On Wednesday, June 4th, 2008 Barack Obama made his much publicized appearance in front of the most powerful Jewish lobby group in the United States - American Israel Public Affairs Committee. His speech was given on the 3rd and final day of what AIPAC calls “policy conference speech 2008″ - an elaborate terminology for a basic concept casually known as ’sucking up to AIPAC’. His speech was delivered after John McCain implicitly declared war on Iran on the 1st day, Ehud Olmert rallied support for Israel on 2nd day and other notable Neo-conservatives made their war-mongering pitch to AIPAC.

As expected, Barack Obama delivered a speech characteristic of his gifted talent for oratory. He began by proclaiming his commitment to Israel and his love for “friends” at AIPAC. He commemorated Israel’s 60th anniversary; described the horrors of the Holocaust and his familial connection to liberators of Hitler’s concentrations camps. Throughout the speech he continuously reminded the audience of his legislative efforts to support Israel and its security as a Senator and he drove home the notion that he is a genuine friend to Israel now and forever. He also said that “support for Israel in this country goes beyond Party”, as if to remind AIPAC that Jews too support the Democratic Party - which happens to be 80% of Jews - a clear and overwhelming majority that AIPAC doesn’t even dream of representing with their bellicose rhetoric and extremely right-wing agenda to the right of even Likud Party in Israel.

But when speech finally turned to foreign policy, Barack Obama rose to the occasion by distinguishing himself from John McCain. Although he didn’t shy away from announcing his foreign policy, whose agenda AIPAC largely doesn’t support, he did throw some “red meat” later in his speech which created uneasiness, to say the least, among the Arab world, particularly Palestinians. His foreign policy proposals included the following:

1. Obama pledged “$30 billion in assistance to Israel over the next decade”, which he said “will not be tied to any other nation” - a reference to an earlier legislative proposal, promoted by the Bush administration which tied Saudi Arabia to the package of military assistance Israel.
2. Obama proposed “cooperation on missile defense”, which he said must followthe guidelines of NATO - a reference to the latest US missile defense installation in Europe. For more, see this.
3. Obama made clear that negotiation with Hamas will be conditional, that is only after “they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements” - a position different from his strategy towards Iran.
4. Obama stated his support for Israeli-Syrian peace talks. He said, “We must never force Israel to the negotiating table. But neither should we ever block negotiations when Israelis’ leaders decide that they may serve Israeli interests”. Again a reference to a hard-line approach that Bush administration has taken in regards to Israeli-Syrian peace talks recently, which is seen by most experts as progressive, productive and conducive to peace.
5. Finally, Obama got to Iran. He reiterated that Iran supports “violent extremists” (a notion that has never been proven), presents a threat to Israel, pursues “nuclear capability” - which is different from nuclear weapons - and “challenges us across the region”, which is a reference to the fact that Iran is pursuing a future independent of US influence (signing oil/gas/military contracts with China, India, Japan, Europe, Russia).

However, despite all this presumably grave imagery, Obama engaged and challenged AIPAC with his stance towards this crucial foreign policy issue by clearly distinguishing himself from John McCain whose stance is arguably more belligerent than Bush’s. Barack Obama proceeded to explain what is only a common knowledge among the experts, scholars and academics who seriously study the policy - that the war in Iraq has made Iran stronger, made it a de facto regional power in the Middle East and strengthened its position globally. Obama pledged a “principled tough diplomacy without self-defeating preconditions”, a reference to the false notion propagated within the Neo-conservative establishment that Obama wants to talk and concede to our enemies, i.e. Iran. Obama then laid out his diplomacy plan:

We cannot unconditionally rule out an approach that could prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. We have tried limited piecemeal talks while we outsource the sustained work to our European allies. It has not worked; it is time for the United States to leave. And there will be careful–there will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, especially Israel, and evaluate the potential for progress. And contrary to the claims of some I have no interest in sitting down with our adversary just for the sake of talking. But as President of the United States I would be willing to lead tough and principled diplomacy with the appropriate Iranian leaders at a time and place of my choosing if–and only if it can advance the interests of the United States. That is my position. I want it to be absolutely clear.

He also explained that military option should never be taken off the table because in rare cases it becomes the only option left at disposal, but only AFTER all other means have been exhausted. I am not sure what can be more straight forward and progressive than that. In fact, in a recent interview with David Albright, one of the leading specialists on the Iranian nuclear issue of the Council on Foreign Relations, this subject was illuminated even further. According to Albright, “Bush administration should agree to talks with Iran without conditions to test the waters.” When asked if he thinks US should agree to talk to Iran, his answer was:

That’s right. And the goal is to obtain the suspension of the Iranian enrichment program. The Iranian goal of a functioning enrichment plan is still unacceptable, but I don’t see any downside to entering negotiations with Iran and discussing with them, “Look, here’s what we want: We want a suspension in the enrichment program, we want the Additional Protocol in force, and here’s what we are willing to offer you if you do that.”

Unless David Albright is working for the Iranian regime, I would think his expertise on this matter supersedes any of Bush’s or McCain’s grand proclamations and pointed criticisms of Obama for adopting a mainstream approach consistent with America’s geo-strategic interests.

However, Obama did manage to stir a controversy with his statement about Isareli-Palestinian peace settlement. Barack Obama conveniently inserted this statement in the middle of his 9-page speech, in which he said that, “Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain undivided”. This not only prompted the predictable anger within the Arab community and rocked the Arab world, but even caused a rock wave of concern within the liberal blogosphere, particularly at HuffPost. Sandy Tolan, an author, journalist and an associate professor of journalism described this comment as “landing to Bush’s right”, while Dr. James Zogby, a secular leader of Arab American community, called the comments “unnecessarily provocative and contradictory”.

In analysis of Obama’s speech and this comment, Sandy Tolan briefly recounts the history.

Arab East Jerusalem, which Israel occupied and then annexed, despite widespread international condemnation, after the Six Day War in 1967, is under continuous Israeli control through a heavily armed presence. The fact is that, despite the seizing of Palestinian land for rings of Jewish settlements, which Israelis now consider their East Jerusalem “suburbs,” there is very little traffic between the Arab and Jewish neighborhoods in the city. Undivided, Jerusalem is not.

He further goes to say that “Obama’s pledge that ‘Jerusalem must remain undivided’ is a smackdown to decades of Palestinians’ dreams and demands that East Jerusalem be the capital of their own state.” And students of history will recall that the failure to realize this crucial socio-cultural fact contributed greatly to the collapse of the Camp David in 2000 between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, who accepted 22% of land, formerly Palestine.

However, not all liberal bloggers took this statement to mean an end to all Palestinian statehood aspirations. MJ Rosenberg tried to paint a rosier scenario in which he envisions both Israelis and Palestinians living under one roof, side by side in an undivided city of Jerusalem. East Jerusalem would be controlled by the Palestinians while West Jerusalem by the Israelis, with special arrangements being made for the sacred sites.

But the bigger question continues to loom within many intellectual communities: Why did Barack Obama need to give a speech in front of arguably the most powerful lobby group in Washington, much less make concessions to AIPAC mentioned above? I think the answer to this question largely lies in the recent scholarly book “Israel Lobby”. While Barack Obama collected unprecedented amount of money from small donors, which is said to have surpassed 1 million people, and refrained taking the money from registered federal lobbyists, his speech to AIPAC was meant to make him more immune from taking attacks from the right as well as AIPAC itself, whose sleazy, slandering and smearing tactics are well documented in the book and other sources. Moreover, it was an attempt to solidify his support within the American Jewish community, which according to some political analysts may make up a swing vote in states such as Florida, Michigan and Minnesota, despite the fact that Jews traditionally vote for Democrats and AIPAC doesn’t represent the mainstream American Jewish views.

Despite Obama’s more or less controversial statement about Jerusalem, he managed to maneuver and dodge bullets from the right and this speech can only solidify his position for November against the right-winger John McBush.