Digg

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Obama: Israel is 'A Constant Sore'

littlegreenfootballs.com — In an interview with Jeffrey Goldberg for The Atlantic, Barack Obama presents himself as the best friend Israel ever had. Then he proceeds to call Israel a “constant sore” that “infects all of our foreign policy:” Obama on Zionism and Hamas. ...

Bury

Equalizer 75 days ago

45 diggs
digg it

thejimmyo, on 05/13/2008, -18/+20Wrong. Please stop lying.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/05/ho ...
cg4et, on 05/13/2008, -14/+19I respect your right to disagree on the issues. I do not respect the tactic of distorting one's opponents words to advance a flawed argument.
Zacktopia, on 05/13/2008, -15/+14Almost had me swooning there for a second. And then...
Obama spreads himself very thin and all over the map on foreign policy. If elected, would one side be extremely disappointed for being conned, would it be a roller coaster ride, or just a complete disaster? It's a guessing game with the inexperienced Man of Mystery.
jforjools, on 05/13/2008, -18/+21Just check out the ***** quotes from the interview. Obama was very clearly saying that the 'lack of resolution' is a 'constant wound' that needs to be resolved!!

America doesn't need more fear and hate.
- InRussetShadows, on 05/13/2008, -11/+17I agree. America doesn't need a guy who attended a racist church for 20 years as its leader. Buh bye, Barry.
  - chicofaraby, on 05/13/2008, -18/+6Nothing funnier than white men crying about racism....
    - haffee, on 05/13/2008, -3/+16What's funny about it? Racism is racism, no matter what color the person is.
    - flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -2/+7There is difference between the great-grandson of a slave-owner hating the great-grandson of a slave because of the color of his skin, and the great-grandson of a slave hating the great-grandson of a slave-owner because of centuries of oppression.
      - hadees, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5I disagree, hate is hate. There is nothing wrong with a great-grandson of a slave wanting justice for his ancestors but it is still wrong for them to hate a white person who did nothing to them. Just as a black person can't choose the color of their skin neither can a white person. People should be judged on their own actions and not that of those who came before them. The sins of the father are not the sins of the son.
        
        I think this quote from Obama sums up why it is wrong, "It's that he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made".
        
        The issue I have with Obama however is that I am getting the sense he joined that Church because it was politically powerful and he used his association to it to help advance his political career. That would explain why he either didn't listen to those sermons or didn't care about them. That in of itself isn't that shocking in American politics but it does seriously undermine the allure that Obama is some kind of different politician.
      - flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -1/+4That's like saying that all murder is the same, regardless of whether it was done for the pleasure of watching someone die, or if it was done in self-defense.
        
        History can justify emotions, just as it can justify actions.
        
        Your argument that 'a black person hating a white person who had nothing to do with slavery is wrong' didn't fall of deaf ears. But I think that you're framing of the issue indicates a fundamental divergence in our view of the world:
        
        I believe that white people must sometimes be viewed as a whole, a class of people. My family came from europe in the 30s- I'm white but I had nothing to do with slavery. HOWEVER, the fact that I am white, means that i enjoy all the benefits of being a white person. Just as a black person who immigrated yesterday suffers all the disadvantages of being black in America, despite the fact that he and his family didn't experience racism or segregation.
        
        White people as a CLASS have benefits in America TODAY because white people as a CLASS oppressed blacks as a CLASS for centuries.
        
        White people as a CLASS still owe a great debt to black people as a CLASS- because the injustices of the CLASSES still persists.
        
        A white man with a criminal record has a better chance of getting a job that an otherwise equally qualified black man with a clean record. Those are the facts for blacks and whites today, regardless of personal history.
        
        As long as injustices of the classes persist, black hatred of whites is to some extent more justifiable, than the other way around. I'm not saying its right- I'm just saying there is a distinction that MUST be acknowledged.
  - mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7So....Little chico has a fixation on "The Man." Coincidence?
dBass, on 05/13/2008, -20/+11You bastards must really be scared to lose power. Sen. Obama did not say anything remotely similar to your slimeball lies. You lie, cheat, and swindle to keep it power. Is that what Jesus would do? Love your "family values". *****.
- gerbil20, on 05/13/2008, -2/+11Have you started thinking who to blame "stolen elections" on yet? It's about time, pal.
InRussetShadows, on 05/13/2008, -14/+21From the interview..."JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable."

Obama clearly said that Israel is a sore, and immediately "explains" things by calling Israel a "problem". So whether he's clumsy (what? the gifted orator?), a bigot, or just negative towards Israel in general, the future doesn't look so good for Obama.
- chicofaraby, on 05/13/2008, -18/+5Yeah, he may not get a single Israeli voter to vote for him in the US elections.
- BeforeSputnik, on 05/13/2008, -3/+3He clearly does NOT say that. He is not referring to Israel, the country, as a sore, but rather the situation we have made by setting up the Israeli state, as a sore. This "article" consists of two sentences from an interview. It couldn't be more apparent that this is being taken out of context.
- flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -1/+5Your reading comprehension is abysmal. You probably couldn't even understand that last sentence. I don't know how to explain to you how wrong you are with just one syllable words, though.
keltin, on 05/13/2008, -12/+14Obama-nation doesn't mean everyone thinks the world of him. No, they see him as one of the major problems facing our country in the near turn. From refusing to criticize anything remotely Muslim, to nothing but free giveaways to people (without listing a wa to pay ofor it), to bludgeoning the business sector, Obama has shown himself to be somehting only a far liberal left person (and some hormone-hypertrophy women) could accept and defend.
- gerbil20, on 05/13/2008, -2/+8Isn't it spelled "Obamination"? Or should I say "Abomination"?
- flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -4/+2Wow, the haters are out in force tonight.
Maninthemiddle, on 05/13/2008, -8/+14It is easy to see it as his meaning "the situation" is the problem.

The problem with the problem is that only the dissolution of Israel and the slaughtering of its inhabitants will salve the wound.

I don't see that changing, thus I don't see the usefulness of snuggling up to genocidal types for the sake of discussion.

Despite BOs historically inaccurate rant, Roosevelt didn't, Truman didn't, Kennedy didn't. (Stalin doesn't count, since he was an ally at the time - and even that did not work out very well, with half a continent enslaved.)
yellowcakewalk, on 05/13/2008, -17/+6What does Obama staffer and Israel-firster Dennis Ross have to say about this?
- mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/13/2008, -1/+12asked the Hamas-firster...
- flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -0/+7No one in ANY of the Israel threads I've ever read has ever advocated putting Israel's interests ahead of the United States. We understand the the US benefits from having a secure and stable democracy in the middle east- one that provides us with a strategic military and intelligence advantage that we simply could not have otherwise.
  
  If we were defending any other ally, like England, would we be accused of being England-firsters? There's a very virulent tone to your comments? Why are supporters of England just supporters? And why are supporters of Israel Israeli-firsters? I'm not saying you're a Jew hater, I'm just saying your applying a weird double standard.
MadKennyP, on 05/13/2008, -5/+5A press release from House Republican leader John Boehner asserts that Barack Obama told me that Israel is a "constant sore" that infects American foreign policy. "Israel is a critical American ally and a beacon of democracy in the Middle East, not a `constant sore' as Barack Obama claims," Boehner's statement reads.
Mr. Boehner, I'm sure, is a terribly busy man, with many burdensome responsibilities, so I have to assume that he simply didn't have time to read the entire Obama interview, or even the entire paragraph, or even a single clause. If he had, of course, he would have seen that Obama was clearly calling the Middle East conflict, and not Israel, a sore. Why, there's no one who would disagree that the Middle East conflict is a "sore," is there?
I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me.
If he doesn't, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner's statement a "flat-out lie." In fact, I would add to Andrew's post, by calling Boehner's statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here.

-- Jeffrey Goldberg, May 13, 2008.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/20 ...
DrVandoley, on 05/13/2008, -2/+6I don't really have much positive to say about Obama. He'll be terrible for the country, he has strong support from Palestinians and Hamas, and will probably flip on Israel. However in the interview, he didn't say that Israel is a constant sore. Maybe he meant that, but he's not dumb enough to say it. Though it might prove our suspicions and we might wish he said that, it's blatantly a distortion to say he did. He clearly referred to the Middle East conflict as a constant sore.
- flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -2/+3Obama will be fantastic for this country, and for middle east peace. Speculating that he'll flip on Israel, without any evidence whatsoever, is just pure fabrication. You can make that claim about any politician on any policy.
  
  Here in the real world, one only has to look at Obama's voting record to see that he is a supporter of Israel, as all informed Americans are.
  - DrVandoley, on 05/13/2008, -0/+4Floss, I like your comments on Israel in general, but disagree about Obama. Here in the real world politicians by definition lie all the time to get elected. Obama wouldn't be where he is today if he were openly anti-Israel. However, if you look at the people close to Obama, you see a picture different than that which he espouses. Many of his current and former advisors have been unsupportive or have anti-Israel agendas, such as Power, McPeak, Malley, Hamilton, Brzezinsky, and recently hired Joseph Cirincione. By the looks of his advisors, it's reasonable to assume that he might flip on Israel.
    - flossdaily, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1I get that- I really do. Someone in a different thread posted an article about how awful those guys are on Israel. But seeing what Obama himself has had to say on the subject, I believe he really gets it. He speaks about Israel with nuance (and yes, some pandering ***** too), but in the end I feel he understands that the Jews need a homeland, that Israel has a right to exist, and a right to defend itself.
      
      If Barack becomes president, the pressure on him to support Israel will be even greater because he'll start to see just how much of our critical intelligence on middle-east affairs comes to us curtasy of Israel.
      
      He'll also start meeting with Israeli leaders, and he'll hear from them first hand how they want peace- how they land they're offering as much land as possible to the Palestinians while still maintaining defensible boarders, and how offering a Right of Return to Palestinians is a deal breaker because it would effectively destroy Israel as a safe-haven for Jews.
      
      Barack, above all else, strikes me as a thoroughly REASONABLE man. I believe most of the anti-Israel sentiment out there is due to misinformation. When Barack becomes informed of the details, he will see the reasonableness of Israel's position, just as all US President's have in the past.
      
      The fact that his advisers sympathize with the Palestinians, and the fact that the Palestinians like Barack to start off with makes me think that he could finally be the guy to broker peace between the two sides.
miketrin, on 05/13/2008, -7/+4He is right.
Klingon00, on 05/13/2008, -3/+8"JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?

BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy."

If Obama had intended to mean the conflict in general, then he could have chosen his words far more carefully. Obama was asked a question about Israel, and his imediate answer was that "this constant wound" and "sore" as if he is speaking directly about Israel. His next sentence then comes off as a cover to his previous sentence, and certainty belies to me some inner thinking on the part of Obama in my opinion.
- miketrin, on 05/13/2008, -7/+5Inner thinking? He shouldn't put that little apartheid nation before the will of the American people. America first, screw israel. They screw us enough, how about we just tell them to go ***** off.
  - flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -3/+6Apartheid means segregation based on race. Israel does not do that. Israel, like every other country on the planet, segregates by nationality. Palestinians don't have the rights of Israeli citizens because THEY ARE NOT ISRAELI CITIZENS, nor have they ever been, nor will they ever be.
    
    As far as domestic policies go- all Israeli citizens, Muslim and Arabs as well as Jews enjoy ALL the same rights and privileges- including absolute and total freedom of religion.
- flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -5/+3Its called 'context', look it up. Obama was clearly very sympathetic to Israel in that interview. You are all searching for something that isn't there.
flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -5/+7Wildly misleading headline. Obama is clearly an Israel supporter- and the fact that Palestinians like and respect him means that he is probably the best hope for peace that the middle east has ever seen.

From the article, a quote from Obama:
"I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.'
- hadees, on 05/13/2008, -1/+7I would concur although i'm not really an Obama supporter. I am fairly undecided right now although i do have an affinity for McCain. Anyway Obama isn't anti-Israel and from his statements he seems willing and able to support them. I think the issue he keeps having with Israel is due to things like under cutting Hillary when she says if Israel gets nuked she would destroy Iran. While I do understand his position which seems to be speak softly and carry a big stick I do think MAD is an effective deterrent. Hillary's comment was totally prefixed on a case where Israel was already hit by Iranian nukes and playing it off like it was Bush rhetoric was disingenuous in my personal opinion.
  - flossdaily, on 05/13/2008, -0/+5#1) MAD ("mutual assured destruction", for our viewers)- only works when the destruction is mutual. Iran getting a handful of nukes could not assure our destruction, although, it could certainly wipe out Israel.
    
    #2) Obama under-cutting Hillary was politically expedient. I agree there is a time and place for threatening to wipe Iran off the map, but that wasn't it. If you're going to posture like that, do it in the face of an imminent threat, do it on national television, in an address directed specifically at Iran. The problem with Hillary's threat was that it was premature, and unprovoked. The proper response in an interview would have been to say, "We'll take whatever actions are appropriate, based on the details of the situation."
    
    #3) Comparing Hillary to Bush in this case was justified, because in case you haven't noticed, Bush is trying to build a case for going into Iran, the way he want into Iraq.
  - hadees, on 05/14/2008, -0/+71. We were talking about MAD in the case of protecting our ally Israel. If Iran nukes Israel then Iran gets destroyed. That is MAD.
    
    2. MAD works because the other party knows your response ahead of time. There is no guarantee that Iran would announce the attack ahead of time. As for premature and unprovoked, she answered a direct question about what she would do if Iran nuked Israel. I see no reason why she shouldn't respond with the truth about the response from the United States. If Democrats want to win the Whitehouse I think they need show they are willing to use the appropriate amount of force when needed and not just prove that Bush sucks at fighting wars.
    
    3. But Hillary wasn't trying to build a case for going into Iran, she answered a direct hypothetical question that presumed Iran had already nuked Israel.
    - flossdaily, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6#1) I see where you're coming from. It's a fair point.
      
      #2) Iran won't announce the nukes ahead of time- but there will be signs that they have progressed in their building of weapons enough that we need to understand that a threat is imminent. The real danger is to let our government convince us that a threat is imminent when no such threat exists. That's how Bush lied us into Iraq. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
      
      #3) Hillary's tough talk seems premature given Iran's current state of readiness to attack. On top of that, the fact that she was given a hypothetical, and felt the need to answer it in such a politically sloppy way is inexcusable for such a seasoned public figure. Rule #1 in politics- never indulge a hypothetical. Even Bush got this one down pat.
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Obama: Israel is 'A Constant Sore'

Login or register to add a comment