Obama: The Legitimate claims of Hezbollah and Hamas?

It's going to be fun when somebody uses the search function to find all the times when basso is wiping his mouth after citing David Brooks and then contrast it with this thread :

 

Did you know that Hezbollah runs hospitals, clinics, and schools?

"Hezbollah did everything that a government should do, from collecting the garbage to running hospitals and repairing schools." In July 2006, during the war with Israel, when there was no running water in Beirut, Hezbollah was arranging supplies around the city. "People here [in South Beirut] see Hezbollah as a political movement and a social service provider as much as it is a militia, in this traditionally poor and dispossessed Shiite community."

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/24/schuster.hezbollah/index.html

 

And Stalin made the winter colder to strengthen resolve.

 

Obama -- Hamas' candidate for President.

Tells you all you really need to know right there...

 

Not saying Hamas have no problems, but let me ask a question. If say tomorrow some aliens comes to the earth and says Texas will be given to Mexico, everyone here would be fine with that right? No one would rise up to oppose the new rulers? Just because some powerful force declared it that way, the Texas people should just pack up and leave their home and give the land to Mexicans joyfully?

 

Come on. I'll give you one better. Hitler was the driving force behind the Volkswagen... Wait, my Jetta was an awful piece of crap so probably not the best example. Bad governments and political parties sometimes do good things. They sometimes help the people. That is exactly the point.

 

T_J want a cracker?

“It is just a fact that Hamas, apparently the North American spokesperson, is endorsing Senator Obama. People can make their own judgment from that,” McCain told reporters April 25, 2008, referring to comments made by Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the prime minister of Hamas.

McCain's campaign told us that he based his comment on this quotation from Yousef in an interview with WABC Radio on April 20, 2008:

“We don’t mind — actually we like Mr. Obama. We hope that he will (inaudible word) the election and I do believe he is like John Kennedy, great man with a great principle, and he has a vision to change America to make it in a position to lead the world community, but not with domination and arrogance.”

[The word in parentheses above is not audible in the recording, but Yousef's comments before and after the word suggest he was saying "we hope he will win the election."]

Before we examine McCain's claim, it's important to know a little about Hamas and its relationship with the United States, which officially considers it a terrorist group. The Council on Foreign Relations, a nonpartisan foreign policy think tank, describes Hamas as "the largest and most influential Palestinian militant movement." Its goals include the destruction of Israel, the replacement of the Palestinian Authority with an Islamic state on the West Bank and Gaza, and to raise "the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine."

Hamas won the Palestinian elections in 2006 and now controls the Gaza Strip, home to more than 1-million Palestinians. The victory created a touchy diplomatic situation for the Bush administration, which has trumpeted democracy in the Middle East but has opposed Hamas because of its terrorist tactics and its goal of destroying Israel.

Hamas' praise for Obama is notable because the Illinois senator has repeatedly denounced the group. He has called it a terrorist organization and said it was a "bad idea" for former President Jimmy Carter to meet with Khaled Meshaal, the group's exiled leader.

Obama told a Jewish group on April 16, 2008, "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

But is McCain right that Hamas has endorsed Obama?

First, we should note that McCain got Yousef's title wrong. He is chief political adviser to the prime minister of Hamas, not a North American spokesman. Still, Yousef is a senior adviser in the organization and his views probably represent the organization's position, according to David Schenker, director of the Arab Politics Program at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a foreign policy think tank.

"I think the quote demonstrates a sentiment that represents what Hamas is thinking about the U.S. presidential race," Schenker said. "It’s not an endorsement in the traditional sense that we think of it, but I think it’s an expression of what they think will be best for their organization."

Schenker said that even though Obama has criticized Carter and opposes diplomatic talks with Hamas, the group probably prefers Obama over McCain because of Obama's willingness to have diplomatic talks with Iran and Syria, which are allies of Hamas.

Steven Cook, a fellow for Middle East politics at the Council on Foreign Relations, said he doesn't consider it an official endorsement, but Hamas believes "Obama would be a better president of the United States."

Cook said Obama "is wildly popular in the Arab world" because of expectations that he would be different from President Bush. That's based more on hopes than actual statements, though. The senator isn't well-known in the Arab world, so Arabs are "projecting their views onto Obama," Cook said.

Cook said the Hamas support is odd because "there is no way you can interpret anything (Obama) said as against Israel. I think (people in the Arab world) are going to be deeply disappointed if he comes to power as president. I think there will be change in American foreign policy in the Middle East, but I think the steadfast support for Israel will remain."

 

Not only that, Israel has illegally occupied part of lebanon, and oppressing the Palestinians, while not living up to their end of the bargain in numerous agreements with the Palestinians.

All of those are legitimate issues. The problem is the two groups mention don't address those issues in legitimate ways.

 

I liked H.W. Bush's foreign policy efforts because it was shrewd, effective, and nuanced so that its players had something to bring home to their people even if they ended up losers in the deal.

This article does bring up a strong point about Obama. It's very difficult to forecast how he will handle hardcore murderers and despots despite being well informed and nuanced. He knows of the right things (by "right" I mean the best possible answer that can lead to a desired goal), but can he handle the chain of unpredictable events, which require equally demanding decisions, that follow?

I don't think any candidate has that quality outright, but in this election, the public will compare hime to the others on a fuzzy estimate which Hillary has boiled down to "readiness".

And down the line, there might be an unfairness to his decisions because dealing with the despots in the ME is mostly a risky loss heavy proposition which is bound to have contingencies ripe for right ring pundits to snipe. If a hawkish president suffers an embarrassment, he'd be considered ill prepared to a region that deserves its fate. But for Obama to fall in the same predicament, he'd be considered weak and naive.

 

You are probably best served saving this for 2012 - when Condoleeza Rice runs for president, just like you predicted!

 

It seems to me that any thinking person should be able to recognize two possible reasons why someone associated with Hamas would like Barack Obama.

If the reason is that they think Obama will not be firm against terrorism, then that is worrisome. However, given everything Obama has said about the lengths he will go to to kill those who would kill Americans (for instance, strikes inside Pakistan, which were opposed by certain posters here until they were used by the Bush administration), it's obvious that this would not be a reasonable assessment for groups like Hamas to make.

If, on the other hand, the reason is that they feel Obama will rectify some of the sillier policies of the US in the Middle East, then that would strike me (and all others who have ever seriously pondered the question "Why do they hate us?") as a good thing. Surely, many Muslims will continue to hate America as long as it is close allies with Israel, a policy that will continue after Obama takes office. However, given the US history of blind and clumsy self-interest in the region, it is folly to believe that all hatred against the US is the result of policies that the US has no chance of fixing, just as it is folly to believe that "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Our policy of doing anything possible to kill terrorists, without regard for collateral damage or for the actual root causes of terrorism, has merely created many more terrorists and led to hundreds of thousands of deaths. If, on the other hand, we can reduce the number of terrorists by being more proactive and respectful in our dealings with other nations, this country will benefit tremendously. If that happens, I frankly don't care whether some Hamas spokesman is pleased.

 

It's never that simple. While everyone looks to the US for leadership, the hardcore elements would want our leadership to help them defeat or minimize Israel. And if any president voices his intentions of reproachment the wrong way, it might seem too misleading and would set up for an eventual feeling of betrayal once things are sorted out.

It's going to take a genius of geniuses to navigate the region to a real and lasting solution. NO ONE is going to help us along the way. Not its neighbors, and not the Europeans in any meaningful capacity. The UN will only step in if there's money/power involved or after we've done all the heavy lifting that removes any risk of embarrassment out of the equation.

 

Please point out to me anything in any of Obama's foreign policy statements that suggests appeasement.

You may not like Obama's plans, but...

1. They aren't appeasement.

2. They will be a change from policies that were failures under Bush.

 

I don't think there's any risk of any sane person thinking Obama will try to help "defeat or minimize Israel". There's simply no basis for that. Obama has been clear on how he will treat terrorists.

Remember, our policy for the last eight years (and potentially for the next four under McCain) is founded on the idea that terrorism really is simple. They hate us because we're awesome; we make them (and everything near them) explode.

I much prefer Obama's reasoned approach to another four years of thoughtless Whack-a-Mole.

 

You're assuming Hamas is a pool of likeminded individuals, similarly to Israel's positions on the matter. It's always the extremists who crash the party and get the cops involved.

 

From my earlier post:

Neither McCain nor Obama will be able to eliminate terrorism. However, I think Obama's approach has a better chance of reducing their numbers.

 

Do you knock doors or something for Dick Cheney?