It's Not Apartheid: Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel

[oberliner]

It's Not Apartheid
Jimmy Carter's moronic new book about Israel.
By Michael Kinsley

<snip>

Comes now former President Jimmy Carter with a new best-selling book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. It's not clear what he means by using the loaded word apartheid, since the book makes no attempt to explain it, but the only reasonable interpretation is that Carter is comparing Israel to the former white racist government of South Africa. That is a foolish and unfair comparison, unworthy of the man who won—and deserved—the Nobel Peace Prize for bringing Israel and Egypt together in the Camp David Accords, and who has lent such luster to the imaginary office of former president.

I mean, what's the parallel? Apartheid had a philosophical component and a practical one, both quite bizarre. Philosophically, it was committed to the notion of racial superiority. No doubt many Israelis have racist attitudes toward Arabs, but the official philosophy of the government is quite the opposite, and sincere efforts are made to, for example, instill humanitarian and egalitarian attitudes in children. That is not true, of course, in Arab countries, where hatred of Jews is a standard part of the curriculum.

The practical component of apartheid involved the creation of phony nations called "Bantustans." Black South Africans would be stripped of their citizenship and assigned to far-away Bantustans, where often they had never before set foot. The goal was a racially pure white South Africa, though the contradiction with the need for black labor was never resolved. Here might be a parallel with Israel, which needs the labor of the Arabs it is currently trying to keep out.

But in other ways, the implied comparison is backward. To start, no one has yet thought to accuse Israel of creating a phony country in finally acquiescing to the creation of a Palestinian state. Palestine is no Bantustan. Or if it is, it is the creation of Arabs, not Jews. Furthermore, Israel has always had Arab citizens. They are Arabs who were living in what became Israel prior to 1948 and who didn't leave. They are a bit on display, like black conservatives at a Republican convention. Israel is fortunate that, for whatever reason, most of their compatriots fled. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on. There used to be Jews living in Arab nations, but they also fled in 1948 and subsequent years—in numbers roughly equivalent to the Arabs who fled Israel. Now there are virtually no Jews in Arab countries—even in a moderate Arab country like Jordan. How many Jews do you think there will be in the new state of Palestine, when its flag flies over a sovereign nation?

http://www.slate.com/id/2155277/

[Why Syzygy]

1. Slate has some good things.

This is not one of them. Igorance or propganda. Or both.

[Crunchy Frog]

72. They were strongly in favor of the Iraq invasion IIRC. n/t

[Nutmegger]

130. Yeah I use to enjoy Slate

but not since they cheered on this occupation.

[Selah]

2. Many

Read "Epicenter" by Joel Rosenburg. Tell me what you think.

[Mythsaje]

9. Joel C. Rosenberg

Not to be confused with the fantasy author Joel Rosenberg.

Important distinction.

[Selah]

13. You read it?

How can one explain the "fantasies"

[Mythsaje]

15. No...I researched the name

when you brought it up.

I was scared that yet another author I enjoy is a RWer.

[Name removed]

18. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Mythsaje]

39. It's all in the interpretation...

As is all "prophesy."

That's the reason for such flowery language, to allow those "interpreting" the prophesy to paint it however they like.

And, as I said, I did research on the name. That's not "extensive" by any definition. But I do suggest you use the author's full name when you refer to him to avoid any future confusion.

[tuvor]

3. "Moronic" doesn't appear in the text of the article.

And usually, the writer of an article doesn't write the headline.

[burythehatchet]

4. kinsley's a fucking idiot

[Jim Sagle]

5. Damn good article, and everybody goddamn well knows it.

[Moochy]

42. Everyone on your buddy list maybe

[Jim Sagle]

74. That's right, anybody who is anybody.

;-)

[Nihil]

122. Sounds like a total of 1/1 ...

:-)

[Jim Sagle]

124. Actually I have TWO lists. The other one is an fy buddy list.

[xxqqqzme]

6. this cannot be serious

let's see. Population confinement? check; terrorization of the native population? check; travel restictions w/i the area? check; multiple ID checking points? check; random murder of civilians w/ no investigations? check! What am I missing?

[Viva_La_Revolution]

8. Apartheid is an Afrikaans word meaning "separation" or "being apart",

sounds like it to me.

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apartheid

just change "black" to Palestinian.

[Behind the Aegis]

11. Too bad that is not what is happening in Israel...

...perhaps you should read the part where even Carter admits it is not about "race," but land....not quite apartheid we've all come to hate. The word is nothing more than a "shock" word.

[Tom Joad]

19. Separation is all that is happening in the West Bank. Everybody goddamn well knows it.

Especially separation of Palestinians from other Palestinians... by checkpoints, walls, highways they can't use, Jewish only settlements....

[Behind the Aegis]

22. The West Bank is now Israel? I am sure that will please the settlers...

[Tom Joad]

26. For the hundredth time. Carter is saying that what is happening in

Israeli-occupied Palestine is worse than Apartheid.

[Behind the Aegis]

29. And that is a piss-poor hyperbole.

[Tom Joad]

31. It is understatement.

[Behind the Aegis]

33. I retract my other statement..YOUR statement is piss-poor hypebole!

[Tom Joad]

35. Rather than attacking me or President Carter, why not share with us the

wonders of the system Israel is building in the West Bank, and why we might be proud to invest US tax dollars there?

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tom Joad]

46. Strange, even your denial of attack seems to be an attack...whatever

but do you think this system, whatever you call it, of separating Palestinians from some of their own communities and resources and farmland...
by checkpoints
settlements that bisect the West Bank (most of the biggest ones, btw, Israel has never offered to leave)
Highways Palestinians cannot use... even if they are a guest of an Israeli...(sometimes they cannot even cross!, which means even Israeli chickens have more rights than Palestinians... in the West Bank)

The fact is, even if many Israelis don't want it, it is Palestine that is being wiped off the map.

[Behind the Aegis]

47. And your strawmen keep getting more straw.

It is only matched by your hyperbole. There are many things wrong in that area, some will be worked out in final negotiations, something some here don't seem to support. Others, are the doing of Palestinians themselves and it will be up to them to work that out among themselves.

[Selah]

38. Throwing away the canal too

[Viva_La_Revolution]

25. the book is titled "Palestine"

not Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

28. But it is about Israel, as well.

[Tom Joad]

30. Yes, that is the system Israel is creating in Palestine. Now you've

got it... Maybe.

[Behind the Aegis]

32. And yet, it is still not Apartheid.

[Tom Joad]

34. Okay. Let's call it "Hafrada". Why do Jewish Israelis call the Wall

the "Separation Fence" or geder ha'hafrada ? Edited to add: many Jewish Israelis call it a crime, as does most of the world.

So you do have a point. why use the Afrikaans term? Use the Hebrew term for "separation".
But it ain't just the fence, it is the whole system in the West Bank, as enumerated elsewhere.

[Behind the Aegis]

44. Now we are getting some where...

It is not a matter of separation, but WHY that separation has occurred. That seems to be the point you and several others have missed.

[mike_c]

75. please-- white south africans had lots of "justifications" for apartheid too....

That doesn't make it any less odious. There are no justifications for deliberate injustice.

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

80. you seem incapable of reading your own words....

"It's not the separation, but WHY that separation is necessary"-- paraphrased from memory. The clear suggestion is that something in the WHY justifies apartheid.

[Behind the Aegis]

81. check your memory...

"It is not a matter of separation, but WHY that separation has occurred."

[mike_c]

83. right-- so address the actual point rather than trying to change...

...the subject.

[Name removed]

84. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

86. lol-- you're still avoiding the point....

Your statement attempts to justify apartheid by suggesting there are good reasons WHY it has occurred.

[Name removed]

88. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

89. lame and pathetic....

You're flailing.

[Name removed]

91. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

93. yes-- there is no justification for Israeli apartheid against Palestinians....

Do you agree? A simple yes or no will suffice. I'm betting you'll change the subject.

[Behind the Aegis]

96. There is no "simple" answer.

[The Magistrate]

97. So Long As The Relation Of The People's, Sir

Remains one of war, measures like a fortified border are reasonable actions. It is certainly true that the program of settlements in the Jordan valley brings no benefit to Israel, and to some degree cpmpromises its security, and would therefore be wise to abandon.

[Violet_Crumble]

109. It would help if the fortified border wasn't stealing land...

..because I know you agree that it's not a reasonable action as the barrier is taking in chunks of the West Bank...

[everythingsxen]

127. It's also leaving Israeli land out as well...

It is a security fence, they have to build it where the most defensible terrain is to make it of any use.

[Violet_Crumble]

131. Only tiny bits and it has zero to do with security...

Israel has the right to leave out its own land, but it does not have the right to take in chunks of territory that doesn't belong to it. That 'most defensible terrain' argument was used in the past by 'supporters' of Israel before the High Court ordered the route changed, so obviously you think the barrier is now of no use?

btw, if yr argument is that Israel can build it around Israeli settlements in the West Bank to defend settlers, it's a failed argument as the settlements are illegal and aren't part of Israel...

[everythingsxen]

140. Well...

according to Israel they are not taking any land that does not belong to them. According to them they pay people for putting the fence up on their land, for the inconvenience. You are also inventing beliefs for me; the fence is still in places that are most defensible, however it had to be moved in locations per the courts ruling. That does not make it useless, simply less effective than it could be.

I said nothing about the illegal West Bank settlers. As you say, they are illegal.

[Violet_Crumble]

150. Do you agree with Israel's stance?

Y'know, that they're not taking any land that does not belong to them?

I'm not inventing beliefs for you as I was responding directly to what's in the post I was replying to. Unlike where you falsely claimed that I think the barrier is apartheid...

[everythingsxen]

157. Once again..

I am glad we both agree the barrier is not apartheid. It is good to have you on Israel's side in this.

And for the record, I do not believe Israel is actually stealing the land. I have seen no evidence that they are, however I could be wrong.

[The Magistrate]

146. We Are Certainly In Agreement, Ma'am

That the course of the security barrier is a de facto annexation, and that this, if persisted in, is certainly illegal.

[Violet_Crumble]

153. Nice to see you again, Sir...

I remembered that back when the barrier was first making the news we say eye to eye on this issue and I didn't think anything would have changed since then to have altered yr views on that...

[Tom Joad]

17. Apartheid South Africa never gunned down children with US supplied

helicopters.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38959-2004May19.html

RAFAH, Gaza Strip, May 19 -- An Israeli helicopter gunship and a tank fired rockets and artillery shells at Palestinian protesters Wednesday as they marched toward a heavily populated neighborhood in the southern Gaza Strip. At least 10 Palestinians were killed and dozens wounded, many of them children, as explosives and shrapnel ripped through the crowd.

_____________________

But check this out... The image at that accompanies the above story, and the iconic image of the results of the govt of White South Africa attack on the people of Soweto.
Similar pair can be seen here:
http://www.tomjoad.org/pelosileaflet.pdf

Long live the resisters of Soweto. You did not die in vain.

A framed actual ballot in the South Africa's first democratic election hangs proudly in my room. Palestine will also be free.

[oberliner]

98. 2004. The same year as seven different terror attacks against civilians in Israel

2004

1 November: A teenage suicide bomber kills at least three people in the crowded Carmel market in Tel Aviv.

31 August: At least 16 people are killed and dozens are injured in two near-simultaneous suicide bombings on two buses in the southern city of Beersheba.

11 July: One person is killed and 21 are wounded by a bomb packed with metal bolts, which explodes near a bus stop in Tel Aviv.

14 March: A double suicide bombing kills 10 Israelis in the port of Ashdod on the Mediterranean coast.

22 February: A Palestinian suicide bomber kills eight people and injures dozens in an attack on an Israeli bus in Jerusalem.

29 January: A suicide bomber kills 11 people and injures around 50 on a bus in Jerusalem.

14 January: Hamas female suicide bomber kills four Israelis on the border with Gaza and injures seven.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1197051.stm

[mike_c]

7. Kinsley should be ashamed of his attempt to smear one of the greatest...

...American statesmen of our lifetime. Shame.

[Behind the Aegis]

10. Oh yes...he should stay silent, say nothing....

[Tom Joad]

20. He does have a right to make an ass of himself, just like...

oh, nevermind.

[Behind the Aegis]

23. just like those that proclaim this to be such a great piece of work?

[mike_c]

77. why can't you discuss matters honestly...?

Where did I say the Kinsley should be denied his right to free expression? Please point it out to me. I get so sick of the way you constantly change the subject, divert attention from the discussion at hand, or simply make shit up.

I said Kinsley should be ashamed of his attack on a great American statesman-- a man who has been a friend to Israel as well, but who invariably speaks truth to power as he sees it. Kinsley has every right to express his opinion, no matter how shameful.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mike_c]

82. "oh yes, he should stay silent, say nothing...."

Your words.

[Behind the Aegis]

85. let me help you....SARCASM.

[mike_c]

87. well then don't try to claim that you never said it....

I mean, it's there for anyone to read. If you meant it sarcastically, does that mean that you agree with my statement that Kinsley should be ashamed of himself? Your assertion that it was sarcasm either means that you didn't mean it, or you did. If you didn't mean it then you're not making sense, and if you did then you suggested that I wanted to shut Kinsley up.

[Behind the Aegis]

90. I didn't make the false claim....you did that.

Now you make some odd assertions. Since you don't seem to understand sarcasm, let me help you.

You say: He is an idiot.
I say: Oh yes, he should just shut up. (sarcasm)

You say: He is an idiot.
I say: No. He can say what he likes. (non-sarcasm) (That indicates he, too, is entitled to say what he thinks, but is NOT a statement that you were claiming he should have no right to say what he thinks.)

[mike_c]

92. are you pathologically incapable of sticking to the actual discussion...

...at hand? Where did I call anyone an idiot?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Warpy]

12. When South Africa established apartheid

they herded all the indigenous blacks into artificial "homelands" that didn't have enough land to support them, some of the poorest land in the country. They erected barriers between those "homelands" that prevented people from crossing white territory without special permission, causing those areas to be isolated from one another. People who needed to supplement income (meaning all of them) by working in white areas, from domestic work to mining, needed to have documents permitting them to do so. No matter how far the work was from home, most had to pile onto overcrowded trains to get back to the "homeland" by nightfall.

Fast forward to Israel. Take a look at how that fence is being built. Think about the hoops West Bank Arabs have to jump through to work in Israel. Consider how many farmers are separated from their land, how many extended families are separated from each other. That fence in the West Bank is delineating Arab ghettos as their "homelands," discontinuous and with no provision to travel from one to another.

The parallels are striking.

[everythingsxen]

14. There may be some parallels on the surface of the situation...

however when you look a little closer, they disappear.

[Warpy]

16. Surface?

Take a closer look at where that fence is going.

[everythingsxen]

27. What about where it is going?

It seems to be cutting off terrorists from population centers.

[Tom Joad]

37. Even Palestinian population centers. Palestinians cannot even

travel from one of their towns to another of their towns... even the smallest trip can take hours... or not even happen at all.

What would your response be if you could not reach:
Your farmland?
Your school?
Your hospital?

[everythingsxen]

52. What would your response be if

every time you wanted to:

Go to the mall.
Go to a hospital.
Go to work.

You would have groups of people detonating suicide bombs to kill you and your family because you are nothing but "pigs and apes"?

[Violet_Crumble]

56. But that's not what's happening...

How about sticking to what actually happens?

[everythingsxen]

57. I thought I was sticking to what's happening

Israel, in an effort to defend itself from a pretty constant influx of terrorists, is building a security fence.

Or are you asserting that there are no sucicide bombers?

[Violet_Crumble]

58. You claimed every time an Israeli goes to the shops there's a suicide bomber...

From yr post:

'every time you wanted to:

Go to the mall.
Go to a hospital.
Go to work.

You would have groups of people detonating suicide bombs to kill you and your family because you are nothing but "pigs and apes"?'

Stick to facts and stop the gross over-exaggerations. Also, yr claim that suicide bombers are antisemites and that's the motive for them doing what they do is total nonsense...

[everythingsxen]

60. Oh really?

So if there were no checkpoints and there was no massive number of checkpoints, there wouldn't be suicide bombings constantly?

And as for the suicide bombers being anti-semites.. well let's let this sucide bomber speak for himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0UGrXQgFXk

Watch the last couple minutes of it. It has a video of a suicide bomber's last video about why he is doing it. (As a side note, I recommend watching this whole video and the 3 parts before it.)

[Englander]

66. ~Star Wars Ep III - Revenge of the Nazi Arabs~

[everythingsxen]

100. Since you want to stray off topic...

Perhaps you could tell me something I have wondered about for a long time...

Why is it that some people on message boards, when attempting to defend the indefensible, simply throw in a non-sequitor in an effort to discredit and attack the truth?

[Violet_Crumble]

105. Why sare you asking Englander?

Just curious...

[everythingsxen]

107. I just thought perhaps he would have an insight into

why that happens.

[Violet_Crumble]

110. Why? He doesn't defend the indefensible...

I've not once seen him defend the indefensible in the entire time he's posted here, so why would you ask someone who doesn't do that?

[Englander]

113. It's probably meant as a compliment, of some sort.

Because I think "defending the indefensible" is one of the phrases I like to use, maybe that's why
it's made an appearance?

[everythingsxen]

145. Yes, quite

a kind of compliment. Also a matter of curiosity.

[Englander]

108. No, not really.

Too many insults, too many false premises & too much abuse of language in that one, if you want to
try again with a serious question, do feel free.

And what I posted wasn't a non-sequitur, a lame attempt at humour, yes, non-sequitur, no.

[everythingsxen]

117. Ah, you see it sounded an awful lot like...

Some sort of petty attempt to discredit the arguement that there is a massive amount of anti-Semitism among Muslim extremists. But I know *you* would never do something like that, my good chum.

[Violet_Crumble]

132. Why do you keep on changing what you said previiously?

Yr claim wasn't that there was a massive amount of anti-Semitism among Muslim extremists. Yr claim was that the motive of suicide bombers was anti-Semitism. I've noticed while you insist on preciseness in what other people say, the same standard isn't being applied to yr own post...

[everythingsxen]

143. It's nice of you to follow what I am saying

However, I am sure you realize that the post you were referring to was a bit hyperbolic and oversimplifying the situation. I do not believe that anti-Semitism is the only motive, however it is an additional motive. The other motives are (in no particular order to each other or to anti-Semitism): nationalism and a corrupted version of Islam.

Essentially, the would be suicide bombers are raised to believe that the Koran tells them to hate and kill the Jews also that suicide in the name of jihad is glorious, told that the Jews have stolen rightful Palestinian land and topped off with the usual mix of Protocols of the Elders of Zion type anti-Semitism.

If you want to turn this into a debate about whether there is widespread anti-Semitism among Palestinians and other Islamic groups in the "neighborhood", then I am sure I could dig up more than enough articles and books on the subject.

And once again, I have made no insistence on anyone. I made a singular reference to using a different word to describe a situation. I would expect you to do the same if I were to say something like:

The IDF fired shots at a crowd of terrorist sympathizers and collaborators

instead of:

The IDF fired shots at a crowd of ISM members and other protesters.

While the first instance could *technically* be true*, it is much more accurate and precise to say the latter, as it carries a much closer to neutral meaning and does not imply any criminality on the part of the protesters.

*I will go ahead and address this now, before it turns into a flame war. I am *NOT* saying that the ISM are in fact terrorist sympathizers; however... in purely technical terms, much like the hostage/detained example from below, it would be true, it would just be much less accurate and would definitely carry ill implications for the ISM, in this example. I hope that is sufficient for those of you out there who are part of the ISM and you see that I am NOT insulting your organization, simply using it as an example to prove a point regarding the choices of words.

[Violet_Crumble]

149. Question....

Essentially, the would be suicide bombers are raised to believe that the Koran tells them to hate and kill the Jews also that suicide in the name of jihad is glorious, told that the Jews have stolen rightful Palestinian land and topped off with the usual mix of Protocols of the Elders of Zion type anti-Semitism.

Seeing as how would be suicide bombers aren't identifiable till they decide later in life to do it, aren't you essentially saying that Palestinians are raised to hate Jews?

[Name removed]

154. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Violet_Crumble]

68. Yes, that's what you claimed...

Why make a gross over-exaggeration such as you did? What is a fact is that even at their peak, suicide bombings were not happening every time an Israeli wanted to go to the mall. Is there some problem with keeping things factual?

Even if some youtube video was untampered with and the translation was an honest one, how does ONE person lead to the conclusion that ALL are? Well, apart from wishful thinking on yr part...

[everythingsxen]

101. So, just to be clear

You are saying that if the Israelis did not have the massive amount of security and the fences that suicide bombs would be virtually non-existant?

You are clearly illustrating that you didn't actually watch it. It wasn't just some youtube video, it was a British Documentary from Channel 4. The other point of it was that it was not just ONE person, it was an entire culture built around racial hatred. (That is not to say Islamic Culture is in and of itself, anti-Semitic; however in places like Palestine and Saudi Arabia and Iran and Syria state run television is dominated by Muslim extremists and the newest generations are growing up totally indoctrinated in anti-Semitic hatred)

[Violet_Crumble]

102. What I said is yr claim of constant bombings was false...

Go back. Read yr post and my reply again. You Falsely claimed that suicide bombings happen every time Israelis go to the mall etc. THAT is what I am saying. Is there something yr not grasping about the fact that yr post was a gross overexaggeration?

It is also false to claim all suicide bombers are anti-semitic based on what one says. I'd already pointed that out but you must have missed seeing it...

[everythingsxen]

106. Firstly,

I never claimed there were constant bombings, what I said was:

52. What would your response be if
every time you wanted to:

Go to the mall.
Go to a hospital.
Go to work.

You would have groups of people detonating suicide bombs to kill you and your family because you are nothing but "pigs and apes"?

I then said:

So if there were no checkpoints and there was no massive number of checkpoints, there wouldn't be suicide bombings constantly?

While it was a bit unclear, so I can see how you were confused, what I was saying that without the defensive measures Israel takes, including the security fence, there *would* be constant suicide bombings. Statistically, yes the numbers of suicide bombings is going down steadily, thanks primarily to the security measures that you seem to feel are what constitutes 'apartheid'.

[Violet_Crumble]

111. You were trying to justify the security barrier with it...

Sorry, but yr response was to a 'what would yr response be..' from another poster where they were talking about things that actually happen all the time...

btw, seeing as how there weren't constant (at least nowhere near the 'every time you wanted to go to the mall/hospital/work' scenario you gave) suicide bombings prior to the barrier, it's blatantly obvious that the barrier being there has not stopped such a constant flow of suicide bombings. Yr argument is exactly the same as the one trotted out ad-nauseum in the past in this forum by 'defenders' of Israel any time anyone complained about the route of the barrier. Yet even though the Israeli High Court has ordered the route to be changed, the dire predictions of posters that changing the route would endanger the security of israel hasn't happened. There is no credible evidence at all that I'm aware of that pinpoints the factors in a downturn in suicide bombings, but to claim that the barrier is the primary factor sounds very much like a knee-jerk reaction...

[everythingsxen]

116. I didn't say the barrier alone reduced bombings..

I said Israel's strong security measures that you and other posters say is apartheid is what has kept the bombings down, but now that you mention it according to the IDF, civilian death tolls have gone down (for both Israelis and Palestinians) since contruction of the barrier. I would post the link, but since it is from the IDF you would just declare it to be a lie anyway.

[idontwantaname]

120. "strong security measures"

thats an interesting way to put it. im sure when a nations army(IDF) fires live ammo into a crown(in the WB, not israel) of unarmed civilians youd consider that 'security'? why?

when IDF special forces secretively and forcefully enter a civilian home, hold the family hostage and set up sniper positions do you call this 'security'?

[everythingsxen]

121. I'm sure of course..

you have some supporting evidence that Israel fires on unarmed crowds of people. And it is security if the crowd of people was a mob threatening violence and possibly throwing rocks, bottles or maybe even brandishing a few weapons that "disappeared" after-wards, in order to paint Israel in the worst possible light.

As for entering houses secretly and holding the families, you are being incredibly dishonest in saying they are held as hostages. I believe the scenarios you are referring to are targeted killings of terrorist leaders and yes it is security if they prevent terror attacks. As far as I know in cases when Israeli forces have gone into peoples homes like that in the dead of night to set up sniping positions the families are not held as hostages, they are however prevented from leaving and tipping people off that the Israelis are there. As far as I know, they refuse the compensation Israel offers them for the trouble because their neighbors will kill them. Those neighbors of course being Palestinians.

[idontwantaname]

123. incredibly dishonest indeed

i actually have a fair amount of evidence re:IDF firing at groups of unarmed civilians. the classic story is when an IDF tank fired its machine gun at a group of internationals in bethlehem. it was documented on video and 2 of my friends were there. one was a 70 year old grandmother and the other was a 60 year old man with a bad hip. there were no palestinians around at this demo.

as far as special forces activities, i have had personal experience with this which ended in 3 injuries due to IDF live ammo fire. one girl was fixing her hair in her home when a stray IDF bullet hit her in the foot. another boy was shot in the stomach and one in the neck. none of these victims were armed.
what happened was special forces entered 2 houses in the middle of the night. one was the house of an elderly woman and one was a family of 4 or 5. to make this long story short the hostages were kept in the bathroom for around 11 hours from around 2am-1pm. no food, no bed. of course their objective is to assassinate a "wanted terrorist" though children are most often the victims. once discovered 3 IDF jeeps and a bulldozer drove around the refugee camp creating quite a mess. after more than 4 hours of being shot at by the IDF a bunch of tear gas was dropped and special forces was evacuated. we interviewed the hostages later that day. no compensation was ever offered and no their neighbors will not kill them.

--------

hos·tage (plural hos·tages)


noun
Definition:

1. captive: somebody held prisoner by a person or group such as a criminal or a terrorist organization until specific demands are met or money is handed over

2. somebody manipulated: a person or group of people whose freedom of action is restricted or controlled by a more powerful organization by implied threats or other means

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861618860

[everythingsxen]

125. Well then

I would like to see the video and find out what happened to the officers in charge, if indeed there was no credible threat.

Since you have so much evidence, why not present said evidence and show me the other side of the story.

I do not want to engage in a semantic argument with you, however I am reasonably sure you know that the term hostage, on a small scale of person to person, implies almost exclusively holding someone until certain demands are met. The second definition, which I assume you are using to justify your use of the word, is implicit in meaning a group, government or individual "held hostage" by something more powerful. The typical example is : superpowers held hostage to each other by their nuclear arsenals.

A less loaded word, carrying far less sinister implications would have been: captive. Although a more accurate word would have been: detained.

Example: The family was detained by the IDF for over 11 hours while they attempted to eliminate a terrorist leader.

[idontwantaname]

126. the movie

jeremy hardy v the israeli army

http://www.geocities.com/hardyfilm/

though its not out for sale or rental and have no idea how you could see it. here is a blurb about the incident though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/low/uk_news/england/1909704.stm

and approx timeline:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,684692,00.html

ill meet you half way with hostage/detained

[everythingsxen]

128. Well

I cannot view the first link where I am now, but I will try again later at home.

As for the second link, it seems to only interview James Budd, who according to the article:

However, on their arrival an Israeli armoured personnel carrier signalled they should return and fired as a warning.

The demonstrators moved back a short way and the vehicle followed.

It fired again, and Mr Budd presumes one of these shots hit the crowd.

Other reports suggested that troops opened fire on to flagstones, causing ricochets.

Which offers no corroboration as to whether or not the IDF actually fired into the crowd or if they fired warning shots, which is a different matter.

As for the third link, it shows by the time-line that when that ISM event was happening right in the middle of a lot of suicide bombings and offensives and counter-offensives. The troops were no doubt very edgy.

[idontwantaname]

137. of course theres 2 side to every coin

though the movie provides what words lack. if you have the chance to see it id recommend it.

[everythingsxen]

141. I still have not had the opportunity to view it

However I will at the first opportunity.

[Violet_Crumble]

135. About loaded terms...

A less loaded word, carrying far less sinister implications would have been: captive. Although a more accurate word would have been: detained.

Can I ask why yr not worried at all about the use of supposedly loaded terms when it comes to anything to do with the Palestinians?

[everythingsxen]

139. I generally do, at least when it comes to my own use of words..

I do not call all Palestinians terrorists, just the ones that are by definition, terrorists. If you want to make a case for words such as freedom fighters, militants or rebels, those could in some cases be applicable. Generally speaking though, Hamas and other terror organizations utilize terrorist tactics. By definition that means they are attacking civilian targets in an effort to demoralize the population. I should note that when I say "by definition" that is by my own definition of what terrorist/terrorism is, since there seems to be a great deal of conjecture as to what the legal definition should be. I would note that by my own definition of what a terror attack is I find the US Government guilty of carrying out terror attacks in Falluja and much earlier, Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

If you wish to throw my own definition back at me as being things that Israel does to the Palestinians, my answer would be that while I am quite certain there have been more than one terrible atrocities committed against Palestinians, Israel generally punishes those responsible and there is no evidence that it is part of an overall systematic plan of terrorism. The reverse cannot be said of Hamas et.al. While they may not have an overall "plan" they have a singular goal, the destruction of Israel and in an effort to carry that out attack civilian targets in great frequency to demoralize the citizens of Israel.

[Violet_Crumble]

152. Terrorist/ism is the only loaded term you can think of?? n/t

[everythingsxen]

155. Well, my good chum, if you know of others I have used, please

point them out and I will try to avoid using them imprecisely.

[Violet_Crumble]

133. And I didn't say you did...

Noting yr demands for preciseness in the posts of others, I made sure I repeated yr exact words back at you, which is why I pointed out that you claimed it was the primary reason for the reduction in suicide bombings....

As I can't recall saying that the barrier is apartheid, could you point out where I've said that in this thread? Also, this may come as a massive shock but just because I don't blindly believe EVERYTHING the IDF says without question, doesn't mean that I call everything the IDF says a lie. Also, the issue isn't whether or not civilian death tolls have dropped - it was what the factors are that have led to the drop...

[everythingsxen]

142. I made no demands of preciseness

I simply pointed out that saying:

The IDF broke into a families home and detained the family while they attempted to assassinate a terrorist leader

sounds far less sinister and closer to the truth than:

The IDF broke into a families home and held the family hostage while attempting to assassinate a terrorist leader

Hostage, as idontwantaname and I discussed above is almost invariably an implication of a criminal activity and implies some sort of payoff for the release of the hostages. The family in this case, while a terrible ordeal and I am sure incredibly uncomfortable, dangerous and overall very unpleasant were not held until some demand was met. They were held in the interest of security for the mission. A minor distinction I know, but an important one.

And I believe I said the barrier, along with the overall strong defensive measures that Israel takes, reduces suicide bombings. Perhaps if you could link to the post where you say I said what you say I said. This thread has gotten entirely to long and I am having trouble finding all of the various spin-offs of the same conversation we are having.

You are right, I cannot say for certain that you have in fact said the barrier is apartheid. However, given that the thread we are discussing it in is about Carter's book, which calls it apartheid and given that you are engaged in multiple layers of argument against me on the topic of the fence, would give a general indication that you believe the fence is a part of the apartheid scenario.

[Violet_Crumble]

151. Yeah, you have on several threads now...

And I believe I said the barrier, along with the overall strong defensive measures that Israel takes, reduces suicide bombings. Perhaps if you could link to the post where you say I said what you say I said.

It's post #106

'Statistically, yes the numbers of suicide bombings is going down steadily, thanks primarily to the security measures that you seem to feel are what constitutes 'apartheid'.'

You are right, I cannot say for certain that you have in fact said the barrier is apartheid. However, given that the thread we are discussing it in is about Carter's book, which calls it apartheid and given that you are engaged in multiple layers of argument against me on the topic of the fence, would give a general indication that you believe the fence is a part of the apartheid scenario.

Here's a novel idea. How about you actually ask people what their views on things are before charging in and telling them what they feel or think? I think at this point I'll bow out of the discussions with you in this thread as it's gotten way too cumbersome and imo is going nowhere fast...

[everythingsxen]

156. Right, so as I said..

I didn't say the fence alone reduced suicide bombings, I said the fence + other measures. Thanks for clearing that up for both of us. ;-)

Well then I humbly apologize, since we seem to have been arguing for no reason at all since you do not believe that the fence constitutes apartheid.

As for asking you whether or not you feel it is apartheid, as I said above which you seem to have ignored, we are talking about the fence in a thread about whether or not the situation is apartheid. You have rather decidedly been against the fence, and given the context it is pretty logical to assume that you would agree with the analysis of former President Carter, that the fence among other items, constitutes apartheid.

However, since you have so vehemently denied you believe that it is apartheid, I suppose now you will turn your energies to attack Mr. Carter with the same energy that you have devoted to attacking me for saying the fence does not constitute apartheid, yes?

[Violet_Crumble]

158. Let me revise something in my post...

I said I was bowing out of this thread when it came to replying to you. Given yr continued tactic of inventing my views for me rather than actually asking and showing that yr interested in civil and constructive discussion, yr on ignore now as it's obvious that yr not the slightest bit interested in genuine discussion...

[everythingsxen]

159. Well, I am very sorry to hear that...

you are not interested in discussion or debate on the subject. Although since you have me on ignore, I guess you can't read this.

[IntiRaymi]

40. Cutting off water centers from Palestinians?

Come on, how stupid do you think we are?

[everythingsxen]

54. Please explain how a fence cuts off water.

I don't see the Israelis destroying any pipelines....

[Moochy]

36. It's not a magic eye poster

The similarities: South Africa separated people based on their skin color, the easiest discriminator for a white colonial state. Israel separates based on one's status as an Israeli citizen. This is what most states do... but how does one become a citizen? In one case a power elite called the shots over an oppressed majority. In another a sovereign state erects barriers across internationally recognized borders, allowing the state of Israel to protect its citizens from bomb attacks from the terrorist groups operating on and within Israel's borders.

Notice the difference is not simply semantic in that there are many Arab Israelis, which may be the main point many are trying to make. Also the distinction with regard to sovereign vs. stateless peoples is probably relevant here as well. Many Some on the far right in Israel deny the very existence of a Palestinian people.

I doubt that anyone in apartheid-era South Africa would try and argue for the non-existence of the Zulu or the other tribes of South Africa.


on edit changed 'Many on the far right...' to 'Some on the far right...'

[sabbat hunter]

95. west bank

is supposed to be part of palestine correct? is there rule somewhere that one country has to allow citizens of another country in to work? when the state of palestine is formally declared, Israel will have every right to not allow palestinians in.

the homelands created in apartheid era south africa were artifical and forced blacks all over south africa to move to them.


in israel arabs are full citizens and have equal rights under the law. Israel is not forcing it arab citizens to leave and go into the west bank. (back in the 40's some left on their own, some were forced out by both the israeli and arab armies, some were told to leave to 'get out of the way' by the arab countries)


i have questions that no one yet has answered... why was no palestine declared in the years 1949-1967, when what is now called the west bank and gaza were under arab control? why did jordan annex the west bank with little more than a peep? why did jordan continue to claim that the west bank was part of jordan, despite israeli occupation, until the mid 80's?

[idontwantaname]

21. racial superiority. all you need to know

talk to many of the west banks illegal settlers. theyll spill the beans quicker than olmert about nukes.

[everythingsxen]

148. As you point out though..

they are illegal settlers, so their opinions cannot truly be said to represent Israel.

[earthside]

24. "The Other Side of Israel"

Ha!

Read The Other Side of Israel: My Journey Across the Jewish/Arab Divide by Susan Nathan.

Israel's official and unofficial attitude towards its own Arab 'citizens' and towards the Palestinians is racist and it is about separation ... apartheid is exactly the right word.

And, frankly, the Gaza Strip sounds exactly like a Bantustan ... a Palestinian 'territory' that is for all practical purposes an Israeli run prison camp.

Kinsley is letting himself be just another member of the "Israel can do no wrong" crowd -- no matter what the truth is.

[Moochy]

41. "for whatever reason,"

What a piece of disingenuous crap:

"They are Arabs who were living in what became Israel prior to 1948 and who didn't leave. They are a bit on display, like black conservatives at a Republican convention. Israel is fortunate that, for whatever reason, most of their compatriots fled. No doubt they suffer discrimination. Nevertheless, they are citizens with the right to vote and so on."

He's damn smart and yet Kinsley has no idea why the majority of Arabs fled Israel in 1948. :wtf:

[Behind the Aegis]

45. Do you?

"He's damn smart and yet Kinsley has no idea why the majority of Arabs fled Israel in 1948. "

[Tom Joad]

48. Benny Morris does. and he regrets Israel did not make sure all of them left.

[Behind the Aegis]

49. Really?

[Tom Joad]

50. look him up.

[Behind the Aegis]

51. I know who he is....where did he say what you are claiming?

[Englander]

59. Here.

It's an interview of Morris by Ari Shavit, Shavit's questions in italics;

Survival of the fittest

By Ari Shavit

>snip

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380986&contrassID=2

Survival of the fittest (cont.)

>snip

The next transfer

You went through an interesting process. You went to research Ben-Gurion and the Zionist establishment critically, but in the end you actually identify with them. You are as tough in your words as they were in their deeds.

"You may be right. Because I investigated the conflict in depth, I was forced to cope with the in-depth questions that those people coped with. I understood the problematic character of the situation they faced and maybe I adopted part of their universe of concepts. But I do not identify with Ben-Gurion. I think he made a serious historical mistake in 1948. Even though he understood the demographic issue and the need to establish a Jewish state without a large Arab minority, he got cold feet during the war. In the end, he faltered."

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that Ben-Gurion erred in expelling too few Arabs?

"If he was already engaged in expulsion, maybe he should have done a complete job. I know that this stuns the Arabs and the liberals and the politically correct types. But my feeling is that this place would be quieter and know less suffering if the matter had been resolved once and for all. If Ben-Gurion had carried out a large expulsion and cleansed the whole country - the whole Land of Israel, as far as the Jordan River. It may yet turn out that this was his fatal mistake. If he had carried out a full expulsion - rather than a partial one - he would have stabilized the State of Israel for generations."

I find it hard to believe what I am hearing.

"If the end of the story turns out to be a gloomy one for the Jews, it will be because Ben-Gurion did not complete the transfer in 1948. Because he left a large and volatile demographic reserve in the West Bank and Gaza and within Israel itself."

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."

And today? Do you advocate a transfer today?

"If you are asking me whether I support the transfer and expulsion of the Arabs from the West Bank, Gaza and perhaps even from Galilee and the Triangle, I say not at this moment. I am not willing to be a partner to that act. In the present circumstances it is neither moral nor realistic. The world would not allow it, the Arab world would not allow it, it would destroy the Jewish society from within. But I am ready to tell you that in other circumstances, apocalyptic ones, which are liable to be realized in five or ten years, I can see expulsions. If we find ourselves with atomic weapons around us, or if there is a general Arab attack on us and a situation of warfare on the front with Arabs in the rear shooting at convoys on their way to the front, acts of expulsion will be entirely reasonable. They may even be essential."

Including the expulsion of Israeli Arabs?

"The Israeli Arabs are a time bomb. Their slide into complete Palestinization has made them an emissary of the enemy that is among us. They are a potential fifth column. In both demographic and security terms they are liable to undermine the state. So that if Israel again finds itself in a situation of existential threat, as in 1948, it may be forced to act as it did then. If we are attacked by Egypt (after an Islamist revolution in Cairo) and by Syria, and chemical and biological missiles slam into our cities, and at the same time Israeli Palestinians attack us from behind, I can see an expulsion situation. It could happen. If the threat to Israel is existential, expulsion will be justified."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=380984

[Behind the Aegis]

62. Thank you for providing Tom's answer.

[Englander]

65. Oh, dear. n/t

[Violet_Crumble]

55. Survival of the Fittest - an interview with Benny Morris...

From the interview:

Ben-Gurion was a "transferist"?

"Of course. Ben-Gurion was a transferist. He understood that there could be no Jewish state with a large and hostile Arab minority in its midst. There would be no such state. It would not be able to exist."

I don't hear you condemning him.

"Ben-Gurion was right. If he had not done what he did, a state would not have come into being. That has to be clear. It is impossible to evade it. Without the uprooting of the Palestinians, a Jewish state would not have arisen here."


Benny Morris, for decades you have been researching the dark side of Zionism. You are an expert on the atrocities of 1948. In the end, do you in effect justify all this? Are you an advocate of the transfer of 1948?

"There is no justification for acts of rape. There is no justification for acts of massacre. Those are war crimes. But in certain conditions, expulsion is not a war crime. I don't think that the expulsions of 1948 were war crimes. You can't make an omelet without breaking eggs. You have to dirty your hands."

We are talking about the killing of thousands of people, the destruction of an entire society.

"A society that aims to kill you forces you to destroy it. When the choice is between destroying or being destroyed, it's better to destroy."

There is something chilling about the quiet way in which you say that.

"If you expected me to burst into tears, I'm sorry to disappoint you. I will not do that."

<snip>

In his place, would you have expelled them all? All the Arabs in the country?

"But I am not a statesman. I do not put myself in his place. But as an historian, I assert that a mistake was made here. Yes. The non-completion of the transfer was a mistake."

http://www.counterpunch.org/shavit01162004.html

[Moochy]

53. Yeah I think I do, how about you?

[heidler1]

61. IMO 9/11 was caused by the US favoritism of Israel over Palestine.

The Iraq study group was right about saying we must solve the Israeli/Palestine conflict because it's key to peace in the MidEast. Even if we got out of Iraq today there is still this old open sore to deal with. The recent OK by the US to destroy Lebanon so as to kill off the Hezbala which failed showed that Muslims can stand up to Israel even with US supplied weaponry by using Arab made weapons will come back to haunt us. That piss poor call by Bush & Condi is apt to end up causing more trouble than invading Iraq. Bush can't or won't try to get along with those people unless they jump through hoops when he says so. It all looks like a remake of Laurence of Arabia to me. Then Turkey was the bad guys now unfortunately it's us.

[Behind the Aegis]

64. What a load of shit.

This is the same old crap that gets carted out all the time. It is because....9/11 was because of many things, support of Israel was perhaps one. The rest of your statement is just crap.

[Behind the Aegis]

63. I do. Not all were expulsions. You did know that, yes?

[Moochy]

70. Yeah, I'm not simplifying things... unlike some

Some of it was an organized political action intended to hurt the fledgling state of Israel.

[Behind the Aegis]

71. Seems you were with your implication that the majority fled.

[Andromeda]

67. Most of the Jews that lived in Arab states

were forced out. Jews were treated like second-class citizens in most countries and in biblical times, and after, they were slaves. Saudi Arabia won't allow Jews and the few Jews who live in Iran will probably be forced to leave in the future. It's not safe for Jews in most Muslim countries and even France, Britain and other European countries are becoming so anti-semitic it's not safe for Jews to live there.

On the other hand, Israel allows Arabs to live in their country because the living conditions are better. They have jobs and the right to vote. There may be some discrimination, like everywhere else, but for the most part Arabs are left alone to live their lives in peace. Most of them don't want to live in the occupied territories because it's too dangerous and there's no work.

Not everything is black and white and Jimmy Carter's latest book makes a mockery out of all the peace efforts made by people other than himself because he and he alone wants to be thought of as some kind of guru of the far-left peace cult.

In six weeks or so Mr. Carter's book will probably be on sale at Amazon.com for $5, if it isn't already. Or maybe it will be sold at Best Buy's discount book section for under $10. I wouldn't pay two cents for it, but that's just me.

[Violet_Crumble]

69. Newsflash: The Occupied Territories is NOT Israel...

Which is why Israeli-Arabs living in Israel is NOT what Jimmy Carter is talking about. What was done to Jews in Arab countries does NOT justify the treatment of Palestinians by Israel today. Any more pointless strawmen you want to fling around?

Given you haven't read the book and have no intention of doing so, maybe trying to tell all of us what the book is about is a venture doomed to failure?

Oh, and thank you for not calling Jimmy Carter an antisemite this time round...

[cornermouse]

73. If you condemn the Holocaust then you must also condemn

the fact that Israel has confiscated Palestinian possessions (money) and reduced some Palestinians to one meal a day.

[cali]

76. That makes no sense at all.

I certainly do condemn Israel for many things. Frankly, although the apartheid label doesn't fit perfectly, Israel asked for such a comparison by building settlements on Palestinian land and carving up the West Bank. It is largely responsible for turning Gaza into a hell hole, but comparing witholding of tax funds to what happened in the holocaust goes waaay overboard. Need I remind you of what happened to Jews, homosexuals, the Roma and the disabled under Nazi rule. You really don't want to make a comparison betweeen the treatment of the Palestinians, deplorable as it may be, and what transpired in the Holocaust.

[Name removed]

99. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cali]

104. Your comparison is not only ahistorical and inaccurate, it's. repugnant

Not to mention a breach of the rules of this forum. Shame on you.

[cornermouse]

115. My comparison was accurate and based on fact.

It was based on facts in Jimmy Carter's interview about his book.

Moderator, perhaps you didn't hear the interview on NPR. I think it was either Monday or Tuesday, probably on Fresh Air. If not, please listen to it for yourself. Carter clearly stated that Israel is currently keeping Palestinian money which is normally used to pay salaries of, as I recall, nurses, postal workers, etc. As I stated previously, keeping money that doesn't belong to you is wrong.

Carter also stated quite clearly that the restrictions that Israel has put into effect has caused people in some areas to be reduced to a single meal a day. If I was only eating once a day I would call that near starvation.

Last time I looked Jimmy Carter was still a democrat. For that matter, last time I looked I was still a democrat.

[cali]

118. I missed the interview

but somehow I doubt that Carter compared the Israeli occupation or their refusal to disburse tax receipts, to the Nazis. That's why your post was deleted. Try reading the rules.

[cornermouse]

136. Try listening to the interview, Cali.

Fairness should be applied equally. That's been my main point all along. You can not condemn the Holocaust and approve of what's going on now.

One other thing. I do not believe I am someone who has been considered a problem at DU and if I had realized that this was the Israel forum before this morning I probably would have ignored it and gone on. That said, I remain convinced that if we don't start treating both sides fairly the Israel/Palestinian situation will remain in the eye-for-eye mode to the end. Speaking of the end of the world, have you ever seen the Hugh Harman-Rudolph Ising cartoon Peace on Earth? You should.

[wellst0nev0ter]

103. There Might Be Some Serious Problems With The Book

for example, this person claims that Jimmy Carter's book plagiarized maps published in Dennis Ross's book on the Camp David talks.

[Violet_Crumble]

112. Yep, If A Blogger Says So It Must Be A Serious Problem...

Plagiarism applies to words, not maps...

[Phx_Dem]

114. Dennis Ross has a Serious Problem with the maps also

Not only were they used w/out permission, but they were re-labeled in a way to distort the truth. Absolutely shameful.

[idontwantaname]

119. shameful indeed!

please tell me more...

-------------------------------

He also has a veiled hint of plagiarism, saying you took from other sources.

The only source that I took anything from that I know about was my own book, which I wrote earlier—it's called "The Blood of Abraham" ... Somebody told me this morning was complaining about the maps in the book. Well, the maps are derived from an atlas that was published in 2004 in Jerusalem and it was basically produced under the aegis of officials in Sweden. And the Swedish former prime minister is the one who told me this was the best atlas available about the Middle East.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x159047#159133

[Violet_Crumble]

134. Heh, there goes that accusation right down the toilet...

Thanks for posting that. I missed seeing that thread until then...

[Phx_Dem]

138. Show me where Pres. Carter

explains how in his book a map of the Palestinian view of the Camp David offer morphed into a map of the Clinton parameters.

[Nutmegger]

129. I'm reading it now.

Interesting stuff.

[Name removed]

144. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

147. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.