More attention should be paid to Bush (& Neocon camp and rove/cheney/bolton Unilateralist camp role in blocking it) ignoring the Iranian peace overtures in 2003. This is relevant to the whole Obama vs. McCain debate over talking to Iran and others

Se for example/documentation:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/showdown/themes/grandbargain.html

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36619

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001952.php

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001953.php

http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rove-iran/

Part of this deal would have been for Iran to wind down, freeze or have inspected its nuclear work. Back in 2003 when they were not as far along.

And of course this was by the Iranian moderates, including the then President, before the crazy anti-Isaeli they've got now was elected. Of course it is same Supreme Leader, then and now who is really in charge, and he too has indicated interest in serious talks.

Engaging with Iran in 2003 would have been beneficial for israel. But the Republican fantasists, including the hardline neocons, blocked consideration of it.
Clemons at Wash

Any video links yet?

Cheers, MJ. Very cool, indeed.

Hi MJ,

Thanks for your post; I was looking forward to hearing your reaction to this speech.

I agree with most of what you said and continue to be impressed with Obama's ability to build trust with groups in which he has some key ideologic differences by focusing on areas where they agree (in this case, the security of Israel, addressing the nuclear threat from Iran); all while standing firm on crucial and more controversial policies (supporting a just two-state solution).

I did want to ask you, however, about one part of his speech that did cause me to have some concerns; and that was Obama's declaration of support for an undivided Jerusalem.

I have not heard him make this commitment before, and it does seem like a worrisome promise to make.

It seems that any reasonable or just peace agreement will involve the Palestinians having East Jerusalem as the capital of their new State (as the Israelis would of course have the other parts of Jerusalem as their capitol).

Was Obama referring to only the Old City? If that's the case, keeping the Old City under Israeli control, while giving East Jerusalem to the Palestinians seems a little bit more realistic; though, and correct me if I'm wrong, haven't past agreements made by moderates on both sides (the 2001 Clinton Plan, the Geneva Accords) included some type of division of the Old City (with each religion overseeing their Holy Sites)?

I'd really love to hear your thoughts on this.

Thanks!

I appreciated Obama's Flip-flop on Kyl-Lieberman

04/06/2008 19:12 GAZA CITY, June 4 (AFP)
Obama speech draws widespread Palestinian condemnation

The Islamist Hamas movement that rules the Gaza Strip slammed the speech to a powerful US-Israeli lobby group in Washington, saying it confirmed US "hostility" to Arabs and Muslims.

"We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims," Hamas spokesman Sami Abu Zuhri told AFP.

Obama's comments on Jerusalem to the American Israel Public Affairs Council (AIPAC) also drew criticism from Abbas.

"We reject these words," Abbas told journalists in the Palestinian political capital of Ramallah.

"Jerusalem is one of the files under negotiation. The entire world knows perfectly well that we will never accept a state without (east) Jerusalem (as its capital). That should be clear."

Earlier top Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erakat also slammed Obama.

"His remarks on Jerusalem cast doubt over the chances of peace," Erakat told AFP.

"We reject the positions of Barack Obama because they are in contradiction with the traditional positions of the United States which considers that east Jersualem is under occupation."

Abu Zuhri said Obama's statements on Jerusalem "confirm the consensus of the two American political parties on unlimited aid to the (Israeli) occupation at the expense of Palestinians and Arabs."

The speech, he said, "destroys any hope for change in American policies toward the Arab-Israeli conflict."

Obama reiterated that view.

"We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organizations."

What a strange day -- seems like everyone was mature at an AIPAC conference. Maybe you're right, MJ -- Obama has changed the mood.

Really? What portion did he disagree with? It has been claimed many times here that Obama opposed labeling the IRGC a terrorist organization, since that would, according to him and his supporters, lead to war with Iran, even though he skipped the actual vote. Are you saying that's not true? Sounds pretty revisionist to me. I think his flip on the IRGC had a lot to do with the AIPAC reaction. Get used to it. Many more to come. And when he bombs those nuclear facilities to keep Israel from bombing them? We'll have to justify that, too.

I have the same concern as alopata2000.

There's only one thing that "an undivided Jerusalem" means to any Israeli or Arab, and that is the continuing Israeli colonization of the West Bank isolating East Jerusalem as well as the attrition of Arab property rights in East Jerusalem.

Obama is not the first democrat to have used this phrase lately, and I am wondering if this is a behind-the-scenes agreement to be included in a speech to garner AIPAC support for -- or, at least, noninterference in -- your political parade.

This runs counter to international law both in terms of Jerusalem as undivided and as the capital. It amounts to a United States action of neo-colonial gunboat diplomacy expropriating one nation for the benefit of another without hint of quid pro quo.

New ideas? Clean break? Change in Washington? Yeah. If I was Abbas, or any Palestinian, or any Arab with an interest, I'd read this as United States foreign policy continuing much as usual. Why wouldn't I?

Obama won AIPAC over without dropping his commitment to the two-state solution or engaging in the Palestinian bashing that is normal in that venue.

Like several others upthread, I found the "undivided Jerusalem" comment worrisome. Such a comment seems to me a weakening of Obama's committment to a two-state solution, at least in the sense of promoting two viable states, and without that, why bother. This is not good, and I sincerely hope it doesn't signal some sort of concession to Clinton and her wealthy Israel-hawk donors. You say that for him to offer his first major speech after winning at AIPAC wasn't a case of terrible timing, but I have to ask why did he have to make this statement now, when he's just been victorious in the primary?

What are your thoughts, MJ?

The speech was a disappointment. If JStreet was the US power broker in regards to Israel I don't think he would have delivered such a speech. He would have given his more characteristic nuanced approach to the issue.

I thought this was rather interesting.....

James Zogby has a new column up at the Huffington Post in which he discusses Obama's AIPAC speech and notes both the positive (his continued support of a two-state solution, and his argument that the Iraq War has been bad for Israel's security) with the (in his words) deeply troubling: Obama's statement that Jerusalem "will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-at-aipac-some-doubt_b_105272.html

However, Zogby also notes something else: that "it has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can 'remain the capital of Israel' and can 'remain undivided' as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a 'shared' city."

Could this be the frame of reference Obama was (albeit, quietly) using when voicing his support of an “undivided” Jerusalem?

Was he simply stating his support for something already “technically” supported by moderate Palestinians?

Would this represent a rather cynical approach on Obama's part, if true? Sure.

But Obama has a very fine line to walk here. He is clearly engaging in some political maneuvering, trying to stay true to what he sees as the core principles surrounding this issue (a just peace being in the best interests of both Israelis and Palestinians and the idea that Iraq War has been bad for Israel) while at the same time eking out every last drop of common ground that he can find to garner the support of members of an influential organization, many of whom have (fairly or not) viewed him with suspicion.

Am I looking for reasons to justify my candidate's position on this issue? Yeah, probably. But I do believe that Obama understands the importance of achieving a just peace between the Israelis and Palestinians, not only for the sake of the Israelis and Palestinians, but for America as well.

Therefore, I have to believe (want to believe) that he knows what he is doing and that he has a plan.

I guess one could refer to this as my audacity of hope.