Carter says Israel must stop building settlements

[IDemo]

Source: Associated Press

By SUE LINDSEY - Associated Press Writer
Published: 09/21/09

HARRISONBURG, Virginia — Israel must stop building settlements in the Palestinian territories if peace is ever to be achieved in the Middle East, former President Jimmy Carter said Monday night as he received an award at a Virginia university for his humanitarian efforts.

"As President Barack Obama has made clear, the key factor that prevents peace is the continuing building of Israeli settlements in Palestine, driven by a determined minority of Israelis who desire to occupy and colonize east Jerusalem and the West Bank," Carter said.

Carter, a Nobel Peace laureate, spoke to a crowd of 6,500 as he and former first lady Rosalynn Carter received an award from James Madison University's Mahatma Gandhi Center for Global Nonviolence.

Carter, 84, who helped bring peace between Egypt and Israel with the Camp David Accords when he was president in the late 1970s, has maintained a strong interest in the Middle East. He said he has visited the region three times within the past year.

Read more: http://www.idahostatesman.com/worldnews/story/907795.html

[Bicoastal]

1. Not pulling any punches these days...

...good for him.

[mdmc]

2. he sure has been busy

:patriot:

[sofa king]

24. And that's the truth.

I happened to see him speak last night. He started off his remarks by saying (roughly), "it's good to be a former President; I have Secret Service protection and I get to say whatever I want."

And then he did.

[rrneck]

3. Would that we could clone him. nt

[rosesaylavee]

4. Wow. Go Jimmy Go!

Last week - said out loud what we all knew that the attacks on the POTUS were based in racism.
Yesterday - he stated that the US was very likely involved in the coup attempt against Chavez
Today - Israel better stop building settlements on the West Bank.

What is happening now that is different than before? Anyone else think this is a bit odd that a former President is speaking out on so many controversial issues? Thoughts?

[Nihil]

17. Hear, hear!

> What is happening now that is different than before? Anyone else think this
> is a bit odd that a former President is speaking out on so many controversial
> issues?

Not sure about "odd" but it certainly breaks the mould to have a former
President who makes so many *sensible* and *honest* comments ... not the
sort of thing that you've got from any other ex-president since him ...

Maybe he's just got to that age when he wants to make up for his earlier
weakness in allowing the "big voices" to override his innate sense of
moral justice? Or simply lost the fear of being silenced?

:shrug:

[proteus_lives]

5. He say anything about Hamas launching rockets?

Or anything about Israel's legitimate security concerns?

More double-standards.

[Indenturedebtor]

7. Of course he didn't. All the more reason that Israel won't listen to him

or any who present one-sided ultimatums. Does that approach work with anyone? Not that I'm aware of...

[PaulaFarrell]

8. What's that got to do with settlements?

Nothing...

[Violet_Crumble]

10. Nothing. It's a *Look Over There And Don't Criticise Israel!* tactic...

Plus, I've never seen any pro-Israel type who uses that tactic also use it when it comes to articles that are critical of militant groups for firing rockets. So untill I see them popping up in one of those threads going 'They didn't say anything about Israel building settlements or bombing the shit out of Gaza in January!' it does come across as pretty fake, imo...

[proteus_lives]

12. Not true.

You want Israel to dismantle settlements? Stop the attacks.

[No Elephants]

13. You want to stop the attacks? Stop the settements. And so it goes. You did it first. No, you did.

No, you did.

No, you did.

No, you did.

No, you did.

No, you did.

Meanwhile, the rest of us are screwn.

Thing is, you don't really know that the settlements would stop if the attacks stopped, do you? But, you can say it safely because no one can post a link to an article written in the future that says otherwise. And the other side can also say whatever it wants about what MIGHT happen if Israell did something sane and humane about things like land, water, freedom, etc., because no one can disprove that eiher.

No, you did.

No, you did.

[proteus_lives]

16. There has to be give and take.

One side can't make all the moves. Both the Israelis and Palestinians share the blame so they have to share the work and the concessions.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

31. Are you honestly going to assert that they have equal footing to SHARE work/concessions?

That would be, dishonest.

All one has to do is SEE the living conditions and conclude one population is CLEARLY advantaged, verily so, than the other.

Moreover, why perpetuate the denial of the influence of the Likuds with whom the majority of Israelis disagree? Why deny all the former Israeli soldiers and humanitarians who want the oppressive Likud measures TO STOP?

Why pretend only "one side" is making concessions while simultaneously advocating "one side".

I mean, C'MON!!!

[WriteDown]

35. That's nonsense...

All the Palestinians have to do is cross over the border to Egypt or Jordan and be welcomed by their Arab brothers. Look how well the Palestinians who live in Jordan have been treated.

[Violet_Crumble]

54. What's nonsense was yr post.....

What youy said in yr post sounded like it was coming straight from the mouth of someone who advocates transfer of the Palestinian people. And it was also nonsense as it had nothing to do with what you were replying to....

[WriteDown]

56. Transfer?

Almost sounds like Trans-Jordan. You do know that the majority of Palestinians once lived in Jordan. I wonder why that is not the case anymore.

[Douglas Carpenter]

61. actually - the exact opposite - the majority of the current residence of Jordan once lived in what

is now Israel and the West Bank.

At least half of the current residents of Jordan were either born in what is now Israel, the West Bank or Gaza - or their parents or grandparent were born there - so most of these define themselves as Palestinian. Is it unusual that people whose parents or grandparents came from a specific country might identify themselves by that country? Everyone knows that in Jordanian society, there is very strong awareness of who is Palestinian and who is original Jordanian. They do now and always have considered themselves different people. Although no doubt, many Palestinians have over time come to view themselves as Jordanian also.

The PLO Charter of 1968 gives a specific definition of who is a Palestinian: "Article 5: The Palestinians are those Arab nationals who, until 1947, normally resided in Palestine regardless of whether they were evicted from it or have stayed there. Anyone born, after that date, of a Palestinian father - whether inside Palestine or outside it - is also a Palestinian.

Article 6: The Jews who had normally resided in Palestine until the beginning of the Zionist invasion will be considered Palestinians.

http://www.iris.org.il/plochart.htm


Credible scholarship agrees that the vast majority of Palestinians are descended from people who have been resident in Palestine for centuries, at least.

In 1945, the Jewish population of Palestine stood at about 554,000, or about 30.6 percent of the total population of Palestine at that time, which was 1.8 million. Mr. Schell is absolutely right: Some Jewish communities have existed in Palestine for hundreds of years. But, as the figures above make clear, most Jews in Israel today are, in relative terms, newcomers — descendants of people who arrived during the past three or four generations; to call them "colonists," as Professor Doran did, is not inappropriate.

On the other hand, Mr. Schell is absolutely wrong to hint that Palestinians are generally newcomers: As we see, most Palestinians of today can trace their ancestry to families who have been resident in Palestine for hundreds of years. The debate over immigration figures is, of course, merely part of the broader effort by Palestinians and Israelis to delegitimize each other by claiming the other side to be interlopers. Mr. Schell's evident desire to cast doubt on the historical roots of the Palestinians' claim to their land suggests that he has been taken in, like many other people, by such works as Joan Peters's tract "From Time Immemorial," which popularized for obvious political purposes the myth that many Palestinians were descendants of recent immigrants.Such a view is simply not supported by the evidence.

On the other hand, the fact that most Israeli Jews are descendants of people who came to Palestine only during the past century or so cannot be taken as a reason to dismiss the Jewish claim to Palestine, either. It seems to me that an equitable resolution of this long-standing problem must take into account that both peoples — Jews and Palestinians — can reasonably claim to have a right to be in Palestine, for reasons of religious affiliation and long residence. It is up to them to work out how to accommodate each other.

Fred M. Donner '68 *75
Professor of Near Eastern History
The Oriental Institute
The University of Chicago
Chicago, Ill.

Regarding the "Jordan is Palestine" argument...let me quote from Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?" by Professor Bernard Wasserstein, University of Chicago Professor of History specializing in Israeli history:

Palestine, therefore, was not partitioned in 1921-2. Transjordan was not excised but, on the contrary added to the mandatory area. Zionism was barred from seeking to expand there -- but the Balfour Declaration had never previously applied to the area east of the Jordan. Why is this important? Because the myth of Palestine's "first partition" has become part of the concept of "Greater Israel" and the ideology of Jabotinsky's Revisionist Zionist movement. Long after the establishment of Israel, the Revisionists' political heirs, the Herut Party (core elements in what became Likud) led by Manahem Begin, still dreamed of a Jewish state the would include Transjordan. Their catch-phrase was "The Jordan has two banks: one is ours and the other too. Most Revisionist conveniently forgot that their ideological hero, Jabotinsky, had, as a member of the Zionist Executive, endorsed the arrangements in 1922 that explicitly prohibited settlement in Transjordan. More recently, advocates of Israeli annexation of the West Bank have asserted the proper home of Palestinian Arabs is in Transjordan: hence the slogan "Jordan is Palestine".

The creation of Transjordan, then has nothing to do with the partition, properly understood, save for the purposes of some propagandist."

from page 105 (bottom) to page 106 of "Israelis and Palestinians: Why Do They Fight? Can They Stop?"

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Israelis-Palestinians-They-Fight-Second/dp/0300105975/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-8701952-4352901?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1174895894&sr=1-1

[WriteDown]

65. So obviously you'd support giving....

the West Bank back to Jordan?

[Douglas Carpenter]

66. Jordan renounced its claim to the West Bank in 1988

Jordan supports the two-state solution in which there will be a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza with East Jerusalem as its capital - the international consensus.

Imagine an Israel that has diplomatic relations, travel and trade with the entire Arab world. An Israel where one can get in their car in the morning and drive four hours and visit Beirut or Damascus for lunch and some sight-seeing and drive back home that evening.

That is what is on offer. That is what is possible.

The Arab Peace Initiative, 2002

http://www.al-bab.com/Arab/docs/league/peace02.htm

Official translation of the full text of a Saudi-inspired peace plan adopted by the Arab summit in Beirut, 2002.

This is the position unanimously adopted by the Arab League and endorsed by the PLO and the Palestinian Authority - originally adopted officially in 1996 - but has been the expo facto position for at last a decade prior:

The Arab Peace Initiative

The Council of Arab States at the Summit Level at its 14th Ordinary Session,

Reaffirming the resolution taken in June 1996 at the Cairo Extra-Ordinary Arab Summit that a just and comprehensive peace in the Middle East is the strategic option of the Arab countries, to be achieved in accordance with international legality, and which would require a comparable commitment on the part of the Israeli government,

Having listened to the statement made by his royal highness Prince Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz, crown prince of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, in which his highness presented his initiative calling for full Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories occupied since June 1967, in implementation of Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338, reaffirmed by the Madrid Conference of 1991 and the land-for-peace principle, and Israel's acceptance of an independent Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital, in return for the establishment of normal relations in the context of a comprehensive peace with Israel,

Emanating from the conviction of the Arab countries that a military solution to the conflict will not achieve peace or provide security for the parties, the council:

1. Requests Israel to reconsider its policies and declare that a just peace is its strategic option as well.

2. Further calls upon Israel to affirm:

I- Full Israeli withdrawal from all the territories occupied since 1967, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the June 4, 1967 lines as well as the remaining occupied Lebanese territories in the south of Lebanon.

II- Achievement of a just solution to the Palestinian refugee problem to be agreed upon in accordance with U.N. General Assembly Resolution 194.

III- The acceptance of the establishment of a sovereign independent Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since June 4, 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital.

3. Consequently, the Arab countries affirm the following:

I- Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict ended, and enter into a peace agreement with Israel, and provide security for all the states of the region.

II- Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace.

4. Assures the rejection of all forms of Palestinian patriation which conflict with the special circumstances of the Arab host countries.

5. Calls upon the government of Israel and all Israelis to accept this initiative in order to safeguard the prospects for peace and stop the further shedding of blood, enabling the Arab countries and Israel to live in peace and good neighbourliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity.

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organisations to support this initiative.

7. Requests the chairman of the summit to form a special committee composed of some of its concerned member states and the secretary general of the League of Arab States to pursue the necessary contacts to gain support for this initiative at all levels, particularly from the United Nations, the Security Council, the United States of America, the Russian Federation, the Muslim states and the European Union.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------

[WriteDown]

67. An easier solution

What if Israel gave the West Bank back to Jordan and let them create two states? Its obvious that Israel cannot accomplish it and Jordan should have more success.

[Douglas Carpenter]

68. if you are suggesting that for logistical and technical purposes

that the settlements are withdrawn, and then Jordan and perhaps Egypt with the Gaza over see the establishment of a Palestinian state with East Jerusalem as its capital - that might be a conceivable approach.
But as far as I know - no one on either side is talking about it. One has to work with the plans that are on offer.

[WriteDown]

69. That is exactly what I am suggesting...

Give the West Bank back to Jordan and Gaza back to Egypt and let them work out the two state solution. The Jewish/Arab conflict is just too difficult to overcome. Arabs working with one another should be a lot easier.

[Recursion]

75. But Israel wants the West Bank

I think that's the key issue you're missing here.

[WriteDown]

81. Maybe so....

Seems like considering the conditions in the West Bank, the remaining Palestinians should flee into Jordan immediately.

[funnymanpants]

70. That obviously wont' work

Israel won't give up the West Bank because it wants it for itself. It believes that God promised it to them.

(To be clear, not all Israelis believe this; but enough of them do, and those that do have huge political power.)

The conflict has always been about land. It is not a Jew vs. Arab conflict. For example, if you read the UN history, which is very scholarly and uses many sources, it notes that the Arabs were very sympathetic towards the Jews around the turn of the century, and only became hostile towards them once they realized the Jews wanted to colonize their land.

There have been moments of peace (or at least tense non-violence) between the two groups. But never has Israel stopped building settlements. Not since 1967.

It also defies logic the way some here argue that Israel builds settlements because of the rocket attacks. If Israel really felt threatened by the Palestinians, then why does it move civilians, including women and children, right in their middle of them? That makes these people more vulnerable. Israel's excuse about security is just that.

[WriteDown]

72. It would work....

but it would take effort. I believe both sides believe the "God gave us this land" angle.

[Recursion]

74. You've got that backwards

2/3rds of the current Jordanian population are descended from Palestinians. The Hashemites are the "natives", so far as that goes.

[WriteDown]

82. That is why Palestinians

should escape the condition in the West Bank and flee into Jordan.

[Recursion]

86. Why shouldn't they flee to the Czech Republic? Or Djibouti?

[WriteDown]

87. So they can be welcomed by their Arab brothers?

Why else?

[Recursion]

89. I'm assuming you're trying to be funny, but I don't get it.

Do you understand the difference between Hashemites, Bedouins, and Levantines?

[WriteDown]

90. Yes I do...

But Jordan is very vocal about the treatment of the Palestinians so I see no reason why they would not welcome them.

[Recursion]

91. Because it's not their problem

They've shouldered quite enough of the burden already.

[WriteDown]

93. So the Palestinians are a burden?

Sounds like they got quite a deal in 1967 then.

[Recursion]

95. Refugees are always a burden

And, no, becoming a refugee is not a "great deal", you sick *($#.

[WriteDown]

96. Apparently it is for Jordan in this case. nt

[Douglas Carpenter]

107. The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan is now absolutely overwhelmed with Iraq refugees and to lesser exte...

immigrants from Syria. This is already causing a great deal of disruption within Jordanian society.

Even so, the departure of the majority of Palestinians from Palestine under conditions of duress would quite legitimately be described as ethic cleansing - a fairly serious matter in the eyes of the international community.

Aside from the injustice that would be on the Palestinians, such an event would have a profoundly de-legitimizing effect on the State of Israel that would create profound and extreme isolation for the State of Israel - so profound that its long term viability and international acceptance would certainly be called into doubt in the long term. The destabilizing effect such events would have on the whole Middle East would be most frightening.

The alternative, a just and lasting peace in which Israel had full diplomatic relations with the entire Arab world - with open travel and trade would most certainly offer a far, far brighter future for the Israeli people and hope for the Palestinian people and the whole Middle East.

[LeftishBrit]

94. How do you know that Jordan will let them in?

They kicked them out before, after all.

[rosesaylavee]

20. Unfortunately true...

Comments on this thread are a good reason why it's still ongoing. Settlements need to end because it's the right thing to do. Flame away y'all.

[LeftishBrit]

98. I have said for a long time...

that every new settlement is a donation to Hamas, and every rocket from Gaza is a donation to the Likud.

'No you did' 'No you did' - Yes, indeed, that's how it goes.

[Turborama]

14. Are you saying that the settlements are being built because of the "attacks"?

That's the weakest sauce I've ever come across.

By the way, got a list of any recent "attacks"?

[proteus_lives]

15. That's not the point I was making.

If they gain nothing, why should Israel halt settlement construction? What reason do they have if the other side does nothing/gives up nothing?

Plenty, there been recent rocket fire from Lebanon and Gaza.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

22. why should the palestinians compensate Israel

for leaving occupied territory that belongs to Palestine?

thats like a thief telling somebody he have robbed that "if i give you those things back, I'll get to keep these items"

[proteus_lives]

23. Why should Israel leave occupied territory under the threat of attack?

I think Israel is willing return territory but not while attacks keep occurring. If the Palestinian governments are serious, they will reign in their attacks. If Israel returns land while being attacked, it would be seen as weakness and that their guerrilla tactics work. Leading to more attacks.

[Violet_Crumble]

28. There haven't been any attacks from the West Bank...

So why are you saying attacks keep occurring? If the Israeli govt was serious, they'd have agreed not to not carry out any more settlement construction in the West Bank. What yr doing is making excuses for the settlements to remain and grow. There's no justification for them staying where they are...

[Bodhi BloodWave]

29. And if Israel was serious about peace they would not be expanding and making new settlements

which does nothing but provoke and anger people

[ProudDad]

51. Ladies and Gentlement

Today's Catch-22 award goes to "proteus_lives"

for one of the most convoluted excuses for illegal occupation ever posted...

Way to go, proteus_lives!

Collect your prize on your way out the door...

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[LeftishBrit]

76. It is one thing not to leave; another to build NEW settlements...

which will make it harder to establish a two-state solution in the future.

If both sides are serious, they will reign in their attacks; it's not only on one side.

[proteus_lives]

99. I agree.

[Turborama]

30. "why should Israel halt settlement construction?" - Because it's illegal. n/t

[WriteDown]

36. How so?

You win territory in a war, it's yours, right?

[JackRiddler]

39. Make sure you remember that for when the worm turns, Mr. Ruler of the Schoolyard

[WriteDown]

42. My tribe would probably say the worm turned...

a very long time ago for us.

[JackRiddler]

47. Ah, I see.

Regrets.

You should be clearer about what you mean. Sounded less like irony and more like bully logic.

[WriteDown]

48. Not exactly...

A little bit of both. Just recognizing the world for what it is. We were a pretty aggressive people ourselves so I try not to be hypocritical.

[ProudDad]

52. Un, not in this case -- not according to International Law

But then who the fuck cares about International Law where phony god-myths are concerned...

[WriteDown]

57. When are you giving your house to me?

I guess by International Law, Native Americans should be returned all of their previous land.

[funnymanpants]

71. Not at all true

Obviously, international law does not cover past injustices. If it did, it couldn't work. There would be no borders.

International law covers *present* occupations. Israel is *currently* occupying the West Bank and Jerusalem. There are security council resolutions, passed by the UN, which are legally binding, and to which Israel is a signee.

According to your logic, we could not condemn Russia if it invaded Poland and occupied it because of the past land theft committed by settlers against the Native Americans. But at least you acknowledge that what the Israelis are doing to the Palestinians is the same as what the Europeans did to the Native Americans.

[Violet_Crumble]

55. There's this thing called international law you mustn't have heard of..

To the victor goes the spoils went out the window long ago, and it's all those pesky international treaties that Israel's a signatory to that changed the world from back in the dim darkies. That's why UN Resolution 242 states: 'Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every State in the area can live in security,'

http://unispal.un.org/unispal.nsf/0/7D35E1F729DF491C85256EE700686136

I think it's called progress. Some people have a hard time catching up, I guess...

[WriteDown]

58. See post 57....

I'll wait for the hemming and hawing.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

73. I did and I want those 1.5 seconds of my life back .nt

[ProudDad]

77. See post #71... (n/t)

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Read what I said again....

That the to the victim goes the spoils is a thing of the past. If you'd read that and are under some belief that what happened in the US happened in 1948, then a quick google will get you sorted out and on the road to knowledge...

[JackRiddler]

38. Hamas stopped the attacks for the ceasefire period...

and then, in November, Israel crossed the border and killed six Hamas members, starting the most recent major round of violence in which Israel violated the laws of war by bombing civilians and the Red Cross, used white phosphorus, and killed about 100 Palestinians for every Israeli killed in retaliation.

Israel and Egypt, an allied US client state, have turned Gaza into an open-air concentration camp. Israel starves and bombs the Palestinians at will, and has done so for decades. But when Hamas members fire rockets in retaliation, that makes New York Times headlines and is treated as the initiating violence.

Almost no one in the world outside the US buys these justifications for the Israeli occupation and its relentless violence and inhumanity.

[ProudDad]

50. You mean the IDF attacks on defensless Gazans?

Or the attacks of the illegal occupying "settlers" on defenseless West Bank Palestinians.

Oh, that's right, there's no such thing as Palestine in the Zionist universe...The land was "empty" when the Jews got there -- just like the land was empty when the Europeans got here to "America"...

Or do you believe in overwhelmingly disproportionate response and collective punishment as a "policy" or way of life?

[WriteDown]

60. Probably what should happen...

ss Israel should be forced to give back Gaza to Egypt and the West Bank to Jordan. That will likely bring peace to the region very quickly.

[ProudDad]

78. Or how about the Zionists go back where they came from

and give the Palestinians back the land they stole in 1948?

But, I know, You're not interested in logic or justice...

[LeftishBrit]

92. And where would that be?

[proteus_lives]

100. Ahh, your true colors.

Where should the Jews go in the world that has previously treated them so well? They didn't steal anything 1948. They were attacked and won land from the people who attacked them.

[leftynyc]

104. Thanks for showing your true colors here

It was only a matter of time.

[proteus_lives]

103. Wow, you live in a black and white universe.

The IDF attacks are in response to Hamas rocket attacks against Israeli civilians. Hamas hides amongst it's own civilian population because they want to IDF to kill innocent Gazans to provoke outrage such as yours. Blame the cowardice of Hamas.

Your outrage would be a lot more credible if you denounced Hamas for their numerous crimes but you've chosen a side already.

[The Stranger]

62. The rockets ARE THE RESULT OF THE SETTLEMENTS.

People don't like it when you forcibly take their land.

[proteus_lives]

101. No, the rockets are the result of Hamas and other thugs.

The attacks on Israel started long before the settlements. I don't think Israel should be building settlements in the WB but Israel has been under siege since day one.

[proteus_lives]

102. Not true.

If their would no attacks, Israel would have an easier time reigning in the right-wing settlers.

[DireStrike]

44. Maybe he thought it was monstrously obvious, and didn't need to be said.

After all, that is the case.

[question everything]

6. And bin-Laden applauds

Mr. Bin Laden apparently released a new audiotape, entitled “An Address to the American People.” According to the SITE Intelligence Group, which monitors jihadist Web sites, on the tape, a voice claiming to be that of the Qaeda leader described three books that he says support his analysis of global politics and the systematic maltreatment of Muslims at the hands of America and her allies.

2. “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,” in which former President Jimmy Carter gives his views about how best to end the Arab-Israeli conflict, and criticizes Israeli treatment of Palestinians in the territories. While the voice on the tape does not mention this book by name, it calls on Americans to “read what your former president, Carter, wrote regarding Israeli racism against our people in Palestine,” in a characterization of the book that goes beyond Mr. Carter’s own language.

http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/bin-ladens-reading-list-for-americans/?hp

[Hardrada]

9. Oh good grief! Some absurd attempt at guilt by association?

[Violet_Crumble]

11. Clearly anyone who opposes Israel building settlements in the WB is BFFs with Mr Bin-Laden...

Gosh, I don't know why you guys are so slow to miss that connection that the poster you replied to raced to so quickly! ;)

[and-justice-for-all]

19. .....

:eyes:

[mdmc]

21. applauds with most of the world in agreement

:toast:

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

33. If so, he is in bed with the right-wing extraordinaires of this country.

Not that THAT would surprise me in the least little bit since they both get a piece of the action.

[JackRiddler]

40. And Ralph Nader, Rev. Wright, Van Jones, ACORN and all the Commies, too!

Did I mention Castro & Chavez?

[The Stranger]

63. You mean Paul Wolfowitz applauds? Bin Laden's Been Dead for years.

Although the Neocons have tried to resurrect him. It is the Rise of the Politics of Fear and the Power of Nightmares.

[and-justice-for-all]

18. That would be a good place to start...nt

[Kurska]

25. The man who gave us 8 years of Reagan wants to destroy another democratic presidency.

Big surprise there.

[ShortnFiery]

26. No, we the IGNORANT American citizens elected Reagan for two terms due to smoke and mirrors by the

power elite. We HAVE the Government (save for 2000) that we elected.

An educated middle class doesn't mean much when we have the M$M working hand in hand with Wall Street and the Pentagon.

Yet, we don't demand HONESTY?

Sadly, we get what we deserve.

IMO, God Bless Jimmy Carter for telling truth to power.

[sicksicksick_N_tired]

34. Your post makes no sense, whatsoever. None. nt

[LeftishBrit]

97. You think he *wanted* to lose to Reagan?

And frankly, the resurgence of the right at that time was not limited to America. Maggie Thatcher, Ronnie's female clone, had already gained power in the UK.

And if Reagan's presidency was all because of Carter - why wasn't he defeated in '84, and why didn't the first Bush lose in '88?

[Vidar]

27. Thank you for your integrity & courage, Jimmy.

[CTLawGuy]

32. According to Lanny Davis

our old Lieberman loving friend, Jimmy Carter is "virulently" anti-Israel. Methinks Lanny needs to STFU.

[WriteDown]

37. I'll never forgive him for what he said about Hugo Chavez.

:)

[JackRiddler]

41. What? That Chavez has served the interests of his people?

That his majorities in elections have all been legit?

That the Bush regime was probably involved in the April 2002 kidnapping of Chavez and the attempt by the clique around Carmona to install a dictatorship?

Because, as you may know but choose to omit, Carter has said all of these things about the Chavez government.

[WriteDown]

43. He dared criticize him..

And should be made to lick Hugo's boots cleans as penance.

[JackRiddler]

46. Meanwhile, outside your fantasy world of persecution by the Commie symps...

That's right! Carter criticized Chavez, or warned against the danger that he may become authoritarian. And at the same time, Carter also praised Chavez for doing good for his people. Carter said the US government was probably involved in the 2002 coup, and he has said the other things I listed.

Because, you see, he's a grown up who can speak on complex matters, and not some kindergardener looking to score rhetorical poopy points against the Commies. Chavez is grown up, too, he can take it.

The only ones who think Chavez supporters are upset about Carter are pushing very clumsy "divide-and-conquer" talking points, nothing more. As usual.

[ProudDad]

53. Thanks for saving me the trouble

It's too bad too.

Writedown is occasionally worth reading, makes good points, can even be agreed with but has an irrational fear/hatred for Hugo Chavez for some unknown reason...

It's sad...

[WriteDown]

59. Not really...

There are many who WORSHIP him right here on DU. He's done some good and some bad. I just am not into idolatry.

[ProudDad]

80. Ah, revisionist history...

Just a few of WriteDown's greatest hits (knee-jerk OPs and reactions about Chavez)...

Note the reasoned posts laying out the rational arguments and nuance against Hugo Chavez and anyone who defends the Venezuelan People's right to elect him...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=405x21260

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4011466
(Golf Courses...oh, the humanity!)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3998914
2 coffee plants -- what if he wanted to take over a whole plantation?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3998912
Oooooh, Hugo "attacks" the Venezuelan version of faux-noise... What a despot...

Thanks for trying to hijack the thread...


In case you forgot, the original point was the illegal, immoral occupation and oppression of the Palestinian People by the fascist/theocratic Israeli state and the IDF thugs.

[WriteDown]

84. Nope...

I've said many times he's not a monster or Hitler(is there a difference). Doesn't mean his policies or cult of personality thing make a lick of sense either.

[ProudDad]

85. Ok, I'm curious

Is it Chavez' "personality" or his Socialism that you don't like (or that doesn't make a lick of sense)?

Every leader is granted some degree of a "cult of personality" or no one would allow them to lead.

Enough, is it him or his policies/philosophy and the success he's having in turning South and Central America to the left?

(Maybe this belongs in a new thread)

[WriteDown]

88. Its the Nixon in him....

Price controls being at the top of the list. That is not socialism, that is just foolishness.

Also, the fact that he on TV for hours a day sounds a little 1984 to me.

[defendandprotect]

45. How long has that been clear . . . !!??? But, go Carter . .. let it fly!

[ProudDad]

49. Abso-Fucking-Lutely

And Obama should cut off their blood money RIGHT NOW!!!

They'd quit in a New York Minute if Obama threatened to cut them off from the $3,000,000,000 per year USAmerikan teat...

But that would take political courage...

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

64. Oh, well, if Carter says it, then it's a done deal

AS IF the Israelis are going to listen to him and abandon the settlements.

Settlements will continue.

:hi:

[fascisthunter]

79. but, but, but... Isthreali right wingerth are sptheshul

more like religious fanatics who are extremely bigoted and greedy. No better than any other fanatical bigoted group. It's no wonder American Christian fanatical right wingers claim to support the Israeli government's recent actions.

[ProudDad]

83. Ah, but the evangelical inbreds lust for the Rapture

that's why they love Israel...

They expect the nuclear-fueled final battle of Armageddon to start between Israel and the Arabs...

And poof, they get to go to heaven in the Rapture...

Too bad about those Jews and Muslims and Catholics, etc. etc. etc. who won't be allowed to rapture up...

[Kickin_Donkey]

106. Thank you Jimmy Carter ...

At least there's one public figure not bought off or scared shitless by AIPAC.