Jimmy Carter and Hamas

[Guy_Incognito]

Nothing wrong with having an open dialogue with Hamas. Carter is like a lot of old guys who get to say or do anything they please because they no longer care what anyone else thinks of them. He isn't concerned that someone is going to take away his "pro-Israel" card because he's no longer trying to get elected to anything.

Who the hell ever gave him one of those?

 

[The Big Ragu]

JG, Not sure if you expect me to defend some of Israel's worst tactics, which have been deplorable. I won't. They have done some attrocious things. But when you judge Israel, you definitely have to look at them through the prism of history, the fact that for years they were surrounded by enemies hell-bent on their destruction, and which kept attacking, and that they have a population today that lives under constant fear of dupes being sent into public places with explosives strapped onto them -- at the behest of these sadistic Hamas forks. Israel very often poors gasoline on the fire, so my statement above is not meant to give them a free pash, but they are really caught between a rock and a hard place as long as men like this exist, whose ONLY purpose is to see to Israel's destruction (let's be realistic about it). To put it in perspective, if Canada started launching missiles at our border towns and started sending 17-year-olds on suicide missions in which it was their goal to take out as many Americans as possible (whether these missions are the result of hopeless despair or not), started crossing the border to kidnap Americans (not just Hamas, but Hizbollah), etc., how would you want to the U.S. to react? Perhaps not as heavy-handed as the Israeli's often act (in which their retaliations often seem indiscriminate). But i can't blame them for protecting their interests, making a statement that they will not allow such barbarism to stand, standing up for themselves in the face of such hostility, and fighting back.

Maybe you disagree. And I understand if others do too. The Israelis are not saints. But I strongly get the sense that if their enemies had ever shown a willingness to negotiate in good faith, the Israelis are actually EAGER to put an end to the hostilities. Can the same be said about the Palestinians, as long as they choose Hamas to lead their interests? When Anwar Sadat came to the table in good faith, something was able to get done, and even though there is no great love of Judaism in Egypt, they actually recently reopened a very old Synagogue that had been sacred to Egypt's once thriving Jewish population. It's kind of proof that the Israeli's (and any Arab interest not hell-bent on Israel's destruction) willingness to find peace is greater than most of its enemies. Agree to disagree if you must. But it's the way I have always seen it.

 

[Bubbler]

Carter isn't the right guy to be talking to Hamas, he can't accomplish a darn thing, but I have no philsophical problem with talking to them.

Hamas is despicable, but they are the elected government, and I don't want to hear about atrocities. We look the other way at plenty of governments on "our side" that gleefully commit atrocities against their own people.

And history has shown that not talking to enemies works real well. : How do you ever get anything done when you don't acknowledge one side? It's foolish, especially when one side is a recognized government, whether we like it or not.

As for Carter being an anti-semite just because he's talking to the other side? Hogwash.

 

[jgmacg]

Again, BR, I have no personal stake in this argument. I just find it compelling, and of surpashing narrative instruction in the frailty of the human mind and spirit.

But don't forget that before Sadat came to speak to the Knesset in '77, he launched the October War against Israel in 1973. People, ideas, even politicians, change. And talk, mostly, is what changes them.

 

[cranberry]

How do you get to peace without talking to Hamas? Does anyone believe peace could have been achieved in Northern Ireland had Sinn Fein not been included in the process?

 

[The Big Ragu]

You can't get peace when every time you try to engage your enemy in talk, they make unreasonable demands as a precondition for peace, which in effect makes the statement that they aren't interested in peace. Israel may do some destructive things to the process, with the new settlements, the continued fencing off of the camps, etc. But as far as I know -- and someone can correct me if I am wrong -- it has never had any preconditions to talk, other than that the violence must end first. Beyond that, at least with rhetoric, they have shown a willingness to discuss anything.

Hamas on the other hand, is an organization that dupes naive, frustrated teenagers into strapping bombs on themselves and blowing up innocent people in public places (I'm still waiting for one of these so-called "leaders" to blow himself up). We SHOULDN'T be talking to people like that. If Hamas is serious about peace, it needs to show more of a seriousness of purpose about it -- getting rid of the destructive rhetoric, renouncing the gratuitous violence -- before they should be engaged. You can't talk to certain people, and attempts to do so just makes them think they have the upper hand -- as if their deplorable tactics are having an effect and are "wearing down the enemy." It emboldens them to act even more unreasonable, rather than forging a path toward peace. Sometimes you either have to avoid a bully or punch him in the nose. Talking to him, not only gets you nowhere, it gets you an ash kicking. Carter should have learned a great deal about this during his presidency. The fact that his ideas about diplomacy haven't changed is scary.

 

[Bubbler]

You can't get peace when every time you try to engage your enemy in talk, they make unreasonable demands as a precondition for peace, which in effect makes the statement that they aren't interested in peace. Israel may do some destructive things to the process, with the new settlements, the continued fencing off of the camps, etc. But as far as I know -- and someone can correct me if I am wrong -- it has never had any preconditions to talk, other than that the violence must end first. Beyond that, at least with rhetoric, they have shown a willingness to discuss anything.

Israel doesn't have any preconditions to talk ... if the settlements and camps are off the table. That doesn't sound like good-faith bargaining to me.

I think both sides make unreasonable demands.

 

[The Big Ragu]

You can't get peace when every time you try to engage your enemy in talk, they make unreasonable demands as a precondition for peace, which in effect makes the statement that they aren't interested in peace. Israel may do some destructive things to the process, with the new settlements, the continued fencing off of the camps, etc. But as far as I know -- and someone can correct me if I am wrong -- it has never had any preconditions to talk, other than that the violence must end first. Beyond that, at least with rhetoric, they have shown a willingness to discuss anything.

Israel doesn't have any preconditions to talk ... if the settlements and camps are off the table. That doesn't sound like good-faith bargaining to me.

I think both sides make unreasonable demands.

You're right. No arguments. I guess I just make a distinction between building housing in an area the Palestinians claim ... and launching rocket attacks that kill people. Israel definitely stokes the flames. I suspect it is with a purpose, but one I don't get. I also have always gotten the feeling, they'd walk away from those settlements to achieve a lasting peace. As far as I know, they have never said they are off the table. But I could be very wrong.

 

[The Big Ragu]

By the way, my take could be very, very wrong. I know there are always two sides to animosity like this... What I do feel pretty strongly about is that Jimmy Carter has no place being involved against the advice of just about everyone with a stake in it.

 

[OTD]

By the way, my take could be very, very wrong. I know there are always two sides to animosity like this... What I do feel pretty strongly about is that Jimmy Carter has no place being involved against the advice of just about everyone with a stake in it.

Who would you have talk to Hamas? Bush won't do it, nor will anyone (including Clinton or Obama) who might want to be re-elected some day.

Carter's the perfect person to start a dialog. He's respected in that part of the world. He's not connected to our government, so everything he says can be disavowed by the U.S.

Hamas' tactics are evil and despicable. But I can certainly understand why they won the election. Palestinians are fed up. They're virtually locked into ghettos (and I use that word deliberately). They can't work, they have lost most of their ancestral property and they have little hope. 50 years of the PLO didn't do anything for them. They are desperate and every time more of them are bulldozed out of their homes to make room for another Israeli settlement makes them more so. Israel (and its cookie jar, the United States) has made it so that for some, being a suicide bomber is preferable to the life they have now.

How is this cycle going to stop? Two ways: Either wait until every Palestinian has killed him or herself as a suicide bomber or talk to them. I vote for talking.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Who would you have talk to Hamas? Bush won't do it, nor will anyone (including Clinton or Obama) who might want to be re-elected some day.

This is kind of my point, OTD. And you affirm it with the rest of your post. There is a reason why such a wide range of poeple refuse to talk to them. They haven't earned the right to it. You don't negotiate with people who kill innocents and have shown absolutely no willingness to give an inch with their rhetoric.

I'd have NO ONE talk to Hamas. Not until it shows that it wants peace and it is willing to come to the table in good faith. It has not done that -- which is why all those people you mentioned wisely refuse to dignify their barbaric tactics by showing the dignity of meeting with them.

 

[spnited]

But we kowtow to Israel, which kills as many or more innocent Palestinians.