[TorryJens]

The relationship of US administration with Israel was not very strong in the post war years. Israel's main allies were France and Britain.

[Paul Bunyan]

Poor Carter....

[Paul Bunyan]

but how many 84 year old men are willing to forgo the comforts of retirement in order to strive towards something that they believe in, despite the personal risk?

Castro, Duvallier, Pinochet, Franco, Somoza, Mubarek, Khomeni, Mao...They all stayed on to the bitter end because they wanted their place in history, or infamy, whichever. Carter is just our version of that.

[PhillipHer]

I don't care what his published pamphlets say they do. After all even the Soviet Union had a constitution on paper that would have made Rosseau proud. Not what matters is actions. And his actions speak for themselves. His books always portray Israel as being 1000% the guilty and responsible party. His public speaking mimics that. He deals with terrorists who are ATTACKING JEWS THE VERY DAY HE IS SITTING DOWN TO TALK WITH THEM and he's blaming Israel for that.

Jimmy Carter can sizzle in whatever hell is reserved for him.

[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.

[tgs]

Israel's GDP is approximately USD$185 billion (FY2007). It exports more than USB 8 billion back the US. The EU is a larger import/export partner than is the US. So to say that the nation is not economically self sufficient is not in the ballpark.

What do you get for it? Well what do you get for any foreign aid? What do you get for the 2 billion in direct military aid to Egypt or the 8 billion dollar cost to station a military contingent in South Korea or the 18 billion dollar contingent in Germany, or the cost of stationing American troops in Japan which has 5x the defense budget of Israel and no one is even shooting at them?

You also get Israeli defense avionics, UAVs, AT missiles, smart bombs used in today's US arsenal. Also every US dollar spent on military aid to Israel is spent in the United States with US companies employing US workers. You also get tactical training for urban warfare and counter terrorism.

Now strategically you get a political ally in the only socially stable friendly country in the region. Otherwise the EU wouldn't open the kimono and allow Israel into the EU neighbourhood program if it didn't meet some standard of modernity and stability and strategic location and economic viability.

[Slonopotam845]

It's clearly not a traditional relationship of allies. There are TWO foreign policies in effect. One from Congress and the White House and one from the State Department and the Justice Department. Part of the US apparatus wants to work with Israel and part of it does not. If you go back all the way to the formation of Israel you'll see active State Dept and CIA involvement in counter soviet operations in the Arab mideast that attempted to paint all things communist as 'Jewish', 'Zionist' and such in a effort to play on ancient Jew hatred to deflect the Soviets there. Truman recognized Israel against the advice of his own State Department. And the US had a practically nonexistent relationship with Israel until the JFK administration. This is what drove Israel to go to Czechoslovakia and France as their key arms dealers until the mid 60's. So it's an antagonistic partnership. One based on the fundamental assumption that's it's an unequal partnership. I think that's the biggest downside to Israel. Now what does the US lose by partnering with Israel? That's obvious.

[Lt_Apple]

Agitprop to the contrary, Israel's largest trade partner is the EU. What Israel gets from the US (and the US gets from Israel in return) is some highly specific and highly exotic R+D in both the defense and civilian sectors. Should the US decide it would rather offer nuclear technology to Saudi Arabia

Oh wait THEY DID

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/984311.html

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satelli...cle%2FShowFull

Then Israel could probably turn the Eurofighter 2000 4.5 generation into a credible substitute for the F-16i. After all most of the power comes from compute technology, software and avionics. They already make their own tanks. The best field artillery comes from Germany, Switzerland and Sweden, they have an indigenous space lifter/IRBM program, their submarines are German, most of the rest of the materiel they make is so good it puts them in the 4th or 5th slot for the biggest arms dealers in the world. Why do you think there's an urgency to their spy satellite program? Why rely on the US when the US isn't always a reliable partner?