Obama: I disagree with aide who blamed 'NY, Miami' for failed peace talks

Obama's adviser and national campaign co-chairman in 2003 blamed the Jewish American community for the failed peace process.

Now let's discuss these remarks calmly.

1.

Another day, another Obama-Israel-Jewish-related-scandal. Aren't you all tired of raising questions about the Obama campaign?

I am, but duty calls. Again.

A week that started with the good news (from this campaign's point of view) coming out of a Gallup poll (see Jewish Democrats: Half pro-Clinton, half pro-Obama) will end on a sour note. Obama's military adviser and national campaign co-chairman, Merrill "Tony" McPeak, is the new celebrity-suspect, having said four years ago that the peace process is not going well because of "New York City and Miami. We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it."

2.

First thing first: the credit goes to Robert Goldberg of the American Spectator. He was the one who discovered this long-forgotten interview with The Oregonian in which McPeak made these remarks. Here is part of the text:

McPeak: Obviously part of that long-term strategy would be getting the Israelis and the Palestinians together at . . . something other than a peace process. Process is not a substitute for achievement or settlement. And even so the process has gone off the tracks, but the process isn't enough. . . . We need to get it fixed and only we have the authority with both sides to move them towards that. Everybody knows that.

Q: So where's the problem? State? White House?

A: New York City. Miami. We have a large vote here in favor of Israel. And no politician wants to run against it... I think that everybody understands that a settlement of the Arab-Israeli problem would require the Israelis to stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, and maybe even withdraw some of the settlements that have already been put there. And nobody wants to take on that problem. It's just too tough politically. You can't develop a Middle East strategy. It's impossible.

3.

Now, let's discuss these remarks calmly. It was 2003, in the midst of the second intifada. And what was McPeak saying?

1. "Process is not a substitute for achievement". That's quite obvious.

2. "Only we have the authority". Maybe so, but I'm not so sure.

3. "no politician wants to run against" the NY and Miami vote. Well, that is generally true.

4. "Stop settling the West Bank and the Gaza Strip". That's the standardized American position against settlements.

5. "Nobody wants to take on that problem". Again, standard Democratic complaints against the Bush administration.

4.

So where's the problem? It is right here: "New York City. Miami".

The facts are in place, the tone is problematic to say the least:

Yes, a lot of Jews live in NY and Miami and most of them support Israel; Yes, Israel is a matter in which the foreign policy establishment does not always have one decisive voice - thank goodness; yes, if it was up to McPeak the policy would have been different.

The problem is that his frustration shows. His tone is the tone of an angry man who might be looking for someone to blame and finding it among Jewish Americans. The not-so-subtle hint that American Jews act against the interests of the U.S. (note: this is not an anti-Israel comment. It is targeting a group of Americans).

I'm sure Obama would not have approved of such comments. But this interview took place in 2003, and Obama was still barely around.

5.

These are the things the Obama campaign will rightly point to while discussing McPeak's comments:

1. Listen to Obama, not to McPeak. He will not be the one making Middle East policy in an Obama administration. Fair enough.

2. This was said long ago and things have changed. Given the political context at the time, it was fair to say that Israel has been too slow to withdraw from the occupied territories, but that?s no longer case. Acceptable.

C. He is not the only one saying such things. Remember General Wesly Clark, a Clinton supporter, and his New York money people? We do. And believe me, some supporters of McCain?s do not have a more favorable view of "New York" than does McPeak (James Baker: F--k the Jews, they don't vote for us anyway).

6.

McPeak said other questionable things in this long-forgotten interview. Claims similar to those made by "the-lobby-is-shutting-us-down" professors Walt and Mearsheimer.

For example, arguing that American actions in Iraq were done for the benefit of Israel: "Let's say that one of your abiding concerns is the security of Israel as opposed to a purely American self-interest, then it would make sense to build a dozen or so bases in Iraq. Let's say you are a born-again Christian and you think that Armageddon and the rapture are about to happen any minute and what you want to do is retrace steps you think are laid out in Revelations, then it makes sense".

7.

In short, the question for me is not why Obama is working with McPeak. Obama needs people to work with, and can't always consider their views regarding Israel as first priority. If he wasn't efficient enough shrugging off his pastor's comments against America, vetting McPeak?s against "New York" and "Miami" is much too much to expect.

The real question is why McPeak chose to work with Obama in the first place.

8.

And this is an update.

The Obama campaign issued a statement dealing with McPeak. Here it is in full: "Senator Obama's longstanding commitment to Israel is clear to anyone who has reviewed his voting record, read his speeches or looked at his policy papers. As he has said, his support for our democratic ally Israel is based on America's national interests and our shared values. Neither Senator Clinton nor Senator Obama agrees with every position their advisors take, and in this case Senator Obama disagrees with General McPeak's comments."