At the AIPAC policy conference today, President Obama created even more confusion over where he stands on Israel. While the president acknowledged that Israel cannot be expected to negotiate a peace deal with a terrorist organization like Hamas, he immediately suggested that Israel needs to try anyway.
“No country can be expected to negotiate with a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction,” said Obama. “We will continue to demand that Hamas accept the basic responsibilities of peace: recognizing Israel’s right to exist, rejecting violence, and adhering to all existing agreements.”
He then added, “Yet, no matter how hard it may be to start meaningful negotiations under the current circumstances, we must acknowledge that a failure to try is not an option. The status quo is unsustainable.”
So which is it? Does Obama understand that Israel cannot negotiate with a terrorist organization bent on its destruction? Or does he believe that Israel still needs to start negotiations “under the current circumstances”—i.e. with a unity government that includes Hamas?
This odd contradiction wasn’t missed by the audience, which sat in stony silence during this portion of the president’s speech. The fact is, calling for negotiations under the current circumstances means that Israel must work with Hamas. If this is Obama’s position—as it appears to be—then he needs to make this clear. Because while his statements on the 1967 borders on Thursday were controversial, asking Israel to work for a peace deal with a terrorist organization is another level of outrageous.
[...] So Does Obama Want Israel to Negotiate With Hamas or Not? Alana Goodman 05.22.2011 – 11:58 AM [...]
[...] Israel to work for a peace deal with a terrorist organization is another level of outrageous. via commentarymagazine.com This entry was posted in From Posterous. Bookmark the permalink. ← If This [...]