Jump To » Mobile / Confirm Them / Right Shelf / Sports / State Blogs / About / Contact / Help / Posting Rules / Conservative Book Club / Human Events
Just a Company of American paratroopers, a guitar plugged
into the outpost's PA system, and a whole lot of demolitions.
For Obama, what is a "wound" and a "sore" that "infects" our foreign policy?
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama | Israel — Comments (22) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Why, our policy with respect to Israel, of course:
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.
What kind of solution would that be? As I noted earlier, some of his allies seem to think, to quote the LA Times:
And yet the warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.
You don't say.
Why make up stuff when there is so much to run against?
by shooflyguy68
You provided a link to the interview in the Atlantic but posted only a snippet, out of context, that maybe made Obama sound anti-Israel. He also says this in the interview:
JG: Do you think that justice is still on Israel’s side?
BO: I think that the idea of a secure Jewish state is a fundamentally just idea, and a necessary idea, given not only world history but the active existence of anti-Semitism, the potential vulnerability that the Jewish people could still experience. I know that that there are those who would argue that in some ways America has become a safe refuge for the Jewish people, but if you’ve gone through the Holocaust, then that does not offer the same sense of confidence and security as the idea that the Jewish people can take care of themselves no matter what happens. That makes it a fundamentally just idea.
That does not mean that I would agree with every action of the state of Israel, because it’s a government and it has politicians, and as a politician myself I am deeply mindful that we are imperfect creatures and don’t always act with justice uppermost on our minds. But the fundamental premise of Israel and the need to preserve a Jewish state that is secure is, I think, a just idea and one that should be supported here in the United States and around the world.
We could be discussing Obama's horrible health care plan, his horrible trade policies, his horrible economic plan, etc. Instread, we get stuff like this and claims by a nut cake in the NYT today that Obama is a Muslim whether he likes it or not. I just don't think this name calling is going to work in the end.
Need A David Mamet Quote Here...
by jdripper
David Mamet came up with more ways to use the "F___" word then any other writer in history. Reading this crap from the "great healer of all wounds" begs for a word to be created that is appropriate.
His sad and naive look upon the world that all we have to do is get along to get along leaves me frightened more then anything else that I have encountered in American politics in 40 years.
Jack
Gazanol
by Robert A. Hahn
- I believe that the status quo is unsustainable
Huh? The Arab-Israeli conflict is a renewable resource. It's like Ethanol. They're always growing more of it.
Drink Good Coffee. You can sleep when you're dead.
Israel-Palestine
by Zombie Flanders
He is not saying that our policy towards Israel is a sore, he is saying the existence of a conflict there is a sore.
When he says "this is a constant wound" the "this" refers to the conflict, not our policy. When he says it infects our foreign policy, he means this: whenever we do anything MidEast-related, we have to take it into account, and things would be a lot simpler/easier if Israel lived in peace with its neighbors. I agree with that.
Here is a question: what if Obama's supposed connection fo Khalidi (about which I know little) helps him in talking to both sides, as the Palestinian side (which is prob less likely to listen to the US) would be more likely to listen to Obama? If Obama says "You are outta line" they might listen more than if, say, Bibi Netanyahu said it.
So the problem is the evil side in the conflict.
Yes, "things" would be easier if Israel's enemies would LET Israel live in peace.
Did Neville Chamberlain's relationship with Hitler help? Nixon, Kissinger, and Carter's with the USSR?
No
It took FDR to defeat Hitler and Reagan to defeat Gorby.
Peace thru strength, and usually only after utter defeat of the evil.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
for decades. Unfortunatley the enemy hears too, and conservatives have to come and clean up the messes.
You are a naive liberal. Pray that the mugging by reality enlightens you sooner rather than later.
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
vindicated on his stand on McCain....he should take great pleasure in that but I suspect he will take quiet pleasure :-)
Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion
So...
by Zombie Flanders
You did not dispute my main point, that Obama was referring to the conflict as a "sore" and not to Israel (or to our policy concerning Israel) as a "sore."
So does that mean you agree with my main point?
So your point proves mine about liberal equivocation and avoidance of calling evil by its name, thus identifying the real sores, and thus making plain that action needs to be taken against same.
Its the old "cycle" of violence. Moral relativism.
weakness of lib dems that the enemy gets
that's why hamas endorsed him
Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson
Of course.
by Socrates
But why state the problem in those terms unless you have some plan to heal the sore?
Obama will treat terrorism as just another cultural outlook, and Israel as the bad guy for failing to compromise with it.
You don't compromise with a bully. You call him out, and then you beat the snot out of him.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
gamecock is about to call me naive
by Zombie Flanders
The way I see it, there are two types of people to consider here.
The first is the crazy Osama bin Laden types. What their deal is, I don't know, maybe his parents treated him bad, but as you said we should beat the snot out of him.
The second is a larger group in the general populace. This is people who are not so hopeless when it comes to being US-friendly,* who have grievances* but don't necessarily like terrorism.* These people may be on the fence about it, or maybe they don't know what to think,* or maybe they normally wouldn't be okay with terrorism but they're so worked up over whatever things that they are ok with it.* Or maybe they just root for the home team, as it were, and will instinctively side with people from their country over foreigners.* Maybe these people's attitudes aren't entirely perfectly coherent,* but is that really contrary to human nature?*
Maybe such a person is some dude in Iraq who likes the idea of Democracy, who hated Saddam, but whose cousin is a hard-core insurgent. One would expect such a guy to have split loyalties, and not be sure what to think.* He would probably hide his cuz from the US forces if it came to that,* especially after hearing about Abu Ghraib.* Is that not understandable, even if you would not do the same?*
A member of this group is concerned about the same stuff people everywhere are concerned about.* Their kids, etc.*
Terrorism, and people like Osama bin Laden, can survive because the second group allows them to.* bin Laden types come from this group; take this large group, take every thousandth dude who was made fun of by the other kids at recess, and you get some crazy terrorist dude.* bin Laden says that he is mad about US troops in Saudi to appeal to this second group, not because he is mad about that.* This second group does not hate us for our freedom, but has actual grievances.* Why does that lead to terrorism? Anyone who says it is simple is missing a lot I think.*
But more importantly, this second group we don't need to just beat the snot out of. If we address whatever causes this group's thinking, then terrorism will be less tolerated by them.* This group turning on bin Laden types is what'll win the War on Terror.* If we call Palestinians the problem, this group will take it to mean themselves. Now it is true that they are the problem, in the sense that their tolerance allows terrorism to exist. But if we call them evil then we get nowhere, as they will react on an emotional level and thereafter ignore any argument that our side makes.* And we'll dig them in deeper to their own prejudices.*
In WWII, this group was basically dissolved by war's end, due to the general [redacted]-ness of the Nazi regime, which is why all we had to do was some epic snot-beating-out-of. The reason the Nazis came into power in the first place is this group supported them due to various things, like the economy in the tank, the war guilt clause, the "stab in the back" myth, etc.* This group turned on the Nazis when they did stuff like execute their Jewish neighbors, hamper people's freedoms, go to war, use their children as soldiers, etc.
* These are places where I expect gamecock to call me naive in response (I may have missed some spots). I will say this, though: this stuff is real complicated, more than a simple "We're good they're evil that is the end of the story" allows for (though I agree that we are on the side of good and they on the side of evil, and when I say they I mean the second group above, the first being just plain evil). That I am unwilling to boil everything down to 10 words or less does not make me naive. I think a simple black-and-white view of the whole world is somewhat naive.
If you think I am an idiot and want to explain why, I am willing to listen, though I might not have the chance to respond.
Naive.
by Socrates
Your general thesis is that terrorism survives because its fellow travelers in the general populace are in enough agreement with its goals (or its proponents as people for personal reasons) that they turn a blind eye.
The naive part is this: the people are also afraid of the terrorists -- terrified, you might say -- and are unwilling to risk reprisals.
That's why we need to be kicking snot.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Absolutley right
by blooch
and I would add to that huge group Muslims such as those in the UK who wince every time the government kowtows to the extremists and demands that a pig statue be toppled because "it is offensive to Muslims". If they can't depend on the government to stand up to extremists,what hope do they have of fighting back?
the fight is about ideology not land
by JSobieski
the "Palestinians" (a word you won't find in use pre-1945) wanted to destroy Israel more than they want to a land for themselves.
They won't listen to anyone. If Arafat had actually wanted peace, they would have killed him.
Taken in the best possible
by RandomGuy
Taken in the best possible light, Obama is merely saying nothing. He's saying, "Gee, this Israel thing causes a lot of problems for us, for them, for the Arabs. Wouldn't it be nice if it were solved?"
WELL DUH!!! If that's all he's saying, he's merely stating something any schoolchild could figure out.
Taken in the worst possible light, Obama is saying "This Israel thing is a thorn in or side, we need to push Israel into some "settlement" so it won't make us "sore" anymore."
And if that's what he's saying, he's Jimmy Carter with less blatant racism but equal amounts of stupidity.
"I will look for people in the cast of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, and my friend the late William Rehnquist – jurists of the highest caliber who know their own minds, and know the law, and know the difference." - John McCain
Best or Worst
by Zombie Flanders
I suppose I agree with what you call the best possible light. You say it is saying nothing, I would say it is merely saying something that everyone agrees on...as you say, WELL DUH.
But two things:
1) This is only one part of a longer interview.
2) This is not the first time that a politician has said something to which the general reaction is WELL DUH. I mean, half of what any politician says falls under that category.
But what is Obama's PLAN Zombie?
by BrianH
Every president since Israel became a state has attempted to deal with the issue. Saying "it's an open wound" does nothing to solve the problem. It's a "WELL DUH" statement when it's put out there with no plans for dealing with it. And I read the longer interview along with the article that Obama referenced. There is no PLAN to deal with the problem or heal the wound. He only pointed out a problem that is obvious and acknowledged by every adult in the world.
Now tell me how Obama is going to work a miracle and solve a problem that deals with people who say things like:
“They can be nice to us or they can kill us, it doesn’t matter,” he said. “If we have a cease-fire with the Jews, it is only so that we can prepare ourselves for the final battle.”
And while it's not the position of 100% of the Palestinians, it is the position of a large number of them. It was why that old terrorist Arafat never kept any of the peace agreements he made with Israel. All of this has to be taken into account when trying to solve this problem.
Just pointing to the Arab-Israeli conflict and saying this constant wound, that this constant sore, does infect all of our foreign policy is not helpful. Obama is good at pointing out problems. What's he's not good at is providing realistic solutions.
Socialism doesn't work. It looks nice on paper, but it's been tried and it's failed miserably every time (usually accompanied by widespread death and suffering).
Proud member of the V.R.W.C.
are far more aggressive and better equiped now.
Cater in 1979 (for ME, not Cold War purposes) was better than Carter 2008 will be for ME purposes.
Things have been building for a while now. The truces and cease fires get shorter and shorter.
Yep. Context is great.
by Han Pritcher
I read the interview before all this noise. I didn't take those remarks as many here have done. What's wonderful is that, well, neither did the interviewer.
http://jeffreygoldberg.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/05/the_honorable_mr...
"I have no doubt that Mr. Boehner will issue a correction to his press release in which he states the obvious, which is that Obama expressed -- in twelve different ways -- his support for Israel to me.
If he doesn't, however, I would, sadly, have to agree with my colleague, the less-forgiving Andrew Sullivan, who called Boehner's statement a "flat-out lie." In fact, I would add to Andrew's post, by calling Boehner's statement mendacious, duplicitous, gross, and comically refutable. So Mr. Boehner, do the right thing, and correct the record. I'll be happy to post the correction right here."
And yes, yes, Sullivan bad, citing the Atlantic makes me a naif and god knows what else you folks will say, but the interview, read as a whole, may include things you disagree with, but that quote did not mean what it has been taken to mean. Those who are intellectually honest and literate will see that. Some might even acknowledge that, as indeed a few have in this thread.
blog advertising is good for you
Human Events
Recent comments
Great Post... Thanks!! n/t
by iamcool388I was there
by Mud GuruNo, but there are enthusiast support sites.
by jonlesterNot everyone who thinks
by yolepierdomiamorPulling a Kowalski...
by aceintxI can see a whole line of these nt
by dglennP.S. here is what we are exporting
by JoliphantCED was just strange
by JoliphantThank You so much! I want
by dld1717If true, that would be a serious heresy
by civil truth& the Cries of Unity
by Whitehorse5*5*5*5*5*5*5 nt
by aceintxAs a Southern Baptist, the
by Kev85Come to think of it,
by jonlesterWe need a new Jesse Helms.
by Nobama
blog advertising is good for you
get your job site
at simplyhired.com
and it's not Israel. It's Barack Obama.
You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.