Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Obamas Hamas Details
January 2, 2009 at 4:41 am
Time magazine asks this about Barack Obama and Israel vs. Hamas in Gaza:
How will Obama respond? As a presidential candidate, he called for a new peace process but was short on the details. A U.S. Administration has to put its weight behind a process, recognizing that its not going to happen immediately, he said during a visit to Israel last summer. Thats why I will not wait until a few years into my term or my second term to get the process moving. That was meant to be a dig at the Bush Administration, which left it too late to pursue peace between Israel and the Palestinians. Now the Obama Administration risks being too late even before it has begun.
Obama short on details? Perhaps.
But what if we were to consider these statements:
Israel cannot be expected to negotiate with a party that calls for its destruction, engages in terrorism and maintains an armed militia. Hamas must choose: bullets or ballots.And to whom do these detailed statements belong?
I would work to isolate Hamas. We should not talk to Hamas unless and until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism and accept past agreements.
Hamas has to decide between bullets and ballots - either it lays down its arms and acts democratically, or it continues as a terrorist organization and is treated as such. It cannot have it both ways.
I would also support alternatives to Hamas.
VP-elect Joe Biden.
(source here).
Even more:
The Hamas takeover of Gaza is deeply disturbing, increasing the danger to Israeli citizens already under attack from rockets fired indiscriminately from the Gaza territory.And whose detailed statements are these?
The United States must continue to support our ally, Israel, as it defends itself against these attacks and insist that Hamas cannot be recognized until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israels right to exist.
Israel and the international community are committed to supporting the new government of Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas, strengthening the PA and its ability to meet its responsibilities, in direct contrast to Hamas.
I am deeply concerned about the growing threat in Gaza. Hamas has built a military force equipped with sophisticated weapons from Iran. Hamas campaign of terror has claimed the lives of hundreds of innocent Israelis. Its charter calls for the destruction of Israel. It has shown no commitment to peace or to renouncing violence.
Secretary of State-appointee Hillary Clinton.
(source here)
Looks like the real question is: Will Obamas statements on Hamas and terrorism be as strong as those from others in his incoming Administration.
January 2, 2009 at 4:41 am
Regarding the new administration and I-P conflict:
Extreme Mortman » Obamas Hamas Details - Just When You Thought it Was Safe to Take Politics Seriously Again
Yes, you'll have to go to link for the links.
----------------------------------------------------------
Expectations for the Obama presidency are extraordinarily high here in the US and all over the world, imo, unrealistically high. One comedian quipped that that when his most ardent supporters heard he would arrive in Washington for his inauguration by train from Philadelphia, they were disappointed having been certain he would get there by walking on water.
So far we have only sound bytes and slogans from the campaign to go. We'll just have to wait and see not only what he will try to do but what he will be able to do.
Why do you say that? Didn't he tell you he could fix what the Boosh Administration broke? Why yes, I think he did. Now put up or shut up obamalama!
Race did play a role...among black voters.
THe military is universally concerned about Obama...yet a break down according to race shows that 8 out of 10 black military voters voted for him.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
True, but that is less remarkable to me than that the white vote did not seem to have been based on race to any measurable extent. When you consider that Kerry had gotten 90% of the black vote in 2004 to Obama's, I believe, 95% of the black vote and that black Americans make up only about 13.5% of the population, it isn't likely that their understandable enthusiasm of some black voters for the first black candidate for president who had a chance of winning made any difference in the electoral count although it may have boosted his popular majority by a fraction of a percent.
One could argue that he wouldn't have been able to win the Democratic nomination without the huge swing in the black vote on the eve of the South Carolina primary as a response to the dishonest accusation by Jim Clyburn that the Clintons were racists, and so it's clear that we didn't elect St. Obama, but in my experience all candidates are to some extent demeaned by the things they do to get elected, but for me, who grew up white in a large northeastern city and was bused for nearly 20 minutes by that city to an overcrowded but predominately white elementary school instead of being assigned to a predominately black elementary school that was walking distance from my house, the fact that a black man can be elected President of the United States when it was a preposterous notion when I was young to think a black man could be elected to city council overrides all other considerations for now.
Don't think things have change so much yet. It is significant that Obama received very good support among white voters. What will be interesting to see is how many whites vote for him in 2012 if things get worse instead of better.
