|
|
|
|
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 6:12:42 AM | It seems there is quite a flap brewing over an apparent decision by Jimmy Carter to meet with exiled Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Damascus next week. And if one heads over to the Jerusalem Post and ganders at the comments displayed, the hate for Carter is palpable ... with folks labeling him as a Jew Hater, a racist anti-semite, and Nazi, with the most virulent remarks being submitted by those who identfy themselves as living in the USA.
******************************************
Jerusalem Post Apr 10, 2008 23:10 | Updated Apr 11, 2008 9:47
Gov't against Carter, Mashaal meeting
By GIL HOFFMAN
The Israeli government and politicians sent mixed messages on Thursday regarding plans by former US president Jimmy Carter to meet with Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal in Damascus next week.
On the one hand, senior Israeli diplomatic officials in Jerusalem said they were "outraged" at Carter's decision. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni have declined to meet with him when he visits Israel, citing "scheduling conflicts," while sources close to Likud chairman Binyamin Netanyahu said he was refusing to see Carter because of the Mashaal meeting.
But President Shimon Peres, Defense Minister Ehud Barak, Shas chairman Eli Yishai and Israel Beiteinu leader Avigdor Lieberman have all agreed to meet with Carter.
The former president, who brokered the Camp David peace treaty with Egypt, has been persona non grata for many Israelis since he published his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, in late 2006.
Carter will arrive Sunday afternoon and meet with Peres that evening. On Monday, he will visit Sderot, meet with Barak and speak at an event sponsored by Ha'aretz's business Web site. On Tuesday he will convene with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas. On Wednesday, he will meet with Yishai and Lieberman before traveling to Damascus to meet with Mashaal on Friday.
The Atlanta-based Carter Center did not confirm the meeting with the exiled leader of Hamas, but a senior Hamas official in Syria, Muhammad Nazzal, told The Associated Press that Carter had sent an envoy to Damascus earlier, requesting a meeting with the Islamist group's officials, including Mashaal, and that Hamas "welcomed the request."
Meanwhile in Washington, the US State Department said it had advised Carter against meeting any representative of Hamas.
"US government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't believe it is in the interest of our policy or in the interest of peace to have such a meeting," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
He said the message had been conveyed directly to Carter in a phone call during the past week by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch.
Peres's spokeswoman said he had accepted Carter's request to meet with him because of their shared past and because he respected the former president's role in advancing peace between Israel and Egypt. An Israeli diplomatic official said many European politicians and diplomats have gone to Damascus from Jerusalem.
A source close to Yishai said he had agreed to meet with Carter specifically because of his meeting with Mashaal. Yishai intends to send messages to Hamas via Carter that he hopes will help bring home kidnapped IDF soldier Gilad Schalit.
"Yishai said he was ready to meet with Hamas leaders himself to help bring home Schalit, so he has no problem meeting with Carter," a Yishai associate said. "He thinks that it is better to confront people with abhorrent views than to avoid them."
Lieberman said he intended to use the meeting with Carter to present his diplomatic plan for exchanges of population and territory.
A source connected to Netanyahu said that if there had been a question about whether he would meet with Carter before his decision to meet with Mashaal, that decision killed any chances of a Carter-Netanyahu meeting.
Carter Center spokeswoman Deanna Congileo confirmed there was a planned trip by Carter to the Middle East, but could not confirm any specifics on eventual meetings or the itinerary.
Congileo said Carter would lead a study mission to Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Jordan from April 13-21, as part of the Carter Center's ongoing effort to support "peace, democracy and human rights in the region."
A Carter-Mashaal meeting would be the first public contact in two years between a prominent American figure and officials of Hamas, branded a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel.
In 2006, US veteran civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson met with Mashaal in Syria.
According to another Hamas official in Syria, Moussa Abu Marzouk, who is the deputy head of Hamas' political bureau, Hamas and Carter will discuss Schalit's fate.
In an interview with the Kuwaiti Al-Qabas newspaper on Sunday, Abu Marzouk said Shalit would not be returned alive if Israel failed to release 350 Palestinians it holds prisoner.
Mashaal heads Hamas's political bureau and is believed to be its top leader. He fears an assassination by Israel, which tried to kill him in 1997, when agents sprayed him with poison on a street in Amman.
Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Illinois) pleaded with Carter from the floor of the US House of Representatives not to meet with Mashaal, who he said was responsible for the murders of at least 26 Americans.
"President Carter, the voices from the grave beseech you - do not meet with the man who ordered the murder of these American citizens," Kirk said.
Michal Lando and AP contributed to this report.
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207649985972&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
******************************************************
While the issue at hand is quite debatable, The Jerusalem Post, in its inherent journalistic wisdom, has apparently decided to NOT post a carefully worded response I had submitted, decrying the incendiary and defamatory language contained in many of the comments ... while obviously allowing the inflamatory comments to stand.
Caw | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 8:33:07 AM | | Israel is being run by a bunch of misguided **stards who are not acting in the long-term interests of that country. You NEVER resolve conflict without a dialogue, even your enemies, ESPECIALLY your enemies. Not trying to work things out and resorting to warfare pretty much guarantees continued conflict, which seems to be what their leadership wants. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 9:55:30 AM | In case it was not apparent in my opening remarks, I am inviting comments on two aspects of this issue.
1. The legitimacy or wisdom of Carter meeting with the leaders of a 'terrorist organisation'.
2. The attitudes of Americans displayed in the coments at The Jerusalem Post (and myriad other forums) regarding challenges to Israeli policy and narratives in their conflict with the Palestinians.
On the first, I believe it is legitimate. The Carter Center does a tremendous amount of good, and works toward the peaceful resolutions of conflicts worldwide. I happen to think it does absolutely no good to catagorically refuse to speak with those we are in disagreement with ... or to set impossible pre-conditions before agreeing to have a dialogue.
Diplomacy is the art of thorny negotiation, but until we deem it proper to sit and talk with adversaries, no avenue to resolution is open beyond belicose threats, or coersive intimdations, which many times only act to solidify already entrenched positions.
Beyond that, the refusal to talk disallows even the smallest oppening where gestures of goodwill might be allowed to take place; and *when* they do, despite the lack of dialogue, such gestures go unnoted and under recognized, which only engenders the climate wherein both sides can only opperate from their own worst fears of the other, and stew in their respective antagonisms.
On the second point, I am appalled at the incendiary rhetoric, and rank bigotry that I see dispalyed across the web, usually in the comments section of the Jewish press, regarding the Palestinians, or directed toward anyone who challenges Israeli policy or Zionism itself. Most times it is those who identify themselves as Americans who submit the most virulent and hatemongering remarks ... usually such belicosity is matched by a near complete denial of current reality and strict adherance to discredited mythologies of the past ... from which I can only venture to think that they represent Israel's Amen corner, for which, in their eyes, Israel can do no wrong.
As such, this case is quite typical, I am not surprised; but labeling Jimmy Carter as a Jew Hater, a racist, and a Nazi, goes way beyond the pale. As an American I take offense.
Caw | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 10:06:00 AM | Darjeeling, I agree 100% with everything you've said above.
As such, this case is quite typical, I am not surprised; but labeling Jimmy Carter as a Jew Hater, a racist, and a Nazi, goes way beyond the pale.
This is standard operating procedure for Israel's shills, just as anyone who questions any of the state's policies are immediately labeled anti-Semites, etc. Rather than engaging in any serious discussion or defending their policies or actions, they simply make ad hominem attacks against those who question them. "Israel can do no wrong, and if you disagree it's just because you hate Jews."
As an American I take offense.
Me too. I wish more people would. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:51:40 AM |
On the first, I believe it is legitimate. The Carter Center does a tremendous amount of good, and works toward the peaceful resolutions of conflicts worldwide. I happen to think it does absolutely no good to catagorically refuse to speak with those we are in disagreement with ... or to set impossible pre-conditions before agreeing to have a dialogue.
I Wonder.... If Rice/Bush have ask Carter to become involved?
Rich stated she sees the "Road Map' happening before end of year............
What a joke the Road Map is........
I know Carter is the only person that could make anything happen....
. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 12:15:50 PM |
I am inviting comments on two aspects of this issue.
1. The legitimacy or wisdom of Carter meeting with the leaders of a 'terrorist organisation'.
2. The attitudes of Americans displayed in the coments at The Jerusalem Post (and myriad other forums) regarding challenges to Israeli policy and narratives in their conflict with the Palestinians.
1. Both legitimate and wise. Legitimate in the sense that meeting with these adversaries and discussing the issues of contention is both moral and legal, and in accordance with established and accepted patterns and standards of conflict resolution; and that it is a reasonable assumption that such bi-lateral dialogue must precede a peaceful and lasting resolution of any conflict. Wise in the sense that such an endeavour by an informed and sagacious man with the gravitas of a Nobel Peace Prize winning ex-President of the United States exhibits insight, understanding and common sense.
2. The attitudes displayed by many people regarding their government's policies, foreign and domestic, are indicative of incomprehension and fear, and of myopic national and personal arrogance. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 12:40:16 PM |
Diplomacy is the art of thorny negotiation, but until we deem it proper to sit and talk with adversaries, no avenue to resolution is open beyond belicose threats, or coersive intimdations, which many times only act to solidify already entrenched positions.
So right, unfortunately, diplomacy is long on cost and short on quick gain (even though the long term dividends can't be beat).
Entrenchment is, however, the short road to quick gain. Until people (and politicians specifically), as a whole, learn (or rather relearn) the benefits of delayed gratification this state of affairs is unlikely to be resolved. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 1:33:14 PM |
I Wonder.... If Rice/Bush have ask Carter to become involved?
No ... it would appear the opposite in fact. From the OP.
"Meanwhile in Washington, the US State Department said it had advised Carter against meeting any representative of Hamas.
"US government policy is that Hamas is a terrorist organization and we don't believe it is in the interest of our policy or in the interest of peace to have such a meeting," spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters.
He said the message had been conveyed directly to Carter in a phone call during the past week by Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Welch."
Caw | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 1:33:45 PM | I Wonder.... If Rice/Bush have ask Carter to become involved
Condi has criticized Carter for his plans to talk to Hamas
"I find it hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is, in fact, the impediment to peace," Rice said at a press event with German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.
I agree that what Carter is doing is a good thing | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 2:13:29 PM | | You dont meet with a known murderer who is an impediment to peace.The only thing that happens is you add credibility to this murderer | |
|
| |
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 2:57:53 PM | Well, Carter met with the murderer who was Prime Minister of Israel when he was President. And Begin had very clearly been a terrorist. How come no howls of outrage then?
Yet somehow that meeting with a terrorist furthered peace. The head of Hamas is also the head of the political party that swept the Palestinian elections. Exactly like the head of Likud was the elected leader of Israel. You don't get to pick your partners in this dance - you have meet with the representatives of the people. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 3:15:11 PM | | Thank god for Sharon, othrerwise the people would be in the water.You compare a leader of a democratic party in a democracy to a murderer in a dysfunctional territory ((See today a debate on palestine on the BBC) | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 3:21:02 PM | well..... force has been tried How well has that worked?
Maybe diplomacy will help it's not like problems disappear by ignoring them | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 3:22:19 PM | Carter is a useful idiot in this charade. Hamas is a terrorist group and has NO intentions of hammering out a peace agreement with the Israelis.
His book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid." is rife with blatant errors and serious omissions and is clearly biased against Israel. In fact, he refused several opportunities to debate these errors. He has clearly taken a side: the wrong one. And the Nobel Peace Prize doesn't mean much when you share the "honor" with Yassar Arafat, at one time the world's oldest terrorist.
There will never be peace until the Palestinians stop teaching their children to hate Jews. There will never be peace until they stop telling their children the way to their virgins (or raisins) is by strapping on a bomb belt. Hamas doesn't want peace and Carter's visit is nothing but grandstanding. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 3:31:43 PM |
Thank god for Sharon, othrerwise the people would be in the water.You compare a leader of a democratic party in a democracy to a murderer in a dysfunctional territory ((See today a debate on palestine on the BBC)
I think you should research Sharon's history. He's a murderer, too. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 3:35:21 PM | The [hatred] for Carter is palpable ... with folks labeling him as a Jew Hater, a racist anti-semite, and Nazi, with the most virulent remarks being submitted by those who identfy themselves as living in the USA. - darjeeling
> Of course that's what are saying. They are programmed to say it. They live and breathe words like anti-semite and racist and Jew hater. They feed on them. They are nourished by them. These words are part of their vocabulary, part of their linguistic DNA. They think this way no matter which country Carter visits.
> I don't see any other nation in the world, or nationality, that has an official title (anti-semite) to hurl at people who don't like them or offend them. As a Scotsman, if someone calls me a 'mean Scots git', I've got to take it. I can't go running to some 'court', 'board', 'panel', 'society' or 'organisation' put in place to drum up sympathy and intimidate those who call me names. I've just got to take it like a man. No one gives a stuff about my heritage or my background or the protection of my culture, whether it is insulted or viciously attacked at the most fundamental level.
> Best wishes - Soul Union. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 8:26:26 PM | | Carter gave us Khomeini and Mugabe. He pissed off Clinton when he was meddling in Haiti. Now he assumes Hamas' leader is like Sadat. Something Carter forgets is that Hamas' types killed his beloved friend Sadat, for establishing peace with Israel. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/12/2008 11:30:19 PM | Theres way too much Israel bashing in these forums. It gets tiresome. Please give them a break. Lets focus on other countries who are oppressing okay...heres a short list if you get tired of Israel bashing..
a. Darfur...lets examine the Chinese policies there
b. Tibet, lets examine Chinas role there
c. Afghanistan...lets examine the track record of the Taliban
d. Pakistan..lets examine the ritual stoning of women for adultery
e. Canada..lets examine the treatment of natives
d. US...lets examine why the majority of prisoners are black
e. Cuba..lets examine why Castro hand picks his successors
f. Zimbabwe..lets examine how Mugabe refuses to step down after an election loss
When I see as much time devoted to these issues as is spent on Israel bashing, I will consider these commentaries as constructive. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/13/2008 6:32:37 AM | @Peacethx
How exactly does this comment adresss the wholely valid and pertinent questions on this thread?
There were two specific questions that I posed that you have comepletely ignored, your venturing that there is a sufficient quotient of 'Israel bashing' might be a valid point from your personal perspective; to wit you have an immediate remedy, don't participate in it.
You are certainly welcome to start threads topics about Darfur, Tibet, Cuba, or Zimbabwe, or anything else for that matter; but to do so within this thread is noted as an attempt at HiJacking and a violation of the board TOS.
I will however briefly address your intent; that there is unequal treatment of Israel in terms of relative scrutiny.
Frankly, the actions of Israel regarding the Palestinians, combined with the indefatigable activism of Zionist calls to attack Iran, threatens prospects for the global peace.
As an American, who has been unwillingly conscripted to subsidize Israel's ventures, it is perfectly legitimate for me to comment and question how those moneys are being dispersed into actions and policies to which I do not consent. Further, for every bad action that Israel commits, America and Americans, are properly deemed to be complicit, by nature of the 'special relationship'. Still further, one step hence, it seems that the forces of Zion have colonized the very mechanisms of American governance, by a subversion of the political process; that has acted to suborn American interests in order to advance Zionisms interests.
That is the reason for this level of scrutiny, all of the other topics, intrigues, and conflicts that you list, while important do not carry equal weight, nor do they suborn, supplant, and conflate, American interests, security, and risk.
So until we have divested ourselves of these entanglements, what Israel does becomes America's business.
Caw | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/13/2008 8:36:33 AM | In my reading, it seems that Hamas has a positive view of terrorism, and an incredibly discriminatory view of ALL Jews, and have occupied a role that was previously taken up by the PLO. In some ways, it seems that Hamas is not interested in peace with Israel at all, but merely the illusion of peace, in order that others will let their guard down, so they can kill more people. So it would seem that it might be incredibly naive to meet with Hamas, and might actually lead to the deaths of many more innocent children and babies. I see that according to the article, 3 politicians don't want to meet with Hamas or Carter, and 3 do. However, Israelis don't do things like Americans or Canadians. Israelis argue with each other all the time, about everything. Jews do the same, for that matter. So they all almost certainly discussed it all. I would imagine that both sides don't trust Hamas, but feel like they need to make a presence, just in case Hamas are willing to agree to a peace. So some politicians will meet Hamas, to pursue peace. But the other politicians are making a point of saying they refuse to meet with Hamas, so that Hamas understand that the Israeli Defence Forces will NOT lessen their defences in any way whatsoever until Hamas have proved that they are going to keep the peace, beyond any possibility of betrayal or of a sudden or planned return to terrorism and terrorist acts, and the best way to send that message, is to refuse to even meet their neutral go-between, Jimmy Carter. It's quite a good policy, if you ask me. Keeps Hamas guessing, while lets Israel pursue peace.
America has an entirely different policy in the matter. President Bush has publicly stated that he wants to give terrorists no concessions whatsoever, so talking to organisations that are considered to be terrorists, like Hamas, is not something that Bush wants to happen. At least, not unless he is the one to arrange it, so that he can get the credit for it.
A lot of Americans seem to be very supportive of American policy, and as American policy is opposed to this set of talks, it's understandable that they seem to be mostly opposed to it.
But Israelis and Jews are bound to be of different opinions, and make their own minds up, irrespective of what the Knesset decides. Some will think Israel should have nothing to do with Hamas, some will think all of the Knesset ought to agree to the talks in the sake of peace, and some will think that a split-decision is in order, such as has been made here.
Also, please bear in mind that this is only what is reported publicly in the media. It's been known that leaders of opposing sides have publicly refused to meet before, but have met unofficially, off-the-record, or have communicated via go-betweens. It might be that Prime Minister Olmert wants talks with Hamas, but is either meeting with them secretly, or is communicating via Peres or Barak.
However, what concerns me is that of all the politicians both for and against meeting with Carter and/or Hamas, 6 out of 7 are almost certainly Ashkenazi, and only Eli Yishai seems to be Sephardi. Ashkenazim are Europeans and therefore it's very reasonable to suppose that they might not "get" the Middle East mentality. Even if they've spent many years in Israel, Israel's development was very different than the rest of the Middle East, more like European or American countries, so you don't get the feel of what it means to live in the Middle East when you're in Israel. I certainly only began to realise that there were different mentalities in Israel when I went to my father's family's Synagogue during the week, and met average Sephardi men who would get up at sunrise, every morning without fail, just like many Arabs do. These men had a markedly different attitude to life than most Israelis. My uncle was a Sephardi, and he was one of the few people I knew who had Arab friends. So it strikes me that if anyone should be meeting Hamas, it really would be much better if it was people who understood how Arabs thought, because they would be in the position to really hammer out a real peace process, not something that sounds good on paper, but would later on turn out to be a big problem for either the Arabs or the Israelis. I would imagine that Sephardi Jews who've lived with Arabs would be the best choice for that. I'd add the President for prestige as well. I'd add the Foreign Minister, not the Defence Minister, but the Foreign Minister is a woman, and I'm not sure how Hamas would take to discussions with a woman.
Well, that's my opinion. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/13/2008 8:48:02 AM | | When certain Jews stop wanting everything for themselves and stop controlling America then maybe things will improve. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/13/2008 8:53:45 AM |
When I see as much time devoted to these issues as is spent on Israel bashing, I will consider these commentaries as constructive
Considering that Israel gets the majority of the US's foreign aid budget (something like 1/3?,) I think the amount of comments you see about Israel is justifiable and proportional. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:15:15 AM | And this is the first thread about Israel I can recall since the disastrous bombing of Lebanon. This thread in fact started as an attack on Carter for wanting to meet with the elected representatives of Palestine. Some of us came to his defence.
The guy who said that Carter gave us Khomeni and Mugabe has been smoking something. It was American interference in Iran that toppled democracy there and lead inevitably to the revolution that overthrew the Shah. And Mugabe was elected in the first election in Zimbabwe when Reagan was in power. But I don't blame Reagan for that - that first election was the only free and fair election they've ever had. They voted in a monster. | |
|
| Israeli Politicos Outraged
Posted: 4/13/2008 11:48:40 AM | scorpio,
HANAS is the elected representative of the Palestinian people and it is right that President Carter should meet with them.
Your observation that this will likely lead to the deaths of children and babies is probably correct. What happened when HAMAS indicated a willingness to soften its' stance and negotiate: the beach party was bombed , women and children willfully murdered by the zionists. Successfully derailing any attempt for peace.
The zionists reluctance to negotiate with HAMAS is not based on any high moral standard of a refusal to talk to "terrorists" because the zionists are by far the larger terrorists. they refuse to negotiate because they fear having to give up their ill-gotten gains, the West Bank, Northern Palestine and the Golan Heights. | |
|
|
|
Home
login 
