Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir
At best Carter is communicating from a position of weakness. Communication with an enemy can also be perceived as a weakness and the meaningless platitude for change sounds like an Obama speech. Change to what? It also makes you sound like the people Adrian sites in his last paragraph. If during a period of conflict you're able to force you opponent to the negotiating table, it is an admission of weakness on his part. I suggest you read about the negotiations between the US and Vietnam in Paris. The shape and size of the table matters.
If Carter was communicating from a position of weakness I doubt this kerfuffle would have erupted. It is precisely because his communication skills and openess are feared that people are ranting and raving. Personally, I think this is great. You've got the US and Israel, a strategic cross-ocean mega-nuclear superpower, and they're all a flutter because one guy is having tea and talking to another guy. It's like watching a dictator with a huge army and media machine (Hello? China?) tremble because one guy with a pen is willing to tell the truth.

I love guys who can do that.

Nobody is being forced to do anything here. There is no table shape to hold a grudge over. Carter is talking to a group of people as an individual, not a state representative, and his only intention as far as I see is to determine if there is any middle ground that will lower the cycle of violence. You need to talk to do that.



Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir
Carter has noting to negotiate with other than goodwill.
I won't condemn a man for having goodwill. Goodwill saves lives.