Fair and Balanced
Some Chicago Jews say Obama is actually the ‘first Jewish president’
By Natasha Mozgovaya, HAARETZ
Quite a few of Barack Obama’s “friends from the past” have popped up recently. It’s doubtful whether he even knows their names, but in the Chicago Jewish community many people really are long-time friends of the president-elect. Some of the older people in the community say that they “raised him,” while others half-jokingly call Obama “the first Jewish president.”
Comment by Ted Belman. This article presents a totally different take on Obama than the one presented on Israpundit. That is not to say it isn’t also factual. So are these visions both true? Are they reconcilable? Which will be dominant?
They raised contributions for him, provided him with contacts, and also enjoyed hosting him and believed in his glorious future in politics. During most of the campaign, when rumors were spreading among American Jews that Obama was a closet Muslim who was more supportive of the Palestinians and was interested in granting the president of Iran legitimacy, his support among American Jews did not even come close to that enjoyed by Bill Clinton. But at the moment of truth, according to the exit polls, it turns out that 78 percent of Jews voted for Obama.
Members of the Chicago Jewish community are not surprised. They claim that the Jews simply discovered what they have known for years. Obama lives near the synagogue in the Hyde Park neighborhood of Chicago, an area with quite a large Jewish population. Some of area visitors may even mistake the heavy security presence on the street for the synagogue’s location - that is, until they hear about Obama.
Alan Solow, an attorney from Chicago, a leader of the Jewish community and a veteran Obama supporter, was one of the few who gained access to the president-elect after his speech in Chicago’s Grant Park last week. “After his speech on Tuesday night [election day] in front of hundreds of thousands people, he was the same Barack Obama I know. I think his life is going to change, but it won’t change the type of person he is. Presidents tend to become isolated, but I’m confident he’ll fight hard against it,” he says.
Solow used to live in Obama’s neighborhood, and says that Obama has always had “excellent relations with the Jewish community.”
“As a local senator, he was very effective and helpful in what we call ‘the Jewish agenda,’ the community issues, values. He has always had a deep understanding of Israel’s need for security. I went with him to Israel for a week in January 2006, and when he started the race for the presidency I had no doubt I’d support him. The first thing that impressed me about him was his intellect - he’s one of the smartest people I’ve met - but he’s also a warm and caring person who has a keen interest in issues that people of this country are worried about,” continues Solow.
“I said with a smile that he will be the first Jewish president. He also has a deep understanding of issues that confront Israel and the Jewish community. And I think his personal story reflects the story of Jewish immigration to the United States.
“He was raised in a family without any built-in advantages: His father was a stranger, but with the help of a close family and an emphasis on education and hard work, he succeeded. It’s the Jewish story in America. He understands it, and that’s why he’s so close to the Jewish community. His first autobiography is about seeking his roots and he understands Jewish people’s yearning for this - it fits into his world view and it’s one of the reasons for his support of Israel. When he says that Israel’s security is sacrosanct, I believe him. As I know him, he won’t say things he doesn’t really mean. And he has a lot of close Jewish friends who can confirm this.”
Solow is also very familiar with Obama’s first appointment - his designated White House chief of staff. “Rahm is an active member of Jewish community, his children go to the day schools and he was always recognized as Jewish when he was Clinton’s advisor. But I don’t believe that the fact that he’s a devoted Jew and supports Israel has anything to do with his appointment. He’s simply the best person for this job, because of his experience in Congress and in Clinton’s administration, and because of his intellect. But his support of Israel fits with the president-elect’s thinking.”
Michael Bauer, a political activist from the community who has known Obama for over a decade and supported his presidential campaign, says his first reaction to Obama’s victory was disbelief. “It seemed like a dream. After the election, I had a brief opportunity to congratulate him, to exchange a hug with Barack, a kiss with Michelle. We’re very proud of him and we’re sure he’ll successfully handle the big challenges facing the country and the new president,” he says.
“If we go back to his work as a State senator, his Senate district had a relatively high percentage of Jews, and more importantly, it was a Jewish population involved both politically and with charity organizations. When he was in the State Senate, the Democrats were a minority. When you’re a minority you don’t get too much accomplished. Neither Barack as a State Senator nor any of his colleagues were able to accomplish a great deal, because of Republican control of the State Senate. However, because of his district, it was always clear to me that many people supporting Barack are active in the Jewish community both locally and nationally. And they agreed about his sensitivity to a number of issues - the issue of the U.S-Israel relationship and domestically, issues that many of us are concerned about, be it the separation of Church and State, women’s right to choose, etc. It was always a natural fit between the Jewish community and Barack Obama. He understands those issues. Frankly, he’s so smart he understands them better than most of us,” says Bauer.
Identifying with Sderot
“As a U.S. senator he visited Israel twice, and especially the second time I think was highly significant,” Bauer continues. “I think it was important to him personally to go to Sderot and see the proximity involved when Israel is attacked on a daily basis from Gaza. I think it was also symbolic for the people of Israel and the worldwide community, as well as the Jewish community, to see Barack Obama going to Sderot and speaking about it, that as president it will be unacceptable to him and he recognizes Israel’s right to defend itself. This symbolism was important on so many different levels. I’ve known the president-elect for over 10 years, and his values and principles never change. If you ask me whether I have confidence that he’ll continue to be committed to Israel’s existence as a Jewish state within secure borders - I have absolutely no doubt.”
“President Bush supported Israel as well, but after eight years of his support Israel faces a stronger Iran, Hezbollah at the northern border, Hamas at the southern border - and Hamas gained a sort of political legitimacy. I think George Bush was a disaster for the State of Israel. And I think Obama’s administration understands Israel’s needs for safety and security, the importance of Israel remaining a Jewish state, and will try to help to mediate a peace in the Middle East that accomplishes those goals. There are still people who don’t believe it, but the great thing in democracy is that everyone has an opinion and you don’t need 100 percent consensus. I think peace in the Middle East is one of his highest priorities - he’s not going to wait for seven years as a president to start working on it.”
Bauer was also heavily involved in Rahm Emanuel’s campaign for Congress. “Let me say something about Rahm. One of the things people don’t like about him is the fact he’s short with people, but it’s only because he’s such a smart person. He doesn’t need a 15-minute phone conversation, he gets to the issues in three minutes. And Israel - it’s in his blood. The fact that Joe Biden, with a long record of supporting Israel, is Obama’s vice president-elect and Rahm Emanuel is his chief of staff - I’m not sure what reassurance anyone needs that the president-elect when he is president will remain a close ally of the State of Israel and the people of Israel.”
The same argument about Obama being a Muslim applies to the theory that he is a Jew. What would either a Jew or a Muslim be doing in the Trinity United Church of CHRIST?
TUCC might be a racist church, but it is nominally Christian just the same.
Comment by Bill Levinson — November 13, 2008 @ 1:52 pm
A Majority See Obama as Definitely pro-Israel
Whether Obama is pro Israel or not depends on one’s perspective.
Israpundit’s perspective on what constitutes a pro-Israel view is in the minority, if not the small minority. That view leads to the conclusion that Obama is anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian.
Israpundit’s perspective generally is that according to international law and historical as well as biblical precedent, Israel is still likely entitled to claim superior right and sovereignty to Gaza, Judea and Samaria.
Further, many at Israpundit hold that what Israel bargained away with each interim agreement with the Palestinians starting with Oslo, can be rightfully reclaimed for those agreements can be abrogated and resiled from by Israel by virtue of a complete failure on the part of the Palestinians to honor and keep their word, promises and agreements.
Many at Israpundit hold that if one looks to historical precedent involving other nations involved in conflict and having to deal with foreign populations, voluntary population transfer was an acceptable means to resolve and avoid in future, conflicts that in part were due to competing territorial claims. With that in mind, orchestrating a voluntary population transfer of Palestinians from Gaza, Judea and Samaria is with historical precedent and is a perfectly reasonable position to advance and try to achieve.
The Israpundit view is decidedly a right wing small minority view that is not shared by all Western nations, the majority of Israelis and it certainly has not been shared by successive Israeli governments since Israel’s inception.
The vast majority view as regards Israel and the Israel - Palestinian/Arab conflict is that shared by all Western nations, including Israel which view can be bound up in the 2 state peace solution paradigm. This paradigm had its genesis in the thinking of the 1947 UN Partition Resolution.
There have been a number of expressions and variations on that theme, the latest being the parameters of the 2 state peace solution paradigm being advanced by the Quartet, to which America is a party.
Pres. Obama will not however be pushing Israel in any different direction then Pres. Bush did. Pres. Obama may try some different strategies and different or more pressure then Pres. Bush, but it is highly unlikely Pres. Obama will seek to force Israel to agree to anything different then what the current 2 state solution peace paradigm calls for.
Noteworthy is that the Quartet’s peace paradigm forsees division of Jerusalem as a matter left for final status negotiations.
The Palestinians have nothing but their word to offer. Israel has land and other tangible economic/political concessions that it can put up in any deal.
Views within the 2 state peace solution paradigm do vary. For example, some views side more with the Palestinians in their demands for more and fewer or lesser guarantees of Palestinian performing their duties an agreement would impose on them.
Some side more with the Israelis in terms of assurances needed to guarantee secure and recognized borders and peace.
Further, some see resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a panacea, be it improved relations in the Middle East for America or all of the West, whereas others recognize that a 2 state peace solution being achieved, regardless of its terms will bring joy to the Western world in the Middle East.
There is therefore a fair bit of wiggle room within that peace paradigm as to just how one perceives the 2 state peace solution paradigm should play out to a satisfactory end.
Obama is pro-Israel as much as Pres. Bush is pro-Israel.
Just how good a friend of Israel Obama turns out to be depends therefore on just how he perceives the 2 state peace solution paradigm should play out and just what he does to ensure the end game of the 2 state solution peace paradigm is achieved within his own parameters for success.
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 13, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Good summary Bill except I disagree with “Obama is pro-Israel as much as Pres. Bush is pro-Israel. “
I talked to my daughter today and we agreed that a solution cannot be imposed nor can it be negotiated at this time.
Where we differed was on what Israel should do in the interim. She didn’t want settlements to be expanded as this would make a peace deal impossible or at least more difficult.
I wanted aggressive building because the pentup demand is making housing in Jerusalem unaffordable. Also I belive that the best way to put pressure on the Arabs to compromise is to keep building.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 13, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Bill there was nothing Christian about TUCC. It was not a true Christian church in any sense, but one which promoted the marxist and racist black liberation theology doctrine. I think I recall reading that in fact muslims were members of TUCC and it had a close relationship with the nation of islam and as you know TUCC honored farrakhan.
Comment by Laura — November 13, 2008 @ 5:24 pm
Really? But then he speaks before Arabs and Muslims and expresses sympathy with the palestinian cause. Since he makes contradictory statements, how is it possible that he won’t say things he doesn’t mean?
But his values and principles constantly change, according to which group he is speaking to. Sorry, but I’m not so confident of obama’s committment to Israel’s security, let alone its existence as a Jewish state.
Furthermore how can anyone who supposedly has an affinity for Jews be close to the likes of Jeremiah Wright and so many other like-minded people, including the nation of islam? You cannot be friends with both.
Comment by Laura — November 13, 2008 @ 5:41 pm
Ted, it is too early to draw comparisons between the pro-Israel position of Obama and Pres. Bush.
In making the statement I did, I had in mind that Pres. Bush & the State Department personified by C. Rice were not exactly as pro-Israel and best friends of Israel as the hype would suggest.
Recall they were over the past years, pressuring Israel to enter into ill advised meetings and agreements. Consider the Rafah agreement of November 2005 I think, pushing Israel to go along with Palestinian elections with Hamas running, the U.S. limits imposed on Israel’s right to exercise self defence vis a vis Hamas attacks, the useless UN Security council resolution 1701 that brought the Israel Lebanon war to a close, the Anapolis conference, etc., etc.
Caroline Glick recently wrote in the same vein that Bush was not nearly the friend of Israel as both Bush and Olmert tried to portray.
Given the reality that Bush was not nearly such a great friend of Israel and Obama might be portrayed as a worse friend of Israel then he actually may be, I presumed a bit of an equivilence there.
Both you and your daughter make valid points as to whether or not settlements should be expanded.
I gather your daughter comes from the view that if Israel does not inflame the situation by pressing forward with settlements, there is a chance that an ongoing peace process, even if at times it is just talking about peace, could keep the parties focussed and on the path to peace and thus peace in the forseeable future remains a possibility.
I am inclined to Israel expanding settlements, but disagree with you on the reasons.
First of all, Israel does need to accomodate a growing population and thus expanding settlements is part of natural growth.
Pushing to develop new settlements however, I think is still important in the context of putting facts on the ground.
I do not see expanding settlements or establishing new ones as a tactic to pressure Arabs to compromise. Palestinians and Arabs will just be infuriated.
If however Israel can in spite of the doubtless rancourous objections of the Palestinians, Arabs and the West, successfully expand existing settlements and put more settlements on the ground, that could very well materially can alter realities, forcing a shift in the paradigm to accommodate a somewhat different paradigm that all the parties could still say, however grudgingly still meets the new parameters for a satisfactory 2 state peace solution end game objective.
The second reason, I am inclined to expanding existing and building new settlements that increasingly encroach into J & S, is that it be done in conjunction with advocating an Israeli government mindset change to counter the view that Israeli settlers are different and something less then other Israeli citizens.
I noted before in another comment that the settlers constitute about 5% of the population of Jewish Israelis.
Thus far they have been marginalized by the government, falsely characterized by both government and the media as radical extremists and violent, denied claimed rights as being subordinate to national interest and both the government and the liberal-left media have gone along with Western views that the settlers, if allowed their rights and demands, are a threat to undermine the peace process and thus Israel has gone along with stigmatizing those Israelis as something less then loyal Israeli citizens every bit as much as Israelis living in cities, towns and Kibutzim.
The Israeli government must become a government for all its citizens and not just those who agree with government policy and position.
Add to that, the Israeli government must advance its own narrative of rights and interests and in stating Israel’s position to the world and at the bargaining table, must avoid recognizing the primacy of any part of the Palestinian narrative that is in conflict with Israel’s narrative, lawful rights and best intersts.
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 13, 2008 @ 6:04 pm
Bill
On the issue of pent up demand in Jerusalem I must further comment. It cause prices to rise and thus you Jewish couples to leave the Jerusalem thus reducing the Jewish majority. It also inhibits industry from moving to Jerusalem. There are many plans out there to expand the borders of Jerusalem, to build in the expanded areas. The new Mayor Birkat supports this and is on record of building.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 13, 2008 @ 6:37 pm
Ted, that is good to hear there is support for building and expansion. When will the Israeli government, Jerusalem municipal authorities and construction companies act on that support and move forward?
Are the objections of the Palestinians, America and the Quartet keeping construction from going forward?
When will the Israeli government adopt an F.U. attitude to anyone who stands in the way of Israel’s best interests? Israel should be governing according to the needs of Israel and not the wants of Palestinians and the West.
I would also like to hear however that the Israeli government and municipal authorities in Jerusalem get tough on Arab illegal construction. I would like to see that illegal construction stopped and that which was illegally built, torn down at the Arab builders’ expense or if it meets building codes and it is politically feasible, boot out the illegal Arab residents and open the buildings to Jewish residency.
The Gazan settlers still have not been fully restored. Perhaps giving them free or subsidized housing built illegally by Arabs and confiscated by Israel would be a good place to give these people homes and purpose for living there.
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 13, 2008 @ 7:10 pm
Bill check out this post
http://www.israpundit.com/2007/?p=4754
Comment by Ted Belman — November 13, 2008 @ 8:05 pm
Ted, do you know whether the Israeli government and Jerusalem authorities are still premising their policies and predictions on the demographic study of Prof. Sergio DellaPergolla?
Have the authorities even taken note of the demographic study done by The American-Israel Demographic Research Group (AIDRG)?
Comment by Bill Narvey — November 14, 2008 @ 8:55 am
For Yoram Ettinger, its almost a full time job disseminating his study. Hardly a day goes by that he doesn’t sit with influential people to explain it all. His study has been presented to various government bodies in Canada and the US.
Last summer I attended a meeting at the JCPA headed by Ettinger . He spent well over an hour explaining his study and recommending a Greater Jerusalem which would extend to the Dead Sea on the east. He argued, that politics aside, the best plan for Jerusalem was to enlarge it to include the Arab areas also, to build an airport and rapid rail and thousand of houses etc. This would lower the cost of housing and attract industry. At the moment, Jerusalem is one of the poorest areas in the country.
In Israel, the left including the media and government cling to the study by Della Pergola because it suits their politics. But increasingly the word is getting out.
Comment by Ted Belman — November 14, 2008 @ 9:12 am