Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (83) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: WendyBG Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Top Recommended Fools Feste Award Winner! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 22686  
Subject: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/21/2008 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
http://tinyurl.com/3op2mk


Carter Says Hamas and Syria Are Open to Peace
By ETHAN BRONNER
New York Times, April 22, 2008

...

...Khaled Meshal, the Hamas leader in Damascus with whom Mr. Carter had spoken...

focused on the return of Palestinians to Israel and Hamas’s refusal to accept Israel’s legitimacy when he said, "Hamas accepts the establishment of an independent Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as its capital and with full and real sovereignty and full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return but Hamas will not recognize the state of Israel...."
[end quote]

That's the bottom line. The so-called "negotiations" were a red herring, a complete waste of time. Mr. Carter is totally naive if he thinks that "full peace with Israel" means anything other than "the destruction of Israel" to the people he negotiated with.

Wendy
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16942 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/21/2008 3:33 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
that is not the bottom line.

There is a distinction to be made between 'full recognition of Israel' and 'the destruction of Israel'.

It is not either or. An example of that could be a full cease fire and truce, like between North and South Korea who are still technically at war. That truce could include boundaries.

Hamas might not politically accept the boundaries, but agree to them as an armistice line.



Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16943 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/21/2008 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
that is not the bottom line.

The bottom line is "full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return", which is a demand that Israel sign its own death warrant.

I think Israel's legitimate precondition is that Hamas accept prior agreements signed with the Palestinian Authority, in which the PA recognized Israel.

Elan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16944 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/21/2008 11:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
that is not the bottom line.

The bottom line is "full application of the right of the Palestinian refugees to return", which is a demand that Israel sign its own death warrant.

no, that is an opening position, not a bottom line.


I think Israel's legitimate precondition is that Hamas accept prior agreements signed with the Palestinian Authority, in which the PA recognized Israel.

Elan


I think that is a legitimate outcome for Israel to to have. to have it as a precondition means there will be no discussions and no recognition.


Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16945 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/21/2008 11:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
I think that is a legitimate outcome for Israel to to have. to have it as a precondition means there will be no discussions and no recognition.

Right. There should be no discussion with a terrorist organization that is dedicated to nothing short of Israel's destruction. There should be no discussion with an organization whose rule in the Gaza strip was accomplished by force and is not recognized even by the Palestinian Authority. There should be no discussion with an organization whose main purpose in such discussion is the legitimacy that such a discussion in itself will give it. If Israel sits at a table with Hamas, how can it demand that the U.S., the European Union, and everyone else, continue to boycott its regime in the Gaza Strip?

Hamas is no different from Hizballah and Al Qaeda. Their only reason for existence is to destroy us.

Elan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16946 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/21/2008 11:59 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I think that is a legitimate outcome for Israel to to have. to have it as a precondition means there will be no discussions and no recognition.

Right. There should be no discussion with a terrorist organization that is dedicated to nothing short of Israel's destruction.

Anwar Sadat was also dedicated to Israels destruction, until he wasn't.


There should be no discussion with an organization whose rule in the Gaza strip was accomplished by force and is not recognized even by the Palestinian Authority.

everyone's rule is accomplished by force, including the PA. Hamas also won their election. Perhaps they shouldn't have elections.


There should be no discussion with an organization whose main purpose in such discussion is the legitimacy that such a discussion in itself will give it.

if that is all they want then the negotiations will end rather quickly.


If Israel sits at a table with Hamas, how can it demand that the U.S., the European Union, and everyone else, continue to boycott its regime in the Gaza Strip?.

easy. a successful outcome is the precondition for the end of the boycott.


Hamas is no different from Hizballah and Al Qaeda. Their only reason for existence is to destroy us.

Elan



similar things were said about Egypt before Carter, Sadat and Begin came up with the Camp David accords. similar things were said about the PLO. Israel and the US refused to talk to them for what, 20 years?

then they started talking.

Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16947 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Anwar Sadat was also dedicated to Israels destruction, until he wasn't.

Let's assume that's true. So when Hamas isn't, they can talk.

similar things were said about the PLO. Israel and the US refused to talk to them for what, 20 years?

then they started talking.


Which, in historic hindsight, was the biggest strategic mistake Israel ever made.

Elan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16948 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 7:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Anwar Sadat was also dedicated to Israels destruction, until he wasn't.

Let's assume that's true. So when Hamas isn't, they can talk.

and how do we measure that, by their words or their deeds? How many suicide bombings have their been in Israel since Hamas won their election?

as for Sadat, I think if the Israelis had let their strategic military superiority slip, that Sadat would not have hesitated to try another 73.


similar things were said about the PLO. Israel and the US refused to talk to them for what, 20 years?

then they started talking.

Which, in historic hindsight, was the biggest strategic mistake Israel ever made.

Elan



I would say that moving a quarter million Israelis into the west bank was an ever so slightly bigger strategic mistake.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Silencer2480 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16949 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 8:52 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
that is not the bottom line.

carter is a jackazz, that's the bottom line.

silencer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Silencer2480 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16950 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 8:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
similar things were said about the PLO. Israel and the US refused to talk to them for what, 20 years?

then they started talking.

Which, in historic hindsight, was the biggest strategic mistake Israel ever made.

Elan


could you elaborate about what you mean Elan?

silencer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16951 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

http://israelagainstterror.blogspot.com/2008/04/seeds-of-hate.html


Yes or no: Should the US government negotiate with Osama Bin Laden and Al- Qaeda?

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16952 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

everyone's rule is accomplished by force, including the PA. Hamas also won their election. Perhaps they shouldn't have elections.


Huh? How so?

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16953 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

and how do we measure that, by their words or their deeds? How many suicide bombings have their been in Israel since Hamas won their election?


One word: Fence.

Secondly, you would be surprised to know that there was no let up on the effort and desire to continue the bombings. We can only thank the dedication and hard work of the intelligence community for a very low success rate for the Palestinian terrorist machine.

Also, there were at least 2 attributed to Hamas.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16954 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:43 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

carter is a jackazz, that's the bottom line.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1208422655492&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

The Bush administration explicitly warned former US President Jimmy Carter against meeting with members of Hamas, said US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice Tuesday.
[US Secretary of State...]

US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
Photo: AP [file]
Slideshow: Pictures of the week

Attending a regional meeting on Iraq's security and future, Rice contradicted Carter's assertions that he never got a clear signal from the State Department. Rice told reporters that the US thought the visit could confuse the message that the US will not deal with Hamas.

"I just don't want there to be any confusion," Rice said. "The United States is not going to deal with Hamas and we had certainly told President Carter that we did not think meeting with Hamas was going to help" further a political settlement between Israel and the Palestinians.

In an interview with NPR, Carter said the State Department did not warn him off the trip. A State Department spokesman in Washington took issue with that on Monday, and Rice was blunter in her account Tuesday.


Looks like he's got a selective memory or is it a sign of the onset of Alzheimer's?

Mark

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16955 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
that is not the bottom line.

carter is a jackazz, that's the bottom line.

silencer



that's your bottom line.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16956 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

could you elaborate about what you mean Elan?


Elan, please don't mind if I butt in.

Oslo was a colossal failure. the Israeli government decided they wanted to talk to the exiled PLO crew in Tunisia to set up a comprehensive peace deal with Arafat and his cronies who were simply looking into getting back into existence.
We all know how well that turned out. They came in, took over, stole everything and #$$%ed up both the Palestinians and the Israelis.

Israel would have done much better talking to the "new guard" as they had a much bigger stake in a successful result than the "old guard". Arafat should have remained the Person non Grata which he was up to Oslo.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16957 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
everyone's rule is accomplished by force, including the PA. Hamas also won their election. Perhaps they shouldn't have elections.


Huh? How so?

Mark



You don't think that the PA maintain their position by force? If they didn't the other Palestinian factions would eat them alive.

How did the PA come into being?

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16958 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 9:53 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

You don't think that the PA maintain their position by force? If they didn't the other Palestinian factions would eat them alive.

How did the PA come into being?


The PA were invited back by Israel. Brought in as the saviors of the Palestinian aspiration for statehood. There was no force or take over of any kind. They currently rule by "democratic" fashion with Hamas in control of the legislature by virtue of winning the majority seats.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16959 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:11 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
and how do we measure that, by their words or their deeds? How many suicide bombings have their been in Israel since Hamas won their election?

One word: Fence.

yes, the fence was a factor.

Secondly, you would be surprised to know that there was no let up on the effort and desire to continue the bombings.

no surprise, I am well aware of the 24x7, non-stop and never ending nature of the operations to prevent terrorist incidents and violence that is caried out by Israeli intelligence and military.

We can only thank the dedication and hard work of the intelligence community for a very low success rate for the Palestinian terrorist machine.

agreed


Also, there were at least 2 attributed to Hamas.

Mark



that is what I remembered. It used to be much worse. I think that is a signal from them. they will not completely stop because there is an active state of war between the parties, that has somewhat abated into an uneasy equalibrium, with occasional punctations of violence via rockets.

Equilibrium can get worse or it can get better. I define better and worse as being measures of violence. if there is less violence, something is succeeding. if there is more violence, something is failing.

Hamas's rhetoric is not the measure I use. The level of violence between the parties is the measure I prefer.

Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16960 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:12 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If you are asking who is a bigger liar, carter or Rice, well, that is a no-brainer.

Rice lied us into the war in Iraq and she is still lying about it.

screw her.


Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16961 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:14 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Oslo was a failure because a right wing Jewish terrorist, in complicty with radical west bank rabbis, assasinated the Israeli prime minister who never had the chance to finish what he started.

The peace process fell apart after that.


Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16962 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:15 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
You don't think that the PA maintain their position by force? If they didn't the other Palestinian factions would eat them alive.

How did the PA come into being?

The PA were invited back by Israel. Brought in as the saviors of the Palestinian aspiration for statehood. There was no force or take over of any kind. They currently rule by "democratic" fashion with Hamas in control of the legislature by virtue of winning the majority seats.

Mark



Mark, the PA was the PLO with a new name. They came into being through force, they survived through force, and they were invited back to BE a force.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16963 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Oslo was a failure because a right wing Jewish terrorist, in complicty with radical west bank rabbis, assasinated the Israeli prime minister who never had the chance to finish what he started.


Wouldn't have made a difference. It is a known fact that Arafat never meant to continue along the peace path. It was just a means to an end.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16964 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:28 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Mark, the PA was the PLO with a new name.

Correct but irrelevant here.

They came into being through force, they survived through force, and they were invited back to BE a force.

No they didn't. They were welcomed with open armed and have always been the defacto voice of the Palestinians. Election results pretty much emphasized the idea.

The PA has always enjoyed the support of the majority (other than the last election).

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16965 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Oslo was a failure because a right wing Jewish terrorist, in complicty with radical west bank rabbis, assasinated the Israeli prime minister who never had the chance to finish what he started.

Wouldn't have made a difference.

That is you opinion, which is an unproven and unprovable assertion. no one will ever know. that opinion diminishes Rabin potential and elevates Arafats. of course, no one diminished Rabins potential as much as the murderer who cut him down.

My opinion is that Rabin could have pulled it off and dragged Arafat with him. Perhaps another billion into a swiss acount for Arafat. who knows.

another opinion I have is that the Jewish terrorist who murdered Rabin did more damage to Israel than 1,000 Hamas's.


It is a known fact that Arafat never meant to continue along the peace path. It was just a means to an end.

Mark



That may be a common opinion, and an understandable one given Arafat's history, but it is also just that, an opinion. There is a difference between a fact and an opinion.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16966 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:39 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Mark, the PA was the PLO with a new name.

Correct but irrelevant here.

I don't see why. the PLO were a terrorist or guerilla para-military organization. they came into being through violence and maintained their dominant position in Palestinian society through violence, against Israelis and against Palestinians.

After they changed their name and promised to behave, they were given arms and maintained that position by the use of those arms through force against any challengers among their people. you have to be very naive to think that any organization could survive 10 seconds in that environment if they weren't armed and ready to fight.



They came into being through force, they survived through force, and they were invited back to BE a force.

No they didn't. They were welcomed with open armed and have always been the defacto voice of the Palestinians. Election results pretty much emphasized the idea.

sure they did. once they got into power through elections, they behaved like any other mafia organization, they plundered the treasury and gave all the good jobs to their nephews and cronies. the corruption was so bad that when Hamas came along and promised to clean it up, the Palestinians threw out Fatah/PA.


The PA has always enjoyed the support of the majority (other than the last election).

Mark



yes, they did have, more or less, the support of the Palestinians for a long time. Part of that reason is because they were a fighting force. Pacifists don't win elections over there, on either side.

Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16967 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

That may be a common opinion, and an understandable one given Arafat's history, but it is also just that, an opinion. There is a difference between a fact and an opinion.


The second intifadah was planned and authorized by Uglifat himself. Great peace partner.

You're right though, there are opinions and there are facts.

The US has declared Arafat Persona Non Grata after the evidence was submitted along with his explicit involvement with the KarineA ship came to light.

I would urge you to examine which is the fact and which is the opinion.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16968 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:46 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0


sure they did. once they got into power through elections, they behaved like any other mafia organization, they plundered the treasury and gave all the good jobs to their nephews and cronies. the corruption was so bad that when Hamas came along and promised to clean it up, the Palestinians threw out Fatah/PA.


But when you're experiencing overwheling support of the populace and win elections in a "democratic" fashion, you're not getting to power by force.


yes, they did have, more or less, the support of the Palestinians for a long time. Part of that reason is because they were a fighting force. Pacifists don't win elections over there.


I can agree to that. Pacifists have no room.


on either side.


Disagree completely. Rabin is a testament. Peace now and the leftist support in Israel during Oslo is another.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16969 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
on either side.

Disagree completely. Rabin is a testament. Peace now and the leftist support in Israel during Oslo is another.

Mark



one thing Rabin was not, was a pacifist. His military record is unmatched by anyone in or out of Israel.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16970 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 10:51 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
That may be a common opinion, and an understandable one given Arafat's history, but it is also just that, an opinion. There is a difference between a fact and an opinion.


The second intifadah was planned and authorized by Uglifat himself. Great peace partner.

You're right though, there are opinions and there are facts.

The US has declared Arafat Persona Non Grata after the evidence was submitted along with his explicit involvement with the KarineA ship came to light.

I would urge you to examine which is the fact and which is the opinion.

Mark



I am not a supporter of Yassir Arafat. I know about the Karine incident and the US took the appropriate action regarding Arafat after that.

interesting enough, Rabin was already dead for several years when that happened. My opinion is that if Rabin had not been assasinated, the Karine incident never would have happened.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16972 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
>>This cycle of despair can never be broken by force. We will kill and be killed, and our security will suffer, and the chances for reaching a settlement will grow more distant than ever. The belief that the siege of the Gaza Strip will cause the support for Hamas to drop is crazy: Our experience has shown us that the opposite is true. Whenever the threat of increased terrorist attacks rose, Israeli public opinion moved to the right. Every attack only intensified our nationalism and hatred for Palestinians, so why should we believe that the siege and the killing will affect the other side differently? The thought that if we starve 1.5 million civilians, and we prevent them from having enough water, medical treatment and a livelihood, we shall influence their views in our favor, has already proved to be silly. Since the siege was put in place, there are no signs that Hamas has weakened. >>

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/976462.html

"The terrorists of yesterday all became the statesmen of tomorrow, once they came to power or became partners in negotiations."

Read a few more articles by Gideon Levi. You do not have
to agree with all he says, just to get a more balanced view of
issues in the region.

Dubi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16973 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:25 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

one thing Rabin was not, was a pacifist. His military record is unmatched by anyone in or out of Israel.


Outdated and completely not applicable to Oslo. He was a military general turned pacifist.

Hey, pigs do fly on occasion.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16974 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Read a few more articles by Gideon Levi. You do not have
to agree with all he says, just to get a more balanced view of
issues in the region.


why should we believe that the siege and the killing will affect the other side differently? The thought that if we starve 1.5 million civilians, and we prevent them from having enough water, medical treatment and a livelihood, we shall influence their views in our favor, has already proved to be silly. Since the siege was put in place, there are no signs that Hamas has weakened.


On this very issue, I believe Elan has made a very good point. Hamas is in it for the suffering and the continued hardships on the Palestinians. It's a cynical means to maintain their strangolhold on Gaza. They gather support by shifting blame on Israel while purposely keeping their people in misery. It is the typical Arab mentality in respect to the Palestinian refugees.

Just case in point for the past month or so. They attacked the Karmi crossing, a lifeline for the Palestinians for both fuel and food twice already ( or was it more? ) forcing Israel to close it. Then they cry they have no fuel and shut off power to the strip all while it turns out they're holding to supplies of diesel all along, purposely not using them. Same with the food. Why else would they attack the lifeline of their people?

Mark

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16975 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
one thing Rabin was not, was a pacifist. His military record is unmatched by anyone in or out of Israel.


Outdated and completely not applicable to Oslo. He was a military general turned pacifist.

Mark, that is utterly ridiculous.


Hey, pigs do fly on occasion.

Mark



send me a photo :)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16976 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:44 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Mark, that is utterly ridiculous.


How can you say that? He was responsible for Oslo. He went out of his way to contact Arafat secretly in Tunisia for the purpose of realization of a peace and a two state solution with the Palestinians.

It would be nice for you to elaborate why you think my statement is "utterly ridiculous"

Mark.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16977 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:45 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Hey, pigs do fly on occasion.

Mark


send me a photo :)


Forgot the pic.
http://www.hyscience.com/PigsFly.jpg

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlackOpsWarrior Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16978 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
The "bottom line" is that Carter has no authority whatsoever to negotiate with Hamas (or with anyone else) on behalf of the United States. Nor on behalf of Israel. Therefore, he must be "negotiating" on behalf of Hamas and his other "clients," via public relations/propaganda statements to the world media.

He's therefore not conducting a negotiation--i.e. a process by which two or more parties with divergent interests try to amicably achieve a meeting of the minds on some level.

Rather, he's simply acting as a propagandist for anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli and anti-jewish interests such as Hamas.

He's on "their" side.

There's no fool like an old fool, particularly in the case of someone who was a fool even when younger.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16979 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 11:58 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Mark, that is utterly ridiculous.

How can you say that? He was responsible for Oslo. He went out of his way to contact Arafat secretly in Tunisia for the purpose of realization of a peace and a two state solution with the Palestinians.

It would be nice for you to elaborate why you think my statement is "utterly ridiculous"

Mark.



I should be more specific. the idea that Rabin was a pacifist is what I am saying is ridiculous. He was a hard nose and occasionally brutal military man.

Just because he sought a political accomodation with an enemy does not make him a pacifist. What do you think pacifism is?


Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16980 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Just because he sought a political accomodation with an enemy does not make him a pacifist. What do you think pacifism is?


I said 'turned pacifist'

Let me remind you, there were terror attacks during his leadership. his actions were not what you would expect from a "hard nose and occasionally brutal military man."

Again, I would urge you to examine his conduct during Oslo and simply ignore his past prior as it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlackOpsWarrior Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16981 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
In an interview with NPR, Carter said the State Department did not warn him off the trip. A State Department spokesman in Washington took issue with that on Monday, and Rice was blunter in her account Tuesday.

Looks like he's got a selective memory or is it a sign of the onset of Alzheimer's?

Mark



The simplest explanation is that Carter's a liar, although he could be a foolish, senile liar.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16982 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Hamas is in it for the suffering and the continued hardships on the Palestinians.....They gather support by shifting blame on .....
They attacked the Karmi crossing, ....Then they cry they have .....
Why else would they attack the lifeline of their people?


Yes, Mark, i know PA is to blame, regardless of the form they are,
Fattach, PLO , moreso Hamas.
My only point in this discussion is to show my crave for
some peaceful solution rather than digging in to the same old
blah blah, they are to blame, they started, they this, they that.

Carter came by (carrying no weight) and managed to have a starter going.

Now, i am not madly in love with Carter myself, but he has succeeded
to force Begin and Sadat to sit together until peace came to fruitation.

I wish Carter was still president of the USA. (I cannot believe i wrote
that, but i have!!!)

Dubi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16983 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Carter came by (carrying no weight) and managed to have a starter going.


I think BOW made a fine point. He came in representing no one claiming to be a negotiator but simply representing one side and serving to the Hamas propaganda machine. He has achieved nothing. Hamas put forth the same conditions they have asked in the past, complete capitulation and effective surrender. No recognition; no honoring past agreements; insistence on flooding Israel with 3rd generation of Palestinian refugees; etc, etc, etc.
It's a moot point. He's just there to give Hamas a place on the world stage and publicity they absolutely do not deserve.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16984 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
claiming to be a negotiator

Link ???

representing one side

Huh ???

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16985 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dubi,
I forgot to address some of your other points.


My only point in this discussion is to show my crave for
some peaceful solution rather than digging in to the same old
blah blah, they are to blame, they started, they this, they that..


I think by insisting on keeping the fuel lines going along with the food shipments is a testament that's not what's going on with the Israeli gov.


I wish Carter was still president of the USA. (I cannot believe i wrote
that, but i have!!!)


Oh Dubi, say it ain't so... :(

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16986 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The "bottom line" is that Carter has no authority whatsoever to negotiate with Hamas (or with anyone else) on behalf of the United States. Nor on behalf of Israel.

nor on behalf of Hamas.


Therefore, he must be "negotiating" on behalf of Hamas and his other "clients," via public relations/propaganda statements to the world media.

Therefore, nothing of the sort.


He's therefore not conducting a negotiation--i.e. a process by which two or more parties with divergent interests try to amicably achieve a meeting of the minds on some level.

please provide a link where Carter claimed to be negotiating on anyones behalf.


Rather, he's simply acting as a propagandist for anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli and anti-jewish interests such as Hamas.

no, he is trying to break a logjam between the participants in a 60 year old war.


He's on "their" side.

who is they? Hamas? the Palestinians? Who?

I am on the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side. Both sides have legitimate aspirations and grievances. contrary to some opinions, the Palestinians are actually people. When you prick them, they bleed. and they are not going anywhere, unless you are like my old friend MBY and those who support the hairbrained fascist schemes to force them out of Israel at gunpoint into adjacent countries.

I am against Hamas and I am against Israeli expansionism. As a practical matter I believe that enemies should talk, or at least in this case I believe there are possibilities for Israel and Hamas to de-escalate their conflict, but it is hard to do that when the parties will not negotiate.


There's no fool like an old fool, particularly in the case of someone who was a fool even when younger.

yes, and their is nothing more annoying than a young, inexperienced know-it-all with no respect for those with a different opinion.

but, what do I know, I am just a secret Palestinian agent posing as a liberal Zionist-American to defame Israel here at the center of Zionist operations in Amerikuh at TMF. Or else I must be a self hating ew, another thing you called me but don't have the guts or integrity to admit, instead hiding behind weasel words to deny your slander.

and you are someone who will not acknowledge whether you are Jewish or not because you say it is not relevant to conversations that board members might have on the Jewish and Foolish board.

Right, well, we have plenty of non-Jews who post here, although they tend to be in the minority. I promise, that no one here will reject you for being a non-Jew, and you might find some comraderie if you acknowledge you are one (if in fact, you are).

Personally, I am not ashamed of my heritage at all. I love being Jewish and have never had a problem saying so.

You, on the other hand, are very guarded about any connection you might have with Judaism and go to great pains to present psuedo intellectual arguments on why being Jewish is 'irrelevant' to many of our discussion on the Jewish board.


Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16987 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Just because he sought a political accomodation with an enemy does not make him a pacifist. What do you think pacifism is?

I said 'turned pacifist'

if someone 'turns' into something, then they become what they turn into. If Rabin 'turned pacifist' that means he became a pacifist. I say Rabin was never a pacifist a single day of his life.

Let me remind you, there were terror attacks during his leadership. his actions were not what you would expect from a "hard nose and occasionally brutal military man."

sure there were attacks. I can think of another General who ended up as the PM of Israel who did not always choose to retaliate to every terrorist incident with a military response. His name was Ariel Sharon. By your definition, he turned pacifist too.


Again, I would urge you to examine his conduct during Oslo and simply ignore his past prior as it has no relevance to the discussion at hand.

Mark



Rabin spent 50 years fighting Arabs in every single Israeli war from before independance to the day he was shot to death. To say that lifetime of experience was not relevant to who he was as a person is to miss the forest for the trees.

and that is EXACTLY why the Israeli people supported Oslo by a large majority, because Rabin was at the helm and he was one of the toughest Generals in Israeli history.

Perhaps that old soldier saw the true futility of war as a way to solve a conflict such as this. Perhaps no one better than someone who has seen the horror close up, year after year, decade after decade is in a better position to take on a new kind of fight, a fight for peace.


Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16988 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

claiming to be a negotiator

Link ???

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,351109,00.html

Speaking from Katmandu, Nepal, where he and a team of observers from the Carter Center monitored national elections, Carter said the U.S. and other parties should not require "pre-requisites" before meeting with the terror group. Hamas has not renounced violence, regularly bombs Israeli towns near its stronghold of Gaza and refuses to recognize Israel's existence.

"Well, you can't always get prerequisites adopted by other people before you even talk to them," Carter said in an interview taped Saturday but aired Sunday on ABC News' "This Week."

"I feel quite at ease in doing this," he said. "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."


Although he later on says he's not going there to "negotiate" he comes back after and outlines the demands from Hamas in respect to a 10 year ceasefire... gee what's that? negotiations?



representing one side


He clearly made his views of Israel known. Apartheid rings a loud bell; whitewashing terror; etc, etc. He's a great spokesman for Hamas. Can you honestly find anyone better to convey their message and stance? An ex-president, a humanitarian, a person with a track record for peace...

Mark


Mark

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16989 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

sure there were attacks. I can think of another General who ended up as the PM of Israel who did not always choose to retaliate to every terrorist incident with a military response. His name was Ariel Sharon. By your definition, he turned pacifist too.


Many claim he did. His actions were not what one would expect from the likes of Ariel Sharon. His reactions to terror attacks were not what I would call a pacifist though same with his conduct toward the Palestinians.


Perhaps that old soldier saw the true futility of war as a way to solve a conflict such as this. Perhaps no one better than someone who has seen the horror close up, year after year, decade after decade is in a better position to take on a new kind of fight, a fight for peace.


A pacifist. LOL :)

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16990 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Dubi, something for you to digest.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/viewstory.asp?Page=/ForeignBureaus/archive/200804/FOR20080414a.html

"When I go to a dictatorship, I only have to talk to one person and that's the dictator, because he speaks for all the people. But in a democracy like Israel, there is a wide range of opinions and that counterbalances the disappointment that I have in not meeting with the people shaping Israeli power now in the government," he said.


No comment is necessary.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: mapicsman One star, 50 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16992 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 12:48 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I have not seen any evidence that the PLO, Hamas, or Hizballah honors conciliatory moves. Israel continues to make concessions and the other side continues to ask for more.

This conflict is not about land, whether one state or two. It is a religious conflict. So what have we learned? Israel makes covenants. The adversary breaks them. The problem is Israel is making covenants with the wrong party.

Judges 2:1-5
1 Now the angel of the LORD came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, “I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I have sworn to your fathers; and I said, ‘I will never break My covenant with you, 2 and as for you, you shall make no covenant with the inhabitants of this land; you shall tear down their altars.’ But you have not obeyed Me; what is this you have done? 3 “Therefore I also said, ‘I will not drive them out before you; but they will become as thorns in your sides and their gods will be a snare to you.’” 4 When the angel of the LORD spoke these words to all the sons of Israel, the people lifted up their voices and wept. 5 So they named that place Bochim; and there they sacrificed to the LORD.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16993 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 1:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
sure there were attacks. I can think of another General who ended up as the PM of Israel who did not always choose to retaliate to every terrorist incident with a military response. His name was Ariel Sharon. By your definition, he turned pacifist too.


Many claim he did.

that's because they don't know the definition of the word pacifist.

His actions were not what one would expect from the likes of Ariel Sharon.

That's how many people felt about Rabin during Oslo. This was the same Rabin who was the author of the 'broken bones' policy during the first Intefada when he was Minister of Defense.



Perhaps that old soldier saw the true futility of war as a way to solve a conflict such as this. Perhaps no one better than someone who has seen the horror close up, year after year, decade after decade is in a better position to take on a new kind of fight, a fight for peace.


A pacifist. LOL :)

Mark
.


good one. but for those who think that Rabin and/or Sharon were pacifists or 'turned pacifist' here is the definition of the word:

Main Entry: pac·i·fism
Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-ˌfi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
Date: 1902
1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance


I don't think Sharon or Rabin ever were pacifists. Pragmatists, sure. willing to take some risks for peace, yes. pacifists, no.

Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16994 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 1:21 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

Main Entry: pac·i·fism
Pronunciation: \ˈpa-sə-ˌfi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French pacifisme, from pacifique pacific
Date: 1902
1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds
2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance

I don't think Sharon or Rabin ever were pacifists. Pragmatists, sure. willing to take some risks for peace, yes. pacifists, no.


based on the literal interpretation of the word, they weren't.
Based on the relative compared to past administrations, I would only qualify Rabin. His desire for settlement and peace was his #1 priority as PM.

If the true meaning of the pacifist every materialized in an Israeli government, what do you think would have occurred?

To me the old saying applies here "If the Arabs lay down their arms, there would be peace; If Israel lays down her arms, there would be no Israel."

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16995 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 1:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
If the true meaning of the pacifist every materialized in an Israeli government, what do you think would have occurred?

we did agree that a pacifist could not come to power in the middle east, on any side.


To me the old saying applies here "If the Arabs lay down their arms, there would be peace; If Israel lays down her arms, there would be no Israel."

Mark


probably, but since there will never be a pacifist Israeli government, it will remain an assertion, not a fact.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Silencer2480 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16996 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 1:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
another opinion I have is that the Jewish terrorist who murdered Rabin did more damage to Israel than 1,000 Hamas's.


well that's not hard, because haman failed...

compared to the amalekites though, no comparison.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Umm Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 16999 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 2:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"carter is a jackazz, that's the bottom line."

Odd how a man who helped bring about so much peace for Israel is hated by so many Jews.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Silencer2480 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17000 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 2:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Odd how a man who helped bring about so much peace for Israel is hated by so many Jews.


Hate is too strong of a word. I just think he's
irrelevant
meddling
counter-productive


I think similar things about Peres.

silencer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17001 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 2:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I wish Carter was still president of the USA. (I cannot believe i wrote
that, but i have!!!)


Oh Dubi, say it ain't so... :(

Mark

--------------------------------------------

You may hate Carter for what you think he said.
I appreciate Carter for the lives he already saved.

If there is a momentum, and some agreement is achieved,
whether direct, indirect to Carters visit, and even if
only one live is saved, dayenu.... דיינו

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17002 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 2:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Dayenu!

Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17003 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 2:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
could you elaborate about what you mean Elan?

Some have already answered for me. Israel salvaged Arafat from oblivion to give him a strategic foothold in the Palestinian territories. The mess we see today is a direct consequence of that strategy.

and how do we measure that, by their words or their deeds? How many suicide bombings have their been in Israel since Hamas won their election?

We can only thank the dedication and hard work of the intelligence community for a very low success rate for the Palestinian terrorist machine.

agreed


Then Dov, what did you mean by your rhetorical question about suicide bombings? Hamas continues to fight as hard as they can against Israel. They haven't let up one iota. Only their tactics may change over time, in response to Israel's counter measures and the means at their disposal. Suicide bombings are fewer, partly because they are prevented actively and partly because they have become a PR fiasco for Hamas. So they shoot rockets instead. Or they send someone to murder half a dozen Yeshiva students in cold blood. Or they drive up to the Gaza border crossing that supplies them with food, in two jeeps loaded with 300 Kg each of explosives, and blow them up in (drum roll please......) suicide bombings!!!! That was this week, in case you weren't paying attention.

Rice lied us into the war in Iraq and she is still lying about it.

screw her.


Rice wasn't even the secretary of state when the lies were being propagated before the war.

Oslo was a failure because a right wing Jewish terrorist, in complicty with radical west bank rabbis, assasinated the Israeli prime minister who never had the chance to finish what he started.

The peace process fell apart after that.


Nonsense. The peace process was dead on arrival. On the same week that Arafat shook Rabin's hand on the White House lawn he gave a speech to Arab foreign ministers in Stockholm (I think) in which he explained that the Oslo agreement was a tactical step on the way to the destruction of Israel. Rabin knew it, and he went ahead with the "process" anyway.

Mark, the PA was the PLO with a new name. They came into being through force, they survived through force, and they were invited back to BE a force.

Right. And Israel shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

one thing Rabin was not, was a pacifist. His military record is unmatched by anyone in or out of Israel.

I'm pretty tired of all the mythical glorification of Rabin. Yes, he was a decent man who tried hard to make peace, but that doesn't make him a saint. The strategy he chose for peace was a blunder of historic proportions. The glorification of Rabin as some great military hero is also false. He was no ruthless and heroic fighter. In the couple of weeks leading up to the Six Day War, when Rabin was the commander of the Israeli armed forces, he suffered a mental breakdown. The crucial decisions were made without him. He was a mild mannered person who was uncomfortable in the public limelight. He was no great orator, not a born leader, not a person with any great or unique vision for his country. Nothing close to Ben Gurion or Begin or even Shimon Peres in that regard. When people constantly speak of "Rabin's legacy" in Israel, I puzzle about what they are referring to. His only lasting legacy, at the moment of his death, is the message that if Israelis don't keep their unity they will rip themselves apart from within.

I said 'turned pacifist'

Rabin never turned pacifist. Not even close. His initiative for peace at practically any cost was motivated by fear. He operated under the trauma of the first Gulf War, when Iraqi Scud missiles rained on Israel and it couldn't respond. He estimated that a future war could be devastating for Israel if the missiles were armed with chemical or nuclear warheads, and was determined to prevent it by reaching a peace agreement.

Elan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17004 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 2:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Odd how a man who helped bring about so much peace for Israel is hated by so many Jews.

Just returning the favor.

Elan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17005 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 3:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Odd how a man who helped bring about so much peace for Israel is hated by so many Jews.
-----
Just returning the favor.

Elan


priceless!

"#$%#$ the Jews" comes to mind.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17006 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 4:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Odd how a man who helped bring about so much peace for Israel is hated by so many Jews.
-----
Just returning the favor.

Elan

priceless!

"#$%#$ the Jews" comes to mind.

Mark



priceless, except it wasn't Carter who said that, it was James Baker.

Dov

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlackOpsWarrior Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17007 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 4:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
The "bottom line" is that Carter has no authority whatsoever to negotiate with Hamas (or with anyone else) on behalf of the United States. Nor on behalf of Israel.

nor on behalf of Hamas.


Which raises two concerns: 1) why is Carter even there, and what does he think he's doing? 2) If even you admit that Carter's purpose is not to get Hamas to "negotiate," then why do you claim that "negotiating" with Hamas is a viable option?

I agree with you that Carter does not have Hamas's authority to "negotiate" for them. That leaves only one role: to progagandize for them. Which is what I said before.


Rather, he's simply acting as a propagandist for anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli and anti-jewish interests such as Hamas.

no, he is trying to break a logjam between the participants in a 60 year old war.



I'll take this statement at face value, dov. Now you're saying that Carter is trying to "break a logjam" between two adversaries, but not by "negotiations." That leaves one and only one alternative: Carter's attempting to do what he can to impose a "solution" without fair negotiation and bargaining, in good faith, between the adversaries. Carter's not trying to "negotiate" at all, but he is trying to do what he can to create a climate of world opinion, and of opinion in the U.S., in which Israel is not even permitted to "negotiate."

I am on the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side.

What you are really saying here--perhaps, this is the way Carter thinks--is that you "know what's best" for the two adversaries, and believe that they should accept the "dov" solution, or the "Carter" solution, rather than attempt to come to their own solution (if one is even possible).

A fair and neutral arbitrator or negotiator does not take anyone's side. It is not the purpose of an effective negotiator to act as any party's advocate, but rather, to attempt to neutrally facilitate the partys' own efforts at crafting a working and sound agreement for themselves. Carter obviously fails this description of an effective negotiator. And you have already stated whose side you are primarily on: "I am on the Palestinian side." But that much has been obvious even without your admission. The Israeli side is something of an afterthought for you. I anticipate that you will attempt to alibi by claiming that the order or form of your words has no import as to your feelings, but I believe it is quite revealing.

Also, it is not quite rational for you to claim to be on both sides, simply in order to avoid making a hard choice. The Palestinians and the Israelis are adversaries, with conflicting objectives. Therefore it is not logical nor is it possible for you to claim to be on "both" sides. Nor is it very useful to claim a non-existent neutrality, as Carter does. Because fruitful negotiations can only occur if the parties, and the negotiator(s), are honest. Honesty is the essential predicate of any hope for a negotiated settlement. Without good faith underlying the efforts at negotiation, those efforts are worthless. No amount of paper or parchment treaties will make any difference if the person signing them is not in good faith seeking the fulfillment of their stated objectives. That has always been the problem for the Israelis when dealing with various Arab and Palestinian factions.

In any event, your failure to acknowledge your obvious bias or favoritism is a form of intellectual dishonesty which renders your input of little if any value. I admit I have a bias towards Israel for a variety of reasons, only one of which is that the various parties or potential parties on the Palestinian side have time and again proven themselves untrustworthy.

The fact that you will not acknowledge your own bias means that you can never mentally process a solution that might actually be acceptable to both sides of the dispute. You are pretending that there is an equivalence between the parties which does not exist. The reason that you cannot see this lack of equivalence is because it would first require you to acknowledge your own biases.

It is perfectly O.K. to be Jewish and yet forthrightly claim that on balance you believe the Palestinians to be mostly in the right and the Israelis to be mostly in the wrong. At least acknowleding that would be honest. However as a Jew such an acknowledgment would create too much inner conflict for you, and it would force you to pit the needs and feelings of your personal, core ethnic and religious identity against the radical leftist "overlay" which you have adopted as your persona, over your basic core, and which causes this constant struggle within yourself. That's why you have so much trouble admitting whose side you're on--you don't really know. But that's also the source of much of your angry words.


As a practical matter I believe that enemies should talk, or at least in this case I believe there are possibilities for Israel and Hamas to de-escalate their conflict, but it is hard to do that when the parties will not negotiate.

The sides have talked many times about their goals and aspirations. Hamas has repeatedly indicated that it will not be satisfied with anything less than the destruction of the State of Israel. Israel, in contrast, objects to that goal. Naturally.

The problem is not that the parties are not "talking," it's that like many radical leftists, you don't want to hear, or to believe, what is being said. For whatever reason, you simply plug your ears and refuse to believe that Hamas wants to destroy Israel. But if you think you or any one claiming to be a "neutral" will effectively help the parties reach a solution by ignoring what their expressed goals are, you are mistaken.


and you are someone who will not acknowledge whether you are Jewish or not because you say it is not relevant to conversations that board members might have on the Jewish and Foolish board.

If we are talking about how many of my sister's kneidlach I gobbled down at our seder then yeah my judaism or lack of it might be relevant. If we are however talking about whether my opinions or ideas make any sense, what does my being or not being jewish have to do with it?

The reason I don't think it makes a difference is because the only credibility you have seems to be that you are very "jewish" and probably way more so than I. But that in no way renders your ideas better than mine. You may keep a completely kosher household and I may be eating pig's knuckles for my bedtime snack. That doesn't make your ideas better than mine. Yet our respective degrees of "jewishness" is apparently an intellectual crutch you want to harp on.

Personally, I am not ashamed of my heritage at all. I love being Jewish and have never had a problem saying so.

You, on the other hand, are very guarded about any connection you might have with Judaism and go to great pains to present psuedo intellectual arguments on why being Jewish is 'irrelevant' to many of our discussion on the Jewish board.


I'm not guarded about my jewishness, or lack thereof, at all. However in the context of discussions about the middle east, as long as I have admitted my bias or which "side" I favor--and obviously I hope I am perceived as "pro jew" and "pro Israel" (which is not necessarily the same as "anti Palestinian" or "anti Arab", that question is purely situational) then for the purposes of this discussion I have disclosed what needs to be disclosed. Being more or less jewish than you doesn't mean I am not more or less biased. The difference is I have no problem admitting my pro-jew, pro-Israel bias, because I think they are reasonably justified biases.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17008 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 5:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
We can only thank the dedication and hard work of the intelligence community for a very low success rate for the Palestinian terrorist machine.

agreed


Then Dov, what did you mean by your rhetorical question about suicide bombings? Hamas continues to fight as hard as they can against Israel. They haven't let up one iota. Only their tactics may change over time, in response to Israel's counter measures and the means at their disposal. Suicide bombings are fewer, partly because they are prevented actively and partly because they have become a PR fiasco for Hamas. So they shoot rockets instead. Or they send someone to murder half a dozen Yeshiva students in cold blood. Or they drive up to the Gaza border crossing that supplies them with food, in two jeeps loaded with 300 Kg each of explosives, and blow them up in (drum roll please......) suicide bombings!!!! That was this week, in case you weren't paying attention.

yes, the war is continuing. I acknowledge much of what you said. i am no friend of Hamas, just searching for a way through.
====================================

Rice lied us into the war in Iraq and she is still lying about it.

screw her.

Rice wasn't even the secretary of state when the lies were being propagated before the war.

Rice was the head of the National Security Agency before she was Secretary of State, and was one of Bush's closest advisors. Along with Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush, they were the inner circle, the decision makers, the cheerleaders and the liars. They were on TV every night selling their Big Lie. every one of them.

They all lied us into a disastrous war of choice. Screw her and the rest of them. They have the blood of thousands on their hands.

Carter, despite your never ending denigration of the man, didn't lead America into any disastrous unnecessary wars that have killed hundreds of thousands, and despite the so-called 'minor role' you think he played in the Camp David accords, brought the weight ot the Untied States to bear to see those negotiations through. Because of him and his partners, Israel was able to sign a peace treaty with their most powerful and dangerous Arab advesary, and that peace has held for 30 years.

give the man his due.

=======================================

Oslo was a failure because a right wing Jewish terrorist, in complicty with radical west bank rabbis, assasinated the Israeli prime minister who never had the chance to finish what he started.

The peace process fell apart after that.

Nonsense. The peace process was dead on arrival.

no, it wasn't. that is your opinion. many people have a contrary opinion. and the peace process did fall apart after his murder.

On the same week that Arafat shook Rabin's hand on the White House lawn he gave a speech to Arab foreign ministers in Stockholm (I think) in which he explained that the Oslo agreement was a tactical step on the way to the destruction of Israel. Rabin knew it, and he went ahead with the "process" anyway.

yes, and at the same time Rabin allowed the settlement building, probably the most inciendiary actions coming from the Israeli side, to continue. both sides had a lot of finessing to do to be able to deal with the more extreme members of their societies.

Arafat knew it, and he went along with the process anyway.

====================================

Mark, the PA was the PLO with a new name. They came into being through force, they survived through force, and they were invited back to BE a force.

Right. And Israel shouldn't make the same mistake twice.

perhaps, but chosing your enemies leaders usually doesn't work.

================================

one thing Rabin was not, was a pacifist. His military record is unmatched by anyone in or out of Israel.

I'm pretty tired of all the mythical glorification of Rabin. Yes, he was a decent man who tried hard to make peace, but that doesn't make him a saint.

this is a straw man. no one is calling him a saint.

The strategy he chose for peace was a blunder of historic proportions.

that is false Elan, and no one will ever know the truth of it because a Jewish extremist murdered him before he could complete his mission. I put him head and shoulders over a man like Begin, who almost bankrupted Israel spending every shekel on building settlements, creating the most serious political problem Israel has regarding the peace process, and creating a huge rift between Israel and Disapora Jews over the settlement policy which exists to this day.

The glorification of Rabin as some great military hero is also false. He was no ruthless and heroic fighter. In the couple of weeks leading up to the Six Day War, when Rabin was the commander of the Israeli armed forces, he suffered a mental breakdown. The crucial decisions were made without him.

Rabin fought against the Syrian puppet regime that was controlled by the Vichy French, who in turned were controlled by the greatest enemey the Jewish people ever had. He fought in 1948. He fought in 56, and as you mentioned in 67. I think it is degrading to talk of his mental breakdown out of context as some kind of proof of something. Can you imagine the tremendous pressures he was under as chief of staff? and in the end, who won that war? He played his part and did for his entire life.

It's pretty interesting that you feel so positively about Begin, who was the father of the settlements and the first Lebanese war, but have such a low regard for Rabin who did what he could to come to a historic settlement and Carter who actually did participate in an historic settlement.

He was a mild mannered person who was uncomfortable in the public limelight.

that is a plus in my book.

He was no great orator, not a born leader, not a person with any great or unique vision for his country. Nothing close to Ben Gurion or Begin or even Shimon Peres in that regard.

Not everyone is a great speaker. Begin, the settlement builder? Is that the 'vision' you want for Israel? you can have him, and it.

When people constantly speak of "Rabin's legacy" in Israel, I puzzle about what they are referring to. His only lasting legacy, at the moment of his death, is the message that if Israelis don't keep their unity they will rip themselves apart from within.

perhaps if that Jewish terrorist hadn't killed him, he would have a different legacy. and his legacy is not just what happened at the moment of his death. it is built on a lifetime of achievement and dedication to his country.

Rabin never turned pacifist. Not even close.

I didn't say he did. Mark said that and I disagreed with him. So we finally agree on something, Elan.

His initiative for peace at practically any cost was motivated by fear.

give me a break. it was not an intitiave for peace at 'practically any cost'. what cost was that? what settlements came down? what settlement construction was halted?

He operated under the trauma of the first Gulf War, when Iraqi Scud missiles rained on Israel and it couldn't respond.

what trauma? the scuds, on a relative basis did almost nothing to harm Israel.

He estimated that a future war could be devastating for Israel if the missiles were armed with chemical or nuclear warheads, and was determined to prevent it by reaching a peace agreement.

Elan


and the problem with wanting to prevent nuclear tipped Scuds from htting Tel Aviv is ... what?

Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17009 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 5:46 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Now you're saying that Carter is trying to "break a logjam" between two adversaries, but not by "negotiations." That leaves one and only one alternative: Carter's attempting to do what he can to impose a "solution" without fair negotiation and bargaining, in good faith, between the adversaries. Carter's not trying to "negotiate" at all, but he is trying to do what he can to create a climate of world opinion, and of opinion in the U.S., in which Israel is not even permitted to "negotiate."

I think Carter is honestly trying, in his own mind, to bring the parties closer to peace. In his simplistic view, he's like the adult coming to separate between two fighting children and tell them "okay, shake hands now and solve your problem peacefully". He's not negotiating. He's just trying to get the process started.

Where he is wrong is that he ignores the complexity of other factors, and he is doing more damage than good. Israel has with whom to negotiate. It's the Palestinian Authority. That is the position of Israel, the United States, and the PA itself. That's what they agreed to do at their last meeting in Anapolis, and that incidentally is what has continued with frequent meetings between Olmert and Abbas and foreign minister Livni and her cohorts since then.

To push for negotiations between Israel and Hamas is to pull the rug from under the existing policy and peace efforts of all sides. It is first and foremost undermining the PA and Abbas. It is giving credence to the most extreme elements in the conflict. And it is, by the way, a breakdown of the important principle of not negotiating with terrorists.

Let's assume for a moment that Hamas agrees to negotiate with and ultimately recognize Israel. What comes next? Islamic Jihad, or Hizballah, or Al Qaeda, opposes the new peace initiatives and launches their own campaign of terrorism and incitement. Before you know it, Jimmy Carter is advocating that we negotiate with these new, more extreme, elements. There is no end to this pattern unless you sideline the extremists and either force them to accept a reasonable agreement or destroy them.

Elan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17010 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 6:02 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The "bottom line" is that Carter has no authority whatsoever to negotiate with Hamas (or with anyone else) on behalf of the United States. Nor on behalf of Israel.

nor on behalf of Hamas.


Which raises two concerns: 1) why is Carter even there, and what does he think he's doing?

he is trying to help move the situation foward.


2) If even you admit that Carter's purpose is not to get Hamas to "negotiate," then why do you claim that "negotiating" with Hamas is a viable option?

I don't know that it is a viable option, only that it should be explored. all parties have interests, the idea of negotiations is to find a way to satisfy your opponents interests without compromising your own.


I agree with you that Carter does not have Hamas's authority to "negotiate" for them. That leaves only one role: to progagandize for them. Which is what I said before.

you use the word 'only' quite a lot. I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination.


rather, he's simply acting as a propagandist for anti-U.S. and anti-Israeli and anti-jewish interests such as Hamas.

that is your assertion and opinion, as is your right. my assetion is that you are incorrect.
========================================


no, he is trying to break a logjam between the participants in a 60 year old war.


I'll take this statement at face value, dov.

thank you


Now you're saying that Carter is trying to "break a logjam" between two adversaries, but not by "negotiations." That leaves one and only one alternative: Carter's attempting to do what he can to impose a "solution" without fair negotiation and bargaining, in good faith, between the adversaries.

he is not trying to impose anything. that is a ridiculous assertion. how would he possibly do that?


Carter's not trying to "negotiate" at all, but he is trying to do what he can to create a climate of world opinion, and of opinion in the U.S., in which Israel is not even permitted to "negotiate." .

that is also incorrect. Carter would be the first to welcome it if Israel was part of those kinds of negotiations.
==============================================

I am on the Palestinian side as well as the Israeli side.

What you are really saying here--perhaps, this is the way Carter thinks--is that you "know what's best" for the two adversaries, and believe that they should accept the "dov" solution, or the "Carter" solution, rather than attempt to come to their own solution (if one is even possible).

everyone has opinions, including you and I and Carter and the individual Israelis and Palestinians. I agree it is up to the parties to come to their own solutions, although a powerful nation like the US can help.


A fair and neutral arbitrator or negotiator does not take anyone's side.

agreed. but later in this document you will claim to have a pro-Israel bias. so by your own measure, what are you offering this discussion?


It is not the purpose of an effective negotiator to act as any party's advocate, but rather, to attempt to neutrally facilitate the partys' own efforts at crafting a working and sound agreement for themselves. Carter obviously fails this description of an effective negotiator.

it is too soon to say if Carter has failed, maybe he has .He does have a record of success that no US President has with the Camp David accords. and there is always tomorrow. I won't fault him for trying.


And you have already stated whose side you are primarily on: "I am on the Palestinian side."

now you are being disengenous. You took half of my statement, which I suspected you would do. My statement was that I was on the Palestinians side and the Israelis side. Both peoples are human beings with hopes and dreams for their families and peoples. you don't seem to be shy about debating. why would you purposely edit my words to try and twist their meaning?


But that much has been obvious even without your admissionThe Israeli side is something of an afterthought for you.

I made no such admission. More lies from you. by the way, why do you always write the Jewish or Jewishness without capitalizing the J. Isnt that an obvious sign of something or other on your part? See, two can play that game.


I anticipate that you will attempt to alibi by claiming that the order or form of your words has no import as to your feelings, but I believe it is quite revealing.

it is revealing. I wanted to see who would rise to the bait if I put the Palestinians first in my sentence. You didn't disappoint me.


Also, it is not quite rational for you to claim to be on both sides, simply in order to avoid making a hard choice. The Palestinians and the Israelis are adversaries, with conflicting objectives. Therefore it is not logical nor is it possible for you to claim to be on "both" sides.

and that is why you will never be a peacemaker. Peace is possible, even in the midst of conflicts and competing interests.


Nor is it very useful to claim a non-existent neutrality, as Carter does. Because fruitful negotiations can only occur if the parties, and the negotiator(s), are honest. Honesty is the essential predicate of any hope for a negotiated settlement. Without good faith underlying the efforts at negotiation, those efforts are worthless. No amount of paper or parchment treaties will make any difference if the person signing them is not in good faith seeking the fulfillment of their stated objectives. That has always been the problem for the Israelis when dealing with various Arab and Palestinian factions.

both sides could do a lot better in this department. when Israel stops building settlements in the west bank, you can then lay the blame solely on the Palestinians.


In any event, your failure to acknowledge your obvious bias or favoritism is a form of intellectual dishonesty which renders your input of little if any value.

fine, don't bother to respond to me anymore.


I admit I have a bias towards Israel for a variety of reasons, only one of which is that the various parties or potential parties on the Palestinian side have time and again proven themselves untrustworthy.

The fact that you will not acknowledge your own bias means that you can never mentally process a solution that might actually be acceptable to both sides of the dispute.


thank you doctor Freud.

btw, what would you offer as a possible solution that is acceptable to both sides?


You are pretending that there is an equivalence between the parties which does not exist.

there is no equivalence and I never claimed there was. That doesn't mean that Israel gets off scott free on some of its egregious behavior.


The reason that you cannot see this lack of equivalence is because it would first require you to acknowledge your own biases.

oy vey, more psychobabble.


It is perfectly O.K. to be Jewish and yet forthrightly claim that on balance you believe the Palestinians to be mostly in the right and the Israelis to be mostly in the wrong.

I agree, but you are not describing me.


At least acknowleding that would be honest. However as a Jew such an acknowledgment would create too much inner conflict for you, and it would force you to pit the needs and feelings of your personal, core ethnic and religious identity against the radical leftist "overlay" which you have adopted as your persona, over your basic core, and which causes this constant struggle within yourself. That's why you have so much trouble admitting whose side you're on--you don't really know. But that's also the source of much of your angry words.

How would you know what 'such an acknowledgment' would do to a Jew in terms of inner conflict? Are you a Jew?

I am a Jew and I want to see Israel survive and the Palestinians have a homeland. I support the same two state solution that people have been talking about for decades. That means justice for BOTH sides. I feel no inner conflict about that, and sinceyou wont admit you are a Jew, I can tell you this Jew is fine with that issue.
=============================

As a practical matter I believe that enemies should talk, or at least in this case I believe there are possibilities for Israel and Hamas to de-escalate their conflict, but it is hard to do that when the parties will not negotiate.

The sides have talked many times about their goals and aspirations. Hamas has repeatedly indicated that it will not be satisfied with anything less than the destruction of the State of Israel.

I don't think that Israel has ever talked with Hamas, although it would not surprise me if their were secret contacts from time to time.


Israel, in contrast, objects to that goal. Naturally.

naturally, as do I.


The problem is not that the parties are not "talking," it's that like many radical leftists, you don't want to hear, or to believe, what is being said. For whatever reason, you simply plug your ears and refuse to believe that Hamas wants to destroy Israel.

I know they want to destroy Israel. When did I ever say they didn't?

Ronald Reagan wanted to destroy the government of the Soviet Union, but that didn't stop him from talking to Gorbachov. He weren't no 'radical leftist' boogeyman.

BOO!


But if you think you or any one claiming to be a "neutral" will effectively help the parties reach a solution by ignoring what their expressed goals are, you are mistaken.

Perhaps. Let's find out.

====================================


and you are someone who will not acknowledge whether you are Jewish or not because you say it is not relevant to conversations that board members might have on the Jewish and Foolish board.

If we are talking about how many of my sister's kneidlach I gobbled down at our seder then yeah my judaism or lack of it might be relevant. If we are however talking about whether my opinions or ideas make any sense, what does my being or not being jewish have to do with it?

I don't know. Probably none, although many diaspora Jews have relatives in Israel, like me, and many Diaspora Jews, like me, see Israel as a haven and ancestral homeland for the Jews, especially after the Holocaust. So we feel particularly close to Israel. I know I have felt that way since childhood, more than 50 years.


The reason I don't think it makes a difference is because the only credibility you have seems to be that you are very "jewish" and probably way more so than I.

I am not observant, although I spent many years doing Kabbalistic meditation and have been active in Jewish communities since I was a child.

What kind of credibility are you talking about anyway? I am a Jewish person who posts on Jewish topics and other topics on the Jewish and Foolish board and other boards. What kind of credibility do I need? I am just a person with an opinion, like you.


But that in no way renders your ideas better than mine.

agreed


You may keep a completely kosher household and I may be eating pig's knuckles for my bedtime snack. That doesn't make your ideas better than mine.

agreed, although the saturated fats might kill you. Kosher is pretty healthy, although I have not kept kosher.


Yet our respective degrees of "jewishness" is apparently an intellectual crutch you want to harp on.

no, I just love being Jewish. I love Torah, I love Talmud, Kabbalah, Jewish music, Jewish comedians, the Diaspora, the history, the Holidays, Shabbas, you name it. Even though I am not observant, I can't imagine myself not being Jewish.

====================================

Personally, I am not ashamed of my heritage at all. I love being Jewish and have never had a problem saying so.

You, on the other hand, are very guarded about any connection you might have with Judaism and go to great pains to present psuedo intellectual arguments on why being Jewish is 'irrelevant' to many of our discussion on the Jewish board.

I'm not guarded about my jewishness, or lack thereof, at all.

are you Jewish? a yes or no answer is a pretty simple thing.


However in the context of discussions about the middle east, as long as I have admitted my bias or which "side" I favor--and obviously I hope I am perceived as "pro jew" and "pro Israel" (which is not necessarily the same as "anti Palestinian" or "anti Arab", that question is purely situational) then for the purposes of this discussion I have disclosed what needs to be disclosed.

as I said, you will rationalize and intellectualize your refusal to admit who you are or who you aren't. having biases for Israel does not mean your biases make sense or will in the end actually be a help or hindrance for Israel. I would argue that in some cases the Israeli government has been their own worst enemy, so would having a 'pro-Israel' bias be a good idea in that case?


Being more or less jewish than you doesn't mean I am not more or less biased.

agreed


The difference is I have no problem admitting my pro-jew, pro-Israel bias, because I think they are reasonably justified biases.

and I am committed to the survival of the State of Israel, and I am also not biased against the Palestinian people, our semitic cousins. Believe it or not, it is possible to be that way without an inner conflict.


Dov

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17011 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 6:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
thanks for a reasonable and challenging response, Elan.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17012 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 6:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Rice was the head of the National Security Agency

National Security Council.

His military record is unmatched by anyone in or out of Israel.

Empty words. There have been many greater military leaders and heroes.

I think it is degrading to talk of his mental breakdown out of context as some kind of proof of something. Can you imagine the tremendous pressures he was under as chief of staff?

Sure, it's his job. He wasn't quite up to it at the moment of truth. This is not to take away from him the credit for his contribution to Israel through his many years of military service. Just to counter your representation of him as a hard, even brutal, warrior, or whatever exact words you used.

Carter, despite your never ending denigration of the man, didn't lead America into any disastrous unnecessary wars that have killed hundreds of thousands, and despite the so-called 'minor role' you think he played in the Camp David accords, brought the weight ot the Untied States to bear to see those negotiations through. Because of him and his partners, Israel was able to sign a peace treaty with their most powerful and dangerous Arab advesary, and that peace has held for 30 years.

give the man his due.


Carter has long since flushed his due down the toilet. And despite the credit he deserves for chaperoning the peace agreement with Egypt, I think he was the second worst American president in my lifetime. (You know who takes first prize). Allowing the Shah of Iran to be toppled by the Ayatollahs was a colossal mistake for which we are paying the price to this day, and who knows what the ultimate price will be?

When people constantly speak of "Rabin's legacy" in Israel, I puzzle about what they are referring to. His only lasting legacy, at the moment of his death, is the message that if Israelis don't keep their unity they will rip themselves apart from within.

perhaps if that Jewish terrorist hadn't killed him, he would have a different legacy. and his legacy is not just what happened at the moment of his death. it is built on a lifetime of achievement and dedication to his country.


I don't think you understand what I'm saying because you aren't in touch enough with what goes on in Israel. There is constant talk among some groups of "Rabin's legacy". It's even a subject that is supposed to be taught in the public schools. But what is there to teach? Did he lay out some new and unique vision for Israel? Did he change the country fundamentally? Did he write any profound books or speeches that can serve as a guiding light for future generations of Israelis? No. There's none of that. All they can teach at public schools is that Rabin wanted peace and he was murdered for it. There's an important moral to that story, but it's not a *legacy*.

His initiative for peace at practically any cost was motivated by fear.

give me a break. it was not an intitiave for peace at 'practically any cost'. what cost was that? what settlements came down? what settlement construction was halted?


The cost was the establishment of a terrorist base in the West Bank and Gaza strip.

and the problem with wanting to prevent nuclear tipped Scuds from hitting Tel Aviv is ... what?

No problem with wanting it. The problem is with the way he chose to handle it, which so far has done nothing to prevent it.

Elan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17013 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 6:17 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

priceless, except it wasn't Carter who said that, it was James Baker.

Him too...

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID={C5991107-5724-44F2-BE01-4285062E316F}
Carter:"If I get back in, I`m going to f--- the Jews"

Those two work alot together, to the point they think alike.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17014 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/22/2008 6:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

Which raises two concerns: 1) why is Carter even there, and what does he think he's doing?

he is trying to help move the situation foward.


Dov, you never answered my question to you, would you be for or against negotiations/discussions/meetings/whatyoumaycallit with Osama bin Laden?


Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17016 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 7:21 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
would you be for or against negotiations/discussions/meetings/whatyoumaycallit with Osama bin Laden?

An apropos,

On a T.V interview in Channel 10, Carter was asked the very same
question, his reply was negative. To the following question, why
with Hamas, where was the difference ? to which Carter responded:
Al Qaeda was a terrorist group whereas Hamas was democratically
elected.

Dubi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: BlackOpsWarrior Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17017 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 7:36 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Which raises two concerns: 1) why is Carter even there, and what does he think he's doing?

he is trying to help move the situation foward.



I think it's somewhat naiive to regard Carter as being purely or even primarily altruistic. He's a human being, he's a politician, he has a personal agenda and personal motives, although perhaps he won't admit to them. He's been "out of the action" and "out of the spotlight" but like many politicians has a tremendous ego. But satisfying his huge ego's thirst for attention and glory shouldn't really be the point, should it? He still takes way too much credit for Camp David, and I guess in his mind thinks he can repeat that somehow.

The other impression I get is that Carter is a messianic fundamentalist Christian who believes that some semblance of a physical "state of Israel" must be allowed to exist, as it's foretold in the christian bible as interpreted by some fundamentalists that there will be a "second coming" of Jesus who will then rule over a physical state of Israel on earth. But Carter doesn't seem to particularly care about the details of the geography, nor does he seem to care about what happens to the jews who currently happen to live there. That's because fundamentalist christians don't particularly care about the survival of the jewish people, other than as perhaps a necessary vehicle to effectuate the "second coming."


I don't know that it is a viable option, only that it should be explored. all parties have interests, the idea of negotiations is to find a way to satisfy your opponents interests without compromising your own.

Dov, I'm sorry to say this, but you have a basic misunderstanding about what an effective negotiation process ultimately must involve. There must be "compromise" where two parties have adverse interests but want to resolve them peacefully. That doesn't mean either side gets all or even most of what it wants. But if the parties believe a "negotiation" can be successful "without compromising your own" principles, then how do you "satisfy your opponents"? You can't.

The problem in the middle east is that the Jews/Israelis have been the ones doing all the compromising. And of course, on some issues, a line must be drawn and there can be no compromising. Such as when your adversary has clearly and repeatedly stated the intent to destroy you.

A fair and neutral arbitrator or negotiator does not take anyone's side.

agreed. but later in this document you will claim to have a pro-Israel bias. so by your own measure, what are you offering this discussion?


Honesty. If someone is an advocate for one side or the other, they should at least have the honesty to admit that fact. Carter should. And so should you.


now you are being disengenous. You took half of my statement, which I suspected you would do. My statement was that I was on the Palestinians side and the Israelis side. Both peoples are human beings with hopes and dreams for their families and peoples. you don't seem to be shy about debating. why would you purposely edit my words to try and twist their meaning?


No, you don't realize the import of your statement that you are "on the Palestinians side and the Israelis side." It means you have a conflict of interest. Because it is impossible to be on both sides of an adversarial relationship. So what it really means is that you actually do favor one side over the other, but simply do not want to acknowledge that fact. Note, claiming to be on "both sides" at once is quite different from claiming to be on no one's side, as a neutral arbitrator should be. Because a neutral arbitrator, objectively looking at the situation, has to be able to realize that one or the other of the adversaries--and sometimes both of them--can be wrong. Since you claim to be on "both sides," you are claiming to be an advocate of "both sides." This is impossible. This is why you cannot make effective judgments in this dispute. You claim to be a neutral, but you are not. You are an advocate. Your advocacy is for the Palestinian cause, but you do not want to admit this, because you think that it is somehow "bad" to admit to being an advocate, because you want to adopt the Carter-like role (on this board, anyway) of a "neutral."

Where someone has a conflict of interest, that means they cannot particpate effectively in the discussion at all. It is the difference between a neutral arbitrator trying to help a married couple work out their marital differences and an attorney who tries to represent both parties in divorce court. The first one is admirable; the second one is disqualified. You have characterized yourself as the second one--the "advocate" of both sides--not as the neutral arbitrator.

Also, it is not quite rational for you to claim to be on both sides, simply in order to avoid making a hard choice. The Palestinians and the Israelis are adversaries, with conflicting objectives. Therefore it is not logical nor is it possible for you to claim to be on "both" sides.

and that is why you will never be a peacemaker. Peace is possible, even in the midst of conflicts and competing interests.



Peace is not possible if reality is ignored. You are ignoring reality. Your way--Carter's way--might get some signatures on a piece of paper or parchment. That's not the same thing as real peace.

You still don't recognize that you have a conflict of interest. You can't be on both sides at the same time. Stop making such a false claim. You have a conflict of interest in making such a claim. It is a dishonest claim.


when Israel stops building settlements in the west bank, you can then lay the blame solely on the Palestinians.

This is an example of a completely ineffective approach/mentality from one who claims to seek a peaceful resolution. You like the Palestinians seek linkage of unrelated issues in dispute. This is precisely what bad negotiators, or parties acting in bad faith, attempt to do. They always allow the existence of some unresolved issue or dispute to prevent the resolution of other issues in dispute.

That is not a road to peace. The settlements have absolutely nothing to do with, say, whether arabs should be shooting rockets into Israel. Only someone who does not truly want peace would link those issues. Blame is also beside the point. I did not lay blame on anyone. It is you, not me, who is concerned with "blame." I only look at the parties' interests, and how they can effectuate those interests. You on the other hand are wrapped up in adjectives, cant, and rhetoric. Just like Carter. Just like the Palestinians.

The reality is that Israel should have to give up nothing as a quid pro quo to stop terrorist bombings and rocket attacks of civilians. Only a truly terrorist mentality would use the continuation of such attacks as a quid pro quo for negotations on such issues as settlements/removal of settlements. If you don't agree with that, fine. Then the side with the most rockets, bombs and weapons will win. If there is to be war, I hope Israel wins. Evidently, you don't. You claim to be on "both sides" and therefore you hope both Israel and the Arabs can win such a war. That's impossible. That's reality.


btw, what would you offer as a possible solution that is acceptable to both sides?

The "solution" does not have to be "acceptable" to both sides in the sense of allowing both sides to maintain their current positions without compromise. Any "solution" has to be realistically enforceable, and if possible, self-enforcing. That is the only real requirement of any solution. Not that it is acceptable to both sides (whatever that means); rather, that it can be effectively enforced.

The problem the Israelis have is not "acceptability" of their proposed solutions to the Arabs, it is "enforceability." The Israelis have shown a decided willingness to compromise on almost everything. The problem is that they get nothing enforceable in return. If the other side is acting in good faith, then at least the Israelis could rely on the other side's leaders to enforce its agreements. However the other side has not shown any ability or willingness to enforce its side of any bargain reached with the Israelis.

You are wrapped up in petty grievances, imagined grievances, settlements, this, that, who's to blame, etc. All of that is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in the fact that whatever piece of paper or parchment Israel signs, it is simply that: a piece of paper. Even if Abbas signs an agreement, can he enforce it? No. If next week Hamas is running the entire show, or Hezbollah, or Iran, (assuming they are not actually doing that right now), can they be relied on to live up to their agreements? No.

It is a question of culture. It is the difference between the mentality of the middle eastern rug merchant from Casablanca--whose word is worthless--and the diamond dealer from Antwerp, who trades millions of dollars of gems on a handshake, but whose oath is a cement-like bond. These are of course generalizations but hopefully you get the point. Arabs, and muslims in general, do not view a treaty with infidels as having any binding force. You might not like that idea, but it's absolutely true. And it's been reflected in the behavior of Israel's negotiating "partners."



there is no equivalence and I never claimed there was. That doesn't mean that Israel gets off scott free on some of its egregious behavior.

Again, you are focused on blame and the past rather than on solutions for the future. Strange for someone who claims to want peace. You are like the embittered spouse confronted with the reality of a loveless marriage and an impending divorce who wants to blame her husband for all the times he didn't help her do the dishes. That's not going to stop the divorce from happening.

A negotiation should not be about "punishing" one side or the other for its egregious behavior. It is not for the purpose of seeking to "punish" the Palestinians that Israel asks for the rocket attacks and bombings to stop.

I am a Jew and I want to see Israel survive and the Palestinians have a homeland. I support the same two state solution that people have been talking about for decades. That means justice for BOTH sides. I feel no inner conflict about that, and sinceyou wont admit you are a Jew, I can tell you this Jew is fine with that issue.

Hamas does not want a two state solution. Hezbollah does not want a two state solution. Iran does not want a two state solution. Therefore, you are not on "both sides" of the issue. Why do you want to blame Israel when it's obvious that the real parties in interest on the arab side want to destroy it? Again this is simply due to your own internal conflicts. You want to "blame Israel" for whatever it is you think they did wrong to defend their interests.


and I am committed to the survival of the State of Israel, and I am also not biased against the Palestinian people, our semitic cousins. Believe it or not, it is possible to be that way without an inner conflict.

If you are committed to the survival of the State of Israel, then surely you realize that Hamas and Hezbollah, and perhaps the current government of Iran, must be neutralized and/or destroyed.

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Silencer2480 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17019 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 9:06 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Al Qaeda was a terrorist group whereas Hamas was democratically
elected.


And that makes it no longer a terrorist group? What rubbish. Terrorist groups are still such, even with lots of popular support.

silencer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17020 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 9:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Terrorist groups are still such, even with lots of popular support

My view is that Hamas is a terrorist group and is certainly
acting as such. Since Hamas is not planning to just fade away,
the question is should Israel try to find some sort of settlement.
I think Israel should.

Dubi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17021 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 9:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1

On a T.V interview in Channel 10, Carter was asked the very same
question, his reply was negative. To the following question, why
with Hamas, where was the difference ? to which Carter responded:
Al Qaeda was a terrorist group whereas Hamas was democratically
elected.

Is he for real?

Democratically elected terrorist group? cute.

Hmm, maybe we should put AlQaeda on the ballot in Pakistan. they're sure to win, especially if Carter is "supervising" the election.

The man is a tool.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17022 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 10:47 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Hmm, maybe we should put AlQaeda on the ballot in Pakistan. they're sure to win, especially if Carter is "supervising" the election.

Not to ruin the party, just to remind you that no other than
Israel, with the full backing of The US permitted Hamas take
part in the PA elections. In fact it was the US who pushed
this issue, and Israel dragged its feet into 'agreeing'.
(Guess what, it was not Carter who insisted Hamas participate
in these elections.)
Once you allow a party to participate in elections, you have
to accept the results, don' t you think ? especially when one
cannot say that the true nature of Hamas and its charter was
unknown to the Israeli Gov.

Dubi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17023 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 11:01 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Not to ruin the party, just to remind you that no other than
Israel, with the full backing of The US permitted Hamas take
part in the PA elections. In fact it was the US who pushed
this issue, and Israel dragged its feet into 'agreeing'.
(Guess what, it was not Carter who insisted Hamas participate
in these elections.)
Once you allow a party to participate in elections, you have
to accept the results, don' t you think ? especially when one
cannot say that the true nature of Hamas and its charter was
unknown to the Israeli Gov.


I thought it was the PA insisting for the sake of Palestinian unity to include Hamas, thinking they had no chance.
But you have a point. Coincidentally, if Hamas expects the recognition with being the democratically elected representation of the Palestinians, are they not expected and obligated to honor past agreements? Can't have it both ways.

What do you think the US and Israel will do if Hamas honors said agreements?

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: midastouch017 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17024 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 11:24 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
are they not expected and obligated to honor past agreements?

Of course they are and will be expected to. The question is what
is their final standing, not their opening points.
Having said that, in order to find out, both parties have to talk.
Direct talk impossible, ok, let Egypt do the mediation.

Dubi

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Mitamuna Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17025 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 12:31 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

Of course they are and will be expected to. The question is what
is their final standing, not their opening points.
Having said that, in order to find out, both parties have to talk.
Direct talk impossible, ok, let Egypt do the mediation.


Again, how do you start discussions/talks with someone who would not recognize you worthy of discussion? Someone who's explicitly has no interest of honoring its predecessor's agreements and in fact, wants you dead? Where do you start the discussions as the other side has no intent of honoring any agreements with you?

What I find most ridiculous is the concept of negotiations to cease rocket fire and terror attacks. I agree with BOW 100% that negotiations/discussions/pickasynonym once Hamas puts an end to it.

Mark

Print the post Back To Top
Author: dovbaer6 Big funky green star, 20000 posts Feste Award Nominee! Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17026 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 12:32 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Which raises two concerns: 1) why is Carter even there, and what does he think he's doing?

he is trying to help move the situation foward.


I think it's somewhat naiive to regard Carter as being purely or even primarily altruistic. He's a human being, he's a politician, he has a personal agenda and personal motives, although perhaps he won't admit to them. He's been "out of the action" and "out of the spotlight" but like many politicians has a tremendous ego. But satisfying his huge ego's thirst for attention and glory shouldn't really be the point, should it? He still takes way too much credit for Camp David, and I guess in his mind thinks he can repeat that somehow.

BOW, you make an awful lot of assumptions and leaps of logic about what must be going on inside of other peoples heads. You say Carter has a tremendous ego, as many politicians do, but I am not seeing the evidence for that claim.

I would agree with you that a persons actions should not be driven by egocentricity, but you haven't proven that is Carters motivation. Carter is in his 80's. Perhaps it is not quite so easy for a young man like yourself to get inside an older mans head.

As for Camp David, it was a singular achievement. It was the single most important political victory for Israel since independance, and whatever you may think of Carter, he was an indepsensible part of the troika that pulled it off.

Since then, the only thing even close to that achievement is the Jordanian-Israeli peace treaty (oops, there I go again, putting an Arab entity before a Jewish entity in my sentence. What implication will be drawn from that, lol).


The other impression I get is that Carter is a messianic fundamentalist Christian who believes that some semblance of a physical "state of Israel" must be allowed to exist, as it's foretold in the christian bible as interpreted by some fundamentalists that there will be a "second coming" of Jesus who will then rule over a physical state of Israel on earth. But Carter doesn't seem to particularly care about the details of the geography, nor does he seem to care about what happens to the jews who currently happen to live there. That's because fundamentalist christians don't particularly care about the survival of the jewish people, other than as perhaps a necessary vehicle to effectuate the "second coming."

I agree that fundamentalist Christians, who I have labelled 'Christian Zionists' have the resurrection of the Messiah, so to speak, as their fundamental motivation, and using Israel as a vehicle to manufacture events that will bring Him (oops, I capitalized the word Him which must imply that I am a secret Christian, damn, I keep giving my self away, after all these years).

We have posted about that on this board before, with the usual variety of opinions. Personally, I think it is a bizarre belief, but then again, most fundamentalist belief strikes me that way, irregardless of the tradition.

But politically, Carter is 180 degrees in the opposite political direction of the Christian Zionist movement. It seems to me that you yourself support pretty much the same POLITICAL position as the Christian Zionists, even if you are not part of that group. That is not meant as an accusation, btw, just an observation.
=======================================

I don't know that it is a viable option, only that it should be explored. all parties have interests, the idea of negotiations is to find a way to satisfy your opponents interests without compromising your own.

Dov, I'm sorry to say this, but you have a basic misunderstanding about what an effective negotiation process ultimately must involve.

you wouldn't be the first person who has said that to me, but I have done quite well in my business life with the negotiations I have done. Also, i have raised two children. Going through that is something that can also teach one a lot about what an effective negotiation requires. I've bought and sold homes over the last 30 years too. Negotiation is a fine art. there is always something new to learn, and every situation is different.


There must be "compromise" where two parties have adverse interests but want to resolve them peacefully. That doesn't mean either side gets all or even most of what it wants. But if the parties believe a "negotiation" can be successful "without compromising your own" principles, then how do you "satisfy your opponents"? You can't.

yes, you are stating the obvious.


The problem in the middle east is that the Jews/Israelis have been the ones doing all the compromising.

I dispute this assertion. No one is doing ALL the compromising. Just more absolutism on your part.


And of course, on some issues, a line must be drawn and there can be no compromising. Such as when your adversary has clearly and repeatedly stated the intent to destroy you.

I draw the line at actually allowing an enemy to destroy me, as opposed to drawing the line at what they have said. Enemies always talk about destroying each other, even while negotiating. Talk is cheap.


A fair and neutral arbitrator or negotiator does not take anyone's side.

agreed. but later in this document you will claim to have a pro-Israel bias. so by your own measure, what are you offering this discussion?


Honesty. If someone is an advocate for one side or the other, they should at least have the honesty to admit that fact. Carter should. And so should you.

yes, Carter should, I should, you should, we all should. Got it.
================================================

now you are being disengenous. You took half of my statement, which I suspected you would do. My statement was that I was on the Palestinians side and the Israelis side. Both peoples are human beings with hopes and dreams for their families and peoples. you don't seem to be shy about debating. why would you purposely edit my words to try and twist their meaning?


No, you don't realize the import of your statement that you are "on the Palestinians side and the Israelis side." It means you have a conflict of interest.

you keep saying this but I say you have a lack of vision.


Because it is impossible to be on both sides of an adversarial relationship.

you are full of absolutes.


So what it really means is that you actually do favor one side over the other, but simply do not want to acknowledge that fact. Note, claiming to be on "both sides" at once is quite different from claiming to be on no one's side, as a neutral arbitrator should be. Because a neutral arbitrator, objectively looking at the situation, has to be able to realize that one or the other of the adversaries--and sometimes both of them--can be wrong. Since you claim to be on "both sides," you are claiming to be an advocate of "both sides." This is impossible. This is why you cannot make effective judgments in this dispute. You claim to be a neutral, but you are not. You are an advocate. Your advocacy is for the Palestinian cause, but you do not want to admit this, because you think that it is somehow "bad" to admit to being an advocate, because you want to adopt the Carter-like role (on this board, anyway) of a "neutral."

BOW, you are making this far too complex. We may as well be arguing how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

I want Israel to survive, to thrive, to become an economic powerhouse, to become a center of culture, to materially embody the millenia old dream of the Jewish people to build a beautiful culture in peace, to recover from the Holocaust, to be a light unto the world. Israel has already begun this. I want it to continue.

I want the Palestinians to be able to have a politcal homeland, a national identity, a sovreignty, control over their affairs, and also, to thrive and grow.

I want both countries to have trade relations, cultural exchanges, some intermarriages (yes), and set an example to the world that people of different faiths and histories can become friends and partners, given time and patience.

In the Bible, when Abraham died, their is a very short passage, barely three sentences, where it says that Isaac and Ishmael came together and buried their Father (look I put Isaac first even though he was the younger brother. See, I AM a good Jew after all).

That is what I want. I want Ishmael and Isaac to come together and be at peace with each other. We are brothers.


Where someone has a conflict of interest, that means they cannot particpate effectively in the discussion at all. It is the difference between a neutral arbitrator trying to help a married couple work out their marital differences and an attorney who tries to represent both parties in divorce court. The first one is admirable; the second one is disqualified. You have characterized yourself as the second one--the "advocate" of both sides--not as the neutral arbitrator.

Also, it is not quite rational for you to claim to be on both sides, simply in order to avoid making a hard choice. The Palestinians and the Israelis are adversaries, with conflicting objectives. Therefore it is not logical nor is it possible for you to claim to be on "both" sides.


I've made my choice, long ago. I chose and still choose Israel. Why is that incompatible with wanting justice for the Palestinians, and a decent life for the Palestinians? (btw, there are over a million Israeli citizens who are Palestinians. I chose them too)
============================

and that is why you will never be a peacemaker. Peace is possible, even in the midst of conflicts and competing interests.

Peace is not possible if reality is ignored. You are ignoring reality. Your way--Carter's way--might get some signatures on a piece of paper or parchment. That's not the same thing as real peace.

Reality has many facets and they are always shifting. One reality is that Hamas exists and that the PA seems to be neutered and frozen in place.


You still don't recognize that you have a conflict of interest. You can't be on both sides at the same time. Stop making such a false claim. You have a conflict of interest in making such a claim. It is a dishonest claim.

you haven't proven your point. It is not either or. It is not black and white. You cannot intelligently chose Israel and leave out the Palestinians and think that you have made a good choice for Israel. I mean you can do that, but it doesn't work.
================================


when Israel stops building settlements in the west bank, you can then lay the blame solely on the Palestinians.

This is an example of a completely ineffective approach/mentality from one who claims to seek a peaceful resolution. You like the Palestinians seek linkage of unrelated issues in dispute.

the issues could not be more related. In Dov's unhumble opinion, the Palestinians WILL compromise on the Palestinian right of return, and they WILL compromise on some of the settlements that are right on the Israeli eastern boundary.

But, the other settlements, the ones further east in the west bank they will not compromise on, perhaps unless the people living in those settlements agreed to live under Palestinian sovreignty, an interesting if somewhat far-fetched notion.


This is precisely what bad negotiators, or parties acting in bad faith, attempt to do. They always allow the existence of some unresolved issue or dispute to prevent the resolution of other issues in dispute.

This is not 'some unresolved dispute'. It is bound up in the central issue of Palestinian statehood, and no permanent settlement is possible without a Palestinian state.


That is not a road to peace. The settlements have absolutely nothing to do with, say, whether arabs should be shooting rockets into Israel.

The rockets should stop. Most of the settlements should be transferred to Palestinian sovreignty. They are not equivalent, yet both are necessary.


Only someone who does not truly want peace would link those issues.

only someone who does not want peace would preclude the most important issues from negotiations.


Blame is also beside the point. I did not lay blame on anyone.

I say there is plenty of blame to go around, but that it is not the way foward.


It is you, not me, who is concerned with "blame." I only look at the parties' interests, and how they can effectuate those interests. You on the other hand are wrapped up in adjectives, cant, and rhetoric. Just like Carter. Just like the Palestinians.

Just like the Palestinians? Palestinian opinion is not monolithic, just like Israeli opinion or American opinion or Nigerian opinion is not monolithic. You probably meant to say just like Hamas.


The reality is that Israel should have to give up nothing as a quid pro quo to stop terrorist bombings and rocket attacks of civilians.

True. who said they should?


Only a truly terrorist mentality would use the continuation of such attacks as a quid pro quo for negotations on such issues as settlements/removal of settlements. If you don't agree with that, fine.

I don't agree that 'only a terrorist mentality' etc, that is just another example of the amazing number of absolute statements you make and the generalizations you do, like when you fail to make distinctions between the Palestinians and Hamas, or the Likud and Israel. Distinctions matter.

But I do agree that a reasonable precondtion is that the rocket fire stop, or at least that Hamas pulls the plug on their not so secret support for it. Just as Israel cannot control every overzealous settler in Hebron, the PA cannot stop every terrorist in their midst. But they can do a lot more and if they made that calculation, I believe they could stop most of it, if not all of it.

Then the side with the most rockets, bombs and weapons will win.

and Israel has pretty much won all the wars, at least until last years Lebanon adventure. but in the long run, that kind of strategy will fail.


If there is to be war, I hope Israel wins..

There are always wars. Let's prevent it in the first place, because like Lebanon last year, there is no guarantuee Israel will keep winning.


Evidently, you don't.

and you can kiss my ass.


You claim to be on "both sides" and therefore you hope both Israel and the Arabs can win such a war. That's impossible. That's reality.

BOW, it's when you say stupid stuff like this and put words in my mouth that I find you an offensive person. and in the long run, our hopes about who 'wins' don't mean squat. each policy and/or action that either side enacts will either lead towards peace or towards war. I chose to support the steps that lead to peace, to a reduction and cessation of violence, to the same old two state solution that every President in the last 20 years has supported, including Ronald Reagan and George W Bush, and also, John McCain and his democratic opponents.
===========================


btw, what would you offer as a possible solution that is acceptable to both sides?

The "solution" does not have to be "acceptable" to both sides in the sense of allowing both sides to maintain their current positions without compromise. Any "solution" has to be realistically enforceable, and if possible, self-enforcing. That is the only real requirement of any solution. Not that it is acceptable to both sides (whatever that means); rather, that it can be effectively enforced.

ok, but it is hard to imagine something being self-enforceable if it is not acceptable to both sides. besides that, I agree.


The problem the Israelis have is not "acceptability" of their proposed solutions to the Arabs, it is "enforceability." The Israelis have shown a decided willingness to compromise on almost everything. The problem is that they get nothing enforceable in return. If the other side is acting in good faith, then at least the Israelis could rely on the other side's leaders to enforce its agreements. However the other side has not shown any ability or willingness to enforce its side of any bargain reached with the Israelis.

I partly agree, although again, your tendency towards absolutist statements and a black and white context is off, imo.


You are wrapped up in petty grievances, imagined grievances, settlements, this, that, who's to blame, etc.

ok, fine. next ....


All of that is not where the problem lies. The problem lies in the fact that whatever piece of paper or parchment Israel signs, it is simply that: a piece of paper. Even if Abbas signs an agreement, can he enforce it? No. If next week Hamas is running the entire show, or Hezbollah, or Iran, (assuming they are not actually doing that right now), can they be relied on to live up to their agreements? No.

ah, you raise some non-absolutist good points, finally.

but, I maintain that Iran and their proxies have interests and their own problems. I don't say that peace can be reached with them, only that peace or at least a long term cease fire with them is in Israels interest.


It is a question of culture. It is the difference between the mentality of the middle eastern rug merchant from Casablanca--whose word is worthless--and the diamond dealer from Antwerp, who trades millions of dollars of gems on a handshake, but whose oath is a cement-like bond. These are of course generalizations but hopefully you get the point.

you often generalize and sterotype, but yes, I get your point.


Arabs, and muslims in general, do not view a treaty with infidels as having any binding force. You might not like that idea, but it's absolutely true. And it's been reflected in the behavior of Israel's negotiating "partners."

again you generalize, stereotype, refuse to make proper distinctions, etc. I would never make such a sweeping statement. The Camp David peace treaty has held for 30 years. the Jordanian-Israeli treaty has also held for many years. Last time I looked, these were Arab countries that were predominatly Muslim.

Meanwhile, hilltop youth and other expansionist minded Israelis have violated agreements that Israel signed regarding the roadmap. The Israeli government seems unwilling or unable to stop them. It's like they are a sovreign state within Israel and they want no compromise.

Plenty of guilt to go around. Both sides need to do better in this regard.
==============================


there is no equivalence and I never claimed there was. That doesn't mean that Israel gets off scott free on some of its egregious behavior.

Again, you are focused on blame and the past rather than on solutions for the future. Strange for someone who claims to want peace. You are like the embittered spouse confronted with the reality of a loveless marriage and an impending divorce who wants to blame her husband for all the times he didn't help her do the dishes. That's not going to stop the divorce from happening..

Herr Docktor, is that why I hate my grandmother?


A negotiation should not be about "punishing" one side or the other for its egregious behavior.

correct.


It is not for the purpose of seeking to "punish" the Palestinians that Israel asks for the rocket attacks and bombings to stop.

correct
======================

I am a Jew and I want to see Israel survive and the Palestinians have a homeland. I support the same two state solution that people have been talking about for decades. That means justice for BOTH sides. I feel no inner conflict about that, and sinceyou wont admit you are a Jew, I can tell you this Jew is fine with that issue.

Hamas does not want a two state solution. Hezbollah does not want a two state solution. Iran does not want a two state solution.

correct. I don't care what they want. I only care what can be agreed on.
The hilltop youth also don't want a two state solution. Neither does the Yesha council. lot's of folk don't want it. I don't see another way foward, or rather, the only other way foward is continued warfare. in the long run, I believe that is a dangerous and potentially fatal strategy for Israel.


Therefore, you are not on "both sides" of the issue. Why do you want to blame Israel when it's obvious that the real parties in interest on the arab side want to destroy it?

as I said there is plenty of blame to go around. I don't want to dwell on the past, but then again, when I am debating someone who constantly brings up the failure of the Arab side to live up their agreements that they made in the past that it is useful to see that Israel has had failures in the past as well. Not drawing an equivalence, just pointing out that things are not so black and white.


Again this is simply due to your own internal conflicts. You want to "blame Israel" for whatever it is you think they did wrong to defend their interests.

a tired refrain already. your posts are too long. perhaps if you only made this claim, say 10 times per post, your posts would be more succinct.
========================


and I am committed to the survival of the State of Israel, and I am also not biased against the Palestinian people, our semitic cousins. Believe it or not, it is possible to be that way without an inner conflict.


If you are committed to the survival of the State of Israel, then surely you realize that Hamas and Hezbollah, and perhaps the current government of Iran, must be neutralized and/or destroyed.

perhaps. perhaps not. I wouldn't shed a tear if they disappeared.



Dov

BOW, I spent an hour responding to your post. Can't you make them a bit shorter? why say something in 10 sentences that could be said in 2-3?

as I mentioned, if you only claimed that I was driven by all sorts of internal psychological conflicts perhaps 1-2 times per post, we would still all get the point and the discourse could be less cumbersome ... just sayin ....

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17027 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 12:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Not to ruin the party, just to remind you that no other than
Israel, with the full backing of The US permitted Hamas take
part in the PA elections. In fact it was the US who pushed
this issue, and Israel dragged its feet into 'agreeing'.
(Guess what, it was not Carter who insisted Hamas participate
in these elections.)
Once you allow a party to participate in elections, you have
to accept the results, don' t you think ? especially when one
cannot say that the true nature of Hamas and its charter was
unknown to the Israeli Gov.


That's what we get when democratic elections are held as the end-all and be-all. The same is happening in Iraq. America invades the country to "free" its people, then organizes elections in which the Shiite majority votes to become an ally of Iran. You got what you wished for, Dumbo.

Someone long ago lost sight of some important principles, such as all parties accepting the rule of law and the protection of the minority's rights. Implicit in that, and of key importance, is the separation of church and state (or mosque and state). Without that democracy is a farce.

Is Iran a democracy? They hold free elections you know. Really. Except that they disqualify hundreds of candidates in advance for not adhering closely enough to their religious principles.

Elan

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: elann Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17028 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 1:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Of course they are and will be expected to. The question is what
is their final standing, not their opening points.
Having said that, in order to find out, both parties have to talk.
Direct talk impossible, ok, let Egypt do the mediation.


Wrong. If they are part of the existing government they are obligated to honor its agreements.

Otherwise, after a deal is struck, in which supposedly both sides made concessions, the Palestinians are in effect allowed to renege on the deal while Israel's final compromise position becomes its opening position in the new negotiations.

In practical terms, Israel's concession was to recognize the terrorist Arafat as the representative of the Palestinian people and allow him to establish himself in the Palestinian territories. In exchange he recognized Israel and renounced the use of force. Now you're asking Israel to negotiate all over again for recognition and renunciation of the use of force, in exchange for further Israeli concessions.

In any negotiation, if someone pulled a stunt like that you would tell him to take a hike.

Elan

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Silencer2480 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 17030 of 22686
Subject: Re: Bottom line on Carter/ Hamas negotiations Date: 4/23/2008 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll . Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Except that they disqualify hundreds of candidates in advance for not adhering closely enough to their religious principles.

It's like the old joke about african dictatorships:

One man
One vote
One time

silencer

Print the post Back To Top
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (83) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Advertisement