JERUSALEM, July 22, 2008
Can Obama Clear His Mideast "Ambiguity"?
In Israel, Democrat Will Face Leaders On Both Sides Of Conflict Dubious Of His Capabilities
-
Play CBS Video
Video
Obama's Tour Of The Mideast
Barack Obama hopes to convince voters back home that he's comfortable on the world stage. Katie Couric reports on Obama's journey so far and the often precarious world of foreign policy.
-
Video
Possible Vice Presidents
With the Democratic and GOP conventions drawing near, many are wondering who Barack Obama and John McCain will pick as their running mates. Vaughn Ververs, Sr. Political Editor of CBSNews.com, weighs in.
-
Video
Eye To Eye: Obama's Iraq Tour
"Only On The Web": Katie Couric speaks with Richard Haass, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, about the short and long term implications of Barack Obama's tour of Iraq.
-
Photo
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama listens to U.S. Army shows Gen. David H. Petraeus (unseen) giving an update on the situation in Iraq in this photo provided by the U.S. Army from Baghdad, Iraq, July 21, 2008. (AP Photo/U.S. Army, HO)
-
Photo Essay
Obama in the Mideast
Democratic presidential hopeful holds talks in Iraq, Afghanistan
-
Photo Essay
Barack Obama
A look at the life and meteoric rise of the president-elect.
The Democratic presidential hopeful has already gotten himself into hot water over one of the thorniest issues in the Israeli-Palestinian divide: the status of disputed Jerusalem. Last month, he tried to woo Israel's powerful lobby in Congress by saying Jerusalem should be Israel's capital and "must remain undivided."
Palestinians, who claim the city's eastern sector as capital of a future state, were furious. Obama's attempts to defuse the flap then got him into trouble with some Israelis and their U.S. supporters, when he clarified his remarks to say Jerusalem's fate should be negotiated - the long-standing U.S. position.
"When the candidate lands here tomorrow, a fog of ambiguity will still hover over his position: It remains unclear whether Jerusalem, the focus of his brief trip, will be a united city under Israeli sovereignty or the capital of two states. Barack Obama doesn't have a clear idea himself, and he has been straddling the fence," former dovish lawmaker Yossi Sarid wrote in Monday's Haaretz newspaper.
Obama arrives in Israel late Tuesday after visiting Afghanistan, Iraq and Jordan. He is to meet with Israeli leaders and, unlike Republican rival John McCain, an avid Israel supporter who visited in March, he'll travel to the West Bank for talks with Palestinian leaders, too.
This week is more than a series of photo ops, said CBS News anchor Katie Couric. Barack Obama hopes to convince voters back home that he's comfortable on the world stage and can juggle a number of delicate and potentially explosive foreign-policy issues. (Read Couric's report.)
Obama wrapped up his Iraq stop by meeting Tuesday with Sunni tribal leaders who have joined U.S. and Iraqi forces in the fight against insurgents.
Obama traveled to Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province west of Baghdad, to meet with Sunni leaders of the so-called Awakening Councils that rose up last year against al Qaeda in Iraq.
One senior Republican strategist said that if Obama's trip is successful, it could mark a new chapter for the McCain campaign, reports CBS News chief White House correspondent Jim Axelrod, because if Obama does narrow the foreign policy credibility gap, McCain will have to start confronting his rival much more directly.
Obama has a solid Senate record of supporting Israel. He has reaffirmed his backing for Israel's right to defend itself and underscored the need to stop Iran from promoting terrorism or getting nuclear weapons. Like the Bush administration, he opposes negotiations with the Islamic militant group Hamas, which rules the Gaza Strip.
Still, his openness to talking to Iran - Israel's bitterest enemy - and his relatively short stint on the U.S. national stage has made many Israelis uncomfortable at the prospect of an Obama presidency.
Ofer Malachi, a 40-year-old contractor from Jerusalem, says Obama would be "very dangerous for Israel" because of his willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran.
Israel is convinced Tehran is building nuclear weapons, despite its protestations to the contrary. Iran also backs two other Israeli foes, Hamas and Lebanon's Hezbollah guerrilla group.
Obama "doesn't have a clue about what is needed to survive in the Middle East," Malachi said.
The U.S. historically has been Israel's strongest ally, and has made the Jewish state the largest recipient of U.S. foreign aid. Politicians traditionally have courted the Jewish vote in the U.S. with demonstrations of loyalty to Israel.
But as far as Israel is concerned, Obama will have an especially hard act to follow. The Bush administration was a particularly staunch Israel backer.
Quote
During his first term, President Bush handed Israel a letter supporting the Jewish state's retention of major settlement blocs under any final settlement with the Palestinians. And despite repeated Palestinian protests, U.S. officials did little more than slap Israel on the wrist when it flouted U.S. policy on issues like settlement building, or reneged on promises to remove settlement satellites known as outposts.Maybe if we have an American president that actually set boundaries and expected Israel to stick to these boundaries, maybe we'd have some progress.
Laine Katz, Obama supporterLaine Katz, who emigrated from Philadelphia to Israel in the 1970s, counts herself as one of Obama's earliest supporters. She maintains Israel would be better off with an American president who would take the Israeli government to task for thumbing its nose at U.S. policy.
"Maybe if we have an American president that actually set boundaries and expected Israel to stick to these boundaries, maybe we'd have some progress in the peace process, instead of behaving like a spoiled child that always gets its way," said Katz, 50.
Obama is a Christian who makes much of his faith. But some Israelis worry about his allegiances, seizing on the fact that his father and stepfather were Muslims, that he spent part of his childhood in Indonesia, the world's largest Muslim country, and that he has an Arabic middle name, Hussein.
Lawmaker Arieh Eldad of the ultranationalist National Union Party said the name "concerned" him.
"I guess that the Arab citizens of the Arab states around Israel would be concerned if a nominee for being president of the United States, his family name would be Cohen," he said.
Eldad said he feared Obama would identify more easily with Arabs than with Israelis, and added, "If you combine it with policies to leave Iraq and to negotiate with Iran, that adds to our concerns here."
Obama's comment embracing Jerusalem as Israel's undivided capital alienated Palestinians looking for an American leader who will pressure Israel into key concessions. His clarifications haven't undone the damage.
Saqer Al Tamimi, a 42-year-old merchant from the West Bank town of Ramallah, is a disillusioned former fan.
"We used to expect he would be better because he's black, and black people were subject to discrimination, and so they may do us, the Palestinians, justice," Al Tamimi said. "Unfortunately, when they reach a certain level, the policy is already formulated for them."
But the candidate has also generated interest in the Palestinian territories because of his magnetism and the attention he shows to the disenfranchised and underprivileged.
"I am attracted to Obama's charisma," said Marwan Alian, 22, a law student in Gaza City.
At the same time, Alian said, "I doubt he can make any significant changes in our lives. He has a very tough mission regarding Iraq and regarding the American economy, so I don't think he will have time to help us, even if he wants to."
© MMVIII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Video and Galleries from Politics
-
Video
Hi-Tech Drones Aid Terror Hunt
-
Video
Confirming Sotomayor
-
Video
Obama, Pope Convene At Vatican
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 6
- next
See all 289 CommentsYeah, because all the pros have really nailed down a solution before Obama arrived. So, Obama is now expected to solve the Arab-Israeli conflict or he''s not worthy? Unbelievable.
Why would any African-American assist Arabs when Arabs enslaved far more black Africans over a much longer period of time than Europeans did?
I guess that Mr. Obama has not yet bowed low enough to satisfy the fascists and the morally bankrupt Zionist nutters.
then he is no good!!!! I read from paper to paper on the internet and can list the "hates Obama" sites and the "McCain is the second coming of the lord" sites. CBS news is "Mccain is the second coming of the lord site" and it''s all blather!! Obama is a total breath of fresh air in this stinkin'' cesspool of goverment! First you screamed because he didnt go to Iraq, now you scream like Andrea Mitchell saying the interviews are bogus, was she not invited??? Journalism today sucks bigtime!
Perhaps because we know well the taste of subjugative apartheid, and as a result don''t wish to be a part of condoning it. The Palestinians are our kindred through shared victimization, so we know their despair quite well.
Also because we know what it feels like to have racists take the actions of one person, or group, and use it as reason to advocate subjugation of anyone with a shared ethnic heritage, as you do in your post.
The Palestinians are not enslaving "Black" people, this is being done by a group of Arab elites, with cooperation and collusion with the elites in the European countries, and the US.
The surge worked? At what, repressing those who resist our illegal invasion?
Son, you are in for a rude awakening, the resistance will happen no matter when we pull out, whether now, or in 100 years, the only difference being how many US body bags you enjoy seeing offloaded from the planes.
Maybe a couple of lines would wake you up to reality, there is no redemption for a war based on lies. It was wrong to go in, wrong to stay in, and the only right moive would be to get out ASAP, and let those people settle their own issues.
The surge worked? At what, repressing those who resist our illegal invasion?
Son, you are in for a rude awakening, the resistance will happen no matter when we pull out, whether now, or in 100 years, the only difference being how many US body bags you enjoy seeing offloaded from the planes.
Maybe a couple of lines would wake you up to reality, there is no redemption for a war based on lies. It was wrong to go in, wrong to stay in, and the only right moive would be to get out ASAP, and let those people settle their own issues.
The surge worked? At what, repressing those who resist our illegal invasion?
Son, you are in for a rude awakening, the resistance will happen no matter when we pull out, whether now, or in 100 years, the only difference being how many US body bags you enjoy seeing offloaded from the planes.
Maybe a couple of lines would wake you up to reality, there is no redemption for a war based on lies. It was wrong to go in, wrong to stay in, and the only right moive would be to get out ASAP, and let those people settle their own issues.
The surge worked? At what, repressing those who resist our illegal invasion?
Son, you are in for a rude awakening, the resistance will happen no matter when we pull out, whether now, or in 100 years, the only difference being how many US body bags you enjoy seeing offloaded from the planes.
Maybe a couple of lines would wake you up to reality, there is no redemption for a war based on lies. It was wrong to go in, wrong to stay in, and the only right moive would be to get out ASAP, and let those people settle their own issues.
The surge worked? At what, repressing those who resist our illegal invasion?
Son, you are in for a rude awakening, the resistance will happen no matter when we pull out, whether now, or in 100 years, the only difference being how many US body bags you enjoy seeing offloaded from the planes.
Maybe a couple of lines would wake you up to reality, there is no redemption for a war based on lies. It was wrong to go in, wrong to stay in, and the only right moive would be to get out ASAP, and let those people settle their own issues.
A disproportionate number of Jews marched with African-Americans during the civil rights movement because of a "kindred through shared victimization".
How many Arabs either here or abroad supported the civil rights movement?
1. Why is Obama being held to a standard of finding a solution to the Israeli/Palestinian problem when no president from Truman to Bush has been able to find a solution?
2. Why is it our problem what happens between two countries so far away when our own country is in ruins?
3. Why do we treat Israel as anything other than a welfare state fed by US tax dollars?
4. Why are we asking Palestinians to forgive Israel for treating them so horribly for 60 plus years?
It doesn''t matter one bit, it is wrong, and I, for one oppose it whether it be done to us, or the Palestinians, Sudanese, or anyone else, as I would similarly oppose it if it was being done to "Europeans" and as I would have opposed the Nazis had I been alive during that time.
I guess I don''t think like you, for me, if it is wrong for me and mine, it is wrong for anyone. This is called a principle. Yours seems to be that it can be OK, depending on the ethnicity of the victims.
Posted by juwboy
jewboy is a shyster - only days ago he spat upon our equal opportunity laws, now he intones his solidarity with civil rights movement which was the birth of modern equal opportunity.
consider yourself "exposed" juwboy.....you''re pathetic. and don''t come back with your anti-semite bs, we''ve heard too often. Shalom.
I didn`t spit upon our equal opportunity laws. I have no problem with them.
I do have a problem with affirmative action laws which deny equal opportunity to white males.
Because of the desperation of those afraid of a "Black" president, who will use any excuse to hide their true agenda.
"2. Why is it our problem what happens between two countries so far away when our own country is in ruins?" Posted by downtowner97
It is not, but those who profit from the strife wish to pretend that it is.
"3. Why do we treat Israel as anything other than a welfare state fed by US tax dollars?" Posted by downtowner97
Because they kick back the politicians who vote for it, call it "reverse money laundering".
"4. Why are we asking Palestinians to forgive Israel for treating them so horribly for 60 plus years?" Posted by downtowner97
Because of a mental defect that precludes some from recognizing their own role in creating problems, like the "cowboys" calling the "injuns" savages.
that''s the right thing to do - where''s the ambiguity?
the palestinians who saw their mandated territory carved up, then stolen & occupied, shall finally have their own country and East Jerusalem as their capital - end of story - finally.
Who stole the territory assigned to the Palestinians in 1948?
EGYPT stole the Gaza strip and JORDAN stole the West Bank.
Egypt and Jordan had 19 years from 1948 to 1967 to create a Palestinian state?
Why didn`t they?
Posted by juwboy
sounds like a personal problem you have - have you been denied a job because you''re a white male?
or have you a problem with America''s minorities, long ignored, getting a helping hand?
seems your favorite minority gets a disproportionate amount of help from generous Americans, why not the others?
I`ll repeat what I`ve said many times.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is the illegal, unconstitutional, collective punishment of white males without the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront your accusers or the right to equal protection under the law.
I`ll repeat what I`ve said many times.
AFFIRMATIVE ACTION is the illegal, unconstitutional, collective punishment of white males without the right to a trial by jury, the right to confront your accusers or the right to equal protection under the law.
Posted by juwboy at 06:32 AM : Jul 22, 2008
--------------
How exactly is it unconstitutional? or Illegal? Can you cite some specific case law or Supreme Court Rulings indicating such?
The unconstitutionality of affirmative action is self-evident from my Comment.
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a plaintiff who challenged the constitutionality of affirmative action.
Posted by brianbwb at 06:19 AM : Jul 22, 2008
Do you think you could give this tired old excuse a rest in favor of honest debate about the MAN and his politics?
The unconstitutionality of affirmative action is self-evident from my Comment.
Yes, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of a plaintiff who challenged the constitutionality of affirmative action.
Posted by juwboy at 06:45 AM : Jul 22, 2008
----------
So you think that just because you SAY it, it must be accepted as truth, without facts.
Wrong answer.
And as for your rambling on trial by jury and equal protection, tell it to American Citizens held without trial of terrorism charges.
You know nothing of the Constitution or the Law.
Posted by juwboy at 06:32 AM : Jul 22, 2008
Unfortunately, most people don''t know what affirmative action is. It is not a law that says an inferior minority must be picked over a more qualified white male, as the conservatives would have you believe. It says that, in the search process, if two candidates are equal in capability, only then should preference be given to the minority. If a white make is picked (as was the case with my job at the State University), the company must only provide reason why that candidate was superior. I got a good job despite AA, which makes me beleive that maybe the white males complaining about AA are just not sduperior job candidates.
Opponents of AA would have you believe hordes of unqualified blacks and women are getting jobs over white males and that is simply not the case.
Posted by Rafterman1 at 06:52 AM : Jul 22, 2008
-------------
Agreed. Its typical RINO-Hype. Screech it at the top of your lungs, pull nonexistent supporting facts out of thin air and then when its questioned, screech "unpatriotic! unpatriotic!"
Posted by nextGenMan
It''s kind of funnny when neocons care about the Constitution when it''s AA, but suddenly never heard of the document when torture or illegal wiretapping is involved. Just like the Bible, the Constitution is interpreted by them selectively. Keep the parts they like, ignore the parts they don''t.
----------
"earned and deserves"?! I don''t think so. The Presidency is an office beholden to the people. The PEOPLE choose. Its not a perk.
McCain sounds like Hillary if he thinks that.....
Posted by Rafterman1 at 07:01 AM : Jul 22, 2008
--------
I know, I call it the "schizophrenia of political convenience".
Posted by Rafterman1
yes, simply it''s called dishonesty but most of them could rightly claim ignorance.
our friend juwboy is a good example (of dishonesty & ignorance); as he tried to warm up to "brian" saying jews marched with blacks to support civil rights, his real objective was to try to create some political affinity alligning blacks with jews with regards to the ME - at the expense of "arabs".
but brian, i think, saw through his "positioning".
AIPAC is the best example, courting America''s bible belt, selling "christian" ties, again, at the expense of muslims. It''s a dirty business that should be denounced everyday.
Have YOU ever read the Constitution?? With the Blunders and outright LIES we have been put through with the Fascist Republican''s over the last 8 years, the last thing we need is MORE Red Neck Stupidity!! Intelligence can''t be LEARNED or EARNED Sparky!
Posted by Rafterman1 at 06:52 AM : Jul 22, 2008
Oh, if only it were that simple. My husband is a high level manager with the federal government. He can never simply choose the best candidate for the job. He has to do this precarious balancing act that forces him to hire lesser qualified blacks all the time. Why? Because even if the choice is clear he knows that he will face years of legal action from bogus EEO lawsuits. Almost invaribly the black employee will prevail because the federal government is loathe to be preceived as discriminatory so they "settle" the cases without admission of guilt. The result is an award of money (which is paid by our taxes) or the employee is given a higher grade job or often a new "job" is created for the employee. There are hundreds of black employees in the government who have made grade and advanced themself simply through EEO complains and are unproductive, insubordinate employees. That said, my husband works with a LOT of fine black individuals who work hard and don''t take advantage of the system. It''s those few abusers who will bring an end to the good aspects of Affirmative Action.
Posted by Ariel133 at 07:00 AM : Jul 22, 2008
It sound''s like YOU have profited from the Corruption and killing of the Middle Class by the Fascist. Now you wouldn''t be one of those Greedy CEO''s who are exploiting the 30 Cents a Day Wages created by those HORRIBLE Trade Agreements would you? Truth is folks this nation prospers and has always done better when WE care about OTHER American''s, NOT just a few who can work the system for their OWN PERSONAL GAIN!! Sieg Heil Bush
Posted by Ariel133 at 07:24 AM : Jul 22, 2008
Would that be because he''s not in the "Party"?? By our Constitution he''s fully qualified. He most CERTAINLY is ONE OF US, in that he lived and worked in a MIDDLE CLASS Neighborhood. He is just an American who happens to be VERY Intelligent and who has ACTUALLY sat at a kitchen table and figured out how to live on a budget. I''d say it''s time we, the Middle Class, had some one in charge who see''s the world as WE do... Thanks anyway. Sieg Heil Bush
go back and take in what you typed.... you could give yourself the dressing down that you need just by reading it!
try to have a nice day, huh?
Posted by fenner at 07:27 AM : Jul 22, 2008
Excuse me?? IF I gave you the impression I cared in the least what you or any other fascist on here think about me let''s clear that up right now! I could give a Rats behind what any bootlicker says about ME personally. That is NOT why I am here. Now let''s let Shooter and your Fuhrer know you''re out here saying and doing all you can to keep the "PARTY" in Power!! Ready?? SIEG HEIL BUSH
Posted by fenner
go back to jews-only apartheid state of israel, if you''re not already there - your shyster tactics have been exposed -
You know what is absurd is that politically-inexperienced people like Ronald Reagan (Actor), Arnold Schwarzenegger (Actor) and Jesse Ventura (Wrestler) can get elected, but an ivy-league educated, politically-experienced black candidate is raked through the coals? Go figure.
Posted by fenner at 07:30 AM : Jul 22, 2008
LOL Now I know you fascist are desperate, you have to be to keep this stupidity up but do you honestly think THIS is going to save your "party"?? Let''s stand now and salute the Confederate Flag!! SIEG HEIL BUSH
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
...
- 6
- next
See all 289 Comments