Obama on negotiating: “Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization.”

posted at 5:27 pm on April 16, 2008 by Allahpundit

Correct on both counts but troubling in what it implies. Does he mean to say the two categories are mutually exclusive?

“That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.

This is the same incoherent litmus test he mentioned a few days ago, transparently designed to let him to talk to Iran — a sovereign state, after all, but otherwise guilty of the same sins he lists vis-a-vis Hamas — while ignoring Hamas lest it put him on the wrong side of pro-Israel voters. Let’s pretend to take him seriously. What if Hamas declared a jihadist state tomorrow in Gaza? What magical power would derive in his view from the mantle of statehood that would suddenly render them non-terrorist? A Palestinian poll of Gazans two months ago showed Fatah only seven points ahead of Hamas in terms of public support; a poll of wider Arab public opinion released today shows 56% sympathize with Hamas to an equal or greater degree than they do with Fatah. If it’s simply a question of popular legitimacy, then just give Hamas time; they’ll lock up a solid 51% eventually. If it’s more than that, if “statehood” isn’t fully achieved until either the U.S. or UN formally recognizes the entity, then the question is merely pushed back a step: What are his criteria for diplomatic recognition? If they’re the same as in the blockquote then why would he bother recognizing Iran? The Quds Force is already recognized as a terrorist organization by the State Department and the entire Revolutionary Guard may yet suffer the same fate. Is he going to delist them? Square this circle, Barry.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

One cannot square a circle when one thinks its a radish.

spmat on April 16, 2008 at 5:28 PM

One cannot square a circle when one thinks its a radish aragula.

Sorry, that was too obvious.

Nosferightu on April 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM

Heh. Obama is risking losing the vote of his pastor with this kind of talk.

However, I would guess that the good Rev and people like him know that Obama is just saying things like this, just to get the vote of all of the bitter white folk in middle America.

wise_man on April 16, 2008 at 5:32 PM

Say it with me people:

Empty. Suit.

He’s got all the depth of a spring puddle. His campaign is only transparent because there’s nothing to see. He is the diet coke of candidates.

He’s a convenient puppet who, to quote McCain, has the audacity to hope you can’t see the Beltway Democrats pulling his strings.

TheUnrepentantGeek on April 16, 2008 at 5:37 PM

Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction.

No matter how you look at it, the Iranian government is a group intent on Israel’s destruction.

lowandslow on April 16, 2008 at 5:39 PM

Its like a a game. “Pick Which Completely Arbitrary Position Barack Will Take Now!”

Mattpat11 on April 16, 2008 at 5:41 PM

Here’s more:

We, I believe benefit in terms of legitimacy around the world if we say we are willing to talk directly, not because we approve of these states but because it shows that we are willing to listen.

By doing so I think we are actually further isolate Iran as opposed to, aah, as opposed to, strengthening them. I know there is an argument about what kind of a propaganda coup it would be for Iran.

“I actually think that the propaganda coup for Iran has been this sense of being embattled and attacked and as a consequence it gives an excuse for countries like China or countries like Russian to sit on the sidelines and not engage in the kinds of aggressive pressure that is needed for them to step down on their nuclear program and, yet frankly .the unilateral approach that President Bush has taken, the manner in which he went into Iraq, has not only strengthened Iran strategically, they have been, as I said, the biggest beneficiary of the war in Iraq, but it also has also given Iran an excuse not to engage the international community.

He seems kind of all over to me, but I don’t understand why he thinks Iran isn’t engaging in the international community. I also suspect his ‘engagement’ will be successful like Chirac’s engagement with Mugabe was about 6 years ago.

Hamas is not a state, but it is a political party that has won elections in Palestine. It is funded by Iran. Is there really such a big difference?

(ps. the funny thing is, on lefty blogs the criticism is that he won’t meet with Hamas, not that he will meet with Iran)

MayBee on April 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM

I don’t believe a word of it. Barry would deliver the eviction notice to Zion himself if he had more meat on his bones.

Limerick on April 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM

I also think that he is making this distinction between Hamas and Iran because any “though” rhetoric with Iran will place him on the side of Bush, at least in the minds of the kooks. The left is terrified that Iran is going to be the new Iraq, and Barry is trying to play to that, at least in part. The other part is that he’s just a boob.

Weight of Glory on April 16, 2008 at 5:46 PM

(ps. the funny thing is, on lefty blogs the criticism is that he won’t meet with Hamas, not that he will meet with Iran)

MayBee on April 16, 2008 at 5:42 PM

Heh. It almost writes itself, doesn’t it?

Weight of Glory on April 16, 2008 at 5:49 PM

“And let me make one last point about the comparison to McGovern and Dukakis, both excellent men, but I’m a pretty darn good politician,”

“Because I’m a pretty darn good politician, I can say and do anything. I’m the Messiah and I can, and will, square any circles. Vote 4 me, and u will see”.

Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 5:51 PM

Nothing that comes out of the mouth of St. Obama concerning Israel can be believed anyway. He has far too long a record of associating with vocal Israel-haters and anti-Semites for him to credibly claim that he has the best interests of Israel at heart.

I can’t imagine why any American Jew would consider voting for the candidate most likely to sell Israel down the river at the earliest opportunity.

Cicero43 on April 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM

Bets that he doesn’t get the Iran/Hamas question at the debate tonight?

I have a C-note for the Salvation Army that says he doesn’t. (No question, they get the money)

Limerick on April 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM

This guy, and his loudmouth whiny wife, are simply not ready for primetime.

Ooh, but is that racist?

Primetime == Deion Sanders??????

Deion Sanders == BLACK??????????

Hmmm…

benrand on April 16, 2008 at 5:57 PM

BO’s campaign slogan ought to be: “I believe whatever you believe”. Marxist Panderer.

Andy in Agoura Hills on April 16, 2008 at 5:58 PM

Where is MB4 to back up his man Obama??

ArmyAunt on April 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

What did he secretly tell the Candians?

Or the Gazans?

Or Michelle?

profitsbeard on April 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

Nosferightu on April 16, 2008 at 5:31 PM

One cannot square a circle when one thinks its a radish aragula.

That depends, actually. Is it organic arugula?

DaveS on April 16, 2008 at 6:00 PM

“Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization,” he said.

To which I say “duh”. How does he square the fact that Hamas may be a terrorist organization, but is in fact in charge in Gaza? They may not be a state, but they are a political governing power. Because he’s entertained the notion of negotiating with Iran, what will he do with a governing power that is in charge, but is also a terrorist organization?

I suspect he felt the need to say this, considering the blowback Jimmy Carter is having due to HIS meetings with Hamas.

mjk on April 16, 2008 at 6:01 PM

MayBee and I just made the same point. Doh!

mjk on April 16, 2008 at 6:02 PM

I’m confused. Iran is bent on the destruction of both Israel and America.

Moreover, he claims that he won’t talk to Hamas because they don’t represent a sovereign state … but his conditions for talking to Hamas do not include Hamas sovereignty.

aunursa on April 16, 2008 at 6:04 PM

Hamas have been legitimised by the Bush Administration’s intense craving to spread “democracy” to every corner of the globe.

Are they a Government? No. But they have been legitimated by popular vote, mob rule. They are “democratic”. Ugh.

aengus on April 16, 2008 at 6:07 PM

Barack was against talks with Hamas before he was for talks with Hamas before he was against talks with Hamas . . .

TooTall on April 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM

I’m confused.

Join the queue buddy.

aengus on April 16, 2008 at 6:08 PM

Or Michelle?

profitsbeard on April 16, 2008 at 5:59 PM

“Honey, I’ll make you First Lady, and you’ll be the bitchiest sexiest First Lady, ever”.

Michelle “Don’t you go forgetting, ever, that you’re nothin’, I repeat, nothin’ without me”.

Entelechy on April 16, 2008 at 6:14 PM

Hamas have been legitimised by the Bush Administration’s intense craving to spread “democracy” to every corner of the globe.

Are they a Government? No. But they have been legitimated by popular vote, mob rule. They are “democratic”. Ugh.

Which was, of course, the continuation of the insane decision by several governments to legitimise the Palestinian Liberation Organization to being a governing body from being a terrorist group. Remember who decided that? Oh, yeah, Clinton.

Oh, oh, but they changed their name to the Palestinian Authority or Fatah, which makes it ALL better.

mjk on April 16, 2008 at 6:17 PM

oops
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

sashal on April 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM

Speaking of empty suits, I like this one:

http://www.iowapresidentialwatch.com/images/cartoons/EmptySuit-Md.jpg

chewydog on April 16, 2008 at 6:27 PM

I question the timing.

Is this some empty-suit attempt at a Sister Souljah-like moment?

Jaibones on April 16, 2008 at 6:30 PM

oops
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

sashal on April 16, 2008 at 6:22 PM

BiBi has said something to that effect before. Almost immediately after 9/11, he gave a speech at Congress or Senate (I don’t remember which one) in which he basically said “Now you know how it feels. This is what you should do about it.”
And frankly, my friends and family are way more empathetic to the Israelis since after 9/11 so he’s speaking truth to power or some such thing.

mjk on April 16, 2008 at 6:35 PM

Obama is a “pretty darn good politician”, dixit Himself. So busy being a politician that he hasn’t had time to chair his subcommittee in the Senate, and he voted Present hundreds of times in the state-house. What has this guy ever DONE for the people who elected him?

Ego-bama might get a reality check when all those bitter people vote for McCain.

Steve Z on April 16, 2008 at 7:01 PM

Heh, it’s like listening to Greenspan when he was chairman of the Federal Reserve.

Obama is saying, “What I meant is not what you think I said, and I apologized that you didn’t understand what I said.”

rockhauler on April 16, 2008 at 7:15 PM

I can’t imagine why any American Jew would consider voting for the candidate most likely to sell Israel down the river at the earliest opportunity.

Why stop there? Why would any American Arab consider voting for a candidate that says he’ll talk to Ahmadinejad without any conditions whatsoever?

For every Jewish friend of Israel with concerns about Obama there should be an Arab friend of the many Arab states with just as strong of a concern about Obama.

Talks without conditions are certain doom for the United States foreign policy.

gabriel sutherland on April 16, 2008 at 7:16 PM

I was watching MM on Fox this afternoon. She stated that she thought Obama’s outreach to the Jewish-American voters was to little, to late. Michelle was not asked to follow up on what that means. Will McCain able to win a majority of the Jewish vote in November? 45 percent? 40 percent? What do you guys think, will the Jewish community vote for Obama, or not. Paging April O…Paging April O. Who is more offensive…Rev Wright, or a Bible-thumper like me?

chief on April 16, 2008 at 7:23 PM

How does he square meeting and serving on a board with Bill Ayers?

Buy Danish on April 16, 2008 at 7:25 PM

Wow Barry, those are some harsh words. Next thing you know he’ll distancing himself from Momar Kadafi. What’s with all the hate?

moxie_neanderthal on April 16, 2008 at 7:43 PM

Cicero43 on April 16, 2008 at 5:56 PM

I call racist code language! “Sell down the river” referred to punishing slaves by selling them “down river” to southern states where they were likely to suffer much harsher treatment. What do I win? A free subscription to the LA Times?

Spolitics on April 16, 2008 at 7:50 PM

Spolitics,

Very good catch!!

I think the prize is a hundred bucks.

Oops!!

exhelodrvr on April 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM

exhelodrvr on April 16, 2008 at 8:00 PM

I gather you says “Oops” because “buck” is also a racial code word. Let me see if I can make the connection. Buck is another way of saying horse which is another way of saying stallion which leads to Black Stallion which is another way of saying Barack Obama. I did it in four links!

Spolitics on April 16, 2008 at 8:14 PM