"But that, if it does, Israel would be transformed from a Jewish state to a bi-national one in which an Arab majority could outvote the Jewish minority."

And isn't that why Israel itself is an "apartied state" because their policies are built around protecting a ruling minority?

Isn't protecting power imbalance, via military might, the same moral charge made against Saddamm because it underminded democracy?

Bush's stated policy is "we won't talk to or financially help palestinians until they stop terrorizing" but, at the same time, Bush promoted Israel's terror by sending them more military aide and, therefore, forced the palestines to employ unibombers, instead of B52 bombers, especially because the asymetric economics didn't promote peace.

As I noted previously, I think that Israel's elite are working towards a palestinian genocide-- similar to the native american genocide.

Carter is a visionary-- he helped achieve peace in the mideast, argued for "energy independence in the 70's" and continually speaks truth to power.

Given Israel's history, even in the bible, of being "over the top" when it comes to agression and unable to come to peace with God, it's sad to see that people are trying to smear Carter and stand behind neoconservative dysfunction in order to protect the illusion that neoconservative policy will have a positive, humanist legacy even though, ultimately, it's all ego and power.

>> It's a free country

The US is ranked 53rd for freedom of the press.

So, free yes, but please nothing to gloat about.

As far "freedom of influence," (how free can you be if you want to be influent), Israel is miles ahead of the US.

Unless you peddle the American creed (we're the freest, we're the mightiest,we're the most moral, etc) you won't get publish much in the MSM.

Just a few days ago, someone published a scathing indictment of the IDF in Haaretz. And I mean SCATHING! puncturing all the myths about the IDF being the best, most moral army in the world.

Such an article about the US military would be unthinkable. And yet the pathetic performance of our military in Iraq makes the IDF's conduct last August positively competent.

Re. apartheid policy in the territories, Carter is actually understating the reality. Life is worse for the Palestinians.

In Israel proper, there is no apartheid. Institutionalized racism, yes. Apartheid, no. But as MJ said, Carter never claimed there was.

I am curious about your robust defense of the First Amendment. Jimmy Carter has a book published and has been on virtually every TV show to promote it. It hardly seems that he is in danger of be silenced or not getting his message out, including attacking the honesty of President Clinton.

However, you seem to be less sure about the rights of those who don't agree with your position on anything. Should Peretz or Dershowitz remain silent because it does not agree with you and Carter?

Your solution is fundamentally the one proposed at Taba. Just curious what are you going to do with the issue of the Palestinians wanting to return within the 1967 borders?

Daniel A. Greenbaum

My impression was that MJ was arguing that Dershowitz was incorrect, not that Dershowitz should be silenced.

In implying that it is illegitimate to question Dershowitz's clams, it is you who, Daniel Greenbaum, who is attempting to silence debate.

And isn't that why Israel itself is an "apartied state" because their policies are built around protecting a ruling minority?

It depends on whether the borders include or exclude the West Bank.

• 
  If Israel's borders include the West Bank, their policies are protecting a ruling minority, and deny full citizenship rights to the largest part of the majority.
  
• 
  If Israel's border stop at the West Bank, they are protecting a ruling majority, and the rights of the minority, and denying rights to the people of a neighboring country that they have occupied and colonized.
  

Jimmy Carter does not believe that the borders of Israel include the West Bank, so his position is the second of the two.

The only long term sustainable outcomes consistent with self-determination for both Israelis and Palestinians are (1) two states, or (2) one state with full citizenship rights for all. The present colonial suppression is simply not a viable long term policy.

Well even John Conyers has criticized Carter's use of the term "apartheid". No one can claim Conyers to be pro-Israel.

Israel is admitted to NATO on the condition that it return to the '67 borders.

If you think that Israel would rely on Europeans to guarantee their security, then obviously you've learned nothing in all your travels.  It is baked into the Zionist ethos that the only people who Israelis can ultimately rely on for security is Israelis.  Israel would never take security guarantees from NATO seriously.

Furthermore, the threat to Israel is no longer characterized by massive ground invasion, as it was in through the mid-1970's (although, to be sure, that could change very rapidly).  Rather, the biggest threat facing Israel is missile attack, whether with conventional or, theoretically, nuclear.  NATO is ill-equipped to deal with this kind of threat.

This is why chasing the 1967 borders and assuming that will solve the conflict is so fundamentally misguided.  Everyone assumes that because the threat of ground invasion is currently minimal, Israel can afford to relinquish the West Bank with little or no diminution in its security.  But as we've seen in Gaza and Lebanon, the Palestinian radical groups are likely to simply take over the area and use it for missile launches.  And that is simply intolerable.

To be sure, the primary reason why Israel holds the West Bank is that religious nutcases have a disproportionate hold on the government.  But even before that was the case, Israeli security planners always coveted the territory for the "strategic depth" it provided the country.  In the past, they were mostly thinking about the threat of invasion.  But recently, they have begun thinking about it in the context of missile launches as well.

So it needs to be clear that, outside of any radical shift in the nature of Palestinian society and the perceived threat Israel faces, any notion of a return to the 1967 borders is off the table. 

This actually brings up another issue, which is who needs to do what to advance peace.  To hear MJ Rosenberg and most posters on this site, Israel has the responsiblity to make the moves to get to the negotiating table and make peace.  This is because their worldview fundamentally blames Israel for the perpetuation of the conflict.  Yes, they'll pay lip service to the idea that "both sides" need to take risks for peace etc.  But if you look at where their passion is and what their specific proposals entail, it is almost always things that Israel needs to concede, never what the Palestinians need to do.

It cannot be stressed enough: Palestinian society today is not ready to achieve a lasting peace, no matter how much Israel concedes.  It just isn't.  Until it is, negotiations over anything but short-term issues are pointless. 

In my mind, the key to breaking the Palestinian intransigence is the so-called "moderate" Arab states.  Have them make peace with Israel and put pressure on the Palestinians to reform their society and confront the radicals.  Once that happens, Palestinians will have no choice.

Of couse, now I sound as much of a utopian as MJ Rosenberg. 

Rosenberg did not question Dershowitz'claims. If he had it might be wrong, it might be fictional but he would most certainly be entitled to do so.

His post seemed to be whining about those questions Carter's book, which contains things that have been alledged to be plaigarized and other things for which he was not present and which he contradicts those who were.

How was silencing any debate? I was question the postion that only when those who agree with you are criticized is the 1st Amendment being challenged.

You might want to read again what I actually wrote.

Daniel A. Greenbaum

There is no doubt that it won't be accepted by Palestinian hardliners. Neither will it be accepted by Israeli hardliners.

But making the peace process hostage to the hardliners from either or both sides results, in the best case, in a stalemate and no move from the status quo. And the status quo is not a position that supporters of long term Israeli survival can accept.

IOW, if the defense against car and individual suicide bombings is a wall, then the response is missiles. If the defense against missiles entails a Lebanon-style temporary invasion when enemies get missile sites, the response is to prepare to make that temporary as costly in Israeli lives as possible.

There's no winning end game down that path for the people of Israel.

There are no guarantees of peace and long term survival under either two state or single state options, but there is no prospect for peace and long term survival without one or the other.

So given the Israeli decision as to whether they prefer the one-state or the two-state path, the effort must be made to make the outcome in the chosen path as robust in the face of intractable opposition by hardliner minorities as it can be, in full knowledge that the alternative of failing to make peace does not include the indefinite survival of the state of Israel.

Worse than that, they fuel anti-Zionism by perpetuating the lie that Israel is imperialistic, with designs well beyond its borders.

Is this a lie? I think the occupation and in particular the settlements are strong arguments that Israel is indeed imperialist in regards to the West Bank--so it could be a matter of degree, in general Israel is not imperialist but has imperialist acts. Personally I prefer to call a spade a spade.

But the last part of the statement that Israel has designs well beyond the borders (and presumably beyond the borders of Gaza and the West Bank) is ludicrous.

As for Deshowitz... I stopped paying attention to him 5 years ago. Call me when he decides to look at facts rather that set up straw men.

Brad the Dad,

In my mind, the key to breaking the Palestinian intransigence is the so-called "moderate" Arab states.  Have them make peace with Israel and put pressure on the Palestinians to reform their society and confront the radicals.  Once that happens, Palestinians will have no choice.

Of couse, now I sound as much of a utopian as MJ Rosenberg.

As another utopian once said, "If you will it, it is no dream."  Jordan's King Abdullah II recently has made the same kind of pronouncements [Time Magazine]:

King Abdullah: The short-term objective is to get straight back to negotiations. But we want to jump ahead to something tangible. We need to get to the point where people want to sign on the dotted line. We want to move to a two-state solution, but we are not going to go back and forth with lawyers until we get there. We need to start building things on the ground. What we have seen with Israel and its Arab neighbors is a unilateral approach. I think it has finally dawned on our friends in Israel th at that doesn't work.

Macleod: What does this plan have for the Israelis?

King Abdullah: Security guarantees by the Arabs. The assurance that they [the Israelis] are fully integrated—socially, economically, politically and culturally—into the Middle East.

Carter does not say that Israel is an apartheid state. He says explicitly that it is not and that, when he uses the term apartheid, he is not referring to Israel. “I am,” he says, “referring to Palestine and not to Israel….Arabs living in Israel are citizens of Israel and have full citizenship, voting, and legal rights, and so forth. “ -- M.J. Rosenberg.
---

Thank you, sir. Mr. Carter chose his words extremely carefully and the quote above from his interview with Wolf Blitzer was actually a very stern and specific rebuke by Carter in response to Blitzer's attempt to mischaracterize Carter's very point. In this interview, Carter had to repeatedly stop Blitzer from misstating and mischaracterizing Carter's central point before he had even allowed Carter to state it.

The interview was very frustrating to watch because of this. It was almost like Blitzer was saying: "Well, Mr. Carter we only have a few minutes left so please allow me to completely misstate your central premise and have you respond to my misstatement of your premise, and then I will randomly cut you off and utter another misstatement and then say oops we're out of time so we have some really good, controversial stuff that will boost ratings and make you look like an ass."

I would have two comments on your comment.

1. This joke deserves a number of its own (I presume it is 7, and so the pre-amble is redundant.)

2. I doubt if this is a vaudeville routine, although the joke definitely dates to that era, so I may cite another pertinent joke:

Jew A meets his friend B and, instead of extending greetings, sighs sadly. B sighs too. A gets angry: how is it that whenever we meet, you start discussing politics!

All these comments are interesting, but I would like to know the answer to a pretty straightforward question which is:

Understanding the strong emotional and political commitment many have to Israel, why is it that anyone who says anything that isn't 100% pro-Israel becomes an enemy of Israel and often is labeled an anti-Semite? Are those who attack people like Jimmy Carter for trying to take a balanced, reasoned approach afraid that if the American public hears about what is going on over there that support for Israel would disappear? What do they think they accomplish by stifling honest debate?

Thank you, Oleeb, that is what I am trying to ask.

Cheers,

Douglas Watts
Augusta, Maine USA

I rated the above post 4 in part to counteract what I see as Sage's abuse of the rating system -- in which almost everyone who makes a critical remark re Israel gets a 1.

I also think noblesse's point that our news media is heavily controlled, biased, and censored is an excellent one. Anyone who looks at Israel's Haaretz can see a debate that is not allowed in America.

I disagree with noblesse's comment re our military's performance in Iraq. The problems have been largely caused by neocon incompetence -- it seems that the neocons not only lie to others, they sometimes lie to themselves as well.

We now have almost 3000 dead soldiers. Those soldiers signed up to defend America -- not to seize oil deposits for Houston or to pander to billionaire campaign donors like Israeli Haim Saban.

The missiles from Gaza and West Bank are a nuisance. They could be easily suppressed with the US system for "counterbattery fire". Basically, a computerized radar system tied in with an artillery battery identifies an incoming projectile , instantly backtracks it to the precise location of the enemy launcher, and fires artillery onto that enemy launcher.

The assertion that the Palestinians are the obstacle to Middle Eastern peace is , in my opinion, deceitful Israeli posturing. The average income in Israel is around $17,000 per year -- the average income for Palestinian refugees is around $1600. Israel and the USA have enormous strength -- the Palestinians only have the strength of will and desperation.

The REAL obstacle to a Israel-Palestian peace settlement is our Whoring Congress -- which panders to billionaire supporters of Israel at the cost of the rest of us. A cost which so far amounts to 3000 dead on Sept 11 and 3000 more dead in Iraq. Plus millions of Americans who will die years before their time because Bush has stolen almost $4 Trillion from our Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds to pay for this crap.

What have the American people gotten from the Israel Lobby for this sacrifice? Other than more lies?

A fish rots from the head down. The performance of our military includes the but covering by generals cowed by the Sec'y of Defense. Yes, the military did everything that could be expected of them, but the generals who did the right thing since the start of the occupation are those who resigned.

Those who have enabled Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld, aka the Bush Regime, have one last chance to recover some lost ground when they are called to testify to a Democratic Congress.

It is their responsibility to the defense of the Constitution that they are sworn to serve, as opposed to the defense of the Empire that they have been pressed into serving, to let the Democrats know that they will be frank and couragous in their assessment, and serve up the soundbites that are required to punch through the white noise media machine.

bmastiff,

...the average income for Palestinian refugees is around $1600.

Strange how Palestine is so rich with militias, arms and ammunition.

The REAL obstacle to a Israel-Palestian peace settlement is our Whoring Congress -- which panders to billionaire supporters of Israel at the cost of the rest of us. A cost which so far amounts to 3000 dead on Sept 11 and 3000 more dead in Iraq. Plus millions of Americans who will die years before their time because Bush has stolen almost $4 Trillion from our Social Security/Medicare Trust Funds to pay for this crap.

Rich scheming Jews stabbing their host nation in the back, draining the good citizens of its blood and treasure -- just don't call it antisemitism lest it be taken for "stifling honest debate."

Even more critically, why is it that being 100% pro-Israel is equated with taking the long-term suicidual positions advocated by the right wing of Israeli politics?

Re Zionista's comment "The more an argument trends into notions of a dominant and insidious Jewish control "
------
I concur that it's not fair to blame America's six million Jews for the malign acts of the Israel Lobby.

For one thing, many of those Jews are middle class and neither their votes nor their aggregrated campaign donations are a major influence on the Washington.

Plus, the views of the Jewish community range over the map. For every Richard Perle and Haim Saban, there is a Noam Chomsky and George Soros.

But there is an Israel Lobby, it is powerful, and it does strongly influence US Middle Eastern policy. And it has harmed America.

It is also true that Americans are given a false, monolithic, and extremely one-sided depiction of events in the Middle East.

The argument that the Jewish Community should not be blamed for the excesses of the Israel Lobby would go over better if Jewish organizations themselves made that argument on occasion.

There are some Jewish academics in Middle Eastern studies departments who have stood up for humane Jewish values. When those Jews are denounced as "self-hating Jews" by the more vicious Neocons, why does ADL not intervene?

To help let you understand where I come, consider this from The BBC:

"The fate of the estimated four million Palestinians living in refugee communities scattered around the Middle East is highly controversial.

Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians fled or were displaced from their homes during the Israeli-Arab wars in 1948 and 1967."

So, when I say "aparteid," part of that statement is based on the "right of return" and the concept that the economic rights of the refuges were waived in order to create today's elite.

In particular, because the Israeli government is worried that the Jewish elite would become the minority, the Israeli state purposely keeps beating down the majority, the palestinians, and Muslims in general, to keep the minority in power.

If you recognize "property rights," then you have to recognize "property rights."

Re the comment "The shorter version [of Mearshimer and Walt's paper] was published in the United States"

Published WHERE? The Atlantic Monthly was supposed to publish it originally but got cold feet at the last minute.

I have stripped out of the conversation all comments by the user "Sage." Sage abused the ratings system by down-rating those with whom she/he disagreed while using abusive language to other site members.

That will not be tolerated. A free exchange of views can only take place in this space if individuals do not abuse the structures that allow them to occur.

Sand,

Please accept my sincere apology. In stripping Sage out of the conversation those posts threaded below her/his comments were stripped out as well. In the future, I will simply edit the posts to say "removed by administrator," I didn't realize your contributions would be lost.

I hope you can rebuild your work and will forgive the error.

Andrew

OK - Thx for replying.

I did look up the figures and, I'll be honest, far fewer Palestinians died between 2000 and 2006 then I would have thought.

The US is said to have killed 500,000+ Iraqis, via US led sanctions, and 600,000+ via the second Iraq war and, obviously, the totals for the Israeli/Palestinian conflict are far less.

Interesting finds in the statistics were: Israel's GDP was $156.9 billion whereas the Palestinian's GDP was $1.8 billion (verify here) so, obviously, palestinians are very, very poor even though their literacy rate is, as you say, fairly high.

One of the reasons why I've concluded that Israel stands behind a policy of genocide is because when Hamas democratically won the elections, rich countries pulled their financial aide out of an impoverished population.

As an illustation, while the Israeli population is only 3 times greater than the Palestian population, their GDP is 87 times greater.

Since we started this thread by talking about "aparteid," the presence of this asymetric wealth and the policy of Israel, and others, to yank financial aide from an impovershed population, which the MSP reported as "being on life support," Israel's actions look quite hateful and, as I said, left me surprised by the palestinian's grace and perseverance.

The question is, "Is Israel hoping and waiting for the Palestinian economy to collapse so that they get palestinian land at fire-sale-prices," just like the US got control over native american territory?

After diving into the numbers some more, I feel more confident than ever that Jimmy Carter was telling the truth and I'm proud of those in Europe who stood up for Palestine.

Sage: the only one around here who hates Israel is you. Those of us who care about Israel, and know it well, are utterly repelled by folks who are gleefully willing to have the last 19-year old Israeli kid die in an endless pointless war.
Grow up. There are real people out there dying, on both sides. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is not a reality show put on for the benefit of those who enjoy blood spectacles.
Israel does not exist so the armchair warriors in the states can get their bellicose rocks off at the expense of kids 6000 miles away.

Mr. Golis, please silence Mr. Rosenberg who makes absurd ad hominem pseudo-pyschoanalytic comments that I hate Israel and I want to see Israel kids die for my so-called armchair wars.

Mr. Rosenberg, the reason why people like you will never have any influence with Democrats who matter--let alone Republicans-- is that those Democrats know 19 year old Israelis (of whom my cousins are some) are a lot more likely to die from Kassams and suicide bombs hurled by thugs with whom you would like Israeli leaders to be concilitory, than from AIPAC members like me.

I don't get a kick out of seeing any Israelis die at the hands of terrorists. I do get a thrill about telling you and other jerks to stop wating everybody's time defending Carter and do something useful: like starting with killing Arab marauders in Darfur.

What most Americans recognize is that the people who killed Americans, the people killing Americans in Iraq and the people trying to kill Israelis are pretty much the same people.

TiVo lots of Americans like it better when Jews were silent and weak. Those days are done. Get over it.

Daniel A. Greenbaum
-----
Mr. Greenbaum,

To the first sentence, this is no more true than the common slogan in the 19th century that all American Indians were "pretty much the same people." Such a stereotype is beneath the bounds of rational thought. All ad hoc stereotypes should be presumed false until overwhelming, affirmative evidence shows otherwise.

As to the second sentence, see the analysis of the first.

Thanks.

Daniel: "I think Carter has been fundamentally anti-Semitic going back to Andy Youngs resignation from the U.N."

The gates of Loonyvilee had fallen and the city was taken by storm.

This is hardcore, man. Carter anti-Semitically tricked Israel into a peace with Egypt. Wow.

More of the good stuff: "What most Americans recognize is that the people who killed Americans, the people killing Americans in Iraq and the people trying to kill Israelis are pretty much the same people."

They are all the same! As Zeno of Elea proved, distinctions of various points of time and space are but illusion! But this means that we are also "pretty much the same people".

More to the point, to the degree that Americans think that conflict in Iraq and around Israel is one and the same, the fact that they become thorougly fed up with the former may have some implication for the attitude toward the latter, however unjustly. Recall when Ashcroft was rounding all Middle Eastern types he could grab, some Israelis who overstayed their visas got detained for a good measure. Once we get really serious about "all of them are pretty much the same people", who knows where it will stop.

MJ,

People like you supported Sharon when he wasted his years in office killing Palestinian teenagers in Gaza while ignoring what Hezbollah was doing in the north.

The same mentality, supported by US Jewish organizations, supported Israel when it rejected Sadat's 1971 initiative which stated that in return for a 2 mile pullback from the Suez Canal, he would open negotiations for a peace treaty.

A phrase like "People like you..." is a hideous way to begin a critique.  With all due respect, MJ, objective generalization is nothing short of a bullshit losing argument. 

For example, Gidon "Doni" Remba, president of the Chicago chapter of Peace Now, a translator for the PMO during the Carter era Camp David summit, is quite critical of Carter's recent thesis.  [See, Carter's top 10 misrepresentations reveal systematic anti-Israel bias and a Manichean view of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict].

By your standard, MJ, for all we know Sage is "people like him."

You are trolling your own post, MJ, and it is a pitiful thing to watch.

mcs,

...John Lenin: "we want peace."

As opposed to "V.I. Lennon"?  Presenting my nominee for most hilarious Freudian typo of the week.

Americans can accept setbacks and misfortunes --the loss of loved ones in defense of our country.

We can accept bad luck and well-meaning but mistaken judgments.

But what really infuriates us is treachery and deceit. Betrayal by friends.

Any one who takes the slightest look at the data can tell that Americans have been lied to --have been manipulated like a herd of sheep.

American Jews are not to blame for that. Israel is not to blame for that. But the 5 million Jews who died in the Holocaust were not to blame for the greed of the Versailles Conference either --but they were made the scapegoats.

Already Iraq is preventing America from giving Israel help in dealing with Iran. But the situation can get much much worse.

What happens when the puppets of Big Oil and Big Defense divert blame from themselves by pointing to the acts of the Israel Lobby? Mearshimer and Walt are merely the preview of coming attractions.

How long can Israel survive if she is depicted to the average American as a malign force rather than a valued ally?

no, indicating one of the methods used to achieve an end, in a name, confuses people as to the intentions. in my mind, genocide is a highly likely intention and policy goal.

the rights of native americans were infringed upon in many ways until America was America and the "powers that be" celebrated Columbus and ignored the process of disefrancisement which included using economic and military means to achieve that power.

today's paper noted that Britain's politcians stopped using the phrase "war on terror" because it became a synonym for their deprave moral values instead of the terrorists.

Arguing with the Rosenbergs of this world is a pointless exercise, but I must note the irony of his attacking me for facilitating the deaths of Israelis when, within the last day, three Palestenian children are dead. Hamas killed them as a quaint way to score political points, not Israel, not AIPAC, and not people like me.

Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid get it. Carter and Kucinich don't. If the Democratic party ever adopted an Israel policy drafted by the Rosenbergs (which, thank G-d, it won't), get used to the sound of President McCain.

Sage, Israel is doing very well under the status quo you so admire. You must be happy.
President McCain? Nauseating thought. But, one, he is ancient, has a terrible health history, is emotionally volatile and is utterly unelectable and (2) has some very disturbing (to you) ideas about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
This is my last response to Sage. Like Daniel Greenbaum, she is entirely motivated by faith and ethnicity. I can't argue with that.
I respect their faith, even their resourcefulness in not offending God, creator of the universe, by refusing to spell God's name with an "O" in its proper place.
God, with the whole world to run, must be so grateful to those who honor his name not by implementing His commandments but by not putting a digital O in his name.
Cracks me up.

God, with the whole world to run, must be so grateful to those who honor his name not by implementing His commandments but by not putting a digital O in his name.
Cracks me up.

I wondered what the f-ck that was about myself. Woops, sorry to suggest a crude word, I should have said “frikin”, or “friggin“, or flippin”, or “frappin”, or maybe just”fudge”. I hear these words used by teachers and coaches around young kids often, so I know they are acceptable. Kind of like “Made for TV” movies aimed at kids which have multiple curse words bleaped out. A kind of code which is intended to not say what is intended to be heard. 

Sorry to get so far off the point of the discussion. Carter remains, to me, the rarest of things in US politics, an honorable statesman.

Pardon me Sage, but your tone is, in my opinion, needlessly strident and even hateful.

It appears you believe that your position is the truth and that you therefore have the right to go off in the manner you do against a reasonable man who simply does not share your opinion. How does this help your cause or advance your position? I guess this is the sort of ugliness I don't understand from some who are pro-Israel.

Most Americans, me included, are pro-Israel but there are different positions within that broad category. I see nothing wrong with that. You seem to think that unless a person absolutely agrees with your position they are anti-Israel. I just can't go there with ya and would respectfully suggest you rethink your posture and your flaming rhetoric if you wish to persuade others instead of attempting to squelch them by over the top namecalling and the like. In my opinion, it is precisely this sort of inflexible "there is one right course and only one" sort of position that prevents progress in the middle east.

I tend to agree with Rosenberg on most things but think you are right that he's slipped into too personal a reaction. I do think I understand what he feels, and hope I understand what Sage feels. It is precisely because passions are high that the outside world has to weigh in.

I weigh in by saying that words matter not at all anymore. If Hezbollah says Israel must cease to exist and it simply continues to exist, what does it matter what they say? Conversely, if Hezbollah says it will cease attacking that also means zip.

Israel is of course free to defend itself, but cannot complain if others disagree over tactics. 

Okay! I'm with ya now. Thanks.

A comment on the issue of apartheid:

some wonder if Palestinians are a majority of a minority when they consider if the notion of aparteid applies.

I think that it is a mistake. In general, human rights are predicated upon being human, not "nice human", "allied human", "majority human" etc. If some conduct violates the rights of a group, it is not morally better if the group is a minority.

What unfortunately happens that as Palestinians are a minority, although a large one, Israel is able to apply the discriminatory rules (or what passes as rules) with rigor that a minority government of South Africa could not possibly match. For example, there is a checkpoint in West Bank for every few thousands of inhabitants, the intrusions to "bantustans" are much more regular and disruptive, the dispossession, rather than a one-time cruel act, is continuing and ongoing etc.

Another comment on private versus public lands: while substantial minority of settlements is build over consiscated or stolen private lands, a majority is not. Israel rather brazenly utilizes the discrepancy between the concept of property rights that existed under Ottoman rule, that in effect left all non-clultivated lands, like pastures, as community property, which in turn was deemed Sultan's property. So Israeli government deemed itself a rightfull inheritor of the Leader of All Faithful and Sultan of High Porte.

According to international law, it is no more legal than confiscation of individual property.

USA quite often poses as a champion of individual property rights, and indeed, there are rather few instances when such casual attitude to property is de-facto approved and defended.

While I consider South African apartheid wrong and a violation of human rights, there are historical errors in your characterization. In general, when the first European settlers arrived on the southern shores, the areas were unpopulated in some cases, and did have Bushmen in others. The Bushmen have every right to complain.

Depending where you look in the country, however, there are people that don't have more tenure than the Afrikaaners, especially the Zulu who migrated southward. The 1832 Battle of Blood River was a meeting engagement, between pioneers on both sides rather than attacks on established villages.

Mandela is from the Transkei region, well removed from the early invasions. Whether it's politically correct or not, many whites have as strong a claim for their being in their own lands as any other non-Bushman population of South Africa. The first European settlement was formed in 1652, in contrast to St. Augustine in 1565 (failed Spanish colony in 1521), Jamestown in 1602 and Plymouth Rock in 1620.

--
Howard

*equal opportunity offense to both extremes*