Senator Obama put on quite the show at the AIPAC meeting in Washington yesterday. He told AIPAC exactly what it wanted to hear. The question really is DOES He Mean It? I will give the Senator the benefit of the doubt for a minute. Lets say for a second that the Senator really, truly, “cross his heart hopes to die” believes he his pro-Israel.

I believe that all 3 of the candidates THINK they are pro Israel. But thoughts and deeds are two different things. Its kind of like my hair. When I rub the top of my head I think its still there, I just never have to cut it and it just happens to be smooth and skin colored.

I KNOW Obama has hired almost every anti-Israel adviser possible for his Foriegn relations team. I also KNOW that before he came on to the national stage The Senator ran on a Marxist party line (DSA) that was Anti-Israel. Those are aren’t debatable charges like the Muslim thing, they are sustainable provable documented facts. I also KNOW that the Senator is a very smart man who, as Jimmy Carter before him, thinks that he knows better than anyone and doesn’t NEED to learn from experience and history and I KNOW that frightens the hell out of me.

I KNOW what Senator Obama said yesterday was “ear candy” for AIPAC, it has no realation to what he or his his advisers have supported their whole lives. I also know that what he said about Iran was different than what he said a week ago, which was different from what he said two or three weeks ago.

The problem is Obama will STILL get the Jewish vote. Look at how the AIPAC crowd sucked up every false promise. James Baker was right (and it is the ONLY think he was EVER right about) when he said “F**K the Jews, they won’t vote for us anyway.”

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to The Lid updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Obama’s words were JUST THAT—words, you don’t have to believe me–as Casey Stengel used to say “you can look it up”

Obama Promises Undivided Jerusalem as Israeli Capital Nader, Hamas Condemn Him; Orthodox Jews Praise

By ELI LAKE, Staff Reporter of the Sun
June 5, 2008
WASHINGTON — In a speech that drew standing ovations at the annual policy conference of the largest pro-Israel lobby in America, the presumptive Democratic nominee for president says he supports Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital
Senator Obama waves upon finishing his speech at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference 2008, yesterday, at the Washington Convention Center in Washington, D.C “Let me be clear,” Senator Obama told the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Israel’s security is sacrosanct. It is non-negotiable. The Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper. But any agreement with the Palestinian people must preserve Israel’s identity as a Jewish state, with secure, recognized, and defensible borders. Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel, and it must remain undivided.” This formulation drew cheers from even the more hawkish corners of the American Jewish community. The director of public policy for the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Nathan Diament, said in a statement: “We applaud Senator Obama’s clear statement that, should he be elected President, he will support the holy city of Jerusalem remaining the eternal and indivisible capital of Israel and the Jewish people.” The president of the Zionist Organization of America, Morton Klein, said, “Clearly, if you knew nothing about Barack Obama, you would come away from this speech thinking he is clearly a friend of Israel.” But Mr. Klein added that he could not reconcile Wednesday’s speech with the views of some of Mr. Obama’s advisers and the fact that he attended the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago while the Reverend Jeremiah Wright was the pastor. Even Senator Clinton, whose surrogates have questioned Mr. Obama’s support for Israel, assured the Aipac faithful that her opponent for the Democratic nomination would be a “strong friend of Israel.” The position that Jerusalem remain “undivided” is in some ways at odds with the current round of Israeli-Palestinian negotiations supported by the Bush administration, as well as the formulation floated at the end of the Clinton presidency. The Clinton administration’s framework documents a divided East Jerusalem between a Palestinian capital, Quds, and the capital of the Jewish state based on the demographics of the neighborhoods in the Old City. On the day Mr. Obama declared his support for an undivided Jerusalem, President Bush signed another waiver putting off for another six months the move of the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv that was required in the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995. Both President Clinton and President Bush pledged on the campaign trail to move the embassy, yet neither president ever did, a reminder that campaign promises and administration policy can sometimes differ on Israel. At Mr. Klein’s behest, Aipac this week passed a resolution to fight against American waivers delaying the embassy move. Not all observers yesterday were happy with Mr. Obama’s speech. A spokesman for Hamas condemned it. “We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims,” said the Hamas spokesman, Sami Abu Zuhr, according to wire services. The fledgling independent campaign of Ralph Nader, the consumer rights activist many Democrats blame for Vice President Gore’s 2000 presidential loss, also issued a statement attacking Mr. Obama’s speech. The statement said Mr. Obama’s position on an undivided Jerusalem as Israel’s capital “undermines the widespread international consensus two-state solution peace plan.” Mr. Obama has said he would oppose diplomatic contact with Hamas as long as the group supports terrorism and refuses to recognize Israel or prior peace agreements. Mr. Obama has also said, though, that he would be open to pursuing diplomacy with the chief foreign sponsor of Hamas, Iran. But at Aipac, the winner of the Democratic presidential primary also provided some caveats to that position. “There will be careful preparation. We will open up lines of communication, build an agenda, coordinate closely with our allies, and evaluate the potential for progress,” Mr. Obama said. “Contrary to the claims of some, I have no interest in sitting down with our adversaries 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 leader at a time and place of my choosing — if, and only if, it can advance the interests of the United States.” He added: “We will pursue this diplomacy with no illusions about the Iranian regime. Instead, we will present a clear choice. If you abandon your dangerous nuclear program, support for terror, and threats to Israel, there will be meaningful incentives — including the lifting of sanctions, and political and economic integration with the international community. If you refuse, we will ratchet up the pressure.” That formulation in some ways is a modification of Mr. Obama’s earlier framing of his support for diplomacy with Iran. While during the primary the senator’s campaign has emphasized the candidate’s willingness to talk, the senator has also sponsored tougher sanctions.