Carter: Blockade of Gaza is an Abomination

Former President Jimmy Carter, speaking in Cairo, stated the obvious: the blockade of Gaza is a "crime" and an "atrocity," Reuters reports.

"It's an atrocity what is being perpetrated as punishment on the people in Gaza. it's a crime... I think it is an abomination that this continues to go on," Carter said.

Since the blockade is aimed at punishing civilians, the Carter's statement that the blockade is a crime is simply a statement of fact. It's a clear violation of international law.

But when someone with access to the microphone states an important fact which is not being acknowledged, they deserve attention.

Carter is not just denouncing the conditions in Gaza, but suggesting a way out of the political impasse that is being used to justify the blockade. The United States should abandon its counterproductive campaign to isolate Hamas, and instead work to incorporate Hamas into a process of seeking Israeli-Palestinian peace. While the Bush Administration and its supporters in Congress like Rep. Berman act as if this is an absurd idea, it's supported by 64% of Israelis, the former head of Israel's Mossad, and a bipartisan group of US foreign policy experts including Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft.

By meeting Hamas leaders, he has already helped create progress toward a different policy. In a proposal given to Carter, an Israeli cabinet minister offered to meet Hamas leaders to ask for the release of Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit - a move at variance with official Israeli government policy. Carter said Hamas leaders in Cairo told him they would accept a peace agreement with Israel negotiated by Palestinian President Abbas if the Palestinians approved it in a referendum.

The Bush Administration has said that it wants an Israeli-Palestinian agreement before it leaves office, but the process it initiated has stalled. The opportunity for movement created by Carter's trip should not be ignored. Americans who support Carter's initiative should raise their voices.

Just Foreign Policy and Jewish Voice for Peace have initiated a petition to the Presidential candidates, asking them to support President Carter and support talks with Hamas. Let's not let another opportunity to push forward for peace slip away.

•  I might be wrong about this

  but I believe Israel's policy prohibits direct contacts with Hamas regarding Shalit's release.

  I thought Israel allowed indirect contacts with Hamas, but only for the purpose of releasing Shalit.

  Stopping the rocket fire, or promoting rapprochement with Fatah, strictly off the table...

  by litho on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:41:36 AM PDT

•  Carter Deserves Praise

  You don't make peace with friends, you can only make peace with your enemies. Like it or not Hamas is the representative of the Palestinian cause now and they are the ones that have to be dealt with.

  by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:44:39 AM PDT

  •  re: Carter deserves praise

    Yes Carter deserves praise, yes, you can only make peace with your enemies; but I wouldn't say that Hamas is "the" representative of the Palestinian cause. They are one representative that must be dealt with. A meaningful agreement must include the broad majority of Palestinian public opinion. At present that means both Fatah and Hamas.

    by Robert Naiman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:02 AM PDT

    •  Hamas happens to be the democratically elected

      representative of the people of Gaza. The whole U.S.-backed Israeli policy toward Gaza has been to collectively punish the Palestinians for electing "the wrong guys". That in itself is a crime.

      by Barcelona on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:16 AM PDT

      •  "Oh....

        ... but they are sworn enemies of Israel and the U.S. They are sworn to the destruction of the Israeli State! We don't negotiate with terrorist organizations!"

        I'm being sarcastic. Still... that's what people believe. They buy that argument lock, stock, and barrel.

        by vtfinest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:59:57 AM PDT

      •  they won the legislative elections, but

        that's not an argument, in the current context, for treating them as "the" representative. If one were to pursue a policy that treated Hamas as "the" representative of Palestinians and ignored Fatah, that would be the mirror of the present misguided policy.

        by Robert Naiman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:24:43 AM PDT

        •  Thanks for that Bob,

          It's also worth noting that they lost every last bit of electoral legitimacy the second they took control of Gaza through armed action.

          It's like if Bush ordered the military to put every democrat in congress under house arrest, they obeyed, and he continued to call himself the elected leader.

          by unfounded on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:32:55 AM PDT

          •  Except it isn't

            Remember how we talked about doing basic research before making outlandish claims?

            You can start here.

            by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:41:37 AM PDT

            •  What, so they're now "democratically elected"

              Because one douchebag makes the claim that Fatah was planning the same thing before they did it?  Even if that's true, which it's not, it doesn't give them electoral legitimacy.  They are armed thugs ruling by the sword, period.  You could regard that as the "right thing" under the circumstances, even, but that doesn't make them democratically elected.  Doesn't matter what other chaff you throw up.  Good day.

              by unfounded on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:51:54 AM PDT

              •  It's hardly "one douchebag"

                it's now conventional wisdom that the Hamas takeover was carried out in response to a planned Fatah coup carried out in collaboration with the U.S. If you want another detailed account, read the International Crisis Group report.

                In any case, the Vanity Fair article doesn't "claim" anything - it produces official documents, backed by numerous senior official sources both named and unnamed (not least Dahlan himself), to demonstrate that the U.S. and Fatah were collaborating to overthrow the elected Hamas government. As usual, you provide no serious arguments against this, presumably because you can't.

                Hamas emerged victorious from the last set of democratic elections in January to 2006. This means they have democratic legitimacy - certainly a lot more than the unelected dictatorship ruling from Ramallah, in any event. Not sure what's so difficult to understand about that, but in any case it is quite irrelevent. The issue is not whether Hamas is legitimate, but whether it is possible to make any serious attempt at political progress without them. Clearly it isn't, which makes this whole discussion rather ridiculous.

                by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:07:42 AM PDT

                •  to fix unfounded's analogy

                  it's as if after the 2006 election in which the Democrats took control of Congress, President Bush, acting at the instigation of and with the assistance of a foreign power, organized a coup to reverse the outcome of the elections, and Democratic militias staged a counter-coup to preempt this, resulting in one part of the U.S. being under Democratic control, and another part being under Republican control.

                  And then the foreign power which initiated the coup attempt tried to organize a peace process including the U.S., but dealing only with the Republicans, and not including the Democrats; in fact, making it a condition  and an organizing principle of the peace process that the Democrats had to be excluded; and organizing an international blockade against the part of the U.S. controlled by the Democrats.

                  by Robert Naiman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 10:59:49 AM PDT

                  •  Here's the thign

                    Hamas took over all those government buildings via tunnels dug under them.  You think those tunnels were dug overnight?  Sure, Fatah was arming themselves..  all that proves is they should (for them) have armed themselves better, faster.  Hamas was doing so too.

                    Fact remains that Hamas was the party who escalated things being tit-for-tat skirmishing into a fullscale war and takeover.  The fact that Fatah was arming themselves in advance of this, while Hamas was doing the same thing, doesn't prove anything.  Are weapons from shi'ite Iran somehow less "foreign interference" than weapons from Israel or the US?  What's it matter where the weapons came from anyways?  Hamas was the one who launched a coup, they get the blame.  If they're so noble and only did this cause they had to, why were they digging tunnels under gov't buildings months before this happened?

                    I will never, for the life of me, understand the compulsion of so-called 'liberals', given at best equal malfeasance by both sides, to back the extremist, noncompromising, religious nut faction.

                    by unfounded on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 11:57:37 AM PDT

                    •  asdf

                      "Hamas took over all those government buildings via tunnels dug under them.  You think those tunnels were dug overnight?"

                      As far as I am aware, there was only one tunnel, underneath the offices of the Preventive Security Service HQ in Khan Younis. A bomb was detonated there that killed 5 PSS personnel. Do you know of any other tunnels that I've missed out?

                      In any case, that the elected Palestinian government built a tunnel under the Gaza HQ of Fatah's militia reflects the fact that Hamas knew for a long time that Dahlan and co. were working with the occupation against them. It was hardly top secret stuff, after all - even I was writing about it in October-November 2006, and I'm hardly privy to the level of intelligence that was presumably available to Hamas.

                      "Sure, Fatah was arming themselves"

                      a) Fatah was arming itself by collaborating with the occupation, which is course completely different to cooperating with a third party, and b) it's not just that Fatah was arming itself, it's that Fatah was arming itself for the explicit purpose of overthrowing the Hamas government. See the difference?

                      "Fact remains that Hamas was the party who escalated things being tit-for-tat skirmishing into a fullscale war and takeover."

                      When an elected government is fighting with an illegitimate militia working on behalf of the occupation, it's not a "tit-for-tat" and there is no equivalence between the two. An elected government is perfectly entitled to put down armed insurrection, particularly when the insurgents are backed by the occupying powers.

                      Hamas decided that to wait any longer would risk being overthrown, and so it decided to act while it retained some advantage. As the IISS reports,

                      "The June escalation was triggered by Hamas’s conviction that the PA’s Presidential Guard, which US Security Coordinator Lieutenant General Keith Dayton had helped build up to 3,500 men since August 2006, was being positioned to take control of Gaza. The timing was significant. Abbas, Haniyeh and Hamas Politburo chief Khaled Meshaal, normally based in Damascus, had signed a Saudi-brokered power-sharing deal on 9 February 2007, and formed a national unity government in mid-March. In response, the build-up of the Presidential Guard was accelerated. The US had arranged the transfer of 2,000 rifles and ammunition from Egypt in late December 2006, and in late April the Israeli government transferred another 375; the US committed $59 million for training and non-lethal equipment, and covertly persuaded Arab allies to fund the purchase of further weapons. Jordan and Egypt hosted at least two battalions for training, one of which was deployed into Gaza as clashes resumed in mid-May. With half its parliamentary bloc and its cabinet ministers in the West Bank in Israeli custody since the abduction of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit by Palestinian militants on 28 June 2006, Hamas concluded that its remaining government base in Gaza was in danger and launched what in effect was a pre-emptive coup."

                      David Rose:

                      "On June 7, there was another damaging leak, when the Israeli newspaper Haaretz reported that Abbas and Dayton had asked Israel to authorize the biggest Egyptian arms shipment yet—to include dozens of armored cars, hundreds of armor-piercing rockets, thousands of hand grenades, and millions of rounds of ammunition. A few days later, just before the next batch of Fatah recruits was due to leave for training in Egypt, the coup began in earnest."

                      So both the proximate and general causes for the Hamas takeover are quite clear.

                      "The fact that Fatah was arming themselves in advance of this, while Hamas was doing the same thing, doesn't prove anything."

                      No - but the documents and official testimony do.

                      "Are weapons from shi'ite Iran somehow less "foreign interference" than weapons from Israel or the US?"

                      Yes, for the fairly obvious reason noted above.

                      by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:38:32 PM PDT

                      •  This sentence:

                        Fatah was arming itself by collaborating with the occupation, which is course completely different to cooperating with a third party,

                        Shows how far you've gone towards being an extremist warmonger rather than someone who wants peace for both sides.  Collaborators!

                        Didn't read the rest.  Have a nice day.

                        by unfounded on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 12:59:47 PM PDT

                        •  Thanks, will do

                          In what way does accepting arms from the occupation in order to overthrow the elected Palestinian government not constitute collaboration?

                          Of course it does - you're just trying to leave this conversation without having to address the arguments above. This is, I might add, a wise decision.

                          by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:06:23 PM PDT

  •  these were the

    words of the murdered yasser arafat. in his name and the names of the starving children of palestine, i welcomed the opportunity to sign the petition. and i would like someone to explain to me why the suffering people of palestine are my enemies.

    by carlyle4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:51:34 AM PDT

•  Glad to see someone defend Carter

  Collective punishment is indeed an international crime. It was a crime in Lebanon, where Israel's disproportionate response shocked the world, and it's a crime in Gaza. With such an emotional issue, the field can't be kept too clear.

  by cadejo4 on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:49:37 AM PDT

•  Carter's being very brave!

  I can't imagine the criticism he's getting. The most ridiculous was a Congresswoman from North Carolina- 09 who said the U.S. should revoke his passport. Seriously. Check it out here on Raw Story.

  It amazes me that people like her get elected to Congress. It also amazes the propaganda that people buy about Palestine.

  Good for Jimmy Carter for standing on principal.

  by vtfinest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 07:57:45 AM PDT

•  Gaza is the abomination.

  Israel pulled out of Gaza unilaterally in 2005. Since then, Gazans have handed control of the territory over to Hamas, a terrorist organization committed to the destruction of Israel. Israel's actions against Gaza are intended to prevent further attacks against Israel.

  The Palestinians knew months ahead of time that Israel would be pulling out of Gaza, so what did they do to prepare for self-rule there? Absolutely nothing. They fire rockets at Israel while their children suffer. They seem more intent on killing Jews than on building a viable society.

  Although Israel has not been free from blame in this mess, I believe that the Palestinians shoulder most of the blame for the mess they're in. Until they accept that responsibility, and until they embrace the responsibility of building a state, they will be doomed to suffer the same failures they have suffered for decades.

  by politicelite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:03:21 AM PDT

  •  Well there's two sides to the story on that

    You say Palestinians are more intent on killing Jews than building a viable society?

    As far as I know the International Court of Justice ruled "The Wall" violated Palestinian rights in 2006. The wall continues to be built today. How can you build a viable society with a lack of resources and conditions they live in?

    As for who's more intent on killing who maybe these stats will show a different story.

    by vtfinest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:09:01 AM PDT

    •  Of course there isn't just one side.

      I don't mean to portray Israel as a saint. The settlements are an abomination too.

      You asked, "How can you build a viable society with a lack of resources and conditions they live in?" To be sure, Israel hasn't always made things easy for the Palestinians. Indeed, Israel has done things that have made Palestinians' lives much more difficult.

      But Palestinians can't be content to point the finger--they also have to be willing to lift a finger. I've seen no evdence that they are. I think the question the Palestinians ought to be asking is a truncated version of yours: How can you build a viable society?

      Instead of focusing on 1948 and 1967, the Palestinians ought to consider looking forward, toward a better future for themselves and their children. Teaching their kids that Jews make matzoh from children's blood isn't the right way to go here.

      by politicelite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:15:25 AM PDT

      •  Here's something that got swept under the rug.

        ... Amidst all the controversy the American media is making about Carter's comments 64% of Israelis want talks with Hamas too! Check it out.

        by vtfinest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:28:21 AM PDT

        •  Swept under the rug?

          I've read that statistic in several places this week. What makes you think it was swept under the rug?

          by politicelite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:29:19 AM PDT

          •  Because...

            Carter's words is getting more attention and more coverage than something as important as these stats. I guarantee you this will get lost in the overall story and people will know what Carter said as opposed to what Israelis want.

            by vtfinest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:50:49 AM PDT

  •  How Can you build a State

    When you are blockaded and randomly attacked by Israel and mostly blocked by Egypt? And your neighbors consist solely of Israel, Egypt, and the Sea. How can you build a state when the State simply doesn't want you to exist?  How can you build a state when an arbitrary State is built on top of where your family lived for generations?

    by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:16:55 AM PDT

    •  How can you build a state when in 1948

      given the chance, you decided not to, attacked those who wished to, lost and have whined about it ever since?

      by Doodad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:22:21 AM PDT

  •  Good post but you seem too kind.

    They don't just SEEM to be, it forms part of their whole being and regulation of their society witnessed via their institutions, media and rhetoric.

    There is no SEEM involved.

    As for those who repeat the "democratically elected," meme, Bush was democratically elected, Lieberman was democratically elected, etc etc. I don't see a groundswell of Kossacks wanting to cosy up to that lot yet somehow Israel is expected to be different. The hypocrisy reeks.

    by Doodad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:17:27 AM PDT

    •  no-one is arguing for "cozying up"

      if you want peace, you have to deal with Hamas.

      If you support the status quo, you support the needless death of innocents.

      by Robert Naiman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:20:42 AM PDT

      •  Status quo.

        Both of your statements focus on Israel, not on the Palestinians. I will address each in turn.

        "if you want peace, you have to deal with Hamas."

        Israel has no obligation to deal with Hamas, a terrorist organization sworn to its destruction. The Palestinians are the ones who ought to be dealing with Hamas. If the Palestinians want peace, the Palestinians should be dealing with Hamas by marginalizing them or eliminating them.

        "If you support the status quo, you support the needless death of innocents."

        The status quo is that Israel exists as a state and Palestine does not. If the Palestinians want to change that, supporting Hamas isn't the way to go.

        by politicelite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:24:37 AM PDT

      •  I disgree. If you want peace right this minute,

        maybe. If you want something that will last, you don't do it with people who don't want that. Hamas has consistently said and shown that is not what it wants. When they change their minds, they will be welcome in a peace arrangement. Fath isn't much better but they are light years ahead of Hamas in that regard.

        by Doodad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:27:03 AM PDT

    •  "Seem"

      I used "seem" because I'm not there and rely on secondhand information (media, conversations with people) to inform my opinions.

      That being said, I agree with your position. The fundamental Palestinian problem is that they'd rather kill Jews than build a state.

      by politicelite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:21:20 AM PDT

      •  I knew that and didn't mean to diss YOU

        ;)

        Nice to see there a few of us who actually listen to what Hamas actually says rather than working from a distorted western mindset......kinda just like that Bush guy.

        lol

        by Doodad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:30:36 AM PDT

  •  because they voted wrong, they should starve?

    what about the people in Gaza who voted for Fatah? They should starve too? What about the children who are too young to vote? They should also starve?

    by Robert Naiman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:18:11 AM PDT

    •  Consequences.

      I suffer because my countrymen elected George Bush. My suffering pales in comparison to that of the Palestinians, of course, but pointing the finger at Repbulicans isn't going to do me any good. To create change, I need to support the Democrats.

      The Palestinians voted wrong, and now they ought to do something about it besides blaming Israel for their woes. Democracy has consequences.

      by politicelite on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:28:22 AM PDT

      •  So I presume you would you argue in favour

        of the deliberate impoverishment of the entire American population, to the point where some 80% of the American population depends on international food aid for mere survival, as a punishment for the crimes of the Bush administration (which are, after all, infinitely greater than those of Hamas)?

        Your logic is exactly the same as al-Qaeda's: the entire population holds collective responsibility for the policies of their government, and so collective punishment, for example by flying planes into buildings, is legitimate.

        Ditto with Israel. You will presumably argue in favour of Palestinian suicide bombings, yes? After all, Israeli citizens voted for a government that builds illegal settlements on Palestinian land, destroys Palestinian homes, abducts Palestinians on a daily basis and last year killed hundreds of Palestinians, at least a third of whom were civilians. Therefore, by your logic, Palestinian attempts to collectively punish Israelis through Qassams rockets and suicide bombings are entirely legitimate. After all, "democracy has consequences." Right?

        by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:41:29 AM PDT

    •  This "starving," meme is troublesome.

      Food is being sent, allowed, LOTS and LOTS of it. So how are they starving? Where are the Biafran child type pics? All I see are well fed protesters, terrorists, politicians, etc. If there were any starving, rib sticking out pictures to share do you really belive the world would not be seeing them.

      I think you, and many others are too gullible. The food goes in but none of you are asking why "starving Palestinians," aren't getting it or even if any undeniable PROOF of such people can be produced.

      by Doodad on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:35:10 AM PDT

      •  That's not what the media's showing "Doodad"

        http://www.commondreams.org/...

        http://www.commondreams.org/...

        http://www.commondreams.org/...

        http://www.commondreams.org/...

        There's no excuse for collective punishment. Period.

        by vtfinest on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:00:26 AM PDT

  •  And as soon as Hamas was elected...

    ... the US cut off all aid and financial support to Gaza -- aid on which the Palestinians are absolutely dependent on.

    The US didn't like the results of the elections in Palestine, so we refused to deal with the government that the Palestinians had elected, and by cutting off aid, made it impossible for the new government to do their jobs. Gaza is not self-sufficient, and it is one of the most densely populated areas in the Middle East. It is impossible for a newly-elected government to build a state when that endeavor is financed by an outside power which has no interest in seeing that particular government succeed.

    The Bush Administration has continuously demonized any faction or group that does not fall in line with their vision and demands -- whether that group is foreign or domestic. They only seem to support "democracy" when the results fall in line with their proscribed policies -- as far as they're concerned, elections seem to be merely a formality to legitimize the government or regime they beleive more friendly to their interests. I'd take ANYTHING the Bush Administration proclaims about any group, especially those that oppose them, with a huge deal of salt, and look for alternative sources of information.

    by JanetT in MD on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:42:57 AM PDT

•  Cheers

  Carter wasn't exaggerating, either.According to Amnesty International, Oxfam, Christian Aid and others, the situation in Gaza today is worse than it has ever been since 1967. In a recent report entitled 'A Humanitarian Implosion' (.pdf), they concluded that:

  '[i]n terms of poverty, food aid dependency, humanitarian access, unemployment, access to basic services and medical supplies, we are witnessing an unprecedented humanitarian crisis in Gaza.'

  The report describes nothing less than the deliberate "impoverishment of an entire population". It emphasises that the humanitarian crisis in Gaza is "man-made, completely avoidable and, with the necessary political will, can also be reversed", and concludes Israel's blockade constitutes "collective punishment" and is thus "illegal under international law". It finishes by noting that the only solution to this crisis is a political one and calling for an end to the blockade and a genuine peace process involving "political dialogue with all Palestinian parties." [my emph.]

  by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:35:02 AM PDT

  •  re: cheers

    let's see if any of our status-quo supporters respond to this...

    by Robert Naiman on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:43:05 AM PDT

    •  Somehow

      It will be the Palestinians fault. Thanks to an International Guilt Complex (which isn't exactly un-earned) Israel is given a free ride to carry out a lot of the same tactics against the Palestinians the Nazis used on them in the early years of World War 2.

      Gaza is pretty much the second coming of the Warsaw Ghetto. Sure, Israel isn't engaging in active extermination like Germany is, but they are certainly engaged in passive crimes against humanity.

      I know some one is going to scream, "ANTI SEMITE!" but if Gaza was Darfur, or any country in Africa, or any country in any other part of the world the International Community would be in arms.

      Someone needs to stand up and start saying. Just because it happened to you doesn't give you a free pass to do it to someone else.

      by Larry Madill on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 08:54:20 AM PDT

      •  I think you're giving too much credit

        to put this down to a "guilt complex". I think the U.S. supports Israel because it sees a strong, militarised, pro-American Israel as in its strategic interests. That's what the documentary record shows, at any rate - for example, in 1958 the National Security Council concluded that a "logical corollary" to the U.S.' opposition to Arab nationalism "would be to support Israel as the only strong pro-west power left in the near East."

        by heathlander on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 09:10:38 AM PDT

•  Thanks for the diary, RN! n/t

  by Rusty Pipes on Fri Apr 18, 2008 at 01:41:45 PM PDT