semitism.net

MJ Rosenberg at TPM Cafe has the full text of Obama’s speech to the AIPAC conference, plus some interesting discussion in the comments section.

It could have been worse.

He stays on safe, but moderate, ground in outlining his central goal:

Our job is to renew the United States’ efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.

He refers to Israel as “our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy” and states his “clear and strong commitment” to its security. In this, he reassures his listeners that, like Clinton and Bush, he will consider U.S. interests in the Mideast to be essentially identical with those of Israel.

This, of course, is patent nonsense. Israel has every reason to delay a negotiated settlement with the Palestinians for as long as possible, since it is expanding its territory steadily under the current arrangement, and faces no real existential threat while it is under U.S. protection.

The United States, on the other hand, has a clear interest in ending the conflict as quickly as possible since it is a major driver of anti-U.S. sentiment in the region. To act on this interest would mean pressing Israel to negotiate a territorial settlement - something Obama evidently does not want to espouse, for fear of alienating potential Jewish supporters.

He adds on his post-facto support for the invasion of Lebanon:

…when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself. Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there. That’s why we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah…

He follows the Bush Administration script with regard to the Mecca Accord:

The Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction.

Finally, at the end, he hints at hard choices Israel might need to make. One could read this as leaving the door open to more assertive American diplomacy:

as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and security.

Yitzhak Rabin had the vision to reach out to longtime enemies. Ariel Sharon had the determination to lead Israel out of Gaza. These were difficult, painful decisions that went to the heart of Israel’s identity as a nation…

We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security. Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

But then he proceeds to un-do it all with a final pandering cop-out:

in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.

I’ve only covered the parts of the speech relating to the Palestinian issue. He did re-affirm his commitment to withdraw from Iraq, which is central to his campaign.

As far as to Iran - as forecast - he declares that no option is off the table; but he favors

tough-minded diplomacy.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests.

So, thus. With regard to the Palestinians, anyhow, Obama pretty much hews the AIPAC line.

Little good it will do him, I suspect. Hillary Clinton has been cultivating this group much more assiduously and for a long time before he came on the scene. I’ll lay odds the lion’s share of Jewish money goes to her.

On the other hand, Obama might get a good proportion of the Jewish vote.