This is an actual sentence from a CNN report on Sarah Palin attacking Barack Obama over his relationship with eminent Palestinian scholar Rashid Khalidi:
Khalidi has been a stern critic of United States foreign policy towards Israel and has accused the country of “occupying” Palestinian territories, but he has denied acting as a spokesman for the PLO.
How dare Khalidi suggest that Israel may be “occupying” (let’s use quote marks to underline the outrageousness of it all) Palestinian territories? As Philip Weiss says, this is the result of the disastrous effect of the Israel lobby and the skittishness with which US media approach the issue. But I’m sure Wolf Blitzer, former AIPAC lobbyist, will look into that.
Incidentally, the Khalidi business does make Obama look bad – it along with other decisions to distance himself from former friends makes him look like he’s opportunistic and ready to dump his friends at the drop of a hat.
On a related note: Joe the Zionist.
This commentary completely misses the point just to make another unsophisticated attack…the question I would love to raise is: if Clinton hugged and shook hands with Arafat wouldn’t that make him an even bigger radical than a palestinian-american academic who has written critically about the Middle East and the US.
I find the Palin-McCain tactics deplorable but we’ve all heard this simplistic commentary above-this person is a Z– this person is a Zionist… we should dismiss him…blah blah…Quite honestly, this is the exact same thing the Palin-McCain campaign is doing.
It boils down to what one wants in a leader – in a potential president of approx. 300 million people. Obama may distance himself from his ‘friends’. Understandably so. The person who will become president is as much a symbol than s/he is a person in the flesh and blood. As a candidate, and later as an office holder, the symbolic image of the president must trump any individual characteristic that could suggest doubt, concern, imperfection…. It’s the easiest way for hierarchy to work in a vast democracy with innumerable perspectives on leadership.
I am less concerned about any ‘act of distancing’ than I am with how Obama chooses to address the supposed trespass or character accusation. So far, he has addressed them in a way befitting a believable candidate for president – quietly and politely – focusing his counter-argument (why he should be elected) on the substantive initiatives, policies and programs he promises to pursue as president. That is why, in the end, these attacks are weak. They are more dependent on an opponent revealing flaws in their immediate judgment, than they are free-standing critiques of why a person is unfit to lead.
I agree with these points about the president needing to be a symbol of 300 million Americans, and Obama’s skillful deflection of this and other attacks. Naturally do not expect him to agree with my political opinions on every matter, especially the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. That being said, strong reservations with Obama on this issue (even if I generally like his domestic policies, for instance) should be voiced loud and clearly by those who think it is a crucially important issue. Obama’s distancing routine is disappointing for this reason, especially since he never bothered to defend his “friends” from the scurrilous attacks against them, but merely defend himself. As for Bob’s comment, I am not sure what he is getting it since my main criticism in this post is about CNN’s editors, not Obama (I’ve covered him elsewhere). If he meant my
‘dismissal’ of Wolf Blitzer then I was merely reminding readers about the bias of a major television presenter who once was also a reporter on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
You have to wonder why Obama is so worried about associating with a highly respected academic, especially when said academic was also the recipient of a big grant from the International Republican Institute (equivalent of NDI) when no other than McCain was its chair
I hate Wolf Blitzer. Absolutely drives me nuts. But he has repeatedly denied lobbying for AIPAC, or doing anything beyond press/editing work. I hesitate to believe him, but all the accusations are just unsubstantiated rumors. Please do not pass on lies to your readers.
SP — Khalidi is “respected” according to who? According to other “anti-Zionist” professors? A big poop to that. I have never read Khalidi’s books, admittedly, but whenever I read articles and such by him, I think he is ridiculous and his pov is topsy-turvy. I don’t have specific examples, it’s just the impression I’ve gathered from an editorial here and an article there.
Arabist — Obama’s job in running for president is not to defend his friends. You are complaining out of some kind of idealistic, fantasy world logic, not in reaction to real-world campaign needs. Obama has a message and he has to try his damnest to stick to it, otherwise he’ll get sucked into the reactionary, day-to-day campaigning style that has gotten McCain into trouble. The Khalidi thing shouldn’t even be a news story–it is a desperate move on the part of the McCain campaign, and for Obama to go out there and “defend” his friend would just be to play into the McCain campaign’s hands. Even Khalidi seems to realize this, given that he hasn’t appeared on any talk shows or given press–despite his utter douchiness and complete topsy-turvy view of the world, he realizes shutting up and not feeding this dumb fire is the only thing to do. You would rather he acts like Rev Wright and start mouthing off, saying dumb shit just to get a pointless rise out of FNC anchors?
As for me, a big ol’ Zionist — Obama’s friendship with Khalidi does rub the wrong way, and Obama on Israel does cause me discomfort. But frankly, McCain/Palin on Israel/Iran cause me just as much if not more discomfort, because I don’t want the US invading Iran and I don’t believe a pugnacious and disrespectful attitude towards the Muslim world helps anyone, and because Palin’s “support” for Israel is vapid. And anyway Obama has spoken with surprising-to-me depth about Jewish issues, both in America and about Israel. And anyway Obama is better for the US domestically, by leaps and bounds. So Obama it is. And 75% of American Jews agree.
ps. Wolf Blitzer… Blitzer worked at the Jerusalem Post–his first job, I think?–and he had some kind of job in AIPAC but I don’t think he “lobbied” for them.
Oh and by the way, your original point in your post — that is indeed a ridiculous sentence, yes. Even Ariel Sharon used the word occupation. The argument isn’t whether it is or isn’t an occupation, the argument is whether it is or is not justified, how and when it can change, and whose fault it is.
Of course, generally when people like Khalidi talk about “occupation”, they’re really just trying to argue Israel out of existence (very respectable that is, a classroom genocide). And that should be considered outragious.
Calling Khalidi’s teachings a “classroom genocide” is outrageous. He was a leading proponent of the two state solution and negotiator for the Barcelona process. If that did not work out, it’s because of your friend Bibi Netanyahu more than anything else. I recommend to any reader to grab his recent book “The Iron Cage” which explores especially the early Palestinian national movement, and is extremely scathing about Palestinian notables who failed their people as the Zionists terrorized their way to a state.
And by the way, Blitzer worked at AIPAC as editor of the Near East Report.
Khalidi has held important chairs at schools like Columbia and Chicago, which perhaps those with some education or knowledge of academia would realise takes a lot of publishing, serious work and peer/student approval. He’s not as politicised as Finkelstein or Chomsky – or that other very well respected, successful (but I think utterly nuts) ‘academic,’ Alan Dershowitz (I use the quotes for ‘academic’ because he teaches at law school but seems to have spent a good chunk of his recent years on witch hunts against academic freedoms rather than any publishing or actual work). I would still call him a senior academic/lawyer, though, because he teaches at Harvard Law (even though I bet they’re wishing they could withdraw tenure).
I’m no fan of Obama’s but I don’t think he’s distancing himself from Khalidi like he did Rev. Wright, or suggesting the two’s views are comparable. “He’s not one of my advisors and he disagrees with Israel’s policies but he’s a respected scholar” and now basically just asking why he should be singled out of all the people he knows.
If he took time out to discuss how “radical” Khalidi’s views aren’t, that would be interpreted by the press as him having a reason to be defensive. If he had suggested there’s anything fundamentally wrong with holding Khalidi’s views I would have been pretty offended. I’m not happy about it but in this situation I think it’s the best you can expect and I don’t think it’s the best example; things like his aides not letting the girls in hijab stand behind him are far more worrying to me.
oh my god! I actually made you react to me, and on top of that say something I said was outrageous. Of course my comment was outrageous. Throwing around the word “genocide” is almost always outrageous. And stupid. And false.
So now you know how I feel reading the comments on this site sometimes. And when I follow your links to Angry Arab. And when I listen to protesters waving around Zionism=Racism signs and blah blah blah.
I will read a book by Khalidi, since he is so respected and thumbed up around here. Might take me a while to get to (the non-fiction to-read queue is huge), but I’ll get to it.