Thank You, Jimmy Carter

[Scurrilous]

Rabbi Michael Lerner
December 06, 2006

<snip>

"Jimmy Carter was the best friend the Jews ever had as president of the United States.

He is the only president to have actually delivered for the Jewish people an agreement (the peace treaty between Israel and Egypt) that has stood the test of time. Since the treaty, there have been bad vibes between Israel and Egypt, but never a return to war, once Israel fully withdrew from the territories it conquered in Egypt during the 1967 war.

To get that agreement, Carter had to twist the arms of Menachem Begin and Anwar Sadat. Sometimes that is what real friends do—they push you into a path that is really in your best interest at times when there is an emergency and you are acting self-destructively.

When the U.S. government is following a self-destructive policy, even a policy backed by people in both major political parties, its best friends are those who try to change its direction and are not afraid to offer intense critique. That’s why a majority of Americans, and 86 percent of American Jews, voted in the 2006 midterm elections to reject Bush’s war in Iraq and his policies suspending habeas corpus and legitimating wire-tapping and torture. Not because we were disloyal, but precisely because we love America enough to challenge its policies even when Vice President Cheney questions our loyalty. We know that critique is often an essential part of love and caring.

That is precisely what Jimmy Carter is trying to do for Israel and the Jewish people in his new book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid.

So it’s astounding to see the assault on Carter that has been launched by the ADL chair Abe Foxman, law professor Alan Dershowitz and a bevy of other representatives of the Jewish community. I recently received a mailing from our local Jewish Community Relations Council containing four such attacks on Carter, with zero representation of American Jews who support the Israeli peace movement."

more

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

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

[Tom Joad]

2. Jimmy has done ALL the people of the Middle East a great service

[Purveyor]

3. I've been quite impressed by the good President...

He is holding his own quite well and refusing to back down on his claims of israeli atrocities against the Palestinian people.

Job well done, indeed!

[IntiRaymi]

4. This makes perfect sense:

"The only real protection for a small country like Israel is to have good relations with its neighbors, and that is precisely what the occupation systematically undermines. The Geneva Accord provides a good foundation for the lasting peace both sides say they want."

The problem, of course, is that those good relations would entail a course of action that would eliminate the colonization plan. So good relations will not happen, and israelis will have to content themselves with living under eternal fear, and a de facto police state.

But that is what some want. A fearful people are more easily led astray, to wit: If anyone examines the multitude of slippery slope arguments used in these forums for justifying Israel's actions...

[cool user name]

9. Well said.

:thumbsup:

[UndertheOcean]

5. Thank you Mr. Lerner

n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

6. He mentions the hatred of nuance....

Carter recognizes the mistakes on both sides—precisely what the “You are either for us or against us” crowd in both camps cannot stand. Nuance, recognition that both sides have at times been insensitive to the legitimate needs of the other, insistence that both sides need to take steps that are currently rejected (by Hamas in the Palestinian world, by the Israeli government in the Jewish world—this is what makes for rational discussion.


I've read posts and reviews of Jimmy Carter's book over the past few days that deride his recognising both sides mistakes as being ideological revisionist rewriting of history etc etc. It gets really silly....


Here’s an easy way to tell an extremist on Israel/Palestine issues: Just ask that person if he or she can list at least three terrible errors his/her side has made in this struggle, errors that deserve moral condemnation. If they can’t, chances are that no amount of evidence or moral reasoning is ever going to open their minds.

I bolded this bit because I think it'd be an interesting thing for people in this forum to try to do. Any takers? I'll start...

1. Attacks on Israeli civilians (eg suicide bombings and rocket attacks)...

2. Arafat's unwillingness to clean up the PA of corruption (without that factor I'd be doubtful Hamas would be in control today). Also his ambiguity about controlling the groups that attacked Israeli civilians (eg saying one thing but doing things like paying families of suicide bombers more than that of other families who lost relatives in the conflict).

3. The second intifada being violent rather than a non-violent one...

[Violet_Crumble]

7. Kick...

[cool user name]

10. The same reasons. That's an excellent exercise to have.

I agree with the same reasons as yours.

[Violet_Crumble]

11. I could have come up with quite a few more reasons...

..but three seemed enough. I would be interested in seeing if some of the 'pro-Israel' posters in the forum can come up with three, but I do kind of suspect that those who would participate in this exercise aren't the folk who I suspect would have a lot of trouble coming up with even one reason...

[cool user name]

12. I've only seen two positions.

Mine (which mirrors yours) and yours.

This would actually be a great thing to do. Kind of helps in analysing things from a different perspective.

[msmcghee]

13. I'm not sure . . but I think

. . you typed your insult incorrectly.

Didn't you mean, " . . but I do kind of suspect that those who would participate in this exercise are the folk who I suspect would have a lot of trouble coming up with even one reason. . "?

[Violet_Crumble]

15. You think wrong...

As there is no insult there and there was no error in what I typed.

Now that yr here, can you list three terrible errors that Israel has made that deserve moral condemnation?

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[breakaleg]

18. Now why did you have to go and say that? You make is sound as if yours posts

never contain insults, which they most certainly do. Even in your apology you are sarcastic!

[msmcghee]

19. I claimed, incorrectly it seems,

that that one post contained an insult. I apologized.

Here's to a new start. :thumbsup:

[msmcghee]

25. In case you missed it . .

. . I answered your "three questions" post down below . . #20.

To recap, you claimed that unless someone could come up with three moral crimes for their side then they were an extremist. You said, "If they can’t, chances are that no amount of evidence or moral reasoning is ever going to open their minds."

I replied that your premise is not logical. I said that finding three moral crimes that the victim committed in the act of defense is incorrectly assuming some moral equivalence between the victim and the perpetrator of a violent act.

I don't think anyone in a civilized society would suggest that the acts of a person defending themselves and their families from deadly attack should be judged on the same scale as the acts of the person trying to kill them. All civilized societies permit the use of violence, even deadly violence, for necessary self defense.

I left you the out of showing that Israel's acts are not in self-defense and that the Palestinian's acts are - which is the opposite of my premise. i.e. you can prove my premise wrong.

If you can do that then I will agree that Israel has no business entering the territories. They would be morally wrong to shoot Palestinians or detain them at checkpoints or put up walls on their property.

All you have to do is show that Israel is the aggressor and the Palestinians are defending themselves against unwarranted Israeli aggression. Of course, I know you believe that is true. But you have never offered any logical justification for that. If you could then I would have to agree that all the things you say about Israel would be true.

You asked for a discussion of the moral issues in this conflict. Here it is. Do you have any answers? Does anyone here care to discuss the moral difference between attempted murder and self-defense? Or, as usual, do you not want to go there?

[Violet_Crumble]

30. No, you didn't list three errors Israel has made...

All you've done is say why you think Israel is blameless, and that sort of thing is exactly what Rabbi Lerner (not me, btw) is talking about when he talks about extremists...

[msmcghee]

34. I am not interested in whether you or Lerner . .

. . think I am an extremist. I already know you think that no matter what test you propose.

I am more interested in the subject of moral blame and condemnation that you raised. I have stated that I don't see where Israel is to blame (morally) as to the fundamental nature of this conflict since 1948. My understanding is that Israel is acting in self-defense and that Arab groups and states are attacking Israel with the intent to destroy it.

I am trying to take another look at the evidence and examine my own views to see if I have missed something. If I find such reasonable evidence I guarantee you I'll change my position.

I've shown you several places where you can show me where my premise is wrong. My premise is that where there is an attacker in a conflict, who uses violent force to try to take something from a victim, and where the victim is involuntarily forced to defend themselves, that attacker-victim relationship between the parties establishes the moral nature of the conflict and is the lens through which the actions of both parties must be judged.

I'm disappointed that you don't want to participate in that exercise.

[breakaleg]

14. I whole heartedly agree with yours as well. As much as I hope for

the Palestinians getting their own state, they make it easy for us to find fault with their actions at times.

[Violet_Crumble]

22. The way I see it is...

..that the difference between us and those who are incapable of seeing that Israel has made any errors worthy of moral condemnation is that unlike them we can see wrong-doing on both sides and not just one, but also we can fault the actions of the Palestinians yet not use those same actions as justification for what is done to the Palestinian people in return...

[oberliner]

16. Wouldn't responding to your request mean...

..that a person implicity accepts Michael Lerner's "easy way to tell an extremist" ?

Considering some on this board probably disagree with a lot of the opinions he espoused in this editorial, perhaps they do not agree that his method of determining who is an extremist is an accurate one and therefore do not wish to engage in the exercise.

[Violet_Crumble]

21. I can't see why anyone would disagree with his method...

I think when it comes to something like the I/P conflict, if someone isn't capable of identifying at least three errors where they think their 'side' deserves moral condemnation then chances are that they probably do hold extremist views. Their views would be so one-eyed, zealoted and hypocritical that it'd be hoped no-one else would take them seriously apart from their fellow extremists. Having read yr posts in this forum and noticing that you hold a reasonably balanced view of the conflict, I've got no doubt that you could identify three errors made by Israel which is why I didn't even bother asking you to do it as yr posts speak for themselves in that regard....

Here's something to ponder. If being unable to identify errors made by their 'side' isn't a way of identifying an extremist, then what would be?

[oberliner]

23. Personally, I like the I/P Forum Guidelines

Specifically:

"A good rule of thumb for those who will do well are those who are actively seeking a peaceful and respectful settlement and are genuinely interested in a rational discourse of events in the I/P conflict. If you feel great affinity to groups who are promoting hate in the Middle East such as Kahane, or Hamas; feel there is a Jewish conspiracy governing US foreign policy or control of the media; or believe supporters of Islam or Palestinian Nationalism are terrorists, then you are probably likely to be banned."

I think that is a pretty good way of identifying who is an extremist and who isn't.

[Violet_Crumble]

24. No, they're identifying who'll be banned, not who's an extremist...

Though I bet you anything that many folk who couldn't come up with three errors would fall into one of those categories in the I/P forum guidelines....

on edit: I had to rewrite my post after I spotted a big flaw in the I/P guidelines but it's not my place to say what it is so I'll keep silent :)

[msmcghee]

29. I think they are saying . .

. . that extremists are likely to get banned.

Instead of worrying so much about who is an extremist, let's see if Israel has committed moral crimes anything like those you described for the Palestinians.

Your #1) Attacks on Israeli civilians (eg suicide bombings and rocket attacks)

I can't recall any similar attacks on Palestinians other than the occasional wacko who gets arrested and sent to jail for it. Every society has those. Israel has no policy of encouraging attacks against Palistinian civilians that I have ever heard of. When the IDF do kill Palistinians it is always part of defensive operations. The Israelis would not be in the territories except for defensive reasons. They were not in the territories prior to the 1967 war.

Your #2a) Arafat's unwillingness to clean up the PA of corruption (without that factor I'd be doubtful Hamas would be in control today)

Actually I'd give you a pass on that. I wouldn't call that immoral as far as the war is concerned. It contributes but I'd be happy to see just blatantly immoral acts - not just unethical governance.

Your #2b) Arafat's ambiguity about controlling the groups that attacked Israeli civilians (eg saying one thing but doing things like paying families of suicide bombers more than that of other families who lost relatives in the conflict).

OK That's a good one IMO. But, I can't find any evidence that Israel either commands the IDF or encourages Israeli militant groups or hires mercenaries to attack unarmed Palestinian civilians. Can you?

Your #3) The second intifada being violent rather than a non-violent one...

OK, I can't find any evidence that Israel has ever told its citizens that they should establish an ongoing campaign to sneak into Palestine and kill Palestinian civilians. Can you?

I guess, even based on the false notion of moral equivalence that you propose, Israel has never engaged in any of the practices that you describe as moral crimes committed by Palestinians, most of them repeatedly over the last 60 years.

But, maybe you know of some other crimes that Israel has committed on that scale. Remember though, none of those moral crimes committed by Palestine were committed in self defense.

I'm sure that you believe that many of Israel's actions are at least equivalent on the moral scale if not worse. I invite you to pick the most egregious example of crime that Israel has committed. The crime that most effectively proves that Israel is the aggressor - for you. Let's take a look at that.

[msmcghee]

20. That's an interesting question.

First, I'd question the premise - that the inability to find a certain number of immoral acts by one party to a conflict indicates bias. That's kind of like saying the victim of a rape is biased against the rapist (and therefore an unreliable witness) if she can't remember ever attacking him in the past.

My premise is that Israel is the victim of repeated attempted murder since 1948. I've got plenty of witnesses, thousands of dead Israelis and the actual statements of the perpetrators that killing Israelis was their intention - and even today that they intend to keep trying until they succeed.

You can certainly claim that over the last 60 years there were several times when individual Israelis and even specific IDF Units (perhaps, I don't know) were guilty of the premeditated murder of Palestinians. The question is - if those represent acts of the government (therefore becoming acts of the people who elected that government) - or if that government was honestly opposed to such actions and tried to prevent it, punished perpetrators, etc.

The problem is that you start from the premise of the moral equivalence of each side's reasons for participating in the conflict. That's the great lie that is repeated endlessly and implied by so many posts in this forum. Playing your morality Q&A game would actually endorse that premise.

Try to understand:

Israel is the victim. Palestinian leaders, militias and individuals have been trying to kill Israelis for 60 years.

The Palestinian militias are the perpetrators. No IDF Units have ever been sent into the territories with the purpose of killing random Palestinian civilians. They would not be in the territories if they were not there defending themselves.

The Palestinian militias are the ones who have pledged to kill Israelis and keep trying. Israel has never pledged to kill Palestinians much less keep trying until they get it right.

The Israelis are the ones trying to deal with that without killing too many Palestinians. That's why they left Gaza twice now and have repeatedly given land back captured in defensive wars in exchange for peace.

The Israelis are the ones ready to leave the Palestinians alone as soon as they stop trying to kill Israelis. They have never attacked the territories except in defense.

Before you can morally compare the acts of states (or people) at war - you need to show that they both showed up voluntarily.

[breakaleg]

26. So, Israel is the victim, according to you.

Isn't it fairly common that the victim grows up to be the bully? Seems to me that Israel is now the bully and can't hide behind the excuses they used way back when.

That Israel, with their military might in the Middle East, is the victim, is laughable. Let's not forget that Israel is putting Palestinians in Gaza on a diet.

[msmcghee]

27. Yes, Israel's actions are making things difficult for the . .

. . Palestinians. You need to show that they have some other motive than self-defense. You need to show that the Palestinian militia and Hamas don't really mean it when they say they plan to keep trying to kill Israelis until they are all dead or gone. Then you need to show that the rockets flying in to S. Israel are not really meant to kill Isrealis. Things like that.

Or, you could show that Israel has a policy of killing random Palestinians, like a statement by some Israeli official to that effect. A statement by the Israelis similar to what Hamas has been saying about never quitting until Israel is gone from the ME. Things like that.

Or, you could show circumstantial evidence that during the last 60 years Israel has had some obvious pattern of non-defensive purpose to actions it took against Palestinians.

The victim is the one who did not pick the fight. The victim is the who is attacked. Who gets hurt the most in the resulting conflict has nothing to do with it.

PS - I just read pelsar's post #28 and one of those could be on that scale IMO, maybe two. I can't post any more tonight but I'll follow up tomorrow.

[breakaleg]

35. Absolutely false.

I don't need to show that Hamas doesn't mean what they say, just that they aren't capable of backing up what they say, or following through with their actions.

The threat from the current victim to the bid bad bully is really going to scare the bully, when he's got all that military might behind him and the victim's only got what he's carrying with him. Don't tell me that all if Israel is really and honestly afraid of that threat made by some Palestinians that they cannot carry out.

It's more accurate to say Israel is using that threat as a blank cheque to inflict any damage they want and not be held accountable. And it's working, but you apparently cannot find any blame with Israel!

Every time I see you write about defensive acts or weapons it makes me laugh. At the very least, please don't accuse me or anyone here of falling for any propaganda when you've bought the entire cow.

[msmcghee]

37. Your concerns lie at the heart of the I/P discussion IMO.

You say, "At the very least, please don't accuse me or anyone here of falling for any propaganda when you've bought the entire cow."

I don't think I've accused you or anyone else here of falling for propaganda. My view is that we all look at emotional topics like this through our strong emotionally held beliefs. I am not using that in any derogatory way. I believe that's how the human brain functions and I consider my brain in that category.

I also believe that If we are aware that emotional topics like this will tend to shut off our logical brains we can exert extra effort to overcome our emotionally based views and replace them with more logical ones. I admit that my views could be emotionally based. I am trying to examine them but that can be very hard to do.

If you and others respond to my posts with logical assertions that show my "emotional" beliefs to be wrong - I pledge to change my beliefs. But when you respond emotionally it makes me think that perhaps my beliefs are the ones more grounded in reality here. You could say that one of my reasons for being in this forum is to test my beliefs - to see if they are based on reality or on my emotional beliefs. And I'm testing yours too because for the most part our beliefs on this are mutually exclusive.

Everyone believes of course, that their own beliefs are totally logical and objective. And those who disagree with them are driven by nothing but illogical emotions. Me too. It's very difficult for someone to find their own lack of objectivity in their beliefs - and it's more difficult the more emotional those beliefs are. Our human nature is to defend our emotional beliefs, not question them logically.

So, I'm admitting that my beliefs regarding the I/P conflict could contain emotional, not logical premises. I'm asking you and others here to help me separate my emotional beliefs from objective reality.

One of my most strongly held beliefs is that the difference between victims and oppressors is determined by who attacks who - by which party voluntarily attacked the other and which party is involuntarily forced to defend itself. I know you disagree with that. For that reason I have gone back and checked my logic on that several times now but I keep coming to the same conclusion.

I think there are several logical problems with your view that the victim is the party that is most seriously injured in the conflict that results from the initial attack against the attackee. (Correct me if I got that wrong.)

First, it removes the blame from the cause of the conflict - the intitial attack - to what comes after that attack. If that were the case then it seems to me that anyone could attack anyone else to take what they want - and their actual guilt would be subject to some events that come later. If peace-loving nations adopted that policy - It seems that would give the dictators and thugs of the world a lot of incentive to attack whoever they want - since their guilt would have nothing to do with the attack itself, but events that come later, events that could even have been set up to favor the attacker since the attacker has all the time to set things up.

For example, that leaves open the interesting possibility that a state or group could attack another and actually hope that the defensive actions of the attackee would result in enough death and injuries to the attacker's population that the world would look at the "disproportionate" injuries and death and suffering and blame the attackee. They might see that as a reasonable price to pay to get what they want.

The attacker could even fire rockets from civilian areas and encourage suicide attacks that require humiliating checkpoints to thwart - in order to insure the impression of innocence based on "disproportionate" casualties and "inhumane" treatment. When challenged they might say that their victim, " . . is using that threat (of attack) as a blank cheque to inflict any damage they want and not be held accountable".

I understand that you see this differently. OK, we have two different views and they could each be based on emotional beliefs and not reality. Let's test them. Here's some evidence that my belief on this is more reality based than yours. Just using some very recent events,

a) Israel twice called off attacks on known terrorists in Gaza when civilians surrounded the building they were in - rather than kill the civilians.

b) Isreal allowed several terrorists to escape when they did so shielded by a group of women - who Israeli chose not to kill in order to prevent the escape.

c) Israel withdrew entirely from Gaza based on the promise that the rockets would stop. And even when they did not stop, Israel kept their part of the bargain.

How is that an example of, ". . Israel using that threat (of attack) as a blank cheque to inflict any damage they want and not be held accountable."

Those are examples that I believe logically refute your premise. If you can show why they don't refute your premise I'd like to hear your reasoning. I'm also interested in any counterexamples that you might have that show Israel is " . . using that threat (of attack) as a blank cheque to inflict any damage they want and not be held accountable".

Also, I believe this shows that moral blame in conflict must lie with the side that attacks the other, not the side who defends itself against that attack. It does not depend on what happens in the conflict that follows the attack. Even if the attackee responds with far too much force to defend itself and assure that future attacks will not occur - that would be a separate moral question, that in no way absolves the attacker in the initial attack from moral responsibility for that attack.

I welcome comments from anyone on this.

[pelsar]

28. israels screwups...

I'll try to stick to the just to the palestenains and leave out the israeli politics.

it started with Hebron...letting the settlers establish a foot hold there.......

removing the reservists from the territories..and letting just the "kids" there.

making "laws" or lack of enforcement/lack of laws that give the settlers powers to terrorize not just the palestenains but the army as well.

leaving politics out of the wall (parts are security oriented others are a "land grab')

am I limited to just 3?

[Violet_Crumble]

31. Thanks for participating, pelsar...

I did kind of suspect you'd have Hebron up there at the top of the list given what you've said in the past :)

[pelsar]

32. actually

much of israels problems originate with its representive from of govt. By not having direct representation, we have a politicians that have no real responsability toward the citizens and tend to do what keeps them in power...which is not good for the citizens.

http://www.directrepisrael.org/EN/About.html


as far as the hebronites go.....i have a problem with fanatics in general..but when their fanatical in my name and cause trouble in my name, it really gets me pissed off. Any ways i have a little theory about them (based on personal meetings and other info....they're simple a type of person who needs an adrenalin fix. They could be hang gliders freaks, extreme mountaineers, except for a weak flaw in their personalities that gives them a need to be told what to do and what to believe it...and their lies the problem. That makes them susceptable to a cult....and the need for "action".....trouble is they also breed....

[msmcghee]

33. I place a lot of weight on your opinions.

VC asked . . "list at least three terrible errors his/her side has made in this struggle, errors that deserve moral condemnation."

To me, moral condemnation means they have done something that violates common rules of decency that peace-loving people establish for themselves and therefore deserve condemnation by the civilized world if violated. Things like attempted murder - or attacks by one nation on another - certainly fall into that category.

Rather than ask about your whole list, can you explain your position on Hebron for me. My understanding was the WB was nominally part of Jordan before the '67 war. Israel forced Jordan to retreat out of the WB when Jordan attacked Israel in that war. Israel offered to trade the WB back to Jordan for peace. Jordan refused. When Israel and Jordan finally signed a peace treaty Jordan wanted no part of the WB - leaving Israel in place to manage affairs of the "disputed" territory until a permanent solution could be found.

Under those circumstances I have a hard time understanding how Israel's decision to allow some Israelis to settle in Hebron and other communities on the WB, would deserve moral condemnation from the civilized world (CW).

I can understand why the CW might think it was a bad decision that will cause endless problems - and why many Israelis like you would agree with that and would call it a "screwup". If I was Israeli I might agree with you.

But, do you think Israel violated a "serious moral rule" that other peace loving nations would be expected to follow under similar circumstances when Israel allowed settlement in Hebron? If so, what well-understood moral rule that all peace-loving nations would normally follow is that?

I would note that there have never been more than 700 settlers there since 1969 in a city of about 120,000 Palestinians. Also, that I have little patience for true-believers. According to VC's post on this she was looking for moral condemnation - not just screwups.

Just for reference, Wiki states:

That Israel justifies its presence in the WB because:

1. Israel's eastern border has never been defined by anyone;
2. The disputed territories have not been part of any state (Jordanian annexation was never officially recognized) since the time of the Ottoman Empire;
3. According to the Camp David Accords (1978) with Egypt, the 1994 agreement with Jordan and the Oslo Accords with the PLO, the final status of the territories would be fixed only when there was a permanent agreement between Israel and the Palestinians.


Can you clarify your view for me?

I welcome help from anybody else on this too.

[pelsar]

36. the hebron and westbank explanation....

I see it on two levels....the first being that israel was attacked by Jordan. Israel in that war took the westbank and as far as I am concerned has full rights to annex the westbank and incorperate the westbank in to israel proper.

Now comes the reality part: Israel for a multiple reasons chose not to. Part of it was the demographics, culture and just political indecision. Given that israel decided not to annex the westbank, not to incoporate the land into israel, the problem became a catch 22 situation. The residents are not citizens, yet under israel occupation, adding to that we place israeli citizens there, so now we have two sets of laws governing one area.

that in itself is rather confusing..now we add messianics in hebron, whos loyality lies not the state but to god......and thats just on the israeli side. The Hebron settlers are by far as far as you can go without "drinking the koolaid." They teach their kids to believe that they are just superior beings, to the point of some jewish 5-7yr olds beating up a 4yr palestenain, 15-17 yrs old girls throwing water on palestenain grandmothers, etc...and that just a few of the incidents. The police nor do the IDF soldiers want to tangle with them because of the law suits that will be thrown at them. What has happend because of poor political decisions is that we have this semi autonomous group that has no sympathy for the state of israel that is in fact having a large impact upon its agenda.

If they were out in the negev somewhere praying to the sun god, it wouldnt bother anyone, but they're deeds are not just ugly, but their egged on by others and it affects the political situation as well as the moral fiber of the young soldiers out there protecting them. (its considered one of the worst stations because of the settlers, not the palestenains)

so the summary of it is, not that Israel doesnt have the moral right to annex the westbank......it does. But by letting extremists take over parts of the westbank and hebron in particular, we've given up part of the states power to a bunch of fanatics, and that i find simply wrong.

[msmcghee]

38. Thanks for the very good explanation of your views.

Now that it has been explained in that detail I could agree that there is an element of deserved "moral condemnation" here that VC established in her first post on this. I doubt that my acceptance of this will change the view of some here that I am an extremist. :thumbsup:

While I agree that the violent actions of the true-believers are detestable (aren't they always?) - I would have a hard time expanding Israel's handling of that issue to a blanket moral condemnation of Israel for allowing the settlers into the WB. I can see it as a serious mistake of governance and political will on Israel's part - that even has some moral opprobrium attached to it.

If I understand you this was caused partly by the nature of a democracy, which no matter how leaders are elected, will have to give equal rights to unreasonable people who will abuse those rights and who will sue the government if they don't get what they want - or it won't be much of a democracy.

If you think I am not treating Israel's handling of this seriously enough in a moral sense, as I've explained it here, please correct me.

Thanks again.

[pelsar]

39. a good definition.....

If I understand you this was caused partly by the nature of a democracy, which no matter how leaders are elected, will have to give equal rights to unreasonable people who will abuse those rights and who will sue the government if they don't get what they want - or it won't be much of a democracy

yes thats a very good way of putting it.....democracy by its nature protects those who would destroy it.

[cool user name]

8. Thank you for posting.