Obama's good flip-flop

Last year, Jimmy Carter visited the Middle East and spoke to Hamas. Back then, candidate Obama criticized Carter, saying ""We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."

But now we learn that those visits last year resulted in a possible deal to liberate an Israeli soldier kept by Hamas, in exchange for some Palestinian prisoners. The world should rejoice at this peace agreement that shows that diplomacy is the answer, not tough words.

A Haaretz article today indicates that President Obama also participated in these deals, and was a factor in obtaining the positive results:

Haaretz: The European source said Shalit's transfer to Egypt was the first stage of the Egyptian-brokered agreement hammered out between Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in coordination with the U.S. and with Syria's support.

This is what I call a good flip-flop. Kudos to President Obama.

For more info on these developments read the following story by Glen Greenwald: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/06/26/diplomacy/index.html

They are worlds apart. We negotiated with the Peoples' Republic of Vietnam on many issues during the Vietnam war and only later did we actually sit down with them.


This is not a flip flop.

I disagree with that assumption.

You don't seem to be very well acquainted with the nuances of diplomatic encounters and equate third party negotiation with direct bilateral negotiations.


Obama's policy of engaging countries is well understood. We are not going to have bilateral 'sit down' discussions with Hamas until they meet certain prerequisites that include the recognition of a two state, i.e. Israel's right to exist, solution.


I am a long time admirer of Clinton, having attended his innauguration. I also think that he has been remarkably under appreciated as both a president and past president. If you read his comments on the Palestine carefully and without prejudice there is little to argue with.


My problem is with your careless use of language and the capricious way that you have labelled President Obama as a flip flopper on this issue.


It is not supported by the facts.

The source is questionable. Even if Carter negotiated or "talked", that doesn't mean the Obama administration is involved.

Without a more reliable source, I can only conclude that the article cited in the OP is simply trying to create disinformation.

OP has 57 posts. Needs to learn to find reliable sources.

Greenwald (the author of the article in the OP link) makes a huge leap from what the Haaretz article said:

But as Omooex points out in comments, the Haaretz article which Goldfarb himself cited makes clear that it was not Netanyahu, but numerous other parties -- Jimmy Carter, Egypt, Syria and the Obama administration -- who engineered the agreement to transfer Shalit from Gaza to Egypt (followed eventually by his release to Israel, pending the release by Israel of Palestinian prisoners):
"The move is part of a new United States initiative that includes Egyptian and Syrian pressure on Hamas . . . The idea to transfer Shalit to Egypt in exchange for the release of Palestinian women, teens, cabinet ministers and parliamentarians being held in Israeli prisons was raised about a year ago during a visit by former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to Damascus, Jerusalem and Gaza. . . . Carter raised it again on his visit earlier this month, during which he met Noam Shalit, Gilad's father. . . . The European source said Shalit's transfer to Egypt was the first stage of the Egyptian-brokered agreement hammered out between Fatah, Hamas and other Palestinian factions, in coordination with the U.S. and with Syria's support."

Greenwald's leap:
In other words, the deal for Shalit's release was secured by some of the neocon's most despised enemies (Jimmy Carter and Syria), with the help of a President they insist hates Israel (Barack Obama), relying on tactics they have long scorned (diplomacy, negotiating with Terrorists, including Hamas).

======
As someone else said, sending intermediaries (if indeed that was the case, which is not clear) to open up a conversation is not sitting down and negotiating.

An example of statements Obama made during the campaign:
"In an interview on Wednesday, Mr. Obama, of Illinois, sought to emphasize, as he and his aides have done continually over the last few days, the difference between avoiding preconditions for talks with nations like Iran and Syria, and granting them automatic discussions at the presidential level. ... “I think that it is an example of how stunted our foreign policy debates have become over the last eight years that this is an issue that political opponents try to seize on,” Mr. Obama said in an interview on Wednesday. “It is actually a pretty conventional view of how diplomacy should work traditionally that has fallen into disrepute in Republican circles and in Washington.”"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/us/politics/29obama.html