Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

LoneStarMadam wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:

Then feel free to start a thread about it.

You asked what, I told you.
<snicker>

Yes, you told me. And the answer was "nothing".

woiyo wrote:

President Carter's memory is failing. He was the one who helped frame the Camp david accord. How did that ultimately work out?

Well now that you asked, pretty damned well as the principle feature of the accord was to remove from the board an arab nation with nearly 100,000,000 arab people and the world's largest arab army which had fought three wars in 26 years with Israel and has yet to fight another over the past 26 years.

'Israel knew Iraq had no nuclear weapons'

By Laurie Copans

Jerusalem - A government critic said on Tuesday that Israel was aware before the war against Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, but Israel did not inform the United States.

Israel put itself on war footing before the US invasion last year, passing out gas mask kits to its citizens and then ordering them to open the kits, a step that eventually will cost millions, since components would have to be replaced.

But lawmaker Yossi Sarid, a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, said on Tuesday that Israeli intelligence knew beforehand that Iraq had no weapons stockpiles and misled US President George Bush.

'Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario'

In contrast, a lawmaker from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud Party said Israel had shared its doubts with the Americans.

During the first Gulf war in 1991, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, all with conventional warheads. Last year Israel appointed a stern general, Amos Gilead, as its liaison with the population. Gilead filled the airwaves with dire warnings of possible chemical or biological attacks from Iraq.

Sarid, who represents the dovish opposition Meretz Party, said it was just a costly show - Israeli intelligence knew the threat was "very, very, very limited."

"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," said Sarid, regarding a claim leading up to the war.

"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," Sarid said.


Israeli critics say the government of Sharon maintained the state of alert for its own political reasons, to help galvanise public opinion in favour of harsh steps against the Palestinians.

The United States and Britain have launched inquiries into intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, used by leaders of both nations as part of their justification for the invasion. So far such weapons have not been found.

Likud lawmaker Ehud Yatom said Israel told the Americans that it was not sure that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"Israel said apparently there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we haven't seen anything with our own eyes," Yatom said. "But the great United States didn't have to rely on Israel." Yatom had a career in Israeli security before entering the parliament last year.

Another view came from Scott Ritter, who led United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq for seven years before resigning in 1998. He told an Israeli newspaper this week that Israel knew for years that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

"The Israeli intelligence reached this conclusion many years ago," Ritter told the Ynet Internet site, affiliated with the Yediot Ahronot newspaper. "Despite this, the security establishment instructed citizens to open their gas masks, a move that cost Israel billions."

Ritter, an ex-Marine officer, has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policies.

When Ritter met with Israeli intelligence officials in 1998, they told him that Iraq had been reduced to the number six threat down from number one four years before, he said.

"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too," Ritter told Ynet. - Sapa-AP

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=qw1075852801225B262&amp;set_id=1&amp;click_id=3&amp;sf=

monte

We are going to have a problem if you use "liberal bias" to discount any and all content/analysis which doesn't arrive via "conservative bias". That's a framework which is designed to prohibit agreement.

Take part of the description you quoted above...

Quote:

the paper's editorial line on economic issues is primarily classical-liberal in the spirit of The Economist. It supports privatization, free-trade, reduction in welfare, lower taxes and strict fiscal practices

Note the "classical liberal" there, the comparison with The Economist, and what is supported. In American modern rightwing terminology of the Coulter or Fox sort, no such creature as "classical liberalism" is either known about nor admitted to exist.

Earlier, I threw in a quote from the Jerusalem Post as well, a much more predictably "conservative" publication.

My recommendation would be to refuse the prejudicial framework of "liberal" and "conservative" - which sets us up to accept or reject information and analyses before really considering them carefully. For a month or so, say, pop into the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz two or three times a week, and just survey what is going on in Israel and what folks there are thinking. One thing you will discover is that opinion in Israel is far more diverse than our press/TV over here hint at. It is a considerable curiosity how that has come about, but it is the case.

Slightly off topic...

Flashback

Quote:

'Israel knew Iraq had no nuclear weapons'

By Laurie Copans

Jerusalem - A government critic said on Tuesday that Israel was aware before the war against Iraq that Saddam Hussein did not possess weapons of mass destruction, but Israel did not inform the United States.

Israel put itself on war footing before the US invasion last year, passing out gas mask kits to its citizens and then ordering them to open the kits, a step that eventually will cost millions, since components would have to be replaced.

But lawmaker Yossi Sarid, a member of the Foreign Affairs and Defence Committee, said on Tuesday that Israeli intelligence knew beforehand that Iraq had no weapons stockpiles and misled US President George Bush.

'Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario'

In contrast, a lawmaker from Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's Likud Party said Israel had shared its doubts with the Americans.

During the first Gulf war in 1991, Iraq fired 39 Scud missiles at Israel, all with conventional warheads. Last year Israel appointed a stern general, Amos Gilead, as its liaison with the population. Gilead filled the airwaves with dire warnings of possible chemical or biological attacks from Iraq.

Sarid, who represents the dovish opposition Meretz Party, said it was just a costly show - Israeli intelligence knew the threat was "very, very, very limited."

"It was known in Israel that the story that weapons of mass destruction could be activated in 45 minutes was an old wives' tale," said Sarid, regarding a claim leading up to the war.

"Israel didn't want to spoil President Bush's scenario, and it should have," Sarid said.


Israeli critics say the government of Sharon maintained the state of alert for its own political reasons, to help galvanise public opinion in favour of harsh steps against the Palestinians.

The United States and Britain have launched inquiries into intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, used by leaders of both nations as part of their justification for the invasion. So far such weapons have not been found.

Likud lawmaker Ehud Yatom said Israel told the Americans that it was not sure that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction.

"Israel said apparently there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, but we haven't seen anything with our own eyes," Yatom said. "But the great United States didn't have to rely on Israel." Yatom had a career in Israeli security before entering the parliament last year.

Another view came from Scott Ritter, who led United Nations weapons inspections in Iraq for seven years before resigning in 1998. He told an Israeli newspaper this week that Israel knew for years that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction.

"The Israeli intelligence reached this conclusion many years ago," Ritter told the Ynet Internet site, affiliated with the Yediot Ahronot newspaper. "Despite this, the security establishment instructed citizens to open their gas masks, a move that cost Israel billions."

Ritter, an ex-Marine officer, has been a vocal critic of Bush's Iraq policies.

When Ritter met with Israeli intelligence officials in 1998, they told him that Iraq had been reduced to the number six threat down from number one four years before, he said.

"In the end, if the Israeli intelligence knew that Iraq didn't have weapons of mass destruction, so the CIA knew it and thus British intelligence too," Ritter told Ynet. - Sapa-AP

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?art_id=qw1075852801225B262&amp;set_id=1&amp;click_id=3&amp;sf=

Simple quick question - Are they really our allies ?

I mean you'd have to be a complete wacko to even think that the Israeli occupation has anything to do with the violence in the Middle East.

In July of 2000, President Clinton (center), Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak (left), and Palestinian Authority President Yasser Arafat (right) met at Camp David to bring an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. As can be seen from the map of the proposal (shown below), Israel offered 100% of the Gaza Strip and 95% of the West Bank. The 5% of the West Bank that was not offered included Israeli settlements adjacent to Israel. In addition, Arab parts of East Jerusalem, including parts of the Old City and the Temple Mount (with the Al-Aksa and Dome of the Rock mosques), were offered in the proposal.

To make up for the land not given as part of the West Bank deal to the Palestinians, Israel would give up an equally sized portion of land adjacent to the Gaza Strip and would even build a city large enough to house 500,000 Palestinians (thereby, greatly reducing the number of refugees). In order to maintain territorial contiguity of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, a road that only Palestinians would be able to access would connect the two territories. Israel would get around it by building either bridges or tunnels.

Although this gave Arafat 98% of what he wanted, the Palestinian leader wanted all of East Jerusalem and the West Bank. Rather than negotiating, Mr. Arafat went against many of his advisers and walked out of the talks. President Clinton and Mr. Barak were furious at Arafat, who apparently cannot accept two important facts:

1. Israel does not have an expiry date.
2. The notion of "all or nothing" goes against the concept of negotiation.

blatham wrote:
monte

We are going to have a problem if you use "liberal bias" to discount any and all content/analysis which doesn't arrive via "conservative bias". That's a framework which is designed to prohibit agreement.

(monte responded) Not if you are referencing a single point or article, but when you use the entire Haaretz publication (and its website) as a weapon, claiming that other posters are ignorant and uninformed for not reading, you open the door to having the entire publication commented upon, which is just what I did.

Ha'aretz, founded 1919, is Israel's oldest daily, enjoying prestige and a reputation for solid, high-level reporting. It is owned by the Shocken media conglomerate which also owns a publishing house and many local papers.

Quote:
Take part of the description you quoted above...

Quote:
the paper's editorial line on economic issues is primarily classical-liberal in the spirit of The Economist. It supports privatization, free-trade, reduction in welfare, lower taxes and strict fiscal practices


Note the "classical liberal" there, the comparison with The Economist, and what is supported. In American modern rightwing terminology of the Coulter or Fox sort, no such creature as "classical liberalism" is either known about nor admitted to exist.

(monte responded) Note that the captioned quote was taken verbatim from the Wikipedia, not I. If this were an opinion from a Fox News editor or Ann Coulter, I could see your point, but the Wikipedia has never stood out to me as a conservatively biased organization. They have a feature whereby someone can dispute the Wikipedia, but any disputes are noted. I didn't recall seeing any disputes about Wikipedia's description of the Haaretz.

the paper's editorial line on economic issues is primarily classical-liberal in the spirit of The Economist. It supports privatization, free-trade, reduction in welfare, lower taxes and strict fiscal practices

Quote:
Earlier, I threw in a quote from the Jerusalem Post as well, a much more predictably "conservative" publication.

My recommendation would be to refuse the prejudicial framework of "liberal" and "conservative" - which sets us up to accept or reject information and analyses before really considering them carefully. For a month or so, say, pop into the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz two or three times a week, and just survey what is going on in Israel and what folks there are thinking. One thing you will discover is that opinion in Israel is far more diverse than our press/TV over here hint at. It is a considerable curiosity how that has come about, but it is the case.

(monte responded) There are many Americans who criticize Bush for prosecuting the Iraq War strictly because it appears as Israel's battle that is being waged by the United States. Keeping in mind that Saddam's regime sponsored $25,000 bounties for families of suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israelis, Saddam called Israel "The Little Satan", launched Scud missles, threatened biological and germ warfare, I can hardly see a consensus building among self-respecting Israeli citizens to oppose our overthrowing that government.

...but fundamentalist Moslems are equal opportunity haters. They not only hate Jews, but they hate the Catholics too.

I know of no Christian that kills in the name of Jesus, I have heard of people that call themselves Christians that kill for Jesus/Gods sake.

Monte Cargo wrote :

Quote:

...but fundamentalist Moslems are equal opportunity haters. They not only hate Jews, but they hate the Catholics too.

Really!!

Then how do you explain this

What makes you think that Jews can do no wrong ?

Going back to Gulf War I again. Hmmm. Bush Sr. let saddam occupy Kuwait for a whole week without any concern as the parasphrase from Bush Administration "what Arabs do to Arabs is of no concern to us." Then when Bush realized his manhood was in question, lies about babies killed in an incubator to demonize Saddam were spread in the news.

REMEMBER SADDAM HUSSEIN'S ATROCITIES
By Pastor Grant Swank, Jr. (1/06/03)

Lest we grow numb to Saddam Hussein's atrocities, let us keep in the forefront of our ethics what devilment this "evil" fiend has been up to. Such is the crucial component regarding what a free, morally sensitive global citizenry must do in response to Hussein's ongoing dark presence in our world.

He is a hatchet man of the first order:

Sheikh Taleb Al Souhail, outstanding Iraqi leaders and chief of the Bani Tamim tribe, was murdered by Hussein's intelligence service, the Mukhabarat.
The Faylee Kurds, mainly men ages 16-28, were tortured in Hussein's detention camps while their families were sent away to Iran.
Hetau Ibrahim Ahmad, prominent Kurdish spokesperson, tells of her having to flee her entire lifetime, in fact becoming a daily refugee. She sets forth detail of killings, oppression and displacement of Kurds by Hussein terrorists.
Dr. Katrine Michael, 1988 victim of chemical weaponry, had to flee to Turkey because of the ongoing chemical bombardment of Kurds by Hussein.
Nidhal Mhuk Shalal Aljuburi, Sabria Mahdi Naama and Peyman Halmat relate women's public beheadings (while family members were forced to watch), women being dragged through village streets, rapes by Hussein's security forces, kidnapping and mass killings, and displacements.
Nidhal Muhi Shalal Aljuburi told of the practical extinction of her Jibour tribe, such including relatives, by Hussein. She related Hussein's purposeful polluting of southern Iraq marsh areas, such yielding the dying out of animal life. (1)
Further crimes by Hussein include:

Draining of the southern part of Iraq during the 1990s, such "cleansing" thousands of Iraqi Shiites.
More ethnic obliteration of the non-Arab population of Kirkuk, blatantly murdering thousands of Hussein's political opponents.
Overseeing the murdering of more than 1000 Kuwaitis after his invasion of Kuwait, as well as holding foreign diplomats as hostages, stealing from Kuwaiti citizenry, raining down missiles upon Israeli civilians and seeing through war crimes against American militia.
Amassing weapons of mass destruction and instigating global terrorism.
Committing enough crimes so as to fill millions of pages of documentation on the part of the Clinton administration's investigative teams who culled data for bringing Hussein and his henchmen to international justice.
"Yet no Iraqi official (at least 10 are of extreme interest) has ever been indicted for some of the worst crimes of the 20th century. My efforts to obtain UN Security Council approval for an ad hoc international criminal tribunal encountered one obstacle after another in foreign capitals, in New York and even within the Clinton administration. The usual excuse was that a tribunal would jeopardize either the United Nations' inspections regime or its sanctions regime. We needed Hussein's cooperation, which a criminal indictment might discourage," Mr. Sheffer states. (2)

Additional crimes include:

Daily executions, secretly carried out, at the whim of Hussein. "In Iraq, not a day passes without us hearing that someone from a family we know has been executed," one refugee is quoted as saying.
"For example, my neighbor's son was shot outside her house and no one could save him. When he died, the special security forces came and asked her to pay 50,000 Iraqi dinars per bullet to be able to recover the body. She sold everything she had and paid to be able to bury him, on her own, with two police cars accompanying her, and the police buried him. Three days later they came to demolish her house and she was left on the street with her three daughters. I saw that with my own eyes," the refugee added.

Brainwashing of children, beginning at age five. They are enrolled in "Ashbal Saddam" ("Saddam's Cubs") where they must undergo military training, the latter including cruelty to animals. "From the age of nine, children are put through ?'proper' military training. A firearm is a physical part of the child's body," a mother was quoted as saying.
Children are at times arrested, put in prison because a parent opposes Hussein, or merely because a soldier decides it is necessary. One mother told that her children, ages eleven and thirteen, were put behind bars for six months?-all because her husband, prior to his being executed, refused to preach in favor of the Hussein war against Iran. Finally, to see her offspring set free, she had to pay the government.
Another witness sates: "In 1999, while I was under arrest in Abu Ghreb, I saw a group of women brought into prison with children of between three and five. It became standard practice to arrest women and children to put pressure on husbands, brothers, and father. They were kept from one to three months and released only if they confessed," the witness said.
"We children were between four and twelve in 1981 when we were taken to prison with my mother and my aunt. I can remember the hunger that I felt. When we ran to embrace my mother, who had instruments on either side of her head and was screaming, we felt pain because she was full of electric current," another witness quoted in the report said.

One million of internally displaced persons in Iraq is due to "forced population removal, known as Arabization. Under this program, farmland is confiscated, citizens are harassed, imprisoned, tortured, and not permitted to inherit or purchase business or real estate. "The terror in Iraq is ubiquitous," the report says. "Every Iraqi, man, woman and child is a potential enemy -- of the party, of the regime, of the leader Saddam Hussein -- and must be dealt with accordingly." (3)

The administration's position won some support from former President Jimmy Carter, who has devoted much of his energies in recent years to resolving conflicts around the world. "I think civil war is a serious -- a more serious circumstance than exists in Iraq," Carter said in a CNN interview.

Quote:

blatham wrote:
monte

We are going to have a problem if you use "liberal bias" to discount any and all content/analysis which doesn't arrive via "conservative bias". That's a framework which is designed to prohibit agreement.

(monte responded) Not if you are referencing a single point or article, but when you use the entire Haaretz publication (and its website) as a weapon, claiming that other posters are ignorant and uninformed for not reading, you open the door to having the entire publication commented upon, which is just what I did.

It is fine to comment on the publication, but you've really just taken a single element from Wikipedia's commentary (it's a "left-leaning" publication) as a means to discount the publication and contents in toto or to perhaps justify not bothering to get familiar with it. The Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs...

Quote:

Ha'aretz, founded 1919, is Israel's oldest daily, enjoying prestige and a reputation for solid, high-level reporting. It is owned by the Shocken media conglomerate which also owns a publishing house and many local papers.

Quote:

Quote:
Take part of the description you quoted above...

Quote:
the paper's editorial line on economic issues is primarily classical-liberal in the spirit of The Economist. It supports privatization, free-trade, reduction in welfare, lower taxes and strict fiscal practices


Note the "classical liberal" there, the comparison with The Economist, and what is supported. In American modern rightwing terminology of the Coulter or Fox sort, no such creature as "classical liberalism" is either known about nor admitted to exist.

(monte responded) Note that the captioned quote was taken verbatim from the Wikipedia, not I. If this were an opinion from a Fox News editor or Ann Coulter, I could see your point, but the Wikipedia has never stood out to me as a conservatively biased organization. They have a feature whereby someone can dispute the Wikipedia, but any disputes are noted. I didn't recall seeing any disputes about Wikipedia's description of the Haaretz.

I didn't dispute the Wikipedia entry at all. I quoted Wikipedia's description of Ha'aretz's general editorial position on economic/governance matters...

Quote:

the paper's editorial line on economic issues is primarily classical-liberal in the spirit of The Economist. It supports privatization, free-trade, reduction in welfare, lower taxes and strict fiscal practices

Which, of course, is a position which would be quite at home in a "right-leaning" publication in the US or Britain or Canada. And I pointed to the term "classical liberal" because that term (and what it actually means) will not be found in modern American rightwing media. Educated, historically accurate commentary on "liberalism" is almost completely absent from modern American rightwing media. How familiar, for example, do you think Lone Star Madam will be on John Stuart Mill and how his reasoning for "liberalism" on matters of free speech underpins that fundamental American value and American judicial precedent on the matter, including Scalia's position for example?

Quote:

Quote:

Earlier, I threw in a quote from the Jerusalem Post as well, a much more predictably "conservative" publication.

My recommendation would be to refuse the prejudicial framework of "liberal" and "conservative" - which sets us up to accept or reject information and analyses before really considering them carefully. For a month or so, say, pop into the Jerusalem Post and Ha'aretz two or three times a week, and just survey what is going on in Israel and what folks there are thinking. One thing you will discover is that opinion in Israel is far more diverse than our press/TV over here hint at. It is a considerable curiosity how that has come about, but it is the case.

Okay, what the heck.

Quote:

Quote:

(monte responded) There are many Americans who criticize Bush for prosecuting the Iraq War strictly because it appears as Israel's battle that is being waged by the United States. Keeping in mind that Saddam's regime sponsored $25,000 bounties for families of suicide bombers to blow up innocent Israelis, Saddam called Israel "The Little Satan", launched Scud missles, threatened biological and germ warfare, I can hardly see a consensus building among self-respecting Israeli citizens to oppose our overthrowing that government.

Well, here's where you confront a choice...either you can continue assuming you know what is going on in Israeli society and what Israeli citizens are thinking on these matters or you can acknowledge that your assumptions are not well-informed and then, proceed to get yourself truly informed. I really don't mean to be insulting or superior in saying that.

I'm interested in what differing perceptions you have regarding Israel's thoughts on the matter, whether they came from the Haaretz, Jerusalem Post, New York Times or Washington Times.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I know of no Christian that kills in the name of Jesus, I have heard of people that call themselves Christians that kill for Jesus/Gods sake.