Obama's Commitment to Israel: A Closer Look

[Evo]

So Obama has come out very pro-Israel. This is a good first start. Based on the recent rumours tying Obama to a Palestinian "activist", Obama has made his intentions clear. Does this change your perception of him?

Now, let me be clear: Israel's security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable.

(APPLAUSE)

The Palestinians need a state -- the Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel's identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, defensible borders.

(APPLAUSE)

And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

(APPLAUSE)

I have no illusions that any of this will be easy. It will require difficult decisions on both sides. But Israel is strong enough to achieve peace, if it has partners who are committed to the goal.

Most Israelis and Palestinians want peace, and we must strengthen their hand. The United States must be a strong and consistent partner in this process, not to force concessions, but to help committed partners avoid stalemate and the kind of vacuums that are filled by violence.

And that's what I commit to do as president of the United States.

(APPLAUSE)

The threats to Israel start close to home, but they do not end there. Syria continues its support for terror and meddling in Lebanon, and Syria has taken dangerous steps in pursuit of weapons of mass destruction, which is why Israeli action was entirely justified to end that threat.

(APPLAUSE)

I also believe that the United States has a responsibility to support Israel's effort to renew peace talks with the Syrians. We must never force Israel to the negotiating table...

(APPLAUSE)

... but neither should we ever block negotiations when Israelis' leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests.

(APPLAUSE)

As president, I will do whatever I can to help Israel succeed in these negotiations

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/u....html?pagewanted=4&_r=1&sq=aipac&st=nyt&scp=3

 

[NeoDevin]

Is there a purpose to this thread, other than quoting the article?

 

[Evo]

Is there a purpose to this thread, other than quoting the article?

Yes, this is his first speech after proclaiming himself the DNC Presidential candidate and it gives a lot of insight on where he stands. There has been some misinformation circulating that he would back the Palestinians against Israel, which isn't true and he addresses that here. Also, he clears up why he opposed the US invading Iraq, it was because he considers Iran the true threat. I suggest you read the entire speech. It's pretty damn good, IMO.

Ooops, I see that I accidently deleted one of my opening comments.

 

[Astronuc]

Is there a purpose to this thread, other than quoting the article?

In addition to Evo's points, there have been misinformation campaigns on circulating on the internet about Obama's religious affiliation and the comments by Hamas. So Obama now steps forward to express his thoughts and goals regarding Israel's security and the situation in the ME.

Cool - he mentioned something that I mentioned in an email to him. So he does pay attention.

 

[NeoDevin]

Yes, this is his first speech after proclaiming himself the DNC Presidential candidate and it gives a lot of insight on where he stands. There has been some misinformation circulating that he would back the Palestinians against Israel, which isn't true and he addresses that here. Also, he clears up why he opposed the US invading Iraq, it was because he considers Iran the true threat. I suggest you read the entire speech. It's pretty damn good, IMO.

I understand all that, and agree with some of it, and have read the entire speech. It seems somewhat redundant (and against guidelines) to simply post a quote and a link, without any start to the discussion. You gave no indication as to what direction you wanted the conversation to head. Is this intended to be a discussion of the quality of his speechwriters? His stance on Isreal? The Isreal issue in general?

Ooops, I see that I accidently deleted one of my opening comments.

And that would be?

 

[Evo]

And that would be?

That he is clearing up the rumours that he had ties with a Palestinian activist. That he has finally made a clear stand on issues, does this change how anyone perceives him?

He definitely left no wiggle room, which is what I would expect of him from now on. He's cut ties with his church. He wants nothing casting doubt on what he wants for the US.

There I corrected my OP.

 

[lisab]

In addition to Evo's points, there have been misinformation campaigns on circulating on the internet about Obama's religious affiliation and the comments by Hamas. So Obama now steps forward to express his thoughts and goals regarding Israel's security and the situation in the ME.

Cool - he mentioned something that I mentioned in an email to him. So he does pay attention.

Obama's comments with regard to the rumors about him:

Now, before I begin, I also want to mention that I know some have been receiving provocative e-mails that have been circulated throughout the Jewish communities across the country. And a few of you may have gotten them. They're filled with tall tales and dire warnings about a certain candidate for president. And all I want to say is let me know if you see this guy named Barack Obama, because he sounds pretty scary.

Funny!

Astro - he quoted something you sent him? Really? How cool is that - I'm impressed!

 

[NeoDevin]

So Obama has come out very pro-Israel. This is a good first start. Based on the recent rumours tying Obama to a Palestinian "activist", Obama has made his intentions clear. Does this change your perception of him?

It does somewhat. While I had never actually heard the rumours tying him to an activist, I'm glad to hear that they are false. However, I am somewhat concerned by the fact that he now seems a little too pro-Isreal, possibly at the expense of other nations in the region. On the other hand, he could just be responding to the rumours, and came off that way. I guess we'll have to wait and see if he gets elected to see how he actually behaves. His entire speech seems to be about "Isreal is justified, everyone around them is terrorists". I hope he doesn't actually hold this attitude, only time will tell. (of course, me being Canadian, my opinion of him won't really have much of an effect)

 

[Gokul43201]

I think this is mostly Obama trying to reassure the Florida Jewish community that they can vote for him.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I think this is mostly Obama trying to reassure the Florida Jewish community that they can vote for him.

Thank goodness, for a moment I thought he was being sincere.

 

[NeoDevin]

I think this is mostly Obama trying to reassure the Florida Jewish community that they can vote for him.

I hope so (to some extent at least). I would hate to see someone in power who actually believes that Isreal can do no wrong.

 

[NeoDevin]

Thank goodness, for a moment I thought he was being sincere.

While it would be nice to have at least one politician be sincere, in this case, I hope not.

 

[mheslep]

Yes, this is his first speech after proclaiming himself the DNC Presidential candidate and it gives a lot of insight on where he stands.

I don't gain much on Sen. Obama's foreign policy insight from this speech. I gain some other's, mainly that he says what he thinks the audience wants to hear:

July '07:

[Question]"Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?..."

"I would," he [Obama] answered.

AIPAC:

..And contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries just for the sake of talking. But as president of the United States, I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing, if and only if it can advance the interests of the United States.

And who are the appropriate Iranian leaders? Ahmadinejad? 'Supreme Leader' Kamenei? More Western friendly internal group? As soon as Sen. Obama chooses one of them, without 'precondition', he elevates them.

...We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice: If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, your support for terror, and your threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives, including the lifting of sanctions and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure...

which is basically the position of the current US administration and the EU's.

...Also, he clears up why he opposed the US invading Iraq, it was because he considers Iran the true threat.

Obama did not mention Iran in his primary antiwar in Iraq speech.
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

The insight I draw from this speech is that Senator Clinton's insight on Obama was correct: he's not ready for the job, making it up as he goes along.

 

[mheslep]

Here is the fade away after Wednesday's AIPAC speech jumper, where he said:

And Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.

which apparently had only a 48 hour warranty, as in response to a CNN question on whether Palestinians had future claim to the city he said:

Well, 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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060601590.html

 

[NeoDevin]

That's what you need, a president who is honest, consistant, says precisely what he means, rather than saying what he thinks people want to hear.

Of course the alternative isn't any better...

What you really need is some quality candidates!

 

[Evo]

Here is the fade away after Wednesday's AIPAC speech jumper, where he said:

which apparently had only a 48 hour warranty, as in response to a CNN question on whether Palestinians had future claim to the city he said:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/06/AR2008060601590.html

Ah, but the next paragraph

Obama said "as a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute" a division of the city. "And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

 

[AhmedEzz]

Do you really think that it is fair for Israel to keep the whole city as its capital and the Palestinians should go and f*ck themselves for all you care.

 

[mheslep]

Ah, but the next paragraph

Yes, I saw that, sounds very reasonable and practical now, after the speech. My point is the Sen. should have had the fortitude to say that Wednesday in front of AIPAC instead of "[it] must remain undivided. " Period. Big applause. AIPAC folk are saying they were misled on Wed. if this latest is what he really meant.

 

[kyleb]

Do you really think that it is fair for Israel to keep the whole city as its capital and the Palestinians should go and f*ck themselves for all you care.

I've seen many of my fellow Americans support take the postion that Israel has some right to colonize whatever potions of the Levant they like. However, I've yet to see anyone with such a mindsit even attempt to argue their position is based on any attempt to be fair.

 

[DrClapeyron]

He hasn't said anything that hasn't been said before.