After Israel’s most recent act of terror in the Gaza, and after its “withdrawal” from Gaza so as to not disturb the coronation, rather, the inauguration, of King, excuse me, President Obama, it is useful, in my mind, to review the framework of the basic Israeli narrative as it relates to Hamas. Israel, as it is often heard in major Western media, must defend itself from attacks conducted by Hamas, particularly in the form of Qassam rockets. This, indeed, sounds reasonable, and it should be taken seriously—Israel does have the right to defend itself. Since this is something that is universally accepted, Israel should do the best thing it can for its security: stop its occupation of the West Bank and stop the economic and political strangulation of Gaza.

In the aftermath of the election, one would expect the President Obama, the usurper of the United Farm Workers’ slogan, “Si Se Puede,” (translated in English as: “Yes We Can” or “Yes We Are Able”) and the spurious “agent of change,” to recognize what the international community, particularly UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and UN General Assembly president Miguel D’Escoto Brockmann have respectively recognized as appalling and essentially a genocide. Obama, however, initially decided to remain silent on the issue. His excuse, if such depravity and inaction is worthy of the noun, through his senior adviser, David Axelrod, was that “there is only one president who can speak for America at a time.”

What is fascinating and outrageously silly about such a statement is that this thought, when it was not politically expedient, did not enter his mind when he spoke about the terror attacks in Mumbai; the possibility of unilaterally attacking Pakistan if “actionable intelligence” was presented; the South Ossetia-Russia conflict; Iraq; Iran; Venezuela; Afghanistan and a host of other issues. Maybe Obama’s silence can be attributed to what was known to everyone watching the brutality conducted by the murderous state of Israel—that is, he could not speak on the issue because the evidence was clear: Israel was heartlessly massacring Palestinians without compunction. While King Obama relaxed in the warm Hawaiian sun, sipping on a exquisitely prepared Pina Colada (he was on vaction), innocent Palestinian women, children and men were faced with the not so pleasant heat of white phosphorus melting the flesh off their bones—an interesting, though not surprising, weapon of choice for Israel.

Introducing new Middle East envoy, George Mitchell, to the media, Obama made his first substantive comment (excluding the platitudes during the time between Election Day and what could be now known as the “National Crowning of King Obama Day,” on Gaza):

“Let me be clear,” he said. “America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats. For years, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets at innocent Israeli citizens. No democracy can tolerate such danger to its people, nor should the international community, and neither should the Palestinian people themselves, whose interests are only set back by acts of terror.”

The comments the international community, basing its optimism on the movement engendered around Obama’s campaign, were eagerly awaiting happened to be not only the basic Israeli narrative, but it happened to be the stance of former president, George W. Bush. So it is possible to infer that on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the “change we can believe in” only manifests itself in the pigmentation of the President, not in serious and substantive policies that are meaningful.

In order to get a better picture of what President/charlatan Obama means by the “acts terror” conducted by Hamas, it is important to look at the facts, not propaganda. It is true that in its charter (constructed in 1988 during the first intifada) Hamas calls for the destruction and obliteration of the state of Israel—this fact is not disputed. While it is disturbing and should be vociferously condemned, let us look at what is recent and significant: how Hamas handles acts of belligerence and violence against Israel, and where it stands on the international conception of a two-state solution.

According to a December 18th, 2008 article in The New York Times, Hamas “imposed its will and even imprisoned some of those who were firing rockets. Israeli and United Nations figures show that while more than 300 rockets were fired into Israel in May, 10 to 20 were fired in July, depending on who was counting and whether mortar rounds were included. In August, 10 to 30 were fired, and in September, 5 to 10.” Although such candor either goes unnoticed or is not taken seriously, it is clear that Hamas arrests militants who fire rockets into Israel. Furthermore, if Hamas was making arrests, then clearly Hamas was arresting militants unaffiliated or formerly affiliated with its organization. Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and B’Tselem do not directly attribute rocket fire to Hamas during the Egyptian-brokered cease fire, and prior to Israel’s six-months in the making (at least) massacre in Gaza began December 27th, 2008, . These organizations, rather, attribute them to militant groups in Gaza.

Despite this evidence, however, the charter of Hamas is still an issue—an issue Hamas has recently addressed. Hamas, since its January 2006 election victory in Gaza, has entertained a two-state solution and, according to the Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, has recently accepted the two-state solution based on the international consensus. In other words, Hamas’s conception of a two-state solution does not differ from the International Court of Justice’s, the judicial arm of the UN, July 2004 decision as well as the UN General Assembly 179-5 vote in favor of an Israeli withdrawal to its pre-June 1967 borders, the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, the Palestinian refugees’ right of return with minor and mutual adjustments on the borders, and normalization of relations between the two states. (The United States, Israel, the Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Palau voted “No.” The entire world on side, two leading terrorist states, and a few atolls on the other).

Israel’s atrocities have nothing to do with Hamas—its blockade in Gaza has nothing to do with terrorism, for James Wolfensohn, former president of the World Bank, and former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice, had to essentially lobby Israel to ease up its blockade which was implemented before Hamas came into power. Israel’s atrocities, needless to say, are based on the further annexation and cantonization process being conducted in the West Bank, while it waits for Palestinians in Gaza to die so it can “reoccupy” Gaza, making any notion of Palestine evaporate similar to the way it decimates Palestinian lives. In other words, King Obama, the so-called anti-war Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, Tzipi Livni, Ehud Olmert, Ehud Barak, and even the so-called Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, would much rather see Palestinians die than to accept the international two-state solution. It is, as a dear friend put it, “continuity we can believe in.”

Our president, or for some, our king, the former president of the Harvard Law Review, knows the war crimes Israel has committed. He knows the humanitarian laws Israel has broken. He knows the acts of terror Israel conducts daily. He knows about the cries of fathers and mothers when their children are murdered in cold blood by a ruthless and merciless state the US supports. He knows about the destruction of universities, hospitals, schools, and social facilities in Gaza. He knows about Palestinians being prisoners in their own country. He knows about families who must put their lives back together with nothing. What is sad, however, is that although he knows this, he does not care! I pray daily that his daughters do not have to face such terror, such pain, such callousness from people who can do something about such despicable conditions. Can Obama place his daughters in the shoes of a Palestinian girl? Can he even think of the harsh reality Palestinians face? Can he imagine being the father of a Palestinian girl whose body was incinerated by Israeli tanks and shells? If he really cares about his daughters, he will tell the country he leads, our country, to fall in line with the rest of the world on this issue. f not, he should never mention his daughters in a sentence when it comes to the murder of innocent people—never.

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.