Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

FreeDuck wrote:

Suicide bombing is a tactic of the powerless. Israelis are not powerless.

Thats right. Powerless and oppressed.

Quote:

64-year-old female suicide bomber attacks Israeli troops in Gaza

JEBALIYA, Gaza Strip (AP) - A 64-year-old Palestinian grandmother blew herself up near Israeli troops sweeping through northern Gaza on Thursday...

{snip}

At the compound where her extended family lives near Jebaliya camp, her oldest daughter Fatheya explained the bomber's motives.

- They (Israelis) destroyed her house, they killed her grandson "my son. Another grandson is in a wheelchair with an amputated leg," she said.

Can you blame her ?

Now if she only had an M89SR

0 Replies

I blame her. She should have worked to persuade her government to sit down in peace with Israel to reach a settlement. BTW, she may have been lying.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

I blame her. She should have worked to persuade her government to sit down in peace with Israel to reach a settlement. BTW, she may have been lying.

By the time she get's to the people of their Government, she would probably find them assassinated by mossad.

Why would she want to lie? Jimmy Carter has seen proof of their treatment. It's all been documented by various groups.

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Do you guys defend suicide bombers? Their victims are typically women, children, and the elderly.

Who then are the victims in the "collateral damage"sociated with murders committed by the IDF using helicopters and prcision missiles? They too are women and children, Do you defend this?

0 Replies

Advocate wrote:

Do you guys defend suicide bombers? Their victims are typically women, children, and the elderly.

Do you defend Israeli soldiers? Their victims are typically women, children, and the elderly.

Every single argument you make is faulty; it could work just as easily the other way.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

bluflame wrote:

Reprinted Courtesy of The Daily Star
December 7th, 2006

Raafat Dajani is executive director of the Washington-based American Task
Force on Palestine. He wrote this commentary for THE DAILY STAR

Very thoughtful piece pasted here by Blueflame on the One State Solution for Israel/Palestine. I believe the arguments put forward are good ones, though there are several debatable points. My chief criticism though is that the author considers the prospects for, and merits and defects of the one state solution in isolation, without any comparative analysis of of the merits & defects of a two state solution or consideration of the relative likelihood of achieving that outcome in an acceptable manner.

I have come to believe that there is no mutually acceptable division of the land and resources of Palestine/Israel that would simultaneously enable two states to exist, each with the normal powers and perogatives of normal states, and each with the potential to thrive socially and economically. That, of course is only my opinion, but it does raise an interesting and potentially definitive question.

The struggles of the past decades have made both sides in this tragic and bitter struggle more intransigent, more mutually hostile, and more subject to the political influence of their respective most extreme elements. To a much greater degree than fifty years ago both sides see the other as composed of alien cultures, religions, and ways of life. It seems to me that any attempt to search for peace by "locking in" this hostility and separation dooms both parties to continued hostility and war.

The principal cultural element holding the Moslem world back from modern development is precisely the intolerant, sectarian nature of their present social and legal structures. It is a rather perverse irony that, despite its modernity in business, technology, the role of women, etc., Israel has, partly as a result of the struggle and partly as a result of the actions of its own zealots, molded the Zionist dream into an imitation of the worst sectarian qualities of its enemies.

( aside - Oddly the Palestinian people, along with the Lebanese were once among the most tolerant and open to Western influence peoples of the Moslem world. Sadly, the continued struggle had badly damaged that potential.)

It seems to me that any attempt to create a lasting peace in the region, one that will permit and encourage the development of modern states providing mutual tolerance and equal treatment of all their citizens and residents, must necessarily address this issue. Lasting peace will require both agreement among the parties, and internal changes by all of them. It seems to me that this cannot be achieved through a contrived balance between mutually hostile and polarized successful states -- even in the very unlikely event that such an outcome could be achieved.

As the author illustrated, the road to a one state solution is fraught with obstacles and even some peril. There are entrenched interests on both sides which benefit from the present state of struggle. However the attempt to create such a solution has the potential to gradually transform the current dispute into one that permits a better solution for both parties and which causes them to deal with the real underlying issues directly instead of burying them.

Western nations should better recognize that their attempts to support and aid both sides in this dispute have the unintended side effect of prolonging the struggle. We are insulating the most intransigent elements of both sides from the costs of their prolonged struggle and reducing their respective incentives to find a solution.

0 Replies

Collateral damage is unintended, but is, unfortunately, likely to occur at times. But the suicide bombers actually target women, children, and the elderly. For instance, one of the biggest attacks was at a hotel in Israel full of elderly celebrated a holiday. You have never seen Israel perpetrate such a crime.

Dajani is very anti-Israel and pro-Pal, so his views should be judged accordingly. He says that the Arabs in the area are getting more extreme because of Israel. The problem with this is that the Arabs are getting more extreme everywhere. There is a strong fundamentalist movement, and those who don't adhere to its tenets are often murdered or otherwise punished. Women, particularly, suffer. Al-Qaida was not a product of Israel. Bin Laden said the movement is in opposition of the West having troops in the ME, especially in SA.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bin Laden said the movement is in opposition of the West having troops in the ME, especially in SA.

Of course, the Israeli situation is high up on Bin Laden's list -

Quote:

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

But, I no longer expect you to take facts into account before saying things about Israel, as you've shown that you have no intention of being objective about the subject.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Terrorism is a red herring.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

0 Replies

It was convenient for bin-Laden to add Israel as an excuse. This came much later in the game.

0 Replies

Ahh, right, right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Self-hating Jews and the Jewish state
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

Whenever Israel uses military force, there is always a cadre of self-hating Jews who feel it is their duty to undermine the Israeli government. They begin arguments by claiming moral superiority through their Judaism. In criticizing Israel's defensive action in Lebanon last week, Fox News co-host Alan Colmes stated, "I'm Jewish. I don't think appeasement means peace, though. Or peace means appeasement. Peace would be the desire." British MP Gerald Kaufman asked in the July 23 edition of the Daily Mail, "As a Jew, I am grieved to ask the question, but I must: Will Israel never learn?" Then there's Jeff Dorchen of limited Huffington Post fame, who explains, "I'd like to say, being a U.S. Jew [the Israeli government and Israeli Defense Force] certainly don't represent me, and I'm angry that they think they're doing Jews all over the world some kind of big fat favor with their insane overkill response to Hezbollah's idiotic and evil provocation."

For Jews who oppose Israel's right to defend herself, their Judaism is a convenient tactic utilized to silence critics. "Surely," they imply, "if I am a Jew, I must have a deeper and more abiding love for Israel than anyone else. If you challenge my arguments, you will first have to admit that I have the moral high ground. I have a personal stake in this matter."

In a world where identity politics dominates discussion, claiming personal involvement with an issue is an easy conversation stopper. Identity politics are almost always illegitimate -- even if you have a personal stake in an issue, your ideas may be terrible. With regard to Jews who hype their Judaism in order to tear down the state of Israel, however, such a conversation stopper isn't merely illegitimate -- it's a blatant lie.

The self-hating Jews who now attack Israel's most basic aspect of sovereignty don't care a whit about Judaism. They may have been born Jewish, they may enjoy matzo ball soup, they may go to a Reconstructionist synagogue once in a while to worship nothingness, but the tenets of Judaism mean nothing to them. These Jews care about Judaism the way Madonna cares about Catholicism. When it comes to the daily strictures of Judaism, these Jews are nowhere to be found. But as soon as it becomes politically advantageous to tout their Judaism, they stand front and center, birth certificate held aloft.

Identity politics is a canard when it comes to Judaism. Being born Jewish says nothing about whether you care for Israel, because being a Jew is about more than emerging from a Jewish uterus. A secular humanist, born a Jew, is still a secular humanist. Noam Chomsky is a Jew, but he is also a twisted and evil thinker who pines for Israel's destruction. Tony Judt is a Jew, but he hopes that one day Israel will be wiped from the map. Are Chomsky and Judt immune from criticism because they are Jews?

They are not. Neither are Colmes, Kaufman and Dorchen. And none of them have the right to use their Jewish birth as a shield for their anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic views. Identity as a Jew is important in this debate only when that identity means a binding tie to the Jewish nation as a whole and to the God that bound that nation together at Sinai.

The believing Jew is tied to Israel because God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people; the believing Jew is tied to strong Israeli self-defense because God mandated such self-defense in the Torah. A Jew who believes in his religion may without question claim that his Judaism demonstrates his commitment to Israel. It is a foul and rank political convenience for those who care nothing about Judaism to flout their Jewish birth as some kind of defense for their cowardly and foolish surrender-first ideals.

0 Replies

what an asshole

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

blueflame, Some people may view Jews in that way, but I'm just curious why being a Jew is any different than being human?

0 Replies

cicerone, I just wanted to post the position that Swift Boats Jews who disagree with Israel's heavyhandedess in Gaza and Lebanon etc. Ben Shapiro sounds a lot like those on this forum who call a Bennis an anti-semite. How dumb can they get. Bennis is no anti-semite. She's a self hating Jew.

0 Replies

blueflame1 wrote:

Self-hating Jews and the Jewish state
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

The self-hating Jews who now attack Israel's most basic aspect of sovereignty don't care a whit about Judaism. They may have been born Jewish, they may enjoy matzo ball soup, they may go to a Reconstructionist synagogue once in a while to worship nothingness, but the tenets of Judaism mean nothing to them. These Jews care about Judaism the way Madonna cares about Catholicism. When it comes to the daily strictures of Judaism, these Jews are nowhere to be found. But as soon as it becomes politically advantageous to tout their Judaism, they stand front and center, birth certificate held aloft.

Identity politics is a canard when it comes to Judaism. Being born Jewish says nothing about whether you care for Israel, because being a Jew is about more than emerging from a Jewish uterus. A secular humanist, born a Jew, is still a secular humanist. Noam Chomsky is a Jew, but he is also a twisted and evil thinker who pines for Israel's destruction. Tony Judt is a Jew, but he hopes that one day Israel will be wiped from the map. Are Chomsky and Judt immune from criticism because they are Jews?

They are not. Neither are Colmes, Kaufman and Dorchen. And none of them have the right to use their Jewish birth as a shield for their anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic views. Identity as a Jew is important in this debate only when that identity means a binding tie to the Jewish nation as a whole and to the God that bound that nation together at Sinai.

The believing Jew is tied to Israel because God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people; the believing Jew is tied to strong Israeli self-defense because God mandated such self-defense in the Torah. A Jew who believes in his religion may without question claim that his Judaism demonstrates his commitment to Israel. It is a foul and rank political convenience for those who care nothing about Judaism to flout their Jewish birth as some kind of defense for their cowardly and foolish surrender-first ideals.

It seems to me that anyone, Jew or otherwise, has the right to believe and say anything they want. Whether they wish to style themselves as Jews or not is for them to decide, not the author of this piece. Any Jew in this country has the same right to hold whatever opinion he or she wants with regard to Israel or anything else, as does any other person.

In the main, civilized people have got past the notion that God gave them rights superior to those of other people. It is true that in some quarters of Islam such beliefs persist, Indeed it is these very beliefs that set them apart from the modern world and are at the root of the emerging conflict between some elements of Islam and the West. Evidently some zionists hold similar beliefs with respect to themselves and their special status. That of course is their right, however, we all should recognize such beliefs as antithetical to the basic tenants of American society and culture. Certainly the United Strates has no business supporting the political aspirations of advocates of such doctrines.

It is interesting to note the similarity of the hateful views of the zealots on both sides of this dispute.

0 Replies

Hamas and the PLO have been occupied (excuse the pun) for the past few days trying to kill each other. Reminds me of how well the Iraq-Iran war seemed to have kept two troublesome countries occupied.

Say - I think an idea's brewing here.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

blueflame1 wrote:
Self-hating Jews and the Jewish state
By Ben Shapiro
Wednesday, July 26, 2006

The self-hating Jews who now attack Israel's most basic aspect of sovereignty don't care a whit about Judaism. They may have been born Jewish, they may enjoy matzo ball soup, they may go to a Reconstructionist synagogue once in a while to worship nothingness, but the tenets of Judaism mean nothing to them. These Jews care about Judaism the way Madonna cares about Catholicism. When it comes to the daily strictures of Judaism, these Jews are nowhere to be found. But as soon as it becomes politically advantageous to tout their Judaism, they stand front and center, birth certificate held aloft.

Identity politics is a canard when it comes to Judaism. Being born Jewish says nothing about whether you care for Israel, because being a Jew is about more than emerging from a Jewish uterus. A secular humanist, born a Jew, is still a secular humanist. Noam Chomsky is a Jew, but he is also a twisted and evil thinker who pines for Israel's destruction. Tony Judt is a Jew, but he hopes that one day Israel will be wiped from the map. Are Chomsky and Judt immune from criticism because they are Jews?

They are not. Neither are Colmes, Kaufman and Dorchen. And none of them have the right to use their Jewish birth as a shield for their anti-Israel and often anti-Semitic views. Identity as a Jew is important in this debate only when that identity means a binding tie to the Jewish nation as a whole and to the God that bound that nation together at Sinai.

The believing Jew is tied to Israel because God gave the land of Israel to the Jewish people; the believing Jew is tied to strong Israeli self-defense because God mandated such self-defense in the Torah. A Jew who believes in his religion may without question claim that his Judaism demonstrates his commitment to Israel. It is a foul and rank political convenience for those who care nothing about Judaism to flout their Jewish birth as some kind of defense for their cowardly and foolish surrender-first ideals.

It seems to me that anyone, Jew or otherwise, has the right to believe and say anything they want. Whether they wish to style themselves as Jews or not is for them to decide, not the author of this piece. Any Jew in this country has the same right to hold whatever opinion he or she wants with regard to Israel or anything else, as does any other person.

The author's point is not to slam these Jews like Allan Colmes for their anti-Isreal positions, it is to point out that in these people, there is a tactic of saying "My viewpoint is better than a Gentile's because I'm Jewish and I'm against Israel, so when I am against Israel, that really means something more than if I just say I am anti-Israel." It is this tactic, and not the person that Shapiro is discussing, pointing out, and it is useful information.

Quote:

In the main, civilized people have got past the notion that God gave them rights superior to those of other people. It is true that in some quarters of Islam such beliefs persist, Indeed it is these very beliefs that set them apart from the modern world and are at the root of the emerging conflict between some elements of Islam and the West. Evidently some zionists hold similar beliefs with respect to themselves and their special status.

What specifically do you have to support such a claim "some zionists hold similar beliefs with respect to themselves and their special status."? This appears to be right off the top of your head. What point is proved by this claim? Obviously, you are interjecting a form of zionistic psychoanalysis to read into Netanyahu, Perez, and Barak. To some extent, the U.S. and Arab nations have reason to be suspect of some elements and actions of the Likud party and their hardliners. The problem with the anti-Israel contingent is that they want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Quote:

That of course is their right, however, we all should recognize such beliefs as antithetical to the basic tenants of American society and culture. Certainly the United Strates has no business supporting the political aspirations of advocates of such doctrines.

Bin Laden couldn't have said it better. ""stop your support for Israel against the Palestinians, for Russians against the Chechens and leave us alone, or expect us in Washington and New York." "Do not force us to ship you in coffins"" source

What beliefs are you talking about other than the beliefs you ascribe with no support that they exist in government? I don't want to appear unreasonable. Just please post from anyplace any documentation or reference that the foreign policy of Israel is conducted based on their philosophy that since they are God's chosen people and by some ordained right of entitlement deserve the entire Sinai Peninsula, and I will apologize to you. Heck, I'll even congratulate you.

Quote:

It is interesting to note the similarity of the hateful views of the zealots on both sides of this dispute.

Actually, they're quite opposite. On the one side, you have the anti-Israeli Americans who believe that Israel should revert to it's 1948 borders, tear their wall down between themselves and Gaza, share Jerusalem and provide womb-to-the-tomb national healthcare, education and welfare to all of the Palestians and write 100 times on the blackboard "I must understand the Palestinians and love them, even if they blow up women and children and kidnap soldiers."

On the other side are people that believe in a strong Israel that defends herself, as long as Israel is not an aggressor nation, sees the legitimate need for the wall between the West Bank and Israel because of all of the historic terrorism that Palestine and their elected leaders, Hamas have caused.

There are many reasons for the United States to support Israel:

They are our chief middle eastern U.S. ally, and a major NATO ally
Israel has collaborated with the U.S. on U.S. clandestine operations
Israel has prevented groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and other militant Islamic groups from victories in Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon.
Israel has held the aggressor Syrian nation at bay
Israel is been great test market for American weapons so that we can judge their usefulness against Soviet weapons
Israel works with the United States, shares intelligence on Soviet weaponry, which is good, strategically for the United States
At least on one occasion, the Israelis designed a jet fighter and shared their technology with us.

The Israelis have assisted the United States in the areas of military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint weapons research.

0 Replies

Zippo wrote:

I must say this thread had gotten really interesting since georgeob1 joined in, he'd made some interesting points/posts, i'm even learning new things...Thanks georgeob1.

Talking about anti-semitism, look at this :

Quote:
More Evidence That Mearsheimer and Walt Are Largely Right

1) They've sent around a roughly 80-page response to their critics, which is largely compelling even though I am one of the people they refute.

2) This New York Times article quotes no one at all in support of Carter's position, only critics. Since when does the Times write in its news pages about controversies entirely from one side of the controversy, particularly when it's about someone who was president of the United States?

I'll tell you since when. It's since he criticizes Israel ...

huffiingtonpost

I'm not surprised that you are happy that georgeob1 joined the discussion. Prior to georgeob1, there were only five posters supporting anti-Semitic foreign policy on this thread, with him, there are six.

By the way, Zippo, if you want your citations to be taken seriously, it would be best not to quote the Huffington Post or Mediamatters. Both of those are well known for being attrociously left wing sites.

0 Replies

Monte Cargo wrote:

[What specifically do you have to support such a claim "some zionists hold similar beliefs with respect to themselves and their special status."? This appears to be right off the top of your head. What point is proved by this claim? Obviously, you are interjecting a form of zionistic psychoanalysis to read into Netanyahu, Perez, and Barak.

My reference was to the statement in the referenced article that 'God gave the land of Israel to the Jews'. This is used by many to justify numerous crimes and acts of injustice to the former inhabitants of that land.

Monte Cargo wrote:

To some extent, the U.S. and Arab nations have reason to be suspect of some elements and actions of the Likud party and their hardliners. The problem with the anti-Israel contingent is that they want to throw the baby out with the bath water.

zWhat exactly is the baby in your metaphor? I believe it is the citizens of Israel who have the greatedt gripe with the Likud party. It has led israel to the loss of its moral compass and, perhaps more importantly, into a situation with its neighbors from which I fear there is no escape.

Monte Cargo wrote:

What beliefs are you talking about other than the beliefs you ascribe with no support that they exist in government? I don't want to appear unreasonable. Just please post from anyplace any documentation or reference that the foreign policy of Israel is conducted based on their philosophy that since they are God's chosen people and by some ordained right of entitlement deserve the entire Sinai Peninsula, and I will apologize to you. Heck, I'll even congratulate you.

Israel has for decades based its policy with respect to the West Bank on an attempt to seize as much as possible of the land without accepting any of its people - or even granting basic human & political rights to them during a 39 year military occupation. In its domestic policies it discriminates systematically on behalf of Jews and justifies this discrimination on the basis that it is the homeland for Jews. These ideas and practices are from another age and cannot be justified by contemoporary stabdards. They certainly are alein to the principles on which this country claims to operate.

Monte Cargo wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
It is interesting to note the similarity of the hateful views of the zealots on both sides of this dispute.

Actually, they're quite opposite. On the one side, you have the anti-Israeli Americans who believe that Israel should revert to it's 1948 borders, tear their wall down between themselves and Gaza, share Jerusalem and provide womb-to-the-tomb national healthcare, education and welfare to all of the Palestians and write 100 times on the blackboard "I must understand the Palestinians and love them, even if they blow up women and children and kidnap soldiers."

You are merely throwing dust in the air and evading the point. My observation above is accurate.

Monte Cargo wrote:

There are many reasons for the United States to support Israel:

They are our chief middle eastern U.S. ally, and a major NATO ally
Israel has collaborated with the U.S. on U.S. clandestine operations
Israel has prevented groups like Hamas and Hezbollah and other militant Islamic groups from victories in Palestine, Jordan and Lebanon.
Israel has held the aggressor Syrian nation at bay
Israel is been great test market for American weapons so that we can judge their usefulness against Soviet weapons
Israel works with the United States, shares intelligence on Soviet weaponry, which is good, strategically for the United States
At least on one occasion, the Israelis designed a jet fighter and shared their technology with us.

The Israelis have assisted the United States in the areas of military cooperation, intelligence sharing, and joint weapons research.

Israel is not a member of NATO. While Israel is certainly a client state of the U,.S. it is not a useful ally. We pay a very high price for the assistance we get and it hardly compensates for the added problems that result from the relationship.

Syria is no threat to the United States - only to Israel.

Israel has been far more effective in stealing U,S. military technology and selling it on the open market than it has been beneficial as a test market. What it buys from us it pays for in credits we give them.

I suspect the jet fighter you are referring to was the Kefir or Lion(sp?). It was basically a Mirage with a U.S. J-79 engine in it. Hardly a novel innovation.

I'll grant you the point about intelligence and the window into contemporary Russia. However I fear that even that is a two way street primarily benefitting Israel, not the U.S.

0 Replies

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know