Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Has Carter crossed the line?

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:11 AM
Original message
Has Carter crossed the line?
Have former US president Jimmy Carter's recent statements crossed the line from legitimate criticism of Israel to illegitimate anti-Semitism? In his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, Carter unfairly, one-sidedly, a historically - even indecently - condemns Israeli policies, but in my view he does not cross the line into overt anti-Semitism. His book is riddled with factual errors, virtually of them unfavorable to Israel. His history is all wrong.

He claims that Israel launched a preemptive attack against Jordan. Historians all agree that Jordan attacked Israel first.


Book review: Indicting Israel

Blog: Another British boycott

Israel tried desperately to persuade Jordan to remain out of the war with Egypt and Syria, and Israel counterattacked after the Jordanian army surrounded Jerusalem, firing missiles into the center of the city. Israel then captured the West Bank, which had been occupied by Jordan for nearly 20 years, and which Israel was willing to return in exchange for peace and recognition from Jordan.

Carter repeatedly condemns Israel for refusing to comply with Security Council Resolution 242, which called for return of captured territories in exchange for peace, recognition and secure boundaries, but he ignores that Israel accepted and all the Arab nations and the Palestinians rejected this resolution. The Arabs met in Khartoum and issued their three famous noes: "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation." But you wouldn't know that from reading the Carter version of history.

more...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
oberliner Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
1. You did not just post an editorial by Alan Dershowitz about Jimmy Carter
Did you?

Can anything good come from this?


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
T Wolf Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:45 AM
Response to Original message
2. Israel is the too-hot-to-touch third rail of progressive politics.
Anyone who accuses President Carter of anti-semitism, even while denying the accusation as in this 'review', is just ignorant.

I see it as the anti-Raygun view -- as much as senility-addled Ronnie is treated as a saint (which he is so far from), Jimmy Carter is treated as just the opposite. The man does not have an evil cell in his body (or mind or heart). He is the only truly honorable president we have had in my lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cornermouse Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 03:52 AM
Response to Original message
3. No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:13 AM
Response to Original message
4. Michael Oren, Six-Day War Historian
Edited on Wed Dec-27-06 04:18 AM by Contrite
http://www.hoover.org/publications/uk/2939961.html

Title: Take My Army, Please

Peter Robinson: We've got Egyptian forces in the Sinai, Jordan now signs a treaty with Egypt placing Jordanian forces under Egyptian command. What is King Hussein doing?

Michael Oren: King Hussein--in his rhetoric was as anti-Israel as any Arab leader of his day but secretly King Hussein had a modus vivendi with the Israelis. He had open channels to them--to the British and the American Embassies. He would meet secretly with Israeli emissaries abroad. He did not want a war with Israel. It's the last thing he wanted. But before the war, Hussein faced a terrible dilemma. If Egypt went to war against Israel and Jordan didn't aid the Egyptian effort and the Egyptians lost, then all of the Arabs who considered Hussein a lackey of the imperialists anyway, they would rise up and use that as an excuse for killing him. But if Nasser went to war against Israel and Hussein didn't aid Nasser and Nasser won the war, then the Egyptian forces would conquer Israel and then they'd proceed into Amman and Nasser would kill King Hussein. So how do you get out of the dilemma? Hussein came up with what he thought was a brilliant scheme. He would abrogate all personal responsibility for the crisis by placing his army under direct Egyptian command. This he did and Egyptian Commander, General Riad arrived in Amman a few days before the war and that was fine. But on June 5th when the war broke out, General Riad got an order from Cairo to open fire on the Israelis. And that's how Jordan got involved in this war.

Peter Robinson: What are the Israelis thinking? Why do they move first? Surely they know that if things go--I mean, if Nasser says I want them to strike first, surely the Israelis are themselves thinking far better for us diplomatically if we don't.

(snip)

Peter Robinson: So on the first morning, the attack opens, the Israelis move first. They destroy 309 of the 340 Egyptian combat aircraft. And Egypt, within the first few hours of the conflict, suffers an enormous defeat. Why doesn't the whole thing just get called off on the first day? Why are we talking about a Six Day War?

Michael Oren: Again, Israel's plans call for a 48-hour war.

Peter Robinson: All right.

Michael Oren: Some of those 48 hours escalate. Why they escalate very briefly, because the Egyptian Army collapsed far more swiftly than anybody in Israel ever conceived.

Peter Robinson: So the Israeli defense forces get sucked into the Sinai?

Michael Oren: Literally sucked in. Literally sucked in. Matter of fact, the government can't even keep abreast of the momentum on the battlefield, which is too swift. In the government they kept thinking, oh we're at the Suez Canal, we weren't supposed to get to the Suez Canal. They didn't want them to get to the Suez Canal. All right. We're in Gaza, we don't want to go into Gaza. Then Jordan opens fire. Jordan opens fire first with howitzers in Jerusalem then long-range guns from Jenin into Tel Aviv and then their aircraft began to fire as well. So Israel strikes back at the Jordanians. And the Jordanian Army, which the Israelis assumed was the most powerful army in the world because the Jordanians had severely beaten the Israelis in 1948 war, the Jordanian Army also melted away.

On edit: I also read (on a Jewish site) that Hussein saw planes on radar and Nasser convinced him they were Egyptian planes when in fact they were Israeli planes returning from destroying the Egyptian combat air force.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:45 AM
Response to Original message
5. *sigh*...no
Edited on Wed Dec-27-06 06:46 AM by ixion
and get over the 'anti-semitism' thing, please. I get really tired of being called anti-semitic simply because I think Israel is a rogue state.


Israel is a country, not a religion. Judaism is a religion, not a country. N'er the twain shall meet.

FYI: here is the definition of 'anti-semitism'... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/anti-semitism

an·ti-Sem·i·tism /ˌæntiˈsɛmɪˌtɪzəm, ˌæntaɪ-/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
discrimination against or prejudice or hostility toward Jews.

I have a great deal of respect of the Judaic religion. I have no respect whatsoever for Israel, the nation-state.

See the difference?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:47 AM
Response to Reply #5
6. Whatever.
Try reading the article.

I know what anti-Semitism means and what doesn't. Seems a few people here do not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:57 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Dershowitz is not a credible source
hence no reason to waste time reading the article. thanks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Behind the Aegis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:59 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. hmmm...
...that line of "reasoning" sounds so familiar. Instead of actually reading something, one is already to "burn the book" because of what they "think" it may or may not say.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ixion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 07:35 AM
Response to Reply #8
9. okay, just to make you happy
I've wasted a 30 minutes of my time sorting through this article, and have noted just a few of the logic-spin zones carefully crafted by Mr. Dershowitz.


"Carter faults Israel for its "air strike that destroyed an Iraqi nuclear reactor" without mentioning that Iraq had threatened to attack Israel with nuclear weapons if it succeeded in building a bomb and that the UN refused to intercede."

-- See the spin in this one? Dershowitz condemns carter for condemning Israel for ACTUALLY bombing an Iraqi reactor, and what is the defense's logic for this? Because Iraq 'had threatened' to attack. Well, as we all know, and have known for years, that this was all just a bunch of trash talk. So who actually committed the greater crime in this instance? I would have to say Israel, because instead of just talking about it, the 'acted-out' and actually bombed a sovereign nation.


From there we go off subject while Dershowitz berates Carter for a variety of sourcing choices related to the book...but then on down the line, there's another choice example:

"First, Carter has strongly implied - based on an entirely false factual premise - that Jews control the media, academic and political process in the United States. In interview after interview, he has stated - quite categorically and quite falsely - that the plight of the Palestinians in the West Bank is "not something that has been acknowledged or even discussed in this country... You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis."

-- How's that for setting up and knocking down your own straw man? Dershowitz makes an accusation -- carefully crafted to invoke an angry response -- and then what's his defense for this heinous accusation? Well, gee, Carter said 'You never hear about it.' There is a logical leap the size of the Grand Canyon here, and without the straw man set up in the prior sentence, just saying 'You never hear about it' has no context whatsoever to 'the Jews'.

There's so much more here. Every paragraph is nothing more than straw-men set up to knock down, tied together with logical back-flips. There is a great deal of misdirection about Rwanda, Dafur and Tibet. And I do agree with him that these other countries should be brought to the forefront. However I disagree with the not-so-subtle accusation that Carter is some type of anti-Semitic conspiracy theorist.

I maintain my original premise: Dershowitz is not a credible source. There is a great deal of inference and many logical leaps required to validate his premise.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 08:13 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. Dershy's words on attributing sources inspired a chuckle from me...
Why was it that the name Joan Peters kept on popping into my mind while I was reading that? ;)

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #9
13. Agree Israel's settlements deep into PA make it "rogue" - but as to Iraq Nuc ability and
intention, they were between 6 months and 18 months from real bomb in 91 - and would have been done and bombing Israel by 91 if Israel had not hit the reactor/

I suspect you may be thinking about 2003 when the atomic/nuc program did not exist having been destroyed by the inspectors post 91.

As to Carter - yes his use of words sucks and is wrong/incorrect/inappropiate to describe what he seees and saw in the west bank and Gaza - but he gets a pass because what is in place is an occupation - now only in the west bank - that has helped destroy much of economic life and human rights there(part of that destruction has been self-inflicted by the militia violence and by governmentment corruption and a rejection of democracy in favor of tribal favors government by Arafat back in the mid-70's - a problem not yet solved by the current PA government).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
bahrbearian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
10. Hell No.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Glorfindel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 08:18 AM
Response to Original message
12. Of course not.
I'm deeply sorry that you feel the need to ask such a question in this Democratic forum.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 08:49 AM
Response to Original message
14. Carter is wrong - you are correct - but the situation for the PA in the west bank is
oppressive and would be no where near as bad if Israel settlement policy was ended and control given the PA (although many problems would remain because of the militia violence and corruption and lack of restoration of the democratic institutions that the Pa developed in the early 70's and which Arafat destroyed in the late 70's in favor of a tribal form of government).

Carter is making a correct point with incorrect lanuage (and in some cases by lies about history - why he does this is beyond my ability to discern).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
18. Actually it is a matter of interpretation
Edited on Wed Dec-27-06 02:05 PM by Contrite
Did you read the above interview with Michael Oren? In essence, Israel did strike first. And Jordan felt that Egypt did not defend West Jerusaleum and was forced into the fray although King Hussein did NOT want war with Israel. Nasser pretty much sucked Jordan into it.

"What are the Israelis thinking? Why do they move first? Surely they know that if things go--I mean, if Nasser says I want them to strike first, surely the Israelis are themselves thinking far better for us diplomatically if we don't.

(snip)

Peter Robinson: So on the first morning, the attack opens, the Israelis move first."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #18
23. your source - M. Oren - agrees that the first act of war was Arab - the response was Israeli
If the point is who fired first on the first day of the 6 day war, it was indeed Israel - if the point is who did the first act of war, it is not Israel.

To use the term "strike first" implies the incorrect idea that Israel started the war - so I object to its use. But you are correct that Israel did literally fire first on the first day of the 6 day war.
=======================================================================

One of Carters weirder themes is that secular Jews - the ones that want a 2 state solution - are not good Jews, but religious Jews that want all the land of the Bible are grabbing land that while mentioned in the Bible as part of the land of the Jews is not really land that is part of the "Hebrew Scriptures" - someone must explain the reasoning to me someday....:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110009438

A Religious Problem
Jimmy Carter's book: An Israeli view.

BY MICHAEL B. OREN
Tuesday, December 26, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Several prominent scholars have taken issue with Jimmy Carter's book "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," cataloging its historical inaccuracies and lamenting its lack of balance. The journalist Jeffrey Goldberg also critiqued the book's theological purpose, which, he asserted, was to "convince American Evangelicals to reconsider their support for Israel."

Mr. Carter indeed seems to have a religious problem with the Jewish state. His book bewails the fact that Israel is not the reincarnation of ancient Judea but a modern, largely temporal democracy. "I had long taught lessons from the Hebrew Scriptures," he recalls telling Prime Minister Golda Meir during his first tour through the country. "A common historical pattern was that Israel was punished whenever the leaders turned away from devout worship of God. I asked if she was concerned about the secular nature of the Labor government."

He complains about the fact that the kibbutz synagogue he enters is nearly empty on the Sabbath and that the Bibles presented to Israeli soldiers "was one of the few indications of a religious commitment that I observed during our visit." But he also reproves contemporary Israelis for allegedly mistreating the Samaritans--"the same complaint heard by Jesus almost two thousand years earlier"--and for pilfering water from the Jordan River, "where . . . Jesus had been baptized by John the Baptist."

Disturbed by secular Laborites, he is further unnerved by religiously minded Israelis who seek to fulfill the biblical injunction to settle the entire Land of Israel. There are "two Israels," Mr. Carter concludes, one which embodies the "the ancient culture of the Jewish people, defined by the Hebrew Scriptures," and the other in "the occupied Palestinian territories," which refuses to "respect the basic human rights of the citizens."

Whether in its secular and/or observant manifestations, Israel clearly discomfits Mr. Carter, a man who, even as president, considered himself in "full-time Christian service." Yet, in revealing his unease with the idea of Jewish statehood, Mr. Carter sets himself apart from many U.S. presidents before and after him, as well as from nearly 400 years of American Christian thought.

============================================
here we discuss the Arab acts of war that forced the war - and indeed note that Israel hit first on the first day of the 6 day war.


http://www.amazon.com/Six-Days-War-Making-Middle/dp/0195151747

Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East (Hardcover)
by Michael B. Oren

By contrast, Oren convincingly establishes in an often engrossing narrative the reactive, contingent nature of Israeli policy during both the crisis preceding the conflict and the war itself. As Prime Minister Levi Eshkol held the Israeli Defense Forces in check that May, Operation Dawn, an Egyptian plan for a preemptive strike against Israel, came within hours of implementation. It was canceled only because Egypt's President Gamal Abdel Nasser feared it had been compromised. Israel's decision to seek its own security in arms was finally triggered, Oren shows, by Jordan's late accession to the hostile coalition dominated by Egypt and Syria. Geographically, the West Bank, then under Jordanian rule and occupation, cut Israel nearly in half.

While Oren also recounts some necessary historical context for understanding the war's catalysts and discussing its aftermath, he primarily focuses on the pivotal six days of conflict, dedicating a full chapter for each day. Predictably, the most controversial information is his new findings on an Egyptian top-secret plan that came very close to eradicating Israel's army and nuclear power plant.

Oren describes the agony of Eskhol and the Israeli government in deciding how to attack preemptively without alienating the United States. In the famous meeting between Abba Eban and President Johnson, Johnson practically urged Israel to absorb a first strike. The execrable Charles De Gaulle did overtly demand this.


=========================================
This is a further discussion of the above:

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060717&s=oren071706
by Michael B. Oren

Nasser exploited a spurious Soviet report of Israeli war plans to evict U.N. peacekeepers. He closed the Straits of Tiran to Israeli shipping, concentrated 100,000 of his troops along the Israeli border, and forged anti-Israeli pacts with Syria and Jordan

And just as Israel's failure to punish the patron of terror in 1967 ultimately triggered a far greater crisis, so too today, by hesitating to retaliate against Syria, Israel risks turning what began as a border skirmish into a potentially more devastating confrontation. Israel may hammer Lebanon into submission and it may deal Hezbollah a crushing blow, but as long as Syria remains hors de combat there is no way that Israel can effect a permanent change in Lebanon's political labyrinth and ensure an enduring ceasefire in the north. On the contrary, convinced that Israel is unwilling to confront them, the Syrians may continue to escalate tensions,

Paradoxically, Israel has been attacked from the two territories from which it unilaterally withdrew with the approval of much of the international community. Since the pullout of Israeli forces from southern Lebanon in May 2000, Hezbollah terrorists have periodically fired rockets at civilian targets in Israel and ambushed soldiers across the U.N.-recognized border. Since the withdrawal from Gaza last year, Hamas and other Palestinian groups have fired more than 1,000 rockets into Israeli territory and have repeatedly attempted to conduct terrorist raids across the border.

Israel refrained from large-scale military reprisals for this aggression, confident of having won international goodwill through its withdrawals and fearful of being dragged back into the Lebanese and Gazan morasses. But Israelis have learned that unprovoked violence against them raises little outcry in the world and that failure to react to isolated acts of terror invites unremitting terror. Today a united Hezbollah-Hamas axis has emerged, financed and trained by Syria and Iran, with the goal of destabilizing Israel and frustrating its efforts to disengage from the conflict. In spite of the perils that this front poses to Israel, and the ethical dilemmas that fighting it raises, Israel can transform the situation into one that promotes both domestic and regional stability.

In countering Hamas and Hezbollah, Israel has little choice but to strike at those who authorize the attacks: the heads of those organizations. Both Ismail Haniyeh in Gaza and Hasan Nasrallah in Lebanon appear indifferent to their own people's safety. For propaganda purposes, they order rocket crews to operate in densely populated areas so that Israeli retaliation will inflict the maximum number of civilian casualties. But these leaders remain extremely reluctant to pay for terror with their own lives, a fact that Israel discovered when its policy of targeted assassinations compelled Hamas to agree to a cease-fire.

By contrast, punishing the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples collectively, as Israel has been doing, only strengthens their support for terror while creating painful ethical problems for Israelis. And negotiating with the terrorists for their hostages' release merely encourages them to kidnap more Israelis. Ultimately, Israel has no alternative other than convincing these leaders that terror incurs a personal cost.

http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=w060717&s=oren071706

=============================================

And a fellow finds our source - who I find very truthful - to perhaps have a blind spot or two where he is asserting that which can both not be proven and which - per Mr Pasko - is not true.

http://web.israelinsider.com/views/4434.htm

Tell the truth, Michael Oren (as to Jews valuing Arafat as a reason to fight and take land and therefore they morned his death)
By Ariel Natan Pasko November 22, 2004


Every once in a while, I read an op-ed piece and say to myself, "Wait a second, that's not true." I just read such a piece in the Jerusalem Post; "Neither rejoice, nor lament" by Michael B. Oren, the best-selling author of "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East," (OUP 2002). A longer version of this article ran on November 14, 2004, entitled "Arafat Without Tears," in the Washington Post.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Contrite Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
24. Very interesting follow-up.
Thank you!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
papau Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Glad you found it interesting :-)
:-)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tom Joad Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 09:07 AM
Response to Original message
15. Dershowitz is driven by his hatred of Arabs. And disregard for truth.
he should stick to defending rich murderers in court. and not maligning people outside it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Sperk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 10:41 AM
Response to Original message
16. raising questions, trying to have an open discussion on any matter,
letting all sides have their say, is NEVER crossing the line in a democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TomClash Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
17. Blah, blah, blah
Carter's not an anti-semite? Here's the ultimte bogeyman in any discussion of the Middle East. How nice of Alan Dershowitz to raise that straw man so he can so magnanimously knock it down. Ok, Dershowitz isn't a traitor to the Untied States either. Isn't it nice of me to raise that non-issue too?

"All historians agree" Nonsense. Jordanian fears of an Israeli attack on the West Bank arose in large part out the Samu incident in 1966. That's not mentioned because it complicates the issue. Hussein thought Israel had expansionist aims to fulfill religious and future population needs. In light of the present day occupation and settlement expansion, he was quite prescient.

More Dershowitz blather. It's cute to say the Arabs rejected 242 but most haven't rejected it for many, many years. And neither side has a legal right to ignore international law it doesn't like. That is particularly true for Israel, since international law created it. And what right does Israel have to settle Palestinian land? Under no international law is this permitted.

More Dershowitz/Oren trash talk. Other than a few passing comments taken out of context, Carter never says or implies that Israel isn't religious enough. That has nothing to do with his book - it is mentioned by D & O simply to attack Carter. No one - least of all Carter - pretends religion is the reason for Israel's existence in any event.

The great peace offer. Has Alan Dershowitz ever heard of Robert Malley, a key American negotiator at Camp David in late 2000? Carter's view of the Camp David talks largely parallels Malley's view. Why is Dennis Ross the only voice who can be heard on this issue? Does he deny the existence of Israel's laundry list of pre-conditions to that "offer?" Does he deny that Barak made no such offer and that only Clinton did and that it allowed Israel to retain large swaths of land for security purposes?

One can go on and on and on about this Dershowitz drivel.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pelsar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 04:42 PM
Response to Reply #17
20. and ANOTHER EXCUSE....dont they ever stop?
Jordanian fears of an Israeli attack on the West Bank arose in large part out the Samu incident in 1966.

amazing, the attempts to make the 6 day war "israels fault"......all one has to do is pickup on nassers speeches, the israeli full mobilization that sat for months, syrias attacks and jordans history of attacking.....

the Samu incident...had nothing to do with the 6 day war....theres nothing to mention and it complicates nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Violet_Crumble Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:48 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. Now that's just plain ridiculous...
How 'Jordanian fears of an Israeli attack on the West Bank arose in large part out the Samu incident in 1966.' can be turned into an attempt to 'to make the 6 day war "israels fault"......' is beyond me. Has it ever occured to you that it is possible to talk about the I/P conflict without viewing it as a big Blame Game?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Englander Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 02:27 PM
Response to Original message
19. No.
Next question;

"Is Dershie off his rocker?"

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Dec-27-06 06:42 PM
Response to Original message
21. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Oct 31st 2024, 06:28 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC