Obama’s Error

By Ted Belman

When I first posted Obama’s speech to AIPAC, I said he reversed everything and stunned AIPAC and me. Within 24 hours, his campaign corrected him.

Some say he lied, others that he caved under pressure. I reject both of these.

The way I see it is that this was a very important speech as it was to his campaign as the Democratic nominee. I am sure that the speech was written by a knowledgeable Jew in collaboration with others and finally vetted by Obama himself. All his positions and previous statements were recalibrated for the national campaign. In it he was at pains to stress he was not soft on defense and was a friend of Israel.

Heretofore he had not been committal on the peace process but here he was clear he backed the peace process, with one difference, namely that he favoured an undivided Jerusalem. Within 24 hours this one difference was corrected.

“I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.” he said. For me, this is more frightening than comforting. This was short hand for forcing Israel to capitulate.

With all the care and attention that probably went into that speech, how could he possibly have not appreciated what his Jerusalem statement meant. It meant the end of the peace process and maybe even his assassination. It also meant he was totally at odds with his foreign policy team. I even wrote that he and his team had no choice but to part company.

It was so much in error that it was corrected within hours. We must now take a look at what wasn’t corrected because the correction implies that everything else was agreed upon.

    “but any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided”

Favouring Israel’s identity as a Jewish state doesn’t not mean no right of return, only no unbridled right of return. At least that’s something, but not much.

The Roadmap sought “secure and recognized” borders pursuant to Res 242. In previous governments both in the US and Israel “secure” meant defensible. Livni at one time argued against the word defensible because the Roadmap only required secure borders. When Bush was last in Israel he argued for secure and defensible borders and Obama in his speech did likewise.

Both words are open to interpretation. In the final analysis, who is to decide what they mean. To my mind, it is impossible to reconcile the greenline with mutual exchanges favoured by the Roadmap with secure and defensible borders. Something has got to give.

But back to the error. What must he have been thinking.

June 7, 2008 | 14 Comments »

Leave a Reply

14 Comments / 14 Comments

  1. Ted,

    you do not need to be Einstein or Freud to see that Obama is a nothing but a liar. If you grasp that much at this straw Hussein Obama, than you’re really desparate.

    The real question is not why did Obama say this and that, but why did YOU say what you said!

    OK Ted keep on dreaming, but you could wake up when it’s too late, ever heard of what happened to German Jewery which was psychologically similar to you ?!

  2. Vince, what Sharon did in his vain attempt to circumvent the Bush / Saudi road map was indefensible. He betrayed his country and his people. In exchange for “disengagement” / expulsion / retreat, Ariel Sharon got a worthless letter from Bush recognizing certain facts on the ground in the “West Bank.” These are mostly larger Jewish communities adjacent to Jerusalem.

    In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.

    Now the administration is claiming the letter is not relevant. Secretary of State Rice and the State Department essentially claim the letter is null and void.

    Clearly you are an apologist for evil. You are an apologist for evil men like George W. Bush. Bush can maintain his innocence until he is blue in the face and you can maintain Bush’s innocence in the day of judgment before the Almighty. I see you are white washing this evil man’s deeds. I expect you will stand with evil and evil doers as time progresses. It’s your choice You have made your choice.

  3. But first, there two important things you need to keep in mind. George W. Bush unveiled his vision for a Palestinian terror state early October 2001 — Bush is the first American president to make the establishment of a Muslim terror state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy.

    He was the first to say out loud the policy that was Israel engaged in since Oslo. Who is silly enough to not recongize that that was to be the end-result of Oslo?

    I disagree with the goal 100%, but I also disagreed with Olso. I dont discredit Bush for putting aside the BS.. it’s to his credit that he called a spade a spade.

    And if Sharon was so concerned about being made into a new Czechoslovakia why did he leave Gaza?

    In the GOP platform, notice the bolded part. It says leaving Gaza is Israel’s idea not Bush’s.

    Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements
    from Gaza     and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace
    in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward
    peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.

  4. After doing a bit of reading, I have to conclude that the Gaza plan’s genesis was with Israel (Sharon) and that overtime as the plan became Israel policy, the US had no choice but to see it implemented.

    The blame rests with Sharon’s government.

    Comment by VinceP1974 — June 8, 2008 @ 2:01 pm

    Vince, I’ve got something I want you to address about Daniel Pipes below. But first, there two important things you need to keep in mind. George W. Bush unveiled his vision for a Palestinian terror state early October 2001 — Bush is the first American president to make the establishment of a Muslim terror state in Israel a formal goal of U.S. policy. Sharon’s initial response before he was pounded into submission by then Secretary of State Colim Powell:

    ARIEL SHARON, ISRAELI PRIME MINISTER: “I call on the Western democracies and primarily the leader of the free world, the United States: Do not repeat the dreadful mistake of 1938 when enlightened European democracies decided to sacrifice Czechoslovakia for a convenient temporary solution. Do not try to appease the Arabs on our expense. This is unacceptable to us. Israel will not be Czechoslovakia. Israel will fight terrorism.”

    Now to Daniel Pipes Vince. Prior to the “disengagement” from Gaza Dr. Pipes wondered rhetorically, rather than forcibly expelling these Jews, why did Israel not simply remove IDF protection for Gaza’s settlement communities. After the criticism, Dr. Pipe claims he was taken out of context. In context could this comment be understood?

    JOHN KING, CNN SENIOR WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: As the president tries to build this international coalition, a major target of the White House effort, moderate Arab nations. But as the president reaches out to the Arab world, some tensions and remarkably blunt exchanges back and forth between the United States and a long- time ally.

    (Placed in context: Shibley Telhami, a Middle East expert at the University of Maryland, agrees that Bush formally made creating a Palestinian state the goal of U.S. policy, largely to appeal to the Muslim world at a time when the United States had attacked Afghanistan. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/04/AR2005100401410.html)

    (BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

    (voice-over): A truce after a rare and blunt war of words between Israel and the United States. In a statement issued late Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon noted the, quote, “deep friendship and special relationship” between the two nations and saluted President Bush for a, quote, “bold and courageous decision to fight terrorism.”

    It was an about-face from a day earlier, when Sharon lashed out.

    KING: What angered Washington most was Sharon’s comparison to Europe ceding parts of Czechoslovakia to Hitler, suggesting that in its aggressive effort to court Arab nations for the coalition against terrorism, the United States was turning its back on Israel’s security.

    ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN: The president believes that these remarks are unacceptable. Israel can have no better or stronger friend than the United States, and better friend than President Bush.

    KING: Secretary of State Colin called Sharon once to voice the president’s displeasure, then again later, after the prime minister agreed to issue a conciliatory statement.

    George W. Bush and Karl Rove then strong-armed the 2004 Republican national platform writing committee to codify the following language in our national party platform (in part):

    http://www.gop.com/media/2004platform.pdf

    The Broader Middle East and North Africa

    (Page 37)

    We support President Bush’s vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side
    by side in peace and security……

    Republicans agree with President Bush that Israel’s plan to remove all settlements
    from Gaza and several settlements from the West Bank is a courageous step toward peace
    in the face of continuing terrorist violence. This initiative can stimulate progress toward
    peace as laid out in the Road Map launched by President Bush.

    Republicans commend the government of Israel for its desire to pursue peace,
    even in the face of continuing terrorist attacks. This is demonstrated by steps Israel has
    taken, such as removing unauthorized outposts and improving the humanitarian situation
    by easing restrictions on the movement of Palestinians not engaged in terrorist activities.

  5. After doing a bit of reading, I have to conclude that the Gaza plan’s genesis was with Israel (Sharon) and that overtime as the plan became Israel policy, the US had no choice but to see it implemented.

    The blame rests with Sharon’s government.

    This article by Daniel Pipes provides some good counter-arguments:

    http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2005/04/sharons-gaza-withdrawal-made-in-washington.html

    As Klein notes, Sharon surprisingly made no mention of military or economic benefits by leaving Gaza. From the sound of the above excerpt, it seems that the prime minister sees the Gaza withdrawal as a pre-emptive move to deflect American pressure. The question then arises what exactly this pressure is and why we who follow such matters do not know about it. Surely, if the Bush administration is engaged in behind-the-scenes strong-arm tactics on Israel, and has been doing so for over two years, this is something that should be publicly known. Or does that pressure really exist?

    June 9, 2005 update: Israeli vice prime minister Ehud Olmert further confirmed my point today. Referring to the Gaza withdrawal, he noted that

    the beauty of this policy of the Israeli government is that this is a unilateral action. No one imposed it on us, no government, no foreign government, forced Israel to pullout from these territories. We have reached the conclusion that this is essential in order to change the realities and to move forward to break the status quo, and to start something that ultimately will lead to a new dialogue between us and the Palestinians.

    This blog is mentioned next

    Aug. 16, 2005 update: Omri Caren of IsraPundit takes issue with my arguments above at “Stop Blaming Sharon.” More broadly, as Israeli-on-Israeli violence in Gaza draws close, those opposed to withdrawal take succor from the idea that this policy was hatched in Washington and imposed on Jerusalem. It’s attractive and consoling to blame the Bush administration; this permits one to keep a high regard of Sharon specifically and of Israeli decisionmaking in general.

    It is, however, wishful thinking. Some problems with this approach.

    – Sharon himself has not – other than such behind-closed-doors chats as the one quoted above or in several quoted by David Bedein – claimed American pressure made him do it. And there is good reason for this: were he to say this in public, he would have to prove so. Saying it in private only allows him to get the excuse out without accountability.

    – The most determined Israeli political opponents of Gaza (such as Uzi Landau and Binyamin Netanyahu) do not speak of Washington pressure. Netanyahu in particular, a high-ranking government until just days ago, would have known of this, had it existed.

    – To the argument that the U.S. side wants the Gaza withdrawal as a sop to the Arabs, look at the Arab press and politicians, with their stinging references to Gaza now becoming the “world’s largest prison.” In brief, Sharon’s initiative is not exactly popular on the other side.

    Blaming Americans for Israeli mistakes is an old story; in particular, the same thing happened during the Oslo diplomacy. I showed why this was wrong on January 3, 2001, in “The Oslo Process – An Israeli Choice.” That article also contained historical background relevant to today’s debate:

    The idea that Washington pressures Israel to make concessions has some grounding in reality – it just happens to be out of date.

    The American “land for peace” policy that emerged in the aftermath of Israel’s victory in 1967 was for 20 years (1973-93) a source of tension with Israel. During that period, Arab states and the Palestinians, understanding this was a prerequisite to the voluntary return of lands they had lost in 1967, increasingly talked about “peace” with Israel.

    At the same time, Israelis suspected the sincerity of their statements, which were usually issued through gritted teeth, in English, freighted with conditions and angry demands. Washington pressed a reluctant Israel to accept those statements as valid, and to respond by turning over land in exchange.

    In other words, during those two decades, there really was sustained pressure on Israel from the U.S. government.

    Then came a historic shift. In 1992, Yitzhak Rabin came to office intent on trading the territories for peace agreements. His intensive efforts notwithstanding, he managed no land-for-peace exchange. Rabin concluded that persisting in this approach would leave Israel without agreements and with the territories he was trying to unload.

    So, as Douglas Feith points out, Rabin tried something very different: “Seeing that he could not insist on a secure peace while bringing the occupation to a prompt end, Rabin decided, fatefully, that the latter took priority.” In other words, he began a policy of unilateral withdrawal, which yet remains in effect.

    With this shift, the government of Israel effectively abandoned its old worries and adopted the carefree American approach. Out went two decades of doubts; in came a willingness to ignore Arab statements and actions.

    Comment: It may be a hard pill for some to swallow, but Israel makes its own destiny.

    This is the rest of Pipe’s article

    Aug. 17, 2005 update: Some timely confirmation of my argument comes in a major article by Aluf Benn in Ha’aretz, on the “Metamorphosis of Ariel Sharon.” The account begins in Rome on November 17, 2003, when Ariel Sharon met Elliott Abrams, the National Security Council official in charge of the Middle East portfolio, sent by his boss, National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice. I’ll let Benn take it from here:

    As the meeting moved on to the Palestinian issue, Sharon dropped a bombshell. He was considering, he informed Abrams, a unilateral move to break the deadlock after three years of fighting: evacuating Jewish settlements in the Gaza Strip.

    Considering Sharon’s political past, such a move was almost unimaginable. Even the most dovish Israeli governments had refrained from removing settlements in the West Bank and Gaza. Sharon, more than any other leader, had been the architect and political patron of the settlement enterprise.

    There are differing reports on what happened next. According to one version, Abrams was “shocked” and returned the next day to learn more. According to another account, Weissglas had already alerted the Americans to the possibility of unilateral Israeli action, but it was only in Rome that Sharon gave such a move his own stamp of approval

    .

    Comment: Whether Abrams was shocked or whether he had an inkling of what was coming, the implication is identical: this was a decision taken by Sharon, without so much as consulting with his American ally. So much for U.S. pressure on him to leave Gaza.

    Dec. 25, 2005 update: Akiva Eldar looks back on the personal and surreptitious way Ariel Sharon developed the Gaza withdrawal plan:

    Ministers who consider themselves his associates knew less than nothing about his plan to withdraw from the Gaza Strip without offering anything in exchange. If Ariel Sharon had asked the national security adviser, Giora Eiland, for a working paper analyzing the unilateral process, the prime minister would likely have done things differently, if at all. But Eiland – like most ministers, all the heads of the security establishment and the Foreign Ministry’s senior officials – only heard about that plan for the first time in the Herzliya speech [in December 2003].

  8. Unlike Obama, Bush is a strong leader; no question about it. Bush is a hands on administrator.

    A few years back, as a life-long Republican, I might not have said this but since George W. Bush, I see the Republicans (my party) a greater threat to Israel and her security, than the Democrats. Bush has put Israel in a terrible position visa vis her enemies. But for George W. Bush, it is unlikely Israel would have retreated from Gaza.

    israelinsider.com/views/6235.htm

    Sharon admits that American pressure determines retreat policy
    By David Bedein August 9, 2005

    The U.S. Department has made it clear to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon: It wants the Jews out of the Katif district of Gaza by August 15th, with no delays or excuses….

    Bush put Sharon under immense pressure. Bush has done enormous damage to Israel’s security.

  9. Ted wrote:

    “I will take an active role, and make a personal commitment to do all I can to advance the cause of peace from the start of my administration.” he said. For me, this is more frightening than comforting. This was short hand for forcing Israel to capitulate.

    Isn’t this standard U.S. policy? What is the difference between McCain and Obama? John McCain told Haaretz that as president, he would “micromanage” U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians and would dispatch “the smartest guy I know” to the region…

    Choose your poison?

  11. As mentioned earlier, Obama was taught in his early years the Qu’ran, which teaches that the end justifies
    the means – in other words, lying is useful in obtaining the result you want.

  12. When I say Obama lied, this does not mean he intentionally lied. In the final analysis it was lie. He unequivocally stated his support for an “undivided” Jerusalem that must remain the captital of Israel. The following day, under pressure from the jihadists, he reversed himself. A lie is a lie whether is is intentional or not.

    The one thing that is apparent to me, having watched this man over the last several months, Senator Obama if elected president will be a weak president.

  13. He did not diverge an iota from either Clinton then Bush. He used exact same sequence and terminology. Thus by accepting Bushes already in place policy he can start his administration in regards to Israel with his feet hitting the ground and running almost from the get go. Usually it takes any new administration up to a year before staff appointments are made and new policies and priorities decided upon. By taking Bushes already in place policies he can jump start his Israel/ Bush policies immediately. The only thing that can screw up his grand plan is the possibility of a new government here that will oppose his and bushes ME plans.

  14. What must he have been thinking.

    He was thinking “Damn, the other day I said the wrong concentration camp, then some other people were asking me about my ties to a Palestinian Professor. Hmmm. I bet I could upstage that old man McCain if I tickle the Jews ear with the candy they want to taste most…. Jerusalem undivided forever. Take that McBush!”