It's Time for a Sustained Focus on a Lasting Middle East Peace

Obama has no problem with jumping ahead of the job of the "boy emperor" on domestic issues, but he will have a lot to say on the Middle East? There's no evidence of such and is more along the lines of demonstrating, as he has on other foreign issues, that he simply lacks the knowledge and experience to make meaningful commentary on the topic.

Well frankly, I'm relieved Obama 'jumped ahead' on domestic issues.
It's obvious the boy emperor thinks only about his retirement while the American economy goes into the tank.

When asked about the Israeli invasion of Gaza, Obama said,
"After the 20th, I'll have plenty to say about Israel and Palestine."
When it comes to foreign policy, it's important the world understands who speaks for America.
Until January 20, the boy emperor speaks for America, even though he has nothing to say.

Would you address the President of the US as "boy emperor" if he were in the room with you?

We have to look seriously at a political one-state solution, too.

While I fully support Palestinian statehood and reject most of the tactics of the Israeli goverment, how can there ever be peace when the founding charter of Hamas explicitly calls for the "elmination of the State of Israel," whether by violent or other means, and that nothing less is acceptable? Hamas leaves no room for treaties, truces (except temporary) or ANY solution that does not include the destruction, dissolution or other elimination of the State of Israel. So what makes anyone think that peace is even possible?

Until Hamas is ready to amend their founding documents and recognize the right of Israel to exist, the violence will continue, and no solution will ever be found.

Peace. (in our time...)

who amoung you and jim, thinks that hamas will talk about anything? answer me that. a cease fire means no more rockets and suicides. not a chnace. how many times has isreal stopped bombing? pulled out of areas. opened borders. the result - hamas wants more. arafat turned down peace why shouyldd even more radical hamas do any different. why don't the palestnians run hamas off to stop the slaughter? why doesn't jim talk about hamas agression?

I agree with Maani, too. And I think the hatred and destructiveness coming from Hamas is one of the reasons Israelis do not seem to want to give up the West Bank. If I were an Israeli, I would fear that what happened in Gaza - pullout of settlers, giving it back to the Palestinians, and then having them elect Hamas and start to attack Israel - would be exactly what would happen in the West Bank.

I think it's important to remember that the Jews and Muslims did not make the boundary lines in the Middle East. The same is true for Saudi Arabia, and I think also Iran and Iraq. Great Britain and France created the boundaries. And I think we should not ask Israel to make itself vulnerable to destruction - especially when they have so many Muslim haters in their vicinity - by asking them to give up the West Bank.

I'd like to see the Palestinians governing themselves, and thriving, too - but they just (in my opinion - correct me if I'm wrong) would have to give up the idea of destroying Israel, and separate themselves from other Islamic violence-mongers, and put their energies into building a real state for themselves. That - I think - would be the kind of attitude change that would give the Israels enough trust and faith to "give back" the West Bank.

Or - maybe the people of the region need to draw their own boundaries, not based on European or American ideas but based on the needs of the people who actually live there in the Middle East. If only they could be agreed-upon without violence, the way our states are! We, too, started out with states based on religion - Quakers (Pennsylvania), Puritans (Massachusetts), Anglican (Virginia), Catholic (Maryland) - and only later became united, with freedom of worship... I wish the Middle East could do that, too. Maybe they will, after this violent interpretation of Islam has come and gone.

An Unnecessary War, by Jimmy Carter

http://media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/...

excerpts:

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara, with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

This war will only create more suicide bombers.

Obama camp 'prepared to talk to Hamas'
Incoming administration will abandon Bush's isolation of Islamist group to initiate low-level diplomacy, say transition sources.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/08/bar...

Excerpts:

The incoming Obama administration is prepared to abandon George Bush's ­doctrine of isolating Hamas by establishing a channel to the Islamist organisation, sources close to the transition team say.

The move to open contacts with Hamas, which could be initiated through the US intelligence services, would represent a definitive break with the Bush ­presidency's ostracising of the group. The state department has designated Hamas a terrorist organisation...

The Guardian has spoken to three ­people with knowledge of the discussions in the Obama camp. There is no talk of Obama approving direct diplomatic negotiations with Hamas early on, but he is being urged by advisers to initiate low-level or clandestine approaches, and there is growing recognition in Washington that the policy of ostracising Hamas is counter-productive. A tested course would be to start ­contacts through Hamas and the US intelligence services, similar to the secret process through which the US engaged with the PLO in the 1970s. Israel did not become aware of the contacts until much later.

Obama has frustrated and confused those who had been looking for a more evenhanded approach to the Israeli-­Palestinian conflict by his refusal to make any substantive comment on Israel's ­military campaign on Gaza, nearly two weeks on.

He said on Wednesday: "We cannot be sending a message to the world that there are two different administrations conducting foreign policy.
Until I take office, it would be ­imprudent of me to start sending out ­signals that somehow we are running ­foreign policy when I am not legally authorised to do so."

"why doesn't jim talk about hamas agression?"

I've often wondered the same thing, savvyguy. Listening to most of the media, you'd never know that over the last 3 years Hamas has launched 6,464 (column by Charles Krauthammer 1-6-09) rocket and mortar attacks against unarmed Israeli civilians. No one would tolerate that if it were done against their country. Also, no one talks about the arms stored in mosques, schools and so forth by Hamas. Both sides have committed war crimes. But we hear more about the Israeli's war crimes than those of Hamas.

I think the short answer to your question is simply political correctness.

The boy emperor attracts criticism from around the world -- from liberals and conservatives alike.
He's not hated because he's a conservative -- he isn't. He's a radical.
The boy emperor is despised and hated for his track record of incompetence, arrogance and the incalculable damage he's done to world peace and global prosperity.

If you find hypocrisy fascinating, focus on the pathetic, post election soul searching within the Republican party.
You won't be disappointed.

Bill Moyers on Israel's attack on Gaza:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01092009/tran...
Excerpts:

What we are seeing in Gaza is the latest battle in the oldest family quarrel on record. Open your Bible: the sons of the patriarch Abraham become Arab and Jew. Go to the Book of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had brought down the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" now proclaimed, "You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place."

So God-soaked violence became genetically coded. A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza. As if boasting of their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells CBS, "It's like Dante's Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage."

America has officially chosen sides. We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals. Our Christian right links arms with the religious extremists there who claim divine sanctions for Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Our political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House.

No id probably have another name for him

A "political" solution usually requires the involvement of politicians. And that fact alone almost guarantees failure. Where are the "leaders" who can mobilize and inspire people against the machinations of the politicians?

You all speak as though this is any of our business. We can call for a cease fire sure, but much of these problems have been perpetuated by our interference in the past. These are sovereign nations and we have no right to interfere. Israel is our only true ally in that area however. Also, if you had a rocket lobbed into your neighborhood every now and then as Hamas does to Israel, I am certain you would be ready to do whatever it took to make sure those rockets were stopped. Hamas is basically a kid throwing dirt clods at a hornets nest, sooner or later they are going to come after you.

As for foreign support, I would agree that we should not be pouring money and weapons into Israel. But we should cut off all foreign aid, give that money back to the people of America by cutting taxes and allow individuals to decide if they want to support foreign mission work/operations.

The US government should remove itself from all foreign entanglements as soon as possible. Our economy is about to fail as a result of bad foreign and domestic policies. When that happens, there will be nothing left for foreign aid.

As for the deprived Palestinians, they elected Hamas of their own free will. Have you forgotten that the Egyptians refuse to help the Palestinians as well. They are surrounded by "friends", i.e.Iran, Egypt, Syria...other Muslim nations, and these nations neither give the Palestinians land or enough food and aid to live more comfortably where they are. Iran could easily absorb the Palestinian population and end this. The other Muslim nations though use the Palestinian people to antagonize Israel and keep the entire region unstable.

However, I must make clear, even though we should hope for peace in that region, our government should not be politically involved in applying pressure to either Israel or the Palestinians. They are grown men and can figure this out for themselves.

The boy emperor attracts criticism from around the world -- from liberals and conservatives alike.
He's not hated because he's a conservative -- he isn't. He's a radical.
The boy emperor is despised and hated for his track record of incompetence, arrogance and the incalculable damage he's done to world peace and global prosperity.

If you find hypocrisy fascinating, focus on the pathetic, post election soul searching within the Republican party.
You won't be disappointed.

Bill Moyers on Israel's attack on Gaza:
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01092009/tran...
Excerpts:

What we are seeing in Gaza is the latest battle in the oldest family quarrel on record. Open your Bible: the sons of the patriarch Abraham become Arab and Jew. Go to the Book of Deuteronomy. When the ancient Israelites entered Canaan their leaders urged violence against its inhabitants. The very Moses who had brought down the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" now proclaimed, "You must destroy completely all the places where the nations have served their gods. You must tear down their altars, smash their pillars, cut down their sacred poles, set fire to the carved images of their gods, and wipe out their name from that place."

So God-soaked violence became genetically coded. A radical stream of Islam now seeks to eliminate Israel from the face of the earth. Israel misses no opportunity to humiliate the Palestinians with checkpoints, concrete walls, routine insults, and the onslaught in Gaza. As if boasting of their might, Israel defense forces even put up video of the explosions on YouTube for all the world to see. A Norwegian doctor there tells CBS, "It's like Dante's Inferno. They are bombing one and a half million people in a cage."

America has officially chosen sides. We supply Israel with money, F-16s, winks and tacit signals. Our Christian right links arms with the religious extremists there who claim divine sanctions for Israel's occupation of the West Bank. Our political elites show neither independence nor courage by challenging the consensus that Israel can do no wrong. Although one recent poll found Democratic voters overwhelmingly oppose the Israeli offensive by a 24-point margin, Democratic Party leaders in Congress nonetheless march in lockstep to the hardliners in Israel and the White House.

If Obama is Serious, He Should Get Tough With Israel

Some good advice from Aaron David Miller, an adviser for Democratic and Republican administrations and author of "The Much Too Promised Land,"
http://www.newsweek.com/id/177716?from=rss
excerpts:

In 25 years of working on this issue for six secretaries of state, I can't recall one meeting where we had a serious discussion with an Israeli prime minister about the damage that settlement activity-including land confiscation, bypass roads and housing demolitions-does to the peacemaking process. There is a need to impose some accountability. And this can only come from the president. But Obama should make it clear that America will not lend its auspices to a peacemaking process in which the actions of either side willfully undermine the chances of an agreement America is trying to broker. No process at all would be better than a dishonest one that hurts America's credibility.

Second, Obama will have to maintain his independence and tactical flexibility to play the mediator's role. This means not road testing everything with Israel first before previewing it to the other side, a practice we followed scrupulously during the Clinton and Bush 43 years. America must also not agree to every idea proposed by an Israeli prime minister. Our willingness to go along with Ehud Barak's make-or-break strategy at the Camp David summit proved very costly where more disciplined critical thinking on our part might have helped preempt the catastrophe that followed. Coordinating with Israel on matters relating to its security is one thing. Giving Israel a veto over American negotiating tactics and positions, particularly when it comes to bridging gaps between the two sides, is quite another.

If the new president adjusts his thinking when it comes to Israel, and is prepared to be tough with the Arabs as well, the next several years could be fascinating and productive ones. I hope so, because the national interest demands it. The process of American mediation will be excruciatingly painful for Arabs, Israelis and Americans. But if done right, with toughness and fairness, it could produce the first real opportunity for a peace deal in many years.

I find it interesting that Obama has much to say about domestic issues and not venturing out to express how he plans on dealing with this issue. I also think that Gaza made a huge error in showing off their new elected officials by sending out the missiles as a show of strength The timing on Israel's part couldn't be better to retaliate, as we are mid administrations, and somewhat impotent. Both Bush and Obama are giving Israel a free pass to do as they will during this transitionary period.

We have to look seriously at a political one-state solution, too.

jkc1945 says: "A website which is an obvious propoganda (sic) website is not worthy of a detailed response."

onenewsnow is such a website and Walid Shoebat is a phony.

I agree with Maani. I don't think there is any room for an Israeli state in the eyes of the Hamas leaders. The hatred is so vitriolic that, short of an Israeli-Egyptian-like accord -- thank you former Pres. Carter -- there is little to be hopeful about. Perhaps Jimmy has a little left in him.........

Since every political solution that has been proposed, and tried has failed, why don't we stop with the politics. If you want a real, lasting, sustainable peace in the middle east, or anywhere in the world for that matter, why don't we try something that appears to have never been tried before? How about preaching the Gospel?

I agree with Maani, too. And I think the hatred and destructiveness coming from Hamas is one of the reasons Israelis do not seem to want to give up the West Bank. If I were an Israeli, I would fear that what happened in Gaza - pullout of settlers, giving it back to the Palestinians, and then having them elect Hamas and start to attack Israel - would be exactly what would happen in the West Bank.

I think it's important to remember that the Jews and Muslims did not make the boundary lines in the Middle East. The same is true for Saudi Arabia, and I think also Iran and Iraq. Great Britain and France created the boundaries. And I think we should not ask Israel to make itself vulnerable to destruction - especially when they have so many Muslim haters in their vicinity - by asking them to give up the West Bank.

I'd like to see the Palestinians governing themselves, and thriving, too - but they just (in my opinion - correct me if I'm wrong) would have to give up the idea of destroying Israel, and separate themselves from other Islamic violence-mongers, and put their energies into building a real state for themselves. That - I think - would be the kind of attitude change that would give the Israels enough trust and faith to "give back" the West Bank.

Or - maybe the people of the region need to draw their own boundaries, not based on European or American ideas but based on the needs of the people who actually live there in the Middle East. If only they could be agreed-upon without violence, the way our states are! We, too, started out with states based on religion - Quakers (Pennsylvania), Puritans (Massachusetts), Anglican (Virginia), Catholic (Maryland) - and only later became united, with freedom of worship... I wish the Middle East could do that, too. Maybe they will, after this violent interpretation of Islam has come and gone.