Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Shop the Truthdig Gift Guide 2014
December 22, 2014
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed

Get Truthdig's headlines in your inbox!


The Duck That Roared






Truthdig Bazaar
Backroom Politics

Backroom Politics

By Bill and Nancy Boyarsky
$101.88

more items

 
Ear to the Ground

Carter: Israel Will Face ‘Catastrophe’ Without a Palestinian State

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Jan 27, 2009
NARA / White House

Jimmy Carter is flanked by Egyptian President Anwar El Sadat (right) and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin in 1978. As president, Carter helped broker the Camp David accords, which led to normalized relations between Egypt and Israel.

Former President Jimmy Carter tells the Associated Press, “If we look toward a one-state solution, which seems to be the trend—I hope not inexorable—it would be a catastrophe for Israel, because there would be only three options in that case.”

Under such a scenario, Carter warns, Israel would either have to expel large numbers of Palestinians, deny them the vote or give up being a Jewish state.

AP via Google:

“If we look toward a one-state solution, which seems to be the trend — I hope not inexorable — it would be a catastrophe for Israel, because there would be only three options in that case,” Carter said.

One would be to expel large numbers of Palestinians, which he said would amount to “ethnic cleansing.”

The second would be to deprive the Palestinians of equal voting rights, which he said would amount to “apartheid.”

The third would be to give the Palestinians equal voting rights, and therefore the majority, he said.

Read more

More Below the Ad

Advertisement

Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, February 4, 2009 at 3:49 pm Link to this comment

Unfortunately, Tony, Jehovah outlived the other thunder gods, partly because the Jesus phenomenon - as Paul probably planned - spread the Old Testament message and made it less of an ethnic-particular creed.

Today, when people want to express religious tolerance, they many say judeo-Christian whatever, and if they’re REALLY going out on a limb, they’ll refer to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic tradition.

Monotheism might be the cause - it seems so rational in some ways, but there plenty of hidden remnants of polytheism in the Old Testament. I applaud any and every attempt to discredit organized religion. It’s our only hope.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, February 1, 2009 at 9:31 pm Link to this comment

Re adrienrain, January 30 at 1:52 pm #


If Greece decided to take possession of Sicily, claiming that it had been granted them by Zeuss, the whole thing would be laughable.

So why Israel?

              x x x x x x x x

adrienrain,

Quite. In fact, give me Zeus every time. That Jehovah is a real bastard!

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, January 31, 2009 at 8:30 pm Link to this comment

An interesting article reflecting on Israel’s dilemma!
======================
No Happy Ending
by Fred Reed

“The practical question regarding Israel’s recent invasion of Gaza is not “Who is right?” but “Can Israel last?”
As I write, Israel is using a military designed to fight hostile countries to fight a hostile population. In the modern world, this has seldom worked. To defeat a country you destroy its military and capture its territory. But Gaza has little military to destroy, no tanks or aircraft, and Israel already owns its territory. The IDF can invade but, afterward, the population will still be there, and still be hostile. Stabbing jello doesn’t buy you much.
Israel remains a small state in a region that intensely doesn’t want it. The rights and wrongs change nothing. Again and again, Israel lashes out, lashes out, against enemies that can be defeated but never decisively. And so the bombs fall on Gaza, on Syria, on Beirut, perhaps on Iran. Each war guarantees the next: 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, 1982, 2006, 2009, world without end.
Israel today is not the country once dreamed, in which Heidelberg professors escaped from Europe would work the soil with their hands on kibbutzim and play chess and the violin at night. It looks more like what the professors fled. Brutal conflicts breed brutal people. Atrocities engender counter-atrocities, extremists come to the fore, and military solutions seem the only solutions.
Where is this going? How long can it continue? Another fifty years? A hundred? Say I, either the country finds peace with its neighbors or it goes the way of the Crusader Kingdom. We can stipulate that the Israelis are the world’s best people, or the worst. It doesn’t matter. You can die in the right as easily as in the wrong.
The Israelis appear to be trapping themselves in their own policies. They continue their annexation of the West Bank. The settlements are now so numerous and so populous that dismantling them is probably politically impossible for any Israeli government, which rules out a two-state solution. To control a large hostile population, you need harsh methods, which keep the population hostile. Arabs outbreed the Israelis, so that a proportionately declining number of Israelis rule a slowly rising tide of Arabs. Think: South Africa. How is this going to work? For how long?”
=============================
Read the rest following the link below!

http://www.lewrockwell.com/reed/reed154.html

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 30, 2009 at 2:52 pm Link to this comment

Another interesting note about that book of mythology from which Zionists derive their claim, is that nowhere in it is it claimed that the Israelites originated there!

The deity whose ‘chosen people’ they believed that they were, supposedly told them to invade and slaughter the inhabitants living there, by extremely savage methods.

They were told by Moses in many cases not to leave any of the women alive, sometimes they were told to dash the babies’ brains out in front of their mothers, and sometimes they were permitted to take the virgin girls for themselves.

Now I certainly wouldn’t condemn any enlightened modern people for the crimes their ancestors committed many thousands of years ago - that would be absurd. On the other hand, I don’t see why their claim - based on the word of an imaginary being - and a savage one at that - should be honored on the basis of that barbaric legend.

No doubt their cultural origins are in the Middle East, and I see no reason for them to leave, but to cater to this one religious group, to pretend that mythology involving vicious genocide creates for them an exclusive right to occupy and rule all of Palestine (and very possibly hunks of some other modern nations as well) denying equality to inhabitants whose claim of continuous possession of the land is infinitely more legitimate and provable is nuts.

If a murderer excused his crime by citing orders from god, we would lock him up, one way or another. If Greece decided to take possession of Sicily, claiming that it had been granted them by Zeuss, the whole thing would be laughable.

So why Israel?

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 30, 2009 at 11:51 am Link to this comment

Re adrienrain, January 28 at 4:28 pm #

Underneath Israel’s claims and its paranoia is the idea that it is perfectly legitimate to create a state designed for the exclusive use of one ethnic and/or religious group, based on an old book of mythology which draws on many other, even older books of mythology…

By the way, I don’t accept Saudi Arabia’s theocracy as legitimate, either.

          x x x x x x x x x x x x x

adrienrain,

I totally agree. There is just no other way to look at it. It is time for the U.S. to stop pretending that Israel is a democracy and treat it as the theocracy that it is. How can it be denied that it is indeed a theocracy, when the very justification for the idea that Palestine is the Jewish “homeland” invokes the ancient Jewish mythology of the Bible? Of course, Israelis often vehemently claim that Israel is a secular state, that many or most Israelis are completely secular. Fine, if Israel is secular, then what shall we call it, if not a theocracy? An ethnocracy, perhaps? An apartheid state? Whatever you call it, it sure isn’t a democracy, and it is high time for the American people to see it that way and for their government to act accordingly.

And yes, our government also should not be arming the Saudis, etc. in exchange for sweet oil deals. Such countries are also not democracies. The Saudis and other Muslim countries should indeed come under increasing pressure from the international community to end practices which deny the equality of women or homosexuals, for example. We are talking about universal human rights here. The international community should agree not to sell weapons to any country in the Middle East. Even better would be an international agreement to end all arms dealing, period.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 30, 2009 at 11:28 am Link to this comment

RE Paolo, January 28 at 4:47 am #

Carter is right when he says that a one state solution would mean the end to the “Jewish State.” So, what’s wrong with that? Are we really into supporting a state in which a specific religion and ethnic group holds all the reins of power, while everyone else is a second-class citizen at best?

I say one man (or woman), one vote. And allow Palestinians and equal right to citizenship under a “Law of Return.”

The last country on earth with standing to oversee such a change is the USA. Hands off!

                x x x x x x

Paolo,

I totally agree with you, except for the last sentence. The U.S. has been Israel’s primary source of diplomatic and military support since its foundation. What the U.S. must now do is to join together with the whole international community in brokering the One Democratic State solution. The big problem at this point is that all sides are still locked into a “two state solution” which is a really an incoherent idea that is never going to happen. As long as they stay locked in, this conflict will not be resolved.

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 28, 2009 at 5:28 pm Link to this comment

Underneath Israel’s claims and its paranoia is the idea that it is perfectly legitimate to create a state designed for the exclusive use of one ethnic and/or religious group, based on an old book of mythology which draws on many other, even older books of mythology.

If America suddenly announced that henceforth we would accept only white, European, Christian immigrants and meant to expel all others (including our indigenous people) or at least force them to accept second class status in law, EVERYONE would understand what we were saying and what it meant: that a particularly vile strain of American historical thought had taken control and we would now be ruled by the KKK. We would know what to expect from it too. extra-judicial killings (lynchings) vigilante atrocities, and a kind of martial law.

But that is precisely the basis of the “Jewish’ state of Israel! And I find it equally unacceptable.

By the way, I don’t accept Saudi Arabia’s theocracy as legitimate, either.

Report this

By Shingo, January 28, 2009 at 4:40 pm Link to this comment

>> Yup.  That’s a good reason to slaughter a people. Right?  That’s a good reason to not negotiate a fair and equitable peace for ALL there. Right?

Not it’s not a reason to slaughter a people.  The ones being slaughtered are Arabs in Gaza, not Jews.

>> You can’t live all your life in paranoia, expecting a suicide bomber to blow you up any minute and not get a little paranoid and pushy.

You can also ask yourself what drives that suicide bomber to try and blow you up.  And before you give and answer about religion, bear in mind that a study by Robert Pape called Dying to Win (and funded by the DOD), concluded that 90-95% of suicide bombing attacks in the past 8 years were relatet to territorial disputes, not religion.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 28, 2009 at 4:20 pm Link to this comment

Nozferatu, January 27 at 10:27 pm #

Driving Bear:

Have you ever met a jew from Israel?  I mean a jew raised their?  They are some of the most aggressive, most obnoxious people on the planet.  I can’t imagine anyone being able to get along with these people.  They have a problem getting along with their own shadows.

*********************************************

Yup.  That’s a good reason to slaughter a people. Right?  That’s a good reason to not negotiate a fair and equitable peace for ALL there. Right?

You can’t live all your life in paranoia, expecting a suicide bomber to blow you up any minute and not get a little paranoid and pushy.

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 28, 2009 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

Nozferatu

Of course you are right. Years and years of propaganda PLUS some very real persecution for centuries, has produced a feeling among Jews that they are embattled and must fight for their lives and existence.

Of course the more fanatical among them probably hate Chomsky et al, the most, and vilify them. But every time hate speech against Jews in general comes up (and not realistic criticism of Zionism or Israeli actions) those Jews who are not all that politically involved and aware become MORE convinced that they are embattled, that Israel’s survival is their only hope in a world which hates them personally.

I consider it my job in the world to bring a little understanding and fairness. I fail at that sometimes, and I may have some big blind spots, but I know that hateful words destroy the possibility of understanding and peace.

Not all Jews are fervent Zionists, and many of them really don’t have a good understanding of the problem - and often can be converted to a pro-peace and pro-palestinian point of view, under the influence of logic, calmly stated and without rancor. I assure you that few people will listen to what you have to say if you insist that they are all bad.

Honestly, I am Irish and I have heard people say hateful things about the Irish, and I just got mad as hell. I’d rather hit them than hear another word of it!

I would say all the same things to anyone who started talking trash about all Arabs. I object to names like - well, you know what names I mean, I am sure.

Report this

By Shingo, January 28, 2009 at 2:35 pm Link to this comment

Nozferatu,

>> Trust me…jews would not let that happen.  It’s very tough to do business with them without them trying to be on top…it’s their dominant nature.

Let’s not getting into these stereotypes shall we?  I’ve heard the same thinsg said about Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Russians, you name it.

Jews have typically done very well in our socieyt because they look after one another and set high standards for themselves.  We could all benefit from such an ethos.

Report this

By Nozferatu, January 28, 2009 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

Adrien,

I agree with you…and the names you named are truly the outspoken, and outstanding ones in an otherwise very hateful, very aggressive group of people who now have a very strong grip and influence on ALL of the money making industries you can think of…

-arms
-clothing
-entertainment
-our own Fed system for crying out loud
-lobbyists
-huge corporations (CEO heads, etc)

People like Norman Finkelstein deserve enormous respect and acknowledgment to face down a very destructive and hypocritical group…it takes guts, courage etc.  But you to realize even people Chomsky, Finkelstein, etc are called anti-semitic, self-hating, etc….

There’s a reason for it.  It doesn’t happen for no reason at all.  Ultimately they have an agenda and it’s going full force.

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 28, 2009 at 12:06 pm Link to this comment

But there is no one truth about Jews or Arabs or Americans or Africans.

As humans hoping for peace, can we not see through all that?

What about Noam Chomsky? Norman Finkelstein? Rabbi Michael Lerner? Ran HaCohen. Gideon Leby. Uri Avnery. If you don’t know who they are, you should look them up. Along with Jews for Justice, J Street, etc. etc.

And that’s just a start. There are lots of Jews - including Israeli Jews - who have worked for years for peace and an end to this horror. If you really support Palestinians’ cause, you’d do what you could to help them - because they are really under attack as ‘self-hating’ or even treasonous. But they are the ones doing the most to get the truth told, particularly to Israelis and Jews abroad, who may have heard nothing but Zionist propaganda all of their lives.

When people who have not made a study of the subject hear someone dismissing all Jews as innately evil, they see it as mere racism. And so it is. No race is all good or all bad.

Or, as Mother Boniface, my fifth grade nun-teacher, alwats said, ‘There’s good and bad in all nationalities, except the Irish.’

Report this

By Nozferatu, January 28, 2009 at 11:50 am Link to this comment

What I can’t stand is to use that word everytime someone says a truth about jews…doesn’t that get tiring?

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 28, 2009 at 11:49 am Link to this comment

Oh really Noz! I can’t stand it when people use a mass tragedy and atrocity to push mindless hatred.

Try to make things better, instead of worse. People are dying there and everywhere because of race hatred, and the only hope for any of them is to eliminate race hatred.

It’s perfectly possible to be anti-zionist, anti-occupation, pro-peace, even anti-Israel without resorting to racism, actually. Otherwise, you play into the hands of people who equate ANY criticism of Israel with anti-semitism. Which, obviously, does exist (and is just as unreasonable as a blanket hatred of Arabs and Muslims because some of them were instrumental in 9/11).

Report this

By Nozferatu, January 28, 2009 at 11:37 am Link to this comment

Don’t start with the anti-semitic crap….please.

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 28, 2009 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

It is always unfortunate that discussions of this truly important subject deteriorate into mere racism and anti-semitism.

I think it’s important to point out here that the first people who alerted me to the existence of the Palestinians and of their plight, were American Jewish peace activists. I’d never have heard otherwise, because the situation simply did not exist in the American media in the 50s and most of the 60s.

Israel’s adoption of the hardest, most heartless line toward the Palestinians feeds the worst in human nature from every angle. The only good thing is, I believe, that large numbers of Americans (including, as always, many American Jews) are finally questioning our support of Israel’s cruel arrogance. Only a change in US-granted carte blanche will alter the situation. Vicious racism and anti-semitism can only stand in the way.

Report this

By Nozferatu, January 28, 2009 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

Shingo,

Trust me…jews would not let that happen.  It’s very tough to do business with them without them trying to be on top…it’s their dominant nature.

Report this

By Nozferatu, January 28, 2009 at 10:34 am Link to this comment

Driving Bear:

You’re deluisional…LOL.

““Yes I have including members of my extended family and some of them are religious “settlers”. They are the Most humble and peace loving people on the Planet.

As for then not getting along what are you from Mars
The Jews of Israel are a model of peaceful coexistence. They have their disagreements on every issue under the sun but they are almost always respectful and rarely resort to violence.”“

Jews, particularly from Israel, are some of the most self-righteous, arrogant, racist people on the planet.  The have tolerance for anyone…perhaps you’re one of them so you see it differently.

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, January 28, 2009 at 9:06 am Link to this comment

To the ugly Zionists on Truthdig!

I challenge you to watch the following segment from the CBS 60 Minutes Exposing Israeli Apartheid and its crimes and violations of basic human rights!

I dare you to look into the mirror and see your bloody criminal faces!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAgyv2MKyI&feature; =email

Report this

By Steven, January 28, 2009 at 7:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Driving bear state:

“As for then not getting along what are you from Mars
The Jews of Israel are a model of peaceful coexistence. They have their disagreements on every issue under the sun but they are almost always respectful and rarely resort to violence.”

Maybe you should ask Yhitzak Rabin.

Report this
Paolo's avatar

By Paolo, January 28, 2009 at 5:47 am Link to this comment

Jimmy Carter was probably the best, most moral president I’ve seen in my lifetime of 50+ years. Of course, the words “moral” and “president” usually don’t go together. And it’s not like he’s battling stiff competition.

Carter is right when he says that a one state solution would mean the end to the “Jewish State.” So, what’s wrong with that? Are we really into supporting a state in which a specific religion and ethnic group holds all the reins of power, while everyone else is a second-class citizen at best?

I say one man (or woman), one vote. And allow Palestinians and equal right to citizenship under a “Law of Return.”

The last country on earth with standing to oversee such a change is the USA. Hands off!

Report this

By Shingo, January 28, 2009 at 5:14 am Link to this comment

Inherit The Wind,

I’ve got to hand it to you.  I agree 100%.

>>>  would eventually like to see Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and maybe Jordan and Turkey in a Middle-East free-trade zone, that would lead to a ME Common Market, and finally a Middle Eastern Union similar to the EU.

Imagine what an economic powerhous the region could become?  Now if only the US and the UK would keep their noses out of it.

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 28, 2009 at 2:05 am Link to this comment

driving bear

Those humble peace-loving people - the settlers - are perfectly aware that they are displacing the Palestinians. They say it out loud. I have heard them. They say that they can do what they want because they are the ‘sons of god,’ and the Muslims are the ‘servants of god’ (Islam). Some of the Yesha rabbis have said that all Palestinians should be killed - even the children. They beat old men going to harvest their own produce.  They abuse the Palestinians in their own homes. The fact is that they think themselves superior to the rest of the human race. Now a certain amount of that is no doubt present in every religious tradition. And that sort of thinking has been largely repudiated by humanist Jews - and humanists of all stripes, faiths and non-faiths. But these are fanatics - as fanatic as the Taliban in their own way.

And I believe that Israel is going in their direction. 

Hamas, it is said, has not recognized Israel. But that’s only half the story. Golda Meir denied the existence of Palestinians, for instance. And Israel doesn’t really recognize the right of the Palestinians to their own state. I believe that they think they will outlast the Palestinians.

Why not? They can keep them hungry, impoverished, deny them the right to higher education, medical care (women and babies have died in childbirth at ‘checkpoints’) and the use of their own farmland and water. Transfer is an accepted idea among some in Israel. (In which case, I find the fact that they wouldn’t allow Gazans in this conflict to leave more than a bit disturbing.)  They can treat them badly enough so that generation after dwindling generation turns to terrorism in desperation.

And they have no meaningful opposition in the world. It’s a license to kill and kill and kill.

Report this
Tony Wicher's avatar

By Tony Wicher, January 28, 2009 at 1:11 am Link to this comment

It’s great to hear Carter saying that a one state solution “seems to be the trend”. He gives three alternatives, ethnic cleansing, apartheid and “giving the Palestinians equal voting rights”. Now I can see the first two as catastrophes, but why would the third one be? Because, it is said Palestinians are the majority and it will be the end of the Jewish state. But why is that a bad thing if what replaces it is a democracy where everybody has equal voting rights? Carter then gives the absurd reason that Palestinians will vote as a block whereas Jews have different opinions. Is that stupid or what? Like Arab Israelis don’t have just as much diversity of opinion as Jewish Israelis, like political coalitions between Jews and Arabs could not occur. No, one democratic state IS the wave of the future; it’s just a question of how long it will take the principles to get to it.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 28, 2009 at 12:06 am Link to this comment

Nozferatu wrote

Driving Bear:

Have you ever met a jew from Israel?  I mean a jew raised their?  They are some of the most aggressive, most obnoxious people on the planet.  I can’t imagine anyone being able to get along with these people.  They have a problem getting along with their own shadows
————-

Yes I have including members of my extended family and some of them are religious “settlers”. They are the Most humble and peace loving people on the Planet.

As for then not getting along what are you from Mars
The Jews of Israel are a model of peaceful coexistence. They have their disagreements on every issue under the sun but they are almost always respectful and rarely resort to violence.

Report this

By Nozferatu, January 27, 2009 at 11:27 pm Link to this comment

Driving Bear:

Have you ever met a jew from Israel?  I mean a jew raised their?  They are some of the most aggressive, most obnoxious people on the planet.  I can’t imagine anyone being able to get along with these people.  They have a problem getting along with their own shadows.

Report this
adrienrain's avatar

By adrienrain, January 27, 2009 at 10:32 pm Link to this comment

It is increasingly clear that Israel doesn’t want peace, or a two-state solution, and will settle for a one-state solution when all the Palestinians are dead or gone. Actions like the slaughter of civilians in Gaza are necessary to keep breeding the terrorists Israel needs to carry out its plan. A few Israeli casualties, and the Palestinians can be killed at the ratio of 100 to one.

The Israelis will support this for the most part. Some - like the Yesha Rabbis say openly that ALL the Palestinians should be killed if they won’t leave.

The IDF herds women and children into a house, locks it, then shells the house, and THEN lets whoever is left inside go without water or food for 4 days, keeping all medical aid away. Other families are told to flee their homes - and the UN shelter they go to is bombed.

Do these tactics sound at all familiar?

Now the Israelis are the ‘Holocaust Deniers.’

Report this

By Fadel Abdallah, January 27, 2009 at 6:57 pm Link to this comment

Jimmy Carter is a breed apart! A true noble human being among the savages and half-savages that ruled the U.S. since my fate brought me to this land that I call home now.

He is a true man of peace and sublime humanity unmatched in modern human history. Yet, despite all what he did for Israel, by bringing it peace with Egypt and Jordan- he was torn apart and labeled with the worst words the fanatic Zionists reserve for their worst enemies by calling him anti-Semitic when he spoke the simple evident truths in his book “Palestine: Peace not Apartheid.”

If you need to find a modern proverbial example of the savages that bite the hands that fed them, then you have the sickly Zionists versus the noble Carter! A story that needs to be written as an epic for future generation about extreme nobility versus extreme savagery and ingratitude!

Report this

By octopus, January 27, 2009 at 6:37 pm Link to this comment

In the 1990’s over 1million economic refugees(most of them of questionable Jewish heritage)moved to Israel from the Soviet Union and displaced the Palestinians as a source of cheap labor for Israeli companies. The Palestinians became impoverished, with no means of production of their own, partitioned, tormented at every turn while the state of Israel just hoped they would disappear. Repressed and oppressed the Palestinians were forced to take a militant approach to achieve justice and of course, in this era they were labeled terrorists.
  Israel , having become the worlds largest purveyor of anti- terrorism training and survealence technologies,has become very wealthy Because of their refusal to abide by the Oslo
Accords.  The militancy and violence has become good for
business, so good in fact that they wish the conflict will never
end. Each skirmish uses up inventory and the production cycle
of nextgen technology gets launched. The only solution therefore
will have to be Imposed on the state of Israel, by force if
neccessary, but preferably through severe economic sanctions.
  This of course would be a lot easier if the real Jewish Homeland was not America. The state of Israel is only our little ProxyBastard kept in place to advance the economic interests of
Corporate America.
    Two states, both of which share equally in water resources.
The palestinian homeland should be unified, not split into sections, and it should happen soon.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, January 27, 2009 at 5:44 pm Link to this comment

It is very obvious that the United States is doing itself nothing but harm by attaching itself to Israel. God oh God, when will this insanity end? The United States for its own self-preservation must stop supporting Israel.

Report this
brewerstroupe's avatar

By brewerstroupe, January 27, 2009 at 5:42 pm Link to this comment

This:
What all of the above don’t understand that for the Muslim world this is a religious conflict and therefore human logic has zero chance of success in bringing peace to the middle east

....is nonsense.

“Everyone talks like it’s complex and difficult to understand. That’s a cop-out for not wanting to accept reality. It’s just a classic ethnic conflict about who owns this piece of land. It’s as simple as that.”
—Niel McDonald, News Middle East Bureau Chief, Canadian Broadcasting Company

The Palestinian Christian Community in Gaza compises more than 2,000 persons, mainly Greek Orthodox. The biggest school in Gaza is run by a Catholic priest, with the blessing of Hamas.

Khaled Mashal, Director of Hamas’ political bureau has stated:
Our message to the Israelis is this: we do not fight you because you belong to a certain faith or culture. Jews have lived in the Muslim world for 13 centuries in peace and harmony; they are in our religion “the people of the book” who have a covenant from God and His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) to be respected and protected. Our conflict with you is not religious but political. We have no problem with Jews who have not attacked us - our problem is with those who came to our land, imposed themselves on us by force, destroyed our society and banished our people.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jan/31/comment.israelandthepalestinians

Report this

By P. T., January 27, 2009 at 5:25 pm Link to this comment

“I think Israel should accept the terms the Palestinians proposed in 1947.”


In that case you think the Zionists should go home to Poland.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 27, 2009 at 4:30 pm Link to this comment

ED

There is only problem to your thinking.

As stated by the late and not great Yasser Arafat in 2000 And I quote ” Our Struggle with the Zionist entity [ Israel ] is not about Israel Borders But Instead about Israel existence PEACE FOR US [ THE PA PALISTIANIAN PEOPLE] MEANS THE DISTRUCTION OF ISRAEL”

So how can the 2 parties make peace when they can’t even agree on what peace is.

Until the Palestinians learn what “peace” is Jimmy Carter, Obama, George Mitchell , Hillary , Tony Blair
the UN , the EU and Israel are wasting their time.
What all of the above don’t understand that for the Muslim world this is a religious conflict and therefore human logic has zero chance of success in bringing peace to the middle east

Report this
brewerstroupe's avatar

By brewerstroupe, January 27, 2009 at 3:50 pm Link to this comment

As a long-time Middle East watcher and a great admirer of Jimmy Carter I can only say that he is clinging to a reality that has long past, if it ever existed.

Only a just settlement has any hope of surviving.

Given that Palestinians still legally own at least half of the land on which the original (1948) Israeli State stands (a claim is supported by the U.N.), a two-state solution that flouts the Palestinian right of return is unlikely to end Palestinian resistance. The time for monetary compensation is long gone.

If Israel had, along with its unilateral declaration of Statehood, offered to pay compensation to the indigenous people back then, a two-state solution might have been possible. Israel chose instead to advance a creed of denial, hoping that the problem would just go away or, as realists assert, to buy time to expel all Palestinians from Eretz Israel. There is ample evidence of this in the words of Zionist leaders.

Personally, I do not think the opportunity for a dual State has ever reappeared, even during the latter stages of the Arafat era, but if it did, Israel again missed the bus. By negotiating in bad faith and trying for an unworkable solution (one that would ensure continuing violence, the excuse for annexation of more territory), Israel has merely galvanized Palestinian resistance. Meanwhile, World opinion, informed by internet debate, is turning against Israel.

This latest attack on Gaza will have had only one effect on moderate Palestinian thinking - it will have killed any faith they might have had in a two-state solution. The tightening of the blockade of Gaza during a period of truce presented stark evidence of what the future would hold for the Palestinians under any such arrangement.

Even CBS is starting to understand this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYAgyv2MKyI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUaeID9Lap0

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, January 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm Link to this comment

re: By driving bear, January 27 at 2:27 pm:

DB: The problem with the “might makes right” solution is that it isn’t stable.

I might lose a battle with you Tuesday, but then win a battle on Thursday, over the same cause.

Does that mean that my cause was “wrong” on Tuesday, but it became “right” on Thursday? At what point do we all know that one party or the other is “really” right, so that we can stop fighting?

The answer is that the conflict never ends, since “right” and “wrong” are totally contingent on the latest fighting, and therefore meaningless. When you decide that might makes right, you really have forsaken all possibility of peace.

Conflict can end only when there is a commonly accepted legitimate outcome. Israel’s ideological nature as an aggressive, expansionist, racial supremacist state makes it impossible to arrive at this point. Israel must forsake its ideology, or there will never be a legitimate peace.

Israel is trying to be a country in the world community in a way that is deeply illogical.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 27, 2009 at 3:27 pm Link to this comment

P.T.

I think Israel should accept the terms the Palestinians proposed in 1947. They said we want the Borders to be settled on the Battlefield. I think Israel Should accept and therefore the Arabs should leave all of Israel including Gaza and the west Bank

Problem Solved

Report this

By P. T., January 27, 2009 at 2:14 pm Link to this comment

driving bear, actually, it is for the world and international law to decide, and the Palestinians and the Arabs (including Jordan and Egypt) side with the world and international law.  It is our responsibility to bring the rogue states (Israel and the U.S.) into the family of nations.

As for democracy, Hamas, unlike George W. Bush, did not steal an election.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, January 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm Link to this comment

Glenn Greenwald, a writer at Salon.com who is Jewish, points out that it’s unbelievably stupid and self-destructive of the US to continue supporting Israel’s aggressions, especially given our economic problems:

What possible justification is there for using American resources—the American military—to patrol the Red Sea in order to ensure that Gazans remain defenseless?  That question is particularly pronounced given that the U.S. is already shoveling, and will continue to shovel, billions and billions of dollars to Israel in military and other aid.  Why, on top of all of that, are increasingly scarce American resources, rather than Israeli resources, being used to bar Palestinians from obtaining weapons?  And why—as it is more vital than ever that we extricate ourselves from Middle Eastern conflicts—are we making ourselves still more of a partisan and combatant in this most entrenched and religiously-driven territorial dispute over the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Israel is hardly the only country which the U.S. expends vast resources—including military resources—to defend and protect, and all of those commitments ought to be seriously re-examined.  But none of those other commitments entail anywhere near the costs—on every level—of our seemingly limitless willingness, eagerness, to involve ourselves so directly and self-destructively in every last conflict that Israel has.  Given what we are constantly being told is the grave economic peril the U.S. faces, shouldn’t we be moving in exactly the opposite direction than the imperial expansion which we continue to pursue?


http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/26/israel/index.html

Report this

By Folktruther, January 27, 2009 at 1:28 pm Link to this comment

It is quite true that the two-state solution is the only reasonable one, but it is politically impossible because both the Israeli and American power strutures oppose it militarily.  Israel, with US support, is systematically depriving Palestinians of their homes, land, resources and political rights. They recently stripped the parties of the Israeli Arab population of their political right to be represented in the Knesset, the Israeli parlement.

Consequenttly the only opton the Palestinians have is a military-political one.  Conceivably they can maintain a guerella warfare until the Israeli tire and concede a two state solution.  But the problem is that the US ruling class and its power structure are dominated by Zionists, and being removed from the carnage, they are adamant for a Greater Israel.

Eventually the Arab people will overthrow the US puppets in Egypt and Jordan, making the war a broader one. And much bloodier one.  The only thing the American people can do, since we have little control over the American power system, is to support the Palestinians, and their current defender, Hamas, to prevent the US from entering the war on the Israeli side.

\Although the US and Israel are both killing a lot of people, their military strength is weakening historically, since no soldier wishes to die fighting for oppression.  So the only thing the Palestinians, including the Israeli Palestinians,can do is to hold out through US-Israeli ethnic cleansing, until US-Israel are weak enough to concede a two state solution.  A dismal and depressing future unless they are soon supported by Egypt and Jordan.

Report this
nefesh's avatar

By nefesh, January 27, 2009 at 1:26 pm Link to this comment

driving bear, January 27 at 12:08 pm wrote:

So you like the Idea of a nuclear armed nation like Israel having a civil war. Tell me are you Evil or just plain Stupid

Evil and stupidity are not mutually exclusive, driving bear. The subject of your comment is demonstrably both.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, January 27, 2009 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment

Glenn Greenwald, a writer at Salon.com who is Jewish and who as far as I can tell does not yearn for Israel’s Jews to be wiped out in a new Holocaust, nevertheless believes that it’s just crazy for the US to continue supporting Israel’s wars, especially given our economic condition:

What possible justification is there for using American resources—the American military—to patrol the Red Sea in order to ensure that Gazans remain defenseless?  That question is particularly pronounced given that the U.S. is already shoveling, and will continue to shovel, billions and billions of dollars to Israel in military and other aid.  Why, on top of all of that, are increasingly scarce American resources, rather than Israeli resources, being used to bar Palestinians from obtaining weapons?  And why—as it is more vital than ever that we extricate ourselves from Middle Eastern conflicts—are we making ourselves still more of a partisan and combatant in this most entrenched and religiously-driven territorial dispute over the West Bank and Gaza Strip?

Israel is hardly the only country which the U.S. expends vast resources—including military resources—to defend and protect, and all of those commitments ought to be seriously re-examined.  But none of those other commitments entail anywhere near the costs—on every level—of our seemingly limitless willingness, eagerness, to involve ourselves so directly and self-destructively in every last conflict that Israel has.  Given what we are constantly being told is the grave economic peril the U.S. faces, shouldn’t we be moving in exactly the opposite direction than the imperial expansion which we continue to pursue?

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/01/26/i srael/index.html

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 27, 2009 at 1:08 pm Link to this comment

To P.T.

you wrote

The world agrees on a solution.  Two rogue states block it, the U.S. and Israel

————

I hate to break it to you but it’s not the worlds place to impose ” a solution ” on either the Jews or the Arabs.
———-
P.T. you also wrote

It is for the Palestinian people to decide if they want to be ruled by U.S.-backed dictators in Jordan and Egypt.  There is no indication that’s what they want.
————

FYI Sen. Brownback conducted a poll of Palestinians right after they heard the proposal and over 40% of them agreed to it on the spot.

the alternative the 2 state solution would have the palestinians live under a western dictator Abbas and Fatah or an Iranian Dictator with Hamas

Ed you wrote

But hey, maybe if the US would just stop all support for the (Jewish) Israelis, they could go ahead and have the civil war that they obviously need to have.

——————

So you like the Idea of a nuclear armed nation like Israel having a civil war. Tell me are you Evil or just plain Stupid

Report this

By P. T., January 27, 2009 at 11:33 am Link to this comment

It is for the Palestinian people to decide if they want to be ruled by U.S.-backed dictators in Jordan and Egypt.  There is no indication that’s what they want.

Report this

By yours truly, January 27, 2009 at 11:30 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

President Carter’s 3rd option, the Palestinians becoming the majority with equal voting rights, wouldn’t be a catastrophe.  Instead it would be a just resolution of the Mideast conflict, since it would be based on the principle of one equals one + liberty and justice for all.

Report this

By P. T., January 27, 2009 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

The world agrees on a solution.  Two rogue states block it, the U.S. and Israel.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 27, 2009 at 11:06 am Link to this comment

reply to Nelson Robison

Nelson wrote


The catastrophe would be not to allow a two state solution, with no self-determination, the Palestinians would revolt even more and the war against Israel and its Arab neighbours would continue
indefinitely

——————

your wrong on this Nelson for proof read the original PLO charter from 1964 in it they state they (the Palestinians) have no objection to the west bank being under the control of Jordan or Gaza being under the control of Egypt.

—————-

Second
the comparison to Native Americans to the US government is way of base.

A US State is in no way like a reservation
Also the Palestinians and the Jordain’s are very similar. In fact they share the same religion Sunni Islam , the same language and the fact that population of Jordan is made in large part Palestinian.

Egypt and Gaza share common factors.

Also the Palestinians would have access to resources from Jordan and Egypt
Even if a Palestinian state was established in 100% of Gaza and the west bank it would not be viable so in essence all the world would be doing is making a nation of beggars

Report this

By P. T., January 27, 2009 at 10:22 am Link to this comment

“I think the best Idea is the one proposed by U.S. Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas. He calls for the Gaza to be reabsorbed by Egypt but for Gaza to have limited autonomy and for the parts of the west bank to go back to Jordan again with limited autonomy.”


And to be consistent and not hypocritical, Israel could go back to Britain, with limited autonomy.  wink

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, January 27, 2009 at 10:09 am Link to this comment

re: By Inherit The Wind, January 27 at 7:42 am:

You cannot have a 2-state solution without removing the vast majority of the settlers and settlements. And you can’t do that without Israel essentially going to war against its own settlers. And even if one accepts that this frightening task is what needs to be done, it’s doubtful that it could be done, given the political power of the settlers and their growing presence in the Israeli army.

But hey, maybe if the US would just stop all support for the (Jewish) Israelis, they could go ahead and have the civil war that they obviously need to have.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, January 27, 2009 at 8:42 am Link to this comment

Nobody will believe this, but, at least based on this article, I agree with President Carter 100%.  I cannot find ONE THING I take issue with.

But, then again, I’ve been a fan of a 2-state solution for years.  I would eventually like to see Israel, Palestine and Lebanon, and maybe Jordan and Turkey in a Middle-East free-trade zone, that would lead to a ME Common Market, and finally a Middle Eastern Union similar to the EU.

Report this
photoshock's avatar

By photoshock, January 27, 2009 at 8:40 am Link to this comment

re: Driving Bear, a three state solution is not the answer. Palestinians like every people in the world, deserve the right for their own homeland and along with that homeland, the power to control their own destinies.
nefertiti, is correct in that Arab-Israelis already endure the scorn of Jewish-Israeli citizens and the possibility of their rights being taken away from them for just being Arab. This is an untenable situation to live in, it is like our treatment of the Native American population during the late 17th through the early 20th centuries. We took away their homelands and forced them onto “reservations” with no
thought of their rights, treated them like second class citizens and forced them to live according to our way of life. It is a fit analogy to what the Palestinians are encountering right now.
The catastrophe would be not to allow a two state solution, with no self-determination, the Palestinians would revolt even more and the war against Israel and its Arab neighbours would continue
indefinitely.

Report this
driving bear's avatar

By driving bear, January 27, 2009 at 8:18 am Link to this comment

NO Nefertiti a 3 State solution is the Answer

I think the best Idea is the one proposed by US. Sen.
Sam Brownback of Kansas.

He calls for the Gaza to be reabsorbed by Egypt but for Gaza to have limited autonomy and for the parts of the west bank to go back to Jordan again with limited autonomy.

In this plan Gaza and the west bank would become like US States but Egypt and Jordan would act like the US federal government and have responsibility for Defense and foreign relations.

Report this
Ed Harges's avatar

By Ed Harges, January 27, 2009 at 8:08 am Link to this comment

The third possibility - equal voting rights for all - is hardly a “catastrophe”. If possible, it would be the best outcome.

Only when it comes to Israel do otherwise “liberal” people consider the normal conditions of modern democracy - i.e., equal political rights for all citizens, regardless of ethnicity - to be a “catastrophic” prospect.

Report this

By nefertiti, January 27, 2009 at 4:24 am Link to this comment

I dont think the Palestinians will have the same rights as the israelis under a one state solution , Many Arabs living in Israel talk about second and third class citizenship , and their districts are neglected and their mosques and churches falling apart , and their youth not given the same right in terms of university admissions too .  So two state solution is the Answer .

Report this

By writeon, January 27, 2009 at 3:28 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

One state or two states, that is the problem, and who is going to rule it?

There was one state. It was called Palestine. It’s now been wiped off the map and replaced, de facto, by the state of Israel. Israel’s occupation of so much Palestinan land, the growth of the illegal settlements and squeezing the Palestinians into a smaller and smaller area, is detroying the concept of a two state solution. An independent Palestine, virtually surrounded by Israel, is simply not viable; unless Israel returns to it’s 1967 borders, leaving the entire West Bank. How likely is that?

So, the longer the occupation continues, the less likely a viable two-state solution seems. What do we have left then? The one-state solution. But the one state won’t be a new state. It won’t be Israel/Palestine. Jews and Palestinians living together in peace in the same state. It’ll be one state with the Israelis firmly in charge, for ever. The Jewish character of Israel isn’t up for negotiation! This is perfectly understandable seen from an Israeli nationalist/religious perspective.

But what about the Palestinians inside this Greater Israel? Already they make up around 20% of Israel’s population. In a few decades, given their high birthrate they will probably form the majority. What happens to Israel’s Jewish character then? What happens to the Zionist dream then?

And this is the demographic timebomb ticking away inside legal Israel, within the 1967 borders, not the new state of Greater Israel! Add Gaza and the West Bank which are under Israeli control and de facto are part of Greater Israel, and there is already a Palestinian majority. Add the millions of Palestinian refugees who have a right of return under international law, and the Palestinian majority is even bigger!

So how will Israel deal with the problem of the ‘demographic and democratic timebomb’? Israel doesn’t really have a choice. It has to go for a two-state solution now, before it’s too late. Israel has to withdraw to it’s 1967 borders and hope that this will be enough to satisfy the Palestinians. It won’t be easy to acheive this goal given the growing strength of the rightwing nationalist/religious parties in Israel. Time is running out quickly.

The rightwing in Israel are accutely aware of the demographic timebomb and their solution is ethnic cleansing, to drive the Palestinians out of Israel, one way or another. This is of course a very high-risk stategy indeed. Could Israel survive as a Western democracy if it pursues such a militant and dangerous policy? Arguably such a policy would not only radicalise the Palestinians, who would resist to their last drop of blood, but a crazed Israeli policy would probably bring down every pro-Western regime in the entire Middle East and this would have unimaginable consequences for not only Israel, but for the world.

Report this
 
Monsters of Our Own Creation? Get tickets for this Truthdig discussion of America's role in the Middle East.
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Zuade Kaufman, Publisher   Robert Scheer, Editor-in-Chief
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook