Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
Carter is, quite simply, a whack job
Posted by: mcq on Tuesday, June 19, 2007

The latest from the greatest foreign policy president in a century [/sarcasm]:
The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday.

Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."
Actually, Mr. Carter, the "criminal" portion of that election belonged to Hamas which is a terrorist organization. As you might imagine, that's colored our relationship, or lack thereof, with them.

Of course, I would assume, given Carter's point about Hamas that if, say NYC would elect various mafia members to the city council and other elective positions that he would feel compelled to deal with them the same way he would any other elected government because, well, there were elections for heaven sake.

Elections don't legitimize thugs, criminals and terrorists Mr. Carter, although you spent most of your days trying to prove otherwise.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
Actually, Mr. Carter, the "criminal" portion of that election belonged to Hamas which is a terrorist organization.

Okay, so now free and fair elections, aka democracy, is "criminal" when it produces results that the United States does not like?

And by the way, what is Fatah? The Peace Corps?
 
Written By: Kathy
URL: http://libertystreetusa.blogspot.com
Okay, so now free and fair elections, aka democracy, is "criminal" when it produces results that the United States does not like?
Uh no, see analogy. Just because a criminal wins an election doesn’t change the fact they’re still a criminal. Or terrorist. Or, whatever ...
 
Written By: McQ
URL: http://qando.net
Okay, so now free and fair elections, aka democracy, is "criminal"
you missed the point completely. Hamas were terrorists before they ever got elected. Having someone vote for them does not suddenly change their stripes and mean we have to play nice with them.

And hell, we were still going to give them our aid if they would only say Israel has a right to exist, but they couldn’t even do that! All they had to do to get all our aid was agree to not exterminate the jews next door to them, I mean at least fatah says they won’t attack israel while they let hamas and islamic jihad do it.
 
Written By: ChrisB
URL: http://
Actually, Kathy, one of the bigger mistakes of either party is in thinking of either Hamas or Fatah as anything other than a gangrenous leg that should be (and can be) sawed off.

As for Mr. Carter, if he thinks this country is so bad, he can please renounce his citizenship and leave.
 
Written By: SDN
URL: http://
the Bush administration’s refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal."
Agree with Carter, the failure of the Bush administration to accept a democracy is "criminal". It is "criminal" that Bush ignores the endorsement of the Palestinian electorate for the destruction of Israel, hostility to America and the impostion of Sharia law. Bush continues to deny this reality and is now attempting to contribute support to the same Palestinian people who have voted to divorce themselves from America.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
I mean at least fatah says they won’t attack israel
And, just as accurately, we might observe that at most Fatah says they won’t attack Israel. And, of course, when they don’t think we’re listening, they say they will. And they will. And they do. They’re just liars. And killers. They just suck up to us instead of Iran.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
Okay, so now free and fair elections, aka democracy, is "criminal" when it produces results that the United States does not like?
Please help me. Historically speaking, when would it have been ok to dislike Hitler and consider him the murderous thug he clearly was and vocally espoused to be?
 
Written By: Rich Horton
URL: http://www.iconicmidwest.blogspot.com
Okay, so now free and fair elections, aka democracy, is "criminal" when it produces results that the United States does not like?
Well,if it’s Democrats caterwauling about Bush in 2000 and 2004, yeah. Where’ve you been the last 7 years?

Let’s Recap:

2000... Bush stole it!!! Voter intimidation!!!

2004..."Hacking Democracy"...Diebold..Diebold...Diebold.

2006...*chirp* *chirp* *chirp*...

If free and fair elections are "aka Democracy", is Iraq a democracy now?

Hamas is a terrorist organization. If the National Socialist Party (not some namby-pamby contemporary goons, but the full-on, real deal, Zyklon-totin’ fellas with the penchant for lavish geometric displays in large outdoor arenas) won an election in say, Germany, would you want to deal with them? I wouldn’t. Hamas are the same kind of folks. Yes they are.

Let’s not be so eager to be even-handed that we forget these people want to kill us, and that even if we empathize with them in the name of fairness it’s probably not good to let them kill us just so they can feel better.

There’s probably nothing so wrong with Hamas that killing every last one of them wouldn’t fix, but luckily for us, we’re far too good for that. The sense of moral superiority we have in not addressing our enemies in the way they would us if the had the means, and will as soon as they do, is so much more fulfilling than more base concerns. Like living, or defending the greatest culture of freedom and liberty man ever created, in the face of people who would utterly destroy every shred of it if they had their way.

*sigh* Poor Jimmy. Well, at least when one’s mind goes this bad, there’s no such thing as a re-run :)
 
Written By: Augustus
URL: http://
"Historically speaking, when would it have been ok to dislike Hitler..."?

What the hell is the point of that question? Is there anyone who is claiming that we should "like" Hamas?

We are supposedly the ones who define our foreign policy in the Middle East as one that supports, even fights for democracy. Then people vote for who they want to respresent them, and we refuse to deal with those leaders. This is obviously percieved as gross hypocrisy. And thus counterproductive to achiving our goals there.

The Palestinians feel they have a very serious greivance (the continuing loss of their land to the illegal encroachments of the Israeli settlers). We in America have been the worlds pioneers in establsihing a peaceful system for the redress of greivances. We encourage groups (many of whom are groups of barabarians) to evolve out of the recourse to violence, and to adopt a similar system for the redress of greivances. When they do so, we refuse to talk to them. Incredible mindless stupidity. Par for the course for this administration, of course.

Our policies are teaching them that seeking and receiving the consent of the people, through elections, will get them nothing. When peaceful political venues are shut down, people (thats all people, even Americans - remember the civil war) will resort to violence in their effort to redress their greivances.

So now we funnel money and support to Fatah - a group that contains elements that actually commit more violence against Israel than does Hamas.

Carter is the one that is thinking clearly here.
 
Written By: Abe
URL: http://
While one can disagree with Carter’s analysis, McQ’s very emotion-driven personal attack style of posting — calling Carter a ’whack job’ — is an example of what’s wrong with American political discourse these days. McQ, you tend to focus on personal attacks and insults far too often, and that obscures your sometimes brilliant analysis of particular issues.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Hamas - Fatah - Apples - and Apples
You want to cut one of these organizations some slack - fine - let them take the first step and recognize Israel’s right to exist! First one to step up gets the big bucks! Until then, let them kill each other off and beg for pennies outside the local dime store!

Abe, you got a problem with "the continuing loss of their land to the illegal encroachments of the Israeli settlers." Let me ask you something. Did these Israeli settlers walk onto the land and just declare it their own and "homestead" the property? No! The land was purchased from the legally identified owner or owners. Only then did these Israeli settlers build upon the land. Not once was the land "seized". How do I know this? Friends of mine are some of these settlers and they purchased the land legally - and it wasn’t cheap. The Israeli government even purchased the land back from these settlers when they were forcefully relocated from the Gaza Strip. Palestinians think the legal purchase of land equals some sort of illegality? Only when it has to do with a Jew.

Carter thinking clearly here? You gotta be kidding me! The only time Carter thinks clearly is when he driving nails into a habitat house. The jarring hit of the hammer on the nail calms his ragged nerves.
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
Having a stated goal of ’promoting democracy’ is a mistake. We should be promoting individual freedom.
 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
When peaceful political venues are shut down, people (thats all people, even Americans - remember the civil war) will resort to violence in their effort to redress their greivances.
When exactly has Hamas sought a peaceful political venue?
 
Written By: twizz
URL: http://
McQ’s very emotion-driven personal attack style of posting — calling Carter a ’whack job’ — is an example of what’s wrong with American political discourse these days.
You’ve got it all wrong as per norm. Because Carter is, quite simply, a whack job, CARTER IS, QUITE SIMPLY, A WHACK JOB is, quite simply, an example of what’s accurate in and therefore right about American political discourse these days.
 
Written By: Linda Morgan
URL: http://
On cue, Jimmy Carter steps forward and demonstrates again that there is no fool like an old fool [h/t: Ben Franklin].

Let’s see where this serial idiot got it wrong this time. The US should not favor Fatah over Hamas because...."[it would be an] effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples."?

Fatah has renounced violence and has recognized the possibility of recognizing Israel. Abu Mazen has met with the Israeli PM in an effort to achieve a peaceful solution down the road.

Hamas has espoused terrorism, kidnaps Israeli soldiers and launches missiles into Israel while attempting terrorist attacks on Israel. Its leadership refuses to consider any diplomatic measures toward Israel. I could go on.....

But it already sounds like the Palestinians are two peoples.

So the US should treat Fatah and Hamas the same?

How long ago did this terminal retardo Carter lose the last of his marbles? And why doesn’t he just shut up and stop proving Ben Franklin’s old adage again and again and again......
 
Written By: daveinboca
URL: http://www.daveinboca.blogspot.com
So the US should treat Fatah and Hamas the same?
No, but they should respect the will of the Palestinians and the sovereignty of their parliament. The government is Hamas, the USA should treat this as the USA treats states with any hostile government. The USA should not ignore the wish of the Palestinian people to be isolated from the West.
 
Written By: unaha-closp
URL: http://warisforwinning.blogspot.com/
The USA should not ignore the wish of the Palestinian people to be isolated from the West.
Hamas did not run on an isolationist platform, they ran on a "Run the Jews into the sea" Platform, which is most definitely NOT isolationist.
 
Written By: Boogs
URL: http://bornandbred.blogspot.com/
Abe, your ability to call a Hamas-run government a peaceful system is truly, truly astonishing. I’m not sure whether it’s willful ignorance or what, but it’s amazing.
 
Written By: Lysenko
URL: http://
Having a stated goal of ’promoting democracy’ is a mistake. We should be promoting individual freedom.
Hallelujah. Neither Bush nor Carter can figure that one out.
 
Written By: Luke
URL: http://
A good article on the topic.
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
While one can disagree with Carter’s analysis, McQ’s very emotion-driven personal attack style of posting — calling Carter a ’whack job’ — is an example of what’s wrong with American political discourse these days
Translation: I was just in here the other day telling everyone how bad it is that Hamas is beating Fatah, and now my hero is backing Hamas. So, rather than admit my hero’s wrong, I’m going to attack McQ for something completely irrelevant.
 
Written By: Steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
It is the Palestinians’ right to elect whomever they want. It is our right to decline to fund them if we don’t like it. If they don’t like that, they can feel free to solicit funding from others.
 
Written By: Amy
URL: http://
McQ’s very emotion-driven personal attack style of posting — calling Carter a ’whack job’ — is an example of what’s wrong with American political discourse these days.
Carter’s diatribes would also fit that bill Scott; and his comments, as a former POTUS, carry just a bit more weight than do McQ’s.
 
Written By: bains
URL: http://
Come on now, coming from the Father of the Iranian Revolution, what would anyone expect as comments regarding the Iranian backed Hamas.


 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
I’m going to attack McQ for something completely irrelevant.
You see, McQ was guilty of "Improper Narrative".
 
Written By: cap joe
URL: http://
Calling Carter a "whack job" is objectively non-sensical. He clearly is sane, intelligent, and states his opinion. Now, you may believe his analysis wrong, but he at least builds his argument in a far more rational and cogent way than Linda has been doing. McQ tends to associate negative personal traits to those politicians and public figures with whom he disagrees personally. The ridicule heaped on Pelosi, Reid, and a variety of other Democrats or opponents to the war is essentially taking disagreement with a position and using that as an excuse to ridicule/insult. That is from the gut, not the head, and really works against rational discourse. It’s disappointing that McQ (and a few others like Linda) give up the high ground and go for such attacks since when you stay cool and in control you can make very good arguments. It’s not like you’re a Bithead or something. I don’t — honestly — understand why political disagreement so easily becomes personal attacks. (And the Left does the same thing to Bush, Rice, etc.) I guess I understand that emotion is stronger than reason, but still...
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Pet peeve of mine:

"Whack" is to hit something, as in "He whacked the ball with his bat."

"Wack" is something crazy, as in "That is one wacky ex-President."


 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
He clearly is sane, intelligent, and states his opinion.
No, no, and obviously yes.
he at least builds his argument in a far more rational and cogent way than Linda has been doing.
In order for this to be atrue statement, his arguements would have to be rational, and they are not. To suggest that we should give free money to a group we’ve called terrorists for decades isn’t exactly the statement of a rational man.
The ridicule heaped on Pelosi, Reid, and a variety of other Democrats or opponents to the war is essentially taking disagreement with a position and using that as an excuse to ridicule/insult.
Do you really Want to go there, Professor? I mean, we can if you’d like, but I’m not sure you’ll enjoy the trip...
And the Left does the same thing to Bush, Rice, etc.
No, the Left calls for their rape, murder, or death by cancer... I hardly equate calling Carter a "wack-job" with saying that it’s ok to dream about raping Ann Coulter, wishing Tony Snow would die of cancer (or that he deserved to get cancer), moaning about how they wish Cheney had been blown up, or hoping Michelle Malkin would be beaten and gang-raped.

I understand you’re "different" Proffesor, but are you that different?
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
He clearly is sane

Debatable.

intelligent

Highly debatable. Remember, this is the guy hoodwinked by both Chavez and Kim Jong Il. And he was "shocked" when the Soviets invaded Afghanistan. And he said our economic problems were due to "malaise."

builds his argument in a far more rational and cogent way

Now you’re just pulling our legs. Supporting Hamas is rational?

 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
Just in case anyone doesn’t believe me:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=define%3Awhack

http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&c2coff=1&q=define%3Awack
 
Written By: TallDave
URL: http://www.deanesmay.com
Carter finished third in the Naval Academy, you don’t do that if you’re not smart.

Face it, when you sink to personal attacks because you disagree with someone politically, you’ve essentially sacrificed the high ground. It really sounds bitter, angry, and frustrated.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
More tap-dancing from Professor Erb. Carter might have been a top graduate in his class...but he was hopelessly outclassed in foreign policy matters, first by the Soviets, then by Kim Jong Il and Hugo Chavez. Bobby Fischer was a great chess player, but I wouldn’t have trusted him to invest in the stock market for me.

But Erb still hasn’t resolved his dilemma: Carter’s his hero, so his pronouncements on Arab-Israeli relations are supposed to be correct, but Erb was just in here a few days ago bemoaning the fact that Hamas was beating Fatah. Until he can fit the competing ideas in his head, he’ll just sit back and attack McQ for calling Carter a whack-job, rather than address Carter’s statements.

(TallDave, maybe by "whack-job" we mean someone who’s addle-pated from being whacked in the head too often?).
 
Written By: steverino
URL: http://steverino.journalspace.com/
While it pains me to admit it, like me, Carter was a Navy "Nuke" and, therefore, very intelligent. However, his intelligence didn’t translate well into real world management ability or evidently, even a semi-clear thought process that would allow for him to effectively handle his duties as President/ex-President.
 
Written By: Liberty Dog
URL: http://canislibertas.blogspot.com
My sister-in-law can ace any test after one reading of a textbook. Yet the entire family gets nervous every time she has to cross the street. She also chooses the biggest losers to date and bemoans the fact that she is in her mid-30s and unmarried.

She is the smartest dumb person I have ever met.
 
Written By: JWG
URL: http://
Some of you apparently don’t have the capacity to sit down and reasonably reply to Carter’s argument, you just see that you disagree with it so you attack him. That’s OK — he’s wealthy, has a Nobel prize, and will probably be remembered for his humanitarian works long after we are all forgotten. Being called names is probably something he smiles and shakes his head at. He’s above that kind of thing. And if anyone wants to criticize Carter’s foreign policy, look at the oval office now: Bush has done far more harm to the US than Carter could have. Yet I will not stoop to personally attacking the President. I actually think he’s a reasonably bright and sincere guy. Neither Bush nor Carter are a "hero" to me — I didn’t vote for Carter in 1980, my first election. I’m just amazed by the vitriol hurled at him just because people disagree with him — it seems more like playground bully behavior than reasoned political discourse.

But his argument does have some merit. The argument is that if Hamas had been accepted as the legitimate victor, if there hadn’t been an all out effort to force the Palestinians to simply reject the election result, then perhaps Hamas could have been coopted into the process. By making clear there was no way Hamas could ever be accepted unless it unconditionally adopted the terms it took years to negotiate with the PLO - Fatah, then it forced Hamas into compelte radicalization. I think that should have at least been attempted, there were signs given by Hamas that if it was given respect it might have responded. Alas, I believe it is now too late for that, the radical mindsight has taken over and we’re probably going to see a lot more bloodshed in the region.

Seriously, why do so many people equate political disagreements with needing to see the other side as personally flawed or somehow bad/stupid/evil/whack job? It really strikes me as something grown ups should probably rise above.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
Scott Erb -

There is really no difference between an emotional critique of Carter and an emotional praise of Carter. Both are burdened by the same baggage. You’re guilty of the latter.

 
Written By: Grimshaw
URL: http://
Hamas’s platform is a Salafi tranformation of socirty and the destruction of Israel. They campaigned legitimately against Fatah’s corruption; but they can do next to nothing. Basically, they are being kept afloat from cash transfers
from Iran; which is undergoing enormous economic turmoil despite near $70 oil.
What we see with Hamas, is what we’d see in Iraq, after a precipitous pull out
of US forces; likely to be repeated in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, et al. Jimmy hasn’t
learned anything in the last 28 years (since Afghanistan & Iran flared in to the public eye.
 
Written By: narciso
URL: http://
The argument is that if Hamas had been accepted as the legitimate victor
I’ll start here...

Even I will admit that they are the legitimate victor. That by no means suggests that we should support them. They are a terrorist organization, regardless of what President Carter says or hopes or dreams. We even said "We’ll give you the same support we gave the other guys, we just want you to say that Israel has the right to exist."

They refused to do that. You think we should support a group of people that longs for the bloody, violent death of an ally? I can’t even begin to tell you how screwed up that is. If france tomorrow decided that the UK should be blown back into the stone age, we’d stop doing anything that helps France, and rightly so.
By making clear there was no way Hamas could ever be accepted unless it unconditionally adopted the terms it took years to negotiate with the PLO - Fatah, then it forced Hamas into compelte radicalization.
"Stop blowing up jews". That was basicly the gist of what we wanted. They wouldn’t even SAY it, and God knows in this country as long as your guy says it it’s close enough.

The UN doesn’t even support Hamas. The UN, who put Iran as vice-chair of the disarmement commision, Zimbabwi as the chair of the commision on sustainable developement, and Libiya as Chair on human rights.

When the UN won’t deal with you, you’re a special kind of horrible.

As for "harm" done to the US, it’s surprising that two of the countries people most often like to cite as having grown to detest us (Germany and France) have both elected leaders with a fair high view of the USA. Carter gave us double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and was utterly toothless in dealing with the very country who now holds several US citizens on "espionage" charges, and one US busisnesman is 100% missing there. The country that supports Hamas.

Iran.

So yes, he got great grades. Had I not left boot camp, I’d have been a navy nuke myself, so I’m not all that impressed, frankly. Yeah, great for him. Huzzah.

He has a Nobel Peace Prize, but for what? What changed as a result of what he got the awared for?
Being called names is probably something he smiles and shakes his head at. He’s above that kind of thing.
Not acording to the last several weeks of his run-ins with the media, he’s not.

And as a pure aside, how is it that we should have to give money to ANYONE? Why do we have to bribe the @ssh0les of the world? If Hamas is that interested in actually running a country (as opposed to just getting free stuff and killing Jews), then let them build their own damn economy. We’ve rebuilt the world a couple of times at this point, and get nothing but crap for it. Why should we continue to do so?

They hate us so much, they can stop cashing our checks.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
I agree that we don’t need to support Hamas, my point was only that Carter’s position is legitimate and has a logic we should consider: after all, for self-interested reasons we support Saudi Arabia and we have supported many repressive regimes. Ultimately I disagree with him on this issue.

Germans and French dislike American policy (as do Sarkozy and Merkel) on numerous fronts, but generally like America and Americans. The French were surprised when Americans seemed to go into a collective anti-French hissy fit back in 2002, attacking all things French just because of Chirac’s policy. It was a low moment for America’s image abroad in terms of how the public reacted. To many in Europe that reminded them of pre-WWII mentality, where you actually dislike an entire people for some emotional reason. You get some of that in Europe, but most Europeans are smart enough to separate policy differences from actual hatred of a country.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
my point was only that Carter’s position is legitimate
That’s just it Professor...

It isn’t legitimate. He blase US for the trouble in Gaza because we didn’t support a group of terrorists and failed to give them money.

If you don’t think we should support Hamas, then it isn’t valid to suggest that because we don’t support them, we’re to blame.

Just because an opinion is held doesn’t make it a vilad one I have to accept.

Our support of repressive regimes comes down to one factors Lesser of two evils (Taliban over Russia, Iraq over Iran, so on and so on).

Iran had out embasy people, so we support Iraq. We are in a cold war with the USSR, so he help the resistance fighters.

You should note that while we support the Saudis, they also aren’t commited to the destruction of Israel based upon what is writen directly in it’s founding charter, nor does it have a habit of suicide bombings that target school, open markets, and buses...
Germans and French dislike American policy (as do Sarkozy and Merkel) on numerous fronts, but generally like America and Americans
Sarkozy might dislike our policy, and even says as much, but he isn’t calling us the sorts of things Chirac enjoyed calling us. Also, it’s amazing, but the MSM suggests a VERY different picture, where all the world wishes to spit upon us for our war crimes of outsing a brutal, genocidal dictator and helping rebuild a country.

Let me back up and address something...
Carter’s position is legitimate and has a logic we should consider: after all, for self-interested reasons we support Saudi Arabia and we have supported many repressive regimes.
I know I touched on "legitimate position", but I want to stress something. You said the magic words there Professor: Self-interest

What has Hamas got that we want a piece of? We only support ’people or questionable character and ethics’ when there is a clear benifit, and even then we don’t always (Hugo would sell us oil, but I’d start riding a bike first).

Carter’s way, way, way off in left field on this one, oblivious to the fact that Hamas isn’t anybody that anyone should want to deal with. The fact that Iran supports a group who’s charter expessly stats they want to destroy Israel should tell you alot about what we’ll end up dealing with in Iran.
 
Written By: Scott Jacobs
URL: http://
Scott, you can make arguments against his point, but unless you want to assume that only your interpretation of the situation is legitimate, and all others are not, you’re really making a serious error. It’s the same thing the communists and others did when they defined certain positions as being "mentally insane" because no sane person could deny the reality they claimed was obvious. If another position is internally consistent and based on assumptions which are plausible, then it’s legitimate. It might be weak, it might be wrong, you might be able to tear apart the argument. But if you simply assert its wrong and assert that your alternative is unquestionably right, you’ve taken an anti-rational turn. The strength democracy and importance of political discourse lies in the recognition that since all of us are biased and have imperfect information, real listening and interaction is a way to get closer to the truth.

It is possible that the cutting of aid to the Palestinians after Hamas won had a part in preventing work to push Hamas towards a more moderate policy (I really doubt that, but I can see the argument as plausible). In that case the choice to cut funding the West other wise would have given would be a causal factor in creating current conditions. If that argument is accurate, it would have been our self-interest to continue the aid we were giving (which was in our self-interest). My own view is that the Hamas leadership is so radicalized they were going to push for full power anyway, and that Carter is seeing Hamas too much like Fatah. The PLO was a terror organization that recognized there was no alternative to seeking the best deal possible with Israel, and dropped its claim Israel had no right to exist, moderating its demands to lands taken in 1967. But it was never an Islamic extremist organization, and thus the leadership could be more easily brought to see the pragmatic side.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
So, Professor, taking your point to heart I will give Carter’s position some thought.

Tick . . Tock . . Tick . . Tock . .

OK, enough thought - he’s full of crap!

Now, in regards positions put forward by others that may be considered insane, you have to know the semantics of the source. The Soviets during their heyday professed a desire for peace while fomenting conflict and war all over the globe. We could not understand what we thought was an obvious contradiction - but was it? No - and why? Because the Soviet doctrine, stated very simply, was there could be no peace so long as the world was not free of capitalists! They truly believed in Peace - it was just their definition did not match our own.

Now to Carter. He obviously lives in a world where the sky is not the same color as ours. But the basic problem here may be one of semantics - When he states:
"I don’t see at this point any possibility that public officials in the United States, or in Israel, or the European Union are going to take action to bring about reconciliation."
My first reaction is to ask him why should we? What does he want us to do? What alternatives would he suggest?

But then I have to step back an review his reference to our "criminal" response to the crisis in Gaza. Upon what basis has our response been criminal? What law have we broken? What agreement have we abrogated? Do we "owe" the Palestinians anything? And if so what are the conditions of this debt?

If you want to go back to Oslo, then let’s do that for a moment. Signatures were put on paper, handshakes were given all around and all sides were smiling. Why? Arrafat agreed to recognize Israel’s right to exist and Israel would then garuntee the establishment qabd safety of the new Palestinian State. But what happened?

Recognition of Israel? No.
Anything resembling peaceful activity from the PLO or the Palestinians? No.
What then happened? The Intifada!

Steps were taken to try and ensure peace. Israel pulled out of Lebanon. Any recognition? No - missiles came from the very ground Israel returned. Israel unilaterally and forcefully pulled back their settlements in Gaza. Pali recognition? No. More missiles were now being sent into Israel but this time they are being shot from the very same Gaza that Israel withdrew from.

The Palestinians - in the guise of Fatah or Hamas - have abrogated any and all agreements regarding the Peace settlement. We owed them not one red cent. But we continued to pay - hoping they would find some level of peace in their hearts. But finally a last straw - Hamas wins political power. A dedicated terrorist organization. It has a charter of that states it exists only for the total elimination fo the Jewish state and the destruction of all Jews. It’s charter says nothing else! Finally, we stop the flow of money! Any movement toward Peace? No and none was or ever will be forthcoming. Because of Semanitcs! Remember the Soviet attitude? So long as there is an Israel. So long as there are Jews. So long as these two factors remain, there can be no Peace!

Ask Carter what his definitions are for the Peace Process in the Middle East. Find out what his words really mean. And then check the sky - Is the color the same as his?
 
Written By: SShiell
URL: http://
SShiell: I don’t think we can paint the Palestinians with one brush — they are fighting each other, Fatah has recognized Israel’s right to exist, and a lot of Palestinians want that to work. Hamas only won its election because it downplayed it’s anti-Israel rhetoric and played up anger at PA corruption. Carter, like Rabin, Begin, and later even Sharon recognizes that there will be no peace without reconciliation. How to do it is the hard question. But the Arabs aren’t going away, and groups like Hamas are posing an ever more dangerous threat to Israel. Israel’s not going away either. If this somehow isn’t defused nuclear and chemical terror could destroy the whole region, killing Jews and Arabs alike, and leaving both sides as losers. But I do think Carter underestimates the fervor of the Hamas leadership, so ultimately on this issue I do disagree with him.
 
Written By: Scott Erb
URL: http://faculty.umf.maine.edu/~erb/blog.htm
"Carter finished third in the Naval Academy,"

Try not to let your hero worship interfere with reality;

" Carter did well but hardly stood out at the naval academy, graduating in the top third of his class."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/carter/peopleevents/p_jcarter.html

"graduated 59th in a class of 820 in 1946."
http://ap.grolier.com/article?assetid=0078990-00

In any event, it is irrelevant. I am sure there were and are quite intelligent Nazis and Communists who can rationally justify their positions. Terrorism, and extermination of undesireables for example, is quite rational. Your extreme faith in the absolute supremacy of "rationality" is irrational.


"He’s above that kind of thing."

LOL. It’s not hero worship, it’s hagiography.

"And if anyone wants to criticize Carter’s foreign policy, look at the oval office now:"

So much for rational argument. That certainly didn’t last long. As usual.

 
Written By: timactual
URL: http://

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider