This election encompasses far more than Dems & Repubs:
Obama "wasn't flummoxed" by Hamas Endorsement
Jennifer Rubin, 05.12.2008
Highlights from Barack Obama’s lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg of Atlantic Monthly on Israel and Hamas.
There are some startling exchanges. No, he wasn’t asked hard-hitting questions as to whether his willingness to meet directly with Iran has sent a mixed or harmful message to groups like Hamas. And, no, he wasn’t grilled on Robert Malley. Oh, and don’t get your hopes up that he was asked how he could sit in the pews of a pastor who declared Israel a “dirty word.” But there was quite a bit to chew on.
He was asked if he was “flummoxed” by Hamas’ endorsement. The answer is not likely to set your mind at ease:
I wasn’t flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don’t do nuance well in politics and especially don’t do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It’s conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, “This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he’s not going to be engaging in the same sort of diplomacy as George Bush,” and that’s something they’re hopeful about. I think that’s a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they’re not confused about my unyielding support for Israel’s security.
No one is right or wrong, it’s all “gray” and he’s just the guy to let everyone know. What is jaw-dropping, however, is his assumption that Hamas might be impressed with his “worldly” outlook. That’s what Hamas has been searching for: someone who is worldly. And notice the evasion he employs (”talks with people”) to escape stating the obvious: they are thrilled he’s offered direct talks with their sponsor and Holocaust denier Ahmadinejad of Iran.
But that’s not the half of it. There is this exchange:
JG: Do you think that Israel is a drag on America’s reputation overseas?
BO: No, no, no. But what I think is that this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy. The lack of a resolution to this problem provides an excuse for anti-American militant jihadists to engage in inexcusable actions, and so we have a national-security interest in solving this, and I also believe that Israel has a security interest in solving this because I believe that the status quo is unsustainable. I am absolutely convinced of that, and some of the tensions that might arise between me and some of the more hawkish elements in the Jewish community in the United States might stem from the fact that I’m not going to blindly adhere to whatever the most hawkish position is just because that’s the safest ground politically.
I will give him the benefit of the doubt that he did not mean that Israel is the “constant sore,” but the sentiment is likely to make Islamic militants swoon. They have long argued that the central problem in the Middle East is not lack of democracy, the appalling conditions of Arab populations, jihad terrorists or Shia-Sunni violence: It is the failure of Israel to recognize the aspirations of the Palestinian people. Now they have a candidate to mouth their platitudes and, as a bonus point, disparage “hawkish” elements in the U.S. who would insist on a stalwart defense of Israel. (Might that include these elements’ opposition to meeting with Ahmadinejad?) No wonder he wasn’t flummoxed by Hamas’ endorsement. He’s the best candidate Hamas could hope for. |
