Carter: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Not Possible Without Hamas Involvement

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Carter: Israeli-Palestinian Peace Not Possible Without Hamas Involvement

Hamas must be part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for it to succeed, former President Jimmy Carter told reporters in Syria.

FOXNews.com EXCERPT:

Thursday, June 11, 2009
Hamas must be part of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for it to succeed, former President Jimmy Carter told reporters Thursday in Damascus, Syria.
"I don't believe there is any possibility to have peace between Palestinians and Israel unless Hamas is involved directly in harmony with Fatah," he said, according to a Reuters report.
Carter's remarks come amid aggressive diplomatic efforts by the Obama administration for a peace deal through a two-state solution. Secretary of State Clinton has made it clear that the U.S. and European-designated terror group will not be part of peace process unless it renounces violence and recognize Israel.
END EXCERPT
No, Jimmy! The "Two state solution" just isn't possible when Hamas, in its charter calls for the extermination of Jews and end of Israel. Israel bends over backwards to try to appease the terrorists, and gets rocketed and bombed for it, every time.
Lets apply a martial arts idea to this, if every time you drop your hands you get punched in the face, how long is it going to take you to learn not to drop your hands?
 

celtic_crippler

Senior Master
Joined
Jan 15, 2006
Messages
3,968
Reaction score
137
Location
Airstrip One
I think peace is not possible as long as they keep blowing up Isreali restaurants and buses...:rolleyes:

...so probably never.
 

howard

Brown Belt
Joined
May 12, 2004
Messages
469
Reaction score
17
I think peace is not possible as long as they keep blowing up Isreali restaurants and buses...:rolleyes:

Nor as long as the IDF continues to slaughter Palestinian women and children who literally have nowhere to run, as they did during the Gaza offensive a few months back.

It cuts both ways.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Nor as long as the IDF continues to slaughter Palestinian women and children who literally have nowhere to run, as they did during the Gaza offensive a few months back.

It cuts both ways.
The Gaza offensive was a response to ROCKET ATTACKS. Had the terrorist douchebags not been firing rockets, willy-nilly into Israeli suburbs (not military targets, btw) Israel would have done NOTHING.
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
I somehow remember Israel withdrawing from Gaza, leaving behind houses and a viable greenhouse agro-business. Had the Palestinians done the right thing, the West Bank was to be next. Instead, they destroyed the houses and the green houses and used Gaza as a new launhcing pad for attacks.

Problem is, they are run by ****-disturbers. The rest of the Arab world only cares for them as pawns to deflect from their own domestic problems. Something could have been done while Egypt and Jordan occupied Gaza and the WB between 1948 and 1967.

And where is the outrage over the Jordanian massacre of thousands of Palestinians in Sept 1970?

Fact remains that the only country in the ME that want the Palestinians to have their own state is Israel. The Arab world doesn't care.
 

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
74
I think it is safe to say that both parties have a lot of blood on their hands, and it is pointless to discuss who did what to whom first.
Everything that has been happening for the last umpteen years has been a counter reaction to something done by the other party.

Carter is right insofar that Hamas represents a large part of the palestinian population in this matter. Since slaughtering the other side is not the preferred solution, both parties somehow have to stop fighting, and that is only possible if you can get an agreement that includes approval from hamas. Or rather, it needs general approval of the people who currently support hamas. The people are the ones who matter. Without their general agreement, it'll be a short lived peace.

I acknowledge that it won't be easy though.
 

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
74
:confused:
I got my first negative rep, for writing the previous post.

My post was written in a calm tone, not unreasonable, and I took care to explain myself clearly. Can't see anything wrong with that. The fact that there was no actual rep message doesn't make it easier to figure out.

I would think that -this being a discussion forum- the idea is that if you disagree with a non-inflammatory post, you take the time to explain your point of view. That way, even if we cannot come to an agreement, we can come to an understanding of each others point of view.

To the person who gave me the rep ding: if you had taken the time to either reply to my post, or at least left me a rep message, I might have learned something useful. I am always willing to consider other opinions, even if I don't agree with them. The only thing I learned now is that you dislike it when someone has a different opinion and that you can't be bothered to explain why. Hardly a gentlemanly or ladylike thing to do.
 
Last edited:

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
Bruno, What you don't seem to understand is that Hamas sole reasoon for being is the destruction of Israel. The Palestinians have to be made to understand that they are an impediment to a state, not a meand to achieve it. Every time a government engages in 'talks' with them, it shows the Palestinians that killling civilians is a way to statehood.

Israel politics used to be divided into 3 camps. the far right loons who want the Biblical borders, the far left loons who will give up everything for peace, and a very healthy centre that believed that a rational process could produce peace. The Second Intifada as a reaction to Camp David moved a lot of the population from centre-left to centre-right. The Palestinian reaction to Israel leaving Gaza has shown that the far left position will not work.
 
OP
Big Don

Big Don

Sr. Grandmaster
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
10,551
Reaction score
189
Location
Sanger CA
Carter honored by Palestinians
22 hours ago
Google News/AP
EXCERPT:

RAMALLAH, West Bank (AP) Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter was honored by the Palestinian government Saturday and pledged to support the Palestinians' campaign for independence to the end of his days.
In his acceptance speech, Carter urged the Palestinians to end their internal divisions and stop persecuting their rivals.
He was referring to the growing rift between the Islamic militant Hamas group, which controls Gaza, and Western-backed Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, in charge of the West Bank. Each side has been cracking down on the other's supporters, particularly since Hamas violently overran Gaza two years ago.
Carter met with Hamas' exiled leadership in Syria on Thursday and is to head to Gaza on Sunday, after meeting with Israeli officials. Carter has said peace between Israel and the Palestinians is impossible without involving Hamas, but reiterated in Syria that he was not representing the Obama administration.
Hamas is being shunned by most of the international community, including the U.S., for refusing to recognize Israel or renounce violence, though Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal has said repeatedly in recent weeks that his group wants to be part of a Mideast solution.
END EXCERPT
Hamas is being shunned by most of the international community, including the U.S., for refusing to recognize Israel or renounce violence, though Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal has said repeatedly in recent weeks that his group wants to be part of a Mideast solution.
Hmmm, there is a phrase for people like Carter, it's a pretty famous term...
Useful Idiot
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
:confused:
I got my first negative rep, for writing the previous post.

My post was written in a calm tone, not unreasonable, and I took care to explain myself clearly. Can't see anything wrong with that. The fact that there was no actual rep message doesn't make it easier to figure out.

I would think that -this being a discussion forum- the idea is that if you disagree with a non-inflammatory post, you take the time to explain your point of view. That way, even if we cannot come to an agreement, we can come to an understanding of each others point of view.

To the person who gave me the rep ding: if you had taken the time to either reply to my post, or at least left me a rep message, I might have learned something useful. I am always willing to consider other opinions, even if I don't agree with them. The only thing I learned now is that you dislike it when someone has a different opinion and that you can't be bothered to explain why. Hardly a gentlemanly or ladylike thing to do.


Bruno, have to say I didn't agree with what you wrote but it wasn't offensive nor written in such a way that could be construed as offensive. It's your opinion and a perfectly valid one ( if wrong..... lol sorry couldn't resist that). Canuck answered for me too so I won't labour the point.

I think you can ask the mods about the neg rep if you wish?
Unless the bestower wants to comment?
 

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
74
Look I don't care about -who- gave me the rep. But a -why- is not too much to ask for I would hope. That is why the rep field contains a textbox. This is a political discussion, so disagreement is bound to happen. It's why we are here. Otherwise there would be no point to this subforum.

I know that hamaz are extremists. But they were elected in a huge landslide, meaning they got a majority of the voters behind them. Peace through whatever means is only possible if the people that elected them can be convinced of the need for peace.

To reach those people, the most direct route would be through hamaz, just like reaching workers through their unions. If the hamaz party cannot be convinced, then those people need to be reached via a different channel. But this will be more difficult.

However, as long as there are millions who think violence is the best answer, peace will never be lasting. This is what I meant in my post.
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
But Hamas is not interested in peace. So talking to them is utterly pointless. Fatah is not much better, but at least they are interested in negotiations leading to a reasonable solution. For Hamas, the only thing to negotiate is how fast will the Jews leave Israel. And that will never happen. There a few things that are non negotiable from the sraeli side. Israel will nver give up the Golan. Strategically, it would be suicide. Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital. Whether it can be shared with a Palestinian state can be negotiated, and the size of Israel will not substantially change from what it is today. Land may need to be swapped, the the overall size will remain. And lans swap is not without precedent. After kibbutz Yael was built, it was discovered that a chunk of it was actually in Jordan. No war was fought, no lives were lost, Israel and Jordan agreed to change the border somewhere else to give Jordan the same amount of land back.
 

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
74
But Hamas is not interested in peace. So talking to them is utterly pointless.

Be that as it may, there are a couple of reasons why trying to talk may not be a waste of time:

- the people who voted for them are the ones who play a key role. By talking to them, the other party shows a degree of respect for the people voting them, thus preventing a public slap in the face of millions.
- by talking to them and highlighting their unreasonableness (is this a word?) they cannot play victim afterwards.
- if hamaz keeps making themselves seem unreasonable in peace talks, they can then be ignored, and the negotiators can try to find other people (for example fatah who apparently understand the concept of negotiations) and by talking to them, giving them internal credibility.

Politics is a game. A dirty game but a game nonetheless. Even if hamaz will never negotiate about 1 grain of sand, talking to them can serve a variety of purposes.

Fatah is not much better, but at least they are interested in negotiations leading to a reasonable solution. For Hamas, the only thing to negotiate is how fast will the Jews leave Israel. And that will never happen. There a few things that are non negotiable from the sraeli side. Israel will nver give up the Golan. Strategically, it would be suicide. Jerusalem will remain Israel's capital. Whether it can be shared with a Palestinian state can be negotiated, and the size of Israel will not substantially change from what it is today. Land may need to be swapped, the the overall size will remain. And lans swap is not without precedent. After kibbutz Yael was built, it was discovered that a chunk of it was actually in Jordan. No war was fought, no lives were lost, Israel and Jordan agreed to change the border somewhere else to give Jordan the same amount of land back.

Thanks for your explanation.
The reason I am in favor of talks is the following: in this conflict, there are 2 parties next to each other and fighting over land. They cannot go anywhere else. So there are really only 2 ways this can end:
- they stop fighting, and reach some kind of understanding about who owns what.
- once side completely slaughters the other side, thus taking away the source of the conflict.

Since the latter is not a viable solution, that pretty much leaves negotiations and a cease fire as the only way to end the conflict.
 

Bruno@MT

Senior Master
Joined
Feb 24, 2009
Messages
3,399
Reaction score
74
. edited my previous post.
This post has become redundant.
Can a mod please delete this empty shell of a message?
 

CanuckMA

Master of Arts
Joined
Dec 24, 2003
Messages
1,726
Reaction score
57
Location
Toronto
Be that as it may, there are a couple of reasons why trying to talk may not be a waste of time:

- the people who voted for them are the ones who play a key role. By talking to them, the other party shows a degree of respect for the people voting them, thus preventing a public slap in the face of millions.
- by talking to them and highlighting their unreasonableness (is this a word?) they cannot play victim afterwards.
- if hamaz keeps making themselves seem unreasonable in peace talks, they can then be ignored, and the negotiators can try to find other people (for example fatah who apparently understand the concept of negotiations) and by talking to them, giving them internal credibility.

Politics is a game. A dirty game but a game nonetheless. Even if hamaz will never negotiate about 1 grain of sand, talking to them can serve a variety of purposes.

But you are assuming a full and open process. You assume that all of the discussions with the leaders of Hamas will filter down to 'the voters'. It won't At best Hamas will claim victory of their tactics, we hit them, they soften and offer peace. Let's keep hitting them until they cave in. Hamas is nothing but third rate thugs. After the election, they systematically went after Fatah supporters. Their hatred of Israel is all consuming. 'Collaborating' with Israel is a capital crime. That can be defined as anything.

No, the best strategy is to negotiate with Fatah and achieve a peace with the West Bank. After that Israel can send aid to the WB and help rebuild. Those action combined with a total shunning of Hamas will do more for the peace process in Gaza than talking with Hamas.

Left unsaid by most is that the most prosperous time for Gaza and the WB was between 1967 and the first Intifada. Israel helped build infrastructure, schools, etc. Israel realizes that it is in Her best interest to have peace with all Her neighbours.
 

Tez3

Sr. Grandmaster
Supporting Member
Joined
Oct 13, 2006
Messages
27,608
Reaction score
4,901
Location
England
But you are assuming a full and open process. You assume that all of the discussions with the leaders of Hamas will filter down to 'the voters'. It won't At best Hamas will claim victory of their tactics, we hit them, they soften and offer peace. Let's keep hitting them until they cave in. Hamas is nothing but third rate thugs. After the election, they systematically went after Fatah supporters. Their hatred of Israel is all consuming. 'Collaborating' with Israel is a capital crime. That can be defined as anything.

No, the best strategy is to negotiate with Fatah and achieve a peace with the West Bank. After that Israel can send aid to the WB and help rebuild. Those action combined with a total shunning of Hamas will do more for the peace process in Gaza than talking with Hamas.

Left unsaid by most is that the most prosperous time for Gaza and the WB was between 1967 and the first Intifada. Israel helped build infrastructure, schools, etc. Israel realizes that it is in Her best interest to have peace with all Her neighbours.

This is true, sadly. Fatah are realists and will negociate while frankly Hamas are as bad for the Palestinians as they are for Israel perhaps worse because they are supposed to be for the Palestinians.
 
Top