Obama Post-AIPAC: Where Does He Stand?

Jonathan D. Sarna, PhD, is a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University and director of its Hornstein Jewish Professional Leadership Program. (Photo: brandeis.edu)

Sen. Barack Obama gave a speech on his foreign policy regarding Israel, at a conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) on June 4, 2008, in Washington, DC, just one day after officially becoming the Democratic Party's nominee for president ofthe United States.

In his speech, he said: "Jerusalem willremain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided." The comment sparked debate among some who questioned his hardline pro-Israel stance.

By June 5, Sen. Obama had stepped back somewhat from his comment.

Jonathan D. Sarna, PhD, spoke to EthnicNewz.org by telephone on Friday, June 6, about Sen.Obama's AIPAC speech, Jewish reaction to his Muslim background, and what Jews might favor in Republican presidential candidate Sen. JohnMcCain.

Sarna is a professor of American Jewish history at Brandeis University and director of its Hornstein Jewish Professional Leadership Program.

*****************************************************************************

SCROLL DOWN TO THE BOTTOM FOR LINKS TO VIDEO AND TRANSCRIPT OF SEN. OBAMA'S SPEECH.

**************************************************************** *************

Did Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech do much to appease any Jewish apprehension about him?

I certainly think that the initial response was positive, especially the comments on Jerusalem.

Ofcourse, a day later, Mr. Obama seemed to be backing away somewhat fromhis comments on Jerusalem, which naturally raised questions on the partof people who applauded his speech. They were disappointed by his subsequent clarification.

He backed away from his own comment, just one day later. What does this clarification reveal, if anything?

What Sen. Obama demonstrated was, in a sense, the complexity (of his position).

On the one hand, he is pulled by those who advise him that the Jewish vote is going to be critical in certain key states - and his comments on Israel have to reflect that.

On the other hand, he has been pulled in another direction by those - including by some Jews - who feel that (1) America's Middle East position has been bad and (2) its position has been too much influenced by Jewish hawks, who feel that the time has come for a president who will listen to more dove-ish positions.

Dove-ish positions such as...?

Dove-ish positions in Israel. Dove-ish positions within the American Jewish community. It seemed to me that it was one set of advisors who led tothe rather strong speech at AIPAC.

And then you could hear a very different group of people whose voices were reflected in the clarification that came out a day later.

The Republican Jewish Coalition criticized Sen. Obama about his remarks about Jerusalem in his AIPAC speech. What do you think of the coalition's statement, as follows:

"Barack Obama's reversal onJerusalem, 24 hours after his AIPAC speech, demonstrates why the Jewish community has...fears about an Obama presidency. Barack Obama's retreat demonstrates that Senator Obama lacks the..leadership necessary to protect America and Israel from the serious threats we face. Worst of all, the impression that Barack Obama changed this position because of pressure by Hamas officials sends all the wrong messages that a President Obama will back off pro-Israel positions when Hamas protests."

I don't think most of us imagine that Mr. Obama backed off because of criticism from Hamas.

I think most of us imagine he backed off because of criticism from Jewish doves, from many of his closest supporters who thought that he had gone too far.

Many of those associated with the Move On wing of the Democratic Party certainly found the AIPAC speech difficult.

My own sense is that it's much more likely that Mr. Obama's response was to pressure from within the Democratic Party, rather than pressure from Hamas.

The fact that Sen. Obama backtracked somewhat froma part of his AIPAC speech, what does that mean to you about his sincerity or commitment to serving the Jewish community?

I think that [pause]--. On the one hand, he's more aware than some about divisions within the Jewish community, between hawks and doves

On the other hand, the myth that the Jewish community speaks in a single voice is still a rather strong one. Typically, in recent decades, that voice has been a voice that tends to echo the positions of more-hawkish elements within the American Jewish community.

He is certainly closer to the real tensions within the Jewish community - even as the Jewish community outwardly has always tried to suggest that it speaks with a single voice.

And organizations like AIPAC, which like to think that they reflect that voice, have tended to be more hawkish than what some of his dove-ish supporters are comfortable with.

You said Sen. Obama is closer to the real tensions within the Jewish community. Do you mean closer than Sen. McCain is?

I think his flip-flopping mirrors tensions within the Jewish American community.

He embodies the tension between those Jews who support land for peace and who would like more territorial concessions from Israel, i.e., the doves, and other Jews who believe Israel has no partner for peace, i.e., the hawks.

When he speaks to AIPAC, he seems to reflect one side of that; when he backtracks, he reflects the other.

I think Mr. McCain is more in line with those who believe that Israel has no partner, and that its enemies would like, as they say everyday, to wipe Israel off the face of the earth.

DOVES AND HAWKS

American Jews don't speak in one voice, but would you say that the majority do not favor territorial concessions from Israel?

Both in Israel and the American Jewish community, the question is the extent to which Israel should be expected to make territorial compromisestowards peace.

The dove-ish community very much believes in land for peace.

Muchof the rest of the Jewish American community has felt that, in the past, when Israel has given up land for peace, Israel lost the land but didn't get the peace - witness Gaza. They would prefer land for land, and peace for peace, as a more equitable kind of arrangement.

Even among scholars, there is considerable debate as to where the majority of Jews stand - that's something of a moving target.

What about Sen. Obama? Where would you say he stands on concessions?

While there was probably a consensus in favor of strong concessions at the end of the Clinton regime, many American Jews came to the conclusion that there was no partner.  And that the Arabs simply wanted to destroy the state of Israel.

At that point, the question was: Why should one make any compromises at all? That debate within the American Jewish community is very much echoed within the Obama camp.

I have a sense that Mr. Obama, even in his AIPAC speech and then in his clarification, is demonstrating that he doesn't have a firm stand here.

Everybody remembers Mr. Obama's speech to Jewish leaders in (February), that (said) that being unwavering pro-Likud is not the only way of being pro-Israel.

(Editor's note:  Israel's Likud Party is reputed to be against territorial concessions to Palestine.)

Let me read the quote. Mr. Obama said: "I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you're anti-Israel. And that can't be the measure of our friendship with Israel."

That remark suggested to many people that he was going to distinguish his policies from those of the Bush Administration, arguing that their approach was, quote, "pro-Likud," and that his approach would be much more sympathetic with dove-ish elements of the Israeli government.

Based on what you're saying, it sounds like Sen. Obama's advisors are trying to ensure that he doesn't appear to be on any particular side, dove or hawk. But their advice is giving him the appearance of having no firm position on Israel. Do you agree?

Yes. Like many candidates, his firm position is that he would like to get as many Jews as possible to vote for him.

He is similarly hopeful, as Democrats tend to be, that the Muslim and Arab communities will vote for him because many of those Americans are deeply angry at the Republicans for the (Bush Administrations's) post-September 11 policies.

His hope is that each group will hearthe message that they want to hear. So far, however, within the American Jewish communitiy, there's a certain amount of uncertainty concerning Mr. Obama's Middle East policies.

ON PALESTINE AND SYRIA

Which of his Middle East policies - regarding which countries - are leading to Jews' uncertainty?

Take the one, for example, that's just come up. At AIPAC, he forcefully argued that a united Jerusalem under Israel rule would be something that he would strongly defend.

A day later, he made clear that that would be negotiated by the parties there, in other words, that he might very well pressure Israel to withdraw from some portions of Jerusalem so that parts of Israel could be the capital of a Palestinian state.

A second question has concerned the West Bank. Many fear that an Israel withdrawal would turn parts of the West Bank into Gaza, meaning that areas throughout Israel, including its airport, would come under the range of missiles from the West Bank.

The third issue has to do with Syria. Will American policy demand that Israel be willing to negotiate over the Golan Heights, in an effort to win Syriain a more Western direction away from Iran?

Or will Syria beviewed as part of the axis of evil, working against the U.S. in hand with terrorism? If this is the case, Israel should then be encouraged to have no talks with Syria about the Golan Heights because Syria is on the wrong side.

At the moment, the U.S. Administration has tended to be sympathetic towhat would be considered more hawkish views - and some wonder whether that will be true under an Obama Adminstration.

Sen. Obama said in his AIPAC speech that he favors talking to Syria not merely for the sake of talking, but as a diplomatic tool. He also said he wouldn't force Israel to the negotiating table. Your thoughts?

Certainly the second (not forcing Israel to negotiations) was what the American Jewish community wanted to hear.

However, historically it hasn't been easy for an Israeli government to resist American pressure. America is Israel's major friend in the world; that's what makes the stakes here so very high.

The question of speaking with enemies is going to be one of those issues that is goingto come up over and over again. In this campaign, one side will argue that this is merely appeasement, as Pres. Bush suggested.

Sen. Obama said in his AIPAC speech that he would want to create a Palestine state, along with an Israel one. How do Jews, the ones you've been hearing from, feel about that? Or your own thoughts?

The Jewish community is not of one mind, and it is has very much shifted in the last decade. But I think the bottom line is whether this will be a Palestinian state that will live in peace and harmony with its Israeli neighbors - or whether it's a Palestinian state that will lob missilesinto its neighbor.

I think a great many American Jews are deeply dubious today, especially after what happened with Gaza, and are deeply fearful that concessions are really only a tactic aimed at destroying the state of Israel.

CYBER-RUMORS AND ISLAM

The anti-Obama e-mails that were circulating earlier this year among Jews, is that old news? In your observations, do many Jews still find some credence in them?

I still get the e-mails everyday. Those e-mails, especially the more extreme ones, reflect the situation (last year) in which people didn't know very much about Mr. Obama.

Therefore, in the absence of knowledge, a shocking e-mail might shift somebody's views. As we get to know Mr. Obama more and more, scurilous e-mails areless likely to make an impact.

But there are still items that come up - some of the comments of Mr. Obama's friends, his wife, his minister, and so on. Those are still circulating in cyberspace.

Atthe end of the day, I doubt they'll have as much impact as the kinds of statements that we've seen in the last couple of days.

Are many Jews still apprehensive that Sen. Obama might have some loyalties to radical Islam?

Certainly there has been concern about some of the views of his friends and his minister.

To give you a sense of this, you only need look where he lives. On the one hand, people say: Look, he lives in Chicago, not very far from (Nation of Islam leader) Mr. Farrakhan, whose position against Jews and Israel is widely known.

(Editor's note: Sen. Obama affirmed his denunciation of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments in a televised debate with Sen. Hillary Clinton and debate moderator Tim Russert in February 2008.)

And he is a member of a church where anti-Israel sermons were frequently given.

(Editor's note: Sen. Obama resigned his membership from the church in May 2008.)

On the other hand, he also lives - which is also less-frequently pointed out - exactly across the street from a large and old reform congregation, KAM. The members of that congregation are very fond ofhim. They  find him a good neighbor, and many have known him for a long time and are deeply supportive of his views and policies.

So, even based on where he lives, you can get both sides of this man.

OBAMA vs. McCAIN

How do some in the Jewish community view Sen. Obama compared to his opponent, Sen. McCain?

Mr. Obama's problem - which, I think, the Republicans are going to seek to exploit - is that he's torn in (different) directions (concerning Israel).

That is, he is sympathetic to Israel's needs. But at the same time, he is sympathetic to some of the critics, certainly the critics of the government.

His divided sympathies, especially when counterpoised to the much clearer policy of Sen. McCain, are going to clearly raise doubts in the minds of some Israel supporters. It suggests that Mr. Obama's course is a less certain one than Mr. McCain's.

What are some concerns that some Jews might have about Sen. McCain, regarding Israel or anything else?

People are not going to hear very much (concern) about Israel. There's a high degree of confidence (in Sen. McCain, concerning Israel).

But I think the Jews are going to have to ask themselves about his Supreme Court appointments, his views on abortion, on national security, about clandestinely listening in on citizens and tapping their telephones, and so on.

DIVIDED JEWS STAND?

If you could speculate on what the Jewish voter support will be for Sen. Obama in November, what would be your guess?

The bottom-line question is how the Jewish community will divide. If Mr. Obama gets close to 80 percent of the Jewish vote, we will know that he has largely dispelled the doubts and questions of the Jewish community.

If he gets between 60 and 70 percent of the Jewish vote, we'll know that lots of Jews continue to harbor serious doubts.

What we're really talking about is the difference between 60 percent of the Jewish vote, which I'm sure he'll get, and 80 percent of the Jewish vote, which he'd like to get.

That difference of 20 percent wil lbe very significant. Jews live in some very important states that are very critical to Democratic victory.

We know that Democrats (as presidential candidates) - who haven't been able to crack that 70-percent level of the Jewish vote - have generally not been able to persuade the American people – as a whole – of their fitness for office.

If you could advise Sen. Obama, what would you tell him?

Wow. I think [pause] that he needs to [pause] understand and make American people understand that, notwithstanding his disagreement with the (Bush) Administration, he is fully aware that there are forces of evil at work in the world, forces that are utterly antithetical to American freedom, forces that would very much like to repeat the events of September 11.

He has to persuade Americans who are nervous that he isn't quite up to defending American interests - which I link in some ways to Israel's interests - he has to persuade them that, in fact, he is will be as resolute in fighting terrorism and understanding the dangers of radical Islam as his opponent is.

The sensitivity surrounding Pres. Bush's comments about appeasement demonstrate that, in fact, Pres. Bush did hit a very raw nerve because there are lots of people who worry that Mr. Obama could turn out to be that kind of very-well-meaning appeaser.

And he is going, I think, to have to show the tough side of himself, to persuade a lot of people that, in fact, he will be as able to defend America's interests as his opponentis.

Is there anthing else you'd like to say?

The only thing I would point out is that Mr. Obama, at this point, has some advisors who are broadly respected within the American Jewish community: Judge Abner Mikva, Sen. Robert Wexler, Ambassador Daniel Kurtzer.

Important Jewish leaders have supported Mr. Obama. Other important Jewish leaders support Mr. McCain. And a great many Jewish leaders have supported Hillary Clinton.

It will be interesting to see how many of the Jewish leaders who support Clinton actually come over and become strong figures in Mr. Obama's campaign, and how many of them just sit it out.

source: EthnicNewz.org

Copyright 2008 New England Ethnic News, EthnicNewz.org.All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,rewritten or redistributed without the express permission of the newssource. Contact Newz for more information.

Transcript of Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech: http://aipac.org/Publications/SpeechesByPolicymakers/PC_08_Obama.pdf

Video of Sen. Obama's AIPAC speech:
http://aipac.org/about_AIPAC/Learn_About_AIPAC/2841_12181.asp

Profile of Israel and Palestinian Territories, BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/country_profiles/803257.stm

Official U.S Senate Web Site of Barack Obama:
http://obama.senate.gov

*********************************************************
NEW ENGLAND ETHNIC NEWS WELCOMES ALL SIDES TO THE ISSUE.
SEE "Login or register" BELOW TO POST YOUR COMMENTS.
**********************************************************

Map of Israel. (Photo: state.gov)