Washington File

This 'blog' by Mr. Champ entitled "Starting a Dialogue" and the ensuing comments have convinced me that one of the next books I read must be Mr. Carter's book.

The reason for this is simple. That Israel and its Zionist policies are counter-productive to the cause of peace in the middle east is well known. However, what is not well known is the degree to which American policies, especially propped up as they are by 'the lobby' and evangelical Christian influences. It is necessary that these issues be brought to the attention of those who allow such nonsense to goon in various countries around the globe, the neo-Cons in North America in particular.

But more fundamentally, for dialogue to have any effect on anyone, it is important to realize that the persons engaged in the dialogue must have spent some time mastering their unruly selves. Any attempt at a respectful dialogue, a dialogue which can be critical and even damning, a dialogue which can produce results, must be preceded by an effort on the part of everyone taking part to have mastered those unruly selves which can ruffle feathers all too easily and fall prey to those who would 'debate' or worse still, utilize the 'fatwa' or assassination utilized by those who see things in black or white. Dialogue gets us around such extremism, and it is time that nations such as Israel, China, Iran, the U.S., and many others, recommit to dialogue through international bodies rather than taking unilateral action because they can.

Thank you.

Israel's apologists are attacking President Carter for telling some of the truth about Israel's apartheid practices in the occupied Palestinian territories. In fact, he overlooked Israeli racist practices against its own Muslim and Christian citizens.

Be that as it may, there is no better authorative confirmation of Israel's apartheid policies than the testimonies of people who lived under Apartheid South Africa, and witnessed, in turn, Israeli policies. Archbishop Desmond Tutu and John Dugard told it as it is:

"I've been very distressed in my visit to the Holy Land; it reminded me so much of what happened to us blacks in South Africa. I have seen the humiliation of the Palestinians at checkpoints and roadblocks, suffering like us when young white police officers prevented us from moving about...The current divestment effort is the first, though certainly not the only, necessary move in that direction. {Archbishop Desmond Tutu, The Guardian, April 29, 2002}

On, [Nov. 29, 2006], the Atlanta Journal-Constitution ran the following op-ed, by John Dugard, a South African former anti-apartheid leader. He is currently the Special Rapporteur on Palestine to the United Nations Human Rights Council. He not only compares Israeli policies to apartheid, but says that in many ways Israeli policies are worse than South African apartheid was.

Archbishop Desmond Tutu and John Dugard knew what they were talking about.

I visited the occupied West Bank and Gaza in October, 2002, as ex president Carter suggested.

I saw the numerous chekpoints , the remains of the Jenin refugee camp bulldozed by Israel in April 2002 and Palestinian Red Cross ambulances full of bullet holes in the windows . From Israeli and Palestinian human rights groups and from Canadian diplomatic personel I learned of the 9,000 prisones, many political ones and often under" administrative detention" still in Israeli prisons and often without charges nor a trial.

President Carter is right. The source of the confict is Israel's illegal and continuous occupation of Palestinian territories. The solution obviously is that Israel withdraw to its pre-1967 borders

If we look into this carefully, much of the debate opposing his book is a bullying tactic. If we were to critically analyze what groups like Bnai Brith, we can see their political method of defense is similar to a school yard bully. If you do not agree with them, your instantly wrong, if you opposite Israel's policy on Palestinians you're "anti-semetic". A very Non-con ideology which was itterated by Dubbya himself "if your not with us, your with the enemy".

So what Carter did was leave these debates alone to express what he believes is the truth without some "politically correct" watchdog bark at him while he presented simple, clear facts.

When it comes down to it, whenever the word "Palestine" or "Israel" are mentioned, a debate or a dialogue instantly occurs. Even if is a non political or religious discussion about Palestine or even a small quote or even a discussion about the culture of the people and a political debate will open up.

It seems as if Carter understands that these debates are redundant and tend to cause further hatred, bullying and "tail chasing syndrome"; by evading the debate, he's made it clear that this is his stance and he wants the reader to respect his view, you do not necessarily need to agree with it, but being civil about the issue is what he's trying to encourage. There are many rebuttals and probably a book that will try and refute his works.
I'm sure he's aware of all this and this is why he's refusing to engaging in a heated, angry, war like debate.

No matter where your from brothers and sisters. Be civil about his factual oppinion, knowing that there are a million debates around the world about this issue.

Imagine that radical of American Politics, ex President Jimmy Carter daring to expose Israeli policies in the Palestenian Territories. The President who brought Sadat and Begin together, the President who had the only success in negotiating a real peace treaty between Arab States and Israel. Jimmy Carter is guilty of telling the trueth. He is being attacked by neo-conservatives and Israeli apologists for exposing a self-evident fact that the Palestenians are being treated with malice, and hatred by an occupying power.

It is the height of hypocrisy that Born Again Christians such as Jerry Falwell are the biggest Zionists and won't accept any criticism of Israel or American foreign policy. Their answer to everything is war and more war.

As a Jew I salute Jimmy Carter for daring to write the truth and as a Jew I have nothing in common with the neo-Conservatives warmongers who sadled up to the elite of Israeli politics. In fact I dare say that the majority of Jews in North America don't support neo-conservatism or George Bush and his war like policies. We need more of Jimmy Carter and less of George Bush.

The Israel lobby is becoming desperate labelling everyone who exposes Israel's war crimes and racist policies as an anti-Semite. The truth of the matter is that Israel is the main promoter of anti-Semitism because it claims to represent all Jews while it goes about violating international law and committing crimes against humanity. The Israel lobby by coming to the defence of Israel and justifying its crimes is trying to blame all Jews for the the deeds of Israel, when Jews are innocent of these crimes. Bravo Carter for joining hands with Desmond Tutu of South Africa, Uri Davis of Israel and others in exposing Israeli apartheid policies and serious human rights abuses.

I am glad that someone who has or had real power in he west ask questions of the Isreali regime. For too long the all the world hears of is the cyclical battles between the Palestinians and Isrealis, and never the underlying political environment that has caused this. Glennie condemns the role Carter may have had for allowing the North Koreans to build a nuclear bomb, but what isn't questioned ever, is the Isreali nuclear program or the countless other transgressions of the Isreali state in the face of the world community represented by the UN. I have great respect for a man who truly looks at a situation before deciding its fate, if Presidents had the courage to do so while in office we could have saved a world of suffering from the creation of Isreal to Iraq and all the conflicts in between on both sides of the battle lines.

Disputing the facts..? Let's look at the situation......again.

Are there calls on the PA to dismantle the terrorist infrasture? Yes! Has it been done? No!

Bombing palestinian villages? Which ones? Last known attacks were in Gaza - targetted attacks against Islamic militants responsible for indiscriminate targetting and killing of civilians in Israeli cities. Yes.
UN resolutions? What about Syria, Iran, etc.? Seems to me Hezbollah was ordered to disarm? Has it? No! Why? They want to wage war against Israel and destroy it just as Syria and Iran desire.

Reviewing the situation, Israel's fight is for their existance. If everyone would accept the state as a reality and negotiate properly like Egypt and Jordan have done, then the outcome would be very similar. End of bloodshed, and violence. Economic cooperation, open borders promising peace and prosperity for all. That's what most Israelis and Palestinians want and should work for.

Having lived in Beit Jalla, I have seen the reality on the ground, the wall, the check points, the poverty, unemployment the extremism the whole shibang. If the Palestinians stopped the violence then Israel would be much easier to deal with. And again..there is Hezbollah, Syria, Iran.....

As always in discussions about Israel, emotions prevail over facts. I saw half an hour long interview with Mr.Carter on TV about this book. He was telling just facts: it's Israel that ignores UN resolutions, it's American weaponry bought on American money (5 billion yearly assistance for country of 7 million, pretty good help :) used to bomb Palestinian villages, there is no discussion about Israeli politics in America (neither, by the way, in Canada), and so on and so on. I want to see how anybody can possibly contradict these and many other facts. Instead, we are talking about word "apartheid" used by Mr.Carter and wheither he supports terrorism or not. But what about facts, are they correct or not? Apparently, they are 100% correct as the biggest discrepancy I've seen found so far in the book is wording of some sentences. Bravo, Mr.Carter! You are a brave man to open this issue for discussion. And open himself to personal attacks from those who don't like facts :)

Time has come to have real debate around the palestinian's question and the true nature fo the israeli's occupation.

Mr.Carter attempts in his book to shed some lights on the complexity of the issue.No doubts that by using the term " Aparthied", he ventured into the " forbidden zone" and ruffled many feathers.
It is important to larn that he is not alone, many noble activists like Desmon Tutu and writers Like Viriginia Tilley, Tania Reinhart, prof. Nurit Peled-Elhanan and many others have spoken out against the occupation and exposed it's ugly hidden face which is APARTHEID.

Ms. Shulamit Aloni (the former Education Minister of Israel) wrote recently this published article: This Road is for Jews Only Yes, There is Apartheid in Israel By SHULAMIT ALONI.
http://www.counterpunch.org/aloni01082007.html
Here is some of what she said:
"On one occasion I witnessed such an encounter between a driver and a soldier who was taking down the details before confiscating the vehicle and sending its owner away. "Why?" I asked the soldier. "It's an order--this is a Jews-only road", he replied...etc, His answer was nothing short of amazing. "It is his responsibility to know it, and besides, what do you want us to do, put up a sign here and let some antisemitic reporter or journalist take a photo so he that can show the world that Apartheid exists here? "Indeed Apartheid does exist here. And our army is not "the most moral army in the world" as we are told by its commanders. Sufficient to mention that every town and every village has turned into a detention centre and that every entry and every exit has been closed, cutting it off from arterial traffic. If it were not enough that Palestinians are not allowed to travel on the roads paved 'for Jews only'...etc".

AIPAC, in Washington, is simply known as "the lobby", and many scholars have documented the influence it has had (and continues to have)on U.S. foreign policy, often putting their policy objectives at cross purposes, and certainly undermining US diplomatic relations around the world, not just in the Middle East. The fact that this is not discussed in mainstream 'debate' (I use the term loosely)is telling in itself.
Furthermore, the actions of the Israeli government towards Palestinians are shockingly comparable to the acts of the apartheid regime that governed South Africa for decades. If the oppressed and exploited black population of South Africa had resorted to violence such as suicide bombings would that justify the apartheid governments actions? This is the tack that many defenders of Israeli government policy seem to take. It is an indefensible position, supported by emotion, not logic. Jimmy Carter is knowlegable enough to know this, and having a blind idealogue yell at you might make for good U.S. cable news, but it certainly can't be called a debate.

Jimmy Carter can talk freely in America. Israelis can talk freely in Israel. Therefore, open dialogue is possible in America and Israel.

People with "countervailing" things to say CANNOT speak freely in ANY Arab, nor Muslim country... NOT ONE. Therefore, open dialogue is NOT POSSIBLE in these countries.

And therein lies the problem: If two sides are going to have an open dialogue, then BOTH sides must always ALLOW open dialogue because FAIR IS FAIR!

When Salmon Rushdie can give a speach in Palistine or Iran, then we'll ALL know that BOTH side are truely ready for an open dialogue! And not one second before!

Mr Bramwell repeats an inaccuracy we see often in relation to this story: 12 Directors of the Carter Centre did not resign in protest over Mr Carter's book.
14 Councilors did. There are over 200 councilors in the Carter Centre, all drawn from the business and political leadership of Georgia. Their role is to represent the centre in the local community. They are not experts in the fields in which the centre does its charitable works.

Given that Mr Carter's thesis is highly controversial, it should not be surprising that within a group of distinguished Georgia citizens, 7% are strongly opposed to his views. Context is everything.

There is debate and there is dialogue - the former implies that an issue can be defined as right or wrong while the latter recognizes that the issue at hand is infinitely more complex and requires a more reasoned approach. Surely Carter, by his own admission "provocative"with his choice of title, has opted for the more reasoned approach of dialogue. It would follow then than Dershowitz, unless he wants to engage in a dialogue, will continue to be shut out. What would the point be in debating this issue anyway? Every camp has it's entrenched position and no one is likely to move in any appreciable sense, so is it some claim to moral certainty or correctness that is the real motivator behind Dershowitz's call? When it comes to Israeli and Palestinian there doesn't seem to be any point to it: both sides have committed atrocities against the civilian populations they deliberately target so if people like Dershowitz want to become apologists for genocide by "winning" or scoring points in useless debate it is an utter waste of time. It's all been done endlessly time and time again with no positive result ever. Carter points out that the blame for the current situation rests with everyone from the Israelis and Palestinians, to successive US presidents, the broader middle east and all of Europe, asia, and Greenland / Iceland for all I know. No one is exempt including himself nor does he try to claim immunity: he is calling for reasoned public and institutional participation to put an end to a war that is morally indefensible by any side, and by so doing has raised the dialogue to a whole new level. Bravo to you Mr. President.

It is very intersting to read this item and the previous item on Mr Champ's blog at the same time as the recent speech by David Grossman at the Rabin memorial ceremony in Tel Aviv last November, and published in the most recent New York Review of Books. Here is the link

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/19770

Mr Carter and Mr Grossman are articulating, in different ways, a feeling that Israeli society cannot endure much longer the current state of affairs, and that the greatest threat to Israel, as is usually the case in democracies, is not foreign or military, but internal, moral and cultural.

Regarding the comment that "Carter thinks there's a Jewish conspiracy running US Policy."

Carter is smarter than to hype wild conspiracy theories such as this one. All he's saying is that the Palistinian cause, probably for reasons of demographics, does not have a lobby group in the US to match the AIPAC. Consequently, debate on the topic, at least in the US, is limited.

In general, Carter's book is not about blame. Rather, its about what needs to happen for a lasting peace to come about.

Hello:

Carter received, at a university that has a large Jewish population, a far more civil reception than say, the Middle-East scholar Dan Pipes got when he came to York University a couple of years ago.

James Earl Carter was in fact a better president that was given credit for, but he's been an absolute disgrace as an elder statesman. He and his wife have apparently never forgiven the American people for removing him from office. Since 1981, he's never missed an opportunity to remind everyone of his friendship with the world's thugs, especially in the Middle East.

Especially egregious is Carter's role in the negotiation of a North Korean "nuclear freeze" that prevented the U.S. from having what we have today, a nuclear-armed Communist Korea.

Carter is plainly afraid that Alan Dershowitz or anyone else will blow him away in an open debate, which is why he avoids one like the plague.

thanks
R.B. Glennie

I respect former president Carter for sticking to his guns.Point of fact,he remains the only U.S. president who understood the Middle East and 20th century debacles that ignited most of the conflicts.Henri Kissinger caused the most damage to that region by planting the seeds for future conflicts and weapons sales,of course.

No one wants to look at history through clear glasses because it may not look like the history you were taught in school or at home.The few,like Carter, who do not sweep the facts about history under the rug become the targets,and at times victims,of rabid interest groups and people looking for their "15 minutes of fame".

So Carter thinks there's a Jewish conspiracy running the US foreign policy; thinks that Israel shouldn't be able to defend itself against the infiltration of suicide bombers; and that until Israel makes peace by commiting national suicide throught the right of return, it should continue to be treated as a pariah state by Carter and his "right-thinking" pals.

It seems to me that Carter has described himself very well in his speech:
"Of the debate his book has raised, the former president said, "This is the first time I have been called a liar, a bigot, an anti-Semite, a coward and a plagiarist."

Champ does not mention that Carter keeps dodging an open debate about his book. He doesn't mention the proven plagiarism, nor the dozen or more people who resigned as Directors of the Carter Centre as a result of the book.

Is this balanced reporting? It seems more like the words of an apologist to me.