Former President Jimmy Carter Defends Recent Meeting with Hamas Leaders

[Purveyor]

In fierce fighting last June, Hamas took over the Gaza Strip, ousting Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas's more moderate Fatah group. Since then, Hamas has fired rockets into Israeli towns along the Gaza border.

Now, Israel and the U.S. say they will not meet with Hamas, which they label a terrorist group.

But on a recent visit to Syria and Egypt, former President Jimmy Carter did meet with Hamas leaders. In an interview with Voice of America, he gave his views on why peace has eluded Israel in recent years.

"The governments of the two countries I think are wrong in not dealing with Hamas and in not dealing with Syria,” Carter said. “There is no way that Israel can have peace with their next door neighbors the Palestinians or with Syria without at least talking to the people with whom they disagree. So, I believe that I was right in going."

President Carter's trip drew a firestorm of criticism, both in the United States and in Israel.

Lonny Nasatir, Chicago director of the Anti-Defamation League , a Jewish advocacy group, explains that criticism, "We feel that as a result of this, it actually gives Hamas legitimacy."

Mr. Carter clarifies, "My visit didn't legitimize or de-legitimize anybody."

One of the greatest achievements of former President Jimmy Carter's administration in the 1970s was a peace agreement between Israel and Egypt that continues today.

---eoe---

http://www.voanews.com:80/english/2008-05-14-voa20.cfm

[subsuelo]

1. Of course he is right

Only the deluded are unable to see that

[Vegasaurus]

2. What makes him right?

Hamas has said it won't negotiate with Israel, under any circumstances.

What makes you admire Carter, for talking with Hamas, when Hamas itself is clear on its intentions to never have peace with Israel?

Seems kind of deluded on your part.

[Sezu]

5. What Hamas wants is a truce wherein they get as much

as they want and time to build up their weapons and soldiers. Somehow this equates as peace to Carter and his ilk. It isn't of course but appeasers are appeeasers and willing to dress up a pig for a waltz which will never play if one really listens to what Hamas is saying. There can never be a real peace with a group like Hamas which openly encourages hatred of Jews, Israeli or not, in their society, Charter and preaching.

[Vegasaurus]

6. True

which is why all this posturing about "negotiating" with Hamas is a waste of time.

Who is to negotiate with?

People who have expressed a soul desire to kill you and take over your country?

[oberliner]

9. Obama agrees with you

He does not support negotiating with Hamas (unless they renounce terrorism and accept Israel's right to exist).

[Violet_Crumble]

17. I doubt very much he's opposed to a ceasefire or any talks...

And that's because it's an absolutist stance where there is no possibility of there ever being steps taken towards peace. I strongly beleive that there's got to be a ceasefire so talks can happen, and it's from there that both sides would renounce violence and accept each others existence...

[oberliner]

20. He has clearly and repeatedly stated that he does not support negotiations with Hamas

From April:

ABC News' Sunlen Miller Reports: President Jimmy Carter is heading to Syria next week and is slated to meet with Hamas representatives.

This presents a unique situation for presidential candidate Barack Obama – who is well documents saying he'd meet with America's "friends and enemies" if he were President, one difference he has with Senator Clinton.

But Obama draws the line at meeting with Hamas.

In a statement issued today by Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki, the Senator does not agree with Carter sitting down with Hamas, "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. As President, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-contrary.html

From yesterday:

The Illinois senator also said that he has stated "over and over again that I will not negotiate with terrorists like Hamas."

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/16/politics/main4103140.shtml?source=mostpop_story

[Violet_Crumble]

22. Seems I gave him more credit than he deserved...

I was under the impression that he was an intelligent and far-sighted man, but from what you've posted he sounds like every other two-bit hypocritical US politician. It's sitting down and talking that's what has the greatest chance of having those things happen as an outcome, not demands that those things happen before any talking starts....

[oberliner]

26. Fair enough

I respect anyone who disgarees with Obama or any other Democrat on this issue.

What I find frustrating is when someone is accused of being a RWer for espousing views that are, in fact, in line with what many leaders in the Democratic Party are saying.

Disagreeing with Carter's approach to Hamas, for instance, does not make someone a RWer or a Republican. If it did, then that designation would have to be applied to our presumptive nominee, Barack Obama.

[azurnoir]

7. Common propaganda

and runs counter to other claims, Hamas is upgrading it's weapons without a cease fire, so why do they need one for that purpose?

Carter and his ilk? You mean Democrats? You post sounds like a spin off of Bushes speech to the Knesset, do you care to elaborate

What are views on Obama, can you honestly post those

[oberliner]

8. Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting

In a statement issued today by Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki, the Senator does not agree with Carter sitting down with Hamas, "Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements. As President, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas."

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/obama-contrary.html

What are your views on Obama's statement? Can you honestly post those?

[azurnoir]

10. Obama says what he needs to period

that goes for his pastor, and anything else that might get in the way. The sad fact is I actually supported Obama, but more than his Israel stance his willingness to trash his pastor has made me have to wonder.

[oberliner]

11. Personally, I think that Obama actually has principles and says what he believes

That is one of his great strengths as a candidate (in my opinion).

[azurnoir]

12. I edited my post

but even more than his Israel stance it is his trashing of Rev Wright that is worrysome, after all if he thought so little of the man why did he attend his church for so long? I started out an Obama supporter long ago and he still is the lessor of two or three "evils" but.....dayamm

[pelsar]

14. i go further...

not that he attended a church with such a minister.and that his ability to judge character is so bad..not to mention that he has virtually no experience...but his ego must be gigantic, if he thinks he can run the US with so little experience....

i cant believe the choices are so limited........

[azurnoir]

15. Lets face it

any one who runs for President of the "worlds only superpower" has to have a pretty big ego, but I think all candidates these days say they what must, it's part of the game, in order to get the big money from the big donors, that would special interest money and in that game AIPAC is one of the smaller fish, banking/credit card, insurance, health care and pharma, not mention oil are all far bigger and have much more impact on every day life in America.

All 3 candidates take money from them

[Violet_Crumble]

23. He's the best of a bad bunch...

Given a choice between Mcain, Hillary and Obama, Obama stands heads and shoulders above them....

[azurnoir]

13. Yes I think he is wrong

first off Mr Carter is no longer part of the US government and what right has any politician to censor a private citizen, and that is all Mr Carter could be seen as, seeing as how the US's stance on Hamas is well known. In addition there are supposedly third party negotiations going on between Hamas and Israel with Egypt as the negotiator. I think there was more worry that Carter might be successful, it would make "certain parties" look bad. As it was it all amounted to nothing, except a media barrage. Not to mention as it has been pointed if one is not willing to negotiate with the enemy then what why negotiate with a friend.

[oberliner]

3. I'm not sure I understand why Hamas does not recognize Israel

They could make a statement similar to the one Arafat made. It would go a long way towards showing the world that they have abandoned their terrorist ideology and are interested in peaceful coexistence with Israel.

I've seen the explanations from various members of the Hamas leadership, but they don't really seem to hold water.

If Hamas could take that bold step and concurrently renounce violence against civilians as a feature of their resistance, it could really jumpstart some kind of peace process.

[LeftishBrit]

4. I agree.

At the moment, Hamas seem to blow hot and cold on this issue. Sometimes a Hamas leader says something that seems to pay at least lip-service to the idea that Israel exists and will continue to do so; and then someone else says - and acts- the total opposite.

I suspect that a Hamas leader who did take this bold and very desirable step would be in serious danger of assassination by harder-line Hamas members, or by Islamic Jihad. Possibly one reason why it hasn't happened yet.

I support talking to anyone who will talk (talking is very different from committing oneself to agreeing with all the other side's demands). The Good Friday Agreement was only reached by talks that included some pretty nasty people - nasty means terrorists and their supporters in this case too - on both sides. But, for talks to have serious results, all sides have to be prepared to consider compromises.

[azurnoir]

16. At the time of the 2006 Gaza "incursion"

Abbas made some noise about the "unity" government talking about recognizing Israel, however the "incursion" made that impossible. After that we all know what happened, choose your own version either th3e one where the US played a role or the one where Hamas is just evil.

At this point it would be difficult for Hamas to recognize Israel given the blockade and Israels tendency to dismiss everything Hamas says, after all the "cease fire" according to Israel and the "proIsraeli's" on this forum is only so Hamas can regroup so why would recognition be treated any differently? Additionally given Israel's tendency to have a "they did it once so they will always do it" attitude as a reason to keep the status quo and add to check points, settlements, blockades, interrogating people seeking medical care, targeted assassinations ect, why would it make any difference at this point except as a "tactical" victory for Israel.

[Vegasaurus]

21. How about Hamas tries something really novel?

Stop all attacks, violence, terrorism, rocket shooting, bombing of their food and fuel and crossings, stop the tunneling.

Who cares what they say? Their actions prove it all.

If they stop their violence for even a day, a week, there would be a steady reduction in checkpoints, blockade etc.

The violence came first.

If the violence and terrorism stops, so will the difficulty for the Palestinian people.

They choose their misery, or at least their leadership does.

[Violet_Crumble]

18. It'd be a sensible move, but I don't think it'd change anything...

I mean, the PLO did officially recognise Israel's existence and it didn't make a difference in the long run. I suspect that if Hamas were to recognise Israel's existence and renounce violence, all that would happen is the Israeli govt would accuse them of lying, and things wouldn't change. When it comes to the Palestinian leadership, Abbas has done all that Hamas is expected to do, but the only 'peace' process it kicked off was one where Israel continues to expand settlements in the West Bank, carry out attacks in the West Bank and Abbas comes across as a quisling or if he voices opposition to what Israel is doing, is labelled as not being interested in peace.

[oberliner]

19. I dispute your claim

I think there have been some very substantial changes as a result of the PLO's official recognition of Israel.

The vast majority of the West Bank is administered by the Palestinian Authority, not Israel, and there is no Israeli military presence inside Gaza.

The idea of an independent Palestinian state is now a policy that the Israeli government openly supports, and that the US and its allies stands behind. This change was not possible until Arafat and the PLO agreed to recognize Israel and renounce violence.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. Do you really think Israel would believe Hamas if they acknowledged Israel?

I just can't see that happening. I've lost count of teh number of times I've read things saying that the PLO hadn't officially recognised Israel, even though that had been done. And the vast majority of the West Bank is not administered by the PA http://www.fmep.org/maps/map_data/redeployment/staged_israeli_transfers.pdf and the Gaza disengagement wasn't a result of the PLO recognising Israel...

I guess the Israeli govt and and the US and its allies have a very different idea of what an independent Palestinian state would be than what I do. i fail to see how there could be an independent state emerging in the West Bank with Israeli settlements still there....

[oberliner]

25. Over 95 percent of West Bank Palestinians live in areas administered by the PA

That is what I meant by my claim of the vast majority of West Bank Palestinians being under the administration of the PA.

The Oslo Accords did call for Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. Whether that withdrawal would have happened had the Oslo Accords not been signed is debatable.

The way that I believe that an independent state could emerge in the West Bank is via some of the ideas presented in the Geneva Initiative. That proposal directly addresses the concern that you have raised regarding the Israeli settlements with a compromise that could potential be acceptable to both sides.

It is my belief that progressives ought to be speaking in one voice (so to speak) in favor of this peace proposal or something similar to it.

If we could get some energy being initiatives like that one, we could start moving towards peace and reconciliation rather than continuing along the path of violence and conflict.