Mr. Nuance

Barack Obama's stated position on Israel is, I think, impressively, refreshingly nuanced, and entirely unobjectionable. Which doesn't mean there won't be objections from those who regard "nuance" as a dirty word, of course. But I'm pretty hawkish about Israel (and terrorism generally), and yet I honestly can't find anything wrong with what he's saying (at least what I've read of it).

Honest, non-demogogic conservatives/hawks/Likudniks: show me where I'm wrong. Like Ross Perot, I'm all ears.

Comments

[Julia]

Reading it makes me feel good about his stance on Israel, though I'm of the belief that there is almost no difference between any of the candidates when it comes to Israel. Of course, The Jewish Press disagrees with me, and will find a way to smear Obama due to this. They had my step mom fearing Obama due to reports of choosing an anti-Semite as a foreign policy adviser.

[Brendan Loy]

That would be Samatha Power, a.k.a. the woman who called Hillary a "monster." :) However, she was subsequently defended from the scurrilous charge of "anti-Semitism" by none other than that archliberal Jew-hater and Palestinian apologist, Max Boot of Commentary. ;)

(Via Politico, back in February.)

[Jim Hu]

I'm not that impressed. I like the substance, as far as it goes, but IMO it's not significantly different from the position of the Bush administration. At this level of detail, Obama agrees with Bush, who agrees with the previous Clinton adminstration, who agreed with preexisting US Israel policy going back a long way:

1) Israel has a right to exist and defend itself
2) Settlements are unhelpful.

Plus he had lots of Jewish friends. Does this distinguish him from any major Presidential candidate since the 1968 war? The substantive differences, if any, would emerge from questions about more specific events. What would he have done differently in the US policy toward Israel and the Palestinians, other than bug out of Iraq?

I'm mostly unimpressed with Goldberg, though. I don't think this means Obama is bad on Israel. But it also doesn't tell us a lot, and I don't see the refreshing nuance; perhaps you could point it out for those of us who are slow. I see an interview worthy of Larry King in terms of softballs, and pretty stock answers.

[Ed]

Nuance to you and me is perceived as weakness by the enemies of Israel. Chamberlain's position at Munich was a nuanced one. The "West" gave up the Sudetenland. Israel has just given up Gaza. If the enemies of peace and democracy reciprocated as those who espouse nuanced positions would expect of a good faith partner, no problem. Sign me up.

Israel simply cannot afford the neat constructs that the "nuancers" would choose to adopt. Upon what basis in the history of tribal factionsim in the Middle East is a nuanced understanding that peace is attainable, absent the belief that horrible force will be brought to bear if pacts are not kept?

BHO has adopted the Chamberlain construct that negotiated peace/stability is possible with Hezbollah and Hamas' power source, namely Iran. HRC, JM, and an overwhelming number of diplomatic professionals reject this construct. BHO is the clear outlier. Just as he is rated the #1 most liberal Senator by National Journal, this is just another example of his extreme philosophy in governance.

[Ed]

While we're at it, let's put to rest once and for all that it is somehow a cheap shot for anyone to use BHO's full name. BHO, hinself, in this very interview, uses "Hussein" to make a pokitical point that he poerceives to be favorable, to wit:

"Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security."

If it's important enough to BHO to contextualize "Hussein" in an important foreign policy interview, it is nuanced enough for an opponent to use when making the case that his election will be perceived necessarily by some of Israel's enemies as a weakening of the U.S. commitment to Israel.

Or is this going to be another instance where blacks can use the n-word and all others can't?

[Chris]

Ed, what in the world are you talking about? Obama has stated on multiple occasions that Hamas would have to go through a number of concessions (including recognizing Israel and renouncing violence) before they would ever become part of diplomatic negotiations involving the US. As for you talk of Hizbollah, that's just plainly ridiculous. Please put away the Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly talking points and start making reality-based judgements.

[Alasdair]

Brendan - how about we start with "Among other things, he told me that he learned the art of moral anguish from Jews. " ? There is an "art" of moral anguish ?

"The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, ..." - an excuse to engage in inexcusable actions ... hmmmm , nicely nuanced, dontcha think ?

And, of course, the conclusion to the piece ... "So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked." ...

How about, instead, "Is firing rockets from Palestinain civilian population centres into Israeli civilian population centres conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse ?"

For someone who says he "was fond of the writer Leon Uris, the author of Exodus.", he sure doesn't sound like it when he describes his opinions/nuances with respect to Israel ... I would be curious to hear Senator Obama's response to a question about The Haj ...

I would also have more faith in Senator Obama's cred in this area if he had quoted Leo Rosten more than Leon Uris ...

Plus, isn't "cowboy diplomacy" just as much an ethnic slur as the use of the n-word ?

[Alasdair]

Chris - we are talking about the Senator Obama who has produly proclaimed he will sit down without preconditions to talk with leaders of Iran and North Korea - and yet has preconditions for talking with Hamas ?

Does the phrase "cognitive dissonance" mean anything to you ?

Your use of "Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly talking points " is just as much bigotry and prejudice as anything any of those three says ...

[Alasdair]

"produly" - obscure Scots variant adverb, meaning "with pride" ...

(sigh)(blush)(heavy sigh)

[thebeef]

Brendan, first off...I grudgingly have to admit that I liked what I read from Obama. That's a first.

However! I don't think his position was very nuanced. As Jim Hu noted, the position he articulates is really nothing different from what America's position has always been.

Also, while I acknowledge that Middle Eastern affairs are nuanced, that doesn't mean that it is best to approach Middle Eastern foreign policy with nuance.

The thing is, Israel's enemies do not view the situation as nuanced. They never did, they don't now, and they never will. To them, it is as black and white as night and day.

You cannot negotiate with someone who will not make meaningful concessions. That's the problem. Hamas/Hizbollah/Iran/Syria will make meaningless concessions--nothing more than hollow promises. In return, we give them actual, physical concessions...i.e., Gaza. That's not negotiation, that's getting hustled.

In their hearts, no matter what they say, they will never accept Israel's right to exist. And when they provide a lie in the form of a concession...i.e., we'll acknowledge Israel's right to exist in return for territory, all you're doing is giving them an inch from which they will take a mile in their pursuit to destroy Israel.

As Michael Totten put it, negotiating with the likes of Syria/Iran/Hizbollah/Hamas is like negotiating with a merchant in a middle eastern market. All they're looking for is to get you to sit down for a cup of tea. Once they have you seated, they know they'll get the price they're looking for---and they'll make you think you got a great deal on that cool souvenir that you never needed or wanted in the first place.

And that's why i think Hamas is excited about Obama. They're the merchant, and he's the gullible western tourist. All they want is sometime to sit down and have some tea with.

[Jim]

He doesn't differ from any mainstream politician on this. At all. And let me add to Hu's list above:

3.) We will provide economic, political, and military assistance to Israel in extraordinary amounts.

I am one of Obama's most strident supporters, but I do not agree with his Israel policy. I think 1 and 2 in Hu's post are at this point in time counter to each other. And I think we are doing damage to our own security, to Israel's security, and to the security of the middle east by continuing to not pressure them.

At any rate, yeah, no need for a diatribe, you get the point. I think Obama's position is *not* as nuanced as it usually is. Sure, there's *more* nuance there than some. He has acknowledged the suffering of the Palestinian people. But he certainly hasn't come as far as recognizing that it is ridiculous that Hamas make *any* concession *before* negotiating.

[Jim]

Oh, I missed this:

"And that's why i think Hamas is excited about Obama. They're the merchant, and he's the gullible western tourist. All they want is sometime to sit down and have some tea with."

Obama's line on this is the same as everyone else's. He doesn't sit down with them until they renounce violence and recognize Israel.

Of course, nobody wants to admit that if they do all that they have no bargaining power.