Jimmy Carter embraces Hamas leader

[bemildred]

RAMALLAH, West Bank – Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter warmly embraced a leading Hamas figure in the West Bank on Tuesday and laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, further antagonizing Israel as he pushed forward with his latest Mideast peace mission.

Israel and the West Bank are the first stops on a visit that also is to include Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan and Syria – where the anti-Israel Hamas movement is headquartered.

Shunned by his Israeli hosts and criticized by the White House for his willingness to meet with Hamas, Carter has called on both to stop isolating the militant group.

"Since Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in a final peace agreement, they have to be involved in discussions that lead to final peace," Carter said Tuesday.

http://www.thestar.com/News/World/article/414644

[rockymountaindem]

1. A wreath at Arafat's grave

I've been trying to remain agnostic about this whole enterprise, but that one act is pukeworthy.

[hisownpetard]

3. I'm with you on this one.

[Submariner]

2. Bush and Israel have no realistic diplomacy skills

so of course they get their panties in a twist when a superior statesman upstages their childish antics.

[leftofcool]

4. Yep I agree but this may hurt us in the election

I love Jimmy Carter but I am not sure this helps

[ProgressiveMuslim]

10. How so? nt

[bemildred]

19. Hey, if he brought peace to the Middle East it would be terrible for Democrats.

How can you not see that?

[bemildred]

5. Jimmy Carter Lays A Wreath at Arafat's Tomb

Jerusalem (CNSNews.com) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter laid a wreath of red roses at the grave of Palestinian Liberation Organization leader Yasser Arafat during a visit to the West Bank City of Ramallah on Tuesday.

"He and Mrs. Carter and his son Jeff wanted to pay their respects to President Arafat," Carter's trip director Rick Jasculca told Cybercast News Service. But the former president didn't make any comments there, he said.

Dubbed the "godfather of terrorism," Arafat was linked to the deaths of two American diplomats in the Sudan in 1973 -- one of many terror acts laid at his feet. (See earlier story)

Twenty years later, Arafat became the first PLO leader to sign a peace agreement with an Israeli Prime Minister -- Yitzhak Rabin -- in 1993. He was considered Israel's peace partner (although many Israelis never believed it) until the beginning of the violent Palestinian uprising in September 2000. Arafat managed the terror war against Israel until his death in 2004.

http://www.crosswalk.com/news/11573353/

[Vegasaurus]

6. Make peace with people who have an expressed wish

to kill you and take back your country.

Sounds like a plan.

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. It is your enemies, not your friends, who you MUST talk to, to make peace.

His previous efforts blunted Arafat's fangs, and Arafat lived by his promise of peace - which resulted in the rise of Hamas, from those who refused peace. In response, those in Israel who also refused peace continued to blame Arafat for what Hamas was doing. The entire PLO/Hamas divide was the result of Carter's peace efforts, and if the Israeli government treated with Arafat and the Palastinian Authority honestly, Hamas would have never gained the power it did.

Now, Carter is trying to do with Hamas as he did with Arafat and the PLO - which at one time ALSO swore undying emnity to the state of Israel. It CAN be done - the proof is in his own success, both with the Camp David accords creating peace between Egypt and Israel, and with the peace agreement with the PLO.

Why do you wish to subvert his attempts for a third success?

[Shaktimaan]

30. huh?

His previous efforts blunted Arafat's fangs, and Arafat lived by his promise of peace - which resulted in the rise of Hamas, from those who refused peace.

Now, Carter is trying to do with Hamas as he did with Arafat and the PLO - which at one time ALSO swore undying emnity to the state of Israel. It CAN be done - the proof is in his own success, both with the Camp David accords creating peace between Egypt and Israel, and with the peace agreement with the PLO.

You seem to think that Carter played a role in the Oslo accords. He didn't. You seem to be mixed up about the relationship between carter, the PLO, Arafat and Hamas.

The PLO/Hamas divide had nothing to do with Carter. Israel was not dishonest with Arafat or the PLO. You're all over the place.

And when the PLO swore undying enmity towards Israel there were no peace talks. Those came AFTER the PLO agreed to recognize Israel's existence. Arafat was nearly irrelevant when Rabin threw him a lifeline back in the 90's. The peace talks had nothing to do with Carter.

[ensho]

7. thank you Jimmy.

wishing you well

[durrrty libby]

8. Jimmy, Jimmy..Jimmy ...Why legitimize Hamas? Bad form

[azurnoir]

16. I do not think Hamas needs Jimmy to

"legitimize" them, they were elected in elections held at the insistence of some president, guess which one.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

9. Finally an American leader with 2 brain cells and a moral spine.

How refreshing! nt

[cali]

12. I admire him so much for this

no, I don't like Hamas, but they represent the Palestinian people and Carter's visiting them and listening can't be anything but beneficial

[Vegasaurus]

13. They represent the Palestinian people?

with a charter that calls for the destruction of another people and nation?

[azurnoir]

14. Both Hanmas and Fatahs charters call for

the same things, this has been "discussed" a number of times, but do keep catapulting

[cali]

15. they were elected by the Palestinians

and I find the Hamas charter despicable. But, talking to them is not endorsing the charter. It's hackneyed but true: one needs to make peace with one's enemies, not with one's friends.

[LeftishBrit]

21. I agree with you...

though my perspective may be different from many people here, because achieving the Northern Ireland 'Good Friday' agreement involved negotiations with some representatives of very nasty (yes, terrorist) organizations on both sides - and it worked in the end. Just because one doesn't talk to a person or a group doesn't make them stop existing.

I am not that optimistic about Jimmy Carter achieving much success here, as he has no direct power and Meshaal was not influenced by Russian negotiators in the past. But if Carter does achieve even limited success, it would be a good thing!

[ProgressiveMuslim]

23. Bottom line is that every step toward normalization is... a step toward normalization! nt

[azurnoir]

17. What is your answer for peace then?

You constantly say that the Palestinians only wish to destroy Israel and the charters of both parties contain that caveat, so what is your answer.

I have asked you this many times and you will not answer, why? I could venture a guess but it would be inflammatory at best

[msmcghee]

18. Just as a bystander on this one . .

. . it seems to me that Vega has stated many many times and in many different ways that the Palestinians must stop trying to kill Israeli Jews . . and that only by doing that is it possible to have peace. I know you didn't miss her numerous statements on that so I'll assume you just don't like her answer for some reason.

[azurnoir]

20. She(?) has stated two things repeatedly

stop the rockets and "land swaps" everything will be OK, but that does not cut it. The first does not address the West Bank and the second is ridiculous, if I remember correctly she also states that several hundred thousand Israeli's I am assuming, correct me if she is talking about Palestinians have lived there for 60 years and cannot be moved.

[Vegasaurus]

28. The Palestinians could have had a prosperous state

with far more land than they will ever get now, had they chosen peace instead of perpetual terrorism and war, throughout the last 100 years.

Now, they are left with several bad choices.

There will not be right of return for four million Palestinans.

There will not be an uprooting of a half a million Israelis, many of whom have lived in the WB for 60 years.

What is the alternative?

Land swaps, yes. You may not like that, but it is a reasonable alternative, since going back to the "'67 lines" will never be done willingly by Israel, and there will be a war first.

Reparations, apologies, yes. Land swaps, yes.

But '67 lines, as they were. No. And right of return no.

Because Israel isn't suicidal.

[azurnoir]

29. The 500,000 figure is marginally true

it is a bit lower more like 475,000 counting E.Jerusalem, however that these 500,000 Israeli's have lived on the West Bank for 60 years is an outright lie. Prior to 1967 the WB was part of Jordan and before that trans-Jordan, with the possible exception of very small area's that could possibly be called WB from the 1949 truce what is commonly known as the West Bank is the area confiscated from Jordan in 1967.

[Dick Dastardly]

36. I will answer it

The Palestinians must capitulate to reality and accept that they will not get the justice they seek or even close to it. Israel holds the winning hand and can continue with the status quo with only relatively minor discomfort compared to Palestinian misery. The Palestinians can either realize this an accept an agreement that is far from what they want but they will be able to move on with their lives, build their lives, families into a prosperous and safe reality or they can continue with the misery and despair of the status quo hoping for the impossible and ending with a worse and worse agreement as time rolls on. They need to stop with the terrorism and rockets if they want Israel to make an agreement otherwise there is no point for Israel to just make an agreement that worsens their security and position

[Vegasaurus]

37. Absolutely right

To continue to applaud the Palestinian resistance, even the "bad resistance" is certainly not doing anything to better the lives of the Palestinians.

The more resistance, particularly the more "bad resistance", the more miserable their lives become.

Their lives are hell compared to what they had ten years ago, or even one year ago.

The more that Hamas refuses to budge, and holds firm, the more they lose.

The more comments like this are made, like this by Mr. Zahar: 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.

the more miserable will become their lives.

At what point will they realize that their own lives are hideously miserable, and the terrorism isn't worth it? Only at that point, is peace possible.

[azurnoir]

39. so the isrealis will not only punish the palestinians

for what they do but also what they say, must be nice to to be the victor, wonder how future generations of israeli's will view this, what a legacy.

[Dick Dastardly]

42. So Israel should be nice to those launching rockets and terror attacks

They should be polite and say "Thank you may I have another" and while were at it is there anything we can do to reward you for rockets and terror, is there anything we can do to make it easier for you to kill us. We want to be moral for once and stop trying to defend ourselves as it is immoral to do so and let you use your valient moraly superior resistance to kill us like the apes and pigs we are.

Do you think that future Palestinians will continue with the suicide bomber trading cards.

[azurnoir]

43. The very fact that apparently

you fail to comprehend and the difference between words and actions, makes answering your post useless.

[Dick Dastardly]

50. No, you missed the point, its not about punishment, its about a ongoing conflict and solving it

The point you also missed is they are using terrorism, suicide bombers and rockets not just words, that is reality, thats what needs to be dealt with. But just for some perspective and a point of reference, before the intifada violence, terror and rockets there were no roadblocks, Palestinians moved freely in and out of Israel, many were employed and had jobs in Israel, infrastructre/ general services/health services and institutions/ educational institutions were all vastly improved and improving,crime was not rampant, while there was some terror it was nothing like since the intfada started and neither was the defensive measures by Israel against the Palestinians, profitable trade between Israel and the territories was growing fast including business ties, general prosperity rose and was on the rise as was the whole Palestinian economy.
As I said the terror and violence was much less than today but the verbal provocations were just as bad and maybe worse in some cases but even so the Palestinians were not in the misrable quality of life situation they are in now but in fact it improving fast in just about all aspects. This should answer your question of if it was just verbal

Moving on to another point. So even though their quality of life was improving they were under an occupation but there was traction for a settlement because a peace with Jordan which was a prerequisite and at least a minimal level of trust which was growing due to trade, business and employment interaction. Trust is the key to settleling any conflict as well as help dictate the shape of it. Israel is the more powerful of the 2 by far so ultimately its their decision to as far they are willing to go or decide the status quo is better. They are going to decide this based on the security risk above all and economic. Regardless whether you pro Israel or Pro Palestinian and or who is at fault and or deserves justice, the reality of this conflict is justice and other issues ranks well below the security and welfare of Israel because that is the concern of Israel and they are the more powerful. This is not just Israel but any state in their right mind is going to look after its citizens security and welfare before another countries they are in a conflict in and will minimize risks. This is where trust comes in to play because the more trust the dominant country( Israel)has in the weeker the more they will be willing to accept greater levels of risk in a settlement and pushing the status quo's desireabilty farther away as an acceptable option because the trust lowers the risk levels of giving into Palestinian demands. The Palestinians have thrown away any trust the Israelis had with the rocket, terror and suicide attacks against it so anything that makes Israel less secure in moving from the status quo to a sttlement is not going to be as good for the Palestinians as if they didnt launch this intifada and will require more security guarantees in various forms. Unless Israels security concerns are addressed they can hold out at the status quo better then the Palestinians can and as time goes on the deal the Palestinians et will be worse. Whether fair or not that is reality and the reality of any conflict and negotiation. I dod a lot of negotiation in my job so I know how it works very well.

[azurnoir]

38. Israel will not allow one inch more than the "status quo"

that exists at present. This has become obvious since the so called "Peace Summit".

[Dick Dastardly]

41. I never said they wont allow one inch more than the status quo but

as long as missiles and terror attacks continue why should they do something that degrades their position and security. Not only that it will reward the terror and rocket attacks so they will continue at a greater level because they will have been shown to work.

[azurnoir]

44. The current status quo does not allow for either

prosperity or safety for Palestinians. There conditions will only continue to worsen, perhaps at a slower pace, but the end result will be the same.

[Dick Dastardly]

45. That is the point and the nature of armed conflict

Until they stop the terror and rocket attacks the status quo will not change. It is up to the Palestinians
As long as missiles and terror attacks continue why should Israel do something that degrades their position and security. Not only that it will reward the terror and rocket attacks so they will continue at a greater level because they will have been shown to work. No country in their right mind would do it

[azurnoir]

47. Israel was degrading Palestinian prosperity and security

long before missile attacks.

[Vegasaurus]

48. There has been a constant effort to attack Israel and Jews

that has been ongoing for 100 years.

If Israel relaxes the security, the Palestinians take advantage of this to try to kill Israelis. It has happened every single time there is the slightest lull.

The checkpoints, wall etc. are in response to ongoing daily terror and militants' efforts to kill Israelis. It is their national goal.

Without the terrorism, there would be no wall, no checkpoints.

Even now, they are trying to blow up their own aid and fuel trucks.

The same way you don't reward a child for bad behavior, you don't reward terrorists for bad behavior either. They are making terrible choices, and their people are suffering as a result.

But it is not in Israel's interest to make the Palestinians' lives comfortable so that they have to live in constant fear of having their buses or cafes blown up.

If the Palestinians want more comfort and security, they will have to stop their ongoing terror.

[azurnoir]

49. A lot of things are not in Israel's interest apparently n/t

[Dick Dastardly]

51. Actually it wasnt

Before the intifada the Palestinian economy was growing nicely. That changed with all the terror, suicide and rocket attacks.

see post 50 too

[shaayecanaan]

52. The Likud charter calls for the complete annexation of the West Bank and Gaza

which essentially amounts to the destruction of Palestine. Pick your poison.

[ProgressiveMuslim]

22. Perhaps the rule should be, that only senior statespeople, who have proven their

courage and wisdom, with no constituencies (real or imagined)to satisfy, should be able to work on this conflict!

[msmcghee]

24. The first rule of negotiation is . .

. . never waste your time or your reputation talking with anyone other than the person who has the final authority to make a decision over what it is you are negotiating.

[azurnoir]

25. In your opinion which leaders would that be

in the I/P conflict?

[msmcghee]

27. I have no opinion on that.

I'm not involved in the negotiations.

[Vegasaurus]

26. Of course

that's why I said Carter was ineffectual. Nothing he says or does makes a difference in the long run, since he has no authority to make any real decisions.

[oberliner]

31. Do you support his meeting with Avigdor Lieberman?

Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman met with former US president, Jimmy Carter, to discuss state policies regarding negotiations with the Palestinians.

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3532454,00.html

[LeftishBrit]

46. Yes.

I approve of his meeting people from as many sides of the issue as possible. Meeting someone doesn't mean endorsing them, or seriously considering abolishing Israel as a Jewish homeland (Hamas) or kiicking the Arabs out of Israel (Lieberman).

It needs to be remembered that Carter is *not* going as a formal representative of the United States, but as a private citizen and 'elder statesman'. I get the impression that this is being ignored by both sides: Carter's opponents act as though by going there, he is committing America to some sort of formal endorsement of Hamas; and some of his supporters have an exaggerated view of what he's really likely to be able to achieve as someone without direct power. I doubt that he can, on his own, do much to broker a comprehensive peace agreement; but he might be able to achieve more limited but still important goals: if he can even secure the release of the soldiers, that would be a very good thing.

[bemildred]

32. Sources: Hamas sends reps to meet with Carter

---

Carter's delegation said no meeting has been confirmed, but talks with Hamas officials are "currently under discussion."

The Hamas sources said Mahmoud Zahar and Saeed Seyam left Gaza early Wednesday for Cairo to meet with Carter, who is currently in Israel and will be leaving for Egypt later in the day.

The 83-year-old former president said he has been denied permission to go into Gaza, although he added, "I would like to."

---

"It's very important that at least someone meet with Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibilities they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel, and to cooperate with Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians -- maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire," he said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/carter.hamas/

[bemildred]

33. Lieberman to Carter: Meeting Meshal will only heighten terror

Yisrael Beiteinu Chairman Avigdor Lieberman on Wednesday urged former U.S. president Jimmy Carter to cancel his plans to meet with Hamas' exiled leader Khaled Meshal, saying such talks would only heighten terror.

During their talks Wednesday, Lieberman presented Carter with his program for territorial exchange, which calls for the transfer of land and their local populations as the optimal solution for peace.

According to an associate of Lieberman, Carter seemed interested by the idea of realigning borders according to population. In response to Carter's question concerning the fate of Arabs not living by the border, Lieberman said: "Whoever declares their faith in the state can remain here and those that do not cannot." Carter said that he was pleased to have had the opportunity to meet with Lieberman, adding that he had come to the region to hear all sides of the conflict. No further details were released on the meeting.

Aside from Lieberman, President Shimon Peres and Shas leader Eli Yishai are the only senior Israeli leaders to have met with Carter. Other Israeli officials have shunned the former U.S. president over his contacts with the Islamist group.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975577.html

[msmcghee]

34. This was fast . .

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1742.htm

[Zomby Woof]

35. Good on Jimmy!

He has always charted his own path when it comes to doing what is right, for peace and human rights.

The main reason he was a one term president was not, as per conventional wisdom, because of the hostage crisis or the economy in and of themselves. Rather, it was his single-minded pursuit of principle over political expediency. Those virtues are practically flaws in the presidency (as similarly independent-minded presidents such as John Adams and John Quincy Adams found out). Carter always said it was the congressional Democrats to his left that stymied his efforts even more at times than most of the Republicans (bear in mind there were still a few Rockefeller moderates in that party back then, who met Carter in the middle, with the Scoop Jackson wing of the Democrats meeting from his right).

Like J. Q. Adams, Carter's post-presidential arc has been more fruitful and accomplished in its reach - with the predictable slings and arrows coming from like quarters.

[subsuelo]

40. Interesting to note what the right-wing racists are saying...

free republic

Way to go Jimmah. Hug a terrorist and make a fool out of yourself. Best you get back to the peanut farm and stay there permanently, and stay away from dude-ranch diplomacy.

Jimmah Cahtah - FATHER OF MODERN DAY TERRORISM

Jimmah misses his butt buddy Arafat.

Carter is like a case of herpes, he just won’t go away, keeps on coming back, over and over and over again.
We need political Valtrex for that pus filled blister.

Jimmah, the Liberal Traitor, will be praising Adolf Hitler next.

Jimmy Carter “IS A LEADING HAMAS OFFICIAL”.

ok so the liberals are now LITERALLY hugging terrorists..

We have a winner. Democrat Party is the correct answer to what is a terrorist. Johnny, tell him what he has won.

Deny his re-entry to the US. He is now an associate of known terrorists.