Barack Obama made the obligatory candidate’s visit to AIPAC’s annual convention today. Look, I’ve been in this country through six presidential elections. I don’t recall a single major candidate who hasn’t gone to the AIPAC convention and made some extremely pandering remarks there. By that (admittedly very low) standard, Obama stands out– just a little bit– but perhaps not trivially.
Here’s the L.A. Times account of what he said , which is the fullest I can find. LAT reporter Johanna Neuman writes there:
- Speaking to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Obama won applause with a promise to “do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.” He also assailed his Republican opponent, John McCain, for “willful mischaracterization” of his call for diplomatic outreach to the Iranian regime and said he “has no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking.”
But as president, Obama said, “I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leader at a time and place and my choosing — if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States.”
Calling the threat posed by Iran “grave,” Obama said that “as president I will never compromise when it comes to Israel’s security.” He pledged $30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade to “ensure that Israel can defend itself from any threat — from Gaza to Tehran.” To a standing ovation, he said, “I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon — everything.”
The presumed Democratic nominee took a shot at President Bush for delaying peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. “I won’t wait until the waning days of my presidency,” he said. “I will take an active role and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.”
Saying that Palestinians “need a state that is contiguous and cohesive,” Obama said any agreement “must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders” and with Jerusalem the capital of an undivided country. [Actually, that’s really sloppy reporting in that last sentence. What CNN reports Obama as saying at that point is, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” CNN also has the video of the speech.]
The Illinois senator sought to dispel concerns in the Jewish community, circulating on the Internet, that he is a Muslim and is allied with critics of Israel. Obama is a Christian. “If anyone has been confused by these e-mails,” he said, “I want you to know that today I’ll be speaking from my heart, and as a true friend of Israel.”
And he reminded the audience that African Americans and Jewish Americans had stood together during the civil rights era. “They took buses down South together,” Obama said. “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 of equality.” Calling the legacy of the three slain civil rights workers “our inheritance,” Obama said, “We must not allow the relationship between Jews and African Americans to suffer.”
Even Haaretz’s sometimes fairly hawkish commentator Shmuel Rosner was moved to observe of the parade of pandering presidential wannabes to today’s AIPAC gig that,
- Generally speaking, the AIPAC delegates tended to applaud the speakers when they talked tough about Iran, and to remain relatively silent when they were talking about peace with the Palestinians…
Of course, some people will make this yet another proof that AIPAC is hawkish, warmongering, radical organization. I think it is a sign of grim and realistic skepticism. Maybe it was better for the delegates to make an effort and cheer more enthusiastically when peace was mentioned – but it was also perfectly understandable, for their part, not to.
Stands out how, exactly? By hinting that he would nuke Iran for Israel?
And by the way, the threat from Iran is not grave, it is nonexistent.
Whatever his Israel policy, the Great Progressive, Barack Obama, at least will give the US Army (which is, after all, “the finest military in the world”, whose “excellence” is “unmatched”, as he ensures us) the boost it deserves so much: he will “increase the size of ground forces, adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines”, and will give US soldiers “new equipment, armor, training, and skills”.
By these humane, sensible and progressive measures, he will make the US Army a real “21st Century Military”, that is “best-prepared to meet 21st-century threats.” While Bush may have sent men into battle without sufficient training, the compassionate Obama will ensure “that soldiers and Marines have sufficient training time before they are sent into battle.”
All quotes from: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/#21st-century-military
Isn’t that what we all wanted to hear? At last a progressive in The White House!
By the way, Obama’s 2008 AIPAC speech and those of the rest of the American political elite, can be watched here (he’s the third speaker on the page):
http://www.aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/2841_12161.asp
Last year I linked to an article here regarding Obama’s and Hillary’s intentions to greatly increase the size and budget of the military. One of the important points made in the article was that the only purpose for which the United States would need a larger military is to continue to invade and occupy unwilling countries.
Obama has no intention of ending the occupation of Iraq (and neither did Hillary), and by all indications, he would have few if any compunctions about using a revived military on other countries as well.
Here is what As`ad Abu Khalil had to say about President Obama today:
“If Obama is elected president, I am sure that he would order the bombing of some Arab or Muslim country in the first year of his presidency to 1) prove that he really is not a Muslim after all; 2) to underline his patriotic and militaristic credential; 3) to prepare for his second term run; 4) and to receive a standing ovation as soon as he enter AIPAC’s convention hall.”
On the other hand, while not entertaining pie-in-the-sky expectations of Obama, let’s DO consider the alternative – an even less happy prospect.
Sorry for the messed-up link! Forgot to close the tag!
Sorry for the messed-up link! Forgot to close the tag!
Helena, I’m afraid like many people who are both pro-Obama and sympathetic to the Palestinians (an impossible combination, I know) you are clutching at straws here. Obama’s genuflection to AIPAC was complete: he threatened to bomb a country that has never threatened America on Israel’s behalf; at a time of increasing economic crisis in his own country, he also pledged huge amounts of unconditional charity to Israel; he pledged to do ‘everything’ to help Israel against ANY ‘threat’, despite the fact that the US has no treaty obligations towards Israel; he insisted that an ‘undivided’ Jerusalem would remain capital of Israel, contrary to international law; despite being himself a member of an ethnic minority, he insisted that Israel would remain the state, not of its citizens, but of one ethnic group.
I could go on, but it would be too tiresome. Ther’e enough there to prove that Obama will do whatever it takes to reassure the most hawkish of Israelis that, despite the fact that once upon a distant memory he did recognise the humanity of the Palestinians, he can now be relied upon to give unconditional backing to all Israel’s wars and occupations.
I have no problem with Obama’s plans to increase the military. The small number of troops on the ground is a factor in the poor conduct of the war in Afghanistan, and lack of training is a factor in both Iraq and Afghanistan. These small numbers are an indicator of the arrogance of the Bush administration. As well of the disregard the Bush administration has shown for educating troops about the political and cultural conditions of each place. A larger number of troops in Afghanistan could bring the security to the area that Afghans have been expecting since 2001. What Obama said in that regard IS what I wanted to hear.
————–
As for AIPAC, I am concerned about how frequently he has shown enthusiasm specifically for AIPAC. His comments about Jerusalem are foolish. East Jerusalem has been gerrymandered to suit the Israeli government’s interests. The Jerusalem issue could be resolved by declaring the city west of the 1967 border the City of Jerusalem and the city east of the border the City of East Jerusalem or al Quds. The City of Jerusalem can then be Israel’s united capital while East Jerusalem can be a separate city as different as Kansas City, KS is from Kansas City, MO. The holy city, which consists of only a small area, can be made into a UN zone that permits both Israeli and Palestinian citizens to freely access their holy sites.
“I have no problem with Obama’s plans to increase the military.”
Well, I have a big problem with it, and anyone who does not want the U.S. to embark on any further imperial adventures ought to think carefully about supporting it.
“The small number of troops on the ground is a factor in the poor conduct of the war in Afghanistan…”
Better yet, how about not reacting to a criminal act on the part of a group of individuals by attacking an entire country? How about treating it as what it was, and going after the criminals themselves?
Ah, but that was not the point or the purpose, was it?
“…lack of training is a factor in both Iraq and Afghanistan.”
I don’t care how trained the troops were, Iraq was bound from the beginning to fail. Anyone who knew anything about Iraq, Iraqis, and Iraq’s history predicted that. Further, there is simply no right way to do something that is wrong in its very essence and in every aspect.
“the disregard the Bush administration has shown for educating troops about the political and cultural conditions of each place.”
It doesn’t matter how much troops might be “educated about the political and cultural conditions” in a place as long as they do not view the people who live there as human beings, who are like themselves than they are different, and treat them that way. Knowing all the “secret handshakes” of a culture does not do a bit of good if you treat people like s****. And the think is, that will never happen for the simple reason that dehumanizing people is an essential step in making troops ready to kill them, manhandle them, and blow up their houses with or without them inside.
I remember some time ago some guy – who was, in fact, opposed to the invasion and occupation – commented that “these house to house raids just do not work in that culture”. Can someone tell me in which cultures it is considered acceptable to for a group of heavily armed strangers to break down one’s door at 3 AM and run through the house screaming demonically in a foreign language, breaking things as they go, burst into bedrooms to drag sleeping family members out of bed, throw the males in the house onto the ground and press their faces into the dirt with a boot on the backs of their necks, and then haul them away, bound and blindfolded to parts unknown?
How blind does one have to be not to understand that certain kinds of behaviour are not acceptable in ANY human society ANYWHERE?!
“A larger number of troops in Afghanistan could bring the security to the area that Afghans have been expecting since 2001.”
And The Surge™ worked SO WELL, didn’t it?
“I have no problem with Obama’s plans to increase the military.”
Well, I have a big problem with it, and anyone who does not want the U.S. to embark on any further imperial adventures ought to think carefully about supporting it.
President Obama is not going to bomb Iran. Candidate Obama will pander when he needs to pander, which is when there is no political downside and the audience is vain and narrow-minded enough to be pleased by it.
When everyone is telling you what you want to hear, there are two possibilities: (1) you are so important and powerful that no one dares disagree with you; or (2) you are transparent, shallow and easily manipulated.
I thought Obama’s endorsement of an undivided Jerusalem was the most ignorant, ill informed, self serving, naiive promise that any presidential candidate could make at this point in Palestinian/Israel relations, especially since he didn’t have to say it at all.
This man could be a real menace conducting US foreign policy if he can come out with this kind of stuff.
And on Iran – he’s all over the place.
He will without doubt be the most foreign policy ignorant presidential nominee since George W Bush. But where Bush knew he was ignorant, but didn’t care, Obama actually seems to think he knows it all. Even more dangerous.
How could he have been endorsed over Hillary Clinton?
“Candidate Obama will pander when he needs to pander…”
Yeah, I’ve heard this kind of thing a lot from Hillary supporters and from Obama supporters. Oh, yeah, I know she said she would nuke Iran, but she was just saying it so people won’t think that as a woman she is too soft. She really didn’t mean it. Yeah, I know he said he would bomb Pakistan, but he was only trying to make people think he’s tough on terror. He really didn’t mean it.
So, let me see if I understand this. When your chosen candidate makes a statement of policy, lays out a plan, or makes a promise to do something that does not fit with your principles, you simply assume he is lying.
I see it a bit differently. The way I see it, either he was lying, which is very, very bad, or he was telling the truth, which is worse. Either way you need a crystal ball to decide whom to vote for. If this is democracy, then I want something else.
seems to me that the folks who want to believe obama is progressive – who’ve spent the past six months praising his ‘honesty’ and ‘refreshing straightforwardness’ – are doing a whole lot of “pay no attention to what he actually says”.
but more interesting to me is the why. assuming that obama and his advisors can read poll numbers, they know that AIPAC is far to the right of most u.s. jews – especially on palestine/israel.
this is not news: most u.s. jews are pretty enthusiastic supporters of the 2-state ‘solution’ (fictional though it is at this point), while AIPAC opposes it in all but the thinnest layer of rhetoric; most u.s. jews see themselves as aligned with the israeli ‘center’ (labor, kadima, etc.), while AIPAC lines up with the right wing of likud (if not farther into the ‘revisionist’ morass). and, of course, as plenty of recent research shows, fewer and fewer u.s. jews see the israeli state as central to their lives, regardless of their politics (see the bronfman foundation’s “beyond distancing”, for instance).
and though i don’t have documented numbers, i’d wager that while there’s plenty of ‘attachment to israel’ among the older u.s. jews in florida who are the only electorally relevant part of the u.s. jewish population, less of it is AIPAC-style ultra-right-wing. older u.s. jews are less likely to be religious, more likely to be union-affiliated and/or have specifically leftist political backgrounds, and far less likely to have been raised in zionist households (the zionist movement’s strength in the u.s being largely a post-WWII product)…
so either obama and his campaign are incapable of doing basic research or this has nothing to do with voters. i’d bet on the latter, and put it in the file for evidence of the power of the israel lobby. which, we should be very clear by now, has very little to do with ‘jewish interests’ and everything to do with a fascinating area of overlap among military-industrial, christian-right, neo-conservative and energy-industry interests… all of whom find maximalist versions of the zionist project very useful in rather different ways, and minimalist versions almost as much so.
“seems to me that the folks who want to believe obama is progressive – who’ve spent the past six months praising his ‘honesty’ and ‘refreshing straightforwardness’ – are doing a whole lot of ‘pay no attention to what he actually says’.”
Very well said! And in all fairness, the folks who want (and those who wanted) to believe that Hillary was the source of all that is good for the United States and the world have been doing exactly the same thing!
Interesting take on AIPAC. It makes considerable sense, too.
PS I think kowtowing to AIPAC has everything to do with its ability to make or break American politicians.
“I think kowtowing to AIPAC has everything to do with its ability to make or break American politicians.”
If that were true, Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee, and Rudy Giuliani would be the Republican nominee.
If the sight of a liberal, young, charismatic black man claiming the Democratic nomination for POTUS does not stir some feeling of hope in your heart, then I feel sorry for you.
Really, John? So, are you telling me that Obama has not pandered to AIPAC throughout this campaign? Are you telling me that he has not abandoned any and all support he once showed for Palestinians in order to try to make AIPAC and the Israelis happier with him? That’s not how it looks from where I am viewing things, and I can assure you it is not how it looks to most Palestinians either.
If AIPAC wanted to break Obama, they would go after him with everything they could dig up or invent. They have not chosen to go after him, so I guess they see him as trainable, and so far he has been.
The sight of an ambitious, clever, calculating politician claiming the Democratic nomination doeds not stir hope in my heart whether they are young, liberal, charismatic (that and two dollars fifty will get you a cup of coffee at Starbuck’s) and black, or middle aged, white, and female, or anything else. They are all politicians, and they all will do or say whatever they think it will take to get into power and to stay there. Obama is no different. Furthermore, he has not shown himself to be at all smart when it comes to foreign relations, and that scares me. Not more than Hillary scares me, but it still scares me.
I, for one, will be voting for a third party candidate this November (no, NOT Ralph Nader).
If the sight of a liberal, young, charismatic black man claiming the Democratic nomination for POTUS does not stir some feeling of hope in your heart, then I feel sorry for you.
No need to feel sorry. The sight of Obama as you describe it shows not the real man, but the Image, the Brand, so to speak, he (and his PR team) created around himself: Obama The Man Of Change. Even so, to believe in the Brand one has to ignore a lot of facts; where (part of his) money comes from (from Wall Street banks, Hedgefunds , Corporate Law firms, Lobbying firms, etc), what policies he announced:
–Down with Evil Iran, Long Live Good Israel;
–We Will Enlarge the Greatest Army in the World (even though the US already spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined);
–We are the Best, We Know Best, So We Will Lead The World (which has to obey); yes, he also will use diplomacy, but only to warn.
In his words, he will use “tough, direct diplomacy where the President of the United States isn’t afraid to let any petty dictator know where America stands and what we stand for.”
In other words, do as you’re told, or else……
No need to feel sorry for us unbelievers……
Just so, Menno, just so. And isn’t it amazing how so many Americans have fallen in love with the Brand and completely overlook the reality (oh, don’t pay attention to what he actually says, just pay attention to your fantasies about him!).
Assuming the candidtae is just lying during the campaigning period — a time when a real visionary would be scoping out serious future policy directions, not pandering — shows just how far down politics have descended. Progressive ideas have become dinosaurs.