Even a sign of Hamas turning towards an acknowledgement of Israel's right ot exist is a joyful sign.

My family has an unspoken agreement not to discuss Israel, ever since my father (who converted to Judaism) snapped at my mother (who was born and raised Conservative) for insisting that she wanted to start making an annual donation to JDF.  That got ugly really fast--although they did finally compromise by donating to Magen David Adom.

Dad just doesn't get that Mom and I really do feel a strong emotional connection to Israel, it's not just something we say because we're Jewish.  I often forget he converted, but whenever he talks about Israel, it shows.  So although Mom and I sometimes talk about Israel, we only do it when Dad isn't around, and even then in hushed voices.  (We only got up the nerve to see "Munich" because Dad was safely out of town for the weekend.)

There can be no peace without negotiating with Hamas, much as I wish that weren't true.  But, as it stands, I'm hopeful that everything will come right in the end...or, as we sing in the "Adir Hu," bimheirah biyameinu bikarov!  Speedily, in our days soon to come!

(One little note though--I never saw Pesach as being about ends justifying means.  I'm curious where you got that impression from.)

a question--is the Hamas position on "land for peace" a new one, or one that was already a precondition for recognizing Israel?

I think Jimmy Carter did us all a great service to continue working for peace.

A conservative friend of mine does a good Bill Clinton impression where he says, "What we need over there is lasting peace, I negotiated lasting peace five times."

What people need to be made to understand is our current policies aren't working which is why Barack Obama is right on foreign policy. The Cuba policy has failed for 40 years to do anything but make life harder on the Cuban people, the current stalemate between Israel and Palestine fails when they lob missiles at each other which causes both sides to claim victimhood, the hard line against Iran not only is failing but caused the downfall of the moderates that were working with us after 9/11 and the rise of Ahmadinejad.

It's the whole definition of insanity argument when people argue that not only do we need to not change strategy but we need to adopt an even harder line for success. The whole idea that America meeting with leaders we don't like is a propaganda victory for them is laughable on it's face. They already get a propaganda victory when we refuse to meet with them because they end up looking reasonable and we look condescending.

Thanks for a great diary, and bringing back some memories of seders past with all of the back and forth about this (my dad is gone now).  Sharing your verclempt.  Happy Pesach.

I shared your hope in 2000 and we were pretty close.  The problem was not with Clinton whose team was masterful in Israel but with Bush who decided that all things Clinton were bad.  Now that we are just about done with our 8 year Bush nightmare, perhaps we can return to realistic negotiations and move Israel/Palestine to where Ireland/Northern Ireland is today.  

I remain hopeful.

Carter was/is vilified for working toward Peace...

"One way or another, this darkness got to give"

tap yer toes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sVsSKuxya ro

Great diary!

I come from an Arab-American family, and really appreciate your sentiment.

I know that the only way to achieve peace is compromise, and that means the Palestinians need to lay down their arms. I wish that civil disobedience and non-violent protest and organizing would take off in the West Bank, but for some reason it hasn't.

Palestine needs an MLK or Ghandi to start leading people peacefully.

I was incredibly disappointed that Obama criticized Carter for using his own philosophy of talking to the enemy.  He's so afraid of losing the Jewish vote that he's a little more hawkish than his nature would normally warrant.

I'd like to point out that Carter was widely criticized for doing this, and yet here he is coming up with results.

Had Obama embraced the mission, it would have been big points for his diplomacy initiatives.  Best thing he can do now is say, "Wow, I was wrong, I guess I need to listen to myself sometimes."

In any case, this isn't going to be an easy process.  The last time they made true progress, Yitshak Rabin was murdered by one of his own people.

"If I remember correctly, it was a Passover bombing that fully tipped the scales away from peace."

No, what bombed these negotiations is that Israel, represented by Ehud Barak, had no intention of settling the conflict by providing the Palestinians with a sovereign independent state on the West Bank and Gaza. Camp David was a ruse. Israelis entered stating, "settlements are off the table." How can there be a Palestinian state amidst 150 Israeli villages, towns, and cities since created on the West Bank alone? Clinton knew that, and so did Barak, who admitted to the ruse several years later, on the Charlie Rose Show (January 25, 2005). Not even his own party, Labor, would have voted to remove EVEN ONE SETTLEMENT, he said. Nothing was also to be in writing. Why? The generous offer hoax followed and with the help of Dennis Ross and Clinton, Arafat was blamed for the failure.

For historical sake, it is now evident that Bill Clinton did more to undermine a peace settlement between the Israelis and Palestinians than any other president. During his reign of the 90s, settlements on the West Bank and Gaza DOUBLED as did the rate of settlement. Now we have this situation where the are close to a half million Israelis living an Apartheid life in the West Bank and no Israeli leader willing to ask them to leave.

Two wrongs dont make a right and thats not gonna change. Ignoring the objections of the Arabs when Israel re-established was arrogant. The Zionist that pushed for the creation Israel were wrong. Now Jews have to lie endlessly to keep the state viable in public opinion and lie to themselves to alleviate the guilt. The truth will prevail it always does.