I think his speech was probably not his best effort in terms of what he had to say, but I I am going to chalk his misstep up to the fact that it was the morning after the primary campaign came to an end and maybe he didn't bring his "A" game as a result. It wouldn't be the first time that a candidate has made this kind of mistake. Having said that, Sen. Obama really doesn't have the luxury of making these kinds of mistakes because there are too many who are looking for him to stumble and be able to say, "See, really doesn't have the chops because he's just too young and too inexperienced." He's proven himself to be a masterful campaigner who doesn't make these kinds of mistakes twice, so let's see what he does with the next opportunity not to pander to a specific interest group and present us with the same old, tired thoughts. Let's see some of that "change" stuff right away, because the Middle East situation could certainly benefit from it -- the current process isn't getting it done!
Jerusalem: Can Obama Walk the Walk?
This past Wednesday, at the Annual Policy Conference of AIPAC- the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, presidential candidate, Barack Obama drew a standing ovation when he pledged his "unshakeable commitment to Israel's security" if he is elected president in November, and declared that Jerusalem should stay an undivided Israeli city.
The day before, Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice seemed hopeful to reach an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis before the end of the year,
"Israelis have waited too long for the security they desire and deserve," she said, "and Palestinians have waited too long, amid daily humiliations, for the dignity of a Palestinian state." But no one cheered and no one stood up.
The fact of the matter is, Rice's statement in front of one of the United States' most influential lobbying groups is more realistic and more in tune with the facts on the ground.
The United States and other international powers do not recognize Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem following the 1967 war. Their embassy and those of most other countries are located in Tel Aviv. Even Israeli Prime Minister, Ehud Olmert refuses to give a direct response to Obama's statement that Jerusalem will remain the undivided capital of Israel.
"His words on Jerusalem were very moving," Olmert told reporters after meeting U.S. president George W. Bush at the White House.
When it comes to Jerusalem, Obama can talk the talk but can he walk the walk?
In reality, Jerusalem is a divided city. It has been divided since 1948. An Arab city (East Jerusalem) and a Jewish city (West Jerusalem).
In 1967, Israel conquered East Jerusalem and later annexed it in violation of all international laws and United Nations resolutions. In spite of this, the city remains divided, not through international borders and an armistice line but through psychological barriers and the discriminatory policies that Israel has imposed over its Palestinian residents for more than 40 years.
Under Israeli law, Palestinian residents of Jerusalem are not considered citizens. They are not even considered permanent residents; instead they are considered "temporary residents." Under this discriminatory policy, any Palestinian Jerusalemite would lose his or her legal residency in the City if he or she lives abroad for more than 3 years. At the same time any Jew who immigrates to Israel is eligible for full citizenship rights.
On the political level, Palestinians living in Jerusalem do not have the right to vote in the Israeli Knesset. Imagine if a certain ethnic group living in Washington D.C. were not allowed to vote in the congressional or presidential elections. Furthermore, Palestinian Jerusalemites are forced to pay the Israeli "Arnona" tax. Taxation without representation.
On the socio- economic level, under Israeli rule, Jerusalem has been divided into a city for the haves and the have-nots. After forty years, Israel has yet to upgrade the infrastructure of its debilitated Arab neighborhoods. It also continues its policy of appropriating Palestinian lands to construct new illegal settlements and housing for its Jewish population with all the modern comforts and amenities, while continuing to deny most building permits to its Arab population.
The stark difference between the two Jerusalems is clearly visible to the naked eye and for a candidate like Obama who prides himself on being a candidate for change...perhaps for a change; he should stop pandering to interest groups and take a hard look at the facts on the ground. Perhaps he should walk the streets of Jerusalem and see the reality for himself just like former president Carter and others have done...the true tale of two cities.
Fact Check: Obama and the Satus of Jerusalem
Jamal Dajani produces the Mosaic Intelligence Report on Link TV.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The displacement, i.e. "ethnic cleansing," of Jews from the Middle Eastern countries, which began during WWII, is almost complete. Between WWII and 1976, for example, the number of Jews in Iraq had dropped from around 135,000 to around 400, in Egypt from around 100,000 to around 200, in Libya from 38,000 to 20, etc. Those whose assets were seized and who were driven from their homes were not settlers; most were able to trace their ancestry in the region to Biblical days. Most now reside in Israel. Any ideas what we should do with them--repatriation, reparations...? Do they or any other Jews (or Christians for that matter) have a right to live in what are seen as Muslim lands without fear of expulsion or invasion?
You, joeinvt, picked a misleading example, Iraq, a WWII Axis state. Its WWII antisemitic activity was pressed by Germany. It was joined by SOME resident non-Jews, but NOT because of TYPICAL attitudes of Arabs, Turks, or other Muslims. The local culprits were a relative few who did German bidding for money, power, fear of Germans, or misplaced hatred of Britain, France, or Russia because of those nations' behaviors during and before WWI and in the post-WWI period.
Muslim countries began, THEMSELVES, expelling Jews ONLY AFTER Zionist Israel committed its Holocaust against Palestinians. That expulsion was retribution. The guilt was Zionist Israel's.
During WWII, "Axis" nations (Romania, Bulgaria, Iraq...) removed Jews. But there, as in North Africa, mostly the expellers were Germans.
You could cite similar conduct of other much-Muslim Axis states (Yugoslavia, Albania...) But there and in other Muslim states, many locals PROTECTED Jews from Nazis. In areas like Yugoslavia, the Jew-expellers were mostly NOT Arab, Turk, or Muslim.
During Arab or Ottoman occupation of such states, Jews were treated respectfully, because of Ottoman policy, because Arabs and Turks valued Jewish talents, and because traditional Islam, like Mohammed, himself, revered Jews.
You ought observe that Zionists urged, even pressed, Jews to emigrate from Arab and Muslim nations to Israel, not for safety, but to populate Israel with Jews. In Nazi Europe, Zionists worked with Nazis to remove Jews to Israel. Zionists used ANY means to populate Israel with Jews.
There is a difference between ethnic cleansing of the Jews in Europe due to the Nazis and the Russian pogroms and what happened to "Arab Jews."
Several Arab nations reacting to the expulsion of Palestinians in 1948 as a result of the cretaion of Israel epelled and harrased its Jewish population. But many others did not like Morocco, Tunisia and Yemen. As a matter of fact, Israel tried very hard in the late 40's and early 50's to spread rumors in Northern Africa to scare off the Jewish population and force them to immigrate to Israel as it was trying to increase the Jewish number in the new state. Some Israelis try to equate the expulsion of the Jews from Arab countries to the explusion of the Palestinians.
Trying to repetriate the Jews at the expense of the Palestinians is a wrong argument. I believe that ALL refugees should have the right to return to their countries of birth; Palestinians living in Lebanon should have the right to return to Palestine, Polish Jews living in Israel should have the right to return to Poland and Iraqi Jews can also return to Iraq.
The most sensible thing to do with these people, in fact, with much of the population of the failing state of israel, is to relocate them in more hospitable places, such as the US, Australia, Turkey and similar secular societies. ¨
Israel will fail because its own insanely arrogant and aggressive actions preclude the possibility of peace. ¨¨
Consider:¨
¨Its core belief is Zionism, a nineteenth -century nationalist delusion that Jews are entitled to their own nation in the place where some of their relatives lived over a thousand years ago. Someone else lives there now , Theodor.¨¨
Israel faces a growing population of refugees with little to lose and antagonistic neighbors inflamed by its disdainful occupation, the US invasion of Iraq and other real and perceived slights against the Muslim world. ¨
¨It constantly undermines peace talks by building new settlements. It's always done this and always will. ¨
¨It's an apartheid state.¨
¨It's irrational. The carpet-bombing of Lebanon in response to a minor kidnapping indicates that the government of Israel and much of its population has lost its reason.¨¨
Living outside the Israeli delusional theme park, most of these people will adjust to a realistic life as citizens of nations which care less what your religion is. Welcome to the real world, make yourselves comfortable, kick back and live in peace!
"The carpet-bombing of Lebanon in response to a minor kidnapping indicates that the government of Israel and much of its population has lost its reason."
Funny. I though the carpet bombing was in response to the 10,000 rockets that Hezbullah sent over the border into Israeli civilian areas. Seems you don't want to think about that. It is worth pointing out that along with killing some, and capturing other, Israeli soldiers in Israel at the beginning of the events of the summer of 2006, Hezbullah fired cross border rockets into Israel before Israel fired a single shot into Lebanon.
Let's see if I've got this straight. The Jews who were displaced from Arab countries (who together with Palestinian-born Jews account for most Jews in Israel) should be deported and re-settled in "the US, Australia, Turkey and similar secular societies?" Which of course would force Israel into absorption by another arab state like the ones that ethnically cleansed all those Jews in the first place.... That's so typical of the revoltingly anti-Semitic (in effect if not intent) double standards I've come to expect from certain left wing factions, that I'm increasingly inclined to disassociate myself from all group affiliations, despite a lifetime of liberal-progressive allegiance. I still believe in progressive principles and support liberal-Democratic candidates, e.g., Barack Obama, but I refuse to be associated with this kind of moral blindness.
Obama claims he won't deal with lobbyists. But he granted AIPAC's demands, belied his earlier stress of negotiation, emphasized, instead, threatening force against Iran.
Why?
AIPAC manipulates our government with political terrorism. If a politician resists AIPAC, AIPAC "swiftboats" him or threatens him with character-assassination, even criminal coercion, makes its threats credible with actual defamation.
Israel ought not exist.
Israel began with terrorism, slaughtered Palestinians, destroyed their homes, expelled them from their 13-centuries-long homeland. Still it steals Palestinian land, subjugates millions of Palestinians with terrorism.
Israel is a terrorist state. Its terrorism killed or maimed millions of Arabs, rendered others refugees or imprisoned them in wastelands.
Iran does not threaten Israel. Israel threatens Iran, threatens to bomb Iran. Olmert pressed Bush to bomb Iran. Israel's 2006 Lebanon-invasion was a terrorist statement directed at Iran.
Iran abhors the US because Eisenhower toppled Iran's democratic government and installed the Shah and tries to undo Iran's current government, because the US thinks the world is its terrorist playground, because the US uses its terrorism and UN veto to support Israel's terrorism.
Jimmy Carter told the truth of Israel's apartheid. Most foreign press tells the truth of Israel's Lebanon invasion and terrorism. Obama's AIPAC speech denied those truths.
Would President Obama keep the US a terrorist state and keep backing Israel's terrorism? Or would his actual policy differ from his AIPAC speech?
Oh, I'm half Jew, half Magyar, atheist, not Muslim. I sorrow because the Holocaust's victims became Zionists Nazis.
Israel began in the 1800's with legal immigration into the Jerusalem district of the Ottoman Empire, decades before the British conquered it and re-named it 'Palestine'. There was peaceful co-existence between Arab and Jew until 1936 when the Arabs started killing Palestinian Jews.
Israel began NOT in the 1880s, but in 1948. The pre-official beginning occurred during the British Mandate, by force of that mandate, and against the protest of the overwhelming majority of residents, the non-Jews. The Mandate permitted a substantial European Jew immigration, set up by Zionists. THAT IMMIGRATION explains the 1936 killing of Palestinian Jews.
The non-Jew Palestinians lived peacefully with earlier Jewish immigrants, those of the 1880s, because they were few and dispersed and did not appear to design a take-over of the Palestinian homeland. The situation changed dramatically when the British Mandate acceded to Zionist pressure and permitted a huge Jewish immigration that Zionists designed to prepare an eventual Zionist take-over.
And you mislead, dissemblingly, with your words "Arabs started killing Palestinian Jews." Your language suggests, falsely, a wide-spread, ongoing anti-Semitic campaign.
The killing happened during a short time and just in a circumscribed locale. The killing occurred on both sides. The non-Jew parties included non-Arabs and non-Muslims. The matter was Zionist invasion of Palestine, not antisemitism. The victim number was not great, certainly not compared to the number non-Jew Palestinians killed, maimed, displaced, and effectively concentration-camped by Zionists, then Zionist Israel, from 1946 until today.
Allow me to spell out what "the bottom line" is for most , i.e. pro-Zionist, Jews as I am one myself. Once anyone lawfully arrives in the state of Israel, they would not need any passport or any restriction to visit the western wall period. It hasn't been this way since 1967 and will not happen again. Now having said that, it doesn't make it impossible for the Palestinians to share Jerusalem with Israel. Just about everything is negotiable, but Israel's existence and/or access to the western wall is not.
It's laughable that this Wall, part of a temple built by the Roman puppet Herod, would be sacred to Jews. It's even more ironic that the Jews of israel are enclosing themselves in a Ghetto Wall of their own making.
It's all part of a ninetieth-century nationalist fantasy called Zionism, in which the Jewish god will give the Jews of the world their own nation. As he habitually does, this god makes a big mess, and plops European refugees on top of people who already live there. (Read his book, it's hilarious). Amazingly, they are made hostile by being evicted from their land and possessions, seeing their childrens' futures crammed into refugee camps and living under humiliating occupation.
Sixty years of escalating violence later, the prospects grow ever more dim for this absurd imposition, which happened because the Zionist "dream" coincided with European nations' antagonistic desire to send large numbers of dispossessed Jews elsewhere.
As the warfare continues, fewer and fewer young Israelis will see much of a future in this "promised land." They can escape to more welcoming and secure places such as the US. And the Arab population will continue to grow, leaving a smaller and smaller layer of "masters" to control the "underlings.' Not even the entire US defense budget can prevent the inevitable.
Israel was and remains a bad idea. Time to turn the page.
"It's laughable that this Wall, part of a temple built by the Roman puppet Herod, would be sacred to Jews."
I'm glad you find it funny, but judging what others find sacred is even more laughable.
Jews account for only 3% of the population. They are concentrated in swing states such as California, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida. Financial contributions from Jewish donors account for as much as 20% OF Republican campaign funds. As much as 40% of Democratic campaign funds come from Jewish contributors. Obama is already mired on the Middle East road map judging from his speech to AIPAC on Wednesdays - diluting his message of change.
What Obama overlooks is that it is not un-American to seek a modicum of balance to the U.S.'s Middle East policy. The many questions about Obama's "patriotism" have clouded his candidacy. Obama is trying to outdo McCain by appearing more pro-Israel, a litmus test of US presidency nowadays. Illegal settlements and the failure to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty will be "off the table." Obama criticized the Bush administration's allowing the elections where Hamas came to power and approved the recent Israeli attack on Syria. In so doing, Obama has boxed himself in bolstering his chances to gain the presidency while undermining both the perception of the United States throughout the Arab World and global confidence in the United States.
Obama and McCain will continue to mirror each other on all issues. Neither is capable of bringing real change because of the system of campaign finance.
its a little late to be wondering, now...
Perhaps I am too simplistic, but--since everybody wants to claim Jerusalem as their own capital, and no one can without bloodshed--why can't that city be declared an INTERNATIONAL city, belonging to all and none in particular, and governed by an international representation of all major religions/countries under the auspices of the U.N.? Violations of its international integrity by anyone--Israel, the Palestinians, Hamas, Syria, Botswana, etc.--would be regarded as an attack on all countries represented within the U.N.! This endless bickering over WHOSE capital it is, is senseless, juvenile, and utterly nonproductive!
The last time Jews agreed to have Jerusalem be administered by an international body (1948), the Jewish inhabitants were "cleansed" from the Old city, Jews were barred from their holy sites, and over 50 synagogues were demolished. Their paranoia is understandable.
The Israelis agreed to the UN plan which left Jerusalem an International city. The Arab nations refused to accept the UN's plan, invaded and occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank.
I was wondering when someone....anyone, was going to call Obama on this. If this had been Clinton the headline, in all caps, on HuffPo would have decried it to the world. Of even more interest is that in previous statements of position, Obama's was totally opposite to what he said to AIPAC. Since that speech, he has had to backtrack, or "flip-flop" if you will. And, typical for BarackingtonPost, the story is buried among all the headlines.
this just points to obama's naivete, not to mention his eagerness to tell audiences what they want to hear
Every presidential candidate after Carter has made the same pandering statements. It's protocol. It is a mistake borne out of cultural ignorance not naiveté. Unfortunately until AIPAC gets over its hard line Neo Con polices, every presidential candidate will have to pander to the PAC that thinks it represents 3% of the United States and 100% of Israel. They don't.
Truman was the first to bow to the Zionists. Most of these were Christian Zionists. FDR wanted to get oil from the Saudis without having to be "unfair" to the Palestinians. FDR walked a narrow path. Upon FDR's death, Truman was unable to resist the political pressure and promises given to the Saudis in exchange for their oil were not honored. So the term "presidential candidates" should include Truman because he was a candidate after his first term following FDR's death while in office. One one hand, the U.S. has used Israel to get its foot in the door of the Middle East. One the other hand, the U.S. doesn't want to alienate the Arab world because they have most of the world's supply of oil, especially the Shiites, although the Sunnis have had control of most of these regions.
Most Jews do not take the hardline AIPAC approach. Neither do most Israelis. Just as most Americans are not hardcore neocons, most Jews do not want the hard right wingers to dominate the politics.
There is a good reason why Rice and Obama speeches are different. Obama wants to be the president, and Rice is serving a president who is at the end of his term.
The appeasement of Obama towards AIPAC and Israel is a standard among all American politicians who want to make a living in the US. Many years ago, I was reading in Newsweek about G.W Bush before he became the president of the US. Newsweek wrote that G.W Bush is in Jerusalem signaling his desire to run to be the president of the US.
Read Obama speech about race and religion in the US. Guess what, he had to mention 'radical Islam' as the reason for terrorism in the Middle East. Not the occupation. The ultimate b--- kissing.
I was a fan of Obama too , and i admired how he spoke and how much confident he looked (compared to chimpo ) but i just could not listen to his Speech at AIPAC till the end , every third word was Israel security . it wasdisappointing . i was expecting a balanced speech that recognizes that unless there is justice and end of occupation , there wont be Peace in the Middle east . I was wrong . Obama is like most US politicians they have to swear allegiance to Israel first before they swear it to the US flag and constitution . shame .
Do you really think that a politician will last 2 seconds in an AIPAC conference without kissing their ring? Welcome to the real world.
now i understand what the obamabots meant by "change". not even 24 hours as a nominee before switches position to satisfy an interest group.
I cringed when I heard Obama's statement on an "undivided Jerusalem" as capital of Israel. I thought that, either Obama needed to read more about the Middle East and he did not understand the consequences of what he was saying, or he had sunk to the level of most politicians, which is to pander and say anything to win votes. As an Obama supporter, I was so disappointed that I wrote him an email. I understand that he has to do some pandering in order to get elected, but he really did not have to go to that level of detail on such a sensitive issue, it was totally unnecessary, and he should have known better.
Rookie mistake. Probably not the first or last one we will see.
It is clear that Obama has advocated a UNITED JERUSALEM, and that goes to the heart of the very issue. No one is arguing that Jerusalem should have a border run through it, not even Palestinians...
The media is making it look like Obama is back peddling. He is doing no such thing. When read in context his AIPAC statements said:
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided. I HAVE NO ILLUSIONS THAT THIS WILL BE EASY. IT WILL REQUIRE DIFFICULT DECISIONS ON BOTH SIDES."
Did you get that? ON BOTH SIDES.
He is not advocating the enhancement of the discrimination, the taxation without representation, etc. He is advocating SERIOUS negotiations that require sacrifice ON BOTH SIDES.
It is a very responsible and respectful position for both sides of the conflict.
Posted June 6, 2008 | 10:13 AM (EST)