Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditTwo days after John McCain paraded his tough-guy image in front of 7,000 supporters at the annual meeting of the American-Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), Barack Obama delivered his own version of the Israeli national anthem this morning. For Obama, the AIPAC conference seemed like a tough room to work. But, by all indications, he wowed 'em.
He started out by citing "provocative e-mails" circulating in the Jewish community. (He didn't provide details, but people in the AIPAC audience did, when I asked: that Obama is captive of Palestinian ideology, that Obama is a secret Muslim, and so on.) "Let me know if you see this guy Barack Obama," said Barack Obama, "because he sounds like a scary guy."
Virtually every speech ever delivered to an AIPAC conference, going back 54 years to the first AIPAC conclave, is a litany of pro-Israeli shibboleths. Obama didn't disappoint. He learned about the Holocaust from a camp counselor at age 11, he said, and his great-uncle helped to liberate Buchenwald. Check. "As president I will never compromise when it comes to Israeli security." Check. He advocates strengthening US-Israeli military ties, and wants to sign a memorandum of understanding to provide Israel with $30 billion in military aid over the next ten years to "ensure Israel's qualitative military advantage." Check. No negotiations with Hamas and Hezbollah. Check. And while he will talk to Iran, it will be "tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place of my choosing--if, and only if--it can advance the interests of the United States." Check. And just in case AIPAC thinks that he won't act, Obama added: "I will always keep the threat of military action on the table."
In case anyone missed the point, Obama added: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." He repeated that sentence twice, for emphasis. And for additional emphasis, he said again: "Everything."
Before the speech I wandered around, speaking to a couple of dozen AIPAC attendees. What I heard was uncertainty, nervousness, anxiety--and almost none of it was based on Obama's actual views. It was just, you know, a feeling. "I don't trust him," said Menachem, from Illinois. "I don't go according to what people say. I am using my intuition." Said Alan, "We went to lobby him last year, and he seemed, well, I don't know. It's his body language." Many AIPAC'ers said Obama would talk to terrorists. Diba, from California, said: "I don't think Obama has taken a strong stand for Israel. He is saying all the right things, but I don't think that he means it."
After the speech, it was a different story. "Did he make the sale? Oh, absolutely!" said Abe. "He addressed the rumors. He spoke from the heart. For me, he settled it," Lisa, from Michigan,said. Said Jay, from Washington, "Obama had to describe himself for this crowd. And I think he came across well. People were listening very carefully, and I think they believed him." A young man from Los Angeles, still undecided between Obama and McCain, said: "He really made me think. He surprised me. He made the point that Israel is weaker and less safe after eight years of the Bush Administration's policies."
That latter point was central to Obama's address at AIPAC, which was interrupted numerous times by standing ovations, cheers and thunderous applause. Obama blasted McCain for his fealty to the "failure" of Bush's bull-in-a-falafel-shop approach to the Middle East, which, he said, (1) allowed Hamas to take power in the occupied territories, (2) allowed Hezbollah to make major gains in Lebanon, (3) strengthened Iran's power in the region, (4) turned Iraq into an unstable state, and (5) isolated the United States from its friends and allies in the region, especially among the Arabs. By proposing a "responsible, phased redeployment of our troops from Iraq" ("we will get out as carefully as we were careless getting in") and by offering incentives to Iran if they abandon their nuclear program, Obama said that he will make Israel safer and more secure.
If you were listening for Obama to say anything about the suffering of the Palestinian people, well, that will be in a different speech.
Obama, of course, pledged that he will work for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine speech. In a slap at the White House, which launched a half-hearted, way-too-late peace effort at the end of 2007, Obama added: "And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency."
The meeting at AIPAC, largest in its history, is a grand affair, filling a cavernous hall at the Washington Convention Center, with fully a dozen wall-sized monitors set up to display speakers' images. Everyone who's anyone spoke: Obama, McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, John Boehner, Condi Rice, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, and--hmm, someone else, someone else--oh, right: Hillary Clinton. Clinton rushed through her speech, tromping on her own applause lines, as if she couldn't wait to get out of there. (No, she didn't concede this morning, either. But she did say: "I know Senator Obama understands what it is at stake here. ... I know that Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.")
McCain, speaking on Monday morning, didn't break any new ground. He attacked Obama for not supporting the Senate resolution introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization. "Over three-quarters of the Senate supported this obvious step, but not Senator Obama," said McCain. He criticized Obama for wanting to try something as radical as diplomacy. And of course he warned that there would be a "catastrophe, ... all-out civil war, genocide, and a failed state in the heart of the Middle East" if America does what Obama proposes, and leaves Iraq. That, he said, would embolden Iran.
Obama wasn't letting McCain get away with that one. "He [McCain] criticizes my willingness to use strong diplomacy, but offers only an alternate reality--one where the war in Iraq has somehow put Iran on its heels," said Obama. "The truth is the opposite. Iran has strengthened its position."
An AIPAC meeting, of course, is hardly the place to look for enlightened speech about the Middle East, and there was precious little of it to be found anywhere on the speakers' rostrum this week. But Barack Obama, who entered the lion's den an unknown quantity, won more than a few converts.
For me, the highlight of Obama's speech came at the end, when he spoke movingly, and passionately, about the alliance of Jews and African-Americans who led the civil rights movement in the '50s and '60s.
In the great social movements in our country's history, Jewish and African Americans have stood shoulder to shoulder. They took buses down south together. They marched together. They bled together. And Jewish Americans like Andrew Goodman and Michael Schwerner were willing to die alongside a black man--James Chaney--on behalf of freedom and equality.Their legacy is our inheritance. We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer. This is a bond that must be strengthened. Together, we can rededicate ourselves to end prejudice and combat hatred in all of its forms. Together, we can renew our commitment to justice. Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.
He said that in a rising crescendo, during a standing ovation, that went on and on. It was a powerful moment.
Share this article
Robert Dreyfuss
A chronicle of America's adventures in foreign policy and national security.
RSS
And so it begins, tacking McCain to Bush and making sure that he can't escaped being looked at as 4 more years and then tacking Bushes foreign policy in the Middle East to making the world a less safe place by pointing out that Iran has gained MORE power not been pushed back. I am sure the Republicans will rise to fight these allegations but Saddam kept Iran under control. Now they have a heavy foot in Iraq and are one of the most powerful countries in the region now.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 2:59pm
Look, there's a "hard-core" AIPAC and LVLIB Religious Right sector (who basically put Israeli interests ahead of American interests, if there's a conflict)....that Obama is NEVER going to win over.
"I'll bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-Iran" John will always get those folks, despite the fact that he's probably no "tougher" than Obama is, just more willing to suck up to a crowd.
And of course he's a hypocrite when it comes to "talking to Hamas" (See: Davos Conference video).
But there's a large contingent of folks, many in AIPAC I'm sure, who see no future in "going down the same path" for another 4-8 years.
And those might be won over, as long as Obama steers the rocky shore between the Lunatic "Israel Above All" Right...and the "reflexively anti-Israel" Left (as Air Berman here once called them).
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 3:02pm
Israel is not an ally of the US. All the US candidates know that there is no alliance treaty between the 2 countries, because when LBJ offered a treaty to Israel after the 6 Day war in '67, Israel refused. Why? Every alliance treaty requires that signatories define precisely the borders of their country and bind themselves to notifying all other signatories of any military action about to be taken against a 3rd nation. Israel still finds these traditional alliance requirements unacceptable, hence no alliance treaty exists between Israel & the US.
Nevertheless, homage is paid by the US, through wars, tens of billions in annual support, silence on Israel's nuclear arsenal of mass destruction, & political deference by the US to Israel, a country with a population smaller than that of Brooklyn + Queens.
This is an extremely bad relationship for both countries.
Posted by sloper at 06/04/2008 @ 3:12pm
I like and intend to vote for Obama, but it pains me to see him suck up to so disgusting an outfit as AIPAC.
As I see it, there are too few Jewish voices in America speaking up against Israeli crimes. And the only presidential contender willing to do so, as ever, is Ralph Nader.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/04/2008 @ 3:25pm
>>>Together, we can join our voices together, and in doing so make even the mightiest of walls fall down.<<<
Although this was not the right time or forum, it is clear that Obama will have to chart a NEW COURSE with respect to Israel.
Illegal settlements must end, direct talks between Israel, Fatah AND Hamas must occur to resolve the conflict. Israeli nukes MUST be put on the table and subject to the same Nuclear-Non-Proliferation treaty that governs other nations in the region and around the world. And the Berlin-like wall that is being built to divide Israelis and Palestinians must come down.
Although I think the majority of Jew in America and in Israel would support these positions, AIPAC has allowed itself to be taken over by right-wing Jews that have Likud type political views. The sooner the Democratic Party shows AIPAC the door and stops taking their money, the sooner we can have REAL peace in the Middle East based on consensus between Jews, Arabs and the rest of the world.
Without AIPAC in charge, serious leadership among Jews could emerge that understands the joint destiny between Palestinians and Jews. Instead of pre-occupation with getting even for some particular suicide bombing, Israel could then focus on being a true friend and good neighbor to the Palestinian people, and help them prosper economically. Charting this new course could make Palestine the envy of the Arab world, in which Muslims throughout the world will have to admit that Israeli is a POSITIVE force in the region and it is therefore time to finally let go of past animosities.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/04/2008 @ 3:34pm
And the only presidential contender willing to do so, as ever, is Ralph Nader.
Posted by KSP556 at 06/4/2008
Yeah that's because Nader doesn't ever have to deal with the crutch of actually standing a chance at winning.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 3:34pm
Posted by Metteyya at 06/4/
METTE, I will bet you $1000 that "President Obama" is still speaking (similarly) to a just-as-powerful AIPAC well into his 2nd term.
Posted by Mask at 06/04/2008 @ 4:06pm
well,
as someone said above,
it's painful to see obama so tacky.
god bless the israelis.
they're there.
cool.
but human = human in the book of frosty.
there are more muslims than jews in the u.s.
i wonder what would happen if they all moved from michigan to florida.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 4:14pm
so much fuss about a bunch of olive groves...
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 4:16pm
If Obama continues to defend and support that platform, I wonder how long that many on the left will continue to support his candidacy?
Posted by lvliberty1
how many will notice?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 4:18pm
>>>METTE, I will bet you $1000 that "President Obama" is still speaking (similarly) to a just-as-powerful AIPAC well into his 2nd term.
Posted by Mask at 06/4/2008<<<
Obama is already laying the ground-work with AIPAC that a new direction - one markedly different than Bush - will have to be pursued and that his new direction will make Israel MORE secure.
You simply can't keep up the tit-for-tat violence and expect the situation to improve. Radically new thinking is needed to resolve this conflict in which Israel views Palestine as a partner, not an enemy.
As for AIPAC power, there is already a movement underway to replace AIPAC dollars with Move-On and other progressive groups' dollars. I suspect by Obama's midterm there will be serious efforts from Democrats to resist AIPAC money (e.g., McNerney), and ALL of their power is based on their campaign cash.
So we don't have a repeat of Bush I or Carter, I am sure Obama will wait until his second term to get serious about addressing Israel and resolving the conflict. But like he said today, he is going to get this going at the "beginning" of his second term and not in the waning moments of his presidency.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/04/2008 @ 4:47pm
I just hope that someday there will be a solution to the palestinian problem,you cannot deal with a situation where a class of people is constantly minimized and hurt and suffering are going on tmenty four seven on both sides.
Posted by eniobob at 06/04/2008 @ 4:47pm
Wow. Could he have pandered to any greater extent?? He may have gotten a loud respond from the audience, but once they see more and more tapes of Obama embracing radical leftists, they AIPAC crowd won't be so willing to believe Obama's rhetoric. It's time for Obama to finally undergo some real scrutiny that was largely absent during the Democratic primary.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/04/2008 @ 4:54pm
It's time for Obama to finally undergo some real scrutiny that was largely absent during the Democratic primary.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/4/2008
Well that makes sense since his campaign has never faced any real scrutiny... oh what's that? He's been scrutinized heavily through the last 54 primaries? Hes been blasted for inexperience and foreign policy positions but he's never TRULY been under the magnifying glass until now? Give me a break.
Posted by agentweez at 06/04/2008 @ 5:09pm
"I suspect by Obama's midterm there will be serious efforts from Democrats to resist AIPAC money (e.g., McNerney), and ALL of their power is based on their campaign cash."
Posted by Metteyya at 06/4/2008
Puttin the cart before the horse, aren't you?
Posted by ACook at 06/04/2008 @ 5:14pm
The concerns of the main stream media that are covering the Democratic primary aren't the same as voters who will be casting ballots in swing states in the general election. If McCain had had a 20-year relationship with a racist pastor it would have been an endless headline story. You can expect the issue of Obama's radical associations to be re-examined in much greater detail going forward. Its one thing for Obama to say all the right things in a Presidential campaign, but if voters judge the words to be politically expedient, those words won't sway them to look past very significant concerns about Obama's judgment and nature.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/04/2008 @ 5:22pm
I must have missed the serious critique of the speech I might have been expecting; all I read is "he wowed 'em."
If you're looking for a real critique and analysis of the speech, try <A HREF="http://lefti.blogspot.com" target="_blank">this one</A> from <I>Left I on the News</I>
Posted by stevenpatt at 06/04/2008 @ 5:32pm
URL didn't work out; let's try this:
http://lefti.blogspot.com/2008_06_01_archive.html#1635647428320907741
Posted by stevenpatt at 06/04/2008 @ 5:33pm
Perhaps one day, an American politician will quit underestimating the intelligence of Jewish Americans in general and support an American Foreign Policy that might help bring peace to the Middle East. I don't trust any of them! As the fourth leading arms dealer in the world, I do not know why Israel neeed any help. They are right behind Russia in selling arms to China. I am sure Boeing and other companies will supply them with some worthless Missile defense systems.
Posted by P. J. Casey at 06/04/2008 @ 5:43pm
>>>Puttin the cart before the horse, aren't you?
Posted by ACook at 06/4/2008<<<
As long as Obama steers clear of putting Hillary on the Clinton with all of her baggage, he will trounce McCain in November!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/04/2008 @ 6:19pm
As long as Obama steers clear of putting Hillary on the Clinton with all of her baggage, he will trounce McCain in November!
Posted by Metteyya at 06/4/2008
Was this a joke or a mistype?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 7:24pm
Posted by JOMAMMA at 06/4/2008
There you have it! Now that Maasch has predicted the opposite, everyone can now bank on Obama crushing McCain in the Jewish vote.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/04/2008 @ 7:24pm
This may be a little off topic, but this article also points out a bit of McCain hypocrisy.
According to the article: "He attacked Obama for not supporting the Senate resolution introduced by Senators Joe Lieberman and Jon Kyl that would have designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps a terrorist organization", but according to a government web site, McCain himself didn't vote for it instead not voting at all. Interestingly enough, the only 2 senators listed as having not voted on this resolution were McCain and Obama.
My source was: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm .cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00349
Posted by lefty57 at 06/04/2008 @ 8:08pm
Dreyfuss' report fails to mention the most far reaching (and potentially devastating) statement uttered by Mr. Obama in front of the fanatics of AIPAC. He said that he is committed to the policy of an "indivisible" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No American President has ever condoned Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem. Moreover, even though Congress long ago lent its support to the fundamentalists' pet banner of an "indivisible and eternal capital", Presidents Clinton and G.W. Bush have refrained from going along with such peace-killing initiatives as moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The international community also does not recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital. I am appalled at the way in which Obama is already destroying the hopes of millions of people around the world that this terrible conflict, which is the root cause of most of the violence that we see today, would be solved in our lifetimes. If the United States does not pressure Israel to give up all of the occupied territories, to dismantle the illegal settlements and the illegal highways and walls and to share Jerusalem with the Palestinians in a serious and honest two-State solution (not a Bantustan-like caricature), then I am afraid that things will get worse and worse. Obama's speech is a major blunder and as such it should be exposed by the media. I hope (probably in vain), that he will realize the enormity of what he has just done and will correct his mistake. If he then loses to McCain, so be it!!
Posted by Onca at 06/04/2008 @ 8:16pm
can we put this in context?
Bush has been paying lip service to Palestinian statehood and peace in the region. what has he done? well he stood by when Israel attacked Lebanon. he has stood by when Israel builds more settlements in the west bank. he has not moved the peace process forward. we can do much better. Carter did much better and perhaps so will Obama.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 8:28pm
it is not for an American pres to decide if Jerusalem is divided. this is subject to negotiations.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 8:30pm
The suffering Palestinian people need to reign in their radicals, and condemn violence. When this happens a two state solution will happen. Until then they will continue to suffer, not because of Israeli injustice, but because of their own defiance, stubborness and ignorance.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/04/2008 @ 9:06pm
I disagree with Senator Obama, even though I support his candidacy. Israel commands too much power and influence over our foreign policy. There needs to be fairness and equity with the Palestinian people.
Obama realizes that he cannot win the presidency without the powerful Jewish lobby. So he's paying homage. Single issue politics does not make sense. Hence, I'll respectfully overlook my disagreement with Obama over Israel.
Posted by chaz69 at 06/04/2008 @ 9:07pm
Len Mosse
your one sided analysis is about what I would expect of you.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/04/2008 @ 9:21pm
The importance of this speech is not only with the Jewish community. The community of Fox News viewers would view any less as evidence that he would not support Israel.
Posted by lenhoffcpa at 06/04/2008 @ 9:24pm
Until then they will continue to suffer, not because of Israeli injustice, but because of their own defiance, stubborness and ignorance.
Posted by Len Mosse
you mean like african-americans did for so many years?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 9:41pm
Obama supporters who find themselves disagreeing with his remarks to AIPAC today shouldn't get too worked up. Obama is saying what he thinks he needs to say to get elected in a general election he knows is very different than a Democratic primary. All you have to do is look to his 20 year association with radicals and racists to know that he will not be the sympathetic ear to Israel that Israel has found in President Bush, or they would find in a President McCain. There is no doubt an Obama presidency would hold a completely different world view when it comes to Middle East policy than would a McCain administration.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/04/2008 @ 9:42pm
"I'll bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-Iran" John will always get those folks. Posted by Mask
May 10-- A Gallup survey found that 61% of Jewish voters prefer Obama to McCain, who got 32% of the Jewish support / findings were based on aggregate tracking from April 1-30, including interviews with close to 800 Jewish voters and nearly 600 Jewish Democratic voters.
June 3-- CBS Poll: Obama would get 65 percent of the vote of Jewish registered voters to 28 percent for McCain. Analysis: Jewish Voters And Obama
Posted by winyahn at 06/04/2008 @ 9:49pm
what the heck,
i'll put this here:
Kirbyjon H. Caldwell is the pastor of the Windsor Village United Methodist Church, a 14,000-member megachurch in Houston, Texas. He is one of President George W. Bush's most influential spiritual advisors.
he officiated jenna's wedding.
and he's backing obama......
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 9:56pm
Zero, accusing me of being a Hillary supporter doesn't make the things you refuse to accept about Barak Obama any less true. I wanted so badly to believe Obama was going to be post-racial and transcend politics, but when you look closely, it just isn't true. How many times has Obama spoke out or voted against his party leaders on an issue? I can't think of any. How can you claim to bridge Republicans and Democrats and represent a new kind of politics when you only vote with your own side? And how can you claim to be post-racial when you have a 20-year intense affiliation with a racist reverend.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/04/2008 @ 10:05pm
They carry news that must get through
To build a dream for me and you
They choose the path that no one goes
They hold no quarter
They ask no quarter
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBsbCMIyG6E&fmt=18&fmt=18
Wednesday, June 4, 2008 10:15:37 PM
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 10:15pm
It is outrageous that nations and organizations want to dictate only to Israel what city should be their capital.
It doesn't happen with any other nation.
Posted by lvliberty1
well, they kinda made israel in the first place.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 10:27pm
when you have a 20-year intense affiliation with a racist reverend.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/4/2008
So now it is an "intense" relationship? I find that when people dress up their argument with such exaggerations, it usually means they are trying to hide how weak it really is.
Posted by Hman23 at 06/04/2008 @ 10:27pm
"Israel belonged to the Jews before Europe existed. All Europe, the US and the UN did is recognize their right to reclaim what already was theirs. Israel though did not need these people to recognize them in order to reclaim their homeland."
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008
Does this mean we should give America back to the Indians?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:05pm
I mean they were her long before the brits came over. We took it from them just like Israel was taken from the Jews. So what give US the ability to claim this land when it belonged to someone else before we got here if the Jews get their land back?
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:06pm
I mean the Jews hadn't controlled Israel for what like 600 years before they got it back? Hell the Native Americans controlled this land more recently than the Jews controlled Israel. That's it, give the Native Americans back their land they were here first.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:10pm
I want to see how you manage to spin yourself out of that doozy LV. You re advocating the Jewish ownership of Israel because they were conquered 1400 years before they were given the land back and therefore they have a right to ownership. Yet I know you are going to find a way to try and argue that the native Americans DON'T deserve the land back even though the first of the American settlers who would eventually take over all the American land didn't start arriving until less than 500 years ago. We should give the Hawaiians back their land too. Hell it has only been what? 80 years or so since they were taken over and made apart of America against their will.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:18pm
No. the Indians never laid claim to America. The who "indigenous" claim is a myth. They migrated here from Asia. So it became a turf war with those tribes who resisted and the US prevailed. But there is nothing in Indian history where they ever suggested much less claimed sovereignty over the land.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008
They fought for the land therefore they claimed sovereignty. It was a turf war. They had been here for hundreds of years before Americans arrived.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:20pm
And how did they define sovereignty over a land in the time of Israel. I am pretty sure since he land was conquered over 1000 years ago whoever gained control of it eventually gained sovereignty over it. Just like America claimed sovereignty over the Hawaiians.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/04/2008 @ 11:25pm
If Obama allows US MidEast policy to be set by AIPAC & Likud, as this speech seems to indicate, he will unleash only further fiascos in the MidEast, that may lead to a one-term presidency at home, as a result of a serious primary challenge from within the Dem party (similar to Ted Kennedy v. Carter in '80), and a consequent GOP win in '12.
If the Dems blow the huge advantage they'll garner after Nov -- always possible -- it's all over for the majority of Americans, kiss the American dream goodbye.
The Dems can earn themselves security & cripple the GOP for a generation by starting with serious criminal investigations of CheneyBush era offenses, pursuing these to indictments & trials, including impeachment. The corporate media will fight them tooth & nail, as will outfits like AIPAC, but a steady sober course of investigations will produce legal precedents that will protect, not harm, the republic & the vast majority of its citizens.
Posted by sloper at 06/04/2008 @ 11:25pm
... a 20-year relationship with a racist pastor ...
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/4/2008
This is becoming the new "BJ Clinton got a hummer"
Posted by skeletonman at 06/04/2008 @ 11:28pm
Israel belonged to the Jews before Europe existed.
Posted by lvliberty1
The Natufian culture existed in the Mediterranean region of the Levant. It was a Mesolithic culture, but unusual in that it established permanent settlements even before the introduction of agriculture.
oh, yeah?!?!?
these guys were there FIRST.
they deserve their ancestral home.
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 11:28pm
Wow. Could he have pandered to any greater extent?? He may have gotten a loud respond from the audience, but once they see more and more tapes of Obama embracing radical leftists, they AIPAC crowd won't be so willing to believe Obama's rhetoric. It's time for Obama to finally undergo some real scrutiny that was largely absent during the Democratic primary.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/4/2008
Eunich-baller, you're going to have to come up with A tape of Obama embracing a radical leftist;
Shrub, on the other hand, holds hands (literally) with the House of Saud. Remember them, they govern that country that sent those terrorists on 9/11?
And your boy McCain can't wait to give Boosh a little manly bear hug (in the literal and policy sense) now can he?
Posted by skeletonman at 06/04/2008 @ 11:33pm
But there is nothing in Indian history where they ever suggested much less claimed sovereignty over the land.
Posted by lvliberty1
perhaps because they weren't assholes and were willing to share.
naïve fools.
liberty, i bet these people would love to claim sovereignty over your house:
Life Among the Piutes: Their Wrongs and Claims (1883) by Sarah Winnemucca Hopkins
CHAPTER V. RESERVATION OF PYRAMID AND MUDDY LAKES.
This reservation, given in 1860, was at first sixty miles long and fifteen wide. The line is where the railroad now crosses the river, and it takes in two beautiful lakes, one called Pyramid Lake, and the one on the eastern side, Muddy Lake. No white people lived there at the time it was given us. We Piutes have always lived on the river, because out of those two lakes we caught beautiful mountain trout, weighing from two to twenty-five pounds each, which would give us a good income if we had it all, as at first. Since the railroad ran through in 1867, the white people have taken all the best part of the reservation from us, and one of the lakes also.
The first work that my people did on the reservation was to dig a ditch, to put up a grist-mill and saw-mill. Commencing where the railroad now crosses at Wadsworth, they dug about a mile; but the saw-mill and grist-mill were never seen or heard of by my people, though the printed report in the United States statutes, which my husband found lately in the Boston Athenaeum, says twenty-five thousand dollars was appropriated to build them. Where did it go? The report says these mills were sold for the benefit of the Indians who were to be paid in lumber for houses, but no stick of lumber have they ever received. My people do not own any timber land now. The white people are using the ditch which my people made to irrigate their land. This is the way we are treated by our white brothers. Is it that the government is cheated by its own agents who make these reports?
Posted by frosty zoom at 06/04/2008 @ 11:39pm
liverty is a nutcase. the indians did not come from asia hundreds of years before the white man arrived. it was more than 10,000 years ago.
there were always jews in Palestine, as they were all over the middle east. the Ottoman empire was tolerant of other religions.
jews started to move into Palestine in greater numbers in the 19th century. they bought land. more jews came. when the the ottoman empire was divided up, Palestine was divided into a jewish part and an arab part.
the British had a change of heart, and the jews took their part by force. before WW1 they had no de jure claim to Palestine, though of course many jews owned land there.
some arabs left Israel to flee the war in '48 arabs, some were expelled and some remained. they are still there.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 12:21am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
Enlightening JR
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 01:05am
there is nothing stopping Hawaii from seceding from the Union. Other than a few natives, most don't want to seperate.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008
I'm starting a new movement. Take Hawaii back! Take Hawaii back!
Actually there is one thing stopping them from seceding. America. I remember the South tried to secede once. I say we give them back their land just like America gave Israel back it's land. I think we have a responsibility to make sure the Hawaiian people have their own land back. I'm sure if the rest of the world came here and told America that they had to give the Hawaiians back their land you wouldn't be so quick to say ok.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 01:52am
Still its funny that how whole world plus the Israeli apartheid state pressed for elections and democracy in Palestine and then when Hamas was rightfully elected, called them terrorist and said they wouldn't wouldn't negotiate with them. Imagine the US electing McCain and the rest of the world not speaking to us because he's a war monger...The parallels to South Africa or any oppressive state is so obvious that you who have be deaf, dumb and blind not to see them.
I really can't see why US cares what AIPAC says for me they're just old stupid men.
Posted by reed.richards at 06/05/2008 @ 03:57am
Zero, accusing me of being a Hillary supporter doesn't make the things you refuse to accept about Barak Obama any less true. I wanted so badly to believe Obama was going to be post-racial and transcend politics, but when you look closely, it just isn't true.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/4/2008
Dude, that was just obligatory stuff he had to say because he was trying to avoid being pigeonholed as a black candidate ala Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Of course he's not really post racial, neither is our society (as has been illustrated twice in recent memory, once in the aftermath of Katrina, and again in the housing crisis).
Also, you assume that working across the aisle means giving repubs what they want in part. Their's another way to convince your rivals to work with you; convince them your right. And that seems to be what Barry O does best, convince peeps he's got the right view of things. Just because our society has a distinct lack of statesman in it right now, doesn't mean it should.
Posted by shadow master at 06/05/2008 @ 06:23am
Zero, accusing me of being a Hillary supporter doesn't make the things you refuse to accept about Barak Obama any less true. I wanted so badly to believe Obama was going to be post-racial and transcend politics, but when you look closely, it just isn't true.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/4/2008
Dude, that was just obligatory stuff he had to say because he was trying to avoid being pigeonholed as a black candidate ala Jesse Jackson's Rainbow Coalition. Of course he's not really post racial, neither is our society (as has been illustrated twice in recent memory, once in the aftermath of Katrina, and again in the housing crisis).
Also, you assume that working across the aisle means giving repubs what they want in part. Their's another way to convince your rivals to work with you; convince them your right. And that seems to be what Barry O does best, convince peeps he's got the right view of things. Just because our society has a distinct lack of statesman in it right now, doesn't mean it should.
Posted by shadow master at 06/05/2008 @ 06:23am
liverty is a nutcase. the indians did not come from asia hundreds of years before the white man arrived. it was more than 10,000 years ago.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
Dude -
The earth is only, like 6000+ years old <snerk>
Posted by skeletonman at 06/05/2008 @ 07:15am
It is as if a segment of the national foreign policy is being dictated to our government by agents representing a foreign interest.
Posted by Zero at 06/4/2008
Well put Zero. I say, F*&^ AIPAC. If they are so damned worried about the welfare of Israel then move their asses to the country the love so much. If they would prefer to be Americans, then they can send part of their paychecks to Israel if they are so damned worried about the country. Aside from that, Israel and AIPAC should have zero influence on U.S. foreign policy.
Here's an idea. Why not just set up powerful lobby groups from Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Russia, China, Israel, and so on and just remove the American people completely from the process entirely?
Whoops, that's already happened.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 07:35am
So it became a turf war with those tribes who resisted and the US prevailed. But there is nothing in Indian history where they ever suggested much less claimed sovereignty over the land.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/4/2008
The same could be said of the middle east. By your logic, the Jews lost their turf battle....easy come easy go right? That's your take on the native Americans. P.S. If you leave the bible out of your views of Israel you might see things more objectively regarding Israel in the middle east.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 07:51am
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
Thanks for the info. Good stuff to know.
I guess studying Anthropology of Native Americans for a semseter in college makes Livehead an expert in the field.
I also don't know where he comes up with you saying the that native Americans "Indians" migrated from Europe. I believe you said Asia and 10000 years ago, Europe wasn't mentioned. So we can also deduce that Liverhead can't read either. Must have learned readin and rightin at his semenary school as well.
You're correct, Livehead is a nutcase. I might by an asshole as he says, but he's a certifiable fruit basket.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 08:03am
First, what everybody has to understand is....LVLIB's position on Israel is not based on history, geo-politics, or even rationality...it's based on The Bible, first, last, and utmost.
That 2000 year old book (or more like 1500 with revisions, edits, and various Councils) is his ONLY frame of reference, and then he builds his case around that.
It is, of course, totally ILLOGICAL to exclude the American Indians (or Native Americans) existance on this continent before European colonization as "non-sovereign"...and then claim that the descendents (less genetically than ideologically) of the inhabitants of a nation-state that existed for a few hundred years, two millenia ago have "more right" to such and such parcel of land their ancestors were on.
But that's an academic exercise anyway. Israel exists and it has a right as a nation-state to protect itself; the American Indians were wiped out and their land taken. So let's move on.
However, Israel does NOT have carte blanche (as LVLIB would grant due to his religious beliefs) to pretty much do anything it wants and get a "pass" from the United States or any sympathetic country. Nor is their claim to lands legitimately based on murky history from a religious text, but on security.
Eventually, some settlement with the Palestinians will have to be made. Nobody (but the "bomb the hell out of them or starve 'em out" political Right, here and in Israel) disagrees with that.
Posted by Mask at 06/05/2008 @ 08:55am
The suffering Palestinian people need to reign in their radicals, and condemn violence. When this happens a two state solution will happen. Until then they will continue to suffer, not because of Israeli injustice, but because of their own defiance, stubborness and ignorance.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/4/2008
And likewise:
The suffering <i>Israeli</i> people need to reign in their radicals, and condemn violence. When this happens a two state solution will happen. Until then they will continue to suffer, not because of <i>Palestinian terrorism</i>, but because of their own defiance, stubborness and ignorance.
Posted by Len Mosse at 06/4/2008
Just as true of a statement. It is both sides. If the Israeli govt. would cease the attempt to control and acquire more territory from the Palestinians, AND if the Palestinians would learn that non-violent protests are a much more effective tool to gain sympathy, then there might actually be a potential peace. Each side's violence is a direct response to the other's. Israel, as a religious state, should be the gracious victor and take the lead in working out a peace deal. The notion that they are simply ensuring their safety fell apart in about a week in 1967. They will do a more effective job of ensuring their security by realizing that their treatment of Palestinians smacks of what has been done historically to the Jews. They have become top dog, and as a result, have put another people in bondage. They better hope that Mohammed doesn't send an Islamic "Moses" to set his people go.
Posted by Turk33 at 06/05/2008 @ 09:05am
He did what he had to do to set the groundwork of trust with Israel and American Jews. He didn't betray his basic principles on the situation, and he obviously was only giving one side of his policy, the side that organization cares about. His actual policy will undoubtedly be a lot more balanced that what it sounds like in front of AIPAC, as Obama realizes that both sides need to give and take for a solution to come about.
I see people whining about Obama selling out or pandering to the right or whatever, but I think they miss the point of how smart and how skilled at politics and bridging divides Obama really is. He needs to establish himself as someone trusted by both sides before he can get things done, and until he did this he was going to be doubted by Jews and other Americans who believe McCain and smear emails over reality. He won't be able to affect any change in the Middle East if he is viewed as an enemy going into it, and he is smart enough to not run into the AIPAC conference chanting "FREE PALESTINE" like he is a Code Pink protester. That isn't effective, it isn't smart, and it isn't going to solve anything.
People continually underestimate Obama, think he is being weak here or letting something slip there, but they don't look at the big picture, they don't understand that he knows what he is doing, and he is phenomenal at getting things done. So for all you doubters, sit back, watch Obama at work, and have some faith that he knows what is right and knows how to succeed.
Posted by bridoc at 06/05/2008 @ 09:36am
one of the big lies about Israel is that the new state was made up of European jews. it was not. over half came from the mideast. the jews of Baghdad, of Damascus etc were expelled from those countries. a right of return for them is not mentioned.
we are told by the Whigs here about the failure of Carter. the Carter years will seem like a picnic compared what Bush has wrought.
attack Iran? you can put your car up on blocks if we do, as gas prices will really go up. $10 a gallon? there is no upper limit. Iran could sink a few of its own ships in the straight of Hormuz and a lot less oil will come out of there.
everything Bush and his gangsters and torturers touch turns to be a no win.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 10:23am
everything Bush and his gangsters and torturers touch turns to be a no win.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
It is kind of funny when you think about the prices of oil skyrocketing with W at the helm. All of these supply and demand people claiming that the market will correct itself are presently eating their words.
And, as you say, if we attack Iran, fuel prices will go up and people will be forced to pedal into work. As a matter of fact, if I was the leader in Iran and someone threatened to attack me, I'd threaten to nuke my oil fields if someone tried to take the countries oil fields. Attacking Iran would then be fruitless. Anyway, we may be forced to pedal into work even without attacking Iran.
So, in the long run, the market will have corrected at least the gasoline demand and part of the green house gas emission problem because nobody will be able to afford to drive cars anymore.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:51am
The real question is HOW we, the US, supports Israel. Right now in the court of world public opinion, Israel is representing itself. Maybe Obama can give them a "court appointed attorney". You know what they say about a guy who represents himself in a court of law? Good counsel might make some very strong recommendations in order to attain the "high ground". Like maybe giving up the West Bank ground?
Posted by Sorelish at 06/05/2008 @ 11:51am
Posted by mihnea at 06/5/2008
So, did you get a bed brought to you (at noon) and did a car show up with a bucket of honey....or did you break down and take your meds?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 11:59am
Posted by mihnea at 06/5/2008
Monty Python-esque satire? You never know, since some of what comes out of the fundamentalist camp sounds just as crazy.
On a different (and yet not so different) point, check ou the link below:
http://www.truthout.org/article/revealed-secret-plan-keep-iraq-under-us- control
Bush and friends, after claiming all along that we are in Iraq at the behest of the Iraqi's, and that as soon they wanted us out, we would leave, apparently has had a change of heart - now they want permanent bases in Iraq, the freedom to wage the "War on Terror" with impunity in Iraq, and immunity for Americans from Iraqi laws!
In the immortal words of Claude Raines: "I'm shocked, shocked" to discover Bush had ulterior motives all along!
Posted by Turk33 at 06/05/2008 @ 12:02pm
I don't get this treaty with Iraq stuff. how is it possible to fashion a treaty without congress and especially one that the subsequent president cannot overturn? anyone?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 12:08pm
how is it possible to fashion a treaty without congress and especially one that the subsequent president cannot overturn? anyone?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
Good question, but W and Company have been breaking the law all along and have gotten away with it.
It will be interesting to see what will happen if Obama gets into office and the house and senate have a large democratic majority rule. We may very well see some of these "treaties" unratified, nulled and voided.
I wonder if there is a statute of limitations against trying an ex-president and/or his cabinet officials for crimes while in office.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 12:23pm
Posted by Turk33 at 06/5/2008
Thanks for the link. An interesting article indeed.
I believe I was told I was out of my mind for saying that a miracle would happen and sometime around Sept or so oil would amazingly start flowing from Iraq and drastically drop the prices of oil for the U.S.
If Bush turns Iraq into a military state, he can pretty much accomplish getting the oil on line. If gas prices drop, people in this country, with their short memories, may very well vote for McIdiot to stay in Iraq.
It's a win win for the rethugs. They win in November, get to keep pooring money into the defense countractors coffers and continue on with our huge military budget that is crippling our economy.
We, the American people may get cheaper gas for awhile, but we will be the most hated country on the planet if we aren't already there.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 12:33pm
Wolfgang1
there will be no cheaper gas.
and here's why. say you are an oil producer. you know that your supply is limited. do you dump it all on the market now, or parcel it out so that your children will continue to be able to live off it?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 12:59pm
>>>Dreyfuss' report fails to mention the most far reaching (and potentially devastating) statement uttered by Mr. Obama in front of the fanatics of AIPAC. He said that he is committed to the policy of an "indivisible" Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. No American President has ever condoned Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.
Posted by Onca at 06/4/2008<<<
The other part of the speech that Obama left for another day is that Jerusalem will ALSO be the capital of Palestine.
Sharing this "holy" city with your brethren is what ALL of the religions would hope for as it displays the best character of each religion.
Just like no one nation owns God, no one country can own Jerusalem given its spiritual importance to Muslims, Jews, and Christians.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2008 @ 1:02pm
Palestinian Arab nationalism is largely a post-World War I phenomenon that did not become a significant political movement until after the 1967 Six-Day War and Israel's capture of the West Bank.
this is just not true.
Gamal Abdel Nasser (Arabic: جمال عبد الناصر; Gamāl ‘Abd an-Nāṣir; - January 15, 1918 – September 28, 1970) was the second President of Egypt from 1954 until his death in 1970. Along with Muhammad Naguib, he led the Egyptian Revolution of 1952, which removed King Farouk I and heralded a new period of industrialization in Egypt, together with a profound advancement of Arab nationalism, including a short-lived union with Syria. Nasser inspired anti-colonial and pan-Arab revolutions in Algeria, Libya, Iraq and Yemen, and played a major role in founding the Palestine Liberation Organization, in 1964, and the international Non-Aligned Movement.
what is true, is that along with an increased jewish migration to Palestine, there was an influx of arabs. the area was an economic backwater. jews brought with them economic activity, and Baron Rothchild's money. that attracted arabs to the region.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 1:15pm
....or parcel it out so that your children will continue to be able to live off it?
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
I agree. But, if there's anyway these guys can manipulate the prices to make it look like staying in Iraq is helping the U.S. they will. I don't see how they can pull it off, but they've been able to pull off some unbelieviable BS during their tenure in D.C.
I wouldn't cry too much if the prices did go continue to go up. Personally, I already do the park and ride thing to work and am considering purchasing a bike to ride to the park and ride. I run anyway, so riding the bike will help my running. As for the SUV, big truck and hummer crowd...ha ha ha ha. Enjoy your $40,000 gas guzzling dinosaurs. Go ahead, take them babies four wheeling an while your at it take your $100,000 RV on a cross country trip because it may be your last one.
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 1:16pm
yes, Obama shamelessly pandered. he is not perfect and he must be watched carefully. it's clear that unlike Bush, he will get intense scrutiny from the Whigs in congress, assuming there will be any left.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 1:18pm
Posted by emile duBois at 06/5/2008
You wouldn't be a ME History professor would you? You seem to know quite a lot about that particular region of the world. By the way, is there anything left that the Rothchild's dynasty doesn't have partial ownership in?
Posted by Wolfgang1 at 06/05/2008 @ 1:31pm
Wolfgang1
I thank you and all other posters for your kind appreciation. I am not a professor of any kind. I am a scholar, that means student, Mask.
there are two books I believe to be essential to any understanding. Smith and Brown.
Palestine and the Arab Israeli Conflict" by CD Smith.
International Politics and the Middle East: Old Rules, Dangerous Game. L. Carl Brown.
you can google these to find reviews etc.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 2:04pm
someone who is a professor is Juan Cole. his site collects articles from the arab press and is equally essential.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 2:07pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008
Having studied Native Americans, you know that private ownership of land and of a sovereign state didn't exist in the way you are discussing it. So, your argument is based on using the framework of the status quo to argue for the status quo - which is a circular argument or "begging the question" if you'd rather.
The question, in this instance, is whether Native Americans have claims on the land. It seems from some of your other comments your position is essentially, "might makes right" and then never claimed it - despite contrary evidence such as the treaties that the U.S. signed with various tribes. Want to argue that treaties are made with non-sovereign nations?
I could go on demonstrating the flaws in your argumentation. But, it would be a waste of my time. I just wanted to illustrate a few of the problems in case you wanted to at least offer up something plausible next time.
Posted by srjenkins at 06/05/2008 @ 2:40pm
Although one could argue that they are getting some significant financial revenge with the Indian Casinos.
Posted by lvliberty1 at 06/5/2008
I saw an Indian Casino in Washington with a pawn shop across the street. Brilliant.
Posted by Cccomfo1 at 06/05/2008 @ 5:59pm
At least now Michelle Obama can be proud of America since we nominated her husband for President.
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/05/2008 @ 6:31pm
Jun 6, 2008 0:13 | Updated Jun 6, 2008 1:37 Obama backtracks on a united J'lem By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday. [Democratic presidential...]
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama addresses AIPAC Policy Conference 2008, Wednesday. Photo: AP Slideshow: Pictures of the week
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."
"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967." RELATED
* Obama: J'lem must remain an undivided capital
He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.
"Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said.
Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.
"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.
"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.
"If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling."
"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.
But congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida with ties to the Jewish community and a long-time supporter of Obama, rejected the idea that the Illinois senator had been misleading with his comments.
"Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a final status issue. That is not a secret to anyone. Senator Obama says emphatically that should the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate [an agreement], he will respect their conclusions and that he will not dictate a particular resolution."
And some groups were pleased by the clarification on Jerusalem provided by the campaign.
"There was reaction from some of our base who were taken aback by it and thought he was undermining the peace process," said Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, who described his organization as "gratified" by the clarified position which seems to follow APN's policy that sovereignty of Jerusalem could be shared in a final peace settlement.
Obama has faced questions about his support for Israel from hawkish quarters of the Jewish community, and his campaign said the speech before AIPAC, following a town hall meeting at a Florida synagogue last month, were key elements in shoring up the Jewish vote, which generally goes to the Democrats.
"We think we've gotten a good reaction to the speech and we're pleased that we've gotten a good reaction," said the campaign adviser of the candidate's AIPAC address, which received multiple sustained standing ovations.
Palestinian factions though were particularly troubled by the original speech's original language on an undivided Jerusalem.
"This statement is totally rejected," said Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whom a top aide described as "disappointed."
"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," Abbas said.
The Obama campaign adviser said that whatever the international reaction, it was important for the Illinois senator to "make his positions clear."
"Our main audience is American voters at the moment. Other people want to know where he stands and it's important that they do know where he stands," he said.
Speaking generally about the speech, which also stressed the importance of a secure Israel and the need to isolate Hamas, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters: "Obama's comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the US administration's foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, called Obama's address "moving," adding that he was also impressed by the speeches delivered at the same conference by Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.
Olmert spoke to all three candidates by phone Thursday as he wrapped up a three-day visit to Washington.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2008 @ 6:51pm
-First, this little performance is not about the black man, first and foremost, but about the Jewish one. Not about Bob Marley and Bobby Seale; about David Horowitz and Richard Perle.
The American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, together with the Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations (as if any weren't), JINSA, AEI, PNAC, WHIGS,...Weekly Standard, National Review, Newsweek, Sarkozy Frenchpersons, and all the rotted roots of this stand of adders constitute what James Petras -- a real leftist critic of Israel -- calls The ZPC (Zionist Power Configuration).
http://petras.lahaine.org/articulo.php?p=1733&more=1&c=1
The centre of gravity of their existence as a group-fantasy* community is to establish the existence of Israel, defined in right-wing Knesset terms, or however that "nation" decides to decide things (lol ... since neither its people nor Americas have any say whatsoever, as Obomas abomination shows.) As if anybody or anything could do anything whatever to confront this fascist fifth column that has taken over here.
There has NEVER been any open electorial vote for any policy toward Israel. A litany of presidents and other leaders, plus documents, are regularly produced as historical precedent for the course Obama preached to the choir.
Coming after Hillary's shrilled "obliterate Iran" for them into their MSM megaphones the day she was set to score victory in PA, getting over her tough britches act for the tune of a measley $10 mil. ... endearingly mind fondled in Boca Raton ... this black man has commited an abomination. These two gross interventions in the group psychological process do "book end" the period April 22 - June 3-4 of Amerian primary election with Jew karma. Like WWII is always bookended with "the holocaust".
Obama touched the brass ring and it sizzled his soul. He flip flopped his pastor's faith to embrace Zion. (check) He offers up the shared black-jewish civil rights cause in the south during the 60's as a spiritual bond (check: -still refusing to face the Vietnam war issue, then or now). Mr Bo Jangles -- or, better, Al Jolson in blackface <=> Barak Obama in whiteface -- dance. (check: who didn't love Jolson in blackface) Allowing his essence-soul substance as a fine, decent, super-talented black man to be shoved in the face of Southern White Protestant males for the sake of these particular Jews.
(*fantasies, mostly unconscious, shared by individual who delegate themselves to act as 'members' of a historical group. (Ex. "as a Jew," -- includes, and has always included, Jerusalem as center of the center, Israel's capitol. Bush committed one abomination speaking in thier Knesset, this black man has committed another in using the name "Jerusalem" -- cf., S. King, Salem's Lot))
Posted by jones at 06/05/2008 @ 7:01pm
Posted by jones at 06/5/2008
You need to relax and stay tuned on Obama.
There are some practical hurdles that must be overcome first before getting to a sustainable peace in the Middle East.
Obama merely inherited this corrupt political system we find ourselves in and did not cause it nor is he interested in sustaining it as is. Unlike nearly all presidents before him, he intends to leave office with an America whose political system functions like the democracy that we all want that works for the vast majority of Americans.
Political corrupters like AIPAC, the defense, oil, HMO and pharmaceutical lobbies have had their run, and now it is time for substantive change.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2008 @ 7:13pm
has been overall a terrible deal for them. Posted by lvliberty1
what was also a bad deal was that almost every treaty was broken and that they never got and still don't get what was promised to them.
Posted by emile duBois at 06/05/2008 @ 7:18pm
How could the writer miss Obama's remarks to AIPAC about an undivided Jerusalem? The Nation needs to pursue this story, and get very specific clarification from Obama, not his advisers.
Posted by Brian Shott at 06/05/2008 @ 7:50pm
Posted by Brian Shott at 06/5/2008
BRIAN,
In case you missed the "OBAMA BACKTRACKS ON UNDIVIDED JERUSALEM" story, here it is again:
Jun 6, 2008 0:13 | Updated Jun 6, 2008 1:37 Obama backtracks on a united J'lem By HILARY LEILA KRIEGER, JERUSALEM POST CORRESPONDENT WASHINGTON
Presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama did not rule out Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem when he called for Israel's capital to remain "undivided," his campaign told The Jerusalem Post Thursday. [Democratic presidential...]
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama addresses AIPAC Policy Conference 2008, Wednesday. Photo: AP Slideshow: Pictures of the week
"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," Obama declared Wednesday, to rousing applause from the 7,000-plus attendees at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee policy conference.
But a campaign adviser clarified Thursday that Obama believes "Jerusalem is a final status issue, which means it has to be negotiated between the two parties" as part of "an agreement that they both can live with."
"Two principles should apply to any outcome," which the adviser gave as: "Jerusalem remains Israel's capital and it's not going to be divided by barbed wire and checkpoints as it was in 1948-1967." RELATED
* Obama: J'lem must remain an undivided capital
He refused, however, to rule out other configurations, such as the city also serving as the capital of a Palestinian state or Palestinian sovereignty over Arab neighborhoods.
"Beyond those principles, all other aspects are for the two parties to agree at final status negotiations," the Obama adviser said.
Many on the right of the political spectrum among America's Jews welcomed Obama's remarks at AIPAC, but the clarification of his position left several cold.
"The Orthodox Union is extremely disappointed in this revision of Senator Obama's important statement about Jerusalem," said Nathan Diament, director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations. He had sent out a release Wednesday applauding Obama's Jerusalem remarks in front of AIPAC.
"In the current context, everyone understands that saying 'Jerusalem... must remain undivided' means that the holy city must remain unified under Israeli rule, as it has been since 1967," Diament explained.
"If Senator Obama intended his remarks at AIPAC to be understood in this way, he said nothing that would reasonably lead to such a different interpretation."
Morton Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America and another Jewish activist who had originally lauded Obama's statement, now called the candidate's words "troubling."
"It means he used the term inappropriately, possibly to mislead strong supporters of Israel that he supports something he doesn't really believe," Klein charged.
But congressman Robert Wexler, a Democrat from Florida with ties to the Jewish community and a long-time supporter of Obama, rejected the idea that the Illinois senator had been misleading with his comments.
"Everyone knows that Jerusalem is a final status issue. That is not a secret to anyone. Senator Obama says emphatically that should the Israelis and the Palestinians negotiate [an agreement], he will respect their conclusions and that he will not dictate a particular resolution."
And some groups were pleased by the clarification on Jerusalem provided by the campaign.
"There was reaction from some of our base who were taken aback by it and thought he was undermining the peace process," said Americans for Peace Now spokesman Ori Nir, who described his organization as "gratified" by the clarified position which seems to follow APN's policy that sovereignty of Jerusalem could be shared in a final peace settlement.
Obama has faced questions about his support for Israel from hawkish quarters of the Jewish community, and his campaign said the speech before AIPAC, following a town hall meeting at a Florida synagogue last month, were key elements in shoring up the Jewish vote, which generally goes to the Democrats.
"We think we've gotten a good reaction to the speech and we're pleased that we've gotten a good reaction," said the campaign adviser of the candidate's AIPAC address, which received multiple sustained standing ovations.
Palestinian factions though were particularly troubled by the original speech's original language on an undivided Jerusalem.
"This statement is totally rejected," said Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, whom a top aide described as "disappointed."
"The whole world knows that holy Jerusalem was occupied in 1967 and we will not accept a Palestinian state without having Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state," Abbas said.
The Obama campaign adviser said that whatever the international reaction, it was important for the Illinois senator to "make his positions clear."
"Our main audience is American voters at the moment. Other people want to know where he stands and it's important that they do know where he stands," he said.
Speaking generally about the speech, which also stressed the importance of a secure Israel and the need to isolate Hamas, Hamas official Sami Abu Zuhri told Reuters: "Obama's comments have confirmed that there will be no change in the US administration's foreign policy on the Arab-Israeli conflict."
Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, however, called Obama's address "moving," adding that he was also impressed by the speeches delivered at the same conference by Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, and presumptive Republican nominee, John McCain.
Olmert spoke to all three candidates by phone Thursday as he wrapped up a three-day visit to Washington.
Posted by Metteyya at 06/05/2008 @ 8:40pm
Mettayyaa
Try to understand this. I don't want this black man thrown in my face every day from now on by the Jews (and ZPCcohorts).
Posted by jones at 06/05/2008 @ 9:04pm
Thanks, Metteyya, for bringing up the info on Obama's advisors' feeble backtracking about Jerusalem being the "undivided capital of Israel". For what I see nobody seems to be satisfied after this clarification. I agree with Brian about the need to pursue this story with the man himself. Also, I would like to point out that International Law is not concerned with whatever mythological beliefs a particular set of people may harbor. It is simply ludicrous to say that "the Land of Israel" of the Bible (or the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon) has anything at all to do with the State that was created in May 1948, as if nothing had happened in the 1,800 years that went by between the second destruction of the Temple and the gradual arrival of Jews at the end of the 19th Century. The ancient land was populated and repopulated by several tribes, clans and ethnic groups, but by the end of the 7th Century the predominant population (small, yes, but a population nevertheless) was Arabic speaking, and mostly Muslim. There was of course a Jewish minority which was all in all respected by the Arabs and then by the Ottoman Turks (some estimates put their number at about five thousand). The thing is that these Arabs(I don't care if they called themselves "Palestinians" at that time; they were the ancestors of the present- day Palestinians anyway) lived there for at least 1,200 years (fighting against a number of aggressors, such as the Crusaders), until they gradually saw the arrival of Jews from Europe. Then, by the time of the Balfour Declaration, the ratio of Arabs vs Jews was about 10:1. Roughly 1 million arabs lived in what is now Israel proper when the British left. Three quarters of a million people were forced to leave their homes and land in 1948. Their houses were either taken over or destroyed, together with some 300 Arab villages. This is broadly recognized by many Israelis who sincerely want to repair this injustice. Several United Nations resolutions that were never repealed demand that Israel withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders. The Palestinians (except Hamas, that's true) and the Arab League now recognize the right of Israel to exist within secure borders (the borders that existed prior to the Six Day War). This is an incredible progress and I am sure that Hamas will also accept this if the rest of the Arab world shows unity. Now the question is: Who is going to tell the nearly 500,000 Jews who live in illegally occupìed Palestinian territory that they must leave? Who will be capable of waking up those zealots and fanatics who believe that God gave them Judea and Samaria? I very much doubt that the next US President (whoever he/she is) will dare to stand by International Law in the strong and principled manner that is needed to give us all real hope.
Posted by Onca at 06/05/2008 @ 11:44pm
Thanks, Metteyya, for bringing up the info on Obama's advisors' feeble backtracking about Jerusalem being the "undivided capital of Israel". For what I see nobody seems to be satisfied after this clarification. I agree with Brian about the need to pursue this story with the man himself. Also, I would like to point out that International Law is not concerned with whatever mythological beliefs a particular set of people may harbor. It is simply ludicrous to say that "the Land of Israel" of the Bible (or the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon) has anything at all to do with the State that was created in May 1948, as if nothing had happened in the 1,800 years that went by between the second destruction of the Temple and the gradual arrival of Jews at the end of the 19th Century. The ancient land was populated and repopulated by several tribes, clans and ethnic groups, but by the end of the 7th Century the predominant population (small, yes, but a population nevertheless) was Arabic speaking, and mostly Muslim. There was of course a Jewish minority which was all in all respected by the Arabs and then by the Ottoman Turks (some estimates put their number at about five thousand). The thing is that these Arabs(I don't care if they called themselves "Palestinians" at that time; they were the ancestors of the present- day Palestinians anyway) lived there for at least 1,200 years (fighting against a number of aggressors, such as the Crusaders), until they gradually saw the arrival of Jews from Europe. Then, by the time of the Balfour Declaration, the ratio of Arabs vs Jews was about 10:1. Roughly 1 million arabs lived in what is now Israel proper when the British left. Three quarters of a million people were forced to leave their homes and land in 1948. Their houses were either taken over or destroyed, together with some 300 Arab villages. This is broadly recognized by many Israelis who sincerely want to repair this injustice. Several United Nations resolutions that were never repealed demand that Israel withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders. The Palestinians (except Hamas, that's true) and the Arab League now recognize the right of Israel to exist within secure borders (the borders that existed prior to the Six Day War). This is an incredible progress and I am sure that Hamas will also accept this if the rest of the Arab world shows unity. Now the question is: Who is going to tell the nearly 500,000 Jews who live in illegally occupìed Palestinian territory that they must leave? Who will be capable of waking up those zealots and fanatics who believe that God gave them Judea and Samaria? I very much doubt that the next US President (whoever he/she is) will dare to stand by International Law in the strong and principled manner that is needed to give us all real hope.
Posted by Onca at 06/05/2008 @ 11:47pm
Thanks, Metteyya, for bringing up the info on Obama's advisors' feeble backtracking about Jerusalem being the "undivided capital of Israel". For what I see nobody seems to be satisfied after this clarification. I agree with Brian about the need to pursue this story with the man himself. Also, I would like to point out that International Law is not concerned with whatever mythological beliefs a particular set of people may harbor. It is simply ludicrous to say that "the Land of Israel" of the Bible (or the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon) has anything at all to do with the State that was created in May 1948, as if nothing had happened in the 1,800 years that went by between the second destruction of the Temple and the gradual arrival of Jews at the end of the 19th Century. The ancient land was populated and repopulated by several tribes, clans and ethnic groups, but by the end of the 7th Century the predominant population (small, yes, but a population nevertheless) was Arabic speaking, and mostly Muslim. There was of course a Jewish minority which was all in all respected by the Arabs and then by the Ottoman Turks (some estimates put their number at about five thousand). The thing is that these Arabs(I don't care if they called themselves "Palestinians" at that time; they were the ancestors of the present- day Palestinians anyway) lived there for at least 1,200 years (fighting against a number of aggressors, such as the Crusaders), until they gradually saw the arrival of Jews from Europe. Then, by the time of the Balfour Declaration, the ratio of Arabs vs Jews was about 10:1. Roughly 1 million arabs lived in what is now Israel proper when the British left. Three quarters of a million people were forced to leave their homes and land in 1948. Their houses were either taken over or destroyed, together with some 300 Arab villages. This is broadly recognized by many Israelis who sincerely want to repair this injustice. Several United Nations resolutions that were never repealed demand that Israel withdraw to the June 4, 1967 borders. The Palestinians (except Hamas, that's true) and the Arab League now recognize the right of Israel to exist within secure borders (the borders that existed prior to the Six Day War). This is an incredible progress and I am sure that Hamas will also accept this if the rest of the Arab world shows unity. Now the question is: Who is going to tell the nearly 500,000 Jews who live in illegally occupìed Palestinian territory that they must leave? Who will be capable of waking up those zealots and fanatics who believe that God gave them Judea and Samaria? I very much doubt that the next US President (whoever he/she is) will dare to stand by International Law in the strong and principled manner that is needed to give us all real hope.
Posted by Onca at 06/05/2008 @ 11:47pm
Thanks, Metteyya, for bringing up the info on Obama's advisors' feeble backtracking about Jerusalem being the "undivided capital of Israel". For what I see nobody seems to be satisfied after this clarification. I agree with Brian about the need to pursue this story with the man himself. Also, I would like to point out that International Law is not concerned with whatever mythological beliefs a particular set of people may harbor. It is simply ludicrous to say that "the Land of Israel" of the Bible (or the kingdoms of Saul, David and Solomon) has anything at all to do with the State that was created in May 1948, as if nothing had happened in the 1,800 years that went by between the second destruction of the Temple and the gradual arrival of Jews at the end of the 19th Century. The ancient land was populated and repopulated by several tribes, clans and ethnic groups, but by the end of the 7th Century the predominant population (small, yes, but a population nevertheless) was Arabic speaking, and mostly Muslim. There was of course a Jewish minority which was all in all respected by the Arabs and then by the Ottoman Turks (some estimates put their number at about five thousand). The thing is that these Arabs(I don't care if they called themselves "Palestinians" at that time; they were the ancestors of the present- day Palestinians anyway) lived there for at least 1,200 years (fighting against a number of aggressors, such as the Crusaders), until they gradually saw the arrival of Jews from Europe. Then, by the time of the Balfour Declaration, the ratio of Arabs vs Jews was about 10:1. Roughly 1 million arabs lived in what is now Israel proper when the British left. Three quarters of a million people were forced to leave their homes and land in 1948. Their houses were either taken over or destroyed, together with some 300 Arab villages. This is broadly recognized by many Israelis who sincerely want to repair this injustice.
Posted by Onca at 06/05/2008 @ 11:48pm
Onca,
how may this injustice be repaired?
can we put this admittedly unjust eviction in context. we will find that there are many displaced peoples. Germans from East Prussia , Silesia and Hungary for instance. Muslims from India who were sent to Pakistan,the jews of the mideastern arab countries, and many more.
do they have a right of return? there are many who wish to return to the status quo ante.
not all injustices can be repaired. in fact few can. we can instead turn to ways of ameliorating the situation of the suffering ones.
jews in Israel are suffering too. of fear. those near the border in fear of a rocket crashing through their home. the ones in Tel Aviv in fear of a bomb on a bus or in a Pizzeria.
that is the weapon of terrorism. to instill fear. worked on 9/11 too. fear. government lab anthrax sent in the mail. fear, next stop Iraq.
the soldiers in Iraq, with their hopeless, amorphous mission are in fear. driving around on roads mined by an invisible enemy. those roads in Baghdad are really urban minefields, and our boys and girls there are afraid.
there are those americans, we got 'em here in spades, who are afraid and ready to lash out at any target, Iraqis, muslims, immigrants, liberals, with murderous rage.
after 9/11 numerous turban wearing Sikhs were murdered by American patriots in the mistaken belief that they were arabs who had attacked us.
they're going to play the fear card again and wave the bloody shirt in fortissimo during this election. it is the only way they can turn the toad McCain into a prince.
I don't know why we haven't been attacked again in such spectacular fashion. I don't believe it's due to our gov't torturing some shlub who was picked up in Afghanistan, or sold to the glorious NATO forces there and sent to gulags spread over the globe. now that's pax americana. a benevolent embrace of, well, the entire world. we now have military commands for every possible theater. Africa too, and space.
the repugs act as if believing false intelligence is a badge of honor. lying about it too. it's the honorable, patriotic thing to do.
when a long complicated legal case goes wrong, there are investigations of whether the lawyers did their job. whether they performed "due diligence", a fairly high standard.
repugs in the gov't did not. party loyalty trumped all. the press did not act with due diligence. the military brass did not. our business leaders did not speak up? did no one observe that the numbers were cooked at best, and in la la land at worst?
Boeing and Mcdonnal/Douglas did not object, eyes firmly planted on the profit margin. dead American young people? not their concern.
if we're gonna have war crimes trials, Kristol and O'Reilly, and even Friedman, belong in the dock.
Condi will look good in prison orange, set off by her cafe au lait skin. maybe they'll let her wear heels. or boots. Cheney will use the cyanide capsule in his teeth. Bush will claim he was only following orders. (I acknowledge a debt to Ionesco.)
Posted by emile duBois at 06/06/2008 @ 09:22am
Emile,
First of all I apologize to everybody for the unintended repetition of my message. I kept receiving "error" warnings from the web master, so I thought that my message was not coming through.
I share most of you say,Emile. I enjoyed that "Condi in prison orange" stuff.
The right of return of the approximately 4.5 million Palestinian refugees (those 750,000 people who were kicked out of their homes in 1948 and/or their children and grand-children), is certainly the most difficult question that must be addressed to solve the conflict. However, Israel can and must take as soon as possible (not in the afterlife) the other steps that have been in the agenda for at least 41 years: (a) withdrawal from the occupied territories (including East Jerusalem), (b) dismantling of all the illegal settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, where about 500,000 Jews now live (they must go back to Israel proper), and (c) allow the establishment of a full-fledged Palestinian State in Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem, free of road blocks, check points and any other interference that no other sovereing state in the world would tolerate. As for the Palestinian refugees, a 1949 UN General Assembly Resolution (approved as a precondition for the admission of Israel to the UN), provides that the 1948 refugees must be allowed to return to their homes or be duly compensated. I believe that Israel and the International Community (including the Arab nations) have a responsibility to set up a Trust Fund from which compensations could be paid to the displaced and their descendants. After all, the partition of the Palestinian Mandate and the ensuing creation of the State of Israel were the work of the International Community. The big powers should contribute to this solution.
Posted by Onca at 06/06/2008 @ 11:44am
I wonder what Rev. Wright thinks about Obama's Middle East policy . . .
Posted by umichballer44 at 06/06/2008 @ 11:48am