Jimmy Got Conned

Matt! You are on a role! Great artical!

What a shame that President Carter is on the side of the terrorists! I think you would call that a traitor? This is not a shock just very dissapointing...

Jimmy Carter would just stand by why people were bombing his family,I don't think so,he is using this to disagree with President Bush,he will say any thing to make a Bush decision look bad.Heneeds eo keep his mouth shut.

Former President Carter seems to be describing what he saw and what his experiences were with the varied parties in this conflict - there's not a whole lot of editorializing here. So, it appears that what you're doing, Matt, is suggesting that the former President is a liar, that he did not actually experience and see these thing and has slanted his recollections to service his alleged prejudices.

Don't get me wrong - I said early on that the Israeli's have the absolute right to defend themselves against attack (though I certainly wish they'd be a little more discriminating about it - 550 casualties [including 111 children] in ten days, as of January 5 is a little disturbing when considering the absurdly minimal casualty count on the Israeli side in the rocket attacks that set off the current Gaza campaign). But if Carter is honest and accurate in his description of his personal experience of events leading up to this situation, then we must, at the very least, question Israel's culpability in this particular affair.

Just a little reality check:

(1) As a Jew and a supporter of Israel (though not of all of its policies), I don't like a lot of what Pres. Carter has said, including much of this WaPo column. But he has still *done* more for the cause of Israeli-Arab peace than any other U.S. President with the possible exception of Bill Clinton.

(2) Israel and the U.S. (and, obviously, the Palestinian Authority President and his Fatah faction) didn't like it, and many people would now like to forget it, but Hamas gained the authority to form a Palestinian government, for the West Bank as well as Gaza, not by "forcibly throwing out the legitimate ... government" but by *winning parliamentary elections*. The P.A./Fatah (along with the "international community") refused to accept this victory, but it's more than a little disingenuous to call the P.A./Fatah the "legitimate government" as a result.

(3) Yes, Hamas are terrorists, and yes, they've continued to attack Israel, and yes, they refused to extend the cease-fire, and yes, Israel has the right to fight back. But Fatah started out as terrorists too. (As did some factions of the current Israeli government, and the leading factions of past Israeli governments including those that originally *supported* Hamas as a supposed counterweight to Fatah.) Israel used to refuse to negotiate with Fatah (aka the PLO), but they've got the degree of peace and stability they have now less as a result of fighting (though much of that was necessary too) than of negotiating with them, with much prodding by President Clinton and, yes, Carter. It's at least a legitimate subject for debate, both inside and outside of Israel, as to what's the best way to get Hamas to behave better. (At the time of the Hamas election victory, I myself thought that "isolating" them and denying them "legitimacy" was a good idea, but I'm no longer so sure.) Trying to wipe them out might work, but it also might backfire. I suspect it's a lot harder now than it was a month ago to find anyone inside Gaza who opposes Hamas.

(4) Ryan, being "on the side of" Hamas (which may or may not be what Carter is doing here) might (or might not) make someone a "traitor" to Israel, but Carter is not an Israeli, and Israel, though an ally, is not identical to the United States. (I don't recall anyone ever calling Irish-American supporters of the IRA "traitors," even though that was a terrorist group that attacked our closest ally.) And Hamas, though we (along with most of the international community) consider them terrorists, has never attacked the United States. And their principal backer, Iran, whatever you think of its behavior in general, also happens to be the mortal enemy of the Arab/Muslim terrorist group that *did* attack the United States. (Not to mention the mortal enemy of the former government of Iraq, which the United States claimed was so much of a threat to us that we had to take over the country to get rid of it.)

It's "beyond ridiculous" to call Hamas the legitimate government of Gaza? Because Hamas "threw out" the legitimate Fatah party government?

Carter is ignoring facts?

Let me recall - In 2006, the U.S. supported elections in Gaza, claiming that the wise and insightful Condi Rice and her bosses Dick and George knew for a certainty that Hamas couldn't win.

The Palestinian voters didn't have the wisdom of Condi, Dick or George, and they voted Hamas into power by a comfortable majority. Hamas IMMEDIATELY said, publicly, that it wanted to negotiate with Israel, with the U.S., with anyone, to acheive peace. We, and Israel refused to negotiate anything with Hamas. We only like democracy when the results favor our point of view.


We call Hamas illegitimate because we profited so much from the thoroughly corrupt Fatah government's criminal rule in Gaza. We want to reinstall our Fatah puppets to rule Gaza so we can go back to that relatively safe profitability.

The Palestinians elected Hamas. Israel put in place a blockade designed and intended to punish the Palestinian people for daring to defy Israeli rule. Hamas responded with rockets at Israel.

The record is clear and undisputed, even by Israel. NO ONE was killed by Hamas rockets (yes, lots of people were scared, and buildings were damaged), before Israel opened its current campaign of destroying civilian targets, mosks, schools, infrastructure (while leaving rocket launch sites functioning). Now we have nearly 1,000 dead Palestinians and what, 4? 5? Israelis killed by Hamas rockets AFTER the Israeli invasion started.

The only way to justify this massacre of civilians is to pretend that Palestinians are not human and cannot have any human rights. Since the Republicans feel that way about all arabs and Moslems, it's not surprising to read this utterly dishonest column. And its not hard to imagine that this fringe bigotry thinking will continue to marginalize the Republican party.

...and calling former-President Carter a traitor and saying he's on the side of the terrorists is just bad rhetoric and contributes nothing to a reasonable debate on this matter.

Of course Hamas wants a cease fire. It would give them a chance to bring in more ammunition to throw at Israel. Jimmy should quietly go back and fix those Habitat houses he helped build that are now falling apart.

Great article. Clear eyed analysis. Love to see more like it here on the Political machine.

You can read this blog in an easy to read format at:

http://www.Libertynewsprint.com

Carter should build them a house, like his “Habitat for Humanity” houses in Florida that are falling apart. Carter was an abject failure as President, he is an embarrassment now and he doesn’t even build a decent house!

Did the link take me to the wrong article? JC called the attacks "terrorism" in the 1st paragraph. "Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism."

Gerard,

I was thinking the same thing as you. Matt may need ot read the article again. Also, Carter was at the negotiation and knows what is going on over there. Matt Lewis sits behinds a computer all day and blogs about people he isn't fit to shine shoes for.

Re: Billy's comment that "Carter was at the negotiation and knows what is going on over there. Matt Lewis sits behinds a computer all day..."

Good point!

well Matt...smart folks can read too...with objectivity too...We are American readers btw
;-)

Matt,

Right on buddy! How does one work with a group that has religious hate ? Truth is they hate based on faith and not objective facts.. They hate Israel because the Koran tells them to.

The ongoing butchery of Palestinian civilians is WAY disproportionate to the depredations of Hamas --- and is OBVIOUSLY going to engender SUPPORT among Arabs for the Hamas "philosophy". And THAT IS, I submit PRECISELY WHAT HAMAS SEEKS TO "ACCOMPLISH" HERE --- that is THEIR "end game".

Carter is right on target in characterizing this nonsense as "unnecessary". Something that is COUNTER-productive IS NEVER NECESSARY!

Remember when a bunch of guys got together and fought a bloody war to take over a stretch of land extending about 100 miles? They got plenty of support (money, arms, mercenaries) from certain liberal European countries. The government they were fighting was a constitutional democracy, with a parliment. They took up arms, and waged guerilla warfare for years. Their leader? George Washington. The year? 1775-1778...one mans terrorist is another man's freedom fighter...

Who really knows what the truth is when it comes to Middle East politics. The whole situation is tragic. Please list the Israeli and/or American politicians who would live and raise their children in a refugee camp. In the game of "who is to blame", please don't forget that the Israeli government has promised time and again to stop illegal settlements (sometimes built on disputed land). I would like to see peace in this region in my lifetime, but I am in my 50's and am losing faith this will ever happen. Hamas (and Fatah) are no saints. Neither is a government that builds walls (a ghetto for Gaza?) and denies basic human rights. Please, for God's sake, there are children living in squalor and now, dying, simply because they were born in the wrong place. What "democratic" and intelligent government could ever stand for this policy, not to mention the contradiction between the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." and a policy of government sanctioned terrorism...excuse me, military intervention of tanks and airplanes against what - slingshots and crude rockets?

WuChi71:07PMJan 8th 2009

...and calling former-President Carter a traitor and saying he's on the side of the terrorists is just bad rhetoric and contributes nothing to a reasonable debate on this matter.
_______________________________

When a former president travels abroad against the wishes of the sitting president and hugs the enemy of tv for all the world to see HE IS A TRAITOR.

Of course, I meant "enemy ON tv"

So true MFB. So true.