Obama, Israel, and the Jewish Vote

Jake Tapper, ABC News blogs, 4 March 2007


All Democratic eyes are on Selma right now, but something interesting happened Friday as well...

Seeking to assure supporters of Israel that he is as ardent a backer of the Jewish state as are rivals such as Sens. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, and John Edwards, D-NC, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, delivered a very pro-Israel address to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee of Chicago at the end of last week.

"Our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region," Obama said. "Our job is to do more than lay out another road map. That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: Our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point."

But now comes a very interesting blog entry by the pro-Palestinian blogger Ali Abunimah at The Electronic Intifada, who alleges that Obama has changed to a far more stridently pro-Israel position as his national aspirations developed.

"The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood," Abunimah writes. "He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

"As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, 'Keep up the good work!"

As the campaigns compete for Jewish support, it would be political malpractice for rivals campaigns to not send this blog entry around to big pro-Israel donors.

Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.

Related Links

How Barack Obama learned to love Israel, Ali Abunimah (4 March 2007)

Political Punch: Obama, Israel, and the Jewish Vote

Factory orders plunge in U.S. amid widespread declines

Factory orders dive amid broad declines

By MARTIN CRUTSINGER, AP Economics Writer 1 hour, 43 minutes ago

Orders to U.S. factories fell by the largest amount in 6 1/2 years in January, reflecting widespread declines across a number of industries.

The Commerce Department reported that total orders dropped by 5.6 percent in January, the biggest decline since July 2000, a period when the economy was slowing sharply in advance of an actual recession which began in 2001.

The government said that orders for big-ticket durable goods plunged by 8.7 percent, even bigger than the 7.8 percent drop that had been reported a week ago. That report, which increased worries about the economy's health, played a role in the 416-point single-day drop in the Dow Jones industrial average a week ago.

The report on factory orders, coupled with other data showing weaker-than-expected activity, have raised concerns that the current economic slowdown may be more serious than previously expected.

However, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke told Congress last week that he had seen nothing in the latest reports to change the Fed's outlook for moderate growth this year.

The weakness in manufacturing was led by a 19 percent fall in orders for transporation products, reflecting a 6.7 percent drop in the struggling auto industry and a 60.2 percent plunge in demand for commercial airplanes. The airplane category, which is extremely volatile, had posted a huge increase in December, reflecting an unusually large of orders to airplane giant Boeing Co.

Demand was also down for primary metals, machinery and computers.

Orders for nondurable goods, items such as petroleum and food, fell by 2 percent in January after a 1.5 percent increase in December.

In other economic news, the Labor Department reported that productivity, the amount of output per hour of work, rose at an annual rate of 1.6 percent in the October-December period last year. That was about half of the 3 percent increase the government initially estimated a month ago.

Labor costs for each unit of output soared by 6.6 percent in the fourth quarter, far higher than the 1.7 percent increase initially reported and the 3.2 percent revision that Wall Street had been expecting. The combination of lower productivity and higher wages, if sustained, would raise alarm bells at the Federal Reserve about inflation.

The big revision in productivity reflected the big downward revision announced last week in total economic growth, as measured by the gross domestic product. The GDP expanded at a sluggish 2.2 percent annual rate from October through December, not the 3.5 percent growth rate originally reported.

With less output and the number of hours worked remaining the same, productivity for the quarter looked worse. The drop in output also meant that unit labor costs were higher.

It was the biggest quarterly increase in labor costs since a 9.1 percent surge in the first three months of 2006. Both gains were attributed in large part to big bonuses paid to high-income workers.

The Federal Reserve is closely monitoring productivity and labor costs to make sure that inflation pressures do not begin rising on a sustained basis.

Productivity is the key element needed for rising living standards. It allows businesses to pay workers with the wage gains financed by the increased output. Without productivity gains, businesses often have to resort to boosting the cost of their products to finance wage gains, a process that increases inflation.

Beginning in 1973, productivity slowed dramatically as the country went through a period of high inflation, triggered by a series of oil shocks.

However, beginning in 1995, productivity started to show much better gains as the economy benefited from the revolution in information technology.

For the year, productivity rose by 1.6 percent in 2006, the slowest annual increase in nine years.

'Scooter' Libby guilty on four counts

Story Highlights • NEW: Verdict to be read at noon • Jury deliberated for 10 days in I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby trial • Vice President Dick Cheney's ex-aide accused of perjury and obstruction of justice WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Former White House aide I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby has been found guilty on four of five counts in his perjury and obstruction of justice trial. Libby, 56, faces a maximum sentence of 25 years in prison and a fine of $1 million. The five-count indictment against the former aide to Vice President Dick Cheney alleges perjury, obstruction of justice and making false statements to the FBI and a grand jury investigating how Valerie Plame was outed as a CIA operative. Libby is not accused of exposing Plame. He resigned in 2005 after the grand jury indicted him. Prosecutors contended Libby disclosed Plame's covert profession to reporters as part of a plan to discredit her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador who alleged that the Bush administration twisted some intelligence in the run-up to the Iraq war. Wilson, who conducted a CIA-sponsored trip to Niger, wrote in a July 2003 New York Times editorial that he found no evidence Iraq sought to buy uranium from the African nation, as the administration claimed. The jury was down to 11 members -- seven women and four men. A week ago, one of the jurors revealed that she had obtained outside information that prompted the judge to disqualify her. The defense said it would accept 11 jurors to avoid having to start deliberations over with an alternate. The prosecution objected, but U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton overruled, and the panel has continued with one chair empty. Testimony and evidence in the trial began January 23. CNN's Kevin Bohn and Paul Courson contributed to this report.

Libby guilty on multiple counts

MSNBC reports

Battle for the Jews: Obama vs Clinton

Hil & Bam gear up for battleover Jewish vote

BY MICHAEL McAULIFF
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - Fresh off their battle for the hearts of black Americans, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are about to go head to head for Jewish votes.

The leaders for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2008 plan dueling receptions Monday when an influential pro-Israeli lobby group, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, holds its major Washington policy conference.

The competing receptions are one more sign of the intensifying scrum between Clinton and Obama over key Democratic interest groups, highlighted Sunday by near-simultaneous civil rights speeches in Selma, Ala.

"It would be amazing if you didn't have a fierce competition," said Norm Ornstein, an American Enterprise Institute scholar who is leading a panel at the AIPAC forum.

Clinton had been counting on black support before Obama got in the race. Ornstein said she had a natural base among Jews because of her Senate work and her husband's record, but some liberal Jews favor Obama because he opposed the Iraq war.

"If you get over the bar on the Israeli issue, which I think he has, then for many people, Iraq becomes the issue," Ornstein said.

Obama got help from an unlikely source yesterday when pro-Palestinian Prof. Rashid Khalidi denied a report that Obama used to be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause and had recently shifted his stance to pro-Israel.

Khalidi spoke to the Daily News to rebut a report on a pro-Palestinian blog that was circulated by Clinton supporters. The blog, the Electronic Intifada, offered no evidence that Obama used to be supportive of the Palestinian cause, but cited private conversations, including one at a 2000 Obama fund-raiser hosted by Khalidi.

Khalidi, now head of Columbia University's Middle East Institute, said he hosted the fund-raiser because he was friends with Obama while the two lived in Chicago.

"He never came to us and said he would do anything in terms of Palestinians," Khalidi said.

Originally published on March 6, 2007

We also target civilians

Aims served by Israeli arms no loftier than those served by Palestinian pipe bombs

Idan Landau Published: 03.02.07, 00:03 / Israel Opinion

The "al-Sanabel" television station in Nablus almost aired an exclusive report this week: An elite unit of the al-Aqsa Martyrs' Brigades raided an Israel Military Industries plant in the coastal plain and uncovered sophisticated weapons labs. The arms that were confiscated include 300 air-to-surface missiles for helicopters, 20 tons of plastic explosives, one bullet-proof bulldozer, and six Merkava 4 tanks.

The report that was almost aired noted that this achieved strategic balance against the weapons labs uncovered in the raid on Nablus, where forces confiscated five pipe bombs, one LAW rocket, a large explosive device, and four bags of fertilizer used for bomb-making.

The report, as noted, was not aired. Not only because Israel Military Industries labs were not uncovered, but also because "al-Sanabel" was put out of action. The IDF detained the station manager and confiscated its broadcasting equipment. Why is the IDF assaulting journalists and media outlets? This is apparently an irrelevant question and an almost immoral one under the current climate.

Why did the IDF impose a siege on the government hospital in Nablus and prevent wounded Palestinians from being taken there? Why does the IDF take over a school and turn it into a Shin Bet interrogation center? What was the sin committed by Anan al-Tabibi, who was shot in the head by a sniper while in his own backyard? Again, illogical questions. We have a war, and in war there is no reason to be strict when it comes to respecting life of civilians.

The thing is, this is untrue. This is not a war, but rather, a unilateral invasion into a Palestinian town, and even in wars there are explicit bans on unnecessary harm to the civilian population. The IDF has not heard about it; the Palestinian population, including its assets and needs, are like thin air for the invading forces.

It is doubtful whether anyone in Israel was stunned by the uncovered weapons labs in Nablus. It is even more difficult to believe that anyone is shocked by the strategic threat faced by the State of Israel in light of the quantity and ridiculous quality of weapons that were confiscated.

In fact, what were we expecting? That Palestinians accept our aerial raids and tank shells with a bare chest and an olive branch? This is a violent conflict and each side makes sure to arm itself to the teeth.

The tank shells produced by Israel Military Industries do not serve loftier goals than those served by pipe bombs in Nablus. Both are used, maliciously and arbitrarily, against innocent civilians. The difference is merely in power: The immense damage caused to West Bank towns by Israel's military technology cannot be compared to the limited damage caused by Palestinian terrorism in Israel's cities.

Many Israelis cling to the over-used argument that "yes, but we don't mean to harm civilians, and they do." After 5,000 killed Palestinians (including about 1,000 minors,) 50,000 injured Palestinians, 30,000 razed homes, and 13 million (!) uprooted olive trees, this justification sounds like a bad joke and nothing but. It's better to remain silent in shame.

No dialogue with Arab world

We say that terrorism needs no excuses, only opportunities: It appears the IDF's periodic invasions into West Bank towns and the extensive destruction they leave in their wake do not need excuses. And still, it's difficult not to connect the current military activism to the diplomatic freeze we've seen, particularly in recent weeks.

Within an amazingly short period of time, the Olmert government managed to slam shut almost every possible door for dialogue with the Arab world. The Mecca Agreement on Palestinian national unity "did not deliver the good," officials in Jerusalem grumbled. With the Syrians we are not even allowed to make initial contacts, lest we irritate Big Brother Bush; even the release of abducted IDF soldier Gilad Shalit is not urgent enough for the government.

Diplomatic envoys are running around European capitals and in Cairo, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice comes and goes, and everything is at a standstill.

Actually, some things are moving, the same things that are always moving – the settlements. More than a 1,000 new residential units are being built, while a police headquarters was recently established in the E1 area slated to connect Maaleh Adumim to Jerusalem and detach once and for all the northern West Bank from its south; meanwhile, the fence continues to expand eastward.

This is unpleasant, so Olmert and Peretz sit there sweating and wondering: How do we get out of this mess? The international community is already starting to doubt Israel's willingness to reach a peace agreement. The Israeli public is bored, and is already fed up with the Zeilers and Winograds.

The Esterina Tartman spin barely lasted a day and a half. And suddenly, Army Chief Gabi Ashkenazi bursts in with a sparkle in his eyes: I have an idea! How about we invade Nablus? We'll blow up a few houses, come back with five pipe bombs, the world will see what kind of scum we are dealing with here, and the people of Israel will again be proud. Hmmm, says Olmert. Hmmm, Peretz agrees.

Idan Landau is a Linguistics lecturer at Ben Gurion University. He spent time in prison for refusing to serve in Gaza or the West Bank

Why We 'Harp' on Press Failure on WMD

As anonymous administration sources hype up the threat of Iran, some reporters fall into the same bad habits they did in the run-up to the disastrous Iraq War, spreading unconfirmed information as if it is fact. But there's also some evidence that lessons have been learned.

By Greg Mitchell

(March 05, 2007) -- Four years ago, E&P was one of the few mainstream news outlets to strenuously question the administration's case for WMD in Iraq. We've carried countless articles about this since, and occasionally a reader will ask, Why do you harp on it?

The simple answer is: We wonder if the media has really learned its lesson. Periodic incidents suggest otherwise, balanced by evidence that, as the prophet urged, "we won't get fooled again."


The recent firestorm over reports of Iranian weapons in Iraq provided reason for both hope and fear.

Three weeks ago, The New York Times featured prominently on its front page and Web site a report by Michael R. Gordon -- based wholly on unnamed sources -- claiming firm evidence that Iran was supplying "the most deadly" weapon used against U.S. forces in Iraq: a certain kind of roadside bomb. Gordon, of course, had produced (with Judith Miller) the so-called "mushroom cloud" article in 2002 relating to WMD in Iraq that proved quite false.

Last week, the Times' public editor, Byron Calame, offered his appraisal, which raised some questions about Gordon failing to provide a little more balance in his report -- but praising followup articles by other Times reporters that did seem more skeptical. Yesterday he printed some letters from readers, all critical of Gordon and the Times.

A San Francisco man commented: "Now even The New York Times’s public editor must pick up a bucket of whitewash to try to paint over the newspaper’s boosting of the Bush administration’s propaganda for another misguided war, this one against Iran. The truly unfortunate aspect is that these articles are carried on the front pages of hundreds of local newspapers. It’s a sorry mess, to which your fingerprints have been added, even through the white gloves your column claims to wear."

A woman from New Hampshire: "You insult the readers when you imply that Mr. Gordon has become the scapegoat du jour and that questioning his writing is merely sour grapes — leftover anger from the W.M.D. debacle. This demeaning argument suggests that readers aren’t able to make cogent decisions about the validity of his writing but are, rather, too busy nursing old wounds."

And a man from Maryland: "If the Times editors were so anxious to demonstrate the tenuous nature of this story as you suggest, why was the story prominently placed on Page 1? I recognize that a journalist’s task is difficult. But we are dealing with a president with a clear track record on war and diplomacy. Times editors were enablers for the Iraq war. Have these editors learned nothing more than to insert mild caveats into administration propaganda that could potentially be used to lead us into another war?"

This made made me reflect on one night last month, just after the Gordon and Baghdad briefing articles, when an e-mailed memo arrived in my inbox. At least one news editor had seen enough.

That night, the first part of the PBS Frontline series on the media was aired, with distressing reminders of newspapers' complicity in the Iraq invasion. It showed Bob Woodward on Larry King's CNN show back then saying there was "almost zero" chance WMD would not be found in Iraq. In a new interview, Judith Miller said she did nothing wrong in her reporting back then, even if the reporting itself was wrong.

A few minutes after that, the e-mail landed in my "new messages" box.

It came from KSFR, a public radio station in Santa Fe, N.M. I don't know anything about the station, although I have been to Santa Fe a couple of times. It seems that the surge in "unnamed officials" had finally pushed News Director Bill Dupuy to take action. He wrote that "until further notice, it is the policy of KSFR's news department to ignore and not repeat any wire service or nationally published story" about Iran, North Korea, and other sensitive foreign areas if it quotes an "unnamed" U.S. official.

"What we have suspected and talked about at length before is now becoming clear. 'High administration officials speaking on the condition of anonymity,' 'Usually reliable Washington sources,' and others of the like were behind the publicity that added credibility to the need to go to war against Afghanistan and Iraq.

"This is a small news department with a small reach. We cannot research these stories ourselves. But we can take steps not to compromise our integrity. We should not dutifully parrot whatever comes out of Washington, on the wire or by whatever means, no matter how intriguing and urgent it sounds, when the source is unnamed. I am also calling on our colleagues in other local news departments -- broadcast and print -- to take the same professional approach."

The following day, President Bush at a press conference contradicted the still-unnamed officials at the Baghdad briefing, admitting, "I do not know" one way or the other if the Iranian government knew anything about the weapons in Iraq. But, to update Mark Twain, I'll add: An unnamed source's lie can dominate the Web while the truth is still putting on its boots.

---

Greg Mitchell (gmitchell@editorandpublisher.com) is editor of E&P.