Hot Air » Blog Archive » Three sources tell Guardian Obama plans to talk to Hamas

Three sources tell Guardian Obama plans to talk to Hamas

posted at 7:30 pm on January 8, 2009 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | Share on Facebook | printer-friendly

Barack Obama, April 2008:

“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.

The Guardian, tonight:

The Guardian has spoken to three people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp.

There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on in his administration, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

Richard Haass, a diplomat under both presidents Bush who was named by a number of news organisations this week as Obama’s choice for Middle East envoy, supports low level contacts with Hamas provided there is a ceasefire in place and a Hamas-Fatah reconciliation emerges…

Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at the Georgetown school of foreign service, said it was unlikely Obama would move to initiate contacts with Hamas unless the radical faction in Damascus was crippled by the conflict in Gaza. “This would really be dependent on Hamas’s military wing having suffered a real, almost decisive, drubbing.”

I bet they feel silly now for unendorsing him.

What’s changed in nine months? For one thing, the ceasefire’s come and gone per Hamas’s choosing, reminding the world yet again that they can’t be ignored. Terrorism works, as Alan Dershowitz likes to say, and never more so than here if the crisis they provoked succeeds in landing them a seat at The One’s table. Beyond that, with the election over, Obama no longer needs Hamas as a fig leaf for his policy of dialogue with Iran. I wrote about this endlessly during the campaign: The three reasons he gave in April for not chatting with them — terrorism, rejectionism, and dealbreaking — apply equally well to Iran, but meeting with Iran is the cornerstone of the foreign policy Change he promised. How then to prove his Zionist credentials to pro-Israel voters? Simple — draw a meaningless artificial distinction between Iran and Hamas based on the fact that one’s a sovereign state and the other isn’t. He’ll talk to terrorist states threatening Israel with nuclear weapons, but terrorist groups threatening them with Qassam rockets? Why, he’s far too much of a Likudnik for that. Except of course he’s not, which is why that meaningless artificial distinction is now reportedly — and quietly — being discarded.

Exit question one: Anyone heard recently from our new Secretary of State? She seemed quite troubled during the campaign by the thought of listening to Hamas. Exit question two: Second look at this report from November? Exit question three: He’s not going to try to spin this as okay because it wouldn’t involve “direct presidential diplomacy,” is he? I.e., “When I said I wouldn’t talk to Hamas, I meant *I* wouldn’t talk to Hamas. Hillary, on the other hand…”

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

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

I can just imagine the scene at the Presidential lunch the other day.

Obama: “I’m thinking of talking some sense into those Hamas guys — ”

All other Pres: “Yeah, sure, great idea, go right ahead…” (thinking — “my legacy is golden! There’s no f’in’ way my policies could come out worse than this idiot’s….”)

cthulhu on January 8, 2009 at 9:28 PM

I don’t believe it.

I’ll hate Obama as readily as anyone, but this just seems farfetched, and like The Guardian is trying to capitalize on Obama’s silence by just putting something out there.

If they were going to leak to somebody, why The Guardian?

jimmy the notable on January 8, 2009 at 7:37 PM

Considering he was doing campaign speeches in Germany, and for months has been talking of “changing America’s image with the rest of the world” with globalization undertones…I’d say that doesn’t seem too far-fetched at all.

selias on January 8, 2009 at 9:29 PM

I’m not sure about this, considering the source. The Guardian has pretty much shed any shred of objectivity has been very pro-Hamas during this conflict; maybe this is meant as an inspiration to them to hold out while the bombs fall. And they ran so many questionable stories about Bush that an unsourced piece is hard to swallow.
blue13326 on January 8, 2009 at 9:20 PM

Good point.

I am also wondering if this is just a trial balloon sent out by the Obama administration to see how it will be received and how the polling on it will be before they actually decide what to do.

If it is true,he is ignoring all the lessons of history and going into full out huffpo/Kos mode.

We really should not be surprised though given that Obama started his political career in the living room of a domestic terrorist that is being pushed now as a great professor who was guilty of a little vandalism when he was young.
Obama pretty much has more experience negotiating and working with terrorist than he does working and negotiating with our congress.
I seriously doubt he shouted “present” everytime his buddy Ayers brought up a new way to overthrow the US government.

Baxter Greene on January 8, 2009 at 9:34 PM

WTF IS ANY MEMBER OF THE B. HUSSEIN OBAMA TEAM DOING TALKING ABOUT FOREIGN POLICY RIGHT NOW BEFORE HE’S SWORN IN?

OBAMA SHOULD EITHER FIND OUT WHO IT IS AND FIRE THEM…

OR ADMIT HE WANTS TO UNDERMINE OUR NATION.

reliapundit on January 8, 2009 at 9:45 PM

Hopefully these are the same sources that told Australian newspapers that Americans are OUTRAGED that Obama’s were denied Blair House in favor of John Howard.

ctmom on January 8, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Just more Democratic ‘nuance’. Have the white flags been ordered?

GarandFan on January 8, 2009 at 9:48 PM

Actually , I figured him (the big Zerobama) for visiting Syria. Personally.
W/in 6 months.
.
.
What was Barry Obama doing in Pakistan 25 years ago anyway?

shooter on January 8, 2009 at 10:05 PM

Hamass has been saying for the last year that members of the Bush Administration as well as from the Obama campaign have been talking to them. Unfortunately I believe Hamass more than the Bush and Obama denials.
As for the US abstention on the UN Security Council’s resolution for an immediate cease fire FOR SHAME GEORGE W. BUSH. I wonder if that was what they were all laughing about in the President’s luncheon. I don’t know whether Obama told Bush not to veto the resolution so Obama would have a freer hand. But whatever the reason, Bush is not going out in style more’s the pity. I think Secy Rice thinks that to burnish her credentials at Stanford she has to sell out Israel, too.That too is likely.

eaglewingz08 on January 8, 2009 at 10:09 PM

…there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

The policy of allowing Hamas to live is counter-productive. I still don’t understand why we negotiate with Fatah either. They’re a bunch of terrorists too.

CP on January 8, 2009 at 10:22 PM

Of course he’ll speak with them.

He already knows how to speak arabic.

madmonkphotog on January 8, 2009 at 10:49 PM

His promise to Rashid Khalidi will be fulfilled one way or the other.

katy on January 8, 2009 at 10:58 PM

Jimmy Carter 2.0

joey24007 on January 9, 2009 at 12:36 AM

God oh God, why do I hope he does talk to Hamas? Is his administration officially a bust before it begins? $2 Trillion budget deficits, its going to get worse, talk to Mahmoud, chill with Hamas etc.

El_Terrible on January 9, 2009 at 12:46 AM

Richard Haass??

Couric shed some light on her preparation for the interviews: Beforehand, she sought advice from former senator Sam Nunn and Council on Foreign Relations president Richard Haas [actually, it’s Haass]. They told her to draw Palin out on her geopolitical worldview and urged her to let the governor speak at length without interrupting her. Maybe she should bring them along with her when she takes over at Meet the Press?

That would be a sad day for substance on Meet the Press, if it ever happened. Sam Nunn, of course, is now leading the Obama transition team on defense policy, and Haass and was probably familiar to Couric through his appearances as an analyst on NBC. Haass was a top aide to Colin Powell in the first two years of the Bush administration, and remember, Powell endorsed Obama. Haass publicly expressed Vice President Palin would be way too inexperienced for the veep job.

econavenger on January 9, 2009 at 1:09 AM

There’s a whole lot of ‘ifs’ in this Guardian article.

If Hamas gets a drubbing
and if there’s hamas-fatah reconciliation
and if there’s a cease fire

The first one might come true, the other two are a pipe-dream. Even now Fatah is gloating over Hamas getting its comeuppance.

Phoenician on January 9, 2009 at 1:32 AM

Remember,we still have a video tape that the LA times is suppressing that gives insight into how Obama really feels about Israel:

Obama at Khalidi bash: Israelis commit ‘genocide’
http://www.globalpolitician.com/25255-israel-obama
By Ted Belman

Award-winning blogger Doug Ross reports that a reliable source has provided an eyewitness account of what he saw on the videotape of the Rashid Khalidi farewell bash that the LA Times is suppressing.

The eyewitness source, who Ross calls “a person who has provided useful, accurate and unique data from LA before” writes:

Saw a clip from the tape. Reason we can’t release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying “Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine” plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

Could Biden’s concern about Obama “having to deal with a major event” and Obama “not being understood” be him turning his back on Israel?

Baxter Greene on January 9, 2009 at 1:35 AM

Reviewing Obama’s national security advisors leaves no doubt
that Israel is in trouble if it is dependent on the US for support and help:

Samantha Power and Obama’s Foreign Policy Team
By Richard Baehr and Ed Lasky
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/02/samantha_power_and_obamas_fore_1.html

Over the past month, controversy has erupted over the issue of Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisers and the impact that they might have on a future President Obama’s policies toward Israel, and on American foreign policy in the broader region. Articles in the Washington Post, Newsweek, American Thinker, New York Sun, Politico, Commentary Magazine, The New Republic, CAMERA and other publications have precipitated this controversy.

Who are Obama’s Foreign Policy Advisors?

Newsweek published a list of Senator Obama’s foreign policy advisers that included Zbigniew Brzezinski and Robert Malley. A few weeks later, the Washington Post on October 2, 2007 published a list of foreign policy advisers for all the major candidates, which list included the names of Zbigniew Brzezinski, Robert Malley, Samantha Power and Susan Rice as advisers to Senator Obama. Subsequently, Martin Peretz — an Obama supporter — wrote at the end of December that he got the “shudders” when thinking about the foreign policy influence of “Zbigniew Brzezinski… Anthony Lake, Susan Rice and Robert O. Malley”.

—————————————————

The most horrific name on Obama’s list, however, is Malley’s.

It is true that Malley was on Bill Clinton’s staff at Camp David when Ehud Barak had all the juice squeezed out of him to satisfy Yassir Arafat. But he was the only American in attendance to blame the failure of the negotiations on Israel, not least in The New York Review of Books, whose prior experts on the conflict were Noam Chomsky and I.F. Stone, afterwards to be replaced by George Soros, “oich mir a maven” or also an expert, and Henry Siegman. Don’t blame yourself if you don’t recognize Siegman’s name. (Anyway, he hasn’t appeared in the NYRB in some time. Maybe he even embarrasses Bob Silvers by now, as Chomsky came to embarrass him.) Malley also showed his colors with his attempt to coin a new nomenclature for the Israeli villages and towns in the West Bank, from “settlements” to “colonies.” Why would Obama name Malley to his team? You ask me. I ask

him.

———————————————————

Zbigniew Brzezinski

Here is one small example of the idiocy this “liberal genius”brings to the table:

“I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot…. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could.” [Blum, 1995; Z Magazine, 1997]

Q: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself
desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn’t quite that. We didn’t push the Russians to intervene, but we
knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Q: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight
against a secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn’t believe
them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don’t regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of
drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the
Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the
opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow
had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the
demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given
arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the
collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central
Europe and the end of the cold war?
Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism
represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense!

. . .

Real genius here,”yea I helped start and supported radical jihadist and to think they would be a problem later is just
“NONSENSE”.
Here is some of the other colossal mistakes this liberal genius and his buddy Carter were a part of:

Profile: Zbigniew Brzezinski
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=zbigniew_brzezinski

Certainly no friend of Israel.

Baxter Greene on January 9, 2009 at 2:34 AM

This is a little background on his Advisor’s Rice and Powers.

Samantha Power

In the case of Power, it was Senator Obama who made the initial contact with her after reading her book on genocide. Power is now actively working for the campaign. She cannot be casually dismissed as one of Obama’s many advisors, with no particular assigned role.

POWERS ON ISRAEL:

“alienat[e] a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing…billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the state of Palestine.”

Pretty much Powers wants us to cut off support(especially military)to Israel and invest in Palistine,basically she wants us to support the jihadist side of this conflict.

It gets better:

Power made her most problematic statement in 2002, in an interview she gave at Berkeley. The interviewer asked her this question:

without addressing the Palestine-Israel problem, let’s say you were an advisor to the President of the United States, how would you respond to current events there? Would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation, at least if one party or another [starts] looking like they might be moving toward genocide?

Power gave an astonishing answer:

What we don’t need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing — or investing, I think, more than sacrificing — billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

Once again,cut off support to Israel and give support to Palistine that includes American Troops being dropped in to protect poor little Palistine from the EEEEEvvviiiiillll
JEWS.

Susan Rice:

This is all you need to know about her to come to the conclusion of how dangerously stupid she is:

According to multiple sources, including former Clinton official Mansoor Ijaz and Richard Miniter, author of the bestseller Losing Bin Laden, it was she who was a major opponent of accepting Sudan’s offer to turn over the world’s most wanted mass murderer(Bin Laden). At the time, Rice was the Clinton Administration’s Secretary of State for African Affairs and a former assistant National Security Advisor under Sandy Berger.

According the both Ijaz and Miniter, Rice’s personal beliefs on the Sudan’s credibility led to her convincing Berger to reject their offer to turn over Bin Laden, overruling the advice of Tim Carney, then ambassador to Sudan. Her partner in this colossal error in judgment? Bush hater Richard Clarke. Sadly, a little more than a year later, Bin Laden’s murderers blew up the African embassies, killing U. S. soldiers and citizens.

She is one of the few people still vouching for Joe Wilson’s credibility long after everyone else realized that not even vultures could find any shred of credibility on the Wilson carcass.

Talking to Hamas is going to escalate into Green Tea parties with Hezbollah,Iran,and Syria.

They will rejoice together saving the “innocent civilians” in Palistine from the EEEVVVVIIIILLLLL genocidal Zionist.

This cut off of support and appeasement coming from the Obama administration will force Israel to deal with their Iranian,Hamas,and Hezbollah problems with military strikes and possibly all out war.

How can the so called “smart ones” be so dangerously ignorant when it comes to the lessons of failure that appeasement has been throughout history.

Baxter Greene on January 9, 2009 at 2:59 AM

Reminds me of the scene in Die Hard where the guy thinks he can negotiate with the terrrorists..because he can “sell anything”

and we all know how that scene eneded

Idiot

cmarceron on January 9, 2009 at 5:08 AM

“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.

We want, they preach transparency. He is very transparent, don’t you think?

Benjamin9 on January 9, 2009 at 5:12 AM

Nothing Obama does that is ultimately harmful to the U.S. and Isreal surprises me. He is completely consumed by his own ego and believes that everything he says and does will have a positive outcome. Of course, it doesn’t hurt to have a fawning, compliant media on your side. Their spin provides the centrifugal force that helps keep Obama upright.

SKYFOX on January 9, 2009 at 6:36 AM

The Press is setting this up for Obama to give “humanitarian aid” to these terrorists. Then the Empty Suit will claim that diplomacy with terrorists works.

marklmail on January 9, 2009 at 8:20 AM

The Press is setting this up for Obama to give “humanitarian aid” to these terrorists. Then the Empty Suit will claim that diplomacy with terrorists works.

marklmail on January 9, 2009 at 8:20 AM

Yea Right.

The democrats will probably try and spin this the same way
they say that yelling for Surrender in Iraq for years,Opposing the surge,and declaring we have lost the Iraq
war on the Senate floor is the reason that we have now “succeeded” in Iraq.

When Israel beats Hamas down so much that they will be ready to “negotiate”,they better make sure they “negotiate”
from a position of obvious victory.
If they don’t,you are right,they will allow the liberals and their supporters in the UN to claim victory through appeasement, talking and giving aid to a beaten enemy.

Baxter Greene on January 9, 2009 at 9:17 AM

is obama insane, stupid or evil?

kelley in virginia on January 9, 2009 at 9:26 AM

Is he floating a balloon here?

drjohn on January 9, 2009 at 9:27 AM

marklmail
Then the Empty Suit will claim that diplomacy with terrorists works.

And no one knows that better than PEBO.
.

philly_PA on January 9, 2009 at 9:30 AM

Is Obama dumber than we thought? There are consequences for going against Israel. I wonder if Rev. Wright brought this up in church:

1Now the LORD said to Abram, “Go from your country and your kindred and your father’s house to the land that I will show you. 2 And I will make of you a great nation, and I will bless you and make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3 I will bless those who bless you, and him who dishonors you I will curse, and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed. Genesis 12: 1-3

You can choose to believe it or not. That’s okay. I know who wins. I read the book.

kingsjester on January 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive.

Probably bcs ALL (or 99.99999%) of Muslims in the ME agree with Hamas.

Badger40 on January 9, 2009 at 12:35 PM

You can choose to believe it or not. That’s okay. I know who wins. I read the book.

kingsjester on January 9, 2009 at 9:35 AM

It’s nice to know, isn’t it? I do sleep a lot better bcs of it.

Badger40 on January 9, 2009 at 12:36 PM

Obama’s spokespeople deny the Guardian story is true:

Obama Team Denies Report That He Seeks Talks With Hamas
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/09/report-obama-advisers-urge-talks-hamas/

President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team denies a report in a British newspaper that it is being urged to use intelligence agencies to “initiate low-level or clandestine” talks with Hamas.

“The President-elect has repeatedly stated that he believes that Hamas is a terrorist organization dedicated to Israel’s destruction, and that we should not deal with them until they recognize Israel, renounce violence, and abide by past agreements,” transition spokeswoman Brooke Anderson said in a written statement.

The Guardian’s source’s and Obama’s team appear to be at odds.
Time will tell.

I hope Obama means what he says here and stands by Israel’s right to exist.
Looking at his foreign policy advisors,it does not give me a lot of confidence that they will.

Baxter Greene on January 9, 2009 at 12:51 PM

Comment pages: « 1 [2]

You must be logged in to post a comment.