Jack Ross had a more hopeful, and I am hoping, canny response to my post last night about Obama getting in bed with the Israel lobby in 2003:
When I first read that bit about Obama speaking to Arab students in Ramallah
giving the party line and the lack of sophistication of the one girl's
question I realized that even a more targeted or thought out question
would have gotten only talking points back. Most of the evidence that
percolated during the
campaign of Obama's sympathy for the Palestinians is a blur now; but
what I remember most vividly is that when he first started speaking for
AIPAC
I felt at the time, out of outrage more then anything, that I had never
heard anyone be so transparently phony in doing it – and this was in
2006 or 2007.
The bottom line is that I don't think he's sincere
in taking either the Israeli or Palestinian side, in both cases they
were based on cold political calculation, and that includes
pro-Palestinian statements at certain points in the Iowa caucus and
feelers toward the J Street line when it could galvanize support
against Hillary. As with all aspects of the continuation of the empire
or lack thereof, including with respect to the financial crisis, facts
on the ground are what matter; and unlike McCain, Obama is superior to being
claimed by facts on the ground.
Obama is the most cold
calculating son of a bitch you'll ever meet, but he's not an
unprincipled sociopath like Bill and Hillary. He seems to
sincerely believe in cooperation over conflict in world affairs, and he
knows the facts on the ground with respect to Iraq and Afghanistan, and I go back to what I've always said, that the necessary deal with Iran regarding both those neighbors will inevitably lead to different policies on Israel/Palestine.
I
also think its naive to think that Obama and AIPAC have approached each
other with anything but mutual distrust. Obama knows how he's
perceived by these people, and he knows that sooner or later its him or
them. For better or worse, the cases of Alice Palmer and Rev. Wright
show that when an apparent friend is about to stab him in the back
he'll stab them first and harder.
The key in going forward is
recognizing the difference between Obama bringing about serious change
and Obama being in lockstep with the loony liberals. Whatever Obama
is, the last thing he is is a naif, which is what he would have to be
to just go along with the liberal status quo.
P.S. There's no evidence that Obama has ever been opposed to a two-state solution. The big
question going forward of course is can the two-state solution be saved
and what happens, not so much in Israel/Palestine itself but in
American, European, and Jewish politics if it can't be. More good news, which Raimondo felt obliged to point out in his column today, when he was in a huge tizzy about Obama as war party man over the outside chance Dennis Ross could be National Security Adviser, is that the name being floated right now for the post is Anthony Zinni.
