Jimmy Carter’s Naked Visit

Posted on April 15, 2008
Filed Under Israel, Palestine, Mideast |

… is based on well-meaning intentions but is ultimately flawed thanks to the “super religious, no-comprise” mindset of the people he wants to talk to. I emphasize the “well-meaning intentions” part because Jimmy’s characterization as someone evil and anti-Semitic is something I disagree with. I understand that the title of his notorious book is provocative but that doesn’t mean he is what he’s accused of. After all, it was Carter who negotiated the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.

Given the ineffective strategy being employed now by the United States, a better one is needed, because thanks to it, support for Hamas has increased and too many Palestinians suffered needlessly. This, after the Bush administration hastily pushed for Palestinian elections of course. Simply put, the current approach sucks.

I don’t think Carter gets that Hamas - like al-Qaeda - isn’t a typical rational enemy. They’re religious right-wing radicals hellbent on regaining back what they perceive to be “the land of Islam.” This is why I doubt Hamas can ever agree to a true and long-lasting peace. But hey, I give Jimmy credit for at least trying. Plus, you never know. He might actually be able to convince Hamas to release Gilad Shalit:

According to Carter, peace cannot be achieved without talking to all the relevant people, and he will use the meeting to promote efforts to release Gilad Shalit and to uncover the fate of soldiers Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser. Carter told Haaretz Sunday in an exclusive interview that he intends to check Meshal’s willingness to accept the Arab League peace initiative. Carter says that acceptance of this plan by Hamas would be a very positive step.

So yeah, I don’t think Jimmy’s naked and very public visit is necessarily the “big blasphemy” it’s advertised to seem. I believe the dude is strongly driven by a genuine desire to help negotiate a peace deal and I respect him for that even though I doubt the possibility of him actually achieving it.

Dear Jimmy,

Hamas isn’t Sadat or King Hussein.

Comments

40 Responses to “Jimmy Carter’s Naked Visit”

Andrew Brehm on April 15th, 2008 8:49 am

“After all, it was Carter who negotiated the peace deal between Egypt and Israel.”

Actually, that was Sadat’s doing.

And it was Carter’s friends, the Muslim Brotherhood, who killed him for it.

Carter just happened to be president during that time. I don’t see how he did much to broker peace.

Sadat made up his mind about this before Carter ever became president and Sadat’s visit to Jerusalem went totally against the US’ (and Soviet Union’s) plans and strategy.

I have no idea why Carter is being celebrated so much. The peace treaty was someone else’s doing and went against Carter’s strategy. Plus he seems to be best friends with Sadat’s murderers.

And he is an anti-Semite. He totally gets what Hamas are. Do you think Carter is stupid?
Howie on April 15th, 2008 4:28 pm

I lean more towards agreeing with Drima on this one…

I believe Carter is well-intended and I don’t believe for a minute he hates Jews. In fact, I don’t think he is at all a hateful person.

But he certainly represents the deluded side of the far Left that move with hearts and not with their minds. I think I understand Carter’s thinking. I believe he is brilliant and I believe he is deluded.

Once again…and I have said this before…Carter supports people who are totally against his leftist ideals. This drives me insane about the Left more than anything else and is the reason I finally stopped being a liberal…What belief system does Carter have that Hamas and those types share? Women’s rights? Freedom on speech? Freedom of religion? Abortion rights? Free press? Restricted censorship? No torture? Right of due process? Jimmie, Jimmie, THINK Jimmie…

He would tell you “well, you have to talk to these guys because they are calling the shots. Who else you gonna talk to?” That perspective is not without logic. But you have to believe that these types want peace and they don’t.

I could go on and on with this subject so i will stop.
Andrew Brehm on April 15th, 2008 4:49 pm

“well, you have to talk to these guys because they are calling the shots. Who else you gonna talk to?”

“That perspective is not without logic”

Yes, it is.

It is a sign of stupidity to repeat the same mistake and believe that the outcome might be different.

Who else can Israel talk to?

There are local clan leaders.

And if that doesn’t work, Israel could simply talk to nobody. Talking with people who try to murder you and who use everything they can get to help them in the attempt is suicide.

I don’t believe Carter’s intentions are good. I think he is a bad ex-president who happened to be president for four years when great things happened and is now seeing himself as the great facilitator. He needs respect and he is trying to get respect where it’s cheapest.

He is not thinking “Jews are evil”, he just thinks that supporting those who do think that Jews are evil will gain him respect faster and without the need actually to do anything. His opinions of Jews has nothing to do with it. He is only out for being considered a great man by a large number of people.

It’s easy to be respected by fundamentalists.

_Sadat_ was a great man. He did the right thing even though he knew he would suffer for it. He died for his belief in peace. And president Carter, who now sees himself as the man behind Sadat’s success and who won’t be killed by Jewish terrorists for talking to Hamas, talks to Sadat’s murderers.
suzanne on April 15th, 2008 6:48 pm

Carter wants Israel to negotiate how it wants to be killed.

if that’s not antisemitic, than what is?

(though i believe many people say antisemitic things or do antisemitic deeds out of ignorance and are not hard-core antisemites. carter is ignorant. calling him an antisemite - even though his actions seem to be like it - will not benefit jews nor israel. On the contrary, there will be more voices arising saying: ‘you cannot have any critics on israel or you’re an antisemite’.

that, of course, is not true.)
Andrew Brehm on April 15th, 2008 8:56 pm

I don’t think there is a need to argue with the “criticising Israel is not anti-Semitism” crowd. Most of them criticise Israel for things that they never criticise others for (most certainly not Arabs) or for things that are plain fantasy.

They should be confronted like anti-Semites.

Casual anti-Semitism is very common in the western world. People do not realise how many of the things they think they know about Jews and Israel have been made-up. They think that an “anti-Semite” is someone who criticises Jews or Israel for the wrong reasons, but they do not realise that that is exactly what they themselves do.

A colleague at work claimed that Jewish victims of the war against Israel are over-represented and that one never hears about Arab victims. He thought that was true and hence meant that he simply didn’t know about Israel crimes.

He was surprised when I told him that the press never told him that northern Israel was under Hizbullah fire UNTIL THE FIRST ARAB DIED in that particular border war. Similarly he didn’t know, until I showed him, about Hamas’ television propaganda and the rockets fired into Israel from Gaza, because he media don’t report that either.

Casual anti-Semitism is socially accepted. People think that Israel must at least be as evil as those who want to destroy it. Hence, they think, all reporting about Israel must be pro-Israel (because one never hears about those Israeli crimes they think Israel must surely commit). It doesn’t occur to people that Israel simply doesn’t commit that many crimes.

I would rate anti-Semites as three types.

Type 1: Those are your hardcore, honest Nazis and their Arab allies. These include Hitler, Arafat’s uncle the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, Arafat, Hamas, Al-Qaeda, the Taliban etc.. They are rare in Europe where their opinions would be illegal. There are some in America (the KKK, the Nation of Islam), and many in Russia.

Type 2: Anti-Semites of convenience. They are looking for a group to belong to and want to show solidarity with somebody oppressed. They need someone safe to demonise and someone poor to fight for. Showing solidarity with, say, hungry Africans is too much work, but showing solidarity with the “Palestinians” is good, especially since there are enough stories told by Type 1 Anti-Semites that are easily believed. Type 2 Anti-Semites are ignorant and don’t want to learn. Learning the truth would destroy their goals. Carter is one of those.

Casual: Those are most normal people. They believe that Israel must have done something wrong (or why would they be hated so much?) and that Israel should be forgiven and should talk to reasonable people in the PLO and among Arab countries. They can usually be “turned” just by mentioning a few relevant facts in a casual way. They are ignorant but only because they didn’t have the time to learn and no reason to. Their knowledge is thus based on what Type 1 and Type 2 Anti-Semites and the media feed them. Mention that Arafat’s uncle was a friend of Hitler’s or that Israel is the only place in the middle east where a significant number of Jews is still alive, and they suddenly change their mind. They just didn’t know.

I am still looking for a criticism of Israel that is not anti-Semitic. Most people who use that phrase you speak of never criticise Israel without adding anti-Semitic references or lies.

I am sure there are non-anti-Semitic criticisms of Israel (I entertain a few myself), but Israel’s loudest critics rarely mention, say, the fact that, unfortunately, Druze and Bedouins are still underrepresented in top jobs or that Israel is not doing enough for Sudanese refugees.

Turns out most criticisms of Israel that are indeed not anti-Semitic imply that Israel does a lot of good things and could do better. That’s not what Type 1 or Type 2 Anti-Semites want people to hear.

“I don’t support Israel because they refuse to take in all those refugees that escape the genocide perpetrated by Arabs in Sudan.” (Note: this is simplified.)

“I don’t support Israel because they do not grant residency to all homosexual Arabs fleeing certain death in their own communities.”

“I don’t support Israel because Israel is not doing enough to integrate Arab and Ethiopian Jews that fled oppressive regimes.”

“I don’t support Israel because they talk to the PLO and made the PLO the most powerful agency among Palestinian Arabs despite the fact that many Arab clan leaders disagree vehemently with Arab nationalism as supported by the PLO.”

“I don’t support Israel because they treated the Shiites of Lebanon like dirt when they liberated them from PLO rule.”

“I don’t support Israel because Israel nearly failed to save Jordan from the Syrian and PLO invasion.”

There are so many reasons to criticise Israel, but I’m afraid I cannot think of many more criticisms that are not anti-Semitic.
suzanne on April 15th, 2008 9:21 pm

Andrew, i could not agree more with your post.

I dunno if Carter would be type 2 or the casual type though. The fact that he did not seem to be easily impressed by qassam rockets and hugging hamas representatives the next day, makes me believe as well that he belongs to type 2.

i also said that it’s ignorance. But indeed, i did not make the distinction between those who want to learn and those who don’t.
Drima on April 16th, 2008 2:39 am

Howie, I guess we generally agree.

Andrew and Suzanne, I think you’re overreacting and reading too many of your own conclusions into Carter’s actions.

More later. Gotta run for class. Killer week!
Roman Kalik on April 16th, 2008 4:57 am

I tend to agree with Drima and Howie as far as Carter is concerned. Jimmy Carter is a self-anoited pure idealist, of the kind who wouldn’t know rational planning or facts if you hit him over the head with them - but he’s still an idealist. A very short-term idealist, as his handling of Iran and the Shah showed. Jimmy Carter wanted to be a president who could look himself in the eye when he stood in front of a mirror. Too he bad he never realized that he can’t anymore thanks to that very attempt. Or that frankly, the job pretty much destroys that aspect of your life by default, if you’re a gond man.

Carter… Carter would blindly go for Dialogue because he can’t reason through to an alternative - he doesn’t *believe* that there are times that it is impossible, and that there are people who aren’t just a little good, deep down inside. And he will never ever allow himself to see reality for what it is, because if he did he would lose something central to his very being. This is what makes Carter so predictable, so easily exploited, and why similar “bleeding hearts” like him so much. Carter is an idealist. He will rush into talking with Hamas because he is thus the peace-bringer who avoids war - and doing anything else, for him, would be supporting war - and he can’t do that. He just can’t.

Fear the idealist who is so rigid that he can’t bend his thinking anymore, who just follows the same groove in his head over and over again… And who can’t handle the fact that it just doesn’t work out the way it should.

Carter had a pretty predictable reason for naming his famous book the way he did - he thought it wouldn’t have been noticed otherwise. He was right, by the way. The book is nothing special. A pity he didn’t see reality - his book being judged solely by its bombastic title, taken up or thrown away merely by that tiny line - with few actually reading it at all.

Ignore Carter. He’s a good man who can’t see the harm he’s doing, who never could see it, and who never will.
Howie on April 16th, 2008 5:08 am

I often agree with AB…but not on this one…I think RK sees if more clearly.
Suzanne on April 16th, 2008 6:02 am

doesn’t his idealism makes him type 2? an antisemite out of ignorance and not willing to see reality?
Roman Kalik on April 16th, 2008 8:08 am

No, it doesn’t. Carter doesn’t have an near-obsession with Israel or the Palestinians, beyond what is already in the mainstream. Carter is equally stupid about any other cause that he has ever tackled - like washing away US involvement in Iran - without bothering to consider just what could happen if he did.

Jimmy Carter is not an anti-Semite. He’s just too nice for his own, and anyone else’s, good.
Drima on April 16th, 2008 10:34 am

Nicely laid out Roman. That makes the three of us.

Andrew and Suzanne. 3 against 2. We win.

Carter is not an anti-Semite. Just too much of an idealist.
Andrew Brehm on April 16th, 2008 11:28 am

I am still not convinced.

Are there any other such idealists who focus on other problems?

Also, if Carter is not an anti-Semite but simply an idealist who doesn’t know who can be talked to and who cannot, why is he only talking to anti-Israel extremists and not to Jewish terrorists or similar groups like the Kahanists?

I don’t think anyone as “nice” as you guys think Carter is could make US president.
Roman Kalik on April 16th, 2008 11:44 am

Jimmy Carter doesn’t talk to Kahanists or other Jewish extremists because… they’re irrelevant, really. While their counterparts are (sadly) a very loud and very powerful part of the other side of the fence.
Andrew Brehm on April 16th, 2008 12:20 pm

So he can detect relevance but not futility?

I thought an idealist would think that extremists on both sides would be equally important.
Roman Kalik on April 16th, 2008 1:21 pm

Why? The extremists on the Palestinian side are essentially the leaders of a hefty part of the population, if not all of it. For Carter, this makes them equivalent to any political leadership across the world - regardless of what their stated goals or plans are, regardless of their beliefs.

For Carter, the extremists are the leaders of the Palestinian people, their acting representatives, so he talks to them - and assumes that they have the best interests of the Palestinians at heart, that there’s some human decency in them that he can reach out to.

As I said, Jimmy Carter is a pretty predictable person. He’s all for reaching out and touching someone.
Andrew Brehm on April 16th, 2008 1:57 pm

But for some reason he did not display the same attitude towards George Bush and Tony Blair. If he condemned Hamas and the PLO for their war-mongering as much as he condemned the US and UK governments, you might have a point.

But the fact is that he is very picky when it comes to criticising war-mongering.

Plus he seems to show a less than friendly attitude towards Jewish religion outside his “peace” missions.

To me he still seems like a very typical Type 2 Anti-Semite and an attention whore.
Howie on April 16th, 2008 2:16 pm

If you know Carter’s history…he literally grew up with and hung out with black kids in the south when such meant complete social ostratization (whoops) if not worse. He has long championed the cause of the weak or who he sees as the weak. He is what made the Democratic/liberal movement great…albeit in the 1950’s and 1960’s.

Like my parents…he cannot see that one situation does not reflect the other and that this is 40 years later and things are much different.

Carter believes we can all get along, we are all just humans and potentially all warm and fuzzy on the inside. I think he is a good and loving and caring man. I think he is the best human being that ever became a successful politician in the USA. I think he is a man with a huge heart, great feeling and mostly very very bad ideas.

Look…as a human…I hated Nixon…but if Carter ran against Nixon today (Nixon would run slowly of course), I would vote Nixon…But if I had to spend an afternoon fishing with somebody…I would take Carter.
Andrew Brehm on April 16th, 2008 2:35 pm

Carter’s experiences certainly qualify him for the role of speaker for the oppressed.

However, if he took more time to learn about his current field of “expertise” he would know that in many cases the social ostracisation resulting from interacting with black kids would be an improvement over the current situation in the middle east.

I believe that he thinks that what worked in America can work in the middle east (and Europe). But he definitely also thinks that Israel is the main reason for the middle east’s problems, making him a Type 2 Anti-Semite.
Howie on April 16th, 2008 4:46 pm

AB-

This last point is getting closer…but still I don’t see the anti-semite thing…Just enormously blurred vision, wishful thinking, naive thinking, and somebody still locked into 1960’s view of the human race.
Zaki on April 16th, 2008 5:44 pm

Carter is a senile boring guy. He cannot even farm his peanuts fields anymore. Therefore I think he is taking his ambassadorial and former presidential skills a bit too seriously. He needs a brain tranplant to remind him that while his Southern Baptist ethical standards are much appreciated, his grasp of the current conditions of the Middle “Earth” are far too complex for his demoded neurones to connect.

He should take a rest like all former presidents playing golf. How about cleaning the black neighborhoods of New Orlans devastated by Huriccane Katrina.

Why does he have to show us that he can entangle the mess of Middle “very Screwed up Earth”? I think it is his egoistical self-righteouness that is delusioning him. No need to play Jesus (as if coming between the Jews and the Muslims and trying to forment brotherly love).. Hey pass the Ganja brother and let’s have some fun in Jamaica.

I hope he will get a deadly diarreha while drinking the unsafe water of Gaza, that will teach him something about post-modern politics and weak immune system found in elderly poeople.
Drima on April 16th, 2008 6:54 pm

“But he definitely also thinks that Israel is the main reason for the middle east’s problems, making him a Type 2 Anti-Semite.”

Andrew I have a problem with that line of thinking.

Sure, some are just stuck with that view thanks to the protocols of zion crap they’ve had their brains infested with so yes, in that case I believe the “anti-Semitic” label applies because their opposition to Israel is mainly based on the fact that it’s Jewish. However many are just critical about Israeli policies, don’t advocate Israel to be wiped off the map and all that crap, want peace, see the Palestinians as the weak ones and hence Israel as the big bad guy and their opposition to Israel isn’t based on anti-Jewish sentiments. I don’t see how that is anti-Semitic.

Zaki, LOL at the Ganja…

“I hope he will get a deadly diarreha while drinking the unsafe water of Gaza”

a bit mean, don’t ya think?
Halalhippie on April 17th, 2008 10:47 am

“coming between the Jews and the Muslims and trying to forment brotherly love).. Hey pass the Ganja”

looks like a very good idea to me… has anyone ever tried that ?
Andrew Brehm on April 17th, 2008 12:47 pm

“see the Palestinians as the weak ones and hence Israel as the big bad guy and their opposition to Israel isn’t based on anti-Jewish sentiments. I don’t see how that is anti-Semitic.”

It’s the _hence_.

The assumption that if one party is weak the other must be evil is not true.

Thieves are weaker than the police, but people don’t assume that the police are the bad guys because of it.

However, those that dislike the state or authority would paint the police as the bad guys.

It is anti-Semitism that makes the “hence” possible.

There can be no peace as long as that “hence” is assumed to the ultimate fact.

The weak party can be the evil party. Winning or losing a war is not a moral judgment of the winner or loser.

The Japanese lost in China, the Nazis lost in Europe, and their Arab allies lost in “Palestine” (or “southern Syria” as they called it back then). That doesn’t make any of them the good guys.

Look at any other conflict and check whether the winner is automatically seen as the bad guy.

When you talk to the “non-anti-Semitic” “Israel is the bad guy” crowd, you will find that, at some point, their arguments boil down to either an old anti-Semitic legend or the fact that they simply didn’t care to check facts and decided to believe what people told them about Israel without fact checking.

Did you know that most people I talk to in Europe are surprised when they hear that there are Arabs living in Israel and that I shared a university dorm with Arabs in Haifa? What do you think makes people believe that there would be no Arabs in Israel?

(Few people in Europe have read the “protocols”, know what’s in them, or believe it’s true.)

Being critical of Israeli policies is not anti-Semitism.

But deducing from the Arabs’ weakness that Israel must be the bad guy IS anti-Semitism.

Morality is not ability. A moral judgment cannot be based on someone’s ability in a war. If people do it anyway, they are assuming an implied axiom.

Seeing Palestinian Arabs as weak is seeing reality. But deducing from that that Israel is the bad guy is anti-Semitism.
Andrew Brehm on April 17th, 2008 12:49 pm

“I hope he will get a deadly diarreha while drinking the unsafe water of Gaza”

He would blame Israel for that, because he is not an anti-Semite.
Zaki on April 17th, 2008 12:57 pm

Drima,
Well, Ok maybe it is a bit mean, but I am quite sure he is aware that all of the sewage systems left by Israel when they pullout are now unoperational. He has problaby brought with him huge reserve of bottled water courtesy of US presidentail funds. So you see, he will eventually miss the opportunity to get a dose of bad medicine.

Halalhippie,
I think it would work, if before any negociations all the parties sit together, smoke a little Ganja and listen to Reggea music of Bob Marley, a little rum would not be bad either to moisten the palate. But unfortunatly both of the belligerent parties (Jews and Muslims) and our Mr. Carter’s divine messanic intervention, are so STUCK UP and FULL OF THEMSELVES that they would not agree to partake in this excellent ritual.

I trully beleive that if they give it a try, and perform the ritual they would instantly forget the negociations and war and they would start to make deal to grow Ganja plants in the desert and how to live together. What a wonderful way to solve the Middle “Eath” problem. They are just stuck up. that’s all.
Drima on April 17th, 2008 12:59 pm

Andrew, I see your point about the “hence” but still disagree regarding Carter and his supposed anti-Semitism.

Halalhippie, remember my Xanax, Prozac and laughing gas idea?
SC&A on April 17th, 2008 2:12 pm

Drima is on the money.

As the saying goes, ‘The road to hell is paved with good intentions.’

All the good intentions in the world cannot camouflage what Hamas is and what they call for.
Suzanne on April 17th, 2008 8:56 pm

@drima, would he really be so stupid as you picture him here?
RandallJones on April 20th, 2008 9:17 pm

How come when discussing Hamas, people leave out the fact that the Israeli government had helped Hamas flourish, as a rival to the secular Yasser Arafat?

We have to question if those who run the Israeli government are really interested in peace or just wants to fuel conflicts amongst the Palestinians so that they can use it as an excuse to occupy and gradually take increasingly more Palestinian land.
Andrew Brehm on April 21st, 2008 9:40 am

“people leave out the fact that the Israeli government had helped Hamas flourish, as a rival to the secular Yasser Arafat?”

Israel has ignored Hamas for too long. But I’m afraid the “let flourish” thing is an urban legend.

But I must say I am not sure I should dislike Hamas more then Arafat’s PLO. Hamas seem to be more honest and certainly have better credentials.

The Muslim Brotherhood is nowhere near as questionable as Arafat’s uncle and mentor, Hitler’s Arab lapdog, the “grand mufti” of Jerusalem.

“We have to question if those who run the Israeli government are really interested in peace or just wants to fuel conflicts amongst the Palestinians”

It’s never the Arabs’ fault, is it? They are all mindless droids, aren’t they?

When Arabs fight among each other, despite the fact that they have always done so, it must have been the Israeli government who is behind it, mustn’t it?

“so that they can use it as an excuse to occupy and gradually take increasingly more Palestinian land.”

What is “Palestinian land”? Is that land Arabs lost in wars they started and that must be Jew-free?

Frankly, Arabs or their supporters who speak of “Palestinian land” always remind me of those Germans who refer to Silesia as “German land” in the sense that it must be returned to its former German owners.

And, incidentally, both of those groups have well-documented connections to anti-Semitism and fascism, which makes it even more suspicious.

The very idea that Israel is famous for taking other people’s land is preposterous. While the Arab empire once ruled the land from Spain to Persia, including Israel, the Jewish state has in its entire existence never been huge and often non-existent. Today Israel is smaller than 2500 years ago and smaller than 30 years ago.

If only all land-grabbing colonists were so willing to give back land in exchange for peace!

The Arab imperialists certainly weren’t.

I find it hilarious when the Arab states, who rule the land from the Atlantic to Persia and treat all minorities like dirt, accuse Israel, the only independent minority state in the region of being “imperialist”. Look at a map. Do you really believe that “Isr.” (there is rarely enough for for the “ael”) is the imperialist while this HUGE area covering the lands of Egyptians, Berbers, Nubians, Darfurians, Kurds etc. is not?

But at least the Arabs are fighting FOR something, not just AGAINST something. “Palestinian” television teaches us that Jews are the sons of apes and donkeys and must be exterminated and “progressive” Europeans and Americans show solidarity with the “Palestinian cause”.

It’s a good thing that particular mindset is no longer as dominant as it once was in Europe. Today “showing solidarity” is all they have power for.

Thank G-d.
RandallJones on April 21st, 2008 5:05 pm

Andrew Brehm,

See Robert Dreyfuss’ article http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/01/27/end_of_the_road_map.php

where it says,

“Several U.S. diplomats and intelligence officials told me about Israel’s support for Yassin and the Brotherhood, and Chas Freeman, the former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told me bluntly: ‘Israel started Hamas.’”
Andrew Brehm on April 21st, 2008 8:19 pm

Randall,

You are quoting someone’s opinion. “Israel started Hamas” can mean anything; perhaps it means that Israel allowed a situation in where the MB could expand.

I (didn’t expect but) wanted an explanation of how Israel “started Hamas” and what Israel did.

Do you think that after you told me that you believe X it is helpful for me to learn that you know of somebody else who says the same nonsense?
Roman Kalik on April 21st, 2008 8:55 pm

*sigh*

Randall, they have a name for that sort of crap in courts of law. They call it hearsay. It’s when someone relays someone told him, which is just as factually applicable as “a guy at a pub told me.”

But be that it may, like most urban myths, this has a grain of truth. Once upon a time, the Israeli military administration gave financial support to registered Palestinian charity organizations - or at least allowed them to receive financial support from abroad, more often than not. Hamas, or rather… the organization that would eventually call itself Hamas, started out as one such group… though it would be more accurate to call it several groups, as Yassin was careful to create several groups supposedly disconnected from each other.

Their civil influence grew over time, but they hit a line - pride. Civic projects and preaching don’t restore pride - dead Israelis do, apparently. So Hamas joined the armed conflict, and entered Israel’s shit list pretty quickly. It took one army raid on one such “charity” HQ to find the arms stocks, which confirmed what was until then unverified intelligence and leaflets. Hamas stayed pretty firmly on Israel’s shit list ever since - *very* firmly, in fact.
RandallJones on April 22nd, 2008 2:22 am

Andrew Brehm wrote, “Do you think that after you told me that you believe X it is helpful for me to learn that you know of somebody else who says the same nonsense?”

Robert Dreyfess spoke to government officials who would know about these things.

In the meantime you and Roman Kalik are stating what you believe and you expect me to accept it as facts.
Roman Kalik on April 22nd, 2008 7:57 am

No, Randall. I’m merely speaking as someone who had the intimate knowledge of watching the beast next door grow, with all the events unfolding. Perhaps you’ll also say that when Ehud Olmert accused Binyamin Netanyahu of “creating Hamas”, it was an admission of Israeli culpability? After all, that’s what the French newspaper L’Humanite claimed, and it was that mouthpiece of the French Communist Party that first raised this rather pathetic claim of “Israel created Hamas”.

Except that during his time as prime-minister, Netanyahu experienced one of the biggest and bloodiest attacks that Hamas had managed to execute. He attempted to liquidate the man whom he was told was the mastermind behind the attack, and who is today’s Hamas number one man in Damascus - Khaled Mashal. Unfortunately that also involved violating Jordanian sovereignty, which turned into a major embarrassment. Instead of finishing off the head of the snake, Netanyahu was forced to free the spiritual leader - Yassin - from prison, in order to facilitate the freeing of the Mossad agent captured in Jordan. This in turn emboldened Hamas considerably, and resulted in the organization’s increased popularity and support. And this is what Olmert meant in that particular mud-slinging affair.

And yet some idiots would claim that it was all some kind of grand conspiracy so that Israel would have another enemy that would, at the same time, serve as an enemy for an existing enemy.

Yes, Israel is busily creating hordes of enemy organizations for itself, manipulating poor crippled spiritual leaders like Sheikh Yassin into serving the wishes of the Zionist Entity. Makes perfect sense, if you utterly ignore the context, history, and population of the region, and pretty much build your entire premise on a “Israel is a sinister foreign construct” foundation.

But no matter. You never actually read the history of Hamas’ formation, did you? No, I didn’t think so. You never watched its evolution from a grassroots charity foundation series that managed to create a civic infrastructure that didn’t just rival what Fatah wanted to create, but went miles ahead of it - to its advanced role in Palestinian society as the Islamic Resistance.

You never looked at Hamas within its context of the Muslim Brotherhood, that organization’s ideologies and actions throughout the region - why should you? You could instead focus on some short-term idiocy, only going far enough down history lane to suit your purposes.

Randall, you amuse me about as much as the people who claim that the US armed and trained Bin-Laden - without even realizing that Bin-Laden wasn’t a fighter, but rather a financier and ideological leader.

Oh, and Randall? You do realize that there are many diplomats and state officials around, yes? Full of pomp and self-importance? Few of them actually have anything to do with foreign intelligence-gathering, particularly of Middle-Eastern nature. I’m particularly amused by the statement of the “former ambassador to Saudi Arabia”. Where exactly would he have heard this info, in Saudi Arabia? At some party at the embassy? Dear me, dare I suggest that it was *gossip*?

But no matter, I already know that this is futile. I do need the mental exercise at times, though, so thankee kindly.
Suzanne on April 22nd, 2008 8:29 am

Israel is not that suicidal as some palestinians, Randall
Suzanne on April 22nd, 2008 8:30 am

More on Carter:

“Carter’s love affair with Palestinian Arab terrorists continues

Fox News interviewed Jimmy Carter and asked at least one good question:

When asked whether he’d ever meet with Al Qaeda, Carter replied, “No, of course not.”

“I don’t see any redeeming features of Al Qaeda at all,” he said.

But in defense of meeting with Hamas, Carter pointed out a Ha’aretz poll from February that said that 64% of Israelis supported direct talks with Hamas in order to free Gilad Shalit as well as the fact that Hamas was elected by the Palestinian Arab people.

But what Fox didn’t ask him afterwards was, if Carter was so enamored of Hamas because of the poll and because they were elected, why he tried also to meet with Islamic Jihad which had none of those distinctions?

The fact that Carter wanted to meet with Islamic Jihad - a pure terror group - shows that his rationalizations to Fox News are just after-the-fact attempts to stave off criticism, and not deep-felt convictions.

Or perhaps he can enlighten us of the “redeeming features” that he feels that Islamic Jihad has?”
links to be found in the oritinal article at http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/
Andrew Brehm on April 22nd, 2008 2:25 pm

“When asked whether he’d ever meet with Al Qaeda, Carter replied, “No, of course not.””

Yet Al-Qaeda criticised Hamas for their attacks against civilians.
Jerry on April 24th, 2008 5:26 am

I don’t think I’ve ever responded to the comments section of the blog but the Carter discussion is kind of “out of hand”. I’m not really interested determining the inside the head reasons for why Carter talked with Hamas but I’m very concerned about the consequences and effects of his actions. His behavior supports the equivalent moral positions between Arab extremists a la Hamas, Muslim Brotherhood, Al Quaeda etc to the Israeli behavior. Both entities are “wrong” and commit murder which simply isn’t the case. Israel does not condone purposeful killing of innocent civilians yet takes care to avoid casualties. Carter does NOT apply responsibility to Arab behavior but solely to Israeli actions. Palestinian state already exists in Gaza and look what is occurring - 2,000 rockets onto the Sderot region. Carter legitimizes the worst in terrorist activities and expects a gentle talk to change them. BALONEY IT WON’T HAPPEN. He only cemented the intransigence of Hamas in their own eyes and in general Middle East opinion. I mean here is a former US President and Nobel prize winner talking on an equal basis to the terrorist leadership of Hamas and smiling. It legitimizes everything that they stand for which is the destruction of Israel, killing the Jews and Christians (if you have read their Charter) and continued terrorist activities. This is the real point if discussion re: Carter’s trip.

Leave a Reply

The Sudanese Thinker

A sociopolitical blog on Sudan, the “crazy” Middle East, Africa, the United States, Islam and new media.
Ads
Blogroll
1- Islam
2- Sudanese News
3- Friends of Sudan
4- Sudanese Bloggers
5- Sudanese Stuff
6- Fun Reads
7- Middle East Blogs
8- Blogs on Africa
9- Muslims: Apostates & Converts
The Vast Spectrum
Categories
Recently Written
Archives

Hello!

Welcome to the blogging spot of a full time Sudanese-born college student and a part-time multi genre music producing freak, aspiring entrepreneur and political junkie.

WARNING: I’m very sarcastic!
Email Me

sudanesethinker@yahoo DOT com
I Write for Global Voices
SocialRank: The Discovery Engine of the Blogosphere
I'm on Toot
Search
Just Practicing My Right

SUDANESE CONSTITUTION, PART TWO: BILL OF RIGHTS

Freedom of Expression and Media

39 (1) Every citizen shall have an unrestricted right to the freedom of expression, reception and dissemination of information, publication, and access to the press without prejudice to order, safety or public morals as determined by law.

(2) The State shall guarantee the freedom of the press and other media as shall be regulated by law in a democratic society.

(3) All media shall abide by professional ethics, shall refrain from inciting religious, ethnic, racial or cultural hatred and shall not agitate for violence or war.
Causes
I'm for Coexistance