THE PLANK MAY 16, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Josh wrote earlier about Jamie Rubin's Washington Post op-ed today alleging John McCain's "Hypocrisy on Hamas" (bigger news, I think, is that a ruthless Clinton hack like Rubin is now going to the barricades for Obama). Both Josh and Rubin take McCain's assertion that "sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them" as evidence that McCain has "flip-flopped' on the question of negotiations with Hamas. Not only is that pretty thin gruel, it also ignores what McCain has been saying all along. Here's a video of another interview McCain gave that same exact day:
"Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel. Then we can do business again, we can resume aid, we can resume the peace process. It’s very, very important though that they renounce this commitment.”
McCain's position was the same then as it was now: when Hamas renounces terrorism and recognizies the legitimacy of the state of Israel, then "we can do business again." Josh writes, "Here's hoping someone in the intrepid press corps will ask McCain to explain what he meant back then, and why he's apparently changed his tune." This wasn't particularly intrepid on my part, but I think this puts the issue to rest.
--James Kirchick
10 comments
"Well, hopefully, that Hitler now that he is going to govern Czechoslovakia as well as Germany and Austria, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Poland. Then we can do business again, we can resume the peace process. It’s very, very important though that they renounce this commitment.”
Why does it seem that, if you saw a quote like that come from an Engilsh or French politician in 1939, we would all shake our heads and wonder what a fool he was to hold such beliefs??
- wildboy
May 16, 2008 at 5:47pm
"but I think this puts the issue to rest." So sayeth the Lord james Kirchick. Your original rant criticized Obama for being willing to negotiate with Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, etc. but not Hamas. To quote you: "The terrorist group, after all, was legitimately elected by the Palestinian people. That "Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization" should make little difference to Obama; Iran, North Korea and Syria are all designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terror."
Ultimately, I have no idea what the hell you want. No negotiations ever with anyone, except, that is when they already agree with everything you say? How stupid of an ass are you?
Bush negotiated with North Korea (did you ever hear of the six party talks you, ignorant toad?) And it was only as a result of "appeasing" North Korea (and to a lesser extent China) that we have seen one of the few cases of verifiable success within the Bush administration. I am certain that Bush's going to china for the Olympics, in spite of the recent repression in Tibet, is as a form of payoff for chinese cooperation in pressuring North Korea.
The other area of Bush success was in Libya, negotiations were made and the Libyans stopped the nuclear weapons program. Why the hell have you not listed them? Ooops, best to ignore it since it doesn't fit into your pathetic whiny narrative. So it is ok if Bush negotiates with terror states, and be successful at it, but not a Democrat ever?
As to Hamas, Obama's position is the same as McCain's. In addition he said he would only negotiate with them at the behest of the Israelis. I don't see McCain making that statement.
I wish TNR gave you your own blog away from the rational ones.
- blackton
May 16, 2008 at 5:47pm
But hey, Jamie, you're right that this wasn't intrepid on your part. First time you've been right about something since, what ... Ron Paul?
- WoodyBombay
May 16, 2008 at 6:12pm
But James, if Hamas does not renounce terrorism , how do you square that with "sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them"? In your eagerness to square McCain's statements, you apparently overlooked this point. You are correct, that is not intrepid at all.
- liberal reformer
May 16, 2008 at 6:24pm
Added to my list of worn-out phrases: "thin gruel." The word "gruel" is too good, too tasty, too Anglo-Saxon to waste on a cliché. Henceforth, I hereby officially declare, any sentence that includes the phrase "thin gruel" is itself thin gruel.
- Nippers
May 16, 2008 at 6:38pm
James, let me pause to compliment you on yet another reasonably well-written, cogent post. Again, I think the conclusion you've drawn is laughably wrong and deserving of much scorn (see below), but this is a good Plank post nonetheless. Kudos, and thank you for putting more effort and care into your craftsmanship this week.
But you quote McCain saying, "Well, hopefully, that Hamas now that they are going to govern, will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of the state of Israel."
Ahem. I hate this kind of counterfactual argument, but what the hell: You and I both know that if Jimmy Carter or Barack Obama had said of Hamas, "Hopefully, now that they are going to govern, they will be motivated to renounce this commitment to the extinction of Israel," you would have denounced it as criminally dangerous naivete. Which it is. What kind of idiot would expect achieving power to make a terrorist group less violent and more civilized? And, what do you know, instead of embracing peace and philo-semitism, after achieving power, Hamas became more violent, launched a new wave of anti-Israeli terror, and staged a coup d'etat against the Palestinian state.
It has been alleged that McCain was actually in favor of engaging with Hamas before he was against engaging Hamas, which contrasts poorly with Obama's steadfast opposition to engaging Hamas. In defense of McCain, Kirchick offers this quote, in which McCain comes out against talking with Hamas but in favor of giving Hamas political power in hopes that giving Hamas the power it seeks will magically transform the worst antisemitic terrorists into Jew-loving democrats.
That theory is nothing more or less than appeasement. It is giving an enemy what he wants in the hopes that his behavior will change once his appetite is sated. And it is exactly the thinking that led the Bush administration -- over strong Israeli objections! -- to insist on allowing Hamas to participate in Palestinian elections without renouncing violence or recognizing Israel's right to exist.
Some defense! Thanks to Kirchick, I now understand that McCain does not want to talk to Hamas, he wants to surrender to Hamas.
Twenty points from Slytherin for scoring an own goal.
- rhubarbs
May 16, 2008 at 6:43pm
"So it is ok if Bush negotiates with terror states, and be successful at it, but not a Democrat ever?"
You've hit it, blackton. The master narrative is strong, manly, decisive, all-American Republicans vs. weak-jawed, effete, Democratic crybabies who like vacationing in France, so anything that a Republican does is by definition ok (e.g. smart use of diplomacy), whereas if a Democrat does it it's always caving, appeasement, cutting and running, and the like.
Have you not gotten it yet?
- ironyroad
May 16, 2008 at 6:48pm
Jamie thinks the quotation from McCain below puts the Hamas issue to rest. I'm not so sure. In his
- Anonymous
May 16, 2008 at 7:00pm
"ruthless Clinton hack"?
James Rubin?
The most articulate and intelligent State Department spokesman in a generation?
WTF? Where and why and how and when and in what respect and in which way was he ever "ruthless", other than ruthlessly exposing McCain's hypocrisy? What is your definition of a "hack"? Anyone who has ever worked for a candidate, an Administration, a President is suddenly that person's "hack"?
A question to the editors: does this idiot get paid?
- icarusr
May 16, 2008 at 7:07pm
Why is it that every time I'm three sentences into a blog entry and say to myself, "Geez, this is dumb!" it ends up being by Jamie Kirchick? Jamie is MAGIC!
- porkido
May 17, 2008 at 8:00pm