It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ex President Jimmy Carter Says "Give Hamas A Chance"

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:09 AM
link   
It appears Ex-Predisent Jimmy Carter met with leaders of Hamas and said the U.S. should give them a chance. He also suggested that we dont cut off money supplies to palestinians but funnel it through 3rd party organizations like the U.N. He was told by Hamas they with to have a peaceful administration, but he also adds that what they say may be different then what they do. He believes that they will keep to their word should they come to a peace treaty.
www.cnn.com...



"If you sponsor an election or promote democracy and freedom around the world, then when people make their own decision about their leaders, I think that all the governments should recognize that administration and let them form their government," Carter said.

"If there are prohibitions -- like, for instance, in the United States, against giving any money to a government that is controlled by Hamas -- then the United States could channel the same amount of money to the Palestinian people through the United Nations, through the refugee fund, through UNICEF, things of that kind," he added.

Carter said "there's a good chance" that Hamas, which has operated a network of successful social and charitable organizations for Palestinians, could become a nonviolent organization.

"They told me they want to have a peaceful administration. They want to have a unity government, bring in Fatah members and independent members," Carter said. But he added that "what they say and what they do is two different matters."

However, Carter noted, Hamas has adhered to a cease-fire since August 2004, which "indicates what they might do in the future." He said Hamas is "highly disciplined" and capable of keeping any promise of nonviolence it might make.


i think its right for us to at least give them a chance to show they can be civil about these issues. using a third party to help the palestinian people is a good idea till the Hamas prove themselves. i think we must give them a chance if we wish to truely stand for democracy.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by grimreaper797]




posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:17 AM
link   
For decades Hamas has offered a ceasefire if Israel would only withdraw from the terroritories they occupied in the 1967 sneak attack.

Simply give back what you took.

Is that asking too much?

Israel is not a partner for peace becasue Israel has never even offered to give it all back.

In every case Israel always wanted more land.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:20 AM
link   
Shame on you, grimreaper. Shame, shame, shame.

Pres. Crater is simply saying that since we espouse democracy and since Hamas was freely elected we need to 'give them a chance' to turn away from violence. Your headline makes it sound like Pres. Carter endorses Hamas and its activities. How about "Ex. President Jimmy Carter says give Hamas a chance"?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:24 AM
link   
sorry title changed. i wasnt sure if there was a title character limit like most sites im on. i put pro figuring it would make title shorter.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:26 AM
link   

Your headline makes it sound like Pres. Carter endorses Hamas and its activities.


I read the thread and the title, and none of it sounds like what you are implying.

Maybe I missed it.

Could you provide a quote, and explain how you interpreted that?



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:29 AM
link   
ArchAngel... he changed the title after I posted my objection. It's all good now...



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:32 AM
link   
As for Jimmy Carter ... I guess he doesn't understand that
the United States Government made it ILLEGAL to deal with
Hamas and any other terrorist group. It would be ILLEGAL
to 'give Hamas a chance'.



Originally posted by ArchAngel
Simply give back what you took. .... Israel has never even
offered to give it all back. In every case Israel always wanted more land.


No. The Camp David talks by BIll Clinton had Israel giving the
'Palestinians' everything except not giving them all of Jerusalem.
The Palestinians wanted not only to get what they used to have
in Jeruslam, but to cross the Green Line and have it all.

The Muslims attacked Israel. Israel fought back. They
acquired land. If the Muslims hadn't attacked Israel
then Israel wouldn't have occupied the land.
They have only themselves to blame.

And again ... no ... Israel just gave up the Gaza .. which is
NOT Israel 'in every case' wanting more land. They gave
it away - which they shouldn't have done.




[edit on 2/2/2006 by FlyersFan]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:37 AM
link   
This title is much more appropriate.



I think we should give them a chance too, let them hang themselves.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:45 AM
link   
Taking in consideration that anybody that is not with US is against US and anybody that do not follow US believes for democracy and freedom are either a national security issue or a "Terrorist."

And taking in consideration that "The fight on Terror " is a Bush administration ideology.

I guess Hamas will never get a change when it comes to the mighty American will and the present administrations divine ideologies.

Perhaps Hamas will do better than expected and anyway they can always get help from their Brother in Arms, Syria and Saudi Arabia.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:49 AM
link   
The CFR seems to want the U.S. to continue funding the PA, so let's see if they really wield the power conspiracists say they do:



The Jewish Week

Henry Siegman, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, said the withdrawal of international aid could result in a “total collapse” of Palestinian society.

“The PA is totally bankrupt and can’t provide the most minimal services to the public and for salaries,” he said by phone from Paris.
...
Siegman warned that if the West terminated its assistance, the only recourse for Hamas would be to “turn to countries like Iran, and the consequence of that politically for the West is not desirable. ... That is the last thing everyone should want. The U.S. and the Europeans don’t want it, and that is why I believe they are likely to find a way within the next four to eight weeks of getting humanitarian aid there through third parties like NGOs [non-governmental organizations].”


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


However this guy whose name also pops up a lot in conspiracy circles seems to think otherwise:



The Jewish Week

On Tuesday, Javier Solana, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, was quoted as saying that once Hamas establishes a new government “it would be very difficult for the EU to continue funding the Palestinian Authority” if it did not renounce violence and recognize Israel.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It'll be interesting to see what happens.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 08:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

No. The Camp David talks by BIll Clinton had Israel giving the
'Palestinians' everything except not giving them all of Jerusalem.
The Palestinians wanted not only to get what they used to have
in Jeruslam, but to cross the Green Line and have it all.


This is simply not true.

In the offer the Israelies also gave them self an un-ending free lease on the land bordering Jordan, Sovereignty over Al Aqsa and the Dome of the Rock, and a veto in the Palestinian government.

Without a border with other Arab nations, and without the right to make your own laws Thats not liberty.

And everyone knows the Muslims will not ever give away Al Aqsa.

As I said Israel has not ever offered to give back everything they took.

The Camp David Accords were attempted robbery.


The Muslims attacked Israel. Israel fought back. They
acquired land.


Again this is untrue.

The 1967 war began when Israel invaded in a sneak attack.

In a dawn raid they bombed the Arab airforces as they sat on the ground.

You must be confusing that with the 1973 war where the Arabs launched a sneak attack to liberate the people being denied freedom, and the land Israel took.


And again ... no ... Israel just gave up the Gaza ..


Again, this simply is not true.

Israel has not given it up, they simply pulled back.

Israel has reserved the right to re-occupy, and has not given up their claims no matter that there is no legitimacy in them.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:19 AM
link   


The 1967 war began when Israel invaded in a sneak attack.


Come on now... are you seriously implying that? Your making it sound like the poor Egyptians were attacked unprovoked.

Egypt was preparing to go to war against Israel with Jordan and Syria and they were being backed by Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Algeria. They were amassing tons of troops and equipment along the border of Israel. Egypt allied with Jordan and Jordan was moving tanks and troops to the border. On 27 May the President of Egypt, Abdel Nasser, declared: "Our basic objective will be the destruction of Israel. The Arab people want to fight."

A week later Israel decides to launch a pre-emtive strike against Egypt.. not a sneak attack. If Canada called for the US's destruction and started amassing troops along our border.. would we be expected to just WAIT until we were attacked? Come on.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:22 AM
link   
Has Carter gone mad?Well was already during his presidency, but now his stupidity is reaching record heigths. At least Arafat and Fatah recognized Israeli right for existence, only after that they were eglible for foreign aid. But Hamas not even bother to do something like this... This tolerance of terrorrism is already going too far IMO. It's disgusting that even people like Crrater cannot differentiate between good and evil



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by DerekJR321

Come on now... are you seriously implying that? Your making it sound like the poor Egyptians were attacked unprovoked.


You're

Yes, I am very serious.

It was an Israeli sneak attack.

There were reasons, but can you name one single sneak attack in world history where there were no reasons?

When you attack first, no matter the reasons, and you sneak when you do it that is a sneak attack.

I stand by my statement even if you don't like the spin.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by ArchAngel]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:38 AM
link   
Here we go again arguing over who has the "right" to the land. Ok ArchAngel is right in some aspects but I think he is failing to look at the bigger picture of why the war occured in 1967. Here are the events listed at en.wikipedia.org...

1. The 1956 Suez War represented for Egypt a military defeat, but a political victory. Heavy diplomatic pressure forced Israel to withdraw its military from the Sinai Peninsula and the Gaza Strip. After the 1956 war, Egypt agreed to the stationing of a UN peacekeeping force in the Sinai, UNEF (United Nations Emergency Force), to keep that border region demilitarized, and prevent guerrillas from crossing the border into Israel.

2. Syria began sponsoring guerilla raids into Israel in the early 60's as part of its "people's war of liberation", designed to deflect domestic opposition to the Baath Party. Israel and Syria also had an ongoing dispute about water and territorial rights along their 1949 cease-fire line. On April 7, 1967, a minor border incident escalated into a full-scale aerial battle over the Golan Heights, resulting in the loss of six Syrian MiG-21s to Israeli Air Force (IAF) Dassault Mirage III, and the latter's flight over Damascus. Other border incidents in which Israel and Syria exchanged artillery, tank and aircraft fire increased the tensions along this front.

3. On 18 May, 1967, Egypt formally requested the withdrawal of UNEF from Sinai. UN Secretary-General U Thant complied, thus removing the international buffer which had existed along the Egyptian-Israeli border since 1957. Egyptian president Gamal Abdel Nasser then began the re-militarization of the Sinai, and concentrated tanks and troops on the border with Israel.

4. On 23 May, Egypt closed the Straits of Tiran to all Israel-bound ships, thus blockading the Israeli port of Eilat at the northern end of the Gulf of Aqaba. Israel viewed the closure of the straits with alarm and demanded the US and UK to open the straits as they guaranteed they would in 1957. Harold Wilson's proposal of an international maritime force to quell the crisis was adopted by US President Johnson, but received little international support. The Israeli cabinet met on 23 May and decided to launch a pre-emptive strike if the Straits of Tiran were not re-opened by 25 May, later agreeing to a delay of another two weeks at US request.

5. On May 30, Jordan signed a mutual defense treaty with Egypt, thereby joining the military alliance already in place between Egypt and Syria. Jordanian forces were placed under the command of Egyptian General Abdul Munim Riad. This put Arab forces just 17 kilometers from Israel's coast, a jump-off point from which a well co-ordinated tank assault would likely cut Israel in two within half an hour. Such a coordinated attack from the West Bank was always viewed by the Israeli leadership as a threat to Israel's existence.

There you have it the 6 day war that supposedly just "Israel doing a sneak attack". These generalizations of events that occured and so forth are insane and do nothing but cause hatred and mud slinging. Please stop generalizing major world events with a couple broad sweeping generalization terms. Give the story of what exactly occured since people don't seem to read much from articles but only what is posted.

[edit on 2-2-2006 by Cephas]



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Why does this sound like the same old crap, just another thread?
Oh, yeah, because it always boils down to the same crap.
ArchAngel, you know as well as I do that the Islamic Resistance Movement lies, and will continue to attack Israel until there is no more Israel. Or, more to truth, there is no more Hamas. You know as well as I that the pre-'67 lines are not proper, anyway, but Israeli land taken earlier, and that the disputed territories are land that was taken because of self defense.
Try and give it a rest.

As far as Jimmy Carter, he should think about sticking to three things he is good at; building houses, running a peanut farm and being one of the original members of the Trilateralist Commission. His policies, everywhere from domestic to foreign, were absolutely disasterous for the U.S., so I don't really feel him to be an awesome councillor in this situation.
If he is all that great a guy, what he might want to consider doing is talking the Islamic Resistance Movement into renouncing violence, stating that Israel has the rigfht to exist, and stop making incredibly over-the-top preconditions before agreeing to peace talks. Such moronic demands are supposed to be saved for the talks.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:44 AM
link   
Cephas do not fall into ArchAngel's trap of debate derailment. He does this in every thread he feels he can both derail and warp fact at the same time.
One way or another, he will stop this. Do not get caught in the net.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:47 AM
link   


When you attack first, no matter the reasons, and you sneak when you do it that is a sneak attack


What do you mean when you sneak? Ok so then I guess we made a sneak attack on Iraq the first time around when we under cover of night sent our Apache's and F117's in to take out their radar and early warning systems.

There is a huge difference between a sneak attack and a pre-emptive strike. A sneak attack, for example would be if we were fighting in Iraq and then suddenly just started shelling Pakistan or some other neighbor without provokation.

As far as Hamas.. give em enough rope to hang themselves. Their people elected them. Isn't that the whole point of democracy? Or is it now selective democracy we're seeking.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:48 AM
link   
Thanks for the tip. I'm new here so I'll take heed of what you say. Pretty hard to argue with those facts posted though.



posted on Feb, 2 2006 @ 09:54 AM
link   

There is a huge difference between a sneak attack and a pre-emptive strike.


No.

The two are not mutually exclusive.

The 1967 Israeli sneak attack was an agressive action as shown by their continued occupation of land for two generations.

PLEASE show the historical precedant where a sneak attack was launched, land was taken, the people were denied citizenship, and it was all accepted as legitimate.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join