According to Amir Taheri, Jesse Jackson said:
The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.
Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.
(h/t Bookworm Room, Meryl)
Now Jesse claims that his quotes have been taken out of context.
Jackson himself denounced Taheri, according to the Associated Press, for “selectively imposing his own point of view and distorting mine,” issuing a statement saying Taheri was trying to “to incite fear and division.”
Jackson added that he “has never had a conversation with Sen. Obama about Israel or the Middle East.”
And of course the Obama campaign claims that Jesse Jackson does not speak for the campaign. That’s true. Of course the question is why people who share Jackson’s views seek to be supporting Sen. Obama.
Here’s what the Obama campaign has to say:
“Rev. Jesse Jackson Sr. is not an adviser to the Obama campaign and is therefore in no position to interpret or share Barack Obama’s views on Israel and foreign policy. As he has made clear throughout his career and throughout this campaign, Barack Obama has a fundamental commitment to a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, and he is advised by people like Dennis Ross, Daniel Kurtzer, Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, and Senator Joe Biden who share that commitment,” Morigi said.
Dennis Ross and Daniel Kurtzer were among “Baker’s boys,” the (Jewish) State Department officials who worked for James Baker during Bush 41 and stayed on in various capacities into the Clinton administration. Here’s left winger Phillip Weiss on Kurtzer:
Kurtzer’s central argument is one I read in The Israel Lobby. George H.W. Bush–Bush 41–led the best presidency on Arab/Israel issues in the last 20 years. His standing up to Israel on the settlements in ’91 was a great thing, though “some domestic advocates for Israel were unnecessarily alienated.” That’s the Israel lobby. And because Bush folded on this issue, it “had a searing effect that far outlasted the Bush 41 administration, reverberating well into the Clinton and Bush 43 years and causing the next president and his team to overcompensate in ways that created a different set of problems.”
This is a vicious, anti-Israel and ahistorical post. But it is rather admiring of Kurtzer and what it would signal for an Obama administration. What’s going on is that pro-Israel, is starting to mean supporting active American engagement in the Middle East. It means ignoring the “minority” Jews who are “hawkish” on the Middle East. It means supporting an Israeli government that his headed by a left of center party willing to make unconditional concessions to Israel’s enemies and opposing Israeli governments headed by the Likud.
It is centered around a conceit that America knows better what is right for Israel than Israelis and that just the right amount of concessions will magically bring about a peaceful Palestinian state living side by side with Israel.
That’s a fantasy, of course. There won’t be peace until there’s an acceptance of Israel by the Palestinians. No amount of Israeli concessions will change that. People like Kurtzer and Ross may pretend otherwise, but they are fooling themselves. (Given how invested Ross in the idea of a peace process, it’s not surprising. Who would admit that his life’s work was folly?)
Jesse Jackson is being truthful. He knows what Sen. Obama means when he says that being pro-Israel isn’t the same thing as being pro-Likud. He’s just less diplomatic.
Ironically the JPost linked to another article above the Jackson denial about another man of cloth whose views of Israel are misunderstood.
The 75-year-old Nicaraguan, a former diplomat for the Sandinista government, has been sharply criticized in the past weeks for hugging Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad moments after he gave a speech to the UN in which he described Israel as a “cesspool.”
D’Escoto has also refused to condemn Ahmadinejad’s comments that Israel be “wiped off the map.”
He told the Post he “did not like” the comments, but said he believed Iran’s antipathy toward Israel stemmed not from anti-Semitism but from the political dispute over the Palestinian issue.
“I don’t pretend to be infallible, but I don’t perceive that, for example, from Iran they would be anti-Jew,” d’Escoto said. “That position of the Iranian government is on account of what they consider to be the bad treatment for the Palestinians.”
D’Escoto helped arrange that Iftar dinner for Ahmadinejad when he was in NY to address the UN.
Courtesy of new General Assembly President Miguel D’Escoto, who is Nicaragua’s foreign minister, and a coalition of left-wing American Christian groups, he will be the guest of honor at a private iftar dinner to celebrate the end of Ramadan. The September 25 event at the Grand Hyatt Hotel has all the trappings of a Cold War solidarity event. Joining D’Escoto as hosts are some companeros from the former Catholic priest’s Sandinista days: The World Council of Churches, the American Friends Service Committee, the Mennonites, and the US section of the World Conference of Religions for Peace.
My guess is that if pressed on the issue of how he loves Israel, D’Escoto would anwer “Well done.”
Crossposted on Soccer Dad.
