This is what they call pandering.

He fears AIPAC, and he fears the lame white liberals who have convinced themselves that writing a blank check for Israel absolves them from all guilt historical anti-semitism.

Yes, he fears AIPAC. But who doesn't, exactly? Maybe the first Jewish president, whoever that is (not Eliot, sorry) will not fear AIPAC. One thing at a time...

Somehow I think Obama's made a wise choice here.

Contrast it with Hillary's response. She said she wouldn't negotiate with Hamas without Israel's OK. That's pretty well triangulated, no?

Maybe the first Jewish president, whoever that is (not Eliot, sorry) will not fear AIPAC.

I am still hoping that it will be Feingold.

I know we'll have to wait a while, but why not Ezra?

Imagine, Obama turns out to be a politician! I'm crushed!

AIPAC has very little real influence on electoral politics. I haven't heard of a single case where it was AIPAC that actually took down a politician. They usually ignore people until their weakest moment, swoop in when they likely would have lost anyway, and then take all the credit. They are a paper tiger and its time politicians start realizing it. Smoke and mirrors is nothing to be afraid of.

That's probably a partial explanation for his stance, but I really don't think it's the most important one.

Overall, Hamas is viewed more as a terrorist group than as a political movement in the public imagination, and is officially classified as such by the State Department. If Obama announced a willingness to "negotiate with terrorists," he'd be opening himself up to some very nasty attacks, regardless of any Israel-related concerns.

I will also point out that stating that you will not negotiate directly with Hamas is not necessarily a deal-breaker since Hamas has indicated a willingness in the past to allow Fatah to take the lead, with the understanding that there would be an unity government and that Hamas would expect to have the right to approve the final agreement.

So let's see, Obama is declining to unilaterally overturn the policy that's been officially agreed on not only by the Bush administration, but also by the Middle East "Quartet" (the EU, the UN, and Russia). But that can't be the REAL reason; it simply MUST be because he's afraid of The Big Bad Lobby. Real fine analysis there.

Look, as much as a lot of people don't like hearing this, the fact is that "talking to Hamas" is rather constrained by the fact that Hamas itself is openly opposed to negotiating directly with Israel. Now, does this mean that the Bush/Israel official policy of refusing even any indirect attempts at talking to them, or of trying to allow for some reconciliation between Hamas and Abbas, makes sense? No, it doesn't.

American leadership on this issue could possibly prompt a productive change in direction if certain conditions for Hamas are kept in place (renouncing violence, respecting past agreements) while other counterproductive ones that only encourage rejectionism are dropped (recognizing Israel before negotiations begin, refusing to deal with any Palestinian government that includes Hamas). There have been some indications that Obama might lean that way, although at other times, his campaign has said that they support all of the current conditions that the Quartet has in place.

The point is, any realistic shift in policy on dealing with Hamas will be subtler than a lot of very naive people around here seem to realize. I do hope that Obama embraces some of them, though I think he has better reasons for not doing so right now (he'd be criticizing the official policy of the UN and EU, not just Bush) than simple fear of the almighty Lobby.

It's almost as if he fears pressure from some sort of organization, maybe a lobby...

Lessee....Ezra speculates and suddenly, it's a fact.

In all fairness, why not just ask Obama? Is it projection that he could not possibly have standards?

the lame white liberals who have convinced themselves that writing a blank check for Israel absolves them from all guilt historical anti-semitism.

What kind of horse-hockey is that? How about these lame white people shouldn't have any guilt for historical anti-semitism, but only guilt for anti-semitism they perpetrate or allow to pass unchallenged. What is this "historical guilt" crap?

There are special dangers for Obama on Israeli/Palestinian issues:

- the drift apart of blacks and jews from their ML King-era close cooperation and trusting each other. Obama can't be seen as adopting any of the anti-jewish thinking of some african-american leaders on the left.

- as pointed out, Hamas's designation as a terrorist group by not just the US but also the Quartet just can't be ignored without opening a front for the GOP to attack him as terrorist/islamist loving.

- an attack by AIPAC or the anti-defamation leagure (ADL) would be hugely distracting and probably distructive of campaign funding among some jewish voters (enough to potentially hurt)

- Some key states might swing to McCain if Obama appears anti-Israel (NY, NJ, FL, perhaps even CA).

He is wisely, IMO, avoiding this briar patch in the campaign, but I have no doubt that his policies as Pres. would be far more even-handed than BushCo. Even if they are not more balanced, the key to progress is the Israeli and Palestinian public's attitudes, not the US position, whatever it is in the future. The two-state solution with true independent sovereignty by both seems to drifting toward impossibility.

Some of us Edwards supporters saw this coming a long time ago.

Neither BHO nor HRC have the credibility to break progressive ground on these issues.

And certainly not after the Wright fiasco.

James, I think you're an idiot that needs to go back and read what I said and stop projecting whatever strawman you want to beat up onto my statement.

Nowhere, save the ears of your moronic self, that I say that white liberals shouldn't feel guilty. I said that supporting Israel doesn't erase that stain. Nothing will. Indeed, support of Israel in some of it's actions just adds the stain of racism.

Now kindly go fuck yourself you worthless piece of shit.

Dan, nobody who uses the term 'Wright fiasco' is likely to be a progressive.

If this were 1923, you'd be braying like a jack ass about MLK's lack of 'progressivism' too. He used much the same language as wright did.

In other news, Obama opposes drug legalization...

Ezra . . . You cannot be serious - EVERY politician running for office fears AIPAC, NRA and AARP - but most of all, AIPAC.

Wright weakens Obama in November and forces him to run to the consensus.

All but the most puritanical Naderites can figure that one out.

I'm glad someone insightful is actually bringing this up--Obama has gotten away with being portrayed as someone radically different from a career politician, but this (and many other) positions show that he panders and compromises just like everyone else. He's not bad--but he's not the candidate of radical change that he likes to say he is. Protecting and supporting Israel without question or review is probably the single greatest reason for our entanglement and troubles in the Middle East, and if Obama fails to realize that, we will see no substantive change in foreign policy under his administration.

soullite

how does it feel to be Obama's bitch?

I don't think Obama is really opposed to meeting with Hamas. I think he's just trying to get elected President. To do that he needs to appeal to the American people, virtually all of whom, left and right, support Israel. It'd be political suicide to support the Palestinians, since there's virtually no one in the US, or the rest of the world for that matter, who does. It has nothing to do with AIPAC, who really aren't that strong or influential. It's just political commonsense not to support people who danced in public on 9/11. Americans have long memories, and won't support people who attack women and children (unless of course they're Americans, in which case it's perfectly ok.) If Hamas wants to be seen as a legitimate political organization they need to change their charter and recognize Israel and start respecting international law. Until then only anti-Semites will negotiate with them. Period.

We should not negotiate with Hamas. They use woman and children to murder innocent civilians while killing themselves. Haas is a murderous grup of thugs who deserve nothing less than prison or death

Haas? Tommy Haas?

The real issue is that Obama is out of time - all he's got is four minutes - vikki vikki - four minutes - HEY! -

- To save the world.

Most of these comments are woefully ignorant. Hamas isn't a negotiating partner for the US or for Israel--they now get their money and take their orders from Iran via Hizbollah. Everyone knows this, even Obama. So most of this trashing of AIPAC are simply statements of Anti-Zionism. I don't notice anyone here condemning CAIR--which actually supports entities that murder American citizens.

He's not bad--but he's not the candidate of radical change that he likes to say he is.

That's how Democrats always get elected. Remember Bill Clinton's "New Democrat" schtick?
Without distancing from the Democratic party in some fashion, he wouldn't have a chance.

It's hard to believe that this is even being debated. It's true that the fact that Hamas is simultaneously a pretty successful political movement and a terrorist group creates some tricky and complicated policy questions.

The political question, on the other hand, is not remotely tricky or complicated. Obama obviously can't promise that he'll negotiate with the leaders of an officially designated terrorist organization.

Perhaps the real problem is a general willingness to "negotiate" with dictators who could care less about dialog? Leaving a particularly homicidal group out of the party seems like a minor omission.

"Overall, Hamas is viewed more as a terrorist group than as a political movement in the public imagination, and is officially classified as such by the State Department. If Obama announced a willingness to "negotiate with terrorists," he'd be opening himself up to some very nasty attacks, regardless of any Israel-related concerns.

Posted by: N | April 11, 2008 10:12 AM"

Best comment in the thread, but things like AIPAC probably do play a role. AIPAC also hates Pelosi and Dean, so if Obama is the basic head of the party at least until November, then the second-most powerful lobbying group in DC will be hating on three of the four top Dems (I don't know how they feel about Reid). I would like him to state willingness to deal with Hamas and its power as is right now, but the campaign probably isn't the time for that.

"Most of these comments are woefully ignorant. Hamas isn't a negotiating partner for the US or for Israel--they now get their money and take their orders from Iran via Hizbollah. Everyone knows this, even Obama. So most of this trashing of AIPAC are simply statements of Anti-Zionism. I don't notice anyone here condemning CAIR--which actually supports entities that murder American citizens.

Posted by: Hope Muntz | April 11, 2008 4:37 PM"

Hamas being aligned with Hizbullah doesn't mean it takes its orders from Iran. Hezbollah does, but not Hamas. After all, Hamas does have a popular support base in the Palestinian Territories and a not-insignificant amount of sympathy throughout the Arab and Muslim world due to the conflict with Israel. Both the US and France are in NATO. Does DC and Paris take their marching orders from Brussels? At least there there is an institutional framework that would allow an ignorant person to leap to such a conclusion.

"We should not negotiate with Hamas. They use woman and children to murder innocent civilians while killing themselves. Haas is a murderous grup of thugs who deserve nothing less than prison or death

Posted by: ADB | April 11, 2008 3:44 PM"

A huge part of diplomacy is negotiating with thugs. Such moral righteousness and $2.50 won't even get you a cup of coffee Starbucks. Nixon and Kissinger could have easily have decided to take the feel-good-feel-righteous route on China. After all, Mao's decisions led to millions of famine deaths, the use of cannibalism as a political weapon, many students killing their relatives and teachers over ideology, said that he was willing to have China nuked by the US, etc.

Joesph Kony's Lord's Resistance Army in Uganda, according to Foreign Policy, "has killed more people than al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah combined." The Ugandan government has been unable to defeat him after two decades of civil war, so they have no choice but to negotiate. Moral righteousness is good for masturbation, but it doesn't get things done. Instead, it lets people jerk off while people die.

Reality Man is absolutely right. In the real world, it is often necessary to talk with entities that are, shall we say, morally challenged. Hamas ain't great, but it's certainly not as brutal and destructive as say the old USSR or Mao's China. But Obama does not need to shut up about his real progressive views on this until after the election so that he keeps Jews and especially organized Jewish interests such as AIPAC in his camp. After he's president, then he can start pursuing a rational policy, which should highlight talking to groups such as Hamas.

You're one of the good ones, Ezra.

Are you for real? You want the President of the United States to negotiate witht he Muslim Brotherhood? The folks who (let's not forget) pose at least as great a threat to (say) Egypt as they do to Israel. What else would you like? That the President of the United States negotiate with an organization that has pledged to wipe out all Jewish bacteria on earth and to retake all Muslim lands (including Spain and Venice)? I guess that would mean negotiating with the Palestinians Hamas Government then.

of course he fears pressure. to be barack obama and actually say you're open to meeting with hamas would essentially end your campaign on the spot. in the wake of the whisper campaign about him being a muslim (gasp); the jeremiah wright stuff; and his having to denounce, repudiate and condemn farrakhan, he's gonna be overly cautious on all things israel for the rest of the campaign. he'd be absolutely slaughtered and attacked relentlessly if his position were anything else.

بنت جده