SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Insta-meshal

THE PLANK JUNE 4, 2009

Insta-meshal

Joe Klein happened to interview the Hamas leader an hour after Obama's Cairo speech. Meshal wasn't impressed:

"Undoubtedly Obama speaks a new language," he told me. "His speech
was cleverly designed... The essence of the speech was to improve the
U.S. image and to placate the Muslims. We don't mind either objective,
but we are looking for more than just mere words. If the United States
wishes to open a new page, we definitely would welcome this. We are
keen to contribute to this. But we [believe that can not happen] merely
with words. It must be with deeds, by changing the policy on the
ground."

Meshal went on: "A Palestinian listening to the speech would have a
simple question: where are the true actual issues that touch our lives?
A Palestinian listening didn't hear anything about the Israeli war in
Gaza or about Israel's war crimes." He mentioned the alleged use of
depleted uranium and white phosphorous. "A beautiful discourse lacks
credibility if it doesn't address Gaza."

Meshal refused to make concessions on any of the points Obama
mentioned--renouncing the use of violence (although he did say that
Hamas was willing to discuss a formal ceasefire), recognizing the state
of Israel or the prior commitments made by the Palestinian Authority to
a peace process.  I asked him about this portion of the speech:

It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot
rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is
not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered.

"Palestinian actions are reactions. What Palestinians do is to
resist the occupation," he said. "It is self-defense. Why did the
Americans support the Mujaheddin against the Soviets in Afghanistan?
Why did the British support the French agains the Nazis? Why did you
have a revolution against the British? Self-defense."

I made the obvious point about the difference between self-defense
and targeting civilians. "But civilians die in wars," one of Meshal's
aides pitched in. "You call it collateral damage."

No real surprise there. Just a reminder of how monumental Obama's challenge is.

--Jason Zengerle

 

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 25 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

25 comments

No surprise there. Meshal's real expertise is sneak attacks on defenseless women and children. That's why he was welcomed with open arms by the genocidal al Bashir in Sudan about a year or so ago. Sooner or later he'll get what's coming to him.

- scrubbyoak

June 4, 2009 at 1:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh please, this is absurd. This man and the rest of his movement are pledged to exterminate Israel. As one of them said, memorably, to an Israeli journalist some years back, "We don't want to negotiate with you. We want to destroy you." Exterminating Israel is the central part of their charter, it's the core of their children's school curriculum, it's the source of their very legitimacy in their people's eyes.

When in history has a bitter and violent conflict ever ended without at least one side recognizing it has been defeated and cannot achieve its core objective? How can Israel possibly accomodate its adversary's core objective of exterminating Israel?

Or do Obama and his fellow naifs just refuse to take these people's words and deeds seriously? Does he mean that Meshal and his ilk are just BS'ing, that they're not serious men?

Rather patronizing, that. Also foolish.

- teplukhin2you

June 4, 2009 at 1:58pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Just a reminder of how monumental Obama's challenge is"

Well, maybe he shouldn't be squandering so much of his and his admin's scarce bandwidth on this problem.

Especially when he's botching the financial and auto bailouts (oops, there goes another $50b-- np) and still has not leveled with the good folk of this country about how much we will have to pay for health insurance reform.

Bigger fish to fry at home. Why, aside from maybe the usual US presidential blend of messianism and vanity, is Obama grabbing this mother of all tarbabies with both hands?

- teplukhin2you

June 4, 2009 at 2:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Might just be me, but I doubt Obama was expecting his speech to sway the *leaders* of Hamas, Hezbollah etc.

- Nari224

June 4, 2009 at 2:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, if Khalid Meshal did not agree with Obama this afternoon and announce that Hamas is accepting Israel and will no longer cause any trouble to anyone, the whole speech must have been a complete waste!  I bet even Bin Laden and Zawahiri will claim that speech didn't convince them to drop the whole jihad thing.  If you can't convince well-informed opinion leaders like them, why even bother appealing to the man on the street?

- wildboy

June 4, 2009 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Palestinian actions are reactions. What Palestinians do is to resist the occupation."

Yes, I suppose that would explain pre-1967 terrorism, wouldn't it?

- rozenson

June 4, 2009 at 2:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I await Tep's announcement that he will be running for some kind of political office in the near future.  Clearly he knows the world better than anyone alive, has a clearer sense of the world's ills, and knows exactly how to solve each and every one of them.  Good for you, Tep.  Glad to know that you will put your formidable talents to the tasks at hand, as opposed to the rest of us who simply sit in the stands and kvetch.

- kgrant1054

June 4, 2009 at 3:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As far as I recall, tep was convinced that Obama had totally flubbed the campaign and was on track to lose miserably.

- ironyroad

June 4, 2009 at 3:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

tep, buddy, calling Obama a "naif" just means that you aren't actually paying attention.  I guarangoddamntee you that Obama had no illusions he was going to make Khaled Meshal turn his swords into plowshares, or even smaller swords- his point is to undercut the popularity of the extremist message.  And no, he doesn't think one speech is going to do it.  It is action, of course, but what Obama does so well is speak about what he is going to do, why it is in everyone's interest ot come aboard, change the tenor of the debate, and then act.  It might fail, it might work- but please don't be foolish enough to think of the man as naive.  

- boneill

June 4, 2009 at 4:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That was when Tep was young and naive.  Now, he is the world-weary sage of foreign policy willing to drag us all to a better day.  His wisdom is indisputable, his erudition second to none, it is mere lack of vision that the world has not recognized the greatest politician since Machiavelli in their midst.

Hmm, what's that you say?  Machiavelli wrote with the same kind of forceful, theoretical knowledge of the world around him and was a complete disaster as an actual politician?  

Pay them no mind, Tep.  I've got your back.  I will struggle mightily to keep the peasants in line.  I will start with that charlatan, irony, clearly he lacks the requisite ability to see how the world really works.  

- kgrant1054

June 4, 2009 at 5:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dammit.  Tep, fear not.  I will take care of that infidel, bone, as well.

- kgrant1054

June 4, 2009 at 5:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

kgrant - i want universal, high-quality, reasonably-affordable health insurance. I do not want Obama to blow it this time. I think it's reasonable to believe that, to the extent he dives into this f-p tarbaby, the conflict that has next to no likelihood of being resolved in our lifetimes, he is taking his eye off the health insurance ball. For me and my family, the consequences of another Dem failure to reform health insurance are huge. Yeah, it's personal.

- teplukhin2you

June 4, 2009 at 5:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OK, put your money where your mouth is, gents. Who will wager good money that Obama's foray into the lion's den will result in formal recognition, within the next three years, by the Palestinian leadership of Israel's right to exist?

Fess up, now. Do you seriously believe that these men are just bluffing, or that they will actually give up the main source of their movement's political legitimacy, its entire raison d'etre? Really?

- teplukhin2you

June 4, 2009 at 5:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Not me, because I don't think it's a very smart wager.  The reason, however, is that the Palestinian leadership has already recognized, in the framework of the Oslo accords, Israel's right to exist.  The chances of Hamas getting on board with that are slim to non-existent, of course, but Obama isn't pursuing that goal.  What he wants -- as with the approach to Iran -- is to set the scene for the next stage of the process, in which casual accusations of American bias toward Israel to the exclusion of Palestinian concerns will hold no water and will provide, if not no hiding place, then a much smaller hiding place for those who just don't want a solution.  What he wants to do is isolate the destructive elements, not give them more credibility.

- ironyroad

June 4, 2009 at 6:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"casual accusations of American bias toward Israel to the exclusion of Palestinian concerns will hold no water..."

... when the US is seen by arabs to launch a military strike on Israeli targets. IOW never.

C'mon, irony, you're smarter than this. "Bias toward Israel" in muslim eyes is equivalent to defending Israel's right to exist. Can't split the difference or Lifestory one's way out of this one.

- teplukhin2you

June 4, 2009 at 8:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm still not taking your wager, and you're still not seeing what it's about.

- ironyroad

June 4, 2009 at 10:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you: ""Bias toward Israel" in muslim eyes is equivalent to defending Israel's right to exist."

To use your own words, you're smarter than that. American 'bias toward Israel' is, for example, the revelation yesterday of 'verbal understandings' (that is, secret agreements) between George II's administration and the Israeli government back in 2003, holding that a proclaimed freeze on West Bank settlement expansion didn't actually have to involve a real freeze on West Bank settlement expansion.

If Obama can get to a place where Palestinians don't see such secret agreements as part and parcel of the America-Israel relationship - that is, where there's some prospect of America being seen as an honest broker - then perhaps some advances can be made.

Loved the bit in Klein's column where he talks about the 'alleged' use of white phosphorous.... when the airbursts from (American) M825 WP rounds are one of the most recognisable images from the conflict.

- SMacEachern2

June 4, 2009 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"C'mon, irony, you're smarter than this."

I'm afraid he's not.  On another thread, it was the Iranian mullahs quaking in their boots because they don't know how to respond to Obama's charm offensive.

"What he [Obama] wants to do is isolate the destructive elements, not give them more credibility."

I'm sure he does want that as every US president before him, but by doing exactly what, aside from the grand speeches and standing offers of negotiations w/out preconditions?

- sabaka

June 5, 2009 at 3:32am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's always fun to look at two other people high-fiving each other in cyberspace as they judge one's intelligence on whether one's comments comport with their prejudices.

It could almost make one feel smug.

- ironyroad

June 5, 2009 at 11:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"If Obama can get to a place where Palestinians don't see such secret agreements as part and parcel of the America-Israel relationship - that is, where there's some prospect of America being seen as an honest broker - then perhaps some advances can be made"

As happened under presidents Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, and George H.W. Bush, all of whom criticized the settlements and explicitly opposed their expansion, as well as President Bill Clinton, who spent the better part of his second term trying to redraw the map. Per the Foundation for Middle East Peace, there have been 120 official US presidential statements opposing the settlements over the last 42 years.

For a flavor of the above, longstanding US presidential effort to declare illegal and roll back the settlements, here's an excerpt from a 1971 speech by Nixon's UN Ambassador, a man named GHW Bush: "We regret Israel's failure to acknowledge its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention as well as its actions which are contrary to the letter and spirit of this convention."

And then there's the whole absurdity of the Gaza example in which Israel not only froze, not only rolled back, but actually EVACUATED the territory entirely-- and was promptly attacked by a gang of thugs who created chaos for their own people in those very territories, to the point where even Egypt rushed troops to the border to keep the Palestinian violence from spilling over the border.

Sorry, but this is a fool's errand. Obama is supposed to be clever. If so, then the only thing explaining his determination to march in folly is his own vanity and arrogance, two traits that are never in short supply among US presidents...

- teplukhin2you

June 5, 2009 at 12:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you: And then, of course, in 2005, we have Dov Weisglass telling Haaretz that, despite all agreements, Sharon's government had America's undertaking that the large settlements blocs would remain part of Israel. Not very politic to boast about it, of course, and it somewhat embarrassed both governments..."In years to come, perhaps decades, when negotiations will be held between Israel and the Palestinians, the master of the world will pound on the table and say: We stated already ten years ago that the large blocs are part of Israel."

So yes, quite right, there have been some American statements for public consumption opposing settlement expansion - just as sometimes the Israeli government makes similar noises. But no one believes the Israeli government on that issue any more, and very few people believe that the settlements have been consistently important to American administrations... Clinton (and George I), perhaps, but Reagan and George II? Give me a break.

Just as an antidote to any claims that apocalyptic violence in Gaza would solve the issues of rocket fire, you might note that the attacks from there on places like Sderot started three years before the area was evacuated, while it was still under Israeli control. You also conveniently omit the history of Gaza after the Israeli pullout... PA control, the elections and the fighting around it (some of it involving PA anti-Qassam patrols in northern Gaza), the status of Egypt as an American client and contributor to the penning-up of Gaza, all of that. Demonization doesn't like complication, eh?

- SMacEachern2

June 5, 2009 at 1:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm not demonizing anyone, I'm simply saying I think that my nation's president has much more important, and urgent, crises at home that warrant his full attention now. For me and my family, those matters carry about 1,000x as much weight as bringing peace to the middle east.

- teplukhin2you

June 5, 2009 at 1:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you: A president (or prime minister, or whatever) totally focused on domestic agendas is going to find that the concerns of the rest of the world eventually come home to roost, in any case. For me, working in primarily Islamic areas of Africa, an American President productively engaged with the Islamic world is a very good thing. And I'm not even American.

Besides, those last posts of yours weren't about focus on a domestic agenda... it was about bothering with Palestinians. You don't have any objections to continued engagement with Israel. That's right and proper, but why not both sides?

- SMacEachern2

June 5, 2009 at 3:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Smack - sure, if I were in your shoes I'd be a big fan of Obama and his foray. You're probably preparing for your next trip to Africa; me, I'm preparing to write my next four figure monthly COBRA check, worrying about my kids' education and trying to get funding for my startup. Different priorities, different strokes.

Where I differ with both sides on the Isr-Arab issue is the importance I accord to peacemaking efforts in the ME. I don't think that region should take priority over Asia in our f-p, and I think that f-p in general should take a back seat now to domestic policy. There's a crisis on. Actually, about half a dozen trillion-dollar crises going on now here at home.

- teplukhin2you

June 5, 2009 at 6:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

teplukhin2you: Do you remember how the Taliban took over in Afghanistan? American supported the mujaheddin who helped throw the Soviets out... but lost interest when those mujaheddin (many now in Karzai's government) took power and turned out to be thieves, rapists and murderers. There was a dot-com bubble and bust, lots of other domestic stuff going on, other priorities. How did that turn out for you folks, anyway?

Note the quote from Weisglass up there: "...the master of the world..." The master of the world finds that events come to his attention, wanted or not. Asia? Fine... you think that events in Pakistan/India/China/Thailand/Malaysia/Indonesia/Philippines can be divorced from what goes on in Gaza and the West Bank?

Sorry, but you're pushing up against the fate of being the new Romans now. Me, I only have to help pay for it - my passport is carefully expunged of contacts with the USA, given where I work - but it would still be better if America paid attention to these issues.

- SMacEachern2

June 6, 2009 at 12:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close