3 ms·

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 proc

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.

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.