Sat, Oct 11, 2008

User login

Jewcy Book Club

Welcome Authors
Brian Frazer
&
Mike Edison
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
  • 10/13:
    Rabbi Levi Brackman and Sam Jaffe
  • 10/20:
    Jonathan Garfinkel
  • 10/20:
    Rabbi Robert Levine
  • 10/27:
    Danit Brown
  • 10/27:
    Joshua Henkin
  • 11/03:
    Craig Glazer
  • 11/10:
    Max Gross
  • 11/17:
    Seth Greenland

The General Election Fight At AIPAC

 
Advertisement

On Monday, John McCain addressed the AIPAC conference (video is here). McCain attacked early, often, and hyper-aggressively, attempting to portray Obama as a dangerously inexperienced, pacifistic simpleton ready to sign over control of the Middle East to Iran. One of McCain's isolated positive notes was a proposal for large-scale global divestment from Iran by both governments and private firms.

Obama At AIPACObama At AIPAC This morning, Barack Obama took the podium at AIPAC and counterattacked. Substantively, he positioned himself squarely on the center-right of Israeli foreign policy views, reiterating an unwavering commitment to Israeli security and to the American-Israeli alliance, and pledged to work towards peace through a two-state solution in which the status of Israel as a Jewish state with an undivided Jerusalem as its capital is non-negotiable. He proposed a new $30 billion in annual aid to Israel that would not be tied to aid for any other country. Attacking the Bush administration from the right for pushing for elections in Palestine that Hamas was bound to win, he swore that in his administration, there would be no room for terrorists at the negotiating table. (See Michael Walzer here on the difference between negotiating with adversarial states and terrorist organizations; it's really not as complicated distinction as some people have decided to believe it is.)

He also attacked both Bush and John McCain from the right for pursuing a war policy that has vastly amplified Iranian power (and repeated the "wipe off the map" lie himself; I really don't get why Ahmadinejad-bashing can't be faithful to things Ahmadinejad has said). Attempting to drastically shift the terms and assumptions of the debate over Iran and his own positon, he argued that "[t]here's no greater threat to Israel or to the peace and stability of the region than Iran...The danger from Iran is grave and real and my goal will be to eliminate this threat."

In what's sure to be a preview of the general election debate, he framed diplomatic engagement as "tough" and as the policy of a strong, confident nation --- implicitly (and rightfully) calling McCain, Lieberman et al. chickens. And he called out McCain's bluster on Iran-divestment, noting that he had proposed just such a bill a year ago, which McCain voted against.

As with most Obama speeches, the oratorical presentation greatly outstripped the same language on the page. He went off-script at several points, particularly discussing the historic ties between the African-American and Jewish-American communities, the outsized role the latter played in the civil rights movement (and his own personal debt to Jewish civil rights activists), reaching a crescendo by recalling [from my notes] "Jewish-Americans like Mickey Schwerner and Andrew Goodman who were willing to fight and die alongside an African-American." At both the beginning and end of the speech, he received a sustained, loud, standing ovation. Several hours later, the Orthodox Union confirmed him as glatt.

While somewhere else, Joe Lieberman, speaking on behalf of the McCain camp, intoned lugubriously that "Senator Obama argued today that American foreign policy in recent years has essentially sort of strengthened Iran. At one point he almost seemed to suggest it helped elect Ahmedinejad and has made Israel less safe, and I disagree with that." Got it. Lieberman denies that the invasion of Iraq, deposition of Iran's most significant regional enemy, and establishment of a Shia-dominated government beholden to Iran "sort of" strengthened Iran. Not even "sort of"? It seems the McCain campaign is going to use the DSM-IV as a playbook.



 

Jeffrey Weaver


The OU's

response seemed kinda tepid to me. Don't they know he is the Messiah...





David N. Friedman


Missing the mark again

Daniel, you are way off again with this kind of review.  Less than 24 hours after making nice noises at AIPAC, Obama is already backtracking regarding his comments on the indivisibility of Jerusalem and the speech's tone in general.

This is a clear sign that this guy is exactly what the pro-Israel camp does not want in a candidate--someone who says something one day and then sends off contradictory and clarifying remarks the next. To conclude that this candidate is center-right politically ignores the meaning of political identification.  He has said many, many times that he will not side with the pro-Israel camp, he will "hold up a mirror" for Israel to see the error of its ways, he will take the process in a very different direction than many pro-Israel Americans might want that would make him a more popular guy--etc.  Then he goes to AIPAC and tries to suck up and he can get away with it since AIPAC participants are to the left politically so they are already in the tank for him.

Regarding Iran, he has the gall to blame America for Iran's radicalization.  Yes, it is OK to blame America's foreign policy in some context--for example, how Clinton's foreign polcy initiatives with North Korea made matters worse than they would have been, or how Clinton's war in Bosnia made matters worse--since this is true and based in the circumstances.  Yet to say that American foreign policy under Bush has made Iran worse than it might have been begs for some kind of explanation since it is so wrong on its face and suggests that America is to be blamed for the problems we face with Iran and not the Iranians.

Obama can speak on friendly turf as a candidate to be, speaking about what he might do as President.  The big issue is how he will be greeted as a failed President pushing a foreign policy that prejudices Israel a couple of years from now--I doubt his advisers will even allow him to show up.  Sadly, we will see if my prediction is going to hold up. 





Jeffrey Weaver


It really does not Help Your Case

When Obama was almost immediate in back tracking:

"On Thursday, when queried by CNN, Obama said he was misunderstood.


"Well," Obama explained, "obviously, it's going to be up to the parties
to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those
negotiations."

 

and further:

Despite telling the AIPCAC conference what it wanted to hear and believe,
an undivided Jerusalem was, in fact, never his campaign's position.


Obama's adviser for the Middle East, former Ambassador to Israel Daniel
Kurtzer, in May told the Israeli mass circulation daily, Haaretz, that his
campaign considers it "impossible to make progress on serious peace talks
without putting the future of Jerusalem on the table."

Yes, Obama is a liar and we all know it.

 

 





Jeffrey Weaver


To be Fair

Obama has now flipped Again!

"Democratic
White House candidate Barack Obama on Thursday defended his remarks
that Jerusalem should not be divided under any Israeli-Palestinian peace pact, saying a divided city would be "very difficult to execute."

A day after sparking outrage among Palestinians when he told a Jewish
group that Jerusalem must remain the "undivided" capital of Israel,
Obama told CNN that the issue is still up to the two sides.

"Obviously it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of
these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations."

However, he said, "My belief is that as a practical matter it would be very difficult to execute.

"And I think that it is smart for us to work through a system in which
everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in old
Jerusalem."

But, he added, "Israel has a legitimate claim on that city.""

That's Leadership, Folks....