Then we’ll wait.
We - all of us, Arab and Israeli - are in this for the long haul. We’ve gone 60 years without peace, and if we have to, we’ll wait 60 more.
I don’t see the big deal about Carter meeting with Hamas. You can’t do business in that part of the world and not deal with people like that. Hell, Menachim Begin was a member of Irgun, which was a terrorist organization that perpetrated the Deir Yassin massacre. Ariel Sharon was partially responsible for the Qibya massacre, and was held by the Kahane Commission to bear “personal responsibility” for the Sabra and Shatila massacres. If your rule is “Don’t deal with people who murder civilians”, you could start by not electing them to national office.
No, the rule is don’t deal with people whose goal is the elimination of your country until they publicly renounce that goal, and show by their actions that they mean it.
There’s a difference between negtiating with people who have killed and with people who plan to keep on killing. It’s the difference between talking with the PLO - who killed plenty in their day - and negotiating with Hamas.
You’ll have to wait until a two-state solution is in place. Then Hamas might fade away. Not before.
[Fighting Ignorance] The classification “personal responsibility” was in contrast to “ministerial responsibility”. The difference, in a nutshell, was between saying that policies that were already in place lead to problems, and that policies a specific minister put in place led to problems. Sharon’s handling of the situation in Lebanon, especially wrt the Phalangists, was found to be in error. hence, “personal responsibility”. That does not mean that he was found to be guilty of any crimes, either by action, omission or proxy. In short, your inclusion of the Kahane Commission’s verdict was, at best, wrong. It has nothing to do with the point you’re trying to make about some Isaeli leaders being schmucks. Sharon was not elected to office after “murdering civilians”, making your claim not just simply wrong, but ignorant as well.[/FI]
Ehhhhhhhhhh… it’s a point on which reasonable people could disagree, as long as all of them aren’t up on the facts, I suppose. I fail to see how an organization which has repeatedly and publicly stated that it will never agree to a peace deal, that explicitly, vociferously and organizationally supports genocide, that has a mass program dedicated to indoctrinating children to murder and die in a campaign of genocide… is one that’s open to negotiation.
What is the rational and fact-based reason for this disagreement? I’m not trying to be tongue in cheek here, it’s perfectly possible that I’ve missed something out of Gaza recently, but I doubt it.
Barring that factoid, Hamas has given every reason to show that they’re not interested in peace, let alone a negotiated peace, and that they are interested in war and genocide. Just because someone can disagree with the facts doesn’t make the disagreement rational or fact based. Often, in fact, such disagreement is willfully ignorant or simply ideologically based. Just because (ostensibly) reasonable people can disagree on a topic does not mean that the disagreement itself, nor the positions they’ve chosen, are reasonable.
What reasonable basis would one have, if one was busy arguing that Hamas could be a partner for peace? (note: although I’m sure some would sling Fallacies of False Analogy or some such, that isn’t what I’m asking for here.) I don’t care if faction X in country Y during time period Z with various historical, cultural, religious, ethnic national and international
factions N renounced violence. I want to know what Hamas, in specific, has done to suggest that it has any place at a negotiating table other than trying to affix explosives to the bottoms of the chairs.
And doesn’t it bother you that, while some folks like Glutton make this silly statements based on painful levels of ignorance and a dedication to a political pov that trumps the actual world… surely Carter’s reasons for keeping a genocidal, racist, rejectionist bunch of thugs in a position of power and influence is worrysome?
All of his other behavior, from his pattern of lies to his belief that the Jewish State has to act in a Christian manner in order to avoid the wrath of God?
Some things are right, some are wrong. And while it’s fashionable to talk about how “reasonable people can disagree”, that doesn’t mean that one of ‘em isn’t offering up bullshit. If we were trying to draft laws that would make abortion safe and accessible, but still monitored by a few safeguards, it might make sense to include various factions to draft a compromise piece of legislature. But who would suggest that it was somehow ‘essential’ to have a group present which explicitly rejected any form of abortion and wanted all abortions to be illegal, always? If we were trying to draft a bill that balanced gun owners’ rights against safety concerns for a neighborhood, it would make sense to have both gun owners and people who want some form of regulation, and have them hammer something out. But who would suggest that it was ‘essential’ to include people who supported a total ban on all guns?
Why, then, when we’re talking about working out a compromise between a nation and a quasi-nation, would we say that folks who are actually for genocide must, by necessity, be included?
There seems to be a very interesting willful blindness when it comes to this issue, of course. As the maxim goes, opting for believing in malice over stupidity isn’t always justified… but… the double standards that fly around this issue are always interesting. While nobody would expect black people to be friendly with someone who hangs out with the KKK, Israel is oh-so-full of Chutzpah (you know those Israelis and their yiddish! :rolleyes: ) when it simply declines the expense of providing extra security for someone who hangs out with Hamas. While nobody would suggest that abortion bombers must be invited to Congress during the next round of debates on federal policy, Hamas is a ‘necessary’ feature of any peace negotiation. And, hell, many of those same folks who chatter on about how very vital Hamas is, want to marginalize Likud members/policies.
At the very least, we see the dominance of politics and ideology over reality, with a corresponding decline in intellectual honesty. At worst, some folks have a real, and a vile, agenda to peddle. Carter… I think he probably falls into the latter category.
Yes, I’m sure with enough casuistry you can fashion a principle that would allow dealing with people who used to be terrorists and then became powerful and didn’t need to be terrorists anymore, but not allow you to deal with people who are still terrorists. I just wonder what the actual moral justification for such a principle could be. I suspect Begin quit being a terrorist because he got a state, not because he morally reformed.
Fight your own ignorance. From the Kahan Commission report:
Emphasis added.
Sharon ordered the Phalangists into the camp. The camp was sealed by the Israeli Army, and the Phalangists were allowed to stay in the camp for days. The Phalangist President of Lebanon, Bachir Gemayel, had just been assassinated, and the Phalange was out for blood. *Everybody * knew what would happen–even Sharon, unless he was as stupid as a rutting cow. And yet Sharon ordered the Phalangists into the camp. Is it any wonder that the Kahan Commission deemed Sharon “unfit” to serve as Defense Minister and had him removed?
Awww, that’s cute. But no, despite the fact that you just provided a quote showing you to be wrong (why would you even do that???), I’m still aware of the issues and you’re either ignorant of them or trying to obfuscate. In any case, I’m happy to break out my clue-by-four and start swingin’ for the fences.
As I already said, the commission found Sharon to bear personal, rather than ministerial responsibility, due to his handling of the situation in Lebanon, especially wrt the Phalangists. You quoted me saying that, so I doubt that you forgot.
I also cleared up the definition for you, which apparently you don’t care about. Since you are now, no longer, ignorant about what “personal responsibility” means, you cannot be innocently mistaken in your continuing attempt to still use that phrase to suggest that Sharon was somehow guilty of “murdering civilians”. It doesn’t mean that. You now know that fact.
And your deliberate twisting of what actually happened is unseemly.
The fact of the matter, despite either your ignorance of it, or your distortion of it, was that the commission itself found that while his personal policies led to problems, he was not charged with any crime by commission, commission, or proxy. He was not charged with ordering the murder of civilians. He was not charged with with ordering the murder of civilians. He was not even charged with allowing the murder of civilians. It was found that policies which he set in place led to the death of civilians. You will notice that, nowhere, is Sharon found guilty of conspiracy to commit anything, at all.
Huge difference.
And one which you are no longer ignorant of.
Again, not sure if you’re simply very ignorant of the history of the region, or if this is another distortion. In a nutshell, your hindsight bolstered claims are pure bullshit. It’s funny that you can quote the Kahane Commission report… but seem to have forgotten huge, and important, parts of it.
Like, for instance, on the bullshit claim that “everybody” “knew” “what would happen”.
[
](The Kahan Commission of Inquiry)
So your “everybody” turns out to not include, ya know, military intelligence and Mossad. And the freakin’ Kahne Commission itself!
Even the Commission itself simply held that there was other evidence that should have been looked at, and the possibility of a massacre should have been addressed. Not, as you ignorantly and inaccurately claim, that “everybody” “knew” “what would happen”.
Little slip there between reality and, well, sophistry. Eh?
Yes it is a wonder… **because you made that up. **
In other words, they did not find him “unfit” to serve but found “defects […] with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office”. And even in that context, it was only Sharon himself who was supposed to draw “personal conclusions” from those “defects”. Your invention that the Commission found him “unfit” to serve is simply fantasy.
They also did not have him removed, partially because, as they clearly say, it was the PM who had that power, not them. They also only suggested to the PM that he should consider whether or not Sharon’s military career should be ended. They didn’t even recommend that Sharon be removed, merely that the PM make up his own mind.
Consider your ignorance fought.
You’re also caught in one of those double standards that’re so common to those who take up a certain political viewpoint.
The Commission found that a massacre should have been, while not expected, guarded against due to the Phalangists tactics and leaders’ views. And yet, your argument here has been some bizarre tu quoque fallacy whereby you accused Israeli leaders (out of ignorance and in error) of “murdering civilians”. All of this, in the context of a thread where Israel has snubbed someone who is trying to make Hamas more powerful… ya know, that organization with massacre-based tactics whose leaders speak of genocide? Sharon, for allowing the Phalangists to go into the camps, despite MI and Mossad’s blessing, is slammed by you as “murdering civilians”.
But non wanting the Palestinian mirror of the Phalangists, Hamas, to gain power and relevance? That’s just crazy talk!
In other words, by the same standards you apply, in error and out of ignorance, to Sharon… if Hamas was given power and managed to, say, get more Iranian weaponry and/or launch rockets are more Israeli towns, you would bear “personal responsibility” for advocating such a policy and, beyond that, be someone who “murdered civilians.”
Curiouser and curiouser.
Oh, and to clarify the difference between the bullshit piece of fiction you’ve put forward as being what happened, here’s what it looks like when the Commission actually found someone ‘unfit’ and recommended their removal. (note to fight your ignorance: still, not “removed” but “recommended to those who could remove”)
Funny, that.
It’s not a question of being a terrorist or not, and it’s not a moral issue-- it’s a political issue. I can’t see why it’s incumbent on any state to negotiate with another party that is intent on destroying that state.
Now, I don’t consider Israel to be blameless here, and I think it is reasonable for the Palestinians, for example, to require them to stop building settlements in the disputed territory before they will sit down at the negotiation table. Both sides are going to need to give in order to win the good will of the other side. I’ve seen no evidence that Hamas has done that yet. Israel has, even if they haven’t given enough.
It’s simply not plausible to claim the Israelis didn’t know what was going on. Robert Fisk notes in *Pity the Nation * (I know you won’t accept him as a source, but if you can quote the Jewish Virtual Library, I can quote Fisk) that from the roof of the building the Israelis were using as a headquarters, you could see directly into the parts of the camp where much of the killing was taking place.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t deal with people like Sharon and Hamas. I’m saying there’s a double standard. Even if you aquit Sharon of Sabra and Shatila, he still has a lot to answer for (e.g., Qibya), as do many people who served Israel. The point is that in that part of the world, you can’t just negotiate with the good guys because frankly there aren’t that many good guys.
Oh, and screw you for implying (oh so subtly, and in a way guaranteed not to get you a mod warning) that I’m a liar.
But by this reasoning, the Palestinians shouldn’t negotiate with Israel. Sure, Israel says it’s committed to a two-state solution, but the policy of every government–liberal, conservative, or moderate–since 1967 has been to increase settlement in the West Bank, thereby reducing the prospects for a viable Palestinian state. The Palestinians are more interested in the actions of the Israeli government than in their words, and the government’s actions say, “This land is ours; you will never have it.”
ETA–I agree neither side is perfect. I think that by and large, the Palestinian leadership is a bunch of morally bankrupt fuckwits. But they are the leadership; who else are you going to talk to?
Speaking of Shin Bet, here’s an old joke I once read (in graphic-novel form): A KGB agent (yes, that old), an FBI agent, and a Shin Bet agent are arguing over who is the most effective service. They agree to a contest. They catch a rabbit, go into the woods, and let it go. The FBI agent catches it and brings it back in ten minutes. They let it go again. The KGB agent brings it back within five minutes. They let it go again. The Shin Bet agent runs after it, and the other two see no more of him for five minutes . . . ten . . . twenty . . . finally they track the Shin Bet agent to a clearing, where he is beating a horse and shouting, “Admit you’re the rabbit! Admit you’re the rabbit!”
Speaking of vile, this is character assassination of the vilest sort.
Carter has only ever sought to promote peace. You may disagree with how he goes about the task, but to suggest that he has some hidden and sinister motive is beyond the pale.
What motive, exactly, are you imputing to Carter - an 84-year-old man on the back end of his life and carefully husbanding his legacy? A man who has, more than any other ex-President, devoted his retirement to doing good in the world? A man whose Presidential library (unlike most) isn’t merely a dusty monument to a politician’s ego but an actual working entity, actively promoting democracy?
I get mighty fucking sick of this mindset that it’s not possible to disagree with Israeli policy without being an anti-Semite.
OTOH, Carter doesn’t simply disagree with Israeli policy, he actively promotes the agenda of organizations dedicated to genocide against the Israeli people, and he does so by constantly lying with a fluency that makes the Clintons blush at his audacity. That IS his legacy. So…yea, vile pretty much sums it up.
If I’m not mistaken, you are the very first person to bring up anti-Semitism in this thread.
I haven’t actually read Carter’s book yet, but I just ordered it from the library. Need to see what all the fuss is about.
He’s the first person to call a spade a spade. Here is **FinnAgain’s ** original quote:
I think there are enough code words in there so we know what **Finn ** is talking about.
It sure would be nice if **Finn ** could carry on a discussion on this topic without resorting to personally insulting people, including fellow posters. It would make it, you know, more like a debate.
Yes, I think it’s reasonable for the Palestinians to demand a stop to the settlements as a condition of negotiations. And I think the US should make that a condition of any future aid.
Just for the record, I have a lot of problems with Israel and the way the US seemingly supports them no matter what. But I also recognize that they are in an real existential fight (as oppose to the fake one the Republicans keep telling us we’re in).
You’ve been reading too many of his press releases.
Look, Carter isn’t the devil, but he’s no saint either. Note what I said above about his open support of Arafat.
And I do think we have to take his work seriously - which means that we must criticize it from time to time.
Besides, I’d stack Hoover’s work for peace and international aid against Carter’s - without intending to slight either man. And I will note that the Hoover Institution was founded before Hoover was president, and continues as a vital and interesting part of Stanford University today.