Unity Is the Answer

I think Blair is right: Israel has to use military might to try and take out Hamas, but the International community likewise has to do everything they can to unite the innocent people of Gaza and West Bank into a reliable Palestinian state. Only such a State is a viable partner for peace with Israel; only such a State can be trusted in negotiations. There can be no peace with terrorists (read "Hamas") therefore until such a time as a unified Palestinian state exists, Israel must not be discouraged from responding to violence against its own population with severe and awesome military force.

Israel has succeeded spectacularly in one area as a result of the atrocities it has committed in Gaza ??? turning the entire world against this Zionist state. As someone who is neither Jewish nor Muslim and who had previously remained quite indifferent to the Jewish-Palestinian conflict, a deep, deep revulsion has grown in me against Israel and its supporters. Such a sense of entitlement and utter selfishness at the expenses of the lives of so many others; such national-level psychotic and sociopathic pathology manifested by the need to inflict pain on others, and especially the weak ones. (Unable to fight the stronger Nazi? But no problem, perfectly capable of murdering the practically defenseless Palestinian children.) If Israel and the Zionists ever wonder why the world does not like them, they should look no further than the mirror. And if we humans are the cancer of the earth, then Israel is the cancer of all cancers. Coward=human chicken; bully=derives sadistic pleasure from beating up the weak and helpless; Israel = a cowardly bully. What a despicable country!

part I


I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty.

Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara,


with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Jimmy Carter Part II

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

Conditional agreement

Jimmy Carter Part II

Palestinian leaders from Gaza were noncommittal on all issues, claiming that rockets were the only way to respond to their imprisonment and to dramatize their humanitarian plight. The top Hamas leaders in Damascus, however, agreed to consider a cease-fire in Gaza only, provided Israel would not attack Gaza and would permit normal humanitarian supplies to be delivered to Palestinian citizens.

Conditional agreement

By Jimmy Carter

Posted: 01/08/2009 02:49:29 PM PST

part I


I know from personal involvement that the devastating invasion of Gaza by Israel could easily have been avoided.

After visiting Sderot last April and seeing the serious psychological damage caused by the rockets that had fallen in that area, my wife, Rosalynn, and I declared their launching from Gaza to be inexcusable and an act of terrorism. Although casualties were rare (three deaths in seven years), the town was traumatized by the unpredictable explosions. About 3,000 residents had moved to other communities, and the streets, playgrounds and shopping centers were almost empty.

Mayor Eli Moyal assembled a group of citizens in his office to meet us and complained that the government of Israel was not stopping the rockets, either through diplomacy or military action.

Knowing that we would soon be seeing Hamas leaders from Gaza and also in Damascus, we promised to assess prospects for a cease-fire. From Egyptian intelligence chief Omar Suleiman, who was negotiating between the Israelis and Hamas, we learned that there was a fundamental difference between the two sides. Hamas wanted a comprehensive cease-fire in both the West Bank and Gaza, and the Israelis refused to discuss anything other than Gaza.

We knew that the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza were being starved, as the U.N. special rapporteur on the right to food had found that acute malnutrition in Gaza was on the same scale as in the poorest nations in the southern Sahara,


with more than half of all Palestinian families eating only one meal a day.

Hamas will except one solution, the removal of Israel from the map. So it says in it's charter and that hasn't changed. Israel offered Gaza and 98% of the west bank with a capital in east Jerusalem. Arafat turned that offer down. No amount of land would be enough until Israel was liquidated. Hamas claims all of the land as theirs. If Hamas will not accept a two state solution how can there be peace? Israel is willing to live side by side with the Palestinians can they say the same??

Doesn't Israel have the technology to strike specific Hamas targets? I believe that they want to kill the women and children of Gaza. Israel has probably been anticipating the moment where they can move in and kill everybody in Gaza and Palestine. Even with the dead Palestinian babies, they're feeling pretty justified right now with all the murdering. In my opinion, the Palestinians have become the new Jews and the Israelis have become the new Germany of WWII.

The UN is the reason behaned this mass killing by the facist ,Zionism.when they condom the Palestinian.to slow death for the last 60 years,and now the are complicit with the goverement of the United state of amercia. the amercian people .siting .with Bush .drinking the drenk of life as they acting their are nothing .with the killing of these young children .do they have pleaser ,seeing the mass.murdder by their freind .who has no respect.to human life ,even by the acount of the red cross,who has been calling on to the out law country thats has no respect .for the same Un.who hand them the palistnian land.and killing may thousand more.Israel dont want pease This is asmoking lie as al ways .they wish the people of palistian to finsh in thin air.they well not.as I always nver belive in the zionism lies been their and I saw thier murdder activites acangst the civalin populations. so spear me the lies please

Not taking sides and offering ONLY humanitarian aid to civilians on both sides and encouraging the cease fire would be the proper outside "interference" to allow them to solve their disputes as sovererign states. Involvement from military outsiders is incendiary and against peacekeeping and the U.N. resolution for a cease fire is good. Israel appears an aggressor, not a defender at this time. It is not for the United States to intervene, but to offer humanitarian aid and support for peace not war, and advocating the cease fire, appears best to me. I voted for Ralph Nader as the honest and credible Presidential Candidate with a track record against corruption and the proper view of a democratic government owes its budget to be balanced for people's priorities and no red ink especially military offensives against all sanity and safety. We need to be a proper democracy. Obama was an incumbent and offesnive to democracy. He rails against political enemies in the presence of voters who believe he has a side and his side is flip flop appearing unconscionable. He is BUSH only now, thinks he can keep the U.S. Constitution in BUSH SHREDS of military HUGE RED INK against the world, as if we want miliitary aggression instead of honor and peace policy and proper democracy. The media did not allow an informed public view of the SIX who were potentially viable for voters to pick the BEST and net DEMOCRACY on track. The media only offered incumbent warmongers, off track, policy wise and budget wise. Obama is a HYPOCRIT and is not intending to uphold the U.S. Constitujtion which requires ONLY CONGRESS to declare war, and the President has no authority to do what Bush has done, invade an innocent, non-aggressing country, not an enemy of the U.S. It was not self-defense, when Bush invaded Iraq. The public knows this, so does the world. Obama thinks the foot into the tent is enough to continue into territory of offensives as if suddenly elected to rule the world. NO, that is entirely against all sanity and proper order. Obama did not win a proper and fair election where a true challenge to UPHOLD the U.S. Constitution was offered by four challengers against the two party war corrupt incumbents, Obama and McCain forced on the public as ONLY TWO ALLOWED choices. No, there were six and no red and blue states, 48 states were "winner take all" and the winner is supposed to reflect the true agenda wanted. That agenda is not red ink and military industrail complex.

I would be very interested to see what a peace plan that is acceptable to all sides including Hamas looks like and what changes it would require for all sides to treat eachother equitably.In the end i fear such a plan does not exist and will not exist unless both sides suddenly become reasonable and accomodating or one side damages the other beyond repair and a peace can be enforced by the victor at the expense of the vanquished.