I've discussed Obama's stance on Israel with many people, but I can't seem to find anyone who will offer me anything substantive as to why he'd leave Israel out to dry. It's always conjecture based on the fact that -- oh my God! -- he was friends with Rashid Khalidi. Or that he had one conversation with Zbigniew Bzrezinski. He's never done or said anything that would indicate he'd be a hostile, or even ambivalent, president towards Israel.

Is the strength of argumentum ad absurdum that one can sometimes beat their opponent into submission with stupidity?

Somehow, smear does not seem adequate to describe it; its more like an insult to intelligent humans everywhere.

*sigh*

I can accept a certain degree of skepticism when it comes to Obama and Israel on the basis that he lacks experience.  "What has he done?  How do we know we can trust him?  How can we really know he's a friend?"  This is a view that I don't agree with and I think suffers from a certain intellecutal laziness, but it's understandable and it's not malicious.

But Rubin's piece?  GSpinks is correct.  To call it a "smear" is to be kind.  

One way to give the lie to Rubin would be to produce Obama's voting record in the Senate on this issue (foreign aid, etc.).  Oh, wait.  Does he have a voting record or did he skip the votes to leave us mortals guessing where he stands?

Is it "jingoistic" when you're supporting someone else's country, right or wrong?

Welllllllll -- look, I think she's over the top, but how many of us think Obama was oblivious to Reverend Wright's Israel demonizing and hatemongering to his congregation?   Was that or was that not Cornell West on stage with Obama at the Appolo theater?  Do you really think Zbigniew Brezinski was a "one conversaton" marginal a figure in his foreign policy braintrust?  Or Susan Rice or Samantha Powers?

To make her point in a fanciful manner: if your child's life depended on who you could be sure would more likely stand with Israel against immense pressure (say...a genocidal situation in Iraq, deteriorating Afghanistan, double today's oil prices and the gulf states offer massive help if the U.S. pressures Israel to make much greater concessions than what was offered in 2000, including a return of the golan heights), would you bet on Obama or McCain?  By the way, I don't think the answer is absolutely clear, but for voters with that kind of mindset I bet Rubin is right that more are going McCain's way.  

To call it "vapid" would be kind, too.  What's wrong with this paragraph:

"Israel was saved due to this massive infusion of military aid. Meir referred to Nixon with enormous affection for the rest of her life. Nixon, despised by many in the US, was hailed as a hero in Israel. And Nixon (who had garnered a minority of the Jewish vote in 1972) received little or no political benefit at home for his trouble, leaving office the following year."

Does Rubin know Nixon didn't "[leave] office" after an election, but under threat of impeachment?  Or does she think Nixon should have earned a "get out of jail free" card for Watergate?  Or -- most likely -- did she purposefully obfuscate the issue to make a lame political point?

This column is towering, breathtaking rubbish.  However, at a certain point I think you can apply an all-purpose "idiot" stamp for anything coming from a Human Events columnist.  You don't need to refute it; just put it in the "idiot" drawer and call it a day.

Someone should tell old Jennifer that even if every single Jewish person didn't vote for Obama he could still win in a landslide. Jewish people represent, what 2 or 3% of the electorate? And does she really think if it looks like the vast majority of Americans care more about the price of gas and the economy then they do about Israel (not that they don't, but my Irish Catholic family is not prone to hysteria about Israel, they have taken care of themselves for 60 years now) that Jewish people will be oblivious to this, that they will seek publicly go against the more popular candidate because of imaginary failings, said imaginings coming from a seriously obsessed woman writing in a Foreign newspaper? No, most intelligent Jewish people would get behind Obama and try to persuade him of their rightness. I could place an even bet that Obama will get the majority of the Jewish vote and most of the money.

I looked at that web page, the woman has a serious Obama fixation.

lymon, Zbig is NOT in his brain trust and never has been. His chief Middle East policy advisor is Dan Shapiro.

Just reading the headline made me think this post was about Jamie Kirchick.

nbarry, I would love to concede the point, but I noticed a signficant lack of bills actually in the Senate regarding Israel specifically or allies in general. There was plenty of stuff in the House, but that doesn't matter. Do you have any bills in mind regarding your accusation, or are you simply part of the "argumentum ad absurdum" crowd attempting to pummel us to death with your idiocy. If you have any bills in mind, I'd be happy to do the leg work, THOMAS is a (search) engine that could. :)

lymon, to address your point I'd like to say that this time around we don't have to be Israeli citizens to appreciate the gravity, and far reaching effects, of the issues facing the next POTUS. I'd also like add that 1) I think both candidates will happily assist Israel if called upon, and 2) I think McCain is more likely than Obama to renege on Israel if circumstances are less than optimal or, God Forbid!, dire.

Roz, why are you bothering lymon with the facts? Everyone knows he's allergic to factuals.

lymon writes:  "Welllllllll -- look, I think she's over the top, but how many of us think Obama was oblivious to Reverend Wright's Israel demonizing and hatemongering to his congregation?   Was that or was that not Cornell West on stage with Obama at the Appolo theater?  Do you really think Zbigniew Brezinski was a "one conversaton" marginal a figure in his foreign policy braintrust?  Or Susan Rice or Samantha Powers?"

Wellllll -- how many of us think that Obama just slurps up opinions from his various advisors and has no ideas or judgment of his own?  How many of us think that Zbig has genuinely no foreign policy experience worth listening to, or that Samantha Power didn't in fact write the single best book on the U.S. and genocide in the modern era, and might have something useful to contribute on that issue?

Let's see now, lymon makes one.  Anyone else . . . ?

If having been advised by Zbigniew Brzezinski (formally or informally) is evidence of anti-Israel sentiment, the Rubins of the world are going to have to look to a third party candidate.  Zbig was one of McCain's national security advisers back in 2000.  www.huffingtonpost.com/.../flashback-mccain-praised_n_106518.html

Key quote:

"I am honored that Zbigniew Brzezinski will join my foreign policy team," McCain said at that time. "As a former national security adviser and a highly respected foreign policy expert, his broad experience makes him an invaluable asset to my team." In describing his key advisers, McCain continued: "I am very honored to have the support and advice of these recognized experts whose years of service to our nation and experience in international affairs have earned them the well-deserved respect of all."

Choosing somebody as an adviser is not a wholesale endorsement of all of their views.  It means that you think they have something worthwhile to contribute in some particular area.  Picking advisers just because they agree with you on everything is an awful way to govern, and Obama is well aware of this.  This makes the whole project of trying to infer Obama's *real* views from his associates rather dubious.  At any rate, even if you accept this as a legitimate means of inferring Obama's positions, the argument advanced by Rubin and others like her is still deeply flawed because it utterly ignores all of Obama's associations with people who are pro-Israel.  Apparently those associations don't count.

AlanSP:  "'"I am honored that Zbigniew Brzezinski will join my foreign policy team,' McCain said."  That is such a good talking point.  

Wait, is this an Israeli election or an American one?

Wow, reading Iron I thought I had completely misread Rubin's post and that she must have written that Obama is an out and out Israel hater, not about his arguable "indifference" to Israel bashers.  Then I thought I must have only mentioned Zbigniew Brezinski.  It's a bit like that dream of showing up for a high school or college test 40 minutes late and in the nude.  

So everyone pinch themselves and then reread the thread.  The point is that we really don't know what Obama thinks of Israel or what he's going to do in office.  If there was a record of him taking issue with Israel-hating pastor on the subject, or if he had been in the U.S. Congress for a longer period of time, or other objective evidence, we might have a better idea.  Even then we wouldn't know -- did anyone in 1988 think that George H.W. Bush would turn on Israel and his chief of staff make comments like "Fuck the Jews, we don't need them"?   Anyway, as I said, Rubin's voters (and herself apparently) are like the people in my hypothetical -- that's a shame, but IF that were any of us, I think most would be going with McCain.  

blackton - not that there's anything like that going on, but I dunno, IF every Jew, a traditional Dem block, in Michigan and Pennsyvania and Ohio and Florida were voting for Obama, McCain's chances would be looking a lot better right now.

I was just saying that having Zbig or Power on his team of advisors doesn't mean that Obama buys all their advice; but it does reflect that they each have something to contribute to any rational and inclusive f-p debate.  Your original comment seemed to imply the opposite, but I'm sorry if I misread it.

Thanks Ironyroad -- nope, I was just making a limited defense of J-Rub, didn't mean to imply that Obama's advisors per se meant that he held anti-Israel views (which would = calling him an utter liar based on nothing).  

The irony in this discussion is that in the Jewish community in Chicago where Obama is best known (and well liked), Obama is considered one of the family. Members of the Jewish community sought him out to persuade him to run for Congress against Bobby Rush, the Farrakhan-allied congressman. One told me "if Bill Clinton was the first African-American president, we believe Barack Obama will be the first Jewish American president". There is no doubt in that community that Obama will be as strong friend of Israel. Indeed, looking at track records, Obama's is stronger than McCain's on that score.

It could be symbolic that "Barack" has Semitic origins and means "blessing".