Obama and the “Constant Sore”
- 05.12.2008 - 5:30 PMAbe notes some highlights from Barack Obama’s lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly on Israel and Hamas. There are some other startling exchanges. No, he wasn’t asked hard-hitting questions as to whether his willingness to meet directly with Iran has sent a mixed or harmful message to groups like Hamas. And, no, he wasn’t grilled on Robert Malley. Oh, and don’t get your hopes up that he was asked how he could sit in the pews of a pastor who declared Israel a “dirty word.” But there was quite a bit to chew on.
He was asked if he was “flummoxed” by Hamas’ endorsement. The answer is not likely to set your mind as ease:
I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.
No one is right or wrong, it’s all “gray” and he’s just the guy to let everyone know. What is jaw-dropping, however, is his assumption that Hamas might be impressed with his “worldly” outlook. That’s what Hamas has been searching for: someone who is worldly. And notice the evasion he employs (”talks with people”) to escape stating the obvious: they are thrilled he’s offered direct talks with their sponsor and Holocaust denier Ahmejinidad.
But that’s not the half of it. There is this exchange:
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean that Israel is the “constant sore,” but the sentiment is likely to make Islamic militants swoon. They have long argued that the central problem in the Middle East is not lack of democracy, the appalling conditions of Arab populations, jihad terrorists or Shia-Sunni violence: It is the failure of Israel to recognize the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Now they have a candidate to mouth their platitudes and, as a bonus point, disparage “hawkish” elements in the U.S. who would insist on a stalwart defense of Israel. (Might that include these elements’ opposition to meeting with Ahmejdinidad?) No wonder he wasn’t flummoxed by Hamas’ endorsement. He’s the best candidate Hamas could hope for.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
May 12th, 2008 at 5:55 PM
“But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. ”
“Barry” Obama means every word of it! Why would you suspect anything different? This is the consensus viewpoint of the Democratic Party “elite” and also a number of Republican “realist” thinkers.
As I have previously stated a number of times: BO is a very intellectually shallow guy. He has never done any serious reading in his life. Obama is perceived as some sort of heavy duty intellect only because he gradated from Harvard Law School. It is very likely that he will continue uttering a lot of other weird things.
May 12th, 2008 at 5:56 PM
I agree with Obama that it is in the U.S.’s and Israel’s national security interest to have a sustainable peace between Israel, its neighbors, and the Palestinians. As a conservative Jew myself, I would not expect that Obama would adhere to the positions of preventing Iran’s nuclear ambitions and ensuring that Israel is free from terrorism solely out of political expediency. This is a straw man, very similar to much of Obama’s argumentive methods. But I would ask that Obama commit to a concrete set of policy positions that show that he is committed to the security of the Israeli state, and will only support peace if this peace is secure and sustainable - meaning no Trojan Horses, no more Yom Kippur wars, no more truces that just lead to Hamas rearming, and more peacemaking with unreformed zealot terrorist tyrants. I wish he would address these real concerns, rather than mis-state the very serious position of United States Jews committed to the integrity of the state of Israel and the prevention of another Holocaust.
May 12th, 2008 at 6:25 PM
“But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. ”
Obama
In other Israel body comparisons
“President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who called the state of Israel “a stinking corpse”.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:24 PM
The sore is in the sore losers whose wars against Israel failed.
May 12th, 2008 at 7:47 PM
And then there’s “That dirty word…” from Rev. Wright. “Sore.” “Corpse.” “Dirty word.” Anybody see a pattern?
Someone on this board just used the Clint Eastwood movie line, “If you’re gonna shoot, shoot. Don’t talk about it.” (I forgot who used it, but a hat tip to you.) Israel took out the Syrian/Korean reactor. Not a word about it…before or until much later. Is Israel also making serious plans vis a vis Iran/Hezbollah/Hamas, et al? They couldn’t wait to see if Iraqi, Syrian, or now Iranian nuke plants (were) are really for peaceful purposes, they can’t afford to see what President Obama believes, in view of what he and his supporters actually do, or don’t, say. It’s NEVER not “worst case scenario” for the Jews or Israel. Obama quacks like a duck. Get out the orange sauce and an ‘85 Burgundy.
Steven from Indiana
May 12th, 2008 at 7:54 PM
“the status quo is unsustainable”
It is characteristic of Obama that he states a truism that everyone agrees with as if he thought it up and is maintaining it against obscurantist opposition.
May 12th, 2008 at 9:15 PM
It is characteristic of Obama that he states a truism that everyone agrees with as if he thought it up and is maintaining it against obscurantist opposition.
Obama’s position is status quo however - Israel is source of all problems, Israel settlements bad. In short, status quo is that it is up to Israel to appease the Palestinians enough so they stop trying to kill Jews. So when he says changing the status quo, it is code for, we need more Israeli concessions to break his perceived deadlock. Notice he has never once made any demands of the Palestinians or state that he is not going to blindly follow the PLO position, like he does with Israel.
This guy is very dangerous.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:32 PM
“(B)ut the sentiment is likely to make Islamic militants swoon…”
Most Republicans believe that there is nothing specific that opponents of “Islamic militants” can do or say to make these thugs less hateful. I am a Liberal, and I agree with this, yet the line about swooning Islamic militants reveals Mz. Rubin to be so nakedly partisan that she blames America first when the politician in question is a Democrat.
For shame.
May 12th, 2008 at 10:38 PM
Cont’d:
I guess I shouldn’t be suprised, then, that Rubin left out the rest of Obama’s answer:
“When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.
When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.”
Honestly, Mz. Rubin and her groupies ought to stay away from sharp objects.
May 12th, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Why is it a “truism” that Israeli control of a paltry fraction of the WB/J-S is “unsustainable”, but not the dominance elsewhere of Hamas, Hezbollah, or the PA? For that matter, what exactly is so inherently “unsustainable” about a civilized if imperfect country sovereign in its entire historic homeland despite the presence of a disgruntled, often violent minority? Even the Pals prefer Israeli residence or citizenship to the dubious privileges of their indigenous political culture. And Jews have maintained a solid — one might almost say “sustainable” — overall majority in the Land of Israel for 40 years.
The mantra of unsustainability is ultimately premised on Jewish guilt for having survived in an imperfect world. That, too, is arguably a legacy of the Holocaust. But notwithstanding
the Left’s bulemia, national abnegation does not guarantee anything — not security, not international popularity, not internal solidarity, at most a modicum of masochistic self-satisfaction. But perhaps that’s what Barry intends for all of us.