THE PLANK APRIL 11, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yesterday Barack Obama said he would not negotiate with Hamas. The American Prospect's Ezra Klein says that this position "doesn't really track with his past approach to foreign policy," and proceeds to suggest that Obama must have been intimidated by the Israel lobby.
For purposes of balance, it's nice to see Obama getting attacked unfairly on Jewish issues from the other side. But I'm not sure this attack holds any water. It's true that Obama has declared his willingness to negotiate with various dictators. But there are some key differences. First, Obama has not said he'd negotiate with terrorist groups -- indeed, the centerpiece of his foreign policy is destroying al Qaeda, not negotiating with it. I think there's a pretty clear principle operating here. When you merely have strong differences with an adversary, like the Soviet Union, you can negotiate. When your adversary is committed to your destruction, there's nothing to talk about.
Now, it's true that Hamas is not committed to the destruction of the United States. But it is committed to Israel's destruction. And Israel is our ally. Now, you might think that makes the principle of not talking to enemies would be weaker, but it actually makes it stronger. We can negotiate with our own enemies at our own risk. To negotiate with the enemy of an ally is to undercut your ally.
I suppose you could take the logic of Obama's foreign policy in the other direction. But refusing to negotiate with Hamas is clearly a consistent application of that thinking, and I would argue that it's the most consistent application of that thinking. Klein's post is telling, though, because it reflects a common tic of lefty foreign policy types: to assume that their position is so obviously correct that the only reason Democratic politicians could possibly oppose it is the muscle of the Israel lobby.
--Jonathan Chait
45 comments
Well said, Mr. Chait. That is an important distinction.
- jhunger
April 11, 2008 at 3:36pm
"Klein's post is telling, though, because it reflects a common tic of lefty foreign policy types: to assume that their position is so obviously correct that the only reason Democratic politicians could possibly oppose it is the muscle of the Israel lobby."
Well put, Jon. THat seems totally right.
- cypess
April 11, 2008 at 3:37pm
"It reflects a common tic of lefty foreign policy types: to assume that their position is so obviously correct that the only reason Democratic politicians could possibly oppose it is the muscle of the Israel lobby."
Chait, I think you're right. It's the same kind of external attribution that people without jobs make about immigrants. If you're saying Obama's being strong-armed into a position, you're taking agency away from Obama. To Ezra and his ilk, I don't think it is a strong argument to make.
- Onnword
April 11, 2008 at 3:39pm
Of course, there's the difference between negotiating with states, even hostile states with whom we are not at war, and negotiating with private groups, such as terrorist organizations.
There's also the pragmatic difference that Iran has things we want. Iran may be unlikely to give us what we want, or to do so at a price we are willing to pay. But it's at least possible that we could get from Iran things that serve our interests in the region at a price we're willing to pay. Does Hamas actually have anything we want to offer us in a negotiation? I don't see it. There is no sense negotiating with someone who has nothing to offer you, regardless of his status as a moral actor.
It is possible to imagine how a conversation might go between the U.S. and Iran. But what possible conversation could we really have with Hamas? "You die." "No, you die." "No, seriously, you die. We kill you. We kill your friends. Time for you to die. Ha ha ha." "Um ..."
- rhubarbs
April 11, 2008 at 3:49pm
there is also honest abe jimmy carter who will talk to whomever he pleases given his status in the world. of course, candidates have to be careful with their constituencies, that is a given. the jewish lobby is powerful as is many other such ethnic lobbies. remember the cold war lobbyists who followed every turn in policy. i am not necessarily a big supporter of israeli politics, but i dont hold obamas stand against him. he stood up for wrightwhy not for olmert as well.
- check
April 11, 2008 at 4:00pm
Chait, you read my mind. I was literally 30 seconds ago reading an article about Carter's visit to Hamas and Obama saying he would not meet with them personally. I was thinking to myself, "Is this an inconsistency in Obama's foreign policy? Is he posturing for Jewish support? Let's see what TNR says." So I come here and, bam, first item on The Plank.
I now know that my obsession with TNR has reached the "unhealthy" level.
"We can negotiate with our own enemies at our own risk. To negotiate with the enemy of an ally is to undercut your ally."
Hear, hear.
- rozenson
April 11, 2008 at 4:14pm
Chait, I wish you were on MSNBC to debate Tucker.
- ralphnelle
April 11, 2008 at 4:15pm
Yes, yes, fine distinction and all that ... but there is Hamas the terrorist group, and there is Hamas the one-time elected government of the Palestinian Authority. The distinction makes sense so long as Hamas is outside government. When it becomes the government through elections that we consider reasonably fair (for the region ...) then the question of negotiating or not negotiating becomes somewhat murkier.
There are lots of governments that sponsor terrorism; some who practice it, often on their people but sometimes on others. We eventually negotiated with Lybia, even as it accepted direct responsibility for terrorist acts. So to make a blanket statement about not negotiating with a political entity appears to me somewhat difficult to accept, even on this fine distinction.
Now, just to clarify, I don't think we ought to negotiate with Hamas - but that is because I view the process of negotiations the way Rhubarbs does: what do they have that we want? Lybia and Iran, or Syria for that matter, are terrorist states, but they have things we want and we could negotiate to get them. Hamas - Israel has things Hamas wants, assuming Hamas is willing to give them. The rest of us, not sure.
- icarusr
April 11, 2008 at 4:48pm
**I mean, Hamas has things that Israel wants ... PREVIEW FUNCTION, PLEASE.
- icarusr
April 11, 2008 at 5:15pm
Unsurprisingly, yet another intellectually dishonest post in The New Republic about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Jonathan Chait suggests implicitly that we should not talk to Hamas because it is a terrorist organization. In doing so Chait conveneniently forgets the most important reason why we should talk to Hamas - that it won the last Palestinian election and currently controls the Gaza Strip.
The people who oppose talking to Hamas because it is a terrorist organization, while ignoring that it is the dominant force in Palestinian politics, are the people who do not want a solution to the Israeli-Palestiian conflict. They may pretend otherwise but it is people like Jonathan Chait and magazines like The New Republic which, through their distortions and apoligies, have perpetuated this conflict and allowed the Israeli terrorism of the Palestinian people to continue for four decades.
- ndmackenzie
April 11, 2008 at 5:20pm
The idea that there is "nothing to talk about" with Hamas is sufficiently ingrained in the soul of The New Republic writer that not one of them has bothered to bring up recent comments by Khaled Mashal, the Hamas chief in exile in Damascus. It is far more convenient to parrot the old line that "Hamas is committed to Israel's destruction."
So just what is Khaled Mashal saying these days? Well, you won't find the answer here but fortunately the blogosphere has more honest publications like TPM Cafe and The American Prospect. (The rest of this post is crossposted from The Spine)
Over on TPM Cafe, Daniel Levy has a post on Khaled Mashal under the heading "Israel and Hamas Test the Waters?"
-- Interesting noises have been coming recently from the leader of the Hamas political bureau, Khaled Mashal, and the Israeli Minister of Defense Ehud Barak. Looking at what they both said in relatively quick succession, one might even be tempted to draw the inference that perhaps this was coordinated and that something is cooking here. Khaled Mashal gave an interview to the Palestinian daily al-Ayyam that appeared on April 2nd (I know, I know, we have to listen to what Palestinian leaders tell their own public in their own language, and not - wait a minute, this was in their own language. This was an interview in Arabic in a Palestinian paper. I guess people will now say you have to start listening to what they say in Yiddish). Being serious again, Mashal in this interview explicitly endorses a Palestinian state within the ’67 borders, he in effect accepts the Arab initiative and reiterates Hamas support for the previous agreements reached with Fatah and the Palestinian national platform (the ‘Prisoners’ Documents’ and Mecca Agreement).
tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/.../israel_and_hamas_test_the_wate
Gershom Gorenberg, of The American Prospect, has a story titled "Hamas: A Silent Partner for Peace?" also brings up this interview:
-- What would happen if Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal gave an interview and nearly no one in the West listened? Well then, it would be possible for the Israeli government and the Bush administration to continue with dead-end policies for dealing with the Islamic movement that rules Gaza, without anyone asking questions about failed strategic assumptions.
-- Meshaal is the Damascus-based head of Hamas' political bureau, its main leadership body. While his precise relationship with the head of the Hamas government in Gaza, Ismail Haniyeh, is unclear, Meshaal is normally described as Hamas' leader. Last week he gave an interview to Al-Ayyam, a pro-Fatah Palestinian daily. In it, he stressed that he's still committed to the Palestinian unity agreements of 2006, the basis for last year's short-lived Hamas-Fatah power-sharing deal in the Palestinian Authority. He reiterated that he would accept a Palestinian state based on the pre-1967 boundaries -- that is, alongside Israel, not in place of it -- though without any commitment to recognize Israel formally.
-- Put differently, Meshaal was saying that his organization is willing to accept the reality of Israel, even if it is not happy about doing so. He's ready for Hamas to rejoin a unity government with Fatah -- reuniting Gaza and the West Bank -- and to be a silent partner while Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas of Fatah negotiates peace. He has not become a dove, but he is sidling his way toward being a pragmatic hawk. At the least, Meshaal's stance is reason for his adversaries to weigh a renewal of Palestinian unity as an alternative to siege of Gaza.
-- The Meshaal interview got brief coverage in the Israeli daily Ha'aretz, and was picked up by an Italian news agency. In English language press it was barely covered. That's a shame. Asked by Al-Ayyam reporter Abdelrayuf Arnaout if Hamas sought to eradicate Israel, Meshaal answered: "We are committed to the political platform on which we agreed with the other Palestinian forces and in convergence with the Arab position" - meaning the Arab League proposal for full peace with Israel, based on the pre-1967 lines. "All the international parties," Meshaal said, should treat this as the Hamas position, and not "search in the minds of peoples" for their feelings.
www.prospect.org/.../articles
(Gershom Gorenberg also co-hosts a blog named South Jerusalem at: http://southjerusalem.com/)
- ndmackenzie
April 11, 2008 at 5:29pm
Yes, Khaled Meshaal, after all these years, has seen the light. 1967 borders? No problem! It's almost as complete a transformation as Arafat's! Why don't we trust people like Meshaal more often? Must be the Israel lobby.
- rozenson
April 11, 2008 at 5:49pm
ndmackenzie: Two things. First, and frankly, I think you would be more persuasive if you insulted the writers and the readers less. None of the subscribers want to hear that they are paying for an unthinking, ideological newspaper, and most people here, while of course they have their own ideological viewpoints, are relatively well-edcuated and usually open to civilised discourse.
If you want to insult, go the Spine, or wait for a Kirchik post.
Second, as I noted, I think with Hamas in government, the situation is complicated. BUT, Meshaal is not and was not the head of the Hamas government. Moreover - and I hate to say this - I think we are also talking about the need for a certain level of trust that is simply not here. In Islam, there is a principle called "taghiya". Under this principle, a Muslim is permitted to lie (especially to infidels) to save his life, or to advance the interests of Islam. This is how the Ayatollah Khomeini publicly declared to the world media, in 1978, that he would never advocate a government run by the mullahs, and only a year later, established a government run by the mullahs. "Taghiya" - dissembling for Islam. So even if Meshaal says he is going to recognise Israel, I would wonder: is it what he means to do, is this taghiya?
- icarusr
April 11, 2008 at 6:11pm
icarusr -
I have news for you - on matters relating to Israel The New Republic IS an unthinking, ideological newspaper.
The suggestion about Muslims and lies would be anti-semitic were it made about Jews and should have no place in this discussion.
Furthermore, the best way to find out precisely what Khaled Meshaal meant by his comments would be to talk to him - again and again, if necessary. But we can't do that because we won't talk to Hamas.
- ndmackenzie
April 11, 2008 at 6:25pm
rozenson said:
-- Yes, Khaled Meshaal, after all these years, has seen the light. 1967 borders? No problem! It's almost as complete a transformation as Arafat's! Why don't we trust people like Meshaal more often? Must be the Israel lobby.
Joseph Heller wrote:
-- There was only one catch and that was Catch-22, which specified that a concern for one's safety in the face of dangers that were real and immediate was the process of a rational mind. Orr was crazy and could be grounded. All he had to do was ask; and as soon as he did, he would no longer be crazy and would have to fly more missions. Orr would be crazy to fly more missions and sane if he didn't, but if he was sane he had to fly them. If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this clause of Catch-22 and let out a respectful whistle.
-- "That's some catch, that Catch-22," Yossarian observed.
-- "It's the best there is," Doc Daneeka agreed.
So we can't talk to Hamas because we don't like what they used to say. And we can't talk to Hamas even if they say things we want to hear because we don't like what they used to say. There is only one reason we don't talk to Hamas and that is because we don't want a solution.
- ndmackenzie
April 11, 2008 at 6:31pm
ndmackenzie: If in Judaism there were a principle similar to "taghiya", I would make the same observation.
I strongly suggest you read you read the statements of the Ayatollahs Khaz'ali and Mesbah, the religious leaders of Iran's conservative faction, as well as official statement of the Ayatollah Jannati, the Secretary of Iran's Guardian Council, and the Ayatollah Yazi, former head of Iran's judiciary, about the nature of Iran's Islamic Republic. Every time there is talk of the promises made by the Ayatollah Khomeini at the begining of the revolution, the answer is "taghiya". These are official religious fatwas and statements by high judiciary officials in the region's sole theorcracy.
On taghiya, I'm on firm ground, and so going the "if this were said about the Jews, it would be anti-Semitism" route is the same sort of crass insult that Kirchik and Peretz dispense and that you dislike.
"We" don't have to talk to Hamas to find out if Meshaal is for real. For one thing, "we" talked to Arafat in 2000 and he spat in our face. "We" constantly talk to Abbas and all we get is Right of Return. The EU talks to Hamas; Carter talks to Hamas; the day Hamas puts down the arms, stops firing missiles into Israel, and recognises Israel's existence, Israel will talk to Hamas. I am not sure, pace Rhubarbs, what "we" have to gain by talking to Hamas.
- icarusr
April 11, 2008 at 6:42pm
nd: your analogy to Catch-22 is inexact, to say the least.
Hamas says, "I want to kill you", and lobs missiles into my backyard. I believe what it says and act on it.
Hamas says, "I don't want to kill you any longer", and lobs longer-range missiles farther afield into a city, I have the right to be sceptical about their true intentions.
As a sage once observed, if Hamas lays down its arms, there will be peace in the region. If Israel lays down its arms, it will no longer exist. The nature of the dialogue we ought to have with Hamas must necessarily be guided by this simple existential consideration.
- icarusr
April 11, 2008 at 6:59pm
Mr Chait is so biased in favor of Obama that he is blind to the obvious. So Obama is against negotiating with terrorists? How convenient to leave out the fact that he is enthusiastic about meeting with the terror master of Iran. Then why not Hamas? After all, they both openly have said that they want to destroy a sovereign state, namely Israel.
- hsaper7
April 11, 2008 at 7:19pm
Poor Jonathan Chait,
He looks so silly trying to defend undependable.
First of all, the issue is not negotiating with enemies. Bush administration directly or indirectly negotiates with Iran. Israel directly or indirectly negotiates with Hamas and Syria.
However Obama has committed himself not just to negotiations with Iran but to a summit with worst dictators during his first year in the office.
So what the reason to have a summit with president of Iran but not with the leader of Hamas?
According to Chait, "Now, it's true that Hamas is not committed to the destruction of the United States. But it is committed to Israel's destruction. And Israel is our ally" Well, Iran is committed to Israel's destruction. Iran is the main enemy of Israel. According to Chait, "to negotiate with the enemy of an ally is to undercut your ally." So how Chait can approve not only negotiations with Iran, but Obama's commitment to a summit with the president of Iran.
Personally I think that negotiations with Iran, Syria and Hamas behind the scene is the must.
Commitment to a summits with red carpet, photo ops , join press conference and so on at this point is most foolish idea ever proposed. However Obama himself and his supporters continue to defend this stupid idea.
- jacobt1
April 11, 2008 at 8:42pm
Of course, the ONLY reason he could have changed his position is because of the Israel lobby - there's no possibility that it's because he's a politician and will say ANYTHING to anyone to get a vote or three...
Klein is a big fool...
- rob3liss
April 11, 2008 at 9:02pm
Thank you Icarusr for your cogent arguments put in a civilized fashion.
NRmackenzie... I for one find you totally unpersuasive since you and jackson just seem to fly of the handle and insult people as a way of trying, I emphasize TRYING to make your points.
The Left have been enablers of Palestinian terrorism for years. Had they not done so, there would have been a two state or a single state solution long ago ... and in time it would have gone the way of South Africa... but as Abba Ebban said long ago... The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity... and folks like you Ndmackenzie just help them do it repeatedly.
- Annabella2
April 11, 2008 at 10:16pm
Of course he is a puppet of the Israeli Lobby. Anyone who agrees with Israel on anything is a puppet of the Israeli Lobby. Just like we know that Bush/Chaney/Rumsfeld were also puppets of the Israeli Lobby which took over their minds... oh no, that was the neo-cons, wasn't it? Never mind. Same thing. We all know that everyone is always controlled by the Israeli Lobby even if they do something stupid, like invading Iraq, when Israel warns us not to do that...Because the Israeli Lobby is all powerful and controls everything. In fact all politicians are robots, controlled by the Israeli Lobby. Amen!
- Annabella2
April 11, 2008 at 10:20pm
Damned if you do, damned if you don't:
www.barackobama.com/.../IsraelFactSheet.pdf
--
- dannyc
April 11, 2008 at 10:30pm
Annabella2 -
Thankyou for your advice but I never take advice from people who write tripe like:
-- The Left have been enablers of Palestinian terrorism for years.
This tripe typifies the intellectual dishonesty of the self-described "friends of Israel" who, by their encouragement of the Israeli subjugation of the Palestinian people, are in fact the enemies both of Israel and World Jewry.
This intellectual dishonesty is pervasive at The New Republic. Jonathan Chait is a Senior Editor at this magazine and he knows damn fine that the magazine is dishonest in its views of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict yet he pretends that it is not - as do all the writers at the magazine. it is precisely this intellectual dishonesty that has allowed Israel to perpetuate this conflict for six decades. It is not that Palestinians never miss an opportunity to end the conflict it is that Israel has never missed an opportunity to continue the conflict.
- ndmackenzie
April 11, 2008 at 11:24pm
Annabella - thanks.
ndmackenzie: do you have any other mode of discourse than insult, attack and snark?
Perpetuate the conflict for "sex decades"? Hmmm, let me see, 2008 - 60 = 1948. Israeli "subjugation of the Palestinian people"? So I gather you object to the initial creation of Israel as the "subjugation" of the Palestinians. At least we have it out in the open. You do not think Israel has a right to exist; you think Israel is illegitimate from the get go.
So let's set aside this pretence of "intellectual honesty". This is an ideological problem, not an intellectual one. And if there is any dishonesty, it is in the person who means something, but masks it in insults and snide remarks.
Now that we know where you are coming from, let's agree to disagree.
- icarusr
April 12, 2008 at 12:55am
Obama is being disingenous. His hypocrisy and dishonesty is rampant. He presents a pleasant persona but below the surface is the real Barak Obama. Anyone who believes him is a dupe. He is the blank slate everyone projects their own interests upon. If the responses here weren't a good enough example, what could be.
Jimmy Carter endorsed Barak Obama. Jimmy Carter is visiting Khalid Mashaal in Syria. Barak can say he isn't going to talk to Hamas and be honest while sending someone else to do it for him. Of course he would talk to Hamas. He believes the Israeli policy is unbalanced. How else could he rebalance it?
My experience at TNR and the comments by self-important no-nothings here represents well that we are living in the dark ages. Economically they are approaching. But selfish self interest represents itself here too, with ridiculious words that are written for their own sake, meaning nothing, insignificant to say the least, damaging in their emptiness.
Anybody that would vote for Obama is dumb as hell.
- ponty
April 12, 2008 at 2:26am
Thanks to Icarusr for the usual high-level performance.
Annabella--I agree with you in general, but realistically it's not just "leftists" who have kept this conflict going artificially. Pat Buchanan and his ilk are as wacky on the issue as people like mackenzie, and perhaps the most powerful influence in this regard has been conservative Arab states like Saudi Arabia. The "Palestinians" have been warehoused like livestock in the Arab world since 1948 for use as bargaining chips, cheap labor, and terrorist recruits. In the real world, if you launch an unprovoked war of aggression against a generally-recognized state and lose, there are Serious Consequences. Just ask the millions of Germans expelled from Central and Eastern Europe around the same time. Any discussion of a "right of return" among the additional millions of Poles, Balts, Ukrainians, etc. who were surely as innocent as any Arab refugee and more so than most , was likely to result in a one-way ticket to Siberia or a bullet in the neck. It's because of the unholy alliance of several interests that Arabs have come to expect a special kind of "justice" unavailable to any other group in history.
Finally, I have to say that Chait deserves great credit for aptly defining the "...common tic of lefty foreign policy types." But it's bigger than just blaming the Israel Lobby. Lot's of lefties including Chait himself on occasion, seem to imagine for the same narcissistic reason that people like Clinton, Leiberman, Biden et al couldn't possibly have voted for the liberation of Iraq for any but the most cynical and callous reasons including, but not limited to, the sneaky Jews.
- Robert Powell
April 12, 2008 at 5:40am
Anabella.
you and others here are learning the hard way that there is no talking to mackenzie on Jewish issues since his antisemitism guides his every thought.
He tries to hide it by quoting (hiding behind) brain dead "Jewish" bloggers like Ezra Klein.
In any case, now you know why the Spine is so full of vitriol.
If mackenzie were to go away the level of vitriol would go down to almost zero. He will not go away though he is on some kind of an anti-Zionist mission and like an obsessed antisemite start barking any time the work Israel or Jews comes up on his screen.
On the level of content almost everything he says makes no sense so it's useless to debate with him.
- jacksondyer
April 12, 2008 at 6:26am
"Jimmy Carter endorsed Barak Obama. Jimmy Carter is visiting Khalid Mashaal in Syria. Barak can say he isn't going to talk to Hamas and be honest while sending someone else to do it for him. Of course he would talk to Hamas. He believes the Israeli policy is unbalanced. How else could he rebalance it?" Pony
Ponty, while I am no supported of Obama (Hillary is my first choice) I don’t believe that he is anti-Israel. (One would have to believe in the notion of a “Manchurian candidate” to think that he was.) There are other more rational reasons not to support his candidacy: experiences as well as a lack of knowledge on how he would govern are at the forefront for me. In another four, or eight years I might support him if he shows himself to be a capable leader in the Senate.
In any case your assertion above is logically indefensible. Obama is not Carter and unless you prove of a causal connection between Carter's endorsement and Obama's view, there is no reason to believe Carter endorsed him because they agree on Middle Eastern policy.
I tend to think that like that of a lot of people including Martin Peretz the Obama endorsement has more to do with a hatred for Hillary than on policy issues.
- jacksondyer
April 12, 2008 at 6:41am
What a reasonable post Jackson. I always think Obama would do really well in dealing with Israel, simply because of his refusal to dance and pander. He treats people with respect by doing that, don't you think? I think having Richardson around would be good for him, take some of his edge off. He can be a bit too honest - even tactless - at times. It bugs me less than Hillary's infuriating carefullness, but I do know it's not a great trait.
I had dinner with Hillary supporting friends last night and it was such a relief. We all got to put down our guns for the night (at my defensive insistence) and we said all sorts of nice things about each others candidate and meant it. I realized that the web makes people monsters (everyone except me. Not).
I realized I didn't frigging care about Tuzla or Ireland, they were just cudgels, mistakes the only side made. They realized that they could care less about angry black preachers.
I know Hillary would do a fine job. I didn't start out supporting Obama because of Hillary hatred - I was a big defender of hers before this election (ask Channy or some of the other posters how huffy I was about Hillary - even Marty, who I beat with a shoe for it). I wanted Obama to be President fro the first time I layed eyes on him and haven't felt a bit different since, flaws and all - a real kool-aider I guess. Her kitchen sinking it totally aliented me. I'd vote for her, but Ill never like or trust her again. But eh? Who needs to like or trust a President, I just have to know that we're safe and there's a steady hand and that's it. I know I'd have that with her.
- Wandreycer1
April 12, 2008 at 8:15am
On today's news, Obama was asked his opinion about Carter's visit with Mashaal, and he said that carter can meet with whomever he wants but personally, he, Obama wouldn't meet with him. Exactly what I said.
Obama is supported by arab-americans and the palestinians. Why is that I wonder? He doesnt have to be a Manchurian candidate or a person pretends to know. We dont know anything about Obama and anyone who votes for him is voting against Bush and for only that reason. He is the anti-Bush but nobody knows who theyre really getting. Just because hes the opposite could mean he is the mirror image of Bush, equally out to lunch and deluded with personal identity issues and dishonesty. I think Obama has contempt for everyone and I wonder where all the money his campaign has collected has come from. I hope somebody investigates this, because if he is representing the lower classes, who is donating the millions. I suspect it is arab money.
- ponty
April 12, 2008 at 8:52am
Wandreycer1, you are right that not every supporter of Obama is a Hillary hater, but lots of supporters are.
In any case, I can't bring myself to vote for President for anyone who has as little experience as he does. For the legislature definitely, for Governor, maybe, but not for the Presidency.
I just voted for Deval Patrick whose record was also pretty thin. Well, so far his accomplishments are zero and he has become one of the least respected Governors in the State’s history. His negatives are comparable to that of Bush. Many former supporters are trashing him daily.
Deval has a similar style to that of Barack (they also share campaign slogans--but that is trivial), each offered us hope and each talked about the need to unify and talk. So far Deval has tried to introduce casino gambling as a solution to our fiscal crisis here in Mass. This, instead of raising taxes or cutting costs (I prefer both).
What would be the equivalence of casinos on the national scene?
Slogans are comforting, but it doesn't balance the budget or protect us from our enemies.
- jacksondyer
April 12, 2008 at 8:57am
Ponty - if there is one thing that this election cycle has shown, it is that every single detail of Obama's life is going to be scrutinised for nefarious connections.
If there had been any "Arab" money- in the sense of money from Arab states, as in, allies of the United States, as in the same states that contribute mightily to the Presidential Libraries of the Bush family - in Obama's campaign, rest assured that Mark Penn would have found it.
As to Obama's relationship with Carter ... well, a friend of mine met Arafat. No doubt, in your book, that makes me a terrorist. More to the point, Arab Americans and Palestinian Americans support Obama - if they do - because he, unlike many Republicans, unlike McCain, would have difficulty telling Sunnis from Shi'a, Persians from Arabs, Iran from Iraq ... US policy on Israel is a matter of national consensus; it is not something a "Riyadh" Candidate is likely to be able to change.
- icarusr
April 12, 2008 at 11:53am
There is absolutely no doubt that jacksondyer is personally responsible for the vitriol on The Spine. He routinely makes one-third to one-half of all the posts there and is personally responsible for ALL the foul language in the threads. On one recent thread jacksondyer made 42 comments on a thread with 113 comments. In these comments jacksondyer used the following words and phrases:
Jew hater
hater of Israel
hater of Israel
brain dead Swiss
Jew haters
Nazi
asshole
ignobigot
fuck
nazi prick
Nazi
stupid Jew's
Jew hater
Ignobigot
Israel haters
vile and lying bigot
Now that is what I call vitriol.
The vitriol on The Spine is completely the responsibility of jacksondyer. He has tried to capture the threads there as his personal blog - as evidenced by the extremely high percentage of the posts he makes there. The Spine and The New Republic will be better off when jacksondyer gets his own blog.
- ndmackenzie
April 12, 2008 at 1:28pm
Ezra Klein responds:
-- Man, I remember last time Jon Chait was talking about "lefty foreign policy types," he was hating on them for opposing the Iraq War. Now it's just for thinking that the attitudes of politicians towards negotiations with Hamas might possibly be influenced by the coalition of loud, politically aggressive, enormously well-funded interest groups that organize around this issue.
-- On a slightly more constructive note, I agree with Matt [Yglesias] that you don't need to negotiate with Hamas per se. But you need to push Israel to do so, and be willing to host or otherwise involve yourself in multilateral negotiations with Hamas. Put another way, our constant attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the legitimately elected government of Palestine don't make any sense.
www.prospect.org/.../ezraklein_archive
- ndmackenzie
April 12, 2008 at 2:01pm
Jesus Christ nd ... "he started it in the Spine, so I continue on here" - is that the best you can do?
If you are so exercised by the Spine, don't go there. Most TNR readers don't.
- icarusr
April 12, 2008 at 7:22pm
Israel should negotiate with Hamas? I don't think so. Why should Jews negotiate with people who are bent on a second Holocaust? Hamas are terrorists with swastikas where normal human being have a heart. What Israeli should do with Hamas is the same as the allies did to the Nazis in World War II.
What liberals like Ezra Klein and Matthew Yglesias fail to understand is that there is such a thing as evil in this world, and that there it cannot be appeased. Our experience with Nazism and Communism should have taught them better. Along with the mystery of evil, there is the mystery of human stupidity.
- bulbman1066
April 13, 2008 at 2:12am
As for "the legitimately elected government of Palestine", let me remind the reader that Hitler was legally elected. Does that mean that it was wise to try to appease the Nazis at the Munich conference? The "Palestinian” cause is to drive the Jews into the sea. The Jewish cause is to survive and continue the existence of the only democratic country in the region, the country where Arabs have far more rights than they do in any of the squalid Arab dictatorships that surround Israel and threaten her with annihilation.
There were lots of people like Ezra Kleins and Matthew Yglesias around in the years before and even during World War II. Their role in enabling the Nazi genocide is history.
- bulbman1066
April 13, 2008 at 4:47am
Jews should negotiate with terrorists who have swastikas for hearts because they could probably out-negotiate them, Bulbman.
Yglesias basically comes down on your side here. For me, negotiations in general are a low-cost operation. If you know what you're doing, you should get more than you give. I'm quite happy with engaging legitimately elected governments, including that of Gaza. If the Pals are allowed to experience the real-world consequences of electing a terrorist government, they probably won't do it again.
Regards, Bob
- Robert Powell
April 13, 2008 at 6:26am
Bilbman: I think there ought to be a moratorium on using Hitler and Munich as analogies for "peace through strength" - or worse, "peace through menacing sabre rattling" - arguments.
Some basic facts:
1. Hitler was democratically elected, but he burned down the Reichstag after coming to power, and soon after that, he undermined the German Republic, asking personal fealty on the part of his army and his functionaries. His "democratic" credentials in 1933 were sound; by 1934, they were not. But because Hitler subverted the German Republic, it does not mean that the United States, or Israel, or Germany, or Iran, may question the legitimacy of any and all governments of which they disapprove or whose policies they do not like.
2. To "negotiate" is not to "appease". To suggest that each time you negotiate, you are "appeasing" the other side like Munich, may not be done, to borrow a phrase from Churchill, without some risk of terminological inexactitude.
3. In 1939, Germany had 150 divisions, including the most advance tank divisions in Europe. The French and the English combined had as many divisions under arms, except that the Brits were stuck in an Island and the French were behind the Maginot lines. Both the Brits and the French were suffering from serious defencive strategic misapprehensions, while Hitler's army - the result of the professionalisation of the German army after Versailles - was supple, innovative and energetic. Israel and Hamas? Let's see. Israel sits on top of one of the most formidable nuclear arsenals in the world, not to mention one of the best trained armies. Led by donkeys, of course, in the Lebanon adventure, but the essence of the Israeli army is innovation and energy. Hamas? Hamas plus Syria? Hamas plus whatever? And you compare Israelis negotiating with Hamas to Chamberlain appeasing Hitler in Munich? A sense of proportion would be called for here.
What's the alternative? For Israel to push the Palestinians into the sea?
- icarusr
April 13, 2008 at 12:11pm
Bob,
I'm all for negotiation. As Winston Churchill said, "Jaw-jaw is better than war-war". But it takes two (at least) to negotiate. What evidence is their of any willingness to negotiate on Hamas' part? Their platform of destroying Israel is a non-starter.
If Hamas recognizes the state of Israel and stops violence against its citizens then they can be invited to negotiate. Otherwise Israel has no choice to but to practice the most basic of human rights, the right of self-defense.
- bulbman1066
April 13, 2008 at 12:43pm
"Ezra Klein responds:
-- Man, I remember last time Jon Chait was talking about "lefty foreign policy types," he was hating on them for opposing the Iraq War. Now it's just for thinking that the attitudes of politicians towards negotiations with Hamas might possibly be influenced by the coalition of loud, politically aggressive, enormously well-funded interest groups that organize around this issue.
-- On a slightly more constructive note, I agree with Matt [Yglesias] that you don't need to negotiate with Hamas per se. But you need to push Israel to do so, and be willing to host or otherwise involve yourself in multilateral negotiations with Hamas. Put another way, our constant attempts to undermine the legitimacy of the legitimately elected government of Palestine don't make any sense."
twit!
- tomeg
April 13, 2008 at 3:42pm
Reply to Ezra Klein: when are go going to put your body where your mouth is, strap yourself with explosives and blow up a Jewish day care center? Think of the admiration your “martyrdom" would earn from the Palestinians, and from the left in the US and all over the world.
Some years ago a group of German leftists went to the Palestinian territories to join the fight against Israel. When they got there they were shocked to find that a bunch of German Nazis had preceded them in the camp. That little anecdote should tell something to even the most dull-witted liberal or the most self-hating Jew.
- bulbman1066
April 14, 2008 at 1:10am
Spencer Ackerman enters the fray on his new Attackerman blog:
-- And look: the politics of talking about Israel on the campaign trail are much different than talking about any other country. That’s all Ezra is saying. Nowhere in his post does he ever suggest, contra Jon’s headline, that Obama is a “puppet of the Israel lobby.” It is, however, a plausible reading on Ezra’s part — absent, admittedly, any reporting from either Ezra, Jon or myself — that Obama might have decided the domestic political risks of coming out for negotiations with Hamas outweigh the benefits. Jon, do you really find this implausible?
thinkprogress.org/.../obamaezrachait
- ndmackenzie
April 14, 2008 at 12:22pm
For Carter's meeting with Hamas. And vis a vis in the debate about whom it's kosher (so to speak
- Anonymous
April 16, 2008 at 4:46pm