Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

Textbooks In Israel to Designate West Bank
Cabinet Minister's Move Draws Anger

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page A15

JERUSALEM, Dec. 5 -- Maps in future Israeli public school textbooks will show the boundary that existed between Israel and the West Bank before the 1967 Middle East war, Israel's education minister announced Tuesday. The move drew sharp protest from lawmakers, settler groups and religious leaders who claim the West Bank as part of the Jewish state.

The minister, Yuli Tamir, is a member of the Labor Party and a founder of the advocacy group Peace Now, which opposes Jewish settlement in the occupied territories. Palestinians envision a future state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, all of which Israel occupied in 1967.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that Israel should evacuate parts of the West Bank so as to define its borders around land with a solid Jewish majority. He has said that several large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank would be included as part of Israel in any final peace deal.

Alan Dershowitz, the high-profile Harvard law school professor and staunch defender of Israel, is troubled "that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

stevewonder wrote:

Quote:

Alan Dershowitz, the high-profile Harvard law school professor and staunch defender of Israel, is troubled "that this decent man has written such an indecent book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict".

Absolutely predictable Dershowitz. No criticism of Israeli policy is morally or historically valid regardless of where it might originate, including from jews in Israel or abroad. Dershowitz "sees" more anti-semitism among even those "self-hating jews" than most of the rest of us see in the broad totality of the western culture.

This has been a sustained and pervasive marketing/propaganda project - define any and all criticism of Israeli policy as anti-semitic. Dershowitz is just one of the more visible folks in the modern iteration of the project.

There will be one exception for Dershowitz... it will be ok to criticize Israeli policies where they are insufficiently chauvinist and militarist.

Monte Cargo wrote:

Mossadeq was extremely well educated, had good negotiating skills, was contagiously charasmatic, and was ruthless and murderous, every prerequisite for a good middle eastern leader. He recognized and expanded upon the government's displeasure at seeing the British Crown making more off the oil reserves than Iran was making in royalties. The Majlis in Iran was happy to attain a 50-50 split with the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company but Mossadeq wanted more. When the prime minister objected to nationalizing the oil industry, he was promptly assassinated. Mossadeq soon became prime minister after public demonstrations and he insisted on chairing the war department. After Mossadeq replaced all the top army officers with his own people, the displaced were helpful to the British in engineering the coup d'etat that deposed Mossadeq and installed the Shah.

As WWII was ending, Mossadeq was elected to the Majlis and he led the opposition to give the USSR any concessions on oil exploration and development.

I have not seen any content that directly supports the notion that U.S. fear of communism was the basis for engineering the coup d'etat, but instead, reclamation of England's ability to explore and develop their oil. Mossadeq had already demonstrated his opposition to any entry of Soviet interests.

The thrust towards the nationalization of Iran's oil industry was popularly driven, and based on the reactionary dissent that was fomented by Britain's imperialism and the unfair position that the Anglo-Persian Oil Company--which in 1936 would become the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company after the country changed its name from Persia to Iran--held in regard to the country's oil industry. One grievance of note was the APOC's outright refusal to submit to an audit of the royalties yielded to the country. After the pro-west PM Ali Razmara refused to nationalize the country's oil industry against overwhelming popular demand he was assassinated by the militant fundamentalist organization Fadayan-e Islam, and his backer, the Shah, was forced to leave the country. The Majlis selected Mossadegh as the new prime minister, and shortly thereafter he ratified the Oil Nationalization Act in the spring of 1951, seizing the AIOC's assets in Iran.

The AIOC took their grievances against Iran to the International Court of Justice, but lost their case.

Britain had solicited the assistance of the Truman administration in their plan to topple the Iranian government, but Truman flatly refused. Communist paranoia had been escalating in the US, and the Eisenhower administration committed to the plot on anti-communist grounds: fear of the socialist /communist implications of Iran's Oil Nationalization Act, Iran's common border with the USSR, and the strengthening of Iran's communist party after the assassination of Razmara, and the splintering of the party coalition that brought Mossadegh to power.

In his attempt to convince the Shah to participate in the coup, Kermit Roosevelt, the director of the operation, told him, that "failure to act could lead only to a Communist Iran or to a second Korea."

http://www.nytimes.com/library/world/mideast/041600iran-cia-index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

C-SPAN caller bashes former President Carter as 'racist, bigot, anti-Semite'

When the facts are against you, argue the law. When the law is against you, argue the facts. When both the facts and the law are against you, call the other person names!

Their scheme was based on a detailed study of the phenomenon of Islamic fundamentalism, as presented by British Islamic expert, Dr. Bernard Lewis, then on assignment at Princeton University in the United States. Lewis's scheme, which was unveiled at the May 1979 Bilderberg meeting in Austria, endorsed the radical Muslim Brotherhood movement behind Khomeini, in order to promote balkanization of the entire Muslim Near East along tribal and religious lines. Lewis argued that the West should encourage autonomous groups such as the Kurds, Armenians, Lebanese Maronites, Ethiopian Copts, Azerbaijani Turks, and so forth. The chaos would spread in what he termed an 'Arc of Crisis,' which would spill over into Muslim regions of the Soviet Union.

As one Israeli writer put it, "After 1967, Israel sold its soul." Note that the challenge here isn't to correct an historical inaccuracy. The challenge is advanced with the aim to put a barrier between Israeli children and the historical truth.

Quote:

Textbooks In Israel to Designate West Bank
Cabinet Minister's Move Draws Anger

By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Foreign Service
Wednesday, December 6, 2006; Page A15

JERUSALEM, Dec. 5 -- Maps in future Israeli public school textbooks will show the boundary that existed between Israel and the West Bank before the 1967 Middle East war, Israel's education minister announced Tuesday. The move drew sharp protest from lawmakers, settler groups and religious leaders who claim the West Bank as part of the Jewish state.

The minister, Yuli Tamir, is a member of the Labor Party and a founder of the advocacy group Peace Now, which opposes Jewish settlement in the occupied territories. Palestinians envision a future state in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and East Jerusalem, all of which Israel occupied in 1967.

Prime Minister Ehud Olmert has stated that Israel should evacuate parts of the West Bank so as to define its borders around land with a solid Jewish majority. He has said that several large Israeli settlement blocs in the West Bank would be included as part of Israel in any final peace deal.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/05/AR2006120501266.html

Palestinian Media Watch research has long demonstrated a clear and unified world-view within the Palestinian leadership, in its speeches to the nation, in educational programs, and through school textbooks published by the Palestinian Authority.

Israel is consistently defined as a colony that stole the land of Palestine, having no right to exist. Therefore, within the framework of justice, there is no room for Israel's permanent existence.

The Arabic Palestinian lexicon contains many expressions to describe the negotiations with Israel in this context: The permanent agreement is a stage; The Oslo accords are to gain a foothold; All the agreements are temporary.

In this context the Oslo process is part of the process of liberating Palestine. The recurrent justification given for the need for a temporary agreement with Israel is because of the current balance of power.

From the positions expressed within the Palestinian Authority it is evident that Israeli Arab MK Dahamshe's position, stated on PA TV, that the "permanent" status agreement with Israel is to be viewed as hudna, a temporary tactical truce, is the rule and not the exception.

I never met this newspaper's previous proprietor, although I worked as his literary editor on the Daily and Sunday Telegraphs. He once tried to stop me employing a reviewer who had criticised the foreign policy of Henry Kissinger (then a Hollinger director). Grateful to have a chairman who read these pages, I invited Black to review books in areas where he clearly had an interest (The Oxford Book of Canadian Military Anecdotes). Connoisseurs of his prose have likened it to a medieval siege engine and the act of reading it to "wading through wet cement" (Max Hastings), but he had an intelligence and a style, and it got him off my back.

Blatham, Dershowitz is in the extreme minority.

Nothing is quite so ridiculously unrealistic as Carter lamenting the "pro-Israeli press and media" in the United States. Nothing could be further from the truth about how the press and media. The mainstream media have not even bothered to even disguise their criticisms of Israel. Carter has this completely backwards.

I have to wonder if someone is so backwards on that one point what the rest of his points must be.

By the way, this goes way off of topic, but does Vancouver still sell the "Export A" brand of cigarettes?

That's tame next to the propoganda being sold in Islamic textbooks. ?- The Islamic philosophy, in contrast to concerns about Israel's possible overambitious land grabbing dreams, doesn't think Israel should even exist:

Denying Israel's Right to Exist and Anticipating Its Destruction
Written and Compiled by Itamar Marcus

Akiva Eldar, a journalist working for Ha'aretz, provides a insight into CMIPs activities:

Akiva Eldar, a journalist working for Ha'aretz, provides a insight into CMIPs activities:

In recent years Marcus has been making a living translating and disseminating defamatory communications against Israel, extracted by his staff from Palestinian publications. Marcus, a settler, used to work for David Bar Illan, Benjamin Netanyahu's PR chief, and served on the Joint Israeli Palestinian Anti-Incitement Committee. Marcus's center routinely feeds the media with excerpts from "Palestinian" textbooks that call for Israel's annihilation. He doesn't bother to point out that the texts quoted in fact come from Egypt and Jordan.[2]
Among the main critics of CMIP is Nathan J. Brown, a Jewish American Political Science professor at George Washington Univ. His assessment of CMIP is revealing:

Then where had the persistent reports of incitement come from? A little digging turned up the ultimate source: an organization calling itself the "Center for Monitoring the Impact of Peace" (CMIP). The organization's publications constituted virtually the only source in English?-and certainly the most widely quoted one?-on the Palestinian textbooks.
As I dug a little more, I found a series of problems with the organization's reports. Their method was to follow harsh criticisms with quotation after quotation purporting to prove a point. However, a close reading revealed that many quotations did not support the strong charges. And those that did came not from the 1994 books that I had read but from the Jordanian and Egyptian books that the PA was working to replace. Criticizing the PA for interim use of the books was certainly fair. But the CMIP neglected to mention that the Israeli government distributed the same books in East Jerusalem schools while it refused to distribute the innocuous 1994 "National Education" supplements (because they were clearly written by the PA meaning that their use might have undermined Israeli claims to sovereignty in all of the city). Nor did the report mention the dramatic changes in the supplementary 1994 books. Similarly ignored was a richly documented Palestinian project to devise its new curriculum. A 600-page official report mercilessly criticizing existing educational practices had been published in 1996.In 1997, the Palestinian legislature and cabinet approved the Ministry of Education's plan?-based partly on the 1996 report?-to write the new curriculum. Neither document contained anything anti-Israeli or anti-Semitic, so the CMIP showed no interest.
In short, the CMIP reports read as if they were written by a ruthless prosecuting attorney anxious for a conviction at any cost....

Carter Book on Israel 'Apartheid' Sparks Bitter Debate
Scholar Resigns From Ga. Center

"The southern part remained in the formerly Syrian territory annexed by Israel."

Thank You, Jimmy Carter

Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 06, 2006

"Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States. He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time."

Does this sound like aparthied ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JERUSALEM -- Despite decades of upheavals, residents of the Arab village of Ghajar on Israel's northern border have never had to flee. Instead, the village itself became a refugee, finding itself successively in three different countries.
This week, residents learned that a fourth change of address was in store -- under the United Nations.
Originally part of Lebanon, Ghajar was quietly transferred by Beirut to Syrian sovereignty, apparently in the early 1960s and for reasons that are not clear.
In the 1967 Six Day War, Israel captured the nearby Golan Heights from Syria, but it did not move on Ghajar, which it assumed was part of Lebanon.
The villagers, realizing that they were in no man's land, cut off from Syria and no longer part of Lebanon, called on Israel to take responsibility and provide it with basic services. Israel agreed.
When Prime Minister Menahem Begin's government in 1981 annexed the lands captured from Syria, the villagers became Israeli citizens, entitled to national insurance and other benefits. However, when Israel withdrew from southern Lebanon in 2000 after an 18-year occupation, an anomaly became apparent in Ghajar.
The village had grown considerably since 1967, and U.N. officials mapping the international border determined that the northern two-thirds of the village was inside Lebanese territory.
The southern part remained in the formerly Syrian territory annexed by Israel.
Israeli troops confined themselves to the southern part of the village, although Israel continued to provide services to the northern half and permitted any villager, including "northerners," to enter Israel to work.
The village quickly became a flash point as Hezbollah took advantage of the amorphous situation in Ghajar to stage attacks.
In a raid last year, Hezbollah forces came through the undefended northern part of Ghajar and rushed an Israeli guard post in the southern part.