The Obama AIPAC Pander


It is important to remember this history—that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets.

Uh huh. Of course, Hezbollah might say "it is important to remember that Israel withdrew from Lebanon because we bled them white. It is important to remember that they never gave Lebanon the maps to the minefields they left behind, minefields which continue to kill innocent Lebanese. It is important to remember that they hold many Lebanese prisoners from their invasion, yet when we grab a couple that's worth war - but we are expected to just let our soldiers rot in Israeli prisons and do nothing, even though they were seized during an illegal invasion and an occupation that lasted over a decade."

And then, of course, he said:

Just six months after I visited, Hezbollah launched four thousand rocket attacks just like the one that destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can."

Ooookay. Now certainly the rocket attacks were bad, but let's face facts - Israel bombed the shit out of Lebanon and the rocket attacks did hardly any damage in comparison. As for the kidnap victims - remember all those Lebanese held by the Israelis.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy."

A nation where about 40% of the population can't vote isn't much of a democracy in this era.

It's pretty sad, really, when this sort of unbalanced bullshit is the best a politician can do. That said, certainly, Obama's pander wasn't quite as grovellingly obsequious and Orwellian as Clinton's and Edwards. But it's only a matter of degree, not kind. It's still the twilight zone and Iran and Hezbollah and Hamas are still evil, evil, evil, while the Israeli government just has a few misguided policies (and yes, to give him points, he does suggest as much.)



Matt Yglesias thinks it's actually pretty decent.


Ian Welsh March 4, 2007 - 2:14pm

I don't see any of the Democrats and Republicans currently having a position strong enough to exert pressure on Israel when need be for squat.

Bill Clinton might well also have been called a panderer, but he still had enough clout to try (unsuccesfully as it turned out) to power a negotiation.

TPM Cafe thread referenced in the link is worth reading in full.It's a good discussion.


"A bad treaty is better than a good missile" ~ Andrei Kislyakov

nymole March 4, 2007 - 5:16pm

and ask them to state categorically that they will accept no campaign contributions from any person or group representing foreign interests, be it Israeli, Arab, Persian, Cuban or Abyssinian. That he or she believes that foreign policy is best made without outside influence.

Yeah, that'll happen!

Petronius March 4, 2007 - 7:02pm

Your link goes to M.J. Rosenburg, not Yglasias. Yglasias's comment is here, and not all that positive:

"On Iran, I think this is somewhat better than what John Edwards and Hillary Clinton have said to similar audiences in terms of tone, though some of Edwards' (and, for that matter, Bill Richardson's) remarks in the post-Herziliya backlash have been better than this."

Kevin Brennan March 4, 2007 - 11:42pm

Fixed.

Ian Welsh March 5, 2007 - 12:07am

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.