|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:29 am Post subject: Re: Carter has written a book - Palestine: Peace Not Aparthe |
 |
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
Israel, Palestine, peace and apartheid
Americans need to know the facts about the abominable oppression of the Palestinians
Jimmy Carter
Tuesday December 12, 2006
The Guardian
| Quote: |
The many controversial issues concerning Palestine and the path to peace for Israel are intensely debated among Israelis and throughout other nations - but not in the United States. For the past 30 years, I have witnessed and experienced the severe restraints on any free and balanced discussion of the facts. This reluctance to criticise policies of the Israeli government is due to the extraordinary lobbying efforts of the American-Israel Political Action Committee and the absence of any significant contrary voices.
It would be almost politically suicidal for members of Congress to espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine, to suggest that Israel comply with international law or to speak in defence of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or Bethlehem and talk to the beleaguered residents.
What is even more difficult to comprehend is why the editorial pages of the major newspapers and magazines in the US exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land. |
| Quote: |
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbours.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,1970058,00.html
|
It will be interesting to see whether someone of his fame will be able to make some inroads into giving the American public a less censored understanding of what is going on in the occupied territories. |
Opression my ass. The palestinians have more rights then anyone in the middle east!
Did anyon here?? 14 of Carters advisers just quit? Over this BS book? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:31 am Post subject: Re: Apartheid? |
|
|
| endo wrote: |
| Quote: |
Why is Carter so hard on Israeli settlements and so easy on Arab aggression and Palestinian terror? Because a specific agenda appears to be at work here. Carter seems to mean for this book to convince American evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel...
...In a short chapter on the Clinton years, Carter blames the Israelis for the failures at Camp David. But I put more stock in the views of the president who was there than in those of the president who wasn't. "On the ninth day, I gave Arafat my best shot again," Clinton writes in My Life. "Again he said no. Israel had gone much further than he had, and he wouldn't even embrace their moves as the basis for future negotiations." Clinton applied himself heroically over the next six months to extract even better offers from Israel, all of which Arafat wouldn't accept. "I still didn't believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake," Clinton remembers, with regret. According to Carter, however, Arafat made no mistakes. The failure was Israel's -- and by extension, Clinton's. |
I read President Clinton's autobiography and he went into depth into how frustrted he was with the peace process.
The thing is, he didn't really go into specifics on the deal offered to Arafat. And it was a horrible deal in my opinion.
Several settlements inside the West Bank would remain; and Israel would still retain authority over water and transportation in certain areas of the West Bank.
That deal is crap!
I beleive Clinton was more concerned with leaving legacy. Therefore when Arfat rejected the Israeli offer at Camp David (in the final days of Clinton's second term) Clinton lost out on a chance to be behind something meaningful and historic. |
The deal offered to Arafat made national news!!!! You relly neverheard? Clinton got Israel to offer the PLO all of Gaza and the west bank and Half of Jerusalem for a PLO state. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 6:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Ha Ha Ha.
I think Carter has been there and knows a little more than "we" do about what is going on......he always qualifies much of what he says and the article doesn't point that out.
But -- the claims he is on the Arab payroll are too simple. By the same token, Bush and gang are even more on the payroll of Arab royals.....they depend on their largess to a certain extent just like the Carter Center. How many Arab dictators has Bush shaken hands with and been all smily with? Many. Also let's look at how much Houston real estate is Saudi owned, just for one little example....
come on, this site is purely anti-Arab everything.
Carter is a leftist terrorist PR guy like you.
The site isn't nti arab, it is anti terrorist and the things in the article are true. Carter DID suppport Arafat! even after proof came to light that Arafat was ordering terror hits,which lead to Israel storming his compound.
Carter is full of it. Over theyears Israel has bent over backward to appease the Palestinians and with each concession comes more terror.
The Palestinian wanted Gaza..Israel gave it to them. What do the Palestinians do then? Use it to launch terror attacks from!
hezbollah in 2000 wanted Israel out of Lebanon. So Israel left. What then?Lebanon becomes a terror base for Hizbollah to wage war on Israel.
Carter is full of it and so are you.
DD |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Carter DID suppport Arafat! even after proof came to light that Arafat was ordering terror hits,which lead to Israel storming his compound. |
I will temper my rhetoric. But please just answer one simple question, to know that you know something about the issue. Why did Carter support Arafat? Why???????? Meaning, why was Carter on side with Arafat's rejection of Camp David.....remember that?
Here is the beginning excerpt from an interview with a very moderate Western voice on the conflict. Edward Said, Before reading it in total though, please answer my question and then read on....I promise it might clear by your dyslexion (something akin to deception).
| Quote: |
In your writings and lectures on the Palestinian conflict, you constantly refer to the centrality of 1948.
I don�t think you can understand what�s happening today and the situation of the Palestinians unless you understand what happened in 1948. A society made up principally of Arabs in Palestine was uprooted and destroyed. Two-thirds of the Arab population of 870,000 people was driven out by design. The Zionist archives are quite clear about this, and several Israeli historians have written about it. Of course, the Arabs have said it all along. By the end of the conflict in 1948, Palestinians were a minority in their own country. Two-thirds of them had become refugees, whose descendants today number about four and a half million people scattered throughout the Arab world, Europe, Australia, and North America. The balance of the people became subjects to the Israeli military occupation in 1967 when the West Bank and Gaza, along with Jerusalem, were taken over and occupied. Nineteen forty-eight is the date on which the Palestinian search for self-determination begins. It doesn�t begin in 1967. That completed the Israeli conquest. |
http://www.zmag.org/ZMag/articles/dec00barsamian.htm
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: Re: Apartheid? |
|
|
| NAVFC wrote: |
The deal offered to Arafat made national news!!!! You relly neverheard? Clinton got Israel to offer the PLO all of Gaza and the west bank and Half of Jerusalem for a PLO state. |
NAVFC - what are you doing here? Your ignorance is quite astounding.
| Quote: |
| Clinton got Israel to offer the PLO all of Gaza and the west bank and Half of Jerusalem for a PLO state |
This is quite a revelation to those of us who followed the Oslo agreements. In truth it was nothing near to this. As Endo has pointed out the deal offered to Arafat was a horrible deal...
Go back and do your homework. Come back when you can discuss fact and not fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
Ha Ha Ha.
But -- the claims he is on the Arab payroll are too simple. By the same token, Bush and gang are even more on the payroll of Arab royals.....
DD |
Excellent point DD. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2007 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| spinario wrote: |
does Jimmy Carter remember the arab nations, including palestine, attacking newly-created israel ONE day after its creation?
i don't, however, remember south african blacks ever trying to oppress south african whites.
the analogy to apartheid is not appropriate |
Hahaha. The jokers are out in force today. What is this? How the black South Africans revelled in being dispossessed by those whites! Those meek little mice. You've forgotten that Mandela was a famous terrorist in his youth. Then go back a little further in history spinario and read about those rebellious Zulus and what they got up to...say the Battle of Blood River, for example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 1:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
Shulamit Aloni (a former Education Minister of Israel) argues that Apartheid is being practised in Israel.
This Road is for Jews Only ~ Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel
| Quote: |
The US Jewish Establishment's onslaught on former President Jimmy Carter is based on him daring to tell the truth which is known to all: through its army, the government of Israel practises a brutal form of Apartheid in the territory it occupies. Its army has turned every Palestinian village and town into a fenced-in, or blocked-in, detention camp. All this is done in order to keep an eye on the population's movements and to make its life difficult. Israel even imposes a total curfew whenever the settlers, who have illegally usurped the Palestinians' land, celebrate their holidays or conduct their parades.
If that were not enough, the generals commanding the region frequently issue further orders, regulations, instructions and rules (let us not forget: they are the lords of the land). By now they have requisitioned further lands for the purpose of constructing "Jewish only" roads. Wonderful roads, wide roads, well-paved roads, brightly lit at night--all that on stolen land. When a Palestinian drives on such a road, his vehicle is confiscated and he is sent on his way.
On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied. I inquired as to where was the sign indicating this fact and instructing [other] drivers not to use it. His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here?"
Indeed Apartheid does exist here.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Slep
Joined: 14 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 17, 2007 2:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| spinario wrote: |
does Jimmy Carter remember the arab nations, including palestine, attacking newly-created israel ONE day after its creation?
i don't, however, remember south african blacks ever trying to oppress south african whites.
the analogy to apartheid is not appropriate |
Couple things
For one, the palestinians (at that point refererd to as other inhabitants of Palestine/Israel by the UN) were never really included in any sort of discussion about their status until Oslo accords.
And this whole Israel was attacked the day (not the day after) it was created is largely an issue of perception. When I visited Israel and Palestine, you'd be in west jerusalem and this would be the standard argument. You'd walk a half block to the much poorer east jerusalem and they would argue that the initial invasion was the creation of the state of israel.
This entire conflict is one of competing victim complexes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Carter replies to his critics and states none have addressed his two main points regarding the current and past "Mid East Crisis". Those 2 points being; the general state of apartheid through which Israel controls Palestine and the notion that there is already a formula for bringing peace to this region.
| Quote: |
Carter defends book on Israeli-Palestinian conflict as 'accurate and needed'
The Associated PressPublished: January 20, 2007
ATHENS, Georgia: Former President Jimmy Carter said the storm of criticism he has faced for his recent book has not weakened his resolve for fair treatment of Israelis and Palestinians.
"I have been called a liar," Carter said at a town hall meeting on Saturday, the second day of a three-day symposium on his presidency at the University of Georgia.
"I have been called an anti-Semite," he said. "I have been called a bigot. I have been called a plagiarist. I have been called a coward. Those kind of accusations, they concern me, but they don't detract from the fact the book is accurate and is needed." |
http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/01/21/america/NA-GEN-US-Carter-Mideast.php
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 7:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Carter replies to his critics and states none have addressed his two main points... |
Carter's deliberate hyperbole has made reasoned debate all but impossible. He has no one to blame for this but himself.
If one wants a different answer or outcome, perhaps one should rephrase the questions one is asking.
No one need debate this issue within the framework Carter has just articulated, then. And indeed, no one really is. Rather than suggest new perspectives, Carter has only succeeded in arousing partisans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2007 10:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Carter's deliberate hyperbole has made reasoned debate all but impossible. |
For decades there's been very little useful debate of it anyway. At least in the country in which the debate would be the most useful, i.e. Israel's benefactor: the US. I don't see how he has made debate less possible than it already was.
| Gopher wrote: |
If one wants a different answer or outcome, perhaps one should rephrase the questions one is asking.
|
Well, vested interests do want a 'different answer or outcome' and that's why the questions Carter is asking are uncomfortable.
| Gopher wrote: |
| No one need debate this issue within the framework Carter has just articulated, then. And indeed, no one really is. |
Well they are (and long have been), but just not in the (mainstream) US. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
I find it difficult to ignore the parallels between South African Apartheid, and the current Israeli/Palestinian political situation. Here is a relevant article that might be of interest:
Carter Doesn't Tell the Half of It: How Israel Enforces "Demographic Separation"
| Quote: |
Lieberman has no such qualms. He is unequivocal: if Israel is separating from the Palestinians in parts of the occupied territories, why not also separate from the 1.2 million Palestinians who through oversight rather than design ended up as citizens of a Jewish state in 1948? If Israel is to be a Jewish fortress, then, as he points out, it is illogical to leave Palestinians within the fortifications.
These arguments express the common mood among the Israeli public, one that has been cultivated since the eruption of the intifada in 2000 by endless talk among Israel�s political and military elites about �demographic separation�. Regular opinion polls show that about two-thirds of Israelis support transfer, either voluntary or forced, of Palestinian citizens from the state.
Recent polls also reveal how fashionable racism has become in Israel. A survey conducted last year showed that 68 per cent of Israeli Jews do not want to live next to a Palestinian citizen (and rarely have to, as segregation is largely enforced by the authorities), and 46 per cent would not want an Arab to visit their home.
|
And the following isn't reminiscent of Apartheid?
| Quote: |
Some of those policies are of the by-now familiar variety, such as the destruction of 21 Bedouin homes, half the village of Twayil, in the northern Negev last week. It was the second time in a month that the village had been razed by the Israeli security forces.
These kind of official attacks against the indigenous Bedouin -- who have been classified by the government as �squatters� on state lands -- are a regular occurrence, an attempt to force 70,000 Bedouin to leave their ancestral homes and relocate to deprived townships.
|
Those who call for a state that doesn't discriminate on ethnicity have something of a struggle on their hands:
| Quote: |
Arab MKs, who reject an ethnic definition of Israel and demand instead that the country be reformed into a �state of all its citizens�, or a liberal democracy, are typically denounced as traitors.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Here again we see that Carter is not the only one making comparisons between Israel and South African Apartheid:
| Quote: |
The trouble with the lobby and the Christian zealots who act as its echo chamber is that they believe their own propaganda about Israel�s equitable social arrangements and immaculate political and legal record in its relations with the Palestinians. Use the word apartheid and they howl with indignation. The shock is about thirty years out of date. Israeli writers have used the word apartheid to describe arrangements in the occupied territories for years. Hundreds of prominent South African Jews issued a statement six years ago making the same link.
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01202007.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 1:36 am Post subject: Re: Apartheid? |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
What would Jimmy do?
....
...In a short chapter on the Clinton years, Carter blames the Israelis for the failures at Camp David. But I put more stock in the views of the president who was there than in those of the president who wasn't. "On the ninth day, I gave Arafat my best shot again," Clinton writes in My Life. "Again he said no. Israel had gone much further than he had, and he wouldn't even embrace their moves as the basis for future negotiations." Clinton applied himself heroically over the next six months to extract even better offers from Israel, all of which Arafat wouldn't accept. "I still didn't believe Arafat would make such a colossal mistake," Clinton remembers, with regret. According to Carter, however, Arafat made no mistakes. The failure was Israel's -- and by extension, Clinton's. |
The conventional wisdom that the collapse of the peace agreements can all be laid at the door of Arafat has long been disputed (including by Israeli scholars and journalists).
| Quote: |
As in so many things, conventional elite opinion lives in a bubble, believing mere assertion and ranting about anti-Semitism will carry the day. The New York Times featured a spectacularly disingenuous hatchet job by its deputy foreign editor, Ethan Bronner, and another assault by former Clinton-era Middle East negotiator Dennis Ross. The latter rolled out the ritual accusations about Arafat�s rejection of Clinton�s proposals in December 2000, which is nonsense, as Ross surely knows. Clinton himself acknowledged in 2001 what later historians have substantiated, that both sides accepted his proposals in principle, while filing reservations. (Israel�s amounted to 20 single-spaced pages.)
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn01202007.html
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
