Obama at AIPAC: Some Doubts Eased, Others Created
As is their wont, hard-line supporters of Israel have been pushing Barack Obama quite hard. He is, to them, an unknown commodity with questionable ties. Progressive Jewish opinion, on the other hand (and Arab Americans, as well), finds Obama appealing both because of his messages of hope and change and, specifically, because of comments he has made that indicate openness to a more nuanced discussion of Arab-Israeli peace-making. They latched on to, for example, comments he made to Jewish leaders in Cleveland on February 24th, where he appeared to reject identifying being pro-Israel with "adopting an unwaveringly pro-Likud view of Israel," and his statement to a Jewish reporter that "in order to make progress in Arab-Israeli talks...both sides should be held accountable to previous agreements."
There was, therefore, keen interest in how Barack Obama would address these concerns in his remarks before AIPAC's policy conference today. For the most part, his speech pushed all the "right" buttons. It included a personal narrative that connected his story with that of the Jewish people, including his uncle's role in the World War II liberation of a concentration camp at Buchenwald, and the larger narrative of the historic bonds between the African American and American Jewish communities based on a shared commitment to liberal values and forged in the American civil rights movement.
In addressing matters of foreign policy, the nub of the matter for AIPAC, Obama did his fair share of genuflecting and oath-taking, most of which is expected before an AIPAC audience that insists upon such displays. But, on the whole, Obama's speech was less troubling than many others delivered before AIPAC, and contrasted favorably with the AIPAC "talking point" litany delivered one hour later by Senator Clinton.
He was properly tough on Iran, but correctly took on John McCain's refusal to criticize the central role that the debacle in Iraq has played in destabilizing the Middle East while emboldening Iran and extremism. He repeatedly emphasized the need for principled diplomacy as the way to move forward. He smartly contrasted his commitment to peace-making with the neglect of the Bush administration by pledging active involvement in the search for peace between Israel and the Palestinians, and Israel and Syria, and noting the responsibilities of all parties in the Middle East to contribute to that process. He specifically called on Israel to "take appropriate steps -- consistent with its security -- to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements." He urged support for Palestinian President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, and emphasized that "Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."
"Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace," Obama noted, "we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process -- not to force concession, but to help partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence."
If he had stopped there, it might have been an acceptable speech to all sides, but he went further, including a deeply troubling reference to Jerusalem which he said "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." Left unexplained, this was both unnecessarily provocative and contradictory. If the U.S. is not to "force concessions," then why predetermine the status of Jerusalem, one of the more sensitive and complicated issues in the negotiations, in a speech to AIPAC? And if Palestinians need a state that is "contiguous," "cohesive" and "prosperous," how does that occur when one has cut the heart out of the center of the West Bank? (Note: it has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided" as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.)
The AIPAC audience may have cheered, but Arabs, who called me from East Jerusalem, where they were watching the speech on TV, were deeply disheartened, as were Israeli peace activists with whom I spoke.
Better than McCain? Of course. More thoughtful than his predecessors? Clearly. But for those who have embraced Obama's "change we can believe in" slogan, a few doubts have now crept in.
Loading comments…
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
I share your concerns about the Palestinians being overlooked in his pro Israeli speech before AIPAC yesterday, but I think we have to trust that he will do the right thing when he has the power.
We are now in the general election cycle and right on cue he moved to the right of center the day after winning the nomination. This was expected and necessary if he wants to win the election in November.
Let us not forget that he is running against the swiftboat bigoted faction of America and these guys are ruthless when it comes to politics. He has to appear tough and most importantly a supporter of Israel or he cannot get elected.
However, I strongly believe that once he is sworn in as our next president he will be fair and open minded concerning all warring factions in the Middle East.
That's how they get you. You campaign for a guy, project hope all over him and then he says depressing business as usual Israel policy stuff, same as McCain, and you're stuck trying to believe he doesn't mean what he says. Does that mean he doesn't mean alot of the other stuff he says? Are you sure? Why?
".....I share your concerns about the Palestinians being overlooked in his pro Israeli speech before AIPAC yesterday, but I think we have to trust that he will do the right thing when he has the power....."
Obama was offering something to the Palestinians: a contiguious nation! Right now the Palistinians are in two seperate areas: Gaza and the West Bank. To include East Jerusalem in a Palestinian nation would either physically divide Israel or make Palestine a landlocked nation. And, btw (if I recall the geography correctly), Jordan would have a problem with a Palestianian state on ***ITS*** border.
Thanks for a thoughtful and balanced piece.
First Obama needs to get elected. This means at least some level of pandering to interest groups. Every politician does it, including Obama. He is a politician, not a saint!
As numerous other commenters have pointed out, he is so much more insightful and nuanced as a person, so much less confrontational, that his very presence at the top of our nation will help solve some of these insoluble problems or at least dampen the flames of violence and hatred.
He may not be able to perform miracles, but he gives us so many more reasons to hope!
Are you kidding me? Cut the guy a break. Geesh, no one's perfect.
You can hardly accuse Barack Obama of being anything other than reasonable. The fact that you appear to think his stance on Jerusalem is too pro-Israel, is a little like blaming someone for shooting 91%. No one's perfect.
Let it go, take a deep breath and back off. Obama's going to be a VAST improvement over what we've had for the past 8 years. And his policy is getting more moderate and correct. He's for protecting Israel, but also for peace. Relax, man. He's getting it.
Good one. Ok, 1-2-3 deep breaths.......
Well said - clap, clap!
He absolutely DOES get it.
I am Jewish and I hope SOME kind of compromise can be worked out, and he seems to be on his way to getting that done.
They both need to give a little in order to get something in return.
no arkgrfx, the Palestinians have nothing more to give. They have been expelled from 78% of their country and the rest is occupied or under siege. They owe the Jews nothing, but are owed BIGTIME instead by both Israel and the US. The history of Palestine vis a vis has been nothing but compromise - and oppression.
Wouldn't it be great if, en masse, the "Palestinians" were to give up violence and embrace peace, stop publishing anti-Semitic cartoons and books (that would make Julius Streicher blush), cease allowing rockets to be fired at Israeli targets, and decide to actually BUILD a viable, prosperous, and happy life for themselves? The Israelis, as a whole, would happily help out in this endeavour and would be quite content to let go of Arab East Jerusalem. You'd have your "two-state solution" in no time.
If only...
Yes, perhaps the Palestinians could do as you suggest if they WERE NOT LIVING UNDER A CRUSHING OCCUPATION!
And WHY, o WHY are the "Palestinians" under occupation? Let's see...they and the Arab states rejected the UN Partition Plan of 1947 which would have created an Arab "Palestine;" Israel took the "west bank" and Gaza in 1967 only after severe provocation and attack from the Egyptians and Jordanians (who were the actual "occupiers" of what SHOULD have been an "Arab Palestine"); the Arab world refused at Khartoum to recognize or negotiate with Israel to get those territories back; Arafat walked away from the best deal he could have reasonably expected in 2000...got enough? Remember, there would BE no checkpoints or fences IF the "Palestinians" weren't a security threat, and the Israelis take security measures ONLY after continued threats by suicide bombers and rockets. When the "Palestinians" truly want peace, there will be peace.
And will Israel then stop trying to carve the West Bank into bantustans? These 'preconditions' are outdated, irrelevant, and biased towards Israel. Palestinians must agree to first recognize Israel, second to end all violence, third to accept past agreements?Try to find a mention, ANYWHERE, of the fact that Israel rejects all three of those. They don't recognize a Palestinian state, they certainly don't withdraw the use of violence or the threat of it,in fact they insist on it,and they don't accept past agreements,including the road map.When will Israeli leadership come to the table accept intl law and make the concessions necessary for peace? Israeli rejectionism has been the greatest deterrent to peace over the last 40 years.
The political violence will end after apartheid ends. You Israelis worrying about suicide bombers and other forms of resistance depends squarely on whether you end the occupation.When Israel ends the occupation, the humiliation and indignity, and the theft of palestinian lands,then you might have a chance at world respectability. No occupation equals no need for resistance.No apartheid means justice and equality.Don't try to complicate things: It starts and ends with the occupation.For Israel to perpetuate the apartheid policies towards the Palestinians will mean further isolation and condemnation from the world, just like South Africa.
It was enjoyable to read your astute thoughts on the subject. I am impressed.
I am also more hopeful after reading your piece because I feel that people like you will keep their heads during the coming campaign. We need some nuance at this point, and McCain provides none.
Interesting survey of Jewish voters from CBS News...:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/06/02/politics/main4146919.shtml
how did this small country get such a stranglehold on us... we neglect our own people to ensure
the safely of people who cannot make peace, half way around the world.
It's not his concession to make. No one's going to come to a negotiation in a situation in which the host has already given away their bargaining chip; that's for the Israelis and Palestinians to do for themselves, no doubt with some blunt--but behind the scenes--coaching from the president.
I'm sure that Obama has sufficient moxie to understand what even Israeli leaders understand, as little as they might like it, and despite what they say in public: there will be no peace without a face saving compromise over Jerusalem.
If Israel ever sits seriously down with Palestine, the Israeli government is going to understand what it will take to get a deal, but they're only going to understand it in private.
Bit of good news....Hamas unendorses Obama. Not that it matters much to anyone but the right wing lunatics who are notably upset.
You do know that they never "endorsed" Obama in the first place?
From ABCNews.com
"Hamas had never actually endorsed Obama. In April, Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef told WABC radio that "we like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community but not with domination and arrogance."
Note that was told to WABC radio, a right-wing talk station so incredibly virulent that Joy Behar, who once worked there, calls it WKKK. And the "reporter" who broke this endorsement has a history of getting "endorsements" from "terrorists" that always praise progressive American politicians.
The whole thing was a lie.
OKay I give up. Mr. Zogby, please explain how Obam precluded a Palestinian capital in a "shared" city?
I think both McCain and Obama should have avoided addressing the AIPAC meeting. It sounds as if they have now taken the first step to committing US troops to a war with Iran. Shouldn't we reinstate the draft before we start another war? The US military is already stretched too thin. Get ready for much higher gas prices if war with Iran does break out.
If we go to war with Iran it will involve Russia(next door neighbor) and China(No.1 client of Iranian Oil).
Don't worry about the draft, it won't be needed.
War with Iran - reinstate the draft? If we reinstate the draft it'll be like 1968 all over again, only more so, and rightly so. See you at the demonstration.
I'm a Catholic and I have a question about Israel; are there any Catholic Churches in Israel ?
If not, would the Government allow one to open in Tel Aviv and allow it to spread the Catholic Gospel ?
If not, why not ?
Yes. There are a lot of Catholic churches. They all are allowed to spread the Catholic Gospel. Any relegion can be practiced in Israel. For example, Bahai have their main center in Haifa because they are persecuted in the rest of Middle East...
I've been an ardent supporter of Obama since Kerry's defeat. He seems extremely level headed, imaginative and well organized. I view the Israeli-Palestinian peace process as the most critical and contentious issue he will face as president. I have every reason to believe he can muster the courage and political capital to succeed. His address to AIPAC is but the first step on a journey frought with pitfalls.
Phase one, is to distance himself from the field of notables and contenders vying to ingratiate themselves with the more vocal and inflexible Jewish-Zionist elements. He must embolden Jewish moderates to exercise greater influence over the peace process and ensure for a lasting peace based on a just and prosperous Palestinian homeland. Likewise, he must impress upon the Arab world the need to join in the process, end the suffering, accept traditional borders and renounce further violence. US support can no longer continue, uncritical and unqualified. Jerusalem? It's going to be the sharpest thorn on the rose, an despite great care, sure to prick you.
See SamSedaei's Profile
Thank you, James. Intelligent, nuanced and articulate, as always. The fact is that all of the UN resolutions that U.S. has signed on to regards Jerusalem as a city to be shared. Knowing that he is very smart and a student of law, one can be optimistic; After all, he never said Jerusalem should not be "shared," but rather, it should not be "divided." That said, Obama repeatedly tries to out-hawk others on Israel in order to counter false e-mails about him that question his commitment to Israel. It is absolutely critical that bloggers begin to talk about this, because otherwise, he will only be pushed from one side of this conflict and may be forced to take us down the path to disaster in foreign relations and impede his efforts to chart a new course.
Yes, it would be invaluable if bloggers pressed for effective reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians. I am Jewish; not all Jews go for this chauvinistic stuff.
I WISH WE HEAR MORE JEWISH MODERATES SPEAKING OUT. NOAM CHMONPSKY ANF FINKELSTEIN ARE GOOD EXAMPLES.
ALMOST EVERY JEW THAT WE HEAR ABOUT IS PRO WAR W/IRAN AND THE MUSLIM WORLD.
I propose a new kind of federalism that isn't bound by geography. Israelis and Palestinians would be citizens of different states served by different domestic institutions although they would share the same land and foreign defense. Israel/Palestine could become a new model for international governance. It's silly to argue over land and borders when the argument is fundamentally about maintaining cultural diversity in a global economy.
The choice of assimilation or migration is a false dichotomy. America part melting pot, part salad bowl, and Israel/Palestine shouldn't be any different. These cultures have shared the history of this land, and they can share this land without sharing a cultural history. When I visited my family in Israel, I have to say that I preferred the Arab street food to the Jewish street food. Different people living differently in a common land adds to the richness of life in so many ways.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
