Jimmy Carter says U.S. aims to split Palestinians

[maddezmom]

Source: Reuters

Jimmy Carter says U.S. aims to split Palestinians
By Jonathan Saul

DUBLIN, June 19 (Reuters) - Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter said on Tuesday Washington's support for the Palestinian Fatah group and the blocking of aid to Gaza were part of a mistaken policy aimed at dividing Palestinians.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas of Fatah dismissed Hamas from the government last week and formed a new cabinet in the occupied West Bank after gunmen from the Islamist group took over the Gaza Strip.

In a bid to shore up Abbas, the United States and the European Union pledged on Monday to lift a 15-month old embargo on the Palestinians imposed after Hamas won elections and rejected their calls to recognise Israel and renounce violence.

Carter, on a visit to Dublin, said the United States and Israel had done "everything they could to prevent accommodation between Hamas and Fatah".

"Lately, the United States has been giving military aid to Fatah in order to conquer Hamas in Gaza," Carter told reporters after addressing a human rights forum in Dublin.

"Fatah could not prevail because of the fervent commitment of some of the Hamas fighters and because of their discipline," he added.

Read more: http://wap.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L19320798.htm

[Tempest]

1. It seems they're doing it to themselves

Israel and the U.S. has helped it along. Israel by withholding taxes collected, the U.S. and Israel by refusing to recognize the elections that put Hamas into the government and the U.S. by supplying weapons to Fatah.

But the Palestinian factions have done most of the work of splitting the people.

[shance]

4. Blaming the victims?

The Palestinians are busy trying to stay alive while their water, food and electricity is being controlled by a group who essentially wants to kill them and destroy their culture.

Their most basic needs are being dangled over their head like carrots.

And you think they have the luxury of "doing it to themselves"?

Amazes me how people love to blame those being harmed and protect those inflicting the abuse.

The viciousness being inflicted on the Palestinians is quite barbaric frankly.

It is in every morally sense, wrong, horribly cruel and unjust.

[Tempest]

8. It's Palestinian against Palestinian

So yes, they are doing it to themselves.

It's Hamas vs. Fatah.

They could have agreed to a cease fire, but didn't.


And I pointed out the U.S.' and Israel's role in creating the problem.

[barb162]

35. Nobody was forcing them to shoot each other in the streets.

Nobody was forcing Palestinians to pump 40 bullets in a fellow Palestinian's head when he was in a hospital bed.
Yes, the viciousness and atrocities being inflicted on Palestinians BY Palestinians is quite barbaric.

[shance]

40. The Palestinians have been targeted, brutalized and assaulted for years now.

Because they want to keep their homes, which are being bulldozed and leveled by the IDF.

We need to stop allowing the abuse and attacks to continue on them.

[barb162]

43. So what do you think of shooting a Palestinian in a hospital bed

by other Palestinians? What do you think of Palestinians throwing each other off of roofs?

The Palestinians have been attacking Israel and noncombatant Israelis for years, including with with kassams, suicide bombs, etc. The victim myth is just that.

[19jet54]

10. Collateral Damage - Innocents

While I agree this is somewhat self-inflicted (Civil War of Power), Hamas are Islamic Fundamentalist with the stated goal of the destruction of Israel & the US; Such conflicts always inflict damage on innocents. Hamas is sponsored by other Arab nations and is nothing more than a continuation of 1967 War against Israel to remove it from existence. Egypt blamed the US for the Arab loss in the 6 day war. Now they are trying again, and again, and again. Nothing new?

All they want to do is fight, even if it means self-destruction - they are simply a threat that cannot be ignored as long as they wish to fight.

[Bragi]

26. When did Hamas Call for Destruction of the US?

My understanding is that Hamas, while it has called for attacks on American power in the Middle East because of their military support for Israel, has never shown any intention of destroying the US. Am I wrong on this?

- B

[barb162]

36. Of late there have been some calls by Hamas of global jihad.

[Bragi]

48. How serious were these calls?

Were these serious statements by serious leadership people, and is there any evidence that hamas has done anything to follow them up. Or are they similar in nature to, say, rhetorical calls made by Bush for the globeal spread of democracy?

I ask because one of the things I'm trying to understand is which jihadist groups actually advocate attacks on the US at home or abroad.

The media and the Bushites lump them all together, of course, but far as I can tell, beyond al Qaeda, jihadists seem to be mostly focussed on attacking Israel and/or their own secular leaders, and are not actively engaged in global actions against the West.

- B

[barb162]

56. Judge for yourself:"Abbas claims al-Qaida is operating in Gaza"

Abbas claims al-Qaida is operating in Gaza


Chris McGreal in Jerusalem
Friday March 3, 2006
The Guardian


The Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas, said yesterday that he believes al-Qaida has infiltrated the occupied territories and could further destabilise the region.
"We have indications about a presence of al-Qaida in Gaza and the West Bank. This is intelligence information. We have not yet reached the point of arrests," Mr Abbas told Al Hayat, the London-based Arabic newspaper.
snip
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,1722378,00.html

Enter Al-Qaeda
snip
This week, the credibility of these warnings was vindicated when a group believed to be affiliated with Al-Qaeda, or at least espousing its ideology, attacked a school celebration in Rafah, in the southern edge of the Gaza Strip, killing one person and injuring five others.

The attackers didn't target the school children or their teachers, but rather the organisers and police, killing the bodyguard of a local Fatah leader.

The group had earlier publicly warned the school, run by the UN, against holding the event, on the grounds that the celebration involved the "mixing of adolescent boys and girls which is forbidden in Islam". snip

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2007/844/re1.htm

Also there were some additional articles in the last few weeks.

[Bragi]

70. This doesn't answer my question

I asked if Hmas had ever advocated the destruction of the US, as had been claimed in an earlier posting. Your citations do not answer that question at all. If anything, your response confuses al Qaeda with Hamas, which is what I am trying to sort out.

And lest anyone be confused as to my purpose, I am not trying to make an argument here, I would just like to know if the destruction of the US is in fact part of the Hamas ideology.

- B

[The Stranger]

50. Were they written in Richard Perle's handwriting?

[barb162]

54. No, I would suspect it was written in al qaida's hand.

[kestrel91316]

2. Divide and conquer.

[LeftHander]

72. ding ding ding...

progressives vs. moderate dems
Shia vs. Sunni
Hamas vs. Fatah

the neocons are masters at divide and conquer.

[SayWhatYo]

74. Such divides exist in any group.

Those divides would exist even without the neocons. Now, I'm not saying that they may exploit them to further whatever agenda they have, but they are by no means the cause of those divides... This is not limited to them either....

Am I wrong? Did I misread you? To me it sounds as if you believe that the if it wasn't for the neocons then there wouldn't be any of these divides...

[mopinko]

3. more u.s. meddling. more stirring of the war pot, more

stoking of the fires, more overthrow of elected governments. will we stop before the entire world is in flames? i fear not.

[rayofreason]

5. "Fatah could not prevail because..

...of the fervent commitment of some of the Hamas fighters and because of their discipline,"...and their aim.

Hamas guys are much more accurate when tossing prisoners off of 15 story buildings. Sheesh, sounds like Jimmy almost admires these thugs.

I have nothing but antipathy for both Hamas and Fatah. I can only hope that this debacle will precipitate a new force in Palestinian politics - one that is interested in real peace between a secular, Jewish-oriented Israel and a secular, Islamic-oriented Palestine. Neither Fatah nor Hamas fit the bill.

[The Stranger]

7. Go read post 4, above, and try to learn more about the situation.

[Tempest]

9. Oh please

Hamas and Fatah have always been opposed to each other.

It makes no sense to deflect blame when the two sides couldn't work together.

[rayofreason]

11. How silly.

A man drives on a mountain road at 140 kph and looses control. Car is smashed and he goes into hospital. Blame the victim? Actually, yes.

For decades the Palestinian political leadership has built and glorified a cult of violence and death. The biggest victims are young Palestnian children whose minds are warped by hatred so that they grow up to be suicide bombers, or Fatah thugs, or Hamas thugs, throwing bound Fatah thugs off of roofs. Now this glorification of violence has blown up thier face. It got to the point that Fatah thugs felt like the Hamas thugs were treating them like JEWS -

<i>"They're firing at us, firing RPGs, firing mortars. <b>We're not Jews</b>," the brother of Jamal Abu Jediyan, a Fatah commander, pleaded during a live telephone conversation with a Palestinian radio station.

Minutes later both men were dragged into the streets and riddled with bullets.</i>

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/13/wgaza113.xml

Yes, there is plenty that is wrong with Israeli policies and goals that we can point at, but the goal of keeping the state of Israel from being destroyed and it citizens from being murdered is not one of them. In many parts of the world there are people who have lost wars, and territory. But do we see German suicide bombers blowing up poles in Warsaw as they demand the return of Gdansk (Danzig)? How about Poles demanding the return of Lvov? No, generally people get over the mistakes of their forebearers and get on with their lives. Not so the Palestinians. The fact is that the Arabs fought to destroy Israel and lost. Israel is not going anywhere. The Palestinians have not accepted that fact and that is the root of MOST of their problems. It is not about a Palestinian state. They could have had that anythime between 1948 and 1967, when the West Bank and Gaza were under Arab rule. No, it has always been about driving the Jews into the sea. Until they let go of the dangerous fantasy of "ending the occupation" - of Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, Sderot....the Palestinians will lurch from one Nakba to another.

[19jet54]

12. Similar history...

... that exact plan (drive them back into the sea) worked well for the American Nations (Indians)? :sarcasm:

It is self destructive for a militarily inferior people; but they are persistent.

[rayofreason]

13. There must be something in the water

Consider the same bit of land about 2000 years ago. Persistance by a militarily inferior people (the Jews) led to a Roman campaign to wipe the region clean, as described by Josephus and Tacitus. That was the end of messianic Judaism as a major force, and pretty much only the Pharisees survived to create Rabbinic Judaism.

Persistence and Zealotry can have bad effects if carried out too long.

[19jet54]

17. For anybody...

... no matter who they are - history is repeated over & over again?

[index555]

18. Hamas Is comprised of poor , innocent victims?

Riiight. :puke:

[barb162]

38. Nobody was forcing them to shoot each other in the streets.

Including killing a few peace marchers.

That victim routine isn't very convincing.

[The Stranger]

51. Peace marchers?

You have a link for that?

[barb162]

52. Yeah, peace marchers were being shot by Palestinian militants

snip
The march turned north, bound for the Al Bakry compound, home to a family of Fatah loyalists that Hamas had under siege in the Beach Camp, a refugee camp home to Ismail Haniya and solid Hamas country. The protesters turned up a dusty alley way close to the besieged compound and Hamas (we assume anyway) opened fire. Protesters scattered and a boy of about 20 was shot down in the street and whisked off by an old silver mercedes.

A group of perhaps two dozen marchers regrouped and ran right back down the alley straight into the oncoming machine gun fire. It was a chilling spectacle that called to mind Tiananmen Square. Six more protesters, including a middle aged woman, were gunned down and dragged off by screaming fellow demonstrators. People were devastated. Our fixer was in tears. It was profoundly moving display.
snip
http://conflictblotter.com/2007/06/13/peace-march-turns-deadly/

snip
Meanwhile, life for ordinary Palestinians in the Gaza Strip threatens to become even worse as the United Nations refugee agency announced that it was stopping food distributions to more than 700,000 people after two of its employees were killed in the crossfire.

John Ging, the head of the agency's Gaza operations, said the fighting was "unprecedented in scale and nature". A protest march by Palestinians in Gaza City and Khan Younis which called on militants from both sides to halt the bloodshed ended in violence when gunmen fired on the unarmed demonstrators. "History will judge you and the generations will not forgive you," a protest banner in Gaza City warned the Palestinians' fractured leadership.
snip
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/14/wgaza214.xml

[SayWhatYo]

75. could be a false flag operation.

:sarcasm:

[rcdean]

16. Neither Hamas nor Fatah... nor Israel.

Israel is no more secular than either Hamas or Fatah. The notion that some "new force" will emerge that will make the Palestinians become obedient conquered vassals in the occupied territories is as wrong as the notion that Israel will ever really clamp down on its religious fanatics who are doing the occupying (with the support of the Israeli state and military).

[index555]

21. Oh Really , so why did they forcibly remove the "settlers/occupiers"

From Gaza?
Even if Israel withdrew every settler from the west bank , gave up Jerusalem ,allowed the so-called "right of return" demanded by the Palestinians , and anything else , Hamas would still simply say "now you all must leave or die".
So please tell me why Israel should give Hamas ANYTHING? including food?

I couldn't care less if every member of Hamas did starve to death , but that would also mean that all of the Palestinians in Gaza that just want to get by and live out their lives peacefully would also , and that would be horribly wrong.
There are Palestinians that now view Hamas as "meet the new boss , even worse than the old boss" , whose day to day lives were better under the occupation than they are now, and I mean cruel and vicious oppression (under Hamas), not just a lack of basic necessities.

[rcdean]

31. A mere token.

A couple of settlements dismantled in the face of well over 100 was a mere palliative. It ended with Sharon. In fact, the determination to confront Israeli religious fanatic settlers may well be what got Sharon offed.

There is simply no excuse for Israel's unspeakable carving up of the West Bank by settlements and military bases and exclusive roadways that require check-points to cross and a general atmosphere of apartheid.

This unconscionable policy is what keeps hatred going, keeps the bloodshed going, and keeps the occupied territories from being governable, prosperous and livable. It is a crime against humanity and the underlying causus belli of the jihadists.

Most enlightened people understand this but remain mute. Few have the courage of Jimmy Carter to come right out and put the truth on the table.

[index555]

59. A "mere token" , yes . BUT

such a "mere token" was meant as a suggestion of a way to peace.
A path was suggested , and demonstrated by example.
The result was Israel just got spit in their face.

[rayofreason]

28. Ignorance.

That is really the only charitable thing that I can call your statement "Israel is no more secular than either Hamas or Fatah"

Of course Israel has it religious political parties like Shas. To not allow such a party is to say that those people have no right to their views. I don't agree with them, but I won't deny them their right, even to be wrong. However, though religious parties do play a role in Israel, Israel is fundamentally secular because Torah does not rule. Pork may be legally sold, so can a cheeseburger. If you don't want to observe Shabbat you don't have to.

While Fatah started out secular, it has drifted into a more Islamist orientation because of competition from Hamas. And regarding Hamas, there is no question - they want Sharia law. What is the result? Just take a look at the relative position of gays in Israel and the PA.

http://www.indegayforum.org/news/show/27154.html

So I repeat, your statement is ignorant.

Regarding your interpretation that I desire that the Palestinians become "obedient conquered vassals in the occupied territories", what foolishness. Any close observer of the situation must realize that both Fatah and Hamas are dead ends. Neither has the will, or even the desire to end the conflict. Only a new Palestinian political force, one that sincerely desires a lasting peace with Israel in a 2-state solution and which is opposed to corruption and religious intolerance, can lead the Palestinian to a better place than they find themselves now.

[rcdean]

32. Myopia!

That's the only way to describe such blindness to the zionist fanatics who populate the settlements that make life a living hell for Palestinians in the west bank.

It is that policy of religious-based belief in entitlement to the holy land and occupation of the Palestinian territory that is the core cause of the endless cycle of violence.

I challenge you to download and study the "Map of the Settlements 2002" published by Btselem. It's available at www.btselem.org/English/Maps/Index.asp. This map tells the real truth the Israelis seek to hide from the western world; that they have imposed a soul-crushingly oppressive apparatus of occupation on the Palestinians, then claim to wonder why there can never be peace.

[rayofreason]

61. More ignorance - or worse

Your statement "It is that policy of religious-based belief in entitlement to the holy land and occupation of the Palestinian territory that is the core cause of the endless cycle of violence." is either ignorant of historical reality or indicative of a more sinister belief on your part - that Israel must be destroyed and the Jews driven into the sea.

Fact - From 1948 to 1967 there was no occupation of the West Bank or Gaza by the Israelis. Why was there no peace then? Why was a Palestinian state not established then? It was because the Arabs considered ALL of Israel to belong to the Palestinians. To Hamas, the "occupation" includes Jews living in Tel Aviv, Haifa, Ashkelon, etc. Maybe you agree.

While it is true that Israel has its religious nutjobs, like Gush Eminem who want all of Judea and Samaria (as well as opposite wackos like Neturei Karta), and religious pressure was one factor (strategic concerns were more important) that led to putting 250,000 settlers on the West Bank (not counting Jerusalem), this in no way means that Israel is ruled by Torah law. Israel is ruled by secular law. There are Gay Pride parades in Israel - as well as protests against them by the Orthodox. Similarly, the US is secular, even though the prohibition against bigamy is religious in origin, as was the fight against slavery (read Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address). So your comment that Israel is no more secular that Hamas, which is busy imposing Sharia law in Gaza, it ignorant and foolish.

What is more, when Israel left Gaza, it FORCIBLY removed the settlers. Gaza became Judenrein. It seems that that is exactly what many want for the West Bank as well. Despite the fact, for instance, that there has been a continuous, historically documented Jewish presence in Hebron for at least 2700 years.

The excuse that the conflict is about the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza is specious nonsense for consumption by fools who never ask the question "Why was there no peace when Israel did not occupy the West Bank and Gaza?"

The conflict is, and always has been, about one thing - Judenrein Palestine. Maybe that is what you want too.

p.s. - Your link is not working. How apropos.

[rcdean]

65. Awesome Myopia!

When pressed for rationality, die-hard Israeli apologists inevitably claim critics are anti-semitic and want to wipe Israel from the face of the earth. How revealing of a desire to avoid facts. Reminds me of the US right wingers who claim liberals who criticize and suggest improvements in our system are Un-American.

Have you ever even looked at a map of the occupied territories showing Israeli settlements, Israeli army institutions, and roads which are prohibited to Palestinians--in their own land--that criss-cross the territory and carve it into little, ungovernable cantons? Why don't you just take a look? Please! Ask yourself if you could live under conditions like that. Ask yourself how a territory like that could be governed, and how the fury of people living there in perpetual hopelessness could be contained.

The other favored tactic that those blind to the evil of the settlements resort to is using historical events as justification.

Nobody is claiming the Palestinians and surrounding Islamic states have been or are perfect, or even good. Nobody is justifying any attempt to challenge Israel's existence or to commit criminal acts against the Israeli citizenry.

What we are trying to do is create an atmosphere where peace is at least possible.

But the continuous occupation of Palestine makes life insufferable for an entire populace and is criminal oppression by every standard. It is a nothing more than caging an entire population and then wondering why there are radicals in it who are livid about their hopeless existence.

And those Israeli settlements are driven by Israeli religious fanaticism; driven to a degree that it is nearly impossible, politically, for any Israeli government to dismantle them.

Those are the facts. You know it. I know it. We all know it.

I urge you and others who feel as you do to stop supporting the Israeli right wing and start pressing for reforms that at least permit the possibility of peace.

[rayofreason]

67. You have not answered a single point

It is you who have not argued based on the evidence, not me. You have made two particularly foolish statements, for which I have taken you to task. Your obfuscation only highlights your inability to defend these statements that I have copied from your previous posts and which are below in italics.

1. You claimed Israel is no more secular than either Hamas or Fatah. That is a ludicrous statement, which you have failed to support.

2. You claimed It is that policy of religious-based belief in entitlement to the holy land and occupation of the Palestinian territory that is the core cause of the endless cycle of violence. If you believe this statement then you must explain why during the 20 years when the was no occupation of the West Bank or Gaza there was no peace. You say Nobody is justifying any attempt to challenge Israel's existence or to commit criminal acts against the Israeli citizenry. Bullshit. Hamas does it every day.

So the question remains - Do you believe that Israel has the right to exist? If so how do you explain the state of war against Israel during the time that Israel did not occupy the West Bank or Gaza? How can you square this with your view that the occupation of the West Bank or Gaza is the root of the conflict? Sure the occupation is bad (I have Palestinian friends and I hear first-hand stories), but the war came first and the occupation came second, not the other way around. For Hamas and most of Fatah the word "Occupation" means ALL of Israel, plus the West Bank and Gaza. Until that changes all this talk about the "occupation" is code for driving the Jews into the sea.

Finally, you state "And those Israeli settlements are driven by Israeli religious fanaticism; driven to a degree that it is nearly impossible, politically, for any Israeli government to dismantle them."

Yet that is what Israel did in Gaza.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/22/AR2005082200114.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4171982.stm

Uprooting ALL of the settlements for the West Bank will not happen. But a lot of then might be removed - if it looked like real peace was possible. I won't believe it until a PA government in Ramallah states in Arabic on PA TV that there will be a permanent peace with a permanent Israel, and they change the textbooks to remove all hatred of Jews that is now taught in schools. No political force committed to such a policy currently exist among the Palestinians, and until it arises there will be no peace.

[stillcool]

6. sounds so familiar...

Have I heard this before?

A Timeline of CIA Atrocities
By Steve Kangas
The following timeline describes just a few of the hundreds of atrocities and crimes committed by the CIA. (1)

CIA operations follow the same recurring script. First, American business interests abroad are threatened by a popular or democratically elected leader. The people support their leader because he intends to conduct land reform, strengthen unions, redistribute wealth, nationalize foreign-owned industry, and regulate business to protect workers, consumers and the environment. So, on behalf of American business, and often with their help, the CIA mobilizes the opposition. First it identifies right-wing groups within the country (usually the military), and offers them a deal: "We'll put you in power if you maintain a favorable business climate for us." The Agency then hires, trains and works with them to overthrow the existing government (usually a democracy). It uses every trick in the book: propaganda, stuffed ballot boxes, purchased elections, extortion, blackmail, sexual intrigue, false stories about opponents in the local media, infiltration and disruption of opposing political parties, kidnapping, beating, torture, intimidation, economic sabotage, death squads and even assassination. These efforts culminate in a military coup, which installs a right-wing dictator. The CIA trains the dictator’s security apparatus to crack down on the traditional enemies of big business, using interrogation, torture and murder. The victims are said to be "communists," but almost always they are just peasants, liberals, moderates, labor union leaders, political opponents and advocates of free speech and democracy. Widespread human rights abuses follow.

This scenario has been repeated so many times that the CIA actually teaches it in a special school, the notorious "School of the Americas." (It opened in Panama but later moved to Fort Benning, Georgia.) Critics have nicknamed it the "School of the Dictators" and "School of the Assassins." Here, the CIA trains Latin American military officers how to conduct coups, including the use of interrogation, torture and murder.

The Association for Responsible Dissent estimates that by 1987, 6 million people had died as a result of CIA covert operations. (2) Former State Department official William Blum correctly calls this an "American Holocaust."
http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/CIAtimeline.html
Note:( Steve Kangas was found dead on the 39th floor of his enemy's doorstep at 11:30 PM on February 8 1999. In the bathroom of the offices of Richard Mellon Scaife, 2000 miles from home, -- in Pittsburgh PA. Shot (twice?) in the head. Due to obstructions of justice, local police investigating the wrong circumstances quickly ruled it a suicide)http://www.psnw.com/~bashford/kang-ev0.html

The American Empire: 1992 to present
from the book
Killing Hope
by William Blum
2004 edition

Following its bombing of Iraq in 1991, the United States wound up with military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
Following its bombing of Yugoslavia in 1999, the United States wound up with military bases in Kosovo, Albania, Bulgaria, Macedonia, Hungary, Bosnia and Croatia.
Following its bombing of Afghanistan in 2001-2, the United States wound up with military bases in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Yemen and Djibouti.
Following its bombing and invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States wound up with Iraq.
This is not very subtle foreign policy. Certainly not covert. The men who run the American Empire are not easily embarrassed.
And that is the way the empire grows-a base in every neighborhood, ready to be mobilized to put down any threat to imperial rule, real or imagined. Fifty-eight years after world War II ended, the United States still has major bases in Germany and Japan; fifty ears after the end of the Korean War, tens of thousands of American armed forces continue to be stationed in South Korea.
"America will have a continuing interest and presence in Central Asia of a kind that we could not have dreamed of before," US Secretary of State Colin Powell declared in February 2002. Later that year, the US Defense Department announced: "The United States Military is currently deployed to more locations thttp://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Blum/American_Empire_KH2004.htmlhen it has been throughout history."

[The Magistrate]

14. President Carter Rather Exaggerates, Ma'am

Everything the United States could do to prevent reconciliation between Fatah and Hamas is not even a patch on the longstanding hostility between those two bodies. This flare-up wss inevitable as death and taxes, and is essentially produced by the locals themselves, for local consumption only....

[sellitman]

15. Jimmy Carter is a joke.

If he supports a group of terrorists like Hamas who want nothing to do with peace in the region then he only makes me think he has banged more than nails these past few years.

[19jet54]

20. He is not a joke...

... he is just no longer President. And when he was President, he botched the Iran hostage issue, which we now have to deal with; Hamas is a long term direct result of that error! As is the Cold War responsible by proxy support. Now we want to build walls - that is the joke in my opinion.

JC is a good man, just not a great President - Sometimes religion interferes with the hard decisions of leadership?

[Malikshah]

24. BY that logic if I eat babies, do I get diaper breath?

"If he supports a group of terrorists like Hamas"

What kind of ad hominem attack is that?

[index555]

34. So , are you saying that hamas would actually accept peace with Israel?

If Israel gave them the west bank unconditionally , and withdrew every settler , do you think hamas would actually give up their stated goal of destroying Israel?
or do you think hamas would just "thanks, but we're still going to kill you all"?

[Malikshah]

49. You've changed the subject? Why? Because your accusation of Carter

was challenged?

Not an effective method of argument.

Why did you accuse Carter of supporting Hamas?

[index555]

58. I made no such accusation against Jimmy Carter

That was a different poster.
I may not always agree with Jimmy Carter , but I don't think He's an active Hamas supporter.
My statements were about Hamas , not Jimmy Carter.

Oh BTW , You dodged my question.
Do you think it's possible to persuade Hamas to accept Israels right to exist?

[Malikshah]

63. My apologies. Your support of the OP I responded to and the

question you reiterated just now doesn't change the matter.

As for the question asked--

Answer: Possibly, but not until Israel can be persuaded to accept the Palestinians' rights to exist.

The onus is on Israel and they have not come up with just solution, just more demands.

[rodeodance]

45. Nothing is the article says anything about Supporting Hamas! Carter is thinking

of the people caught in the middle.




.....Israeli and Western officials say Israel plans to tighten a financial clampdown on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip that would choke off all but humanitarian and basic supplies.

Carter, who brokered the Camp David accords between Israel and Egypt in 1978, said moves to give Palestinians assistance in the West Bank was an attempt to "reward them", while continuing to "punish" the 1.5 million aid-dependent Palestinians in Gaza.

"This effort to divide Palestine into two peoples now, I think it is a step in the wrong direction," Carter said.

"There is no effort being made outside to bring the two together."

[ShortnFiery]

55. Jimmy Carter is one of the most Genuinely Humanitarian Leaders to have ever walked this earth.

God Bless Jimmy Carter, a true Humanitarian who "walks the walk." :grouphug:

Get Jimmy Carter and General(ret.) Anthony Zinni to become involved in the Israeli/Palestinian crisis. THEY WILL BE HONEST BROKERS!

[marshall]

19. Clinton already proved him wrong

He brokered a deal that got Arafat everything he wanted and they spit it back in our faces.

[Malikshah]

22. Please stop spreading the myth. This has been debunked by

folks who were there, and who did not have any "face" to save.

Camp David: The Tragedy of Errors

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/14380

Perpetuating the falsehoods only helps perpetuate the problem.

[Scurrilous]

23. More:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=177492&mesg_id=177501

[marshall]

25. Don't tell Clinton that

There are two sides here--the Palestinian side and Clinton's side.

[Malikshah]

29. Read the article-- Clinton is wrong. I'd be happy to tell him to his face

Repeatedly.

Actually there are myriad sides--and many to blame. To lay it at the feet of Arafat is wrongheaded and unhelpful.

[snappyturtle]

27. Thank you. nt

[IndianaGreen]

39. The Clintons lie with such ease, and one of the biggest lies was the "generous offer."

Extra! July/August 2002

The Myth of the Generous Offer
Distorting the Camp David negotiations

By Seth Ackerman


The seemingly endless volleys of attack and retaliation in the Middle East leave many people wondering why the two sides can't reach an agreement. The answer is simple, according to numerous commentators: At the Camp David meeting in July 2000, Israel "offered extraordinary concessions" (Michael Kelly, Washington Post, 3/13/02), "far-reaching concessions" (Boston Globe, 12/30/01), "unprecedented concessions" (E.J. Dionne, Washington Post, 12/4/01). Israel’s "generous peace terms" (L.A. Times editorial, 3/15/02) constituted "the most far-reaching offer ever" (Chicago Tribune editorial, 6/6/01) to create a Palestinian state. In short, Camp David was "an unprecedented concession" to the Palestinians (Time, 12/25/00).

But due to "Arafat's recalcitrance" (L.A. Times editorial, 4/9/02) and "Palestinian rejectionism" (Mortimer Zuckerman, U.S. News & World Report, 3/22/02), "Arafat walked away from generous Israeli peacemaking proposals without even making a counteroffer" (Salon.com 3/8/01). Yes, Arafat "walked away without making a counteroffer" (Samuel G. Freedman, USA Today, 6/18/01). Israel "offered peace terms more generous than ever before and Arafat did not even make a counteroffer" (Chicago Sun-Times editorial, 11/10/00). In case the point isn‘t clear: "At Camp David, Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians an astonishingly generous peace with dignity and statehood. Arafat not only turned it down, he refused to make a counteroffer!" (Charles Krauthammer, Seattle Times, 10/16/00).

This account is one of the most tenacious myths of the conflict. Its implications are obvious: There is nothing Israel can do to make peace with its Palestinian neighbors. The Israeli army’s increasingly deadly attacks, in this version, can be seen purely as self-defense against Palestinian aggression that is motivated by little more than blind hatred.

<snip>

Although some people describe Israel's Camp David proposal as practically a return to the 1967 borders, it was far from that. Under the plan, Israel would have withdrawn completely from the small Gaza Strip. But it would annex strategically important and highly valuable sections of the West Bank--while retaining "security control" over other parts--that would have made it impossible for the Palestinians to travel or trade freely within their own state without the permission of the Israeli government (Political Science Quarterly, 6/22/01; New York Times, 7/26/01; Report on Israeli Settlement in the Occupied Territories, 9-10/00; Robert Malley, New York Review of Books, 8/9/01).

The annexations and security arrangements would divide the West Bank into three disconnected cantons. In exchange for taking fertile West Bank lands that happen to contain most of the region’s scarce water aquifers, Israel offered to give up a piece of its own territory in the Negev Desert--about one-tenth the size of the land it would annex--including a former toxic waste dump.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1113

[rodeodance]

44. Thanks for this article as it is very helpful

[rodeodance]

47. but am curious if Clinton actually said these things (as they are news accounts)

[barb162]

57. Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no

Arafat didn't negotiate - he just kept saying no
Ever since the start of the second Palestinian intifada, a row has raged over who was responsible for the breakdown of the peace process. Now, for the first time, former Israeli prime minister Ehud Barak has weighed in, accusing Yasser Arafat of being a liar who talked peace while secretly plotting the destruction of Israel. Interview by Benny Morris

Benny Morris
Thursday May 23, 2002

Guardian

The call from Bill Clinton came hours after the publication in the New York Times of a "revisionist" article on the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. On holiday, Ehud Barak, Israel's former prime minister, was swimming in a cove in Sardinia. According to Barak, Clinton said: "What the hell is this? Why is she turning the mistakes we made into the essence? The true story of Camp David was that for the first time in the history of the conflict the American president put on the table a proposal, based on UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338, very close to the Palestinian demands, and Arafat refused even to accept it as a basis for negotiations, walked out of the room, and deliberately turned to terrorism."
Clinton was speaking of the two-week-long Camp David conference in July 2000 which he had organised and mediated and its failure, and the eruption at the end of September of the Palestinian intifada which has continued since. Halfway through the conference, apparently on July 18, Clinton had "slowly" - to avoid misunderstanding - read out to Arafat a document, endorsed in advance by Barak, outlining the main points of a future settlement. The proposals included the establishment of a demilitarised Palestinian state on some 92% of the West Bank and 100% of the Gaza Strip, with some territorial compensation for the Palestinians from pre-1967 Israeli territory; the dismantling of most of the settlements and the concentration of the bulk of the settlers inside the 8% of the West Bank to be annexed by Israel; the establishment of the Palestinian capital in east Jerusalem, in which some Arab neighborhoods would become sovereign Palestinian territory and others would enjoy "functional autonomy"; Palestinian sovereignty over half the Old City of Jerusalem (the Muslim and Christian quarters) and "custodianship," though not sovereignty, over the Temple Mount; a return of refugees to the prospective Palestinian state though with no "right of return" to Israel proper; and the organisation by the international community of a massive aid programme to facilitate the refugees' rehabilitation.

Arafat said no. Enraged, Clinton banged on the table and said: "You are leading your people and the region to a catastrophe." A formal Palestinian rejection of the proposals reached the Americans the next day. The summit sputtered on for a few days more but to all intents and purposes it was over.

snip


http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,4419440-103680,00.html

[CHIMO]

30. Seems All Too Obvious

IS AMERICA AN EMPIRE?

The American Empire. Not long ago, most Americans would probably have denied that there was any such thing. That country does have , after all, a long isolationist tradition. But what else could you call a country that has more than 700 military bases around the world? The United States is indisputably the most powerful country on the planet, and possibly the most powerful country that has ever existed. Academic Niall Ferguson called it, the Reluctant Empire. Reluctant or not, writers from Noam Chomsky on the Left to Patrick Buchanan on the right have taken notice. And this summer, a new flood of books is about to hit the shelves. Many of them compare the United States to that other great empire: Ancient Rome. The temptation to compare the two is obvious. Like America, Rome did once dominate the entire known world. Whether or not the two empires have anything else in common is less clear.


Michael is joined by two of the world's foremost experts on Ancient Rome. Mary Beard is a professor of classics at Cambridge University , and the Classics Editor of the Times Literary Supplement. This morning, she is in Los Angeles. Richard Saller is a professor of history and Classics, and the dean of the School of Humanities and Science at Stanford University in California.

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/latestshow.html

http://www.cbc.ca/thesundayedition/media/rome_se070617.ram

[IndianaGreen]

33. The Independent's Robert Fisk, agrees with Jimmy Carter

As it happened when Hamas won the Palestinian elections by trouncing Fatah, and Hugo Chavez won the Venezuelan elections by defeating his American-financed opponent, the United States only approves of those democratic elections in which Washington's man is the winner.

Published on Saturday, June 16, 2007 by The Independent/UK

Welcome to ‘Palestine’

by Robert Fisk

I recall years ago being summoned to the home of a PA official whose walls had just been punctured by an Israeli tank shell. All true. But what struck me were the gold-plated taps in his bathroom. Those taps - or variations of them - were what cost Fatah its election. Palestinians wanted an end to corruption - the cancer of the Arab world - and so they voted for Hamas and thus we, the all-wise, all-good West, decided to sanction them and starve them and bully them for exercising their free vote. Maybe we should offer “Palestine” EU membership if it would be gracious enough to vote for the right people?

All over the Middle East, it is the same. We support Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, even though he keeps warlords and drug barons in his government (and, by the way, we really are sorry about all those innocent Afghan civilians we are killing in our “war on terror” in the wastelands of Helmand province).

We love Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whose torturers have not yet finished with the Muslim Brotherhood politicians recently arrested outside Cairo, whose presidency received the warm support of Mrs - yes Mrs - George W Bush - and whose succession will almost certainly pass to his son, Gamal.

We adore Muammar Gaddafi, the crazed dictator of Libya whose werewolves have murdered his opponents abroad, whose plot to murder King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia preceded Tony Blair’s recent visit to Tripoli - Colonel Gaddafi, it should be remembered, was called a “statesman” by Jack Straw for abandoning his non-existent nuclear ambitions - and whose “democracy” is perfectly acceptable to us because he is on our side in the “war on terror”.

Yes, and we love King Abdullah’s unconstitutional monarchy in Jordan, and all the princes and emirs of the Gulf, especially those who are paid such vast bribes by our arms companies that even Scotland Yard has to close down its investigations on the orders of our prime minister - and yes, I can indeed see why he doesn’t like The Independent’s coverage of what he quaintly calls “the Middle East”. If only the Arabs - and the Iranians - would support our kings and shahs and princes whose sons and daughters are educated at Oxford and Harvard, how much easier the “Middle East” would be to control.

For that is what it is about - control - and that is why we hold out, and withdraw

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2007/06/16/1928/

[rodeodance]

46. that is a powerful question: "Which Israel"?

[OldschoolDem]

37. I side with Israel against the Palestinans

Israel is a the country backed into a corner surrounded by enemies, not Palestine. I personally think a fence between the two states would be preferable.

[shance]

41. A fence?? You're kidding. Have you seen a picture of the "fence"?

It is the biggest wall I have ever seen.

[index555]

60. and your point is?

It looks to be about 30 ft high(10 meters?).

[Megahurtz]

64. Oh I Know Those Poor, Poor Israelis.

I feel so sorry for them. :sarcasm:

[NeoConsSuck]

66. I side with the Palestinans (nt)

[Jim Sagle]

73. No shit?

[IndianaGreen]

42. Hamas in Gaza: A shortsighted maneuver

Hamas in Gaza: A shortsighted maneuver

By Ghassan Khatib

6-19-07, 9:31 am

By taking over Gaza by force, Hamas has successfully completed the process that Israel started of separating the Gaza Strip from the West Bank.

The move was rooted in unhappiness--mostly among members of the armed wing but also by some in the political leadership--with the Mecca agreement. The critics of Mecca were unhappy that Hamas had been forced to offer political concessions to Fateh, which they saw as too weak to deserve them.

In addition, plans by President Mahmoud Abbas and his newly appointed security advisor Mohammad Dahlan to reform and rehabilitate the Palestinian security services under the command of the president created an impression among Hamas cadres that their military superiority in Gaza could be in jeopardy. Ever since winning parliamentary elections, Hamas had felt that its authority was undermined by a lack of control over the security services. This led to the creation of the Executive Force, which Hamas placed above other security forces. The mooted security reforms threatened this order.

The battles in Gaza showed how weak the Palestinian Authority has become. While this weakness is a direct result of Israeli policies, including unilateralism and the deliberate targeting of the PA security infrastructure, those battles will have far-reaching consequences for the Palestinian people and cause. They shook Palestinian confidence and undermined the image of the Palestinian cause in international eyes. In addition, aftershocks will be felt on the economy and on other institutions of the PA.

Even more damaging, the fighting will lessen the likelihood of any potential international political efforts to pressure Israel into some form of compromise, especially since Israel will use the situation to further justify its unilateralism, whether in terms of continued settlement expansion, the building of the wall or the draconian closures in the West Bank.

http://www.politicalaffairs.net/article/articleview/5442/1/267/

[0007]

53. In other words Carter is saying that Hamas is in the cross hairs

of being eliminated.

I hope that Fatah is complete history by the time junior and his gang of thugs leave our White House.

[question everything]

62. After his biased book

Carter has not credibility in the matter.

It was the US that pushed for the elections that brought Hamas to power. And it is Hamas that is killing Fatah, that give women a "choice" - be killed for adultery or go on a suicide bombing mission.

Carter has not changed. When he was a president he viewed the world from a point of view of an alter boy with pious words and plans and he still does so. Has no understanding of the brutal conditions in most of the world.

[flaminbats]

68. amen brother!

I guess the Republicans have the right approach..divide and conquer. And never mind that 9/11 happened under Bush's watch, and not a single American hostage died under Carter's watch!

Carter was an alter boy, while Bush has kept America safe! :eyes:

[classysassy]

69. President Carter

"what the world needs,is love,love,more love",Carter is for loving all human kind.

[razzleberry]

71. have the Gazans asked for US money? .n/t

[Nikki Stone1]

76. This strategy is business as usual for American foreign policy. No surprise there.

...