Carter: Hamas will accept Israel

...then we're all set to go. Another problem solved. Next: World hunger.

that was easy...

:sarcasm: as though I needed it.

the key part that you left out is the fact that Hamas still refuses to recognize Israel and says any future state on the west bank and gaza as transitional.

but we need to wait and see whether this represents (a) Carter being over-optimistic; (b) someone telling Carter what they thought he would like to hear; (c) the genuine attitude of some members of Hamas, who would be shot as 'traitors' by some other members of Hamas if they ever tried to put it into practice; or (d) a real overall change in attitude.

What happened to Hamas's goal of taking back all of "greater Palestine" and ridding the middle east of every Jew?

Now they want to be neighborly to Israel?

Sounds fishy to me.

. . where Carter said that he had great news . . and then introduces Meshal - the head of Hamas in Gaza - who tells us in his own words that Hamas has had an epiphany and is changing its Charter and now wants to recognize Israel. In fact why is Carter saying this at all if it's Hamas that has actually changed its position?

. .

A Hamas official in the Gaza Strip also referred to a series of preconditions raised by the Islamist group for assenting to a deal with Israel.

Sami Abu Zuhri said Palestinian refugees living in exile must be included in the voting - a condition that could complicate approval of a deal.

Abu Zuhri also noted that Hamas, which refuses to recognize Israel, would regard any future Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, territories Israel captured in the 1967 Six Day War, as "transitional".

Speaking later to reporters, Carter said Hamas leaders whom he met "didn't say anything about transitional". (I think this is the punch line.)

Unlike Abbas, who sought a Palestinian state side-by-side with Israel, Abu Zuhri said Hamas's outstanding position not to recognize Israel's right to exist remained unchanged despite of its acceptence of a state in 1967 borders. (Oh OK, until we can destroy your state we'll admit it exists - as long as you end the occupation and withdraw to where the borders were before we attacked you last time.)

. .

Apparently, Meshal sees Carter as quite the useful idiot. He and his buds are probably laughing hysterically right now reading the Haaretz story.

Hamas should prefer the Dems to win in 2008. The Neocon plan has been to establish permanent American military presence in the Middle East. Obama & Clinton plan to pull out. If Carter ends around this administration and gains some ground, Americans might wake up to find out that diplomacy works, lending even stronger Dem support.

Our leaving would seem to be in Hamas' interests.

Additionally, many Israeli's are disturbed by their government's bellicose stance; there are very mixed feelings there. Israel can take care of itself militarily (funded in part by the US), and doesn't need the added threat of "massive retaliation" as referred to by HRC.

But, as has been pointed out, will Hamas deal in good faith?

You mean like getting Hamas to change its Charter and policy toward Israel? Was that a pig with wings that just flew past my window?

About that permanent military presence in the ME. On 911 almost 4000 American civilians were killed in a terrorist attack that was carried out by al Queada. Al Queda has bases and training camps in Afhganistan, Pakistan and Iraq and certainly has a presence in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia the WB and Gaza - and probably several other ME states. As long as al Queda is there I can't imagine any American president removing our military presence from the region. Call it a permanent presence if you like.

If Obama or Clinton take us out of Iraq completely they will be turning Iraq over to civil war and making it into the largest al Queada base in the ME. If we suffer even one terrorist attack on American soil after that happens - they will have destroyed liberalism in America for generations. "Weak liberals wanting to sing Kumbaya with bloodthirsty Islamist terrorists" - will be the conservative rallying cry and since that meme already exists in many voters' minds, even many Dems' minds - it will be accepted pretty much without question by a majority of voters for the next several election cycles.

You will see the new improved, uncorrupt, principled, non-perverted batch of conservative politicians taking the stage to "save us all from the unspeakable terror". And voters will want to believe them.

I can't imagine Obama or Clinton actually letting that happen, despite what they say. They both have to swear to pull all of our troops out of Iraq almost immediately to compete successfully for the Dem ticket. Yet, if that happens, it will make us more vulnerable to attack, will embolden al Queada operatives and will greatly enhance al Queada's reputation in the Islamic world. This is a trap that McCain will have either one of them ensnared in after the Dem convention. He could well win against either one of our candidates by using that - and several other weaknesses that both our candidates have - to his advantage. It's turning into a very interesting election.

Afhganistan, Pakistan and Iraq and certainly has a presence in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia the WB and Gaza - and probably several other ME states. As long as al Queda is there I can't imagine any American president removing our military presence from the region. Call it a permanent presence if you like.

AQ has training camps in the West Bank ? Do tell, and the Israeli government allows this to go on? They must be allowing the bases because other wise Israel has the capability to destroy them. Unless you have access to "intelligence" they do not, in which case perhaps you could share.

But thank or the "advocacy moment", it is brave that you come forword with your support for an on going American military presence in the ME and the forever war that goes along with that.

I said " . . a presence in Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Saudi Arabia the WB and Gaza - and probably several other ME states."

I did not say they had training camps there.

however the same still applies, the AQ-Palestinian connection has been trotted out whenever talk of peace making the slightest bit of headway or distraction for some other reason is needed. Always without solid proof.

" . . the WB and Gaza" entirely from my comment if you wish - but my point still stands.

I don't see what Hamas has changed in their standing offer. This looks like the exact same deal they've been offering for years.

oh well, hope springs eternal.

right of return for 4.5 million Palestinian refugees.

Do you think Israel will accept those terms?

Only if you think Israel is suicidal, which they aren't.

I had hopes yesterday about the Carter visit... but a week or so ago I thought it a bad idea and was generally lambasted.

No peace yet :( And even though Hamas hasn't changed its stance this just makes it appear as though Israel is balking at their "overture" of peace.

Pfah. "We still want you all to die, but let us catch our breath and reload please."

Right.