As was the case with his earlier exchange with John McCain regarding "al Qaeda in Iraq", Barack Obama was served up a another softball by the Republican Party, and couldn’t hit it out of the park. Hell, Obama barely could bunt back to the pitcher’s mound . When Bush made a thinly veiled reference to Obama during his speech in Israel as an appeaser of terrorists, Obama’s lame response was that he has stated "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas."
Obama could have pointed out the Republican’s long tradition of negotiating and appeasing ‘terrorists’, beginning with Reagan’s selling of TOW missiles to Iran and his quick exit from the quagmire in Lebanon when Hezbollah bombed the Marine barracks. But really, what Obama needed to point out is that similar statements were made about the PLO, which is now considered a "partner in peace". Yesterday’s terrorist is often tomorrow’s ally.
Obama could also have pointed out the El Salvador example of how a stalemated conflict with ‘terrorists’ can successfully be resolved through negotiations. The right-wing government in El Salvador refused to negotiate with Communist guerillas a.k.a ‘the terrorists’ in the 70s and 80s, believing massive amounts of U.S. military aid would allow them to eradicate the problem by force. But in the 1990s, the Salvadoran government finally decided there was no military solution, and so decided to bring the terrorists to the negotiating table. The result? 16 years of relative peace and prosperity, and the ‘terrorists’ have channeled their anger into trying to win elections, not into sabotage and murder. Israel is in a similar position. Despite the fantasies of the Neocons and Likud, there is no military solution to Hamas or Hezbollah.
Why can’t Obama drive this point home?
Indeed, and he could also have pointed out the absurdity of comparing Iran with nazi Germany, and also put to bed the war parties favorite talking point, the “Israel wiped off the map” canard-
Wasn’t the Israeli state founded by “terrorists”? What about the Irgun and the Stern Gang? Were the British wrong to have negotiated with the para-military Haganah movement? Wouldn’t it be labelled a terrorist group today? Certainly the Stern Gang and the Irgun would be. These ‘heroes’ were responsible for the bombing of the King David Hotel, until recent decades the bloodiest terrorist incident. And what about Likud’s roots in the Irgun? (See wiki for a brief history of Irgun see here). Maybe Obama needs to mention that.
Or he could have mentioned that fucking piece of shit hypocrite McCain called for direct talks with Hamas less than 2 years ago:
From yesterday’s Washington Post:
Question: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”
McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”
heres a clip from that interview-
Although with John McCain, “deal with them” could mean bomb them ?
Thanks Anders!
By the way, it was 100% Israel’s fault that Hamas got elected. The Mossad created them in the first place and for years they did everything possible to weaken Arafat and then Abu Abbas after him. In 2005, they collected all the border taxes, but refused to pay up to Fatah, who needed that money to buy votes. “There, now that you can’t possibly win, we demand you hold elections.”
Whether this reveals the lowest stupidity in the Israeli/U.S. State Department or part of a deliberate plan to ease the pressure on the Israelis to make some accommodations toward the Palestinians and help justify their permanent low-level war against them, the facts are the facts.
By the way, just a couple weeks ago, Hamas told Jimmy Carter they were ready to call for a 10-year cease-fire and give “recognition” to Israel all but in name.
Anders, that is a great video refutation of the Neocons favorite talking point. But it’s curious that when a reformer, Khatami or Rafsjani, is President, we’re told the President of Iran has no power, the Ayatollahs pull all the strings. As soon as a right wing nationalist is elected, suddenly the Ayatollahs are pushed aside and its the President who calls the shots.
Tim, those people you refer to were ‘freedom fighters’. Only Muslims and Irish Catholics can be called terrorists
.
By the way, Obama could also have mentioned that many of the men McCain used to call ‘terrorists’ in Anbar province are now on the U.S. military payroll.
Obama could also have mentioned that many of the men McCain used to call ‘terrorists’ in Anbar province are now on the U.S. military payroll.
it’s curious that when a reformer, Khatami or Rafsjani, is President, we’re told the President of Iran has no power, the Ayatollahs pull all the strings. As soon as a right wing nationalist is elected, suddenly the Ayatollahs are pushed aside and its the President who calls the shots.
Exactly. Thanks.