McCain's Hamas Flip-Flop
Posted by Michael Cohen
Today in the Washington Post, Jamie Rubin has a bit of a blockbuster - apparently John McCain wasn't always Hamas's greatest nightmare. In an interview two years ago conducted with the UK's Sky News he had this to say about Hamas after their victory in parliamentary elections:
Rubin: "Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?"
McCain: "They're the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it's a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.
What's most amazing about this comment is that McCain actually goes further than Barack Obama in advocating diplomatic talks with Hamas. Obama has said he is against talking to the terrorist group and his greatest crime, according to McCain and others, is that he was "endorsed" by Hamas leadership. But here we have McCain taking a pro-active position that advocates reaching out to Hamas leadership. For the most part I think McCain is correct here but I'd really like to know how he squares this comment with his argument that a) he would be Hamas's "worst nightmare" and b) "I never expect for the leader of Hamas... to say that he wants me as president of the United States."
Based on these words I would imagine that Hamas might prefer John McCain.


McCain: Do You Support a Federal States of Israel and Palestine as One Nation?
We have had 60 years of experimenting about the Israeli- Palestinian struggle. The region would need help before we will be dragged into a World War III.
No one can reject the fact that creation of Israel on the land of Arabic nations has created tremendous political and economical problems for the United States. We may have to look outside of the box to diffuse the problems. One solution would be for Israel joining us as a member of the Unites States’ Common Wealth.
We are already supporting Israel economically, politically and by sharing intelligence and military hardware. In addition, some Israeli Americans with both Israeli and American citizenships serve in the Israeli Armed Forces. Israel never would have to be fearful of any other nation; our great American Armed Forces will protect the common wealth as they would the homeland.
Would it be politically more advantages for the United States to manage the Jewish state as a member of our Common Wealth?
The Israeli Common Wealth will be free to exercise the religious freedom that our great nation would offer without being isolated among the hostile Arabs.
The Common Wealth should include the Arabs who were forced to leave the land when Zionist invaded the land. It should also include all of the land called by Palestinian as their homeland and by Israeli as their state. I don't suggest this proposal would work or be acceptable by Israel. Then what next?
Would really two nation model for Palestinian and Israeli work in the future? Many experts on the Middle Eastern politics and people would suggest that a two state solution in not viable model. We have struggled with it for nearly 60 years.
Should we be looking at the region as a Federal States with one government elected by all of the people? This model may have a much better chance of survival as a solution for both Israeli and Arabs.
We have been forced into one box by the Israeli Lobby; we need to look outside of this box. We can’t fight wars after wars to support a non-working model of a two state solution. We can’t afford war after war to support a failed two state model.
Posted by: St. Michael Traveler | May 16, 2008 at 11:48 AM
In the quoted interview here's the very next question and response:
Rubin: “So should the United States be dealing with that new reality through normal diplomatic contacts to get the job done for the United States?”
Sen. McCain: “I think the United States should take a step back, see what they do when they form their government, see what their policies are, and see the ways that we can engage with them, and if there aren’t any, there may be a hiatus. But I think part of the relationship is going to be dictated by how Hamas acts, not how the United States acts.”
What's most amazing about this comment is that Rubin, WaPo, M. Cohen, etal., will lie for 10, 100, hell, a 1000 years, as long as it takes for Senator Obama to not be Jimmy Carter.
Posted by: tao9 | May 16, 2008 at 07:43 PM