And that's what McCain and his entourage continue to beg the rest of us to do every time they try to raise another "questionable" Obama association. Granted, there are some legitimate ones, like Rev. Wright, that, if not for the racially-charged dynamic of the campaign, I'm sure the McCain camp would be complaining about from the rooftops (though Obama parried that attack deftly during the Democratic primary). Other associations, like Bill Ayers and Tony Rezko, are such old news, especially given the climate of economic discouse, that nothing short of video (not a photo - could be doctored) of Obama giving one of them a sponge bath could probably make them a central issue for independent and undecided voters.
So, for a time we thought the McCain cohort would actually start addressing issues of interest, and in a way they have by trying to paint Obama as a tax-and-spend socialist. But, with just days left until this soap opera draws to a close, the McCain-Palin ticket is back to doing what they love: hopping up and down and pointing frantically at another inconsequential Obama "association".
This time, it's Rashid Khalidi, currently a professor at Columbia, formerly a professor at UChicago, and, from 1976 to 1982, director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO (Palestine Liberation Organization). Specifically, they're pissed that the LA Times, who wrote about Obama's relationship (we can call it that) with Khalidi in April of this year, isn't releasing a video believed to show Obama at a farewell dinner for Khalidi. ooooh.
I do not pretend that I have any extensive knowledge concerning the PLO, besides the fact that Arafat used to head them up, and Bush was working to try and broker peace between them and Israel (with no success). I also don't condone any violent actions they took that led them to be considered by the US as a "terrorist" group (I think this is back when you had to do more than smudge Bush's Pumas to get on that list). That being said, I think this particular attempt at guilt by association is disappointing for a slightly different reason: I don't see a problem with it.
---More after the jump---
Khalidi is a university professor with a very specific and significant set of life experiences that both the University of Chicago and Columbia University felt of such quality as to make him a professor at each of their institutions. What I think McPalin fails to understand is that it's possible for people who disagree with one another to be civil in expressing their differing points of view, and a lot of that happens in the university setting. The LA Times wrote the following of Obama's remarks to the gathering:
A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking. His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."
This sentiment is exactly what's wrong with Bush's approach to foreign policy, and almost everybody (including Gen. Petraeus) agrees. And, as far as I can tell from my reading on the issue, Khalidi is no longer a part or supporter of the PLO, and had even "helped facilitate negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the early '90s" according to none other than FOX News. Frankly, I think it's good that Obama had a relationship with him - it could actually help to inform his actions as they pertain to that region of the world.
And riddle me this: when did Israel become an infallible nation state? I understand this is a very sensitive issue and don't pretend to deny the horrible acts of groups like Hezbollah and Hamas, but our seemingly blind, unflappable, whole-hearted committment to the absolute innocence of one side of this ongoing struggle seems a bit surreal, particularly around election time. It baffles me that the President is expected to be Israel's greatest ally, and somehow also make inroads for a peace agreement with Palestine. If Palestine is truly out of line to the point that we need to use military force, then let's call that spade a spade. But if the intent is to bring stability to the region, we have to be willing to try and understand both sides of this gridlock while advocating not for a country but for a state: a state of peace.
And that's the lesson McCain should take from Obama and Khalidi's "association".
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment