Obama wary of Carter's report of breakthrough with Hamas

[bemildred]

Democratic White House hopeful Barack Obama on Tuesday expressed wariness about former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's report of progress in his meetings with leaders of the Islamist Palestinian group Hamas.

Obama criticized the decision by Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, to hold meetings with the group as a "bad idea."

Carter said Hamas' leaders told him they would accept a peace deal with Israel if the Palestinians voted for it. But some of the commitments to Carter were short on details and remarks by a Gaza-based Hamas official suggested the movement was not abandoning long-held positions.

"I think that what we're seeing now is that even as President Carter suggests there was breakthrough, you had some of the same old rhetoric coming out of Hamas representatives with regard to Israel," Obama told reporters while campaigning in Pennsylvania, which was holding an important vote on Tuesday in the Democratic nomination fight.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/977044.html

[jody]

1. Of course BO with his extensive experience in foreign policy would know. n/t

[Vegasaurus]

2. What "breakthrough"?

Hamas has not changed its stance. Read the statements of the day.

So, they want a little "ceasefire" so that Israel will continue to provide their food and fuel (while Islamic Jihad and the others continue to flood southern Israel with rockets).

What change is this?

[azurnoir]

4. Cease fire means all parties

not just Israel, who in the event such a thing could happen cease fire that is, be more than happy to shut down the crossings again at the first sign of a rocket

[Igel]

7. Was Hamas explicit about that?

Consider Iraq. Al-Sadr declares a ceasefire, and apparently not even all the people affiliated with his militia abide by it. He's in no position to enforce it on his own guys. Militias not affiliated with him completely ignored it.

Would IJ, the PLO offshoots, the secular militias, and he assorted miniature Islamist groups honor a temporary accord agreed to by Hamas?

In the past, Hamas had a ceasefire worked out with Israel--sort of parallel and simultaneous unilateral ceasefires. Non-Hamas groups didn't abide by it. When Israel responded to IJ or whatever the group was that engaged in hostilities (if it was in response to hostilities, not just arresting or 'killing in a targeted manner'), Hamas accused Israel of breaking the ceasefire. Israel responded that the ceasefire was with Hamas. Which version you accepted depended largely upon yourpersonal ideology and that of the news source you trust, the usual sort of bifurcated reality that I/P discussants seem to inhabit.

Unless Hamas says otherwise, and says it can enforce a ceasefire, I assume that the same asymmetry applies here as in the rest of their "struggle".

[azurnoir]

3. Obama hedging his bets?

It is saddening to see the foreign policy issues devolve into "who can be the most hawkish about supporting Israel", that Obama has been forced by both of his opponents to in part run his campaign on not who he and what he stands for but who and what he is not is disturbing to say the least.

[bemildred]

5. I dunno.

It is worth remembering that Carter likes Obama, and as I pointed out before, he is giving Obama cover on the left, and at a time when Obama is being attacked for not being hawkish enough about Israel. Perhaps I'm too cynical, but politics is theater, and Jimmy is a most experienced politician, and I expect that he would have thought out the political consequences of his actions. He does, in any case, seems to be acting as a lightning rod for the war-lovers, and that cannot be a bad thing for Obama. Getting the Mighty Wurlitzer pointed in another direction at this crucial time in the primary campaign cannot be a bad thing for Obama.

[msmcghee]

6. He hasn't "been forced" to do anything.

He chose to say what he said because he's a politician and wouldn't stand a snowball chance in hell of winning if he didn't. This is just a repeat of the same views that seem to dominate DU these days on many of the forums. They are all variations of:

Obama is an honest, simple person who only wants to do good for the people of America - but he's forced by his opponents to compromise his tactics and principles to succeed in this vicious system that's stacked against anyone who is truthful.

Hillary, OTOH, is the consummate triangulating, sleazy politician, willing to use and abuse the system as much as she can. She'll do anything she can to win because she craves power and control - and cares nothing about the voters or their desires.

It's all pretty funny to watch. I got over taking it all too seriously a long time ago. Here's a cool couple of videos for anyone here who also enjoys laughing at this stuff.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/04/22/video-hillary-clinton-wrestles-barack-obama/