Wow. Yes, Chuck Schumer – who’s angling for Senate majority leader if/when Harry Reid loses in November — has had enough with the president’s Israel-bashing. First on sanctions:
We in the Congress, Senator Lieberman and myself, Senator Bayh, are working up our sanctions bill, which even if the UN sanctions are weak, we could have unilateral sanctions by the United States, for instance, if you cut of gasoline. Iranians do not produce their own gasoline, and by the way the Iranian people are ready to rebel and overthrow this regime, and if we would squeeze them economically that could happen.
But then he goes on a tear when asked why Obama is alienating Israel and American Jews:
[T]his is the question I talked to Rahm Emanuel about, and the President about this week. I told the President, I told Rahm Emanuel and others in the administration that I thought the policy they took to try to bring about negotiations is counter-productive, because when you give the Palestinians hope that the United States will do its negotiating for them, they are not going to sit down and talk. Palestinians don’t really believe in a state of Israel, they, unlike a majority of Israelis, who have come to the conclusion that they can live with a two-state solution to be determined by the parties, the majority of Palestinians are still very reluctant, and they need to be pushed to get there.
If the U.S. says certain things and takes certain stands, the Palestinians say, “Why should we negotiate?” So that’s bad and that should change and we are working on changing it. But the other two are very good, according to both the Israeli government and the Israeli military and the U.S. government. But we should make that known, why don’t they? I asked them to do just that, I said we should make it public because it will, at least, give people who are supportive of Israel, Jew and non-Jew alike, a little bit of solace.
Schumer then suggested that the Syrian engagement gambit had “stopped” (he should check with Hillary on that one) and that we had to apply pressure to Syria. But then he was back to the Palestinian issue:
Let me just finish this dialogue about Israel for a minute. All we have to do is leave things alone, and you might get the Palestinians more willing to sit down and actually discuss peace, because they would see the contrast. When Biden was in Israel and there was this kerfuffle over settlements which is in Israeli Jerusalem 20 minutes from downtown and should never have been an issue to begin with, but they probably shouldn’t have made the announcement when Biden was there. But Israel apologized, and when Biden left, and Biden is the best friend of Israel in the administration, everything was fine.
But then what happened is the next day Hillary Clinton called up Netanyahu and talked very tough to him, and worse they made it pubic through this spokesperson, a guy named Crowley. And Crowley said something I have never heard before, which is, the relationship of Israel and the United States depends on the pace of the negotiations. That is terrible. That is the dagger, because the relationship is much deeper than the disagreements on negotiations, and most Americans—Democrat, Republican, Jew, non-Jew–would feel that. So I called up Rahm Emanuel and I called up the White House and I said, “If you don’t retract that statement you are going to hear me publicly blast you on this.” Of course they did retract it.
Now what’s happened, and many of us are pushing back, some of the Jewish members will be meeting with the President next week or the week after, and we are saying that this has to stop. You have to have, in terms of the negotiations, you have to show Israel that it’s not going to be forced to do things it doesn’t want to do and can’t do. At the same time you have to show the Palestinians that they are not going to get their way by just sitting back and not giving in, and not recognizing that there is a state of Israel. And right now there is a battle going on inside the administration, one side agrees with us, one side doesn’t, and we’re pushing hard to make sure the right side wins, and if not we’ll have to take it to the next step.
That’s simply remarkable, albeit long overdue. It tells me several things. First, Schumer, who is nothing if not politically astute when it comes to New York politics, senses that there is no upside to sticking with the president on this. One wonders how many constituents he’s heard from and who is threatening to cut off the money flow to Democrats.
Second, one suspects that Schumer has gotten nowhere in private and is now forced to unload in public. It seems that while Schumer cares what American Jews think, Obama is unmoved by quiet persuasion.
Third, Schumer and other pro-Israel Democrats now have a dilemma: what do they do when the president refuses to sign on to petroleum sanctions? What do they do when the next round of bullying starts up again? They’ve been painfully mute until now, which has no doubt encouraged the White House. If Schumer is as outraged as he sounded on the radio, this will end.
We can hope this is an important step forward and will be followed by other Democratic lawmakers. Who knows, in a week or so some major Jewish organization might actually pipe up with an equally bracing evaluation of the Obami’s onslaught on the Jewish state.
One aside: Schumer also had this to say about the origin of his name: “It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian. My ancestors were guardians of the ghetto wall in Chortkov, and I believe Hashem, actually, gave me the name as one of my roles that is very important in the United States Senate to be a shomer, to be a shomer for Israel.” Suffice it to say that if Sarah Palin ever said that God had given a name to her with a mission in mind, the chattering class would go bonkers. But of course, it is perfectly acceptable for liberals to get messages from God without cries of indignation echoing throughout the media. That said, if Schumer takes his name to heart, albeit belatedly, and shows some leadership in gathering other Democrats to his position (that’s what Senate leaders do, after all), there will be reason to celebrate.
So, now Obama has 301 foreign policy advisers. Lights, Camera, Action!
Great example of BLIND LEADING THE BLIND !!!
My goodness… they text eachother on DAILY BASIS and talk twice a week…Obama has too much time on his hand.
http://www.obamasgaffes.blogspot.com
So now Obama distances himself from Clooney? I’m sure that George is fine with that….just like Rev. Wright. They all know that people can’t know the true BHO.
I write to applaud Senator Obama’s close relationship with George Clooney.
In the present post-historical period international issues are framed as narratives. The once-heroic Israeli narrative, for example, has been superceded by the poignant Palestinian narrative of displacement and occupation. The current skirmish between Russia and Georgia is likewise a compelling conflict between narratives. In this context it would be a mistake to confuse the soft power of narratives with outmoded neocolonial concepts of hard power or geopolitical ambition. Senator Obama understands — as contributors to Commentary do not — that Mr. Clooney and his peers in Hollywood wield enormous influence in the construction and dissemination of governing narratives. As President, Senator Obama will be able to harness this soft power to create alternative sources of energy, halt global warming, and save the oceans.
I am saddened to share that Ms. Rubin’s blog is emblematic of the barriers that confront Mankind in our collective efforts to save the planet in a post-historical era of peace, ecological balance, and limited consumption. Thank you, Mr. Clooney, for your contribution to Our Moment and Our Movement.
Trying to comment between dry heaves…… with little success.
Moshe, you almost got me there. You do a frightening imitation of an Obot. Yeah, I’ve noticed that word *narrative* popping up in enlightened circles. It is so creepy yet so perfectly vague and pseudo for the buffed metrosexual crowd.
Moshe…You almost got me, too. Excellent!
Steven from Indiana
Clooney made some movies sympathetic to palestinians, critical to this government and a couple of reading from DailyKos and Huffington Post suddenly he is an expert in the Middle East.
I guess, he is part of the cast of 300 and Winnie-the-Pooh excursion to the Middle East – The Movie.
Only Jennifer Rubin would be stupid and gullible enough to believe something printed in the Daily Heil.
Alicar,
Jennifer doesn’t care if it is true or not. She has one agenda and one only.
Well, SallyVee, welcome to the world of the yuppie. We’re in for a lot more of this once Obama is elected as our first yuppie president.
The use of the word “narrative” is typical of how the yuppies expropriate an academic idea without really understanding anything about it. I think it was originally used to refer to historiography by some postmodern historian. Even here, though, it was not about some vague one-size-fits-all equivalence. It was not to deny that there is such a thing as historical truth. It referred only to–like I said–historiography, or how history gets written. Therefore it referred to how historians arrive at historical truth through competing “narratives”. According to this school, there is no “accepted” narrative, but competing ones, which the historian is obliged to consider before writing his own version. It refers, then, to the method, not the end product of historical writing.
Now, according to the yuppies, it means that there is no such thing as historical truth and that there are only “narratives”. This is a perversion of the original philosophy and should be called out.
Somehow the Democrats discovered that any appearance of being too close to Hollywood has a toxic effect on voters. (Clooney himself once even noted that). As to narratives, most of Hollywood’s attempts at political commentary through film tend to reflect a very stale left-wing conventional wisdom that doesn’t resonate with voters or the movie going public. To take even the most favorable example (ignoring the various failed Iraq themed movies), the slew of Vietnam films that reflected the defeatist viewpoint (The Deer Hunter, Apocalypse Now, Platoon, Casualties of War, Full Metal Jacket (maybe the greatest half a movie I ever saw)), certainly did not represent a cultural or intellectual avant garde that reshaped existing perceptions as opposed to reinforcing perceptions long since entrenched. Nor have these perceptions, even after being memorialized in film, remained stagnant, and the defeatist Vietnam narrative has steadily given way over time. Films have their value, aesthetic and propaganda-wise alike (Stalin as one example certainly recognized this), but people are more than capable of choosing their opinions for themselves.
Some damn good movies if you ask me ian
What about Rambo, Commando, and Red Dawn.. where do they fall?
Hey Moshe..are you for real?? Clooney’s contribution to “our movement”…ha?!
I’m cleaning unintended spittle off my computer screen from the gut-laughs reading Moshe!
McCain’s Campaign & the Repub 527s can exploit the ‘Hollywood Slicks’ aspect of the Obamaphenom. They irritate Americans greatly. Hammer their involvement home. Few of the Acting persuasion will be able to contain their public mouths & enthusiasm for The Messiah. This is good, trust me. If Bammy is foolish enough to allow Clowney to follow through with the early September $10K per plate Geneva ‘Global Artsy Poobahs Set’ Fundraiser, 527s need to have it covered like an army blanket. They won’t be allowed inside, of course, but just material from outside–used adroitly–will be wonderful. The Rooskies–unintentionally–have helped underline the need for serious leaders with belly muscles and experience. Thanks, Vlad, you Butcher.
I liked Red Dawn. Commando was over the top and paint by numbers. Rambo was good, although it perpetuated the crazy veteran stereotype.