GOP Nominee
Former Candidates
David Brooks, writing in today’s New York Times:
Hezbollah is one of the world’s most radical terrorist organizations. Over the last week or so, it has staged an armed assault on the democratic government of Lebanon.
Barack Obama issued a statement in response. He called on “all those who have influence with Hezbollah” to “press them to stand down.” Then he declared, “It’s time to engage in diplomatic efforts to help build a new Lebanese consensus that focuses on electoral reform, an end to the current corrupt patronage system, and the development of the economy that provides for a fair distribution of services, opportunities and employment.”
That sentence has the whiff of what President Bush described yesterday as appeasement. Is Obama naïve enough to think that an extremist ideological organization like Hezbollah can be mollified with a less corrupt patronage system and some electoral reform? Does he really believe that Hezbollah is a normal social welfare agency seeking more government services for its followers? Does Obama believe that even the most intractable enemies can be pacified with diplomacy? What “Lebanese consensus” can Hezbollah possibly be a part of?
If Obama believes all this, he’s not just a Jimmy Carter-style liberal. He’s off in Noam Chomskyland.
That didn’t strike me as right, so I spoke with Obama Tuesday to ask him what he meant by all this.
The U.S. needs a foreign policy that “looks at the root causes of problems and dangers.” Obama compared Hezbollah to Hamas. Both need to be compelled to understand that “they’re going down a blind alley with violence that weakens their legitimate claims.” He knows these movements aren’t going away anytime soon (”Those missiles aren’t going to dissolve”), but “if they decide to shift, we’re going to recognize that. That’s an evolution that should be recognized.”
And those “legitimate claims” are precisely what, Senator Obama?
…that those “pesky Jews” have prevented Hamas from carrying out their Charter, which says:
“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.”
“The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. “
“There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors.”
…and what about Hezbollah’s goals?
A New Yorker story noted, even Hezbollah spokesman Hassan Ezzeddin admitted: “If they go from Shebaa, we will not stop fighting them. Our goal is to liberate the 1948 borders of Palestine.” What he means, of course, is the destruction of Israel.
Genocide seems to be the goal. Hezbollah head Hassan Nasrallah describes being asked whether “the destruction of Israel and the liberation of Palestine and Jerusalem were Hezbollah’s goal,” and replying: “That is the principal objective of Hezbollah.” He terms Israel “an illegal state; it is a cancerous entity and the root of all the crises and wars. . .”
On Al-Manar television, Jews are termed pigs and monkeys and the Holocaust is denied. Participants in a network-sponsored symposium urge that Israel “be completely wiped out” and “just like Hitler fought the Jews” the “great Islamic nation of Jihad” should “fight the Jews and burn them.”
In May 2006, Nasrallah appeared on the network to explain that “our nation’s willingness to sacrifice their blood, souls, children, fathers, and families” is an advantage over the Jews “who guard their lives.”
May 16th, 2008 at 8:58 pm
It’s unclear whether Obama is talking about the Palestinian people’s claims or Hamas and Hezbollah’s claims. Does Barack actually think Hezbollah is an appropriate partner for negotiations?
That’s ridiculous even if you accept Palestinians have legitimate grievances.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Just because they are terrorists doesn’t mean they cannot have legitimate claims. The idea that the nature of the organization automatically makes anything they say untrue is simply false, a textbook example of ad hominem argument.
Clearly, Obama was not saying that ALL of their claims were legitimate, just that some of them were. Citing examples of the goals of the organizations involved does not in any way imply that Obama endorses them. He said “claims,” not “goals.”
This post is entirely below the level of thought I have come to expect from race42008 commentators.
May 16th, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Just what claims of Hamas or Hezbollah are legitimate?
May 16th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Yeah, I am pretty confused. The conflict that Obama was responding to was the Hezbollah fight in Lebanon with other Lebanese, not Israel. His call for them to stand down was directed, again, to end the internal fighting in Lebanon. Thus, the legitimate claims he is referring to are claims against the Lebanese gov’t, one of which was that their communications were cut.
May 16th, 2008 at 10:25 pm
Senator McCain is correct to refuse negotiating with Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. Just as President Ronald Reagan refused to negotiate with terrorists or Iran so to should John McCain follow this model. Victory through strength. The only thing these evil regimes respect is force.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
Why does the US press actually ignore all of the anti-Semitism (barely disguised under the “anti-Zionism” catch-all) blaring out of the territories and neighboring Arab states? Sheesh, if the “Jooz” control the US media, they sure are doing a lousy job…
May 17th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Obama Thinks Hamas, Hezb’allah Have Legitimate Grievances
http://www.americanthinker.com/printpage/?url=http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/05/post_87.html
May 17th, 2008 at 12:52 am
Dignity Promotion for Lebanon
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/pollak/6581
May 17th, 2008 at 12:55 am
Samantha Power — gone (?) but not forgotten
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives2/print/020529.php
May 17th, 2008 at 12:57 am
Obama: I Won’t Negotiate With Terrorists Except Iran
http://www.kxmb.com/printArticle.asp?ViewPrintable=True&ArticleId=239141
May 17th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Joe Lieberman said:
“It seems to me [Obama] was talking about the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. I mean, he’s had a pro-Israel voting record, and he’s made statements, including particularly in the last month when people have been raising questions that are certainly pro-Israel. I don’t mean to suggest that [Obama's] in any way anti-Israel.”
That takes the sails out of these criticism to some extent. I’m sure some Evangelical and some Jewish voters will be attuned to this issue. I don’t know that anyone else will see through the nuance.
May 17th, 2008 at 7:51 am
Obama is doing himself no favors with two key constituencies — Jews and evangelical christians. The problems he is creating with Jewish Americans are self-evident — his policies would be a radical departure from 60 years of American foreign policy and would remove the U.S. from a reliable defender of Israel’s right to exist.
For evangelicals, some of whom have been flirting with a leftward drift on issues like global warming, this is equally radioactive. Most strains of evangelical christianity believe the Jewish people are still G-d’s chosen people and that all of human history revolves around Israel.
This is bad policy and bad politics for Obama.