Obama Explains His Position on Israel
I agree with America’s conservative bloggers on their analysis of this interview with Barack Obama on Israel. There is nothing in his words that gives me the impression that he’s strongly pro-Israel, and there’s nothing in his words that suggests to me that he’s disgusted by Hamas’ endorsement of him. His adviser said the camp was ‘flattered’ that Hamas compares Obama to John F. Kennedy, Obama lets that compliment stand. Quite sad.
What’s even more sad is that quite some who say they are strongly pro-Israel support this man. He could have used the Hamas endorsement by saying that, as Ed Morrissey points out , if he thinks a Obama administration will be good for Hamas, they’re demented. Instead he lets them get away with it and enforces the suspicion that of all the presidential candidates, Obama is probably the one who’s policies will be most beneficial for Hamas and Iran.
His answers to the questions are evasive, and not from the heart. I do not believe that the man hates Israel, but he doesn’t love it either. His stupid ‘I have Jewish friends’ answer, gives one the impresson that, suddenly, associations do matter… and it gives one the impression that he mostly associates with people who do not like Jews, to say the least. After all, he said that his association with Jewish people hurt him politically.
What?
With who?
Right, with his main friends, supporters and advisers.
David Frum adds that Obama shows what he really thinks of the crisis in the Middle East: it is all Israel’s fault. Those darn settlements. He gives on the impression that Hamas - Jew-murdering bastards they are - have some good points and valid concerns.
They have not, Barack.
O, and his words about his middle name are very interesting as well. He cries foul when Americans call him Barack Hussein Obama (which is his full name), but he now says that his middle name causes him to be taken more seriously by Muslims in general and Arabs specifically.
Funny how when something is considered to be a strength by him it’s OK to use it whereas it’s never OK to use the same thing in a setting in which it’s a weakness.
Have fun voting for this man though.
I strongly disagree with America’s conservative bloggers on their analysis of this interview with Barack Obama on Israel. There are plenty in his words that gives me the impression that he’s strongly pro-Israel, and there’s nothing in his words that suggests to me that he’s pleased by Hamas’ endorsement of him. His adviser said the camp was ‘flattered’ that Hamas compares Obama to John F. Kennedy, Obama lets that compliment stand.
Fine with me.
What’s even more encouraging is that quite some who say they are strongly pro-Israel support this man. He could have used the Hamas endorsement by saying that, as Ed Morrissey points out,(but ed is a partisan hack, we all know that) if he thinks a Obama administration will be good for Hamas, they’re demented. Instead he lets them get away with it and enforces the suspicion that of all the presidential candidates, Obama is probably the one who’s policies will be most beneficial for Hamas and Iran. And those who think that do not even realize that most beneficial for those terrorist were the policies of Bush administration. Hamas is in full power now.
His answers to the questions were straight, and right from the heart. I do not believe that the man hates Israel, but surely respects it as an ally and partner. His conventional ‘I have Jewish friends’ answer, gives no meaningful impression at all..
I will have great fun voting for Obama, thank you.
Enough of 8 years of idiotism in WH
As poligazette reported here, Obama has indeed left Palestinian activists with the impression that he supports them, despite Obama’s response in this recent interview saying that there’s really no difference in his own positions on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and those of Clinton or McCain. He’s now saying basically "I don’t know why they think that I wouldn’t support Isreali security, but if they think that they’re mistaken" yet there’s little or no evidence that he told that to people like Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi when he was meeting with them face to face and attending speeches that called for opposition to "Israeli apartheid."
It’s a bit odd to act as though he now doesn’t understand why pro-Palestinian factions think he’s on their side when "In 2004, when Obama was running for the Senate, Abunimah quoted Obama as saying that he was sorry he wasn’t talking more about the Palestinian cause, but that his primary campaign had constrained what he could say."
Of course it seems that Abunimah, who heads an organization called "Electronic Intifada" appears to have not accepted Obama’s politically expedient change in tone on Palestine:
"Barack Obama is not distinguished from the rest of the pack, except by for how far he has moved to try to appease AIPAC and pro-Israel movements.
I remember, Amy — I knew Barack Obama for many years as my state senator — when he used to attend events in the Palestinian community in Chicago all the time. I remember personally introducing him onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank. And that’s just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation. And just yesterday, he apparently sent a letter to Zalmay Khalilzad, the US ambassador at the UN, to urge the US not to allow any resolution to pass criticizing Israel and saying how Israel was forced to impose this barbaric medieval siege on [Gaza]."
So at least some Palestinian activists are getting the message that Obama’s sympathies with them were probably only motivated by what was politically helpful to him at the time, and now that has changed. Other pro-Palestinians still see him as their guy, though, and there’s plenty of reason to read his past associations that way.
There is no way to read that interview as anything other than a clear,comprehensive, informed statement of Obama’s longstanding support for the state of Israel.
This post is, at best, a strained and contorted response, since the interview includes many quotes of Obama’s unequivocal support for Israel. At worst, it is an intellectually dishonest exercise that tries (and fails) to restate and reinterpret words and ideas that are clear in the original interview.
Did you read the article, or only the blogging about how several republican congressmen had twisted the phrasing in oneof the answers so badly that today the interviewer posted a rebuttal to them which said if they failed to issue a correction he would consider them to be liars.
I do not believe that the man hates Israel, but he doesn’t love it either
Why should he? What has Israel done to engender his love?
Hm. Well, I can’t speak for Obama, but I will say that a democratic country surrounded by enemies, several of whom are openly dedicated to its genocidal elimination is good enough to earn my support, if not "love". I don’t personally have a lot of time for people who exaggerate legitimate criticism of Israel into a general hatred of it or, worse, a general support for its genocidal enemies.
By the way, I do NOT agree with the many often-repeated misinterpretations, misrepresentations, distortions, exaggerations, double standards, and even fabrications that work to assign Obama to the anti-Israel category in order to justify a bias against Obama that long preexisted any examination of his views on Israel. Criticizing settlements policy doesn’t make someone anti-Israel nor does acknowledging the practical concerns of Palestinians over access to water, usable land, trade, and security. Only when that acknowledgment escalates to an “Israel is always wrong” position does it become fair to categorize the speaker as anti-Israel. And I haven’t seen any intellectually honest evidence that Obama is hostile to Israel or beneficial to Iran or Hamas.
"I do not believe that the man hates Israel, but he doesn’t love it either."
How many non-Jewish Americans actually love Israel, aside from the right-wing nutjobs? Their infatuation with all things Israel makes one wonder whom they’re more loyal to: Israel or the United States.
And here I had been told that the only people who questioned the patriotism of those they disagreed with were the "right-wing nutjobs" and "neocons". Thanks for proving that such tactics are found equally on the other side, JJ. :)
Sigh. Once again, I find myself defending Obama despite not liking him and certainly not supporting him.
Apparently some people think that any minute departure from the "Israel right or wrong, and death to all their enemies" posture is somehow a whole-hearted endorsement for the destruction of Israel. And Obama does often talk in circles, verbally fence-straddling at times with the obvious intent of not offending any potential base voters. Hey, he’s a lawyer and a politician, and it’s an election year.
But in terms of what he’s done and what he’s voted for in Congress, he’s been pretty darn steadfast in supporting Israel as a nation. For example, he quite openly and strongly supported Israel’s right to invade Lebanon during the 2006 battles with Hezbollah. Regardless of the talk, to date he has demonstrably walked the walk, to the point that even the decidedly neocon and aggressively pro-Israel New York Sun took notice and said "give it a rest already!" to the "Obama is anti-Israel" line.
Is he the most reflexively pro-Israel candidate of the two? Probably not. Hamas doesn’t think so–but they’re not the Obama campaign, and their reasonings are all their own. But Obama’s certainly not an anti-Israel politician, as some would like to paint him. So give it a rest already.
I think what you say is absolutely true, Tully, and I think the real criticism here is that Obama is indeed straddling a fence-having given some pretty extreme pro-Palestinians the impression that he agrees with some or all of their criticism of Israel, and then having gone to Congress and voted against what they’d consider to be their interests. Ultimately I think his Congressional votes were the right ones (and I think he’s moderately pro-Israel but defers just a bit too much to the Jimmy Carter wing), but I do think this fits an overall pattern of letting people think that they’re ‘being listened to’ and then promptly doing what any politician does. It’s not so much that I have a problem with that per se (I think it’s naive to think that any politician does otherwise) but I don’t think it bodes well for an Obama presidency that there are so many different constituencies who’ll discover that his listening just meant that he wasn’t willing to tell them that he’d vote against their interests.
I don’t disagree, but that’s one of the predictable downsides of being the national candidate of a very multi-factioned coalition party that’s largely based on identity politics, Christine. The more mutually-contradictory things you’re supposed to support, the vaguer you have to be, or you don’t make the final round.
It’s easy enough to blame that on the candidate, but somewhat misguided. It’s pretty much an inherent problem for the party, and has been for quite a while. It doesn’t apply nearly so much down-ticket as identity politics are highly regional, it’s when you hit the nation-wide vote level and have to deal with those contradictory interests that it really starts to show.
Only when there’s an overarching Big Issue can you sidestep that problem easily by instead focusing on The Big Issue as your uniter. With Clinton it was the 1992 economy. With Kerry it was Iraq, but that’s lost its sting. Anti-Bush has too–he’s out. In 2006 it was GOP base alienation and corruption. And so on. But we really don’t have a Big Issue this time around, and the longer the primaries continue the tougher it is for the Democrats to stake one out and get traction on it.
I’m stocking extra beer and popcorn.
All very true, Tully. In that sense, Obama’s sort of the embodiment of current Democratic Congress (who, as you mention, don’t have so much of a problem when they’re just representing local concerns- but they’ve obviously been unable to perform as a unified body on matters of national interest.) I assume Obama’s personal likeability will keep people from turning on him as quickly, but I can’t imagine that he’ll be much more effective than they’ve been. Which, given my own policy preferences, isn’t that bad of a thing, but it still could get pretty ugly I think.
"And here I had been told that the only people who questioned the patriotism of those they disagreed with were the "right-wing nutjobs" and "neocons". Thanks for proving that such tactics are found equally on the other side, JJ.
"
Aside from the part questioning how many Americans love Israel, the rest of my comments were meant to be ironic. The rhetoric from the far left and the far right are nothing but a show of intellectual deficiency.
The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function. One should, for example, be able to see that things are hopeless yet be determined to make them otherwise.
— F. Scott Fitzgerald
Mr. Obama passes the intelligence test while the frothing and rabid Mr. Frum does not. I want a president who keeps American interests foremost in priority.
I don’t know that someone who killed themselves off with fast living and booze at the age of 44 is the best source for quotes on first-rate intelligence.
I don’t know that someone who killed themselves off with fast living and booze at the age of 44 is the best source for quotes on first-rate intelligence
LOL. There’s also the consideration of whether holding two opposing ideas in one’s head necessarily has to lead to talking out of both sides of one’s mouth, because the problem as I see it is the inability or unwillingness to tell those on one extreme or the other that you are wiling to entertain a much moderated version of their viewpoint but that you’re also entertaining a moderated viewpoint of the opposing side’s viewpoint, and thus their extremism won’t win out at the end of the day. If you aren’t willing to be upfront from the start about that, then people on one side or the other are eventually going to turn on you.
But they turn on you anyway, Christine. That’s part of the nature of politics. No matter what you do you anger some of the people most of the time.
I understand that, Tully, but in Obama’s case it seems to be especially volatile. I mean, how often do you see Jewish groups and pro-Palestininian groups (ones who are advocated for a ONE STATE solution) both thinking that a certain politician is on their side?
Obama is running for office in the USA, not Israel. Any candidate that bends over for foreign agents like Jeff Goldberg et al. have no business being in the election in the first place.
you. are. insane. at no point in your rambling, incoherent screed did you demonstrate common sense or a mastery of the english language.
which one (or ones) of obama’s policies "will be most beneficial for Hamas and Iran?" if you’re going to script paranoid analyses of rather mundane interviews, you should at least have the courtesy to provide examples so that he can be fairly defended by those of us with some perspective.
apparently not satisfied with this level of obfuscation and dishonesty, you add: "Obama shows what he really thinks of the crisis in the Middle East: it is all Israel’s fault. Those darn settlements. He gives on the impression that Hamas - Jew-murdering bastards they are - have some good points and valid concerns."
again, please audit an introduction to critical reading class at your local community college. here is what he really said:
"You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security…I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked."
ooh. sounds like a nascent nazi, eh? so obama’s willingness to question - not condemn - and israeli practice that is, even under israeli law, illegal, demonstrates his feeling that the conflict is entirely the fault of israel?
the problem is, i’m quite sure that you’re not even stupid enough to be able to use your own idiocy as an excuse. it’s much worse. you’re a liar. you have taken obama’s words and twisted them around so that it fits neatly into your own strained narrative on the modern world. fight for your own issues and defend any or all of israel’s policies. don’t spread misinformation and lies about someone who, according to all of the facts, is actually on your side.
We would never allow 35 million people of Taiwan to constantly bad-mouth China and offend a billion or more Chinese. And yet we are actually encouraging 5 million Jewish Folks living inside Israel and another 10 million Jews living elsewhere to bad-mouth a billion or more Muslims and Arabs.
How is that possible?
Why do we allow 5 million people living inside Israel to hold the world hostage for 60 years or more and to threaten mankind with nuclear war?
For years and years Jewish Folks have entered court rooms across this universe and demanding the "Right Of Return" of money, jewlery, paintings and properties which were seized by Hitler and The Clowns. Never once have I heard the Jewish Folks claim that "The Facts Had Changed On The Ground" and thus the Jews might not be eligible for the return of that which once belonged to them.
But the Jews are telling the Palestinian People that "The Facts Have Changed On The Ground" and they are not entitled to the return of lands and properties which were seized in 1948 or as a result of the 6-day war.
Calm