PDA

View Full Version : Sources: Hamas sends reps to meet with Carter


Donger
04-16-2008, 11:44 AM
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/16/carter.hamas/index.html

(CNN) -- Two senior Hamas leaders based in Gaza arrived in the Egyptian capital on Wednesday in hopes of meeting with former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, Hamas political sources told CNN.

Carter's delegation said no meeting has been confirmed, but talks with Hamas officials are "currently under discussion."

The Hamas sources said Mahmoud Zahar and Saeed Seyam left Gaza early Wednesday for Cairo to meet with Carter, who is currently in Israel and will be leaving for Egypt later in the day.

The 83-year-old former president said he has been denied permission to go into Gaza, although he added, "I would like to."

Carter is on the third day of a nine-day "study mission" to the Middle East, as part of his "ongoing effort to support peace, democracy, and human rights in the region," according to the Carter Center Web site.

During a visit to the West Bank on Tuesday, Carter placed a wreath at the Ramallah grave of former Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat. He also said he hoped to meet with exiled Hamas leader Khalid Meshaal when he visits Damascus, Syria, in the coming days.

"I'm going to try everything I can to get him (Meshaal) to agree to peaceful resolution of differences both with the Israelis through Gaza and also with Fatah," Carter said.

Fatah, the party of Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, is a rival to Hamas.

Carter stressed that he is "not a negotiator."

"I'm just trying to understand different opinions and communicate, provide communications between people that won't communicate with each other, so I think if he does have anything constructive to say, he or the president of Syria, Bashar Assad, then I would bring that to other people."

Carter has made waves both in Israel and the United States with his stated desire to meet with Meshaal. Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she found it "hard to understand what is going to be gained by having discussions with Hamas about peace when Hamas is in fact the impediment to peace."

Israeli leaders, including Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, turned down Carter's requests for meetings this week.

Carter, the man who helped broker the historic peace agreement between Egypt and Israel in the late 1970s, has angered many in Israel with a recent book in which he compared Israeli policies towards the Palestinians to those practiced under the apartheid South African governments.

Carter shrugged off the criticism from Rice, noting that he's "been meeting with Hamas leaders for years."

"It's very important that at least someone meet with Hamas leaders to express their views, to ascertain what flexibilities they have, to try to induce them to stop all attacks against innocent civilians in Israel, and to cooperate with Fatah as a group that unites the Palestinians -- maybe to get them to agree to a cease-fire," he said in an interview on ABC's "This Week."

Appearing on the same program, National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said a meeting between Carter and Hamas leaders would send a mixed message to the group, which is considered a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel.

"We think it is very important for the international community, for everyone, to be sending a very clear message to Hamas about what they need to do if they want to move from terror into the political process," Hadley said.

"It really undermines President (Mahmoud) Abbas and the government of Prime Minister (Salam) Fayyad at a very critical time."

Carter denied that the State Department advised him against any plans to meet with Meshaal in Syria. He noted that his Syria itinerary is still unconfirmed but added: "It's likely that I will be meeting with the Hamas leaders" while in Damascus.

Last week, a Hamas official told CNN that Carter plans to meet with Meshaal in Syria's capital, where he lives in exile to avoid being arrested or killed by the Israelis.

During his trip, Carter said he "will be meeting with the Israelis, we'll be meeting with Fatah ... the Syrians, the Egyptians, the Jordanians, the Saudi Arabians and with the whole gamut of people who might have to play a crucial rule in any future peace agreement that involves the Middle East."

Bowser
04-16-2008, 11:50 AM
Bring them a few cases of Billy beer.


And I can't help of thinking that 'Hamas' Jenkins, looking like Carl Weathers, is going to come running up to Carter with his finger pointed right in his face, screaming "NOW you've pissed me off!"

patteeu
04-16-2008, 11:58 AM
Ed Koch, looking back at his life (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/looking_back_at_life.html):

...

I came to know Carter well.

When he ran for reelection, he asked me to campaign for him in 1980 - I was by then Mayor of New York City -- and I said that I would vote for him, but not campaign for him because he was then engaging in hostile acts towards Israel. I was popular with the Jewish community and when I would not campaign for him unless he changed his position, he called me to his hotel in New York when attending a fundraiser and said, "You have done me more damage than any man in America." I felt proud then, and even more today, since we now know what a miserable president he was then and the miserable human being he is now as he prepares to meet with Hamas.

...

by contrast, here's his take on GWB

Now we come to the last president on this list, George W. Bush. I campaigned for his reelection and have no regrets. I believe that history will treat him more kindly than current public opinion polls indicate. He and Tony Blair recognized the danger of Islamic terrorism to the Western world when most world leaders did not. In addition, he is a very nice guy.

StcChief
04-16-2008, 12:00 PM
Revoke his passport and visa. Leave his a$$ there.

Joe Seahawk
04-16-2008, 12:03 PM
discontinue his pension./.

alnorth
04-16-2008, 12:17 PM
Awesome. I suppose we'll begin to see fundraising drives for a new charity: Habitat for Hamas.

keg in kc
04-16-2008, 12:19 PM
If this shit ever ends, that ending is going to start with all us idiots talking to each other.

Taco John
04-16-2008, 12:24 PM
If this shit ever ends, that ending is going to start with all us idiots talking to each other.


Yeah, I don't get the hate for Carter over this. Apparently neither does Haaretz in Israel...



15/04/2008


Our debt to Jimmy Carter

By Haaretz Editorial


The government of Israel is boycotting Jimmy Carter, the 39th president of the United States, during his visit here this week. Ehud Olmert, who has not managed to achieve any peace agreement during his public life, and who even tried to undermine negotiations in the past, "could not find the time" to meet the American president who is a signatory to the peace agreement with Egypt. President Shimon Peres agreed to meet Carter, but made sure that he let it be known that he reprimanded his guest for wishing to meet with Khaled Meshal, as if the achievements of the Carter Center fall short of those of the Peres Center for Peace. Carter, who himself said he set out to achieve peace between Israel and Egypt from the day he assumed office, worked incessantly toward that goal and two years after becoming president succeeded - was declared persona non grata by Israel.

The boycott will not be remembered as a glorious moment in this government's history. Jimmy Carter has dedicated his life to humanitarian missions, to peace, to promoting democratic elections, and to better understanding between enemies throughout the world. Recently, he was involved in organizing the democratic elections in Nepal, following which a government will be set up that will include Maoist guerrillas who have laid down their arms. But Israelis have not liked him since he wrote the book "Palestine: Peace not Apartheid."

Israel is not ready for such comparisons, even though the situation begs it. It is doubtful whether it is possible to complain when an outside observer, especially a former U.S. president who is well versed in international affairs, sees in the system of separate roads for Jews and Arabs, the lack of freedom of movement, Israel's control over Palestinian lands and their confiscation, and especially the continued settlement activity, which contravenes all promises Israel made and signed, a matter that cannot be accepted. The interim political situation in the territories has crystallized into a kind of apartheid that has been ongoing for 40 years. In Europe there is talk of the establishment of a binational state in order to overcome this anomaly. In the peace agreement with Egypt, 30 years ago, Israel agreed to "full autonomy" for the occupied territories, not to settle there.
Advertisement

These promises have been forgotten by Israel, but Carter remembers.

Whether Carter's approach to conflict resolution is considered by the Israeli government as appropriate or defeatist, no one can take away from the former U.S. president his international standing, nor the fact that he brought Israel and Egypt to a signed peace that has since held. Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html

Donger
04-16-2008, 12:32 PM
They are equating Egypt with a terrorist organization?

Lovely.

When even the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee condemns the meeting, I would think it would give Carter pause.

jettio
04-16-2008, 12:34 PM
B*sh wants to bring democracy to the middle east so that when a political party like Hamas wins a majority vote in a parliamentary election, the folks who support B*sh all of the time, no matter what, can piss and moan about an ex-president acknowledging their existence.

If there is not an ongoing war with the intent on fighting to the finish, why shouldn't there be some kind of diplomatic outreach to the political party that gets the most support in a democratic election in a crucial part of the middle east?

Logical
04-16-2008, 12:38 PM
If this shit ever ends, that ending is going to start with all us idiots talking to each other.Exactly, wouldn't be ironic if Carter was the one to negotiate a Middle East Peace Agreement. I give him credit for at least talking to them. He should invite the leaders of Iran to talk as well.

But with monkey boy and his handler meddling peace is not happening, nor would it under Bush III (McCain).

mlyonsd
04-16-2008, 12:47 PM
B*sh wants to bring democracy to the middle east so that when a political party like Hamas wins a majority vote in a parliamentary election, the folks who support B*sh all of the time, no matter what, can piss and moan about an ex-president acknowledging their existence.

If there is not an ongoing war with the intent on fighting to the finish, why shouldn't there be some kind of diplomatic outreach to the political party that gets the most support in a democratic election in a crucial part of the middle east?

That was already tried once. Google Chamberlin/Hitler. Although one slight difference then was Germany hadn't openly called for the destruction of the Jews at that point.

Donger
04-16-2008, 12:50 PM
B*sh wants to bring democracy to the middle east so that when a political party like Hamas wins a majority vote in a parliamentary election, the folks who support B*sh all of the time, no matter what, can piss and moan about an ex-president acknowledging their existence.

If there is not an ongoing war with the intent on fighting to the finish, why shouldn't there be some kind of diplomatic outreach to the political party that gets the most support in a democratic election in a crucial part of the middle east?

Did anyone else hear John Lennon singing in their head while reading this?

"All we are saaaaayyyyingggg, is give pppppeeeeeaaaacccceee a chance!"

Donger
04-16-2008, 01:06 PM
Exactly, wouldn't be ironic if Carter was the one to negotiate a Middle East Peace Agreement. I give him credit for at least talking to them. He should invite the leaders of Iran to talk as well.

But with monkey boy and his handler meddling peace is not happening, nor would it under Bush III (McCain).

Looks like it wouldn't happen under Bush IV (Barack Hussein) either...

"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.

Joe Seahawk
04-16-2008, 01:16 PM
Looks like it wouldn't happen under Bush IV (Barack Hussein) either...

"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.

wow.. I guess there is something I agree with Obama on..

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 01:51 PM
Did anyone else hear John Lennon singing in their head while reading this?

"All we are saaaaayyyyingggg, is give pppppeeeeeaaaacccceee a chance!"

Really? It reminds me a bit of Reagan finally acknowledging he should talk to the Soviets as well as pressure them, after the USSR overreaction to Able Archer in late '83. :shrug:

Donger
04-16-2008, 01:53 PM
Really? It reminds me a bit of Reagan finally acknowledging he should talk to the Soviets as well as pressure them, after the USSR overreaction to Able Archer in late '83. :shrug:

The Soviet Union was a state. Hamas is not.

go bowe
04-16-2008, 02:07 PM
Yeah, I don't get the hate for Carter over this. Apparently neither does Haaretz in Israel...



15/04/2008


Our debt to Jimmy Carter

By Haaretz Editorial

* * *

Carter's method, which says that it is necessary to talk with every one, has still not proven to be any less successful than the method that calls for boycotts and air strikes. In terms of results, at the end of the day, Carter beats out any of those who ostracize him. For the peace agreement with Egypt, he deserves the respect reserved for royalty for the rest of his life.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/974893.html jeeze, what's wrong with the democrats, anyway?

first obama now carter...

do they think that things can change for the better by talking with our adversaries?

are they crazy or what?

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 02:11 PM
The Soviet Union was a state. Hamas is not.

Acknowledging their many faults, Hamas is still a democratically elected Government.

The Polish and French governments in exile (among many others) during WW2 were not technically "states", but it didn't stop the US from talking with them. :shrug:

Donger
04-16-2008, 02:22 PM
Acknowledging their many faults, Hamas is still a democratically elected Government.

The Polish and French governments in exile (among many others) during WW2 were not technically "states", but it didn't stop the US from talking with them. :shrug:

Democratically-elected government of what?

They were legitimate governments in exile of states that were invaded.

go bowe
04-16-2008, 02:25 PM
That was already tried once. Google Chamberlin/Hitler. Although one slight difference then was Germany hadn't openly called for the destruction of the Jews at that point.if you don't succeed the first time, you should try, try again...

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 02:27 PM
Democratically-elected government of what?


According to Hamas and Israeli internal administration, parts of the "Palestinian occupied territories". In 2006, they were elected to majority of seats of that Parliament. That sounds like a Government to me, albeit one that results to tactics I disapprove of in the extreme. :shrug:

Donger
04-16-2008, 02:29 PM
According to Hamas and Israeli internal administration, parts of the "occupied territories". :shrug:

Honestly, I don't know how many (and which) countries or organizations recognize "Palestine" as a state. I don't think the UN does.

go bowe
04-16-2008, 02:34 PM
Looks like it wouldn't happen under Bush IV (Barack Hussein) either...

"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. "We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel's destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel's right to exist and abide by past agreements."

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.wtf?

doesn't obama listen to ron paul any more?

i thought he had advocated meeting with our enemies, all of them...

i'm disappointed that obama would essentially parrot hillary's position, at least in part...

can it be that he is a politician too?

egads, the horror of it all...

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 02:37 PM
Honestly, I don't know how many (and which) countries or organizations recognize "Palestine" as a state. I don't think the UN does.

Israel signed the 1993 Oslo accords on the creation of the "Palestinian Authority" as part of an accord on Palestinian Self-Government. They have dealt with them constantly since then. From that, it appears Israel recognizes it as a legitimate political entity, though they are not yet a sovereign state.

Sovereignty has probably been pushed back due to Hamas's refusal to "recognize" Israel, among other things.

jettio
04-16-2008, 02:39 PM
That was already tried once. Google Chamberlin/Hitler. Although one slight difference then was Germany hadn't openly called for the destruction of the Jews at that point.

Israel is a nation, and Hamas is the majority political party in the land adjacent. If they are not trading live ammo in a fight to the finish, seems to me that some kind of diplomatic contacts are necessary.

Donger
04-16-2008, 02:40 PM
Israel signed the 1993 Oslo accords on the creation of the "Palestinian Authority" as part of an accord on Palestinian Self-Government. They have dealt with them constantly since then. From that, it appears Israel recognizes it as a legitimate political entity.

I don't think Israel recognizes "Palestine" as a state.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 02:42 PM
Israel is a nation, and Hamas is the majority political party in the land adjacent. If they are not trading live ammo in a fight to the finish, seems to me that some kind of diplomatic contacts are necessary.
Sort of. Hamas is a majority political party in the Government of territory declared the "Palestinian Occupied Territories" by Israel. However, I fully agree on the need for diplomatic contact, national and private.
I don't think Israel recognizes "Palestine" as a state.

I addressed that, though you responded before my edited post went through. Whether they are fully sovereign or not, if Israel and other nations talk with them, I see no reason the US or private interests should not.

Donger
04-16-2008, 02:47 PM
Sort of. Hamas is a majority political party in the Government of territory declared the "Palestinian Occupied Territories" by Israel. However, I fully agree on the need for diplomatic contact, national and private.


I addressed that, though you responded before my edited post went through. Whether they are fully sovereign or not, if Israel and other nations talk with them, I see no reason the US or private interests should not.

You mean other than the fact that they are a terrorist organization?

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 02:49 PM
You mean other than the fact that they are a terrorist organization?

So is the government of Iran, IMO. Still, the US maintains a dialog with that government through back-channels and the Swiss embassy. :shrug:

As I said, it's a democratically elected government. IMO, our disapproval of their tactics or goals shouldn't play a part in the decision to deal with them. Ironically, I think refusing to speak to them on those grounds is a rather naive Carter-esque administration approach to foreign policy.

For instance, the Soviet Union sponsored many terrorist groups, yet we regularly made trade agreements with them. As did Iran, when the Reagan administration decided to trade arms with them.

Donger
04-16-2008, 02:53 PM
So is the government of Iran, IMO. Still, the US maintains a dialog with that government through back-channels and the Swiss embassy.

I'd imagine that we "talk" to many groups through back-channels. That's very different than a former POTUS doing so, very publically.

mlyonsd
04-16-2008, 02:53 PM
Israel is a nation, and Hamas is the majority political party in the land adjacent. If they are not trading live ammo in a fight to the finish, seems to me that some kind of diplomatic contacts are necessary.

Serious question. Has Hamas acknowledged Israel's right to exist? I mix up some of those groups and countries over there so I really don't know.

If they have I'd say diplomatic contacts may be in order, although the lobbing missiles into innocent civilian neighborhoods is kind of a sticky point.

If they haven't acknowledged Israel's right to exist I'd say talking to them is somewhat pointless.

Donger
04-16-2008, 02:57 PM
Serious question. Has Hamas acknowledged Israel's right to exist?

No, I don't believe so.

patteeu
04-16-2008, 03:10 PM
I'd imagine that we "talk" to many groups through back-channels. That's very different than a former POTUS doing so, very publically.

Good point. I don't have anything against us talking to terrorists or rogue states. I have a problem talking to them in public when that sort of publicity is going to be more beneficial to them than the talk is going to be beneficial to me.

jettio
04-16-2008, 03:14 PM
Serious question. Has Hamas acknowledged Israel's right to exist? I mix up some of those groups and countries over there so I really don't know.

If they have I'd say diplomatic contacts may be in order, although the lobbing missiles into innocent civilian neighborhoods is kind of a sticky point.

If they haven't acknowledged Israel's right to exist I'd say talking to them is somewhat pointless.

You may have a point there. I think if something exists, it pretty much does not need a "right to exist."

This may be a question for the philosophers, but I 'd say that if ran a country and somebody said my country did not have a right to exist, I might say that then my country's arsenal of weaponry does not have much reason for sitting around existing without doing anything for anybody, lazying about like a chiefs fan waiting for a playoff victory. I'd say it might be time to spend some of that stuff on the fella that said my country did not have a reason for being 'cause if he complains about the country existing he might just complain about how much of that other stuff is existing too.

mlyonsd
04-16-2008, 03:21 PM
You may have a point there. I think if something exists, it pretty much does not need a "right to exist."

This may be a question for the philosophers, but I 'd say that if ran a country and somebody said my country did not have a right to exist, I might say that then my country's arsenal of weaponry does not have much reason for sitting around existing without doing anything for anybody, lazying about like a chiefs fan waiting for a playoff victory. I'd say it might be time to spend some of that stuff on the fella that said my country did not have a reason for being 'cause if he complains about the country existing he might just complain about how much of that other stuff is existing too.

That made my hair hurt. :)

It really doesn't matter to me if we/Israel/Carter talks to Hamas. I was just pointing out I can see there are valid reasons we and Israel don't want to talk.

If the Georgia peanut M&M does some good, possibly talking Hamas into stating Israel has a right to exist, then I'd say good for him, he finally might have earned that Nobel Peace Prize he stole.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:24 PM
If the Georgia peanut M&M does some good, possibly talking Hamas into stating Israel has a right to exist, then I'd say good for him, he finally might have earned that Nobel Peace Prize he stole.

Who did he steal it from?

I don't know about you, but I think getting Israel and Egypt to set aside roughly 3,500 years of bad blood is a pretty damn impressive achievement, however dreadful the rest of his presidency was.

Donger
04-16-2008, 03:28 PM
Who did he steal it from?

I don't know about you, but I think getting Israel and Egypt to set aside roughly 3,500 years of bad blood is a pretty damn impressive achievement, however dreadful the rest of his presidency was.

My history may be a bit flaky, but I think that Israel and Egypt were well into talks when Carter got involved. I'll have to look that up.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:30 PM
My history may be a bit flaky, but I think that Israel and Egypt were well into talks when Carter got involved. I'll have to look that up.

IIRC, there was no real direct communication after the 1973 Geneva accords ending the Yom Kippur War, until Carter called to renew the Geneva Conference. He felt direct talks would be better than Kissenger's approach.

In 1977, Sadat went to Israel, as Sadat wanted US support to help Egypt's economy.

This led to the meetings in September 1978, which led to the Camp David Accords.

I am curious if you can find any peace overtures or direct talks from Sadat or Israel between the Yom Kippur war and the renewal of the Geneva Conference. Please let me know what you find.

Donger
04-16-2008, 03:36 PM
IIRC, there was no real direct communication after the 1973 Geneva accords ending the Yom Kippur War, until Carter called to renew the Geneva Conference. He felt direct talks would be better than Kissenger's approach.

In 1977, Sadat went to Israel, as Sadat wanted US support to help Egypt's economy.

This led to the meetings in September 1978, which led to the Camp David Accords.

I am curious if you can find any peace overtures or direct talks from Sadat or Israel between the Yom Kippur war and the renewal of the Geneva Conference. Please let me know what you find.

"President Anwar El Sadat came to feel that the Geneva track peace process was more show than substance, and was not progressing, partly due to disagreements with Syria and his communist allies. He also lacked confidence in the United States to pressure Israel after a meeting with Carter. His frustration boiled over, and after clandestine preparatory meetings between Egyptian and Israeli officials, unknown even to the Americans, in November 1977 Anwar El Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel, thereby implicitly recognizing Israel. In Sadat's Knesset speech he talked about his views on peace, the status of Israel's occupied territories, and the Palestinian refugee problem. This tactic went against the intentions of both the United States and the Soviet Union, which were to revive the Geneva Conference."

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:39 PM
"President Anwar El Sadat came to feel that the Geneva track peace process was more show than substance, and was not progressing, partly due to disagreements with Syria and his communist allies. He also lacked confidence in the United States to pressure Israel after a meeting with Carter. His frustration boiled over, and after clandestine preparatory meetings between Egyptian and Israeli officials, unknown even to the Americans, in November 1977 Anwar El Sadat became the first Arab leader to visit Israel, thereby implicitly recognizing Israel. In Sadat's Knesset speech he talked about his views on peace, the status of Israel's occupied territories, and the Palestinian refugee problem. This tactic went against the intentions of both the United States and the Soviet Union, which were to revive the Geneva Conference."

Cool, so Sadat took another approach after Carter started pushing to renew the Geneva Conference. Anything showing Sadat was so inclined and did anything before that "push" from Carter??

I can also understand Sadat's belief that Carter wouldn't be able to put much pressure on Israel, as the Pro-Israel lobby in the US has almost always taken (IMO) a radical line towards opposing discussion and compromise.

At least he and Begin decided to accept Carter's offer to mediate talks which led to them setting aside 3,500 years of bad blood. My only real criticism of the Peace Prize is it should have gone to all three.

mlyonsd
04-16-2008, 03:41 PM
IIRC, there was no real direct communication after the 1973 Geneva accords ending the Yom Kippur War, until Carter called to renew the Geneva Conference. He felt direct talks would be better than Kissenger's approach.

In 1977, Sadat went to Israel, as Sadat wanted US support to help Egypt's economy.

This led to the meetings in September 1978, which led to the Camp David Accords.

I am curious if you can find any peace overtures or direct talks from Sadat or Israel between the Yom Kippur war and the renewal of the Geneva Conference. Please let me know what you find.

Yea the way I read it Sadat and Begin were talking before Carter got involved.

But if Jimmy supplied enough booze and hookers at Camp David to seal the deal I'll give him credit...just not a Nobel 20 some years after the fact. It's almost like there weren't any Gore types around to hand it to.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 03:43 PM
Yea the way I read it Sadat and Begin were talking before Carter got involved.


Where did you read that? I'd like to see it, as I don't see it mentioned in Donger's Wikipedia article.

I know there was some communications via a middleman when Kissinger was running the show (not unlike us and Iran), but I'm unaware of any talks between Sadat and Begin before Carter's push in the ME after taking office.


But if Jimmy supplied enough booze and hookers at Camp David to seal the deal I'll give him credit...just not a Nobel 20 some years after the fact. It's almost like there weren't any Gore types around to hand it to.

I won't deny he was one of our worst presidents, but I really don't understand the need to downplay the large role he played in one of his Presidency's few real accomplishments. JMO. :shrug:

mlyonsd
04-16-2008, 03:55 PM
Where did you read that? I'd like to see it, as I don't see it mentioned in Donger's Wikipedia article.

I know there was some communications via a middleman when Kissinger was running the show (not unlike us and Iran), but I'm unaware of any talks between Sadat and Begin before Carter's push in the ME after taking office.

Like I said, that's the way I read it. From Donger's wikpedia article, plus from the same source if you look up Sadat and Begin separately. Might be just the way it was worded. Begin took over in June of 1977, Sadat spoke at Knesset in November, a visit that went against US intentions. To me that's Begin and Sadat talking amongst themselves.



I won't deny he was one of our worst presidents, but I really don't understand the need to downplay the large role he played in one of his Presidency's few real accomplishments. JMO. :shrug:

I lived through his pathetic presidency. I can downplay it all I want.

Donger
04-16-2008, 03:55 PM
Cool, so Sadat took another approach after Carter started pushing to renew the Geneva Conference. Anything showing Sadat was so inclined and did anything before that "push" from Carter??

I can also understand Sadat's belief that Carter wouldn't be able to put much pressure on Israel, as the Pro-Israel lobby in the US has almost always taken (IMO) a radical line towards opposing discussion and compromise.

At least he and Begin decided to accept Carter's offer to mediate talks which led to them setting aside 3,500 years of bad blood. My only real criticism of the Peace Prize is it should have gone to all three.

Begin and Sadat were awarded it in 1978, no?

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 04:10 PM
Like I said, that's the way I read it. From Donger's wikpedia article, plus from the same source if you look up Sadat and Begin separately. Might be just the way it was worded. Begin took over in June of 1977, Sadat spoke at Knesset in November, a visit that went against US intentions. To me that's Begin and Sadat talking amongst themselves.

Sure they are, but it looks like that didn't happen until well after Carter started pushing for the Geneva Conference and direct talks in Feb.- March 1977. Given your antipathy for the man, I'm not surprised you're unwilling to admit the role he played in the reconciliation. I'll likely feel the same way about Bush43, even if we end up with another stable 12th century Islamic state like Kuwait in Iraq.


I lived through his pathetic presidency. I can downplay it all I want.
As did I, but as sad as it was, I'm not willing to ignore the few good things he did. If you are... :shrug:

Begin and Sadat were awarded it in 1978, no?
I was unaware of that. I guess I'm OK with the Nobel Peace Prize award then, as that was my only real point of contention on it. :shrug:

go bowe
04-16-2008, 04:31 PM
That made my hair hurt. :)

It really doesn't matter to me if we/Israel/Carter talks to Hamas. I was just pointing out I can see there are valid reasons we and Israel don't want to talk.

If the Georgia peanut M&M does some good, possibly talking Hamas into stating Israel has a right to exist, then I'd say good for him, he finally might have earned that Nobel Peace Prize he stole.LMAO LMAO LMAO @ your hair is hurt...

that part of hamas which is a political entity and social welfare agency cannot publicly disavow the provisions of its charter callng for the destruction of israel ...

if they did that the radicals in charge of the military wing would in all likelihood either throw them out or just go ahead and behead them...

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-16-2008, 05:06 PM
I have no such knowledge of any of my reps meeting with Carter.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-16-2008, 05:08 PM
Serious question. Has Hamas acknowledged Israel's right to exist?

Only the really hot Israelis. I don't care about the rest.

whoman69
04-16-2008, 06:16 PM
That was already tried once. Google Chamberlin/Hitler. Although one slight difference then was Germany hadn't openly called for the destruction of the Jews at that point.

Rather extreme comparison. Carter has not called for anything close to giving support to Hamas let alone appeasement. Even during the darkest days of the cold war we still had a dialogue open with the Soviets and the Chinese. Nixon talked to Mao, Breshnev and Eisenhower talked to Krushchev. Was that appeasement too? The assumption on your part is that Carter will play the patsy for Hamas. Since he has been meeting with them for years and we haven't surrendered to them yet, the appeasement argument falls way short.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2008, 06:16 PM
You mean other than the fact that they are a terrorist organization?

Hmmm? So is MEK. Well it's not a state but a terrorist group and we're funding their car bombing, kidnappings and other terrorist acts inside Iran.

BucEyedPea
04-16-2008, 06:17 PM
The WWII comparisons don't fit.

Logical
04-16-2008, 07:02 PM
wtf?

doesn't obama listen to ron paul any more?

i thought he had advocated meeting with our enemies, all of them...

i'm disappointed that obama would essentially parrot hillary's position, at least in part...

can it be that he is a politician too?

egads, the horror of it all...

I will have to check again in his book tonight (just finishing it) but I am pretty sure he did. I was waiting to post until I could check but since I saw your post I decided to respond.

alnorth
04-16-2008, 07:37 PM
There is no reason at all to talk to an implacable organization whose primary purpose of existence is to destroy you. Until Hamas, at a bare minimum, gives up their primary mission of destroying Israel, there is nothing to discuss. The fact that they were democratically elected is irrelevant, and only shows that the people they represent also support the elimination of Israel.

You dont talk to that kind of entity, you either utterly defeat or isolate them unless the leadership is replaced with people who are slightly less insane.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 07:51 PM
There is no reason at all to talk to an implacable organization whose primary purpose of existence is to destroy you. Until Hamas, at a bare minimum, gives up their primary mission of destroying Israel, there is nothing to discuss. The fact that they were democratically elected is irrelevant, and only shows that the people they represent also support the elimination of Israel.

You dont talk to that kind of entity, you either utterly defeat or isolate them unless the leadership is replaced with people who are slightly less insane.

As Israel is willing to speak with them, formally or informally, I can't see why we should not. :shrug:

The USSR's primary purpose was to destroy all competing ideologies, and enslave humanity in a Communist System. We still dealt with them, and other political entities that were equally "implacable".

JMO.

keg in kc
04-16-2008, 07:56 PM
There is no reason at all to talk to an implacable organization whose primary purpose of existence is to destroy you. The difficult part of all this to grasp as a westerner (for me, at least) is that they view us in exactly that same light.

In any event, this is not a 'war' that will be won on a battlefield. Because there is no battlefield. If it ever ends, it will have to happen in a conference room somewhere. And the only way that happens is if we both decide to talk to the implacable organization intent on destroying us.

ClevelandBronco
04-16-2008, 10:46 PM
Is the CIA permitted to eliminate Pres. Carter? I suppose not.

Adept Havelock
04-16-2008, 10:48 PM
Is the CIA permitted to eliminate Pres. Carter? I suppose not.

Blame Gerald Ford. :shrug:

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/760110e.htm

ClevelandBronco
04-16-2008, 10:55 PM
Blame Gerald Ford. :shrug:

http://www.ford.utexas.edu/LIBRARY/speeches/760110e.htm

Well, we still have to deal with the fact that Carter is unfortunately alive.

'Hamas' Jenkins
04-16-2008, 11:05 PM
Is the CIA permitted to eliminate Pres. Carter? I suppose not.

Stay classy.

jAZ
04-16-2008, 11:49 PM
Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

How is it even possible to act in a credible way without assessing and addressing the needs of a powerful organization?

Logical
04-17-2008, 12:33 AM
Well, we still have to deal with the fact that Carter is unfortunately alive.

I have pretty much given up giving neg rep but if I still gave it this post would probably get it.

I cannot believe you are wishing someone was dead.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 12:38 AM
God bless Jimmy Carter any anyone who works towards a lasting peace for His people. (and that includes us)

Logical
04-17-2008, 12:42 AM
Hmmm? So is MEK. Well it's not a state but a terrorist group and we're funding their car bombing, kidnappings and other terrorist acts inside Iran.
Don't let pesky facts interfere with the irrefutable logic being displayed.

mlyonsd
04-17-2008, 07:51 AM
As did I, but as sad as it was, I'm not willing to ignore the few good things he did. If you are... :shrug:

I'll compromise. Carter was at least the second best president of the 70's.

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 08:25 AM
On Sunday, Aaron Klein and John Batchelor interviewed Ahmed Yousef, chief political adviser to the Prime Minister of Hamas, on WABC radio. Hamas has endorsed Barack Obama for President. Yousef said, "We like Mr. Obama and we hope he will win the election." Why? "He has a vision to change America." Maybe Yousef has some insight into what Obama means by all these vague references to "change."
Of course, Hamas's taste in American presidents is suspect. Yousef also described Jimmy Carter, who was about to pay a call on Hamas when the interview was taped, as "this noble man" who "did an excellent job as President."
Yousef was asked about Obama's condemnation of Carter's visit with Hamas, but didn't seem troubled by it. Hamas, he says, understands American politics; this is the election season, and everyone wants to sound like a friend of Israel. Nevertheless, he hopes that the Democrats will change American policies when they take office.


Makes one wonder what sort of deal is going down with ObiWon Obama's campaign, Carter, and thier prefered Terrorist organization.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 10:21 AM
Makes one wonder what sort of deal is going down with ObiWon Obama's campaign, Carter, and thier prefered Terrorist organization.
.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 10:25 AM
Makes one wonder what sort of deal is going down with ObiWon Obama's campaign, Carter, and thier prefered Terrorist organization.


Stupid oozes from your every pore.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 10:29 AM
Don't let pesky facts interfere with the irrefutable logic being displayed.

Yeah! We not only talk to terrorists, when we need to. We even hire them.:mad:

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:01 AM
Hmmm? So is MEK. Well it's not a state but a terrorist group and we're funding their car bombing, kidnappings and other terrorist acts inside Iran.

Even if we are, surely you recognize the difference between a terrorist group that can help us and one that opposes us, yes?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 11:17 AM
Even if we are, surely you recognize the difference between a terrorist group that can help us and one that opposes us, yes?

Yes, but you're the one who seemingly have a problem with talking to "terrorists."

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:18 AM
Yes, but you're the one who seemingly have a problem with talking to "terrorists."

Terrorists who oppose us? Yes, absolutely.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 11:21 AM
Terrorists who oppose us? Yes, absolutely.

Do you know that MEK is mujaheedan? What happened last time we allied with mujaheedan? Hmmm...? We got an anti-American AlQaeda. How do we know they're not using us too? Hmmm....? B-l-o-w-b-a-c-k!

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:22 AM
Yes, but you're the one who seemingly have a problem with talking to "terrorists."

You mean you thought he meant that we shouldn't talk to any group that could be classified as a terrorist organization by someone regardless of whether they are an ally or an adversary? That's strange. It didn't even dawn on me that he could mean that.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:24 AM
Do you know that MEK is mujaheedan? What happened last time we allied with mujaheedan? Hmmm...? We got an anti-American AlQaeda. How do we know they're not using us too? Hmmm....? B-l-o-w-b-a-c-k!

Good. That just means we can invade another country in the future.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:25 AM
You mean you thought he meant that we shouldn't talk to any group that could be classified as a terrorist organization by someone regardless of whether they are an ally or an adversary? That's strange. It didn't even dawn on me that he could mean that.

I agree. I would have thought that was clear.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:26 AM
Do you know that MEK is mujaheedan? What happened last time we allied with mujaheedan? Hmmm...? We got an anti-American AlQaeda. How do we know they're not using us too? Hmmm....? B-l-o-w-b-a-c-k!

The last time we allied with mujaheedan, we accomplished our top foreign policy priority of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.

Remember the other day when you pointed out that an analysis of consequences is not complete until you account for what might have happened if you hadn't taken the action that you took? Apply that excellent point anytime you feel compelled to type "B-l-o-w-b-a-c-k!".

jAZ
04-17-2008, 11:29 AM
Terrorists who oppose us? Yes, absolutely.

I ask again.

Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

How is it even possible to act in a credible way without assessing and addressing the needs of a powerful organization?

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:31 AM
I ask again.

Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

How is it even possible to act in a credible way without assessing and addressing the needs of a powerful organization?

Maybe you should ask your boy, Barack Hussein?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 11:33 AM
The last time we allied with mujaheedan, we accomplished our top foreign policy priority of driving the Soviets out of Afghanistan.
'Er you mean we pulled them in intentionally. It's right in Gate's book.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 11:36 AM
The difficult part of all this to grasp as a westerner (for me, at least) is that they view us in exactly that same light.

In any event, this is not a 'war' that will be won on a battlefield. Because there is no battlefield. If it ever ends, it will have to happen in a conference room somewhere. And the only way that happens is if we both decide to talk to the implacable organization intent on destroying us.

I just thought this (IMO, very wise) post was worth quoting.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:40 AM
I just thought this (IMO, very wise) post was worth quoting.

What are we going to "talk" about? Seriously.

Hamas wants Israel requires, as I understand it, to pull back from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem as a precondition for talks or even acknowledging Israel's existence. Are they willing to negotiate or is that it?

Edit - I guess not:

Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya said Israel would only respond to violence, and encouraged others to join it.

"Cut all ties with Israel, withdraw the Arab initiative," he shouted. "The Zionist enemy doesn't have a vision of peace. Only force... fighting and holy war works with (Israel.)"

The Saudi-sponsored peace initiative, first floated in 2002, offers Israel peace with all Arab countries in return for withdrawal from all the lands it captured in the 1967 war, the creation of a Palestinian state with a Jerusalem as its capital and a solution to the refugee issue.

Israel has rejected the initiative in the past, but has recently spoken favorably of it.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 11:42 AM
What are we going to "talk" about? Seriously.

Hamas wants Israel requires, as I understand it, to pull back from Gaza, the West Bank and Jerusalem as a precondition for talks or even acknowledging Israel's existence. Are they willing to negotiate or is that it?

I don't think he was speaking specifically about Hamas, but instead all of the implacable fools in the Palestinian Authority, and their knucklehead counterparts in the Knesset. If we (and they) refuse to hold any discussions due to the behavior of the lowest common denominators, we will never get anywhere. JMO.

I'm also well aware there are some who would prefer Arnaud-Amaury's approach, but I think we can do better than that.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:45 AM
I don't think he was speaking specifically about Hamas, but rather to the implacable fools in the Palestinian Authority, and their knucklehead counterparts in the Knesset. If we (and they) refuse to hold any discussions due to the behavior of the lowest common denominators, we will never get anywhere. JMO.

I'm also well aware there are some who would prefer Arnaud-Amaury's approach, but I think we can do better than that.

Hamas is the PA.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 11:47 AM
Hamas is the PA.

Incorrect. Hamas is the majority in the PA Parliament since 2006.

Is Labour the British Parliament? No. Same thing here.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:50 AM
Incorrect. Hamas is the majority in the PA Parliament since 2006.

Is Labour the British Parliament? No. Same thing here.

A majority, yes. So, one can't talk with the PA without talking to Hamas.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 11:51 AM
A majority, yes. So, one can't talk with the PA without talking to Hamas.

It's pretty clear neither of us is going to change our opinions. You feel Hamas should be isolated and not dealt with at all, though Israel (whom they wish to destroy) apparently doesn't share your perspective. I think there is nothing wrong with discussion.

Donger
04-17-2008, 11:53 AM
It's pretty clear neither of us is going to change our opinions. You feel Hamas should be isolated and not dealt with at all, though Israel (whom they wish to destroy) apparently doesn't share your perspective. I think there is nothing wrong with discussion.

I think they should be dealt with, just not with appeasement and words.

patteeu
04-17-2008, 11:53 AM
'Er you mean we pulled them in intentionally. It's right in Gate's book.

No, that's not what I mean.

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 11:56 AM
Heh!

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:00 PM
I think they should be dealt with, just not with appeasement and words.

How is holding discussions "appeasement"? Please elaborate. I know you would like to paint anyone willing to talk with Hamas as the next Neville Chamberlain, but failing the power to make binding agreements, IMO it's a nonsensical comparison.

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:06 PM
How is holding discussions "appeasement"? Please elaborate.

I suppose you prefer Arnaud-Amaury's approach.

As I said, Hamas has made it clear that negotiations are irrelevant. They have demands (Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem) that they aren't willing to move from. Therefore, Israel would have to submit to their demand in order for Hamas to pursue a truce.

That's appeasement in my book.

I think that Hamas and other terrorist groups should be met with the same resolve and intractability that they demonstrate.

Maybe you didn't see this in my earlier post?

Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya said Israel would only respond to violence, and encouraged others to join it.

"Cut all ties with Israel, withdraw the Arab initiative," he shouted. "The Zionist enemy doesn't have a vision of peace. Only force... fighting and holy war works with (Israel.)"

The Saudi-sponsored peace initiative, first floated in 2002, offers Israel peace with all Arab countries in return for withdrawal from all the lands it captured in the 1967 war, the creation of a Palestinian state with a Jerusalem as its capital and a solution to the refugee issue.

Israel has rejected the initiative in the past, but has recently spoken favorably of it.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:10 PM
As I said, Hamas has made it clear that negotiations are irrelevant. They have demands (Gaza, West Bank, East Jerusalem) that they aren't willing to move from. Therefore, Israel would have to submit to their demand in order for Hamas to pursue a truce.

Or perhaps discussions could lead to a lessening of influence by the military (and hard-line) wing of Hamas. Isn't playing with hypotheticals fun?

That's appeasement in my book.
If that's your definition, go for it. I disagree.

I think that Hamas and other terrorist groups should be met with the same resolve and intractability that they demonstrate.
And they feel the same way about their hardliner equivalents in the Knesset. If we let those extremist groups dictate the discussion, we never get anywhere. I'd prefer to look for better alternatives through discussion.

Obviously, you prefer the approach of the Extremist Hardliners in the Knesset.

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:13 PM
Or perhaps discussions could lead to a lessening of influence by the military (and hard-line) wing of Hamas. Isn't playing with hypotheticals fun?

If that's your definition, go for it. I disagree.

And they feel the same way about their hardliner equivalents in the Knesset. If we let those extremist groups dictate the discussion, we never get anywhere. I'd prefer to look for better alternatives through discussion.

Obviously, you prefer the approach of the Extremist Hardliners in the Knesset.

See my quote from Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya.

jAZ
04-17-2008, 12:19 PM
Maybe you should ask your boy, Barack Hussein?

You tell me.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:20 PM
See my quote from Hamas leader Khalil al-Haya.

I'm aware of his statements. I'm uncertain if it is completely sincere, or rhetoric to appease the hard-liners within his own group to maintain his power. I'm inclined to think it's a bit of both, as he is a politician.

Either way, I don't see it as precluding discussion, as Israel doesn't. Perhaps if Israel was unwilling to speak with them, I might reconsider my position. As Israel is willing, I see no reason to.

I am glad to see the Israel may be considering the Saudi plan. Hopefully the knotheads in Hamas and the Knesset will let something positive come of it.

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:21 PM
You tell me.

I already did earlier, but I'll do so again:

Hamas is not a state. They are a terrorist organization.

I suppose that's one thing you disagree with Barack Hussein about?

HonestChieffan
04-17-2008, 12:21 PM
This sort of thing will spin the jewish contributiors right to McCain. There is already enough evidence from Obamas church that he is not going to be supportive of Isreal. One more little reason this man will not be seen as a leader by our allies if he were to be elected.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:23 PM
This sort of thing will spin the jewish contributiors right to McCain. There is already enough evidence from Obamas church that he is not going to be supportive of Isreal. One more little reason this man will not be seen as a leader by our allies if he were to be elected.

IIRC, Obama has stated he wouldn't speak with Hamas at all, and blasted Carter for doing so. It's just another reason I won't be supporting him.

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:26 PM
I am glad to see the Israel may be considering the Saudi plan. Hopefully the knotheads in Hamas and the Knesset will let something positive come of it.

I am actually hopeful, too. However, I understand the Israeli concern. What are their opponents giving up? From what I can tell, Israel gets "peace" if they give up Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:42 PM
I am actually hopeful, too. However, I understand the Israeli concern. What are their opponents giving up? From what I can tell, Israel gets "peace" if they give up Gaza, the West Bank and East Jerusalem.

Considering that territory was already "given" to the Palestinians in the same 1947 UN mandate that created Israel (and provided Israel with a legitimate basis for the State), I see it as Israel getting peace in return for giving back what they stole. JMO.

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:49 PM
Considering that territory was already "given" to the Palestinians in the same 1947 UN mandate that created Israel (and provided Israel with a legitimate basis for the State), I see it as Israel getting peace in return for giving back what they stole. JMO.

Which parts of the "occupied territories" did Israel steal?

Gaza?
Golan Heights?
West Bank?

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:54 PM
Which parts of the "occupied territories" did Israel steal?

Gaza?
Golan Heights?
West Bank?

The state of Israel claims the 1947 Partition Plan gave their state legitimacy. IMO, that makes the Palestinian claim to the territory set aside in that same Partition for an "Arab State" equally legitimate. As Israel refuses to acknowledge that (based on an equally legitimate claim, AFAICS), I don't see how Israel's annexation of that territory can be considered anything but theft.

Personally, I think the plan you cited is rather generous of the Palestinians, as the 1947 partition plan granted the Arab State considerably more territory.

IMO, it's much like signing a contract, and then arbitrarily claiming only half the provisions really apply.
.

Donger
04-17-2008, 12:56 PM
The state of Israel claims the 1947 Partition Plan gave their state legitimacy. IMO, that makes the Palestinian claim to the territory set aside in that same Partition for an "Arab State" equally legitimate. As Israel refuses to give the territory (based on an equally legitimate claim, AFAICS), I don't see how it can be considered anything but theft.

IMO, it's much like signing a contract, and then arbitrarily claiming only half the provisions really apply.
.

It did. Unfortunately, Israel had to fight, what, three wars to defend itself and in the process, understandably occupying the territory of those who attacked her.

I don't see how anyone can consider that "theft."

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 12:59 PM
It did. Unfortunately, Israel had to fight, what, three wars to defend itself and in the process, understandably occupying the territory of those who attacked her.

I don't see how anyone can consider that "theft."

As Israel never acknowledged the "Arab State" in the first place, I can't see how anyone couldn't consider it theft.

Perhaps if they had, things may have worked out differently. Sadly, we will never know.

Besides, as Israel (almost certainly) has a Nuclear Deterrent and hasn't been invaded since the Yom Kippur War, I don't see how they are justified in continuing to hold their stolen land some 35 years later. JMO.

Donger
04-17-2008, 01:01 PM
As Israel never acknowledged the "Arab State" in the first place, I can't see how anyone couldn't consider it theft.

Perhaps if they had, things may have worked out differently. Sadly, we will never know.

If Israel hadn't been attacked and had simply taken the areas in question, I'd agree that that would be theft. Since they were attacked, I wouldn't.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 01:03 PM
If Israel hadn't been attacked and had simply taken the areas in question, I'd agree that that would be theft. Since they were attacked, I wouldn't.

It's clear the fact they refused to recognize the Arab State before they were attacked doesn't matter to you.

Donger
04-17-2008, 01:04 PM
I suppose the fact they refused to recognize the Arab State before they were attacked doesn't play a part in your thinking?

Did the "Arab State" recognize Israel?

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 01:05 PM
Did the "Arab State" recognize Israel?

It was never allowed to exist, so how could it? :spock:

Donger
04-17-2008, 01:09 PM
It was never allowed to exist, so how could it? :spock:

I used quotes for a reason. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attacked Israel during the 1948 war.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 01:16 PM
I used quotes for a reason. Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq attacked Israel during the 1948 war.



Besides, as Israel (almost certainly) has a Nuclear Deterrent and hasn't been invaded since the Yom Kippur War, I don't see how they are justified in continuing to hold their stolen land some 35 years later. JMO.

It's clear to me we will simply have to agree to disagree, as this is going in circles.

Donger
04-17-2008, 01:20 PM
It's clear to me we will simply have to agree to disagree, as this is going in circles.

I would think that the fact that they HAVE been invaded three times since their creation would provide one with more than enough justification for holding some of the land as a buffer. But that's just my opinion.

However, Israel has given some of the occupied territory back. Sinai, Gaza (sort of), parts of the Golan.

Anyway, as usual, I've enjoyed our discussion.

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 01:29 PM
I would think that the fact that they HAVE been invaded three times since their creation would provide one with more than enough justification for holding some of the land as a buffer. But that's just my opinion.

However, Israel has given some of the occupied territory back. Sinai, Gaza (sort of), parts of the Golan.

Anyway, as usual, I've enjoyed our discussion.

Likewise.

jAZ
04-17-2008, 02:29 PM
I already did earlier, but I'll do so again:

Hamas is not a state. They are a terrorist organization.
I don't see how those words answer these questions.

Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

How is it even possible to act in a credible way without assessing and addressing the needs of a powerful organization?

If I missed the post where you connect the dots directly, just link and I'll re-read. My intention isn't to create work for you.

Donger
04-17-2008, 02:32 PM
I don't see how those words answer these questions.

Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

How is it even possible to act in a credible way without assessing and addressing the needs of a powerful organization?

If I missed the post where you connect the dots directly, just link and I'll re-read. My intention isn't to create work for you.

I've explained it as succinctly as I can in this thread. But, again, perhaps you should ask your candidate of choice if it's that important to you.

He shares my view.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 02:34 PM
I've explained it as succinctly as I can in this thread. But, again, perhaps you should ask your candidate of choice if it's that important to you.

He shares my view.


He's asking you a philisophical question, you pussy.

Donger
04-17-2008, 02:40 PM
He's asking you a philisophical question, you pussy.

Pussy? That's uncalled for.

Anyway, I don't think that we should have any discussions with Hamas until they renounce terrorism and acknowledge Israel's right to exist. They've also shown zero willingness to negotiate, at all. If Israel wants to have discussions with them, fine and good.

And, I've said all this in this thread.

Taco John
04-17-2008, 02:51 PM
It wasn't uncalled for. I described exactly what you are being. It's a simple philisophical question that can apply to ANY situation.

It shouldn't matter whether they acknowledge the existence of the freaking moon, let alone an enemy state to them in order for us to have a conversation with them. What the hell do they have to gain by capitulating to us before any actual negotiation has taken place. It's a stupid ****ing point of view that does nothing but keep us involved in a deadlocked war thousands of miles from our own home front.

Hamas is not a country, they are a democratically elected government. They have one weapon: terrorism. You're telling them "you have to surrender before we'll talk to you about the terms of your surrender."

It's a hopeless, stupid strategy that will never work.

Donger
04-17-2008, 03:01 PM
It wasn't uncalled for. I described exactly what you are being. It's a simple philisophical question that can apply to ANY situation.

It shouldn't matter whether they acknowledge the existence of the freaking moon, let alone an enemy state to them in order for us to have a conversation with them. What the hell do they have to gain by capitulating to us before any actual negotiation has taken place. It's a stupid ****ing point of view that does nothing but keep us involved in a deadlocked war thousands of miles from our own home front.

Hamas is not a country, they are a democratically elected government. They have one weapon: terrorism. You're telling them "you have to surrender before we'll talk to you about the terms of your surrender."

It's a hopeless, stupid strategy that will never work.

And what does Israel have to gain? Neither side is clean in this region, but Hamas and others are the ones who call for Israel to be destroyed. Israel could kill them all if they wanted, but she doesn't.

Israel has been invaded three times and wisely took the land of those who invaded her as a buffer against further invasion. If Israel gives back the occupied land, do you really think that Hamas and others will suddenly accept Israel?

Israle HAS shown that she is willing to negoiate, when the other side is willing to do so (see Egypt). But, as long as there is no give on the other side, again, why should she simply accept the demands of Hamas?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 03:17 PM
And what does Israel have to gain? Neither side is clean in this region, but Hamas and others are the ones who call for Israel to be destroyed. Israel could kill them all if they wanted, but she doesn't.

They may call for that openly but there are extremists on the Israeli side that want all of Palestine too. They're just not as out-in-the-open about the idea. So if they overtly killed them all, as they could, the international community would turn against them or all hell might break lose over there too. Not wise on their behalf. But those guys do exist on the Israeli side. They foment to instigate the violence against them, so they can then take more land and it's working instead. Ariel Sharon did that in Sept 2000 with other Likud party members, done by the Temple Mount by insinuating the rebuilding of their temple by keeping the mount under Israeli sovereignty. They set off the 2nd Intifada with that. It's an old technique.

Bottom line is that the Palestinians see it as an occupation by Israel and the US sees it as terrorism by the Palestinians which is why there's never any peace. The only hope, imo, is to work with any moderates on each side and try to squeeze out the extremists. Even then I don't think you'll ever get rid of all terrorism there.

mlyonsd
04-17-2008, 03:22 PM
Bottom line is that the Palestinians see it as an occupation by Israel and the US sees it as terrorism by the Palestinians which is why there's never any peace. The only hope, imo, is to work with any moderates on each side and try to squeeze out the extremists. Even then I don't think you'll ever get rid of all terrorism there.

Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what Israel and the US are doing by talking to Abbas?

BucEyedPea
04-17-2008, 03:34 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't that what Israel and the US are doing by talking to Abbas?

Abbas may be considered a moderate but he's also a US installed lackey or proxy and was not only perceived that way by Palestinians but was corrupt and used foreign aid money to enrich himself. ( what usually happens with such foreign aid anyway...it never gets to the people). That just helped bring Hamas to power.

go bowe
04-17-2008, 03:59 PM
How is holding discussions "appeasement"? Please elaborate. I know you would like to paint anyone willing to talk with Hamas as the next Neville Chamberlain, but failing the power to make binding agreements, IMO it's a nonsensical comparison.what do you have against nonsensical, anyway? :shrug:

Adept Havelock
04-17-2008, 04:16 PM
what do you have against nonsensical, anyway? :shrug:

Good point. After all, I am the founder of the Ministry of Silly Thoughts. :D

Taco John
04-17-2008, 05:17 PM
And what does Israel have to gain? Neither side is clean in this region, but Hamas and others are the ones who call for Israel to be destroyed. Israel could kill them all if they wanted, but she doesn't.

Israel has been invaded three times and wisely took the land of those who invaded her as a buffer against further invasion. If Israel gives back the occupied land, do you really think that Hamas and others will suddenly accept Israel?

Israle HAS shown that she is willing to negoiate, when the other side is willing to do so (see Egypt). But, as long as there is no give on the other side, again, why should she simply accept the demands of Hamas?


You and I are not Israelis. Why are you addressing this from the point of what Israel should do? The question was about attempting to try and broker a peace. If I didn't know any better, from the way you're talking, I'd think that you are of the mind that Isreal is the 51st state.

They're not.

Are we trying to be an honest broker, or are we Israel's nanny?

The question was:
Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

Apparently the answer is: we're NOT trying to be an honest broker. We're trying to strong-arm the situation - resulting in nothing but an increased chance of war for Israel, not lessing the chances of it.

Donger
04-17-2008, 05:23 PM
You and I are not Israelis. Why are you addressing this from the point of what Israel should do? The question was about attempting to try and broker a peace. If I didn't know any better, from the way you're talking, I'd think that you are of the mind that Isreal is the 51st state.

They're not.

Are we trying to be an honest broker, or are we Israel's nanny?

The question was:
Why shouldn't any party seeking to be an honest broker seeking to negotiate peace between Israel and Palestine hold a discussion with the democratically elected leaders holding the majority of the seats in the legislative council of the Palestinian Authority?

Apparently the answer is: we're NOT trying to be an honest broker. We're trying to strong-arm the situation - resulting in nothing but an increased chance of war for Israel, not lessing the chances of it.

Israel is our ally. "Palestine" is not.

This isn't that hard to figure out.

patteeu
04-18-2008, 06:08 AM
As Israel never acknowledged the "Arab State" in the first place, I can't see how anyone couldn't consider it theft.

Perhaps if they had, things may have worked out differently. Sadly, we will never know.

Besides, as Israel (almost certainly) has a Nuclear Deterrent and hasn't been invaded since the Yom Kippur War, I don't see how they are justified in continuing to hold their stolen land some 35 years later. JMO.

You take a lot of comfort in nuclear deterrents, but they really only work against states led by rational actors. Israel's nuclear deterrent hasn't done much to protect them from the asymmetrical seige they've been under for decades now from the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the various factions of the PLO.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2008, 07:23 AM
You take a lot of comfort in nuclear deterrents, but they really only work against states led by rational actors. Israel's nuclear deterrent hasn't done much to protect them from the asymmetrical seige they've been under for decades now from the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, and the various factions of the PLO.

You consider the former Soviet Union rational? I don't think this claim has borne out with any examples since we're all still here.

Terrrorism arose because the Israel's enemies could not fight conventionally. Eventhough Israel may have won the conventional war, they failed to win the peace. You have to have both.

Terror is blowback for occupation. That's how it's perceived by her enemies.

patteeu
04-18-2008, 08:33 AM
You consider the former Soviet Union rational? I don't think this claim has borne out with any examples since we're all still here.

Of course I do. Don't you?

Terrrorism arose because the Israel's enemies could not fight conventionally. Eventhough Israel may have won the conventional war, they failed to win the peace. You have to have both.

Terror is blowback for occupation. That's how it's perceived by her enemies.

What's your point? Nuclear deterrence obviously doesn't work against Israel's terrorist enemies regardless of why those enemies use terrorism.

Adept Havelock
04-18-2008, 10:49 AM
Of course I do. Don't you?



What's your point? Nuclear deterrence obviously doesn't work against Israel's terrorist enemies regardless of why those enemies use terrorism.

I have a great deal of confidence in its ability to dissuade Hostile Nation-States, which was Donger's objection to withdrawal from the occupied territories and the territories they refused to recognize as having equal status under the '47 partition plan.

As the Mullahs in Iran wish to lead the new "Caliphate", and are aware they will be unable to if Iran is a smoldering plain of fused glass, said deterrent will also dissuade them as "rational actors". Much as it did the Soviet Union, who were unwilling to sacrifice the center of "World Revolution" in order to bring about that revolution by using Nuclear weapons to destroy their opposition.

JMO.

BTW- If you have any other questions, check my earlier posts. I'm not going to waste time rehashing my position. We will simply have to agree to disagree, as Donger and I have.

patteeu
04-18-2008, 10:54 AM
I have a great deal of confidence in it's ability to dissuade Hostile Nation-States.

As the Mullahs in Iran wish to lead the new "Caliphite", and are aware they will be unable to if Iran is a smoldering plain of fused glass, said deterrent will also dissuade them as "rational actors". Much as it did the Soviet Union, who were unwilling to sacrifice the center of "World Revolution" in order to bring about that revolution by using Nuclear weapons to destroy their opposition.

JMO.

Do you believe that all nation-states are ruled by rational actors, who value the continued existence of their nation-state over other considerations, all the time?

Adept Havelock
04-18-2008, 11:26 AM
Do you believe that all nation-states are ruled by rational actors, who value the continued existence of their nation-state over other considerations, all the time?

No, I do not. There will always be those like Mugabe who put their personal power first. I do believe that when a "major player" like that arises they can be dealt with, by various means up to and including Strategic Weaponry. If they are not a "major player", than can likely be easily isolated.

However, I'm not generally willing to preemptively attack someone based on the idea that a non-rational actor "might" someday arise, where a rational actor currently exists.

Bowser
04-18-2008, 12:55 PM
Do you believe that all nation-states are ruled by rational actors, who value the continued existence of their nation-state over other considerations, all the time?

You mean like Ronald Reagan?









:D

Donger
04-18-2008, 01:31 PM
DAMASCUS, Syria - Former President Carter met Friday with the exiled leader of Hamas and the militant group's deputy chief, men the U.S. government has labeled as global terrorists and Israel accuses of masterminding suicide bombings and kidnappings.

Carter's meeting with Hamas chief Khaled Mashaal followed two other meetings between the former American president and the Palestinian militant group in the Middle East this week. Hamas officials say the meetings have lent their group legitimacy.

Mashaal's deputy Moussa Abu Marzouk attended the meeting with Carter at Mashaal's Damascus office, a Hamas official at the site told The Associated Press. Abu Marzouk was designated a terrorist by the U.S. Treasury Department in 1995, allowing the government to seize his assets. He was detained at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York that same year and spent two years in a New York jail before he was deported in 1997.

The U.S. State Department twice advised Carter against meeting Hamas leaders before he left on his Mideast trip earlier this week. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticized Carter's plans to meet Mashaal, saying last week that Hamas is an impediment to Middle East peace.

Several members of Congress also urged Carter not to meet Mashaal, saying it would confer legitimacy on the group behind some 250 suicide bombings that have killed numerous Israeli.

But Carter, who brokered the 1978 Israeli-Egyptian peace and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002, has defended what he calls his personal peace mission, saying Hamas must be engaged in order to achieve Israeli-Palestinian peace.

Though Israel's government refuses to deal with Hamas, Carter said Thursday he knows some Israeli government officials are "quite willing" to meet the militant group and he speculated that might happen in the near future.

Israeli Cabinet minister Eli Yishai said Friday he asked Carter earlier this week to arrange a meeting with Hamas to discuss a prisoner exchange. Yishai, the Israeli deputy prime minister, said he wanted to try to win the release of Cpl. Gilad Shalit, held by Hamas in Gaza for two years.

Hamas said from Gaza Friday that Shalit will "not see the light" until Palestinian prisoners are also released in an exchange.

Yishai was the only Israeli minister to meet Carter when he visited Israel and the Palestinians territories earlier this week. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he did not meet Carter during his visit to avoid creating the impression that he was negotiating with Hamas.

The U.S. State Department did not comment further on the meeting Friday.

"I don't think I have anything more to add to what I as well as others have said previously on it," State Department spokesman Sean McCormack told reporters. "We have made our views clear."

The United States designated Hamas a terrorist organization in January 1995, which made it a violation to conduct any financial or business transaction with the group.

Shortly after Hamas claimed responsibility for an August 19, 2003 suicide bombing in Jerusalem that killed 20 people including four U.S. citizens, the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Asset Control named a number of Hamas leaders as "specially designated global terrorists." They included Mashaal and Abu Marzouk and the designation made it illegal to conduct any transactions with them.

Israel also brands Hamas a terrorist organization and has accused Mashaal of masterminding the kidnapping of Shalit near Gaza two years ago. Israel has blamed Mashaal and the group's Damascus-based leadership for directing suicide bombings such as the September 2004 attacks that killed 16 Israelis in the southern city of Beersheba.

Israel tried to kill Mashaal in 1997, when agents sprayed him with poison on a street in Amman. Jordan's late King Hussein, who had signed peace with Israel in 1994, forced Israel to send the antidote that saved his life.

Afterward, Jordan expelled Mashaal to Qatar as the kingdom's ties with Hamas deteriorated, and he moved to Damascus in 1999.

Before Friday's meeting began, Abu Marzouk told The Associated Press that calming the situation between Hamas and Israel as well as the fate of Shalit would be on the agenda.

"Hamas will not be a hurdle in any future prisoner exchange," Abu Marzouk said.

Asked if Hamas is ready to sit and talk directly to the Israelis, Abu Marzouk said: "There are no (direct) meetings with the Israelis. Most of the meetings that took place between the two sides were not direct."

Hamas won 2006 Palestinian parliament elections and has since been locked in a power struggle with the Fatah faction headed by President Mahmoud Abbas. Hamas forcibly seized control of Gaza from Fatah in June and set up a regime that rivals Abbas' West Bank government.

But an internationally backed Israeli boycott of Hamas has put a stranglehold on Gaza, deepening the poverty of its 1.4 million residents.

Carter met senior Hamas officials from Gaza in Cairo on Thursday and asked them to halt rocket attacks against Israel. And in the West Bank Wednesday, he embraced a Hamas representative, angering Israelis.

Hamas official Mushir Masri, in a fiery speech Friday to thousands of Hamas supporters in Gaza, said the meetings with Carter were proof that Hamas was not a terrorist group, but a national liberation movement.

"It confirms the failure of the U.S. and European policies of ignoring Hamas," he told the crowd. "It confirms that all the countries that assume Hamas is a terrorist group should reconsider."

Carter met Syrian President Bashar Assad earlier Friday after arriving in Syria from Egypt.

patteeu
04-18-2008, 03:05 PM
No, I do not. There will always be those like Mugabe who put their personal power first. I do believe that when a "major player" like that arises they can be dealt with, by various means up to and including Strategic Weaponry. If they are not a "major player", than can likely be easily isolated.

However, I'm not generally willing to preemptively attack someone based on the idea that a non-rational actor "might" someday arise, where a rational actor currently exists.

I think the nuclear deterrent would work strongly against us in the event that a non-rational actor came to power in a nuclear state. Bin Ladenists in Pakistan would surely not be as easy to get rid of as Saddam was if military force became necessary. If we let the Middle Eastern nuclear genie out of the bottle by letting Iran develop weapons, other countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to want one (especially after they see what becoming a nuclear power does to Iran's ability to stand up to the west). And when we get to the point where we have 4 or 5 nuclear states in the middle east we'll have a much better chance to see weapons in the hands of madmen, one way or the other, IMO.

Taco John
04-18-2008, 03:21 PM
Israel is our ally. "Palestine" is not.

This isn't that hard to figure out.

In that case, let's stop pretending that we can be honest brokers of peace.

Donger
04-18-2008, 03:22 PM
In that case, let's stop pretending that we can be honest brokers of peace.

I didn't say we could be. It's okay though, Jimmy just gave Hamas legitimacy.

Taco John
04-18-2008, 03:36 PM
I think the nuclear deterrent would work strongly against us in the event that a non-rational actor came to power in a nuclear state. Bin Ladenists in Pakistan would surely not be as easy to get rid of as Saddam was if military force became necessary. If we let the Middle Eastern nuclear genie out of the bottle by letting Iran develop weapons, other countries like Saudi Arabia and Egypt are going to want one (especially after they see what becoming a nuclear power does to Iran's ability to stand up to the west). And when we get to the point where we have 4 or 5 nuclear states in the middle east we'll have a much better chance to see weapons in the hands of madmen, one way or the other, IMO.


Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons. Their plan is economic. If you believe in Peak oil, then you have to acknowledge that the end of this supply is going to leave them broke and defenseless... So they're looking to build nuclear power that they can pipe out to the highest bidder. Then they'll drop the economic boom on us by lowering the price of oil as dirt cheap as they can, and accept only Euros for it and busting a hole in the dollar the size of a Mac truck.

The issue here isn't that the powers that be are afraid of them developing nuclear weapons. It's that they're afraid of them turning the energy power structure on its head. Of course they know that they're not developing nuclear weapons. There's ample evidence that this isn't even close to being a relevant concern.

The powers that be have no choice. They can't get rid of the fiat dollar, because they lose power that way. And they can't let Iran go through with a plan that would allow them to become the world's foremost nuclear power broker. Their only choice for trying to maintain power is to go to war and stop it from happening, and deal with the fallout of the decision as best they can.

BucEyedPea
04-18-2008, 05:56 PM
Of course I do. Don't you?

What's your point? Nuclear deterrence obviously doesn't work against Israel's terrorist enemies regardless of why those enemies use terrorism.

That's true. Terrorism more wears them down over the long haul until they weary of it. More like a war of attrition. But that's still not the same level of threat as a nation state with a nuke with humongous casualty numbers. As far as the leaders of these terrorist groups go, notice how they never wear the suicide vests? Nope, they use their people as cannon fodder. They don't put themselves at risk. If terror is a type of warfare, then it's goal is to create political concessions. So their leaders as just as rational, as in want to survive themselves, as any former Soviet leader. So they would not be acting against their own interests.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 07:16 AM
That's true. Terrorism more wears them down over the long haul until they weary of it. More like a war of attrition. But that's still not the same level of threat as a nation state with a nuke with humongous casualty numbers. As far as the leaders of these terrorist groups go, notice how they never wear the suicide vests? Nope, they use their people as cannon fodder. They don't put themselves at risk. If terror is a type of warfare, then it's goal is to create political concessions. So their leaders as just as rational, as in want to survive themselves, as any former Soviet leader. So they would not be acting against their own interests.

The more nuclear proliferation allowed, the closer we come to the day when a non-deterrable entity takes possession of a nuclear weapon. Whether that's a sophisticated terrorist group or a nation-state led by someone who isn't concerned with the survival of his nation-state, either way it destroys the value of a nuclear deterrent.

But beyond that, even if you believe that Iran can be deterred from using it's nukes because of the retaliation that might occur, there's no reason to believe that they will be deterred from using their conventional proxies to continue to pursue policy goals through violence throughout the region. In fact, given the boldness of their approach in Iraq, there's plenty of reason to believe they'd feel even more free to make conventional trouble.

patteeu
04-19-2008, 07:22 AM
Iran isn't developing nuclear weapons. Their plan is economic. If you believe in Peak oil, then you have to acknowledge that the end of this supply is going to leave them broke and defenseless... So they're looking to build nuclear power that they can pipe out to the highest bidder. Then they'll drop the economic boom on us by lowering the price of oil as dirt cheap as they can, and accept only Euros for it and busting a hole in the dollar the size of a Mac truck.

The issue here isn't that the powers that be are afraid of them developing nuclear weapons. It's that they're afraid of them turning the energy power structure on its head. Of course they know that they're not developing nuclear weapons. There's ample evidence that this isn't even close to being a relevant concern.

The powers that be have no choice. They can't get rid of the fiat dollar, because they lose power that way. And they can't let Iran go through with a plan that would allow them to become the world's foremost nuclear power broker. Their only choice for trying to maintain power is to go to war and stop it from happening, and deal with the fallout of the decision as best they can.

Wow. I have no doubt that Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons as well as a nuclear power industry. I'd like to hear your "ample evidence" to the contrary.