Sen. Obama’s JPost interview

via memeorandum

The Jerusalem Post interviewed presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama during his trip to Israel. Despite the praise, the editor David Horovitz gives the candidate:

And on Wednesday evening, Obama answered my question about whether Israel has a right to try and maintain a presence in the West Bank, for security, religious, historic or other reasons, with a vigor and detail that also seemed to confirm Olmert’s assessment of where conventional friendly wisdom stands and that expanded significantly on his brief settlement remarks in the AIPAC speech.

In a later editorial, the paper (presumably written by Horovitz and other members of the editorial board) sounded a little less positive:

We asked Obama whether he too could live with the “67-plus” paradigm. His response: “Israel may seek ’67-plus’ and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They’ve got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.”

Without that “buffer,” the strategic ridges of the West Bank that overlook metropolitan Tel Aviv and the country’s main airport would be in Palestinian hands. Eighteen kilometers – or 11 miles – would separate “Palestine” from the Mediterranean, the narrow, vulnerable coastal strip along which much of Israel’s population lives.

Israel Matzav hopes that

… after reading the interview one can only hope that it was done before Obama went on the helicopter trip pictured above. If the interview was after the helicopter trip, Obama is even more hopelessly naive than any of us ever thought.

One may assume that the friendliness demonstrated by Sen. Obama to opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu would not necessarily extend to a future Pres. Obama and PM Netanyahu.

Remember what Sen. Obama once said:

Barack Obama faulted elements in the pro-Israel community that he says equate being pro-Israel with being pro-Likud.

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt a unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel that you’re anti-Israel and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel,” the Illinois senator and contender for the Democratic presidential nominee told a group of Jewish leaders in Cleveland on Sunday. “If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress.”

(The NJDC did not see fit to publish my comment making this point on their blog.)

I think it’s pretty clear that where Sen. Obama stands. One more time (from the interview):

Look, I think that both sides on this equation are going to have to make some calculations. Israel may seek “67-plus” and justify it in terms of the buffer that they need for security purposes. They’ve got to consider whether getting that buffer is worth the antagonism of the other party.

UPDATE: And a relevant cautionary note about Sen. Obama from Shmuel Rosner:

It is true that Obama is an exciting candidate, more interesting than McCain. If elected, he will be our American friend, like most of his predecessors. If he is not elected, McCain will be that friend. Obama’s greatest shortcoming when it comes to Israel is a strongly rooted opposition to the use of force – an unavoidable necessity for a country like Israel. His relative advantage is greater credit in Arab countries, at least at the start. Perhaps that credit will translate into trust, accompanied by a willingness to make progress. But there is room for suspicion that it will translate instead into manipulation of a president known for his naivete.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.