"Obama Distinguishes Between ‘pro-Israel’ and pro-Likud"

[Voice for Peace]

This is an issue that has been important to me and I'm glad to read Obama's
comments. (Please don't slam this post just because it came from a
libertarian website. Jim Lobe's reporting is generally outstanding):

Obama Distinguishes Between ‘pro-Israel’ and pro-Likud
posted by Jim Lobe
Monday, February 25th, 2008

Barack Obama reportedly said something very important and long overdue to a group of some 100 Cleveland Jewish leaders on Sunday — that being pro-Likud and being “pro-Israel” are two different things.

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you
adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and
that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an
honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to
make progress.”

He said even more about the confined nature of the debate over Israel and its security in this country, according to the dispatch in the Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA). Apparently in defense of his consultations with Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has been harshly critical of neo-conservative influence in the Bush administration, Obama said:

“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association
or the notion that unless we are never ever going to ask any difficult questions
about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non
belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is
being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.”

And he contrasted those constraints on the debate here with the breadth and vigor of the discussion of those same issues in Israel itself.

“There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you,
I’m sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of
the pressure that Israel is under, I think the U.S. pro-Israel community is sometimes
a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. But all I’m
saying though is that actually ultimately should be our goal, to have that same clear-
eyed view about how we approach these issues.”

http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/02/25/obama-distinguishes-between-pro-israel-and-pro-likud/

[Bread and Circus]

1. I like what he's saying

[rateyes]

2. Good for Obama and,

in before this gets moved to the dungeon.

[TexasObserver]

3. He should. It's a big difference.

[NorthernSpy]

4. YES!

This is a shot across the neocons' bow. Those clowns at Israpundit (they're the ones who put together that "Consensus" statement to attack Obama) should take notice. Things have changed.

[backscatter712]

5. Good for Obama. Keep alert though...

Zionists calling Obama anti-semitic in 3...2...1... :(

[geek tragedy]

10. Not a good idea to use 'Zionist' like that.

A lot of Zionists are just people who support Israel's right to exist and prosper. 'Likudniks' may be a better term.

[maximusveritas]

14. Agreed, that's why this was good framing by Obama

Zionists means different things to different people. It's better to talk about this as a political disagreement with the Likudniks, especially with the recent unpopularity of that that party.

[ProgressIn2008]

6. "Deepening and strengthening" the defense cooperation bw US and Israel

The link to the full comments is worth reading.

I also expect to work on behalf of peace with the full knowledge that Israel still has bitter enemies who are intent on its destruction. We see their intentions every time a suicide bomber strikes, we saw their intentions with the katusha rockets that Hezbollah rained down on Israel from Lebanon in 2006 and we see it today in the Kasams that Hamas fires into Israel every single day from as close as Gaza or as far as Tehran. The Defense cooperation between the United States to Israel has been a model of success and I believe it can be deepened and strengthened. Now the gravest threat as Robert mentioned to Israel today I believe is from Iran. There a radical regime continues to pursue its capacity to build a nuclear weapon and continues to support terrorism across the region. President Ahmadinejad continues his offensive denials of the Holocaust and disturbing denunciations of Israel, recently referred to Israel as a deadly microbe and a savage animal. Threats of Israel's destruction can not be dismissed as rhetoric. The threat from Iran is real and my goal as president would be to eliminate that threat.

I would like to know what "deepening and strengthening" the defense cooperation between United States and Israel means, in terms of policy. More military aid? Something else?

The parts about Iran are interesting, too.

On edit: here's the link to the partial transcript from the OP: http://www.nysun.com/article/71813

[milkyway]

7. Wow. I'm surprised to hear a Dem make this distinction, even though it is so obvious.

There's always a vigorous debate within Israel, but here in the U.S. it's almost taboo to express anything but the views of the Israeli extreme right.

To hear Barack express this so clearly gives me even more hope that he will be not just a good president, but a strong, and perhaps even a great, president.

[loudsue]

8. Wow! Those words are LONG overdue for this issue.

Talking bad about LIKUD has been like speaking ill of the neoconservatives here. Like, it could get you gitmo'd. LIKUD there IS like the neocons here. And rational, non-rambo discussions are not possible with those folks.

:kick: & Rec.

[Egnever]

9. Great statements I couldnt agree with him more.

[Whisp]

11. omg, YES! nt

[BenDavid]

12. Personally, I do not trust obama!

[sabra]

As an Israeli citizen, I am not concerned about Obama's policy towards Israel...

shalom chaver :hi:

[KittyWampus]

13. Which political party is the polar opposite of Likud in Israel, do you know?

[NorthernSpy]

16. there are various parties...

Not sure how you'd designate a polar opposite, but traditionally the Labour Party was Likud's major rival.

[NorthernSpy]

15. Okay, I don't trust YOU.

Oh, look -- we're even!


:eyes:

[democrattotheend]

20. You mean to be pro-Israel enough?

And if that's your feeling, you are pretty brave for sticking around these quarters.

I used to post here in 2003 and 2004, and stopped because all of the anti-Israel sentiment was getting to me. I am glad they moved that to its own forum, to say the least.

Personally, I agree with Obama that there is a difference between being pro-Israel and pro-Likkud, but I am afraid these remarks might hurt him with Jews who think Israel can do no wrong. But a lot of them have started voting Republican anyway.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

17. I'm more worried about him being pro United States

we are sending an awful lot of money to Israel for them to buy weapons with.

Of course, that money in turn is spent with war contractors with influence in the US.

Its circular.

The billions sent to Israel could pay for health care here in the US.

[Voice for Peace]

18. I think that Obama is open to learning from all sides of any argument.

This is the key quality of someone who believes in discourse and diplomacy:
a recognition that in order to be understood, first you need to understand the
other's perspective.

There are a lot of very well respected and brilliant people in this country and
around the world who see the US-Israel relationship in a much different light
than the Likudniks and the neocons. Obama is smart. I am confident he
is not going to be influenced and informed by stupid evil people, unlike the
current resident.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

19. very good

good judgement

[FrenchieCat]

21. And Lord knows that we are in short supply of good judgement

in the other candidates.

Barack will change the way the world looks at us for way the better! That is extremely important!