Comments on: Hamas Hudna Hoax

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 04:27:26 +0000

I wouldn't expect the Israelis to buy into the idea of a “hudna” while the Hamas charter still calls for the destruction of Israel. The assurances that say they ought to do so ring hollow. One article said that a Hamas official called the charter an “antique” document if I am remembering his phrasing properly. Really? If it is that unimportant then why have all calls from their friends and enemies to change it been rejected?

But the Israelis do their cause no favors by constantly expanding settlements. No one can believe that they are serious about peace with the Palestinians if they make the creation of a contiguous Palestinian state impossible by their expansion into the West Bank.

By: JSpencer

JSpencer — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:18:21 +0000

Amusing how certain people imagine they are injecting plausibility into their arguments by portraying those who don't buy them as “ignorant”, “self-righteous”, or not possessing “functioning minds”. Sorry, but that doesn't make the cut.

By: Davebo

Davebo — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:45:06 +0000

I was just joking DWSUWF. Generally former or sitting presidents don't endorse a potential nominee of their party until they have won the nomination.

By: DLS

DLS — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 21:33:47 +0000

They'll not only buy the hudna nonsense (which we with functioning minds can see right through), but will stoop so low as to say that Israel is obliged and ought to be compelled to buy it — continuing to treat Israel the way the pesky, troublesome, peace-threatening, irritating little Czechs were treated at Munich.

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:40:20 +0000

@davebo
Not to my knowledge, Carter was making a lot of pro–Obama noises a week or so ago. The rumor is that the Obama campaign asked him not to endorse, as they do not want to reinforce the similarities. They think he hurts more than helps.

By: runasim

runasim — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:37:26 +0000

No one should be surpriseed that Hamas grows more popular with Palestinians every day.
The more they're pushed, the more tenacious they become.
That's been the case all along.

Should Israel wait, then, until Hamas is the only representative of the Palesinian people?, Time is not on Israel's side.

By: mikkel

mikkel — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:21:54 +0000

Hamas isn't entirely analogous to the IRA and now they are a real government they should be treated like one. They are still constantly bombarding southern Israel and are not helping their people in the slightest.

And still Hamas has more popular support than the PLO since the PLO is so corrupt. The real path to peace isn't in the PLO or Hamas but a true "moderate" alternative that is not as corrupt as the PLO and that rejects terrorism if Israel returns to the borders. I see no way that this organization can spring up though unless a major faction of Hamas or the PLO breaks off from the main group.

The point of negotiation isn't always to draw concessions from the other party, sometimes it's to split the other party into factions and give your side a better chance.

By: lurxst

lurxst — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:21:34 +0000

How quickly we forget what real, take-a-chance diplomacy looks like.

By: runasim

runasim — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:12:58 +0000

I don't think that anyone is questioning the possibiltiy that Hamas might be duplicitous. It is also true that the Palestinians have missed opportunities to improve their own lot, and have put thier enegies into finding someone else to blame for everything.

The same is true for a lot of groups, states and nations.
There are skeletons in every nation's closet., including Israel and the US.

Just like Palesinians shouldn't hide behing past wrongs by Israel, Israel can't hide behind by the wrongs of the Palesinians.

Now is the time, and we should cincentrate, instead, on what can be done today to end the violence and promote peace.
Jimmy Carter is courageous to at least try to do that.

By: Davebo

Davebo — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 20:01:51 +0000

I agree, rather intemprent tone here. And in the end, though no good may come of it, I can't see much harm coming from it.

Did Carter endorse Obama or something?

By: AshenShard

AshenShard — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:48:50 +0000

btw, I think what Carter is doing is great, but that it should not be the only route or tactic at this point. Remember our great president TR, who said “Speak softly, but carry a big stick.” Well, Carter is the speak softly part of our foreign policy. We must always offer an equitable, peaceful voice as an alternative to military action, otherwise our enemies, or our potential enemies will only prepare for war. Why should they prepare for peace when we do not offer them that option?

By: Don Singleton

Don Singleton — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:22:19 +0000

Hudna

Would the arabs be willing to give up all the land they took in war, and go back to Saudi Arabia?

By: PaulSilver

PaulSilver — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:15:39 +0000

I respect the efforts of Pres Carter. It may be that while the official positions of the Israeli and US governments are to stonewall Hamas they may welcome this unofficial opening of a communication channel.

“Only an ignorant, politically-correct, self-righteous moralizing fool would buy-into this nonsense.” This is so not the tone I come to TMV for.

By: ChrisWWW

ChrisWWW — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:08:10 +0000

Nice to see “moderate” Holly coming down on the side of negotiation and possible peace!

Seems she's come down with a little bit of that, dare I say, Carter Derangement Syndrome.

By: DWSUWF

DWSUWF — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:03:59 +0000

My worst fear about Obama is that he gets the nomination and turns into Jimmy Carter – just another big smile, nice sounding. but completely ineffectual academic/intellectual – just like Jimmy. The scary thing, is that we actually know less about Barack Obama's executive skill than we knew about Jimmy Carter when we elected him president.

By: AshenShard

AshenShard — Mon, 21 Apr 2008 19:03:27 +0000

Maybe you have forgotten the history of terrorist groups turned political, usually it takes a long time for the transition to happen, decades, not a few years. Look at Sinn Fein and the IRA. It's not a transition that happens overnight, and to be quite honest, I don't see why Israel should not be required to hold onto the borders it has established since 1949. Likely in the end though, they will hold more, but that is the nature of give and take.

Israelis and Jews both have to back down on their belief that certain land is theirs by the edict of god. It's not. Supporting such an edict only gives excuses for human rights violations and genocide.