More Mush from the Wimp (Yea, that one.)

[rollhead]

December 7, 2006
Former Aide Parts With Carter Over Book
By BRENDA GOODMAN and JULIE BOSMAN (NYT)
ATLANTA, Ga., Dec. 6 — An adviser to former President Jimmy Carter and onetime executive director of the Carter Center has publicly parted ways with his former boss, citing concerns with the accuracy and integrity of Mr. Carter’s latest book, “Palestine Peace Not Apartheid.”

The adviser, Kenneth W. Stein, a professor of Middle Eastern history and political science at Emory University, resigned his position as a fellow with the Carter Center on Tuesday, ending a 23-year association with the institution.

In a two-page letter explaining his action, Mr. Stein called the book “replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions and simply invented segments.” Mr. Stein said he had used similar language in a private letter he sent to Mr. Carter, but received no reply.

“In the letter to him, I told him, ‘It’s your prerogative to write anything you want when you want,’ ” Mr. Stein said in a telephone interview Wednesday. “That’s not why I’m resigning.”

Mr. Stein said that he admired the former president’s accomplishments but that felt he had to distance himself from the Carter Center and the book, which was published by Simon & Schuster.

“It’s an issue of how history should be written,” Mr. Stein said. “I had to distance myself from something that was coming close to me professionally.”

Deanna Congelio, spokeswoman for Mr. Carter, released a statement with his response: “Although Professor Kenneth Stein has not been actively involved with the Carter Center for more than 12 years, I regret his resignation from the titular position as a fellow.” It did not address Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book.

That criticism is the latest in a growing chorus of academics who have taken issue with the book, including Alan M. Dershowitz, professor of law at Harvard, who called the book “ahistorical,” and David Makovsky, director of the Project on the Middle East Process at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

“I was just very saddened by it,” Mr. Makovsky said. “I just found so many errors.”

Mr. Carter’s use of “apartheid” in the title has attracted much of the controversy. The Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles released a statement on Monday saying the former president harbors bias against Israel. “There is no Israeli apartheid policy, and President Carter knows it,” the statement read.

But Mr. Stein’s criticism of the book has been perhaps the sharpest cut.

Mr. Stein was executive director of the Carter Center from 1983 to 1986 and had continued to serve as a Middle East fellow until Tuesday. In 1985, he wrote a book with Mr. Carter, “The Blood of Abraham: Insights in the Middle East,” which was published by Houghton-Mifflin.

Mr. Stein said the former president had come to speak to his class as recently as last month. Mr. Stein declined to detail all the inaccuracies he found, saying he was still documenting them for a planned review of the book; but he did offer a few examples.

Mr. Carter, he said, remembers White House staff members in 1990 being preoccupied by the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait when the former president tried to describe to them talks he had had with Middle Eastern leaders. But the White House briefings occurred in the spring, Mr. Stein said, and the invasion of Kuwait was not until August.

“You can’t write history simply off the top of your head and expect it to be credible,” he said.

Mr. Stein also said he had been struck by parts of Mr. Carter’s book that seemed strikingly similar to a work by a different author, but he would not disclose the details.

“There are elements in the book that were lifted from another source,” Mr. Stein said. “That other source is now acting on his or her own advice about what to do because of this.”

David Rosenthal, the publisher of Simon & Schuster, dismissed Mr. Stein’s claims. “We’re confident in his work,” Mr. Rosenthal said of Mr. Carter. “Do we check every line in every book? No, but that’s not the issue here. I have no reason to doubt President Carter’s research.”

Still other observers familiar with the sometimes contentious relationship between Mr. Carter and Mr. Stein said Mr. Stein might have been motivated by more than preserving academic integrity.

“He feels snubbed he wasn’t given any kind of acknowledgment for the work he’s done with Carter,” said Douglas Brinkley, professor of history at Tulane University in New Orleans. “It’s a bit of bruised ego and philosophical difference being displayed in public here.”

[Gentle Giant]

Ignoring the inherent idiocy of the thread title, I will react to the content thusly:

I haven't read Carter's book, but I did see him on Charlie Rose last week talking about the Israeli/Hamas/Hezbollah conflicts, and I did not disagree with anything he said. Dershowitz has proven that he has zero tolerance for any criticism of Israel. And for the Wiesenthal Center to claim that Carter "harbors bias against Israel" is so absurd that one has to wonder if they even know what the word bias means.

The one example of inaccuracy that Stein gives is minor and irrelevant. As a Jewish pseudo-intellectual, I find these Jewish intellectuals tiring at best.

[groover]

This was posted on Amazon.com:

Dr. Kenneth Stein, who had been Mr. Carter's adviser on Middle Eastern affairs quit the Carter Center in protest. He had this to say about the book (read it all, then make the informed decision to not throw away your money. Dr. Kenneth Stein is an established authority on Middle Eastern affairs):

This note is to inform you that yesterday, I sent letters to President
Jimmy Carter, Emory University President Jim Wagner, and Dr.
John Hardman, Executive Director of the Carter Center resigning my
position, effectively immediately, as Middle East Fellow of the Carter
Center of Emory University. This ends my 23 year association with an
institution that in some small way I helped shape and develop.

My joint academic position in Emory College in the History and
Political Science Departments, and, as Director of the Emory Institute
for the Study of Modern Israel remains unchanged.

Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center
and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case.
President Carter has intermittently continued to come to the
Arab-Israeli Conflict class I teach in Emory College. He gives
undergraduate students a fine first hand recollection of the Begin-Sadat
negotiations of the late 1970s.

Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East
program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center
Fellow. For the record, I had nothing to do with the research,
preparation, writing, or review of President Carter's recent
publication. Any material which he used from the book we did together
in 1984, The Blood of Abraham, he used unilaterally. President Carter's
book on the Middle East, a title too inflammatory to even print, is not
based on unvarnished analyses; it is replete with factual errors, copied
materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply
invented segments.

Aside from the one-sided nature of the book, meant to provoke, there are recollections cited from meetings where I was the
third person in the room, and my notes of those meetings show little
similarity to points claimed in the book. Being a former President does
not give one a unique privilege to invent information or to unpack it
with cuts, deftly slanted to provide a particular outlook. Having little
access to Arabic and Hebrew sources, I believe, clearly handicapped his
understanding and analyses of how history has unfolded over the last
decade. Falsehoods, if repeated often enough become meta-truths, and
they then can become the erroneous baseline for shaping and reinforcing
attitudes and for policy-making. The history and interpretation of the
Arab-Israeli conflict is already drowning in half-truths, suppositions,
and self-serving myths; more are not necessary.

In due course, I shall detail these points and reflect on their origins.

The decade I spent at the Carter Center (1983-1993) as the first
permanent Executive Director and as the first Fellow were intellectually
enriching for Emory as an institution, the general public, the interns
who learned with us, and for me professionally. Setting standards for
rigorous interchange and careful analyses spilled out to the other
programs that shaped the Center's early years. There was mutual respect
for all views; we carefully avoided polemics or special pleading. This
book does not hold to those standards. My continued association with the
Center leaves the impression that I am sanctioning a series of egregious
errors and polemical conclusions which appeared in President Carter's
book. I can not allow that impression to stand.

Through Emory College, I have continued my professional commitment to
inform students and the general public about the history and politics of
Israel, the Middle East, and American policies toward the region. I have
tried to remain true to a life-time devotion to scholarly excellence
based upon unvarnished analyses and intellectual integrity. I hold fast
to the notion that academic settings and those in positions of influence
must teach and not preach. Through Emory College, in public lectures,
and in OPED writings, I have adhered to the strong belief that history
must be presented in context, and understood the way it was, not the way
we wish it to be.

In closing, let me thank you for your friendship, past and continuing
support for ISMI, and to Emory College. Let me also wish you and your
loved ones a happy holiday season, and a healthy and productive new
year.


As ever,
Ken

[walto]

I'm personally waiting for the Crossfire with Daniel and Jeff54 on this book.

[groover]

Originally Posted by walto

I'm personally waiting for the Crossfire with Daniel and Jeff54 on this book.

[claude]

Sounds like this isn't necessarily going to be a well balanced analysis. These are the reviews up on amazon:

From Publishers Weekly
The term "good-faith" is almost inappropriate when applied to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a bloody struggle interrupted every so often by negotiations that turn out to be anything but honest. Nonetheless, thirty years after his first trip to the Mideast, former President Jimmy Carter still has hope for a peaceful, comprehensive solution to the region's troubles, delivering this informed and readable chronicle as an offering to the cause. An engineer of the 1978 Camp David Accords and 2002 recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Carter would seem to be a perfect emissary in the Middle East, an impartial and uniting diplomatic force in a fractured land. Not entirely so. Throughout his work, Carter assigns ultimate blame to Israel, arguing that the country's leadership has routinely undermined the peace process through its obstinate, aggressive and illegal occupation of territories seized in 1967. He's decidedly less critical of Arab leaders, accepting their concern for the Palestinian cause at face value, and including their anti-Israel rhetoric as a matter of course, without much in the way of counter-argument. Carter's book provides a fine overview for those unfamiliar with the history of the conflict and lays out an internationally accepted blueprint for peace.
Copyright © Reed Business Information, a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

From Booklist
It is generally believed that history will judge Jimmy Carter a better ex-president than president, with his good works as an "ex" tipping the scales in that direction. His latest book derives from his personal experiences in both arenas: as chief executive of the nation and as founder of the Carter Foundation, his postpresidency organization dedicated to world peace. In essence, the reader is presented with a history of Arab-Israeli discord and the search for a successful resolution. He cites the lack of permanent peace in the Middle East as a "persistent threat to global peace" and posits that the stumbling blocks to a lasting cessation of armed conflict are to be found within two contexts: Israel's unwillingness to comply with international law and honor its previous peace commitments, and Arab nations' refusal to openly acknowledge Israel's right to live undisturbed. The former president's ideas are expressed with perfect clarity; his book, of course, represents a personal point of view, but one that is certainly grounded in both knowledge and wisdom. His outlook on the problem not only contributes to the literature of debate surrounding it but also, just as importantly, delivers a worthy game plan for clearing up the dilemma. Brad Hooper
Copyright © American Library Association. All rights reserved

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by walto

I'm personally waiting for the Crossfire with Daniel and Jeff54 on this book.

Is it ok if I start with GG since Daniel isn't here yet?

Since you think the one inaccuracy that Stein points to is minor and irrelevant, read the ones Dershowitz (who I don't agree has "proven that he has zero tolerance for any criticism of Israel") found and tell me if you still think Carter isn't biased?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alan-d...i_b_34702.html

I think titling the book the way he did and then saying he doesn't mean that he doesn't mean apartheid is the current situation in Israel is disingenuous.

[Sandi22]

I'm not sure of timelines in Carters book, but there were discussions going on well before any invasions, and well before the involvement of the. U.S. Military in the first Gulf War. Preoccupations could very well have been at play.

I saw part of Mr. Carters appearance on Charlie Rose and didn't pick up on any bias's. He just stated what he sees as the problem in the Middle East, He went back and forth, never playing the blame game, never laying it at only one side's feet. He did put the empathis on what he believed were root causes of the conflict between Jew and Palestinian, Jew and Arab, and what he in his own mind thought could be of use.

But face it, anytime there are thousands and thousands of men woman and children confined to one area such as in Lebanon where there are 80 thousand confined to one square mile, and in Gaza which is a crowded getto as well, there will be horrific things coming from them; it's only human nature. It's can't be over looked or ignored, and to confront it, doesn't make one a biased person, it makes one a realist.

[Al in NYC]

I think Carter entered the minefield taking this one on, probably with the best of intentions, which he may find to have been a mistake on his part. Especially if the book is a typical cut-and-paste piece and not as tightly put together as it could have been. And particularly given the deeply pro-Israel bias of so many in this country, and their emotional response to anything that challenges their views including the often nasty tactics they will employ to undermine, insult, and demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

As you can see above, even such a seemingly self-evident statement as Israel's continuing occupation of the seized territories is illegal under international law is open to being taken as a sign of anti-Israel (and, in the subtext, anti-Jewish) bias.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

And particularly given the deeply pro-Israel bias of so many in this country, and their emotional response to anything that challenges their views including the often nasty tactics they will employ to undermine, insult, and demonize anyone who disagrees with them.

Interesting, my experience has been that both sides call names. I for one have been called a few just on this board. The pro-Palestinian side uses the term Zionist fascist at least as much as the pro Israeli side uses anti-Semitic. As for emotional responses, as I have pointed out once before, when ever you have posted on this topic my response has always been to dispute with historical fact, for which you had no answer. If any side is basing their argument on emotion rather then fact it certainly isn't the pro-Israeli side. At least not on this board.

[Al in NYC]

Well, this board is a somewhat non-conventional sampling to be sure. I'm thinking much more in terms of general American discourse on the issue, which is undoubtedly strongly pro-Israel.

But this statement and your post points out a part of the problem. Those of us who try to see things from a more dispassionate point of view, which includes giving equal weight to the case made by the Palestinians, are often labelled as "pro-Palestinian" by the mere act of considering them. Indeed, it seems that for many there are only 2 possible sides to this argument: pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, with very little room in between for an even-handed assessment of the situation and its possible solutions. I think this is exactly what Carter is talking about, and it's also the trap that he may have fallen into. The trap of trying to consider both sides in a case where many people on either side sees the other as totally illegitimate, and where the discussion becomes immediately and personally emotional and defensive as soon as the subject is brought up.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Interesting, my experience has been that both sides call names. I for one have been called a few just on this board. The pro-Palestinian side uses the term Zionist fascist at least as much as the pro Israeli side uses anti-Semitic. As for emotional responses, as I have pointed out once before, when ever you have posted on this topic my response has always been to dispute with historical fact, for which you had no answer. If any side is basing their argument on emotion rather then fact it certainly isn't the pro-Israeli side. At least not on this board.

I'm neither Jewish, Zionist, Arab, Palestinian, a member of Hezbollah, or Hamas, just an observer who feels badly for both sides.

I posted a comment about Israel, one heard several years ago, about Israel denying the Palestinians an education, making it illegal for Palestinians to go to school, and you would have thought I wrote Nazi graffiti on a Temple wall. I just commented on the Palestinian's plight, and that brought on all sorts of emotional responses.

No, it gets emotional around here, especially with those who who have their own religious beliefs tied in to the region, tied into the populace of Israel, and that's understandable. Me, it doesn't effect me in any way at all, other than having sympathy for those who are actually suffering. Suffering is happening on both sides of this deepening chasm.

The rhetoric around here, along with the obviously pointed and hard feelings we've seen and read of, don't accomplish much at all, other than to have others think - us think, those who aren't involved one way or the other - What a lost cause! If anyone of us were to be in the position of bringing about peace - pity the world - it wouldn't happen.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Al in NYC

Well, this board is a somewhat non-conventional sampling to be sure. I'm thinking much more in terms of general American discourse on the issue, which is undoubtedly strongly pro-Israel.

Maybe, but do you have a wider sample you can use to back up your claim that only the pro Israeli side uses the tactics you mentioned ?

But this statement and your post points out a part of the problem. Those of us who try to see things from a more dispassionate point of view, which includes giving equal weight to the case made by the Palestinians, are often labelled as "pro-Palestinian" by the mere act of considering them.

That may be the way you see it but to me if someone posts something that is historically inaccurate I don't see why I must be agree with it just because it is providing another point of view.

Indeed, it seems that for many there are only 2 possible sides to this argument: pro-Palestinian and pro-Israel, with very little room in between for an even-handed assessment of the situation and its possible solutions.

Agreed, and I am as guilty as anyone of this, but I'm not really trying to solve the problem here on this board I am only trying to debate. Do you feel the same way about the discussions about the war in Iraq Al ? Do you feel that there are two sides and no one is willing to discuss the middle ground?
I apologize in advance if I am wrong about this but I haven't really seen you take a middle ground on this issue. In your post above you seemed to
only condemn one side.

I think this is exactly what Carter is talking about, and it's also the trap that he may have fallen into. The trap of trying to consider both sides in a case where many people on either side sees the other as totally illegitimate, and where the discussion becomes immediately and personally emotional and defensive as soon as the subject is brought up.

Good point Al and I agree to a point, but I think Carter's provocative title for his book was clearly meant to provoke one side.

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

I'm neither Jewish, Zionist, Arab, Palestinian, a member of Hezbollah, or Hamas, just an observer who feels badly for both sides.

I don't feel bad for the Israeli side as I don't think they are suffering any where near as much as the Palestinians who are suffering greatly. That doesn't mean that I think the reason the Palestinians are suffering is the fault of the Israeli's

I posted a comment about Israel, one heard several years ago, about Israel denying the Palestinians an education, making it illegal for Palestinians to go to school, and you would have thought I wrote Nazi graffiti on a Temple wall. I just commented on the Palestinian's plight, and that brought on all sorts of emotional responses.

I think the only response was from me and it wasn't emotional Sandi it merely was a statistic concerning education in the territories and asked you to provide some verification for your claim which you said was all over the news media. You totally ignored my response and kept insisting your recollection was correct in spite of the fact that you changed the time period of your claim 3 times. If there was any emotion it was only my frustration at your unwillingness to acknowledge the stats I posted and your continued insistence that you were correct even though you kept changing what it was you said.

No, it gets emotional around here, especially with those who who have their own religious beliefs tied in to the region, tied into the populace of Israel, and that's understandable.

I'm not sure I have ever discussed my religious beliefs on this board interesting that you would jump to a conclusion about what they are.

Me, it doesn't effect me in any way at all, other than having sympathy for those who are actually suffering.

And I think that's very admirable, really. I only take issue at what the root cause of that suffering is and the assumption that it is only or even mostly caused by Israel. My challenge to you still stands provide me evidence of suffering before the infatada that was caused by Israel.

The rhetoric around here, along with the obviously pointed and hard feelings we've seen and read of, don't accomplish much at all, other than to have others think - us think, those who aren't involved one way or the other -

Please give me an example of my rhetoric. I seriously don't understand how my disputing your statements by trying to point to historical references are rhetoric but your pronouncements which are based on your perceptions don't fall under that term.

What a lost cause! If anyone of us were to be in the position of bringing about peace - pity the world - it wouldn't happen.

But we are not in that position, not even remotely and if that was really your concern you'd join one of the organizations that are committed to doing just that.
FWIW if I was in that position I certainly wouldn't be as strident in my position as I am on this board and it pains me greatly when the government of Israel is so quick to resort to military rather then diplomacy. On the other hand I do resent what I see as knee jerk reactions of people who don't know the history of the situation and make false assumptions based some propaganda posted on a web site.

[Dr Dave]

I haven't read the book, but I did hear Carter interviewed on "Fresh Air," and I am not at all surprised by subsequent developments. Carter said that he had made a deal with Menachim Begin at Camp David for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, and that Begin had reneged. I, for one, had never heard this version of events before. I have no idea whether it is true or not. I am quite sure, however, that Carter is in for a serious bruising over such a statement. Israel has a lot invested in presenting itself to the world and especially to the U.S. as the sole aggrieved party in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as well as the only "responsible" party involved. To claim that Israel broke a diplomatic agreement is to invite a shitstorm.

And here it is.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jeff54

I don't feel bad for the Israeli side as I don't think they are suffering any where near as much as the Palestinians who are suffering greatly. That doesn't mean that I think the reason the Palestinians are suffering is the fault of the Israeli's


I think the only response was from me and it wasn't emotional Sandi it merely was a statistic concerning education in the territories and asked you to provide some verification for your claim which you said was all over the news media. You totally ignored my response and kept insisting your recollection was correct in spite of the fact that you changed the time period of your claim 3 times. If there was any emotion it was only my frustration at your unwillingness to acknowledge the stats I posted and your continued insistence that you were correct even though you kept changing what it was you said.


I'm not sure I have ever discussed my religious beliefs on this board interesting that you would jump to a conclusion about what they are.



And I think that's very admirable, really. I only take issue at what the root cause of that suffering is and the assumption that it is only or even mostly caused by Israel. My challenge to you still stands provide me evidence of suffering before the infatada that was caused by Israel.



Please give me an example of my rhetoric. I seriously don't understand how my disputing your statements by trying to point to historical references are rhetoric but your pronouncements which are based on your perceptions don't fall under that term.



But we are not in that position, not even remotely and if that was really your concern you'd join one of the organizations that are committed to doing just that.
FWIW if I was in that position I certainly wouldn't be as strident in my position as I am on this board and it pains me greatly when the government of Israel is so quick to resort to military rather then diplomacy. On the other hand I do resent what I see as knee jerk reactions of people who don't know the history of the situation and make false assumptions based some propaganda posted on a web site.

I didn't ignore your "challenge", in fact I looked up a whole lot of what had been talked about here on JC. I posted some of it. I wrote letters requesting information from Jewish as well as from the Palestinians, & not one organization, Jewish, Muslim, Arab or Israeli, Palestinian or American, saw fit to answer any questions I asked of them, not one return mail came in from anyone.

I'm sorry but not remembering if something was ten years ago or twenty, if not more - to my way of thinking isn't anything get all in a wad about. It was on a television show. Who would remember that from so long ago? Just who would remember the year, the time frame? Being confrontational about these posts & issues in them doesn't accomplish much to my way of thinking. So there are differing time lines in my posts. I did say I couldn't recall just when it was, as to when I heard something or when it all occurred. Is when it happened anymore important than if it happened? It was in our recent history, not a hundred years ago. So much has gone on over there that it isn't cut and dried in everyones minds as is Pearl Harbor Day. We all know that date. We even remember how old we were when it happened, that is if we were even alive at that time. All it was, is this: I saw a report on the news about education being denied to Arab children, & it was a long time ago. Ten, twenty or so years ago, I don't recall, but I recall the report. You choose not to believe me, well that's your decision.

There's so much posted about how the Palestinians suffered well before the Infatata, and I know you are in the know about it as well as I am. Why do you feel the need for me to prove it to you? You wanting me to prove it to you when you yourself must know the answer and have a way to look things up yourself?

Arabs, who are citizens of Israel, are still second class citizens for the most part when it comes to education in Israel. Look that up, the web is full of this information. Arab/Israeli citizens are always filing in court for equal rights in this matter. It's a matter of record.

Some of the information I found was so inflamitory against Israel. War is hell you know. I felt it best to not post it here on this site, but you have a mouse and google as well as other search engines which are out there for you to use. Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, and others were around when attrocites occurred and there were those who were trying to figure out how to reel in their most viscous soldiers without ruining moral. How to handle all of the looting by Israeli forces without harming moral. There are horror stories involving Israeli's. This is a casuality of war. War hurts even the ones who win, as commiting these horrid acts ruin their lives as well. Look up the warehouses having to be used for looted goods, goods from private homes & businesses, the stolen livestock, the expensive and privately owned goods, all stolen by Israeli troops during their first wars. No, not all people are angels when wars are going on, opportunists abound in each and every war that has ever happened, & on each side.

When I did post about issues & history, it was called "propaganda" so, with that being the mindset here, why bother? Truth is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, regardless of the sources for the articles which were being posted by me. UN findings were propaganda, all sorts of studies and writings were propaganda. Nothing posted was ever the truth.

If I were to "challenge", which is how you phrase it, If I were to "challenge" you to prove to me than no attrocities or hardships had ever happened due to Israels actions against the Palestinians, what would your response be? Would you pull up page after page as I refrained from doing regarding the Palestinian plight; most of it due to being so inflamatory as to how they lived under Israeli law? Good grief, we all know they didn't have it good. Things have never been good for them, but we all know that, so why post about things we've been reading about for decades? I stand by my statement that I heard a report back several years ago, not sure of the exact time, probably when Vanessa Redgrave was bringing the plight of the Palestinians into the publics consciousness. It was said by a board member that she is a known anti-semite, but I just thought she was a humanitarian. That's all I know of her, this & her acting. So the time line is moving about again, but that's how it is, I don't recall the time frame. Besides computer crashes were giving me a hard time accessing much of what I needed to relate.

The problems with Israeli & Arab started well before WWII, & it never ceased. Much of it was brought about by the influx of Russian Jews, so many were coming in from Russia, that Arabs were afraid of being overrun & taken over by them. Zionists some were called.

It's a long & tragic history & lots of mistakes were made by both sides, starting well before the Turks had lost their influence. Before T.E. Lawrence was a household name.

In my opinion things need to change. Both sides need to stop fighting these old wars and live in the here and now. It will take some doing, but the people in charge on both sides aren't about to accomplish anything with their old ways, with their old hatreds and old methods. Talk about failed policies.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by Dr Dave

I haven't read the book, but I did hear Carter interviewed on "Fresh Air," and I am not at all surprised by subsequent developments. Carter said that he had made a deal with Menachim Begin at Camp David for Israel to withdraw to the 1967 borders, and that Begin had reneged. I, for one, had never heard this version of events before. I have no idea whether it is true or not. I am quite sure, however, that Carter is in for a serious bruising over such a statement. Israel has a lot invested in presenting itself to the world and especially to the U.S. as the sole aggrieved party in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, as well as the only "responsible" party involved. To claim that Israel broke a diplomatic agreement is to invite a shitstorm.

And here it is.

Wasn't it Bill Clinton who was dealing with Netanyahu and Arafat and they had promised to not talk to the press or anyone else about what was discussed and agreed upon in a meeting they held at the Whitehouse? I don't believe it was a Camp David meeting. They all made their promises. all shook hands on it. Arafat never said a word, while Netanyahu walked out the door and before he was in his limo, he had devulged what had transpired within their closed door sessions. Needless to say, our government officials were put off by his not being trustworthy. One would have thought it would be the other way around.

[Sandi22]

Here's what I consider propaganda. This is a terrible site, and not where I drew any information from, and along with his site address is a Wikipedia page about him as well. Frankly I think the man is wacked.

http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-leaders-...l#anchor534525

http://sabbah.biz/mt/archives/2005/0...ish-biography/

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

I didn't ignore your "challenge", in fact I looked up a whole lot of what had been talked about here on JC. I posted some of it. I wrote letters requesting information from Jewish as well as from the Palestinians, & not one organization, Jewish, Muslim, Arab or Israeli, Palestinian or American, saw fit to answer any questions I asked of them, not one return mail came in from anyone.

Doesn't that at least make you question whether your recollection was correct? Something you claimed was "all over the news" yet you can't find anything about it on the internet, and no one responded to your inquiries?

I'm sorry but not remembering if something was ten years ago or twenty, if not more - to my way of thinking isn't anything get all in a wad about.

It's important because the discussion had to do with what came first Israeli actions against the Palestinians or the infatada. You suggested that Israel should try helping the Palestinians instead of beating down on them. I posted an article that showed that they did exactly that. So the time period is very important to that discussion.

It was on a television show. Who would remember that from so long ago? Just who would remember the year, the time frame? Being confrontational about these posts & issues in them doesn't accomplish much to my way of thinking. So there are differing time lines in my posts. I did say I couldn't recall just when it was, as to when I heard something or when it all occurred.

don't you think that if you change your story about when you heard it it makes whether you heard what you claim to have heard at least a little bit suspect.

There's so much posted about how the Palestinians suffered well before the Infatata, and I know you are in the know about it as well as I am. Why do you feel the need for me to prove it to you? You wanting me to prove it to you when you yourself must know the answer and have a way to look things up yourself?

But you did spend time looking for and you couldn't find it why is it up to me to prove what I claim didn't happen.

Arabs, who are citizens of Israel, are still second class citizens for the most part when it comes to education in Israel. Look that up, the web is full of this information. Arab/Israeli citizens are always filing in court for equal rights in this matter. It's a matter of record.

Yes you posted a long list of legal actions that were filed in Israel making those claims. My response was to ask you which ones constituted the "suffering" you claimed was going on. You had no response.

Some of the information I found was so inflamitory against Israel. War is hell you know. I felt it best to not post it here on this site, but you have a mouse and google as well as other search engines which are out there for you to use. Moshe Dayan, Ariel Sharon, and others were around when attrocites occurred and there were those who were trying to figure out how to reel in their most viscous soldiers without ruining moral. How to handle all of the looting by Israeli forces without harming moral. There are horror stories involving Israeli's. This is a casuality of war. War hurts even the ones who win, as commiting these horrid acts ruin their lives as well. Look up the warehouses having to be used for looted goods, goods from private homes & businesses, the stolen livestock, the expensive and privately owned goods, all stolen by Israeli troops during their first wars. No, not all people are angels when wars are going on, opportunists abound in each and every war that has ever happened, & on each side.

No one claimed that all people are angles what's your point and how does it bolster your claim.

When I did post about issues & history, it was called "propaganda" so, with that being the mindset here, why bother?

Really when? What historical fact did you post that I called propaganda without first proving that is was.

Truth is in the eye of the beholder I suppose, regardless of the sources for the articles which were being posted by me. UN findings were propaganda, all sorts of studies and writings were propaganda. Nothing posted was ever the truth.

What UN findings did you post did I say were propaganda? I refuted some of postings that had serious historical inaccuracies in them. Like your claim that the Ottomans were allied with the Nazi's. A debate isn't only about who can cut and paste more it's about who can defend what they do cut and paste.

If I were to "challenge", which is how you phrase it, If I were to "challenge" you to prove to me than no attrocities or hardships had ever happened due to Israels actions against the Palestinians, what would your response be?

I wouldn't take the challenge because I never made that broad of a claim.

Would you pull up page after page as I refrained from doing regarding the Palestinian plight;

No you didn't refrain from doing that you posted plenty of pages from other web sites.

The problems with Israeli & Arab started well before WWII, & it never ceased. Much of it was brought about by the influx of Russian Jews, so many were coming in from Russia, that Arabs were afraid of being overrun & taken over by them. Zionists some were called.

Wrong Almost all the immigration was from Arab countries and Europe before WWII. The great influx of Russian Jews didn't happen until the late 1980's when the Soviet Union finally allowed Jews to leave.

[Ron Thorne]

Thread title: More Mush from the Wimp (Yea, that one.)

Hmmm.

Based upon the posts thus far, I'm at a loss to find the "mush" or the "wimp" present.

Since I haven't read the book in question, I'm not assigning accuracy or any other characteristics to it. However, I find the thread title and subsequent posts in rather stark contrast. "Mush" from a "wimp" certainly wouldn't spring to mind, that's for sure.

I have seen Jimmy Carter being interviewed with respect to this book several times, however.

Color me blind, I guess.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Wrong Almost all the immigration was from Arab countries and Europe before WWII. The great influx of Russian Jews didn't happen until the late 1980's when the Soviet Union finally allowed Jews to leave.

i don't really want to get into this again but are you actually suggesting that there wasn't a significant influx of jews who left russia after the failed revolution in 1905?

[Daniel]

from wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kibbutz

Pogroms flared up once again in Russia in the first years of the 20th century. In 1903 at Kishinev peasant mobs were incited against Jews after a blood libel. Riots again took place in the wake of Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War and the 1905 Revolution. The occurrence of new pogroms inspired yet another wave of Russian Jews to emigrate. As in the 1880s, most emigrants went to the United States, but a minority went to Palestine. It was this generation that would include founders of the kibbutzim.

Like the members of the First Aliya who came before them, most members of the Second Aliya wanted to be farmers in the Trans-Jordan. Those who would go on to found the kibbutzim first went to a village of the Biluim, Rishon LeZion, to find work there. The founders of the kibbutz were morally appalled by what they saw in the Jewish settlers there "with their Jewish overseers, Arab peasant laborers, and Bedouin guards." They saw the new villages and were reminded of the places they had left in Eastern Europe. Instead of the beginning of a pure Jewish commonwealth, they felt that what they saw recreated the Jewish socioeconomic structure of the Pale of Settlement, where Jews functioned in clean jobs, while other groups did the dirty work.[5]

Joseph Baratz, who went on to found the first kibbutz, wrote of his time working at Zikhron Yaakov:

We were happy enough working on the land, but we knew more and more certainly that the ways of the old settlements were not for us. This was not the way we hoped to settle the country — this old way with Jews on top and Arabs working for them; anyway, we thought that there shouldn't be employers and employed at all. There must be a better way.[6]

Though Joseph Baratz and other laborers wanted to farm the land themselves, becoming independent farmers was not a realistic option in 1909. As Arthur Ruppin, a proponent of Jewish agricultural colonization of the Trans-Jordan would later say, "The question was not whether group settlement was preferable to individual settlement; it was rather one of either group settlement or no settlement at all."[7]

Ottoman Palestine was a harsh environment, quite unlike the Russian plains the Jewish immigrants were familiar with. The Galilee was swampy, the Judean Hills rocky, and the South of the country, the Negev, was a desert. To make things more challenging, most of the settlers had no prior farming experience. The sanitary conditions were also poor. Malaria was more than a risk, it was nearly a guarantee. Along with malaria, there were typhus and cholera.

In addition to having a difficult climate and relatively infertile soils, Ottoman Palestine was in some ways a lawless place. Nomadic Bedouins would frequently raid farms and settled areas. Sabotage of irrigation canals and burning of crops were also common. Living collectively was simply the most logical way to be secure in an unwelcoming land.

On top of considerations of safety, there were also those of economic survival. Establishing a new farm in the area was a capital-intensive project; collectively the founders of the kibbutzim had the resources to establish something lasting, while independently they did not.

Finally, the land that was going to be settled by Joseph Baratz and his comrades had been purchased by the greater Jewish community. From around the world, Jews dropped coins into little "Blue Boxes" for land purchases in Palestine. Since these efforts were on behalf of all Jews in the area, it would not have made sense for their land purchases to be conveyed to individuals.

In 1909, Joseph Baratz, nine other men, and two women established themselves at the southern end of the Sea of Galilee near an Arab village called "Umm Juni." These teenagers had hitherto worked as day laborers draining swamps, as masons, or as hands at the older Jewish settlements. Their dream was now to work for themselves, building up the land. They called their community "Kvutzat Degania", after the cereals which they grew there. Their community would grow into the first kibbutz.

The founders of Degania worked backbreaking labor attempting to rebuild what they saw as their ancestral land and to spread the social revolution. One pioneer later said "the body is crushed, the legs fail, the head hurts, the sun burns and weakens." At times half of the kibbutz members could not report for work. Many young men and women left the kibbutz for easier lives in Jewish Trans-Jordan cities or in the Diaspora.

Despite the difficulties, kibbutzim grew and proliferated. By 1914, Degania had fifty members. Other kibbutzim were founded around the Sea of Galilee and the nearby Jezreel Valley. The founders of Degania themselves soon left Degania to become apostles of agriculture and socialism for newer kibbutzim.

[Sandi22]

Originally Posted by jeff54

Doesn't that at least make you question whether your recollection was correct? Something you claimed was "all over the news" yet you can't find anything about it on the internet, and no one responded to your inquiries?


It's important because the discussion had to do with what came first Israeli actions against the Palestinians or the infatada. You suggested that Israel should try helping the Palestinians instead of beating down on them. I posted an article that showed that they did exactly that. So the time period is very important to that discussion.


don't you think that if you change your story about when you heard it it makes whether you heard what you claim to have heard at least a little bit suspect.

But you did spend time looking for and you couldn't find it why is it up to me to prove what I claim didn't happen.


Yes you posted a long list of legal actions that were filed in Israel making those claims. My response was to ask you which ones constituted the "suffering" you claimed was going on. You had no response.



No one claimed that all people are angles what's your point and how does it bolster your claim.


Really when? What historical fact did you post that I called propaganda without first proving that is was.

What UN findings did you post did I say were propaganda? I refuted some of postings that had serious historical inaccuracies in them. Like your claim that the Ottomans were allied with the Nazi's. A debate isn't only about who can cut and paste more it's about who can defend what they do cut and paste.


I wouldn't take the challenge because I never made that broad of a claim.


No you didn't refrain from doing that you posted plenty of pages from other web sites.



Wrong Almost all the immigration was from Arab countries and Europe before WWII. The great influx of Russian Jews didn't happen until the late 1980's when the Soviet Union finally allowed Jews to leave.

I will tell you unequivocally that I heard this on the news about children not being allowed by Israeli's to go to school, and, no, I don't know the exact time frame as it was several years ago, and who would I ask again? It wasn't, like I said, "A Pearl Harbor kind of day", it was just a shocking thing to hear. Hearing and seeing it left one wondering what the Israeli's would hope to gain by doing that? We and friends discussed it at the time. I don't post made up stories, no need to, as like I've said before, there is so much out there which is so odd, there's no need to make up anything. You are seemingly questioning my honesty and that is another oddity.

You seem to believe also that everything comes down to timing. Pre or Post Infatata. No - it all comes down to human abuses and mans inhumanity to man, as this battle for land, religions and ideals has been going on well before Israel became a state. There were abuses and atrocities' being committed on each side, starting years and years ago, well before the 20th Century even started, well before WWII. Well before 1980.

If all is well in paradise then why is it that there are so many legal actions being filed by Arab citizens of Israel, just to get a bit of equal treatment? Equal opportunity? Perhaps you should take a closer look at all of this, there is much more. Then check out how it is the Palestinians have such lower standards in medical treatments for their children, & there is more. More than I can ever post.

*******

Here's just one thing about the Russian and Eastern European Dispora:

In 1882, the BILU (an acronym for "Beyt Ya'akov Lechu Venelcha" - House of Jacob let us go) and Hibbat Tziyon (love of Zion) groups were established. They were inspired by the impetus of the wave of anti-Jewish violence that had swept Russia in 1881. Hibbat Tziyion began as a network of independent underground groups. These and similar groups established a number of early Jewish settlements including Yesod Hamaalah, Rosh Pinna, Gedera, Rishon Le Tziyon, Nes Tziyonna and Rehovot on land purchased from Arab owners with the aid of Jewish philanthropists, chiefly Lord Rothschild. Joel Solomon led a group of orthodox Jews out of Jerusalem to found Petah Tikva in 1878.

Petah Tiqva

The settlements were characteristically vineyards and orange orchards. The settlers were mostly religious Jews, though the religious Jewish establishment frowned on Zionism. In 1882, 150 Yemenite Jews also found their way to Palestine. The first Aliya numbered about 25,000 persons, primarily from Eastern Europe. Many of them returned home defeated by disease, poverty and unemployment.

Leon Pinsker and Hovevei Tziyon - Inspired by the anti-Semitic violence in Russia, Leon Pinsker formulated the modern idea of Zionism in a small pamphlet called Auto-Emancipation, published in 1882. Pinsker believed that anti-Semitism was inevitable as long as Jews were guests in every country and at home nowhere, and wrote that the Jews' only salvation lay in liberating themselves and settling in their own country. Pinsker favored Argentina or other countries as sites for the Jewish homeland. However, Western Jews who might have favored this idea rebuffed him. In his native Russia, however, his ideas were well received, but they were channeled to settlement in Palestine. In 1882, Pinsker was made head of the Hovevei Tzion organization, which united many small and scattered groups, primarily in Russia, into a single organization. Pinsker favored "political Zionism," that is, organization of Jews in Europe and petitioning the great powers for land on which to establish a national home. However, his efforts in this direction were rebuffed by the Russian government. Instead, he directed his energies to the gradual purchase of land and settlement of small groups in Palestine.

Early settlers faced innumerable cultural and economic difficulties. In 1800, the ravages of misadministration and war had reduced the population to about 200,000. By the 1880s, the land had recovered somewhat, but it was still poor and disease ridden. The total population was about 450,00. Jerusalem was a small town of 25,000 inhabitants, slightly more than half Jewish. The first settlement of Petah Tikva in 1878 failed and was later refounded. The Ottoman government barely tolerated the settlers, especially those who retained their foreign nationality, and occasionally the government restricted immigration. Settlers who adopted Ottoman nationality were liable for the Turkish draft. Disease, poverty and unemployment caused many to leave.

The claim of Ottoman influence having been over for century's on this board, has detractors as well, and here is a bit of history, not propaganda. SRH

Herzl thought that diplomatic activity would be the main method for getting the Jewish homeland. He called for the organized transfer of Jewish communities to the new state. Of the location of the state, Herzl said, "We shall take what is given us, and what is selected by public opinion."

Herzl attempted to gain a charter from the Sultan of Turkey for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, then ruled by the Ottoman Empire. To this end he met in 1898 with the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II, in Istanbul and Palestine, as well as the Sultan, but these meetings did not bear fruit.

Herzl negotiated with the British regarding the possibility of settling the Jews on the island of Cyprus, the Sinai Peninsula, the El Arish region and Uganda. After the Kishinev pogroms, Herzl visited Russia in July 1903. He tried to persuade the Russian government to help the Zionists transfer Jews from Russia to Palestine. At the Sixth Zionist Congress Herzl proposed settlement in Uganda, on offer from the British, as a temporary "night refuge." The idea met with sharp opposition, especially from the same Russian Jews that Herzl had thought to help. Though the congress passed the plan as a gesture of esteem for Herzl, it was not pursued seriously, and the initiative died after the plan was withdrawn. In his quest for a political solution, Herzl met with the king of Italy, who was encouraging, and with the Pope, who expressed opposition. A small group, the Jewish Territorial Organization ("Territorial Zionists") led by Israel Zangwill, split with the Zionist movement in 1905, and attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible. The organization was dissolved in 1925.

The insistence of Eastern European Jews on Palestine as the Jewish homeland, coupled with the failure of alternatives, maintained the focus of the Zionist movement on Palestine.

The Second Aliyah and Socialist Zionism *

The "political Zionism" approach originally tried by Montefiore, Pinsker and Herzl, which attempted to obtain a Jewish homeland from colonial powers, failed to attain results at least initially. Meanwhile, however, practical settlement efforts gradually increased the Jewish population of Palestine from about 25,000 in 1882 to approximately 85,000 to 100,000 just prior to World War I.

A fresh wave of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia provided the impetus for a second wave of immigration, beginning about 1904 and called the Second Aliyah. At the same time, the rise socialist - Zionist stirrings had inspired several socialist Zionist movements. Thousands of new immigrants dedicated to the conquest of labor ethic and socialist ideals arrived in Palestine. Their Zionism was typified by the thinking of men like Ber Borochov and A.D. Gordon. Hapoel Hatzair, ("The young worker") was founded by A.D. Gordon, Poalei Tziyon ("workers of Zion") , and later Hashomer Hatzair ("the young guard) were inspired by Ber Borochov. Borochov, an ideologue of the Poalei Tziyon movement, did not cite anti-Semitism as the basis or motivation of Zionism. According to him, the Diaspora produced aberrant social conditions that made Jews economically inferior and politically helpless. The normal organization of society was a pyramid, according to Borochov, with a large body of workers and smaller groups of intelligentsia, land owners and capitalists. The Diaspora had created an 'inverted pyramid' in Jewish society, with no Jewish peasant or worker class. Self-liberation of the Jews would come about by proletarianization of the Jews in their homeland, and the nascent Jewish proletariat would join the socialist international. Similarly, A.D. Gordon, inspired by 19th century romanticism, called for a Jewish return to the soil and virtually made a religion of work. These ideas fused into the ideals of "productivization" (returning the Jews, who engaged mostly in professional and mercantile trades, to productive labor) and "conquest of labor" ( Kibbush Haavoda). "Conquest of labor" later took on additional meanings. (See also Labor Zionism and Socialist Zionism )

The new immigrants arrived with the ideals of socialist Zionism, but reality was not favorable to implementing those ideas. The Zionist movement attempted to find them work. but the new immigrants , who had no training in agriculture and poor physical stamina, were unable to compete with Arab peasants. Arabs certainly would not hire Jewish workers, who could not work well and could not speak Arabic. Arab labor was also preferred by the plantation and vineyard owners of the first Aliya. Arabs were experienced and hard workers, and were able to work for much lower wages because they were often members of an extended family that made its main income from sharecropping. The plantation owners had also developed a superior colonialist mentality which suited the hiring of "natives," and clashed with the egalitarian ideas and social demands of the newly arrived socialists.

The socialist Zionist movements tried to force plantation owners to grant higher wages, and also began to insist that plantation owners hire only Jewish workers. This aspect of "conquest of labor" was controversial within the socialist-Zionist movements because it engendered lack of solidarity with the Arab working class and was discriminatory. One labor Zionist leader wrote:

"How can Jews, who demand emancipation in Russia, rob rights and act selfishly toward other workers upon coming to Eretz Israel? If it is possible for many a people to hide fairness and justice behind cannon smoke, how and behind what shall we hide fairness and justice? We should absolutely not deceive ourselves with terrible visions. We shall never possess cannons, even if the goyim shall bear arms against one another for ever. Therefore, we cannot but settle in our land fairly and justly, to live and let live. "
(Meir Dizengoff (writing as "Dromi") "The Workers Question," Hatzvi,

September 21, 22, 1909)

At the same time, Conquest of Labor was a central part of Labor Zionist ideology, as a means of rebuilding the Jewish people, not a discriminatory ideology. A.D. Gordon wrote

But labour is the only force which binds man to the soil… it is the basic energy for the creation of national culture. This is what we do not have, but we are not aware of missing it. We are a people without a country, without a national living language, without a national culture. We seem to think that if we have no labour it does not matter - let Ivan, John or Mustafa do the work, while we busy ourselves with producing a culture, with creating national values and with enthroning absolute justice in the world.

(A.D. Gordon, "Our Tasks Ahead" 1920)

The boycott of Arab labor, only partly successful, was carried out reluctantly as a matter of necessity, and because the establishment of Jews as a class of colonial plantation owners seemed worse than the alternative. The discriminatory program of "conquest of labor" also provoked bitterness among some Arabs, particularly watchmen who lost their jobs to Jews. In the main however, the "conquest of labor" movement was initially unsuccessful, nor could it have much real influence on the economic prospects of Arabs. Only a few thousand Jewish workers were involved. Gershon Shafir (Land, Labor and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914, University of California Press, 1996) estimates that about 10,000 such workers passed through Palestine in the second Aliya, many leaving in discouragement. Other sources claim there were about 3,000 workers out of approximately 33,000 who came to Palestine in the second Aliya. Because of the wage differential and because of the expertise of Arab workers, Arab labor continued to find employment in Jewish settlements. It was only with the massive Jewish immigration of the 1930s, coupled with Arab unrest and sabotage attempts, that Jewish workers began to replace Arab workers in most of the Jewish economy. Of course, few Jews worked in the Arab economy.

The kibbutz collective settlements were started as a practical method of settling Jewish laborers on the land and overcoming the preferences of plantation owners for Arab labor. A small group of Jewish immigrants was settled in an economic cooperative in Sejera, later founding Kibbutz Degania in 1909. The arrangement, originally thought to be temporary, proved to be practical, as well as suited to the socialist ideals of the new settlers. It soon inspired several other kibbutzim (collective farms). The kibbutz movement was to become the backbone of Labor Zionism in Palestine, and eventually provided political and military leadership. Kibbutzim provided ideal places for hiding arms from the British and recruiting and training troops, as well as for organizing local defense and guarding borders.

The Zionist movement did not give up efforts to find a political solution. The political Zionism and practical settlement approaches were merged into "Synthetic Zionism" advocated by Chaim Weizmann . The efforts ultimately bore fruit in the Balfour Declaration, a promise by Britain to further efforts for a Jewish national home in Palestine. and in the League of Nations Mandate, which give international sanction to the Jewish national home. Weizmann became head of the Zionist organization and later was the first President of Israel.

Chaim Weizman

Zionism and the Arabs

When Zionism had its first beginnings, in the early 19th century, there were about 200,000 Arabs living in all of the land, mostly concentrated in the countryside of the West Bank and Galilee, and mostly lacking in national sentiment. Palestine was, in Western eyes, a country without a nation, as Lord Shaftesbury wrote. Early proto-Zionists did not trouble themselves at all about the existing inhabitants. Many were heavy influenced by utopianism. In the best 19th century tradition, they were creating a Jewish utopia, where an ancient people would be revived. They envisioned a land without strife, where all national and economic problems would be solved by good will, enlightened and progressive policies and technological know-how. Herzl's Altneuland was in in fact just such a utopia. In the novel, Herzl envisioned a modern pluralistic society, in which Jews and Arabs had equal rights. A demagogic politician who wanted to form a narrow hyper-nationalist Jewish state, was defeated in elections.

In reality, Jewish population grew, but Arab population grew more rapidly. By 1914, there were over 500,000 Arabs in Palestine, but only about 80,000 to 100,000 Jews. Arab opposition to Jewish settlement grew as Arabs perceived that the Zionist goal was more than just a myth, and as they increasingly identified Zionism with British interests in the Middle East.

At the same time, early Zionist pronouncements and outlook were often frankly colonialist, especially when addressing leaders of foreign powers. The plantations sponsored by Baron Rothschild were modeled on plantation settlement in Algeria and other colonies. Colonialism was fashionable and "progressive," and some early Zionist leaders saw nothing wrong in assimilating this idea to Zionism along with other modern ideas such as socialism, utopianism and nationalism.

Later Zionists were heavily influenced by socialism and embarrassed at the colonialist aspects of the Zionist project. They were also aware, of course, that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs. Many however, including the young David Ben-Gurion, who headed the Executive committee of the Zionist Yishuv (Jewish community) in Palestine and was later the first Prime Minister of Israel, initially thought that the Arabs could only benefit from Jewish immigration and would welcome it. Others, such as Eliezer ben Yehuda, frankly envisioned removal of the Arabs from Palestine.

One of the earliest warnings about the Arab problem came from the Zionist writer Ahad Ha'am (Asher Ginsberg), who wrote in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover:

From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place.
Ahad Ha'am, believed that the Jews would need to first build a strong Jewish culture abroad, and that this culture and awareness would then make the dream of a Jewish homeland possible. The Jewish community in Palestine, he felt should be a cultural center for Jews of the Diaspora, that would catalyze this revolution in Jewish life and eventually bring about mass Jewish support for the Zionist project. Contrary to the impression that some modern interpretations give, Ahad Ha'am was not anti-Zionist and was not an opponent of the formation of a Jewish national home. In fact, he was an enthusiastic supporter of Zionism. Hed wrote an article eulogizing Leon Pinsker in glowing terms and he emigrated to Palestine and lived in Tel Aviv.

Arab opposition to Zionism grew after 1900. The birth of Arab nationalism and Arab political aspirations in the Ottoman empire coincided with the arrival of fairly sizeable number of Zionists with the announced program of settling the land and turning it into a Jewish national home. In his book, Reveil de la Nation Arab in 1905, Najib Azouri stated that the Jews want to establish a state stretching from Mt Hermon to the Arabian Desert and the Suez Canal. Azoury wrote:

Two important phenomena of the same nature but opposed, are emerging... They are the awakening of the Arab nation and the latent effort of the Jews to reconstitute on a very large scale the ancient kingdom of Israel. These movements are destined to fight each other continually until one of them wins.

(Mandel, Neville, The Arabs and Palestine, UCLA, 1976)

Rashid Khalidi (Palestinian Identity, Columbia, 1997) notes that beginning about 1908 Palestinian newspapers offered extensive evidence of anti-Zionist agitation. Actual conflicts flared up because the Zionists purchased large tracts from landowners and subsequently evicted the tenant farmers. The former tenants, though they had received some compensation, continued to insist that the land was theirs under time honored traditions and tried to take it back by force. A notable case was Al-Fula, where Zionists had purchased a large tract of land from the Sursuq family of Beirut. Local officials took the side of the Arab peasants against the Zionists and against the Ottoman government, which upheld the legality of the sale. 150 Palestinian notables cabled the Ottoman government to protest land sales to Jews in March 1911. Azmi Bey, Turkish governor of Jerusalem responded:

We are not xenophobes; we welcome all strangers. We are not anti-Semites; we value the economic superiority of the Jews. But no nation, no government, could open its arms to groups... aiming to take Palestine from us.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 62)

Likewise, the "conquest of labor" movement displaced some Arab watchmen and led to violence. While the actual number of persons displaced or dispossessed may have been small, and may have been offset by real economic benefits and increased employment provided by Zionist investment, the feeling grew among the Arabs that the Zionists had arrived to dispossess them. A Nazareth group complained that the Zionists were "a cause of great political and economic injury... The Zionists nourish the intention of expropriating our properties. For us these intentions are a question of life and death." (Morris, loc cit.) As the conflict intensified, the Zionists formed a guard association, Hashomer, to guard the settlements in place of Arab guards. The attempts to retake land and disputes with Jewish guards led to increased violence beginning in the second half of 1911. *

Following World War I, Palestine came under British rule. Even before they had conquered Palestine from the Ottoman Turkish Empire, owing to the efforts of Zionists, the British government declared its intentions, in the Balfour declaration, of sponsoring a "national home" for the Jews in Palestine. Britain was given a League of Nations Mandate to develop Palestine as a Jewish National home. The Arabs of Palestine were appalled at the prospect of living in a country dominated by a Jewish majority and feared that they would be dispossessed. Anti-Jewish rioting and violence broke out in 1920 and 1921. By this time, Zionist leaders could no longer ignore the conflict with the Arabs. By 1919, representatives of the Jaffa Muslim-Christian council were saying

"We will push the Zionists into the sea or they will push us into the desert"
(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

Arab opposition to Zionism was not based only on economic and social issues. It was colored by the traditional Muslim vision of the Jews as second class citizens. By the 1920s, it was also motivated by a strong admixture of Western anti-Semitism. In 1920, Musa Kazim El Husseini, deposed as Mayor of Jerusalem because of his part in riots earlier that year, told Winston Churchill:

The Jews have been amongst the most active advocates of destruction in many lands... It is well known that the disintegration of Russia was wholly or in great part brought about by the Jews, and a large proportion of the defeat of Germany and Austria must also be put at their door.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 99)

It is not clear how Churchill received this amazing and unwitting testimonial to the aid proffered to his country's war effort by the Jews, or what Husseini thought to accomplish by it. Aref Dajani had earlier voiced similar sentiments to the King- Crane Commission

It is impossible for us to make an understanding with them or or even to live with them... Their history and all their past proves that it is impossible to live with them. In all the countries where they are at present they are not wanted... because they always arrive to suck the blood of everybody...

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

While Palestinian Arabs viewed themselves as a small group of helpless victims of powerful British and Jewish "interests," the Zionists saw the opposite side of the coin. The militant Zionist leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky, asked in 1918:

The matter is not ... an issue between the Jewish people and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, but between the Jewish people and the Arab people. The latter, numbering 25 million, has [territory equivalent to] half of Europe, while the Jewish people, numbering ten million and wandering the earth, hasn't got a stone...Will the Arab people stand opposed? Will it resist? [Will it insist] that...they...shall have it [all] for ever and ever, while he who has nothing shall forever have nothing?

(Caplan, Neil, Palestine Jewry and the Palestine Question, 1917-1925, Frank Cass, 1978)

Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky

Soon after World War I, Zionist leaders clearly recognized the problem. David Ben Gurion told members of the Va'ad Yishuv (the temporary governing body of the Jewish community in Palestine) in June 1919:

But not everybody sees that there is no solution to this question. No solution! There is a gulf; and nothing can bridge it.... I do not know what Arab will agree that Palestine should belong to the Jews...We. as a nation,. want this country to be ours; the Arabs, as a nation, want this country to be theirs.

(Benny Morris, Righteous Victims, Knopf 1999 Page 91)

By 1923, in his Iron Wall article, Jabotinsky had answered his own question. He argued that agreement with the Arabs was not possible, because they:ry zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism * history zionism *

...look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile.
Jabotinsky, was initially against expulsion of the Arabs, which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]". Rather in The Iron Wall, he argued that the Jewish presence should be imposed by forming a strong defense that would demonstrate to the Arabs that the Jews could not be forced out of Palestine. However, while The Iron Wall expressed a comprehensive philosophy, its practical background and intent were much more limited. Jabotinsky wanted the British authorities to allow the Jews to form a separate defensive force under British supervision, to combat attacks such as the riots that had occurred in 1920 and 1921. The British refused, and the Zionist organization resigned themselves to the British decision, but Jabotinsky wanted to continue with the formation of such a force. Though the Haganah defensive underground was founded in 1920 by Jabotinsky, it didn't become a major project of the Zionist movement until after the riots of 1929. These riots, and not any intrinsic aspect of Zionist ideology, were the real trigger for the birth of militant Zionism as a political force, as well as the progressively more important role played by self-defense and military prowess in Zionist thought, action and society.

Meanwhile the Arab and Jewish communities grew progressively apart. Arabs refused to participate in a Palestinian local government which gave equal representation to the Jewish minority. The British, nearly bankrupt after WW I, insisted that the mandate should be self-sufficient. Mandate services were paid for from taxes paid by the Jewish and Arab inhabitants of Palestine. Additional services were funded by philanthropists from abroad and from membership dues in various organizations. Zionist philanthropy and organization far-outstripped what Palestinian Arabs could provide. Neither Arabs nor Jews wanted integrated schools. Zionist groups funded religious, secular and labor-Zionist educational networks for Jewish children in Hebrew, but few comparable schools were set up for Arabs. The Zionists founded the Histadruth Labor federation to encompass Jewish workers, providing Hebrew education, medical care, worker-owned enterprises and cultural facilities as well as representation of labor rights. No comparable association was created by the more numerous Arabs of Palestine, though the Histadruth made some efforts to organize Arab labor beginning in 1927, and the Palestine Communist party attempted to represent both Jewish and Arab labor.

As the conflict unfolded, attitudes hardened on both sides. Some Zionist factions called for expulsion or "transfer" of Arabs "voluntarily" or otherwise. Beginning with the Husseini clan led by Hajj Amin El Husseini, the Grand Mufti, different factions of Palestinian Arabs, successively allied themselves with Fascist Italy, Nazi Germany and, after WW II with communist countries. Arab rhetoric became increasingly colored by European anti-Semitism, and adopted many of the claims and ideas of Holocaust deniers such as Roger Garaudy as well as the anti-Zionist ideology of radical Jewish intellectuals.

The conflict was intensified and complicated by the 1948 war. About 700,000 Palestinian Arabs fled or were expelled during the war, and Israel did not allow them to return. Many Palestinian refugees were settled in camps under miserable conditions, where they have remained for several generations. The Israeli point of view had in mind the recent convulsions of World War II, and the exchange of populations that occurred when India and Pakistan were created. Most Israelis believed the Palestinians became refugees through their own fault. Their exile was the result of the war which the Palestinians themselves had started by rejection of the UN partition plan, just as, for example, the Germans of Sudetensland, who helped instigate the German occupation of Czechoslovakia, were eventually banished as the result of their own mischief. For the Arabs of Palestine, their Nakba, or catastrophe, vindicated their fears that the Zionists were bent on dispossessing them.

A greater influx may have happened later on, but there was more than you realized, and then check out the self appointed Grand Mullah of Palestine, there is more in there about Hitler and antisemitism, Bosnia~Hervegovina, the final solution and on and on. Check out how the Ottomans influenced his actions. His belief system, and how he sold his ideas to Hitler and those in Bosnia Herzegovina

Hadj Amin el Husseini, with Brit assistance self-appointed Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, mass murderer of Jews, on Hitler's payroll since 1937, accomplice of Hitler in the Holocaust, honoured guest in Berlin during WWII (all expenses, hookers included, paid), founder of the SS Handzar division and post-war co-founder and President of the Arab League.

It is a widely shared consensus, that the existence of the state of Israel with her ethnic European population is the cause for the strife in the Middle East. So it may be a surprise to some that as early as 1933 Nazi political groups started to rise their ugly heads throughout the Arab world, for example Young Egypt, led by Muslim Brotherhood member Gamal Abdel Nasser, later Egyptian President. Young Egypt’s political slogan "One Folk, One Party, One Leader" is a direct translation from the German.

Who was the driving force behind this movement?

It can be safely assumed that the history of the Middle East and to a considerable extent that of the European Jewry would have taken a different course without Amin el Husseini, who later added "Hadj", pilgrim to mecca, to his name and whose chilling shadow of hatred is looming even today.

He was born 1893 in Jerusalem under Ottoman rule. 1914-1917 he got his first taste of "Jihad" and must have found it addictive. As an officer of the Ottoman Empire in Smyrna during the Armenian genocide, he actively participated in the slaughtering of one and a half million Christians by the Ottoman Army. It should be said here that allegiance to the idea of the Ottoman Empire and a vision of Islamic world take-over was chillingly echoed by Osama Bin Laden in his post-September 11th declaration.

Back to British Mandate Palestine, he was able to apply the lessons of genocide and the establishment of a Pan-Islamic empire, where Jews and Christians are not welcome, he had learned. He stirs up riots in Palestine through the Twenties and Thirties, mainly, but not exclusively, targeted at Jews, including the murdering of the Hebron Jews. The Hebron Jewish community was over 2,000 years old.

However, many Muslims who dare to protest against Hadj Amin's reign of terror are murdered as well.

1931 he becomes founder of World Islamic Congress and starts to build his own strong political base.

1937 Hadj Amin el Husseini visits the German Consul in Jerusalem. He meets among others Adolf Eichmann, whose sense for keeping "Aryan" company must have a wee bit selective, to discuss "the Jewish question". Since then, he will receive financial and military aid from Nazi Germany. He spends the war safe and sound in Germany, all expenses paid by the Foreign Office (Auswärtiges Amt).

*******

You can well believe me when I told you that I didn't post all that is terrible, as I know how it goes when anyone criticizes Israel on web sites. It's a given that all hell breaks lose. At least the put downs do.

But as you can see, I do have my facts down correctly, you missed a lot of things which Israel is all about.

Not everything though, such as the report on a television program about denying children an education is listed on the web, not after ten, twenty or thirty years. Surely you realize this. I know I've looked for articles about friends who had made the news and they was no longer available. It would take hours of research in a library with their technology to find everything, and before computers, except in library's, not much was saved, and if web sites aren't kept up, sites don't stay up and running. Surely you realize this?

Did you want me to post the gore, the articles about rapes and fingers being cut off to get gold and precious stones? It's enough to know what is happening now and we all know what it is, and it's not pretty, I don't need to post it for you to realize it.

Then there's this: you're having asked me to prove suffering of Palestinians before the infatata, well, it's a stretch. Just take a look at how Menacham Begin took over lands for settlements which still legally belonged to Jordon, that in itself was a means to bring on suffering. You have to know it happened, that it's happening and that it's continuing to happen, with no relief in sight.

I can pull up more if this isn't illuminating

[jeff54]

Originally Posted by Daniel

i don't really want to get into this again but are you actually suggesting that there wasn't a significant influx of jews who left russia after the failed revolution in 1905?

No I was wrong about that Daniel I stand corrected. See how easy that is Sandi?

See how I admitted I had a fact wrong and didn't accuse Daniel and you of being emotional using rhetoric, or making your claims based on religious affiliation.

See I didn't take the years that Jews weren't allowed out of the Soviet U. and move that to the time before before. See how it makes a difference Sandi?

I could try to avoid it by posting an article that doesn't address my claim and acting like it does but that would be disingenuous and it wouldn't make me right. The timing of events do matter especially when the original discussion concerned a specific time.

Now explain to me Sandi how my responses were emotional but yours were not.

Point out the UN findings did you post that I said were propaganda?

Let's stick with those for right now because these are claims you made that you can prove right here on this board where you claimed they happened.

[lynn]

Terri Gross interviewed Carter a few weeks ago. Worthy of the time to listen.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...toryId=6543594

[Gentle Giant]

One thing Carter doesn't like is a bully. I think he has greater expectations of the Israelis to lead the peace process, given their leverage (land, military, water, powerful friends). Therefore, while I'm sure he is appalled by what Hamas and Hezbollah do and believe, he isn't as disappointed in them as he is in the Israeli leadership. In the Charlie Rose interview, he was particularly distraught by Israel's bombing in civilian areas. Obviously, that invites criticism of Hezbollah's tactics, but no one has a right to expect anything less of Hezbollah. My belief is that he places responsibility for war and peace on Israel because they have the more stable political process and more control over their military; therefore, they can choose not to mindlessly retaliate and not to take poisoned bait.

Yes, the title of the book is provocative. But I'm more offended by the loss of life and lack of progress than a provocative book title. I think the world can afford to step on a few toes, as long as they're walking towards the negotiating table.

[Al in NYC]

I pretty much agree with GG's posts here (well, I don't know about the sandwich bit), and they make my point better and more succinctly than I have.

In relation to my posting history Jeff brings up my arguments over the war in Iraq, but it seems to me that the two situations are so different as to bear almost no comparison. For one thing, in Iraq my government, the one in which I purportedly have a voice, has invaded another country. While in Israel/Palestine my government is, it claims, working as a peacemaking broker between two sides with competing claims. So in one case I am objecting to our violent actions, while in another I am concerned with what I perceive as a lack of proper objectivity, and expressing my distaste for popular forces who are waging war against taking a more objective viewpoint.

[Sandi22]

.

Right-wing hysteria over Carter, Israel

By Evan Derkacz
Posted on December 6, 2006,

http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/45202/

You read that right, Carter scares the s**t out of right wingers.

Time's 2004 Botch Blog of the Year, Powerline, has suggested more than once that Jimmy Carter is a traitor. Conservatives from Michelle Malkin on down applauded a nasty C-SPAN caller who slung insults at the president on-air recently, and cries of AHA! have arisen over an email from a former Carter colleague who's breaking with him over the president's latest book on Palestine.

The hysteria behind the name-calling is quite simple: He scares the bejeezus out of rightwingers. He's a Navy Vet, an evangelical minister, an American President, a Nobel Prize winner, a best-selling author, and a world-renowned philanthropist.

The email came from Dr. Kenneth W. Stein, professor of Israel Studies at Emory University, partner of the Carter Center. It will be promoted as proof, PROOF!, that Carter's latest book is some anti-Israel screed, to be ignored and the president castigated.

Leaving aside the fact that Stein's departure is admittedly a hollow gesture (Many still believe that I have an active association with the Center and, act as an adviser to President Carter, neither is the case... Since I left the Center physically thirteen years ago, the Middle East program of the Center has waned as has my status as a Carter Center Fellow.) this email may more appropriately be seen as the book's seal of approval.

Stein claims in his email that the book "is replete with factual errors, copied materials not cited, superficialities, glaring omissions, and simply invented segments," though he declines to cite them. I don't doubt that he's found his differences, but those remain to be seen.

On the other hand, although Stein and Carter did coauthor a book some years ago, their approaches to the Israel/Palestine conflict have diverged markedly since then. Stein now sits on the board of editors for the Middle East Quarterly, a journal published by the fanatical fantasy-plagued neocon, Daniel Pipes, who also heads up a McCarthyite site called CampusWatch. The Middle East Forum, another associated project, boasts among its experts, neocon William Kristol and Joseph Farah, editor of rightwing yes-mag WorldNetDaily.

Juan Cole does not hold the MEQ in high esteem: "It publishes scurrilous attacks on people. There's no scholarship. It's a put-up job. As for Pipes himself, let's just say that he's not a full professor at a major university."

Pipes is a middle-brow bigot toward Arabs and Muslims, so having an associate of his break with you is, to my thinking, not too bad a thing. It's also interesting and fun to compare the language of CampusWatch to the language of Stein's Carter crit.

Here's an excerpt from Carter's book, whose "title [is] too inflammatory to even print":

There are two interrelated obstacles to permanent peace in the Middle East...

1.Some Israelis believe they have the right to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land and try to justify the sustained subjugation and persecution of increasingly hopeless and aggravated Palestinians; and

2. Some Palestinians react by honoring suicide bombers as martyrs to be rewarded in heaven and consider the killing of Israelis as victories.

In turn, Israel responds with retribution and oppression, and militant Palestinians refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel and vow to destroy the nation. The cycle of distrust and violence is sustained, and efforts for peace are frustrated. Casualties have been high as the occupying forces impose ever tighter controls. From September 2000 until March 2006, 3,982 Palestinians and 1,084 Israelis were killed in the second intifada, and these numbers include many children: 708 Palestinians and 123 Israelis. As indicated earlier, there was an ever-rising toll of dead and wounded from the latest outbreak of violence in Gaza and Lebanon.

The only rational response to this continuing tragedy is to revitalize the peace process through negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians, but the United States has, in effect, abandoned this effort. It may be that one of the periodic escalations in violence will lead to strong influence being exerted from the International Quartet to implement its Roadmap for Peace.
These are the key requirements:

a. The security of Israel must be guaranteed. The Arabs must acknowledge openly and specifically that Israel is a reality and has a right to exist in peace, behind secure and recognized borders, and with a firm Arab pledge to terminate any further acts of violence against the legally constituted nation of Israel.

b. The internal debate within Israel must be resolved in order to define Israel's permanent legal boundary...

Evan Derkacz is an AlterNet editor. He writes and edits PEEK, the blog of blogs.

© 2006 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/evan/45202/

.

[rollhead]

Originally Posted by Ron Thorne

Thread title: More Mush from the Wimp (Yea, that one.)

Hmmm.

Based upon the posts thus far, I'm at a loss to find the "mush" or the "wimp" present.

"Mush from the Wimp" is a phrase referring to a classic journalistic "oops" from 1980, when that phrase (intended as an internal joke) was published as the title of a Boston Globe editorial.

On March 15, 1980, the Boston Globe ran an editorial that began:

Certainly it is in the self-interest of all Americans to impose upon themselves the kind of economic self-discipline that President Carter urged repeatedly yesterday in his sober speech to the nation. As the President said, inflation, now running at record rates, is a cruel tax, one that falls most harshly upon those least able to bear the burden.
There was nothing exceptional about it except the headline: "Mush from the Wimp".

In 1984, the late Kirk Scharfenberg acknowledged that he was the author of the headline. "I meant it as an in-house joke and thought it would be removed before publication," he wrote. "It appeared in 161,000 copies of the Globe the next day."

[groover]

Originally Posted by Sandi22

Pipes is a middle-brow bigot toward Arabs and Muslims, so having an associate of his break with you is, to my thinking, not too bad a thing.

This is an unfair characterization of Pipes. You ought to read one of his books and Carter's book and draw your own conclusions. Stein's comments do not completely devalue Carter's book, but they have to be considered.
Having the facts straight is fundamental, but it seems no one can even agree on that.