Obama's Israel statement is arrogant, naive, and dangerous
Category: News & PoliticsVia: gregtx • one month ago • 23 comments
More than two weeks after Hamas launched a genocidal assault on Israel, resulting in the death of at least 1,400 innocent civilians and the abduction of at least 200 more, former President Barack Obama weighed in with a statement.
And it's a statement that not only demonstrates the sheer arrogance we endured throughout his administration, but the feckless cluelessness that has now infected the Biden administration's foreign policy.
To his credit, Obama managed to begin with one paragraph that was rooted in reality, speaking of Hamas's "horrific attack," which demonstrated "unspeakable brutality," and America's "rightly declared solidarity" with the Israeli people.
The rest, however, is Obama's signature combination of pompous, naive, and stupid.
First, Obama repeated the now-ubiquitous phrase "Israel has a right to defend [itself]," used by everyone immediately before they criticize Israel for doing so. But it's also important to notice the sheer conceit required to acknowledge a right that would be assumed were it regarding any other country on Earth. When Russia invaded Ukraine, for example, were politicians falling over themselves to announce that Ukraine has a right to defend itself?
Why does Obama say that Israel has a right to defend itself? Because he is giving credence to the premise that Israel shouldn't defend itself.
Then, Obama gave veiled support for President Joe Biden's supposed objectives: "going after Hamas, dismantling its military capabilities, and facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages to their families," dripping with the same politically correct nonsense we're seeing from media outlets refusing to acknowledge that Hamas is a terrorist group.
Notice Obama's trademark squishy language. "Going after Hamas." Are we playing hide-and-seek? "Dismantling its military capabilities." Are we just going to take Hamas's favorite toys away? "Facilitating the safe return of hundreds of hostages to their families." Are we going to do what Obama and Biden love best: pay ransoms ?
And finally, there was Obama's immediate rush to both-sides the conflict by placing all responsibility on Israel alone, even threatening Israel with the collapse of made-up alliances and a decrease in mythical international opinion if it fails to avoid the unavoidable.
"But even as we support Israel, we should also be clear that how Israel prosecutes this fight against Hamas matters," Obama wrote.
Sure, in theory. But in practice, what does that mean? Unfortunately, Obama doesn't have any ideas. Because who needs ideas when you can pontificate from your mansion thousands of miles away?
In fact, this is the problem with most criticism of Israel's military policy in the aftermath of Hamas's attack. Even considering the fact that Hamas intentionally uses its own people as human shields, as Obama admits, tactics that prevent civilian casualties are nowhere to be found.
It's easy to argue, as Obama does on multiple occasions, that civilian casualties should be avoided wherever possible, setting aside the dark irony that during his presidency, Obama launched hundreds of drone strikes and killed thousands of people, including hundreds of civilians.
It is also easy to agree that all civilian life has value, whether Israeli or Palestinian, Jewish or Muslim or Christian.
But in the world of actual conflict, people like Obama never bother to go from the "what" to the "how," because the "how" is difficult, if not unfeasible.
Israel must defend itself — don't forget, Hamas continues to fire rockets into Israel — but how?
Israel must either use airstrikes or a ground invasion to, as Obama meekly put it, "dismantle" Hamas. But doing so without civilian casualties when Hamas is actively working to place them in harm's way? Impossible.
Obama knows this, but instead does what is easy: falls back on blaming Israel for every civilian casualty in Gaza and employing the Left's favorite form of bigotry, the bigotry of low expectations. He suggests the Palestinian side is incapable of separating military from civilian, and so Israel is responsible while fighting in an immoral arena of war defined by Hamas.
But Obama endorsing a win-win for Hamas is hardly a surprise when we remember that a win for Hamas is a win for Iran. The same Iran Obama (and now Biden) worked overtime to enable. And one empty blog post on the conflict can never undo the fact that Obama opened the door. Iran and Hamas went through it.