Poor poor Jimmy... Maybe it's his advancing years... or maybe it's just his far left liberal ideals exposing themselves... Either way, Hamas is "playing him" like a fiddle...

Hamas wants legitimacy and wants to play on the world with their sympathy card... WITHOUT having to change their agenda of Israel's elimination... And along comes naive Jimmy Carter attempting to provide them with such (against the recommendation of US officials).

Hamas made no new meaningful concessions... didn't back off of their agenda of Israel's elimination, advocacy of violence, ... didn't agree to change their charter which calls for Israel's destruction or agree to stop fired Kassam rockets at Israeli citizens... but Jimmy apparently wants to pretend there's been a breakthrough.

What Israel and the world got through Jimmy's naivity was more Hamas PR... talk again of a truce (which would allow Hamas it re-arm, train terrorists, and import weaponry basically unpoliced... sure... they've LOVE a truce...)... and new "verbage" falling far short of Hamas agreeing to recognize Israel's right to exist.


How nice... Israel can "live as a neighbor" in peace (until Hamas decides otherwise, as they clearly made no statement as to perminancy )... but Hamas refuses to ever recognize them (Israel)... clearly indicating that their agenda with regard to Israel's ultimate destruction hasn't budged... AND HERE COMES JIMMY CARTER to save the day by attempting to give Hamas some legitimacy by encouraging the US and Israel to negotiate with this terrorist group....  .  Meanwhile Hamas gets international attention and an opportunity to attempt to "appear" to the naive like they're actually willing live in a meaningful, lasting peace with Israel and blame Israel for all that troubles them.... And of course, a good number of the generally naive world actually buy it.

While I do actually think Jimmy means well, I tend to believe he's lost touch with reality, especially with regard to the agendas at play in the middle-east.

Realityman, I agree that the current Hamas discourse makes negotiations with it impossible. But even if Hamas were to immediately recognize Israel and declare readiness to live in peace, Israel's territorial positions would be unacceptable. Annexaptable. We have been through that during the 2000 negotiation cycle. I never heard you calling Israel to renounce annexation policy.

ahhh... nonsense.  As before, your willful lack of understanding of the situation and desire to "balance" (no matter what the facts may say) continues to shine through Dormouse.  But as before, your seem anxious to share you opinion anyway...  http://www.itsallpolitics.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,26/topic,1984.15/


And I agree Peisi that "IF Hamas were to immediately recognize Israel and declare readiness to live in peace (and take real and meaningful ACTION demonstrating such), Israel's territorial positions would be unacceptable... But that "IF" is no more than wishful thinking at this point and highly unlikely anytime soon.

Israel has agreed in principal (on many occasions) to giving land, settlements/"annexations" in exchange for peace... Egypt is a clear a substantive example of this... and has netted both sides a meaningful peace which benefits both...  The Palestinians have never gotten off the ground (or shown a willingness to get off the ground, in more than empty words) with demonstrating a willingness (or ability)  to provide security, and act against terrorism toward a meaningful and permanent peace (THEIR part of the bargain)... This is why you won't hear/see me calling on Israel to renounce any "annexation policy"... because it's likely such a policy change would be met with nothing but more violence from the Palestinian side as they would claim some sort of "terror victory" as with the Gaza withdrawal...

IF, and only IF we see a real change (in more than empty words) of Hamas (and their offshoot terrorist organizations) accepting Israel's right to exist (or Abbas/Fatah taking meaningful action against them), and showing (in more than words) a willingness to live with Israel as a permanent neighbor without terms which would ultimately mean Israel's destruction, THEN, and only then would you see me advocating not only a "policy change", but withdrawal from many settlements toward a "reasonable" permanent peace settlement.  However, this seems like little more than a pipe dream at this point in time.  While I'm not in favor of additional settlements or housing on existing settlements being built, I can certainly understand Israel's desire live life as normal a life as possible, as if the Palestinians will/would never be peaceful (with history as their guide).

Peace is not a one way street... Under ANY peace settlement/agreement, the Palestinians (through their leadership) will have obligations... "A two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will only be achieved through an end to violence and terrorism, when the Palestinian people have a leadership acting decisively against terror and willing and able to build a practicing democracy based on tolerance and liberty... "... I didn't just make that up, those are words from the now defunked "roadmap to peace" ( http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2003/20062.htm )...

"Phase 1" under the "Roadmap", as an example, reads" "Palestinian leadership issues unequivocal statement reiterating Israel's right to exist in peace and security and calling for an immediate and unconditional ceasefire to end armed activity and all acts of violence against Israelis anywhere (Which clearly never happened then, and is clearly unlikely to happen anytime soon given that the Palestinian people elected a terrorist organization into power). "All official Palestinian institutions end incitement against Israel."(Which obviously never happened then as Abbas refused to confront his inbred terrorist organizations", and is less likely to happen anytime soon as the newly elected Hamas, which IS a terrorist organization, has taken over Gaza and is certainly not going to ACT against itself or their own agenda.

Obviously Israel has obligations as well under any peace settlement as well.  Those obligations will no-doubt include no more settlements, dismantling certain settlements, withdrawals, etc... But Israel is not obligated to do anything when/if the Palestinian side shows/demonstrates no intentions of living up to their obligations.... IF the Palestinians somehow surprised everyone and started to ACT in a meaningful way against their inbred terrorism and voiced a desire settle for less than full "right of return" destruction of Israel and/or full '67 borders... and Israel continued building settlements, THEN I would be blaming Israel for a lack of progress.  BUT this has yet to be the case.

Palestinian leadership will someday have to realize that in negotiations, neither sides gets everything they want.  Israel settled for a fraction of the land originally implied under the Balfour Declaration and Palestine Mandate, yet agreed to such in an attempt for peace... The Arabs chose war instead... Israel gave back land it conquered from Egypt for peace, because Egypt showed and demonstrated a willingness to live up to their end of the bargain.  Egypt didn't get everything they wanted - Israel didn't get everything they wanted... but it worked for both and has benefited both... The Palestinian Arabs seem slow to learn that in negotiations, "neither side gets EVERYTHING they want".  But this is a lesson the Palestinians will have to learn someday if they truly seek peace.  '48 borders weren't enough for the Arabs in '48, '67 borders weren't enough for the Arabs in '67, and the more they keep up their violence while refusing to act against it, the more they will lose...

Palestinians are not owed '67 borders and will not get them due to their previous violence.  They will not get full "right of return" allowing them to demographically destroy Israel over time.  A "reasonable settlement" will give them a good majority of the land they occupy, and possibly compensation of additional lands for lands Israel will not and is under no obligation to cede.  A "reasonable" settlement will allow "some" Arabs to return to within Israeli borders, and offer 'reasonable compensation to others who can prove ownership (even though the Arab states will offer nothing to Jews they forced to flee in those times)... Hopefully the Palestinian people and their leadership will someday recognize what they have to do... AND DO IT... Until then, talk is cheap.

Agreed 


Here I have to disagree.. While Syria is certainly an issue with their support of Hamas, they have little to do with Hamas' agenda or the failure of the numerous other peace efforts - Palestinian Terror, Palestinian societal values, and Palestinian leadership does.   "Fixing" the Syria situation will be worked on as well, but does little to change Hamas' agenda or stop the terrorism.  Hamas, their agenda, and their tactics must be delt with directly by a Palestinian leadership who recognizes that no meaningful peace can ever be achieved while terrorists are allowed to run free terrorizing a neighbor while openly advocating their eventual destruction.

Any "roadmap" or "peace plan" has to begin with a Palestinian leadership who is willing to take ACTION toward stopping the violence and terror.  They don't have that leadership at the present time.  Hamas', Islamic Jihad, (etc.) "agendas" aren't going to go away on their own.  They eventually need to be delt with...preferably by the Palestinians themselves... But clearly this seams highly unlikely in the near term as it was the Palestinian people who elected this terrorist organization into power.


While I agree it would be "nice" to be able to present the Palestinian People with...IF you agree to A, B, and C, you will get X, Y, and Z (as done with previous peace proposals).  There is no unified representation the Palestinian people have able to accept such on behalf of ALL the Palestinian people... Hamas, Islamic Jihad, etc... will certainly not agree to any peace "deal" Abbas works out with Israel short of Israel packing up and leaving... And as such, any deal Fatah/Abbas reaches is meaningless while he also refuses to police Hamas, or call in outside help to police Hamas and their agenda.  So long as Fatah has no control over Hamas, any overall deal reached with Fatah is little more than pie in the sky... as Hamas will simply ignor it, or apply it's own rules to it.  Fatah would certainly not be able/willing to implement any meaningful peace/security concessions/assurances agreed to... and we'd be right back to square one... as with the now defunked "roadmap"

As I mentioned before, the Palestinian people (through their elected leadership) are clearly not ready to recognize that they will not get everything they want... and ARE NOT OWED, nor will they receive everything they want.

You may recall that Olmert recently (2 years ago or so) proposed establishing permanent borders unilaterally as it was viewed as unlikely the Palestinians (through their representation) were going to be a real partner in peace anytime soon.... There was talk of final borders being established by 2010... pulling out of many settlements, a good part of the West Band, parts of Jerusalem... declaring borders, and leaving the Palestinians to the rest... Though this was proposed as more of a "carrot on a string" to entice the Palestinians to the peace tables thinking that maybe at some point they'd make real concessions toward peace in an attempt to ultimately get more, little has appeared to work... Now with Hamas in power...with control of Gaza, real peace seems less likely then ever.... Israel has no desire to police these people forever, but when they don't police them, they get terrorism as a reward.  Gaza, as an example, was a concession giving the Palestinians the opportunity to demonstrate that they could police their own and live in peace... And now Israel has "Hamastan" and an almost daily barrage of rockets as a reward.

The Palestinians (as a people represented by their leadership) need to decide who they are and what they want.  If they seek Israel's destruction, then they will have "made their own bed" and will know nothing but war... If they truly seek peace WITH Israel (not on top of it), then they need leadership (leadership which is actually in charge) in place to ACT toward this... Meanwhile having Abbas/Fatah negotiate with "peace" he's clearly unable to provide means little.

I see your point... but I think you're giving Syria more credit for "influence" and support of Hamas that it actually has... Syria seems to be little more than a pawn of Iran...

Just like how when Hamas doesn't want to take credit for a particular bombing or attack and the smaller "Islamic Jihad" or "Popular Resistance Front" takes the public credit (when it's clear Hamas is really pulling the strings),... Syria serves this purpose for Iran.  THIS is why there's reluctance on Israel's part to allowing Syria into Golan... NOT that it's just Syria there, but that it basically invites Iran in.


Peace with Syria also does little to stem the flow of "terror funds" from underground charities and organizations support and actively fund Hamas and their terror operations.  Weapons are smuggled in from outside sources funded by outside dollars, and Syria has little to do with it.


Iran is one of the real major threats... and there are no common borders to be given for peace with them.


As disputed above, I tend to disagree that a peace agreement and exit of Golan will change Hamas... Iran and numerous underground support organizations will continue to flow funds, and weaponry to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, and the others...

Voting out Hamas will also do little to weaken their position.  Long before Hamas was "voted in" they were a main obsticle to peace.  Fatah with Abbas and Arafat before him refused to ACT against their violence and agenda...

Even today, Palestinians are attempting to get ALL Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails  released... Many of their prisoners have blood on their hands... have purposely been involved in killing innocent civilians.... yet if set free, would not be jailed in Palestinian prisons, but hailed as "heroes"  and freed to roam the Palestinian streets... free to kill again... That these "terror activities" aren't viewed as illegal under Palestinian rule isn't going to change on it's own... Abbas shows no signs of a willingness to ACT to change these ideologies,... and Hamas is certainly not going to do this on their own...

While I agree that stopping and/or greatly reducing the funding will slow Hamas... Syria unfortunately is only a small player in this game... Iran will simply divert what would have moved through Syria through other channels... Hamas' agenda will remain unchanged...

Peisi... We seem to agree that cutting off support/funding to Hamas is/would be moving in the right direction... Though I've yet to see substantive evidence that an Israel/Syrian peace treaty and "land for peace" deal would mean anything of substance toward changing Hamas' violence or agenda. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for peace with Syria... and a land for peace deal ASSUMING security concerns and assurances are made and followed through on.  But again, I see little evidence this will have any significant impact on Hamas'.   There are WAYYY too many other outside sources of funding and support.  Syria is only a minor player, no matter who may be operating from there.


Headequaters can be moved (or can go underground)...  Meshal (or any other leadership) can be moved (or go underground) ...  The "agenda" is supported from numerous worldwide radicalized Muslim charities/funds.  Where Meshal or his "group" is located means little as their operatives in Palestine would continue to receive smuggled funding and arms.  It should also be noted that much of this "underground" funding and arms smuggling comes through nations Israel HAS PEACE TREATIES WITH...namely Egypt and Jordan...


That's ONE "opinion"... an opinion I dissagree with. 

Whether the "Iran factor" is new or not doesn't change the fact that Hamas is supported by numerous outside sources, Syria being only one.  Iran is far wealthier than Syria and has far more influence regionally than Syria.  That you believe their "factor" is not "prevalent" (regarding Hamas)... in light of the arms smuggling and Iranian-made weaponry being used by Hamas, and estimates of $20-30 million per year of funding, brings into question how you might be defining "prevalent" (??)... or what you might consider to be substantive.


You'll notice that Syria isn't even directly mentioned above (but I suppose could be lumped in with "oil rich" states, even though many others are far richer)... Regardless of a potential peace with Syria, Hamas will continue to be funded and to act on their agenda. 


lol... There you go again.  IGNORING OBVIOUS REASONS and RATIONALE...and taking an unstubstatiated "jab" at Israel.... Ignoring that which you prefer not to see (The long history of Arab/Muslim violence, wars, terrorism against Israel). 

The fact is that Golan is militarily strategic and has been used as such in the past against Israel.  The fact that Syria is a weak state in relation to Iran and would have little ability to counter Iran from imposing it's will, whatever that may be.


Yeh Peisi... Sort of like all the "guarantees" given with Lebanon and Hezbollah with all the international monitoring, etc??  "ZERO possibility"... Right... 

Nevertheless, Israel seems willing to give Syria the benefit of the doubt, assuming Syria can follow through on security issues (something Palestinians have never even attempted to do).


Regardless of any potential future peace with Syria, Hamas will continue to be funded from numerous outside sources.  There's little reason to believe otherwise. Hamas will continue to terrorize Israel and refuse to recognize Israel's right to exist.  It's who they've defined themselves to be after all.

... THE COVENANT OF HAMAS: http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/mideast/hamas.htm

While certainly attempting to cut of funding to Hamas through various means will help reduce the terror, it will not change objectives or re-educate those who've been raised/trained to hate and seek Israel's destruction... ULTIMATELY it will take direct confrontation... something the Palestinian people (through their leadership) are clearly unwilling and/or have no desire to do.  Fatah/Abbas aren't going to do it and Hamas certainly isn't going to do it themselves.

Today, suicide bombing attacks are praised... the families of the bombers congratulated, often paid... streets, parks, various honors bestowed upon the names of those who kill innocent civilians.  THESE ARE NOT THE ACTIONS AND BEHAVIORS of a "people" ready to embrace peace.  Abbas certainly isn't taking an substantive actions toward changing this... Hamas is certainly not going to change without being forced to.


Again... That appears to be your opinion... and an opinion, (in light of the evidence presented) that you've failed to back up... If you have more evidence to back up your opinion that  hasn't come to light, I'd like to hear it.

If Israel does end up ceding Golan for peace with Syria... and (as I predict) little changes with Hamas and their agenda, I also "predict" you'll be out here blaming Israel for your prediction not happening (Hamas changing)... But on that one, we'll just have to wait and see.