Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Carter's Confusion

From the JP comes this gem:

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.


Why am I not surprised? Chalk this up to another Jimmy Carter moment that defies reason.

For all of you that see nothing wrong with his stance, consider this:

No one made Hamas extract Fatah from Gaza by the use of illegal force. They chose their own path. Now they must be dealt with, however President Abbas chooses to do so. And it is the right of the EU and the US to choose whom it will support and whom it will not. Mr Carter had no trouble choosing to support the Sandinistas (by withholding support from Somoza), boycotting the 1980 Olympics due to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and supporting the Shah over the radical elements that were to become the power structure in Modern-day Iran, all because he made a value judgment.

Besides that, it makes good military and political sense to isolate Hamas, because they are not legitimate. When they behave as they have done over the last couple of weeks, they have lost their claim to legitimacy. This would be like the Democrats or the Republicans running out the other, by force. Isolation will now become Hamas' worse enemy, which is something they should have considered before they took their illegal actions.


But, Mr. Carter and I have a different opinion here. He says that no matter what, both sides should be treated equally. That means Hamas can do whatever they want, right or wrong, and expect to receive the same benefit of a doubt as the side that did NOT kick the other out. Just label Mr. Carter the Dr. Spock of politics, I guess.

17 comments:

ms. miami said...

las- the biggest problem here is that bush claims to support democracy, yet wants to push out a party that has been elected.

i know that the u.s. (& europe) see 'democracy' going hand in hand with somewhat liberal, western values, but the last fifty years have been a clear indicator that this assumption is mistaken.

granted, i'm no fan of hamas, but western leaders can't force non-western societies to fill a pre-constructed mold.

Greg said...

Supporting deomocracy doesn't mean you have to support genocidal islamic supremacists just because the people elected them. I mean, will the French now support GWB b/c we elected him twice? C'mon.

And I think everyone realizes that one election doesn't make a democracy. Democracy that doesn't protect minority rights, allow dissent, or answer to an independent judiciary is completely indistinguishable from totalitarianism. This is what the Pali's gave themselves in Gaza.

Carter - he's completely insane. He's joined the enemy. He was among the worst presidents ever, but he is unquestionably the worst ex-president of all time. Hands down.

Has Carter not heard that Hamas has been killing people in the streets, throwing rivals off of buildings, turning government offices into mosques? There are plenty of gruesome videos on the web for all to see. Has Carter not heard that Hamas refuses to ever make peace with Israel? What a clown.

And the irony in it all is that Palestinians are fleeing where? To Israel where they will be protected. Pardon me if I snicker uncontrollably for the foreseeable future.

So, anyway, the American left supports a genocidal group of islamists who want to destroy Israel and hate America. One more piece of evidence showing the leftist-islamist convergence.

Greg said...

Hey, what's the over-under on how long it'll take Carter to sign on to the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

ms. miami said...

greg- there is a difference between support and acknowledging an election.

the french have never claimed that bush is "illegitimate" or refused to acknowledge him as an elected leader.

i agree that there's no reason to support groups that behave violently (not that fatah's hands are always clean, yet we support them).

however, it's just not logical to support the idea of peoples' right to vote....but only if they vote for your pre-appoved candidates.

Greg said...

Wrong, as usual, miss miami. We aren't required to recognize genocidal a-holes just because they won an election. Eg., the Nazis in 1932 - legitmately elected. Give me an unelected monarchy that respects and enforces minority rights over a racist totalitarian elected regime anyday. Seriously - is this even debatable?

Also, plenty of your insane leftist friends (including the French ones) constantly say Bush stole 2 elections and is illegitimate. I hear it at least once a day.

In conclusion, I support people's right to vote, and their right to suffer the consequences, like international isolation and generally misery.

You managed to get one thing right: Fatah is also a terrorist organization, and we shouldn't support them either. We do so b/c they are "moderates" (read, "moderately genocidal").

ms. miami said...

is this even debatable?

greg- aren't we debating?

We aren't required to recognize genocidal a-holes just because they won an election.

i never said that we were required, just pointing out the logical inconsistencies.

(btw- everyone did acknowledge hitler and by officially declaring war, you acknowlegde that he is the leader of the country (although you're going to bomb the crap out of him)).

plenty of your insane leftist friends

how did you know that my friends are crazy? are you hanging out with them behind my back?

regarding the last two elections, i don't think that anyone is arguing that there were clear problems. however, once we (some more grudgingly than others) inaugurated bush, other leaders acknowledged him as our head of state.

A.C. McCloud said...

Based on this and his former comments a logical conclusion is that Jimmah wants a united Palestinian front against the evil Zionists and Americans. Or that he's still fighting for his legacy here.

I hate to make it sound so callous, because once upon a time I voted for the man and although realizing later he wasn't a good president, I thought he was one of the best ex-presidents we've had due to his low visibility and work with HFH. What he's doing now is off the charts unhelpful.

ms. miami said...

a.c.- personally, i see his views as having less to do with supporting one or another side, but simply supporting a people's right to work out their own future (within limits, however, with regards to bloody and spreadable conflicts).

this seems to have been his motiviation regarding central american politics, including the panama canal.

Greg said...

how did you know that my friends are crazy? are you hanging out with them behind my back?

No need for subterfuge. All leftists are insane. :)

A.C. McCloud said...

a.c.- personally, i see his views as having less to do with supporting one or another side, but simply supporting a people's right to work out their own future (within limits, however, with regards to bloody and spreadable conflicts).

I think it is incumbent upon us to choose the side that acts responsibly when it comes to our funding and support, MsM. It's the carrot/stick everyone wants us to use with Iran, for example.

What Carter is asking us to do is look the other way and pretend bad behavior isn't a factor if we all just give peace a chance. In other words, he lives in utopia, not reality.

ms. miami said...

a.c.- getting back to palestine, i think that the 'reality' is that the party backed by the u.s. is corrupt and not meeting the needs of the people, hence the favorable vote for hamas.

in this particular case, i think that he is requesting that we take their voice into consideration.

LASunsett said...

MsM,

//granted, i'm no fan of hamas, but western leaders can't force non-western societies to fill a pre-constructed mold.//

You may be right, I think the jury is out on this. But I look at it from the view that you cannot reward bad behavior. There's nothing that says you cannot pick the side that is less radical than the other.

I don't think it's prudent to overlook the fact that Hamas would have had more of a claim of legitmacy, had they not taken part in this operation. Once they did it though, once they committed themselves to illegitimate actions, I feel they lost any claim they ever had (as weak, and feeble, as it may have been).

The EU and US do not have to give anything to anyone (support, money, whatever...). They don't owe anything, to anyone. Because of this, I also think that both entities have the sovereign right to withhold from those they deem unfit for aid, and to give to those they deem fit.

In short, I think Carter is living in a theoretical world, and not a realistic one. In a perfect world, you wouldn't want to cut out Hamas. But also in a perfect world, you wouldn't need to.

Greg said...

Cox & Forkum have a helpful illustration that demonstrates the logic behind supporting Fatah over Hamas.

http://tinyurl.com/yp9ge9

A.C. McCloud said...

a.c.- getting back to palestine, i think that the 'reality' is that the party backed by the u.s. is corrupt and not meeting the needs of the people, hence the favorable vote for hamas.

I doubt that's why the people voted for Hamas. In my view it was because they stood the best hope of eradicating the Israelis, as noted in the Hamas charter. Such would open up many opportunities for the people.

in this particular case, i think that he is requesting that we take their voice into consideration.

I think they are making their voice loud and clear, and it echoes their long-held beliefs (the ones they teach their kids from an early age).

Nobody faults Carter for wanting peace. But peace doesn't come through capitulation. As mentioned, think carrot and stick here.

ms. miami said...

a.c.- we'll have to agree to disagree.

i prefer a much more nuanced view of any society since societies by nature are never monolithic.

Mustang said...

I would like to make two observations here. Just two.

1. We wanted the Palestinians to pursue democracy, and they did that when they elected a terrorist government. The lesson here is "be careful what you ask for, you might get it." The number one problem with our foreign policy is that it is devised and executed by idiots -- who somehow think that democracy in the Middle East, or Asia, or even in Western Europe, is based upon the cultural norms in our own country. You know what? It's embarrassing.

2. If our State Department had a set of balls, they'd exile Carter to Palestine; I'm sure he'd do well pontificating over the sound of automatic rifle fires and RPG explosions.

Mustang said...

I think about how many Americans are living from one payday to another, and it warms the cockles of my heart to think that Mrs. Arafat is living the life of Riley from the billion or so dollars her husband received from Bill Clinton. Damn politicians.