Very Bad Journalism: Obama-Khalidi Conspiracy Theory Connection Edition, Part 3-ish

It would be interesting to see someone game theory the Israel Lobby phenomenon. Now I’m no econ-math major, but I imagine such a thought experiment would go a little like this: something of an anti-Israel nature seeps into the mainstream. Like AARP, CAIR or any group of concerned citizens that cares passionately about the ideas, policies and constituencies it represents, the Lobby goes into aggressive spin (or attack, as the case may be) mode. But Israel advocates are as self-conscious as they are sensitive, for reasons that have more to do with the historical fragility of Jewish political gains and the present-day fragility of the Middle East than it does with straight-up tribalism or neocon paranoia. Nevertheless, the lobbyists attempt to pre-empt their critics while a media fascinated with the very idea of the Israel Lobby tries to pre-empt the pre-empters. Inject a bit of presidential politics into the mix, and this PR-brinksmanship leads otherwise reputable news sources down the blindest of alleyways.

One such alleyway is Barack Obama’s friendship with Rashid Khalidi, which is at the center of this report in the LA Times. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again (and keep in mind that I’m generally supportive of Israel and relatively lukewarm on Obama): this friendship says less than nothing about Obama’s stance on Israel, and even less about his fitness to be president.

On the former: a president’s Israel policy is important only to the point that it deviates from the minimal ideological requirement of Zionism: namely, that Israel be allowed to survive as a viable Jewish state. Regardless of what the Israeli right would have most of us think, it’s possible to take a harder line on things like settlement expansion and tacit recognition of Hamas without doing violence to the organizing principles of the state. Indeed, this is what left-wing Zionists like A.B. Yehoshua have been saying for years.

On the former: It’s good to see that Obama has intelligent friends. Intelligent friends who might have PLO backgrounds, sure. But let’s not mistake a renowned and highly influential university professor for this guy.

I guess the biggest problem with the LAT article is that there’s nothing in it to contradict this statement, which is buried somewhere in its middle:

Aides say that Obama’s friendships with Palestinian Americans reflect only his ability to interact with a wide diversity of people, and that his views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict have been consistent. Obama has called himself a “stalwart” supporter of the Jewish state and its security needs. He believes in an eventual two-state solution in which Jewish and Palestinian nations exist in peace, which is consistent with current U.S. policy.

That he’s been cavorting with Palestinian radicals suggests that Obama understands the urgency of stabilizing the human rights situation in the Territories. That he’s been supportive of Israel–so supportive that he can scarce afford to go back on his rhetoric without seeming ridiculous disingenuous–means that he’s willing to respect the “two-state solution” framework. And it’s a framework that’s weeded out unreasonable demands like the preservation of a “greater Israel,” or the equally unfouned Palestinian right of return.

The fact that Obama is willing to talk to Assad and Ahmadinejad is troubling, even as it reflects a desire to take a more regional approach to implementing a cornerstone of U.S. policy in the Middle East (which is the post-Annapolis Bush administration approach, more or less). He’s given no indication that he means to deviate from it; meanwhile, using our buddy Mahmoud to prod Israel into accepting a binational state and forfeiting its own, autonomous existence would be the very definition of politicalsuicide, as would be any attempt at detente with an Iran that continues to pursue nuclear technology.

And on the level of common sense, “receptiveness” to a minority position is far different from submission to it–unless your belief in guilt by association extends to a poetry reading at a friend’s farewell party:

At Khalidi’s 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, “then you will never see a day of peace.”

At least the LAT dug up this juicy tidbit:

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis’ daughter.

My God! Does AIPAC know about this?!?!