Carter baking a bundt cake for Hamas

[JayHawk]

The poster you question was using saracasm. Look it up. You took the words literally and attack that poster. As is your norm.

 

[Chalchalero]

I know, Clinton met with Jerry Adams, but Adams was a political operative for the IRA.

I have always been amazed at the hypocritical elements of this country in that regard. To the British government (and most of the civilised world) the IRA was a terrorist organisation. But because the US has a very large and vocal Irish Catholic population, to them the IRA were "freedom fighters".

Politicians justified their meetings with Jerry Adams with the excuse that he was merely the head of the IRA's "political" (ie, propaganda) wing. And yet when Hamas' own political wing entered the democratic process and began winning elections, including their January of 2006 election victory in the Palestinian Parliament, the US actually (quite un-democratically) chose to ignore the elected leadership and encouraged Fatah (the losers) to refuse to hand over power. This ingenious policy is what has led to the stalemate between the two organisations today.

This, in my mind is akin to a foreign government deciding that after the elections in November, they did not like whomever won, and encouraged the Bush Administration simply not to give up power. And the Bush Administration in its facile dotage complied (which would not surprise me still...). What kind of sense would that make? It goes completely counter to the principles of "freedom and democracy" that Bush is constantly crowing about. It also goes against the concept of self-determination which is universally recognised among most civilised nations (notably except the United States, of course.)

The Bush Administration would not even recognise the Hamas victory, let alone engage in dialogue with any of its political leaders. So much for the claim that it is perfectly fine to communicate with the "political wing" of a "terrorist organisation".

I suppose there just are not enough Palestinian voters in the US to influence the minds (lobby, bribe and throw money at) of the politicians here. I can guarantee that if the numbers of Jews and Palestinians were reversed in this country, so would the policies regarding them be reversed.

 

[JayHawk]

Ok I will give in to the fact that I do not know for sure but please tell me when the US govt sent envoy's to the IRA.

Not simply errant politicians engaging foreign enitities. Without the backing of the constitution I might add.

 

[Chalchalero]

So in other words you have never had courage. Check

I have no idea from whence you could have come to that conclusion, but your response does not surprise me. You have always been heavily reliant on personal attacks against people whom you have never met, based upon all of my past experiences with you here on these threads.

My reference to the Log Cabin Republicans was simply with regard to the fact that, despite the fact that Republicans are homophobic and as hateful towards gays as anyone possibly can be, this group consistently (and in my mind "blindly and naively") attempt to open up dialogue with them. They consistently have believed that they can effect change from within the party. Ergo, they fit perfectly within the parameters of the example you cited, insofar as I am quite certain that they have had to put up with enormous streams of abuse from their Republican bretheren, and yet refuse to give up on attempting to change their minds.

In my opinion that takes courage.

 

[Chalchalero]

Ok I will give in to the fact that I do not know for sure but please tell me when the US govt sent envoy's to the IRA.

Not simply errant politicians engaging foreign enitities. Without the backing of the constitution I might add.

President Clinton had Gerry Adams to the White House himself on at least two occasions. Senator Kennedy has led various delegations to Northern Ireland to chat up Adams and many Senators, both Democrat and Republican received him whenever he came to Washington or New York. His visits were annual, and were always welcomed with open arms by pretty much most of the Washington power elites.

And while there are those, including Adams himself, who claim that he was never a part of the IRA, there are many, including former members who have stated that he has been a member of the IRA leadership since the 70's. He referred to one of these claims as "libelous" but never took any legal action.

 

[JayHawk]

Well I took your post the opposite as you normally post anti whatever I have written. I posted about Jannus insinuation that we should have a dialogue with killers. I tried to place it in terms he, and hopefully many would understand.

I have been assailed in another thread and find myself defending all LCR against bogottry. So the LCR referrence I took the worng way. Sorry to misinterpret what you said and thank you for clarifying.

I guess I mis-spoke.

 

[JayHawk]

President Clinton had Gerry Adams to the White House himself on at least two occasions. Senator Kennedy has led various delegations to Northern Ireland to chat up Adams and many Senators, both Democrat and Republican received him whenever he came to Washington or New York. His visits were annual, and were always welcomed with open arms by pretty much most of the Washington power elites.

I will not even pretend to justify the foreign policies of Clinton. The conservative position and the countries current position is that we do not negotiate with terrorist. A president is the only one who can do such negotiation. Clinton did indeed negotiate and in some cases grant assylum to IRA terrorist.

I will not excuse it in any way but think of this.

The IRA wants what in Ireland? What is their goal? Is their ultimate goal death to all of a different religion? Or is it self governance?

How can palestines Hamas goal be met with out decimation of the entire jewish race? Is that something we desire to negotiate?

 

[Chalchalero]

Well I took your post the opposite as you normally post anti whatever I have written. I posted about Jannus insinuation that we should have a dialogue with killers. I tried to place it in terms he, and hopefully many would understand.

I have been assailed in another thread and find myself defending all LCR against bogottry. So the LCR referrence I took the worng way. Sorry to misinterpret what you said and thank you for clarifying.

I guess I mis-spoke.

While I appreciate your mea culpa and do accept it graciously, I feel that I should clarify my position a little further (and not, I promise, simply for the sake of contradicting you).

My reference to the Log Republicans was as an example of people who are willing to engage in dialogue with what I would view to be a natural enemy of the worst kind. Many people in that party would like to see all gays as dead as I am certain that many in Hamas would like to see Israelis dead. The fact that they continue to engage in their dialogue and attempts at winning "hearts and minds" is vastly preferable to attempting to simply ignore or destroy the Republicans.

The fact that there are many who believe that dialogue is the only true path to genuine peace does not make them necessarily synpathetic to either side of the conflict, but merely desirous of that conflict's end. This has always been the problem with US involvement in the MIddle East, as the US was never the "honest broker" they claim to be. They have always been unabashedly interested primarily (some would say solely) in the security of Israel. This, often at the expense of the Palestinians.

IF one is going to take the position that there must be peace, then there are only two ways to achieve it. Either completely annihilate your opponent, or engage in dialogue with him. Israel and the US have consistently proven that annihilation of Hamas is not an option as they are completely incapable of it. Their only choice, therefore, lies in dialogue.

A reference to an earlier comment you made as well. You indicated that somehow Carter's trip to Syria and meeting with the head of Hamas was unconstitutional. In essence, as he is no longer President of the US and is travelling as a private citizen, such a meeting would not be considered official by anyone, and therefore breaks no laws. Believe me, if it did, the Bush Administration would be all over it.

 

[Chalchalero]

I will not even pretend to justify the foreign policies of Clinton. The conservative position and the countries current position is that we do not negotiate with terrorist. A president is the only one who can do such negotiation. Clinton did indeed negotiate and in some cases grant assylum to IRA terrorist.

I will not excuse it in any way but think of this.

The IRA wants what in Ireland? What is their goal? Is their ultimate goal death to all of a different religion? Or is it self governance?

How can palestines Hamas goal be met with out decimation of the entire jewish race? Is that something we desire to negotiate?

As it stands today, there is actually a great deal of debate going on within the leadership of Hamas as to what their foinal aims truly are. There is one side which simply requires the restoration of pre-1967 boundaries, Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine and the right of retur for Palestinian refugees. This segment, which one could reasonalbly presume to be relatively moderate, is the politcial wing which won the elections in 2006. In fact the destruction of Israel, whil never taken out of Hamas' charter, was indeed stricken from the electoral platform used throughout the elections and has not been replaced by anyone in the political leadership since.

Khaled Meshaal is actually considered to be the head of Hamas' political wing, and has stated publically on numerous occasions, his disinterest in the destruction of Israel. In an editorial in The Guardian in January of 2006, he said:

"Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected." "Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

During this time, he also offered "a 10-year truce [with Israel] in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."

I believe that, with time, and the opportunity, Hamas can and will grow into a respectable moderate political entity. The only chance for this to happen is simply not to marginalise those leaders who are willing to engage in dialogue, and ceasing attacks on Palestinians, which simply serves to empower and create sympathy and support for the more radical elements of Hamas and the Palestinian populace.

 

[JayHawk]

Didn't Israel accept that truce. To great dismay of some Israeli's? Did they accept and begin to withdrawl. What did they inherit from this political entity that means it no harm? Rockets and kidnappings.

Thats pretty persuasive. Unfortunately there is no one leader of most Islamic terror groups. As soon as a leader aligns himself with the west in truce they are maligned and a portion of their base seperates into another faction.

 

[star-warrior]

What he needs is a pork barrel.

 

[Kulindahr]

i hate how the word terrorism gets thrown about as if its a concrete concept. Guys what guys, its not! Its very gray area deciding what is terrorism and what is not. It vastly depends on which side your on. Cuz the palestinians think the isralis are terrorists, and the isralis think palestinians are terrorists. to just flat out say that the palestinians are terrorists minimizes the complexity of the situation in the middle east and makes u sound quite ignorant

It is a concrete concept: a terrorist is a person or group who does things to engender terror in a target population, or who engages in such actions.

Some people would consider the United States "terrorists" for doing what we're doing in the Middle East. Does that mean that world leaders should not meet with us, since others consider us terrorists?

They make the accusation in order to try to establish some sort of moral equivalency for real terrorists. Military action, even sloppy military action which kills numerous civilians, is not terrorism; any claims to the contrary are specious.

 

[Kulindahr]

Khaled Meshaal is actually considered to be the head of Hamas' political wing, and has stated publically on numerous occasions, his disinterest in the destruction of Israel. In an editorial in The Guardian in January of 2006, he said:

"Our message to the Israelis is this: We do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion "the people of the book" who have a covenant from God and his messenger, Muhammad (peace be upon him), to be respected and protected." "Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us — our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people."

During this time, he also offered "a 10-year truce [with Israel] in return for a complete Israeli withdrawal from the occupied Palestinian territories: the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem."

I believe that, with time, and the opportunity, Hamas can and will grow into a respectable moderate political entity. The only chance for this to happen is simply not to marginalise those leaders who are willing to engage in dialogue, and ceasing attacks on Palestinians, which simply serves to empower and create sympathy and support for the more radical elements of Hamas and the Palestinian populace.

He's forgetting that it was Arabs who started the violence, and started several wars as well -- or, more likely, he's using a skewed version of history.
A militant Muslim especially ought to be willing to acknowledge that what land Israel took by arms now belongs to Israel -- after all, the Prophet operated on that very principle, and it was used to spread Islam by sword and blood.

He's also very ingenuous pretending that he doesn't want to destroy Israel but wants them out of the "occupied Palestinian [sic] territories". While perpetuating the myth that there's such a thing as a Palestinian ethnic group, he pursues a course which will leave Israel with undefendable borders.

 

[Kulindahr]

What he needs is a pork barrel.

Senator Kennedy is good with pork....

 

[Kulindahr]

All that said....

Carter's muddle-headed thinking, which elevates barbaric violence against women and children to the level of a political movement, will serve mainly to keep issues confused, and provide terrorists a mantle of moral snobbery to parade about in. Some of the causes he's taken up since yielding the White House to a far better man have been quite admirable, but his meddling in politics has been less successful than his incompetent term as President.

I'd be quite happy if he picked up a hammer for Habitat for Humanity and was never heard from again.

 

[Chalchalero]

He's forgetting that it was Arabs who started the violence, and started several wars as well -- or, more likely, he's using a skewed version of history.
A militant Muslim especially ought to be willing to acknowledge that what land Israel took by arms now belongs to Israel -- after all, the Prophet operated on that very principle, and it was used to spread Islam by sword and blood.

He's also very ingenuous pretending that he doesn't want to destroy Israel but wants them out of the "occupied Palestinian [sic] territories". While perpetuating the myth that there's such a thing as a Palestinian ethnic group, he pursues a course which will leave Israel with undefendable borders.

I have no idea what he remembers or has forgotten, but my intention was certainly not to raise the dubious spectre of a history discussion with one who begins with the yelp of a ten year old's "they started it!", as I do not consider that to be an intelligent start to any discussion.

My intention in utilising that quote was in order to demonstrate that disagreements do exist within the leadership of Hamas and that the opportunity for dialogue would and does exist if everyone would stop shooting one another and pointing fingers, and simply decide that peace, rather than ego, a distorted sense of "history" and a bloodlust for revenge is a viable and desirable conclusion to the mess that is going on right now.

There has to be an understanding that BOTH sides have a right to defend themselves and not only one side. Anyone who believes that the firing of rockets into (for the vast part) empty streets and fields somehow justifies the "self-defense" indiscriminate killing of civilians is the one being truly disingenuous (which was the word you actually wanted to use, by the way).

It is not my intention either, however, to have that discussion, as that is not the topic of the thread.

To specifically address what you have said, however, if you read the quote fully, you would have seen that he was quite specific about what he regarded as the "Occupied Territories", ie: Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem. As has already previously been stated, there is a large contingent within the Hamas leadership which has been more than willing to discuss withdrawal to the pre-1967 borders. I am not surprised and really couldn't care less that there are so many Americans who a) choose to ignore this fact, b) have no understanding whatsoever of the actual history of the region and c) blindly and blithely wander about spewing radical Zionist propaganda as fact. Most Americans really have nothing to do with the actual process and serve only to annoy one another with arguments over the issues without actually understanding them.

What disturbs me is when the actual principles in what is supposed to be a peace process are guilty of the same things. This is extremely unhelpful, and will simply serve to extend the dispute further.

As far as "leaving Israel with undefendable borders", who is really being disingenuous now?

 

[Chalchalero]

All that said....

Carter's muddle-headed thinking, which elevates barbaric violence against women and children to the level of a political movement, will serve mainly to keep issues confused, and provide terrorists a mantle of moral snobbery to parade about in. Some of the causes he's taken up since yielding the White House to a far better man have been quite admirable, but his meddling in politics has been less successful than his incompetent term as President.

I'd be quite happy if he picked up a hammer for Habitat for Humanity and was never heard from again.

I would like to know where and when President Carter ever elevated "barbaric violence against women and children to the level of a political movement", other than to have agreed to bring Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin together for the Camp David Peace Accord (which was opposed by the chattering masses on both sides then, as well, coincidentally) and helping to form a lasting peace between their two nations which remains to this day.

You are so obviously unaware of President Carter's achievements and overall abilities and have been spoon-fed a bunch of nonsense that you have taken as fact, simply because it is so much easier than actually learning on your own. It is sad that this seems to be the pervasive trend on all sides. Rather than attempt to understand the issues on the level of acknowledging the humanity and good-will of both sides and the fact that good intentions MUST exist on both sides if peace is ever to have a chance, it is so much simpler for each side to dehumanise and demonise the other, thus exacerbating the conflict and increasing the hatred all around.

I believe that what frightens those who are so vocal in their opposition to Carter's visit, is the fact that he may actually achieve some sort of softening of Meshaal's position, or reach some sort of agreement with him that might force the neo-cons and the radical zionist lobbyists to the realisation that the leadership of Hamas are actually human beings. That would be most uncomfortable for their propaganda machines, not to mention threaten the immense amount of money that is made by Israel and the American defense industry as long as the conflict is perpetuated.

President Carter has a long and distinguished history of peace-making, something which has never, can never and will never be said about George W. Bush and his administration or anyone in the leadership of Israel over the last 15 years. It does not surprise me that their supporters would love never to hear from a man of peace like President Carter ever again.

I believe that anyone who genuinely wants peace should wish him well. It is stupid to believe that peace can be achieved without talking to one of the main parties in the conflict. President Carter realises this. It would have been better if the Bush Aadministration had come to this realisation themselves, but their interests, I fear, are counter-productive to peace. They have proven this from their first day in office and continue to do so today.

 

[JayHawk]

But the real reason for the cold shoulder is Carter's plan to meet with Hamas' exiled supreme leader, Khaled Mashaal, when his peacemaking mission moves later in the week to Damascus, Syria, the Israeli official said. Israeli leaders are not publicly criticizing Carter out of respect for his former position as U.S. president, he added.

Ahead of his arrival in Israel, Carter said he feels "quite at ease" about meeting Hamas militants.

"I think there's no doubt in anyone's mind that if Israel is ever going to find peace with justice concerning the relationship with their next-door neighbors, the Palestinians, that Hamas will have to be included in the process," he said.

He was interviewed Saturday for ABC News' "This Week" news magazine, airing Sunday.

Hamas is sworn to Israel's destruction and has carried out dozens of suicide bombings that have killed more than 250 Israelis. Israel has no contacts with the Islamic militant group, whose violent takeover of the Gaza Strip in June has undercut newly revived efforts by Israel and the Palestinians to strike a final peace deal.

The U.S. administration is also boycotting Hamas, but a growing group of critics says shunning enemies is counterproductive and wants to bring Gaza's rulers to the table. Several months ago, a group of prominent former senior U.S. officials — including Brent Scowcroft and Carter's own former national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski — called on the U.S. to engage in "genuine dialogue" with the Islamic militant group, not isolate it.

Let me ask you something oh proponents of peace with Hamas. I know not all of you are Americans so please use your own example. How much dialogue would we endure if a sect from mexico or canada was responsible for 250 American deaths via rocket and suicide bombing? How about if the same ilk pushes their people in to such utter poverty that they are perceived as the only help in the region and then duly elected. Would that make a difference if they are still killing people in our cities?

 

[LaloGS]

The poster you question was using saracasm. Look it up. You took the words literally and attack that poster. As is your norm.

I read no sarcasm when a post agrees that Bush's policies have been working. If he was being sarcastic, I apologize, but it was thin slice of sarcasm if that is what his intentions ere.

 

[LaloGS]

Ok I will give in to the fact that I do not know for sure but please tell me when the US govt sent envoy's to the IRA.

Not simply errant politicians engaging foreign enitities. Without the backing of the constitution I might add.

A lot of American Irish have been supportive of the IRA. They've sent money, guns, and lawyers in support of the IRA's goals, and the US Government has generally done nothing to interfere with this happening.

Additionally, the US (CIA) has helped hide IRA terrorists in this country and given them support in other ways. I can't give you links to support this, only personal interactions with immigrant Irishmen who have passed on information both in New York, and New Jersey. One man was actually sneaked back into Ireland via Scotland to carry out a bombing the CIA thought necessary.

I've also known a retired British Coronel who told me of the British military's knowledge of CIA involvement with the IRA. This is essentially unwritten history and when it is written, America will not have clean hands.