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.

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.