Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict

I saw Carter on meet the press sunday. He said he was talking about palestinians in the occupied territories.Stating that those who were Israeli citizens have all the rights offorded to any other Israeli citizen.

Let us never forget that the aim of the palestinians and the moslem world is the destruction of the state of Israel.

Quote:

Let us never forget that the aim of the palestinians and the moslem world is the destruction of the state of Israel.

You really ought to know better than this, au. "Moslem world" is as foolishly (and dangerously) generalized as to say the "christian world" or the "jewish world" has some such notion held in common. Likewise suggesting that "palestinians" hold such a notion.

au1929 wrote:

I saw Carter on meet the press sunday. He said he was talking about palestinians in the occupied territories.Stating that those who were Israeli citizens have all the rights offorded to any other Israeli citizen.

Yes, but their are elements within Likkud and Kadima (and particularly in the extremist minority parties needed for majority representation) who hold less kindly notions.

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/07/world/middleeast/07mideast.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

au, aw sh!t suicide bombers hey? No mention of what drives people to such desperation? Suicide bombers against Apache helicopters and 500 pound bombs. It's hard work in my opinion ignoring Israeli atrocities. And you seem to be a hard worker. If you really wanted to understand what it's been like for Palestinians for the last 50+ years you can begin here. "The Expulsion of the Palestinians, 1947-1948" http://www.robincmiller.com/pales2.htm Ignore to your heart's content.

To tell you the truth, it's not much of a book. I looked for a segment I cold excerpt on my website and couldn't find anything that was really worthy. It's simplistic and homiletic and gives only part of the story most of the time. Jimmy Carter is in some ways a great man, and in almost all ways a good man, but he's not much of a historian,

Still the vituperation is explained not by the above, but by one thing and one thing only. Carter has departed from the accepted narrative that Israel's so-called friends in the United States insist on imposing on the Israeli-Palestinian narrative. Depart from it and expect to get called all kind of names, none of them nice.

Helpfully, Alan Dershowitz lays it out in the opening paragraphs of his review. "The former US president's use of the loaded word 'apartheid', suggesting an analogy to the hated policies of South Africa, is especially outrageous, considering his acknowledgment buried near the end of his shallow and superficial book that what is going on in Israel today 'is unlike that in South Africa - not racism, but the acquisition of land.' Nor does he explain that Israel's motivation for holding on to land it captured in a defensive war is the prevention of terrorism. Israel has tried, on several occasions, to exchange land for peace, and what it got instead was terrorism, rockets and kidnappings launched from the returned land."

Got it? Israel wants peace, not land. The more land you give the Arabs, the more they try to kill you. It's really that simple.

Carter of course, puts it differently. In a short New Yorker piece, he explained, "I'm not alleging racism, and I'm not referring to Israel. I'm talking about Palestine." It is his contention that the situation in the Occupied Territories "is not debated or acknowledged or even known in this country," and that the "tremendous aversion" here to criticism of Israel's policies has contributed to the disintegration of the peace process. "I can't imagine a presidential candidate saying, 'I'm going to take a balanced position toward the Israelis and the Palestinians,' and getting elected," he said. "It's inconceivable."

And silently, Alan Dershowitz, Marty Paretz, AIPAC, and all the rest say, "Amen."

au, except I never was masked and have always made myself clear. These are the people I support in the ME, http://www.jerusalempeacemakers.org/ I sure dont support mass murders like Bushie, Blair or Olmert. I understand the plight of the Palestinians and know Arafat was left without a partner when Rabin was killed. Not much chance for success for Arafat or peace after that. And Ahmadinejad is right when he says the Palestinians took no part in the holocaust which was a European atrocity and so the Palestinians should never have had to suffer a holocaust against them for what horrors were caused by others. He certainly is right about a nuclear free ME and international arms treaties. His letter to Bushie which Bushie brushed aside should serve as a starting point for international negotiations and I would wager that most Americans would agree with his letter if they took the time to read it. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/09/AR2006050900878.html This letter makes sense and rather than toss ot aside Bushie shoulda called Ahmadinehad's "bluff". The problem for Bushie is he has a PNAC blueprint for world domination as his agenda. He's an imperialist and wants what does not belong to him. His failures in that pursuit are obvious to most everyone now.

TEHRAN, Iran (CNN) -- Iran's new president has repeated a remark from a former ayatollah that Israel should be "wiped out from the map," insisting that a new series of attacks will destroy the Jewish state, and lashing out at Muslim countries and leaders that acknowledge Israel.

The remarks by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad -- reported by Islamic Republic News Agency -- coincide with a month-long protest against Israel called "World without Zionism" and with the approach of Jerusalem Day.

In late 2005, the IAEA Director General Mohamed El-Baradei had written, "Iran's full transparency is indispensable and overdue." Ahmadinejad later said in response to the IAEA vote that the West "can't do a thing" to stop Iran's ambitions. "Issue as many resolutions like this as you want and make yourself happy. You can't prevent the progress of the Iranian nation."

1. the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies.
2. advocacy of imperial interests.
3. an imperial system of government.
4. imperial government.
5. British. the policy of so uniting the separate parts of an empire with separate governments as to secure for certain purposes a single state.

Criticising Israel makes Au all angry-like.

Cycloptichorn

I say we pull back and let the Jews and Muslims duke it out. They're both nuts and I'm sick of refereeing this nonsense.