|
|

Advertisement
November 13, 2008 | 12:33 pm
Posted by Brad A. Greenberg
| Tweet |

You’ve heard from Philip Weiss and Omri Ceren, now it’s Jeffrey Goldberg’s chance to explain what Barack Obama’s presidential victory will mean for Israel and the Jews.
Goldberg is the national correspondent for The Atlantic, the author of “Prisoners” and a veteran of the IDF. He also happens to be one of my favorite journalists.
Much maligned by the left for reporting they say pom-pommed going to war with Iraq, Goldberg has nonetheless struck a balance between progressive and neoconservative and has become a proponent for giving up Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
“What Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state,” Goldberg wrote in a May op-ed for The New York Times. “Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left. And the best way to bring about the birth of a Palestinian state is to reverse — not merely halt, but reverse — the West Bank settlement project.”
Goldberg’s name carries a lot more weight than Greenberg, and instead of interviewing a journalist about the presidential election, he spoke in May with Obama and John McCain. Now that the race is over, I followed up to Goldberg to see what he thought it all meant:
You interviewed both Senators John McCain and Barack Obama back in May and eventually began blogging favorably about Obama. Why did you think he was the better candidate?
I don’t think I was blogging favorably about Obama as I was defending him against ridiculous and offensive charges. If John McCain had been accused of seeking Israel’s destruction, I would have defended him against the charge as well. I actually like both men; I’ve known McCain for a long time, and wrote what I hope was taken to be a serious cover story about his worldview. I think his campaign took the low road too frequently, but I admire him personally.
Considering how poorly Obama had polled with Jews prior to October, how surprised were you to see him receive 78 percent of the Jewish vote?
I wasn’t surprised. There are two Jewish communities out there: Most American Jews are liberal. They generally speaking have warm feelings for Israel but don’t necessarily buy the notion that Israel does no wrong. Then there’s the twenty or thirty percent of American Jewry that is less assimilated, more Orthodox and more right-wing in its politics generally. This side of the divide is more organized, and therefore we heard from these sorts of people with greater frequency.
Why do you think they came around?
I think Obama had sixty to seventy percent of the Jewish vote throughout. I think he built on to his vote by choosing Joe Biden, by speaking to AIPAC, by visiting Israel, and by deploying effective surrogates. Also, Sarah Palin alienated many Jews, I think.
What about the many right-leaning Jews who still think Obama is going to disintegrate U.S.-Israel relations?
Their arguments seem built mainly on paranoia and fear. There’s nothing in Obama’s record to suggest that he’s going to destroy U.S.-Israel relations. I’m hopeful that he will help Israel find answers to its difficult problems.
You were encouraged by Obama’s selection of Rahm Emanuel.
I like Rahm. He’s emotionally Jewish, if you know what I mean. He’s a proud supporter of Israel, but he sees through some of the extraneous nonsense, I think. I’m mainly guessing here, but he’s not the sort of person to buy the argument that what’s best for the settlement movement is necessarily best for Israel.
The California director of the RJC is fond of saying that the Democratic Party of Joe Lieberman and Scoop Jackson is dead. Do you agree?
If it weren’t dead, Joe Lieberman would still be considered a loyal Democrat.
Two decades ago you served in the IDF and much of your career has involved reporting from and on the Middle East. What has this taught you about the complexities of the peace process?
Serving in the army, and spending so much time in the Middle East, has taught me to mistrust people who say they have the answers.
What advice would you offer Obama?
See above.
5.25.12 at 4:02 pm | Judge Wilken held that the Defense of Marriage. . .
5.24.12 at 9:49 pm | Though Maryland does not recognize same-sex. . .

5.24.12 at 2:43 pm | Maybe the most racist job posting you've ever. . .

5.23.12 at 7:19 pm | The former MLB star is pushing 40 but isn't done. . .
5.22.12 at 10:28 am | Christianity Today reports that .... . .
5.21.12 at 9:03 pm | Harold Camping had predicted that .... . .

11.26.11 at 12:14 pm | A new book of essays provides .... . . (1330)

5.24.12 at 2:43 pm | Maybe the most racist job posting you've ever. . . (221)

12.13.11 at 12:24 pm | What was really behind Matisyahu shaving his. . . (175)


We welcome your feedback. Comments may not exceed 700 characters.
Your information will not be shared or sold without your consent. Get all the details.
JewishJournal.com has rules for its commenting community.Get all the details.
judaism christianity israel politics media islam los angeles barack obama entertainment anti-semitism america sports american jews evangelicals crime the law satire president 08 president 08 god personal john mccain holocaust sexuality war catholicism holidays jesus books europe atheism sarah palin academia science bible death middle east california music iran
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
God's Blog
God for President
Book Bits
Caption Contest
Jewish genius
Strange science
Who is a Jew?
World of Worship
Blogs
Bloggish-mobile
Foodaism-mobile
Hollywood Jew-mobile
Jews and Mormons-mobile
Keeping it Real-mobile
Keeping the Faith-mobile
Morethodoxy-mobile
Nice Jewish Doctor-mobile
Rosners Domain-mobile
Tattletales-mobile
The God Blog-mobile
The Ticket-moblie
Leisure-mobile
Multimedia-iPad
Photos-iPad
Videos-iPad
Passover Reader
| |||||||||
Goldberg is right about uprooting the settlements from the West Bank. He just doesn’t understand that there are far and away more Arab settlements than Jewish ones, that came about by means of squatting, stealing, illegal construction, forcefully and through legal corruption excluding Jewish residency even on land owned and deeded to Jews since before WW I, before Arabs owned anything there or had a synthetic nationalist movement.
What Goldberg does not comprehend is the media technique by which a Jewish habitation on the site of land from which they were expelled via terrorism, massacre and British/Arab collusion is called a ‘settlement’, and an Arab housing development on Jewish National Fund-purchased land that went up last week is called a ‘village’. Psychologically a ‘settlement’ is something not established, and a ‘village’ is a quaint old ancestral homestead. You just have to keep straight who are the indigenous and who are the colonial invaders, who are the cowboys and who are the Indians. The Zionists did not take anybody’s land from them. Every inch of Jewish land was bought with money, sweat and blood, while the so-called palestinian Arabs are with few exceptions a historically recent implant, and not a legal one either.
And regarding your title of ‘Obama won’t destroy U.S.-Israel relationship’. It’s happening already.
From frontpage.com