On Up today Hayes and his first panel talked about Morsi taking over complete control of Egypt. They also touched on the Israeli/Palestinian problem. The panel agreed that although cynicism is warranted given that this conflict is never resolved, it's important to pay attention because our government is involved. Eli Lake was on the panel and he might have been the only one who didn't side with Palestinians. Both sides have surely made mistakes, but one thing that Hayes' panel and others like it haven't addressed is the continuous call by Hamas and extremist Islamists all over that Israel has to be destroyed. So, if Israel met with the Palestinian leaders with Clinton and Obama as referees and they all agreed that Palestinians and Israelis will live in equality, justice and liberty, what would happen?
Would the Palestinians live poeacefully with Israelis? Would there be integration, peace, friendly competition and cooperation? Or would the extremists see this as weakness on the part of Israel, thus pushing quickly for the destruction of Israel and the creation of Muslim domination? Iran's leaders have continously called for the destruction of Israel, so if Palestinians and Israelis made a peace agreement and worked together to create a stronger, wealthier, peaceful country that stood out in the Mideast as a shining example of Jewish/Islamist/Christian cooperation, would Iran, Syria, Libya and Egypt stay neutral and welcome the new arrangement? Who thinks this would happen? How will Islam gain global dominance if it cooperates with Jews and Christians?
Israel exists in a region in which they are surrounded by enemies who want Israel to not exist, and there's no resolution to the Palestinian problem unless the Palestinians reject Hamas and all other extremist leadership, join with Israel in an agreement both sides can work with. This will not be allowed by those who want to destroy Israel. The extremist, Islamist leaders are prepared to risk it all in violence, so they control the ordinary Palestinians who would love to live in peace -- until this changes, nothing changes.
Hayes' panel discussed Morsi's power-grab without even wondering what Clinton and Morsi worked out, since right after the Clinton/Morsi meeting in which Morsi got Hamas to agree to a ceasefire with Israel, Morsi then announced he's taking complete control of Egypt. The U.S. response has been tepid, so what kind of arrangement was made? Hayes's panel said that Morsi's dictatorial move looks like the previous dictatorial Egypt/US/Israel arrangement, but no one wondered if Clinton made the agreement in order to secure Morsi's support, thus giving Morsi cover to declare complete control. I think she did, and this is why the US is not condemning Morsi's move. The panel also obscured criticism toward the Muslim Brotherhood by saying that the Brotherhood has many facets. Yeah, right, we'll see.
When the subject of Susan Rice came up, Hayes and company were predictable -- they support Rice and have no idea why anyone would question her qualifications for Secretary of State -- when she gave the Benghazi report she was just reporting what intelligence had provided. This is spin, and Hayes is either fooled by the spin, or he's being dishonest. The panel said that there's a lot of substance to debate without focusing on Rice's Benghazi report. Yes, but we can talk about all of it. Anyone paying attention to what Rice and the administration said after the Benghazi attack, regardless of party affiliation, if they are honest, have to acknowledge the administration and Rice were misleading the American public. If it was true that information regarding al Qaeda was too sensitive to reveal, then the reports could have left it out without misleading anyone -- it's the misleading part that an honest professional would have avoided. And, just because people in government have misled in the past doesn't excuse Rice and Obama.
I happen to agree with Katrina vanden Huevel, which I never do -- Rice should be criticized for being an interventionist in foreign affairs moreso than her dishonesty, but both, however, are important. Also, I agree with Obama -- he's ultimately responsible for lying. I also agree that McCain and Graham are absolutely the worst representatives to oppose Rice. In my book, neither McCain nor Graham possess the integrity to lead an attack on Rice for being dishonest.