Carter: Mideast Peace Still Possible (but only without Arafat)

[papau]

http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-mideast-carter.html

September 17, 2003
Carter: Mideast Peace Still Possible

By REUTERS Filed at 5:46 p.m. ET WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Former President Jimmy Carter, a key figure in the 1978 Camp David accords, said on Wednesday peace could be achieved in the Middle East but Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat could not be part of the negotiations. Given the way President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon had rejected him as a partner in peace efforts, "the time is past for Arafat to become involved in negotiations," said Carter, winner of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize.
He spoke at a conference commemorating the 25th anniversary of the Camp David Accords between Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat that Carter brokered.<snip>

He said there were two basic issues -- acknowledgment of Israel's right to exist in peace with its neighbors (as a Jewish state)and full autonomy for Palestinians. "I don't see them as impossible to resolve," he said.

[Evil_Dewers]

1. This just in...

Indicted peace criminal James Carter sanctions Israel's right to murder Yasser Arafat.

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

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

[papau]

3. I also saw the ""full automony"? -testing a new twist to US point of view?

I do not like this word play. Jerking folks around will not fly.

[tinnypriv]

4. Exactly

Just like the US should tell the PA that they can either have peace with a Jewish State of Israel or constant war with a Jewish state of Israel.

One constant: Jewish.

In return for accepting that, they get 95% of the West Bank, segments of East Jerusalem, control over the water resources etc. That has to be seriously offered and backed up with facts changing on the ground (which has never been done).

There is no point being "subtle" and sidestepping that a Jewish State is not a red line Israel will not allow to be crossed IMO.

Of course, the Palestinians have no power and don't get to define *their* red lines, which get crossed every day. That is why the NYtimes can print as much racist "autonomy" crap they like.

[Jackie97]

5. I'm disappointed in Carter.

I understand that Arafat is not an easy partner to try to make peace with, but neither is Ariel Sharon. It looks like Arafat started the infidata and has had a history of saying "No" to certain "peaceplans". Likewise, Sharon took peace negotiations off of the table as soon as he came in, and had a lot more settlements built while in office. Sharon is known for being more violent towards the Palestinians. It seems to me that if Arafat should go, then so should Sharon.

In any case though, the Palestinian and Israeli people voted these two men in. How can anybody talk about democracy for these two nations with a straight face, while talking about plans to deny the people of one nation the right to keep the leaders that they voted for?

I say either charge Arafat for crimes (if there's any proof of them) or leave him in his spot.

[Alex88]

6. Were Carter's Camp David Accords the right solution?

There were a minimal number of settlements on the West Bank when the Camp David Accords were signed in 1978. The annual billions of dollars in foreign aid garanteed to Israel(and Egypt) by the US in order to get them and Egypt to sign the Camp David Accords are what have enabled Israel to build the vast and entrenched settlement network on the West Bank since then. This annual aid has also secured Egypt's military dictatorship.

[tinnypriv]

9. You're right in a sense

The Camp David accords can be summed up as "Egypt First", "WB Occupation Second".

The basic aim was to remove the only Arab deterrent to Israeli policies. Once Egypt was turned into a US client, Israel entrenched itself in the WB and attacked Lebanon.

The US didn't have to promise foreign aid in order to "get them to sign" the accords though, since that came after. Egypt had already wanted a peace treaty since 1971 and Israel had wanted a peace treaty roughly since 1973 (when they realised Egypt could actually fight).

Carter bears a heavy responsibility for the problems currently facing both Israelis and Palestinians IMO. But to be fair, he was only picking up Kissingers trash.

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Is it Carter or Reagan that has Alzheimers?

Because someone in control of their faculties would also be noticing that Bush and Sharon in the same sentence as the word 'peace efforts' is a total joke. Peace in the Middle East isn't obtainable with either Sharon or Arafat at the helm, and the sooner old farts like Carter get their minds around that the more seriously they'll be taken...


Violet...

[Jackie97]

8. Carter normally has some sense.

I don't know what's gotten into the man.

[Jim Sagle]

10. The old bucktoothed bozo finally snapped out of his stupor.