Carter's Ignorance

Yaakov, since Carter was President of the US during a time of great upheaval in Israel, which even then was intimately connected with American foreign policy, and received daily briefings that most likely included a lot of what was going on in Israel, and given his personal involvement with the '78 Camp David accords, is it possible that he just might know WTF he is talking about? I'm having a hard time reconciling his involvement in international relations and running America's end of the Israel/America relationship with your assertion that he lacks "critical facts" that would force him to hold a different opinion.

I just don't see it. In fact, I really think your article is one-sided, and that you are ignoring quite a few facts, in order to reach a conclusion that (as ever) sees Israel as yet again the victim of forces beyond its control.

Not everyone who disagrees with Israel's policies is an anti-semite. Not everyone who feels that Israel bears a much greater responsibility for the current situation than commonly acknowledged is an anti-semite. Not everyone who believes that Israel has traditionally grabbed land in order to "create facts on the ground" is an anti-semite.

Conflating those positions with anti-semitism is disingenuous, and damaging to Israel's reputation. And your blanket dismissal of Carter as being motivated by anti-semitism, ignorance, or blanket acceptance of propaganda damages your own credibility.

(While we're discussing prejudice, how long do you think it will be before Israel has an Israeli Arab as Prime Minister?)

iarnuocon:

>(While we're discussing prejudice, how long do you think it will be before Israel has an
>Israeli Arab as Prime Minister?)

Probably about as long as it will take the US to have a black woman president.

But it is a different world today. And Carter has been living in a cave the entire time?

Because someone was President almost 30 years ago, this makes him an expert on all of the critical facts of the situation in the Middle East today? I don't know if it makes him an expert, but it certainly serves as adequate caution to accepting a pronouncement that his position stems from "ignorance", acceptance of "propaganda", or "anti-semitism."

I do not try to hide the fact that I am a supporter of the Jewish people and the state of Israel (internal politics aside). So you should not be shocked when I right [sic] an article stating this position. I'm not asking you to stop supporting Israel or the Jewish people. Nor am I shocked that you would write an article stating this position. What surprises me is that you would present your biased opinion as fact, and try to conflate questions of anti-semitism and anti-zionism. Are you really trying to criticize Carter's preconceived notions while lauding your own? Again, this harms your credibility.

However, can you please tell me which facts I am ignoring in reaching my conclusion? The fact that "settlements" in the West Bank and Gaza are very definitely a form of colonization? That calling violence in these settlements "terrorism" ignores the very legitimate complaint that they should not be there in the first place, and that justifying retaining them as a response to terrorism makes absolutely no sense whatsoever? I don't think we really need to rehash the same firmly drawn lines that have existed forever between those willing to excuse any Israeli action on the basis that "the Palestinians started it", making necessary oppression. But it's disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that those who disagree with you do so from the position of anti-semitism or ignorance.

the official positions of the PLO and Hamas is that they wish for the destruction of Israel Regarding the PLO, I don't think that assertion is as clear-cut as you do.

It really doesn't serve Israel to continually undermine or assassinate arab moderates in preference to preserving only the most extremist arabs in positions of power. Nor does ignoring any negotiations on the pretext of arab extremists' statements serve any useful purpose. That's how you end up with a Hamas-led Palestinian government right next door. Until the acknowledgment of and promotion of the views of Palestinian moderates becomes widespread, the problem will remain intractable. By referring to legitimate complaints against Israeli actions as anti-semitism, and to those who do not accept at face value pronouncements of Israel's victimhood as anti-semites, you're simply ensuring the continuing dismissal of Israel's valid complaints as overblown histrionics.

And I'll reiterate: how long do you think it will be before Israel has an Arab Israeli Prime Minister?

Simon: the Republican party has considered forwarding Condoleeza Rice as a candidate for the 2008 elections. The Democrats are currently entertaining the idea of a black man, Barack Obama, as presidential candidate. Colin Powell has long been viewed as a viable candidate appealing to both major political parties. Given that blacks really only achieved political equality since 1964, I'd categorize that as progress. Any of those three people represent black citizens with a good chance of becoming President of the United States at some time in the near future. Who was the last Israeli Arab to have a remote chance of becoming Israeli Prime Minister? What would you call anti-arabism, once anti-semitism is exclusively reserved for describing anti-jewish or anti-israeli sentiment?

One thing I know for sure; if the situation was reversed and it were Palestinians in charge of Israel and Israelis in the position of Israelis, the US will be on the side of the Israelis.

If it was reversed, do you think the Palestinians would treat the Israelis anywhere near as well (relatively speaking) as they are being treated? Israelis would probably no longer exist at this point.

They're being treated well? Tell me about it. Most of what used to be their land has been taken, the part that remains they are restrained substantially on. That's being treated well. Whoa I want to know what you consider oppression!

As I stated, which you chose to ignore, I used the word relatively. And their level of treatment has deteriorated due, in no small part, to their own actions when they were given more freedom. However, again as I stated, if the roles were reserved, Israelis would probably no longer exist in the region, if at all.

Nice attempt at a (god i hate word) strawman though.

Ok so you admit they're getting it bad. Nice to have that established.

I dont think it was ever in question that their current conditions arent very good. However, those conditions are in large part due to their actions. They have had several opportunities to improve their lot and put a good foot forward. They have allowed extremists groups and those seeking power to speak for them and commit actions which have put them on a downward spiral.

For example, when Israel gives back land and the first thing you do is start launching missiles from it, what kind of treatment do you expect to get? That was a tentative step of reaching out an open hand and it was cut off.

Well to further establish the seriousness of their plight just see this.

"For example, when Israel gives back land and the first thing you do is start launching missiles from it, what kind of treatment do you expect to get?"

Then Oluseye Bassir says "Well to further establish the seriousness of their plight"
and he says nothing to fact that what FL says is true! Maybe he should explain why that does happen when Israel gives land "back".

Maybe he should explain why that does happen when Israel gives land "back". Because there are Palestinian extremists? I think that's pretty obvious.

What's not so obvious is why we look at "the Palestinians" as a monolithic group composed only of terrorists, and not as a society that contains, for instance, individuals as deserving of peace as any Israeli citizen. What kind of treatment do the Palestinians expect? You'd have a clue if you bothered to watch the video to which Oluseye kindly linked. That video says more than Oluseye or any of us have time or space to write on Newsvine. Perhaps you both could watch it, and then get back to us on whether it increased your understanding of the Palestinian viewpoint (note, not whether it convinced you of their justification, which I expect will never happen, but whether you actually learned some things that aren't immediately obvious from America's caricature of the Palestinians and their motivation.)

FL thinks they should beg their occupiers for permission to pretend they have a nation. This would improve their plight, but it would be a far cry from a just resolution.

No I do not think that and never said anything to that effect. I think they need go get their act together and not allow the extremists and corrupt leaders to be their voice and be allowed to commit terrorist acts in their name. But as long as they continue to be, at the very least, passively accepting and approving of the terrorists' methods, I think most will continue to see them as 1 group, instead of being composed of factions.

I believe the majority of Palestinians are just regular people and want to move forward, but they need to root out and distance themselves from the extremists and corrupt leaders. Then they can start working with the Israeli on a solution.

Extremists and corrupt leaders...

Which country are you talking about because that could apply to too many nations.

It is not about rewarding their leadership for good behaviour, it's about recognising their right to their land, to self determination and to not be oppressed. If it was about leadership no country would ever get independence as leaders all through Italy have been corrupt.

It's just an excuse to deny them their rights. Give them their rights, it's not for anybody to place conditions on their rights.

What are you talking about? Your attempts at humor here fall quite short. You know who we are talking about.

And no, its not about rewarding leaders for good behavior. Its about there being a leadership that can be worked with and wants to resolve the situation.

It's just an excuse to deny them their rights. Give them their rights, it's not for anybody to place conditions on their rights.

Thats a load of BS. Guess what, wherever you live, there are conditions on your rights. This pie in the sky theoretical stuff you talk about is nice but its not reality. Deal with the real situation. I wouldnt want to give them more freedom either when they use more freedom to attack me. No sane person would. Until they get a leadership committed to finding a peaceful compromising solution nothing will happen. History has shown this to be true.

It's BS. There are two groups of "leaders". Both have broken many many agreements. Both have acted against their best interest several times. Both are bleeding a huge very importnat part of the world. You pick one, I pick on both. I think the Israeli leadership (defined perfectly by Lebanon as an example) has been just as extreme.

You're biased. you're the one sweeping one of the longest-standing injustices in the world under the carpet. You claim is't pie in the sky but your attitude is more like foot-in-the-grave.

For you to have any credibility as someone who wants peace in that region you have to first of all accept that Palestine has a right to exist. Then you have to admit that Palestine's right to exist does not depend on Israel's judgement of its leaders.

Rights are rights. if you don't accept that, you're placing yourself right in league with the Stalins, Iranian Mullahs etc. who say just that.

How many UN resolutions and accords has Israel broken. nobody denies Israel's right to exist on that basis.

How much new post-1967 Palestinian lands has Israel taken? I don't deny Israel's right to exist on that basis.

Hell you're the type of guy who would have defended Hitler if he was on "your side", you'd have defended slavery saying " but the Blacks don't have good leadership".

Rights are rights. UNCONDITIONAL.

If you can't accept that you don't deserve the gift of freedom you wer lucky to be born with.

Since you think its all swell in Palestine and Israel's actions are all dandy, I'd like to see you migrate their to live, and then you can get rid of the "extremists and corrupt leaders".

I am sure you'd just love it.

Are you done ranting and creating strawmen? Just about everything you said was a load of garbage.

I stated very clearly that both sides have made mistakes. However, the Palestinian leadership has continually screwed over its own people.

I am biased. I have stated my bias openly. However, I am not sweeping anything under the rug.
I also dont rely on your judgement on who has credibility.

Rights are rights. if you don't accept that, you're placing yourself right in league with the Stalins, Iranian Mullahs etc. who say just that.

Blah blah. Why dont you just call me a Nazi? Rights are rights but only as much as you can defend them. When someone comes into your home and attacks you, you can scream about your rights all you want. That person can easily take away all of your rights, including your right to live. The IDEA of your rights are inalienable, but they only exist in as much as you (or someone else) is able to defend them. That is reality.

Hell you're the type of guy who would have defended Hitler if he was on "your side", you'd have defended slavery saying " but the Blacks don't have good leadership".

Ah, heres basically calling me a Nazi. A nazi strawman. But its a tried and true tactic. If someone disagrees with you, call them a Nazi.

Rights are rights. UNCONDITIONAL.

If you can't accept that you don't deserve the gift of freedom you wer lucky to be born with.

Well its good I dont count on you to defend my rights. If I did, it looks like disagreeing with you would foreit my rights. So much for my right to disagree huh? There are plenty of people in jails all over the world screaming about their rights that were violated and how unconditional they are. Guess how far it usually gets them? They are still in those jails, rightfully or not. Let Iran rule the world and youll see just how unconditional your rights are.

Since you think its all swell in Palestine and Israel's actions are all dandy, I'd like to see you migrate their to live, and then you can get rid of the "extremists and corrupt leaders".

Really, I said all is swell there huh and everything Israel does is ok? Perhaps youd like to point that out where I said that. Cause that pesky place I live, called reality, doesnt show it. As for myself moving there, I highly doubt they would care what a non-Arab, American thinks about who their leaders should be. If it would actually help I would.

And your strawmen arguments, especially where you resort to calling me a Nazi, reduces your credibility greatly.

3 second truth test: Show where I called you a Nazi. What I called you was worse but more subtle. The kind of guy who would explain away evil based on what side he picks.

As for myself moving there, I highly doubt they would care what a non-Arab, American thinks about who their leaders should be. If it would actually help I would.

Again you miss the point. The issue is to point out that any one individual can not change the leadership or the system and therefore should not suiffer on that account.

Rights are rights but only as much as you can defend them. When someone comes into your home and attacks you, you can scream about your rights all you want. That person can easily take away all of your rights, including your right to live.

Are you encouraging the Palestinians to take up arms against Israel? Actually someone gave an interesting solution in that regard by the way. He said that maybe the US, and powers that be should arm the Palestinians like the Israelis and then stand by when each "defends" itself as much as it wants.

Anyway, I am sorry if you take offence at my comments but you got into the hard words first.

You create the straw men. You claim that;

Well its good I dont count on you to defend my rights. If I did, it looks like disagreeing with you would foreit my rights. So much for my right to disagree huh?

Hey I am on a thread where people have disagreed with me all day I haven't asked that they be denied dinner.

Seriously your statement that rights are conditional was incredible. Especially in the context of gross rights violations. If you can explain those away in that way, it makes me wonder if you value yours or just don't value others or you're just picking your side and then your position without checking if that matches your values.

Again you miss the point. The issue is to point out that any one individual can not change the leadership or the system and therefore should not suiffer on that account.

I never said it was the job of one person. I said the Palestinians as a people need to do it. So this is a non issue.

Are you encouraging the Palestinians to take up arms against Israel? Actually someone gave an interesting solution in that regard by the way. He said that maybe the US, and powers that be should arm the Palestinians like the Israelis and then stand by when each "defends" itself as much as it wants.

No, being able to defend your rights does not have to be in a violent manner. We have ways to address violations of rights without resorting to violence.

You create the straw men. You claim that;

Well its good I dont count on you to defend my rights. If I did, it looks like disagreeing with you would foreit my rights. So much for my right to disagree huh?

Hey I am on a thread where people have disagreed with me all day I haven't asked that they be denied dinner.

You suggested I dont deserve the rights I have. That implies they should be taken away from me.

Seriously your statement that rights are conditional was incredible. Especially in the context of gross rights violations. If you can explain those away in that way, it makes me wonder if you value yours or just don't value others or you're just picking your side and then your position without checking if that matches your values.

They are not incredible, they are statement of fact in reality. It may be your belief that those rights are unconditional, and I may agree with you. However, they are not guaranteed and they can be taken away at any time against your will. If they were truly unconditional, that would not be possible.

Apartheid is South Africa was racist and racial but those links establish that Carter did not initiate the extension of the use into non-racial situations.

In interviews I have seen, he has been direct in pointing out that he is not making a racial issue out of it. I understand your taking offence on the racist nexus, but I also realise that your real grouse is about him being critical of Israel.

KKK, Orthodox Jews and Armadineajad Slam Zionists.
"A Challenge to the Official Holocaust Story", and "Holocaust, the Achilles Heel of a Primordial Jewish Trojan".

UPDATE

DAVID DUKE, FMR HEAD OF KKK: Zionism poses a real threat to the entire world for right now, the Zionists are busy trying to make a war between my country and your country.

See Link Above.

people who remember the world before WW2 and naturally feel that there was a large amount of Jewish influence that led to WW2

"Naturally," because?

Because Humans have predudices for what ever reason real, justifyied or not.

Okay, please clarify the difference between being anti-Israeli and being anti-Semitic?
[quote]If Carter is not motivated by anti-Semitism, then he is propelled by ignorance and propaganda.[/quote]

That is about as close as one can get of being accused without actually saying it.

I gotta say, most propaganda is not in Palestine's favor, at least in the US.

No one is saying that Israel should tear down checkpoints, but it is obvious that current strategies are not working. Bombs do not make peace. Destroying a nations infrastructure for two soldiers is heavy handed and shows the disdain that there is for others in the region.
It isn't Hamas or the PLO that suffer from these incursions, it is the average citizen.

please read the first few lines above where I specifically do not call Carter anti-Semitic. "If Carter is not motivated by anti-Semitism, then he is propelled by ignorance and propaganda"-- you don't leave very much room for supposition.

Also, your first poll makes no distinction between anti-jewish or anti-israel sentiment, and no alternative choice for motivation.

Your sentence presumes that if Israel was to knock down all of the fences and checkpoints tomorrow, that there would be immmediate peace. I hate to say it, but if Israel would do that, you would have lots of dead Jews (God forbid). I'd agree with that assessment. On the other hand, if Israel made some real efforts at establishing peace and working with moderate Palestinians to establish a viable state, backed by security guarantees from the US and other interested parties, Israel could reach a position in which kneejerk resistance on the part of arabs to its very existence wouldn't be the automatic response every time they're mentioned.

I dont have a problem linking Carter with Anti-Semetism but I wont go as far as saying it makes him impartial. I dont see why that should be an issue here except that the history of his Generation should at least rate a mention.

Why cant the Palestinians end launching rockets and engaging in suicide bombs? Why cant they have a leadership that actually takes actions towards the peaceful process they espouse? Why cant their people hold their leaders accountable instead of allowing these power hungry, greedy people to keep power for their own sake instead of working towards their own state and peace, which they say they want but take little real action towards?

It works both ways.

Who are the 'zionists' that are preventing any conversation?

Why cant there be a discussion about Israel where someone doesn't accuse the "zionists" of bringing up anti-Semitism and the Holocaust?

I think that might be because beyond the past few years, it wasn't too uncommon for someone to be called an anti-Semite for criticizing Israel. I'm not trying to pick a fight here and I realize my experiences are only from a small area (northeast US) but until recently I do know a few people who had to be quiet of any criticism. Whether it was on purpose or not, being "silenced" left a bitter taste in peoples mouths I think.

Touche Yaakov.

I think the situation in Gaza is a slow extermination of the people living there. There are countless UN reports and independent report (EU) that can detail the dire situation in Gaza.

I realize you didn't mention "anti-semitism" but you certainly did nuance it with anti-israeli and anti-jewish beliefs attributed to the former pres.

There isn't a discussion about Israel where someone doesn't accuse the "zionists" of bringing up anti-semitism and/or the Holocaust because the zionists usually choose not hear the message of the discussion but resort to accusing the messenger of being anti-semite or in some cases holocaust deniers. Although anti-semite is the default position of most zionists.

Carter is right on target with the Jewish lobby and its super influence on US politicians. These are facts that can not be denied.

For too long people have said that the Jews control the media, the government, any significant part of society. This has to stop. It is antisemitic on its face.

"It is antisemitic on its face." I rest my case, people.

Anyway, I am alluding to the report published by John J. Mearsheimer, Political Science professor at the University of Chicago and Stephen M. Walt, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, titled The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foregin Policy, in March of 2006.

Before the messengers are labled anti-semite lets do the world a favor and read/listen with open minds.

If you say the Jews control the media, of course there will be people who accuse you of being an antisemite, because that assertion is blatantly antisemitic. This is pretty simple, no?

Actually, if someone said the "jews control the media" I think it a compliment to the Jewish people and their intellectual capbilities to rise up and "control" an industry. To say the chinese are good at math is not anti-sino.

I say good for them. I think its a compliment. So, not so simple, not so much Ignoblus.

You need to learn a lot about antisemitism, then. The claim that the Jews control the media or other institutions has been repeatedly used as justification for persecution, frequently violent or genocidal, against Jews. The Nazis were very big on claims that Jews controlled France, Britain, and the US, and this is why their genocide had to be taken worldwide.

Furthermore, I'd advise that you seek out opinions from Chinese people before saying that that stereotype about the Chinese isn't racist.

Russians are good at chess. Hungarians are often great musicians. Some Africans have extended leg muscles that make them supreme runners, I have read. Countries inhabited by a majority of Caucasians control dominate the world economy, but Japan is also doing well, and is often considered ten years ahead of others when comes to technological development. Danes are, according to a recent study, the happiest people on Earth.

Generalizations can be useful and to the point.

"Always regard the writer's end, since none can compass more than he intends". (Alexander Pope)

I want to learn to be more pro than anti. I've never attended an anti war rally but I'll you can bet I'll be there if they have a pro-peace rally. I am paraphrasing mother Theresa here but I hope you get the point there Ig.

But its good to know that if I do want to learn more about anti-semitism, I'll know who to contact. I'm not smarter...yet but with you as my anti-semitism mentor I'm sure that goal isn't too far off.

Generalizations can be useful and to the point.

And they can also be terribly bigoted, rife with poor reasoning, and motivated by hatred. The claim that Jews control the media has historically been used as a justification for oppression, and I take it as a threat.

Heaven is a world where we have English Police men, French cooks, German Mechanics, Italian lovers and the Swiss organise everything.

Hell is where the cook is English, the mechanics are French, the German are police men, with Swiss lovers and the Italians organise everything.

Just an injection of humorous generalisation into the conversation. Not to undermine the value of your respective points.

@Ignoblus
Just for the record, nobody said anything about Jews controlling the media except you.

Carter is right on target with the Jewish lobby and its super influence on US politicians. These are facts that can not be denied.

Jallahbad Jones comment above is about the Jewish Lobby and in another comment, he/she has referenced a study of the pro-Israel Lobby. I don't mean to pick at you but I think you are reacting to an offense that hasn't been given.

You're sort of right. I didn't say he said that. I said:

For too long people have said that the Jews control the media, the government, any significant part of society. This has to stop. It is antisemitic on its face.

They want Israel to go back to the 67 border, as they both agreed to in Oslo. It has been Israel that has continued to build settlements in Occupied Territories while ethnically cleansing the area.

Do you really believe that lie? If Hamas wanted the '67 borders they'd have zero problem recognizing Israel's right to exist. They won't and call for its destruction. Period. And these are the Democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, so you can't call them illegitimate and unable to speak for the proto-state.

It not a matter of whether I believe them. That is the law according to international treaty that everyone involved is a signatory to. What is wrong with Israel, the more powerful, the wealthier, the one with more of everything, to follow the law? Further what is wrong with a Jewis state acting like a state of Jews where everyone adheres to the noble principles of Judaism. Helping the poor, the weak the down trodden. Instead of behaving arrogantly, stubbornly, deviously while maintainig the victim mentality and spreading guilt and ill will.

These are not children we are talking about but nations of people, adults.

How bout not over reacting with extreme disproportionality? Is that against Judaism? Yaakov just look at the number of dead and wounded and their demographics. Its like 10 pals for every Israeli, if not more, and the majority of the pals are women and children. I'm sure Gideon will be by soon with his stats.

As far the second intifadah, Yaakov, it was Sharone who sparked, provoked (to better his party's chances of winning the election) that when he arrogantly, unnecessarily went to a religous site, (haram al sharif/dome of the rock...whatever) with over 1000 armed men. Lets not rewrite history, I saw it on CNN.

As far the second intifadah, Yaakov, it was Sharone who sparked, provoked (to better his party's chances of winning the election) that when he arrogantly, unnecessarily went to a religous site, (haram al sharif/dome of the rock...whatever) with over 1000 armed men.

How did it get to be so that a Jewish man can't visit the holiest site in Judaism without it being "provacative"?

Yaakov I read your link to the article in the jewish virtual library about the Second Intifadah. While I'm sure the Pals were'nt innocent observers to the whole episode, Sharon as the defense minister must have been aware of what was happening with the Palestinians and their desire for another uprising, and he chose to spark the powder keig that was the palestinian mood and plans at the time. To go there with 1500 plus soldiers is provactive, it is expecting a confrontation.

Good advice about CNN. :)

If Sharon hadn't gone up there then Araft would have found another way to ignite the uprising but then we wouldn't be having this discussion about Sharon.

But we digress, the uprising is with us now for the past 6 years what do we do now. Not talk to each other? Smack the other cheek cause they smacked us? It just seems that everyone, even Carter, is talking about all of the problems and no one is propsing any solutions or even disucssions about possible solutions. It just seems from the outsider perview that no one there wants peace and everyone is sick of it. Enough is enough.

Carter claims to have proposed some solutions.

@Jallahbad

Because they feel that their land has been invaded. They have been evicted and the one's in Gaza live in a prision.

And you think suicide bombs is going to show people how righteous they are? Killing women and children is not the way to that objective.

They want Israel to go back to the 67 border..

Delusional. Thats not what they want. This has already been discussed ad nauseum.

Because they are ignorant, uneducated, down trodden, abused, ethnically cleansed, defeated people who have nothing left.

If they are so ignorant and uneducated then maybe the positions they take and their demands are unreasonable and wrong. Just going by your words there. Also if they were "ethnically cleansed", I dont think there would be any Palestinians. Youve referred to this many times but last I checked, Israel was not out exterminating the Palestinians. They know how its done from first hand experience and this aint quite it.

And finally, I am independent. My views encompass many more issues than this one. I make up my own mind, but you can call me anything you want, names dont bother me. And I have no problem stating I am more on the side of Israel than the Palestinians. That doesnt mean Israel is without blame, but all things considered, I do side with them.

How did it get to be so that a Jewish man can't visit the holiest site in Judaism without it being "provacative"?

Hmmmm... that's a poser. I imagine Qibya, Sabra and Shatila, and showing up at Islam's third holiest site with several hundred armed men might be compelling reasons. This wasn't just any Jewish man, and it wasn't just any visit.

We both know this. Why would you even try to pass it off as the simple situation you present?

It also had a lot to do with Muslims building their third holiest site one top of Judaism's holiest, then declaring it off-limits to non-Muslims. No?

Quite a few people prohibit Jews from entering the Temple Mount, not least among them the Jews themselves.

Are you honestly contending that the violence was the result of a simple Jewish man violating some Muslim prohibition against access by non-Muslims, and not specifically the fact that it was Sharon himself and the man's history that was at issue?

If you want to note that the site is a hotly contested religious site, I agree.

If you want to argue that Sharon's visit was not provocative (for the very reasons I've outlined), nor was meant to be; not even Jewish Israelis all agree with you. "We are visiting the Temple Mount to show that under a Likud government it will remain under Israeli sovereignty." That doesn't sound provocative. "Barak's One Israel party also condemned the planned visit as 'nothing but a pointless provocation which could even be dangerous.'"

Who would've thought?

Are you honestly contending that the violence was the result of a simple Jewish man violating some Muslim prohibition against access by non-Muslims

No, I'm actually more in agreement with Yaakov on this - the violence began prior to Sharon's visit and was flamed by Arafat for political reasons. Sharon provided a nice cover for him. (He didn't "enter" the Temple Mount, by the way.)

But even as detestable as Sharon was, I do believe that the Palestinians bear a great deal of responsibility for their own reactions to his visit and for their consequent actions. Remember that at the time, Sharon was persona non grata in Israeli politics - who made Sharon?

No, I'm actually more in agreement with Yaakov on this - the violence began prior to Sharon's visit and was flamed by Arafat for political reasons. Sharon provided a nice cover for him. Regardless, your off the cuff remark categorizing Sharon as "just" a Jewish man visiting the Temple is a mischaracterization, at best. We'll have to disagree about the political motivations behind it, and whether the violence was inflamed by it or not. I think it demonstrably was, and for the reasons I've stated, and there are not just a few Israelis who'd agree with me. If Sharon were "just" another Jewish man, even by your formulation it's likely that Arafat would have had to come up with some other rallying cry to "foment" violence.

(He didn't "enter" the Temple Mount, by the way.) Just noting that there are more than just Muslim barriers in play. But as far as declaring the Temple Mount "off-limits, both religions hold the site holy. Given the lack of control over their own destiny, is it any surprise that arabs, having control of this site, would put restrictions on those who restrict them in every other area of their lives? Jews and Christians can visit, but can't hold services there (or, indeed, visibly pray). That rubs me the wrong way, having been brought up to believe in freedom of religion, but I can certainly understand the motivations behind it.

I do believe that the Palestinians bear a great deal of responsibility for their own reactions to his visit and for their consequent actions. Agreed.

Remember that at the time, Sharon was persona non grata in Israeli politics Not exactly. Although he was dismissed as Defense Minister as a result of Sabra and Shatila, he remained a leading figure in the Likud Party, and held various senior cabinet and party posts, ultimately becoming party leader in 1999 and Prime Minister in 2001. "Persona non grata" doesn't strike me as the appropriate terminology.

Jews and Christians can visit, but can't hold services there (or, indeed, visibly pray).

And any prominent Jew would have needed security and sparked outrage. It didn't have to be Sharon. And so I think there really is a reason for my initial comment.

ultimately becoming party leader in 1999 and Prime Minister in 2001.

He became PM after the Temple Mount incident and largely because of the intifada.

He became PM after the Temple Mount incident and largely because of the intifada. And his various senior cabinet positions and party posts? Those occured when?

It's disingenuous to pretend that Sharon wasn't quite active in Israeli politics before 2000. It's turning the facts on their heads.

any prominent Jew would have needed security and sparked outrage. I'm curious, when does the Third Intifada start?

He became PM after the Temple Mount incident and largely because of the intifada. I'm sure he was completely oblivious to the impact of his visit, both as to its effect on the Palestinians, and to the effect that their response would have on his right-wing support. Pull the other one.

And his various senior cabinet positions and party posts? Those occured when?

They occured within Likud. Most of Israel despised him, until they felt they needed someone vicious to protect them. That is, until the second intifada broke out.

I'm curious, when does the Third Intifada start?

Is the second one over?

The Intifada never ended officially (Reference 4). However, the relative success of the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit, the truce agreed on by President Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian militant organizations, and the relatively low levels of violence during 2005, were considered by many to mark its effective end, commonly attributed to the change in Palestinian government following the death of Yasser Arafat and the Israeli unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and Northern Samaria (West Bank). Wikipedia, for what its worth.

You said that any prominent Jew showing up there would have sparked the outrage. So why hasn't Uri Ariel's visit ramped the violence back up to 2000's levels? Or is it possible that Sharon is quite a bit more vilified than most "prominent Jews"?

I didn't say it would spark an intifada, though. I did say that Arafat played a major role in creating the second intifada, and that Sharon's visit gave him cover for the escalation. So I don't accept what you attribute to me.

As for the end of the second intifada, there are a lot of reasons levels and types of violence changed, including the building of the security fence. I don't know if it's really fair to say it ended.

I'm no fan of Likud or Lieberman (who is Yisrael Beitanu, not Likud). I think Lieberman should be tried for inciting racial hatred, actually.

But the differences are clear. Even Lieberman is not calling for the destruction of the Palestinian people. He has argued for a separate space for the Palestinians, while Hamas insists that there be no Israel.

Jahallabad - without disputing the differences between Likud & Hamas, It is good to remember that Israel's governmental structure has checks and balances in it. For instance, the High Court of Justice recently ruled to deny the state immunity against suits for damages incurred during noncombat operations in the territories, meaning that Palestinians in the territories can sue the Israeli government. Probably not the ruling Likud ot Yisraeli Beitenu had in mind.

Democracy in the Middle East seems to be reported as having occured when elections are held. Poof - you're a democracy! But what of the governmental structure? Building a system that can withstand the occaissional foolishness of the party in power is the hard work that goes unreported, if indeed it is happening.

Even if Hamas call for the destruction of Israel,

Are you kidding, or do you really not know what Hamas has said on the matter?

I don't think he cares. It isn't just conservatives who ignore inconvenient truths.

Ignoblus,

You know what I am kidding.

I really don't know what Hamas has said on the matter.

Actually I really don't care what they have said. They are incosequential in my eyes and in the eyes of the Israelis as well as the eyes of the world. That is why they are isolated and do not have a working government. They can't even make a rocket that can do anything more than break some windows. They have to resort to tricking, brainwashing good people who are desparate to blow themselves up in Israeli pizza parlors. You make them out to be this ferocious monster that they aren't. But we know why you do that. So you can keep the status quo and continue to receive the largest amount of State Welfare from American Tax payers etc.

They actually do kill people. Maybe a few people means nothing to you, but that's your bias. Here's the Hamas charter. If you want help understanding what it means when they say something like:

The Islamic Resistance Movement consider itself to be the spearhead of the circle of struggle with world Zionism and a step on the road.

just ask. (In that particular case, though, they are saying that they won't even be satisfied with the elimination of Israel, but seek to kill Jews worldwide.)

Where is Gideon when you need him. He's got the stats and demographics of the dead on both sides. You know, its really irritating when you claim to know that my bias is that a few dead on either side is inconsequential. I don't understand where in my conversation you could have possibly construed that.

I guess you're not reading what I am writing Ig. HAMAS DOES NOT HAVE THE CAPABILITY TO DESTROY ISRAEL OR GO AFTER WORLDWIDE JEWERY. Their charter in marketing terms is a bait and switch advertising. The don't even have the car they are selling on the lot.

Why are you so pro Hamas that you are touting their charter even quoting it? Do you really believe they have an icycles chance in hell of destroying the state of Israel? What makes you think that, their success in the past 20-30 years since their inception? What successful track record can you poin to that shows that Hamas is even on the road to achieving their objective of unihillating Israel or even killing jews worldwide?

Where is Gideon when you need him. He's got the stats and demographics of the dead on both sides.

Actually, he pretty much just makes those up.

You know, its really irritating when you claim to know that my bias is that a few dead on either side is inconsequential.

You said so yourself, "They [Hamas] are incosequential in my eyes and in the eyes of the Israelis as well as the eyes of the world."

Why are you so pro Hamas that you are touting their charter even quoting it?

Why do you think they're lying?

Do you really believe they have an icycles chance in hell of destroying the state of Israel?

No, at least not now. (On the other hand, Iran, and Western antisemitism are problems right now.) But they can kill a lot of Israelis, and Israel has a right to try to prevent that. I would assume you agree with that, so the question is what can Israel rightly do to protect its citizens. But if there is nothing that Israel can do without you criticizing them, then there's a problem.

Getting back to your original question, I hope you can now accept that there is a world of difference between Avigdor Lieberman and Hamas.

That's the world I reject. When any side claims it has the right to attack any other preemptively. When we have that we're back to the state of nature. Good bye democracy and Western civilisation.

Not sure of your point, Oluseye.

I am biased towards International Law. Israel is a state and a signatory to the UN charter and therefore should abide by the Law. Pals aren't a state and how can you enforce international on a non-state. That is not to say that they should be off the hook, but first thing is first, Israel is a soverign state and as such should abide by International Law and treaties it has signed.

There if you really must know my bias, there it is. Although, I will admit that I always root for the underdog, its the American in me.

Hmmm... how can you enforce the law? Is this a trick question?

Responsible nations abide by the law, just like responsbile citizens.

Hey, look up! There's something going over your head!

Just kidding. But seriously, International law as well as other law does apply to individuals and groups other than nation-states. Part of international law is that Israel has a right to protect itself from terrorism. I'm sure we could debate international law for a long time, and, with neither of us lawyers in said law, I'm sure it would be very interesting.

But re-returning to your original question, I do hope you will see that there is a world of difference between Hamas and Avigdor Lieberman. Lieberman would like an ethnically purer Israel - he's proposed ceding portions of Israel and paying Arab citizens to leave in order to accomplish that. On the other hand, Hamas would like a world devoid of Jews entirely. That's quite a difference, don't you think?

Do you really believe that lie? If Hamas wanted the '67 borders they'd have zero problem recognizing Israel's right to exist. They won't and call for its destruction. Period. And these are the Democratically elected representatives of the Palestinian people, so you can't call them illegitimate and unable to speak for the proto-state.

The Palestinians elected Hamas official, not because of their political stance, but because they are able to deliver on many key necessities that the Fatah could not. The handed out rations in the street saying (and I paraphrase) "Look at what we can do for you! Imagine what we can give the Palestinians if we are elected to office!"
The average Palestinian citizen is probably more objective than we are giving them credit for. But, when there are dire needs, can you blame them for voting for those who can deliver?

More recently there has been a backlash against Hamas by Palestine because of the pressure that world bodies are putting. They can no longer deliver, and more and more citizens there are falling out of love with them.

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. Your point?

Point? That people vote for the folks they see as helping them? Maybe Israel should start seeking to empower and support Palestinian moderates, instead of helping to create organizations such as Hamas.

Just about everything you have posted has been he said she said and mostly about how Israel is wrong.

You are right, it is 2007 almost. So whats the answer? Whats the agreement thats gonna make it all better and everyone get along and live peacefully?

We are all human beings and theres a big downside to that as well. Do you think that the Palestinians being the "ignorant, uneducated, down trodden, abused, ethnically cleansed, defeated people who have nothing left", as you called them, going to be so quick to forgive and just move on? I think if they were, they would already have their own state.

The main focus probably needs to be on getting someone in power within the Palestinians who has the authority to make decisions and has interests of the Palestinian power at heart, instead of greed, desire for power, and hatred. Until that person steps forward, I cant see much getting done on the peace front.

So whats the answer? Whats the agreement thats gonna make it all better and everyone get along and live peacefully?

Forcefully impose a solution from the outside on both sides-- a solution that allows both sides a viable nation. Monitor the situation. If either side gets out of hand, nuke both of them from orbit.

Just kidding about the "nuke 'em from orbit" bit.

Neither side is going to play nice unless forced to. If we weren't bogged down in Iraq, we could actually be settling the Palestinian issue, right now. That has a helluva lot more to do with terrorism than Saddam ever did.

According to the CIA factbook, the population in Gaza is growing at 3.71% and in the West Bank at 3.06%. Some genocide!

@ Jallahbad
You can start with #9, #10, #10.3 etc.

So you are proposing installing a pupett as the Pals leader so he can negotiate favorable terms for the Israelis?

Why would you even ask that question? This is completely disingenuous and flaming strawman.

As far as the Pals forgiving the Israelis, (didn't expect you to feel guilty or admit that the Israeli's needed to be forgiven...but) I don't pretend to know what in another man's heart, let alone the down trodden, abused, ethnically cleansed Pals. I hope they can forgive, just as the Jews forgave the Germans.

Well you seem to pretend to know whats in my heart, thats why you didnt expect those things.

Michael Oren's "Six Days to War" is a good place to start.

I'm sorry, I don't know. If there is something factually wrong with what I just said, you could always tell me what that is when you wrote the story? Or here, if you prefer.

Yaakov is an occupation denier methinks.