Daniel,
Thank you very much for writing an post about I/P without using a word "Lobby".

"But one sentence from the Hillary Clinton press release of September 10 "
Can you provide a pointer?

" an undivided Jerusalem as its capital"
It doesn't make sense for her to commit to something that is never an official position of US.

this is one of the principle reasons I loath Hillary-- she's such a panderer on this issue. I think it's at the core of why she became such an apologist for the Iraq war. She was willing to saber rattle along with Lieberman and others just to titillate an NY state constituency.

grrrrrrrrrrrrr

This "press release" apparently does not exist. The only PR on Sep 10 was: NH for Hillary Announces “I’m Sweet on Hillary” Senior Community Visits

Next subject?

Hillary released it to the Jewish Telegraphic Agency.  Here is their story.

As usual, Daniel's piece is right on although it isn't exactly news. HRC has consistently been, along with Schumer amd Lieberman.totally hardline on Israel. She has never uttered a word of sympathy for the Palestinians, at least not since coming to NY. 

Like it or hate it, her position is unambiguous.  

As most average folk looking for info. on Hillary will naturally type in: "hillaryclinton.com."

And what's more, that's the website her campaign is pushing, I saw it on a "re-elect Hillary" bumper sticker (and no, I'm not making that up) just this afternoon.

Is that website an official site? And if her campaign did release that memo or whatever it is on her Israel/Palestine policy, why isn't it up on her site?

I'd be kinda nice to, maybe, scan the physical document the original author of this post has, and upload it, maybe on the Horse's Mouth site or something.

Right. NYS = APAC

Raising money is one thing; titillating NY voters is something else. She is doing the former.

And her motives vis-a-vis Israel seem quite different from Lieberman's. He appears to subscribe to the APAC line, unlike 60% of American Jews.

"The area populated by Jews would remain under Jewish sovereignty; the area populated by Arabs would come under Palestine's sovereignty. "

The question is, if this division is possible.
From what I understand, Arabs in East Jerusalem have Israeli papers, and they might not want to
be part of Palestinian state. Will they be forced?

From the site itself:
"JustHillary.com is run as a private venture by Mr. Birnbaum, who is solely responsible for its content."

I'm a Hillary supporter, so I don't know about other candidates but Hillary has a lot of these independent supporters with websites.

On topic: I don't find it unusual that Obama agrees with President Clinton on many things, nor do I find it surprising that Hillary doesn't agree with him on all things.

I do believe that HRC or Obama or any Democrat will send BClinton and Carter to help re-start a peace plan between Palestine and Israel.

imo, Jeruslaem is a tiny problem compared to the grenade Bush threw into the entire Middle East. Maybe someone can show me how this is front and center on the radar.

imo, Jeruslaem is a tiny problem compared to the grenade Bush threw into the entire Middle East. Maybe someone can show me how this is front and center on the radar.

There will never be peace in the middle east unless the Palestinian/Israeli problem is resolved. That problem will never be resolved unless Jerusalem is divided between them. I'm surprised and appalled that Hillary is taking this stance. HSe's running for the presidency of the United States not the head of the Likud party.

Should Hamas ever get around to wanting to make peace isn't one of the keys dividing Jeerusalem without actually saying so?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

More from the JTA:

"WASHINGTON (JTA) -- In her new position paper on Israel, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes not only to praise the Jewish state but to bury doubts that she would be any less vigilant in its protection than the Bush administration.

The position paper, published this week, goes so far as to outflank President Bush from the right."
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20070912hillaryjerusalem.html

Shmuel Rosner claims that Hillary supports moving the US Embassy from TA to Jerusalem. Bush refused to do so as did her hubby.

IMO, She's trying to outflank, stay even or catch up with Guliani in the pro-Israel sweepstakes while keeping the doubts about Obama's dedication to Israel alive. All this is inside baseball that isn't meant to become a part of the national political dialog.

Yes, Hillary believes Palestinians should have their own state. I googled Hillary Clinton and "palestinian state" and got a NYT's article.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D06E3D81531F934A35756C0A96E958260

She replied: ''Well, I think that it will be in the long-term interest of the Middle East for Palestine to be a state, to be a state that is responsible for its citizens' well-being, a state that has responsibility for providing education and health care and economic opportunity to its citizens.''

[In Washington, Marsha Berry, a spokeswoman for Mrs. Clinton, said that the First Lady was giving her own personal views and that they did not represent the position of the Clinton Administration.]

Mrs. Clinton added, ''I think that the territory that the Palestinians currently inhabit, and whatever additional territory they will obtain through the peace negotiations'' should in the interest of peace be considered ''a functioning modern state.''

Who said she didn't? The original post simply noted that she made no mention of a Palestinian state or a two-state solution. What was she prioritizing with this release? What message was she trying to send? Obviously the hard-line stance that was accurately conveyed.

The main point, though, is about dividing Jeruselam, not a Palestinian state.

Yep, this + the attacks on Obama about Brezinski and the W/M book...definitely part of a push-back on Obama after his Iran op-ed in the NY Daily News.

Are the Egyptians still sore about the division of the Red Sea?

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" [George Santayana]

Until we have it on a Hillary campaign press release, I don't know how seriously we should take this. It's not like American Jews don't support the Clinton parameters. She's not going to get points for this.

It just seems unlikely to me. I could be wrong. But it seems unlikely. She has publicly praised the Clinton parameters so I'm suspicious. That's all.

I'm wondering if TPM would willingly quote Drudge if he smeared Clinton. It would be interesting test to find out where they draw the line or if they draw a line.

Never mind the press release isn't anywhere on Clinton's site. Never mind that. Somebody said Hillary said that, and that's good enough for this site. Why bother employing journalistic integrity here. I mean, it's a press release. The Clinton campaign put it out there allegedly. What's TPM afraid of - that they're going to deny it? Oh, that's right - they wouldn't have a story if she denied it. Silly me.

Whatever highminded standards Josh had for this place, apparently he's willing to toss them down the drain when it comes to Hillary.

Maybe she did say this but as of now, there is no evidence that she did.

As usual, Rosenberg can't wait to bash liberal Democrats who strongly support Israel. There was a candidate last year runnng against Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination for Senate in New York whom I presume had Mr. Rosenberg's support. That candidate publicly accused Israel of committing war crimes in defending itelf against Hezbollah kidnapping and rocket attacks. That candidate got 17% of the vote in the Democratic primary.

Now, Mr. Rosenberg, do you seriously contend that Senators Clinton and Schumer are not faithfully reflecting the views of the overwhelming majority of Democrats in New York in their position on what needs to happen between Israel and Palestinians.

My two Senators--and over a hundred liberal Democrats like them--pay no attention to you and Levy, and for that I am eternally grateful.

Lots of venting and parsing, sourcing and snarking. I recall the kiss (Mrs Arafat) and the hyper ventilation. New York politicians have to take note of the Jewish constituency. What is so earth shattering about this? Is the lobby doing anything different from the evangelicals, business, labour? Israel need US support and gets it. The pity is that the Palestinians haven't yet managed to work the US effectievly to rally support. Too busy fighting among themselves.

How are you going to do it? What's your strategy?

I hardly think that your accusations of Josh et al are warranted much less have any factual basis whatsoever. There have been 3 links provided by posters on this thread to news/analysis/text of Hillary's position paper.

Again, the Jewish Telegraphic Agency writes in this analysis:

"WASHINGTON (JTA) -- In her new position paper on Israel, Hillary Rodham Clinton comes not only to praise the Jewish state but to bury doubts that she would be any less vigilant in its protection than the Bush administration.

The position paper, published this week, goes so far as to outflank President Bush from the right.

It says Clinton, the U.S. senator from New York and frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination "believes that Israel’s right to exist in safety as a Jewish state, with defensible borders and an undivided Jerusalem as its capital, secure from violence and terrorism, must never be questioned."

Clinton's paper comes at a time when the Bush administration is quietly pressing the Israelis and the Palestinians to come up with a final-status outline ahead of a November peace conference -- one that would address, among other issues, redrawn borders and a shared Jerusalem.

Spokesmen for Clinton denied that the language was timed to undercut the latest initiative.

"She's had these positions for a long time and those haven't changed," spokesman Jin Chon told JTA. "Her experience and strength on supporting Israel have been steadfast. The paper is just a reflection of her consistent policy."

snip]
"
The paper revives the July Clinton-Obama contretemps over Iran, widely believed to have been won -- at least among pro-Israel watchers -- by Clinton. In a debate, Obama said he would meet with the leaders of pariah nations within his first year as president. Clinton said she would not.

In the new paper, Clinton does not concede ground to Obama in favoring diplomacy over military confrontation, but implicitly derides summits with rogue leaders, at least before the time is ripe.

"Just as the U.S. government was engaged in direct talks with the Soviet Union at the height of the Cold War, so today should the U.S. talk to Iran in order to gain valuable insight, intelligence and information about how to pressure its leadership to change course," the paper states. "But Hillary has said that as president she would not commit to personal meetings with leaders of rogue states without conditions, such as Iran."

snip]

"Otherwise, the paper is a compendium of Israel-related issues Clinton has tried to make her own: She cites her lead in successful efforts to admit Israel's first responder umbrella, Magen David Adom, into the International Committee of the Red Cross, and her adoption of the campaign to expose alleged incitement found in Palestinian textbooks."

snip]

Obama's paper on Israel was released to Jewish supporters in June, but made public just this week as a result of Clinton going public.

The Illinois senator notes his commitment to Israel as a strategic ally and, like Clinton, his commitment to keeping all options on the table when dealing with Iran. But there are subtle differences pointing to his willingness to keep doors open, especially with the Palestinians."

"Barack Obama supports U.S. efforts to provide aid directly to the Palestinian people by bypassing any Hamas-led government that refuses to renounce violence and recognize Israel’s right to exist," his papers states. "Obama believes that a better life for Palestinian families is good for both Israelis and Palestinians."

Clinton, by contrast, only pledges to isolate Hamas without considering the difficulties that aid cutoffs pose to Palestinian civilians."
http://www.jta.org/cgi-bin/iowa/news/article/20070912hillaryjerusalem.html/

Are you saying the JTA is the equivalent of Drudge?

artappraiser provided a link to a site with the full text of her position paper so if you like, you can compare the language quoted by JTA with that provided by the site owner, Gregg Birnbaum, political editor of the NYPost.

Here again, is the link:

http://www.justhillary.com/herwords/israel0911.php

I suspect Mr Birbaum would be amused at being compared to Drudge as he features this quote in the "Press about JustHillary.com" section of his blog:

# "It kinda has a tabloidish feel to it like the Drudge Report but it does have a lot of good info." - Hillary For President in 2008.

If you have a problem with the Clinton campaign's slowness in posting her position paper on Israel, I suggest you contact them.

Responsible journalists would have confirmed with the campaign that this was accurate reporting of what their press release said. Odd that Hillary only released it to JTA.

It could be accurate. But right now, it's a smear and it's no different than what Drudge does. The only reason to not wait 24 hours to report this is that you really don't care if it's true or not.

Calling her a loser the other day was disgraceful. This kind of crap is just not what people come to TPM for. This is what you go to Drudge, or for that fact, the NY Post for. I thought Josh's standards were higher.

lorelyn sez:
"Responsible journalists would have confirmed with the campaign that this was accurate reporting of what their press release said."

JTA sez:
"Spokesmen for Clinton denied that the language was timed to undercut the latest initiative
She's had these positions for a long time and those haven't changed," spokesman Jin Chon told JTA. "Her experience and strength on supporting Israel have been steadfast. The paper is just a reflection of her consistent policy."

lorelynn sez:
"Odd that Hillary only released it to JTA."

lally sez:
Huh?

lorelynn sez:

"It could be accurate. But right now, it's a smear and it's no different than what Drudge does. The only reason to not wait 24 hours to report this is that you really don't care if it's true or not."

lally sez:
JTA Breaking News reports release of position paper on 9/10. Gregg Birnbaum posts text of position paper on 9/10. JTA posts analysis of position paper on 9/12.Today is the 15th.

lorelynn sez:
"Calling her a loser the other day was disgraceful."

lally sez:
WTF are you talking about?

lorelyn sez:
"This kind of crap is just not what people come to TPM for. This is what you go to Drudge, or for that fact, the NY Post for. I thought Josh's standards were higher."

lally suggests:
A happy shiny place.
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/blog/

Artappraiser provided a link (which I then re-provided) to the full-text of hte release. Why haven't you or hadenough bothered to actually, you know, CLICK THE LINK, READ THE PAPER, and get over it already?

The language is clearly there.

Probably by voting in numbers.

And working hard and enthusiastically for "his" candidate.

And giving money. And getting his friends to give money.

In short, by participating in the process with gusto.

The vast majority sit back saying things, "I can't for him because of this." "I can't vote for her because of that." "I can't vote because the lines are too long." "It doesn't matter because it's all politics or all money." "All politicians are corrupt."

And 1000 other reasons that keep US voter turnout under 50% in most cases.

What is the difference between "pandering" and "responding to the views of your constituents"?

On the one hand, Congresspeople get criticized when they depart from the views of their constituents, as say evidenced by the polls.

On the other hand, they get criticized when they pay too much attention to those views, especially when they change their own to match those of their constituents, again as evidenced by the polls.

If most Congresspeople didn't have to report to constituencies with wildly divergent, often contradictory, views, "pandering" wouldn't be an issue. But constituents do disagree, so the Rep is in a tough spot.

The problem is that US politics is celebrity driven. If we like someone, we like them. End of story. So we have people actually denying that HRC said something that it is proven she said. She has been a hawk on Israel since the Suha Arafat kiss because morons in the pro-Israel community made a fuss over a kiss one First Lady gave to another sort-of First Lady. Of course, Mrs. Rabin, Mrs. Peres and a host of Israeli leaders hugged and kissed both Arafats BECAUSE ARAFAT HAD SIGNED ON TO A PEACE AGREMENT WITH ISRAEL AND WAS ADHERING TO IT. There was nothing wrong with the infamous kiss. HRC should have stuck to the Clinton parameters which most Jews support although not the rightwing crowd in Brooklyn, Queens and The Island. But she believed that she'd lose the nutcases by not repudiating her previous position while the liberals wouldn't even notice her flip flop. She was right...politically. And now she is an uberhawk on Israel. I hope, and expect, she'll return to her previous position if she's elected. She is too intelligent not to.
Last point. I, too, favor an undivided Jerusalem as do almost all Israelis and Palestinians. One city. No walls. With Palestinians controlling East Jerusalem and Israelis controlling the West. Shared sovereignty does not mean dividing the city. That is the last thing anyone wants.

"artappraiser provided a link to a site with the full text of her position paper so if you like, you can compare the language quoted by JTA with that provided by the site owner, Gregg Birnbaum, political editor of the NYPost."

I just read it, and it indeed contains this language about an undivided Jerusalem. However, I couldn't tell whether it was the paper itself with the paper's language...or Birnbaum's summarizing of the paper's content.

A small point perhaps. But I do share L's reservations here, because so much of what I read on the Web--though this site is MUCH better--is interpretation, and often misleading interpretation, of the primary source being quoted. So a big caveat emptor.

"I suspect Mr Birbaum would be amused at being compared to Drudge as he features this quote in the "Press about JustHillary.com" section of his blog:"

Here is a small case in point, but revealing about how the Web works, IMO, which is to say, in a sort of value-neutral disregard for the facts in which ANY link is a good link and better than no link. To the quote, from Birnbaum:

"JustHillary.com has won recognition from the Washington Post, ABC News, CNN, Politico.com, the CBS Evening News, the Chicago Tribune, France 2's "Un Jour, Une Heure" news magazine show, the Boston Herald, the Washington Times, the Drudge Report, Real Clear Politics, and numerous other publications, websites and blogs."

So, ole Drudge likes Birnbaum and Birnbaum (at least) is happy to get Drudge's praise. Not to mention the Washington Times's support and Clear Channel's. To be sure, he gets support from a lot of other quarters. And he says that his "agenda" is Hillary 24/7, the good, the bad, and the ugly.

But still...I got the feeling that he had edited the position paper and/or was REPORTING ON its contents. But it is hard to say for sure.

And actually, you make an excellent point about the phrase "an undivided Jerusalem." Do we even know what this phrase means when it's uttered by X,Y, or Z? Hillary could easily turn around and say, "Yes, it is as MJ says, an undivided city with joint sovereignty."

davai - The Palestinians in East Jerusalem are NOT Israeli citizens. While they can vote in municipal elections they cannot vote in national elections. Theoretically, they can apply for Israeli citizenship but as my niece who works in the Interior Ministry says - such applications just get "lost". In the 10 years she has worked there she is aware of only 3 such applications being approved.

Not ridiculous from where I sit. I think it is vitally important to stop Clinton. Of course her strategy is get people to shut up and proceed with the coronation, with this sort of "loose lips sink Democratic ships" appeal. Too bad. I'm not falling for that.

Er...I didn't get that impression at all, as the heading clearly identifies what follows as Clinton's position paper. What's more, the JTA article cites the paper itself, as released by the campaign, as it's source...not Birnbaum's website.

Last point. I, too, favor an undivided Jerusalem as do almost all Israelis and Palestinians. One city. No walls. With Palestinians controlling East Jerusalem and Israelis controlling the West. Shared sovereignty does not mean dividing the city. That is the last thing anyone wants.

Is it the last thing anyone wants? I would like to think you're right about the majority of Israelis feeling willing to share the city, but the actions of the Israeli government have been to attempt to slowly squeeze out the Palestinians who reside there.

The term "undivided Jerusalem" may have some ambiguity, but those on the Israeli right, as well as many pro-far-right-Israel supporters here in the U.S. do use it to indicate exclusive Israeli control over the city, as in this 2005 article at Israel Insider about Sen. Sam Brownback's attempt to pass a bill demanding just that.

U.S. Senator pledges support for undivided Jerusalem
By: israelinsider staff and partners
Published: April 25, 2005

U.S. Senator Sam Brownback (Republican -- Kansas) drafted a bill demanding the recognition of Jerusalem as the unified and indivisible capital of Israel, and calling on the international community and Arab countries to acknowledge this fact, in exchange for considering the possibility of permitting the establishment of a Palestinian state.

"180 days prior to the recognition of a Palestinian state, the U.S. would move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem," the proposal states. "Jerusalem is where the Israeli government, president, parliament, and High Court of Justice are situated."

According to the bill, Jerusalem is not mentioned in the Koran and was never the capital of any other nation. "Jerusalem is essential in Judaism, it is mentioned in the bible 766 times," the proposal states, adding "Jerusalem not mentioned in Koran."

Brownback, a devout Catholic, is considered an avid supporter of Israel. He submitted the proposal on behalf of fellow Republican Senators Michael Crapo (Idaho) and Gordon Smith (Oregon).
The fact that the proposal was signed solely Republicans does not bode well for its approval or implementation.

U.S. Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush have refused to carry out a Congress resolution from the mid-1990s that called to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, as they believe it would have a negative affect on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process.

The Americans continue to delay the embassy's move on account of what they claim are threats to national security.

And this BBC article demonstrates pretty clearly what Israel's plans are now and have been all along:

Israeli conquest

Israel regarded its capture of the West Bank from Jordan in June 1967 as an opportunity to re-unify East and West Jerusalem under exclusive Israeli control and set about achieving this in a systematic way.

Israel removed the walls and barriers dividing the western and eastern sectors of the city. It then enacted legislation to put Arab East Jerusalem under Israeli civil law - as distinct from the military administration which governed the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Israel's annexation of the eastern sector of the city was accompanied by the redrawing of municipal boundaries, extending them northwards and southwards. In 1980 Israeli passed another law making its annexation of East Jerusalem explicit.

Although a host of United Nations resolutions have censured Israel for its attempt to change the character and status of the city, Israel has ignored them all and continues to expand its control over the Palestinian areas of the city.
Israel has expropriated about a third of the Palestinian owned land of East Jerusalem for the construction of 10 major Israeli settlements with a population of about 200,000.

Encircling the northern, eastern and southern perimeter of the city, the settlements have created a physical barrier between Palestinians in Jerusalem and those who live in the rest of the West Bank.

Hilary is not stupid. Given that she must be well aware of the meaning of the term for those who clearly do intend to obtain exclusive Israeli sovereignty over Jerusalem, I question the benign interpretation of her words that you offer here, MJ. At the very least, it's reasonable to ask why she would use a term that is so ambiguous if what she meant was mutual sovereignty.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

I've read conservative and moderate accounts of how they did just this when listening to Bush on the campaign trail, and now greatly regret it.

I'd say the opposite is true: the onus is on the voter to assume everything the campaign says it will fight for and it will do is truthful (contradictions, obviously, notwithstanding), and do as little "projecting" as possible.

Indeed, while I appreciate the need for politicians to lie at times, it seems ill-considered to me flat out assume politicians are always/often lying and that their real position is X/Y/Z.

At least, if you're going to assume the position espoused is false, I'd say one should at least make the effort to check the rhetoric against past rhetoric, legislative action, the position of campaign advisors, and their votes (if they held office in the legislature).

And if one is a commentator, to anything short of the above seems flatly irresponsible (sorry MJ, cause I usually really like your stuff). Using one's position as an editorialist with a wide audience to say, for example, "ignore Obama's position on civil unions, I'm sure that he'd support gay marriage once in office" is rather dangerous. The whole notion that we ought to make our electoral decisions on anything but publicly available information is subversive to the Democratic process, IMO. Find statements, votes, something to that effect, or assume what the candidate says is exactly how the candidate will govern.

"He appears to subscribe to the APAC line, unlike 60% of American Jews."

Pointers please. Where 60 % are coming from ?

There doesn't have to be a direct connection. There just has to be a perception of a connection. I'm just staying that pandering is a lot about perceptions. Candidates tend to make casual commitments to enhance perceptions. Candidates get fired up at campaign rallies and make grandiose statements. You can pander at will as long as the group you are pandering to is either more powerful than other groups or considered insignificant by more powerful groups.

Take the immigration issue. What a mine field that is for candidates. They want to court a growing minority, Hispanics, but that has set off quite a backlash among the majority. Consequently, no legislation has been able to survive and quite a number of immigrants have been hurt in the process and ill will festers.

Groups can lobby at will and candidates can pander at will right up until there is a perception that this is against the interests of the majority of Americans. The longer the guagmire in the Middle East lasts, the greater the potential for something tipping the perception against Israel and its backers in the US.

Good point. In this case, I look back to her husband's position back in the 1990s when she/they were in a position to do something about this. And when their constituency wasn't just NY.

Beyond this, I look to her generally liberal outlook which is consonant with a two-state solution, etc.

So I don't feel that I'm just wishing on a star.

But you're right: The more proof you have, the better.

But the vote is often a crapshoot. No one voting for LBJ in 1964 envisioned the Viet Nam nightmare.

As to your Bush example, I'm not sure it entirely supports your position. One might have expected a compassionate conservative from his stump speech, but we got something different. One might have expected smaller government from his stump speech also...and no nation building from what he said.

So what he said overtly was a BAD indicator of what he ended up doing in office.

But I'm speaking as a liberal, of course, so perhaps your point still stands.

I think one's sense of a politician's general outlook is a better indicator of what his future direction than what he or she says about a particular issue at a particular time. They often zig and zag on specific issues.

I can only understand Hillary's apparent quiet but stated support for an undivided Jerusalem as a political move--and not as a statement of policy--because, for one thing, no American president, Republican or Democrat, is going to work to prevent the Israelis and Palestinians from reaching an agreement which will divide the city along the lines of the Bill Clinton parameters.

In any event, it's really a counterproductive pledge by her and I hope she "clarifies" or whatever the candidates do in these situations. At a minimum, the statement can be fairly read to suggest that if Hillary becomes president, all things equal, she will put less pressure on Israel to negotiate a deal than other Democratic candidates will.

With respect to the Democratic nomination, I don't understand the political logic of Hillary's Jerusalem pledge. I just don't see it helping her too much with voters or with contributors during the primaries. My sense is that she's already perceived to have the most "pro-Israel" orientation by "hard-line" single issue voters.

I guess Hillary's statement only makes sense to me as some kind of preemptive flanking protection against a candidate like Giuliani in the general election. And, as a corollary, the political calculation might be that those Democratic voters who are put off by such a statement on Jerusalem are still going to vote for her in sufficient nunbers in the general election anyway.

Okay, but I think I could be forgiven for drawing that inference from your deplorable vs despicable remark.

This sort of equivalence may be fine for the world-weary academic.

But if it turns out that HRC is the candidate, we are going to need enthusiastic support for her to ensure a Democratic victory.

Look at it from the other side...

Look at how many Republicans seem to be turning a blind eye to Rudy's faults (from their perspective) to pull out a tough election for them...

If folks REALLY believe the choice is between deplorable and despicable, they could be forgiven for staying home.

Wordie, Don't hide behind rating.
Explain, why it's OK to call people with who you disagree "nutcases"?

Peter,

I believe a Palestinian-controlled eastern Jerusalem and an Israeli-controlled western Jerusalem is a divided Jerusalem. There is no ambiguity in Clinton’s statement. Trying to read “an undivided Jerusalem as [Israel’s] capitol” as a simple proposal for a shared Jerusalem doesn't wash (especially when she isn’t even advocating a Palestinian state).

I could agree with Clinton that Jerusalem should be an undivided capitol. How about Jerusalem as the undivided capitol of a Palestinian state? If I’m not mistaken, Israel’s border was nowhere near Jerusalem when it was declared a nation in ’48. True, it conquered territories after the partition, including a convenient strip that went right into Jerusalem, and it continues to settle new areas even in Jerusalem. But I thought that international law precluded a country from taking land by invading and occupying it.

I don’t believe that possession really is 9/10th’s of the law as the saying goes. Regardless of Israel’s claims or US politicians’ proposals that Jerusalem be Israel’s capitol, does Israel have a legitimate claim to it in whole or part?

I thought Josh's subsequent denial was disingenuous: saying someone thinks like a loser on the leading issue of the day is close enough to calling them a loser that he ought to have revised his statement - and perhaps noted Obama's similar statements.

Also, no shouting is being done here that I can see - and the "some"-smear is unnecessary. Argue the comment, not the commenter.

Now, Miami is majority Cuban (let’s say) and it’s just a short boat ride…maybe Castro can be the mayor.

Ah, Davai. Where would I be without you to "translate" what I say? The partition created an international enclave of Jerusalem and Bethlehem. Israel occupied and basically controls all of Jerusalem. That doesn't make it legitimately theirs anymore than their occupation of the territories annuls Palestine.

I see interesting contradiction.

On one hand I see a very strong consensus that Hillary should explain a contradiction
between her position about Jerusalem with the plan put forward by a certain President Bill Clinton in December 2000.
I see also a strong consensus that she should clarify her position about Jerusalem.
Obviously, Jerusalem is important but very touchy issue and clarifying her position might cause her to lose some supporters.

On another hand it seems that Obama position about “the Lobby” and Walt-Mearsheimer book about “the lobby” put him in contradiction with position of his most famous foreign policy adviser, Brzezinski.

Obviously, “the lobby” is important but very touchy issue and clarifying his position might cause him to lose some supporters.
Somehow tpmcafe bloggers came to a consensus that Obama doesn’t have to and should not explain this contradiction and clarify his position. I wonder why?

Is not true that what's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Well...

If she's in favor of a Palestinian state, which she apparently is, then that is going to involve some part of Jerusalem, I believe.

It's too important an issue for any real negotiations to skip over it with a simple "undivided Jerusalem" proposal.

Again, I guess it's all in how Jerusalem is "divided" or "undivided."

Way way back, I believe, there was a proposal to make Jerusalem an international city, perhaps a long the lines of a non-denominational, or multi-denominational, Vatican.

It would be undivided and belong to no one...or everyone.

Yes, where is the position paper ITSELF?

It isn't Josh's job to fact-check every piece of writing here.

These are blogs--op-eds, if you will--and their authors assume responsibility for their veracity--not the publisher.

I'm sure if someone were truly spewing hate, Josh would ax him. But short of that, it's a freewheeling discussion.

It's up to posters to fact-check what they say, and the fact that few do in any sort of rigorous way is discouraging to me.

In this day of links, also, it's common for folks who link to other articles to absolve themselves of responsibility for the factuality of the content or the provenance/authors of those articles.

So crap just passed from one person to the next...a giant rumor mill.

Not always or only...there's a lot of good stuff out here...but it's definitely a place where caveat emptor must be your first rule.

Even if you accept that the Lobby pushed for the Iraq invasion, you'd have to say, further, that sans the Lobby there would have been no war. And no Afghanistan invasion. And no Gulf War. And no over-throwing of Mossadeq. And no 9/11.

It's possible that this is all true...but I don't think it's been shown.

The reasoning behind these statements seems off. Why would you have to say that without the Lobby there would have been no war, if only you wish only to make the point that they had an influence? One doesn't need to link AIPAC to all those historical events to recognize that the Lobby may have played a part in encouraging the U.S. to go to war in Iraq. After all, the Lobby has grown considerably in influence in the last couple of decades.

And the Iraq war was the only incident in your list to have occurred after the publication in 1996 of the Netanyahu/Likud/neoconservative grand plan for the ME (A Clean Break, A Strategy for Securing the Realm), which suggested just such "regime change" as eventually became the policy of the U.S. in the region. And since the paper's authors were the very same neocons (and darlings of AIPAC), Richard Perle, David Wurmser and Douglas Feith, who worked so tirelessly to ensure that we did go to war...well, you connect the dots.* Or read more on the issue, here.

* This isn't to say that AIPAC was the only influence. 

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

Yes, but...

Here's the quote: "I could care less how strongly Clinton tilts towards Israel as long as that tilt doesn't keep us at war in the Middle East."

If that tilt "keeps" us at war in the ME, then the plain meaning of this is that this tilt is CAUSING us to go to war over and over again.

Remove the cause and you remove the war.

It's pretty clear (I think) that AIPAC favored the Iraq invasion (though I'd have to check)...but that doesn't mean that AIPAC caused us to go to war. Without AIPAC, we might have gone to war anyway.

So I won't argue with your "a part in encouraging." I think you're right.

But blaming the war on "the Lobby" is something else and has to be shown, IMO.

The fact that AIPAC long predates a Clean Break...the Bush II admin... suggests that it may not be the causitive factor it is often said to be.

Though AIPAC was strong in the 1980s and 1990s (and perhaps before that), it wasn't until the perfect storm of the Bush II administration that we went into Iraq.

All of this may seem like a nitpick, I know, and I'm certainly no apologist for AIPAC policies (as I understand them).

But picking a nit can keep us civilized.

(It can also blind us to uncomfortable realities.)

Hopes that's all clear...

The value in having the document itself is that documents frequently contain many statements, some of which qualify, or even tone down other statements. Statements appear in their context, so it's easier to assess their meaning.

Even good reporting picks some quotes and ignores others. Sloppiness, bias, misunderstanding--due to haste or real bias--often enter into the picture.

There's a reason historians prefer primary sources.

But I do share L's reservations here, because so much of what I read on the Web--though this site is MUCH better--is interpretation, and often misleading interpretation, of the primary source being quoted. So a big caveat emptor.

Both you and L seem to be determined to raise a lot of questions in this thread about the legitmacy of this story. While I agree that there is lots of misleading interpretation on the web, I'm beginning to think in this case, the source of the misleading interpretation may not be Mr. Levy. Perhaps you (you too, L) ought to read his bio - that's often a good way to judge the accuracy of a piece.

If you or L have suspicions about this piece, do you have any actual evidence to back them up? It works both ways, after all.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail." ~~ Abraham Maslow

Peter,
This was a press release. It apparently was not released widely but to Israeli media. I imagine it was a short position statement delivered in an electronic communication. I doubt there is anything like an "original document." It doesn't matter anyway. A campaign press release doesn't amount to some historical document. Is there a real question as to whether this is Clinton's position?

Okay kids, go out and play in your little world where the oceans are cherry kool-aid and the mountaintops, vanilla ice cream…:)

The whole book is about the lobby. Don’t you guys think W/M describe who makes up the lobby?

This "loose coalition" phraseology covers and creates a multitude of sins. Almost anyone can get swept up into this category. It's also the sort of vague appellation that feeds paranoia about this semi-invisible force…

Implications of anti-Semitic fear-mongering based on a misconstruing of the book- Now, who is feeding paranoia? Who is casting unjustified slurs?

"The whole book is about the lobby. Don’t you guys think W/M describe who makes up the lobby?"

Yes:
"We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy in a pro-Israel direction."

Is not a sufficient definition.

What they meant to say:

"We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy ABOUT ISRAEL and ME in DIRECTION
THAT WE, W/M DON'T APPROVE."

"We use ‘the Lobby’ as a convenient short-hand term for the loose coalition of individuals and organizations who actively work to shape U.S. foreign policy ABOUT ISRAEL and ME in DIRECTION is not necessarily in the interests of the U.S. AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM"

"Have you read the book or the paper?"
No.

I've have not done it.
I'm just asking of a definion of "the lobby" that is subject of repeated discussions here.
I've haven't expressed my opinion about this book at all.It seems taht you read the book and still can't define "the lobby".

Which one did I win in your opnion?

It's a shame Hillary Clinton, Obama, and other leading Democratic candidates can't make bold policy stances on the Arab/Israeli conflict. How can anyone think that the U.S. can be an even-headed broker of peace when it doesn't offer the same kind of treatment to the Palestinian NGO's who want peace and co-existence?

Clinton (and the other Democratic candidates) should follow Jimmy Carter's lead and take a more humanistic approach to Palestine and treat them just as equally as Israel.

Okay. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

Don,

I tried to give Wordie my reservations about this up above.

I'm interested in trying to evaluate what she is likely to do in office.

Most campaign promises or positions are broken or severely emended once in office...given other pressures...events.

So what's a voter to do?

I try to distinguish between specific positions which almost always change and abiding philosophical outlooks that don't or don't easily.

"shared sovereignity does not mean dividing the city". WHERE ON EARTH DO YOU GET THIS HALLUCINATORY IDEA? The Arabs hate Israel. What possible reason would they have for making such a thing work? Why should they cooperate? "Economic advantages"? We have seen the Palestinians destroy their economy in the name of "Patriotism" and "liberation"