Power Line News

Benedick - 11 December 2006 03:16 PM

I haven’t asked anyone to “trust” any list, nor is it necessary to do so. 

I don’t think anyone’s claimed that you asked them to trust any of your post’s or lists. I’d assume that it’s a basic assumption of self-respect. Maybe it’s not for you.

Leaving out Security Council Resolution #242 can hardly be described as an oversight. If it is, you are not well informed. It’s the resolution at the heart of Carter’s book. You’d know that if you had read the book.

Israel has been in violation of this Security Council Resolution for nearly four decades. Violating this resolution has cost Israel and the Palestinians thousands of lives and countless more wounded.

Benedick - 11 December 2006 03:16 PM

In any event, you characterize 242 as requiring Israel to leave occupied lands. 

I don’t characterize as that..it says it. Go read it. It’s clear and easy to understand. Plain english is wonderful, isn’t it?

Let me make this point differently, since you don’t seem to understand the vacancy of your objection.  Rummy said the U.S. had blocked every single U.N. resolution intended to condemn Israel.  Every single one.  Ever.  I objected.  I said, here’s a “partial list” of resolutions fitting that very description.  Then you chimed in with the complete red herring:  that I’d left one out!  You didn’t refute my point in any way.  Here’s a simplified version of your logical failing:

Rummy:  There are no professional baseball teams in California.

Benedick.  Sure there are.  Here’s a partial list:  the Athletics and the Giants.

Gryfin:  Ha!  You left out the Padres!  Ha!  Why should we believe anything you say?!

Note that Gryfin’s point does not refute Benedick’s.  Indeed, it supports Benedick’s point.  Even if Benedick was less than complete in his list, he (1) established that Rummy was wrong (his only ambition in proffering the list), and (2) stated up front that his list was not comprehensive.  Thus, what Gryfin treated as a “gotcha!” moment was nothing more than an irrelevancy.  If you cannot see how this is true, we do not share a logical language that will enable us to posit arguments to one another.

You’re angry that I left out a resolution that you wish to prattle on about.  Obviously, I have not impeded your prattling, so no harm done to you. 

As far as the 1967 war goes, Israel mobilized AFTER Nasser expelled the UNEF buffer forces that were in Eqypt for the sole purpose of preventing Egyptian incursions into Israel.  Israel mobilized AFTER Egypt blockaded Israel (an act of war under international law).  Israel mobilized AFTER Syria launched border incursions (into Israeli territory) against Israeli troops and civilians and mobilized its own military.  Oh, and Israel mobilized AFTER Nasser and other Arab leaders announced a “war of total destruction” against Israel. 

You seem disappointed that Israel tooks its enemies at their word and mobilized its armed forces rather than permit itself to be overrun and destroyed by its neighbors (as had almost happened in the immediate wake of Israel’s independence in 1948).  That’s your prerogative, Gryfin, and I cannot hope to cajole you from that sentiment.  And clearly you and I will simply shout past each other if I try to point out that Israel only continues to “occupy” the territories gained in 1967 because they have been repeatedly used by neighboring countries (and terrorist groups) from which to attack Israel.  And you probably won’t be dissuaded from your perspective by the fact that Arafat rejected an opportunity to reclaim those territories in a peaceful two-state deal in 2000.  Similarly, you likely won’t be moved by the fact that when Israel DID withdraw from some of the occupied territories earlier this year, those territories immediately became launching pads for Hezbollah rockets.  None of these facts has much prospect of bringing our positions closer together.

We simply won’t find common ground.  Perhaps we should leave it at that.

My most vivid memory of the Carter administration:  standing in gas lines for hours in the Texas heat because of Jimmy’s foreign policies.  Remember even/odd license plate numbers that determined when you could get gas and when you were sol?  Perhaps some of you do not remember the out-of-control inflation during his tenure, followed by recession.  The scandal involving his brother, Billy, pocketing $250,000 from the Libyan government.  Or how he gave away the Panama Canal.  Or his incessant preachiness.  Or his totally inept handling of the overthrow of the Shah and the Iranian Revolution.  I do, and they far outweigh the few-and-far-between accomplishments of his administration.

Since his defeat to Reagan in 1980, Carter has broken with over two hundred years of presidential tradition, criticizing the decisions of his successors both here and abroad.  Even Nixon didn’t cross that line.  He has gone further, criticizing his country and his countrymen abroad to any and all who will listen, trying to re-write the history of his term in office. 

My opinion is, get over it, Jimmy, and get over yourself:  the American people voted you out for good reason and you’re not going to get a do-over from history, no matter how many books you pen.

"AFTER Egypt blockaded Israel (an act of war under international law”. That law didn’t seem to apply to Israel’s blockade on Lebanon did it? Why was it again (nobody commented) that we stood by while innocent civilians were bombed over & over and please don’t give me the civilians were used as shields Israeli line ok?Basically, most of the free world was against Israel and us for that one. That’s good news for my kids future huh?
-------------------------------------------------------------------
My opinion is, get over it, Jimmy, and get over yourself: the American people voted you out for good reason and you’re not going to get a do-over from history, no matter how many books you pen.
----------- ----------------- ---------------- ---------
That’s a nice statement now substitute Bush for Jimmy. The Irag war will go down as the greatest of all blunders (he had the facts so why did he lie anyway?) made by any President. If you check the country that lobbied the hardest for war, guess who you find? Hint...I used the word Lobby. We just won’t even bring up that Nixon had to resign for God-sake and your hero Reagan gave arms to Iran to get our people home. Arms to IRAN....
Now isn’t Iran considered by the current administration to be our enemy. You know axis of evil and all that talk. I don’t think we even liked them when Reagan gave them arms did we? or am I generalizing too much again?… I know there was there a reactor somewhere? Oh yeah...Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility — fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms.

We better start treating all sides equal over there and not be one sided in our policies. Although, we really haven’t had a mid-east policy for 6 years ....just kind of a “you Israeli’s do what you think is right” policy.

President Carter points that out and look who’s trying to discredit him…

And by the way you explanation of the Israeli flag and Bush is very, very weak..

Rummy

Rummy, your stream-of-consciousness anger does not translate well into prose.  At least Gryfin’s posts evidence something on the order of a high school education.  You, on the other hand, do not appear to be so fortunate.

Someone posts that Carter should realize he was voted out of office for good reason—and you propose to substitute Bush in that sentence?  Because Bush was voted out in 2004?  That makes no sense.

You call Reagan my hero; I’ve not mentioned Reagan once.

You contend that “[w]e better [sic] start treating all sides equal [sic] over there and not be one sided in our policies.” What does that mean?  Is that a policy position or a Sesame Street song?

Tired and uninteresting work, Rummy.

This post brought to you by the letter Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Someone posts that Carter should realize he was voted out of office for good reason—and you propose to substitute Bush in that sentence? Because Bush was voted out in 2004? That makes no sense.

But his boys were and you know that’s what I was referring to. Your the one who’s lookin mighty dumb pal....and in front of all your pals here…

You call Reagan my hero; I’ve not mentioned Reagan once.

But he is and you know it and I know it...so again not very smart or I might say dumb!....

You contend that “[w]e better [sic] start treating all sides equal [sic] over there and not be one sided in our policies.” What does that mean? Is that a policy position or a Sesame Street song?

I guess a statement that reflects a need to look for peaceful solutions gets right by you...again...dumb…

You say my posts put you to sleep but you haven’t answered any (I’m beginning to think you have no answer) or pretend you don’t know what I’m saying...not dumb but so pathetic…

Here’s one to keep you awake ...Our boys are dying for NO REASON!!!

Sleep well!

Rummy

Benedick - 11 December 2006 04:43 PM

As far as the 1967 war goes, Israel mobilized AFTER Nasser expelled the UNEF buffer forces that were in Eqypt for the sole purpose of preventing Egyptian incursions into Israel.  Israel mobilized AFTER Egypt blockaded Israel (an act of war under international law).  Israel mobilized AFTER Syria launched border incursions (into Israeli territory) against Israeli troops and civilians and mobilized its own military.  Oh, and Israel mobilized AFTER Nasser and other Arab leaders announced a “war of total destruction” against Israel. 

You seem disappointed that Israel tooks its enemies at their word and mobilized its armed forces rather than permit itself to be overrun and destroyed by its neighbors (as had almost happened in the immediate wake of Israel’s independence in 1948).  That’s your prerogative, Gryfin, and I cannot hope to cajole you from that sentiment. 

In other words, Israel launched the 1967 war with a surprise attack very much like Pearl Harbour. There is no need to hide behind euphemisms like “mobilized” in place of the accurate term “attacked”.

And you are right. You won’t cajole me in taking your view. You’d have to do much better than this display. Facts will convince me though. Show me the evidence that Egypt of Syria launched the first attacks of the Six Day War.

You don’t have to believe me. Just find any history book that says otherwise. Go ahead. Make my day.

But I must say, your convoluted revisionism is amusing to read. Your ability to bend historical fact to match an ideological view would make any contortionist blush.

Benedick - 11 December 2006 04:43 PM

Let me make this point differently, since you don’t seem to understand the vacancy of your objection.  Rummy said the U.S. had blocked every single U.N. resolution intended to condemn Israel.  Every single one.  Ever.  I objected.  I said, here’s a “partial list” of resolutions fitting that very description.  Then you chimed in with the complete red herring:  that I’d left one out!  You didn’t refute my point in any way.  Here’s a simplified version of your logical failing:

Rummy:  There are no professional baseball teams in California.

Benedick.  Sure there are.  Here’s a partial list:  the Athletics and the Giants.

Gryfin:  Ha!  You left out the Padres!  Ha!  Why should we believe anything you say?!

OK...calm down. You’ve missed my point. You see, Security Resolution #242 is one of the central resolutions of the Israeli problem and it’s one of the main pillars of Carter’s thesis. To come up with a list of resolutions and not mention one of the most obvious is a glaring red flag. I also asked why you did not list any after 1992. You said you did not have time to do the research.

The fact is, you did not do any research. You just cut and pasted a list from another website without attribution. That list also neglected to mention Resolution #242. That list also specified resolutions from 1955 to 1992.

Most people would call that plagiarism. Most people would also call that a “Gotcha” moment.

Rummy has obviously consumed way to much of his namesake. That is the only way he would arrive at the conclusions he has come to believe. Obviously the “united nations” are anything but united. Carter has completely falsified what happened. The “palestinians” have rejected out of hand any attempt to settle the issue. arafat outright rejected Clintons compromise in 2000 he abrogated any and all agreements from camp david and he is obviously primarily responsible for the last 20 odd years of bloodshed in “palestine” and israel. carters false use of the map is a gross distortion of history. rummy needs a little remedial education himself. I suppose rummy also believes that the holocaust never occured.

I guess you figure I’ll leave if you don’t respond to my posts. Perhaps I might. I know, I don’t have the command of language that others here have but I did make valid points concerning Lebanon and how the US is now viewed in the world. You do have to admit there a whole lot of folks whose true allegiance is to Israel (some have served in the Israeli government or military)are at or have been at the very top positions in our government. That makes me wonder who’s calling the shots. Just because you don’t respond doesn’t really change that. Since you don’t respond to simple questions I only can concluded you know I’m right and your afraid to open your mouth because of your position or the circles you run in. Really who wants us to be in Iraq the most? It’s not Americans so it must be some other country that could be in real trouble if this mess isn’t sorted out. Also please don’t put words in my mouth (holocaust for example)to try to discredit me. Bush tried that with people who didn’t support his illegal war by basically calling them traitors and look where that got him. Just answer that questions who continue to hide...your choice…

Rummy

Rummy, we permit users of this site broad latitude to engage in debate as they see fit.  People who disagree with the site’s proprietors can and do voice their disagreement here, as forcefully as they wish.  However, there are limits.  This is not a place for anti-Semitic, semi-literate and possibly drunken rants.  If that’s what you want to do, I recommend you check out the Daily Kos or Democratic Underground.  You’ve been banned.

Finkelstein can teach a lesson to those of you who criticize Carter:

“Those sharing Carter’s iniquitous belief also include the editorial board of Israel’s leading newspaper Haaretz, which observed in September 2006 that “the apartheid regime in the territories remains intact; millions of Palestinians are living without rights, freedom of movement or a livelihood, under the yoke of ongoing Israeli occupation,” as well as former Israeli Knesset member Shulamit Aloni, former Israeli Ambassador to South Africa Alon Liel, South African Archbishop and Nobel Laureate for Peace Desmond Tutu and “father” of human rights law in South Africa John Dugard.[9]

Indeed, the list apparently also includes former Israeli prime minister Ariel Sharon. Pointing to his “fixation with Bantustans,” Israeli researcher Gershom Gorenberg concluded that it is “no accident” that Sharon’s plan for the West Bank “bears a striking resemblance to the ‘grand apartheid’ promoted by the old South African regime.” Sharon himself reportedly stated that “the Bantustan model was the most appropriate solution to the conflict."[10]"

“The shrill reaction to Carter’s mention of apartheid is probably due not only to the term’s emotive resonances but its legal-political implications as well. According to Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions as well as the Statute of the International Criminal Court, “practices of apartheid” constitute war crimes.[12] Small wonder, then, that despite—or, rather, because of—its aptness, Carter is being bullied into repudiating the term”

I just finished reading the book. I was curious if any of you knew of a significant factual error in the book that could be easily researched. I am discussing it with my book club and would like to be prepared for what I expect will be an intense debate.