Mr. Obama Loses His Principles - 1

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?

Notes for an Obama Presidency - 1

It is important to start the first term with some dramatic changes in the tone of the Presidency. For the executive agencies, where morale has fallen so drastically, here is one thought:

Start by issuing an executive order, which voids every executive order issued by Bush. It can be accompanied by an offer for the executive agencies to petition the President to restore any which actually made sense, or which promoted the people's interests.

The second step would be to order a review of Bush's "signing statements," with the intent of rescinding the most radical and destructive provisions. Respecting Congressional intent and the rule of law would be the motive.

These dramatic moves would announce the arrival of change in a big way.