Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Hamas: Obama doesn't represent change

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 04:18 AM
Original message
Hamas: Obama doesn't represent change
Hamas said Thursday that US President Barack Obama's position toward the Palestinians does not represent change and will lead to the same mistakes as his predecessor, shortly after the new leader made his first public comments on the Gaza crisis since his inauguration.

Obama said the cease-fire that recently ended the three week Israeli offensive in Gaza can only hold if Hamas stops firing rockets, Israel completes its withdrawal from Gaza and the US and its allies support an anti-smuggling system that prevents the Palestinian group from rearming.

Beirut-based Hamas spokesman Osama Hamdan dismissed the new president's comments, saying "Obama is still on the same path as previous leaders and also will make the same mistakes as Bush that ignited the region instead of bringing stability."

"Obama is insisting on not bringing any change even though his campaign slogan promised to bring change," Hamdan told Al-Jazeera television in an interview. "I don't think this is a very successful step toward dealing with the region, and this will mean the next 4 years will be a failure for the region."

The spokesman said Obama should have talked about the need for Israel not to attack Gaza rather than for Hamas to stop its rocket fire.
Meanwhile, Hamas called Thursday for reconciliation with supporters of Fatah leader and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas but insisted on pursuing "resistance" against Israel.
===========================================================
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1232643728290
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 04:55 AM
Response to Original message
1. self-delete - didn't realize I was in the crazyforum - my bad.
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 04:55 AM by BlooInBloo
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 04:58 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. It Is Not So Bad Down Here, Sir....
Used to pop down here to relax during primary season.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BlooInBloo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:00 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. Well sure - but that was to get away from *me*!
:rofl:

I, on the other hand, rarely argue with myself - in public at least - so don't experience that particular issue.

:P
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:04 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Well Played, Sir! Well Played Indeed....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
28. LOL
:applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:03 AM
Response to Original message
4. Very good position by Obama.
He speaks for me! :thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:43 AM
Response to Reply #4
7. At the moment, Obama is simply supporting the status quo.
It's still possible he could change, but at the moment what's so good about the fact that Obama's public I/P stance is identical to Bush's?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:00 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Yea, Bush's stance was actually reasonable, in regard to
Hamas.

I mean, he failed in the sense he couldn't achieve peace.

And I will agree that Obama is supporting the status quo, and something needs to change.

But I don't have a fundamental problem at all with his tough language toward the militants.

They need to know right away he's not going to be a weakling.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:22 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. He also needs to talk tough to THE ISRAELI GOVERNMENT AND THE IDF
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 06:24 AM by Ken Burch
It's time for our new president to have the courage to admit that the Gaza war is NOT just about "the rockets, the rockets, the rockets". It's also about the Israeli government policies that drove people in Gaza to conclude that they had no other option but to fire those rockets.

The U.S. has to push the Israeli government into finally, at long last, giving up its continued campaign to either prevent the establishment of Palestinian state or make that state so small and non-contiguous that it can't survive. The Palestinians can't be expected to embrace nonviolence as long as Israeli policies keep them powerless and oppressed. The side with all the power in a conflict does not have the right to pass judgment on the tactics of the side with no power.

I'm no friend of Hamas, but I am a friend of reality. And the reality is that it isn't all the fault of Hamas and the people of Gaza. Both sides share responsibility.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shira Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:29 AM
Response to Reply #9
10. "they had no other option but to fire those rockets"
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 06:30 AM by shira
Gaza 2005 pullout. Rockets before the pullout, more rockets after the end of settlements and occupation. There was no sea blockade at the time and the Rafah border was under PA control.

Obama knows this.

oh yeah....and this painful decision and concession by Israel was carried out under the Bush watch.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:34 PM
Response to Reply #10
20. The Gaza pullout was not a concession. The way it was done
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 06:46 PM by Ken Burch
was a deliberate slap in the face of the PA, because Sharon refused to do what any state is obligated to do with any other state in such a situation, which is consult and negotiate.

Sharon also made it clear that his intent was that Gaza would be the ENTIRE Palestinian state, and that he'd accept no other proposals.

So no, the Israeli government didn't GIVE the Palestinians anything but disrespect in doing that.

The rockets are a bad choice, but no, they DON'T justify everything that's being done here. And they certainly don't justify using white phosphorus in a crowded area.

Also, that was an unfairly selective quotation of my words. I didn't say that I AGREED that Hamas had no other choice. I said we need to look at the series of events that made THEM feel that way. That's a huge difference in concept and you know it. You should do the decent thing and include my full thought in that quote. I'm not an apologist for what Hamas is doing, I'm simply saying you can't say "what they're doing is pure baddy baddy evil and there's no possible rational explanation for it."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:32 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Perhaps you should also realize:
"Gaza war is NOT just about "the rockets, the rockets, the rockets".

"...but I am a friend of reality.

Not really, not with statements like: "The U.S. has to push the Israeli government into finally, at long last, giving up its continued campaign to either prevent the establishment of Palestinian state or make that state so small and non-contiguous that it can't survive." That simply is not reality. However, to your credit, you did get this correct: "And the reality is that it isn't all the fault of Hamas and the people of Gaza. Both sides share responsibility." Remember that the next time you blame Israel for all the ills.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:42 PM
Response to Reply #11
21. Hamas has made somebig mistakes. So did Fatah.
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 06:43 PM by Ken Burch
I've never said either of those factions was infallible.

But what you refuse to see is that the Israeli government is the dominant force in this situation. It has all the real military power. The Palestinians live in far greater daily fear of the IDF than ordinary Israelis do of Palestinians.

I take the position on this that I'd take in ANY situation: you assign more responsibility to the stronger side.

To take your view is not that different than arguing that what the South African government did on a daily basis was justified because some of the crazier antiapartheid militants necklaced people for collaboration.

The rockets were a product of the siege, of the closing of the borders, of all of the arrogance of Israeli policy.
I wish they wouldn't use them, but the rockets don't justify the oppression.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 08:37 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I don't have time for your endless strawmen again.
You can make excuses for the rocket attacks (or "justify them" or "explain them", whatever), but it just doesn't wash.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #29
31. It's not "making excuses" for them to argue that they aren't inexplicable.
"The rockets, the rockets, the rockets" do NOT justify everything the IDF has done. And you know it.

This article that was linked to in another I/P thread

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html

quotes a former IDF general to repudiate all the "it's all Hamas' fault" meme:

"Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December, he accused Israel’s government of having made a ‘central error’ during the tahdiyeh, the six-month period of relative truce, by failing ‘to take advantage of the calm to improve, rather than markedly worsen, the economic plight of the Palestinians of the Strip . . . When you create a tahdiyeh, and the economic pressure on the Strip continues,’ General Zakai said, ‘it is obvious that Hamas will try to reach an improved tahdiyeh, and that their way to achieve this is resumed Qassam fire . . . You cannot just land blows, leave the Palestinians in Gaza in the economic distress they’re in, and expect that Hamas will just sit around and do nothing.’

You can't dismiss General Zakai as an "Israel-basher". And this shows that my points in the previous posts were NOT strawmen.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:23 PM
Response to Reply #31
34. read and learn
Straw man
The straw man fallacy is when you misrepresent someone else's position so that it can be attacked more easily, knock down that misrepresented position, then conclude that the original position has been demolished. It's a fallacy because it fails to deal with the actual arguments that have been made.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:27 PM
Response to Reply #34
35. I didn't represent your position.
If you've never made a critical post about what the IDF is doing in this war(and we both know you haven't)you are, therefore, an unquestioning supporter of the IDF. In fact, I've never seen you question anything the IDF has ever done.

These guys aren't idealistic heroes who look like Paul Newman anymore(if they ever were). Their a right-wing army just like every other army in the world. You have to be right wing to use white phosphorus in crowded areas. You can't do that and still say you're operating from a stance anywhere close to morality.

The Gaza War is NOT a fight for Israel's survival.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #35
36. I don't have time for your endless strawmen again. Redux
You do this so often. Here's something novel, try speaking for ONLY yourself.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 10:20 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. Another pertinent quote from the same article, again proving it's NOT all about "the rockets"
"The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other. Hamas had to cease its rocket assaults and prevent the firing of rockets by other groups such as Islamic Jihad (even Israel’s intelligence agencies acknowledged this had been implemented with surprising effectiveness), and Israel had to put a stop to its targeted assassinations and military incursions. This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population."

Please explain how the Israeli government's refusal to agree to the reasonable terms Hamas was offering at that time, in your view, doesn't in any way matter. You would agree, I hope, that the Israeli government made an unforgivably stupid blunder in not agreeing to that, I hope, and that nothing that could have come of agreeing to Hamas' offer would be worse than what's happening now.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 05:42 AM
Response to Original message
6. Well, from their perspective, Obama ISN'T bringing change.
He's supporting the Bush status quo position(so far)and cheer-leading for the IDF Gaza war.

Even if you don't support them(and I don't, even as I unequivocally take the only progressive position and oppose the Gaza war) you'd have to concede that they do have a point on this.

The election's over. Obama should finally do the right thing and establish an evenhanded policy between Israel and the Palestinians.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:55 AM
Response to Original message
12. The appointment of Mitchell signals change. Obama's words are indistinguishable from the neocons.
We shall have to see.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:05 AM
Response to Reply #12
13. Fotunately his words are distinguishable from the exreme
far left crowd.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:06 AM
Response to Reply #13
14. God forbid Obama sound like a progressive democrat. Heaven forbid. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:14 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Being "progressive" doesn't mean
sounding like a Hamas supporter.

Some of us aren't in favor of supporting terrorism, and think Obama's comments are "right on".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cboy4 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:25 AM
Response to Reply #15
16. Exactly.
:thumbsup:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #15
22. It's not a question of "supporting terrorism" or cheerleading for the IDF
n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
25. A Hamas supporter? So, you have to be a "Hamas supporter" to object
to using white phosphorous on UN installations?

Boy, how twisted it that?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 08:00 AM
Response to Reply #14
17. I'm sure neocons everywhere breathed a sigh of relief. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cali Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 08:07 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. What did you expect?
If you expected Obama to sound like you, of course you'll be perpetually disappointed. But if you listened to him yesterday, he did not sound like bush, and his appointment of Mitchell shows that he's serious about moving toward a more even handed approach. So did his emphasis on getting aid to Gaza.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #18
19. I expected change. I expected a president who would deal with reality.
We shall see what unfolds. Could be he is saying the words he has to say. I was pleased as could be with Mitchell's appointment.

His mention of aid for Gaza demonstrates nothing other than he is a human being with 2 eyes.

Time will tell.

His actual words were a disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
27. His referencing of the Hamas rocket attacks without mentioning the carnage in Gaza
was not only disappointing but a misrepresentation. I expect better from him.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #27
52. He mentioned both
His remarks included this statement

I was deeply concerned by the loss of Palestinian and Israeli life in recent days and by the substantial suffering and humanitarian needs in Gaza. Our hearts go out to Palestinian civilians who are in need of immediate food, clean water, and basic medical care, and who've faced suffocating poverty for far too long.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. I hope you're right. Still, did he have to repeat the litany word for word?
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 06:49 PM by Ken Burch
I hope his deeds are better. We need to admit that even-handedness is the only way.

I'm glad to see Mitchell, too. I also think that Obama needs to start listening to people like Neve Gordon and Uri Avnery,
as well as people like "Progressive Muslim".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 07:00 PM
Response to Reply #18
26. We already agreed once today, cali, so that's some kind of bench mark.
But, Obama did sound like Bush. He pushed the same slippery bs about Israel defending itself, which is not a reason for Israel to defend itself by force when other means are available, and of alleviating need in Gaza as if need is just part of Palestinian DNA and not a situation brought on by political decisions. That's bullshit.

He sounded like a good colonialist, pretty much as I expect him to sound.

But, he can do better than that. Kennedy sounded much the same way when he took office and he did manage to do better before he was killed.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:21 AM
Response to Reply #26
55. Did Kennedy speak out against the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza?
Too bad there wasn't any pressure put on Jordan and Egypt to end their occupation of the West Bank and Gaza and grant Palestinians an independent state.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 01:58 PM
Response to Reply #55
57. The Palestinians have always been a political football, agreed. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
EFerrari Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 06:50 PM
Response to Reply #13
24. In ignoring the ongoing crimes against humanity in Gaza
Obama is a disappointment. You don't have to be "far left" to count bodies.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #24
56. He is not ignoring anything
He has specifically spoken of the humanitarian crisis and suffering of the people of Gaza.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Alamuti Lotus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 08:43 PM
Response to Original message
30. Not altogether inaccurate
Edited on Fri Jan-23-09 09:14 PM by Alamuti Lotus
It is disappointing to see the plan maintained for the illegitimate-President Abbas' thugs to force Israeli policy on the Palestinians. Thankfully I did not raise any hopes on the marketing slogans of the various campaigns, so there is little to be dashed for me on this subject.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:00 PM
Response to Original message
33. True. AIPAC has Obama by the short hairs just as it does every other U.S. government official.
I long for the day when the U.S. government tells the Israel government to shut up and sit down. I'm an old woman, I wish it would happen before I die, but I'm not particularly hopeful.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:34 PM
Response to Reply #33
37. BOO!
It's the boogeyman of the left, AIPAC!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:38 PM
Response to Reply #37
38. And?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-23-09 11:44 PM
Response to Reply #38
39. I just think it's funny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:19 AM
Response to Reply #39
40. I guess it's just my imagination that the first thing Obama did after winning the Dem primary was to
genuflect before AIPAC and offer his fealty to Israel.

And I don't see why one would have to be a "leftist" to be unhappy about that.

sw
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:24 AM
Response to Reply #40
41. More leftist propaganda doublespeak.
I think it is funny how you and those like you have created this false giant of an enemy. Perhaps you (general) should create a new horror movie starring AIPAC, it wouldn't be well attended, but it would be a hoot. Check with that 9-11 kid! He loves propaganda.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
scarletwoman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:41 AM
Response to Reply #41
42. Okay. I propose a complete cutoff of all "aid" to Israel and to every other Middle Eastern country.
No weapons, no munitions, no jets, no nothing. End all of it. Let them all survive or not by their own devices.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 05:32 AM
Response to Reply #42
47. So a free-for-all. Interesting.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #42
53. If we could ensure that no other country would give military aid either to others in the region
Then I'd be with you.

Better yet, we ought to do something about the trillions of dollars we spend on our own military adventures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:17 AM
Response to Reply #40
54. He wasn't "genuflecting" or "offering his fealty"
Obama spoke to and courted many different special interest groups over the course of the campaign. Each time, he would speak favorably about the issues important to that particular group.

There is really nothing so unusual about that.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 02:45 AM
Response to Reply #37
44. Well, why should the left like AIPAC?
AIPAC has, after all, spent decades opposing the creation of a viable Palestinian state and demonizes anyone who dissents from its line in the slightest as "anti-Israel".

Is there anything remotely progressive about AIPAC any longer? Was there ever?

I support people like Michael Lerner, who are trying to create a "pro-Israel" lobbying group that, unlike AIPAC isn't rigidly anti-Palestinian and anti-peace.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 05:27 AM
Response to Reply #44
46. Who said the left should like AIPAC?
Oh, that's right...NO ONE!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 06:35 AM
Response to Reply #46
48. I was responding to your remark about how the left DID feel about AIPAC
No strawman and you know it. Let that one go already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 07:47 AM
Response to Reply #48
49. Do learn to read.
Did I say "straw man?" NOPE!

You were making shit up though with your stupid bullshit question.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 07:57 AM
Response to Reply #49
50. I wasn't making anything up. It was a legitimate question.
You said they didn't like AIPAC. I merely observed that there was no reason they should. Nothing made up.

Stop with that already.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 03:39 PM
Response to Reply #50
61. You were/are making things up...again!
"You said they didn't like AIPAC."

No. I didn't say that at all. So your "mere observation" was based on something not said.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 07:04 PM
Response to Reply #61
62. You said " BOO! It's the boogeyman of the left, AIPAC! "
Which was going to be taken by anyone as meaning:

1)The left doesn't like AIPAC(which is not in dispute)

2)The left is making a big deal out of nothing when it comes to AIPAC(which is a silly thing to say).


What's the problem?

I didn't make anything up.

Can you honestly defend AIPAC's "Anyone who criticizes Israeli policy is 'anti-Israel'" stance?

Does that approach actually HELP Israel?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 09:50 PM
Response to Reply #62
68. Do you even pay attention to your own nonsense?
"You said " BOO! It's the boogeyman of the left, AIPAC!" Which was going to be taken by anyone as meaning:


1)The left doesn't like AIPAC(which is not in dispute)

2)The left is making a big deal out of nothing when it comes to AIPAC(which is a silly thing to say).
"

Do you see how disingenuous and manipulative you actually are? The sub-thread you started began with:

"Well, why should the left like AIPAC?" post #44 and when I responded, truthfully, with "Who said the left should like AIPAC? Oh, that's right...NO ONE!". You very predictably responded with "I was responding to your remark about how the left DID feel about AIPAC" and "You said they didn't like AIPAC." Yet, here we are, and by your own admission, I NEVER said the 'left didn't like AIPAC.' And gee, why might I not say something such as that:

"1)The left doesn't like AIPAC(which is not in dispute)!"

However, you then go on with your #2 (which describes many of your posts) and declare such a stance to be silly. Keeping with your true style, you do one of two things, you make up someone's position, then demand they defend it or you use some type of propaganda and demand a defense against it.

If you really wanted an answer to your tripe, you shouldn't have answered it yourself. Now, you get no answer.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:05 PM
Response to Reply #68
69. No, all I did in the post you just dissed was to prove I wasn't making stuff up
You've just gone on ignore.

Enjoy the war you love so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. No, I have exposed you for the propagandist you actually are and your dishonesty.
Enjoy the lies, hate, and bullshit propaganda you love so much.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
insurgent1 Donating Member (1 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 12:45 AM
Response to Original message
43. OBAMA ! WHERE IS THE BEEF !
Change Inauguration Speech: No Change on Bush's "War on Terror"

Farhat Maquami

No Change on Bush's "Bailout"; No Change on Lobbyists;No Change on War against Afghan Resistance; No Change on Genocide on Gaza; No prosecution for Crime Against Humanity; No prosecution for Torture of innocents.No Release for More than 25000 Detainees!No END TO SPYING ON AMERICANS! Where is the beef Mr. Obama!

OBAMA should have started the speech by declaring that Bush's "War on Terror" is over and we are starting a new Era of "Mission for Peace,Hope and Prosperity". we can start a mission for Peace by people who have internalized Terror by six years of propaganda. Like Plato's "allegory of the Cave" they have to be liberated from the scary shadows to believe in change. Well, my fellow American the day of scare tactics is over, set your mind free and lets liberate the world by Peace not War; by empathy not by terror! Bush administration has used every instrument of terror and torture to find those who terrorized us and since they have not found any evidence, any legally acceptable confession I would end the War on Terror and declare the Closure of Guantanamo , KUNDUZ and Abu Ghareib Prisons and emancipation of all 25000 who are held without charge in US custody. He did not!

Obama’s inauguration expense of more than $170 million dollars, in the middle of recession, produced less than Johnson Inaugural of 1.2 million crowd, with less expense!. Yet the mountain of fan fair, and money, Hollywood celebrities and publicity produced a disappointing mouse! Rick Warren gave more hope to the religious right and Neo-Cons than Obama’s disappointing and colorless speech.
Obama has the makings of a great tele-prompter reader-orator, but his inaugural speech was not a great speech, unlike his stump speeches. It was well-delivered, but it consisted of no new themes, rhetoric, refurbished conservative ideas of self-help, and no solid economic plans to address directly our economic, social and Global crisis. No economic plans for the country, and to end to Bush’s War on Terror. More troops to fight Bush’s Mythical Enemy in Afghanistan.

Obama’s Mountain of hope produced a disappointing and fearful mouse! Wall Street dropped more than 300 points because they saw no hope for real Change! Even after Obama got his wall Street 350 750 billions of “giveaway” Bail-out money, more in TARP money, and promised them 1. 3 trillion dollars of extra expenditure for road, bridges, infrastructures and Green Jobs to nowhere.
As he was speaking instead of hope they saw despair and dumped their stocks because any one with economic 101 knows that borrowing from China to buy Chinese and Mexican industrial products and filling Wal-Mart with cheap goods at the expense of American jobs would lead to 13 trillion Dollars National Debt by the end of 2009, that in combination of budget deficit, Balance of Trade deficit would bring this great nation to its knees.
We need factory Jobs, technological jobs and export goods jobs. What we don’t need is a superficial service jobs. Did he say anything about this no.


Instead of declaring that Bush’s Policies, which has brought disrepute to the ideal’s of this nation would be abandoned, he complemented Bush.
Instead of declaring to the world that Never again he would permit the leaders of this nation take us to the wrong war by lies and deceits and declaring to the world that we follow Human Rights and respect supremacy of truth in our conducts, he sat down Collin Powell in front row and defended militarism.
Instead of declaring , never again America would torture innocent human beings, and he has ordered his Justice department to prosecute anyone who has violated the international laws, he praised Bush. Instead of declaring to the world that never again America would keep silent while its military arsenals are being used to destroy 22000 houses in Gaza and murdering more that 1200 women and children and more than 6000 seriously wounded, in the Biggest Concentration Camp in history, he could have said he would try to bring peace to Palestinians and end their carnage!
No, for 24 days he kept silent and still is waving his Israeli flag, not thinking what is good for the United States must take preference over the interest of another nation.. We need markets for our products and 1.5 Billion Muslims would be our customers, only if we show the olive branch. The president must be the greatest salesman for America and he failed to get their attention.
He Brought Rick Warren to give him credence among other Noe-Christian rights and letting him to make a sale’s pitch for his Noe-Con’s agenda that has taken us to the road to economic devastation; but did not make a sale’s pitch for the American blacks and impoverished.

Yes, made conservative happy now that they know one of their own is the White House and under the “Black Skins there is White Mask” ; they are happy to see that all old Civil Rights leaders are going to the “quite house”, where he sent Reverent Wright. But the question is not about individual achievement via Charter Schools and parental guidance; but via a society that give all black Americans and other minorities a chance, the same chance we give to all new immigrants, like Barak Obama!.
He is a great Achiever and he knows Black Americans psychology, so he wants to keep them happy by his rhetorical lesson of success; but his lesson as a son of Kenyan, has nothing to do with black history and how the American society should uplift them. Afro-American psychological happiness with him actually is counterproductive. That is why many Neo-cons are celebrating the end of Al Sharpton, jessie Jackson and others old Civil Right leaders; but, Civil Rights movement would not die and must regroup and do not permit individual achievement of blacks cloud their group oppression.


.In Contrast to vividness of Obama, the speech was unusually dull, abstract and lacked any reference to people or situations in the present. The concepts, and the argument on which the speech hung was lifeless. They were neither original nor compelling.

Nothing in the speech rings true!. From America's success in the past was based on people who "struggled and sacrificed and worked." he concludes that “ What we need now is a "new era of responsibility." What does it mean? It means Bush and Co. did nothing wrong; but we the people, as powerless as we were, are the reason for our troubling economy. Our generation is at fault. Now we have to start changing our behavior. Nothing about FISA , that he voted for , nothing about the fabricated War on Terror, that has scared us from our own shadows; nothing about extra-ordinary renditions; nothing about lies to get us into the War; nothing about the cost of war that he voted for it every time Bush asked; nothing about stopping the war now to stop bleeding, but we are in trouble now is because the present generation has acted irresponsibly. Is that really at the heart of America's difficulties at home or in the world? It has the ring of Neo-Cons Biblical prophecies, but not of grain of truth.

There were subsidiary themes that seemed ill-suited to the occasion. Obama declared we need to end "the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics." Yes, fine, but again: Does that get at the problem now? Is Obama facing partisan warfare? Is Washington deeply divided? It may become so, but nothing suggest that this is a critical problem. Unless he wants to take the party to the right and he feel that he might see opposition from Congress and Civil Rights leader.

Obama did not say anything about the nature of challenges facing us. Or he said is:" Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred,"! This is nonsense! Our nation is at war with people who love us but hate their own oppressive government. There is no danger from Al Quaeda or Hamas , even after 5 years of torture in variety of torture chambers the CIA, Bush administration, Justice department , FBI investigation, Military Kangaroo courts have not produced one legally acceptable confession or a real culprit for 911 attack on us! It seems the danger posed by Al Qaeda is reminiscent of George W. Bush and his fabricated “war on terror”. Obama and the country clearly face grave problems overseas; but they can't be reduced to a "far-reaching network." So what on hell he is talking about!

The economic crisis? "Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age." Greed? Yes, but greed condoned and encouraged by government. Hard choices? What does these refer to? Few people getting sub-prime loan!? Auto companies making the wrong cars? Obama doesn't say anything of substance!

He could have declared the reality that our economy is wrong because of greedy Bankers who invested and lost their investment. Of Israeli and Wall street commodity brokers who in collusion with media , artificially increased the price of oil 5 times its worth pocketed the difference and transferred their money into foreign places. If the whole world has lost these trillions of dollars one would ask were did all these money that they scammed go, into the black hole , as Obama wants us to believe or in the pocket of the Wall street bankers and brokers that Obama wants to “Bail-out”!

The shallowness of his diagnosis is obvious, that is why he had lost his Mo-jo. His diagnosis dooms his supposed treatment of our economic problems. He is trying to shift the burden to the powerless people not the leaders who led them to the economic suicide. It was our leaders not the led who took us to this economic suicide mission, called depression. Why did he cover-up facts and blend them with fantasy? It is up to us to unmask him and force him to follow the “Change we Can Believe in"!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Fozzledick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 03:00 AM
Response to Reply #43
45. I disagree
but welcome to DU anyways :rofl:

Do you have anything meaningful to say, or are you just here to add to the noise level down here in the mosh pit?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ZombieHorde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #43
58. Obama has not fixed everything in his first few days?!?!11?!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:09 AM
Response to Original message
51. Sorry, Osama, but pursing violent "resistance" against Israel will not win Obama's respect
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 08:09 AM by oberliner
Perhaps Osama Hamdan and other Hamas representatives and apologists might want to look into a different approach if they wish to see a change in policy from Obama.

Namely: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 07:06 PM
Response to Reply #51
63. It's enough that the PA recognized Israel's right to exist.
the recognize the existence demand doesn't need to be made anymore, it's been complied with.

And you can't expect them to give up the armed struggle and get nothing for giving it up. You can't demand that they, in effect, surrender BEFORE the talks begin.

Israel is not the victim here.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:45 PM
Response to Reply #63
65. Those are Obama's words, not mine
Here is what he said:

To be a genuine party to peace, the quartet has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel's right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/22/AR2009012202550.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ken Burch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #65
66. I wasn't saying they were your words, I was responding to the words, whosever they were
'kay?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 08:54 PM
Response to Reply #66
67. Sorry - I saw the pronoun "you" several times
Edited on Sat Jan-24-09 08:55 PM by oberliner
That's why I thought you were saying those were my words.

Anyway, I think it would be a good idea for Hamas to renounce violence and recognize Israel as Obama mentioned.

It certainly seems like the other approach has not led to anything positive for the people of Gaza.

Perhaps if Hamas had renounced violence and recognized Israel right after their election then the situation might be better for the people of Gaza today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tripmann Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 02:17 PM
Response to Original message
59. Mitchell is being sent there...
..for a reason.

The official line will be no negotiations with terrorists etc. but George mitchell will be there talking to ALL players. He knows from norther Ireland that you cannot negotiate anything meaningful without accord from all sides.The british government was negotiating with 'terrorists' off the record for years prior to the good-friday agreement.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 02:49 PM
Response to Reply #59
60. The two conficts are not exactly the same
so we will have to see how Mr. Mitchell proceeds.

Obama is clear that he is not about to negotiate with terrorists in Hamas.

I would imagine the Mitchell would not have taken the post if he planned to veer wildly from Obama's plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bodhi BloodWave Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-24-09 07:24 PM
Response to Reply #60
64. true, Obama has been clear on that, its a good thing then
that not all of Hamas are terrorists and maniacal nutcases, trying to get the more moderate and sensible Hamas people engaged would be a good start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Dec 27th 2024, 02:22 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC