Discussions
Former President Carter and Hamas: Doesn't Anyone Think This is a Good Idea?
Posted by Norski • 4/18/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Tags: carter, diplomacy, hamas, Israel, Middle East, peace
Background
So far, in America, members of Congress Mark Kirk, Shelley Berkeley, John Boehner, and Barney Frank, all agree that Former President Carter shouldn't be in Syria, talking with a leader of Hamas.
I've gotten the impression that, as a rule, those four don't agree on what time it is: Let alone on an issue they think is of national importance.
I also haven't found people, outside of supporters of Hamas, who think that Mr. Carter's trip to the Middle East, and his series of meetings, was a good idea.
Question
I'm seriously curious: does anyone approve of Mr. Carter's recent initiative? And, why?
I have a fairly well-defined opinion about the former president's decision. What astonishes me is how there don't seem to be dissenting opinions, outside a very select group. (Here's the shameless blog promotion: anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/ - I've posted my views of Mr. Carter's diplomatic jaunt there.)
User Comments
-
Left you a comment at your blog entry.
-
Thanks.
-
-
I could care less, and I dont' mean that in an apathetic way. Carter is a grown man. He can do what he wants.-
He can, and he does.
Since I live on the same planet, however, I have to care. What he's doing carries a great deal of weight because of his position. Mr. Carter may want to be just an ordinary citizen, but - like it or not - he is a former president of America.
What surprises me is the nearly-unanimous opinion that what Mr. Carter is doing is imprudent. That kind of agreement is very, very rare.
-
-
I think this sums it how I feel about it quite nicely:
" 'There is a long list of people who thought they could reason with dictators and killers, going back to Neville Chamberlain and Hitler in the 1930s, but it has been shown to be absolutely wrong,' Lieberman said."-
Yep.
The parallels aren't exact, but there's a sort of family resemblance.
-
-
I don't have a problem with it. It's not like he's there as a representative of the US government.-
Good point.
Officially, Mr. Carter's trip has no influence on this, or any other, country.
As a matter of public relations, it could be misinterpreted: particularly by people who aren't familiar with how American government works.
However, as you said: he's not there as a U.S. representative - and has clearly said so.
-
-
Let me say at the outset that this issue is extremely complex -- something that should be obvious, but which bears repeating in the face of those who would wish to paint things in black and white, instead of in the many shades of grey that are required (not you, Brian, but many others, especially some politicians and journalists).
That said, I see no harm in Carter's meetings with any group, or representatives of any group. He is not officially representing the U.S. government or any other formal body; he is doing this as a private citizen, albeit one who has a unique perspective on the many facets of the situation given that he is a former U.S. president.
I think that blanket prohibitions on "talking with terrorists" (i.e., people currently/officially labeled as terrorists) is not a wise policy -- not just for the U.S., but for any nation. "Talking with" does not necessarily equate with "negotiating with," for one thing. I cannot see how listening to the other side, as it were, is a bad thing. If they only spew the same rhetoric that grabs press headlines, well there you are: nothing much gained, but not really so much lost either. But what if, in more private one-two-one conversations, the information exchanged goes beyond the rhetoric aimed at public consumption? What if such conversation leads to either side -- or both -- to come away with new insights? Gaining new insights is not the same as getting everyone to sign a permanent treaty and engage in a big group hug, but it cannot hurt.
Take a snapshot view of any relatively short period of time, and all sides appear intransigent on most issues. But if you take a longer view, there has indeed been some change in position (or at least certain aspects of positions) over, say, several decades. To me, every bit of incremental progress hints that divisions among the various sides may not be forever insoluble. Changes in political climate, changes in leadership, changes in the economic realities over time all can be triggers for progress (or the obverse). I see potential benefit in keeping lines of communication open -- even when they are tenuous.-
Have we had any trouble hearing the other side? Death to America and Death to Israel seem pretty unambiguous. -
What still astonishes me is the lack of posts supporting Mr. Carter's trip.
I think it's imprudent - but there are generally other sides represented in the blogosphere. It's a little unsettling to have found no 'go, Carter, go!' posts. -
This is interesting, I'm trying to find some myself and coming up with nothing.
Hmmm... -
But that's just the point: "The other side" really is many other sides, and often we don't fully understand the distinctions among them, because we rely on news media for information, and they tend to focus on dramatic stuff like "Death to America" slogans. Do you really think that the top leadership of any one group -- much less all the groups on the "other side -- have only this to say? Or is it just the only way they can get attention from anyone at all on "our side"?
-
Actually, the leader of Iran as an example has said "Death to America" a whole bunch. And some other not nice things. It's amazing to me how worked up lots of folks get about Bush's religious values, but seem to ignore the leadership of Iran, Syria, Lebanon, etc etc etc, who all seem to want me to expire quickly.
-
bnsullivan,
"But that's just the point: "The other side" really is many other sides,"...
True. And that's what is spooky about this Carter trip business. There aren't even two sides, that I can see.
Unless you count "Mr. Carter should reconsider" and "that traitor should die" as two different sides.
(Just to make things more difficult, I'm an American with a dutiful citizen's interest in politics, but I'm not a conservative, I'm not a liberal, and I'm not a moderate - I'm Catholic. That puts me in the conservative camp for some issues, the liberal or moderate camp for others, and somewhere out in the south 40 on quite a few others.)
Finally, yes. Of course. There may be a situation in which there are just two sides, but I can't think of one. Even a coin has at least three.
-
-
Isn't it better to talk to people rather than bomb them?-
Sometimes.
-
Go along with Norski here. It IS better to try to talk. Unless they are shooting at you. Then your voice won't rise above the gun fire. Or the screams.
-
-
"extremely complex" - that's a bit of an understatement, right?
I think you've got good points here.
Mr. Carter has specifically state that he is not negotiating on behalf of America, with Hamas. I'm pleased to see that he takes that position.
However, Former President Carter is a former president of the United States of America. That is a status which goes with him, no matter what he says - or does.
I think that the most dangerous result of Mr. Carter's trip and meetings may be the impression that's left afterward.
America is a country where it's not unusual to have several former presidents alive, and active in non-presidential affairs. Mr. Carter's own involvement with Habitat for Humanity is an example.
It's hard to shake the impression that some parts of the world are run along more traditional lines, and that the latest ruler is well-advised to make sure that the previous ruler is tried and executed promptly: along with the top few levels of the previous ruler's support staff.
People in countries which are run along such traditional lines may, I think, have trouble understanding that a former - and living - ruler (president, in this case) has no power to negotiate, and does not represent a 'power behind the throne.'
In a related vein, I've already read a headline that reads "Israel negotiating with Hamas through Carter" - based on a message sent to Hamas via the former president.-
You said: "However, Former President Carter is a former president of the United States of America. That is a status which goes with him, no matter what he says - or does."
Yes, and one perk of that status is that it gains him an entrée with groups and individuals that would be denied ordinary citizens. He also has a track record of trying to be a peacemaker.
Re your concerns about how Carter's role would be perceived vis-à-vis what you call "more traditional" governments or ruling bodies, I don't think that's a problem. In contrast to some prevailing stereotypes, most leaders in that part of the world are very astute and well educated -- and if they are not, then they have at hand advisors who are. (And many of those were educated at prestigious U.S. and European universities, by the way.) The press -- on both sides -- may seize on something like Carter's visit and use bits and pieces out of context for propaganda purposes, to sway public opinion this way and that, but I don't believe for a second that this fools anyone who matters (i.e., the powerful) when all is said and done. -
Let's hope something positive comes of it.
Although, given Carter's history with attempting to be a peacemaker during his presidency, I don't have much faith that anything will come of it. -
I think he did what he could, given what (and who) he had to work with. I'll give the guy points for trying -- and for persisting in his efforts.
-
Yep, and honestly he has a very big heart.
He has done a lot of good things, and is quite a humanitarian. I just personally feel that holding talks with Hamas will be unproductive, but he has the right to do whatever he sees fit. -
bnsullivan,
Agreed, about the rulers of many countries. Maybe most.
However, the [ethnic designation]-on-the-street isn't always as astute - and those people matter, too: even in countries that are run top-down.
Mr. Carter is, in my opinion, virtually writing the next fortnight's - or year's - propaganda for some, by talking with Hamas.
Even though I hope that he does so with the best of motives. -
offendedblogger,
What almost breaks my heart about this fiasco is what it's doing to the good work Carter has done, and to his reputation.
I *liked* the Carter presidency, and still do. Having an American president who was called Jimmy, and had a redneck brother who promoted "Billy Beer," was a refreshing change from the usual run of stuffed shirts.
More seriously, I think that Mr. Carter's association with Habitat for Humanity did, and does, a great deal of good. -
Carter was probably the most honest/ethical President in the last 40 years we've had. (Maybe longer.) I also think acts like this are taking away from the good he has done the last few years.
-
-
Sorry, I disagree about Carter. But each to their own. (Wish TimeThief was here to see how nice I'm playing.)
-
"Sorry, I disagree about Carter. But each to their own. (Wish TimeThief was here to see how nice I'm playing.)"
??
Disagree with me? No problem. This is one time when I'd love to be wrong. -
re. "nice."
One thing that keeps me active in BlogCatalog is the incredible level of civility here.
Thanks, everyone: for the tone, and for contributing to a very interesting discussion. -
opps, wrong column. This is what happens when I try to play nice. Norski, I agree with you (I think. I'm getting so confused) Monkeytale, I respectfully disagree with your assessment of Carter. (I think that's got me back up to speed)
-
Thanks for the clarification.
As to the 'wrong column' - been there, done that. -
lol... always good to be up to speed. But I also don't think you can name a more honest/ethical President than Carter over the last 40 years. Now if we're talking competence, that's another matter all together.
Edit: Ford may come close in the ethical/honesty department though.
-
-
Norski...
Read my blog. I've covered this so much I think I'm sick of it.
Bottom line - no... it's a stupid idea.
HAMAS is a violent terrorist organization that would kill Americans if they had the means and the opportunity to effectively attack us. They are no different than al Qaida in that regard.
Carter is a good man. But I remember his Foreign Policy. I remember burning choppers in the desert because of his idiotic decisionmaking. I remember how much he screwed up foreign policy because he was too busy bobbing and weaving - being unable to make up his mind on what the right policy choice was. I remember how wishy-washy he was with the Soviets and how that engendered their aggression around the world.
Most importantly pal - I remember 444 days...
In short - Carter was an absolute disaster on foreign policy. I don't think he meant to be - clearly he is a patriot (despite what he's doing now) - and he served his country with distinction.
But he's out of his freaking mind sitting down with those animals. Absolutely out of his freaking mind.
Watch "Jihad Mickey" teach little children to kill themselves.... that's the organization Carter wants to make nice with.
rightcommentary.com/2008/04/17/president-carters-trip-to-hamas/
They should be resisted with all of our efforts. The fact that they placate their base with social programs doesn't negate the fact they're brutal killers who hate America.
Uncle Sam-
It's amazing how the Right Wing folk's views differ from others that seek peace.
The Nobel Peace Prize 2002
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.
During his presidency (1977-1981), Carter's mediation was a vital contribution to the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, in itself a great enough achievement to qualify for the Nobel Peace Prize. At a time when the cold war between East and West was still predominant, he placed renewed emphasis on the place of human rights in international politics."
nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2002/press.html -
Carter's trip is getting more interesting every day.
Today, I learned that Palestinians in Gaza are worse off than Darfuis. It takes a man of Mr. Carter's caliber, to see that.
Next stop, I understand, is Saudi Arabia.
I'd be enjoying the show a lot more, if the stakes weren't so high. -
MarkPogue,
Former President Carter may get another Nobel Peace Prize out of this. There's a remote chance that the peace deal he's hammered out with Hamas will get traction, and last long enough for the N.P. committee to recognize Mr. Carter's work.
You might be interested in seeing a post of mine, "Former President Carter's Peace Trip: What You See Depends on Where You Stand" ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/former-president-carters-peace-... ).
I'm not sure if I'm one of those Right Wing folks - I'm certainly not a Berkeley liberal.
-
-
Carter is doing what Rice should have been doing. As a Sec. of State, I'd give her an "F" on her report card.
-
Carter is a freaking idiot being played like a fine piano... He needs to take he sorry A$$ back to Georgia and play in the peanut fields.
How the heck are you going to make a peace deal with people who love death more than they love life.
We need to get a clue here about Hamas and all the other terrorists groups.-
Yes....let's just go beat 'em with our clubs. Isn't that what Neanderthals used?
-
mark,
If you really think talking to these terrorists will do any good, I suggest you try.
However, I have yet seen any evidence that would suggest they will stop their terror attacks if we set down and have a cup tea with them.
-
-
The trouble is they won't negotiate with Rice because of her gender. The current administration should have recognized this LONG ago and VP Cheney should have replaced her or accompanied her.
I'm just saying that military force should be the last resort.
The same should apply to our relations to Iran. We've ditched diplomatic dialog.
International diplomacy under the Bush Administration is almost non existent.
We should install a US Dept. of Peace, work with the UN, converse with their Ambassadors and stop selling weapons to groups that oppose each other.-
Well... I'll go along with stopping the selling of arms to a lot of these regimes. Funny how we armed Iraq and the Taliban through the 1980's only to have to fight them now.
-
-
mark, I don't think it has anything to do with Rice's gender. They hate us because we are not Muslims.
As far as Iran goes, Europe has been in negations with them for over five years and Iran is still thumbing their nose at us and the UN. Oh and adding 6000 more centrifuges....
Unfortunately, we must understand that there are groups that just want to destroy us and our way of life. We can work our tails off to ensure they do not get the means to follow through, but there comes a time when we need to say enough is enough.
As for the UN, I'm sorry... they are worthless. I do not know of one good solid thing they have accomplishment, do you?-
They hate us for invading their region and supporting their enemies.
How would you feel if this was 1960 and Russia invaded Canada? How many folks would rallying against Russia?
Our greed and dependence on oil has caused this hatred. -
markpogue,
If you think it is all that simple, then I'll just say enjoy the land of Oz....
-
-
While a former president, Jimmy Carter is a private citizen and does not speak for our government or country.
I do understand the dynamics behind his visit but there can NEVER be progress in the Middle East unless we are willing to let all the players have their say in the discussions. The realists will say that you must exclude the extremists and empower the moderates but that 'snub' only emboldens the ones left out to even greater extremes (look at North Korea). Isn't that what happened in the 7th century with the Sunnis and the Shiites? 1300 years and we STILL don't have any resolution...-
You might be interested in what some of the players in the Middle East were saying today. ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat... )
-
-
President Jimmy Carter used to bother me until I learned how much money he was being paid by various hostile mid-east nations in the form of millions of bucks in contributions to his Carter center. Now I see him as aging political whore selling his soul for petro-dollars. Pity he didn't stick to Habitat where he has done great work.
In any case, recently his outrageous writings have made him a political pariah in the US. And Israel's recent refusal to meet with him shows just how irrelevant he has become on the world scene.
Of course, as a private citizen he is free to visit anyone in the mid-east and talk to whoever will give him the time of day.
On the other hand, the same can not be said of his fellow Democrat, that "poisoned dwarf" Nancy Pelosi, whose 2007 visit to Syria, while occupying the title of House Majority Leader, was a disgraceful act of political subterfuge. She clearly overstepped her congressional responsibilities and in doing so undermined the official policy of the Executive branch that has sole responsibility for Foreign Policy.-
I don't know about the Middle East financial support (I don't doubt you, I just don't know - and would be interested in seeing a source for that information).
However, that would explain why he's willing to risk loss of Congressional support ("Knollenberg wants Carter Center funding cut" www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/NEWS07/80417042 ).
-
-
I'm going to throw out a perspective that's a bit more simplistic than my usual political view: I don't recall Jimmy Carter having mucked up much in his post-Presidential years. That's open to debate, of course, but from where I'm sitting he seems to know what he's doing. I'm not all that inclined to sit here in the midwest with no specialized knowledge of the countries or leaders involved or the communications he's had with them and decide whether or not he knows what he's doing this time around.-
Excellent point.
Mr. Carter won a Nobel Peace Prize for his work in helping broker a deal, a few years back.
He also wrote a book that seems to have essentially blamed Israel for the mess in the Middle East. He could be right.
And, today, we learn that he doesn't seem to be aware of Darfur. (I could be wrong - see the table in anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat... .)
I'm no expert, but Mr. Carter has displayed an unusual talent for attracting criticism - consider the radically bipartisan Congressional letter, asking him to please stay home.
On the other hand, the Nobel Prize committee likes what he does.
Me, I don't know: he's still one of the most likable political leaders I've ever read of, and I think very highly of his work with, and for, Habitat for Humanity.
I think there is very good reason to believe that he sincerely wants to do goo.
-
-
It seems to me that talking to people who feel they have such grievances against us that they are more than willing to kill and die in attempting to seek redress can only be a positive thing. If the goal is to get then to stop killing and dying over perceived injustices how, pray, other than talking can change be brought about? -
I'm generally all for talk, certainly for more talk than this administration has shown a willingness to engage in. Still, the Washington Post had a point in its editorial on Thurs. (4/17). They printed an editorial in the same issue by the founder of Hamas, whose rhetoric was disturbing.
Still, if someone's gonna talk, why not let it be Carter? If something good comes of it, the U.S. govt. can move in and claim some credit. If Carter gets mud in his eye, it will be easy enough for the administration to condemn him.-
The only problem with that approach, as I see it, is that Former President Carter's unofficial trip has 'shown' that
* "meetings with Carter have accorded the group legitimacy"
* "political isolation of Hamas by the American administration has begun to crumble"
* "Palestinians in Gaza were being 'starved to death,' receiving fewer calories a day than people in the poorest parts of Africa."
This is a remarkable assortment of statements, from what appears to be moderately mainstream media in the Middle East. (More at anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat... .)
Granted, the news service I got those gems from is tied to Iran.
Still, I think it's possible that the version of Mr. Carter's accomplishments presented in those quotes will have traction in the Middle East.
Next stop: Saudi Arabia. This should be interesting.
-
-
Norski, you did a very well-though post on that, in my opinion--really well-balanced. I'd have preferred Carter not go; I didn't appreciate his presidency although I did vote for him.The next go-round, I voted Reagan. I tend to vote based on the candidate's abilities and promises, rather than from a strict party standpoint.
On the issue of Rice's gender, it's my opinion that's why it is so important for countries who place women in top roles to insist that if other countries want to dialog, they dialog with the American our president selects. Whether she's been effective is a different debate, but women's rights in many countries are shamefully limited.
Visit a few Middle Eastern websites and read some of Hamas' statements. Like I said, I'd rather a former president hadn't taken it on himself to make this sort of move right now. He is playing into a very successful information war against democracies. In my opinion. What I'd like to see is the US use our strengths to set examples and take strong positions when it is truly necessary to do so. In this case, I think our former prez should've restrained what I believe were good intentions on his part.-
Thanks for the 'balanced' adjective. I try to be fair.
The Middle East news has had some really juicy hors d'oeuvres from the Mr. Carter's meetings ( anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat... , again).
Mr. Carter talking with Hamas leaders isn't what bothers me - it's some of what he's said, and what others say it means that's problematic.
-
-
Many years ago I had the pleasure and honor of meeting President Carter while working on a Habitat for Humanity project...
I was totally amazed that he actually worked quite hard on the houses we were building and took the time to speak to everybody who approached him...
The seeds of hope he planted many years ago in our community continue to grow to this day...
Although the actions of hamas and their counterparts is beyond despicable and I'm not sure even what one would say to cowards such as hamas who brainwash their followers into committing suicide bomb attacks on civilian children, I nonetheless support President Carter's courageous mission and fail to see the downside...-
Carter's visit to the Middle East and his meeting with Hamas leaders has set a very dangerous precedent. The ability of our country to conduct foreign policy could be seriously impacted if we allow former political leaders to go off on their own contradicting official Government positions. Carter needs to have his Passport revoked and all federal funding cut to his center in Atlanta.
Regardless of how you feel about this specific issue, we can not have former Presidents engaging in issues of National Policy on their own. This type of independent action needs to be condemned by everyone. -
Mr. Carter's involvement with Habitat for Humanity is, I think, the zenith of his accomplishments. It's a fine organization, and there is every indication that, as you said, he worked hard with, and for, Habitat. Physically and otherwise.
I've said it before, but it bears repeating. I think that Former President Jimmy Carter is a very well-intentioned man.
-
-
Oh brother
-
"Oh brother"
Regarding what?
-
-
While many of you were on here touting the benefits of talking to terrorists...
And while President Carter was busy talking to them...
They attacked an Israeli Checkpoint and wounded 13 people. I'm sure they would have rather killed 13 - but - c'est la vie for the life of a terrorist.
rightcommentary.com/2008/04/13/talking-to-evil-why-carter-shouldnt-be-talki...
From the AP story I put in the comments:
"The armored personnel carrier broke through the perimeter fence, enabling the two jeeps to enter the crossing. One jeep was detonated near an army watchtower and the second near a patrol, security officials said. Thirteen soldiers were wounded in the second blast, including eight who were hospitalized."
So yes, all - that's why I'm against HAMAS. They can't even "cool it" while they're talking to President Carter and getting legitimized.
Uncle Sam-
comment removed by the community.
-
markstoneman,
About "getting legitimized."
It is much to early to see how successful the effort is, but Hamas is making an earnest, and fairly competent, attempt to prove that "the meetings with Carter have accorded the group legitimacy." ("Carter Defies Israeli & US Warnings, Meets Khaled Meshaal in Damascus" Arab News (April 19, 2008))
Arab News isn't the only news service covering the story from that point of view. (My hat is off to IRNA in the campaign. They've gotten a much better translator for their English version, since the last time I quoted them.)
I pulled together some of the discussions of what Mr. Carter's trip 'really' meant, in this post:
anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat... -
For what it's worth, you'll never see me dressed as Uncle Sam.
At five-foot-seven and just under 250 pounds (about 170 Centimeters, 112 Kilograms) , I'd look like a Thomas Nast industrialist.
-
Here's the latest for the painters of doom and gloom.
Carter: Hamas will accept Israel
'Former US President Jimmy Carter has said that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to "live as a neighbour next door in peace".'
But he defended his visit on Monday, telling Israel's Council on Foreign Relations: "The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria. The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved."
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7358188.stm -
Excellent!
I think we can safely say:
"My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is "peace for our time." Go home and get a nice quiet sleep"
Neville Chamberlain, 1938 -
@Don: At least make your analogies plausible. Just what did Carter give away? Nothing. It was all talk. He has no authority to decide or agree to anything.
-
Mark
See Norski article 4 posts up. But the argument seems plausible to me. When a former President of the US and a Nobel winner says the kinds of things Carter has been saying, it has tremendous effects on the World political stage. And on public opinion here and abroad. (Again, see Norski above.) It certainly will have an effect in the region in question.
Perhaps before you define what is analogies are plausible for us all, you might want to consider that not everyone here agrees with your take on the situation. Hard to believe, but there it is. -
Our difference of opinion about the Carter trip does not excuse the abuse of history to legitimize your position. Stretching credibility with such an analogy can only undermine your argument. You can do better.
-
OK, lets try these. William Hearst is often credited by historians as a driving force for U.S. military actions in Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines in 1890's. He certainly had a powerful influence on US involvement in the Spanish American War. He was a powerful newspaper publisher. But he was not a US Official. He had no authority "to decide or agree to anything".
Carter's words and actions will have great effect, especially with the Democrat controlled Congress and probably the new President as well. They will also play strongly in all of the nations of the middle east for either good or bad and will have a marked effect on US public opinion.
They are already being used by the media to shift Hamas from their "terrorist organization" association.
As a Historian, I'm sure you will agree that often the most influential players on the World stage are not "official".
By the way, Carter's statements do seem to have had a powerful effect on MarkPogue who began the comment I was responding to, with:
"Here's the latest for the painters of doom and gloom."
He at least obviously considers Carter's work there as significant.
But thanks for the condescending "You can do better."
I'll try. -
Now it's Carter as Hearst? Carter isn't a media mogul. Maybe you should just give up the analogies and stick to your basic argument.
You also seriously overestimate Carter's pull. How do you think this is playing on Fox?
I myself found the short news report version of the Hamas "offer" to be laughable, because the Hamas offer is not an offer. (See my remarks below.) And I wondered if that would get too much press, but then I thought, so what? Now Israel has to explain it's position in relation to this rhetoric. It's dialog instead of shooting, at least for a few moments. But that brings us back to the original question, which can play out below. I intervened at this point in the conversation because I can't stand sloppy historical analogies.
Edit:
On the point of analogies, see "A Sense of History", paying particular attention to no. 13:
courseweb.stthomas.edu/gwschlabach/sense.htm
And maybe see this page on logical fallacies: www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ -
Check the news Mark. The missiles are still flying. Forget the analogies if they trouble you. Carter is neither Neville Chamberlain nor Hearst. You and I both know that, and attacking the substance of an analogy by declaring that the analogy itself to be limited is not a sign of thoughtful debate.
Chamberlain's disastrous effect was not in signing a worthless accord (worthless because Hitler never intended to honor it.) What Chamberlain did was to weaken the will of the western nations to preempt or prepare for Hitler's plans. He also gave "comfort" to the German Nationalists by his words and the inaction they produced. US newspapers praised Chamberlain and Hitler for their moderation in the face of potential hostilities. And he did all this by his rhetoric. His words were used to weaken the British will to defense and to marginalize nay-sayers like Churchill.
Hearst was also not a former president and Nobel winner. Which position has the more inherent power? We can certainly debate that if you wish. But making the assumption that Carter's actions and words will have little effect is certainly premature. And possibly naive.
Carter's statements will be used by whoever believes they provide the most assistance for their position. Hopefully Hamas HAS turned over a new leaf and no longer wishes to kill all the "Zionists" (and all non-believers.) I'll take bets at very reasonable odds. -
Analogies matter, insofar as an argument's reliance on sloppy analogies suggests that the argument itself is based on sloppy thinking.
By the way, I never claimed that Hamas had turned over a new leaf.
I also would never dare use phrases like "will be used." When talking about the future, I find conditional statements are more prudent.
-
-
Looks like solid research to me, Norski. Darfur is one of the greatest tragedies of our time. Why media doesn't focus on it more is something I'll never understand.
-
As for me, I hope I'm wrong about why Darfur is such a non-event. (I did a micro-harrangue at the end of a post - anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat... - under the heading "Darfuris? Who's That?")
My guess is that you read that.
Thanks for the words of encouragement. -
Very well done Norski. I have a question you might be able to answer. I note that there's a common border on the south end of the Gaza strip with Egypt. Is there any congress across that border? Seems to me if the Palestinians in the Gaza strip are having trouble getting food-stuffs, that might be the logical way for them to re-supply in the current situation.
Or am I missing something?
-
-
Norski, I did--I thought I left a comment, so I'll go back and check.
Mark, I wish I could buy into Carter's perception Hamas will live in peace with Israel. I think besides the countries involved in the Middle East on both sides, and the tragedies the people of both have experienced, the US has paid a high price as well for a conflict we did not begin.
But if you read further down in the article you link to, here's a contextual quote:
>>>>>Mr Carter said Hamas had reiterated its position that it would accept an Israeli state within its pre-1967 borders, living in peace with Israel, if such an agreement was approved by Palestinians.
Speaking to the BBC's Newsnight programme, Mr Carter said: "Hamas indicated to us at least - I'm not guaranteeing their commitment - that if Israel is willing to have a mutual ceasefire and a renunciation of violence in Gaza and in the West Bank, they will accept it, and as a first step they would even accept just limiting that to Gaza.
"So I think that what they have said, if they were honest and we wrote it out so there wouldn't be a mistake, it's a very significant development."
Israel, the US and the European Union regard Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, as a terrorist organisation.
Hamas is officially dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the creation of an Islamic state in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza. >>>>
I think we can all agree Israel did not start the 6-day war.
It's my opinion Carter is following his own good intentions to be a world peacemaker, but my experience and jaded attitude regarding politics tell me he may also be doing some political posturing as we approach the election.
I respect your opinion, and I understand your passion for the Democratic platform. But I don't agree with you on this matter. I thank you for the link to the article--it was interesting.
best, Kay-
I caught your comment: Thanks for the heads-up.
About the rest of your comment, a paraphrase of something I've said before, one way or another:
Facts are big, heavy things with sharp edges. We're free to ignore them, but if we do there will be consequences, sooner or later.
Thanks for showing some of the facts, and their context.
-
-
Well, the official results of Carter's trip are pretty meagre. The Hamas offer of a ten-year truce in return for Israel withdrawing to its 1967 borders is a non-starter, especially when Hamas would not recognize Israel formally, but would acknowledge its right to exist. The unofficial results are perhaps a different matter, but that depends on the your attitude towards the underlying issue here: is talking with your enemies a good idea? I happen to think so, but I also happen to think there is no reason for any high-level U.S. official to get into the act at this juncture. Carter, of course, is not a US official.
-
I agree wholeheartedly that talk, discussion, is a good idea. With friends and enemies.
My gripe with Former President Carter's trip and un-negotiations is that, however much he may want it not to be so, he is a former American president. Even if he goes in the capacity of a private citizen, with no official standing, his status as a former leader goes with him.
If I went, and talked with Hamas leaders, it would be some guy from central Minnesota talking with them.
When a former leader of one of the most powerful countries on Earth goes and talks with Hamas leaders, he's not just some peanut farmer.
Talking with enemies: good idea.
Giving those enemies a an apparent legitimacy, by talking to them: a rather more debatable idea.
I said "apparent legitimacy," and it's started:
anotherwaronterrorblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/carter-meetings-proof-hamas-nat...
I will give IRNA credit: They've got a much better English translator now, and are also handling the subtleties of the presumed collapse of the American administration's policy in a more sophisticated way than some other statements have been handled.
-
-
"Hamas Leader Vows Not to Recognize Israel After Carter Trumpets Terror Group's Willingness to Be Good 'Neighbor'"
Carter was played for the fool he is and he needs to take his sorry A$$ back to Georgia. He accomplished nothing, but getting his face in the news.-
And you're more qualified at foreign relations than Jimmy Carter? At least he tried.
You refer to a former president as a "sorry a$$"
That "sorry a$$" as you say...has a Nobel Peace Prize. Where's yours?
That "sorry a$$" worked for years for Habitat For Humanity"
It's much harder to work for peace than to wage another war. That's right...war is more profitable. -
markpoge, Al Gore has a Nobel Prize and so did Arafat, so I'm not real impressed.
Oh BTW, what did Carter earn his prize for? Is there any peace in the middle east? He failed the first time and failed this time.
-
-
@ AmmoBob
Carter didn't fail the first time.
In 1978 when he brought Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egyptian President Anwar Sadat together to sign the Camp David Peace Accords.
Are Israel and Egypt fighting?-
Have you ever been to the Sinai Peninsula? Yeah, they may not be fighting, but it sure don't look to peacful to me along that area.
-
No, and neither are Israel and Iran.
But Iranian money and other support seems to be getting to Hamas and Hezbollah ( www.iht.com/articles/2006/07/18/news/iran.php , www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/06/news/mideast.php ). Although Hamas says, 'does not!' ( www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/01/175FA8CE-21E8-4A2F-A586-133BC1FC90D2.... ).
I suppose there's "fighting," and there's "fighting."
The situation is, admittedly, complicated. -
And, give Former President Carter credit: the Nobel Peace Prize committee loves what he does, and has already given him one Nobel Peace Prize.
-
Those who make genuine attempts to bring about peace and stop unnecesary violence such as President Carter will never be considered failures by those of us who truly want peace on Planet Earth...
The mere fact that President Carter and Hamas were able to sit at the same table in a dialogue shows there is potential for peace in the Middle East...
An economically viable country for the Palestinians must be created in the Middle East...
Israel must be allowed to exist in peace without terrorist attacks...
The only viable future Hamas and similar organizations have is to negotiate the creation of Palestine and the betterment of their people...
There is no future in their terrorist acts...
-
-
I have long admired Pres. Carter for his diplomacy and his humanitarian efforts, however, I don't feel that discussing anything with terrorists is productive, and it could be used against him, and/or against this country.
I will admit that I don't know enough about his visit to make an educated judgement, so my statement was based on my own feelings, and nothing more. (will read your post tomorrow......:) ) -
I gotta say, if I were Carter, I would not be doing the talk circuit right now. It's one thing to talk to Hamas. It's another to act like a 10-year armistice in return for a withdrawal to pre-1967 borders is worth talking about.
-
I'm with gerryPlanetEarth...
"Although the actions of hamas and their counterparts is beyond despicable and I'm not sure even what one would say to cowards such as hamas who brainwash their followers into committing suicide bomb attacks on civilian children, I nonetheless support President Carter's courageous mission and fail to see the downside..."
I wouldn't defend many of the actions of Hamas... particularly suicide bombings. Then again, I don't live in a divided homeland where much of my well being is dependent on those outside my nation. Israel is here to stay and Hamas and Palestine must recognize their right to peace and safety. Israel must also do more in regards to settlement expansion and the Palestinian people's rights.
Any Carter screw up would pale in comparison to our current leader's missteps.-
"Any Carter screw up would pale in comparison to our current leader's missteps."
A well measured statement. That's what I've been driving at.
-
-
This brief NPR report is interesting. www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89831131
It describes the kind of communication Israel has with Hamas. It also points to a goal of Carter's I had not appreciated: obtaining the release of some figures on each side.-
That is a very interesting and informative audio...
-
-
It's hard for me to understand how anybody can have positive memories of the Carter presidential term: 23% prime rate, 13% inflation rate, a high of a 9% unemployment rate. (I had Government bonds that paid 14% interest.)
The Misery Index. The man who was "attacked" by a rabbit. The man who tried to convert the Premier of South Korea to Christianity. The Iran Hostage Crisis. The whole Carter presidency was a 3-ring circus.
I hope the State Department lifts his passport while he's still in the Middle East.
P.S.--As to his Nobel Peace Price, Yassir Arafat won one too.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
