[statecom-discuss] Carter at Brandeis.

[David Rolde]

Jimmy Carter is a Zionist.   He uses the term "apartheid" only to  
describe the Zionist regime's actions in 1967-occupied Palestine (the  
"West Bank" and "Gaza strip" ).  He says that there is no apartheid  
in 1948-occupied Palestine (what he calls "Israel"). He says that  
Arabs have full civil rights in 1948-occupied Palestine.  This is not  
true.  Most land in 1948-occupied Palestine is reserved by the  
Zionist regime for  "Jews-only".  Non-Jewish Arab Palestinians are  
usually not allowed to buy land or build houses.  The Zionist regime  
is demolishing Arab Palestinian homes and villages within 1948- 
occupied Palestine as well as in 1967-occupied Palestine.  There are  
numerous racist apartheid laws in effect within 1948-occupied  
Palestine including a ban on mixed marriages.  Non-Jewish Arab  
Palestinian refugees who were driven out of the country by the  
zionists are not allowed to return to their homes anywhere in  
Palestine.  Carter ignores all this and limits his criticism of  
"Israel" to only the regime's actions in 1967-occupied Palestine.  
While he does use the word "apartheid" he then proposes an apartheid  
solution where most non-Jewish Arab Palestinians would be segregated  
to a small portion of Palestine and where the majority of the country  
would still be under Jewish-supremacist apartheid laws.

It's true that other more-rightwing Zionists are attacking Carter.   
But why should we get involved in a dispute between different  
factions of Zionists?  I think if we do then we must be careful to be  
nuanced about it and stress that Carter isn't going far enough, and  
that we are supporting a free dialogue about Palestine rather than  
supporting Carter uncritically.  He is after all one of the most  
prominent members of the Democratic Party, the former president of  
the U.S.  He has plenty of mainstream support and does not need or  
deserve our uncritical support.  He has said some good things.  He  
has criticized "Israel" more than many other Dems have.  He did  
rightly criticize the Clinton administration for their proxy war  
against Sudan. But he has also done bad things such as starting the  
war in Afghanistan when he was president, starting the cold war  
against Iran when he was president, and supporting the concept of a  
Jewish-supremacist apartheid state in Palestine even if he does wish  
it were a "kinder, gentler" Jewish-supremacist apartheid state.

- David

On Jan 14, 2007, at 9:41 PM, John Walsh wrote:

> PLEASE POST:
> WILL GRP TAKE THE LEAD ON THIS?
> I have sent the message below to a number of organizations.
> Interestingly so far I have had only two responses although I only
> sent it on Friday so we shall see.
> One came from Mass Peace Action with no comment and the other from
> Progressive Dems of America which expressed a guarded interest.
> Where will the GRP stand on this?  Carter is a Dem who has been
> shunned by the Dem establishment for his position.  For those who want
> to make alliances with shunned and isolated Dems, here is your chance.
> What do you think?
> jw
> *******
> Friends in Peace,
> I am inquiring how many of the organizations that you represent will
> be coming to demonstrate in support of Jimmy Carter when he speaks at
> Brandeis (tentatively on January 23) on "Palestine, Peace Not
> Apartheid."  I ask for two reasons:
>
> First, Carter is being attacked from every side with few standing up
> to defend him.  He has largely been left to defend himself from the
> outrageous attacks by the neocons, the mainstream media, AIPAC and the
> rest of the Lobby.  He is courageous enough to tell the truth, and he
> should not be left undefended.  (Very few peace groups have defended
> Carter and those that have are for the most part very quiet in their
> defense.)
>
> Second, as Carter said in his op-ed in the Globe:
> "As recommended by the Hamilton-Baker report, renewed negotiations
> between Israel and the Palestinians are a prime factor in promoting
> peace in the region. Although my book concentrates on the Palestinian
> territories, I noted that the report also recommended peace talks with
> Syria concerning the Golan Heights. Both recommendations have been
> rejected by Israel's prime minister."
> It is pretty clear from this that American and much more Iraqi blood
> is being shed in Iraq in part because of the intransigence of Israel.
>> From this it is hard for anyone genuinely concerned about ending the
> war on Iraq to say that the question of Palestine and the machinations
> of AIPAC are of no concern.
>
> So where do we all stand?  I plan to be at Brandeis to support Carter.
> Will I be able to join your organization in so doing?  Will you be
> there and will you organize to get people out for the event?
>
> I hope to hear from you.  Thanks.
> Best,
> John V. Walsh
> p.s. Please send this on to other organizations.
> _______________________________________________
> statecom-discuss mailing list
> statecom-discuss at green-rainbow.org
> http://www.green-rainbow.org/mailman/listinfo/statecom-discuss