WWire has learned that Jeff Merkley, who’s a candidate in the May 20 Democratic primary for U.S. Senate, has upset a number of his campaign contributors with a new, public statement on Middle East policy that they say represents an about-face on Israel and Palestine.
Among the donors fuming at Merkley are Hala Gores, who gave $2,300 (the federal maximum) in November after Merkley visited Gores in her law office. She also hosted a party on Jan. 12 for Merkley in her home where she says she helped raise nearly $9,000 for Merkley, Speaker of the Oregon House.
The list of disgruntled donors also includes Tom Nelson, an attorney for the Ashland-based Islamic charity Al-Haramain who gave $2,300 to Merkley at Gores’ party; and Goudarz Eghtedari, a Portlander of Iranian descent, who has given $40 a month to Merkley since January.
There are more who weren’t ready Monday night to speak publicly about their disappointment, but traces of the dispute have already popped up on Merkley’s Wikipedia entry and elsewhere on the Internet.
“Jeff has disappointed me as few others have or could,” Nelson wrote today on the website for the Portland-based Americans United for Palestinian Human Rights. “He has seen first hand the unconscionable results of the Occupation. Yet he comes out on the side of the oppressor. Gordon Smith, for all of his faults, never saw Israeli oppression first hand. Jeff has. As between these two supporters of Zionism, who is the greater enemy of ‘peace’?”
In an interview with WWire, Nelson added: “I have two words I would use for Merkley, coward and hypocrite.”
Also today, Eghtedari asked that his automatic monthly contributions to Merkley’s campaign be stopped. His discomfort largely stems from Merkley’s recent statements on Iran. “I am extremely disappointed with your foreign policy stance and cannot afford to support another hawkish senator to represent the peace-loving state of Oregon,” Eghtedari wrote in an email to the Merkley campaign. “If I wanted to support George Bush’s policy in the Middle East, I am sure I could be happy with Senator Smith.”
What made Gores, Nelson and Eghtedari so angry?
Last week, on April 14, Merkley spoke at a candidate forum held at the Mittleman Jewish Community Center in Portland. His campaign later distributed a position paper on the U.S.-Israel partnership.
The position paper makes reference to Israel’s “security barrier,” though Gores and other Palestinian activists call it a wall and question its placement.
The paper declares Merkley supports a vision of Israel “with Jerusalem as its Capital.”
But Gores says what upsets her most is the fact that Merkley’s public declaration goes against what he has told supporters privately, she says. Gores says Merkley’s new position makes him a “hypocrite.”
“When Merkley spoke to those of us in the peace community, Arab Americans and Muslims, his position was different,” Gores says. “He was a hypocrite in first seeking our money and saying certain things to our community and then, in public, saying something different.”
In response, Merkley spokesman Matt Canter points to one paragraph of the position paper. It reads: “I share the view held by many leaders, including our current and former US Presidents and Prime Minister Olmert, that Israel’s security will be best served by resolution of the long-standing conflict with the Palestinians through a two-state solution — establishing an independent, stable, and economically successful Palestinian state, alongside a safe and secure Israel; a Jewish state with Jerusalem as its Capital — with both states living side by side in peace and security.”
Canter also says Merkley’s position has not changed. “His position has been consistent all along,” Canter says. “He believes very strongly that in order to achieve a two-state solution, the United States must be deeply engaged in strengthening the Palestinian economy and protecting Israel’s security. These are necessary to achieve a two-state solution.”
A footnote: Merkley’s relationship with Hala Gores actually began to sour last month when Merkley met privately with Gores and said he would have to return Gores’ $2,300. Merkley’s campaign staff had found comments from Gores that Merkley found objectionable, Gores says Merkley told her. Canter confirms this basic outline.
According to Canter, this is the statement, from the July 31, 2006 edition of the Oregonian that upset Merkley:”Israel attacks a sovereign nation and kills thousands and flattens villages. Who is the real terrorist?”
Update: Here’s Steve Novick’s position paper on Israel and Palestine.
- Smith Campaign on Merkley’s TV Blitz: The Ads are Illegal Two telev
- Busted: Merkley Tracker Lies About Identity, Gets Caught ‘ Fa
- Statewide Races: Merkley-Smith and the Contests for AG, Secretary of State and Treasurer (Updated With Smith Not Conceding and Merkley comment) In one of
- Merkley to Take out $250,000 Loan on D.C. Home Today Jef
- U.S. Senate Candidate Jeff Merkley and Oregon’s Thorny Tradition of Nepotism U.S. Sena
I disagree with Merkley stating that Jerusalem ought to be the capital of Israel – that should be subject to negotiations, in my view. But other than that I don’t see where his new critics have a legit claim to the proverbial moral hilltop.
As for the offending statement by Gores, I personally agree with the characterization of the IDF and their hawkish political leaders as having long practiced a form of terrorism. But… her statement directly infers that only the Israeli hawks and their military are "the real terrorists" which is intellectually vacuous.
I can only speak for myself here. I am an American Jew and I am a long-time harsh critic of Likud and the IDF’s strategy with all of Israel’s neighbors. I’ve been called an anti-semite by more Jews than I cared to keep track of for daring to point out the self-evident fact that BOTH sides have very bloody hands.
Bottom line: Gores is accusing Merkley of not being blindly biased towards the Palestinians. In my book that makes her part of the problem rather than part of the solution.
geez louise–lotta folks calling Merkley a hypocrite these days. That’s the kind of thing that’ll keep you in third place, likely.
He’s a liberal, liberals flip-flop all the time. Whats the big deal?
Merkley courted the Arab and Muslim community and asked for and received their money and support. He knows the issues that are important to them and has seen first hand the realities that confront many of their friends and family in the occupied territories. He knows how politically powerless this community is compared to others. He knows that they hope that he would tip the balance of justice so that both sides are presented even a little more easily. He knows they were asking to see and give input into his "Position Paper." He knew this was a betrayal of trust.
Beyond the issues themselves is the fact that he was playing both sides.
I think he is a basically decent person caught between trying to please everyone and his mercenary Campaign staff giving him lousy advice.
I am intrigued by this "Position Paper." Does this have anything to do with the "anti-war" article Jeff Merkley began to claim he got published somewhere. (It has yet to surface.)
I only bring this up since Merkley himself has repeatedly alluded to this document in defense of his 2003 HRes 2 vote (for which he refuses to apologize) which bought in to the attack Iraq fiasco).
I was quite surprised that these folks supported Merkley in the first place. He has no credibility in the Peace community (his weapons analysis and global think tank experience notwithstanding.) I have been to significant peace events in Portland where Merkley was a "no show" (or a "faux show," as in just "for "show).
We’ve got Democrats like Merkley leading Congress now. How’s that working out for our troops?
Looks like the Wiki edit was yanked by the Wiki community for being "politically motivated." Which, I think, goes to the crux of what this tempest in a teapot boils down to – politics.
"Looks like the Wiki edit was yanked by the Wiki community for being "politically motivated." Which, I think, goes to the crux of what this tempest in a teapot boils down to – politics."
Actually the passage was removed by one new editor who claimed its addition was politically motivated, meanwhile, other members of the Wikipedia community are dicussing how to approach the edit on the article’s talk page.
Is that the best that Team Merkley can come up with? "Just politics… nothing to see here."
http://bp3.blogger.com/__JMkDS58xRk/Rwj979liDvI/AAAAAAAAAk0/FT_3jp7lMQs/s1600-h/officer.chisholm.jpg
Mr. Kamberg, this is not the cycle for politicians as usual…
http://bp1.blogger.com/__JMkDS58xRk/R8r1DSX0arI/AAAAAAAAAr0/Nx1czTzMn4I/s1600-h/rainsticks_man.jpg
Jeff Merkley knew the Oregonian quote of my speech was incorrect because I showed him a copy of my speech which I gave at Pioneer Square in 2006 while Israel was indiscriminately bombarding Lebanese and Gaza civilians. I said
What appeared as question marks in my earlier response are actually quotation marks.
Hala
Ms. Gores,
I agree with the bulk of what you said about the Israeli attack on Lebanon – the ONLY one of Israel’s neighbors who has NEVER attacked her. Indeed, it was in the context of harshly criticizing Olmert’s actions during that period when I had the "anti-semite" label tagged on me by fellow American Jews with the most frequency.
That said, your published rhetorical question was both unconstructively inflamitory and factually wrong. Olmert’s actions made Israel one out of many regional factions using forms of terrorism, not "the terrorists" as your rhetorical question apparently sought to lead readers to conclude.
Your published statement wasn’t even-handed. I mean no disrespect or offense by that, it’s simply the truth as far as I am able to discern.
It’s a lot to ask Oregonians to swallow when you plead for a politician who will be even handed but have failed to demonstrate that you are a fit judge of what "even handed" looks like with respect to Israel and her neighbors.
yo, digg it.
http://digg.com/politics/Updated_Two_Top_Campaign_Contributors_Turn_on_Merkley_Call
Kevin said: "Looks like the Wiki edit was yanked by the Wiki community for being "politically motivated." Which, I think, goes to the crux of what this tempest in a teapot boils down to – politics."
First, an important distinction: that should be the "WikiPEDIA community." There are lots of wikis out there, Wikipedia is very unlike the others, in many respects.
Second, anyone who wants to weigh in on that decision is welcome to jump into the discussion; decisions like this are made on the article’s "talk page," in this case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jeff_Merkley
It was very disappointing what Merkley said at the presentation at the Mittleman Jewish Community Center, as well as what his position paper said. He said that Israel has "no partner" to negotiate with. This is the same cliche that was used to justify not negotiating with Arafat. Meanwhile the human rights abuses by Israel and the theft of Palestinian land continue. Merkley also wrote in his position paper that a primary commitment was to support Israel and aid to Israel. This is also of concern. If one looks at the situation long-term, you see that some of the times that Israel has backed off the most flagrant abuses is when aid reduction or suspension has been threatened. If Merkley had one word of concern about the human rights abuses occurring against the Palestinians, then I would feel his position were more balanced…but I could not find this language. His principal opponent on the other hand (Steve Novick) did stress the issues and concerns of both sides in his remarks. I keep thinking that not being concerned about the human rights of Palestinians (as well as Israelis) means the candidate will be more likely to not be concerned about the well-being of other Arabs in the region affected by our foreign policy.
Nancy, your attempt to conflate the current situation with Abbas and Hamas with the past situation with Arafat is bogus and can only serve as a tool to divide rather than to find constructive common ground.
Arafat wielded virtually unchallenged control of the Palestinian people. Whatever he agreed to was going to be reflected on the ground in the Occupied Territories.
The present situation couldn’t be more fundamentally different. Israel does not have a single partner they can work with. That’s reality. If they negotiate with Abbas then Hamas won’t honor that. If they negotiate with Hamas then Abbas won’t honor that.
So, in fact, Jeff Merkley’s statement was simply a reflection of objective reality.
With respect to Novick’s position paper – Other than the wording I really don’t see much substantive difference between it and Merkley’s other than the Jerusalem issue. And even that may not be different. It’s hard to tell because Novick’s paper is vague and lacking specificity.
"WWire has learned…." Who was the original source for this story?
The Israel-Palestine debate is complicated and many have attempted to find a solution. There is cause to have enormous empathy for the people of both countries. However, when a moderate, two state idea is presented there is an attack on the messenger. Is this really helpful?
Why Jeff Merkley does not support a Palestinian State.
Jeff Merkley says that he supports a Palestinian State. A
lot of people say they support a Palestinian State.
Ohmert, Bush, Rice all proclaim it. But unless there is
also support for the conditions required for a viable
Palestinian State and demands that Israel (not only
Palestinians) abide by those conditions, these
proclamations are simply empty words.
Jeff Merkley’s positions on a number of key issues shows
that he does NOT support the conditions required for a
Palestinian state.
First, most agree that a Palestinian state must have East
Jerusalem as its capital. This is critical not only for
national pride and religious reasons, but also because East
Jerusalem is the economic and social heart of the
Palestinians. Without it, the state will be an
economically truncated and unviable entity. Not only does
Merkley say that he supports Jerusalem as the capital of
Israel (and by that he means ALL of Jerusalem for Israel
and none for the Palestinians) but he ignores the facts on
the ground Israel is rapidly creating, in violation of
international law and human rights, to make this a concrete
fact. He is also pre-empting negotiations between
Palestinians and Israelis by interjecting the political
will and opinions of the US political elites upon the
situation.
Second, the wall that Israel is building for its defense is
also being used as a means of confiscating Palestinian
land, dividing Palestinian communities, and ensuring that
the settlements that are built on Palestinian lands will be
annexed, de-facto, into Israel. This wall does tremendous
harm to the chances for a socially and economically viable
Palestinian state, the International Court of Justice has
ruled that it is illegal where it is built on Palestinian
lands, and Jeff Merkley supports it unconditionally.
Third, in his public statements at the Mittleman Jewish
Community Center, he stated that there was no Palestinian
partner for peace. The Israeli government uses this false
canard, as it has done frequently in the past, to
legitimize the status quo: no real negotiations, no change
to the facts on the ground, continued growth of settlements
and walls and Israeli only roads. Obviously, this attitude
and these actions will make a Palestinian state impossible.
Finally, Jeff Merkley holds Arab countries and Iran
accountable for their actions, which is certainly often
appropriate, and he demands tough sanctions, punishments,
and total military support for Israel. But Israel’s
actions, which are so detrimental for future peace, are not
held to account one bit.
"However, when a moderate, two state idea is presented there is an attack on the messenger. Is this really helpful?"
When the messenger is giving two opposite groups different stories about what he believes, attacking the messenger for it sounds fairly reasonable.
Beth – Still haven’t heard the answer to my question: "WWire has learned…." From who?
Thanks for the question, Local Mom.
I wrote: "WWire has learned that Jeff Merkley, who