The Morning After: Obama and Hillary at AIPAC
After confused signals last night from the Clinton campaign, Hillary Clinton began her speech to AIPAC today with a magnanimous and clear message--that she will support a President Obama and that he will support Israel. AIPAC sure has lucky timing to hold its convention on the day after the Dem primary winds down. It puts the organization front and center and doubtless will start the blogs and pundits wagging (as I am here...) about the central role of the organization in American politics.
But, that's not the issue. The issue is what about American foreign policy, not what about one organization. And on that score, Senator Obama laid out a vision that will be key to America's revived role in the Mideast region. Both he (and Senator Clinton) made clear that only sustained involvement by the U.S. will create peace in the region. Here's the thing:
The clock is fiercely running down. The lack of involvement and botched involvement by the current U.S. administration has been harmful to U.S. interests and to all in the region. This is old news by now. But here's something new to consider. The same hope that American voters have expressed in their overwhelming turnout--and younger voter engagement--for Barack Obama is the sentiment that people in Israel and Palestine, Syria, Iran and elsewhere deserve. There needs to be a creative, sustained political approach to finally creating two states between Israel and Palestine and sooner in a new administration rather than later, but there also needs to be a renewed sense of hope for the populations that have become so dismayed by the lack of political success.
Listening to Israeli radio on broadband a short while ago, as the newscasters talked about the U.S. election in their weekly round up, I heard them too use words like 'hope' when talking about the Obama phenomenon, just like the American news media. The songs that were interlaced with the news reports were the same songs that get played on Israeli radio when there are glimmers of progress toward peace, or when the dream of peace is shattered, as it was following the murder by a Jewish extremist of former Israeli PM Yitzhak Rabin.
Don't underestimate the hope that an Obama candidacy and presidency can bring to the Israeli public especially as Israel's own political leadership is crumbling in scandal investigations. There will, pretty much without doubt, be a new Israeli Prime Minister and coalition government this November just in time for our new American president. It's urgent that there be politicians in both capitols (and in Ramallah) who are able to come together finally to move to two states. That's what that this campaign is about. It's good American policy. Saber rattling and empty rhetoric about patriotism or being soft on terror is not.















Yes, MSNBC played both speeches live in full, I don't know if CNN did. That's a dream for their P.R. people.
I found Obama's speech both very moving and surprisingly hawkish on Israel, more so than his previous. There were all kinds of references in it that basically said Israel and the U.S. have shared values and implied that Israel's enemies do not share U.S. values. He also blatantly promised to continue to arm Israel to the teeth, to make sure they always have the dominant military in the region, and said Jerusalem should never be divided. He strongly panned Iran and Syria and not just Hezbollah, but also Hamas. He stressed his opposition to the Iraq invasion in terms of the danger to Israel and the relationship to enabling al Qaeda.
I also found that Hillary seemed less hawkish in comparison, because her speech was so much more wonkish with less inspirational rhetoric and grand promises. It almost worked out as if besides talking wonk policy, she was there to give bonafides to Obama, i.e., you know me as a friend of Israel, I'm here to tell you that he is too.
I'm glad I watched the speeches, because especially with Obama's, I couldn't have gotten the same impression from reading text alone. The pro-Israel preference there really came through strong, I don't know anyone could interpret it as mere pandering and not sincere. After watching his speech, I suspect those who are hoping that as president that he will give AIPAC a comeuppance are in for disappointment.
June 4, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
CNN played both speeches as well.
June 4, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
artappraiser:
Thank you for your post. It is curious that so much praise is being heaped on Senator Obama by certain folks (not Joanne) in connection with Senator Obama's presentation to AIPAC this morning. As you point out, Senator Obama took the most extreme positions before AIPAC, such as preserving an "undivided Jerusalem". Both MJ Rosenberg and David Levy have pilloried Hillary for taking the same position on Jerusalem. Here's MJ on December 17, 2007, accusing Hillary, "unlike Obama", of taking the hardline on the City of Gold:
June 4, 2008 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, did you see the part with him praising AIPAC as a grass roots organiztion? Heh.
I thought that was real interesting, because in a lot of his past writings, he has often been somewhat negative in the past towards single issue interest groups, the lobbyists asking him to set down on paper yes or no about this or that issue, he seems much more into "majority rule."
So, just now I got to thinking, that it might follow that he doesn't think of AIPAC as a single issue interest group, but more like a movement about values? And that fits with his stressing of Israel and the U.S having the same values....
June 4, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Time's Mark Helperin saw the same Clinton speech I did:
This is the blurb they have with the link to the video to her speech:
In AIPAC speech, says there needs to be a Democratic president for Israel.
Click above to watch.
“I know Senator Obama understands what is at stake here.”
“I know Senator Obama will be a good friend to Israel.”
“Let me underscore: we need a Democrat in the White House next January.”
http://thepage.time.com/
Meanwhile, Palestinian leaders are not taking Obama's speech very well so far:
Obama speech draws widespread Palestinian condemnation
June 4, 2008 3:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Note that she called him Senator Obama, rejected his sitdown with Iran diplomacy, and referred to drastic measures needed when dealing with that country, which, however obliquely, recalls her obliteration position.
Just saying.
June 4, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
What is she supposed to call him, if not "Senator Obama"?
June 4, 2008 6:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
An 'undivided' Jerusalem? Kiss off peace in the region with that stance; I am so sick and tired of AIPAC dictating to the U.S. what our policy should be to a State that does NOT have a mutual defense treaty with us-because Israel doesn't want one given that such would allow us into their security system- and that has not only spied on us but actually attacked us (U.S.S. Liberty); oh well, it will be a 'fire next time' and Israel will then be uninhabitable. Obama needs to pay more attention to http://www.jstreet.org/ than AIPAC.
June 4, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink