Daily Kos

WHY the Dems Should Listen to Carter re: Palestine

Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:32:58 AM PDT

Jimmy Carter was asked which of the current presidential candidates he thinks most likely to move towards negotiating peace in the Middle East. He still has hopes for Barack Obama, but won't decide who to vote for until he has a chance to speak to each of them privately, "I won't even decide who to support privately until I assess their attitude toward the Middle East. That's the number one issue for me." [1]

Tony Blair has been credited with stating that 70% of the worlds problems with terrorists can be traced back to the Israeli Palestinian conflict.

"On March 10, 1948, in Tel Aviv, eleven men had a meeting in the Red House headed by Ben Gurion. The eleven decided to expel one million Palestinians from historical Palestine. No minutes were taken, but many memoirs were written about that fateful meeting. A systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine began and within seven months the Zionists managed to expel one half of all the Palestinian people from their villages and towns."-

Dr. Ilan Pappe to this reporter Nov. 8, 2006. [2]

Dr. Ilan Pappe is Israeli born and a graduate of Hebrew University and Oxford, and taught at Haifa University. He is a well known revisionist or "post-Zionist" Israeli historian who has been both acclaimed and demonized. His most recent work is A History of Modern Palestine: One Land, Two Peoples, which documents the expulsion of Palestinians as an orchestrated crime of ethnic cleansing.

On Nov. 8, 2006, on the seventh day of Sabeel's [Arabic for THE WAY] 6th International Conference; The Forgotten Faithful/AKA Palestinian Christians, Pappe addressed over 330 International ecumenical Christians in the Ramallah Cultural Palace. His topic was the "Dynamics of Forgetting" and because of the "fierce urgency of now" [Rev. MLK, Jr.] the world is beginning to remember that once there was a Red House, where a most diabolical plan was hatched.

"The Red House in Tel Aviv is gone now. It was a typical building in Tel Aviv that had all the characteristics of Mediterranean homes but with the local Palestinian architecture of the '20's. Today a USA Sheraton Hotel stands in its place. The Red House was the home of the Hagganah; a Jewish underground organization but before 1948 it was the home of a socialist movement, from which it received its name." -Pappe

Haganah is Hebrew for "The Defense" and was a Jewish paramilitary organization formed in what was then the British Mandate for Palestine from 1920 to 1948. It began as a small group of "Jewish immigrants who guarded settlements for an annual fee. At no time did the group have more than 100 members until after the Arab riots of 1920 and 1921. The Jewish leadership in Palestine believed that the British, whom the League of Nations had given the Mandate of Palestine in 1920, had no desire to confront the Arabs about attacks on the Palestinian Jews, and thus created the Haganah to protect their farmers and settlements. The initial role of the Haganah was to guard the Jewish Kibbutzim and farms, and to warn the residents of and repel attacks by Palestinian Arabs. [3]

In the period between 1920 and 1929, the Haganah lacked a strong central authority or coordination. Haganah "units" were very localized and poorly armed: they consisted mainly of Jewish farmers who took turns guarding their farms or their kibbutzim. Following the Arab 1929 Hebron massacre that led to the ethnic cleansing by the British authorities of all Jews from the city of Hebron , the Haganah's role changed dramatically. It became a much larger organization encompassing nearly all the youth and adults in the Jewish settlements, as well as thousands of members from the cities. It also acquired foreign arms and began to develop workshops to create hand grenades and simple military equipment. It went from being an untrained militia to a capable army. [4]

The British did not officially recognize the Haganah,but the British security forces cooperated with it by forming the Jewish Settlement Police, Jewish Auxiliary Forces and Special Night Squads. By 1931, the most right-wing elements of Haganah branched off and formed Irgun Tsva'i-Leumi (the National Military Organization), better known as "Irgun" (or by its Hebrew acronym, pronounced "HaEtsel"). The members were discontented with the policy of restraint when faced with British and Arab pressure and "terrorists" in their own right. Irgun later split in 1940, and their off-shoot became known as the "Lehi" (Hebrew acronym of Lochamei Herut Israel , standing for Freedom Fighters of Israel, and also known by the British as the "Stern Gang" after its leader, Abraham Stern. Because the British severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine , in 1939 the Haganah created the Palmach - the Haganah's strike force, which also organized illegal Jewish immigration of over 100,000 Jews to Palestine. [5]

In 1944, in response to the assassination of Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East , by members of the Jewish Lehi underground, the Haganah worked with the British to round up, interrogate, and, in some cases, deport Irgun members. This action was called the Saison (or hunting season), and seriously demoralized the Irgun and reduced its activities. [6]

But, the Saison could not stop the Irgun, Haganah and the Stern Group from working together. The three groups had different functions, which served to move the British out of Palestine and to make Palestine a Jewish state rather than create a Jewish home in Palestine. [7]

Menachem Begin, an Irgun commander, stated in a 1944 meeting: "In fact, there is a division of roles; one organization advocates individual terrorism (the Lehi), the other conducts sporadic military operations (the Irgun) and there is a third organization which prepares itself to throw its final weight in the decisive war." [8]

Pappe:

"On March 10, 1948, eleven men had a fateful meeting in the Red House headed by Ben Gurion. The eleven decided to expel one million Palestinians from historical Palestine . No minutes were taken, but many memoirs were written about that fateful meeting. A systematic ethnic cleansing of Palestine began and within seven months the Zionists managed to expel one half of all the Palestinian people from their villages and towns.

"The New York Times followed Israeli troops and reported the truth of the expulsion and separation of men and women, and of the many massacres. The world was well informed in 1948, but a year later not a trace was reported in the USA press or books. It was as if nothing ever happened.

"From March to October 1948 the USA State Department stated what was happening was a crime against humanity and ethnic cleansing. When ever one ethnic group expels another group they should be treated as War Criminals and the victims should be allowed to return. This is never mentioned in the USA about Palestine.

"Israel is so successful in their ethnic cleansing because the world doesn't care! The ethnic cleansing continues via the apartheid policies of the Israeli government and because of the denial of the truth by the USA media.

"To claim Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East is bullshit! The Six Day War of 1967 escalated the ethnic cleansing and today in Jerusalem every Palestinian who fails to pay taxes, or has a minor infraction will loose their citizenship.

"In 1948 the mechanism of denial and ethnic cleansing as an IDEOLOGY, not a policy but a formula began. When Zionism began in the 19th century it was meant to be a safe haven for Jews and to help redefine Judaism as a national movement, not just a religion. Nothing wrong with either of those goals! But by the late 19th Century it was decided the only way these goals could be achieved was by ridding the indigenous population and it became an evil ideology.

"Israeli Jewish life will never be simple, good, or worth living while this ideology of domination, exclusiveness and superiority is allowed to continue. The mind set today is that unless Israel is an exclusive Jewish State, Palestinians will continue to be obstacles. However, there has always been a small vocal minority challenging this.

"The only thing that can save Palestinians is for the world to say "ENOUGH is ENOUGH!" The way to challenge and change the ethnic cleansing is to pursue true democracy and the use of sanctions and divestment, for money talks."[9]

Since 1948, USA taxpayers have provided over 100 Billion dollars to Israel. However, America's $84.8 billion in aid to Israel just from fiscal years 1949 through 1998, and the interest the U.S. paid to borrow this money, has cost U.S. taxpayers $134.8 billion, not adjusted for inflation.

The original hope of Zionism was that the Jewish people would have a safe and peaceful dwelling place. Jews remain a traumatized people and their Holocaust hangover affects all of us. For millennia the Jewish people have been threatened and oppressed, but in the 21st century, they have become the oppressors.

"We have seen the enemy and he is US."-Pogo

If America had forced Israel to abide by International Law and not supplied billions of weapons of destruction at bargain basement prices and financial aid, Israel would have made peace with her neighbors long ago. A safe and peaceful dwelling place cannot be had through the barrel of a gun. Nonviolent Palestinians must be supported and encouraged, and all violence must be unequivocally renounced. During World War II the Nazis cold bloodedly murdered six million innocent Jews because good people did nothing for far too long. Afterwards, the UN, the USA, and the European states decided to create a Jewish state in Palestine.

In 1947, with the termination of the British Mandate and rising violence and terrorism between Jews and Palestinians, the UN called for a Jewish-Arab partition of Palestine. Neither side liked the deal, but the secular Zionists jumped at the chance while the Palestinians and Arabs opposed it, citing the injustice of demanding Palestinians pay for Hitler's atrocities.

Israel proclaimed it's independence in May 1948 by affirming:

"One the day of the termination of the British mandate and on the strength of the United Nations General Assembly declare The State of Israel will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel: it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion it will guarantee freedom of religion [and] conscience and will be faithful to the Charter of the United Nations."

Britain withdrew from the land and war erupted. The well equipped Israeli forces created a triumph for the Jews and birthed the ongoing disaster for Palestinians and the world. Over 750,000 Palestinians became refugees and the roots of 21st century terrorism began. There is one small piece of property that two peoples who have been victimized, terrorized and oppressed are fighting over and neither side will ever give up.

There can be no remedy, no winning any war on terrorism without going to the root: the history and suffering of both people must be addressed and only with an honest third party seeking justice can there ever be a possiblilty for security and peace.

World leaders have failed at the task and both sides distrust the other, but repeated polls in Israel and Palestine prove the people are way ahead of their leaders. Majorities on both sides want a negotiated peace, but compromise on both sides must occur.

The bad news is that many Israelis and Palestinians lack HOPE that peace is possible. Peace requires justice and that demands dialogue not unilateral action and open hearts to feel and acknowledge the pain of the other. Everything is connected and the law of karma is what ever we send out will return to us. USA and Israel are best friends, and the rise of fundamentalism within all faiths, the increasing spread of anti-Semitism and the fear of Islam in America are wake up calls to all people of good will to do something. A change in course must be chartered, or we will pass onto our innocent children a legacy of endless war.

Six decades ago six million innocent Jews-and five million other 'outcasts' were cold bloodedly murdered because good people did nothing for far too long.

The most radical and revolutionary of all of America's founding fathers was Tom Paine, who wrote, "Soon after I had published the pamphlet "Common Sense" [on Feb. 14, 1776] in America, I saw the exceeding probability that a revolution in the system of government would be followed by a revolution in the system of religion... The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion."

Common sense understands that neither democracy nor security can ever be achieved through the barrel of a gun. Justice and equal human rights for all people is the only way to security and peace.

May we all do something as Americans and rise up and demand this Congress and Administration uphold the promise of President Bush's Second Inaugural Address:

"In the long run, there is no justice without FREEDOM. There can be no human rights without LIBERTY. All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know the United States will not ignore your oppression or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for liberty, we stand with you."

When that happens; we truly could bring into this reality Tom Paine's vision of what America was originally based upon.

The "war on terror" must be fought at the root and all roads do indeed, lead to Jerusalem.

Will the Democrats have ears to hear?

Sources:
1.'http://observer.guardian.co.uk/review/story/0,,2088878,00.html

2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory, by Eileen Fleming, Chapter 3: This, That and The Wall.

Tags: Israel, Palestine, Occupation, Tom Paine, George W. Bush, Ilan Pappe, terrorism, International Law, ethnic cleansing, human rights (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 118 comments

  •  TIP JAR (16+ / 3-)

    I have been informed to put one out, but cannot figure out how to.

    I will respond to any comment ON TOPIC, but NOT to anal retentive hi-jacking Kossacks.

    •  You succeeded! n/t (1+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Ptah the Great
    •  Some additional on "tip jars". (5+ / 0-)

      When you post a tip jar it is used to express approval/disapproval of the diary itself.  While ordinary comments should only be TRed if they deserve it, TRing a tip jar is an accepted method of expressing displeasure with the diary/diarist.  I've never dropped a donut on anyone and I'm not gonna start now but I am sorely tempted.

      •  Yup, I'm considering it (6+ / 0-)

        And Dr Grishka's post below explains why, this diary is basically slander for implying that the whole goal of the state of Israel from the beginning was to ethnically cleanse the Palestinians.

        Given that we don't have an alternate universe where Israel declared independence and was not invaded by five (5) nations who all vastly outnumbered them, we don't have a control case, but this diary doesn't seem interested in truth.

        Israel spent the first 30 years of her existence, when all these supposed horrible things they did occured, under threat of constant war on all sides except the ocean, with a country as thin as 12 miles in some places.  I find it hard to believe that as the diarist claims "If the US hadn't provided Israel with weapons" that there would be no war today, unless you mean by that that Israel would have been defeated and the issue would be settled.

      •  One could even argue that, (7+ / 0-)

        "anal retentive hi-jacking Kossacks" itself is TR worthy.  Just sayin'.

      •  I usually don't drop TR's on tip jars. (3+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        MajorFlaw, MBNYC, Shane Hensinger

        Just seems like a waste of one of our 5 daily TR's. This practice dates from a time when we all had an unlimited number of donuts.

        "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

        by Bouwerie Boy on Wed May 30, 2007 at 09:20:35 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Same here. (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          Bouwerie Boy, MajorFlaw

          This is the first time I've ever done it.

          Funny what advertising on a site that sez shit like

          We see through tons of research by thousands of competent researchers that the Zionist bankers have been responsible for every war long before and including the Revolutionary War that established America. In fact, they helped finance the war that allegedly freed America from England.

          can do to your tip jar.

          In memory of Tom Disch.

          by zemblan on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:34:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  troll rated for advertising on hate site n/t (2+ / 1-)

      Recommended by:
      MajorFlaw, Shane Hensinger
      Hidden by:
      Ptah the Great

      In memory of Tom Disch.

      by zemblan on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:17:29 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  That's not a valid ground for TRing. (3+ / 0-)

        Even though I find her practice despicable.  TR the diary of the comment, not the person.

      •  While I find the site problematic (3+ / 0-)

        (I wouldn't post there), I think it's more fairly characterized as a laissez-faire leftist site, rather than as a hate site.  Its front page features diaries by Naomi Wolf, Gore Vidal and Dennis Kucinich in addition to the other ones you have found.  From a cursory glance it appears to be an unmoderated or lightly moderated forum, where hate-speech is tolerated next to legitimate voices.

        Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

        by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:27:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Ah. So what's the magic point? (0+ / 0-)

          How much raving, overt antisemitism, percentage wise, should a site have before it becomes something beyond merely "problematic"? How many times does the site have to say "I support freedom for all" to counterbalance one "The Jews are responsible for all wars" for a progressive to feel comfortable there? Four? Seven? How many "peace and justice"s does it take to counterbalance one "The gas chambers at Auschwitz are a Jewish lie"?

          It's like the Monty Python line, "I'd like a bit of rat tart without so much rat in it." As long as the bits of rat are appropriately small, is rat tart perfectly fine for our dessert?

          Just because they tolerate hate speech doesn't mean we have to tolerate their tolerance of hate speech.

          In memory of Tom Disch.

          by zemblan on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:47:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Then call it (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            Ptah the Great

            "a site that tolerates hate-speech" rather than "a hate site."

            Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

            by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:29:14 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I think you'll find very few Kossacks (0+ / 0-)

              will find your distinction-without-a-difference worth maintaining.

              In memory of Tom Disch.

              by zemblan on Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:26:20 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  The difference (0+ / 0-)

                Someone who posts at a hate-site, like a neo-Nazi site, would be thought to agree with the stated purpose of the site.  Someone who posts at a site that tolerates hate-speech may not have done adequate research on the site or may be as willing to defend the rights of others to free speech as the ACLU is willing to defend the right of the Klan to march through Skokie (and may not mind the comments of every diary to center on Free Speech rather than the topic of the diary).

                Reel Bad Arabs: a crash course on Orientalism

                by Rusty Pipes on Wed May 30, 2007 at 01:58:38 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  Although tolerating hate-speech is not quite (2+ / 0-)

                Recommended by:
                MajorFlaw, zemblan

                the same thing as engaging in hate-speech, in the present context, both deserve condemnation.

                I may be said to tolerate hate-speech in the sense that, as a staunch defender of free speech rights under the First Amendment, I defend the right of, e.g., the David Dukes, David Irvings, Louis Farrakhans, and Phyllis Schaflys to speak and publish.

                But my defense of their free speech rights does not entail any obligation on my part either to publish or otherwise distribute their speech and writings or to conduct myself in ways that indicate indifference to the obnoxious nature of their substantive views.

                Perhaps before joining DKos, Eileen Fleming was ignorant of the nature of the Peoples Voice website as a vehicle for hate-speech. But now that she has been made aware of it, we are entitled to draw adverse inferences from her failure to either

                • dissociate herself from the website, or,

                • make clear in her writings at the PV website her rejection of the hate-speech the website tolerates.
        •  Laissez Faire, Free Speech? (0+ / 0-)

          I can't tell what this article said, but the site states it was removed because "it was not representative of the position of thepeoplesvoice as it concerns the Israeli occupation of Palestine".

          It seems, therefore, that the site has a position on the issue and does not tolerate articles that don't represent it. It must follow logically that articles that are not removed do represent the site's position.

          Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

          by word is bond on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:14:53 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  SOURCES: 2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 (1+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    esquimaux

    Source list can be found page 118, Memoirs of a Nice Irish American 'Girl's' Life in Occupied Territory, by Eileen Fleming

    If you don't want to buy the book, ask your local library to order it and check it out.

    •  Ideally, sources should be verifiable via the (9+ / 0-)

      web. If this is not possible, then we should be referred either to primary sources or to independent, credit-worthy sources. Self-referentially citing your own work does not make the grade. On the assumption that page 118 of your self-published book contains a list of primary or independent, credit-worthy sources, you should provide them in an update to your diary or a reply to this comment.

      Otherwise, you simply are asking us to take what you say on faith. Unfortunately, as I wrote you yesterday -- without any response on your part -- many of us have reasonable grounds to conclude that you have only a haphazard relationship to factual accuracy.

      • Sometimes your lapse is major, as in the diary you entitledSecret memo shows Israel knew Six Day War was illegal??? that, however, said nothing of the sort, dealing with the important, but entirely distinct, issue of the illegality of Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories.

      • Sometimes you simply accept claims at face value when a competent journalist would do her homework before publishing. This same diary provides a prime example. You uncritically accepted another publication's claim to have exposed a formerly secret memorandum. But more than one year ago, that memorandum was the subject of an op-ed article in the New York Times. The author of that article, Gershom Gorenberg discussed the memorandum at length in his book, published in March 2006, The Accidental Empire: Israel and the Birth of the Settlements, 1967-1977.

      • Sometimes you hype a person's credentials to try to inflate his or her credibility. For example, you repeatedly referred to one Mohammad Omer as "an international independent reporter," despite the fact that, at his own website, Mr. Omer claimed only the status of a "student".

      • Sometimes your error is small on its face, but if you cannot be trusted to get the small things right, how can you be trusted on the bigger ones? For example, you began yesterday's diary with a quotation you ascribe to Ariel Sharon in 1971, but the correct year was 1973.

      We also have reason to question your reasoning abilities. Yesterday, you claimed to be reporting matters that "NO MEDIA in the world Dares To." (Your capitalization.) I asked whether you were "suggesting that Robert Fisk and others at The Independent, The Guardian, the BBC, Le Monde, and AFP, to name just a few media in the world, do not dare report these subjects?"

      You answered with a rhetorical question: "Have ANY of them REPORTED This???" (Your capitalization and punctuation.)

      As a matter of logic, however, the fact -- if it is a fact -- that, say, Robert Fisk or the BBC hasn't reporting something does not mean that they don't dare to report it. It may mean simply that what you say happened didn't happen or that, in their news judgment, it didn't have the newsworthiness you claim. Unless you recognize this and provide credible evidence for your claim that everyone else is too scared to report what you report, it is difficult to take your 'reporting' seriously.

      •  great post aA (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        zemblan

        Very analytical and making a point about BS detection without getting into "sides" of the conflict.

      •  in case you missed this below (0+ / 0-)

        I will respond to thoughtful questions, NOT anal retentive questions.

        Your insistence that I must cite every source in my book is absolute NONSENSE! When anyone uses a source from a book, they site the BOOK, not the sources the book's author used. My sources are documented in my book. END of that conversation.

        Perhaps you did NOT see my reply yesterday to your ?

        You answered with a rhetorical question: "Have ANY of them REPORTED This???" (Your capitalization and punctuation.)

        I responded fully that Fisk, BBC, etc have NOT been following Vanunu's freedom of speech trial and I am the ONLY media in the world streaming UNCENSORED by Israel video of Vanunu:

        "30 Minutes With Vanunu" Freely Streaming @

        http://www.wearewideawake.org/

        You continue:

        As a matter of logic, however, the fact -- if it is a fact -- that, say, Robert Fisk or the BBC hasn't reporting something does not mean that they don't dare to report it. It may mean simply that what you say happened didn't happen or that, in their news judgment, it didn't have the newsworthiness you claim. Unless you recognize this and provide credible evidence for your claim that everyone else is too scared to report what you report, it is difficult to take your 'reporting' seriously

        .

        You have got to be kidding!!! A Feedom of Speech trial in a 'democracy'is VERY NEWS worthy.

        The reason they don't report is because media is required by Israel to undergo Military censorship before publishing anything when it comes to Vanunu.

        "This administration tells me I am not allowed to speak to foreigners, the Media, and the world. But I do because that is how I prove my true humanity to the world...Many journalists come here to the American Colony, from CNN and the New York Times.They all want to cover my story, but the EDITORS say no." -Mordechai Vanunu @ the American Colony, east Jerusalem March 26, 2006 to this reporter

        Currently, this civilian journalist is following the targeted assassination in Ramallah. Unless you are reading my blog, you probably no nothing about it, as the media once again is MIA.

        e
        http://www.wearewideawake.org/  

        •  Eileen, it's not nice to call people (0+ / 0-)

          "anal retentive."

          Nor is it off-topic or otherwise inappropriate to question a diarist or commenter about the accuracy of her own statements.

          If what I wrote reasonably can be interpreted as asking you to cite here "every source" in your book, I apologize for my lack of clarity. What I tried to ask for, and still want to know, are the sources for what you wrote and footnoted in your present diary. But if you can't see the difference between citing oneself, as you have done, and providing independent sources, I don't think I can help you.

          Also, you still have not gone beyond mere assertion in claiming that Robert Fisk, et al., are cowed or otherwise prevented from reporting on these matters. (You do know who Robert Fisk is, don't you?)

          In that same vein, aren't Fisk and reporters for, e.g., the BBC, The Guardian, The New York Times, NPR, etc., "civilian journalists"? Or, are you reserving the term for people neither employed by nor published in recognized news media?

  •  Israeli declaration of independence (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    unfounded, Doughnutman, zemblan, kindun

    specifically offered equal right to all residents of Israel, Jews and Arabs.  And it also offered peace to all its neihbors.  The Declaration was greeted with Arab invasion of Israel and subsequent flight of Arab residents from the war zones.  To date, majority Arab countries refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel within ANY borders, irrespective of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.  

    The Arab governments in the region have time and again, chosen war over peace, confrontation over reconciliation, and terrorism over cooperation.  They have no one but themselves to blame for the current state of affairs.

    •  dear deluded one (6+ / 3-)

      The initiative adopted by the Arab leaders at the Beirut Summit last March offers a unique opportunity and a fresh basis for movement in the peace process. It extends for the first time in the history of the Arab-Israeli conflict a comprehensive offer for full peace and normal relations between Israel and all the Arab states in return for Israel’s withdrawal from territories occupied after June 4th 1967, as well as an agreed solution to the refugee problem and the establishment of a Palestinian state.

      "The Arab initiative unanimously endorsed in Beirut in March of this year is a very serious attempt to squarely face the needs of both sides, and to satisfactorily address them.

      PLEASE thoughtfully consider the language of the Arab initiative regarding Israeli needs:

      http://www.jordanembassyus.org/...

      The AI, seeks that the security of Israel would be guaranteed through one collective peace agreement with full security provisions, and would be assured not only by neighboring Arab states, but by ALL Arab states, none excluded.

      Despite Arab fears of Israel, brought about by Israel’s occupation of parts of three Arab states, one cannot deny the existence of a genuine fear on part of the average Israeli regarding his or her own safety:

      It is the holocaust hangover that must be addressed before the possibilty of healing and reconciliation between two very traumatized, victimized people can ever happen.

      BOTH sides have done great evil to the other, but only through justice -equal human rights for all, the observance of international law, and an end to occupation, can security and peace ever be possible in Israel Palestine.

    •  Yes (7+ / 0-)

      I note the use of the passive voice here.

      Britain withdrew from the land and war erupted. The well equipped Israeli forces created a triumph for the Jews and birthed the ongoing disaster for Palestinians and the world.

      War "erupted", with no cause, but "Israeli forces created a triumph" and "birthed the disaster" for Palestinians.

      I could rewrite the sentence as:

      Britain withdrew and Arab armies immediately invaded the Jewish state from Lebanon, Egypt, Syria, and Iraq. They lost, and hundreds of thousands of Palestinians left for other countries.

      I am describing the same sequence of events with the same facts, and yet communicate a different story.

      The difference between Eileen's statement above, and the way she chooses to talk about 1948, and the approach represented by my statement, is why there is no peace in Middle East nor on I/P diaries on Daily Kos.

      We need to increase the peace here and it's not starting with either kind of rhetoric.

      •  You failed to mention this (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        brittain33, dhonig

        The well equipped Israeli forces created a triumph for the Jews

        I believe it is a fairly well established historical fact that the Israeli army in 1948 was not very well equipped at all. They did not possess armor or heavy artillery and had only a handful of antiquated aircraft.

        "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

        by Bouwerie Boy on Wed May 30, 2007 at 10:15:09 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Well.. (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    TheMomCat, esquimaux

    ...I think that the United States ought to change its policy greatly on Israel (I'm not sure about the Democrats as a party - Israel is probably a really bad electoral issue right now for either party) but I think that the events of 1947-48 are the worst reason to do so.

    I would also say that the evidence is very strong that Israel and Palestine are root causes only of Palestinian 'terrorism', or militantcy.  There is little empirical evidence for, and much against, the notion that al-Qaeda or other non-Palestinian militant groups which attack the United States and its allies are doing so due to activities in Israel and Palestine.

    Once again, you are showing improvement in your argumentation and your clarity, however.  Again, congratulations.  If you haven't already, another thing you could do to improve your work here and its effectiveness would be to become more familiar with the Daily Kos FAQ (frequently asked questions).

    The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

    by Jay Elias on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:33:33 AM PDT

  •  No response necessary. (6+ / 0-)

    For those just tuning in:

    Yesterday's thread

    Monday's thread

    Sunday's thread

    And the question remains:  Does that hate site receive any portion of the proceeds from the sale of your books that it generates.  Inquiring minds . . .

  •  About that "small piece of property" (4+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    unfounded, MajorFlaw, leftynyc, zemblan

    It's hazy and windy here today.

  •  BTW, Eileen (12+ / 0-)

    This:

    Jews remain a traumatized people and their Holocaust hangover affects all of us.

    is pretty offensive.

    I know you're trying to be offensive, you told me so.  Congratulations, you're getting good at it.

    •  Good point... (3+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      Plutonium Page, MajorFlaw, dfb1968

      ...that's really a horrible turn of phrase.  I'm running a fever; perhaps that explains why I missed it.

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:38:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  "Holocaust hangover" (9+ / 0-)

      Oh, that goes way beyond offensive for me, and I'm not even Jewish.

      Yep, the Holocaust was just one big party that gave everyone a bad hangover.

      I've been putting old photos up on flickr.  Here are some we took in December 2004.  I really don't have words for how that place feels.


      Blind faith in your leaders, or in anything, will get you killed. -- Bruce Springsteen

      by Plutonium Page on Wed May 30, 2007 at 06:54:28 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You mean (5+ / 0-)

        2 Advil and a nap won't get rid of the Holocaust?  I live about a 5-minute bus ride from Yad Vashem.  Yep, this is pretty offensive.

        •  Brenda Starr's remedy (2+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          MajorFlaw, dfb1968

          for a Holocaust hangover...

          prairie intifada
          • 2 cups of tomatoe juice from Israeli tomatoes
          grown on stolen Palestinian land.
          • 2 cups of orange juice from oranges
          also grown on stolen Palestinian land.
          • 1 cup of Pomelit juice from fruit
          developed on stolen Palestinian land.
          • 1 tablespoon horseradish prepared in
          a Palestinian house stolen during the Nakba
          • 1 dash of Worcestershire sauce from the bar
          at the King David Hotel.
          • 1 raw Palestinian chicken egg
          (chicken should be undernourished)
          • 3 olives from a recently uprooted Palestinian Olive grove.
          • 2 cups of illegal Russian settler Vodka .
          • 1 dash of hot pepper sauce imported from from Brooklyn, NY.

          Should be violently shaken and not stirred.

          After drinking, read the electronic intifada
          until headache subsides.

          "Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." ~ Diderot

          by Bouwerie Boy on Wed May 30, 2007 at 08:35:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Did Carter endorese Dean in '03/'04? (0+ / 0-)

    before the Iowa primary? I have a memory of them meeting down South, w/much press coverage, but not sure whether is was an official endorsement, or not; plenty of former Deaniacs here; anyone?

  •  Okay, I'll bite. (4+ / 0-)

    If America had forced Israel to abide by International Law and not supplied billions of weapons of destruction at bargain basement prices and financial aid, Israel would have made peace with her neighbors long ago.

    What about the provision of foreign aid to Israel violated international law? Which law?

    •  Israel would have "made peace" (4+ / 0-)

      by being driven into the sea, and we'd have none of these problems today.  That's just peachy for some people.

      •  Palestine has been "driven into the sea" See MAP (5+ / 0-)

        Palestinian Loss of Land 1946 to 2005

        Map on Homepage

        http://www.wearewideawake.org/

        •  Difference being (3+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          word is bond, Drgrishka1, zemblan

          Israel was offering a fair deal with citizenshp in 48 and war broke out instead.  Israel tried to give them a state in Oslo and tried to reach final status in 2000 and war broke out instead.

          Are they monsters for winning?

          •  most unfounded (1+ / 0-)

            Recommended by:
            TheMomCat

            WHAT was fair about having Palestinians pay for Hitler's sins?

            "During the negotiations of the so-called Oslo Peace Process from 1993-2000, Israel simply imposed its will on the Palestinians, using its overwhelming military and economic power, and US support. During seven years of supposed peace, Palestinians saw 200,000 new Israeli settlers arrive in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the same number of settlers that had arrived there in the previous 26 years.

            "Although Israel marketed the Wall as a security barrier, logic suggests such a barrier would be as short and straight as possible. Instead, it snakes deep inside the West Bank, resulting in a route that is twice as long as the Green Line, the internationally recognized border. Israel chose the Wall's path in order to dispossess Palestinians of the maximum land and water, to preserve as many Israeli settlements as possible, and to unilaterally determine a border.

            "In order to build the Wall Israel is uprooting tens of thousands of ancient olive trees that for many Palestinians are also the last resource to provide food for their children. The Palestinian aspiration for an independent state is also threatened by the Wall, as it isolates villages from their mother cities and divides the West Bank into disconnected cantons. The Israeli human rights organization B'Tselem conservatively estimates that 500,000 Palestinians are negatively impacted by the Wall."
            -Jonathon Pollak, Israeli Anarchist Against the Wall.

            Excerpted from Memoirs of a Nice Irish-American
            Girl's Life in Occupied Territory

        •  he meant (0+ / 0-)

          that the Palestinians and the rest of the Arab world was trying to destory and kill every jew in Israel. The Palestinians are still alive.

          What would prevent Captain America from being a hero "Death, Maybe"

          by Doughnutman on Wed May 30, 2007 at 12:39:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  asdf (7+ / 0-)

      "What about the provision of foreign aid to Israel violated international law?"

      I think the sentence can be read differently, i.e. that  "forc[ing] Israel to abide by International Law" and "not suppl[ying] billions [of dollars' worth] of weapons of destruction" are two different things, not that the latter is an example of the former.

      •  Recommended for its reading of Eileen's (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        TheMomCat

        sentence, not her analysis.

        •  That's all I set out to do, actually-- (1+ / 0-)

          Recommended by:
          mattes

          i.e. read the sentence as I'm sure the author intended it, as opposed to evaluate it.

           

          •  I didn't mean to imply otherwise. (0+ / 0-)

            I just wanted to avoid any misunderstanding of my own comment and uprating.

            •  I understand; (0+ / 0-)

              after all, I seem to have the user "unfounded" nipping at my ankles over this, so I can relate.

              •  I've said before that I think you're honest (0+ / 0-)

                And not a troll.  I just think that I had a point WRT application of "international law" that is not acknowledged frequently enough.

                What if they passed a UNGA resolution saying that American Patriotism was racism, or that we had no right to go into  Afghanistan after 9/11?  All it needs is some votes, it's not like there's an international law supreme court to challenge it.

                •  It's always fair to point out (5+ / 0-)

                  that international law, as a concept, is still in its infancy, and that its application is more or less as imperfect as those applying it.

                  Your points are interesting, however, in that there is indeed a racial component to American patriotism -- you can still find folks honest enough in their bigotry to say that African-Americans are okay if they "act white," for instance, and there's plenty of White Man's Burden and White Man's Manifest Destiny in American history.  And Americans, unlike Jews, don't even constitute an ethnicity.  With regard to the equation of Zionism with racism, well, I find it uselessly inflammatory.  It doesn't tell us anything useful, and just throws an inflammatory cloud over much better questions: Are all forms of nationalism racist?  Are some Zionists racists, but not others--at least in any meaningful sense of the term "racist"?  Can Zionism coexist peacfully and in a mutually beneficial way with Arab national aspirations in the region? and my favorite: Exactly which problem does such an equation solve?

                  As far as 9/11 and Afghanistan are concerned, well, we had the sanction of the international community on that one; I'm not exactly happy to note that my high degree of discomfort with that particular military action has subsequently been borne out by the facts.

                  •  That's my point (2+ / 0-)

                    Recommended by:
                    TheMomCat, word is bond

                    the sanction of the international community is a function of pure politics and no higher good..  I support the UN in general and think they do a lot of good work, but any particular UN resolution is not the word of a higher morality, just the votes of 81 countries coupled with the acquiescence of another 5.  In Israel's case, the fact that there are 20 arab votes and one Israeli vote has to play into your interpretations of international law.  For another example, pre-67 there were zero resolutions regarding Jerusalem under Jordanian control, then in 68 you immediately had one declaring that Jerusalem should be an independent city.  Not that I'm prima facie opposed to Jerusalem as an independent city (I lean against it but in the context of other developments/agreements could be persuaded to go either way), but I can certainly question the timing.

                  •  Racism, nationalism (0+ / 0-)

                    The questions you mention, with regard to the US, the Middle East and elsewhere, could make for a more interesting and productive discussion than the ones these diaries always get stuck on. I am happy to rec your comment.

                    Democrats: Members of the Democratic Party working to advance democracy; Republicons: Members of the Republicanist Party working to advance Republicanism

                    by word is bond on Thu May 31, 2007 at 12:38:49 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

      •  What about when "international law" (2+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        brittain33, zemblan

        declared zionism to be racism?  Pack up and go home?

        How about the dozens of resolutions condemning Israeli response to attacks but not condemning the initial attacks?  Set a precedent of not responding to attacks in a time period when there was a major war every 5 years?

    •  can you re-state this ? (3+ / 0-)

      You asked: What about the provision of foreign aid to Israel violated international law? Which law?

      I do not understand what you are asking there.

      Ny comment

      If America had forced Israel to abide by International Law and not supplied billions of weapons of destruction at bargain basement prices and financial aid, Israel would have made peace with her neighbors long ago.

      Stands on the issue of observing International Law which requires OCCUPATION to be temporary, maintain status quo, provide sustenance for the occupied, NOT to transfer populations, NOT to pilfer resources and NOT build an apartheid wall which does NOT divide Israelis from Palestinians as much as it denies indigenous people access to their land, resources, families and holy sites.

  •  I wonder what Tony's % is for Bush? (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    unfounded, zemblan

    "Tony Blair has been credited with stating that 70% of the worlds problems with terrorists can be traced back to the Israeli Palestinian conflict."

    Tony's credibility right now as a world terrorism expert is shaky.

    In a democracy, the most important office is the office of citizen.- Louis Brandeis

    by crystal eyes on Wed May 30, 2007 at 07:07:05 AM PDT

    •  Nice one, also, don't take his word on this (2+ / 0-)

      Recommended by:
      MajorFlaw, zemblan

      If he was saying it in the context of pushing for a solution to the I-P conflict to try and motivate people, sure, 70% sounds great and it's the right thing to say.

      In reality, the I/P conflict is a fig leaf for a lot of other groups to do things in their interest.  Fight the zionists to the last Palestinian, right?  Why are they still in decrepit camps in every country they're in except Kuwait?