Stick a Fork In Jimmy Carter

[Ziggurat]

Um... Hamas was democratically elected. It was an election that both Israel and Fatah tried to delay, but the US was certain that democracy would cure everything. Hamas may claim to have God's backing (as does George Bush) but that does not make Palestine a theocracy.

No, but enforcing strict religious behavioral guidelines and attacking religious minorities does rather make Hamas a theocracy. Which was my point, and which you failed to address in any fashion.

And I don't know anyone thought elections would cure everything. I certainly didn't. But what I did think was that elections would clarify things. And they have.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Am I part of that crowd? Pardon me for saying this, but an american mainstream politician suggesting we should fund Hamas equally with Fatah is retarded. Not only does it make no sense politically, but it can only hurt the democrat image.

I'm glad to know I am a member of the pro-Israel cabal on this forum though. Webfusion forgot to send me a membership card.

You are so right, we should not encourage democracy in the middle east, but conflict and civil war. That has been our real policy in Iraq after all, and that is working beautifully.

 

[BPSCG]

You are so right, we should not encourage democracy in the middle east, but conflict and civil war.

Sarcasm noted and acknowledged. Now explain how sending money to Fatah and Hamas encourages democracy and discourages conflict and civil war.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sarcasm noted and acknowledged. Now explain how sending money to Fatah and Hamas encourages democracy and discourages conflict and civil war.

Please explain to me why humanitarian aid, and the odd situation of having a foreign nation collect your taxes and then blocking the distribution of the taxes should depend on which party wins an election?

That would be great in the US, "Sorry the Democrats won the election you all still have to pay your taxes, but Canada is going to keep the money"

The goal here is clearly to limit democracy to certain parties.

 

[Just thinking]

No. It makes it a religious party. That religious party can still be voted out as long as democracy holds.

Can the people they kill still vote in the next election?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

And while Hamas is not the wisest group in the world, neither is the US.

Dord this mean you view the two as about the same, then?

If not, why equate them this way?


ETA:

I mean, honestly:

"Stalin was not the nicest man in the world, and neither is Dancing David."

"The KKK are not the most tolerant people in the world, and neither are Dancing David's friends."

"Paris Hilton is not the most refined person in the world, and neither is Dancing David."

 

[a_unique_person]

600,000 dead and counting in Iraq is not something it ignore.

 

[Tricky]

No, but enforcing strict religious behavioral guidelines and attacking religious minorities does rather make Hamas a theocracy. Which was my point, and which you failed to address in any fashion.

I'm merely pointing out to you that Hamas is not a country, therefore it cannot be a theocracy. You could say that Palestine is currently under a theocratic government, but that would be incorrect too. They share power with Fatah, a secular party.

And I don't know anyone thought elections would cure everything. I certainly didn't. But what I did think was that elections would clarify things. And they have.

Both Israel and Abbas were opposed to elections at this time precisely because they suspected Hamas would win. Being pragmatic, I tend to agree that keeping a party that supports terrorism out of power was more important than the excercise of democracy in this case. Yeah, things are clarified. Big woop. Things are much worse than before the election.

But it is a mistake to think that everyone in Gaza is a terrorist or a member of Hamas. Most of the middle class has already fled. Many of the remaining poor are trying to get out. Right now, Israel is helping to keep them between Scylla and Charibdis.

Hundreds of terrified Gazans fleeing Hamas rule were trapped at a squalid crossing with Israel on Tuesday, hoping for permission to pass through Israeli territory to sanctuary in the West Bank.

Fearing death or persecution, Gazans began flocking to the Erez passage after Hamas militants wrested control of the coastal strip late last week. Israel, which has no interest in letting masses of Gazans pass through its territory and possibly destabilize the quieter West Bank, has refused to let most of them in, saying their lives were not in danger.
...
About 600 people were holed up in the long, concrete tunnel that leads to the Israeli side of the crossing. About 100 people belonged to Fatah security forces, but the rest were civilians, seeking a better life in the West Bank, which is separated from Gaza by Israel.

 

[Ziggurat]

Please explain to me why humanitarian aid, and the odd situation of having a foreign nation collect your taxes and then blocking the distribution of the taxes should depend on which party wins an election?

Terrorists don't stop being terrorists simply because they win elections. They only stop being terrorists if they stop engaging in terrorism. Which Hamas hasn't done. The fact that people apparently voted for these killers doesn't magically make them respectable.

The goal here is clearly to limit democracy to certain parties.

Uh, NO. The goal is to hold groups accountable for their actions. If Hamas wants money, all they needed to do is renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. They didn't. So why on earth should we give them any money? What kind of perversity is it to insist that we must aid our enemies regardless of their hostility towards us, our allies, and our values?

 

[BPSCG]

Now explain how sending money to Fatah and Hamas encourages democracy and discourages conflict and civil war.

Please explain to me why humanitarian aid, and the odd situation of having a foreign nation collect your taxes and then blocking the distribution of the taxes should depend on which party wins an election?

Sorry, that's not how it works. Here's how it works:

1. I ask you a question.
2. You answer my question,
3. You ask me a question, if you like.
4. I answer your question
5. Repeat 1-4 until one or the other decides there's nothing more to discuss.

You seem to think the rules are:

1. I ask a question.
2. You ignore it and ask your own question.
3. I answer your question.

So, you answer my question first. When you answer it, I will then answer your question. That's how it works.

I think that's going to be my policy from now on: If I ask you (or anyone else, for that matter) a question, you may not ask me a question and try to fob it off on me as a reply, and expect an answer. Here's my question again:

Now explain how sending money to Fatah and Hamas encourages democracy and discourages conflict and civil war.

 

[BPSCG]

"Paris Hilton is not the most refined person in the world..."

Thou liest, thou shag-eared villain!

 

[ponderingturtle]

Terrorists don't stop being terrorists simply because they win elections. They only stop being terrorists if they stop engaging in terrorism. Which Hamas hasn't done. The fact that people apparently voted for these killers doesn't magically make them respectable.

It does in Iraq, why shouldn't it work that way everywhere.

Uh, NO. The goal is to hold groups accountable for their actions. If Hamas wants money, all they needed to do is renounce terrorism and recognize Israel's right to exist. They didn't. So why on earth should we give them any money? What kind of perversity is it to insist that we must aid our enemies regardless of their hostility towards us, our allies, and our values?

Then we shouldn't spout BS about trying to bring democracy to the middle east. We don't want democracy unless the right people win. Remember Saddam was executed for all these horrible actions he committed when he was our best buddy, and Rummy and Chenney where working with him.

 

[Darth Rotor]

600,000 dead and counting in Iraq is not something it ignore.

"Something it ignore" didn't parse. Not sure what you meant.

Cry 'havoc!' and let slip the dogs of war.

I heard on the radio this morning that another truck/car bomb in Baghdad blew up a Shia shrine, about 87 dead so far, body counting continues, and there was a report of a retaliation against a Sunni mosque.

There's no squabble like a family squabble.

The vicious cycle of a civil war has brought chaos, not freedom, to central Iraq. Operation Iraqi Chaos is right on track. Operation Kurdish Freedom is doing well enough. The only problem is: why are we still involved?

I hear on NPR this AM that President Bush stated that US involvement in Iraq will "be necessary" for as long as 50 years.

Uh, nope.

You could say that Palestine is currently under a theocratic government, but that would be incorrect too. They share power with Fatah, a secular party.

Not a lot of evidence of "sharing" lately, more like fighting over who gets the whole sand box.

DR

 

[ponderingturtle]

Sorry, that's not how it works. Here's how it works:

Maintaining the status quo helps reduce violence, I really thought that was obvious. Clearly preventing a government from paying any of its civil servants because you don't like the results of an election is the truest form of Democracy.

 

[BPSCG]

Maintaining the status quo helps reduce violence, I really thought that was obvious. Clearly preventing a government from paying any of its civil servants because you don't like the results of an election is the truest form of Democracy.

Oh, Jesus Christ with a lug wrench, there's so much silliness in that statement that it should get some sort of prize.

Maintaining the status quo helps reduce violence,

1. The status quo in Gaza has been nonstop violence since about forever.
2. Okay, this is the third time I've had to link to the word fungibility today. Please, click on the link, read the definition, understand what it means. If Israel sends food and medical aid to Fatah and Hamas as our increasingly senile ex-president wants, that allows Fatah and Hamas to buy more weapons with the money they didn't have to spend on food and medicine. It's not complicated; why is this such a difficult concept for so many people to understand?
3. You seem to be of the opinion that the Golden Rule applies here, and also that when Israel's neighbor strikes them, they should turn the other cheek. News flash. Israelis are mostly Jewish, not Christian.

Clearly preventing a government from paying any of its civil servants because you don't like the results of an election is the truest form of Democracy.

Hamas is at war with Israel; if you don't believe me, ask Hamas. What obligation does Israel have to help shore up Hamas's finances? Do you think the US did anything to make sure Hitler was able to pay his ministers during WW II? Hamas can solve all its problems related to Israel by simply recognizing that Israel is a legitimate nation, and that it has a right to exist in peace. I think they'd be amazed how much their lives would improve if they simply did that.

 

[Ziggurat]

Then we shouldn't spout BS about trying to bring democracy to the middle east. We don't want democracy unless the right people win.

Wrong. We want democracy, because democracies are more likely to behave reasonably in the long run. But there's a learning curve to democracy, one election does not a democracy make, and one of the elements of learning democracy is learning that who you elect has consequences for what happens to you. It is not showing respect for democracy to try to prevent any consequences from happening for the choices people make, which is essentially what you're advocating.

Remember Saddam was executed for all these horrible actions he committed when he was our best buddy, and Rummy and Chenney where working with him.

We're going to have to create a new version of Godwin's law for this sort of nonsense. I'm not talking about what was done in the past with Saddam, I'm talking about what's going on now in Palestine. One of the things that led to Rummy shaking hands with Saddam was the false notion that continued diplomatic engagement is always helpful. Well, it's not. We made that mistake with Iraq in the past. I don't see why you're eager to repeat that mistake with Hamas. Your arguments have decended into nothing more than claims that since we've made mistakes in the past, it's somehow wrong to stop making the same mistakes now.

 

[Tricky]

Okay, this is the third time I've had to link to the word fungibility today. Please, click on the link, read the definition, understand what it means. If Israel sends food and medical aid to Fatah and Hamas as our increasingly senile ex-president wants, that allows Fatah and Hamas to buy more weapons with the money they didn't have to spend on food and medicine. It's not complicated; why is this such a difficult concept for so many people to understand?

We know what fungible means, BP, but you still aren't making your case because it assumes that Fatah and Hamas would spend their money on food and medicine for the masses, an assumption which I don't feel is justified. They might feed their militias, but the ordinary people? Do you believe they are that charitable? I think they are more likely to starve people to death rather than give up their weapons.

 

[corplinx]

Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter supports terrorists. Or, more precisely, Carter wants the US and Israel to support terrorists.

One more way Reagan was a better president than Carter: When he discovered he had Alzheimer's disease, he at least had the grace to retire from public life. Maybe Carter should see his doctor and consider the same course. He used to be an embarrassment to the US; now he's just embarrassing himself.

Ronnie could have shown better leadership during the Lebanon meltdown. I think people give him a pass over it since at the time it didn't seem that important. In retrospect, Lebanon became the metamorphosis for modern organized terrorist groups.

 

[UnrepentantSinner]

Maybe there just needs to be a "final solution" to the Palestinian question.

 

[corplinx]

The thread is anything but a discussion of how dumb it is for Jimmy Carter to say we should fund a terrorist group who even though they were brought into the political fold rebelled and took over Gaza (and to say it before an election cycle).