Town Square

Post a New Topic

Jimmy Carter accuses Jewish group of "falsehood and slander"

Original post made by Robin on Feb 9, 2007

Fox news report:

Web Link

WASHINGTON — Jimmy Carter has accused an international Jewish human rights group of "falsehood and slander" for launching a petition that resulted in thousands of signatures being sent to the former president in protest of his controversial book about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

"I don't believe Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds," Carter wrote last month in a handwritten letter to the head of the human rights center that bears the name of the late Holocaust survivor and Nazi hunter.

Comments (113)

Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 9, 2007 at 10:22 am

Isn't this country great--Jimmy Carter can write what he wants and get it published and a leading Jewish organization can circulate a petition against the book and people are free to sign said petition.
I am not sure what the problem is--this is a perfect example of free speech in action.


Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:11 am

Not to mention the fact that fund raising had absolutely nothing to do with the petition, so I have no clue what Carter thought the petition was about.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:25 am

Here's a link to the petition with a "Donate Now" link at the top of the page:

Web Link

And here's Carter's elegant handwritten response (scroll down a bit to see it):

Web Link





Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:25 am

Web Link

Well, I wondered how long it would be before Hamas backtracked from yesterday's nth time of making a deal. I had bet 2 days. It turns out Hamas backtread only 2 hours after I read this morning that Hamas had agreed to bring peace to Palestine by being part of the government of Abbas, which recognized Israel's right to exist.

They took it back in France a few minutes ago. They will continue to deny Israel's right to exist, which means that they will continue to try to eradicate her.

This is what the petition was about. Read it.

Web Link


Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:29 am

Oh, I see, a petition on the same page as a link that has "donate now", along with "home", and "news releases", "online store" etc that show up on every page of this site makes it a petition that is meant to raise funds?

Why doesn't it make it a petition to raise awareness of the news links?

A bit of a stretch, I submit, on Carter's part, meant to do what he does well.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:34 am

In addition to the "Donate Now" button at the top to the petition, there's also a "Major Gift Opportunities" that links to the following text:

Major Gift Opportunities

There are numerous major gift opportunities available at the Simon Wiesenthal Center and/or the Museum of Tolerance, the New York Tolerance Center, and Moriah Films -- with recognition in perpetuity.

Additional major gift categories of the Simon Wiesenthal Center include Corporate and Foundation Gifts, Planned Giving, Gifts of Stocks and Securities and Commemorative Naming Opportunities.

Major gift donors of the Simon Wiesenthal Center are collectively listed in the appropriate category on the donor walls in the main lobby of the Simon Wiesenthal Center Museum of Tolerance.

Builders $1 million+
Benefactors $500,000+
Pioneers $250,000+
Fellows $100,000+
Founders $50,000+
Patrons $25,000+
All gifts are payable over five years.

If you are interested in making a multi-year high-dollar donation, please contact Janice Prager at 800 900.9036, fax 310 772.7651 or email jprager@wiesenthal.net.

International Leadership Council
One of the distinctive traits of those who demonstrate leadership is the inner instinct to take positive action. If you share a firm commitment to the ideals of the Simon Wiesenthal Center and wish to leverage your support by giving at a higher level, we invite you to join our exclusive International Leadership Council."


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:45 am

This isn't the first time the Simon Wiesenthal Center has earned criticism:

Web Link

The Simon Wiesenthal Center criticized Hugo Chávez for his controversial statements, including his January 2006 statement that "[t]he world is for all of us, then, but it so happens that a minority, the descendants of the same ones that crucified Christ, the descendants of the same ones that kicked Bolívar out of here and also crucified him in their own way over there in Santa Marta, in Colombia. A minority has taken possession all of the wealth of the world..."[2] The Simon Wiesenthal Center omitted the reference to Bolívar without ellipsis, stated that Chávez was referring to Jews, and denounced the remarks as antisemitic by way of his allusions to wealth. Meanwhile, according to Forward.com, the American Jewish Committee, the American Jewish Congress, and the Confederation of Jewish Associations of Venezuela defended Chávez, stating that he was speaking not of Jews, but of South America's white oligarchy. The Weisenthal Center's representative in Latin America replied that Chávez's mention of Christ-killers was "ambiguous at best" and that the "decision to criticize Chávez had been taken after careful consideration".[3]

In a second case, the dean and associate dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center confirmed a report written by Iranian exiles on Iranian religious minorities being forced to wear badges identifying them to Muslims. The confirmation resulted in the Canadian National Post newspaper printing a highly critical article on Iran that created an international uproar. Upon further investigation, the new Iranian sumptuary law proved to be totally false and the confirmation totally unfounded.

In addition, some critics claim the Center has a long history of intolerance toward viewpoints that differ from its own. For instance, by supporting the state of Israel, and attacking critics of Israeli policy, regardless of topic. Also, the Simon Wiesenthal Center sharply criticized MoveOn.org for accepting and posting an ad comparing President George Bush to Adolf Hitler during the 2004 U.S. election. While many could see a valid comparison[citation needed], the Rabbi Marvin Hier said, "it is about lies and a distortion of history".


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:45 am

Okay, now know about the information regarding making "major" gifts to this organization--but what does that have to do with the petition regarding Carter's book? I am not sure how a different section of the website pertains to the petition. The organization in question is a non-profit, that engages in fundraising--as do many, many other non-profits throughout the world.
They are clearly NOT asking for money as part of the Carter petition.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:48 am

The petition is on the same page with links labeled "Donate Now" and "Major Gift Opportunities".

That's all.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:50 am

Okay, the Wiesenthal organization has critics. Is anyone surpised by this? Again, what is the point of bringing this up? Not everyone agrees with them and their stand--is this really something shocking?
I am not sure what the point of Robin's posts are.
If Jimmy Caretr is so upset about the petition and feels that he is being slandered, his recourse is to sue. The fact that Carter, the Wiesenthal Center and posters to Wikipedia feel free to criticize each other is healthy--can the same be said for many of the countries in the Middle East?


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:52 am

Yes and as Draw The Line pointed out, these links appear on every page at the Center's website. Not anything to try to make a big deal over.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:52 am

CORRECTION:

The petition is on the same page with the following links:

"Donate Now"

"Online Store"

"Major Gift Opportunities"

another "Donate Now" in the left column

"Renew Online" in the left column



Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 11:58 am

January 26, 2007

To Rabbi Marvin Heir,

I don't believe that Simon Wiesenthal would have resorted to falsehood and slander to raise funds.

Sincerely,
Jimmy Carter


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 9, 2007 at 12:44 pm

Well, Jimmy Carter has it wrong again--the Wiesenthal Center is not trying to raise funds using falsehood and slander--they are leaving that to Carter with his book.
Also please note that the Wiesenthal Center has posted on their website Carter's letter and the response to it. ALl of this information and posting by Robin comes from the Wiesenthal Center website. They have nothing to hide nor anything to be ashamed of--hats off to them and their courageous tand against those that seek to destroy Israel and support the enemies of the Jewsih state.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 2:05 pm

I see no evidence that Jimmy Carter is seeking the destruction of Israel.

There's lots of evidence that suggests the Simon Wiesenthal Center was hoping to rake in donations by using that petition.

From the web page of the petition:

"Donate Now
Support the important work of the Simon Wiesenthal Center"

Web Link





Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 9, 2007 at 2:16 pm

I have no problem with the Wiesenthal Center trying to raise money, though as a couple of people have pointed out the Donate Now and other links are found on every page that you go to on the website.
I suggest that if people have problems with that issue that they do not send any money to the Wiesenthal center or they contact the Center directly with their complaints.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 9, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Carter didn't object to Rabbi Hier raising funds.

Indeed, Carter objected to Rabbi Hier resorting to "falsehood and slander to raise funds."



Posted by JK, a resident of Barron Park
on Feb 9, 2007 at 8:23 pm

Mr. Carter wasn't such a great president (remember the hostages, 18 percent inflation, 21 percent interest rates, gas station lines) and what he's done in retirement is pretty awful too. I support the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

Mr. Carter would serve himself and those who agree with him better by keeping his mouth shut.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 10, 2007 at 12:50 pm

It would be nice if Carter provided some facts for his assertion that the Wiesenthal Center is slandering him to raise funds. I guess it is like the "facts" in his book--no footnotes or authentication.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2007 at 3:47 pm

You have to say this for Carter - when he's bought he stays bought. That Saudi money in his library was a good investment, just like that Libyan money to Jimmy's brother.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 10, 2007 at 4:47 pm


Carter Defends Mideast Book as Accurate:

Web Link

``Not one of the critics of my book has contradicted any of the basic premises ... that is the horrible persecution and oppression of the Palestinian people and secondly that the formula for finding peace in the Middle East already exists,'' the 82-year-old Carter said.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Sorry, I didn't know that the formula for peace in the Middle East was in doubt. The formula, Jimmy, is STOP KILLING JEWS!!! Only an idiot or a peanut farmer can still believe that any concession other than all Jews dropping dead will resolve the conflict to the satisfaction of the so-called palestinians.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 10, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Well, would one expect someone like Carter to admit that his book is full of inaccuracies, factual errors, lies and distortions and admit that the book he wrote is one-sided and biased?? Carter appears to be living in some kind of dream world--I think if you read the criticism of his book you will find that many of the premises in his book have been contradicted.
Belwo is a link dissecting the booka nd thr problems with it, written by one of the men who resigned over it's publication:

Web Link


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 10, 2007 at 6:15 pm

In 2006 Israelis killed 30 Palestinians for every single Israeli killed by Palestinians.

And don't forget that the Palestinians have been enduring an inhumane, illegal military occupation since 1967.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 10, 2007 at 6:22 pm

A New Chance for Peace?

By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A23

I am concerned that public discussion of my book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" has been diverted from the book's basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book's title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel's status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the "road map" for peace developed by the "quartet" (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

Who's Blogging?
Read what bloggers are saying about this article.

* Israel Palestine Blogs
* The Third Way: A Different View of the Middle East
* GOTV


Full List of Blogs (3 links) »

Most Blogged About Articles
On washingtonpost.com | On the web

Save & Share Article What's This?
Digg
Google

del.icio.us
Yahoo!

Reddit
Facebook

The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this "green line" can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas's rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any "interim" boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter -- and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

More... Web Link


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 10, 2007 at 6:24 pm

[I've cleaned up the previous post to make it more readable.]

A New Chance for Peace?

By Jimmy Carter
Thursday, January 18, 2007; Page A23

I am concerned that public discussion of my book "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid" has been diverted from the book's basic proposals: that peace talks be resumed after six years of delay and that the tragic persecution of Palestinians be ended. Although most critics have not seriously disputed or even mentioned the facts and suggestions about these two issues, an apparently concerted campaign has been focused on the book's title, combined with allegations that I am anti-Israel. This is not good for any of us who are committed to Israel's status as a peaceful nation living in harmony with its neighbors.

It is encouraging that President Bush has announced that peace in the Holy Land will be a high priority for his administration during the next two years. On her current trip to the region, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has called for an early U.S.-Israeli-Palestinian meeting. She has recommended the 2002 offer of the 23 Arab nations as a foundation for peace: full recognition of Israel based on a return to its internationally recognized borders. This offer is compatible with official U.S. policy, previous agreements approved by Israeli governments in 1978 and 1993, and the "road map" for peace developed by the "quartet" (the United States, Russia, the European Union and the United Nations).

The clear fact is that Israel will never find peace until it is willing to withdraw from its neighboring occupied territories and permit the Palestinians to exercise their basic human and political rights. With land swaps, this "green line" can be modified through negotiations to let a substantial number of Israeli settlers remain in their subsidized homes east of the internationally recognized border. The premise of exchanging Arab territory for peace has been acceptable for several decades to a majority of Israelis but not to a minority of the more conservative leaders, who are unfortunately supported by most of the vocal American Jewish community.

These same premises, of course, will have to be accepted by any government that represents the Palestinians. A March 2006 poll by the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research in Ramallah found 73 percent approval among citizens in the occupied territories, and Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh has expressed support for talks between President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and pledged to end Hamas's rejectionist position if a negotiated agreement is approved by the Palestinian people.

Abbas is wise in repeating to Secretary Rice that he rejects any "interim" boundaries for the Palestinian state. The step-by-step road-map formula promulgated almost three years ago for reaching a final agreement has proved to be a non-starter -- and an excuse for not making any progress. I know from experience that it is often more difficult to negotiate an interim agreement, with all its future uncertainties, than to address the panoply of crucial issues that will have to be resolved to reach the goal of peace.

More... Web Link


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Every Israeli withdrawal has been rewarded by more attacks by the children of Palestine, thrust in front of their craven adults who are willing to let their babies wage a war their parents are too cowardly to do themslves. Anyone who supports this unmanly way of waging war is themselves lacking in essence. Go East, young palestinian and grow up. Your parents are not worth your love.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 10, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Nations are free to build walls, provided the walls are positioned within their own national boundaries.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 10, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Nations are free to pursue attackers to the ends of the earth and kill them. Israel has shown great restraint, at least partly our fault. "Palestine" has never made a secret of their denial of any border of Israel. That works both ways. Go
east, palestinians, and grow up.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 10, 2007 at 9:27 pm

When you build walls on other peoples' land, someone might think you're trying to steal their land.

Just sayin'.


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 11, 2007 at 10:15 am

When people bet the farm and lose, it is not their land any more. The contempt the Arab world has for Palestinians, making them stay there instead of allowing them back into their traditional lands like Jordan, is the real reason the Palestinians are suffering.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 11:28 am

After the Romans forced the Jews out of the Holy Land in 130 AD, this region did not remain unpeopled for 2000 years.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 11, 2007 at 1:24 pm

I thInk Mr Wallis summed up things quite nicely--the Arabs could have had peace in 1967--they refused, the soultion to peace in the Middle East is for the Palestinians to recognize Israel's right to exist and ever since the Israeli's withdrew from gaza they have been subjected to an almost daily bombardment of rocket shells from Gaza by Palestinian terrorists.
As for the 30:1 kill ratio--I am quite proud of that--it shows the restraint that Israel has shown--the kill ration should be more like 100-200:1. AS long as they continue to try to destroy Israel, the Palestinian body count will be much higher than Israel and that is the way it should be until they learn to accept Israel and peace.
By the way, what is the Palestinian on Palestinian kill ratio???


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 2:42 pm


On November 22, 1967, the UN Resolution 242 was adopted UNANIMOUSLY by the UN Security Council.

It calls for the "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict" and the "termination of all claims or states of belligerency."

Web Link

To this day, for nearly 40 years now, Israel persists in her craven repudiation of Resolution 242 and her craven occupation of the West Bank and Gaza.

Here's a map of the territories (in blue) assigned to Israel in the UN 1947 Partition Plan:

Web Link

Israel agreed to stay in the blue areas and Palestinians were supposed to keep the orange areas.

Israel now controls and occupies ALL of Palestine.




Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 4:16 pm

Robin,

I guess I am confused. Are you for the 1967 boundaries, or are you for the 1947 partition plan? The 1947 partition plan was REJECTED by the Palestinians and other Arab countries. UN resolution 242 accepts the 1967 borders and calls for "termination of all claims or states of belligerency." Did the Palestinians ever fully accept that in the last 40 years? I guess I have a bad hearing since I didn't hear of it. What exactly is the Palestinian Hamas government position on Israel's right to exist (forget even in which borders) right now, as we speak?

Not to mention that if the Palestinians -- even today, 40 years after their planned war to destroy Israel -- were to declare a FULL AND UNCONDITIONAL acceptance of Israel in 1967 borders, fully normalized relations, and cease any other demands -- Israel would probably find it impossible to say no. Not to mention even that UN 242 did imply some amount of border corrections.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 4:43 pm

Only in CraZyWorld do thieves and murderers dictate what concessions victims must offer to criminals or what compensation criminals owe to victims.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:02 pm

Only in CraZyWorld does Palestinian rejection of the insane 1947 UN Partition Plan mean that Palestinians forfeit ALL of their land.

So you think the 1947 Partition Plan wasn't insane?

Really?

Well then kindly look at the map and explain how this is any way to divide a very small nation:

Web Link

Not only are those 1947 borders absurd, ethnic partitioning is ponderously antithetical to core traditions of democracy.


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:03 pm

Robin,

"Only in CraZyWorld do thieves and murderers dictate what concessions victims must offer to criminals"

Agreed. That is why Israel should not let the Palestinians, or the neighboring Arab countries, to dictate the final terms of settlement.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:18 pm

Who invaded who?


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:22 pm

Robin,

"Not only are those 1947 borders absurd,"

I realize that you believe you would have done much better, but that is what the UN special commission, and the majority of the nations at the time, felt is the most sensible solution. And that is what the Jews were willing to live with as a price for peace. Not the Arabs, though.

"ethnic partitioning is ponderously antithetical to core traditions of democracy."

Says who? Those "core traditions of democracy", what exactly are they, and where do they come from? Perhaps from the Soviet Union, with its "well integrated" republics, now splintered into however many countries? Or from China, with its "democratic integration" of Tibet? Should we force the Bosnian and the Serb to stick together, whatever it takes? Is Kashmir the land of peace? Did the Arab countries beg their Jews to stay put after Israel was established? How about reading some history before making stentorian pronouncements?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Looking at those 1947 borders, you'd be a fool not to assume the UN members that voted to pass the 1947 Partition Plan weren't total bought-and-paid-for lowlifes.

Web Link


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:35 pm

Robin,

"Who invaded who?"

Excellent question. Who indeed? Let's see... immediately after the Nov. 1947 UN resolution irregular Arab armies from mostly Syria, Transjordan, and Iraq, started to infiltrate the future Israel. A day after Israel's declaration of independence in May 1948 the regular Arab armies invaded Israel. I believe they included not only the immediate Arab neighbors like Transjordan, Syria, Egypt and Lebanon, but also more remote Arab states like Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Yemen.

Right. So what was your point about invasion again?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Ever talked to a citizen of the former Yugoslavia?

I've never met one who didn't express regret that Yugoslavia has been carved up.

And for what? Who profitted?

Normal Yugoslavians got along well together, and only got swept up into a living nightmare by way of cooked-up hostilities contrived by opportunistic leaders and corrupt media.

Sound familiar?


Posted by wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:44 pm

"Looking at those 1947 borders, you'd be a fool not to assume the UN members that voted to pass the 1947 Partition Plan weren't total bought-and-paid-for lowlifes."

Yep. No question about that. Lowlifes like US, Canada, France, Holland, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, most of South America, Soviet Union and much of the Communist block, etc. As opposed to the "higher life forms" like Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iraq, Morocco, etc. Right.


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 5:54 pm

"Ever talked to a citizen of the former Yugoslavia?"

To a few. Did you ever talk to any Muslim from "former Yugoslavia", or did you just happen to talk only to the Serbs there?

"I've never met one who didn't express regret that Yugoslavia has been carved up."

Please check also with few Bosnians, Kosovars, or Monte Negrans, just to be sure.

"And for what? Who profited?"

Good question. Seems like not all human acts are driven only by material profit, despite whatever Marx might have said.

"Normal Yugoslavians got along well together, and only got swept up into a living nightmare by way of cooked-up hostilities contrived by opportunistic leaders and corrupt media."

Oh? That's a convenient and innovative reading of history. Even if it happens to be incorrect.

"Sound familiar?"

Very much so. That's what happens when you try to squish together people that do not like each other very much, under those "core traditions of democracy" of yours...


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 6:00 pm

So after the Romans forced the Jews out of the Holy Land in 130 AD, this entire region along the Mediterranean was uninhabited for 2000 years?

Again, who invaded whom?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 11, 2007 at 6:24 pm


Why would it be so difficult to suppose that a determined, organized cabal extorted, bribed, and coerced the way to passage of the 1947 Partition Plan.

Web Link

What a disaster it's been and continues to be.

And just imagine all the positive accomplishments we could have made of our nation and of our world if we hadn't been bogged down in this agonizing and needless mire.

Take a look at this fellow citizen and tell me it was worth it:

Web Link





Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 11, 2007 at 6:38 pm

I don't think people who send their children out to fight their fights while they hide behind women and babies deserve a nation or any respect. Golda Maier said it right - peace will not be possible until the Arabs love their children more than they hate Jews. Real men accept the consequences of their actions. Cowards whine.


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 11, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Robin,

"[W]ho invaded whom?"

Let's see. A bit of history may be in order. The Romans invaded (well, kind of gently took over) Palestine from the Hasmoneans in first century BC. Then they destroyed Jerusalem and exiled many (but not all) Jews in 70 AD. A minor Jewish rebellion against the Romans around 135 AD caused some more Jewish exiles. Jewish scholarship continued to flourish in that area until about 4th century AD, when the Talmud was mostly finished.

Romans ruled it until the Muslims conquered it around 638-640 AD, with a minor Persian intermezzo conquest between 614-628 AD. Muslim nomads ruled it until the Crusaders kicked their ass in 1099 AD. The Crusaders lasted for about 90 years until 1087 AD, when Saladin, a Kurd no less, kicked them out of Jerusalem. About 100 years later (1291 AD) Muslim mercenaries (Mamluks) completely kicked the Crusaders out of that area.

The region interchangeably stayed as northern province of Egypt, or a southern province of Syria, for the next 2 centuries. Then the Ottomans took it over in the sixteenth century as a part of southern Syria, and it stayed theirs (with a minor incursion by Napoleon in 1799) until WW-I (1917-18) when British General Allenby kicked the Turk's asses out of there.

Jews stayed in Palestine throughout this period, mostly in Tiberias, Tsfat and Jerusalem. Around late 19th century Zionist Jews started to return and settle in Palestine. WW-II made their return massive, and in 1947 the IN decided to partition Palestine between the Jews and the Arabs.

So which exact "invaders", Robin, do you choose to like, and which you don't? Do you prefer the Romans over the Jews? Or maybe the Muslim nomads over the Jews and Romans? The Crusaders over the Muslim nomads? The Kurds and Muslims over the Crusaders? The Brits over the Ottomans? The Jews over the Brits and local Muslims?

In other words, Robin, why do you think that Muslims kicking out the Jews and Romans are OK, but the Jews and Brits kicking out the Muslims are not? Can you please clarify?


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 12, 2007 at 12:00 am

Robin,

"Why would it be so difficult to suppose that a determined, organized cabal extorted, bribed, and coerced the way to passage of the 1947 Partition Plan."

Not difficult at all, particularly if you believe that the Jews control the Universe. After all, how difficult can it be for the Jews to bribe or coerce 33 sovereign states? It must have been a child's play for them! I actually don't understand how the Jews blew it and failed to enlist such easily-bribed states like Greece or Cuba!

"And just imagine all the positive accomplishments we could have made of our nation and of our world if we hadn't been bogged down in this agonizing and needless mire."

Indeed. We all know that the Universe turns around those Jews! Had it now been for them, had Hitler done his job right, we would have that issue solved once and for all!

What the heck. At least now we can finish the job and make sure that the Arabs take over that land, and solve the Jewish Problem once and for all!

Isn't that what you would like, Robin?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 5:05 am

How many Jews were in Israel in 1850 AD?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 5:09 am

CORRECTION:

How many Jews were in Palestine in 1850 AD?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 6:25 am

Listen to George Galloway responding to a radio-show caller who accuses him of being a racist anti-Semite:

Web Link=


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 12, 2007 at 6:48 am

George Galloway, the [food for] oil millionaire? That George Gallway?
Yew driv'n yer ducks to a poor market, birdy.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 7:10 am

Maybe you didn't realize a court awarded Galloway over a million pounds because somebody (Gee, I wonder who) forged those Oil for Food Program documents:

"On 22 April 2003, the Daily Telegraph published an article describing documents found by its reporter David Blair in the ruins of the Iraqi Foreign Ministry. The documents purport to be records of meetings between Galloway and Iraqi intelligence agents, and state that he had received £375,000 per year from the proceeds of the Oil for Food programme.[61] Galloway completely denied the story, insisted that the documents were forgeries, and pointed to the nature of the discovery within an unguarded, bombed-out building as being questionable. He instigated legal action against the newspaper, which was heard in the High Court from 14 November 2004 (HQ03X0206, George Galloway MP vs. Telegraph Group Ltd.)

On 2 December, Justice David Eady ruled that the story had been "seriously defamatory", and that the Telegraph was "obliged to compensate Mr Galloway... and to make an award for the purposes of restoring his reputation". Galloway was awarded £150,000 damages plus costs estimated to total £1.2 million."


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 12, 2007 at 8:39 am

The laws in GB are not the same as they are here. Mr. Gallway has established his advocacy and antagonism to the cause of freedom. Bluster is his weapon and he wields it well.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 6:06 pm


Here's a video of George Galloway demonstrating his formidible forensic abilities:

Web Link


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 12, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Robin asks:

"How many Jews were in Palestine in 1850 AD?"

An interesting question. The estimates for mid-19th century are about 350 thousands total population, out of which Arabs made about 95% (both Christian and Muslim) and Jews made up most of the remaining 5%.

It is also interesting to observe the widely noted at the time (e.g. Mark Twain) backwardness of Palestine, and of its sparse population. For comparison, the same geographic area easily supported over 5 million inhabitants, mostly Jews, two thousands years prior to that, during Jesus time.

Hundred years later, in 1947, the Arab population more than tripled to almost 1.2 millions, while the Jewish population grew over 30x to about 650 thousands, for about 1/3 of the total population. It should also be noted that until that time not one square inch of Palestine was "invaded" by anyone (except the Brits, at most) -- all Jewish land was purchased from the landowners, often at inflated prices. In fact, rather than displacing Arabs, the Jewish influx created an economic attraction, and Arabs in Jewish neighborhoods grew much faster that in non-Jewish areas of Palestine ( Web Link )

So unless you are against immigration, Jewish settling of Palestine until 1947 was exemplary.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 9:09 pm


Cite?


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 12, 2007 at 9:56 pm

Much of the data is from Web Link and Web Link .


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 12, 2007 at 10:41 pm

I reference Wikipedia myself, but there's too much Zionist bias on Wikipedia to use it as even a starting point on this extremely controversial topic.

For what it's worth, I seen Turkish census data from 1844 that indicates Jews did not exceed 2% of the population, but I'm uncertain what the best scholarship has determined.





Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 12, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Robin,

Your sensitivity to bias seems to extend only to Jews and Zionism. Clearly there was no bias in your references to the "scholarly" Galloway, to Carter twisting historical facts, to Israel's "craven repudiation of Resolution 242" (Israel accepted it; remember the Arab response to 242 in Khartum?), or to Israel's bribing and coercing most of UN members to vote for 1947 partition. Only for "Jewish Conspiracy" your sense of smell is exemplary. How unsurprising.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 6:24 am

Be serious.

Interpretation of 19th-century Turkish census data on Palestine deserves far more effort than citing Wikipedia pages for "Palestine" and "Israel".


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 6:58 am

Cite Carter twisting facts, please.

And be serious.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:02 am

Just look at these borders of the UN 1947 Partition Plan and explain how an normal person would endorse dividing a very small nation like this:

Web Link


Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 13, 2007 at 7:24 am

The problem in discussing this in terms of how many Jews were there, or whether or not it was a fair or just action to establish Israel, is that it is done deal already. It is like the same discussion about California, just replace the people involved. Very few would consider it worthwhile to try to undo California based on conflicting data and opinions from prior to the establishment of this state, given that it was done under the best legal way we knew of at the time, just like Israel was established under the best legal way we had at the time.

Given this, I 100% support Israel's right to exist and to self-defense, just like I 100% support California's right to exist and have it's own police/Guards.

The question of borders is one of self-defense. Every single time Israel has "given back" land it has legitimately won from the attackers after it has been attacked, the land has been used to attack, again, Israel.

Hard to feel pity for the "occupied" lands when this is the historical reward of Israel returning land. I only feel pity for the women and children who are at the mercy of the merciless who set up the innocents for death.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 8:46 am

When normal people have a chance to look at the facts, it appears that Israelis and their Zionist Israel-can-do-no-wrong-how-dare-you-criticise-Israel frontmen in USA and elsewhere are the problem in the Middle East.

UN Resolution 242 calls upon Israel to end her illegal military occupation of Palestinian land and return to 1967 borders.

Period.

End of story.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 8:47 am

Regarding a citation for Caretr twisting facts, i posted this link on this thread a few days ago. Here is is again:

Web Link

I am sure you can find many others on line.

AS Draw the Line points out, the number of Jews in Palestine in 1850 is irrelevant as is putting links to the 1947 partition plan. Israel exists, it will continue to exist, despite the Palestinian's plans. Also there is no point in talking about "A Right of Return" of the palestinians to Isreal--that will never happen.
When, one day soon I hope, the Palestinians realize that the only chance for them to improve their lot is to recognize Israel and make peace with her, then the problems of that area will be solved.
As long as the Palestinians continue on their current path, the Palestinian bodies will continue to pile up.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 8:53 am

If one wants to cite UN resolution 242, then one should read it carefully:

Web Link

The resolution states in part:

"Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;

Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;"

You will notice in the first part it states "withdrawal from territories", not "withdrawal from THE territories"--this wording was put in on purpose, allowing Israel and the world felxibility regarding what is to be returned.

The secomd part discusses the right of the state to love in peace iwthin secure and recognized borders. Unfortunately the Palestinians do not recognize Israel and will not free her from threats and acts of force.

It takes two to tango--if you want 242 implemented it has to be from both sides and by the way Israel was ready at Camp david to return greater than 90% of the "occupied" territories in line ith 242.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 8:56 am

Here is another link discussing 242:

Web Link


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:07 am

Supporters of an "all territories" reading point out that the intentions and opinions of draftsmen are not normally considered relevant to the interpretation of law, their role being purely administrative. It is claimed that much more weight should be given to opinons expressed on the matter in discussions at the Security Council prior to the adoption of the resolution. The representative for India stated to the Security Council:

"It is our understanding that the draft resolution, if approved by the Council, will commit it to the application of the principle of total withdrawal of Israel forces from all the territories - I repeat, all the territories - occupied by Israel as a result of the conflict which began on 5 June 1967."

The representatives from Nigeria, France, USSR, Bulgaria, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Ethiopia, Jordan, Argentina and Mali supported this view, as worded by the representative from Mali: "[Mali] wishes its vote today to be interpreted in the light of the clear and unequivocal interpretation which the representative of India gave of the provisions of the United Kingdom text".

Israel was the only country represented at the Security Council to express a contrary view. The USA, United Kingdom, Denmark, China and Japan were silent on the matter, but the US and UK did point out that other country's comments on the meaning of 242 were simply their own views. The Syrian representative was strongly critical of the text's "vague call on Israel to withdraw".

The statement by the Brazilian representative perhaps gives a flavour of the complexities at the heart of the discussions:

"I should like to restate...the general principle that no stable international order can be based on the threat or use of force, and that the occupation or acquisition of territories brought about by such means should not be recognized...Its acceptance does not imply that borderlines cannot be rectified as a result of an agreement freely concluded among the interested States. We keep constantly in mind that a just and lasting peace in the Middle East has necessarily to be based on secure permanent boundaries freely agreed upon and negotiated by the neighboring States."


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:18 am

Imagine what kind of world we'd live in if international law endorsed violent aquisition of foreign territory.

But that's what the Zionists claim they can do.

And notice how NONE of the territories stolen from Palestinians has been returned.

Worse still, the Israelis are using Gaza as a giant open-air concentration camp, including using Palestinians for random target practice.

660 Palestinians were murdered in 2006.

Shot and shelled like fish in a barrel.

And we haven't even broached how Israel kidnapped and imprisoned hundred of elected Pal officials, how they routinely block ambulances, how they destroyed Gaza's electrical grid, etc.





Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:20 am

Regardless of what was said before, during or after the vote on 242--people continue to claim that Israel should abide by 242--not the discussions itself, but the actual resoultion itself.

Even if Israel wanted to abide by 242 the realities are:
1) Israel will not relinquish control of the Western Wall the holiest site for the Jewish people.

2) Even if Israel withdrew to the pre-1967 borders (though it is clear that this is not a real border, but an armistice line) Palestinian factions will continue to call for Israel's destruction. They have made it clear that Israel must ceaseto exist. Why would Israel withdraw to an unsafe border given that?

People that continually blame Israel for all the troubles in the region, ignore the attempts of Israel to broker peace with their neighbors, ignore the Palestinian rhetoric calling for Israel's destruction and ignore the actions of Palestinian homicide bombers in Israel are either completely biased or anti-semetic.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:28 am

A normal person would agree it is important that there were about a hundred times more Palestinians in Palestine than there were Jews.

Normal people reject illegals trespassing, invading, occupying, terrorizing, and ethnically cleansing lands that do not belong to them.



Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:34 am

Normal people are getting tired of Israel's ponderous excuses for her illegal military occupation.

Insisting Palestine poses a threat to Israel is no different than insisting Guatemala poses a threat to USA.

It makes ZERO sense.



Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:36 am

100 times more Palestinians than Jews?? isn't that a bit of an exaggeration

Web Link


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:42 am

When a country/people continuously call for another's destruction (to make it clear, I am referring to the Palestinians calling for Israel's destruction), shell that country on a daily basis from their adjacent border, and send homicide bombers to blow up innocent women and children, I would consider that a threat to Israel.
Please provide links of similar actions by Guatemala vis a vis the USA.
It would make zero sense for Israel to ignore said threats and anyone who thinks that the Palestinians are not serious is ignoring history and the facts


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:44 am

Your chart shows Jews at 7.5% of the population of Palestine in 1914.

That's more than 70 years after Jews began invading Palestine.

That's almost 20 years after Hertzl's English translation of Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State") first appeared.

The invasion was well underway by the time Jews hit 7.5%.





Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:47 am

Normal people endorse native populations making every effort to repel illegal military occupations.

No justice, no peace.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 9:51 am

Just to make yourself clear, in your view "every effort" includes sending homicide bombers to blow up men, women and children in coffee shops, discos, markets and restaraunts?

You are correct though--there will be no "justice" and no "peace" if we follow your teachings/beliefs.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 10:03 am

Normal people don't see much difference between a suicide bombings and using jetfighters to hurl one-thousand-pound bombs at high-density population centers.

The big difference to remember is that Israelis are illegally occupying Palestine, and that 40 years ago UN Resolution 242 instructed Israelis to get out of the Occupied Territories.




Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 10:10 am

I read the first dozen paragraphs of the hit-piece on Jimmy Carter's Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, and all I found were childish ad hominem attacks.

Not a very impressive start for serious critism of a serious subject, especially given the author is a professor.

Next!


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 10:40 am

Wow.

Check out the group that published that hit-piece on Carter.

It's called the Middle East Forum, and if you click on About, you'll see one of their activities is a program called Campus Watch:

Web Link

Nice!

"Many opponents of Campus Watch see it as an attempt to stifle any criticism of Israel in American academia.

Rashid Khalidi, a Directory of the Middle East Institute at Columbia University and a target of Campus Watch:

"This noxious campaign is intended to silence such perfectly legitimate criticism, by tarring it with the brush of anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism, truly loathsome charges. They reveal the lengths that these people apparently feel impelled to go to in order to silence a true debate on campus." [6]

Joel Beinin, then Professor of Middle East History at Stanford University, now Director of the Middle East Studies Department at the American University in Cairo, said this of Campus Watch:

"After failing in his own pursuit of an academic career, [Daniel] Pipes has evidently decided to take revenge on the scholarly community that rejected him. [....] These efforts to stifle public debate about U.S. Middle East policy and criticism of Israel are being promoted by a network of neo-conservative true believers with strong links to the Israeli far right. They are enthusiastic supporters of the Bush administration's hands off approach to Ariel Sharon's suppression of the Palestinian uprising and aggressive proponents of a preemptive U.S. strike against Iraq."

Political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt wrote in March 2006 that Campus Watch was founded by "passionately pro-Israel neoconservative Jews" with the intention of "encourag[ing] students to report comments or behavior that might be considered hostile to Israel" and that it was a "transparent attempt to blacklist and intimidate scholars."

Just what USA needs, more effort to stifle debate on Israel and Palestine.




Posted by Draw the Line, a resident of Stanford
on Feb 13, 2007 at 12:40 pm

It is apparent that people who disagree with you, Robin, are not "normal people".

If you, and your colleagues, keep proposing that the only solution is the dissolution/destruction of Israel, then there will never be peace.

The Pink Ladies of Israel, in their naive innocence, worked for years to bring about some withdrawal of Israel from "occupied" lands, and won, just over 18 months ago. I used to think thiers was a noble cause. I celebrated with them, by newspaper, when they were celebrating, happy in the belief that this would bring peace. Even they, the most gentle of humanity, the women, the childbearers, the nurturers, the peacemakers, even they finally gave up and disbanded this last summer. They saw that ceding land only resulted in more death of Jews, not peace.

They, and I, finally learned that any concession is not seen as a hand extended in peace, but as a head bowed in weak submission, to be kicked.

This is what we have seen since 1948, from people of your political ilk. Some of us used to have hope that, with time, your attitude would change. Until this attitude changes, it will continue to destroy the Palestinian people.

Frankly, I question if you are even writing from Palo Alto, or if you are writing from somewhere else. If you are writing from Palo Alto and believe everything you say, then there really is no hope for peace. You have firmed my line.

It is very sad.

Say what you want, I am off this thread.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 1:14 pm

If you are thoroughly convinced Israel cannot exist unless it maintains its status as an apartheid state, why would you want to locate a beloved homeland there?


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 13, 2007 at 2:07 pm

Boy, it must be so galling to the "peace and justice" crowd that Israel still exists after almost 60 years. It always amazes me the depth of hatred toward Israel and the Jewish people that I see within these organizations. They have vilified Israel for years, trying boycotts, supporting terrorism and suicide bombings, these days the approach is to compare Israel to the apartheid state of South Africa. One can only say that have no clue about what apartheid is and are just using the word because it sounds catchy!!!
Any website or person that dares to disagree with the "peace and justice" crowd is labeled as trying to suppress free speech or called a lowlife or worse. Any piece written in support of Israel and critical of one of the darlings of the "peace and justice" crowd is called a "hit piece". Then, of course, there is the world wide conspiracy run by the Jews—the Jews control the press and all the money. The Jews were behind the events of 9/11. The Jews get away with what the "peace and justice" crowd claims they do in Israel because they control entire governments and on and on it goes.
But you know what, Israel is still around and will be around for years to come. The Israelis, who are very self-critical—one has to read some of the Israeli papers to see what goes on in Israel as far as criticism of the government and it's policies, all are united on one issue—that is the survival of the State of Israel. They may disagree on what is best for the state, but they all know who the enemy is and what they seek to accomplish.
You may ask what do the Israelis think about the "peace and justice" crowd—the answer is that they probably do not think of them at all—they are a non-factor as far as Israel and it's future goes—a real non-entity in Israel's big picture. The "peace and justice" crowd may have Jews in the US wringing their hands with their rhetoric and pronouncements, but as far as Israel is concerned they are just another group of people who live in the safety of the US trying to dictate to Israel what they should or should not do—without really having a clue about what is going on in the Middle East on a day-to-day basis.
Finally Israel has not reached this stage without some help from the Palestinians themselves. As a great Israeli politician once said—the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss and opportunity. Now the Palestinians are engaged in a program of real self-destruction. The Gaza Strip was turned over to their leadership over a year ago by Israel and now Hamas and Fatah are roaming the streets gunning each other down.
Trust me, Israel does not lose any sleep over the actions and words of the "peace and justice" crowd.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 2:37 pm

Criticism of Israel has yet to reach our mainstream media, but it seems the day is coming when critics of Israel are allowed to speak without being labeled anti-Semitic.

Glory be.

You know, when you think about it, it's childish to hurl an insult like "anti-Semitic". Imagine if Jews were labeled anti-goyim. It's stupid. You might as well call an opponent "doo-doo head". It's really that ridiculous.








Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 13, 2007 at 2:52 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]


Posted by whats the point?, a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Feb 13, 2007 at 3:32 pm

You folks are not going to convince each other of anything.


Posted by wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 13, 2007 at 8:45 pm

Robin,

I guess I missed a lot of fun during the day...

If you bothered to read the Wikipedia articles rather than just dismiss them, you would see that the issue of Turkish census was discussed. It doesn't surprise me that you choose to take the lowest possible number of Jews in 1850, but it does surprise that you can't do basic arithmetic. Whether 3% or 5%, the Jews were somewhere between 1:30 to 1:20 versus the Arabs in 1850, and not 1:100 like you claim. Oh, and they were probably in excess of 80% six centuries before Islam was even invented.

Further, you ignore the fact that there was no "invasion" of Jews until 1948, since all land was bought for its full value. By 1948 the Jews were about 1:2 to Arabs. You ask for truthfulness all the time, so where is the truth of your "invasion"? The only invaders were the 7 Arab states that invaded Israel in 1948.

It occurs to me that maybe you think Jews "had no right" to buy land in Palestine or settle there. If this happens to be your belief, please tell me -- do you also think that Europe should prohibit Arab immigrants from settling there and kick them back to wherever they came from?

Returning to UN 242, your "truthfulness" consistently "forgets" that Arab countries had a part to play -- recognize Israel, and establish peaceful relations with Israel. Israel accepted the UN resolution 242, AND THE ARABS DID NOT. Following resolution 242, the Arabs met in Khartum and issued their three famous "no's": "No peace, no recognition, no negotiation" with Israel. Few already mentioned it to you, yet you continue to willfully ignore it. How's that for truthfulness?

Finally, some knowledge of history would help. You ask "imagine what kind of world we'd live in if international law endorsed violent aquisition of foreign territory."

International law does not prohibit territorial adjustment against aggressors. That is, for example, how Germany lost territories to Poland and France after WW-II. Israel didn't start the 1948 or 1967 wars. The Arabs did.

"And notice how NONE of the territories stolen from Palestinians has been returned."

Another example of your "truthiness"? Israel returned Gaza, and Israel returned a large fraction of the West Bank to Palestinian sovereignty And the land was never "stolen" -- it was occupied as the result of Arab aggression against Israel in 1967. If at all, Jordan and Egypt "stole" Palestinian land since they decided to annex it between 1948 and 1967.

"Worse still, the Israelis are using Gaza as a giant open-air concentration camp, including using Palestinians for random target practice."

Your truthiness is flowing over. Concentration camp? Have you ever seen one, that you throw this word so mindlessly? A "concentration camp" out of which over thousand rockets were fired on Israeli settlements since Israel left Gaza? Is it a "concentration camp" when heavily armed Islamic factions fight there tooth and nail among themselves and kill many more than the Israelis ever did?

"Shot and shelled like fish in a barrel."
You must think that next to shelling them, the Jews also drank their blood and ate their flesh-- I am sure that is what the literature you must read says. Don't you confuse "truthfulness" with "hyperbole"?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 13, 2007 at 11:13 pm

One of your Israel-can-do-no-wrong cohorts linked to data indicating Jews comprised 7.5% of the population in Palestine in 1914. So how does that square with the Wikipedia fairytale that 5% of the population was Jewish in 1850? Are you denying waves of Jews, particulary from Russia, invaded Palestine in the 19th-century?














Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 5:57 am

I wonder if it's true that in 1948 that for every Jew in Palestine there were two Palestinians in Palestine.

Those bought-and-paid-for lowlifes at the UN who voted in favor of the 1947 Partition Plan must have had a lot of fun with this bit of mischief:

56% of Palestinian territory for 33% of the population (Jews)

44% of Palestinian territory for the 67% of the popultation (Palestinians)


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 6:32 am

The Daily Telegraph article: Web Link

Professor outrages Jews with book claim
By Andrew M Rosemarine
Last Updated: 1:24am GMT 09/02/2007

A Jewish academic has shocked Italy by claiming Jews murdered Christians for their blood in the Middle Ages so it could be used in rituals.

The details were revealed in the Italian newspaper, the Corriere della Sera, which published extracts of the book, Easter of Blood by Professor Ariel Toaff.

The claims were denied by leading Jewish figures including his father Elio, once the chief Rabbi of Rome.

In the book, Prof Toaff alleges the ritual killing was carried out by members of a fundamentalist group in reaction to the persecution of Jews.

The book describes the mutilation and crucifixion of a two-year-old boy to recreate Christ's execution at Pesach, the Jewish Easter. The festival marks the fleeing of the Jews from Egypt and Prof Toaff says Christian blood was used for "magic and therapeutic practices".

In some cases the blood was mixed with dough to make azzimo, unleavened bread, eaten at Pesach. He says the acts took place in around the city of Trento in modern northern Italy, between the 11th and 14th centuries.

Prof Toaff based his book on confessions he says came from Jews captured and tried for the practice. He said several were executed after confessing to the crucifixion of Christian children.

Italy's senior rabbis, including Elio Toaff, issued a joint statement condemning the book. "There has never existed in Jewish tradition any permission or custom for using human blood for ritual purposes. Such a practice is considered with horror.

"It is absolutely improper to use centuries old statements, extracted under torture, to formulate singular and aberrant historical theses. The only blood shed in these stories is that of many innocent Jews."

Prof Toaff, who teaches mediaeval and Renaissance history at Bar Ilan University in Jerusalem, said the reaction was a "disgrace" as they had not read the book, which has yet to be published.

He emphasised the practice was confined to "a small group of fundamentalists."

He added that attacking the whole of Judaism would be similar to blaming Islam for the acts of extremist Muslims. "They had suffered from the trauma of mass suicides. [sic] It was both a kind of revenge and a way, for them, of seeking redemption."


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 6:39 am

"It is absolutely improper to use centuries old statements, extracted under torture, to formulate singular and aberrant historical theses."

Notice a problem here?


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:12 am

You wrote: "Further, you ignore the fact that there was no "invasion" of Jews until 1948, since all land was bought for its full value."

Web Link (& scroll down to the section titled Partition)

"At the time of partition, slightly less than half the land in all of Palestine was owned by Arabs, slightly less than half was "crown lands" belonging to the state, and about 8% was owned by Jews or the Jewish Agency"

So what were you saying about how all land was bought for its full value?





Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:23 am

You wrote: "Israel didn't start the 1948 or 1967 wars. The Arabs did."

That's just not true.

The war in 1967 was an unprovoked act of Israeli aggression aimed at expanding the boundaries of Israel, and the territories captured during this war are illegally occupied.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:38 am

You wrote: "Israel returned Gaza"

Be serious.

If that's true, why do Israelis control all points of entry and exit belonging to Gaza?

Why are Palestinians in Gaza starving to death?

Why did Israel destroy Gaza's electrical power station after returning Gaza?

Why have Israelis kidnapped and imprisoned hundreds of elected officials from Gaza?

Why is Israel shelling families picnicing on the beaches at Gaza?

Why did that IDF officer go unpunished for emptying his entire clip (more than a dozen rounds at close range) into a 12-year-old Palestinian girl?

Israel MURDERED 660 Palestinians last year.

Guess how many Israelis have died because of rockets fired from Gaza?

In the past 5 years, 8 Israelis have been killed by rockets.

8 total in 5 years!

Jeez, who's the terrorist here?






Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:46 am

Journalists and publishers who defend Israel better pray on their knees that Americans never learn the truth that USA sponsors and funds a concentration camp called Gaza.

If Julius Streicher could hang, so should the perpetrators of today's Gaza.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:55 am

I think the issue for some people is not the fact that they believe that Jews are "occupying" Palestinian territory--the issue is really the presence of Jews at all in the Middle East and probably as an extension of that the existence of Jews at all.
Also one needs to remember that Palestine belonged to the British from after WWI until 1948 and prior to WWI to a vareity of different countries. Also note that what is being called Palestine changed over the years as well. So if these countries that controlled Palestine allowed Jews to migrate there, it can hardly be called an invasion. Also please note, that any person, jewish or not, born prior to 1948 in what is now the state of Israel and the territories that Israel took during the 6 Day War are by definition Palestinian.

Finally regarding UN 242--Israel has returned to the pre-war borders along theborder with Egypt. Why?? Because Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel and recognized it's right to exist. Also note that Egypt did not want the Gaza Strip back as part of that peace agreement even though the Gaza Strip belonged to Egypt prior to the 6 Day War. I wonder why?


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:57 am

I agree, Robin. The leaders of Hamas as well as the leaders of Fatah that ripped off the Palestinian people for billions of dollars in aid money, that was supposed to help them out of their misery should hang.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 8:09 am

Who cares if Jordan and Egypt formally or informally annexed the remaining 22% of Palestine ?

Whenever Zionists haul this point out you know they're just trying to deflect attention away from their criminal control 100% of Palestine.




Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 8:11 am

Most Hamas leaders are rotting in Israeli dungeons, getting the Abu Ghraib treatment per usual.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 8:59 am


In 2006 Israelis murdered 30 Palestinians for every Jew killed by Palestinians.

Why would Israelis do that if they truly hoped for a peace treaty?

Simple: A peace treaty is the Very Last Thing the Israelis want.

Israel is cravenly terrorizing and murdering Palestinians and using this horror show as an excuse to steal Palestinian lands.





Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 9:47 am

Zionists need to decide whether to cite or repudidiate the 1947 Partition Plan.

It's either "tough luck, Peace-Lovers, the UN gave us 56% of Palestine in 1947".

Or it's "We don't have to return the Occupied Territories because the 1947 Partition Plan is non-binding because the Palestinians rejected it".

Some Zionists think they can avoid repudiating the 1947 Partition Plan by pretending Israel wasn't the agressor in the 1967 War. So for those of you still unwilling to jump on the non-binding bandwagon, here's video of Israel's surprise attack on sleepy, sun-baked Egyptian airbases that launched the 1967 war:

Web Link


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 14, 2007 at 10:46 am

Cowards who send children to do their killing for them while they hide rocket launchers next to orphanages have no moral authority at all. Any UN resolution that denies the right of self defense has no moral authority. Any claim that suidide bombing of civilian targets is a legitimate act of war has no moral authority. Any resolution that refuses to punish agression has no moral authority.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 14, 2007 at 11:00 am

Wallis:

Trick question: When was the last time Israel was attacked by an Arab nation who wasn't justifiably responding to Israeli attack, invasion, or occupation?


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 14, 2007 at 5:28 pm

Robin,

"Trick question: When was the last time Israel was attacked by an Arab nation who wasn't justifiably responding to Israeli attack, invasion, or occupation?"

A non-trick answer, which you can keep denying until you are blue in your face:

1948: 7 Arab counties declared war on Israel and invaded it, a day after it declared its independence based on UN resolution in 1947. No Israeli attack, occupation, or invasion, preceded the Arab invasion.

1967: Egypt kicked UN observers out of Sinai peninsula violating the cease fire agreements, and moved a massive army into Sinai, publicly declaring that it is planning to attack Israel and "wipe it off the map." Then it proceeded unilaterally to close international marine passageway in the straits of Tiran for ships traveling to and from Israel. In international law this is called an act of war. No Israeli attack, occupation, or invasion, preceded this Egyptian aggression, which Syria and Jordan joined after the war erupted.

1973: Egypt and Syria launched a surprise attack on Israel, after they refused for 5 years to negotiate peace with Israel in return for their territories, that Israel occupied as the result of the 1967 war (remember those 3 "no's" of Khartum - no peace, no recognition, no negotiation with Israel?). No Israeli attack, or invasion, preceded this Egyptian/Syrian aggression, and the occupation was only in direct result of Arab own aggression 5 years earlier. After the 1973 defeat Egypt finally realized that it should better ignore Khartum and talk with Israel, and Egypt indeed had got all their territory back for a peace agreement with Israel.

So much for your trick question. But I also have a trick question. When will you either describe the "invasion" of the Jews to Palestine prior to the establishment of Israel, or admit that you are repeatedly and intentionally lying about it? All land prior to 1948 was PURCHASED by the Jews from its lawful owners, so where is your "invasion"?


Posted by Walter_E_Wallis, a resident of Midtown
on Feb 14, 2007 at 7:31 pm

By their behavior toward their own children and innocents the unmanly Palestinians have forfeit any right to consideration of any grievances. Until they accept the same constraints on behavior that all civilized people do, they need to be kept from the discourse of nations.


Posted by Boaz, a resident of Greater Miranda
on Feb 16, 2007 at 9:27 am

Here is a link in response to a posting on 2/14, which really had nothing to do with this current thread except to bring up an old anti-semitic blood libel.
Web Link

Please make special note of the next to last paragraph.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 16, 2007 at 10:43 am

Boaz,

Firstly, on February 14 I posted the article about "Easter of Blood" by Professor Ariel Toaff because I am fully entitled to respond to the following comment posted on February 13:

"You must think that next to shelling [Palestinians], the Jews also drank their blood and ate their flesh-- I am sure that is what the literature you must read says. "

Secondly, the article I posted makes it clear that the author of the "anti-semitic blood libel" book is a Jew.

Please explain how Professor Toaff is an anti-semite.




Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 16, 2007 at 10:52 am


"The book arrived in stores two days later and sold out in less than 24 hours."

Web Link


Posted by Wolf, a resident of Palo Verde
on Feb 16, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Robin,

"The book arrived in stores two days later and sold out in less than 24 hours."

So did Mao's Little Red Book, Hitler's Mein Kampf, and Stalins The Great Patriotic War of the Soviet Union. Mass murderers them all.


Posted by Robin, a resident of College Terrace
on Feb 16, 2007 at 4:08 pm

Cite?


If you were a member and logged in you could track comments from this story.

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Touring the Southern California “Ivies:” Pomona and Cal Tech
By John Raftrey and Lori McCormick | 5 comments | 3,206 views

Couples: Parallel Play or Interactive Play?
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 1,443 views

Just say no
By Jessica T | 6 comments | 1,387 views

SJSU Center for Steinbeck Studies to Honor Author Khaled Hosseini on Weds Sept 10
By Nick Taylor | 0 comments | 804 views

Candidate Kickoff Events: Public, not just for supporters
By Douglas Moran | 4 comments | 380 views