[Peace-discuss] Obama Walks Back Jerusalem Remarks

[C. G. Estabrook]

[Maybe so.  It's interesting that Obama's recently done similar things before 
other "interest groups."  Alex Cockburn has some examples in his column today, 
below. --CGE]

Take his speech to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami on May 23: 
“Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. 
Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom ... This is the 
terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century—of 
elections that are anything but free or fair ... I won’t stand for this 
injustice, you won’t stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for 
freedom in Cuba ... I will maintain the embargo.”

Obama had words of specific comfort for the Uribe regime in Colombia: “When I am 
President, we will continue the Andean Counter-Drug Program, and update it to 
meet evolving challenges. We will fully support Colombia’s fight against the 
FARC. We’ll work with the government to end the reign of terror from right wing 
paramilitaries. We will support Colombia’s right to strike terrorists who seek 
safe-haven across its borders.” Note the endorsement of Columbia’s foray into 
Ecuador to assassinate a FARC leader...

We can look ahead to months of Obama deflecting  McCain’s onslaughts on him as a 
starry eyed peacenik by insisting that what the beleagured Empire above all 
needs is  efficiency, ruthless if necessary. “The [U.S.] generals are 
light-years ahead of the civilians.” He reassured one of his fans, the 
neoconservative New York Times columnist, David Brooks. “They are trying to get 
the job done rather than look tough.”

<http://www.counterpunch.org/>

Robert Naiman wrote:
> 
> I wouldn't suggest that his remarks were unconsidered or inadvertent. On 
> the contrary, though I don't have a window into the guy's brain, my 
> personal guess is that they were quite deliberate. A "push-off," as they 
> say in Washington, a "Sister Souljah" attack on the Palestinians, 
> calculated precisely to provoke a firestorm which he hoped would 
> inoculate him against the accusation of having any sympathy for the 
> Palestinians.
> 
> Nonetheless, I think it was a good thing that he felt compelled to 
> "clarify" his remarks. It doesn't make him a good person, but it does 
> undo some of the damage that his remarks caused.
> 
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2008 at 5:45 PM, C. G. Estabrook <galliher at uiuc.edu 
> <mailto:galliher at uiuc.edu>> wrote:
> 
>     There's another reading of this:  Obama now has it both ways. He
>     tells AIPAC what they want to hear and then takes back with the left
>     hand what he'd given with the right.  But it's done cleverly enough
>     that it doesn't appear as a contradiction.
> 
>     His comments to AIPAC were hardly unconsidered or inadvertent.
>      Here's how the BBC reported some of them:
> 
>            "In one of his first acts after he secured the Democratic
>     nomination for president of the US, Senator Barack Obama told Aipac,
>     America's most powerful pro-Israel lobby, that he would do
>     everything in his power to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear
>     weapon. *He repeated the word 'everything' several times*. Even
>     allowing for the fact that he was also trying to dispel the
>     impression that he was soft on Iran, it was strong language..."
> 
>     Noam Chomsky had what seems to me an accurate take on Obama a few
>     months ago; his backtrack is consistent with this view:
> 
>            "I think he's basically presenting himself as a blank slate,
>     on which you can write your wishes.  Hard to find much to be hopeful
>     about.  He is energizing a lot of young people, but I don't see much
>     reason to expect that for that reason his presidency would be more
>     responsive to public pressure.  Overwhelmingly, the public believes
>     that the government should be responsive to public opinion.  But
>     that's such an unpopular elite view that the press won't even report
>     the polls showing this.  A more realistic possibility, perhaps, is
>     that those who are energized by the candidacy will devote the energy
>     to something constructive after the likely disillusionment."  --CGE
> 
> 
>     Robert Naiman wrote:
> 
>         He "quickly backtracked," reports the Washington Post.
> 
>         http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/obama-walks-back-jerusale_b_105854.html
> 
>         http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/6/7/165440/8748/58/531843