Think Progress

Lieberman Says He’s ‘Pleasantly Encouraged’ By Obama, But Disagrees With His Middle East And Health Care Agenda

In an interview with Bloomberg’s Al Hunt, Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) — who campaigned hard against President Obama during the 2008 election and supported his Republican challenger John McCain — said that he’s impressed with how Obama is handling the job.

“Put me down now as pleasantly encouraged by the first five months,” Lieberman said. “He has been strong, particularly on foreign policy. I think President Obama is off to a very, very good start in a very difficult time in our nation’s history.” Lieberman lauded Obama’s recent Cairo speech to the Muslim world, saying it was a “significant step overall. … My guess is he opened some minds in the Muslim world.”

Despite the laudatory comments of Obama’s foreign policy vision, Lieberman offered criticism of the president’s efforts to urge Israel to stop its settlement activities. “I thought the focus on the President’s direct call in that speech in Cairo for the Israelis to freeze all settlement activity — including the ‘natural growth‘ of settlements that everybody agrees are no longer settlements — …that was risky in the sense that it may lead listeners to believe that the main reason there is not an Arab-Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is the Israeli settlement policy,” he said:

HUNT: Do you disagree then with the President and Secretary Clinton that there ought to be a freeze — no growth in those settlements now?

LIEBERMAN: I do. I disagree.

Watch it:

On Obama’s domestic agenda, Lieberman announced his opposition to a public health insurance option. “I don’t favor a public option, and I don’t favor a public option because I think there’s plenty of competition in the private insurance market,” he argued. (He’s wrong.) Lieberman warned that political pressure in favor of the public option may thwart efforts at achieving health care reform. “Let’s get something done instead of having a debate,” he said.

Separately, Lieberman said he “could support” the Waxman-Markey clean energy legislation in the House. “It’s a great act of legislative leadership,” he added, saying the critical issue is convincing “people from states that get a lot of their electricity from coal-burning power plants that we can make this change without skyrocketing the cost of living and the cost of doing business.”

Liz Cheney: Obama’s Language On Israel Goes ‘Much Further’ Than The Bush-Era Road Map For Peace

During his speech today, President Obama reiterated standing U.S. policy that the expansion of Israeli settlements in Palestine must be ended. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop,” he said.

On MSNBC this afternoon, former Vice President Cheney’s daughter, Liz Cheney, argued that Obama’s insistence that Israel freeze settlement expansion goes “much further” than the Roadmap to Peace negotiated by the Bush administration in 2002:

MITCHELL: Can you clarify at all a dispute some or among former Bush administration middle east experts and officials as to whether there was a secret promise or an agreement with Israel that Israel could proceed with settlement expansion to accommodate population growth?

CHENEY: It is a very complicated issue and the Road Map does talk about settlements. … But there’s the issue of, in existing settlements, if a family has a baby, are you allowed to build another room in the house? … I think there’s no question that this White House has gone much further in saying to the Israelis, “you must absolutely stop all of it.” And without, in my view, being as demanding of the Palestinians in terms of the security side of this equation.

Watch it:

Cheney is right to note that the Road Map to Peace — negotiated while she served in the Bush administration as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs — “does talk about settlements.” But she apparently doesn’t recall that when the Road Map talks about settlements, it is in the context of clearly stipulating that the Israeli government must freeze all settlement expansion — “including natural growth.” From the Road Map:

Cheney did not address a reported secret deal between former President Bush and Israel allowing some settlement expansion, despite being asked about it by host Andrea Mitchell:

Additionally, it is simply false to say that the Obama administration is not “being as demanding of the Palestinians” with regard to the security of Israel and its citizens. In his speech this morning, Obama made it clear that the U.S. would accept nothing less than full renunciation of violence in pursuit of political objectives on the part of the Palestinians:

Palestinians must abandon violence. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and it does not succeed. For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip as slaves and the humiliation of segregation. But it was not violence that won full and equal rights. It was a peaceful and determined insistence upon the ideals at the center of America’s founding. This same story can be told by people from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to Indonesia. It’s a story with a simple truth: that violence is a dead end. It is a sign neither of courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That’s not how moral authority is claimed; that’s how it is surrendered.

At another point in the interview, Cheney repeated Eric Erickson’s false claim that Obama equated conditions for Jews during the Holocaust with conditions in Palestine today.

Some Congressional Democrats Are Undermining Obama’s Israel-Palestine Policy

Last month, President Obama met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and pressed for focus on a resolution to the Israel-Palestine dispute. Obama specifically called on Israel to freeze all settlements in the West Bank. “Settlements have to be stopped in order for us to move forward,” Mr. Obama said. “That’s a difficult issue. I recognize that. But it’s an important one, and it has to be addressed.”

Previous Israeli governments have come to expect the White House to allow loopholes in any demand on settlement freezes, such as the Bush administration’s back-door agreement with the Israelis back in late 2002 allowing expansion within existing West Bank settlements, what the Israelis call “natural growth.” Israelis have used “natural growth” arguments to justify funding further settlement expansion. In fact, recent data show that “in 2007, natural growth accounted for 63 percent of settlement population growth, whereas internal migration accounted for 37 percent.”

This time, however, the Obama administration is holding firm and doing so publicly. More importantly, it appeared that Netanyahu ran into problems when dealing with Congress on the settlement issue soon after meeting Obama:

Whereas in the past Israeli leaders have sometimes eased pressure from Washington on the settlements issue by going to members of Congress, this time, observers in Washington and Israel say, key pro-Israel allies in Congress have been largely reinforcing the Obama team’s message to Netanyahu. What changed? “Members of Congress have more willing to follow the leadership of the administration … because [they] believe it is in our national security interest to move toward ending the conflict and that it is not a zero sum for Israel,” the former senior Clinton administration official said.

However, Politico reports this week that support for Obama’s message on Israel-Palestine among Democrats in Congress is starting to wane. “My concern is that we are applying pressure to the wrong party in this dispute,” said Rep. Shelley Berkley (D-NV). Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) complained, “I would have liked to hear the president talk more about the Palestinian obligation to cut down on terrorism.” Today, the L.A. Times reports more dissent from congressional Democrats:

Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House foreign affairs subcommittee on the Middle East and South Asia, said focusing on settlement activity “detracts” from top U.S. goals in the region. However, he added: “I do not support a settlement freeze that calls on Israeli families not to grow, get married, or forces them to throw away their grandparents. Telling people not to have children is unthinkable and inhumane.“

Ackerman’s claim is a canard. No one is calling on Israeli families “not to grow.” And as Matt Yglesias notes, “Ackerman’s position is just the position that peace is impossible, and that Israel must fight forever to squeeze the Palestinians out of the West Bank, while the Palestinians must fight forever for the destruction of Israel.”

Moreover, Weiner’s comment is not even factually accurate; Obama has made it very clear on numerous occasions that the Palestinians must meet their obligations under the “road map” to a two-state solution laid out in 2003. But Obama has also said the Israelis must meet their obligations as well. A provision in the road map specifically states that Israel “freezes all settlement activity (including natural growth of settlements).”

In an interview with NPR this week, Obama acknowledged that private agreements with the Israelis on the settlements issue (such as the Bush administration’s in 2002) undermines American credibility in the peace process. “I think what is certainly true is that the United States has to follow through on what it says,” he said, adding that “it is important for us to be clear about what we believe will lead to peace and that there’s not equivocation and there’s not a sense that we expect only compromise on one side; it’s going to have to be two-sided.”

Indeed, today in his speech at Cairo University in Egypt, Obama said that both sides need to follow through with their commitments. “The Palestinian Authority must develop its capacity to govern, with institutions that serve the needs of its people…Hamas must put an end to violence, recognize past agreements, and recognize Israel’s right to exist,” he said. “The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. This construction violates previous agreements and undermines efforts to achieve peace. It is time for these settlements to stop.”

Israeli President Contradicts Obama’s Message To Iran, Urges Iranians To ‘Topple’ Their Government

On Thursday night, President Obama sent “a special message to the people and government of Iran” on Nowruz, the start of the Persian New Year, an act that has been described as “groundbreaking.” Speaking directly to Iran’s “leaders,” Obama acknowledged “serious differences” but said the U.S. is seeking “engagement that is honest and grounded in mutual respect.”

But more importantly and perhaps somewhat overlooked, Obama indicated that he is willing “to deal with the current government” and that his goal is not regime change. He referred to Iran as the “Islamic Republic of Iran” twice in the message and stated specifically that it has the “right” to exist:

In particular, I would like to speak directly to the people and leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran. [...] The United States wants the Islamic Republic of Iran to take its rightful place in the community of nations. You have that right — but it comes with real responsibilities.

Israeli President Shimon Peres also delivered a “special message” to Iran on Nowruz, but “was addressed specifically to Iran’s people and not their government, reprising the tone of [former President] Bush.” And Peres explicitly contradicted Obama and called on the Iranian people to overthrow their government:

“[I suggest] you don’t listen to [Iranian President Mahmoud] Ahmadinejad, it is impossible to preserve a whole nation on incitement and hatred, the people will become tired of it. [...] I think that the Iranian people will topple these leaders…these leaders who don’t serve the people, in the end the people will realize that.”

The New York Times reports today that “experts” and European diplomats “applauded” Obama’s message “but expressed dismay” that Peres followed with his strictly to the Iranian people. “This is a real shame because the key effect should be Obama, and this dilutes from that,” one unnamed European official said.

Moreover, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday that both messages were not part of a coordinated plan and that the White House notified “allies” (presumably including Israel) of what Obama planned to do. But when asked if the Israelis had done the same, Gibbs suggested they had not. “I’d have to check,” he said.

MJ Rosenberg at the Israel Policy Forum writes that Peres’s goal may have been to “intentially undermine” Obama and that the Iranians might not view the conflicting messages as just a coincidence. “They would see America and Israel playing ‘good cop, bad cop,’ diminishing the effect of Obama’s remarkable overture,” he said.

Indeed, the super hawks over at the Weekly Standard picked up on the contradiction as well saying that Peres taught Obama “a thing or two,” adding, “Now that’s how a president should be speaking to the prisoners of the Mullahcracy.”

Right-Wing Jewish Leaders Attack Hillary Clinton For Tackling Middle East Conflict

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton will make her first visit to Israel next week. “The centerpiece of the secretary of state’s tour, announced Thursday by the State Department, will be a March 2 fund-raising conference for the Palestinians in Egypt.” The United States is expected to pledge $900 million to rebuild the Gaza Strip after the recent devastation to the area caused by Israeli aerial attacks.

The Obama administration is pushing hard to convince Israel to allow more humanitarian aid trucks through the Gaza crossings. Haaretz reports, “Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has relayed messages to Israel in the past week expressing anger at obstacles Israel is placing to the delivery of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip.” Senior U.S. officials told Israeli counterparts last week that “Israel is not making enough effort to improve the humanitarian situation in Gaza,” a sentiment likely to be echoed by Middle East Envoy George Mitchell ahead of Clinton’s visit.

Right-wing Jewish leaders are reacting with outrage here in the United States. CBS News reports that Mort Zuckerman, who was a prominent cheerleader for the Iraq war, is leading the charge against Clinton:

“I am very surprised, frankly, at this statement from the United States government and from the secretary of state,” said Mortimer Zuckerman, publisher of the New York Daily News and member of the NYC Jewish Community Relations Council. … “I don’t believe that we should be in a position at this point to do anything to strengthen Hamas,” Zuckerman said. “We surely know what Hamas stands for as I say they are the forward battalions of Iran.”

New York Assemblyman Dov Hikind, who opposed Israel’s disengagement from Gaza, added, “I liked her a lot more as a senator from New York. … Now, I wonder as I used to wonder who the real Hillary Clinton is.”

The reality in Israel and Palestine is that economic damages are piling up on both sides of the border as goods have been unable to pass through. As former congressman Lee Hamilton told Middle East Progress recently, “The immediate challenge of course with regards to the Palestinians requires a massive aid effort.” The Obama administration is stepping up to meet the challenge, and the fact that right-wing is so opposed to it surely indicates we are finally correcting course in the Middle East.

Israeli Foreign Minister Backtracks On Commitment To Force Jewish Settlers Out Of The West Bank

President Obama has said that an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal is going to be a top priority for his administration. During an interview with Al-Arabiya last week, Obama said the Israel-Palestine issue is “interrelated” with “what’s happening” throughout the region. He also offered support for the so-called two-state solution. “I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state,” Obama said, adding, “But it is not going to be easy.”

No it will not be easy. As CBS reporter Bob Simon noted on 60 Minutes last week, “hundreds of thousands” of Jewish settlers would have to withdraw from the West Bank for it, along with the Gaza Strip, to be part of a Palestinian state. But also during Simon’s report, this two-state solution may have received a small boost. Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, who is in the running to become the country’s next prime minister, told Simon — bluntly — that in order to achieve peace and advance a Palestinian state, the Israeli government would force the settlers to leave the West Bank:

SIMON: Can you really imagine evacuating the tens of thousands of settlers who say they will not leave?

LIVNI: It’s not going to be easy, but this is the only solution.

SIMON: But you know that there are settlers who say, “We will fight. We will not leave. We will fight.”

LIVNI: So this is the responsibility of the government, of the police to stop them, as simple as that. Israel is a state of law and order.

Watch it:

However, it appears that Livni’s promise may have been short-lived. Conservative Likud Party Chairman Benjamin Netanyahu, who is also in the running for Israeli prime minster, said this week that he would not be bound by the current government’s “commitments to withdraw” from the West Bank. “I won’t evacuate settlements. Those understandings are invalid and unimportant,” Netanyahu said. As such, Livni changed her tune:

After Netanyahu and senior Likud officials blasted Olmert and Livni’s “promises” and accused Livni of agreeing to divide Jerusalem, she was forced to disassociate herself from the understandings.

“I will advance only an agreement that represents our interests. Maintaining maximum settlers and places that we hold dear such as Jerusalem — not a single refugee will enter,” Livni said.

The Wonk Room’s Matt Duss notes, “When leaders of competing Palestinian factions make maximalist claims to appeal to hardline constituencies, it’s extremism. But when Israeli leaders do it, it’s politics. If the goal of the U.S. and Israel is to strengthen Palestinian moderates like Abu Mazen against Hamas — and people keep telling me that’s the goal — it’s hard to see how this helps.”