World Affairs Board - View Single Post

Guardian · 04-17-2008, 14:46 PM

Before this issue turns into another Israeli-Palestinian argument, lets refocus our attention to the issue at hand: a former President meeting in a diplomatic manner with a declared enemy of the US and Israel without the orders or invitation to do so from President Bush or Congress.

He is trying to open up dialogue...I understand. The important point here is that he has no legal right to suggest that the US would be open to dialogue with Israel. I do not deny that I would encourage dialogue if I were in a position of political power; but my wish for dialogue means nothing because I am not President, Sec of State, or any other member of the State Dept. Carter is not employed by the federal government. He is a former employee.

I would argue that Bill Clinton did more to alleviate some of the tension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Carter ever did. Clinton has more credibility to make this particular diplomatic mission. But he does not because Clinton shares my opinion. It is not currently his place to do anything about it.

And Clinton knows that he is no longer President. If Bill Clinton wished to open dialogue with Hamas, he would have asked for permission, or have waited until his wife was democratically elected to be in a position to delegate authority to Bill Clinton to make a diplomatic mission.

The reason that I make the comparison of Clinton and Carter is that Carter is on this diplomatic mission because he was personally involved with the Camp David Accords of 1979 between Israel and Egypt. That is the extent of Carter's involvement. But he thinks his involvement is enough to give his unwarranted diplomatic mission legitimacy

Clinton was intimately involved with Oslo, Camp David II, and Oslo II. All of the aforementioned summits all involved the Israelis and Yassir Arafat. Clinton is perhaps the ONLY President that the Palestinians would trust.

Argument: Carter has no place to interfere with these affairs. Combatting terrorism requires more politicking than gun shooting. Carter is interfering with the diplomatic isolation and condemnation placed upon Hamas.

04-17-2008, 14:46 PM	#13 (permalink)
Guardian Regular Join Date: 02-08-07 Location: Minneapolis Posts: 56 Country:	Jimmy Carter is the topic of conversation Before this issue turns into another Israeli-Palestinian argument, lets refocus our attention to the issue at hand: a former President meeting in a diplomatic manner with a declared enemy of the US and Israel without the orders or invitation to do so from President Bush or Congress. He is trying to open up dialogue...I understand. The important point here is that he has no legal right to suggest that the US would be open to dialogue with Israel. I do not deny that I would encourage dialogue if I were in a position of political power; but my wish for dialogue means nothing because I am not President, Sec of State, or any other member of the State Dept. Carter is not employed by the federal government. He is a former employee. I would argue that Bill Clinton did more to alleviate some of the tension of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than Carter ever did. Clinton has more credibility to make this particular diplomatic mission. But he does not because Clinton shares my opinion. It is not currently his place to do anything about it. And Clinton knows that he is no longer President. If Bill Clinton wished to open dialogue with Hamas, he would have asked for permission, or have waited until his wife was democratically elected to be in a position to delegate authority to Bill Clinton to make a diplomatic mission. The reason that I make the comparison of Clinton and Carter is that Carter is on this diplomatic mission because he was personally involved with the Camp David Accords of 1979 between Israel and Egypt. That is the extent of Carter's involvement. But he thinks his involvement is enough to give his unwarranted diplomatic mission legitimacy Clinton was intimately involved with Oslo, Camp David II, and Oslo II. All of the aforementioned summits all involved the Israelis and Yassir Arafat. Clinton is perhaps the ONLY President that the Palestinians would trust. Argument: Carter has no place to interfere with these affairs. Combatting terrorism requires more politicking than gun shooting. Carter is interfering with the diplomatic isolation and condemnation placed upon Hamas. __________________ The history of the world is but the biography of great men. -Thomas Carlyle Last edited by Guardian : 04-17-2008 at 14:49 PM.