President Carter's Plans to Meet with Hamas

[Gawain 0]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080413/ap_on_re_us/carter_mideast

So, a former President of the United States is going to essentially provide a stamp of credibility to a group that has no interest in peace - a group that is a terrorist organization. It is also a wicked slap in the face to the Fatah, the elected authority, still stinging from losing control of Gaza, and will lose more credibility in the wake of President Carter's meeting.

If I were Israeli, or an American Jewish Democrat, I'd be going out of my mind right now. I've never understood that political allegiance, and I wonder if this will drive a wedge -- it's almost a 180 degree turn from the Camp David Accord in 1978.

Even Congressional democrats are wishing he wouldn't do this.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Skyrad 0]

Good on him. Sooner or later you have to talk to your enemies. We did in Northern Ireland and now we have peace after many years of talking but it all started when someone decided to talk to their enemy. This is good news for humanity.

When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy.
Lucius Annaeus Seneca

[kallend 2,184]

"To jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war", Winston S. Churchill.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It is also a wicked slap in the face to the Fatah, the elected authority, still stinging from losing control of Gaza, and will lose more credibility in the wake of President Carter's meeting.

Hamas won the majority of seats in the Palestinian Legislative Council in the 2005 elections. Ismail Haniyeh appears to be the legal caretaker prime minister. In March, Mahmoud Abbas said he was suspending talks with Israel. It seems Hamas is exactly who we need to be talking with.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

It seems Hamas is exactly who we need to be talking with.

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

If someone needs to talk to Hamas, almost anyone would be better.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

It seems Hamas is exactly who we need to be talking with.

If someone needs to talk to Hamas, almost anyone would be better.

Would you suggest a viable & preferable alternative? And why?


Or to paraphrase, I suspect you have some constructive input but...

Quote

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

...I sense your mind isn't really open to discussion.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Gawain 0]

Quote

Or to paraphrase, I suspect you have some constructive input but...

Quote

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

...I sense your mind isn't really open to discussion.

Hmmm...deja vu...



President Carter's diplomatic acumen is not at issue in my mind. The Camp David Accord is the only lasting and meaningful agreement in the area. It is who he is meeting with that I have issue with.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Or to paraphrase, I suspect you have some constructive input but...

Quote

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

...I sense your mind isn't really open to discussion.

Hmmm...deja vu...

Yep, thought it was such a good phrase that it deserved ... no, needed to be recycled.

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

It seems Hamas is exactly who we need to be talking with.

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

If someone needs to talk to Hamas, almost anyone would be better.

Carter is perfect - if he gets something meaningful out, we win. If he doesn't, or gets something bad, well he isn't part of our government and the whole thing can be shitcanned.

[kschilk 0]

Quote

If someone needs to talk to Hamas, almost anyone would be better.

I pretty much have to agree with that. I applaude his Habitat For Humanity work but honestly, he really never appeared to be firin' on all cylinders. All we need, is for him, Jackson, Gore or any one of the other "space cadets", to create some kinda' international incident.

"T'was ever thus."

[Amazon 7]

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the "Party of Morality" deal with a man who lives a truely moral life.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

If someone needs to talk to Hamas, almost anyone would be better.

While it can be argued that Carter was not a very good President, he has been an excellent former President, and generally an outstanding ambassador for our country.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[happythoughts 0]

My issues with Carter are:

Foreign policy ? He didn't stand up to anyone.
Carter's idea of negotiating works like this, "You want something? Ok, here it is. We'll pay you to do this."

The Panama Canal was going back to Panama and had little or no strategic value. Ok, give it back.

The "negotiation" included giving back all properties, building, and fixed assets, PLUS $10, 000, 000 US dollars per year. What?

Olympics? He kept the US from going to the Olympics in Moscow. The "non-political" Olympics. People trained for years of their lives to have him tell them that he was making a statement.

General disdain from his own party?
The Dems controlled the House and Senate, but he couldn't get his social programs passed because his own party thought his programs were unrealistic.

His "Can't we just get along" mishandling of the Iran hostage crisis dragged it out for a year and a half.

In his private life, Habitat for Humanity is an example of mis-allocation of resources. Over-qualified volunteers take off work from their regular work.
At many jobs, I have seen people, making $30 an hour, take off to work as unskilled construction labor. If they had donated a days pay, HFH could have hired unskilled labor for a week.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The Panama Canal was going back to Panama and had little or no strategic value. Ok, give it back.

Imagine someone actually having the integrity yo honor previous agreements

Quote

General disdain from his own party?
The Dems controlled the House and Senate, but he couldn't get his social programs passed because his own party thought his programs were unrealistic.

It would be so much better to have a partisan hack in office, right?

Quote

In his private life, Habitat for Humanity is an example of mis-allocation of resources. Over-qualified volunteers take off work from their regular work.

I've seen volunteers that make much less than construction workers volunteer. I would be extremely surprised to find that HFH does not accept monetary donations. In other words, it is the highly paid volunteer who misallocates resources, not the charity.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

Quote

The Panama Canal was going back to Panama and had little or no strategic value. Ok, give it back.

Imagine someone actually having the integrity yo honor previous agreements

Since it isn't obvious, I'll point it out.
When I said "Ok, give it back.", I meant that I agreed that Panama should have the canal. Most people did not care. It was not strategically or financially important.

My disagreement was that he volunteered the $10million for no reason. I was pointing out his negotiation skills.

Negotiation isn't, "Ok, I'll give you whatever you want, plus $10m that you didn't ask for."

Quote

Quote

General disdain from his own party?
The Dems controlled the House and Senate, but he couldn't get his social programs passed because his own party thought his programs were unrealistic.

It would be so much better to have a partisan hack in office, right?

When the opposition party criticizes you, it is expected.
When your own party disowns your domestic policies, that is an obvious sign that begs consideration.

His mother spent some time in the Peace Corp and her ideology influenced his programs a bit much.

[funjumper101 15]

Quote

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the "Party of Morality" deal with a man who lives a truely moral life.

It is truly amazing, isn't it.

If Carter can make some progress, great. If not, at least someone tried something. Like Skyrad said, "Sooner or later you have to talk to your enemies."

Max, are you aware of the origins of Israel? Take a look at the events from the end of WWII to the formation of Israel in 1948. A fair bit of terrorist activity was performed by the folks who ended up running Israel. Land and property was expropriated from Palestinians by Israel.
This is another way of saying that "One man's "terrorist" organization is another man's "freedom fighter" organization." It depends on which side your interests lie.

There is no military solution to the issues between the Palestinians and the Israelis. The only solution will be political. The Israelis have overwhelming military force. The Palestinians resort to terror tactics to keep the overwhelming miltary force in check, and the political process in play. Do you expect the Palestinians to just give up? What do you think that they SHOULD do?

Hamas won the majority in the 2005 election. With all of the so-called support for the democratic process of holding elections, why didn't Israel and USA honor the results of the election?
Because the folks we (Israel and the USA) wanted to win, didn't. So screw the election. We'll keep Fatah in control.

That is part of the reasons why there are charming puppet shows on TV in Gaza.

If you have a reasonable amount of knowlege of the history of the area, you know that the issues between Israel and the Palestinians are not black and white. They are a million shades of grey. The Israelis didn't move to a vacant part of the desert and start up a country. They took over an area that was already populated, by the use of military force. I hate to bring it up, but there is a fairly overt racial overtone to the whole matter. Read some of the writings of the folks involved. Moshe Dayan's autobiography is a great read, for a start. Golda Mier wrote an autobiography as well. (I haven't read that one) It has been 30 years or so since I read up on the history of Israel. There are lots of books about it.

[tkhayes 348]

attaboy - let's continue to promote hatred and separation in the world - it keeps big business in business and drives the military machine -

certainly we would not want anyone 'trying' to make progress would we?

Get over it - America is a free country, supposedly, and if Carter wants to go wherever, then so be it.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

My disagreement was that he volunteered the $10million for no reason. I was pointing out his negotiation skills.

It's government, not business. It shouldn't be run like business. I don't know what Carter's motivation was, but offering something that was not asked for has the potential of easing tense relations and make us appear to be negotiating from a benevolent position.

Quote

His mother spent some time in the Peace Corp and her ideology influenced his programs a bit much.

It's a sad state of affairs when that is considered a bad thing. War may be a necessary evil from time to time, but a good leader always seeks a peaceful solution first and foremost.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Channman 2]

Quote

It never ceases to amaze me how members of the "Party of Morality" deal with a man who lives a truely moral life.

Who tagged Carter with the label of being Moral, but if it rings true for you, OK.

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

But Carter shouldn't be allowed to talk to the person who bags his groceries. What an idiot.

If someone needs to talk to Hamas, almost anyone would be better.

Carter is probably the MOST qualified person on the planet for this particular job. He's dedicated a significant portion of his life towards resolving this conflict and has done so with an honesty and fairness that the vast majority of our leaders lack. True conflict resolution addresses the root causes of the problem so that they don't flair up again in the future. He knows that, as does one of our Presidential candidates.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Who tagged Carter with the label of being Moral, but if it rings true for you, OK.

See what I mean..Perfect Example....






You will know them by their deeds......how does that ring for you....

How about Blessed are the peacemakers....does that one work for you....


NAH.. I didnt think so.. carry on

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

How about Blessed are the peacemakers....does that one work for you....

Ding ding ding . . .

. . =(_8^(1)

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

Who tagged Carter with the label of being Moral, but if it rings true for you, OK.

See what I mean..Perfect Example....






You will know them by their deeds......how does that ring for you....

How about Blessed are the peacemakers....does that one work for you....

Well, obviously, this is not meant to be taken literally. It refers to any manufacturers of dairy products.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[nerdgirl 0]

These statements just didn’t seem to make sense to me …

Quote

The Panama Canal was going back to Panama and had little or no strategic value. Ok, give it back.

The "negotiation" included giving back all properties, building, and fixed assets, PLUS $10, 000, 000 US dollars per year. What?

Quote

My disagreement was that he volunteered the $10million for no reason. I was pointing out his negotiation skills.

Negotiation isn't, "Ok, I'll give you whatever you want, plus $10m that you didn't ask for."

Can you point to something substantiating the “volunteered” $10M/year assertion?

I assume you don't mean the $10M that was part of the 1903 Treaty that included a $10M payment upfront as well as annual payments by the US to the Panama govt for usage of the land ...

... but something from the Panama Canal Treaty of 1977.

$10M actually appears 3 times in the 1997 treaty.

Excerpts about $10M:

Article III Section 5

“The Panama Canal Commission [chaired by the US & with majority US membership, per Article III Sect 3(a&b) – nerdgirl] shall reimburse the Republic of Panama for the costs incurred by the Republic of Panama in providing the following public services in the Canal operation areas and in housing areas set forth in the Agreement in Implementation of Article III of this Treaty and occupied by both United States and Panamanian citizen employees of the Panama Canal Commission: police, fire protection, street maintenance, street lighting, street cleaning, traffic management and garbage collection. The Panama Canal Commission shall pay the Republic of Panama the sum of ten million United States dollars (US$10,000,000) per annum for the foregoing services. It is agreed that every three years from the date that this Treaty enters into force, the costs involved in furnishing said services shall be reexamined to determine whether adjustment of the annual payment should be made because of inflation and other relevant factors affecting the cost of such services.”

$10M was payment for services rendered. It was privatization of services that had previously been done by employees of the USG. It made government operations smaller. The USG was no longer directly responsible but contracted them out for the interim period between 1989 & 1999, thereby giving the US oversight. How much do you think the US Treasury had paid for those services before?


Or this?

Additional Article XIII Section 4

“The Republic of Panama shall receive from the Panama Canal Commission a just and equitable return on the national resources which it has dedicated to the efficient management, operation, maintenance, protection and defense of the Panama Canal, in accordance with the following:

“(a) [formula for dividing revenues between 1989 & 1999]

“(b) A fixed annuity of ten million United States dollars (US$10,000,000) to be paid out of Canal operating revenues. This amount shall constitute a fixed expense of the Panama Canal Commission.

“(c) An annual amount of up to ten million United States dollars (US$10,000,000) per year, to be paid out of Canal operating revenues to the extent that such revenues exceed expenditures of the Panama Canal Commission including amounts paid pursuant to this Treaty. In the event Canal operating revenues in any year do not produce a surplus sufficient to cover this payment, the unpaid balance shall be paid from operating surpluses in future years in a manner to be mutually agreed.”

The money came from revenues generated from the operation of the Canal (tolls). There was no money volunteered for no reason rather …

More importantly in the context of international trade (& the context of the other section), it shifted the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the canal between the time the treaty entered into force and the time the treaty ended (1999) with the US’s relinquishment of control (1989) under US oversight. So in the interim the US (& all of the US-based shipping operators as well as companies receiving goods transited through the Canal) would be assured that there was oversight and a period of transition. The US was already paying the expenses before. For 10 years, Panama was essentially a contractor; then in 1999, the US took the metaphorical ‘training wheels’ off and the contractor had to run the Canal (Corporation) on its own.

From a strategic and economic security perspective that was *smart*!

As far as it being evidence of President Carter’s negotiation skills or not, that’s something of a red herring. The negotiations and resulting treaty text are a result of State Department Political Appointees and State Depart Civil Servants. Yes, the President and his Sec of State sign and are ultimately responsible; the skilled negotiators come from the Foreign Service Officer Corps.

Negotiations to relinquish operational and maintenance responsibility for the Panama Canal were initiated in 1971 under Pres Nixon’s administration. So his administration bears some responsibility or some credit depending on one’s perspective

That’s fairly typical and strength – international treaties are strengthened when they extend beyond any single Presidential administration. Negotiations on the BWC were initiated under Pres. Johnson, the treaty was signed by Pres Nixon, and it entered in force under Pres. Ford. Negotiations on the CWC were initiated informally under Pres. Nixon, formally at the Conference on Disarmament under Pres. Reagan, and the treaty was signed by & entered into force under Pres Clinton.

I learned something – so thanks!

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

It's a sad state of affairs when that is considered a bad thing. War may be a necessary evil from time to time, but a good leader always seeks a peaceful solution first and foremost.

It is not his "peaceful solution" that is the problem.
Most people have "good intentions". Reality is what he lacks.

His two problems are that he doesn't have a realistic view as to solutions, and he still thinks that he has the authority of the Presidency.

Remember Korea in the mid-90s? N. Korea had a nuke program. Without talking to Clinton, he trots over there. (Eventually, he gets a deal that is a buyout plan and Clinton agrees to it.)

His solution, give them $4 billion in light water reactors and (I love this) $100 million in oil subsidies.
Korea? They promised to stop their nuke program.

10 years later? "Just kiddin', we still have nukes."


CNN

Quote

Thursday, October 17, 2002 Posted: 9:07 AM EDT (1307 GMT)

1994 agreement

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- North Korea has revealed to the United States that it has a secret and active nuclear weapons program begun years after it promised to never again to pursue such a course, the White House said late Wednesday.

In all fairness, N Korea did promise.

He will use armed force when necessary.

He started sending billion$ to Pakistan and Afghanistan to supply and train the people fighting the Soviets before it was fashionable. He doesn't bring that up though.

Also, he was responsible for the military buildup of the Egyptian army. Part of the Camp David Accords was a yearly gift of $1.3 billion in credits for US military equipment annually for almost 20 years.
They started getting US stuff instead of Soviet stuff.
Largely to protect the US oil companies that moved in quietly.

He also started the Rapid Deployment Force to send troops anywhere in the world on short notice without using NATO troops (or getting the buy-in from NATO allies).