Carter criticizes Israel and Bush

[Classical_Liberal]

Carter criticizes Israel and Bush



GENEVA, Switzerland, Dec. 1 (UPI) -- Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter spoke during the Geneva Accord ceremony Monday in Switzerland, criticizing both the Israeli and American governments.

The Jerusalem Post said Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate, blamed President George W. Bush for anti-American sentiment and worldwide terror.

Said the former president: "Bush's inordinate support for Israel allows the Palestinians to suffer. This is a source of anti-American sentiment in the world and encourages terror."

He said the main obstacles to peace are Israel's West Bank and Gaza Strip settlements, as well as the Israeli security fence. The Post said Carter called repeatedly for the return of Palestinian refugees to the territories, beyond what is called for in the Geneva Accord......

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20031201-032644...

[grannylib]

1. I hope we can get JC to monitor our elections next time, to guarantee

"free and fair" like we're supposed to have...

[stopthegop]

2. gibberish (IMO)

the main obstacle to peace is the desire by many Arabs/Palestinians to see Isreal cease to exist....

do you really believe there would be peace if:
1) Isreal withdrew to it's pre-67 war borders?
2) dismantled all settlements not within those borders?
&
3) recognized the territories as a Palestinian 'state'?

I submit the overall effect would be nil...just a secure base for Arafat and others to kill Jews from

and to talk of inordinate support...a democracy vs cleptocracies and kingdoms and dictatorships..this isn't a tough call

[Classical_Liberal]

3. In fact it is Israel's continued theft of Palestinians homes.

I submit that 90% of the terrorism would stop, and it would be easier to crack down on the 10% so in a few years all would stop. Do you really believe that if you and all your neighbors were kicked out of their homes, that none would over react?

[stopthegop]

4. then we disagree...

the PLO and terror started before the 1967 war...no relationship (at least not a valid one) to the territories...

and I assume you think Syria should pull out of Lebanon?

[Classical_Liberal]

6. I don' t care whether Syria pulls out of Lebanon

It is protecting it from Israel. I am not an expert on the 67 war. That is Darranar's territory. I do know that homes were taken prior to that war as well. Taking homes will cause some to be angry it is that simple. Those who say otherwise are in denial.

[stopthegop]

7. if you believe Syria is protecting Lebanon from Isreal

we have nothing to discuss...have a pleasant and delusional evening

[Classical_Liberal]

9. I know Lebanon is 100% more peaceful since Hizbolla kicked the

Israelis out with the help of the Syrians. I know that Sharon isn't killing innocent civilians there anymore.

[Jackie97]

36. Info for Classical Liberal.

The enemy of an enemy is not one's friend.

Israel is Lebanon's enemy. Syria is Israel's enemy. That doesn't make Syria Lebanon's friend. I think that you should read some of this, please.

http://www.2la.org/english/eng-mainhelp_syria.htm

In January of the following year, Syrian Vice President announced to Kuwaiti newspaper “Lebanon is a part of Syria, and Lebanon will be returned to Syria…this should be clear to everyone”. One week later, a battalion from the Palestine Liberation army, under Syrian command, entered the Bekaa and started confrontations with the Lebanese army, while more Syrian and Palestinian forces entered Northern Lebanon attacking Lebanese police and security forces. By end of January 1976, the Syrian-Palestinian forces had committed a great massacre in Damour village killing hundreds of its residents and displacing the rest and leaving nothing but rubble. In May of 1976, the Syrian army invaded the Lebanese northern region of Akkar, and advanced into the Bekaa valley east of Lebanon. A month later, the Syrian dictator, Hafez Assad, delivered his infamous speech in the Syrian capital stating that he sent the Syrian army to Lebanon without permission from any authorities. By the end of 1976, the Syrian troops in Lebanon were estimated to be around 25,000 thousand (ie: one soldier for every 100 Lebanese citizen).

The League of Arab Countries sent peacekeeping troops to Lebanon. In the following year, the Syrian troops harassed the Arab forces forcing them to leave Lebanon in order for them to operate loose on the Lebanese territories.

The Syrian troops in Lebanon launched a war to silence the Lebanese voices that were criticizing its martial interference. Syrian forces attacked Lebanese magazines and newspapers, assassinated Lebanese national and religious figures such as the Druze leader Kamal Jumblat. The Syrian forces kept occupying cities in northern Lebanon, central Lebanon and in Beirut with several attempts to occupy the Lebanese army headquarters.

Syria continued its policy of spreading its homogony on Lebanon using extreme violence against the Lebanese people.

In 1998, Syrian troops and their allies worked on preventing the election of a new Lebanese president in order to completely paralyze the Lebanese authorities. The Lebanese president then, used his constitutional prerogative and appointed the Lebanese Army Commander as a Prime Minister of interim government before ending his term. The Syrians opposed the Lebanese Government and shelled the Lebanese civilian areas with heavy bombs and artillery. Meanwhile, the Lebanese Primer managed to gain popularity by enforcing the role of the Lebanese army over the militia, activating the governmental departments and working for political and economical reforms. The Lebanese Government launched a war of liberation against the Syrian army demanding the scheduling of a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon. The Syrian occupation troops pressured Lebanese politicians in the areas it occupied to oppose the Lebanese government; they had even assassinated the highest Sunni Muslim clerk, mufti of Lebanon because of his rejection of the Syrian fight against Lebanese.

Note: The below is a shocker. Not!

In August of 1990 Iraq invaded its neighboring country of Kuwait, and attracted the international community’s attention to the occupation of the small oil-rich-country and the threats to the world-largest oil reserve of Saudi Arabia. The Syrian regime gained the opportunity and promised not to side with Iraq in return of controlling Lebanon. On October 13, 1990, the Syrian troops launched aerial and ground attacks and occupied the Lebanese presidential palace and the ministry of defense defeating the reminder of the Lebanese army. The Syrian regime appointed their own proxy government and president in occupied Lebanon and started a large-scale persecution operation against Lebanese people: arresting, abducting, torturing and killing whoever opposes its occupation.

Syria's brutal conquering of Lebanon and the continuous persecution of the people caused more than one hundred thousand casualties, led to the destruction of entire cities and imposed the displacement of hundreds of thousands. Some of the documented Syrian crimes against the Lebanese people are presented on the following page.

Note: There’s a lot more, which I suggest that you read. I know I will.

[Classical_Liberal]

39. That website also claims that Iraq threatens the US with

WMD, and has ties to Al Qaeda!

[Jackie97]

41. It also claims.....

That Israel's occupation and invasion was harsher on the Lebanese than Syria's.

It also claims that that the reason why Syria was able to take over Lebanon completely was because a selfish US didn't want them to side with Iraq.

It's not making anybody look good.

I'm not saying that everything on there is factual. I also wouldn't say that everything on a pro-Palestinian site is factual because I have seen things on some of them that were not factual. However, they all make their points. If you don't want to believe this website, then *please* do the research on your own about this subject. The facts are out there.

[Classical_Liberal]

43. The site I posted from was the moonie times(definately neocon republican)

, and pro Iraq war. The site you posted from lost all credibility when they made such claims. They look like a neocon front, like the Iraqi national congress and the committee to free Iran.

[tinnypriv]

16. There is no doubt that Syria currently de-facto controls Lebanon *now*

However you seem to have no comprehension of why Syria is still in Lebanese territory.

Bear in mind that Syrian forces were originally invited into Lebanon with an Arab League mandate, timed to expire by the end of 1982 (roughly). The withdrawal never happened (and nobody can know whether it would have), because Israel invaded and attacked Syrian forces in Lebanon before that date.

During the invasion, there were also Syrian attempts to calm the situation - they did not even retaliate when directly attacked by Israeli forces in several cases - including incidents which led to the death of Russian obervers/technical advisors.

Moreover, anything any contemporary Israeli official says on the topic of the liberty of Lebanese can be dismissed with the contempt it deserves. No doubt such people are the origin of your comments (whether recycled by GOI-friendly intellectuals or stated directly).

[The Magistrate]

10. Syria, ma'am, Ought To Retire From Lebanon

Its presence there has nothing to do with protecting it from Israel: it has been a goal of Syrian policy to gain suzereignity over that place for as long as it has been an independent country, and they would be there even if Israel did not exist, as Lebanon, without outside help, lacks the power to preserve its border against the larger state.

[Classical_Liberal]

11. Until Syria invaded Lebanon was a complete mess.

.

[Darranar]

13. It still is.

[Classical_Liberal]

15. It is in no way as bad as Beriut during the 80s

.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

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

[The Magistrate]

17. At What point In Its History, Ma'am?

Lebanon, in its modern guise, was partitioned off from the Syrian hinterland by France after the Great War, when it held the place under League Mandate. The purpose was to isolate for their own protection the Christian communities there, in a jursidiction where they would be numerically predominant. There were, when it became independent, some constitutional gerry-manderings intended to guarantee such predominance, that were overtaken by changes in the nation's demographics. A complicating factor was that one leading Christian political was out-right fascist in outlook. The original Arab Nationalist movement in Syria after the Great War never recognized the legitimacy of Lebanon, and this carried over to the Syrian state after independence: maps in Ba'athist Syria during the sixties famously ommitted to show the place at all. It is true that, during the Lebanese civil war in the seventies, Syria was invited in by one Christian faction, and Israel was not hostile to the doing in its initial stages, as the Syrians tended to concentrate their fire then on the Arab Palestinian forces that had come to dominate the south of the country, as these belonged to a faction Syria did not control, and was hostile to. Matters quickly grew more complicated, of course, and Mr. Aidoneus is the resident authority....

[Classical_Liberal]

18. Israel wants hegemoney as well.

Since Syrias doesn't involve Settlements or Sharon type massacres I consider them preferable. If Lebanon was gerrymandered then maybe the Syrians have a point.

[The Magistrate]

19. All Governments Seek Hegemony, Ma'am

And expand to the practical limits of their ability to do so. Some are more capable of it than others; that is the sole difference. The Syrian occupation has hardly been without serious killing.

[Classical_Liberal]

21. It hasn't had nearly so much serious killing as Israel's occupation

had.

[Jackie97]

37. And therefore....

We shouldn't care if Syria stops occupying and killing the Lebanese. Great logic.

[Classical_Liberal]

40. I believe that if Syra left Israel would invade it again!

.

[Jackie97]

44. Great rebuttal.

Do you have any rebuttals that are not one or two lines long?

Here's an argument.

I believe that if the US leaves Iraq that the Baath party will take over again!

The truth is that Lebanon had an army that Syria crushed. If they could rebuild that army (with the help of the UN), then they could defend themselves against Israel or any other country.

The truth is also that other Arab countries were trying to help out, and the Syrians told them to get lost. So, they got lost (probably thinking that they were the best thing to protect the Lebanese from Israel). Don't you think that they might help Lebanon out if Israel went after them again? Lebanon does not need the oppressive Syria to protect them from the oppressive Israel. What they need is the will to rise up and to overthrow their oppressors. They also need help in organizing an army of self-defense. Lebanon can do it. They don't need the self-interested Syria to play big brother or Daddy for them.

[Classical_Liberal]

45. No, I think if Israel invaded again, that it would be the 1980s all over

I don't believe your angle because it comes from the same people who got us into the Iraq war. Known Liars. Iraq wasn't a necessary war either.

[Jackie97]

50. That's not where I get my angle from.

I don't get my angle from a bunch of people who say that war in the answer to solving all problems (when they really just want oil). I get my angle from the idea that occupation isn't liberation, and that it needs to be stood up to. I also get my angle from my anti-occupation arguments concerning Iraq. I learned from another person that the idea that Iraq needed to be occupied in order to survive and to take care of themselves goes back to the white man's burden. The US is saying that Iraq can not fight off the Baath party without us, and that they can not survive economically without us. We're insisting on going in there and doing things "our way" to "protect Iraq" when we really have our own interests that we're looking out for. That's my argument with Syrian occupation. I think that the idea that Lebanon needs Syria's occupation to protect them from Israel is a white man's burden argument. It's an argument which enables Syria to keep oppressing Lebanon; just like the argument for occupation against Iraq enables the US to oppress the Iraqis.

I hope that my post doesn't get deleted for being inflammatory. I'm not trying to be that way. I'm trying to say where I get my arguments against Syrian occupation from. I don't get my arguments from the people who are for taking over countries for their own interests (and allowing Syria to take over Lebanon for their own interests). I get my arguments from my arguments against others forms of occupation.

[Classical_Liberal]

53. What about the American occupation of Western Europe

After WWII during the cold war, to protect Europe from the Russians? ?
Israel has invaded Lebanon before, and continues to violate Lebanese airspace. If Syria's invasion is whitemans burdon why wouldn't Israel's invasion to make them leave be white mans burdon? Particularly since Israel harms the welfare of the Lebanese more than the Syrians ever did. Unlike Weapons of Mass Destruction the threat of in Israeli invasion is pretty well established. Israel didn't leave until the Syrians backed up Hizbolla and kicked them out.

[dai]

57. I think your analogy...

...is better than the comparison to the OT. However, the Syrian army is clearly no match for Israel - so claiming they are defending Lebanon from invasion seems unrealistic for me.

The Lebanese government still welcomes the Syrian military, but I have always understood this more as a means of protecting the Lebanese from each other than from Israel.

There were anti-occupation demonstrations in Beirut over the summer, but I don't know how much popular support they have. Certainly nowhere near Palestinian support for Israel's withdrawal from the OT.

I googled "Syria+occupation+Lebanon" and the first article that pops up is Daniel Pipes calling for Syria to leave Lebanon, so I think demands for a Syrian withdrawal from Lebanon may be a cynical neo-con precursor for more imperialist adventures in some cases.

[Jackie97]

59. What's wrong with the idea of Lebanon being free of everybody?

Just because Daniel Pipes supports it doesn't mean squat. Are you going to conclude that the pro-Palestinian cause is bad because Pat Robinson supports it? That's not good logic.

I do think that you bring up a good point. Syria is no match for the IDF, so saying that they're needed to protect Lebanon from Israel is ridiculous. Saying that they're needed to protect the Lebanese from each other is also ridiculous because it's suggesting that the Lebanese are not capable of forming a system where they can construct their own law, order, and protection.

And BTW, the Lebanese government that welcomes the Syrian one is a puppet one that was put in after Syria took completely over. It took decades of battles before it finally got to that point. Even then, it only got to that point because Syria promised the US that they wouldn't fight them in war with Iraq in the early 90's if we would allow them to take over Lebanon.

This is not a black and white issue. Defending Syrian occupation with ridiculous excuses is no answer for stopping Israeli occupation. Don't you see? Syrian occupation, Israeli occupation, or any type of occupation is imperialism.

[Darranar]

60. Daniel Pipes doesn't support it...

he simply supports occupation by another force, likely Israel or the US, to "destroy the terrorists" and "liberate the populace". He is, after all, a neo-con.

He might not say it on this particular subject, but look at what he says on others...

[dai]

61. I tried to make it clear...

...that demands for a "Free Lebanon" may have a dubious intention in some cases. Daniel Pipes would be one instances, and right-wing Israelis as well. When Lebanese are calling for Syrian withdrawal, then this is legitimate of course.

Darranar makes a good point. Ending the Syrian occupation may merely precede a much more vicious U.S. or Israeli occupation, especially since Hizbollah will continue to exist. This is why I am skeptical when certain groups denounce the Syrian occupation.

As for protecting the Lebanese from each other, years of civil war have resulted in too much bad blood within the population. I imagine this is less of an issue now than a decade ago, but a complete Syrian withdrawal at this time is probably not in the best interest of Lebanon (unless Syrian troops are replaced with the UN or some other body).

Not all occupations are equal, and not all are imperialism. The U.S. occupations of Japan and Germany were probably not, the lengthy rule of the British in India clearly was. Lebanon and the West Bank are somewhere in between, the key differentiating factors being the intentions of the occupying powers and the degree of acceptance within the population.

I can think of two selfish reasons for Syria's continued occupation: (1) Many Syrian nationals are employed in Lebanon (possibly given favorable employment opportunities) and (2) influence over Hizbollah gives some leverage with Israel. I don't believe either will motivate Syria to violate popular opposition to the occupation, especially since there are only 15-20,000 Syrian troops in Lebanon (compare that to the "coalition of the willing" in Iraq, which is only a slightly more populous country).

Although I am looking for opinions polls in Lebanon, can someone help me out with this?

Ultimately I am personally opposed to the Syrian occupation because, through a combination of intimidation and incentives, the Syrians are subverting Lebanon's chances for self-determination. However, should Syria withdraw completely today, the resulting power vacuum and likely disorder would make Lebanon an appealing target for the neo-con types.

[Jackie97]

70. Right now, all I have to say is this....

No, not all occupations are equal. Some are not about imperialism necessarily. However, Syria's occupation of Lebanon is because Syria considers Lebanon to be a part of their country. If I understand it right, Syria and Lebanon were supposed to be put together. Lebanon broke off because they wanted to be independent of Syria. Syria has *never* been able to take no for an answer regarding the issue of being all of one state. As a result, they're using the threat of Israeli occupation to occupy.

You admit that the Syrian army is no match for the IDF (and they sure aren't any match for the US's military), so why do you think that Syria shouldn't withdrawal right now? There's no good reason in the world for Syria to be occupying except for self-interest. If outsiders really want to protect Lebanon from occupiers, then they'll help them out in the area of self-defense as opposed to arguing for more occupation.

As for fighting with each other, I think that's because the imperialistic countries after WWII created all these ME countries with no consideration to the fact that they were separating friends and putting together enemies concerning the boarders. In the long future, I would think that the answers to that one would be either for them all to eventually make peace and work things out or to refigure out where the boarders should be (as opposed to letting the great imperialistic powers decide it). The answer to stopping that is not with occupation by a force of people who will murder civilians who resist them. The truth is that the Syrian government is murdering Lebanese who resist them, just like the Isreali government is murdering Palestinians who resist them.

[Classical_Liberal]

94. I believe in combonation with Hizbolla they were a fair match

for the IDF. I also think that their would be chaos that israel would take advantage of if they left. Where the chaos came from matters not one bit. I want to stop the pnac war, and this issue doesn't serve my purpose.

[Darranar]

76. You're misunderstanding me...

I think I agree with Jackie on this issue. My point is simply that Daniel Pipes is not a freedom fighter for the Lebanese population; rather, he wants another occupation to replace it. Whether or not that will happen is debatable; I doubt it will happen under Isareli control.

[Jackie97]

58. Hmmm.

I'm a little bit confused about which time in Europe that you're talking about. Is this when we were simply trying to prevent the spread of Communism? Yes, I would view that as a white man's burden. Actually, I view that as the beginning of the US and the USSR destroying parts of the world so they could have the most power.

I never said that Israel should be the ones to throw out the Syrians. The most that I suggested is that the Lebanese might be able to use some outside help from their fellow Arab nations or the UN. My main argument here though is that Lebanon has people in it. People should be allowed to rule their own land. Therefore, if they're being occupied, then they can start forming an army to start fighting off the Syrians and anybody else who wants to occupy them. I know that the odds look like they are against them, but I think that if the Vietnamese can throw out the US superpower and if the colonists could throw out the Redcoats from England in the 1770's, then Lebanon can free themselves if they have to. It might be a bloody battle, but they can do it if they want it badly enough. I would prefer that the UN step in to help them out though. They might need help in forming their own army for self-defense against Israel and Syria. Lebanon needs to helped in how to defend themselves and how to fight for their freedom. They don't need to be helped with more occupation. It doesn't have to be this way. The UN and perhaps other Arab countries could step in and stop this.

[Classical_Liberal]

68. Syria went in with the approval of the Arab league

.

[Jackie97]

71. With the idea of defending them from Israel....

Not with the idea of taking the place over like Israel.

Like I pointed out, the Arab countries wanted to help Lebanon out (probably a lot like the UN might help them out), and Syria told them to get lost so they could have Lebanon as a land all to themselves.

[Classical_Liberal]

95. Document Syria telling the arab league or the UN to get lost?

.

[Aidoneus]

98. I don't think that happened

The closest thing I can think of from the other Arab states "offering to help" was the Saudis fitting the bill for the CIA massacre that failed to blow up Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah.

Initially the Syrian intervention was aimed primarily at keeping the Christian militias' heads above water, for there was talk at the time of splitting the state up between one Christian-dominated area and the rest broken off (with a secondary eye towards manipulating the divisions for their benefit, of course). Later the intervention took the form of assisting the resistance to the Israeli invasion and occupation while still arranging the pieces around (these two tasks often contradicted, for example sapping Hizbullah's ability to resist the occupation for years through the rivalry with the Syrian-backed AMAL). In the process of this ending the civil war by paradoxically bringing most of the warring parties onto the same team and setting them off against those that weren't.

[Arnold_Layne]

73. Indeed. Not unlike the choosing between

Stalinist occupation or the Nazi occupation. Both weren't the answer.

[Classical_Liberal]

96. Containing the PNAC agenda is more imporatant though

and Syria is helping quite nicely which is the real reason the neocons are attacking them.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[Jackie97]

31. Classical_Liberal.

I understand that Syria might be keeping Israel from occupying Lebanon, but they're still occupying them. The Lebanese want the Syrians out because it's still persecution. The threat of one occupation should not be used to justify the existence of a current occupation. That's like saying that American whites should be allowed to have slaves to keep them from becoming the slaves of Europeans. That's like saying that the US needs to occupy Iraq to keep the Iraqis safe from the Baath party.

In order for Lebanon to be free, they must be able to rise up against all of their oppressors and throw them out. They might need some military help from the UN or elsewhere, but it can be done.

[Classical_Liberal]

46. Some Lebanese may want them out

My bet is that it is the factions who made up Sharon's death squads. I think that their are only two choices at present. Israel or Syria and I prefer Syria because they have brought stability.

[Jackie97]

72. Yes, and....

It's only the Baath party who wants the US out.

Get real.

Saddam Hussein doesn't have to be a nice guy to defend the idea of not having US occupation in Iraq.

My conscience is just fine with admitting that Hussein was a murderous tryant.

Why does Syria have to be portrayed as a good guy to go up against the idea of not having Israeli occupation in Lebanon?

Evidence is out there saying that Syria's murdering those who resist them. Why is that so hard for you to believe?

THE ENEMY OF YOUR ENEMY IS NOT YOUR FRIEND!

[Classical_Liberal]

93. Never said they were my friend

That doesn't mean they aren't essential for keeping Israel out of the Lebanon.

[Jackie97]

30. The terrorism pre 1967 is nothing like it is now.

Israel didn't have much of a problem with national security for years before 1967. They had some problems, but no more than certain other countries I can think of.

And yes, Syria should pull out of Lebanon.

[Arnold_Layne]

69. It is well known that the PLO assumed resistance and resorted to terror.

It is also well known that the Irgun, Stern, and other militant Jewish factions enjoyed the fruition of their dreams culminating in a state of Israel through terrorist activities.

[Feanorcurufinwe]

75. Do two wrongs make a right?

You say "the PLO and terror started before the 1967 war".

True of course. But when did Zionist terror start? Certainly before the founding of the state of Israel. That is an undisputed fact.

It's not about 'who started it' like some fight between children. It's about what is the right path to peace. Certainly the history involved is important for people to know if they are to speak intelligently about the issue. But using the evils committed by one side to justify the evils committed by the other side is the essence of the problem.

[The Magistrate]

5. If Those Three Conditions Were Fulfilled, Sir

There would probably be something resembling peace.

There would certainly be much less support for violence against Jews and Israel among the people of Arab Palestine than at present, making the liqidation of various jihadist organizations easier to accomplish. Many people who now have no stake in peace would have something to lose, and so would view such miscreants as a danger to themselves.

[stopthegop]

20. that's possible...

it would be nice to see it happen...have a good evening

[tinnypriv]

8. I'm sure some anti-semitic British commanders made similar arguments

[sushi]

22. It hasn't been tried

so we don't know!

I think Israel should agree to all that, and include the "threat," which must be signed by the Palestinians, that if there's one suicide bombing after that Israel will take over the whole new state of Palestine. That should do it, and we'll have peace.

Do you think Israel will do it? I don't, because I think Israel's leadership wants to expand its territory, not give up what they've taken. Israelis are victims of their leaders' ambition.

[stopthegop]

23. oh yeah...signing an agreement..

that'll reign in Arafat...

[Classical_Liberal]

24. In all fairness there are ten percenters on the West bank that

would not stop suicide bombings even if those conditions were required. The 10 percenters do indeed want the whole banana, but they are more managable once you go back to the 67 borders because you are not adding those who are angry at not having a Palestinian state on the west bank to the mix.

[sushi]

25. I agree

Sure, there is a small extremist group that won't change, but once there is a state that is acceptable(!) to the majority, this small group will be, as you say, more managable. Who knows, this majority, who will be happy to finally be able to live normal lives, will be so incensed if these extremists don't behave that they just might put them behind bars.

The important thing is that they get an acceptable state. Not one where they can't do anything, where Israel controls everything.

[Jackie97]

38. Just one suicide bombing, and Israel gets to take over?

How about an agreement which says that Palestine gets to be a state, and if one suicide bombing happens, then Israel works with Palestinians and International authorities to get to find the people responsible? Oh yeah, that's right. Israel won't support an International Criminal Court.

[sushi]

52. Actually, I agree with you

If there is a suicide bomber crazy enough to go kill him/herself in an Israeli crowd after a state is created for the Palestinians, the authorities of both countries should treat it as a crime and only go after the criminal.

It is just that we should go as far as we can to get stubborn Israel to move in the right direction. And if promising that one suicide bomber will lose the Palestinians their new state, why not! It would probably make Israel feel more secure, and therefore more willing to agree, and hopefully also frighten stubborn Palestinian extremists into giving up their practice because they know that when they do it the families they leave behind will lose their state.

[Classical_Liberal]

56. The danger is "Murphy's Law"

There will be that one suicide bomber. They aren't rational minded anyway, and if they are dead they won't worry about their family.

[Jackie97]

29. Oddly enough....

Israel has its most problems from Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

Arab Israelis are not often terrorists.

While there might be some endorsers and trainers of terrorists in other ME countries, they're many of times doing it for the suicide bombings and shootings that are done by Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip. Civilians in those countries are not suffering in the way that the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza strip are. They're not living in desperation. Therefore, most of them are not willing to leave their country to go and bomb civilians in Israel (while losing their life in the process).

In conclusion, giving the Palestinians their freedom would guarantee peace between the two nations because there just wouldn't be enough support for terrorism.

[Arnold_Layne]

67. This is a mere propaganda ploy to support the continued...

...illegal occupation. Now matter how many times this myth is debunked, it becomes the standard operating argument in that Israel is only a victim in which their only motive is self defense and self preservation. It matters not that Israeli has never been defeated by the Arab armies (although they were embarrassed in Lebanon - which was hardly a matter of self preservation). Israel's army is the 4th most powerful in the world with a the world's only superpower as a very close ally.

the main obstacle to peace is the desire by many Arabs/Palestinians to see Isreal cease to exist....

do you really believe there would be peace if:
1) Isreal withdrew to it's pre-67 war borders?
2) dismantled all settlements not within those borders?
&
3) recognized the territories as a Palestinian 'state'?

I submit the overall effect would be nil...just a secure base for Arafat and others to kill Jews from

and to talk of inordinate support...a democracy vs cleptocracies and kingdoms and dictatorships..this isn't a tough call

I would like to see something other than the status quo. Israel's disregard for international law does not justify its need to "self defense." As a matter of fact, if Israel abided by international law and UN resolutions, I would suspect that their would be minimal violence and perhaps a two state or one state solution that benefits everyone.

Israel's withdrawal to 1967 borders is not unreasonable. The IDF can still maintain its capacity for defending the state of Israel. The settlements, illegal under Geneva statutes, are nothing but a prickly thorn designed to:

A) Create facts on the ground in order to make Eretz Ysrael an inevitible part of any future "compromise."

B) Further humiliate the occupied populace by interconnected Jewish only bypass roads making the lives of Palestinians almost unbearable.

In my view the only thing threatened is the potential for a future Palestinian state (many in the Knesset seem to believe that Jordan is the Palestinian state and drive their policy under this premise.) Israel's existence is not threatened.

[Name removed]

26. Deleted message

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

[Darranar]

27. Why?

Why should the "president" not be bashed when on foreign soil?

[The Magistrate]

28. Please, Mr. Zodiac

Smacking this usurping reptile about is always proper, regardless of location, time of day, or state of dress: one cannot go wrong with any disparagement of the wretch, indeed, he cannot be properly described without disparragement.

[Classical_Liberal]

42. Repuke presidents do it all the time!

.

[Jack Rabbit]

48. Besides . . .

. . . America has no president, only an imposter.

[bemildred]

49. Fuck that.

If he wants respect, he can earn it just like the rest of us.
That "team player" crap is a two-way street, and he could give
a shit about anybody but himself and his cornhole buddies.

[rini]

32. anyone who has any military

background looks askance at JEC's reccomnendations in foreign/military affairs.

[Lithos]

33. For what reason?

If I might ask. I recall JEC was the second to last President to actually have active military experience. Reagan and Bush II certainly do not.

L-

[The Magistrate]

34. A Good Question, Sir

Most of the advanced weapons systems touted as the responsibility of Reagan began development under President Carter. The arming of resistance in Afghanistan against the Red army began under President Carter as well, on the advice of Mr. Brezinski, and was a very well handled covert operation that had good effect. The failure to clean it up properly was the error of succeeding administrations.

[rini]

63. JEC

screwed up rescue in Iran
active duty got no pay raises
messed up retirees benefits
most demoralizing ADM I have ever seen
that's when ADM started using food stamps (COLA went down and costs went up)


His best issue was self-reliance in energy.......wish someone has listened

[Lithos]

64. Wrong President

Rather, you should be pointing fingers back up one notch to Ford who initiated the policy of curbing military salaries as a way to fight inflation. Yes, Carter didn't help improve the existing situation, but he wasn't the one who started it.

So, let's see who were the people in charge back then and in charge of using the military like that? Hmmm, Rumsfeld was the Defense Secretary and Cheney was the brains behind the Whip Inflation Now campaign.

Why does that not surprise me?

As for the rescue in Iran, the rescue failue wasn't his fault for as I recall, he wasn't the one who was on the flight.

L-

[Violet_Crumble]

86. Another thing to remember...

...is that when one administration implements policies, it can sometimes be virtually impossible, or take more than one term for the next administration to change those policies. Which is probably what happened in this case...

This was also the first time that I'd heard Carter being blamed for the failed Iranian rescue mission. To be honest, I find some of the misplaced blaming of Carter for things a bit puzzling, as my opinion of him has always been that he was probably the best US president out of all of them over the past 25yrs or so...

Violet...

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

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

[bemildred]

47. You do know ...

That Carter graduated from Annapolis and served
seven years as a naval officer? And that therefore
he himself "has a military background"?

[edzontar]

66. Carter had a distinguished military career in the US Navy

Since you oppose Mr. Carter and think he was "anti-military," pray tell me--why do you post on this DEMOCRATIC board?

[edzontar]

74. OK. let me try this again....

I am surprised to read of your hostility to Jimmy Carter and his presidency.

Especially in the context of a progressive Democratic website.

Could you clarify your position as it regards politics in the USA, past and present?

For example, did you prefer the policies and presidency of Mr. Carter's successor, Ronald Reagan?

Who would you prefer to win the upcoming elections?

A progressive, fair-minded Democrat, or the present occupant, whose pro-"military" (in terms of his willingness to use it, anyway) and pro-Sharon policies would seem, at first glance, to be more to your liking.

[rini]

83. never mind

[edzontar]

88. So you choose not to answer....

HMMM.....

[Darranar]

85. Carter was a great president...

with an excellent foreign policy (relatively, at least).

He deserved his Nobel Peace Prize.

[edzontar]

90. I agree, as all true Democrats and progressives would...

nt

[Gimel]

97. It's not

How could it be pro-israel? It is pro-US Nd RW. Therefore, when the interests of Republican leaders are criticized, it rams another opinion down the throats of it's readers. Carter criticized Bush, calling him a cause of contiued conflict. Typical US politics. The Accords and the signing ceremony are a football.

[Darranar]

99. It is most certainly pro-Israel..

though I agree that if the interests of the right wing conflicted with the interests of Israel, the interests of the right wing would come first.

[edzontar]

35. Thank you, brave DEMOCRAT Jimmy Carter

I voted for this fine man twice, an never regretted it.

[IndianaGreen]

51. Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite!

Actually he isn't, but that's what those idiots in AIPAC will be saying about Carter.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

54. deleted...

changed my mind about commenting...

[pistoff democrat]

77. I feel your pain.

eom

[sushi]

55. I think former President Carter

is a humane and decent person. Still active doing good things inside and outside the US. I don't agree with anyone criticizing him.

[pistoff democrat]

78. Aw, come on.

Betcha could find something to agree about with someone who criticizes him.

Besides, we are all about democracy and that is all about criticism and compromise leading to good leadership.

Let's let the repiglicans put the kabosh on criticism!

[sushi]

100. Nobody is perfect

but former President Carter has only done, as far as I know, good things since he left office. When he was in office, maybe he was a little bit weak, according to his critics, but it's easy to look back and criticize.

Okay, when you like somebody you tend to overlook, forgive his faults. He acts, imo, more like a Christian than Bush.

[rini]

82. then make him a saint

[bemildred]

84. Eh, not the Pope, can't do that.

Jimmy's a Baptist anyway.`

[edzontar]

89. Rini: You seem very hostile to Carter and frame that in a "pro-military"

way...this seems to correspond closley to the Reaganite criticism of the man and to the general line of rhetoric that our enemies use aganst all Democrats and progressives.

And so I ask, again, what are your true views concerning liberalism, the Democratic party, and progressive values in general?

[sushi]

101. A supergood person

has to be dead before the Pope will consider making him/her a saint. I'm not sure that one has to be Catholic to be considered for sainthood. If not, I doubt very much that Bush or Sharon will ever be considered. Imagine!

[Gimel]

62. Carter called for

two things:

1)The immediate cessation of palestinian violence

2)The dismatleing of settlements.

The Washington Times report is slanted, as the call for the cessation of violence towards Israel was mentioned first and repeated more than once in the speech.

[pistoff democrat]

79. What do you expect?

The Washington Times is a R/W publication.

[pistoff democrat]

80. This report may in fact be suspect.

The Washington Times is a well-known right-wing publication and I don't know that it can be trusted.

[Darranar]

81. I've heard repeatedly that the Washington Times is pro-Israel...

many of the pro-Israel lobbyists who attacked the Washington Post turned to it.

[Violet_Crumble]

87. The article is from UPI, not the Washington Times...

btw, is there any reason for you to suspect that the report may be suspect? Maybe you think Jimmy Carter might not have said what he said?

When it comes to op-eds in right-wing rags like that, that's a completely different thing than news reports the rag in question picks up from UPI, AP, and others. There's no reason not to trust stories that come from sources like those based solely on what rag they're appearing in. But I think there's been plenty of 'pro-Israeli' op-eds posted here from this particular right-wing rag, as well as others, so I'll keep in mind what you said about not knowing if said right-wing rag can be trusted


Violet...

[Lurking Dem]

91. UPI *IS* the Washington Times

Owned by Rev. Moon.

[Violet_Crumble]

92. Oh, I didn't know that...

I just went and looked at the UPI site, and yr absolutely right. News World Communications owns both UPI and the Washington Times. There ya go. Learn something new every day!


Violet...