Carter on Hamas
Jimmy Carter explains his reasons for meeting with Hamas, and they are good reasons in my opinion. It's too bad Hillary and Barack are so afraid of the Israel Lobby that they refuse to take a chance for peace. What is it exactly we lose by talking. The Democrats are Tweedledum and Tweedledee on this issue.
Quicktime Video 9.5 MB | Duration: 06'22
Quicktime 7 required
This file is available for download here.
Ctrl-Click and 'Download Linked File' (Mac)
or Rt-Click and 'Save Target As' (PC) the link above.
This Week w/George Stephanopoulos
Comments
As an American Jew, in favor of a sovereign Palestine, I just wanted to voice my support of Jimmy Carter and Norm in this regard.
He is doing his job. And he's doing it well. While the other ones are just bloviating useless bs.
I'm really fed up with this childish crap of "not meeting with our enemies". After the destruction they wrought in the middle-east this administration has lost any right to even weigh in the discussion. They should just have the decency to shut up for another year until this nightmare is over.
But I'm really saddened by the fact that "diplomatic bushism" has taken its toll on the Democratic candidates, as well. There probably never was a time when Americans were more ready to accept any candidate who said he'd meet with everybody in the middle-east and stop the childish sunday-school baloney of the Bush administration. I just don't think there would be a significant backlash for a Democrat ready to meet and talk and negotioate with "the bad guys". What do we have to lose? We don't have to love them. Heck, we help the extremists by snubbing them.
Mr. Ex-President, keep up the good work!
I couldn't agree more--this nails it.
The only thing I would add is that the official rational behind the Bush policy is that meeting with our enemies would bestow some kind of legitimacy or acknowledgment of them. I see no reason to believe that, in most cases. It may have been imprudent to conduct high-level discussions with Hamas before they were elected in large numbers for political office. After that, ignoring them is simply a denial of political reality, one which harms us more than them.
What is most appalling is that Palestinian/Israel conflict is, quite explicitly, in addition to Iraq, a major factor inflaming middle eastern sentiment against the U.S. Why on earth, in this country, the ignorant platitudes of an Administration that has, without exaggeration, singularly failed to understand, predict, sustain, or manage our relationships to middle eastern countries should still set the terms of what is politically acceptable is simply beyond me.
I agree that they are both wrong on this issue. But was Barack wrong to say he would meet with Ahmadinejad? So far as I can see, it is only the policy of "we don't meet with our enemies" that makes that suggestion unacceptable, as it was for Clinton.
"The only thing I would add is that the official rational behind the Bush policy is that meeting with our enemies would bestow some kind of legitimacy or acknowledgment of them."
Well said, Adam.
By that logic, calling the police and FBI when your spouse or kid is kidnapped only gives the kidnappers legitimacy. At some point you have to ask the guy who keeps stealing your newspaper why he's doing it and what will it take to get him to stop.
There you go again, you unamerican peacenik. Don't you see? That is exactly what the terrorists want! What you have to do to end his theft of your newspaper is blowing up the mailbox!
it is nice to be reminded that there are people like him who can be president
"it is nice to be reminded that there are people like him who can be president"
Unfortunately, Carter would not be elected President today. As an ex-President, he is deserving of the wide praise (and awards) he's received over the years. But most Americans don't view his presidency as successful.
Carter's right on this issue of course, but if "bittergate" is any indication, nuanced stances and explanations won't work in a political campaign. It's simplify, simplify, simplify, and since Hamas is "officially" declared "terrorist", then a willingness to talk with will be characterized as willingness to interact with enemies. A reasoned explanation of the wisdom of such an approach won't cut it in our simplified political dialog.
My hope is that, whomever we elect as President will choose to negotiate with disagreeable groups of people before declaring war on them, regardless of the campaign rhetoric. Admittedly, it's an audacious hope.
As an American (secular) Jew, I find this all predictable; except of course Jimmy Carter's initiative for peace and justice. What a mensch he is! Thank you for posting the video Norm!
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The U.S. needs electoral reform like nothing else.
The only reason this guy gets to talk sense in the face of the usual criticism is that he isn't looking to be elected to office via an antiquated one-party electoral system.
I have to disagree with the sentiment here. I agree with what Carter is doing, and I agree that Newt Gingrich is really nuts. But Carter is not negotiating on behalf of the U.S. He's talking to people in the attempt to lay the groundwork for future talks between the Palestinians and Israelis. He's going to be able to refute Rice's declarations about Hamas by saying that in fact they are willing to negotiate or have Abbas negotiate for them.
On the other hand I don;t think that HRC and Obama are wrong to say they wouldn't meet with Hamas. Hamas is not our enemy, they're the enemy of our ally. We can offer Iran something and negotiate about it, but we really can't offer Hamas anything. So I don't think it's inconsistent or that it's "drawing a line" arbitrarily to say yes to talking to Ahmahdinejad but no to talking to Hamas.
jimmy carter is right on this one. I also think our recent foreign policy approach is making the world worse. i also think our approach to Israel and the political fear of changing the dialogue on Israel is a tragedy. Let us talk to all the bad guys, sure it might make them feel important, but it might help, and how exactly can it make things worse. We might want to look at Northern Ireland. Talking to the IRA actually helped, although it seemed pretty covert. Sometimes if you make people think they are getting anything (like a strike negotiation) people start becoming reasonable.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/mar/18/northernireland.past1
Dende blogger, aren't the Brits also our allies? Yet, Gerry Adams (a man whose voice was not allowed to be heard on British airwaves) was invited to the US. No media outlet in this country has the guts to wonder aloud why we can meet with some, but not others. Heck, the very politicians who screamed about Arafat welcomed Gerry Adams with open arms long before the N. Ireland talks. Blatant Hypocrisy.
Does no one wonder why Iran is essentially threatened with war, but North Korea has been treated diplomatically? Am I to believe Kim Jong-Il is saner than Ahmadinejad? If anything, there is more hope for Iran than NK. Iran's pop. includes an under-25 majority that is pro-western, so why is the US policy hawkish?
It's never about right and wrong; it's always about influence. Politicians are simply whores, so I expect pandering to special interest. Most of my contempt is reserved for the media who have never done their job when it came to covering the conflict, as proven by Stephanopoulos' line of questioning.
Silly FF! Well, you are FRENCH, after all. The preferred action would be to blow up his mailbox beFORE he stole your newspaper.
P. S. Carter has been doing some excellent work in the middle east over the years. From his controversial book on Israel to his current efforts, he is to be commended for his work.
well, shit, my grammar has failed me at this hour:
"beFORE he steals..."
no better to blow up the mailbox AND your neighbors' mailboxes and then find out that you cancelled the subscription 6 months earlier
You know Norm, you have a completely one dimensional opinion about everything. Hamas is terrorist organization, they kill innocent civilians and there should be no negotiations under any circumstances. It is the same as meeting Bin Laden for some negotiations. Carter just trying to stay in the political spotlight. Think with your head instead of following dumb ideas.
Name a US ally that doesn't kill innocent civilians.
Carter is a foolish old man who hasn't got the balls to admit that he is absolutely wrong about this.
Negotiating with terrorists does not lead to peace.
It is one thing to sit down and talk to people who have a real interest in peace, but the fact is that Hamas does not.
They have a charter that calls for the destruction of Israel through violence.
They have routinely sent their murderers into civilian targets for the purpose of sowing terror.
A supermarket, a restaurant, these are not military targets.
This jackass carter does nothing but try to lend legitimacy to murderers.
Furthermore the term "Israel lobby" intentionally suggests that there is some cabal of people controlling U.S. policy.
It is untrue, wrongheaded, misguided and completely obscures the fact that there are hundreds of lobbys talking to our government.
The bottom line is that it is fine to talk to people about peace if there is truly interest in peace. Hamas has none.
Only a fool steps into the lions cage and expects to remain unaccosted.
Look, I am hestiant to say much of anything that is positive about Hamas, because they are guilty of using horrid measure in their fight.
That said, your comments and the arguments of pro-isreali folks always seem to contain some rather obvios fallacies.
Hamas are not simply terrorists(if that term really even means anything), they are also elected leadership in palestine. And I believe negotiating with Groups using terrorist tactics in Northern Ireland did lead to peace last I checked.
On the whole "destruction of Israel"- Why is Palestine not a state? It is people living in an area that is not at this time the part of another country? Is it because Israel refuses to allow them sovereignty? Does Israel use violence to keep that state from forming? How is a declaration of intent to destroy worse then a declaration of intent not to not allow to exist?
Ehh, there are Pro-Israel groups that have Lobbyists. They give candidates money. How is calling groups that lobby for Israel the "Israel Lobby" anything other then a statement of fact? Perhaps Pro-Israel Lobby would be more accurate since said lobbyists work for groups funded by American citizens, would be more accurate.
That said, your comments and the arguments of pro-isreali folks always seem to contain some rather obvios fallacies
Let's take a look at your so called fallacies.
Hamas are not simply terrorists(if that term really even means anything), they are also elected leadership in palestine.
The Nazis weren't simply evil either. When they weren't murdering people they did do things that some people would call good. But that doesn't mean that they were good, moral people.
And claiming moral ground because of an election is not proof of morality either. Do you know what Hamas did to Fatah. When they took over Gaza they threw Fatah operatives from the top of buildings, they shot, stabbed, and murdered their way in to power.
Would you vote against people who did that.
On the whole "destruction of Israel"
There never was a state of palestine run by Arab palestinians.
What would you do if your next door neighbor spent all of their time trying to kill you. Would you just shrug your shoulders and accept it. Would you fight back. In your example you seem to suggest that you might help them build a bigger house.
Why would you invite more trouble in this manner.
Who did we negotiate the end of WWII with?
I said nothing of their Morality.
So what?
I am asking why a group of people living on land are not entitled to self rule?
Uhhh, the apt analogy is probably that a groups of homeless people live in a field near your house. They try to mug you on a regular basis.
Do you a). throw grenades out your window until they stop or b). fight homelessness, get a shelter built and a soup kitchen?
What is your solution to this?
Just to be clear on this, didn't Hamas win the election, then attack after Fatah refused to relinquish power? If they had been a country at the time would that not have been an act of civil war?
Jack, tell the class about Irgun. And how long BEFORE Hamas, did it exist?
sasha, thanks for pointing out the reality, that Hamas kills innocent civilians. not nearly as many innocent civilians as the United States or Israel kills. but when the United States or Israel kills innocent civilians it isn't terrorism it is.. let's see, what is it then? oh, right! foreign policy! all very right and clean.
Post a comment