artykuł J.Cartera z dzisiejszego NYT

[Gość: Iowa]

czy ktoś mógły ściągną z new york times artkuł J. cartera- podobno ciekawy a
mnie się nie otwiera

[Gość: Fredzio]

To duren co sprowadzil Chomeini do Wladzy Iranskiem a teras caly swiat cierpi,
niech idze do dom Starcow Billy Peanuts Farm

usa przełamcie kaca i i ściągnijcie ten artykuł

[Gość: iowa]

OK wiem - antysemita, ale ja nie do Ciebie . hej formu w usa podrzyćcie ten
artykuł

[Gość: Karol]

April 21, 2002





America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace

By JIMMY CARTER

TLANTA — In January 1996, with full support from Israel and responding to the
invitation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Carter Center helped
to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well
organized, open and fair. In that election, 88 members were elected to the
Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and
practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own
government, with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as
a state.

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of
Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I
relayed a message offering them full participation in the process of developing
a permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they
refused to accept this proposal. Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace
and hope, and there was no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations.
The legal status of the Palestinian people has not changed since then, but
their plight has grown desperate.

Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his
public declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of
all peace agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his
invasion of Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction
of villages and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open
defiance of President George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international
law have all been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish
Israeli settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and
to deny Palestinians a cohesive political existence.
There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he was free and enjoying
the full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted control over
Hamas and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful
Israeli existence and adopt any means to accomplish their goal. Mr. Arafat's
all-too-rare denunciations of violence have been spasmodic, often expressed
only in English and likely insincere. He may well see the suicide attacks as
one of the few ways to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the
suffering of his people, or as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.

Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal
elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men
and women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens.
The abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they
discredit the Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and
destruction of villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.

The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the
implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242,
expressed most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's
Crown Prince Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal
of Israelis from Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel
and Israel's right to live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many
Israelis, having been accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and
ratified by the Israeli Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel,
responded by establishing full diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli
rights, including unimpeded use of the Suez canal. This set a pattern for what
can and must be done by all other Arab nations. Through constructive
negotiations, both sides can consider some modifications of the 1967 boundary
lines.

East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy
places, and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number
of displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to
others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay
this cost.

With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international
community, the United States government can bring about such a solution to the
existing imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and
balanced that at least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond
with approval, and an international force can monitor compliance with agreed
peace terms, as was approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's
withdrawal from Egyptian territory.

There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion.
One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel
only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent
destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement
to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war,
and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full
invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other
persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel.
President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the
building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion
on the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions
toward peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of
Israel. They all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as
recognized by international law.

The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal diplomatic
efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized
intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world
will welcome this leadership.


Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter Center, which
works worldwide to advance peace and human health.

Nixon, Carter, Bush

[Gość: MeF]

Szczególnie ten fragmencik jest b. ciekawy. Może ktoś bieglejszy w polityce i
historii przypomni co łączy tych trzech prezydentów.

There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion.
One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel
only for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent
destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement
to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war,
and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full
invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other
persuasive factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel.
President George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the
building of Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

[Gość: MeF]

Sam zanlazłem. Wszyscy trzej mieli tylko jedną kadencję. Ciekawe dlaczego? czy
odpowiedź jest w artykule Cartera? czy Bush junior będzie miał dwie kadencje?
co musi zrobić żeby tak było?
P.S. Kurde to mnie wciąga

[Gość: kanuk]

zawsze mowilem, ze Carter to porzadny czlowiek.

[Gość: OK]

Gość portalu: Iowa napisał(a):

> czy ktoś mógły ściągną z new york times artkuł J. cartera- podobno ciekawy a
> mnie się nie otwiera


April 21, 2002





America Can Persuade Israel to Make a Just Peace

By JIMMY CARTER

TLANTA — In January 1996, with full support from Israel and responding to the
invitation of the Palestinian Liberation Organization, the Carter Center helped
to monitor a democratic election in the West Bank and Gaza, which was well
organized, open and fair. In that election, 88 members were elected to the
Palestinian National Authority, with Yasir Arafat as president. Legally and
practically, the Palestinian people were encouraged to form their own government,
with the expectation that they would soon have full sovereignty as a state.

When the election was over, I made a strong effort to persuade the leaders of
Hamas to accept the election results, with Mr. Arafat as their leader. I relayed
a message offering them full participation in the process of developing a
permanent constitutional framework for the new political entity, but they refused
to accept this proposal. Despite this rejection, it was a time of peace and hope,
and there was no threat of violence or even peaceful demonstrations. The legal
status of the Palestinian people has not changed since then, but their plight has
grown desperate.

Ariel Sharon is a strong and forceful man and has never equivocated in his public
declarations nor deviated from his ultimate purpose. His rejection of all peace
agreements that included Israeli withdrawal from Arab lands, his invasion of
Lebanon, his provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the destruction of villages
and homes, the arrests of thousands of Palestinians and his open defiance of
President George W. Bush's demand that he comply with international law have all
been orchestrated to accomplish his ultimate goals: to establish Israeli
settlements as widely as possible throughout occupied territories and to deny
Palestinians a cohesive political existence.







Topics
Alerts

Carter, Jimmy

United States International Relations

Middle East

Israel

Create Your Own | Manage Alerts
Take a Tour



Sign Up for Newsletters







There is adequate blame on the other side. Even when he was free and enjoying the
full trappings of political power, Yasir Arafat never exerted control over Hamas
and other radical Palestinians who reject the concept of a peaceful Israeli
existence and adopt any means to accomplish their goal. Mr. Arafat's all-too-rare
denunciations of violence have been spasmodic, often expressed only in English
and likely insincere. He may well see the suicide attacks as one of the few ways
to retaliate against his tormentors, to dramatize the suffering of his people, or
as a means for him, vicariously, to be a martyr.

Tragically, the policies of Mr. Sharon have greatly strengthened these criminal
elements, enhanced their popular support, and encouraged misguided young men and
women to sacrifice their own lives in attacking innocent Israeli citizens. The
abhorrent suicide bombings are also counterproductive in that they discredit the
Palestinian cause, help perpetuate the military occupation and destruction of
villages, and obstruct efforts toward peace and justice.

The situation is not hopeless. There is an ultimate avenue to peace in the
implementation of United Nations resolutions, including Resolution 242, expressed
most recently in the highly publicized proposal of Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince
Abdullah. The basic premises of these resolutions are withdrawal of Israelis from
Palestinian lands in exchange for full acceptance of Israel and Israel's right to
live in peace. This is a reasonable solution for many Israelis, having been
accepted in 1978 by Prime Minister Menachem Begin and ratified by the Israeli
Knesset. Egypt, offering the greatest threat to Israel, responded by establishing
full diplomatic relations and honoring Israeli rights, including unimpeded use of
the Suez canal. This set a pattern for what can and must be done by all other
Arab nations. Through constructive negotiations, both sides can consider some
modifications of the 1967 boundary lines.

East Jerusalem can be jointly administered with unimpeded access to holy places,
and the right of return can be addressed by permitting a limited number of
displaced Palestinians to return to their homeland with fair compensation to
others. It will be a good investment for the international community to pay this
cost.

With the ready and potentially unanimous backing of the international community,
the United States government can bring about such a solution to the existing
imbroglio. Demands on both sides should be so patently fair and balanced that at
least a majority of citizens in the affected area will respond with approval, and
an international force can monitor compliance with agreed peace terms, as was
approved for the Sinai region in 1979 following Israel's withdrawal from Egyptian
territory.

There are two existing factors that offer success to United States persuasion.
One is the legal requirement that American weapons are to be used by Israel only
for defensive purposes, a premise certainly being violated in the recent
destruction of Jenin and other villages. Richard Nixon imposed this requirement
to stop Ariel Sharon and Israel's military advance into Egypt in the 1973 war,
and I used the same demand to deter Israeli attacks on Lebanon in 1979. (A full
invasion was launched by Ariel Sharon after I left office). The other persuasive
factor is approximately $10 million daily in American aid to Israel. President
George Bush Sr. threatened this assistance in 1992 to prevent the building of
Israeli settlements between Jerusalem and Bethlehem.

I understand the extreme political sensitivity in America of using persuasion on
the Israelis, but it is important to remember that none of the actions toward
peace would involve an encroachment on the sovereign territory of Israel. They
all involve lands of the Egyptians, Lebanese and Palestinians, as recognized by
international law.

The existing situation is tragic and likely to get worse. Normal diplomatic
efforts have failed. It is time for the United States, as the sole recognized
intermediary, to consider more forceful action for peace. The rest of the world
will welcome this leadership.


Jimmy Carter, the former president, is chairman of the Carter Center, which works
worldwide to advance peace and human health.


Home | Back to Opinion | Search | Help Back to Top








Search our job listings for the best opportunities or post your resume to
attract top employers.



Copyright 2002 The New York Times Company | Privacy Information

dobrzy ludzie przetłumaczcie dla mnie

[Gość: tir]

anonimowy tłumaczu

[Gość: emigrant]

Carter jest bardzo porzadnym czlowiekiem, ale byl jednym z najgorszych
prezydentow historii Stanow i to zarowno w polityce " domowej" (
najwyzsze stopy procentowe, bezrobocie i recesja) jak rowniez
zagranicznej ( zakladnicy w Iranie i pozniejsze wpadki). Jego doradca byl
Brzezinski, ktory teraz wypowiada sie , glownie w mediach europejskiech
bowiem w Stanach ich polityka jest skompromitowana. Najbardziej
znane osiagniecia Cartera obecnie to to, gdy odbudowuje jakis domek -
dobry ciesla.

[Gość: MeF]

Wedle których rankingów, wedle jakich kryteriów.

[Gość: emigrant]

Gos´c´ portalu: MeF napisa?(a):

> Wedle których rankingów, wedle jakich kryteriów.

On na tyle nic nie znaczy, ze nawet jego temat sie nie przeprowadza
rankingow. Jednym z najlepszych dowodow byla jego przegrana w
wyborach.

Carter, Nixon, Busz

[Gość: MeF]

Odsyłam do subwątku wyżej. We wszystkich tych rankigach równie nisko stoi
Senior i Nixon. Rządzili równie krótko. Co ich łączy. Carter twierdzi, że
postawili się Izraelowi.

[Gość: Gizmo]

I tak bylo, to samo stalo sie niemal z Clintonem mial sie ostro postawic
Izraelowi to mu podstawili ta zydowke i niestego gosc zapomnial sie na chwile
(wcale mu sie niedziwie z taka zona) no i nieomal stal sie najslawniejszym
prezydentem USA. Poprosil potem o laske, pokajal sie i wszytko mu zostalo
wybaczone.

[Gość: MeF]

No własnie co działo się na świecie jak wyszeło szydło z rozporka Billa? I co
było potem. Bojaźliwym podpowiadam,że w wyniku wojny SSzarona takie dywagacjie
to już nie antysemityzm tylko "analiza działania lobby izraelskiego" - to za
T.G Ash