Carter's Double Whammy: Wrong On Israel, Wrong For Democrats

[JABBS]

Click here for more.

<snip>

For Democrats, the book provides a hole that Republicans can drive a truck through from now until the 2008 election cycle. You can almost hear the spin -- that this book is proof that only Republicans are staunch supporters of Israel. You can almost hear the spin that only Republicans can broker peace in that troubled region.

Which is a shame, because the Bush Administration's record in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been weak.


Note I edited the bolded line for clarity.

[The Stranger]

1. Bullshit. Carter is trying to reverse the course of the Neocon war machine by hitting its roots.

If the Israelis and Palestinians can reach some kind -- any kind -- of tentative agreement, it will begin to dilute the tsunami of violence rising in the Middle East. Only Carter is brave enough to state it like it is, but that is because the man has been there before, and Camp David still survives to this day.

[Tom Joad]

8. While Jabbs is there providing the fertilizer.

[JABBS]

62. you'd only come to that conclusion

if you didn't read the linked article.

[eallen]

25. Yeah. 'Cause Shi'ites and Sunni never fought each other until Israel was made.

:eyes:

[Tom Joad]

59. ??? That is NOT the only problem in the Middle East.

[eallen]

68. No, it isn't. But it is a larger problem than Israel.

In fact, the bigger problem behind both of those is sectarianism.

[geek tragedy]

2. "Only Republicans can broker peace in that troubled region."

They're doing a heck of a job so far.

[JABBS]

23. read the sentence again

I'm saying it's conservative spin that only republicans can broker the peace.

[sniffa]

3. you write quite a bit..

ever think of starting a bLog?

[Tom Joad]

4. Why this attack on a great Democrat President?

[PaDem]

5. I'm sick of all the bullsh*t that's propagated about the Israel/Palestine...........

conflict. It never ceases to amaze. Thanks for fanning the flames.

[WyLoochka]

6. JABBS - Wrong about this issue n/t

[Tom Joad]

7. What a load of shit!

[QuestionAll...]

9. go peddle your crap somewhere else. nt

[last1standing]

10. Shouldn't this be considered conservative commentary?

"this book is proof that only Republicans are staunch supporters of Israel. Only Republicans can broker peace in that troubled region."

That sounds pretty right wing (and wrong) to me.

[JABBS]

32. you've misread my point

[last1standing]

131. No. You mistyped your point. Why try to blame me for that?

You've now changed your original post to better reflect reality and that's great, but don't try to claim I'm the one with the problem. :eyes:

[shrdlu]

11. Weak? Nonexistent is more accurate.

Carter is trying to generate discussion on the issue. He is succeeding.
I don't share your fears for the dems. Carter is happily off the reservation and speaking for himself.

[rodeodance]

70. I head him discuss his book several times and I agree with his premise.

[Ron Green]

12. I call 1-800-BULLSHIT.

[izzybeans]

13. Thanks for reminding me to buy the book.

It's better to read it first before saying "whammy, no whammy". Don't you agree?

[Tom Joad]

17. Be sure to buy some for your friends. independent bookstore, if possible.

but yeah, lets thank the poster for his plug of the book.
It is currently #7 on the New York Times Bestseller list... let's get it up to number 1!

[Vidar]

14. This disinformation isn't even clever.

[Tempest]

15. If Repugs can drive a truck through it

How come they're not getting behind the wheel?

Could it be because Clinton's attempts at brokering a peace deal were abandoned by Bush as soon as he took office and the violence in the Israeli-Palestine conflict has grown exponentially since Bush took office?

Then there's the matter of Bush egging on Israel and contributing to their loss in Lebanon, which has put Olmert in the unfortunate position of possibly losing power in the next election and has destabilized the U.S. supported government in Lebanon.


You're so far off base here it's not funny.

[JABBS]

27. if you read the linked article

you'd see that it's clearly pro-Dems, anti-Republicans.

but hey, just make a comment based on misreading a line of text in the teaser.

[Tempest]

31. Now you're blatantly lying

"just make a comment based on misreading a line of text in the teaser"

Your teaser was clearly anti-Carter, everyone saw that.

Regardless of what the rest of your blog posts says, you started off on an anti-Carter, pro-Repug slant and now you're trying to cover your ass.

[JABBS]

33. absolutely not

I agree, my post is anti-Carter. I disagree with Carter.

I was pointing out, several times, that I was not endorsing the Republicans view on the peace process. The linked article goes out of its way to say that.

It was misread by several people -- that what I was saying was that it was conservative spin that republicans were best able to do the job.

[cali]

41. I hate to break this to you

but disagreeing with Carter on I/P does not make the poster in question pro-rethug, and a quick visit to his blog makes it clear that he's not. He may not meet your ideological purity test, but that doesn't make him either a rethug or a conservative.

[JABBS]

44. thanks

most of these people didn't bother to read the linked article, and are just ranting.

[Tempest]

53. Strawman

I never claimed he was pro-Repug.

I claimed, correctly, his post was slanted pro-Repug.

[JABBS]

56. the post is clearly not pro-republican

from the linked article:

<snip>

the Bush Administration's record in dealing with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been weak.

Once upon a time, the administration talked tough and offered its "Roadmap" for long-term peace between Israel and the Palestinians. But there's been little leadership since, because the administration has turned all its attention to Iraq.

As conservative writer William F. Buckley wrote earlier this year, the administration has been so "engulfed by Iraq" that it failed to have proper perspective on "other parts of the Middle East with respect to Iran in particular."

In other words, our administration chose the potential threat of Iraq over the real threat of Iran and Syria, the state sponsors of Israeli's terrorist enemies, Hamas and Hezbollah. When the situation blew up earlier this year between Israel, Hamas and Hezbollah, Rice stayed in Washington for weeks, breaking from past precedent, which saw President Nixon's Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, used “shuttle diplomacy” following the 1973 Yom Kippur War, and President Clinton's Secretary of State, Warren Christopher shuttling between Damascus and Jerusalem to negotiate a “truce between Israel and Hezbollah” in 1996.

The Iraq Study Group recommended that the administration put a greater focus on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict -- one of the few recommendations it apparently agrees with. We'll see if the administration can make any headway.

[Tempest]

66. Maybe not to you

But it was to everyone else apparently.

I bet next time you'll be more careful on how you approach the subject matter.

[cali]

64. No. His post was not pro-repug.

and look who's spinning now. You said:

Regardless of what the rest of your blog posts says, you started off on an anti-Carter, pro-Repug slant and now you're trying to cover your ass.

The poster is, I believe quite wrong, but there's nothing pro-rethug in what he wrote.

[Tempest]

67. For Christ's Sake

"Carter's Double Whammy: Wrong On Israel, Wrong For Democrats"


How much more obvious can it be?

[JABBS]

71. it's not a pro-republican post

you either misread the teaser, failed to read the linked article, or both.

it is possible to think that carter is wrong and not be pro-republican.

[cali]

73. For Christ's sake

Nancy Pelosi has said much the same thing. Is she pro-repub too?

[Tempest]

80. I don't know what Pelosi has said

Kindly provide what Pelosi said.

I'm betting it's nothing like what JABBS posted.

[JABBS]

85. did you read the linked article?

find where it's pro-Republican.

[Tempest]

92. Why should I bother with the link

When the "teaser" is so biased against Carter?

The question now becomes, did you learn anything from this experience?

My guess is no.

[JABBS]

94. "why should i bother"

great attitude. I don't care what you think. I just choose to believe the stereotype I have of you.

that's a great discussion killer.

[Tempest]

103. It's the same one you're using

When others are talk in terms of the plight of the Palestinians.

Hypocrite.

[JABBS]

108. you're just name-calling

you're doing a great Sean Hannity impression.

So i'm wrong because you say I'm wrong, even though you haven't read my argument. Bravo!

[Tempest]

118. Not very good at debating, are you?

I'm saying your PREMISE is wrong, and so far you've been unable to defend your premise.

You just demonstrated a Limbaughism. Good job.

[JABBS]

124. you called me a hypocrtie

that's name calling.

collectively, this thread has called me a whole bunch of false things, misportrayed what I wrote, etc.

[cali]

99. Decide for yourself:

Some of the most vocal critics of Carter's book have been fellow Democrats. Incoming 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 oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."

John Conyers, the incoming chair of the House Judiciary Committee, urged Carter to change the title of the book, which he described as "offensive and wrong."

http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06/11/30/1452225

[JABBS]

102. thanks again Cali

you are the one person who seems to understand some context to this argument. :)

[jobycom]

16. I like this article. It gives me the chance to do something I've always wished I could do.

I vote for Carter! :bounce:

[Wiley50]

19. And something I've never done, as well

Suggest that this gas can of a thread
be quarantined in the IP forum

[Tom Joad]

22. I asked the mods for this the moment it was put up, but there may be

a unforseen delay.... of course the rules of the IP forum are that posts must be based on news articles, or opinion articles from known sources, and most specifically prohibit those from vanity sites such as the above cited.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Poll_Blind]

20. What crap. Thanks for sharing your "concern" though. n/t

PB

[cali]

21. Ridiculous.

And yes I read your whole article. Carter's book will have little to no impact on the elections in 2008. It won't sway the Jewish vote which goes overwhelmingly for dems.

I haven't read the book, (though I intend to) but Carter is advocating for peace in the region, and giving the Palestinians a much needed voice in this country.

[crispini]

24. Have you actually read the book?

I haven't either, but your article just seems interested in joining the "piling-on" controversy, not actually discussing the issue. This is more internet smoke and mirrors, as far as I can tell.

[JABBS]

29. I don't respect the use of the word "apartheid"

and I think it will do damage to the Democrats chances, politically.

you would have to be blind to not think the Karl Roves of the world won't try to use this to their advantage, that the Michael Savages and Mark Levins and Sean Hannitys won't go on and on about how this represents the liberal mindset.

[Tempest]

38. Who cares what you think of the word?

And in case you didn't notice, Americans have soundly rejected the Roves, Savages, Levins and Hannitys.

There will be no damage to Democrats, despite your attempts as doomsayer.


And based upon Israeli actions in regards to the Palestinian issue, apartheid is very appropriate.

[JABBS]

40. you don't know what you're talking about

it's an apples to oranges comparison.

And yes, the Democrats did well in 2006. But there's a lot of time before 2008, and I don't want to see the Dems lose ground because of conservative spin.

[Tom Joad]

39. Karl Rove would use any effort to change US policy in the region to

the Republican's advantage.
should dems support the status quo?

[JABBS]

42. the linked article shows I don't support the status quo

the status quo sucks. that point is made clear in the linked article.

Let's be clear: I don't support what the Bush Administration has done. The linked article makes that very clear.

[cali]

45. So what? If not this, it'll be something else.

You're far too fearful of what the roves and limpballs will say.

[JABBS]

50. i'm not fearful

but i know how spin can replace fact.

in 1988, dukakis was portrayed as soft on crime because of the willie horton incident, even though he had improved the crime rate in massachusetts, at a time that the national crime rate went up under reagan.

the spin about gore and "inventing the internet" replaced the truth behind gore's interview with wolf blitzer, and helped fuel the belief that gore was an exaggerator.

the swift boat vets lies about kerry supplanted anything kerry tried to say on the subject.

etc., etc.

little things can change people's minds on a party, or help enforce a stereotype -- such as the conservative spin that the left is not staunchly pro-Israel, and is too soft on terrorists.

[JABBS]

26. YOU ARE ALL MISREADING THE SENTENCE

You can almost hear the spin -- that this book is proof that only Republicans are staunch supporters of Israel. You can almost hear the spin that only Republicans can broker peace in that troubled region.


YOU CAN ALMOST HEAR THE CONSERVATIVE SPIN >>>>

[cali]

28. No, I read it correctly.

My first post makes that clear. I just completely disagree.

[JABBS]

30. other people on this thread are making it out that I'm a conservative

which is B.S.

[cali]

35. Well, I'll defend you on that.

It's clear from your blog that you are not a conservative.

[JABBS]

37. thanks

[Tempest]

34. As does everyone else

Now he's backpeddling and trying to make it look like everyone "misread" his post.

[JABBS]

36. I'm not backpedaling

I'm clarifying.

The post is not pro-Republican. The line of text in the teaser was misread by some people to suggest that I thought the Republicans were best at this. What I was saying was that it was conservative spin that Republicans were best at this.

Anyone familiar with my blog knows that it's a liberal blog focusing on conservative spin.

[Tom Joad]

47. Why are you spinning against Carter? Why are you spinning for

the Israeli policy of oppressing Palestinians?

Why is this vanity site allowed in the I/P forum?
Just a reminder of the guidelines:
Please use discretion when referencing obviously biased or factually questionable material. Vanity websites are generally not as credible as the New York Times, the Washington Post or the UK Guardian and are likely to be locked. A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself is the author readily identifiable and likely to be cited by the mainline world press or encountered in an alternate format (mass-published book, academic journal, newspaper article, radio or TV show).

[JABBS]

54. i didn't put the post in here

it was in the general discussion and was moved.

I'm not spinning for the status quo. show me where I say that.

but sorry, the palestinians have to be honest brokers of peace. hamas is not an honest broker of peace.

[UndertheOcean]

48. Being a staunch supporter of Israel is NOT a good or progressive thing...

Let the right wing nuts be staunch supporters of Israel..

We on the left are (or must be) supporters of both Israelis and Palestinians.

Did you read Carters book ?

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

61. Again, total ignorance and false generalizations.

[JABBS]

63. no

I've seen it first-hand. I've read about it. I've seen it on tv.

sorry that you only believe the israelis are at fault. we disagree.

[UndertheOcean]

65. So you are generalizing all the palestinian people into one homogeneous bunch ?

Thats inappropriate to say the least ...

Only 42% of Palestinians voted for hamas , despite seeking change from corruption

But to you they are just painted as the villain here with one wide brush.

How would you like it if someone dismisses the whole American people because they supported Bush ? He won twice , didn't he ?

[JABBS]

75. the palestinian leadership

has not been able to stop terrorist attacks against israel, and the school system teaches kids that israel doesn't exist, and that jews are blood-thirsty killers of arab children.

how does that help the peace process?

[Tempest]

78. The Palestinian leadership has been undermined by Israel for years

How about Israel making Arafat a prisoner in his own house for years, thus making him completely inefficient and unable to make reforms he proposed?

You're so one sided, you're spinning in circles.

[JABBS]

89. did israel force arafat

and the PLO to kill the Israeli Olympic athletes in 1972?

Does Israel force Palestinian terrorists to purposely go into Israeli cities and try to blow up buses of innnocent people, pizza parlors, discotecques?

I never said Israel was blameless. I said that suggesting Israel is the only problem, or the main problem, is wrong-headed.

I also never said the Bush Administration was handling this issue well. I actually wrote the opposite.

[Tempest]

97. How about pre-1972 Jewish terrorism against Arabs and the British?

Like the King David Hotel terrorist attack?

How come you don't want to talk about that?


This is the first time you acknowledged Israel is not blameless.

Congratulations, you're making progress.

[The Magistrate]

133. And When Do You, Sir, Address Hebron in '29, Or The Abu Musa Of 1920?

This appeal to distant history is simply not one someone trying to make Arab Nationalism emerge blameless from is going to win....

[UndertheOcean]

83. Well do Israeli schools teach children that Palestine exists...

Many Israelis and there supporters still claim that "There are no Palestinians"

read other threads here about what the education minister tried to recently do in Israel , and the reaction to her.

Both parties are to blame here , there are no angels , but Israel has the bigger guns and is the occupying force.

[JABBS]

87. i never said Israel was faultless

that isn't the point of the post, either.

[cali]

69. Whoa, awfully simplistic there.

I think there would be a lot less support for Israel if people understood the nature of the occupation. There's a lot of room for improvement on both sides, but Israel as the occupier bears a much stronger responsibility.

[Tempest]

72. It's obvious you're biased against the Palestinians

So it makes sense you'd rail against Carter and his book.

You're no better than a propagandist.

[JABBS]

96. you can be a stuanch supporter of israel and a progressive

I think that combination describes a lot of Democrats, in fact.

[UndertheOcean]

101. You mean DLCers ? or ones of Joe Liebermanns ilk ?

n/t

[JABBS]

106. no

I mean most mainstream Democrats. Support for Israel in the U.S. is extremely high. I would imagine that about 80-90 percent of Democrats support Israel's right to exist.

That doesn't mean that Israel is faultless. They have made some dreadful mistakes. But they also have a right to defend themselves, and Israel has extended far more olive branches to the Palestinians than they have gotten in return.

Clinton brokered a very progressive deal, and Arafat said no. The Roadmap was flawed, but it would have given the Palestinians a clear path to an independent country (Bush has not done anything positive since then, unfortunately for Israel and the Palestinians). But the Palestinians haven't followed practically any of the steps they agreed to.

[UndertheOcean]

110. Supporting Israels right to exist is not :"Staunch" support ...

Most also support palestinians also ...like Bill Clinton , Howard Dean ...etc.

[JABBS]

114. support palestinians, but also support peace

You don't see hardly any Democratic leaders blindly advocating a Palestinian state. It's always with the caveat of peaceful coexistence, recognizing Israel's right to exist, and ending terrorist attacks.

[UndertheOcean]

119. End the Occupation, OR give civil ights to the palestinians , all this will end ,

and history supports this claim...

One BIG example , the Israeli Arabs : those who remained after 1948 were given equal voting and civil rights to Jews (more or less) and now they are very peaceful.


If after 1967 Israel gave the people who came under its control full citizenship with equal rights to Jews , Israel wouldn't be facing all this violence right now ...

Its circumstances that perpetuate violence , thats why Israeli Arabs are peaceful , while there brethren in the west bank and gaza are not.

[UndertheOcean]

43. Carter is brave for doing what he did... spoke the truth and pointed at the elephant in the room..

despite knowing that he will be lynched alive by both parties.

[JABBS]

46. except that reviews of the book say that he never explains his use of the word

apartheid. and that's the main beef that people have with the work.

he has a right to his opinion, but he made a mistake with an apples to oranges comparison that he apparently doesn't defend in the work.

[UndertheOcean]

49. Read his book first , then opinionate on it....

Thats the least bit or courtesy you can show a gentleman such as Mr. Carter.

[JABBS]

52. the title lost my respect

sorry.

i don't like the use of the word apartheid, and I have a right to express that opinion without being falsely labeled as a conservative.

[Tom Joad]

57. Ignorance is not conservatism, that is right. I agree.

[Tempest]

58. So no, you haven't read the book

That means you're talking out of ignorance, plain and simple.


You claimed Carter doesn't explain his use of the word, yet you haven't read the book to find out.

[Tom Joad]

55. But you have not read the book? And that qualifies for a critique?

Damn, what levels some people will go to.

Do you know what Palestinians endure? The roadblocks? The bulldozing of their homes? The wall that separates (apartheid means separation) from Palestinians own farmland... from their schools, from hospitals.... F-15s attacking their power plants (that pump water, needed for sewage treatment)...

do you have any inkling at all what goes on there? Have you ever been in Palestine?

do you know that Carter has explained the reasons he uses that word in interview after interview, as well as in the book.

But you are right, people should not confuse ignorance for conservatism.

[JABBS]

60. i have been to palestine

I have been to Israel.

My point, very clearly stated, is that the book does not help the peace process by using the word "apartheid."

I'll tell you about my trip to the West Bank. In 1989, I was part of a group of college newspaper editors, visiting the region in a UN-marked bus. The little kids played with us in between stops to a health clinic and some stores that were supposed to be closed for the Intifada.

The same kids started throwing rocks at our bus when they saw Palestinian adults, with guns, coming up the street.

Nice image, huh? I wrote about it for my college newsppaer, and it led to a sit-in from Third World students, who were offended that I would write about what I saw.

[UndertheOcean]

74. So this one incident means that All palestinians are Manipulators and liars, just like

the death of Matthew Shepard and other like him proves that all Americans are homophobic and would kill a gay person if they get the chance.

You logic is aggregating to the point of prejudice

[JABBS]

77. the palestinian leadership

has not been able to stop terrorist attacks against israel. the school system teaches children that israel doesn't exist and that jews are blood-thirsty killers of arab children.

how does that help the peace process?

[Tom Joad]

79. The Israeli leadership has been unable to stop its terror attacks against the people of

Palstine.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JABBS]

84. that's bullshit

Israel was formed in 1948 by the British, who offered one half of the country to the post-Holocaust European Jews, and one half to the Palestinians, who in truth were Jordanians who had left their country.

The Palestinians chose not to take their half. As Abba Eban said, "The Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity."

The Dutch didn't get South Africa as a result of being attacked on all sides by their neighbors. Israel got the West Bank and the Gaza Strip after being attacked, for the umpteenth time, by its neighbors.

It's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

[UndertheOcean]

88. Aha ... so you are one of those who believe that "Palestinians don't exist"...

Yes , that attitude is not Apartheid , its somewhere between Apartheid and Genocide, this de legitimization of a whole peoples.

[JABBS]

91. i never said that

find where i said that.

you're just trying to make me into something I'm not, so that this thread has legitimacy. it's bullshit.

the palestinians have a right to exist. I'd accept them having their own country if they lived peacefully, stopped the terrorist acts, reigned in their terrorists, and recognized Israel's right to exist.

[UndertheOcean]

95. A direct quote from you : ==>

"....and one half to the Palestinians, who in truth were Jordanians who had left their country. "

[JABBS]

100. that's the history of the people

The "Palestinians" named themselves in the 1920s, if I'm not mistaken.

The "Palestinians" are, for lack of a better word, a spin off group of people from the Jordanians.

[UndertheOcean]

104. Really ? sources ?

n/t

[JABBS]

109. i've read it in books, tne NYT ...

[UndertheOcean]

113. What books ? name one ... just one

n't

[JABBS]

115. to turn it around on you,

provide me some history source that says I'm wrong.

[Tempest]

117. You're asking him to prove a negative?

That's not only impossible, it's cowardly.

Can't say I'm surprised.

[UndertheOcean]

120. Read some of the Books of Mr. Finklestien , and Mr. Comsky on the subject...

both Jews ...

Now , give me one book that supports your claim ... other than that piece of rubbish called : "From Time Immemorial"

[UndertheOcean]

107. An also , I wonder , when did the "Israelis" name themselves Israelis? also

but I still want sources for your claim.

[JABBS]

112. are you going to argue that there is no history of jews in the land

known as israel? because then you're basically saying that all jewish history is false.

there is no historic -- biblical -- link between the Palestinians and the land of Israel. there is a recent tie, starting in the 20th century.

[UndertheOcean]

116. I'm not arguing anything , your saying that there are no palestinians , that palestinisns are

actually jordanians ...

And Yes , Jews have a connection to the geographic area known are kingdom of Israel/Palestine , South Levant , whatever.

[JABBS]

121. I'm saying that the people called "palestinians"

are originally jordanians. the region changed in the 1920s.

[UndertheOcean]

122. Again , sources ?

n/t

[UndertheOcean]

123. Actually "Jordan" as a name of anything other than a river is the recent name...

while "Palestine" was there since Roman times.

Jordan the country was first called the kingdom of transjordan , then it was shortened to jordan..

[JABBS]

125. palestine is a historic word

but the people we now call "palestinians" were originally from transjordan/modern-day jordan.

[UndertheOcean]

126. Really , again sources ?

So :

Yafo , Safed , Acre , Haifa ,Lod , Ramla ,Ramalla , Nablus , Jericho , AL- Khalil , Jerusalem , Bethlehem , Nazareth , Gaza , Beersheba .. all those where majority arab through the 1800's and start of the 1900's , all those population centers suddenly popped up from Jordan...

Not to mention the hundred of villages that were wiped off the map by Israel ...

[UndertheOcean]

127. dupe

dupe

[UndertheOcean]

128. dupe

n/t

[UndertheOcean]

129. Hey , mods , I wanted my msg to show as a reply to JABBs , but something is broken ..

weird..

[The Magistrate]

130. This Is Nonesense, Mr. Jabbs

And industrial strength nonesense at that.

Jordan is not the Palestinian state, and its population is distinct from the Arab Palestinians of the coast. It was never part of the Palestine Mandate granted by the League of Nations, but established on occupied formerly Ottoman territory by the English before this was granted. The high proportion of persons identifying as Palestinian in Jordan today owes to immigration over the years, and did not mark the place at its origin.

The United Nations, not England, partitioned the Palestine Mandate in 1947, and did so over the objections of England. It is true that the Arab Nationalist leadership of Palestine chose to go double or nothing in the event, and lost badly, but the neighboring Arab states, most particularly Jordan, were determined to prevent the establishment of an independent Arab Palestinian state under the rule of al'Husseini, who King Abdullah particularly hated.

The name 'Palestine' applied to the region dates to Roman times, derived from 'Phillistine', and replacing Judea in the wake of the suppression of Jewish revolution against Rome. Most authorities view Palestine as the birthplace of Arab Nationalism, originally focused against the Ottoman, dating it to circles in Jaffa that were, oddly enough, largely Christian, shortly after the start of the twentieth century. Arab Nationalism was, initially, not an engine of local particularisms, but a Pan-Arab movement, aiming for the establishing of one all-encompasing Arab Nation. It did not become splintered into identifications with particular nations until some decades later, in conditions defined by colonial rule, but even then, most local nationalism viewed themselves as the spear-head of the Pan-Arab ideal.

[UndertheOcean]

132. That , sir , is the best post in this thread, both precise and eloquent..

Thanks !

[oberliner]

137. Question about Jordan and The West Bank

This is a serious question to which I have never received a satisfactory answer. Perhaps you can point me in the right direction.

It is my understanding that The West Bank was annexed by Jordan during the 1948 War and that from 1948-1967 it remained under Jordanian rule.

Why was not a Palestinian state established at that time in The West Bank?

[Douglas Carpenter]

139. to be perfectly honest the Hashemite Kingdom did not particularly want a Palestinian

state either for their own reasons. And it is no secret that there is no lost love between the Palestinians and the Hashemite Kingdom.

[The Magistrate]

142. The Short Answer, Sir

Is that the Jordanian government did not want such a state. It wanted the territory, and more if it could be got. If recollection serves, there was brief experiment in puppetry, on the "council of noteables" level, assembled by the Jordanian government there to petition for annexation by Jordan as the will of the people of Arab Palestine, but no one was so foolish as to take it seriously. There is, as always in this accursed region, a great deal more by way of background.

The Hashemite Abdullah was far from satisfied with the boundaries of the Emirate the English gave him. He thought he ought to have some access to the Mediterrenean, and Jerusalem for a capital. He viewed the influence on the English of the al'Husseinis as a leading reason he had not got the latter. Despite his diappointment, Emir and later King Abdullah remained loyal to the English, who had so advanced him and his family from the days of their co-operation in the Great War. The Grand Mufti al'Husseini's whole-hearted pro-German policy angered King Abdullah, and made them bitter enemies. In the run-up to the Partition after the war, King Abdullah personally was about the closest thing to an ally the Zionist leadership had in the region, and his participation in the invasion of '48 was aimed at preventing the establishment of an Arab Palestinian state under al'Husseini, and at seizing Jerusalem. It was the latter objective, of course, that brought him into conflict with the Israelis, who were resolved to have the place themselves. There was no question of his allowing, on ground his soldiers had occupied by the end of the fighting, any Arab Palestinian state, and particularly not one under the existing political leadership of that people. After his murder, his young successor was not inclined to alter the policy. Under Jordanian rule, agitation for the destruction of Israel was a good deal safer than agitation for an independent state in secession from Jordan, and naturally became the principle focus of those inhabitants moved to fight over their fate. Guerrilla raids into Israel brought Israeli reprisal attacks against Jordanian outposts and border villages near where the fighters had crossed, and badly embittered relations, to the point that King Hussein had little option but to join in the gathering of forces for battle in '67, which cost him the territories acquired in '48. While this rid him of one head-ache, it saddled him with another, namely a fresh influx of refugees, and most of them embittered against Jordan as well as against Israel. But this takes us a bit beyond the question you asked, and may be dealt with another time.

[UndertheOcean]

148. Thank you again sir , for being someone who knows what he's talking about for a change

rather than just spurting spoon-fed propaganda , such a breath of fresh air !

[oberliner]

150. What's the long answer?

But seriously, just curious, what is/are your source(s) of information on this?

Any books that you could recommend?

Thanks.

[Douglas Carpenter]

152. If I may be so bold as to recommend one interesting book I just finished

on the political history of the Palestinian movement:

The Iron Cage: The Story of the Palestinian Struggle for Statehood
by Rashid Khalidi, Professor of Middle East Studies - Columbia University

The book is not particularly a polemic or an advocacy book for the Palestinian cause. It's more an examination of the numerous obstacles that stood in the way of Palestinian political self-determination. I would say it is quite critical and self-critical on the question as to why Palestinian statehood has not been achieved. I suppose one might say that Dr. Khalidi, who comes from a leading Palestinian political family, is sort of the Palestinian equivalent of a quote, "new historian".

Amazon link:

http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Cage-Palestinian-Struggle-Statehood/dp/0807003085/sr=11-1/qid=1166258958/ref=sr_11_1/102-8701952-4352901

[The Magistrate]

154. The Long Answer Was The Second Paragraph, Sir

Albeit in short form....

An excellent starting point is Mr. Fromkin's "A Peace to End All Peace", which deals exhaustively with the period of the Great War and its immediate aftermath.

[Lurking Dem]

153. There is some confusion here.

At the time the only people referred to as Palestinians were the resident Jews. Even in the movie Exodus the character "The Palestinian" is a Jew. The Palestine Post was a Jewish paper.

The resident Arabs referred to themselves as "Syrians". As in "Greater Syria".

Now, Greater Syria was huge and encompassed modern Israel, Lebanon, Iraq, Kuwait, modern Syria, and part of Turkey.

Needless to say, these are very separate and diverse groups of people. Claiming they are now all the same is like trying to say everyone that was part of the Caliphate is now X. You just can't logically do that. It doesn't make any sense in modern terms.

[Tempest]

90. Along with being biased...

You're ignorant.

Do some research and learn about Jewish terrorist attacks, like the King David Hotel, prior to 1948 which brought up the Jewish situation to the world's forefront and subsequently led to the formation of Israel.

[JABBS]

93. whatever

you want to make israel the bad guy. i'm not going to change your opinion on that.

if you did your research, you'd see how many innocent israelis the PLO has killed, how many peace agreements it didn't agree to, or adhere to, how the current palestinian leadership hasn't reigned in their terrorists.

[UndertheOcean]

98. And how may innocent Palestinians did the IDF kill ... if you want to compare?

Compare the two numbers now...

[Tempest]

105. He wouldn't dare

It's so disproportional, it's criminal.

[Douglas Carpenter]

144. the Palestinians have never been offered anything remotely like a reasonable settlement in the past

50 years.

The simple reality is that with the possible exception of about 10 days in Taba, Egypt in Jan 2001 the Palestinians have never been offered anything remotely like a reasonable settlement in the past 50 years.

The ink wasn't even dry from signing the Oslo Accord in September, 1993 and Israel was engaging in the most massive settlement expansion project in its history, along with building the Apartheid roads and imposing closure policies which devastated the Palestinian economy. Oslo was actually used as a pretext to justify closure policies which made a viable economy virtually impossible. And this was well before one single suicide bombing ever occurred; the first occuring in Afula on April 6, 1994. In September of 1993 there were a total of about 95,000 Israeli settlers living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. By 2000 the number had increased to the multiple hundreds of thousands. Estimates range between 300,000 and 400,000.

When the Israeli and Palestinian delegations met in the summer of 2000 for final status talks, the only offers the Palestinians were given were so outrageous that even a lead negotiator and the Israeli Foreign Minister Schlomo Ben-Ami has said very clearly that he would have rejected the offer if he had been Palestinian. links:
http://www.democracynow.org/finkelstein-benami.shtml

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

It was not until the very final days of the Barak Labor government and under tremendous pressure from President Clinton did the Israeli government get serious about a credible offer.

Unfortunately with Mr. Sharon who was widely expected to win the election pledging that he would not honor the agreement and then Mr. Barak deciding to distance himself from the Taba negotiations, Israel--not the Palestinians unilaterally withdrew from the Taba talks on January 28, 2001. It must be said in fairness that Israel was just a couple weeks away from the election at that point:

Here is a link to the European Union summary document regarding the Taba talks first published in Haaretz on February 14, 2001:

"Moratinos Document" - The peace that nearly was at Taba

"In the current reality of terror attacks and bombing raids, it is hard to remember that Israel and the Palestinians were close to a final-status agreement at Taba only 13 months ago."

By Akiva Eldar

Ha'aretz
14 February 2002 - link: http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html

snip" This document, whose main points have been approved by the Taba negotiators as an accurate description of the discussions, casts additional doubts on the prevailing assumption that Ehud Barak "exposed Yasser Arafat's true face." It is true that on most of the issues discussed during that wintry week of negotiations, sizable gaps remain. Yet almost every line is redolent of the effort to find a compromise that would be acceptable to both sides. It is hard to escape the thought that if the negotiations at Camp David six months earlier had been conducted with equal seriousness, the intifada might never have erupted. And perhaps, if Barak had not waited until the final weeks before the election, and had instead sent his senior representatives to that southern hotel earlier, the violence might never have broken out."

link to the rest of Mr. Eldar's analysis as well as complete summary documents known as the "Moratinos Document"

http://www.arts.mcgill.ca/MEPP/PRRN/papers/moratinos.html
_________________________________

link to a summary of what was actually offered to the Palestinians at Camp David in the Summer of 2000:

link:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

"The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

Because of the geographic placement of Israel’s proposed West Bank annexations, Palestinians living in their new “independent state” would be forced to cross Israeli territory every time they traveled or shipped goods from one section of the West Bank to another, and Israel could close those routes at will. Israel would also retain a network of so-called “bypass roads” that would crisscross the Palestinian state while remaining sovereign Israeli territory, further dividing the West Bank.

Israel was also to have kept "security control" for an indefinite period of time over the Jordan Valley, the strip of territory that forms the border between the West Bank and neighboring Jordan. Palestine would not have free access to its own international borders with Jordan and Egypt--putting Palestinian trade, and therefore its economy, at the mercy of the Israeli military.

Had Arafat agreed to these arrangements, the Palestinians would have permanently locked in place many of the worst aspects of the very occupation they were trying to bring to an end. For at Camp David, Israel also demanded that Arafat sign an "end-of-conflict" agreement stating that the decades-old war between Israel and the Palestinians was over and waiving all further claims against Israel"

snip:"In April 2002, the countries of the Arab League--from moderate Jordan to hardline Iraq--unanimously agreed on a Saudi peace plan centering around full peace, recognition and normalization of relations with Israel in exchange for a complete Israeli withdrawal to the 1967 borders as well as a "just resolution" to the refugee issue. Palestinian negotiator Nabil Sha'ath declared himself "delighted" with the plan. "The proposal constitutes the best terms of reference for our political struggle," he told the Jordan Times (3/28/02)."

read full article:

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations -- link: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113
__________________________

Here is a link to very long 43 page pdf file summary. The article is neutral and dispassionate. It gives a very calm and rational critique of all sides regarding both the Camp David and Taba talks:

Visions in Collisions: What Happened at Camp David and Taba
by Dr. Jeremy Pressman, University Connecticut

link:

http://www.samed-syr.org/CampDavidAndTaba....

_________________________


The Arab Peace Initiative (Also known as the Saudi Peace Plan)

It was unanimously affirmed by the Arab League and immediately endorsed by the Palestinian leadership in March 2002 and very recently reaffirmed. However, more or less the same plan has been offered by the Arab League and enthusiastically endorsed by the Palestinian leadership going back much, much longer.

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

"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 UN 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 neighborliness and provide future generations with security, stability and prosperity

6. Invites the international community and all countries and organizations 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."

link: http://www.mideastweb.org/saudipeace.htm

[oberliner]

145. The Palestinians did not recognize the State of Israel until 1993

I am not sure what kind of "reasonable settlement" could have been offered to the PLO when they were explicitly calling for Israel's destruction.

[UndertheOcean]

147. The PLO recognised Israel in 1988..

n/t

[oberliner]

149. Israel-PLO Recognition - Exchange of Letters between PM Rabin and Chairman Arafat - Sept 9- 1993

Israel-PLO Recognition:

PLO-Israel Letters of Mutual Recognition

Exchange of Letters between PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat & Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin

Letter from Chairman Yasser Arafat to Prime Minister Rabin:

September 9, 1993
Yitzhak Rabin
Prime Minister of Israel

Mr. Prime Minister,

The signing of the Declaration of Principles marks a new era in the history of the Middle East. In firm conviction thereof, I would like to confirm the following PLO commitments:

The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security.

The PLO accepts United Nations Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338.

http://www.palestine-un.org/peace/p_b.html

[Douglas Carpenter]

151. actually 1988 when it was made a formal PLO position

Until 1993 Israel still would not talk to the Palestinian leadership.

Informally much earlier than that the PLO had attempted to communicate the message that they wanted talks with Israel. And this was a unilateral non reciprocated move. Israel did not then nor does it now recognize a Palestinian state

way back in 1974 the PLO officially proposed a democratic and secular state in which all ethnic and religious groups would be treated equally.

http://www.umich.edu/~iinet/worldreach/assets/docs/israeli-palestinian_conflict/studentlesson4.html

Nonetheless, certainly by 1993 Israel could have moved toward a settlement but they choose expansionism instead while making numerous moves that made a viable two-state solution considerably less viable.

[cali]

111. WTF??

You're going to make me regret defending your liberal credentials. That's just historical revisionism of a very ugly stripe. 750,000 Palestinians left Palestine in 1948. Many of them were ethnically cleansed. It's called the Nabka, and though some details are disputed, it did happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_exodus

[oberliner]

146. I think you mean "Nakba" nt

[cali]

82. How does it help the peace process

to have Avigdor Lieberman as a deputy PM? How does it help the preace process that up until this week, maps in textbooks in Israel didn't recognize Palestine or the Green Line? It works both ways. You are completely one sided here.

[UndertheOcean]

86. See post 83

n/t

[rodeodance]

76. people know the meaning of apartied----and it fits the Gaza situation

[applegrove]

134. The Israeli people themselves made torture illegal. That says something

about why they are not apartheid. That being said... Israel should be looking for peace asap. As..they are being used..in their current state...as a weapon by the radical Islamic freaks to stir up popular support. Sooner rather than later would be the ticket.

[Tom Joad]

135. Except for Palestinians, that are tortured by Israel routinely.

Including Palestinian children. Including Palestinian women.

[oberliner]

138. Torture is also regularly practiced inside Palestinian prisons by the Palestinian Security Services

They must be held accountable as well.

[Tom Joad]

140. That was the purpose of Oslo. For Palestinians to repress Palestiinians.

When Arafat was not arresting (and torturing) enough Palestinians, there would be strong complaints from Israel.

[The Magistrate]

143. Hardly The Most Accurate Formulation, Mr. Joad

Arafat was charged with preventing attacks against Israel, which necessarily required at least some attempt to suppress militant rejectionist organizations un-willing to see peace break out in any form acceptable to the bulk of the Arab Palestinian people. As matters developed, these groups have gotten their way over the last half dozen years, and the result has been calamity for the people of Arab Palestine. Anyone with the well-being of that people in mind can only regret Arafat did not manage a successful repression of the militant bodies he did not himself control. The people of Arab Palestine would be far better off today if he had.

[lastknowngood]

136. Carter is right only a fool with an agenda would challenge the

easily identifiable facts. Those who cannot see beyond their own prejudice are blind indeed.

[Tom Joad]

141. Right, and there is no shortage of fools.

[Lithos]

155. Locking per I/P guidelines

Not based on a recent news or op-ed article. Also vanity website.

Lithos
DU Moderator