[Peace-discussion] Carter's book, apologies to Aimee, but I think it offers hope!

[Henry D.]

--0-1459151173-1168277380=:72173
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Does the book call for boycotting Israel or at least stopping all military aid?
   
  First things first, we need to stop cosigning the terrorism done with our tax dollars.
   
  Jimmy Carter talked about human rights, then restored military aid to the coup leaders of el salvador after the 4 north american nuns were tortured and killed, and at least 1,000 salvadorans were turning up in an infamous dump and elsewhere, massacred, tortured, and killed because they were for democracy and human rights.
   
  luv it though when perpetrators (the word seems a little too strong) seek to join our human rights coalition.
  they do give lots of people like me hope, but there is a violent unspoken sacrifice silenced at the same time if we are fooled into thinking they are leaders of anti-terrorist movements. In reality they are the good cop face to the bad cop.
  -hank

Joni LeViness <myths16@cox.net> wrote:
         I liked Fisk's take on it.
  Banality and barefaced lies

Here in America, I stare at the land in which I live and see a landscape 
I do not recognise

By Robert Fisk

12/23/06 "The Independent" -- -- I call it the Alice in Wonderland 
effect. Each time I tour the United States, I stare through the looking 
glass at the faraway region in which I live and work for The Independent 
- the Middle East - and see a landscape which I do no recognise, a 
distant tragedy turned, here in America, into a farce of hypocrisy and 
banality and barefaced lies. Am I the Cheshire Cat? Or the Mad Hatter?

I picked up Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at 
San Francisco airport, and zipped through it in a day. It's a good, 
strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood. Carter 
lists the outrageous treatment meted out to the Palestinians, the 
Israeli occupation, the dispossession of Palestinian land by Israel, the 
brutality visited upon this denuded, subject population, and what he 
calls "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land 
but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant 
and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human 
rights".

Carter quotes an Israeli as saying he is "afraid that we are moving 
towards a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of 
Jewish rulers and Arabs subjects with few rights of citizenship...". A 
proposed but unacceptable modification of this choice, Carter adds, "is 
the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the 
remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and 
Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of 
land left to them".

Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the 
appearance of this eminently sensible book - until the usual Israeli 
lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he 
was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and 
an Arab neighbour - Egypt - secured with the famous 1978 Camp David 
accords. The New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print", ho! 
ho!) then felt free to tell its readers that Carter had stirred "furore 
among Jews" with his use of the word "apartheid". The ex-president 
replied by mildly (and rightly) pointing out that Israeli lobbyists had 
produced among US editorial boards a "reluctance to criticise the 
Israeli government".

Typical of the dirt thrown at Carter was the comment by Michael Kinsley 
in The New York Times (of course) that Carter "is comparing Israel to 
the former white racist government of South Africa". This was followed 
by a vicious statement from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, 
who said that the reason Carter gave for writing this book "is this 
shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this 
country, especially when it comes to the media. What makes this serious 
is that he's not just another pundit, and he's not just another analyst. 
He is a former president of the United States".

But well, yes, that's the point, isn't it? This is no tract by a Harvard 
professor on the power of the lobby. It's an honourable, honest account 
by a friend of Israel as well as the Arabs who just happens to be a fine 
American ex-statesman. Which is why Carter's book is now a best-seller - 
and applause here, by the way, for the great American public that bought 
the book instead of believing Mr Foxman.

But in this context, why, I wonder, didn't The New York Times and the 
other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention 
Israel's cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in 
South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book? Didn't 
Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South 
Africa? Didn't Israel have a fruitful and deep military relationship 
with that racist regime? Am I dreaming, looking-glass-like, when I 
recall that in April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South 
Africa - one of the architects of this vile Nazi-like system of 
apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an 
official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero 
Moshe Dayan and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, 
certainly did not become part of the great American debate on Carter's book.

At Detroit airport, I picked up an even slimmer volume, the 
Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report - which doesn't really study Iraq 
at all but offers a few bleak ways in which George Bush can run away 
from this disaster without too much blood on his shirt. After chatting 
to the Iraqis in the green zone of Baghdad - dream zone would be a more 
accurate title - there are a few worthy suggestions (already predictably 
rejected by the Israelis): a resumption of serious Israeli-Palestinian 
peace talks, an Israeli withdrawal from Golan, etc. But it's written in 
the same tired semantics of right-wing think tanks - the language, in 
fact, of the discredited Brookings Institution and of my old mate, the 
messianic New York Times columnist Tom Friedman - full of "porous" 
borders and admonitions that "time is running out".

The clue to all this nonsense, I discovered, comes at the back of the 
report where it lists the "experts" consulted by Messrs Baker, Hamilton 
and the rest. Many of them are pillars of the Brookings Institution and 
there is Thomas Freedman of The New York Times.

But for sheer folly, it was impossible to beat the post-Baker debate 
among the great and the good who dragged the United States into this 
catastrophe. General Peter Pace, the extremely odd chairman of the US 
joint chiefs of staff, said of the American war in Iraq that "we are not 
winning, but we are not losing". Bush's new defence secretary, Robert 
Gates, announced that he "agreed with General Pace that we are not 
winning, but we are not losing". Baker himself jumped into the same 
nonsense pool by asserting: "I don't think you can say we're losing. By 
the same token (sic), I'm not sure we're winning." At which point, Bush 
proclaimed this week that - yes - "we're not winning, we're not losing". 
Pity about the Iraqis.

I pondered this madness during a bout of severe turbulence at 37,000 
feet over Colorado. And that's when it hit me, the whole final score in 
this unique round of the Iraq war between the United States of America 
and the forces of evil. It's a draw!

© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited
  Peace,
  joni


--0-1459151173-1168277380=:72173
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

<DIV>Does the book call for boycotting Israel or at least stopping all military aid?</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>First things first, we need to stop cosigning the terrorism done with our tax dollars.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Jimmy Carter talked about human rights, then restored military aid to the coup leaders of el salvador after the 4 north american nuns were tortured and killed, and at least 1,000 salvadorans were turning up in an infamous dump and elsewhere, massacred, tortured, and killed because they were for democracy and human rights.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>luv it though when perpetrators (the word seems a little too strong) seek to join our human rights coalition.</DIV>  <DIV>they do give lots of people like me hope, but there is a violent unspoken sacrifice silenced at the same time if we are fooled into thinking they are leaders of anti-terrorist movements. In reality they are the good cop face to the bad cop.</DIV>  <DIV>-hank<BR><BR><B><I>Joni
 LeViness &lt;myths16@cox.net&gt;</I></B> wrote:</DIV>  <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">  <META content="MSHTML 6.00.5730.11" name=GENERATOR>  <BLOCKQUOTE dir=ltr style="MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">  <DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=140011417-08012007>&nbsp;I liked Fisk's take on it.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>  <DIV><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=140011417-08012007>Banality and barefaced lies<BR><BR>Here in America, I stare at the land in which I live and see a landscape <BR>I do not recognise<BR><BR>By Robert Fisk<BR><BR>12/23/06 "The Independent" -- -- I call it the Alice in Wonderland <BR>effect. Each time I tour the United States, I stare through the looking <BR>glass at the faraway region in which I live and work for The Independent <BR>- the Middle East - and see a landscape which I do no recognise, a <BR>distant tragedy turned, here in America, into a farce of hypocrisy and <BR>banality and barefaced lies. Am I
 the Cheshire Cat? Or the Mad Hatter?<BR><BR>I picked up Jimmy Carter's new book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid at <BR>San Francisco airport, and zipped through it in a day. It's a good, <BR>strong read by the only American president approaching sainthood. Carter <BR>lists the outrageous treatment meted out to the Palestinians, the <BR>Israeli occupation, the dispossession of Palestinian land by Israel, the <BR>brutality visited upon this denuded, subject population, and what he <BR>calls "a system of apartheid, with two peoples occupying the same land <BR>but completely separated from each other, with Israelis totally dominant <BR>and suppressing violence by depriving Palestinians of their basic human <BR>rights".<BR><BR>Carter quotes an Israeli as saying he is "afraid that we are moving <BR>towards a government like that of South Africa, with a dual society of <BR>Jewish rulers and Arabs subjects with few rights of citizenship.<WBR>..". A <BR>proposed but unacceptable
 modification of this choice, Carter adds, "is <BR>the taking of substantial portions of the occupied territory, with the <BR>remaining Palestinians completely surrounded by walls, fences, and <BR>Israeli checkpoints, living as prisoners within the small portion of <BR>land left to them".<BR><BR>Needless to say, the American press and television largely ignored the <BR>appearance of this eminently sensible book - until the usual Israeli <BR>lobbyists began to scream abuse at poor old Jimmy Carter, albeit that he <BR>was the architect of the longest lasting peace treaty between Israel and <BR>an Arab neighbour - Egypt - secured with the famous 1978 Camp David <BR>accords. The New York Times ("All the News That's Fit to Print", ho! <BR>ho!) then felt free to tell its readers that Carter had stirred "furore <BR>among Jews" with his use of the word "apartheid". The ex-president <BR>replied by mildly (and rightly) pointing out that Israeli lobbyists had <BR>produced among US
 editorial boards a "reluctance to criticise the <BR>Israeli government".<BR><BR>Typical of the dirt thrown at Carter was the comment by Michael Kinsley <BR>in The New York Times (of course) that Carter "is comparing Israel to <BR>the former white racist government of South Africa". This was followed <BR>by a vicious statement from Abe Foxman of the Anti-Defamation League, <BR>who said that the reason Carter gave for writing this book "is this <BR>shameless, shameful canard that the Jews control the debate in this <BR>country, especially when it comes to the media. What makes this serious <BR>is that he's not just another pundit, and he's not just another analyst. <BR>He is a former president of the United States".<BR><BR>But well, yes, that's the point, isn't it? This is no tract by a Harvard <BR>professor on the power of the lobby. It's an honourable, honest account <BR>by a friend of Israel as well as the Arabs who just happens to be a fine <BR>American ex-statesman.
 Which is why Carter's book is now a best-seller - <BR>and applause here, by the way, for the great American public that bought <BR>the book instead of believing Mr Foxman.<BR><BR>But in this context, why, I wonder, didn't The New York Times and the <BR>other gutless mainstream newspapers in the United States mention <BR>Israel's cosy relationship with that very racist apartheid regime in <BR>South Africa which Carter is not supposed to mention in his book? Didn't <BR>Israel have a wealthy diamond trade with sanctioned, racist South <BR>Africa? Didn't Israel have a fruitful and deep military relationship <BR>with that racist regime? Am I dreaming, looking-glass-<WBR>like, when I <BR>recall that in April of 1976, Prime Minister John Vorster of South <BR>Africa - one of the architects of this vile Nazi-like system of <BR>apartheid - paid a state visit to Israel and was honoured with an <BR>official reception from Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin, war hero <BR>Moshe Dayan
 and future Nobel prize-winner Yitzhak Rabin? This of course, <BR>certainly did not become part of the great American debate on Carter's book.<BR><BR>At Detroit airport, I picked up an even slimmer volume, the <BR>Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group Report - which doesn't really study Iraq <BR>at all but offers a few bleak ways in which George Bush can run away <BR>from this disaster without too much blood on his shirt. After chatting <BR>to the Iraqis in the green zone of Baghdad - dream zone would be a more <BR>accurate title - there are a few worthy suggestions (already predictably <BR>rejected by the Israelis): a resumption of serious Israeli-Palestinian <BR>peace talks, an Israeli withdrawal from Golan, etc. But it's written in <BR>the same tired semantics of right-wing think tanks - the language, in <BR>fact, of the discredited Brookings Institution and of my old mate, the <BR>messianic New York Times columnist Tom Friedman - full of "porous" <BR>borders and admonitions
 that "time is running out".<BR><BR>The clue to all this nonsense, I discovered, comes at the back of the <BR>report where it lists the "experts" consulted by Messrs Baker, Hamilton <BR>and the rest. Many of them are pillars of the Brookings Institution and <BR>there is Thomas Freedman of The New York Times.<BR><BR>But for sheer folly, it was impossible to beat the post-Baker debate <BR>among the great and the good who dragged the United States into this <BR>catastrophe. General Peter Pace, the extremely odd chairman of the US <BR>joint chiefs of staff, said of the American war in Iraq that "we are not <BR>winning, but we are not losing". Bush's new defence secretary, Robert <BR>Gates, announced that he "agreed with General Pace that we are not <BR>winning, but we are not losing". Baker himself jumped into the same <BR>nonsense pool by asserting: "I don't think you can say we're losing. By <BR>the same token (sic), I'm not sure we're winning." At which point, Bush
 <BR>proclaimed this week that - yes - "we're not winning, we're not losing". <BR>Pity about the Iraqis.<BR><BR>I pondered this madness during a bout of severe turbulence at 37,000 <BR>feet over Colorado. And that's when it hit me, the whole final score in <BR>this unique round of the Iraq war between the United States of America <BR>and the forces of evil. It's a draw!<BR><BR>© 2006 Independent News and Media Limited</SPAN></FONT></DIV>  <DIV><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=140011417-08012007>Peace,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>  <DIV><FONT size=+0><SPAN class=140011417-08012007>joni</SPAN></FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
--0-1459151173-1168277380=:72173--