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.

Comments

[Maximin]

Jerusalem "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.­" ?? The status of Jerusalem is one of the absolutely critical factors in Mideast and world peace, because Its role in worsening or detoxifying the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is immense. Little wonder that Palestinians and Israeli peace activists are chagrined at this part of Obama's speech.
I think Obama is extremely intelligent and is well-informed. Perhaps he has (secretely) in mind an "undivided" Jerusalem acceptable to both sides. But on its face, the statement means that Israel must continue to own East (Palestinian) Jerusalem wholly. The remark appears to be pandering to this powerful lobby. Perhaps he does need to say this to get elected (as SaltySaltillo suggests). Why should he believe it? Can he demonstrate that it aids peace and reconciliation?
Abe Lincoln refused to come out against slavery until well into his presidency - in the thick of the Civil War, when he perceived a good chance that his antislavery decrees would succeed - and not before. Well I just hope that Obama can ultimately get around this in an effective way, as Lincoln managed to do. But this start is not very encouraging.

[TheIndependenceParty]

Today is today, James. Placing one stone upon another will take time. Which of those stones to place first will take wisdom. Perhaps America will posess wisdom once again in the coming year. God willing.

[FatherTed]

He would have done better to give the speech but simply leave out the Jerusalem line.

It's absurd that a member of the Israeli Knesset can stand in front of that body as MK Avshalom Vilan did just yesterday, and say: "We're lying to ourselves for political reasons to make it impossible to reach a political solution in Jerusalem. Jerusalem will be the capital of the Palestinian state also." But today, to get elected to office in the United States, a Presidential candidate had to stand up and mouth the rhetoric of the Israeli right about Jerusalem being Israel's "undivided" capital.

There is no negotiated peace without a shared Jerusalem, and no viable Palestinian state (as East Jerusalem alone generates more than a third of the GDP of the Occupied Territories). If Obama really thinks there is any hope of peace without tackling Jerusalem, it doesn't say much about his knowledge of the issues. And if he knows full well the absurdity of what he is saying, but is willing to genuflect so utterly in front of AIPAC just to get elected, it doesn't say much for his leadership qualities.

[Elliott32]

This diary on dKos is kinda related:

the Washington Independent has the scoop on the comments Lieberman made today, also I don't believe Senator Obama endorses the AIPAC or their policies (they were, after all, indicated in spreading the "Muslim" smears)...­..
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/4/152839/5810/316/529559

[NightRider]

Where was this exit poll question, "how important is Israel to you"?

[Citizen54]

You are asking That Which Is Not to Be Asked.

[axisofevil08]

There is always a nuanced approach when dealing with every other constituency except American Jews. They are lumped together and it is assumed by politicians that the right-wing Likudnik neocon approach is what they want to hear, with no regard to what may be the correct policy or approach. And it seems that everyone who addresses AIPAC assumes that the rest of America is uninterested or uninformed. Obama's speech to AIPAC today was no exception. It seriously disappointed me.
I am waiting for the day when a presidential candidate will say that our approach to the Middle East will be based on US national security interests and international law. Occupation, collective punishment, torture, targeting of civilians, etc by any state will not be supported any longer by US taxpayers.

[biggurl]

arrgghh...­this is SO dissapointing Mr. Obama. Hopefully Jimmy Carter will give you the cahones to correct yourself. BTW why is AIPAC the ONLY lobby that Mr. Obama feels the need to pander too????? I have supported him, but this statement breaks my heart.

[Insideout143]

Believe me, he's not 'pandering'. Obama is the most capable when it comes to letting all sides be heard, and finding common ground. He'll be able to help both sides make reasonable concessions, and if nothing else, he'll be able to allow for constructive conversation and maybe even a peaceful settlement to the mess. As he said, it's not going to be easy. Change for the better often isn't easy.

[cosmic]

I agree. this article is misleading. It criticizes him for saying Jerusalem should remain whole, and be the Capitol, then it says the Palestinians technically agree to this position! What exactly is the problem then? NEXT we get:

'But for those who have embraced Obama's "change we can believe in" slogan, a few doubts have now crept in.'

COME ON. I'm sick of these spin tactics. Should expect this from Zogby tho, heh!

[biggurl]

"Obama is the most capable when it comes to letting all sides be heard, and finding common ground. He'll be able to help both sides make reasonable concessions, and if nothing else, he'll be able to allow for constructive conversation and maybe even a peaceful settlement to the mess."

I do hope that you are right Insideout143. I just read the most disheartening article about Gaza...thi­s place seems like a large prison, or more like living in hell - the blogger talks of palestinian children having to bathe in open sewage...t­his would not tolerated in the US (well not knowingly anyway)

http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/

[AdamWykle]

East Jerusalem is occupied, according to international law, and the 200,000+ Jews who moved there in the past few decades qualify as settlers who, under article 49 of the fourth Geneva convention (regarding the illegality of transferring civilian populations into occupied territories) should not be there.

[MagisterLudi]

Ok, Adamite, Since you like things "pure." Here goes: Since Jews cannot live where they please neither should Arabs.
This sounds imminently fair: ALL Arabs move out of Israel and ALL Jews move out of the disputed territories. Aferall, Palestinian Arabs and other Arabs and their supporters want to keep as much of the Middle East Juden-frei. They succeeded admirably in most countries.
It would be only fair if Israel proper is Arab-free as well.

[ZenJu]

Jerusalem is JEWISH. Period. At most, the Israelis should shear off predominantly Arab East Jerusalem, keep the Old City, and let the Arabs do what they will with the Eastern half (assuming, of course, the "Palestinians" can overcome their cult of death worship and violence). But when will Jews be allowed to own property or move freely and safely in, say, Saudi Arabia? Are Jews (or Christians, for that matter) allowed to visit Mecca? And if there are Arab Israelis, why can't there be Jewish "Palestinians" living in "Palestine"? After all, it's the ARAB world that passes around anti-Semitic literature and cartoons and caricatures that would do the Nazis proud. You want racism? Look up how many Arab countries treat Jews and Christians. You want illegal? How about the occupation of "Palestine" by Egypt and Jordan from 1949-1967? Even the USSR said so.

[edtastic]

Call me silly but hasn't Israel been a hostile force in the middle of the Arab world for the past 60 years resulting in millions of Arab(Palistinain) refugees that currently fill all the Arab countries in the region. Do you think the Jewish State's treatment of the native Arab population might have something to do with the anti Jewsih sentiment in those countries. I dont think thats silly at all, I was just being disarming. Of course its got whole lot to do with it. Just like 9/11 created anti muslilm sentiment in America.

There is strong anti Arab racism on the Jewish side of Israel. 70% of Jews in Israel would not live in a building with a Arab. So clearly we have proven Jews are only human and thus capable of forming bigoted attitudes. In fact I feel zionism inevitably causes feelings of bigotry in the vast majority of zionst. The idea that Jews deserve one level of treatment and non jews another creates a doulbe standard. Double standards are the basis of bigotry.

[ornovscot]

I think Barack Obama will do what he can do to chart a more balanced and sensible foreign policy.

But, in the long term, I hope legislation can be enacted that will make all types of lobbying more difficult and that will provide more public financing of campaigns.

I hope that groups favoring a more evenhanded policy with respect to the Middle East will be allowed to express their sentiments to Congress.

[Elliott32]

Dear Mr. Zogby:

I always agree with him 100% on how best to protect our country from terrorism and why we're losing the war on terror.

Ahem......­....

HuffPost blogger, Bill Maher ,interviews Michael Scheuer, former head of CIA's Bin Laden Unit
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF4_oaTIH8g

Toward a Sensible Israel Policy
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/scheuer.php?articleid=5281
http://www.antiwar.com/scheuer/?articleid=8827

[Chachi]

I couldn't agree more, and I'm surprised you were able to post this. My comment from an earlier blog about Obama's speech, in which I also referenced the troubling comment he made about Jeruselum, was censored and did not appear.

Even on the left there are those that cannot handle an open debate about our biased and unfair position towards Israel. Unfortunately, although Obama is a better candidate than any of the others and does represent change, he will not truly change some of these positions about Israel that we've been trapped into.

[despike]

This is someone that is not afraid to say what he wants.

[AdamWykle]

The U.S. and Israel's wet dream of maintaining Jerusalem for Israel will not be accepted internationally. Obama can say these sweet things to AIPAC but the reality is that this world has an international organization called the United Nations whose aims are to implement international law something Israel is a flagrant violator of, but they still exist. And Jerusalem for the Israelies would not be accepted. It is not accepted now and it won't be accepted in the future.

Dream on Israel, good luck with that Obama.

[betz55]

If Mr Obama is really interested in "change" we can believe in then he needs to "change" the same old rhetoric, and dogmatic, unquestioned, unconditional support of Israel. Level the playing field and be an honest broker of the "change" he is espousing. Obama is no fool but it sounds like AIPAC is doing their best to bias Obama to be an Israel firster.

I will be proud of the day when the President can put the interest of America before the interest of Israel and not be crucified for it. It's a shame that American politicians are selected, not on their commitment to the best interests of America, but by vowing to put the interests of a foreign nation, Israel, first. The oath of allegiance that I said everyday in school was not to Israel, or any country but America.

A true "friend" of Israel would tell them they need to end the occupation of the West Bank, stop repressing the legitimate national aspirations of the Palestinians, and stop warmongering. The time has come for the US to stop pandering to Israel and it's destructive, belligerent, failed policies.

Israel 'preconditions' for "peace" are outdated, irrelevant, and biased towards Israel. Why is Israel allowed to lay waste to every international law and convention without criticism and their "enemies" -read Iran,Syria, any one against Israel's failed policies are not entitled to raise a hand in their own defense without raising Washingtons hackles? I hope Obama smartens up.

[Dailyfare]

Instead of speculating about what he means, just ask him to clarify.