Ezra Klein: Obama and AIPAC

« Conversations About The Conversation | Main | Tricks of the Trade »

March 14, 2007

Obama and AIPAC

On the more substantive issue below, I'm very impressed that Barack Obama stood up at an AIPAC conference and made a point of talking about Palestinian suffering. The reaction, of course, was predictable. "It’s just clumsy of him to say that on the eve of the Aipac conference," said one attendee. "His inexperience is showing.” That, or his beliefs.

I remain unconvinced by Obama's appetite for domestic policy battles. But it's certainly true that the President of the United State can personally do a lot more to revitalize America's role in the Middle East peace process than pass universal health care. You need Congress to pass social policy legislation, but the executive branch, as Bush has proven, has rather a lot of autonomy over international relations and national security. The "experience thing" is somewhat worrying, but I'm not seeing any better options.

Update: Okay, it looks like Obama said this the night before the AIPAC dinner, in Iowa.

March 14, 2007 | Permalink

Comments

If Obama apologizes I'll fucking scream.

Posted by: Klein's Tiny Left Nut | Mar 14, 2007 1:20:39 PM

I'm fed up with the whining exagerators, name-callers of anti-semitism, and loss-of-money (to pols) threateners in AIPAC.

Exactly why can't Isreal live with a policy of Mutual Assured Destruction against Iran (and other other enemies) if an attack is eminently threatened - especially if the USA extends its nuclear umbrella threatening MAD (for any attack on NATO) to include Israel?

The ultra right wing of Israeli politics, aided by AIPAC and the end-of-dayers in the US religious right, has become a threat to world peace and stability just like the worse enemies of western democracy.

Enough of this bullshit. We all understand that Israel is surrounded by enemies of various sorts, from those like Syria that want to talk peace, to Hamas that denies Israel's right to exist. Blessed are the peacemakers, you know. Israel isn't really even trying to make peace, and haven't been since Sharon ascended to the PM position.

The US should make clear we will only support rational defense of Israel (including US support under our MAD umbrella) and will not support further continuation of the occupation of the West Bank (including post-1967 settlements). No active US pol will today support that position, but it is written in the wind and denying it will not make it go away.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 14, 2007 2:07:40 PM

Nitpick first: your first graph is misleading. Although Obama did, I believe, make reference to the suffering of Palestianians when he addressed AIPAC, the comment in question (nobody has suffered more than...) was said at an appearance in Iowa. Not nearly as ballsy.

In any case, anti-Arab bigots like Adelman and Marty Peretz should be spurned and shamed. It's too bad neither Obama nor anyone else has the balls to take on AIPAC directly.

Speaking of which, I wonder if Obama will join John Edwards in rebuffing AIPAC by supporting Webb's bill requiring Congressional authorization for an attack on Iran. Ezra, you've been quite critical of Edwards's position on Iran; I'd like you should give him props for his support of Webb's bill. It will make him no friends at AIPAC.

Posted by: david mizner | Mar 14, 2007 2:08:54 PM

Yeah, the remark was made in Iowa. His AIPAC speech was pretty lame from what I understand.

Posted by: Adrian | Mar 14, 2007 2:52:56 PM

Well, Obama did mention the suffering of Palestinians in his address to AIPAC, as in "both Israelis and Palestians have suffered", and maybe this could be considered bold given the low standard for boldness in dealing with AIPAC. But there was certainly a reason that he didn't say "noboby's suffered more than Palestianians" in front of AIPAC. He would've had food thrown at him.

Posted by: david mizner | Mar 14, 2007 3:02:34 PM

What will it take to take down AIPAC? I can't believe that all the rich Jews in existence want to be represented by that moronic vitriol. Isn't it time for a counter-lobby? God, I just have this overpowering fantasy of getting Abe Foxman in a headlock and showing him pictures of malnourished children in Gaza until he expires from an enbolism of the moral faculty.

Posted by: Aaron | Mar 14, 2007 3:32:36 PM

Glen Greenwald adds to this discussion, and tips his hat to Ezra and Matt.

Posted by: JimPortlandOR | Mar 14, 2007 4:26:32 PM

"I remain unconvinced by Obama's appetite for domestic policy battles. But it's certainly true that the President of the United State can personally do a lot more to revitalize America's role in the Middle East peace process than pass universal health care."

While, obviously, the WH has a freer hand overseas than domestically, you're kinda whack if you don't realize how ripe a historical moment for passage of UHC (as well as a general re-orienting of national priorities) the next President's first term will be...

While I'd certainly prefer the warmed over Clintonism of HRC or Obama to the Republican alternatives, the opportunity costs of missing the coming moment would be absolutely enormous.

Posted by: Petey | Mar 14, 2007 6:01:59 PM

As my friend Jennifer said - who does understand, as much as a nice Jewish girl from a religious family can, that this is also about the suffering of the Palestinians - this is just not a message that's going to sell to an audience of New York Jews. It's just not. And I think as long as so many politicians are trained so well not to bring up the elephants in the room, it's just going to hurt the ones that do. I don't think it makes Obama brave to say this, perhaps just commonsensical, but it's also, one kind of has to say, the mistake of a neophyte. Israel is a very special, very unique case, and a lot of the ways that have developed for talking about and working within the structures that exist (like AIPAC) are decisions you can't just make unilaterally, much as many may want to. And in order to help solve the issues in the Middle East, we have to face that, just as we have to help Israel continue to make progress and not react with an instinctive, and often understandable, aggresive defensiveness where the Palestinians are concerned. This is a complicated problem - oversimplifying it doesn't help anyone or solve it.

Posted by: weboy | Mar 14, 2007 8:05:14 PM

"Osama"??

oy vey

Posted by: Jesse | Mar 14, 2007 9:01:47 PM

Quit confusing me. One day you are not sure if you like Obama and the next you do. I don't know whether to fight with you defending my candidate, Obama or praise your good taste.

Posted by: vwcat | Mar 14, 2007 9:34:56 PM

forgot. I saw these guys on cspan's Washington Journal (names escape me) who wrote about the need to discuss the taboo subject of the Israel lobby and Palestine. They were quite interesting despite the nasty phone calls (you know how that is, seeing you were on there once).

Posted by: vwcat | Mar 14, 2007 9:42:16 PM

weboy: Israel is a very special, very unique case, and a lot of the ways that have developed for talking about and working within the structures that exist (like AIPAC) are decisions you can't just make unilaterally, much as many may want to.

And why not? Who elected AIPAC, and why is that extremist organization entitled to any deference whatsoever? Just because they can raise a lot of money? In a well-run democracy, that should be irrelevant.

AIPAC should not be "worked within." It should be crushed.

Posted by: Josh G. | Mar 14, 2007 10:12:54 PM

托盘
 托盘
 钢托盘
 钢制托盘
 塑料托盘
 木托盘
 木制托盘
 纸托盘
 木塑托盘