Happy Passover, Jimmy Carter
| Fri Apr. 18, 2008 6:10 PM PDT
The hysterical reaction in Congress to Jimmy Carter's trip to the Middle East, where he met with a Hamas leader today, is precisely the sort of thing I hope the new "pro-Israel, pro-peace" group J Street speaks out against. This week Rep. Sue Myrick (R-NC) said she wants to revoke Carter's passport. And Rep. Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI) introduced the Coordinated American Response to Extreme Radicals Act (CARTER) Act to cut all federal funding to the Carter Center at Emory University. That's the organization that pours resources into humanitarian projects like eradicating the Guinea worm parasite in Africa and was lauded in Carter's 2002 Nobel Peace Prize citation.
New York Democratic representative Gary Ackerman came out against the CARTER Act, but, in the process, managed to be just as petty and juvenile as his Republican colleagues. As the New York Sun reported today:
"The man is entitled his idiotic, moronic, nonsensical, anti-commonsensical, foolish opinions. And all that being said, he is still entitled to have them. I don't think we should be cutting off funding for any ex presidents to do things. We didn't cut off Richard Nixon," he said. Mr. Ackerman added that if Mr. Carter came to his home for the Passover Seder, he would ask him to read the part of the simple son, the boy who does not know enough to even ask a question about the story of the Jewish exodus from ancient Egypt.
Shouldn't the Democratic leadership be bothered by this kind of rhetoric directed against a former president of their own party? More important, would Ackerman slap his offensive "simple son" label on Colin Powell or Brent Scowcroft or Zbigniew Brzezinski or Lee Hamilton or Shlomo Ben-Ami, all of whom have called for engagement with Hamas. And what about the 64 percent of actual Israelis who favor direct talks with Hamas?
—Justin Elliott
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
"You don't want to cross AIPAC and be sympathetic for third world people's struggles."
AIPAC is primarily concerned with only one "third world" population, the one which is relentlessly attacking Israel. So the statement is patently false and misleading and typically slanderous.
The anti-Jews typically rely on base insults and Orwellian linguistics, to reinforce their otherwise weak arguments.
Example:
"The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'"
It does not mention the actual article or its date and more importantly, the words "as much as" are the core defining elements of the statement. With this qualifier in place, in order for the statement to be considered factual, only ONE candidate need have received 60% of his/her campaign funding from Jews. Are there zero candidates who receive 60% of their funding from:
Blacks?
Latinos?
Native Americans?
Arabs and/or Muslims?
Etc.?
The EU can talk very large given that they ARE NOT under missile attack.
They have no solutions, only condemnations. If they really wanted a solution, the EU would graciously offer to supply armed "peacekeepers" (with permission to shoot if necessary--in order to maintain their mission). But that will never happen for one reason:
1-week following such deployments, they would be getting sniped from rooftops, blown up in roadside bombings kidnapped and slowly dismembered, and 1-week following that, their own citizens (at home) would be screaming to 'nuke the Arabs'.
The European nations have mainly taken a long-term position of appeasement in order to secure their supply of oil. The leader of this has been France, who has welcomed 6-million Arabs and Moslems into France as citizens. To put this in perspective, there are now more Muslims in France then there are Jews in Israel.
Nonetheless, they do this to avoid conflict. Should the conflict develop anyway, some of these Euro countries would be the first to succumb to the urge to retaliate with overwhelming force. When two priests were killed in Turkey, the Vatican wasted no time. The Nunzio issued a statement: "enough with the turn the other cheek . . . we need to defend ourselves". Chirac of France was even more bloodthirsty. "PARIS, Jan. 19 ?2006-- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism."
{End of quote}
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR200601...
Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years
By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal(a noted leftist).
When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.
Notable among these was the Great Reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote :
"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, it is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle.?" The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.
Pastor Wright said: "I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs." A June 10th, 2007 issue of the newsletter featured an open letter written by Ali Baghdadi, appearing on the "Pastor's Page," that calls Israel an "apartheid" regime. The letter says Israel worked on an "ethnic bomb" that kills "blacks and Arabs." The letter also says "Israel was the closest ally to the white supremacists of South Africa."
In the introduction to an article printed on the "Pastor's Page" on July 7th, 2007, Wright references "the 'state' of Israel" ? note the quotation marks around the word "state."
And on July 22nd, the "Pastor's Page" carried a pro-Palestine article by Hamas leader Mousa Aba Marzook excerpted from the Los Angeles Times.
"Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern Apartheid state?" Marzook asks.
Trollstein, Pastor Wright is right. Vote for Obama. He is the only candidate that understands the struggle of third world people.
"You don't want to cross AIPAC and be sympathetic for third world people's struggles."
AIPAC is primarily concerned with only one "third world" population, the one which is relentlessly attacking Israel. So the statement is patently false and misleading and typically slanderous.
The anti-Jews typically rely on base insults and Orwellian linguistics, to reinforce their otherwise weak arguments.
Example:
"The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'"
It does not mention the actual article or its date and more importantly, the words "as much as" are the core defining elements of the statement. With this qualifier in place, in order for the statement to be considered factual, only ONE candidate need have received 60% of his/her campaign funding from Jews. Are there zero candidates who receive 60% of their funding from:
Blacks?
Latinos?
Native Americans?
Arabs and/or Muslims?
Etc.?
The EU can talk very large given that they ARE NOT under missile attack.
They have no solutions, only condemnations. If they really wanted a solution, the EU would graciously offer to supply armed "peacekeepers" (with permission to shoot if necessary--in order to maintain their mission). But that will never happen for one reason:
1-week following such deployments, they would be getting sniped from rooftops, blown up in roadside bombings kidnapped and slowly dismembered, and 1-week following that, their own citizens (at home) would be screaming to 'nuke the Arabs'.
The European nations have mainly taken a long-term position of appeasement in order to secure their supply of oil. The leader of this has been France, who has welcomed 6-million Arabs and Moslems into France as citizens. To put this in perspective, there are now more Muslims in France then there are Jews in Israel.
Nonetheless, they do this to avoid conflict. Should the conflict develop anyway, some of these Euro countries would be the first to succumb to the urge to retaliate with overwhelming force. When two priests were killed in Turkey, the Vatican wasted no time. The Nunzio issued a statement: "enough with the turn the other cheek . . . we need to defend ourselves". Chirac of France was even more bloodthirsty. "PARIS, Jan. 19 ?2006-- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism."
{End of quote}
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR200601...
Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years
By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal(a noted leftist).
When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.
Notable among these was the Great Reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote :
"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, it is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle.?" The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.
Pastor Wright said: "I must tell you that Israel was the closest ally to the White Supremacists of South Africa. In fact, South Africa allowed Israel to test its nuclear weapons in the ocean off South Africa. The Israelis were given a blank check; they could test whenever they desired and did not even have to ask permission. Both worked on an ethnic bomb that killed Blacks and Arabs." A June 10th, 2007 issue of the newsletter featured an open letter written by Ali Baghdadi, appearing on the "Pastor's Page," that calls Israel an "apartheid" regime. The letter says Israel worked on an "ethnic bomb" that kills "blacks and Arabs." The letter also says "Israel was the closest ally to the white supremacists of South Africa."
In the introduction to an article printed on the "Pastor's Page" on July 7th, 2007, Wright references "the 'state' of Israel" ? note the quotation marks around the word "state."
And on July 22nd, the "Pastor's Page" carried a pro-Palestine article by Hamas leader Mousa Aba Marzook excerpted from the Los Angeles Times.
"Why should any Palestinian recognize the monstrous crimes carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern Apartheid state?" Marzook asks.
Trollstein, Pastor Wright is right. Vote for Obama. He is the only candidate that understands the struggle of third world people.
mjameson:
Jews are 2% of the US population.
One can generally tell when one has been reading propaganda, since the numbers keep expanding. On another thread, the blogger asserted that Jews account for 20% republican money and 40% Democratic. There was no citation on that claim either. (By next week, the claim will be up to 80%).
Justin Elliott:
May we know how old are you?
You wrote:
"Shouldn't the Democratic leadership be bothered by this kind of rhetoric directed against a former president of their own party?"
Apparently you were not around when most of the (then Democratic dominated) congress revolted against Carter--and over-rode a few dozen of his vetoes.
During a PBS interview, when asked what his biggest mistake as President was, he answered: "upsetting fellow Democrats in Congress by denying their spending bills" (paraphrased).
I personally blame the 'Reagan revolution' on Jimmy Carter and hence, the $10-trillion national debt we have now acquired. If not for Carter, the US would have not had any taste for Reagan and his nomics.
But Cater's (Freudian slip)recent actions in the ME should most seriously be judged by their results. In recent years, his success rate has not been stellar. He was the envoy who convinced North Korea to disband their Nuclear weapons program, a couple of years prior to their blowing off a nuke missile.
People credit Cater with being singly responsible for the Egypt-Israeli peace treaty. However, he set a new standard by paying billions (yearly) in US tax payer money return for this agreement. That standard has now expanded to Jordan and more recently, to Pakistan. Total yearly bill: (Guessing) about $5-6 billion.
Carter simply thinks he knows better then everyone else. So he does as he pleases. If he is successful at stopping the missiles being fired into Israel from Gaza, I will back off. But the odds-makers are not favoring that conclusion. If not, he has created a few more photo-ops for terrorists, who are probably laughing at him and us.
This reaction shows the power of the Jewish Fascists in America, the power of their money. The third riches man in America, has 28billion and he is a Jewish Fascist. Europe is still independent.
STRASBOURG - European Union lawmakers urged Israel not to inflict "collective punishment" on Gaza's population, saying its isolation of the territory had failed and its actions were endangering civilians.
They urged Israel to lift a blockade which has cut supplies to the 1.5 million people in Gaza, run by the Islamist group Hamas, and let in aid and essential goods and services.
"The policy of isolation of the Gaza strip has failed at both the political and humanitarian level," the European Parliament said in an adopted resolution.
"The civilian population should be exempt from any military action and any collective punishment." "The European Parliament calls on Israel to cease military actions killing and endangering civilians, and extrajudicial targeted killings," The resolution said. Real progressives are like the EU and support the rights of theird world people. We should be proud of our Nobel Peace Prize winner, former President Carter.
London review of books, 23 march 2006
The Israel Lobby
John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt
Thanks in part to the influence Jewish voters have on presidential elections, the Lobby also has significant leverage over the executive branch. Although they make up fewer than 3 per cent of the population, they make large campaign donations to candidates from both parties. The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'. And because Jewish voters have high turn-out rates and are concentrated in key states like California, Florida, Illinois, New York and Pennsylvania, presidential candidates go to great lengths not to antagonise them.Carter in his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" , pg 209, "...(I)n the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media..." In other words, Zionist dominate the US media. "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes." "Citizens in 15 European nations, indicate that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace."
Sam Zell(big contributor to Zionist causes) is buying the LA Times(Tribune Company) and is taking it private. The SF Chronicle editor is Phil Bronstein, the NYTimes publisher is Sulzberger(big contributor to Zionist causes), I could go on. Each one of the flagship newspapers own many local town newspapers throughout the country. For more info read J.J. Goldberg's book "Jewish Power, Inside the American Jewish Establishment." The New York Times bragged about AIPAC on July 6, 1987(20 years later it is even more powerful) as "a major force in shaping United States policy in the Middle East." The article also stated that: "The organization has gained power to influence presidential candidates , to block practically any arms sale to an Arab country, and to serve as a catalyst for intimate military relations between The Pentagon and the Israeli army. Its leading officials are consulted by State Department and White House policy makers, by senators and generals."(see The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer and Harvard University Kennedy School of Government professor Stephen Walt) . You don't want to cross AIPAC and be sympathetic for third world people's struggles.
"You don't want to cross AIPAC and be sympathetic for third world people's struggles."
AIPAC is primarily concerned with only one "third world" population, the one which is relentlessly attacking Israel. So the statement is patently false and misleading and typically slanderous.
The anti-Jews typically rely on base insults and Orwellian linguistics, to reinforce their otherwise weak arguments.
Example:
"The Washington Post once estimated that Democratic presidential candidates 'depend on Jewish supporters to supply as much as 60 per cent of the money'"
It does not mention the actual article or its date and more importantly, the words "as much as" are the core defining elements of the statement. With this qualifier in place, in order for the statement to be considered factual, only ONE candidate need have received 60% of his/her campaign funding from Jews. Are there zero candidates who receive 60% of their funding from:
Blacks?
Latinos?
Native Americans?
Arabs and/or Muslims?
Etc.?
The EU can talk very large given that they ARE NOT under missile attack.
They have no solutions, only condemnations. If they really wanted a solution, the EU would graciously offer to supply armed "peacekeepers" (with permission to shoot if necessary--in order to maintain their mission). But that will never happen for one reason:
1-week following such deployments, they would be getting sniped from rooftops, blown up in roadside bombings kidnapped and slowly dismembered, and 1-week following that, their own citizens (at home) would be screaming to 'nuke the Arabs'.
The European nations have mainly taken a long-term position of appeasement in order to secure their supply of oil. The leader of this has been France, who has welcomed 6-million Arabs and Moslems into France as citizens. To put this in perspective, there are now more Muslims in France then there are Jews in Israel.
Nonetheless, they do this to avoid conflict. Should the conflict develop anyway, some of these Euro countries would be the first to succumb to the urge to retaliate with overwhelming force. When two priests were killed in Turkey, the Vatican wasted no time. The Nunzio issued a statement: "enough with the turn the other cheek . . . we need to defend ourselves". Chirac of France was even more bloodthirsty. "PARIS, Jan. 19 2006-- President Jacques Chirac said Thursday that France was prepared to launch a nuclear strike against any country that sponsors a terrorist attack against French interests. He said his country's nuclear arsenal had been reconfigured to include the ability to make a tactical strike in retaliation for terrorism."
{End of quote}
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/19/AR200601...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1uwOL4rB-go
This is why the USA supports Israel. We get the joke and also get the tragity.
Troll, get with the program, if you want to be a true progressive and not a fascist. I know that you are upset with the Green Party's rejection of your extreme Jewish supremacist ideas, but either get on the bus or get off it. Remember, "We are Green, we are neither left nor right but out in front leading." Vote Green, be Green.
Doctor Green:
I am not a 'progressive', I am a 'leftist'. "Progressive" (in my humble opinion) is a code word, designed to replace the twin:
"Liberal" and "Leftist" monikers. BTW: The term "liberal" did not become a 'dirty-word' until Jimmy Carter got done being one. Prior to that time, many Republicans proudly referred to themselves as "Liberal Republicans". E.g.: Jacob Javitz (NY), Dan Evans (WA) Bob Packwood (OR) and many more. In the 1990's the Liberal wing of the Democratic party figured out that the term was associated with failure and other negative connotations. So it reinvented itself as "Progressives".
Calling me a "fascist" is a true insult. Plus its wrong.
"Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole. Fascists seek to spit a type of national unity, usually based on (but not limited to) ethnic, cultural, racial, and/or religious attributes. Various scholars attribute different characteristics to fascism, but the following elements are usually seen as its integral parts: patriotism, nationalism, statism, militarism, totalitarianism, anti-communism, corporatism, populism, collectivism, autocracy and opposition to political and economic liberalism."
{end of quote}
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facist
I am none of the above. I am a leftist supporter of Israel.
"The term fascismo was coined by the Italian Fascist dictator Benito Mussolini and the Neo-Hegelian philosopher Giovanni Gentile. It is derived from the Italian word fascio, which means "bundle" or "union", and from the Latin word fasces. The fasces, which consisted of a bundle of rods tied around an axe, were an ancient Roman symbol of the authority of the civic magistrates, and the symbolism of the fasces suggested strength through unity: a single rod is easily broken, while the bundle is difficult to break."
{end of quote}
I am completely OPPOSITE from the above description in that I do not ascribe to any existing political power-base and ultimately, the Fascists would just as soon label me a "liberal-leftist" (also as an insult).
You wrote:
" . . . left nor right but out in front leading."
Me:
{A bumper-sticker for a 1986 Hugo.} In front of what? You guys can't even get the 4% of US voters who consider themselves "vegetarians".
{And you personally can't stick to a reasonable one dozen different screen names.}
Admit it, you want me back in the worst way . . . but oh so sadly, that train has left the station.
Submitted by james e mcbride (not verified) on Sat Apr. 19, 2008 6:06 PM PDT.
Carter is meeting with wanted terrorists and criminals. I think his passport should be flagged like anyone else with terrorist connections. He should be immediately arrested when he tries to enter the country.
If only more Americans could tell the truth like Carter. We need it bad these days.
Whether or not anyone agrees with Hamas, should not even matter. The facts are that their party won the general legislative elections. What does it show the people if nobody will meet with the elected parliament that they felt would represent them the best?
But disagreeing with Carter isnt about caring what occupied, oppressed people have to say. Right? It's about the scared population of Isreal, holding on as long as possible. I'm betting that in the future they'll be wishing they had doled out a little more compassion...
DAN:
As usual, critics of Israel have their facts jumbled.
(Frankly, keeping track of the pertinent details is NOT that difficult).
When the PA constitution was set up and ratified (by PLO Chairman Arafat,) it included a veto provision--to dissolve the PA Parliament, at the whim of the President (not the Prime Minister). The Prime Minister is equivalent to a CEO in a company and handles the day-to-day decisions. The President (currently M. Abbas) is equivalent to the "Board of Directors". The Board has the authority to replace the CEO. Similarly, Abbas has the authority to dissolve the PA Parliament and, to continue dissolving parliament after parliament, until one is elected--which meets his liking. Those are the rules. However, when Mr. Abbas sought to dissolve the Ismail Haniya parliament, (as is his right to do), a civil war resulted and the bifurcation of Gaza and West Bank took place. The first thing Hamas did was to murder about a dozen Fatah officers in Gaza, by throwing them off rooftops. (If Israel threw a dozen Hamas officers off rooftops--to their death, the U.N. Security council would meet in emergency session to condemn Israel).
The present Hamas regime is an outlaw regime and legitimately speaks for no one.
Its actually AMAZING how consistently the arguments against Israel are fraught with serious factual errors. Its almost universal. Remove the factual errors and there is nearly no argument remaining. For such an "evil" regime as Israel, one might expect that there would be some minimum level of totally (or even mostly) factual allegations, to support the venomous hatred.
("Fatah" BTW: is translated from Arabic: "Conquest by way of Jihad". "Jihad is translated as: "Holy War, as mandated by the Islamic Scriptures.) Fatah does NOT translate as: "LIBERATION by way of Jihad." It means "conquest". Moreover, it is VERY questionable if the Islamic Scriptures even support a "holy war" over the present category of conflict. Many facts had to be manipulated to issue such a "Fatwa" (official religious call to 'Holy war'). Additionally, 'time-travel' had to be accepted, in order to assert that the "Dome of the Rock" is actually referenced in the original Qur'an, since it was a Roman-Catholic church until 70 years after the Islamic prophet Mohammed's passing, when Jerusalem fell to invading Islamic armies.
The truth will not only set you free, it will set us all free. You may wish to be enslaved by dis-information but it is is getting a little old for me. (Make that A LOT old.)
old.
PS}
If there ever was a serious, lasting peace between the Arabs and the Israelis, the opponents of the Jewish state would hardly know what to do with themselves. They would have to start from the beginning, and re-engineer a brand new scenario--whereby the Jews could be condemned all over again. Or, if they were lazy (very likely) they could merely just recycle one of the dozens of other false allegations proffered throughout history.
Dr. Green:
Rather then violate your self-styled folk (pronounced: 'volk') proverbs, why not enjoy some volk music, of the variety I am sure you will enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vb3IMTJjzfo
PS}
"In an argument with a fool you will always lose."
Why? I don't get it. Isn't it the fool who looses public arguments--those requiring presence of mind and factual knowledge??
(Time to change your screen handle again)
Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of 3,000 Years
By Israel Shahak, with a foreword by Gore Vidal(a noted leftist).
When the Roman historian Tacitus pointed out 19 centuries ago that the Jews are unique among the races of man in their intense hatred and contempt for all races but their own, he was only repeating what many other scholars had discovered before him. For the next 1,900 years other investigators came to similar conclusions, either from a study of the Jews' religious writings or from a study of the Jews' behavior toward non-Jews.
Notable among these was the Great Reformer, Martin Luther, who in 1543 wrote :
"Does not their Talmud say, and do not their rabbis write, it is no sin if he does not keep his oath to a heathen. Therefore, to steal and rob, as they do with their usury, from a heathen is a divine service. For they hold that they cannot be too hard on us nor sin against us, because they are of the noble blood and circumcised saints; we, however, are cursed goyim. And they are the masters of the world, and we are their servants, yea, their cattle.
" The Jews responded to Luther like they responded to all the others. They put him down as just another "hater," blinded by religious bigotry. And today that's still the Jews' standard answer to everyone who says or writes anything about them except the most fawning praise.
I think Carter has a pespective we should pay attention to. After all, Hamas was democratically elected, Supposedly that was going to count for something. You can't just ignore people and expect they'll go away. Or in Bush's case, ignore people until he goes away, leaving a trendous mess behind. Carter at least demonstrates what real diplomacy looks like.
For far too long, on far too many vital issues, the loudest and most extreme voices have drowned out the softer, more moderate, but far more numerous ones. Only in the movies are there pure good guys and bad guys, and adults ought to recognize it. It's psychotic to think that one can impose peace on people without their involvement or consent.
Franklin Grimes:
One more time.
Hamas was elected the same way Castro was elected:
1-person, 1-vote, 1-time only.
It is now an outlaw regime under the PA constitution, which puts the President (formerly Arafat--now Abbas) in a superior power position to the Prime Minister (formerly Abbas, now Ismail Haniya). Is this fact simply too difficult for the MoJo readers to understand?
PS}
It is entirely possible that Abbas had a long term strategy, which would explain why he pushed for early elections even though polls showed Hamas in the lead. His plan could well have been to encourage their success, in order to sweep them all out when he invoked his right to disolve the government. Sneeky perhaps--but a lawful excersize of his perogative, as democratically elected President of the PA.
In the US election of 1960, Kennedy asked LBJ to be V.P., then, after Johnson stepped down from the quite powerful Senate Majority leader's position, Kennedy tried to change his mind and pick another V.P.. Johnson resisted (essentially refused). Kennedy wound up dead and Johnson wound up President.
In the PA, Haniya refused to have his government disolved and issued a "fatwa" on Abbas. Hamas has given up trying to rationalize its actions by way of law and now relies on their radical interpretation of the Qur'an as the sole authority for their coup-de-gras.
Hamas in in control of Gaza by way of military Coup. Not "democratic" rules and laws.
James E. McBride:
You are sick. Jimmy Carter is a former president and anything Jimmy Carter does will be in the best interest of the United States.
People don't seem to understand that the Republicans DLC took over the Democratic Party and was pushing dominating bills through Congress that were against the best interest of democracy and Jimmy Carter did his best to stop their take over, but the people were fooled. Bill Clinton, the best (REPUBLICAN President EVER, according to Alan Greenspan) helped the Republicans DLC IN THE Democratic Party do exactly what they wanted. Jimmy Carter would not.
The U.S. King-Crane (1919)report stated: 90% of Palestine's inhabitants were non Jewish & did NOT want a Jewish state in Palestine.
Israeli Arab group Adalah recently proposes a new 'multi-cultural' constitution.
Arab Knesset members will be able to bring about the disqualification of bills that impinge on the rights of Arabs, and classifies the State of Israel as a "bilingual and multicultural" country rather than a Jewish state. Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their flag having a Jewish star in it. Would not most American Jews (among others) be troubled if the U.S. flag had a Christian cross on it? Consider that he or she may honestly be offended by their national anthem referring to the land, as the land of the Jews. Consider that he or she may honestly feel discriminated against because, legal equality aside, he or she IS discriminated against. Israeli-Arabs will want full equality in Israel. Any minority citizen of any State wants no less. It sounds fair. Why do so many Israelis, Jews, and supporters of Israel look for a dark hiding place when confronted with the truth of discrimination? I think it is because Jews understand what it is to be discriminated against, and have a deep desire that discrimination against all people throughout the planet be eliminated. Discrimination against Arab-Israelis is not fair. As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true. Let us not be racists and stop discrimination at home(Israel). Support the multi-cultural constitution.
Dan:
Like many of my critics, you neither present facts nor even specifics as to which of my statements you disbelieve.
Are you saying that all my facts are "disinformative"? That would be very hard to accomplish. It would require about 20 more points of IQ then I possess. So, thanks for the complement but my facts are strait. Normally, I provide multiple links to references, but I do not always herein for two reasons:
1. This web site only allows one URL per post.
2. Frankly, (and I wish I had a nicer and less self-serving way of sounding this) but . .
The people on this web site are typically not intelligent enough to either deserve or know what to do with more information.
You are a perfect example.
I blog on Muslim sites where the posters usually have names like: Ali, or Buraq, or Hasmook and I consistantly get complements for my knoledge base of their history and religion, and althought they do not always agree with my conclusions, the conversations are FAR more civilived (and intelligent) then this collection of Ron Paul deciples and trailer-park trash (when both are not combined--in the same category).
Also:
According to Mitch Plitnik
"Hamas is NOT currently the legitimate leader of the Palestinian government, and they should not be accorded the recognition of being such."
It took him about 9 months of my urging, for him to publish such a statement, which he had consistently resisted, even though he well knew the truth on this subject.
This statement comes as a GREAT SHOCK to many of his followers, who are (like yourself) convinced that Hamas is a legitimate (legal) government. Mitch has been advocating for Palestinian-Arab rights and in favor of certain boycotts of Israel for several years.
From his bio:
He is a widely published and respected policy analyst. Born in New York City, raised an Orthodox Jew and educated in Yeshiva, Mitchell grew up in an extremist environment that passionately supported the Israeli settler movement. {In recent years, he has established himself as a fearsome opponent of 'settlement' expansion, an advocate of talks with Hamas and generally, a Jewish advocate of Arab rights}. . . . His writing has appeared in the Jordan Times, Israel Insider, UN Observer, Middle East Report, Global Dialogue, San Francisco Chronicle, Die Blaetter Fuer Deutsche Und Internationale Politik, Outlook, Middle East Report and in a regular column for a time in Tikkun Magazine. He has been interviewed by various outlets including PBS News Hour, the O'Reilly Factor and CNBC Asia. {He is an Honors graduate from UC Berkley in ME studies.}
Epstein:
The core purpose of Israel upon its creation (twice) was to become a uniquely Jewish nation, essentially a 'postage stamp', floating within an ocean of Arabs, Muslims and Christians. It should surprise no one that the Muslims and Christians disliked this idea. But it was no surprise in 1920 and 1948 either. Every time a new country declares independence, the same ethnic issues arise. The minority within the new borders scream foul. Not unlike the creation of Pakistan, which BTW has the Islamic moon symbol on its flag:
http://www.appliedlanguage.com/flags_of_the_world/large_flag_of_pakistan...
Do you suppose the Hindus remaining in Pakistan (if there are any) like this image?
You wrote:
"As supporters of Israel, it is necessary to accept and admit, without nuance, that some discrimination against Arab-Israelis is 100% true."
I for one have so admitted. But find us an ethnic minority in the world which is totally free from disadvantages resulting from their lesser numbers? This is hard-wired into human nature and is NOT at all unique to Israel. (Although, to listen to the chest-pounders, one might begin to get the (false) idea that it is.)
Lastly, Lebanon's constitution was written to provide for absolute control by the Christians. In recent years, certain concessions have been made by the Lebanese Marionite Catholics, to dilute their authority. Nonetheless, they still maintain an un-democratic political advantage, which you (and most others who are critical of Israel) seem to overlook. This double-standard in spite of the fact that Lebanon is FAR from the only Christian nation and its Christian population are NOT the remaining endangered of their tribe. When the Saudis give Medina back to its Jewish founders, maybe then Israel will no longer require a uniquely Jewish core nature.
It is amazing that in a society that tells us repeatedly that everyone is an individual and you shouldn't necessarily support your own race or group, Jews routinely put their group loyalty above everything else, but no public figures have the guts to expose this obvious fact. it is easy for extremist Jews to dominate a society when powerful extremist Jews in government, media and finance support each other and the Jewish agenda (such as the catastrophic Iraq War) while everyone else is divided and compromised.Carter in his book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" , pg 209, "...(I)n the United States, Israeli government decisions are rarely questioned, voices from Jerusalem dominate in our media..." In other words, Zionist dominate the US media. "At the same time, political leaders and news media in Europe are highly critical of Israeli policies, affecting public attitudes." "Citizens in 15 European nations, indicate that Israel was considered to be the top threat to world peace."
Skipper
You wrote:
" . . .it is easy for extremist Jews to dominate a society when powerful extremist Jews in government, media and finance support each other and the Jewish agenda (such as the catastrophic Iraq War) . . "
When Saddam was hitting Israeli civilians with his missiles during the first Gulf war, Israel was restrained and did NOT retaliate. (Maybe you were castaway on Gilligan's Island at the time).
For the first year after the invasion of Baghdad, when it appeared to be going well and might be over sooner then later, few if anyone mentioned "Israeli interests". Go ahead, Google the news archives and see if anyone respectable gave (what would then have been considered credit) to Israel. We hardly heard the name "Wolfowitz" mentioned either. The natural architect of the Iraq war was Rumsfield (the German). However, when things turned bad, began dragging and costing US lives with no end in sight, we began to hear the name "Wolfowitz", Wolfowitz... Wolfowitz... Wolfowitz" (until about two years after he left the State Dept.).
In reality, the Iraq invasion was the proximate result of the USA protecting its currency and yield on treasury notes because Saddam had switched his accepted currency from U$D to EU, several weeks before we evaded.
http://www.ratical.org/ratville/CAH/RRiraqWar.html
It is no coincidence that Israel's problem have multiplied in direct correlation to the rising price of a barrel of oil.
Your words are those of just another Jew-hater. Your entire logical case is based on the fact that there is hardly any shortage of Jew-haters in the world.
WOW... I don't think i have ever seen soooo many racists and anti-semetic people in my whole life..!!! I used to be surprised that so many "Progressive" individuals were so hateful, but now i get it. They only think that "Hate" can be directed at some fringe group (homo's, black's, indians, etc), but when it comes to the jews, watch out..!!!
Carter should be arrested, like any other American citizen who was doing what he is now. The democrat party should be ashamed to identify with such a man, but since most democrats think nothing of "Character", nothing matters to them.
Dem's seem to have lost the "SOUL".
Very sad...:-(
Bill
Bill:
Thanks.
Many of the most objectionable postings (I think) come from the "Pauline" (Ron Paul) teaching (freekie-deekie Republican) or flat out 'Aryan Nation' people. But some eminate from misinformed leftists, who like it just fine that way because they would prefer to be in tune with their college classmates--and avoid inter-personal conflicts. For those people you have a point: Only trendy ethnics can be the victoms of hate-speach. Ethnic groups who generally possess college degrees do not qualify and in fact surely deserve the ridicule.
Trollstein: educate yourself - start here: http://www.btselem.org/english/Video/
Questions for Mr. Trollstein,
What is your solution then?
How would you deal with Hamas?
How can you negotiate peace by excluding a segment of society?
What of the settlements? and the bulldozing of Palestinian homes ect...
Is "collective punishment" terrorism by another name?
Mr. Matissimo:
There is no simple solution to the Arab/Israeli conflict. Like there is no simple solution for global warming, the US budget deficite, child prostitution, etc. etc..
However, that is not to say that all is lost either.
To begin to change the hearts and minds of the parties:
1. Free speech
2. Free press.
3. Free religion.
Were these princibles to be implemented, the result would be better informed and certainly far more tollerant people, who would realize that it is in their long term best interest to find some method to live and work along side one another.
In the 'short term' the solution (if there is a short term fix) is drastic. Egypt should be convinced, or coerced, to taking control of Gaza (as they had prior to Israeli independance) and to clean-streets. They should annex Gaza into a "Special Administrative District", must like Hong Kong relates to China. Then, Israel would merely be dealing with an expanded Egypt, with whom they already have a peace agreement. If things turn south in West Bank, the same should take place with Jordan.
But that would NOT solve the bigger problem of 5+ million so called "refugees" living in various venues throughout the Mid East. These people have been criminally rendered into political pawns, and must be granted human rights where they now reside. They should also be considered part of the special administrative zones of Palestinian-Arabs and be granted such as a nationality and gain passport as such.
Dealing with Hamas is the same as dealing with any other radical sect of militant Islam. This will not be easy or simple either. But the Qur'an has been creatively interpreted to support all sorts of political holy-wars. There are many (and varied) more peaceful interpretations. This can be a big problem because as is abundantly clear, the different Islamic sects are ready to kill each other, over relitively small differences.
"Settlements" can be negotiated, as soon as someone on the other end is negotiating in good faith and can sustain their own agreements. Home demolition would no longer be a facit of the program, based on other elements described above.
"Collective punishment"
It is a last resort, put in play by the inability for Israel to have peace after so many decades. REAL "collective punishment" is what Hitler did, namely, have entire towns disappear off world maps--never to return.
What Israel does is desperation. But these questions too would naturally evaporate if the other princibles outlined herein were implemented.
Re: http://www.btselem.org/english/Video/
(B'TSELEM)
None of the material comes as a shock to me and so it is patently un'educational'.
Some items referenced constitute serious shortcomings. Other subjects, for example:
"Testimony: Destruction of an olive grove in the village of Burin, apparently by settlers, Dec. 2005"
1. When thousands of missiles are flying into civilian Israel neighborhoods, launched by people who are publicly avowed to the destruction of Israel, who gives a crap about olive groves? The Palestinian-Arabs have been the recipients of $-billions in international aid, and yet their human-rights and wellbeing results from the health of some olive groves? Towards the top of the list of crimes against the Palestinian-Arabs are the hundreds of Swiss and Luxemburg bank accounts, containing money donated to help these people but misappropriated by their own illustrious leaders. Of course, that crime is no where to be found on the web page.
2. " . . . apparently by settlers". I don't appreciate that word, "apparently", especially as it is applied to Jews. These are the same ethnic population who APPARENTLY were responsible for the black plague, the German defeat in WW1, the murder of God, and so on and so on.
3. Israel is, at the end of the day, more restrained then most other countries would be, given the level of hostility from their adversaries. Even if all the allegations of their human rights violations were completely true, the entire picture must be rightfully judged by what other nations would do if they had to contend with the same hostility.
USA? Parking lot (where Gaza used to be).
Russia? Paved parking lot
China? Parking garage.
We know that the Israelis are not Christ-like. But why do people continiously expect them to be so??
WASHINGTON - July 8,2004 - Green Party leaders are calling on the Bush Administration to put pressure on Israel to open up its nuclear weapons program to international scrutiny.
Mohamed ElBaradei, head of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, has demanded that Israel cooperate with the effort to rid the Middle East of nuclear weapons, but the Israeli government has refused to acknowledge that it possesses such arms.
"Israel may already have as many nuclear warheads as Great Britain," said Julia Willebrand, co-chair of the International Committee of the Green Party of the United States. "Israel is not formally listed among the countries which have acquired WMDs. Western governments have allowed Israel to maintain its 'nuclear ambiguity' stance too long, provoking suspicions that the U.S. might have shared nuclear technology with Israel."
Israel's treatment of Palestinians -- those who are Israeli citizens as well as those in the territories -- is comparable in many ways to South African apartheid, and has resulted in a cycle of violence and lack of security for both Israelis and Palestinians," said a member of the Green Party of Wisconsin. "A stable and just resolution of the conflict requires the full realization of the human rights of Palestinians and Israelis." Real environmentalists and progressives vote Green.
Mr. Green:
In the entire world, the country which actually needs nuclear weapons most is Israel. If the world agreed to universal disarmament, which is part of the Green Party platform, Israel should be last to disarm.
Ironically, when the genocides of WW2 were revealed to the public, it was quite common for the comment to be proffered:
"The Jews did not defend themselves". This was a way that Christians (often from German or Italian lineage) rationalized the Nazi events, to which their ethnic nationality was associated.
By the 1980s, this mind-set had already morphed. When I would ask-out a girl who happened to be German, they would make a point to inform me of this critical fact up-front. In one noteworthy event, the woman (rather then answering my invitation) simply told me that her grandfather was a Nazi and he still lived in Munich.
By the 21st century, the holocaust was viewed as folk-law, the Jews had become tagged as Nazis and there were no more need for nervous rationalizations.
The cycle is being re-set.
Those who can not learn from the past are destined to repeat it--but those who REFUSE to learn from the past are INSISTING on repeating it.
Which one are you?
Matissimo:
You wrote:
"What then is the point of settlements? Why allow them at all?"
To my understanding, Israel has already agreed to end "settlement" expansion. However, they have not implemented this agreement, some would assert for a variety of reasons.
Before going into the details, its important to say one thing: Many of these subjects start out being rather complex. They get FAR, FAR more complicated, after the inevitable word-smithing and outright falsehoods have been inserted into the equation. People then try to "bumper-sticker" the resulting (mangled) concepts and we wind up with profound (though clever) disinformation. To start from the start:
From the perspective of the zealot Israeli, their title and deed to the land transferred not in 1948 but after WW1. The ultra zealot believe that ALL of then Palestine, (including what is today Jordan) rightfully and legally belongs exclusively to the Jewish people. As a matter of International Law, this is not that far-fetched of a concept. Contrary to assertions of most of their critics, this IS NOT based on "Biblical rights". It is based solely on international treaties. See: http://www.therightroadtopeace.com/infocenter/Heb/HowardGriefE.html (the scroll bar is on the left). I personally DO NOT interpret these legal treaty documents to pass title to ALL of (then) Palestine to the Jews. My understanding is that it was to be partitioned into Hebrew and Arab shares. I also believe that a substantial portion was to become Israel (more then today's 20%). Lastly, I believe the original plan relied on the notion of migrating significant populations of Arabs out of Israel and into their share of Palestine. Such would not have been out-of-the-ordinary for the time-frame. People thought and acted in those terms at that time. The Arabs and Hebrews shared a common bond of both being under the oppressive yoke of the Turkish sultans (who were NOT Arab).
However, what ultimately took place was a historical crime from which, most of today's M.E. problems flow. The British assumed the role of caretaker "mandate" and then misappropriated the Jewish portion of the land to gain favor with the Arabs. They granted 4/5ths to become the Kingdom of Jordan and the remaining 1/5 remained "disputed". The British also assisted the Arabs in their migration (en-masse) INTO the remaining 1/5th and actively prevented Jews from doing the same (See "From Time Immemorial" by Joan Peters). So, while the title to the remaining 1/5th remained disputed, its population became settled and the Arab percentage ballooned, when it was legally intended to decrease. So the zealot Israelis feel understandably screwed. To their thinking, the holocaust should have and could have been prevented (or at least mitigated) if the Jews only received what the international treaties had legally deeded them. They are not entirely wrong.
Anyway, until Israel formally agrees to a final peace treaty with the Arabs, the Jews intend to continue living in the zones they now inhabit and living (as you know) requires building. Contrary to some people's understanding, what is known as "settlement" expansion is not displacing Arabs. It is merely building structures on parcels of land already under Israeli control, and, ultimately living in them. As I said, if Israel has agreed to stop building these then they should do what they agreed to. But this issue has been blown WAY WAY out of proportion. In a final agreement, the Arabs might well wind up with some choice housing, built for them courtesy of the Israelis. In the mean time, whether 100 people or 200 Jewish people live on a given "settlement" is more a ceremonial slight against the 'Arab cause' then a practical one.
You asked:
"How should Palestinians "properly" respond to the destruction of there homes?"
Again, lets firstly separate truth from consequences. These demolitions may seem quite frequent (by virtue of the world media) but in perspective, the loss of a few hundred homes in comparison with the millions of Arab residents is not as significant as it may appear to some and like before, is more of a ceremonial blow then a practical one, which is almost its entire purpose. In certain cases, the Israelis claim to be searching for underground passages, which would be the hiding place and supply source for anti-personnel explosives. In other cases they intend to make an example and punish the parents--whom they feel must have known and/or encouraged their children to become suicide martyrs. Rather then fixate on the loss of a few dozen shanties per year, the world should adopt international laws against teaching minor children that suicide is a path to Heaven. Such should be added to the existing list of officially recognized "crimes against humanity".
You asked:
"Are you saying that what is going on there is a "lesser" form collective punishment?"
There are various forms of "collective punishment", some more deadly then others. The incineration of the mainly civilian populations of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a gross form of collective vengeance. Also, some measures are done solely as punishment and other measures are less punitive and more strategic. As I said, there are literally THOUSANDS of missiles being fired indiscriminately, from Gaza into Israeli civilian neighborhoods. Each one is defined as a separate war crime, under the Geneva convention. The "blockade" is a tactical counter-measure. In just about every war in modern history, the side taking such fire would simply carpet-bomb the crap out of the adversary. BTW: "Human shielding" is also an official war-crime, for exactly that reason.
"Carter-Hamas meeting achieved nothing: Palestinians
Last week's meeting between former US president Jimmy Carter and the exiled leader of Hamas militants did not produce any results, Palestinian foreign minister Riyad al-Malki said here Wednesday.
"President Carter came to the region thinking he could achieve something. Unfortunately president Carter left without anything concrete," he told a conference in the Spanish capital. "The only thing he achieved was permission on the part of Khaled Meshaal of Hamas to deliver a letter from a detained Israeli soldier to his family. Nothing else," he said."
{end of quote}
http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080423112836.vw3o9562&show_artic...
It also provided some choice photo ops for terror leaders, although, it is unclear which ones would actually find it politically desirable to be seen in the same frame with Carter.
Trollstein,
From all your comments I have gathered that you think that Arabs are mostly out of line and that the media blows most of these issues out of proportion.
You also feel that Israel is doing the best it can with the situation and sometimes crosses the line in its "punishment".
I find it odd that you place so little significance on the situation that the Palestinians a placed "whats a few olive groves" or a "couple of hundred homes."
It is obvious that the settlements are a huge source of conflict and are in effect land grabs. They are perceived as agressive by the Arab population and only add to the conflict and hostilities.
You also criticized Carters Egypt/Israeli peace agreement, but yet that cite that as a starting point for a possible solution to the situation. hmm...
I don't see how anything can be accomplished without dealing with Hamas and hence the purpose of Carters visit.
It is also not correct to say that Hamas and Israel don't talk. They do behind the scenes. So much of this we "don't deal with terroists" is
really just a line and not reality.
Hey Matissimo,
When you say, "I don't see how anything can be accomplished without dealing with Hamas and hence the purpose of Carters visit.", you are forgetting the best way that they should be dealt with. Since Isreal knows where many of these men live, they should launch an operation on a certian night, and KILL every one of them. And then keep doing that every night till they are on there knees. Every time a rocket is launched at Isreal, they need to respond with the biggest hammer they can find. NO QUARTER given, since the Isrealies seem to haev shown to much patients in the past.
BIll
Bill
If I am to take you seriously I think that the 2006 raid in Lebanon to "wipe out" Hezbolla should put your theory to rest.
These raids tend to increase the the influence of groups like Hamas and "wiping them out" tends to prove much more difficult than you might expect and usually ends up in excessive civilian casualties.
