Yesterday I talked to Sue Dravis, a former Democratic Party official in Iowa, who 11 months ago elicited the frankest, and most damaging, statement that Obama has made about Israel/Palestine, when he said that "nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people." The comment was soon being denounced by Jewish groups around the country and was quoted by Brian Williams in a question at the first Democratic debate. Obama has run away from the statement for over a year. "It just won’t die," Dravis says.
Dravis is 42. She’s a Presbyterian and a former treasurer for the Muscatine County Democrats. She is a trainer at an office furniture company. She has a B.A. in marketing.
Her involvement with Middle East issues began several years ago through her church. Then she visited the Holy Land and was shocked. "It was just bizarre. Just bizarre. It is so incongruous to the life we live here. I went into the West Bank and there are issues of water and all the checkpoints, and people can’t get to work or visit their families. I’m not used to seeing life in a war zone."
Dravis came home determined to bear witness. She does not blame the Israelis or the Palestinians. Israel is surrounded by "hostile forces." Both sides are suffering, she says, though the situation is "imbalanced": the Israelis are more powerful than the Palestinians. "The occupation is wrong. If somebody started camping in my back yard I’d be pissed. And I’d do something about it." The U.S. has to take a decisive role in pushing a just solution. Dravis has lectured at churches and shown people her photos of Bethlehem, a cordoned city. See that father and son outside of Jesus’s birthplace–they are there selling peanuts. They live under a U.S.-backed occupation. Shouldn’t that father have greater opportunities?
Dravis has also buttonholed candidates. "After seeing the horrible things that the Israelis and Palestinians have to endure, I felt charged to go out and put this in front of the candidates because it is a taboo subject," she says. Typically candidates would say one thing in private, acknowledging Palestinian suffering, and then speak in more "measured" ways in public. Dravis wanted to puncture that hypocrisy.
Her opportunity with Obama came last March at the middle school in Muscatine. A group of 40 party insiders got a private audience with Obama in the library, then walked over with him to the auditorium for a rally. Obama was traveling that day with Tom Beaumont, a reporter for the Des Moines Register.
"Obama’s speech to AIPAC [in Chicago, the week before] is what forged my question," Dravis recalls. "It was inconsistent with what I had observed. It painted a pastoral picture of Israel. Well it’s not pastoral. It’s not safe for the Israelis, and the Palestinians are living under occupation. I said, ‘Gosh, I was over there for a couple of weeks and I would never have drawn the picture the way that you do…. I’m concerned from a humanitarian standpoint that the United States is funding an occupation. It is not safe for Israel nor good for the Palestinians.’ I was pretty emphatic but I couched it in humanitarian terms.. "
Obama gave a lengthy answer. He was evenhanded. He said that the Palestinians had to offer guarantees of security to Israel, and that the Israelis had to act to ease the suffering in the territories. He blamed Hamas, he blamed the settlements. And he said that in the interim, the Palestinians are suffering the most.
As the group left the library, Beaumont ran up to Dravis to get her name. Here is Beaumont’s original coverage of the comment (not on the DMR site; you gotta pay).
The comment produced a tremendous reaction. Obama retreated. He claimed that he was saying that Palestinians were suffering the most on account of Hamas. Two months later, the Register printed an article clarifying the interchange. The article alluded to "politically influential Jews" who had gotten upset over the statement, and then printed a transcript of Obama’s remarks, including the following:
"Israel’s going to have, you know in my speech to AIPAC (foreign policy
council in Chicago) last week, I said they’re going to have some stones
to carry in the road to peace. In particular, they are going to have to
look at some of the settlements in the West Bank, which it’s going to be very
painful for them politically to do. But they’re not going to take that
extraordinarily difficult political step until they feel that they’ve
got a partner on the other side.Now, in the interim, nobody’s suffering
more than the Palestinian people from this whole process. And I would
like to see – if we could get some movement from Palestinian leadership
– what I’d like to see is a loosening up of some of the restrictions on
providing aid directly to the Palestinian people.I was in the West Bank and Ramallah, and it’s very challenging. And I think you can get a sympathetic perspective both within Israel and from the U.S. and the Europeans if you have Hamas
acknowledge that the road to peace is not going go through – it’s not
going to go through terrorism and other violence…"
It is unimaginable to me that such innocent remarks could produce backtracking and controversy, but such is politics…
Dravis is now campaigning enthusiastically for Obama. For her, the issue of justice in Palestine is the most important issue in our politics. American evenhandedness means concern for both peoples and making Jerusalem an open city. "If any one groups wins, we’ll all
lose." She says that in the months leading up to the Iowa caucuses she had two more conversations with Obama where she pressed the question and spoke too with his foreign policy people. Dravis is a nice person. Friendly, with an easy laugh. And everyone, she reports, was "nice" to her. Obama’s original answer, balanced, and yes, taken out of context, was still gratifying to her.
"I really feel that Obama deep down gets it. He realizes the inequities." As for John Edwards, his position was "naive." And Hillary? "Horrendous on this issue. She knows just what to say. She is very very measured."
I pointed out that Obama backtracked on the comment and has lately made Holocaust-drenched remarks to Jewish reporters extolling Israel and saying nothing about settlements or occupation or suffering.
"He’s not the perfect candidate," Dravis said. "The perfect candidate cannot be elected. The fight doesn’t end when he gets elected. He’s going to get just as much or more pressure from people who don’t agree with me. But he is someone I could work on and work with when elected." I think that is the most important point here. With Obama, people who think as Dravis and I do are in the conversation. Revolutionary.
