Prime Minister Erdogan of Turkey has given President Barack Obama a message: “Hamas must be represented at the negotiating table.” Or as the insufferable Roger Cohen puts it, “Hamas is seen throughout the region as a legitimate resistance movement, (my emphasis) a status burnished by its recent inconclusive pounding during Israel’s wretchedly named- and disastrous- ‘Operation Cast Lead’ in Gaza.”
So the growing chorus of anti-Israel intelligentsia from Britain to France is upset because the U.S. still persists in viewing Hamas as a terrorist group, not a resistance movement. This is not a matter of semantics. If one sees a group as a legitimate agency of resistance, terror can then be defined as a tactic regretfully forced on the oppressed by the vile tactics of the oppressor- in this case, the “occupying” power- Israel. And this is precisely what Cohen among others continually does. By not talking to Hamas until they recognize Israel- currently the U.S. position- Cohen asserts that such “marginalization” leads to impasse. After all, Hamas is not only a resistance movement, but an “entrenched Palestinian political and social movement.”
Those who make such arguments forget that the Nazis too were, before the Second World War broke out in earnest, a social movement. Hitler’s government hired people to build popular public works, including the famous Autobahn, gave the people their own car- the Volkswagen- increased the system of social services, and waged a serious war against cancer, with government programs trying to get the people to stop smoking cigarettes. Looking back on history, those we consider the leaders who made accurate judgments about the character of Nazism did not use the fact of Hitler’s social programs as an excuse to engage in negotiation- actually to engage in appeasement.
So here is the new demand of the realists: from Cohen to Scowcroft to Brzezinski and of course, Walt and Mearsheimer- US policy should promote reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas, and urge Mahmoud Abbas to welcome Hamas to the West Bank.
Unfortunately, even the moderates and responsible figures of the Israeli left do not share such hopes and illusions. Hence the important article in Haaretz by the Israeli left-wing intellectual, Shlomo Avineri who is no Likudnik. Titled “What To Speak with Hamas About,” Avineri cuts down the claims of the American so-called realists, revealing them to be anything but realistic.
The only item to talk to Hamas about, and Israel he notes is indeed talking with its representatives about, is freeing the kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit and creating calm instead of violence and rocket attacks. What they are not talking about- and should be- is Hamas’ raison d’etre - its own sacred covenant- which not only calls for the destruction of Israel-but the destruction of the Jews as a people, whom they define as the enemy of Islam.
President Obama is probably a clinically defined narcissist. In the back of his mind, this is the only thing he worries about: “Is this going to be good for Barack?” He is truly a self-centered man. The world is supposed to revolve around him. Barack Obama does not need to be overly concerned with the wishes of American Jews. He knows they can be taken for granted. And that’s exactly what he will continue to do.
I have ordered Ron Radosh’s soon to be released book concerning Harry Truman’s courageous support of Israel—in 1948. That’s a long time ago! Politics normally revolves around the question: “What have you done for me recently?” Obama and countless Democrats are living off the legacy of Truman. It’s time to put a stop to this madness.
Why is Hamas getting so much mileage out of its propaganda campaign? Have you ever wondered whether UN sponsored antisemitism is a prelude to the triumph of Islam?
Obama should bow at the waist and kiss their asses; all of them.
“Insufferable” is surely the exact-precise right description for Roger Cohen. Wish I had said that !!!!!
Giving Hamas $900 million to rebuild Gaza is enough to know where Barack Obama stands; he stands with the terrorists.
If the USA did so base and vile a deed as to sell out Israel in the hopes of getting on the good side of Muslim states we would fail to get any of the anticipated benefits from that treachery. All we would get is a justified contempt from enemies for selling out a friend and ally, and loss of other friends and allies who would be convinced that the US was too cowardly to live up to its obligations. That “realists” believe that we could benefit from such a sellout is evidence that they are hopelessly naive.
WELL I KNOW I AM PROBABLY IN THE MINORITY FOR SAYING THIS, BUT I DO BELEIVE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS DEEP AT HEART A GOOD CHRISTIAN, AND A MAN. SO I ALSO DO BELEIVE THAT HE WELL “DO THE RIGHT THING” AND NOT SELL OUT ISREAL, THE APPEL OF GOD’S EYE.
WELL IT JUST GOES TO SHOW, WE ALL OF US KNOW, EVEN BARACK HUSSEIN, THAT THE GOOD LORD WILL NOT RETURN TO EARTH IF THE STATE OF ISREAL IS IRRADICATED. SO I DO BELEIVE THAT BARACK HUSSEIN WILL KEEP ON FIGHTING FOR ISREAL.
Obama is ready to negotiate with Hamas. “We are not at war with Islam.” What better way to endear himself to the Moslem world than to recognize Hamas and force Israel back to its 1948 borders. If Samantha Powers, one of his advisers, has anything to say. Totally dismantle Israel. With no friends, Israel would become the most dangerous nation in the world. It would be survive at any cost. Islam could lose half a billion people overnight.
Oscar the Grump said:
Obama is ready to negotiate with Hamas. “We are not at war with Islam.” What better way to endear himself to the Moslem world than to recognize Hamas and force Israel back to its 1948 borders. If Samantha Powers, one of his advisers, has anything to say. Totally dismantle Israel. With no friends, Israel would become the most dangerous nation in the world. It would be survive at any cost. Islam could lose half a billion people overnight.
Well, that is a somewhat pleasant thought. Half a billion overnight. Yes, that is a real possibility should the mullah obamaham and his band of wackadoo left wing nuts abandon and marginalize Israel. I see NOTHING stopping obuma from talking to hamas. After all, he gave his “quiet” approval to the Brits to talk to them and the taliban. After the O’s speech in Turkey, just about everything has been tossed under the bus in favor of islam , muslims and islamofacism. After all, He is ONE of them. How tragic and disgusting that this poser of a president travels across Europe, saying how bad the USA has been, how arrogant we have behaved and so on. He learned his lessons well from that loser Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers and the likes of Louis Farrakhan.
Oscar is correct: Israel will BECOME extremely dangerous if cast out alone. Bibi is not the balless olmert/livini gov’t of fools and cowardice. mullah obamaham is a fool to think islam is our friend and not our enemy. We are at war with islam, BHO is not and he does not EVER speak for me.
Unfortunately, Obama has positioned himself such that he must talk to Hamas and he will. Hamas is a legitimate organization because the Palestinians made them so. Doesn’t matter that we don’t like their goals or techniques. What the West avoids acknowledging by not acknowledging Hamas is that the Palestinian people approve and support terror.
He will sell Israel down the tubes in the name of a two state solution. He honestly believes that will result in peace and because he does Obama does not view it as selling Israel down the tubes. And he has no worries electorally, American Jewry will mostly vote for a democrat no matter what he does.
Hello
Nice article. Although You’ve haven’t mentioned the fact that there are factions in the Muslim and Arab world. Hamas is an extention of the Muslim Brotherhood, so while talking to Hamas will get USA closer to some parts of the Muslim world it will cause a woursening in relations with other Arab/Muslim countries who are relativly more moderate (Egypt for example).
8. JUST A NORMAL GUY,
A Christian does not leave Jesus out of his prayers, a Christian knows better.
He does not show up until the prayers are over in some cases so he will not upset any people.
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/March05/0513.html
He is an actor.
Obama is siding with Europe and it is a mistake, a terrible mistake.
They are all against Israel and it is a bad mistake.
http://www.prophecynewswatch.com/April03/0322.html
Obama is well aware of Hamas’ charter’s stated aim to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews, yet he is giving them $900,000,000. That’s nine hundred million dollars of American money, despite Hamas’ sworn vow to destroy Israel and exterminate the Jews.
Obama is also well aware that Hamas is a proxy of the Islamist Republic of Iran, whose president, Ahmadinejad, keeps threatening to destroy Israel, and aids and abets Hamas towards the achievement of their mutually shared goals for the fate of the Jewish state.
Pundits, to put a positive light on it, are quick to claim Obama thinks negotiations with Hamas and talks with Iran will result in peace. More likely Obama knows very well that they won’t, but instead give legitimacy to Iran and Hamas, and their sordid ambitions.
But don’t take my word for it. Ask his longtime mentors and friends Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan, and Rashid Khalidi, and take a good long look at Obama’s instinctive, ritual fawning, bowing, and scraping before Israel’s (and America’s) deadliest enemies.
Although Hamas won the elections, this does not negate the fact they are still TERRORISTS; negotiating directly with terrorists takes all the sticks off the table leaving the USA & Israel vulnerable.
Essentially, President Obama is walking into open direct negotiatians stark naked with only his enormous ego to clothe him; whereas, Hamas is armed to the teeth with its suicide bombers & rockets ready to use at will.
Who is on the losing end? If you have to answer this rhetorical question with much thought, you need to read up on the subject more.
It is becoming increasingly clear the the Obama foreign policy is the Chamberlain foreign policy: appeasement of dangerous enemies, based on a reflexive pacifism and belief that things will always work out fine if someone else is the target.
A good exposition is my discussion with Frankie Sturm of the Truman National Security Project at http://www.mistermoleman.com.
13. Tonya:
WELL TANYA MAYBE YOU ARE RIGHT BUT AS LONG AS THE STATE OF ISREAL CONTINUES TO EXCIST, BY HOOK OR BY CROOK OR BY NUKE IF NESESSARY, THEN OUR LORD AND SAVIOR WELL RETURN TO THE EARTH. HE IS TELLING US TO PROTECT ISREAL BY ANY MEAN’S NESESSARY AND I THINK WE CAN COUNT ON ARE BOY’S IN THE MILITARY TO KEEP EM FLYING BOYS!!!
There is no negotiating with terrorists. No good will come from his negotiations with these uncivilized barbarians. No good will come from turning on Israel.
My computer acts up only when I use certain web browsers, like AOL, it is like communists have taken over my web browser. I can use others like firefox and I do not have these problems. The Socialists, Communists, or Liberal nuts must control AOL these days.
Dr. Kevin Macdonald -Understanding Jewish Influence
Given that extreme ethnocentrism continues to pervade all segments of the organized Jewish community, the advocacy of the de-ethnicization of Europeans—a common sentiment in the movements I discuss in The Culture of Critique—is best seen as a strategic move against peoples regarded as historical enemies. In Chapter 8 of CofC, I call attention to a long list of similar double standards, especially with regard to the policies pursued by Israel versus the policies Jewish organizations have pursued in the U.S. These policies include church-state separation, attitudes toward multiculturalism, and immigration policies favoring the dominant ethnic group. This double standard is fairly pervasive. As noted throughout CofC, Jewish advocates addressing Western audiences have promoted policies that satisfy Jewish (particularist) interests in terms of the morally universalist language that is a central feature of Western moral and intellectual discourse . . .
Contrary to policies they advocate for the United States, American Jews have had no interest at all in proposing that immigration to Israel should be similarly multi-ethnic or that Israel should have an immigration policy that would threaten the hegemony of Jews in Israel. Indeed, the very deep ethnic conflict within Israel is an excellent example of the failure of multi-culturalism. Similarly, while Jews have been on the forefront of movements to separate church and state in the United States and often protested lack of religious freedom in the Soviet Union, the control of religious affairs by the Orthodox in Israel has received only belated and half-hearted opposition by American Jewish organizations (Cohen, 1972, 317) and has not prevented the all-out support of Israel by American Jews, despite the fact that Israel’s policy regarding immigration is quite the opposite of that of Western democracies.
Jews were unique as an American immigrant group in their hostility toward American Christian culture and in their energetic, aggressive efforts to change that culture.
To maintain racial purity Israel recently passed a law that prohibits immigration to the non-Jewish spouses of Jews. Yet you never hear a thing from the Jews on the immigration policies of Israel. Yet it is Jewish groups who were in the vanguard of the open immigration policies of America. This may be changing as the number of Muslims in America increases. Look for the Jews to seek to prohibit Muslim immigration and try to gain control of the anti-immigrant forces.
Kevin MacDonald
Department of Psychology
California State University-Long Beach
Dr. Stephen Steinlight, who served for five years as the Directory of National Affairs for the American Jewish Committee, one of the most powerful Jewish organizations said in an article in 2001 entitled “The Jewish Stake in America’s Changing Demographics:
“I’ll confess it, at least, like thousands of other typical Jewish kids of my generation, I was reared as a Jewish nationalist, even a quasi-separatist. Every summer for two months for 10 formative years during my childhood and adolescence I attended Jewish summer camp. There, each morning, I saluted a foreign flag, dressed in a uniform reflection its colors, sang a foreign national anthem, learned a foreign language, learned foreign folk songs and dances, and was taught that Israel was the true homeland. Emigration to Israel was considered the highest virtue, and, like many other Jewish teens of my generation, I spent two summers working in Israel on a collective farm while I contemplated that possibility. More tacitly and subconsciously, I was taught the superiority of my people to the gentiles who had oppressed us. We were taught to view non-Jews as untrustworthy outsiders, people from whom sudden gusts of hatred might be anticipated, people less sensitive, intelligent, and moral than ourselves. We were also taught the lesson of our dark history is that we could rely on no one.”
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
For the past several decades, and especially since the Six-Day War in 1967, the centrepiece of US Middle Eastern policy has been its relationship with Israel. The combination of unwavering support for Israel and the related effort to spread ‘democracy’ throughout the region has inflamed Arab and Islamic opinion and jeopardised not only US security but that of much of the rest of the world. This situation has no equal in American political history. Why has the US been willing to set aside its own security and that of many of its allies in order to advance the interests of another state? One might assume that the bond between the two countries was based on shared strategic interests or compelling moral imperatives, but neither explanation can account for the remarkable level of material and diplomatic support that the US provides.
Instead, the thrust of US policy in the region derives almost entirely from domestic politics, and especially the activities of the ‘Israel Lobby’. Other special-interest groups have managed to skew foreign policy, but no lobby has managed to divert it as far from what the national interest would suggest, while simultaneously convincing Americans that US interests and those of the other country – in this case, Israel – are essentially identical.
Since the October War in 1973, Washington has provided Israel with a level of support dwarfing that given to any other state. It has been the largest annual recipient of direct economic and military assistance since 1976, and is the largest recipient in total since World War Two, to the tune of well over $140 billion (in 2004 dollars). Israel receives about $3 billion in direct assistance each year, roughly one-fifth of the foreign aid budget, and worth about $500 a year for every Israeli. This largesse is especially striking since Israel is now a wealthy industrial state with a per capita income roughly equal to that of South Korea or Spain.
Other recipients get their money in quarterly installments, but Israel receives its entire appropriation at the beginning of each fiscal year and can thus earn interest on it. Most recipients of aid given for military purposes are required to spend all of it in the US, but Israel is allowed to use roughly 25 per cent of its allocation to subsidise its own defence industry. It is the only recipient that does not have to account for how the aid is spent, which makes it virtually impossible to prevent the money from being used for purposes the US opposes, such as building settlements on the West Bank. Moreover, the US has provided Israel with nearly $3 billion to develop weapons systems, and given it access to such top-drawer weaponry as Blackhawk helicopters and F-16 jets. Finally, the US gives Israel access to intelligence it denies to its Nato allies and has turned a blind eye to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation.
Stephen Walt is the Robert and Renee Belfer Professor of International Affairs at the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard. John Mearsheimer is the R. Wendell Harrison Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago.
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
http://www.kevinmacdonald.net/CofCchap6+Ref.pdf
I disagree with a number of the above comments and the article’s lede itself. I’m not an Obama supporter, never voted for him, and never will. IMHO, it might be a good thing to negotiate with HAMAS and Iran as well. But only if SoS Clinton would be tough as nails with them. For instance, it would be nice to sit down with HAMAS and tell them that they must abandon their charter or we’re going to walk out. It would also be good to sit down with Iran and tell them that if they do not stop supporting terrorism through HAMAS and Hezbollah, and if they do not stop attempting to undermine our project in Iraq, and if the do not stop their uranium enrichment, that we will walk out. The repercussions would be enormous in both cases. Just think: We could say that we tried to negotiate in good faith but they were intractable in their demands. It just might leverage some world opinion in our favor before Israel takes out Iran’s nuclear facilities.
It would only take a day or two to have these “negotiations” with the other parties before we left them looking guilty and intractable. It may be a good strategy.
regards
I think Mr. Radosh might have meant the Lions Club…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lions_club
regards
Justanormal guy:
You believe obama is a “good Christian man”. Based on what?
You believe he will “do the right thing”. Based on what?
He’s selling out Israel right in front of your face, as expressed through the statements of his SOS Clinton.
“It just goes to show, we all of us know, even barack hussein, that the good Lord will not return to earth if the state of Israel is irradicated….SO I DO BELIEVE barack hussein WILL KEEP FIGHTING FOR ISRAEL”: wow. There is absolutely no connecting rationale in those statements, yet you apparently use the first to establish your confidence that bambi will “keep fighting” for Israel.
1. He can’t “keep fighting for Israel” since he hasn’t started.
2. Lousy hermeneutics on your use of Scriptural truths. You are referencing Scriptural truth, but the way you do it gives hermeneutics a bad name and is apparently designed to help you not worry about or protest what obama is doing.
3. “We all of us know, even barack hussein, that the good Lord…” You shouldn’t presume to know what you think hussein knows about the Lord. He has given much evidence that he actually knows very little, either about the Lord or the Scriptures (or Israel’s place in them).
If you apply this kind of lazy use of Scriptural prophecies to the rest of your life, I guess you don’t bother with car insurance (because God’s in charge), doctor’s visits (because God’s in charge), stopping at red lights (because God’s in charge) or …. did you even vote last fall?? (because, after all, God’s in charge)
There’s nothing attractive about a “Christian point of view” wrapped up in baseless hope-so assumptions attributing positive outcomes to the destructive foolishness of national leaders.
Hey! Why stop now. I mean it worked with the PLO didn’t it?
HonestJon, you are right. I think it’s just a matter of semantics though. You could also say that those are the pre-conditions of negotiation. The alternative would be to pretend that Hamas does not exist. Also not a good tactic.
WELL MERLE I AM JUST AS SCARED AND FRIGHTENED OF IRAN AS YOU ARE, I MEAN I EVEN THREW OUT ALL MY “CAT STEPHENS” ALBUMS WHEN I HEARD HE CONVERTED TO MUSLIM, SO DO’NT QUESTION MY BONE OF FIDES WHEN IT COMES TO RELIGION OKAY?
BUT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO LIVE IN THIS COUNTRY AND NOT KNOW THAT THE STATE OF ISREAL MUST EXCIST FOR CHRIST OUR LORD AND SAVIOR TO RETURN TO EARTH. I VISITED WASHINGTON DC AND EVERY BODY THEIR KNEW ABOUT IT.
SO I AM JUST SAYING THAT BARACK HUSSAIN KNOWS THE TRUTH, AND I AM PRETTY SURE THAT HE WANTS THE LORD TO RETURN TO EARTH AND FOR THE 500,000 JEWS TO CONVERT TO CHRISTIAN. OKAY?
Right on point as hard as it is to believe and digest. Why anyone, for the history given, would believe that the Israeli’s should negotiate with an organization hell bent on its destruction is ludicrous. Of course it takes two to tango so what makes these naifs think that Hamas would sit down in the first place and if it did why would Israel belive them? Israel learned that the hard way at Oslo.