On Politics, We Can Always See the Whites of Their Eyes.
Obama's Al Arabiya Interview Annotated
by: Clyde Middleton posted: 2009-01-27 13:05:00
Viewed 845 times. 16 Comments.
UPDATE. Feb 1. The Washington Times took a week, but finally puts the interview in perspective. Worth a read.
There are a lot of news reports on Obama’s first television interview since assuming office. It was with with Hisham Melhem of the Al-Arabiya television network (based in Dubai). It happened yesterday, January 26, 2009. Rather than spend time reviewing the opinions of others, let’s reproduce the interview in full, and add our commentary. Our comments are presented in italics. Thanks to reader Magdalena for suggesting this post!
The summary? Obama sells out President Bush countless times. He gives the Arabs and Russia a place at the table. Russia? And he sends the old diplomatic code for “safe passage” across Israel. All in all, a complete clusterf----k.
Q Mr. President, thank you for this opportunity, we really appreciate it. (Stretches slightly to adjust knee pads provided by Office of POTUS-elect)
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much. (Smooooth)
Q Sir, you just met with your personal envoy to the Middle East, Senator Mitchell. Obviously, his first task is to consolidate the cease-fire. (So much for consolidation. You see the reports on the Hamas IED and Israel’s re-entry? Updates 407-8) But beyond that you've been saying that you want to pursue actively and aggressively peacemaking between the Palestinians and the Israelis. Tell us a little bit about how do you see your personal role, because, you know, if the President of the United States is not involved, nothing happens -- as the history of peacemaking shows. Will you be proposing ideas, pitching proposals, parameters, as one (One? Which “one”?) of your predecessors did? Or just urging the parties to come up with their own resolutions, as your immediate predecessor did? (Gratuitous slap at President Bush. OK. We see where this is going. Yo, Hisham, how’s them knee pads fit? You can start with this 2002 meeting with Jordan and work your own sorry ass forward. Interestingly, the link to the WH press release on this – whitehouse dot gov/news/releases/2002/08/20020801-2 dot html - has been scrubbed by Obama’s people.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think the most important thing is for the United States to get engaged right away (As opposed to our previous disengagement. Right). And George Mitchell is somebody of enormous stature. He is one of the few people who have international experience brokering peace deals. (Yes. Got the Irish to agree to continued English occupation. Failed in his last Mideast junket. 500 batting average. Better than Hillary (PBUH) who is batting a clean zero.)
And so what I told him is start by listening, because all too often the United States starts by dictating (Yes, only you know how to negotiate. How’s that asbestos doing from your freelance Zoning Officer days? A trained “agitator” now presume to tell all of us that he “understands” like no one else. Oh, puh-lease.) -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors that are involved. (“All the factors.” We don’t have perfect knowledge. We talked too much. This is going to be fun to watch. Dangerous, but fun.) So let's listen. He's going to be speaking to all the major parties involved. And he will then report back to me. (Remember when the news broke about Mitchell being approached? One of his people said it may hinge on who he reports to. Guess Hillary (PBUH) lost.) From there we will formulate a specific response.
Ultimately, we cannot tell either the Israelis or the Palestinians what's best for them. They're going to have to make some decisions. But I do believe that the moment is ripe for both sides to realize that the path that they are on is one that is not going to result in prosperity and security for their people. And that instead, it's time to return to the negotiating table. (We, Barry, never left the table. Hamas declared an end to the ceasefire and promptly opened fire)
And it's going to be difficult, it's going to take time. I don't want to prejudge many of these issues, and I want to make sure that expectations are not raised so that we think that this is going to be resolved in a few months. But if we start the steady progress on these issues, I'm absolutely confident that the United States -- working in tandem with the European Union, with Russia, with all the Arab states in the region -- I'm absolutely certain that we can make significant progress. (What a stump speech statement. Says absolutely nothing. Like putting the 3d spoon of sugar in the tea. But – wait! Who’s he going to work with to resolve this situation? Why isn’t Israel on the list? Didn’t he just say that no one can tell Israel and the Palestinians what to do? But he’s going to talk to everyone BUT them. Hunh?)
Q You've been saying essentially that we should not look at these issues -- like the Palestinian-Israeli track and separation from the border region -- you've been talking about a kind of holistic approach to the region. (Oooooh! Mmmmm. Feels sooo good! Yes, right there!! OOOHHHHH!!!!) Are we expecting a different paradigm in the sense that in the past one of the critiques -- at least from the Arab side, the Muslim side (You mean, the people that either are or fund terrorists?) -- is that everything the Americans always tested with the Israelis, if it works. Now there is an Arab peace plan, there is a regional aspect to it. And you've indicated that. Would there be any shift, a paradigm shift?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, here's what I think is important. Look at the proposal that was put forth by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia –
Q Right.
THE PRESIDENT: I might not agree with every aspect of the proposal, but it took great courage –
Q Absolutely. (Off the floor, Hisham. The camera is rolling!)
THE PRESIDENT: -- to put forward something that is as significant as that. I think that there are ideas across the region of how we might pursue peace. (Step 1: Stop funding and harboring terrorists. Step 2: Kill all terrorists. Step 3: Repeat Step 2 as often as necessary)
I do think (When Barry is nervous, he slips into passive voice. Ever notice that?) that it is impossible for us to think only in terms of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and not think in terms of what's happening with Syria or Iran or Lebanon or Afghanistan and Pakistan. These things are interrelated. (OOHHH! I am still quivering from the last time! Whew! Focus. OK. “And for my next trick, I am going to pull a rabbit out of my hat! I am going to negotiate a peace agreement for every conflict in the world all at once!) And what I've said, and I think Hillary Clinton (PBUH) has expressed this in her confirmation, is that if we are looking at the region as a whole and communicating a message to the Arab world and the Muslim world, that we are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest, then I think that we can make significant progress. (Snicker! And Russian gas interests figure in where? And Russian arms and nuke tech figures in where? And “Israel will be pushed into the sea – so says the Quran” figures in where? Are you this naïve, Barry?)
Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. (But?) They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States. (But?) And I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount. (But?) But I also believe that there are Israelis who recognize that it is important to achieve peace. They will be willing to make sacrifices if the time is appropriate and if there is serious partnership on the other side. There are people that believe in spontaneous explosion, spaceships hiding behind the moon, and that you, Barry, have even a vague clue of you are doing. So your implied point of swapping land for peace, of giving up Judea and Samaria, and giving even an inch of dirt in East Jerusalem is not going to fly. Take the Strip – never liked it anyway. End of “sacrifices.”)
And so what we want to do is to listen, set aside some of the preconceptions that have existed and have built up over the last several years. (Several years? Several? Listen, son, this war has been going on since long before Christ walked those streets. Can you say, “Hagar’s spawn”? “Several years”! You’re an idiot.) And I think if we do that, then there's a possibility at least of achieving some breakthroughs. (Meaningless statement. So over-qualified, yet, yet …. OOHHHH!!!! MMMM!!!)
Q I want to ask you about the broader Muslim world, but let me -- one final thing about the Palestinian-Israeli theater. There are many Palestinians and Israelis who are very frustrated now with the current conditions and they are losing hope, they are disillusioned, and they believe that time is running out on the two-state solution because -- mainly because of the settlement activities in Palestinian-occupied territories. (LMAO! Just spilled my coffee! F---!!! OK, focus. You’re telling me, LapBoy, that there are many Israelis that are very frustrated because they think the two-state solution is endangered by Israeli settlements in Judea and Samaria? You’re joking, right? Barry, straighten this boy out.) Will it still be possible to see a Palestinian state -- and you know the contours of it (lap, lap, lap) -- within the first Obama administration?
THE PRESIDENT: I think it is possible for us to see a Palestinian state -- I'm not going to put a time frame on it -- that is contiguous (Contiguous to what? They are two chunks here, Barry, divided by another country.), that allows freedom of movement for its people (Better not be code for “safe passage,” Barry. They can go through Lebanon. We ain’t allowing it through Israel. Been off the table forever. Oh, forgot, you don’t know diplomat code. Sorry.), that allows for trade with other countries, that allows the creation of businesses and commerce so that people have a better life.
And, look (Look at what? You see something? I didn’t see it. Oh! Smooooooth. I get it.), I think anybody who has studied the region recognizes that the situation for the ordinary Palestinian in many cases has not improved. (Talk to the Arabs. Talk to Hamas. Gee, talk to the French – they stuck them there! Is this the result of your “studies”? At where, Occidental College?) And the bottom line in all these talks and all these conversations is, is a child in the Palestinian Territories going to be better off? Do they have a future for themselves? (Apparently as a Hamas terrorist. They train ‘em young.) And is the child in Israel going to feel confident about his or her safety and security? And if we can keep our focus on making their lives better and look forward, and not simply think about all the conflicts and tragedies of the past, then I think that we have an opportunity to make real progress. (So his negotiating tact is to “focus on the children.” O.M.G. That might work when your threat is to take a landlord to the front page of the Chicago Trib, Barry, but it won’t fly in the real world.
We interrupt this transcript to bring Barry up to speed on how children are actually viewed (forgive the lack of translation sometimes – the pictures are enough then):
But it is not going to be easy, and that's why we've got George Mitchell going there. This is somebody with extraordinary patience as well as extraordinary skill, and that's what's going to be necessary.
Q Absolutely. Let me take a broader look at the whole region. You are planning to address the Muslim world in your first 100 days from a Muslim capital. And everybody is speculating about the capital. (Laughter.) If you have anything further, that would be great.
How concerned are you -- because, let me tell you, honestly, when I see certain things about America -- in some parts, I don't want to exaggerate -- there is a demonization of America.
THE PRESIDENT: Absolutely.
Q It's become like a new religion, and like a new religion it has new converts -- like a new religion has its own high priests. (No, LapBoy. Old religion – Judaism and Christianity.)
THE PRESIDENT: Right. (Wrong.)
Q It's only a religious text.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
Q And in the last -- since 9/11 and because of Iraq, that alienation is wider between the Americans and -- and in generations past, the United States was held high. It was the only Western power with no colonial legacy. (Oh – they LIKED us before 9/11? You people did that, you moron!)
THE PRESIDENT: Right. (Wrong.)
Q How concerned are you and -- because people sense that you have a different political discourse. And I think, judging by (inaudible) and Zawahiri and Osama bin Laden and all these, you know -- a chorus --
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, I noticed this. They seem nervous. (Get over yourself.)
Q They seem very nervous, exactly. Now, tell me why they should be more nervous?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think that when you look at the rhetoric that they've been using against me before I even took office --
Q I know, I know. (Lap, lap, lap)
THE PRESIDENT: -- what that tells me is that their ideas are bankrupt. There's no actions that they've taken that say a child in the Muslim world is getting a better education because of them, or has better health care because of them. (The children. It’s all about the children. You are simplistically, Barry, assigning American values to a Muslim culture. Sounds good. Doesn’t work. See video above.)
In my inauguration speech, I spoke about: You will be judged on what you've built, not what you've destroyed. And what they've been doing is destroying things. And over time, I think the Muslim world has recognized that that path is leading no place, except more death and destruction.
Now, my job is to communicate the fact that the United States has a stake in the well-being of the Muslim world, that the language we use has to be a language of respect. I have Muslim members of my family. I have lived in Muslim countries. (I am was Muslim.)
Q The largest one.
THE PRESIDENT: The largest one, Indonesia. And so what I want to communicate is the fact that in all my travels throughout the Muslim world, what I've come to understand is that regardless of your faith -- and America is a country of Muslims, Jews, Christians, non-believers -- regardless of your faith, people all have certain common hopes and common dreams. (Are those violins I hear? Who brought the band? So cool.)
And my job is to communicate to the American people that the Muslim world is filled with extraordinary people who simply want to live their lives and see their children live better lives. My job to the Muslim world is to communicate that the Americans are not your enemy. We sometimes make mistakes. (But the Muslims don’t make mistakes. They just want to live for the children. Cut me a break.) We have not been perfect. But if you look at the track record, as you say, America was not born as a colonial power, and that the same respect and partnership that America had with the Muslim world as recently as 20 or 30 years ago, there's no reason why we can't restore that. And that I think is going to be an important task. (Lemme do some math. One sec. 2009 – 20 = 1989; - 30 – 1979. So Barry is referring to when Reagan came into office. Yeah, Reagan put up with their shit, Barry. You should read more history.)
But ultimately, people are going to judge me not by my words but by my actions and my administration's actions. (Got that right.) And I think that what you will see over the next several years (Little less than 4 years, Barry.) is that I'm not going to agree with everything that some Muslim leader may say, or what's on a television station in the Arab world -- but I think that what you'll see is somebody who is listening, who is respectful, and who is trying to promote the interests not just of the United States, but also ordinary people who right now are suffering from poverty and a lack of opportunity. I want to make sure that I'm speaking to them, as well. (Sniffle! Sniffle! Oh, I’m crying! That was beautiful! Sniffle!)
Q Tell me, time is running out, any decision on from where you will be visiting the Muslim world?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm not going to break the news right here.
Q Afghanistan?
THE PRESIDENT: But maybe next time. But it is something that is going to be important. I want people to recognize, though, that we are going to be making a series of initiatives. Sending George Mitchell to the Middle East is fulfilling my campaign promise (Me, me, me. This is boring.) that we're not going to wait until the end of my administration to deal with Palestinian and Israeli peace (as W did? You POS.), we're going to start now. It may take a long time to do, but we're going to do it now. We're going to follow through on our commitment for me to address the Muslim world from a Muslim capital. We are going to follow through on many of my commitments to do a more effective job of reaching out, listening, as well as speaking to the Muslim world.
And you're going to see me following through with dealing with a drawdown of troops in Iraq, so that Iraqis can start taking more responsibility. (Already negotiated under W, son) And finally, I think you've already seen a commitment, in terms of closing Guantanamo, and making clear that even as we are decisive in going after terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians, that we're going to do so on our terms, and we're going to do so respecting the rule of law that I think makes America great.
Q President Bush framed the war on terror conceptually in a way that was very broad, "war on terror," and used sometimes certain terminology that the many people -- Islamic fascism. You've always framed it in a different way, specifically against one group called al Qaeda and their collaborators. And is this one way of –
THE PRESIDENT: I think that you're making a very important point. And that is that the language we use matters. And what we need to understand is, is that there are extremist organizations -- whether Muslim or any other faith in the past -- that will use faith as a justification for violence. We cannot paint with a broad brush a faith as a consequence of the violence that is done in that faith's name. (These two are disgusting. One frames W and the other goes along. This is worse than a college newspaper article.)
And so you will I think see our administration be very clear in distinguishing between organizations like al Qaeda -- that espouse violence, espouse terror and act on it -- and people who may disagree with my administration and certain actions, or may have a particular viewpoint in terms of how their countries should develop. We can have legitimate disagreements but still be respectful. I cannot respect terrorist organizations that would kill innocent civilians and we will hunt them down. (And then we’ll send our evidence to a Grand Jury to seek an indictment. We’ll give them legal counsel, discovery, motions, and a speedy trial. We’ll let have direct appeals and habeas appeals. In short, we’ll afford these people many of which have never set foot on American soil and were apprehended in the act of shooting at our Armed Forces, the full force and effect of the United States Constitution. Now, please stand with me as we sing our National Anthem: O Canada! Our home and native land! No wait. My country, 'tis of thee, Sweet land of liberty, Damn. Almost got it. What the fuck “’tis of thee” anyway? Don’t know what that mean. Well, screw it, you know what I wanted to sing. Hey, we gotta wrap this up. I need a smoke real bad. We on? Damn.) But to the broader Muslim world what we are going to be offering is a hand of friendship.
Q Can I end with a question on Iran and Iraq then quickly?
THE PRESIDENT: It's up to the team –
MR. GIBBS: You have 30 seconds. (Laughter.)
Q Will the United States ever live with a nuclear Iran? And if not, how far are you going in the direction of preventing it?
THE PRESIDENT: You know, I said during the campaign that it is very important for us to make sure that we are using all the tools of U.S. power, including diplomacy, in our relationship with Iran.
Now, the Iranian people are a great people, and Persian civilization is a great civilization. Iran has acted in ways that's not conducive to peace and prosperity in the region: their threats against Israel; their pursuit of a nuclear weapon which could potentially set off an arms race in the region that would make everybody less safe; their support of terrorist organizations in the past -- none of these things have been helpful. (That’s a funny way to word it – “helpful.” Let’s see if it works for him. Sounds like what my grammar-school teacher used to say, but OK.)
But I do think that it is important for us to be willing to talk to Iran, to express very clearly where our differences are, but where there are potential avenues for progress. And we will over the next several months be laying out our general framework and approach. (Time enough to bury and obfuscate. Thanks for letting Iran know how long they have.) And as I said during my inauguration speech, if countries like Iran are willing to unclench their fist, they will find an extended hand from us.
Q Shall we leave Iraq next interview, or just –
MR. GIBBS: Yes, let's -- we're past, and I got to get him back to dinner with his wife. (And we all know we don’t want the little lady getting cranky!)
Q Sir, I really appreciate it.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you so much.
Q Thanks a lot.
THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate it.
Q Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
(Whew, enough hugs at the end?)
OVERALL: At least Jimmy Carter had the decency to leave office before he turned against his country.
If you can stomach it, here's the video:
Tags: Gaza Strip, Hamas, Israel,
Related Articles
- BBC shows its ugly anti-Israel side. Again
- Hezbollah-Vatican Nexus?
- Someone spent 6 months with Ron Paul enthusiasts, and wasn't happy with what she learned
- PA's Abbas burning candle at both ends - about to get burned
Links to this post
Trackback url: http://patriotroom.com/article/obama-s-al-arabiya-interview-annotated/trackback
Comments 16
it is really similar to a self-described lofty professor. full of qualifications. suggests things, but says little. makes no hard turns.
just soft ...
Look around. It's obvious that the way things were handled during previous administrations did not work. Quit being a bigot and give the guy a chance.
a "bigot," lucy? that's kinda strong. quit being a hater.
frankly, i do not approve of the substance of his message. i think "safe passage" through israel from samaria/judea to gaza is foolish, and has never been on the table for discussion - nor should it be - nor do the israelis want it to be, and if this is obama's way of telling israel that it is on the table, then he is poor indeed in his diplomacy. if, instead, he just doesn't understand diplomatic code, then i reach the same conclusion.
i do not understand for a second why russia is at the table. they have been nothing but an arms dealer to the middle east. they are being rewarded for violating UN sanctions against such behavior?
i thoroughly condemn obama's denunciation of president bush as simple street talk. ranks right up there with his crack on nancy reagan soon after the election.
on balance, after careful consideration, i find this man to be out of his league. give him a chance? i wish him all the luck. i hope everything goes well. i hope he can find a solution. but give up more land for it? no. did you read mitchell's first report? there's a post on it here - http://patriotroom.com/article/mitchell-s-pick-can-t-sit-well-with-either-side (check the url when you click on it - some funky things been happening when clicking on url's out of comments). it threaded nothing - it was virtually all-israel - because clinton owed them after his pollard escapade. that is not broad diplomacy. and now i suspect israel to be treated exactly the opposite.
give him a chance? this article is about an interview. i think he did our country a spectacular disservice in it. i am embarrassed that our POTUS so thoroughly denounced his predecessor - it's as if he were giving a speech to an interest group. no class.
give him a chance? never said i wouldn't. but this article is not about that. nor does it make me a "bigot" for expressing a view contrary to yours.
What a silly statement. Like it is Bush's fault for the troubles between Israel and everyone else? Come on. They have had troubles for centuries. You can't blame it on one president. While I don't disagree with helping Israel, which is our ally don't forget, it is NOT up to us to come up with the solution, nor can we. We can and should help, talk with both sides as appropriate, etc. but to step up and say "this is what you will do" is just naive and arrogant.
Give him a chance to do what? If his policies will damage the economy and weaken our foreign policy (in my opinion) why would I just sit here and let him do that without any opposition? I never heard one Democrat tell his fellow Dems to give George W. Bush, or any other Republican president, a chance. Nor should they, if they have any principles.
Go Clyde!!! How you talk! We love it! You are not only educational but also fun! Have you thought of running in 2012? I think you should seriously consider! You already have your first vote. Mine! The way you work with words...the way you play the world wide web...and the way you slay the “Purvapakshin “(“the opponent”), there is nothing you can’t do! Clyde, The Dragon Slayer, 2012, here you come!!! We hope!
We love ya, Clyde!!!!
Bill Dupray - I can't agree with you there. As an Obama supporter I did want Bush to suceed, particularly on the Middle East file - why wouldn't I? Now I had my reservations as to whether I though he actually would succeed, but I think you'd have to be blindly partsan to actually want the violence in Israel to continue rather than have your political opponent actually help to forge peace. If your principles are more precious to you then innocent lives, then I'd re-check those principles. Cheers.
jeremy, i think you are unfairly tagging bill, grossly so. no one wants innocent lives lost. bill's comments are grounded in the way the dems treated W when he went to WDC - they were openly partisan and hostile, and they actively worked against him. now that it is their guy, they are all hugs and warmth and telling the pubs to act nicely. and all the while, they are not working with the pubs, instead ramming their stuff through without consultation. it is clear hypocrisy.
the political system is clearly not functioning well, and has not since at least the dems strong majorities of the 1960s. don't you remember that the dems would publish wrong committee hearing times so the pubs would show up late during the 1970s? then when the pubs took back Congress, the very first thing the dems said was - "this is not a time for retribution"?
no one wants innocent lives lost, jeremy. you should recheck your own values if you would accuse someone of that. it's not very becoming.
Hey Clyde,
In my memory Bush had fairly wide (bi-partisan) support for his initial budgets (like his tax cuts), and during the first year or so post 9/11 - at least from Democratic legislators. (I fully admit that the media gave him a rough ride).
Nontheless, my point was that there's a difference between wanting somebody to fail, and thinking they will fail. I really don't understand conservatives who want Obama to fail, and in the context of the article being commented on, it seemed to me the Bill was confusing the two (and I also disagree with those liberals who wanted Bush to fail - that position is too partisan for me).
In terms of the Middle East, only a cursory glance at the region will show that there's much to be done, and that a new approach (one stressing dialogue) is needed. I was in Pakistan when Bhutto was assasinated, and was struck by how many Pakistani's braved the very real threat for violence to publically march in favor of democratic reforms. Point being, there are many Muslims who want these reforms, and perhaps some conciliatory gestures from the US administrations might help our cause. I'm willing to admit that I could be wrong, but I'd like to see efforts made in this direction, and I certainly don't see (a la Limbaugh) any reason to desire failure. Cheers
i don't think you are wrong, jeremy, because i don't like such a word in the context of political discussion between folks like us.
do i want obama to "fail"? i think that is the key question. so let's put it in context.
i think socialism is wrong. my undergrad and initial professional life was in economics. i very much come from the school that if a man is hungry and you give a man a fish, his hunger goes away for a period - but teach him how to fish, and you have solved his dilemma. likewise, if a man is thirty and you give him a beer, his thirst goes away for a while - but show him where the beer is kept, and you have a friend for life.
we can both offer competing analyses of the New Deal and Great Society. my conclusion, perhaps driven by underlying presumptions as much as yours, is that government intervention in free markets does not solve anything and, worse, causes structural problems that take decades to work out. it scares the hell out of me when pelosi talks of nationalizing banks wholly or in part - and that is her word, not mine. back off, nancy. it is wrong, completely and utterly.
so i do hope that obama either changes his socialist focus or fails. i am not apologetic on that count.
concerning the middle east, i think it is folly to believe that muslims will change their desire to push israel into the sea. i think giving up land for peace is a sucker deal. never worked, never will. i think internationalizing the holy sites in and around jerusalem is rude. it's like saying that we have the equivalent of a national park in israel, only on a world scale government, no doubt, by the UN.
the problem is iran. that ship with dozens of tons of weapons they shipped will now go into syria. why? to what end? syria isn't at war with anyone. terrorist organizations will get those, and the target will be israel.
can obama solve this? first, he put a re-tread in charge in mitchell. his 2001 report was nothing new, and was rounding ignored by all parties. now obama drops the "safe passage" issue during an interview with arab tv. i am still choking on the dismal ignorance of that statement.
do i want him to fail in the ME? no. i want the fighting to stop, but i have no illusions. israel started nothing, they just absorbed beyond what any country would absorb, and finally reacted. the problem is iran and the groups it supports.
i laugh when people say hamas was democratically elected. they seem to forget the 5-day mini-war they launched against fatah to bring them in line, to send a message to the palestinians. there doesn't seem to be a peep out of the UN about hamas' use of children in war time activities.
the blinders are on so tightly in the world to the detriment of israel. israel is not the problem here. iran, hama, hezbullah - those are the problems. israel has given enough.
obama wants them to give more. the answer is no.
I’m going to stay away from economics for now, and save it for when I have a bit more time. As far as Israel goes, I too am not sure that land for peace will work, but what’s the alternative? I have a lot of Israeli friends who feel the same way (in fact I’m always amazed, when I’m in Israel, at how much more willing they are to admit to their own mistakes then a lot of their American supporters are, but I digress).
The benefit of at least trying this avenue (land for peace – something along the lines of Un resolution 242) – from the perspective of pro-Israeli interests – is that if it fails, Israel would be able to garner a whole lot more international (including Arab) support for cracking down on groups like Hamas, and would probably receive less flack for occupying certain territories. If it succeeds, well great – either way I think Israel stands to gain, and public opinion in Israel is moving in this direction, even though there is widespread support for the latest action in Gaza.
You’re right – there will always be Muslims who desire the destruction of Israel – the question is what to do about that. Two main options strike me. First is maintaining the status quo – tit for tat violence, keeping places like Gaza under economic quarantine, periodic incursions, and suicide bombings, etc. The second option is to try to marginalize these groups, so that their political power and their attractiveness to poor young Muslims wanes. Allowing for some economic activity, protecting moderate Muslims from violence perpetrated by their co-religionists (most victims of suicide bombings are Muslim) etc, are policies (among others) I would like to see tried. Remember how the Islamic extremists overplayed their hand in Algeria and Morocco in the early 90’s – their violence was unacceptable, and they were consequently marginalized politically. It’s at least worth considering
Ok, I have to run – final thought – bigger sticks and juicier carrots – can’t hurt.
land for peace doesn't work. they are still crying about the pre-1967 borders. now it is israeli "settlements" and their growth.
i agree that marginalizing the political power of extreme groups is the best way to go. but rewarding them with land will only empower them.
my view on the "economic embargo" is that it is hamas doing it, the arabs doing it. it is not israel. i mentioned somewhere the 1951 night-time rooftop discussion between ben-gurion and se, jfk. west jerusalem was lit up - east jerusalem was dark. hasn't changed. arafat died how wealthy?
the palestinians have to stop looking everywhere else but themselves to solve their plight. they've been crying victim for too long.
and hamas is as much a terror to them as hamas is to southern israel. THAT is the missing link in the discussions.
Clyde,
The latest issue of American Conservative has a couple of good articles on the latest events in Israel - if you haven't checked it out, I'd recommend it.
I hate trumping my own experiences, but having been to Israel, Gaza, and the West Bank, the economic blocade certainly has something to do with Israel (although not exclusively) - that's something almost universally acknowledged by both sides.
And sorry, anyone stating that one side is completely innocent is a part of the problem, as opposed to the solution. I can't be sure exactly what your position is, but I hope you realize that. Thnaks
does israel share some blame? well, um, yeah, ok. but just a little!
and thank you for sharing your first-hand experience. this is precisely what i love about having a blog - we've all done a lot in our lifetimes, and sharing it is very educational. i grew up in the 1960s and 70s - whew, seems like the Dark Ages now.
i'll check out AC - thanks.
but back to israel, i am sure you've read my stuff - i am unabashedly pro-israel. right or wrong, i support them. i believe many arab nations are completely two-faced, yet i acknowledge the cultural differences. there is a huge importance on "saving face" and stating one public position while doing the opposite. we call it lying, but i am not as harsh on their culture as to say that.
but i have a very hard time with arafat dying with hundreds of millions of dollars and the people around him in abject poverty - then crying victim at the hands of the israelis. just doesn't cut it. the arab world doesn't want to solve the palestinian situation - they like it sitting on israel's doorstep.
Have an opinion?
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
Publius' Newsstand
-
Congressional Democrats point finger of blame a...
Poor guy. One of the problems with yelling at people, berating people, and generally thuggish behavior towards people is that it doesn't exactly engender loyalty. Eventually they turn, even if it's not your fault.The share of the blame comes as cracks are beginning to show in Emanuel’s once-impregnable political armor... on Capitol Hill he’s under fire for poor execution of the president’s healthcare agenda in the Senate... Senate Democrats grilled White House advisers last week during a special Senate Democratic retreat, expressing frustration over the lack of a clear plan. While Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) ripped chief political strategist David Axelrod, Senate Democrats say Emanuel, who was more closely involved in managing negotiations in Congress, also deserves scrutiny.
Views: 1 Comments: 0
-
Michelle O: Barry has done a "phenomenol job"
A solid B-plus:Michelle Obama defended her husband against some of his most vocal critics, saying President Obama did a "phenomenal" job this year and that change is a long-term process. The first lady talks about her nationwide campaign called "Let's Move." "I think my husband has done a phenomenal job staying on course, looking his critics in the eye, coming up with clear solutions against staying the course," Michelle Obama told Robin Roberts in an exclusive morning television interview on "Good Morning America." "That's what leadership is. But people have the right to criticize the President of the United States."
Let me finish that last thought for you, Michelle. I see you rubbing your hands together and thinking, "Yes, for now people have the right to criticize him, but we're working on changing that."Views: 33 Comments: 0
-
Sheriff Joe Arpaio Lends Fundraising Muscle to ...
Following on the last story, this certainly will help.In his letter, being sent out to Arpaio supporters today as part of a 100,000-person national direct mail drop, the sheriff calls Hayworth's decision to challenge McCain "courageous." And he pledges to help Hayworth "every step of the way." "Senator McCain has served this country admirably but it's time to replace his moderate or even liberal positions on taxes, the border, social causes and big bank bailouts with a consistent conservative like J.D.," Arpaio continues. "After years of running over Republican principles his entire career no election year conversion to our way of thinking will save his campaign from voters that want conservatives to be a part of the solution rather than part of the problem," he says.
Views: 46 Comments: 0
-
From Right of Radio Dial, a Challenge to McCain...
Not buying it, Senator McCain.McCain now finds himself jammed, moving starkly — and often awkwardly — to the right, apparently in an effort to gain favor among the same voters whom Mr. Hayworth, a consistent voice for the far right, could pull toward him like taffy come summer. McCain now sharply criticizes the bailout bill he voted for, pivoted from his earlier position that the Guantánamo Bay detention facility should be closed, offered only a muted response to the Supreme Court’s decision undoing campaign finance laws and backed down from statements that gays in the military would be O.K. by him... “John is undergoing a campaign conversion,” Mr. Hayworth said. Hayworth’s radio-personality bluster and big emotions.. may now have a part in the greater populist narrative that threatens many of the nation’s more centrist Republicans.
Views: 31 Comments: 0
-
Defiant Iran accelerates nuclear program
I thought Obama was going to talk these things over with his boy Mahmoud and smooth everything out. Instead, Ahmadinejad remains "defiant." How's that hope-y change-y working out for us?Iran said Tuesday that it had begun producing higher-grade enriched uranium, marking a new and potentially dangerous turn in Tehran's confrontation with the West over its nuclear ambitions... U.S. National Intelligence Director Dennis C. Blair told the House intelligence committee last week that "Iran has the scientific, the technical, the industrial capacity to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a weapon in the next few years and eventually to produce a nuclear weapon. The central issue is a political decision by Iran to do so."
Views: 31 Comments: 0
-
Reid's Jobs Bill will have "Republican Support"
Looks like there's been some compromise here, as the GOP gets an extension of tax cuts that expired last year. I don't know if this is a good thing - I don't see much incentive for the GOP to do anything but obstruct the Dems at every possible point between now and November.I wouldn't want my fingerprints on anything this administration or congress proposes. Reid told reporters the bill would be introduced on Tuesday, and that it would include an extension of the tax breaks... Reid did not say how expensive the jobs bill would be. The Senate had been considering a package of roughly $80 billion. The House passed a larger jobs bill before Christmas, but now plans to unveil a different bill independent of that package, which did not garner Republican support.
Views: 58 Comments: 0
-
Without Murtha, Dems now one vote short of pass...
Didn't realize the implications of Murtha's passing today, which include the following...Back in November, the House passed its health care bill by a narrow 220 to 215 margin, with 39 Democrats voting against it. Since then, the one Republican who voted for it — Joseph Cao — has indicated that he would not support the bill a second time around given the weaker language on abortion in the Senate version. In addition, Florida Rep. Robert Wexler already retired prematurely. Factor in Murtha’s death today, and Pelosi is down to 217 votes — one short of passage. To pass the bill at some point in the next few months, she’ll need to flip a Democrat who is already on record voting against the bill.
Views: 124 Comments: 1
-
Republicans and the Populist Temptation could T...
A warning from my favorite economic analyst, Donald Luskin.Don't think that Republicans can't be sucked in when an anti-Wall Street lynch mob gets its blood up. Recall that Sarbanes-Oxley, the devastating antigrowth response in 2002 to the Enron and Worldcom scandals, was passed with virtually unanimous support by Republicans in Congress, and signed by a Republican president. Recall that last year 85 House Republicans voted for a 90% tax on bonuses for any employee of any bank that took more than $5 billion in TARP money. Investors got some good news last Friday. Stocks resisted following through on Thursday's sharp plunge after (Congress) reached an impasse on bank re-regulation. That's a nice down payment on what investors need a lot more of now: proof that the GOP won't join Democrats in a populist rush to seek revenge against Wall Street.
Views: 78 Comments: 3
-
Message to Democrats: Wall St. Sends Cash to GO...
Great news, but these guys were a little late in realizing that Obama wants to destroy all their corporations and confiscate their money. Not quite sure how they missed that.Just two years after Mr. Obama helped his party pull in record Wall Street contributions — $89 million from the securities and investment business, according to the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics — some of his biggest supporters, like Mr. Dimon, have become the industry’s chief lobbyists against his regulatory agenda. Republicans are rushing to capitalize on what they call Wall Street’s “buyer’s remorse” with the Democrats. And industry executives and lobbyists are warning Democrats that if Mr. Obama keeps attacking Wall Street “fat cats,” they may fight back by withholding their cash.
Views: 78 Comments: 2
-
Dow closes below 10,000 for first time in 3 mon...
The Dow sinks below a major psychological threshold.The Dow, down almost 104 points, had its 10th triple-digit move in 16 trading days. Shares of big banks pulled the market lower, extending a slump that has led to four straight weekly losses.
I can't, for the life of me, understand why bank stocks would be dropping. Inexplicable.Views: 57 Comments: 2
Get Your PR Button!
More Articles By Clyde Middleton
- Patriot Room Radio 2/5/10 barack: verb (African), "to burgle"
on 2010-02-06 with 159 views - Yet again: China Renews Opposition to Iran Sanctions
on 2010-02-05 with 113 views - Franken feeling his oats: Rips into Axelrod over HC
on 2010-02-05 with 124 views - 300 terrorists tried and convicted? Who? Holder's not saying
on 2010-02-05 with 111 views - Senate Doctors Show 02/4/10 Lowering HC cost, continued
on 2010-02-04 with 108 views - Sen. Bond calls out Obama on improper disclosures of national security info
on 2010-02-04 with 358 views - Operation Gratitude Twin 500,000th Packages Delivered
on 2010-02-04 with 142 views - UN umasked: Arabs to block Australia UNSC seat bid over Israel
on 2010-02-04 with 111 views - Another IPCC hit: Netherlands 20%, not 50%, below sea level
on 2010-02-04 with 130 views - Good analysis of Congress' options post-United Citizens
on 2010-02-04 with 85 views
Boy oh boy, Barry sure does think a lot. Why does he always have to tell us he thinks? Why can't he just skip that, it makes him sound like he's in front of his college class explaining why he had pork for dinner.