4 ms·

Jimmy Carter's pioneering support for Hamas: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2024/12/29/jimmy-carters-pioneering-support-for-hamas/ https://philip.greenspun.

by mhb 2y ago

Jimmy Carter's pioneering support for Hamas: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2024/12/29/jimmy-carters-pioneering-support-for-hamas/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2024/12/29/jimmy-carters-p...

karmakurtisaani 2y ago
The link is written like a proper propaganda piece. Not like you'd expect anything else on this topic.
- mhb 2y ago
  It's his blog and his opinion. His opinion is based on the references he cites. What else is expected?
  - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
    Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence. Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
    - mhb 2y ago
      Citing the Times as some sort of impartial arbiter of what's going on in the Middle East is laughable.
      - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
        So random blog posts are then? Edit: anyway, I've seen this discussion a million times. Not interested in engaging further.
        mhb 2y ago
        No one was claiming that a random blog post is impartial or authoritative despite it's being right.
        karmakurtisaani 2y ago
        Ok, one more comment, since this is an interesting read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas Netanyahu supporting Hamas and helping enable the attacks must be a tough pill to swallow, huh?
        dlubarov 2y ago
        Wikipedia's neutrality has become a joke when it comes to Israel-related topics. For an obvious example, the first paragraph of the Zionism article says "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". Here, you seem to be interpreting this somewhat misleading article as Israel (somehow, maybe indirectly) supporting Hamas' military. Really it was Qatari funding for various Gaza infrastructure and humanitarian projects. Do you think Israel should have blocked that aid?
        mhb 2y ago
        Wikipedia and the Times on Israel? It is to laugh.
    - tim333 2y ago
      The relevant Carter quote is "… even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist." which I think suggests he was naive in thinking they'd change and become nice guys, rather than condoning their violence.
      - dotancohen 2y ago
        Carter was, as many Westerners do, looking at the Middle East through Western eyes. He was projecting what people in his culture would do, instead of what people in the actual culture he was looking at do. "One day they'll come around and realize that my culture's values are right and theirs are wrong" is actually a very racist stance, in my opinion.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
otterley 2y ago
It is possible for people one doesn't agree with to be democratically elected, whether it be here or in a foreign land. Having respect for democracies as a principle means one should accept the will of the people--whether you like it or not--so long as the outcome doesn't abrogate human rights. The U.S. has a sordid history of intervening in the affairs of foreign nations when it suits their interests, from the overthrow of Madero in Mexico in 1913 to interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, and Congo in later years. President Carter definitely wasn't perfect, but he had a lot more respect for the democratic process than either his predecessors or his successors did.
dragonwriter 2y ago
That's not support for Hamas, its opposition to the use of election of Hamas candidates to the PA government as an excuse to avoid peace talks. Which is just as sensible as arguing that the election in Israel of candidates of Likud should not itself be a blocker for peace talks.

by mhb 2y ago

Jimmy Carter's pioneering support for Hamas: https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2024/12/29/jimmy-carters-pioneering-support-for-hamas/ https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2024/12/29/jimmy-carters-p...

karmakurtisaani 2y ago

The link is written like a proper propaganda piece. Not like you'd expect anything else on this topic.

mhb 2y ago
It's his blog and his opinion. His opinion is based on the references he cites. What else is expected?
- karmakurtisaani 2y ago
  Perhaps more context would be appreciated. I'm sure you can take out damning sentences from opinions of anyone who has tried to have any faith in the peace process in Palestine. It's absolutely ridiculous to try to paint Carter as some proponent for Hamas' violence. Unlike, say, Netanyahu, who actively supported the radicalism of Hamas in order to preserve a valuable enemy https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-qatar-money-prop-up-hamas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/12/10/world/middleeast/israel-q...
  - mhb 2y ago
    Citing the Times as some sort of impartial arbiter of what's going on in the Middle East is laughable.
    - karmakurtisaani 2y ago
      So random blog posts are then? Edit: anyway, I've seen this discussion a million times. Not interested in engaging further.
      - mhb 2y ago
        No one was claiming that a random blog post is impartial or authoritative despite it's being right.
        karmakurtisaani 2y ago
        Ok, one more comment, since this is an interesting read: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_support_for_Hamas Netanyahu supporting Hamas and helping enable the attacks must be a tough pill to swallow, huh?
        dlubarov 2y ago
        Wikipedia's neutrality has become a joke when it comes to Israel-related topics. For an obvious example, the first paragraph of the Zionism article says "Zionists wanted to create a Jewish state in Palestine with as much land, as many Jews, and as few Palestinian Arabs as possible". Here, you seem to be interpreting this somewhat misleading article as Israel (somehow, maybe indirectly) supporting Hamas' military. Really it was Qatari funding for various Gaza infrastructure and humanitarian projects. Do you think Israel should have blocked that aid?
        mhb 2y ago
        Wikipedia and the Times on Israel? It is to laugh.
  - tim333 2y ago
    The relevant Carter quote is "… even if Hamas does not soon take the ultimately inevitable steps of renouncing violence and recognizing Israel’s right to exist." which I think suggests he was naive in thinking they'd change and become nice guys, rather than condoning their violence.
    - dotancohen 2y ago
      Carter was, as many Westerners do, looking at the Middle East through Western eyes. He was projecting what people in his culture would do, instead of what people in the actual culture he was looking at do. "One day they'll come around and realize that my culture's values are right and theirs are wrong" is actually a very racist stance, in my opinion.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

otterley 2y ago

It is possible for people one doesn't agree with to be democratically elected, whether it be here or in a foreign land. Having respect for democracies as a principle means one should accept the will of the people--whether you like it or not--so long as the outcome doesn't abrogate human rights. The U.S. has a sordid history of intervening in the affairs of foreign nations when it suits their interests, from the overthrow of Madero in Mexico in 1913 to interventions in Iran, Guatemala, Brazil, Chile, and Congo in later years. President Carter definitely wasn't perfect, but he had a lot more respect for the democratic process than either his predecessors or his successors did.

dragonwriter 2y ago

That's not support for Hamas, its opposition to the use of election of Hamas candidates to the PA government as an excuse to avoid peace talks. Which is just as sensible as arguing that the election in Israel of candidates of Likud should not itself be a blocker for peace talks.