Obama and the American Likudniks

There is a serious effort underway to attack Barack Obama for his positions on Israel, the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process, and American policy in the Middle East.

The main attack has focused on the endorsement of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Jimmy Carter's National Security adviser, who is not an adviser to the Obama campaign. The attacks have been mainly circulated by surrogates of the Clinton-campaign (which has happened so frequently that there would appear to be a pattern), but was even uttered by Ann Lewis, one of Senator Clinton's closest advisers.

Addressing Jewish leaders in Cleveland, Obama has responded directly to these comments:

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you're anti-Israel and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. "If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress...

Obama also said he encountered more nuanced views among Israelis than Americans.

"There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel," he said. "All of you, I'm sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I'm saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear eyed view about how we approach these issues."


Obama makes two important points that don't often appear in mainstream American political discourse:

1)One can support Israel's security without supporting hard-line Likud positions.
2)The policy debate concerning the peace process is more open in Israel than it is in the United States.

This is an extremely brave and perhaps even risky move for Obama, as it dissents from the discursive frame (the basic terms of the debate and what is considered the acceptable position) in the United States about Israel and Middle Eastern foreign policy.

But it's a good risk, and won't alienate Jewish voters: the overwhelming majority of American Jews support a peace process and a two-state solution, and don't identify with the Likud position. There is broader support for diplomatic options among the Jewish masses than among the leadership. As with a number of religious communities, the leadership is ideologically more polarized than its constituency.

Y'asher Koach, Barack Obama.

*Update*
The New York Times picks up the story....