Getting Bolder

Via Spencer Ackerman, this is considerably more forward-leaning than I'd heard previously from Obama:

"I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud ap-proach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel, and that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel," leading Democratic presidential contender Illinois Senator Barack Obama said Sunday.

"If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we're not going to make progress," he said.

He also criticized the notion that anyone who asks tough questions about advancing the peace process or tries to secure Israel by anyway other than "just crushing the opposition" is being "soft or anti-Israel."

This is music to my ears and, frankly, very much the attitude that's Israel's long-term future requires. Still, in some quarters the man may as well have just festooned himself with swastikas.

Comments

The Israeli press seems to be going nuts with this, including accusations that he's trying to interfere in Israeli politics.

Posted by Brian Ulrich | February 26, 2008 11:54 AM

Never thought I'd see the day.

Posted by jbryan | February 26, 2008 12:00 PM

Still, it would be wiser for Obama to speak of these rifts in philosophical or political, not party terms -- i.e., "hawk" versus "Likud".

It would not only be more accurate, it would avoid the reaction within Israel.

Posted by El Cid | February 26, 2008 12:01 PM

No way. The vast majority of Jews are progressives, more than any other ethnic group in America.

I'm Jewish, a huge supporter of Israel, and know that Obama is right.

The small group of Jewish charlatans in the Neo-Con movement use every bit of Leo Straussian inspired propaganda to hide the reality and gain an advantage, but they've been exposed.

Those asswipes give all Jews a bad name. They'd sell out Moses if it meant they could start another war. I wish we could kick them out of the religion.

Posted by WinSmith | February 26, 2008 12:02 PM

Wow.

I continue to be amazed at the degree to which Obama doesn't hedge when it comes to foreign policy. Especially considering that his domestic policy is relatively hedged. It's either crazy, or brilliant. Nothing in between.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 26, 2008 12:03 PM

Thank you, Matthew.

Posted by Jennifer | February 26, 2008 12:05 PM

A quick check over at The Spine shows Marty P still giving Obama a faint nod of approval, but his commenters are feeling no such ambivalence.

Did you know, for example, that "Likud" is a notoriously anti-Semitic slur favored by those too cowed to use Julius Streicher's vocabulary?

Posted by Dave L | February 26, 2008 12:06 PM

Uh, oh . . . Obama's teflon coat is really going to get tested now.

Posted by Bragan | February 26, 2008 12:06 PM

Are those quarters going to vote for him anyway? If it's crushing opposition and all-confrontation all the time that you want, McCain's much more your candidate than Obama. I'm not seeing a down side here.

Posted by Doug | February 26, 2008 12:07 PM

Re Likud

So what does Senator Obama propose to do if the Likud wins the next election in Israel and Bibi becomes the PM?

http://web.israelinsider.com/Articles/Diplomacy/12661.htm

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 12:12 PM

"in some quarters "

Like lgf blog?

Posted by BonghitForJesus | February 26, 2008 12:17 PM

news.google.co.il yields zero results for ליכוד
אובמה

Not like anyone reads the J. Post in Israel.

Posted by Dan | February 26, 2008 12:17 PM

That's it. Obama's doomed. He really should not have said that.

Posted by Stiffler | February 26, 2008 12:19 PM

So what does Senator Obama propose to do if the Likud wins the next election in Israel and Bibi becomes the PM?

Talk with him seriously, thoughtfully, and diplomatically, I'd guess.

Seriously, though, what's your point? What's Bibi gonna do? Sever the alliance? Refuse our aid money? Stop flying our airplanes?

I take a pretty pro-Likud view on most matters. But if Netanyahu and Likud think they have the leverage to force the US president to adopt an absurd and belligerent tone, they can pound sand.

Posted by southpaw | February 26, 2008 12:20 PM

OB's position and statements can't help but bring a smile to one's face when the mental picture is brought to mind at the absolute frenzy at AIPAC that these statements have caused .

Posted by chet | February 26, 2008 12:20 PM

What does he gain by saying this at this point in time ?

Major mistake.

Posted by David | February 26, 2008 12:22 PM

I've gotta give the guy credit, he doesn't bullshit around, especially for a politician. IF he nevertheless manages to get elected, that'll be a refreshing change.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | February 26, 2008 12:24 PM

Seriously, though, what's your point? What's Bibi gonna do?

Deny him the opportunity to return to the Holy Land. That's be a pretty harsh punishment for the Messiah, after all.

Posted by Al | February 26, 2008 12:24 PM

This is brilliant and just so refreshing. I am so proud that we have a candidate that is willing to speak the truth to power, to bring common sense and rationalism to a problem that most candidates and politicians are simply too cowed to address directly.

Posted by Gunter | February 26, 2008 12:25 PM

Even the far left wing Israel bashing anti-Bibi Haaretz is not overly pleased with Senator Obamas' statement.

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 12:26 PM

Sooooo, a preisdential candidate saying that we can't just blindly support a staunch ally is bad? I know this is a rhetorical straw man but still, when the Hell did anything other than blind praise for any Israeli government qualify as anti-Semitism? I sincerely hope that this kicks up such a huge storm that it forces the electorate to ask themselves how we all got to this point. In fact, this might actually hurt hard-core Likud supports as they'll start yelling so furiously and overplay their hand. This could turn out to be a good thing in the long run.

Posted by Shawn | February 26, 2008 12:27 PM

Obama is 100 percent wrong. I don't give a damn about likhud (and Olmert doesn't either, not being a member of Likhud) but I am concerned about the continual rockets being sent to S'derot and about Israel's protection. I know that the folks here mostly don't give a damn about either and many of them would just as soon that Israel just disappears. But it ain't gonna happen. Alas, this sort of thing out of Barack tends to validate a lot of the right wing crap being circulated in the Jewish Community (much of it coming from outside of the Jewish Commkunity, btw). And it sounds a lot like stuff that originates from the Farakhan fellow travelers.

Posted by Barry | February 26, 2008 12:28 PM

So what does Senator Obama propose to do if the Likud wins the next election in Israel and Bibi becomes the PM?

Tell them their blank check bounced.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 26, 2008 12:29 PM

I am concerned about the continual rockets being sent to S'derot and about Israel's protection.

So am I, about as much as I'm concerned about renewed bombing in West Darfur.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 26, 2008 12:32 PM

Hillary will attempt a Lieberman with this at the debate. How shall we say? She'll find her voice.

Frankly, I'd have preferred Obama to wait on this until post Texas-n-Ohio, but OTOH there's the advantage to be gained in terms of policy freedom of action post-election by stating in advance and in public that you're not going to be bullshitted by the Jewish right on this issue.

Posted by otto | February 26, 2008 12:34 PM

Does Barry win for packing in the most wing-nut talking points into a single post?

Posted by Sharon | February 26, 2008 12:35 PM

I don't give a damn about likhud (and Olmert doesn't either, not being a member of Likhud) but I am concerned about the continual rockets being sent to S'derot and about Israel's protection. I know that the folks here mostly don't give a damn about either and many of them would just as soon that Israel just disappears.

Given that Obama said nothing at all about rockets in S'derot and talked specifically about finding effective ways to guarantee Israel's protection, I think you should take your strawman argument and go home. I do give a damn about Israel's welfare, but I don't like being bullied by extremists.

Posted by southpaw | February 26, 2008 12:36 PM

Matthew, the Washington Post runs the entire discussion transcript here. It's great to see Obama taking a bolder stance here, though nothing here strikes me as outside the realm of mainstream acceptability. By mainstream, I mean anywhere left of Marty Peretz and Kraushammer.

Posted by Ryan W. | February 26, 2008 12:39 PM

^^^^^^^^
You are apparently a retard, Barry. I fail to understand what is too difficult to understand: be an a american first, serve american interests first before giving 2 fucks about the people or future of any other country be it Japan, Canada, Britain, france, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel, Mexico.
Let us continue to sacrifice the future of our children because of a few neo-cons who falsely claim to represent the larger jewish community.
And by the way, have you ever paused to ask yourself what the live of an average gazan looks like? [regardless of cause and effect]
Regardless of cause and effect! Yes! as that is the condition you put in place while asking "us" to consider the continual rockets being sent to Sderot and Israel's protection.

Posted by You are apparently a retard, Barry | February 26, 2008 12:41 PM

Using the party name "Likud" was an incredibly stupid and tin-eared move by Obama, for a couple of reasons. First, "Likud" is used as a code word by folks like Don Williams who exaggerate the power and influence of Jewish money men like Haim Saban, of Power Rangers fame. Second, it's the height of undiplomatic ham-handedness to interfere in the electoral politics of a democracy. By criticizing Likud, Obama may have increased the chances that that party comes back into power. And in the even that happens...

"Seriously, though, what's your point? What's Bibi gonna do? Sever the alliance?"

No, but he might make Israel more like every other ally, and not let us strong-arm his country into disasterous deals with its enemies.

"Refuse our aid money?"

Quite possibly. Last time he was PM, he told Congress he wanted to have it phased out. And with a per-capita GDP approaching EU levels, Israel doesn't really need the aid money, most of which goes to subsidize poor ultra-orthodox Jews and Israeli Arabs who have lots of kids and don't work. Bibi would have no problem cutting back on their welfare again; he already did it once as finance minister.

"Stop flying our airplanes?"

You mean airplanes our companies manufactured? Since Israel owns them now, why wouldn't they keep flying them?

Posted by Juan | February 26, 2008 12:42 PM

Re chet's comment "OB's position and statements can't help but bring a smile to one's face when the mental picture is brought to mind at the absolute frenzy at AIPAC that these statements have caused ."
--------------
I know. I can just imagine certain people falling on the floor, foaming at the mouth, chewing the carpet and urinating uncontrollably.

Unfortunately, the other ones --i.e., The ones in it for the money -- simply looked up, said "Thank you , G-d" and ordered up a mass mailing of fund raising solicitations.

I remember Howard Dean making a similarly innocous comment -- and billionaire S Daniel Abraham buring several knives in Dean's back via an anonymous 527's TV attack ads in Iowa.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 12:48 PM

I just found a reason to watch the debate tonight. Go bama.

Posted by wren | February 26, 2008 12:48 PM

Does Barry win for packing in the most wing-nut talking points into a single post?

Posted by Sharon

I dunno. Watching SLC run out of hyphens was pretty cool
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 26, 2008 12:49 PM

Forgot the Haaretz link.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/957954.html

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 12:51 PM

Seriously, though, what's your point? What's Bibi gonna do? Sever the alliance?"

No, but he might make Israel more like every other ally, and not let us strong-arm his country into disasterous deals with its enemies.

"Refuse our aid money?"

Quite possibly. Last time he was PM, he told Congress he wanted to have it phased out.

Great. If Bibi is really going to do all those things, then by all means I hope he is elected. If only our relationship with Israel could be just like those with other countries.

One quibble though: where exactly does Obama criticize Likud? I don't see it in Matt's excerpt.

Posted by Jim W | February 26, 2008 12:52 PM

Obama is 100 percent wrong. I don't give a damn about likhud [...] but [...] this sort of thing out of Barack tends to validate a lot of the right wing crap [...] And it sounds a lot like stuff that originates from the Farakhan fellow travelers.

So, if you say that you do not want to automatically support Likud positions you (a) validate right wing crap and (b) sound like Farakhan?

Now, as far as I am concerned, Obama commit any of the unspeakable cruelties associated with pernitious effect of the lack of health care mandates, and I am his man.

American is the only remaining superpower and it can survive any idiocy. Almost any. But Israel is a small country in a hostile environment and hight time someone addressed problems of the region with some brains. If I understand some posters correctly, we should do nothing about the status quo because of rockets falling on Sderot. More of the same, making Palestenian life incrementally more miserable, expand settlements and occasionally lash out with some military action. And, just in case, destroy Iran.

It reminds me what Vargas Llosa wrote about smoking: "a languid kind of suicide".

Posted by piotr | February 26, 2008 12:55 PM

For those who wonder at the timing, the "pro-Likud" were already going after Obama in full cry. Making common cause with the American Jewish community, which largely does not share the "pro-Likud" crowd's views, is a smart thing to do.

The more the "pro-Likud" crowd tries to insert themselves into the election narrative, the more public their marginality will be. Please, come out in public and tell a war-weary America that the US has no choice but to go along with the most right-wing elements in Israeli politics. Israelis can (and will) vote against them, but we Americans cannot.

A hearty "fuck you" will follow.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 26, 2008 12:59 PM

Re Juan's comment " First, "Likud" is used as a code word by folks like Don Williams "
---------
Well, I initially used the phrase "Big Nosed Mother Fuckers" but that code was already taken.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 1:01 PM

Lots more Obama on Israel here:

http://www.nysun.com/article/71813

Posted by Korha | February 26, 2008 1:03 PM

Obama gave this speech to a jewish audience to offset the Obama is anti-israel e-mails. I doubt the mention of Likud was either accidental or a mistake. A lot of the jewish community in the US (probably the majority) is not pro-Likud and is not happy with the conflation of supporting Israel with supporting Likud policies.

This may be unpopular in Israel because Israelis who are not good at reasoning can take it as a denunciation of Likud. (Even the writer of the Ha'retz article notes in passing that what Obama said was simply true. The problem was what one can read it his decision to say that true thing).

He could continue to follow the bad policy of blindly agreeing with whatever the most extreme anti-Palestinian position is to play it safe. But if he is going to try to win jewish votes while advocating good policy it is not a bad idea to do it by saying things believed by most of the jewish voters in the country.

Posted by Lon | February 26, 2008 1:11 PM

Re Juan's comment "First, "Likud" is used as a code word by folks like Don Williams who exaggerate the power and influence of Jewish money men like Haim Saban, of Power Rangers fame. "
---------

[He [Israeli billionaire Haim Saban] soon became the Democratic Party's largest single donor. "I don't say this lightly," says Terry McAuliffe, head of the Democratic National Committee at the time. "Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party." ]

NB: Currently, Terry McAuliffe is Chairman of the Hillary Clinton for President Committee

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 1:13 PM

Wait, wait, you're telling me that the New York Sun and Haaretz's center-right U.S. correspondent Schmuel Rosner (who wouldn't allow Ron Paul to appear on his radio show) are hitting Obama for saying anti-Likudnik things? I'm shocked! Surely they were not at all predisposed to support McCain.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2008 1:13 PM

If there were a healthy, sane US/Israel relationship, Obama's comments would simply be taken as what they are: uncontroversial, level-headed, moderate common sense.

Posted by hum | February 26, 2008 1:14 PM

Re Juan

Actually, I don't quite understand Mr. Williams' lack of affection for Haim Saben, or the latters affection for Senator Clinton. Senator Obamas' ideas relative to talking to Syria, Hamas, and Iran appear to be closer to Mr. Sabens' views then are Senator Clintons' ideas.

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 1:16 PM

Pardon me, that's Shmuel Rosner. In any case, surely the man who wrote McCain, a supporter of Israel with a 'Judeophile' brother is an honest assessor of Obama's stance with no ax to grind.

Posted by Steve | February 26, 2008 1:17 PM

Note: The above Terry McAuliffe quote --that Haim Saban saved the Democratic Party -- is taken from here:
http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2007/05/14/100009182/index.htm

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 1:17 PM

The substantive merits of Obama's position are irrelevant. The "support a certain aggressive version of Israel!" crowd on both the Israeli and American and neo-con right wings are going to excoriate him as if he were Arafat's nasty younger brother.

Posted by seeker6079 | February 26, 2008 1:35 PM

Re Juan's comment "Second, it's the height of undiplomatic ham-handedness to interfere in the electoral politics of a democracy."
-----------
"Interfere"

1) You mean, like having an Israeli billionaire:

a) dump $14 Million into a US election,

b) Buy our fifth largest TV network --Spanish language Univision? and

c) Fund a "think tank" so that former Clinton NSC staffer Kenneth Pollack can tell us that Saddam is working feverishly to develop a nuke, that he's probably close to success, and that we need to INVADE NOW. Then having the Director of that same "think tank" Marty Indyk --former US ambassador to Israel and before that high AIPAC mucky muck - join with Pollack in a LA Times OpEd telling us that they have the "intelligence" and Saddam needs to be taken out NOW before he uses his "WMDS"?

2) Or do you mean "interfere" in the sense of turning the US Congress into an Israeli occupied territory?

3) Or maybe you mean "interfere" in the sense of Ariel Sharon sending Bibi Nathanyahu to address the US Congress in 2002 and telling us that Saddam needs to be taken out before he gets nukes? And then Ariel Sharon having his spokeman tell us the same thing? By the way, has Mossad found Saddam's nukes yet?

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 1:36 PM

Still, in some quarters the man may as well have just festooned himself with swastikas.

In quarters that would never vote for a Democrat and are too negligble to matter in any election.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 26, 2008 1:49 PM

One of the things that I really like about Obama is his willingness to say things he believes are right, even if they may wind up getting him in trouble. (Talking about gay rights in black churches, merit pay in front of the teachers' unions...) This is another example of Obama's intelligence and conviction. Besides, the Likud Party are belligerent right-wingers with big connections to settler nut-jobs. I wouldn't want to have to work with them.

Posted by Max | February 26, 2008 2:00 PM

Thank you for reporting this. This removes one of the last doubts I still have for Obama.

Now I can say that I am totally in the tank for Obama, with lots of good reasons, too.

Posted by Huang | February 26, 2008 2:17 PM

This argument is absurd. Israel isn't some kind of Crusader State that can barely hold its head above water. It's a first world, industrialized nation that would have been a good fit with the EU even before the east European uptake.

The only reason we're even having this discussion (other than the echoes of WWII) is because of a tiny, crucial block of voters in both Israel and the US.

Granted, given the history and cultural ties, it's going to be a long time until we have a "normal" relationship. But, if Obama can make a campaign speech - that would sound completely reasonable in normal conversation - without getting eviscerated for it, bully for all of us.

Posted by cmholm | February 26, 2008 3:16 PM

So what does Senator Obama propose to do if the Likud wins the next election in Israel and Bibi becomes the PM?

Bibi will be the one on the hot seat, and it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. What's he going to do to us, cut off our aid money? Refuse to defend us if we're invaded? Quit sending us organic honey?

If Obama's elected maybe some undecided Israelis will hesitate to vote for Bibi. That would be a very good thing! Israel and the US are closely tied, and what happens in one country, especially the US, affects the other country, especially Israel.

Posted by John Emerson | February 26, 2008 3:43 PM

"2) Or do you mean 'interfere' in the sense of turning the US Congress into an Israeli occupied territory?"

Umm... attributing one man's purported influence to a hostile takeover of our congress is not just even more illogical than riding the Miershiemer/Walt bus, it's plain bullshit. What you're saying is that, somehow, a rich Israeli has far-reaching--even total--control over matters such as right-to-die interference and NASA funding. By conflating Israeli lobbyists to ALL American policies, you wind up chasing your tail in that corner Matthew speaks of.

Before you bring more ad hominem into into this issue, do us a favor and at least tell us what brought you to being an apologist for a faceless plaintiff.

Posted by Michael Singer | February 26, 2008 3:48 PM

The plaintiff stipulates that the American people have free will when it comes to committing suicide and funding NASA -- just not free will on Middle East policy.

And free will on suicide and funding of NASA is given only so long as neither issue can be exploited (e.g, logrolling) by the Israel Lobby.

Google "Cynthia McKinney". Or
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel_lobby_in_the_United_States

Any other strawmen?

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 4:33 PM

Re cmholm's comment "The only reason we're even having this discussion (other than the echoes of WWII) is because of a tiny, crucial block of voters in both Israel and the US."
----------
VOTES have nothing to do with it. Well, other than the need to influence votes via a massive propaganda apparatus.

Jews --as a group --have nothing to do with it.

It's all about MONEY. Huge fucking piles of money.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 4:37 PM

I doubt Obama really knows much about Likud's positions, or that there are parties in Israel well to the right of Likud. He just laid it down as a verbal gambit, the way somebody at a party aludes to Proust, say, and you don't call him on it because you haven't read him either.

Posted by Billy G. | February 26, 2008 4:41 PM

I doubt Obama really knows much about Likud's positions, or that there are parties in Israel well to the right of Likud.

Yes, but they aren't cruising into power.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | February 26, 2008 5:25 PM

Obama's instincts are good and pushing the envelope a tad now is a good move. When Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ" became a monster hit despite all the Jews warning of imminent pogroms upon its release- it was a signal that the time was right to stop the calamitous love fest for Israel. I think deep down a majority of Americans know on some level that our one-sided embrace of Apartheid Israel has been a Major Mistake. And, so slowly, but surely, Team Obama has calculated that they can start making the case. The percentage of Jews who are highly critical of the Israeli Occupation has never been higher. Maybe it's not 50%, but I bet it's close. The chief cause of 9/11 was our trillion dollar entangling alliance with Israel. And, it's got to stop. For our sake, the sake of the planet, not to mention for the sake of the Israeli people themselves. Point Obama.

Posted by Trevor | February 26, 2008 5:32 PM

First, "Likud" is used as a code word by folks like Don Williams who exaggerate the power and influence of Jewish money men like Haim Saban, of Power Rangers fame.

Likud is THE NAME OF THE FUCKING POLITICAL PARTY. It's offensive now to call a political party by their own name, chosen by them? This is madness, madness, madness. The fact that Obama's incredibly mild criticism is taken as anti-Semitic ranting just shows how far off the deep end we've gone.

And by the way, I don't care about what Israeli's think about Obama's statements, because Obama is running in our goddam country, not Israel. Apparently it's terrible to meddle in the electoral politics of another country when it's an American doing it to Israel, but not the other way around.

Posted by Freddie | February 26, 2008 5:33 PM

Max stated above: "One of the things that I really like about Obama is his willingness to say things he believes are right, even if they may wind up getting him in trouble. (Talking about gay rights in black churches, merit pay in front of the teachers' unions...)"

I also like Obama because he has repeatedly demonstrated a willingness to take positions that he believes are right. However, what also has made him different from so many other Democrats, including Sen. Clinton, is that he is NOT afraid of getting attacked. The reason is that Obama not only believes that his positions are the right ones, but that he can convince voters (and Americans in general) of the same.

Look also at his response this past weekend to attacks on his patriotism; rather than trying to "out-tough" McCain or any of the Right-wingers or move to the Right to prove his "national security credentials" Obama hit right back saying that it is NOT patriotic to send our troops into war without the right armor; it is NOT patriotic to go to war without our allies and without considering the consequences (including diverting resources from the fight against Al-Qaeda and increasing recruitment for anti-American militant groups across the Middle East); it is NOT patriotic to endorse torture; and it is NOT patriotic to shred our fourth Amendment rights to privacy.

And this is no different than his response today regarding Israel. One is NOT being pro-Israel by blindly supporting the policies of the Right-wing/Likud in Israel. One is NOT being pro-Israel by supporting (Right-wing) policies that make a two-State solution less possible.

Obama's point was that it is in both OUR interests and Israel's best interests to reach a just two-State solution. Obama understands, as do most American Jews, that best way to diminish terrorism and defeat the Palestinian militants (and end the rocket attacks coming from the Gaza) is to reach peace agreement between the Israelis and Palestinians.

Obtaining a peace agreement that creates a Palestinian State next to the Jewish State (with the Israel largely maintaining the same borders that she has today), would give the Palestinian people hope for a better future, and a destiny that they themselves would control. This would be poison to the militant groups (and Hamas in particular) which have thrived under Israeli Right-wing policies that have resulted in both suffering and hopelessness among the Palestinian people. Hamas has had no greater ally than the extreme Right-wing politicians in the Israeli government who, LIKE HAMAS, have (and continue to) strongly OPPOSE a two-State solution to the conflict.

It is no surprise that each group, Hamas and (many) Right-wing politicians in Israel (and their supporters in the U.S.) have been the other's best source of indirect popular support over the past decade. Hamas commits a terrorist attack in Israel, or continues to shoot rockets into Israel, and Israelis (justifiably) become angry and resentful- and move to the Right (resulting in electoral victories for Ariel Sharon in 2001 and 2003). The Right-wing government then imposes harsh restrictions on the movement of the entire Palestinian population AND continues to marginalize Palestinian moderates, resulting in the Palestinians becoming more resentful and less hopeful; thereby influencing their movement towards (and empathy with) the militants.

The two sides (the Right-wing in Israel and Palestinian militant groups) may express hate and intolerance towards the other in public (and I'm quite sure that they mean it); but each side has done more than any other outside factor (group, policy, or Party) to solidify the other's power and influence within their respective country and/or territories.

That is why Obama, and so many other Israelis and American Jews and Middle East policy experts, do not support (and have not supported) the policies of the Right wing in Israel (or for that matter, in the U.S.)- for the simple reason that the policies of Likud (and Parties further to the Right of Likud) have in fact NOT been good for Israel or the United States.

Posted by Aaron M | February 26, 2008 5:53 PM

Re Don Williams

1. Mr. Williams continues to spread his big lie that Israel was behind the Iraq adventure. He does this by quoting Bibis' remarks to the Congress. As anyone who knows anything about the regime of former prime minister Sharon is aware, Bibi had zero influence on Israeli foreign policy; his role in the government was to enact economic policies that would be unpopular with the voters and thus take the heat. The fact of the matter is that the Government of Israel advised against the Iraq adventure on the grounds, amply demonstrated by the way, that it would be destabilizing. This is borne out by the testimony of former Colin Powell aide Lawrence Wilkerson, who is no friend of the State of Israel. See attached link.

2. Mr. Williams continues to invoke Hiam Saban as a negative influence on US foreign policy. Here I would agree with him. Mr. Saban proposes a policy of appeasement by advocating talks with Hamas, Hizbollah, Syria, and Iran. This was amply demonstrated by an interview with the Haaretz newspaper which Mr. Williams kindly posted several weeks ago, this time avoiding his usual habit of quote mining. Since Senator Clinton is proposing none of these talks, it would appear that Mr. Saban is not having much of an affect on her foreign policy proposals. By the way, the comment in the link is not entirely accurate. The Israeli position was, according to Colonel Wilkerson, that that if the US was going to attack somebody, we should attack Iran which was a far greater threat to US interests in the region then was Iraq. Tkhey were not necessarily proposing that somebody be attacked.

http://www.nowpublic.com/israel-urged-us-attack-iran-not-iraq

Posted by SLC | February 26, 2008 6:11 PM

Bravo Obama!

Maybe Obama read the ADL survey in the JP that said one third of Americans think US Jews are more loyal to Israel than to the US and he is seeing some disgust among the public with our Israel relationship in that survey and throwing something out there for those of us who are tired of the Israel thing. Foxman was unusually honest in saying he didn't think his survey reflected anti-semitism but a growing disgust with the US/Isr relationship on the part of non jewish Americans. Of course who knows if the ADL slants their own polls and if it is accurate or not. But just general observation of comments on the Israel deal over the past few years tells me a large number of Americans are fed with this Israeli fetish in Orwellington, DC.

The fact that he would venture any kind a statement alluding to the US being more evenhanded and common sense about Israel is enough to seperate him from Hillary's position for me and put me firmly in his camp foreign policy wise.

Posted by Carroll | February 26, 2008 6:14 PM

An excellent, common sense move for Obama.

As for Trevor: Sorry, before 9-11, Al Qaeda didn't even bother to pay lip service to the Palestinians, it was all about the desecration of the holy sites in Saudi Arabia. It was several months *later* that they decided to start cynically milking the Palestinian cause in hopes of picking up a few points with the very gullible and the historical amnesiacs. Our policies with Israel have been a miserable failure for everyone, but not for the false reasons you claim.

That aside, the *good* news is that I think this is the first time you've ever managed to chime into a thread that mentions the word "Jew" or "Israel" or "Palestine" without dissolving into hideous mangled pseudo-Yiddish. So congrats!

Posted by Evan Goer | February 26, 2008 6:21 PM

Re Evan Goer's comment "As for Trevor: Sorry, before 9-11, Al Qaeda didn't even bother to pay lip service to the Palestinians, it was all about the desecration of the holy sites in Saudi Arabia"
--------------
This is just flat out wrong.

US government support for Israeli aggression against Muslim Palestinians has been one of Bin Laden's three primary complaints from the start.

See ,e.g, Bin Laden's 1998 interview with ABC News : http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/binladen/who/interview.html

The US News Media should be turned into a pile of smoldering ashes --because it has deliberately lied to the American People re the causes of 911 from day one.

I say deliberately because I have pointed out to the New York Times et al that their own fucking archives contradict their post-911 bullshit about the "Islamofascists".

I have no interest in negotiating with Bin Laden. But it is in the interest of the American people to address the legitimate grievances of the Islamic world. It is our government's WHORING for special interests -- Big Oil and the Israel Lobby -- that has created the deep hatred that breeds terrorists.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 7:26 PM

Re Evan Goer's comment "As for Trevor: Sorry, before 9-11, Al Qaeda didn't even bother to pay lip service to the Palestinians, it was all about the desecration of the holy sites in Saudi Arabia"

Of course. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge that the #1 cause for anti-American sentiment in the Muslim world is our trillion dollar prop-up of the Israeli Occupation is a fool or a liar. Ask our friends like the Jordanian King or Hosni Mubarak. Ask anyone not bought and sold by the Israel Lobby. It's a 40 + year and more to follow history of slow genocide, of Nazi brutality, of murdering Palestinian children for "sport", of crushing the life out of Palestinian hopes, dreams, and aspirations. And, yet what do we hear about? Feeble rocket bottles landing harmlessly in Sderot. Oh, those poor settlers fleeing for their lives. It's as if during WWII the news was filled with harrowing stories of how a few stray B-Bs landed within striking distance of a German Harvest Festival.

Thank God Obama has dared to speak a smidgen of the truth. The longer we allow the Big Lie to fester that Israel is "our friend", "The Land Of Milk and Honey", "The only democracy, blah, blah, blah..." the more we place our lives in jeopardy. It's an evil entangling alliance that has to end and it starts with marginalizing the Israel Lobby as Obama has started to do.

Posted by Trevor | February 26, 2008 9:08 PM

I think a lot of people who commented here just read the excerpt. I found the transcript in the NY Sun interesting in its entirety, and it shows that some of the objections are based on misconceptions. Check it out at www.nysun.com/article/71813. It elevated my already favorable opinion of Obama.

First, Obama made no criticism of the Likud. Rosner in Haaretz thinks one was implied, but he admits that this is a stretch. All Obama said was that it shouldn't be necessary to accept the policies of the Likud to be considered a friend of Israel. So I can't buy the idea that Obama was saying he couldn't work with Netanyahu; he was saying he could work with anyone.

Another criticism is that mention of the Likud is in itself a mistake, either because it constitutes interference in Israel's internal affairs or because using the word Likud is a kind of encoded anti-Semitism. Here the context matters. This was not a position paper or a public speech. It was, according to the Sun, a question-and-answer session with about 100 members of Cleveland's Jewish community, many of whom Obama apparently knew by name. That's a little more than a living room chat, but it was unscripted and informal, and to my mind a context in which clearly the mere mention of a political party's name -- without criticism -- could not reasonably be viewed as attempted interference in Israel's politics.

Context also governs the question of whether using the word Likud is anti-Semetic code. I've heard the word Likudnik flung as an epithet and I can imagine why someone might bristle if Obama had been using it to address a crowd hostile to Israel, but here he was engaged in extemporaneous discussion with friends of Israel whose main interest seemed to be whether they could count on him to maintain the alliance. Words that are sometimes used as epithets -- liberal, neocon, Democrat -- are often also used constantly in reasonable discussions of the things they refer to.

The questions Obama was asked were mostly inaudible, unfortunately, but it appears from his answers that he had to run through the whole litany of smears being circulated by anonymous e-mail: that he's a Muslim, that he went to a madrassa, that he was sworn in on the Koran, that he doesn't pledge allegiance to the flag, etc. He dealt with these with good humor. It is odd to see this exchange presented, based on one excerpt, as if it were an attack by Obama on Israel, when taken as a whole it was Obama defending himself against false charges and offering firm support for Israel.

Posted by Paul Turner | February 26, 2008 10:11 PM

Re SLC's comment "As anyone who knows anything about the regime of former prime minister Sharon is aware, Bibi had zero influence on Israeli foreign policy "
------------
SLC keeps repeating this --evidently in the belief that the thread will die before he is refuted.

We have been over this ground SEVERAL TIMES before -- The Government of Israel's OWN WEBSITE says that Nathanyahu was in Washington in 2002 as Ariel Sharon's APPOINTED ENVOY and at SHARON's personal request.

IF anyone has any doubt that Ariel Sharon and the Likud suckered 4000 American soldiers to their deaths -- for the sake of Israel -- then I suggest that they look at the DOCUMENTED RECORD:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654345

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654354

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/aipac_and_iraq.php#comment-654366

I repeat the question to SLC that he's refused to answer over the past several MONTHS:

"So tell me, SLC. Has Mossad found Saddam's nukes yet? "

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 11:19 PM

My guess is Obama has finally realized that he isn't getting the AIPAC support, no matter what, since McCain and Clinton - Clinton more than McCain, even - have that sewed up.

So he's decided to be less pandering and more realistic about it.

If true, that's good for the US - to finally have a President that won't be kowtowing to Israel reflexively.

Still, we have to wait and see. He still hasn't shown any realism with regard to Iran, for instance.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 26, 2008 11:21 PM

"Well, I initially used the phrase "Big Nosed Mother Fuckers" but that code was already taken."

Don wins this thread!

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 26, 2008 11:28 PM

Actually, there are TWO other possibilities which I find intriguing:

a) That the Democratic patrons actually talked with Melvin Dubee and realized what a booby trap a Hillary and Bill Clinton nomination would be -- a veritable IED that would explode around Sept 2008.

b) OR that the other billionaires in the US have decided to smack Haim Saban, S Daniel Abraham and Shelton Adelson in the nuts. After all, even the most selfish of British aristocrats realized that great wealth and great power bring SOME responsibilities. If the Forbes 400 can't run this country, then maybe we should take their wealth away. Along with their heads, perhaps.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 11:32 PM

Re "Well, I initially used the phrase "Big Nosed Mother Fuckers" but that code was already taken."
-----------
Don't be wicked, Richard. I know you're trying to drive SLC into a vein-popping stroke.

I was being sarcastic with Juan -- trying to feed his effeminate prejudices.

Posted by Don Williams | February 26, 2008 11:53 PM

I think SLC already had his stroke - his thinking indicates some sort of serious brain impairment.

He probably can't raise his arms, so he has to type his posts with a pencil in his mouth, which is why they tend to be short.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 27, 2008 1:17 AM

Was Netanyahu or Sharon in charge of foreign policy when they were together in the government?

Of course Sharon was in charge, but, well, wasn't he in Likud as well?

That Sharon advised against invading Iraq is totally against my recollection. If I remember, the advise was to eliminate Saddam and then take on Iran.

Anyway, OF COURSE Likud is a code name because the Israeli politics is to fluid to allow for easy terminology. My impression is that in Israel, politicians fall into such categories: wild, wild extremists (like Avigdor Lieberman), defenders of rotten status quo (like Barak, apparently), steadfastly stiking their fingers to the wind (like Olmert), although it is hard to tell the last two apart, and those who wait, with forlorn hope, that they will be forced by USA to do something sensible.

I think that actual Likud is somewhere between defenders of rotten status quo and wild extremists, but the end results are roughly the same.

Posted by piotr | February 27, 2008 5:27 AM

Re Don Williams

Mr. Williams continues to avoid responding to the claim of Lswrence Wilkerson that the Israeli Government advised against invading Iraq and removing Saddam. Until such time as he does, he merely avoids the issue as it proves him to be a liar. As for Bibi he had about as much influence over Israeli foreign policy as Mr. Willians had. He was a finance minister and had no role in the making of foreign policy. I posted the link to Wilkersons' claim. Either refute it or shut up. And by retation, prove Wilkerson to be a liar. And by the way, the Mossad didn't have to find Iraqs' nukes, the IDF destroyed them in 1981, fortunately for the US troops that kicked the Iraqi army out of Kuwait in 1991 (I suppose that Mr. Williams will blame the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on Hiam Saban).

Re piort

1. Mr. piotrs' recollection is inaccurate and unreliable. See the link to Lawrence Wilkersons' claim.

2. Actually, the characterization of Mr. Lieberman as a wild wild extremist is seriously in error. In fact, he is another naive dreamer who has written on his Jpost blog that improving Palestinian economic conditions is the way to a peaceful settlement. Unfortunately, the Palestinian terrorists are not interested in improving economic conditions; they are only interested in homicide bombers and firing qassems across the fence, in other words, war.

Re Richard Steven Hack

I think that Mr. Hack got a bone shoved up his ass during his sojourn in the slammer one too many times and it has affected his thinking powers, as minute as they were.

Posted by SLC | February 27, 2008 8:30 PM

In Obama's case race trumps religion and I believe that Israel supporters will have to take a back seat and tone down the rhetoric or be accused of racism. In the United States racism is a far more powerful invocation than antisemitism and it is clear that the racist rhetoric being flung against Mr. Obama is going to backfire on those who deliver it.

If the American public is forced to choose between race or religion, race will always win out since the idea of racial equality has been chiseled into our hearts and minds since we were children.

As the number of Hindus, Buddhists, and Muslims, and all other non-Christian religions increases in the USA there will be an even greater decline in support for Israel as a Theocracy and Israel will be ultimately be forced to repatriate its growing Palestinian diaspora and become a secular nation.

These facts are undeniable since Israel is wholly dependent on the USA and our racial and religious identity is on the verge changing significantly which will radically alter Israel's course.

Posted by Minority Rules | February 27, 2008 10:16 PM