McCain, Obama, Israel and Hamas

Looking at the 'front page' of the Washington Post website, I was struck by the cognitive dissonance that was revealed by the happy juxtaposition of two tangentially related stories -- one placed directly above the other. I wonder whether John McCain would see the irony?

Go below "the fold" to see what I mean (please forgive the cut-and-paste job...I don't know how to do the whole image capture thing):

McCain Advisers Slam Obama

The Trail | Advisers blast Obama as "naive" and "delusional" in his approach to terrorism.

Anne E. Kornblut | 11:11 a.m. ET

Israel, Hamas Agree to Truce

After months of Egyptian mediation, Israel and Hamas agree to stop attacks in Gaza Strip.

Griff Witte | 11:38 a.m. ET

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

What lessons are we to draw from this quick glance at the headlines?

If Obama is ""naive" and "delusional" in his approach to terrorism", what labels must we throw around to describe the Israeli leadership? Are we going to call Ehud Olmert "naive" and "delusional", or even worse?

Does John McCain even feel the cognitive dissonance created by his attacks on Obama for suggesting there is room for diplomacy, coming at a time when Israel is negotiating, through intermediaries, with Hamas AND Hezbollah? Not to mention holding direct discussions with Syrian diplomats? Israel is taking the bold step to see if its security can be increased by reaching agreements with its enemies, rather than resorting to military strikes that have not ended terrorist strikes. Should the U.S. not even consider similarly thoughtful, less reactive approaches to dealing with our enemies? If Israel can reach an agreement with Hamas, is it so far-fetched that we might talk to Iran and change the dynamics of our dispute?

In truth, I expect that John McCain doesn't really believe his own attack lines. He must surely prefer negotiation to war. He has said war can only be a last resort. If that's so, then he must believe that we have to exhaust all avenues of diplomacy first. So, we must conclude that his attacks on Obama are simply cynical politics. That's what makes the coincidental placement and timing of these two stories so deliciously ironic, as they create such delightful cognitive dissonance for McCain to contend with.

The cognitive dissonance exists because McCain is determined to spread the "Big Lie". If you accept the principle of the "Big Lie", then truth matters less than self-interest. The truth of his argument is irrelevant, because the Big Lie is believed if told often enough and loud enough. Because the GOP believes they can create an election issue to use against Obama, we can expect to hear this plaint over and over again -- no matter how false it proves to be. But, if we can show that this attack really is false -- that it's just a wrong-headed view of the world, this issue will lose its fangs. Let us hope that Israel continues to provide us with ever more evidence that this attack is just another Big Lie.

•  Tip Jar

  by FischFry on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:34:15 AM PDT

•  Clearly Isreal and Hamas have not passed

  any type of commander in chief threshold. Therefore, their "truce" is not relevant.

  And if they have passed the threshold, clearly one of them is an appeaser and should not be respected.

  Either way, diplomacy is baaaaaaaaaaad.

  Also, I'd wager there are a lot of people around here are far less interested in the TRUTH than they are in self-interests, and it's really sad that the two are competing ideals.

  by Muzikal203 on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:36:38 AM PDT

•  JFK and Khruschev

  installed the hot line (i.e. the famous red phone) at the height of tensions during the cold war in order to prevent a hot (very hot) nuclear war.

  And that was after after a decade and a half of the most absurd cold war propaganda about how evil our godless commie enemies were. We were indocrinated even in primary school, in between playing "duck and cover" under our desks back in '62.  

  by Judgment at Nuremberg on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 09:53:00 AM PDT

  •  seal off the think tanks

    with the 'thinkers' inside.

    Let the elected representatives of the American people, rather than idealogues, speak for the American people -- preferably in the voice of the American people, and preferably while sporting a full set of cojones and spines stiff enough to resist think tank propaganda and pressure.

    by YoureshiDsall on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:30:09 AM PDT

•  Truly good news, on the truce part.

  Biz as usual, on the McCain part, but events do seem to be overtaking his staunch militarism.

  Looking better for fall.

  TFTD.

  by Terra Mystica on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:08:06 AM PDT

  •  One hopes the truce will hold

    Israel has made clear the alternative is a major push back into Gaza. It can be a test of Hamas' seriousness and possibility of co-existence, notwithstanding all the anti-Israel rhetoric. Let's hope that folks on both sides do not sabotage this deal.

    by FischFry on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 10:11:48 AM PDT

    •  Both sides are taking risks. I hope it pays off.

      I really hope it pays off.  This is a very positive step.

      by Terra Mystica on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:22:34 PM PDT

•  great diary FischFry (n/t)

  by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:30:01 AM PDT

  •  Thanks. n/t

    by FischFry on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM PDT

•  let's see if some of the anti-zionists

  tip and recommend, as your diary advocates for a two-state solution, Middle East peace, and the powers of negotiation.

  by DoGooderLawyer on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 11:31:58 AM PDT

  •  OT, but at least one accused DK anti-zionist has

    done so.  Me.

    Negotiation with Hamas was all most people were calling for.  Now that it has happened with positive result, maybe a different construct can be had to apply, albeit in prospective lessons learned terms, to solving the overall conflict.

    Oh, there is so much more to this conflict than just this truce.  But this truce is potentially instructive on how hostilities can be halted.  The application of that knowledge maybe being the resolution of the top level issues like Jerusalem (I don't see any reason why it can't be a bi-national capitol), land/water rights, etc., etc.  And just a general, affirmative view of coexistence and establishment of a truly independent Palestinian State (say with an international airport and border rights), sooner rather than later.

    With great respect to FF and the spirit of the day, I won't turn this into an I/P debate, but equally I would ask you in the spirit of the day, to consider your (and other's) grievances from the Israeli POV.

    Is the land in hand enough, or is more necessary?  Long-term Israeli peace and coexistence is the prize.  More land=continued conflict.  It's that simple.  Does Israel really need more land.  If you don't think so, what can you do to stop that process?  Is that question "anti-Zionist?"  So many legitimate questions on this conflict.  These are only some.

    I'm more post-Zionist.  Israel exists.  Zionism has succeeded. Imho, that is a good thing.  But whether more Palestinian land is the goal, is for Zionists (which I take to mean expansionists) to answer.  When is enough, enough?  When is peace the objective, as opposed to land?  Only you can answer these questions.

    Thanks again, FF.  I thought a good while about responding to this, but concluded that it was such a loaded rhetorical question that I had to supply a non-rhetorical answer.  Perhaps that in the spirit of the day, some will contemplate the legitimate views of the "other" side.  I won't respond.  Great Diary!

    by Terra Mystica on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM PDT

•  Another positive aspect of the truce is that the

  time-frame for solidifying it seems to have been agreed to as "days."

  An Egyptian official told The Associated Press that if the area is quiet for three days, Israel would begin to open Gaza's border crossings to let more humanitarian supplies into the area. A week later, Israel would allow in additional goods.

  Admittedly from an article on the Huffington Post by Ibrahim Barzak (but it did have more details than the BBC).

  This also bodes well.  Waiting a month or year before reciprocating would suggest that the usual preconditions were in place.  Days suggests that both sides have agreed to meaningful implementation.  God, I hope so.

  by Terra Mystica on Tue Jun 17, 2008 at 12:06:02 PM PDT