Don't Punish the Palestinians (WaPo editorial by former President Carter)

[Wordie]

(Mods please note! This is a statement about U.S.policy toward the newly elected Palestinian government. As such, it can be allowed in forums other than I/P (see "How We Enforce The Discussion Forum Rules: Where to post various discussion topics," here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules_detailed.html. The rules say, If a discussion is primarily about US policy in Israeli/Palestinian affairs, it is sometimes allowed in other forums. A statement by none less than a former U.S. President is clearly important enough that it should be available to the larger DU audience, so they can be fully informed. I would ask that if this thread attracts flamers, that those posts be deleted, rather than the entire thread dungeonized. Thanks. -Wordie)

Don't Punish the Palestinians

By Jimmy Carter
Monday, February 20, 2006; Page A21

As the results of the recent Palestinian elections are implemented, it's important to understand how the transition process works and also how important to it are actions by Israel and the United States.

...During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences.

Unfortunately, these steps are already underway and are well known throughout the Palestinian territories and the world. Israel moved yesterday to withhold funds (about $50 million per month) that the Palestinians earn from customs and tax revenue. Perhaps a greater aggravation by the Israelis is their decision to hinder movement of elected Hamas Palestinian Legislative Council members through any of more than a hundred Israeli checkpoints around and throughout the Palestinian territories. This will present significant obstacles to a government's functioning effectively. Abbas informed me after the election that the Palestinian Authority was $900 million in debt and that he would be unable to meet payrolls during February. Knowing that Hamas would inherit a bankrupt government, U.S. officials have announced that all funding for the new government will be withheld, including what is needed to pay salaries for schoolteachers, nurses, social workers, police and maintenance personnel. So far they have not agreed to bypass the Hamas-led government and let humanitarian funds be channeled to Palestinians through United Nations agencies responsible for refugees, health and other human services.

This common commitment to eviscerate the government of elected Hamas officials by punishing private citizens may accomplish this narrow purpose, but the likely results will be to alienate the already oppressed and innocent Palestinians, to incite violence, and to increase the domestic influence and international esteem of Hamas. It will certainly not be an inducement to Hamas or other militants to moderate their policies.

Former president Carter led a team from the Carter Center and the National Democratic Institute that observed last month's Palestinian elections.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/19/AR2006021901138.html

Carter concluded by pointing out that the US would not be in the position of violating its political principles if the Palestinians were given their own money and humanitarian assistance through U.N. and other private agencies (thus avoiding direct support of Hamas -Wordie). He encouraged our government to encourage Russia, Egypt and other nations to use their influence on Hamas to urge moderatation in its policies and also urged the U.S. to support Abbas in his efforts toward easing tension, avoiding violence and exploring steps toward a lasting peace.

And PLEASE, recommend this thread, so as many as possible can see it!

[rzemanfl]

1. Why shouldn't they be punished for the government they elected

when we are punished every day by a government we did not elect?

[Wordie]

3. Carter covers some of that in the editorial...

One reason he gives is that ultimately, our punitive actions can be exploited to give Hamas more power over the average Palestinian.

But there is also the reason that a recent poll gave. It said that most Palestinians didn't vote for Hamas as a result of support for their policies toward Israel, but because of economic conditions and because of the corruption in Fatah. So, why give Hamas an opportunity to create anti-Americanism, when the vote was over other issues?

[rzemanfl]

15. My post was an unsuccessful attempt at humor. n/t

[dubya_dubya_III]

17. LOL

What worries me is that they want to rebuild the economy of Iraq

[Wordie]

24. Whoops...

I guess I was a little over-enthusiastic about Carter's op-ed!

I see that now. :blush:

[rzemanfl]

40. Forget about it, I should have used some all caps to make the

humor attempt clearer.

[Wordie]

41. Nah...it wasn't you.

I so wanted for people to be able to see Carter's words, that I was in...shall we call it "rant-mode?" What was clearly irony just went right over my head.

[Nomen Tuum]

2. The sad thing is that the idiots in charge will ignore this.

Carter knows of which he speaks.

Sadly, Richard Perle is the Neocon who urged Sharon to go to the wall in 2000 and wreck everything that Clinton tried to do. Between the NeoCONS, the war establishment and the KKKristians wanting Armageddon, well they will get their wish.

What will they do when Israel nukes Iran and Iran nukes Jerusalem?

[Wordie]

5. But Carter has given them an out...

they would lose face to back down now and offer aid to the Palestinians, after going on at such lenght about not dealing with terrorist regimes. The administration is in a difficult position, as it was they who insisted the elections go forward, when Abbas wanted to postpone them for a time. I think they may realize the corner they have painted themselves into, and may also recognize that their position will ultimately strenghten Hamas. They don't want to do that, I'm sure.

So Carters idea, of continuing aid to the Palestinian people through the U.N., thus by-passing Hamas, is one that they just might listen to.

Of course, there's Bolton... :(

[mom cat]

7. The US deals with "terrorists regiems all the time. We just call them

allies as long as they do business with Poppy and dimson. Great post. K&R

[Wordie]

9. That's true...we just aren't consistent.

Hamas was democratically elected, which is what we said we want for the ME, so now our actions are very suspect when we show we don't really want democracy, if the outcome is one we don't like. It undermines our credibility - as if it is not at a low enough ebb already. And it was the U.S. that insisted that the elections proceed, even though Abbas wanted to delay them for a while. The Bushies just don't seem to get it.

Did you see that Carter was just on CNN? Blitzer did an interview...a great interview! Blitzer tried to trip Carter up: he ran a segment of an interview with al-Zahar (Hamas leader, saying he wants an Islamic state in Palestine), then asked Carter if that isn't a concern, that al-Zahar wants an Islamic state.

But Carter just said, "I have no doubt that's what he wants, but I do doubt that's what the Palestinian people want." And he said the Palestinians don't want sharia law. (Great answer...probably not what Blitzer expected.)

[mom cat]

12. And what about our good buddy's, the unelected dictatorship in

Saudi Arabia. I am so sick of the hypocracy. At least Haiti was spared from a total election fraud by the rains that put out the burning ballots.

[Wordie]

35. Speaking of hypocrisy, here's a recent State Dept. Press Briefing

This is a transcript of a State Department Briefing, on February 17th, which covered the situation in Palestine. It's quite long, I realize, but I've posted the portion that applies to Palestine here, just so anyone who is interested can easily read it. Keep in mind that the briefing started off with this statement, from State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, in response to a question about Condi Rice's plans for her ME trip:

I expect that she is going to be talking about democracy in the Middle East and the United States' unwavering and continuing support for the spread and promotion of democracy in the Middle East, talk about recent Palestinian elections.

So we promote democracy by immediately engaging in efforts to financial cripple a newly elected government? (I have bolded two particularly relevant sections of the interchange, which reveal the shortsightedness of our strategy, below.)

QUESTION: In her discussions with these Gulf countries, will the Secretary be asking them not to fill any funding gap that might be left over from the U.S. and other Quartet members, possibly cutting off aid to a Palestinian Authority led by Hamas?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, the Secretary will have the same conversation with states in the region as she has had with numerous other countries around the world. And the basis of that conversation is the Quartet statement. It calls upon Hamas to make certain choices: recognize Israel's right to exist, turning away from terror and also abiding by previous commitments of the Palestinian Authority, most notably, to the roadmap and a commitment to a two-state solution arrived at via the negotiating table.

That is in the interest of the Palestinian people. There's a lot of discussion about -- between states about funding and Quartet statements, but what we can't lose sight of the fact is what is at stake here is the future of the Palestinian people. They want a better way of life for themselves. They want a peaceful way of life. They want a more prosperous way of life. And the way they arrive at that is through the process that has been outlined via the roadmap.

Now, Hamas a choice to make. They have a choice whether or not they are going to meet the aspirations of the Palestinian people for a prosperous, more democratic, free way of life in which they live at peace with their neighbors. And part of that is, from our point of view and the point of view of the Quartet, is looking at the behavior and the choices that Hamas makes. Do they make the right choices? We encourage them to make the right choices because if they do make the right choices then there is a pathway to peace, then there is a partner for negotiation. And again, each country is going to make its own decisions concerning particular aid to a new Palestinian Government. We have encouraged and will continue to encourage, both in public and in private, individual countries to consider what kind of assistance they might provide in light of Hamas' decisions.

QUESTION: But does that amount to putting pressure on those governments not to fill that funding gap because if they do then whatever action you take will be fairly useless because if that funding gap is filled then the Palestinian Authority would still be thriving.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, individual countries are going to make their own decisions. There's no way around that. That's just the way the world works. But we will make the strong case, as we have in public and we'll make in it in private as well, that the international community has to set standards. The international community cannot allow those who are elected in a free and fair election to try to have it both ways: that is, to have one foot in the camp of terror and one foot in politics. That is a fundamental contradiction that needs to be resolved. That's not something that is just the view of the United States; it is the view of many others in the international community. We believe that others in the region should hold those elected to that standard. And it's also incumbent upon the international community to hold those elected via democratic elections to govern in a democratic manner.

So those are the arguments that we're going to make. And quite simply, a group that does not recognize the right of Israel to exist -- a potential partner for peace -- then it doesn't make sense that there could be a pathway for peace. You need two partners in order to do that.

QUESTION: Can I just follow up with one other thing? The New York Times said today that the U.S. has asked the Palestinians to return $50 million which is going to be used for (inaudible) water projects and other projects. Is that correct -- this money that was originally going to be used by various ministries, is that --

MR. MCCORMACK: That is correct. That is correct. There was $50 million disbursed to the Palestinian Authority in 2005. It was provided to the -- well, it was a past government, now that there's a caretaker government, for new infrastructure projects in Gaza. It's part of a broader effort to ensure Palestinian -- or to assist with Palestinian economic revival in the wake of Israel's withdrawal from Gaza. And this is all part of our program of reviewing our assistance programs. We talked to the Palestinian Authority about this issue, found out that there was still -- the vast majority of this money is still in the bank. And so in the interest of seeing that this fund -- these funds not potentially make their way into the coffers of a future Palestinian Government that might not recognize the right of Israel to exist, might not meet those Quartet obligations, we've asked for it to be returned. And the Palestinian Authority has agreed to return it.

QUESTION: Have they indicated when it will be returned and do you have plans to use that money, for say, humanitarian projects, or to redirect it to other causes for the Palestinian people? The Secretary has made clear she doesn't want to sort of make the situation worse for the Palestinian people, particularly refugees and others suffering.

MR. MCCORMACK: You're exactly right on that. In terms of the timeline, they've told us that they would return it promptly and I don't think it has been returned as of this time. In terms of what the future potential uses for the money are, well -- we'll try to keep you updated. At this point, I don't have the information for you.

QUESTION: So --

MR. MCCORMACK: You rightly state that the United States does have an interest in seeing how we might provide for those who are the most vulnerable among the Palestinian population. The refugees, for example, that's funding that is -- those are programs that are usually -- assistance programs usually provided through the UN, so we're going to take a look at that. We're going to take a look at food aid programs, things like childhood immunizations. I think, although we haven't made any final decisions on that, those are certainly things that we will look for a way to try to do. Whether or not this -- and there's already money allocated for those kinds of programs.

Whether or not this $50 million makes its way into those kind of programs or other programs that we might find acceptable in terms of our law and our policy, we'll see. I don't have an answer for you on that.

QUESTION: Okay.

MR. MCCORMACK: Teri.

QUESTION: On Hamas and their trip to Russia, the Russians said today that they will not be making any demands of Hamas during those meetings. I'd like your reaction to that, considering that the Quartet statement lays out three pretty distinct demands of Hamas.

MR. MCCORMACK: I haven't seen their exact quote, Teri, so I can't respond to it.

QUESTION: Are you --

MR. MCCORMACK: And in terms of the word "demands," I -- you know, I just haven't seen the quote. But let me just tell you what Foreign Minister Lavrov assured the Secretary and that was that, should there be a meeting with Hamas, they were going to reiterate that Hamas must meet the requirements of the international community as outlined in the Quartet. We believe that should a state choose to have contact with Hamas, that that is the message that they should send.

QUESTION: Okay. And another question on the Palestinian Territories, Ehud Elmer said today that they -- that the Israelis plan to seal off workers from Gaza going into Israel, something like 4,000 -- now I'm getting my numbers wrong, but anyway, a large number of people who work in Israel will no longer be allowed to go there. And I don't understand -- they are couching it in terms of the Hamas victory again. But I don't know -- how does the United States feel about that? And if you could explain how that hurts the Hamas Government instead of just the Palestinian workers?

MR. MCCORMACK: No, we don't have a personal view -- don't have a new government yet, but in terms of Israel security, of course, we understand, as we always have, Israel has certain responsibilities in terms of protecting its own people. That is a general statement.

Now, in -- with respect to movement and access, you have to have some assurance that that movement and access is for the intended purposes, for example, going to work or transporting goods for peaceful commerce, for peaceful interaction. If you have a future Palestinian Government that is not committed to the renunciation of terror and violence, does not recognize the right of Israel to exist, then I think that certainly, those are legitimate questions for the Israeli Government to raise, concerning what is this movement and access going to be used for.

Now, of course, Israel certainly has obligations under the roadmap, as well as other agreements. In order to move forward on those kind of -- full implementation of those agreements, you need to have a partner in order to that. Now, there is -- we have encouraged states to work with -- including Israel, to work with this interim government. Now, as for a future Palestinian Government, I think it is understandable that Israel will want to take a look at its security interest when -- with respect to --

QUESTION: You're not planning to drastically upgrade your food aid to these people who would no longer have a way to make a living. Could you really support cutting them off from their jobs?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, the onus is upon Hamas to make certain choices. They are now going to be faced with the hard choices of governing to -- providing for the aspirations of the Palestinian people not only for a better way of life, but for a peaceful, secure life. So, there is an opportunity. There is a pathway. It's clearly outlined. The Palestinian Authority has been on that pathway for some time, or they have at least committed to that pathway for quite some time. If there's going to be a break with that policy, where -- which you might have, if there is a Hamas Government that chooses not to meet the commitments of the international community, certainly, the international community is going to look at what reaction it has to that.

And this circles back to Hamas making fundamental choices. It has those fundamental choices before it. And we hope and the international community hope that they do make those choices, because there is a potential pathway that is out there for them, but it is up to them to make those choices.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Yes. Sean, you said that those who were elected can not have one foot in terror and another in politics, but Fatah, who was defeated in the elections -- in the Palestinian elections had one foot -- one military foot, which is (inaudible) Al-Aqsa and the latest thing they did two weeks ago when they launched rockets pointed at Israeli territories and had the political foot too. Why is it that Hamas -- you're insisting on this, while Fatah had the military win -- went to (inaudible).

MR. MCCORMACK: We called upon the Palestinian Authority to dismantle all terrorist organizations. That included the Palestinian and Islamic Jihad, that included Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, that included Hamas. So it is still incumbent upon a government to meet the legitimate demands of people for a safe, secure environment. You can't have militias operating outside of the central authority of a government. So the Palestinian Authority did and continues to have the responsibility to prevent terrorist attacks and dismantle terrorist networks.

QUESTION: But the leaders from Fatah are the leaders of the Palestinian Authority that you talk to and you still talk to them while they have the military wing.

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, President Abbas has turned away from the use of terror. He was elected -- he committed himself to a peaceful path. He committed himself to a two-state solution via the roadmap. So when we talk to -- we talk to President Abbas, we talk to him on the basis of this is an elected leader, a person who has made a choice. He has made a choice to try to better the future of the Palestinian people through negotiation, through acceptance of the roadmap and through a renunciation of terror and we believe he is committed to that; there are others who are committed to that. There are others Palestinians committed to that. And we look forward to continuing to work with President Abbas through this period.

Joel.

QUESTION: Sean, throughout this morning you were talking essentially about carrot and stick and also a Jekyll and Hyde-type mentality. What's to prevent -- we're beginning to see this where the new leaders of Hamas are invited to Moscow? What's to prevent them to go into a full camp with the Iranians and others, just ignore what we're saying? And you've seen over a period of two years that the Iranians are intransigent. Is that what the Secretary will be discussing in the Gulf?

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I think in answer to an earlier question, I talked about the fact that funding for terrorist groups, support for terrorist groups by Iran is something that is an obstacle for the Palestinian people realizing a better way of life, realizing an independent Palestinian state. Because the pathway to a Palestinian state is not going -- does not lie along the pathway to violence and terror; it is via the negotiating table that the Palestinian people can realize a Palestinian state, so Iranian behavior does matter.

And certainly if -- we would call upon all members of the international community as well as Iran's neighbors to try to influence Iranian behavior, not to turn away from support for terror. That's why we haven't seen any indication that this regime is going to do that. But we believe that it is important, as we have seen on the nuclear issue that the international community speak out clearly concerning Iran's behavior in this regard.

Yes, ma'am.

QUESTION: Some of the Hamas members visited Turkey yesterday. What's your view on that? Are you against such contacts or do you encourage it in order to deliver the message of international community?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, it's the same answer when I was asked about the Russians meeting with members of Hamas. That will ultimately be a choice for individual states to make. Should they choose to do so, we would strongly encourage and, frankly, expect them to only use such a contact to send a strong, clear message to Hamas that they have to meet the requirements of the international community.

QUESTION: Do you think that happened in the Turkey meeting?

MR. MCCORMACK: We have not gotten the readout from the Turks on that contact. We would certainly expect that that's what happened.

Do you have the same subject?

QUESTION: Yes. Same subject.

MR. MCCORMACK: Okay. Then we'll come back to you, Jonathan.

QUESTION: You said that the neighbors of Iran or Palestinians should abide by the requirement of the Quartet, but don't you think it would be better to have the Palestinian Authority funded by Egyptians or Saudis instead of Iranians or Syrians?

MR. MCCORMACK: Again, individual states are going to make their own decisions about what aid they provide. We ourselves are very clear in our choice; we are not going to fund a terrorist organization. We will certainly look to the legitimate humanitarian needs of the Palestinian people and to see what might be done within the confines of our law, our policy, as well as the Quartet statement to meet those needs. And we would expect that, you know, or we would encourage state of the regions, states around the world to follow that same set of principles.

Jonathan.

QUESTION: It's just a question about your approach, America's approach, to this compared to the rest of the international community. I mean, you say decisions -- Hamas is going to take decisions about whether it's a political entity or a terrorist group. And the rest of the international community appears to be giving Hamas time and space to set its course. And here you are taking a unilateral decision to cut off funding. I just wondered why aren't you prepared to give Hamas a bit of time and space?

MR. MCCORMACK: I guess -- I guess I'd, frankly, differ sharply with your characterization of the United States being isolated. I'd point you back to the piece of paper that is the Quartet statement. It's more than just a piece of paper; it was a commitment by all the members of the Quartet there, represented by the EU, Russia, the UN and the United States. So I'm not sure where this idea --

QUESTION: -- as I said, give Hamas -- you won't (inaudible) Hamas to be given time to set its course. So there are people in the Quartet who believe there should be some time and space given to Hamas.

MR. MCCORMACK: Well, what we have said is that they face a choice. Their choices are clearly theirs to make. Of course, we are going to look at what choices they make -- we, meaning the international community -- and there's going to be, certainly, a reaction based on the choices that they make. And the members of the international community very clearly laid out that they would encourage everybody to review what assistance is provided to the Palestinian people and a future Palestinian Government in light of that new government meeting the requirements laid out by the international community.

http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile-english&y=2006&m=February&x=20060217172404xjsnommis0.3468439&t=livefeeds/wf-latest.html

[mom cat]

39. Well, McCormack has mastered New Speak very well.

I was struck by this statement:
"The international community cannot allow those who are elected in a free and fair election to try to have it both ways: that is, to have one foot in the camp of terror and one foot in politics. That is a fundamental contradiction that needs to be resolved."

I guess it would be futile to try to explain to him that the US also has 1 foot in the camp of terror and 1 foot in politics.

I was also struck by his continual blame the victim mentality. It is not new for the United States to use economic deprivation as a club to beat impoverished people into submission to our will. It is quite typical of the arrogance of our foreign-policy since Columbus first set foot in the Western Hemisphere. It was disgusting then and it still is morally reprehensible.

[dubya_dubya_III]

20. George Washington was a 'terrorist' too, remember?

We really have no right to criticize how bad their Pat Robertson's are. The issue here is parity, and wasn't it our own good manufacturers of doom, none other than our CIA Mafia who armed, supplied, trained and developed a nuclear Israel, the Mujihadeen, Taliban, A.Q. Khan, the ISI, and al Quaida feigning myopic stupidity?

If the Bushies can have their Christian Coalition, Palestinians can have Hamas. At least Israeli's Americans and Muslims are now fundamentalist eye to eye to eye on the issue of Jerusalem.

The "Solomons Baby" 2 state solution simply will never work, one cannot divide the Temple Mount.

Only a third State of Jerusalem under Religious Tripartite Veto, can calm and allay the fears of all of us and end all arguments in this 60 year old war between hateful supposedly 'religious' socialists.


Are we such nasty kids that we cannot share and abide in peace?

[Tom Joad]

14. Iran has no nukes. Let's keep that clear. eom

[Andromeda]

43. And you know this for sure?

Can you provide any independent sources to back up your statement?

[Wordie]

27. In a recent poll, 66% of Pals say gov't must honor agreements to negotiate

This recently conducted poll on Palestinians' opinions about Hamas and efforts towards peace tends to support what Carter said:

Poll: 66% of Palestinians say gov't must honor agreements
By Danny Rubinstein, Haaretz Correspondent

In the first poll in the territories since Hamas' victory, 66 percent of respondents said the new government should honor the Palestinian Authority's commitment to negotiations with Israel. (emphasis mine)

Among Hamas voters, only 12 percent said they chose Hamas for its political agenda, while 43 percent said they were fed up with Fatah's corruption. The rest said they were hoping for a better life or voted for religious reasons.

...A a large majority, 74 percent, said they had not expected a Hamas landslide. The poll confirms that most Palestinians, 58 percent, still believe the conflict with Israel should be resolved on the basis of the two-state principle. A binational state received support from 22 percent, while 10 percent favored a Palestinian state on the entire land.

...The JMCC poll indicates that Hamas' rise to power does not attest to a widespread radicalization of the Palestinian public. This public remains intent, generally speaking, on pursuing negotiations with Israel and finding a solution of co-existence.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/685129.html

This seems to provide some compelling reasons why the US should not, as President Carter said, punish the Palestinians. To do so will only drive them into the arms of Hamas, a place where philosophically they are not now.

[centristo]

33. I take your point but Iran would not nuke Jerusalem

No Islamic theocracy would EVER knowingly destroy the Al Aqsa mosque. That would be like Bush nuking Nazarteh. However, Tel Aviv and Eilat might get targeted.

[AlamoDemoc]

4. Pres. Carter knows what he's talking about...he's smart

genuine, passionate, and much more intellectually understanding than any other individual in this white house when it comes to Middle East politics

[Wordie]

6. Sadly (for us), that's all too true! I hope they listen to him. eom

[AlamoDemoc]

10. I hope so

Yet, I recently learned the US government decided a recall of 50 million dollars it gave to the Palestinians as an aid. By jove, I thought, why don't we also recall all the aid we give to Afghanistan since they have no control over controlling opium coming into the US and the west?

[Freddie Stubbs]

45. Is he smart in his assement of the port sale deal?

:shrug:

[panader0]

8. The kind of policies that hurt the common people have never worked

Sanctions in Iraq didn't hurt Saddam, they hurt the common people. Same with Cuba, same everywhere. When will they ever learn?

[bettyellen]

11. K+R....

[Tom Joad]

13. Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the occupying power

has a particular responsibility to support and ensure the human dignity of the occupied. That occupying power is, in this case, Israel. It is not living up to its international responsibilities. It is even denying the money earned by Palestinians through customs and tax revenue. It is their money... $50 million per month.

This idea of taking away all revenue and aid from the Palestinians people is a blueprint for catastrophe, and I am so happy that President Carter has the courage to speak up about this.

We can expect Carter will be vilified in reactionary circles for his stance. I hope we at DU will show support for his common sense. We should all nominate this for greatest page.

[Wordie]

19. Carter mentioned that the tax money belonged to the Palestinians, in CNN

interview with Wolf Blitzer today.

[bonito]

16. K&R

[Yupster]

18. Why should we be paying the salaries of teachers, nurses and

maintenance workers in Palestine anyway?

Is it a punitive action if we refuse to pay their maintenance workers' salaries?

What are we doing it for in the first place?

They don't even like us.

Can't the Saudis pay their payrolls? At least they like each other. They're the ones with the money anyway. We're broke.

[Tom Joad]

21. We give Israel $5 BILLION per year. Wyoming should be so lucky.

If you read the article, the Israelis are collecting taxes that should be going to these workers, but refusing to transfer these funds to the Palestinian Authority (they were doing this before too, and only recently released some of these funds before the newly elected Parliament took power).

If you are looking for ways to save funds, we should stop sending money to Israel, to demolish homes, to plow under crops, to make the lives of Palestinians lives miserable.

Lastly, if you think Palestinians hate us, take a walk in a West Bank Village. You will be asked where you are from. You will be treated like visiting royalty. Between cups of coffee and tea and sweets offered, they will tell you they do not hate Americans. They are just very much want the occupation to end.

[mom cat]

22. I hope that some of Carter,s sence or reason and calm will have a positive

impact. People in that region have suffered enough and withholding funds from the Palestinians (their own money as you point out) will only make matters worse for everyone.

[Wordie]

36. One can be against terrorism, but support legitimate Palestinian demands,

such as the end to the occupation and the right to self-determination. We need a more even-handed approach to resolve this conflict with the best possible result for BOTH sides. That's the approach that Carter has been advocating. And don't forget that Carter was the one responsible for first getting the ball rolling in that direction, with his fostering of the accord between Israel and Egypt, which has lasted for decades now.

Did you know that in this conflict there are three times as many Palestinian civilian deaths, for instance, as Israeli ones? Yet we never hear of things like that, only about suicide bombers. The Israelis have killed many innocents: women, children and old people, but they are treated both by the Israelis and our own government as if they are just inconvieniences, "collateral damage." They aren't that to their families. We need to put a human face on BOTH SIDES of this tragic conflict.

Here are some excellent groups working toward peace in the conflict. Many will be surprised, no doubt, to learn that there are many Israeli and Jewish groups who don't support Israeli government policies, and who are working to bring peace to the region:

Jewish Voice for Peace
Mission Statement
Jewish Voice for Peace is a diverse and democratic community of activists inspired by Jewish tradition to work together for peace, social justice, and human rights. We support the aspirations of Israelis and Palestinians for security and self-determination.
http://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/

B'Tselem - The Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories (a non-violent peace organization):
http://www.btselem.org/English/index.asp

And here's a group of American Jews in helping to bring the West Bank settlers home voluntarily to Israel. There's a petition for people to sign and other ways to help on this site:
Brit Tzedek v'Shalom, the Jewish Alliance for Justice and Peace
http://bringthemhome.btvshalom.org/

[mom cat]

38. Thanks so much for those sites. I know that there are many

Israelis who are as angry about their government's treatment of the Palestinians as we are about our government's treatment of the Iraqis. Being against repressive governmental policies does not make one either anti-Semitic or anti-American.

[Wordie]

42. Well said! eom

[kiteinthewind]

31. Exactly!!

I have been ignorant about the Palestine/Israel issue in the past. I never really looked into it, sadly, and believed that the Palestinians were the terrorists. Ha! I have been enlightened over the past year or so. The media is soooo skewed, the only dead children we hear about are Israeli children. What about the Israeli terrorists and the murders and destruction THEY commit. NEVER hear about it. And the billions, like you said, that we give Israel to carry out their deeds? And we wonder why people in the rest of the world hate us? DUH! :eyes:

[Wordie]

34. A far more even-handed approach is to decry the violence on BOTH sides.

But we just call Israeli violence "collateral damage" and pretty much just ignore it, that's true.

The US can't be a fair mediator of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute while only deploring the violence on one side.

And we've done nothing to stop the illegal settlements and the apartheid Wall- an ongoing land grab by the Israelis - which are carving up the Palestinian lands, and separating Palestinian farmers and their families from their only source of income...

[meganmonkey]

23. Thanks Jimmy!

I don't always agree with him (think 'Baker-Carter Commission') but overall he is a very good person, people trust him, and he is reasonable. He lays this situation out pretty well.

K & R!

[Wordie]

26. He was great in CNN interview w/ Blitzer today (text transcript link here)

Here's a part of it:

BLITZER: The article that you wrote suggests that the United States has to find a way to make sure that money continues to go to the Palestinians. But how do you do that if the government of the Palestinians is controlled by a group that the U.S. government, the State Department, identifies as a terrorist organization?

CARTER: Well, there are several ways to do it. One -- the first thing I'd like to say is that the money that the Israelis are withholding is actually Palestinian money. It doesn't belong to the Israelis, it belongs to the Palestinians.

And this money was destined to be used by the government, whoever is in control of it, for teacher's salaries, for health care, for welfare workers and so forth, and also to pay policemen. And to withhold the Palestinian's money, I think, is going to be a very damaging thing as far as the entire population of Palestine is concerned. They're going to resent it very...

BLITZER: These aren't taxes...

CARTER: ... deeply.

BLITZER: Excuse me for interrupting. Just to explain to our viewers, these are taxes that the Israelis have collected on the Palestinians, which since the Oslo Accords, have gone back to the Palestinian Authority.

CARTER: Well, the Israelis have withheld it briefly on occasion just to just punish the Palestinians for something they didn't like. But these are customs, funds and tax moneys that are collected by the Israelis, but they legally belong to the Palestinians. And to withhold it is just withholding Palestinian money. And as I said, this money would be used of necessity to pay the people who are employed by the government, no matter who is there.

More here:
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0602/20/sitroom.01.html

[autorank]

25. Carter, Gore, Clinton....Bush, Bush...Bush Jr. makes his own rules.

Just says f' you to the law, tradition, and diplomatic protocol.

Listen to Carter. It's about equity!!!!! What a concenpt.

[understandinglife]

28. K&R.

Peace.

[orleans]

29. great thread. k&r

carter's wisdom gives one hope.

"During this time of fluidity in the formation of the new government, it is important that Israel and the United States play positive roles. Any tacit or formal collusion between the two powers to disrupt the process by punishing the Palestinian people could be counterproductive and have devastating consequences."

will israel and the u.s. take heed?

[meganmonkey]

30. Kick for the morning crowd!

:kick:

[kiteinthewind]

32. I'm sure you have all noticed, but there has been a systematic smear

campaign against President Carter (My hero, BTW!) since he began speaking out against King George. I hear callers on C-SPAN saying he was the worst president ever, of course O'Reilly has been slamming him (big surprise). It makes me SICK!! This is an awesome man, a wonderful human being, an intelligent, insightful speaker, and a TRUE Christian--the kind that actually FOLLOWS what Jesus taught!! O8)

[Beer Snob-50]

37. President Carter does talk the talk of a Christian

but he also walks the walk. Definatly a great man. I have never understood the power behind witholding funds to nations. It just doesn't work! Cuba is still under the control of Castro and as far as I know, they have never been a true threat to this country.

[kiteinthewind]

44. It is all part of the facade that covers the reality of U.S. policy n/t