Jimmy Carter and Hamas

[The Big Ragu]

In a weird way, I respect the fact that Jimmy Carter does his own stupid thing and doesn't care what anyone else has to say about it. But jeez, as former president, does he really have to pull one of these acts every five years or so in which he meets with terrorists, against everyone else's wishes, and spreads around hugs and kisses?

Most bad presidents spend their time after office rehabilitating their images. Why can't he stick to Habitat For Humanity and other good things that are non-offensive?

 

[Flying Headbutt]

What he's doing is nothing short of flabbergasting and appalling. The Wash Post's editorial board rightly ripped him yesterday. They also printed an op-ed from a Hamas Foreign Minister that was clearly written in a mind-bogglingly different reality than the one any of us ever visit. Though that wasn't to give people on that side a chance to have their say so much as to show just how batship crazy some of them are.

Carter has done a lot of good since 1980, but this won't be anywhere near the top of that list. He clearly has no shame, because if he did he'd be embarashed by what he's doing.

 

[Guy_Incognito]

Hi Dooley, do we need to go through all this again?

 

[jgmacg]

Just to light the pilot on this thread, I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate.

Hamas - whether you consider them terrorists or freedom fighters - constitute the majority in a legally elected Palestinian government. What good comes from not talking to them?

 

[Pastor]

Just to light the pilot on this thread, I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate.

Hamas - whether you consider them terrorists or freedom fighters - constitute the majority in a legally elected Palestinian government. What good comes from not talking to them?

From a strict Democratic platform point of view, I consider this to be terrible timing. I understand that Jimmy Carter is not running for president. I also understand that he is not the Democratic party by himself. However, he is ashociated with the Democrats and this just isn't good.

Carter's meeting with Hamas can wait. It can wait until after the election. We all know that absolutely nothing will be accomplished. Hamas will not decide that Jews can exist. Why is there a need on his part to make the meeting now?

 

[cranberry]

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.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Hamas is the elected government because WE - in the person of Condi Rice, now an abject failure in two jobs -- INSISTED on elections. So we got elections. We don't like the outcome. What this adminstration knows about that part of the world can fit in a thimble and have room for Doug Feith's brain.
Christ.
Exhibit B --
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

 

[The Big Ragu]

Just to light the pilot on this thread, I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate.

Hamas - whether you consider them terrorists or freedom fighters - constitute the majority in a legally elected Palestinian government. What good comes from not talking to them?

I realize you are just playing Devil's advocate. 1) Not the role for Carter to be playing. Especially when he shows up for the first meeting and gives a giant hug, like he is being reunited with a long-lost brother. NO ONE wants him playing this role. The president, his fellow party members in Congress. The Israelis. So apparently someone believes no good comes from talking to them under THESE circumstances. 2) Whatever Hamas is -- and you can argue that Israel is complicit in making Hamas into what they are -- their tactics and attitudes are appalling and should be shunned by anyone who is civilized. They advocate suicide bombings and the killings of innocents. They talk about peace in one breath and make unrealistic demands as a precondition in the next breath. They will kidnap and torture innocent people to grab a headline. They forfeit certain rights to be treated with respect as long as this is their posture. 3) Mahmoud al-Zahar, who Carter is so eager to treat with dignity, is playing him like a fiddle. It's unbecoming of a former U.S. president who should be more sophisticated than this. He lovingly praises Carter and makes teasing overtures about peace. But the bottom line, in his own words, this is his posture: "A "peace process" with Palestinians cannot take even its first tiny step until Israel first withdraws to the borders of 1967; dismantles all settlements; removes all soldiers from Gaza and the West Bank; repudiates its illegal annexation of Jerusalem; releases all prisoners; and ends its blockade of our international borders, our coastline and our airspace permanently. This would provide the starting point for just negotiations and would lay the groundwork for the return of millions of refugees. Given what we have lost, it is the only basis by which we can start to be whole again."

Given the hardships the Palestinians have endured, I understand the frustration and bittereness. But such an attitude ignores their real history and claim to any land there. There WAS NO Palestinian state, or any unity, prior to 1948, and even if there was, it is unrealistic to think you can turn back the clock. So essentially what Hamas is saying is, "We don't want peace and we are going to make that clear by making unrealistic and unreasonable demands." Yet Carter embraces such a man and shows him dignity which he doesn't deserve. The vast majority of Palestinians, who just want the camps and the extreme poverty to be brought to an end with SOME KIND OF a settlement are done a disservice by a guy like this, and wore, he uses violent means to make sure any kind of moderate approach by more level-headed people are doomed to failure.

 

[Flying Headbutt]

WFMFW (word for mother forking word)

 

[Armchair_QB]

Jimmy Carter is a doddering old fool and, apparently, a raging anti-Semite.

 

[three_bags_full]

Hamas is the elected government because WE - in the person of Condi Rice, now an abject failure in two jobs -- INSISTED on elections. So we got elections. We don't like the outcome. What this adminstration knows about that part of the world can fit in a thimble and have room for Doug Feith's brain.
Christ.
Exhibit B --
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/04/gaza200804

So, you'd rather them NOT hold elections?

 

[jgmacg]

Just to light the pilot on this thread, I'll go ahead and play Devil's Advocate.

Hamas - whether you consider them terrorists or freedom fighters - constitute the majority in a legally elected Palestinian government. What good comes from not talking to them?

The vast majority of Palestinians, who just want the camps and the extreme poverty to be brought to an end with SOME KIND OF a settlement are done a disservice by a guy like this, and wore, he uses violent means to make sure any kind of moderate approach by more level-headed people are doomed to failure.

And yet the Palestinians chose - again, in a legitimate election, monitored very closely by observers from around the world - to elect this fella's party as their agent for change.

Still just playing Devil's Advocate.

If you're going to quote from al-Zahar's opinion piece, be sure not to skip these two paragraphs, which precede the 'graf causing all the uproar.

Israel's escalation of violence since the staged Annapolis "peace conference" in November has been consistent with its policy of illegal, often deadly collective punishment -- in violation of international conventions. Israeli military strikes on Gaza have killed hundreds of Palestinians since then with unwavering White House approval; in 2007 alone the ratio of Palestinians to Israelis killed was 40 to 1, up from 4 to 1 during the period from 2000 to 2005.

Only three months ago I buried my son Hussam, who studied finance at college and wanted to be an accountant; he was killed by an Israeli airstrike. In 2003, I buried Khaled -- my first-born -- after an Israeli F-16 targeting me wounded my daughter and my wife and flattened the apartment building where we lived, injuring and killing many of our neighbors. Last year, my son-in-law was killed.

The hard line only begets a harder line. And if our current administration is unable or unwilling to take up negotiations on behalf of the aggrieved parties here, who should?