Well, it’s good to see that this gaffe thread, at least, will be a beacon of reasoned debate.
As is any thread when Diogenes talks about Obama.
Loved the Memorial Day speech. “I see dead people.”
Maybe Obama is senile.
Regards,
Shodan
I hate that I have to cite her but Michelle Malkin did us the favor of compiling a bunch. I like the 10,000 people killed by the Kansas tornado one.
Funny. I thought Tel Aviv was the capital of Israel.
Nope, Jerusalem. It’s just that most countries have their embassies in Tel Aviv so as not to offend the Arab states.
Thanks for clearing that up. As an aside, I’ve always thought it weird that Americans fly off the handle if someone so much as offers an opinion on American government or foreign policy (witness Lobsang’s “make sure you vote, Obama people” thread), yet foreigners (through their various diaspora in America) effectively dictate 90% of American foreign policy.
As an aside, has either candidate made a gaffe worthy of noticing? That is, has either made anything close to what we’ve come to expect from Bush?
ISTM that the Gotcha Ya game is a byproduct of Bush’s difficulties. Sure, things would have been reported before him, but it’s been so … “entertaining” that nowadays it’s looked for much closer. “Oooh… he said Beatles when it should be The Beatles!” just doesn’t compare.
Heh, oddly enough what I get from that article is that Obama is more definite that Jerusalem will remain, in whatever negotiations that take place, the Israeli capital city, then McCain:
[Emphasis added]
McCain on the other hand appears to leave the possibility open that the ultimate status of Jerusalem is a subject for negotiation:
[Emphasis added]
In summary, both believe that the issue of Palestinian sovereignty over parts of Jerusalem is up for negotiation; but, if this article is any guide, only McCain holds out the possibility of negotiating the final status of Jerusalem as capital - unless McCain means something other than “status as capital” by “status of the city”.
This also makes this notion unlikely, from garygnu:
It isn’t a “gaffe” perhaps, but it also isn’t a dictated position, as their positions are different.
Keeping the embassy in Tel Aviv has little to do with appeasing diaspora and much to do with relations with foreign (Arab) states.
Moreover, “diaspora in America” are not “foreigners” I would think, but rather “Americans”.
“through their diaspora”, I said. I’m not suggesting that Jews (for example) in America aren’t Americans but that Israel (and other states) direct American foreign policy through them.
But Obama has made the same noise about later “negotiations,” so he and McCain have no difference in position.
Incidentally, has any American politician ever gotten in trouble for being too pro-Israel? It just isn’t possible, is it? It’s one of those things politicians can never overdo.
It can cause problems with the Arab states, obviously - witness the oil crises of the 70s - but I think you can safely say you can’t be too pro-Israel as far as the electorate is concerned.
Oddly, I thought you were referring to the notion of having the US embassy in Tel Aviv rather than Jerusalem as an example of such interference.
Thus, the example would be the Arabs living in the US directing US foreign policy on behalf of Arab nations, not the Jews in America directing US foreign policy on behalf of Israel, since obviously having the US embassy in Tel Aviv pleases Arab states and not Israel.
Not according to Obama’s staff.
I quote again:
The “any outcome” refers to negotiations.
In short, an Obama administration would not accept an “outcome” in which Jerusalem was not Israel’s capital - assuming that the quoted source is correct and not mistaken or misleading.
This isn’t something that can be said of McCain. They are not the same.
Ah. I see what you thought I did there.
I meant American Jews dictate US Mideast policy, just as Cuban-Americans dictate US Cuban policy (well, that one works in reverse, I suppose), and just as Irish Republicans dictated US policy on terrorism prior to 9/11.
If they do, the fact that the US has its embassy in Tel Aviv is an odd example of such influence.
Moreover, I do not think this is correct.
Certainly, some Jews attempt to influence the US, and many if not most of these are pro-Israel, and the pro-Israel lobby is effective. But I do not think in the least that they dictate US policy, which is based on many factors - ranging from realpolitic concerning relations with Arab states (hence Tel Aviv embassy) through sympathy for Israel and concerns about terrorism domestic and foreign, and many other things besides.
Support by US Jews for Israel is just one factor among many, and not I think the most important one even in US support for Israel, let alone US mid-east policy as a whole (that would be the political clout generated by sympathy that large numbers, I would say the majority, of non-Jewish Americans have for Israel).
Could you cite anyone in favor of dividing Jerusalem again? I thought the Arab position was either making it Palestinian or making it an open city. It would be just as hard to partition Berlin again.
No matter - someone named Obama being maybe a bit too pro-Israel for some people is hardly a gaffe.
Well, that’s one of my points. “Concern for terrorism [domestic and] foreign” was an entirely novel concept to generations of Americans. It wasn’t until foreign terrorism came here that it became a genuine concern.
Prior to 2001, it was just a bargaining chip - “we’ll crack down on our citizens bankrolling terrorism in [whatever country we’re talking to] if you sign this treaty, 'kay?”
That would be Obama, or rather his campaign people. From the article:
[Emphasis added]
With the later stipulation that such division was not to include barbed wire and checkpoints, and was to mean Jerusalem remained Israel’s capital.
I agree that this is not a “gaffe” on Obama’s part. My point was that Obama, for whatever reason, has taken a different and harder line on the question of the status of Jerusalem than McCain.