On Fri, 25 Jan 2008, a list lurker passed on an article in the (New Jersey) Jewish Standard on Obama's letter to Khalizad (which included a facsimile of the letter)
> http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3790/1/Obama-supporters-speak-out%3B-he-writes-to-U.N.-on-Israel
which, combined with related articles in that newspaper, I think helps to put this letter in context.
My impression from this group of articles is that Obama didn't send this letter because he's more pro-Israel than Hillary. On the contrary, according to these guys (his pro-Israel boosters) he's exactly the same amount of pro-Israel as Hillary is and always has been. (According to them, the Chicago pro-Israel groups, which are probably second in organization and importance in the US only to the New York groups, all love Obama and have been working for him for 20 years. He has the same relation to them as Hillary has to the ones in New York.) But to the aggravation of his supporters, he has a much lower approval rating among Jews than she does: 38% to Hillary's 53%. And they seem convinced that this is in large part due to an online email smear campaign that has suggested that he's a secret muslim:
http://www.jstandard.com/articles/3789/1/Why-the-Jews-entered-the-fray
This is a smear campaign that has gotten some press in recent weeks. This article mentions that 7 Senators recently wrote a public letter denouncing it. (It was also the topic of Doonesbury for a week about a month ago.)
And this is what prompted Obama's advisors to get him to send this letter to Khalizad this week and then circulate it publicly: because Rep. Steve Rothman, his Northeast organizer for the Jewish vote, needed a timely physical document he could wave in his hand at a meeting he's convened on January 31st for Jewish leaders to meet Obama in the run up to Tsunami Tuesday, so he could have incontrovertible proof of Obama's pro-Israel bona fides to wave around.
FWIW, Obama's top advisor on foreign and security policy overall, Zbigniew Brzezinski, published an op-ed 2 weeks ago on what he thought policy should be on Israel/Palestine. (It was on the eve of Bush's mideast trip, so its phrased as advice to the prince.) IMHO it seems no worse than the liberal mainstream line possibly even a beetle leg better. I attach it below.
Mind you, I'm notanaobama booster. I'm just posting this for information's sake.
Michael
==========
January 9 2008 Financial Times
Bush must dispense bitter pills to bring about peace By Zbigniew Brzezinski
President George W. Bush embarks this week on a trip to the Middle East that may determine how history judges his legacy. So far, it is safe to say that the judgment will be largely negative. Mr Bush's foreign policy has undermined America's global legitimacy, not to mention his own credibility.
He has plunged the US into a protracted conflict in the Gulf region while neglecting the increasingly ominous al-Qaeda challenges in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Last, global public opinion has turned against the US.
But a great deal could change if Mr Bush could make happen what he has just predicted in an interview with an Israeli newspaper: "There will be a comprehensive peace signed by the end of this year" between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Indeed, such a peace would be a breakthrough of genuinely historic dimensions.
To deliver this, Mr Bush must accept that an Israeli-Palestinian accord will not come about by itself and that the Israelis and the Palestinians by themselves will not reach it. Neither side is ready to offer a genuine compromise. Each side waits for the other to make basic concessions while professing a devotion to peace. Each side finds refuge in myths that justify intransigence.
For the Israelis, the recently constructed wall on Palestinian lands provides the illusion of security, reinforced by the awareness that Israel is infinitely more powerful than the Palestinians. Why then should Israel begin by making concessions to the weaker?
The Palestinian myth is born out of weakness. It compels them to take refuge in history, in the illusion that time is on their side, that the Israelis - like the crusaders earlier - will eventually have to give in, especially when Muslim hostility drives America out of the Middle East. Why then should the Palestinians begin by making concessions to the currently stronger Israel?
With neither side capable of initiating a genuine give-and-take bargaining process, it is up to the US to do so. Mr Bush is the only one who can make this happen if he is serious about his prediction. The way to do it is to spell out the grand framework for a fair and enduring peace when he is in the Middle East, thereby breaking the logjam, and then leaving it to the parties to resolve the details. He should state that a fair peace must be based on the following four fundamental principles.
1. No right of return to the state of Israel for the Palestinian refugees : a bitter pill for the Palestinians but one they must digest, for the Israelis cannot be expected to commit national suicide for the sake of peace. Some compensation and acknowledgement of their suffering, however, should be part of the settlement. The international community, which needs peace in the Middle East, could pitch in.
2. The genuine sharing of Jerusalem, including a section of the old city and the mosque with the Golden Dome as part of the Palestinian capital : a bitter pill for the Israelis but one they must digest, for otherwise the peace will never be viewed by Palestinians and Arabs more generally as legitimate. Joint arrangements would have to be agreed to prevent the city from being split altogether and that could include a special regimen for the holy sites.
3. Mutually agreed changes to the 1967 lines, based on equitable territorial compensation for any adjustments , designed to include in Israel the main urban settlements located near the final frontiers; and the phased evacuation of Israeli settlers from the settlements that will be in the Palestinian state, with some Palestinian refugees perhaps then resettled in the new state.
4. A demilitarised Palestinian state, with some form of international security presence within it. Perhaps the US might consider a permanent US presence along the Jordan river as a form of security reassurance to the Israelis. That should address the Israeli sense of vulnerability without arousing Palestinian anger that some aspects of the Israeli occupation would persist even after the peace treaty.
A firm statement outlining the US view of an equitable peace along these lines would command instant global support. It would also enjoy significant support among Israelis and Palestinians (as indicated by public opinion polls) while breaking the negotiating stalemate between the two parties.
Once momentum is generated it could even lead to peace this year.
In 2002 Mr Bush stated that he hoped to achieve a two-state solution by 2005. It is now 2008. Only the US can do it and that demands action from the president, not just more words.
The writer is the author of Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower
Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2008