Here's Obama's notion of settling the Gaza problem:
Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; ...abide by past agreements.... end its rocket fire; Israel will complete the withdrawal of its forces from Gaza; the United States and our partners will support a credible anti-smuggling and interdiction regime, so that Hamas cannot rearm.In short, the precondition for peace is... surrender.... we look forward to Egypt's ... commitment to end smuggling from within its borders.
....As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza's border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce.... This assistance will be provided to and guided by the Palestinian Authority.
Note that there's a great deal Hamas "must" do -- all of which amounts to ceasing national resistance. And in return, Israel must... must... why, you know, there isn't a damn thing Israel "must" do! Vague wishes, couched in the agentless passive voice, are expressed that the Palestinians might be graciously allowed to eat a little bit.
But they have to surrender first! And they also have to give up any notion of choosing their own leaders. That will be done for them, in fact already has been done, and if they don't like the Quislings of the "Palestinian Authority" -- well, too bad for them.
Is there anybody out there who can detect any difference between this line and the stuff we were hearing on the same topic from Bush?
Comments (7)
Is there anybody out there who can detect any difference between this line and the stuff we were hearing on the same topic from Joseph Goebbels, mutatis mutandis of course?
Posted by sk | January 23, 2009 1:39 PM
Posted on January 23, 2009 13:39
No.
Posted by Jack | January 23, 2009 3:46 PM
Posted on January 23, 2009 15:46
"Abide by past agreements" -- like UN 242? The NNPT? Article VI of the supposedly holy U.S. Constitution?
Sounds like a great plan.
Oops...
Posted by Michael Dawson | January 23, 2009 5:30 PM
Posted on January 23, 2009 17:30
Here's a funny commentary on Israel's war on Gaza from comedian/socialist/activist Mark Steele. It really highlights the hypocrisy of the US and Israel's demands.
"...if the Israelis think the Hamas rockets are as lethal as they say, why don't they swap their F-16 fighters and Apache helicopters for a few of them? These things are capable of terrorizing a whole nation for years apparently, yet the Israelis have neglected to buy any, wasting their money on gunboats and stuff."
I wonder if Obama is going to demand that Israel not re-arm? Nah, that would only hurt the US economy. We are the global leader in arms sales after all--and now's not the time to shut one of our biggest markets.
Posted by Nicholas Hart | January 23, 2009 6:54 PM
Posted on January 23, 2009 18:54
It's funny, I just saw someone else mention the Goliath analogy. It's even better, though:
"Dromi admitted that the administration will struggle to win hearts and minds if footage of those suffering in Gaza continues to be shown. 'When you have a Palestinian kid facing an Israeli tank, how do you explain that the tank is actually David and the kid is Goliath?'"
Posted by StO | January 23, 2009 8:29 PM
Posted on January 23, 2009 20:29
All this was predictable from the first appointment --Rahm Emanuel.
Posted by seneca | January 24, 2009 12:14 AM
Posted on January 24, 2009 00:14
Eh, I believed Barack when he said he would do anything to stop rocket attacks on his children. That obviously meant collective punishment, blockade, civilian collateral damage and white phosphorus shells and DIME weapons.
I guess the only way people like Obama, Clinton, etc will learn is if this is visited upon their families:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2009/jan/21/gaza-israelandthepalestinians
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2009/jan/19/gaza-phosphorus-victim
Posted by dermokrat | January 25, 2009 1:21 AM
Posted on January 25, 2009 01:21