[Peace-discussion] Carter's book, apologies to Aimee, but I think it offers hope!
Henry D.
henryduke2004@yahoo.com
Mon, 8 Jan 2007 15:24:56 -0800 (PST)
--0-622881139-1168298696=:91324
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
el salvador was my religion in the early 80's, and I too, get hope when I hear people like Carter leaving their silence or complicity behind, and moving towards our position.
You Joni have always seemed open to change and thats what makes you the most precious green commodity fueling the 10 kv.
There are others, hard and fixed, who lord over our politics, and are the breaks to the 10kv; even they, like us, get overwhelmed.
We just gotta get a little grace from somewhere, and get up again, so that the GPUS will help and grow the peace movement.
Again, you're an inspiring sister and green! Keep up the great work!
-hank
Joni LeViness <myths16@cox.net> wrote:
Once again i'm reminded that A History of America by Howard Zinn ought to be a part of the h.s. history curriculum in Every school.
I'm so new to the political scene that i'm ignorant of so much of our own violent past, tho little surprises me at this point.
I'm unsure if the book calls for the boycotting of Israel, or stopping our military outfitting of the country.
So much! It's overwhelming at times.
Peace,
joni
---------------------------------
From: peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org [mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org] On Behalf Of Henry D.
Sent: Monday, January 08, 2007 11:30 AM
To: gpax discussion
Subject: Re: [Peace-discussion] Carter's book, apologies to Aimee, but I think it offers hope!
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
--0-622881139-1168298696=:91324
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
<div>el salvador was my religion in the early 80's, and I too, get hope when I hear people like Carter leaving their silence or complicity behind, and moving towards our position.</div> <div> </div> <div>You Joni have always seemed open to change and thats what makes you the most precious green commodity fueling the 10 kv.</div> <div> </div> <div>There are others, hard and fixed, who lord over our politics, and are the breaks to the 10kv; even they, like us, get overwhelmed.</div> <div> </div> <div>We just gotta get a little grace from somewhere, and get up again, so that the GPUS will help and grow the peace movement.</div> <div> </div> <div>Again, you're an inspiring sister and green! Keep up the great work!</div> <div> </div> <div>-hank<BR><BR><B><I>Joni LeViness <myths16@cox.net></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> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=328485122-08012007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>Once again i'm reminded that A History of America by Howard Zinn ought to be a part of the h.s. history curriculum in Every school.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=328485122-08012007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I'm so new to the political scene that i'm ignorant of so much of our own violent past, tho little surprises me at this point.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=328485122-08012007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>I'm unsure if the book calls for the boycotting of Israel, or stopping our military outfitting of the country.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=328485122-08012007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>So much! It's overwhelming at times.</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=328485122-08012007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff
size=2>Peace,</FONT></SPAN></DIV> <DIV dir=ltr align=left><SPAN class=328485122-08012007><FONT face=Arial color=#0000ff size=2>joni</FONT></SPAN></DIV><BR> <DIV class=OutlookMessageHeader lang=en-us dir=ltr align=left> <HR tabIndex=-1> <FONT face=Tahoma size=2><B>From:</B> peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org [mailto:peace-discussion-admin@lists.gp-us.org] <B>On Behalf Of </B>Henry D.<BR><B>Sent:</B> Monday, January 08, 2007 11:30 AM<BR><B>To:</B> gpax discussion<BR><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Peace-discussion] Carter's book, apologies to Aimee, but I think it offers hope!<BR></FONT><BR></DIV> <DIV></DIV> <DIV>Does the book call for boycotting Israel or at least stopping all military aid?</DIV> <DIV> </DIV> <DIV>First things first, we need to stop cosigning the terrorism done with our tax dollars.</DIV> <DIV> </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> </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 <myths16@cox.net></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> 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></BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
--0-622881139-1168298696=:91324--