While it's important to remember that some good has come out of the illegal occupation of Iraq - unfortunately, the bad outweighs the good. Since the illegal invasion it is estimated that between 392,979 and 655,000 Iraqis have been killed (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1892888,00.html).

It's also good to remember that Glenn Beck is a staunch supporter of Bush and one of the most influential conservative talk-radio personalities. He has led a number of pro-war rallies ignoring the terrible attrocities occuring in Iraq - some of them at the hands of American troops. Personally, I think he is a vile individual. For example has called the victims of Hurricane Katrina 'scumbags'. He approves of torturing terrorism suspects. He has referred to the War on Terror as the Third World War - which is highly irresponsible. And I'm stilled pissed off at the way he interviewed Keith Ellison - he asked Ellison ""What I feel like saying is, 'Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies'". If he had done that in the UK he would have been fired and his career would have been over. Furthermore, he said that he was surprised that former President Jimmy Carter did not attend Iran's December conference on Holocaust denial - following the publication of Carter's book on Palestine and Israel.

I won't down vote this post - because it is important to see that there have been some positives. But because the negatives completely outweigh the positives, and because I can't stand Glenn Beck - I certainly ain't voting for it!

gwaan, I have been researching and reading this stuff for over a decade now. I am not anti-palestinian and I have even been enlightened over the last few years. I know that the palestinians were the ones to suffer as a result of arab countries attacking Israel in 1948. I know their situation is terrible because of the way they have been treated by their own people and Israel. But I do know that most of the stuff I hear about Israel is simply not true.

Believe me, I know a lot about whats going on in the middle east.



In reply to your comment:
“ My mind isn't closed - there are many fine Articles and videos on Israel/Palestine - many by Jews and Israelis - you just haven't posted any yet.

Read as much as you can on Israel-Palestine (and Islam). Read books by Elmer Berger, Alfred Lilienthal, Norman Finkelstein, Tanya Reinhart, Tony Judt, Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé. Read Jimmy Carter, Chomsky, Edward Said - and books by other Palestinians . As an American read the following famous article published by Harvard University (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06). Read books written by Zionists and those who opose Zionism. The American media is biased - as many of my Israeli friends will admit. Try reading the BBC website for a more objective view. Also read the Israeli press - their discussion of the issues involved is a lot freer than in America.

If you truly care about Israel and Palestine - make your own mind up - don't let someone else make it up for you.

In reply to your comment:
“It doesnt matter. I sent you articles. I could show you accounts from people. I could even get you personal interviews from palestinians who will tell you what's really going on but in the end you'll just say its anti-palestinian Israeli propoganda.

So what could I do. People believe what they want even if the truth is shoved in their faces.

You cant truly want peace with a closed mind. ””

My mind isn't closed - there are many fine Articles and videos on Israel/Palestine - many by Jews and Israelis - you just haven't posted any yet.

Read as much as you can on Israel-Palestine (and Islam). Read books by Elmer Berger, Alfred Lilienthal, Norman Finkelstein, Tanya Reinhart, Tony Judt, Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé. Read Jimmy Carter, Chomsky, Edward Said - and books by other Palestinians . As an American read the following famous article published by Harvard University (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06). Read books written by Zionists and those who opose Zionism. The American media is biased - as many of my Israeli friends will admit. Try reading the BBC website for a more objective view. Also read the Israeli press - their discussion of the issues involved is a lot freer than in America.

If you truly care about Israel and Palestine - make your own mind up - don't let someone else make it up for you.

In reply to your comment:
“It doesnt matter. I sent you articles. I could show you accounts from people. I could even get you personal interviews from palestinians who will tell you what's really going on but in the end you'll just say its anti-palestinian Israeli propoganda.

So what could I do. People believe what they want even if the truth is shoved in their faces.

You cant truly want peace with a closed mind. ”

My mind isn't closed - there are many fine Articles and videos on Israel/Palestine - many by Jews and Israelis - you just haven't posted any yet.

Read as much as you can on Israel-Palestine (and Islam). Read books by Elmer Berger, Alfred Lilienthal, Norman Finkelstein, Tanya Reinhart, Tony Judt, Benny Morris and Ilan Pappé. Read Jimmy Carter, Chomsky, Edward Said - and books by other Palestinians . As an American read the following famous article published by Harvard University (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/Research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06). Read books written by Zionists and those who opose Zionism. The American media is biased - as many of my Israeli friends will admit. Try reading the BBC website for a more objective view. Also read the Israeli press - their discussion of the issues involved is a lot freer than in America.

If you truly care about Israel and Palestine - make your own mind up - don't let someone else make it up for you.

rickegee

Thanks for posting the Dershowitz paper - although I can't stand Dershowitz it is always good to hear both sides of an argument!

I think it's a little unfair to accuse Jimmy Carter of cynicism. I think he used the word apartheid to illustrate the appalling treatment of the Palestinians and the obvious, although not perfect, similarities with the situation in South Africa. The vast majority of Americans were opposed to apartheid in South Africa - and I think Carter believes that if they knew more about the situation in Israel/Palestine they would be opposed to what is going on there too.

He may also have used the term 'apartheid' for exactly the reason you say - 'that American media will cover race'. It is far more difficult getting any media or political forum in the States to fairly cover the issue of Israel/Palestine without incredible pro-Israeli government policy bias - as Carter is arguing.

In the interest of further nuance, I attach the Alan Dershowitz response to the Israel Lobby paper:

http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/dershowitzreply.pdf

I am particularly wary of Zionist conspiracy theories, whether they are advanced by Palestinians, anti-AIPAC people like the Harvard guys, Edward Said, or Jimmy Carter. This line of reasoning draws upon a history of thought that is mostly unsavory and based solely on a fear of the imaginary 'Judeofascist'.

However, there are a lot of truths in this thread, and in the Carter book, about the untenable state of affairs in the Palestinian ghettos of Israel.

I would be interested to know what Jimmy Carter thinks about the Israeli/Palestinian negotiations of the 1990s. I do love how Jimmy Carter takes on human rights issues and acts as an extra-governmental moral gadfly.

However, I also marvel at his cynicism. He uses the word 'apartheid' to sell books and to get on TV. He knows well that the word has racialist overtones and that American media will cover race. The situation in Israel is far, far, far more complicated than South African-style apartheid.

I am constantly amazed by the man that Jimmy Carter has become. The current state in the middle east isn't about Israel being all wrong or the Palestinians being all right or vice versa. But the western media who suggest that the Israelis are "good" because they attack with tanks and jets and missiles as opposed to the Palestinians who are "terrorists" because their only weapons are bombs and mortars, are feeding us a line. Nobody is innocent in the middle east, not the Israelis or the Iranians or the Iraqis or the USA.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

The Jimmy Carter thing is weird. I remmeber that. It swam out while he was fishing in a boat and bit his hand. They were afraid it was rabid.

Not a single Jimmy Carter or Holy Grail joke yet in comments? So much for this being a geeky site. :-)

That's a really simplistic view, quantummushroom, that's akin to saying yeah well we screwed over a bunch of nations just to gain a foothold for ourselves, we're cool now so stop blaming us.

You don't realize that such activites by the goverment is actually holding you, the average citizen down. How exactly? Well think about the gap between the rich and the poor in America, it's so large now that there is a reduction in the number of people who are middle class.

Now let's think back about all the military incursions that America has been involved in and pick a few cases to look at. We'll look at Nicaragua, this starts back with Theodore Roosevelt who extends the existing Monroe Doctrine in 1904 allowing the US to interfe in a latin american state guilty of "chronic wrong doing" (I mean much more vague can this be). The Monroe doctrine comes to define america's policy in Latin America.

US Marines land in Nicaragua in 1909, after a similar pattern of interventions in Cuba (1898), Honduras (1905) and Panama (1908). Nicaragua becomes a US protectorate there after.

In 1926, Augusto Cesar Sandino lunaches a successful guerilla war against US marines and the Nicaraguan National Guard under Anastasio Somoza Garcia. The Sandinista rebels are a pro-liberal group that insists on a redistribution of land to the peasantry, which is violented opposed by Somoza. Sandino was murdered by the National Guard in 1934, Somoza who is a US ally then runs a brutual dictatorship until 1979 when the Somoza Dynasty is overthrown by Sandinista National Liberational Front. Jimmy Carter at the time tried desperately to prop up Somoza's regime until the bitter end. Nicaragua after years of oppressive rule lay in ruins with 40,000 to 50,0000 killed.

When the Sandinistas finally come into power, everything is done to demonize them with accusations of undemocratic policies, genocide, drug-trafficking. This is while US media remains silent on the documented facts of Sandinistas remarkable reforms. Oxfam, with it's experience of working in over 76 developing nations finds the Nicaraguan goverment to be exceptional in it's commitment to addressing inequities in land ownership, in extending health, educational and agricultural services to poor peasent families.

Until 1989, the US goverment pursues a policy of destabilization by suppyling an insurgent army of 'Contras' in Nicaragua.

The question is "Why would the US goverment feel threatened by socialism in a smaller, weaker country such as Nicaragua"?

This comes down to the Rotten Apple theory. If a tiny impoverished nation with miniuscle resources can begin to do something for it's own population others might ask "Why not us?". The weaker and less economically endowned the nation the greater the example that can be set. The rot could spread, threatening regions of real concern to the rulers of the world.

Same thing with Iran, which in the late 40s grew tired of it's resources being plucked by corporations. The CIA however interevened, a coup occured and the Shah of Iran came into power. This of course back fired a few years later with the extreme Islamic goverment emerging. The US goverment then makes links with Iraq, supporting Iraqi military operations into Iran, while selling arms to both sides. This of course back fires with the usage of Chemical and Biological weapons by Saddam. The US goverment distances itself.

1991, Iraq invades Kuwait. For a long time the international community does not do much other then decry the situation. However intelligence arrives saying that Saddam's forces are massing on the western border of Kuwait with Saudia Arabia. The american administration deems it too risky to allow Saddam to possbily enter Saudia Arabia. And the rest is history. But no wait. It's not all over yet. Suddenly only 100 KM away from Baghdad, coalition forces are pulled back, the regime in Iraq is unchanged, no pressure is placed on the regime to allow free elections to occur.

Vote Jimmy Carter in 2008