I won't respond to your first comment, as it seems needlessly ad hominem in nature.

As to the validity of your analogy, I don't see the situation as this black-and-white. You say that if it doesn't save lives, it costs lives? Did someone literally die this week because Carter went to Egypt? And if I accept your "if not A, then B" statement, how do you measure that against the cost of doing nothing? Once more, it appears to me that your real argument is that it is simply better to do nothing than it is to talk.

Adventure-Dude, I guess the reason I would state is that, for better or worse, Hamas has to have a seat at the table because of its present role in the Palestinian government. It makes up part of the government that the Israelis would have to negotiate a settlement with. Whatever its leaders may say, I simply have a difficult time accepting the proposition that the vast majority of Palestinians would prefer an endless cycle of violence and bloodshed to reaching a peace agreement with the Israelis that grants them land of their own and a mutual assurance that neither one will raise arms against the other. Maybe it's just my weirdly optimistic outlook on life and humanity, but I don't believe the natural condition of Man is war. If I did, I don't really think I'd want to be one.

Leauki, I think we keep coming back to the same point, which is this: Khalid Meshaal has stated that Hamas will not recognize Israel as a sovereign state. While this is indisputable, it is not equivalent to calling for the extermination of all Israeli Jews. I guess my bottom line is that I don't see how you achieve a positive result by not talking to your opponent. As to the problem in question, to me it is the use of guerilla attacks by Palestinian militants and the subsequent use of broader military power by Israel as a response (which frequently causes collateral damage, to use another favorite military term). I believe that the majority of Palestinians and Israelis do want this cycle to end and so all I'm arguing in favor of is promoting bi- or multilateral talks among the parties involved.

I have a difficult time accepting that too. But that is what has happened several times.

 

No, that's not the point at all. You THINK I base my opinion on that particular statement. I don't.

I base my opinion on the history of the "Palestinian cause", going back to the 1930s, and the opinions and statements of their leaders who are still revered as heroes by Arabs today.

I base my opinion on "Palestinian" television and its claims about Jews.

And I base my opinion the fact that "Mein Kampf" and the protocols, as I said, are best sellers in the Arab world.

Don't believe me? What evidence do you need?

 

I don't care if Hamas have a seat at the table. Israel does not want to discuss the terms of its death with the executioner and that's fine with me.

There is no "cycle of violence", by the way. If there was a "cycle", Israel would have continued to grow, not shrunk again. Arab propaganda claims that Israel wants to annex the land from Nile to Euphrates. In reality that land claim is a legend Zionists hear about from Arabs, not their own sources.

There were often periods of peace until the Arabs attacked again. That's not a "cycle". It's simply a "series" (of attacks).

 

Warreni, there are many issues here to address:
-Hamas doesn't WANT a seat at the table. They want Israel to go away. It is in their charter and history has repeated itself too many times. Trust me I want peace in this area. But it is Israel who has repeatedly offered the hand of peace and truce it is the other that continues to nullify and spit in their face. Quite frankly, it is Hamas' time to step up and show EVIDENCE of sincerity not this hint or potential 'peace' crap.

-Palestine elected Hamas. They KNEW who they were during elections. They may 'prefer' it not to be an endless cycle of violence but they elected them. Just like Germany bringing Hitler to power.

-Hamas teaches at a young age that Jews are no better than pigs. They are taught to hate them early on. It is the ONLY thing some of them know. While I agree it isn't their nature but manipulation has been successful in this case.

Warren: You're right! Everyone should just go do anyone else's job, just because they think they'll be better at it. Former presidents should still have all presidential authority an to heck with what the Constitution says. Everyone who thinks they can do a better job that you do at work should just do it.

Yes, I'm being facetious, but I'm only throwing your own lack of understanding of how the Government works in your face.

If you don't see what I mean... it figures.

Thanks for all the threads, most of which were extremely useful and sensible.I decided to post this blog because Carter felt that the "Road map" or whatever you want to call it, had regressed. Forget Carter and his "lame duck" Presidency. He must have been effective somewhere to earn the Nobel Prize. Forget that too and realise that not enough is being done to solve the Palestinian/Israel crisis. The situation, as I speak, is a "tit for tat" muck-throwing Catch 22 situation.I know the whole thing is complicated . I know it is historically a post 1948 niggle that irritates both sides. I know it is probably the most complicated of situations in the World to arbitrate. But people must try. Carter is trying. Bush could not be bothered because he sees no solution and Blair is so wrapped up in himself that he pretends rather than does.

I don't have a slution to an ages-old crisis but there are people out there still trying to solve, at best, a stubborn sixty year old puzzle. It's a no win situation but there could be someone in this World who has a solution.

Thanks for all the threads, most of which were extremely useful and sensible.I decided to post this blog because Carter felt that the "Road map" or whatever you want to call it, had regressed. Forget Carter and his "lame duck" Presidency. He must have been effective somewhere to earn the Nobel Prize. Forget that too and realise that not enough is being done to solve the Palestinian/Israel crisis. The situation, as I speak, is a "tit for tat" muck-throwing Catch 22 situation.I know the whole thing is complicated . I know it is historically a post 1948 niggle that irritates both sides. I know it is probably the most complicated of situations in the World to arbitrate. But people must try. Carter is trying. Bush could not be bothered because he sees no solution and Blair is so wrapped up in himself that he pretends rather than does.

I don't have an answer to an ages-old crisis but there are people out there still trying to solve, at best, a stubborn sixty year old puzzle. It's a no win situation but there could be someone in this World who has a solution.

Meh.. too bad it was all a big waste of time and taxpayer money.  Fortunately the old fool did not get himself killed and beheaded.

Eh, not really. If Israel was virtually any other nation on earth, there would be no Palestinian problem. There would be no Palestinians.

How many countries would not resort to all out war to erradicate a group of terrorists on its border murdering their civilians? Show me one, and I will show you history.

BTW: France does not count.

The Nobel committee has some strange notions of 'peace' (see Arafat, Yasser; Gore, Al).

Arab nationalism started long before 1948, as did Arab attacks on Jews (and other minorities).

I also don't see what's so complicated about that. Jews on the brink of destruction is not a rare occurence.

 

Kofi Annan (he probably bribed them), UN Peace keeping force (see a gun, and run!), Le Duc Tho (Lie long enough).

Yea, I would say Carter is in very good company.

That's not really difficult to believe.  They make no secret that they want to be destroyed.

Thanks for all the comments. There are some pro-Carter and some against but the Palestinian problem remains. And may remain until a wise Statesman gives some solutions.

Or until the Palestinians stop listening to meglomaniacs and start trying to live in peace. It is their choice after all, and even Soloman could not fix the problem until their attitude changes.

Ahh yes, it's all up to the Palestinians to make the choice to live in peace and everything will be rosy. Thanks for clarifying! Meanwhile, the Israelis will continue to practice their form of "tough love" until the attitude change you spoke of comes to pass? With occurrences like this- http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/05/the-bomb-squads-2/ happening to the civilian population on a regular basis I can't possibly understand why folks would want to rise up in armed resistance!