In today’s Washington Post, former U.S. President Jimmy Carter gives his take on the current fighting in Gaza. Of course, it can all be summarized as follows: had everyone only listened to me when I was in the Middle East earlier this year, the war would have never taken place. And, consistent with his previous analyses on all things Middle Eastern, the one party that particularly deserves reprobation for failing to heed Carter’s sage advice is—you guessed it—Hamas.
Yeah, right:
…After extended discussions with those from Gaza, these Hamas leaders also agreed to accept any peace agreement that might be negotiated between the Israelis and Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, who also heads the PLO, provided it was approved by a majority vote of Palestinians in a referendum or by an elected unity government.
Since we were only observers, and not negotiators, we relayed this information to the Egyptians, and they pursued the cease-fire proposal. After about a month, the Egyptians and Hamas informed us that all military action by both sides and all rocket firing would stop on June 19, for a period of six months, and that humanitarian supplies would be restored to the normal level that had existed before Israel’s withdrawal in 2005 (about 700 trucks daily).
We were unable to confirm this in Jerusalem because of Israel’s unwillingness to admit to any negotiations with Hamas, but rocket firing was soon stopped and there was an increase in supplies of food, water, medicine and fuel. Yet the increase was to an average of about 20 percent of normal levels. And this fragile truce was partially broken on Nov. 4, when Israel launched an attack in Gaza to destroy a defensive tunnel being dug by Hamas inside the wall that encloses Gaza. …
What’s more disturbing: Carter’s contention that Hamas would accept “any” peace agreement negotiated between Israel and Mahmoud Abbas, or his apparent belief that Hamas was building a harmless “defensive” tunnel in Gaza? Either way, Jimmy’s musings make you wonder whether he got the memo—or, in this case, the many memos on Hamas’s historic refusal to recognize Israel and use of tunnels for transporting offensive weapons. Indeed, you almost forget that Carter was once U.S. President and still runs a policy center—so not only does he get the memos, but he probably also gets a full daily news briefing!
All of this is to say, for the umpteenth time, that Jimmy Carter’s ability to embarrass is a constant source of personal amazement.
AG: Sadly, as long as you have someone to blame, you can keep up this fascade. There are not any real solutions except to sound like you might have some.
As long as one party wants the total distruction of the other, there will not be any lasting “peace.”
Bibi Netanyahu might be a partner for peace on Alpha Centauri, but on this planet?
#2. Your logic escapes me. You see Mr. Netanyahu as an impediment to peace? As an impediment to the “peace” of capitulation, perhaps, or to the Chamberlainesque “peace” that serves as a provocation. Otherwise, I’d say Mr. Netanyahu is a much better bet for peace-making, if and when the Arabs ever want it, than some sentimentalist peddling “hope” and “trust.”
Evict the UN. Such a waste of prime real estate.
#2 “Bibi Netanyahu might be a partner for peace on Alpha Centauri, but on this planet?”
I disagree, Grumpy. He’s a partner for peace in the same way Patton was a partner for peace in Europe.
Better yet, General Curtis LeMay…”If you kill enough of them, they stop fighting.”
Steven from Indiana
The US can make peace with al qaeda that is fair, equitable, sustainable, viable, impartial, appropriate, durable, fully respected, comprehensive, just, and lasting. Since I can write it they can do it. It’s not so hard.
Obama fancies himself a bold thinker, a man not trapped by old paradigms and obsessions.
And yet here he is, wasting manpower and hours(flight fuel-think of how often this yutz George Mitchell will be in the area), aid money, and diplomatic capital trying to find a quick solution to things.
Well, the first impulse is to call them idiots.
After a moment or two, you realize they are not idiots, and call them appeasers (of the arab oil beast).
After a more prolonged reflection, you realize that what these people are saying is that Israel must allow the point of the arab spear, which is the ‘Palestinians’, into its heart, and that they therefore prefer to see Israel dead and gone.
What does that make them?
“There’s fair, equitable, sustainable, viable, impartial, and appropriate.”
Hey!!! That describes just be about EVERY LAST LIBERAL POLICY IN EXISTENCE!!! It’s in caps, but you know it’s true!!!
Yeah, I’m not in a particular intellectual mood today. Everything that is going on in the Obama Administration just seems so rigoddamndiculous. A “Middle East Dream Team”? Uh, hello??? Bailouts for irresponsible institutions and consumers?? An expansion of the social welfare state after documentation that it has failed?? $900 MILLION IN AID TO GAZA??? WTF???!!!!
Mideast Peace – an oxymoron.
Show me a recent war that – where two sides were diametrically opposed – talk or negotiations ever solved the problem in the long term.
talk and negotiations–and all the pretty words of “Banky” Moon–are just code for “Death to Israel.”
if there were any true “honest brokers” in the Middle East, their #1 requirement would be to have Hamas remove the “wiping Israel off the face of the earth” language from their Charter. instead, the world caves to and capers before our coming Arab overlords, hoping to curry their favor.
I hope my Jewish brothers and sisters who voted for Obama are real happy with their choice right now.