Obama criticizes Carter on Hamas meeting

[ben_meyers]

Source: StarTribune.com

Obama criticizes Carter on Hamas meeting, tries to reassure Jewish leaders
By BETH FOUHY , Associated Press

Last update: April 16, 2008 - 12:36 PM

PHILADELPHIA - Sen. Barack Obama on Wednesday criticized former President Jimmy Carter for meeting with leaders of the Islamic terrorist group Hamas as he tried to reassure Jewish voters that his candidacy isn't a threat to them or U.S. support for Israel.

The Democratic presidential candidate's comments, made to a group of Jewish leaders here, were his first on Carter's controversial meeting scheduled this week in Egypt.

Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain called on Obama to repudiate Carter in a speech to The Associated Press Monday.

Obama told the Jewish group he had a "fundamental disagreement" with Carter, who was rebuffed by Israeli leaders during a peace mission to the Middle East this week.

"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction," Obama said.



Read more: http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/17812719.html

---

I really think Pres. Carter stepped off the pier on this one.

[my3boyz]

1. Hope Carter understands why Obama had to do that.

I think he planned to vote for Obama. I hope that is still the case.

[LisaM]

17. Why does Obama HAVE to do anything?

I thought he was so honest and above board. Which was why it was okay to call small town Americans bitter, because it was just so damned honest.

[Political Heretic]

44. No one. NO. ONE. Can ever get elected without doing that.

Don't like it? That's fine, but you're not going to change that instantly. You have to play the game in order to ultimately change the game.

[tidy_bowl]

52. Have to play the game????

But, but I thought Barack was above 'the game playing' or am I mistaken? I guess you have to be the same ole politician.....same ole...same ole.

[muryan]

18. Im ok with this

I dont think Hamas should be in a way that raises their status in the world. Work toward a peace process involving them, sure. But sending an ex president or current president is a bit too much.

[RubyDuby in GA]

21. Nobody sent him. He's going of his own accord because no one else will

After people getting their knickers in a twist every time he tries to reach out and actively work for peace, I don't know why he doesn't tell everyone to just go fuck off and let the two sides continue to blow each other to bits.

All of our other former presidents appear to be too busy raking in the speaking fees to bother with things like world peace...

[Behind the Aegis]

22. More "twisted knickers"

Islamic Jihad slams Carter's statements on rockets attacks

GAZA, April 15 (Xinhua) -- The Islamic Jihad (Holy War) movement in Gaza has slammed on Tuesday the statements of former U.S. president Jimmy Carter, after he termed the rockets attacks on Israel as "a big crime."

Carter, who is visiting in the region, paid a visit to the southern Israeli town of Sderout, which has been a subject for homemade rockets' attacks carried out by Gaza militants. Carter said rockets "are a crime against humanity."

Dawood Shihab, spokesman for the Islamic Jihad movement in Gaza, said in response that "Carter's statement of describing resistance as a crime against humanity is in itself an overthrow on the morals of humanity."

more...

[RubyDuby in GA]

23. He's dealing with overgrown children on both sides that happen to have deadly weapons

I wish someone in that entire region was actually interested in bringing peace to the people there instead of just getting their licks in and then blaming the other side.

[muryan]

30. its not so easy to quell violence

between people that have been fighting off and on for a very very long time.

[lark]

55. Both sides are mad at him

Considering the sources, I'd say that probably means he'd doing the right thing. Everyone's talking about "saint" Obama, but this proves he's just another politician, saying anything to get elected, just like the rest of them. Jimmy Carter, now there's a man of integrity.

[Purveyor]

20. Of course he does. Carter was required to 'play that fiddle' back in his days also. eom

[BobbyVan]

62. WPost Editorial: Mr. Zahar and Mr. Carter

Mr. Zahar and Mr. Carter
The former president, on what he says is a road to peace, embraces Hamas terrorists.

Thursday, April 17, 2008; A22

ON THE OPPOSITE page today we publish an article by the "foreign minister" of Hamas, Mahmoud al-Zahar, that drips with hatred for Israel, and with praise for former president Jimmy Carter. We believe Mr. Zahar's words are worth publishing because they provide some clarity about the group he helps to lead, a group that Mr. Carter contends is worthy of being included in the Middle East peace process. Mr. Carter himself is holding what appears to be a series of meetings with Hamas leaders during a tour of the Middle East. He met one militant in the West Bank town of Ramallah on Tuesday and was reportedly planning to meet Mr. Zahar in Cairo today before traveling to Damascus for an appointment with Khaled Meshal, Hamas's top leader.

Mr. Zahar lauds Mr. Carter for the "welcome tonic" of saying that no peace process can succeed "unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions." Yet Mr. Zahar has his own preconditions: Before any peace process can "take even its first tiny step," he says, Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders and evacuate Jerusalem while preparing for the "return of millions of refugees." In fact, as Mr. Zahar makes clear, Hamas is not at all interested in a negotiated peace with the Jewish state, whose existence it refuses to accept: "Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun," he concludes.

In that fight, no act of terrorism is out of bounds for the Hamas leader, who endorses the group's recent ambush of Israeli civilians working at a fuel depot that supplies Gaza. The "total war" of which he speaks was initiated and has been sustained by Hamas itself through its deliberate targeting of civilians, such as the residents of the Israeli town of Sderot, who suffer daily rocket attacks.

These facts would hardly need restating were it not for actors such as Mr. Carter, who portray Hamas as rational and reasonable. Hamas is "perfectly willing" for Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas "to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis, and they also maintain that they will accept any agreement that he brokers with the Israelis" provided a referendum is held on it, the former president told the newspaper Haaretz. Compare that claim with Mr. Zahar's own words on the opposite page. In fact, Mr. Zahar has called Mr. Abbas "a traitor" for negotiating with Israel -- a label that is, in the Palestinian context, an incitement to murder.

Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies. But he misses the point. Contacts between enemies can be useful: Israel is legendary for such negotiations, and even now it is engaged in back-channel bargaining with Hamas through Egypt. But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state. That is what Mr. Carter is doing by lending what is left of his prestige to an avowed terrorist such as Khaled Meshal -- or Mahmoud al-Zahar.

[Chovexani]

2. Funny considering his pastor is a Hamas sympathizer

And went with Farrakhan to meet Khadafyi in the 80s. The selective outrage is hilarious.

[Freddie Stubbs]

4. He has already been clear that he does not support everything his crackpot pastor says

[darue]

33. NOT a crackpot! he went with a delegation and got hostages freed. he's a damn HERO

don't you even know the story? too busy regurgitating right-wing talking points too pay attention?

what's more,m TALKING with people isn't a problem and is something we need to do a hell of a lot more of. it's how you get them to change positions and make peace.

[lark]

8. You nailed it

this is part of my concern about Obama, I just don't trust him and statements like this made him look like just another toadying pol, nothing different at all. I want Gore!!!!

[Better Believe It]

38. What About Leiberman?

Are you willing to take Leiberman with Gore?

Bet you did in 2000!

LOL

God that was a horrible ticket in 2000. Why Leiberman?

[lark]

57. You make an excellent point

I always thought Gore made a big mistake picking Joe, and time has proven that it was even worse than I thought at the time. I think Al would have sidelined Joe and would have been a great president for 8 years and the country would be way, way more respected, wouldn't be in Iraq, and we'd be better off financially too. The constitution would still be in effect, we wouldn't have Alito or Roberts, but two progressive judges, and so much would be different and better than what's happening now.

[Better Believe It]

63. So It Wasn't All Nader's Fault!

LOL

Damn .... and I thought we had a pretty good scapegoat!

[movonne]

9. I don't think it is nice to tear down our future president.....

[Inuca]

10. Not funny, not selective

1. his pastor doe snot equal Obama
2. Khadafi is a head of state

[seriousstan]

47. Obama wasn't in church that Sunday...until he says in a later speech that he was.

[no_hypocrisy]

3. There goes that endorsement.

[Inuca]

12. I doubt it n/t

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

46. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Codedonkey]

48. Is it Friday already?

[High Plains]

6. What country is he running for president of?

[Freddie Stubbs]

11. The United States of America

[Codedonkey]

49. Isn't that just some rag tag group of British colonials who don't wanna pay their fair share of taxe

[Freddie Stubbs]

54. Not anymore

[sinkingfeeling]

7. Wow, and just when I thought I'd might actually be able to support Obama.

[RubyDuby in GA]

13. Would he have criticized Carter were he not in front of a group of Jewish voters?

I'm really getting tired of candidates having to tread lightly with each separate special interest group.
Say what you really think and not what John McCain wants to hear you say - "Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting John McCain called on Obama to repudiate Carter in a speech to The Associated Press Monday."

Shit like this pisses me off. I hope Carter tells them both to kiss his...um... Nobel Peace Prize.

[bow-tie]

26. Everyone has to

walk on eggs in front of jewish audience don't they? Or else "Anti-Semite" is screamed from the rooftops. In the words of Cheney--"So"?

[Taxmyth]

15. Think maybe his weakness with Jewish American voters has anything to do with it?

Need those votes to get elected

[darue]

34. 2% or LESS of the electorate. not all Jews oppose speaking to Hamas even

the entire 'we won't talk to you' strategy is complete and utter bullshit and is what needs to be repudiated roundly by all thinking people. TALK or more people DIE, it's that simple.

[pacalo]

16. The only way to work out disagreements is to meet & discuss with each side.

"I'll sit down & talk to you only if you admit you are wrong" has this country brainwashed. I'm for the Carter method, not the Bush-way-or-the-highway.

[Inuca]

19. Hamas is not a "side"

Abbas and his people are.

[pacalo]

29. Quibbling about words doesn't change the basic ideological concept here.

If you want to quibble the wording of each post, start with one of your own: "1. his pastor doe snot equal Obama."

What the hell does that mean?

[Stand and Fight]

39. Damn... Good smack-down. n/t

[pacalo]

42. Hahaaaa! I could have used your signature picture when I posted that.

The smack-down queen of this thread is RubyDubyinGA: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3271017&mesg_id=3271059

[darue]

35. Hamas has made itself a side and must be talked to if anything is to be accomplished

how can EVERYONE not see that?

[Lorien]

50. I'm with you there. The Carter method used to be known as the

Democratic, thinking person's method-back before appeasing the "my-way-or-the-highway" cowboy right wing was so in Vogue.

First rule "Know your enemies". No good can come from refusing to talk to the other side, and some problems might actually be solved without bloodshed if we DO talk to one another. But for some people, bloodshed is profitable, so cowboy politics help to bring that about.

[lark]

58. When killing is the answer

Peace is generally not the question or even the goal.

[bemildred]

24. So Jimmy is giving Obama cover on the left, AND pushing for peace. nt

[TankLV]

25. gee - where are all the obamabots now when carter was praising obama?

it's not NICE to diss the "annointed one"...

and when the "annointed one" speaks, now matter how convoluted and inconsistant it is, we must all nod thankfully...

hahahahahahahahaha...

[ckramer]

27. When Obama said

"We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction,"

He becomes Hillary.

Hamas is a democratic elected government of Palestine.

If a democractic government wants to destroy something, that's the will of its people.

Obama hates democracy.

[CaptJasHook]

28. It's not as simple as that and you know it.

[FlyingSquirrel]

32. I don't suppose you followed the link

Next part of Obama quote:

"We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements."

Should the fact that a group is democratically elected mean that we have to talk to them? Should the fact that they AREN'T democratically elected mean that we do NOT talk to them? Is that our sole consideration?

[FlyingSquirrel]

31. Not surprising.

Of course Hillary would be forced to do the same. Am I wrong or did Hamas not win some democratic elections though? Well it doesn't matter. Obama said what he had to say. If Carter withholds his endorsement because of it, that's just the way it goes.

[pokercat999]

36. Yeah right, no sense in talking to them. We wouldn't

listen to anything they have to say anyway so why bother. They're Arab terrests and just talking to them could give you cooties or something. There's just no damn possibility that they have suffered any injustices......certainly not like the Jews.

We're just so goddamn superior......not.:sarcasm:

[HuffleClaw]

37. *cough cough* cheap pandering *cough cough* n/t

[daleo]

40. The more things change... n/t

[Wind Dancer]

41. Exactly...... sigh............ n/t

[spoony]

43. Disappointing, but politically understandable.

Many Americans do not like the idea of talking to an enemy, or even a perceived enemy. Obama said what he had to, I suppose, but Carter is a brave and good man and here's to hoping Obama winds up more like him than not.

[lark]

60. Totally different people

Carter is willing to out up with world comdenation and does the right thing. Obama, afraid of the inconvenient truth, lies for political gain. Obama isn't worthy to be compared to Carter. One is an honest caring man, the other a pretender. Of course, his kind of courage is extremely rare, so one couldn't expect that of anyone else in politics - including Obama. It's just sad to see him stoop so low so fast. What else is he willing to compromise for expediency's sake??

:shrug:

[jasmine621]

45. Will there ever be a candidate who will stand up to the Israeli lobby?

Not in our lifetime, i suspect. Obama was fast to say that as President he would talk to our enemies and he ridiculed Clinton for taking another position. He said he would talk to Iran...last time I heard we were calling Iran either a terrorist nation or a nation that supported terrorism. But when it come to the Palestinain-Israeli issue, somehow Obama changes his tune. AS many charge against HRC, I call that "pandering." "Flip-flop" "Being for it before you are against it." "Hypocritical" or just plain "lying." But he will get a pass on this from the media and the pundits and the AIPAC backers who are pushing Obama.

[Freddie Stubbs]

56. Sure, just not one who will get elected

[Zhade]

51. Oh, Barack. Talking is not negotiating or support.

Not surprising, but disappointing.

[acmavm]

53. Oh for whomever's sake, did anyone really expect any better

from the guy? He's for or on whatever side is politically expedient at any given time.

.

[Freddie Stubbs]

59. You mean he is trying to represent what the voters want?

What a refreshing idea.

[RussBLib]

61. I thought Obama was willing to meet with anyone w/o preconditions

Even terrorists. I seem to recall a certain dust-up between Obama and Clinton about meeting with anyone, even terrorists, without any preconditions.

Maybe that only applies to Obama himself?

[Art_from_Ark]

64. So a political neophyte who just fell off the turnip truck

and landed in the cabbage patch, is criticizing one of America's most respected statesmen, humanitarian and Nobel Peace Prize laureate?

My money's with Carter.

[Peace Patriot]

65. Not all the rockets that Hamas-Hezbollah have sent into Israel, nor all the

suicide bombers they may have sent, nor all the fighting and killing they've done in any context, comes anywhere close to the slaughter of innocents committed by George Bush and Dick Cheney in Iraq alone. 1.2 MILLION innocent people killed. Millions more wounded, sick, evicted from their homes, refugees, jailed unfairly, tortured, without water, without electricity, without medical care, their country in ruins--and all completely unnecessary and undeserved.

Who are the terrorists?

I don't support violence of any kind, but on a honest scale of violence and mayhem, Hamas/Hezbollah are a MINOR problem, solvable by peace negotiations; whereas, the Bush Junta is an enormous problem, for us and for the world--and that includes Israel, whose rightwing, war profiteering leaders have made the dire mistake of allying Israel with the hated Bush regime.

And I wish that U.S. politicians could speak honestly about the horror the U.S. has inflicted on others, and about the Middle East. But that is no more possible than their speaking honestly about Diebold and brethren. Some subjects are taboo. Maybe that can change. Sure it can. Anything can be changed. But it's going to take long hard work and courage--something Jimmy Carter is well-known for. To expect it of a presidential candidate, in the current corporate/fascist news monopoly climate is too much. It ain't gonna happen. It can't happen.

So all we can do is guess at what presidential candidates might actually do, as to policy in the Middle East--or, if we don't even have enough information for that, to judge their character. Would they be likely to try a fresh new approach? Are they wise and thoughtful? How cozy are they with the arms industry? Are they capable of change? And, of course, what was their position on Iraq?

Obama wins, hands down, on the last question, obviously--he is the only one who even comes close to the position of 70% of the American people (which is "get out now"--Obama at least objected, publicly, from the beginning, even if he did vote for some funding), and, on the surface, he would seem to be the one mostly likely to try a fresh new approach. But, on the other hand, he may not be able to acquire the clout, in office, to handle the enormous pressures of the various BIG MONEY lobbies in involved. Perhaps Hillary Clinton could do more--just because she's more in with the warmongering crowd. McBush--hopeless, on all scores.

This is the kind of analysis we must do, as voters and citizens, in this, one of the most censored of nations on some very important topics (corporate rule, corporate-run "trade secret" vote counting, Israel, Cheney arms dealings, government complicity on 9/11, Bush Cartel drug trafficking in South America and Afghanistan, Congress critters' salaries and benefits... ) (--lots of important topics, actually).

[fujiyama]

66. Does anyone think a sitting US president would sit and TALK to the head of a terrorist group?

Frankly, I'm not sure what Carter hopes to accomplish here. I don't think he's antisemitic and I think he's sincere in his desire for peace but Hamas is unlikely to change its mind. And Obama would be stupid as hell to support Carter in this instance...unless you want President McCain.

Oh and btw, there it goes without saying that Hillary would also oppose this.