Obama breaks with Abbas at AIPAC

by: Karl Blumenthal

Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 13:45


Speaking before the annual AIPAC Policy Conference in Washington on Wednesday, Barack Obama made a significant break from moderate Israeli MKs and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.  At issue: Arab neighborhoods in east Jerusalem that the opposition Likud refuses to concede to a Palestinian state.

Abbas sees east Jerusalem as the capital of a future Palestinian state, but hardliners have been pressuring Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice for months to take the city limits off the table.  Outlining his vision of Middle East policy to the pro-Israel lobby, Obama aligned himself with the more extreme elements (emphasis mine):

The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Abbas reacted with frustration.  At its lowest point in months, the energy for an "undivided Jerusalem" may have been renewed by a powerful endorsement.

Details below the fold...

Karl Blumenthal :: Obama breaks with Abbas at AIPAC
Obama strongly criticized the Bush administration's record on securing the region:

Hamas now controls Gaza. Hezbollah has tightened its grip on southern Lebanon, and is flexing its muscles in Beirut. Because of the war in Iraq, Iran - which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq - is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation. Iraq is unstable, and al-Qaida has stepped up its recruitment. Israel's quest for peace with its neighbors has stalled, despite the heavy burdens borne by the Israeli people. And America is more isolated in the region, reducing our strength and jeopardizing Israel's safety.

The statements were consistent with Monday's official response to the McCain AIPAC address.  Countdown had the audio of California Blue Dog Adam Schiff:

Unfortunately, [John McCain] continues to cling to a foreign policy that's failed to make the U.S. or Israel safer.  Iran's nuclear program has continued during the course of the last several years, without abatement.  Hamas and Hezbollah have grown stronger, not weaker.  This has not only threatened our security, but Israel's as well.

As for diplomatic relations with the other side, Obama outlined preferential terms:

We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.

I will strongly urge Arab governments to take steps to normalize relations with Israel, and to fulfill their responsibility to pressure extremists and provide real support for President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad.

That upset Hamas:

"We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims," Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri told AFP.

Unfortunately, Obama did not quit while ahead.  Having aligned himself squarely behind Abbas, Obama made a significant break with the President as well as Israeli and American moderates (emphasis mine):  

The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper - but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

Abbas has consistently demanded that occupied neighborhoods in east Jerusalem comprise the capital of a future state.  He felt no differently on Wednesday:

The whole world knows that East Jerusalem, holy Jerusalem, was occupied in 1967, and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state.

Israel's claim to those neighborhoods has never officially been recognized.  The push for an "undivided Jerusalem" gained steam in 2007 among Likud members as a way to pressure Prime Minister Ehud Olmert at the Annapolis summit:

Katz said the petition drive was intended to send a message to Olmert that he has no mandate to negotiate Jerusalem's future. In a further push to keep the future of Jerusalem on the agenda, the Likud faction will tour the walls of the Old City Tuesday and opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu will brief the foreign press at a strategic site overlooking the city.

From there it was advanced by Evangelical Christian organizations:

"We view any attempt to divide the city as a tragic wedge that is unacceptable," said Rev. Malcolm Hedding, the executive director of the International Christian Embassy in Jerusalem.

Prime Minster Ehud Olmert and Vice Premier Haim Ramon have suggested the transfer of Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem to the Palestinian Authority. Evangelicals oppose such ideas as contradictory to the biblical promise of the Holy Land to the Jewish people.

By March '08, Jerusalem Post columnist Douglas Bloomfield saw little room left to oppose some form of partition:

Jerusalem will be divided. The question isn't whether, but when and how. The city's borders have been shifting for 3,000 years. Today's borders will not be tomorrow's. Already the security barrier cuts off some parts of the city, and the Palestinian Authority, with American funding, is to build a road linking east Jerusalem to Ramallah.

Ariel Sharon understood the inevitability of dividing the city; his initial plans for the security barrier included putting some Arab neighborhoods of Jerusalem on the far side. American Jews who are increasingly demanding a voice in deciding the fate of Jerusalem understand the same reality; many oppose any change in the city's borders, including jettisoning Arab neighborhoods that were added only after 1967, because they oppose any and all land for peace deals with the Palestinians.

You can find an "undivided Jerusalem" proposed in Hillary Clinton's official Isreal Policy.  However, it's presence in her platform has raised suspsicion.  Mother Jones' Justin Elliot recalled in April:

She first took the position in 1999, prior to announcing her candidacy for the U.S. Senate in New York. (It was later in the same campaign that Clinton was slammed for hugging and kissing Suha Arafat, the wife of Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat, at a ceremony on the West Bank, where Suha, speaking in Arabic, accused the Israeli government of using poison gas against Palestinian women and children. Hours after the event, Clinton condemned her.) "I personally consider Jerusalem the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel," she wrote in a letter to the president of Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, echoing the exact language favored by some Israeli politicians.

"Israel's new friend Hillary Clinton, born-again Zionist" read the headline in her hometown paper, the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. As Michael Tomasky later wrote in Hillary's Turn, his book about the 2000 campaign, "The Jerusalem question is always an issue in New York campaigns, and anyone running for dogcatcher in New York signs on to the position Hillary took."

Even Bush and Secretary Rice, scrambling to make any progress possible before leaving office, had aimed in April to keep Jerusalem on the table for the Palestinians:  

The issue also elicited criticism from Rice, who called on Israel to stop building in contested territory even before Monday's announcement.

"Settlement activity should stop -- expansion should stop," Rice said at a news conference after meeting with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Israel has justified the expansions in part by citing a 2004 letter Bush sent to then-Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in which he acknowledged "already existing major Israeli population centers" that would prevent a return to the pre-1967 boundaries.


Tags: , , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
This Is REALLY Abominable (4.00 / 3)
Respectful dialogue, it seems, is strictly reserved for those to Obama's right.  And the number of people that includes is shrinking every minute.

I've heard several people--Adolph Reed was one, I believe--say that Obama used to be openly supportive of Palestinian rights, but that quickly changed once he started running for office.  This, however, takes him to the right of Bush, as you noted--which is really quite a feat.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


Paul .. (0.00 / 0)
How much of this is because of asshats like Lieberman .. and also to stop the "secret Muslim" crap? .. because I would have a hard time believing he would have said what he did .. if he didn't have to worry about the rumors and innuendo  

[ Parent ]
That's not a justification. (4.00 / 3)
He's supposed to be brave an different and able to stand up against the old time politics, or whatever.  That's Obama's central selling point.  If he just turns around and caves to one of the nastiest special interests that there is, that claim is out the window.

Can Hillary endorse Samantha Powers' return?  Please?  


[ Parent ]
Which Is Worse? (4.00 / 1)
Is it worse if he does this shit for such shallow sub-tactical reasons?  Or if he doesn't?

Pretty hard call for me.

He looks craven and clueless either way.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I know what you are saying .. (0.00 / 0)
but a better question is .. why do all the candidates show up to this convention?  What does AIPAC stand for besides the Likud end of the political spectrum?

[ Parent ]
Yes, I wonder (0.00 / 0)
what some of his friends and supporters are thinking.

http://www.latimes.com/news/po...

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture -- a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

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..

...the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

Oh, well.


[ Parent ]
This is well (4.00 / 1)
beyond necessary, acceptable pandering.

It undermines the barely existing peace process and undermines Abbas and other moderates--you know, the people Obama is willing to meet with, as opposed to Hamas.

It's sad: Months ago, at the start of the campaign, Obama showed signs that he might be willing to sneak some sanity and humanity into our policy in the I-P conflict and went so far as to lament the sorry state of debate on this topic. I guess after Wright and Farrakhan and the Muslim rumors, he's decided he had no choice but to cave.

It also should be a wake up call to those who believe that the mere fact of an Obama presidency would alter American dreadful foreign policy at its core.


Hamas has zero credibility in the matter (0.00 / 0)
they are strategically bankrupt. they had a good shot when they won the election, but their stubborn refusal to not recognize the right of Israel to exist was strategically stupid a non-starter for the entire western world.  

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

Ah, I see (4.00 / 2)
so the best solution is to support the crazy right wing elements in the Isareli government, so that the settlements will expand, the apartheid style laws will get worse, and the Palestinian Authority will be weakened in favor of Hamas and Islamic Jihad in the eyes of the Palestinians.  

Or perhaps we could do things that legitimize the Palestinian moderates in the eyes of Palestinians, rather than run around spouting things that weaken both them and the moderate Israelis.


[ Parent ]
This Comment Is Idiotic And Ill-Informed (4.00 / 4)
There is a united Arab proposal on the table to recognize Israel's right to exist as part of a package peace deal.  This proposal has been on the table since before the Iraq War.  

If Hamas were to break ranks and recognize Israel's right to exist on its own, it would utterly destroy any chance of getting anything in return.  Everyone in the Middle East understands this quite well.  Their leadership wouldn't last a week.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
I was disappointed (4.00 / 1)
that Obama even talked to AIPAC, thus giving further respectability to an Israeli terrorist/imperialist organization. I wonder if he would have done the same for the IRA during the Troubles.

The craven self-abasement American politicians all practice before a lobbying group that represents a small minority of American Jews makes me wonder if it's time to just give up on democracy in this country. The only possible path to some measure of peace in the Middle East is for the big, rich nations to demand, and enforce, an end to territorial ambitions on every side. Yet proponents of that obvious necessity have absolutely no voice in our politics or our media -- and all because they are terrified by what AIPAC and its allies might do to them. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss. I wonder what Bob Barr thinks about the question?


an end to territorial ambitions on every side (0.00 / 0)
thats a lot of history to ignore.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

[ Parent ]
History ain't the problem. (4.00 / 1)
The problem is the cowardice of world "leaders" who cringe at the very thought of AIPAC calling them anti-semitic should they dare suggest a fair, legal, and massively enforced settlement of boundary disputes. Of course now the that the US has no credibility in the world, such a solution is much more improbable.

[ Parent ]
The IRA is the wrong metaphor (0.00 / 0)
The right parallel would be one of the Unionist groups.

But really, the correct lesson is that these are complicated negotiations,a nd you don't run around spouting nonsense unless you've carefully considered what the meaning of the words that you are saying.


[ Parent ]
Ugh, why? Why why why? (4.00 / 1)
Puts him to the right of Bush and well to the right of a lot of Israelis.

I also sincerely don't understand it, even from a "political necessity" angle.  The AIPACers won't trust him on this anyway.  


Saxby Chambliss  


He's Fighting McCain For The "Stupid As Shit" Vote (4.00 / 2)
which, of course, is a stupid as shit thing to do.

"See, I'm one of you!" it just screams, to no avail.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3


[ Parent ]
Bummer (4.00 / 2)
I like Barack Obama. I like what the way he's trying to changed our political culture. I like his willingness to make relatively complex arguments in the face of a media ravenous for soundbites and gotchas.

I have no idea why he's staking out this ground. The point above about pandering is true, but I almost wish he would be more political. Since justice demands another course than the one he's marked out on Jerusalem, I would understand entirely if he was vague on this politically volatile subject during an election campaign. But in making his stance so firmly and so explicitly, he ties his hands in a really unfortunate way. As it stands now, he can't, should he be elected, take the more moderate course on palestine and israel that is the only hope we have of progressing toward peace out there without breaking a lot of promises, without fairly decisively going against his word.

He's got a lot of political capital with progressives, but he just spent a little bit of it, and I have no idea on what. I hope he changes course on this soon.  


Backed away? Clarified? (0.00 / 0)
I don't want to make excuses, because I agree with what everyone else says above.  But it does appear Obama backed away and/or clarified his comment:

But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."

"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967."

He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.

"Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said.



Ah (4.00 / 1)
Backing off with a clarification. There's the shiny New Politics we've all been waiting for!

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

[ Parent ]
Exactly! (4.00 / 2)
You see, in the old days you would say one thing to one group and something else to another group.  That doesn't work in the modern internet age.

New Politics means you say something that implies what one group wants to hear, then turn around an clarify the comment for those who would rather hear something else.

He gets the "pro Israel" headline the next day but doesn't live with the backlash... so the theory goes.

But you see, Obama always says he tells people what they need to hear, not what they want to hear.  AIPAC wanted to hear Obama was someone they couldn't vote for, so they could easily move over to McCain.  Obama realized they needed to hear something that might get them to vote for him.  See how that works?

Hmmm, I should stop.  I'm getting way to cynical about a president I extremely excited about...


[ Parent ]
Welcome to politics newbie? (0.00 / 0)
Maybe we should start looking at the truly honest positions of the AJC or Abe Foxman...?  coz they are totally honest brokers of the truth...

Give me a break!


[ Parent ]
HA!!! (0.00 / 0)
I thought this was all about a 'new politics'!

[ Parent ]
'New' doesn't happen overnight... (0.00 / 0)
wish it did tho'

[ Parent ]
....a (0.00 / 0)
A change it had to come
we knew it all along
We were liberated from the foe, that's all!
But the world looks just the same
and history ain't changed
cause the banners all fly in the next war.

meet the new boss, same as the old boss


[ Parent ]
AIPAC got the speech they *paid* for... nothing more. (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
Ah, but this actually annoys me MORE (4.00 / 1)
He sure wasn't looking to get that 'pro-teacher' headline when he went and talked to the NEA.  He's happily gone and talked to many a left-wing interest group and berated them for their percieved problems.  He supposedly tells THEM what they need to hear.

but when he goes and talks to right wing crazies, he coddles up to them, and tells them exactly what they want to hear.


[ Parent ]
artful language (4.00 / 1)
while i totally understand most people's reaction to BO's statement, my parsing of his language was actually pretty much consistent with the later clarification.  that people infer that the BO is putting his thumb on the scale in israel's favor is only natural considering our general experience about the US's role throughout the "peace" process.

i will agree that this is wishful thinking on my part but an undivided jerusalem that is both the israeli and palestinian capital is not mutually exclusive to a palestinian state and regional peace.  in fact i would be willing to go out and say that it is a pre-requisite.

as someone who believes that the only true solution for israel-palestine is a single binational secular state obama's statement is right on and fully consistent with that vision. israelis discuss this possibility - albeit gingerly - but it is the only real long term solution to the problems between the river and the sea.  


[ Parent ]
FYI: Democratic * PARTY * Platform = Undivided Jerusalem (0.00 / 0)
I've mentioned this before:

"Jerusalem is the capital of Israel and should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths."

- 2004 Democratic Party Platform (.pdf)http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/06/undivided_jerusalem_1.php#comment-2309880

Might be an idea to research and popped lobbied this little gem into the PARTY message -- certainly NOT Obama.


Grrr. Important to ask * WHO * lobbied and * HOW * this position (0.00 / 0)
got into the DEMOCRATIC PARTY platform...

Ref Link:
http://matthewyglesias.theatla...


[ Parent ]
The reaction here is overblown (0.00 / 0)
Perhaps, I'm to the right of everyone here when it comes to Israel.  Or perhaps I'm not as educated on all the nuances of the subject.  But I think there's some overreacting going on.

Obama has expressed his view that Jerusalem should be undivided.  I'll concede this amounts to pandering, which is inherently bad. And perhaps it's even a step further than others have gone down the pandering road(though I'm positive he's not the only US politician to take this stand).

Still, do such statements really mean that he would be unalterably committed to an undivided Jerusalem as President?  Even if he adopts the same position when he initially takes office, can't this be construed as nothing more than a bargaining ploy? Perhaps it's an unwise ploy, but I hardly think that means he should be written off as another neo-con or worse.

Incidentally, I also think we should recognize that there is particular pressure on Obama to pander in this specific context, given the smears about him being a Muslim, among other things.  

The bottom line for me is that, while I would have preferred to hear more balanced language, I'm inclined to cut Obama a break here, and I'm still hopeful he'll be an honest negotiator or broker as President.


His record is so short (4.00 / 2)
And he hasn't really taken any bold stands* on foreign policy beyond, perhaps, a willingness to negotiate with Khameni and Chavez.  So, when he aggressively articulates a view not universally held by Israelis to a right wing Likudnik group at a time when negotiations both within the Knesset and between the Israelis and Palestinians, it is a very large cause for concern.

*I don't count opposing the war when he was a fifth place candiate in a primary a bold stand--he had everything to gain and nothing to lose by opposing the war in that position.  Opposition to the war was the very thing that distinguished him from that crowded field in the first place


[ Parent ]
Who says "bold" is best when it comes to foreign policy? (0.00 / 0)
And do you really think that he will ultimately pursue a more right-wing agenda than the Likud?

[ Parent ]
Yes, and I understand (4.00 / 2)
But when he says things that are either conventional wisdom, votes pretty much the exact same way as the Democratic mainstream, and then comes out with this, it SHOULD raise eyebrows.

And I said that he was to the right of some Israelis, not the Likud party.


[ Parent ]
People who are willing to take a deep breath about this... (4.00 / 1)
...might want to read what I had to say about it here (sorry for the link-whoring, but it's a long post).

Something else to read (0.00 / 0)
People should also check out M.J. Rosenberg's reaction to Obama's Jerusalem comment:

http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsme...


[ Parent ]
Interesting post (4.00 / 1)
But if it was supposed to make me feel better about Obama's statement, it doesn't. Yeah, I suspect he probably was trying to have it both ways, leaving it ambiguous enough so that the Likudniks in the crowd could clap with gusto, then offering enough clarification and qualification to try to soothe the anxiety and anger of Palestinian moderates. This is leadership? This is the same old bullshit.

[ Parent ]
What did you expect? (0.00 / 0)
...With all cameras on him...  AIPAC getting more press than the NRA [hmm...]  Clinton getting all the love coz they know she will "obliterate" Iran...

Obama will also have to caucas with Democrats that are beholden to AIPAC for their campaign contributions -- their votes [in important constituencies/electoral states]... did you want Obama to blow them off too?

I can see why you are not in politics.

BTW AIPAC is embedded in our leadership -- has been for years.


[ Parent ]
You think he had to include this? (0.00 / 0)
Ygelsias put it well:

Meanwhile, 6 million Palestinians, plus hundreds of millions of other Arabs and Muslims around the world, are watching the candidate of "change" in American politics outline a patently unreasonable vision for the final status of the Israel-Palestine conflict. And all for what? Would it really have been so horrible from a "pro-Israel" point of view if Obama had proclaimed himself absolutely committed to Israel's security and just not mentioned anything in particular about Jerusalem?

This was pander-plus.


[ Parent ]
Considering the audience - nuanced pander level appropriate... IMO (0.00 / 0)
Let's get him in office first before we pile on eh!

[ Parent ]
Let's just march, march march off of the cliff (0.00 / 0)
Once again, just like with the Reagan comments, he just went and said something waaaaay more conservative than he needed to.  This is the same shit that Bill Clinton constantly did to the left--demonize us, and then articulate arguments that emboldened Republicans.

[ Parent ]
I'm not ready to march off the cliff... (0.00 / 0)
I realize your concerns, but really Obama isn't stupid -- and hopefully, well I believe, he knows we are not that stupid.  

Plus, remember he didn't have a rich and well connected, extremely politically motivated father-in law like  the movie star Reagan -.  Nor, was his political initiation Arkansas style - Chicago style is far more cough sophisticated.

BTW you forgot to mention Bush I?  == You know there's theories out there why Bush I didn't get a second term -- James Baker blatantly messing with AIPAC didn't go down too well.

I just don't see the red flags... yet...   I like it when I see he's not 'special' friends with oh.. like MIC Feinstein & DSCC Bolton loving Schumber.  Plus, not feeling the love from Lieberman -- for me that's a good sign...

That's just me...  I think he's got what it takes to broker both sides -- I'm not ready to march off the cliff.


[ Parent ]
Chicago-style? (0.00 / 0)
Are you kidding?  Google the Daley family sometime.

[ Parent ]
My brother lives in Chicago -- I know the Daley politics (0.00 / 0)
... there is a positive side.

[ Parent ]
Great * free * summer entertainment for the masses. (0.00 / 0)
Makes the trains run on time.

[ Parent ]
That kind of logic will get us nowhere... (0.00 / 0)
There will always be some half plausible reason to lay off our beloved Democrats and cut them some slack until the next election cycle is over. We have every reason to call Obama on his bullshit. Even if we love the guy (and I'm not sure that I do), we might as well be a left-wing counterweight to his right-wing critics. This ultimately helps Obama claim the center of the politico-ideological landscape.

It is also, in and of itself, important for us to call a pol on bullshit for the sake of simply maintaining our own moral credibility. That's important too, ain't it?


[ Parent ]
AIPAC is a festering boil within our party... [imo] (0.00 / 0)
It got there because of a [long behind the scenes] history of money, power and politics -- that won't go away overnight...  

e.g. Hasim Saban -- just one guy -- admits protecting Israel is his main focus -- he has been pumped millions and millions into the democratic party...  [there are others] -- these israel-firsters expect, access, leverage, and results.

Note -- Dean and Obama have just said no to PAC money -- get that!  It's a message to US that we need to replace money like Saban's -- so that a politican, a PARTY won't have to go out in front of war-mongering, self-interested crowd -- because they own him or her, and have to say things which go against reasoned common sense.

I try to look at all the bullshit... taking Obama's position in context -- not by this one speech.


[ Parent ]
Thanks for reading (4.00 / 1)
I tried to clarify something a bit more in the comment below on that post.  Consider this:

Try to move out of the "Likudnik" frame for a moment and consider the fact that for American Jews of a certain age, the old pre-'67 "divided Jerusalem" is a real memory, not just something in a textbook or on Wikipedia.  And even those who aren't down-the-line Likudniks might be worn down by all the "he's a Muslim/Wright/Farrakhan" business, even if they don't REALLY believe all of it.  So addressing them in front of AIPAC and touching an emotional chord on a key point of Israeli history (the sadness of the divided Jerusalem pre-'67 and the elation of "liberating" it in the Six Day War) could very well buy him some emotional points with the "persuadables" among them (this does not include wackos like Morton Klein of the ZOA).

Still don't believe me?  Read MJ Rosenberg's blog post that I linked to.  He's the farthest thing from a Likudnik, as anyone even slightly familiar with his views knows.  But he's old enough to "get" what Obama was going for.  

Yes, Obama was probably treading on thin ice here, and I agree that it's not the sort of thing he should go around doing as a habit.  But I think there's more nuance here than "the same old bullshit."  Obama's advisors were hoping to reach people like M.J. Rosenberg, and it looks like they might have succeeded.  

I find it a bit dispiriting that people are so willing to reach for the most cynical interpretation available whenever Israel/AIPAC comes up.  I understand that the cumulative effect of 8 years of Bush makes this hard to get past, but let's realize that we have a candidate who might, you know, actually listen to what people like us have to say on this subject.  But I doubt he'll be listening to those who immediately leap to throw him under the bus at the first sign of potential disagreement.    


[ Parent ]
I found Rosenberg's piece (4.00 / 1)
far too generous. And I think your interpretation, that Obama wanted different audiences to hear different things, is quite cynical, and suitably so. No, I don't think Obama suddenly became Netanyahu, I think he's probably more progressive than most mainstream American pols on this issue, but even as I write this, I'm sick of people's--my own included--tendency to impute progressive positions to Obama, positions that he so far has refused to actually embrace.

More generally, Rosenberg, like most other people in this thread, seems very pleased that Obama's managed to get a warm reception at AIPAC. I guess we all like Obama to varying degrees and want to see him get elected, but I don't think it's too sky-in-the-pie to hope for a president willing to get less than a warm reception at AIPAC. Indeed, peace won't come to the Middle East unless and until there's a president willing to do so.



[ Parent ]
I don't think it's Bill Clinton's fault that there isn't peace (0.00 / 0)
His record on the peace process wasn't perfect, but he did a hell of a lot for it and came close to making it work.  And he was always received warmly by AIPAC and their ilk.  

My own belief, which I've blogged about before at that other sight, is that AIPAC has a lot less influence on presidents than everyone always assumes they do (though their influence on Congress is undeniably very large).  G.H.W. Bush (and, especially, James Baker) did some good things for peace while clashing pretty violently with AIPAC.  Bill Clinton did even more for the cause of peace, but he pulled it off without clashing with AIPAC.  A skilled politician can manage both.  


[ Parent ]
Well, it depends on what the government (4.00 / 1)
is in Israel, since AIPAC lobbies on its behalf, as you know, but, in any case you and I seem to differ on what peace would require. I don't think we were as close to peace under Bill Clinton as is commonly believed and I think peace would require an American political leadership willing to buck not only AIPAC but less conservative elements of the organized American political community as well, not to mention the entire Republican party.

In short, I don't think this issue, although it requires finesse, can be finessed. You can't keep all sides happy. And notice that in this instance Obama chose to please AIPAC and to anger the Palestinian moderates.

And the more I think about it--given Wright and the smears and everything else--Obama is the exact wrong person to lead this fight, so maybe that means I should cut him slack, but I don't feel like it. We probably need to wait for a President Feingold or perhaps a Republican realist.


[ Parent ]
Well, OK then (0.00 / 0)
If you're willing RIGHT NOW to write off the entire potential Obama presidency when it comes to Middle East peacemaking, that's your call.  As far as I'm concerned, I'll be keeping an open mind.

[ Parent ]
I'm always open (0.00 / 0)
to being surprised. As I said many times, I believe he, more than most American pols, is emotionally and intellectually inclined to do some good on this issue. The problem, of course, is politics. Is this where he wants to spend his capital? I don't think it is, but I'd love to be wrong.

All that said, I see no reason to give him the benefit of doubt of this issue. He hasn't earned it.


[ Parent ]
Israel/Palenstine (0.00 / 0)
...is a rats nest into which good ideas and politicians disappear.

It's possible that a threatened total cutoff of aid to Israel could lead to concessions, but they would be made grudgingly, and in any case every politician knows that such a thrat would lose him far more votes than would be gained.

Peace will come--to some extent it is here already.  The last major shooting war in which Israel was fighting for its life was in 1973 = 25 years after Israel was founded, and 35 years into the past, so already Israel has been at relative peace for longer than its period of total war.

But I predict that the final settlement will happen when Palestinians in the territories start demanding to be citizens of Israel with full voting rights.  At that point the government will happily offer them anything they want if they'll please not vote them out of office.  


Donate to Open Left








Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.

As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search