The Full Speech

M.J. Rosenberg has the full text of Barack Obama's AIPAC speech. On Iran, I think this is somewhat better than what John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have said to similar audiences in terms of tone, though some of Edwards' (and, for that matter, Bill Richardson's) remarks in the post-Herziliya backlash have been better than this. The best part was this:

But we owe it to our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, and to all those who have fallen, to keep searching for peace and security -- even though it can seem distant. This search is in the best interests of Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States. It is in the best interests of all of us.

The worst part was this:

But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.

That's silly. We should give Israel billions of dollars a year but should never make an Israeli Prime Minister "feel dragged to . . . the negotiating table" even though going there "is in the best interests of Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States" -- that doesn't make sense. I did, however, like the inclusion of the "or blocked from the negotiating table" proviso, a subtle dig at the Bush administration's bizarre pressuring of Israel to avoid making peace with Syria.

Comments

We should give Israel billions of dollars a year but should never make an Israeli Prime Minister "feel dragged to . . . the negotiating table" even though going there "is in the best interests of Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States" -- that doesn't make sense.

Sure. But again MY you focus too much on the billions of dollars a year the US gives Israel. The US routinely drags almost every other country in the world to any negotiating table it wants to, whether we're giving them money or not, and should be doing the same here. Indeed, it should be the priority of US government to work out exactly what we want Israel to settle for, and then make them settle, cash handout or not.

Posted by otto | March 3, 2007 7:47 PM

Yes, the Israel bashers like Mr. Yglesias and Mr. otto know that the best approach to Middle East peace is to force the State of Israel to commit suicide. Ain't going to happen. The Israeli attitude is never again; if we have to go, we'll take the rest of the world with us. Including Mr. Yglesias and Mr. otto.

Posted by SLC | March 3, 2007 8:18 PM

Is the above comment by SLC a parody or just showing a laughable lack of self-awareness and reality?

Posted by Reality Man | March 3, 2007 8:43 PM

Re Reality Man

If Mr Reality Man doesn't think that the comment he referred to doesn't reflect reality, then, to quote Richard Dawkins, he is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (but I don't want to consider that).

Posted by SLC | March 3, 2007 9:02 PM

But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and security.

Did I miss something or were these stones left undefined?

Posted by Just Karl | March 3, 2007 9:12 PM

Hey, SLC -- are you an American citizen?

Posted by ArgleBargle | March 3, 2007 9:22 PM

If it is in the US national security interest to push, pull or drag Israel, Ukraine, or Togo to, or from, a negotiating table, we should do it. Israel's an ally, so, of course, we have to consider the long term relationship as part of that calculation. But I don't want a President who will take pressuring Israel off the table, which is what Obama seems to be doing.

That said, I am not sure there is much daylight between any of the Presidential canidates, in either party on this. I guess we have to just hope Likud and Netanyahu don't get back in office.

Posted by AJ | March 3, 2007 9:48 PM

The primary weakness in the speech was no sense that perhaps positive, not merely negative leverage towards the Iranians might be effective, e.g. full diplomatic relations, increased trade and cultural exchange. This was especially odd in the wake of the recent deal with North Korea. The speech was ok, but it was essentially a centrist rehash on both Iranian and Israeli/Palestinian issues.

Posted by yeselson | March 3, 2007 9:49 PM

I should have clarified that I meant proposing such ideas, not unilaterally initiating them--thus the leverage.

Posted by yeselson | March 3, 2007 10:33 PM

"Re Reality Man

If Mr Reality Man doesn't think that the comment he referred to doesn't reflect reality, then, to quote Richard Dawkins, he is either ignorant, stupid, insane or wicked (but I don't want to consider that).

Posted by: SLC on March 3, 2007 09:02 PM"

Coming from a self-delusional psycho like you, that's a compliment. Your path offers Israel nothing but war, death and destruction forever. Israel needs you like a vagina needs syphillis. Your bloodthirst overcomes any possible love you have for Israel and for the Jewish people.

Posted by Reality Man | March 4, 2007 12:22 AM

I thought the speech was a mixed bag. At first cursory read I was disappointed. But after a 2nd reading & reading M.J.'s more upbeat assessment I thought somewhat better of it. We shouldn't undervalue that sly crack about Bush/Condi saying No to Syrian negotiations. It is an unprecedented interference in a sovereign Israel perogative. Of course, Olmert didn't even need to ask shouldn't have. The fact that he did only shows his craven weakness & inability to lead. And the fact that Obama would've given the green light to them is a good sign.

There's also a reference in the speech to Israel carrying "heavy stones" which is a tad too oblique an allusion to serious compromises Israel will have to make to attain peace.

There is some pretty bad stuff too unfortunately. I chalk it up to the red meat AIPAC audience he was facing. I'm still hopeful that he'll chart a much more independent course on the I-P conflict than Hillary would.

I've written an in depth critique of the speech at my blog (see link).

Posted by Richard Silverstein | March 4, 2007 3:22 AM

The speechwriter copied the standard IDF helicopter ride story. Invented by Ariel Sharon I believe.

The narrow strip between the border and the sea, and thus the Palestinians must be oppressed, settlements erected, walls build etc. That may be not be Barack's opinion of security, but it is what security to the IDF means. And if he disagreed with the IDF he should have the balls to say so. But either he doesn't care or he's your bog standard US coward, unable to speak the truth when sitting in a IDF helicopter.

Posted by Dutch | March 4, 2007 6:51 AM

Re ArgleBargle

The answer to Mr. ArgleBargles' question is yes (in fact, I am a native born American). Furthermore, I have never been to Israel and do not have dual citizenship.

Re Reality Man

Gee self-delusional psycho. I really like it when clowns like Mr. Reality Man play Laura Schlessinger and Susan Forward and diagnose people they've never met (re Schlessingers' diagnosis of Michael Schiavo as a sociopath). In addition, Mr. Reality Mans' prescription for the State of Israel will lead nowhere except to a second Holocaust, which, I suspect will trouble him not at all.

Posted by SLC | March 4, 2007 9:27 AM

The only person on this thread who doesn't seem bothered by a holocaust is you, SLC, judging by your first comment.

Posted by William Burns | March 4, 2007 9:58 AM

The Israeli attitude is never again; if we have to go, we'll take the rest of the world with us.

Holy Robot Jesus, at least with MAD in the sixties it was only about the USSR and the USA wiping each other out (at least until nuclear winter was 'discovered'). Way to up the level of crazy in the rhetoric.

Posted by daveNYC | March 4, 2007 10:13 AM

Like we did in 1956 by forcing Israel to withdraw unilateraly from the Sinai ?

That only emboldened Israel's enemies and brought about another, bigger round in '67.

No lasting peace can ever be achieved by weakening Israel.

Posted by David | March 4, 2007 2:56 PM

SLC's a troll, and, I'm starting to suspect, an anti-Israeli troll. You can't very well say that we need to bomb Crazy Iran(TM) b/c we can't trust the country not to act detrimentally to others even at her own expense, and then say, "The Israeli attitude is never again; if we have to go, we'll take the rest of the world with us," without intending to suggest that we should be equally worried about a Crazy Israel(TM). Sorry, SLC, the US is pretty supportive of Israel and, absent substantial changes in the relationship, likely to stay that way. Sucks to be you.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | March 4, 2007 3:05 PM

Purim Special
From Esther to AIPAC
http://www.counterpunch.org/atzmon03032007.html

Posted by Nigel Elliott | March 4, 2007 3:54 PM

David, you do realize that Israel's keeping the Sinai in 67 was followed by another round in 73, and that Israel's withdrawal from the Sinai was followed by peace with Egypt?

Posted by William Burns | March 4, 2007 5:26 PM

Why should we believe the democrats wil really pull the US military out of the mid-east?

I certainly, don't believe it. Not with the world's main supply of oil being there. No way is the American ruling class going to let things happen independently there, which potentially could to devolve into larger regional chaos than just Iraq. They might pull back to Kurdistan or Kuwaitt or somewhere, but the US military ain't leaving at this point.

Posted by drydock | March 4, 2007 6:51 PM