Former Nobel Peace prize winner, President Jimmy Carter, against the wishes of both the United States government (embodied by George "I Wanna be a Peacemaker" Bush) and Israel (embodied by Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, Defense Minister Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni, along with opposition leader Binyamin Netanyahu) is STILL seeking Peace when not building houses for people without them. Some may recall that he was awarded the Nobel Prize for "for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development " in 2002.
Fortunately . . . some still seek Peace. Israel's President Shimon Peres (Nobel Peace Prize winner in 1994) met with President Carter despite opposition from his own Ministers. Nobel Peace Prize winner (1984), Bishop Desmond Tutu and former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan (another Nobel Peace Prize winner from 2001) were part of the group but were denied access to Gaza. Both Israel and the United States seem to think less of the delegation than the world at large.
Real News Network reports that due to the Israeli refusal to allow the Gaza visit, the delegation will meet in Syria instead. "Carter met Nasser al-Shaer, a senior Hamas leader, and laid a wreath on the grave of Yasser Arafat. "I'm just trying to understand different opinions and communicate, provide communications between people that won't communicate with each other," the former US leader said. "If (the Hamas leadership) have anything constructive to say ... then I would bring that to other people." Carter is scheduled to meet Khaled Mashaal, the exiled leader of Hamas, in Syria on Friday.
"NASSER SHAER, LEADING HAMAS MEMBER (SUBTITLED TRANSLATION): Carter has respect and weight all around the world and I hope he'll have a role and effect on the Palestinian problem."
On April 10th, Obama said that Carter should not meet with Hamas.
On April 14th, McCain criticized Obama for not taking a stand (He also is against this)
On April 14th, Bush and Clinton also came out against the meeting.
I love this man. ...Why the HELL is it so hard to talk for some of these sabre rattling people? So . . . let's get this straight . . . ALL Candidates, Most government leaders . . . and Bush don't like this. (I like it more for that alone). Multiple Nobel Peace Prize Laureates DO like this. Politicians aren't really so different from each other after all . . . are they?
Any thoughts or opinions are welcome . . .
Baltimore Sun - McCain Slams Obama
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 67
Carter's ideals are very solid and respectable, but rather naive, in my opinion. The main reason that Hammas isn't being talked to by any of the major world powers is because they refuse to acknowledge the right of Israel to exists. Now, I'm rather familiar with the history of the state of Israel and acknowledge that the Palestinians have more than a valid grudge against the Israelis. However, history has shown that Israel can more than hold their own and has defended itself against numerous attempts to destroy the nation. For better or worse, Israel is a reality and isn't going anywhere. The Palestinians need to focus on a two state soution, not focus on a "give us our state back" solution, which is what Hammas advocates. Israel is acknoweldged by the international community. For Hammas to state that one of their objectives is to destroy Israel is a very real problem. Someone like Carter CAN speak with them but no head of state can do so without raising huge issues. How do you even start the conversation? "So, you want to destory Israel? Interesting. Are you willing to budge on that, because it's a bit of a sticking point from our side. No? Oh, well. Nice talking to you." Carter can listen to Hammas all he wants about numerous issues but it's not going to solve the underlying issue. If Hammas would simply back off from that one issues, the rest of the world would work with them. Some things are not negotiable.
When people tell me I'm an idiot for feeling that way, I blame it on the fact that I was still in elementary school when he first took office...
I've heard Hamas has been hard lined, but I've also heard Arabs asking just for what the international community has asked for before - not eradicating Israel, but removing themselves from a few pieces of territory. And saying "I won't accept less" does not necessarily indicate your rock bottom bargaining position, not when politics are so volatile in that area.
Perhaps what they are willing to accept is too far different. That possibility exists. But I know peace will not exist as long as we must only go by what we think we'll take.
That was probably all confusing and incomprehensible. Let me try an analogy. Where I work, people are constantly running into big problems with the Shuttle and supporting systems. When nuts and bolts people work on solutions, they are usually confronted, long before they get to the program manager, with their own management who say, "But manager will never go for that. It costs too much, takes too long, etc." So, they back away from doing the "right" thing and usually end up proposing a series of bandaid solutions that don't address the real problem, don't last and, often, have to be bandaided again next flight. Now, maybe the manager would never go for the right solution, but, if no one's bringing it to him, he definitely never will.
Maybe we know what all these people we refuse to talk about will accept and it's hopeless. As long as we don't talk, it is hopeless. The only chance is to talk and find out if it's really as hopeless as it seems.
Thanks Jean . . . idealistic and strong on doing the right thing . . . despite the cost. It seems such a shame people considered 'good' are often thought incapable of that job . . . because they are good.
Regards.
Doyle I <~~~~~
Yes, it would. Any suggestions?
Ok. Care to share why? Environmental policies? Hostage Handling? Eye color?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
The thing I find troubling is that, as far as I know, the Israelis and Palestinians belong to the same species I do.
Another thought: For every person over the age of 2 there should be an armed UN military attendant to make sure things don't get out of hand. There's a potential for corruption there but it might work.
Terrorists? Please. This country has supported despots, tyrants and dictators for a LONG time now . . . terrorists with a country, right? But Hamas was the democratically elected government of Palestine so we MUST deal with them . . . we have no choice.
Do we send them the $300 Million dollars in Foreign Aid or do we NOT send it since the voice of Democracy has spoken and we don't like what we hear. Ms. Rice has NO CHOICE . . . because if we don't deal with them then we immediately send them, palms outstretched, to seek aid from Iran . . .
Reagan met with terrorists. They were the Afghan mujahideen. He just called them 'Freedom Fighters'. Heroes on one day become terrorists on another . . . and terrorists become heroes. Hamas is a duly elected government.
"In this day and age image is far more important than substance..."
I couldn't possibly agree less.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I recall a petty tyrant thumping his chest in Iraq . . . bragging on his military means . . . not because it was true . . . but for the people to hear his strength. Iran has similar issues . . . a lot of talking to sound tough to their own for political purposes . . . and as an aide in power retention. That doesn't make it the truth. Recall Bush's vows of compassionate Conservatism and his vow against nation building? It had nothing to do with the truth, even before 9/11 . . . it was aimed at citzens here (but heard everywhere).
Hamas leaders said what must be said and will continue to say what must be said to get (and then to retain) power. But they pulled the violence back for a year after they were democratically elected and, frankly, without talking to them what they MIGHT say is speculative . . . since an international audience to the actual words might gain them nothing and cost them everything. And our alternative is what? More of the same . . . not talking isn't working and if you keep trying the same thing and hoping for a different result . . . well . . . you know the old axiom.
"Some things are not negotiable. "
True enough. But ALL things are not negotiable if nobody talks. For some reason my mind reflects back to Nixon's recognition of China in . . . what was it . . . 1972? I thought at the time how ludicrous it was that FINALLY . . . we told a nation of BILLIONS . . . oh! Hello. You exist. Hamas exists and is the elected government of Palestine. Peace without talking can never happen. So why would the candidates be against a private citizen, with two other Nobel Peace Prize Laureates, want to talk to these people. What do THEY have to lose?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Lisa . . . Thanks to Bush, Ronnie Raygun will not be the most odious person I ever knew to head the government. I think you were precocious . . . and correct. I'll reserve judgement on those 'people' who cannot recognize reality.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Issues about the candidates aren't really at the heart of this though, are they Paul? This was a private Citizen with some serious skills and experiences seeking to do something to get a Peace process moving along. Why would they ALL oppose that?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
My thoughts about Carter - I love anyone who never gives up the fight for peace.
My favorite quotes from this discussion (because they not only apply to this discussion, I can use them in my everyday life):
I think it's also important to step back and realize that just because the United States is wrong on so many issues, it doesn't make the opposing side RIGHT.
This seems like such a simple concept, but every day I see people assume the opposite. Someone has to be right (and win) and the other person has to be wrong (and lose). Recently, someone interpreted, "Please explain what you mean so I can respond appropriately," as throwing down the gauntlet for a win/lose battle instead a call to find common ground. Sadly, it felt more typical than not.
As long as we don't talk, it is hopeless. The only chance is to talk and find out if it's really as hopeless as it seems.
So true, on political and personal levels.
It seems such a shame people considered 'good' are often thought incapable of that job . . . because they are good.
This one really bothers me. On a political level, I get so tired of seeing, "All politicians are lying snakes," comments. On every level, I wonder why people are so sure there are no good people? Do they honestly not know any? Are they not good?
Thanks John . . . curiously, during the Iran Iraq War, Israel sold weapons to Iran even though Iran had stated that Israel was the next target. Think about that for a second. They managed to talk and negotiate for financial gain.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
One of the really troubling things to me is that here in the US it's politically impossible to discuss the problem rationally. Too many people believe that one side or the other is "right." There's too much campaign money and too many votes at stake for anyone to take a "pox on both your houses" or "both of you go to your rooms until you can act civilized" position on the conflict.
Best book on the subject I can think of has nothing to do with the Middle East. It's Njal's Saga, an Icelandic saga set at the end of the tenth century. It's a great look at honor and justice.
Re: Carter's triple axel. This is incorrect; as snopes and other sites point out, the triple axel was not performed in competition until 1978. Carter did, however, land a triple salchow in 1955. Unfortunately, the rest of his routine was lackluster, and the gold medal went to Radcliffe graduate Tenley Albright.
Well spoken. Any time there is killing and military actions there are bound to be people wrong on all sides . . . remember Menachem Begin was the head of a terrorist organization that blew up the King David Hotel? 91 people were killed, most of them staff of the secretariat and the hotel: 28 British, 41 Arab, 17 Jewish, and 5 others. Around 45 people were injured. Some of the deaths and injuries occurred in the road outside the hotel and in adjacent buildings. (Numbers from Wikipedia). Reputed to be the deadliest act of terrorism until the 80s. 32 years later he gets awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.
So you point is valid . . . but it doesn't explain why people cannot TALK about peace . . . particularly independent people representing nobody and seeking nothing BUT Peace.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Hi Steph . . . ummm . . . Thank God for the analogy! LoL! It's my point exactly. And we don't have Middle East Bandaids large enough (most are saved for the people). I'm also a tad concerned about the 'Powers That Be' who profit off unrest and militancy . . .
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"I wonder why people are so sure there are no good people? Do they honestly not know any? Are they not good? "
I couldn't agree with the contention that there ARE good people more. In fact, I believe the average person happens to be very good. I also believe and have known good politicians personally . . . working grassroots for some. But I think the point here was missed. It wasn't that there were no good people. It was that good people were thought to be incapable of executing the functions of this office. I think most assume a certain degree of deceit is a job requirement. Politics involves compromise. Once the give and take gets underway, it's a short trip to the ethical borderline. Would you allow a pork barrel spending project in a neighboring state to build life-saving clinics in your own? If you say yes, lives are saved and taxpayer money is essentially looted. If you say no . . . then lives are NOT saved and, never getting anything accomplished . . . your seat is in jeopardy. Where does it end?
So there IS a perception that a person can be too good or too ethical . . . whether true or not . . . to hold the highest office. I still believe it is a shame there is such a perception. But I know there is one.
Like you, I get sick of hearing the trite comment "They're all crooks!" or the banal call for them all to be thrown out.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
I agree, Doyle, that Israel has more than their share of atrocities under their belt. The Haganah and Hanganah Bet were organizations with a long history of terrorist activities and the members of those organizations ended up as the founders of Israel. I also agree that Hamas was the freely elected government off Palestine. But it should be noted that the Nazis were also freely elected. Elections do not necessarily give an organization validity. The ACTIONS of a government are what determines it's validity. And you can level all the charges of hypocricy on the part of the US that you like (and you'd be correct in many of them) but it doesn't change the nature of the conflict.
The underlying problem here is the belief that conflicts of this sort CAN be resolved without bloodshed. This would be true if there weren't humans involved. Humans get angry and especially angry when someone they love dies. Is this rational? No, but it's the way humans work. We WANT to believe that there's another path, that we just haven't found it yet. History doesn't support this view. People always talk about how peace comes after all the needless bloodshed, when the various sides realize how pointless it all is. What's ignored is that it was the bloodshed that took many of the unreasonable people out of the equation. As Heinlein said, there's this myth that violence never solved anything. Violence has solved more conflicts than anything else in human history. Ghandi advocated nonviolence and ultimately obtained his objective: Indian independence. And then he was assassinated. For all the talking and hopes for peace, you have to factor in a way to deal with those who do NOT want peace. The only way to oppose such people is with force. Isreal, regardless of their history of injustice, cannot be expected to simply stop opposing an organization which wants to destroy them, regardless of their motivation for doing so. As far as them going to Iran for aid, they would do that if we gave them aid or not. Considering their stated objective, where's the guarentee that they won't use that aid money to purchase more weapons to use against Isreal? It's easy for us to advocate taking that risk but we're not the ones in the line of fire. Would you be willing to take that risk if we set the condition that if you are wrong and they DO purcahse weapons with it, we get to kill your children?
I also appreciate your example of doing what is necessary to get the job done. I don't see things in black and white, and understand that good people sometimes have to step into gray areas in order to do what is best for everyone concerned. That happens often when once side hosts the game and sets unfair house rules. We have to play by their rules until we move the game to our house and reinstate rules that are fair to everyone.
AC, I understand this point: My point regarding all this is that the opposing sides of this conflict do not WANT peace, not really. I thought of someone close to me when I read it. I listened to this person recite a litany of complaints - for years. Finally, I pointed out that each of those complaints could be resolved with money, that I had the money to make her world perfect, and invited her to come with me and do that. She didn't want to. She enjoyed complaining and I had no right to force my solutions on her - unless her misery made her start beating up defenseless people.
Are you sure he didn't mean, pacemaker? You know, like he wanted to crawl into Chaney's chest and snuggle there, safe from the world and all alarms?
Most of the sagas deal with blood feuds. Gunnar's nasty wife's servant kills a guy who offended her. The dead man's family goes to the Althing and gets a monetary settlement. One of the dead guy's brothers says "Screw the money" and kills one of Gunnar's relatives. After a few more trips to the Althing and a few more settlements powerful families and their clients get involved past the point of no return and there are some massacres.
This is what's happening in the Middle East. In the Balkans some people are angry because other people's ancestors collaborated with the Turks in 1437 or something like that. This could feed on itself forever.
"My point regarding all this is that the opposing sides of this conflict do not WANT peace, not really."
I know, though the definition of opposing sides is the key to the veracity of the statement. It's why I cautioned earlier "I'm also a tad concerned about the 'Powers That Be' who profit off unrest and militancy . . . "
So why do you think Bush and all the candidates are against the delegation going if, in fact, it will do no good?
Agreed Karl . . . and like I asked AC . . . why would our politicians not want to give Carter a chance to fail? And what does that say to the actual differences between them?
Joy . . . you're cute! That was fun!
Thanks Nippy . . . I know an end to violence is not practical. But Peace between Nations is possible given the right elements . . . or it isn't. I just can't imagine the motivation of disconnected people to oppose an attempt to attain Peace . . . which leads me to believe these people are not so disconnected after all.
You DO recall the Sadat and Begin reconciliation . . . right?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Hey Tony! (*jumping up and down and waving like a fool*)
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Think about it. What is being said is that in order to lead the United States of America effectively you must be immoral or evil. This implies that the direction the United States is going in is towards greater evil and must have someone capable of evil in order to make progress in that regard.
While I am quite capable of criticizing America and American actions (and also capable of praising them), as a Canadian I cannot say this about our close friend and ally.
However, the more Americans believe this the more it will become true. The more you convince yourselves that a man (or woman) of strong moral conviction cannot perform in the highest office of your government the more your government will come under the control of the amoral and the immoral.
I believe this is how the Reagan administration got into power despite collaborating with Iranian officials to prolong the hostage crisis until after the election in order to ensure their own victory (meetings took place at the Watergate, of course). This is why the Reagan administration was guilty of complicity in the Iran-Contra scandal in which weapons were sold to enemy Iran in order to get money behind the backs of Congress (in violation of the Constitution) to fund a terrorist organization that Reagan supported (the Contras).
This is why Bush II came to power and was able to lead America into an illegal war against a non-aggressor nation in violation of more than 200 years of American foreign policy by lying to the American people and the world.
Because America and Israel are wrong about some aspects of the Palestinian conflict, and have been wrong in some of their actions, does not mean the Hamas is right. Only simple minded, right-wingers who see the world in black and white with no shades of grey think this way.
Hamas is plenty wrong.
But they exist and the choice is either to fight to the death with them or work towards peace.
So far fighting to the death is the only choice Bush/Barack and their various subordinates have wanted on the table.
"What is being said is that in order to lead the United States of America effectively you must be immoral or evil."
I don't think this is exactly what is meant, though I can see where it might be mistaken as that. I think what is meant is that you can be TOO good and unwilling to compromise your own ethics and values for the good of the country or for expedience. Politicians are not necessarily bad when they make compromises that have a net benefit (and not just for themselves) . . . I don't think the implication is that evil is sought.
"the more Americans believe this the more it will become true. "
Self-fulfilling prophecy . . . great point.
"So far fighting to the death is the only choice Bush/Barack and their various subordinates have wanted on the table."
Exactly my point . . . but WHY? Amazing what these so-called disparate politicians agree on, don't you think?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Because it can, in fact, do harm. Politics, whether national or international, is basically a matter of bartering respect. There's nothing different going on in the UN than what went on in your High School lunch room or what happens here on Gather. Groups of people get together and discuss things. Some groups have more credibility than others and that 'credibility' depends on which table you're sitting at. The only difference is that there's international media involved with the UN.
Now, if one group is engaging in activity that is completely unacceptable to the vast majority of the other groups, it must be addressed. In this example, it would be Hamas which has a giant banner stating that they want to destroy isreal. That is, flat out, NOT OKAY. As I said above, there are certain things that are not negotiable. The international community has stated that Hamas's stance is NOT OKAY and that until they drop that stance, they're not going to provide them with aid nor interact with them.
Now, since you're basically dealing with the lunch room situation, what that amounts to is ostricizing (sp?). All Hamas has to do is change their stand on that issue (and stop attacking Israel) and the international community will once again open avenues of dialog and aid. Lybia is a very good example of how this process works. If a nation or organization will surrender the activities that the international community finds objectionable, then that nation will be brought back into the good graces of the international community. But what happens to this process when a major figure, like Carter, goes to Hamas and hears them out when they've not changed their stance on anything? Their opinions are very well known as is the stance of the international community. What's there to discuss? How much it sucks in Gaza right now? That's pretty well known. All Hamas has to do to get the aid money they want is stop saying they want to destroy Israel. Until they do that, nothing that Carter or anyone else does is going to change things. It simply gives a platform for Palestinian greviences in the press and opportunties for Hamas to provide rationalizations for their behavior and More opportunities for Hamas to divert responsibility for unacceptable behavior.
To give an analogy closer to home, what exactly would be accomplished is some of us went to Amber/Alexia/Borg Mother and heard her out? Listened to her greviences? Would this accomplish anything? I doubt it. But if a noteworthy delegation went to her and tried, we'd probably just see an increase in her histrionic behavior. There are times that it doesn't pay to give attention to unreasonable groups/individuals. Such attention is easily manipulated. Additionally, it puts forth the idea that you can still be part of the international dialog while engaging in unacceptable behavior.
It's not a matter of 'right' or 'wrong'. It's a matter of actions and consequences. The United States has suffered consequences in the international community becuase of our invasion of Iraq and if we expect to get respect back we have to change. Why should Hamas be any different? They puposefully target civilians with military munitions. America is held accountable when for collatoral damage when we attack MILITARY targets. Hamas SPECIFICALLY attacks civilians. Morally, there is a difference and the consequences levied by the international community are different. For every ounce of outrage at the US for all Iraqi civilians killed, there should be a pound of outrage at Hamas for TRYING to kill civilians. How do you even begin a dialog with any group that advocates such things openly?
If a private citizen can, in fact, do harm by talking to whomever they please . . . then it's a done deal. But, since that's your opinion I commend you for at least answering my question.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
This country used to value statesmen who spoke softly and carried a big stick.
Carter is not just a 'private citizen'. He is, in fact, a former president. He has his own tax-funded library and a secret service detail which follows him everywhere and will for the rest of his life. This isn't like you or I wandering up to Hamas headquarters and sitting down and hearing them out. Carter carries with him an incredible amount of attention and credibility (as is noted by the fact that we're actually discussing this issue). You can't reasonably state that Carter's just another joe blow wandering around the world after you've played up his extensive qualifications right here in your own article. You can't praise the man in one breath and then downplay him in the next.
If you're assumption is that I was trying to claim he was like you or I, you are mistaken. At NO point did I ever refer to him as "just another joe blow". Some citizens have a certain amount of gravitas they bring with them. Whether it's a former President or a Billionaire tycoon. That doesn't make them any less a private citizen so long as they are neither working for nor representing the United States government. I am certainly not trying to "downplay" him.
I asked why the candidates would not support him and you phrased your opinion. I accepted that opinion as a basis for your answer and thanked you for it. What exactly is it that you're arguing now?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Mr. Zahar lauds Mr. Carter for the "welcome tonic" of saying that no peace process can succeed "unless we are sitting at the negotiating table and without any preconditions." Yet Mr. Zahar has his own preconditions: Before any peace process can "take even its first tiny step," he says, Israel must withdraw to the 1967 borders and evacuate Jerusalem while preparing for the "return of millions of refugees." In fact, as Mr. Zahar makes clear, Hamas is not at all interested in a negotiated peace with the Jewish state, whose existence it refuses to accept: "Our fight to redress the material crimes of 1948 is scarcely begun," he concludes.
Hamas is "perfectly willing" for Mahmoud Abbas "to represent them in all direct negotiations with the Israelis, and they also maintain that they will accept any agreement that he brokers with the Israelis" provided a referendum is held on it, says Mr. Abbas. Compare that claim with Mr. Zahar's own words. In fact, Mr. Zahar has called Mr. Abbas "a traitor" for negotiating with Israel - a label that is, in the Palestinian context, an incitement to murder.
Mr. Carter justifies his meetings with familiar arguments about the value of dialogue with enemies. But he misses the point. Contacts between enemies can be useful: Israel is legendary for such negotiations, and even now it is engaged in back-channel bargaining with Hamas through Egypt. But it is one thing to communicate pragmatically, and quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism, mass murder or the extinction of another state. That is what Mr. Carter is doing.
This country used to value statesmen who spoke softly and carried a big stick. "
Ron
I so agree. This seems to be the era of bullies.....don't like what someone is doing, 'take em out!'. And we wonder why we have girls gang-beating other girls about what they said online...dads beating each other up during their kids' sports events.
I will welcome anybody with intellligence, compassion and sense to stick their nose into ANY of these seemingly endless and stonewalled affairs and see if they can make some headway. I do not agree with the AC on the stance on Israel.....not everybody thinks that Israel has an absolute right to exist and continuously expand into other's territory. There are many reasons to actually oppose this type of philosophy and behavior.
I do, agree, however that many of my and other governments' behavior closely resemble the cliques and drama of Middle School and High School. It is a sad state of devolution from the statesmen of past eras.
As far as all the hoopla, here's my two cents. He's a human being going to have a conversation with another human being. What's the big freakin' deal? It's called diplomacy. Something America doesn't understand. I guess when your economy's single biggest spender is the military, the only way to fix problems with with bombs.
President Carter does not have the ability to grant unconditional recognition to the democratically elected government of Palestine. Nor can he grant any sanction. You're simply wrong about that one.
"...quite another to publicly and unconditionally grant recognition and political sanction to a leader or a group that advocates terrorism..."
The United States did exactly that with Menachem Begin who headed a militant terrorist organization that bombed the Kind David Hotel killind scores of innocent people and which may well have precipitated the withdrawal of the British Mandate as a result . . .
Thanks Sheryl . . .
Thanks Joseph . . . there's that war profit thingee getting in the way again!
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
You're welcome Marilyn!
You're the first one to mention the book Mickey. "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid" sparked a bit of a firestorm and you're right . . . it does create issues. But the book tends to lean away from Israel and opens doors on the other side . . . while slamming them on the Israeli side (SEE: VISIT, Israeli Officials Against Carter's -- in the article). Still, he has Peres willing . . . and low hope trumps NO hope. Thanks for the comment. Have you read the book?
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Thanks Grems. That was somewhat my take on this as well.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
Jimmy Carter is a good man. He's honest and straightforward. I don't think he was considered a lame president (as was believed while he was a president, unable to make decisions) because he was incapable of doing great things. I don't think ANY president is going to have it "our way", even when he is working for the people and invests a great interest in them. Any president in office now is going to spend most of their time doing battle with the BIG MONEY, or they're going to give in to their demands. They control policy, and control every aspect of our lives. Jimmy Carter and other presidents did more for our Country before and after their presidency. They not only did more for our Country, they did more for humanity as a whole.
If we all did our homework, and looked into what is and what caused each and every war, we would begin to come together as people, to support people like Jimmy Carter. We would make people like him our leaders, in spite of who is in office.
Another charismatic man may be destined to be our president. He offers hope, with a slogan "We CAN"...but we won't. We want HIM to do it. He doesn't have the power to do it. IF he is put into power it will be under the Trilateral Commission, same as Jimmy Carter was.
There is a reason behind Israel becoming a Nation.. and it is beyond what the masses are told. The Palestinians will be kept isolated for as long as we remain ignorant and blame them instead of support them. Terrorism is not Muslim's game, it is and always has been America's game. We set them up.. and we knock them down at will.
That success encouraged them and took us through a string of government desabilitzations and coups, the next one being Guatemala in 1954 . . . it even took us to the Bay of Pigs in 1961. It caused this nation to back tyrants and dictators so that we could profit from those countries. And it caused those countries, watching their elected leaders fall and living under a totalitarian regime, to suffer. They watched their natural resources shipped to the US (like oil from Iran) and they watched the US give lip service to freedom and democracy while squelching it out around the globe. It caused hate. Hate that took on a visible presence in the Iranian Revolution and the exile of Shah Reza Pahlavi. A generation of hate has been brewing from this policy. And while this has been happening, J.Q. Citizen has been looking the other way. The coup in Guatemala was for the enrichment of United Fruit Company . . . not for Joe Citizen. But it's Joe Citizen that wears the guilt and becomes the target of hatred. And the "powers that be" convince those that do find out that they too, are benefitting from these policies.
You,re right Debra . . . we all need to do our homework.
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
"Carter said top Hamas leaders told him during seven hours of talks in Damascus over the weekend that they are willing to live next to Israel, but a top Hamas official said the group would never outright recognize the Jewish state."
So much for the Stated goal of the ccomplete annhilation of the State of Israel. I rest my case . . .
Regards,
Doyle I <~~~~~
As for Reagan, there is no evidence that he dealt with Iran prior to his election. We had no diplomatic ties with the country, no ability to travel there. Just rumours to discredit Reagan.