Hamas is unhappy that Barack Obama, like Hillary Clinton and John McCain, was generally supportive of Israel when speaking at AIPAC's Policy Conference. But they probably needn't worry, since every candidate always supports Israel, but ultimately puts far more pressure on Israel to make (unreciprocated) concessions than on the Arabs, including the Palestinian Arabs, to even adhere to their most basic previous commitments, such as abandoning the wanton murder of innocent Jews.
This was underlined when George Bush once again reneged on his pledge to move our American embassy to where it belongs, in Israel's capital, writing: "I hereby determine that it is necessary, in order to protect the national security interests of the United States, to suspend for a period of six months" plans to move the embassy. He added: "My administration remains committed to beginning the process of moving our embassy to Jerusalem," but he will undoubtedly once again capitulate to terror in another six months and will finish his eight years in office leaving our embassy where it doesn't belong.
If a president really wants to stand up against terror and demonstrate support for Israel, he or she ought to finally do what's right and move our embassy to Israel's capital.
The following is a JTA article describing Hamas' unhappiness.
Hamas unendorses Obama
Hamas appeared to reverse its position supporting the presidential candidacy of Barack Obama.
In a statement following Obama's speech Wednesday to the pro-Israel group AIPAC, in which the Illinois senator called Israel's security "sacrosanct" and promised to support an "undivided" Jerusalem, a Hamas spokesman accused the Democrat of supporting the Israeli occupation.
"We consider the statements of Obama to be further evidence of the hostility of the American administration to Arabs and Muslims," said Sami Abu Zuhr, according to Reuters.
In April, another Hamas official said in a radio interview that the group, which the United States and Israel consider a terrorist organization, would like to see Obama elected president. Obama's presumptive Republican opponent, U.S. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), seized upon the comments and mentioned the endorsement in a fund-raising letter.
“Hamas does not differentiate between the two presidential candidates, Obama and McCain, because their policies regarding the Arab-Israel conflict are the same and are hostile to us, therefore we do have no preference and are not wishing for either of them to win,” Zuhri said.
Other Palestinians also lambasted Obama for saying Jerusalem should remain Israel's undivided capital.
"Mr. Obama, if you speak about Jerusalem being the undivided capital of Israel -- sir you are closing all doors for peace," Saeb Erekat, senior adviser to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, told reporters Thursday.
"Those who are pro-peace do not speak about Jerusalem being the undivided capital of Israel. The U.S. policy since 1967 did not change. The U.S. Embassy is still in Tel Aviv and the U.S. considers east Jerusalem as occupied territory."
Israel captured east Jerusalem in the Six-Day War and annexed it as its capital, a move not recognized abroad.
6 comments:
People Power Granny is already disappointed with Barack Obama's position of promising to not negotiate with Hamas in the Middle East, if he is elected president. Do you think that Hamas should be negotiated with, as former President Carter has done? Vote in my poll at my blog so I know what you think.
There really isn't anything to negotiate about with Hamas, so from the perspective of doing anything useful it doesn't really matter whether anyone's going to talk with them.
If people power granny sits down with Hamas (and of course accomplishes nothing), it does no harm.
On the other hand, if any official government representative or anyone with any status such as the Peanut Farmer (Jimmy Carter) sits down with them, it effectively increases Hamas' standing in the world. This is certainly not a good thing and likely will result in more innocent lives being lost.
Hi Primerprez. It's nice to know that we heard the same speeches since we were in the same audience.
Much has been written about the three candidates' address to the AIPAC National Policy Conference. All that being said, everything I heard indicated that all three Presidential candidates plan to pursue the same policy on the War Against Israel as the last two preceeding administrations.
So true, TINSC. Every president pretty much does the same thing, including reneging on promises to move our embassy to where it belongs (which would probably be the single most effective symbolic step towards peace) and, at the end of his or her term, working frantically towards forcing Israel to make concessions and completely mucking up hopes for peace.
PANDERPALOOZA!
That's what last week's AIPAC Policy Conference was. In all my years in AIPAC, I've never seen such a line up of our nation's leaders puckered up to kiss our collective butts.
PANDERPALOOZA!
Didn't Barak O'Bama (I always thought he was Irish) say it all? Wednesday he wants a united Jerusalem. Thursday he backtracks and it's all up for grabs again. Does anyone think any other Presidential candidate is different?
PANDERPALOOZA!
At the end of the campaign, the only Presidential candidate who was sincere about Israel was Ron Paul. Wouldn't it have been cool if he had addressed the AIPAC Policy Conference?
PANDERPALOOZA!
How come President Bush (who some describe as "the most pro-Israel President in US History") didn't address the conference this time? The last time President Bush addressed the AIPAC Policy Conference was in 2004. By some strange coincidence, he was running for re-election that year.
So at the end of the day; the end of the conference, for all the nice things everybody said about Israel, the next Presidential Administration and Congress can be expected to conduct "business as usual". But hey! It felt good to listen to our leaders tell us how much they love Jews; even if it was only for a day.
Let us review what Sen. Clinton said at the AIPAC Policy Conference. Shall we?
>The second principle is simple one; no nuclear weapons for Iran. Iran is a country whose leaders, whose President denies the Holocaust. He defies the international community. His government trains, funds, and arms Hamas and Hezbollah terrorists in attacking Israeli civilians. He threatens to destroy Israel; just this week he said that Israel is about to die and will soon be erased. We can never let Iran obtain nuclear weapons. The next President will have to deal with the Iranian challenge from day one. This is not just in Israel’s interest; it is in America’s interest and the world’s interest and this is a threat that I take very seriously. I’m a co-sponsor of the Iran Nonproliferation Act. I support calling the Iranian Revolutionary Guard what it is--a terrorist organization.
I have also said that should Iran ever--ever contemplate using nuclear weapons against Israel they must understand what the consequences will be to them. BUT WE MUST DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER TO PREVENT SUCH AN UNTHINKABLE DAY FROM EVER HAPPENING (emphasis mine)and the best way to do that is to stop Iran from getting nuclear weapons in the first place.<
Well, it seems like Ms Rodham must have a different definition of "we" and "everything" because last week, she cancelled out of a ralley at the UN (in her home state) against President Ahmadinijad's visit to the UN. Sen. Clinton's spokesman said she was concerned that the rally had become a "partisan political event" - although her own participation would have ensured the opposite.
So what does this tell us of Sen. Clinton's remarks at the AIPAC Policy Conference? I believe it tells us that she is an insincere politician who doesn't really care if Iran incinerates Israel.
Not that I'm surprised.
Post a Comment