Quote:
Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, per my earlier post, it sounds exactly like a election stump change in position.
|
I don't have time for any kind of serious discussion here today.
But, if I remove the loony overstatement, you and your blogger are saying that Obama's prior statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict make him seem anti-Israel. I disagree.
I read the statements you cite and I honestly don't understand why saying we need to "take an even-handed approach" in solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could be seen as necessarily anti-Israel.
After all, there are two sides and we want a negotiated resolution. Starting off by raising your middle finger towards the Palestinians and saying "Crawl over here and surrender, bitches!" is not likely to get a good result. That should be pretty obvious by now. Both sides will have to make concessions.
[I am not commenting directly on the efforts in the last few years, and I know the Israeli government had been prepared at one point to make many concessions. I am making a broader point about approach.]
On to the second thing he said:
[paraphrase] "Sorry, I can't say more about Palestine now because of the election" sounds to me like a shrewd analysis of political reality. Again, not necessarily "anti-Israel."
There have been injustices done to both sides, there has been evil done by both sides. Both sides have basic human rights. I would say that on the whole the Israelis have been more sinned against that sinning. However, regardless of how the degrees of blame equate, you won't reach a negotiated settlement without acknowledging the pain and suffering on both sides.
All of that said, I am not at all sure that Hamas is a reliable "partner for peace." At best you'll get something similar to what Regan and Gorbachev had -- "trust but verify' -- with the critical problem being that the Palesitnian authorities can't really control their extremists.
S_A_M
Threaded Mode