Posted on 01/11/2009 5:20:13 AM PST by Kaslin
Does America make terrorists hate and kill? Is it time for the United States to ‘befriend” Hamas?
Last Thursday, a report emerged from England that President-elect Obama is planning to open up “low level” contact with Hamas, and that such contact will likely be initiated through U.S. intelligence channels. Suzanne Goldenberg, a journalist with the Washington, DC bureau of the UK’s “Guardian” publication, reported that the forthcoming Obama Administration wishes to abandon President Bush’s policy of isolating Hamas, believing that this policy has failed to produce desirable results.
Without getting sidetracked, I must point out that this is the third time in approximately four months where bizarre news about Obama has emerged from England. The fact that our wealth re-distributing President-elect has a brother living in a hut - - and in abject poverty - - in a rural part of Kenya, and the fact that Obama has an Aunt living as an illegal alien in Massachusetts, were both news items that first emerged from British journalists. Apparently, information about Obama’s extended family, and his purported desire to “work with” Hamas, is information that is either un-interesting, or un-knowable, to American journalists covering the soon-to-be American President.
But more importantly, the notion that President Obama needs to abandon the Bush policy on Hamas because of its supposed failure is a notion that invites several questions. And as I talked about this “breaking news” last Thursday on my radio program at Washington, DC’s 630 WMAL, several questions emerged in the discussion.
Why, necessarily, is the American policy of isolation with Hamas a “failure?” Because despite the isolation, Hamas still attacks Israel, and still poses threats elsewhere. And why does Hamas still threaten and attack and kill? Because it is left isolated by the West, and especially by the United States.
This was the rather circular reasoning that emerged from several callers to my radio show. And both lines of reasoning dismiss the Hamas organization from responsibility for its own murderous behavior, and lay blame for that murderous behavior on a “third party” - - in this case, the U.S.A.
Other callers to my show took more of a “can you feel their pain?” approach. “How would you like it” I was asked by one particular caller, “ if you were cut-off from the rest of the world, and barely had enough food to provide your children or had no access to education, or adequate clothing, or healthcare?”
“I would not like it” I told the caller, “but I would still not choose to murder.”
“Actually,” another caller stated to me, “Hamas didn’t need to behave this way until Bush began treating them the way he has..”
“In what sense does Hamas have a need to murder?” I asked.
“Well, I’m just saying, Hamas is in a horrible situation…”
I suspect that there are millions of my fellow Americans who tend to engage in this kind of thinking regarding Hamas, and perhaps regarding other terrorist organizations as well. And in my experience, when faced with a challenge to their assumptions and their line of reasoning, they often begin to back away from the logical outcomes of that reasoning.
And they should back away from it. If one asserts that Hamas and other terrorist organizations do what they do, simply because members of these groups lack adequate material provision or have been mistreated by other people groups, such assertions lead to two very troubling conclusions: A) Terrorists are ultimately not responsible for their behavior; and B) The behavior of terrorists is justifiable given their difficult circumstances.
This kind of reasoning is usually frowned-upon in every day, “real life” scenarios. For example, most Americans would likely find it abhorrent to excuse the destructive behavior of a wayward teenager, or a reckless adult employee in the workplace. Likewise, the argument that says “he stole money from our company because we don’t pay him enough in salary” would be unacceptable as well.
When you reward bad behavior, you inevitably get more bad behavior in response, not less. It’s true in parenting, and it’s true in organizational and business management. And the axiom applies to public policy, and foreign policy, as well.
The Bush policy says to Hamas “you have behaved your way out of the possibility of a relationship with us; your behavior makes such a possibility untenable.” It rightly stipulates that the responsibility for the lack of relationship lies with the offending party - - Hamas - - rather than excusing the behavior and laying blame on others.
This is not to say, as many do, that the Bush Administration has been “one-sided” with the Israel/Hamas dilemma. On the contrary, President Bush himself has repeatedly asserted that a Palestinian State ought to exist.
But for all his failings, especially on economic policy, President Bush has spoken with tremendous logical and moral clarity on this issue.
Let us pray that President Obama chooses such moral clarity, rather than choosing to reward bad behavior with the “hope” that the behavior might “change.”
Prayers up for the IDF.
5.56mm
Strange, isn’t it, that a great variety of religions have managed to, for the most part, peacefully coexist in this country for more than two centuries. And, it’s even stranger that an organization like Hamas can lob missiles into Israel and receive little or no criticism from the various media. But, let Israel stand up and defend itself and it immediately becomes the bad guy.
Great title! Except it’s America that they want to change.
“with the “hope” that the behavior might “change.”
Sounds like a whole lot of ladies who marry a guy she wants to make better.
It doesn’t work.
HOW MUCH IS THIS GOING TO COST THE U S TAXPAYER?
The Terrorist are “CONDITIONED” to attack and murder anyone who does not agree with them or who may support Israel.
Camp Obama’s conditioning techniques most likely will not work on HAMAS and other TERRORIST organizations.
In fact, the limited dialog being used by Camp Obama is going to get millions of Americans killed.
Oh crap...and so it begins...
Following in Wm. Ayers theory of hugging a murderous thug.
Pearls of wisdom from Comrade Hopenchange.
Why should a Palestinian State exist? If the President has spoken on that issue with such tremendous logical and moral clarity, it should be quick and easy to explain it.
And we as a country bought in to the "hope and change" huckster, thanks to poor candidate McCain (McDole).
We are in for a rude awakening.
Without Action, Hope is merely an orphan.
Remember, the government control freaks have much better and more important uses for all your money than you yourself do, so don't complain.
Of course, it is one of Obama’s lies that he is never called on that Bush created a policy toward Hamas as if the policy toward Hamas originated with Bush.
Executive Order No. 12,947 (60 Fed.Reg.5079 Jan. 23, 1995) signed by Clinton, designated a list of terrorist organizations, including Hamas, as Specially Designated Terrorists, or SDT’s, and blocked all of their property and interests in property.
The fact that Obama won the majority of the Jewish vote illustrates that this faulty worldview is still alive and well among Jewish liberals today (as its conservative counterpart is among people like Pat Buchanan). Obama's appointment of Ram Emanuel only seemed to confirm this. And certainly the Schumers, Waxmans, Dershowitz's, and Abe Foxmans are counting on their man Obama to adhere to the "true radical" position.
Meanwhile the International Left and its counterparts in America (ISM, the RCP, ANSWER, Ramsey Clark, etc.) take the opposite view and (like the Communists have done since the Fifties) consider Israel no different than Rhodesia or South Africa and expect Obama to uphold their view of the world.
How long will this discrepancy exist? Sooner or later anti-Israel leftists and pro-Israel liberals (and anti-Israel "conservatives") must come to the realization that their worldviews are in direct opposition to each other. Sooner or later the fit is going to have to hit the shan.
Of course, I've been waiting for thirty years for this to happen and, while most conservatives have become very pro-Israel, domestic American liberals still live in a fantasy world where they own the copyright to support for Israel and only "reactionaries" oppose it.
If Barry brings this conflict to a head his election will have had at least one positive result.
As long as the pubbies keep sending up old fools like McLame and Bob Dud Dole we don’t deserve squat.
There is no logical or morally clear answer to this queston. Presumably it is seen as a "reward" for Pali's recognizing and promising peace with Israel. If they do that then they can have their own little country. A suprmemely stupid proposition given the Pali's record of deception and duplicity. Maybe that's why none of Bush's predecessors committed to the idea.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.