• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Jimmy Carter to meet with the leader of Hamas??

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Braznor

Diamond Member
Oct 9, 2005
3,820
36
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Braznor
The alternatives to him were much worse. Too bad, we found this out the hard way. Carter's administration is responsible for promising support to the Shah only to withdraw it at the very last moment. Thus paving way for Mullahs in Iran.
First of all, what gives you the right to say who should be in charge of Iran, mister pro-democracy?

Second of all, why don't you go crack a book sometime, and learn the history of how the guy democratically in charge had simply made the terrible mistake of raising the price of oil to England, leading them to ask the US for help in 'fixing' that 'problem', since they liked the old setup where they got oil at exploitave prices.

What paved the way for Mullahs to rule Iran? You might want to do some reading on that, too. Hint: Had we not put the Shah in power, the Mullahs weren't likely to be in charge.

If you had any principles, I'd ask you to explain and justify the US siding with Saddam in his invasion of Iran, with a million casualties, but I can see what a waste that would be.
There is an answer to all of your questions and its called geo-politics. Nations try to stay on top of the food chain all of the time and therefore they play these interesting little games which have a side effect of screwing up the world and creating history.

Regarding democracy in Iran, while I don't have any right to decide the government for Iranians, it also pains me that the Iranians don't have much rights as well to decide about it. The Shah may have been a despot, but so are the mullahs and with them comes the bonus of cultural repression. None will dispute that Iran under the Shah was a much better place than it being under the Mullahs. Carter betrayed the Shah by promising him support until the last moment and withholding it when needed. So he does have direct culpability in bringing into place one leg of the quadripod that makes up the politics of Middle East today : The islamic republic of Iran.

As for American help for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Again geopolitics and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" attitude. But remember if it wasn't for Carter allowing Iran to fall to the mullahs, there would have no Iran-Iraq war too (a war fought by Saddam to curb the Iranian revolutionary fervor from spilling to his side of the border amongst the Shiite populace)

As for Carter, he should quit trying to save the world. The way things are standing, the world needs to be saved from him first.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Two points to make.

1. While Carter may have started the Afghanistan aid the mujahadeen program, it was Reagan who expanded in new and larger ways to include high tech stinger missiles. And once the Soviets left, it was Reagan who made the biggest blunder. Reagan abandoned Afghanistan to
civil war and it became the breeding grounds for terrorism. When a better man would have
stayed to see Afghanistan become a country with an economy and stake in the modern world.

2. By the time Carter became President, the Shah had long before worn out his welcome by alienating nearly everyone in Iran. When he finally fell, it even caught the CIA by total surprise. Carter may have tried to initially support him but quickly realized that no amount of force on earth could prop the Shah up. And like all dictators worth their salt, the Shah had pre planned his escape if the jig was ever up, and he took his billions and ran. And even if the US had trained and aided the Shah's secret police, the Iranian people were willing to forgive and forget. What caused the shit to hit the fan was Carter allowing the Shah to go to the USA for cancer treatment instead of turning him back over to the new Iranian
government. Only then did the students riot and the embassy gets stormed.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
29,652
3,202
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
But not talking is usually the process of starting wars. We better think long and hard before we declare war on 1.4 billion Muslims when 1.39999999999 billion of them were never hostile to us in the first place.
As the now absent ProfJohn said, the ones you'd talk to are the ones who have already declared war on us. You are telling us that 1.4 billion Muslims have done that? BS. You're just spewing more hyperbole just like you did when I suggest stopping Al Sadr's Mahdi army and you told me I was killing every Iraqi.

That misrepresentation is a lie and it is getting old. Are you incapable of distinction between the militant fighters and the more moderate and peace loving Muslims? Hamas doesn't strike me as peace loving, nor as equivalent to 1.4 billion Muslims. Yet it makes sense that'd you'd make that leap in their defense.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: hellokeith
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
So Jimmy Carter may visit with the leader of Hamas when he goes to Syria.
PJ,

I have a very simple solution. Once Carter gets over there, we put him on the no-fly list. Then he'll get the opportunity to spend a very long time talking to these terrorists. :D
Laughable...

According to This the "majority of Isrealis back direct talks with Hamas. You know...the people who have to live with the consequences of their choices as opposed to those who can beat their protected chests from a safe distance.

Sixty-four percent of Israelis say the government must hold direct talks with the Hamas government in Gaza toward a cease-fire and the release of captive soldier Gilad Shalit. Less than one-third (28 percent) still opposes such talks.

The figures were obtained in a Haaretz-Dialog poll conducted Tuesday under the supervision of Professor Camil Fuchs of Tel Aviv University.

According to the findings, Israelis are fed up with seven years of Qassam rockets falling on Sderot and the communities near Gaza, as well as the fact that Shalit has been held captive for more than a year and a half. An increasing number of public figures, including senior officers in the Israel Defense Forces' reserves, have expressed similar positions on talks with Hamas.


Some of you people's blood-thirsty chest beating. slay's me

History is filled with all sorts of nations - and private parties - that hate each other intensely nonetheless reaching agreement because they perceive that doing so is in their self-interest, preferable to trying to annihiliate each other.

Do you think, in retrospect, that it was better for Israel to enter into a peace agreement with Egypt, or would it have been better for them to remain in a state of permanent war with them?



 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,806
2,246
126
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Fern
I'm curious what Carter is specifically trying to accomplish; what's his point?

Fern
He's an individual with access because of his history and a personal mission to promote peace. He specifically does NOT speak for or represent the U.S. Government, which works to his advantage and ours because he's proof that not all Americans are not war mongering piles of shit like the Bushwhackos.
The level of ignorance in that statement is nothing short of astounding. How can you make any legitimate claim of ethical superiority and enlightened thinking while at the same time referring to anyone that disagrees with you as "war mongering piles of shit like the Bushwhackos"?
When your arguments are based solely on hate, and the belief that those who don't agree with your views are inferior, your arguments become moot.

Carter can speak to anyone that will answer him, and if he can broker a deal that leads to peace in the middle east then God bless him. The fundamental problem is that the people he's dealing with want every jew in Israel dead, it's difficult to negotiate from that point, how does one compromise? offer to kill half of them and make the rest real sick? The starting point has to be sane, beginning with an idea that's based on mental illness isn't going to go anywhere, other than calling people who don't want six million Jews dead "war mongering piles of shit like the Bushwhackos".
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,268
4
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Two points to make.

1. While Carter may have started the Afghanistan aid the mujahadeen program, it was Reagan who expanded in new and larger ways to include high tech stinger missiles. And once the Soviets left, it was Reagan who made the biggest blunder. Reagan abandoned Afghanistan to
civil war and it became the breeding grounds for terrorism.
When a better man would have
stayed to see Afghanistan become a country with an economy and stake in the modern world.
That is an interesting statement coming from someone who wants us to leave Iraq to civil war and allow it to become a breeding ground for terrorists.

We should have stayed in Afghanistan, but we should leave Iraq... how do you reconcile those two points of view?
 

senseamp

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
34,739
4,602
126
The reason Obama will lose is that he's an empty suit demagogue, not because of Carter. Actually, dirty guilt by association Republican tricks will only alienate independents like myself.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,710
20,070
136
Originally posted by: Greenman

The level of ignorance in that statement is nothing short of astounding. How can you make any legitimate claim of ethical superiority and enlightened thinking while at the same time referring to anyone that disagrees with you as "war mongering piles of shit like the Bushwhackos"?
When your arguments are based solely on hate, and the belief that those who don't agree with your views are inferior, your arguments become moot.

Carter can speak to anyone that will answer him, and if he can broker a deal that leads to peace in the middle east then God bless him. The fundamental problem is that the people he's dealing with want every jew in Israel dead, it's difficult to negotiate from that point, how does one compromise? offer to kill half of them and make the rest real sick? The starting point has to be sane, beginning with an idea that's based on mental illness isn't going to go anywhere, other than calling people who don't want six million Jews dead "war mongering piles of shit like the Bushwhackos".
Maybe, just maybe Carter is taking the incredibly smart position of opening a dialogue so that people can try and find a way for them to exist without killing each other. Sure it's a long shot, but just sitting there with our hands over our ears singing "la la la I can't hear you" has helped no one.

If our government is not responsible enough to talk to.. you know... the elected government of the Palestinian territories, then I'm glad someone is. The amount of people arguing that talking to Hamas is stupid or weak boggles my mind. Just because we talk to them doesn't mean we have to do whatever they suggest.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Once again Greenman misses the point Rainsford made a while back.

As Greenman tries to make the point that the current Hamas agenda is supposed to be the extermination of six million jews and nothing less.

While totally glossing over the fact that Israeli agenda has been the total disenfranchisement of at least three million Palestinians. First Israel stole their land
and now Israel will not give them any hope for a future. Meanwhile some 200 million Arabs oppose the existence of the State of Israel or at least demand it be confined back to its pre 1967 borders. And many Arabs either fight on the side of the Palestinians or actively give money to buy arms. While Israel openly bombs Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq killing terrorists and civilians alike. And that this conflict has been going on for 60 years and is likely to go on for another 60 years because Israeli military might is not prevailing.

So lets realize that other point, the only way Israel can win with the present metric is to kill 203 million Arabs.

So we put this question to the wider and more unbiased world---choose one or the other---kill 6 million jews or kill 203 million arabs---choose one or the other and the conflict is settled. Winner take all.

Or we can try diplomacy and the Carter approach. Find middle ground and compromise. But no, Greenman can't have that because he wants to kill 203 million arabs instead
which is the only way Israel wins.

I suspect Greenman is going to say I am putting words in his mouth, but its still what the Greenman argument boils down to.
 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,599
5
0
Private citizen diplomacy can not hurt as long as both sides make sure that it is a private citizen that is not speaking for the government.

Now, some do it for political agendas (Jesse Jackson & Nancy P).
If Carter can come back with some clarifications on workable goals, more power to him.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Two points to make.

1. While Carter may have started the Afghanistan aid the mujahadeen program, it was Reagan who expanded in new and larger ways to include high tech stinger missiles. And once the Soviets left, it was Reagan who made the biggest blunder. Reagan abandoned Afghanistan to
civil war and it became the breeding grounds for terrorism.
When a better man would have
stayed to see Afghanistan become a country with an economy and stake in the modern world.
That is an interesting statement coming from someone who wants us to leave Iraq to civil war and allow it to become a breeding ground for terrorists.

We should have stayed in Afghanistan, but we should leave Iraq... how do you reconcile those two points of view?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now PJ is putting words into my mouth, I have never advocated just leaving Iraq unlike some anti war people. I have always advocated a diplomatic solution that is now roadblocked by GWB&co. Its a PJ and GWB myth that there are just two options in Iraq, stay or go, when in fact there is almost an infinite number of options that can be used. Nearly every one of them much more likely to succeed than the proven failure methods being employed by GWB.

And this entire thread boils down to Carter having the potential embarrassment to GWB&co
if his actions make any progress.
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And this entire thread boils down to Carter having the potential embarrassment to GWB&co if his actions make any progress.
Now, that thar would be some ironing. Would admin take face-saving steps to negate any forward progress?
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And this entire thread boils down to Carter having the potential embarrassment to GWB&co if his actions make any progress.
Now, that thar would be some ironing. Would admin take face-saving steps to negate any forward progress?
Its no longer about this present administration. This, it least in my mind, is about the Presidential campaign of 08 and what to do when GWB leaves office. To have some blue print in place so a future administration and congress can hit the ground running on 1/21/09.

Meanwhile the other ball is on the McCain side of the net as the heir apparent to the GOP.
Will McCain wrest control of the party away from GWB well prior to 11/4/2008 and show the
country what he will do better, or will he simply wimp out and be left only promising that he can be a visionary uniter and not a divider?
 

seemingly random

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 2007
5,281
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: seemingly random
Originally posted by: Lemon law
And this entire thread boils down to Carter having the potential embarrassment to GWB&co if his actions make any progress.
Now, that thar would be some ironing. Would admin take face-saving steps to negate any forward progress?
Its no longer about this present administration. This, it least in my mind, is about the Presidential campaign of 08 and what to do when GWB leaves office. To have some blue print in place so a future administration and congress can hit the ground running on 1/21/09.

Meanwhile the other ball is on the McCain side of the net as the heir apparent to the GOP.
Will McCain wrest control of the party away from GWB well prior to 11/4/2008 and show the
country what he will do better, or will he simply wimp out and be left only promising that he can be a visionary uniter and not a divider?
I'm smelling burnt circuits. You are putting much more thought into this than I'm willing to. I can understand the possibilities - just hadn't considered all of them. It appears that this nation (and the world) is going to emit one enormous sigh of relief when the current admin leaves.
 

Greenman

Lifer
Oct 15, 1999
16,806
2,246
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Once again Greenman misses the point Rainsford made a while back.

As Greenman tries to make the point that the current Hamas agenda is supposed to be the extermination of six million jews and nothing less.

While totally glossing over the fact that Israeli agenda has been the total disenfranchisement of at least three million Palestinians. First Israel stole their land
and now Israel will not give them any hope for a future. Meanwhile some 200 million Arabs oppose the existence of the State of Israel or at least demand it be confined back to its pre 1967 borders. And many Arabs either fight on the side of the Palestinians or actively give money to buy arms. While Israel openly bombs Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq killing terrorists and civilians alike. And that this conflict has been going on for 60 years and is likely to go on for another 60 years because Israeli military might is not prevailing.

So lets realize that other point, the only way Israel can win with the present metric is to kill 203 million Arabs.

So we put this question to the wider and more unbiased world---choose one or the other---kill 6 million jews or kill 203 million arabs---choose one or the other and the conflict is settled. Winner take all.

Or we can try diplomacy and the Carter approach. Find middle ground and compromise. But no, Greenman can't have that because he wants to kill 203 million arabs instead
which is the only way Israel wins.

I suspect Greenman is going to say I am putting words in his mouth, but its still what the Greenman argument boils down to.
Putting words in my mouth, and not reading my post. I made 3 points.

1. About Harveys statement.

2. That Carter is welcome to chat with Hamas and it's a good thing if he can broker a deal.

3. That the position Hamas has taken is that all the Jews have to die. You may think that's a reasonable place to start from, I don't. I just don't see them moving from genocide to peaceful coexistence in a short period of time. It's possible, but the gulf between the involved parties is vast, and while I'd love to see Dr. Phill solve the problem in half an hour, I have little hope that such a thing will happen.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Greenman
That the position Hamas has taken is that all the Jews have to die.
How did you come to that concolusion?
In my opinion, the way most of those people come to that opinion is a way they don't even realizes themselves: that in order to justify their own hate and desire for violence against a gorup, they have to say that the group is horrible in such ways, that the group wants to kill everyone, can't be reasoned with, etc. Then, the only answer is to kill them; any efforts to talk are merely mistakes that will get people killed. They are the actual bloodthirsty ones, but think they're the ones in the right.

The fact is that the situation is typically a lot different than they think - the other people are real people, with a lot more options to deal with them than violence, including looking to see our own mistaken policies, which they dismiss with 'you want to Blame America First! (spittle spittle)'

The thing is, successful non-violent solutions tend to be forgotten, and successful wars tend to be remembered. And successful wars make some people feel powerful and good.

It really does leave our democracy, insofar as these people are concerned, unfit for adult supervision of any foreign policy. They just jump when their leaders manipulate them.

Oh noes, the president of Iran is determined to kill everyone in Israel (no, he's not). Oh noes, the Palastenians, Hamas, Hezzbollah, blindly want to kill every Jew (no, they don't).

The thing is, when the disputes are about much more mundane things, as they usually are - economics ultimately, such as control of how much land - the rhetoric escalates.

And for war, it only takes one side thinking that refusing to compromise will work to their advantage because they have the upper hand, to cause more war.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
The Greenman point I note is---3. That the position Hamas has taken is that all the Jews have to die. You may think that's a reasonable place to start from, I don't. I just don't see them moving from genocide to peaceful coexistence in a short period of time. It's possible, but the gulf between the involved parties is vast, and while I'd love to see Dr. Phill solve the problem in half an hour, I have little hope that such a thing will happen.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which is no better than the Israeli practice that anyone from Hamas or Hezzbollah should be shot on sight no matter how many innocent civilians are in the vicinity. And rather interesting considering the current position of Fatah is to recognize the right of Israel to exist. The same Fatah that was the old Arifat political party that likewise originally vowed death to Israel. And in the early 1990's Arifat did recognize Israel and came close to inking a deal with Israel. But he balked at giving up the right to return.

Thereafter, Arifat was awarded the right to govern the Palestinians and became corrupt and duplitious, while at the same time Israel did everything to marginalize Arifat. And now Israel is trying the same tactic with Abbas in the Annapolis Peace conference. So basically, the 40 year result of that process is zero, and in future Fatah as a political party is likely to vanish because they did not deliver. And ceased to be relevant the day they recognized Israel.

Meanwhile back at the ranch, and because Fatah was doing nothing, two new terrorists groups have received widespread support. And those are Hamas and Hezzbollah. The question is will Israel learn its lesson if either Hamas or Hezzbollal are willing to recognize the right of Israel to exists as a negotiation precondition? If that answer is no and Israel won't be willing to make genuine concessions that can lead to peace, why should either group recognize Israel if the price is no progress and extinction as a political party?

Its still about getting a fair deal for all. Not avoiding it. And if Israel continues to insist on a their side gets it all, they can expect the stick of terrorism. Exactly what 60 years of history has taught us. How hard is that to understand?

 

mrCide

Diamond Member
Nov 27, 1999
6,187
0
76
Strange, all the talk about how Hamas has no say nor right because they chant 'death to israel'. Ever hear the israelies? People have posted news/videos of groups of israelis chanting 'death to arabs' or 'kill all arabs'

tell me how it's any different? palestinians are attacked regularly, so they chant when something happens, yet israelis do the same when theyre attacked or their innocents are killed.

people are blind.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Greenman
That the position Hamas has taken is that all the Jews have to die.
How did you come to that concolusion?
Perhaps he's mis-stated it a bit. From Wiki (and just about everywhere else):

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
I understand those who believe it's a bit difficult to negotiate with an organization whose official position is you don't even have the righ to exist. If Hamas wants to negotiate with Israel I do think they should drop that.

I'd be curious to hear why Hamas itself would want to negotuate with Israel. What would be their first talking point? "How fast can you dissolve yourself and get the h3ll out of here?"

So, there is a certain illogic to meetings between the two. OTOH, there is a pragmatism to attempting meetings. I lean in the favor of the latter, if only out of curiosity in seeing the outcome.

Fern
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,584
344
126
Originally posted by: Braznor
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Braznor
The alternatives to him were much worse. Too bad, we found this out the hard way. Carter's administration is responsible for promising support to the Shah only to withdraw it at the very last moment. Thus paving way for Mullahs in Iran.
First of all, what gives you the right to say who should be in charge of Iran, mister pro-democracy?

Second of all, why don't you go crack a book sometime, and learn the history of how the guy democratically in charge had simply made the terrible mistake of raising the price of oil to England, leading them to ask the US for help in 'fixing' that 'problem', since they liked the old setup where they got oil at exploitave prices.

What paved the way for Mullahs to rule Iran? You might want to do some reading on that, too. Hint: Had we not put the Shah in power, the Mullahs weren't likely to be in charge.

If you had any principles, I'd ask you to explain and justify the US siding with Saddam in his invasion of Iran, with a million casualties, but I can see what a waste that would be.
There is an answer to all of your questions and its called geo-politics. Nations try to stay on top of the food chain all of the time and therefore they play these interesting little games which have a side effect of screwing up the world and creating history.
Congratulations on your defense of Hitler's attempts to conquer the world, and every other aggressive war ever launched.

Your post is a typical example to me of people who learn a little, cute little buzzwords like 'geopolitics', and not enough to realize you are living in some fantasyland as if the policies don't affect real people - an amoral and therefore immoral world where it's a 'game' to come out ahead. A demented armchair oritentation.

A classic example of the result when these fallacies are taken to an extreme (besides nearly everything Henry Kissinger did) was when one Of JFK's joint chiefs of staff said that if after a nuclear exchange, there was one Russian left and two Americans, we win. Kennedy properly remarked about his JCS, 'these people are crazy'.

It's amazing how people can repel at the idea of picking up a handgun and shooting someone in front of them, but can blithely say 'Hundreds of thousand killed with Napalm? With Agent Orange, with unnecessary war?' They can say that vague ideologies about 'battling communism' justify it without any regard to how wrong they might be, they can whitewash their murder with a word like 'geopolitics'.

These armchair bastards who vote for the leaders of the most powerful nation of the world with this demented ideology are monstrous and an argument how bad our democracy is functioning when it comes to having any decent set of values and knowledge among the electorate, as the poison of the propaganda machines, the 'think tanks', to pacify public opinion to accept war works so well.

Regarding democracy in Iran, while I don't have any right to decide the government for Iranians, it also pains me that the Iranians don't have much rights as well to decide about it.
But not enough to get how the US was wrong to overthrow a more secular democracy when they had it, to get better oil prices for our ally England.

Not just because of the way it turned out, but on the principle that it was wrong to interfere in that way, for those reasons.

As for American help for Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war. Again geopolitics and "the friend of my enemy is my enemy" attitude. But remember if it wasn't for Carter allowing Iran to fall to the mullahs, there would have no Iran-Iraq war too (a war fought by Saddam to curb the Iranian revolutionary fervor from spilling to his side of the border amongst the Shiite populace)
The platitude you're grasping for is 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend', and your amateur Realpolitik was critiqued above already - but you continue to provide a rich source of the examples of how people like you use these platitudes and whitewahs the worst war crimes in the world.

*There were a million casualties and Iranian schoolchildren massacred by Saddam's WMD*, and you *justify* the war with your armchair 'he had to deal with Iran's influence' garbage. The immorality, the shortsightedness, the hypocrisy, the warmongering, and much more are breathtaking when you are so demented as not to have any appreciation for war and instead it's this 'geopolitical game' from a safe distance. If you want to see the worst evil, look in the mirror.

As for Carter, he should quit trying to save the world. The way things are standing, the world needs to be saved from him first.
You need serious help. What an embarrassment to our nation's principles that citizens should be entrusted to use rationality to arrive at good policies.

That worked ok when the nation's media was filled with with content at the local level, when honest views were well aired, not in an era of think tanks and corporate media.
 

BMW540I6speed

Golden Member
Aug 26, 2005
1,055
0
0
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Greenman
That the position Hamas has taken is that all the Jews have to die.
How did you come to that concolusion?
Perhaps he's mis-stated it a bit. From Wiki (and just about everywhere else):

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
I understand those who believe it's a bit difficult to negotiate with an organization whose official position is you don't even have the righ to exist. If Hamas wants to negotiate with Israel I do think they should drop that.

I'd be curious to hear why Hamas itself would want to negotuate with Israel. What would be their first talking point? "How fast can you dissolve yourself and get the h3ll out of here?"

So, there is a certain illogic to meetings between the two. OTOH, there is a pragmatism to attempting meetings. I lean in the favor of the latter, if only out of curiosity in seeing the outcome.

Fern
This is exactly what opponents of peace agreements with Egypt said about the Egyptians. Were they right?

It's like when everyone tries to whitewash what was said about the Soveits back in the day to argue they were a good, kind, rational, civilized enemy and thus not comparable to the fanatical Arab hordes of today.

We were told back then that the Soviet Union was ideologically devoted to the destruction of capitalism and the West, that they would never deviate from that dogma, and that attempts to negotiate with them would be futile because they would never give up their commitment to destroying us - exactly what is said about Arabs.

"Enemies" are always depicted the same way. This won't be easy. Difficult choices will need to be made by both sides

It's interesting to note that the Bush administration did not anticipate that the ability to vote would make Palestinians democratically elect Hamas. I think Condi was on the treadmill one morning when she found that one out.

One cannot promote democracy and remain credible when the election does not spit out the result you anticipated. Evenhanded diplomacy is difficult since one's ideological needs are not always fulfilled in the real world. Are some leaders more democratically elected than others?, to paraphrase Orwell.

As far as I know, the creation of a "Palestinian State" is offical state policy of both the USA & Isreal. Israelis know they need to make a deal, and that the less the finger can be pointed at them, the better. Practical people know that draining the swamp of terrorism means getting a functioning economy and state working for these people, who've lived for decades in refugee camps and should finally be able to have leaders pressured to produce viable societal solutions instead of this Jew-hating nonsense.

The real way to pressure Hamas is to let them lead their new nation somewhere without being able to point the finger at Israel as the reason for the problems in their territories.

In "negotiations," people make what are called "compromises" where they give up on certain goals they have because they get things in return. That's how negotiations work. So the fact that one party begins with Position X doesn't mean that they stay there - the opposite is true: the purpose of negotiations is to move each side away from their original positions and as close as possible to each other so that an agreement is possible.

When two sides which hate each other engage in negotiations, they often reach a deal but don't stop hating each other. They reach a deal because they both perceive it in their interests to do so.

As a lawyer, when a case needs to be settled, I do not get to dictate who the other side's counsel will be - I deal with who they chose. The world needs to deal with that fact, not bitch and moan about it, or sit there fingers in ears going nyah, nyah, nyah.




 

mrSHEiK124

Lifer
Mar 6, 2004
11,493
1
0
Originally posted by: BMW540I6speed
Originally posted by: Fern
Originally posted by: TheSnowman
Originally posted by: Greenman
That the position Hamas has taken is that all the Jews have to die.
How did you come to that concolusion?
Perhaps he's mis-stated it a bit. From Wiki (and just about everywhere else):

Hamas' charter calls for the destruction of the State of Israel and its replacement with a Palestinian Islamic state in the area that is now Israel, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip
I understand those who believe it's a bit difficult to negotiate with an organization whose official position is you don't even have the righ to exist. If Hamas wants to negotiate with Israel I do think they should drop that.

I'd be curious to hear why Hamas itself would want to negotuate with Israel. What would be their first talking point? "How fast can you dissolve yourself and get the h3ll out of here?"

So, there is a certain illogic to meetings between the two. OTOH, there is a pragmatism to attempting meetings. I lean in the favor of the latter, if only out of curiosity in seeing the outcome.

Fern
This is exactly what opponents of peace agreements with Egypt said about the Egyptians. Were they right?

It's like when everyone tries to whitewash what was said about the Soveits back in the day to argue they were a good, kind, rational, civilized enemy and thus not comparable to the fanatical Arab hordes of today.

We were told back then that the Soviet Union was ideologically devoted to the destruction of capitalism and the West, that they would never deviate from that dogma, and that attempts to negotiate with them would be futile because they would never give up their commitment to destroying us - exactly what is said about Arabs.

"Enemies" are always depicted the same way. This won't be easy. Difficult choices will need to be made by both sides

It's interesting to note that the Bush administration did not anticipate that the ability to vote would make Palestinians democratically elect Hamas. I think Condi was on the treadmill one morning when she found that one out.

One cannot promote democracy and remain credible when the election does not spit out the result you anticipated. Evenhanded diplomacy is difficult since one's ideological needs are not always fulfilled in the real world. Are some leaders more democratically elected than others?, to paraphrase Orwell.

As far as I know, the creation of a "Palestinian State" is offical state policy of both the USA & Isreal. Israelis know they need to make a deal, and that the less the finger can be pointed at them, the better. Practical people know that draining the swamp of terrorism means getting a functioning economy and state working for these people, who've lived for decades in refugee camps and should finally be able to have leaders pressured to produce viable societal solutions instead of this Jew-hating nonsense.

The real way to pressure Hamas is to let them lead their new nation somewhere without being able to point the finger at Israel as the reason for the problems in their territories.

In "negotiations," people make what are called "compromises" where they give up on certain goals they have because they get things in return. That's how negotiations work. So the fact that one party begins with Position X doesn't mean that they stay there - the opposite is true: the purpose of negotiations is to move each side away from their original positions and as close as possible to each other so that an agreement is possible.

When two sides which hate each other engage in negotiations, they often reach a deal but don't stop hating each other. They reach a deal because they both perceive it in their interests to do so.

As a lawyer, when a case needs to be settled, I do not get to dictate who the other side's counsel will be - I deal with who they chose. The world needs to deal with that fact, not bitch and moan about it, or sit there fingers in ears going nyah, nyah, nyah.
You make a lot of excellent points. And judging from your username you drive a bitchin' car. I like you :heart:
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,991
2
0
While I am almost 100% in agreement with mrSHEiK1214 who says---As a lawyer, when a case needs to be settled, I do not get to dictate who the other side's counsel will be - I deal with who they chose. The world needs to deal with that fact, not bitch and moan about it, or sit there fingers in ears going nyah, nyah, nyah.

The fallacy is that this is not a court of law with a judge bound to impartially uphold the law. And when we are dealing with the court of US public opinion, all these dubious tactics have been working quite well for the past 60 years. And if the USA is willing to prop Israel up militarily and economically, why should Israel act rationally?


 

ASK THE COMMUNITY