Jimmy Carter's Op-Ed On Gaza War

Carter's voice 'trusted' in terms of foreign policy and foreign politics...
lol.gif


Truly laughable...

The worst President in the past 100 years in terms of foreign policy being a trusted voice.... Oh.. my sides are splitting
lol.gif

Simply amazing comment in the face of George Bush and his legacy.

Simply stunning.

How many people do you think would prefer Bush's America to Carter's .. Bush's foreign policy to Carter's .. Bush's global stature to Carter's?
 
The Obama Administration might take a different approach. Of course, I have to go to an Israeli paper to find this out.


Obama's warning to Israel - Haaretz - Israel News


Israel's governing "troika" met yesterday in order to find a way out of the conundrum Israel finds itself in, following the bombing of the school in Jabalya, where dozens of Palestinian civilians were killed. The character of the meeting had already been marked by the warning Israel received from U.S. president-elect, Barack Obama, who broke his silence on the fighting in Gaza and made it clear that he will have a great deal more to say after his inauguration.

The announcement from the Bush White House that for the time being Israel could carry on its offensive was little consolation. Obama made it clear that starting on January 20 the rules of American involvement in the region will change, and his administration will be a lot more active in pushing the diplomatic process between Israel and the Arabs forward. Advertisement


Obama's timing, after the strike on the school, signals the direction the U.S. will turn in its attitude to the region: It will support Israel, but will oppose any harming of Palestinian civilians. This means that Israel will find it difficult to close the crossings into the Gaza Strip at will.
 
Worst President? Wow, did you miss the Bush years? :cuckoo:

Carter created a lasting peace between Eqypt and Israel, something of insurmoutable value to the Jews and the whole region. Just an amazing accomplishment

Yeah... Israel showing that they could kick Egypt's ass in short time had nothing to do with starting to have an opportunity for peace... :rolleyes: ... and that thing of Israel trying to give up land (that it rightfully gained as a spoil of war), how has that worked out for lasting peace in the region???

Carter's relations with OPEC and the powers in the middle east, horrible... Carter's relations with Europe and the Soviets, atrocious... Carter's insight into how to handle Iran, could not have been any worse... Carter's continuing relations with China that Nixon had opened up, horrible....

Carter was a host.... about as important in this the movie usher to your movie viewing experience
 
Carter offers an excellent analysis of the situation. He is one trusted voice that can rise about the pro-Irsarel lobby that dominates the media here. Hell, even Israel's media is more fair and balanced than our media.

We are lucky to have a Carter


I agree. Carter is an excellent peacemaker. I have confidence in Madeleine Albright also. I'd like to see if Hillary has the stuff to be a true diplomat and peacemaker.

Did you read her book THE MIGHTY AND THE ALMIGHTY? She addresses the Middle East among other topics of how religion is currently influenceing politics.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Would somebody ask Mr. Effen Carter why the Hamas's are so effen good at smuggling weapons into Gaza but cannot seem to smuggle any food in to feed the starving in Gazaland? Please!

THAT is an excellent question, WT.

I have asked the same thing myself in other posts on this board.

I think we both know the answer, don't we?

HAMAS's basic interest is pwoer and control, not the wellbeing of the people.

Now you may ask why did the people vote for HAMAS, then, and that is a very good question, too.

I think we can imagine a couple reasons how that might have happened.

Because, for one thing, HAMAS was ALSO the organziation which had taken over what few social services were available to the residents of GAZA.

Think of them like Mafia dons. They too are renown for giving generously on one hand and controling the economy through violent means on the other.

Pablo Escabar, for example, was wildly popular with the population of the town in columbia (Medaien?) which was his base of operations.

A second reason might very well be fear. Fear of appearing to be weak. Fear of retribution by the lunatic fundies if you speak out against HAMAS.

A third reason might very well be simple democgrpahics. the population of the Palestinians is young. Hence that population is overloaded with unemployed young men.

Now, knowing what we all know about young men, how appealing is taking violent action against a perceived opproesser/occupier of their land, in comparision to taking a peaceful non-violent approach to the problems?

These people are starving. They are in the world's largest prison.

What an easy task it is for those with power to control such a deperate population.

We have seen the outcomes of economic depreviation on other societies and we know who typically comes to the fore when that happens.

We saw it in Germany between WWI and WWII, and we are seeing it again with the Palestinians.

I suspect many of you can see why I choose Germany rather than say, Haiti, right?

The irony that the victims of the madness that took over Germany in the 1930s is in part responsible for the madness that has overtaken the Palestinian people is related by history is almost too much for me to bear sometimes.

The victims of the European madness became the oppressors causing the Palestinian madness.

They literally had almost no choice but to become those oppressors.

And who does the Western world have to blame for that?

US...not the Jews, although they have made their share of mistakes; not the Palestinians, although they are also making terrible mistakes, but US, the Christian Western European world which set these two people one upon the other by PROMISING BOTH OF THE THE RIGHT OF SELF GOVERNMENT IN THE SAME LAND.
 
Last edited:
No. Anwar Sadat and Menachem Begin created peace. If you recall, Sadat died for it.

But whatever....


Yes, they did. Begin and Sadat created peace. Carter played a role in brokering the peace talks at the Camp David accords.

Carter's positive role is well documented. Jillian, what is your beef with Carter?

Carter is one of my heroes. Mostly for his activities after his presidency.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Obama Administration might take a different approach. Of course, I have to go to an Israeli paper to find this out.


Obama's warning to Israel - Haaretz - Israel News

Not really

By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Even as Israelis and Palestinians plunged deeper into conflict, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama remained silent, refusing to budge from his one-president-at-a-time mantra.

Obama takes office on Jan. 20 but has not commented on the Middle East crisis since Israel launched attacks on Gaza nine days ago. His advisers insist that only President George W. Bush can speak for America until then.

The Palestinian death toll in nine days of Israeli attacks has risen to more than 500. Hamas, which ended a six-month ceasefire, has fired rockets deeper into Israel than ever before, hitting major cities and killing four Israelis.

While most prominent U.S. politicians have backed Israel, critics have noted that Obama joined Bush in condemning the killing of civilians in attacks in November in Mumbai, India. They would have liked him to say something about the fate of Palestinian civilians caught in the fighting.

The president-elect also has commented on the global economic crisis and his plans to try to pull the U.S. economy out of recession.

Asked about the apparent contradiction, an Obama transition aide who asked not to be named said on Sunday: "President Bush is our nation's president until Jan. 20, and he is responsible for our nation's diplomacy with the world.

"During this transition period, we are not engaging in any action that could send confusing signals to the world about who speaks on behalf of the United States."

POLITICS, DIPLOMACY

Domestic politics and international diplomacy could be factors in Obama's silence. He may hope the crisis will reach a turning point where a new president, untarnished by previous comments, can make a difference with a fresh start.

He also knows any statement is fraught with traps.

"If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. Frankly, it's a lot more comfortable to let this one hang on the president," said Edward Walker Jr., who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1997 to 1999.

"I don't think he wants to be tagged at this point with either advocating the Israeli response or condemning it because our (U.S.) interests are sort of torn on this one," added Walker, an analyst with the Middle East Institute think tank.

Pro-Israeli comments by Obama risk upsetting the Arab world even before he takes office. Comments that seem critical of Israel would anger its American supporters.

Morton Klein, president of the pro-Israel Zionist Organization of America, noted that Obama spoke out on Mumbai.

"And he's acting almost as if he's president when it comes to the economy, right? He's not screaming 'there's only one president' when he's talking about the economic stimulus package," Klein said.

FLEXIBILITY

James Carafano, a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said Obama may not want to comment on foreign policy issues like Gaza because "you're going to be held accountable for anything that you say.

"The Mumbai attacks, that's a one-time attack, the thing's over, you say some platitudes -- you're not making any policy," Carafano said.

"If Obama weighed in now on Hamas and Israel, people would take that as policy. But there's two weeks between now and his inauguration. Events on the ground could change significantly. So in a sense you would walk into office with no flexibility."

There's nothing in Obama's campaign statements or those of Hillary Clinton, his choice for secretary of state, to suggest they would steer a different course from Bush.

"In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation-state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries," Obama said in July.

In a CBS interview a week ago, Obama's aide David Axelrod recalled that when then-candidate Obama visited the southern Israeli town of Sderot in July, he voiced understanding for Israel's urge to end Hamas rocket attacks on Sderot from Gaza.

On the broader issue of Middle East peace, Obama promised to engage in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking from the start but has yet to propose a policy shift that might rescue a two-state solution from oblivion.

Unlike other major governments, the Bush administration has not called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, insisting that any ceasefire be "durable and sustainable" and that Israel avoid killing civilians. (Additional reporting by Will Dunham, Editing by Howard Goller and Alan Elsner)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

RPT-ANALYSIS-Politics, diplomacy behind Obama's Gaza silence | Reuters
 
I don't think Carter was a good President, but I do know that he is a very intelligent man, a nuclear engineer by trade. His opinion does mean something. I commend him for trying to get personally involved, I don't believe he will have much of an impact, but at least he's trying. I respect him for that.
As for jews and arabs, both sides need to visit the washroom before any head to head negotiations and get the God batter out of their systems. "Woogie 3:16"
 
Yes, they did. Begin and Sadat created peace. Carter played a role in brokering the peace talks at the Camp David accords.

Carter's positive role is well documented. Jillian, what is your beef with Carter?

Carter is one of my heroes. Mostly for his activities after his presidency.


Carter and his commitment to having people and companies donate time and materials to Habitat.... great work... I'll never take that away from him

Carter as a President and supposed 'foreign relations' guy... I take about as seriously as Carrot Top
 
Well Dave, we'll just have to agree to disagree about Jimmy Carter. His post-presidency accomplishments are extensive. He is one of our countries revered elders, the oldest living former President. He has dedicated his entire life to the service of humanity.
http://www.cartercenter.org/homepage.html

Blessed are the peacemakers.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yes, they did. Begin and Sadat created peace. Carter played a role in brokering the peace talks at the Camp David accords.

Carter's positive role is well documented. Jillian, what is your beef with Carter?

Carter is one of my heroes. Mostly for his activities after his presidency.
Carter was great building houses
he should have stayed with that
as a POTUS he was a failure and if you guys didnt have massive cases OABDS you wouldnt even THINK about putting Carter above Bush
Carter is an asshole
 
Yes, they did. Begin and Sadat created peace. Carter played a role in brokering the peace talks at the Camp David accords.

Carter's positive role is well documented. Jillian, what is your beef with Carter?

Carter is one of my heroes. Mostly for his activities after his presidency.

Carter was brilliant at building homes. He should stay with that. On the middle east, if you want my beef, go look at the articles I posted.
 
Not really

By Deborah Charles

WASHINGTON, Jan 4 (Reuters) - Even as Israelis and Palestinians plunged deeper into conflict, U.S. President-elect Barack Obama remained silent, refusing to budge from his one-president-at-a-time mantra.

Obama takes office on Jan. 20 but has not commented on the Middle East crisis since Israel launched attacks on Gaza nine days ago. His advisers insist that only President George W. Bush can speak for America until then.

The Palestinian death toll in nine days of Israeli attacks has risen to more than 500. Hamas, which ended a six-month ceasefire, has fired rockets deeper into Israel than ever before, hitting major cities and killing four Israelis.

While most prominent U.S. politicians have backed Israel, critics have noted that Obama joined Bush in condemning the killing of civilians in attacks in November in Mumbai, India. They would have liked him to say something about the fate of Palestinian civilians caught in the fighting.

The president-elect also has commented on the global economic crisis and his plans to try to pull the U.S. economy out of recession.

Asked about the apparent contradiction, an Obama transition aide who asked not to be named said on Sunday: "President Bush is our nation's president until Jan. 20, and he is responsible for our nation's diplomacy with the world.

"During this transition period, we are not engaging in any action that could send confusing signals to the world about who speaks on behalf of the United States."

POLITICS, DIPLOMACY

Domestic politics and international diplomacy could be factors in Obama's silence. He may hope the crisis will reach a turning point where a new president, untarnished by previous comments, can make a difference with a fresh start.

He also knows any statement is fraught with traps.

"If I were Obama, I wouldn't want to talk about it either. Frankly, it's a lot more comfortable to let this one hang on the president," said Edward Walker Jr., who served as U.S. ambassador to Israel from 1997 to 1999.

"I don't think he wants to be tagged at this point with either advocating the Israeli response or condemning it because our (U.S.) interests are sort of torn on this one," added Walker, an analyst with the Middle East Institute think tank.

Pro-Israeli comments by Obama risk upsetting the Arab world even before he takes office. Comments that seem critical of Israel would anger its American supporters.

Morton Klein, president of the pro-Israel Zionist Organization of America, noted that Obama spoke out on Mumbai.

"And he's acting almost as if he's president when it comes to the economy, right? He's not screaming 'there's only one president' when he's talking about the economic stimulus package," Klein said.

FLEXIBILITY

James Carafano, a defense expert at the Heritage Foundation think tank, said Obama may not want to comment on foreign policy issues like Gaza because "you're going to be held accountable for anything that you say.

"The Mumbai attacks, that's a one-time attack, the thing's over, you say some platitudes -- you're not making any policy," Carafano said.

"If Obama weighed in now on Hamas and Israel, people would take that as policy. But there's two weeks between now and his inauguration. Events on the ground could change significantly. So in a sense you would walk into office with no flexibility."

There's nothing in Obama's campaign statements or those of Hillary Clinton, his choice for secretary of state, to suggest they would steer a different course from Bush.

"In terms of negotiations with Hamas, it is very hard to negotiate with a group that is not representative of a nation-state, does not recognize your right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon, and is deeply influenced by other countries," Obama said in July.

In a CBS interview a week ago, Obama's aide David Axelrod recalled that when then-candidate Obama visited the southern Israeli town of Sderot in July, he voiced understanding for Israel's urge to end Hamas rocket attacks on Sderot from Gaza.

On the broader issue of Middle East peace, Obama promised to engage in Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking from the start but has yet to propose a policy shift that might rescue a two-state solution from oblivion.

Unlike other major governments, the Bush administration has not called for an immediate ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, insisting that any ceasefire be "durable and sustainable" and that Israel avoid killing civilians. (Additional reporting by Will Dunham, Editing by Howard Goller and Alan Elsner)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved

RPT-ANALYSIS-Politics, diplomacy behind Obama's Gaza silence | Reuters

I believe this to be a more factual and telling account of Obama.
 
The Obama Administration might take a different approach. Of course, I have to go to an Israeli paper to find this out.


Obama's warning to Israel - Haaretz - Israel News

This is progressives fooling themselves about Obama again.

Nothing in what he said even remotely suggests he's going to do anything any differently than George Bush .. in fact, he could have saved time and simply signed his name to what Bush said which amounts to the exact same thing.
 
Historians do not agree with you.

Bush was a utter disastor as a president, Jimmy was just unable to play the DC game.
 
Carter was great building houses
he should have stayed with that
as a POTUS he was a failure and if you guys didnt have massive cases OABDS you wouldnt even THINK about putting Carter above Bush
Carter is an asshole

Camp David was not a failure. It was a success. Carter was ahead of his time. He did not shine particularly as President.

He has been a beautiful and shining example of compassion and wisdom ever since.
 

Forum List

Back
Top