[Reports of Barack Obama's speech on Wednesday to the annual meeting of
AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) varied notably. --
The *Financial Times* emphasized the hard line Obama took on Iran, saying
three times: "I will do everything in my power to prevent Iran from
obtaining a nuclear weapon."[1] -- Obama promised to "always keep the
threat of military action on the table to defend our security and our ally
Israel." --

But an Inter Press Service report noted that the prospective Democratic
nominee "used his newfound position of strength to stress peace, dialogue,
and diplomacy," adding: "They are themes that are not traditionally
favored at AIPAC, widely considered the most influential foreign policy
lobby group in Washington, and which has been historically sceptical of
the value of negotiations between Israel and its neighbors."[2] -- Khody
Akhavi said the contrast between last year's reception for Obama, which
was marked by "scattered boos," and this year's was remarkable: "he was
greeted with a standing ovation. -- The applause kept coming throughout
his half-hour address. And when it was over, the cheering persisted." --
Yet "Obama's speech in many ways marked a shift in the usual approach, as
it seemed the Illinois senator was encouraging the AIPAC faithful to
support his positions, rather than submitting to what the group's policy
agenda otherwise suggested." --

"While Jews account for only three
percent of the population, they are concentrated in such key swing states
as Florida, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and California," Akhavi noted. --
"Financial contributions from Jewish donors account for as much as 20
percent of Republican campaign funds and as much as 40 percent of
Democratic funds, according to a recent article by the *Forward*, the
largest nationally circulated Jewish newspaper in the U.S." --

Writing for his *Haaretz* blog, Shmuel Rosner said that "even two months ago"
Israeli Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry officials were sure that
Hillary Clinton would "end up the victor" in the battle for the
nomination.[3] -- Now that Obama has prevailed, "AIPAC's wily and
experienced lobbyists predict the first year of an Obama presidency will
be challenging for Israel not because he has bad intentions, but because
they might be too good. Until then, Israel will unwillingly be at the
heart of the storm of the presidential race. Thus, the AIPAC meeting this
week centered on stopping Iran's nuclear program." -- The tone of
Rosner's column took a bizarre turn at the end: "Obama is much smarter
than the electorate, and it is doubtful he will carry out all of his
fanciful promises . . . even those who oppose him should put aside their
political preferences, fear of the future and their pros and cons list for
just a moment. Now is the time to take in Obama's astounding political
victory, if one can still feel awe for anything in this day and age.
Against all the odds, the campaign broke down the boundaries of bias and
race, and brought out voters to cast their ballots. They may be naive,
but they are not indifferent. They may be a little childish, but they
aren't cynical. -- Once Obama's battle was over, one could only sit at
the AIPAC conference on Tuesday night, listen to another speech by Prime
Minister Ehud Olmert, and look on with envy at Americans celebrating
Obama's victory in amassing delegates on the streets of St. Paul,
Minnesota. As far as we know, Obama has never accepted envelopes filled
with wads of money like Olmert allegedly has. Instead, the millions of
voters who stand behind Obama have turned his campaign into something
without parallel in U.S. history." --Mark]

http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/7562/

1.

In depth

U.S. elections 2008

RIVALS ADOPT TOUGH STANCE ON TEHRAN
By Daniel Dombey (Washington) and Tobias Buck (Jerusalem)

Financial Times (London)
June 4, 2008

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b23dd452-3264-11dd-9b87-0000779fd2ac.html

Barack Obama on Wednesday began his first full day as the Democratic
party’s presumptive presidential nominee by emphasizing the option of
using military force against Iran and calling on Israel to maintain
Jerusalem as its undivided capital -- despite ongoing peace talks with the
Palestinians.

In a speech to an audience of 7,000 at the American Israel Public Affairs
Committee’s annual meeting in Washington, Mr. Obama tried to redefine his
dispute with John McCain, his prospective Republican rival, over whether
to talk to Iran and sought to win over doubting Jewish voters.

Mr. Obama received one of many standing ovations when he declared, “I will
do everything in my power to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear
weapon”, a line he used three times.

“I will always keep the threat of military action on the table to defend
our security and our ally Israel -- do not be confused,” he added, arguing
that the U.S., rather than Europe, should lead talks with Iran over its
nuclear program.

“If we must use military force, we are more likely to succeed and will
have far greater support at home and abroad if we have exhausted our
diplomatic efforts,” Mr. Obama said.

“As president of the U.S. 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 U.S.”

The Illinois senator struck a similar note to Mr. McCain, who addressed
the same meeting two days before and called on the U.S. to work with its
allies “to find every avenue outside the United Nations to isolate the
[Iranian] regime”.

Possible measures included stemming imports of refined petroleum on which
Iran depends.

Mr. Obama also won rapturous applause from his audience when he promised:
“Jerusalem will remain the capital of Israel and it must remain
undivided.”

Both the administrations of Bill Clinton, former U.S. president, and
George W. Bush, current president, have favored talks between the Israelis
and the Palestinians, in which the status of Jerusalem has been one of the
most important topics.

The Palestinians demand the eastern half of Jerusalem, occupied by Israel
since the 1967 war, as the capital of a future Palestinian state. Close
aides to Ehud Olmert, the Israeli prime minister, have repeatedly raised
the prospect of giving part of East Jerusalem to the Palestinians.

“We applaud Senator Obama’s clear statement,” said Nathan Diament at the
U.S. Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations, which opposes Mr. Olmert’s
willingness to negotiate on Jerusalem.

“We note that, in the past, Senator McCain has expressed an equal
commitment to Jerusalem as well.”

In an attempt to contrast his approach with that of Mr. Bush, Mr. Obama
added that he would not “wait until the waning days of my presidency”
before becoming actively involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.

Mr. McCain sounded a more sceptical note this week, implying that the
Palestinians were not yet ready for peace. “We must also insure that
Israel’s people can live in safety until there is a Palestinian leadership
willing and able to deliver peace,” he said in his address.

2.

Politics

U.S.

OBAMA WALKS FINE LINE AT MAJOR PRO-ISRAEL MEET
By Khody Akhavi

Inter Press Service
June 4, 2008

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=42666

WASHINGTON -- Speaking last year at the same forum, he received scattered
boos. But as Senator Barack Obama strode towards the podium Wednesday
morning at the annual policy conference of the American Israel Public
Affairs Committee (AIPAC), he was greeted with a standing ovation.

The applause kept coming throughout his half-hour address. And when it was
over, the cheering persisted.

If Obama appeared confident, it was perhaps because he had clinched the
presidential nomination of the Democratic Party the previous evening, even
if his adversary, Senator Hillary Clinton, would still not formally
concede.

Obama spoke directly before the junior senator from New York on Wednesday
and used his newfound position of strength to stress peace, dialogue, and
diplomacy. They are themes that are not traditionally favored at AIPAC,
widely considered the most influential foreign policy lobby group in
Washington, and which has been historically sceptical of the value of
negotiations between Israel and its neighbors.

"A secure, lasting peace is in Israel's interest. It is in America's
national interest. And it is in the interest of the Palestinian people
and the Arab world. As president, I will work to help Israel achieve the
goal of two states, a Jewish state of Israel and a Palestinian state,
living side by side in peace and security," said Obama.

"And I won't wait until the waning days of my presidency," he added in a
clear dig at President George W. Bush, an AIPAC favorite for his
unstinting support of former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon. The
audience applauded.

The annual AIPAC conference is a test of loyalty for high-level officials,
the year's most important event for a powerful group attempting to affect
U.S. policy towards the Middle East.

To critics, the conference is a pander party, drawing an extraordinary
number of high-level U.S. officials who -- for political reasons -- pledge
their unwavering support for Israel, even if that "support" goes against
what the Israeli government and majority of the population want.

But Obama's speech in many ways marked a shift in the usual approach, as
it seemed the Illinois senator was encouraging the AIPAC faithful to
support his positions, rather than submitting to what the group's policy
agenda otherwise suggested.

"His speech was remarkably different in tone and substance from any other
speaker that you heard at the conference," said Trita Parsi, who heads the
National Iranian American Council. "Instead of staying away from the
issue, he made a strong case, he didn't back down from the fact that
diplomacy would not only be valuable to U.S. interests, but is also good
for Israel's security."

While much of the conference -- indeed, Senator John McCain's address to
the same audience two days before -- was devoted to the intentions and
perceived existential threat posed by Iran, Obama offered a few
suggestions on what Israel itself could do to advance the cause of peace
with Palestinians in its own backyard.

"Israel can," he said, "ease the freedom of movement for Palestinians,
improve economic conditions in the West Bank, and refrain from building
new settlements -- as it agreed to with the [President George W.] Bush
administration at Annapolis."

Obama also lent his support to the Israeli government's indirect peace
talks with neighboring Syria, in contrast to the very tepid response
offered by the Bush administration. McCain failed to even mention it on
Monday.

And when it came to Iran -- Public Enemy Number One at the AIPAC
conference -- Obama said he had no illusions about pursuing diplomacy with
Tehran but would reintroduce diplomacy as a tool of statecraft to succeed,
not just to contain "failure."

"Our willingness to pursue diplomacy will make it easier to mobilize
others to join our cause. If Iran fails to change course when presented
with this choice by the United States, it will be clear -- to the people
of Iran, and to the world -- that the Iranian regime is the author of its
own isolation," he said.

"We will present a clear choice [to Iran]. 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."

Obama's speech offered a stark contrast to his Republican adversary,
Senator John McCain, who in an address to the same audience on Monday
maintained the bellicose rhetoric of the Bush administration and mocked
Obama's willingness to engage Iran diplomatically.

"Such a spectacle would harm Iranian moderates and dissidents," McCain
went on, "as the radicals and hardliners strengthen their position and
suddenly acquire the appearance of respectability."

But Obama's speech was not pander-free, however. One comment appeared
aimed at appeasing hardliners within the AIPAC's leadership: "Jerusalem
must remain the capital of Israel, and must remain undivided," said Obama.

Even the U.S.-backed Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has
rejected any final settlement in which Palestinians do not share -- at
least part of -- Jerusalem.

In an unusually pointed speech before AIPAC on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of
State Condoleezza Rice called talking to Iran pointless unless Tehran
suspends the country's uranium enrichment program.

When it came her turn to speak, the haggard and deflated Clinton, who is
expected to formally acknowledge Obama's victory by the end of the week,
came one step closer to acknowledging Obama's win but did not refer to him
as the nominee.

"Let me be very clear," she said. "I know Senator Obama will be a good
friend of Israel." That assertion, which was not included in her prepared
remarks, appeared designed to help rally Jewish support for Obama's now
virtually certain candidacy. During the primary season, Clinton
consistently did better among Jewish voters, particularly among older Jews
whose participation in elections is particularly high.

While Jews account for only three percent of the population, they are
concentrated in such key swing states as Florida, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, and California.

Financial contributions from Jewish donors account for as much as 20
percent of Republican campaign funds and as much as 40 percent of
Democratic funds, according to a recent article by the *Forward*, the
largest nationally circulated Jewish newspaper in the U.S.

3.

Rosner's blog

Rosner's domain

IT'S OBAMA'S GOOD INTENTIONS FOR ISRAEL THAT AIPAC FEARS
By Shmuel Rosner

Haaretz
June 5, 2008

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990489.html

It's easy to be swept away by the flood of rumors and leaks emanating from
the campaign headquarters of U.S. presidential hopefuls, cable news, and
web sites. Sense and nonsense mix together into flights of fancy and
worse. Has Hillary Clinton eyed the vice presidential ticket? After all,
she did tell New York lawmakers she would accept the role. Will Barack
Obama want her in that position? How does former U.S. president Jimmy
Carter's decision to support Obama affect him, and will that support
increase the suspicions of Jewish voters in Florida about the Democratic
candidate?

Indeed, it is easy to be swept away, but it's worth stopping for an
instant and rolling the name of the Democratic Party's apparent
presidential candidate on the tongue. Obama is not just a candidate --
he's the candidate, a candidate who is the son of a black man and a white
woman. He will make his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention on
the 45th anniversary of Martin Luther King's "I have a dream" speech. No
campaign manager could have planned it better, none could have picked a
more dramatic day.

Obama's victory is not surprising. The epic duel with Clinton gave
everyone, including past and present Israeli officials dealing with the
U.S., time to prepare. Until a few months ago, my notebook was full of
quotes of Foreign Ministry and Defense Ministry officials who five, four
and even two months ago promised that Clinton will end up the victor. In
recent weeks they've kept quiet and allowed the reality to sink in.

Some American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) members currently
convening at its annual conference have already discussed the possibility
of a "President Obama" come November. Elections are still far away, but
such an outcome is not a wild bet. AIPAC's wily and experienced lobbyists
predict the first year of an Obama presidency will be challenging for
Israel not because he has bad intentions, but because they might be too
good. Until then, Israel will unwillingly be at the heart of the storm of
the presidential race. Thus, the AIPAC meeting this week centered on
stopping Iran's nuclear program.

Republican presidential candidate John McCain, who addressed the
conference, was the first to strike when he lashed out against Obama's
intent to meet Iranian leaders without any stipulations. On Tuesday he
was joined by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who detailed Iran's
stubbornness and defended the Bush administration's stance, which she said
was also McCain's. The question isn't why we aren't talking to Iran, Rice
said, but why isn't Iran talking to us?

Polls show that Obama's support for holding unconditional talks with Iran,
though it may be wrong, is much more popular among U.S. voters. But Obama
is much smarter than the electorate, and it is doubtful he will carry out
all of his fanciful promises.

There are enough reasons to prefer McCain to Obama, or Clinton to Obama,
regarding their intended policy toward Iran. But even those who oppose
him should put aside their political preferences, fear of the future and
their pros and cons list for just a moment. Now is the time to take in
Obama's astounding political victory, if one can still feel awe for
anything in this day and age. Against all the odds, the campaign broke
down the boundaries of bias and race, and brought out voters to cast their
ballots. They may be naive, but they are not indifferent. They may be a
little childish, but they aren't cynical.

Once Obama's battle was over, one could only sit at the AIPAC conference
on Tuesday night, listen to another speech by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,
and look on with envy at Americans celebrating Obama's victory in amassing
delegates on the streets of St. Paul, Minnesota. As far as we know, Obama
has never accepted envelopes filled with wads of money like Olmert
allegedly has. Instead, the millions of voters who stand behind Obama
have turned his campaign into something without parallel in U.S. history.

.

__,_._,___