That would of course be then Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 during the Camp David II and Taba talks with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

Alas, Barack Obama went one phrase unnecessarily too far in his speech to AIPAC yesterday.

Meanwhile it is also important to go into details on Condi Rice's big lie the day before regarding who refuses to talk with whom and why between the Bush/Cheney/Rove adminstration and Iran.

1. Barak and Barack on Jerusalem:

Various http://www.mideastweb.org/lastmaps.htm ways of dividing and sharing East Jerusalem and the Old City were acceptable http://www.mideastweb.org/moratinos.htm to then  Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak in 2000 during the <a href="Camp'>http://www.mideastweb.org/campdavid2.htm">Camp David 2</a> and <a href="Tabahttp://www.mideastweb.org/taba.htm">Taba</a> talks with Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Authority.

Alas, Barack Obama "sorta/kinda/but maybe not really" went one (or half a) phrase unnecessarily too far in his speech to AIPAC yesterday, when in referring to Jerusalem he said that it "must remain undivided."  Since an Israeli Prime Minister had already indicated ways that Jerusalem can be split and/or shared this should have been an unnecessary extra pander by Obama to the AIPAC crowd. 

However two mitigating points can be made:

One is the fact that this is just a campaign speech and does not really commit anybody (U.S., Israel, Palestinians) to anything to be negotiated in the future.

In addition, as no less than James Zogby of the Arab American Institute <a href="points'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/obama-at-aipac-some-doubt_b_105272.html">points out</a>:
 

"it has been a Palestinian position that Jerusalem can "remain the capital of Israel" and can "remain undivided" as long as that does not preclude the Palestinians from also having their capital in a "shared" city.) – possible way around the language”

Where Obama got it right was in calling out both sides for the need to make serious concessions. And that "Palestinians need a state that is contiguous and cohesive, and that allows them to prosper."

In other words, no chopped up Bantustans with residual Israeli settlements and roadblocks (literal and figurative).

While a slight, but frankly expected, disappointment from the more progressive Israeli and Arab peace camps, Obama’s speech was far better then any of his predecessors, better then Clinton, and of course <a href="way'>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-zogby/mccain-at-aipac-2002-fant_b_104919.html">way better then McCain's</a>. 

While I have been critical of Obama on domestic policy from a left/progressive/economic populist perspective (he is too moderate; and indeed Clinton was arguably more progressive -- just not believable -- in her campaign rhetoric then Obama), he has consistently offered a far better vision on international and security affairs. Hopefully in office he will not be too hamstrung by feeling a need to appease the right. In this case, looking closely at who his actual Jewish middle east advisors are, one gets the sense that they are the sort who would fit in well with serious pro-real-peace crowd over at http://www.israelpolicyforum.org/ IPF or http://www.jstreet.org/ J-Street.

Ironicially but usefully the http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/990490.html Bush

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack also distanced the U.S. government from Obama's remarks, saying any final decisions on the toughest issues in the peace talks were for Israel and the Palestinians to make on their own.  "It is for the parties to resolve these issues. And we are going to continue to do what we believe is right in terms of... helping to bring about peace, without respect to presidential politics," McCormack said

.</blockquote>
In addition Arab leaders, from Abbas to Hamas, also were critical of Obama particularly over the Jersusalem unidivided comment.

So, Obama got what he needed which is to be attacked from the left, not only the by the Arab world, but even by the Bush administration.

Dare I say, "Mission accomplished."

In addition to the gratuitous Jerusalem-phrase that Obama included, there is also a term that he left out but should have included.  What Obama shoulda called for was two state solution with an Israel that is secure, internationally recognized, Jerusalem capital, etc. and also Jewish and democratic. The "democratic" is important:

First of all, that's little "d" democratic, but it would have been a good laugh line.

More importantly it is diplomatic code for Israel has to get out of the west bank, get out of the settlements, allow for a real indepdendent Palestinian state with minimal inclusion of any Palestinians in Israel... "let their people go." For the American Jewish (and Israeli) righties it is a reminder of why folks like Olmert and Sharon changed course and started to realize the need for two state solution and giving up Gaza and the West Bank, which is the so called Demographic problem. Either the Palestians get their own country, or they are soon a majority in "greater Israel." If Israel is to be a democracy and have a Jewish majority it cannot disenfranchise the Palestinians and keep them from having their own country.

Of course that other <a href="Barakhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehud_Barak#Military_service">Barak</a> guy must be a lefty-pinko-DFH.

2. Disastrous Bush Adminstration Refusal to Talk With Iran in 2003

Meanwhile, relatively un-noticed was Codi Rice’s blustering hardline speech to AIPAC the day before, where in she made this outright <a href="liehttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/washington/04diplo.html">lie</a>:
<blockquote>“We would be willing to meet with them but not while they continue to inch toward nuclear weapons under the cover of talks,” she told the group, a pro-Israel lobby known by its acronym, Aipac. “The real question isn’t why won’t the Bush administration talk to Iran. The real question is why won’t Iran talk to us.”
</blockquote>

In fact, one of the major underreported disasters of Bush/Cheney/Rove non-diplomacy was the outright rejection, without investigation, of the <a href="Iranian'>http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/21/133940/525">Iranian diplomatic</a> overture in May 2003. 

I am surprised that Obama or his surrogates have not explicitely cited this episode.

This was before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected president. Specifically it was when the relatively more moderate reformer Mohammad Khatami was still president, and was seeking, with the approval of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to settle all the outstanding issues between the U.S. and Iran, including Iran’s nuclear development and support for terrorism and peace-with-Israel rejectionists and even making peace with Israel. The failure of this initiative contributed to the fall of Khatami and the Iranian moderates and the rise of hardliners such as Ahmadinejad.

This was actually reported intermittently  in the Washington Post, New York Times, Newsweek, NPR, etc. Yet it seems to be the sort of story that once duly reported, then disappears down the memory hole and out of collective consciousness, rather than being an ongoing part of the Iran story.

Former Bush administration Senior Director for Middle East Affairs at the National Security Council; Former Middle East specialist at the CIA and Department of State Flynt Leverett has spoken repeatedly about this episode. So has former Bush administration State Department Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson.
Please see the following links for more details:
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=32672
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33348
http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=36619
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33303
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/02/16/rove-iran/
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001953.php
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/001952.php

It should also be rememberd that <a href="again'>http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33070">again in 2005</a> Iran made overtures of wanting to talk seriously with the U.S. and it was the Bush administration that refused to even try to engage.

Fortunately, not only Obama, but also <a href="most'>http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/rosnerBlog.jhtml?itemNo=865078">most Americans</a> want to talk with Iran.

But meanwhile:

1. Rice lied.
2. The Iranian overture in May 2003 should not be forgotten.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

<strong>Update:</strong>