Obama On Hamas Smear: "We Don't Do Nuance Well In Politics"

Barack Obama sat for a lengthy interview with Jeffrey Goldberg where he discusses Israel, his connection to Chicago's Jewish community, and Middle East policy. He also had these comments about the recent attacks on him because of the kind words he received from a member of Hamas.

JG: Why do you think Ahmed Yousef of Hamas said what he said about you?

BO: My position on Hamas is indistinguishable from the position of Hillary Clinton or John McCain. I said they are a terrorist organization and I've repeatedly condemned them. I've repeatedly said, and I mean what I say: since they are a terrorist organization, we should not be dealing with them until they recognize Israel, renounce terrorism, and abide by previous agreements.

JG: Were you flummoxed by it?

BO: I wasn't flummoxed. I think what is going on there is the same reason why there are some suspicions of me in the Jewish community. Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.

Read the whole interview with Obama.

Comments

[OGWiseman]

I don't understand why everyone seems so keen to take Hamas at their word. Hasn't anyone ever heard of reverse psychology? Begin with the idea that Ahmad Yousef understands the effect that his words will have on our politics. Seems reasonable, given how vocal we are in our hate for Hamas, right? So then, if Hamas REALLY supported Obama, they would NEVER say so. Hamas is pushing us this way because, for them, Republicans getting re-elected is the best thing that can happen. It's a recruiting and PR coup, and it ensures that we will spend four more years alienating the Muslim world.

Why does Obama feel the need to defend himself on merits, as if the honesty of Hamas is without question?

[Palspal]

Wait a second. Obama SHOULD support Hamas. Hamas was duly elected to the Palestinian legislature. They WON the election that the US pushed so hard for the Palestinians to hold. Hamas is the only major obstacle in the way of Israel's ongoing ethnic cleansing and cultural genocide campaign. Abbas and the PA have already folded their tents as the Jews expropriate and inhale the rest of Palestine. I know Obama understands this, but has to give way to political and financial exigencies that would doom his bid for the presidency were he to express (or hint at even) the notion that it is the Palestinians that are the aggrieved party. The one last hope for America, if it is heal its relations with the rest of the world, is that President Obama gets it right when finally in office. Genocide and territorial expansion via war are unacceptable. Its time Israel towed the line.

[obamanation31]

I remember that in 1979, during the Iranian hostage crisis there was a guy named Ayatollah Khomeini who wanted Reagan to be the president instead of Carter, and would free the hostages till Reagan took office.

[EvgenyLibek]

The story here is more involved...
Ayatollah claimed afterward that he supported Reagan -- see the following timeline:

1. In 1979 - the Shah of Iran is overthrown, and exiled, by Islamic revolutionary govt.
2. Sept.1979 - the Shah is granted admission into U.S. for medical treatment.
3. Nov 4,1979 - angered Iranian students raid U.S.Embassy and take hostages (52 remain in captivity for the duration).
4. President Carter applies economic pressure (halts oil imports, freezes Iranian assets) and begins diplomatic initiatives.
5. Apr. 24, 1980 - a rescue mission is attempted, but fails. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigns.
6. July 27, 1980 - The Shah dies in Cairo.
7. Sept. 22, 1980, Iraq invades western Iran. U.S. begins provinding arms to Iraq (luring them away from Soviet arms, and intensifying pressure on Iran to release the hostages). U.S. will also covertly supply arms to Iran.
9. Jan. 20, 1981, President Reagan's inaugurated.
Immediately, U.S. releases ~$8 billion in Iranian assets, and hostages are freed (after 444 days in captivity). Reagan Administration gives Iran full immunity (even from lawsuits).

Soonafter, MSM is abuzz about the prospect that a negotiation must have taken place, between Iran and a pre-inaugurated (pre-elected?) Reagan Admin, with assurances that the hostages would not be released prior to Reagan's inauguration.

Khomeini later claims he "supported" Reagan;
Reagan Admin claims Khomeini "feared" the actor (just turned President).

[Palspal]

EVgeny - You forgot about the Mossadegh assassination and the installation of the Shah (both acts by US) with his secret police and political repression, and betrayal of the Palestinian cause. No wonder the US was hated.

[allonfla]

Last night on Keith Olbermann, he had a 5 minute segment about why hamas "endorses" Obama. Here is the link below.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24586279#24586279

[finlandstation]

abby4ever:
perhaps you have, but if nothing else, read down this page and then tell me there isn't a disproportionate amount of demonizing and mindless scapegoating coming from obama supporters.

[CocteausTwin]

None coming from Hillary supporters? Interesting. Please tell me where you get your post blocking software/plug-in.

[abby4ever]

***Look, we don't do nuance well in politics and especially don't do it well on Middle East policy. We look at things as black and white, and not gray. It's conceivable that there are those in the Arab world who say to themselves, "This is a guy who spent some time in the Muslim world, has a middle name of Hussein, and appears more worldly and has called for talks with people, and so he's not going to be engaging in the same sort of cowboy diplomacy as George Bush," and that's something they're hopeful about. I think that's a perfectly legitimate perception as long as they're not confused about my unyielding support for Israel's security.***
I just had to quote it, even though it's just above in the article, for everyone to see. I just had to because, for me, it's one of the best verbal responses on these matters that I've ever seen--it's one of the best STATEMENTS on these matters that I've ever seen. It just is brilliant, and makes you trust him even more.
Obama '08

[finlandstation]

i'm utterly shocked by the degree of vitriol coming from the"let's all unite and live harmoniously" obama camp. i've never heard so much rancor and hatred. if the message boards on the huffington post are representative getting along, peace and finding common ground will be the last thing that happens under an obama presidency. what seems so clear from these posts are how much his supporters harbor deep racial resentments and anger. these comments are a good window into how an obama administration would end up dividing us more not less. just goes to show, how so many of his so-called liberal supporters are really fascists out of power. let's hope they remain that way.

[abby4ever]

You generalize, saying it's coming from the Obama camp. That isn't fair. And if you aren't fair, no one will listen to you. Aside from that, some Hillary supporters---notice that I don't say 'the Hillary camp'---are pretty vitriolic too.

[finlandstation]

that may be but from a review of the comments on the huff post they are overwhelmingly coming from obama camp. if i am generalizing it's only because these kinds of comments are the norm. so, it's certainly fair. as far as hillary's supporters i haven't seen very much personal attacks on obama. they may think he is a flawed candidate, and unelectable but i think it's fair to say there are much less ad hominem attacks from them. obama supporters seem much more driven by anger than hillary's.

[ObamaRican]

How do we know it's not you posting them?

[IndependentAllways]

I don't think you are being fair at all. I am an independent but I have to say that many on BOTH sides are very passionate in ALL the blogs all over the internet and some people are more angry than others but that's human nature. That said I don't think that any thing you read here can be qualified as representative of the majority of voters for either candidate. You generalize when you talk about the Obama-camp vs Clinton-camp. I would like to think that after all is said and done this is the United States of America camp.

[Scarllatti]

You are just voicing your inner held prejudices. Good try.

[McPander]

I don't pretend to be an expert but it would seem that there has been a leader of the party for the last 16 years. That would be Bill Clinton. He has been behind the scenes controlling the party for the past 8 years.
He is responsible for all the weak leaders. Who was the head of the DNC for the 2004 elections? Gee it was Terry McAuliffe what a coincidence.
Its not very complicated. The weakness in the democratic party over the past 8 years has been due to the Clinton's desire to win the election in 2008 and take them back to the White House.
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for Al Gore as he has for his wife? no
Did Mr. Clinton campaign as strongly for John Kerry as he has for his wife? no
The plan has always been to have HRC serve 6 years in the senate then run for the white house. Everybody knows that.
Would that have been possible if Al Gore had been elected? no. Chances are he would have served 8 years and the his vice president would have had the shoe in for the nomination.
Would that had happened if John Kerry had won the white house? no.
There is a man behind the curtain in the Democratic Party and its Bill Clinton. Just look at who was on the campaign for John Kerry. All Clinton plants.
So i thank God for Howard Dean.
Think about it.

[abby4ever]

What a funny---and fun---screen name. McPander. I like it.

[Bill3rdterm]

The 04' campaign was lost because of a weak candidate.

Al Gore seperated himself from Bill Clinton and didn't ask him to campaign for him until it was too late. He was sooo scared that Bills' Monica Gate would hurt him, he not only seperated himself from the man, but also didn't highlight the peace and prosperity of the past 8 years. That and his idiotic comments about lock boxes and inventing the internet. Then he went all wacko on the debates. The first one he was like an attack dog, but the forcus groups said it was too much, so the next debate he acted like a timid child.

I love this PLAN you speak of. What was Obamas plan in 04' ? Get a US senate seat and run for president 1 and half years into his first terM????? This man has never finished an elected term in office without trying to get the next highest level. He's all about ego and power and the sooner you realize that, the better off you'll be.

Think about what???? That you are a conspiracy theorist, who has poor information and zero facts to even help that weak argument...

[realtalk]

VERY, VERY IMPORTANT!!! For those considering voting for McCain.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y395Tftgz0E

[ObamaRican]

This is just the tip of the iceberg!!!!!

[blackjack]

I have one Question why does all of our Senators and Rep., and President candaits have to swear the Loylity to Israel. We are an Indepent Nation and only have one Loylity and that is the AMERICAN PEOPLE.

[AdamX]

Black jack - since you seem utterly ignorant of this topic, let's start with the beginning. The US has not EVER sworn "loyalty" to Israel, anymore than Israel - or, for example, Great Britain, has sworn loyalty to us. Do you know what an ally is? Next, do you have any clue why Israel might be the most important ally we have in the middle east? Next, have you ever heard that Israel is the homeland and birthplace of Judaism, Christianity and Islam? Not at all important? Next, do you realize that it the only place on earth where Jews are unconditionally welcomed? Next, do you know the history of the people that now claim they are "Palestinians"?

Don't just toss something out there to support an ignorant idea that Israel is not an important ally of the US. Go get some knowledge - it is readily available.

[RandyRP]

Hi AdamX

Try answering some of your own questions. No B.S. No sophmoric attacks, I know the facts so don't avoid them.

Please educate us with answers to one of your own questions.

Next, do you know the history of the people that now claim they are "Palestinians"?

Don't quote Golda Mier either, or please do.

[Gemma08]

Rubbish!

Google 'The Israeli Lobby'.

[abby4ever]

***We are an Indepent Nation and only have one Loylity and that is the AMERICAN PEOPLE.***
Help! That sounds like isolationism. Worse, it sounds as if we don't need allies or give a fig about the ones we have. Blame the UK, anyway, they're the ones that had the big idea of the Israelis getting their own state and having the state parked right in the middle of Arab peoples, knowing full well about the great animosity between the two, which seems eternal. And aren't they the ones that came up with Iraq? They are always carving things up and putting people where they ought not to be, and then ducking out. Amazing as it may seem, not all the problems of the world can be laid at the feet of America. And I do think Israel is an important ally.

[CocteausTwin]

I am glad you have the energy to type out the attitudes that so many of us share. We are not the only one's on this small insignificant rock hurtling through the cosmos. Not many minds are changed through firing missiles. We should not fear at least talking with people different then us. It is not a sign of weakness but one of self-confidence.

There likely will always be a criminal element that must be dealt with in the severest of terms. I personally haven't had any God come down from the heavens to announce what should be done, just a bunch of books written by mere mortals often with their own agenda. I do not disparage anyone for having their personal beliefs. But when they can do despicable acts in the name of what is told by their religious leaders, I tend to want to know the true motivations. Usually these kinds of justification involves people who are simply out for some sort of power. I do not expect others to believe the way I do, but I do expect people to behave humanly and justly.

[LBM]

You are looking at this backwards. No one has to swear loyalty to any other country. A leader is required to understand the difference between a terrorist organization and a legitimate government. We support Israel as our strongest ally in the region. We don't swear loyalty to them, we support them in their quest for peace with their neighbors.

[RandyRP]

Goldberg has some serious issues. He essentialy asked this question TWICE.

"I"m curious to hear you talk about the Zionist idea. Do you believe that it has justice on its side?"

Let's see, 93% of the pre 1967 border occupy land owned by people who where forcibly removed at gunpoint during the 1948 three day war. Of course the "offical Israeli" position is that they left for fear of Arab attack. Even if that was the case, failure to allow them to return is a major problem.

With this fact in mind where does Goldberg even dream that Israel has justice on it's side. Likud is Irgun, they are the Stern Gang, did these terrorist have justice on there side?

Goldberg them mentions the settlements, let's see we have Likud supporting people who belief they have a right to the land, free of charge, becasue "God Promised it to Them" and let's not forget it's not just AIPAC but uber -right wing that support this view and hope al Jews will move to Israel, so the world can come to and end.

[AdamX]

You, sir, are a liar. You also hate Jews. Why don't you take an honest stand and admit it.

[Gemma08]

He is NOT a liar. His facts are irrefutable. The IDF had its genesis in the Irgun and Stern Gang -- a terrorist group.

Check your facts and your history before you condemn those more knowledgable than you.

Why does anyone who calls Israel on its human rights abuses, its belligerent refusal to adhere to the Green Line and its actions that thwart peace (settlements, anyone?) a Jew hater?

An anti-semite is someone Jews dont like. (forget who said it)

Google "Naqbah" btw if you have any intention of relieving yourself of your incomprehensible ignorance wrt to the truth about Israel/Palestine.

[RandyRP]

AdamX when you call someone a liar, you should be able to back it up. Please provide facts. Not fiction, you sound like a bigot otherwise.

P.S. My personal library of Shoah books would shame most public libraries over 250 titles. Have you read this many books.

Do you want to discuss say intentionism vs functionislm and its relationship to modernity. You are over your head with me pal.

[RandyRP]

Also Alex try reading John Stoessinger's classic "Why Nations Go to War" . He is a Harvard hisorty professor, and also a Shoah survivor. He suggest if peace does not happen soon, a civil war might occur. His facts support what I mentioned in my post. So tell me is he a liar too?

[LBM]

Likud is not the majority party in Israel, Kadima is, the centrist party who believe in the road map to peace. About 700,000 Palestinians left due to urging of their leaders when the Arab war was begun in 1948. Israel's declaration of independence states:

"...in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months - to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

The response was the Arab war of 1948 intended to destroy Israel. There are now about 4 million descendants of the Palestinians who left Israel. They live all over the world, some still in Gaza and the West Bank, some already in Israel. There are only about 7 million people living in Israel and 20% of those are Arabs. It's inconceivable to insist that Israel allows 4 million more people into an area that is smaller than New Jersey. New Jersey has a population just over 8 million people.

[MourningDude]

So which is it? Is Obama a fresh, new, quantum leap forward, or is he a nuanced, cafefully groomed politician, endlessly mincing words to give a slightly different hue to the same policies as everyone else?

[Gatling]

Both, really. You can't get anything done without being a politician, but there are degrees.

The incredible amount of misinformation, spin and BS coming from the current administration leaves a LOT of room to be "fresh". As long as BO doesn't wear a flight suit and stand under Mission Accomplished banners, he's different.

[MourningDude]

According to Obama advisors, he will be declaring "Mission Accomplished" this month, before the primaries are even concluded.

Clinton has already called him out on it.

Whether he wears a flight suit, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

[kevenseven]

Fly back to freeper, @sshole.

[RandyRP]

I think if one reads the whole article, he pandered a bit. He is trying to win Jewish support, Nothing wrong with reaching out to everyone. He certainly believes in Israel's right to exist and wll certainly provide protection. I think Goldberg asked some loaded questions and he handled it well. He also made it clear with being totally overt that he is not necessarily a Likud suck up as so many U.S. politicians are.

[pearbrandy]

The rest of the world can have a nuanced conversation about Israel - it's just America and Israel that are both profoundly biased and paranoid about open dialogue - probably because of the charges of hypocrisy that would follow.

American's still fail to grasp that the Israel lobby is directly responsible for the hostility toward America that resulted in 9/11 through lobbying for increasingly callous and brutal policies toward the Palestinian people. As long as the US's Middle East policy is solely about propping up (at more money per head of population in aid than most American's ever see from their government) Israel and leaving Palestinians to fester in poverty and disenfranchisement, terrorism and bloodshed will follow. In other words - you are sowing the seeds of your own destruction.

There are more than a few intelligent, enlightened Jewish people who renounce the policies of Likud, who know that they are resulting in a war without end and who understand that systematically depriving Palestinians of land and legitimacy is simply breeding more terrorists. The result: paranoid, 'fortress' Israel. Time to accept that the politics of fear and aggression has failed.

[kevenseven]

Actually, the Israelis do reasonably well. Better than the US.

[BillyT]

pearbrandy:

I take it you think Hamas does a nuanced consideration of Israeli concerns??

NOT.

[kevenseven]

Once again. What the hell difference does an American care about what the opinions of Hamas are of an American candidate for office? Obama is slightly less likely to bomb the living sh*t out of Hamas than is McCain? So?

The Klan preferred Bush to Kerry. Should anyone give a rat's @ss?

McCain SOUGHT the endorsement of a minister who has declared Catholicism deviant and evil.

Why don't you go concern yourself with that?

[pearbrandy]

Exactly what are Israeli's concerns? That America might not pay it $60,000 per person, per year for the rest of it's existence? That American aid might actually have strings attached, as applies to every other recipient in the world except Israel? That it needs to usurp more Palestinian land for condos to keep more Palestinians in refugee camps (aka terrorist breeding grounds)? If Israel has any concerns, they are of their own making, borne of their own arrogance and aggression. If you want to condemn Hamas as a terrorist organisation, that's fine - but you'd better count your own current administration in that particular tent. Or can you defend the invasion of Iraq on completely false pretenses (a pack of government concocted lies), because there's a fair few people that would regard that as an act of terror. Guantanamo Bay is one of the best examples of state-sponsored terrorism in existence.

You cannot establish a homeland by forcing other people out at gunpoint and seeing to it that the rest of their lives are spent in abject poverty and misery. Jewish people - of all people - should understand that. But they seem determined to visit cruel deprivation on Palestinians and they will long suffer the consequences of that policy - as will the US.

[LBM]

You are very mistaken. Israel has freedom of speech and there are many competing parties represented in the Knesset. They have continual debates about how to handle the situation. Arabs are represented in the government as well. Likud is only one party in Israel. Kadima is the party that is currently in the majority of the government. They are working towards the road map for peace. They are centrist, not right. Why do you have a problem supporting a centrist Israeli government who is working towards a 2 state solution?

[Glacial]

The thing that got me the most enthusiastic about Obama is when he said being pro-Israel does not mean being pro-Likud. It's like how for a few years it was somehow impossible to be pro-American without being pro-Bush. In Israel there is a massive debate by Jews of all political leanings about occupation, settlements, and relations with neighboring countries, but in America everyone must slavishly follow Likud's "Occupation And War Forever, No Negotiations, Bomb The Hell Out Of Everyone Who Blinks, We'll Have Peace When People Stop Resisting" (sound familiar?) party line or be smeared as anti-Israel.

Totally disgusting, and against both the Jewish and American spirit of free and open debate.

[ema]

Yes!!!

[kevenseven]

Well said.

[Gemma08]

There are many many many Israelis far more outspoken and critical of the Likud than Americans would ever be.

Its that whole 'Evangelical/Rapturist' bloc that keeps America pandering to Israel. The funny thing is the Evangelicals WANT war in the ME to hurry along the Rapture. The Rightwing Zionists also want war because the sooner the Arabs are expelled the sooner they can rebuild the temple and wait for the Messiah.

But the Torah says that the temple will only be built AFTER the coming of the Messiah. So when I ask these Jewish Zionists if the Messiah has come, they have no answer for me and call me an antisemite! LOL!

But the Messiah (2nd Coming) came (hypothetically speaking) the Evangelicals would submit all the Jews become Christian and so enter the Kingdom of Heaven, while the Jews view the coming of the Messiah as the opportunity to renounce other religions.

Ultimately both these camps know they will be fighting each other. In the meantime they have a common enemy... Islam... Arabs and Palestinians.

Its the Palestinians fault the Messiah hasnt come yet you see... thats why its the Christian/Jewish thing to do to hate them!

[LBM]

Obama's statement and your post just shows how you don't understand the situation. Likud is not the majority party in Israel. Most Israelis support the two state solution and that's why the Kadima party is in the majority in the Knesset and Olmert is from that party. It is a centrist party that believes in the two state solution. No one is saying Likud is the only way to support Israel.

[JTyroler]

When you have a president telling people that "you're either for us or against us", of course we don't do nuance well.