2008 Presidential Candidates’ Views on the Middle East

Barack Obama

Iranian Threat
Hamas and the situation in Gaza
Peace with the Palestinians
Negotiations with Syria and Lebanon
The United States-Israel Relationship
Foreign Policy Advisers
On Zionism

For Barack Obama’s bio, please click HERE.

[Editorial Note: There has been some misrepresentation in the media regarding Senator Obama’s background. Here are some of the facts:

• Obama said that a magazine affiliated with his pastor’s Chicago congregation, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had “made an error in judgment” by awarding a prize to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan in November 2007. “I have always denounced the abhorrent antisemitic views of Louis Farrakhan,” Obama said in a conference call with Jewish reportes on January 28, 2008.
• During the Presidential Debate in February 2008, Obama repeated his denunciation of Farrakhan’s views, which have included numerous anti-Semitic comments. And, after being pressed, he rejected Farrakhan’s support in the presidential race. (AP, February 29, 2008)
• Obama did indeed attend a Muslim school in Indonesia, as was investigated by the Los Angeles Times, but it was by no means a fundamentalist academy. He later transferred to a Catholic school, where he was registered as a Muslim and apparently took some required classes in Islam. Obama is now a practicing Christian and a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. The Obama campaign released a statement saying that the senator had never been “a practicing Muslim.” (The Forward, February 1, 2008) ]
• Also in reaction to the rumor that Obama attended a Muslim madrassa school in Jakarta, Indonesia: “SDN Menteng 1 is a public primary school that is open to people of all faiths,” a spokesman said. “Moreover, [Obama] studied earlier at Fransiskus Assisi, which is clearly a Catholic school.” (AP, February 29, 2008)
• In response to the rumor that his father is a Muslim: “My father never practiced [Islam, the religion of his father]; he was basically agnostic,” Obama said. “So, other than my name and the fact that I lived in a populous Muslim country for four years when I was a child, I have very little connection to the Islamic religion.” (AP, February 29, 2008)
• In response to a pro-Hamas op-ed printed in his church’s bulletin in July 2007, written by Mousa Abu Marzook, a Hamas official, in which he justifies Hamas’ withholding of recognition of Israel’s right to exist: Obama said, “I have already condemned my former pastor’s views on Israel in the strongest possible terms, and I certainly wasn’t in church when that outrageously wrong Los Angeles Times piece was re-printed in the bulletin.” (JTA, March 20, 2008)
• In response to attacks on the inflammatory rhetoric of his church's pastor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Jr.: “The characterization of him that appears with the press is not a picture of what his ministry's about. Prior to this controversy he was widely regarded as one of the preeminent preachers in this country, and certainly of one of the largest and most active churches in Chicago. It doesn't excuse statements that were made, it's just simple to indicate it't not as if there was a statement like this coming up every Sunday when I was at church.”(The Jerusalem Post, April 10, 2008).

Iranian Threat:

Barack Obama defended his proposal to pursue “aggressive diplomacy” with Iran in a meeting with Philadelphia Jewish leaders. (JTA, April 17, 2008)

Obama said that “it is very important that Iran understands that an attack on Israel is an attack on our strongest ally in the region, one whose security we consider paramount.” He said that would be an act of aggression that he would consider “unacceptable,” and that “the United States would take appropriate action.” The Illinois senator stressed that he would “take no option off the table” when it comes to preventing Iran from attaining a nuclear weapons program. (The Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2008)

Obama said one of his “top priorities” as president would be “to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of the Iranians” and that, “I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.” (The Jerusalem Post, April 17, 2008)

“Nobody has to persuade me that Ahmadinejad is in many ways reprehensible in his views. A simple dimplomatic gesture of direct talks can actually strenghten the hands of the moderates. A belligerent tone for Iran empowers the hardliners in Iran. It becomes more difficult for those who want to be part of the international community to persuade their fellow Iranians that the United States is not determine to invade or engage in regime change.” (The Jerusalem Post, April 10, 2008).

Obama, according to his campaign, spoke of a shared US-Israeli interest in ensuring that Iran doesn’t develop nuclear weapons and ends its support of terrorism, in a conversation with Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni. (The Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2008)

Obama reaffirmed his understanding of the threats Iran poses. “Iran’s possession of nuclear weapons would not only be a threat to U.S. interests and destabilizing to the region but would also be an extraordinary threat to Israel,” Obama said, noting Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial and his expressed wish that Israel did not exist. Obama said, though, that incentives and deterrence are both needed to deal with the regime in Iran. “I also think we should be presenting carrots. The key is to give Iranians incentives to behave differently,”Obama said, adding the unwillingness to talk, “empowered extremists like Ahmadinejad.” (Conference call to members of the Jewish and Israeli Press, January 28, 2008, reported by the Forward.)

Obama said he would favor holding direct talks with Iran and Syria in a bid to stabilize the Middle East if elected president. “I want to have direct talks with countries like Iran and Syria because I don’t believe we can stabilize the region unless not just our friends but also our enemies are involved in these discussions.” (Interview with France’s Paris Match on January 31, 2008, reported by Jerusalem Post on February 1, 2008)

Regarding Iran, he called for more pressure on the regime, as a divestment bill he sponsored advocates, but didn’t mention the possibility of using force. He also said that “carrots” needed to be offered, while a spokesman said that he believed there should be low- and mid-level diplomatic contacts between the United States and Iran. (Conference call to members of the Jewish and Israeli Press, January 28, 2008, reported by Jerusalem Post)

“Diplomacy is not just talking with your friends, but talking to our enemies. We want to send a signal to the Iranian people that we are reasonable. We are not looking to impede Iran’s legitimate national aspirations, but they have to change their behavior.” (Conference call to members of the Jewish and Israeli Press, January 28, 2008, reported by Jerusalem Post)

“While we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.” (JTA, January 7, 2008)

“By reporting that Iran halted its nuclear weapon development program four years ago because of international pressure, the new National Intelligence Estimate makes a compelling case for less saber-rattling and more direct diplomacy. The juxtaposition of this NIE with the president’s suggestion of World War III serves as an important reminder of what we learned with the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq: members of Congress must carefully read the intelligence before giving the President any justification to use military force.” (The Atlantic, December 4, 2007)

[The Senate resolution urging the President to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization] “is yet another rationale for what we’re doing in Iraq, and I think that’s a mistake.” (Washington Post, October 31, 2007)

“If I sit down with a leader of Iran, I will send them a strong message that Israel is our friend and that we will assist in their security and that we don’t find nuclear weapons acceptable," Obama said in a conference call Thursday.” (JTA, July 25, 2007)

“Allowing Iran, a radical theocracy which supports terrorism and openly threatens its neighbors to acquire nuclear weapons is a risk we cannot take. To prevent this dangerous outcome, we need a comprehensive diplomatic strategy, including stronger action by the United Nations, to bring pressure to bear on Iran to reverse course. All nations need to understand that, while Iran's most explicite and intolerable threats are aimed at Israel, its conduct threatens all of us.

“In addition to a more agressive diplomatic effort, we need to take additional steps to ratchet up the economic pressure on Iran. I am encouraged that many states are moving to divest their pension funds of companies that support Iran’s oil and gas industry, and I have introduced the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act to make it easier for them to do so. States like Florida, Illinois, California, and others, have shown leadership in this area, and we should support thier efforts. I will be working to get the bill passed this year, and look forward to working with those who signed this petition to do so.” (Statement to The Israel Project, July 19, 2007)

“I have argued for many months that the time has come to begin a phased redeployment of US forces from Iraq. In a civil war where no military solution exists, this redeployment remains our best leverage to pressure the Iraqi government to achieve the political settlement between its warring factions that can slow the bloodshed and promote stability. And my plan includes a robust regional diplomatic strategy to help Iraqis forge political compromises.

The redeployment of US troops will enable a more effective use of our resources against other pressing threats that we face. Within Iraq, we should keep a limited number of US troops to continue counter-terrorism strikes, train Iraqi Security Forces, and protect US military and civilians. Within the region, we should maintain a robust force to contain Iraq’s sectarian strife, curb a humanitarian catastrophe, and reassure our allies that we will stay engaged in the Middle East.

The US military has performed valiantly and brilliantly in Iraq. But a the Administration’s failed strategy in Iraq has strengthened Iran’s strategic position, reduced US credibility and influence in the region, and placed our ally Israel and other nations friendly to the United States in greater peril.

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world's most tragic history. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing his calls for Israel’s destruction as mere rhetoric.

The United States must lead the world in working to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy that is a state-sponsor of terrorism.

And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests. Tough-minded diplomacy would include imposing stronger sanctions, both through and outside the United Nations.

It would mean harnessing the collective power of Iran’s major European trading partners and Gulf state energy suppliers to increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of US sanctions laws and promoting divestment strategies to choke off the crucial flow of oil and gas revenue that funds Iran's ambitions.

I’ve introduced legislation to make it easier for states and cities to divest their pension holdings from companies that build up Iran’s energy sector. In sum, we need international sanctions strong enough to have a profound impact on Iran’s economy, forcing Iran’s leaders to recalculate whether nuclear weapons are indeed in their interests.

As we confront the threat posed by Iran, we need broad international support, enhanced US credibility, and maximum flexibility. A responsible redeployment from Iraq would provide all of these, and significantly strengthen our leverage.” (Jerusalem Post, June 21, 2007)

“When I traveled to Israel last year, I met with Israelis across the political spectrum and heard the diversity of views for which Israel is famous. But on one issue, there was consensus: a deep concern about the threat posed by an Iran armed with nuclear weapons.

Israelis are right to be concerned. A nuclear weapon in the hands of this radical theocracy could have dire consequences: a nuclear arms race drawing in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey; pressure on other nations to accommodate Iranian demands; emboldened terrorist groups acting under an Iranian nuclear umbrella; and, perhaps, the proliferation of nuclear technology to other states and terrorist groups.

For Israelis, the threat is even more pronounced in light of Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s denial of the Holocaust and chilling call for Israel to be “wiped from the map.”  Israel does not have the luxury of treating these threats as mere rhetoric. Neither should the United States.

Unfortunately, recent findings by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) suggest that Iran has made considerable progress - more than had been realized - toward mastering the technology required to build nuclear weapons. So the need to address this threat is urgent.

In facing such a threat, no President of the United States should take any option, including the military option, off the table. But at this stage, our first line of offense must be a sustained, aggressive, coordinated diplomatic effort to make clear to Iran the costs of its current path.

The current strategy of ignoring Iran and issuing threats through intermediaries has not worked. I would engage Iran in direct, bilateral discussions - much as we negotiated with the Soviet Union throughout the Cold War. In these discussions, we should make clear to Iran that its continued pursuit of nuclear weapons will lead to greater isolation, and increased economic pressure. At the same time, we must communicate directly with the Iranian people, who are not as radical as their government, letting them know the opportunities for cooperation that exist if their government ends its current destructive policies.

Our diplomatic offensive must include stronger multilateral actions as well. The UN Security Council has sanctioned Iran twice in the past year, but it is time to ratchet up the pressure. We must push Iran’s trading partners in Europe and energy suppliers in the Gulf states to use additional economic leverage against Iran, and we must demand that the Russians and Chinese focus on the serious threat to their interests posed by a nuclear Iran. We need to build this pressure over the coming weeks and months, not months and years.

And we can do more on our own. I am pushing Congress to pass my bill that makes it easier for state and local governments to divest their pension funds of companies that invest in Iran’s energy sector, providing the revenue Iran uses to pursue nuclear weapons and sponsor terrorism. Divestment is a useful tool to bring additional economic pressure to bear on Iran.

Finally, showing Iran we are serious means maintaining close diplomatic and military relationships with our allies in the region. In Israel's case, that means providing our full military assistance package and continuing our cooperation with Israel in the development of the missile defense technology that Israel needs to defend itself.” (Jerusalem Post, June 7, 2007)

“I think that military options have to be on the table when you’re dealing with rogue states that have shown constant hostility towards the United States. The point that I would make, though, is that we have not explored all of our options...We have not explored any kind of dialogue with either Iran or North Korea, and I think that has been a mistake. As a consequence, we have almost no leverage over them.” (Meet the Press with Tim Russert, October 22, 2006)

“In light of the fact that we’re now in Iraq, with all the problems in terms of perceptions about America that have been created, us launching some missile strikes into Iran is not the optimal position for us to be in. On the other hand, having a radical Muslim theocracy in possession of nuclear weapons is worse. So I guess my instinct would be to err on not having those weapons in the possession of the ruling clerics of Iran. ... And I hope it doesn't get to that point. But realistically, as I watch how this thing has evolved, I'd be surprised if Iran blinked at this point.” (October 20, 2006)

...

Iran’s President Ahmadinejad’s regime is a threat to all of us. His words contain a chilling echo of some of the world’s most tragic history.

Unfortunately, history has a terrible way of repeating itself. President Ahmadinejad has denied the Holocaust. He held a conference in his country, claiming it was a myth. But we know the Holocaust was as real as the 6 million who died in mass graves at Buchenwald, or the cattle cars to Dachau or whose ashes clouded the sky at Auschwitz. We have seen the pictures. We have walked the halls of the Holocaust museum in Washington and Yad Vashem. We have touched the tattoos on loved-ones arms. After 60 years, it is time to deny the deniers.

In the 21st century, it is unacceptable that a member state of the United Nations would openly call for the elimination of another member state. But that is exactly what he has done. Neither Israel nor the United States has the luxury of dismissing these outrages as mere rhetoric, particularly when that nation has expressed an interest in developing nuclear weapons.

The world must work to stop Iran’s uranium enrichment program and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. It is far too dangerous to have nuclear weapons in the hands of a radical theocracy. And while we should take no option, including military action, off the table, sustained and aggressive diplomacy combined with tough sanctions should be our primary means to prevent Iran from building nuclear weapons.

Iranian nuclear weapons would destabilize the region and could set off a new arms race. Some nations in the region, such as Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, could fall away from restraint and rush into a nuclear contest that could fuel greater instability in the region.

And that’s not just bad for the Middle East, but bad for the world, making it a vastly more dangerous and unpredictable place.

Other nations would feel great pressure to accommodate Iranian demands. Terrorist groups with Iran’s backing would feel emboldened to act even more brazenly under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. And as the A.Q. Kahn network in Pakistan demonstrated, Iran could spread this technology around the world.

... to prevent this worst-case scenario, we need the United States to lead tough-minded diplomacy. This includes direct engagement with Iran similar to the meetings we conducted with the Soviets at the height of the Cold War, laying out in clear terms our principles and interests.

Tough-minded diplomacy would include real leverage through stronger sanctions. It would mean more determined U.S diplomacy at the United Nations. It would mean harnessing the collective power of our friends in Europe who are Iran’s major trading partners. It would mean a cooperative strategy with Gulf States who supply Iran with much of the energy resources it needs.

It would mean unifying those states to recognize the threat of Iran and increase pressure on Iran to suspend uranium enrichment. It would mean full implementation of U.S. sanctions laws. And over the long term, it would mean a focused approach from us to finally end the tyranny of oil, and develop our own alternative sources of energy to drive the price of oil down and disable those who would use the oil weapon to do us harm..

We must also persuade other nations such as Saudi Arabia to recognize common interests with Israel in dealing with Iran. We should stress to the Egyptians that they help the Iranians and do themselves no favors by failing to adequately prevent the smuggling of weapons and cash by Iran into Gaza. The United States’ leverage is strengthened when we have many nations with us. It puts us in a place where sanctions could actually have a profound impact on Iran’s economy. Iran is highly dependent on imports and foreign investment, credit and technology. And an environment where our allies see that these types of investments in Iran are not in the world’s best interests, could help bring Iran to the table.

We have no quarrel with the Iranian people. They know that President Ahamadinejad is reckless, irresponsible, and inattentive to their day-to-day needs which is why they sent him a rebuke at the ballot box this fall. And we hope more of them will speak out. There is great hope in their ability to see his hatred for what it is: hatred and a threat to peace in the region.

We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs.

This would help Israel maintain its military edge and deter and repel attacks from as far as Tehran and as close as Gaza. And when Israel is attacked, we must stand up for Israel’s legitimate right to defend itself.

Last summer, Hezbollah attacked Israel. By using Lebanon as an outpost for terrorism, and innocent people as shields, Hezbollah has also engulfed that entire nation in violence and conflict, and threatened the fledgling movement for democracy there.

That’s why we have to press for enforcement of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701, which demands the cessation of arms shipments to Hezbollah, a resolution which Syria and Iran continue to disregard. Their support and shipment of weapons to Hezbollah and Hamas, which threatens the peace and security in the region, must end.

These are great challenges that we face. And in moments like these, true allies do not walk away. For six years, the administration has missed opportunities to increase the United States’ influence in the region and help Israel achieve the peace she wants and the security she needs. The time has come for us to seize those opportunities.

Hamas and the situation in Gaza:

“My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I’ve repeatedly condemned them. I’ve repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

In response to a statement made recent by leader of Hamas Ahmed Yousef, in which Yousef said, “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election,” Obama responded: “I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel’s destruction, as evidenced by their bombardment of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community’s conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding my past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor.” (JTA, March 20, 2008)

Obama defended Israel’s right to self-defense and expressed “admiration and support” for its commitment to negotiations with the Palestinians. (The Jerusalem Post, March 11, 2008)

“I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel...All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians. The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all.” (Letter to US Ambassador to the UN Zalmay Khalilzad, January 22, 2008)

Peace with the Palestinians:

When asked if Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas, Obama responded: “No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically. I want to solve the problem, and so my job in being a friend to Israel is partly to hold up a mirror and tell the truth and say if Israel is building settlements without any regard to the effects that this has on the peace process, then we’re going to be stuck in the same status quo that we’ve been stuck in for decades now, and that won’t lift that existential dread that David Grossman described in your article. The notion that a vibrant, successful society with incredible economic growth and incredible cultural vitality is still plagued by this notion that this could all end at any moment -- you know, I don’t know what that feels like, but I can use my imagination to understand it. I would not want to raise my children in those circumstances. I want to make sure that the people of Israel, when they kiss their kids and put them on that bus, feel at least no more existential dread than any parent does whenever their kids leave their sight. So that then becomes the question: is settlement policy conducive to relieving that over the long term, or is it just making the situation worse? That’s the question that has to be asked.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“What I will say is what I’ve said previously. Settlements at this juncture are not helpful. Look, my interest is in solving this problem not only for Israel but for the United States.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

Obama’s reaction to Carte’s suggestion that Israel resembles an apartheid state: “I strongly reject the characterization. Israel is a vibrant democracy, the only one in the Middle East, and there’s no doubt that Israel and the Palestinians have tough issues to work out to get to the goal of two states living side by side in peace and security, but injecting a term like apartheid into the discussion doesn’t advance that goal. It’s emotionally loaded, historically inaccurate, and it’s not what I believe.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“When I visited Ramallah, among a group of Palestinian students, one of the things that I said to those students was: “Look, I am sympathetic to you and the need for you guys to have a country that can function, but understand this: if you’re waiting for America to distance itself from Israel, you are delusional. Because my commitment, our commitment, to Israel’s security is non-negotiable.” I’ve said this in front of audiences where, if there were any doubts about my position, that’d be a place where you’d hear it.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

For a settlement to be reached, Obama said, Palestinians will need to make great strides in recognizing Israel's security needs; they will also need to abandon the goal of an unfettered right of return for Palestinians that would undermine Israel's existence as a Jewish state. Israel, on the other hand, will have to “acknowledge that its going to have to make some territorial modifications to ensure that there is a stable and contiguous Palestinian state that can function, and ultimately that Palestinian children have opportunities to thrive like children anywhere else.”(The Jerusalem Post, April 10, 2008)

The US role “requires listening to both side and talking to both sides, that requires that we don't dismiss out of hand the concerns of the Palestinians, because there is no way we can move forward in those negotiations without at least understanding their perspective.” (The Jerusalem Post, April 10, 2008)

“It is important if we're going to make progress in Israeli-Palestinian talks that both sides are held accountable to previous agreements. I think that the failure to abide by previous agreements has occurred more consistently on the Palestinian side particularly as it pertains to reining in violence.”

He reiterated his long-standing positions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which include the need for Hamas to recognize Israel’s right to exist as a precondition for talks, and his rejection of a literal Palestinian right of return. Regarding the peace process, Obama said the Palestinians had the responsibility to crack down on violence before Israel made substantial concessions. Palestinian leaders must “get a hold of their security apparatus, to be able to crack down on the terrorist activity, to root out the corruption. Until the Israels have some confidence that whatever is negotiated will actually be followed through on. I think it’s going to be difficult,” Obama said. (Conference call to members of the Jewish and Israeli Press, January 28, 2008, reported by the Forward.)

Palestinian refugees belong in their own state and do not have a “literal” right of return to Israel. “The outlines of any agreement would involve ensuring that Israel remains a Jewish state.” He reiterated his support for a two-state solution, but said, “We cannot move forward until there is some confidence that the Palestinians are able to provide the security apparatus that would prevent constant attacks against Israel from taking place.” (Conference call to members of the Jewish and Israeli Press, January 28, 2008, reported by The Jerusalem Post)

“The right of return [to Israel] is something that is not an option in a literal sense,”Obama said - though he noted, “The Palestinians have a legitimate concern that a state have a contiguous coherent mass that would allow the state to function effectively.” (Conference call to members of the Jewish and Israeli Press, January 28, 2008, reported by Jerusalem Post)

“It is in the interests of Israel to establish peace in the Middle East,” he said. “It cannot be done at the price of compromising Israel’s security, and the United States government and an Obama presidency cannot ask Israel to take risks with respect to its security. But it can ask Israel to say that it is still possible for us to allow more than just this status quo of fear, terror, division. That can’t be our long-term aspiration.” (JTA, January 7, 2008)

“What I said was, nobody has suffered more than the Palestinian people from the failure of the Palestinian leadership to recognize Israel, to renounce violence and to get serious about negotiating peace and security for the region.” (JTA, January 7, 2008)

“I think everyone knows what the basic outlines of an agreement would look like. It would mean that the Palestinians would have to reinterpret the notion of right of return in a way that would preserve Israel as a Jewish state. It might involve compensation and other concessions from the Israelis, but ultimately Israel is not going to give up its state.” (JTA, January 7, 2008)

“A Hamas mini-state in Gaza is extremely dangerous for Israel, for Egypt, for US interests, and destabilizing to the region as a whole. It threatens to become a major safe haven and launching pad for terrorism, and an Iranian foothold on Israel’s and Egypt’s doorstep, not to mention making life miserable for the residents of Gaza.

The United States should work to support and strengthen Palestinian moderates who seek peace, while increasing the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who offer no peaceful way forward and who bring only more suffering to Israelis and Palestinians.

Last month's summit in Sharm e-Sheikh was encouraging. I applaud the efforts of Prime Minister Olmert, President Mubarak, and King Abdullah to strengthen President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad - two Palestinian leaders who have demonstrated their commitment to non-violence and achieving peace with Israel. These leaders seek peace and deserve the support of the international community.

I commend these regional leaders for their initiative. But it is critical that the United States demonstrate leadership if this effort is to succeed. A senior US presence at this summit could have been helpful.

The absence of US leadership in the past has helped open the door to extremism in the West Bank and Gaza. Direct US presidential leadership is needed now to ensure the Europeans maintain their isolation of Hamas; to press Egypt to do everything possible to prevent arms smuggling into Gaza; and, to get other Arab states to provide political support to President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad and humanitarian aid to Gazans that does not flow through Hamas institutions.

We need to help these moderate leaders demonstrate that they can deliver for their people. Israel and the Palestinian Authority can work together to improve the security of their people, and we can help by ensuring a resumption of aid, improved security cooperation, a renewed negotiating process, and help reforming Fatah and the Palestinian Authority.

This moment is an opportunity to let Palestinians know that the United States will work toward the goal of achieving a viable, democratic Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza living side by side with Israel and peace and security, but that this goal can only be achieved through acceptance of Israel and a commitment to non-violence.” (Jerusalem Post, July 5, 2007)

...

The Israeli people, and Prime Minister Olmert, have made clear that they are more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security. But the Israelis must trust that they have a true Palestinian partner for peace. That is why we must strengthen the hands of Palestinian moderates who seek peace and that is why we must maintain the isolation of Hamas and other extremists who are committed to Israel’s destruction.

The U.S. and our partners have put before Hamas three very simple conditions to end this isolation: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce the use of violence; and abide by past agreements between Israel and the Palestinian Authority.

We should all be concerned about the agreement negotiated among Palestinians in Mecca last month. The reports of this agreement suggest that Hamas, Fatah, and independent ministers would sit in a government together, under a Hamas Prime Minister, without any recognition of Israel, without a renunciation of violence, and with only an ambiguous promise to“respect” previous agreements.

This should concern us all because it suggests that Mahmoud Abbas, who is a Palestinian leader I believe is committed to peace, felt forced to compromise with Hamas. However, if we are serious about the Quartet’s conditions, we must tell the Palestinians this is not good enough.

But as I said at the outset, Israel will have some heavy stones to carry as well. Its history has been full of tough choices in search of peace and security. Yitzhak Rabin had the vision to reach out to longtime enemies. Ariel Sharon had the determination to lead Israel out of Gaza. These were difficult, painful decisions that went to the heart of Israel's identity as a nation.

Many Israelis I talked to during my visit last year told me that they were prepared to make sacrifices to give their children a chance to know peace. These were people of courage who wanted a better life. And I know these are difficult times and it can be easy to lose hope. But we owe it to our sons and daughters, our mothers and fathers, and to all those who have fallen, to keep searching for peace and security -- even though it can seem distant. This search is in the best interests of Israel. It is in the best interests of the United States. It is in the best interests of all of us.

We can and we should help Israelis and Palestinians both fulfill their national goals: two states living side by side in peace and security.

Both the Israeli and Palestinian people have suffered from the failure to achieve this goal. The United States should leave no stone unturned in working to make that goal a reality.

But in the end, we also know that we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests. No Israeli Prime Minister should ever feel dragged to or blocked from the negotiating table by the United States.

We must be partners – we must be active partners. Diplomacy in theMiddle East cannot be done on the cheap. Diplomacy is measured by patience and effort. We cannot continue to have trips consisting of little more than photo-ops with little movement in between. Neither Israel nor the U.S. is served by this approach.

Peace with security. That is the Israeli people’s overriding wish.” (Speech at AIPAC Policy Forum in Chicago, Illinois, March 2, 2007)

Negotiations with Syria and Lebanon:

“I would engage Syria in direct bilateral talks. We should insist on our core demands: cooperation in stabilizing Iraq; ending support for terrorist groups that threaten Israel; and respect for Lebanon's sovereignty and independence. We should make plain there are two paths ahead: greater engagement, improved political ties and economic cooperation or greater isolation through imposition of the full range of sanctions in the Syria Accountability Act which will make it difficult for companies and financial institutions that do business in Syria to continue to do business in the US. In this process, we should work closely with our European partners; incentives and disincentives will be far more effective if the EU is on board.

“As for peace negotiations with Israel, this is a decision Israel must make based on its own interests and assessment of Syria's intentions. The US should not pressure Israel to move, nor should it stand in the way. And should negotiations begin, the US should do what it has always done in close partnership with Israel: lend them its full diplomatic and political support.” (August 8, 2007)

“I will meet with them -- the leaders of hostile nations like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, and the reason is this, the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding principle of this administration -- is ridiculous.” (JTA, July 25, 2007)

“I don't think there is any nation that would not have reacted the way Israel did after two soldiers had been snatched. I support Israel's response to take some action in protecting themselves.” (August 22, 2006)

“I don’t fault Israel for wanting to rid their border with Lebanon from those Katyusha missiles that can fire in and harm Israeli citizens, so I think that any cease fire would have to be premised on the removal of those missiles.” (July 2006)

The United States-Israel Relationship:

“When Israel invaded Lebanon two summers ago, I was in South Africa, a place where, obviously, when you get outside the United States, you can hear much more critical commentary about Israel’s actions, and I was asked about this in a press conference, and that time, and for the entire summer, I was very adamant about Israel’s right to defend itself. I said that there’s not a nation-state on Earth that would tolerate having two of its soldiers kidnapped and just let it go. So I welcome the Muslim world’s accurate perception that I am interested in opening up dialogue and interested in moving away from the unilateral policies of George Bush, but nobody should mistake that for a softer stance when it comes to terrorism or when it comes to protecting Israel’s security or making sure that the alliance is strong and firm. You will not see, under my presidency, any slackening in commitment to Israel’s security.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea. That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“I always joke that my intellectual formation was through Jewish scholars and writers, even though I didn’t know it at the time. Whether it was theologians or Philip Roth who helped shape my sensibility, or some of the more popular writers like Leon Uris. So when I became more politically conscious, my starting point when I think about the Middle East is this enormous emotional attachment and sympathy for Israel, mindful of its history, mindful of the hardship and pain and suffering that the Jewish people have undergone, but also mindful of the incredible opportunity that is presented when people finally return to a land and are able to try to excavate their best traditions and their best selves. And obviously it’s something that has great resonance with the African-American experience. One of the things that is frustrating about the recent conversations on Israel is the loss of what I think is the natural affinity between the African-American community and the Jewish community, one that was deeply understood by Jewish and black leaders in the early civil-rights movement but has been estranged for a whole host of reasons that you and I don’t need to elaborate.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“I think the idea of Israel and the reality of Israel is one that I find important to me personally. Because it speaks to my history of being uprooted, it speaks to the African-American story of exodus, it describes the history of overcoming great odds and a courage and a commitment to carving out a democracy and prosperity in the midst of hardscrabble land. One of the things I loved about Israel when I went there is that the land itself is a metaphor for rebirth, for what’s been accomplished. What I also love about Israel is the fact that people argue about these issues, and that they’re asking themselves moral questions. Sometimes I’m attacked in the press for maybe being too deliberative. My staff teases me sometimes about anguishing over moral questions. I think I learned that partly from Jewish thought, that your actions have consequences and that they matter and that we have moral imperatives. The point is, if you look at my writings and my history, my commitment to Israel and the Jewish people is more than skin-deep and it’s more than political expediency. When it comes to the gut issue, I have such ardent defenders among my Jewish friends in Chicago. I don’t think people have noticed how fiercely they defend me, and how central they are to my success, because they’ve interacted with me long enough to know that I've got it in my gut. During the Wright episode, they didn’t flinch for a minute, because they know me and trust me, and they’ve seen me operate in difficult political situations. The other irony in this whole process is that in my early political life in Chicago, one of the raps against me in the black community is that I was too close to the Jews. When I ran against Bobby Rush [for Congress], the perception was that I was Hyde Park, I’m University of Chicago, I’ve got all these Jewish friends. When I started organizing, the two fellow organizers in Chicago were Jews, and I was attacked for associating with them. So I’ve been in the foxhole with my Jewish friends, so when I find on the national level my commitment being questioned, it’s curious.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

“America’s commitment to Israel’s security is unshakable,” Obama said in a brief speech at a Yom Ha’atzmaut (Israeli Independence Day) celebration. “I am absolutely convinced that our friendship between the two nations is unbreakable.” (The Jerusalem Post, May 9, 2008)

“I pledge to you that I will do whatever I can in whatever capacity to not only ensure Israel’s security, but also to ensure that the people of Israel may thrive and prosper and build on the enormous promise that was made 60 years ago.” (The Jerusalem Post, May 9, 2008)

“As we celebrate six decades of independence, we know that more work remains to be done to secure a lasting peace for the children of Israel,” said Obama, who mentioned his 2006 visit to Israel in which he was impressed by the resolve of a population that lives under nearly constant threats to its security. (The Jerusalem Post, May 9, 2008)

“So let us honor the independence of this great nation; let us celebrate the achievements of six decades; and let us renew the friendship between our nations, and the solemn promise to seek lasting peace and security for the people of Israel.” (The Jerusalem Post, May 9, 2008)

“My belief is that Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, one of our strongest allies anywhere in the world,” Obama said in an interview with JTA. (The Jerusalem Post, April 10, 2008)

“I don’t consider myself in any camp other than the common sense camp,” Obama said when asked if he favors those who see the Israel alliance as uppermost or those who advocate greater balance. “It is dangerously simplistic to think that our only options with respect to US foreign policy are to be unquestioning in our approach to Israel-Palestinian relations or alternatively to fail to recognize the special relationship and the historic friendship and bonds that exist between the United States and Israel.” (The Jerusalem Post, April 10, 2008)

Barack Obama described the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s views on America -- including its relationship with Israel -- as fundamentally “distorted.” Wright is Obama’s longtime pastor at Trinity United Church of Christ, an Afrocentric church on Chicago’s South Side. “The remarks that have caused this recent firestorm weren’t simply controversial,” Obama said. “They weren’t simply a religious leader’s effort to speak out against perceived injustice. Instead they expressed a profoundly distorted view of this country -- a view that sees white racism as endemic and that elevates what is wrong with America above all that we know is right with America. A view that sees the conflicts in the Middle East as rooted primarily in the actions of stalwart allies like Israel instead of emanating from the perverse and hateful ideologies of radical Islam.” (JTA, March 18, 2008).

Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama stressed his “stalwart” support for Israel and his ties to American Jews, during a presidential debate with rival candidate Hillary Clinton. “I have been very clear in my denunciations of Minister Farrakhan’s anti-Semitic comments. I did not solicit this support.” Obama leveled criticism on Farrakhan’s anti-Israel and anti-Semitic statements, calling them “unacceptable and reprehensible.” He added that has always been “a stalwart friend of Israel’s” and said he considers Israel to be one of the U.S.’ “most important allies in the region [Mideast].” (Haaretz, February 27, 2007)

“I think that their security is sacrosanct.” (Haaretz, February 27, 2007)

“I think there is a strain within the pro-Israel community that says unless you adopt an unwavering pro-Likud approach to Israel, then you’re anti-Israel, and that can’t be the measure of our friendship with Israel. If we cannot have an honest dialogue about how do we achieve these goals, then we’re not going to make progress. ” (The Jerusalem Post, February 25, 2008)

“There was a very honest, thoughtful debate taking place inside Israel. All of you, I’m sure, have experienced this when you travel there. Understandably, because of the pressure that Israel is under, I think the US pro-Israel community is sometimes a little more protective or concerned about opening up that conversation. All I’m saying, though, is that actually ultimately should be our goal - to have that same clear-eyed view about how we approach these issues.” (Jerusalem Post, February 25, 2008 and JTA, February 24, 2008)

“Frankly some of the commentary that I’ve seen which suggests guilt by association or the notion that unless we are never going to ask any difficult questions about how we move peace forward or secure Israel that is non military or non belligerent or doesn’t talk about just crushing the opposition that that somehow is being soft or anti-Israel, I think we’re going to have problems moving forward.” (JTA, February 24, 2008)

“Some of my earliest and most ardent supporters came from the Jewish community in Chicago.” (JTA, January 7, 2008)

“My support within in the Jewish community has been much more significant than my support within the Muslim community. I welcome and seek the support of the Muslim and Arab communities.” (JTA, January 7, 2008)

Obama said a book arguing that the Israel lobby does not represent U.S. interests is “dead wrong.” (September 12, 2007)

“I support the recent agreement to increase military assistance, as part of the United States’ unique defense relationship with Israel, which serves the security interests of both our countries. The current Administration’s failed policies in Iraq, in a war that never should have been authorized, have strengthened Iran and emboldened Hamas and Hizbullah, heightening the threats to Israel.” (Jerusalem Post, August 22, 2007)

That makes it more important than ever that the United States live up to its commitment to ensure Israel’s qualitative military edge, which will help Israel deter and repel attacks from as far as Teheran and as close as Gaza. 

“Israel is our most reliable ally and the only established democracy in the Middle East. Israel’s security and close US-Israel cooperation is the linchpin of so much of what we want to achieve in the Middle East.

The United States and Israel share important interests - promoting a peaceful Middle East, combating terrorism, and encouraging reform in the Arab and Muslim world. We share adversaries - Iran, Syria, Hamas, and Hizbullah. And we share deep economic, cultural, academic, and scientific ties that benefit both our nations.

The special relationship between the United States and Israel requires an open and honest dialogue, and strong personal ties, between our nations' leaders. As President, I would maintain regular communication with the Israeli Prime Minister, and instruct members of my administration to do the same at all levels.

I would continue and deepen the strategic dialogue between our nations' defense establishments, insist on fully funding military assistance to Israel to ensure it can defend itself, and expand cooperation on the development of the Arrow and other missile defense systems.

Israel’s security - which is of vital importance to the United States - can best be guaranteed by reaching negotiated peace agreements with its neighbors. But Israel must have credible partners with whom to negotiate.

As President, I would actively involve myself in the effort to strengthen moderate Palestinians and others who can be such partners, and to make such negotiations successful, while working to isolate and weaken those who seek Israel’s destruction. But I would never try to dictate to Israel what its security requires. The United States should never try to drag Israel to, or block Israel from, the negotiating table.

Finally, I would pursue a comprehensive strategy - of direct engagement, increased economic pressure through international and US sanctions, and keeping the military option on the table - to keep Iran from achieving its goal of acquiring nuclear weapons, which is a danger we cannot tolerate.

Just last week, I introduced legislation to make it easier for states to divest their pension funds from companies that support Iran’s oil and gas industry. Israel does not have the luxury of ignoring the Iranian president's genocidal threats, and neither should the United States.” (Jerusalem Post, May 24, 2007)

“Back in January of 2006... I made my first trip to the Holy Land. It is a place unlike any other on this earth – a place filled with so much promise of what we truly can be as people; a place where we’ve learned how in a flash, violence and hatred and intolerance can turn that promise to rubble and send too many lives to their early graves. Now most will travel to the holy sites: the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the Dome of the Rock or the Western Wall. They make a journey to be humbled before God. And I too am blessed to have seen Israel this way, up close and on the ground in quiet spaces and quiet moments.

But I am also fortunate to have seen Israel from the air. On my journey that January day, I flew on an IDF helicopter to the border zone. The helicopter took us over the most troubled and dangerous areas and that narrow strip between the West Bank and the Mediterranean Sea. At that height, I could see the hills and the terrain that generations have walked across. I could truly see how close everything is and why peace through security is the only way for Israel.

Our helicopter landed in the town of Kiryat Shmona on the border. What struck me first about the village was how familiar it looked. The houses and streets looked like ones you might find in a suburb in America. I could imagine young children riding their bikes down the streets. I could imagine the sounds of their joyful play just like my own daughters. There were cars in the driveway. The shrubs were trimmed. The families were living their lives.

And then, I saw a house that had been hit with one of Hezbollah’s Katyusha rockets. The family who lived in the house was lucky to be alive. They had been asleep in another part when the rocket hit. They described the explosion. They talked about the fire and the shrapnel. They spoke about what might have been if the rocket had come screaming into their home at another time when they weren’t asleep but sitting peacefully in the now destroyed part of the house.

It is an experience I keep close to my heart. Not because it is unique, but because we know that too many others have seen the same kind of destruction, have lost their loved ones to suicide bombers and live in fear of when the next attack might hit.

Just six months after I visited, Hezbollah launched four 4000 rocket attacks just like the one that destroyed the home in Kiryat Shmona, and kidnapped Israeli service members. And we pray for all of the service members who have been kidnapped: Gilad Shalit, Eldad Regev, and Ehud Goldwasser, and I met with his family this week. I offered to help in any way I can.

It is important to remember this history—that Israel had unilaterally withdrawn from Lebanon only to have Iran supply Hezbollah with thousands of rockets.

Our job is to never forget that the threat of violence is real. Our job is to renew the United States’ efforts to help Israel achieve peace with its neighbors while remaining vigilant against those who do not share this vision. Our job is to do more than lay out another road map; our job is to rebuild the road to real peace and lasting security throughout the region.

That effort begins with a clear and strong commitment to the security of Israel: our strongest ally in the region and its only established democracy. That will always be my starting point. And when we see all of the growing threats in the region: from Iran to Iraq to the resurgence of al-Qaeda to the reinvigoration of Hamas and Hezbollah, that loyalty and that friendship will guide me as we begin to lay the stones that will build the road that takes us from the current instability to lasting peace and security.

It won’t be easy. Some of those stones will be heavy and tough for the United States to carry. Others with be heavy and tough for Israel to carry. And even more will be difficult for the world. But together, we will begin again.

...

Obama welcomed a hike in defense assistance to Israel.

On Zionism

“You know, when I think about the Zionist idea, I think about how my feelings about Israel were shaped as a young man -- as a child, in fact. I had a camp counselor when I was in sixth grade who was Jewish-American but who had spent time in Israel, and during the course of this two-week camp he shared with me the idea of returning to a homeland and what that meant for people who had suffered from the Holocaust, and he talked about the idea of preserving a culture when a people had been uprooted with the view of eventually returning home. There was something so powerful and compelling for me, maybe because I was a kid who never entirely felt like he was rooted. That was part of my upbringing, to be traveling and always having a sense of values and culture but wanting a place. So that is my first memory of thinking about Israel. And then that mixed with a great affinity for the idea of social justice that was embodied in the early Zionist movement and the kibbutz, and the notion that not only do you find a place but you also have this opportunity to start over and to repair the breaches of the past. I found this very appealing.” (In an interview with The Atlantic Magazine reporter Jeffrey Goldberg, May 12, 2008)

Foreign Policy Advisers

In addition to each candidate’s personal views, another important aspect in evaluating candidates and their foreign policy agendas is to take a look at each candidate’s team of foreign policy and national security advisers. Below is a list of Senator Obama’s foreign policy team:

Former Amb. Jeffrey Bader, President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brookings’s China center, national security adviser

Mark Brzezinski, President Clinton’s National Security Council Southeast Europe specialist and now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods, national security adviser

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and frequent guest on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, foreign policy adviser

Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, sometimes Obama adviser

Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, foreign policy adviser

Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counterterrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant, has advised Obama but says not exclusive

Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow, national security adviser

Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages, national security adviser and surrogate

Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, informal foreign policy adviser

Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. ambassador to Israel, recently co-wrote a book on negotiating Arab-Israeli peace

W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a professor at Georgetown’s school of foreign service, foreign policy adviser

James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project, national security adviser

Robert Malley, President Clinton’s Middle East envoy and now International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa program director, national security adviser

Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, national security adviser

Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, foreign policy coordinator

Samantha Power, Harvard-based human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, foreign policy adviser

Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow, Middle East adviser

Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, national security adviser

Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist with Timmons & Company, Middle East adviser

Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge, national security adviser

(List published in the Washington Post, October 2, 2007)