The Jerusalem Post reports:
The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”
Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas…
Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an “effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples.”
Great - the Idiot-in-Chief has spoken. Remember, this is the same man who accuses Israel of being an Apartheid state. I find it amazing that Carter continues to defend the terrorists of Hamas. Well, on second thought, I do not actually: Carter speaks for the left-wing of the Democratic Party - the Wing that considers Palestinians to be victims and Hamas to be heroes / freedom fighters. The Wing that has no problem with comparing Israel to Nazi Germany and Gaza to Auschwitz.
Carter, as usual, believes that the Palestinians should be treated as children; they do not have to take responsibility for anything. They are victims. They do not have a say in what is happening to them - it is all Israel’s and America’s fault, according to Carter and his ilk.
I wish newspapers would stop quoting Carter. He has become completely irrelevant.
More about the situation in Gaza at On Faith.
When you said “Idiot in Chief” I thought you were talking about Bush. But that’s just here on the left wing of the Democratic party.
I don’t know what’s the matter with Carter these days. It used to be saidhe was “A good guy, but a bad president”. Now he’s just nutty. Senility?
As a postscript, I’d like to point out that the Democratic party’s left wing covers a lot of territory, the Democrats being a liberal party and all. I think you’re thinking of the extreme
Well, unfortunatly, it seem that you are being the idiot here.
Like it or not, Carter is right. We preach democracy - we hold ourselves out to be champions of bringing democracy to the Middle East, then when the people vote democratically we refuse to deal with the government that they elect, and do everything to undermine it, and to set the stage for internal divisions that play out violently.
In other words, our hypocrisy here fatally undermines whatever credibility we had about democracy, in the eyes of the world.
Hamas has a large following. We obviously dont like that fact, but we need to deal with it. The way to do so is to do everything that we can to lead them away from violence and towards responsible behavior. This process of taking barabarians with grievances, who succeed in winning popular support, and leading them down the road to becoming responsible governments, is a major task of global leadership - and getting good at that process is the only hope that we have of managing these types of confilcts in other places.
But instead of doing that, we follow a policy that confirms, in the mind of many of these people, that violence is the only solution. They try to submit themselves to elections and allow their fate to be determined by their people, and we reject the results. How incredibly stupid a policy that is?
And what of the flip side of this? We are now pouring resources into supporting Fatah - a loose conglomeration of factions that include the people who are actually committing more of the violence against Israel than is Hamas!
You clearly are not trying to be serious here, with all your nonsense rhetoric. Gaza is not Auschwitz, and that is not the position of Jimmy Carter or anyone on the left. The Palestinians are most certainly the victims of a generation-long policy of the Israelis to illegally colonize the West Bank. Of that there is no question.
And over 40 years of occupation, the Israelis have done nothing to treat the Palestinians in a manner that one would treat citizens. So the Israelis are trying to have it both ways. They treat the Palestinians as an occupied population, but they treat Palestinian land as something that is their’s for the taking. The result is 40 years of political control of a population treated as second-class people.
The cycle of stupidity in our policies here seems relentless. We consistently, unquestioningly support the Israels as they go about stealing more and more land, and trying to repress and undermine any sort of governance that emerges from the Palestinians. And so that governance never evolves into a responsible one, and is consistenly shown that only violence can be an answer. The exact opposite message that we should be sending them.
It seems clear to me that you have no real interest in finding a way to solve this problem, but rather just get off on mocking and ridiculing the very people who are dealing seriously with the issue. Bad show.
Thank god for you, Tano. I’ve been thinking that everyone here (here meaning in the blogosphere) has gone crazy. Thank you for saying what I’ve been thinking. It’s good to see it down there in black and white written by someone other than me.
Can’t say as I agree with your assessment Kathy. When I was reading what Tano wrote it struck me that I was reading the Liberal version of what Limbaugh would say.
Good post, Tano. I don’t agree with everything you wrote 100%, but you put those positions forward extremely well and you made a lot of persuasive points.
Far more reasonable and moderate than dismissing the other side as a bunch of idiots and completely misrepresenting their views.
On cue, Jimmy Carter steps forward and demonstrates again that there is no fool like an old fool [h/t: Ben Franklin].
Let’s see where this serial idiot got it wrong this time. The US should not favor Fatah over Hamas because….”[it would be an] effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples.”?
Fatah has renounced violence and has recognized the possibility of recognizing Israel. Abu Mazen has met with the Israeli PM in an effort to achieve a peaceful solution down the road.
Hamas has espoused terrorism, kidnaps Israeli soldiers and launches missiles into Israel while attempting terrorist attacks on Israel. Its leadership refuses to consider any diplomatic measures toward Israel. I could go on…..
But it already sounds like the Palestinians are two peoples.
So the US should treat Fatah and Hamas the same?
How long ago did this terminal retardo Carter lose the last of his marbles? And why doesn’t he just shut up and stop proving Ben Franklin’s old adage again and again and again……
Jimmy Carter and Hamas, sitting in a tree, K-I-S-S-I-N-G
[...] the only one who finds it interesting nobody else is blaming the Palestinians for their troubles. Michael van der Galiën’s chimed in as well: Carter, as usual, believes that the Palestinians should be treated as [...]
There was nothing even almost convincing about Tano’s post, except for those who already blame Israel for just about everything.
The Soviets were far worse than the Palestinians, in many way. The Taliban were far worse than the Palestinians. Iraq was far worse than the Palestinians. China was far worse than the Palestinians.
We negotiated with all of them.
Not negotiating with Hamas, merely trying to marginalize them, has failed to produce any useful results.
I have no sympathy for Hamas, and if I could press a button to eliminate them instantly, I would. But no one can do that. Their millions of supporters cannot be ignored — they are a majority of the Palestinian people. Besides genocide, how do we deal with them?
I agree with Tano, on his basic premise that we promote democracy, but only when it produces the desired results, which in turn hurts our credibility. But the US is also in an impossible situation- we have to defend our ally, Israel, and at the same time act like we are promoting democracy in countries where extremists are becoming much more popular. It appears that it is really not in our national interest to push fair elections, when we are not prepared to deal with the likely victors. Therefore the entire policy is really an example of the worst possible American hypocrisy. We did the same thing after the much-touted elections in Iraq.
I also thought that when you titled your post “idiot in chief” you meant Chimpy, Michael, because Bush has done much more harm in the ME than Carter and his comments ever could have. Every time Carter speaks up for the Palestinians he’s labelled an antisemite- but if you view his life’s work as a whole, it becomes clear that this is unfair to him.
It doesnt seem the Michael has any real interst in being fair, or thoughtful about these issues. He seems to have a fixed point of view, one that is resistant to evidence, and one he has no intention of reexamining.
Tano: yes, I strangely believe that Carter has gone either senile, or is an anti-Semite and that he should stay quiet. And no, I am not about to revise that position. I’ve got enough evidence to back up my opinion on Carter (and Hamas).
Tell me Tano, did you ever read Hamas’ charter?
{ahem} Wasn’t there a policy that you posted recently, Michael? Something about calling Bush Chimpy being a cause for immediate banning of a commenter?
Why yes Christine, you are completely right.
Alan, you’re banned. I accept a lot, but I will not let you insult chimpansees - our cousins after all - like that.
“Tell me Tano, did you ever read Hamas’ charter?”
Well, that’s a cute response. Are we supposed to be shocked that Hamas wants to destroy Israel?
The Soviets wanted to destroy the West and only our nuclear weapons prevented them from doing so. And yet we still negotiated with them. Our mortal enemies, yet we talked.
Shocking.
What kind of negotiations are you referring to, Andy? What did we concede to the Soviet Union? And what would you have us talk to Hamas about?
mdvg,
Yes, your attitude toward Carter is strange indeed. He is someone who has done more for the long-term security of Israel than anyone else - leading the first, and largest Arab nation to the acceptance of Israel, and the establishment of a long-term stable peace with them. In short, he has already done infinitly more for the Israelis than you or any of the people you support ever will.
He did so because he operated from the perspective of one who viewed the situation as a problem to be solved, not as a crusade of right vs. wrong - i.e. an attitude that leads nowhere except towards a necessary existential struggle of all against all.
His perceptions of the situation there are far more in line with reality than are yours, for unlike you, he has not started out with the assumption that all good lies on one side, and all evil on the other.
Nor does he go to the opposite extreme of seeing those attributes reversed. I mention this because I anticipate a response, in line with so much of the rightwing propaganda on this issue, that if one isnt completely and totally supportive of everything Israel does, then one must be completely and totally supportive of its enemies. But this is precisely the Manichean pathology that people like Carter do not have. He sees clearly the problems of both sides, the virtues on the Isreali side, and the legitimate greivances on the Palestinian side.
And so he arrives at, hold on here….an intellegent assessment of the situation. Whereas your perspective is nothing more than rooting for one team over the other, as if this were some sort of a game rather than a tragic situation of conflict between two peoples that all of us should hope to advance a resolution of.
lmao
I would suggest someone actually read what Michael posts rather than practicing Ctrl+C and Ctrl+V in responding.
Tano- Well said. I don’t agree with anything that Hamas has done,and they may be an existential threat to Israel, but no one can deny that they came to power through a fair election. That election was a result of the neocons’ policy of spreading democracy in a region that wasn’t ready for it. It turns out that the West wasn’t ready for it either.
Carter was successful at Camp David because he was able to work as an honest peace broker- not as an agent of Israel. The Israelis owe him a lot. It’s a shame that so many have forgotten that he achieved something that noone else has been able to- not even Clinton who has tremendous political skill.
Carter is neither senile nor antisemitic. He speaks up for the unpopular causes only because he is a devout Christian who lives his religion instead of forcing it on others. If he thought no one was defending the Israelis he’d be fighting tooth and nail for them. And no one has accomplished more good works as an ex-president. Bill Clinton modeled his ex-presidency on Carter’s.
Is anyone who can try to see both sides now labelled as antisemitic, because they don’t side 100% with Israel?
BTW,I agree with Tano that the good/evil, black/white approach in foreign policy has been an unmitigated disaster for the US and the rest of the world.
Yeah, whereas dealing evil, say Hitler, achieved wonders.
And Tano’s comments only make sense to those who think that one should negotiate with Hamas. To those who recognize Hamas for what it is, Tano’s comments do not make any sense at all.
Yeah, just look at the mess that Reagan made of things when he insisted on calling the Soviet Union the “Evil Empire”. What was he thinking? That black/white approach led to the unmitigated disaster of the collapse of our archenemy!
LOL- sorry for the snark, and I’ll admit that there are times and ways to do this and times when a more nuanced approach is called for- but still, your black and white statement is quite a bit of an overstatement, Kim. Sometimes black really is black and sometimes white really is white- or at least there’s enough of a contrast that it shouldn’t all be muddied into gray.