Politics with Marc Ambinder

« Hezbollah MP: Muslim World Doesn't Need Sermons | Main | White House: Sotomayor Does It Faster And Better »

Jun 4 2009, 1:07 pm

Obama: Open, Public Debate With Israel

As I noted in a post last night, there has been a quiet debate in Washington over the past month over how to talk to Israel: whether negotiations should be kept private or disagreements should be aired in public.

When President Obama made it clear today, in his speech to the Muslim world in Cairo, that he wants things out in the open.

On one side is AIPAC, and the 328 representatives and 76 senators who signed onto a letter earlier this month, who say we should keep things private: "The proven best way forward is to work closely and privately together both on areas of agreement and especially on areas of disagreement," its letter reads. House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and Minority Whip Eric Cantor, most notably, sit in that camp.

On the other side is J Street, the up-and-coming, liberally aligned, peace-promoting lobby group that aims to rival AIPAC. With them is Rep. Barney Frank, who penned a letter to Obama on his own, arguing that disagreements with Israel, as they are with other democratic countries, should be public.

"Given the fact that we are both democracies where public policy should ultimately set with the support of the people in each country, it would be a mistake to refuse to discuss important differences on how to achieve our mutual goals in a way that the electorates in both countries could understand," Frank wrote.

Speaking in Cairo today, Obama addressed the issue head on: "America will align our policies with those who pursue peace, and say in public what we say in private to Israelis and Palestinians and Arabs," he said, rebuffing AIPAC's call for privacy and restraint.

Comments (7)

Chris,

Do you have the list of congressman who signed on to the letter? Where could we find that?

slag (Replying to: Paulite)

Yes. I would like to see the list of both senators and reps who signed that letter as well. Information, please.

found them at aipac's website (look for the pdf's with signatories):

http://www.aipac.org/694.asp

in particular, House here:

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesBillSummaries/Final_Signatories_of_House_Peace_Process_Letter5-28-2009.pdf

Senate here:

http://www.aipac.org/Publications/AIPACAnalysesBillSummaries/Signatories_of_the_Senate_Peace_Process_Letter5-19-2009.pdf

(sorry for the ugly urls)

to my surprise, my congresswoman DIDN'T sign, but, as expected, both my senators did (Feinstein & Boxer).

Now, does anyone know what the 13 languages were that today's speech was translated into? Obviously Arabic, Farsi, Hebrew, & I would presume Urdu, French, Spanish, German, Russian and some widely used language(s) from, say, Indonesia & Malaysia . . . but I can't seem to find the answer. Hindi? Pashto?

slag (Replying to: akr)

Excellent. Thanks!

slag (Replying to: akr)

Thanks again for the info. I wrote a disapproving letter to my one senator who signed the letter. I'm getting tired of having to nag these people, and at this point, they seem intent on just pissing me off. It may be time to replace the whole bunch, including the Democrats who won't wean themselves off the lobbyist dole.

oh, and I suppose Chinese . . .