Obama and the Middle East

[The Scotsman]

Hamas hits out at Obama
04/06/2008 21:36 - (SA)

Gaza City - The Islamist Hamas movement that rules the Gaza Strip slammed a speech by Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama on Wednesday, saying it confirmed US "hostility" to Arabs and Muslims.

"We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims," Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri told AFP.

In the speech delivered to a powerful US-Israel lobby group in Washington, Obama reaffirmed his support for Israel and said Jerusalem should remain Israel's "undivided" capital.

Palestinians, including moderate president Mahmoud Abbas, have demanded that east Jerusalem - occupied and annexed by Israel in the 1967 war - be the capital of their promised future state.

The international community, including the United States, has never recognised Israel's claim over the whole city and virtually every country in the world has its embassy in the seaside city of Tel Aviv.

Obama did however say he would push for a negotiated settlement to the decades-old conflict if he is elected to the White House in November.

Abu Zuhri said Obama's statements on Jerusalem "confirm the consensus of the two American political parties on unlimited aid to the (Israeli) occupation at the expense of Palestinians and Arabs".

The speech, he said, "destroys any hope for change in American policies toward the Arab-Israeli conflict".

Obama also reiterated that he will not negotiate with Hamas - which won parliamentary elections in 2006 and seized total power in the Gaza Strip in June 2007 - until it recognises Israel and renounces violence.

"We must isolate Hamas unless and until they renounce terrorism, recognise Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. There is no room at the negotiating table for terrorist organisations."

In May Obama's Republican opponent John McCain said Hamas would welcome an Obama presidency, charges the Democratic candidate denied as "offensive" and "disappointing".

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2334905,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Facing criticism, Obama modifies Jerusalem stance

June 5, 2008
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama amended his support for Israel's stance on Jerusalem on Thursday, saying Palestinians and Israelis had to negotiate the future of the holy city.

Palestinian leaders reacted with anger and dismay on Wednesday to Obama saying Jerusalem should be Israel's undivided capital.

"Well, obviously, it's going to be up to the parties to negotiate a range of these issues. And Jerusalem will be part of those negotiations," Obama told CNN when asked whether Palestinians had no future claim to the city.

Asked if he opposed any division of Jerusalem, Obama said: "As a practical matter, it would be very difficult to execute. And I think that it is smart for us to -- to work through a system in which everybody has access to the extraordinary religious sites in Old Jerusalem but that Israel has a legitimate claim on that city."

In Washington on Wednesday, Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-Israel lobby group, that if elected president in November, he would work for peace with a Palestinian state alongside Israel.

"Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided," he told the lobby group.

The United States and other powers do not regard Jerusalem as Israel's capital -- the U.S. and other embassies are in Tel Aviv -- and do not recognize Israel's annexation of Arab East Jerusalem following its capture in the 1967 Middle East war.

The outgoing U.S. president, George W. Bush, has sponsored peace negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians in the hope of securing a deal on a Palestinian state before he leaves office in January.

One of the thorniest issues is resolving the rival Israeli and Palestinian demands on the future of Jerusalem.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...ng_criticism_obama_modifies_jerusalem_stance/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As a Brit I have the luxury of impartiality.

There's a time to talk and a time to shut up - its a hard leason to learn especially when you're a young prospective Presidental Candidate riding high! However, I think that Obama's inexperience in the wider field of Politics and International Relations is going to be a problem unless he learns fast as shown above. The USA holds some key positions in Geopolitical policy descisions and alliances in the Middle East and if not careful Obama will cause problems with his allies or their enemies. He needs to learn to keep his own council until he has hired some experienced advisers to tell him what to say and when.

Electioneering is over, he's playing with the big boys now and I hope for your sakes he's up to it!

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Make a Policy thats best for the US, and if you lose the Jewish Voters so what, they should be worried about the US first , not Israel. I may be Irish in anncestor, and proud can be about that ( Full Size Irish Flag in my room) but if its down to US interest vs Irish, US wins still no question.

Same for Cuba...you are American or Cuban, don't tell American Politicians what to do, if all you want is to go back to Cuba to be Cuban again.

Israel needs to face up and deal with that fact it can't push everyone around, and do what it wants all the time. Go against the UN, and try to hold land it took in violation of the UN...and expect Security any time soon.

 

[Libsmasher]

http://www.news24.com/News24/World/US_Elections_2008/0,,2-10-2339_2334905,00.html

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



http://www.boston.com/news/world/mi...ng_criticism_obama_modifies_jerusalem_stance/

---------------------------------------------------------------------

As a Brit I have the luxury of impartiality.

There's a time to talk and a time to shut up - its a hard leason to learn especially when you're a young prospective Presidental Candidate riding high! However, I think that Obama's inexperience in the wider field of Politics and International Relations is going to be a problem unless he learns fast as shown above. The USA holds some key positions in Geopolitical policy descisions and alliances in the Middle East and if not careful Obama will cause problems with his allies or their enemies. He needs to learn to keep his own council until he has hired some experienced advisers to tell him what to say and when.

Electioneering is over, he's playing with the big boys now and I hope for your sakes he's up to it!

Excellent. Your post is dead on target. Obama's naiveté is glaring.

 

[Pandora]

Make a Policy thats best for the US, and if you lose the Jewish Voters so what, they should be worried about the US first , not Israel. I may be Irish in anncestor, and proud can be about that ( Full Size Irish Flag in my room) but if its down to US interest vs Irish, US wins still no question.

Same for Cuba...you are American or Cuban, don't tell American Politicians what to do, if all you want is to go back to Cuba to be Cuban again.

Israel needs to face up and deal with that fact it can't push everyone around, and do what it wants all the time. Go against the UN, and try to hold land it took in violation of the UN...and expect Security any time soon.

No worries, next week he will be pro Palestine. And whoever's vote he isn’t holding firm by November, he will be for them too.


On a side note, did you notice he is now wearing a flag pin, but not just a normal one; it’s a Jewish American flag pin. Once his thinks he's got the patriot voters he will go back for the flag burners.

Obama can be all things to all people

 

[Here We Go]

Yeah, I don't know what Obama's game plan is but he needs to focus on what's going on here in America FIRST. It concerns me to see him blabbing about foreign problems at this time. To me that's not "Change", that's business as usual. Be careful Obama, I'm becoming disenchanted. That means there's probably others that share this view as well.

 

[Pandora]

Yeah, I don't know what Obama's game plan is but he needs to focus on what's going on here in America FIRST. It concerns me to see him blabbing about foreign problems at this time. To me that's not "Change", that's business as usual. Be careful Obama, I'm becoming disenchanted. That means there's probably others that share this view as well.

I don’t know, I think he is becoming the "rock star" again. He was so... what is the word.... I don’t know but people were fainting at his rally’s when it wasn’t even hot out, 7 fainters in all I think. The money was coming in, in record numbers and then later when the Rev. Wright stuff came out and the small town comments, the money dried up some and no one was fainting anymore even when the weather got much hotter. But now it’s back to rock star. Today on the radio I was listening to commentary one his rally and when he took his jacket off the crowed screamed as though he was about to do a strip tease. So I figure back to rock star, except one thing. I am on his pal list and I got a message that he needs money to be able to match what McCain has taken in.

I didn’t think anyone or their mother would donate to McCain but apparently they have and Obama needs money to match it. In all of the emails I have gotten from Obama, only once did he ask specifically for money.

 

[Pandora]

Yeah, I don't know what Obama's game plan is but he needs to focus on what's going on here in America FIRST. It concerns me to see him blabbing about foreign problems at this time. To me that's not "Change", that's business as usual. Be careful Obama, I'm becoming disenchanted. That means there's probably others that share this view as well.

Also, I think he has to talk about foreign policy because it is perceived to be his weakness, and McCain’s strength. So I understand why he has to do it but I wish he would just be honest in where his allegiances are. I do not think they are with Israel so why say it. If he is more pro Palestinian then say it. It’s not a dirty word it’s just a political opinion. One that I am firmly against, but I am already against Obama so…It cant hurt to just say it like it is.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

No worries, next week he will be pro Palestine. And whoever's vote he isn’t holding firm by November, he will be for them too.


On a side note, did you notice he is now wearing a flag pin, but not just a normal one; it’s a Jewish American flag pin. Once his thinks he's got the patriot voters he will go back for the flag burners.

Obama can be all things to all people

one I am guessing that was just for that one event, I bet they even had them for him ready ( I am guessing Clinton had the same , but just my guess)

Flag Burners to me are just as Patriotic, sometimes more. And he was pro Palestine, and so far as I know he never said anything about being for a Divided Jerusalem to start with, so its not like his position changed. He tailored the rhetoric to them, but who does not do that? Personally, if they Divide it or not, really is not us up to us, but the Jewish Vote wants to hear it. If Israel agrees with the Arab neighbors and Palestine, to a agreement that splits it, we can't stop it. Nore can we make anyone do it. Its a worthless point. But people are sheep and let to be told things that make them feel good, even if they should know its just words.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

Also, I think he has to talk about foreign policy because it is perceived to be his weakness, and McCain’s strength. So I understand why he has to do it but I wish he would just be honest in where his allegiances are. I do not think they are with Israel so why say it. If he is more pro Palestinian then say it. It’s not a dirty word it’s just a political opinion. One that I am firmly against, but I am already against Obama so…It cant hurt to just say it like it is.

becuse he does not have a political death wish? I could care less if the Arab nations overran and took over Israel right now, would save us a lot of headaches....but I would never say that running for office. Lossers change policy alot less then winners.

 

[Popeye]

I don’t know, I think he is becoming the "rock star" again. He was so... what is the word.... I don’t know but people were fainting at his rally’s when it wasn’t even hot out, 7 fainters in all I think. The money was coming in, in record numbers and then later when the Rev. Wright stuff came out and the small town comments, the money dried up some and no one was fainting anymore even when the weather got much hotter. But now it’s back to rock star. Today on the radio I was listening to commentary one his rally and when he took his jacket off the crowed screamed as though he was about to do a strip tease. So I figure back to rock star, except one thing. I am on his pal list and I got a message that he needs money to be able to match what McCain has taken in.

I didn’t think anyone or their mother would donate to McCain but apparently they have and Obama needs money to match it. In all of the emails I have gotten from Obama, only once did he ask specifically for money.

Are you suggesting Obama, in comparison to McCain, has money problems? Though I'm sure you enjoy entertaining such a thought, it might be best if you were brought back down to earth. I highlighted some of the more relevant portions, but it would be better if you read the whole thing. It will help you understand just what kind of disadvantage McCain faces financially.

From Politico.com

With Hillary Clinton’s campaign coming to an end this weekend, Barack Obama’s rise as the Democratic nominee brings serious bad news to a new group: John McCain’s finance team.

A review of campaign finance data offers not one ounce of good news and barely any hope for the McCain campaign’s ability to compete with Obama’s fundraising prowess.

To make matters worse, Obama’s campaign, which raised $272 million through April for the primary, now is reaching out to Clinton’s fundraisers, who raised another $200 million through April, in an effort to unite forces and bury the historically deep-pocketed Republicans.

Take a look at some of the numbers:

• If each of Obama’s donors gave him a modest $250, he’d have $375 million to spend during the two-month general election sprint. That’s $186 million a month, $47 million a week.

• During the same September to Nov. 4 period, McCain will have about $85 million to spend since he has decided to take taxpayer money to help finance his campaign activities.

• The Republican National Committee, which is charged with closing the gap between McCain and Obama, has $40 million in cash. Obama raised almost as much — $31 million — from just his small donors in the month of February. His total for the month, $57 million, exceeded the RNC’s cash balance.

• Obama has more than 1.5 million donors; McCain has a few hundred thousand. If just a million of Obama’s donors sent him the maximum donation, $2,300, he could raise $2.3 billion.

OK, that’s not going to happen. But campaign finance experts and Democratic fundraisers say a conservative estimate of Obama’s general election fundraising potential hovers around or above $300 million.

Such a massive financial advantage will allow Obama to compete in more states than McCain and force his rival to defend states that should rightfully be Republican wins.

 

[Pandora]

Are you suggesting Obama, in comparison to McCain, has money problems? Though I'm sure you enjoy entertaining such a thought, it might be best if you were brought back down to earth. I highlighted some of the more relevant portions, but it would be better if you read the whole thing. It will help you understand just what kind of disadvantage McCain faces financially.

From Politico.com

No not suggesting anything. Just saying what my email from his camp said. here i will cut and paste it for you. I am on the website friend list so I get emails about differnt stuff. here is the message. If you dont trust it, then i can forward the message to your email ok.






Crystal --

In the excitement of the past few days, there's some news you may have missed.

John McCain and the Republican National Committee released their fundraising numbers for May, and we've got our work cut out for us.

The McCain campaign raised $21 million, which will be combined with $23.7 million raised in partnership with the Republican National Committee.

That's nearly $45 million dollars in one month -- money that will be used to attack Barack Obama and support John McCain's effort to extend the policies of George W. Bush for another four years.

We need to respond quickly and show that we are ready to take on Senator McCain in the general election.

Now is the time to take the next step and own a piece of this campaign.

If you make a $25 donation today, your gift will be matched by a previous donor who has agreed to give again. You can even choose to exchange a note with them about why you support Barack.

Help reach the goal of 10,000 first-time donors and build our movement to take on John McCain:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

Even more disturbing than the amount of money John McCain and the RNC have raised is the way they raised it.

They depend on donations from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And top officials in McCain's campaign have been asking these donors to write checks and raise money from their clients to the tune of $50,000 each.

Barack is doing things differently.

This campaign has never accepted donations from Washington lobbyists or special interest PACs. And yesterday the Democratic National Committee announced that they will follow the same restriction.

We are going to compete in the general election the same way we have all along -- by depending on a movement of more than 1.5 million people giving only what they can afford.

Make your first $25 donation today and double your impact:

https://donate.barackobama.com/match

I'm sure you've heard that Hillary Clinton is suspending her campaign and announcing her support for Barack. We all owe Senator Clinton -- and her supporters -- a great deal of respect for running an incredible campaign and strengthening our party in all 50 states.

But John McCain and his allies are not missing a beat in their campaign to continue the Bush agenda.

As the presumptive nominee, John McCain had a three-month head start to build his party and raise money. But we can't afford to let him have the advantage.

For all his talk of reform, John McCain is willing to rely on huge donations from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs.

We have a historic opportunity to run a new kind of campaign and elect a new kind of leader.

Thank you for your support and for being a part of this movement,

David

David Plouffe
Campaign Manager
Obama for America







Paid for by Obama for America

 

[Pandora]

becuse he does not have a political death wish? I could care less if the Arab nations overran and took over Israel right now, would save us a lot of headaches....but I would never say that running for office. Lossers change policy alot less then winners.

I am not sure that saying you are pro Palestine would be a political death wish. Many on the left have changed to pro Palestine instead of pro Israel. It could hurt with moderates and independent vote i guess. But if he is really the new kind of politician than be that, say what you are and don’t try to appeal to everyone by telling them what they want to hear.

 

[pocketfullofshells]

I am not sure that saying you are pro Palestine would be a political death wish. Many on the left have changed to pro Palestine instead of pro Israel. It could hurt with moderates and independent vote i guess. But if he is really the new kind of politician than be that, say what you are and don’t try to appeal to everyone by telling them what they want to hear.

Those voters you talk about, are there, but most already vote Dem and would support you in any case. I don't know of anyone that is actively pro Palestine, or anti Israel that does not vote Dem , with the exception of a few Greens. Those Greens are for the most part not changing parties, they view the Dems with great Distrust. The Jewish and Christian vote you would lose would be far far greater then the potential pick ups of the small amount of Supporters you would gain who where not already going to vote for you. Its a Political Death wish on the Nat Level. On a state by state basis there are times where you could make the case maybe, but not nationally.

there is a limit to how much of a "new politician" you can be, and still be able to meet your goals. I don't place some massiah of politics on Obama to be 10% Honest at any cost. And I its very possible he has been honest about his position both in what he will do and believe, so i am only speaking for myself. I have yet to see anything from him on Israel/Palestine that is in conflict outside of maybe a tone , but not on policy.

 

[The Scotsman]

I don’t know, I think he is becoming the "rock star" again. He was so... what is the word.... I don’t know but people were fainting at his rally’s when it wasn’t even hot out, 7 fainters in all I think.

I know what you are getting at! We've just had 10 years of Tony Blair and he was exactly the same when he first started out campaigning for Prime Minister. It was all cool outfits, big smiles and shirt sleeves, smart rhetoric and tight media control...the new kid on the block that was'nt going to take anymore nonsense from the old established political black siuts, young knight that was going to lead the country into a new era of open and honest politics. Trouble was it was all sound bites and no substance - we had 10 ten years of this vaccuous political actor who had no experience in politics at all apart from being a very skilled orator and a team that kept a very tight grip on the party and what they said to the media.

Blair, like Obama I suppose was a product of a population that was sick and tired of the previous 10 years of Conservative Government the British people would have elected any cupid stunt that came up and said "Hey guys look at me I'm different.... I'm going to change the way politics is done.... I'm not going to make the mistakes of the past" Hey pesto...we got Blair

The similarity of Blair and Obama is frightening..... listen out for all them lovely sound bites and then over time equate them to reality and then listen to the excuses as to why they could not happen. Blair was an absolute master at this.

 

[Popeye]

I know what you are getting at! We've just had 10 years of Tony Blair and he was exactly the same when he first started out campaigning for Prime Minister. It was all cool outfits, big smiles and shirt sleeves, smart rhetoric and tight media control...the new kid on the block that was'nt going to take anymore nonsense from the old established political black siuts, young knight that was going to lead the country into a new era of open and honest politics. Trouble was it was all sound bites and no substance - we had 10 ten years of this vaccuous political actor who had no experience in politics at all apart from being a very skilled orator and a team that kept a very tight grip on the party and what they said to the media.

Blair, like Obama I suppose was a product of a population that was sick and tired of the previous 10 years of Conservative Government the British people would have elected any cupid stunt that came up and said "Hey guys look at me I'm different.... I'm going to change the way politics is done.... I'm not going to make the mistakes of the past" Hey pesto...we got Blair

The similarity of Blair and Obama is frightening..... listen out for all them lovely sound bites and then over time equate them to reality and then listen to the excuses as to why they could not happen. Blair was an absolute master at this.

Perhaps you didn't care for Tony Blair, it's obvious you lean toward the Conservatives anyway, but from my understanding Blair was on of the most popular Prime Ministers in history. Despite the best efforts of the Tories and like minded individuals, such as yourself, he was Prime Minister for some 10 years. I believe he was the first Labour Party leader to win three consecutive elections. His popularity only began to wane after he rather foolishly unconditionally backed Bush on Iraq, becoming known here, and I guess over there, as Bush's lapdog or poodle.

Taking all that into account, if Blair was "all sound bites and no substance", why was Labour and Blair returned to office twice more after his initial election?