You could be right on the "now" bit, it hadn't occurred to me that you could read it that way. On the "legitimate difficulties" (aside from the fact that "difficulties" is a ludicrously understated word - what next: having your house bulldozed is an "opportunity"?), then I can't see how you can interpret it the way you have. If the difficulties are legitimate surely he's saying they're reasonable and understandable. Unless there's a meaning of "legitimate" that I haven't previously encountered.

Did you used to have a different user name nefertiti? If not, what is your opinion on the Palstinian issue? I don't think I know, so am not sure if we do disagree. (It's probably worthy of a new thread though, since israel/palestine conversations are rarely a couple of posts diversion from the topic at hand)

"Legitimate difficulties" means "things that can legitimately be called difficulties". Can't see why anyone would read it any other way.

Legitimate means lawful or reasonable. Hence my interpretation. I can't see how how you could read it your way, let alone only that way.

"Reasonable" fits that definition, as in "might reasonably be called...". It's pretty common usage.

I understood "legitimate difficulties" to mean "difficulties which we, as Americans, should sympathise because they are real and serious".

The contrary, "illegitimate difficulties" would mean "difficulties with which we should have no particular sympathy because they are either trivial or of Palestinians own making".

What they said. He quite clearly meant that the difficulties are ones that deserve sympathy and understanding.

I agree it was a clumsy way of putting it, though. "Legitimate grievances" is an oft-used phrase that makes better sense and is perhaps what he was grasping for.

Well, this is a new usage on me, to be honest. If used as an adjective, to me legitimate means lawful (ie they are lawfully created). But nevertheless, since this is a point of pedantry only (and I assumed that Obama had just misstated what he meant to say anyway on that point), it's the constant repeating the Israeli narrative that bothers me, not whether legitimate what you two say it means.

I hope it's just a mistake, rather than an actual new (stupid) usage. But it's clear enough he meant what AG etc says he meant, even though he said it really stupidly.

As it goes, it's probably (assuming there aren't really people out there who think that it's a legitimate way of conveying that meaning) just something that comes of trying to jump through hoops when talking on this subject.

I can't imagine that Obama will mean anything much different for Palestine or the Palestinians, though. That seems awfully unlikely.

It's what AG said, exactly. I think he was speaking to an American audience, telling them that "hey, even though we should all be 100% pro-Israel, the Palestinians have some problems that we should pay attention to also."

I think this might be an American usage issue that threw some of you off--it made sense to me immediately.

Incidentally, earlier this week Glenn Greenwald posted about the poll results of a University of Maryland Program on International Policy Attitudes on public opinion of Israel/Palestine, which found that 71 percent of Americans want the US to remain neutral--i.e., not blindingly support Israel. He pointed out how this is the opposite of what could pass in our political discourse or media:

QUOTE:
It's pretty extraordinary that in a democracy, the political elite is able to render completely off-limits a view that the vast majority of Americans support. They actually render majority-held views unspeakable and then remove the issue entirely from what is debated. No matter what one's views are, there is no denying that our policy towards Israel is immensely consequential for our country. Yet, by virtue of the fact that presidential candidates are required to affirm essentially the same orthodoxies, there's very little difference in their positions towards Israel and therefore our current policy approach towards Israel will simply not be part of anything that is debated, even though most Americans overwhelmingly oppose that course.

It's part of a much-longer post with examples of what happens when someone--like Howard Dean--comes out and says what 71% of Americans agree with.

71% is remarkable given the overwhelmingly sympathetic coverage Israeli policy gets in the US media.

I was a bit surprised at first, but thinking about it, not really--the US public routinely expresses opinions that the media and pundits think are "extreme" or something else way beyond liberal, and think politicians are risking being seen as extreme if they come out and agree with--strong opposition to the war, demands for nationalized health care, etc. When the media talks about a candidate needing to move to the "center" what they really mean is to move to the right, out of agreement with the public.

It may shock the media, but not everyone in the country pays any attention to what anyone says in op-eds or on Sunday morning talk shows, and when asked a basic question--should the government take sides on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict?--to them the answer is a obvious no. They want the US to be fair and even-handed.

QUOTE:
71% is remarkable given the overwhelmingly sympathetic coverage Israeli policy gets in the US media.

Asking Americans if they think we should "remain neutral" as a general matter might get a different response than asking them about more specific things.

IOW you could probably get at least half of those respondents to contradict themselves one or two questions later.

IOW?

I agree with Bruno that what it means to an American to "not take either side" may not really be a statement of how Americans view actual policy ("remain neutral", which I don't think was the wording of the question, would be even more loaded with respect to my point below).

I wouldn't be surprised at all that if these same people were asked whether, currently, the US government took the Palestinian side, took the Israeli side or took neither side, a huge percentage would say that the US government was currently taking neither side (this, I think, is where we'd see the affect of the media's pro-Israel slant). In other words, I don't think the poll question (in and of itself) says anything of substance with respect to Americans' preferences re US government policy on this question.

There is a question in the poll about how well the US is doing in resolving the conflict (44/46 well/not well), but there is no reason to think that these responses are determined by negative/balanced views of US bias towards Israel rather than determined by the fact that clearly no one is doing well in resolving the conflict as it's nowhere near resolved.

EDIT: Inca, "IOW" means "in other words".

Oh. I'm not down on the hip internets lingo.
----------

Wow. Just--wow.