1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Jimmy Carter and Hamas

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by The Big Ragu, Apr 18, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    An overview as we near the 60th anniversary of the creation of Israel.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/apr/20/israelandthepalestinians
     
  2. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

    Absolutely right.

    These two groups have warred over the same piece of land seemingly forever; neither group wanting to budge even slightly in the name of peace.
     
  3. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    So untrue and uninformed. Read Elliotte's excellent post.

    You can't negotiate with people who are committed to your death as the only solution.
     
  4. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I could see the criticism of Carter if he were trying to broker an arms deal for Hamas or help it at Israel's expense in any other substantive way, but to rip him for talking seems irrational to me. It's not as if diplomacy has ever achieved much over there, but if anyone has a track record of some success, it's Carter. If he can improve things, more power to him, but even if he accomplishes nothing, I fail to see how he's made a terrible situation any worse beyond giving partisans something to scream about.

    This reminds me a lot of living in Miami, where any mention of Fidel that didn't include "Kill the bastard!" invited people to jump all over you. The reactions on a purely emotional level may be understable, but accomplish nothing, except to make those who don't have a personal stake at that level want to walk away.

    I took a class in Middle East studies as a senior in high school, so it would have been 1976 or 1977 (just before or just after Carter took office) when we brought in a guest lecturer, a retired U.S. general who had served in the region. He told us without mitigation that there would be no peace beyond intermittent breaks over there in his lifetime, our lifetime, our children's lifetime, indeed ever. So far he has not been wrong. Peace probably not in the cards, and the sane attitude for the United States would be to accept that and deal with it from that perspective.
     
  5. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Frank, the reason I started the thread is that even though he is a doddering, old man who really has no effect on anything, he just looks bad. I think a lot of people do suspect he is trying to broker something on Hamas' behalf. Whether that is really reality or not (and whether he is anti-semitic, as a lot of Jews believe he is), he has sort of become a polarizing figure when it comes to the middle east. That is why I simply suggested he'd be best served at this point of his life to stay away from this one.

    This is just a random thing a google search pulled up for me just now... But I think it sort of summarizes why some people think Carter has a disingenuous objective. I mean, just look at the title of the book and the parallel he makes with it:

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2006/12/13/cstillwell.DTL

    I'm actually not sure how I feel. My gut tells me he is a good person, with some really stupid ideas. But I don't know sometimes.
     
  6. Anybody who thinks Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite is an idiot who identified criticism of the state of Israel with anti-Semitism, which is also idiotic.
     
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    I think we finally agree about something. Alan Dershowitz is an idiot.
     
  8. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    It was OK for Carter to visit Ireland, South Africa, North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela as a former president and attempt to settle difficult issues, but this is not OK? Sorry, but I feel the criticism is motivated by political and/or personal agendas. The only continent he's missed is Australia. It's his role and he should not care what his critics say.
     
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Who said all of those things were OK? He undermined Bill Clinton when he went to North Korea, for example, and ended up brokering something that eventually convinced his party, which was in power, to give aid (which never reached a starving population by all evidence) and inexplicably, materials for building nuclear reactors to the North Koreans, on a naive belief that they were telling the truth when they said they'd abandon their nuclear weapons program. Only a moron couldn't see the reality -- North Korea admitted they lied and were still developing more weapons. He was an absolute dupe and a joke to Kim Jong Il, and he was used.

    The only reason he hasn't missed a continent is that there isn't a dictator alive he isn't Jonesing to give a hug to or a bogus election of a despot he isn't all giddy to certify. I actually think he is a good man and may be the most misguided human who has ever lived... But if I am right, it makes him a buffoon, at best.

    This is NOT his role, as you suggest. All former presidents are afflicted by this to some degree, but Carter more than any can't seem to get past the fact that he isn't the president anymore. So he makes a show out of undermining policy and embracing dictators, despots and terrorists, in his role as former president. Cuba, Hamas, Haiti, North Korea, no matter. Whatever he can do to put a spotlight on himself. All he has to do is fly off to Cuba and hug Fidel Castro and he knows it will merit a headline. No bold enough? OK, get Hamas on the line! He could give a rat's ass about the people who are currently representing us who vocally tell him NOT to butt in.

    You'd think he would have learned from his tenure as president, that his way doesn't particularly work. Whether it was the bloody nose Iran gave us or the Soviets feeling emboldened to try to take over Afghanistan, his kissy poo style of diplomacy wasn't very effective when it WAS his role to play. Now that it isn't, a lot of people would actually prefer he just go away. He's great when he is all about Habitat for Humanity. He's a jackass when he selectively moralizes about things without acknowledging dictators, despots and terrorists for what they are, and he presents selective history that suggests to many that he has an agenda. It is puzzling, to say the least, how Carter can moralize about the "apartheid" of the Palestinians and not only be absolutely silent about Robert Mugabe, for example, but actually praise the man who may have been the most brutal dictator of the last 30 years and was a creation of Carter's (and of course was invited the White House for a hug by Carter).
     
  10. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    From a practical standpoint, Ragu, exactly how would you broker a peace agreement while talking to only one side in a dispute? I'm really not interested in your political rants, or your impressions of Carter -- as I said, I feel he ought to ignore critics. What I'm trying to get at is whether you are actually in favor of achieving peace that is equitable to both parties, or whether your actual motive is to beat one side into an agreement? And to remove party politics from the equation, what do you make of the Vatican's attempts to improve dialogue with the Moslem world? Would you criticize Pope Benedict as harshy as you do Carter? The pope called for a "negotiated end to the conflict" six months after Hamas won the election.
     
  11. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Frank, I don't think you can "broker" peace agreements with people who don't want peace. Hamas' is a miltant Islamic organization whose position is that it wants to see the destruction of Israel. It has always been their position. You can broker all you want. You won't get any more peace out of that than you could have in 1998 or 1988 or 1978 of 1968.

    I am not shedding a ton of tears for Israel, because I believe Hamas won those elections because Israel created the conditions for Hamas to win. But I also think the typical Palestinian person is not gung ho about Hamas, the way people have made it seem on this thread--in fact, I remember reading a story about Christians voting for the Hamas candidates, not because they were militant Islamists, but as a protest vote against the corruption they had dealt with. These are not inherently bad people. They are people that have had their dignity taken away and want to live outside of a fenced-in area, with freedom of movement and opportunities and some hope for something better. The vote for Hamas was less about supporting Hamas than it was about being fed up with the corrupt "leadership" they had to endure under Yasser Arafat for all those years, and the little clique he ran that enriched itself while the Palestinian people as a whole continued to suffer. About the only good thing you can say about Hamas is that there isn't that corruption that characterized the Palestinian Authority all those years -- as a "political party," Hamas is probably less corrupt than the any of the major Israeli political parties is, actually. But that is really faint praise, because Hamas hasn't made its name as a political party. It has made it as a terrorist organization that has killed scores of innocent people. You don't "broker peace" with people like that. At least that is the view of most sane people other than Jimmy Carter.

    As for your question, I don't see a parallel between the Pope and Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter is not a religious figure. He has actually become a very polarizing figure. The Pope plays a role. The problem with Carter is that he actually refuses to play his role--as a statesman--the way the Pope plays his role. When leaders of Carter's own political party are disassociating themselves from Carter and his actions, as Nancy Pelosi did this week when she condemned him, what you have is sort of the anti-Pope. When the Israelis are telling him to go to hell, you don't exactly have the level of love you see when the Pope travels the world.

    You have a guy who is not leading any kind of popular movement (as Catholicism is, in a way). You have a doddering, old idiot just doing whatever HE wants, without much popular support from anyone--the kind of support the Pope DOES have.

    But when the Pope starts doing things that don't dignify his role, and which everyone is telling him NOT to do, and he continues to do those things anyhow, yeah, I'll be really critical of him.
     
  12. Frank_Ridgeway

    Frank_Ridgeway Well-Known Member

    I believe that when it comes to Middle East issues, politicians of any kind do and say what they believe will help them win an election. Thus, whatever any politician has to say about Carter is not something he should take at all seriously.

    But you ducked my question. The pope obviously believes peace can and should be "negotiated." Which obviously entails a dialogue with Hamas. So is he a "doddering old idiot" for believing that peace can be "negotiated" with Hamas? It seems to me that both Pope Benedict and Jimmy Carter share that belief and are working to achieve it.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page