Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

Advocate, while your characterization of Ms Bennis (i.e. that she is avowedly pro Palestinian) is undoubtedly true, that does not necessarily mean that all that she said was false.

Indeed most of what was contained in the interview consists of readily verifiable objective facts. While you may dispute her conclusions (i.e. that Israel is a racist state), you cannot deny the objective fact that Israel, by its very constitution and basic laws, treats Jews differently from other citizens and potential residents. Moreover these deferences are not merely abstract and devoted only to providing refuge for Jews across the world. Instead they are real, pervasive and effective in giving Jews far greater access to residency, education, ownership of land, economic prosperity and free political action, compared to Gentiles in Israel.

In this aspect of systematic, state-sponsored discrimination, Israel is indeed qualitatively similar to the former Aparteit regime of the Nationalist party in South Africa. This similarity is particularly apt in the parallels between the Afrikaner concept of "Bantustands" or subject but distinct states for the Blacks and Israeli (particularly Barak's) proposals for the supposed Palestinian state (an entity broken up into isolated distinct parts,with no control of air and water rights and no borders with any state other than the master state.

While no one can doubt the sincerity of the egalitarian aspirations of the generation of Sabras and post WWII European immigrants who created the new state, neither can one deny that these aspirations were directed only at themselves, and not towards their neighbors and, as it turned out those who lived on the lands they coveted and took. One of the very cruel ironies of history is that as a result of the Palestinian's refusal to sign up to Israel;'s self-serving aspirations, and the stubborn refusal of Israel to fairly accommodate them, the egalitarian state they created has turned out to be an oppressive, militaristic regime, whose prosperity is based in part on the continued exploitation of underclass residents and subject peoples around them. The historical ironies implicit in this fact are truly profound,

Your recitation of just who accepted or rejected what fallowing the Camp David meetings evades this central point. The offer Israel; put forward was cynical in the extreme, and permitted no possibility of the development of a viable Palestinian state. Moreover it was described in a body of lies, designed to hide its real nature. It would have been a mere assemblage of Palestinian Bantustands, each utterly dependent on the good will of Israel for its economic connections with the others and its own economic development. (the famous 95% referred only to the portion of the West bank that Israel unilaterally considered "negotiable - the real fraction was about 40%) Its rejection by Arafat and the Palestinian people, however it was communicated, was reasonable, appropriate and sincere. The attempt to divert attention from these essential points, over highly selective questions of who said what, when is an extreme example of sophistry.

I'm from the government, I'm here to offer a good/better life;

As long as the sun will shine,
As long as the rivers may flow,
As long as the moon will rise,
As long as the grass shall grow.

Head um up, move um out;
It's a fair deal.

Thanks for your posts on this thread, georgeob1.

They've been great summaries - and led me to interesting reading to followup on some points that I hadn't considered fully.

Cyclo, I see you admit that you hate Israel. Thanks for the honesty.

It's comments like this that make discussing Israel with you complete bullsh*t, advocate.

I'd like you to go ahead and link to where I said I hated Israel, please.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, I said: "But I guess it is fashionable for some to hate the winning side, regardless of the facts." You replied that it was amazing for me to say this. That implies that you have good reason to hate Israel.

Advocate, Why is it that the people who criticize Israel are "Jew haters?" Also, it's interesting to see people like you call Jews "Jew haters" when they criticize what's happening in Israel. You should digest this for awhile and find out why that is.

No, it doesn't imply that.

I said:



I said this because during conversations about the Israel-Palestine situation, you don't give a damn about facts. When presented with facts that are contradictory to your arguments, you ignore them and refuse to discuss them. If people push, you claim that they are anti-semites or 'hate Israel' rather than respond to the facts of their arguments.

I would like you to work out, simply and logically, how you think what I said implies that I hate Israel in any way.

Why would I have 'good reason' to hate Israel?

You don't know a f*cking thing about me, so don't spout off about who I hate and who I don't.... I can speak plenty well for myself without your interpretation, thanks.

Cycloptichorn

Cyclo, your reply, to which I referred earlier, implied that the facts support haters of Israel. You may not have meant it, but you implied your hatred of Israel.

BTW, no state, including Israel, is perfect. Its behavior, as those of everyone on a2k, has not always been perfect. However, it is clear that Israel has been fairer and more humane than almost any other country.

I don't have endless time to refute every lie, etc., stated here. But I see many so-called facts from your side that are false, taken out of context, or used to mislead.

An interesting, if tortured, non sequitur.

Cyclo and I disagree on many things and we don't often find ourselves on the same side of issues. However, I have seen nothing in his posts that would directly suggest that he hates Israel or Jews.

It really is possible for rational people to believe that Israel practices systematic injustice to the Palestinian people, and, at the same time sympathize with the aspirations of the Jewish people for a homeland. Indeed this is the position of some political parties within Israel itself.

Not everyone who disagrees with the policies of Israel and the domestic program of AIPAC and other Israeli lobbies is an anti Semite. It does seem that we are often wrongfully characterized that way. This is unfortunate, because this belief closes minds and stops a dialogue that might otherwise lead to truth and better understanding on all sides of this most fractus and tragic struggle.

Nods with appreciation to GeorgeOB

Thank you George for your eloquent response, far better than my heated one.

Adv:


I don't think that the facts support the 'haters' of Israel, ever.

There are many times, however, when the facts support the position that Israel is not acting in a fair, equitable, moral, or humane fashion. This doesn't mean that Israel is evil, just that they will have a difficult time acheiving the lasting peace they desire while acting in this fashion, and the consequences of this will continue to reverbrate throughout the entire ME region.

Cycloptichorn

I might mention that I visited the area just before the '67 war, and went all over Israel and the WB and Gaza. There were no checkpoints in the Pal territory, and there was extensive commercial intercourse between the two areas. There were many thousands of Pals commuting to Israel, or temporarily living and working there.

Israel put up with a lot of small and not so small attacks by the Pals, without invading the Pal territories.

However, the '67 war, in which Pals and others attacked Israel, changed this. Israel took Pal areas as a prize of war. It had to set up checkpoints, etc., because of unrelenting attacks, such as suicide bombings, by the Pals. In retrospect, it was a mistake for Israel to take much of the Pal land. But it had every right to do this. BTW, Israel found that the Pals had desecrated the Western Wall and many other holy places. The Pals paved over a very sacred Jewish cemetery in W. Jerusalem. Thus, Israel will never give up control of Jerusalem.

I was in Israel in October, and we saw many checkpoints along the roads. We traveled all over including the Golan Heights down to the Negev desert.

Mmm, not so much, according to the UN - who granted Israel the lands to exist in the first place, mind you.

Israel had the power to conquer lands, but that's all.

Cycloptichorn

It was quite different before the '67 war. BTW, had you tried to visit the Golan Heights, you would have been shot by the Syrians.

Are you saying that the UN somehow retains authority over Israel? How silly!

I know about the "history" of the Golan Heights. In 1948-1967, Syria controlled the Golan Heights as a stronghold, and their troops killed Israeli civilians in the Hula Valley. Israel moved against Syria on June 6, 1967, and by late afternoon on June 10, Israel was in full control of the plateau. In a surprise attack on Yom Kippur six years later, the Syrians overran the Golan before Israel counterattacked. After the war, the Syrians signed the "disengagement agreement." The UN now patrols the buffer zone between the two countries, and their compound is visible from the fortress Syria built in the Golan. (I did learn some of the history of Israel during my two week visit.)

Here's one of many check points we passed through in Israel.

CI, will you admit that circumstances force Israel to maintain checkpoints?

There's no problem with checkpoints, if all "citizens" are treated equally by them.