Warren:

And you forget that Hamas is considered a terrorist organization by our government. When Carter agrees to meet with Hamas leaders he tells the Arab world that he (a former president) has more respect for Hamas than the United States of America. You and I may not see it like that, but that is their way.



What authority does the U.S. Constitution grant a former president? NOTHING. Carter is trying to usurp authority to act that is not granted him. Therefore, what he is doing is Unconstitutional.

If you or I did what he is doing, we would already be in prison by now.

Well, ParaTed2K, we'd only be in prison because George Bush would have us tossed in some secret holding facility without trial because he believes we're a terrible threat to him or because we disagree with his policies. You're right--he'd have a tough time pulling a Jose Padilla on Jimmy Carter.

Actually, you may wish to examine the Constitution a little more closely; whatever this administration hasn't used as toilet paper reserves power not specifically granted to the federal government and the state governments to the people. That's us--you and me and Jimmy Carter.

While I realize Hamas on the list of terrorist organizations, so is Syria on the list of state sponsors of terror and so, for that matter, is Iran, but we still held trilateral talks in February of 2007. At any rate, I actually don't see it as President Carter dissing the current administration; I see it as him reaching out to two parties in a bitter conflict to attempt to achieve a resolution, and, as an accomplished statesman, he undoubtedly sees this as his duty.

Adventure_Dude, if you're wondering about who wants a two-state solution, I suggest you read this article: WWW Link

it depends. As a rule, no. As an absolute, ignore the rule. You cannot bring peace to those that do not want it. And if Hamas does not want it, then it will do no good for an impotent old man to go in and make promises - promises that cannot be kept.

But you make the same mistake many do. I said "sometimes". Sometimes the best course of action is no action. I did not say it was the only course on all cases.

As for the desire for Hamas to want a state, that is a read herring. And actually their refusal to create one is hindering the Jeresulem question. nations can negotiate. YOu cannot negotiate with Terrorists, and that is what they are trying to get Israel to do (which it has - to its own ill).

Did France refuse to form a state after losing Alsace-Lorraine? Did Germany after it lost it? Jeresulem is an excuse to remain a terrorist organization, not a reason for them to not creaTe a state.

Article II, section 2. Read it and learn. If you can get your eyes to stop rolling around in your head long enough.

I read the link (thanks by the way). I didn't see ANYWHERE Hamas agreeing to a two-state solution. Hints and attempts to persuading Hamas to accept a two-state solution was all I found.

Admit it, if it was George Bush doing this during a future administration, you'd be calling for his head.. and so would I.



You act as if the Constitution is silent where foreign policy is concerned.

I see a lot of sour grapes here by people who just can't get over the fact that George Bush is president.

What Carter is doing is no different than if I went around treating patients in the field because I "used" to be a paramedic.

Ted,it sounds like you're assuming that Carter is there to procure a peace treaty on the US's behalf, but...as far as I've read, that isn't so. So technically, you're wrong. I believe, i could be wrong, but as far as ive read. (and yes, i've read about it quite a bit)

(Also, I apologize if I seem..nasty or what not, I let this last week get to me. So, my apologies again. )



Actually, I like Bush. I don't agree with much of what he's done, but I'm more than willing to empathize, and attempt to see things in his eyes. Honestly, I think I'm one of few "loony liberals," that does. ( )

Silent:

As far as the Constitution question, if he doens't try to speak for the nation, or act in any way as a government representative, then I'll say you're right. We'll see how things turn out.

As far as bolstering the image of terrorist leaders amongst Arab nations, the very fact he's willing to talk to them against the policies of our nation, he is proving to them that he respects them more than the US. That's not my opinion, that is just plain fact.



Fair enough, we all let life get to us at times.

Eh, forgive me, but I'm more inclined to accept it as opinion, but we'll see. Who knows, there might be a miracle.

And thanks, I shouldnt have, but it happened. I got over it and am good now.

Please, don't assign opinions to people.

Israelis do not "hate" Arabs. And, in fact, Israeli Arabs are not afraid to walk in Jewish neighbourhoods. Israel has won every conflict and her enemies are still alive. And Israeli television does not demonise Arabs either.

So please, keep your judgement to yourself.

Germans once hated Jews, but Jews didn't hate Germany (and most don't today).

Arab nationalists and Islamists have a problem with ALL ethnic and religious minorities, not just Jews. Blaming Israel and Arabs for hating each other will not solve the problem that ALL ethnic and religious minorities in the middle east have.

You won't find many Jews or Israelis who say that Arabs are "the sons of pigs and donkeys" or should be exterminated. There are some such Jews (although I have never seen such extremes), but their opinions and behaviour are certainly not condoned by Israel or the vast majority of Jewish communities in the world.

If you watch Arab television or read Arab newspapers (looking at pictures is enough!) you will find that many, many Arabs indeed _hate_ Jews. They are proud of it. Feel free to say that they do.

But to claim that Israel or Jews hate Arabs, in spite of the fact that there is no evidence for that (and in spite of Israel and Jews rejecting the claim), is a form of anti-Semitism. You are accusing Jews of something evil, which they haven't done.

You have NO RIGHT to do so.

 

P.S.: And if you doubt my words, feel free to dress up as an Arab and travel through Israel and then dress up as a Jew and travel through an Arab country. I am not making this up. You can test and verify the validity of my statements!

 

 

Hamas seem to believe that you can make progress by destroy Israel and exterminating the Jews.

I believe we can make progress by giving all the aid money we are currently giving to the "Palestinian cause" to poor Africans instead. (I.e. I support a privatisation of the next holocaust.)

We could also make progress by _defeating_ the enemy, like we did with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. The progress made by talking to them cost too many Jewish/Chinese/other lifes.

Compromise is good. But the compromise between zero dead Jews (Israel's demand) and six million dead Jews (Hamas' demand) is three million dead Jews. I don't see why we have to compromise with evil. (And neither do those that propose such compromises. They know full well that it is OTHERS, i.e. Israel, who are compromising, NOT Carter or his ilk.)

I still blame Tony Blair for not being the American president when Sadat decided to visit Jerusalem and make peace with Israel. That was a mistake of Tony's and something Carter did right.

Incidentally, Sadat was murdered by the Muslim Brotherhood. Hamas is a local chapter of the same group that killed the man who did the actual work that made Carter famous.

Carter bathing in the glory of Sadat's vision is one thing, but his attitude towards Sadat's murderers is even worse.

People give Carter credit for Sadat's work and Carter talks to Sadat's murderers.

The guy is scum.

The "Palestinian problem" can only be solved by the "Palestinians" themselves.

 

And only after they grow up.

That's true, but the point of negotiations is in fact to win concessions from the other side. What the article did suggest is that Hamas is in fact willing to accept the coexistence of Israel and a Palestinian state if the majority of Palestinians vote for it.

Leauki, do you really believe that all or even a majority of Palestinians simply hate and wish to exterminate Jews? If so, where is the starting point for peace? What does "defeating the enemy" mean to you precisely? An endless cycle of suicide bombings and rocket attacks by Palestinians followed by incursions of Israeli armor and air strikes by their Air Force on Palestinian territory? Because unless one side does in fact succeed in eliminating the other, that's what I see in the future--unless someone is willing to take a chance on working toward a lasting peace.

ParaTed2K, I hate to sound snide about it, but honestly, do you see George W. Bush doing anything besides retiring to his ranch after his presidency is over? It would indeed surprise me greatly if he did. But no, my comments are not motivated by "sour grapes," as you put it. Obviously, I have numerous and substantial disagreements with Bush's policies, but it is pointless to deny that he is the president. And to be honest, if he were willing and able to accomplish even a fraction of the things that Carter has done since he left office after his presidency ends, I'd nominate him myself for a Nobel Prize. The fact is that my comments are motivated not by a desire to "Bush-bash," as I could start my own thread or join countless others for that, but by a sincere admiration for the diplomatic skills and humanitarian efforts of President Carter and an indignant reaction to the hostility with which the current administration and other commentators have viewed the former president's visit to the Middle East.

I will agree with SilentPoet that the article of the Constitution that you cite is not relevant because Carter never claimed to be travelling anywhere as a representative of this or any other government.

The problem with laws is not in what you claim your purpose is, but in what your actions are. You cannot be convicted of riding around the world and claiming you are god emperor of the USA (you may be committed, but I dont think you will be legally penalized). But when you stop and sign that treaty with the Grand Poobah of Eurasia, then you can be.

What Carter is doing could very well be unconstitutional based upon what he is doing. That is for the administration and the courts to decide, but it is also not without precedent if the administration were to bring charges against him.

Their election results suggest it, as does the fact that "Mein Kampf" and the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" are major bestsellers in Arab countries.

(Note that in my experience it is non-Palestinian Arabs who hate Jews a lot more than Palestinian Arabs.)

History has also shown that a vocal minority who wants to exterminate a people can make a nation do exactly that when given the chance.

Have you read some of the things Arab leaders said before they went to attack Israel?

 

I grew up in West-Berlin.

My life, my parents' lives, all the lives of fellow Germans born after World War II are a testament to what "defeating the enemy" can mean.

Talking to Hitler was wrong. Bombing Germany into the stone age did the trick.

Give the Arabs a choice; the same choice Germany had and didn't take!

Sadat was smarter than the Germans, Nasser was not. But the Egyptians neither paid for their attacks nor did they enjoy the enormous benefits Germany enjoyed since losing the war.

You can either call for the extermination of the Jews or not. But both should have different and very clear consuequences.

See http://www.netneurotic.net/Extrablatt/ for a humorous take on the issue of starting and losing a war over an idiotic and wrong ideology (and how some people make it sound as if blatant racism is simply another opinion we have to take into account).

And as I said, a good idea would be this:

I believe we can make progress by giving all the aid money we are currently giving to the "Palestinian cause" to poor Africans instead.

 

Israel has proposed peace in 1948.

And offered to give back territories won in war in 1967 in exchange for peace.

Israel offered peace again in 1994 and 2000.

What exactly are you talking about when you say "taking a chance"? Israel took the chances. And every single time Israel was attacked again.

What do you want Israel to do? Take the chance again?

At what point would you concede that you are wrong about this?

 

 

Warren:

There's a reason the U.S. Constitution doesn't mention the role of Former Presidents. They aren't supposed to have a role. They are supposed to go back to being John Q. Sixpack.

Carter has done some great things since his fiasco of a presidency. He's also done and said a lot of things that he should be ashamed of... and this is one of them.

He is no longer a diplomat, so he should quit acting like he is one. He is doing nothing more than what I'd be doing if I went around treating people in the field because I "used" to be a paramedic.

I haven't seen any arguments that convince me that I am wrong yet, Leauki. My opinion is this: you don't give up on peace after one or two or three tries--I would cite the efforts to secure a lasting peace in Ireland/Great Britain as a better example than your references to World War II-era Germany. Why? Because both of these are situations where you are dealing with what the U.S. likes to term "asymmetrical warfare." The IRA used vicious bombing tactics and cold-blooded murder to advance its Republican agenda. Are the Palestinian terrorists any different? There is no real "Palestine" at this point in our history where Israel could simply declare war, battle its military with its own military forces, and sign an armistice when the war is over. This is why your World War II analogy doesn't hold up. Also, I frankly fail to see how you can equate negotiation with appeasement; this just isn't the second world war, and Jimmy Carter is not Neville Chamberlain.

While history has shown that a minority group can force nations (note my use of the word "nations" here) to commit terrible actions (I won't get into the obvious parallels with current U.S. actions overseas, as that's another thread), it doesn't have to be that way. And, in any event, do you really think that Hamas has the organizational ability or the resources or the manpower to "exterminate the Jews"? While some in that group may view such an action as a wonderful objective, I don't think it's realistic. What we know is this: Israel, like a select few nations around the globe, has nuclear weapons. I don't believe for one second that if the Israeli government truly believed that the state were in danger of being annihilated by any group that it would hesitate to use those weapons.

ParaTed2K,

Clearly we simply disagree about this: I don't think his presidency was fiasco, and I certainly don't believe that he should be ashamed of anything he's done subsequent to his time in office. While he may not have official diplomatic status, he is a good negotiator, and contrary to what Dr Guy suggested, he never had any intention of "signing a treaty." Obviously, we all agree here (as does the former president) that he has no authority to sign treaties on behalf of the U.S.

As this is the second time you brought up being an ex-paramedic, I will say that I can see a variety of legal and ethical reasons why someone who is not certified would not be allowed to practice emergency treatment, and probably the most basic reason is that a person who has lost certain skills or abilities through disuse or lack of updated training (and I'm certainly not arguing that this is the case for you--I know nothing about your personal situation) may inadvertently kill someone in medical distress. I find this to be an odd analogy, because I don't see how talking to people or bringing people together to talk with one another ever killed anyone.

Leuki, all I can say is BULLSEYE! Nice catch and clarification.



Warreni, I do believe that your heart is in the right place on this issue but I see nothing that would actually lead me to believe that there was ANY evidence of Hamas to accept coexistence in the past nor in the present. I read that article several times and I get the feeling that it has a significant bias towards Palestine. The problem here is that this is nothing new from Hamas.

Knowing their past record...PLEASE tell me one reason WHY Israel should even consider a deal with Hamas and Palestine when there is NO suggestion of a change of heart?

In my opinion, Israel's 'peace' treaty should be more or less this. Stop attacking us and there will be peace. If you refuse then we WILL come in and take over. We gave you the Gaza and West Bank in order for peace, you broke your end of the deal....we take our land back.

The Israel-Palestine issue can be likened to two kids on a playground. Let's call them "Bob" and "Larry". Bob shoves Larry off of the slide. Larry pushes back. The teacher calls them both aside, and asks what the problem is:

Bob: "I want to kill Larry!"
Larry: "I want to play on the slide."

The teacher, exercising US diplomacy, comes up with a compromise: Bob cannot kill Larry, but he can MAIM him instead!

The Israeli struggle is one for its own existence. The Palestinian struggle is one for the complete destruction of Israel. Which has the more reasonable request?

Then you might try Hooked on Phonics sometime.



It is actually a great analogy. My skills as a paramedic didn't deteriorate the day my license and certifications expired, but I still couldn't go treat people in the field. Why? Because I no longer had the authorization to do it. Carter doesn't have authorization anymore either.

He is being just as wreckless as I would be also. If you don't think people could die because of his wannabe diplomat stupidity, then why are you arguing that him doing so might save lives? If succeeding saves lives, then failing costs them.

Carter's talking got a lot of people killed, from the embassy guards in Tehran to his screwed up failure of a rescue mission for the hostages.

The ONLY thing that fool ever accomplished during his presidency was win 52 people a 444 all expense paid vacation in Tehran, giving away the Panama Canal for no reason whatsoever and showing the people who lived through it what a real recession is like.

In case you're thinking I have nothing good to say about the man... he has done great things for the humanitarian causes he has championed, and more than any other former president, he deserved it when a U.S. Navy Submarine was named for him. Not only because he was President, and a Naval Officer, but he's the only president in history to have qualified for his dolphins (qualified as a U.S. Navy Submariner).

It's not two or three tries. It was DECADES of offering peace. Israel is STILL offering peace.

Ireland and Great Britain is different because neither population wanted to exterminate the other. You can always make peace with Britain. Gandhi did it by ignoring them until they went away. That doesn't work with Arab nationalists and Muslim fundamentalists.

Israel is also not dealing with "asymmetrical warfare", or at least wasn't during most of the time. The current situation is the most peaceful it has ever been. I am not sure which problem you want to solve.

 

Agreed, however I don't agree that this is the most peaceful it has ever been. Many times before a 'peace' deal we have seen this same peaceful period before it's finalized. Hamas is usually on the 'gainin' end of the deals and Israel usually has to give something up.