Ha'aretz, an Israeli newspaper whose English Internet edition is widely read in the U.S.,
has an editorial today that states: "While Obama was taking advantage of Martin Luther King Day to speak out against anti-Semitism among blacks, Jewish spokesmen were using racist language against him, solely because his father was Muslim."
I looked in vain in the rest of the editorial for any evidence that anyone who can reasonably be described as a "Jewish spokesman" had said anything remotely racist about Obama. As far as I can tell, Ha'aretz's main complaint is that Jews with right-wing views on Israel are suspicious of Obama because they see him as a "leftist". Ha'aretz's editorialists seem to agree that he's a leftist (in Israeli terms, this means something more like "liberal" in American vernacular), but thinks that's cause for celebration, not criticism. I don't get the concept that when a right-winger is hostile to someone both they and his defenders consider a "leftist", this is an issue of racism; do right-wingers tend to support white Protestant leftists?
It's true, as Ha'aretz points out, that there has been a virulent, dishonest email campaign against Obama, based on his being some sort of Muslim Manchurian candidate. I've received one such email from a casual acquaintance (see below). The one I received struck me as targeted to religious Christians, though the emails have been sent to Jews as well. But be that as it may, this email campaign has not, to my knowledge, been traced to any prominent individual Jewish activist or Jewish organization, and indeed was formally condemned by a group of "Jewish spokesmen," representing a broad spectrum of religious, fraternal, civil rights, and anti-defamation organizations.
Unless Ha'aretz can come up with a reasonable example of "Jewish spokesmen" using "racist language" regarding Obama, I hope the newspaper will withdraw this accusation and run a correction. But I suspect that Ha'aretz is less concerned with Obama per se, and more with trying to discredit the America "right-wing Jews" (a very broad category for Ha'aretz; consider, as an analogy, who the editors of The Nation would consider right-wing) it holds in contempt.
UPDATE: For those unfamiliar with Ha'aretz's editor's politics, note that recently Ha'aretz editor David Landau reportedly "implored [Condoleeza] Rice to intervene, asserting that the Israeli government wanted 'to be raped' and that it would be like a 'wet dream' for him to see this happen." In other words, Ha'aretz would like policies supported by the Israeli left but opposed by most Israelis to be imposed on Israel by the U.S.
ADDENDUM: Here's the email a casual acquaintance sent me:
(show)
worrisome than his possible Muslim childhood upbringing. Debbie Schlussel has photos of Obama with Edward Said and several high-ranking NOI members. Her question about anti-Semitic NOI members in an Obama White House are entirely reasonable.
http://tinyurl.com/3dd536
The real danger of Obama's bein a born a Muslim is to Obama himself. If this were true, he'd be an apostate and therefore would have no excuse for living. Good muslims would have the duty to murder him whenever and whenever they could. If this were to come to pass, the damages we've visited on Afghanistan and Iraq would look pretty tame in comparision .
Shouldn't Haaretz get a bit of a break here given that they wrote this in an editorial, not a news story? If an editorial page has strong political views, it seems entirely predictable that they would chose words designed to disredit their political opponents.
sbron,
I assume you mean Obama, not Farrakan.
"Obama's connections to the Nation of Islam are far more worrisome..."
I do not expect the President to be reflexively pro-Israel, but Carterite or NOI-type anti-Semitism is not acceptable to me as a voter.
Predictable, perhaps, but if the charge is wholly unsubstantiated, they should retract it. If it's simply a matter of choosing harsher language over less harsh, I'd agree with you.
But he is a little bit of a pickle. bin Laden might consider him an apostate Moslem. Obama's "defense" is that in reality his father was an atheist.
He also denies doing what he may have done as a child.
Further your reliance on a website that continually refers to Sen. Obama as "Barak Hussein" (and nothing else) shows how much credence we should give to a website.
By the way, David, great job in spreading libels against Obama --- someone once sent me an email saying David Bernstein was a murderer, now I know it's not true, but why don't I go ahead and print it on my widely read website. Way to go!!
David got the job done.
I am a (bad) Catholic. If my bishop were to make a statement, I would have to concede that a "Catholic spokesman" had said such-and-such. But Jews in America are not hierarchical. So is Henry Kissinger a "Jewish spokesman"? Steven Spielberg? Jerry Seinfeld?
What could Ha'aretz have been thinking?
The problem with your attempt to exonerate the right is that I haven't heard many Democrats receiving the type of email, but just about every Republican blogger under the sun has mentioned this crap. That seems like an attempt to hurt him in the general, and not the primaries. Face it, you right-wingers do this type of stuff much better than we could ever hope to, if only we had no particular conscience.
Isn't this confusing Obama with Keith Ellison, Democrat from Minnesota?
That's right, we do. And we would have gotten away with it, if it weren't for you meddling kids!
sufferare blessed with an elitist certainty that they are at the pinnacle of truth, morality, and righteousness, and no others need apply. On the other hand, this elevated position obviates their need to prove anything they believe should be true.It is beneath your dignity to grace that junkheap with a blog article.
Turning to the actual point of the post, Haaretz gets no break if a factual assertion is unfounded, even if it appears on the editorial page. If they cannot substantiate this allegation, then they should withdraw it. Otherwise, it is a hideous claim designed to smear by association anyone who opposes Obama, especially Jews.
It is disheartening to see that you provided the text of a email full of false 'facts', even if in a form requiring one to click a link.
One of my friends sent me the substantially same email, except that it included a statement that the email had been checked out by snopes.com and found to be true. This made me check snopes, which stated the email was false. http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/muslim.asp
I would hope that those who are interested in facts, rather than rumors, would ensure that what they post has at least a colorable claim to being true. Perhaps you did not realize that your casual acquaintance sent you a canard. You should realize that now.
"I bet plenty of good patriotic Americans were sat next to people with worse views than Said at dinners."
Indeed. Recall the photo of Rumsfeld shaking hands with his good buddy Saddam.
How about coming up with a Jewish spokesman using any kind of language? I can’t think of anyone who can legitimately claim that he “speaks for the Jews.” As far as I am concerned there is no such person.
Many of us think you virtually never "right about...Israel", albeit you often write about Israel...
"Oh, right. Like Obama's dad was REALLY Muslim."
Those who produce the English-language edition of Ha'aretz have a command of English that is equal to or better than most of us have, so no possibility that "this is a case of poor translation." (Is the English-language edition simply a translation of the Hebrew edition, or is it not at all derivative of the Hebrew edition? Is it true, as I have been told, that Ha'aretz is not so consequential a paper in Israel, and that is the more accessible to non-Hebrew speakers English-language edition that has the greater impact, especially because it is available online?)
[Question: does the Muslim world count someone a Muslim simply because they had a Muslim parent, no matter whether it was a father or a mother? It matters not whether the individual was raised a Muslim?]
When a non-Muslim recognizes his error, he does not 'convert' to Islam, but instead 'reverts'.
Those yet to realize their error are not apostates, however. Until they 'revert' through the intentional act of reciting the shahada, they are not considered to be actual Muslims.
I believe that the late, unlamented Khomeni called for Salman Rushdie to be put to death because his novel was deemed blasphemous and Rushdie was born to Muslim parents, though he did not adhere to the faith. Would Rushdie have been counted a Muslim by Khomeni, whether one in good standing or bad standing (apostate), if he had only been the son of a Muslim father or mother?
“… but rather spokespeople speaking on behalf of major American Jewish organizations, and thus on behalf of the organized American Jewish community on matters of collective concern to it.”
I don’t think there is an organized American Jewish community. There is an old saying that if you put two Jews in a room, you get three opinions. The only generalization you can safely make about Jews is that there is no generalization you can make about Jews. The very notion of a “Jewish spokesman” is existentially flawed.
You forgot about the dog....it's those meddling kids and their dog.
Well, this does get a bit complex. Kissinger is not considered a canonical Jewish spokesman, but Seinfeld is, at least when he's talking ex-cathedra. That didn't make any sense, did it?
Apparently the ritualized obeisances the Senator has made, along with the other major candidates, to the alliance with Israel, are insufficient.
See, the Vat is behind the plot to place the Sapnish King, Juan Carlos, in the position of dictaor of Europe. From this position, he will get all the money in the world—somehow—into the hands of Greedyjewnbankersbilderberg councilonforeignrelationseldersofzion.
You see, the pope is actually the Chief Rabbi of the International Jewish Conspiracy. And The Jews fund the Jesuits. Because they control all western governments.
I mean, don't you read the paper?
What about Moses? Doesn't he count?
Happy, Lugo?
On a serious note, the love affair of the hard left with anti-Israel/Zionist/Jewish themes will naturally prompt an examination of the attitudes of the farthest left serious presidential candidate, who happens to be Sen. Obama. If this was the 1950s, it would be appropriate for Jews to wish to peak up the rhetorical skirts of those on the right. Times change, but someone always has a hard spot for the Hebrew, it seems.
Nick
That leaves us with today's self-appointed spokesmen such as the Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations, many of whom know very little about Jewish law and tradition, and most of whom are in their positions by virtue of demonstrated ability to donate and raise money for Jewish charities. They do a lot of good work, but their work is not always guided by Jewish tradition, and they are certainly not elected by American Jews (or Jewish Americans) to be spokesmen.
Interesting to note that Ha'aretz means "the land" -- which, like the English word land, can refer to a nation, a geographic area, or dirt.
Anyone find it funny that Obama is being simultaneously lied about as belonging to a radical Christian Church and being a secret Muslim? Especially as the smear about him being a secret Muslim claims he was sworn in on a Koran, which wouldn't exactly make it secret, would it?
I think it a foolish quibble, at least for these purposes, that being discussion of the Ha'aretz assertion about "Jewish spokesmen were using racist language against him, solely because his father was Muslim." The Ha-aretz assertion is simply factually wrong, and if not a mistake, then flat out dishonest and offensive, because the paper can identify no Jewish leaders of any consequence saying such, not because there are no Jewish leaders or anyone who can be reasonably seen as a Jewish spokesperson.
No African-American spokespeople? No Hispanic-American spokespeople? No spokespeople for Episcopalians, because there is a schism in that church? No spokespeople for GLBT? Etc. Or Jewish Americans are so exceptional that they alone as a group cannot have spokespeople, whether the heads of their different religious movements, major organizations, or whatever, "(t)he very notion of a 'Jewish spokesman' (being) existentially flawed."? Silly, and non-responsive to the Ha'aretz calumny.