BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 #1 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (I wonder if Carter would have thought Roosevelt was criminal for not supporting the "democratically elected" Nazis) The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday. Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration's refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was "criminal." Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas fighters routed Fatah in their violent takeover of the Gaza Strip last week. The split prompted Abbas to dissolve the power-sharing government with his rivals in Hamas and set up a Fatah-led administration to govern the West Bank. Carter said the American-Israeli-European consensus to reopen direct aid to the new government in the West Bank, but to deny the same to the Hamas-controlled Gaza Strip, represented an "effort to divide Palestinians into two peoples." While seeking to boycott the Hamas leadership for of its refusal to renounce violence and recognize Israel, Europe and the US have continued to send humanitarian aid to Gaza through the United Nations and other organizations. Far from encouraging Hamas's move into parliamentary politics, Carter said the US and Israel, with European Union acquiescence, has sought to subvert the outcome by shunning Hamas and helping Abbas to keep the reins of political and military power. "That action was criminal," he said in a news conference after his speech. ARTICLE CONTINUES RELATED: Jimmy Carter, Father of the Iranian Revolution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt_Ripley Posted June 20, 2007 #2 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) let's see Bush wants democracy , but only if it goes his way. does it matter that the people voted for Hammas ? isn't that what democracy is about ? could it be that it the point Carter is making ? Let's see. Carter = brought peace to the area. more stability Bush = has the middle east in a mess. hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm ps - Bush is and will be known as the worst president this country has had. fact. Edited June 20, 2007 by Lt_Ripley Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
+joc Posted June 20, 2007 #3 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said Tuesday. I agree with this statement. We shouldn't favor Fatah over Hamas....we should literally obliterate and end them both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted June 20, 2007 #4 Share Posted June 20, 2007 It's an interesting point. People tend to assume that a democracy is a good thing. However, how could we posisbly 'recognise' HAMAS when their core consitution (indeed, their reason for existing) is the violent destruction of a neighbouring democracy ? (Israel). To have recognised HAMAS, and dealt with them on equal terms with Israel, would have been an act of hypocrisy, if not lunacy. As Bruce has already pointed out, Adolph Hitler was (initially) democraticly elected as well. Meow Purr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 Author #5 Share Posted June 20, 2007 let's see Bush wants democracy , but only if it goes his way. does it matter that the people voted for Hammas ? isn't that what democracy is about ? could it be that it the point Carter is making ? Let's see. Carter = brought peace to the area. more stability I'm sorry...when was peace brought to the region? Since Bush has come into office, Carter has become a traitor to the Republic. He has not found an self-proclaimed enemy he has not supported, from Latin America, to the Levant, to Central Asia. He is one of these morons who thinks supporting our enemies damages Bush, not realizing they are enemies of the country, not a president of a certain political party. Mahmoud Abbas as democratically elected President of the Palestinian Authority. While Hamas may have won the parlimentary election, they used force to sieze control of half of their "state", executing anyone who has stood in their way, be it combatant or political opposition. Hamas has engineered a coup -- and that is hardly democratic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted June 20, 2007 #6 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Everytime Carter opens his mouth, diarhea spews forth. Does any thinking, rational person even listen to his diatribes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pinky Floyd Posted June 20, 2007 #7 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) Jimmy Carter was a failure at being a POTUS in everyway possible.. What makes him think that he's doing any better as a self-appointed, blathering idiot 'statesman'? Somebody gag that moron please... Edited June 20, 2007 by Pinky Floyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bathory Posted June 20, 2007 #8 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Jimmy Carter didn't bring peace to the region, rofl let's see Bush wants democracy , but only if it goes his way. does it matter that the people voted for Hammas ? isn't that what democracy is about ? could it be that it the point Carter is making ? its not as simple as that there is no argument to suggest the US or the EU or so on have to support their choice (in the form of tax dollars and so on) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celumnaz Posted June 20, 2007 #9 Share Posted June 20, 2007 when you gain the power to choose, you receive the responsibility of having to live with your choices Carter was a Complete failure in regards to the Middle East... ok he was a pretty complete failure all the way around... and he continues his track record Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 Author #10 Share Posted June 20, 2007 By Carter's own logic, he is not recognizing the Fatah government. He claims that Hamas has the right to run the Palestinian Authority because they won the Parlimentary elections, while ignoring the fact that Abbas won the presidential election two years ago. By Carter's logic, that would give the Democrats in the United States the right to stage a violent coup to take over the West Coast. And he would call it "democracy." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted June 20, 2007 #11 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) By Carter's own logic, he is not recognizing the Fatah government. He claims that Hamas has the right to run the Palestinian Authority because they won the Parlimentary elections, while ignoring the fact that Abbas won the presidential election two years ago. By Carter's logic, that would give the Democrats in the United States the right to stage a violent coup to take over the West Coast. And he would call it "democracy." Well, Carter is an unabashed leftist. He never met a leftist dictator he didn't side with. He had the worst economic numbers in the history of the US, and caused the creation of the misery index. He wrote the manual on stagflation. He destroyed the pride Americans had for their nation, until the gipper brought it back. Carter was a complete and utter failure. Remember the hostages taken by Iran, and his pitful failed rescue attempt. He gutted the military and then asked them to do a mission without spare parts or proper equipment, because he cancelled the projects. He loathed the military. A real dunce...dolt...dunderhead. OK I vented enough on that old hasbeen. Edited June 20, 2007 by Aztec Warrior Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zukie&jim Posted June 20, 2007 #12 Share Posted June 20, 2007 ole jimmy is at it again . next he will have the USAF dropping peanuts ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 Author #13 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Remember the hostages taken by Iran, and his pitful failed rescue attempt. And he supported the Ayatollah at first, abandoning the nascent democracy in Iran. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aztec Warrior Posted June 20, 2007 #14 Share Posted June 20, 2007 And he supported the Ayatollah at first, abandoning the nascent democracy in Iran. That's right! How silly of me to forget. Must be getting old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted June 20, 2007 #15 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) let's see Bush wants democracy , but only if it goes his way. does it matter that the people voted for Hammas ? isn't that what democracy is about ? could it be that it the point Carter is making ? Let's see. Carter = brought peace to the area. more stability Bush = has the middle east in a mess. hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm ps - Bush is and will be known as the worst president this country has had. fact. A two Term President is worst than a one term President, who actually lost in a landslide? Nice try but you Democrats will find it sooooooooooo difficult to raise carter from the Bottom of the list Edited June 20, 2007 by AROCES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mars Posted June 20, 2007 #16 Share Posted June 20, 2007 we should just split Israel and Palestine up. Isn't that a simple solution? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AROCES Posted June 20, 2007 #17 Share Posted June 20, 2007 we should just split Israel and Palestine up. Isn't that a simple solution? The big question for me is, Can the Palestinian people really establish a country of their own? I mean they been there only for a thousand years???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 Author #18 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The big question for me is, Can the Palestinian people really establish a country of their own? I mean they been there only for a thousand years???? The Palestinians already have an autonomous government; in fact, they have two autonomous governments now. There has never been an "independent" Palestine. There has never been a country called Palestine. Before Israel siezed control of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, they were part of Jordan and Egypt, respectively. Neither had any wish or desire to create a "Palestinian state." Until Israel took control of both territories, there was never even a thought of creating such a state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libertyworld Posted June 20, 2007 #19 Share Posted June 20, 2007 let's see Bush wants democracy , but only if it goes his way. does it matter that the people voted for Hammas ? isn't that what democracy is about ? could it be that it the point Carter is making ? Let's see. Carter = brought peace to the area. more stability Bush = has the middle east in a mess. hhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmmmm ps - Bush is and will be known as the worst president this country has had. fact. Took you exactly 3 words to make an unrelated post about Bush again. Do you have a Bush fetish or some obsessive-compulsive disorder? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurious George Posted June 20, 2007 #20 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Until Israel took control of both territories, there was never even a thought of creating such a state. United Nations Special Committee on Palestine The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was a United Nations special committee that was formed in the May of 1947, in response to the handover of the British Mandate of Palestine to the United Nations to vote upon which solution to use for partitioning the land. Recommendations The committee recommended that the British mandate should be terminated and Palestine should be divided between the Jews and the Arabs. Jerusalem and Bethlehem were to remain neutral under International control. This recommendation was supported by all but three members of the committee. The minority decision supported a federated one state solution. The committee's decision was the basis of the Partition Plan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNSCOP United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181 On 29 November 1947 the United Nations Partition Plan for Palestine or United Nations General Assembly Resolution 181, a plan to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict in the British Mandate of Palestine, was approved by the United Nations General Assembly. Increased anti-Semitism in Europe, which had been on the rise since the late 19th century, led to a greater Jewish influx following World War I. The plan would have partitioned the territory of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, with the Greater Jerusalem area, encompassing Bethlehem, coming under international control. The British proposed a Palestine divided between a Jewish and an Arab State, but in time changed their position and sought to limit Jewish immigration from Europe to a minimum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1947_UN_Partition_Plan Map - http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/maps/1900s/1947palestine.jpg The United States and the Recognition of Israel: A Chronology August 31, 1947: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine issues its report, which recommends unanimously (all 11 member states voting in favor) that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date; and which also recommends by majority vote (7 of the member nations voting in favor) that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states. * October 10, 1947: The Joint Chiefs of Staff argue in a memorandum entitled "The Problem of Palestine" that the partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states would enable the Soviet Union to replace the United States and Great Britain in the region and would endanger United States access to Middle East oil(hey there's that word again 'OIL' lol). * November 29, 1947: The United Nations General Assembly approves the partition plan for Palestine put forward by the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine. The 1947 UN Partition divided the area into three entities: a Jewish state, an Arab state, and an international zone around Jerusalem. http://www.trumanlibrary.org/israel/palestin.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 Author #21 Share Posted June 20, 2007 The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP) was a United Nations special committee that was formed in the May of 1947, in response to the handover of the British Mandate of Palestine to the United Nations to vote upon which solution to use for partitioning the land. What you fail to point out (and you may not be aware of), the Palestine Mandate does not refer to borders of modern-day Israel. The Mandate "was originally bordered by the Mediterranean Sea to the West, the French Mandate of Lebanon, French Mandate of Syria, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia to the North, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to the East and South, and the Kingdom of Egypt to the Southwest." At the end of British control, Palestine was divided into two states, one Arab and one Arab; these became Israel and the Hasemite Kingdom of Trans-Jordan. There was a proposed Arab state within the borders of modern Israel, but these territories were annexed by Egypt and Jordan, and always considered part of their countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spurious George Posted June 20, 2007 #22 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Jordan gains independence from Britain on May 25, 1946. August 31, 1947: The United Nations Special Committee on Palestine issues its report, which recommends unanimously (all 11 member states voting in favor) that Great Britain terminate their mandate for Palestine and grant it independence at the earliest possible date; and which also recommends by majority vote (7 of the member nations voting in favor) that Palestine be partitioned into Jewish and Arab states. Israel declares independence on 14 May 1948. In 1950, Jordan annexed the West Bank, which had been under its control since the armistice that followed the 1948 Arab-Israeli war. The annexation was recognized only by Great Britain. Map - http://history.sandiego.edu/gen/maps/1900s/1947palestine.jpg Your statement, "Until Israel took control of both territories, there was never even a thought of creating such a state.", is incorrect. There was a plan to create Jewish and Arab states prior to Israel even becoming an idependent country. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrucePrime Posted June 20, 2007 Author #23 Share Posted June 20, 2007 (edited) Your statement, "Until Israel took control of both territories, there was never even a thought of creating such a state.", is incorrect. There was a plan to create Jewish and Arab states prior to Israel even becoming an idependent country. A matter of semantics. It was never a goal of the Arabs to create such a state -- those territories were siezed after the Israeli War of Independence. Only after Israel captured them in 1967 did Arabs dream of an independent Palestine. The Arab States rejected out of hand the idea of partitioning Palestine west-of-Trans-Jordan into two states. They believed not in an Independent Palestine, but that the territory belonged to Jordan, Egypt, and "Greater Syria" Edited June 20, 2007 by BrucePrime Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thozzman Posted June 20, 2007 #24 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Everytime Carter opens his mouth, diarhea spews forth. Does any thinking, rational person even listen to his diatribes? Couldn't have stated it better... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ships-cat Posted June 20, 2007 #25 Share Posted June 20, 2007 Both Bruce , Catch .22, and Thozman (via reactions to earlier posts) have made some interesting points here. I'd like to comment on Bruce and Catch's thoughts first, and then move onto Thozman for an off-topic (but humerous) anecdote about Jummy Carter. Just to recapitulate... an early League of Nations recommendation about the British Mandate was that 75% of it should be allocated to the Palastinian Arabs, and the remaining 25% to the Arab and Semitic Jews. (all three groups had been living in the regions since God was a lad, so there was no reall "prior claim". ) When the British Mandate ended, the Arabs duly grabbed the 75% bit, and re-named it 'Jordon', and then said "oh, and we want the OTHER 25% as well... we don't want the Jews to have ANYTHING.". The UN disgracefully bowed to this act of agrandisation, and offered to split up the remaining 25% (what we would now recognise as Israel plus the disputed territories... roughly) the Arab League said "great, we'll take those bits"... and then said "but we want the rest as well, we don't want ANY Jewish territory". So the non-Jewish Arabs basicly grabbed about 80% of what was on offer, and have fought tooth and nail for the remaining 20% ever since. How do you negotiate with such intransigence ? Oh... and now the humerous bit. I can't offer supporting sources for this, so it may be a Washington Urban Myth... The story goes that when Jimmy Carter was being signed in, he had the usual Induction with the military concerning a sneak nuclear attack by the Soviets. Much discussion of the 'football' and launch codes etc. Part of the discussion was about Continuity of Government (COG), and the impressive system by which POTUS would be whisked away from the White House by a Marine helicopter, plonked onto Air Force One, and given direct control of SAC/CENTCOM (or, if SAC hand been nuked, "Looking Glass"), and be able to plan any necessary retaliatory measures. Reportedly, Jimmy leaned back in his chair , and said "General , thats VERY impressive. So lets see.... implement the Continuity plan and evacuate the White House NOW !!!!. " Of course, the helicopters where in maintenance, and their crews on leave. The White House did NOT get evacuated as per the plan... and several military officers had red faces and an unriveled opportunity to play golf FAR more often. If this story is true, then you could argue that ol' Mr C did a good thing... he shook the military C.O.G. system out of it's complacency. Oh well, who knows ? Certainly not me, I'm only a Badly Drawn Cat, and I'm not on the VIP "evacuation" list Meow Purr. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now