Skip to main content

crossposted at:   opednews.com  and  smirkingchimp.com

Other than 2002 Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, Jimmy Carter, no American leader has spoken honestly about Israel's occupation of Palestine.  No American politician has addressed Israel's mistreatment of the Palestinians.  Not because the mistreatment doesn't exist.  But because acknowledging it brings accusations of anti-semitism and the potential to lose an election.

To date, Jimmy Carter is the most high-profile American to publicly denounce the horrors of the Israeli occupation of Palestine.   Not in a sound byte or a simple aside.  But in a full length book, provocatively titled, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

In "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid,"  former President Carter provides a detailed analysis of Israel's confiscation of Palestinian land and ongoing demoralization of the Palestinian people within their own homeland.  President Carter bravely defies the American taboo of never criticizing Israel, recognizing that humanitarianism dwarfs political correctness.

The intentions of President Carter's book are as valiant and honorable as the man who wrote it: To provide a clear understanding that there are two sides to the Israeli/Palestinian story.  To show how Palestinians are suffering under the Israeli occupation.  And to prove that there is a legitimate, humane two state solution.

For America's less forthcoming elected officials, denouncing Israel is unthinkable, although denouncing her detractors is common.  As one would expect, members of Congress attacked the book immediately, prior to ever reading it.   According to incoming Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, "It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."

Speaker Pelosi's statement is indicative of the dismissive sentiments of most members of Congress.  Unlike Israelis themselves, who acknowledge that Israeli mistreatment of Palestinians is real, America's elected officials deny it's very existence.  

A question for Speaker Pelosi: if these atrocities aren't happening, why do Israelis protest them so often?  Why do Israeli soldier "refuseniks" decline commands to harm, persecute and humiliate Palestinians and choose jail time insted?

It took Pennsylvania Representative Jack Murtha to speak out against America's occupation of Iraq before others had the courage to oppose it.  Perhaps Jimmy Carter can have a similar effect on the Israeli occupation of Palestine.  Maybe after acknowledgment by a man of President Carter's stature, America's leaders will adopt a humanitarian approach toward the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and develop the courage to oppose it.

Unfortunately, this is more of an optimist's dream than a scenario about to happen.  Even President Carter doubts the new Democratic-lead Congress will change its purely pro-Israel tone.  In a November 27th interview with CNN's Larry King, President Carter admitted, "It's almost inconceivable for any members of the House and Senate to take any position that would be critical of Israel.  That's one reason I wrote my book.  It's just to precipitate some controversy, to use your word, provocation, that is to provoke debate on the issue and to let the people of America know that there are two sides to many issues in the Middle East, and that in order to have peace for Israel, Israel will have to comply with international law.  But I don't think it's likely at all that Democrats will be any more critical of the policies of Israel than were the Republicans."

Nor will Carter's fellow ex-Presidents, George H.W. Bush and William Jefferson Clinton be critical of Israel's actions, although they know that these horrors occur.  They lack Carter's moral fiber.  They're politicians acting as statesmen.  Carter is a statesman with a political past.

The differences are clear.  Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush are political emissaries of the current President Bush.  A tour de force fundraising duo, deployed to disasters with a political purse.

Carter, on the other hand, is a respected humanitarian.   He's a welcome ambassador for America's humanity.  In a world where America is increasingly hated, Jimmy Carter does America proud.  Particularly when compared to George Bush, Sr., who isn't a statesman at all.  Or a patriot either, if one believes his claim that he has never provided guidance to his misguided son.  If this is true.  If Bush, Sr. never attempted to reverse the dereliction of George W. Bush, then George Bush Sr. is guilty of irreparable harm.

Americans sacrificed their sons for this nation.  Bush Sr. sacrificed this nation for his son.  A shameful indictment at best.

The fact is, there is no possibility of Middle East peace without resolving the Palestinian conflict.  America's bias toward Israel must be replaced with equality and balance.  Carter summarized it this way in his appearance on Larry King:

"You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis.  As a matter of fact, it's one of the worst cases of oppression that I know of now in the world.  The Palestinians' land has been taken away from them.  They now have an encapsulating or an imprisonment wall being built around what's left of the little tiny part of the holy land that is in the West Bank.

In the Gaza, from which Israel is not withdrawing, Gaza is surrounded by a high wall.  There's only two openings in it.  One into Israel which is mostly closed, the other one into Egypt.  The people there are encapsulated.  And the deprivation of basic human rights among the Palestinians is really horrendous and this is a fact that's known throughout the world.  It's debated heavily and constantly in Israel.  Every time I'm there the debate is going on.   It is not debated at all in this country.  And I believe that the purpose of this book, as I know, is to bring permanent peace to Israel living within its recognized borders, modified with good faith negotiations between the Palestinians for land swaps.  That's the only avenue that will bring Israel peace."

America needs to adopt an honest policy toward Palestine.  Jimmy Carter shouldn't be criticized for taking so courageous a stand.   He should be applauded.  America can't help Israel, or itself, by supporting actions that inflame hatred and provoke harm.

Why not listen to President Carter.  His Middle East experience is unparalleled.  He is still the only President to have negotiated a successful Middle East Treaty.  Thanks to his 1978 Camp David Accords, Israel has had peace with Egypt for nearly thirty years!

Originally posted to Linda Milazzo on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:25 PM PST.

Poll

Will supporters of Israel ever accept the reality of Israel's mistreatment of non-violent Palestinians?

32%18 votes
25%14 votes
41%23 votes

| 55 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nothing better (9+ / 0-)

    than an unbiased poll.

    I miss Yitzhak Rabin.

    •  So do I... (7+ / 1-)

      Tell me... how would you have written the poll?  What would your questions have been?  

      I'm looking for solutions...

      •  With all due respect (9+ / 0-)

        I sincerely doubt you are just "looking for solutions". The tenor of your diary and your poll show pretty clearly that you already have the questions, answers and solutions already made up.

        The real question is: Will Israeli and Palestinian zealots ever allow a real negotiation of peace take place? And if peace should be made, will they honor it  without exception?

        Everything else is just pointless fingerpointing and futile exercises in degrees of culpability.

        •  Again... (0+ / 0-)

          What change would you suggest be made to the poll?  

          •  How about (7+ / 0-)

            "Do you agree that Israelis need to accept responsibility for the mistreatment of the Palestinians if there is to be a just peace?"

            Or something.

            Look, I'm an unabashed anti-Zionist. But I find this kind of poll insulting to my intelligence. Thats why I didn't vote.

            "Tell no lies. Claim no easy victories" -- Amilcar Cabral

            by Christopher Day on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:55:49 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  A good suggestion.... (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              peace voter, curmudgiana

              I accept the criticisms of others and honor the opinions of others. So, thank you.  

              I do believe this poll doesn't sit well with many because it doesn't make statements about Palestinian attacks on Israel... which we all know have taken place.

              But Mr. Carter's contention and mine is that there isn't a fair and balanced approach to the problem coming from this nation.  The poll is based on media bias... and political bias... more than anything else.   That combined with the fact that zionism (which I grew up with and believed in until my teens) is deeply rooted and sadly, regardless of the facts, is an ideological mindset almost impossible to change.

              I believe Jimmy Carter is a proper messenger.  I hope his words are heeded as unbiased and based on principles of equal justice and humanity.

            •  Anti-Zionist (0+ / 0-)

              "Anti-Zionism is often characterized by opposition to the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state"

              Anti means opposed.

              Zionism is the belief in a Jewish state.

              When someone is anti-Zionist they are opposed to the existence of the Jewish state meaning they are opposed to the existence of Israel.

              Is this what you mean?

              Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives. John Stuart Mill

              by dmsarad on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 06:06:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  With all due respect... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          peace voter, curmudgiana

          Amy Goodman always says Americans are compassionate people and if they had the opportunity to see and know the truth than they'd respond differently than they do through the lens of distorted slanted journalism.

          One week of shows addressing the oppression and degradation suffered daily by INNOCENT Palestinians.. not suicide bombers... would educate Americans to a more legitimate point than they are now.  Die-hard zionists are unlikely to change their opinions absent an epiphany I can't conceive of right now.

          However, most Americans buy into the propaganda that Israel is all good all the time because that's what they hear from their elected leaders and fearful media.  

          My poll addresses what would happen if honesty prevailed in American media and government and the masses saw FINALLY that Israel isn't always acting because it's under attack.  In fact, Israel often attacks when there is no attack.  I know this.  My friends know this.  But millions of Americans do not.

          These are the people to whom the poll is addressed.  And these are the people President Carter hopes to address in his book.  Should this come to pass, it is possible that America's elected biased leaders could be forced out of denying Israel's culpability and acknowledge that Israel must act fairly in order to facilitate peace.

      •  You are looking for solutions? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linda Milazzo, Mia Dolan

        You acknowledge that there is intense debate in Israel, which is a good thing. You believe there needs to be more debate in the United States.

        How about debate among the Palestinians? We know from opinion polls that a majority of Palestinians favor peaceful negotiation of a two-state solution. However, we also know that Abbas' effort to establish this via referendum has been squelched, and that the Palestinian leadership is unable to achieve a unity government because of the strong rejectionist position of the elected Hamas majority.

        A solution requires a free debate among the Palestinians that is as vigorous as the debate in Israel. If that is ever permitted to happen, there will be no debate in the United States about supporting the peaceful aspirations of both parties.

  •  The Democrats are no better (6+ / 0-)

    As a lifelong democract, I have no faith that democracts will be any more just towards the Palestinians than Republicans.  If anything, they're worse, since they court the Jewish-American vote more than Republicans.  

    •  But if we don't push them (7+ / 0-)

      they'll never come around.  It's our job to push them.  I'm certainly willing to try.

      •  I'm willing to try to, but how? (4+ / 0-)

        If Nancy Pelosi can make a comment such as the one she did, what hope is there for the rest of them?  She represents the only city in America where people regularly hold rallies in support of the Palestinians.

      •  Jeff Halper, founder of (4+ / 0-)

        Israeli Committee Against House Demolition, is skeptical that America can ever act in an impartial manner toward Israel, and now sees only Europe as a possible source of pressure on the Israelis to negotiate peace. Israel has for years avoided any peace initiatives, stalling as more and more settlements establish facts on the ground.

        This is Uri Avnery's latest take on Olmert's proported peace efforts. Seems to be just more of the same...

        "Last week, Olmert went all the way to Ben-Gurion's grave in the remote Negev and made a speech designed to establish his status as his successor. No point wasting words on this pretension. But it is certainly revealing to analyse the speech itself.

        On the face of it, a peacenik speech the likes of which we have not heard for some time. Some said that this was an answer to the words addressed to him by the writer David Grossman at the Rabin memorial rally. And indeed, there is a resemblance between the two: just as Grossman's speech was rich in sublime values and poor in practical proposals, so Olmert excelled in impressive phrases but failed the test of content.  

        WHAT DID he say, after all?

        "If you (the Palestinians) set up a new government that will undertake to fulfill the principles of the Quartet, a government that will realize the Road Map and bring about the release of Gilad Shalit - I shall propose to Abu-Mazen (Mahmoud Abbas) to meet him immediately, with the aim of conducting a real, open, sincere and serious dialogue between us and you."  (I have translated the words literally, since the official translation has edited the text.)

        Looks good. But if one looks again, one realizes that it is just a soap bubble.

        Since the days of Ben-Gurion, all our governments have used this tactic: say "yes" to every peace proposal, and add a small prior condition that turns "yes" into "no".

        What does Olmert demand from the Palestinian government? Little things: to recognize Israel's right to exist without fixed borders  (and without Israel recognizing the right of a Palestinian state to exist within the 1967 borders), to stop the violence (without a parallel commitment by Israel) and to recognize all the agreements signed in the past (almost all of which have been violated by Israel no less than by the Palestinians.)

        On top of this, the Palestinian government must fulfill its "obligations" under the Road Map. This ridiculous document, a product of Bush & Co., demands that the Palestinians' first step must involve dismantling all the "terror organizations". Meaning: all the military organizations of the Palestinian parties. As long as the occupation is in force, this is a completely impossible and unreasonable demand and the Palestinians, of course, do not agree. It's like demanding that Israel must dismantle the IDF as a first step.

        Olmert does not suggest that Israel, too, would follow the Road Map. According to that document, parallel to the dismantling of the Palestinian organizations, Israel must stop all settlement activities. In practice, these were not suspended for a moment and are in full swing even now.

        What will happen if the Palestinians fulfill all these one-sided conditions? Olmert will agree to meet Abu-Mazen "immediately". What for? In order to conduct a "real, open, sincere and serious dialogue."

        The words were chosen meticulously. Not "negotiations", God forbid, but "dialogue". A strictly non-committal term. If we eliminate from the text all the nice words that only serve as decorations - "immediately", "real", "open", "sincere", "serious" - all that remains is the agreement to a meeting. Perhaps there are people who are eager to meet Olmert - it's a matter of taste - but this has no political meaning at all.

        OLMERT DOES not spare words. "In the framework of the dialogue (again "dialogue" and not "negotiations") and in accordance with the Road Map (see above) you (the Palestinians) will be able to establish an independent and viable Palestinian state, with territorial contiguity in Judea and Samaria (Olmert uses these occupation terms instead of the term "West Bank", which has become a symbol of the opposition to the occupation), a state with full sovereignty and defined borders."

        Now that is really nice. No more "temporary borders", as in the Road Map, but "defined borders". Only one little detail: where will these run?

        Some might say: one does not disclose his final positions before the start of the negotiations (sorry, dialogue). But the Palestinians are expected to give everything before the start.

        "We, the State of Israel, will agree to the evacuation of many territories and the settlements that we have established therein. This is extremely difficult for us - akin to the Parting of the Red Sea (a Hebrew saying) - but we will bear it, in exchange for true peace between us and you."

        Sounds nice. But what does it mean? The evacuation of "many territories" and not "all the territories", not even "most of the territories". (In Israeli usage, "territories" means "occupied territories", a term official spokesmen prefer to avoid.)

        Also, not "the borders that existed on the eve of the Six-Day War". Not even "borders based on the Green Line", which would allow for small changes and an agreed swap of territories. But a new border which would annex to Israel the "settlement blocs", as defined by the Separation Wall. That means the annexation of at least 10% of the West Bank, and perhaps much more.

        And what's to stop that? After all, at this stage the other side would already be disarmed and would have agreed to recognize an Israel without fixed borders.

        That is the old plan of Ariel Sharon: to dismantle the small and dispersed settlements, in which some 20% of the settlers live, in order to annex to Israel the territories occupied by the remaining 80%. Olmert does not say what would happen to the expanded Jordan Valley, which constitutes about 20% of the West Bank and which is already completely cut off from it (with the exception of Jericho). Nor does he mention East Jerusalem, in which another 200 thousand settlers have established themselves."

  •  Jimmy Carter has helped to (14+ / 0-)

    facilitate a discussion that must be had if there is any possibility for peace and reconciliation in the Middle East.

    Let's have a civil humane discussion on a matter critical to our lives, our nation, and our world.

    This isn't about religion.  It's about fairness and establishing a path to peace.

    •  Bullshit (9+ / 2-)

      How can you call for a "civil humane discussion" and put up a poll like that?  Any good faith attempt at resolving this issue begins with acknowledging the wrongdoing on both sides.  If Carter takes the same attitude you do, his book will accomplish absolutely nothing.

      •  I'm getting his book this week (8+ / 0-)

        so I guess I'll find out.

        I would say that Carter has done more for peace in the Middle East in the last 25 years than any other person I can think of offhand, certainly as far as an American goes, so my hope is the answer is "yes" to this diarist's question.

        "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices." Edward R. Murrow

        by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 01:48:14 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The poll... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        curmudgiana

        I suppose you don't believe the American media plays a part in obscuring the Israel/Palestine conflict... or that American politicians are too afraid to ruffle feathers by criticizing Israel in any way.

        How is this poll inaccurate?  From the arguments I've seen re: the book and before on this issue, these are the issues.  Blind ideological views that support EVERYTHING Israel does or believing it's all okay because American leaders say it is.

        Where is the poll wrong... or not on target with the problems facing the issue?  I'd be happy to add another question to make it more balanced if you think I should...  What would you suggest?

        •  It's the language in the poll, that's the problem (5+ / 0-)

          at least for me. It's so inflammatory.

          I'm finding it hard to see how an honest dialogue is going to possibly ensue, when the diary and the poll are the starting points for discussion.

          Block quotes would also be beneficial to the structure of this diary. Just a thought.

          "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices." Edward R. Murrow

          by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:04:40 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Bad Faith Poll (10+ / 2-)

          Well, the first problem is your question:

          Will supporters of Israel ever accept the reality of Israel's mistreatment of non-violent Palestinians?

           When you frame the debate like that, you have already shut down meaningful discussion.  Imagine your reaction if the first question was "when will those Palestinians stop murdering Israeli children?"  You may be convinced that all of the fault lies with one side, but when your first step to fixing the problem is asking one side to admit they are at fault, your solution is worthless.

          Your answers aren't much better:

          No, they won't. Their intense zionism blinds them to the actual plight of the Palestinian people.

          Um, fuck off?

          They may if they look beyond the slanted American media which consistently obscures the truth about the mistreatment of innocent Palestinians.

          When did you stop beating your wife?

          Yes, they will if American media and the American leadership adopts a balanced and truthful approach to the Israel/Palestine conflict

          How about you try again and "try to take a balanced and truthful approach," because your diary sure doesn't do that now.

          •  You asked, (4+ / 0-)

            "when will those Palestinians stop murdering Israeli children?"

            When the culpable ones, Israelis and the Palestinians they kill, stop inducing such attacks...or maybe when the 40 year military occupation of the Palestinian people stop.

            Alison Weir, in her documentary Off the Charts, noted the following:

            Before a single suicide bomber had entered Israel after the start of the Second Intifada, sometimes called, after Sharon’s provocative visit to the Temple Mount, the al Aqsa Intifada, during its first month, 27 Palestinian children had been killed by Israeli Defense Forces in the West Bank and Gaza, the youngest only four months of age, and the majority due to gunshots to the head. Numerous children were also wounded. In the first three months alone, 159 children lost an eye presumably to rubber bullets shot from IDF rifles. Clearly the IDF were intentionally targeting these children, aiming at their heads with either rubber bullets or real bullets in the case of the child kills. We are talking here about a trained, mechanized army versus civilians, children participating in the intifada, the nonviolent resistance instituted by child and teenage Palestinian boys and girls. Oh, yes. Let’s be fair. We did hear that an Israeli soldier lost his eye from a rock thrown by a Palestinian boy from a pretty IDF spokeswoman, but it was the only such incident reported in three years. In the first years of this nonviolent resistance, however,

            See Alison Weir’s short documentary, Off The Charts: Media Bias and Censorship in America for the names, ages, places, and dates of these child killings.

            http://video.google.com/...

            To be accurate, there were sporadic bombing incidents engineered by Hamas extremists in Israel during the Oslo period. None at all occurred between 1998 and 2000. But the strong resumption of attacks after 2000, over fifty in the first year, was directly related to civilian and child killings by IDF, and it was not just Hamas, but Islamic Jihad and other Fatah associated organizations that were involved.

            This Time.com article apprises of what motivated them:

            "Until recently most Palestinians believed they had alternatives to the kind of militancy practiced by Hamas. For years after the 1993 Oslo peace accord, which brought limited self-rule to the Palestinians and the prospect of an independent state, polls showed a strong majority of Palestinians supporting the peace process with Israel and only a minority endorsing suicide bombings. Thus, in their headhunting, the fundamentalists were limited to stalwart followers of their doctrine, which holds that any kind of peace with Israel is anathema. Even then, Hamas and Islamic Jihad had to cajole--some might say brainwash--young men into believing that the rewards of paradise outweighed the prospects of life on earth.

            But with the breakdown of the peace process in the summer of 2000 and the start of the latest intifadeh that September, the martyr wannabes started coming to Hamas--and they didn't require persuading. "We don't need to make a big effort, as we used to do in the past," Abdel Aziz Rantisi, one of Hamas' senior leaders, told TIME last week. The TV news does that work for them. "When you see the funerals, the killing of Palestinian civilians, the feelings inside the Palestinians become very strong," he explained."

            From the mouth of Rantisi, but it also motivated Fatah supporters, to exact revenge for the killing of Palestinian civilians. Revenge is not a formal use of terrorism. See Alison Weir's film, Off The Charts, at Google Video.

            (Why Suicide Bombing Is Now All The Rage)
            http://www.time.com/...

            This commentary is from an article by Rami Khouri, editor of the Beirut newspaper, The Daily Star, which cynically denounced Olmert’s statements professing concern for the well-being of Palestinian children:

            (*Ehud Olmert's Profound Ethics and Deep Lies*)

            http://www.ramikhouri.com/

            "For anyone interested in the facts about the impact of Israeli policies on Palestinian children, a good place to start is the carefully checked data disseminated by the Palestinian Nongovernmental Organization Network (www.palestinemonitor.org). Their data is compiled and verified on the ground by the Ramallah-based Health Development Information and Policy Institute, which has been honored by the World Health Organization for its work in promoting Palestinian health needs. So these people know what they are talking about when it comes to health conditions on the ground in Israeli-occupied Palestine. Some of the facts they provide are as follows.

            In just the first two years of the second intifada, from September 2000 to November 2002:

            • 383 Palestinian children (under the age of 18) were killed by the Israeli army and Israeli settlers, i.e. almost 19% of the total Palestinians killed; those figures have increased since then.

            • Approximately 36% of total Palestinians injured (estimated at more than 41,000) are children; 86 of these children were under the age of ten; 21 infants under the age of 12 months have been killed.

            • 245 Palestinian students and school children have been killed; 2,610 pupils have been wounded on their way to or from school.

            • The Israeli policy of widespread closure has paralyzed the Palestinian health system, with children particularly vulnerable to this policy of collective punishment. Internal closures have severely disrupted health plans which affect over 500,000 children, including vaccination programs, dental examinations and early diagnosis for children when starting schools.

            • During the first two months of the intifada, the rate of upper respiratory infections in children increased from 20% to 40%. Almost 60% of children in Gaza suffer parasitic infections.

            • An overwhelming number of Palestinian children show symptoms of trauma such as sleep disorders, nervousness, decrease in appetite and weight, feelings of hopelessness and frustration, and abnormal thoughts of death.

            • There have been 36 cases of Palestinian women in labor delayed at checkpoints and refused permission to reach medical facilities or for ambulances to reach them. At least 14 of these women gave birth at the checkpoint with eight of the births resulting in the death of the newborn infants.

            The Israeli army killing of Palestinian children continues apace. In its annual report May 16, the respected global human rights organization Amnesty International accused the Israeli army of killing 190 Palestinians, including 50 children, last year (2005)."

          •  The Poll (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            curmudgiana

            The language of the poll is not perfect; however, I get the point.  If the central issue of the dairy is the collective punishment of  Palestinians, then the poll is on target.  The issue is not how to treat violent/ militant Palestinians, but rather should all Palestinians suffer as a result of the few.  If the poll is re-written from the perspective of collective punishment, is it more balanced?

          •  It's too bad you're (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peace voter

            unable to accept the slanted media distortion of the Israel/Palestine situation.  It's also too bad you seem to buy into it.  

            If you understood media better and recognized its distortion instead of accepting it as truth as your responses indicate you do, you'd find a way to communicate without such vile anger and obvious hysterics.

          •  More thuggish troll rating abuse (0+ / 0-)

            Essexgreen and Curmudgiana, what is your justification for this obscene abuse of troll rating, other than the fact taht Mia dares to not share your opinion?

        •  American media plays a part in obscuring (3+ / 0-)

          It has been part of a major effort by the Israelis to mount strong censorship of news media and propaganda, like the latest reframing of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the "war on terrorism."

          Click on the documentary below, Peace...etc, for details.

      •  How about this poll question... (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Linda Milazzo

        Will supporters of America ever accept the reality of America's mistreatment of non-violent Iraqis?
        Would this be something that we could ask the people at RedState or Free Republic?

      •  There's nothing wrong with the poll (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        peace voter

        It's your hysterics and out of control anger, Ms. Dolan, that prove you sit squarely and egregiously in the first group.  It's not the poll that's inappropriate, or raunchy, or ill-mannered, or out of line, or contemptuous, or tunnelvisioned ...  IT'S YOU!!!

        SO OBVIOUSLY YOU!!!  

        The poll is just fine and based on your depraved ranting, it's perfectly true.  

        Now, take some valium, make your shrink appointment, and go to bed!

        •  Worthless (0+ / 0-)

          Again, I actually am interested in resolving the problem.  You, by making your starting point laying all of the blame on Israel, clearly have no interest in doing so.  Your position is clearly a non-starter.  

          You might notice that I am not the only one who finds fault in your poll and that my comments picked up a bunch of recommends.  Your response to this is that I am mentally ill and just engaging in "depraved ranting."  Is everyone else wrong too and your poll is just fine?  Maybe you think so, but the problem is that any solution is going to require the participation of people who would think your poll was bullshit.  When your attitude is "the Israelis are murderers, how can we give the Palestinians justice" the Israelis aren't going to be too interested in sitting down with you.  

          •  Ms. Dolan, it's your slanted ideological view (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            peace voter

            that prompts your ranting, your vulgarity and your nastiness which make you someone I will no longer respond to.  I don't know you.  I don't know anything about you except that your ability to communicate relies on vicious hate-filled ad-hominem attacks.  

            I did suggest you are hysterical.  I did so because your vulgarity and unprovoked anger demonstrate that you are.

            The poll is specifically dedicated to the unnecessary deaths of non-violent Palestinians, which happen all the time. due to the occupation of Palestine which renders innocent people hopeless, helpless, hungry, and dying.  They are women, children, elderly and infirmed.  And their plight gets worse and more disastrous everyday... because of the apartheid occupation of their homeland by Israelis who treat them as sub-humans. You seem to conveniently overlook the words NON-VIOLENT specifically addressed in the poll.

            You spout only venomous attacks which have only inflamed this conversation.  You rant and use abusive language which I don't engage in.  I find it amazing that one of your supposed supporters should troll rate my statement:

            "Tell me... how would you have written the poll?  What would your questions have been?  I'm looking for solutions..."

            This was an honest question.  You and your 'one-sided anyone who questions Israel is evil' cohorts may feign a desire for discourse but you demonstrate an inability to have it.

            Enough said.  I have no desire to comment further to you.  You are not what concerns me.  Stopping occupation and apartheid are.

            •  Too bad (0+ / 0-)

              If you want to stop occupation and apartheid, then you should stay away from the subject.  Because its your bullshit attitude that reinforces occupation and apartheid.   You are complicit in the fucking over of the Palestinians.  Leave the discussion to people who are actually interested in working out a solution.  

      •  Essexgreen and Curmudgiana: Kostapo members (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Mia Dolan

        There is absolutely nothing troll-rateable about the comment above.  You are thuggishly attempting to suppress an opinion you happen not to share.  That makes both of you troll rating abusers, a violation of DKos ground rules.  Consider yourselves warned.

  •  Does anyone REALLY believe this: (4+ / 0-)

    "You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis."

    Well, I'll give Carter this much credit -- the above statement is every bit as accurate as his comparison of Israel to apartheid South Africa.

    •  When a wall is built that (6+ / 0-)

      partitions a nation from itself... since the wall is within Palestine and separates Palestinians from each other...  And when one nation fully dominates another within the other's borders, then that is both apartheid and occupation.  Both negative.  Both inhumane.

      There are Palestinians who have harmed Israelis.  This is absolutely true.  But there are many more innocent Palestinians who live oppressed existences who have never harmed Israelis and whose hatred of Israel is fomented by the acts of the oppressors.

      I say... let's study President Carter's suggestions and force our legislators to become more balanced toward both Israel and Palestine.  Going in the current direction will NEVER bring about peace.

       

      •  I repeat: Does ANYONE believe this: (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Turkana, noneya

        "You never hear anything about what is happening to the Palestinians by the Israelis."

        Of course not.  This is just another way of saying "I am a laughably unreliable source for any serious information about the Middle East."

        Okay, Mr. Carter.  I'll take your word for it.

      •  Follow Carter's suggestions (3+ / 0-)

        What are those?  I'd like to see one of these diaries focus on Carter's practical suggestions for achieving a resolution of the conflict. Instead, all these diaries pretty much boil down to "Saint Jimmy Accuses Big Bad Israel of Apartheid!!!"

        I assume you've read the book. I haven't, and I won't have time for several weeks at least. So I'd really like to see some attention given to Carter's suggestions for achieving an end to this conflict.

        In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

        by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:05:07 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  From what it sounds like... (0+ / 0-)

          ... he supports the only sane and somewhat fair solution, the Geneva Initiatives or Accords, I can never remember the proper words. I think that most sane people would also support the Geneva Initiative and it is the only thing even close to "pre-67" borders I see Israel ever acceptting.

        •  here (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Linda Milazzo

          The conditions for peace that he proposes are these:

          a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed.

          b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israeli's permanent boundary.

          c. The sovereignty of all Middle East nations and sanctity of international borders must be honored.  This condition necessarily implies the mutual recognition of Israeli and Palestinian states.  Above all, he urges all parties to fulfill the conditions of UN Resolutions 242 and 338.

          In addition, Carter charges that recent policies of the United States, condoning illegal Israeli actions and their refusal to honor their previous agreements, have contributed to the perpetuation of the violence and impeded the quest for peace.

             It will be a tragedy--for the Israelis, the Palestinians, and the world - if peace is rejected and a system of oppression, apartheid and sustained violence is permitted to prevail. [p 216]

      •  Wall is a border wall... (0+ / 0-)

        ...and I do disagree with where it is, but not what it is.  

        And Sharia is as much apartheid as any of Israel's policies, if not moreso.

        9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

        by varro on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:32:23 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  His comparison was Palestine and Apartheid. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Rusty Pipes, Linda Milazzo

      He has been careful to clarify that point. The problems of the Israeli Arabs is another matter but does not warrant that term.

  •  Unless he can do something to stop (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Fabian, Turkana, shergald

    Israel from building and expanding those damn settlements, no.

  •  Another fair and balanced poll from Linda Milazzo (9+ / 0-)
    1. Who is one hundred per cent completely to blame for the Israel/Palestine conflict?

    A. The Israelis.
    B. The Israelites.
    C. The People of Israel.
    D. All of the above.

    WARNING:  As in all online polls, these results may not be entirely scientific.

    •  richter (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weasel, greenskeeper, Pager, CTDemoFarmer

      Why don't you suggest a serious alternative poll?  I'd like to see it.  This is a serious problem - the Palestinian & Israeli people deserve a sober discussion.

      ```
      peace

      •  Alternative Poll (11+ / 0-)
        1. The Israel/Palestinian conflict is:

        A) Israel's fault.
        B) The palestinians fault.  
        C) There is plenty of fault on both sides.

        Unless you pick C, its not even worth joining the discussion.  The diarist pretty clearly is in the A category.  

        •  Thanks for sparing me the trouble, Mia. (5+ / 0-)
        •  This notion of dual culpability is not the (6+ / 0-)

          opinion of everyone, as it is hard to observe what Israel has been doing to the Palestinian people for 60 years, and inform them that they are at fault for their misery. That is obviously rediculous, given Israel's expansionism and colonization of the West Bank these last 40 years.

          Jeff Halper, an Israel who is an expert in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in this article, The Problem with Israel, gives an honest view of the matter.

          "Let’s be honest (for once): The problem in the Middle East is not the Palestinian people, not Hamas, not the Arabs, not Hezbollah or the Iranians or the entire Muslim world. It’s us, the Israelis. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the single greatest cause of instability, extremism and violence in our region, is perhaps the simplest conflict in the world to resolve. For almost 20 years, since the PLO’s recognition of Israel within the 1949 Armistice Lines (the "Green Line" separating Israel from the West Bank and Gaza), every Palestinian leader, backed by large majorities of the Palestinian population, has presented Israel with a most generous offer: A Jewish state on 78% of Israel/Palestine in return for a Palestinian state on just 22% –..."

          •  This idea of dual responsibility sounds (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            blue speck, Linda Milazzo

            nice and fair and equitable, but it is total deception. The history just does not support it.

          •  Of course, the Palestinians could have had (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Turkana, Nightprowlkitty

            "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Carl Schurz

            by another American on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:43:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  You mean, the UN Partition? (0+ / 0-)

              If you don't know by now why a people who were being asked to accept a state within their own country, would not accept it, it is beyond me. Certainly, the Palestinians fought against that prospect. By contrast, we get arrogant statements to the effect that they were offered something or other and didn't take it.

              Why they didn't accept the UN Partition may have had something to do with the fact that they were offered only 45% when they constituted two-thirds of the population (Said).

              More likely it was directly related to the fact that 400,000 of them were caught inside the Jewish partition. Were they expected to give up their homes, lands, farms and orchards, stores and businesses, and their villages and towns, and just leave as penniless refugees? To go where?

              And could the Jewish partition become Israel with almost an equal number of Arabs? There is a good article about what Ben Gurion knew he had to do, whatever he is reputed to have said, at The Nation.

              If you have learned anything about Israeli politics these past 60 years, saying one thing and doing another is common tactic (Halper). Even before Independence, half the Palestinians had been ethnically cleansed from their homes and villages, the rest afterward.

              I hope that you didn't repeat the hoax about Arab governments telling the Palestinians to leave, that they could come back after the fighting?

              Just how does any of this justify the colonization of the West Bank?

              •  PS: (0+ / 0-)

                Here a lesson from a wise man who has been hanging around Israel since 1948, Uri Avnery, from his article,

                A Sparkling Bubble

                A FRIEND of mine, who was brought up in Egypt, took part in the interrogation of Egyptian officers captured in the 1956 Sinai war.

                An Egyptian lieutenant-colonel told him: "Every time David Ben-Gurion gave a speech declaring that he was holding out his hand for peace, we put our forces on alert."

                What leaders said in those early days cannot be relied upon to reflect the reality. You have to look at what people actually do, not what they say, because what politicians and leaders say, as we have learned during these past six years, does not always reflect the truth. No, it frequently does not.

              •  could we at least be semantically accurate (0+ / 0-)

                if you don't know by now why a people who were being asked to accept a state within their own country

                the palestinians have never had their own country. i hope they will, but let's be accurate.

                © 2006 "we've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!" -malcolm reynolds

                by Laurence Lewis on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:32:52 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  And just what did people refer to when (0+ / 0-)

                  they indicated that they lived in Palestine. If you mean that because they were occupied by the Ottomans for four centuries, and then the British, they did not have land ownership or local civic leaders or an identity, I think that is incorrect. Many lived there for numerous centuries. Their central government over the period of the Turks and British was obviously a military one. But does that mean that they had no country? I don't know. But I think you may be disenfranchising them of their history in the region by equating lack of a central government with having no country.

                  •  well, it's good to be clear about terms (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    curmudgiana, Mia Dolan

                    the way you phrased it made it sound as if you meant that they were offered a smaller country than the one they had already had. of course, that's not the case. yes, they had lived in those lands for a long time; and, yes, they had owned property; but we need to be clear that you don't mean country in the nationalistic sense. they were offered a state that did not include all their historic lands, but not a state within their historic nation.

                    as you well know- with all the debates about 242, and the subtle difference between "lands" and "the lands," it's important to be as semantically accurate as possible.

                    © 2006 "we've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!" -malcolm reynolds

                    by Laurence Lewis on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 07:12:21 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Palestinian country seemed to be a (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Rusty Pipes, Turkana

                      more general and applicable term than state or nation, which they never had as those terms conjure up notions of a central government. But what do you call a people who have lived in a geographically defined area sharing a culture, language, and identity for centuries?  

                      But I understand what you mean about semantics.

                      •  well, that, too, is more nuanced (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Mia Dolan

                        because the palestinian arabs are not culturally or linguistically distinct from many of the region's other arabs. and even their identity as palestinians has evolved. most importantly, though, we need to stop looking backward and begin looking forward. whoever they were in the past, their history in the last sixty years has been not only distinct, but uniquely abused. every displaced people- including the kurds and the chinese people, whose names i can't remember- deserve all the basic rights that all people deserve; but the palestinians have been victimized by virtually everyone- us, the europeans, israel, their arab and muslim neighbors, and even their own corrupt leadership. the main issue i have with the dk i/p debates is that they are so focused on the blame game- by both sides- and reliving the past. far better if we focused on a rational discourse as to a) what would be an equitable resolution (and you know i'm in the two-state camp- each independent, autonomous, and secure), and b) how we get there.

                        © 2006 "we've done the impossible, and that makes us mighty!" -malcolm reynolds

                        by Laurence Lewis on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 07:16:14 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Good ideas... (0+ / 0-)

                          But there is still an ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and the West Bank, the continuing colonization of Palestinian land in the West Bank, the "liquidation of the Palestinian nation," as the 18 writers put it, an ignorant American public subjected to continual censorship and propaganda, related US Middle East foreign policy, Israel's disingenuousness about peace, and the worldwide and local peace movements to push Israel to the table.

                          These are just some additional topics for discussion that are current and relevant to the ones you suggested. Sorry to say, but it is often people trying to justify Israel's behavior that invoke historical arguments. I don't think the peace camp is really that interested, beyond responding to myth s and false impressions.

                          •  Re. Palestinian uniqueness or lack thereof. (0+ / 0-)

                            I suppose that many Arab peoples would lump the US, Canada, and England together as indistinguishable peoples. However, I don't believe that Iraqis are not distinct from Jordanians who in turn are different from Syrians, and so on. Rural Palestinians are also known to speak a dialect of Arabic that is unknown elsewhere.

                            I don't think that most Americans are capable of making discriminations from these groups, and would just conclude that Arabs are Arabs, and from there, that Jordan is Palestine.

          •  LOL (2+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            Turkana, word is bond
            Hidden by:
            essexgreen

            My poll was more rhetorical - I didn't actually think anyone would actually vote for something other than C.  Dude, you are part of the problem.  Shut it down.

        •  This diary (4+ / 0-)

          doesn't sit well with many because it doesn't make statements about Palestinian attacks on Israel... which we all know have taken place.

          But Mr. Carter's contention and mine is that there isn't a fair and balanced approach to the problem coming from this nation.  The poll is based on media bias... and political bias... more than anything else.   That combined with the fact that zionism (which I grew up with and believed in until my teens) is deeply rooted and sadly, regardless of the facts, is an ideological mindset almost impossible to change.

          •  No (4+ / 1-)
            Recommended by:
            richter, Turkana, word is bond, Linda Milazzo
            Hidden by:
            curmudgiana

            Your diary doesn't sit well with many because its a inflamatory, biased piece of shit that contributes absolutely nothing to the discussion.  I am going to have to read the Carter book because I expect that you and others are actually misrepresenting him.  

            •  That is exactly why I'm buying it (4+ / 0-)

              Your point sums up my purchase.

              "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices." Edward R. Murrow

              by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:53:14 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Just buy it! (3+ / 0-)

                Jimmy Carter's a great man. I don't believe I'm misrepresenting him.  If after reading the book please let me know if I am.

                •  I don't know if you are, either (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Fabian, Turkana, curmudgiana

                  and that's why I'm buying the book. I'm also buying it because his interview on NPR was engrossing and I want to know more.

                  I live up next to a mountain so I can't get NPR anywhere in my house, on a snow day, so I sat in my car, in front of my house, and froze my ass off listening to him on Fresh Air. It was worth it. :)

                  "No one can terrorize a whole nation, unless we are all his accomplices." Edward R. Murrow

                  by Pager on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:26:47 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                •  I had a minor role in the Carter Administration. (0+ / 0-)

                  In the 1980 primary, I voted for Ted Kennedy because Carter was such a conservative president.  The peace treaty between Egypt and Israel was one of the few good things he did.

                  "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Carl Schurz

                  by another American on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 07:25:56 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Thank you... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              curmudgiana

              That's the best response you could give me.  That proves to me you have a desire to make the most informed decision possible... unlike others who have ripped apart a true statesman (President Carter) for having the guts to step on the third rail of American politics... criticizing Israel.

              The best any of us can do is read his book, and go to the region ourselves if possible.  And see films that speak the truth.  Recently at the Bioneers convention in San Rafael, CA, I saw a wonderful film titled, "Encounter Point" which showed the grassroots effort by Israelis and Palestinians who lost loved ones in the war.  It showed their extreme efforts from a grassroots level to bring about reconciliation.  I was so moved after seeing it I COULDN'T MOVE from my seat.

              Also, I'm fortunate to be part of a wonderful activist group that travels to the region to seek out the truth.  I get the facts from those who care deeply enough to risk their lives to uncover them.  

              I appreciate you taking the time to participate in the solution...  That's the best any of us can do!!

            •  Curmudgiana, you are a troll-rating abuser (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Mia Dolan

              There is absolutely nothing troll-ratable about Mia Dolan's comment.  Yes, it is a fiercely expressed -- oh my, there's even a dirty word! -- but it is a legitimate part of the discourse on this thread. And let's be honest here -- would Curmudgiana have troll rated this comment if Mia had used precisely the same language to SUPPORT Milazzo's inflamatory, biased piece of shit?  Of course not.

              Curmudgiana is a classic example of a growing and dangerous phenomena here at DKos.  I call them the "Kostapo," a term I pass on to any who wants to use it.  Troll-rating was designed to help the flow of open and honest debate at DKos by punishing those who clearly wish to hinder that process.  Kostapo thugs like Curmudgiana use it for precisely the opposite reason -- to punish the expression of opinions they do not share and in fact to impede the open and honest debate that is the life blood of DKos.

              How do we fight the Kostapo?  Four ways.  First, when you see the Kostapo troll rating a legitimate comment, give it a recommend.  Similarly, if the Kostapo troll rates YOU, post a comment asking for recommends from others.  Also, post comments specifically attacking Kostapo members for their troll rating abuse, as I am doing here.  And finally, keep track of specific Kostapo troll-rating abusers.  Troll rating abuse is a violation of the FAQs -- when you have accumulated,say, a dozen examples of troll rating abuse from a particular Kostapo member, e-mail Kos or one of the other powers-that-be here at Dkos and bring the abusing bastard to their attention.

              Curmudgiana, I now have you down for one clear cut case of trrol rating abuse.  You have 11 more to go.

        •  No... not so... (4+ / 0-)

          If you read further down to my explanation of the diary you'll understand why it is worded as it is.  However, I've written on this issue before and have witnessed vicious responses steeped purely in zionist ideology.  Full on hate speech... which I NEVER engage in.  I see no need for it.  But I do see the reality of the diary.  

          Please tell me... what have you found as a plausible civil method to change the mindset of those who rabidly despise ALL Palestinians simply because they're Palestinians?  

          The ideological hatred of tunnelvisioned zionism is as horrific as the mindset of anyone who hates based on ideological fanaticism.  I don't support it on either side.  

          I support Israel.  I support Palestine.  I don't support occupation and I don't support apartheid.  Not in Palestine.  Not in Iraq.  Not in Sudan.  NOT ANYWHERE!!!

        •  Uh, C.... n/t (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Mia Dolan

          9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

          by varro on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:36:51 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well, I actually say that it's (0+ / 0-)

          God's fault.  Any serious exegesis of the Abraham story shows that Ishmael, the first son and ancestor of the Arabs, should have inherited the land by the law common at the time.  But God chose Isaac to inherit, giving the land to the Jews.  So God started it by breaking the law.

          I say this in all seriousness.  As a Christian, I wrestle with a God who acts this way.  But it also points to the fact that this conflict is far deeper than any mere historical analysis can comprehend.  This is the matter of two peoples who have conflicting promises from God.  Until the two sides, not to mention the Christians, try to figure it out on those terms, it cannot be solved.  And no one of these three sides can say that it is the decider.

          Bill Clinton had an idea (I think it began with a minority opinion in one or another of the groups) to say that sovereignty over Jerusalem belonged to God, and that there were to be particular agreements about how the two faiths would carry that out.  It seems to me that this is the only way for both sides to win their fight with God and with their heritages.  It also didn't fly.  So we will always be at square one.

  •  Nancy Biden, Please answer the Courtesy Phone (8+ / 0-)

    According to incoming Democratic Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, "It is wrong to suggest that the Jewish people would support a government in Israel or anywhere else that institutionalizes ethnically based oppression, and Democrats reject that allegation vigorously."

    It is wrong to suggest that Nancy Pelosi has any more credibility on this issue than Joe Biden had on the issue of the bankruptcy bill.

    She's a pol and she knows who she owes; this has nothing to do with Democratic voters and everything to do with bundled campaign contributions and well-heeled special interest lobbyists.

  •  I learned a lot (5+ / 0-)

    about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when I was in grad school in a conflict resolution program--there was a man from Palestine and a woman from Israel in the program, and the two of them did much to open my eyes to what's been going on there. Israel does some really horrible things, and the zionists certainly had blood on their hands in the time leading up to the country's formation.

    One thing I learned in the program is that when two entities are in conflict, the negative and positive stereotypes they hold of each other will be almost identical. We see it in the attitudes of Dems and Repubs toward each other, for example.

    It is almost impossible for people in this country to talk about the Israel situation rationally. I applaud Ms. Milazzo for her diary--the poll may seem inflammatory to many readers, but I think people in this country really are blinded to the scope of the problem. Someone posted "take down that poll bitch," a level of discourse to which this website rarely sinks (I hope it's been troll-rated and deleted). Poll questions are slanted all the time on this site, but no one complains until it's a hot-button issue like this.

    I'll throw more gas on the fire: I think the creation of the state of Israel was a tragic mistake. A huge, tragic mistake, made partly because after WWII, countries like the US would not open its doors wide to Jewish refugees.

    Israel is not going away, and we have to sort out the consequences, but its creation was just as much a blunder as was cobbling the state of Iraq together. I'm not arguing that Israel should be dissolved, mind you--just that it was a mistake with huge repercussions. Look how much US foreign policy has been screwed up because of our support of Israel, for example.

    And, no, I'm not an anti-Semite, although many of you will think I am because I think Israel was a bad idea. I think the Bible is an inappropriate basis for justifying any political endeavor--whether it's creating a nation or forbidding gay marriage. Creating a theocratic nation out of thin air, caving to zealots who had a sense of entitlement to the place, using the last gasp of colonialism to do so, was a bad idea.

    •  If you want to learn even more about the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Turkana, blue speck, isis2

      creation of Israel, may I pimp my own diary:

      A little bit that you might want to know about Israel and Palestine.

      "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Carl Schurz

      by another American on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:28:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  thank you, diary pimp! (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        anonymousredvest18, curmudgiana

        Interesting reading. I just skimmed the diary and will go back to it when I have more time.

        A question: Your brief conclusion says that a big part of the problem is that the arabs should have accepted partition. But didn't everything happen in the context of British colonialism, which one could argue was de facto of questionable legitimacy? If that's the case, why should they have accepted anything imposed from outside?

        Not trying to fan the flames, just trying to peel back the layers.

        •  British colonialism was one context. (4+ / 0-)

          The break up of the Ottoman Empire following its foolish decision to join Germany against the Allies was another.

          So, too, was the independent Jewish effort to build a homeland.

          And don't forget that the League of Nations endorsed the Balfour Declaration as part of the Mandate for Palestine.

          My bottom line is that we cannot go back before 1948. Neither you nor the Palestinians need to agree to the Zionist narrative.  All that's required is acceptance of the Jewish state's right to continue to exist alongside a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in part of Jerusalem.

          That said, if you prick us, do we not bleed? If you choose to bring up the past, you should not expect acquiescence when you make (what some of us believe to be) erroneous statements.

          "My country, right or wrong; if right, to be kept right; and if wrong, to be set right." Carl Schurz

          by another American on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:41:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I agree with you (3+ / 0-)

            All that's required is acceptance of the Jewish state's right to continue to exist alongside a viable Palestinian state in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with its capital in part of Jerusalem.

            My larger point is that too many people accept the zionist narrative unquestioningly--that Israel is there by right, like it's God's will or something, when it's really just about politics.

    •  Creation of Israel.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      blue speck, curmudgiana

      ...must have looked good on paper in 1947, but was certainly a botched plan at best.  It says more about the hubris of the British than the persecuted jews looking for a place to live in peace.  Unfortunately, it didn't achieve this simple goal, and caused much suffering for nothing.

    •  Thanks Mel Gibson (2+ / 1-)
      Recommended by:
      shpilk, Red Sox
      Hidden by:
      curmudgiana

      Its really a chickenshit move to lump all of the well-articulated criticisms of this lame diary and poll with the "take that poll down bitch" comment.  When some one puts out a shitty poll like this one, it generally gets called out on DailyKos.  One clue your poll is a piece of shit is that it doesn't given a viable option to a lot of people.

      And what is the fucking point of arguing that its too bad that Israel was created in the first place?  So what?  Are you looking for a solution, or just trying to piss people off.  

  •  Carter is a remarkable hypocrite... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Red Sox

    ...considering that when he brokered the Camp David accords, he repeatedly an emphatically rejected the idea of an independent Palestinian state.

    For him to now blame Israel for such rejectionism is outrageous.

  •  Interesting poll question (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Turkana, Nightprowlkitty

    So I will repeat it here, to save people from scrolling up:

    Will supporters of Israel ever accept the reality of Israel's mistreatment of non-violent Palestinians?

    From the phrasing of that question, it would appear that if one opposes mistreatment of non-violent Palestinians, then ipso facto one cannot support Israel.  That phrasing, and the implication I have described, would then fly in the face of repeated protests from the people that regularly criticize Israeli policies here, that they are not anti-Israel.

    In loving memory: Sophie, June 1, 1993-January 17, 2005. My huckleberry friend.

    by Paul in Berkeley on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 02:59:38 PM PST

  •  terrible analogy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    isis2, Mia Dolan

    Leaving the substance of this diary and its poll question aside, since others have extensively dealt with those flaws-- its title is simply not going to come into fruition. Murtha was someone whose speaking out on Iraq was a true shift and noteworthy, as a hawk and an initial supporter of the war. Carter, on the other hand, is someone who has clearly, agree with him or not, been sliding toward this position for years and seen as a biased source, albeit not to the extent that he will be now; in fact, this book has been over two years in the works. Those of us who disagree with him to varying degrees here might be disappointed, and others might be enthused, but its nowhere near the shockwave that Murtha's announcement produced universally and for the national discourse.

    •  Not too mention that the Democrats... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      anonymousredvest18

      ... are going to keep us in Iraq.

    •  I was wondering when someone would point out.. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Turkana, Nightprowlkitty

      ....that Murtha has done nothing for Iraq (yet).

      The urge to save humanity is almost always a false face for the urge to rule it. ~ H.L. Mencken

      by Jay Elias on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 03:30:49 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  It's a logical analogy... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      peace voter

      Murtha spoke up where no other Democrat had and took the chance of being called unpatriotic, anti-American, etc.  In fact, if you dare to remember, Murtha was called those inappropriate names right on the House floor by the "genius" who beat Paul Hackett in Ohio in 2004..

      Carter spoke up about Israel where no other American leader has and took the chance of being called anti-semitic, anti-Jew, etc.  

      Murtha isn't anti-American and Carter isn't anti-Israel or anti Jew.  

      Both saw inequities that millions of others also saw but those others were too afraid to speak out and take on the challenge.  Conversely, Carter and Murtha did speak out, disregarding the personal assaults that were certain to come their way.

      Like it or not the analogy stands because just as Murtha's position and words were discussed over and over after he spoke out...  SO ARE CARTER'S WORDS BEING DISCUSSED OVER AND OVER AFTER HE SPOKE OUT!  And the dialogue has begun!!

      In fact, thankfully, you're doing some of the speaking!  You're helping the dialogue along.  Congratulations!!

  •  Something from Haaretz.... (4+ / 0-)

    THis is the debate we all see....

    1. There is only one side to any story. My side.
    1. The people on the other side, children included, are undeserving of sympathy.
    1. Even the maimed and the dead on the other side are undeserving of sympathy.
    1. The term massacre may only be used to describe casualties on my side.
    1. The automatic fire, bombing, shelling or other lethal action taken by my side are acts of self-defense. If there are fatalities as a result of fire by my side, whether intentional or incidental, they deserved to die.

    Pro-Israel version I: Palestinian terrorists are to blame for the deaths, as they operate in residential areas, drawing fire that kills innocent civilians.

    Pro-Israel version II: They're all terrorists. They all deserve what they get.

    Pro-Palestinian version I: Suicide bombings, Qassams and drive-by's are the only defense that a vastly out-gunned people has against well-armed occupation forces.

    Pro-Palestinian version II: All Israelis ultimately serve in the army, so all are legitimate targets.

    1. The concept of drawing comparisons of moral equivalency or mutual responsibility for violence is, in all cases, obscene, disgraceful, artificial, mendacious.

    All political, military, social and religious modalities can be reduced to pure victims and pure villains, which is to say, Us and Them, which is to say, Us and animals/murderers/mass-murderers/racist genocidalists/Nazis/Hitler.

    Option 7A: The goal of the left, the center, this newspaper, its writers, even some of its readers, is the destruction of the State of Israel.

    Option 7B: The destruction of Israel is a worthwhile goal.

    1. If I am a pro-Israel extremist, responding to a pro-Israel moderate, I should attack and dismiss the writer as a whiner, a crybaby, a defeatist, a moron, a wimp, an imbecile, a self-hater, an extreme leftist, naïve, brainwashed, a pipe-dreamer, duped by the pro-Arab bias of the mass media, a traitor.
    1. If I am a pro-Palestinian extremist, responding to a pro-Palestinian moderate, I should immediately dismiss the writer as a sell-out, a fool, misguided, an Uncle Tom, unaware of the real facts, duped by a the pro-Israel bias of the mass media, a traitor.
    1. The depth of my conviction, that is, the degree of my extremism, is directly proportional to the distance from my home to the Holy Land. The farther away, the more foaming-at-the-mouth my fanaticism.

    God damn it. Just support the Geneva Initiative

  •  Can I add another choice? (0+ / 0-)

    Yes - they will realize that their country will be peaceful and more prosperous with a two-state solutiona allowing Israel and Palestine to be separate, but interdependent, states.

    Palestinians will realize that their "allies" in the Arab world use Israel as a distraction to both them and their own people, while other Arab countries treat Palestinians like garbage.

    9-11 changed everything? Well, Katrina changed it back.

    by varro on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 05:27:28 PM PST

  •  With all due respect... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    peace voter, curmudgiana

    Amy Goodman always says Americans are compassionate people and if they had the opportunity to see and know the truth than they'd respond differently than they do through the lens of distorted slanted journalism.

    One week of shows addressing the oppression and degradation suffered daily by INNOCENT Palestinians.. not suicide bombers... would educate Americans to a more legitimate point than they are now.  Die-hard zionists are unlikely to change their opinions absent an epiphany I can't conceive of right now.

    However, most Americans buy into the propaganda that Israel is all good all the time because that's what they hear from their elected leaders and fearful media.  

    My poll addresses what would happen if honesty prevailed in American media and government and the masses saw FINALLY that Israel isn't always acting because it's under attack.  In fact, Israel often attacks when there is no attack.  I know this.  My friends know this.  But millions of Americans do not.

    These are the people to whom the poll is addressed.  And these are the people President Carter hopes to address in his book.  Should this come to pass, it is possible that America's elected biased leaders could be forced out of denying Israel's culpability and acknowledge that Israel must act fairly in order to facilitate peace.

  •  Media, government and understanding (0+ / 0-)

    Amy Goodman always says Americans are compassionate people and if they had the opportunity to see and know the truth than they'd respond differently than they do through the lens of distorted slanted journalism.

    One week of shows addressing the oppression and degradation suffered daily by INNOCENT Palestinians.. not suicide bombers... would educate Americans to a more legitimate point than they are now.  Die-hard zionists are unlikely to change their opinions absent an epiphany I can't conceive of right now.

    However, most Americans buy into the propaganda that Israel is all good all the time because that's what they hear from their elected leaders and fearful media.  

    My poll addresses what would happen if honesty prevailed in American media and government and the masses saw FINALLY that Israel isn't always acting because it's under attack.  In fact, Israel often attacks when there is no attack.  I know this.  My friends know this.  But millions of Americans do not.

    These are the people to whom the poll is addressed.  And these are the people President Carter hopes to address in his book.  Should this come to pass, it is possible that America's elected biased leaders could be forced out of denying Israel's culpability and acknowledge that Israel must act fairly in order to facilitate peace.

  •  simplistic analysis that damages (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Mia Dolan

    chances for moderates to negotiate is not a solution. I love Jimmy Carter dearly, but he is wrong this time.

    And the poll .. well it is a disgrace. It's a "when did you stop beating your significant other" type of poll. It's about as disgraceful as the comment that got troll rated {justly so} into oblivion.

    Until people can discuss these issues without making gross blanket indictments of either side, nothing is going to change. Carter must know this, inside his own heart; there must be an awful lot of frustration driving what he is trying to present. I sympathize, as the current Israeli GOVERNMENT is a a disaster, but that is no reason to indict a whole nation.

    'Not a Call for Impeachment'
    Simply: Truth.Justice. Reconciliation.
    If Impeachment comes by way of Justice being served, so be it.

    by shpilk on Tue Dec 05, 2006 at 11:19:56 PM PST

  •  Poll could use "other" option (0+ / 0-)

    If you want a fairer sampling of the opinions of those who have read the diary, "other" or "none of the above" should be included in a poll.

    "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen." - Harry Truman

    by Rusty Pipes on Wed Dec 06, 2006 at 08:53:01 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site