The day after clinching enough delegates for the Presidential nomination, Mr. Obama spoke to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. AIPAC long has been perhaps the strongest supporter of Israeli interests in the U. S., virtually to the point of indifference to right or wrong on issues. It can be characterized as “conservative,” and certainly not representative of the broad range of opinions in Israel.
Mr. Obama chose this moment to align himself with the right-wing views of AIPAC. This was widely seen by the media as pandering, and unnecessary. A strong leader does not have to compromise principle, while respecting other views. In this case, he demonstrated weakness, not strength.
Some excerpts from the speech, with my comments:
“We know that the establishment of Israel was just and necessary, rooted in centuries of struggle and decades of patient work.”
Israel’s establishment may have been necessary in a sense: at that time, most countries did not want to accept Jewish refugees in large numbers. However, it is cruel to say that it was a just act, when it involved displacing indigenous people who had lived there for so long. This one statement was an insult to Middle Eastern Arabs.
“Because of the war in Iraq, Iran — which always posed a greater threat to Israel than Iraq — is emboldened and poses the greatest strategic challenge to the United States and Israel in the Middle East in a generation.”
Recently, Mr. Obama has made many such statements about the threat of Iran, joining the crowd marching unthinkingly toward a confrontation with Iran. This language undercuts his assertions that he would use diplomacy, rather than the military, to deal with regimes we consider threats. It also exaggerates the threat Iran poses to the U.S or to Israel, as do so many hard-liners in the Administration and the media. Why cave on this issue, when one could stand up for a more reasoned approach?
“Our alliance is based on shared interests and shared values. Those who threaten Israel threaten us. Israel has always faced these threats on the front lines. And I will bring to the White House an unshakeable commitment to Israel's security.”
“Unshakeable”??? This limits the leverage we could bring to the table to promote human rights in Israel, at the least.
“I will ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran. Defense cooperation between the United States and Israel is a model of success, and must be deepened. As president, I will implement a Memorandum of Understanding that provides $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade — investments to Israel's security that will not be tied to any other nation.”
Committing to a decade of military assistance to Israel is hardly a nuanced and flexible approach to foreign policy. Again, why was it necessary to make such an extreme statement at this time?
“We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations. That is why I opposed holding elections in 2006 with Hamas on the ballot.”
Democratic elections and local self-determination are ideals not easily compromised, but here Mr. Obama aligned himself with the Bush White House in rejecting the results of a fair election. In many other countries, previous terrorists have been brought into the political process, as a means of reconciliation and peace-making. Why reject this possibility in the case of Hamas?
“Israel can also advance the cause of peace by taking appropriate steps — consistent with its security — to ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians, improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and to refrain from building new settlements — as it agreed to with the Bush administration at Annapolis.”
At last, a gentle nudge toward balance in his approach.
“…but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.”
Here Mr. Obama endorses a theocratic form of government, contrary to the tradition of separation of church and state so valued in the U.S. He could have supported at least consideration of the one-state, democratic, option, but he again he chose the hard line. As for Jerusalem, why not consider once again international supervision of this unique world heritage city?
“If Iran fails to change course when presented with this choice by the United States, it will be clear — to the people of Iran, and to the world — that the Iranian regime is the author of its own isolation. That will strengthen our hand with Russia and China as we insist on stronger sanctions in the Security Council. And we should work with Europe, Japan and the Gulf states to find every avenue outside the U.N. to isolate the Iranian regime — from cutting off loan guarantees and expanding financial sanctions, to banning the export of refined petroleum to Iran, to boycotting firms associated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, whose Quds force has rightly been labeled a terrorist organization.”
Once again, Mr. Obama chooses the hard line on Iran, hardly the stance of a peace-maker. One must question the judgement of someone who so easily accepts the charge that the Revolutionary Guard is a terrorist organization. What is the utility of such a label?
Overall, it is puzzling why Mr. Obama chose an approach which so contradicts the principles he spoke for during the primaries. Surely, it was not to promote fund-raising for the Fall?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Allan -- After reading your views on Obama's 'losing his principles', I thought you might like to see what I just wrote to David Plouffe, Obama's campaign manager, in reply to one of many requests for a donation.
I, like Leo, am sorely vexed over Obama's clear shift on many issues that are important to me. I just sent the following:
"David --
I've been getting a lot of requests to donate to the Obama campaign, but I cannot bring myself to write a check. Frankly, I'm having difficulty with many aspects of the campaign now that you're gearing up for the general election and, it appears to me, pandering to the right. I'm horrified about the complete turnaround on supporting amnesty for the telecoms in the FISA bill -- as are thousands of Obama supporters, as I'm sure you know -- but Mr. Obama doesn't appear to care. Your campaign is abandoning the constitution on other fronts, as well -- like the embracing of the Bush administration's faith-based initiatives. There are those of us in this country who still cherish the separation of church and state as established by the founders of this country. There are those of us in minority religions who still feel a need for those protections. But Mr. Obama doesn't appear to care.
I do not know what to do. I feel abandoned by the Democratic party and lied to by the Obama campaign. Where is the progressive idealism and, yes, optimism, of the primary campaign? Where is the CHANGE? I am not alone in my belief that Mr. Obama has abandoned his campaign promises even before getting the nomination. Many of us see the campaign moving rapidly back to politics as usual.
I know that someone will respond to me but, frankly, platitudes will not get me to send money or to give my very valuable time to help get Mr. Obama elected as I had planned to do this Fall. I'm at a loss as to what to do right now so, if you have any real answers, I'd be delighted to hear them.
Thank you for listening."
It looks like we (and many others) are having similar doubts.
Unfortunately, the AIPAC speech seems to have marked the beginning of an emerging pattern of Barack Obama pandering to those to the right of his support base at the expense of those whose commitment to his presidential campaign put him within reach of the nomination (to a large extent because they trusted Obama to stay true to his espoused principles and positions -- and did not have similar faith in Hillary Clinton [see, for example, the 4/3/08 & 4/14/08 blogs on this site -- "Why not Hilary Clinton?" & "Why Barack Obama?"]).
Before I go on to other such examples, let me say that other Jewish voices have joined AIPAC in Washington, presenting a different perspective for lawmakers to hear. One such voice is that of Brit Tzedek v'Sholom (Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace) -- http://www.btvshalom.org/ -- a group that, among other things, favors a negotiated two-state resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and that has been highly critical of the continued (and cynical, I might add) expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank.
Back to the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, Barack Obama. (I suppose he could rightly laugh off any suggestion that the dye in that regard has not yet been cast.)
Obama now tells us that he will outdo the Bush administration with respect to one of that administration's worst, most unconstitutional and most cynical programs -- i.e. "faith-based initiatives".
Apparently not wanting to leave that opportunity exclusively to John McCain, Obama made critical comments about the U.S. Supreme Court decision declaring the death penalty unconstitutional in the case of those convicted of raping children. More pandering, admittedly by a supporter of capital punishment, but one who in the past had tried to limit the use of the death penalty rather than broaden its use. (Obama and I disagree on the capital punishment.)
Whatever his position on gun control and the Constitution -- and it is not difficult to find a range of Obama gun control positions -- the professor of constitutional law that he is should have expressed embarassment about (and given the author, Justice Scalia, a failing grade for) the decision (written for a 5 - 4 majority) striking down the city of Washington's prohibition against handgun possession. Which is not to say that a lucid argument could have been made in support of the majority's decision -- but that was not what Scalia wrote. Still, a pandering Obama found the need to state that the decision would "provide much-needed guidance to local jurisdictions across the country". What a crock!
Now we come to what really has me frosted -- Obama telling us that he can support the deeply flawed FISA Amendment legislation recently passed by the House and pending in the Senate. Labeled as a "compromise" bill, the legislation would, among other things, bestow retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that assisted Bush and his cronies in unconstitutionally sidestepping the existing FISA law. There is no rational national security argument for the retroactive immunity provision -- and the insistence of President Bush that retroactive immunity for telecom companies be part of the legislation has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with his repeated efforts to avoid scrutiny of the questionable behavior and practices of those in his administration. Obama, telling us that he can vote for this bill, despite its shortcomings, inexplicably suggests that the flaws in the bill can best be addressed after passage rather than before!
OK, it's taken a while, but I've gotten that off my chest! Now what? Let McCain begin the Third Bush Term? Vote for Obama as the less objectionable alternative? I've done that before! -- Leo
Post a Comment