The Logan Act as I understand it prevents people from negotiating FOR the US (i.e. Carter would arguably be in violation if he tried to broker a peace deal between the US and Hamas). The Act doesn't limit peoples ability to broker negotiations between two states that don't involve the US directly. I know, I know, it pisses Bush off that Carter is trying to undermine his policy of war in the Middle East, but oh well. That's how I understand it anyway.

As far as a new law, why would you want to make it illegal for people to try to broker peace negotiations? He's got no authority to make any deals, and in the end Israel and Hamas would have to agree of their own volition. He's just acting as a mediator, he's not undermining US foreign policy as he's no longer a member of the government. He's just trying to help out international relations as a private citizen.

Anyway, I'm sure you'll respond with something snide, I'm not holding my breath.

I never respond with "something snide", if what you've offered is well-reasoned, polite debate.

I rarely even attack people who post things like "retard" - and even when I do I am more condescending than snide.

re the logan act -
I would say that it's down to interpretation. I could say that Carter's actions do involve the United States because he's only there on the basis of his former office. You could say he's a private citizen and not negotiating on behalf of the US. I could say that it amounts to the same thing, but either way it does undermine foreign policy.

I'm not just against this because I'm pro-Bush. It's a non partisan issue. It's a general issue. If any president has a clearly stated position, it fucks with the authority given to him by public mandate to have a predecessor sitting at negotiating tables, offering a contrary position.

You may not like Bush, but America did vote for him and it should be his policy at negotiating tables - not Bush Senior's policy, Not Clinton's, not Carter's and not Gary Fucking Busey's policy.

Aside from any diplomatic confusion and obstruction, it's about respect for the President.

And if "Former President George W Bush" eventually runs around the world (on tax payers money) undermining the policy of incumbent president Hillary Clinton, I'd slam that, too.

I might not call for his jailing, but I'm sure people would. We all make partisan statements and I really, REALLY hate Carter.

Well, I apologize for my comment then.

Certainly, if you believe he's there on the behalf of the US, you could say he's undermining foreign policy. But how can you argue that if we take the position that he's there as a private citizen? If he's not there on part of the state department nothing he says or does could be interpreted as official US policy. It's just one man trying to help the peace process.

What's the stated position exactly? That Hamas is a terrorist organization and shouldn't be recognized? Or that he's trying to isolate Hamas? Can't Israel make up it's own mind? Just because Carter talks to Hamas, doesn't mean they're not still isolated from official diplomatic relations. If he has not authority, then they're still isolated regardless of whether or not he's an ex-president. If the president doesn't recognize Carter's actions, they don't recognize them--bottom line. I don't understand why they just can't say, Carter does not represent US interests and be done with it. Why try to condemn him and make him look like this horrible person. He's just trying to make the world a better place. It's not like he's trying to instigate conflict or war.

I guess I just can't see it as anything other than a private citizen trying to facilitate a peace agreement. He has no authority as a diplomat, so there's no reason why Hamas should see this any other way. I'm sure they're not sitting there going "hey, Carter is an ex president and he held talks, I guess Bush no longer is trying to isolate us." If anything, they met with him knowing full well it would piss off Bush and his administration.

Also, and this is kinda an aside, when you have a country that is so hopelessly divided this type of activity could be viewed as a pressure valve. You have an administration that's so hostile toward the world, it's like a way of letting people know "hey, we don't all think that way." I might be more convinced if America was unified behind Bush and his policies, and this was some rogue ex-President trying to undermine them for the sake of causing trouble. Carter's actions are clearly well intentioned.

Bottom line, you're going to have a very hard time convincing me that someone is wrong when they are trying to promote peace no matter who they are or what the context.

I know you hate Carter, so I doubt I'm going to be able to convince you that his trip was benign.

Fuck....we should send some of the fellow commentors over to talk with them! With all these proposals and ideas they'll be living in a utopia before we know it!

1936


Just some guy making a poster about a place that did not exist. Got it.

"Really? You don't know why anyone would want to do a story on public blow job/enema/shit fest? Have you ever met another human being?"

That's just really one of the greatest things I've ever read......

How does your poster contradict the one sentence you did picked out?

We in the west *did* call a bit of land "Palestine". We might as well have called it Nania and defined it as hexagon shaped for all the people living there were concerned.

They called the region "Greater Syria" until they figured out how to jerk the heartstrings of gullible lib-bots

Elaborate why you think this.

ha!

Caught me between edits.

see above

Gosh, so Palestine has only been considered a separate country for sixty years? Wow, then fuck those ungrateful Palestinians! Obviously they are unaware of the very strict standards by which a country becomes a "real country", as well-established by the Irrelevant Bullshit You Pulled Out Of Your Ass Institute!

Yes, of course it'd only be Hamas who'd object to that plan.

I'm sure Israel would have no objections to introducing a huge number of brand new Arab-Israeli citizens that would through pure demographics cause a radical shift in the government of Israel. Of course, unless your genius plan involves simply giving all of post-1948 Palestine to Israel without any conditions towards the rights of the non-Israelis living there. I mean, who needs human rights when you can keep those pesky Arabs separated in their own neat little Bantustans!

And yeah, I'm sure Jordan would just jump at the chance to give up a chunk of the land they've had since around 1922 or so, since once again, becoming a country in the 20th Century is so gauche or something. Because, hey, if history teaches us anything, it's that Jordan just gets along so very well with their Palestinian pals. Maybe the UN, or a magic army of talking unicorns could convince them how awesome your plan is.

Hey, wanna hear my awesome plan for peace in Northern Ireland? England would annex all of Ireland and any Irish Catholics who didn't like it could be relocated to Greenland! Of course, I bet those gosh-darned meanie Catholics won't like my awesome genius plan that would give them all this free land and stuff.

Once again: Palestine is not a separate country. Palestine has never been a country.

Once again : Palestine was a foreign word for a foreign-defined region. The whole "Palestine" schtick was only adopted by the Arabs in the early 1960's for political purposes.

Once again, the words of PLO executive Zahir Muhsein (as given in a 1974 interview to Dutch Trouw):

Got that?

Well that depends. Islamists are not after a Palestinian state. They want to rebuild the great Islamic Caliphate of yesteryear.

Pan-Arab nationalists (if they still exist) don't give a fuck about a Palestinian state either.

did you read my plan?

I want to create a Palestinian state on the EAST Bank of the River Jordan. This was land that the British gave to the Hashemite tribe from Saudi Arabia in return for a military favour. It is now part of Jordan, but if you subscribe to the Western mythology of "Palestine", it was part of Palestine and it has a 70% Palestinian population.

Build the fucking place in Jordan and leave Israel alone!

"Palestine and Jordan are one..." Jordanian King Abdullah, 1948.

"The truth is that Jordan is Palestine and Palestine is Jordan," Jordanian King Hussein of Jordan, 1981.

Besides, with my plan everyone ends up with land. It's fair. It's logical and the only alternative is years more bloodshed.

Interesting, but dumb analogy. Greenland was never part of Ireland. Jordan was part of Palestine (if you subscribe to "Palestine")

In 1920, 79% of British Mandate Palestine was given to the Arabs. Ruled by the Hashemites but with a majority Palestinian Arab population, it eventually became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan.

The Jordanians kicked out the Jews and kept the land exclusively for the Arabs.

The remaining 21% became Israel - which the Jews share with the Arabs.

So out of which part of 1920 "Palestine" should a new Arab state be built from?

1) The 79% exclusively Arab part that is ruled over by a Saudi tribe
2) The 21% off-cut that the Jews share with the Arabs.

Let me guess..."Fuck the Jew - Number Two"

Here's an interesting point to mull over. When you consider that Russia has killed hundreds of thousands - possibly millions of Muslim Chechens and America has killed hundreds of thousands of Muslims in various places across the world and Ba'athists have killed millions of Muslims in Syria and Iraq and Turkey & Iraq have denied a homeland to the Kurds, why do you think Israel is public enemy number 1 for Muslims across the world?

Israel's on-going tit-for-tat war with Palestinian terrorists is NOTHING compared to other actions going on across the Arab and Muslim world.

This whole thing is not about a Palestinian state (like they'd care less). It isn't about killing Muslims (like they'd give a shit).

It's because of two things:

1) Antisemitism and 2) Because they believe Mohammed flew to Jerusalem on a magic horse.

These are the real reasons why Islamists and Arab Imperialists hate Israel. It is these reasons that Neo-Nazis play along with and leftists turn a blind eye to.

You can too - if you want to further the agenda of racist, religious maniacs.

I believe in calling their bluff. If they want "Palestine", they'll take an East Bank solution. If they want to kill the Jews and seize the Jew's holy city, then they should fucking be honest enough to own up to their agenda and let the world decide whether they support it.

YOU CANNOT ARGUE WITH A POINT WHEN IT IS TYPED IN ALL CAPS. TYPING IN ALL CAPS MAKES IT TRUE.

YOU CAN'T IGNORE A POINT BY POSTING WITH BANAL NETIQUETTE TIPS

JUST WATCH ME.

Except when the 1948 UN resolution that created Israel also created a non-Jordanian independent Arab state called Palestine.

Since you completely ignored my point, I'll rephrase it for you to ignore again:In your fantasy plan what happens to the current population of Gaza and the West Bank when Israel annexes that land?

Do they become Israeli citizens? Does the IDF or UN-backed troops force them to relocate? Do they stay in some legal twilight of non-citizenship under the control of the Israeli government?

All of those options have the very real potential to lead to violence and human rights abuses.

Explain to me how, exactly, Jordan is going to simply give up a huge chunk of land that it's ruled since the 1920's without any compensation, in order to both expand the borders of Israel and create a homeland for the Palestinians? And how you can completely ignore Black September in favor of two quotes as some magical assurance that unlike previously in their history, Jordan and Palestine will get along all peachy keen?

Wrong.

So very, very wrong.

UN Resolution 181 divided post-1920 British Palestine into "independent Arab and Jewish States". It didn't "become Israel", it became Israel and Palestine. Since all of your other claims and your oh-so-brilliant "plan" stem from that very basic and probably intentional misunderstanding of the region's history, they're not really worth rebutting.