An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Obama: Good Luck Handling the ‘Pitfalls’

Gallup Daily: Clinton As Vice President Would Give Obama Slight Bounce »

A Sad Start For Obama

Posted by JEB KOOGLER in At TMV.
Jun 5th, 2008 | Comments

Call me disgusted, furious, and terribly disappointed.

Senator Obama, it seems, is off to a sad start. His first major speech as the Democrats’ nominee-to-be was made yesterday before the hard-line Israel lobby, AIPAC, a group that has consistently put its foot in the way of Palestinian-Israeli peace. And Obama, sounding more like a sleazy politician than a candidate of change, gave them exactly what they wanted: hawkish rhetoric towards Iran and, most astoundingly, a promise to ensure that Jerusalem remains undivided. He also indicated that the United States would be forthcoming with $30 billion dollars of aid (no questions asked) over the next ten years.

It’s enough to make you sick. Any hope for a change of policy on Israel – the charting of a new direction towards a more even-handed approach to the conflict – has been dashed. Obama appears set to follow the same failed policies of his predecessors: unconditional aid, unconditional allegiance, and an unwillingness to push Israel to make the concessions needed to forge a peace agreement. If a President Obama actually follows through on the type of policies that he laid out yesterday, prepare to kiss goodbye any possibility of a peace accord.

The implications of not reaching an agreement in the coming years are devastating. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is often considered a major catalyst for regional instability and a powerful recruitment tool for Islamic radicals; failure to establish an accord will dangerously exacerbate such issues. Moreover, as time rolls on, the possibility of establishing a Palestinian state becomes less and less. Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank and in East Jerusalem, which continues as we speak, severely undercut the likelihood of peace. Indeed, there will reach a point (some analysts, in fact, say it’s already been reached) where the “facts on the ground” of settlement construction will render a two-state solution untenable. And then God only knows what happens. Unfortunately, Obama, if yesterday’s speech is any guide, appears set to provide the same kind of failed leadership on this issue that we’ve seen over the last eight years, summed up in a simple phrase: “give Israel what it wants, whenever it wants it.”

Most damaging and discouraging was Obama’s comment that he would ensure that Jerusalem remains undivided in any future peace deal. Who does he think he’s kidding?! Since UN Resolution 242, way back in 1967, there has never been a viable Israeli-Palestinian peace proposal that hasn’t included the division of Jerusalem (with West Jerusalem going to the Israelis, and East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.) You can be sure that no Palestinian leader would ever accept an accord that would grant the Israelis full sovereignty over the holy city; indeed, Mahmoud Abbas recently said as much.

It seems an odd thing to say, but we can only hope that Obama is just pandering to get votes…And that he doesn’t honestly believe this garbage.

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

runasim

I was equally astounded by the speech.
I can only hope that it was meant to calm the animosity enough to bring some aboard, in order to inch them along in a different direction later.
Yes, I know it's pandering (if that's what it was). As we saw with small town America, though, if you don't pander, you don't get elected.

One good sign: I read in an article, that even some relatively hawkish Israelis are becoming disturbed at how much Jewish-Americnan money is intruding into their lives. A billionaire from the US can buy a seat on the podiom of honor, etc.

Certainly, the left wing resents the fact that those from abroad influence disproportionately matters that should be debated internally, mong Israelis.

It's revolting to see how everything depends on money.

casualobserver

Guess it didn't even take a day for the Dem nominee to take that sharp turn right.

pacatrue

I haven't read the entire speech, but the only thing that surprised me particularly was keeping Jerusalem off the table.

empireofno

why would you be surprised when obama reveals himself to be another politician, albeit one that makes bill clinton look honest? he's as slick as they come.

pacatrue

londonamerican, is that based on anything?

Neocon

londonamerican, is that based on anything?

I would suspect its based upon what you all were just talking about. It reveals even more specifically to me that as I suspected Obama is clueless when it comes to foreign policy. He has already po'ed his left wing base and hes been the nominee one day.

Only the far left that want to punish Israel for its transgressions would take umbrage with this speech.

pacatrue

So, I went first to Obama's Issues site and the section of foreign policy - On Israel. I then saw there that he did an AIPAC speech in early 2007. I was wondering if Obama's positions had changed since then, such that he is indeed being inconsistent. I couldn't find the entire speech unfortunately (if someone does, please let me know), but I found a Haaretz blog with extensive quotations.

Here's the link.

Most everything that he said yesterday seems to be pretty much the same thing he said in March of 2007. Specifically, he mentioned again that Iran must not be alowed to have nuclear weapons, and a military option must remain on the table, but that an aggressive diplomacy was the place to start. He also mentioned there that he supported continuing military aid to Israel. The only thing I didn't see again was the mention of Jerusalem. (Again, I haven't found the entire speech yet.) And so people might disagree with Obama about thse postions, but they seem to be roughly the same positions as over a year ago.

pacatrue

Sorry, can't figure out why the Haaretz link doesn't work.

Slamfu

Israel is going to continue to receive money just like Egypt is going to continue to receive money. Its all part of the same peace agreement from way back when Egypt recognized Israel.

Not splitting Jerusalem seems like a bad idea, altho Israel will never agree to a return of land until they can get some gurantee of safety from the neighbors who have so consistently waged war on them in the past. If that includes a deal to split Jerusalem then I seriously doubt the opinion of the US president is going to change things.

Neocon

Pacature you do not seem to understand the mind set of the far left who are driving Barak Obama's campaign.

They actually believe that that was pure drivel to win the nomination. Once in power they believe that Barak Obama will punish Israel as nearly all far left wingers wish to do. You are correct that has been his position since the very beginning when he gave the speech in Chicago.

However what will be interesting and suspect is that how well will Obama be able to reign in the Michael Moore wing of the democratic party before they start doing to him what they have done to GWB.

My guess is not very long.

JSpencer

A tempest in a teacup. Of course some folks just love that tempest!

pacatrue

Hmmm... well, in the interest of peace-making, I will stifle many comments. I did still wish to say that if Obama is on record as saying Jerusalem must remain on the table as part of a peace deal, then he should indeed be criticized for changing his mind yesterday -- unless there is a principled reason he changed his mind.

Neocon

At the same time, we must preserve our total commitment to
our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military
assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense
programs. This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and
repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And
when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right
to defend itself.

This was from Barak Obama's 2007 Chicago Aipac speech. As you can see he has not changed his position. That is why the huff that Jeb and others are showing here is but the beginning of the pressure they intend to put on Barak Obama to make Israel pay even despite knowing that Obama laid out this same committment over a year ago.

The far left are still convinced that they can pressure Obama to force Israel to make concessions. Not only concessions but serious concessions. Retribution will be the only thing that makes them happy. Israels blood on their sword.

StockBoySF

pacatrue, thanks for the research on Obama's 2007 position.

I'm not going to get into the debate about Israel and what should (or not) be done. But I am very suspicious of politicians who suddenly change their positions when they're up to be elected (or re-elected). Regardless of what one thinks about Obama's position on this particular matter, if Obama has not changed his position, I think this is a fantastic start for Obama.

If people complain about Obama's positions he has had all along, then they could have voted for someone they agree with. I know I'm not going to agree with everything Obama does, but I won't complain (much) if he keeps his word. Isn't that what we want our leaders to do? To keep their word? Of course he may evolve on certain issues, that's to be expected and welcomed as circumstances change.

I've commented on here before that voters should read about Obama (and all candidates) and vote accordingly. I was afraid that voters would get caught up in Obama's superficial appeal, vote for him and then be surprised at his policies. This primary went on forever, all (well, most of) the information has been readily available on Obama, so no one has an excuse to be surprised about Obama.

runasim

This gets us back to the question of diplomacy, though, which can consist as much of what is not said as of that which is explcitely stated. In addition, diplomacy relies heavily on HOW something is stated.

Because no domestic event open to the media can be a truly domestic these days, every speech directed at any domestic group becomes, in effect, a speech to the world., enemies and friends alike.

If anyone understands that, I thought Obama did,
This speech was particularly important, as it was Obama's first after becoming the presumptive nominee. He had to have known that the world would be hanging on to every word., not just AIPAC.

Granted, this, like so many other situations presents a very difficult dilemma: how to speak domestically and internationally at one and the same time.
I am not saying Obama betrayed previous promises.: I am saying Obama disappointed badly in how he framed his postions.
Obama disappointed, because on this occasion, he chose to chuck the international aspect entirely in order to placate his domestic audience.
My guess is that he chose to be the politician looking for votes, instead of the international figure he has become. On the eve of national elctons, that can be forgiven while still remaining regrettable.

Referring to Jerusalem outloud is as incendiarty as 'bomb ,bomb Iran.
The whole world knows we can bomb Iran, but talking about it too much becomes counter productive, and it boxes us into a position of almost having to bomb, and not when it's necessarily wisest to do so, but when pressures build up from those who feel they have been promissed a good bombing.

Similarly , regardless of how anyone (including Obama) believes the conflict over Jerusalem should end,, stating that belief in such an important speech is equally counterproductive. Jerusalem becomes, esentially, a precondition to negotiations, cutting off progress on lesser issues between the Israelis and Palestinians.

When we are seen as crossing the line between being Israel's ally to become part of Israel instead, we become weakest in out ablility to help Israel internationally..
This is presicely why diplomacy requires such high professionalism in order to be at its most effective.

runasim

Neocon,
It's a bad mistake to equate everyone who doesn't take your hard line with the "far left'' or Michael Moore.
It's an equally grave mistake to equate disagreements over some policies Israel pursues with punishing Israel.

When you so ridciulously overstate the case, you antagonize a lot of people who are devoting a lot of energy to Israel's concerns, and you drive some to give up on Israel and you drive others to indeed, become the Michael Moores of foreign policy in the ME.

Your over-the-top accusations do a great job of increasing anti-Israel sentiment, and it's up some of those 'far left' crazies to try to do damage control.as a consequence.

Believe me, I know from experience.
Try to read up on what diplomacy really means when it comes to winning allies and influencing people.
Being offensive is not a recommmended technique..

runasim

StockBoy,
RE:"If people complain about Obama's positions he has had all along, then they could have voted for someone they agree with. I know I'm not going to agree with everything Obama does, but I won't complain (much) if he keeps his word. "

I understand what you're saying, I think.

I don't know if it's possible, or even necessary, to be 100% consistent, but, in general, I think it's better to praise and complain according to a particular situation, not according to who we're talking about. I give McCain credit when he's right about something, even hough I could never vote for him in this election.
Conversely, I would never defend Obama, who I will vote for, when I think he's wrong.

I try to put everything in context. Even when a politician blatantly breaks his word, Id want to know the why's and wherefore's before making a judgement.

In this case, my criticism of Obama was not criticism of his whole person or candidacy. I just thought he came up short on the international diplomacy front.
That's far from being a deal breaker on my vote, however.

Pete Abel

You didn't close off the HTML code. Need an at the end, after the word "link."

Pete Abel

Never mind -- apparently I can't insert code. Let me try again. You need an "" at the end.

Pete Abel

That didn't work either. Email me by clicking on my name on the home page, under Editorial Staff.

Neocon

Runaism

You are constantly lecturing me for my positions. So let me respond.

I openly stated that Barak Obama did NOT change his mind but that he in fact claims to be not only on Israels side but a Zionist as well according to the Atlantic interview of a couple months back. I posted a brief snippet of his 2007 Aipac speech as proof of this.

The fact that this has been his position since 2005 when he was running for the Senate should not surprise anyone. That being said the very fact that he is such a Zionist and such a proponent of Israels security. The fact that he stands before the Israelis and praises them while nudging them to make concessions is not winning him any points with the other side at the negotiating table.

In that same speech he warns us that Iran is the enemy. Hezzbollah is the enemy. Hamas is the enemy. Syria is the enemy but that he will sit down and talk with our enemies. This is all the far left is hearing. Talk without understanding the preconditions of failure he has just laid out in advance.

You sir just laid out and defended what I have been saying about Barak Obama for a year now. The man does not understand foreign policy but somehow has convinced people that his flowery speechs will somehow conjole the world to the bargaining table and to peace.

The far left has always had a couple things going for them. One is a fervent desire to blame Israel for all things going wrong in the middle east With exceptions but if (you?) and yours who are obviously far left want to cast those labels and blanket statements at the far right which are most likely mostly true then I allow myself to throw those blanket statements at the far left.

The facts are simple. The far left is driving Barak Obama's campaign with of course help from many other sources. The fact that you and others here jumped up and began moaning about an already well laid out Obama position tells me one of two things. Either you don't know your candidate like you think you do or you truly believed that once elected you could change his position.

I believe that you folks know your candidate therefore the only reasonable conclusion that I can come to is that now that Obama has secured his nomination you are beginning the arm twisting that has come to be the trademark of both right and left.

RE:"If people complain about Obama's positions he has had all along, then they could have voted for someone they agree with. I know I'm not going to agree with everything Obama does, but I won't complain (much) if he keeps his word. "

or as I said they can begin the brow beating until he sees it there way. Trust me the far left is not going to abandon Obama. They are simply going to work him till he becomes their puppet.

CStanley

According to this article:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-obam...
Obama's position has been consistent in the past in support of an undivided Jerusalem:
In 2000, he submitted a policy paper to CityPAC, a pro-Israel political action committee, that among other things supported a unified Jerusalem as Israel's capital, a position far out of step from that of his Palestinian friends. The PAC concluded that Obama's position paper "suggests he is strongly pro-Israel on all of the major issues."
So the problem really is that he's flip flopping now, because he realized that it was a diplomatic blunder to commit himself to such a provocative issue before he's even in a position to engage the interested parties at the negotiating table.

Neocon

Exactly CStanley.

Barak Obama is trying to pacify his far left base while coddling to the Aipac and those who have a fervent desire to protect and defend Israel. In other words two conclusions can be drawn from this most recent speech.

He is not up to speed on foreign policy or.......
He is a politician who will tell people what they want to hear.

When you look at his top foeign policy advisors they are all soft on Israels security while allowing for the possiblity for concessions.

I DO NOT disagree with Israel making concessions but when you brand those at the PEACE table as your enemy then you have essentially set down at the poker table with your cards face up at the table.

His heart is in the right place but again I make the contention that has always been my main concern with the man. HE just does not have the experience to be president.

StockBoySF

Obama had an interview with Candy Crowley yesterday. In it Obama said that he thought that Jerusalem should remain undivided in his opinion. He came to that position from a "pragmatic" (or he may have said, "practical") viewpoint. But what I found most interesting is that he went on to say that the parties involved would need to make difficult compromises. The way I interpret Obama's statement is that he has one position, but if the Israelis and Palestinians thought that peace in the Mid East meant splitting Jerusalem, then that is ultimately for them to decide.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/...

runasim

Neocon and CStanley,

This is not about Obama's positions!!!

It's about what a US official or candidate should or should not say on the world stage, and when the media are present, every stage is the world stage..
It's not up to the US to decide the final fate of Jerusalem, and Obama made a mistake by bringing it up.

DLS

Obama said nothing wrong before AIPAC. The losers who are howling about his Jerusalem remark say more (very poor) about themselves than about him.

As for Obama and his group (he uses his group when he "needs" to face the unpleasant), he has now changed his stance [tm] and really didn't mean what he said. [snicker] Typical BS from a typical politician. No CHANGE with that!

As far as wanting Israel to be weakened even more and force more one-way concessions down its throat as something constituting "change" and even "improvement," those who want that are fellow travelers with the terrorists who are only quibbling about the rate of Israel's destruction.

Neocon

DLS you understand the driving force behind Barak Obama's supporters as well as I do. I guess thats why we both have negative ratings around here.

You reckon?

Neocon

You asked for it. You got it.

Barak Obama is a Zionist. What part of that don't ya'll understand.

He puts first and foremost the interests of Israel and their right to a safe and secure place to call home above all else. Therefore if that is the case then how do you really expect him to sit down with Hamas, Hezzbollah, Syria, Iran and negotiate anything at all?

As I have stated before when you come to the table with a predisposed position then your hand is weak and the only success is going to be failure. This is what the far left have failed to see in Barak Obama. They hear talk. Dialogue, Negotiate but they do not understand that the position from which he has started these talks is already weak and fraught with peril because he has essentially said many times over.......Israel is my buds and YOU are the enemy.

Now let me convice you I am a moderate and want whats best for you.

Barak Obama 101. He might actually turn out to be a moderate after all. He might actually not be a far left winger. Oh wouldn't that be the shizz.

TomGrey

Nice note that it's a Sad Start -- because his standing ovation undivided Jerusalem remark was followed by weasel words claiming it's not what he meant.

Another full of BS politician.

I think the US and the EU should be pressuring the Palestinians to change for more support of human rights. That's the bigger problem.

StockBoySF

TomGrey, I don't think Obama backed-off from his words, which were also in the interview with Candy Crowley, about an undivided Jerusalem. I think his position is clear, that he feels that an undivided Jerusalem is the way to go. But Obama knows that decision is not his to make- if the Israelis and other parties involved agree that a divided Jerusalem will foster peace in the mid-east, then so be it, there will be a divided Jerusalem.

I think folks are confused over Barack Obama's thoughts. We're used to presidents who will lie, mislead the country, "cook" the science, etc. to push through what they believe is best. Obama has his own ideas, but he is open to listening to others (and the facts) before making a decision. In the case of Jerusalem, he believes from a pragmatic standpoint that an undivided Jerusalem is the best way. But the final decision, in this case, is not his.

He will make mistakes, but let's keep them in context.

Remember Obama is not Bush and he has his own style, along with strengths and weaknesses. We will need to judge Obama on what he is, not what we're used to seeing in Dubya.

blog comments powered by Disqus