Archive for Thursday, February 15, 2007

Peace in Mideast

February 15, 2007


To the editor:

There will be no peace for Israel until Israel allows Palestinians to have their own sovereign, independent state. Israel was founded after World War II out of part of Britain's Palestine League of Nations mandate.

In 1967, Israel defeated the surrounding Arab Muslim nations, greatly expanding its territory. Since 1967, the remaining Palestinian territory has been occupied and controlled by the Israeli army and police. Many Israeli settlements have been made along the West Bank of the Jordan River on Palestinian territory.

In Jimmy Carter's recent book "Palestine Peace, Not Apartheid," the cruel treatment of the Muslim Palestinians by Israel is highlighted. Carter's use of the word "apartheid" likens Israel's occupying treatment of Palestinians to the post-Civil War treatment of blacks in the southern United States.

In September 1978, at Camp David, President Carter achieved the only peace between Israel and its Muslim neighbors when he brought together Israel's Prime Minister Menachem Begin and Egypt's President Anwar Sadat to agree to a peace treaty. The Muslim world will threaten Israel until Israel allows Palestinians to have their own sovereign state. Our government should urge Israel to do so.

John A. Bond,



SettingTheRecordStraight 10 years, 9 months ago

That's right, beat up on Israel. It's only a few million Jews surrounded by hundreds of millions of Muslims.

Speakout 10 years, 9 months ago

I have always wondered why people in history have hated the Jews. What is there about being Jewish that makes people angry and want to hate them or what did the Jews do to be so hated?

Why is any criticism of Israel equal to anti-semitism? Are the Jews the country? If so, doesn't that prove that Israel is racist?

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

Israel is a terrorist state. A few months ago, under the guise of forcing back Hezbollah, they intentionally murdered thousands of Lebanese including Christians. Yet little was said about that in the US. They left maybe millions of unexploded cluster bombs in their wake. This too is terror. The US is Israel's major means of financial support and therefore we are the supporter of terrorism. What hypocrisy.

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

No, a West Texan would step on one of their toes and the Israelis would retailiate by killing a hundred of them. Maybe not such a bad idea, but Germany caused the problem so they should have a State there roughly equal in size to the land they now claim.

bearded_gnome 10 years, 9 months ago

citing Carter in the LTE is quite flawed. many have intensely protested his recent book, which among other problems, has been written in such a way as to condone anti-israel does mick [above]. israel didn't start the 1967 war. israel didn't start the 1973 war. these wars, if carried out, would have whiped out israel. today, the president of Iran states his avowed goal of whiping israel off the map [again, see Mick above]. Hezbollah, whom Israel was very recently fighting, is owned and operated by Iran, and seeks to whipe Israel off the map. they put in ten thousand plus missiles in southern lebanon, all aimed at israel. these were installed in civilian homes. so, take out the missile, you take out a civilian home, possibly with human shields inside. writers such as carter, and the hidious Mick are saying they favor the killing of Israelis. this certainly is antisemitism of course. antisemitism is now quite rampant among the crazy left in this country.

the LTE writer also errs in assuming that the giving of a state to the palestinians would bring peace. this is a myth for these reasons. the radicalism of the palestinians predates the formation of the state of israel, as for example, they allied themselves with hitler's germany in WWII; the muslim brotherhood dates to the 1920's; and with the election of Hamas, the Palestinians have proven themselves to be a terrorist society. there is still no sane palestinian entity for Israel to negotiate statehood. giving them a state would certainly be empowering terrorists. finally, each time israel gives up "land for peace" it is rewarded with more missiles, either from the north or from the palestinian territory.
I think a good policy for israel would be this: for each terrorist act against israel, Israel then takes more land as perminently its own. this is an old principle among nations, and this would make palestinians pay a much higher price for supporting violence.

suppose I should add because of the nutcase liberals out there: I am not a jew, I am not married to a jew. I am, however, a "neocon." the "neocon" label is also antisemitic in its concept.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

One reason for European anti-semitism is because it was official church policy for centuries-- they killed Jesus, after all.

Much of it was just xenophobia-- fear of what is different, as most Jewish communities lived separately from the larger Christian communities, partly by choice to preserve their culture and religion, but mostly because they were often ghettoized by the dominant culture.

I think another source of the animosity was that in both Christian and Muslim cultures, money-lending was not allowed. Jews became the bankers of many communities, and being human, I'm sure many of them abused the power that came with that. That's probably the origin of the stereotype of Jews as manipulators of the greater society through financial means. As with most stereotypes, it was probably partially deserved, but mostly not.

But the mess in Palestine/Israel is the culmination of centuries social and political upheaval not only in Europe, but also in the middle east in the aftermath of the collapse of the Ottoman Empire (the Ottoman collapse and subseqent take over by a collapsing British Empire was also very important in creating the mess of Iraq.)

The world owes both the Palestinians and the Jews better than what they now have, but both Europeans/Americans and Arabs have used the conflict to further their own very narrow interests, and BushCo have accelerated that trend.

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

As with any "victim class" you need a name to lash out at anyone who doesn't agree with you. The word here is "antisemitism." That word comes from being a descendant of Shem. The Jews and Arabs, too, are descendants of Shem. I have nothing against Jews as a class of people but they have been waging terrorism by intentionally murdering innocent civilians. That does not mean I don't condemn the terrorism of anyone else. Also, if being a proponent of World Peace makes me a "nutcase liberal" than I guess that's what I am.

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

The term "neoconservative" is a real misnomer. A better term would be "greedy, war-loving deficit spender." The only thing "neo" about it is that when Reagan's handlers saw that the USSR was going to fall and the Cold War end they were going to have to come up with "new" justifications for a permanent war economy. There is no real ideologoy to them as we see with the current war. It goes from it being for our national secrity to us as liberators or us caring about regional stability. What it is really all about more money for the ultra-greedy and tens of thousands are dying for that.

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

What was it that led up to the attack of Lebanon?

mick 10 years, 9 months ago

Hezbollah kidnapped two Israeli soldiers, bad for them. But Israel proceeded to target civilians well inside the borders of Lebanon. 30% of the casualties were children. This is terrorism.

Jamesaust 10 years, 9 months ago

Wow Bozo. That was about the most even-handed description of the problem I've ever seen you write. Certainly more fair than any response to me on this topic in the past.

"There will be no peace for Israel until Israel allows Palestinians to have their own sovereign, independent state." And there will be no peace for the Palestinians until they allow Israel to have their own sovereign, independent state.

It is Israeli policy to favor a Palestinian state. Its U.S. policy. But it isn't anyone's policy to have a Palestinian state on any imaginable terms, let alone at the expense of Israel's state. Unfortunately, it isn't frankly the policy of the various Arab states to favor a Palestinian state as rubbing wounds raw is a useful distraction for their people from their own deficient societies. (We saw similar forces at work recently in Lebanon - certain Mideast states 'egging on' illegal, terrorist brigands to undermine the Lebanese state for their own alterior motives.)

(Interestingly, Syria appears to have dropped its long-time 'excuse' of refusing to enter peace talks with Israel separately from the Palestinians. Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has been (successfully) pressuring Israel not to begin those talks, at least officially. Frankly, that's wrong and this is one of the few instances where Congress should step on the President's normal foreign policy territory and invite Israel and Syria to the negotiating table - Bush's refusal of a diplomatic 'surge' notwithstanding.)

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

"Wow Bozo. That was about the most even-handed description of the problem I've ever seen you write. Certainly more fair than any response to me on this topic in the past."

Just basic facts, but it's hardly the whole story. The violent bigots in both Israel and in the various Arab countries and factions unfortunately set the overall tone, and unfortunately BushCo has been more than willing to fan the flames.

bisky1 10 years, 9 months ago

hey mick are you a real person or an amalgamation of left wing views?

Jamesaust 10 years, 9 months ago

"Israel is a terrorist state"

We live in a world where the falseness of any assertion is congruent with its outrageousness.

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 10 years, 9 months ago

"Terrorist state" is a term which has very little utility. Both the US and Israel regularly engage in terroristic actions. The recent war in Lebanon was clearly terroristic-- it was intended to terrorize the Lebanese people, partly to change the behavior of Hezbollah, but mostly as pure retribution multiplied many times over for the death and destruction wrought by Hezbollah in Israel. And there is no disputing that the US war in Iraq is almost pure terrorism.

But to call either a "terrorist state" assumes that is the only function of the state. That's not the case in either country, but each country does have a responsibility to the world to bring to justice those who have abused their power in order to commit terroristic acts on a scale Osama bin Laden can only dream about. Failure to do so could mean that they really are becoming "terrorist states."

Speakout 10 years, 9 months ago

Both Hebullah and Hamas were formed to pressure Israel from getting out of the WEST BANK which it occupies illegally and is Palestinian land, not in the 1920's as some one mistakenly wrote. By Illegally, I mean against the UN Resolutions #242 and many others.

The father of Terror is Menechem Begin who provided the blue print of how to rid the Holy Land of Palestinians and that is why such a huge deal is made over the right of Palestinian return to their own homes in what is now Israel. This is what Carter is talking about. So, for Begin and Sadat to make a peace treaty is the same as Sharon and Ahmadinijad to make a deal. Think about it.

Jamesaust 10 years, 9 months ago

"By Illegally, I mean against the UN Resolutions #242 and many others."

I'm always amazed at the degree of ignorance people display when making comments such as this.

Let me (begin to) count the ways.

  1. UN resolutions are not "law."
  2. This UN resolution does not even attempt to be binding upon the parties (that would require action by the Security Council not the General Assembly and even then the SC would have to invoke its 'binding' authority, which is exceedingly rare - and, on point, did NOT happen here, so it doesn't matter anyway.).
  3. The resolution forbids the acquisition of territory (by Israel) by war. To breach this would require: a. the territory in question to be part of another state (not). b. the territory in question to be 'acquired,' which would presumptively only apply to Jerusalem. c. how the territory is to be disposed of is left silent (although the UN presumptively has the power to create a Palestinian state just as they did an Israeli state - the just have not do so).
  4. The resolution also requires ceasation of hostilities against Israel, which has not been done.

So, you say Israeli illegality. I say Arab illegality. Let's just call the whole thing off, shall we, and actually work towards settlement of conflict, which REQUIRES an acknowledgement of wrong-doing on both sides as well as the legitimacy of both sides. Israel is prepared to negotiate with two conditions: (a) acknowledgement of past agreements already made, and (b) acceptance of Israel's right to exist. The Palestinians are prepared to negotiate with one condition: (a) that Israel not exist. Hmmm...seems like one side needs more work than the other for any honest peacework to happen.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.