-Laelth

I agree with the former president.

It tickles me to see DUers scorning the Palestinians for electing Hamas when, at the same time in 2006, Bush & Cheney were our government.

Israel and its supporters might think it would be real neato if Hamas was no longer on the scene. If that were to happen, it would probably result in an even more radical group taking their place.

So why even mention it?

Know what else can't be wished away? The last 70 years. If Carter wishes to accept Hamas despite the racist, Islamist elements of its actions and charter itself, then he has not got much of a leg to stand on regarding when discussing 'occupied territories' or 'right of return.'

The Palestinians fought wars (in conjunction with other Arab states) against Israel in the 1940's and then again in 1967. They chose poorly, and they lost badly. Yet some here on DU post that map of shrinking Palestinian territory completely devoid of historical context.

I actually agree with Carter that Hamas deserves recognition as a political force in Palestine. That's reality, and there is no point in denying it. But Hamas cannot come to the table nursing forty to seventy year old grievances, hoping that negotiations can somehow erase the bad consequences of poor, aggressive choices made by Palestinians back then.The reality is that Israel can, should, and probably will keep much of the territory they have occupied since 1967.

-app

You are blaming the Palestinians for the Palestinian Nakba. Zionist terrorist expel the Palestinians from historic Palestine. Your claims don't even make any sense. Israel also started the 1967 war of expansion. You are so wrong. Israel refuses to recognize the Palestinians' right to exist, and they were mostly there first.

Before the Nakba, Palestinians allied themselves with Nazis. Hitler lost, which I view as a very good turn of events. Again, the Palestinians chose poorly in the 1940's:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/muftihit.html

and

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini

Your assertion that the Six Day War in 1967 was started by Israel as a 'war of expansion' is laughably and verifiably false. The PLO had been attacking Israel frequently prior to the beginning of that war.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

-app

The Zionists fought the British.

The Zionists expelled the natives. That is evil.

Israel claims their attack against Egypt in 1967 was preemptive. No, it was an unprovoked war. Israel then seized land from its neighbors and quickly started building "settlements", including in Egypt. It was part of the Zionists' dream of creating a Greater Israel.

Thousands of Palestinians fought on the side of the British during World War II. Though the Mufti clearly did support Hitler as did many nationalist leaders throughout the former colonial world, it would be completely anti-historic to say the Palestinians supported the Nazis. Following that logic the leadership of the Stern Gang and the Irgun who were attacking the British in Palestine while Britain was in a state of war against Nazi Germany would make the Zionist movement partially responsible for the holocaust. But, I would not go that far.

Regarding Nazi Germany support for the Zionist project in Palestine -

This from the Simon Wiesenthal Center - hardly a pro-Palestinian source

in clear, logical and utterly correct terms. I wonder if he ever gets tired of being so right so often.

and no one in M$Greedia newwork or cable TV is brave enough to engage him on the subject.

We should all wonder why.

Perhaps you should be brave enough to consider all of President Carter's views (such as the quote from him in my reply) and not just the ones you are predisposed to agreeing with.

is not a fair summary of Carter's views. He's written a whole book comparing Israel to apartheid South Africa.

Look at what the title of the book is - and note his repeated comments indicating that he was not talking about anything that was going on inside Israel itself.

The single sentence, with the full context, may help illuminate that:

Most of the people that seem to be critical have not read the book, or they haven’t referred to anything inside Palestine, and the book is not written about Israel at all. I know that Israel is a wonderful democracy with equal treatment of all citizens whether Arab or Jew. And so I very carefully avoided talking about anything inside Israel. The book is about Palestine and what’s going on inside the occupied territories….

From NPR in NYC - Leonard Lopate show.

I've read the book, and Carter is NOT accusing Norway of oppressing the Palestinians!

Another quote:

Well, he [Dershowitz] has to go to the first word in the title, which is "Palestine," not "Israel." He should go to the second word in the title, which is "Peace." And then the last two words [are] "Not Apartheid." I never have alleged in the book or otherwise that Israel, as a nation, was guilty of apartheid.

not the US, not Britain and not Israel.

If so, does that impact his moral authority on this subject?

Given Hamas' stated commitment to the destruction of Israel, it appears they voted for a war. The fact that they have lost badly is a reflection on the wisdom of the choice they made.

in a very real sense, Israel and the US created it.
From those far out radicals at the Wall St. Journal . .
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB123275572295011847

Blowback from an ill-conceived divide-and-conquer strategy.

But Israel doesn't really seem too interested in that.

Nor can it be said for certain the Palestine Authority heirs of Fatah are interested in such, either.

"Everybody wants to go to Heaven --- nobody wants to die."

is to a blog in the Atlanta Journal Constitution where Carter's and Robinson's (controversial) political positions are debated. The source article is here and was under discussion in another DU thread.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025340576

Next will be discussions on where they can go to live.

Thanks for the thread, Little Star.