Jimmy Carter: "Give Hamas a chance"

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: techs
As usual our most wrongly maligned former President is correct.
If you look at history many peacemakers were former terrorists and sworn enemies of those they made peace with.
Menacham Begin was a terrorist who made peace with Egypt.
Anwar Sadat was the sworn enemy of Israel and he made peace with them.
Nixon was the most rabidly anti-communist President we had yet he opened up relations with China.
In fact, Hamas is the only group capable of making a peace with Israel. If they don't come on board their would be no chance for peace.
So I say give them a chance. I don't think they will take it, at least not for many years.
Heck, even the IRA made peace in Ireland.

QFT...it takes the old warhorses to make peace...no one else has the credibility...

FS

 

[ExpertNovice]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
my first P&N post...

CNN


Hamas is recognized by many (most?) governments as a terrorist organization. Why should anyone give them a second chance? They have a proven track record of violence and intimidation. Carter thinks they are going to change their tactics just because they now have a mandate? I would even argue that their mandate gives them the authority to "stay the course."

Jimmy Carter is a tool and loves to continuously remind people of that fact.

Look at the world leaders that President Carter supports and who he denounces and you will better understand his stance.

 

[feralkid]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Tab

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
my first P&N post...

CNN


Hamas is recognized by many (most?) governments as a terrorist organization. Why should anyone give them a second chance? They have a proven track record of violence and intimidation. Carter thinks they are going to change their tactics just because they now have a mandate? I would even argue that their mandate gives them the authority to "stay the course."

Jimmy Carter is a tool and loves to continuously remind people of that fact.

How is Jimmy Carter a tool? He's risked his life multiple times to help people in need in some of the worst parts of the globle. He's accomplished more for humanity than most people can even dream of.

He's one of the world greatest people, ever.

are we even talking about the same guy here? bah... Jimmy Carter is nothing more than a white Jesse Jackson: always pokin his head in where it doesnt belong and screwing things up.

The man is useless.

Yeah, that damned peace treaty he brokered between Israel and Egypt doesn't give him the right to assume there can be peace between Israel and Palestine. What a tool!

 

[ciba]

I must admit I don't understand this issue. It seems like Hamas is demanding Israel pay tax revenue it collected. Why doesn't the PA levy taxes on Palestinians?

 

[Future Shock]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
so if Hitler's Reich comes to power in Europe again, we should just give them the benefit of the doubt and a second chance?!

ya...right.

Screw Carter and his ignorant feel-good agenda. This same mentality puts killers, child molestors, and rapists back on our streets every day. This is the same screwed up mentality that kept us from stomping out Saddam in '91, and this is the same screwed up mentality that will eventually lead to the downfall of democracy in the US and elsewhere when the panzy-assed liberals who believe in it somehow finagle control of the governments.

i cant believe that ANYONE would agree with Carter on this... f'n ignorance is no excuse, and I'm surrounded by it! what does that say about me!?

bah.

It's not a question of "feel good agendas". It's a question of simply who has the guns and butter.

Hamas is more violent than Fatah right now, and has more popular support. Fatah CANNOT control Hamas on the streets of the West Bank, period. Therefore Fatah's negotiations with Israel are MEANINGLESS...because they can't back them up and control their own people.

What the election of Hamas has done is finally put the one group that can meaningfully negotiate with Israel in charge - if Hamas choose to negotiate. That is a question that will be borne out over the next year or two - the internal viewpoints and politics will take that long to change within Hamas. They have to interalize their newfound responsibilities, and in some cases just grow-up and into their new roles as leaders of a government. It CAN happen, and it has happened before to opposition leaders that gained power and changed their points of view once in office.

Let's say that it is 50/50 on whether they agree to meaningful negotiations that would cause them to drop their platform of destroying Israel - but that's still a hell of a lot better than Fatah's intent to negotiate but 100% lack of ability to back it up.

But it IS foolish to believe that they will immediately drop their platform of the destruction of Isreal. EVERY SINGLE man leading Hamas does not want to be seen as weak to his fellows. They will hem and haw for at least a year, and then finally be "forced" into making changes to their platform "as a last resort, for the good of the Palestinian people and their generations to come...blah blah blah". You can almost write that speech now...

Isreal needs to recognize human nature of groups and group decison making, recognize that this will take some time, but recognize it is probably the only real chance for a lasting peace. The prototype for this is the recent de-escalation of the Irish Troubles, and recognize that has taken quite a while...but it is overall looking very positive. To expect Hamas to change their stripes faster than the IRA did is probably unreasonable...but to understand the profound changes that have occured in Ireland, and the relative success of the peace process there, with foes bent on each other's destruction, is to see hope at least.

A last note about the timeframe - the LONGER it takes for a group like Hamas to change it's stripes, IMHO the LESS the chance that it will spin-off violent splinter groups during the peace (such as the Real IRA, etc.). More people will have had a chance to change their minds, people will enter the movement and replace existing leaders, etc. Some things must simmer to cook well...

Future Shock

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
my first P&N post...

CNN

Hamas is recognized by many (most?) governments as a terrorist organization. Why should anyone give them a second chance? They have a proven track record of violence and intimidation. Carter thinks they are going to change their tactics just because they now have a mandate? I would even argue that their mandate gives them the authority to "stay the course."

Jimmy Carter is a tool and loves to continuously remind people of that fact.

Welcome to P&N

Just like a Leopard cannot change it's spots, neither can Terrists.

This just shows both Republicans and Democrats don't learn either.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: spherrod

Originally posted by: jlmadyson
We could give them a chance. Although any chance of them turning away from violence is more than likely slim to none.

(my first P&N post too!) I think you have to give them a chance, as they have been democratically elected by the people of Palestine. The region needs help, and maybe Hamas can be convinced that now is the time to pursue their means peacefully by engaging with the international and Israeli communities. The alternative is far worse IMO if you attempt to exclude them straight away.

Also, the IRA (Sinn Fein) had a proven track record of intimidation and violence but now seem firmly engaged in a democratic peace process

Welcome to P&N too.

You really believe they changed their spots?

 

[Jhhnn]

Too bad that the pro- Israeli dimwits can't live the life of Joe Palestinian for about six months...

Moonbeam's right, btw. The Israeli methodology is just a slow motion version of Lebensraum, the long term results for Palestinians no different that the Warsaw Ghetto was for Jews in WW2.

And the mock piety of the Bush Admin would gag a maggot. They love to get all gushy over Democracy, and then when it actually happens, they flipflop straight over into scorn and vindictiveness. Not that any of the faithful in the war of "Us vs Them" would ever notice, having the intellect and instincts of well trained attack dogs...

 

[compuwiz1]

Jimmy should have stuck with peanut farming.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel has frozen palestine's money.

This means that the palestinians will not get their paycheck.

Israel has no right to freeze any country's money, yet they do.

These are workers who have been working for the govt. since before Hamas was even elected.

So we are not giving them a chance and as a result hurting the population.
Wonderful.

The problem is that the Palestinian nation is illegitimate because it has a terrorist government. Isreal should just stand up to the world, dismiss all of the PC-bs, publically declare that the Islamacists are primative mystic savages, and then go in and take over the entire Palestinian government. That last part would probalby be the best thing that could happen to the good Palestinian people.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Poor Israel. They are in a bind. They are so so itching to exterminate the Palestinians but that have that Holocaust albatross around their necks.

Let's not drop context here. The Jews of Europe were good, high quality people. In contrast, the Palestinians are...scum? Why haven't the Palestinian people risen up to slaugher the corrupt Palestinian government and establish a free society? Why haven't they risen up and slaughered the Islamic Fundamentalists in their midst?

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: Aimster
Israel has frozen palestine's money.

This means that the palestinians will not get their paycheck.

Israel has no right to freeze any country's money, yet they do.

These are workers who have been working for the govt. since before Hamas was even elected.

So we are not giving them a chance and as a result hurting the population.
Wonderful.

The problem is that the Palestinian nation is illegitimate because it has a terrorist government. Isreal should just stand up to the world, dismiss all of the PC-bs, publically declare that the Islamacists are primative mystic savages, and then go in and take over the entire Palestinian government. That last part would probalby be the best thing that could happen to the good Palestinian people.

Here in lies the problem:

One entry found for terrorism.
Main Entry: ter·ror·ism
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r-"i-z&m
Function: noun
: the systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion

Main Entry: ter·ror
Pronunciation: 'ter-&r
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French terreur, from Latin terror, from terrEre to frighten; akin to Greek trein to be afraid, flee, tremein to tremble -- more at TREMBLE
1 : a state of intense fear
2 a : one that inspires fear : SCOURGE b : a frightening aspect <the terrors of invasion> c : a cause of anxiety : WORRY d : an appalling person or thing; especially : BRAT
3 : REIGN OF TERROR
4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands <insurrection and revolutionary terror>

The US can be accused of committing terroristic acts against other nations of the world as well. Yet, you defend their right to do any/everything they want without questioning because of your belief in "democracy".

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the U.S.
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

Hamas was elected by a majority of the Palastinians in a free election. That is democracy in action. For you or anyone else to deny that is complete insanity. How does this make Palestine any less legitimate than the US or Israel?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Hamas was elected by a majority of the Palastinians in a free election. That is democracy in action. For you or anyone else to deny that is complete insanity. How does this make Palestine any less legitimate than the US or Israel?

The U.S. was founded on the principle of individual rights and freedom. In contrast, Hamas is a terrorist organization that backs Fundamentalist Islam and religious dictatorship.

Democracy is not necessarily good, btw. It's possible to vote yourself into slavery, or for the majority to vote a minority into slavery. It's also possible to elect Hitler. Just because a government has been democractically elected does not necessarily make it good. In many cases, especially in the case of the Palestinians, a nation might be better off with a benevolent dictatorship.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: RightIsWrongHamas was elected by a majority of the Palastinians in a free election. That is democracy in action. For you or anyone else to deny that is complete insanity. How does this make Palestine any less legitimate than the US or Israel?

Stalin, Hitler and a few others were also elected in "free" elections.

If Hamas would get off their high horse, there would be less of a problem.

However, for that to happen, they would have to renounce their "charter" and external support from the other radical Arab nations.

Hamas and the Palestinians are almost completely dependent on handouts from others; therefore it is difficult to see how they can operate as an independent nation.

Being dependent on others goodwill also makes the easily manipulated by those external influences (good & bad).

 

[RightIsWrong]

Originally posted by: WhipperSnapper

Originally posted by: RightIsWrong

Hamas was elected by a majority of the Palastinians in a free election. That is democracy in action. For you or anyone else to deny that is complete insanity. How does this make Palestine any less legitimate than the US or Israel?

The U.S. was founded on the principle of individual rights and freedom. In contrast, Hamas is a terrorist organization that backs Fundamentalist Islam and religious dictatorship.

Democracy is not necessarily good, btw. It's possible to vote yourself into slavery, or for the majority to vote a minority into slavery. It's also possible to elect Hitler. Just because a government has been democractically elected does not necessarily make it good. In many cases, especially in the case of the Palestinians, a nation might be better off with a benevolent dictatorship.

How do you know? There have been many instances of violent groups throughout history that took control of a country and changed it for the better. Look at the IRA....very similar to Hamas. Once they got active in the actual political arena, they changed, albeit slowly, to become a respected option for the Irish people.

I think that, given the same chance, Hamas could end up the same way. Of course, that means that "terrorist" governments that are using force (political and military) would have to stop trying to bring the country to it's knees to get the people to overthrow their choice in leadership.

Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz told the Israeli cabinet on Sunday that since Hamas won a sweeping victory in last Wednesday?s PA parliamentary election, the extreme Islamic terror group was acting ?responsibly.?

Mofaz also said that in the short term, he thinks Hamas will refrain from terror attacks.

He added that it was likely that the Hamas will also attempt to block the Islamic Jihad from carrying out terrorist attacks against Israel. Islamic Jihad, trying to portray itself as more radical than Hamas, boycotted last week?s election. They claimed that the elections were based on the Oslo accords and played into the hands of the United States.

Shortly after making his comments about the Hamas, Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said from Gaza that Israel must change its flag. "Israel must remove the two blue stripes from its national flag", said Zahar. ?The stripes on the flag are symbols of occupation. They signify Israel's borders stretching from the River Euphrates to the River Nile."

Israel?s national flag, a blue Star of David set between two blue stripes, was designed to resemble a Jewish prayer shawl which traditionally has stripes.

When asked whether the Hamas would renounce terrorism, Zahar said in a CNN interview, "What is the international definition of terrorism? When (Israeli planes) attack houses by F-16, just when they are using helicopters, when they are killing people and children and removing our agriculture system, this is terrorism."

Mofaz said the government?s policy towards Hamas must be clear. The Hamas, he said, ?must annul their charter and disarm, and then we'll be facing a clearer reality," Mofaz said. The Hamas charter calls for the destruction of Israel.

An Israeli government official said that Egytian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan?s King Abdullah are worried that the Hamas electoral victory might encourage radical Islamic groups in their own countries.

The Hamas?s ideology is based on that of the Moslem Brotherhood, a radical Moslem sect based in Egypt.

Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni (Kadima) said she would be travelling to Egypt next Wednesday to discuss the Hamas victory with Mubarak.

As for the future of ruling PA chief Mahmoud Abbas, Zahar said the Hamas planned to work with Abbas, also called Abu Mazen, the name he used as a PLO terrorist.
Abbas, who heads the Fatah party, was elected head of the Palestinian Authority in a separate election. Legally, he can retain his post until finishing out a four-year term.

I guess it comes down to which "terrorsist" do you want to call an ally? I mean, the US and Israel had no problems working with Abbas, but then hypocrisy doesn't need to answer to things like truth.

 

[Czar]

What I dont get is why Hamas demands of Israel are so unreasonable to begin with, all they are asking is that Israel pull back to its own internationaly recognized border. After that I would have a problem with Hamas not recognizing Israel, but untill then...

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
my first P&N post...

CNN


Hamas is recognized by many (most?) governments as a terrorist organization. Why should anyone give them a second chance? They have a proven track record of violence and intimidation. Carter thinks they are going to change their tactics just because they now have a mandate? I would even argue that their mandate gives them the authority to "stay the course."

Jimmy Carter is a tool and loves to continuously remind people of that fact.

Give them a chance if they renounce terrorism and agree to Isreal's right to exist.
Or let them solve thier own problems.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: NuclearNed
my first P&N post...

CNN


Hamas is recognized by many (most?) governments as a terrorist organization. Why should anyone give them a second chance? They have a proven track record of violence and intimidation. Carter thinks they are going to change their tactics just because they now have a mandate? I would even argue that their mandate gives them the authority to "stay the course."

Jimmy Carter is a tool and loves to continuously remind people of that fact.

Give them a chance if they renounce terrorism and agree to Isreal's right to exist.
Or let them solve thier own problems.

why not then demand something similar of Israel?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar
What I dont get is why Hamas demands of Israel are so unreasonable to begin with, all they are asking is that Israel pull back to its own internationaly recognized border. After that I would have a problem with Hamas not recognizing Israel, but untill then...

The big problem may be that when Israel was at those borders, other Arab countries did not accept them and launched coordinated attacks.

Those borders were shown to be not very defensible.

Given that there are hostile Arab countries still around Israel; Israel is not going to take any chances on weakening itself.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar
What I dont get is why Hamas demands of Israel are so unreasonable to begin with, all they are asking is that Israel pull back to its own internationaly recognized border. After that I would have a problem with Hamas not recognizing Israel, but untill then...

The big problem may be that when Israel was at those borders, other Arab countries did not accept them and launched coordinated attacks.

Those borders were shown to be not very defensible.

Given that there are hostile Arab countries still around Israel; Israel is not going to take any chances on weakening itself.

the arab nations around them have already offered Israel a deal about returning to those borders and no arab nation would attack israel because of the nuclear weapons israel has

so... whats the problem?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar
What I dont get is why Hamas demands of Israel are so unreasonable to begin with, all they are asking is that Israel pull back to its own internationaly recognized border. After that I would have a problem with Hamas not recognizing Israel, but untill then...

The big problem may be that when Israel was at those borders, other Arab countries did not accept them and launched coordinated attacks.

Those borders were shown to be not very defensible.

Given that there are hostile Arab countries still around Israel; Israel is not going to take any chances on weakening itself.

the arab nations around them have already offered Israel a deal about returning to those borders and no arab nation would attack israel because of the nuclear weapons israel has

so... whats the problem?

Jordan and Egypt have come to some agreement.
Syria and Lebanon have not.

With Syria still supporting Hezbolla and Hamas; should they be trusted.
Golan Heights has a strategic military value in terms of the protection of Israel's northern flank.

If the Arab countries are so concerned for the Palestinian cause, then let them provide an incentive for Israel to feel secure. After all, they have not assisted the Palestinians for the past 50 years according to their agreements.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar

Originally posted by: EagleKeeper

Originally posted by: Czar
What I dont get is why Hamas demands of Israel are so unreasonable to begin with, all they are asking is that Israel pull back to its own internationaly recognized border. After that I would have a problem with Hamas not recognizing Israel, but untill then...

The big problem may be that when Israel was at those borders, other Arab countries did not accept them and launched coordinated attacks.

Those borders were shown to be not very defensible.

Given that there are hostile Arab countries still around Israel; Israel is not going to take any chances on weakening itself.

the arab nations around them have already offered Israel a deal about returning to those borders and no arab nation would attack israel because of the nuclear weapons israel has

so... whats the problem?

Jordan and Egypt have come to some agreement.
Syria and Lebanon have not.

With Syria still supporting Hezbolla and Hamas; should they be trusted.
Golan Heights has a strategic military value in terms of the protection of Israel's northern flank.

If the Arab countries are so concerned for the Palestinian cause, then let them provide an incentive for Israel to feel secure. After all, they have not assisted the Palestinians for the past 50 years according to their agreements.

read up, this is not just "some agreement"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1898736.stm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beirut_Summit

how can this be a bad deal?

 

[OutHouse]

Hamas is hurting. since they took over the government most countries stopped their financial aid to Palestine. Hamas as a government is broke and havent paid the governement workers in months.

 

[Czar]

Originally posted by: Citrix
Hamas is hurting. since they took over the government most countries stopped their financial aid to Palestine. Hamas as a government is broke and havent paid the governement workers in months.

they have, the US and the EU have given Abbas money for vages, they have not given Hamas any money though

 

[EagleKeeper]

Looking at the links to the Beruit Summit I can see where is was demanded to be one sided.

The Arab coutries want the right of return for all Palestinians.
Also

"Arab leaders finally agreed to reject any solutions "which conflict with the special interests of the Arab host countries".

In otherwords, if Israel asked for anything and an Arab country did not like it, the deal was dead.

provide a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem

This allows any interpretation one wants to.

In response, Israeli Foreign Minister Shimon Peres welcomed it and said: "... the details of every peace plan must be discussed directly between Israel and the Palestinians, and to make this possible, the Palestinian Authority must put an end to terror, the horrifying expression of which we witnessed just last night in Netanya," [1] referring to Netanya suicide attack perpetrated on previous evening which the Beirut Summit has failed to address.

Israel responded to the statement with their own conditions.

Apparently those were not considered to be acceptable.

the Saudi proposal will carry little weight in the absence of the Palestinian, Egyptian and Jordanian leaders.

Three of the key Arab participants were not at the summit. Therefore the agreement would be meaningless as two countries that border Israel and have some influence of Palestian groups that at launching attacks against Israel were not there. The Palestinians were also not there to affirm their agreement.