Only Carter Could Go to Hamas?
Well, if only Nixon could go to China, who knows? I have to confess, when it comes to matters of Israel and the Palestinians, I’m lucky to be able to spell “Gaza” since it’s not in my spell checker. When I get confused, I turn to my own personal authority on All Matters Jewish, The One True Tami. Her Hebrew bona fides are fine by me and include having studied extensively in that country. She takes a look at some of the criticism Carter is receiving for opening talks with Hamas and has questions.
Really? Carter supports extremism? Why is it that I honestly feel that this guy supports peace above all else? Is it his mild demeanor? His lack of declaring wars? His work to provide housing to low-income families? His willingness to sit down with people who have their thumbs on an entire race of people and can influence their emotions at the drop of a hat to try and convince them that working with the US could help them more than working against it? Am I the only one who thinks he’s trying to make things better for everyone?
You can read the rest at the link above. Reference this article for the background work.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
7 Responses to “Only Carter Could Go to Hamas?”
I think the more accurate criticism of Carter isn't that he supports extremists, but that he naively thinks he can work with extremists to broker peace. His pursuit of peace as the goal assumes that everyone else also shares that goal, while extremists actually only want peace on their own terms (and those terms are unacceptable if they don't allow for others to coexist with them.)
Carter is inept, and should go back to building houses and writing children's books.
Isn't that true of all involved in the conflict?
I suppose you could say that, Davebo, but only a moral relativist perspective could support the idea of equivalency between the various “terms” of each side. One side does insist that it be allowed to continue to exist, while the other side refuses to denounce the most extreme among them who won't accept the other side's right to exist. If you think those are equally reasonable demands, well, OK….
Hamas' peace terms are simple–the complete destruction of Israel.
In a conflict, each side thinks their demands are 'reasonble', and the other side lacks moral principles. One side's defense of principles tis the others side's extremism.
There are only two choices. One is to continue killing and brutalizing each other, and the other is to seek a way to co-exist.
Carter is enough of a humanitrian to acknowledge the suffering on both sides and enough of a realist to see that the only to stop it is for neutral trhid parties to intervene. Unltiamtely, the only way to achieve a peace that lasts is for both sides to become relatavistic enough about morelity to listen and undestand the story from the other's point of view.
Sometimes there are higher principles to uphold than strict adherence to operating by means of jingoism like 'moral ralitivsm', PC and the rest of the sloganeering nonsense.
.
Holly is right. Hamas does say they want to destroy Israel., and the goal is for that not to happen.
The divergence in opinion is about which path is more likely to achieve the goal.
There is an increased danger to Israel with every year the current dead-end situation continues. With every year, the cross grieveances multiply, and it becomes hardert to organize all the strands into a vision for a doable solution
An inflexible Israel, also, can not attractt world support the way a more flexible Israel can.
Time is working agaisnt Isrrael, and it does not always use the time wisely.