Wednesday, March 19, 2008

The Other Side of Obama on Israel

Our post from last week “Obama and Israel” highlighted Obama’s resistance to pro-Israel neoconservatives. The column referred to in that post surveyed some of the most perfidious attacks on Obama by members of the Israeli lobby in the US. Call it reverse-psychology association but any time we see somebody being attacked by the pro-Israel Establishment we tend to think of him or her as reasonable and unyielding. But let’s not get too far ahead of ourselves. If elected president, Obama will not depart radically from the pro-Israel foreign policy of previous US administrations. One could begin to understand his refusal to converse with Hamas (the democratically elected head of Palestine National Authority) on the grounds that it still is a violent organization. But in Tuesday's speech taking distance from Reverend Jeremiah Wright’s heated remarks, Obama asserted that Israel is not the main source of conflict in the Middle East but Islamic Fundamentalism. Granted that Islamic Fundamentalism is one source of problems, playing down the role of Israel in this endless crisis shows either some degree of historical confusion or surrender to the pro-Israel lobby. I’m afraid that we may be starting to feel the consequences of Samantha Power’s resignation.

3 Comments:

Anonymous said...

I know it is a popular sport to parse presidential pronouncements on Israel and Palestine as finely as possible, and then exaggerate them all out of proportion, but Obama's statement that it is distorted to view "the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel," certainly doesn't have to be read as denying Israel's partial or even equal responsibility for Middle East conflict. Rather, it could be understand as claiming (plausibly enough), that it would a distortion to claim that Israel is the primary or even sole cause of conflict.

But regardless, Obama has been basically pro-Israel all along. What occasionally makes him sound different than the normal U.S. politician when talking about Israel is more the result of his overall commitment to dialogue with his opponents rather than just demonizing or ignoring them.

Matias Bulnes said...

Your comment confuses me. First, you say that my reading of Obama's words isn't necessarily the only one. Next, you give the exact same reading.

As with your reading, I take Obama to have said that it would be a distortion to claim that Israel is the primary cause of the conflict in the Middle East. And this, I contend, shows a historical confusion on his part because no doubt Israel is the primary cause of the conflict in the Middle East. What else could it be? I don't say that Obama denies Israel's partial or equal responsibility, he denies Israel's PRIMARY responsibility.

Anonymous said...

Israel's actions have certainly contributed to conflict in the Middle East, but it seems unfair to suggest that they are the primary cause of Middle East conflict. For instance, the war between Iran and Iraq was not caused by Israel, but nonetheless had a devastating impact on the Middle East. Similarly, the current war in Iraq was primarily caused by the U.S., not Israel. So, to suggest that there is no doubt that Israel is the primary cause of all conflict in the Middle East seems overly simplistic.

The reason I attempted to clarify Obama's statement is that while it would be incorrect to claim that Israel has no fault for Middle East conflict, and this is a claim made by many in both parties, that is not implied by Obama's statement. In fact, what he said is compatible with the view that Israel is significantly responsible for much of the unrest in the Middle East. The claim that you endorse is so broad (all conflict in the Middle East?!?) that it seems uncharitable to chastise those humble (or politic) enough to hesitate before also endorsing it.

blogger templates