Hamas Breaks Cease Fire With Roadside Bomb Attack – Israel Resumes Bombing Tunnels

Hopefully Israel will finish the job this time. It is time to take Hamas out, until Hamas is gone there is no chance for peace. 

An Israel Defense Forces spokesman said the air strike came in response to a remote-control bomb attack at the Gaza Strip security fence Tuesday, which killed an Israel Defense Forces tracker and wounded three other soldiers, one seriously.

The border blast was the Palestinians’ first deadly attack since the cease-fire ended Operation Cast Lead, and came the day before the arrival of George Mitchell, the U.S. envoy to the Middle East. 

Earlier on Tuesday, IAF aircraft fired a missile at a militant on a motorbike in the Khan Yunis area of Gaza. The Shin Bet security service, which helped coordinate the missile strike, said the militant, Hussein Abu-Shamaya, was involved in the bomb attack. The bomb was planted by a Hamas breakaway group identified with the Al-Qaida-affiliated Global Jihad, the Shin Bet said. 

In addition, a Palestinian man, apparently a farmer, was killed in exchanges of fire between IDF troops and Palestinians in Gaza after the bomb was detonated, according to Palestinian reports. The incident took place while IDF tanks and soldiers, assisted by helicopters, were patrolling Gaza after the attack. 

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert warned of a “further response” to the attack. 

“What the IDF did today was not a response but a preliminary action,” he said at a meeting of ministry directors general. “A further response to this serious incident will be forthcoming.” 

The security cabinet is to meet Wednesday to discuss security projects, but the situation in Gaza might also be discussed. 

Olmert, noting that he had termed the cease-fire “fragile,” also said: “We don’t even call it a cease-fire but a holding of fire in the face of Hamas infractions, so that we can retain the IDF’s freedom of action.” 

Defense Minister Ehud Barak decided to strike Hamas targets in response to the death of the tracker. 

“We do not intend to gloss over incidents like these,” Barak said. “We will not let Hamas and its outgrowths continue their hostile acts of terror. Anyone who hits us will have to absorb a serious blow in the future, too.” 

Sources in the Prime Minister’s Bureau said Tuesday Israel was not negotiating with Hamas over a cease-fire or second lull. “The Egyptians are speaking to Hamas to attain things that are important for them, but we are not obligated to anything. We have not signed understandings or an agreement with Hamas,” a source in Olmert’s bureau said. 

Israel and Egypt are apparently formulating an understanding on the passage of merchandise from Israel to the Gaza Strip, and at the same time some increased freedom of movement in the opening of the Rafah crossing from the Strip to Egypt. 

The Kerem Shalom and Karni crossings on the Gaza border were closed after the attack. Approximately 185 trucks carrying aid and equipment were to have crossed into Gaza yesterday. 

The bomb near the Gaza border detonated around 8 A.M., as an IDF patrol was passing near the Kissufim crossing, north of Kibbutz Kissufim. The tracker was killed and an officer was seriously hurt. One of his legs was amputated and the other one is severely damaged. Two other soldiers were classified as lightly hurt and will be released in a few days. Soroka Medical Center said they had extensive shrapnel wounds. 

The name of the tracker, a Bedouin, was not released, at the request of his family. 

A preliminary investigation revealed that the soldiers were patrolling an area that had not been patrolled for several weeks due to the fighting in the Strip. The regional brigade commander was apparently not apprised of the patrol, which was approved by the battalion commander. IDF sources said the Palestinians who planted the bomb did so Monday night, under cover of heavy fog. 

The closure of the Gaza crossings is only the first stage of Israel’s response to the attack, Amos Gilad, who heads the Defense Ministry’s political bureau, said yesterday. “The equation in the Strip has changed,” he said during a lecture at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv. 

Yuval Azoulay, Avi Issacharoff and Barak Ravid contributed to this report. 

via Gaza rocket hits Negev; IAF strikes Hamas tunnels after soldier killed – Haaretz – Israel News .

Obama Lays Ground Work For Direct Negotiations With Iran

Direct diplomacy without preconditions I am sure… Just wait and see. Pretty soon we will be bending over for these asshats while they builds some nukes… Remember what happened with N. Korea under the Clinton administration… 

Change You Can Believe In!

President Obama did a quick pivot Monday, shifting his focus to foreign policy by contacting a handful of major world leaders — including Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and French President Nikolas Sarkozy — as his new U.N. ambassador restated the desire for vigorous and “direct diplomacy” with Iran.

President Obama did a quick pivot Monday, shifting his focus to foreign policy by contacting a handful of major world leaders — including Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and French President Nikolas Sarkozy — as his new U.N. ambassador restated the desire for vigorous and “direct diplomacy” with Iran.

Obama spoke with the foreign leaders ahead of a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and his Middle East envoy George Mitchell, who was leaving immediately afterward for a trip to the region. Mitchell will go to Cairo, Egypt; Jersusalem, Israel; Ramallah in the West Bank; Amman, Jordan; Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. He will also visit Paris and London.

Back in the U.S., U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice, who was confirmed last week for the post, said Monday that Iran’s refusal to meet international obligations will increase pressure on Tehran to drop its nuclear ambitions and cooperate with the United States and global community.

Besides pursuing nuclear weapons, Iran has called for the destruction of Israel and support for Hamas, a terror group designated by the U.S., Israel and the European Union. 

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said Rice’s remarks are not a departure from statements made previously by Obama the candidate. She merely restated the administration position that no forms of communication should be off the table with the Islamic regime. 

“Whether you were on the campaign trail or not, clearly this was something that generated a lot of coverage over the past two years. And I think Ambassador Rice was simply restating the position that the president had,” he said.

Gibbs did not offer any specific initiatives on dealing with Iran, but said Rice’s remarks should come as no surprise.

“This administration is going to use all elements of our national power to address concerns” about Iran’s nuclear program. 

As for the Mitchell trip, Gibbs said Mitchell was ahead overseas “to begin the process that the president promised to be actively engaged in, the peace process there in the Middle East.”

State Department Spokesman Robert A. Wood said the purpose of the trip is to consult with regional leaders on a range of issues, including trying to contain smuggling into Gaza to prevent the rearming of Hamas, the Islamist movement that rules Gaza. He said Mitchell will not meet with any Hamas leaders.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

via Obama, Iran Talks Next? – First 100 Days of Presidency – Politics FOXNews.com .

Anti-Israel Samantha Power Is Back

A few months ago about the anti-semite, Samantha Power, that stepped down from Barack Obama’s campaign, only after Hillary got mad that she called her a monster, I predicted then that she would be back once Obama won… Well she is, she is on the transition team, soon I suspect will also be given an administration post… He job right now is to help Hillary build her team… Monsters Inc… This is very disturbing news as Powers has already advocated the US invade Israel on behalf of the Palestinians… The Clinton’s were overly friendly with Arafat and his terrorist ilk… Not good news for Israel or peace in the Middle East…

Why on earth would Barack bring back a member of his team that was forced to leave in the first place. That is not part of the healing process, it shows that he did anything to win the election and now that it is over and he won, he will do whatever he wants.

More Change You Can Believe In!

A former adviser to Barack Obama’s presidential campaign who once called Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton a “monster” is now working on the transition team for the agency that Clinton may lead.

State Department officials said Friday that Samantha Power is among foreign policy experts the president-elect’s office selected to help the incoming administration prepare for Clinton’s anticipated nomination as secretary of state.

The Obama transition team’s Web site includes Power’s name as one of 14 members of the “Agency Review Team” for the State Department.

During the Democratic primary campaign, Power called Clinton “a monster” in an interview. She then resigned, calling her remarks inexcusable and contradictory to her admiration for Clinton.

Barack Obama Frequented Palestinian Events

Do you really think he support Israel? Yet another contradiction of Barack Obama.

Jewish People Vote For Change You Can Believe In

Jackson – Zionist Regime Will Not Get Backing Of Obama Presidency

Now, Jackson is not speaking on behalf of Obama directly, however, it is more than likely he is expressing a shared view of Obama’s. Obama has no plan to support Israel, his first Foreign Policy advisor advocated sending US troops to fight Israel and take the money given to Israel and give it to the Palestinians, Obama feels the US did not have the Moral Imperative to go in and stop the holocaust, would not answer if he would aid Israel if Iran attacked it… Israel is a stong and necessary ally of the US for strategic.

PREPARE for a new America: That’s the message that the Rev. Jesse Jackson conveyed to participants in the first World Policy Forum, held at this French lakeside resort last week.

He promised “fundamental changes” in US foreign policy – saying America must “heal wounds” it has caused to other nations, revive its alliances and apologize for the “arrogance of the Bush administration.”

The most important change would occur in the Middle East, where “decades of putting Israel’s interests first” would end.

Jackson believes that, although “Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades” remain strong, they’ll lose a great deal of their clout when Barack Obama enters the White House.

“Obama is about change,” Jackson told me in a wide-ranging conversation. “And the change that Obama promises is not limited to what we do in America itself. It is a change of the way America looks at the world and its place in it.”

Jackson warns that he isn’t an Obama confidant or adviser, “just a supporter.” But he adds that Obama has been “a neighbor or, better still, a member of the family.” Jackson’s son has been a close friend of Obama for years, and Jackson’s daughter went to school with Obama’s wife Michelle.

“We helped him start his career,” says Jackson. “And then we were always there to help him move ahead. He is the continuation of our struggle for justice not only for the black people but also for all those who have been wronged.”

Will Obama’s election close the chapter of black grievances linked to memories of slavery? The reverend takes a deep breath and waits a long time before responding.

“No, that chapter won’t be closed,” he says. “However, Obama’s victory will be a huge step in the direction we have wanted America to take for decades.”

Jackson rejects any suggestion that Obama was influenced by Marxist ideas in his youth. “I see no evidence of that,” he says. “Obama’s thirst for justice and equality is rooted in his black culture.”

But is Obama – who’s not a descendant of slaves – truly a typical American black?

Jackson emphatically answers yes: “You don’t need to be a descendant of slaves to experience the oppression, the suffocating injustice and the ugly racism that exists in our society,” he says. “Obama experienced the same environment as all American blacks did. It was nonsense to suggest that he was somehow not black enough to feel the pain.”

Is Jackson worried about the “Bradley effect” – that people may be telling pollsters they favor the black candidate, but won’t end up voting for him?

“I don’t think this is how things will turn out,” he says. “We have a collapsing economy and a war that we have lost in Iraq. In Afghanistan, we face a resurgent Taliban. New threats are looming in Pakistan. Our liberties have been trampled under feet . . . Today, most Americans want change, and know that only Barack can deliver what they want. Young Americans are especially determined to make sure that Obama wins.”

He sees a broad public loss of confidence in the nation’s institutions: “We have lost confidence in our president, our Congress, our banking system, our Wall Street and our legal system to protect our individual freedoms. . . I don’t see how we could regain confidence in all those institutions without a radical change of direction.”

Jackson declines to be more concrete about possible policy changes. After all, he insists, he isn’t part of Obama’s policy team. Yet he clearly hopes that his views, reflecting the position of many Democrats, would be reflected in the policies of an Obama administration.

On the economic front, he hopes for “major changes in our trading policy.”

“We cannot continue with the open-door policy,” he says. “We need to protect our manufacturing industry against unfair competition that destroys American jobs and creates ill-paid jobs abroad.”

Would that mean an abrogation of the NAFTA treaty with Canada and Mexico?

Jackson dismisses the question as “premature”: “We could do a great deal without such dramatic action.”

His most surprising position concerns Iraq. He passionately denounces the toppling of Saddam Hussein as “an illegal and unjust act.” But he’s now sure that the United States “will have to remain in Iraq for a very long time.”

What of Obama’s promise to withdraw by 2010? Jackson believes that position will have to evolve, reflecting “realities on the ground.”

“We should work with our allies in Iraq to consolidate democratic institutions there,” he says. “We must help the people of Iraq decide and shape their future in accordance with their own culture and faith.”

On Iran, he strongly supports Obama’s idea of opening a direct dialogue with the leadership in Tehran. “We’ve got to talk to tell them what we want and hear what they want,” Jackson says. “Nothing is gained by not talking to others.”

Would that mean ignoring the four UN Security Council resolutions that demand an end to Iran’s uranium-enrichment program? Jackson says direct talks wouldn’t start without preparations.

“Barack wants an aggressive and dynamic diplomacy,” he says. “He also wants adequate preparatory work. We must enter the talks after the ground has been prepared,” he says.

Jackson is especially critical of President Bush’s approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict.

“Bush was so afraid of a snafu and of upsetting Israel that he gave the whole thing a miss,” Jackson says. “Barack will change that,” because, as long as the Palestinians haven’t seen justice, the Middle East will “remain a source of danger to us all.”

“Barack is determined to repair our relations with the world of Islam and Muslims,” Jackson says. “Thanks to his background and ecumenical approach, he knows how Muslims feel while remaining committed to his own faith.”

Obama – US Was Morally Obliged NOT To Stop The Holocaust

This is something from the second debate between McCain and Obama, which I have not seen any reporting one.

Obama was asked:

What is the Obama doctrine for use of force that the United States would send when we don’t have national security issues at stake?

The second sentence in his response was:

If we could have intervened effectively in the Holocaust, who among us would say that we had a moral obligation not to go in?

Moral Obligation NOT to go in. 

Now I know the Obamaphites are going to say it was a mispeak… as usual…

The normal person would have asked Who among us would say that we did not have a moral obligation to go in…  

He specifically asks if we had a moral obligation not to go in. What moral obligation would there be for not going it, unless we felt it was wrong to go in.

However when asked if he would support Israel if attacked by Iran without UN approval he never actuall answered.

However his answer on a whole is flawed, as the US did go in. Which is should know as he falsely claimed earlier that his uncle was one of the first soldiers to liberate Auschwitz

Israel is screwed if Barack gets into office.

Barack’s Original Foreign Policy Advisor – Invade Israel

Barack refused to answer the question if Iran were to attack Israel, if he as President, would back up Israel militarily without UN approval. Well if he feels this way about Iran, how does he feel about Palestine…

Well his original Foreign Policy Advisor, Samantha Power advocates invading Israel, remove all financial support of Israel and give it to the Palestinians…

Now notice the question was posed as if either side commited genocide against the other. Her response is simple if Israel commits genocide against Palestine.

Does she think that Palestine would support us in the region if we needed them? 

Well there is a good chance, that this woman would come back into the fray should Obama get elected. The only reason she stepped down in the first place was because of pressure from the Clinton camp after she called Hillary a monster. One has to imagine what Barack’s foreign policy will be should he get elected and if he bring Power or some other version her into his cabinet…

 

Samantha Power left the Barack Obama campaign in March of this year, after a somewhat overblown kerfuffle over her reference to Hillary Clinton as a “monster”. Power advised Obama on foreign policy, having spent her career detailing genocides and international responses to them, including a Pulitzer Prize-winning book on the subject. Power had some interesting ideas about how to resolve one particular instance of what she sees as a genocide in this April 2002 interview at Berkeley with Harry Kreisler:

This should give us some insight into the foreign-policy objectives of Barack Obama, who had Power as an adviser from 2005 until the “monster” comment in March of this year. He didn’t bounce her from his team over her views on Israel and … well, let’s recall how she described the pro-Israel lobby:

Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import.

For those who may not catch the reference, Power means the Joooooos.  And why would that alienate the Jewishcabalthatsecretlyrunseverything?  For one thing, Power wants to spend billions on bolstering Palestinian military strength, instead of spending it on helping the Israelis to defend themselves.  Bear in mind that this interview takes place about seven months after 9/11, when people supposedly still knew how dangerous radical Islamist groups like Hamas and al-Qaeda were.  Power wanted to send them money and stop funding Israeli efforts to fight them.

Even more ridiculously, Power’s ultimate aim is to send a massive American or Western force into Israel to stop what Power apparently sees as an Israeli genocide against the Palestinians.  She specifically states that the force has to be “massive”, not like a Srebrenica- or Bosnia-sized force.  Why would it need to be so large?  In order to neutralize the Israeli Defense Force, and protect the forces of Fatah and Hamas.

Had Barack Obama kicked her off of his advisory panel (rumored to number 300)after making remarks like this, it could have assuaged fears about his intentions towards Israel.  Instead, he invited Power to advise him after making these remarks.  She resigned only after calling Hillary a monster and after insinuating that Obama may not retreat from Iraq in 16 months if the ground situation changed — which Obama later adopted as his own position after the primaries.

This is the same Barack Obama who served in a board that gave a $75,000 grant to Rashid Khalidi, Yasser Arafat’s toady in the PLO.  This is the same Barack Obama who had Robert Malley as another of his advisers on the region — and who conducted meetings with Hamas.  Obama’s church used its bulletins to give voice to Palestinian activists.  How much more clear can this get?

 

Anti-Iran Rally Turns Pro-Palin

The anti-Iran rally went on without Sarah Palin, unfortunately it was a disaster in numbers, with only about 2,000 people showing up. Maybe if they had let Sarah attend she could have brought in a crowd like she did in Florida, 60,000…

The rally ended up with overtones of of being Pro-Palin and anti Democrat, which upset the higher ups. Too bad. They are pissed because it became a political rally… First of all, what do they think the rally was in the first place. It was political against Iran. Second of all, it would not have turned into a partisan political issue had they let Sarah attend and had Hillary not blown her cool acting like a 5 year old by cancelling her appearance in the first place. Or maybe if Joe Biden or or Barack Obama had decided to attend, then maybe just maybe this would have been a nice UNITED front to show the terrorist from Iran.

I hope the Jewish voters pay attention to this and really think hard before throwing their vote behind Obama.

Jewish Groups Furious That Protest Against Ahmadinejad Was, At Times, A Pro-Palin, Bash-The-Dems Affair

Politics and diplomacy were not a good mix at Monday’s protest rally against Iran at the United Nations. 

Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin didn’t participate in the “Stop Iran Now” rally and there were a lot of hard feelings about it. 

It was a simple sign that read “We Want Sarah. Shame On The Rally Organizer.” 

Howard Webber from Brooklyn held it. 

“As important an event as this is, you needed a unity of Democrats and Republicans to show Ahmadinejad that we’re not going to accept a nuclear Iran.” 

Buddy Macy of Little Fells, N.J., felt much the same way. 

“I’m so disappointed, upset,” Macy said. “She would have brought 10,000-20,000 more supporters of Israel. People who were curious were stopped because of partisan action.” 

The brouhaha started after Clinton pulled out after she learned Palin was invited. Three organizations supporting the rally threatened to pull out unless Palin was disinvited. She was but organizers didn’t stop there. 

They were furious Monday about the political signs brought by some at the rally, like an anti-Obama sign that said, “Jews Against Obama & Ahmadinejad.” 

“I am upset by the sign because this is a non-political event,” said Janice Shorenstein, president of the Jewish Community Relations Council. “We are here today to cry out against Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, not political. American elections are not part of this event.” 

Congressman Anthony Wiener disagreed. 

“I think this is a classic political event in the best sense of the word. Politicians from all corners come here to speak out against Iran,” Wiener said. “I think it would have been fine for Sarah to speak. We just needed someone of equal stature from the Obama campaign to speak.” 

The question is what are the political repercussions not to have politicians speak at the rally?

“Republicans benefitted more than the Democrats did,” political consultant Hank Sheinkopf said. “Why? Sarah Palin wanted to be there, but it looks like she was purposely told not to and rejected. It gives her standing, particularly among those people who are thinking about voting Republican anyway.”

Both Clinton and Palin tried to make political hay anyway. Clinton released a statement. Palin released the speech she would have given. She will be in New York on Monday and Tuesday to meet with world leaders. Republicans hopes that helps boost her foreign policy credentials.

With the General Assembly now in session, avoid the East Side if you can. There will be the usual traffic troubles all week. 

Streets will be closed at different times, anywhere from the FDR to Madison Avenue, between 42nd and 57th streets.

Carter Doesn’t Even Know What Happened At His Terrorist Tea Party

Well well well, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal says the opposite of Carter, Hamas will NEVER recognize Israel. Not quite pretty bed of flowers that Carter described. What a lying sack of shit Carter is. Hamas will offer Israel a 10 year truce if it withdraws to pre 1967 borders, well what happens after the 10 years are up? I will tell you what, Hamas and other terrorist organizations will use that time to build up an army and weapons arsenal to attack Israel to finish the original goal of the Islamic Middle East…

This is why Israel keeps fighting against all of these organizations on it’s borders, because if it does not do that, then Israel will face a force that will defeat it. Most liberals cry about how Israel is a terrorist nation and kills civilians blah blah blah. They say Israel’s campaigns create more terror. Bullshit. It keeps asshats like Mashaal in check and prevents them from becoming a major threat.

People like Carter and the rest of the left wing liberal nuts only promote terrorist like Hamas to thrive by making it look like they are a legitimate entity. They concede to these bastards and give them power. When will the world learn to stop viewing at terrorists through rose colored anal looking glasses.

JERUSALEM —  Just hours after former President Jimmy Carter trumpeted Hamas’ agreement to let Israel “live as a neighbor,” the same terrorist leader he met with face-to-face vowed not to recognize the Jewish state.

But Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal did offer Israel a 10-year truce if it withdraws from all lands it seized in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war.

Carter met twice with Mashaal over the weekend.

The former president also said Monday that he would never sit down with Al Qaeda because the terror network has no “redeeming features.”

“[Al Qaeda] are not involved in any sort of a fruitful process. They are not recognized by their own people,” Carter told FOX News in an interview Monday. “On the other hand, you have to remember Hamas in an honest and open and fair and transparent election were elected the leaders of the Palestinian government.”

Carter claimed his meetings with Hamas and Syrian leaders weren’t meant to circumvent the Bush administration, nor was it an attempt to formally negotiate with Hamas.

“I’m not undermining anything. I’m not negotiating. … I’m just here representing myself and the Carter Center. No one else,” he said. “My decision was just to talk to people who must be involved in the final peace agreement.

“Syria and Hamas will have to be involved in the long term,” he said. “And I thought I could at least talk to them and relay their opinions.”

When asked whether he’d ever meet with Al Qaeda, Carter replied, “No, of course not.”

“I don’t see any redeeming features of Al Qaeda at all,” he said.

When making a distinction between Usama bin Laden’s terror network and Hamas, which has been in power since the 2006 Palestinian elections, Carter said that Israeli citizens backed his talks with Hamas.

“The Israeli people strongly support what I have done, at least indirectly,” he claimed, citing polls that show “that 64 percent of all Israeli citizens strongly support direct talks between the government of Israel and Hamas.”

Speaking in Jerusalem, the former president said Hamas is prepared to accept the outcome of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, provided it is approved in a Palestinian referendum, or by a Palestinian government chosen in new elections.

“We do not believe that peace is likely and certainly that peace is not sustainable unless a way is found to bring Hamas into the discussions in some way,” he said. “The present strategy of excluding Hamas and excluding Syria is just not working.”

Carter met with top Hamas leaders in Syria for two days last week. His speech capped a nine-day visit to the Mideast designed to break the deadlock between Israel and Hamas militants who rule Gaza.

In the past, Hamas officials have said they would establish a “peace in stages” if Israel were to withdraw to the frontiers it held before the 1967 Mideast War. But it has been evasive about how it sees the final borders of a Palestinian state, and has not abandoned its official call for Israel’s destruction.

Israel and the U.S. State Department consider Hamas to be a terrorist group. Israeli officials had shunned Carter during his visit because of his meetings with Mashaal, and other group leaders.

Syria harbors Hamas’ exiled leadership in its capital, Damascus, and supports the Lebanese Hezbollah guerrillas who warred with Israel in 2006.

Carter said Hamas wouldn’t undermine moderate Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said, Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas leaders “said that they would accept a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders” and they would “accept the right of Israel to live as a neighbor next door in peace,” he said.

The borders he referred to were the frontiers that existed before Israel captured large swaths of Arab lands in 1967 — including the West Bank, east Jerusalem and Gaza.

Israel, which evacuated Gaza in 2005, has accepted the idea of a Palestinian state there and in much of the West Bank, but has resisted Palestinian demands that it return to its 1967 frontiers.

Both the Israeli and U.S. governments disapprove of Carter’s overtures to Hamas, which they consider to be a terrorist organization. Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he did not meet with Carter in Israel because he did not wish to be seen as participating in any negotiations with Hamas.

During his trip, Carter met only with Israeli President Shimon Peres and Eli Yishai, one of several deputy prime ministers. Peres scolded Carter for meeting with Hamas, but Yishai, of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party, said he was willing to meet with Hamas leaders to discuss a prisoner exchange.

Israel says Carter’s talks embolden Palestinian extremists and hurt Palestinian moderates as they try to make peace with the Jewish state. Abbas, who rules only the West Bank, is in a bitter rivalry with Hamas.

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria,” Carter said Monday. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

Carter said direct communication between Israel and Hamas could facilitate the release of a captured Israeli soldier, Cpl. Gilad Schalit, who has been held in Gaza for nearly two years.

Israel agrees in principle to trade 1,000 Palestinian prisoners for Schalit, but after back-and-forth talks through Egyptian intermediaries, has approved only 71 of the specific prisoners that Hamas wants freed, he said.

Carter said Hamas has promised to let Schalit send a letter to his parents to assure them he is in good health, and said the militants “made clear to us that they would accept an interim ceasefire in the Gaza Strip.”

Carter, however, said Hamas rejected his specific proposal for a monthlong unilateral truce.

“They turned me down, and I think they’re wrong,” he said.

FOX News’ Reena Ninan and The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Carter Has Ended The Palestinian/Israeli Conflict

No not really, but anyone that read the headline and believed, please contact me, I have a bridge for sale…

Carter claims Hamas ready for peace with Israel… Yeah right… This vile ex-President, who has meet on many occassions with a Terrorist Organization, claiming you have to talk with the enemy to make peace with them, disgraced the soldiers that died in Beirut at the hands of Hezbollah by meeting in Syria with Hamas on the 25th anniversary of the barracks bombing, is blowing smoke up the public’s ass, and has accomplished nothing.

Until Hamas stops its terror campaign, there cannot be any chance of peace.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, later said Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

Here is the key, no matter what peace agreement is reached, until Israel is no longer, Hamas will not stop.

 JERUSALEM —  Former President Jimmy Carter said Monday that Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to “live as a neighbor next door in peace.”

Carter said the group promised it wouldn’t undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas’ efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas, a militant Islamic group that both the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist organization, calls in its charter for Israel’s destruction. It has also traditionally opposed peace negotiations with the Jewish state.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, later said Carter’s comments “do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum.”

Carter’s comments came after his much criticized meetings with the top Hamas leaders in Syria in last week.

The Nobel laureate also urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic militant group, saying it was a “problem” that Israel and the U.S. refuse to meet with Hamas. Both governments consider it a terrorist organization.

“The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria,” he said. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved.”

“There’s no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel’s right to exist in peace within 1967 borders,” he said, referring to Israel’s frontiers before it captured large swaths of Arab lands in the 1967 Mideast war.

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he decided not to meet with Carter in Israel because he does not wish to be seen as participating in any negotiations with Hamas.

In his comments Monday, Carter said Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has “regressed” since a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md., in November.

Israel has been negotiating directly with Abbas, who heads a moderate government based in the West Bank. Abbas lost control of the Gaza Strip last June, when Hamas violently seized control of that territory.

Carter said Hamas has promised to let a captured Israeli soldier send a letter to his parents, and said the militants “made clear to us that they would accept an interim cease-fire in the Gaza Strip.”

However, Carter said Hamas rejected his specific proposal for a monthlong unilateral cease-fire.

 

I also find Carter’s timing a bit curious… He chose to meet with Hamas just before the start of Passover and again after Passover started… Hmmm… I guess maybe there was extra plague the bible left out, terrorists…

Now Hamas’ real answer to Carter’s peace making trip, a step up of attacks from Gaza. These attacks were authorized if not ordered during the talks with Carter.

As for Hamas, our intelligence sources report that Saturday, April 19, after the Gazan leaders Mahmoud a-Zahar and Siad Siyam, fresh from their Cairo stalemate, met former US president Jimmy Carter in Damascus – and heard his suggestion of a one- or two-week halt in rocket fire as a gesture of good will – they went straight into a conference with their masters.

Khaled Meshaal and Mussa Abu Marzuk were there as well as Iranian intelligence officers based permanently in Syria and Syrian intelligence officers who maintain liaison with Hamas. It was agreed that Hamas would not only continue to batter the Gaza-Israel border as in the last ten days, but intensify its assaults against a broader range of targets.

Sunday night, Hamas fired 8 Qassam missiles and half a dozen mortar rounds against Israel civilian locations, their first nocturnal attack of this kind.

Shortly before midnight, they directed fire at Israeli farmers who were harvesting the Kibbutz Nir Oz potato crop in bullet-proof vests by night to escape sniper fire from Gaza. Israeli air force strikes followed, hitting armed Palestinian bands. At least 8 gunmen were killed over the week end.

DEBKAfile’s military sources stress that these Israeli attacks and the deaths of its operatives offer Hamas neither disincentive nor impediment for its war preparations