The pique of McPeak

I’m coming a bit late to the discussion about Sen. Obama and “Tony” McPeak.For a good background check out memeorandum.

Of course McPeak’s assertion that the US government couldn’t achieve peace in the Middle East because of the populations of New York and Miami isn’t just a slur. It’s false. I know I’m Jewish and have been greatly opposed to the peace processing (as opposed to peace) over the past 15 years (or more), but there’s no evidence that any American administration has held back because of me or other like minded Jews.

Mere Rhetoric found another Obama adviser with less than favorable view towards Israel, former Amb. Dan Kurtzer. In statements to Ha’aretz, Kurtzer lauded the peacemaking efforts of Pres. Carter and Sec. Baker.

But as Daled Amos pointed out it’s not one or another, it’s (seemingly) all of Sen. Obama’s advisers.

McPeak is not the only member of the Obama campaign who holds such twisted views. Others such as Robert Malley or Zbigniew Brzezinski have found themselves downgraded to “informal” advisers as their anti-Israel views are made public. Samantha Powers was dismissed for calling Hillary a monster, not for sharing McPeak’s belief in the malign omnipotence of the “Israel lobby.”Obama has a Jewish problem and McPeak’s bigoted views are emblematic of what they are.

Jennifer Rubin says similarly,

You see, Obama is not responsible for Reverend Wright or Tony McPeak. But what about Samantha Power, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Robert Malley? Isn’t it reasonable to ask “Why does Barack Obama have so many foreign policy and national security advisers whose statements about Israel and American Jews are problematic? ” Apparently we should not hold him responsible for selecting these individuals, nor attribute any of their views to him. And we shouldn’t be bothered either, I suppose, by his own comment that “nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people.”

Marc Aminder (via memeorandum) defends Sen. Obama.

Tony McPeak is an adviser to the Obama campaign, and he is verbose and colorful enough that Obama’s press team likes to use him as a surrogate. McPeak happens to have some very strong opinions, one of them being the clumsily coded belief that New York Jews are responsible for the United States’s locked-in alliance with Israel, which McPeak seems to believe is damaging. To hold Barack Obama personally responsible for McPeak’s views — which is the consequence of an argument that uses McPeak along to make the case that Obama has a Jewish problem — is simply not logical.

“[C]lumsily coded belief?” I think that’s pretty significant. And what’s not logical about it? I don’t remember these revelations about McPeak during the 2004 election, so I don’t how it’s relevant to Howard Dean. (Though Howard Dean has some interesting ideas of his own about Jews.) Nor do I understand how Ambinder compares McPeak’s relationship to Sen. Obama with Rev. Hagee’s to Sen. McCain. One is an adviser, an actual part of a campaign; the other endorses from the outside.

Ambinder does allow that Rev. Wright is a problem though. So wouldn’t the presence of people like Malley or McPeak in the campaign serve to further confirm that Sen. Obama’s choice of pastor wasn’t just careless but also a considered choice?

Finally Ambinder argues that Sen. Obama doesn’t have a Jewish problem because the polls don’t show it.

To close off this post with some substance, Gallup finds that Obama and Clinton are splitting the Jewish vote, hardly evidence that Obama currently has a “problem” with Jews.

Yes, Jews tend to be more liberal than the American population as a whole. Many don’t look at or simply dismiss these charges. That doesn’t mean that Sen. Obama doesn’t have a problem. And that’s all the more reason to make these arguments.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.