Friday, April 18, 2008

. . . Barack Obama, on the other hand, does not.

A lot of people like Barack Obama for his seemingly "progressive" domestic and foreign policy platforms. On the contentious questions of the Middle East, however, it is all so much hot air. Like every other US politician, he will utter whatever patently ridiculous bromide is necessary to get elected:

From the conservative-zionist Jerusalem Post

"Hamas is a terrorist organization, responsible for the deaths of many innocents, and dedicated to Israel's destruction, as evidenced by their bombarding of Sderot in recent months. I support requiring Hamas to meet the international community's conditions of recognizing Israel, renouncing violence, and abiding by past agreements before they are treated as a legitimate actor."

And from FoxNews:

“We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said. “We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

Peace is made between enemies, you idiot. If Hamas were to recognize the legitimacy of a zionist state, and then renounce violence against it, there would be NO NEED TO NEGOTIATE IN THE FIRST PLACE. You can't ask the other party to give away its entire negotiating position as a precondition of starting negotiations, and expect the answer to be anything other than "uh, no."

Stumble Upon Toolbar

No comments: