Marty, I trust you saw Jeff Goldberg and Tom Friedman's columns in the NY Times yesterday? They essentially made the point that Obama's disdain for the West Bank settler movement would lead him to pursue better policies for Israel's future (namely, curbing the settler movement) than if he were to capitulate to the Israeli right wing. Defending Israel from Iran and Hamas and Hizballah is one thing. Toeing the Likudist line is another.

Ah, the first mistake I have seen on a blog by you, Mr. Peretz. Such a slight one - February is mispelled. That I should have such a flawless record. I am constantly amazed how highly intelligent people like Tony Judt can be so obtuse when it comes to the Israeli - Palestinian imbroglio. Even when Palestinians do support negotiations with Israel, they seem to do so as a tactic and not out of a deeply held conviction that peace is the best route. Such sentiments have a biding-our-time sensiblity. Such "moderates" in the past as Mahmoud Darwish and Faisal Husseini have written and uttered bloodcurdling sentiments off the public stage. The Palestinians have suffered under criminal leadership forever.

I'm confused. Why do the editors of The Nation and so many Palestinian activists keep insisting that Obama shares their views regarding the settlements and negotiations?

From the LA Times earlier this year:

"At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than either of his opponents for the White House.

"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions.

"That's my personal opinion," Ibish said, "and I think it for a very large number of circumstantial reasons, and what he's said."

Based on his uncanny ability to make the Farrakhans lie down with the Peretzes, one can only conclude that Obama is either

a) deliberately slippery

OR

b) seriously misunderstood by either F. or P. or both

OR

c) without a clue and making it all up as he goes along

OR

d) some combination of the above

Tep, Obama's convinced people from Hussein Ibish to Robert Wexler that he's got their views at heart. He's quite slippery. And I'll admit this even as an Obamaniac -- he's an opportunist. And right now it's more opportunistic to be pro-Israel.

Because he is a liberal, tep, and a minority.  People do project a lot on him.  But I don't see that as his being slippery, since I haven't seen him having it both ways.  I mean, even what Ibish said in the article you quoted:

"I am confident that Barack Obama is more sympathetic to the position of ending the occupation than either of the other candidates," said Hussein Ibish, a senior fellow for the American Task Force on Palestine, referring to the Israeli presence in the West Bank and Gaza Strip that began after the 1967 war. More than his rivals for the White House, Ibish said, Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions

There is nothing at all controversial about it.   A "moral imperative" to resolve the conflict in a just way is exactly what Bush says he wants, and what everyone does.  I think the difference is that when Obama says things, people believe him.  I don't see that as slippery.  

"Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions." says Ibish.

But applying pressure on the PA and on Hamas is like applying pressure on thin air. How does one pressure people without power and/or people without a conscience? One doesn't.

So "applying pressure to both sides" is a euphamism for applying more pressure on Israel, which actually has the power to fulfill promises and the integrity to follow through on them once they're made.

With Barack in the Oval, I foresee more Olso accords and more Camp David II's.  

Rozenson: It is extremely nice to see an Obama supporter out here who can acknowledge that his (her) candidate is other than the most principled politician in the history of the Republic. Someone with nuance, some with the faculty of ambivalence. I am a Clinton supporter - some of my kind have all the nuance of a concrete overcoat - and I have frequently been critical of her on my posts. As teplukhin2you correctly asserts, someone is wrong about Obama's position on Israel versus the Palestinians. He has become a Jackson Pollock painting - you see in it (him) what you want.

Rozenson:  I might agree.  But probably not.  I've read the Goldberg piece in the Atlantic and he seems to me pretty unequivocal in his support of Israel.  He may have been opportunistic, but he's allowed to see the political realities--he can't get Florida without the old farts.  Still, I do wonder  whom he considers settlers.  Everybody over the '67 "green line" or the nuts deep within the West Bank. Where exactly would he draw those borders.  Anyway, speaking as  Jew and Zionist, I don't see how we can keep letting the Israeli religious creeps building their illegal settlements.  Slaps on the wrist aren't doing much.  On this, George H.W. was right.  

dkrieger "With Barack in the Oval, I foresee more Olso accords and more Camp David II's. "

Yeah, we know how well that worked.

"I will not negotiate with Hamas" is a no-brainer for any presidential candidate, the opposite would be close to a political suicide for no reason (the US does not have a burning problem with Hamas -- Israel does, hence a variety of opinions there.)  So Obama is smart enough to know it, and I wouldn't take that as a sure sign of his "support for Israel", whatever that means.

Equally,  "Nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people"  signifies nothing (well,  "nobody" in my book would be a small warning sign, how about the blacks of Darfur?)

So you put these two statements together and they tell you that a candidate isn't brain-dead, as far as his/her campaign goes.  Very exciting for their supporters, but way too little for everybody else.

At this point, Obama is a blank slate on many issues, esp. FP ones.   I'd be far more interested in his worldview, with specifics, than a bumper-sticker campaign slogans.  The last one on the current crisis in Lebanon/Hezbollah was not encouraging.

boneill says:  Obama sees a "moral imperative" in resolving the conflict and is most likely to apply pressure to both sides to make concessions...A "moral imperative" to resolve the conflict in a just way is exactly what Bush says he wants, and what everyone does.

Ah, the fabled evenhandedness to resolve the conflict in a "just way".  And what would that be -- eg, "just" for Hamas is no Israel; while for the "moderate" Abbas &Co. "just" is the sacred "right of return" to Israel.  For most Israelis, an Oslo-like agreement woud be "just", but, after almost 8 years of intifada, Hezbollah and Hamas,  it's at least a generation away.  What then one does with one's "moral imperative"?

Sleepyavl: You have that right.

sabaka said:

" I'd be far more interested in his worldview, with specifics, than a bumper-sticker campaign slogans."

Hello!?!  What exactly do you think is going on here? The man is attempting to fashion a broad electoral coalition; one broad enough to win the American Presidency.  No one has ever built a broad coalition without a certain level of ambiguity and a certain level of people seeing what they want to see in the candidate.  That's why they invented bumper stickers and slogans in the first place.  You want a worldview discussion with specifics, you're in the wrong place.  Try Ralph Nader or Ron Paul. They have plenty of specifics.  And plenty of time to talk about them since neither one is going anywhere soon.

dhuey,  the ultimate result of that "broad coalition" of yours is that it would include people who vehemently disagree with one another while thinking that Obama supports their  position.   How workable would that be?

Or, as M.Kinsley put it best:  "this election is too important to talk about real issues".

Is it not, ahm, a bit absurd to vote for someone whose positions on important stuff aren't clear to you?

Mr. Peretz, you are coddling Sen Obama and should let him explain what he means.  He told the nation that the Bush Poilicy of ostracizing Iran is wrong and he would open up dialog with the Iranians (NYT 10/31/07)

Now that he is a serious candidate, let him refine and explain this policy in more detail.

He looks foolish and like he's flopping around when he says he won't speak to Hamas.  

And he looks even worse when he complains that the President & McCain are picking on him.  Does he really beleive he is above criticism?  Wasn't it TNR's cover that called a sitting President a Liar?  When you step into the arena, be prepared for the battle.

Sen Obama took the bait.  Now McCain will bring this up in the debates.  'Sen Obama, you told America that you would talk to to Iran and ask for their help.  You told us you won't talk to Hamas becuase they are terrorist.  Can you let us know just which groups you will talk to and which ones you won't?'

Or is this where Tim Russert and the rest of the Press rush to his defense?

M.P: ...the stupid cease-fire negotiated by Condi Rice two years ago at the Security Council.

Yeah, just when Israel was about to deal Hezbollah a deadly blow, in rushed Condi Rice saving Hezbollah from total defeat. No wonder Olmert and Livni loudly protested.

Jeffrey Goldberg wrote:

"My op-ed in the Times has provoked a certain amount of unhappiness in people who believe it to be an attack on AIPAC. Apparently, we are all supposed to behave as if Israel has never made a mistake in its 60 years of existence. For Israel's sake, it seems important to acknowledge, and then fix, its mistakes. Or we can just hunker down and wait for doomsday."

Forget about negotiations with Hamas . This is a trivial issue.

Well meaning  Obama supporters  want to  fix Israel's mistakes or  Israel will  doomsday.

Do you Marty, agree with Jeffrey Goldberg? I  kind of doubt that you would trust Obama to  fix Israel's mistakes You and Jeffrey both had interviews with Obama. Can you tell if Obama shares the view that he has to fix Israel's mistakes?

So,how come that  you and  Jeffrey  got so different impression of Obama's intentions?

dhuey - NTTAWW ambiguity (your term) or slipperiness (mine). Cunning = good in my book. Maybe he'll surprise us all.

But I'd be more optimistic about hte potential of such cunning and ambiguity if he were less glamorous and charismatic. I think those traits work against him, actually. I've always preferred the sleeper types who are underestimated (Kutuzov, Lincoln, Eisenhower, Truman) to slick types who are overestimated.

Teplukhin2you: Your last two sentences are among the most perceptive that I have seen on any topic here at TNR Online. Beautifully done.

lib - let's don't get carried away, now.

Separately, hope your health's improving. All the best,

t

Has anyone bothered to consider the option that Obama just happens to be able to see between the truths and the hyperbole coming from each side, and envision a middle-ground where differences can be laid to rest? It seems like most people have this all-or-nothing view of things, and can't assimilate views or understandings that don't immediately jive with what they see. Why is it so disconcerting that Obama can listen to apparently disparate points-of-view, and convey to each side a sense that he understands and appreciates their position? Isn't this a key skill for any negotiator/unifier as exhibited by our most accomplished unifiers to date? Isn't Obama claiming to be something of a unifier? Why the puzzlement? Why are people so stuck in the world of black and white, even after 7+ years of Rove's multitudinous shades of gray.

Tep: I will give you the charismatic thing, but I've never seen this "glamour"; I've heard lots of people talk/complain about it, but I just don't see it. The man is intelligent and (more or less) well spoken, and he seems to have an ability to connect with an audience when he speaks (the real source of elitist comments from an otherwise down-to-earth person, IMNSHO); but i just don't see this mystical glamour everyone keeps bitching about.

CRS9TNR: first, it's Bush's fault that members of Hamas are now the duly elected leaders of Iran's government, (as well as the fault of every moron that ever believed the bullshit that poured out of Bush's mouth in '00 and '04, but I digress); second, just because they are on the same side does not mean the line between the government and the terrorists has disappeared. It is a koolaid fantasy to try to argue otherwise. Of course, one expects full collaboration between Hamas and the Iranian government, but this does not eliminate the distinction either. Case-in-point, Iran continues to send their leaders and officials to places like the UN, not grubby little faces of the Hamas fighters, nor the not-so-grubby faces of Hamas' leaders? But the best part is something everyone seems to overlook, holding the government of Iran responsible for the actions of Hamas, and pulling a Reagan if Hamas refuses to stay in line and act right.

Teleplukhin: Thanks. I know my posting superiors when I see them . And my inferiors, too.

Mr. Peretz: Terrific post.

I've always felt it makes Israel appear small when it appears to need the embrace of an American president for "validation". Israel should be far, far above the the kind of trash politics that the Bush crime family practices. Israel may need the support of America, but it doesn't need the support of any particular American politician. The GOP has done Israel far more harm than good.

The question is not whether Obama loves Israel enough. It is rather, as CRS9TNR asks, whether he's credibly willing to stand up to the current regime in Iran. This has not only existential implications for Israel, but also serious long-run geopolitical and economic implications for the other Middle Eastern countries, Europe, and the US.

amidut:  What does "stand up to Iran" mean, exactly?  That he should attack them--as was reported on army radio, according to the J-Post?  That we should sanction them EVEN more (like that's possible).  That we should stick out our tongues?  Do we threaten to nuke them--and then not follow through?

Tep:  How exactly does charisma get in the way of doing a good job?

molly - it's not the charisma per se but the typically American illusion that our own domestic concerns and reactions are shared abroad. Obama's charisma among Americans weary of race and culture wars means f-all to people in East and West Jerusalem. His lifestory does not inspire the Hamas leadership; neither does his personal struggle impress battle-hardened Israeli leaders. Next to the extraordinary hardships and searing pain that these groups feel, in their battle to the death, Obama's odyssey seems trivial.

fwiw, if I were president I'd be doing everything I possibly could to REDUCE the amount of bandwidth, political capital and other forms of investment my administration were making in that part of the world that, in all likelihood, will see fighting between Arab and Israeli for the rest of the century. Keep a lid on the conflicts, prevent Israel from disappearing, and for chrissake, get us off of imported oil as fast as we possibly can. And shift our attention from the Near to the Far East.

Also, re the political calculations, I do not see what our candidate wins, or what America wins, by yet again propping up Dead Bernie, the "peace process". Outside of the editorial offices of The Guardian and (maybe, for a day) Le Monde, it earns us nothing in the way of support or concessions. Certainly not from AQ, whihc if you recall began the planning for the 911 attacks in the spring of 1999, when Clinton's final push for a peace treaty was in high gear and our successful effort to save over 50,000 _muslim_ lives in the face of genocidal _christian_ serb fascism was on display for all the world to see. And yet the peace process fell apart, as it always does, for all the reasons that Sabaka and jackson and Marty outline again and again.

Here at home, in our domestic political calculations, propping up Dead Bernie earns us nothing. The GOP cynically aim at poaching as many south Florida pro-Israel jews as they possibly can, which means that the practicall effect is merely to lose Florida while gaining no state that isn't already safely blue. The only state that has anything like a sizeable concentration of arab-Americans is Michigan, which isn't at risk, and which in any case also has a large number of moderate-to-conservative jews.

Bottom line, a US president pushing the peace process in the wake of Hamas' takeover of the Palestinian movement is a fool's errand. And a distraction from the most urgent tasks we have in the foreign realm: managing China's rise, stopping nuke proliferation, and securing energy independence in the shortest time possible.

Teplukhin2you: That is the same thing I have been saying for years. Try benign neglect on the region. The pp hasn't got us one iota nearer peace. We need to reduce our carbon footprint; it is time to do so with our Levantine one as well.

Teplukhin: ...  a US president pushing the peace process in the wake of Hamas' takeover of the Palestinian movement is a fool's errand. And a distraction from the most urgent tasks we have in the foreign realm: managing China's rise, stopping nuke proliferation, and securing energy independence in the shortest time possible.

I couldn't agree more.  This latest incarnation, the Annapolis process, was stillborn from the very beginning,  yet it did consume (read waste)  time and energy of Bush & Rice.  

This "repeat the latest failure, only try harder" approach is sooo spectacularly stupid.

A US president pushing the peace process (in other words, forcing land/water/security concessions from Israel) is vital if a peace is ever to be achieved in the region.

Why is this important, apart from the moral imperative?

It will result in full recognition of Israel from the Arab League.

It will pull Syria away from Iran as the Golan would, I'm sure, make up any final deal.

It would transform the region.

It would reduce your absurdly cheap petrol charges. (Try filling your car at a European petrol stop)

Europeans would wave American flags in the street and you could holiday in France again.

I would stop posting on the Spine.

Mac would stop posting on the Spine.

I reckon Marty would even stop posting on the Spine.

Iggy, wouldst that it were so.

No American President, not even the Sainted One, can bring peace, because the Arabs, plus Iran, do not want peace.  if they wanted peace, they could have had it long ago.

All a "comprehensive peace deal" will accomplish is to provide a secure base for rocket attacks from the West Bank to Israel proper.

If that's not so, explain Gaza to me.

Butchie b: You have articulated a sad truth. All the President's horses and all of the President's men cannot put the Middle East back together again.

IP "Europeans would wave American flags in the street and you could holiday in France again."

They would do that only if Americans are murdered in large numbers. Better to be alive than to be loved by Europeans. Who in any case would be fucked by Russians or Arabs without the US - not that they would ever admit it.

IP, how come you didn't mention "a US president forcing the Arabs to stop attacking Israel"?

butchie b made a very good point: how do you explain Gaza?