Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk Philosophy and Religion Forums

Carter blames Israel for Mideast conflict. 'Domination' over Palestinians 'atrocious,' ex-prez tells 'Good Morning America.' In some of the harshest and one-sided language he has used to date, former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli "domination" over Palestinians "atrocious" in an interview today on ABC's "Good Morning America."
Carter said there was "no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people."
Carter called Israel's occupation the "prime cause" of continuing violence in the Middle East. "And contrary to the United Nations resolutions, contrary to the official policy of the United States government, contrary to the Quartet so-called road map, all of those things – and contrary to the majority of Israeli people's opinion – this occupation and confiscation and colonization of land in the West Bank is the prime cause of a continuation of violence in the Middle East," he said. "And what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious. It's a terrible affliction on these people."

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53120



Another article:

Former Democratic President Jimmy Carter called Israeli "domination" over Palestinians "atrocious" during an interview Monday on ABC's Good Morning America, RAW STORY has learned.
Appearing on the morning talk show to promote his new book, Palestine Peace Not Apartheid, Carter dismissed criticism by some Democrats that his book comes down too harshly on America's key ally in the Middle East.
Robin Roberts told Carter that "many people find surprising that you come down a little hard on Israel, and that there have been some key Democrats who have distanced themselves a little bit from your view on Israel."
"In fact, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said 'it is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based suppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously,'" Roberts said. "What is your response to that?"
"Well, Robin, I have spent the last 30 years trying to find peace for Israel and Israel's neighbors, and the purpose of this book is to do that," Carter responded. "But you can't find peace unless you address the existing issues honestly and frankly."
Carter said that there was "no doubt now that a minority of Israelis are perpetuating apartheid on the people in Palestine, the Palestinian people."
Many Democrats are uncomfortable with Carter's use of the term "apartheid" to describe Israeli policies. Even Congressman John Conyers, the incoming House Judiciary Committee chairman known for his more liberal ideology, has criticized the term's usage.
"Conyers stated recently that the use of the term 'apartheid' in the book's title 'does not serve the cause of peace, and the use of it against the Jewish people in particular, who have been victims of the worst kind of discrimination, discrimination resulting in death, is offensive and wrong,'" wrote Michael F. Brown for The Nation.
However, Brown, a fellow at the Palestine Center, noted that "Nobel Peace Prize recipient Bishop Desmond Tutu has made the same connection as Carter."
"I've been very deeply distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us black people in South Africa," Tutu wrote over four years ago.
On Good Morning America, Carter called Israel's occupation the "prime cause" of continuing violence in the Middle East.
"And contrary to the United Nations resolutions, contrary to the official policy of the United States government, contrary to the Quartet so-called road map, all of those things -- and contrary to the majority of Israeli people's opinion -- this occupation and confiscation and colonization of land in the West Bank is the prime cause of a continuation of violence in the Middle East," said Carter.
"And what is being done to the Palestinians under Israeli domination is really atrocious," Carter continued. "It's a terrible affliction on these people."
In his book, Carter argues that "peace will come to Israel and the Middle East only when the Israeli government is willing to comply with international law, with the Roadmap for Peace, with official American policy, with the wishes of a majority of its own citizens and honor its own previous commitments by accepting its legal borders."

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Carte ... _1127.html

Noni blaming and pointing fingers doesnt do anything good. Chaos,nonetheless

zam wrote:Noni blaming and pointing fingers doesnt do anything good. Chaos,nonetheless

However, knowing the source of the problem is helpful when trying to come up with a solution.

Check out a Noam Chomsky speech :



Cheers,
Shafique

It may be a surprise to many that Israel and the US have been blocking a political settlement to the Palestine issue for 4 decades. A UN resolution of 1976 and another in 2002 calls for a two state solution - one which Hamas, Hizbollah and the rest of the Arabs all signed up to.. but the US and Israel stand alone in rejecting this political settlement.

The spin is that it is the Palestinians that are to blame. Amazingly, a lot of people believe this without question, despite the facts being readily verifiable.

There is also a 180mb download of a Chomsky speech given to MIT in September this year which deals with threats to peace and talks about Israel, Lebanon, Iraq and Iran. I have a copy - but it's available on bittorrent:

http://www.mininova.org/tor/495983

Chomsky~ The Current Crisis in the Middle East (MIT Lecture 2006-09-21)


ABOUT THE LECTURE:
True to form, Noam Chomsky makes a sweeping and copiously detailed indictment of U.S. Middle East policy, brooking no contrary or alternate views. His history-filled lecture (interrupted by occasional applause) focuses on four crises, involving the Palestinians, the Lebanon invasion, the Iraq war and the “impending catastrophe in Iran.”

While to many the conflict between the Palestinians and Israel seems hopeless, “degenerating to tribal warfare, an endless cycle of revenge and fanaticism,” says Chomsky, a “very clear solution” has long existed: For years, UN resolutions have proposed recognizing the rights of all states in the region to live in peace and security, and called for the creation of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Chomsky says that while Arab states have supported these ideas, the U.S. and Israel have deliberately undermined and opposed them. The “threat of peace has arisen constantly,” says Chomsky, but U.S.-Israeli “rejectionism” has blocked all efforts and led to “continued theft of lands” and a“weakening of the Palestinian collective.”

Chomsky calls the Israeli rationale for attacking Lebanon “pure cynical farce.” The claim that Hizbollah’s capture of an Israeli soldier necessitated a savage assault flies in the face of Israel’s decades-long practice of kidnapping Lebanese civilians, says Chomsky.Israel, with U.S. collusion, he continues, did as much damage against the Lebanese infrastructure as possible before a ceasefire was accepted. Israeli rockets destroyed a fuel storage tank, creating a giant oil spill that has poisoned the coast line up to Syria.

With respect to Iraq, Chomsky believes the invading armies are obligated “to pay massive reparations for crimes of aggression,” and that the people responsible for the extreme crimes” should be put on trial. The prospect of “a sovereign Iraq would be a complete nightmare,” given the nation’s increasing solidarity with Shiite allies in oil-rich Saudi Arabia and Iran. Since “controlling the world’s energy resources has been a prime objective” of U.S. foreign policy for much of the last century, serious withdrawal plans seem pretty remote to Chomsky.

Finally, Chomsky scoffs at the Bush Administration’s “willingness” to negotiate with Iran about its nuclear ambitions, since a U.S.precondition for talks requires no uranium enrichment, and the U.S.“refuses to withdraw threats of attack.” Chomsky claims that U.S.threats are real, with recent deployment of U.S. air power in the area.The impact of such threats harms Iranian democracy reformers, “who are complaining bitterly,” and further blackens the U.S. reputation in the world, where we are perceived as a peace-threatening “lawless and dangerous rogue state.”

Cheers,
Shafique

zam wrote:Noni blaming and pointing fingers doesnt do anything good. Chaos,nonetheless

oh yes it does!
i realise that this topic was debated over and over and with the risk to become boring i just have to say one thing: pointing fingers is a good sign. means that ppl start to be aware of the huge impact of the conflict going on there.
and it is damn right to blame as long as hundreds of innocent ppl die: israelis and palestinians as well!!! it is right to blame as long as the basic human rights r fully ingnored! damn right to blame as long as political paranoic ambitions seem to be more important than human life! all right to blame as long as this nation of israel, who still claims to suffer from the Auschwitz sindrome, is now "in the bloody footsteps of Hitler's executioners" what a paradox

Why don't the Palestinians just move out instead of complaining about racism? I can't stand it when people moan about racism all day. I mean I'm white (and I live in a country where the ruling class is white) but I don't complain about the constant racism that I'm subjected to by minorities all day. The Palestinians need to lift themselves up by the bootstraps and stop complaining...

BTW, I'm not racist.

[/sarcasm]

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/16213056.htm

Posted on Mon, Dec. 11, 2006
Israel-Palestine debate muffled in U.S.
By Jimmy Carter

I signed a contract with Simon & Schuster two years ago to write a book about the Middle East, based on my personal observations as the Carter Center monitored three elections in Palestine and on my consultations with Israeli political leaders and peace activists.
We covered every Palestinian community in 1996, 2005 and 2006, when Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas were elected president and members of parliament were chosen. The elections were almost flawless, and turnout was very high -- except in East Jerusalem, where, under severe Israeli restraints, only about 2 percent of registered voters managed to cast ballots.
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 criticize 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 defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians. Very few would ever deign to visit the Palestinian cities of Ramallah, Nablus, Hebron, Gaza City or even 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 United States exercise similar self-restraint, quite contrary to private assessments expressed forcefully by their correspondents in the Holy Land.
With some degree of reluctance and some uncertainty about the reception my book would receive, I used maps, text and documents to describe the situation and to analyze the only possible path to peace: Israelis and Palestinians living side by side within their own internationally recognized boundaries.
These options are consistent with key United Nations resolutions supported by the United States and Israel, official American policy since 1967, agreements consummated by Israeli leaders and their governments in 1978 and 1993 (for which they earned Nobel Peace Prizes), the Arab League's offer to recognize Israel in 2002 and the International Quartet's ``road map for peace,'' which has been accepted by the PLO and largely rejected by Israel.
My book, ``Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,'' is devoted to circumstances and events in Palestine and not in Israel, where democracy prevails and citizens live together and are legally guaranteed equal status.
Although I have spent a week or so on a book tour, it is already possible to judge public and media reaction. Sales are brisk, and I have had interesting interviews on TV, including ``Larry King Live,'' ``Hardball,'' ``Meet the Press,'' ``The NewsHour With Jim Lehrer,'' the ``Charlie Rose'' show, C-SPAN and others. But I have seen few news stories in major newspapers about what I have written.
Book reviews in the mainstream media have been written mostly by representatives of Jewish organizations who would be unlikely to visit the occupied territories, and their primary criticism is that the book is anti-Israel. Two members of Congress have been publicly critical. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-San Francisco, for instance, issued a statement (before the book was published) saying that ``he does not speak for the Democratic Party on Israel.'' Some reviews posted on Amazon.com call me ``anti-Semitic,'' and others accuse the book of ``lies'' and ``distortions.'' A former Carter Center fellow has taken issue with it, and Alan Dershowitz called the book's title ``indecent.''
Out in the real world, however, the response has been overwhelmingly positive. I've signed books in five stores, with more than 1,000 buyers at each site. I've had one negative remark -- that I should be tried for treason -- and one caller on C-SPAN said I was an anti-Semite. My most troubling experience has been the rejection of my offers to speak, for free, about the book on university campuses with high Jewish enrollment and to answer questions from students and professors. I have been most encouraged by prominent Jewish citizens and members of Congress who have thanked me privately for presenting the facts and some new ideas.
The book describes the abominable oppression and persecution in the occupied Palestinian territories, with a rigid system of required passes and strict segregation between Palestine's citizens and Jewish settlers in the West Bank. An enormous imprisonment wall is now under construction, snaking through what is left of Palestine, to encompass more and more land for Israeli settlers. In many ways, this is more oppressive than what blacks lived under in South Africa during apartheid. I have made it clear that the motivation is not racism but the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize choice sites in Palestine, and then to forcefully suppress any objections from the displaced citizens. Obviously, I condemn acts of terrorism or violence against innocent civilians, and I present information about the casualties on both sides.
The ultimate purpose of my book is to present facts about the Middle East that are largely unknown in America, to precipitate discussion and to help restart peace talks (now absent for six years) that can lead to permanent peace for Israel and its neighbors.
Another hope is that Jews and other Americans who share this goal might be motivated to express their views, even publicly, and perhaps in concert. I would be glad to help with that effort.

JIMMY CARTER was the 39th president of the United States. His newest book, ``Palestine: Peace not Apartheid,'' was published in November. He wrote this article for the Los Angeles Times.

MaaaD wrote: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 defense of justice or human rights for Palestinians.

Therein lies the problems in of American democracy, becoming a senator is so lucrative that anything that could cost them votes is ignored.

In Europe around the turn of the millenium there was a large and growing support for Palestine from politicians and the public, with mounting pressure on Israel to stop unneccessary force and come to a solution.

Then 9/11 happened and the world got confused.

valkyrie wrote:Why don't the Palestinians just move out instead of complaining about racism? I can't stand it when people moan about racism all day. I mean I'm white (and I live in a country where the ruling class is white) but I don't complain about the constant racism that I'm subjected to by minorities all day. The Palestinians need to lift themselves up by the bootstraps and stop complaining...

BTW, I'm not racist.

[/sarcasm]

I think you dont know Palestine belonged to Palestinians..

Tomorrow somebody will break into your house and ask you to leave... please do so at that time... coz lot of people dont have self esteem or dont know the meaning of freedom..

what a stupid logic... move out