MrCrisp said:

but who is?

SergeantPsycho said:

The Israelis.

Bill_the_Cat said:
Which explains why they agreed to meet with Carter, a man best known for his willingness to kill without mercy.

Bill_the_Cat said:
Why is it that radical Conservative like to assume that it's ok to torture and kill innocents in the name of America, but if any group who opposes their brand of 'foreign policy' does the same they are instantly branded 'terrorist', which, according to the neo-con dictionary is defined as "an individual or group whose sole purpose in existing has become the rampant desire to wipe a given American Political Ally off the face of the Earth, without attempt or desire to reach a peaceful, political compromise"? The irony being that in this case it seems that it may be the Israelis who are unwilling to attempt a compromise. The fact is that peace will never be reached until each sides learn to recognize the validity of the others grievance.

Bill_the_Cat said:
You can rail all you want about Hamas' methods, and I agree with you, but I can then point out that your own nation's recent track record of waging a "moral and just war" is severely lacking. But that's ok because your purpose is more noble, right?

SergeantPsycho said:

I think Carter has dillusions about how effective his intervention is.

I'm assuming you're not disputing the "wipe ... off the face of the Earth" part,

so that then begs question, how do you do you compromise with some one whose goal is destroy you?

Agree to let them destroy %50 of you?
Does that sound like a fair percentage?

I'd find it hard to find validity in a grievance like "You exist."

We have rules on how we treat prisoners and civilians.

When those rules get broken, the people responsible get punished, as evidenced by the Abu Ghraib guards now serving prison sentences.

I've yet to see Al-Qaeda or Hamas punish anyone in their ranks for all the civilians they've killed.

Necia said:
You know, there was a time, before modern psychiatry...

Subrosa said:

You don't know the history of modern psychiatry.

Bill_the_Cat said:

I think you missed my point completely. If Hamas is willing to meet with Carter then your implication that they have no desire for peace is flawed. If they had no desire for peace they would never meet with someone trying to broker peace.

Bill_the_Cat said:

Again with the incorrect assumptions. That's precisely what I'm disputing. What I'm not disputing is the abhorrence of their tactics

Bill_the_Cat Obviously you don't. Which is why the possibilty that they may be willing to negotiate peace gives people with open minds hope that, hey, maybe they're not simply interested in destroying the nation of Israel. Maybe their stated goal of securing a Palestinian homeland is their actual goal. Crazy idea that.

Bill_the_Cat said:
How about "Our people were driven out of our Homeland in 1948, and as yet have never been compensated, or otherwise provided for." Seems like a pretty fair grievance to me.

Subrosa said:

You don't know the history of modern psychiatry.

SergeantPsycho said:

It's highly probable from Hamas's side that, they're trying to gain the benefits of legitimacy that a meeting with a former US president would confer.

Very crazy considering their charter clearly states that:

1) "Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it"

And:

2) "There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

...all religions can coexist in security and safety where their lives, possessions and rights are concerned.

They are the fighting against the false, defeating it and vanquishing it so that justice could prevail, homelands be retrieved and from its mosques would the voice of the mu'azen emerge...

Again, they're probably trying to take on the guise of pursuing peace, just so others in the "International Community" will side with them.

Actually they've been provided for quite well.

The international community's action was based on the premise that it was imperative to garner all financial resources needed to make the agreement successful, and with a full understanding that in order for the Accords to stand in the face of daily challenges on the ground, ordinary Palestinians needed to perceive positive change in their lives.[12] Therefore, the donors had two major goals: to fuel Palestinian economic growth and to build public support for negotiations with Israel...
...Reality led, however, to a revision of the donors' priorities:[18] Out of concern that the deteriorating economic conditions could result in a derailment of the peace process, donor support was redirected to finance continued budgetary shortfalls, housing programs and emergency employment creation. According to a more critical approach, international aid in the mid 1990s supported PNA's bureaucracy[20] and belatedly promoted the centralization of political power, but in a way that did not enhance government capacity and harmed the PNGOs.[21] In 1994-1995 problems of underfunding, inefficiency and poor aid coordination marked donors' activity, and led to tensions among the different aid bodies, and between the international community and the PNA.
...a new donors' conference was convened, and over $2 billion was pledged to the PNA for 1999-2003.[25] Nevertheless, overall donor disbursements fell in 1998-2000, and the 1998 disbursements-to-commitments ratio was the lowest since 1994
...In those two years, Palestinian real GDP per capita shrunk by almost 40 percent.[30] The precipitator of this economic crisis was again a multi-faceted system of restrictions on the movement of goods and people
...Despite a significant increase in donor commitments in 2002 compared with 2001, commitments to infrastructure and capacity-building work with a medium-term focus continued to decline. In 2000, the ratio was approximately 7:1 in favor of development assistance. By 2002, the ratio had shifted to almost 5:1 in favor of emergency assistance.
...Although a mild positive growth returned in 2003 and 2005, this fragile recovery stalled as a result of the segmentation of the Gaza Strip, the stiff restrictions on movements of goods and people across the borders with Israel and Egypt, and the completion of the Israeli West Bank barrier.[35] As the World Bank stressed in December 2005, "growth will not persist without good Palestinian governance, sound economic management and a continued relaxation of closure by GOI."

Oh yeah, and BTW, Canada also lists Hamas as a terrorist organization.

SergeantPsycho said:
It's odd to me, that you've admitted to deploring their methods, yet some how figure they're unwilling to play the fake diplomacy card.

If it were me, I'd say let Israel annex Palestine. A lot of Palestinians are trying to sneak into Israel anyways, and most Israeli Arabs are better treated by the Israeli government than pretty much any other Arab citizens of Arab states are treated their goverment.