[S.T.D.]

By Martalus:

I think its unfair, outrageous, and morally dispicable to even compare Jimmy Carter with a list of murderous dictators.

But he is proposing talking to these dictators..... Not sure how this is possible with his moral values.

To follow is the mission statement of the Carter Statement. Notice the section where it talks about remaining neutral in dispute resolution activities.

What is your definition of neutrality. For example Chamberlain talking to Hitler in 1938 was it neutral? In 1938 the thought on the street was no different from the one you are having right now. The thought was about NEGOTIATING! Hitler Adolf had other thoughts.

I assume that many people don't like him here becaue he is trying to remain neutral,

No. Many people don't like him because he is talking to dictators and very dubious people trying to "negotiate" something. Either Carter is naive (which is doubtful), has lowered his moral standards (which would make one question his "wiseness"), or is trying to make a legacy for himself of some sorts (I am unclear of what this legacy is exactly). Believe me - Carter is not "Neutral".

see the conflict from all sides, talk to all parties involved, and not necessarily give Israel carte blanche to do whatever they want, whenever they want.

So Carter goes to Iran and Mahmud A., after a good dinner and a few drinks, tells Carter that Iran is really behind economic and political dominance in the Gulf, however, the stupid and greedy Arabs are not letting Iran have its glory. So Iran counters the Arabs by involving itself in the Israel/Pal conflict and provoking the Arab masses to its, Iran's, side. Iran's place in the region and the world is so important that its willing to destroy Lebanon (the Mullahs would never allowing anything like Hizbullah or Hamas to ever exist in Iran) by provoking wars both internal and external, destroy Iraq, support completely idiotic organizations like Hamas trying to prolong the Israeli/Pal conflict indefinetly, and along with Syria (ruled by another dictator with his own agenda) play self serving political games. Carter knows all this very well especially given that he was involved in the very first successful Arab-Israeli peace initiative. The Carte Blanche which you attribute to Israel is just a naive way of saying that you simply don't know what you are talking about. There is a lot more to all this then just the CONFLICT.

Why don't you read up on the Middle East first. If Carter really wants to build bridges he should really take a cultural approach, like creating joint Israeli-Pal day camps, rather then going around playing "good samaritan" policy maker on my tax-dollars. We have elected and appointed politicians to do that.

The Carter Center, in partnership with Emory University, is guided by a fundamental commitment to human rights and the alleviation of human suffering;

Definetly talking to Hamas, a religious fundamentalist organization which really doesn't particularly care about human rights, is definetly within the scope.

it seeks to prevent and resolve conflicts, enhance freedom and democracy, and improve health. While the program agenda may change, The Carter Center is guided by five principles:

The Center emphasizes action and results. Based on careful research and analysis, it is prepared to take timely action on important and pressing issues.
The Center does not duplicate the effective efforts of others.
The Center addresses difficult problems and recognizes the possibility of failure as an acceptable risk.
The Center is nonpartisan and acts as a neutral in dispute resolution activities. The Center believes that people can improve their lives when provided with the necessary skills, knowledge, and access to resources.
The Carter Center collaborates with other organizations, public or private, in carrying out its mission.



Good for Carter. I hope he leaves a good library behind too.