Jimmy Carter: U.S. Must Recognize Hamas As ‘Legitimate Politcal Actor’
Click here for reuse options!“Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise,” Carter writes, along with Mary Robinson, in a Foreign Policy op-ed Tuesday. “Only by recognizing its legitimacy as a political actor — one that represents a substantial portion of the Palestinian people — can the West begin to provide the right incentives for Hamas to lay down its weapons.”
Also in the op-ed, Carter faults Israel for stonewalling multilateral attempts at peace and for dangerously isolating Palestinians in Gaza, saying the “necessary requirements for a human standard of living continue to be denied.” And though he accuses both Israel and Hamas of committing war crimes through their “deliberate” attacks on civilians, he reserves his strongest criticisms for the IDF.
“There is no humane or legal justification for the way the Israeli Defense Forces are conducting this war,” he writes.
Copyright 2014 Liberaland
64 responses to Jimmy Carter: U.S. Must Recognize Hamas As ‘Legitimate Politcal Actor’
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
mea_mark August 5th, 2014 at 11:10
Hamas may be a legitimate political force but that does not mean they aren’t also terrorist. The world should put pressure on the Palestinians not to re-elect terrorist into their government, it has very bad consequences. In the spirit of freedom I say they have that choice, that does mean they are immune from the consequences of those poor decisions. Likewise in Israel, if they are going to vote in leaders that want to commit war crimes and bully their neighbors militarily, their should be consequences for their poor decisions also. When people have the right to vote and choose their leaders they must also accept the responsibility for their leaders actions. When the leaders fail, remove them as soon as possible using democratic means. The best leaders come from a public that is informed on who they are electing and what their leaders will do after elected. It should behoove the voters to educate themselves before voting.
Teddy Simon August 5th, 2014 at 11:25
Very well said . but we are talking about a region that knows nothing else but war so it will be very hard to change them .
mea_mark August 5th, 2014 at 11:10
Hamas may be a legitimate political force but that does not mean they aren’t also terrorist. The world should put pressure on the Palestinians not to re-elect terrorist into their government, it has very bad consequences. In the spirit of freedom I say they have that choice, that does not mean they are immune from the consequences of those poor decisions. Likewise in Israel, if they are going to vote in leaders that want to commit war crimes and bully their neighbors militarily, there should be consequences for their poor decisions also. When people have the right to vote and choose their leaders they must also accept the responsibility for their leaders actions. When the leaders fail, remove them as soon as possible using democratic means. The best leaders come from a public that is informed on who they are electing and what their leaders will do after elected. It should behoove the voters to educate themselves before voting.
Teddy Simon August 5th, 2014 at 11:25
Very well said . but we are talking about a region that knows nothing else but war so it will be very hard to change them .
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 11:35
“Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise,” Neither can rapists, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, etc. Do we need to legitimize them all in order to begin the process of living peacefully with them?
arc99 August 5th, 2014 at 11:44
Like it or not, the Palestinian people legitimized Hamas by voting for them.
A bunch of foreigners dictating to Palestinians who represents them is not going to resolve anything.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 11:49
point well made, however, when a group has proven itself to be a terrorist organization with the sole, verbalized, well documented position of seeking to eliminate an entire nation of people (not inhabitants of a land, the Jews…period) we are under no obligation to legitimize or even recognize them…elected or not.
tiredoftea August 5th, 2014 at 12:26
That is the sound of one hand clapping.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 12:45
interesting response, I am pondering that one (in a good way)
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 13:31
Still asking to see those documents.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 13:32
what documents?
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 14:01
This document: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
mea_mark August 5th, 2014 at 14:19
I looked through some of it. Article nine and eleven will doom Hamas to the dustbins of history. They have no intention of ever compromising their ideals for the sake of peace. You can only live by the sword for so long. If you can’t compromise ever, you lose.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 13:52
Umm… how about the Hamas charter? Is that enough?
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 13:58
You have a reply from me already on this matter, with a link.
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 15:14
The preamble to their charter cites a quote from the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, not a stated policy objective to kill all the Jews. What it says is Islam will obliterate Israel, and there is an ongoing controversy over what “obliterate” means. Some say physically slaughter all Jews (which would be in keeping with the Koran IMHO) , others say it means legally, the way Britain obliterated Palestine in 1948.
Politically Hamas calls for an Islamic theocracy just like the American Dominionists call for a Christian theocracy. They are crazy fanatics, and there is plenty of real facts to condemn them for without making sh!t up.
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 15:17
Nevertheless, it is in their charter, and they haven’t bothered to rewrite it to clarify their intent.
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 15:21
Spoken like a true conservative. “Sure I lied about what it says, but it’s there. And they didn’t say it doesn’t mean that.”
Kind of like Obama didn’t say he doesn’t want to confiscate all your guns, eh?
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 15:23
I linked you to the document. I quoted the document.
And in your parallel universe, that means I lied about it.
Got it.
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 15:27
You forgot to quote the part where it says the objective of the Hamas govt. is “to eliminate an entire nation of people (not inhabitants of a land, the Jews…period)”.
But you did say ” it is in their charter,” so no doubt you will explain why I can’t find it there.
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 15:30
I have a handful of reasons why you can’t find it there. But I’m exercising restraint.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 16:49
Check out Article 32.
Look, I can list specific quotes, but you are just going to say that the document doesn’t say what it says even though it’s saying it. Cause you said so. Clearly, no statement could be explicit enough for you to admit that yes, the author of that statement and those who subscribe to it are antisemitic and want to exterminate Jews, so why bother. I just note your insinuation that “historic” anti-semitism can be embraced for symbolic reasons without it counting as antisemitism. Wow. I mean, just wow.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 11:59
There is controversy over what “obliterate” means?? Can you please explain the options?
uzza August 8th, 2014 at 15:00
Keep in mind that the word “obliterate” does not exist in a document written in Arabic. Other translations use “eliminate”, “nullify”, or “abolish”. Some interpretations point to the historic caliphates, some point to Hitler.
Which is the best translation I’m in no position to say, as I can’t read Arabic, or even find out what the actual word is.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 16:01
LOL, uzza, this exchange reminds me of a vignette in one of my favorite shows — Frasier. In it, a message is left on Frasier’s voice mail by accident by an acquaintance. It ends with “Does it matter? You get the one, you get that other one. Personally, I think the whole arrangement’s a little…” and then hangs up. Niles argues that no one actually used the words “weird” or “odd”, to which Frasier succinctly replies “Is there a good end to that sentence?! “Personally, I think the whole arrangement is a little…” What?! Charming?!”
So I ask you, is there a “good” translation to the charter’s language? What do you think it says? “Help Israel”? “Love Israel”? “Send our prettiest women to intermarry with men from Israel?
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 14:08
asking for documentation on Hamas wanting to eliminate Jews is like asking for documentation that the sky is blue.
mea_mark August 5th, 2014 at 11:56
It looks like they have elections coming up soon if this crises doesn’t prevent it from happening, let’s hope they elect better leaders.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 14:10
excellent point, I just hope that legitimate information is getting through to the people as opposed to Hamas sanitized reports.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 11:56
No, we can’t dictate to the Palestinians who represents them. But we CAN inform them of the likely consequences of their choices. They are free to elect a horse for all anyone cares, but they don’t have the right to insist that we host the horse at a black-tie White House gala.
If Palestinians choose to elect a terrorist organization, there will be repercussions. Their choices have consequences, just like everyone’s. You can’t forbid me from jumping off the roof of a building, but it’s not your fault if I break my legs when I land, especially if you warned me that this will happen.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 11:35
“Hamas cannot be wished away, nor will it cooperate in its own demise,” Neither can rapists, murderers, thieves, pedophiles, etc. Do we need to legitimize them all in order to begin the process of living peacefully with them?
arc99 August 5th, 2014 at 11:44
Like it or not, the Palestinian people legitimized Hamas by voting for them.
A bunch of foreigners dictating to Palestinians who represents them is not going to resolve anything.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 11:49
point well made, however, when a group has proven itself to be a terrorist organization with the sole, verbalized, well documented position of seeking to eliminate an entire nation of people (not inhabitants of a land, the Jews…period) we are under no obligation to legitimize or even recognize them…elected or not.
tiredoftea August 5th, 2014 at 12:26
That is the sound of one hand clapping.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 12:45
interesting response, I am pondering that one (in a good way)
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 13:31
Still asking to see those documents that document the well-documented position of seeking to eliminate an entire nation of people
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 13:32
what documents?
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 14:01
This document: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/hamas.asp
mea_mark August 5th, 2014 at 14:19
I looked through some of it. Article nine and eleven will doom Hamas to the dustbins of history. They have no intention of ever compromising their ideals for the sake of peace. You can only live by the sword for so long. If you can’t compromise ever, you lose.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 13:52
Umm… how about the Hamas charter? Is that enough?
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 13:58
You have a reply from me already on this matter, with a link.
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 15:14
The preamble to their charter cites a quote from the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, not a stated policy objective to kill all the Jews. What it says is Islam will obliterate Israel, and there is an ongoing controversy over what “obliterate” means. Some say physically slaughter all Jews (which would be in keeping with the Koran IMHO), others say it means legally, the way Britain obliterated Palestine in 1948.
Politically Hamas calls for an Islamic theocracy just like the American Dominionists call for a Christian theocracy. They are crazy fanatics, and there is plenty of real facts to condemn them for without making sh!t up.
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 15:17
Nevertheless, it is in their charter, and they haven’t bothered to rewrite it to clarify their intent.
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 15:21
Spoken like a true conservative. “
Sure I lied about what it says, but it’s there. Andthey didn’t say it doesn’t mean that.” Kind of like Obama didn’t say he doesn’t want to confiscate all your guns, eh?——-
My mistake. On reflection it seems clear you were referring to the al-Banna quote, not Jeff Allen’s statement that I was talking about.
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 15:23
I linked you to the document. I quoted the document.
And in your parallel universe, that means I lied about it.
Got it.
uzza August 5th, 2014 at 15:27
You forgot to quote the part where it says the objective of the Hamas govt. is “to eliminate an entire nation of people (not inhabitants of a land, the Jews…period)”.
But you did say ” it is in their charter,” so no doubt you will explain why I can’t find it there.
It objectively and demonstrably DOES NOT SAY what Jeff Allen says it does.
R.J. Carter August 5th, 2014 at 15:30
I have a handful of reasons why you can’t find it there. But I’m exercising restraint.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 16:49
Check out Article 32.
Look, I can list specific quotes, but you are just going to say that the document doesn’t say what it says even though it’s saying it. Cause you said so. Clearly, no statement could be explicit enough for you to admit that yes, the author of that statement and those who subscribe to it are antisemitic and want to exterminate Jews, so why bother. I just note your insinuation that “historic” anti-semitism can be embraced for symbolic reasons without it counting as antisemitism. Wow. I mean, just wow.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 11:59
There is controversy over what “obliterate” means?? Can you please explain the options?
uzza August 8th, 2014 at 15:00
Keep in mind that the word “obliterate” does not exist in a document written in Arabic. Other translations use “eliminate”, “nullify”, or “abolish”. Some interpretations point to the historic caliphates, some point to Hitler.
Which is the best translation I’m in no position to say, as I can’t read Arabic, or even find out what the actual word is.
To some of us, facts matter.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 16:01
LOL, uzza, this exchange reminds me of a vignette in one of my favorite shows — Frasier. In it, a message is left on Frasier’s voice mail by accident by an acquaintance. It ends with “Does it matter? You get the one, you get that other one. Personally, I think the whole arrangement’s a little…” and then hangs up. Niles argues that no one actually used the words “weird” or “odd”, to which Frasier succinctly replies “Is there a good end to that sentence?! “Personally, I think the whole arrangement is a little…” What?! Charming?!”
So I ask you, is there a “good” translation to the charter’s language? What do you think it says? “Help Israel”? “Love Israel”? “Send our prettiest women to intermarry with men from Israel?
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 14:08
asking for documentation on Hamas wanting to eliminate Jews is like asking for documentation that the sky is blue.
mea_mark August 5th, 2014 at 11:56
It looks like they have elections coming up soon if this crises doesn’t prevent it from happening, let’s hope they elect better leaders.
Jeff Allen August 5th, 2014 at 14:10
excellent point, I just hope that legitimate information is getting through to the people as opposed to Hamas sanitized reports.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 11:56
No, we can’t dictate to the Palestinians who represents them. But we CAN inform them of the likely consequences of their choices. They are free to elect a horse for all anyone cares, but they don’t have the right to insist that we host the horse at a black-tie White House gala.
If Palestinians choose to elect a terrorist organization, there will be repercussions. Their choices have consequences, just like everyone’s. You can’t forbid me from jumping off the roof of a building, but it’s not your fault if I break my legs when I land, especially if you warned me that this will happen.
Robert M. Snyder August 5th, 2014 at 12:06
“Carter faults Israel for stonewalling multilateral attempts at peace and for dangerously isolating Palestinians in Gaza, saying the “necessary requirements for a human standard of living continue to be denied.”
Last time I checked, the Gaza Strip shares a border with Egypt. If the Palestinians are “dangerously isolated”, it’s neither fair nor accurate to point the finger only at Israel.
“In December 2009, Egypt started with help from the US, the building of a steel wall along the Gaza border. If it is finished, the wall will be 10-11 km (6-7 miles) long and extend 18 metres below the surface. Palestinian sources said that construction of the barrier was damaging dozens of smuggling tunnels as deep as 30 meters, causing them to collapse on a nearly daily basis and killing operators, especially tunnels near the Rafah border terminal. They added that most of the 1,500 tunnels between Gaza and Egypt remained unaffected. The sources also stated that the project has alarmed the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, which charges an annual $2,500 for the right to operate a tunnel.[”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Gaza_barrier
Robert M. Snyder August 5th, 2014 at 12:06
“Carter faults Israel for stonewalling multilateral attempts at peace and for dangerously isolating Palestinians in Gaza, saying the “necessary requirements for a human standard of living continue to be denied.”
Last time I checked, the Gaza Strip shares a border with Egypt. If the Palestinians are “dangerously isolated”, it’s neither fair nor accurate to point the finger only at Israel.
“In December 2009, Egypt started with help from the US, the building of a steel wall along the Gaza border. If it is finished, the wall will be 10-11 km (6-7 miles) long and extend 18 metres below the surface. Palestinian sources said that construction of the barrier was damaging dozens of smuggling tunnels as deep as 30 meters, causing them to collapse on a nearly daily basis and killing operators, especially tunnels near the Rafah border terminal. They added that most of the 1,500 tunnels between Gaza and Egypt remained unaffected. The sources also stated that the project has alarmed the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip, which charges an annual $2,500 for the right to operate a tunnel.[”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt%E2%80%93Gaza_barrier
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 13:55
Why wasn’t the Nazi Germany recognized as a legitimate political force? The Nazis were elected and supported throughout their rule by a substantial portion, if not the majority, of the German population. I’d love to hear Carter’s position on that one.
Suzanne McFly August 5th, 2014 at 14:08
Hate to let you know, but Nazi Germany was recognized. That is how the acquired land that was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. Many countries felt Germany was taken advantage of after WW1 and people backed off while they reassumed power that they lost. Please don’t assimilate any current situation to Nazi Germany, your argument will be lost even if it made sense.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 14:38
The point I was trying to make is that a party’s support by a segment of the population isn’t a basis for granting it legitimacy. Countries that fought the Nazi Germany didn’t recognize it as a legitimate political force (for exterminating the Jews, Roma and Sinti, and substantially “reducing” other non-Aryan groups worldwide) and didn’t provide it with an incentive to lay down its arms (by cooperating in its ethnic cleansing programs and submitting to its rule). So that was … wrong? If a certain popular group asserts, as one of its ideological planks, the extermination of a people, is Carter really telling us that it’s an issue that belongs on the negotiating table?
As for the p*ssy-footing around the Nazi Germany — I disagree with your assessment that it was because of some overwhelming pro-German guilt. Russia, for example, had good geopolitical reasons for keeping Poland and Czechoslovakia weak, so it was in favor of letting Germany dismember them. Plus, Stalin was in the process of purging the military and needed to buy time. In other words, his reasons for not opposing Germany ‘ expansion were entirely cynical. And as to the rest of the Western world, after the horrors of WWI, the pendulum swung to the other extreme; it was appeasement at all costs, not out of a sense of guilt, but out of fear.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 13:55
Why wasn’t the Nazi Germany recognized as a legitimate political force? The Nazis were elected and supported throughout their rule by a substantial portion, if not the majority, of the German population. I’d love to hear Carter’s position on that one.
Suzanne McFly August 5th, 2014 at 14:08
Hate to let you know, but Nazi Germany was recognized. That is how the acquired land that was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. Many countries felt Germany was taken advantage of after WW1 and people backed off while they reassumed power that they lost. Please don’t assimilate any current situation to Nazi Germany, your argument will be lost even if it made sense.
AmusedAmused August 5th, 2014 at 14:38
The point I was trying to make is that a party’s support by a segment of the population isn’t a basis for granting it legitimacy. Countries that fought the Nazi Germany didn’t recognize it as a legitimate political force (for exterminating the Jews, Roma and Sinti, and substantially “reducing” other non-Aryan groups worldwide) and didn’t provide it with an incentive to lay down its arms (by cooperating in its ethnic cleansing programs and submitting to its rule). So that was … wrong? If a certain popular group asserts, as one of its ideological planks, the extermination of a people, is Carter really telling us that it’s an issue that belongs on the negotiating table?
As for the p*ssy-footing around the Nazi Germany — I disagree with your assessment that it was because of some overwhelming pro-German guilt. Russia, for example, had good geopolitical reasons for keeping Poland and Czechoslovakia weak, so it was in favor of letting Germany dismember them. Plus, Stalin was in the process of purging the military and needed to buy time. In other words, his reasons for not opposing Germany ‘ expansion were entirely cynical. And as to the rest of the Western world, after the horrors of WWI, the pendulum swung to the other extreme; it was appeasement at all costs, not out of a sense of guilt, but out of fear.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 11:52
Yes, and Jeffrey Dahmer should be dealt with as a legitimate culinary genius. And Sarah Palin should be dealt with as a legitimate Constitutional scholar. And Koni should be dealt with as a legitimate prophet.
Jimmy’s a nice guy, but he’s really starting to lose it in his old age. He really should stop talking soon to prevent further damage to his legacy.
ray August 8th, 2014 at 11:52
Yes, and Jeffrey Dahmer should be dealt with as a legitimate culinary genius. And Sarah Palin should be dealt with as a legitimate Constitutional scholar. And Koni should be dealt with as a legitimate prophet.
Jimmy’s a nice guy, but he’s really starting to lose it in his old age. He really should stop talking soon to prevent further damage to his legacy.