A Diplomatic Double Standard: Obama won’t talk to Hamas.
Time and time again, Barack Obama has claimed as President he would talk to America’s enemies because it is by opening the channels of communication that international progress is made. This is Obama’s stance and includes meeting with leaders from Iran, North Korea and Cuba. He cites JFK and Reagan as examples of past presidents who were not scared to have a discussion with our foes (that the JFK one didn’t go so well, but that’s another posting).
But as Secretary of State Condeleeza Rice is in Israel trying to get the peace process reopened between Israeli Prime Minister Olmert and Palestinian President Abbas, Obama, safely back in America declares he will not meet with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh. This report is according to Tucker Carlson’s show Tucker on MSNBC.
Is this a diplomatic double standard? According to Tucker, Obama says his rationale here is that Hamas refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist. This is followed up with pointing out the cold hard truth that Hamas, though now elected officials, is a terrorist organization. This wouldn’t be an issue if we were talking about the GOP nominee Senator McCain. Let me be clear: the Republicans would not consider talking to Hamas. But Obama is not McCain. And his former stance on talking to America’s enemies is one that he has forcefully defended.
Again, Hamas was elected democratically, but Palestine is not an independent state. Does this matter at all? Maybe in part and maybe not. True, Palestine is not a recognized state, but Hamas is not longer just a non-state actor. The Palestinian situation is a bit different from other situations internationally where groups are seeking independence and the election does matter. If it did not matter, international aid would not have been cut off dramatically to the Palestinians due to Hamas control because they did not immediately end their terrorist ways — as they should to be considered a legitimate organization. But Iran sponsors terrorism and Obama has no problem sitting down with President Ahmadinejad.
Ok, so the real question comes down to this: was Obama again pandering for votes? Was Obama saying what he knew voters in Ohio would respond well to just like he did with the NAFTA debate — even though now he is in a bit of trouble considering accusations that his people told the Canadians not to worry and essentially he was faking his anti-NAFTA stance. Same deal here? According to the Jerusalem Post, the Jewish polulation in Ohio could very well have decided the race. Is Obama really change we can believe in? You decide.
Posted: March 5th, 2008 under Tucker Carlson, Hamas, Foreign Policy, Barack Obama, Presidential Election, NAFTA, Terrorism, National Security, Democratic Primary.
Comments: 1