Obama at AIPAC: Some Doubts Eased, Others Created

[Joanne98]

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.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-at-aipac-some-doubt_b_105272.html

[ray of light]

1. ...

"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."


If the Arabs who contacted him are not content, then they should start creating change in their own views and propaganda campaign against Jews and Israel. They continue to educate their children via their formal teaching curriculums that Jews are evil and Israel shouldn't exist.

Change, via Obama, and our Democratic party doesn't mean that they can continue their terror campaigns, their funding of terror organizations, their support of Hamas and we will sit idly by and let them.

If they want positive change in their region, then they need to stop THEIR VIOLENCE and stop THEIR campaign against Jews and Israel. And they need to stop funding killers against the people of Israel.

[Joanne98]

2. So what do u think of Jimmy Carters visit to Hamas?

Is he evil too?

PS I thought Zogby was on out side?

:shrug:

[ray of light]

4. If Jimmy Carter speaks to Hamas, and he can get them to stop the killing, then I'm all for it.

But if his message is that Hamas is fine and Israel is bad, then he's not being truthful.

Israel is not alone to blame for building the wall. And Israel has put forth meaningful steps in allowing Palestine its own statehood and the ability to 'police their own.' However, Arafat wasn't an honest broker, and he took every concession and then promoted more violence towards Israel. And the Arab nations have not exactly welcomed the Palestinian refugees to their countries either.

If Jimmy Carter wanted to make a difference, then he would be asking the Palestinians to stop the bombings of civilians. And he'd be asking them to work towards peace too. And he'd be asking Palestinians to stop brainwashing their children to be against Israel and Jews through their infrastructure that leads to continued hate-crimes.

Suicide bombings IS murder. It's not noble. And it doesn't HELP the Palestinians, any more than the events on 9-11 helped the people of the middle-east.

Jimmy Carter needs to work with BOTH sides. From what I've read from J.C. he's blamed Israel and excused the Palestinian's crimes.

[Joanne98]

3. Oh BTW. I hope something else noticed besides me Condi mentioned

PRIVASTIZING the Iranian banks in her AIPAC speech. Naomi klein was right. I'm supporting J Street.

[adnelson60087]

5. On AIPAC, Obama seems to be more of the same and politics as usual.

I wonder why he doesn't approach this as a "change you can believe in" issue?

[Peace Patriot]

6. I have similar concerns about Obama's speech to the Miami mafia about Latin America.

I grant him courage in walking into that minefield, with the message that he intends to "talk to Cuba," but the context in which he put this intention was rife with old U.S. "manifest destiny" arrogance about Latin Americans' "need" for U.S. "leadership," and with delusions that the Latin America of today would submit to it. South America is on its own path now, with leftist, social justice governments elected in Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, Chile, Nicaragua and Guatemala, and more to come (next will be El Salvador and Peru, and a resurgent left in Mexico). This amazing social justice movement has swept South American elections and is moving north. These new leftist governments--elected after decades of U.S.-supported, destructive, elitist, rightwing rule, and heinous fascist rule--have goals of regional cooperation, a Latin American "Common Market," and, recently proposed by Brazil, a common defense, without the U.S. The U.S. presents the biggest threat to social justice, democracy and peace in Latin America, of any country in the world. In fact, the U.S. is their only threat! Bushites and global corporate predators lust after the oil in Venezuela, Ecuador and other DEMOCRACIES, and have been plotting Oil War II in South America. And, frankly, I am not convinced that Obama's goals differ all that much from Exxon Mobil's, if his speech in Miami is any guide. Obama is a little more careful about the word "enemies" than Bushites are, but still uses their "talking points" (for instance, that Hugo Chavez is "authoritarian"--for which there is no evidence--zero, zilch--at all).

We who seek peace and fairness and justice must keep doing so. Never a moment of rest for us. I do feel heartened by the fact that the people have rallied to Obama because of the war--70% of Americans now opposed to it (up from 55-60% just before the invasion)--and are demanding change. I do think that Obama listens. And that is a big, big change. Our government and even our party leaders have been deaf to the people of this country for eight years (and, indeed, all the way back to Reagan, one of the biggest supporters of mass murderer in Latin America of all time, as well as union buster, S&L de-regulator and everything else). I think that is SOMETHING--that Obama is a listener, and is supported by a wonderful new activist citizenry. But if we want real reform, we're going to have to fight hard for it, against all the forces that will try to hem him in, and prevent any real change.

[KoKo]

8. The hope was ...

if Progressives put him in power...we'd have at least a door into the WH. Let's hope that remains true.
I do worry with him putting out policy statements that box him in...so early.

[grasswire]

10. do you have a link to a transcript of that Miami speech?

I'd like to see it.

Thanks.

[KoKo]

7. I was a little discouraged by Obama's speech....but Hillary's was even more hardline...so

I have to say I was disappointed by both being so specific. I understand that talking tough is what they must do to win against Repugs and gain the support of the more philosophically rabid AIPAC...but go so far means that his words will come back to haunt him in future negotiations if he strays even a hair from what he promised AIPAC. I wish he hadn't been so specific...and what if he really means what he says and it isn't just election rhetoric? That would be very disappointing for many of us who hoped for a change in Bush/Cheney/Neo-Con policies and bullying.

[Ian_rd]

9. I am continually amazed at how much power these people have.

This tiny country on the other side of the planet steers our nation like a kid with a remote-control toy.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. You may be amazed because of all the lies being fed to you.

Israel no more controls the US than any other country.

[Ian_rd]

12. Then why does nearly every politician, especially those with presidential

ambitions, feel the need to swear allegiance to Israel in terms that smack of unquestioning loyalty?

[Behind the Aegis]

13. As it is not true...

...and nothing but gross hyperbole, I can't answer the question. It is simply more bullshit propaganda in the form of "Israel controls the US."

[blindpig]

14. When you kiss up to AIPAC

You throw peace and justice out the window, and I don't care who you are.

[blindpig]

15. Some change, some hope. n/t