Jimmy Carter - give peace a chance

[Rainbow]

Quote by: shrike There are fanatics driven by their religion they don't care about options.

I think it is true.
Palestine vs. Religious Fanatism
That is the option left for them, only (so far).

[GHook93]

Quote by: Rainbow #1 Hamas has no option left, but to accept and follow conditions for creating Palestine as a state.

Hamas is based off of religious extremist ideology, its a mistake to believe they will go the rational route. I have no doubt that if it comes to negotiating with them, they will still insist on the "right of return" to Israel.

#2 We all know Carter's achievements as the U.S. President.

What achievements? His legacy is one of the worst and most ineffective Presidents in the history of America.

[Rainbow]

Quote by: GHook93 Hamas is based off of religious extremist ideology, its a mistake to believe they will go the rational route. I have no doubt that if it comes to negotiating with them, they will still insist on the "right of return" to Israel. What achievements? His legacy is one of the worst and most ineffective Presidents in the history of America.

#1
That is a part for political processs.
Either they have Palestine, or they have nothing.

#2
It was a sarcasm :-)

[shrike]

Here is a nice opinion piece.About Carter meeting with the Hamass terrorists.

The false hope of embracing Hamas - Los Angeles Times Jimmy Carter's embrace of the radical Palestinian Islamist movement Hamas -- he actually hugged a senior Hamas official this week -- means that Ramsey Clark may finally get a run for his money as America's most embarrassing ex-somebody. ... Most advocates of engagement with Hamas fall into two camps. The first sees engagement as a way to strengthen Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and thereby advance Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. A Palestinian "house divided" will never be strong enough to make peace with Israel, this argument goes, and diplomatic progress therefore requires reconciling Hamas and its bitter rival, Abbas' Fatah. The second camp is more direct. Engaging Hamas reflects the reality of Hamas' power, popularity and ability to undermine any diplomacy in which it is not accorded its rightful role. Peacemakers should talk directly with Hamas, this argument goes, because the Islamist movement -- not Abbas -- is the most important player in Palestinian politics. The first argument is illogical. No Hamas leader has ever endorsed a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, so embracing Hamas can never advance the prospects of such a solution. At the same time, it is unfair and patronizing to suggest that Palestinians must be unified to achieve diplomatic progress. After all, the world routinely expects Israel to make national decisions by the narrowest of margins, such as the 61-59 Knesset vote on a key 1995 peace accord. For the Israelis, the key ingredient is not unity; it is leadership. Why are the Palestinians any different? The second argument may be more candid about Hamas' power, but it's also sadly defeatist. Advocates of this school seem to forget that we have seen this movie before, with Yasser Arafat in the starring role ... Hamas, by contrast, has no advocates of peace with Israel. The divide is between those who call for a tahdiya (a brief lull in the fighting) and those who favor a hudna (a longer-term armistice). Neither approximates peace with Israel. Against this backdrop, it would be folly for the U.S. government to demand less of Hamas today than it asked of the PLO 20 years ago. Engaging Hamas also would knock the wind out of Abbas' administration, essentially throwing the Palestinians to the wolves of Hamas. Those who advocate this approach must somehow believe that Hamas is willing to be complicit in its own demise. Unsatisfying as it may be, the right course for U.S. policymakers is to persist in the strategy adopted after Hamas' Gaza putsch last summer: Invest in economic and political success in the West Bank and further isolate Hamas in Gaza. The goal is to give Palestinians a clear choice: a chance for peace and prosperity, or a certainty of penury and bloodshed. So far, the strategy has not borne results -- but it hasn't been given the time and attention it needs to work.

[GHook93]

Quote by: shrike Here is a nice opinion piece.About Carter meeting with the Hamass terrorists.

I fit in the 2nd category, but I don't agree with the author. Negotiation might not lead to anything, but what has the silence got you? Not much!

I think a peace can be formed!

[grandpa]

Quote by: GHook93 I fit in the 2nd category, but I don't agree with the author. Negotiation might not lead to anything, but what has the silence got you?

Until something changes, you'll never know. It hardly makes sense to call the meeting "nogotiations." No sides seem truly interested in a sttlement (unless you mean establishing Israeli settlements).

Grandpa h.

[shrike]

Thats the reason that I object any truce with terrorists

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7...536087,00.html Mashaal: Truce a 'tactic' in Palestinian struggle "It is a tactic in conducting the struggle. ... It is normal for any resistance that operates in its people's interest ... to sometimes escalate, other times retreat a bit...the battle is to be run this way and Hamas is known for that," he said. "In 2003, there was a cease-fire and then the operations were resumed."

[grandpa]

Quote by: shrike Thats the reason that I object any truce with terrorists

Not having truces is a recipe for more terrorism. And I have to make my standard objection: The terrorism is not only coming from Muslims.

Grandpa h.

[Technosoul]

Some details will come to light tonight (Monday) when Larry King interviews fomer President Carter about his trip. I saw no reason Carter should make those attempts because we can trust his experience and good judgement in such matters.

And he is someone who is no longer concerned about getting the Jewish vote because his organization is set up to do peaceful things.

[shrike]

Quote by: grandpa Not having truces is a recipe for more terrorism.

No not all. The terrorists don't need reasons to commit terror acts they will break the truce when it fits them like Mashaal said. There is two recipes for real stopping of terrorism a real peace that Hamas is not ready to it anyhow or constant military pressure that the reasons that Hamas asking for the cease fire to reorganize and than break it again like they did before.

And I have to make my standard objection: The terrorism is not only coming from Muslims. .

Its your constant red herring you mean if you want to discuss someone else terrorism you invited to open you own thread.

[Derek Wolff]

My only problem is I don't think Jimmy should be allowed to do the talking. Ex president yea, but I don't he has a lot of potency now, or when he was president. Some one official should be speaking to them.

[GHook93]

Quote by: Technosoul Some details will come to light tonight (Monday) when Larry King interviews fomer President Carter about his trip. I saw no reason Carter should make those attempts because we can trust his experience and good judgement in such matters.

He judgement LOL! His experian even a bigger LOL! I applaud his efforts, but he is not the right man for the job. First, he was a utterly failure as a president! He is up their with the worst ever. Second, he has no political power and all he could do it talk with nothing to offer.

[Technosoul]

Quote by: GHook93 He judgement LOL! His experian even a bigger LOL! I applaud his efforts, but he is not the right man for the job. First, he was a utterly failure as a president! He is up their with the worst ever. Second, he has no political power and all he could do it talk with nothing to offer.

He does not have big wars to brag about as a fomer President but just how would you measure that he was a failure? But that is not a factor anyway, after he left office he has done a lot for peace and has recieved international awards for his work, and has international repsect even if the Big Bully Bunch do not like him.