert Wexler [D-FL], former Clinton Administration Middle East envoy Dennis Ross, former Clinton National Security Adviser Tony Lake, former National Security Council member Dan Shapiro, Denis McDonough, former Foreign Policy Advisor to Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle, and Eric Lynn, Former Foreign Policy Adviser to former Congressman Peter Deutsch [D-FL]

 

    Now that we have laced up our "boots of truth," perhaps we won't feel so compelled to read the next scurrilous anti-Obama email that comes our way.  I cannot -- and will not -- inquire into the motivation of hack writers like Mr. Lasky.  I  only took one course in Abnormal Psychology.  Suffice it to say that where Lasky is on fraudulent crusade, we are supporting a phenomenal candidate.

   As Sir Winston Churchill would have it, "Truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it and ignorance may deride it, but, in the end, there it is."

    Much has been made of the fact that in Swahili, the name Barack means "blessing."  In Hebrew, the name "Barack" means "lightning."  Hopefully, the "Barack" [lightning] of truth will help illumine the "Barack" [blessing] that is the gentleman from Illinois.

©2008 Kurt F. Stone