|
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 |
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
 Posted: Tue Jan 23, 2007 6:40 am Post subject: |
 |
|
BigBird:
This news is stale; and this thread is frayed. Most of Carter's MidEast advisory team has quit in protest over this book and for good reason. It does not constitute a scholarly work. Carter is peddling books again as usual. He's become an embarrasing apologist for the Palestinian cause, whatever that happens to be at the moment.
Not surprising, given that he always took full credit for the Camp David peace accords between Israel and Egypt. Ford laid some of that groundwork, which Carter, egomaniac that he is, never acknowledges. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Uri Avnery, a prominent Israeli journalist, agrees with the use of the term 'apartheid' to describe the situation. He also points out that a great deal of fuss has taken place over the title of the book, but the facts outlined in the book are not really in question.
Freedom Ride
| Quote: |
Yesterday, a decree of the Officer Commanding the Central Sector, General Yair Naveh, was about to come into force. It forbade Israeli drivers from giving a ride to Palestinian passengers in the occupied territories. The knitted-Kippah-wearing General, a friend of the settlers, justified this as a vital security necessity. In the past, inhabitants of the West Bank have sometimes reached Israeli territory in Israeli cars.
Israeli peace activists decided that this nauseating order must be protested. Several organizations planned a protest action for the very day it was due to come into force. They organized a "Freedom Ride" of Israeli car-owners who were to enter the West Bank (a criminal offence in itself) and give a ride to local Palestinians, who had volunteered for the action.
An impressive event in the making. Israeli drivers and Palestinian passengers breaking the law openly, facing arrest and trial in a military court.
At the last moment, the general "froze" the order. The demonstration was called off.
THE ORDER that was suspended (but not officially rescinded) emitted a strong odor of apartheid. It joins a large number of acts of the occupation authorities that are reminiscent of the racist regime of South Africa, such as the systematic building of roads in the West Bank for Israelis only and on which Palestinians are forbidden to travel. Or the "temporary" law that forbids Palestinians in the occupied territories, who have married Israeli citizens, to live with their spouses in Israel.
|
| Quote: |
And, most importantly, the Wall, which is officially called "the separation obstacle". In Afrikaans, "apartheid" means separation.
The "vision" of Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert amounts to the establishment of a "Palestinian state" that would be nothing more than a string of Palestinian islands in an Israeli sea. It is easy to detect a similarity between the planned enclaves and the "Bantustans" that were set up by the White regime in South Africa - the so-called "homelands" where the Blacks were supposed to enjoy "self-rule" but which really amounted to racist concentration camps.
Because of this, we are right when we use the term "apartheid" in our daily struggle against the occupation. We speak about the "apartheid wall" and "apartheid methods". The order of General Naveh has practically given official sanction to the use of this term. Even institutions that are far from the radical peace camp did relate it to the Apartheid system.
Therefore, the title of former President Jimmy Carter's new book is fully justified - "Palestine - Peace not Apartheid".
|
| Quote: |
| The storm around the title displaced any debate about the facts cited in the book, which have not been seriously questioned. |
| Jack Lord wrote: |
This news is stale; and this thread is frayed. Most of Carter's MidEast advisory team has quit in protest over this book and for good reason. It does not constitute a scholarly work. Carter is peddling books again as usual. He's become an embarrasing apologist for the Palestinian cause, whatever that happens to be at the moment.
|
Whether or not Carter is a scholar or not doesn't interest me. He is useful in that his fame and celebrity is drawing interest from people who might never have otherwise come across some of the issues he highlights in his book. They then have the chance to explore the more 'scholarly' work.
Personally, I think it's better for him to be an 'apologist for the Palestinian cause' (the cause of an oppressed and suffering people) than to be an embarrassing apologist for the suffering and oppression of a people unfortunate enough to be in the way of some prime real estate in the West Bank. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big Chick wrote:
| Quote: |
| Personally, I think it's better for him to be an 'apologist for the Palestinian cause' (the cause of an oppressed and suffering people) than to be an embarrassing apologist for the suffering and oppression of a people unfortunate enough to be in the way of some prime real estate in the West Bank. |
That's so much liberal posturing. How can Palestinians claim victimization at this stage when they are their own worst enemies? Arafat rejected a reasonable offer from Clinton, then launched another intifada. Now the Palestinians elect a terrorist organization, Hamas, to power and they proceed to kill each other while continuing to lob rockets into Israel. Only Abbas has shown any leadership. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Only Abbas has shown any leadership. |
I think it is more correct to say Abbas got "more of your type of press". Despite Hamas' fight and hardline against occupying Israel, they did show good govt and organization. This was why they were elected in the first place, because they were a functioning organization, not corrupt/bought and with clear and fast rules. Unfortunately, the west's posturing and Israel's own policies have just kept any good from happening....
And please tell me what you mean by "liberal posturing"??? Is that some new kind of left leaning pilates stretch?
For those who might like to investigate Carter's views more thoroughly, here is a good Der Speigel interview. I found it in English. I liked this part below, a comment on the Christian fundamentalists in the White House and the Islamic one's in the dog house.....
http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,431793,00.html
| Quote: |
| Carter: The fundamentalists believe they have a unique relationship with God, and that they and their ideas are God's ideas and God's premises on the particular issue. Therefore, by definition since they are speaking for God anyone who disagrees with them is inherently wrong. And the next step is: Those who disagree with them are inherently inferior, and in extreme cases -- as is the case with some fundamentalists around the world -- it makes your opponents sub-humans, so that their lives are not significant. Another thing is that a fundamentalist can't bring himself or herself to negotiate with people who disagree with them because the negotiating process itself is an indication of implied equality. And so this administration, for instance, has a policy of just refusing to talk to someone who is in strong disagreement with them -- which is also a radical departure from past history. So these are the kinds of things that cause me concern. And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made. |
McGarret, you sound disturbingly like an UnFUNdaMENTAList.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 1:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| stevemcgarrett wrote: |
Big Chick wrote:
| Quote: |
| Personally, I think it's better for him to be an 'apologist for the Palestinian cause' (the cause of an oppressed and suffering people) than to be an embarrassing apologist for the suffering and oppression of a people unfortunate enough to be in the way of some prime real estate in the West Bank. |
That's so much liberal posturing. How can Palestinians claim victimization at this stage when they are their own worst enemies? Arafat rejected a reasonable offer from Clinton, then launched another intifada. Now the Palestinians elect a terrorist organization, Hamas, to power and they proceed to kill each other while continuing to lob rockets into Israel. Only Abbas has shown any leadership. |
The myth that it was Arafat who rejected the peace deal is a very contentious one that even Israelis debate. The subjective view that it was a reasonable offer, is also hotly debated. Myself, I believe the Oslo agreements were a dreadful deal, and Arafat shouldn't have countenanced much of it. The fact that he did showed to me that he was more interested in maintaining his own grip on power than in working for the well being of his people.
Secondly, the Palestinians elected Hamas into power on an anti-corruption ticket. The PLO had become extremely corrupt (the Olso deal had benefitted their heirarchies, but not the ordinary man in the street who had actually fared worse between 1993 and 2000 under the wonderful Oslo deals). The PLO were also a quizling organisation; it's no surprise that they were rejected for their treachery.
In fact, putting Hamas in power could have been one way to reduce terrorism. Hamas may well have matured (and showed signs of doing so) into an organisation more inclined to use diplomacy than violence. Just look at the example of the IRA in Britain. Once talks started, the terrorist arm slowly dissolved. Secondly, it was not Hamas who 'continued to lob rockets into Israel' but isolated groups of Palestinian men. Hamas actually maintained a ceasefire for 16 months (something often ignored in your salubrious US press - though not of course in that dreadful leftie British rag that you so despise  ), and might have continued to do so but for Israeli violations (again ignored in your delightful press).
Of course reducing terrorism is not one of the Israeli governments goals. Far from it. Prominent Israeli politicians have often privately expressed that the demise of Arab terrorism would be an obstacle for Israeli goals. They would lose an important pretext for their 'security measures' - security measures which in truth entail securing more territory for a Greater Israel. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Big Bird:
| Quote: |
| The fact that he did showed to me that he was more interested in maintaining his own grip on power than in working for the well being of his people. |
This was the overriding problem; makes all other concerns secondary. He was also interested in aggrandizement of finances for his own benefit and that of his cronies.
ddeubel:
| Quote: |
| Unfortunately, the west's posturing and Israel's own policies have just kept any good from happening.... |
Yeah, keep drinking that Kool-Aid. The victimization argument gets old real fast. Hamas misappropriates funds by funneling them into arms for its militia. The PLO misappropriated for other reasons. Same sh-it, different wrapper. My point is that Abbas is attempting to be an agent for change and moderation. Hamas isn't even willing to acknowledge Israel's right to exist. Can't have talks when one side wants to destroy the other. What's worse: a corrupt government that's willing to compromise or a supposedly clean one that is fanatical? You tell me, sire.
Carter's senility is clouding his judgment if he equates Islamic fundamentalism with Christian fundamentalism. He himself claims to be born-again but reserves to himself the correct interpretation of his faith, which is his egotistical wont. Carter still fancies himself president-at-large.
| Quote: |
| And, of course, fundamentalists don't believe they can make mistakes, so when we permit the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo or Abu Ghraib, it's just impossible for a fundamentalist to admit that a mistake was made. |
Really, Jimmy? And how would you know? Have you conducted an in-depth survey of your propped-up adversaries? Of course, Jimmy is referring to Bush '43 here but doesn't have the gumption to come right out and say it.
As for torture: who decides what constitutes torture? If I had some of those animals in custody and I knew I could extract valuable information from them, what would I be willing to do to get it? Easy for JimBob to stand in judgment, since he doesn't have to take responsibility for failure to act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 3:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just another article written by an Israeli citizen telling it, as it is, regarding Israel's policies towards Palestinians -- whether they be citizens of Israel or Palestine.
| Quote: |
Let our children live.
Written by Nurit Peled-Elhanan
Bassam Aramin spent 9 years in an Israeli jail for being a member of the Fatah in the Hebron area and trying to throw a grenade on an Israeli army jeep which was patrolling in Occupied Hebron. On Wednesday morning, an Israeli soldier shot his nine year old daughter, Abir, in the head. The soldier will not spend an hour in jail. In Israel, soldiers are not imprisoned for killing Arabs. Never. It does not matter whether the Arabs are young or old, real or potential terrorists, peaceful demonstrators or stone throwers. The army has not conducted an inquiry in Abir Aramin's death. Neither the police nor the courts have questioned anyone. There will be no investigation. As far as the Israeli Defense Forces are concerned, the shooting did not happen. The army's official account of her death is that she was hit by a stone that one of her classmates was throwing "at our forces." |
and he ends with your "leftist posturing" (please call it by its better known name Hawaii -- Compassion. )
| Quote: |
But Basam and Salwa and all of us � Jewish and Arab victims of the Israeli occupation - want to live together just as we die together. We see our children sacrificed on the altar of an occupation that has no basis in law or justice. And, outside, the enlightened world justifies it all and sends more money to the occupiers.
If the world does not come to its senses, there will be nothing more to say or write or listen to in this land except for the silent cry of mourning and the muted voices of dead children. |
Please read at -- http://www.karmalised.com/archives/001829.html#more
McGarrett, you can rationalize the tyranny of power in all ways at your disposal but at the end of the day, it is just evil and wrong and not of anything human. And I suggest that you are "looking from the side" as the ending of this article describes....
| Quote: |
Amira Hass, who has lived in Gaza, describes it as a prison that shames her people. She recalls how her mother, Hannah, was being marched from a cattle-train to the Nazi concentration camp at Bergen-Belsen on a summer's day in 1944. "[She] saw these German women looking at the prisoners, just looking," she wrote. "This image became very formative in my upbringing, this despicable 'looking from the side.'"
"Looking from the side" is what those of us do who are cowed into silence by the threat of being called anti-Semitic. Looking from the side is what too many Western Jews do, while those Jews who honor the humane traditions of Judaism and say, "Not in our name!" are abused as "self-despising." Looking from the side is what almost the entire U.S. Congress does, in thrall to or intimidated by a vicious Zionist "lobby." Looking from the side is what "evenhanded" journalists do as they excuse the lawlessness that is the source of Israeli atrocities and suppress the historic shifts in the Palestinian resistance, such as the implicit recognition of Israel by Hamas. The people of Gaza cry out for better. |
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| At the end of the day, ddeubel, you're just ddense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddeubel
Joined: 20 Jul 2005
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 5:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Code: |
| At the end of the day, ddeubel, you're just ddense. |
Clearly, the art of rhetoric at its finest.
You are clearly becoming a broken and predictably scratchy record. For all issues, your basic premise is that those who are suffering, those who experience misfortune, those who would raise a voice when there is a wrong ---- clearly had/have it coming and are responsible for each and every wrong. Your house got robbed? Well dummy, why'd you move into that junkie infested neighbourhood? IDF bulldozes a young American, why did she go there to help such ingratiates? Serves her right! Iraqis dying in so many numbers, daily? Well, they had it coming after supporting Saddam so long! Immigrants complaining that they aren't treated fairly according to the constitution -- who cares! nothing written directly into the constitution about the rights of men, only Americans. Need I go on. Your arguement is tiring.
Clearly the art of rhetoric at its finest. Snakeoil, the one cure for everything. Sell it elsewhere.
DD |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Infoseeker
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Lurking somewhere near Seoul
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's interesting that the title of Carter's book has drawn so much furore, because (as this article points out) the term apartheid has long been used in Israeli discourse.
I think Carter has been quite useful in raising the issue and bringing it to the attention of the US public (whose taxes it can be argued are used to prop up this apartheid).
| Quote: |
Article 7 of the 2002 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court lists apartheid as one of several "crimes against humanity." In so doing, it sheds new light on the Israeli case. The crime of apartheid is defined as inhumane acts such as torture, imprisonment, or the persecution of an identifiable group on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, or other grounds "committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime." When the emphasis shifts to an identifiable national, ethnic or cultural group, as opposed to a racial group, Israeli policy in the West Bank clearly constitutes a form of apartheid with an effect on the Palestinian people much the same as apartheid had on the non-White population in South Africa.
In any case, the media storm in the United States over Carter's use of the word apartheid remains difficult to understand since Israelis themselves have long used the word to describe Israeli policy in the Occupied Territory. This helps explains why the book has drawn so little attention in Israel. As one example, Shulamit Aloni, a former education minister under Yitzhak Rabin, in early January 2007 published an article, "Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel," in which she candidly acknowledged "the government of Israel practices 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."
Some critics go further in applying the term apartheid beyond the occupied territories. UCLA professor Saree Makdisi, in a mid-December op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, criticized Carter's book because the author limited his discussion of apartheid to the West Bank. Makdisi argued the concept of apartheid was equally applicable to Jewish and non-Jewish citizens within Israel itself.
|
http://www.counterpunch.org/stjohn02022007.html |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddeubel wrote: |
| Just another article written by an Israeli citizen telling it, as it is, regarding Israel's policies towards Palestinians -- whether they be citizens of Israel or Palestine...[emphasis added - g.] |
I think what you mean to say is that this perspective resonates with your worldview. I cannot believe that you are presenting it to us as the one, true perspective on the Arab-Israeli Conflict -- as objective reality.
Please clarify. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stevemcgarrett
Joined: 24 Mar 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 03, 2007 11:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Clint,
The word 'apartheid,' for better or worse, is emotionally charged in the American context because of its long association with South Africa and the controversy over divestment of American funds to the former regime.
Even our resident goofball who masquerades as a laughing black man can appreciate that.
That said, only some Israelis (re: leftists) regularly characterize the Palestinian situation as amounting to apartheid.
But let's give the Israelis their due (something the international media seldom does): they are confronted daily by the prospect of terrorism within their porous borders. So of course it has necessitated building the wall. Any other nation would develop a similar siege mentality given similar circumstances, a point conveniently overlooked by the anti-Israel lobby. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 04, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Even our resident goofball who masquerades as a laughing black man can appreciate that |
what's with this comment? are you just trying to get his goat or what?
hands down though the word 'apartheid' is a cheap because it was about racial segregation.... |
|
| 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
