Stick a Fork In Jimmy Carter

[marksman]

From an article on CNN:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/02/01/carter.hamas/index.html

That article was from February 2006, almost 17 months ago! He wasn't commenting on the divided state of affairs that exists today.

In his comments from this past Tuesday, Carter does not suggest funneling aid through the UN or other relief organizations. (Which is exactly whan the EU, US and Israel currently plans in Gaza.) In fact, his comments make it plain that Carter thinks we should treat Fatah and Hamas equally. Giving aid in the West Bank through Fatah and aid in Gaza through relief organizations would not be the equal treatment Carter advocates.

Whether Carter simply misspoke, or if this represents an evolution in his thoughts on the issue, I don't know. Either way, I agree that a metaphorical fork should be stuck in him.

 

[Dancing David]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you saying that funding terrorists during the Reagan administration was bad, but now that Jimmy Carter endorses it, it's good?

Not at all, first off I haven't read JC's remarks so I am not sure what he is saying we should do. But given our country's history of funding and supporting very dangerous people (like Pinochet), I think that our government should be more careful in who it funds. I think the fungibility argument is an interesting one. And needs to be taken seriously.

However there are currently a lot of people without the human necessities in the occupied territories, and while Hammas comprises some of them, there are a lot more.

I am considering the fungibility argument as it applies to humanitarian aid, that is a great point to ponder.

And your point is... what? That we should fund Hammas because we're not "the wisest group in the world?"

That we should consider our own wisdom in most respects and the consequences of our choices.

You're being very confusing here. How do you feel about the US sending any kind of aid at all to Hammas?

I would not say that would should send aid to Hammas, but I don't feel we should cut off humanitarian aid either. I am pondering the fungibility argument. I am not sure that Hammas is feeding people right now and I am still pondering it.

Oh, BTW, just curious, since you know that we're not "the wisest group in the world," who, in your opinion, has that honor? I'm not arguing your point - just want to know what you think.

I am saying that perhaps there are areas where world politicking and warfare by the USA could be done on a more prudent basis, with a due consideration of the consequences of the choices being made.

I believe that Israel exists and that the former palestinians exist. I am not sure how much the US can do to change their behavior, I do believe however that the political inequality in Israel is a huge problem. I understand the POV of the militant Israelis, I happen to feel that treating former palestinians as citizens with equal righst could go a long way to calming the situation. I could be wrong.

 

[Dancing David]

How did you right that without your head exploding? Hamas, not Israel, is the theocracy. They're the ones actively driving out religious minorities and enforcing repressive religious doctrines.

Zig, I meant not to offend you I am much more moderate than that. I should say secular theocracy in regards to Israel, I am saying that because citizenship is based upon a religious birth that they are theocratic. I believe that Israel (for what may be good reasons) denies civil rights to many of the people who should be citizens of the country. I do not believe that Israel is the sole root of evil. I don't particularly like any of the players in the area.

I am commenting on the political disenfranchisement of people based upon religion.

Hammas is bad, as in real bad. But letting others suffer because of the behavior of radicals is something I am opposed to, however the fungibility argument of BP is a dandy that I am pondering.

 

[Dancing David]

Dord this mean you view the two as about the same, then?

If not, why equate them this way?


ETA:

I mean, honestly:

"Stalin was not the nicest man in the world, and neither is Dancing David."

"The KKK are not the most tolerant people in the world, and neither are Dancing David's friends."

"Paris Hilton is not the most refined person in the world, and neither is Dancing David."

Very funny.

I am saying that US policy contributes a lot to the chaos and disorder of the situation.

I have not said that i support hammas in the least.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Very funny.

I am saying that US policy contributes a lot to the chaos and disorder of the situation.

I have not said that i support hammas in the least.

There was no suggestion that you supported Hamas -- but the question is whether you view the US and Hamas as equivalent in the "not nice" department. Because the phrase used appears to specifically equate them.

 

[marksman]

I should say secular theocracy in regards to Israel, I am saying that because citizenship is based upon a religious birth that they are theocratic.

No, they aren't. A theocracy means:

a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.​

There's no such thing as a "secular theocracy". And Israel is not a theocracy. It does not purport to enact God's law, and its leader is not a representative of the Jewish religion.

I believe that Israel (for what may be good reasons) denies civil rights to many of the people who should be citizens of the country.

Are you unaware of the million or so citizens of Israel who are Palestinians?

I am commenting on the political disenfranchisement of people based upon religion.

And you are wrong.

Palestinians are disenfranchised becase their territory is currently occupied because it has been in a near-constant state of hostilities against Israel. Were Israel to annex the Occupied Territories, then, yes, you'd have an argument.

 

[Dancing David]

I respect that. Look, he didn't ask for airdrops of food into Gaza. He asked for equal treatment for usurpers with a long history of terrorist activity.

I am puzzled that he would go out on a limb for them at this point. Deeply deeply puzzled. Does he honestly believe what he is saying or is he just playing diplomat and trying to appear as a neutral arbiter?

Does he really believe the US and the west should support the Hamas insurrection?

Quite true, supporting a coup government is bad. Except for when we say it isn't. In this case I would say bad. I am still pondering the fungibility aspect.

I would like to say we should send food and medicine, but I am still pondering.

 

[Dancing David]

There was no suggestion that you supported Hamas -- but the question is whether you view the US and Hamas as equivalent in the "not nice" department. Because the phrase used appears to specifically equate them.

I am sorry, if Carter said we shoukld give the aid to Hammas, then I disagree with him, very strongly.


There are things our government appears to be doing that are not good. But there is a point to be made about moral equivalency, it doesn't translate well.

I am saying that our government currently appears to be up to its usual things that I disapprove of, and that we need to stop doing that. When Israel recognizes that all people born within its borders are citizens and gives them equal rights then my opposition collapses.


Our government has done things recently that I disagree with very strongly. For example I think that the war in Iraq had some major problems after the war was won on the ground. Does the death of civilians after the invasion equal or pale in comparison to suicide bombings. I don't know I think both are wrong. I think the US has a history of rather bull headed foreign policy that tends to make things worse.

 

[Dancing David]

Marksman, below is my original post, but I thought that since you said I was wrong, I very well could be and I did some checking.

It would appear that I was wrong.

I was wrong. I was under the impression that Israel had a dual legislature.

I was wrong.

So the disenfranchisement I was talking about would appear to be wrong.

Except for those who fled during the first Israeli and subsequent wars, do they have the right to return and be treated as citizens?

No, they aren't. A theocracy means:

a form of government in which God or a deity is recognized as the supreme civil ruler, the God's or deity's laws being interpreted by the ecclesiastical authorities.​

There's no such thing as a "secular theocracy". And Israel is not a theocracy. It does not purport to enact God's law, and its leader is not a representative of the Jewish religion.

Okay, I still disagree with their policy. Any operson who is Jewish can become a citizen. meanwhile palestinian citizens do not recieve equal treatment under the law.

They have a seperate parliment I believe? Do they get all the benefits that a jewish citizens recieves?

Are you unaware of the million or so citizens of Israel who are Palestinians?

Are they treated equally under the law?

And you are wrong.

Palestinians are disenfranchised becase their territory is currently occupied because it has been in a near-constant state of hostilities against Israel. Were Israel to annex the Occupied Territories, then, yes, you'd have an argument.

I know that we might disagree on this, it is normal to flee during wars, what about the 'right of return'?
How do you feel about that?

 

[David Swidler]

Okay, I still disagree with their policy. Any operson who is Jewish can become a citizen. meanwhile palestinian citizens do not recieve equal treatment under the law.

Jewish ancestry means immediate citizenship in the case of immigrants, but others are not barred; they "merely" have to follow more lengthy procedures. But once a citizen, always a citizen, on down through the generations, no matter what one's beliefs or genetics. That includes the fifth or so of the population that is ethincally Arab (and mostly Muslim) who self-identify as "Palestinians". Not to be confused with the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (and the descendants of refugees scattered about the Middle East) who are not, and have never expressed a wish to become, Israeli citizens. The Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship live in Israel's pre-1967 borders.

The immigration policy is clearly discriminatory, but at its root lies the question that drives Israel's political thought: are we a Jewish state or a state of all our citizens? It's not going to be resolved in the next decade at least.

They have a seperate parliment I believe?

You probably refer to the autonomous Palestinian Authority government that operates in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the Israeli Knesset includes representatives of several Arab parties, not to mention Arab MKs from other parties.

Do they get all the benefits that a jewish citizens recieves? Are they treated equally under the law?

Certainly, at least in theory. I tend to view it more as an issue of class than ethnicity, but I'm probably in the minority on that point.

 

[Dancing David]

Jewish ancestry means immediate citizenship in the case of immigrants, but others are not barred; they "merely" have to follow more lengthy procedures. But once a citizen, always a citizen, on down through the generations, no matter what one's beliefs or genetics. That includes the fifth or so of the population that is ethincally Arab (and mostly Muslim) who self-identify as "Palestinians". Not to be confused with the Arab residents of the West Bank and Gaza Strip (and the descendants of refugees scattered about the Middle East) who are not, and have never expressed a wish to become, Israeli citizens. The Palestinians who hold Israeli citizenship live in Israel's pre-1967 borders.

The immigration policy is clearly discriminatory, but at its root lies the question that drives Israel's political thought: are we a Jewish state or a state of all our citizens? It's not going to be resolved in the next decade at least.

You probably refer to the autonomous Palestinian Authority government that operates in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But the Israeli Knesset includes representatives of several Arab parties, not to mention Arab MKs from other parties.

Certainly, at least in theory. I tend to view it more as an issue of class than ethnicity, but I'm probably in the minority on that point.

Thank you for your response. I believe that marksman was correct and that I had confused the occupied territories with the actual territory of Israel.

I was wrong in my belief and appreciate the correction by you.

Just so you know, I am ashamed by the history of the US when it came to jewish emigration to the US. (I am very frightened because there is a Father Coughlin who lives in the state next door, I am scared he is the father who spoke so strongly against the jewish emigration.)
I accept the fact that Israel exists and do not believe that there should be any doing away with Israel. I am not sure what the US government can do to ease the situation, except to practice patience and understanding. I am more worried about the Saudi Arabians than I am for Israel. I would hate for them to become a wuhabi state.

I am not really aware of how many of the refugees would want to return to Israel, can they get compensation for the loss of their land?

I am certainly willing to believe that social class plays the major role in discrimination, it is one of the many discriminatory factors in the US and probably the source of most racism as well.

I will have to be more careful in the future, when the Israeli government seizes land to discern where that land is.

 

[marksman]

I am not really aware of how many of the refugees would want to return to Israel, can they get compensation for the loss of their land?

Well, the issue of compensation is certainly within the topics of negotiation, along with securing peace for Israel. Israel has not, to my knowledge, stated that compensation will not be given, but it would have to be part of a negotiated resolution of issues.

Of course, Israel argues that many of the residents abandoned the land (and thus their rights to them) when they left in 1948 anticipating that Israel would be destroyed. Palestinians argue that they were driven out by Israelis. The truth lies somewhere in between.

Also, the issue of documenting the land rights claimed by Palesitinians in the territory of Israel will be difficult. England, which administered that area as part of its "Mandate" after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, was not meticulous in recording property rights and the Ottoman's before then were even worse.

It is unclear which Palestinians claim to have lost which properties. To my knowledge no group, Palestinian or otherwise, has made a comprehensive survey of Palestinian land claims.

 

[davefoc]

I thought this article was relevant to the discussion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2108926,00.html

David Swidler wrote:

Jewish ancestry means immediate citizenship in the case of immigrants, but others are not barred; they "merely" have to follow more lengthy procedures.

This doesn't seem to fairly represent the situation. I saw that you put "merely" in quotes, so perhaps what you meant by that is essentially banned which I think would be accurate.

I am under the impression that the spouses and children of Israeli citizens are not allowed to immigrate to Israel if they are non-Jews from the West Bank. Is this wrong?

I agree that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy many of the same rights as Jewish citizens but they are not the same under the law for various reasons that would all be illegal in the US. Do you disagree with this?

When Israel built the fences through Palestinian villages did it offer the residents on the Israeli fence side the opportunity to become Israeli citizens? Would it have if they had been Jewish?

Does Israel subsidize the immigration of non-Jewish citizens?

Does Israel subsidize the building of settlements in the West Bank by non-Jewish citizens?

Are Arab Israelis allowed to hold dual citizenships the way Jewish citizens are?

 

[NoZed Avenger]

I am sorry, if Carter said we shoukld give the aid to Hammas, then I disagree with him, very strongly.


There are things our government appears to be doing that are not good. But there is a point to be made about moral equivalency, it doesn't translate well.

I am saying that our government currently appears to be up to its usual things that I disapprove of, and that we need to stop doing that. When Israel recognizes that all people born within its borders are citizens and gives them equal rights then my opposition collapses.


Our government has done things recently that I disagree with very strongly. For example I think that the war in Iraq had some major problems after the war was won on the ground. Does the death of civilians after the invasion equal or pale in comparison to suicide bombings. I don't know I think both are wrong. I think the US has a history of rather bull headed foreign policy that tends to make things worse.

I think that's a reasonable explanation. The "equivalency" implication was all that I questioned, and that appears to be inadvertent. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[WildCat]

I am more worried about the Saudi Arabians than I am for Israel. I would hate for them to become a wuhabi state.

You're over 80 years late, Saudi Arabia has been a Wahabbist state since the al Sauds captured Mecca and Medina in 1924.

 

[David Swidler]

I thought this article was relevant to the discussion:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/israel/Story/0,,2108926,00.html

David Swidler wrote:


This doesn't seem to fairly represent the situation. I saw that you put "merely" in quotes, so perhaps what you meant by that is essentially banned which I think would be accurate.

Oh, it's a very sardonic "merely", but "banned" is far from the truth. For non-Jews the procedures and requirements resemble those of other countries, with an admixture of x number of years' residence, no criminal record, blah, blah blah.

I am under the impression that the spouses and children of Israeli citizens are not allowed to immigrate to Israel if they are non-Jews from the West Bank. Is this wrong?

Certainly the law doesn't follow your impression, but security considerations have often led those enforcing the law to, shall we say, inconsistently apply it.

I agree that Arab citizens of Israel enjoy many of the same rights as Jewish citizens but they are not the same under the law for various reasons that would all be illegal in the US. Do you disagree with this?

Yes. On the legal side, there is no significant discrimination. The most visible arena of discrimination is allocation of various resources - funding for public facilities, maintenance of same, and allocation/appropriation of land (with the Bedouin in the Negev this is especially sensitive). That's not a question of law, but of legislators' priorities. From what I understand, many Arab Israelis believe their Arab Knesset representatives are out of touch with the demographic's needs.

When Israel built the fences through Palestinian villages did it offer the residents on the Israeli fence side the opportunity to become Israeli citizens? Would it have if they had been Jewish?

The wall didn't annex any territory to Israel, so the status of the land didn't change. As it happens every single (open) Jew who lives in the territories is already an Israeli citizen, so the second question is immaterial.

Does Israel subsidize the immigration of non-Jewish citizens?

Certainly. Many, many of the million or so immigrants from the former Soviet Union are not Jewish. It's a little more complicated than that, but the thread's getting pretty derailed here already.

Does Israel subsidize the building of settlements in the West Bank by non-Jewish citizens?

They probably would, but not a single one seems to be interested.

Are Arab Israelis allowed to hold dual citizenships the way Jewish citizens are?

I don't see why not; the dual citizenship thing is more a question of the other country's policy than of Israel's.

Seriously, though, let's get back on topic.

 

[Dancing David]

You're over 80 years late, Saudi Arabia has been a Wahabbist state since the al Sauds captured Mecca and Medina in 1924.

Could very well be, I know they fund a lot of the whackos out there, like the ones who blow uo Sufis and all that.

 

[Dancing David]

Yes. On the legal side, there is no significant discrimination. The most visible arena of discrimination is allocation of various resources - funding for public facilities, maintenance of same, and allocation/appropriation of land (with the Bedouin in the Negev this is especially sensitive). That's not a question of law, but of legislators' priorities. From what I understand, many Arab Israelis believe their Arab Knesset representatives are out of touch with the demographic's needs.

.

That would be discrimination of an institutional nature, different allocation of resources is one of the marks of discrimination. So if Arab schools are funded differently, Arab housing is funded differently, Arab resources are allocated differently: that is discrimination of an institutional nature.

At least in US usage.

 

[BPSCG]

That would be discrimination of an institutional nature, different allocation of resources is one of the marks of discrimination. So if Arab schools are funded differently, Arab housing is funded differently, Arab resources are allocated differently: that is discrimination of an institutional nature.

At least in US usage.

DD, I believe this entire line arose out of your earlier claim that Israel was a theocracy, which I think you've retracted. It appears now you are trying to say that there is not perfect justice in Israel. I doubt that anyone would seriously argue that there is perfect justice in Israel, so what is your point? It appears to me that you're trying to work around to arguing that since Israel doesn't administer perfect justice to its minority populations, it is therefore no better than, say Iran or Palestinia or Hamas - they're all morally equivalent - and that sending aid to Hamas is therefore justifiable because we also send aid to Israel.

I'm not trying to set up a straw man here - really - but where are you headed with this?