What would happen if the US started withdrawing support from Israel?

By the way, in case some folks are reading along but haven’t yet clicked on the cite I provided, I’d like to lay out just a tiny few of Carter’s lies that he’s used to prop up his narrative. Readers can, of course, determine for themselves whether or not these are ‘quibbles’ and what they say about Carter’s credibility.
They can also probably figure out why someone would suggest a book is a valid cite, and then when it is shown to be (at best) ‘rife with factual errors but they’re all honest mistakes’, handwave away factual criticisms.

[

](Palestine Peace not Apartheid: A Collection of Jimmy Carter’s Errors | CAMERA)

So Carter lies about treaties, lies about agreements, calls an exchange of prisoners for a video tape a prisoner swap (while scourging Israel for not accepting)… but that’s just all honest peacemaking, right?

[

](Palestine Peace not Apartheid: A Collection of Jimmy Carter’s Errors | CAMERA)

Well, darn, Carter’s own staff have caught him lying several times and pointed it out. How can that be? He helps build house! And, hrm… Carter’s doing the same thing again. Lying to pretend that Israel is simply choosing to avoid or even willfully obstructing peace (if not encouraging the torture of prisoners)… I’m sure there’s a good reason for it. Surely this fits into “peacemaking” somehow. And doesn’t show that Carter is bigoted against Israel and uses fiction to support his narrative and ignores facts when they contradict. Surely not. He’s a peacemaker!

I trust Spoke will explain.

I don’t know what Carter has to do with the price of tea in China, myself.

Agreed. I’d like to have the whole tangent moved to a new thread if Spoke would like to defend his thesis that Carter is an honest broker of peace.

TWEEEET!

The issue of motivation regarding former President Carter is not pertinent to this thread.

Pointing out ways in which his statements are accurate or inaccurate may be pertinent to one point or another, but getting carried away with a discussion of his motivation is pointless unless one has access to his personal notes or the recollections of his close friends and family.

Just let that drop.
**
[ /Moderating ]**

Roger dodger.

Just for clarification, as Peace not Apartheid was listed earlier as a valid source book for the debate, but I have provided cites showing it has numerous, ‘easily verifiable factual errors that should have been caught with the barest amount of knowledge or research on Carter’s part’, is a discussion of PnA’s usefullness as a source within or outside of bounds?

No… That’s fine. Squabbling over whether Carter is right, misguided, or mendacious has rather less value.

Fair enough. “Carter: threat or menace?” has been tabled.
Peace not Apartheid: useless as a non-fiction work,” still in play.

To my mind, the issue is not whether someone using such terminology is “anti-Israeli” or not, but rather whether that person is using a highly charged, emotive term to score political points.

To use an analogy, a person who did not like President Obama’s health-care proposals may say something like “Obama is intent on making the US Communist”. The reason: universal health-care is a somewhat socialist measure, and increasing socialism is edging closer to Communism.

A person doing that is clearly stretching their point 'till it snaps, using loaded words in a more or less deliberately mendacious manner, but that doesn’t mean they hate America. They may consider themselves American patriots; what they hate is the policies they disagree with (and possibly the persons enacting those policies).

This is exactly the sort of thing you see with the bandying about of the term “apartheid”. Those who use it may well not “hate Jews” or even for that matter “hate Israel”: some do it who are Israeli Jews, and presumably do not hate themselves.

That does not change the fact that the term is often used mendaciously; in the case of Israel, this is generally true. Just as one just knows that anyone using the term “Communist” to describe Obama or his policies is generally intent on scoring partisan points rather than making a serious argument worthy of debate …

Why can’t Israel just absorb the Palestinians into one State?

Because then Israel will not be a Jewish state, abrogating their major mission, which is to provide a country of their own where things like the Shoah will never happen again. The Palestinians, in toto, outnumber the Jewish Israelis by quite a bit.

I want to add that the Palestinians will never accept a Jewish state. This is the crux of the matter. As I stated before, the PLO Charter and the Khartoum Convention still call for driving the Jews to the Sea. The PLO amended the charter for world consumption, but the charter among the Palestinians till call for the destruction of Israel, as confirmed by the Khartoum Convention .

I don’t think I need be criticized for using a pro-Israel journal to contradict the Guardian, which is an anti-Israel Journa. Fight fire with fire.

The Israeli Human Rights Group: Author of report against Israel supported Munich massacre - @MidEastTruth

Then how about a democratic state? And will Israel ever accept a Palestinian state? That’s at the crux, too.

Sort of like asking why all of those world wars in Europe happened. Why can’t France, Germany and Poland all just be one state?

The answer appears to be that, for historic reasons, the “peoples” of these nations considered themselves of different nationalities, and ones that did not always get along; and in the ME, there is a rather serious ethnic conflict between those of Jewish descent and those of Arabic descent.

Perhaps at some point in the future, the states of the ME will form a “united states of the ME”, and such ethnic hatreds will be forgotten - as Europe appears to be on the road towards (at least in baby steps) with the EU.

But until that happy day, it would be rather disasterous to have a country in which a former majority is confronted with a new majority whose population intensely dislikes the former majority. Particularly where the recent experience of the Jews as an athnic group in the ME and Europe as a ‘hated minority’ has been so unhappy.

:smack:
There’s no contradiction between having a democratic state (as Israel does) and having a the Law of Return which means that Israel will remain a Jewish state.
And not only ‘would’ Israel accept a Palestinian state, they did.
Arafat refused and started a war instead. And while the PNA was violating its obligations to suppress and not encourage violence, treaties based on the PNA doing that could not continue. Then Hamas took power and declared all treaties null and void and stated they would never accept Israel’s right to exist.

These are all basic facts that are easily verifiable.

Oh, and:

Point of fact: no, they did not. They never changed it at all, they voted on a resolution to discuss changing it at some point in the future. It remains intact as it was originally written.

http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/Peace+Process/Guide+to+the+Peace+Process/The+Khartoum+Resolutions.htm

http://www.netaxs.com/~iris/plochart.htm

The Law of Return is not possible if Israel is to remain a Jewish state. 700,000 Arabs left and that population has multiplie by births, of course. The right of return is out of the question.

The Palestinians have had many opportunities to have her own state, beginning with 1948, when instead of accepting her state, she decided to eliminate Israel, and have the entire area for itself, in the land of “Palestine,” which is how their maps denote the entire area.

According to one of my cites, Palestine did amend her Charter, but mistranslated a crucial paragraph. The original Charter contained many statements about driving the Israelis to the Sea. The new charter contains only one, but for public consumption it was not translated correctly.

http://www.thejewishweek.com/editorial_opinion/gary_rosenblatt/why_obama_picking_wrong_fight

The Law of Return is what allows Jews from anywhere in the world to immigrate to Israel. You’re confusing it with the Right of Return, which is totally different.

Obama passing a law that brings private insurance companies closer to the standards of those in other countries and which extends private medical insurance to millions more people isn’t making America more communist. You’ve only got the Death Panels wing of the GOP making a claim like that, because it has no basis in reality. Israel however have a bunch of discriminatory laws and practices that discriminate against one racial group in favor of another that can be reasonably compared with the apartheid system in South Africa. If you’re not going to compare the various discriminatory laws/practices that exist in Israel with South Africa, what other historical/current situation would be a more accurate comparison?