An Internet hub with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, indies, centrists, moderates, and right
« ‘Megalomania’: It’s Time to Scale Down Olympic Torch Relay
Guest Book Review: Breakfast of Champions by Kurt Vonnegut »
Obama, Carter, Hamas, and Israel
Kevin Sullivan defends Sen. Obama’s criticism of former President Carter — by slicing up Steve Clemons’ rebuke of Obama on the same subject.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
5 Responses to “Obama, Carter, Hamas, and Israel”
Negotiation is tricky in the political season, as everyone prepares to pounce on every word said by anyone, especially candidates with a (D) after their names. But on the subject of negotiation, this oft-repeated meme is demonstrably off base:
We negotiate with mass murderers, with kidnappers, with extortionists and yes, with terrorists. We do so because it saves lives, which should always trump any cute concept of “legitimizing” them. Give me a break. When the police negotiate to end a stand-off, no one accuses them of “appeasing” or “legitimizing”. Every negotiation is different, every situation unique, and taking a stand on the general concept of negotiating with people we don't like, is foolish and narrow-minded. Negotiation is often a process of reaching for the least bad option, and to start from a rigid “we won't negotiate” position reduces the options to exactly one: telling “terrorists” or criminals to go ahead and do whatever they're going to do (with the subtext “then we'll kill you”). Since we can't even reduce the numbers of terrorists with bullets, we need to be open to all options within our grasp.
Great comment GreenDreams. The right-wing concern with legitimizing terrorists and emboldening the enemy is more than a bit foolish.
Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda seem pretty damn emboldened already. I think it's safe to assume they are doing all they are capable of doing in terms of killing and destruction.
More to the point, negotiating with Abbas and refusing to negotiate with Hamas actually has an effect opposite of the one Kevin Sullivan envisions. Abbas is seen more and more as a puppet of Israel and the US while Hamas gains more credibility among the Palestinians and sympathetic peoples.
While I'm more sympathetic to the view of “Naive moral equivalence” expressed by Sullivan than the first two commenters, I also think his harsh rhetoric is self-defeatingly out of line.
I also think Clemons is obviously right when he says this:
And yet Sullivan seems to think this is dumb.
Obama says he will talk to anyone, when it comes to Iran, but he criticizes Carter when i comes to Hamas.
Folks advocating the boycott of the Olympics, want to talk to Hamas.
Kevin Sullivan is self-contradictory, also, IMO.
Amazingly, 'naive moral equivalence' is always and solely what the other guy does.
I believe the 'know thy enemy' maxim. is vital tor getting and keeping the upper hand. That requires listening as well as talking, and that's where many rhetorical and advocacy positions fall short.
It's not enough to say 'we are right'. It takes knowing which tactics are likely to work and which not. Whether it's Iran, Beijing or Hamas, it takes understanding how THEY thnk and how and why they came to think as they do to devise the most effective strategies.
I predict that boycotting the Olympics will only harden the Beijing regime,.Peaceful protests (I emphasize PEACEFUL) might have shamed them enough to rethink their global image problem, but going too far, like attacking the torch, will have the opposite effect.
Likewise with Hamas, remaining so morally unequivalent that we never learn how and why they are who they are blinds people in devising the best tactics for dealing with them.
Give me the president who will never say 'never' or 'always' but will keep all options open as he learns to truly know his enemies, and devise strategies accordingly.
“Folks advocating the boycott of the Olympics, want to talk to Hamas.”
Would you really expect such people to grow up and be sane any time soon?