Monday, January 08, 2007

Hamas Is An Obstacle To Peace

You say you know this already? Old news? Well let me say that you really didn't know this until you read it from first term Representative Keith Ellison.

The template set forth by the roadmap for peace currently provides the best outline for achieving a two-state solution to bringing about a lasting settlement. Right now Hamas represents the greatest obstacle to this path, and until Hamas denounces terrorism, recognizes the absolute right of Israel to exist peacefully and honors past agreements, it cannot be considered legitimate partners in this process. Sensible and moderate elements in Palestinian society could possibly provide credible negotiating partners. The United States should encourage dialogue with peaceful Palestinian leaders that recognize Israel, condemn terrorism, and honor past accords.
Which is exactly what Israel is asking for. Surprised? Me too.

Just wait until you hear what he has to say about Iran.
The other serious threat to the security of the region is Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons. This must be stopped. A nuclear-armed Iran would upset the strategic balance in the region and pose a clear threat to world peace. Iran's sponsorship of international terrorism as well as financial aid to terrorist organizations endangers peace around the globe. I believe that the United States must engage Iran in a diplomatically meaningful way, through direct or multi-lateral negotiations, before resorting to military force.

Iran is the leading sponsor of international terrorism as well as the major financial supporter of many radical groups that threaten moderate regimes throughout the Middle East.

What with the Jefferson Koran flare up and his former membership in the Nation of Islam, I expected the worst from Ellison. Perhaps he had his Malcolm X moment. A change of heart about whitey. And in Keith's case about the Jews.

I'm going to keep an eye on him. It is possible he is the moderate Muslim we have been looking for.

Gates of Vienna has a suggestion for Ellison.

H/T Sand Monkey

Cross Posted at Classical Values


Anonymous said...

I remain suspicious of Ellison - primarly because I don't think Mohammed's sayings and belief system are compatible with the Constitution of the US and the Bill of Rights.

One point in particular does not sit right with me. Ellison choose his words very carefully regarding Iran when he said "I believe that the United States must engage Iran in a diplomatically meaningful way, through direct or multi-lateral NEGOTIOATIONS....."

NEGOTIATE means we have something Iran wants and we give it away, and they give nothing back. Like North Korea, remember? I prefer the word DIALOGUE. I am not oppossed to talking to Mr. Dinnerjacket, but negotiate: NO HELL NO!

country gurl says: stop global dhimming

Dymphna said...

Ellison has a Jewish constituency that he fought hard to reach in order to win his election. This "hard fight" involved the eating of a great many dishes of his words of Jew hatred over the years, most of them probably delivered during his "Nation of Islam" days.

I am very interested in Mr. Ellison. He is a linch pin. Depending on which way he moves -- not his talking points -- he could be a welcome change.

He needs to know that people in America are watching closely. Why? Because this representative job is merely a stepping-stone. This is an ambitious man. Nothing wrong with that except for what you might be willing to do for what you want to get.

I hope he makes a national constituency of moderate Muslims. Such a move would be most unusual and most welcome. He's not tied to any "tribal concerns" -- he's a revert after all -- so he has freedom of movement.

It just depends. We don't know what Faustian bargain, if any, Mr. Ellison made with CAIR to get their money, and with the Minneapolis MSM, who gracefully blacked out any info that would have damaged his campaign.

The statements you cite are masterful. But as your other commenter says, any talk about "negotiations" with a madman who is running a depraved state operation is very questionable. And what would be in question is our sanity in even considering sitting down for a chat with a certifiably insane person. In that respect, NoKo and Iran have leader problems.

BTW, the next strongman due to take over after this one dies is reputed to be even worse than the ayatollah currently in charge, and due to die soon from cancer.

IOW, it could get worse, both for Iranians and for Israel. That's why Ellison could be helpful. It depends on his character, and the jury is out on that one. OTOH, the jury is scratching its head over his publicized stunt with the Koran.

Karridine said...

This faces MANY would-be firebrands today: they get hotly passionate about some of the very real ills and injustices of our world, and then someone CHALLENGES THEM to live their ideal, to LIVE the Baha'i life, LIVE the Oneness of Humankind, LIVE a life steeped in Justice and courtesy, rational reason and compassionate forgiveness!

And, having just enough courage to see the truth and attractiveness of the Baha'is, but no great desire to assume the mantle of daily heroic sacrifice, they adopt AT LEAST a realistic, self-surviving attitude, knowing that any PUBLIC comparison to the Baha'i Faith will dim their glow!

M. Simon said...

anon, Dymphna,

He did not rule out the use of force on Iran. Just said it was a last resort.

In the phrase of the diplomat: "I'm cautiously optimistic."